NASA scientists find primordial organic matter in meteorite!

[bonzelite]

i answered the questions. lots of things can happen on the way to a wedding, so to speak: radiometric decay rates may be influenced over aeons of time as the rocks are exposed to varying amounts of radiation or other elements. the stuff falling to earth has not been in isolation. radiation itself can create isotopes that were non-existent at the time of the objects' creation. some materials that were present at the time of the rocks' formation may as well no longer exist in the way that they were initially present.<br /><br />"vast amounts of organic material" outside our system may indeed exist or it may not. to <i>assume it does not exist</i> just because of the <i>assumption that it only exists within the solar system</i> is entirely arbitrary!<br /><br />to assume further that meteorite material fallen to earth derives <i>only</i> from within this system is entirely arbitrary. there is no glass bubble surrouding our solar system.

 

[JonClarke]

There is no evidence that radioactive decays rates vary according to varying amounts of radiation. Radioactive decay schema have been very well studied under a wide range of radiation conditions. While particulate radiation does not significantly change existing isotopic ratios, it will create new radioactive isotopes. Any extreme radiation even will leave its signature in meteorites and on the Moon. Noevidence for such an event has been found. So from this perspective perspective, isotopic ratios are a good way to determine ages.<br /><br />Materials once present will still leave clues to their existance if they have interacted with the remaining material. There are a lines of evidence for such vanished materials, in particular extinct radioactivities, in meteorites. If they did not leave any evidence then such materials did not interact with their surroundings and therefore cannot of played a significant role.<br /><br />There is good spectroscopic evidence that vast amounts of organic material exists in molecular clouds throughout the universe. However, the chemistry of meteorites, in particular the isotopic ratios, indicates that the organic matter has a common origin. This is not arbitary, it is what the evidence <b>so far</b> collected says. Nobody has erected a glass bubble round the solar systrem, not even in the mind. This is shown are hundreds of papers on CAIs, material known to have originated outside the solar system.<br /><br />What evidence would you use to fingerprint meteoritic organic material as being extra solar in origin?<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Looks like I was wrong. Evidence has already been found pointing towards an interstellar organic fraction. As with CAIs, it turns out there is an extensive literature that I was not aware of.<br /><br />Just some examples: <br /><br />Isotopic heterogeneities<br /><br />Deuterium enrichment<br /><br />C13 enrichment in aromatics<br /><br />Clearly nobody is suggesting a glass bubble round the solar system.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

thanks, Jon, for being a fair player and a good sport. <br /><br />i always enjoy your contributions as it strengthens and/or affirms my knowledge base <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">There are NO known masses from outside our solar system. They are probably there, but must be less than 0.01% because 1)they are rare due to being hugely outmassed by what is here, 2) the odds of very much mass making it from outside to here & then being captured are VERY much lower. </font><br /><br />well you're not correct. you're generally correct except for the "no known masses" issue. there is evidence to suggest there are extrasolar materials fallen to earth. read Jon's links and consider what i have been saying overall. <br /><br />even if dating methods are correct, which i doubt, there is mounting evidence to suggest matter has entered our vicinity from outside of the solar system, including organic material. because organic material has even made it here at all in small amounts suggests it has derived from a source that is creating it --in an extrasolar location(s). where you see one cockroach there are a thousand more unseen. <br /><br />to preclude anything from entering our solar system from outside is entirely erroneous, as if there is an invisible shield keeping things out! (?) it is not factual whatsoever that material does not enter our vicinity from outside of the solar system. <br /><br />it is furthermore not a known fact that because, allegedly, only a tiny fraction of extrasolar organics are here that this translates into "only a tiny amount of extrasolar organics generally exist." that is erroneous and unfounded. that is like saying "well, i find a wasp or two flying around only once every summer, so this factually confirms that wasps must only be in small numbers where they come from. wasps must be born from a nest of only one or two wasps. this is a fact. read it and weep." <br />

 

[brellis]

Galaxies Collide, Make Life's Building Blocks<br /><br />Assuming our solar system came into being after some kind of collision between stellar disks, wouldn't it be likely for there to be 'building blocks' older than 4.55 mega-years floating in interstellar space, and occasionally drifting into the gravitational influence of our sun? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>thanks, Jon, for being a fair player and a good sport.</i><br /><br />I trust you are the same, and recognise that you were wrong in saying that people think there is a glass bubble round the solar system?<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">I trust you are the same, and recognise that you were wrong in saying that people think there is a glass bubble round the solar system? <br /></font><br /><br />right. that would be absurd to think that. <br /><br />matter can pass at will in and out of the solar system from anywhere.

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">Evidence is not always complete and definite proof. Incomplete evidence is often touted by some around here as very likely the case, when too many unanswered questions ONLY allow such evidence to be considered "suggestive', "Possibly" and "perhaps." </font><br /><br />well right. we agree on this completely. and you've got to allow the door to swing both ways about this, too. the evidence of radioisotope decay rates may not be as accurate as it is given credit for. yes, i know, i know, it is used nonetheless as the gold standard. and it probably will be indefnintely. but it is not foolproof and there is debate as to it's validity. the ages for things we're calculating could be entirely inaccurate.

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>whole point seems to be that basis of life could start out in the cold space in matterial that was still waiting to coalesce into stars and then after they were born it would seed them and their planets and where conditions permited, the life as we know it here on Earth had risen<br />vanDivX<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>here is NOT seeding going on. It's simply continuing impacts of masses from the disc around then sun when it was forming. That's NOT seeding, it's simply continuing to grow by my meteor impacts.<br /><br />it already HAS, the C, S, H20, CH4, and the complex organics from the past several 100 megayears which led to its formation. Adding more carbonaceious meteorites to that planet is not going to change it much because its been collecting those for megayears!! There is NO seeding going on. Collection of these meteors/asteroids simply continues. <br /> ... <br />To call this seeding, would be like adding a tsp. of gravel to a gravel collection which is already Kms. in size.<br />Seeding refers ONLY to adding a critical piece of biological matter form which life can start.<br /><br />But it's been there already for mega years!! HOw can that be seeding?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />ok, I hear you but my take on this was that Earth in early stages was way too hot before crust formed and for some time after that for any life to exist here, ditto for the Sun except that one never cooled off but on the contrary<br /><br />now seeds are seeds but if you are throwing them into lighted furnace or hot early Earth you are not seeding but simply adding matter, you are only seeding if you throw them on the ground that is ready for them to start developing, therefore even if all the time the same material kept accumulating to make up the Earth, only when it cooled enough could it be called seeding (although real seeding came still much later, it is not enough <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

right, exactly. your post is excellent. i nearly entirely agree with you except for the age-dating accuracy issue. i'm not bought and sold on that one. <br /><br />this is key:<br /><br /><i>Compositional and isotopic changes can arise from many causes, both known and unknown, and while it MIGHT be evidence of extrasolar origins, it is NOT solid evidence that it must necessarily, or logically, or scientifically be. </i><br /><br />compositional changes absolutely do happen; your post is excellent at expounding upon this further. under such metamorphoses, such compositional changes may "reset the clock," giving ages that are inaccurate. hence, some material may be much older than is expected.<br /><br />and again, because there has never been a glass bubble around our solar system, material from outside of the solar system is able to freely pass. such material has been spaceborne for aeons and has passed through, hitting the earth. we are sitting ducks here. <br /><br />there is probably more extrasolar material that has arrived to earth than is being considered. evidence will be examined under the bias of what is considered to be evidence. much extrasolar material, then, is probably hidden under our own noses.