ENG New site

Advanced search
[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Science and Astronomy Questions
WatsisnameDate: Tuesday, 16.08.2016, 21:30 | Message # 751
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2613
Status: Offline
I agree with midtskogen; I think the effect of an airliner on an inversion is pretty much nil. They are stable, rather than unstable or semi-stable, because it's the warm air on top of cooler air.

However, airliners can have a very large effect on a cloud layer, which isn't as commonly seen:

Fallstreak hole

Quote midtskogen ()
I reached for a soda in the minibar to cool me down. I put the cool can on the table and it was steaming heavily, forming its own little cloud around itself.


That's pretty... *puts on sunglasses*... cool. cool





 
AlekDate: Tuesday, 16.08.2016, 21:43 | Message # 752
Pioneer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 326
Status: Offline
Quote Watsisname ()
It'd be very hard for a terra with an atmosphere to have no CCNs at all.


This is why, in Star Trek Voyager, in the beginning of the series, were so surprised to find a planet such as Ocampa: it had no weather whatsoever, not because there was no water on the planet but because there was nothing for clouds to condense from. Turns out this wasn't natural, but a result of a disaster...What kind of disaster could possibly wipe a planet of the atmosphere's CCNs for long timescales, especially when the planet becomes desert and dust is able to blow into the atmosphere?





Living among the stars, I find my way. I grow in strength through knowledge of the space I occupy, until I become the ruler of my own interstellar empire of sorts. Though The world was made for the day, I was made for the night, and thus, the universe itself is within my destiny.
 
WatsisnameDate: Wednesday, 17.08.2016, 04:27 | Message # 753
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2613
Status: Offline
I think it is not possible. There are just too many ways to produce CCN, and they have such low terminal velocities that the atmosphere would have to be absolutely free of wind and convection for them to fall out. To give an idea, the typical terminal velocity of a cloud droplet is on the order of centimeters per second, which is easily overcome by thermals.

For a cloud condensation nucleus, it's on the order of micrometers per second, or centimeters per day. So if there's any mechanism to generate them, they'll go everywhere. Even in the extremely clear air of the Antarctic, there's enough of them around to generate clouds.

I guess the one sure-fire way to remove a planet of its CCN would be to freeze or blow off its atmosphere entirely. biggrin





 
JackDoleDate: Wednesday, 17.08.2016, 20:52 | Message # 754
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Germany
Messages: 1742
Status: Offline
Quote steeljaw354 ()
What makes you think that aliens would use radio? They may use something completely different that we are missing in our searches for life. Maybe they evolved past a physical state? And are invisible to us with no proof of their existence?

Nothing makes me think that. But We know of no hypercom, so we can not look for hypercom signals. We have to look for normal radio signals.

But who knows? When near the star a ship in the warp goes, or comes out of warp, perhaps we could receive a signal thereof. For example, gravitational waves. biggrin

Although our scientists would surely find a natural explanation for such signals. dry





Don't forget to look here.

 
steeljaw354Date: Wednesday, 17.08.2016, 21:28 | Message # 755
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 862
Status: Offline
Maybe the reason nobody has responded is because they don't communicate on the frequency we use? Or they don't know of it for some reason.
 
WatsisnameDate: Thursday, 18.08.2016, 03:13 | Message # 756
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2613
Status: Offline
Quote JackDole ()
Nothing makes me think that. But We know of no hypercom, so we can not look for hypercom signals. We have to look for normal radio signals.

But who knows? When near the star a ship in the warp goes, or comes out of warp, perhaps we could receive a signal thereof. For example, gravitational waves.







 
midtskogenDate: Thursday, 18.08.2016, 05:13 | Message # 757
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1674
Status: Offline
Quote steeljaw354 ()
Maybe the reason nobody has responded is because they don't communicate on the frequency we use? Or they don't know of it for some reason.

Our signals are weak. We would hardly be able to detect such signals light years away ourselves. And we're switching to digital transmission aiming to remove the redundancies, which means that the signals will be indistinguishable from noise. Not to mention fiber.

And many would argue that it would be wise to keep radio silence.





NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
AlekDate: Thursday, 18.08.2016, 05:37 | Message # 758
Pioneer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 326
Status: Offline
Quote Watsisname ()
I think it is not possible. There are just too many ways to produce CCN, and they have such low terminal velocities that the atmosphere would have to be absolutely free of wind and convection for them to fall out. To give an idea, the typical terminal velocity of a cloud droplet is on the order of centimeters per second, which is easily overcome by thermals.

For a cloud condensation nucleus, it's on the order of micrometers per second, or centimeters per day. So if there's any mechanism to generate them, they'll go everywhere. Even in the extremely clear air of the Antarctic, there's enough of them around to generate clouds.

I guess the one sure-fire way to remove a planet of its CCN would be to freeze or blow off its atmosphere entirely.


Hm...guess that wasn't so realistic, then...What about the atmosphere being wiped of water vapor instead, would enough to make clouds be able to get into the atmosphere before the lakes and seas become groundwater, even if the larger bodies of water weren't all that large?

Quote midtskogen ()
many would argue that it would be wise to keep radio silence.


Surely a more advanced civilization would be able to have stronger radio signals, maybe this is why we don't hear anything, because they keep quiet to their planet purposely?



Also, Would it be possible to use Gamma Rays to commuinicate somehow? They're very energetic, but are more precise and could maybe be used to have more pinpoint communications if the over-energeticity issue could be solved, plus they would easily be distinguishable from background noise since not very much makes strong gamma ray output...That also raises the question, could GRBs be alien signals that are pointed directly at us, but are so quick in the short GRBs that they look more like a large supernova, and the long ones being a very long transmission but each "on/off cycle" (aka binary) being so subtle due to our lacking f precision, that it doesn't look like an intelligent signal?





Living among the stars, I find my way. I grow in strength through knowledge of the space I occupy, until I become the ruler of my own interstellar empire of sorts. Though The world was made for the day, I was made for the night, and thus, the universe itself is within my destiny.
 
PlutonianEmpireDate: Thursday, 18.08.2016, 05:48 | Message # 759
Pioneer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 475
Status: Offline
Quote Watsisname ()



When I conquer the universe over the next 52,000 years ( wink ), something like this will be entirely plausible. happy





Specs: Dell Inspiron 5547 (Laptop); 8 gigabytes of RAM; Processor: Intel® Core™ i5-4210U CPU @ 1.70GHz (4 CPUs), ~2.4GHz; Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit; Graphics: Intel® HD Graphics 4400 (That's all there is :( )

Edited by PlutonianEmpire - Thursday, 18.08.2016, 05:51
 
Tac1017Date: Thursday, 18.08.2016, 21:19 | Message # 760
Explorer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 167
Status: Offline
what is the minimum and maximum amount of oxygen a planet needs to be breathable, nd the max amount of carbon dioxide? the new atmosphere feature is making my terra hunting harder.




The Terra Hunter of the Milky Way!

(By the way, I was born in 2001, NOT 1972 XD)
 
BananaDate: Thursday, 18.08.2016, 22:19 | Message # 761
Astronaut
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 56
Status: Offline
For humans and with air pressure similar to Earth, I believe oxygen levels can range from seventeen percent to around forty percent without too many side effects. Carbon dioxide should be under two percent.

In real life, of course. I am not sure what the requirements are in SE.





Hello.

Edited by Banana - Thursday, 18.08.2016, 22:21
 
WatsisnameDate: Friday, 19.08.2016, 00:20 | Message # 762
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2613
Status: Offline
17% O2 is like being at 2000m altitude. Humans can survive permanently up to about 5000 or 6000 meters, which is a pressure of about 55-50% of sea level, or 11% O2 concentration at sea level pressure. You would feel effects if subjected to that immediately (even fatal), but you can acclimate to it.

Maximum CO2 of a few percent is good. 5% is where it is considered toxic, but even at 1% you feel effects -- basically increased breathing rate and some tiredness. Maximum O2 is harder, there's actually no hard established limit to my knowledge. We can breathe 100% O2 for a little while, but it does have toxicity in the long term. For permanence, probably 30-40% is safe I would guess.

Quote Alek ()
What about the atmosphere being wiped of water vapor instead, would enough to make clouds be able to get into the atmosphere before the lakes and seas become groundwater, even if the larger bodies of water weren't all that large?


For given values of 'not that large', yes, easily. smile The amount of water stored in the atmosphere is surprisingly small. If you precipitated it all out of Earth's atmosphere, it'd be only a few centimeters deep!

So, if a few cm of seas and lakes (divided by what fraction of the surface area seas and lakes cover) is able to evaporate (and it evaporates very quickly, if there is no water in the air) before all going underground (percolation into the subsurface is generally slow), you will restore the water vapor in the air.





 
Tac1017Date: Friday, 19.08.2016, 00:24 | Message # 763
Explorer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 167
Status: Offline
Quote Watsisname ()
17% O2 is like being at 2000m altitude. Humans can survive permanently up to about 5000 or 6000 meters, which is a pressure of about 55-50% of sea level, or 11% O2 concentration at sea level pressure. You would feel effects if subjected to that immediately (even fatal), but you can acclimate to it.

Maximum CO2 of a few percent is good. 5% is where it is considered toxic, but even at 1% you feel effects -- basically increased breathing rate and some tiredness. Maximum O2 is harder, there's actually no hard established limit to my knowledge. We can breathe 100% O2 for a little while, but it does have toxicity in the long term. For permanence, probably 30-40% is safe I would guess.


So now I need to say this is my new earth, but now we need breathing masks because the universe had to make us oddballs mellow .





The Terra Hunter of the Milky Way!

(By the way, I was born in 2001, NOT 1972 XD)


Edited by Tac1017 - Friday, 19.08.2016, 00:26
 
WatsisnameDate: Friday, 19.08.2016, 01:56 | Message # 764
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2613
Status: Offline
Hahaha. Well, we are the product of life evolving on this planet -- naturally we are suited to this kind of atmosphere, and not most other atmospheres that you might find out there.

Keep looking! I'm sure there's another planet with breathable atmosphere somewhere. smile





 
Tac1017Date: Friday, 19.08.2016, 02:05 | Message # 765
Explorer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 167
Status: Offline
it's kind-of hard, when i search within a 5,000 ly radius of earth. hey. I guess I found two planets and a moon. one is oxygen ladent (main gas), two others are more carbon ladent. the oxygen one is pretty much a proto-life earth with unicelluar marine life, and is only 441,543,000 years old. the other two are more earth like in age. The moon has an extremely long day, longer than it's year, 25 day year to a 128 day rotation. the solar year on the moon is roughly 48 years. the carbon ladent planet has red oceans, so I presume more mineral water to carbonate and overprice XD.




The Terra Hunter of the Milky Way!

(By the way, I was born in 2001, NOT 1972 XD)


Edited by Tac1017 - Friday, 19.08.2016, 02:19
 
Search: