National Geographic Does A Study On Darwin 4, An Alien Ecosystem - Page 2

BitVyper · 03-31-2010, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Well, I'd say we definitely changed the planet more, though.

I think oxygen producing plants probably beat us there.

Seil · 03-31-2010, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhs

Well seeing as I was just at a conference on chemical origins of life and we had a whole morning session on how to detect life in the universe this is riht up my research alley but there isn't enough detail here to make a comment-well first part anyway.

It's an interesting thought, I thought. But then again, class just let out for the semester for me so we all went to the student pub so I think streaking's an interesting thought right now. Woo!

Quote:

Originally Posted by iq

Meanwhile I like Hawk's question. If humans had never taken charge of the planet, what's to say there should be one and only one dominant species? Let alone sentient.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tha guy that does stuff

Well, I'd say we definitely changed the planet more, though.

While that's true, I don't think that dino-sarus-rex's had the brain capacity to create technological advancements like we have and manipulate their environments to the extent that we have. That's probably what Barrel was sayin' what with the little time dinosaurs had to evolve. Also, vote velociraptors to be the first "sentient" race, because they were very intelligent but also had limbs proportionate to their environment, so they were able to actually reach stuff.

Professor Smarmiarty · 03-31-2010, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BitVyper

I think oxygen producing plants probably beat us there.

Ain't no pussy plants makes as much gas as me.

Viridis · 03-31-2010, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BitVyper

Quote:

Well, I'd say we definitely changed the planet more, though.

I think oxygen producing plants probably beat us there.

I said more. As in "more than the dinosaurs". I didn't say "the most."

Ryong · 03-31-2010, 07:08 PM

...Whenever I think about people trying stuff like this, with theories on alien life, one thing springs to mind.

That dude who drew some stuff based on heavy biology and it ended up that every large animal in the planet he came up with had what looked like a dick but it was in fact their mouths. And the heads of all of them were where the heart was, otherwise vestigial.

I wish I remembered the link for it, though, but it was stupid.

BitVyper · 03-31-2010, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viridis

I said more. As in "more than the dinosaurs". I didn't say "the most."

I know. Just sayin.

I mean, you wanna talk about makin things go extinct? From what I recall, when oxygen started showing up in significant quantities, it was like armageddon.

Quote:

Ain't no pussy plants makes as much gas as me.

Yeah, actually we've all been meaning to talk to you about that.

Osterbaum · 04-01-2010, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMB

Fully my favourite method of detecting life which was outlined at the conf was through measuring whether light comin from planets was polarised or not- they showed that a planet teeming with life would have light that was detectably polarised due to the nature of chiral life. They trying to get NASA to fund a satellite that could do this but NASA doesn't like ideas without giant rockets on them.

What if there's very little life?

Professor Smarmiarty · 04-01-2010, 07:14 AM

In those cases it would depend on a lot of factors, such as how far away the planet was, how strong the signal was, how good your detector is and what frequencies you are looking at.
A few bacteria on the surface of a plent won't be detectable by this means- you would need multicellular organisms. To be feasible you would need a planet covered in plant-life on a similar scale to earth- that is the calculated example and in this case the effect is strong enough that pretty much any planet we can detect emissions from we could check. Animals would make it stronger.
If a planet was say mostly desert with scattered plants it would be difficult and we'd need to be very lucky.

03-31-2010, 07:08 PM	#15
Ryong Professional Threadkiller Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Brazil Posts: 3,798	...Whenever I think about people trying stuff like this, with theories on alien life, one thing springs to mind. That dude who drew some stuff based on heavy biology and it ended up that every large animal in the planet he came up with had what looked like a dick but it was in fact their mouths. And the heads of all of them were where the heart was, otherwise vestigial. I wish I remembered the link for it, though, but it was stupid.

04-01-2010, 07:14 AM	#18
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	In those cases it would depend on a lot of factors, such as how far away the planet was, how strong the signal was, how good your detector is and what frequencies you are looking at. A few bacteria on the surface of a plent won't be detectable by this means- you would need multicellular organisms. To be feasible you would need a planet covered in plant-life on a similar scale to earth- that is the calculated example and in this case the effect is strong enough that pretty much any planet we can detect emissions from we could check. Animals would make it stronger. If a planet was say mostly desert with scattered plants it would be difficult and we'd need to be very lucky.