[TrashMan]

*shrug* Well, you're wrong, and we've already explained why: plasma structures and electromagnetic life. I don't see any way to convince you without walking you through the math. But you're in the minority, and you go against well-established science that drives devices you use every day.

It's weird to see someone who's usually so rabidly in favor of technology suddenly begin denying a very realistic scientific possibility.

Untill you show me such a lifeform, I'm not.

 ...very realistic..

I could get into a very long and detailed explanation as to why I don't believe it's possible but I won't.
Given that I'm not trying to convince you of anything, and that I could care less what you or Kaj, or X or Y believe,  I don't need to

[General Battuta]

Okay.

[karajorma]

Funny how you spend page upon page telling us that it's not possible, completely ****ing up over simple physics in the process, and then at the end when you have nowhere else to go say you aren't trying to convince us.

Next time you start one of these debates I'll ask you at the start if you're trying to convince us and then delete any further responses from you after the first one if you say you aren't. That way we won't waste our time dealing with responses that aren't meant to convince us and therefore are basically off-topic spam.

[perihelion]

In most cases, yes...electrons, photons, or ions... that's basically what energy is on a atomic level.

Just... wow.  Do I really need to explain to you what the difference between matter and energy is?

1) Electrons are not energy.  They are subatomic particles (MATTER) with a negative electrical charge.  Any energy attributed to them is in the form of their kinetic energy (motion) or potential energy, be that electrostatic, magnetic, gravitational, whatever.

2) Calling photons energy is fair, but I think it is stretching the definition quite a bit.  I'd rather not be dragged down into a debate about why, so I'll just say "ok" and move on.

3) Ions are not energy for the same reasons electrons aren't.  They are atoms with greater or fewer electrons than normal.  Any energy attributed to them is in the form of their yada yada yada etc ad nauseum.

Energy, in the simplest possible terms, is the capacity to do work.  Electrons and ions by themselves have no capacity to do work except via E = mc^2.  Their capacity to do work comes from their relative motion and position within externally applied fields, electrical or otherwise.

As for "energy beings," Karajorma has already said that is largely a misnomer.  What life requires is an energy gradient it can exploit.  Everything else is just window dressing.  Even carbon based life here on Earth exploits myriad gradients.  Chemical is the most common, but thermal and electrical are exploited as well.  The gradients inside a star are much steeper.  I believe your argument is that there can be no cohesive structure inside a star.  I disagree.  It may not be solid, but there certainly is structure.  The convection cells inside the sun are larger than our planet, but they are very much self-sustaining.  For all we know, those cells could be older than our planet itself.  In all that time, is it not possible that all that complex self- and externally-interacting electromagnetic flux could have become capable of the characteristics of life?  Reproduction?  You betcha.  Homeostasis?  Growth?  Adaptation?  Response to stimuli?  None of these seem beyond the realm of plausibility to me.

[General Battuta]

I was just equating photons with energy in the sense that they're a force-mediating particle.

You clearly know what you're talking about, though.

[TrashMan]

Funny how you spend page upon page telling us that it's not possible, completely ****ing up over simple physics in the process, and then at the end when you have nowhere else to go say you aren't trying to convince us.

Next time you start one of these debates I'll ask you at the start if you're trying to convince us and then delete any further responses from you after the first one if you say you aren't. That way we won't waste our time dealing with responses that aren't meant to convince us and therefore are basically off-topic spam.

a) I haven't been ****ing anything.
b) I have elsewhere to go, I just don't want to go there
c) I'm not trying to convince you since I know it's practicely impossible for you to change your mind
d) So for you, the purpose of forum talks is nothing more than convincing the other guy that you are right?


@perihelion:
I haven't been really specific, haven't I? What I mean was that on an atomic level, the biggest energy carrier are the electrons, photons and ions... Electrons is what goes trough the power lines, photons is what warms up the atmosphere.

But as you say yourself that energy is "the capacity to do work"... how can  "the capacity to do work" be alive? It can't. It has to be made of some matter...and not any matter. Structured matter.

[General Battuta]

You didn't mention photons until someone pointed them out to you. You're also betraying the fact that you don't know much physics, because on the atomic level the biggest energy carriers are particles that carry energy. The atomic strong and weak forces are far 'bigger' than electromagnetism, even if their range is shorter. Have you heard of them before? They are the principle behind the atomic bomb.

Anyway, listen: we've already established that the sun has structure, convection cells and currents and so on. Will you accept this fact? That's structure, self-maintained and reinforcing structure. In other words, structured matter.

Go reread perihelion's post. He explains everything there, and if you're not convinced by it, it's because you're not understanding it.

[TrashMan]

No, I understand everything perfectly, thank you very much.
And I'm willing to bet my immortal soul I know physics better than you. (unfortunately, Satan is only interested in deals in which he can actually win the soul, so he didn't answer my calls)

The sun is chaotic. Any kind of memory must be stored somewhere, and must remain there. When you have particles that are thrown around by the massive forces and reaction of the sun, no two atoms are gonna stay next to eachother  for long.
It's like putting your brain in a blender set on the highest speed and somehow hoping any coherent though is gonna remain in there.

Meh..enough of this.

*Scotty, one to beam up*

[General Battuta]

Ooooh, them's fightin' words.

Problem is I can't ask you anything without you being able to look it up on Wikipedia. The fact that you failed to note anything about the strong and weak forces is kind of telling, though.

Eh, whatever. I try not to let myself get personal but I'm afraid I'm slipping. I'm happy to let this one go, especially since perihelion's post was wonderful. I'm glad I got to read that.

I'll just quote him!

What life requires is an energy gradient it can exploit.  Everything else is just window dressing.  Even carbon based life here on Earth exploits myriad gradients.  Chemical is the most common, but thermal and electrical are exploited as well.  The gradients inside a star are much steeper.  I believe your argument is that there can be no cohesive structure inside a star.  I disagree.  It may not be solid, but there certainly is structure.  The convection cells inside the sun are larger than our planet, but they are very much self-sustaining.  For all we know, those cells could be older than our planet itself.  In all that time, is it not possible that all that complex self- and externally-interacting electromagnetic flux could have become capable of the characteristics of life?  Reproduction?  You betcha.  Homeostasis?  Growth?  Adaptation?  Response to stimuli?  None of these seem beyond the realm of plausibility to me.

[WMCoolmon]

Personally, I'm not convinced that this isn't all just an act to see what kind of response he can get.

[karajorma]

Yep. And I'm pretty tired of it. Admittedly there is comedy value in listening to him trying to bluff his way through convincing us that he actually knows something about physics and then getting it all hideously wrong but it's really not worth it.

d) So for you, the purpose of forum talks is nothing more than convincing the other guy that you are right?

The point of a debate is to convince that you are correct. This thread changed from a discussion to a debate the second you started insisting you were right and anyone who held a different opinion is wrong. You had the chance to leave the debate at that point and let it fizzle out.

However you stayed and argued your corner. And you're still doing it. And then after it all you claim you weren't trying to debate at all. If you weren't trying to convince us you are correct then every single post after your first one saying you hate energy beings was simply you restating your opinion.

Restating your opinion 12 times in one thread for no reason is spam.

But as you say yourself that energy is "the capacity to do work"... how can  "the capacity to do work" be alive? It can't. It has to be made of some matter...and not any matter. Structured matter.

 You aren't reading anyone else's posts (Every person you are debating against has told you that we are talking about beings made up of matter) and you yourself have said you aren't debating. So it appears as though you're simply waiting until someone posts and then posting the same unchanged opinion every time.

On top of that you have then repeatedly belittled the knowledge of other forumites who dared to tell you that you were wrong. Even though they weren't getting their physics wrong and you were.

That's called trolling. And that earns you a two day ban. (Oh and before you wonder I did consult with another admin who hasn't participated in this debate before doing this and he was in favour)

[karajorma]

What life requires is an energy gradient it can exploit.  Everything else is just window dressing.  Even carbon based life here on Earth exploits myriad gradients.  Chemical is the most common, but thermal and electrical are exploited as well.

One of the more interesting alien races I've seen in sci-fi are the outsiders from Larry Niven's Known Space universe. They're basically liquid helium and get their gradient by having their body in sunlight and tails in shadow. Basically an example of a race mostly using thermal gradients for life.

I've always tended to feel it's rather silly to assume that what worked on Earth is the only possible way it can work anywhere else.

[FreeSpaceFreak]

National Geographic made an interesting site about XTL. The species are all matter-based, but interesting nonetheless (especially for TMan ).

[karajorma]

I think I saw the second half of that show (Plus a couple of similar ones on the same subject).

[Marcus Vesper]

What life requires is an energy gradient it can exploit.  Everything else is just window dressing.  Even carbon based life here on Earth exploits myriad gradients.  Chemical is the most common, but thermal and electrical are exploited as well.

One of the more interesting alien races I've seen in sci-fi are the outsiders from Larry Niven's Known Space universe. They're basically liquid helium and get their gradient by having their body in sunlight and tails in shadow. Basically an example of a race mostly using thermal gradients for life.

I've always tended to feel it's rather silly to assume that what worked on Earth is the only possible way it can work anywhere else.

Niven is an interesting writer, though not my favorite.  Is it just the books I've read (several Ringworld novels, another one about returning to Earth in the very distant future after having your personality downloaded into a mind-wiped criminal and sent off to seed distant stars for life that I cannot for the life of me remember the name of right now), or do all of his novels involve tons of sex/actual orgies?  Because all of the ones I've read have.

[karajorma]

Not all of them do but it is a reoccurring theme. You do seem to have read the ones that are worst for it though.

I would highly recommend reading Protector if you read nothing else.

Oh and the story you can't remember is called Rammer IIRC.

[StarSlayer]

An energy based star dwelling lifeforms is pretty interesting notion, though i would imagine depending on the level of sentience it could be a little boring.

[General Battuta]

You're judging 'boring' by human standards. Those standards have been shaped by our environment.

The life of a medieval monk was probably pretty boring by our standards, but they seemed happy enough.

[StarSlayer]

True enough, i wasn't trying to be particularly serious.  God only knows how many indigenous races were going along merrily with their lives until someone decided to "enlighten them and raise them to civilized standards" so your perspective certainly does affect your interpretation of what a "good" life is.  I would imagine you could be quite content living on a star, personally i don't think it would float my boat.

[General Battuta]

You're quite right there. I think it'd get a bit stale pretty quickly. Pretty, though.