Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #372953 > unrolled thread

Re: Our Solar System Is Overflowing with Liquid Water [Graphic]

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Our Solar System Is Overflowing with Liquid Water [Graphic] Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-30 22:26 +0000
    Re: Our Solar System Is Overflowing with Liquid Water [Graphic] John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 15:34 -0800
      Re: Our Solar System Is Overflowing with Liquid Water [Graphic] Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-31 00:32 +0000
        Re: Our Solar System Is Overflowing with Liquid Water [Graphic] Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-03 13:59 +1100
          Re: Our Solar System Is Overflowing with Liquid Water [Graphic] John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 22:31 -0800
          Re: Our Solar System Is Overflowing with Liquid Water [Graphic] Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-03 13:24 +0000
            Re: Our Solar System Is Overflowing with Liquid Water [Graphic] Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-03 13:34 +0000
              Re: Our Solar System Is Overflowing with Liquid Water [Graphic] John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 15:01 -0800
                Re: Our Solar System Is Overflowing with Liquid Water [Graphic] Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-03 23:07 +0000
                  Re: Our Solar System Is Overflowing with Liquid Water [Graphic] pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-03 16:22 -0800
                    Re: Our Solar System Is Overflowing with Liquid Water [Graphic] Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-04 19:21 +0000
                      Re: Our Solar System Is Overflowing with Liquid Water [Graphic] pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-04 12:39 -0800
                        Re: Our Solar System Is Overflowing with Liquid Water [Graphic] Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-04 20:47 +0000
                          Re: Our Solar System Is Overflowing with Liquid Water [Graphic] pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-04 18:48 -0800
            Re: Our Solar System Is Overflowing with Liquid Water [Graphic] Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-04 11:58 +1100
              Re: Our Solar System Is Overflowing with Liquid Water [Graphic] pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-03 20:22 -0800
                Re: Our Solar System Is Overflowing with Liquid Water [Graphic] Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-04 16:29 +1100
                  Re: Our Solar System Is Overflowing with Liquid Water [Graphic] Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 11:12 +0100
                    Re: Our Solar System Is Overflowing with Liquid Water [Graphic] Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-04 23:17 +1100
                      Re: Our Solar System Is Overflowing with Liquid Water [Graphic] Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 13:57 +0100
              Re: Our Solar System Is Overflowing with Liquid Water [Graphic] Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-04 19:23 +0000
                Re: Our Solar System Is Overflowing with Liquid Water [Graphic] Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-05 10:33 +1100
      Re: Our Solar System Is Overflowing with Liquid Water [Graphic] Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-31 12:22 -0800
        Re: Our Solar System Is Overflowing with Liquid Water [Graphic] John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 01:02 -0800
          Re: Our Solar System Is Overflowing with Liquid Water [Graphic] Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-02 04:49 -0800

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#373288

Sylvia Else wrote:

> On 4/01/2016 12:24 AM, Kathleen Winder wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>> On 31/12/2015 11:32 AM, Waye Kitchens wrote:
>>>> John Heath wrote:
>>>>> Meteorites are dirty snowballs with a iron core for the most part.
>>>>
>>>> Good question. Iron and Water cannot stay together same place same
>>>> time, unless artificially creation.
>>>
>>> Why not?
>>
>> Water is about Oxygen, lady. Oxygen and Iron are highly reactive. My
>> friend Potink may jump in and support.
>>
>>
> Things often burn in oxygen, but I've not seen anything burn in water.
> As an argument, yours has much to be desired.
> The reaction that turns iron to rust depends on the presence of both
> water and free oxygen. In the absence of either it cannot proceed. It is
> not sufficient to have just iron and water. Sylvia.

So that water only touches the Iron by the Hydrogen atom!? This is better 
than watching television.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373314

On 5/01/2016 6:23 AM, Kathleen Winder wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> On 4/01/2016 12:24 AM, Kathleen Winder wrote:
>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 31/12/2015 11:32 AM, Waye Kitchens wrote:
>>>>> John Heath wrote:
>>>>>> Meteorites are dirty snowballs with a iron core for the most part.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good question. Iron and Water cannot stay together same place same
>>>>> time, unless artificially creation.
>>>>
>>>> Why not?
>>>
>>> Water is about Oxygen, lady. Oxygen and Iron are highly reactive. My
>>> friend Potink may jump in and support.
>>>
>>>
>> Things often burn in oxygen, but I've not seen anything burn in water.
>> As an argument, yours has much to be desired.
>> The reaction that turns iron to rust depends on the presence of both
>> water and free oxygen. In the absence of either it cannot proceed. It is
>> not sufficient to have just iron and water. Sylvia.
>
> So that water only touches the Iron by the Hydrogen atom!? This is better
> than watching television.
>

Nowhere did I suggest that. You lack of comprehension is astounding.

Sylvia

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373037

On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 4:34:57 PM UTC-7, John Heath wrote:
>
> Meteorites are dirty snowballs with a iron core for the most part.

Well, larger meteorites come in showers and are the remains of comets:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteoroid

"A meteor shower is the result of an interaction between a planet, such
as Earth, and streams of debris from a comet or other source"

OTOH, comets are Kuiper belt objects that are disturbed from their orbits
and fall toward the sun.  Their composition is commonly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt#Composition

"Studies of the Kuiper belt since its discovery have generally indicated
that its members are primarily composed of ices: a mixture of light
hydrocarbons (such as methane), ammonia, and water ice,[65] a composition
they share with comets"

Some come from the asteroid belt, and 75% of those are carbonaceous:

http://www.space.com/51-asteroids-formation-discovery-and-exploration.html/

So I'm not sure where all the iron comes from in meteorites.  Perhaps
there is a bit of iron in the Kuiper belt objects but it's minor compared
to the ices.  After a few passes around the sun, only the heavy stuff is
left.

> The iron came from an energetic response from a star where water is
> unlikely to be in a condensed form. This begs the question where did
> the condensed water come from for the dirty snow ball that we are seeing?

Comets, of course.  Bazillions of them hit the earth during its formation.
So, the question of where the water came from that makes up the objects
in the Kuiper belt is left as an exercise for the reader.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373116

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 3:22:47 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 4:34:57 PM UTC-7, John Heath wrote:
> >
> > Meteorites are dirty snowballs with a iron core for the most part.
> 
> Well, larger meteorites come in showers and are the remains of comets:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteoroid
> 
> "A meteor shower is the result of an interaction between a planet, such
> as Earth, and streams of debris from a comet or other source"
> 
> OTOH, comets are Kuiper belt objects that are disturbed from their orbits
> and fall toward the sun.  Their composition is commonly
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt#Composition
> 
> "Studies of the Kuiper belt since its discovery have generally indicated
> that its members are primarily composed of ices: a mixture of light
> hydrocarbons (such as methane), ammonia, and water ice,[65] a composition
> they share with comets"
> 
> Some come from the asteroid belt, and 75% of those are carbonaceous:
> 
> http://www.space.com/51-asteroids-formation-discovery-and-exploration.html/
> 
> So I'm not sure where all the iron comes from in meteorites.  Perhaps
> there is a bit of iron in the Kuiper belt objects but it's minor compared
> to the ices.  After a few passes around the sun, only the heavy stuff is
> left.
> 
> > The iron came from an energetic response from a star where water is
> > unlikely to be in a condensed form. This begs the question where did
> > the condensed water come from for the dirty snow ball that we are seeing?
> 
> Comets, of course.  Bazillions of them hit the earth during its formation.
> So, the question of where the water came from that makes up the objects
> in the Kuiper belt is left as an exercise for the reader.

Turns out the Kuiper belt has three times the heavy water to water ratio than our oceans. However the asteroid belt has the same heavy water to water ratio as our oceans. From this they are guessing that a good part of our water came from the asteroid belt. There was a nice documentary on it "how the universe works " , " the first oceans " . I recorded it on my TV box so I had a chance to replay and get the latest scoop on earth water. Unfortunately I can not provide a link as non of the website will play it for free. Maybe you will have better luck with " how the universe works , the first oceans". 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373121

On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 2:02:53 AM UTC-7, John Heath wrote:
>
> On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 3:22:47 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 4:34:57 PM UTC-7, John Heath wrote:
> > >
> > > Meteorites are dirty snowballs with a iron core for the most part.
> > 
> > Well, larger meteorites come in showers and are the remains of comets:
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteoroid
> > 
> > "A meteor shower is the result of an interaction between a planet, such
> > as Earth, and streams of debris from a comet or other source"
> > 
> > OTOH, comets are Kuiper belt objects that are disturbed from their orbits
> > and fall toward the sun.  Their composition is commonly
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt#Composition
> > 
> > "Studies of the Kuiper belt since its discovery have generally indicated
> > that its members are primarily composed of ices: a mixture of light
> > hydrocarbons (such as methane), ammonia, and water ice,[65] a composition
> > they share with comets"
> > 
> > Some come from the asteroid belt, and 75% of those are carbonaceous:
> > 
> > http://www.space.com/51-asteroids-formation-discovery-and-exploration.html/
> > 
> > So I'm not sure where all the iron comes from in meteorites.  Perhaps
> > there is a bit of iron in the Kuiper belt objects but it's minor compared
> > to the ices.  After a few passes around the sun, only the heavy stuff is
> > left.
> > 
> > > The iron came from an energetic response from a star where water is
> > > unlikely to be in a condensed form. This begs the question where did
> > > the condensed water come from for the dirty snow ball that we are seeing?
> > 
> > Comets, of course.  Bazillions of them hit the earth during its formation.
> > So, the question of where the water came from that makes up the objects
> > in the Kuiper belt is left as an exercise for the reader.
> 
> Turns out the Kuiper belt has three times the heavy water to water ratio
> than our oceans. However the asteroid belt has the same heavy water to
> water ratio as our oceans. From this they are guessing that a good part
> of our water came from the asteroid belt. There was a nice documentary on
> it "how the universe works " , " the first oceans " . I recorded it on my
> TV box so I had a chance to replay and get the latest scoop on earth water.
> Unfortunately I can not provide a link as non of the website will play it
> for free. Maybe you will have better luck with " how the universe works ,
> the first oceans".

Interesting.  I'll look for it.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web