Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
 Posted: Dec 10, 2003 18:14 Post subject: |
    |
|
Nottheking wrote:
Of course, there's plant life on Earth that survives at low temperatures, and perhaps there could be cold-blooded animal life that would thrive at -100C/-148F.
I'm not talking about life surviving in such situations. I'm talking about life appearing. Once there is life, it can always adapt to for us absurd situations. But it's the first appearance of life that requires somewhat limited conditions.
Nottheking wrote:
However, the life on Mars may very well have been merely anarobic bacteria. If there was arobic life here, chances are it's long gone.
Hopefully we'll know for sure soon. But I'm a lot more optimistic than you are - as far as I'm concerned, there are several things about Mars that can more easily be explained by the presense of life than by any other theory. Thus, I'll let Occam's razor decide.
Nottheking wrote:
If some hypothesi hold true, then this moon holds more water than any other body in our solar system... However, there seems to be a lack of pure oxygen
I'd say that's a lot more than a hypothesis. I'd rather call it a very strong theory. Furthermore, I doubt anyone expects European life to utilize oxygen. Most theories I've heard have assumed sulphor instead, something we're quite certain is common there.
Nottheking wrote:
-Venus: The only body in the system more inhospitable to human life...
You seem to forget that Venus hasn't always been like this. Before colliding with a Mars sized protoplanetary body during its early history, it would have had a much more normal rotational period. Thus, temperatures would have been much more stable and in the range where water is liquid. Because of that, the atmosphere would not have been so thick, thus not providing such a heavy greenhouse effect. From what we can tell, Venus would have been a very nice place indeed to live on before the collision - it's only a question of how long that period lasted (in this context, if there was enough time for life). And since we know life on Earth appeared very quickly once the conditions were right, I think it's quite likely the same thing happened on Venus.
Nottheking wrote:
-Titan: I have my doubts that this moon would harbor life, or even once done so.
I have my doubts, too. I just said I can imagine the possibility.
Nottheking wrote:
The fact that it possesses an atmosphere is probably due to the fact that, of all large moons, it has the most gravitational control; the large moons of Earth and Jupiter are very close to the planet, and thus lose any gasses that they may obtain.
I think you'll have to explain that statement. In all my years, I've never encountered any theory stating that satellites in close orbit loose their atmospheres. The only possibility I can think of is where tidal heating casues the atmosphere to escape, but the only body in the solar system in such an orbit is Io. Thus your hypothesis does not seem to apply to any other large satellites.
As far as I know, Titan is the only satellite with a thick atmosphere simply because it is the only large satellite in the part of the solar system where those particular substances are in gaseous form yet have little energy. Further in, the gases get too hot and thus escape the body (unless it's a large body like the Earth). Further out, and the gases freeze to ice.
|
|
Sheldon
Gamorrean
Joined: 03 Dec 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 10, 2003 18:18 Post subject: |
|
|
Just once thing about life elsewhere, particually in other galaxys: I think it is naive to make judgements of probabilites of life as we know it as being the only manifestation of life.
How can anyone here be so certain, that silicon, for example, in a remote galaxy, cannot be a basis for life? Does anyone here know for certain all the physical properties in remote star systems.
Other galaxys might have life, intelligent life manifesting in ways we cannot even dream of. And they might be speculating how carbon based life in other galaxys is not feasible.
|
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 10, 2003 18:28 Post subject: |
|
|
Sheldon wrote:
Just once thing about life elsewhere, particually in other galaxys:
What's so special to you about other galaxies?
Sheldon wrote:
How can anyone here be so certain, that silicon, for example, in a remote galaxy, cannot be a basis for life?
Because the physical laws does not allow it. What galaxy that non-life exist in is not relevant to the question at hand.
Sheldon wrote:
Does anyone here know for certain all the physical properties in remote star systems.
Yes.
Sheldon wrote:
Other galaxys might have life, intelligent life manifesting in ways we cannot even dream of.
Very true. But if it's natural life, it'll still be carbon based, no matter how different it is from our kinds of life.
Sheldon wrote:
And they might be speculating how carbon based life in other galaxys is not feasible.
Then they'd have to be quite bad at elementary physics. Even on our backwards planet it's been known for a century that carbon is the atom which easiest bind together into large molecules.
|
|
