Blogical Thought

On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:12:40 -0500,
Segrahc [segrahc@verizon.net] wrote:

> “The Scarcity of Life Bearing Planets”
>
> (See also our sister website reticsessays.com)
>
> There is considerable interest in the possibility that
> there may be a large number of planets in our galaxy that
> are suitable for life. In the hope that there may be intelligent
> life on planets lying within a reasonable distance, a project
> named SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) has
> been set up to search for evidence of that life. The idea
> behind the project is that intelligent life may be generating
> signals which can be received on Earth that are either a
> by-product of their civilization (such as our own radio
> broadcasts) or a deliberate attempt to communicate.
> Unfortunately, the probability of success of those programs
> is far lower than currently believed. If an Earth sized
> planet existed 93,000,000 miles from a star that was
> virtually identical to the Sun, it is extremely unlikely
> that it would be capable of supporting life.

IN YOUR IMAGINATION!

> To see why this should be so, an examination of
> our own Solar System is order.

MAKES SENSE TO
START WHERE YOU ARE!

> With the exception of Mercury, the Earth, Mars, and Pluto,
> all of the planets have enormous atmospheres (relative
> to the Earth). One can draw no conclusions about the
> original conditions on Mercury or Pluto. Mercury is
> too small and too close to the Sun to have prevented
> its atmosphere, regardless of its original quantity,

ORIGINAL QUANTITY?

I imagine that the original quantity
of most atmospheres is probably zero.

Do planets start out big?

How does that happen?

And in any case, the original
quantity is irrelevant!
How much do you have now?

> from boiling away to space. (There
> may be a remnant of an atmosphere frozen at the poles.)

On Mercury?
Isn’t that much too hot?

> At the other extreme, due to its distance from the Sun,
> any atmosphere that Pluto may have had at its beginning

What about the atmosphere it generated?

> and which has not been lost by evaporation to space
> is of necessity frozen solid and is therefore unobservable.

OK!

> Observations have shown that Mars once had a significant
> atmosphere that supported running water (and, by implication,
> oceans) but has lost both.

Yes.

> Apparently, its low gravitational mass has made it too easy
> for the Sun’s radiation to cause Mar’s atmosphere to evaporate
> to space. Of all the planets, it is Earth that is the anomaly.

> Due to its location, Venus receives about twice the heat
> input from the Sun as does the Earth. Its gravitational
> mass is slightly less than that of the Earth and yet it
> has an atmosphere about 70 times as dense as the
> Earth. In addition, the atmosphere of Venus is alleged to
> consist of mostly carbon dioxide. Since, under the
> evaporation process, the other normal atmospheric gases,
> having a lower molecular weight, will evaporate
> before carbon dioxide does, the initial Venusian
> atmosphere must have been
> significantly denser than it is now.

THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW AT ALL!

WHAT ABOUT ALL THE HYDROCARBONS AND OTHER
GASSES NATURALLY CREATED BY ANY PLANET?

> The Earth, on the other hand, has an atmosphere that contains a
> negligible quantity of carbon dioxide but is relatively rich in the
> lighter gases. In addition, it is estimated that about 3 billion
> years ago the atmospheric pressure on the Earth was about 20 PSI

Much as I am estimated to be
the world’s greatest lover?

> and has been reduced to its current level of 14.7 psi.

Or maybe it started at zero,
way back when, and has now
reached almost fifteen!

> This means that, for the Earth, 25% of the atmosphere
> has been lost in 3 billion years, probably by a net
> evaporation to space.

ARE YOU INSANE?

YOU FORGOT ALL THE GASSES
NATURALLY PRODUCED BY THE EARTH!

> (Any gas or vapor subject to a vacuum will
> evaporate, an atmosphere is no exception.)

Yes, that’s quite true!

> It seems reasonable to accept that the early history of
> the Solar System approximated the following stages:

Just as it seems QUITE reasonable to accept
that I am the world’s greatest lover!

> A:- The planets were formed by the collision of
> smaller objects circling the Sun in eccentric orbits.

OR MAYBE THEY CONDENSED
FROM A CLOUD OF GAS!
In a circular orbit.

It was so long ago,
I can’t even remember!

> The collision process continued until the Solar System
> was virtually cleared of objects in non-circular orbits.

Clever!

> B:- During the planetary formation stage, the planets could
> not acquire atmospheres because the bombardment that was
> forming them made their surfaces extremely hot.

Maybe?

> Atmospheric gases which impacted the planet from
> interplanetary space or from the accreting object
> might be expected to boil away quite rapidly,

Just as I might be expected to grow old and die.
We can easily see how foolish hexpecations are!

> particularly since they were being added to the
> surface of the planets.

Yes, gasses being lighter than rocks,
they tend to move to the surface.
Liquids like oil do too!

> C:- Once the rate of bombardment forming the planets reduced to the
> point where the planets could cool sufficiently, they were capable of
> collecting atmospheres from gases that remained in the Solar System.

Collecting atmosphere from the vacuum
that constantly bleeds it’s own off?

Run that by me one more time?

> (There are arguments that planetary atmospheres were
> formed by outgassing.

YES!

Have you heard of
volcanoes and oil wells?

They are quite well documented!

> The writer doubts this was a major source of atmosphere,

Back in ‘69, someone doubted that
I was the world’s greatest lover!

Where are they now?

> but whether it was or not does not affect the conclusions.

WHICH HAVE NO RELATIONSHIP TO FACTS?

> D:- For Venus and the gas giants to have their present atmospheric
> density, all of the planets, including the Earth, must have initially
> acquired enormous (by Earth standards) atmospheres.

INSANE RONSENSE!

NO EVIDENCE AT ALL FOR THIS
BLATANT ASSERTION OF WANK!

> They gained their atmospheres by sweeping up gases
> from the surrounding interplanetary space

Collecting atmosphere from the vacuum
that constantly bleeds it’s own off?

Could you hexplain that one more time?

> (and possibly by outgassing)

BUT WE WON’T TALK ABOUT THAT.

> and lost some of that atmosphere by
> evaporation to that same space from the
> uppermost layer of the atmosphere.

AS YOU HAVE POINTED OUT ALWAYS HAPPENS.

> In order for a molecule of gas to be lost to the planet, it must
> acquire a thermal velocity greater than the planet’s escape velocity.
> This must occur at an altitude at which the atmosphere is
> sufficiently thin so that it does not strike other molecules
> while escaping. (This occurs above the altitude where the effects
> of diffusion are significant.) The rate at which atmospheric
> gases are lost to space is determined almost entirely by
> the rate of energy input from the Sun and by the escape
> velocity of the planet at the top of its atmosphere.
> The rate of atmosphere loss is virtually independent of
> the amount of atmosphere the planet owns at any
> instant of time.

OK.

> The Earth-Moon system has two characteristics that are anomalous
> compared to the other planets. The first is that it has far too much
> angular momentum (orbital angular momentum, rotational angular
> momentum of the Earth and the Moon, and orbital angular momentum
> of the Moon around the Earth).

MIGHT THAT BE AN INDICATOR THAT
THE MOON IS A CAPTURED OBJECT?

> As pointed out in a text by Dr. Urey, an exponential plot of
> angular momentum vs. total mass for all of the other planets yields a
> straight line.

Supporting the capture theory?

> The total angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system lies
> far above that line.

Captured?

> The second anomaly is that it contains far too little
> atmosphere

We do?
For what?

> and, unlike Mars, the density of that atmosphere
> has remained almost unchanged.

????

> A satisfactory explanation for both of these anomalies
> seems to have been provided in the 80’s by a computer
> simulation of a glancing impact on the Earth by an object
> having a mass about one sixth of its mass and which yields
> a conclusion for the formation of the Earth-Moon system
> which seems to be currently accepted.

OK.

SO FAR, I DON’T SEE ANY CONNECTION
WITH THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

> The simulation predicted the formation of a binary system with a
> Moon sized object orbiting the Earth an altitude of about 12,000
> miles, with the Earth having a 4 hour day, and with the Earth
> having captured the iron cores of both objects.

Interesting!

The moon’s old core is at
the bottom of the pacific?

> Since the length of the Earth’s day was, is, and will
> remain less than the Moon’s orbital period until the
> Sun enters its red giant stage, tidal effects on the
> Earth will perpetually transfer angular momentum from
> the Earth to the Moon. This transfer has lengthened
> the Earth’s day to 24 hours and has caused the Moon’s
> orbit to increase to 238,000 miles. More important,
> such an impact would have blasted away most if not
> all of the atmosphere the Earth had at the time and,

MAYBE THE MOON’S TOO?

> if the collision occurred late enough in the
> formation period of the Solar System, most of the
> interplanetary gases would have already been absorbed
> by the other planets and/or lost to interstellar space
> and not be available to reform much of an atmosphere on
> the Earth.

I’m sorry to be so slow, but
could you hexplain yet again?

> This scenario could easily allow the Earth to have the
> comparatively puny but stable atmosphere required to
> support the evolution of intelligent life.

So you think there
may be life on earth?

> In order for a planet to support life, not only must it be
> in the “life zone” about a suitable star, it must possess
> an atmosphere of a suitable density for a sufficient period
> of time for life to evolve. On the Earth, life does not
> seem to prosper above an altitude where the density is half
> an atmosphere. At the other end of the scale, the atmosphere
> must not be too thick or the wavelengths of radiation needed
> for photosynthesis

IS NOT NECESSARY
FOR LIFE AT ALL!
EVEN HERE ON EARTH!

LOOK AT ALL THE LIFE BY
THE HOT DEEP-SEA VENTS!

> not only will not reach the atmosphere-water
> interface where life begins,

You can remember that far back?
And even where it happened?

I thought it was in
sub-surface liquids!

> that interface is likely to be too hot due to the
> temperature rise of adiabatic compression.

????

> (This temperature rise is the reason the surface of Venus is
> so hot).

I STUPIDLY ASSUMED THAT WAS
BECAUSE IT GOT TWICE AS MUCH
SOLAR HEATING AS EARTH DOES.

> Making the optimistic assumption that four and a half atmospheres
> is the highest suitable atmospheric pressure

????

WHAT ARE YOU BABBLING ABOUT?

MAMMALIAN LIFE THRIVES AT
THOUSANDS OF ATMOSPHERES
IN THE OCEAN!

> requires that a life supporting planet not lose
> more than four atmospheres of density in the
> period required for intelligent life to evolve.

As long as atmospheric density
is increasing, that probably
won’t be a real problem!

> For a planet starting with the atmospheric density of Venus
> to lose 60 PSI of surface atmospheric pressure in 3 billion
> years (the time required for intelligent life to
> have evolved on Earth), the existence of such life would
> require an age of 50 billion years for the planetary system.

????

WANKER’S WANK!

> Such a conclusion presents problems.

SO MAYBE IT’S JUST HYSTERICAL WANK!

> A star similar to our Sun will become a red giant about
> 10 billion years after its formation and the apparent
> age of the Universe is only 15 billion years.

NOT THE BIG BANG WANK!

ARE YOU FINISHED WITH
MY BOOK ON EPICYCLES YET?

> On the other hand, if a planet such as Mars lost
> its atmosphere at a sufficient rate to reach compatibility with the
> requirements of life before its star became a red giant, it would pass
> though the “life range” so quickly that intelligent life would
> probably not have had time to evolve.

????
Are you arguing that
life on Mars never existed?

> It is the author’s belief that, without the
> addition of the ‘wild card’ implicit in the postulated Earth-Moon
> collision, a planet capable of supporting life cannot exist.

THEREFORE NEITHER EARTH NOR THE
MOON HAD ANY LIFE PRE-COLLISION?

THEREFORE MARS DOES NOT EXIST?

> (It is hoped that this question would be examined further.)
> It is the author’s belief that intelligent life is much
> rarer in the Universe than Dr. Sagan suggested.

Certainly rarer than I would have
expected, in your neighborhood!

> The asteroid belt exists as a ring of stony and iron rocks in orbit
> about the Sun between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. The radius of
> that orbit coincides with the anticipated location of a planet under
> the conventional theory of planetary formation.

Under the convent’ional theory,
I am the world’s greatest lover!

> If one examines the objects in the asteroid belt,
> the moons of Mars, and the meteorites that strike the
> Earth, one finds that, unlike comets, many if not most
> of them composed of stone or of iron. Unlike the flimsy
> comets, such objects cannot form by accretion, they can
> only be formed within a planet-sized object that has
> already accreted. One must conclude, therefore, that
> initially a planet did form at the radius of the
> asteroid belt and was later shattered by a collision.

MAKES SENSE.

> Such a collision would drive away most of the planetary
> material and leave a residue of rocks from the planet’s
> upper layers and iron objects from the planet’s core.

> That collision is a reasonable candidate as the source
> for the object that impacted the early Earth to form the
> Earth-Moon system, the meteorites which strike the Earth,
> and the moons of Mars.

OK!

> The writer is of the strong opinion that, unless a planet that is
> located around its star and sized to be suitable for the retention
> of an atmosphere,

OR GENERATION THEREOF!

> undergoes such a history at the appropriate time in the
> planetary system process a planet suitable for the evolution of
> intelligent life cannot evolve. It would seem, therefore, that
> in addition to the probability factors now considered for the
> existence of life bearing planets that yield the possibility
> of perhaps 100 civilizations within our galaxy, an additional
> factor must be considered for each candidate planetary system.
> This factor is the probability of AN EVENT occurring at the
> right time in the planetary formation process to drive
> off the excess atmosphere

EXCESS ATMOSPHERE?
WHAT IS THAT?

> from a planet that is large enough to retain a
> stable atmosphere. When added to the already tabulated probabilities
> assumed for the SETI observations, it seems quite probable that
> instead of a civilization occurring about 100 times in a galaxy
> as is currently hoped, civilization would occur once in a hundred
> or a thousand galaxies.

IF YOU PROJECT YOUR ASSUMPTIONS,
YOU GET WHAT YOU HEXPECTED ALL ALONG!

> If this were the case, the SETI project
> would seem to be doomed to failure.

BASED ON YOUR ASSUMPTIONS!

> The source material for this posting may be found in
> http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm (1997);
> http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm (1987); and
> http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997).

[ ... SNIP ... ]

WHAT ABOUT THE LIFE
RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO
US ON MARS? OOOOPS!

WHAT ABOUT THE ASTERIODS?

IF THEY NEVER HAD LIFE,
HOW DID THEY GET MILLIONS
OF BIOLOGICAL COMPOUNDS?

YOU NEED TO READ RADO AND GET
SOME BASIC PHYSICS CONCEPTS
LIKE THE EVOLVING UNIVERSE!

THEN IT WILL MAKE MUCH MORE SENSE!

KP2009DEC22+ AETHRO-DYNAMICS RELEASED!

AFTER TOO MANY MONTHS
OF SAYING “ANY DAY NOW”
IT’S FINALLY OUT!

SANTA BROUGHT IT
JUST FOR YOU!
GET IT QUICK!

YOU CAN BUY IT IN PAPER FOR $29.50
PLUS SHIPPING ON AMAZON.COM at:

http://www.amazon.com/Aethro-dynamics-Steven-Rado/dp/0966757181

AETHRO-KINEMATICS [A-K] IN 1994 FIRMLY
ESTABLISHED STEVEN RADO AS BY FAR THE
GREATEST PHYSICIST IN HUMAN HISTORY.

*NOBODY* ELSE EVEN COMES CLOSE!

ONLY A FEW LIKE KEPLER, DESCARTES
GALLILEO, FARADAY, MAXWELL, ETC.
WERE EVEN ON THE RIGHT TRACK!

FOR THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS PHYSICS
HAS GONE *BACKWARDS* INTO IRRELEVANT,
UNINTELLIGIBLE MATHEMATICAL *WANK*!

[I WAS A PHYSICS MAJOR AT THE UNIVERSITY
OF CHICAGO IN THE 1960'S, UNTIL I REALIZED
THAT "PHYSICISTS" WERE JUST MATHEMATICIANS
PRETENDING* TO KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT
PHYSICS, BUT HAD *NO* UNDERSTANDING!
I FLED FROM PHYSICS IN TERROR AND
DISGUST UNTIL STEVE BROUGHT ME BACK
WITH SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY MADE SENSE!]

UNTIL AETHRO-KINEMATICS,
THE 20TH CENTURY WAS A
COMPLETE AND UNMITIGATED
*CATASTROPHE* FOR PHYSICS!
BUT THAT’S ALL OVER NOW!

AETHRO-DYNAMICS [A-D] IN 2009
FAR SURPASSES EVEN A-K!

IF A-K IS THE BOOSTER
THAT PUT PHYSICS IN ORBIT,
A-D LAUNCHED IT ON IT’S
INTERSTELLAR JOURNEY!

I PRAYED FOR 15 YEARS THAT
STEVE WOULD WRITE MORE!

NOW IT’S HERE!

GET *YOUR* TICKET-TO-RIDE!

===========================
THESE TWO EPOCHAL BOOKS ARE
*THE* SUPREME INTELLECTUAL
TRIUMPH OF THE HUMAN RACE!
===========================

NOBODY ELSE EVEN COMES CLOSE!

EVEN “GODEL, ESCHER, BACH” FADES
INTO INTELLECTUAL INSIGNIFICANCE
NEXT TO STEVE’S *UNRIVALED* WORK!

STEVE PUTS IT *ALL* TOGETHER!
THERE IS *NO* SUBSTITUTE!

IF YOU HAVE NOT READ RADO,
YOU ARE JUST PLAIN *IGNORANT*
ABOUT PHYSICS, *ESPECIALLY* IF
YOU HAVE A PHD. IN PHYSICS!

PHYSICS PHD’S KNOW
THE LEAST OF ALL!

THEY DON’T EVEN KNOW,
THAT THEY DON’T KNOW!

WHAT WANKERS!

IT’S A WHOLE *NEW* GAME NOW!

YOU HAVE GOT TO *UNLEARN*
NEWTON, COULOMB, EINSTEIN,
QUANTUM MECHANICS, DIMENSIONS
4 THROUGH N, AND EVEN
TANGLED STRING THEORY!

*THEN* YOU CAN *UNDERSTAND*!

A-K IS A HUGE [527 PAGES]
ANALYSIS OF THE HISTORY
OF PHYSICS, EXHAUSTIVELY
DOCUMENTING MOSTLY GRAVITY.

A-D IS A SMALLER [153 PAGES] WORK
WHICH WHICH EXTENDS AETHER ANALYSIS
INTO THE OTHER AREAS OF PHYSICS.

IT HAS FOUR MAJOR CHAPTERS:
[1] FERRO-MAGNETISM
[2] ELECTRO-MAGNETISM
[3] ELECTRO-STATICS
[4] GRAVITY REVISITED

ELECTRO-STATICS BREAKS
SHOCKING NEW GROUND,
THAT WILL LEAVE YOUR
HAIR STANDING ON END
AND YOUR JAW IN YOUR LAP!

A-D IS THE ABSOLUTELY THE
BEST INTRODUCTION TO PHYSICS,
AND ALSO THE MOST ADVANCED TEXT!

[NOT BAD FOR A GUY WHO
NEVER WENT TO COLLEGE,
BUT TRAINED DILIGENTYLY AS
A MYSTERY-NOVEL DETECTIVE,
WITH HIS BROTHER LAZLO,
WHO GOT SENT TO THE RUSSIAN
FRONT, AND NEVER CAME BACK!]

A-K AND A-D ARE ALSO THE
FINEST MYSTERY STORIES
EVER WRITTEN! BUT THEY
ARE TRUTH, NOT FICTION!

AFTER YOU READ A-D YOU
CAN WORK THROUGH A-K
TO GET THE FULL STORY.

===================
A-D ALSO COMES WITH
A *FREE* CD OF A-K!
===================

EVERYTHING IMPORTANT KNOWN ABOUT
PHYSICS IN ONE LITTLE PACKAGE!

FROM THE *ONE* GUY WHO
FIGURED IT *ALL* OUT!

THIS IS THE BEST DEAL
IN PHYSICS EDUCATION
THAT HAS EVER EXISTED!

DON’T WAIT TO
GET YOUR CLUES!

O
— )
\

KONCHOK PENDAY
EDITOR, A-D

NEWSGROUPS:
alt.ucp,alt.conspiracy,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
PERMALINK: http://net-prophet.net/?p=2007