Atmospheres

solops · #1 February 20th, 2003, 05:09 PM

Plate tectonics - yes, Everyone ought to have to take Physical Geology in college. Plate tectonics and the sun drive and define our environment, which in turn defines the life-forms on the planet. I am still not convinced that you could not have life on a "non-tectonic" planet, but its development would be far different and more sedate.

And, I still want a "build queue finished message" and a main screen components readout by right-clicking on an enemy ship :-)

[ February 20, 2003, 15:09: Message edited by: solops ]

Slick · #2 February 20th, 2003, 05:43 PM

I wasn't real clear about the applicability of the Drake Equation to atmospheres. Actually the complete Drake Equation is the probability that intelligent live elsewhere will contact us - not about proving that life is out there. There are a number of factors in the equation, but the applicable one is: fl (f "sub l"). fl is "the fraction of suitable planets on which life actually appears".

If you delve into the development of this factor, it considers a number of environmental effects, including atmosphere, distance from the star, water content, etc.

If any of you college people out there are looking for a good science elective to fill, consider a 2nd year astronomy class. Don't go for the one that shows pretty slide shows every day. Look for the one with a textbook that has a bunch of physics equations in it. I did that when I was in college and it turned me on to astronomy as a favorite reading subject. As a side note, if your college/university is near any large observatories (like we have in Hawaii), you will find that many of the leading astrophysicists will be around due to the telescopes and teach courses in their spare time, so you can learn from some real high-powered people.

Slick.

Fyron · #3 February 20th, 2003, 09:47 PM

Ok. The Drake Equation now has even less to do with this discussion.

Drake was not infallible, you know.

Slick · #4 February 20th, 2003, 10:03 PM

Nobody is infallible.

edit: not even my spelling.

[ February 20, 2003, 20:04: Message edited by: Slick ]

Doormouse · #5 February 20th, 2003, 11:55 PM

Sorry to bring up a semi old and out of place topic but:

Quote:

Originally posted by orev_saara:
exactly DID Tesla light his laboratory?

Well it's obvious he used cold fusion to e-mail Lord Vargo the Zeppelin Emperor through a phlogiston based pryramid inverter to see if he could ask the aliens to see if they would let him borrow their light.

Nicola Tesla was a paranoid little man who was constantly impovershed and verbaly abused by Edison. He couldn't even get an electric current design past Menlo Park nevermind an interstellar communicator or an ambient light generator. That whole Paris stoty isn't particularly compelling either. They used to believe in mesmerism too.

But anyway any assortment of volcanic gases and industrial cleaners could become atmospheres. There are plenty of deep sea vent dwellers that live on sulfides. Chlorine planets could be inhabited by sentient colonies of extreme halophiles.

[ February 21, 2003, 01:50: Message edited by: Doormouse ]

Fyron · #6 February 21st, 2003, 01:13 PM

Quote:

But anyway any assortment of volcanic gases and industrial cleaners could become atmospheres. There are plenty of deep sea vent dwellers that live on sulfides. Chlorine planets could be inhabited by sentient colonies of extreme halophiles.

Yes, and those are not very complex organisms. More complex organisms thriving in such environments is much harder to rationalize.

Slick, what was the point of stating that? My point was that you seem to be placing a lot of value in what Drake said, even though he probably wasn't all that correct.

Slick · #7 February 21st, 2003, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:
But anyway any assortment of volcanic gases and industrial cleaners could become atmospheres. There are plenty of deep sea vent dwellers that live on sulfides. Chlorine planets could be inhabited by sentient colonies of extreme halophiles.

Yes, and those are not very complex organisms. More complex organisms thriving in such environments is much harder to rationalize.

Slick, what was the point of stating that? My point was that you seem to be placing a lot of value in what Drake said, even though he probably wasn't all that correct.

It would be pretty presumptious of me comment on the correctness of the Drake equation, so I won't. It is what is taught in universities and is the entire basis for SETI. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.

As for the complex vs. non-complex... I am no biologist, but I don't understand why there seems to be a distinction between the two here. Either a process can sustain life or it can't. These are biochemical processes that occur at or below the cellular level. As proof, there are examples of O2 breathers on earth from the cellular level to the largest creatures that ever lived. I would think that if a process can support life for the little guys, it can support it for the big guys. Again, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have never heard of an astronomer or astrophysicist looking for life on planets with cleaners as atmosphere, but he would have every right to do so. No offense intended, but I will be backing out of this discussion. I should have never posted in this thread in the first place. It just isn't fun or interesting to me anymore. Thanks.

Slick.