Help to prove Life originated on Mercury wanted

[Robittybob1]

We were discussing the effects of the Solar Wind (SW). And I looked up the effects of the SW on Mars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
Wikipedia on "Atmosphere of Mars"
"History

Mars' atmosphere is believed to have changed over the course of the planet's lifetime, with evidence suggesting the possibility that Mars had large oceans a few billion years ago.[7] As stated in the Mars Ocean Hypothesis, atmospheric pressure on the present day Martian surface only exceeds that of the triple point of water (6.11 hectopascals (0.0886 psi)) in the lowest elevations; at higher elevations water can exist only in solid or vapor form. Annual mean temperatures at the surface are currently less than 210 K (−63 °C; −82 °F), significantly lower than what is needed to sustain liquid water. However, early in its history Mars may have had conditions more conducive to retaining liquid water at the surface.

Possible causes for the depletion of a previously thicker Martian atmosphere include:

Catastrophic collision by a body large enough to blow away a significant percentage of the atmosphere;[8]
Gradual erosion of the atmosphere by solar wind;[9] and
On-going removal of atmosphere due to electromagnetic field and solar wind interaction.[8]"

So it is clear even at the distance of Mars the SW had a significant effect.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Possible causes for the depletion of a previously thicker Martian atmosphere include

So it is clear even at the distance of Mars the SW MAY HAVE had a significant effect.

Corrected.

And, of course, you seem to be neglecting Mars' lack of of complete magnetosphere.

 

[Robittybob1]

Corrected.

And, of course, you seem to be neglecting Mars' lack of of complete magnetosphere.

It was more or less straight from Wikipedia. Lack of magnetosphere certainly would not have helped.
They say the magnetosphere is due to the currents in the iron core, so has Mar's iron core solidified now?

Why do you think Mars doesn't have a magnetosphere?

 

[Dywyddyr]

It was more or less straight from Wikipedia.

Except for the erroneous "conclusion".

http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Research/Universe_and_Solar_System/magnetic_field.aspx
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34472

 

[Robittybob1]

Except for the erroneous "conclusion".

http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Research/Universe_and_Solar_System/magnetic_field.aspx
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34472

Thanks for those links especiallythe thread. One post took my fancy:

Planetary magnetic fields are believed to be generated by the dynamo effect of rotation within a conductive liquid core or mantle. Earth has its molten nickel-iron outer core. Jupiter and Saturn have huge mantles of liquid metallic hydrogen, which is a superconductor, explaining the enormous extent and intensity of their magnetospheres.

Venus probably has a very similar internal structure to Earth, with a molten iron layer - however, it rotates only once every 243 terrestrial days. This very slow rotation rate is the reason for the absence of a magnetic field; the direction of rotation need not matter.

This was news to me.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I find that Googling before asking questions helps.

 

[Robittybob1]

I find that Googling before asking questions helps.

I'm testing to see how you operate. I see posters on here complain if some just criticises and does not contribute to the science discussions.
How do you rank your own knowledge of science?

 

[Dywyddyr]

I find it amusing, and somewhat presumptuous, that you consider yourself to be testing me.
How do I rate my knowledge of science?
Depends which branch...
I gave up on the icky biology stuff at the first opportunity (grammar school specialisation), but was forced to revisit it years later when I started my physics degree course (coverage of some biology being part of the science 101 course).
Chemistry never held much appeal either (but was also revisited in that course).

 

[Robittybob1]

I find it amusing, and somewhat presumptuous, that you consider yourself to be testing me.
How do I rate my knowledge of science?
Depends which branch...
I gave up on the icky biology stuff at the first opportunity (grammar school specialisation), but was forced to revisit it years later when I started my physics degree course (coverage of some biology being part of the science 101 course).
Chemistry never held much appeal either (but was also revisited in that course).

These forums, there is always a bit of upmanship and ego involved. I want to link in with those that will guide me through this enormous project of proving life originated on Mercury. I don't want abuse for I don't give it (unless I get a little to much).

 

[Dywyddyr]

I want to link in with those that will guide me through this enormous project of proving life originated on Mercury.

No, what you mean is that you want people gullible enough to help you invent reasons to support the conclusion you're already reached.

 

[Robittybob1]

No, what you mean is that you want people gullible enough to help you invent reasons to support the conclusion you're already reached.

Did I say that? No what I want is just the debate, and help with the equations etc, and we will assess the results as we go along.

It will either be possible or not. Surely you don't have any personal reason that would horrify you if life started on Mercury? You might think it unlikely that's fine but go through the calculations and see if can be discounted entirely.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Did I say that?

You've strongly implied it more than once:

I want to link in with those that will guide me through this enormous project of proving life originated on Mercury.

If the actual conclusion were open to doubt in your mind then you should have have said you wanted help to discover on which planet life started.

No what I want is just the debate, and help with the equations etc, and we will asses the results as we go along.

Oh yeah. The equations you did years ago and STILL can't find.

It will either be possible or not. Surely you don't have any personal reason that would horrify you if life started on Mercury? You might think it unlikely that's fine but go through the calculations and see if can be discounted entirely.

Apart from the "calculations" (and I'd be very interested to see them) you need a valid reason for thinking so. And so far you've failed entirely to present one.

 

[Robittybob1]

You've strongly implied it more than once:

If the actual conclusion were open to doubt in your mind then you should have have said you wanted help to discover on which planet life started.


Oh yeah. The equations you did years ago and STILL can't find.


Apart from the "calculations" (and I'd be very interested to see them) you need a valid reason for thinking so. And so far you've failed entirely to present one.

I will try and find those (they would have been put in a box and stored somewhere.)

Well if Mercury fails there won't be many others and we are often discussing them at the same time in any case. It is impossible not to extend the conversation quite widely. It will go from one extreme to the other.

The only reason I pick on Mercury is that it was the first planet to develop and to warm in the radiation from the protosun. That is the one and only reason.

 

[Robittybob1]

Secondarily I say at no time were the conditions on Earth suitable for abiogenesis.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Secondarily I say at no time were the conditions on Earth suitable for abiogenesis.

Hmm...

On the forum I am used to, statements had to be backed up with evidence.

I'm testing to see how you operate.

And giving away far more than you're learning...

 

[Robittybob1]

Hmm...

And giving away far more than you're learning...

I have been full on science for a month and it has been a real refresher course, so I have learnt heaps as they say.
I'm getting on in years so there is a lot of experience to back up what i say.

But you seem moderate in your attitude so if you have advice don't hesitate to tell me.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I'm getting on in years so there is a lot of experience to back up what i say.

Yeah?

Secondarily I say at no time were the conditions on Earth suitable for abiogenesis.

You're THAT old?

I doubt it.
(And even if you were all we have is your uncorroborated word).

 

[Robittybob1]

Yeah?

You're THAT old?

I doubt it.
(And even if you were all we have is your uncorroborated word).

I'd scan my birth certificate in (just like Obama did).
Hey I'm taking a break see you again tomorrow.

PS: Getting Trippy in on the discussion might be interesting.

 

[Ophiolite]

In my hypothesis planet formation and abiogenesis occurs in the mid to late proto-sun period (which is much earlier than the Late Heavy Bombardment period) .

Temperatures in the accretion disc at Mercury's distance from the sun were sufficiently high over this time interval to preclude the formation of life forms that are carbon based and use water as a solvent.

Major impact events would have continued from the formation of Mercury through the Late Heavy Bombardment phase. These would have imparted sufficient energy to the surface and near subsurface of Mercury to sterilise any proto-life forms that may have emerged.

Either of these objections is sufficient to render your hypothesis falsified. Together they deal it a death blow.

I imagine a lot of the material involved in the Late Heavy Bombardment period was volatile material blown off the inner planets at the time of the Sun becoming a “t Tauri” star.

Your imagination is colourful, but lacks any grounding in reality.
1. Volatile material was not blown off the inner planets in the T-Tauri phase.
2. The late heavy bombardment material did not consist of such volatiles.

Any shallow study of current theories on planetary formation would reveal that your imagination was wrong on this point. Any in depth study would reveal how horribly wrong you are.

Also I believe as I said the planets formed under the action of the protosun’s gentler radiation pressure.

I don't believe you have any real understanding of current planetary formation theory. It makes discussion on these points almost fruitless for me and simply contrary for you.

 

[Robittybob1]

Temperatures in the accretion disc at Mercury's distance from the sun were sufficiently high over this time interval to preclude the formation of life forms that are carbon based and use water as a solvent.

Major impact events would have continued from the formation of Mercury through the Late Heavy Bombardment phase. These would have imparted sufficient energy to the surface and near subsurface of Mercury to sterilise any proto-life forms that may have emerged.

Either of these objections is sufficient to render your hypothesis falsified. Together they deal it a death blow.

Your imagination is colourful, but lacks any grounding in reality.
1. Volatile material was not blown off the inner planets in the T-Tauri phase.
2. The late heavy bombardment material did not consist of such volatiles.

Any shallow study of current theories on planetary formation would reveal that your imagination was wrong on this point. Any in depth study would reveal how horribly wrong you are.

QUOTE=Robittybob1;2856474] Also I believe as I said the planets formed under the action of the protosun’s gentler radiation pressure.

I don't believe you have any real understanding of current planetary formation theory. It makes discussion on these points almost fruitless for me and simply contrary for you.

OK we disagree on a few ideas. Look I have done a lot of "research" on the planet building process and I think I have cracked it. I just laugh when I see the current accepted theories being discussed. "So wrong" in my estimation.
I can't quite remember if I have explained my planet building process yet. (I have typed this into 2 other forums recently so it gets difficult to track it all, but in time I will get to it.)
Hang on in there till you see it OK.