> Of these, how many have
> naturally occurring liquid water? =A0Only two that I'm aware of, and the
> second is mostly a guess because it is expected to have oceans under ice.

If "naturally occurring" includes having it carried in naturally by
comets, then probably N.

The lunar southern polar ice appears to lie in shaded areas at shallow
depths or effectively on the surface from cometary deposition.

One theory, perhaps not as much in vogue nowadays as once,  holds that
earth's water supply is substantially augmented by the daily
deposition of water into the atmosphere by micro water comets in the
metres diameter size range.

The outer reaches of the solar system are apparently "well supplied"
[tm] with water ice. Once you get proof [tm, again] that water is
deposited from this source at one lactation [lunar south pole] then
you may wonder where else it may preferentially be deposited.  If
there ended up being deposits at some of the various stable Lagrange
points nobody should be too surprised.

> third almost certainly had liquid water in the past, but didn't have the
> gravity to hold on to it over time. =A0Now that would be rather inconveni=
ent
> to have the water you evolved to depend on evaporate into space.

This "third" is presumably Mars. While much water may well have been
lost there also appears to be much left. In 2008 Phoenix demonstrated
surface water ice under a thin layer of gravel - videos are available.
There are a very large number  of inferred but high quality [tm]
indications that substantial  water exists.

Io's putative oceans are inferred based on stuff we happen to have
been able to learn. If we knew more of other-where's we may know about
other possible water locations.

> What about the speed of light?

It's possibly falling :-)
Possibly from a very much higher initial speed.

And "expansion" - a very strong case of special pleading which much
current cosmology rests on - had the SOL at vastly greater values than
now.
"Expansion" on which a ;large portion of modern cosmology rests, lies
in the "and then, a miracle happened for just long enough to make our
theory work." class of science. Very seriously proposed though. Works
for me :-).

> It's really really inconveniently slow for
> humans on a cosmic scale. =A0If it does represent the cosmic speed limit =
as we
> think it does, then that's pretty darn inconvenient for us getting off th=
is
> rock before the sun does something very inconvenient.

Nah, it's just a Darwin award test :-).
Fermi's paradox, which  I referred to earlier in this thread, asks
"where are they".
Even at the SOL it would take a really advanced civilisation far less
time than appears to have been available to spread across the
universe.Just not good wrt human lifetimes.

> The earth is already
> half way to its expiration date,

Not really - we just haven't worked out how to reset the counter yet.


           Russell

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.