What you aren't being told about astronomy

[juvenissun]

The sentence I quoted from The Physics of the Interstellar Medium was 'Ultraviolet photodissociation occurs for most molecules unshielded by grains in a few hundred years.' (Notice the emphases.) Molecules shielded by grains in dense opaque interstellar clouds survive much longer than molecules in the diffuse interstellar medium.

The dense cloud eventually formed the star. So, organic molecules in it or not is not the issue.

You said planets, asteroids and comets are made of chunks of solid. If so, what is the origin of those chunks? Are they also formed from the same dense cloud for the star? I am not convinced the process is reasonable. In fact, rock is much denser than the densest gas cloud. There are important steps not explained for the formation of any rocky (or icy) planet.

My argument is that organic molecules WILL be destroyed BEFORE the gas cloud became dense enough to protect it.
And, comets, asteroids and rockys planets, where the organic molecules are found, are not formed from a cloud which was dense enough to protect the organics.

 

[Ophiolite]

The dense cloud eventually formed the star. So, organic molecules in it or not is not the issue.

You said planets, asteroids and comets are made of chunks of solid. Ifhttp://www.christianforums.com/threads/what-you-arent-being-told-about-astronomy.7926692/page-27#post-69428277 so, what is the origin of those chunks? Are they also formed from the same dense cloud for the star? I am not convinced the process is reasonable. In fact, rock is much denser than the densest gas cloud. There are important steps not explained for the formation of any rocky (or icy) planet.

My argument is that organic molecules WILL be destroyed BEFORE the gas cloud became dense enough to protect it.
And, comets, asteroids and rockys planets, where the organic molecules are found, are not formed from a cloud which was dense enough to protect the organics.

All of these issues have been considered in immense detail by hundreds, if not thousands of scientists. Summarising their work in a few sentences if difficult - any shortcoming in the following reflect on me and not on the authenticity or quality of their work.

Solids condense out of the clouds as very fine particles that gradually coalesce into larger and larger components. Since there is a significant temperature gradient within the protoplanetary disc that has formed around the collapsing protostar the composition of these particles varies throughout the disc and determines the character of the material that will condense. Closer to the star rock materials condense and further out ices of water, methane, ammonia and the like.

Your lack of conviction about the process is a problem for you. It is not a problem for those who have studied the issue. You might like to start here: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/ast.2009.0372

There you will find that "these important steps" are explained for both rocky, gaseous and icy planets. Once you have digested the contents of the cited paper I can provide you with a few hundred more that deal with the particulars.

Your argument about destruction of organics completely ignores the facts that:
1. By observation we know the organics are not destroyed.
2. By experiment we know that it requires only microscopic grains to provide the necessary protection.

I sincerely recommend you study these matters before making ill informed statements about them. I for fun will be happy to assist you with any part of that study that proves difficult for you.

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes, you can, Warden. If you are pointing to a deep internal change, a change in the "essence" of something, then yes, that is evolution.

 

[Hoghead1]

I agree with many scientists today who think of the universe as an organism. Also, it is customary to speak of the universe as evolving. I don't understand why some of you are having trouble with the term.

 

[juvenissun]

Your argument about destruction of organics completely ignores the facts that:
1. By observation we know the organics are not destroyed.
2. By experiment we know that it requires only microscopic grains to provide the necessary protection.

I don't know, so I asked questions. If you know, you may answer them. If you don't know, then my question at least stands in this thread for now.

What is the microscopic grain about? An organic molecule is submicroscopic. What are those protective microscopic grains? How do they protect? If we put a piece of meat in the lowest earth orbit for 100 years, what would happen to it?

 

[florida2]

I agree with many scientists today who think of the universe as an organism. Also, it is customary to speak of the universe as evolving. I don't understand why some of you are having trouble with the term.

Who are these 'many scientists'? What percentage of the scientific community are we talking about?

 

[Ophiolite]

I don't know, so I asked questions. If you know, you may answer them.

There is a wealth of material out there that a simple google search would lead you to. Have you tried?

What is the microscopic grain about? An organic molecule is submicroscopic. What are those protective microscopic grains? How do they protect?

I have little to no idea what you mean by asking "what is the microscopic grain about?" In the GMCs (Giant Molecular Clouds) temperatures are extremely low - only a few degrees above absolute zero. In these circumstances molecules of various kinds condense and group into microscopic grains in which the particles are smaller than those we find in smoke.
So not think of these as being neat spherical shapes, like grains of sand, but rather loose agglomerations of the molecules they are formed from. This provides space into which organic molecules can be embedded. The material of the grains, minimal as it is, is more than enough to absorb the UV light that would otherwise eventually break up those organics.

If we put a piece of meat in the lowest earth orbit for 100 years, what would happen to it?

This has absolutely no relevance to the subject under discussion. The fact that you are asking it strongly suggests you have some perceptions of this issue that are wildly wrong.

Now, which specific parts of the simple answer I have provided here do you find inadequate and why?

 

[juvenissun]

This has absolutely no relevance to the subject under discussion. The fact that you are asking it strongly suggests you have some perceptions of this issue that are wildly wrong.

Now, which specific parts of the simple answer I have provided here do you find inadequate and why?

The same question: "If we put a piece of meat in the lowest earth orbit for 100 years, what would happen to it?" Relevant or not, what do you think the meat would become?

 

[juvenissun]

In the GMCs (Giant Molecular Clouds) temperatures are extremely low - only a few degrees above absolute zero. In these circumstances molecules of various kinds condense and group into microscopic grains in which the particles are smaller than those we find in smoke.
So not think of these as being neat spherical shapes, like grains of sand, but rather loose agglomerations of the molecules they are formed from. This provides space into which organic molecules can be embedded. The material of the grains, minimal as it is, is more than enough to absorb the UV light that would otherwise eventually break up those organics.

Now, which specific parts of the simple answer I have provided here do you find inadequate and why?

What are the composition of those "loose agglomerations" of molecules?

If there is one CH3OH molecule formed in space, and is surrounded by a few H2 or CO2 molecules, how long could the CH3OH survive before it could be "protected" by more molecules surrounding it?

 

[Ophiolite]

It would burn up after about five years since you placed it in low Earth orbit where there is enough atmosphere to gradually retard its orbit.
If you could keep it in orbit for 100 years? Freezing and unfreezing(?) every ninety minutes? Survival of some bacteria for a time. Would the meat rot? Progressive evaporation of organics from the surface when in sunlight? Probably. This is not a field in which I have anything approaching expertise. Nor is it a field that has anything much to do with survival of organic chemicals in gas clouds.

Now, would you mind returning to the main topic? Have my previous answers on that clarified your thinking?

 

[Ophiolite]

What are the composition of those "loose agglomerations" of molecules?

Ices and minor silicates.

 

[The Cadet]

The same question: "If we put a piece of meat in the lowest earth orbit for 100 years, what would happen to it?" Relevant or not, what do you think the meat would become?

Do yourself a favor and look up the chemical composition of simple organic compounds like CH4 or C2H6O2 and compare it to the chemical composition of a piece of your skin. There's a bit of a disconnect here.

 

[Astrophile]

If there is one CH3OH molecule formed in space, and is surrounded by a few H2 or CO2 molecules, how long could the CH3OH survive before it could be "protected" by more molecules surrounding it?

It is the dust grains that absorb visible and ultraviolet light and thereby protect the organic molecules from photo-dissociation. The typical size of interstellar dust grains is about 0.1 microns; they consist of silicates and ices (e.g. water ice and ammonia), perhaps with some organic material.

Look at this picture of the dark nebula Barnard 68 in Ophiuchus. You can't see through it; it is opaque; light can't penetrate into its interior, because the dust grains absorb the light.

Dust grains are more efficient at absorbing ultraviolet light than visible light; the extinction is inversely proportional to the wavelength of the light, so these interstellar clouds are more opaque to UV light than to visible light. Now do you understand why organic molecules are protected from photo-dissociation in the interiors of dense opaque interstellar clouds?

 

[juvenissun]

Ices and minor silicates.

You are kidding? How was any "silicate molecules" formed in space?

 

[Ophiolite]

You are kidding? How was any "silicate molecules" formed in space?

I haven't counted them. Your unjustified incredulity does you know service. I think I'm done with your intransigence. Thank you.

Edit: What did you think the silicon, oxygen, iron, magnesium, aluminium atoms, etc were going to form? Easter bunnies! Silicates is the simple answer and the correct answer. You really should acquire an education in matters before you seek to scoff at them.

 

[juvenissun]

It would burn up after about five years since you placed it in low Earth orbit where there is enough atmosphere to gradually retard its orbit.
If you could keep it in orbit for 100 years? Freezing and unfreezing(?) every ninety minutes? Survival of some bacteria for a time. Would the meat rot? Progressive evaporation of organics from the surface when in sunlight? Probably. This is not a field in which I have anything approaching expertise. Nor is it a field that has anything much to do with survival of organic chemicals in gas clouds.

Now, would you mind returning to the main topic? Have my previous answers on that clarified your thinking?

Sure. So the meat will disintegrated into molecules and then to simple gases. No organic molecules from the meat could be protected and still existed in, say, 1000 years? The direction of movement is to disintegrate into simple molecules, but not to combine into larger molecules.

That is the point.

 

[Ophiolite]

Sure. So the meat will disintegrated into molecules and then to simple gases. No organic molecules from the meat could be protected and still existed in, say, 1000 years? The direction of movement is to disintegrate into simple molecules, but not to combine into larger molecules.

That is the point.

And if I eat the meat rather than launching it into space, the same can be said of its constituent molecules in 1000 years. But the environment in low Earth orbit is not the same as the environment inside a GMC. That is why your point it not only irrelevant, but betrays your serious ignorance of everything surrounding this issue.

 

[juvenissun]

It is the dust grains that absorb visible and ultraviolet light and thereby protect the organic molecules from photo-dissociation. The typical size of interstellar dust grains is about 0.1 microns; they consist of silicates and ices (e.g. water ice and ammonia), perhaps with some organic material.

Look at this picture of the dark nebula Barnard 68 in Ophiuchus. You can't see through it; it is opaque; light can't penetrate into its interior, because the dust grains absorb the light.

Dust grains are more efficient at absorbing ultraviolet light than visible light; the extinction is inversely proportional to the wavelength of the light, so these interstellar clouds are more opaque to UV light than to visible light. Now do you understand why organic molecules are protected from photo-dissociation in the interiors of dense opaque interstellar clouds?

If the gas cloud is large enough, then it would be opaque as seeing it from outside the cloud. But it is not opaque when one is inside the cloud. high energy beams still can get into the cloud. So we should evaluate the cloud according to its density.

How many gas molecules should be put in 1 m^3 volume in order to be called dense? One number was given in earlier post: 10^10 molecules. That many molecules be put into a particle is about 0.1 microns in diameter. I assume any light would have no problem to hit any molecules in a cloud of such density.

Most critically we do not know how could this kind of cloud be evolved into a planet or a comet. Notice that gases must be condensed into micron size dusts first. Then dusts combined into mm size grains. This process would take long long time. I assume no organic molecule could survive through the processes. Provided the rate of formation of organic molecule is very low to begin with.

 

[juvenissun]

And if I eat the meat rather than launching it into space, the same can be said of its constituent molecules in 1000 years. But the environment in low Earth orbit is not the same as the environment inside a GMC. That is why your point it not only irrelevant, but betrays your serious ignorance of everything surrounding this issue.

How much is the difference? I would say the low orbit of earth could provide MORE protection to an organic molecule than that in a GMC.

 

[Ophiolite]

How much is the difference? I would say the low orbit of earth could provide MORE protection to an organic molecule than that in a GMC.

The difference is enormous. For one thing there is a flaming great nuclear source spewing out UV rays a mere 93 million miles away. Do you have any idea how many orders of magnitude more that is than what would be experienced within a GMC? I suggest you do a rough calculation then come back to concede how foolish your remark was.

There is nothing wrong in being ignorant of a subject. There is something wrong about making pronouncements based on that ignorance!