New extra terrestrial discovery Page 3

  • Page

    of 3 First / Last

    Next
  • LeoliansBro 29 Aug 2012 07:22:00 41,863 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    The question is more:

    The chances of bacteria adhereing to a meteor, plus the chances of said meteor* hitting a planet capable of supporting life, plus the chances of the bacteria reanimating and seeding the planet with life,

    vs

    The chances of bacteria and life evolving on the planet in the first place (which by our very existence must be possible - not everything can have come from sonewhere else).

    Second seems more straightforward to me.

    *yes I know a meteor by definition will crash into a planet, don't split hairs.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • mal 29 Aug 2012 07:42:06 21,942 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    The bacteria doesn't need to adhere to the rock - it just needs to be in the water that gets sucked up along with the rock when whatever cataclysmic event causes the asteroid to be formed. And certainly if earth bacteria are typical, reanimating them is just a matter of sticking them somewhere warm and light (although in lab experiments they've also got food in the form of agar gel, I guess).

    But yes, they'd need to be lucky to impact on a planet which wasn't being boiled by the star or drifting cold in the emptiness of space. An atmosphere would probably help too, so it also needs a molten ferrous core (I think). But given the number of planets apparently out there, such host planets must not be entirely uncommon.

    Biggest question in my mind is the cataclysmic event that creates the asteroid in the first place. I can't conceive of such an event that wouldn't result in great heat and pressure, so the bacteria involved would need to be extremely adaptable to survive.

    Cubby didn't know how to turn off sigs!

  • Page

    of 3 First / Last

    Next
Log in or register to reply