[meteorite-list] Astrobiologists Find Stuff

From: Sterling K. Webb <sterling_k_webb_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 23:46:01 -0500
Message-ID: <F39BE16E08A948CF8FB14194ACAADAAE_at_ATARIENGINE2>

Guys, List,

What life needs is a source of energy that can be
stored and utilized when needed. Without these
energy exchanges there is no life. That's why you
have to eat breakfast.

This energetic system requires elements that are
cosmically abundant, on planets large and cool
enough to retain a gaseous reservoir of a reactive
element (called an atmosphere) and a fluid reservoir
of a working solvent to facilitate and participate in
those reactions (called an ocean).

There are many possible systems of energy
exchange, but their LIKELIHOOD depends on
the cosmic abundance of the elements involved
and the likelihood of their entering into
combinations with other common elements.

If you grab a fistful of solar nebula you have
hydrogen, helium, and as impurities, oxygen and
nitrogen, BUT the oxygen and nitrogen combine
easily with hydrogen, so you end up with an
atmosphere of hydrogen, helium, with ammonia
and methane as impurities.

We represent a CHON life system, but fluorine is
more energetic than oxygen and yields more bang
for the buck. So, why don't we have a CHFN life
system? The reason is that fluorine grabs on so
tight it can't be split off again with the energies
available at a planetary surface. Ammonia is a
better solvent than water but its liquid range of
fluid temperatures is so narrow that it would make
a lousy ocean.

The reactive elements for life are all right there on the
periodic chart in a stack: fluorine, oxygen, chlorine,
bromine, iodine. At first blush, life could be based on
any of them, but some are more unlikely than others.

Since I don't want to write twenty pages of chemistry,
I suggest you go the link given below;
http://www.bestebooksworld.com/showeBook.asp?link=24235
and download the PDF of this little 1957 book, "Only
A Trillion." Read Chapter Six, "Planets Have An Air About
Them," by Isaac Asimov who, being both a chemist by
trade and a better writer than I, can explain the whole
range of possible life systems and how they might work
in a marvelous fashion.


Sterling K. Webb
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Montgomery" <rickmont at earthlink.net>
To: "Michael Mulgrew" <mikestang at gmail.com>; "Mark Ford"
<mark.ford at southernscientific.co.uk>; "Meteorite List"
<meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:16 PM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Astrobiologists Find Stuff


> Michael M and List,
>
> First, apologies to be so Sci-Fi...not the intention. If I had a
> better rocker I'd probably be knocked off of it for remotely, even
> slightltly suggesting this, especially to this credentialed List; best
> a slap upside-the-head to get me back to reality...
>
> Meanwhile, here goes....it falls into the X-curiousity factor of all
> equations: how can we rule out everything that hasn't already been
> ruled in? To wit: given what we know about
> Life-to-develop-needs-100%-water, what don't we know? Is our
> silly-human insignificance bound only by what we currently know and
> entertain as possibilities?
>
> This is NOT an endoresment for rice-paddy science; nor a support for
> the previous thread. I've just always wondered why we assume that all
> elemental progressions are known.
>
> Big stew out there! I really would like to hear from you
> heavy-weights...it'll rest better when I read.
>
> Sincerely, and good thing I'm not a B-movie producer,
> Richard Montgomery
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Mulgrew" <mikestang at gmail.com>
> To: "Mark Ford" <mark.ford at southernscientific.co.uk>; "Meteorite List"
> <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Astrobiologists Find Ancient
> FossilsinFireballFragments
>
>
>> Considering our current understanding of what it takes for life to
>> develop, i.e. water is 100% absolutely necessary, I would say the
>> recent evidence of Mars' wet past increases the chances of
>> extraterrestrial life discovery by much, much more than "a tiny tiny
>> amount".
>>
>> Michael in so. Cal.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Mark Ford
>> <mark.ford at southernscientific.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sure and I don't deny finding water or evidence of it is very
>>> exciting, but what I question, is 'the building blocks of life
>>> claim'. This is pure hype. Sure water and amino acids are essential
>>> for life, but I would question exactly how certain life is to evolve
>>> when water alone is present. The answer is it's massively more
>>> complex than just having flowing water. So finding water does not
>>> immediately mean there is any life. From some of the recent press
>>> and Nasa coverage, you would get the impression that finding water
>>> on Mars automatically means the hunt for extraterrestrial life is
>>> nearly over, but the truth is very far from it! It just makes it a
>>> tiny tiny amount more likely..
>>>
>>> Mark
>> ______________________________________________
>>
>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
>
> ______________________________________________
>
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Thu 14 Mar 2013 12:46:01 AM PDT