opticbronze wrote:so it is rerly plarseble to have a planet in 1 one of thous snareowes then.

Depends really.

Don't forget the liquid-state-esque solution for the molecules to exchange easily in.
Maybe very high pressure gas, but those gas giant aliens are really the whackier side of the conjecture.

In serious astrobiology, liquid oceans/pools & a good temperature for reactions to commence are the bare basics.
We haven't seen anything other than the carbon-based, but that gives an incentive for further researhc as opposed to denial.

If we pick up any signs, chances are that we might find something quite peculiar indeed.
And be able to admire it from our new super-earth. Where we mine the metal from surrounding bodies, so you don't have to drink as much of the guff that can result from it.

But I do worry about tax avoidance, what with the interplanetary of our mining process at that stage. Move into some region under the mountains & let the space-IRS squeeze us instead, much? (Mostly just joking, of course).

There are limits.

A planet must be able to have sustained complex chemistry for it to even have a chance to develop life. The caustic hellscape of Venus never had life and it never will. The same can be said for the radiation soaked vacuum of our moon and the frigid desolation of Pluto.

These are not just unfit for earth life, they are chemically dead worlds. There are no amino acids or phosphate chains or carboxylic acids on these surfaces, just fields of scorched brimstone, a vast ocean of powdered silica, and mountains made of ice.

You can argue about what solvents and temperature ranges life may need, but it is an absolute that it needs chemistry. Without chemical action there is nothing.

I'm still not convinced that "life" necessarily has to conform to the rules we set here. I'd be somewhat disappointed (though not surprised) if it does.

I'm still thinking fondly of chunks of sentient lava etching "No kill I" in the bedrock of their volcanic hive.

Molten silicates don't do much except ooze. I suppose that's a good thing, since most of our planet is made of the stuff.

Complex molecules are not thermodynamically stable, if you provide enough ambient heat they will revert to a more stable and disordered configuration (usually by thermal dissociation). If you remove enough heat there is not enough ambient energy to overcome activation barrier required to form them in the first place.

What will challenge our definitions will be the proto-life that assuredly exists out there. There really isn't a clear line between a self propagating biochemical machine and a living organism.

How much functionality can you strip out of a bacteria before it's no longer considered alive? And what do you call it when that happens? We've already had a taste of this discussion when humanity discovered the virus, we may have it again when we find that first lipid shielded self replicating protein in an alien ocean.

Tongue in cheek reference to very early Star Trek... I confess thereby my extreme nerdiness.

I think silcon based life is possible just it needs persis serconstaces to form.

opticbronze wrote:

opticbronze wrote:so it is rerly plarseble to have a planet in 1 one of thous snareowes then.

I literally cannot read that.

What does it even say?

murdick wrote:

opticbronze wrote:

opticbronze wrote:so it is rerly plarseble to have a planet in 1 one of thous snareowes then.

I literally cannot read that.

What does it even say?

"So it really is possible to have a planet in one of those scenarios then."

Translated. He is very phonetic, but easier to follow (as are any of us) at the time the post is made, rather than later.

opticbronze wrote:I think silcon based life is possible just it needs persis serconstaces to form.

The problem with silicon is that it is rigid and less diverse. Carbon will readily form single, double, and triple bonds and can do so at a variety of angles, including many non-ideal ones.

You have to keep in mind that electrons repel violently if they come too close together, forcing a bond into a sub-ideal angle will make the molecule less stable.

Silicon has a much larger electron cloud than carbon does and it is much more resistant to forming these non-optimal bonds. That's why we see it forming rigid tetrahedral structures and little else.

Ah, we've had cases of rogue proteins causing their havoc (I.e: Michael Moore hasn't eaten Beeef since. And no, burning the cattle doesn't work.); basically prions.

What other chemicals could acheive this kind of action? I begin to wonder; but we'll probably have to wait & see.

cpelite wrote:Ah, we've had cases of rogue proteins causing their havoc (I.e: Michael Moore hasn't eaten Beeef since. And no, burning the cattle doesn't work.); basically prions.

What other chemicals could acheive this kind of action? I begin to wonder; but we'll probably have to wait & see.

Michale Moore wouldn't eat his own kind.

SporeMasterSlyth33 wrote:

cpelite wrote:Ah, we've had cases of rogue proteins causing their havoc (I.e: Michael Moore hasn't eaten Beeef since. And no, burning the cattle doesn't work.); basically prions.

What other chemicals could acheive this kind of action? I begin to wonder; but we'll probably have to wait & see.

Michale Moore wouldn't eat his own kind.

Mmmm. Kuru. Mmmm. Ancestors.

Aha. You got my drift.

An experiment with cows was devised to see if the cause of certain forms of mental illness among tribes in Papua new guniea may have something to do with their... unusual feeding habits (but not uncommon in history).

Sadly, some of the resulting prions began to spread. Many countries such as the UK attempted solutions which ultimately wouldn't work. Like burning the dead cows. Prions are proteins; it isn't as simple as cremation. Risky at best.

Even if we find a protein & thus a non-living thing, doesn't mean we can't expect some whacky action.

Michael Moore mentions in some of his publications that he has some PBB in his body due to contaminated beef (where cattle feed got mixed up with fire retardant, as they were both manufactured by the same company).
Whatever your stance, my bedtime reading material changes little.

sporemasterblackbird wrote:This thread paid for by:



See you in the future.

LOL. This and that thread is posted on the year 9013, seven hundred years in the future.