Skye Posted June 15, 2003 Posted June 15, 2003 Anything is possible until limits are givin. One can't give limits till one knows all. Only the omniscient can tell what is possible and which is not. Yes, and those limits are the bounds of science. There may be some way for metals to produce life but within the limits of science, it's inconceivable.
JaKiri Posted June 16, 2003 Posted June 16, 2003 Originally posted by greg1917 Every few years a new element is discovered in the lofty heights of the upper f block. These however are all super dense highly unstable only-exist-for-less-than-a-second metals which rarely have a practical use other than research. in any case very few of these metals are going to naturally exist anywhere at all due the unlikelihood (spelling???) of said metals being created via fusion in stars. Weeeeeell there is a theorised 'island of stability' about 140ish, but you're right about enough not being produced.
KHinfcube22 Posted June 16, 2003 Posted June 16, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara³ There may well be elements we have not discovered yet. However, if there are they will be high up in the periodic schema which means they will be (i) rare and (ii) not exactly suited to stable organic molecules. You can't say that if we find a new element, that it is going to be rare, just because its the only one we found. You can't base what elements are plentiful, and which are not just by looking a few planets in one little solar system! Thats like looking at only greenland, and saying that Monkeys can't exist because the tempurature is to cold for a species like monkies to live at. Plus, you'll have to look at the atmosphere of a planet that metallic creatures would live in. There has to be thousands of elements, that when combinded to other elements in a diffrent gases enviroment, that when in contact with metals, would produce greater reactions than it would with carbon based life forms.
greg1917 Posted June 16, 2003 Posted June 16, 2003 You can't say that if we find a new element, that it is going to be rare, just because its the only one we found Yes I can. the upper f block metals are exceedingly rare. elements this heavy and above simply do not exist in nature - they undergo decay immediately and cannot be (or are almost never) produced in stars in the first place. Why would the atmosphere make any difference? Hydrogen and helium make up the vast majority of the known universe. Other common elements are oxygen, silicon, iron, nickel etc but in far less quantities than H and He. Actinides are close to non existant, lanthanides slightly more common but still negligible. And the chemistry of metals DOERS NOT CHANGE from planet to planet. Gravity will not make a difference, whether in massive abundance or not present. I dont know what Zarkovian principle you're basing this on but its a non starter. If i were an omnipitent being gazing at the periodic table I would pick carbon as a life starter first because its common in the universe, has a massive array of chemical permutations and has negligible unstable isotopes.
Sayonara Posted June 17, 2003 Posted June 17, 2003 Originally posted by KHinfcube22 You can't say that if we find a new element, that it is going to be rare, just because its the only one we found. You can't base what elements are plentiful, and which are not just by looking a few planets in one little solar system! Thats like looking at only greenland, and saying that Monkeys can't exist because the tempurature is to cold for a species like monkies to live at. Plus, you'll have to look at the atmosphere of a planet that metallic creatures would live in. There has to be thousands of elements, that when combinded to other elements in a diffrent gases enviroment, that when in contact with metals, would produce greater reactions than it would with carbon based life forms. Well. All I can say is that you are now Officially Stupid.
Radical Edward Posted June 17, 2003 Posted June 17, 2003 Originally posted by KHinfcube22 <stuff> the easiest thing to do is just look at the physics of how these substances are formed to get an idea of their abundance, and then look at the reactions that they can be involved in... metals are useless in this sense for all the reasons that have been pointed out over and over again.
KHinfcube22 Posted June 17, 2003 Posted June 17, 2003 Ok, you guys got me. But what about a metal-carbon hybrid? Could a being that is mostly carbon, with a wee-bit of metal in it, enough so it could be classified as a metallic creature, exist?
Skye Posted June 17, 2003 Posted June 17, 2003 Ok, you guys got me. But what about a metal-carbon hybrid? Could a being that is mostly carbon, with a wee-bit of metal in it, enough so it could be classified as a metallic creature, exist? Let's say you have a car. It's mostly red with a little bit of black. Would you say it's a black car?
KHinfcube22 Posted June 17, 2003 Posted June 17, 2003 Originally posted by Skye Let's say you have a car. It's mostly red with a little bit of black. Would you say it's a black car? Yes. But thats not what I ment. A better analogy would be to say, if you have a car that is read through the whol entire inside, with a black exterior. Then would it be a black car?
Radical Edward Posted June 18, 2003 Posted June 18, 2003 probably not, all the metal would probably be bound up in things like haemoglobin. any wires or anything would have to be artificial, and then you are just looking at cyborgs.
Sayonara Posted June 18, 2003 Posted June 18, 2003 Originally posted by KHinfcube22 Ok, you guys got me. But what about a metal-carbon hybrid? Could a being that is mostly carbon, with a wee-bit of metal in it, enough so it could be classified as a metallic creature, exist? You mean like mammals? We're packed with juicy metal. This is turning into a theoretical chemistry thread...
KHinfcube22 Posted June 18, 2003 Posted June 18, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward probably not, all the metal would probably be bound up in things like haemoglobin. any wires or anything would have to be artificial, and then you are just looking at cyborgs. Not all metallic thingshave wires in them. What if we found a metallic element from the complete opposite side of the Universe, (I know that its sounds controversial, but hypothetically saying there IS an opposite side of the Universe,) that HAD the same amount of reactions,(which you should specifie reactions,) as carbon did? The chance of that happening is slim, but it is higher then some thigs that have already happened, right?
Sayonara Posted June 18, 2003 Posted June 18, 2003 What we're trying to explain to you is that we don't need to bother zipping around the universe - we can use this thing called "chemistry" to demonstrate that no such element exists.
JaKiri Posted June 18, 2003 Posted June 18, 2003 Originally posted by KHinfcube22 What if we found a metallic element from the complete opposite side of the Universe, (I know that its sounds controversial, but hypothetically saying there IS an opposite side of the Universe,) that HAD the same amount of reactions,(which you should specifie reactions,) as carbon did? The chance of that happening is slim, but it is higher then some thigs that have already happened, right? Something with the same reactions as copper can't possibly be a metal. Whether something is metallic or not is determined by how it reacts.
KHinfcube22 Posted June 19, 2003 Posted June 19, 2003 Ok then, but can't there be a being in which its skin is metalic? You know, like that sci fi flick where they gave a WereWolf skin made of a metal.:ripped:
greg1917 Posted June 19, 2003 Posted June 19, 2003 Metals are not in the slightest way suited to life as we know it in the form you make out. metal skin would react with bodily fluids and moisture, be heavy, potentially cook the person on a hot day, attract occasional lightning storms and be useless overall. the silver surfer is not a lesson in biology, its an excuse to sell comics.
Radical Edward Posted June 22, 2003 Posted June 22, 2003 Originally posted by greg1917 The silver surfer is not a lesson in biology, its an excuse to sell comics.
KHinfcube22 Posted June 22, 2003 Posted June 22, 2003 Originally posted by greg1917 Metals are not in the slightest way suited to life as we know it in the form you make out. metal skin would react with bodily fluids and moisture, be heavy, potentially cook the person on a hot day, attract occasional lightning storms and be useless overall. the silver surfer is not a lesson in biology, its an excuse to sell comics. The planet in which a metal skinned being would livewould not have hot days, and the being would most likely hide in a lightning storm. So hah!!!!!
greg1917 Posted June 22, 2003 Posted June 22, 2003 Your forgetting that the concept of a metal skinned being is ridiculous to start with and thats no garuntee about his planet being cool.
KHinfcube22 Posted July 2, 2003 Posted July 2, 2003 Ok ok, I have a completly new argument. I just realized we have found every possibilty of a stable atom using electrons, protons, and neutrons. But what if there is a fourth sub atomic paricle, excluding the particles that make up electrons, protrons, and neutrons. There is a possibility that there could be something like that. There could be a whole new charge that we have not found yet.
YT2095 Posted August 29, 2003 Posted August 29, 2003 Well if there`s no such thing as metalic life, how do you explain Terminator 2 ?
NavajoEverclear Posted August 30, 2003 Posted August 30, 2003 Well if you had metal skin, your would also have metal innards and such(so they wouldn't be toastable). And it wouldn't be like solid metal, it be like fibers. But then how would these fibers develop? Actually i think i understand better why metal life wouldn't work, form AP Biology i'm taking, but its still interesting to imagine.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now