OT: Carbon Dioxide races -> known vs unknown -> terraforming mars -> is or is not

Loser · #1 July 16th, 2003, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:

quote:
Originally posted by Loser:

quote:
Originally posted by Taera:
i know very little of the later planets in the solar system

The outer planets are just too cold. No terraforming options out there.
Giant orbiting mirrors!
Lots of fusion reactors running off the H2 from the gas giants!
Move the planet!

Better off terraforming Luna. Mars is still the easiest.

Erax · #2 July 16th, 2003, 11:55 PM

Nitrogen as it exists in our atmosphere - N2 - is too stable to be usable by most life forms, except a few bacteria. Other life forms require nitrogen in other forms - as ammonia, NH4+, nitrates or amines. The process by which N2 is converted to ammonia is called fixation.

Nitrogen is present in all amino acids, which are called that because they are both amines and organic acids. Life as we know it would be impossible without nitrogen, because there would be no amino acids and therefore no proteins.

Follow this link for an extensive treaty on the nitrogen cycle and how it is important to life on Earth.

Taera · #3 July 17th, 2003, 08:47 AM

how can you claim we know all particles in the universe? perharps somewhere there are atoms that have gravitons orbiting electrons and thats it for the atom. and dont start telling me there are no gravitons, its not proven. Or perharps atoms with quadraple cores? and how you know its impossible to have 1/2 of a particle? if we cant do it it doesnt mean its impossible. You cant go at the speed of light - who said its impossible?

dogscoff · #4 July 17th, 2003, 09:00 AM

Quote:

if we cant do it it doesnt mean its impossible.

Well, no. There probably are som wierd and wonderful particles out there to be discovered, but they would have to be damned rare and only exist under certain (life-unfriendly) conditions- otherwise we would have encountered them in our own solar system.

Quote:

You cant go at the speed of light - who said its impossible?

Einstein.

Fyron · #5 July 17th, 2003, 09:03 AM

You can make up all the fancy particles you like, but they do not exist in reality. There are only so many sub-atomic particles, and we know what they are. There are sub-sub-atomic particles and such, but they can not form anything comparable to atoms, just sub-atomic particles.

You can not have half a particle because half a particle results in either a fairly large explosion or simply in the pieces floating off. Matter is only stable in very rigid and specific patterns. And, the sub-atomic particles are made of 3 smaller particles anyways, so 1/2 is not even a valid fraction.

But joking aside, those smaller particles can not form any larger particles other than the ones we know about already. There are only so many ways matter can combine, and we have seen or modeled them all.

I am not sure what you mean by quadruple cores, but it sounds like wishful thinking to me. The only possibilities for the core of an atom are protons and neutrons (except for antimatter, which has identical particles except that they have opposing charges and spins, so they are essentially the same anyways). What gives a piece of matter almost all of its properties is the number of protons in the nucleus. Change that, you get entirely different matter.

IF (and that is a big if) gravity is found to be particle like in nature (in addition to wave-like), like light is (photons), then these "gravitons" would be no more able to form new types of matter than photons are (which they are not). If they exist, they would have a similar interaction with electrons to that of photons with electrons. I am not sure what precisely this interaction would be, but it most certainly would not be to form new types of matter with the electrons. They would have to be immensely smaller than photons anyways, as we have never been able to detect or see the evidence of any such gravitons.

Fyron · #6 July 17th, 2003, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dogscoff:

quote:

You cant go at the speed of light - who said its impossible?

Einstein.

Einstein was not right about everything. He refused to believe the findings of his pupil, Heisenburg (I hope I remember the right name...) that particles have wave-like properties. He only believed that waves have particle-like properties (which is true, solar sail anyone?). Of course, it was later proven that particles do have wave-like properties (atoms in molecules are a distance apart that is exactly equal to the sum of the lengths of the matter-waves of the electrons in them, for example).

narf poit chez BOOM · #7 July 17th, 2003, 09:32 AM

if it's smaller than an electron, i don't see how we can be sure it's there. least until we have something that can see smaller than an electron. yes, i know there's mathamatical models. but think about this:

cells - 1 remove. can be seen with a Version 1 light microscope. i think there's one that can be seen with just the naked eye.

molecules - 2 removed. not sure if you could prove, conclusivily, that those atoms are linked. could you even watch individual atoms? i mean 100%, not 99.5%

atoms - 3 removed. can only be seen and poorly, with an electron microscope. no idea how extensive that is...can you watch them move? but they can be proved to exist

quarks - theorized by mathematical model.

so, i can't accept quarks as more than a theory. yes, i know if i investigated the math i might agree. but, i have trouble picking through math models. it's not that i don't understand it, it's that i'm like a turtle with physics as math - steady, but slow. so, in order for me to accept this, i'd like some pretty picture and words. english words, to. and so would, probably, the general public.

[ July 17, 2003, 08:33: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]