Nice article

Post #439,272 by crazy 6/11/21 9:55:41 AM 6/11/21 9:55:41 AM Reply	Nice article Typo scan for:Mitocohndria Are you 100% sure on the water bombardment model? It's been called into question recently: https://scitechdaily-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/scitechdaily.com/was-earths-water-always-here-unexpected-meteorite-composition-provides-origin-evidence/amp/?amp_js_v=a6&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#aoh=16234195167806&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fscitechdaily.com%2Fwas-earths-water-always-here-unexpected-meteorite-composition-provides-origin-evidence%2F
Post #439,273 by drook 6/11/21 10:23:06 AM 6/11/21 10:23:06 AM Reply	Water bombardment sounded so implausible when I first heard it Part of me wants to believe they've found a flaw in the theory just so I don't have to accept it. -- Drew
Post #439,283 by Another Scott 6/12/21 12:40:22 PM 6/12/21 12:40:22 PM Reply	Same. The idea of water coming from some vast bombardment of comets at just the right time sounded really implausible to me too. But the solar system is so old, who knows. Of course, one doesn't need comets or meteorites or whatever. One can get water from the solar wind. https://www.space.com/27377-moon-water-origin-solar-wind.html The researchers expected to find water from chondrites in the interiors of the lunar dust grains and water from both chondrites and the solar wind in the exteriors or rims of these grains. Surprisingly, the water in both the interiors and exteriors of these dust grains apparently originated mainly from the solar wind. "We do not find any chondritic signature," lead study author Alice Stephant, a cosmochemist at the National Museum of Natural History in Paris, told Space.com. These findings suggest that any water that cosmic impacts bring to the moon is not retained much. At most, an average of 15 percent of the hydrogen in lunar soil may come from chondritic water, the researchers said. The universe is very often richer and more interesting than we imagine. (Of course, the picture may change yet again as more is learned. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #439,284 by CRConrad 6/12/21 1:12:04 PM 6/12/21 1:12:04 PM Reply	WTF is all this then? Sounded so to me too when I first heard -- i.e. just now. Thanks for the links, guys, gotta go study. And re-read Andrew's page; if it was there I must have missed it, apparently read it too sloppily. (I blame the Internet, seems I have the attenrtion span of a kitten on crack nowadays.) -- Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Apparently Still Knows Fucking Everything Mail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi
Post #439,285 by crazy 6/12/21 1:22:30 PM 6/12/21 1:22:30 PM Reply	I had that same exact feeling when I was around 8 years old I was at the Franklin institute enjoying the planetarium show and that included a movie about the origins of the Earth. And part of that was the concept of this enormous deluge over millions of years of water just happening to fall in. I was totally what the f***. Hey Drook: check out this bass player. https://youtu.be/Tvr46uFfbMg
Post #439,288 by drook 6/12/21 2:12:13 PM 6/12/21 2:12:13 PM Reply	I've gone down rabbit holes of his stuff before He's insanely good. -- Drew
Post #439,292 by crazy 6/12/21 3:57:08 PM 6/12/21 3:57:09 PM Reply	I love his challenges He records a small piece and then invites other people to create complementary music. And then gives them free instruments.
Post #439,295 by drook 6/13/21 1:16:23 AM 6/13/21 1:16:23 AM Reply	Yup, some of them I wish we full length and with full instrumentation -- Drew
Post #439,287 by drook 6/12/21 2:11:14 PM 6/12/21 2:11:14 PM Reply	I like this theory better Something that accumulates slowly from a small but consistent process feels more plausible than from occasional impacts. -- Drew
Post #439,290 by CRConrad 6/12/21 3:08:26 PM 6/12/21 3:08:26 PM Reply	The (non-bird) dinosaurs send their regards, wishing you were right. occasional impacts. ;-) -- Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Apparently Still Knows Fucking Everything Mail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi
Post #439,296 by drook 6/13/21 1:18:06 AM 6/13/21 1:18:06 AM Reply	Rare events are great at destruction, not as much for creation/accumulation -- Drew
Post #439,298 by CRConrad 6/13/21 9:30:06 AM 6/13/21 9:30:06 AM Reply	True, didn't think of that distinction. The resulting compensatory rise of the mammals is a) an indirect effect, and b) not exactly "creation/accumulation", so me trying to refer to that would be kind'a cheating. Or at least pointless. Hmm... Maybe the creation of the Moon, if we accept one of the various "created as a result of the collision of..." hypotheses. But yeah, pretty much a black swan among creation events. -- Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Apparently Still Knows Fucking Everything Mail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi

Welcome to IWETHEY!