What would the Alien planet look like?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 10 2003 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Where would this planet be? What would it look like? What kind of cities would these Aliens inhabit? Bright metropolitons like we have... or more dim cold cities? What kinds of goverment? Democratic? Monarchy? No goverment? Ive always wondered... what are your thoughts?




posted on Dec, 10 2003 @ 12:31 PM
link   
As far as government, from what I have read, is that they are a monarchy type, the greys are controlled by the lizards and were created as slaves to the lizards. As for cities and such, they may have grown way past cities and found no need to even stay on a particular planet. However, I think that the greys have outposts on other planets including earth, either with or without our consent.



posted on Dec, 10 2003 @ 08:03 PM
link   
I thought this topic would be of more interest...



posted on Dec, 10 2003 @ 08:13 PM
link   
The planet would look like earth



posted on Dec, 10 2003 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I think that if it were life we would recognise as life, it would be on a terrestrial planet like ours. There is also the possibility that life could develop on a silicon base, rather than carbon. If that were the case, the lifeforms would probably be a lot slower moving than what we would expect. Perhapse forming what we would consider crystal forrests, and some kind of crystalline lifeform, possibly sentient. Naturally, I don't know.

As for the cities, it would totally depend on what their senses could detect. Their "eyes" may be tuned to a totally different spectrum than ours, where they start detecting at the ultraviolet level and beyond. If that were the case, we would percieve the cities to be dim and dark, but they would see them as we see our cities now. I can't imagine why a species would want dark cities, unless they were a subterranian species, in which case, again, they may see more clearly in the infrared spectrum than at the blue light spectrum our eyes are most receptive.

As for buildings, I have no idea. Look at architecture found throughout history, and how it's developed. If the planet had a major disaster after many construction methods were developed, they wouldn't have to build cities around the current buildings, and could look very...Sci-fi, if you'll pardon the term.

Even if they have grown past having to live on the same planet technologically, gennerally there would be masses gathered in specific parts, thus creating cities. If they were more solitary species, their research methods would be rudimentary, not having the group to build their ideas off of. I think that cities would be nessicary for the development of technology.

As for a government, I have no idea. It would totally depend on the psychology of the species. If they were all like minded, and advanced, probably a democracy of some sort, or develop into a communist government (Marx's communism, not Stalins, which was fascism under another name). If they had a hive type mentality, and each would grow up to fill a specific role as defined by something like DNA, they wouldn't really need a government, they would all think to promote the hive, and care nothing for themselves. Then there could also be the possibility of a mentality which I can only compare to bees, but they aren't really a good example. A psychology where maybe .1% are born to be leaders, and the others content to just follow, in which case they would continue a monarchy style of government.

This isn't to say a fascist style of government wouldn't ever be formed, but I just personally believe that fascism is born to fail.

Hope I gave you some ideas, or at least made you think. It's the least I could do after you helped me think this through



posted on Dec, 10 2003 @ 10:06 PM
link   
maybe it would look so cool, their building so tall and everything are way so advance.



posted on Dec, 10 2003 @ 10:23 PM
link   
I think it would probably look rather alien. The skyline may be a different color based on the planets atmosphere, everything would look different based on that alone so it's really hard to say unless you choose an atmosphere and then create what life might look like based on that.



[Edited on 10-12-2003 by Sapphire]



posted on Dec, 10 2003 @ 11:17 PM
link   
I would assume that the atmosphere would probably consist of largely nitrogen, since it's such an innert gas, and then oxygen or something just as corrosive corresponding on the periodic table.

Bold words, now I have to back them up


Our atmosphere used to consist largely of nitrogen and carbon dioxide. If you'll note, the nitrogen levels theoretically have not changed, as is apparent through archiology, rocks, etc. Not many life forms, if any, are nitrogen dependant here on earth. But they were carbon dioxide dependant. Life here on earth started pretty slowly, with just some random bacteria doing their thing. Slowly the bacteria started to form simplistic multicelled organisms which were content just to exist. Then something happened.

A single celled organism advanced into algae. Now life was in trouble. It was fairly content to stay as it was, dependant on the 28% carbon dioxide atmosphere of earth. But the algae were doing something bad. They were processing the carbon dioxide into O2. Pure oxygen. Oxygen is an extreamly corrosive gas, and most of the multi-celled lifeforms couldn't take this, and started to die.

However, the oxygen had a very unexpected side effect. The organisms which didn't die adapted. And quickly (in evolutionary terms). Compared to the time it took the original single celled guys to form multi celled organisms, it was a mere second before these oxygen adapted life forms developed the multi celled lifeforms. They advanced at an astonishing rate. It wasn't long before plankton was roaming the seas.

But the algae still flourished, they could utilize a smaller amount of carbon dioxide than the multi celled creatures, and continued, even though they had depeleted the carbon dioxide levels to about 14% of the atmosphere. And the plankton were helping. When they processed the oxygen, they would "exhale" CO2, maintaining a balance in the atmosphere.

A synergy had been found, and life began to flourish. It wasn't long before we had fish, then triassic dinosaurs, and eventually mammals. Intelligence capable of utilizing it's intelligence has only been apparent in the creatures which inhaled this volitile gas, oxygen.

Thus, in a way, oxygen spawned intelligence capable of acting on it's intelligence. (I wish oxygen would teach me to spell
) And all this time, the nitrogen stayed the same.

So in summary, I think there would be an oxygen atmosphere, because the next step would be sulfur, which isn't a gas, at least at typical temperatures. At the temps it would take to turn sulfur to a gas, you would have to be a little bit closer than Mercury (the planet, not the element) to the sun, which would strip the atmosphere away, anyway. And just forget selenium.

As for the nitrogen, we have the same problem. The next step would be postassium, which would be stripped from the atmosphere before becoming a gas. It's possible that a noble gas could make up the majority of the atmosphere, but life here finds those to be toxic. Something pre "8" on the table excluding lithium could possible be used, but I don't know, because I don't know much about their chemical properties.

Sorry for being so long winded, I've done a lot of research into xenobiology.



posted on Dec, 10 2003 @ 11:45 PM
link   
I really wish someone would put their two cents in on this who could explain their theories in some detail. I'd love to compare ideas! I don't want to feel like my research was all for nothing, after all, if no one here has anything to say on this subject, where else is there?



posted on Dec, 11 2003 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
I would assume that the atmosphere would probably consist of largely nitrogen, since it's such an innert gas, and then oxygen or something just as corrosive corresponding on the periodic table.

Bold words, now I have to back them up


Our atmosphere used to consist largely of nitrogen and carbon dioxide. If you'll note, the nitrogen levels theoretically have not changed, as is apparent through archiology, rocks, etc. Not many life forms, if any, are nitrogen dependant here on earth. But they were carbon dioxide dependant. Life here on earth started pretty slowly, with just some random bacteria doing their thing. Slowly the bacteria started to form simplistic multicelled organisms which were content just to exist. Then something happened.

A single celled organism advanced into algae. Now life was in trouble. It was fairly content to stay as it was, dependant on the 28% carbon dioxide atmosphere of earth. But the algae were doing something bad. They were processing the carbon dioxide into O2. Pure oxygen. Oxygen is an extreamly corrosive gas, and most of the multi-celled lifeforms couldn't take this, and started to die.

However, the oxygen had a very unexpected side effect. The organisms which didn't die adapted. And quickly (in evolutionary terms). Compared to the time it took the original single celled guys to form multi celled organisms, it was a mere second before these oxygen adapted life forms developed the multi celled lifeforms. They advanced at an astonishing rate. It wasn't long before plankton was roaming the seas.

But the algae still flourished, they could utilize a smaller amount of carbon dioxide than the multi celled creatures, and continued, even though they had depeleted the carbon dioxide levels to about 14% of the atmosphere. And the plankton were helping. When they processed the oxygen, they would "exhale" CO2, maintaining a balance in the atmosphere.

A synergy had been found, and life began to flourish. It wasn't long before we had fish, then triassic dinosaurs, and eventually mammals. Intelligence capable of utilizing it's intelligence has only been apparent in the creatures which inhaled this volitile gas, oxygen.

Thus, in a way, oxygen spawned intelligence capable of acting on it's intelligence. (I wish oxygen would teach me to spell
) And all this time, the nitrogen stayed the same.

So in summary, I think there would be an oxygen atmosphere, because the next step would be sulfur, which isn't a gas, at least at typical temperatures. At the temps it would take to turn sulfur to a gas, you would have to be a little bit closer than Mercury (the planet, not the element) to the sun, which would strip the atmosphere away, anyway. And just forget selenium.

As for the nitrogen, we have the same problem. The next step would be postassium, which would be stripped from the atmosphere before becoming a gas. It's possible that a noble gas could make up the majority of the atmosphere, but life here finds those to be toxic. Something pre "8" on the table excluding lithium could possible be used, but I don't know, because I don't know much about their chemical properties.

Sorry for being so long winded, I've done a lot of research into xenobiology.


Well i would compare theories with you but you seem to have come to the exact same conclusion as me.

P.S. i am confused why someone so seemingly intelliegent has a PS2 instead of an X BOX????




posted on Dec, 11 2003 @ 01:22 PM
link   
I got the PS2 instead of the Xbox because the X box is Microsoft, and I'm in the process of phasing them out of my personal life



posted on Dec, 11 2003 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kalistenics
Well i would compare theories with you but you seem to have come to the exact same conclusion as me.


Still, in a forum like above top secret, I would expect someone would have a problem with some of the things I said, especially with some of the holes in my atmosphere arguement. (hehe yep, I'm aware of them, trying to stir up controversy
)

Does no one even have something to add? I think I'm more shocked then Godflesh...



posted on Dec, 11 2003 @ 07:06 PM
link   
we humans obviously know that if a planet can sustain higher forms of life, it would most likely be very similar to ours. Mostly water with a gaseous atmosphere. I also strongly believe that life can form and thrive almost anywhere in the universe, but that life may be of a lesser order depending on climate and availability of sustinance be it animal, vegetable, or mineral. Basically life can be on any planet of all shapes and sizes, but to have a planet with large multicellular organisms would likely require near-earth circumstances.



posted on Dec, 11 2003 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by heelstone
we humans obviously know that if a planet can sustain higher forms of life, it would most likely be very similar to ours. Mostly water with a gaseous atmosphere. I also strongly believe that life can form and thrive almost anywhere in the universe, but that life may be of a lesser order depending on climate and availability of sustinance be it animal, vegetable, or mineral. Basically life can be on any planet of all shapes and sizes, but to have a planet with large multicellular organisms would likely require near-earth circumstances.


But then, who's to say inteligence has to be generated by brains such as those which developed here on earth? Would it not be possible for a single celled organism to be sentient, even inteligent? If you believe no, please explain...



posted on Dec, 11 2003 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
But then, who's to say inteligence has to be generated by brains such as those which developed here on earth? Would it not be possible for a single celled organism to be sentient, even inteligent? If you believe no, please explain...
I sincerely doubt that intelligence can be derived from simple organisms. While our only example is of life here on earth, I would suspect that life starts out fairly similarly in all areas of the universe. From nothing to something. That something likely requires a mesh of cells to create cognitive ability much as it does here on earth. If life on another planet is too extreme for anything larger than single celled organisms to thrive, then I doubt greatly that intelligence could be spurred.



posted on Dec, 11 2003 @ 07:29 PM
link   
To throw your knowlege of how inteligence works askew, I'll relate a story I read a while ago. I'll have to find some kind of reference, or if anyone else has one, please provide it here. I think I read it in a New Scientist or Scientific American about 5 years back.

Scientists were experimenting on plants, trying to find out if they could think or were sentient. They had a plant in a room all by it's self, and would have 2 people take care of it. 1 was kindly, pruning it, giving it water, plant food, he would sing to it, talk to it, etc.

The second was a little more harsh. He would rip off leaves, pull it out of it's pot (careful to preserve the roots, but just to give it a scare), yell at it, take it away from the sunlight, and never fed or watered it.

After a couple of weeks, using photography and cameras, they noticed that the plant would tend to lean towards the kindly guy as soon as the voice was heard (Like moving it's leaves in his direction the way a tree flips it's leaves before it's going to rain), and when the cruel one would come in, it would wither a little bit at the sound of his voice.

But the question is, how did it think? It has no brain that we know of, all of it's cells seem to serve a purpose, and we know what that purpose is, but it could react to outside stimuli, and it learned. That's the reason I won't dismiss a single celled organism from possessing inteligence. Until we start exploring the depths of space, and discover what, exactly, life is capable of, I intend to expect everything and anything from it.



posted on Dec, 11 2003 @ 07:35 PM
link   
I would have to read more about something like that. For one thing, plants don't have sensory organs like animals do. No eyes or ears, and especially no processing center like a brain. Also a plant is not a single celled organism. Its multicellular albiet not exactly as unified in purpose as animal cells.



posted on Dec, 11 2003 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by heelstone
I would have to read more about something like that. For one thing, plants don't have sensory organs like animals do. No eyes or ears, and especially no processing center like a brain. Also a plant is not a single celled organism. Its multicellular albiet not exactly as unified in purpose as animal cells.


Right, I know it's not unicellular, but the point was about the lack of eyes, ears, or processing center. When I read it, it made me question all that I "knew" about what a creature needs to think and process.



posted on Dec, 11 2003 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Here's a link to a story. I'll edit this post as I find more:

www.cpa.ed.ac.uk...

hehe edit 1:

www.theosophy-nw.org...

And a quote from the site, edit 2:



it by no means follows that a brain is indispensable to consciousness. . . . If then, at the top of the scale of living beings, consciousness is attached to very complicated nervous centres, must we not suppose that it accompanies the nervous system down its whole descent, and that when at last the nerve stuff is merged in the yet undifferentiated living matter, consciousness is still there, diffused, confused, but not reduced to nothing? Theoretically, then, everything living might be conscious. In principle, consciousness is co-extensive with life. -- Mind-Energy, Lectures and Essays, pp. 7-8; quoted in Plant Autographs and Their Relationships, "Response of Inorganic Matter," ch. viii.

[Edited on 12-11-2003 by junglejake]

[Edited on 12-11-2003 by junglejake]



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Chmm.. we heard about the possibility of genetic memories.. what, if cells can actually do more than just *hold* the information?

Cells interacting with each other, each holding informations, could be *technically* be thinking.

Btw: A voice has vibrations.
The plant could have started to react to the distinctive vibrations each voice has.

[Edited on 17-12-2003 by Frostmourne]





top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join