| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Einsteinhoax" |
| Date: |
02 Oct 2004 09:07:06 AM |
| Object: |
Try |
The Scarcity of Life Bearing Planets
There is considerable interest in the possibility that there may be a
large number of planets in our galaxy that are suitable for life. In the hope
that there may be intelligent life on planets lying within a reasonable
distance, a project named SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) has
been set up to search for evidence of that life. The idea behind the project is
that intelligent life may be generating signals which can be received on Earth
that are either a by-product of their civilization (such as our own radio
broadcasts) or a deliberate attempt to communicate. Unfortunately, the
probability of success of those programs is far lower than currently believed.
If an Earth sized planet existed 93,000,000 miles from a star that was
virtually identical to the Sun, it is extremely unlikely that it would be
capable of supporting life. To see why this should be so, an examination of our
own Solar System is order.
With the exception of Mercury, the Earth, Mars, and Pluto, all of the
planets have enormous atmospheres (relative to the Earth). One can draw no
conclusions about the original conditions on Mercury or Pluto. Mercury is too
small and too close to the Sun to have prevented its atmosphere, regardless of
its original quantity, from boiling away to space. (There may be a remnant of
an atmosphere frozen at the poles.) At the other extreme, due to its distance
from the Sun, any atmosphere that Pluto may have had at its beginning and which
has not been lost by evaporation to space is of necessity frozen solid and is
therefore unobservable. Observations have shown that Mars once had a
significant atmosphere that supported running water (and, by implication,
oceans) but has lost both. Apparently, its low gravitational mass has made it
too easy for the Sun's radiation to cause Mar's atmosphere to evaporate to
space. Of all the planets, it is Earth that is the anomaly.
Due to its location, Venus receives about twice the heat input from the
Sun as does the Earth. Its gravitational mass is slightly less than that of the
Earth and yet it has an atmosphere about 70 times as dense as the Earth. In
addition, the atmosphere of Venus is alleged to consist of mostly carbon
dioxide. Since, under the evaporation process, the other normal atmospheric
gases, having a lower molecular weight, will evaporate before carbon dioxide
does, the initial Venusian atmosphere must have been significantly denser than
it is now.
The Earth, on the other hand, has an atmosphere that contains a negligible
quantity of carbon dioxide but is relatively rich in the lighter gases. In
addition, it is estimated that about 3 billion years ago the atmospheric
pressure on the Earth was about 20 PSI and has been reduced to its current
level of 14.7 psi. This means that, for the Earth, 25% of the atmosphere has
been lost in 3 billion years, probably by a net evaporation to space. (Any gas
or vapor subject to a vacuum will evaporate, an atmosphere is no exception.)
It seems reasonable to accept that the early history of the Solar System
approximated the following stages:
The planets were formed by the collision of smaller objects circling the
Sun in eccentric orbits. The collision process continued until the Solar System
was virtually cleared of objects in non-circular orbits.
During the planetary formation stage, the planets could not acquire
atmospheres because the bombardment that was forming them made their surfaces
extremely hot. Atmospheric gases which impacted the planet from interplanetary
space or from the accreting object might be expected to boil away quite
rapidly, particularly since they were being added to the surface of the
planets.
Once the rate of bombardment forming the planets reduced to the point
where the planets could cool sufficiently, they were capable of collecting
atmospheres from gases that remained in the Solar System. (There are arguments
that planetary atmospheres were formed by outgassing. The writer doubts this
was a major source of atmosphere, but whether it was or not does not affect the
conclusions.
For Venus and the gas giants to have their present atmospheric density,
all of the planets, including the Earth, must have initially acquired enormous
(by Earth standards) atmospheres. They gained their atmospheres by sweeping up
gases from the surrounding interplanetary space (and possibly by outgassing)
and lost some of that atmosphere by evaporation to that same space from the
uppermost layer of the atmosphere. In order for a molecule of gas to be lost to
the planet, it must acquire a thermal velocity greater than the planet's escape
velocity. This must occur at an altitude at which the atmosphere is
sufficiently thin so that it does not strike other molecules while escaping.
(This occurs above the altitude where the effects of diffusion are
significant.) The rate at which atmospheric gases are lost to space is
determined almost entirely by the rate of energy input from the Sun and by the
escape velocity of the planet at the top of its atmosphere The rate of
atmosphere loss is virtually independent of the amount of atmosphere the planet
owns at any instant of time.
The Earth-Moon system has two characteristics that are anomalous compared
to the other planets. The first is that it has far too much angular momentum
(orbital angular momentum, rotational angular momentum of the Earth and the
Moon, and orbital angular momentum of the Moon around the Earth). As pointed
out in a text by Dr. Urey, an exponential plot of angular momentum vs. total
mass for all of the other planets yields a straight line. The total angular
momentum of the Earth-Moon system lies far above that line. The second anomaly
is that it contains far too little atmosphere and, unlike Mars, the density of
that atmosphere has remained almost unchanged. A satisfactory explanation for
both of these anomalies seems to have been provided in the 80's by a computer
simulation of a glancing impact on the Earth by an object having a mass about
one sixth of its mass and which yields a conclusion for the formation of the
Earth-Moon system which seems to be currently accepted. The simulation
predicted the formation of a binary system with a Moon sized object orbiting
the Earth an altitude of about 12,000 miles, with the Earth having a 4 hour
day, and with the Earth having captured the iron cores of both objects. Since
the length of the Earth's day was, is, and will remain less than the Moon's
orbital period until the Sun enters its red giant stage, tidal effects on the
Earth will perpetually transfer angular momentum from the Earth to the Moon.
This transfer has lengthened the Earth's day to 24 hours and has caused the
Moon's orbit to increase to 238,000 miles. More important, such an impact would
have blasted away most if not all of the atmosphere the Earth had at the time
and, if the collision occurred late enough in the formation period of the Solar
System, most of the interplanetary gases would have already been absorbed by
the other planets and/or lost to interstellar space and not be available to
reform much of an atmosphere on the Earth. This scenario could easily allow the
Earth to have the comparatively puny but stable atmosphere required to support
the evolution of intelligent life.
In order for a planet to support life, not only must it be in the "life
zone" about a suitable star, it must possess an atmosphere of a suitable
density for a sufficient period of time for life to evolve. On the Earth, life
does not seem to prosper above an altitude where the density is half an
atmosphere. At the other end of the scale, the atmosphere must not be too thick
or the wavelengths of radiation needed for photosynthesis not only will not
reach the atmosphere-water interface where life begins, that interface is
likely to be too hot due to the temperature rise of adiabatic compression.
(This temperature rise is the reason the surface of Venus is so hot). Making
the optimistic assumption that four and a half atmospheres is the highest
suitable atmospheric pressure requires that a life supporting planet not lose
more than four atmospheres of density in the period required for intelligent
life to evolve. For a planet starting with the atmospheric density of Venus to
lose 60 PSI of surface atmospheric pressure in 3 billion years (the time
required for intelligent life to have evolved on Earth), the existence of such
life would require an age of 50 billion years for the planetary system. Such a
conclusion presents problems. A star similar to our Sun will become a red giant
about 10 billion years after its formation and the apparent age of the Universe
is only 15 billion years. On the other hand, if a planet such as Mars lost its
atmosphere at a sufficient rate to reach compatibility with the requirements of
life before its star became a red giant, it would pass though the "life range"
so quickly that intelligent life would probably not have had time to evolve. It
is the author's belief that, without the addition of the 'wild card' implicit
in the postulated Earth-Moon collision, a planet capable of supporting life
cannot exist. (It is hoped that this question would be examined further.) It is
the author's belief that intelligent life is much rarer in the Universe than
Dr. Sagan suggested.
The asteroid belt exists as a ring of stony and iron rocks in orbit about
the Sun between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. The radius of that orbit
coincides with the anticipated location of a planet under the conventional
theory of planetary formation. If one examines the objects in the asteroid
belt, the moons of Mars, and the meteorites that strike the Earth, one finds
that, unlike comets, many if not most of them composed of stone or of iron.
Unlike the flimsy comets, such objects cannot form by accretion, they can only
be formed within a planet-sized object that has already accreted. One must
conclude, therefore, that initially a planet did form at the radius of the
asteroid belt and was later shattered by a collision. Such a collision would
drive away most of the planetary material and leave a residue of rocks from the
planet's upper layers and iron objects from the planet's core. That collision
is a reasonable candidate as the source for the object that impacted the early
Earth to form the Earth-Moon system, the meteorites which strike the Earth, and
the moons of Mars.
The writer is of the strong opinion that, unless a planet that is located
around its star and sized to be suitable for the retention of an atmosphere,
undergoes such a history at the appropriate time in the planetary system
process a planet suitable for the evolution of intelligent life cannot evolve.
It would seem, therefore, that in addition to the probability factors now
considered for the existence of life bearing planets that yield the possibility
of perhaps 100 civilizations within our galaxy, an additional factor must be
considered for each candidate planetary system. This factor is the probability
of AN EVENT occurring at the right time in the planetary formation process to
drive off the excess atmosphere from a planet that is large enough to retain a
stable atmosphere. When added to the already tabulated probabilities assumed
for the SETI observations, it seems quite probable that instead of a
civilization occurring about 100 times in a galaxy as is currently hoped,
civilization would occur once in a hundred or a thousand galaxies. If this were
the case, the SETI project would seem to be doomed to failure.
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm.
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE
HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST
BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
All Newsposts by this Website are available at
http://www.members.aol.com/postinglog/newspostings.com
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on a
regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy as
they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts, please
do not raise objections that are not related to material that you have read at
the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:-
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5 years.
In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL
PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who have
mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Try |
02 Oct 2004 10:29:10 AM |
|
|
Einsteinhoax wrote:
The Scarcity of Life Bearing Planets
[snip 200 lines of ignorant crap]
All water worlds are filthy with life, idiot. Most of it is pond
scum.
http://www.freefarts.com/farts.html
Move cursor over blinkers to hear Retic's lecture.
Psychotic ineducable boring spammer retic (Ernest Wittke),
You see yourself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png
http://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html
http://www.pagetutor.com/idiot/idiot.html
http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav
<http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf>
http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete0.jpg
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete1.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete2.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete4.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete5.jpg
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
<http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html>
<http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html>
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999)
[snip]
Hey, stooopid spammer Ernest Wittke - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of
the 24 GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic clocks or
three rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
corrections being applied. NAVSTAR Block II GPS satellites (currently
being launched as replacements) have two rubidium and two cesium
atomic clocks.
Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely
mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in
number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of
Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers
and with arithmetic.
<http://optoelectronics.perkinelmer.com/content/Datasheets/rfs2f.pdf>
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
<http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf>
<http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf>
Equivalence Principle testing
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111236
Geometric structure of reality
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103044
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
Relativity in the GPS system
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 121101
falling light
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating Experiment
http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/SRtwinParadox.html
<http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html>
Twin Paradox
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405160
Black hole evaporation
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
No aether
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409089
Spin-2 gravitons have problems (so does the proposal)
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Nordtvedt Effect
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Dark matter candidates
<http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll/frames.html>
Carroll on what it all means.
Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial Lorentzian
manifold with a metric whose curvature tensor is zero. This is a
perfectly diffeomorphism-invariant condition and does not require
any particular coordinate choice. It is invariant under
the full group of diffeomorphisms. The Poincare group is
the group of *isometries* of the metric in special relativity.
The Special Relativity metric is *non-dynamical* (unlike GR). It
defines the coupling *constants* of your theory. If you change the
metric in any nontrivial way you are changing your theory. An
operation can only be called a "symmetry" of a special-relativistic
(non-gravitational) theory if it preserves the metric, and therefore
the symmetry of special-relativistic theories is the Poincare group
only. General Relativity (gravitation) has a dynamic metric.
NIM A 355 537 (1995)
Physics Letters B 328 103 (1994)
Physical Review Letters 64 1697 (1990)
Physical Review Letters 39 1051 (1977)
Physical Review 135 B1071 (1964)
Physics Letters 12 260 (1964)
Europhysics Letters 56(2) 170-174 (2001)
General Relativity and Gravitation 34(9) 1371 (2002)
http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
<http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm>
<http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf>
Longitudinal and transverse mass
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076.pdf
<http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP>
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
<http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Right, like your head has ever been withdrawn from your ***** - even
when you *****.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Try |
02 Oct 2004 09:30:08 AM |
|
|
Einsteinhoax wrote:
The Scarcity of Life Bearing Planets
One has to develop technology to analyze earth-sized planets and
lots of them before coming to any conclusion... The universe is
likely teaming with life, but we have to develop tools to detect
it.
Crank Information
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AGRAVITYMECHANIC
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AGRAVITYMECHANIC2
http://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+hoax+site%3Awww.crank.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Aretic
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Aretiche
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher1
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
