Radon and uranium are so rare compared to things like boron and such that using that as a comparison makes little to no sense. Also, if FTL does turn out to be impossible, humanity is screwed in the long run.
Science Rapid Interstellar spaceflight, exploration and,colonization thread
- Thread starter fsci123
- Start date
Radon and uranium are so rare compared to things like boron and such that using that as a comparison makes little to no sense. Also, if FTL does turn out to be impossible, humanity is screwed in the long run.
fsci123
Future Dubstar and Rocketkid
I have a seriously feeling you had not read the last five post... I had said that such life is virtually impossible due to chemical and physical restriction...
dbeachy1
O-F Administrator
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2008
- Messages
- 9,217
- Reaction score
- 1,563
- Points
- 203
- Location
- VA
- Website
- alteaaerospace.com
- Preferred Pronouns
- he/him
Thread reopened after cleanup. Let's please stay on-topic. Thanks.
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 37,617
- Reaction score
- 2,337
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
No, that is a wrong use of statistics. The probability of something depends on the model that you use for producing the statistics.
In such cases, you have to interpret the probability as "probability that what we know about chemistry is wrong".
It could be the case - but very unlikely and would have far more serious implications than just the existence of exotic lifeforms.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry"]Hypothetical types of biochemistry[/ame] details some of the problems and possible advantages of alternate biochemistries.
"They would work" doesn't mean much; I can conjure a super axion hypergravity reactionless drive and state that "It would work", but without any proposition about how it work work, scientific speculation is entirely meaningless.
The understanding that my uneducated mind has about temperature is that it is based on particle movement. At a lower temperature the speed of particles in a medium is reduced, which means the speed at which reactions take place is reduced. It isn't about the amount of energy that a chemical reaction yields, but rather the time it takes for reactions and changes to occur.
Plants move and live slower than we do because they don't need to live fast. Most of their competition (other plants, that could shade them, for example) also moves slowly, and they don't have to worry that much about being eaten (if your leaves are removed, it means you are damaged, not dead) and use mostly passive defences against 'predators', and they also don't have that much energy (I'm assuming; primary consumers benefit from the producer concentrating energy, just as secondary consumers benefit from primary consumers concentratng energy) to move about with. They don't need to find food; just bask in the sun and extend their roots towards water.
It should be noted, however, that plants are not just dumb organisms that sit around and do nothing. They viciously compete, grow, and move, although of course, not on such a timescale as many animals. For example there is [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropism"]Tropism[/ame], [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nastic_movements"]Nastic movement[/ame], and [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_plant_movement"]Rapid plant movement[/ame] (as seen in carnivorous plants).
And a good deal of animals are pretty slow movers as well; there are many sessile invertebrates, and some animals can be easily mistaken for odd plants by an uneducated person (specifically corals and sponges). Often these move faster than plants, but they do have many similarities. Generally, plants are autotrophs and animals are heterotrophs. Even animals that photosynthesise only do so via symbiosis with photosynthetic algae.
It is doubtful that elsewhere we will find "plants" or "animals"; we might find wholly alien kingdoms of life, similar to them, one, the other, or both. Or contain a whole lot of odd traits but not be generally identifiable as analogous to anything from Earth.
Maybe on many worlds, there are no "animals" like vertebrates, or arthropods, or cephalopods, but rather entire ecosystems of odd sessile and semi-sessile life, competing and surviving with all the amazing ferocity as life on Earth, but at a pace only detectable by time-lapse.
In that case, you would not be worried about shooting gigantic creatures, but rather worrying about waking up to find that those pesky landstars have crawled across your compound and are covering your electrolysis plant, trying to find a place to warm up and offer sunlight to their symbionts. You grumble and set out to pry them off, complaining about how darn sticky their pseudopods are...
"They would work" doesn't mean much; I can conjure a super axion hypergravity reactionless drive and state that "It would work", but without any proposition about how it work work, scientific speculation is entirely meaningless.
The understanding that my uneducated mind has about temperature is that it is based on particle movement. At a lower temperature the speed of particles in a medium is reduced, which means the speed at which reactions take place is reduced. It isn't about the amount of energy that a chemical reaction yields, but rather the time it takes for reactions and changes to occur.
Plants move and live slower than we do because they don't need to live fast. Most of their competition (other plants, that could shade them, for example) also moves slowly, and they don't have to worry that much about being eaten (if your leaves are removed, it means you are damaged, not dead) and use mostly passive defences against 'predators', and they also don't have that much energy (I'm assuming; primary consumers benefit from the producer concentrating energy, just as secondary consumers benefit from primary consumers concentratng energy) to move about with. They don't need to find food; just bask in the sun and extend their roots towards water.
It should be noted, however, that plants are not just dumb organisms that sit around and do nothing. They viciously compete, grow, and move, although of course, not on such a timescale as many animals. For example there is [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropism"]Tropism[/ame], [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nastic_movements"]Nastic movement[/ame], and [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_plant_movement"]Rapid plant movement[/ame] (as seen in carnivorous plants).
And a good deal of animals are pretty slow movers as well; there are many sessile invertebrates, and some animals can be easily mistaken for odd plants by an uneducated person (specifically corals and sponges). Often these move faster than plants, but they do have many similarities. Generally, plants are autotrophs and animals are heterotrophs. Even animals that photosynthesise only do so via symbiosis with photosynthetic algae.
It is doubtful that elsewhere we will find "plants" or "animals"; we might find wholly alien kingdoms of life, similar to them, one, the other, or both. Or contain a whole lot of odd traits but not be generally identifiable as analogous to anything from Earth.
Maybe on many worlds, there are no "animals" like vertebrates, or arthropods, or cephalopods, but rather entire ecosystems of odd sessile and semi-sessile life, competing and surviving with all the amazing ferocity as life on Earth, but at a pace only detectable by time-lapse.
In that case, you would not be worried about shooting gigantic creatures, but rather worrying about waking up to find that those pesky landstars have crawled across your compound and are covering your electrolysis plant, trying to find a place to warm up and offer sunlight to their symbionts. You grumble and set out to pry them off, complaining about how darn sticky their pseudopods are...
fsci123
Future Dubstar and Rocketkid
Travelling trillions of miles and spending decades on a ship only to arrive at a barren planet would be a waste of time and money... Now terraforming is a huge operation in this system and will be an even bigger operation in another system...
Now im currently thinking gliese 581 system for this scenario... Because i was a small boy when they announced the discovery of gliese 581 c... I am also working on my horeible gliese 581 system to make it more realistic...
Attachments
Terraforming is difficult. Interstellar colonisation is difficult. Combine them and... well... it's difficult. You need a huge amount of infrastructure for terraforming, and bringing that along with you is likely prohibitive, and bringing the seed infrastructure would be difficult enough.
But, there are several things to consider:
1. Just because a planet is more-or-less like Earth and it has life on the surface, does not mean it would be easy to live on. It could for example have an extreme climate, a toxic atmosphere, or a pesky ecology.
2. Uninhabited planets pose far fewer ethical considerations in terms of colonisation than life-bearing ones, even when the life-bearing planets in question only have simple or single-celled life.
3. In the solar system we have four examples of terrestrial planet; totally barren (Mercury), difficult to terraform (Venus), (relatively) easy to terraform (Mars) and already habitable (Earth). A planet in another star system could bridge the gap between Mars and Earth, and be far easier to terraform. Terraforming, of course, would still be a very intensive process.
4. A good target may be young stars with young planets; particularly Earthlike planets. Such planets might be fairly easy to terraform, and would lack life, or at least anything beyond very primitive life. This is a particularly interesting case, as we know that such a planet has been "terraformed" before; the early Earth, its atmospheric chemistry changed by unwitting photosynthetic bacteria.
While inhabiting a 'habitable' planet might be the best option in some cases, that doesn't mean terraforming should be disconsidered wholesale. I'm a biological purist; I don't like the idea of people going around and messing up planetary gems. A small colony won't do that, but a planet with a population numbering in the billions would. And if you are using a habitable planet as a springboard for terraforming projects, for example, you'll probably need quite a large economy, quite a large population.
Of course, the more advanced your technology is, the less environmental impact you would have per person. And, come on, you're running an interstellar colonisation mission...
Gliese 581 has problems. For example, Gliese 581 d could be a world ocean, and Gliese 581 g probably doesn't exist.
But at least the planets there are real, for whatever little it is worth.
You can always fly around my (mostly) realistic Gliese 581 system, if you wish. :thumbup:
But, there are several things to consider:
1. Just because a planet is more-or-less like Earth and it has life on the surface, does not mean it would be easy to live on. It could for example have an extreme climate, a toxic atmosphere, or a pesky ecology.
2. Uninhabited planets pose far fewer ethical considerations in terms of colonisation than life-bearing ones, even when the life-bearing planets in question only have simple or single-celled life.
3. In the solar system we have four examples of terrestrial planet; totally barren (Mercury), difficult to terraform (Venus), (relatively) easy to terraform (Mars) and already habitable (Earth). A planet in another star system could bridge the gap between Mars and Earth, and be far easier to terraform. Terraforming, of course, would still be a very intensive process.
4. A good target may be young stars with young planets; particularly Earthlike planets. Such planets might be fairly easy to terraform, and would lack life, or at least anything beyond very primitive life. This is a particularly interesting case, as we know that such a planet has been "terraformed" before; the early Earth, its atmospheric chemistry changed by unwitting photosynthetic bacteria.
While inhabiting a 'habitable' planet might be the best option in some cases, that doesn't mean terraforming should be disconsidered wholesale. I'm a biological purist; I don't like the idea of people going around and messing up planetary gems. A small colony won't do that, but a planet with a population numbering in the billions would. And if you are using a habitable planet as a springboard for terraforming projects, for example, you'll probably need quite a large economy, quite a large population.
Of course, the more advanced your technology is, the less environmental impact you would have per person. And, come on, you're running an interstellar colonisation mission...
Gliese 581 has problems. For example, Gliese 581 d could be a world ocean, and Gliese 581 g probably doesn't exist.
But at least the planets there are real, for whatever little it is worth.
You can always fly around my (mostly) realistic Gliese 581 system, if you wish. :thumbup:
Last edited:
fsci123
Future Dubstar and Rocketkid
Well i see no problems with water worlds...
Pluss there could be a small planet that swings between c-d...(But unlike most scifi writers I dont make up planets) As with G it could exist and I'm pretty confident it does...
T.Neo your gliese addon is realistic but I think improving and using mine will add to originality...
Pluss there could be a small planet that swings between c-d...(But unlike most scifi writers I dont make up planets) As with G it could exist and I'm pretty confident it does...
T.Neo your gliese addon is realistic but I think improving and using mine will add to originality...
The problem with ocean planets is that, well, they're entirely ocean. No land, and no metals or minerals to use for resources. In addition, even if Gliese 581 d does have life, it could probably still have an anoxic atmosphere, unbreathable by humans.
It's nice to hear that you're confident that Gliese 581 g exists. Scientists, however, are not. It's probable that planets g and f don't exist. I know; it is horrible disappointment.
It's nice to hear that you're confident that Gliese 581 g exists. Scientists, however, are not. It's probable that planets g and f don't exist. I know; it is horrible disappointment.
fsci123
Future Dubstar and Rocketkid
Well there are multiple theories:
1) Gliese 581d is an ocean planet with a thick hydrogen helium atmosphere... The ocean itself is mildly acidic and contains various minerals and salts...
2) Gliese 581 d has land mass but gravity is to high to walk on as a human will have a heart attack on the surface...
3) Gliese 581 d is an ice covered cannonball with a medium sized atmosphere... It has no magnetic field...
4) Gliese 581 d is an ice covered water world with a small atmosphere comparable to mars...
In all cases it is tidaly locked or has rotational resonance similar to mercury...
Last edited:
fsci123
Future Dubstar and Rocketkid
My sub-educated mind...
Eagle1Division
New member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2011
- Messages
- 115
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Based on what data?
How did you come to those conclusions? If you don't mention any work or thought leading up to it, it gives the appearance that it's entirely made up. Mention how you arrived at each case; Show your work. It's very important.
On a planet with liquid water, or any planet warm enough, in that temperature range, you won't find raw hydrogen. Hydrogen has a tendency to bond with things, so it would all be locked up in different compounds, such as water, minerals, or the atmosphere (C02, like mars has).
Mars for instance is rich in peroxides on the surface and C02 in the air for this reason, IIRC.
Not to mention hydrogen is the lightest element (remember how blimps float?), and so it sticks to the extreme upper layer of an atmosphere, which means it blows off into space first, from solar radiation. It's also very light, which makes it an even easier target to get blown away by solar radiation.
Even a water world has land mass, albiet thousands or hundreds of thousands of feet underwater. And I didn't know high gravity caused heart attacks...
---------- Post added at 09:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:51 PM ----------
It's not just meaningless speculation. There's been quiet a lot of work put into it, and it's not a crazy concept. From the amount of work and attention it's gained, and the fact I've never heard this sort of criticism from inside the scientific community, I get the notion that it's a respectable idea.
There's a good reason we can't list exact designs,
1) There's many variables which can have many values that results in millions of different setups. It's a chaotic system. We know how DNA works, so if other chemical compounds can replicate working DNA, nature has shown us there's thousands of ways to do other things, so doubtless, whether as energy efficient or not, there are ways to do things (such as controlling cell permeability) using different compounds as long as the meet certain requirements. Not to mention engineering the structure of alien DNA on top of all that.
2) Actually, we can. I've already mentioned this but I get a feeling it was "TL
R"'ed. It's important: Titan's lack of hydrogen in the lower atmosphere grabbed a lot of attention because the model for Methane-based life breathed hydrogen. The model for Methane-based life. So the models do exist, I just personally don't know them. (Though I would be interested, and perhaps over my head, to discover and read them.)And finally, you need the exact design specs if you're going to build something like a "super axion hypergravity reactionless drive". If you're discovering something, however, and you try to draw exact design specs, you'll oft be disappointed. Nature is mostly predictable at a much lesser degree.
And, once again, you need only know it's hypothetically possible and likely to exist it's likely to be discovered.
When it comes to building something, you need exact blueprints and specs.
But we don't have exact blueprints and specs for alien life, do we? Yet we still expect to discover it, because it's hypothetically possible and likely to exist. The exact same applies for alternate biochemistires.
And that's correct, at least the first part is. And the last part. But the energy a chemical reaction yields is vital for if it's potent enough to create life. And the rate at which changes occur is also vital, but this also varies with different reactions. Iron rusts, hydrogen reacts with oxygen, and N204 reacts with Monomethylhydrazine (MMH) at much different rates, all at the same temperature (albeit they produce different temperatures.). Also to be taken into account is pressure and density of the medium, which also effects the rates of changes.
It might be colder, but it could happen slower, as fast, or even faster than water-based chemistry depending on the specific chemical reactions that take place.
You could demand to know the specific chemical reactions, but listing every possible chemical reaction under a wide range of conditions is difficult enough, but then creating a variety of models to utilize them for life is impractical to the nth degree.
It would also imply that it's impossible for us to discover anything new, by stating that we won't find it because we can't figure out how it'd work.
Plants live on a slower timescale because they aren't able to move faster from autotrophic feeding based off of sunlight alone. Carnivorous plants have rapid movement, but they're also heterotrophs, and don't live off of photosynthesis alone.
As for sponges and slow animals, they feed at an extremely reduced rate, which means the same reactions occur at a much slower pace. I think this would be a good example of how variable life can be based off of specific reactions, which is an argument for fast-moving non-terran biochemistires.
Lol, I like the end. Maybe some folks off-world didn't hear the story right, and it's been glamorized and exagerrated by the futuristic equivalent of "Hollywood". Just think of how much most people are mis-informed on things like spaceflight, and imagine how easily most people from off-world could be mis-informed on how the landstars are, especially if they look alien and frightening.
Just imagine... Some easily frightened person from off-world has a mental image of terrible, unstoppable, invincible but painfully slow monsters, and a local says: "Ugh, they've entered the perimeter again." and walks out to pry the 16-foot wide nightmarish landstar covered with squid-like suckers off the fence with a crowbar, grunting and cursing with frustration while he does it :lol: .
Anyways, there's a good reason there's a big division here, and that's that photsynthesis doesn't create the same amount of living energy budget as consumers get. Essentially, plants make energy from sunlight, store it up over months and years, then we hetrotrophs come along and use up all that energy in just a day or less.
And finally, I think I'll highlight a specific point I like: To say we have to understand it before it's discovered would imply that it's impossible for us to discover anything new, by stating that we won't find it because we can't figure out how it'd work.
When it comes to something as diverse as life, and the entire field of chemistry and biology combined, I am more than hesitant to say we won't discover anything new, and saying we won't discover it because we can't figure out how it'd work is exactly that.
fsci123
Future Dubstar and Rocketkid
Well i have no equations i just know in the back of my mind that exoplanets may look like this...
Look at jupiter and saturn and neptune and uranus... The last two being closest to being a water world have a hydrogen-helium atmosphere with ammonia clouds... What would hydrogen, helium, and CO2 combine to form... You can leave helium out because you know... CO2 will combine to form water and formaldehyde but formaldehyde is less stable than CO2 and H2O so it is unlikely...
Someone recently died in Disneyland when the roller-coaster hit 2Gs... So its just an assumption...
Look at jupiter and saturn and neptune and uranus... The last two being closest to being a water world have a hydrogen-helium atmosphere with ammonia clouds... What would hydrogen, helium, and CO2 combine to form... You can leave helium out because you know... CO2 will combine to form water and formaldehyde but formaldehyde is less stable than CO2 and H2O so it is unlikely...
Someone recently died in Disneyland when the roller-coaster hit 2Gs... So its just an assumption...
I think there are several options for Gliese 581 d;
1. Gliese 581 d is more dense than Earth (predominantly iron) and has high gravity.
2. Gliese 581 d is roughly the density of Earth (similar iron-silicate ratio or smaller iron-silicate ratio made up for by gravitational compression.
3. Gliese 581 d is less dense than Earth (predominantly silicates)- between Mars and Earth in terms of density.
4. Gliese 581 d has a density similar to that of the outer Jovian moons (mostly water) and is a world-ocean.
5. Gliese 581 d is more massive than the minimal mass limit (radial velocity sucks as a method of planet detection) and somewhat resembles Neptune.
I think that depends on what the chemical environment is. If there's free oxygen in the atmosphere (from, for example, oxygen-releasing autotrophs), then hydrogen will go pretty quickly... then again, I guess at some point it depends on where the hydrogen would go to.
I think that depends on whether the planet can retain hydrogen; it depends on mass and temperature.
I'm not sure if hydrogen would accumulate at the top of the atmosphere; I've heard that the very highest parts of Earth's atmosphere contain helium, I haven't read anything about hydrogen mixing in with other gases lower in the atmosphere.
It depends on how high the gravity is; gravity depends on density and mass, and can be worked out fairly easily. Problem is, we don't know what the density is...
Higher gravity might strain the heart, but we may be able to counteract something like that with a G-suit.
EDIT:
On speculation about hypothetical biochemistries:
Eagle1Division, I've looked at alternate biochemistries as well. And the trend I keep saying is people saying "Ooh, this sort of chemical environment could exist here, this solvent or this chemical or whatever could do X, X and X". And then other people come along and point out "But this chemical environment has Y problems, and this solvent or whatever has A, B and C disadvantages".
I'm not asking for an end-all design for an alternate biochemistry. I'm asking for a single design. Any design. Any vague description of how such a biochemistry could work, along with in-depth simulations or studies. I haven't seen that anywhere yet. It's all just stuff like "ooh, but this could happen with this and this, you could have a halogen-based world, or a planet at 200 degrees C", or whatever. There's no actual detailing behind how these organisms could work.
And if you look at the alternative, you'll see that it's essential to come up with models for how such life could work, because if we don't, we're basically just assuming stuff. I'm not saying that "X theoretical biochemistry" would predominate on a planet like Titan, or even whether it would exist at all, but if we don't run studies, an actual study that deals with the actual chemicals interacting in the actual environment, we can't assume that something of the vague flavour would work, or how it would work.
I'm not even saying that alternate biochemistries are impossible. I am saying that they likely face several challenges and problems in the face of becoming complex or advanced life. From what we know about chemistry- it is about chemistry, that there are several reasons why some of the "alternate" biochemistries described would face disadvantages.
On life-speed at cryogenic temperatures:
What I was trying to say is that at lower temperatures, molecules move at reduced velocities. I am not talking about the energy that reactions yield at all. I'm not talking about rust, or rocket engines. I'm talking about how fast stuff can interact at the micro and nano-scale. DNA replication, for example, or its equivalent. The rate at which that sort of stuff happens dictates a whole lot of other things.
On movement of plants and animals:
Plants don't move fast because they don't need to. Yes, heterotrophs move faster because they survive on energy that has already been concentrated. But they also have to go out and get that energy; they don't sit around in the sun all day effectively getting it for free.
You
There could be various reasons why life could evolve in such a way. It could have to do with senses. Or movement organs. Or nervous system evolution. Or extinction rates. Or just plain luck. Just because you're a heterotroph doesn't mean you have to move at speed X or speed Y. Heck, on an alien planet one need not assume that something like a heterotroph or an autotroph would even be that distinct. On Earth they're quite distinct on land, but somewhat less so in the water- there it's common to find organisms in symbiotic relationships. And lichens, after all, are symbiotic organisms-
Saying that something can't exist without problems on even a small amount of evidence is one thing, saying something can exist and act in a certain way without adequately illustrating possibilities is another.
1. Gliese 581 d is more dense than Earth (predominantly iron) and has high gravity.
2. Gliese 581 d is roughly the density of Earth (similar iron-silicate ratio or smaller iron-silicate ratio made up for by gravitational compression.
3. Gliese 581 d is less dense than Earth (predominantly silicates)- between Mars and Earth in terms of density.
4. Gliese 581 d has a density similar to that of the outer Jovian moons (mostly water) and is a world-ocean.
5. Gliese 581 d is more massive than the minimal mass limit (radial velocity sucks as a method of planet detection) and somewhat resembles Neptune.
I think that depends on what the chemical environment is. If there's free oxygen in the atmosphere (from, for example, oxygen-releasing autotrophs), then hydrogen will go pretty quickly... then again, I guess at some point it depends on where the hydrogen would go to.
I think that depends on whether the planet can retain hydrogen; it depends on mass and temperature.
I'm not sure if hydrogen would accumulate at the top of the atmosphere; I've heard that the very highest parts of Earth's atmosphere contain helium, I haven't read anything about hydrogen mixing in with other gases lower in the atmosphere.
It depends on how high the gravity is; gravity depends on density and mass, and can be worked out fairly easily. Problem is, we don't know what the density is...
Higher gravity might strain the heart, but we may be able to counteract something like that with a G-suit.
EDIT:
On speculation about hypothetical biochemistries:
Eagle1Division, I've looked at alternate biochemistries as well. And the trend I keep saying is people saying "Ooh, this sort of chemical environment could exist here, this solvent or this chemical or whatever could do X, X and X". And then other people come along and point out "But this chemical environment has Y problems, and this solvent or whatever has A, B and C disadvantages".
I'm not asking for an end-all design for an alternate biochemistry. I'm asking for a single design. Any design. Any vague description of how such a biochemistry could work, along with in-depth simulations or studies. I haven't seen that anywhere yet. It's all just stuff like "ooh, but this could happen with this and this, you could have a halogen-based world, or a planet at 200 degrees C", or whatever. There's no actual detailing behind how these organisms could work.
And if you look at the alternative, you'll see that it's essential to come up with models for how such life could work, because if we don't, we're basically just assuming stuff. I'm not saying that "X theoretical biochemistry" would predominate on a planet like Titan, or even whether it would exist at all, but if we don't run studies, an actual study that deals with the actual chemicals interacting in the actual environment, we can't assume that something of the vague flavour would work, or how it would work.
I'm not even saying that alternate biochemistries are impossible. I am saying that they likely face several challenges and problems in the face of becoming complex or advanced life. From what we know about chemistry- it is about chemistry, that there are several reasons why some of the "alternate" biochemistries described would face disadvantages.
On life-speed at cryogenic temperatures:
What I was trying to say is that at lower temperatures, molecules move at reduced velocities. I am not talking about the energy that reactions yield at all. I'm not talking about rust, or rocket engines. I'm talking about how fast stuff can interact at the micro and nano-scale. DNA replication, for example, or its equivalent. The rate at which that sort of stuff happens dictates a whole lot of other things.
On movement of plants and animals:
Plants don't move fast because they don't need to. Yes, heterotrophs move faster because they survive on energy that has already been concentrated. But they also have to go out and get that energy; they don't sit around in the sun all day effectively getting it for free.
You
Saying that something can't exist without problems on even a small amount of evidence is one thing, saying something can exist and act in a certain way without adequately illustrating possibilities is another.
Last edited:
fsci123
Future Dubstar and Rocketkid
Whats so funny...
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky