Pluto is becoming more and more interestting

[kerbiloid]

As total area of the Europa ocean bottom is 100 times less than Earth, we should try a chance with at least 100 Europas.

For comparison: Europa ocean is a little bigger than a Mediterranean Sea, but in darkness.

[PB666]

11 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

 

Earth oceanic life is mostly based on photosynthesis in the very upper layer of it. And very thin — dozens of meters if not even less.
Organics appears on the surface then sinks down to the bottom. At the bottom lives another organics, which is eating the sunk one and make the silt which they live in.
Between them is a useless depth,
The famous chemosynthesis is just a puny addition to this feast of life. And it appears not along all over the bottom, but in hot spots only — the underwater volcanos.

A real life on the Earth had appeared only when the inferior chemosynthetical sub-bacteries reached the oceanic surface on the continental shelfs.
There they could be resting relaxed and take a light bath in the flows of energy free of charge.

Obviously, the Earth ocean organics is, loosely speaking, a superposition of three exponents:

• With maximum at surface, decreasing downwards — photosynthetics production and they, who catch it while it's sinking down; The richest one. Mostly concentrated in a half kilometer from surface.
• With maximum at bottom, decreasing upwards — chemosynthetics production; The poorest one. Very close to the bottom.
• With maximum at bottom, decreasing upwards — they, who live at the bottom and eat any of the previous two, not climbing too high.

Being summarized, those 3 exponents give more-or-less continous distribution of the organic material.

On the oceanic shelf the bottom and surface are so close to each other that they mix together and compose a symphonic orchestra, which mixes at once all kinds of the organics and energy transformation,
This synergy gives an outstanding production and diversification of life. This orchestra is constinuously orchestrated at once by the day/night, summer/winter and tidal cycles.
So, these variety, fertility and predictable regulated compulsion — are forcing the life to evolve and give it giant abilities to do this. All terrestrial life above the simplest protozoans appeared here.

Obviously, the subsurface oceans have no photosynthesis. They're absolutely dark places. So, they can't show even comparable organics production. No first (and the main) exponent.
The only organics there is being chemosynthesised on the very bottom. The puny and miserable second exponent.
The third exponent has to be limited by the second one, with chemosynthetic food only. So, it is same puny and miserable as the second one.

So, any subsurface ocean life has to concentrate in dozens meters from the bottom.
It gains nothing climbing high, as there is no sky above them, just a dark cold ceiling.
The upper — the worse.

And as the chemosynthesis runs only in volcanic hot spots, these hot spots amount depends on total bottom area.
You can easily calculate that Europa/Enceladus/etc oceanic bottom should be ~1% of the terrestrial ocean area. Plutonic and Hanymedic ones ~ 10%.
As not every hot spot is a cradle of life, they have 100 times less attempts to try a chance of life creation.
But even if a miracle happens, and a life appears there, it should be so limited in abundance and diversity that you could hardly distinguish this bacterial trash from other dirty spots.

Not true, chemosynthesis can occur deep underground just about anywhere were there is a latent heat source or chemical energy. It helps that its close to the vent only because of the motion of the water and thus the avialabikity of nutrients increase.. The rate of chemical reactions in biology 2 fold per 10'c, sobthat the more diificult the thermodynamic barrier to over come the more likely heat and catalysis will overcome the barrier. But also as heat increases so do unwanted side reactions, which is a particular problem for complex life forms. Most of these live in the thermoclines surrounding the vents. Thermally created chemisynthetic life will probably never push the development of really complex life, but it could create commensal communities of single cell organisms. 

Local black bodyradiation is a problem, if the object is hot enough to create hv required to create complex high energy bonds (which is not hard to do) but keep them stable long enough to fulfill function you are talkiang about temperatures in the 1500 to 5000'c range, which at production densites stable water cannot exist. Light brings those high wavelengths into contact with water but at low enough densities not to boil the water off at once. We can think of light as adding powerful talents to biology, augmenting the default talents that come about after coalescence into planet, but that for these augmentations to take place there is a need for residual water and soluble micronutrients. 

 

[kerbiloid]

15 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Not true, chemosynthesis can occur deep underground just about anywhere were there is a latent heat source or chemical energy.

This argument makes no sense. You are trying to say that chemosynthetics live 10 km deep under bottom?
They live in the upper layer of ground, above 100 or so meters depth. That means: "in the ground".

Which 1500 C? Proteins begin to decay at 42 C. Chemosynthetics live in a boiling kettle, not in molten iron.

Probably you can give an example of chemosynthetics more efficient than photosynthetics?

P.S.
Especially for your pleasure: thereafter under "on the bottom" I mean "in the 100-1000 meters thick layer of water just above the bottom surface and in 100-300 meters thick layer of ground just below the bottom surface."

Edited June 26, 2016 by kerbiloid

[PB666]

4 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

This argument makes no sense. You are trying to say that chemosynthetics live 10 km deep under bottom?
They live in the upper layer of ground, above 100 or so meters depth. That means: "in the ground".

Which 1500 C? Proteins begin to decay at 42 C. Chemosynthetics live in a boiling kettle, not in molten iron.

Probably you can give an example of chemosynthetics more efficient than photosynthetics?

P.S.
Especially for your pleasure: thereafter under "on the bottom" I mean "in the 100-1000 meters thick layer of water just above the bottom surface and in 100-300 meters thick layer of ground just below the bottom surface."

 

Chemosynthetic bacteria have been found in the deepest wells ever drill into the earths surface. Whether or not it makes sense to you, no le hace, it makes sense to those that study the deep cores. 

http://oregonstate.edu/terra/2010/11/in-earths-deep-crust-microbes-abound/

http://www.livescience.com/29857-microbes-discovered-in-earths-crust.html

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/microbes-buried-deep-in-ocean-crust-may-form-worlds-largest-ecosystem-11966443/

http://www.bioedonline.org/news/nature-news/life-found-deep-earths-crust/

The deeper a strain of bacteri us found the more likely it to be found in isolation of other strains, or some strains do not respond well to laboratory growth conditions,mwhich means they are two specialized to live outside a confined set of growth conditions. 

 

 

[kerbiloid]

2 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Chemosynthetic bacteria have been found in the deepest wells ever drill into the earths surface

Please, read your links, They talk about 265, 300 meters, once - about a 1 km (sure, in this case they studied some porous place with hot springs).

This is "in the ground". This is not 10 km above or 10 km below.

[PB666]

52 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Please, read your links, They talk about 265, 300 meters, once - about a 1 km (sure, in this case they studied some porous place with hot springs).

This is "in the ground". This is not 10 km above or 10 km below.

Theres a well in Russian off the coast of kamchatka that went several kilometers down. Depth is not the issue, it depends how deep that the lowest sedimenters or fractures thereof are, if you have deep enough sedimentary they can go even lower. 

What these particular papers that the pacific plate which has a relatively even sedimet layer, basalt layer on top and the layer underlying that layer has sufficient enough layer penetration and cracks for nutrient flow and enough heat to allow this process to go on all over the pacific. It is by no means the deepest, its just a common finding. They are talking about 4 - 12 km deep read more. 

See first link I gave you, 4.6 km.

https://www.rt.com/business/exxon-sakhalin-well-record-727/ 

This is biogenic gas and oil, this is one of the thickest sediment layers on the Earth. 

 

[kerbiloid]

OK, in some places there can be several kilometers deep wells where extremophiles can survive.
Need to compare how many microbes can survive there and what we usually mean as biosphere?
Okay, bacteries had been found up to 30 km high above the Earth surface, so, according to your logic, height doesn't matter.

[DDE]

On ‎24‎.‎06‎.‎2016 at 3:09 AM, Motokid600 said:

Indeed. I suppose the general thought is that water=heat/pressure which chances have it is a good place to look for life.

The carbon aqueous biochemical chauvinism runs thick in this thread. Pun intended.

[PB666]

30 minutes ago, DDE said:

The carbon aqueous biochemical chauvinism runs thick in this thread. Pun intended.

Heat up to about 150'C, pressure suuficient to keep water from boiling. Water is a prejudicing agent because it preferentially carries minerals as ions. When we say carbon, lets not forget. 

Almost all biological oragnics compunds, counted by type, contain more hydrogen than carbon, lots of oxygen and plenty of nitrogen, most proteins have at least one sulpher, and many have one or more phosphate. All nucliec acids have at least on phosphate. Many contain Mg (atpases), Zn (proteases), Fe (oxidases), V, etc. 

Organic is based on carbon, but there are a number that don,t.. HCL is the acid used in the stomach NO2 is a messanger. Ammonium carbonate is common in lower organisms. PO4 is common ion in blood, several million times higher than seawater, Calcium is used as a messanger in cells, Hydroxyapetite is used to build bone and shell. 

 

Edited June 26, 2016 by PB666

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

The carbon aqueous biochemical chauvinism runs thick in this thread. Pun intended.

Problem with low temperatures is that reactions slows down a lot, life might be theoretical possible but it might take 100 times as long, universe is not old enough for something as advanced as photosynthesis. 
high temperature might work out however most of the materials needed is either very stable or rare. 
Life on Europa or Pluto would be carbon based as it would be in water using hydrocarbons as building blocks. 
Main issue is not if life could exist but if life could start in that environment, 
 

[kerbiloid]

4 hours ago, PB666 said:

Almost all biological oragnics compunds, counted by type, contain more hydrogen than carbon,

Absolutely all organical compounds contain less than 4 g of Hydrogen per 12 g of Carbon. Mostly, 2 g of Hydrogen per 12 g of Carbon.

P.S.

Btw, I remembered a nice sample of what you mean with extremophiles.
Going to the South Africa and digging 1.5 km below the ground, you can find a lot of working miners,
Going to Tibet, you can find a lot of peasants working 4-5 km above the sea level.
This means that humans can live 5 km above the ground and 1.5 km under the ground.

Of course, you know that Kamchatka from your link is not a regular place, but one of the most active volcanic regions on the Earth, especially famous for its Geyser Valley and abnormal hot springs activity.

Edited June 27, 2016 by kerbiloid

[PB666]

1 minute ago, kerbiloid said:

Absolutely all organical compounds contain less than 4 g of Hydrogen per 12 g of Carbon. Mostly, 2 g of Hydrogen per 12 g of Carbon.

P.S.

Btw, I remembered a nice sample of what you mean with extremophiles.
Going to the South Africa and digging 1.5 km below the ground, you can find a lot of working miners,
Going to Tibet, you can find a lot of peasants working 4-5 km above the sea level.
This means that humans can live 5 km above the ground and 1.5 km under the ground.

Of course, you know that Kamchatka from your link is not a regular place, but one of the most active volcanic regions on the Earth, especially famous for its Geyser Valley and abnormal hot springs activity.

Weight is irrelevant chemistry is about molarity, methane and methanol have four hydrogen atoms per each carbon. Methylene, the fractional moeity of aliphatic amino acids is two hydrigen per each carbon. Organic chemistry is about polymers and heterogeneity, carbon forms graphite and diamond, niether of which are living. 

You see you are very argumentative, but you are argumentative about facts you have a poor grasp of, you spew gibberrish. When you talk about kamachatka, thats not an open air mine its under 12500 meters of water and sediment pressure, very much different,mwith temperatures close to boiling. When i talk about kamachatka i talk about thickly stacked sedimentary rock. The most active place in the workd in terms of geyser activity, without a doubt is yellowston national park. Dont argue, look it up, I have been to Japan many times, it has many volcanoes, but most of them are inactive most of the time, it does have isolated hot springs, but that is not what Exxon was drilling for, hot springs destroy oild formations, Exxon was after old, cleanly domed oil, just like you would find in East Texas, Except 10 kilometers deeper. Theres nothing special or interesting, if science had eyes to see everywhere, certainly there are many places that are deep, highly pressurized and support life. Stop arguing when you are wrong, just admit it and move on with your discussion. 

 

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, PB666 said:

you spew gibberrish

A one more really intellectual argument, indeed.

3 hours ago, PB666 said:

When you talk about kamachatka, thats not an open air mine its under 12500 meters

12500 m is not on Kamchatka, it's on Cola Peninsula, 10000 km to West-North-West. Not too much geysers there.

3 hours ago, PB666 said:

very much different,mwith temperatures close to boiling

Probably you had heard about triple point. All the chemosynthetics have is below 300 C. And of course nor 1500 C, neither 5000 C.
300 C is already a deadly condition for protein structures.

3 hours ago, PB666 said:

When i talk about kamachatka i talk about thickly stacked sedimentary rock. The most active place in the workd in terms of geyser activity, without a doubt is yellowston national park. Dont argue, look it up

I never said, that Kamchatka has bigger.. geyser activity than Yellowstone.
Though, Kamchatka-Kuriles-Japan line is one of the greatest volcanic/geyser activity place, its entrails are full of cracks, and this is highly probable that some of that miserable creatures could survive even being entombed in some of them — while local temperature and pressure still allows this. This doesn't mean that life just begins below 4 km everywhere. They are just local survivors being visible with a powerful microscope.

I just live in a region known for its hot springs (not so known as Kamchatka, of course, and happily not as Yellowstone) and any moment can watch that "chemosynthetic gardens". Rusty and teal spots on the stones, undistinguishable from any another dirty spot. And it took millenia for those microbes to make these spots.
That's all what they could evolve during the same 4 bln years, without any natural enemy (any oxygen breather would immediately boil and become a fertilizer trying to take them out — if it even knew about their existance).
These negligibles of course will survive a billion years after the oxygeners will die due to overheat, but still will remain something invisible without a micro, making a dirty spot for millenia. "Chemosynthetics", pooh.

Edited June 27, 2016 by kerbiloid

[lajoswinkler]

On 24.06.2016. at 2:24 AM, Laie said:

Large amounts of liquid water on Pluto? Inconceivable when I grew up, and IIRC still inconceivable two years ago.

Not inconceivable at all. I don't want to sound harsh, but where have you heard those things? Not only it was plausible, not only it was expected, but it was like that decades ago. If there's a huge layer of ice pressing deep layers, if there are solutes, if there is primordial heat, there HAS to be liquid underneath.

 

Just because NASA's silly PR posts clickbait articles, doesn't mean science was duped about it.