Kerr Watch

Elapsed time since Richard Kerr failed to inform his Science readers of the confirmation of nanodiamonds at the YDB: 6 years, 2 months, and 1 day

International Space Station: Window scum supports Wickramasinghe and Sir Fred’s long contention of teeming life in space

iss_plankton

 

The space station is orbiting the earth in a total vacuum, there is no air, so it is a total defiance of the laws of physics to say these organisms were blown into space from Earth.

‘The only explanation is that they have come from elsewhere in space, and this supports long-held theories that plankton, and therefore all life on Earth including humans, originated from organisms in space.

‘Everything that we have on the Earth is derived from space, including humans.

~ Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe, August 21, 2014

 

April 8, 2013

Russian press release

Wickramasignhe vs. Plait @ HuffPo

Chandra heckled 58:22

The spacewalk….window cleaning @ 2:22

Updates from ProfChandra

 

The Tusk has long loved Chandra Wickramasinghe since I first came across the cool dude in the 90’s. His work with Sir Fred Hoyle — and every report since — is simply wonderful. Chandra and Fred are either the two smartest wrong guys in the history of modern science or the two smartest period.

Chandra made a widely derided contribution to our understanding last year when he identified aquatic diatoms in a meteorite. According to reports this week, one of which I post in part below, his findings are now supported by the collection of marine diatoms from a window of the International Space Station.

I offer two explanations for this news of the weird. Either:

1) Chandra Wickramasinghe detected diatoms in a meteorite in 2013 and is now vindicated in his long standing prediction that such life forms are relatively common in Space, or;

2) Those trickster Russians are deliberately providing false confirmation of Chandra’s kooky claims for unknown reasons.

Allow me to make a predictive claim as well: Public interest in the Russian findings will provoke critics to further defame Wickramasignhe. I can already hear Phil Plait typing. If you do not know of Plait, he is a “science guy” who specializes in the defense of the known. His too popular blogs rule out and frequently deride anything outside 3˚ of understood.

Screen Shot 2014-08-23 at 12.46.13 AM

  • the new finding is about the discovery of plankton on the space station. Presumably this can reach the upper atmosphere by evaporation of the sea surface. Where exactly is the space station in relation to the atmosphere. Is it circling above the area in which evaporation can take ocean surface material? When you look at it in the night or dusk sky the space station seems very close to the surface – therefore I would guess it is orbiting in an area affected by evaporation.
    We also need to take onboard the fact that global heat, as a result of ocean evaporation, must be leaving the earth’s system and entering space in order for global climate to remain at equilibrium. So, even if the space station is orbiting above the atmosphere it is still prone to ocean plankton reaching it.
    In spite of that I really enjoyed Chandra’s talk – a bit long but interesting. Some of his ideas converge with Clube and Napier’s theory of comets posing a threat to earth in the past. If comets, or rather, meteor streams with an origin in outgassing from comets, were able to, for instance, cause epidemics on earth such as the black death and justinian’s plague, this could, as he says, completely alter human perceptions – including some central religious ideas. I like it – the theory has some big ideas, ideas that could topple some silly consensus views. Wickramasinghe and Hoyle were not always viewed favourably in catastrophist organs – including SIS. Some of their work was reviewed in a negative manner. However, I think it has stood the test of time and is still a walking hypothesis. Later in the year we have two comets that may alter mainstream perceptions. The Rosetta mission is an obvious one but so too is the close approach of a comet to Mars in the autumn (Fall). If it has grown a coma by then and that coma interacts with the thin Martian atmosphere we might learn a lot about what might have happened in the past on Earth.

  • Steve Garcia

    From the HuffPo link:

    Wickramasinghe and the late English astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle co-developed a theory known as “panspermia,” which suggests that life exists throughout the universe and is distributed by meteoroids and asteroids.

    I would take exception to this latter part – distributed throughout the universe. Is there any evidence at all that meteoroids and asteroids travel from one star system to another? Or am I reading his language incorrectly?

    “We conclude … that the identification of fossilised diatoms [as shown in the image below] in the Polonnaruwa meteorite is firmly established and unimpeachable. Since this meteorite is considered to be an extinct cometary fragment, the idea of microbial life carried within comets and the theory of cometary panspermia is thus vindicated,” Wickramasinghe wrote in the research paper.

    I think he is being a little bit overzealous in his interpretation of what is there. I don’t think this finding vindicates panspermia. What it does seem to do is to NOT falsify it.

    It gives him some fodder to argue with, but as you indicate, Carol, there are other possibilities that still need to be looked into, including the one you discuss.

    That is a tough one, as the science stands now, about heat and/or plankton escaping the troposphere and getting above the stratosphere and even the mesosphere (120km), and then all the way up to the ISS (205 km). I wouldn’t rule it out, but I’d think it is doubtful. But no more doubtful than his thinking.

    Wickramasinghe can’t tie it solidly to comets or meteoroids, anymore than the plankton can be tied to somehow wafting up from Earth. I don’t think the Standard Model covers this. But just because plankton is up there doesn’t mean it came from either of his candidates, either. Finding it there on the windows isn’t much to go on.

    I’d put it into the “unknown” bin for now.

    As to the comet heading for Mars, I found out that it is named “Sliding Spring” and is supposed to reach Mars on October 19.

  • Steve Garcia

    Another thought on that plankton…

    It occurs to me that it is there due to some process that no one has ever thought of before. It could be a LONG time before that is understood – and it may be argued over for a long time after that.

    Taking Wickramasinghe’s and Hoyle’s panspermia at face value, if the plankton came on a comet or meteor, why would it be there NOW, during the time that the ISS is up there?

    Has a comet or asteroid come by recently?

    Does the plankton ride on the micrometeorites that bathe the Earth all the time?

    Does the ISS have evidence of being hit by any micrometorites?

    Would the plankton stay up in space when the micrometeorites are entering the atmosphere?

    Do the plankton instead live in deep space instead of on comets or asteroids? (I am sure THAT one will get some belly laughs in academia.)

    If the plankton are out there “loose” somehow, how did they get onto the ISS windows? Like bugs on a windshield? (That implies relative velocity differences.)

    At the velocity of the ISS (7.66 m/sec) versus most comets and meteoroids 11-70 km/sec), the ISS would be endangered, even by sea plankton. (Why didn’t the windows break?)

    Just thoughts that come to mind. None of this sounds likely, but you never know. But panspermia doesn’t explain the plankton unless the mechanism for “applying” them to the ISS windows can be shown.

    At the same time, it is easy to imagine ways sea plankton can get wafted up – but proving one of those is actually happening is another story.

    These questions and more. . .

  • George Howard

    ‘It occurs to me that it is there due to some process that no one has ever thought of before. It could be a LONG time before that is understood – and it may be argued over for a long time after that.’

    Hey Steve, hate to interrupt, but have you ever read any one of the many journal articles, books and popular articles from and about Hoyle and Wickramasinghe over the last 40 years? Seems not from your questions. Every one of them has been answered since the 70’s. Here is a popular book you should read: http://www.amazon.com/Journey-Fred-Hoyle-Chandra-Wickramasinghe/dp/9814436127/?tag=casldica-20

    These are very, very serious gentlemen who have thought ALL of that shit through, my friend.

    Taking Wickramasinghe’s and Hoyle’s panspermia at face value, if the plankton came on a comet or meteor, why would it be there NOW, during the time that the ISS is up there? Has a comet or asteroid come by recently?

    Doesn’t need to, some space plankton is ambient.

    Does the plankton ride on the micrometeorites that bathe the Earth all the time?

    Yes, mostly fossilized.

    Does the ISS have evidence of being hit by any micrometorites?

    Yes

    Would the plankton stay up in space when the micrometeorites are entering the atmosphere?

    Fossil ET life is commonly found in micrometeorites but not accepted.

    Do the plankton instead live in deep space instead of on comets or asteroids? (I am sure THAT one will get some belly laughs in academia.)

    Both. The nebula are mostly bacteria and viruses. Diamtoms and “plankton” are all over the place.

    If the plankton are out there “loose” somehow, how did they get onto the ISS windows? Like bugs on a windshield? (That implies relative velocity differences.)

    Yep.

    At the velocity of the ISS (7.66 m/sec) versus most comets and meteoroids 11-70 km/sec), the ISS would be endangered, even by sea plankton. (Why didn’t the windows break?)

    Don’t be so sure it is “Sea” Plankton, Garcia.

    Just thoughts that come to mind. None of this sounds likely, but you never know. But panspermia doesn’t explain the plankton unless the mechanism for “applying” them to the ISS windows can be shown.

    At the same time, it is easy to imagine ways sea plankton can get wafted up [You’re kidding here, right?] – but proving one of those is actually happening is another story.

  • And and article from Space.com about an observation of an accretion disk around a 35-MY star that just had a substantial impact event. Cheers –

    http://www.space.com/26975-giant-impact-debris-disk-sunlike-star.html

  • Steve Garcia

    George –

    Someone recently said, “The default position of science is skepticism.” So when from what I’ve read in general (makes me ask questions, don’t be surprised if I ask skeptical ones in with all of the rest. Stuff needs to be challenged to be worth a damn, and my puny challenges, so what if I ask something that someone has answers to – that is why I ask. I try to not just ask devil’s advocate questions, because when I ask it is because I want to know or find out what someone knows behind what is up front. If stuff doesn’t fit in right away with other things I know, that is when the questions have more challenge in them.

    And that means thanks for the answers. I am often frustrated here asking questions and nothing comes back. If no one knows, that is fine, but silence tells nobody anything. So answers are good.

    And about the sea plankton, I have to say that for the moment it seems more Occam’s Razor-ish for the simpler, shorter (by light years perhaps) path, from the sea that is visible below. In my R&D days the first step is to start with what occurs may be the simplest, shortest avenue or solution. A good amount of the time that one is wrong, but it needs to be eliminated before going on to other options. Like you said, I haven’t read all the books you’ve read. So do you mind more questions as they come up?

    I am not here to be right. I am here to learn. The only stupid question is the one not asked.

  • Steve Garcia

    GH –

    That book is not available in Kindle. I will need to see if I can ship it to my kid and get it in 6 weeks.

    The blurb on the book mentions that Hoyle challenged the “Primordial soup” start to life, and I agree with him in that challenge. I’ve read a decent amount on that, including two or three books by Freeman Dyson, who is amazingly still kicking. (Knock on wood.) It is amazing how much supposition is in that primordial soup idea. It is also amazing how little work has been done on that subject in the 6 decades since it came out. They tried back then and got nowhere. And I am not just talking about creating life in a petrie dish. I mean in the thinking about how life began – protein first or replication first? They are more or less mutually exclusive processes.

    And even if Holye and Wickramasinghe are right, then it just shifts the beginning of life elsewhere. But I imagine that is ppart of what they worked on, too. As you describe it, it begins in the nebulas. Let me see what I can learn about it and then ask for clarity on whatever, about it – which means maybe an actual discussion here, hallelujah.

  • George Howard

    Thanks for your contributions, Steve. You know how much I respect you.

    I have not read a “paper” book since the last decade. Its definitely on Kindle.

    GH

  • Steve Garcia

    I will check again. It wasn’t at that link. But I found it. THANKS!

    BTW, I had a good time over at WUWT commenting. I think I was a pain in the arse.

    Some people had some incorrect information about various things about the YDIH and Clovis and mammoths, and I felt like saying something to some of them.

  • Jim Coyle

    Steve; You ARE a pain in the arse! And I thank you for it! I am as you know the king of dumb questions and wild assumptions (theories). I just finished reading the link Agrimarc posted yesterday about the explosion disc around a star and it’s quick dispersion. It deffinitely agrees with your statements about debris particles and pieces colliding and just getting smaller. I not sure if size matters when thinking about dust accumulating on comets or asteroids but I think as something gets small enough it will sucumb to the minor (gravitational pulls) or magnetic attractions of the larger comets and asteroids and take up residence there. Also was following along on WUWT very interesting site I’m going to add it to favorites for future reference. another idea: Would it be possible that the scum was brought up to or with the space station during construction and subsequent arrivals since then and adapted to space conditions? This would amazingly quick adaptation to extreme conditions. I know there are lifeforms that do not need O2 to survive, bio-slimes and organisms living in or next volcnaic vents for example. I guess it would be plausible. I hope someone grabs a sample before using windex to clean the windows.

  • David

    Diatoms found on a surface of the ISS would not need to be from distant star system. They could have been blown into Earth orbit by a asteroid impact on the ocean in the past.

  • What actually is defined by the term plankton? I assumed it was the same as ocean plankton but clearly if Wickramasinghe is on the right track these would be space plankton. It’s an interesting coincidence but chalk is composed mostly of planktonic algae. Vast clouds of such algae can form in the oceans when circumstances demand. The fact that chalk belongs to the Cretaceous and a massive comet struck the Earth in the Cretaceous is a coincidence – but has a certain nuance. Incidentally, they say you can see clouds of planktonic algae in the oceans from the space station.
    Lastly, I followed your efforts over at Anthony Watts blog last night and I thought you did well. Your three major adversaries continuously fell back on consensus science and had no imagination whatsoever. I think you might have made a lot of people think.

  • Yes it is true, the contamination of the window by plankton must originate in the explosion of large marine craters.

    Recently a researcher in Fredericksburg Virginia found apparently impactites (molten rock and glass) from the Chesapeake Bay crater, far more than 120 km from the impact site.

    The bubble of rock, dust, vapors and marine sediments may have been ejected at much greater distances only 35 million years ago into the space.

  • Barry Weathersby

    If the plankton managed to get from the ocean to the airless orbit of the station and survive, how huge a step is it for it to move on to other worlds and ‘seed’ them? Especially if it has been living in orbit since the last major ocean impact. And if that is possible… even likely… why not the reverse?

  • Alive and swimming in space ……….???

    ‘We have found traces of sea plankton and microscopic particles on the illuminator [window] surface. This should be studied further.’

    I did not see the video!

  • Steve Garcia

    Thanks a lot, Carol. I was trying to just inform about some of what has happened and what has been found and what has been thought. AND I was trying to present it all in a sane, sound way.

    The environment at WUWT is totally against thought police. Very anti-settled-science – which is why Anthony sometimes posts about the YDB. The audience there is open to new thought processes, and will discuss the facts of the matter.

    The level of science discussion there is really quite high – very much contrary to the characterization by “warmists” that anyone who doesn’t agree with global warming is anti-science. There is more science going on at WUWT than almost any other site on the web. And at an accessible level. Everybody in its audience is putting on their thinking cap, regardless of their level of science knowledge; they are trying to capture the science as much as they can. What more can one ask for of a science blog?

    (Though there is a frequent conservative, free-market rant there that comes up from some corners. You can’t have everything!)

  • Steve Garcia

    As to the source of the plankton, I have no idea. I am open-minded to all the ideas presented – but think it would be premature to assign one as the single answer.

    Maybe they are actually the space invaders we all have wondered about, ET in miniature!

    Or effluent from UFO toilets, blue ice from “out there”… LOL

    Sorry for the humor, but I couldn’t resist. . .

  • Steve Garcia

    One more thing about the WUWT episode…

    It’s weird. Growing up kind of in the inner city the 1950s, I felt like the world was a kind of hostile place. There were occasional bullies every boy runs into sooner or later. It engendered a certain emotion that I haven’t felt in decades. Something about those gangstas yesterday, I felt some of that same “hostile world” sense again. Just bullies.

    I did what I do – come out with reason.

  • George Howard
  • Trent Telenko

    Steve G,

    See my YDB paper “bowling ball bomb” dropped on the WUWT link provided up thread.

    “It’s not just craters and nanodiamonds, stupid!”

  • Steve Garcia

    Trent –

    Yeah, I saw it, but I basically left the discussion after concluding that the Troll Patrol attack dog echo chamber on that thread, and they already alienated everyone over there. There is no onel left on the thread to listen. There is no reasoning with the trolls – that is the definiition of a troll – one who hijacks a thread so that real discussion is stopped dead in its tracks. Like in the movie “War Games,” the only way to win is to not play their game.

    They think the only piece of evidence that is real is the GISP2 core graph. Nothing else counts. Chemistry, physics – it is all moot. Only facts that they approve of are allowed. Anything you say goes right over their heads. Pearls before swine and all that. It’s like arguing with an echo.

    The echo chamber amongst themselves is laughable, because they actually think they are winning the argument because everyone else left. And everyone else left the discussion because the trolls are totally like the crowd at Real Climate talking about global warming – spewing venom at anyone who isn’t one of them.

    Those are NOT regular attendees of WattsUpWithThat. I’ve been reading that blog for almost as long as it’s been around, and those user IDs I’ve never seen before. Somehow those trolls got wind of the post and came looking for a fight.

    They are not worth your breath or mine.

  • Steve Garcia

    Trent –

    GOOD NEWS!

    Here is the last little bit over there:

    Steve Garcia September 4, 2014 at 4:18 pm
    It is quite amusing (but boring) how your crowd of trolls has basically repelled everyone here on WUWT. Notice how it is basically you four or five, doing your shrill Real-Climate-type thing trying to shut everybody up. That is because people here know what real scientists actually sound like, arguing with reason and not claiming that THEIR scientists are the only real scientists.

    This hollering down everyone you disagree with – it’s not science. It’s shock radio.

    No one is here on this thread anymore, not because of you having convinced them of anything. The folks here at WattsUpWithThat have heard such shrillness before, and it’s boring. So they’ve left your group to feed off each other. You all haven’t won anything but the echo chamber of your own certainty.

    Anthony Watts September 4, 2014 at 4:36 pm
    Actually, they’ve won a free trip to the troll bin.

    Steve Garcia Your comment is awaiting moderation. September 4, 2014 at 4:46 pm
    WOW, Anthony. So you saw it, too. So it wasn’t just me seeing it… Nice to know you were paying attention.

    Hells yes.

    I THINK I’ve said everything over there that was on my mind and representing “our side”. But I think your last try there was eminently reasonable, and they crapped all over it, and perhaps was the straw that broke their backs – their reaction to your fact-filled comment.

    Thanks for coming to join the battle! You made a difference.

  • Steve Garcia

    Hahahaha –

    If the “troll bin” over at WUWT means what I think it means, it means that Hollday and Pinter are going to have to get new attack dogs next time.

    And I am pretty sure that Anthony Watts is savvy enough that if they try coming in with new userIDs next time that he can check out the IP address of new commenters – maybe even block them altogether.

    Anthony Watts does NOT toss many into the Troll Bin. He is VERY tolerant and even has an open invitation for “warmists” to come and participate. To cross the line with Anthony is to REALLY go too far.

    WOW.

    And you and I were part of that. (Not that it was enjoyable.)

    He made my day, if he is serious about that.

    (I’ve been a good citizen over there for a LONG time. Lively discussion is totally encouraged there. Trolls are uncommon. Perhaps because Anthony deals with them.

    Double hahahahaha – I am maybe wrong, but when they used the term “real scientists” to you, that was just too close to Real Climate, the name of the blog of Gvin Schmidt and Kevin Trenberth, which moderates out ANY AND ALL comments from the other perspective. At Real Climate, they claim that THEY are the only real scientists, and everyone else needs to listen to them and ONLY to them.

    But in reality, the warmist scientists do some really BAD and WEAK science, and then claim all kinds of authority. They’ve sold governments of the world on some really SHAKY science to guide the governmental policies.

    I think part of Anthony Watts’ attraction for the YDB is that it is challenging the “settled science”. So, like global warming skepticism, he wants it to get a fair chake anda s much voice out in the world that his blog can provide.

    In case folks here aren’t aware of it, WattsUpWithThat.com is the most heavily traficked science site on the entire internet. It also won THREE Bloggies awards for Best Science Blog. After getting a 3rd one, they were retired in 2012 with Lifetime Bloggies.

    To have the YDB on WUWT is a BIG deal.

  • Jim Coyle

    Steve: I was folowing you on WUWT and wa surprised at the intensity of the verbage there. I’ve gone there before looking for any useable Drake Passage angles and was impressed by the high caliber of repondees there. Most of the other sites are filled with junkyard dogs just yapping their heads off a anything that moves. You deffinitely pushed some major buttons there. For a while I thought you were going to be sucked into the mire but you pulled out in time. Bravo!!

  • Steve Garcia

    I was amazed that Anthony Watts came to the rescue. (I assume)

    He said he was putting them in the troll bin – which to my understanding meant banning them as trolls. (Anthony – “Actually, they’ve won a free trip to the troll bin.”)

    In case someone here doesn’t know it, a “troll” is someone who tries to dominate a thread and change it so much that he hijacks the discussion to his own agenda. (It’s okay to have an agenda, but to veer the discussion elsewhere is not cool. No blog’s author posts articles so that someone else can come in and take it over. The author wants THAT topic discussed.

    Me? I was trying to keep my comments on topic and keep a higher tone to it. It just seem like the only way I wanted to play it. Even when I had the one or two comments with a LOT of caps in it, it was pointing out that they were attack dogs and were taking the wrong tack on WUWT. I wanted OTHERS at the site to see that our group at ComsmcTusk was willing to discuss the science but also to present our case logically and reasonably.

    Claiming there – OF ALL PLACES!!!! – that the science is settled is NOT the right tack! WattsUpWithThat is THE place where NO science is settled and all science is up for discussion.

    But discussion wasn’t what the trolls wanted. They wanted to shove their POV down MY throat, and, by extension, down everyone else’s throat on WUWT. Eventually Anthony stepped in – I have not gotten any emails about comments there, so it looks like he DID ban the main group of trolls. The last guy – user ID: sturgishooper – seems to be the least egregious of them and is still around. But at least he posted stuff from some of the papers and wasn’t trying to hijack the thread.

    BTW, over time it is obvious that Anthony Watts has a soft spot in his heart for the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis. And some of that love may come from the hate reaction by the Pinter-Holliday-Daulton Gang, in their effort to shut off discussion in the popular press. That is why Anthony started WUWT in the first place – as a clearing house for legitimate science topics that the mainstream scientists are tying to squash.

    WUWT is very much predominantly a global warming skeptics’ site. And I think the YDB gets more time there than any OTHER topic, and all of us here should be happy about that, because it is GREAT exposure of the YDB.

  • Interesting article in Phys.org on the F-ring around Saturn and moonlets that form and disrupt – meaning it is an exercise in accretion. The ring sits right on the Roche limit, which explains the disruption. And the beat goes on. Cheers –

    http://phys.org/news/2014-09-moonlets-saturn.html

  • And a link to an article about an observed protoplanet formation. Cheers –

    http://www.universetoday.com/100366/first-direct-observation-of-a-nearby-protoplanet/

  • Jim Coyle

    Does anyone here at the tusk know of an assayer in the Chicago area that I can send a rock to for meteor verification. So far it has passed all the internet tests I have tried, so now I need a professional opinion. At this time I’m not comfortable sending it to California or Arizona.

  • George Howard

    Plankton and marine diatoms are no more native creations of earth than helium and hydrogen. I know this is not your regular field of enquiry, Tusk folk, but reflect with humility on your knee-jerk effort to imagine these creatures launched into orbit. (which, in your defense, certainly happened billions of times from billions of planets) These forms of life and all others had their origins elsewhere — not YOUR home. To believe otherwise is an earth centric view as silly as…..an earth centric view. Wickramasinghe and and Hoyle long ago showed that the light from vast collections of material in the cosmos has spectrographs literally reflecting life: http://journalofcosmology.com/Panspermia12.html

    If you have just faint glimmer interest in this subject, let it grow bright by reading the collection of papers here: http://journalofcosmology.com/Contents7.html

    Also, I did not closely follow the planetary origin discussion on the Tusk this summer, but must add that Wickramasinghe is also known for his work in proto-planetary formation http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v217/n5127/abs/217415a0.html (sorry no full article) Here is a real cool paper from deacades later closely tying planet formaiton to the formation of life 300 ya after the Big Bang http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.0504.pdf