Atmospheres - Page 7

Slick · #61 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 · #62 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 · #63 February 20th, 2003, 10:03 PM

Nobody is infallible.

edit: not even my spelling.

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

Doormouse · #64 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 · #65 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 · #66 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.

Captain Kwok · #67 February 21st, 2003, 09:06 PM

Slick:

Don't let Fyron rile you. I've enjoyed your responses thus far!

Less complex organisms like bacteria require far less energy per cell for metabolic purposes than an Eukaryotic cell like ours. This is why they can use less energetic metabolisms based on different compounds. Even so, most of them can only survive because they have no competition for resources because of their extreme environments like thermal vents, etc.

However, I suppose if you lived on a planet where say NH4+ was in high enough concentration, you might see some higher creatures (on the order of nematodes or porifera) that could use NH4+ for respiration.

Another possibility is getting H2 breathers in a hydrogen Gas Giant or something like that. H2 is similiar to O2 on the energy scale and might be able to support some kind of creatures, kind of like the Abbidon.

However, I'm pretty sure there is life out there, and not just microbial, but complex lifeforms like us!

Wardad · #68 February 21st, 2003, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain Kwok:
However, I'm pretty sure there is life out there, and not just microbial, but complex lifeforms like us!

Hmmm, I have never been called complex before.

Ruatha · #69 February 21st, 2003, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
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. 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.)

Yes.
Why do humans in SE4 mostly have Oxygen as starting planets.
Wouldn't nitrogen be more realistic???

Fyron · #70 February 21st, 2003, 10:07 PM

The oxygen planets are meant to be N2 O2 atmospheres. That is exactly what they were called in SE3.

I am not even sure if it is possible to have an atmosphere of entirely O2. The only reason why there is any O2 in Earth's atmosphere is because there are tons of plants and photosynthetic algae in the oceans that release it. Before life evolved on the earth, there was very little free floating oxygen in the atmosphere.

Slick:
What Kwok said.

My point about the Drake equation was that you should not just accept things that people tell you; you should always be doubtful and question them, exploring the possibilities to figure out for yourself if they are right or not. Many things that have been taught in universities over the centuries have turned out to be wrong.

[ February 21, 2003, 20:13: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]