Pymander Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 I have a question. Planets on either side of Earth have scanty water, but we have oceans of it. Why is this so?
Sensei Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 (edited) Temperature and pressure (from atmosphere) are right. You don't have to search far, and look at other planets. Take for example Moon. It's not so far away from Earth. But if you would leave water tank on dark side of it, it would instantly freeze. If you would leave water tank at day, it would instantly vaporize because photons from the Sun would heat it above boiling point temperature. When the Sun will increase power in future it'll happen to Earth anyway. Edited March 22, 2015 by Sensei
studiot Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 As I understand it Mars is too cold and Venus is too hot https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/multimedia/display.cfm?IM_ID=169
Acme Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 (edited) I have a question. Planets on either side of Earth have scanty water, but we have oceans of it. Why is this so? The latest evidence is that Mars had oceans, however the solar wind stripped away its atmosphere. No atmosphere, no rain, no oceans. Revealed: How Mars Lost Its Atmosphere New NASA research says Mars once had a large ocean Strong water isotopic anomalies in the martian atmosphere: Probing current and ancient reservoirs Abstract We measured maps of atmospheric water (H2O) and its deuterated form (HDO) across the martian globe, showing strong isotopic anomalies and a significant high D/H enrichment indicative of great water loss. The maps sample the evolution of sublimation from the north polar cap, revealing that the released water has a representative D/H value enriched by a factor of about 7 relative to Earths ocean (VSMOW). Certain basins and orographic depressions show even higher enrichment, while high altitude regions show much lower values (1 to 3 VSMOW). Our atmospheric maps indicate that water ice in the polar reservoirs is enriched in deuterium to at least 8 VSMOW, which would mean that early Mars (4.5 billion years ago) had a global equivalent water layer at least 137 meters deep. As Studiot said, Venus is too close to the Sun to ever have had an ocean. Venus Too Close To Sun Ever To Have Hosted Oceans & Life, New Study Suggests . A close proximity to the Sun is not an overriding factor in having oceans, as Ganymede evidences. Jupiter's Moon Ganymede Has a Salty Ocean with More Water than Earth A salty ocean is lurking beneath the surface of Jupiter's largest moon, Ganymede, scientists using the Hubble Space Telescope have found. The ocean on Ganymede — which is buried under a thick crust of ice — could actually harbor more water than all of Earth's surface water combined, according to NASA officials. Scientists think the ocean is about 60 miles (100 kilometers) thick, 10 times the depth of Earth's oceans, NASA added. The new Hubble Space Telescope finding could also help scientists learn more about the plethora of potentially watery worlds that exist in the solar system and beyond. ... Edited March 22, 2015 by Acme
pavelcherepan Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 (edited) UPDATE: Sorry, cross-posted with Acme with similar info. There is relatively a small amount of water in the inner Solar system and that relates to how SS was formed. When the Sun had finally started fusion the solar wind started dragging all the lighter elements towards edges of the system. For example, we have Ganymede (Jupiter's moon) that is thought to have an underground ocean holding more water than there is on the Earth. The inner planets did have some water as they formed but with the lack of atmosphere and magnetic field H2O was easily broken down by solar radiation and then both hydrogen and oxygen escaped. What we have now has partly been brought about by comets and asteroids or by volcanism and releasing water from the mantle. As Studiot said, Venus is too close to the Sun to ever have had an ocean. Here I found calculation for what would temperatures on Venus would be had it not been for the greenhouse effect, which suggests that water could exist in a liquid form. Although, I see that the guy uses the modern-day albedo of the Venus (which is mostly due to atmosphere) in his calculations and so I've used his formula with an albedo similar to that of Mars and got 456 K, which is definitely too much. Edited March 22, 2015 by pavelcherepan
Pymander Posted March 23, 2015 Author Posted March 23, 2015 Those are interesting explanations. The reason I ask is because I believe a possibility exists that water has, in fact, been accumulating here since the first cyanobacteria began generating oxygen. Fossil evidence indicates that both cyanobacteria, and rain, left evidence 3900 MYA. Also, banded iron formation and stromatolites developed from that time. If the solar wind is protons and electrons with high kinetic energy = temperature, my chemistry tells me that the protons will behave like hot hydrogen and combine with atmospheric oxygen, to be neutralised from the sea of electrons pervading the Earth. This not only explains the trapping of hydrogen by the Earth, where this gas (H2) has escape velocity at normal temperatures. Simultaneously, the auroras have an explanation for the colour variation N & S, and so do sprites, more red like Aurora Australis. While the solar wind is claimed to have stripped the inner planets of hydrogen as water, this seems again highly implausible. Venus has an atmosphere producing fuming sulphuric acid (H2SO4 + SO3) clouds and rain, and violent, extensive and continuous lightning. Again, my chemistry tells me that even concentrated sulphuric acid without the excess of trioxide (sulphuric anhydride) will not surrender water, it will break up sugar to steal it, and leave charcoal! Esters and organic nitro compounds explosive exploit this property in their manufacture. Could it be that during their formation, the inner planets could not retain hydrogen (and other lighter atoms) at the original temperatures of accumulated supernova matter, while the more distant planets could, against the central gravity of the forming sun? Lastly, this scenario suggests that a dry planet, not unlike mars, began to sport a rising highly saline sea, where only bacteria can survive, for the entire period 3900 MYA to the Cambrian explosion 541 MYA. Also such salinity would allow little dissolved oxygen, the nemesis of bacteria, but the bane of more complex life. Could it be that the first planetary rifting, (as with the mid ocean ridges, Lake Victoria or the Dead Sea) created the first salt water sink, and allowed fresh waters to develop then (541 MYA)? Today, stromatolytes only survive today in Shark Bay, Australia, and other highly saline waters around the globe. As for the deuterium enrichment? Well, the clouds hover between 5 to 20 miles up, and cosmic rays and energetic protons create carbon 14 from the higher N2 & O2 atmosphere, long before they reach the H2O. But please explain why the H+ does not form H2O with the O2 & O3 in that zone, while the H+ & e- plasma is being deflected and concentrated, to become a more visible reaction as the auroras. The sprites seem to indicate that the protons or H2O+ play a role in electrical storms. Maybe I don't have it right. Enlighten me. Especially about Venus!?
Acme Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) ...Maybe I don't have it right. Enlighten me. Especially about Venus!? I get the distinct impression you read none of the links I gave. So much for wanting to be enlightened. As to pavelcherepan's post, the popular science story link I gave on Venus links to the study it is based on. While they do use an albedo value in their work, it is not the determining factor for the lack of oceans on Venus, rather it is the distance to the Sun and how quickly the planetary crust cools to a solid. Both Earth & Venus likely had a similar steamy atmosphere early on after formation. Emergence of two types of terrestrial planet on solidification of magma ocean Edited March 23, 2015 by Acme
Pymander Posted March 23, 2015 Author Posted March 23, 2015 I confess. I didn't look at the links (yet). But I did read the direct responses. Some very perhaps a little naïve, but thanx for the try, folks. The other stuff didn't blow my sox off. Now, without being nasty, do you think you can answer me at all? I have asked serious chemistry questions which you have plainy ignored. Your links are, to me, ALTERNATIVE SCENERIOS with the usual distinction of transient RESPECTABILITY. I don't have any of that! -3
Acme Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) I confess. I didn't look at the links (yet). But I did read the direct responses. Some very perhaps a little naïve, but thanx for the try, folks. The other stuff didn't blow my sox off. Now, without being nasty, do you think you can answer me at all? I have asked serious chemistry questions which you have plainy ignored. Your links are, to me, ALTERNATIVE SCENERIOS with the usual distinction of transient RESPECTABILITY. I don't have any of that!This is a science forum and I gave the latest scientific study information that answers your question(s). I have little regard for how you consider them and no regard for the fact that you have not read them. That is to say, your passing judgment on that which you are ignorant of is a logical fallacy. Edited March 23, 2015 by Acme
Pymander Posted March 23, 2015 Author Posted March 23, 2015 OK primate, so science has gone dark, and all you offer is to troll your competition. Wow. And where did my other stuff go? There is a law above that of the maker. Au revoir. Let's see how long you guys leave this stuff here. -1
Sensei Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) If the solar wind is protons and electrons with high kinetic energy = temperature, my chemistry tells me that the protons will behave like hot hydrogen and combine with atmospheric oxygen, to be neutralised from the sea of electrons pervading the Earth. This not only explains the trapping of hydrogen by the Earth, where this gas (H2) has escape velocity at normal temperatures. Simultaneously, the auroras have an explanation for the colour variation N & S, and so do sprites, more red like Aurora Australis. Escape velocity from surface of Earth is 11200 m/s, while Hydrogen gas has velocity ~1200 m/s @ 20 C.. Another thing: find flux of protons per second per area unit, multiply by time planet exists and Earth surface area pointing at the Sun. Find volume of sea, calculate quantity of H2O molecules, and compare these values. Tell us what numbers you got and from where for verification. Edited March 23, 2015 by Sensei
pavelcherepan Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 As to pavelcherepan's post, the popular science story link I gave on Venus links to the study it is based on. While they do use an albedo value in their work, it is not the determining factor for the lack of oceans on Venus, rather it is the distance to the Sun and how quickly the planetary crust cools to a solid. Both Earth & Venus likely had a similar steamy atmosphere early on after formation. OK. In the article you attached they mention the time for the surface of the Venus' surface to solidify at about ~100 my. So that puts it somewhere 4.4-4.3 Gya. So let's consider as they mentioned in the article the total water inventory goes down to 0.1 MEO or similar. Then what about Late Heavy Bombardment that happened 4.1-3.8 Gya? There was plenty of water brought about by all these objects. So that will increase the total water inventory to some degree, and more importantly, it will be the inventory on the surface, rather than buried in the mantle. Secondly, what about volcanism? Venus is volcanically active and all the effects mentioned in the paper do not mention any major changes to the water inventory in the mantle. So, for the example of the Earth in volcanic gases we have between 30 to 92% of H2O vapor. The former is for diverging plates, the latter - for converging. We can safely disregard converging plates example as there is a lot of water trapped within subducting slab and use the smallest value of 30% of vapor in volcanic gas. Still with the amount of volcanism and the timeframes involved had it not been for the tremendous greenhouse effect and being so close to the Sun, Venus did have some secondary sources of water. Fossil evidence indicates that both cyanobacteria, and rain, left evidence 3900 MYA. Also, banded iron formation and stromatolites developed from that time. There have been a few examples discovered in Greenland, I think with formations looking similar to BIFs with >3.7 Gy age. But those are only a few localised patches and their formation is still being discussed. All other BIFs come to be between some 2.4 and 2 Gya
Acme Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 OK. In the article you attached they mention the time for the surface of the Venus' surface to solidify at about ~100 my. So that puts it somewhere 4.4-4.3 Gya. So let's consider as they mentioned in the article the total water inventory goes down to 0.1 MEO or similar. Then what about Late Heavy Bombardment that happened 4.1-3.8 Gya? ... Secondly, what about volcanism? Venus is volcanically active and all the effects mentioned in the paper do not mention any major changes to the water inventory in the mantle. ... Well, I have noticed your propensity to nit-pick -or however you once phrased it that I don't recall just now- for more-or-less the sake of it without really contending the major result so I'd say your issues are best served by taking them up with the authors of the paper and not me. In terms of the OP question, the best evidence is that Venus never had oceans and Mars did. Oui/no? In terms of the chemical/physics speculations by pieminder Sensei seems to have asked for the appropriate action, or if you think otherwise feel free to offer your own analysis on that. Good luck.
pavelcherepan Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 Well, I have noticed your propensity to nit-pick -or however you once phrased it that I don't recall just now- for more-or-less the sake of it without really contending the major result so I'd say your issues are best served by taking them up with the authors of the paper and not me. In terms of the OP question, the best evidence is that Venus never had oceans and Mars did. Oui/no? In terms of the chemical/physics speculations by pieminder Sensei seems to have asked for the appropriate action, or if you think otherwise feel free to offer your own analysis on that. Good luck. Yes, I do that sometimes, agreed. Can't help it. But in this case I wasn't nit-picking. The actual question was: I have a question. Planets on either side of Earth have scanty water, but we have oceans of it. Why is this so? 1. Article you referred to suggested that in case of Venus it's due to the fact that it stayed molten for longer time and lost all the water. 2. Based on what I read before, I said that there were other secondary sources that could've provided water for oceans. 3. Hence the absence of oceans on Venus is due to an extreme greenhouse effect and closeness to the Sun and not because it lost surface water. How is that not contributing to discussion? Did I try to answer the OP's question 'Why is that so?' or did I not? 1
Acme Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) Yes, I do that sometimes, agreed. Can't help it. But in this case I wasn't nit-picking. The actual question was: I accept that often in science the devil is in the details. I can be a bit of of pick-knitter myself when the occasion calls for it. 1. Article you referred to suggested that in case of Venus it's due to the fact that it stayed molten for longer time and lost all the water.Point of nit, they do not say it lost all its water. 2. Based on what I read before, I said that there were other secondary sources that could've provided water for oceans.Well, I'm not contesting water sources, only your claim that the greenhouse effect accounts for water loss. 3. Hence the absence of oceans on Venus is due to an extreme greenhouse effect and closeness to the Sun and not because it lost surface water. How is that not contributing to discussion? Did I try to answer the OP's question 'Why is that so?' or did I not? Yes you tried to answer and clearly that's a contribution, but from what I have read your answer is not in line with [more] rigorous research. The closeness to the Sun is why Venus took longer to cool which is why no surface water accumulated, so it's a factor I agree. Moreover, recent investigation invokes your comets/bombarders and explains the water loss with no regard for the greenhouse effect. To whit: Is There Water on Venus? ... Astronomers have detected that the atmosphere of Venus consists of 0.002% water vapor. Compare that to the Earth’s atmosphere, which contains 0.40% water vapor. Scientists think that Venus had a similar formation to Earth, and it was certainly bombarded by the same comets that delivered vast quantities of water to our early planet. So why has Venus lost its water, while Earth kept its water? Recent observations by ESAs Venus Express spacecraft found that Venus has a trail of hydrogen and oxygen atoms blasted away from the planet by the Suns solar winds. Every second, there are 2 x 1024 hydrogen atoms streaming away from Venus. The Earths magnetosphere protects our atmosphere from the Sun, channeling the solar wind around the planet, and keeping it from reaching our atmosphere. The Earth's magnetosphere is generated by the convection of material deep inside the Earth. This happens because the large temperature difference between the outer core and the inner core. At some point, plate tectonics on Venus ceased, and the planet stopped releasing as much heat from the interior. Without a high temperature gradient, its inner convection stopped, taking away its planet-wide magnetosphere. Its estimated that Earths atmosphere and surface has 100,000 times as much water as Venus. And if we didnt have our protective magnetosphere, wed be losing our water too. ... It is also believed that Mars either lost or lacked a geodynamo and that this also contributed to its atmosphere loss which resulted in its water loss. If you need a citation for this and can't find one I can look for you. The above article also links to a couple articles on Venusian volcanism and plate tectonics, but these are unconfirmed speculation and even if correct do not change how Venus lost its water. >> New Map Hints at Venus Wet, Volcanic Past >> Venus Possibly Had Continents, Oceans Edited March 23, 2015 by Acme 1
pavelcherepan Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 Acme, thanks for the links. I'll have a look at that. Point of nit, they do not say it lost all its water.
studiot Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) pymander I have a question. Planets on either side of Earth have scanty water, but we have oceans of it. Why is this so? Some very perhaps a little naïve, but thanx for the try, folks OK primate, so science has gone dark, and all you offer is to troll your competition. Wow. And where did my other stuff go? There is a law above that of the maker. Au revoir. Let's see how long you guys leave this stuff here. I have no idea whether you were referring to my comment or what went on whilst I was asleep (which is most of the time these days.) Your original question was in the present tense and I simply maintained that in my answer. I considered discussing history but decided that, as I had seen so many changes and wrong hypotheses come and go about conditions on other planets over the years, we simply do not yet have enough information to have any substantial degree of certainty about the history. We are gaining more measurements and are often able to discount or substantiate older speculations as a result but we still have a long way to go. Edited March 23, 2015 by studiot
Acme Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 Acme, thanks for the links. I'll have a look at that. Roger welcome. The paper I cited -Emergence of two types of terrestrial planet on solidification of magma ocean- does discuss the greenhouse effect of the early steam atmosphere, however the greenhouse effect of the CO2 occurred after most of Venus' water was already gone. Alas, while we can read the full article we can't copy & paste from it; that capability is behind a pay-wall. Nevertheless I typed out a short bit that I think is germane to your mention of volcanos. ...Here we perform radiative-convective equilibrium calculations to enable our model to be used to calculate the radiation limit for a saturated steam atmosphere. In addition we take into account the water loss associated with hydrodynamic escape which is expected to occur in parallel with magma-ocean solidification. Competition between degassing and water loss determines whether the steam atmosphere grows or escapes. This would affect not only the thermal evolution of planets but also the planetary water inventory at the time of complete solidification. ... So volcanos must follow the magma ocean solidification and as the major water loss parallels that solidification there will be scant water left to be emitted by the volcanos.
Sensei Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) Another thing: find flux of protons per second per area unit, multiply by time planet exists and Earth surface area pointing at the Sun. Find volume of sea, calculate quantity of H2O molecules, and compare these values. Tell us what numbers you got and from where for verification. Since you're not willing to do scientific work, I will do it for you. Volume of sea is 1.3 bln km3 according to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean It's 1.3*10^18 m3 Density of water is 1 g/cm3 so 10^6 g/m3 m=1.3*10^18*10^6=1.3*10^24 grams Molar mass of water is 18 g/mol 1.3*10^24 g / 18 g/mol = 7.222*10^22 mol If Earth exists for 4.5 bln years, *365*24*3600s= 1.42*10^17 s 7.222*10^22 mol / 1.42*10^17 s = 508574 mol/s average rate of production of water per second. To create 1 mol of H2O there is needed 0.5 mol of Oxygen. So there is needed 254287 mol/s of O2 1 L of O2 gas has 0.0446 mol. So 254287 / 0.0446 = 5701505 L/s of Oxygen must be gone from atmosphere. It's 5701.505 m3 of pure Oxygen, per second. * 3600 * 24 = 0.49 km3 of Oxygen gone per day. 2.34 km3 of air losing its Oxygen. Plausible or not? Edited March 24, 2015 by Sensei 2
swansont Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 This is a science forum and I gave the latest scientific study information that answers your question(s). I have little regard for how you consider them and no regard for the fact that you have not read them. That is to say, your passing judgment on that which you are ignorant of is a logical fallacy. OK primate, so science has gone dark, and all you offer is to troll your competition. Wow. And where did my other stuff go? There is a law above that of the maker. Au revoir. Let's see how long you guys leave this stuff here. ! Moderator Note OK, that's enough sniping and OT commentary.
Pymander Posted March 25, 2015 Author Posted March 25, 2015 If you want to hear more from me, put my other stuff back up. I want intelligent people to see it! Anyone can cut and paste, literally of figuratively. Most people cannot express opinions that are not a part of their social environment. Fewer still can create them. I know you are monitoring this. Serve the truth.
swansont Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 If you want to hear more from me, put my other stuff back up. I want intelligent people to see it! Anyone can cut and paste, literally of figuratively. Most people cannot express opinions that are not a part of their social environment. Fewer still can create them. I know you are monitoring this. Serve the truth. ! Moderator Note I have no idea what you are talking about. What "other stuff"?
Pymander Posted March 28, 2015 Author Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) Perhaps I should heed the moderators and leave off with the commentary. Could the trolls that have plagued me since I began do likewise, and, as asked by myself also, try very hard not to be nasty, despite the schoolyard reinforcement they have had to endure, before they became respectable scientists. Let me continue with the questioning then, for my enlightenment. Your links (yes, I have read them as promised) included the enlightened revelation that, via highly specialised evidence and reasoning, the conclusion was reached that Mars once had oceans flooding the planet. The concensus among the intelligentia is that the solar winds have blown of all the H2O, an hypothesis apparently set in very high MPA concrete. My question about the steeling of H2O from the H2SO4 + SO3 was ignored. So I will turn to Mars. Do you think that you may indulge me enough to check out this link - from the NASA APOTD offerings - "2015 February 09: Layered Rocks near Mount Sharp on Mars". What do you see? A shallow pool of water reflecting the sedimentary rock formations? Greater oceans than the world sports today were blown away, but this pool seems to be as indestructible as James Bond. How do we wriggle out of the gross inconsistency here? Why are anomalies simply an excuse to invent more speculative hypotheses than those which have spawned them? Lately, by all accounts, we have another such instance, in a long trail of such ad hoc science that began with ... you guess. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/10955749/Where-has-all-the-light-in-the-universe-gone.html I will quote from this source: "You know it's a crisis when you start seriously talking about decaying dark matter," Katz said" [Neal Katz, University of Massachusetts] This crisis may be averted very simply with the "A Steady State Theory" scenario, which ended with extreme prejudice, by blowing up the Higgs Boson and all his mates, using General Relativity and one universal force - electrostatic ALONE. Now here's the crunch. Every falsehood swallowed derails a great many truths that it invalidly contradicts. If there is no sanity forthcoming with this post, in the way of specific non-cut-and-paste responses, then I guess derailment city is not my town. In answer to Swansont, whom I actually admire for his candour as well as for his knowledge (I assume his sex is male like his character, apologies otherwise) there was a "speculative" (no less than much mainstream though) scenario following Dr. James Maxlow's Nexus articles on tectonic expansion, which instantly drew the crabs here and was canned. The "Can Other Scenarios Demonstrate Consistent Proof" pneumonic for "Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian" resulted from a quick study of Stephen Jay Gould's palaeontology "The Book Of Life". The first Nexus article did not cover water sources or radioactive heating of the earth. The second admitted the problems (for a Geologist) I had pre-empted, and acquired a knowledge base to investigate. I needed to know when photosynthesis began and uncovered much more, even the unexplained Permian extinction (no consistent scenario exists and quoting the book "A wealth of information does not necessarily settle matters when human ingenuity is interpreting the facts"). Edgar Cayce has given (195-70, 10) that the moon was thrown off from the earth together with other satellites of the solar system. Others atypically exist, in fact, with like synchronous rotation. He has also given that everything is made from what we know as "electricity", and other things mainstream science may be ignoring to their disadvantage, and the advantage of those who don't ignore it! There was the discussion of mathematics developed by myself for deriving a formula to rate mastery (e.g.. chess), based on the assumption that a "rating difference" and "probability" are related by an appropriately scaled and translated hyperbolic tangent curve. The derivation used innovative techniques I have never seen before, but simulation has demonstrated efficacy. http://www.swissimmaculate.com With these, my preeminent obscurity was trying to reach Dr. Maxlow and FIDE. So far as I can see, many unexplained astronomical and subatomic phenomena may dissolve in what is still available on this site (A Steady State Theory). They seem to dissolve from my limited perspective, but knowledge and resources beyond me are required for that decision. It does, however, occur to me that a more difficult resource for science to acquire is the uniquely human trait of CREATIVITY you call inductive reasoning. Like Einstein's c, a profound and apparently contradictory insight, there could be no E=mc^2 without it. So for what it's worth, if any of this is right, let's hope it makes for a better world for all. Edited March 28, 2015 by Pymander -1
Sensei Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) The concensus among the intelligentia is that the solar winds have blown of all the H2O, You misunderstood/ignored my post #2. H2O is boiling when we will get rid of atmosphere (thus pressure of gas particles). Like you can see here in vacuum chamber. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOYgdQp4euc So if we have planet with liquid water, and atmosphere. And something will destroy atmosphere, liquid water won't be liquid anymore, and its vapors will be also blow away (after all it's lighter molecule 18 g/mol, than N2 28 g/mol, or O2 32 g/mol).). My question about the steeling of H2O from the H2SO4 + SO3 was ignored. H2SO4 sulfuric acid 98.078 g/mol (5.5 times more mass than water) SO3 sulfur trioxide 80.063 g/mol (4.4 times more mass than water) Higher mass = more energy needed to accelerate it enough to have escape velocity. Edited March 28, 2015 by Sensei
Pymander Posted March 28, 2015 Author Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) This prima face explanation would satisfy most, but: SO3 + H2O --> H2SO4 and 100% concentrated H2SO4 is an extremely powerful dehydrating agent: (11H2SO4 + ) C12H22O11 --> (11H2SO4.H2O + ) 12C + heat Water poured into concentrated sulphuric acid will cost you your eyes, as the liberated heat will evaporate the water explosively. Even alcohol will not liberate the last 5% of water using a still, and requires metallic calcium. But fractional distillation is far more sophisticated than a blast of solar wind, and alcohol does not hold water like sulphuric acid, due the percentages attainable in the vapour pressures. This is to say, the H2O, H2SO$ and SO3 would have shared the same fate. The molten planet would have liberated all volatile oxides (CO2, SO3 etc.) from the metallic oxides, but when the Earth cooled for below the 500 C of Venus, these would have recombined (CaCO3, FeSO4 etc.). The original water of Venus is powerfully bound as fuming sulphuric, and the excess of SO3 indicates that sulphates far exceeded the water mole for mole. It seems fairly similar to the amount on Mars to me, certainly not an ocean worth. Even our early atmosphere consisted of combustible gases (H2S, CH4) and all oxygen was combined as CO2. Furthermore, prokaryotes (bacteria) can only survive in very oxygen depleted conditions (hot springs, brine, salt marsh, and today, the gut or decomposing organic matter). Cyanobacteria were first to liberate O2 from CO2 for their energy needs, and evolved under brine to become the stromatolite that slowly raised the level of a worldwide dead sea. The O2 meanwhile, burnt the solar wind and precipitated the various metallic ores by oxidation of dissolved lower salts, from 3900 MYA to 541 MYA. Then the unexplained Cambrian explosion happened, and lo and behold, so many early evolutions are strictly fresh water creations (insects, amphibians, mosses, ferns, fungi). The rifting that excites Mt. Etna, and created the Mediterranean must have created the first sink hole, and allowed fresh water life. Every ocean today has a mid-ocean ridge. The Pacific ridge though is misplaced as though the whole Americas have tipped, and becomes the San Andréa's. Fresh water was necessary for the energy cycle of Eukaryotes and their greater and more sophisticated energy needs. Mitocondria and chloroplasts were the means found in a fresh water and oxygen rich environment. Few know that these are prokaryotes living symbiotically in the 1000 x larger cells of the plant and animal kingdoms. Many customs are matriarchal, and rightly so, because our mitochondria are only from the maternal side, and often quite decisive (mitoclorions?) Edited March 28, 2015 by Pymander
Recommended Posts