When did H2O develop during the last 13.5 b y?

[baywax]

Oldest star age in Milky Way galaxy mass: (HE 1523-0901)
$$m_0 = 0.8 \cdot m_{\odot}$$

Third generation stellar formation time with respect to mass.
$$\boxed{t_3 = \left( \frac{m_3}{m_0} \right)(t_u - t_0)}$$

Third generation stellar mass equivalent to solar mass:
$$\boxed{m_3 = m_{\odot}}$$

Integration by substitution:
$$t_f = \left( \frac{m_{\odot}}{0.8 \cdot m_{\odot}} \right)(t_u - t_0) = 1.25 (0.65) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 0.8125 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

Third generation stellar formation time for Sol:
$$\boxed{t_f = 0.8125 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

Third generation stellar formation time:
$$\boxed{t_3 = \left( \frac{m_3}{m_{\odot}} \right) t_f}$$

What universal effects would you expect the stellar mass and planet mass to have on planetary liquid water formation time and proto-RNA formation time?

Given the exact same solar type system with a more massive star could energetically catalyze liquid water formation and self-replication processes faster and a smaller planet heats and cools faster than a larger planet to produce liquid water, therefore my solution with respect to mass becomes...

Planetary liquid water formation time and proto-RNA formation time with respect to mass:
$$\boxed{t_{wp} + t_g = \left( \frac{m_{\odot}}{m_3} \right) \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) [(t_E - t_z) + (t_z - t_l)]}$$

Maximum main sequence stellar mass limit for habitable zone:
$$\boxed{m_s \leq m_{\odot} \left( \frac{\left( \frac{m_3}{m_{\odot}} \right) t_f + \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) (t_{\odot} - t_E) + \left( \frac{m_{\odot}}{m_3} \right) \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) [(t_E - t_z) + (t_z - t_l)]}{t_L} \right)^{-0.4}}$$

$$m_s \leq m_{\odot} \left( \frac{t_{RNA}}{t_L}} \right)^{-0.4} \leq m_{\odot} \left( \frac{1.3825}{11} \right)^{-0.4} \leq 2.2924 \cdot m_{\odot} \; \; \; (m_3 = m_{\odot}) \; \; \; (m_p = m_E)$$

$$\boxed{0.1 \cdot m_{\odot} \leq m_s \leq 2.2924 \cdot m_{\odot}}$$

Totally astounding Orion1!

By all accounts we should be hearing from our neighbours any day now. Or already have!

 

[baywax]

Its impossible to fathom these billions of years going by and all these developments taking place. I'd like to know more about the history of water-based life in the universe. It might actually take billions of years to learn.

 

[Orion1]

martian zircons...


All early geological and hydrological history on Venus has been destroyed by volcanic and other geological processes. The only possibility of obtaining data from this era is from rocks that have been shock impacted into space during this era and eventually land on the Earth. It may be possible that scientists already have rocks from this era in their collections, however their determinate origins cannot yet be identified.

The next logical step, at least in terms of local scale is to locate zircon crystals from Mars and obtain their geological age.

Mars surface exhibits planetary scale excavation and deposition due to hydrological processes, probably due to an ancient ocean, as exhibited by the attached CGI graphic of a mountain at Juventae Fons on Mars.

Google Earth 5.0 now has a complete global map of Mars for exploration. I invite everyone to search for martian zircons!

Reference:
http://earth.google.com/"

 

[baywax]

All early geological and hydrological history on Venus has been destroyed by volcanic and other geological processes. The only possibility of obtaining data from this era is from rocks that have been shock impacted into space during this era and eventually land on the Earth. It may be possible that scientists already have rocks from this era in their collections, however their determinate origins cannot yet be identified.

The next logical step, at least in terms of local scale is to locate zircon crystals from Mars and obtain their geological age.

Baywax, based upon the equations in post #70, how old are the martian zircons expected to be?

Mars surface exhibits planetary scale excavation and deposition due to hydrological processes, probably due to an ancient ocean, as exhibited by the attached photo of a mountain at Juventae Fons on Mars.

Google Earth 5.0 now has a complete global map of Mars for exploration. I invite everyone to search for martian zircons!

Reference:
http://earth.google.com/"

Actually what you're calling a photo is probably a CGI graphic.

It is thought that the oldest lunar zircon is 4.5 billion years old, formed after a collision with a Mars sized body during that period.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/01/26/moon-zircon.html

This date is only as good as the find and if there's an older piece found the date will change accordingly.

I'd imagine the same conditions apply to any zircon found from Mars.

You'd have to help me understand your equations when it comes to dating Mars but, everyone seems to think Mars is the same age as other planets in the solar system at 4.6 billion years old.

http://www.universetoday.com/guide-to-space/mars/how-old-is-mars/

When you mentioned Venus I have to smile since one cannot know if there was a surface before the latest geological upheaval. How can you prove there was?

 

[Orion1]

one cannot know if there was a surface before the latest geological upheaval. How can you prove there was?

Actually what you're calling a photo is probably a CGI graphic.

The only possibility of obtaining data from the early Venus era is from rocks that have been shock impacted into space during this era and eventually land on the Earth or are discovered on other planets and moons or shocked rocks still orbiting in space.

Affirmative!, that is a CGI graphic from Google Earth of a CGI map of Mars!

Google Earth 5.0 now has a complete global map of Mars for exploration. I invite everyone to search for martian zircons!

Baywax, if a shocked rock from the early Venus era was discovered and was determined to contain ancient fossilized life organisms similar to fossils from Earth's primitive oceans, would you be 'shocked'?

Reference:
http://earth.google.com/"

 

[Bob S]

Liquid water requires pressure to form. See attached phase diagram. Below about 0.7 kPa (0.007 atmospheres (below triple point)), water cannot form. A combination of gravity and atmospheric overpressure is required to form water, and then in only a limited temperature range. In our environment there are two basic types of self-replicating life.

The first is a self replicating form we call plants, that accumulate energy from the sun (photosynthesis), use CO2 and water (Calvin cycle), and produce saccharides (sugars) that store about 30 eV of useful energy per molecule.

The second is self replicating life that lives off the energy stored by plants, combined with oxygen, and via the Krebs cycle produces CO2, water, and mechanical (muscle) energy etc..

Almost certainly plants came first.

 

[Hogan 314]

Liquid water requires pressure to form. See attached phase diagram. Below about 0.7 kPa (0.007 atmospheres (below triple point)), water cannot form. A combination of gravity and atmospheric overpressure is required to form water, and then in only a limited temperature range. In our environment there are two basic types of self-replicating life.

The first is a self replicating form we call plants, that accumulate energy from the sun (photosynthesis), use CO2 and water (Calvin cycle), and produce saccharides (sugars) that store about 30 eV of useful energy per molecule.

The second is self replicating life that lives off the energy stored by plants, combined with oxygen, and via the Krebs cycle produces CO2, water, and mechanical (muscle) energy etc..

Almost certainly plants came first.

The real question is HOW did water first form.
Hydrogen came from the big bang and oxygen from the first stars.
I suppose H2 duterium came from the big bang to but stars are ok.

The point is since pressure and certain temperatures are required to join H2 and O, where can this ocour in space?

Where did the pressure and proper temperature range come from, say 10 billion years ago?

In stars? Super nova? Planets from 10 billion years ago that no longer exist? Something else?

It sounds like the potential for initial water formation was available when the first stars formed.As for life...modern DNA has 20,000 to 25,000 genes (reduced estemate from 35,000 genes)
..
An earlyer post in this thread mentioned an RNA chromosone with about 7000 genes.

I found the following note and links It seems to imply that there are existing viruses that have fewer then 500 genes , maybe as few as 10 20 or 30. Please evaluate and comment on validity. If it is valid I think there is a trend developing here.

Protein stability imposes limits on organism complexity and speed of molecular evolution
The distribution of number of genes per viral genome. The red histogram corresponds to RNA viruses, whereas the black histogram is for dsDNA viruses. The data are taken from National Center for Biotechnology Information Genome database, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomes/static/vis.html. The genomes of RNA viruses are much shorter than those of dsDNA viruses.

( it's a little long for a URL but I trust you can copy and past to view the diagram)

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...ages?q=number+of+genes+in+rna&hl=en&sa=N&um=1The link below is taken from the above comment and lists 2892 viruses. If I understand the headings right a few have RNA with genes but many don't have RNA. Many have proteins with genes but no RNA . What does this mean?

Try considering the 8th one down on the list. It is the Abelson murine leukemia virus.

It has 3 proteins, 0 RNA, and ONE gene.

I wonder how viruses live, or exist , or reproduce, if not alive without RNA.

I don't think there are cells that have DNA but no RNA.

RNA is not diploid like DNA is. It's a single strand. I take it it's still called a chromosone.

If a hundred genes can make a chromosone then can one gene be considered a cromosone?

Additionally the process of making proteins from anino acids seems to be well understood but I couldn't find any links with google supporting that this has been done in a lab.

Have proteins been created in labs maybe?

Can synthetic viruses be made with no RNA?

How do you interprete the meaning of the headings at the top of each column in the table of 2000 viruses?

The headings listed are: organism, name, accession, length, number of proteins, RNAs, number of genes, created date, and update date.

Is this logical? Or am I off the path of train of thought of this thread?

Thank you and apologies if this leads someone astray. I appreciate any advice.

Here is the link to the table of 2892 viruses.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomes/genlist.cgi?taxid=10239&type=5&name=Viruses

 

[baywax]

The only possibility of obtaining data from the early Venus era is from rocks that have been shock impacted into space during this era and eventually land on the Earth or are discovered on other planets and moons or shocked rocks still orbiting in space.

Affirmative!, that is a CGI graphic from Google Earth of a CGI map of Mars!

Google Earth 5.0 now has a complete global map of Mars for exploration. I invite everyone to search for martian zircons!

Baywax, if a shocked rock from the early Venus era was discovered and was determined to contain ancient fossilized life organisms similar to fossils from Earth's primitive oceans, would you be 'shocked'?

Reference:
http://earth.google.com/"

Hi Orion 1, don't know how I missed this one... would I be shocked if Venus proved to be as old as the other planets in this solar system and held evidence of life? Not really. Things are as they are and I can't change that by being shocked!

 

[baywax]

The real question is HOW did water first form.
Hydrogen came from the big bang and oxygen from the first stars.
I suppose H2 duterium came from the big bang to but stars are ok.

The point is since pressure and certain temperatures are required to join H2 and O, where can this ocour in space?

Where did the pressure and proper temperature range come from, say 10 billion years ago?

In stars? Super nova? Planets from 10 billion years ago that no longer exist? Something else?

It sounds like the potential for initial water formation was available when the first stars formed.


As for life...modern DNA has 20,000 to 25,000 genes (reduced estemate from 35,000 genes)
..
An earlyer post in this thread mentioned an RNA chromosone with about 7000 genes.

I found the following note and links It seems to imply that there are existing viruses that have fewer then 500 genes , maybe as few as 10 20 or 30. Please evaluate and comment on validity. If it is valid I think there is a trend developing here.

Protein stability imposes limits on organism complexity and speed of molecular evolution



The distribution of number of genes per viral genome. The red histogram corresponds to RNA viruses, whereas the black histogram is for dsDNA viruses. The data are taken from National Center for Biotechnology Information Genome database, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomes/static/vis.html. The genomes of RNA viruses are much shorter than those of dsDNA viruses.

( it's a little long for a URL but I trust you can copy and past to view the diagram)

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...ages?q=number+of+genes+in+rna&hl=en&sa=N&um=1


The link below is taken from the above comment and lists 2892 viruses. If I understand the headings right a few have RNA with genes but many don't have RNA. Many have proteins with genes but no RNA . What does this mean?

Try considering the 8th one down on the list. It is the Abelson murine leukemia virus.

It has 3 proteins, 0 RNA, and ONE gene.

I wonder how viruses live, or exist , or reproduce, if not alive without RNA.

I don't think there are cells that have DNA but no RNA.

RNA is not diploid like DNA is. It's a single strand. I take it it's still called a chromosone.

If a hundred genes can make a chromosone then can one gene be considered a cromosone?

Additionally the process of making proteins from anino acids seems to be well understood but I couldn't find any links with google supporting that this has been done in a lab.

Have proteins been created in labs maybe?

Can synthetic viruses be made with no RNA?

How do you interprete the meaning of the headings at the top of each column in the table of 2000 viruses?

The headings listed are: organism, name, accession, length, number of proteins, RNAs, number of genes, created date, and update date.

Is this logical? Or am I off the path of train of thought of this thread?

Thank you and apologies if this leads someone astray. I appreciate any advice.

Here is the link to the table of 2892 viruses.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomes/genlist.cgi?taxid=10239&type=5&name=Viruses

Hogan... excellent research here. I'll have to take some time to go over it. Another question to consider is how many times has life started (abiogenisis) in the universe or did it start once... then begin a persevering panspermia?

 

[baywax]

Sorry, I let this thread kind of get away from me without thanking you all.

I wanted to thank everyone who contributed to my understanding of this topic. You guys have no idea how much I enjoy reading about your understanding of the universe and its incredible synthesis of form and function. I've been reading some of the other threads in this section and this forum certainly holds its own with publications like its partner, Scientific American.

Thanks gang!

 

[edpell]

The triple point of water is at just above zero degrees and 0.006 atmospheres. I believe that pressure can be reached in non planetary situations.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_point#Triple_point_of_water

 

[edpell]

But for the purposes of a life timeline the question is answered about 100 million years, OK maybe 300 million years, but with 13500 million years to work with the percentage difference is very small. Basically the whole life of the universe (short about 1%).