So I have been ponderig the possibility of a silicon based lifeform, whether it was a product of Earth or an extraterrestrial being, would it be natural or genetically engineered. If any one has any information please leave your input.
>>17836848
Possibly both. This is more of a question for /sci
A radio-telescope located near Arecibo in Peurto Rico sent out a signal, in the form of an encoded image, that represented certain details about the human body, including the atomic number of elements which comprise our DNA. 27 years later, a response came in the form of a crop circle near Chibolton, over in England. In the crop circle, the authors of the response changed some details, one of which was to substitute the atomic number for silicon instead of carbon.
http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/articles/arecibo.html
http://alienresearch.wikia.com/wiki/Arecibo_Response
>>17836921
Another crop circle was located earlier near Chibolton, in the shape of the image at the bottom of the Arecibo response. The image at the bottom of the Arecibo response replaced the image of the transmitter used to send the original message; we used a radio-transmitter to send the message, they used a crop circle to send the response.
>>17836848
If we believe that alternate universes exist, then you should also believe that might exist.
Like for example: Life forms (humanoids) that rely on CO2 for survival. Inhale CO2, exhale O2, and the plants doing the exact opposite of what earth plants do etc
>>17836929
Plants already uptake a non-zero amount of silicon, which affects their structural and chemical properties. For all intents and purposes, plants are a silicon based life form.
http://cpl.usu.edu/files/publications/factsheet/pub__9975623.pdf
>>17836926
More analysis on the Arecibo message and response, as well as links to other possible non-terrestrial communiques.
http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/anasazi/fringe2014t.html
Nah. There are people who reason that since carbon shares the same period in the periodic table as silicon, maybe on other planets there is silicon based life other planets.
The idea being that elements sharing the same column have similar chemistries. This is a naive view. It's taught in beginning chemistry courses that they share similar properties, and it's true to an extent. But they tend to be fairly basic properties, even superficial.
When you learn more about chemistry you learn that silicon and carbon are just too dissimilar, and silicon is very poorly suited for life. Just one example- the oxidative product of carbon is CO2, a soluble gas. Makes it good for metabolism. You can oxidize carbon products, produce energy, and excrete the waste gas. The carbon then floats around in the atmosphere until its reduced and fixed by a plant using photosyntheis, creating a whole cycle.
The oxidative product of silicon is SiO2, a crystalline solid. It doesn't have the redox potential of carbon so you're not going to get much energy out of it, and you're not able to excrete it or set up a cycle with it.
The big proponent of silicon based life was Carl Sagan. He had good intentions. He wanted to get people to think "Outside the box," and that there might be life in forms we're not expecting. All well and good, but Sagan wasn't a chemist, and he didn't understand many of the reasons that make carbon so suitable for life in the first place.
>>17836963
Well are there any other elements that are better suited for life than silicon and carbon?
>>17836963
Nobody's suggesting that you can substitute carbon with silicon and get identical substances. If that were true, then silicon wouldn't be silicon--it would be carbon.
The reason silicon is a potential candidate for forming life based systems, is because like carbon, it can form up to 4 covolent bonds. Thus, silicon based chains are capable of the same level of complexity, as measured by the number of molecule types it can form. If the baseline requirement for life is the number of complex molecules which can be formed, then silicon is a potential candidate for forming life based systems.
>>17836973
>silicon can form four bonds
Yes, that's what I'm saying. They know it has some superficial things in common with carbon, forming four bonds being an example.
But if it's going to replace carbon it's going to have to perform much of the same chemical reactions that carbon performs. Basic redox cycles, for example, but silicon can't do that for reasons already explained.
If you want another example, being able to form four bonds doesn't mean it can form complex structures. A carbon-carbon bond is strong, but a Si-Si bond is weak. It can't form the complex structures that carbon can. Even simple structures like sugar molecules wouldn't work. The reason carbon works so well is because a sugar molecule remains a sugar molecule until an enzyme comes along and changes it. Silicon based structures would all just fall apart.
>>17836971
Frankly, no.
>>17836990
>Silicon based structures would all just fall apart.
This is incorrect reasoning, and is largely dependent on the conditions of the silicon based life form's habitat. If you take a jelly fish out of the water, it dissolves. If you take a ctenaphore out from the deep sea habitat it evolved to exist at, and put it in an aquarium at sea level, it dissolves, because it evolved to exist at levels of high pressure. Without that high level of pressure it evolved to exist at, it dissolves. You're not making any sense. Your entire method of reasoning is that because Silicon is not exactly Carbon under all circumstances, therefor no life forms ever, in any situation at all can ever use Silicon to form complex moleceules.
>If you want another example, being able to form four bonds doesn't mean it can form complex structures. A carbon-carbon bond is strong, but a Si-Si bond is weak. It can't form the complex structures that carbon can. Even simple structures like sugar molecules wouldn't work.
As I said,
>Nobody's suggesting that you can substitute carbon with silicon and get identical substances. If that were true, then silicon wouldn't be silicon--it would be carbon.
>>17836999
>identical substances
People are talking about replacing all carbon with silicon. That's what they're talking about when they say "silicon-based life" rather than "carbon-based life."
No, you don't have to have the exact same molecules. But you'd still need to solvate, oxidize, and reduce the molecules, and you'd still need to be able to form stable, complex molecules, and silicon is unsuited for doing that, at all temperatures and pressures.
>>17837070
No. You are incorrect.
People are talking about using silicon to form complex molecules. Complexity is the requirement for life forms, not solvents, oxygen, or reduction. Just that there are a relatively large number of molecules that can be made, using a relatively few number of elements. Silicon meets that requirement.
>>17837080
>complexity is the requirement for life
Complexity is A requirement for life. And silicon doesn't form complex molecules. Its bonds aren't stable enough.
>not solvents oxygen or reduction
I didn't say oxygen, I said oxidation. All your doing is confirming you know fuck all about chemistry.
>>17836848
Always hated the way Groening drew female eyes.
>>17837080
No you are
>>17836848
Nasa did an experiment to see if the building blocks of life could be changed. They ended up with an Pittsburgh that was arsenic based supposedly. I'll see if I can find it and post.
>>17836848
>>17836971
>>17838106
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/astrobiology_toxic_chemical.html
Good convo guys, I had a lot of points to make but glad that I saw them all.
>>17836963
>>17836990
>>17837070
>>17837089
Thanks to this anon who knows what they are talking about. Everyone else STFU and GTFO. Please god someone teach this shit in schools so I never have to see this retarded crap again.
>>17836848
it could be natural or synthetic. it probably wont look like a crystal. synthetic silicon caulk used in housing is a good example of what you could be looking at from a chemistry stand point. rubbery
its all chemistry and its about bonds. a planet can be thought of as a chemistry experiment over time. various substances will be present in varying amounts and at different temperatures. different planets will have different amounts of things
on a planet with different elements and maybe a more acidic atmosphere silicon life might be more likely depending on the type of acid vapor.
oxygen may not be used same for carbon potentially. they might survive off of chemical reactions because of a abundance of elements we dont have a lot of that are mixed with a fluid to act as a conduit
>>17837089
>Its bonds aren't stable enough.
Tell me, what is minimum amount of bond strength that is required to form complex molecules. What exactly is that number, or numbers? How are you making this determination? Is it wishful thinking, or do you actually have any research to back this up?
>>17837089
There is no oxidation without oxygen. A lack of oxygen implies a lack of oxidation.
This is the third time I've had to say it, but
>Nobody's suggesting that you can substitute carbon with silicon and get identical substances. If that were true, then silicon wouldn't be silicon--it would be carbon.
Oxidation is largely responsible for the synthesis process of complex hydrocarbons. There is no reason to believe that a silicon based life form would require oxygen for similar processes of synthesis. Or fuck, Idunno. Maybe quartz is in a gaseous state where they live. Nobody is suggesting that silicon based life forms would be found in a Goldilocks zone.
>>17838359
wrong, you dont need oxygen to oxidize.
Fluorine, Chlorine, Bromine, and Iodine (amongst others) can oxidize.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redox
>>17836921
>>17836926
Why the fuck would an extra terrestrial race that traveled to earth for the soul purpose to respond to this message leave a very vague message in a field of crops? wouldn't any form of easily accessed technology dropped off or prehaps a written pictograph of some kind be better? it makes no fucking scene to try and communicate through crop circles- a method of communication that is at best temporary and fleeting and hard to interpenetrate, and at worse easily faked and easily destroyed.
This is why i never though crop circles were anything other than complete tin foil hat bullshit. Someone explain the reasoning plz.
AFAIK there is a silicon based lifeform on the bottom of the ocean floor, near the vents that secrete hot gases. Or maybe I imagined this. Either way, I think it could happen. It would certainly be very undeveloped of a being but image that - non carbon lifeforms.
>>17836848
Judging by how much of a bonafide turboslut carbon is, it is most likely they are also carbon based.
>>17839808
>oxidation
Dude didn't say oxidation. He said "oxidize" which specifically refers to oxygen.
>>17837070
>oxidize
>>17836888
this isnt a question for sci, because there is no comparative basis in nature
>>17840375
Assuming that chemistry works the same way in other planets it is, people with some scientific knowledge would base their opinions on it instead of just rambling pointlessly
>>17836848
There's a little black snail that uses iron for its shell and pod instead of calcium. Pretty cool.
>>17836888
Nice trips
>>17836963
>Trust me, i've met heaps of aliens, i know exactly what they're made of.
>>17838155
>talking about aliums
>teach this shit in schools!
>>17836926
You know these are done by scientists as a troll right?
>>17839824
This.
>>17839824
>Why the fuck would an extra terrestrial race that traveled to earth for the soul purpose to respond to this message leave a very vague message in a field of crops?
There is nothing vague about their response. Their response has exactly as much detail as the original message. Absolutely nothing is left to the imagination in the response. The response answers every question that was asked, in totality. If the response weren't detailed enough for your preference, you can go talk to SETI about sending out more detailed questions next time.
>wouldn't any form of easily accessed technology dropped off or prehaps a written pictograph of some kind be better?
The human race, as a whole, isn't responsible enough to handle more technology. We'll talk again on this when nuclear radiation from Fukushima quits damaging the lives of other non-human species on this planet. The pictograph was written in the crop fields, nearby.
> it makes no fucking scene to try and communicate through crop circles- a method of communication that is at best temporary and fleeting and hard to interpenetrate, and at worse easily faked and easily destroyed.
There is no FTL communication without at least partial time travel. Any message that is sent FTL must be fleeting, so that the light from sender's past does not interfere with the message. If a permanent message was sent FTL, then it would cause a temporal causality loop, preventing the message from being sent in the first place.
If you need any help interpreting the Arecibo response, please let me know and I will do my best to assist you.
>>17840847
There is nothing vague about thier response
You have to be on the spectrum.
>>17840912
Do you have specific questions, or are you one of those people who when asked what they didn't understand in school replied with "lol everything?"
>>17840956
>One of those people who when asked what they didn't understand in school replied with "lol everything?"
Is this what it feels like to be triggered? I'm pretty sure those count as fighting words.
>>17841059
>>17841088
Truly they must be alien not to understand the pain of having to deal with that one guy in every class.
>>17840847
Is there a link to the actual response?
>>17840847
original skeptical post that you replied to here-
alright. read the article. message isn't vague at all you are right. It is uncannily similar though.
Not being responsible for handling more technology isn't a good answer for not using something similar to what we already have- an entertainment device with a screen to show exactly what they need to show or maybe have that binary code on the actual device (think smartphone or small computer). It doesn't need to be a fucking alien mother ship supercomputer you silly shit- so thats a terrible argument and your view on humanity isn't theirs stop projecting.
Also concerning FTL communication assuming they RECEIVED the message why wouldn't they send a response the SAME WAY instead of once again using crop circles (which you have to admit are very easily faked as their has been faked ones in the past by the very people trying to convince the world extraterrestrial life existed and also by those who owned the farm and wanted the free publicity.)
About the temporal time loop that is assuming that time travel is possible, that they HAVE the technology to do so, or if it is even an valid way of travailing- you and i certainly don't know.
Unfortunately your responses just in the end assume you are right without actually knowing- it has about as much proof as any religious beliefs- and uses circular logic to validate them.
Sorry not convinced and not trying to be an ass but that's my honest take on the issue.
Yo
Yo mean
Those tits are alive?!
>>17838155
This post triggers the educated man.
