Help to prove Life originated on Mercury wanted

AlexG said:
It quite clearly said that the protosun, the core, filled the orbit of mars and had a temperature of 56,000 K. Since this would put any rocky planet within the core, it's quite obvious that the protosun phase is not when the early planets formed.
Click to expand...
I'll quote that bit again
Within a few thousand years it collapsed to a size of the diameter of the orbit of planet Mars. The interior temperature reached values of 56,000K leading to an ionization of atoms. The red light emitted at the surface of the protosun was not produced by fusion of atomic nuclei but by gravitational contraction of matter. Gravitation released the potential energy of the globule, 7 10^48 erg, during the condensation of the protosun.
Click to expand...
That to me is saying after a few thousand years it was that size, but the whole protosun period is much much longer than that. So they are just describing it's size at one stage of its development. For at the end of the proto-sun period it had condensed down to the size of the Sun. You should be able to see it never stopped shrinking till it turned into a t Tauri star.:)
 
So, was the OP, regarding Mercury, a joke then?
Is there any point to this thread?
 
Last edited:
Captain Kremmen said:
So, was the OP, regarding Mercury, a joke then?
Is there any point to this thread?
Click to expand...
Yes it is asking for "Help Wanted".
Are you wanting to be one of the helpers?
I need a team of geophysicists, mathematicians, and Astronauts willing to dedicate their life to the search for life on Mercury. :)
 
meta2


Start with these guys
 
For what you're trying to do, these are the guys you need.

300px-Stoogelogo.png
 
We still don't know enough about abiogenesis or the early history of the solar system to completely dismiss your theory, which apparently includes a lot more than simply panspermia from Mercury, as it needs a totally new solar system evolution.

However...it's also not up to us to disprove that theory. There's a perfectly acceptable theory on the books that reasonably explains the beginning of the solar system, the growth of planetary bodies, as well as some ideas on how when conditions became favorable, chemical replicators changed to something we can qualify as life.

What you have to do is not only show some evidence of your ideas, but you have to show that they make more sense and hold up better than mainstream theory. Thus far, you haven't done that. You could start by addressing Aqueous Id's questions, as without having some sense of your possible limitations, you're just rambling about a pet theory with no basis.
 
Rhaedas said:
We still don't know enough about abiogenesis or the early history of the solar system to completely dismiss your theory, which apparently includes a lot more than simply panspermia from Mercury, as it needs a totally new solar system evolution.

However...it's also not up to us to disprove that theory. There's a perfectly acceptable theory on the books that reasonably explains the beginning of the solar system, the growth of planetary bodies, as well as some ideas on how when conditions became favorable, chemical replicators changed to something we can qualify as life.

What you have to do is not only show some evidence of your ideas, but you have to show that they make more sense and hold up better than mainstream theory. Thus far, you haven't done that. You could start by addressing Aqueous Id's questions, as without having some sense of your possible limitations, you're just rambling about a pet theory with no basis.
Click to expand...
What come first the chicken or the egg? In my case I know what come first. I discovered how planets formed, and it is radially different from what the current hypothesis is. I have detailed this in Physforums. So years after this, we were discussing "Are we alone in the Universe?" on Wooden Boats forum I then came to the conclusion the most suitable place for abiogenesis was Mercury. Thanks for your suggestions.
I will go and look for Aqueous' questions later but now I'm in a rush. Later.:)
 
I discovered how planets formed, and it is radially different from what the current hypothesis is
Click to expand...

A radical misuse of the word 'discovered'.

What you mean is having no knowledge of the subject at all, you pulled an idea out of your ass, having no basis in any kind of observation or experiment.

That's called crank.
 
AlexG said:
A radical misuse of the word 'discovered'.

What you mean is having no knowledge of the subject at all, you pulled an idea out of your ass, having no basis in any kind of observation or experiment.

That's called crank.
Click to expand...
Yeah who has run an experiment showing planet building? In fact I did do some experiments allbeit very rudimentary ones.

You say I have no knowledge but I'm not so sure you have much knowledge about it either. But I tell you a did a lot of searching for the answers before I attempted to work it out myself.

Imagine if someone worked out 1 + 1 = 2 and someone else showed 2 + 2 = 4, and then I came along and said 4 * 1 = 4
Would you say about that "Where is your experiment? Show this to be true" before you would accept it?
 
I am proposing something different and just as likely as what others think happened. If you think I am wrong show me where I am wrong, just don't try and win the argument by insulting me.
I am serious, and feel the idea needs exploration so that is why I have ventured onto the science forums.

I have yet to have anyone tell me why my hypothesis is obviously wrong.

Now you realise we are talking of volatile masses here, things that make up the early atmosphere. Don't let your agile mind think in terms of rocks, soils, dust or anything like that. So what we have is this 1 earth mass of rocky iron nickel silicone containing terrestrial bit holding this enormous globe of gas and liquid around it. I have not worked out to what radius that would make it. It would be good for the discussion progress if someone could work it out. Say with an average density of 1.5 to account for some compression of the inner liquid (How much extra radius would that make the Earth to have 27 Earth masses of volatiles around it? What are you like at maths?

Now when the Sun went through the next stages of development and turned into a main sequence star it rapidly heated and the solar wind and radiant pressure drove the loosely bound volatile gasses off into space to be picked up by the still forming gas giant planets. This would have been extremely intensified once the Moon had been captured in orbit. The tides and waves created would have been enough to send liquids directly into space. (This the material from which Comets formed)

That is where the Gas Giant planets get their exceptional mass from. And also partly contributed to mass of the ice planets even further out.
The same sort of process was happening on Mercury Venus Mars and on the planetesimals in the Asteroid Belt.
 
How is it "just as likely"?

And we don't need to prove your hypothesis wrong, you need to prove it right. You can't shirk the burden of proof here.
 
Arioch said:
How is it "just as likely"?

And we don't need to prove your hypothesis wrong, you need to prove it right. You can't shirk the burden of proof here.
Click to expand...
Well of course it has to be one or the other, or maybe we accept that neither can be proven, both could be right.
I would love to know, and I am thinking how one could prove it. The more discussion I get on the topic the better. Someone with knowledge may just come along and assist. That is what I hope for in any case.
 
So what I think we need to do is to try and calculate the size of the Earth if it has 27 times it's current mass as volatile liquids and atmosphere. We may be able to see what the Escape velocity would be of a planet that large and then see if the Magnetic field would still be able to deflect the Solar Wind at that distance.

I would imagine it might take a year to work through all the physics and maths of it.
Does anyone want to give it a go?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top