When Webb sees Oxygen and Water, perhaps methane on exoplanets...

[SelfSim]

No assumptions were harmed in constructing my previous post.

Wrong forum.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, there's speculation on other chemistry. And then also we know down on deep ocean vents are life forms that are quite radically different than surface life in what they tolerate and how they live and their energy source for some even.

But dry land and water and oxygen have allowed life on Earth to really flourish dramatically. For example the oxygen cycle way of energy allows our large mammals to be high energy using.

Archaea are still carbon-based.

I find the evolution of viruses fascinating. That's still up in the air, as far as I know. They are like the zombies of the natural world. Life that go so lazy it didn't even want to live anymore, the original moochers.

 

[Halbhh]

Accurate, relevant post. I've made the same points in discussion about the origin of life many times. However, caution is appropriate. We note these exceptional properties of water that life has made use of, because we are a form of life that uses water and takes advantage of those properties. Have we recognised, or even identified, the properties of other chemical compounds that might be exceptionally useful to a different life form?
When you already have the solution to a question in front of you, it is easier to forumlate the question. We don't have alternative life forms in front of us, so asking the right questions as to what might facilitate them is necessarily more difficult.

Right, I hope it was already clear in my opening sentence if someone tried to imagine I somehow had some prejudice that only with water (which is about everywhere though...) could life ever happen -- I'd love to find an organism that didn't use water as essential to it's function, to repeat myself on that.

Have we recognised, or even identified, the properties of other chemical compounds that might be exceptionally useful to a different life form?

Yeah. I've read a good number of articles speculating on that. Of course, the context for this thread (my OP post) is about the popular idea that water itself already makes a planet seem just about habitable in the popular imagining...and I'm pointing out (to those not aware), that the reality is far from that -- that's what the OP is saying...

Did it seem that the thread also suggested the opposite though somehow -- that without water there could never be any life? I've posted in the thread that not only am I interested in life without water, but offered one (highly, but really fun) speculative example that I found delightful. But do I need to add a mention of non-water life speculations to the OP? I think not really and instead that would be best in a new thread just for fun, as of course we haven't seen such yet, so it's like a complex rich topic all by itself. While we have life forms on Earth that can be dormant or such without water (or rather, without external water) for very extended periods, like tardigrades, they still use water, need it essentially or sometimes, etc. Also, water is going to be generally very ubiquitous on planets to begin with, but one can find places without liquid water.

I'd advocate us sending a probe to Titan or such to see whether a methane/ethane lake or such could harbor a self-replicating organism. Even if we didn't find any organism, it would be so great to just see what all we could discover on Titan with a more extensive surface exploration.

 

[Halbhh]

i) Scientists Have Figured Out Just How Old Our Water Is, And It's Old. (Dec 2022);
ii) Phosphodiester bond.

(Yeah like .. whatever 'hurt' is supposed mean in the context of scientific research) ..

The above provided objectively sourced information however, implies that it the aapparently abundance of water is also not sufficient for explaining the origin of Earth-life.

Evidence:
There are no savannah animals roaming, nor grasses growing, on the plains of Mars.
Life is (rather unfortunately), speculated as existing in the highly dessicating atmosphere of Venus.

I liked that ScienceAlert article on the solar system formation of heavy water and arrival of Earth's water (Sciencealert is pretty variable in quality, but this was a pretty interesting article). I think I've read about a dozen at least somewhat differing models/ideas of how Earth got its water in the abundance it has vs it's formational water, seems like, in 20-30 articles over the years.

One thing I remembered then when I saw this bit in the Sciencealert article: "According to the authors, planetesimals probably delivered it to Earth, but exactly how that happens isn't clear. " -- was research on precisely that.

From a few years ago.

There are 2 parts. First how water is bound up in carbonaceous chondrites, protecting it from temperatures where it would not adhere/be transported otherwise.

Here's a something very like what I read then:

Most experts believe the solar system’s water condensed into meteorites called carbonaceous chondrites, which then rained down upon planets delivering their cargo of water. The ratio of deuterium to hydrogen in Earth’s water is indistinguishable from that of carbonaceous chondrites, while other possible sources of water such as comets and the solar wind have different isotopic ratios.... Earth ripe for life soon after formation

And of course, more reasearch followed. Including the delievery aspects.

e.g. -- "...
It was long thought that the planets of the inner solar system formed bone dry and that water was delivered later by icy comet impacts. While that idea remains a possibility, isotopic measurements have shown that Earth’s water is similar to water bound up in carbonaceous asteroids. That suggests asteroids could also have been a source for Earth's water, but how such delivery might have worked isn’t well understood.

“Impact models tell us that impactors should completely devolatilize at many of the impact speeds common in the solar system, meaning all the water they contain just boils off in the heat of the impact,” said Pete Schultz, co-author of the paper and a professor in Brown’s Department of Earth, Environmental and Planetary Sciences. “But nature has a tendency to be more interesting than our models, which is why we need to do experiments.”

Hypervelocity impact experiments, like the one shown here, reveal key clues about how impacts deliver water to asteroids, moons, and planets. In this experiment, a water-rich impactor collides with a bone-dry pumice target at around 11,200 miles per hour. The target was designed to rupture partway through the experiment in order to capture materials for analysis. This high-speed video, taken at 130,000 frames per second, slows down the action, which in real time is over in less than a second.
For the study, Daly and Schultz used marble-sized projectiles with a composition similar to carbonaceous chondrites, meteorites derived from ancient, water-rich asteroids. Using the Vertical Gun Range at the NASA Ames Research Center, the projectiles were blasted at a bone-dry target material made of pumice powder at speeds around 5 kilometers per second (more than 11,000 miles per hour).
(continues...) Projectile cannon experiments show how asteroids can deliver water


Also water is bound up in carbonaceous chondrites will of course act very differently than water on the surfaces of particles such as in the sciencealert article, and that has meaning for how water could be able to remain bound in much wider/higher temperatures during various solar system phases, and so...the overall picture is complex and rich. It's perfectly fine that any one group can't figure out the entirety of the whole complex picture, which is going to emerge just slowly over time, with new pieces or corrections, we could expect, until it finally settles down.

 

[SelfSim]

Have we recognised, or even identified, the properties of other chemical compounds that might be exceptionally useful to a different life form?

Yeah. I've read a good number of articles speculating on that. Of course, the context for this thread (my OP post) is about the popular idea that water itself already makes a planet seem just about habitable in the popular imagining...and I'm pointing out (to those not aware), that the reality is far from that -- that's what the OP is saying...

See, once again: ambiguity in what you're saying: Exactly what reality 'is far from from that'?
There is no evidence that life will exist in the absence of water .. therefore your restatements about what your OP is saying, ie: 'that the reality is far from that' are completely meaningless and are in fact, totally ambiguous .. thus leading to misinterpretations.

{Edit: what I'm saying is that bold claims like 'what the reality is', calls for clarity on the context and precise specificity on what 'reality' is actually being referred to. This also applies for any claims on what science says or doesn't say, too. I suspect the reality you're referring to is the reality of what you are trying to say in your OP .. and maybe not the objective reality about life-water dependencies and the absence of water(?) .. that's the ambiguity I'm referring to above}.

 

[SelfSim]

I liked that ScienceAlert article on the solar system formation of heavy water and arrival of Earth's water (Sciencealert is pretty variable in quality, but this was a pretty interesting article). I think I've read about a dozen at least somewhat differing models/ideas of how Earth got its water in the abundance it has vs it's formational water, seems like, in 20-30 articles over the years.

One thing I remembered then when I saw this bit in the Sciencealert article: "According to the authors, planetesimals probably delivered it to Earth, but exactly how that happens isn't clear. " -- was research on precisely that.

I think the Science Alert article pointed out that some of the Earth's water is promordial and the rest is a result of Earth's hydrological cycle(?)
I'd have to re-read it again, to be sure of that though.

From a few years ago.

There are 2 parts. First how water is bound up in carbonaceous chondrites, protecting it from temperatures where it would not adhere/be transported otherwise.

Here's a something very like what I read then:

Most experts believe the solar system’s water condensed into meteorites called carbonaceous chondrites, which then rained down upon planets delivering their cargo of water. The ratio of deuterium to hydrogen in Earth’s water is indistinguishable from that of carbonaceous chondrites, while other possible sources of water such as comets and the solar wind have different isotopic ratios.... Earth ripe for life soon after formation

And of course, more reasearch followed. Including the delievery aspects.

e.g. -- "...
It was long thought that the planets of the inner solar system formed bone dry and that water was delivered later by icy comet impacts. While that idea remains a possibility, isotopic measurements have shown that Earth’s water is similar to water bound up in carbonaceous asteroids. That suggests asteroids could also have been a source for Earth's water, but how such delivery might have worked isn’t well understood.

“Impact models tell us that impactors should completely devolatilize at many of the impact speeds common in the solar system, meaning all the water they contain just boils off in the heat of the impact,” said Pete Schultz, co-author of the paper and a professor in Brown’s Department of Earth, Environmental and Planetary Sciences. “But nature has a tendency to be more interesting than our models, which is why we need to do experiments.”

Hypervelocity impact experiments, like the one shown here, reveal key clues about how impacts deliver water to asteroids, moons, and planets. In this experiment, a water-rich impactor collides with a bone-dry pumice target at around 11,200 miles per hour. The target was designed to rupture partway through the experiment in order to capture materials for analysis. This high-speed video, taken at 130,000 frames per second, slows down the action, which in real time is over in less than a second.
For the study, Daly and Schultz used marble-sized projectiles with a composition similar to carbonaceous chondrites, meteorites derived from ancient, water-rich asteroids. Using the Vertical Gun Range at the NASA Ames Research Center, the projectiles were blasted at a bone-dry target material made of pumice powder at speeds around 5 kilometers per second (more than 11,000 miles per hour).
(continues...) Projectile cannon experiments show how asteroids can deliver water

Some chronology of the research reports is needed.
I think the Science Alert contains the most recent (ie: up-to-date conclusions) .. (?)
Eg: They claim the comet delivery mechanism as no longer being needed from their own research/analysis, IIRC(?)

Also water is bound up in carbonaceous chondrites will of course act very differently than water on the surfaces of particles such as in the sciencealert article, and that has meaning for how water could be able to remain bound in much wider/higher temperatures during various solar system phases, and so...the overall picture is complex and rich. It's perfectly fine that any one group can't figure out the entirety of the whole complex picture, which is going to emerge just slowly over time, with new pieces or corrections, we could expect, until it finally settles down.

Sure .. but we need counter-arguments from the opposing camps, particularly when ideas like the comet delivery mechanism are claimed as being dispensed with by the most recent work.

 

[SelfSim]

Sure .. but we need counter-arguments from the opposing camps, particularly when ideas like the comet delivery mechanism are claimed as being dispensed with by the most recent work.

Yep:

Delivery by comets is another hypothesis for Earth's water. In that hypothesis, frozen water from beyond the frost line reaches Earth when comets are disturbed and sent from the frozen Oort Cloud into the inner Solar System. The idea makes sense.

But this study shows that may not be true.

 

[Halbhh]

Exactly what reality 'is far from from that'?

Re the 'reality' that we cannot yet show that liquid water often causes life to arise:

Of course I use the word "reality" I refer to a mainstream current and provisional understanding, such as from something repeatedly observed or a reality of an absence of observation of something after some extensive/repeated looking (like finding any clear evidence of past life on Mars, which we do have evidence once had significant surface water...) -- and I refer to these to-date observations as the current provisional 'reality' (the only kind there is!) -- that our current "reality" is that we cannot show any evidence to allow us to state that liquid water on planetary surfaces makes it highly likely that life will happen.

Not even much of a statement. It is precisely equal to saying: haven't seen any supporting evidence that liquid water causes life to inevitably happen or even occasionally (more than once) happen on any planet surface -- that's just not yet demonstrated -- that's the 'reality'. We only have one planet were we can currently give repeated evidence it is here.

If you are interested in the epistemological -- I think that by nature what we call 'reality' is constantly changing and subject to reinterpretation, precisely because macro level nature constantly changes and so do we the observers, and we have very limited information about what is there in front of us.

So that as soon as we use the word 'reality' we implicitly are already saying: "so far as we know, for now".

E.g. Mars, which we do know has bound water under the surface, and we do have evidence Mars had extensive/significant surface water in the past...hasn't yet shown convincing evidence of past life.

e.g.:

Life on Mars, can we detect it? - Nature Communications

Searching for evidence of life on Mars is a major impetus for exploration. A new study published in Nature Communications finds that current Mars mission instruments lack the essential sensitivity to identify life traces in Chilean desert samples that strongly resemble the martian area currently...

www.nature.com

In contrast on Earth, anywhere we look we can evidence of past life, even with much more active weathering and tectonic subduction, etc., and also we can even find in some places evidence of Earth life even from about ~3.8 bn years ago.

Mars also evidently had water and presumably more atmosphere in the past, better conditions, but...with a rover designed to search for life, not finding clear evidence of it...(so of course researchers correctly want to send new kinds of instruments, just like I would).
But...not yet any evidence yet it had past life.

Our "reality" is we cannot yet show that liquid water on it's own makes life very likely. That could change in a day or a year, and I'd be delighted, but the reality is it's not yet shown.

So, this 'reality' is how we are limited in what we can say, you see.

 

[Halbhh]

Some chronology of the research reports is needed.

They are each dated at the top of the articles, as normal. It's also normal also for research groups/authors to be unaware of some past research in a broad area like this. So, I often will read a new research report that show the authors didn't know of a previous research or observation about one piece/aspect that they speak on, out of the several. They don't always have all the diverse information of past research in full when they have a broad topic (such as this article did), so if they don't know something that is already published, that's not unusual.

 

[SelfSim]

Re the 'reality' that we cannot yet show that liquid water often causes life to arise:

Of course I use the word "reality" I refer to a mainstream current and provisional understanding, such as from something repeatedly observed or a reality of an absence of observation of something after some extensive/repeated looking (like finding any clear evidence of past life on Mars, which we do have evidence once had significant surface water...) -- and I refer to these to-date observations as the current provisional 'reality' (the only kind there is!) -- that our current "reality" is that we cannot show any evidence to allow us to state that liquid water on planetary surfaces makes it highly likely that life will happen.

Not even much of a statement. It is precisely equal to saying: haven't seen any supporting evidence that liquid water causes life to inevitably happen or even occasionally (more than once) happen on any planet surface -- that's just not yet demonstrated -- that's the 'reality'. We only have one planet were we can currently give repeated evidence it is here.

If you are interested in the epistemological -- I think that by nature what we call 'reality' is constantly changing and subject to reinterpretation, precisely because macro level nature constantly changes and so do we the observers, and we have very limited information about what is there in front of us.

So that as soon as we use the word 'reality' we implicitly are already saying: "so far as we know, for now".

E.g. Mars, which we do know has bound water under the surface, and we do have evidence Mars had extensive/significant surface water in the past...hasn't yet shown convincing evidence of past life.

e.g.:

Life on Mars, can we detect it? - Nature Communications

Searching for evidence of life on Mars is a major impetus for exploration. A new study published in Nature Communications finds that current Mars mission instruments lack the essential sensitivity to identify life traces in Chilean desert samples that strongly resemble the martian area currently...

www.nature.com

In contrast on Earth, anywhere we look we can evidence of past life, even with much more active weathering and tectonic subduction, etc., and also we can even find in some places evidence of Earth life even from about ~3.8 bn years ago.

Mars also evidently had water and presumably more atmosphere in the past, better conditions, but...with a rover designed to search for life, not finding clear evidence of it...(so of course researchers correctly want to send new kinds of instruments, just like I would).
But...not yet any evidence yet it had past life.

Our "reality" is we cannot yet show that liquid water on it's own makes life very likely. That could change in a day or a year, and I'd be delighted, but the reality is it's not yet shown.

So, this 'reality' is how we are limited in what we can say, you see.

I'm really trying to understand why my alarm bells ring whenever I read your posts. I'll be frank, I haven't yet quite gotten to the bottom of it. I'd like to .. in order to understand where you're coming from before you interpret published science .. namely because its significantly interferes with the clarity I see when I read the same published reports you're reading.
(Thanks for that brief Nature Communications paper on Mars life detection technologies there, btw .. I get its general 'heads up' message).

Your very last statement there, I think, comes close to explaining it. I'll put this out there for your consideration (ie: not an accusation directed at you):
See, the first and most fundamental statement, (or starting point), when interpreting frontier research is: 'I/we don't know'.
The next step is asking the right questions.
Your above underlined statement however, completely ignores 'that we don't know' and appears to steam-roller forward, assuming that there is something that 'needs' to be said .. but already objectively established limitations prevent saying that.
Perhaps what you really want to say is not related to science in any way(?) .. and perhaps those (undeclared) questions still persist and keep coming back each time you post a response(?) .. I don't know .. I'm not sure .. but I'm just sharing what keeps coming though to me. I just seem to keep going round the same loop, with the alarm bells ringing at a constant volume .. {sigh}.

 

[Halbhh]

I'm really trying to understand why my alarm bells ring whenever I read your posts.

I started to talk about my (typical Americanism) usage of 'reality' above you reacted to, but this 'alarm bell' feeling is really more important, so I want to try to help with it mainly (and will below).

First to help see why this is the main thing, notice I was using the word 'reality' above in just a typical American usage way that is anodyne (and I think will turn out to be unrelated to your reaction):
I had written:

this thread (my OP post) is about the popular idea that water itself already makes a planet seem just about habitable in the popular imagining...and I'm pointing out (to those not aware), that the reality is far from that -- that's what the OP is saying...

Just like say...2 teens are selling baked goods to get cash, and haven't yet sold any, and one says:

Teen A: "I'm going to buy a motorcycle with my money from this."
Teen B: "You may want to wait a bit. The reality is we haven't even sold a muffin yet."

It's an unremarkable usage, very typical I had done above, not one that would normally cause anyone to get some reaction.

So, I figured in past instances that maybe you for instance just have say your own favorite epistemology topic related to such terms like 'reality'....

Maybe you merely wanted to argue about how humans know -- what they know and the limits or characteristics of knowing, etc. -- and that's a fun topic...but now having offered about 10 posts with stuff on that, it seems that's not it....

I have a well supported theory though on what else can be happening, based on plenty of experience and knowledge.

I've read a lot of psychology books and articles and have had 2 close friends that are therapists in 2 places I've lived. (One was a neighbor and the other became a friend as our kids played together). Several other friends in Austin for many years loved to talk about therapy like topics, like "owning your own stuff" (recognizing your own feelings are about you, not other people, etc.)

That's part of why I offered you links about psychological projection -- because it's so normal and widely known by therapists to be universally common and ongoing (it's a sure thing)....and there are ways to best respond to it -- one tries to 'own one's projections' (not simply project what is inside ourselves (things we don't admit we have) onto others that have often less of it than we ourself typically...).

But there is more to offer that might be helpful, as I have had a lot of years to think and learn more on psychology in general and dealing with one's own feelings in the best ways, and can offer additional insights that might help.

I very long ago asked myself: why should humans project unconsciously their internal feelings onto external other people, strangers, etc....

That instantly to me is the question: what's the evolutionary advantage, etc. that makes projection so universal? How does it offer an advantage in primitive times to humans struggling to survive dangers and get food and successfully raise young?

A simple natural answer showed up quickly. The human brain cannot perceive everything that is going on, and all possible aspects of newly approaching strangers, etc....

Will the stranger attack, steal food, or or they friendly, and maybe could become a peaceful neighbor or even ally, etc. -- primitive questions that matter for physical survival on the savannah....

Somehow the human 200,000 and 100,000 years ago seeing a stranger had to quickly make a guess about whether to lift their sling or club defensively (or offensively), which itself might provoke a fight, or instead act friendly, engendering a certain risk in letting the stranger be nearby without being ready to kill them.... (letting a stranger be nearby isn't the only danger, in that fighting often leads to injury or death also of course)

We'd need a way to improve our gamble of which way to go, to make a guess with very little information....

It would be mostly visual information that would allow that guess, and next any tone of voice you might hear....

(of course, on the internet, you don't have either of those at all................)

So, very long ago, I think humans (viz, our precursor species) naturally evolved an automatic process in the brain to try to make the guessing better, a way of filling in the blanks, going on tiny but at least some information of visual clues.

A guess that would often be wrong, but at least better than merely rolling dice.

That is a likely hypothesis/theory to explain why psychologists have found that projection is so commonplace/normal: it's evolutionarily evolved into hard wiring of the brain.

For primitive situations, even though now of course we are not in the jungle, not walking on the savannah....

While it's great to have some ideal we are not animals, and can rise above it, it's still there in the brain wiring, basically.

So, I don't have to guess whether you and I and John typically will project onto strangers (or people we know a little, but not that much, etc., or even people we've known a while, etc....) -- because we all project.

The huge advantage of being aware of it is that one can begin to correct for it. By being aware that your feelings -- "alarm bells" etc. -- are often just stuff that isn't actually based on a real thing in a stranger, though it can be if you have a lot of information to go on, like extensive and good visual clues in their facial expression, etc.

But over the internet, without even seeing facial expressions or bodily demeanor: you are then entirely just projecting your own internal things alone in those instances.

So, when someone shows up that is clearly not from the same ideological tribe or some such that makes them seem very other (not like oneself), that's when our projections can get the better of us, if we let them.

 

[SelfSim]

I started to talk about my (typical Americanism) usage of 'reality' above you reacted to, but this 'alarm bell' feeling is really more important, so I want to try to help with it mainly (and will below).

First to help see why this is the main thing, notice I was using the word 'reality' above in just a typical American usage way that is anodyne (and I think will turn out to be unrelated to your reaction):
I had written:


Just like say...2 teens are selling baked goods to get cash, and haven't yet sold any, and one says:

Teen A: "I'm going to buy a motorcycle with my money from this."
Teen B: "You may want to wait a bit. The reality is we haven't even sold a muffin yet."

It's an unremarkable usage, very typical I had done above, not one that would normally cause anyone to get some reaction.

So, I figured in past instances that maybe you for instance just have say your own favorite epistemology topic related to such terms like 'reality'....

Maybe you merely wanted to argue about how humans know -- what they know and the limits or characteristics of knowing, etc. -- and that's a fun topic...but now having offered about 10 posts with stuff on that, it seems that's not it....

I have a well supported theory though on what else can be happening, based on plenty of experience and knowledge.

I've read a lot of psychology books and articles and have had 2 close friends that are therapists in 2 places I've lived. (One was a neighbor and the other became a friend as our kids played together). Several other friends in Austin for many years loved to talk about therapy like topics, like "owning your own stuff" (recognizing your own feelings are about you, not other people, etc.)

That's part of why I offered you links about psychological projection -- because it's so normal and widely known by therapists to be universally common and ongoing (it's a sure thing)....and there are ways to best respond to it -- one tries to 'own one's projections' (not simply project what is inside ourselves (things we don't admit we have) onto others that have often less of it than we ourself typically...).

But there is more to offer that might be helpful, as I have had a lot of years to think and learn more on psychology in general and dealing with one's own feelings in the best ways, and can offer additional insights that might help.

I very long ago asked myself: why should humans project unconsciously their internal feelings onto external other people, strangers, etc....

That instantly to me is the question: what's the evolutionary advantage, etc. that makes projection so universal? How does it offer an advantage in primitive times to humans struggling to survive dangers and get food and successfully raise young?

A simple natural answer showed up quickly. The human brain cannot perceive everything that is going on, and all possible aspects of newly approaching strangers, etc....

Will the stranger attack, steal food, or or they friendly, and maybe could become a peaceful neighbor or even ally, etc. -- primitive questions that matter for physical survival on the savannah....

Somehow the human 200,000 and 100,000 years ago seeing a stranger had to quickly make a guess about whether to lift their sling or club defensively (or offensively), which itself might provoke a fight, or instead act friendly, engendering a certain risk in letting the stranger be nearby without being ready to kill them.... (letting a stranger be nearby isn't the only danger, in that fighting often leads to injury or death also of course)

We'd need a way to improve our gamble of which way to go, to make a guess with very little information....

It would be mostly visual information that would allow that guess, and next any tone of voice you might hear....

(of course, on the internet, you don't have either of those at all................)

So, very long ago, I think humans (viz, our precursor species) naturally evolved an automatic process in the brain to try to make the guessing better, a way of filling in the blanks, going on tiny but at least some information of visual clues.

A guess that would often be wrong, but at least better than merely rolling dice.

That is a likely hypothesis/theory to explain why psychologists have found that projection is so commonplace/normal: it's evolutionarily evolved into hard wiring of the brain.

For primitive situations, even though now of course we are not in the jungle, not walking on the savannah....

While it's great to have some ideal we are not animals, and can rise above it, it's still there in the brain wiring, basically.

So, I don't have to guess whether you and I and John typically will project onto strangers (or people we know a little, but not that much, etc., or even people we've known a while, etc....) -- because we all project.

The huge advantage of being aware of it is that one can begin to correct for it. By being aware that your feelings -- "alarm bells" etc. -- are often just stuff that isn't actually based on a real thing in a stranger, though it can be if you have a lot of information to go on, like extensive and good visual clues in their facial expression, etc.

But over the internet, without even seeing facial expressions or bodily demeanor: you are then entirely just projecting your own internal things alone in those instances.

So, when someone shows up that is clearly not from the same ideological tribe or some such that makes them seem very other (not like oneself), that's when our projections can get the better of us, if we let them.

Sorry .. you're just not reachin' me there bro ..

We're in a Physical Sciences forum discussing anticipation impacts of the discovery of chemical compounds associated with exo-planets, which perform critical functions in known biochemical processes.
If you want to call that context 'projection', then so be it .. but I suggest we stick with that context and not drift into some pseudo-psychological counselling style side-babble.

 

[SelfSim]

Let me attempt a reset .. the main science goal of the OP subject matter, is to understand the nature and distribution of habitable environments in the universe. The investigative path is to attempt to determine the potential for habitable planets beyond the Solar System, and characterise those that are observable.

Therefore:
i) A planet or planetary satellite is defined as 'habitable', if it can sustain life that originates there, or if it sustains life that is carried to the object;

ii) Whilst the general aim is to expand understanding of the most fundamental environmental requirements for habitability, in the near term, research must proceed with current concepts regarding the requirements for habitability.

iii) Habitable environments must provide extended regions of liquid water, conditions favorable for the assembly of complex organic molecules, and energy sources to sustain metabolism. (Habitability is not necessarily associated with a single specific environment; it can include a suite of environments that communicate through exchange of materials).

iv) The processes by which crucial, biologically useful chemicals are carried to a planet/satellite body and change its level of habitability, can be explored through the fields of prebiotic chemistry and chemical evolution.

v) The ultimate aim is to gain the ability to recognise habitability beyond the Solar System, independent of the presence of life, or to recognise habitability by detecting the presence of life.

vi) To achieve the above, searches for Earth-like planets and habitable environments around other stars systems is the plan.

 

[Halbhh]

Sorry .. you're just not reachin' me there bro ..

We're in a Physical Sciences forum discussing anticipation impacts of the discovery of chemical compounds associated with exo-planets, which perform critical functions in known biochemical processes.
If you want to call that context 'projection', then so be it .. but I suggest we stick with that context and not drift into some pseudo-psychological counselling style side-babble.

Yes, this is good to think on a bit:
"We're in a Physical Sciences forum discussing anticipation impacts of the discovery of chemical compounds associated with exo-planets"...

So, it's by far the best (and would also adhere to the rules here at CF) if you can refrain from characterizing other people -- viz, saying things like 'your posts keep setting off alarm bells' -- into threads like this, in the physical sciences forums, or...all forums at CF.

E.g. check yourself when you begin to write wording like "your posts" ____negative characterization here___ -- to anyone -- just don't do it. (I hope you can stop also because doing that stuff breaks the CF rules; but it will have to stop, as it breaks the rules)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Model hints at prebiotic chemistry on Titan, (July 2016):

Sure, and it may well be possible; nevertheless, AIUI, carbon chemistry in water has a superior energetic advantage and can generate a wider variety of complex polymeric molecules than any other known chemistry at STP, so it seems unlikely that even the most promising chemistry at -182.°C (-296.59 °F) would compare - such life might make a sloth seem hyperactive... IOW, "it may be life, Jim, but not as we know it"

 

[SelfSim]

Sure, and it may well be possible; nevertheless, AIUI, carbon chemistry in water has a superior energetic advantage and can generate a wider variety of complex polymeric molecules than any other known chemistry at STP, so it seems unlikely that even the most promising chemistry at -182.°C (-296.59 °F) would compare - such life might make a sloth seem hyperactive... IOW, "it may be life, Jim, but not as we know it"

Polyimines, (and nitrile based chemistry), in Titan's environment, is still classifiable as organic (carbon based) chemistry.
The point is the unavailability of liquid water on Titan.
Titan has water but on the surface its in rock-hard (solid) form and can't act as a solvent .. yet polyimine life is supposedly 'plausible' (according to McKay (etal), for whatever that's worth).

This speaks to point (i) in my post #73 above:
'i) A planet or planetary satellite is defined as 'habitable', if it can sustain life that originates there,' ..
and yet, in the case of polyimine based Titan life, that point is countered by point (iii) in the NASA sourced Astrobiology strategy:
'iii) Habitable environments must provide extended regions of liquid water, conditions favorable for the assembly of complex organic molecules, and energy sources to sustain metabolism. ...'

Both those points, taken together, serve to undermine any optimism based 'plausibility' arguments, like the one your making there about carbon chemistry's advantages at Earth-centric STP, whilst reinforcing the reality of 'We simply don't know'.

 

[SelfSim]

This thread reminds me of a comment made by George Gaylord Simpson who was:

.. perhaps the most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, and a major participant in the modern evolutionary synthesis

He once said:

• Exobiology - a curious development in view of the fact that this "science" has yet to demonstrate that its subject matter exists!
  • Simpson in: Elie Alexis Shneour (1966) Extraterrestrial Life: An Anthology and Bibliography. p. 269

The field has produced a lot more useful information since 1966, but that useful information only seems to influence the belief of: 'that its subject matter exists' (or 'likely exists') ... and not demonstrate impact on 'that its subject matter actually exists'.

NASA Astrobiology strategies thus still exhibit inconsistency in the various claims believers seem to be driven to make about that missing subject matter.