Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

NASA wrote:The temperature at the top of Jupiter's clouds is about -230 degrees F (-145 degrees C). Measurements made by ground instruments and spacecraft show that Jupiter's temperature increases with depth below the clouds. The temperature reaches 70 degrees F (21 degrees C) -- "room temperature" -- at a level where the atmospheric pressure is about 10 times as great as it is on Earth. Scientists speculate that if Jupiter has any form of life, the life form would reside at this level. Such life would need to be airborne, because there is no solid surface at this location on Jupiter. Scientists have discovered no evidence for life on Jupiter.

I can't imagine a large organism doing very well in that type of environment. Perhaps the upper part of such a creature, would be calcified or something. Apparently the coldest temperature recorded on earth was -128.6 degrees; in which, I am pretty sure you would literally freeze in an instant. Your heart would just stop. I can't imagine life surviving in temperatures almost twice as cold as that.

Neptune and Uranus are the two coldest planets in the solar system though.

Jupiter sounds like the only planet 'model' that would even begin to support life. Europa is probably the most likely to have some form of advanced life though, even if it isn't a planet. Moons may be where the majority of life is, in the universe; hypothetically of course.

The bottom line when talking about aliens is that there is no data that they exist, it's purely science fiction at the moment. Therefore the sky is the limit on what you can imagine an alien to be. That's why aliens fit so well in science fiction, becuase an alien can go wherever your imagination can take you.

They can be humanlike, for example klingons, Vulcans, Eldar, etc.

Or they can be incredibly weird, for example, the tholians(rock people), Daleks(little people that live in machines), vorlons, etc.

Aliens are the modern form of, "the bogey man".

A modern myth if you will.

GG

I think the biggest problem with life on gas giants isn't coming up with something that could live on them, but coming up with the stages necessary to reach that point.

What I'm trying to say is that we are currently trying to study a HOT GIANT. This is a large gaseous planet orbiting very close to its star. It's surface temperature would probably be 60°+, so is very likely life could develop on it. Plus, it would have a plentiful supply of sunlight for photosynthesis.

Orkeosaurus, the problem you have raised is quite simple. Amino acids formed by the constant lightning in such a hot gas giant would be formed and join until they form a self-sustaining single-cell organism. This was done in hot vents on Earth, albeit in hot water. Minerals do not dissolve in gases so our hypothetical alien first had to develop a way of filtering particles from the atmosphere efficiently quite early on. Back to evolution. The cells that are blown towards the atmospheric regions with the most favourable conditions for growth, and have a means to stay there, will grow the most and evolve the quickest. Billions of years later, multicellular organisms develop, maybe to specialise into some filtering particles, others photosynthesising, others holding hot gases for floating...This would continue until another group of cells decides the quickest way to grow was to steal nutrients from another group...creating predators. These could be parasites that hack into the aforementioned photosynthesising organism's food reserves, others would be floating harvesters trapping millions of smaller organisms and digesting them whole. Let your imagination run free as they develop defences.

However, I think IMHO that the whole evolutionary process from amino acid to 'creature' would take much longer than on Earth as elements required for growth are much more widely dispersed and less concentrated due to them being carried around by gas instead of dissolved in the universal solvent, water.

Edit: Surface temp is the temperature of the highest layers of gas...It'd be hotter than that below.

Turbo10k wrote:Amino acids formed by the constant lightning in such a hot gas giant would be formed and join until they form a self-sustaining single-cell organism. This was done in hot vents on Earth, albeit in hot water. Minerals do not dissolve in gases so our hypothetical alien first had to develop a way of filtering particles from the atmosphere efficiently quite early on.

That's where I think their main problem arises. The thermal vents in the bottom of the sea have a lot of minerals dissolved in them, and they're a great place for life to begin developing. Not having access to iron makes the iron-sulfur theory unhelpful, and I've only ever heard of the RNA stuff working in water or clay.

Once the first parts begin working I can see how we could get our jellyfish to develop, if our planet is close to the sun, and made out of some useful gasses.

(Intelligent life on this planet is going to be a no go though, I would think, with the lack of manipulable material around, and the probable instability of the creatures on the gas giant's lives.)

I am pretty sure that a giant storm, filled with static electricity, could manage to develop life at some point. Just because thermal vents create a hospitable environment for the introduction of life, doesn't mean that a 'cloud environment' could not provide just enough stimulation to promote life.

The limitations of life surviving in a place like Jupiter are pretty obvious. No space Pterodactyls or anything like that. If there was another planet (which there surely is) similar to Jupiter, but slightly smaller, and less noxious; the possibility seems quite concrete. At any rate, I do agree entirely that any form of life in this environment, stands little to no chance of actually attaining self awareness.

The thought of a life-form that could migrate between planets (thus forming the need for at least some intelligence) is pretty appealing, but ridiculously impractical in the same suit. Space squid? I dunno about that one... I can imagine something that could migrate on asteroids in some fashion though. Hyper-hibernation, or something along those lines.

Does anyone know what the lowest temperature DNA can maintain integrity is? After a certain point, won't it just become useless? Surely if cold would not destroy it, radiation from sun's would.

Yeha well, scientists today can pretty much do anything and with enough resources and time they'd be able to make gas planets liveable for humans...i dont know how but hey 200 years ago people didn't believe in the fact that fever could be treated so you would'nt die from it, sooo...

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Turbo10k wrote:Amino acids formed by the constant lightning in such a hot gas giant would be formed and join until they form a self-sustaining single-cell organism. This was done in hot vents on Earth, albeit in hot water. Minerals do not dissolve in gases so our hypothetical alien first had to develop a way of filtering particles from the atmosphere efficiently quite early on.

That's where I think their main problem arises. The thermal vents in the bottom of the sea have a lot of minerals dissolved in them, and they're a great place for life to begin developing. Not having access to iron makes the iron-sulfur theory unhelpful, and I've only ever heard of the RNA stuff working in water or clay.

Once the first parts begin working I can see how we could get our jellyfish to develop, if our planet is close to the sun, and made out of some useful gasses.

(Intelligent life on this planet is going to be a no go though, I would think, with the lack of manipulable material around, and the probable instability of the creatures on the gas giant's lives.)

Certainly . Intelligence was developed by nature as a way of maximising our species' chances of survival in the face of much faster, more powerful predators, albeit our lack of natural advantages. Thus tools were invented to overcome our shortcomings (anyone new to the thread, look a few pages back). In our hot gas giant environment, our hypothetical aliens would not have access to enough resources to create a structure capable of conscience, nor will it have a need to do so. Filtering particles doesn't need a lot of brainwork...

As for space-faring aliens, it is darn impossible without intelligence. What species would leave a resource-rich environment which it has perfectly adapted to (it is still living as far as our thought experiment goes, not extinct) and leave at the expense of huge a mounts of energy to establish itself in a hostile, radioactive, cold void?!

Only a fully aware organism would have the drive to do so, and only through artificial means. Nature ain't gonna adapt to space on its own now, is it?

In other words, no space dolphins bro. (By the way, the most suitable form for a space-faring organic species is a sphere jam-packed with food and oxygen reserves and with no pressurised volumes, covered in insulating layers of skin)

The most suitable space faring organic species might actually make use of solar winds to travel (as well as to gain nutrients), so although as you suggest the main body would be best served by a protected sphere, the use of large solar sails or fins could serve it well.

The development of inteligence is an interesting topic. There are plenty of things on land to stimulate its development above the instinctual level demonstarted in many animals, yet most of the "top thinkers" appear to have stopped more or less at the same level as cats and dogs (I think their IQ is measured somewhere around 50-70ish? I could be wrong as I am remembering research from quite a long time ago).

The animals that we understand to be most inteligent are mostly members of the same family branch (hello primates!), elephants and dolphins. All these creatures are mammals (which is interesting), and all but one group of them developed mostly on the land (though dolphins are thought to have started off on the land with the other mammals - after their sea based existance along with every other species).

How much of their inteligence is down to having spent time on land, and how much is through other factors? Is a suitably busy environment and the ability to use tools (ie the biological apendages capable of manipulating things sufficiently dextrously - hands, trunks, etc) required? Dolphins only really have their mouths, yet they can be trained to perform complex operations. Dogs again can only really use their mouths but they can also be taught complex tasks. Both live in very different environments, but both can demonstrate simmilar levels of inteligence.

So I guess my point is that there is no way we can know at the moment what the "best" ingredients for the formation of inteligence are, as there are species which break the trends all over the place.

Octopi can be very smart, and they are essentially just some squishy stuff in a bag.

Who is to say that "floaters" in gas giants can't be inteligent, or their environment will prevent it? We can't know, and even the hardest odds can be beaten given enough goes. And as we have said in this thread many times, the universe certainly rolls enough dice to get those odds at least once.

r3n3g8b0y wrote:

youbedead wrote:

r3n3g8b0y wrote:

sebster wrote:There's a really staggeringly huge number of planets out there, so there's probably life on a few of them.

The problem is that it seems quite unlikely we'll ever get there, or that any other race would have developed the tech to leave their planet and come here. Suns are really, really far apart.

That's very true, so IF THERES INTELLIGENT LIFE OUT THERE, we'd either be stone-age or future science to them, not on their level...

why? the aliens could evolve and advance at the same time as us, hell ther could be an alien having this same discussion millions of lightyears way, while on a board about hammer of war.

You're right the chances are 344,353,758,238,642,657,327,168,250,356,729 to 1 but you're right man!

In an infinite universe thias must happen quite a lot then.

Turbo10k wrote: Amino acids formed by the constant lightning in such a hot gas giant would be formed and join until they form a self-sustaining single-cell organism. This was done in hot vents on Earth, albeit in hot water.

Just so you know, this is pure speculation, and has never been proven by science.

1) It is extremely difficult to create information and knowledge before life exists.
2) Excessive investigator interference is required to make biological subunits polymerize.
3) The prebiotic synthesis of the subunits required for DNA and RNA (especially ribose and cytosine) presents some very serious challenges.
4) It is unlikely that any single chemical can possess the required knowledge to replicate, because it must not only know how to replicate, but it must also know how to use an energy source to drive its own replication.
5) Any favorable environment for chemical evolution would have been highly localized to a small puddle.
6) Because of the localized nature of the soup and the low concentration of biological precursors, any robust self replicating system (i.e. Life) would need the ability to synthesize many of the chemicals required for self replication. Any self replicating system lacking this capability would not be able to survive much less replicate.

Taken from here.
http://theory-of-evolution.net/chap11/primordial-soup-myth.php

GG

1) It is extremely difficult to create information and knowledge before life exists.
2) Excessive investigator interference is required to make biological subunits polymerize.
3) The prebiotic synthesis of the subunits required for DNA and RNA (especially ribose and cytosine) presents some very serious challenges.
4) It is unlikely that any single chemical can possess the required knowledge to replicate, because it must not only know how to replicate, but it must also know how to use an energy source to drive its own replication.
5) Any favorable environment for chemical evolution would have been highly localized to a small puddle.
6) Because of the localized nature of the soup and the low concentration of biological precursors, any robust self replicating system (i.e. Life) would need the ability to synthesize many of the chemicals required for self replication. Any self replicating system lacking this capability would not be able to survive much less replicate.

Taken from here.
http://theory-of-evolution.net/chap11/primordial-soup-myth.php

GG

Uh-oh....I have feeling that I know where you're going with this...

Just so you know, this is pure speculation, and has never been proven by science.

I can think of something else that has also never been proven by science. But I'd better not - one warning per day is more than enough for me!

generalgrog wrote:Taken from here.
http://theory-of-evolution.net/chap11/primordial-soup-myth.php

Your source is quite out of date. The most recent "paper" it quotes is from 1975...

This is all you have to say mate. Not offensive, just very concise, and to the point.

http://theory-of-evolution.net/introduction/intelligent-design-creationism-evolution.php wrote:Creationism is a broad term that can mean many different things.

This part kind of bugged me though.

Any observation that evolution does not explain is simply ignored. This places the theory of evolution on a pedestal. The theory cannot be disproved because science has already made the assumption that it is true. Furthermore, this assumption also explains why scientists are in no hurry to apply Darwin’s proposed test to evolution. Most scientists simply do not see the need to prove that a complex organ can form through a series of numerous, slight, continuous modifications. They have already assumed that evolution explains the origin of complex organs. Why test something that must be true?

I really don't even understand what kind of alternative this would recommend besides using creationism, to automatically to fill the 'gaps'. Life is full of unknowns, and so far, science has done an awfully good job at shining some light on a lot of subjects. The idea that because you cannot explain one thing, so you cannot be solidly 'trusted' to explain another with time, is just silly. We are not talking about God directly, at any rate, we would merely be talking about how life started.

Concluding that God 'must' be an alternative, is just as zealous as concluding that Science is the 'only answer', to all questions.

SilverMK2 wrote:Your source is quite out of date. The most recent "paper" it quotes is from 1975...

, that is pretty funny though.

SilverMK2 wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Taken from here.
http://theory-of-evolution.net/chap11/primordial-soup-myth.php

Your source is quite out of date. The most recent "paper" it quotes is from 1975...

I saw that as well, but it doesn't change the issue that this primordial soup stuff was theorized and lab tested(not proven) in the 50's.

The only reason why I brought it up is that it directly relates to some of the discussion of, if and how alien life "evolved" on other planets. If it hasn't even been proven here on earth, we should be keeping this in mind when we speculate about other planets.


GG

edit. I have seen more recent stuff than 1975, but that link was the most convenient. I would be happy to grab more current stuff if you require it. :-)
also edited for horrendous typos

"evolved"

I imagined you doing 'air-quotes', and it was even funnier. But hey, peace. I'm all about peace today.

"hee hee"

GG

yeah,
Primordial soup was used in star trek so that's proof enough for me that it's real.

Panic...

Mmmm... yummy!

generalgrog wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Taken from here.
http://theory-of-evolution.net/chap11/primordial-soup-myth.php

Your source is quite out of date. The most recent "paper" it quotes is from 1975...

I saw that as well, but it doesn't change the issue that this primordial soup stuff was theorized and lab tested(not proven) in the 50's.

The only reason why I brought it up is that it directly relates to some of the discussion of, if and how alien life "evolved" on other planets. If it hasn't even been proven here on earth, we should be keeping this in mind when we speculate about other planets.


GG

edit. I have seen more recent stuff than 1975, but that link was the most convenient. I would be happy to grab more current stuff if you require it. :-)
also edited for horrendous typos

Actually... if you look closely the text that I pasted wasn't, from the 1975 stuff, but from the "summary". The book that this summary references (Intelligent Design or Evolution? Why the Origin of Life and the Evolution of Molecular Knowledge Imply Design) was published in 2005. Your post implies that that entire summary I quoted was unreliable due to a few other references on the page dating to 1975.

A link to the book description.

http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/php/book_show_item.php?id=106

GG

p.s. I haven't read it yet but it looks like I need to.

Turbo10k wrote:What I'm trying to say is that we are currently trying to study a HOT GIANT. This is a large gaseous planet orbiting very close to its star. It's surface temperature would probably be 60°+, so is very likely life could develop on it. Plus, it would have a plentiful supply of sunlight for photosynthesis.

Hot giants are uninhabitable, as they orbit within .05 AU of their parents star. Its also worth remembering that the higher the temperature of a gas giant, the lower its overall density. Low density is obviously problematic for any floating life.

You're postulating a kind of warm giant, which would exist at about 1-2 AU.

Turbo10k wrote:
Amino acids formed by the constant lightning in such a hot gas giant would be formed and join until they form a self-sustaining single-cell organism.

Huh? Amino acids don't magically form when certain elements are exposed to colossal amounts of heat, and electrical current. They also don't float in gaseous environments. Even if they were blown around by prevailing winds, they would still sink through the atmosphere to be eventually consumed by high temperatures (Boyle's Law). This is doubly true of any such acids that form into protein chains.

Turbo10k wrote:
Surface temp is the temperature of the highest layers of gas...It'd be hotter than that below.

That's not true. Again, Boyle's law.

Turbo10k wrote:Intelligence was developed by nature as a way of maximising our species' chances of survival in the face of much faster, more powerful predators, albeit our lack of natural advantages.

That's not how evolution works. Nature isn't a conscious force which sits around and decides to hand out competitive advantages. The best hypothesis that I've seen for the development of human intelligence has to do with the way high protein diets permit the formation of larger amounts of grey matter. This enhances the cognitive abilities of all creatures possessed of such a diet, and over time allows for those surviving members of the given species to be selected in accordance with their intellectual capacity. Though it bears mention that the smartest do not necessarily produce more offspring, as our species is not thought to have significantly increased its intelligence since its inception (where intelligence is simply raw computational power).

dogma.

I think your missing his point. It looks to me that he is theorizing how life "could have" evolved on a Hot Gas giant. I think your trying to place earth based scientific constraints on extra terrestrial evolutionary concepts. Since we don't have any knowledge of extra terrestrial beings, how can we begin to place terrestrial constraints on a hypothetical construct?

GG

generalgrog wrote:dogma.

I think your missing his point. It looks to me that he is theorizing how life "could have" evolved on a Hot Gas giant. I think your trying to place earth based scientific constraints on extra terrestrial evolutionary concepts. Since we don't have any knowledge of extra terrestrial beings, how can we begin to place terrestrial constraints on a hypothetical construct?

GG

Except what he's describing could not happen. Physical laws are consistent throughout the universe. Whether an amino acid exists on a hot gas giant, or on Earth is irrelevant, as it will still be an amino acid and respond to things like heat accordingly. If it doesn't, then it isn't an amino acid, and therefore cannot be discussed as such.

dogma wrote:Except what he's describing could not happen. Physical laws are consistent throughout the universe. Whether an amino acid exists on a hot gas giant, or on Earth is irrelevant, as it will still be an amino acid and respond to things like heat accordingly. If it doesn't, then it isn't an amino acid, and therefore cannot be discussed as such.

More assumptions.

Your assumptions are based on life as we know it on terra. You have no idea if physical laws that we experiance here on earth are consistent throughout the universe. It's certainly a good possibility, but not certain.

In a hypothetical construct, such as that of extraterrestrial life. Why can't the hypothetical amino acid be super resiliant to heat. Similar to what he was saying about the life that exists at the sea floor at the heat vents, where life should not be able to exist.

GG

We do keep finding simple lifeforms living in extremely surprising places, including one which thrives on Sulphuric Acid.

As GG said, it's all about life as we know it.

generalgrog wrote:
More assumptions.

Your assumptions are based on life as we know it on terra.

Yes, they are. Which is perfectly acceptable because all the points which I critiqued were similarly grounded. As is any such speculation. Even the concept of 'life' is predicated on terrestrial assumptions. We literally cannot escape that limitation. If you're going to deny one concept on that basis, then you have to deny them all on similar grounds; at which point we may as well simply stop the conversation. After all, we cannot discuss life on other worlds, as that's simply a human-centric concept with no necessary relevance off-world.

generalgrog wrote:
You have no idea if physical laws that we experiance here on earth are consistent throughout the universe. It's certainly a good possibility, but not certain.

If the physical laws are not consistent throughout the universe, then we cannot interact with any form of life (or any object at all) which is present within a divergent system. For all intents and purposes, such things do not exist. Indeed, our universe is defined as the space in which known physical laws apply. If the laws do not apply, then the space in question is not a part of the universe.

Speculating in such a fashion is amusing as a flight of fancy, but pretending as though it has any potential grounding in fact is foolish.

generalgrog wrote:
In a hypothetical construct, such as that of extraterrestrial life. Why can't the hypothetical amino acid be super resiliant to heat. Similar to what he was saying about the life that exists at the sea floor at the heat vents, where life should not be able to exist.

All the conditions necessary for life exist in and around hydrothermal vents. Saying that life shouldn't be able to exist there is the result of ignorance with respect to the conditions necessary for life, not some miraculous occurrence of chance conditions.

By comparison, the conditions he's describing on a hypothetical gas giant are divergent by an order of magnitude from anything possible on the ocean floor. Lightning is not comparable to 140 degree water.

As for amino acids. One of the defining characteristics of that category is the nature of the bonds formed in the molecules production. These bonds govern the integrity of the molecule itself. If the bonds are different, then the molecule is different. If the molecule is different, it is not an amino acid. Categories are free floating, amino acids are not amino acids without the existence of the reference. We put things into that category based upon their adherence to the established conventions which define the category, and those conventions are adopted based upon their usefulness with respect to further progress in terms of research, and engineering.

It has to exist because the milky ways has 400 bilion stars.

Hmm I caused a lot of stir from my post...

I only proposed the example of a hot giant based on the fact that higher temperatures would be much more favourable to the development of life than on a 'cold' giant like Jupiter or Neptune, in response to a previous post.

Anyway, here goes:

generalgrog wrote:

You have no idea if physical laws that we experiance here on earth are consistent throughout the universe. It's certainly a good possibility, but not certain.

If the physical laws are not consistent throughout the universe, then we cannot interact with any form of life (or any object at all) which is present within a divergent system. For all intents and purposes, such things do not exist. Indeed, our universe is defined as the space in which known physical laws apply. If the laws do not apply, then the space in question is not a part of the universe.

Speculating in such a fashion is amusing as a flight of fancy, but pretending as though it has any potential grounding in fact is foolish.

This is a common problem when we speculate on a subject that today is no more reliable than science fiction. If we ignore one rule, of course we can ignore many more, but that'd open up so many possibilities that this wouldn't be a tyhread but an imagination contest...So, dogma, let's just ignore a little few?

dogma wrote:

All the conditions necessary for life exist in and around hydrothermal vents. Saying that life shouldn't be able to exist there is the result of ignorance with respect to the conditions necessary for life, not some miraculous occurrence of chance conditions.

Correct. That's what happened on Earth. The geothermal vents reunited three essential environmental factors for life to develop:

-A source of energy (Heat here)
-An important mineral concentration
-A solvent or other medium that efficiently carries all these minerals around.

Such a situation allows fast chemical reactions between all sorts of molecules. Amino acids in such a case would have been developed by dissolved oxygen, CO2 and nitrogen reacting together in so many random ways that eventually nature got it right...after 2 billion years of sterility, that is.

In my hot gas giant example, energy would have been no problem. Light penetrates gases much further than in water, and provides a poorer heat sink for sunlight, so the heat would have travelled further. Plus, microscopic particles rubbing each other all over the atmosphere would build up ginormous amounts of static electricity, meaning bogus lightning strikes thousands of kilometers long readily available (See Jupiter's storms). Mineral concentrations, I confess, would have been a slight problem, as they are dispersed in such a gaseous environment, but their sheer mass would have made interactions inevitable. Jupiter has enough minerals, even in non-gaseous stae, to make up our rocky Terra several times over. A solvent...err...none to speak off, but the particles are at least very easily carried around in such winds.

As for amino acids. One of the defining characteristics of that category is the nature of the bonds formed in the molecules production. These bonds govern the integrity of the molecule itself. If the bonds are different, then the molecule is different. If the molecule is different, it is not an amino acid. Categories are free floating, amino acids are not amino acids without the existence of the reference. We put things into that category based upon their adherence to the established conventions which define the category, and those conventions are adopted based upon their usefulness with respect to further progress in terms of research, and engineering.

Yes, you are right again, but I must protest. Amino acids (notice pluriel) is a group of molecules. To qualify for being an amino acid, just pack together carbon atoms, oxygen, hydrogen and at least a single nitrogen atom, and voila! an amino acid. Yeah, yeah, I know that they have to have at least a reactive COO group to react with other molecules, but it doesn't have to be an absolute invariable defenition of an amino acid. Heck, amino acids exist so far only of Terra. Why can't they be differemt, or even based on other atoms ( say chlorine (<--- ) instead of the nitrogen?!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

We do keep finding simple lifeforms living in extremely surprising places, including one which thrives on Sulphuric Acid.

Hell yeah!!

generalgrog wrote:
dogma.

I think your missing his point. It looks to me that he is theorizing how life "could have" evolved on a Hot Gas giant. I think your trying to place earth based scientific constraints on extra terrestrial evolutionary concepts. Since we don't have any knowledge of extra terrestrial beings, how can we begin to place terrestrial constraints on a hypothetical construct?

GG

dogma wrote:

Hmm, we were talking about a hot giant without solid mass, liquid water or any protection against solar radiation except in the deepest layers, where pressures mount to having the Moon on your back...Terrestrial constraints? Unlikely.

Hot giants are uninhabitable, as they orbit within .05 AU of their parents star. Its also worth remembering that the higher the temperature of a gas giant, the lower its overall density. Low density is obviously problematic for any floating life.

You're postulating a kind of warm giant, which would exist at about 1-2 AU.

Even further! At those distances, you'll need a hefty shield from solar radiation. Maybe 3-4 AU to compensate, and our hypothetical microaliens living a few layers deep...The giant's larger surface area would capture enough sunlight to compensate.

Keep postingm this is a great discussion!

Wrexasaur wrote:Mmmm... yummy!

This is what happened people!