The molecular weight of water, methane and ammonia are close together. Earth's gravity is just right for keeping water, yet losing much of the methane and ammonia. Just a coincidence of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
The liquid water is obviously not enough to do much good, and it would not stay around very long. Mars is simply too small, not enough gravity.
You're just a wonderful source of dis-information, aren't you?
Methane and ammonia from the early atmosphere were not lost to space (not primarily), they were primarily consumed by early life on the planet (bacteria). This is also where we obtained much of our oxygen: link
The reason that liquids are so volatile on Mars has less to do with gravity than it does to do with the lack of atmospheric pressure (think about the difference of boiling point at sea-level and at altitude on earth -- the force of gravity is essentially the same in both scenarios, only air-pressure is less). Mars lacks a substantiative atmosphere because it doesn't have a strong magnetic field, as the Earth does (Mars' core has long ago gone hard -- I believe that earth's core is kept molten by tidal forces from the moon), so the solar winds carry off a lot more of the gases on Mars. Someone will have to correct me if I have mis-remembered any of these details.
The greeks had the diameter of the Earth within 60 miles circa 250 B.C. I wouldn't sell them too short.
Eratosthenes' (276 BC - 194 BC) calculation of the circumference of the earth (and so the diameter as well -- they are linearly related) was about 16% too large. Amazing for it's time, but not quite as amazing as you claim.
I believe there is enough evidence for UFOs. So many people have had experiences with them that I believe they are real. My question is: real what? Since the behavior of UFOs appears to defy laws of physics, they are evidently not entirely material, IMHO. We can only speculate, but I'd say they are definitely not just advanced technology. Too much like Star Trek.
Many people believe in god: their belief does not call god into existence.
If you are beginning with the assumption, "extra-terrestrial, space-faring creatures are visiting Earth, largely in secret," I'm afraid that most of what will follow is nothing more than fantasy.
Here is a completely credulous report on the phenomenon called "rods" and here is a thorough debunking of this phenomenon. Rods are a good, simple illustration of a phenomenon that is really interesting, but completely mundane. UFOs are no different, though the complexity of the explanation is higher because there are more "things" that a UFO could actually be.
The level of uncritical belief displayed in many of the posts of this thread, though not unsurprising (given the general culture of which we are all a part), is quite disturbing. We live in a scientific age, though there is just as much magical thinking present in our society as there seems to have been at any other time in history (at least we don't burn "witches" any more, though apparently some will still allow their religious beliefs to override their senses to such an extent as to choke their 3 years-old grandchildren in order to exorcise demons). Give up your childish superstitions, your conspiracy theories, and other forms of silliness. Life is really so much better: escape to reality!
You're just a wonderful source of dis-information, aren't you?
I try not to be.
Quote:
Methane and ammonia from the early atmosphere were not lost to space (not primarily) . . . The reason that liquids are so volatile on Mars has less to do with gravity than it does to do with the lack of atmospheric pressure . . .
It looks like you are confusing two issues -- vaporization of a substance and lose of molecules to space. It's true that pressure affects the temperature at which a substance boils, or converts to a gas. (Chemistry 101)
However, we are discussing how these gases are retained on Earth, or lost to space. In the case of retaining or losing molecules, gravity is critical. Here is a quote from the very article you linked in your post:
"These gases are relatively rare on Earth compared to other places in the universe and were probably lost to space early in Earth's history because
?\tEarth's gravity is not strong enough to hold lighter gases"
The very first item on the list is the importance of gravity, and says these gases were probably lost to space early on. Thanks for the supporting evidence for what I claimed.
Quote:
Methane and ammonia from the early atmosphere . . . were primarily consumed by early life on the planet (bacteria). This is also where we obtained much of our oxygen:
Here you are also confused. The production of oxygen was not from consumption of methane by early bacteria. According to your reference, oxygen was produced from carbon dioxide, not methane. Quote:
"CO2 + H2O + sunlight = organic compounds + O2 - produced by cyanobacteria . . ."
Again, many thanks for supporting my thesis. Though we didn't discuss the production of oxygen, it was one of the critical processes leading to life on Earth. It took a long time, since most of the oxygen was initially used to convert metals to ores. Once this process was complete, more oxygen was available for animal life.
The level of uncritical belief displayed in many of the posts of this thread, though not unsurprising (given the general culture of which we are all a part), is quite disturbing. We live in a scientific age, though there is just as much magical thinking present in our society as there seems to have been at any other time in history (at least we don't burn "witches" any more, though apparently some will still allow their religious beliefs to override their senses to such an extent as to choke their 3 years-old grandchildren in order to exorcise demons). Give up your childish superstitions, your conspiracy theories, and other forms of silliness. Life is really so much better: escape to reality!
I've never seen anything in the sky that I could not identify very easily. I live in an area (near a mountain chain) where altocumulus lenticularis (wave) clouds are common, and some people have said that they look like "alien spacecraft" (!)... but having, to my knowledge, never seen an alien spacecraft, I wouldn't know. How common cloud formations get misidentified as "nuts and bolts" craft remains mystifying. People commonly misidentify Venus (or one of the other brighter planets) as a UFO, although it is hard to imagine how, except perhaps when in motion, the relatively changing position of (Venus) could make it appear that *it* is in motion. Some people (with a UFO obsession) have been known to claim that a perfectly commonplace, identifiable object, such as a Boeing 747 coming in to land at an airport, is an alien spacecraft. Really. I kid you not.
UFO reports are so commonplace, to the point of there being 10s of thousands of reports each year... and these do not include sightings that people don't even want to talk about or report, on account of ridicule (and other factors). 98% can be explained by mundane, or everyday reasons, and some as more unusual natural phenomena. But... there remains that 2% or so, a small minority that remain "unidentified". That does not mean to say that they are "alien" of course, just merely "unknown". Do you not think it is worthwhile that the "unknown" aspect of the field should be investigated with scientific rigor, without preconceptions, without the stupid baggage that has grown up around the subject? Even if we don't find out what people are apparently witnessing, such a study could provide potentially invaluable data on human psychology, at least. Unfortunately, the scientific community won't go there, and for reasons that appear to be somewhat unscentific... such as the fear of being "laughed at", or the fear of trashing one's career. What a shame, and a sad reflection on the state of science, where fear trumps inquiry.
The subject interests me for sure. But I have come to no conclusions either way. Re. alien spacecraft, I tend towards skepticism, mostly on account of the bounds imposed by relativity; the statistical likelihood of life existing outside our solar system doesn't even count taking the time/distance factor into consideration. However....I would love to see a real investigation, done with pure science in mind (kinda rare these days). Unfortunately, science relies on such things as "repeatability".. and UFO sightings tend not to conform. But an unbiased investigation, I guess is daydreaming and idealistic, in an age when unbiased investigations are less than fashionable, and when science now tends to be pursued only when there's a profit motive. But to trash the UFO subject, just for what it is, and conclude, without inquiry, that everyone who sees a "UFO" is lying, mistaken or hallucinating etc. by default, is not a scientific approach. Considering that many of the true "unidentifieds" are witnessed by observant people, such as pilots, police officers, military people etc... one would have thought that their eyewitness testimony is worth more than just a casual brush-off. And, when a solid radar return shows something behaving abnormally, like a sharp 90º turn without deceleration, then I believe that its worth looking into it... rather than burying one's head in the sand and lumping the entire subject alongside what's available on Fox Channel, or the Weekly World News.
Comments
The molecular weight of water, methane and ammonia are close together. Earth's gravity is just right for keeping water, yet losing much of the methane and ammonia. Just a coincidence of course.
The liquid water is obviously not enough to do much good, and it would not stay around very long. Mars is simply too small, not enough gravity.
You're just a wonderful source of dis-information, aren't you?
Methane and ammonia from the early atmosphere were not lost to space (not primarily), they were primarily consumed by early life on the planet (bacteria). This is also where we obtained much of our oxygen: link
The reason that liquids are so volatile on Mars has less to do with gravity than it does to do with the lack of atmospheric pressure (think about the difference of boiling point at sea-level and at altitude on earth -- the force of gravity is essentially the same in both scenarios, only air-pressure is less). Mars lacks a substantiative atmosphere because it doesn't have a strong magnetic field, as the Earth does (Mars' core has long ago gone hard -- I believe that earth's core is kept molten by tidal forces from the moon), so the solar winds carry off a lot more of the gases on Mars. Someone will have to correct me if I have mis-remembered any of these details.
The greeks had the diameter of the Earth within 60 miles circa 250 B.C. I wouldn't sell them too short.
Eratosthenes' (276 BC - 194 BC) calculation of the circumference of the earth (and so the diameter as well -- they are linearly related) was about 16% too large. Amazing for it's time, but not quite as amazing as you claim.
I believe there is enough evidence for UFOs. So many people have had experiences with them that I believe they are real. My question is: real what? Since the behavior of UFOs appears to defy laws of physics, they are evidently not entirely material, IMHO. We can only speculate, but I'd say they are definitely not just advanced technology. Too much like Star Trek.
Many people believe in god: their belief does not call god into existence.
If you are beginning with the assumption, "extra-terrestrial, space-faring creatures are visiting Earth, largely in secret," I'm afraid that most of what will follow is nothing more than fantasy.
Here is a completely credulous report on the phenomenon called "rods" and here is a thorough debunking of this phenomenon. Rods are a good, simple illustration of a phenomenon that is really interesting, but completely mundane. UFOs are no different, though the complexity of the explanation is higher because there are more "things" that a UFO could actually be.
You're just a wonderful source of dis-information, aren't you?
I try not to be.
Methane and ammonia from the early atmosphere were not lost to space (not primarily) . . . The reason that liquids are so volatile on Mars has less to do with gravity than it does to do with the lack of atmospheric pressure . . .
It looks like you are confusing two issues -- vaporization of a substance and lose of molecules to space. It's true that pressure affects the temperature at which a substance boils, or converts to a gas. (Chemistry 101)
However, we are discussing how these gases are retained on Earth, or lost to space. In the case of retaining or losing molecules, gravity is critical. Here is a quote from the very article you linked in your post:
"These gases are relatively rare on Earth compared to other places in the universe and were probably lost to space early in Earth's history because
?\tEarth's gravity is not strong enough to hold lighter gases"
The very first item on the list is the importance of gravity, and says these gases were probably lost to space early on. Thanks for the supporting evidence for what I claimed.
Methane and ammonia from the early atmosphere . . . were primarily consumed by early life on the planet (bacteria). This is also where we obtained much of our oxygen:
link
Here you are also confused. The production of oxygen was not from consumption of methane by early bacteria. According to your reference, oxygen was produced from carbon dioxide, not methane. Quote:
"CO2 + H2O + sunlight = organic compounds + O2 - produced by cyanobacteria . . ."
Again, many thanks for supporting my thesis. Though we didn't discuss the production of oxygen, it was one of the critical processes leading to life on Earth. It took a long time, since most of the oxygen was initially used to convert metals to ores. Once this process was complete, more oxygen was available for animal life.
The level of uncritical belief displayed in many of the posts of this thread, though not unsurprising (given the general culture of which we are all a part), is quite disturbing. We live in a scientific age, though there is just as much magical thinking present in our society as there seems to have been at any other time in history (at least we don't burn "witches" any more, though apparently some will still allow their religious beliefs to override their senses to such an extent as to choke their 3 years-old grandchildren in order to exorcise demons). Give up your childish superstitions, your conspiracy theories, and other forms of silliness. Life is really so much better: escape to reality!
I've never seen anything in the sky that I could not identify very easily. I live in an area (near a mountain chain) where altocumulus lenticularis (wave) clouds are common, and some people have said that they look like "alien spacecraft" (!)... but having, to my knowledge, never seen an alien spacecraft, I wouldn't know. How common cloud formations get misidentified as "nuts and bolts" craft remains mystifying. People commonly misidentify Venus (or one of the other brighter planets) as a UFO, although it is hard to imagine how, except perhaps when in motion, the relatively changing position of (Venus) could make it appear that *it* is in motion. Some people (with a UFO obsession) have been known to claim that a perfectly commonplace, identifiable object, such as a Boeing 747 coming in to land at an airport, is an alien spacecraft. Really. I kid you not.
UFO reports are so commonplace, to the point of there being 10s of thousands of reports each year... and these do not include sightings that people don't even want to talk about or report, on account of ridicule (and other factors). 98% can be explained by mundane, or everyday reasons, and some as more unusual natural phenomena. But... there remains that 2% or so, a small minority that remain "unidentified". That does not mean to say that they are "alien" of course, just merely "unknown". Do you not think it is worthwhile that the "unknown" aspect of the field should be investigated with scientific rigor, without preconceptions, without the stupid baggage that has grown up around the subject? Even if we don't find out what people are apparently witnessing, such a study could provide potentially invaluable data on human psychology, at least. Unfortunately, the scientific community won't go there, and for reasons that appear to be somewhat unscentific... such as the fear of being "laughed at", or the fear of trashing one's career. What a shame, and a sad reflection on the state of science, where fear trumps inquiry.
The subject interests me for sure. But I have come to no conclusions either way. Re. alien spacecraft, I tend towards skepticism, mostly on account of the bounds imposed by relativity; the statistical likelihood of life existing outside our solar system doesn't even count taking the time/distance factor into consideration. However....I would love to see a real investigation, done with pure science in mind (kinda rare these days). Unfortunately, science relies on such things as "repeatability".. and UFO sightings tend not to conform. But an unbiased investigation, I guess is daydreaming and idealistic, in an age when unbiased investigations are less than fashionable, and when science now tends to be pursued only when there's a profit motive. But to trash the UFO subject, just for what it is, and conclude, without inquiry, that everyone who sees a "UFO" is lying, mistaken or hallucinating etc. by default, is not a scientific approach. Considering that many of the true "unidentifieds" are witnessed by observant people, such as pilots, police officers, military people etc... one would have thought that their eyewitness testimony is worth more than just a casual brush-off. And, when a solid radar return shows something behaving abnormally, like a sharp 90º turn without deceleration, then I believe that its worth looking into it... rather than burying one's head in the sand and lumping the entire subject alongside what's available on Fox Channel, or the Weekly World News.