[meteorite-list] Astrobiologists Find Stuff

From: Michael Mulgrew <mikestang_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:52:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMseTy2rRFh18J0Q=7VPrbozmFHuNEkstyTfpjASLOzXMQ9ELA_at_mail.gmail.com>

List,

In no way was I trying to imply that we know everything and there can
only be one basis of life, but rather we only know of one living
planet and that planet's life requires water. Of course there could
be any number of "alien" life forms, probably many, many types we
haven't even began to imagine. There's one thing we can say about
this universe we inhabit, and that's that it doesn't make things just
once. Billions of galaxies, billions of stars, billions of planets,
and so billions of life forms would seem the natural progression. Of
course this also leads too billions of universes, as well.

Michael in so. Cal.


On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Sterling K. Webb
<sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 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 12:52:51 AM PDT