Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Origin of Life
81 views
Skip to first unread message
Rama
Nov 26, 2012, 2:08:19 PM11/26/12
to
Every planet, which has liquid(not necessarily water) and chemical
reactants, has life.
reactants, has life.
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Nov 26, 2012, 2:17:43 PM11/26/12
to
On 26 nov, 20:11, Rama <mr.ra...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Every planet, which has liquid(not necessarily water) and chemical
> reactants, has life.
I would be greatful if you could reference such an assertion.
> Every planet, which has liquid(not necessarily water) and chemical
> reactants, has life.
Mike Dworetsky
Nov 26, 2012, 2:19:16 PM11/26/12
to
Rama wrote:
> Every planet, which has liquid(not necessarily water) and chemical
> reactants, has life.
You know this how, exactly?
> Every planet, which has liquid(not necessarily water) and chemical
> reactants, has life.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Bruce Stephens
Nov 26, 2012, 2:44:58 PM11/26/12
to
jillery
Nov 26, 2012, 4:29:33 PM11/26/12
to
Bob Casanova
Nov 26, 2012, 5:05:12 PM11/26/12
to
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:08:19 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Rama
<mr.r...@googlemail.com>:
>Every planet, which has liquid(not necessarily water) and chemical
>reactants, has life.
Thanks!
BTW, when did you return from your tour of the universe?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Rama
<mr.r...@googlemail.com>:
>Every planet, which has liquid(not necessarily water) and chemical
>reactants, has life.
BTW, when did you return from your tour of the universe?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
Nov 26, 2012, 5:07:10 PM11/26/12
to
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:17:43 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by marc.t...@wanadoo.fr:
You don't want to handle the reference until it's been
thoroughly washed and sterilized; intestinal fauna can be
pretty nasty critters.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by marc.t...@wanadoo.fr:
thoroughly washed and sterilized; intestinal fauna can be
pretty nasty critters.
Bruce Stephens
Nov 26, 2012, 5:17:03 PM11/26/12
to
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> Barsoom. Prove me wrong 8-)
According to the available evidence (well, wikipedia; I haven't checked
the primary source) Barsoom has life.
It may be that as Barsoom dries the life dies entirely (wikipedia isn't
clear on that), and if the life died before the water disappeared then
that would be a counterexample.
[...]
> Barsoom. Prove me wrong 8-)
the primary source) Barsoom has life.
It may be that as Barsoom dries the life dies entirely (wikipedia isn't
clear on that), and if the life died before the water disappeared then
that would be a counterexample.
Arkalen
Nov 26, 2012, 5:40:52 PM11/26/12
to
As for reasons why that assertion's truth is doubtful... Many planets
have liquid and while some are considered candidates for life, no
evidence has yet been found. Gas giants have liquid (surely, somewhere
in that gradient of densities they do...).
More relevant are some a priori chemistry facts, such as life requiring
(heck, *being*) very complex organic chemistry and water and carbon
allowing such chemistry in a unique way, the former by being an
incredibly powerful solvent, getting denser in its liquid than its solid
form, being very small and common, and so on, and the latter by its
ability to form all kinds of bonds and make indefinitely-flexible chains.
None of this *proves* that life would be impossible in a different
liquid but it does suggest there's more to it than just being a liquid.
I wouldn't hold my breath until we find life in liquid helium for example.
jonathan
Nov 26, 2012, 7:57:49 PM11/26/12
to
"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:DaCdnWDwIZArXS7N...@bt.com...
> Rama wrote:
>> Every planet, which has liquid(not necessarily water) and chemical
>> reactants, has life.
>
> You know this how, exactly?
Let me try. Rewrite his definition to say that life merely requires
>> Every planet, which has liquid(not necessarily water) and chemical
>> reactants, has life.
>
> You know this how, exactly?
a persistent energy gradient.
To support that...
"The main current scientific theory related to self-organization is
Complexity Theory, which states:..."
"Critically interacting components self-organize to form potentially
evolving structures exhibiting a hierarchy of emergent system
properties."
http://calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
The behavior of 'critical interaction' can be seen when say, water is
at the transition state between it's opposing states of liquid and vapor.
Neither one or the other, but chaotically jumping between the two
as in water about to boil, or in a cloud.
So any system which resides at the transition point between it's
/opposing states/ has the potential for spontaneous order and
relentless hill climbing (creation and evolution).
Water should be the most efficient transition state of all, where
it stands at the threshold between solid and gas.
Or it could be a cloud that stands poised at the critical
point between condensation or evaporation.
Condensation equates abstractly to ...'static' behavior.
Evaporation abstractly to ...'chaotic' behavior.
So any system at the critical point between it's static and chaotic
attractors (opposing states) would have the potential for life.
For instance, at the critical point between ...
static and chaotic yields self organization
condensation and evaporation yields a cloud
genetics and mutation yields natural selection
rule of law and freedom yields democracy
matter and energy yields light
gravity and cosmic expansion yields space-time
facts and imagination yields ideas
science and philosophy yields wisdom
Einstein and Heisenberg yields Darwin
A simple mathematical relationship between classical, quantum
and living...at last!
Calresco Themes (*in essay form)
http://calresco.org/themes.htm
s
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Nov 26, 2012, 8:45:23 PM11/26/12
to
On Monday, 26 November 2012 22:41:49 UTC, Arkalen wrote:
>
> As for reasons why that assertion's truth is doubtful... Many planets
> have liquid and while some are considered candidates for life, no
> evidence has yet been found. Gas giants have liquid (surely, somewhere
> in that gradient of densities they do...).
I'm not sure. It depends on pressure and stuff, and after all you don't
>
> As for reasons why that assertion's truth is doubtful... Many planets
> have liquid and while some are considered candidates for life, no
> evidence has yet been found. Gas giants have liquid (surely, somewhere
> in that gradient of densities they do...).
get liquid carbon dioxide...
Europa, Enceladus, and Titan have or may have liquid, but they aren't
planets.
If the only planet /known/ to have /any/ liquid /now/ is the Earth,
does that make the statement true (all planets with liquid have life)?
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Nov 27, 2012, 2:50:17 AM11/27/12
to
On 27 nov, 02:46, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
To try to respond to such questions I think necessary firstly to give
one's definition of 'life'. So (see my other post to you in the thread
"Problems with the RNA world hypothesis")?
one's definition of 'life'. So (see my other post to you in the thread
"Problems with the RNA world hypothesis")?
jillery
Nov 27, 2012, 3:20:12 AM11/27/12
to
the ticket. Nobody believes Wikipedia anyway.
Ernest Major
Nov 27, 2012, 4:20:12 AM11/27/12
to
In message <7432ea08-d042-4458...@googlegroups.com>,
"Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org"
<rja.ca...@excite.com> writes
atmospheres of pressure.
alias Ernest Major
"Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org"
<rja.ca...@excite.com> writes
>On Monday, 26 November 2012 22:41:49 UTC, Arkalen wrote:
>>
>> As for reasons why that assertion's truth is doubtful... Many planets
>> have liquid and while some are considered candidates for life, no
>> evidence has yet been found. Gas giants have liquid (surely, somewhere
>> in that gradient of densities they do...).
>
>I'm not sure. It depends on pressure and stuff, and after all you don't
>get liquid carbon dioxide...
You do get liquid carbon dioxide - it's just that you need 5.1
>>
>> As for reasons why that assertion's truth is doubtful... Many planets
>> have liquid and while some are considered candidates for life, no
>> evidence has yet been found. Gas giants have liquid (surely, somewhere
>> in that gradient of densities they do...).
>
>I'm not sure. It depends on pressure and stuff, and after all you don't
>get liquid carbon dioxide...
atmospheres of pressure.
>
>Europa, Enceladus, and Titan have or may have liquid, but they aren't
>planets.
>
>If the only planet /known/ to have /any/ liquid /now/ is the Earth,
>does that make the statement true (all planets with liquid have life)?
>
--
>Europa, Enceladus, and Titan have or may have liquid, but they aren't
>planets.
>
>If the only planet /known/ to have /any/ liquid /now/ is the Earth,
>does that make the statement true (all planets with liquid have life)?
>
alias Ernest Major
J. J. Lodder J. J. Lodder
Nov 27, 2012, 5:24:53 AM11/27/12
to
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:08:19 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Rama
> <mr.r...@googlemail.com>:
>
> >Every planet, which has liquid(not necessarily water) and chemical
> >reactants, has life.
>
> Thanks!
>
> BTW, when did you return from your tour of the universe?
Nice sampling job,
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:08:19 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Rama
> <mr.r...@googlemail.com>:
>
> >Every planet, which has liquid(not necessarily water) and chemical
> >reactants, has life.
>
> Thanks!
>
> BTW, when did you return from your tour of the universe?
Jan
Arkalen
Nov 27, 2012, 9:35:24 AM11/27/12
to
On 27/11/12 01:45, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
the top of their atmosphere and their core. I find it incredibly
unlikely that *none* of the gases they contain turns to liquid at any point.
>
> Europa, Enceladus, and Titan have or may have liquid, but they aren't
> planets.
That's some serious nitpicking in the context of looking for life and if
that's what Rama meant all I can do is roll my eyes, but sure.
>
> If the only planet /known/ to have /any/ liquid /now/ is the Earth,
> does that make the statement true (all planets with liquid have life)?
>
No, the true statement would be "all planets known to have liquid have
life". We don't know nearly enough about other planets (including
exoplanets, nitpicking on satellites won't exclude those) to use the
terms "all planets with liquid" and "all planets known to have liquid"
interchangeably.
talk-o...@moderators.isc.org wrote:
> On Monday, 26 November 2012 22:41:49 UTC, Arkalen wrote:
>>
>> As for reasons why that assertion's truth is doubtful... Many planets
>> have liquid and while some are considered candidates for life, no
>> evidence has yet been found. Gas giants have liquid (surely, somewhere
>> in that gradient of densities they do...).
>
> I'm not sure. It depends on pressure and stuff, and after all you don't
> get liquid carbon dioxide...
That's the thing, gas giants contain a huge range of pressures between
> On Monday, 26 November 2012 22:41:49 UTC, Arkalen wrote:
>>
>> As for reasons why that assertion's truth is doubtful... Many planets
>> have liquid and while some are considered candidates for life, no
>> evidence has yet been found. Gas giants have liquid (surely, somewhere
>> in that gradient of densities they do...).
>
> I'm not sure. It depends on pressure and stuff, and after all you don't
> get liquid carbon dioxide...
the top of their atmosphere and their core. I find it incredibly
unlikely that *none* of the gases they contain turns to liquid at any point.
>
> Europa, Enceladus, and Titan have or may have liquid, but they aren't
> planets.
that's what Rama meant all I can do is roll my eyes, but sure.
>
> If the only planet /known/ to have /any/ liquid /now/ is the Earth,
> does that make the statement true (all planets with liquid have life)?
>
life". We don't know nearly enough about other planets (including
exoplanets, nitpicking on satellites won't exclude those) to use the
terms "all planets with liquid" and "all planets known to have liquid"
interchangeably.
Bob Casanova
Nov 27, 2012, 2:04:22 PM11/27/12
to
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:24:53 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) (J. J. Lodder):
I'm not sure sampling would be appropriate support for his
(her? its?) assertion, since there were no probability
bounds given (*Every* planet...).
Looks to me like it's the whole universe or nothing...
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) (J. J. Lodder):
(her? its?) assertion, since there were no probability
bounds given (*Every* planet...).
Looks to me like it's the whole universe or nothing...
Paul J Gans
Nov 27, 2012, 4:33:35 PM11/27/12
to
--
--- Paul J. Gans
John S. Wilkins
Nov 27, 2012, 5:05:18 PM11/27/12
to
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
- http://evolvingthoughts.net
Mitchell Coffey
Nov 27, 2012, 5:23:44 PM11/27/12
to
On Nov 26, 2:11 pm, Rama <mr.ra...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Every planet, which has liquid(not necessarily water) and chemical
> reactants, has life.
Even Lorem, the eight planet of the star Ipsum, of the Dolor galaxy,
> Every planet, which has liquid(not necessarily water) and chemical
> reactants, has life.
which consists of a solid 3500 km radius core of mercury-thallium,
surrounded by a deep liquid ocean of gallium-indium-tin eutectic?
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
Nov 27, 2012, 5:27:39 PM11/27/12
to
On Nov 26, 2:11 pm, Rama <mr.ra...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Every planet, which has liquid(not necessarily water) and chemical
> reactants, has life.
Even Lipsum, the eighth planet of the star Ipsum, of the Dolor galaxy,
> reactants, has life.
which consists of a solid 3,500 km radius mercury-thallium core,
surrounded by a deep ocean of liquid gallium-indium-tin eutectic?
Mitchell Coffey
Mark Buchanan
Nov 27, 2012, 5:47:53 PM11/27/12
to
On 11/27/2012 5:05 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 22:17:03 +0000, Bruce Stephens
>>> <bruce+...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> Barsoom. Prove me wrong 8-)
>>>>
>>>> According to the available evidence (well, wikipedia; I haven't checked
>>>> the primary source) Barsoom has life.
>>>>
>>>> It may be that as Barsoom dries the life dies entirely (wikipedia isn't
>>>> clear on that), and if the life died before the water disappeared then
>>>> that would be a counterexample.
>>
>>
>>> That's a fictional Barsoom. I meant the real Barsoom. Yeah, that's
>>> the ticket. Nobody believes Wikipedia anyway.
>>
>> They believe it on Barsoom...
>
> Likewise, Sherlock Holmes disputes the idea he is a fictional character.
>
What evidence does he have?
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 22:17:03 +0000, Bruce Stephens
>>> <bruce+...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> Barsoom. Prove me wrong 8-)
>>>>
>>>> According to the available evidence (well, wikipedia; I haven't checked
>>>> the primary source) Barsoom has life.
>>>>
>>>> It may be that as Barsoom dries the life dies entirely (wikipedia isn't
>>>> clear on that), and if the life died before the water disappeared then
>>>> that would be a counterexample.
>>
>>
>>> That's a fictional Barsoom. I meant the real Barsoom. Yeah, that's
>>> the ticket. Nobody believes Wikipedia anyway.
>>
>> They believe it on Barsoom...
>
> Likewise, Sherlock Holmes disputes the idea he is a fictional character.
>
Paul J Gans
Nov 27, 2012, 7:39:07 PM11/27/12
to
John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 22:17:03 +0000, Bruce Stephens
>> ><bruce+...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >>[...]
>> >>
>> >>> Barsoom. Prove me wrong 8-)
>> >>
>> >>According to the available evidence (well, wikipedia; I haven't checked
>> >>the primary source) Barsoom has life.
>> >>
>> >>It may be that as Barsoom dries the life dies entirely (wikipedia isn't
>> >>clear on that), and if the life died before the water disappeared then
>> >>that would be a counterexample.
>>
>>
>> >That's a fictional Barsoom. I meant the real Barsoom. Yeah, that's
>> >the ticket. Nobody believes Wikipedia anyway.
>>
>> They believe it on Barsoom...
>Likewise, Sherlock Holmes disputes the idea he is a fictional character.
I am sure he does. As a person devoted to the discovery of fact,
>Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 22:17:03 +0000, Bruce Stephens
>> ><bruce+...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >>[...]
>> >>
>> >>> Barsoom. Prove me wrong 8-)
>> >>
>> >>According to the available evidence (well, wikipedia; I haven't checked
>> >>the primary source) Barsoom has life.
>> >>
>> >>It may be that as Barsoom dries the life dies entirely (wikipedia isn't
>> >>clear on that), and if the life died before the water disappeared then
>> >>that would be a counterexample.
>>
>>
>> >That's a fictional Barsoom. I meant the real Barsoom. Yeah, that's
>> >the ticket. Nobody believes Wikipedia anyway.
>>
>> They believe it on Barsoom...
>Likewise, Sherlock Holmes disputes the idea he is a fictional character.
the fact that he can dispute proves him right.
Paul J Gans
Nov 27, 2012, 7:43:47 PM11/27/12
to
Mitchell Coffey <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:
Good grief Mitchell, you have no shame!
"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed
diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna
aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis
nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut
aliquip ex ea commodo consequat."
Curious though that a pseudo Latin bit should be known as
"Greeked" text.
"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed
diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna
aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis
nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut
aliquip ex ea commodo consequat."
Curious though that a pseudo Latin bit should be known as
"Greeked" text.
jonathan
Nov 27, 2012, 10:48:22 PM11/27/12
to
"Arkalen" <ark...@inbox.com> wrote in message
news:gxB*Wp...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> On 27/11/12 01:45, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
> talk-o...@moderators.isc.org wrote:
>> On Monday, 26 November 2012 22:41:49 UTC, Arkalen wrote:
>>>
>>> As for reasons why that assertion's truth is doubtful... Many planets
>>> have liquid and while some are considered candidates for life, no
>>> evidence has yet been found. Gas giants have liquid (surely, somewhere
>>> in that gradient of densities they do...).
>>
>> I'm not sure. It depends on pressure and stuff, and after all you don't
>> get liquid carbon dioxide...
>
> That's the thing, gas giants contain a huge range of pressures between
> the top of their atmosphere and their core. I find it incredibly
> unlikely that *none* of the gases they contain turns to liquid at any
> point.
>
Don't forget that self organization would need a lot of time
> talk-o...@moderators.isc.org wrote:
>> On Monday, 26 November 2012 22:41:49 UTC, Arkalen wrote:
>>>
>>> As for reasons why that assertion's truth is doubtful... Many planets
>>> have liquid and while some are considered candidates for life, no
>>> evidence has yet been found. Gas giants have liquid (surely, somewhere
>>> in that gradient of densities they do...).
>>
>> I'm not sure. It depends on pressure and stuff, and after all you don't
>> get liquid carbon dioxide...
>
> That's the thing, gas giants contain a huge range of pressures between
> the top of their atmosphere and their core. I find it incredibly
> unlikely that *none* of the gases they contain turns to liquid at any
> point.
>
and stability, water alone isn't enough.
But the state of the art with the ideas for life elsewhere
are all here, at least the abstracts. Since the Mars rovers
landed, astrobiology has expanded ten fold, as well as
the assumptions about life elsewhere.
I counted 21 papers about Europa, 47 about Titan
and 16 for Saturn and Enceladus.
(Note, the huge volume of recent research is
a h u g e c l u e)
Astrobiology Conference 2012 abstracts
http://abscicon2012.arc.nasa.gov/abstracts/
s
Burkhard
Nov 28, 2012, 1:08:57 AM11/28/12
to
On Nov 27, 10:47 pm, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com>
wrote:
my method- a juxtaposition of Charles Saundes Peirce with Sherlock
Holmes, Semiotica 26 1974)
Solving cases requires thinking. He thinks, therefore he is...
wrote:
> On 11/27/2012 5:05 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >>> <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>>> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >>>> [...]
>
> >>>>> Barsoom. Prove me wrong 8-)
>
> >>>> According to the available evidence (well, wikipedia; I haven't checked
> >>>> the primary source) Barsoom has life.
>
> >>>> It may be that as Barsoom dries the life dies entirely (wikipedia isn't
> >>>> clear on that), and if the life died before the water disappeared then
> >>>> that would be a counterexample.
>
> >>> That's a fictional Barsoom. I meant the real Barsoom. Yeah, that's
> >>> the ticket. Nobody believes Wikipedia anyway.
>
> >> They believe it on Barsoom...
>
> > Likewise, Sherlock Holmes disputes the idea he is a fictional character.
>
> What evidence does he have?
He solves complex cases through logical reasoning (T. Sebeok: you know
> >>>> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >>>> [...]
>
> >>>>> Barsoom. Prove me wrong 8-)
>
> >>>> According to the available evidence (well, wikipedia; I haven't checked
> >>>> the primary source) Barsoom has life.
>
> >>>> It may be that as Barsoom dries the life dies entirely (wikipedia isn't
> >>>> clear on that), and if the life died before the water disappeared then
> >>>> that would be a counterexample.
>
> >>> That's a fictional Barsoom. I meant the real Barsoom. Yeah, that's
> >>> the ticket. Nobody believes Wikipedia anyway.
>
> >> They believe it on Barsoom...
>
> > Likewise, Sherlock Holmes disputes the idea he is a fictional character.
>
> What evidence does he have?
my method- a juxtaposition of Charles Saundes Peirce with Sherlock
Holmes, Semiotica 26 1974)
Solving cases requires thinking. He thinks, therefore he is...
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Nov 28, 2012, 8:32:16 AM11/28/12
to
On 28 nov, 04:48, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Arkalen" <arka...@inbox.com> wrote in message
Astrobiology Conference 2012 organized by the NASA.
However I would be grateful if you could find at least one
communication able to show data in favor of something ressembing to
what is usually called 'life', all the more so as the concept of
'life' is never well-defined (for the obvious reason that a scientific
definition of 'life' is impossible as the concept is of metaphysical
nature).
> "Arkalen" <arka...@inbox.com> wrote in message
>
> news:gxB*Wp...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 27/11/12 01:45, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
> news:gxB*Wp...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 27/11/12 01:45, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
> > talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org wrote:
> >> On Monday, 26 November 2012 22:41:49 UTC, Arkalen wrote:
>
> >>> As for reasons why that assertion's truth is doubtful... Many planets
> >>> have liquid and while some are considered candidates for life, no
> >>> evidence has yet been found. Gas giants have liquid (surely, somewhere
> >>> in that gradient of densities they do...).
>
> >> I'm not sure. It depends on pressure and stuff, and after all you don't
> >> get liquid carbon dioxide...
>
> > That's the thing, gas giants contain a huge range of pressures between
> > the top of their atmosphere and their core. I find it incredibly
> > unlikely that *none* of the gases they contain turns to liquid at any
> > point.
>
> Don't forget that self organization would need a lot of time
> and stability, water alone isn't enough.
>
> But the state of the art with the ideas for life elsewhere
> are all here, at least the abstracts. Since the Mars rovers
> landed, astrobiology has expanded ten fold, as well as
> the assumptions about life elsewhere.
>
> I counted 21 papers about Europa, 47 about Titan
> and 16 for Saturn and Enceladus.
>
> (Note, the huge volume of recent research is
> a h u g e c l u e)
>
> Astrobiology Conference 2012 abstractshttp://abscicon2012.arc.nasa.gov/abstracts/
There is indeed quite a lot of communications on the subject in this
> >> On Monday, 26 November 2012 22:41:49 UTC, Arkalen wrote:
>
> >>> As for reasons why that assertion's truth is doubtful... Many planets
> >>> have liquid and while some are considered candidates for life, no
> >>> evidence has yet been found. Gas giants have liquid (surely, somewhere
> >>> in that gradient of densities they do...).
>
> >> I'm not sure. It depends on pressure and stuff, and after all you don't
> >> get liquid carbon dioxide...
>
> > That's the thing, gas giants contain a huge range of pressures between
> > the top of their atmosphere and their core. I find it incredibly
> > unlikely that *none* of the gases they contain turns to liquid at any
> > point.
>
> Don't forget that self organization would need a lot of time
> and stability, water alone isn't enough.
>
> But the state of the art with the ideas for life elsewhere
> are all here, at least the abstracts. Since the Mars rovers
> landed, astrobiology has expanded ten fold, as well as
> the assumptions about life elsewhere.
>
> I counted 21 papers about Europa, 47 about Titan
> and 16 for Saturn and Enceladus.
>
> (Note, the huge volume of recent research is
> a h u g e c l u e)
>
> Astrobiology Conference 2012 abstractshttp://abscicon2012.arc.nasa.gov/abstracts/
Astrobiology Conference 2012 organized by the NASA.
However I would be grateful if you could find at least one
communication able to show data in favor of something ressembing to
what is usually called 'life', all the more so as the concept of
'life' is never well-defined (for the obvious reason that a scientific
definition of 'life' is impossible as the concept is of metaphysical
nature).
Devils Advocaat
Nov 28, 2012, 8:36:31 AM11/28/12
to
On Nov 26, 7:11 pm, Rama <mr.ra...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Every planet, which has liquid(not necessarily water) and chemical
> reactants, has life.
Every elephant with skin(not necessarily fresh) and dung, has fleas.
> Every planet, which has liquid(not necessarily water) and chemical
> reactants, has life.
Mitchell Coffey
Nov 28, 2012, 10:28:59 AM11/28/12
to
On Nov 27, 7:43 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
None. No shame at all. This comes as news?
Mitchell
Mitchell
Walter Bushell
Nov 28, 2012, 10:29:09 AM11/28/12
to
In article <7g3ab8pa3liefaajs...@4ax.com>,
either, but no physicist doubts that it applies on Altair 5, despite
never having run any tests there.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:24:53 +0100, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) (J. J. Lodder):
>
> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:08:19 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Rama
> >> <mr.r...@googlemail.com>:
> >>
> >> >Every planet, which has liquid(not necessarily water) and chemical
> >> >reactants, has life.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> BTW, when did you return from your tour of the universe?
> >
> >Nice sampling job,
>
> I'm not sure sampling would be appropriate support for his
> (her? its?) assertion, since there were no probability
> bounds given (*Every* planet...).
>
> Looks to me like it's the whole universe or nothing...
We haven't checked the conservation of mass energy in all cases
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:24:53 +0100, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) (J. J. Lodder):
>
> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:08:19 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Rama
> >> <mr.r...@googlemail.com>:
> >>
> >> >Every planet, which has liquid(not necessarily water) and chemical
> >> >reactants, has life.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> BTW, when did you return from your tour of the universe?
> >
> >Nice sampling job,
>
> I'm not sure sampling would be appropriate support for his
> (her? its?) assertion, since there were no probability
> bounds given (*Every* planet...).
>
> Looks to me like it's the whole universe or nothing...
either, but no physicist doubts that it applies on Altair 5, despite
never having run any tests there.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Paul J Gans
Nov 28, 2012, 11:53:36 AM11/28/12
to
Mitchell Coffey <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ? ?diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna
>> ? ?aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis
>> ? ?nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut
>> ? ?aliquip ex ea commodo consequat."
>On Nov 27, 7:43?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 26, 2:11?pm, Rama <mr.ra...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >> Every planet, which has liquid(not necessarily water) and chemical
>> >> reactants, has life.
>> >Even Lorem, the eight planet of the star Ipsum, of the Dolor galaxy,
>> >which consists of a ?solid 3500 km radius core of mercury-thallium,
>> Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 26, 2:11?pm, Rama <mr.ra...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >> Every planet, which has liquid(not necessarily water) and chemical
>> >> reactants, has life.
>> >Even Lorem, the eight planet of the star Ipsum, of the Dolor galaxy,
>> >surrounded by a deep liquid ocean of gallium-indium-tin eutectic?
>>
>> Good grief Mitchell, you have no shame!
>>
>> ? "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed
>>
>> Good grief Mitchell, you have no shame!
>>
>> ? ?diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna
>> ? ?aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis
>> ? ?nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut
>> ? ?aliquip ex ea commodo consequat."
>>
>> Curious though that a pseudo Latin bit should be known as
>> "Greeked" text.
>None. No shame at all. This comes as news?
Not really... ;-)
>> Curious though that a pseudo Latin bit should be known as
>> "Greeked" text.
>None. No shame at all. This comes as news?
Bob Casanova
Nov 28, 2012, 1:00:24 PM11/28/12
to
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 05:36:31 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Devils Advocaat
<manky...@gmail.com>:
Hardly comparable; we can, with difficulty, access "every
elephant" for test.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Devils Advocaat
<manky...@gmail.com>:
elephant" for test.
Bob Casanova
Nov 28, 2012, 1:03:29 PM11/28/12
to
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:29:09 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
Absolutely true. And the relevance to the OP's assertion,
the validity of which has never been tested anywhere other
than (trivially) here is...?
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
the validity of which has never been tested anywhere other
than (trivially) here is...?
jonathan
Nov 28, 2012, 8:47:44 PM11/28/12
to
<marc.t...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:35e70938-2d0b-4212...@f19g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
define how life...first starts. The old lightning bolt in a organic
soup thing doesn't cut it anymore. Mars is...I believe...showing
us an ecosystem where life barely took the first simple steps
towards life. Microbes which can barely eke out a living
here and there, probably tens of feet or meters below
the surface, where it's warmer, wetter and blanketed from
the sun.
But...I believe...Mars is showing us something much
more profound than merely another place with microbes.
That Mars is showing us a 'missing link' between purely
geological systems, and truly living systems.
An intermediate form of order which is not alive at all, but
can't be explained with only objective or deterministic
methods.
Geology with something 'more'. Emergent properties
showing the earliest examples of /self organization./
These things....they're everywhere at Meridiani on Mars.
Small
http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/053/1M132896352EFF06ASP2956M2M1.HTML
Large
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/182/1M144339407EFF3370P2907M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/039/1M131649674EFF0544P2933M2M1.HTML
And ..before the rovers landed, researchers tried to imagine
the conditions on Mars, and went to an analogue on Earth
to help predict what they might find on Mars if microbes
are there.
..
BIOGENIC STRUCTURES FROM A HYPERSALINE LAKE
IN THE BAHAMAS.
Lunar and Planetary Science XXXII (2001) 1068.pdf
" Our FE-SEM analy-sis indicates a range of microbial life forms
on the fractured stromatolite surfaces. Spheroidal features are the
most common, with four distinct populations, characterized
by their highly uniform intrapopulation sizes:"
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2001/pdf/1068.pdf
......the last line is a big clue, look again at the Meridiani spheres
above.
Look at this wide angle shot of Meridiani, where the spheres
are found. The...razor flat horizon can only be created by
a geologically recent body of water or ice. And not a single
rock to be found, the only large rocks are actually meteorites.
As if a glacier were there not long ago.
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/405/tn/1P164131978EFF5000P2663L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html
Those spheres coat the entire field from horizon to horizon, countless
billions of them. All the same size and shapes, only two, accounting
for weathering.
There's more than just erosion and chemical reactions going on
there, that is clear from the so far unexplained level of order.
Self-Organizing Faq
http://calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
Jonathan
ws
>
John S. Wilkins
Nov 29, 2012, 3:46:52 AM11/29/12
to
Steven L.
Nov 29, 2012, 10:17:55 AM11/29/12
to
On 11/28/2012 1:00 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 05:36:31 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Devils Advocaat
> <manky...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Nov 26, 7:11 pm, Rama <mr.ra...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Every planet, which has liquid(not necessarily water) and chemical
>>> reactants, has life.
>
>> Every elephant with skin(not necessarily fresh) and dung, has fleas.
>
> Hardly comparable; we can, with difficulty, access "every
> elephant" for test.
And what prevents us from accessing every planet (albeit with difficulty)?
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 05:36:31 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Devils Advocaat
> <manky...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Nov 26, 7:11 pm, Rama <mr.ra...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Every planet, which has liquid(not necessarily water) and chemical
>>> reactants, has life.
>
>> Every elephant with skin(not necessarily fresh) and dung, has fleas.
>
> Hardly comparable; we can, with difficulty, access "every
> elephant" for test.
There's no theoretical limitation to interstellar travel. It's just not
cost-effective, that's all.
--
Steven L.
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Nov 29, 2012, 10:25:19 AM11/29/12
to
On Nov 29, 2:47 am, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip for focus>
> >> But the state of the art with the ideas for life elsewhere
> >> are all here, at least the abstracts. Since the Mars rovers
> >> landed, astrobiology has expanded ten fold, as well as
> >> the assumptions about life elsewhere.
> >> I counted 21 papers about Europa, 47 about Titan
> >> and 16 for Saturn and Enceladus.
> >> (Note, the huge volume of recent research is
> >> a h u g e c l u e)
> >> Astrobiology Conference 2012
> >> abstractshttp://abscicon2012.arc.nasa.gov/abstracts/
> > There is indeed quite a lot of communications on the subject in this
> > Astrobiology Conference 2012 organized by the NASA.
> > However I would be grateful if you could find at least one
> > communication able to show data in favor of something ressembing to
> > what is usually called 'life', all the more so as the concept of
> > 'life' is never well-defined (for the obvious reason that a scientific
> > definition of 'life' is impossible as the concept is of metaphysical
> > nature).
> As you can see in the abstracts, the race is on big-time to
> define how life...first starts.
I am sorry to insist but, before defining how 'life' first starts, you
need to give us a definition of your concept of 'life'. Otherwise how
will you look for something you don't know what it is?
> The old lightning bolt in a organic
> soup thing doesn't cut it anymore. Mars is...I believe...showing
> us an ecosystem where life barely took the first simple steps
> towards life. Microbes which can barely eke out a living
> here and there, probably tens of feet or meters below
> the surface, where it's warmer, wetter and blanketed from
> the sun.
> But...I believe...Mars is showing us something much
> more profound than merely another place with microbes.
> That Mars is showing us a 'missing link' between purely
> geological systems, and truly living systems.
> An intermediate form of order which is not alive at all, but
> can't be explained with only objective or deterministic
> methods.
> Geology with something 'more'. Emergent properties
> showing the earliest examples of /self organization./
The concept of self-organizing systems is quite interesting although
debatable.
In the document from FAQ a self organization is defined as a system
that would be independent of external pressures. It is true that there
are self-organizing systems independent of external pressures such as
stars. However self-organizing systems which seem to be relevant for
our purpose are rather dissipative structures through which energy and
matter are flowing (Nicolis and Prigogine 1977).
For example, instead of the notion of self-organizing systems, the
notion of self-assembly can be preferred. But "there are two main
kinds of self-assembly: static and dynamic":
- "Static self-assembly involves systems that are at global or local
equilibrium and do not dissipate energy".
- Dynamic self-assembly where "the interactions responsible for the
formation of structures or patterns between components only occur if
the system is dissipating energy" (Whitesides et al. 2002). The latter
are the ones which are relevant for our purpose.
Besides, if we keep the notion of self-organizing systems, I think
these that are relevant are still dynamic ones as for self-assemblies.
Thus, according to BR Johnson and SK Lam, "in contrast to conservative
systems, in which energy is conserved, self-organization occurs in
dissipative systems through which energy is flowing (Nicolis and
Prigogine1977, Kauffmann 1993, Camazine et al. 2001). Such systems
produce what are called dissipative structures" (Johnson et al.
2010).
Within both approaches (via either dynamic 'self-assemblies' or 'self-
organizing systems' ) the important physical process is the notion of
"dissipative structures". Such systems are clearly not independent of
external pressures as they must be fed by a continuous flow of energy
and matter. This is crucial when looking for fossils of such systems:
you need to have definite proofs of the existence of sources of energy
and matter at the locations where you want to look for (at least at
the time when such dynamic systems were supposed to have emerged).
References:
Johnson BR, Lam SK. Self-organization, Natural Selection, and
Evolution: Cellular Hardware and Genetic Software. BioScience
2010;60:879-85.
Nicolis G, Prigogine I. 1977. Self-organization in Non equilibrium
Systems: From Dissipative Structures to Order through Fluctuations.
Wiley.
Whitesides GM, Grzybowski B. Self-Assembly at All Scales. Science
2002;295:2418-21.
> These things....they're everywhere at Meridiani on Mars.
> Smallhttp://marsrovers.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P295...http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/053/1M132896352EFF06AS...
> Largehttp://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/182/1M144339407EFF3370...http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/039/1M131649674EFF0544.
I see very beautiful images which can be examples of fossils of
dynamic self-organizing systems. Are these sufficient as a proof of
the existence of what you call 'living' systems'? Presently we can't
know as you didn't specify what you mean by 'living' systems.
For me the existence of fossils of dynamic self-organizing systems is
not sufficient to demonstrate that Darwinian evolution has ever
emerged on Mars.
> And ..before the rovers landed, researchers tried to imagine
> the conditions on Mars, and went to an analogue on Earth
> to help predict what they might find on Mars if microbes
> are there.
cells. As you specified it before microbes are not the best candidates
to look for on Mars.
> ......the last line is a big clue, look again at the Meridiani spheres
> above.
> Look at this wide angle shot of Meridiani, where the spheres
> are found. The...razor flat horizon can only be created by
> a geologically recent body of water or ice. And not a single
> rock to be found, the only large rocks are actually meteorites.
> As if a glacier were there not long ago.http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/405/tn/1P164131978EFF5000P2663L5M1_L...
organizing systems. But, as already specified before, these spheres
are not sufficient to prove that Darwinian evolution has ever emerged
on Mars.
> Self-Organizing Faqhttp://calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
<snip for focus>
> >> But the state of the art with the ideas for life elsewhere
> >> are all here, at least the abstracts. Since the Mars rovers
> >> landed, astrobiology has expanded ten fold, as well as
> >> the assumptions about life elsewhere.
> >> I counted 21 papers about Europa, 47 about Titan
> >> and 16 for Saturn and Enceladus.
> >> (Note, the huge volume of recent research is
> >> a h u g e c l u e)
> >> Astrobiology Conference 2012
> >> abstractshttp://abscicon2012.arc.nasa.gov/abstracts/
> > There is indeed quite a lot of communications on the subject in this
> > Astrobiology Conference 2012 organized by the NASA.
> > However I would be grateful if you could find at least one
> > communication able to show data in favor of something ressembing to
> > what is usually called 'life', all the more so as the concept of
> > 'life' is never well-defined (for the obvious reason that a scientific
> > definition of 'life' is impossible as the concept is of metaphysical
> > nature).
> As you can see in the abstracts, the race is on big-time to
> define how life...first starts.
need to give us a definition of your concept of 'life'. Otherwise how
will you look for something you don't know what it is?
> The old lightning bolt in a organic
> soup thing doesn't cut it anymore. Mars is...I believe...showing
> us an ecosystem where life barely took the first simple steps
> towards life. Microbes which can barely eke out a living
> here and there, probably tens of feet or meters below
> the surface, where it's warmer, wetter and blanketed from
> the sun.
> But...I believe...Mars is showing us something much
> more profound than merely another place with microbes.
> That Mars is showing us a 'missing link' between purely
> geological systems, and truly living systems.
> An intermediate form of order which is not alive at all, but
> can't be explained with only objective or deterministic
> methods.
> Geology with something 'more'. Emergent properties
> showing the earliest examples of /self organization./
debatable.
In the document from FAQ a self organization is defined as a system
that would be independent of external pressures. It is true that there
are self-organizing systems independent of external pressures such as
stars. However self-organizing systems which seem to be relevant for
our purpose are rather dissipative structures through which energy and
matter are flowing (Nicolis and Prigogine 1977).
For example, instead of the notion of self-organizing systems, the
notion of self-assembly can be preferred. But "there are two main
kinds of self-assembly: static and dynamic":
- "Static self-assembly involves systems that are at global or local
equilibrium and do not dissipate energy".
- Dynamic self-assembly where "the interactions responsible for the
formation of structures or patterns between components only occur if
the system is dissipating energy" (Whitesides et al. 2002). The latter
are the ones which are relevant for our purpose.
Besides, if we keep the notion of self-organizing systems, I think
these that are relevant are still dynamic ones as for self-assemblies.
Thus, according to BR Johnson and SK Lam, "in contrast to conservative
systems, in which energy is conserved, self-organization occurs in
dissipative systems through which energy is flowing (Nicolis and
Prigogine1977, Kauffmann 1993, Camazine et al. 2001). Such systems
produce what are called dissipative structures" (Johnson et al.
2010).
Within both approaches (via either dynamic 'self-assemblies' or 'self-
organizing systems' ) the important physical process is the notion of
"dissipative structures". Such systems are clearly not independent of
external pressures as they must be fed by a continuous flow of energy
and matter. This is crucial when looking for fossils of such systems:
you need to have definite proofs of the existence of sources of energy
and matter at the locations where you want to look for (at least at
the time when such dynamic systems were supposed to have emerged).
References:
Johnson BR, Lam SK. Self-organization, Natural Selection, and
Evolution: Cellular Hardware and Genetic Software. BioScience
2010;60:879-85.
Nicolis G, Prigogine I. 1977. Self-organization in Non equilibrium
Systems: From Dissipative Structures to Order through Fluctuations.
Wiley.
Whitesides GM, Grzybowski B. Self-Assembly at All Scales. Science
2002;295:2418-21.
> These things....they're everywhere at Meridiani on Mars.
> Largehttp://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/182/1M144339407EFF3370...http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/039/1M131649674EFF0544.
I see very beautiful images which can be examples of fossils of
dynamic self-organizing systems. Are these sufficient as a proof of
the existence of what you call 'living' systems'? Presently we can't
know as you didn't specify what you mean by 'living' systems.
For me the existence of fossils of dynamic self-organizing systems is
not sufficient to demonstrate that Darwinian evolution has ever
emerged on Mars.
> And ..before the rovers landed, researchers tried to imagine
> the conditions on Mars, and went to an analogue on Earth
> to help predict what they might find on Mars if microbes
> are there.
> BIOGENIC STRUCTURES FROM A HYPERSALINE LAKE
> IN THE BAHAMAS.
> Lunar and Planetary Science XXXII (2001) 1068.pdf
> " Our FE-SEM analy-sis indicates a range of microbial life forms
> on the fractured stromatolite surfaces. Spheroidal features are the
> most common, with four distinct populations, characterized
> by their highly uniform intrapopulation sizes:"http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2001/pdf/1068.pdf
These are microbes which are already very complex and well evolved
> IN THE BAHAMAS.
> Lunar and Planetary Science XXXII (2001) 1068.pdf
> " Our FE-SEM analy-sis indicates a range of microbial life forms
> on the fractured stromatolite surfaces. Spheroidal features are the
> most common, with four distinct populations, characterized
> by their highly uniform intrapopulation sizes:"http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2001/pdf/1068.pdf
cells. As you specified it before microbes are not the best candidates
to look for on Mars.
> ......the last line is a big clue, look again at the Meridiani spheres
> above.
> Look at this wide angle shot of Meridiani, where the spheres
> are found. The...razor flat horizon can only be created by
> a geologically recent body of water or ice. And not a single
> rock to be found, the only large rocks are actually meteorites.
> Those spheres coat the entire field from horizon to horizon, countless
> billions of them. All the same size and shapes, only two, accounting
> for weathering.
> There's more than just erosion and chemical reactions going on
> there, that is clear from the so far unexplained level of order.
Yes, I agree that theses spheres can be the fossils of dynamic self-
> billions of them. All the same size and shapes, only two, accounting
> for weathering.
> There's more than just erosion and chemical reactions going on
> there, that is clear from the so far unexplained level of order.
organizing systems. But, as already specified before, these spheres
are not sufficient to prove that Darwinian evolution has ever emerged
on Mars.
> Self-Organizing Faqhttp://calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
Bob Casanova
Nov 29, 2012, 12:39:41 PM11/29/12
to
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:17:55 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Steven L."
<sdli...@earthlink.net>:
>On 11/28/2012 1:00 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 05:36:31 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Devils Advocaat
>> <manky...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On Nov 26, 7:11 pm, Rama <mr.ra...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Every planet, which has liquid(not necessarily water) and chemical
>>>> reactants, has life.
>>
>>> Every elephant with skin(not necessarily fresh) and dung, has fleas.
>>
>> Hardly comparable; we can, with difficulty, access "every
>> elephant" for test.
>
>And what prevents us from accessing every planet (albeit with difficulty)?
Lack of the requisite technology, and no prospect of
developing it. A trip to the purported planets of a star 12
billion light years away is more than just "difficult"; for
us (and, based on physics, for *anyone*) it's impossible.
>There's no theoretical limitation to interstellar travel. It's just not
>cost-effective, that's all.
No, that's *not* all. We lack the technology to even reach
the outer planets of this solar system; stars 12 billion
light years away are Right Out.
in talk.origins, posted by "Steven L."
<sdli...@earthlink.net>:
>On 11/28/2012 1:00 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 05:36:31 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Devils Advocaat
>> <manky...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On Nov 26, 7:11 pm, Rama <mr.ra...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Every planet, which has liquid(not necessarily water) and chemical
>>>> reactants, has life.
>>
>>> Every elephant with skin(not necessarily fresh) and dung, has fleas.
>>
>> Hardly comparable; we can, with difficulty, access "every
>> elephant" for test.
>
>And what prevents us from accessing every planet (albeit with difficulty)?
developing it. A trip to the purported planets of a star 12
billion light years away is more than just "difficult"; for
us (and, based on physics, for *anyone*) it's impossible.
>There's no theoretical limitation to interstellar travel. It's just not
>cost-effective, that's all.
the outer planets of this solar system; stars 12 billion
light years away are Right Out.
Steven L.
Nov 29, 2012, 3:58:08 PM11/29/12
to
system.
Accessing extrasolar planets does not necessarily require human explorers.
And while we don't have the technology quite yet, self-replicating
machines could be devised in the future (using a highly evolved form of
today's 3-D printers) that could replicate themselves, spreading copies
of themselves to the stellar systems closest to them.
But I grant you that we can't catch up to planets 12 billion light years
away.
--
Steven L.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Nov 29, 2012, 5:09:15 PM11/29/12
to
I mean, our own gas giants probably have "metallic hydrogen"
in liquid form, but I don't know if /that/ qualifies on the
chemistry condition.
jonathan
Nov 29, 2012, 9:52:07 PM11/29/12
to
<marc.t...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:03701536-87c6-403e...@g6g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
internal processes, and selection chooses between already
formed attractors.
As Dickinson....accurately...characterized the current thinking
"Growth of man, like growth of nature
Gravitates within
Atmosphere and sun endorse it
But it stir alone"
It's important to know that self organizing systems
are very robust to initial conditions, not sensitive to them.
A ball spun inside a bowl will always end up at rest
at the bottom no matter the starting conditions.
> For example, instead of the notion of self-organizing systems, the
> notion of self-assembly can be preferred. But "there are two main
> kinds of self-assembly: static and dynamic":
> - "Static self-assembly involves systems that are at global or local
> equilibrium and do not dissipate energy".
> - Dynamic self-assembly where "the interactions responsible for the
> formation of structures or patterns between components only occur if
> the system is dissipating energy" (Whitesides et al. 2002). The latter
> are the ones which are relevant for our purpose.
static, dynamic and chaotic attractor forms. The dynamic
attractor...emerges...from the critical interaction
between the static and chaotic.
static > dynamic < chaotic
Static attractor is ...behavior...which is simple or
little changing, where the variables are few and
easily defined, where Newtonian mechanics work
best.
Chaotic attractor is...behavior...which has too many
variables for a deterministic approach, and statistical
methods work best. So for Darwinian evolution the
attractor paradigm above would become
static > dynamic < chaotic
genetics > selection < mutation
When one can't tell which attractor, static or chaotic
dominates the system output, then spontaneous order
and hill-climbing emerge.
static > dynamic < chaotic
rule of law > democracy < freedom
facts > ideas < imagination
And so on, for any system under the sun, they
all evolve following a universal process.
> Besides, if we keep the notion of self-organizing systems, I think
> these that are relevant are still dynamic ones as for self-assemblies.
> Thus, according to BR Johnson and SK Lam, "in contrast to conservative
> systems, in which energy is conserved, self-organization occurs in
> dissipative systems through which energy is flowing (Nicolis and
> Prigogine1977, Kauffmann 1993, Camazine et al. 2001). Such systems
> produce what are called dissipative structures" (Johnson et al.
> 2010).
Complexity Science is an entirely different way of
viewing reality. Instead of looking at the equilibrium
condition of complex system, when it has settled down
and it displays more predictable behavior, Complexity
Science looks at the far from equilibrium conditions.
When energy is flowing.
So the behavior being studied begins at the point
some system near equilibrium has been disturbed, or
pushed far from equilibrium, and ends when one
can no longer tell the system was disturbed. The one offs
or transients become the source of the idea.
And it turns out the universal behavior they found
is in how complex systems ...respond to
disturbances or change.
All systems are unique, but all system are born, evolve
and die in a similar way.
The are born and evolve when the static and chaotic
attractors are critically interacting, so that one can't
determine which dominates. They die when you
....can determine...which opposite extreme in possibility
is dominating.
So, that which can be determined or 'proven' in the
objective sense must be that which is unimportant
or mostly irrelevant to understanding reality.
Call it a catch-22 of reality maybe? Or is it our fault?
For reducing to parts, and precision and proof for
deriving fundamental law? When we should base them
on the opposite, the emergent system properties.
Such as those ethereal market forces, just to name one.
And the ultimate example of the emergent world is
life and intelligence, so, the fundamental laws of the
universe should be based on ...Darwinian evolution.
Life or Darwin teaches us how the physical universe
evolves, not the other way around. That's the inevitable
conclusion from a complexity perspective.
> Within both approaches (via either dynamic 'self-assemblies' or 'self-
> organizing systems' ) the important physical process is the notion of
> "dissipative structures".
>Such systems are clearly not independent of
> external pressures as they must be fed by a continuous flow of energy
> and matter.
between energy and self organization. For instance
it may take a lot of energy to initiate a stable orbit
but once in orbit, the system begins to perpetuate
itself. Self organizing system are highly cyclic processes.
The analogy could be a spring, if disturbed in just
the right way, may continue vibrating almost indefinitely.
The initial disturbance or energy input from outside
can be quite small in relation.
For instance the grain of sand which creates
a landslide. That critical behavior is inevitable
in any random 'pile'.
>This is crucial when looking for fossils of such systems:
> you need to have definite proofs of the existence of sources of energy
> and matter at the locations where you want to look for (at least at
> the time when such dynamic systems were supposed to have emerged).
Most of the northern half of Mars is as much as 60% water ice
just a couple of meters below the surface, it melts out today.
And the reason they went to Meridiani is the large iron signature.
The kind of iron, hematite, which forms in hot water.
When they got to Meridiani the found there was no iron
in the soil or rocks, the iron is only in the spheres.
The soil is full of sulfates, sulfur and silicon in vast
warm underground hydrothermal springs. Just the kind
of energy sources and minerals thought to have given rise
to the first microbes on Earth.
>
> References:
> Johnson BR, Lam SK. Self-organization, Natural Selection, and
> Evolution: Cellular Hardware and Genetic Software. BioScience
> 2010;60:879-85.
> Nicolis G, Prigogine I. 1977. Self-organization in Non equilibrium
> Systems: From Dissipative Structures to Order through Fluctuations.
> Wiley.
> Whitesides GM, Grzybowski B. Self-Assembly at All Scales. Science
> 2002;295:2418-21.
>
>> These things....they're everywhere at Meridiani on Mars.
>> Smallhttp://marsrovers.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P295...http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/053/1M132896352EFF06AS...
>> Largehttp://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/182/1M144339407EFF3370...http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/039/1M131649674EFF0544.
>
> I see very beautiful images which can be examples of fossils of
> dynamic self-organizing systems.
of soil maybe a meter across.
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/012/tn/1P129250922EFF0224P2374L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html
Various wide angle images of spheres
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/1861/1P293402499ESFA000P2562L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/180/tn/1P144166325EFF3342P2537L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/505/tn/1P173013913EFF55VWP2559L5M1_L2L5L5L6L6.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/123/1P139098299EFF2809P2267L5M1_L2L5L5L6L6.jpg
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/183/tn/1P144428432EFF3370P2540L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg.html
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/533/tn/1P175500101EFF57BTP2568L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html
Various micro imager pictures of spheres (field of view postage stamp size)
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/opportunity_m014.html
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/opportunity_m182.html
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/105/1M137503553EFF2208P2956M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/106/1M137593860EFF2208P2956M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/028/1M130673077EFF0454P2933M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/029/1M130761497EFF0454P2953M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/019/1M129869769EFF0338P2953M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/177/1M143896735EFF3336P2957M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/053/1M132896352EFF06ASP2956M2M1.HTML
> Are these sufficient as a proof of
> the existence of what you call 'living' systems'? Presently we can't
> know as you didn't specify what you mean by 'living' systems.
> For me the existence of fossils of dynamic self-organizing systems is
> not sufficient to demonstrate that Darwinian evolution has ever
> emerged on Mars.
process for physical and living systems.
"Critically interacting components self organize, to form
potentially evolving structures exhibiting a heirarchy of
emergent system properties."
A self organized system would be characterized by the
inability to fully define it in terms of it's components.
The spheres are still a mystery after 8 years. If they
truly are an example of a 'missing link' between
geology and biology, that uncertainty should always
remain, if not increase the more they're studied.
s
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Nov 30, 2012, 3:27:17 AM11/30/12
to
> The idea as I understand it, is that the attractor forms out of
> internal processes, and selection chooses between already
> formed attractors.
If you want to understand better what is a strange attractor within
> internal processes, and selection chooses between already
> formed attractors.
the paradigm of the deterministic chaos I recommend you to read "Order
Within Chaos: Towards a Deterministic Approach to Turbulence" by Bergé
P., Pomeau Y., Vidal C.
(Wiley, New York, 1984).
There are examples of systems which are not so complex while
nevertheless following a deterministic chaos such as the Belousov–
Zhabotinsky reaction. In this example there is only one (strange)
attractor. The organization of the system is due to several factors
such as:
- A continuous source of ingredients from the environment (actually a
chemical reactor: this are the needed external conditions);
- the presence of mutually catalytic reactions (this is the needed
internal process).
> As Dickinson....accurately...characterized the current thinking
> "Growth of man, like growth of nature
> Gravitates within
> Atmosphere and sun endorse it
> But it stir alone"
> It's important to know that self organizing systems
> are very robust to initial conditions, not sensitive to them.
the problem far too simplistic. Within the paradigm of the
deterministic chaos the evolution of the system over the time is
indeed very sensitive to the initial conditions: this is why its
evolution over the time is unpredictable after some times even if the
system remains in its attractor (this why such an attractor is called
"strange").
See, for example, the Lorenz's model of weather turbulences.
> A ball spun inside a bowl will always end up at rest
> at the bottom no matter the starting conditions.
> > For example, instead of the notion of self-organizing systems, the
> > notion of self-assembly can be preferred. But "there are two main
> > kinds of self-assembly: static and dynamic":
> > - "Static self-assembly involves systems that are at global or local
> > equilibrium and do not dissipate energy".
> > - Dynamic self-assembly where "the interactions responsible for the
> > formation of structures or patterns between components only occur if
> > the system is dissipating energy" (Whitesides et al. 2002). The latter
> > are the ones which are relevant for our purpose.
> It's crucial to understand the relationship between the
> static, dynamic and chaotic attractor forms. The dynamic
> attractor...emerges...from the critical interaction
> between the static and chaotic.
> static > dynamic < chaotic
> Static attractor is ...behavior...which is simple or
> little changing, where the variables are few and
> easily defined, where Newtonian mechanics work
> best.
Deterministic Approach to Turbulence" by Bergé P., Pomeau Y., Vidal C.
Your view is the one of a poet not of a scientific.
> Chaotic attractor is...behavior...which has too many
> variables for a deterministic approach
expression "determintistic chaos" is used?
<snip for focus>
Bob Casanova
Nov 30, 2012, 12:51:05 PM11/30/12
to
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:58:08 -0500, the following appeared
Not in person, we haven't. And we certainly don't have the
tech required to exhaustively examine them for life; Mars is
difficult enough to check even superficially.
>Accessing extrasolar planets does not necessarily require human explorers.
No, but that's irrelevant to my original point; see below.
>And while we don't have the technology quite yet, self-replicating
>machines could be devised in the future (using a highly evolved form of
>today's 3-D printers) that could replicate themselves, spreading copies
>of themselves to the stellar systems closest to them.
One should be *very* cautious when deploying Von Neumann
machines. And even they can't overcome the basic problem,
which is:
>But I grant you that we can't catch up to planets 12 billion light years
>away.
Which was my exact point: We *cannot* test the validity of
the OP's claim by *any* method (even if we accepted it as a
serious claim to fact, which I personally don't).
tech required to exhaustively examine them for life; Mars is
difficult enough to check even superficially.
>Accessing extrasolar planets does not necessarily require human explorers.
>And while we don't have the technology quite yet, self-replicating
>machines could be devised in the future (using a highly evolved form of
>today's 3-D printers) that could replicate themselves, spreading copies
>of themselves to the stellar systems closest to them.
machines. And even they can't overcome the basic problem,
which is:
>But I grant you that we can't catch up to planets 12 billion light years
>away.
the OP's claim by *any* method (even if we accepted it as a
serious claim to fact, which I personally don't).
Mark Buchanan
Dec 1, 2012, 9:38:21 PM12/1/12
to
On 11/29/2012 3:46 AM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> Mark Buchanan <marklynn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/27/2012 5:05 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>>> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 22:17:03 +0000, Bruce Stephens
>>>>> <bruce+...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Barsoom. Prove me wrong 8-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to the available evidence (well, wikipedia; I
>>>>>> haven't checked the primary source) Barsoom has life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It may be that as Barsoom dries the life dies entirely
>>>>>> (wikipedia isn't clear on that), and if the life died
>>>>>> before the water disappeared then that would be a
>>>>>> counterexample.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That's a fictional Barsoom. I meant the real Barsoom. Yeah,
>>>>> that's the ticket. Nobody believes Wikipedia anyway.
>>>>
>>>> They believe it on Barsoom...
>>>
>>> Likewise, Sherlock Holmes disputes the idea he is a fictional
>>> character.
>>>
>> What evidence does he have?
>
> Indefeasible evidence.
>
If anyone could it would be him.
> Mark Buchanan <marklynn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/27/2012 5:05 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>>> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 22:17:03 +0000, Bruce Stephens
>>>>> <bruce+...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Barsoom. Prove me wrong 8-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to the available evidence (well, wikipedia; I
>>>>>> haven't checked the primary source) Barsoom has life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It may be that as Barsoom dries the life dies entirely
>>>>>> (wikipedia isn't clear on that), and if the life died
>>>>>> before the water disappeared then that would be a
>>>>>> counterexample.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That's a fictional Barsoom. I meant the real Barsoom. Yeah,
>>>>> that's the ticket. Nobody believes Wikipedia anyway.
>>>>
>>>> They believe it on Barsoom...
>>>
>>> Likewise, Sherlock Holmes disputes the idea he is a fictional
>>> character.
>>>
>> What evidence does he have?
>
> Indefeasible evidence.
>
Mark Buchanan
Dec 1, 2012, 9:44:41 PM12/1/12
to
He can also fight like crazy anticipating every possible outcome. (I've
seen the evidence.) Maybe he can anticipate his future existence.
jonathan
Dec 3, 2012, 9:54:25 PM12/3/12
to
<marc.t...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:30dd31fb-19f3-4c47...@s14g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 30, 3:52 am, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip for focus>
>
>> The idea as I understand it, is that the attractor forms out of
>> internal processes, and selection chooses between already
>> formed attractors.
>
> If you want to understand better what is a strange attractor within
> the paradigm of the deterministic chaos I recommend you to read "Order
> Within Chaos: Towards a Deterministic Approach to Turbulence" by Bergé
> P., Pomeau Y., Vidal C.
You seem very confused over these concepts. You're talking
>
> <snip for focus>
>
>> The idea as I understand it, is that the attractor forms out of
>> internal processes, and selection chooses between already
>> formed attractors.
>
> If you want to understand better what is a strange attractor within
> the paradigm of the deterministic chaos I recommend you to read "Order
> Within Chaos: Towards a Deterministic Approach to Turbulence" by Bergé
> P., Pomeau Y., Vidal C.
about a chaotic system, which is sensitive to initial conditions.
I'm talking about a self organized system, which isn't sensitive
to initial conditions.
> (Wiley, New York, 1984).
> There are examples of systems which are not so complex while
> Zhabotinsky reaction. In this example there is only one (strange)
> attractor. The organization of the system is due to several factors
> such as:
> - A continuous source of ingredients from the environment (actually a
> chemical reactor: this are the needed external conditions);
> - the presence of mutually catalytic reactions (this is the needed
> internal process).
>
>> As Dickinson....accurately...characterized the current thinking
>> "Growth of man, like growth of nature
>> Gravitates within
>> Atmosphere and sun endorse it
>> But it stir alone"
>> It's important to know that self organizing systems
>> are very robust to initial conditions, not sensitive to them.
>
> Well this is the meaning of an attractor. However you have a view of
> the problem far too simplistic. Within the paradigm of the
> deterministic chaos the evolution of the system over the time is
> indeed very sensitive to the initial conditions:
> this is why its
> evolution over the time is unpredictable after some times even if the
> system remains in its attractor (this why such an attractor is called
> "strange").
Evolution is unpredictable because the output is emergent.
> attractor. The organization of the system is due to several factors
> such as:
> - A continuous source of ingredients from the environment (actually a
> chemical reactor: this are the needed external conditions);
> - the presence of mutually catalytic reactions (this is the needed
> internal process).
>
>> As Dickinson....accurately...characterized the current thinking
>> "Growth of man, like growth of nature
>> Gravitates within
>> Atmosphere and sun endorse it
>> But it stir alone"
>> It's important to know that self organizing systems
>> are very robust to initial conditions, not sensitive to them.
>
> Well this is the meaning of an attractor. However you have a view of
> the problem far too simplistic. Within the paradigm of the
> deterministic chaos the evolution of the system over the time is
> indeed very sensitive to the initial conditions:
> this is why its
> evolution over the time is unpredictable after some times even if the
> system remains in its attractor (this why such an attractor is called
> "strange").
Using a weather system as an example, in a cloud, water
and vapor and chaotically transitioning back and forth.
And that critical interaction is highly sensitive to conditions,
just the slightest change and the attractor can suddenly
switch states. However, the system which emerges from
a large collection of such critically interacting components
is very insensitive to changing conditions....since it's
self-organized and taken on a life of it's own.
As in a cloud, the molecules are sensitive, the cloud
displays emergent order which is often highly stable
relatively speaking, such as a vortex etc.
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Dec 4, 2012, 3:18:21 AM12/4/12
to
> You seem very confused over these concepts. You're talking
> about a chaotic system, which is sensitive to initial conditions.
> I'm talking about a self organized system, which isn't sensitive
> to initial conditions.
I am not talking of a chaotic system but of a "deterministic chaos"
> about a chaotic system, which is sensitive to initial conditions.
> I'm talking about a self organized system, which isn't sensitive
> to initial conditions.
system which is quite different.
A "deterministic chaos" system, like the Belousov-Zhabotinsky
reaction, is a a self-organizing system.
What is your definition of a self-organizing system?
<snip for focus>
pnyikos
Dec 5, 2012, 1:07:00 PM12/5/12
to nyi...@math.sc.edu
On Nov 27, 9:36 am, Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
> On 27/11/12 01:45, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
>
> talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org wrote:
> > On Monday, 26 November 2012 22:41:49 UTC, Arkalen wrote:
>
> >> As for reasons why that assertion's truth is doubtful... Many planets
> >> have liquid and while some are considered candidates for life, no
> >> evidence has yet been found. Gas giants have liquid (surely, somewhere
> >> in that gradient of densities they do...).
>
> > I'm not sure. It depends on pressure and stuff, and after all you don't
> > get liquid carbon dioxide...
>
> That's the thing, gas giants contain a huge range of pressures between
> the top of their atmosphere and their core. I find it incredibly
> unlikely that *none* of the gases they contain turns to liquid at any point.
>
There seems to be a consensus about Jupiter having a gigantic ocean of
> On 27/11/12 01:45, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
>
> talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org wrote:
> > On Monday, 26 November 2012 22:41:49 UTC, Arkalen wrote:
>
> >> As for reasons why that assertion's truth is doubtful... Many planets
> >> have liquid and while some are considered candidates for life, no
> >> evidence has yet been found. Gas giants have liquid (surely, somewhere
> >> in that gradient of densities they do...).
>
> > I'm not sure. It depends on pressure and stuff, and after all you don't
> > get liquid carbon dioxide...
>
> That's the thing, gas giants contain a huge range of pressures between
> the top of their atmosphere and their core. I find it incredibly
> unlikely that *none* of the gases they contain turns to liquid at any point.
>
hot (because of the pressure) liquid (ditto) hydrogen, the bottom of
which is solid hydrogen followed further down by metallic hydrogen.
The existence of life there, however, is pure speculation.
>
> > Europa, Enceladus, and Titan have or may have liquid, but they aren't
> > planets.
I think it is pretty well established that Titan has some huge lakes
of liquid hydrocarbons, mostly methane.
Life is another issue. Because Titan is so cold, chemical reactions
are far slower than at any temperature we humans can survive. So life
may still be on the way, so to speak.
> That's some serious nitpicking in the context of looking for life and if
> that's what Rama meant all I can do is roll my eyes, but sure.
Rama hasn't returned to this thread since he began it, so we may never
know what he meant.
Maybe he didn't really mean anything, but just thought the wording
would grab a lot of attention and elicit diverse comments. If so, he
has succeeded.
>
>
> > If the only planet /known/ to have /any/ liquid /now/ is the Earth,
> > does that make the statement true (all planets with liquid have life)?
>
> No, the true statement would be "all planets known to have liquid have
> life". We don't know nearly enough about other planets (including
> exoplanets, nitpicking on satellites won't exclude those)
Titan is bigger than Mercury [and far bigger than Pluto], so it
deserves to be in the same category as a planet for all practical
purposes.
> to use the
> terms "all planets with liquid" and "all planets known to have liquid"
> interchangeably.
To say the least!
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Dec 6, 2012, 6:30:54 AM12/6/12
to
On Wednesday, 5 December 2012 18:07:00 UTC, pnyikos wrote:
> Titan is bigger than Mercury [and far bigger than Pluto], so it
> deserves to be in the same category as a planet for all practical
> purposes.
Nevertheless, it isn't a planet. I do acknowledge your argument,
> Titan is bigger than Mercury [and far bigger than Pluto], so it
> deserves to be in the same category as a planet for all practical
> purposes.
but the discussion started with a statement about planets and the
origin of life - a bold statement that all planets with liquids and
chemistry have life, but implicitly assuming, I think, that
/only/ "planets" have life. So, actually reflecting limited
imagination - or, overlooking the same distinction between
"planets" and "other big round things in space", just as you want
to do. We don't know which.
Flash Gordon stories and extremophile biology aside, chilly moons
in the outer solar system really aren't good bets for finding life,
particularly life as we know it. It's just that the actual planets
are worse - /far/ too hot, or far too cold, or, too dry.
(Actually, I don't think that Flash Gordon went to moons or
necessarily found cold people living far from the sun - that comes
into a different early sci-fi story that I read, for which
Flash Gordon can stand as a more famous representative.
A space explorer met some other space travellers of that sort
by whose standards the human body may as well be made of
molten lava - which you wouldn't want to stand near even if it
was friendly - just as water ice in the outer solar system is
a good substitute for solid rock. The men of methane, or whatever
it was, would explode into gas if they shook hands with our hero.
As far as I recall, they always remembered not to do that.)
Burkhard
Dec 6, 2012, 7:02:54 AM12/6/12
to
On Dec 6, 11:30 am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 5 December 2012 18:07:00 UTC, pnyikos wrote:
> > Titan is bigger than Mercury [and far bigger than Pluto], so it
> > deserves to be in the same category as a planet for all practical
> > purposes.
>
> Nevertheless, it isn't a planet. I do acknowledge your argument,
> but the discussion started with a statement about planets and the
> origin of life - a bold statement that all planets with liquids and
> chemistry have life, but implicitly assuming, I think, that
> /only/ "planets" have life. So, actually reflecting limited
> imagination - or, overlooking the same distinction between
> "planets" and "other big round things in space", just as you want
> to do. We don't know which.
>
> Flash Gordon stories and extremophile biology aside, chilly moons
> in the outer solar system really aren't good bets for finding life,
> particularly life as we know it. It's just that the actual planets
> are worse - /far/ too hot, or far too cold, or, too dry.
>
> (Actually, I don't think that Flash Gordon went to moons
Arkaylia and Surd, but they were artificial moons I think
> On Wednesday, 5 December 2012 18:07:00 UTC, pnyikos wrote:
> > Titan is bigger than Mercury [and far bigger than Pluto], so it
> > deserves to be in the same category as a planet for all practical
> > purposes.
>
> Nevertheless, it isn't a planet. I do acknowledge your argument,
> but the discussion started with a statement about planets and the
> origin of life - a bold statement that all planets with liquids and
> chemistry have life, but implicitly assuming, I think, that
> /only/ "planets" have life. So, actually reflecting limited
> imagination - or, overlooking the same distinction between
> "planets" and "other big round things in space", just as you want
> to do. We don't know which.
>
> Flash Gordon stories and extremophile biology aside, chilly moons
> in the outer solar system really aren't good bets for finding life,
> particularly life as we know it. It's just that the actual planets
> are worse - /far/ too hot, or far too cold, or, too dry.
>
> (Actually, I don't think that Flash Gordon went to moons
0 new messages