Skip to main content
8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Feb 19, 2017 at 10:20 comment added pHred Dude, talk to a geologist. You can have fossil sand dunes, fossil seabeds and fossil riverbeds. I ran a research vessel program for a number of years and we had teams of world leading scientists investigating all of these and more.
Feb 19, 2017 at 9:23 comment added jmbpiano @pHred The word "fossil" is defined as "the remains or impression of a prehistoric organism preserved in petrified form or as a mold or cast in rock". You literally cannot have a "fossil" sea bed in the absence of life. Calcium-rich sea beds, sure, but not "fossil".
Feb 16, 2017 at 11:39 comment added pHred @Luuan Yep. Cracking CO2 also a useful source of oxygen.
Feb 16, 2017 at 11:32 comment added Luaan You probably don't need carbon from meteorites - it's nothing rare even on Earth, where most of it is stolen by life. On a non-living planet, you'd have a basically inexhaustible supply in the atmosphere (assuming it wasn't lost over time as on Mars, of course) and in various geothermal deposits. Hydrogen is plentiful if you have water deposits - on a water/ice-less world, it might be a bit more of a problem. And the reducing (and possibly dry) atmosphere might make it trivial to build long-lasting buildings from materials that aren't usually considered particularly desirable on Earth.
Feb 16, 2017 at 10:59 comment added pHred ... calcium & etc. Continents move, weather patterns change, seas dry out, voila, fossil sea beds. No life required. Also note that most of the water on earth comes from crustal rocks.
Feb 16, 2017 at 10:24 comment added pHred Seas are the result of large bodies of water. Life is not required. The water dissolves inorganic minerals from rocks. Sodium, chlorine
Feb 16, 2017 at 10:21 comment added Lorry Laurence mcLarry why would there be "fossil seabeds" on a lifeless planet?
Feb 16, 2017 at 10:05 history answered pHred CC BY-SA 3.0