Atmospheres
 

A RANT!

I was thinking yesterday. It hurt. But in all seriousness, whats the reason why MM took out Chlorine and the other (I forget what it was...Argon maybe?) from SE4, they where in SE3.

I, personally, liked Chlorine.

Re: Atmospheres
 

I think Argon was because it couldn't realalisticly sustain life.

Chlorine I don't know... probably didn't like the smell...

Re: Atmospheres
 

I would personally like Argon and Chlorine to be atmospheres, if Space empires maps were based more on the planet heavy systems like in FQM we could certainly allow for more atmosphere types! I think it would make things interesting http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Just curious, being a newbie and all, but i'm guessing that the atmosphere types are hard coded. It would make a great mod feature, and you could just update the image mod with the new types

[ February 15, 2003, 10:50: Message edited by: Raging Deadstar ]

Re: Atmospheres
 

How about an atmosphere that catastrophically ignites if certain types of weapons are used in it?

Re: Atmospheres
 

I agree, more atmosphers are needed!

I would like to see at least Chlorine and Nitrogen atmospheres.

Re: Atmospheres
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wouldn't that open the way for cheap anti planet weapons? load a cheap gun on a ship, send it to the planet, fire once and boom, planet gone.
just a thought

Re: Atmospheres
 

Planetary napalm should have a different formula for each atmosphere http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Is it less realistic to have argon planet natives than vaccum natives?
Argon natives don't need to breath, jsut like non-atmosphere natives, but they do need atmospheric pressure.

Re: Atmospheres
 

Chlorine makes 0 sense for a life-supporting atmosphere. It is too reactive of an element and tends to destroy any molecules it comes in contact with. Complex, sentient lifeforms evolving on a chlorine atmosphere world would be too unbelievable. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Argon only makes sense if you pretend the race doesn't breathe anything and just needs pressure. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

What would be best would be the ability to mod in new atmosphere types and to mod which can be selected by a race for a homeworld type. Then, you could have Chlorine atmosphere planets, but no Chlorine-breathers. You could have Sulfur Dioxide atmosphere planets (think volcano worlds) and no native organisms possible. That would be cool. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It would also force the game to have planets that you can not optimize by adding some new people to it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ February 15, 2003, 23:58: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: Atmospheres
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">but they had a race that breathed chlorine on space 1999 so it must make sense. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Atmospheres
 

No, it does not. Very few (if any) compounds that would be suitable for use in organisms would be able to withstand large amounts of chlorine gas.

Of course, looking at it realistically, it is unlikely for any organisms to be based off of anythign other than carbon or silicon. I only say silicon because there are a few types of Monerans that have heavy amounts of silicon in them. But anyways, carbon (and maybe silicon) is the only element that can form the types of huge, complex molecules necessary for functional organisms, by forming huge chains of carbon molecules bonded to each other, and then having 2 more possible electron pairs to hafe other elements (or maybe even more carbon) bonded to them. Even artificial pLastic polymers and such are based off of carbon chains. So, any planet with life on it would have to have relatively huge amounts of carbon (or maybe silicon). All natural life would be carbon- (or maybe silicon-) based. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Atmospheres
 

Yes, SO2 would be good, so would NH3, and He gas giants for some more variety. They don't necessarily have to be able to support life.

Re: Atmospheres
 

That is assuming we know about ALL types of elements. There may be other we have not discovered that have the same chain properties as carbon and are not affected by chlorine. If evolution progressed on those worlds, life would be certainly different. Maybe they would say "humbug", life can not possibly exist on an oxygen world, it's just unrealistic.

Damn Terrans think they know everything. geesh

[ February 16, 2003, 01:20: Message edited by: couslee ]

Re: Atmospheres
 

No, there can't be other natural elements. The only elements we do not know about are the incredibly dense ones (more than about 120 protons) that can not in any way form naturally, as they are too unstable and fall apart nearly instantaneously when created in labs. There are theories about atoms being stable with something like 150 protons (I don't remember the exact number), but these can not form naturally, only in an artificial environment.

An element is an atom with a certain number of protons. If you change the number of protons, the atom acts just like a different element that has that number of protons. You can not get new elements with the same number of protons and different properties than an existing element.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, no, they would not say that. They would have studied chemistry and seen that oxygen is reactive enough to be used to transmit excess energy and a Hydrogen atom when breaking apart glucose molecules to get energy for cells to funtion, but not so reactive that it eats away at everything. So if these chlorine world lifeforms existed, they would not dismiss life on an oxygen world as unrealistic. That is, if it were possible for them to exist in the first place.

I never said I knew everything. I do know some basic chemistry though.

[ February 16, 2003, 01:48: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: Atmospheres
 

Well, the if go to __very__ high atom numbers, and I mean ___very____ high, we can end up in neutron star. Now, if we make a quantum leap of faith, we'l move from the electromagnetic form of life, that is us, to atomic, or "strong force" universe. This hypothetical form of existance will be in different time and space scale, almost without any potential contact with our universe. Truly alien.

Re: Atmospheres
 

to paraphrase Q "I would simply alter the physical laws of the universe". then we can have any type of lifeform we want that is capable of living in any type of atmosphere. who says that SEIV has to take place in our reality?

Re: Atmospheres
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oxygen is much more reactive than chlorine. Therefore by your reasoning it makes 0 sense for it to be a life-supporting atmosphere.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Atmospheres
 

Umm, Fyron, you're assuming we can only have atoms with integral numbers of protons. What about element number 48.75? Hmmm? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Atmospheres
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Although I would never assert that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence... I would point out that nothing like this has ever been observed. Additionally, under our current understanding of physics, protons are made up of smaller parts called quarks. Our current understanding, which is supported by experiment, says that these quarks are only stable in certain configurations. Thus, our current model of physics, which is strongly supported by experiment, does not allow for fractional numbers of protons.

However SE4 is a game where anything is possible.

Slick.

Re: Atmospheres
 

Of course, this whole debate about the 'suitability' of one atmosphere or another for life is presuming that there are distinct 'types' of atmospheres. This is even more UNrealistic than trying to claim that life could exist in a predominantly chlorine atmosphere. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I hope that SE V will have much subtler gradations of 'suitability' to account for the highly variable composition of various elements that would exist in real atmospheres. Balancing atmospheric gases could be a field of terraforming all to itself. (As opposed to the very crude 'conVersion' currently offered.)

Then with temperature, gravity, and radiation levels we could finally have some believably realistic environmental management on our worlds.

Re: Atmospheres
 

sounds like you are talking about stars' planetary characteristics. just a sliding bar to determine where your races habitable/tolerable ranges are. no specific atmosphere, gravity or radiation selected.

Re: Atmospheres
 

Wouldn't CO2 breathers be very similar to our plants?

Re: Atmospheres
 

Argon being a non-reactive gas would be kind of unlikely..heh.

CO2 breathers might be similar to plants, but then maybe not. There are bacteria and such around that die in the presance of O2, which plants don't obviously..CO2 breathers might be more similar to the bacteria. Or they might breath CO2, with their equivlent of plants using O2- can't see how though.

Phoenix-D

Re: Atmospheres
 

Ultimately, our understanding of science is limited to our experience, and more, to the experience we feel is relevant. So while the science we understand may rule out chlorine breathers, et al, all we can say with certainty, and even then not with 100% certainty, is that they're not possible here. In different regions of the galaxy, different conditions may prevail.

While we're talking about this, doesn't the air we breathe contain more N2 than O2? So why is it an oxygen atmosphere in the game and not a nitrogen one? I guess it's partly because the real nature of atmosphere is much more cmoplex than the one-gas model in the game. I also would like to see more gradation in atmospheres in the future of SE.

One Last comment on scientific knowledge, how exactly DID Tesla light his laboratory?

Re: Atmospheres
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, plants use oxygen too! They generate oxygen during the day when they are photosynthesizing (sp?), but their metabolism is like ours in being driven by oxygen and carbohydrates. How else would be be able to eat them and get anything useful? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Atmospheres
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Gas light, like everyone else in that era. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Atmospheres
 

Fyron, once again we have the opportunity to disagree. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Life is sustained by a series of chemical reactions which take place in a solvent, which for all known life is water.

I agree that chlorine is incompatible with water-based lifeforms, so a chlorine-breathing creature would need to use another solvent, for example trichloroethylene.

AFAIK, chlorine-breathing lifeforms are not impossible, and in fact are more plausible than CO2 or argon breathers.

There are a few SF books that feature chlorine breathers (James White's Sector General series, for example) which is why I think they included the chlorine atmosphere in SE3.

Re: Atmospheres
 

Actually, there are reliable reports that Tesla didn't use any recognizable lighting elements in his lab. Witnesses all claim that he simply flipped a switch and the room lit up, but no bulbs or anything similar were in evidence. He demonstrated the effect at an exhibition in Paris as well by placing some kind of generators on either side of a stage, firing them up, and VOILA! the stage got light, without any noticable illumination coming from the generatirs themselves. As far as I know, this trick has never been duplicated. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

Re: Atmospheres
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I know how plants work, but my point is that they would thrive in carbon dioxide rich atmospheres. Isn't that basically the definition of a CO2 race for SE4?

Re: Atmospheres
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oxygen is much more reactive than chlorine. Therefore by your reasoning it makes 0 sense for it to be a life-supporting atmosphere.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not really. Chlorine needs only a single electron to become stable, so it attracts them more readily than oxygen. I forget what exact properties of oxygen allow it to be used in the metabolism of almost all types organisms on the planet (certainly all complex organisms), but I do know that chlorine does not share them. It has a lot to do with the valence electron configurations, and the smaller mass of oxygen as compared to chlorine. 1 single difference in valence electrons makes a huge difference in the properties of an element. Chlorine acts in a similar manner as fluorine, which is also not very conductive to life. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It acts almost nothing like oxygen.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is either a proton, or it is not a proton. 48.33 and 48.66 would be the only possible fractions, as protons are made up of 3 sub-atomic particles. But even then, it would not be 48.66 protons, it would be 48, and 2 other thingies.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Argon is non-reactive. It can not be used for energy creation in organisms. CO2 is quite plausible. Look at plants. And, a CO2 atmosphere with organisms in it is going to have to have a decent amount of free oxygen floating about anyways. Chlorine, however, is not plausible. It does not have the properties of oxygen that allow oxygen to be so useful in the metabolic processes of complex organisms. No complex (macroscopic) organisms (that I have ever heard of) can survive without oxygen.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The laws of physics will still prevail in other non-black hole areas of the universe. There will be the same types of elements, and roughly the same ratios of them on planets that would be capable of supporting life, much less complex life. Stars are stars, after all.

Re: Atmospheres
 

There will be the same types of elements, and roughly the same ratios of them on planets that would be capable of supporting life, much less complex life. Stars are stars, after all."

We think. I'll point out a few things.

-Atomic theory is still pretty new. Things aren't impossible because they break physical "laws"; the laws are made -because- of the things, not the other way around. It's entirely possible we haven't found everything yet.

-On the same note, we've only examined one star directly and they only from a short (relatively) distance. Stars will be stars indeed.

Phoenix-D

Re: Atmospheres
 

That statement was more meant as "matter is still matter, whereever you go. It can't magically acquire vastly different properties". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Atmospheres
 

""matter is still matter, whereever you go. It can't magically acquire vastly different properties"."

Define "magic". Because we already know it can do some pretty weird stuff. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

EDIT: and -why- am I thinking I've had this exact conversation before? Down to the minute details.

Phoenix-D

[ February 19, 2003, 05:12: Message edited by: Phoenix-D ]

Re: Atmospheres
 

Matter is matter. There are only so many ways it can exist and interact with other matter, forces, energy, etc. We have seen most of them, and can perform experiments to see the rest.

You are not going to go to another galaxy and find that suddenly the laws of physics stop applying or get changed (except if you go to a black hole, which I don't know what that is like http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). Not the wording of the laws, but the actual way in which the universe exists and functions. That is what our physical laws are based off of. The basic properties of the universe are not going to change from one galaxy to the next.

Re: Atmospheres
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oxygen is much more reactive than chlorine. Therefore by your reasoning it makes 0 sense for it to be a life-supporting atmosphere.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not really. Chlorine needs only a single electron to become stable, so it attracts them more readily than oxygen. I forget what exact properties of oxygen allow it to be used in the metabolism of almost all types organisms on the planet (certainly all complex organisms), but I do know that chlorine does not share them. It has a lot to do with the valence electron configurations, and the smaller mass of oxygen as compared to chlorine. 1 single difference in valence electrons makes a huge difference in the properties of an element. Chlorine acts in a similar manner as fluorine, which is also not very conductive to life. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It acts almost nothing like oxygen.

Quote:

Originally posted by Krsqk: Umm, Fyron, you're assuming we can only have atoms with integral numbers of protons. What about element number 48.75? Hmmm? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is either a proton, or it is not a proton. 48.33 and 48.66 would be the only possible fractions, as protons are made up of 3 sub-atomic particles. But even then, it would not be 48.66 protons, it would be 48, and 2 other thingies.

Quote:

AFAIK, chlorine-breathing lifeforms are not impossible, and in fact are more plausible than CO2 or argon breathers.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Argon is non-reactive. It can not be used for energy creation in organisms. CO2 is quite plausible. Look at plants. And, a CO2 atmosphere with organisms in it is going to have to have a decent amount of free oxygen floating about anyways. Chlorine, however, is not plausible. It does not have the properties of oxygen that allow oxygen to be so useful in the metabolic processes of complex organisms. No complex (macroscopic) organisms (that I have ever heard of) can survive without oxygen.

Quote:

Ultimately, our understanding of science is limited to our experience, and more, to the experience we feel is relevant. So while the science we understand may rule out chlorine breathers, et al, all we can say with certainty, and even then not with 100% certainty, is that they're not possible here. In different regions of the galaxy, different conditions may prevail.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The laws of physics will still prevail in other non-black hole areas of the universe. There will be the same types of elements, and roughly the same ratios of them on planets that would be capable of supporting life, much less complex life. Stars are stars, after all.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It seems you consider yourself an expert on this as well. What do I know, I am just a nuclear engineer. I know I have seen more regular chemistry and radiochemistry than you ever will. The sad part is that there are probably people who will read this "junk science" and believe it.

Slick.

Re: Atmospheres
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Just because you have some degree doesn't mean much Slick. Please refrain from such elitist remarks in the future.

Re: Atmospheres
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Just because you have some degree doesn't mean much Slick. Please refrain from such elitist remarks in the future.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It meant about $107,000 Last year before taxes. That's enough for me. Keep smiling.

Re: Atmospheres
 

So now to veer away from this before someone makes a fool of himself... anyone else care to make meaningful comments?

[ February 19, 2003, 06:27: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: Atmospheres
 

I guess I can inject some life into this discussion:

Aliens could be C based like us, or possibly Si, S, P&N, maybe Cl. Si is like C, but more reactive (especially with water!) and so is S, so not so great. P&N might work if there was enough of it at one spot and maybe Cl too. Anything other than C based, would probably be small or unicellular.

Aliens would need to utilize some sort of solvent like H20, NH3, H2S, maybe CH4. I would tend to think more polar ones like H20 and NH3 would work best. NH3 could work with P&N atmosphere in the same way H20 works with CO2 and O2 to make sugars and stuff, but way less energetic! You might be able to have a NO2 replacing CO2 in a cycle sort of like our planet, but that is also energy defecient.

I would think our setup would be most likely, than probably CO2 in some sort of photosynthetic process, and then...who knows! Some of these organisms are already on earth, it's just not energetic enough for complex organisms like us.

Re: Atmospheres
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That was part of my point. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Atmospheres
 

Did you hear about the researcher that claimed to create a living cell from an inorgnanic soup?

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

No one could duplicate the experiment. He finally admitted to faking an organism. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Atmospheres
 

Doesn't the P&N atmosphere require large amounts of alcohol and parrots to be present?

Re: Atmospheres
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wouldn't that open the way for cheap anti planet weapons? load a cheap gun on a ship, send it to the planet, fire once and boom, planet gone.
just a thought</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, my point, if you want to capture the planet. The thought here was to have different classes of weapons for troops. Some could be used in some atmospheres but not in others (without Bad Things happening). Also, you might have certain weapons available for each race, according to the atmosphere they breath, that were more effective in that atmosphere than in others. So a CO2 race attacking an Oxy race on an oxy planet is going to be at a disadvantage (If the oxies has researched and deployed the weapons group that gives them an advantage). Lots of permutations from there...

Re: Atmospheres
 

"No complex (macroscopic) organisms (that I have ever heard of) can survive without oxygen."

Probably because said organisms tend to die in the presance of oxygen. Given that the earth's atmosphere is now something like 25% O2, that's a bit of a problem for them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Phoenix-D

Re: Atmospheres
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There are a number of science fiction stories where this assumption turns out to be false.

Re: Atmospheres
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I knew that was coming.

PhoenixD:

O2 is poisonous to those lifeforms because they don't have the enzymes to break down lethal peroxides and superoxides that sometimes form in O2 reactions.

It's also that most other non-O2 pathways don't give enough 'bang for the buck' that larger, complex organisms demand.

Re: Atmospheres
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There are a number of science fiction stories where this assumption turns out to be false.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think it's more than an assumption - although we might not have travelled to other parts of the universe, we have observed them with all manner of telescopes and not noticed any glaring differences.

For example the WMAP probe (whose first results were published Last week) read temperatures differing by just millionths of a degree in the cosmic background radiation from different directions. Were the rules of physics different in different regions of the universe we'd expect to see a lot more variety.

Of course, science fiction gives you the liberty to create your own rules, thank goodness.

A side note concerning the atmosphere: oxygen is actually toxic for humans above a certain partial pressure. The figure US Navy divers came up with was 1.6 bar. That is, if you breathed in pure oxygen at more than 1.6 times atmospheric pressure (or normal air at more than 8 times atmospheric pressure) you'd experience dizziness, vomiting, black-outs and, eventually, death. This is why divers don't usually carry 100% O2 in their tanks as it limits them to staying within 6m of the surface... one man's meat is another man's poison.

Re: Atmospheres
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There are a number of science fiction stories where this assumption turns out to be false.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, and those are science fiction. I was not talking about fiction, where pretty much anything can be made up at random.

Re: Atmospheres
 

All this has been fun to read. But I guess what I was meaning, in another term, is who is to say how evolution will take place on those planets that have other atmospheres. No one can say for certain that life can not exist on those planets, anymore than someone can say we know all there is to know about all elements and that the human table of elements is complete. How does one know how any given element reacts under the all vast atmospheres. Or how time impacts things as well. If you look at a piece of coal, how could you "logicaly" conclude that over time and under extreem pressure it would become a diamond? To borrow a line from JP, life has a funny habit of "finding a way".

[ February 20, 2003, 01:22: Message edited by: couslee ]

Re: Atmospheres
 

Here are some neat things:

There is a theory that even protons are unstable and will decay over time. The postulated half-life is on the order of the age of the universe. There have been experiments to look for a decaying proton, but none have been observed. Would be interesting if true. And would play a part in the ultimate fate of the universe.

If another galaxy were made entirely of anti-matter, we would not be able to tell. Light given off from stars burning anti-Hydrogen and anti-Helium would give the same spectra. Most all of chemistry and physics would work in a similar manner (there would be some minor differences). If there were sentient life there, they would think that the entire universe was made of antimatter for the same reasons. There is a small minority of astrophysicists that are trying to prove this one way or another. The reason that it is even postulated in the first place is that equal amounts of matter and anti-matter should have been produced in the big bang, but as far as we can tell, everything that we can see is matter. Where did all the anti-matter go? If there were a slight imbalance of matter over anti-matter and the rest anihilated, the mass/energy state of the observable universe doesn't add up. Certainly an interesting question.

For SE4 purposes an antimatter race could be made. An antimatter race would have trouble colonizing a planet made of matter, though.

Slick. (casual reader of astronomy stuff)

Re: Atmospheres
 

Hey, do you know what element a P&N atmosphere is primarily composed?

AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGON!!!!!!!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

HA HA HA HEE HEE HEE HO HO HO!!!

[ February 20, 2003, 01:42: Message edited by: Cheeze ]