Русский New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 1 of 11
Forum » SpaceEngine » General Discussions » Difference between planets with life and no life?
Difference between planets with life and no life?
BaradrimDate: Sunday, 15.07.2012, 15:34 | Message # 1
Observer
Group: Newbies
Poland
Messages: 6
Status: Offline
There are terras, some have life, some don't. Just asking a question, what is the difference between a non-life terra and a life terra?
 
CaelDate: Sunday, 15.07.2012, 16:25 | Message # 2
Space Tourist
Group: Users
Denmark
Messages: 32
Status: Offline
I think you just answered your own question. Not all planets that can hold life will develop life.

That's my take on it anyway.
 
TalynDate: Sunday, 15.07.2012, 16:26 | Message # 3
Explorer
Group: Users
Portugal
Messages: 207
Status: Offline
Well, the difference is that in the case of terras without life, life has not evolved there and for that reason, you will not be able to see plant life like you do on terras with life, because more evolved life forms are not modeled yet at this stage of developnent

By the way, just noticed that you are new here, so welcome to the forum and please take a moment to read the rules.

And above all have fun with this excelent piece of software wink

EDIT:

Gahhh, Cael I could swear that I didn't took one minute to type my answer but somehow you managed to type yours before me biggrin





PC: Intel Core2Duo E6850 @ 3.00 GHz & 4GB DDR3 @ 1333 - NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS with 640 MB VRAM
Laptop: Intel Core2Duo T9400 @ 2.53 GHz & 4 GB DDR @ 1066 - NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT


Edited by Talyn - Sunday, 15.07.2012, 16:29
 
GoogolplexbyteDate: Monday, 16.07.2012, 14:37 | Message # 4
Observer
Group: Users
United Kingdom
Messages: 11
Status: Offline
Current Serpentine theory predicts that life is incredibly likely to emerge on a planet that has water, carbon dioxide, & rock[serpentinite] (Other means are available). However IIRC silicon planets are actually less common than carbon planets and carbon being lighter hybrid silicon-carbon planets would have surfaces of carbon not rock, so any planet without underwater rocks doesn't get life, atleast not as we know it. Interestingly the CO2 could potential be replaced by any other molecule that can form an acid and be used as a building block material, although the only thing I could think of that would be a potential replacement would be NO2/SO2, but that would require an ocean laced with phosphorous or boron to produce stable complex molecules. The water could also potential be replaced with any solvent that also easily forms acidic and alkaline mixtures, Ammonia being the only reasonable possibility.

TL,DR - Life probably doesn't form on planets that aren't rocky enough.


Edited by Googolplexbyte - Monday, 16.07.2012, 14:39
 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Monday, 16.07.2012, 14:44 | Message # 5
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3599
Status: Offline
Quote (Googolplexbyte)
TL,DR - Life probably doesn't form if the planet isn't rocky enough.


That seems like a very sweeping statement to make about life. There just isn't enough known about life to say such things. Personally I fall into the category of people who think life could live anywhere, bacterial life not highly complex life. Its already been shown bacteria can survive impacts and in space encased in rock.

I think it might even be possible for there to be life living in the upper clouds of gas giants, once again most likely nothing more than microbial life but still life.





Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB


Edited by DoctorOfSpace - Monday, 16.07.2012, 14:45
 
GoogolplexbyteDate: Monday, 16.07.2012, 15:29 | Message # 6
Observer
Group: Users
United Kingdom
Messages: 11
Status: Offline
Yes, it is very likely that life can live most anywhere, but that is entirely different from supposing it can form anywhere. Also Panspermia would still require an abundant local source.
 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Monday, 16.07.2012, 16:12 | Message # 7
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3599
Status: Offline
Quote (Googolplexbyte)
Also Panspermia would still require an abundant local source.


Well good news is you're living on one that has been hit plenty of times in the past to spread life.

Most likely this solar system is filled with life all sharing a common ancestry either from here on Earth or one of the other planets/moons. Thats one reason I like seeing multiple life planets in space engine per system, if there is one with life and one capable of having life then chances are life would inevitably spread to the other planet.





Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
 
BaleurDate: Sunday, 21.10.2012, 04:19 | Message # 8
Observer
Group: Users
Sweden
Messages: 17
Status: Offline
Indeed. I mean the chances of life spreading from 1 source to a planet in the same solar system, is infinitely higher than it spreading to another planet in another solar system.

But honestly i think the thread starter just wanted to know what the difference was "ingame".
I think the only difference is that planets with life has green textures here and there to represent foliage.

God i wish Space Engine could render forests.. Even if it was a set of 3 boring tree models, it would bring more oompfh to finding life-bearing planets than just some green textures here and there. Or even city lights on the night side. Procedurally generated random groups of lights.

It would obviously have to be even more rare than just life itself, but it would be awesome to know it is "out there" somewhere in Space Engine to find. Temperate Terra with civilized life, or something like that.
 
paradanDate: Wednesday, 24.10.2012, 13:24 | Message # 9
Observer
Group: Newbies
United States
Messages: 7
Status: Offline
as far as I know O2 only forms due to biological process.

so a terra with no life wouldnt have a breathable atmosphere.
 
Antza2Date: Wednesday, 24.10.2012, 18:51 | Message # 10
World Builder
Group: Global Moderators
Finland
Messages: 1049
Status: Offline
Quote (paradan)
as far as I know O2 only forms due to biological process.

O2 can form in other ways, but it would be rare to find a breathable atmosphere without life forming large quantities of it.





Go to antza2.deviantart.com for cool photos!
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Wednesday, 24.10.2012, 19:22 | Message # 11
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote (paradan)
as far as I know O2 only forms due to biological process

O2 can form from abiotic processes, but it reacts with things, particularly hydrogen, to form other compounds, so any O2 in a system will be short lived unless it is being replenished somehow, and the best way to do that is with life.

So yes, a planet without life would almost certainly not have a breathable atmosphere.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
Forum » SpaceEngine » General Discussions » Difference between planets with life and no life?
Page 1 of 11
Search: