Slashdot Mirror
How Water Forms in Interstellar Space at 10K
KentuckyFC writes "Water is the most abundant solid material in space. But although astronomers see it on planets, moons, in comets and in interstellar clouds, nobody has been able to show how it forms. In theory, it should form easily when oxygen and atomic hydrogen meet. The problem is that there is not enough of it floating around as gas in interstellar dust clouds. So instead, the thinking is that water must form when atomic hydrogen interacts with frozen solid oxygen on the surface of dust grains in these clouds. Now Japanese astronomers have demonstrated this process for the first time in the lab in conditions that simulate interstellar space. That's cool because all the water in the solar system, including almost every drop you drink on Earth today, must have formed in exactly this way more than 5 billion years ago in a pre-solar dustcloud (abstract)."
The more we learn, the more obvious it becomes that life, far from being a unique or rare thing in the universe, is actually an inevitable natural process, and will consistently and repeatedly erupt under environmental conditions that are actually very common across the universe.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
That's cool because all the water in the solar system, including almost every drop you drink on Earth today, must have formed in exactly this way more than 5 billion years ago in a pre-solar dustcloud
Why must it? Could you justify that statement?
Gravity alone tends to cause interstellar clouds to collapse into stellar accretion disks, and then into stars and planets.
Although the Hydrogen and Oxygen in the original cloud may have had almost zero chance of getting together, once the cloud collapsed into relatively dense planetary atmospheres, why couldn't water have formed then?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A better question is when will people realize that the Bible never specifies the date of creation. Only idiots take the story literally.
You, ah, DO realize that God told us all of this, far before we could understand it, right?
Complaining about apparent nuance in the deity's creation is kind of like complaining that your stoner parents are straight-laced professionals now, even though they tell you they were stoners whenever you ask.
I could tell you how easy it is to reconcile the six-day creation with the universe's apparent age without the introduction of deception, but you've obviously made a religious choice to be atheist, and nothing I can say would dissuade you from that.
Instead, how about the gospel in 26 words? "God exists, He loves you, and even though you probably deserve to go to hell, He's willing to let you off if you love Him back."
Right. Well, there's still the whole "If you don't love me I will punish you infinitely for your finite sins" angle. That alone makes the Christian God batshit insane in my book.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
If man were created without the possibility of sin, he wouldn't be truly free. He wouldn't have the choice of living within or without God's presence. Again, not very interesting for God.
Why would God's sense of right and wrong be any more artificial than yours? And where does your sense of right and wrong come from? And how does your sense of right and wrong differ from the Biblical sense of right and wrong?