Re: A very basic question...

Marcel Kuijper wrote: 
Hello,

This is my first post here, so forgive me if these questions have been asked before. (and I'm not a scientist)

Left and right we can read how lots of people speculate that a certain planet or moon can not have any lifeforms on them because of extreme cold, heat, or drought.
These assumptions are mostly based on speculations that intelligent lifeforms or humanoids could not survive such harsh enviroments.

This puzzles me....haven't humans learned to adapt themselves to their surroundings? Haven't we evolved in such a way that we can deal with the elements? Haven't other lifeforms on this planet evolved in the same way?

One thing that isn't speculation is that chemical reactions become extremely slow at lower temperatures. That is why deep freezes work (and they are positively balmy compared to interstellar space).

A lot of chemistry necessary for life requires liquid solvents. Chemistry in solids quickly becomes diffusion limited (pretty effects) look up Liesgangs rings. Despite this a few things do live in rocks.

If it were just ordinary humans making these claims I wouldn't think anything of it, but when scientists start saying stuff like that I feel anger swell up inside me. Lots of different scientists from lots of different countries stand behind the same claim.

So what are they basing their claims on?

You might find Barrow & Tiplers book "The Anthropomorphic Cosmological Principle" an interesting if difficult read for a non-scientist.

It discusses some of the more well founded evidence together with conjectures about what is plausible.

But until we get actual proof of that, it's my belief that scientists around the globe should stop saying that life outside planet Earth is not possible due to factors that we humble humans could not possibly endure.

That isn't quite what they said. To be honest I think life in LN2 or even liquid methane is pretty unlikely - neither of them are good enough solvents. Super critical CO2 or NH3 and you might stand a chance. Liquid water is by far the best solvent for life as we know it.

Water ice is special. It is one of only a handful of materials where the solid phase floats on the liquid, slows heat loss and prevents it all freezing solid. Most solids are denser than their liquid phase, sink to the bottom and stay there allowing the entire bulk the solidify.

You might get a more complete answer in sci.astro but it could also attract the lunatic fringe of abducted by aliens tin foil hat types.

Regards,
Martin Brown
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Griffin Wants Inline SDLV and 5 Segment SRB/CEV
    ... >>> That would still have cost more than they had budget for (solids are ... >>> how refurbishable a liquid in that class would be after being dropped ... >>> probably will cost more than the development of the ... >>The record is good for solids, and is consistent with the view reported ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Griffin Wants Inline SDLV and 5 Segment SRB/CEV
    ... >>> recovered segments, with new grain. ... A liquid would have huge tanks that would ... That doesn't establish an advantage for the solids. ... >>from seawater than the gimballing system on the solid. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Does NASA save money reusing SRBs?
    ... yet nobody else reuses their solids. ... If nobody has done something, it's wrong to say we know ... Personally I think there's more potential for reusing strap-ons than any ... > Same goes with liquid. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Griffin Wants Inline SDLV and 5 Segment SRB/CEV
    ... The solids consist of segments, ... A liquid would have huge tanks that would ... >>That doesn't establish an advantage for the solids. ... the liquid tanks could be made somewhat heavier if necessary. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Is this a legitimate proof by induction?
    ... Scientists examined the tears. ... They determined the liquid was eye dew. ...
    (sci.math)