Atmospheres [Archive] - .com.unity Forums

Fyron

February 16th, 2003, 01:58 AM

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Argon only makes sense if you pretend the race doesn't breathe anything and just needs pressure. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

What would be best would be the ability to mod in new atmosphere types and to mod which can be selected by a race for a homeworld type. Then, you could have Chlorine atmosphere planets, but no Chlorine-breathers. You could have Sulfur Dioxide atmosphere planets (think volcano worlds) and no native organisms possible. That would be cool. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It would also force the game to have planets that you can not optimize by adding some new people to it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ February 15, 2003, 23:58: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Desdinova

February 16th, 2003, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif but they had a race that breathed chlorine on space 1999 so it must make sense. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Fyron

February 16th, 2003, 02:14 AM

No, it does not. Very few (if any) compounds that would be suitable for use in organisms would be able to withstand large amounts of chlorine gas.

Of course, looking at it realistically, it is unlikely for any organisms to be based off of anythign other than carbon or silicon. I only say silicon because there are a few types of Monerans that have heavy amounts of silicon in them. But anyways, carbon (and maybe silicon) is the only element that can form the types of huge, complex molecules necessary for functional organisms, by forming huge chains of carbon molecules bonded to each other, and then having 2 more possible electron pairs to hafe other elements (or maybe even more carbon) bonded to them. Even artificial pLastic polymers and such are based off of carbon chains. So, any planet with life on it would have to have relatively huge amounts of carbon (or maybe silicon). All natural life would be carbon- (or maybe silicon-) based. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Captain Kwok

February 16th, 2003, 02:37 AM

Yes, SO2 would be good, so would NH3, and He gas giants for some more variety. They don't necessarily have to be able to support life.

couslee

February 16th, 2003, 03:17 AM

That is assuming we know about ALL types of elements. There may be other we have not discovered that have the same chain properties as carbon and are not affected by chlorine. If evolution progressed on those worlds, life would be certainly different. Maybe they would say "humbug", life can not possibly exist on an oxygen world, it's just unrealistic.

Damn Terrans think they know everything. geesh

[ February 16, 2003, 01:20: Message edited by: couslee ]

Fyron

February 16th, 2003, 03:27 AM

No, there can't be other natural elements. The only elements we do not know about are the incredibly dense ones (more than about 120 protons) that can not in any way form naturally, as they are too unstable and fall apart nearly instantaneously when created in labs. There are theories about atoms being stable with something like 150 protons (I don't remember the exact number), but these can not form naturally, only in an artificial environment.

An element is an atom with a certain number of protons. If you change the number of protons, the atom acts just like a different element that has that number of protons. You can not get new elements with the same number of protons and different properties than an existing element.

Maybe they would say "humbug", life can not possibly exist on an oxygen world, it's just unrealistic.Actually, no, they would not say that. They would have studied chemistry and seen that oxygen is reactive enough to be used to transmit excess energy and a Hydrogen atom when breaking apart glucose molecules to get energy for cells to funtion, but not so reactive that it eats away at everything. So if these chlorine world lifeforms existed, they would not dismiss life on an oxygen world as unrealistic. That is, if it were possible for them to exist in the first place.

I never said I knew everything. I do know some basic chemistry though.

[ February 16, 2003, 01:48: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

oleg

February 16th, 2003, 05:01 AM

Well, the if go to __very__ high atom numbers, and I mean ___very____ high, we can end up in neutron star. Now, if we make a quantum leap of faith, we'l move from the electromagnetic form of life, that is us, to atomic, or "strong force" universe. This hypothetical form of existance will be in different time and space scale, almost without any potential contact with our universe. Truly alien.

Desdinova

February 16th, 2003, 05:08 AM

to paraphrase Q "I would simply alter the physical laws of the universe". then we can have any type of lifeform we want that is capable of living in any type of atmosphere. who says that SEIV has to take place in our reality?

Slick

February 16th, 2003, 05:21 AM

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
QB]Oxygen is much more reactive than chlorine. Therefore by your reasoning it makes 0 sense for it to be a life-supporting atmosphere.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Krsqk

February 16th, 2003, 05:53 AM

Umm, Fyron, you're assuming we can only have atoms with integral numbers of protons. What about element number 48.75? Hmmm? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Slick

February 16th, 2003, 06:20 AM

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? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Although I would never assert that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence... I would point out that nothing like this has ever been observed. Additionally, under our current understanding of physics, protons are made up of smaller parts called quarks. Our current understanding, which is supported by experiment, says that these quarks are only stable in certain configurations. Thus, our current model of physics, which is strongly supported by experiment, does not allow for fractional numbers of protons.

However SE4 is a game where anything is possible.

Slick.

Baron Munchausen

February 16th, 2003, 06:59 AM

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif 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.)

Then with temperature, gravity, and radiation levels we could finally have some believably realistic environmental management on our worlds.

Desdinova

February 16th, 2003, 07:33 AM

sounds like you are talking about stars' planetary characteristics. just a sliding bar to determine where your races habitable/tolerable ranges are. no specific atmosphere, gravity or radiation selected.

Suicide Junkie

February 16th, 2003, 05:48 PM

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

Phoenix-D

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

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

February 16th, 2003, 10:55 PM

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? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Baron Munchausen

February 16th, 2003, 10:56 PM

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Erax

February 17th, 2003, 02:41 AM

Fyron, once again we have the opportunity to disagree. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

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

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Suicide Junkie

February 19th, 2003, 03:21 AM

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

February 19th, 2003, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by Slick:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
QB]Oxygen is much more reactive than chlorine. Therefore by your reasoning it makes 0 sense for it to be a life-supporting atmosphere.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <hr /></blockquote>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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif 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? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif 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

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

Fyron

February 19th, 2003, 06:54 AM

That statement was more meant as "matter is still matter, whereever you go. It can't magically acquire vastly different properties". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Phoenix-D

February 19th, 2003, 07:11 AM

""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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

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

February 19th, 2003, 07:23 AM

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 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). 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

February 19th, 2003, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Slick:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
QB]Oxygen is much more reactive than chlorine. Therefore by your reasoning it makes 0 sense for it to be a life-supporting atmosphere.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <hr /></blockquote>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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif 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? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif 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.<hr /></blockquote>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

February 19th, 2003, 08:04 AM

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

February 19th, 2003, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />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.<hr /></blockquote>It meant about $107,000 Last year before taxes. That's enough for me. Keep smiling.

Fyron

February 19th, 2003, 08:25 AM

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

February 19th, 2003, 09:17 AM

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

February 19th, 2003, 12:55 PM

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Wardad

February 19th, 2003, 06:20 PM

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

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

No one could duplicate the experiment. He finally admitted to faking an organism. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Suicide Junkie

February 19th, 2003, 06:54 PM

Doesn't the P&N atmosphere require large amounts of alcohol and parrots to be present?

solops

February 19th, 2003, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by minipol:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by solops:
How about an atmosphere that catastrophically ignites if certain types of weapons are used in it?Wouldn't that open the way for cheap anti planet weapons? load a cheap gun on a ship, send it to the planet, fire once and boom, planet gone.
just a thought<hr /></blockquote>Yes, my point, if you want to capture the planet. The thought here was to have different classes of weapons for troops. Some could be used in some atmospheres but not in others (without Bad Things happening). Also, you might have certain weapons available for each race, according to the atmosphere they breath, that were more effective in that atmosphere than in others. So a CO2 race attacking an Oxy race on an oxy planet is going to be at a disadvantage (If the oxies has researched and deployed the weapons group that gives them an advantage). Lots of permutations from there...

Phoenix-D

February 19th, 2003, 09:38 PM

"No complex (macroscopic) organisms (that I have ever heard of) can survive without oxygen."

Probably because said organisms tend to die in the presance of oxygen. Given that the earth's atmosphere is now something like 25% O2, that's a bit of a problem for them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Phoenix-D

capnq

February 19th, 2003, 10:57 PM

You are not going to go to another galaxy and find that suddenly the laws of physics stop applying or get changed There are a number of science fiction stories where this assumption turns out to be false.

Captain Kwok

February 20th, 2003, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Doesn't the P&N atmosphere require large amounts of alcohol and parrots to be present?I knew that was coming.

PhoenixD:

O2 is poisonous to those lifeforms because they don't have the enzymes to break down lethal peroxides and superoxides that sometimes form in O2 reactions.

It's also that most other non-O2 pathways don't give enough 'bang for the buck' that larger, complex organisms demand.

Wanderer

February 20th, 2003, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by capnq:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> You are not going to go to another galaxy and find that suddenly the laws of physics stop applying or get changed There are a number of science fiction stories where this assumption turns out to be false.<hr /></blockquote>I think it's more than an assumption - although we might not have travelled to other parts of the universe, we have observed them with all manner of telescopes and not noticed any glaring differences.

For example the WMAP probe (whose first results were published Last week) read temperatures differing by just millionths of a degree in the cosmic background radiation from different directions. Were the rules of physics different in different regions of the universe we'd expect to see a lot more variety.

Of course, science fiction gives you the liberty to create your own rules, thank goodness.

A side note concerning the atmosphere: oxygen is actually toxic for humans above a certain partial pressure. The figure US Navy divers came up with was 1.6 bar. That is, if you breathed in pure oxygen at more than 1.6 times atmospheric pressure (or normal air at more than 8 times atmospheric pressure) you'd experience dizziness, vomiting, black-outs and, eventually, death. This is why divers don't usually carry 100% O2 in their tanks as it limits them to staying within 6m of the surface... one man's meat is another man's poison.

Fyron

February 20th, 2003, 02:36 AM

couslee

February 20th, 2003, 03:20 AM

All this has been fun to read. But I guess what I was meaning, in another term, is who is to say how evolution will take place on those planets that have other atmospheres. No one can say for certain that life can not exist on those planets, anymore than someone can say we know all there is to know about all elements and that the human table of elements is complete. How does one know how any given element reacts under the all vast atmospheres. Or how time impacts things as well. If you look at a piece of coal, how could you "logicaly" conclude that over time and under extreem pressure it would become a diamond? To borrow a line from JP, life has a funny habit of "finding a way".

[ February 20, 2003, 01:22: Message edited by: couslee ]

Slick

February 20th, 2003, 03:39 AM

Here are some neat things:

There is a theory that even protons are unstable and will decay over time. The postulated half-life is on the order of the age of the universe. There have been experiments to look for a decaying proton, but none have been observed. Would be interesting if true. And would play a part in the ultimate fate of the universe.

If another galaxy were made entirely of anti-matter, we would not be able to tell. Light given off from stars burning anti-Hydrogen and anti-Helium would give the same spectra. Most all of chemistry and physics would work in a similar manner (there would be some minor differences). If there were sentient life there, they would think that the entire universe was made of antimatter for the same reasons. There is a small minority of astrophysicists that are trying to prove this one way or another. The reason that it is even postulated in the first place is that equal amounts of matter and anti-matter should have been produced in the big bang, but as far as we can tell, everything that we can see is matter. Where did all the anti-matter go? If there were a slight imbalance of matter over anti-matter and the rest anihilated, the mass/energy state of the observable universe doesn't add up. Certainly an interesting question.

For SE4 purposes an antimatter race could be made. An antimatter race would have trouble colonizing a planet made of matter, though.

Slick. (casual reader of astronomy stuff)

Cheeze

February 20th, 2003, 03:40 AM

Hey, do you know what element a P&N atmosphere is primarily composed?

AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGON!!!!!!!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

HA HA HA HEE HEE HEE HO HO HO!!!

[ February 20, 2003, 01:42: Message edited by: Cheeze ]

Slick

February 20th, 2003, 03:47 AM

Originally posted by Cheeze:
Hey, do you know what element a P&N atmosphere is primarily composed?

AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGON!!!!!!!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

HA HA HA HEE HEE HEE HO HO HO!!!Hey Cheeze, why are Pirates so cool?

Because they just AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRR.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Slick.

Ragnarok

February 20th, 2003, 03:52 AM

Originally posted by Slick:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Cheeze:
Hey, do you know what element a P&N atmosphere is primarily composed?

AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGON!!!!!!!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

HA HA HA HEE HEE HEE HO HO HO!!!Hey Cheeze, why are Pirates so cool?

Because they just AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRR.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Slick.<hr /></blockquote>Did you see the previews to the movie about the Pirates?

It's rated AAARRR. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Fyron

February 20th, 2003, 03:55 AM

Slick:

While anti-matter (and even dark matter) races would be cool, they can not really be modeled in se4. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Couslee:

There are only so many ways elements can form compounds (all based off of the types of elements you are dealing with). Life on other planets would have to evolve in a similar way as to on earth (in the very beginning stages), or it would not evolve. The evolution of life from primordial oozes is an extremely rare occurence that requires a very specific set of circumstances (noone is fully aware of them all). Only a very small fraction of other planets in the universe could possibly have any form of life evolve on them. Even without knowing all of the factors that contributed to the evolution of life on earth, we can see that there is a very narrow range of conditions in which life can evolve (speaking on a planetary scale, taking other stellar bodies into account and all, not talking about specific climatic regions on the planet and all that). So, any planet that has life evolve on it is going to be fairly similar to earth in many ways.

I have a question for the lot of you:

What other compounds besides O2 do you think could serve the same role that O2 serves for earth-based macroscopic organisms? Why?

Slick

February 20th, 2003, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Slick:

While anti-matter (and even dark matter) races would be cool, they can not really be modeled in se4. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Couslee:

There are only so many ways elements can form compounds (all based off of the types of elements you are dealing with). Life on other planets would have to evolve in a similar way as to on earth (in the very beginning stages), or it would not evolve. The evolution of life from primordial oozes is an extremely rare occurence that requires a very specific set of circumstances (noone is fully aware of them all). Only a very small fraction of other planets in the universe could possibly have any form of life evolve on them. Even without knowing all of the factors that contributed to the evolution of life on earth, we can see that there is a very narrow range of conditions in which life can evolve (speaking on a planetary scale, taking other stellar bodies into account and all, not talking about specific climatic regions on the planet and all that). So, any planet that has life evolve on it is going to be fairly similar to earth in many ways.

I have a question for the lot of you:

What other compounds besides O2 do you think could serve the same role that O2 serves for earth-based macroscopic organisms? Why?First, I agree that the game can't model antimatter as it works in a physics book, but this game is not about physics, it is about fun, use some artistic license! SE4 already fractures known physics, but who cares, it is one of the best games I have ever played.

As for the other compounds, let's put it this way. We don't know what alien life might be like. There is a famous equation called the Drake Equation which mathematically sets the probability of life in the universe. You can look it up for further reading. It basically comes out to a mathematical certainty because of the sheer number of stars that we can see that there is life out there somewhere. The real question is what is it like. We only have the earth as an example. We know that life can exist on planets like the earth, but how different can it be and still support life? There is a vast range of types of life on earth - plants, animals, people, viruses, bacteria, etc. Even on earth, we have microbes that exist in the polar ice caps and others in the sulfur vents of volcanoes, neither of which use oxygen and both conditions are deadly to humans. We like to say oxygen is necessary because that is what we see and we project that to say we couldn't have evolved without O2. Yes, humans couldn't have evolved without O2, but we would have evolved differently in another atmosphere. Therefore on earth, only O2 makes sense for humans as we know them. The reason we see light in the wavelengths that we do is that we evolved on a planet whose atmosphere lets in those wavelengths. We would have different "eyes" if we were on a different planet. It is clear that a living being must make energy in some fashion, with at least part in a chemical reaction. The energy, if for no other use would be required for growth & reproduction, which are requirements to be defined as "life". Humans use aerobic respiration and a cycle of adenosine triphosphate to generate energy. Plants use sunlight, CO2 and water. Microbes use other exotic chemical reactions. So there are lots of examples here on earth. I would submit that other "atmospheres" would not be found out of complex molecules or of rare gasses because these are not observed in the universe on scales large enough to make an entire atmosphere.

In addition to what is already in SE4, "believable" (at least to me) atmospheres would be Ammonia, Methane and Sulfur Dioxide (found on IO, moon of Jupiter). As to "why", these are simple molecules, containing common elements which are reactive enough to possibly be used in a biological energy-producing reaction.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming.

Slick.

edit: typos

[ February 20, 2003, 02:55: Message edited by: Slick ]

Captain Kwok

February 20th, 2003, 05:26 AM

There have been many experiments carried out simulating conditions prebiotic Earth. The test atmospheres usually contain mixtures of NH3, CH4, H2, and H2O and a spark generator to simulate lightning. Lots of carboxylic acids, amino acids, nucleic acid bases (like those of DNA, RNA, and ATP), and even pentose and hexose sugars have been observed to form under these conditions. Adding inorganic ions like Cu2+, Ni2+, Zn2+, etc, help to increase the polymerization of these components, not to mention other factors like UV radiation, heat, and things like that. Interesting stuff.

There are molecules that can replace O2, but some organisms on Earth can use H2, H2S, S, HNO3, H2SO4, and CO2 in lieu of O2. But as I've said before, they just don't make enough energy to be useful for anything more than a bacteria, and in that case, it has to have little or no competition!

[ February 20, 2003, 03:28: Message edited by: Captain Kwok ]

Fyron

February 20th, 2003, 05:52 AM

There is a famous equation called the Drake Equation which mathematically sets the probability of life in the universe. Yes, and it attempts to determine the relative number of life-supporting planets in the universe. So what? It has nothing to do with atmospheres that do or do not support life, or with gases that can be used for energy purposes in organisms.

There is a vast range of types of life on earth - plants, animals, people, viruses, bacteria, etc. Even on earth, we have microbes that exist in the polar ice caps and others in the sulfur vents of volcanoes, neither of which use oxygen and both conditions are deadly to humans. There are molecules that can replace O2, but some organisms on Earth can use H2, H2S, S, HNO3, H2SO4, and CO2 in lieu of O2. But as I've said before, they just don't make enough energy to be useful for anything more than a bacteria, and in that case, it has to have little or no competition!This is why I have been careful to always say "complex organisms" instead of just "organisms". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Yes, humans couldn't have evolved without O2, but we would have evolved differently in another atmosphere. Assuming that is actually possible in the first place.

So there are lots of examples here on earth. Yes, examples of simplistic organisms that do not need very much energy to survive. All complex earth-based organisms use O2 to get energy. Even plants use O2 to break down the glucose they make to get energy. They just make a lot more glucose than they use, which is why they put out a lot more O2 than they do CO2.

How exactly would Ammonia, Methane or Sulfur Dioxide be used to get energy for complex organisms (not monerans, not protista, not any other forms of microscopic life)?

[ February 20, 2003, 05:57: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Captain Kwok

February 20th, 2003, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
How exactly would Ammonia, Methane or Sulfur Dioxide be used to get energy for complex organisms (not monerans, not protista, not any other forms of microscopic life)?They would generally replace O2 in some sort of Version of the electron transport chain, which drives the production of ATP, the major energy carrier in the cell. Instead of O2 being the final electron acceptor to make H2O, one of the other compounds like SO4- (to H2SO4) would be. I suppose if there was lots and lots of the substance available in the alien cell, it might be able to produce enough energy. The problem is that the reduction potential is less than most of the energy carriers in the cell, so it needs to use more energy to get things started.

Some of the substances mentioned before work better as electron donors than acceptors, like ammonium, NH4+. For example, we use H2O as our electron donor for ATP synth, but on a planet with abundant NH4+, it might be possible for more complex organisms to use it the same way that nitrifying bateria do on Earth, but that still requires moderate levels of O2. However, it's just not energetic enough to be effective. But... H2 as an electron donor is fairly energy rich and might be able to form some sort of pathway, but I'm not so sure about the plausability of that.

[ February 20, 2003, 05:43: Message edited by: Captain Kwok ]

Rexxx

February 20th, 2003, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Slick:
There is a famous equation called the Drake Equation which mathematically sets the probability of life in the universe. You can look it up for further reading. It basically comes out to a mathematical certainty because of the sheer number of stars that we can see that there is life out there somewhere. The real question is what is it like. Several months ago I read "Rare Earth" by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee (a paleontologist and an astronomer IIRC).
The rare earth theory is that though bacterial life may be common in the universe, intelligent life - in the form of terrestrial animals and plants - is unique.
Their modifications to the Drake Equation are quite interesting. I do not know enough about the the topics they raised tp prove them right or wrong. Anyway, it's a book well written and full of ideas new to me. I never would have thought of plate tectonics as crucial for evolution on Earth.

Arkcon

February 20th, 2003, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Rexxx:
I never would have thought of plate tectonics as crucial for evolution on Earth.I only just started hearing about that one myself. Often people claim some robust life would live on Mars or Venus. But without plate tectonics, atmospheric gases on Mars just get locked up.

Venus, the Last I heard, has a different problem. The most recent radar mapping of it's surface seems to imply that the entire surface is no more than 100 million years old -- all of it, the same age. I wouldn't want to be there when the entire planets surface decides to "recycle"

For SE4, as it's been said already, I would like it if there was more variety to the planets -- some that were just about useless for colonization.

But the AI needs some work to be able to make good decisions about these. Recently I went MEE, so I started using the planet conditions bomb. After all, I have all the planets I need. This seriously crippled the AI -- it saw the empty planets and colonized them -- and couldn't really thrive with 25 deadly planets.

[ February 20, 2003, 13:47: Message edited by: Arkcon ]

solops

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

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

February 20th, 2003, 09:47 PM

Ok. The Drake Equation now has even less to do with this discussion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Drake was not infallible, you know.

Slick

February 20th, 2003, 10:03 PM

Nobody is infallible.

edit: not even my spelling.

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

Doormouse

February 20th, 2003, 11:55 PM

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

February 21st, 2003, 01:13 PM

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Slick

February 21st, 2003, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <hr /></blockquote>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

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

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

Wardad

February 21st, 2003, 09:39 PM

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

February 21st, 2003, 10:00 PM

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif 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

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif 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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

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 ]

Ruatha

February 22nd, 2003, 12:01 AM

Hmm.
Testing string theory for yourself might prove difficult.

The existance of quarks on the other hand can be proved, but I think even that would be hard to do yourself.

Some things one have to accept if one finds it reasonable enough!

[ February 21, 2003, 22:02: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Fyron

February 22nd, 2003, 01:47 AM

Ok. That takes looking at the evidence that was used to create the theory, and see if it works, or if it is a load of bunk. I didn't say you had to go do all the experiments yourself. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Ruatha

February 22nd, 2003, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Ok. That takes looking at the evidence that was used to create the theory, and see if it works, or if it is a load of bunk. I didn't say you had to go do all the experiments yourself. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif And that you tell me now!!
I'm almost finished building my particle accelerator down in the basement!
Damn, what should I do with it now??

Fyron

February 22nd, 2003, 03:42 AM

Maybe turn it into some sort of weapon?

Ruatha

February 22nd, 2003, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Maybe turn it into some sort of weapon?Hmm, yes. Somekind of hunting weapon. Just need a way to make it mobile....
Alot of syncronized terrain going trucks perhaps?

oleg

February 22nd, 2003, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Ruatha:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Ok. That takes looking at the evidence that was used to create the theory, and see if it works, or if it is a load of bunk. I didn't say you had to go do all the experiments yourself. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif And that you tell me now!!
I'm almost finished building my particle accelerator down in the basement!
Damn, what should I do with it now??<hr /></blockquote>I would appreciate if you run an experiment to detect W-bosons.

Fyron

February 22nd, 2003, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by oleg:
I would appreciate if you run an experiment to detect W-bosons.Thanks for taking my statement out of context. You can look at written stuff too, you know. You don't always have to look at the physical evidence.

Ruatha

February 23rd, 2003, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by oleg:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ruatha:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Ok. That takes looking at the evidence that was used to create the theory, and see if it works, or if it is a load of bunk. I didn't say you had to go do all the experiments yourself. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif And that you tell me now!!
I'm almost finished building my particle accelerator down in the basement!
Damn, what should I do with it now??<hr /></blockquote>I would appreciate if you run an experiment to detect W-bosons.<hr /></blockquote>Sorry, It's too small for that.
But I can propably rebuild it to shoot rats with.