When did H2O develop during the last 13.5 b y?

[mheslep]

Greetings, Sundance

Sundance, I noticed that your forum rebuttal challenged as error, at least three published scientific papers as reference:





Sundance, this depends on a particular theory, such as Abiogenesis or Panspermia. Did you actually read these scientific papers before challenging them?
[/Color]
Reference:
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/0164755512w92302/fulltext.pdf"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia"

Orion - Sundance only challenged your Wikipedia references, and Wikipedia given as a reference is not the equivalent of a reference to original work published in a respected journal, even in the Wiki article happens to reference original work in the footnotes. Wiki may be fine for a quick link to explanatory or introductory material, but given Wiki is known to be sometimes wildly wrong, especially on controversial subjects, I suggest citing the backup directly if you want firm ground.

 

[Sundance]

Hello Mheslep

My last reading showed life fossils 3 Gys

From your ref it seems that fossils show life at 3.5 Gys. That means they must have evolved millions of years earlier or been planted from out there.

It would be quite interesting to find a fossil path.

Wishful thinking

 

[mheslep]

Hello Mheslep

My last reading showed life fossils 3 Gys

From your ref it seems that fossils show life at 3.5 Gys. That means they must have evolved millions of years earlier or been planted from out there.

It would be quite interesting to find a fossil path.

Wishful thinking

You mean Orion?

 

[Sundance]

Hello


Sometimes the word ooops comes to play.

 

[Orion1]

...self-replicating RNA to form on Mars...



Time required for water bearing third generation planet to form:
t_p = t_{\odot} - t_E = (4.57 - 4.54) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 0.03 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

\boxed{t_p = 0.03 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}

Minimum time required for inner planetary mass formation:
t_{pf} = \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) t_p = \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) (t_{\odot} - t_E)

\boxed{t_{pf} = \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) (t_{\odot} - t_E)}

Minimum time required for Venus planetary mass formation:
t_{pf} = \left( \frac{4.868}{5.9736} \right) 0.03 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 2.445 \cdot 10^7 \; \text{y}

\boxed{t_{pf} = 2.445 \cdot 10^7 \; \text{y}}

Minimum time required for self-replicating RNA to form on Venus:
t_{RNA} = t_{pf} + t_{wp} + t_g = (0.02445 + 0.14 + 0.4) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 0.564 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

\boxed{t_{RNA} = 0.564 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}

Studies have suggested that several billion years ago Venus's atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now, and that there were probably substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere.

...earth-like oceans that the young Venus is believed to have possessed have totally evaporated...

Minimum time required for Mars planetary mass formation:
t_{pf} = \left( \frac{6.4185 \cdot 10^{23} \; \text{kg}}{5.9736 \cdot 10^{24} \; \text{kg}} \right) 0.03 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 3.223 \cdot 10^6 \; \text{y}

\boxed{t_{pf} = 3.223 \cdot 10^6 \; \text{y}}

Minimum time required for self-replicating RNA to form on Mars:
t_{RNA} = t_{pf} + t_{wp} + t_g = (0.003223 + 0.14 + 0.4) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 0.543 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

\boxed{t_{RNA} = 0.543 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}

Noachian epoch (named after Noachis Terra): Formation of the oldest extant surfaces of Mars, 3.8 billion years ago to 3.5 billion years ago. Noachian age surfaces are scarred by many large impact craters. The Tharsis bulge volcanic upland is thought to have formed during this period, with extensive flooding by liquid water late in the epoch.

Evidence suggests that the planet was once significantly more habitable than it is today...

Tests conducted by the Phoenix Mars Lander have shown that the soil has a very alkaline pH and it contains magnesium, sodium, potassium and chloride. The soil nutrients may be able to support life, but life would still have to be shielded from the intense ultraviolet light.

At the Johnson space center lab organic compounds have been found in the meteorite ALH84001, which is supposed to have come from Mars. They concluded that these were deposited by primitive life forms extant on Mars before the meteorite was blasted into space by a meteor strike and sent on a 15 million-year voyage to Earth. Also, small quantities of methane and formaldehyde recently detected by Mars orbiters are both claimed to be hints for life, as these chemical compounds would quickly break down in the Martian atmosphere.

This rock is theorized to be one of the oldest pieces of the solar system, proposed to have crystallized from molten rock 4.5 billion years ago. Based on hypotheses surrounding attempts to identify where extraterrestrial rocks come from, it is supposed to have originated on Mars and is related to other martian meteorites. The theory holds that it was shocked and broken by one or more meteorite impacts on the surface of Mars some 3.9 to 4.0 billion years ago, but remained on the planet. It was later blasted off from the surface in a separate impact about 15 million years ago and, following some interplanetary travel, impacted Earth roughly 13,000 years ago.

Taunton reported the morphology of nanofossils in ALH84001 to be very similar to terrestrial samples without knowing that she was describing a Martian meteorite.

t_{RNA} = t_{pf} + t_{wp} + t_g = \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) (t_{\odot} - t_E) + (t_E - t_z) + (t_z - t_l)

Minimum time required for self-replicating RNA to form on inner planet:
\boxed{t_{RNA} = \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) (t_{\odot} - t_E) + (t_E - t_z) + (t_z - t_l)}
[/Color]
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALH84001"

 

[Sundance]

Hello

It nice to have these calculations.

Its great to compare.

What ever happened to Venus in all these calaculations.

 

[baywax]

Time required for water bearing third generation planet to form:
t_p = t_{\odot} - t_E = (4.57 - 4.54) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 0.03 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

\boxed{t_p = 0.03 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}

Minimum time required for inner planetary mass formation:
t_{pf} = \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) t_p = \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) (t_{\odot} - t_E)

\boxed{t_{pf} = \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) (t_{\odot} - t_E)}

Minimum time required for Venus planetary mass formation:
t_{pf} = \left( \frac{4.868}{5.9736} \right) 0.03 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 2.445 \cdot 10^7 \; \text{y}

\boxed{t_{pf} = 2.445 \cdot 10^7 \; \text{y}}

Minimum time required for self-replicating RNA to form on Venus:
t_{RNA} = t_{pf} + t_{wp} + t_g = (0.02445 + 0.14 + 0.4) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 0.564 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

\boxed{t_{RNA} = 0.564 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}


Minimum time required for Mars planetary mass formation:
t_{pf} = \left( \frac{6.4185 \cdot 10^{23} \; \text{kg}}{5.9736 \cdot 10^{24} \; \text{kg}} \right) 0.03 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 3.223 \cdot 10^6 \; \text{y}

\boxed{t_{pf} = 3.223 \cdot 10^6 \; \text{y}}

Minimum time required for self-replicating RNA to form on Mars:
t_{RNA} = t_{pf} + t_{wp} + t_g = (0.003223 + 0.14 + 0.4) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 0.543 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

\boxed{t_{RNA} = 0.543 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}



t_{RNA} = t_{pf} + t_{wp} + t_g = \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) (t_{\odot} - t_E) + (t_E - t_z) + (t_z - t_l)

Minimum time required for self-replicating RNA to form on inner planet:
\boxed{t_{RNA} = \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) (t_{\odot} - t_E) + (t_E - t_z) + (t_z - t_l)}
[/Color]
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALH84001"

Dating these events is based on the number of impact craters and what else? How accurate are the dating methods?

 

[Orion1]

Universal and geologic time...


Minimum time required for self-replicating RNA to form on inner planet:
\boxed{t_{RNA} = \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) (t_{\odot} - t_E) + (t_E - t_z) + (t_z - t_l)}

The inner planetary masses m_p, m_E have a maximum uncertainty of \pm 0.01 %.

The Solar age t_{\odot} was determind from General Relativity and the main-sequence stellar evolution Standard Solar Model Equation of State and has a maximum uncertainty of \pm 2.4 %.

The remaining ages, Earth, Zircon, RNA lifeform t_E, t_z, t_l were derived from Uranium-Lead radiometric dating methods and has a maximum uncertainty of \pm 1.0 %.

The maximum uncertainty of t_{RNA} based on this equation and the maximum uncertainty of the input parameters is \pm 12 %.
[/Color]
Reference:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0204331"
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080707134402.htm"
http://www.ga.gov.au/ausgeonews/ausgeonews200603/shrimp.jsp"

 

[Sundance]

Hello Orion

Thank you for the link

The age of the Sun and the relativistic corrections in the EOS
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0204331

It is slightly out of date, but worth reading.

From this link the writers have some very interesting papers

Bonanno A
http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Bonanno_A/0/1/0/all/0/1

Schlatl H
http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Schlattl_H/0/1/0/all/0/1

Paterno L
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Paterno+L/0/1/0/all/0/1

So I'm off to see the wizard and read a bit.

Thanks again

 

[HallsofIvy]

Hello Orion

Your dates taken from Wikipedia in my opinion are in error.

One in particular the first life


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Evolution_of_life


One billion years is a lot of time.

The question as to the origin is a main issue. Did life come from out there or can life start from just a mixture of chemicals.

I don't see that as being an important question. If life can't "start from just a mixture of chemicals", how would it start "out there". Panspermia doesn't answer any questions, it just moves the question off earth!

 

[baywax]

I don't see that as being an important question. If life can't "start from just a mixture of chemicals", how would it start "out there". Panspermia doesn't answer any questions, it just moves the question off earth!

Wherever life began in the universe, in my opinion, it began as a natural step in the evolution of the elements spurred on by the various laws of nature. Whether panspermia has populated the universe with life... or abiogenesis has taken place at every opportunity in the most opportune environments... is my question.

 

[Count Iblis]

Some scientists have proposed that complex molecules may have evolved inside comets and then delivered to Earth via glancing impacts or just via the comets shedding dust that than make it to Earth.

The very cold conditions inside comets make them ideal places to cook up complex molecules. In a test tube, the chemical reactions will produce the most stable compounds. You cannot make complex moleculs of which the intermedary products would be very unstable.

Inside a comet a molecule can react with another molecule in its immediate vicinity, without being bothered by other molecules that are further away. This allows the formation of large molecules which will in general be very unstable at room temperatures. But some of these unstable molecules may then combine to form more stable molecules.

If the comet is kicked out of the Oort cloud and ends up in an elliptical orbit bringing it close to the Sun for short periods, then during the brief warm periods inside the comets, the unstable complex molecules will be destroyed, the more stable molecules may be able to survive. What may also happen is that different unstable molecules that are unstable on a time scale of a few hours may combine to form a molecule that is stable on a time scale of months. These more stable molecules will then be able to survive the brief warm period

Then, the comet moves away from the Sun, and reactions will be limited to close neighbors again. Cosmic rays may cause muations at greater disctances from the Sun. Molecules can then form unstable combinations with impunity again until the next warm period arrives.

 

[Orion1]

On 28 September 1969, near the town of Murchison, Victoria in Australia, a bright fireball was observed to separate into three fragments before disappearing. A cloud of smoke and, 30 seconds later, a tremor was observed. Many specimens were found over an area larger than 13 km², with individual masses up to 7 kg; one, weighing 680 g, broke through a roof and fell in hay. The total collected mass exceeds 100 kg.

The meteorite belongs to the CM group of carbonaceous chondrites. Murchison is petrologic type 2, which means that it experienced extensive alteration by water-rich fluids on its parent body. before falling to Earth. CM chondrites, together with the CI group, are rich in carbon and are among the most chemically primitive meteorites in our collections. Like other CM chondrites, Murchison contains abundant CAIs. Over 100 amino acids (the basic components of biological life) have been identified in the meteorite. A 2008 study showed that the Murchison meteorite contains nucleobases. Measured carbon isotope ratios indicate a non-terrestrial origin for these compounds.

Measured purine and pyrimidine compounds are indigenous components of the Murchison meteorite. Carbon isotope ratios for uracil and xanthine of 44.5% and +37.7%, respectively, indicate a non-terrestrial origin for these compounds. These new results demonstrate that organic compounds, which are components of the genetic code, were already present in the early solar system and may have played a key role in life's origin.

More recent dating sets its age at nearly 4.95 billion years; nearly 500 million years older than the age of the Earth.

The Murchison meteorite contains 12% water.

Glycine - CH2NH2COOH - is the simplest of all the 20 amino acids and exists as molecules in the hot cores of three giant molecular clouds, Sagittarius-B2, Orion-KL and W51 which are regions of active star formation.

Water vapor has been discovered near a quasar 11.1 Billion light years away.

Terra experienced a period of heavy bombardment during the Hadean-Cryptic and Hadean-Lower Imbrian era, a high fraction of these meteors were probably carbonaceous chondrite based comets.

Murchison meteorite age:
t_M = 4.95 \; 10^9 \; \text{y}

Population I third generation Sol age:
t_{\odot} = 4.57 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

Terra age:
t_E = 4.54 \; 10^9 \; \text{y}

Maximum time between carbonaceous chondrite core comet formation and Terra formation:
\Delta t = t_M - t_E = (4.95 - 4.54) \; 10^9 \text{y} = 0.41 \; 10^9 \text{y}

\boxed{\Delta t = 0.41 \; 10^9 \text{y}}

The timescale suggests that carbonaceous chondrite core comets formed from a nebula rapidly prior to stellar formation into a proto-planetary disk prior to inner planetary formation, and chemically formulated Terra's primitive ocean via heavy bombardment with over 100 amino acids and at least four nucleobases which eventually resulted in self-replicating RNA.
[/Color]
Reference:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2063021&postcount=41"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite"

 

[baywax]

The timescale suggests that carbonaceous chondrite core comets formed from a nebula rapidly prior to stellar formation into a proto-planetary disk prior to inner planetary formation, and chemically formulated Terra's primitive ocean via heavy bombardment with over 100 amino acids and at least four nucleobases which eventually resulted in self-replicating RNA.

What is the probablility that these conditions existed or exist throughout the universe? We keep using Terra as an example but, is there a way to calculate how many times these conditions have taken place, resulting in self-replicating RNA and more?

So far my question has been answered by Orion1... although water vapor is not liquid water, it is H20. And the answer to "When did H2O (first) develop during the last 13.5 b y" seems to be something in the neighbourhood of 11.1 billion years ago near a quasar.

I assume that detecting that water vapor means we are detecting water vapor as it formed, 11.1 billion years ago because we are observing spectral data that has travelled, to us, for a period of 11.1 billion light years.

 

[baywax]

Glycine - CH2NH2COOH - is the simplest of all the 20 amino acids and exists as molecules in the hot cores of three giant molecular clouds, Sagittarius-B2, Orion-KL and W51 which are regions of active star formation."

Is this an indication that this particular amino acid is abundant throughout the universe?

Measured purine and pyrimidine compounds are indigenous components of the Murchison meteorite. Carbon isotope ratios for uracil and xanthine of 44.5% and +37.7%, respectively, indicate a non-terrestrial origin for these compounds. These new results demonstrate that organic compounds, which are components of the genetic code, were already present in the early solar system and may have played a key role in life's origin.

Is a phenomenon like the Murchison meteorite a common occurrence in the universe?...


(Quotes from Orion1's posts...)

 

[Orion1]

Glycine is probably a nebular product from third generation stellar formation throughout the entire Universe.

Asteroid and comet carbonaceous chondrite cores form from a nebula into a proto-planetary disk prior to third generation stellar formation and the nebular matter that carbonaceous chondrites form from probably occurs abundantly throughout the entire third generation nebular Universe.
[/Color]

 

[baywax]

Glycine is probably a nebular product from third generation stellar formation throughout the entire Universe.

Asteroid and comet carbonaceous chondrite cores form from a nebula into a proto-planetary disk prior to third generation stellar formation and the nebular matter that carbonaceous chondrites form from probably occurs abundantly throughout the entire third generation nebular Universe.
[/Color]

Thank you Orion1... cool as usual...

It looks as though life has had the opportunity to form in the universe since around 10 billion years ago. Of course its had the opportunity to be exterminated for the same amount of time. This is one thing people forget. Life, even intelligent life, has probably been established then wiped out repeatedly during this vast expanse of time. And here we are!

 

[Orion1]

Minumum/Maximum mass limit for habitable zone...


Universe age:
t_u = 13.85 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

Oldest star age in Galaxy: (HE 1523-0901, Milky Way)
t_0 = 13.2 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

Sol main sequence lifetime:
t_{L} = 11 \cdot 10^{9} \; \text{y}

Population I third generation Sol age:
t_{\odot} = 4.57 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

Terra age:
t_E = 4.54 \; 10^9 \; \text{y}

Oldest Zircon age:
t_z = 4.4 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

Terra's first RNA based lifeforms age:
t_l = 4.0 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}

Main sequence stellar lifetime:
\tau_{ms} = t_{L} \left( \frac{m_{\odot}}{m_s} \right)^{2.5}

Minimum time required for self-replicating RNA to form in Universe:
t_{RNA} = t_3 + t_{pf} + t_{wp} + t_g = (t_u - t_0) + \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) (t_{\odot} - t_E) + (t_E - t_z) + (t_z - t_l)

t_{RNA} = 1.22 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} \; \; \; (m_p = m_E)

Main sequence stellar lifetime equivalent to or greater than RNA minimum time:
\boxed{\tau_{ms} \geq t_{RNA}}

t_{L} \left( \frac{m_{\odot}}{m_s} \right)^{2.5} \geq (t_u - t_0) + \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) (t_{\odot} - t_E) + (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{(t_u - t_0) + \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) (t_{\odot} - t_E) + (t_E - t_z) + (t_z - t_l)}{t_L} \right)^{-0.4}}

This relationship applies to main sequence stars in the range 0.1–50 solar masses.

m_s \leq m_{\odot} \left( \frac{t_{RNA}}{t_L}} \right)^{-0.4} \leq m_{\odot} \left( \frac{1.22}{11} \right)^{-0.4} \leq 2.41 \cdot m_{\odot} \; \; \; (m_p = m_E)

Stellar main sequence mass spectrum for habitable zone in Universe:
\boxed{0.1 \cdot m_{\odot} \leq m_s \leq 2.41 \cdot m_{\odot}}
[/Color]
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence#Lifetime"

 

[baywax]

Hi Orion,

Looks like someone's been using your equations... to come up with this prediction..

AAAS: 'One hundred billion trillion' planets where alien life could flourish
There could be one hundred billion trillion Earth-like planets in space, making it "inevitable" that extraterrestrial life exists, according to a leading astronomer.

Life on Earth used to be thought of as a freak accident that only happened once.
But scientists are now coming to the conclusion that the universe is teeming with living organisms.
The change in thinking has come about because of the new belief there are an abundant number of habitable planets like Earth.
Alan Boss, of the Carnegie Institution in Washington DC, said there could be as many Earths as there are stars in the universe - one hundred billion trillion.
Because of this, he believes it is "inevitable" that life must have flourished elsewhere over the billions of years the universe has existed.
"If you have a habitable world and let it evolve for a few billion years then inevitably some sort of life will form on it," said Dr Boss.
"It is sort of running an experiment in your refrigerator - turn it off and something will grow in there.
"It would be impossible to stop life growing on these habitable planets."
He believes his views will be proved by NASA's Kepler outer space-based telescope, which takes off in the next three weeks with a mission to track down Earth-like habitable planets.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/space/4629672/AAAS-One-hundred-billion-trillion-planets-where-alien-life-could-flourish.html

In fact, I'd say the bugger's been in here ripping off most of what we (you) figured out!

 

[Orion1]

stellar mass limit for habitable zone...



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}}
[/Color]

 

[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}}
[/Color]

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!
[/Color]
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!
[/Color]
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'?
[/Color]
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'?
[/Color]
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%).