Aanker

If these physical laws are all incorrect, the biggest head scratcher will be why inventions and technology based on predictions made by those same laws work.

... Yeah but what's the point of diminishing either perspective? Looking at DNA as a molecule is useful in many specialized fields (especially when trying to detect DNA) but for other purposes it is more convenient to regard it as a code (especially when planning transfections, for instance).

Maybe sentience is just the sum of its parts, e.g. with the ability to perceive and feel, process this incoming data and analyze the consequences of actions based on it, arises automatically the sense of self-awareness 'in time and space' that humans seem to possess. We become aware of analyzing our environment, instead of acting automatically. We can't be sure that sentience is a neatly defined quality. Maybe it is entirely illusory. Inevitably, a computer that matches the exact networking of the human brain but with different materials and parts should possess sentience (and other qualities of the human brain).

That's merely a philosophical consequence of the scientific method. Yes, in a scientific article exploring the possibility of energy-based life, the conclusion would be similar to yours in wording (albeit include the words 'extremely unlikely'). But we are in a layman forum, discussing an extremely layman question (heck, the OP formulates the question as 'possible or not?'), so the answers should be adapted to the format. From a practical standpoint, it makes no sense to leave the door open for misinterpretation. 'Energy lifeforms' are essentially impossible. A planet is more likely to be regarded as life in that case. For non-charged particles, this magnetic shield will not serve as a barrier against the environment. A planet does at least have its crust to depend on in that case. But neither fulfill the other restrictions imposed on what passes as life. We're in a computer game forum discussing an easily rejectable proposal. I think we can relax a bit on the philosophical side of things. PS. Once again, OP Q: energy lifeform, possible or not? A: not possible.

Age of Empires, the first one.

I've been experimenting a bit with pixel art: Palette in the upper right corner

The OP's question isn't that good, so providing a sufficient answer is difficult. But no, an 'energy lifeform' (in the glowing orb fantasy creature sense) is impossible. I'm going to assume that the OP is basically imagining something like that. What we typically in common colloquial language refer to as 'energy' (and I know that this may be inaccurate from a strictly scientific viewpoint) is electricity, heat and maybe sound and light. Neither of these can contain themselves but instead disperse freely. Life needs to seal itself off from the chaotic environment it lives in, this so that it can securely and in an organized fashion store energy reserves (n.b. these are molecules, not pure energy), information and maintain structural integrity. That's just the first problem. Life is not really so abstract that we can imagine it as being just about anything (like a floating plasma cloud). Life is, rather, the agent of organized matter and energy management, which in turn is possible thanks to complex chemical and mechanical interactions which do generate energy.

If it works. That's a big if. And if it works as some say it works. The question could otherwise as well read, 'explain the ramifications to our understanding of physics if ghosts existed'.

Just because it's big doesn't mean it looks like Venus. Venus is smaller than Earth and... Looks like Venus! Venus' atmospheric conditions likely have a lot to do with the lack of proper magnetic shielding and the subsequent loss of lighter elements like hydrogen (and thus by extension, water) to the solar wind.

He is right, the oceanic plate dives because it is more dense than the continental.

Defining life is certainly not nonsensical: to begin with, life as we know it is a chemical and mechanical system centered around a few select basic atoms. This 'special chemistry' of carbon, hydrogen, etc warrants a label alone. And from there, we can add other traits that clearly define what we know as life from non-living things.

Not sustained, but sporadic. Basically, as the planets/moons collide and the temperature reaches its maximum, could some of the freed hydrogen theoretically fuse? Merely curious.

Great replies so far! Enough to fuse the hydrogen thus produced?

I've been casually thinking about this for a while. Imagine that we have two Europas, or perhaps something even more extremely water/-ice rich, colliding as part of the formation process of some theoretical solar system. What would, visually, such a collision look like? Would there be a gigantic flash - and if so, from what - or would we just see massive slabs of ice be ripped apart or vaporized and ejected at insane speeds in various directions? In most animations of the early Earth being impacted by a Mars-sized body (the collision that led to the formation of the Moon), large swaths of the planet are portrayed as turning into lava and molten material. I would presume that an icy world could not have such an appearance. Would it turn into a steamy fuzzball instead?

The USGS has a very good summary of the (shall we say) myths about Yellowstone, see http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/yellowstone/faqs_misconceptions.html I guess one way to look at it is that before the caldera itself formed, there was a lot of terrain above the magma to keep the pressure rising until the release was inevitably catastrophic in nature. However, once the eruption had taken place and all this material had been displaced, we were left with a large area covered in faults and fractures where subsequent magma could then erupt relatively peacefully in steam explosions or surface lava flows. Simply put, the formation of the caldera does not facilitate future massive eruptive events. Of course, steam explosions are dangerous in their own right, but mostly to the tourists within the bounds of the natl. park. That said, the Snake River Plain as a whole may experience a future 'supervolcanic' eruption, but the periodicity of these events appears to be in the range of millions of years as the plate moves only slowly. I think Yellowstone is overhyped because it is more easy to imagine a large movie-like explosion in a crater which we obviously can observe. The Cascadia fault is much more obscure as a concept to the uninitiated, and there are very few clear 'fingerprints'... If you take a drive into Yellowstone through the mountains in the east, the first thing that really strikes you is how absolutely flat and spaceous the basin is: the 'next' mountain is all the way over in the distant horizon. That's the sort of stuff we can see and maybe understand.

Indeed. As I wrote in the OP, discussion of aliens/niburu/conspiracies is basically off topic. Other than that, it's an interesting discussion and there are many informative replies.

Paradox detected!

I think, roughly speaking, that we can look at life in three different - increasingly discriminating - ways. 1) At the most basic level, we regard life as a mere continuation or extension of organic chemistry and chemistry in general. Obviously this is of interest in astrobiology when we investigate the possibilities of life based on other elements than carbon. In the attempt to understand the elementary processes that underlie the formation of primitive cells and a genetic code, we need to accept that life somehow transitioned into being from 'non-living' chemistry. 2) life as a phenomenon or system of its own. Organized chemistry in a chaotic environment. Looking at it as a whole system of organisms in an environment (or on a planet), I think we have to include viruses in what we regard as life. Suppose that we ran into Martian 'viruses'. As an organism on their own, they would not be classifiable as life, but they would be part of the greater phenomenon of life on Mars. We would hardly classify them as 'Martian sort of living molecules'. 3) on the level of the individual organism, we can recognize a few traits that typically accompany life. Those have already been listed in this thread, and may be used to assess the 'liveliness' of a studied sample. This was mostly a comment on the whole virus situation, where it may also be prudent to include infectuous proteins as a curiosity or side note.

Sounds a bit like Marfan Syndrome. It's not a great consolation, but we have to try to make the most of our lives regardless of our predicaments. Just based on some superficial experience with working in a hospice, those who seemed to lead the best lives were those who 'seized the day', and sought to find enjoyment from what was available to them. As difficult as it may be, focus on what you and/or your sister can do, and not on the limits of the disability.

So I've seen this mentioned a few times now in the Pluto planet status discussion and it made me remember an article I read on a popular science site a year or so ago about the idea that there may be a large planet (maybe even larger than Earth?) frozen up beyond Pluto's orbit. I'm formulating this thread as a question because A) I'm curious to know how many have heard of this idea, and if they've come across it on other 'look at me and my revolutionary article' pop sci sites I want to know what the actual evidence is C) I'm also interested in what the implications would be - are we talking about an icy wasteland formed in the primordial aeons of the solar system or a captured body? Basically, explain/discuss pls Disclaimer: this is not about 'niburu' or 'planet x' or whatever other alien tinfoil conspiracy theories are out there.

Link suggests false colour?

(X) previous event in modern history (X) relevant recurrence (although we only got an average) and impact (X) good research base (X) modern analogues (X) data Be afraid, be very afraid. It's hidden gems like these that people need to be afraid of, not overhyped 500,000-year cycle 'thupervolcanoeth' like Yellowstone. Although looking at it from a more restrained view, - the next event need not necessarily be the apocalyptic disaster described in the article, nor even a major one. However, the pattern of events at this fault appears to invalidate that idea (?) - as an individual, you're likely to be off worse worrying about this for 80 years and then nothing happens until decades after your death, than maybe just asking for more earthquake protection and hoping for the best

Although I am all for investigating suggestions such as these, it seems to me that it must be much simpler and less expensive to just further develop chemical rockets and enhance their safety, performance and reliability.

Ok, good answers so far, but my problem with trajectories is not so much timing (I use Kerbal Alarm Clock's transfer windows, which I assume are accurate enough?) as it is using the maneuvre node tools to get me onto a good encounter. If I am to use a reverse gravity assist off of Tylo, for instance, how do i set up my approach on the Jool system? Aim for Tylo? That sounds really good, but one goal of the 'Project Laythe' spaceplane is for it to function as a shuttle service of sorts, so I would need more opportunities than just the Year 1 specific date, although maybe I missed something in the thread.

Hey there! I'm right now busy building a spaceplane SST-Laythe (Single Stage to Laythe, in case the term is too novel), and while I have managed to get there and take many beautiful pix, I only had roughly 300 m/s of dV left and my approach velocity was close to 6 km/s. Suffice to say, the struggle was too hard on the spaceplane hull, and an explosion ensued. So. For my second attempt, I'd like to at least be able to land on Laythe. My spaceplane has, after insertion into a 100x100 Kerbin orbit, roughly 1800-2000 m/s of dV (I think, if the maneuver node dV is anything to go by). I want to approach Laythe at a survivable velocity. Do I absolutely have to build a new spaceplane with more fuel, or can I a) make a more accurate/efficient Kerbin-Jool transfer which puts me directly on a lower speed encounter with Laythe, use an easy gravity assist to cut my fuel consumption and save some dV for a retro burn or c) a combination thereof? I find it especially difficult to get the encounters accurate enough, perhaps because as part of weight saving measures I've not included RCS/monopropellant. But I don't really have an idea on how to use accurate gravity assists either. Thanks!