Atmospheres - Page 3

Suicide Junkie · #21 February 16th, 2003, 05:48 PM

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

Phoenix-D · #22 February 16th, 2003, 08:16 PM

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

orev_saara · #23 February 16th, 2003, 09:42 PM

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?

Baron Munchausen · #24 February 16th, 2003, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Wouldn't CO2 breathers be very similar to our plants?

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?

Baron Munchausen · #25 February 16th, 2003, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by orev_saara:
One Last comment on scientific knowledge, how exactly DID Tesla light his laboratory?

Gas light, like everyone else in that era.

Erax · #26 February 17th, 2003, 02:41 AM

Fyron, once again we have the opportunity to disagree.

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.

orev_saara · #27 February 18th, 2003, 08:28 PM

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.

Suicide Junkie · #28 February 19th, 2003, 03:21 AM

Quote:

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 · #29 February 19th, 2003, 05:56 AM

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 · #30 February 19th, 2003, 06:49 AM

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