Atmospheres

[Suicide Junkie]

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?

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?

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Slick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
[QB]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.
QB]

Oxygen is much more reactive than chlorine. Therefore by your reasoning it makes 0 sense for it to be a life-supporting atmosphere.

---

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. It acts almost nothing like oxygen.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[Phoenix-D]

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

[Fyron]

That statement was more meant as "matter is still matter, whereever you go. It can't magically acquire vastly different properties".

[Phoenix-D]

""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.

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 ]

[Fyron]

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 ). 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.

[Slick]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
[QB]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.
QB]

Oxygen is much more reactive than chlorine. Therefore by your reasoning it makes 0 sense for it to be a life-supporting atmosphere.

---

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. It acts almost nothing like oxygen.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

---

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.