Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers

Buy Site Supporter Role (remove some ads) | LPF Donations

Links below open in new window

FrozenGate by Avery

Space Discussion Thread

paul1598419 said:
I need to get finished with my projects before starting a long discussion about anything else, but I'm game. :thanks:
Click to expand...

Allright. Take your time... :)

If anyone else is interested in the Game more in depth, PM me your questions... But do not expect answers making sense on first look in relation to certain topics. ;)
 





I think that evidence of our civilization could last for tens of millions, maybe even a hundred million years even if every human died today.

Of the possible disasters that could destroy us, nuclear war, asteroid/comet impact, nearby gamma ray burst/supernova, supervolcanic eruption, or extreme climate change; most of the fatalities would probably be from secondary effects, famine, disease, ruined atmosphere, toxic fallout, that would follow the initial disaster. This would leave enough at least physically intact that it could be discovered many millennia after the fact.

Eventually the surface of the planet is completely refreshed due to plate tectonics, but this would take a couple hundred million years and I'd image there could be some fossilized evidence of us or our structures buried deep underground up until that point. I'd imagine after just a few hundred thousand years there wouldn't be much evidence of a technological civilization visible if you just flew over the planet though, it would require some real digging and prospecting to find the remains.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
diachi said:
"We found water where we haven't found it before", or something equally dull is my guess.
Click to expand...

Haha, yeah, will probably be very anticlimactic. Some boring rock that looks like it has had water flow over it more recently than we previously thought or something. :D
 
Last edited:
Russia launched a Soyuz to the ISS yesterday, it's really something how these rocket launch videos have so few views compared to the new music video, whatever it is.


Note: The Soyuz MS-01 spacecraft is the first of a new series of Soyuz which has more modern computers weighing far less and taking up less physical space, as well as upgrades to it's solar arrays and docking system engines.

 
Last edited:
I have to say, that was more interesting than I thought it might be.



https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-finds-ancient-organic-material-mysterious-methane-on-mars

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nasa-m...c-matter-building-blocks-possible-life-today/



RedCowboy said:
...it's really something how these rocket launch videos have so few views compared to the new music video, whatever it is....
Click to expand...


Agreed that is one thing that I find so disappointing about this generation, many people are more interested in what some stupid celebrity did the other night while drunk than what is beneath the ice on Europa. Hoping some big space discoveries can maybe get the interest back again.
 
Last edited:
I saw a headline stating they found more evidence of life on Mars. Sounded like hyperbole to me. Didn't chase down the article and read it.

Finding methane and other nondescript organic molecules have been found in spectroscopic analysis of cloud masses in other galaxies and nebulae. Speculating about life causing these is just that. Rank speculation. I will be far more interested if/when they find some real evidence of life existing on Mars at some time in the past.
 
Last edited:
paul1598419 said:
I saw a headline stating they found more evidence of life on Mars. Sounded like hyperbole to me. Didn't chase down the article and read it.

Finding methane and other nondescript organic molecules have been found in spectroscopic analysis of cloud masses in other galaxies and nebulae. Speculating about life causing these is just that. Rank speculation. I will be far more interested if/when they find some real evidence of life existing on Mars at some time in the past.
Click to expand...

Yeah, people hear "organic" and immediately assume that means life. But really, any carbon containing molecule would fall under the "organic" category., even something as dull as methane.
 
Last edited:
Except for CO and CO2. Don't know why those aren't grouped with organic molecules, but when I took O Chem in college it was made clear that they are not. Carbon links with so many different atoms in so many different ways that organic molecules make up the greatest number of molecules around. Certainly don't need life to exist.
 
paul1598419 said:
Except for CO and CO2. Don't know why those aren't grouped with organic molecules, but when I took O Chem in college it was made clear that they are not. Carbon links with so many different atoms in so many different ways that organic molecules make up the greatest number of molecules around. Certainly don't need life to exist.
Click to expand...


Generally speaking a compound is only considered organic when it contains both carbon and hydrogen, thus CO and CO2 aren't typically referred to as organic (same goes for any carbon compound that doesn't have any C-H bonds). Of course, an organic molecule can have other elements present, but they must contain a C-H bond too.

The presence of complex organic molecules is a good indicator of life, but it's far from definitive.
 
Last edited:
diachi said:
Generally speaking a compound is only considered organic when it contains both carbon and hydrogen, thus CO and CO2 aren't typically referred to as organic (same goes for any carbon compound that doesn't have any C-H bonds). Of course, an organic molecule can have other elements present, but they must contain a C-H bond too.
Click to expand...

I'm not a chemist, so take this with a grain of salt, but AFAIK the definition of "organic" is somewhat arbitrary and varies depending on context. For example, liquid PFCs are usually classified as "organic" even though they don't contain any hydrogen. Even stuff like Teflon is sometimes considered to be an "organic" polymer.
 
Last edited:
I am a chemist, and the distinction is not universally agreed upon: in science it matters mostly when you use something for and what kind of reactions you do to quality something as organic, inorganic, neither or both.

Things like CO2 are sometimes the product of biological processes, but also ones of totally anorganic ones like smelting metal out of ore.

Hopefully future mars missions drilling deeper can find what's actually been going on on that planet. If you find much more complex compounds that'd be a good indicator that mars had life at some point.

Something like the precense of CO2, methane and some simple sulfur compounds is by no means proof of life, though it could prove that Mars was able to be habitable to at least some basic life forms at some point.
 
H2Oxide said:
I'm not a chemist, so take this with a grain of salt, but AFAIK the definition of "organic" is somewhat arbitrary and varies depending on context. For example, liquid PFCs are usually classified as "organic" even though they don't contain any hydrogen. Even stuff like Teflon is sometimes considered to be an "organic" polymer.
Click to expand...

I had thought so as well. I didn't major in chemistry, but I minored in it and there are many organic polymers that don't contain hydrogen. There are also many that do. I found the chemistry of plastics to be rather boring, but had to learn it all the same. These days I have to go and look at a chemistry text book to find the answer to a question. It is true what they say.....if you don't use it, you lose it.
 
paul1598419 said:
I had thought so as well. I didn't major in chemistry, but I minored in it and there are many organic polymers that don't contain hydrogen. There are also many that do. I found the chemistry of plastics to be rather boring, but had to learn it all the same. These days I have to go and look at a chemistry text book to find the answer to a question. It is true what they say.....if you don't use it, you lose it.
Click to expand...

H2Oxide said:
I'm not a chemist, so take this with a grain of salt, but AFAIK the definition of "organic" is somewhat arbitrary and varies depending on context. For example, liquid PFCs are usually classified as "organic" even though they don't contain any hydrogen. Even stuff like Teflon is sometimes considered to be an "organic" polymer.
Click to expand...

Benm said:
I am a chemist, and the distinction is not universally agreed upon: in science it matters mostly when you use something for and what kind of reactions you do to quality something as organic, inorganic, neither or both.

Things like CO2 are sometimes the product of biological processes, but also ones of totally anorganic ones like smelting metal out of ore.

Hopefully future mars missions drilling deeper can find what's actually been going on on that planet. If you find much more complex compounds that'd be a good indicator that mars had life at some point.

Something like the precense of CO2, methane and some simple sulfur compounds is by no means proof of life, though it could prove that Mars was able to be habitable to at least some basic life forms at some point.
Click to expand...


The most common definition of an organic compound is one which contains carbon bonded to hydrogen. But yes, it's not set in stone so the usage may differ. It depends on how you want to define it I guess. I hear "organic compound" and I usually jump to the definition I used earlier, molecules containing C-H bonds. In most cases that I've seen that's usually what's being referred to.

For the purpose of answering Paul's question about CO/CO2, the definition I used fits.

As described in detail below, any definition of organic compound that uses simple, broadly applicable criteria turns out to be unsatisfactory, to varying degrees. The modern, commonly accepted definition of organic compound essentially amounts to any carbon containing compound, excluding several classes of substances traditionally considered as 'inorganic'. However, the list of substances so excluded varies from author to author. Still, it is generally agreed upon that there are (at least) a few carbon containing compounds that should not be considered organic. For instance, almost all authorities would require the exclusion of alloys that contain carbon, including steel (which contains cementite, Fe3C), as well as other metal and semimetal carbides (including "ionic" carbides, e.g, Al4C3 and CaC2 and "covalent" carbides, e.g. B4C and SiC, and graphite intercalation compounds, e.g. KC8). Other compounds and materials that are considered 'inorganic' by most authorities include: metal carbonates, simple oxides (CO, CO2, and arguably, C3O2), the allotropes of carbon, cyanides excluding those containing an organic residue (e.g., KCN, (CN)2, BrCN, CNO−, etc.), and heavier analogs thereof (e.g., CP− 'cyaphide anion', CSe, COS; although CS2 'carbon disulfide' is often classed as an organic solvent). Halides of carbon without hydrogen (e.g., CF4 and CClF3), phosgene (COCl2), carboranes, metal carbonyls (e.g., nickel carbonyl), mellitic anhydride (C12O9), and other exotic oxocarbons are also considered inorganic by some authorities.

A slightly broader definition of organic compound includes all compounds bearing C-H or C-C bonds. This would still exclude urea. Moreover, this definition still leads to somewhat arbitrary divisions in sets of carbon-halogen compounds. For example, CF4 and CCl4 would be considered by this rule to be "inorganic", whereas CF3H and CHCl3 would be organic, though these compounds share many physical and chemical properties.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.





Back
Top