Life in Earth is by Moon and 3 articles more over Moon and Earth

[lbiarge]

Life in Earth is by Moon and 3 articles more over Moon and Earth

 

 

Life in Earth is by Moon

 

 

Many astronomers and biologist say that live is according to habitable zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone) , not very near from the star and not very far from star in the ice zone to admit water in liquid form and temperatures not many lows.

 

But according to this Venus, Moon and Mars at least are into this zone … with different gravities but admit life but without water at all.

 

Earth only has an unique object, this is Moon, Earth is not so special, without water it would be very easy to Mars. But Moon provide many things to Earth:

 

1 – tides: A Moon so near and big like us give tides, and the tides give many more things: probably sea currents, facilitate live in the seas, … Also remember that live probably begin in seas and in seas tides and currents are very important, probably without theirs not would begin live in Earth. Remember that tides go in contrary direction to the rotation of Earth.

 

2 – Magnetic field: Earth has a bigger magnetic field that other similar planets and this magnetic field is necessary for the live we know ejecting particles (visible in Auroras). In part this information is grow later in other points. Now I can say that the magnetic field without the Moon would be less, and the live like we know is impossible without a big magnetic field like in Earth.

 

3 – Volcanoes and hot nucleus: volcanoes are not directly from Moon (like Mars) but without the Moon the volcanism duration is less in years (today Mars show not volcanism and against it Earth show many), in Venus maybe in actual time. Tidal forces are very big energy that can raise million of tones of water in the seas and also tidal in the nucleus of Earth, the seas are shorter that the nucleus by lands.

 

In points 2 and 3 we need to consider the Moon and the tides that make to the Earth nucleus (we see the tides in oceans) that is liquid in same form that oceans.

 

In same form that tides in the sea make a total rotation in 24 hours, probably occurs the same in the nucleus and this create our so big magnetic field that defend us in many forms.

 

A proof over hot nucleus can to be found in Enceladus tidal forces (a moon of Saturn) with “the probe discovered a water-rich plume” and “proximity to the planet can then lead to tidal heating of the satellite's interior” in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enceladus_%28moon%29

 

4 – Water: Mars also had water but has lose all less in ice form, in same form Earth without Moon and the magnetic field would lose all water in gas and liquid forms.

 

5 – Continental drift: Mars has volcanoes but static, by that has the bigger volcano known: Olympus Mons on Mars (“The Largest Volcano in the Solar System” - http://www.universetoday.com/15588/t...-solar-system/ )

 

5 – In less quantity but also provide any few defense against meteorites like a defense.

 

6 – Axis inclination and 4 seasons from this: maybe in relation with the Moon, at least it’s in relation with inclination of the magnetic field in respect to the axis in same form that pulsars have inclined the magnetic field by tidal forces. Is probably that make change the axis inclination, with precession of 26000 years “due to the tidal forces exerted by the Sun and the Moon on the solid Earth” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles , maybe life could exist without season but also with very cold zones, and by that at least seasons help life.

 

The difference of both axis (magnetic and rotation) also is a proof over the tidal forces from Moon to the nucleus in same form that in the pulsars.

 

Live need more conditions really but all this are important, another conditions are a quicker rotation for not have very cold nights (rotation in Mars is very close to Earth but without live), gravity (probably less important and in relation with the biggest size of animals and vegetables into a certain values), also help water or another liquid that compensate the differences in temperature in day and night by caloric power (but another time in past Mars had water).

 

Time of rotation and water make that the differences day-night in Earth is less bigger that in the other bodies near us: In Moon variation is from +110º to – 180ºC, Mars from +20º to -140ºC, Venus from +470º to +120ºC. But Mars day is very near to Earth.

 

--------------------

 

Really in all the universe we know there is not other object like our Moon, so big and in a few distance from the planet in the habitable zone.

 

Our planet is the only we know with colors blue (water) and green (vegetation), but without the Moon would lose the water and without water the aspect would by like Mars. Mars in past is near sure had water.

 

 

I add 3 more other related hypotheses more:

 

1 - “Moon move away and closer from Earth” in form that change the polarity, in other work because the magnetic polarity change and now the magnetic poles are inverted

 

2 – “The magnetic poles changes are by the Moon”.

 

3 – “The inclination of the magnetic axis from the rotational axis is by Moon”.

 

This is in relation to magnetic poles changes in history and that today the magnetic field of Earth is inverted, so north pole is “in a physical sense actually a south magnetic pole.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole , because the Moon near make that the nucleus rotate inverted. Against this Venus has not magnetic field, Mars has various, “on Jupiter the north pole of the dipole is located in the planet's northern hemisphere” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere_of_Jupiter

 

 

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Moon move away and closer from Earth

 

In Earth is proved that in history the magnetic field poles have changed – “At random intervals (averaging several hundred thousand years) the Earth's field reverses” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field

 

Also the actual polarity in Earth is inverted, so “in a physical sense actually a south magnetic pole.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole ,. because the Moon near make that the nucleus rotate inverted. Against this Venus has not magnetic field, Mars has various, “on Jupiter the north pole of the dipole is located in the planet's northern hemisphere” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere_of_Jupiter

 

Also that tidal forces act over the nucleus by Enceladus tidal forces (a moon of Saturn) with “the probe discovered a water-rich plume” and “proximity to the planet can then lead to tidal heating of the satellite's interior” in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enceladus_%28moon%29

 

Also that inclined magnetic axis in relation to rotation axis is by Moon tidal forces in same relation that pulsars.

 

All this proof that the Moon sometimes move away from Earth (actually) and another times closer.

 

When Moon is near (actually) the hot nucleus like tides rotate inverted to rotation and by that the polarity is inverted, when the Moon move away then in a period the magnetic fields are several or to the equator and more away obtain the non inverted sense like other planets without our Moon (like Jupiter), later Moon begin another time to move closer to Earth.

 

 

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

The magnetic poles changes are by the Moon

 

In relation with the other information I can affirm that the magnetic poles changes are by the Moon, when the Moon is near the polarity is inverted like today, and when the Moon is far the polarity is not inverted.

 

 

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Magnetic axis inclination from the rotational axis is by Moon

 

In same form that the magnetic axis is inclined in pulsars by tidal forces this occurs in Earth by the tidal forces from the Moon, also is in relation with rotation axis.

 

Also the rotation axis has precession of 26000 years “due to the tidal forces exerted by the Sun and the Moon on the solid Earth” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

 

The tidal forces of the Moon over the Earth make that the magnetic axis change from the rotation axis in same circumstance like a pulsar but also the effect of the tidal forces make change the rotation axis.

 

Thanks.

 

© Luis Biarge Baldellou. - webpage :

 

[lbiarge]

Another proof, this for magnetic field, “”The Moon’s linear distance from the Earth is currently increasing at a rate of 3.82±0.07cm per year” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon” – and also “According to Tarduno, the strength of Earth’s magnetic field “has been decreasing for at least 160 years at an alarming rate, leading some to speculate that we are heading toward a reversal.”” – http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2158-earth-magnetic-field-poles-flip.html and according to this today “The gravitational attraction of the Sun on the Earth’s oceans is almost half that of the Moon” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon because the Moon distance is increasing.

[SamBridge]

Can you please be more cohesive in the structure of your points? I really don't know what this is about or what you are saying all the time.

Edited February 21, 2013 by SamBridge

[Ophiolite]

Perhaps I can summarise it for you Sam:

 

"By ignoring key factors such as the differences in mass of the terrestrial planets; and by disregarding reasonably well established models for such things as the geodynamo; and by forgetting about a plethora of interlocked observations; but relying instead upon misunderstood and misinterpreted information from the popular press and the Discovery channel, it is possible for me to formulate an ill conceived, self contradictory, concatenation of word salad and gobbledegook."

 

Of course I could simply be an ignorant, dogma ridden, close minded skeptic whose requests for evidence and logical argument are nothing more than a feeble attempt to stand in the way of progress and block the bursting of the next Newton or Galileo upon the world. I'll let you judge.

[lbiarge]

Perhaps I can summarise it for you Sam:

 

"By ignoring key factors such as the differences in mass of the terrestrial planets; and by disregarding reasonably well established models for such things as the geodynamo; and by forgetting about a plethora of interlocked observations; but relying instead upon misunderstood and misinterpreted information from the popular press and the Discovery channel, it is possible for me to formulate an ill conceived, self contradictory, concatenation of word salad and gobbledegook."

 

Earth and Mars have different mass but Earth and Venus have near same mass, you say it's like affirm that the Earth thas the perfect mass.

 

The rest of your note I think also is gratuitous and don't give no more (not affirm or deny only is subjective).

 

Jupiter also has magnetic field, turn in same direction that Earth but the poles are against in Earth)

Edited February 21, 2013 by lbiarge

[imatfaal]

Perhaps I can summarise it for you Sam:

"...gobbledegook" or "Of course I could be.."

Ah but the options are not mutually exclusive; can we put our money on both

 

!

Moderator Note

In either case I think Speculations is a better home for this topic.

[lbiarge]

Ah but the options are not mutually exclusive; can we put our money on both

 

!

Moderator Note

In either case I think Speculations is a better home for this topic.

 

Probably you has reason. Sorry.

 

Perhaps I can summarise it for you Sam:

 

"By ignoring key factors such as the differences in mass of the terrestrial planets; and by disregarding reasonably well established models for such things as the geodynamo; and by forgetting about a plethora of interlocked observations; but relying instead upon misunderstood and misinterpreted information from the popular press and the Discovery channel, it is possible for me to formulate an ill conceived, self contradictory, concatenation of word salad and gobbledegook."

 

Of course I could simply be an ignorant, dogma ridden, close minded skeptic whose requests for evidence and logical argument are nothing more than a feeble attempt to stand in the way of progress and block the bursting of the next Newton or Galileo upon the world. I'll let you judge.

 

my points:

 

1 - tides - are from moon or not? Half from Sun

 

2 - Magnetic field? magnetic field is not bigger for the size of Earth and poles are against?

 

3 - Volcanoes in Mars and other planets are not end? Also probably in Venus. In Earth are very active or not?

 

4 - Water, any planet near Earth has water liquid? The magnetic field has not effect here?

 

5 - Continental drift: Mars in past was continental drift? It’s a proof their big volcano?

 

More:

 

Any solution today to the change of the magnetic poles of Earth?. Any known solution over so hot nucleus in Earth? Any probable relation between move away of Moon and decreasing of the magnetic field from Earth? . Any known solution over the inclination of magnetic poles over the rotation axis?

[Dekan]

No-one can deny, that the Earth is unique in the solar system, in these two respects:

 

1. It's the only planet with oceans of liquid water, and an array of multicellular living organisms.

2. It's the only planet with a really big moon. (Big compared to the planet)

 

Is there a connection between 1 and 2, as proposed by ibiarge? Perhaps it's just a coincidence - which often breeds false theories.

 

But our big Moon must have something to do with how Earth has developed - and possibly, why it's not lifeless, like Mars and Venus. Both those planets lack the equivalent of our Moon.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Dekan

[lbiarge]

 

 

Is there a connection between 1 and 2, as proposed by ibiarge? Perhaps it's just a coincidence - which often breeds false theories.

 

 

 

"A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon", I would prefer you can propose, argue and say my errors, please, simply is better.

 

Thanks

 

Also add that it's also one of the few planets where can to have live by the magnetic field.

 

Can you please be more cohesive in the structure of your points? I really don't know what this is about or what you are saying all the time.

 

Sorry my bad english, I cannot write better.

Edited February 21, 2013 by lbiarge

[Moontanman]

 

Life in Earth is by Moon and 3 articles more over Moon and Earth

 

 

Life in Earth is by Moon

 

 

Many astronomers and biologist say that live is according to habitable zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone) , not very near from the star and not very far from star in the ice zone to admit water in liquid form and temperatures not many lows.

 

But according to this Venus, Moon and Mars at least are into this zone … with different gravities but admit life but without water at all.

 

Earth only has an unique object, this is Moon, Earth is not so special, without water it would be very easy to Mars. But Moon provide many things to Earth:

 

1 – tides: A Moon so near and big like us give tides, and the tides give many more things: probably sea currents, facilitate live in the seas, … Also remember that live probably begin in seas and in seas tides and currents are very important, probably without theirs not would begin live in Earth. Remember that tides go in contrary direction to the rotation of Earth.

 

2 – Magnetic field: Earth has a bigger magnetic field that other similar planets and this magnetic field is necessary for the live we know ejecting particles (visible in Auroras). In part this information is grow later in other points. Now I can say that the magnetic field without the Moon would be less, and the live like we know is impossible without a big magnetic field like in Earth.

 

3 – Volcanoes and hot nucleus: volcanoes are not directly from Moon (like Mars) but without the Moon the volcanism duration is less in years (today Mars show not volcanism and against it Earth show many), in Venus maybe in actual time. Tidal forces are very big energy that can raise million of tones of water in the seas and also tidal in the nucleus of Earth, the seas are shorter that the nucleus by lands.

 

In points 2 and 3 we need to consider the Moon and the tides that make to the Earth nucleus (we see the tides in oceans) that is liquid in same form that oceans.

 

In same form that tides in the sea make a total rotation in 24 hours, probably occurs the same in the nucleus and this create our so big magnetic field that defend us in many forms.

 

A proof over hot nucleus can to be found in Enceladus tidal forces (a moon of Saturn) with “the probe discovered a water-rich plume” and “proximity to the planet can then lead to tidal heating of the satellite's interior” in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enceladus_%28moon%29

 

4 – Water: Mars also had water but has lose all less in ice form, in same form Earth without Moon and the magnetic field would lose all water in gas and liquid forms.

 

5 – Continental drift: Mars has volcanoes but static, by that has the bigger volcano known: Olympus Mons on Mars (“The Largest Volcano in the Solar System” - http://www.universetoday.com/15588/t...-solar-system/ )

 

5 – In less quantity but also provide any few defense against meteorites like a defense.

 

6 – Axis inclination and 4 seasons from this: maybe in relation with the Moon, at least it’s in relation with inclination of the magnetic field in respect to the axis in same form that pulsars have inclined the magnetic field by tidal forces. Is probably that make change the axis inclination, with precession of 26000 years “due to the tidal forces exerted by the Sun and the Moon on the solid Earth” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles , maybe life could exist without season but also with very cold zones, and by that at least seasons help life.

 

The difference of both axis (magnetic and rotation) also is a proof over the tidal forces from Moon to the nucleus in same form that in the pulsars.

 

Live need more conditions really but all this are important, another conditions are a quicker rotation for not have very cold nights (rotation in Mars is very close to Earth but without live), gravity (probably less important and in relation with the biggest size of animals and vegetables into a certain values), also help water or another liquid that compensate the differences in temperature in day and night by caloric power (but another time in past Mars had water).

 

Time of rotation and water make that the differences day-night in Earth is less bigger that in the other bodies near us: In Moon variation is from +110º to – 180ºC, Mars from +20º to -140ºC, Venus from +470º to +120ºC. But Mars day is very near to Earth.

 

--------------------

 

Really in all the universe we know there is not other object like our Moon, so big and in a few distance from the planet in the habitable zone.

 

Our planet is the only we know with colors blue (water) and green (vegetation), but without the Moon would lose the water and without water the aspect would by like Mars. Mars in past is near sure had water.

 

 

I add 3 more other related hypotheses more:

 

1 - “Moon move away and closer from Earth” in form that change the polarity, in other work because the magnetic polarity change and now the magnetic poles are inverted

 

2 – “The magnetic poles changes are by the Moon”.

 

3 – “The inclination of the magnetic axis from the rotational axis is by Moon”.

 

This is in relation to magnetic poles changes in history and that today the magnetic field of Earth is inverted, so north pole is “in a physical sense actually a south magnetic pole.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole , because the Moon near make that the nucleus rotate inverted. Against this Venus has not magnetic field, Mars has various, “on Jupiter the north pole of the dipole is located in the planet's northern hemisphere” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere_of_Jupiter

 

 

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Moon move away and closer from Earth

 

In Earth is proved that in history the magnetic field poles have changed – “At random intervals (averaging several hundred thousand years) the Earth's field reverses” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field

 

Also the actual polarity in Earth is inverted, so “in a physical sense actually a south magnetic pole.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole ,. because the Moon near make that the nucleus rotate inverted. Against this Venus has not magnetic field, Mars has various, “on Jupiter the north pole of the dipole is located in the planet's northern hemisphere” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere_of_Jupiter

 

Also that tidal forces act over the nucleus by Enceladus tidal forces (a moon of Saturn) with “the probe discovered a water-rich plume” and “proximity to the planet can then lead to tidal heating of the satellite's interior” in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enceladus_%28moon%29

 

Also that inclined magnetic axis in relation to rotation axis is by Moon tidal forces in same relation that pulsars.

 

All this proof that the Moon sometimes move away from Earth (actually) and another times closer.

 

When Moon is near (actually) the hot nucleus like tides rotate inverted to rotation and by that the polarity is inverted, when the Moon move away then in a period the magnetic fields are several or to the equator and more away obtain the non inverted sense like other planets without our Moon (like Jupiter), later Moon begin another time to move closer to Earth.

 

 

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

The magnetic poles changes are by the Moon

 

In relation with the other information I can affirm that the magnetic poles changes are by the Moon, when the Moon is near the polarity is inverted like today, and when the Moon is far the polarity is not inverted.

 

 

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Magnetic axis inclination from the rotational axis is by Moon

 

In same form that the magnetic axis is inclined in pulsars by tidal forces this occurs in Earth by the tidal forces from the Moon, also is in relation with rotation axis.

 

Also the rotation axis has precession of 26000 years “due to the tidal forces exerted by the Sun and the Moon on the solid Earth” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

 

The tidal forces of the Moon over the Earth make that the magnetic axis change from the rotation axis in same circumstance like a pulsar but also the effect of the tidal forces make change the rotation axis.

 

Thanks.

 

© Luis Biarge Baldellou. - webpage :

 

Ibiarge, have you read "Rare Earth" by Ward and Brownlee? If not you should...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

 

 

In planetary astronomy and astrobiology, the Rare Earth hypothesis argues that the emergence of complexmulticellular life (metazoa) on Earth (and, as follows, intelligence) required an improbable combination of astrophysicaland geological events and circumstances. The hypothesis argues that complex extraterrestrial life requires an Earth-like planet with similar circumstance and that few if any such planets exist. The term "Rare Earth" originates fromRare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe (2000), a book by Peter Ward, a geologist and paleontologist, and Donald E. Brownlee, an astronomer and astrobiologist.

The rare earth hypothesis is the contrary of the widely accepted principle of mediocrity (also called the Copernican principle), advocated by Carl Sagan and Frank Drake, among others.^[1] The principle of mediocrity concludes that the Earth is a typical rocky planet in a typical planetary system, located in a non-exceptional region of a common barred-spiral galaxy. Hence it is probable that the universe teems with complex life. Ward and Brownlee argue to the contrary: planets, planetary systems, and galactic regions that are as friendly to complex life as are the Earth, the Solar System, and our region of the Milky Way are very rare.

[SamBridge]

Ibiarge, have you read "Rare Earth" by Ward and Brownlee? If not you should...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

I think there are many planets that could potentially support life, but I would have to disagree that the observable universe is teeming with complex life. There's no records of any other type of life forming in the history of the 4-5 billion years of this planet that we have access too, which means it is VERY very improbable for life to spontaneously form.

[lbiarge]

Ibiarge, have you read "Rare Earth" by Ward and Brownlee? If not you should...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

 

According to this note: "The hypothesis argues that complex extraterrestrial life requires an Earth-like planet with similar circumstance and that few if any such planets exist"

 

I dissagree, a Earth-like planet without our Moon would be probably without life, and many planets with relation with a Moon or near to the relation of our Moon can to have life.

 

I don't say rare, I say that the condition for live in Earth is by the Moon and not by the Earth.

 

Many times the same effect is obtained in different forms, for example Jupiter has aurora in form different to the aurora in Earth - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_%28astronomy%29

 

No-one can deny, that the Earth is unique in the solar system, in these two respects:

 

1. It's the only planet with oceans of liquid water, and an array of multicellular living organisms.

2. It's the only planet with a really big moon. (Big compared to the planet)

 

Is there a connection between 1 and 2, as proposed by ibiarge? Perhaps it's just a coincidence - which often breeds false theories.

 

But our big Moon must have something to do with how Earth has developed - and possibly, why it's not lifeless, like Mars and Venus. Both those planets lack the equivalent of our Moon.

 

Probably you have true and I only say "breeds false theories" but, admiting I say false, why occurs any

rare causalities?:

 

1 – The strength of Earth's magnetic field “is decreasing and Moon distance is increasing so tidal forces decrease.

 

2 – Tidal forces in nucleus: Enceladus (a moon of Saturn) has tidal forces according “the probe discovered a water-rich plume” and “proximity to the planet can then lead to tidal heating of the satellite's interior” in http://en.wikipedia....nceladus_(moon) – this give hot to the nucleus (at least to Enceladus).

 

3 – Inverted polarity of poles and tidal forces from Moon that make rotate the nucleus against rotation direction. Do you know another explanation?

 

4 – Changes in polarity of magnetic poles. Do you know another explanation?

 

5 – In habitable zone are also Venus and Mars without live, both in past had water.

 

6 – Liquid water: The Earth is the only planet we know with liquid water in present. This is probably only by our big magnetic field created by tidal forces from Moon. Probably in past Venus, Earth and Mars had liquid water, but only Earth had green (vegetation), today only Earth has liquid water.

 

7 – Life need very probably magnetic field and Earth has more that correspond by the size, Venus and Mars not have. Without Moon the magnetic field of Earth would to be less.

Edited February 21, 2013 by lbiarge

[imatfaal]

I think there are many planets that could potentially support life, but I would have to disagree that the observable universe is teeming with complex life. There's no records of any other type of life forming in the history of the 4-5 billion years of this planet that we have access too, which means it is VERY very improbable for life to spontaneously form.

Well one problem with that conclusion is that most of the life we do know about will eat anything it can force down its primary digestive orifice in 2 falls or a submission. So how would we know - the fossil record is the very very tip of the iceberg; so abortive new life-forms that rapidly got eaten by the more evolved DNA-istas would not show up cos a) they were scoffed b) there were never enough to form part of an incredibly unlike fossilization event c) we haven't even scratched the surface of the buried deposits.

 

If it is very very improbable for you to notice something - the fact that you have not noticed it does not render its actual existence as very very improbable.

[John Cuthber]

Well, thanks for clearing that up. I thought that the lack of life on Venus was something to do with a surface temperature that would melt lead and an atmosphere full of sulphuric acid. But now you have explained that it's because it has no moon.

 

I agree that tides probably helped but...

[lbiarge]

Well, thanks for clearing that up. I thought that the lack of life on Venus was something to do with a surface temperature that would melt lead and an atmosphere full of sulphuric acid. But now you have explained that it's because it has no moon.

 

I agree that tides probably helped but...

 

1 - I don't say this, this is say in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone , you can see a graphic that go from Venus to Ceres.

 

2 - today Venus is full of sulphuric acid but "Studies have suggested that billions of years ago, the Venusian atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now, and that there may have been substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface," by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus

 

So, I don't say that, that is say by wikipedia.

[Moontanman]

1 - I don't say this, this is say in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone , you can see a graphic that go from Venus to Ceres.

 

I can't see your graphic but this one shows Venus as not always within and sometimes outside the habitable zone, the earth can be said to be very close to too close...

 

 

i think that the idea that Ceres is part of the habitable zone is misleading due to the fact the habitable zone is geared toward a planet with an atmosphere... a planet that far away would have to have a very dense CO2 rich atmosphere to have liquid water.

 

 

From your wiki link:

 

 

Solar System estimates

Estimates for the habitable zone within the Solar System range from 0.725 to 3.0 astronomical units based on various scientific models.

Estimation of the Solar System's habitable zone is made difficult due to a number of factors. Although theaphelion of planet Venus and the complete orbits of the Moon, the planet Mars and dwarf planet Ceres are within the habitable zone, the varying atmospheric pressures of these planets, rather than the habitable zone, determines their potential for surface water. In the case of Venus, the atmospheric pressure is far too high, and a runaway greenhouse effect raises the surface temperature massively, and in the case of Mars, the atmospheric pressure is too low, although seasonal flows on warm Martian slopes have not yet been ruled out. For the Moon and Ceres atmosphere is virtually nonexistent, and therefore, surface liquid water cannot exist on these worlds.

Most estimates therefore are inferred on the effect that repositioned orbit would have on the habitability of Earth or Venus, therefore the habitable zone is based on calculations based on similar sizes and atmospheric pressures. According to extended habitable zone theory, a planet with a more dense atmosphere than Earth (or larger and more massive) orbiting in the extended habitable zone (possible like Gliese 667 Cd or Gliese 581 d) might theoretically possess liquid water.

 

 

A chart I can't show on here for some reason follows that data on the same site but it indicates that the Earth is far closer to a ragged edge than indicated by these illustrations and to have liquid water would mean significant changes to earths atmosphere...

 

2 - today Venus is full of sulphuric acid but "Studies have suggested that billions of years ago, the Venusian atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now, and that there may have been substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface," by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus

 

So, I don't say that, that is say by wikipedia.

 

From your other wiki link:

 

Venus is classified as a terrestrial planet and is sometimes called Earth's "sister planet" owing to their similar size, gravity, and bulk composition (Venus is both the closest planet to Earth and the planet closest in size to Earth). However, it has been shown to be very different from Earth in other respects. Venus is shrouded by an opaque layer of highly reflective clouds of sulfuric acid, preventing its surface from being seen from space in visible light. It has the densest atmosphere of the four terrestrial planets, consisting mostly ofcarbon dioxide. The atmospheric pressure at the planet's surface is 92 times that of Earth's. With a mean surface temperature of 735 K (462 °C; 863 °F), Venus is by far the hottest planet in the Solar System. It has no carbon cycle to lock carbon back into rocks and surface features, nor does it seem to have any organic life to absorb it in biomass. Venus may have possessed oceans in the past,^[14] but these would have vaporized as the temperature rose due to the runaway greenhouse effect.^[15] The water has most probablyphotodissociated, and, because of the lack of a planetary magnetic field, the free hydrogen has been swept into interplanetary space by the solar wind.^[16] Venus's surface is a dry desertscape interspersed with slab-like rocks and periodically refreshed by volcanism.

 

I know it's Fox news but... Venus may have been formed by a giant collision bigger than the one that formed the moon.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334108,00.html

[michel123456]

(....)

 

All this proof that the Moon sometimes move away from Earth (actually) and another times closer.

 

(....)

Could we focus on this?

 

That's an interesting idea.

[lbiarge]

I can't see your graphic but this one shows Venus as not always within and sometimes outside the habitable zone, the earth can be said to be very close to too close...

 

Venus is considered a probably future for Earth. This post is not for Venus, Venus can to be near to Earth or not, same like Earth in future can to have life or not. I write over Venus and Mars because are the only probably planets that can study for life.

 

There are many information for "greenhouse effect" venus earth.

 

No more to say here, Venus maybe is in habitable zone, maybe not.

 

Could we focus on this?

 

That's an interesting idea.

 

Against my hypothesis the Moon move away from Earth at : “"The Moon's linear distance from the Earth is currently increasing at a rate of 3.82±0.07cm per year" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon”

 

So we need to consider that always move away, so with 3 cm per year from begin of life in the Earth (aproximatively make 4600 million years) ("The basic timeline of a 4.6 billion year old Earth, with approximate" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life

 

At only 3 cm by year are 0.03 meters x 4,600,000,000 = 138,000,000 meters or 138,000 km, the distance from Earth and Moon today is of near 384,400 km ("The average distance from Earth to the Moon is 384,400 km" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_%28astronomy%29 so 138,000 of 384,400 is 1/3 of less of distance or a initial distance from that time of 2/3. All this with 3 cm by year (not 3.82±0.07cm) and without have in count the "escape velocity" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity this say that at more distance the escape velocity is less in same form that the Earth orbit around the Sun that is not a circle.

 

So, according to this the Moon would to be more near from Earth, or change the speed of move away, ...

 

Also you need considerer any probably cause for the change of polarity of the Earth.

 

Magnetic polarity - if you turn an iron in a direction this create always the same polarity for change the poles you need to turn against directions.

 

I add a new topic in relation to this in Dinosaur extinction was probably by Sun particles