Life And Water

[maddog]

After giving it some more thought, and considering this is basically a water world it doesn't seem reasonable that a non water based life would ever develop here. In many SF plots I've come across chlorine breathing aliens that were probably not water based life. I assume the chlorine serves the same function for them as oxygen does for us. Without seeing proof of this type of life, I will only continue to enjoy the SF plots in the correct context.

As with the Chlorine, I've read a few of those myself. I admit it being extremely low probability to have both on one planet.

For the example the idea of coexisting carbon and non-carbon bio-chemistry, I think would be a case if both were around for even a short time, one would in the end dominate and eliminate the other. Of course you can always speculate about what you can't observe.

 

maddog

[Moontanman]

As with the Chlorine, I've read a few of those myself. I admit it being extremely low probability to have both on one planet.

For the example the idea of coexisting carbon and non-carbon bio-chemistry, I think would be a case if both were around for even a short time, one would in the end dominate and eliminate the other. Of course you can always speculate about what you can't observe.

 

maddog

 

 

An organism that breathed chlorine should live in HCl but water would do as well. Chlorine suffers from being cosmically rather rare and the possibility of a HCl oceans seem quite dim. An organism that breathed fluorine would almost certainly have to contain HF as it't body fluid due to the re-activity of fluorine. I wrote a paper on fluorine breathing organisms once. The process wolds together almost as well was oxygen and water. But again the extreme rarity of fluorine would seem to stop this from happening.

 

Thomas Gold has speculated that deep with in the earth silicone life might exist using silicone fluids instead of water. He suggests this in his book "The Deep Hot Biosphere"

Edited May 14, 2012 by Moontanman

[Lancewen]

An organism that breathed chlorine should live in HCl but water would do as well. Chlorine suffers from being cosmically rather rare and the possibility of a HCl oceans seem quite dim. An organism that breathed fluorine would almost certainly have to contain HF as it's body fluid due to the re-activity of fluorine. I wrote a paper on fluorine breathing organisms once. The process wolds together almost as well was oxygen and water. But again the extreme rarity of fluorine would seem to stop this from happening.

 

Thomas Gold has speculated that deep with in the earth silicone life might exist using silicone fluids instead of water. He suggests this in his book "The Deep Hot Biosphere"

 

I found the following article that does a real good job of putting this topic in perspective.

 

Why Water-Based Life? Dear Dr. SETI:

All contemporary astrobiology research seems to focus on water-based life. For example, a planet is described as being in the habitable zone of its star if its surface temperature is consistent with the existence of liquid water. Just because life on Earth is water-based doesn't mean all life in the Universe will be. Why are you restricting your studies to water planets alone? A student

Toronto

 

The Doctor Responds:

There are three possible answers to this very important question: a short one, a long one, and a flippant one. The short answer is that we are water-based life, therefore we know for certain that water-based life is possible. That some other basis for life might be possible is, at this point, only speculation.

 

The long answer involves the need for a solvent to sustain life, if for no other reason than to act as a transport mechanism for fuel (i.e., to carry an energy source throughout the organism, and to help dispose of waste products). There are at least five desirable characteristics of such a solvent, for the purpose of supporting life:

 

1. It should maintain a liquid state over a wide range of temperatures. That is, the spread between its freezing and its boiling points should be as great as possible. (Water, as you know, remains liquid over a 100-degree C range. That's among the widest liquid-state ranges of known solvents, which seems ideal for the purpose stated.)
2. It should be rather polar. A molecule with a "positive" and a "negative" side can form bonds more easily than an electrically symmetrical one. (Water is indeed quite highly polar.)
3. It should have high surface tension. The ability to glom together in drops, to climb plant stalks through capillary action, and to pool together and flow are all useful for biological processes. (Water does have high surface tension, as you can easily observe any time it is raining.)
4. It should be less dense in the solid than in the liquid state. An ocean that freezes from the bottom up will likely kill all life that may have emerged within it. (Water ice floats on top of liquid water, permitting life to flourish below frozen lakes.)
5. It, or its building materials, should be readily available. (Water is made from hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe, and oxygen is right up there among the top ten.)

The flippant answer actually raises another question. Water-based life is, in essence, life as we know it. We know exactly how to look for life as we know it. But how do we look for life as we don't know it? We just don't know!

 

Of course, all three of these answers apply to organic life. If we start talking about inorganic (non-biological) lifeforms, such as intelligent machines, then all bets are off.

 

 

http://www.setileague.org/askdr/h2olife.htm

 

 

 

 

[Turtle]

...

This book is about all the interesting things water does as it freezes. What fascinates me about it is this behavior seems fractally driven. Nonlinear behavior with small input changes can drastically change the output (a completely different crystal).

 

...

maddog

 

thought you might find this study interesting maddog, though i only found an abstract.

 

full Abstract: The Dimensional Characteristics of Ice Crystal Aggregates from Fractal Geometry

 

choice bits:

Ice crystal aggregates imaged by aircraft particle imaging probes often appear to be fractal in nature. As such, their dimensional properties, mass, and projected area can be related using fractal geometry. In cloud microphysics, power-law mass (m)– and area (A)–dimensional (D) relationships (e.g., m = aDb) incorporate different manifestations of the fractal dimension as the exponent (B ).

...

The exponent in the mass–dimensional relationship, the fractal dimension, was found to be between 2.0 and 2.3 with a dependence on temperature noted for both datasets.

...

[sigurdV]

The topic is life and water. Life as we know it requires water.

 

(On first sight then, a lot of thought in here is off topic...)

 

Can we prove that our life began somewhere and somewhen in the formation of our solar system?

 

Actually no, but if it didnt theres a limit:

The earliest stellar clouds didnt contain oxygen!

 

The next limiting factor is distance...

Its "slightly unprobable" that our life began in some other solar system.

 

How old then can our life be?

 

I suppose the stellar cloud that became our solar system did not contain water in liquid form in its beginning phase... so some limit there is.

I never saw a discussion admitting the possibility that life began before the sun and planets were fully formed.

 

But wasnt always prejudice the most common property of the majority view?

[sigurdV]

I tend to ignore "creationism"

 

So do I... but IF we are enquiring into what reality we happen to be in

 

THEN realities created by a divine creator is a possibility among others.

 

So... What is the origin and meaning of life?

 

What hypothesis can compete with creationism and atheism?

[maddog]

(On first sight then, a lot of thought in here is off topic...)

I concur and have sometimes contributed.

 

Can we prove that our life began somewhere and somewhen in the formation of our solar system?

Actually no, but if it didnt theres a limit: The earliest stellar clouds didnt contain oxygen!

The italicized is not quite right. Even in the earliest stars there might have been some Oxygen (though 4-6 orders magnitude less). So I agree with your premise

this would hamper life generation/creation.

 

The next limiting factor is distance... Its "slightly unprobable" that our life began in some other solar system.

Unprobable does not equal a probability of zero. Also life creation at some level is not limited to a stellar neighborhood. The most of the details we do not yet know.

 

I never saw a discussion admitting the possibility that life began before the sun and planets were fully formed.

I would not object to molecules of life building block material being able to be produced in stellar clouds. It has been shown the formaldehyde has been found in the clouds of starts. This is a compound much more complex than say methane (CH4).

 

But wasnt always prejudice the most common property of the majority view?

I'll entertain a credible opposing view -- were there some logic behind than quoting from some tome of this or said by that. I may even believe in some form (similar to Wayne Dyer) of source, if not god. I just don't let these beliefs mix with my scientific thinking. It can remain independent.

 

maddog

[maddog]

So do I... but IF we are enquiring into what reality we happen to be in

THEN realities created by a divine creator is a possibility among others.

No dispute per se. Just don't use science in such a fashion as to convince others that science proves the existence of god, etc. This methodology is destined to fail. It is in this spirit that I meant what you quoted of what I said. And only that.

 

There is a common proof in mathematics - known as "proof by contradiction". It simply goes to prove your end goal, you hypothesize the contrary and prove that this is invalid.

 

Viola! You have proved what you desire.

 

Often creationist (not all) have a similar tactic (this does not work so well) called "proof by assumption". In this vein these individuals hypothesize their end goal and go about proving that it is true. This is much harder, prone to a single counter example and often done improperly with an end result as said so eloquently "not even wrong!"

 

So... What is the origin and meaning of life?

I think this is an excellent question. One which I like to remain open while I inquire into the possibilities...

 

What hypothesis can compete with creationism and atheism?

Hmm. How about where both of these two points of view are too limited and a better viable hypothesis lies somewhere in between...

 

If I were ismize -- maybe "logicism"... Maybe "zenism" or even better ismlessism.... I prefer to be ismless, I may get farther. B)

 

maddog

Edited June 5, 2012 by maddog

[sigurdV]

Hi maddog :)

 

Its easier to believe than to have an open mind!

Socialization IS about that.

Imitation comes before original thinking.

 

Whenever (almost) the origin of earthly life is discussed

the assumption is it was somewhere in Earthly Water.

 

Isnt it better to believe After one has thought all possibilities through!?

 

In the era before Earth was formed,

where and how long was there water

in form of large amounts of small drops

containing complex chemicals that force,

say radiation,

could whip into even more complex combinations?