Has anyone thought about creatures would be on high gravity planets?

hmmm... evolving putty...

i bet ud wind up with one of those gaseous/ethereal aliens from Star Trek. You know, those cheesy special effect ones that kind of just hover.


oh, and congrats on the jar, fetus

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yup it would continue to evolve.

Do to it being on a gas planet it might eventualy evolve the ability to live in space if it lived high in the atmosphere.

Also if it fully lived off of light energy from its planets sun it could move around its solar system and colonize the planets in its solar system without even developing a space ship!

Then who knows what it would do.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

go life form go life form go!!!

yeah it might even learn some biomedical-science skillz n make some lil 'peeps' n plop 'em on a planet for kicks!!! LMFAO YOU LAD!!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

life in hi-gravity planet?

Well, I'd say that 'amoeboid' creatures would suit high gravity environment.... with a catch: if the 'amoeba' were to be large, they'd look like water-filled plastic bag

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't think helium would be the Gas of Choice although it may be but hydrogen gives maximum lift and is commonly found in all organic materials, helium does not react well with most things, so the hydrogen can be created by chemical reaction to lift them higher into the higher regions of the atmosphere where they can feed on the suns rays and absorb more hydrogen to react into solids, Photosynthesis ? when their mass increases they drop lower into the denser atmosphere to absorb other heavier gases like nitrogen carbon dioxide and the like

 

One has to consider the conditions for a planet to reach high gravity. At ten Earth masses, a planet of average density would have less than three times Earth's gravity. Jupiter is 330 times Earth's mass, and the surface gravity is only 4 times Earth's, due to its lower density (and by 'surface,' I mean the altitude where the atmosphere is the same as the Earth's). So the practical upper limit for "high gravity" with solid worlds is set at 3 Earth gravities, similar to what is experienced on the Gravitron at the amusement park.

Life evolving in 2 to 3 g's would be subject to many factors. For starters, trees (or their equivalent) would be shorter and have fewer branches, and might have spongy leaves for increased surface area absorbing more sunlight. There would still be the record-breakers, such as taller trees evolving to keep their leaves out of reach of gluttonous herbivores. Such tall trees would have a larger diameter-to-height ratio for added support. Also, if the planet's primary star is fainter than the sun, taller trees would evolve to catch more sunlight. Since larger planets tend to have greater winds, pollination would not rely so heavily on flying animals. Flight would not be significantly hindered, as the greater winds would compensate for the added effort to get off the ground. Just as well, the fliers would not have much altitude to overcome to get to their nests, although cliff-dwellers would be a different story.

The water-to-oxygen ratio would be higher, as such a world would retain more hydrogen. Deep in the ocean, the low oxygen density would be compensated by the higher pressure. Hemocyanin (and possibly vanabin or an iridium-based compound) would be more commonly used as an oxygen carrier by animals than hemoglobin. Animals near the water's surface may evolve a symbiosis with photosynthesizing algae in their exposed gills, allowing for a more efficient and direct method of exchanging carbon dioxide for oxygen.

Land invertebrates would likely be amphibious, as water would aid in shedding their exoskeletons without damaging the soft, newly formed exterior. Many invertebrates would likely spend their entire larval stage underwater, similar to mosquitoes. Additionally, the invertebrates would be smaller than the Earth variety on average.

As for the mammalian equivalent (mammalien?), movements would be slow and deliberate relative to Earth mammals, most would be bulky with short legs, and more species would be plantigrade as opposed to digitigrade. The brain would likely be in a reinforced rib cage, only having a head to house its eyes, ears and olfactory organs. The neck and possibly skull would be made of cartilage, allowing them to heal faster. Lungs would be chambered and breathing would have separate nostrils for inhaling and exhaling, allowing a constant stream of oxygen to the taxed muscles. Instead of a diaphragm, this constant pumping could be regulated directly by the heart(s). The digestive system would be more redundant, ensuring the maximum nutrition is extracted from food.

As for sentient life, the frequent storms would hinder progress on artificial flight. If the howl of the winds is too great to convey speech, languages may start as hand signs. Lifespans may be limited to forty years because of the heart/lung organs metabolizing so much. Electric and wireless technology would see rapid progress as methods are sought to filter out interference from storms. The first test of the nuclear bomb would be enough to end a world war as opposed to its first two uses, as radiation would be spread to both sides by the winds. Having more surface area, the planet would retain its continents in the same hemisphere as pressure from other tectonic plates inhibited their migration, resulting in more connected civilizations.

 

wouldn't they look like our deep sea creatures? And worms.

 

That is a great conception Orle. Yea the heave pressure of deep sea life

Wow that guys guys post looks like he could one of em

 

Dragon's Egg is a 1980 SF novel about intelligent life evolving on the surface of a neutron star at 67 billion g.

Cheela have about the same mass as humans, are about 5mm across and 0.5mm high. They live a million times faster than humans, with a lifespan of around 40 minutes.

 

What if black holes are not as we understand them, and life lives on their infinitesimly small surfcae, what would their sky look like?

I'll hypothisize that in "their sky" (i.e., visible space) everything would be observed as expanding away from their vantage point - not unlike what we 'see' in our own sky.

wlminex

 

It really depends on how high the gravity gets. Microscopic life would probably never notice, ants also could carry a lot of weight. the higher gravity would make movement more difficult so animals would have a smaller habitat. They could be smaller then earth life but that's far from certain having more oxygen in the atmosphere and more energetic food allows for some pretty big animals. Again the difficulty moving will favour detecting possible predators more then the agility to out run them, the same goes for detecting water and intresting habitats. For predators when brute force fails they have to get smarter. Hunting in groups and using tactics.

 

Life on a neutron star is somewhat off-topic (i.e. high-gravity planets), but the concept is intriguing. On the surface of a neutron star you've got protons from objects impacting it. Perhaps the strong and weak nuclear forces between the protons and neutrons could replace the electrochemical interactions found in lower-gravity life. Such interactions would take place faster than chemical ones, resulting in shortened lifespans and quicker perception.

I would imagine that gravity would hardly be a factor in the personal lives of such lifeforms, as the dominate direction of energy propagation would be lateral. Any sentience that would evolve would likely only perceive two dimensions and remain ignorant of the stars and galaxies surrounding them. They would perceive their environment mainly through mechanical processes instead of light, and possibly comprehend quantum mechanics before classical mechanics.

Reproduction would be radically different from anything possible in low-g life. Perhaps genetic information could be encoded on the wavefunction of a few nucleons, which would influence the way in which surrounding nucleons form around it, eventually growing into a complete body.

Since the early universe gave rise to massive stars that collapsed into neutron stars, and the fact that life would be several orders of magnitude faster than us, such life is statistically more likely to evolve than low-g life if it is possible at all. A society on a neutron star may take the equivalent of a billion years of technological development to simply send a satellite into orbit, as it would be like us sending a probe into a fourth spatial dimension. Until we are at a level that we can observe neutron stars up-close, we'll never observe such microscopic marvels.

Kind of makes me sad when I think of black holes. Think of all the lives and progress that would sink into oblivion each time a neutron star collapsed. :bawl: