sam1123

It is quite funny that on earth, another group of creatures seems to have developed a complex brain (although not as complex as us): the octopus and squid family. It just shows that there is not 1 formula for the perfect intelligent being.

Also thank you for editing my reply, I have a habit of typing it in the wrong place when I reply too quickly

I think that hybridizing technologies from different technological species would have far reaching effects and would probably be the single most obvious advantage to contact.

 

Technologies millions of years ahead of us might be indistinguishable by us from magic. I think there is something called the law of mediocrity that says we are likely about average in age as a civilization but I can't see how that could be asserted with only one data point.

 

The idea of a technological intelligence that develops on a world very close to it's star, very high temps, maybe liquid aluminum as a solvent and some sort of bio metallic compounds would be a treasure trove of knowledge if we could exchange ideas IMHO... But really any cross pollinating of technologies would be fruitful...

 

The non vertebrates with internal skeletons on Earth would be echinoderms, if vertebrates hadn't prospered they might have be able to come out on land and compete with arthropods but it is of course complete speculation but assuming that life on another planet would resemble ours in the slightest is speculation as well, I see no reason to assume life on another planet would be anything like life on Earth other than broad strokes ...

Oh I agree, I find it amazing that there may be another species out there that is technologically advanced but it a totally different way to us using different theories, concepts and materials. The possibilities are endless!

 

 

Yes the enormous range of animal types on Earth from cephalopods to arthropods, echinoderms to vertebrates and the sometimes really weird animal types from the Cambrian explosion many of which died out sometimes for reasons that were quite random from asteroid hits to mass lava outflows and super volcanoes there is a real random element to that which survives even if the "tape" of earth were replayed the outcome would almost certainly be wildly different resulting in life forms as alien as any we would expect on another planet...

 

 

 

 

I find that incredible, life as we know it in another circumstance on Earth would be completely different, that just puts into perspective how many possibilities there are for life from other planets and other environments

Also I wonder if aliens are as curious or even knowledgeable about other life in the universe? Maybe there is a race close to light speed travel technology? Do you think they would be peaceful or aggressive? I think if they are sentient like us then they would surely be curious enough to want to establish contact. We often think of our technology being able to go to other planets/solar systems, but what about the possibility of an alien race doing it first? That would be truly amazing

On a planet with higher gravity six or more limbs might be better on large animals. I think the main reason arthropods have been crowded out of the large animal niches has more to do with less effective breathing apparatus than exoskeletons... then you have non vertebrates with internal skeletons, why didn't they conquer the land?

 

 

Carbon based? I'd almost bet the farm carbon is the backbone of all life forms. There are other possibilities of course, Boron chemistry is arguably more complex than Carbon chemistry but Boron is rare, silicon is rarer than carbon but more common on the earth than carbon yet all life we know is carbon based. Gold proposed that silicone type life might exist deep in the earth where temps and pressures radically change the properties of silicones, silicone might form life but it couldn't exist in current surface conditions. Silicon life might be possible in very low temps where silanes would dissolve in hydrocarbons but silanes have not been found in nature to my knowledge.

 

 

As for humanoid, I think an argument could be made for the humanoid body shape being conductive to intellegent life but I doubt you would mistake one of them for human. Humans are the result of billions of years of evolution...

 

 

I think life on other planets is a sure bet but I see no reason to expect it to be anything like earth life, vertebrates as we know them were at one time represented by one tiny fish like animal, if it had become extinct there would be no vertebrates and we would see all the ecological niches occupied by creatures nothing like what we see on earth...

 

 

I am curious why you would think telepathy is even a possibility.

 

 

 

I am sure that if nothing else their computers could talk to ours but they might communicate with color changes or bio luminescence, cuttlefish seem to have complex communication skills based on colors and pattern changes on their skin. If they use sound it could be very high frequency like bats or very low frequency like elephants, so many possibilities...

 

The waves of light and dark flowing over the cuttlefish is not shadows but the actual changing color of the animal which it has conscious control over. All cephalopods have amazing control over color, shape, skin texture and can change colors so fast they look like strobes...

 

Okay so telepathy may be far fetched haha, I'm just trying to keep an open mind without letting my mind stray too far from reality! Bio-luminescence and high frequency sound are interesting theories. Do you think they would have any other sense that we may not have, or just maybe far advanced like the scent of a dog?

Also you make a good point about carbon based life, I wonder if there is even a possibility of any other element based life forms? Now I think about it, I don't really see how there can be any other species as advanced as humans that would not be carbon based.

Also sorry for the small scale of thousands when talking about evolution, I was in a rush to type that first comment!

I am also interested about the possibility of non vertebrates like squid type animals, do you think that if evolution was repeated on a planet with a very similar environment then because of many minor changes in many factors that this would have an effect on the end products of evolution? Maybe with a different combination of factors there would be a humanoid derivation?

You said you didn't know why non-vertebrates did not conquer land, do you think that in different circumstances that they may be the dominant species on a planet in the same way that humans are on our planet?

Also I wonder if they are as technologically advanced as us, whether they would be nearly the same as ours. Maybe they have their own concept of mathematics, maybe they have different materials, or maybe the have advanced years ahead of our own technology.

It is quite funny that on earth, another group of creatures seems to have developed a complex brain (although not as complex as us): the octopus and squid family. It just shows that there is not 1 formula for the perfect intelligent being.

Yes I read a theory about this, that would be amazing. Do you think they would be sentient beings that communicated with one another? Do octopi and squid as we know communicate with each other? And what amazes me is that this is only carbon based life, I've heard theories about sulfur-based and silicon-based life forms too

I find this whole concept fascinating, it got started as I have recently been playing the game Mass Effect, which involves many other alien species. It got me thinking that would other alien species look humanoid, or even be carbon based at all. As we humans are the result of thousands of years of evolution, maybe we have become a particularly effective end product. Would evolution effect aliens in the same way? Would evolution be very similar to species from other planets which have environments similar to that of our planet Earth? I have read a few interesting theories on what extraterrestrial life will look like, and to me due to the sheer vastness of the universe I believe it is impossible for other life on planets NOT to exist. Also how about alien language, would they speak telepathically? Would they be ever be able to learn English, Russian, Chinese, any of our human languages? And vice versa, would we be able to learns theirs? I think this topic could start some excellent discussion, I find exobiology and the possibility of extraterrestrial beings infinitely fascinating

The fire, is what "forms when oxygen mixes [chemically] with a fuel" Just to clarify, the superheated gas doesn't form "when oxygen mixes with a fuel." ...[unless that is how they define "superheated"]

 

Yes, that is right.

A superheated volume or body of gas (a hot plume) that combines (chemically) with oxygen is fire; and the light we see is from the gas molecules combining (reacting) with oxygen molecules... within that flame-shaped plume of superheated gas... as electrons move around within those reacting molecules or atoms of gas.

===

You could have a plume of superheated gas, where if enough oxygen was NOT available, the superheated gas would NOT ignite to become a flame. It would just remain a volume of superheated gas that did not emit any light (nor emit the extra heat that would normally be generated when reacting with oxygen).

Fire spreads because the extra heat, from the ignited superheated gas (flame), causes nearby fuel to suddenly become a superheated gas. If enough oxygen is available, the new superheated gas will also ignite and release extra heat, which causes more nearby fuel to suddenly become a superheated gas... repeating the cycle. So the fire spreads, if enough oxygen continues to be available as newly superheated gas is generated.

If you hold a match next to a piece of wood, some of the wood will continue heating up until it turns into a volume of superheated gas (hot smoke). Once that curly lick of smoke (superheated gas plume) ignites and burns, it heats adjacent wood until that wood suddenly vaporizes into smoke. That smoke helps repeat the cycle, while oxygen is available.

~

 

 

Right, and the light that we see from electrons relaxing, after they are exited by mixing chemically, is what we see as fire. So the shape of the flame is the shape of the (body of) chemically reacting gases.

 

~

Anyway the 2 processes are related

 

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Image:Electric-candle-flame.jpg

Thank you Essay, very coherent and detailed answer, very helpful! And thank you for the really cool picture michel!

Do you really think fire is just light?

Do you not realise that, for example, fire spreads?

Well know I don't think it's that, I'm not sure what it is so that's why i asked the question

 

...and @JohnC

 

I wouldn't say it quite the same way. That sounds like a conversion from chemicals into light, but that isn't what your getting at, I hope.

Some "chemical" energy can be converted into "light" energy, but other changes in "chemical" energy (especially heat) occur during chemical reactions. In other words, the chemical isn't turning into light, but rather some chemical reactions may "release" some light.

===

Not all chemical reactions give off light, but they all involve changes in "chemical" (heat) energy. "Fires" can burn and spread, while just smoldering without flames, which illustrates a slower and more incomplete chemical reaction (still oxidation) that only glows with red-IR light.

But a flame occurs when enough hot fuel (smoke) is mixed well enough with oxygen (as the smoke rises and diffuses) to permit "complete" oxidation (a chemical reaction that gives off a brighter light, along with more heat, rapidly)--a flame. So the "flame" is shaped by the area in space filled with (very rapidly) oxidizing smoke.

===

Depending on whether the flame smoke is more carbon-rich or hydrogen-rich, you can get a different colored (yellow/blue) flame, or parts within the flame, as the smoke/fuel oxidizes. Other elements also produce unique colors when oxidized (reacted/combined with oxygen), which forms the basis of certain spectroscopes.

~

Assuming this is right and correctly expressed, does that make more sense... or make it more complex?

p.s. "Chemical reactions" involve the exchange and rearrangement of electrons (which sometimes produces light), between and within atoms; so in a sense, chemical reactions involve a "flow" of electrons slightly similar to electricity.

But I wouldn't try to understand one as an analogy for the other; though you possibly could define electricity as an ongoing chemical reaction that propagates contiguously... though you probably shouldn't....

 

Thanks for your helpful answer. I've been doing a little bit of reading and I'm seeing fire defined as a body of superheated gas, is that correct? Which forms when oxygen mixes with a fuel?

Ooh okay, so what aspects of QM and general relativity are incompatible? I'm not that experienced in advanced physics

ah yeah okay, so the electricity is a flow of free electrons, and fire is the light we see given off from a chemical as a conversion of energy states, from chemical to light?

I've always heard this well known phenomenon but I have never really understood in detail why it is so, can anyone help me out?

 

 

Fire is just the light given off by smoke (and ignitable gases), when that smoke and gas combine with oxygen. That's why burning is called oxidation. And that is why the flames are shaped fairly closely to the shape of the "licks" of smoke, and hot rising gas plumes. Flashover is an example of excess smoke suddenly combining with oxygen and igniting (lighting up) in flame.

But "fire" itself, is only the light given off when electrons rearrange themselves--as oxygen combines with those atoms in the smoke and other gases expanding out from any heated fuel.

The smoke and gases (from the heated fuel) are rich in carbon and hydrogen, and so form CO2 & H2O after combining most completely with oxygen.

===

And with sparks, I think it is also the light we are seeing, as electrons settle back down, after getting excited (insert joke here).

~

 

 

Ahhh I see, I thought that electricity was the movement of electrons; so it's the radiation of light from moving electrons in combustion that causes the flames to appear as a result of intense light? Are they (fire and electricity) both forms of non-ionising radiation?

Also thanks to whoever changed my title!

But what exactly is it if it is not solid, liquid or gas? Also my title was meant to be what ARE electricity and fire, sorry for the poor grammar!

I can't help but try and link them with states of matter and I get all confused. I'm sure it's something to do with electrons and energy transfer but I'm getting very confused. What exactly are they!?

I'm not sure, but there is correlation between a bacterium being Gram positive/negative and the structure of its cell wall. Usually Gram positive have just a petidoglycan cell wall and a plasma membrane, and Gram negative have those and an outer membrane consisting of lipopolysaccharides and protein. This extra thickness and complexity contributes to it's ability to resist taking up Gram stain.

The way I think of it is that they lack all of the cellular apparatus required to sustain life on it's own. It has to use the ribosomes of the host in order to translate/code for proteins to be made. Most viruses are essentially little balls of genetic information (can be DNA or RNA) in a protein coat.

They can survive on their own but cannot replicate. They are a lot smaller than other pathogens (disease causing micro-organisms) such as bacteria.

The proteins that they code for are usually damaging, and are what make us ill, along with the immune response such as a temperature, mucous production, which are designed to help reduce the spread and/or kill the virus.

To summarise:

viruses are very simple organisms, with few cellular components, and are very small. They cannot reproduce asexually or sexually. They require certain host mechanisms to multiply. They cannot respire/convert energy. However they are classified taxonomically.

You might find this link helpful

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK8174/

Disturbance of normal gut flora could have a role too, like the quote about excessive E. Coli formation. A good example is of the effect Vibrio cholerae has on the gut.

There are some interesting studies being performed on the effectiveness of silver nanoparticles on increasing the effectiveness of antibiotics, they will definitely be something to keep an eye on! They have apparently in one study shown to increase effectiveness of an antibiotic by up to around 1000%, which is just the kind of thing we want to hear in a world of increasing antibiotic resistance!

It's in a class of drugs called COX inhibitors, they block a certain molecule that is part of the clotting cascade, therefore reducing the ability of blood to clot. This can help reduce ischaemia (reduced blood flow) in a myocardial infarction, which when prolonged can cause the irreversible death of cardiac myocytes.

As far as I know aspirin cannot break clots, but only prevents them from forming. If substantial clotting has already taken place then a fibrinolytic drug like streptokinase (a compound found in Streptococci bacteria) or urokinase may be given, but because these break clots they have a more direct action than the preventative action of aspirin, therefore you'd need to be totally sure of a patient's circumstances before giving it, you don't want to cause a bleed.

Essentially aspirin has a largely preventative role, hence why it is recommended that you give someone an aspirin to chew slowly after they have had a heart attack/myocardial infarction. I'd say definitely the sooner you administer it, the better.

My thinking is it may take on the pink colour because of haemolysis, the change in osmotic pressure in oedema may make red cells lyse (burst) as the osmotic potential changes. Because of the large volume of fluid in relation to the possibly small amount of red cells lysed, it may give it a light pinky-red tinge, as opposed to a deep red when a lot of red blood cells lyse in a relatively small volume of fluid.

As the red cells break down into it's constituents, the colour of solutions they are dissolved in change, such as bilirubin which is yellow (a build-up of this this compound it what gives patients with jaundice the yellow appearance of their skin and mucous membranes).

A pink colour may be caused by free haemoglobin, which is released from lysed red blood cells.

As for the frothy texture, it may be due to abnormal gas exchange in the lungs due to the build-up of fluid. This can happen as your ability to remove CO2 from, and add O2 to, your blood is impaired, due to the accumulation of fluid seen in oedema.

I hope that has helped you!

You'll want to use something that is isotonic, and won't lyse any cells. If you are using whole blood and you get lysed red cells, they release porphyrin rings in the form of haem, and they would invalidate your results as they are quite light sensitive.

It depends on whether you are using whole blood, plasma, or serum; and what you need the sample for. As you are from the physics side, I'm guessing you may be doing something to do with light absorbance/transmission? Sodium chloride isotonic saline is usually a good thing to use in a dilution, it shouldn't affect your result too much, the concentration of solutes is pretty low. As far as I know EDTA doesn't affect absorbance, if you like at things like structure and molecular weight it might give you an idea. When we use whole blood samples for the ESR/Erythrocyte sedimentation rate test we use sodium citrate, that might be a good one to look into, as it's designed to have minimal effect on light absorbance/transmission.