Moontanman

This assertion about ammonia ignores the problems with a planetary body with significant amounts of ammonia. First of all, how do you stop ammonia from mixing with water? The two chemicals have a major affinity for each other, each dissolves into the other and they nearly always occur together. That doesn't necessarily mean that mixture of ammonia and water couldn't support life but while planetary chemical and geophysical processes favor the persistence of water they do not favor the persistence of ammonia which can be used as fuel by life forms as well as being destroyed by planetary chemical processes. The conditions that would favor the presence of ammonia in or on a planet are unknown at this time but do not appear to be part of a rocky planet's possible chemical persistence.

Fluorine is going to make up for a lack of carbon? Where are you going to find the fluorine? There is 4800 times as much carbon in the universe as fluorine. It might be possible for life forms to metabolize free fluorine, carbon compounds like paraffin are stable with hydrogen fluoride which can be seen as a solvent gas but the rarity of fluorine and it's reactivity pretty much insure that free fluorine would not persist in an environment. Then you have the problems of just how much fluorine there would have to be on a planet for free fluorine and fluorine compounds to exist. On the Earth we have oxygen, the entire earth is dominated by oxidized chemicals, rocks, and minerals. Free oxygen couldn't exist in any significant amounts without everything on the Earth being saturated by oxygen. The same would have to happen for any planet dominated by fluorine but the key is that oxygen is more abundant than fluorine, 8800 times as abundant as fluorine to be exact. Fluorine is simply too rare and reactive as an element to have fluorine play a role similar to oxygen or in combination with carbon to replace any of the major players in life as we know it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_and_occurrence_of_fluorine

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/you-asked/does-wearing-bra-make-your-breasts-sag

I've read the Bible several times, while I don't memorize it I do recall passages where the rape of girls who haven't "known" a man is allowed as spoils of war.

IC, a bit of a sensational title for an actual discussion, poisoning the well I think. While I think Trump, IMHO, is accurately described as a rapist it is my opinion his "Bible sales" is nothing but a another grift and I find it odd that Christians in general don't find it tantamount to a slap in the face but rapist Bible?

Did the OP make the claim of "rapist Bible"?

"The rapist Bible"? Where and who claimed this?

Needs cream cheese!

Groan!

Dad jokes... eeewww!

Whoa! Talk about passive aggressive!

I doubt that plants we grow for food would grow well enough under 0.1% Earth sunlight to feed us but nuclear power could be used for supplemental lighting.

So basically the World is turning Fascist and the only way it can be stopped is if everyone gets off their asses and do something about it... We're Fucked!

So we are all just waiting to see if the word turns fascist in few months?

An interesting tidbit here is that Sunlight on Earth is much more intense that we need to see but that the human eye is a very poor judge of light intensity. An interesting experiment is to look at a 40 watt fluorescent light bulb inside and outside in the sun. Indoors the 40 watt bulb will be almost too bright to directly look at comfortably but outdoors the 40 watt bulb will all but vanish in the sunlight. Plants need significantly less than full sunlight to grow as well, it depends on the species of plants but Earthy plants (underwater plankton) can grow and reproduce at 1% of Earth's surface light intensity. From my own hobby of growing coral I've been made aware of how important light intensity is and how bad the human eye is at judging light intensity. many under water ecological niches are defined by light intensity.

Gian, the intensity of sunlight on the Surface of Titan is about 0.1% of what we see on the surface of the Earth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(moon) As for why... You ask a question that has crossed my mind many times, I have read that the reason why Jupiter's giant moons do not have atmospheres has to do with Jupiter being being very hot in it's youth and this prevented the Galilean moons from having atmospheres. I am not really sure if this is accurate or not.

OIC what you are getting at, the dark period vs light period isn't about running photosynthesis in the dark. The length of the night controls hormonal output that controls the growth of the plant and it's seasonal growing, flowering and fruiting. My idea that is if the dark length controls these factors, ( I am shooting for 24 hours of day and 12 hours of night) slowly decreasing the length of night should trigger the growth cycle independent of the day length. At least that is my speculation.

I'm not sure what you mean by dark reactions.

What would be your point?

I have to admit that is a good one!

I don't know about you guys but to me this is one of the most interesting threads we've had in a while!

Evidently I have not been keeping up with current tech in this area, I tried to do this about 30 years ago but the timer thing was insurmountable on my budget.

Thank you, I think your suggestion might be out of my particular wheelhouse but If I can't figure out a way to turn lights off and on on a 36 hour schedule of 12 hours of dark and 24 hours of light over the course of months this maybe my only recourse.

🦇 bat... 💩 shit... 🤪 crazy!