|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Water As An Element of Fine-Tuning | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
and the worst part is that I "corrected" it -- should a stuck with the first (like they tell you to do when taking tests...)
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tony650 Member (Idle past 4052 days) Posts: 450 From: Australia Joined: |
Heh, I noticed that, too. I'm just too nice to say.
But since holmes got to make fun of you...Har har! *points and laughs*
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nic Tamzek Inactive Member |
One other misconception of RustyShackelford that should be corrected is that water is a "universal solvent." It's a good solvent but not universal.
As my chemistry prof once carefully explained it to our class, water is a universal solvent...of stuff that dissolves in water. Notably, large nonpolar/hydrophobic compounds are *not* very water soluble (they will have solubility constants of, say, 10^-49 or whatever, so that in a swimming pool full of water you will dissolve less than one molecule. This is good, because otherwise our bodies would dissolve into goo. Sulfides are also very, very resistant to dissolving in water, which is why you can remove dissolved toxic ions from solution by adding sulfide. See this Solubility product table quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5840 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
One other misconception of RustyShackelford that should be corrected is that water is a "universal solvent." It's a good solvent but not universal. If he can't figure out that water doesn't freeze in the tropics, do we really think he's going to get the complicated explanation of hydrophobic compounds? What's funny is he says he has a friend in chemistry that told him the world would freeze over if water froze from the bottom up. I suppose this same friend was the one who told him it was a universal solvent. One trip to an organic chem lab would dispell that. Water's nonsolvency on many materials is a great way to separate them into different components based on density. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The idea that the oceans would freeze solid if ice sank is based on the idea that once frozen it would not thaw.
for it to sink to the bottom it would have to pass through warmer water without thawing and then the bottom would have to be colder than the freezing point. thermal conductivity of the earth means there is alway a flow from the center outward (yes in billions of years the earth will get colder) that keeps the mantle at a temperature well above 32F\0C This is a fairly accessible geology site that discusses earth temperature and the different layers:Inside the Earth - Enchanted Learning Mantle: Under the crust is the rocky mantle, which is composed of silicon, oxygen, magnesium, iron, aluminum, and calcium. The upper mantle is rigid and is part of the lithosphere (together with the crust). Convection (heat) currents carry heat from the hot inner mantle to the cooler outer mantle. The mantle is about 1,700 miles (2,750 km) thick. The mantle gets warmer with depth; the top of the mantle is about 1,600 F (870 C); towards the bottom of the mantle, the temperature is about 4,000-6,700 F (2,200-3,700 C). The mantle contains most of the mass of the Earth. The Gutenberg discontinuity separates the outer core and the mantle. Surface and crust: The Earth's surface is composed mostly of water, basalt and granite. Oceans cover about 70% of Earth's surface. These oceans are up to 3.7 km deep. The Earth's thin, rocky crust is composed of silicon, aluminum, calcium, sodium and potassium.
This site talks about the crust:http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/...s_layers/Earths_layers4.html The temperatures of the crust vary from air temperature on top to about 1600 degrees Fahrenheit (870 degrees Celcius) in the deepest parts of the crust. Oceanic crust being significantly thinner than continental crust means that there would be more thermal conductivity, more flow of temperature, through the oceanic crust. Ice sinking could actually cause the oceans to be warmer than they are because it would cause more mixing of the water as the thawed bottom ice water would rise to the surface and the ice blocks sank. This would add convection heat transfer into the system. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5840 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Hey don't tell me, tell him! Right now he thinks he has three sources to my just asserting things like water hotter than it's boiling point can't freeze, or that salt prevents freezing, or that it's hot in the tropics.
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Also, we can't forget about the reflectivity of floating ice. Icebergs and floating ice reflect solar energy back out into space. If, for instance, the northern polar ice cap was at the bottom of the ocean the world would be warmer than it is now. Also, surface winds blowing over unfrozen water is warmer than surface winds blowing over ice that is well below 0 celcius (unfrozen sea water is always warmer than about -2 celcius I believe).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
unfrozen sea water is always warmer than about -2 celcius I believe yes, based on my experience that would be about right ... we have an annual swim for winter solstice in buzzards bay MA ... we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
I don't think the proposition that life can only arise in water-based environments was as much off the mark as has been suggested; IIRC Isaac Asimov made that argument in his book on evolution from the 60's, which title I forget. I also think he argued the possibility of methane/silicon life, but also agreed this would be extremely slow-padced life, if possible at all.
On sulphur, don't the worms around black smokers use a sulfur-based metabolism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: I don't think it's far off the mark either. Water is probably the best solvent for life, and it makes a stable byproduct for metabolism. I just have a hard time with the "fine-tuning", anthropic argument.
quote: The worms are filter feeders. They feed on autotrophs, some of which metabolize sulfur.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024