Atmospheres

[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.

[Fyron]

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.

Just because you have some degree doesn't mean much Slick. Please refrain from such elitist remarks in the future.

[Slick]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:

---

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.

Just because you have some degree doesn't mean much Slick. Please refrain from such elitist remarks in the future.

---

It meant about $107,000 Last year before taxes. That's enough for me. Keep smiling.

[Fyron]

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 ]

[Captain Kwok]

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.

[Fyron]

Some of these organisms are already on earth, it's just not energetic enough for complex organisms like us.

That was part of my point.

[Wardad]

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





No one could duplicate the experiment. He finally admitted to faking an organism.