🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 17, 6:41 pm, bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
> MARS GOT SALT ?
> -BradGuth

How much salt does ETI require?  and why otherwise do we have so much
salt?

With all the very best of intentions, or otherwise, we can make our
calculations or especially those spendy 3-D animated supercomputer
forced models of whatever say just about anything you'd care to pay
for, especially hocus-pocus worthy since so little is known with any
certainty of Earth's planetology, and especially because we've got
next to nothing known first hand about our very own massive and nearby
moon.  We actually know of more truths about Mars than about our
moon.  In other words, your best swag that's based upon whatever hard
or soft numbers pertaining to our moon are nearly as good as most
any.  Too bad we still haven't a do-everything science platform at the
moon's L1, much less situated upon the physically dark and nasty
surface of our moon (perhaps the likes of China or India will fix
that).

Within the first 50 km of Earth's surface we've got roughly 2.5e19 m3
of mother Earth's bedrock to draw upon, of which the raw element of
such common/terrestrial rock salt is worth 2.2 g/cm3.  Trust me when
others and I say that Earth's primary rock is not all that salty, as
to account for having leached out 1.5e19 kg of that sodium/Na stuff.

Mountains of extremely hard rock formations have often been formulated
rather quickly as antipodes.  Rock formations via lava flows or from
the results of gradual plate tectonic forced rock are not the same
thing as antipode forced rock that's relatively low in sodium and
clearly hard enough to resist hundreds of millions if not a few
billion years worth of atmospheric erosion.  As best we know, Earth
hasn't entirely renewed its surface for the past 4+ billion years, but
it has been seriously impacted.

Softer and/or porous "alkaline basalt is relatively poor in silica and
rich in sodium.  Alkali basalts predominate among the lavas of the
ocean basins and are also common in mountain belts."  There's little
if any argument that much of Earth's salt is in fact obtained from our
salty oceans that arrived at some unknown time, similar to our ocean
basin formations having been created at some unknown time, as similar
to Earth's seasonal tilt having gotten established at some unknown
time, and otherwise similar to why Earth had all of those horrific ice
ages and subsequent thaws for some entirely weird and thus unknown
reasons that seem to have little if anything to do with whatever's
terrestrial, obviously having next to nothing to do with the various
species of humanity that was relatively few and far between at such
early times.

Of course, if there were a moon as of prior to 10,000 BC, as such we'd
have those multiple forms of solid proof and very objective evidence
of such because, folks as having survived way back then and even prior
to 15,000 BC were actually extremely intelligent and thereby fully
capable of their having taken notice of and having lived by way of
that nifty moon light and unavoidable tidal forces as having been
contributed by that nearby moon that's greater than a thousand fold
massive by ratio than any other such moon, as well as providing strong
evidence as depicted of their having to migrate due to the seasonal
changes that otherwise w/o moon should been more of a monoseason w/o
that icy proto-moon having previously impacted Earth, with many having
suggested Earth's orbit w/o moon has having been more elliptical and
perhaps even a bit tilt worthy unstable.

Even if Mars were only as old as Earth, the erosion and whatever
leaching process, along with the freeze dried nature of Mars today
being nearly a vacuum realm of a nearly frozen orb to its core, is
good reason as to why whatever Mars salt should still be on deck (sort
of speak).  From all indications as derived from the best available
science, Mars is actually hundreds of millions if not a good billion
years older than Earth, which means the erosion and/or leaching
process of obtaining whatever salts from within is simply way past
due, especially if that were the one and only way for a given planet
to obtain its salt.

Next to h2o, I'd place the element of salt as being 2nd in line to
sustaining that very essential DNA/RNA code of life as we know it,
which doesn't mean that other places of a more or less salty
environment couldn't easily accommodate and/or sustain other life
every bit as intelligent if not more so, especially if some of that
other life were merely half as genetically intelligent and/or having
been intentionally or by accident imported along with a degree of
expertise or applied technology (such as us humans are soon enough
becoming capable of doing another planet or moon).

Fortunately there are the very good and unfortunately more than our
fair share those bad sorts of germs or bugs that are still a whole lot
more survival smarter than most of us humans, and there are those
extra survival smart little robust spores or perhaps a few diatoms
that wouldn't even require a protective spacecraft in order to survive
some vast interplanetary panspermia trek (fully interstellar worthy if
safely sequestered within an icy proto-moon or onboard whatever
atmospheric enhanced proto-planet), that would without any naked
question entirely nail our frail DNA in more nasty ways than most of
us can count.  Human biology and physiology is essentially a somewhat
dumbfounded collective of rather poorly engineered DNA/RNA (meaning
there's a lot of nifty DNA/RNA code that we're missing), that's
continually in need of our frail existence being extensively educated
as well as protected from just about everything (including from
ourselves), meaning that our natural ability to survive isn't all that
great unless all that surrounds us is within a somewhat narrow spec,
and that our partner or neighbor isn't continually attempting to
implement upon those new and improved ways of terminating or otherwise
eating us alive.

Of potentially older and/or as forced evolved via intelligent design,
and thereby of likely smarter ETs that were given more or less of an
environment to work with, as such these species of intelligent folks
could actually be considerably better off at their having survived in
places we'd consider as hell, or worse.  Though being such a survival
evolved or educated smart ET doesn't hardly require their being space
travel worthy, or even RF communications capable, or for any good
reason the least bit interested, which only makes for most everything
SETI somewhat pointless, if not pathetic.

Being ET smart is simply being alive when most of us dumbfounded
humans if given the same environment or circumstances would have been
long dead.  However, the toasty and thus newish planetology
environment of Venus is not the least bit insurmountable, especially
with all of those raw elements and vast renewable energy resources at
hand, which makes Earth look downright wussy (though obviously near
ideal for the sorts of such a dumbfounded village idiot species as
we've proven to be).  To have once upon a time survived Mars
(especially as of the last billion years), now that would have been a
highly intelligent and robust ET, whereas if there was so much as a
Martian worm, I'd be seriously impressed.

As the terrestrial sequestered intelligent life that we supposedly
are, if we weren't so freaking arrogant and summarily faith-based
dumbfounded past the point of no return, as such we wouldn't require
1% of the salt and perhaps not 10% of the water.  How the heck did we
get stuck with more than our fair share of h2o and Na?

In fact, as to how little h2o and Na is doable on behalf of sustaining
ETI is still worth a good argument, because if an Earth like planet
having just 1% the water and 0.1% the salt would obviously be worthy
of holding our attention, even if it were merely a moon of Jupiter or
Saturn, or God forbid Venus that offers more of just about everything,
more than most of us can shake our born-again fist full of burning
sticks at.
-
Brad Guth