Slashdot Mirror
Earth May Have Kept Its Own Water Rather Than Getting It From Asteroids (sciencemag.org)
sciencehabit writes: Carl Sagan famously dubbed Earth the 'pale blue dot' for our planet's abundant water. But where this water came from—and when it arrived—has been a longstanding debate. Many scientists argue that Earth formed as a dry planet, and gained its water millions of years later through the impact of water-bearing asteroids or comets. But now, scientists say that Earth may have had water from the start, inheriting it directly from the swirling nebula that gave birth to the solar system. If true, the results suggest that water-rich planets may abound in the universe.
What darkweb site can I buy what you're on? And for how many bitcoins?
Come on sense say's it would have taken much more than 6,000 years to fill the oceans with snowballs falling from space. So-called scientists get it wrong again.
The important question isn't how, but why.
The flying spaghetti monster gave us water so that we could boil pasta.
OTOH, Genesis also says that the stars and planets weren't created until the third day (Genesis 1:14). That doesn't jibe with the rather abundant evidence that he/she/it left laying around about the age and evolutionary course of the Universe.
Nothing against the Genesis creation story. On the whole, it's not all that bad a fit to Astronomy, Geology, Paleontology. For a collection of what seems to be complete nonsense, try the Great Flood as described in Genesis chapters 6 thru 9.
Let me suggest that if you wish to believe in God, that's certainly your option. But if you wish to believe that the Bible is literally true and completely accurate, you must seriously consider the notion that God was a totally incompetent copy editor who managed to bungle the task of making the description of creation, etc match the physical evidence.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
substitution, happens all the time... grace is a state a place a person?
You do not understand what you have read or its context.
Genesis 1:6-9 ; Psalm 74:13-17
The Judaeo-Christian creation myth is a variation on the Canaanite and Mesopotamian creation myths. (No surprise as the Jews came out of the land of Canaan and spoke a version of their language). Leviathan/Tiamat was a dragon water goddess whose body was split to form the seas and the heavens. Psalm discusses the slaying, and Genesis describes the dividing in detail.
The Bible's description of Earth is a flat Earth with a dome-like vault (a firmament) above holding back the waters of heaven. The vault opens to let the rains out -- and, apparently, there's enough water up there to flood the entire earth as during Noah's flood.
You cherry pick details that match what science says, then disregard those that you do not like as metaphor. What you can't explain as metaphor or confirm as matching reality, you use to rage against truths discovered through science. You simply cannot accept that your religion is a lie rooted in ancient mythology.
Other compounds contain Hydrogen
and the early earth had plenty of compounds with oxygen
Thanks to plate tectonics, We don't have much direct information on the early stages of the the Earth's history. But I've never understood why it was assumed that (much of) the Earth's water hasn't been there since our planet coalesced. Of course, I've also never understood the necessity to invoke an improbable planetary collision to explain the moon. It's not like binary pairs of large objects are rare in the universe.
And even if the water did come entirely from cometary impacts after formation, why would that preclude lots of other watery planets? Are comets assumed to be rare in other planetary systems? Why?
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
Depends on the size of the snowball, and if they included a rocky center. You would need a rocky center for there to be left a trace. After all, if you didn't see it, did it exist? The extrapolation is make believe, just as fiction or sci-fi. But now they are rehashing the rehashed leftovers trying to split the chefs hairs?
Why couldn't it have been a combination of water from the proto earth and asteroids and comets later on? There's little doubt the earth was bombarded for millions of years after it formed so it seems silly to pretend that didn't deliver any water to the planet.
... throughout the solar system, and, by extension, abundant everywhere. Earth formed containing plenty, as every celestial body will. It would have all been fine crystals initially. Now I'll just whip back in my TARDIS and grab some early samples to prove my hypothesis.
How else you gonna keep the universities full?
Surely we know all about Earth's hydrological history and the science is settled, right? We had a scientific theory, so that's it - it's settled.
OR
Perhaps the "science" conducted by sitting in a room with a computer and day-dreaming about what "would-a/could-a/should-a happened" long ago with lots of conjecture about the possibilities we can imagine but not proof of what ACTUALLY happened might not be so certain and final. It's not easy to prove any of it or even to exclude the numerous possibilities the current generation of day-dreamers have not even considered.
Wake me up when somebody invents an actual H.G. Wells-style time machine that lets us go back and see what really happened; until then, this is all academic, but with all the credibility, authority and scientific legitimacy of a "reality TV" show.
Not so different from trace water on the Moon but on grander scale.
Enough mass for captive atmosphere
+ Great Oxygenation Event cyanobacterial critters emitting O2
+ UV light splitting the O2
+ free H from solar wind
= H2O forming in the upper atmosphere, no comets required
Earth clearly has water, and we think Mars was much, much wetter billions of years ago, and many scientists theorize Venus once had an abundant liquid water supply, so if so, that's three planets within a band of the Solar System, and thus is stands to reason that liquid water exists at least in similarly configured extra solar systems, right? Of course that doesn't answer the question of whether water is either endogenous or exogenous, or a little of both, but if asteroids and comets can carry water, enough to populate perhaps three planets, why can't the planets themselves carry a proportional abundance of water? Then again, I'm no planetologist, so I'm probably barking out my asshole.
" If true, the results suggest that water-rich planets may abound in the universe."
Or if the other theory about asteroids is true, then water-rich planets may abound in the universe. So this changes nothing. Also, both theories explain why all the planets in our solar system are so rich and abundant in water. Except that they are not.
Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, making up about 3/4 of the mass of the universe. Oxygen is the third most common, but the 2nd most common, Helium, takes up almost 1/4 of the mass of the universe. Oxygen makes up about 1/70th as much mass in the universe as hydrogen. However, somewhat unique on Earth, Oxygen makes up about 64% of the mass of Earth. Atmospheric Oxygen in the other planets is negligible, and even Oxygen combined in other compounds on other planets is a much smaller percentage than on Earth. Oddly, Hydrogen is relatively uncommon on Earth when compared to its abundance in the rest of the universe.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Traditionally genesis is not interpreted literally. Its been mainly a nut case interpretation all along that it was meant literally.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/genesis-as-allegory/
Remember the current theory of the formation of the moon! The collision could eject a huge amount of H (in various forms), into space. This gives an opportunity for isotopic sorting, the lighter H having a greater chance of being blown away by the solar wind, the heavier having a greater chance of coming back.
The article implies an either/or scenario instead of the idea that both hypotheses could be valid: water was present during the forming of the earth and water was also supplied by asteroids and comets.
The important question isn't how, but why.
The flying spaghetti monster gave us water so that we could boil pasta.
So what your hinting at is that the flying spaghetti monster likes to get eaten?
I guess I can understand that...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
The article says that the comets are much richer in deuterium than Earth's water. The small inclusions of water in primordial rocks match the isotopic balance of sea water. That is why the comet theory is now relatively disfavored.
But how did the isotopes get differentially distributed in the primordial cloud, so that the deuterium collected in the outer regions where the comets formed, rather than in the region between Jupiter's orbit and the Sun itself?
There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
The flying spaghetti monster giveth its body to true believers, so they acquire Its divine wisdom.
Ah. Like zombie Jesus! lol.