New Support for Panspermia


Recommended Posts

The main article:

http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html

What is Panspermia?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

A news link about the main article:

Exclusive: NASA Scientist Claims Evidence of Alien Life on Meteorite

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/05/exclusive-nasa-scientists-claims-evidence-alien-life-meteorite/

He found the fossilized remains of micro-organisms not so different from

ordinary ones found underfoot -- here on earth, that is.

“The exciting thing is that they are in many cases recognizable and can be

associated very closely with the generic species here on earth,” Hoover told

FoxNews.com. But not all of them. “There are some that are just very strange and

don’t look like anything that I’ve been able to identify, and I’ve shown them to

many other experts that have also come up stumped.”

Dennis May

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main article:

http://journalofcosm...om/Life100.html

What is Panspermia?:

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Panspermia

A news link about the main article:

Exclusive: NASA Scientist Claims Evidence of Alien Life on Meteorite

http://www.foxnews.c...life-meteorite/

He found the fossilized remains of micro-organisms not so different from

ordinary ones found underfoot -- here on earth, that is.

"The exciting thing is that they are in many cases recognizable and can be

associated very closely with the generic species here on earth," Hoover told

FoxNews.com. But not all of them. "There are some that are just very strange and

don't look like anything that I've been able to identify, and I've shown them to

many other experts that have also come up stumped."

Dennis May

No.

The distances are too vast, the speeds to slow, the Universe not old and metal-rich enough and the hypothesis is unnecessary.

Cells are simply dirty oil bubbles and any large body of water with sufficient organic contaminants and some sort of free energy source will spontaneously develop life on a short order.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main article:

http://journalofcosm...om/Life100.html

What is Panspermia?:

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Panspermia

A news link about the main article:

Exclusive: NASA Scientist Claims Evidence of Alien Life on Meteorite

http://www.foxnews.c...life-meteorite/

He found the fossilized remains of micro-organisms not so different from

ordinary ones found underfoot -- here on earth, that is.

"The exciting thing is that they are in many cases recognizable and can be

associated very closely with the generic species here on earth," Hoover told

FoxNews.com. But not all of them. "There are some that are just very strange and

don't look like anything that I've been able to identify, and I've shown them to

many other experts that have also come up stumped."

Dennis May

No.

The distances are too vast, the speeds to slow, the Universe not old and metal-rich enough and the hypothesis is unnecessary.

Cells are simply dirty oil bubbles and any large body of water with sufficient organic contaminants and some sort of free energy source will spontaneously develop life on a short order.

The theory may be un-necessary in that life could have evolved on Earth in any case many times over but your reasons for dismissal are all invalid and have been discussed for years. Space materials do migrate and ejecta do leave planetary and other bodies - the question of distances too great has been disproved. The speeds are not too slow - biologically active materials can survive the trip in the times available. There has been plenty of "metal" available and plenty of time for life to have evolved well before our solar system existed. The question of seeding from space doesn't change evolution except to illustrate that life is even heartier than previously believed and likely found in many unexpected places.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main article:

http://journalofcosm...om/Life100.html

What is Panspermia?:

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Panspermia

A news link about the main article:

Exclusive: NASA Scientist Claims Evidence of Alien Life on Meteorite

http://www.foxnews.c...life-meteorite/

He found the fossilized remains of micro-organisms not so different from

ordinary ones found underfoot -- here on earth, that is.

"The exciting thing is that they are in many cases recognizable and can be

associated very closely with the generic species here on earth," Hoover told

FoxNews.com. But not all of them. "There are some that are just very strange and

don't look like anything that I've been able to identify, and I've shown them to

many other experts that have also come up stumped."

Dennis May

No.

The distances are too vast, the speeds to slow, the Universe not old and metal-rich enough and the hypothesis is unnecessary.

Cells are simply dirty oil bubbles and any large body of water with sufficient organic contaminants and some sort of free energy source will spontaneously develop life on a short order.

The theory may be un-necessary in that life could have evolved on Earth in any case many times over but your reasons for dismissal are all invalid and have been discussed for years. Space materials do migrate and ejecta do leave planetary and other bodies - the question of distances too great has been disproved. The speeds are not too slow - biologically active materials can survive the trip in the times available. There has been plenty of "metal" available and plenty of time for life to have evolved well before our solar system existed. The question of seeding from space doesn't change evolution except to illustrate that life is even heartier than previously believed and likely found in many unexpected places.

In so far as Nicole's real killer could have been a talking sponge working as hitman from that Columbian drug cartel . . .

The temperature of planetary nebulae surrounding stars which have ejected their outer layers without going supernova is around 10,000 degrees.

What temperatures would be involved in explosions powerful enough to obliterate and scatter planets out of the gravity well of their parent star?

Material reaching escape velocity from a star like ours would have to be accelerated to 600+ km/second without being heated enough to sterilize it. At that speed it would be travelling at about 1/5,000th light speed. I.e., would take 20,000 years through the hard radiation and coldness of deep space to get from Alpha Centauri to here.

But remember that if the sun were the size of a grapefruit in Boston, Alpha Centauri would be the size of another grapefruit.

In Denver.

This is pure crackpotism. I won't discuss it with you further.

Edited by Ted Keer
Link to post
Share on other sites

The main article:

http://journalofcosm...om/Life100.html

What is Panspermia?:

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Panspermia

A news link about the main article:

Exclusive: NASA Scientist Claims Evidence of Alien Life on Meteorite

http://www.foxnews.c...life-meteorite/

He found the fossilized remains of micro-organisms not so different from

ordinary ones found underfoot -- here on earth, that is.

"The exciting thing is that they are in many cases recognizable and can be

associated very closely with the generic species here on earth," Hoover told

FoxNews.com. But not all of them. "There are some that are just very strange and

don't look like anything that I've been able to identify, and I've shown them to

many other experts that have also come up stumped."

Dennis May

No.

The distances are too vast, the speeds to slow, the Universe not old and metal-rich enough and the hypothesis is unnecessary.

Cells are simply dirty oil bubbles and any large body of water with sufficient organic contaminants and some sort of free energy source will spontaneously develop life on a short order.

The theory may be un-necessary in that life could have evolved on Earth in any case many times over but your reasons for dismissal are all invalid and have been discussed for years. Space materials do migrate and ejecta do leave planetary and other bodies - the question of distances too great has been disproved. The speeds are not too slow - biologically active materials can survive the trip in the times available. There has been plenty of "metal" available and plenty of time for life to have evolved well before our solar system existed. The question of seeding from space doesn't change evolution except to illustrate that life is even heartier than previously believed and likely found in many unexpected places.

In so far as Nicole's real killer could have been a talking sponge working as hitman from that Columbian drug cartel . . .

The temperature of planetary nebulae surrounding stars which have ejected their outer layers without going supernova is around 10,000 degrees.

What temperatures would be involved in explosions powerful enough to obliterate and scatter planets out of the gravity well of their parent star?

Material reaching escape velocity from a star like ours would have to be accelerated to 600+ km/second without being heated enough to sterilize it. At that speed it would be travelling at about 1/5,000th light speed. I.e., would take 20,000 years through the hard radiation and coldness of deep space to get from Alpha Centauri to here.

But remember that if the sun were the size of a grapefruit in Boston, Alpha Centauri would be the size of another grapefruit.

In Denver.

This is pure crackpotism. I won't discuss it with you further.

It is taken very seriously by many scientists. There are trillions of ice bodies left over during solar system formation and those clouds of bodies bridge the gaps between stars. Our own solar system has material from interstellar space and the latest theory on ice bodies indicates our solar system would have shared ice bodies with other solar systems.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060505192530.htm

Your ideas on sterilizing temperatures from ejecta and re-entry has been disproved through modeling, experiment, and testing of known ejecta and re-entry materials [Recent shows on The Science Channel about this]. Some can indeed survive without the centers ever reaching high temperatures. It is known that biological materials can survive tens of millions of years - some evidence indicates hundreds of millions of years.

http://sv3.ictp.trieste.it/~chelaf/ss133.html

"Estimates for the mass of material that falls on Earth each year range from 37,000-78,000 tons."

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=470

Ejecta from the Moon, Mars, and certain specific asteriods is known to have reached the Earth. Ejecta from the Earth is found on the Moon.

Tidal forces can periodically/partially melt the interior of ice bodies so life can indeed survive in the interior of ice-bodies indefinitely. Ice bodies are the most common kind of large objects in space.

Dennis May

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tidal forces can periodically/partially melt the interior of ice bodies so life can indeed survive in the interior of ice-bodies indefinitely. Ice bodies are the most common kind of large objects in space.

Dennis May

yes, but to generate these tidal forces a body must be in an eccentric orbit around a large planet (like Jupiter or Saturn). The ice objects in the Kuyper Belt or the Oort cloud are not subject to this kind of a gravitational field.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tidal forces can periodically/partially melt the interior of ice bodies so life can indeed survive in the interior of ice-bodies indefinitely. Ice bodies are the most common kind of large objects in space.

Dennis May

yes, but to generate these tidal forces a body must be in an eccentric orbit around a large planet (like Jupiter or Saturn). The ice objects in the Kuyper Belt or the Oort cloud are not subject to this kind of a gravitational field.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You are correct in that no such large bodies have been detected yet. Modeling inidcates that there should be many cold dark bodies of sufficient mass in interstellar space for every star seen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct in that no such large bodies have been detected yet. Modeling inidcates that there should be many cold dark bodies of sufficient mass in interstellar space for every star seen.

What empirical data do you have on that? I have no doubt such "dark" bodies could exist, but do they? Are there any orbital perturbations indicating that they exist?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct in that no such large bodies have been detected yet. Modeling inidcates that there should be many cold dark bodies of sufficient mass in interstellar space for every star seen.

What empirical data do you have on that? I have no doubt such "dark" bodies could exist, but do they? Are there any orbital perturbations indicating that they exist?

Ba'al Chatzaf

One such candidate being studied right now:

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/14/tyche-meet-the-mysterious-new-super-planet-said-to-be-in-our-so/

A recent show on The Science Channel on solar system and planetary formation indicated that the latest models of solar system formation includes the ejection of many planets during formation. What is left over in our case is 8 planets, several minor planets, likely some planets in the ice belts not yet detected or being verified and many ejected planets and minor planets wandering between the stars. One astronomer indicated that the majority get ejected [and some exchange positional order] until a stable arrangement is reached.

Dennis May

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just ad hoc nonsense. The fact that clumps of snow at the edges of star systems might wander between them has nothing to do with getting a living organism off an earthlike planet and accelerated to several hundred miles a second to launch it out of its star's gravity well. This is just a concatenation of arbitrary nonsense that resembles nothing so much as conspiracy theorism, creationism, and belief in the truth of the Bible. And to top it off we are offered a show on cable which airs between "Ghost Hunters" and "Pawn Stars" as proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just ad hoc nonsense. The fact that clumps of snow at the edges of star systems might wander between them has nothing to do with getting a living organism off an earthlike planet and accelerated to several hundred miles a second to launch it out of its star's gravity well. This is just a concatenation of arbitrary nonsense that resembles nothing so much as conspiracy theorism, creationism, and belief in the truth of the Bible. And to top it off we are offered a show on cable which airs between "Ghost Hunters" and "Pawn Stars" as proof.

There are by far more ice bodies than there are Earth-like planets - some contain huge amounts of liquid water and the chemicals needed to allow life to evolve. Several Miller–Urey type experiments have been peformed. It has been found that cold cycles helped to concentrate the needed chemicals. It is also known that clays help keep bioligical materials contained and provide helpful surface attachment and catalytic properties. Even in coldest space ice bodies orbiting large enough bodies will have liquid oceans due to tidal heating. Many bacteria on Earth thrive with no connection to photosyntheis - using chemical energy instead. There is no reason for dismissing space as a possible origin for life on Earth. Transport of materials between the planets is an established fact. Viability of some microorganisms for geologic time is an established fact. It is also a fact that the earliest life forms found on Earth occurred almost immediately after it had cooled from formation. The only real question is if natural seeding from space was part of this process or if the Earth had its own independent origin(s) of life. The question is being researched very seriously. I expect more sample missions of ice bodies and Mars will help as well as more examination of meteorites. The study of extreme environments points towards many kinds of Earth life being able to survive in several other places in our solar system.

Even if life is found elsewhere in our solar system that will only move the question to seeding within the solar system or between solar systems. Life may have first evolved locally on Mars, an ice body in our solar system or some body unknown in another solar system or in interstellar space on an ice body. The research is far from over.

Dennis May

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis wrote:

The only real question is if natural seeding from space was part of this process or if the Earth had its own independent origin(s) of life.

End quote

Welcome Dennis! I see you joined January 11th, but I just saw your post on panspermia a few minutes ago.

If humans can make the decision to send genetic material into space then THE OTHERS, if they ever existed, could have made that same decision. Life itself may not last millions of years in hibernation but a start up kit of instant DNA could survive, if a natural process of add water and stir occurred, as in when a meteor strikes the earth’s oceans. That is sort of the premise of “Jurassic Park” too.

If we never find alien life or hear an alien broadcast, I would be more inclined to seed the stars. The universe has no meaning without life.

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main article:

http://journalofcosm...om/Life100.html

What is Panspermia?:

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Panspermia

A news link about the main article:

Exclusive: NASA Scientist Claims Evidence of Alien Life on Meteorite

http://www.foxnews.c...life-meteorite/

He found the fossilized remains of micro-organisms not so different from

ordinary ones found underfoot -- here on earth, that is.

"The exciting thing is that they are in many cases recognizable and can be

associated very closely with the generic species here on earth," Hoover told

FoxNews.com. But not all of them. "There are some that are just very strange and

don't look like anything that I've been able to identify, and I've shown them to

many other experts that have also come up stumped."

Dennis May

No.

The distances are too vast, the speeds to slow, the Universe not old and metal-rich enough and the hypothesis is unnecessary.

Cells are simply dirty oil bubbles and any large body of water with sufficient organic contaminants and some sort of free energy source will spontaneously develop life on a short order.

http://www.space.com/11086-ancient-galaxy-cluster-young.html

This latest observation of galaxies shows that many generations of short lived stars could have come and gone even 11 billion years ago seeding "metal" allowing plenty of time for evolution 7 billion years before our solar system even formed. The hypothesis may not be necessary but there are more places within reach of geologic time to evolve outside of Earth than on Earth by many orders of magnitude.

Edited by dennislmay
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting how certain religious phenomena overlap with the symptoms of mental illness. Consider the rocking motions of daveners, similar to the self-comforting motions of autistics, or the endless repetition of prayers and its similarity to the behavior of the obsessive compulsive. And look at the conspiracy theorist and compare him to the creationist and the believer in aliens and the like -- people so in search of patterns that they offer the most elaborate solutions to mysteries which don't exist.

If the chemicals necessary for the evolution of life are common and widespread, then why could life not have evolved here on the earth, where they are common and widespread? If man arose after four and a half billion years on one planet, why have not advanced intelligent aliens evolved in seven billion years on the many millions of planets in our galaxy? Why are bacteria (that evolved on comets?) coming here, but not aliens in spaceships? Or maybe the answer's obvious. The aliens are here. They have us under quarantine as a juvenile species. And we just can't see them without the right sort of sunglasses.

It's like beginning with the assumption that no man could have composed the works of Shakespeare, and that arguing since Shakespeare could not have written his own works, some other man must have written them. How does it not occur to the Shakespeare authorship controversialists that just like William, their suggested 'real' author was himself only a man. Like the paranoid schizophrenic, the conspiracy theorist multiplies theories beyond all rational necessity. Bigger and bigger turtles, all the way down.

Maybe we are all royalty, switched at birth, and raised as commoners. And maybe some day we will wake up and find out that this has all been a dream.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting how certain religious phenomena overlap with the symptoms of mental illness. Consider the rocking motions of daveners, similar to the self-comforting motions of autistics, or the endless repetition of prayers and its similarity to the behavior of the obsessive compulsive. And look at the conspiracy theorist and compare him to the creationist and the believer in aliens and the like -- people so in search of patterns that they offer the most elaborate solutions to mysteries which don't exist.

If the chemicals necessary for the evolution of life are common and widespread, then why could life not have evolved here on the earth, where they are common and widespread? If man arose after four and a half billion years on one planet, why have not advanced intelligent aliens evolved in seven billion years on the many millions of planets in our galaxy? Why are bacteria (that evolved on comets?) coming here, but not aliens in spaceships? Or maybe the answer's obvious. The aliens are here. They have us under quarantine as a juvenile species. And we just can't see them without the right sort of sunglasses.

It's like beginning with the assumption that no man could have composed the works of Shakespeare, and that arguing since Shakespeare could not have written his own works, some other man must have written them. How does it not occur to the Shakespeare authorship controversialists that just like William, their suggested 'real' author was himself only a man. Like the paranoid schizophrenic, the conspiracy theorist multiplies theories beyond all rational necessity. Bigger and bigger turtles, all the way down.

Maybe we are all royalty, switched at birth, and raised as commoners. And maybe some day we will wake up and find out that this has all been a dream.

A SETI researcher was on a show the other day discussing how far our signals have reached relative to the size of our galaxy - like a couple inches compared to some hills in the distance. If you move to the scale of the observable universe it is like sampling a single glass of water among all the oceans of the world. If they don't know we are here would they signal? In any case they would have to be sending signals directed at us as strong as the strongest military radar signals ever sent - even then our surveys would only detect nearby signals - again like a few inches compared to distant hills.

The chemicals of life are plentiful on Earth - they are trillions of times more plentiful in the rest of our galaxy. Life could have a unique start on Earth or it might have come to a receptive environment. It will require more information to find the probabilities of which is correct. If the meteorite does contain extraterrestial fossils of life then the odds greatly favor an extraterrestial origin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis wrote:

It will require more information to find the probabilities of which is correct. If the meteorite does contain extraterrestial fossils of life then the odds greatly favor an extraterrestial origin.

end quote

(I just donated to the Japanese Salvation Army – I have a niece in Kyoto who was shaken and stirred, but who is otherwise unhurt . . . so far.)

Earth, with its atmosphere and tectonic activity is an unlikely place to look for evidence of alien life . . . . unless that life survived entry from space . . . and has evolved into humans.

Or is the *dry* theory of pans/trans-spermia more likely? Would a trip across space destroy a human skeleton if it impacted upon an airless moon a billion, billion miles from earth? What are the odds of NOT finding evidence of extraterrestrial life in our solar system? What evidence would NOT survive a trip through our galaxy, if only in some fossilized form?

If life is as abundant as I *think* it is in The Milky Way, then we will find evidence on airless moons. If you look at the impacts on our own moon, many of the collisions are glancing and should not have annihilated all evidence of alien life.

And furthering this “inevitable migration of life or its evidence” hypothesis, is the fact that we have already *seeded* our moon, the planet Mars, and perhaps other gravity wells, reachable in a few thousand of our egocentric years.

And that garden was planted without really trying.

Peter Taylor

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now