Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Earth's Water Didn't Come From Outer Space

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the no-word-on-elvis dept.

Earth 181

sciencehabit writes "Where did Earth's oceans come from? Astronomers have long contended that icy comets and asteroids delivered the water for them during an epoch of heavy bombardment that ended about 3.9 billion years ago. But a new study suggests that Earth supplied its own water, leaching it from the rocks that formed the planet. The finding may help explain why life on Earth appeared so early, and it may indicate that other rocky worlds are also awash in vast seas."

cancel ×

181 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Um... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34386430)

Isn't the earth in outer space?

Re:Um... (4, Informative)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 3 years ago | (#34386672)

Um ... By definition, no.

Hindu Historians answered water-Planet Lucifer (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34386758)

Remember, the Book of Genesis originated from India not Hebrews.

Schollars on India have always recited that this planet Earth was not inhabittable until 5k years ago when the water-Planet Lucifer was destroyed and with all the waterand life was delivered onto planet Earth to insulate all the geotherma activity to make it inhabittable.

It was said in a seminar that without this arrival of Water, this planet-Earth that we live on today is less habitable than Mars. Just consider that the Pacific Ocean is a giant circle of Volcanos constantly erupting, while Mars is just a bi-polarly environment ranging between like -100 F and 200 F. Also of note, this planet-Earth was noticably a much smaller planet than before it expanded: the alleged Tectonic-plate Drift is not proof of sliding plates but that this planet was once a small rock where something entered the center to cause it to expand as well as produce an enzyme deep below the Earth's crust responsible for breaking-down mineral to produce a productive insulating layer of Oil that allows the Core to spin easier: this is the primary theory of Middle-Earth that you will constantly find repeated beyond India and in the druidic areas of Europe that disguss how every phenomena point of this planet are actually the prior North & South poles that constantly switch and change. Consider how Bermuda Triangle and South China Sea have the same phenomena of bending Time and Space around aircraft and sea vessels.

That's all I can say about this, but point you to better topic as the magnetic pull of Planet-X causing the increased geothermal activity that Corporations are profitting over by compelling competitive countries into manufacturing disabilities that have nothing to do with CO2 levels.

Re:Hindu Historians answered water-Planet Lucifer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34386826)

Errrrr WTF?

I just googled

magnetic pull of Planet-X causing the increased geothermal activity

and it lead me here:

http://www.mrp3.com/bobf/global_warming.html

Check out the awful maths and complete lack of actual science.... Can we use the new powers of the US government to take down dangerous sites like this?

Re:Hindu Historians answered water-Planet Lucifer (3, Insightful)

PseudonymousBraveguy (1857734) | more than 3 years ago | (#34387254)

Whatever drug you are taking, take less. Or much more.

Also, I can't resist citing my favorite xkcd quote: "While the author's wildly swerving train of thought did at one point flirt with coherence, this brief encounter was more likely a chance event than a result of even rudimentary lucidity"

Re:Hindu Historians answered water-Planet Lucifer (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34387284)

is this one of those Markov chain "science papers"

Re:Hindu Historians answered water-Planet Lucifer (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#34389598)

I'd just like to know what the heck it is - and where I can get some.

Re:Hindu Historians answered water-Planet Lucifer (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 3 years ago | (#34388948)

200F surface temperature on Mars? Try 70F on a really hot day:

http://quest.nasa.gov/aero/planetary/mars.html [nasa.gov]
http://www.ehow.com/about_4610050_what-mars-highest-temperature.html [ehow.com]
http://www.universetoday.com/35664/temperature-of-the-planets/ [universetoday.com]

This page claims 90F but that is speculation, and is still way shy of 200F:

http://www.astronomy.com/en/sitecore/content/Home/News-Observing/Astronomy%20Kids/2008/03/Mars.aspx [astronomy.com]

Re:Um... (1)

beh (4759) | more than 3 years ago | (#34387372)

Quite a geocentric view of creation, you're taking...

Re:Um... (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 3 years ago | (#34387522)

No, it's more like I'm taking a Merriam-Webster-centric view of the definition of outer space.

Re:Um... (1)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 3 years ago | (#34388228)

Most people who use the word "creation" have a pretty geocentric view, in my experience.

Unless you are one of the handful of true believers who realises that the universe was created billions of years ago by Xgarg, the space-lobster god of Fralxi, for the sole benefit of the sentient inhabitants of a planet in another galaxy whose name cannot be represented in our pathetic human alphabet.

Re:Um... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34387600)

Where is it then?

Re:Um... (1)

kstahmer (134975) | more than 3 years ago | (#34387020)

Isn't the earth in outer space?

You have an interesting point. By definition [google.com] , outer space is: "any location outside the Earth's atmosphere." So Earth and its atmosphere aren't part of outer space, yet they do reside in outer space.

Re:Um... (1)

Chapter80 (926879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34387680)

Isn't the earth in outer space?

The definition [wikipedia.org] of outer space is

the void that exists beyond any celestial body including the Earth.[1] It is not completely empty (i.e. a perfect vacuum), but contains a low density of particles, predominantly hydrogen plasma, as well as electromagnetic radiation, magnetic fields, and neutrinos. Theoretically, it also contains dark matter and dark energy.

So no, the Earth isn't in outer space. But neither is water. It's a void.

The headline "Earth's Water Didn't Come From Outer Space" should get a resounding "duh!" from the Slashdot crowd.

Re:Um... (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#34388062)

The rocks that formed the Earth certainly were from outer space.

The Earth's upper atmosphere is bombarded with water every second. This is a known fact, so I don't know where these scientists are coming from. It's not likely, IMHO, that these scientists are even remotely close, because we have a lot of water here on Earth.

Re:Um... (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34389492)

Yes - but if you have a tap inside your house hooked up to a water supply also inside. You pour a cup of water from the sink - you wouldn't really say "I got this from outside" when you are inside your house. Technically, yes, your house is within the realm of outside, but people would be under the impression you left your house to acquire water.

Same thing here with inner space versus outer space - did the water from from within?

Re:Um... (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34389528)

from from. Come from... I need my coffee this morning. No more posting for me till I get some.

it would be too nice to be true (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34386444)

If this is true, then most earth sized rock planets in the habitable zone are also having water by default. Whoa, this simplifies the drake equation.

Re:it would be too nice to be true (2, Insightful)

Requiem18th (742389) | more than 3 years ago | (#34386538)

This makes The Habitable Zone into The Really Very Habitable More Like Life Sprouting Zone.

Re:it would be too nice to be true (3, Insightful)

Urkki (668283) | more than 3 years ago | (#34386854)

This makes The Habitable Zone into The Really Very Habitable More Like Life Sprouting Zone.

Not really.

For example, it may be that what was once much thicker crust, and is now Moon, would have contained the water, and there would be only dry surface, slowly seeping water vapour into the atmosphere, where it would be promptly broken down by Sun and hydrogen escaping.

We really have no idea, no big picture. We have just one sample, and even though we're literally standing on it, we don't even know how things went that fourish billion years ago.

Re:it would be too nice to be true (2, Insightful)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 3 years ago | (#34387014)

Yea, the moon is one of the things I think people forget to account for. The way it was formed is pretty unique and could have been important in our planet's development as well as that of life.

Re:it would be too nice to be true (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 3 years ago | (#34387300)

The way it was formed is pretty unique

I take it you have some evidence that it was "pretty unique", as opposed to "fairly common"? If our solar system is any guide, it happens to 1/4 of all rocky planets....

Re:it would be too nice to be true (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#34387628)

None of the other non-gas giants has a moon anywhere near as big as our satellite. Asimov explored this in Foundation and Earth, where the Earth was fairly unique in the galaxy.

Also, tidal forces probably played a part in the development of life. I think it's more likely that if we find extraterrestrial life, we'll find it on the satellite of a gas giant, not in a rocky small planet.

The Forgosts think that too [slashdot.org] (of course, I made them up ;)

Re:it would be too nice to be true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34388636)

None of the other non-gas giants has a moon anywhere near as big as our satellite.

Says who? We've only very recently gotten the ability to tell if there's a terrestrial planet circling a distant star; we certainly can't tell anything about their satellites yet.

Re:it would be too nice to be true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34388974)

Still 1/4.

Re:it would be too nice to be true (1)

SirThe (1927532) | more than 3 years ago | (#34389720)

None of the other non-gas giants has a moon anywhere near as big as our satellite.

Says who?

Re:it would be too nice to be true (2, Insightful)

a_hanso (1891616) | more than 3 years ago | (#34387458)

Agreed.

a) Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe
b) Oxygen is also highly abundant: plenty of it is created in stars (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis)
c) Oxygen happens to be highly reactive
d) Given their abundance, we can be sure that most planets will have the two elements, even if only as components of minerals

Now all you need is some sufficiently energetic process (thermal?) to release the two and react, and you've got an ocean (if the temperature is right)

first water (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34386452)

I've got it right here for ya, HA!

So... there is a God? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34386460)

The water appeared out of nowhere?

Re:So... there is a God? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34386486)

Blame it on Jeebus!

Re:So... there is a God? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34386870)

Blame it on Jeebus!

No, he makes wine not water.

Re:So... there is a God? (1)

Loki_666 (824073) | more than 3 years ago | (#34386606)

*sighs* No... read the article.

Re:So... there is a God? (0, Offtopic)

rmaureira (1414691) | more than 3 years ago | (#34386800)

RTFA? You must be new here...

Re:So... there is a God? (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#34386640)

The water appeared out of nowhere?

Keep up, will you? The water, which is the lifeblood of living things, came out of stones.

All this proves is that there was a poltergeist.

Re:So... there is a God? (4, Interesting)

vivian (156520) | more than 3 years ago | (#34386690)

Keep up, will you? The water, which is the lifeblood of living things, came out of stones.

I wonder how much this removal of water from the rocks depends on the earth having a hot mantle? If the mantle were cooler, then the water would stay there instead of being cooked out as steam and being able to re-condense else where. This is massively speculative of course - but could part of the reason mars no longer has a liquid ocean be that since the planet has cooled now, all it's water is locked up back in the rocks again? Is the fact that we have a hot interior on our planet the main driving factor that allows us to have a liquid ocean?

Also water could react with other rocks (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 3 years ago | (#34386924)

Just because its been cooked out of one mineral doesn't mean it won't react at high temp with another. 3500 miles of magma is a lot of rock to cross and not react. Sounds unlikely to me TBH.

Volcanoes are known to vent steam (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34387038)

Just because its been cooked out of one mineral doesn't mean it won't react at high temp with another. 3500 miles of magma is a lot of rock to cross and not react. Sounds unlikely to me TBH.

Volcanoes are known to vent steam. All this theory would require is that such venting occurs much more frequently than cometary impacts, and/or with greater volumes of water.

Re:So... there is a God? (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 3 years ago | (#34386960)

Of course. If the planet was hot and cooled down, then the surface water would sink into the rock and eventually freeze. On Mars, Mercury and the Moon, the water has sunk into the rock long ago. Mars still has liquid water lower down under the surface and a few salty springs. On earth, the hot core keeps it circulating to the surface. On Venus, the planet is so hot, that all the water is in the atmosphere and most has boiled away. On Mercury, the sun boiled all the water off long ago.

Re:So... there is a God? (2, Informative)

SamSim (630795) | more than 3 years ago | (#34387036)

A hot mantle isn't something that happens by chance. When a planet forms, it involves large chunks of *stuff* coming and binding together - that is, coming from a dispersed position of high gravitational potential to a compressed position of much lower gravitational potential. All of that GPE has to go somewhere, and most of it went into thermal energy, hence the heat at the Earth's core. Mars is much smaller than Earth = less GPE to liberate = less core heat. Of course the fact that Mars is too small to hold on to a substantial atmosphere also plays a part.

What I'm saying is that any sufficiently large rocky planet almost by definition has substantial core heat. It's not really much of a coincidence that the Earth has a hot mantle. Probably, any large rocky planet of about the same age as Earth (i.e. orbiting a population I star) has plenty of core heat left.

Radiation not size (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34387088)

I don't think a greater size is sufficient. A greater size just means it will take longer to bleed off that primordial heat. I believe the earth has a radioactive core that is generating heat, we are not just "coasting" on the primordial.

Re:Radiation not size (1)

Truth is life (1184975) | more than 3 years ago | (#34388122)

Yes, but a larger planet will also (in general) have more radioactive "stuff" in the core areas as well.

Water dissipated with atmosphere? (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34387062)

... but could part of the reason mars no longer has a liquid ocean be that since the planet has cooled now, all it's water is locked up back in the rocks again? ...

Locked up in ice but probably not back into rocks. Also it may have dissipated into space with the portion of the atmosphere that has been lost.

Re:So... there is a God? (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#34388134)

Water from stones? Next thing you'll be telling me is that we can get blood from turnips.

Re:So... there is a God? (1)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 3 years ago | (#34389312)

A person eats the turnip, thier body breaks it down and uses it's sugars, starches, and proteins to make blood cells.

Blood from a Turnip!

Re:So... there is a God? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34389304)

The water... came out of stones.

Obviously, this happened just after Moses struck the rock with his staff.

Re:So... there is a God? (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 3 years ago | (#34389336)

The water appeared out of nowhere?

Silly goose, water comes from Fiji, or at least it did.

Re:So... there is a God? (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34386660)

Yes. In the beginning there was the water and the waer was God. And the water said: "Let there be me." And then it was.

Re:So... there is a God? (1)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 3 years ago | (#34387118)

ueeuh, this story is about the splitting of the waters. that is described in genesis [biblebb.com] (old testament => part of bible...) ,I think day 3:

"Then God said, 'Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate the waters from the waters.' And God made the expanse and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse and it was so. "

Re:So... there is a God? (1)

Urkki (668283) | more than 3 years ago | (#34386892)

The water appeared out of nowhere?

No, most of what makes water by mass (oxygen) came from supernovas that happened 10-5 billion years ago, where it was made from primordial hydrogen and helium. Smaller part by mass (hydrogen) came "directly" from Big Bang. These combined to become water probably in the early stages of solar system formation, mostly. That water was all mixed up with rock and metal forming the "rocky" planets. Most of the water in the mix was probably lost from inner planets (boiled out of the then molten balls of rock). TFA claims that not all was lost, and the part that was not lost was enough to later form the oceans of the Earth.

Re:So... there is a God? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34388184)

Most of the water in the mix was probably lost from inner planets (boiled out of the then molten balls of rock). TFA claims that not all was lost, and the part that was not lost was enough to later form the oceans of the Earth.

Another problem is without a decent ionosphere / ozone layer / magnetosphere / WTF, hard ultraviolet dissociates H2O into H and O and the H floats away unless your planet is the size of Jupiter (yes, I'm well aware this is a simplification)

Mars could have started with as much water as earth, but with a high enough UV flux in the atmosphere, the hydrogen quickly floats away, and its all over, even if Mars is further away from the sun than the earth.

Mercury, yeah mercury is kind of toasty and small to keep water for a long time but Mars had different problems keeping its water.

Which complicates that whole 'odds of life' thing, because its not enough to have a planet in the liquid water range of orbits, nor is it enough to have plenty of H2O, but you also need a way to protect that H2O from dissociation.

Re:So... there is a God? (1)

pr0f3550r (553601) | more than 3 years ago | (#34387494)

Yet, Christians, Jews, and Muslims will accept this conclusion very well and this article will not be 'news' to them.

Even so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34386500)

Well, astronomers can say what they will, but I still swear by a couple of ice meteors to end a dry spell.

Dude... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34386590)

...everything is from outer space. In fact we are flying through outer space right now.

Re:Dude... (2, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34386608)

...everything is from outer space. In fact we are flying through outer space right now.

Sound like you are flying high in your own personal inner space

well, let's wait for thursday... (1)

neongrau (1032968) | more than 3 years ago | (#34386636)

when they're prolly going to announce that a water-ice meteorite had been discovered, that also brought extraterrestrial life with it.

NASA press release [nasa.gov]

Not Invented Here - NOT (3, Interesting)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 3 years ago | (#34386638)

Not Invented Here - NOT

This news goes in hand with the parsimonious explanation that the Earth is the endogenous source of life, too.

I habitually distrust news that relate any process on Earth as influenced by Venus, Mars, or 'Outer Space'. Remember what a fool they made out of Bill Clinton with the 'bacteria from Mars'...

Invented Here - YES!

Re:Not Invented Here - NOT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34389272)

Did someone actually disprove that theory, by finding one that fits the observed facts better? I don't recall anyone proving that the sample was indeed contaminated - just some guys coming out and saying "oh btw, microbacteria also exist in Earth rock and they leave similar fossils behind so it is more probable that the sample was contaminated".

Why not? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34386650)

I thought everything came from asteroids - water, life, death of dinosaurs, scapegoat when can't think of another theory, Elvis... those asteroids are magical things you know...

Re:Why not? (3, Funny)

Sechr Nibw (1278786) | more than 3 years ago | (#34387872)

Jeez, you forgot to mention Superman! What kind of a nerd are you?

It is just way more complicated actually (4, Insightful)

Framboise (521772) | more than 3 years ago | (#34386676)

The water we drink must have been reprocessed many times for eons by living beings.
Remember that the amount of sedimentary rocks made of dead stuff is much larger than
the total of oceans. This implies that striclty speaking each molecule has been dissociated
and recombined with different oxygen and hydrogen atoms. Many O and H atoms now in
water have been in other compounds (CO, H2SO4, ...) for a while and vice versa.

Re:It is just way more complicated actually (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34386760)

Many O and H atoms now in water have been in other compounds (CO, H2SO4, ...) for a while and vice versa.

Not just that, but the sub-atomic particles in those atoms have probably been part of other atoms as well and have fused or fizzled (fissed? fissioned?) to create the O and H we have now.

PSA: Don't drink the water, you don't know where its electrons have been!

Re:It is just way more complicated actually (1)

Framboise (521772) | more than 3 years ago | (#34387820)

Chemical reactions are easier on Earth than nuclear reactions because the required threshold energy to start reactions is lower by about 1 million. The residual radioactive elements on Earth can transmute atoms, but their amount is tiny. But you are right, the sub-atomic particles that can be easily exchanged are the outer electrons, so we can expect most atoms on Earth had some promiscuitous exchange with others.

Re:It is just way more complicated actually (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34388520)

PSA: Don't drink the water, you don't know where its electrons have been!

Stop stealing slogans from homeopathy!

Re:It is just way more complicated actually (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34386972)

Yes, and most importantly, fish drink water (and do other, unspeakable things in it..), and when it re-emerges from the fish,
it has converted into extremely toxic oxygen dihydride (no-one having accidentally drunk it has survived) !
 

Re:It is just way more complicated actually (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34387032)

I knew hydrogen was a slut, I just didn't know it was to this extent. And to think he said he loved me and only me.... now I see he has been seeing Carbon and even sulfur...sulfur for crying out loud!


Yours sincerely, Oxygen

Re:It is just way more complicated actually (4, Funny)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 3 years ago | (#34388206)

pfft. Leave it to Oxygen to over react...

Re:It is just way more complicated actually (0, Offtopic)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34387682)

HAMLET
To what base uses we may return, Horatio! Why may
not imagination trace the noble dust of Alexander,
till he find it stopping a bung-hole?

HORATIO
'Twere to consider too curiously, to consider so.

HAMLET
No, faith, not a jot; but to follow him thither with
modesty enough, and likelihood to lead it: as
thus: Alexander died, Alexander was buried,
Alexander returneth into dust; the dust is earth; of
earth we make loam; and why of that loam, whereto he
was converted, might they not stop a beer-barrel?
Imperious Caesar, dead and turn'd to clay,
Might stop a hole to keep the wind away:
O, that that earth, which kept the world in awe,
Should patch a wall to expel the winter flaw!

Re:It is just way more complicated actually (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 3 years ago | (#34388186)

This implies that striclty speaking each molecule has been dissociated
and recombined with different oxygen and hydrogen atoms.

Actually, liquid water is a constantly changing mixture of H20 molecules, H+ ions and H3O- ions. The hydrogen atoms are continuously shifting between different molecules and ions, in proportions depending on the pH of the sample. No particular group of atoms in liquid water stays together for very long.

Re:It is just way more complicated actually (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34389754)

His main point was that the "law of conservation of water" that these studies seem to assume isn't true. The reaction you're describing conserves the amount of water, so is irrelevant.

Re:It is just way more complicated actually (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34388500)

So, how long did it take you guys offline to come up with this/ :-)

wtf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34386724)

So, the rocks that our planet extracted the water from, did not come from outer space? Then where did they come from? Inner space?

Wrong (0, Flamebait)

brillow (917507) | more than 3 years ago | (#34386766)

Earth's water came from outer-space because earth came from outer-space.

Re:Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34386878)

You're saying we are aliens? Do you have any proof of this?

can't tell by the inhabitants (2)

dltaylor (7510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34386774)

Seems to be that a very high proportion of the "ugly bags of water" (ST:TNG) infesting the surface must have come from "outer space", in the colloquial sense.

"ugly bags of water" (1, Informative)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34386824)

"ugly bags of mostly water" IIRC

Re:"ugly bags of water" (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34386948)

worst part is, you DO recall correctly.

now turn off those mining lasers

P(new theory) = 0.5? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34386874)

Drawing water from stone? This sounds as crazy as the other theory...

Re:P(new theory) = 0.5? (1)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 3 years ago | (#34388286)

Don't be silly. All real scientists know that it is possible to extract water from rock, because it says so in the Bible. You aren't calling Moses a liar, are you?

'we all lose when our trust is breached' (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34386882)

hillary said that? somebody lied to her? let's guess that there's some loss in the 'trust' dept., as soon as the truth leaves the discourse. in this case, that happened before most of US were born. so now we 'ally' with deception/fiction, because it's what we have?

What about the other planets? (1)

Tasha26 (1613349) | more than 3 years ago | (#34386894)

What does this mean for Mars? Would a giant lemon squeezer work over there too? ;)

Top 3 Most Common Elements are ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34386946)

The Top 3 Most Common Elements are ...
1-Hydrogen
2-Helium
3-Oxygen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements#Abundance_of_elements_in_the_Universe [wikipedia.org]

Helium is non-reactive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_gas [wikipedia.org] . Put what remains together and what do you get? Water is probably (my opinion) one of the most abundant things in the universe when the temperatures are right.

Settled science, huh? (-1, Flamebait)

MoeDumb (1108389) | more than 3 years ago | (#34387084)

Another decades-old pillar of the Theory of evolution shot to hell. And this new waterlogged guess makes no more scientific sense than the absurd guess that preceded it.

Re:Settled science, huh? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34387250)

Another decades-old pillar of the Theory of evolution shot to hell.
And this new waterlogged guess makes no more scientific sense than the absurd guess that preceded it.

The existing thought regarding water on Earth is that there wasn't enough around to explain why we have so much now, unless it came from somewhere else. We know that comets are largely made of water, and we know they hit planets all the time, so it's quite likely that some of the water DID come from them.
What this article is saying, is that it's possible the Earth could have formed with enough water on its own, and wouldn't need an outside source to explain how much is here now.

You're actually backwards- this is a blow to Anti-evolution 'theory'. The creationists have tried to claim that life could not have evolved on Earth because there wasn't enough water and therefore God must have had to be involved; the argument that the water didn't necessarily originate here was a counter to that argument which fits in with what we see happening in the Real World. This article is showing that the counter-argument is not needed to dismiss that specific Creationist argument, since the water could very easily have been here the whole time.

Either way, it says absolutely nothing about Evolutionary Theory at all, since that Theory addresses life actually starting and then developing, and you're talking about the conditions for life not the process of life itself.

Of course, that's probably way too complex for you to understand, so I'll sum it up: If you're arguing over how to make an omelette, whether you brought the eggs from the store or got them from the cooler doesn't matter.

Re:Settled science, huh? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34388288)

so I'll sum it up: If you're arguing over how to make an omelette, whether you brought the eggs from the store or got them from the cooler doesn't matter.

Yeah, as if that explanation is going to do anything but confuse him.
"Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
"God planted the evidence/egg in both the store and cooler to test our faith"
"Ah I love the smell of progress in the morning"

Re:Settled science, huh? (1)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 3 years ago | (#34388356)

Er, what? The theory of evolution describes the process by which life changes over time, and that is settled science, disputed only by cranks, religious fundamentalists, and the uneducated.

How life arose in the first place is a different question that is surrounded by uncertainty and constant debate, both scientific and otherwise. Anyone you have heard claiming that this other question is settled was merely trying to prove their pet theory by assertion.

Re:Settled science, huh? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#34388452)

Life had to form before it evolved.

Alternate possibility? (1)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34387106)

Could the water have been formed by hydrogen in the early Earth combusting and forming water (or similar natural means)?

Re:Alternate possibility? (1)

CheshireCatCO (185193) | more than 3 years ago | (#34388032)

Where do you get the oxygen? Most of it in the protoplanetary disk would have already encountered hydrogen (being 75% of the stuff there) and made water.

How do they know? (1)

Froggels (1724218) | more than 3 years ago | (#34387162)

The article doesn't get into specifics regarding how they determined the origin of most of Earth's water. Is there more information as to how they came to this conclusion?

Re:How do they know? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#34387270)

Their model says enough water will be produced to account for the water, removing the need for other sources.

Fountains of the Deep (2)

mlush (620447) | more than 3 years ago | (#34387512)

Creations claiming that this paper is talking about the Fountains of the Deep [answersingenesis.org] and science has proved the Flood in
3
2
1...

Of course it did (2, Interesting)

joeyblades (785896) | more than 3 years ago | (#34387614)

Everything that exists on this planet was the output from stars. Therefore, everything on Earth came from outer space, including it's water. The only question is when did the water arrive relative to the majority of the other star debris.

RTFA (3, Informative)

mdsolar (1045926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34387670)

Reading the conclusions of the fine article, I notice "...the more probable source for early water oceans [on Earth] is the collapse of the planet's steam atmosphere..." and "... these oceans may not persist over billions of years on smaller planets against the processes of atmospheric escape and continuing impact blow-off..."

It is a clue also that the title is about early oceans. This paper has nothing to do with the origin of Earth's present oceans but rather discusses early, pre-bombardment phase water and also more massive rocky planets.

As someone.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34387758)

Who's studied Intelligent Design, I proudly say, "duh".

Re:As someone.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34389186)

If that is what you are studying, then I'll assume that "duh" is all you can say.

Better explanation: condensation (1)

bl8n8r (649187) | more than 3 years ago | (#34388156)

Early on when the earth was just starting out, there was all sorts of rocks, dust, planetoids and other debris floating around the solar system. As stuff slammed into the earth, it's mass increased. It "sucked in" more and more debris which gave it more mass: omnomnomnom > more mass > omnomnomnom > more mass... etc, etc.  The frequency of and size of debris constantly pummeling the earth  created an immense amount of heat.  The heat created a bubbling lava-like ooze that covered the planet. Eventually, the supply of nearby debris was exhausted and the ooze started to cool.  As it cooled, steam and vapor condensed into clouds and finally rain.  The falling rain cooled the earth more, which created more condensation, which created more rain.. etc, etc.

It's intriguing to think of the heating and cooling process as a recursive function :)

Water from space never made sense to me (2)

bemenaker (852000) | more than 3 years ago | (#34388328)

The whole water from the large bombardment period never really made that much sense to me. It always seemed like grasping at straws. The idea that water/ice was either in rocks, or just part of the mass that coalesced into the earth makes far more sense. There is water vapor in Saturn's rings, so why wouldn't there be water vapor in the dust cloud the earth formed from?

That's Life (1)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 3 years ago | (#34388368)

Water leaching from rocks makes sense if there is a motive force such as bacteria digesting rock. There's a whole lot of eating going on.

Re: That's Life (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34389512)

Water leaching from rocks makes sense if there is a motive force such as bacteria digesting rock. There's a whole lot of eating going on.

Ewwww. Ich. Are you saying that the nice white beach is bacterial doo-doo?

That's it! I'm staying in the basement!

(Returning to reality a bit, you might consider physical and chemical forces first, no need to invoke your furry little colonic friends.)

Science begins to line up...again (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34389128)

Genesis 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?