New Potentially habitable exoplanet found

24 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |

A new potentially habitable exoplanet has been found around Teegarden's star, at only 12 light years away.

Avatar of Unregistered
  • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
    More than twice the size of earth.

    Gravity will be high. If already inhabited, many species will be likely larger than us and ours
    Signature

    Where ever you go, there you are.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11519877].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
    Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

    BREAKING: New habitable exoplanet found around Teegarden's star - YouTube

    A new potentially habitable exoplanet has been found around Teegarden's star, at only 12 light years away.

    Only 12 light years away? Let's get packing.

    It may be habitable for life forms that evolve there...assuming hundreds of conditions are ideal for life...

    But nor for us.
    Red Dwarf stars put out very little light, but they put out a hell of a lot of radiation. Planets that are the right distance for liquid water would be both dark and sterilized by the constant ultraviolet radiation...thousands of times stronger than we get here on Earth.

    This star is very old. Many times older than our Sun. Which makes the planets very old as well. The planets would need a large spinning iron core, to produce an electromagnetic shield...thousands of times more powerful than Earth's, to stop the radiation.

    These planets probably have no atmosphere (although they may. We don't know), because the star's radiation (and a weak magnetic shield, and age of planet) strips planets of their atmosphere...like Mars.

    It's not the planet that's bad for life, it's the star. Red Dwarf stars mean that the "Habitable zone" is so close to the star, that the orbit is only 4 or 5 days. Maybe we could send a probe...that will get there in 100,000 years (with the best imaginable technology). But organic life couldn't get in any orbit around that star without frying.

    Maybe there is a possibility that life can survive under ground there. Who knows.

    I watched a 2 hour science special on this solar system last night. A real "Earth like planet" that could conceivably support life like ours...would need a sun that's almost exactly like ours as well. And our star is unusually stable.

    And most solar systems are orbiting Red Dwarf stars...and most that are left are orbiting a binary star system.

    Our solar system (meaning the Sun and Earth combination) is extremely rare. And that's what we would need if we were to survive there.

    Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

    More than twice the size of earth.

    Gravity will be high. If already inhabited, many species will be likely larger than us and ours
    I don't know why they show these planets so large. They are similar in size to the Earth.

    But a planet three times the size of ours....

    If it had water, it wouldn't have mountains (because of the increased gravity) so it would likely be covered in a single all encompassing ocean.

    Any life would probably stay aquatic.

    But if it had land animals, they would be short and squat. Tiny too. Maybe insect size, The largest animal on land may be the size of a cat. Why? Because an increase in size increases in weight at double the weight.

    That's why there are no 12 foot tall humans. A 12 foot tall man would weight 8 times as much as a 5 foot man.

    So three times the gravity would produce a much smoother planetary surface, and much smaller life forms...unless they are aquatic.

    I absolutely love pontificating, don't I?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11519895].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
      Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

      Only 12 light years away? Let's get packing.

      It may be habitable for life forms that evolve there...assuming hundreds of conditions are ideal for life...

      But nor for us.
      Red Dwarf stars put out very little light, but they put out a hell of a lot of radiation. Planets that are the right distance for liquid water would be both dark and sterilized by the constant ultraviolet radiation...thousands of times stronger than we get here on Earth.

      This star is very old. Many times older than our Sun. Which makes the planets very old as well. The planets would need a large spinning iron core, to produce an electromagnetic shield...thousands of times more powerful than Earth's, to stop the radiation.

      These planets probably have no atmosphere (although they may. We don't know), because the star's radiation (and a weak magnetic shield, and age of planet) strips planets of their atmosphere...like Mars.

      It's not the planet that's bad for life, it's the star. Red Dwarf stars mean that the "Habitable zone" is so close to the star, that the orbit is only 4 or 5 days. Maybe we could send a probe...that will get there in 100,000 years (with the best imaginable technology). But organic life couldn't get in any orbit around that star without frying.

      Maybe there is a possibility that life can survive under ground there. Who knows.

      I watched a 2 hour science special on this solar system last night. A real "Earth like planet" that could conceivably support life like ours...would need a sun that's almost exactly like ours as well. And our star is unusually stable.

      And most solar systems are orbiting Red Dwarf stars...and most that are left are orbiting a binary star system.

      Our solar system (meaning the Sun and Earth combination) is extremely rare. And that's what we would need if we were to survive there.



      I don't know why they show these planets so large. They are similar in size to the Earth.

      But a planet three times the size of ours....

      If it had water, it wouldn't have mountains (because of the increased gravity) so it would likely be covered in a single all encompassing ocean.

      Any life would probably stay aquatic.

      But if it had land animals, they would be short and squat. Tiny too. Maybe insect size, The largest animal on land may be the size of a cat. Why? Because an increase in size increases in weight at double the weight.

      That's why there are no 12 foot tall humans. A 12 foot tall man would weight 8 times as much as a 5 foot man.

      So three times the gravity would produce a much smoother planetary surface, and much smaller life forms...unless they are aquatic.

      I absolutely love pontificating, don't I?
      I know

      "But if it had land animals, they would be short and squat. Tiny too. Maybe insect size, The largest animal on land may be the size of a cat. Why? Because an increase in size increases in weight at double the weight."

      Does that really follow, we had dinosaurs which were huge in proportion to what we have now.
      A Much bigger planet and bigger land masses could spawn even bigger dinosaurs with bigger muscles to defy the higher gravity.. Remember the Flores island. Animals and the inhabitants evolved smaller because of the limited land.mass.

      I think this is debatable although speculative.
      Signature

      Where ever you go, there you are.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11519909].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author SOCAL shipped
        I remember reading somewhere that there was alot more oxygen in the atmosphere during prehistoric times, which was why dinosaurs were so big.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11519939].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
        Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

        I know

        "But if it had land animals, they would be short and squat. Tiny too. Maybe insect size, The largest animal on land may be the size of a cat. Why? Because an increase in size increases in weight at double the weight."

        Does that really follow, we had dinosaurs which were huge in proportion to what we have now.
        A Much bigger planet and bigger land masses could spawn even bigger dinosaurs with bigger muscles to defy the higher gravity.. Remember the Flores island. Animals and the inhabitants evolved smaller because of the limited land.mass.


        I think this is debatable although speculative.
        The animals became smaller because of lack of food, not because of lack of land.

        a few dinosaurs were much larger than any animals on land today, but their weight was supported by a massive hip structure, with most of their weight going into their hip girdle and thigh bones...and, it's entirely possible that their bones were lighter than ours, like modern birds (the ancestors of dinosaurs).

        The dinosaurs that weren't built like a huge ostrich, were squat with short thick legs.

        The idea that weight multiplies exponentially faster than height (or surface area) is not debatable. It's what keeps any animal from being 50 foot tall. Heck, even a human that's 8 foot tall dies really young, because their heart can't pump enough blood for a body that size. And they can't walk when they are 30, because their bones won't support all that weight without injury.

        Drop a mouse off a skyscraper, and it will probably survive the fall. A cat will die...but a horse will explode on impact. Because the weight multiplies at a rate 8 times faster than height.

        Why? Because as we get taller, we also get wider and have more depth (at the same rate). We grow in three dimensions, and height is just one dimension.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11519945].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

          The animals became smaller because of lack of food, not because of lack of land.

          a few dinosaurs were much larger than any animals on land today, but their weight was supported by a massive hip structure, with most of their weight going into their hip girdle and thigh bones...and, it's entirely possible that their bones were lighter than ours, like modern birds (the ancestors of dinosaurs).

          The dinosaurs that weren't built like a huge ostrich, were squat with short thick legs.

          The idea that weight multiplies exponentially faster than height (or surface area) is not debatable. It's what keeps any animal from being 50 foot tall. Heck, even a human that's 8 foot tall dies really young, because their heart can't pump enough blood for a body that size. And they can't walk when they are 30, because their bones won't support all that weight without injury.

          Drop a mouse off a skyscraper, and it will probably survive the fall. A cat will die...but a horse will explode on impact. Because the weight multiplies at a rate 8 times faster than height.

          Why? Because as we get taller, we also get wider and have more depth (at the same rate). We grow in three dimensions, and height is just one dimension.
          Nope, not buying it

          So, if your going to be big on a higher gravity planet, everything about you would be proportional and functional to support that.. (referring to your outsize humans bit)

          If Earth can spawn and support the very tiny to the very large. No reason a higher gravity planet could not do that too, the potential for animals to be larger is there too

          What about birds and flying insects. To defy gravity, they would have to have larger and stronger wings/spans and the muscles (and body) to support that, so if you see flying creatures, they would have to be bigger.
          Signature

          Where ever you go, there you are.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11520000].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
            Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

            Nope, not buying it

            So, if your going to be big on a higher gravity planet, everything about you would be proportional and functional to support that.. (referring to your outsize humans bit)

            If Earth can spawn and support the very tiny to the very large. No reason a higher gravity planet could not do that too, the potential for animals to be larger is there too

            What about birds and flying insects. To defy gravity, they would have to have larger and stronger wings/spans and the muscles (and body) to support that, so if you see flying creatures, they would have to be bigger.
            No. Your reasoning is the opposite of reality.

            Again...the weight of an animal grows 8 times faster than their height, assuming the same shape is kept.

            As a flying animal grows in size (weight), the amount of needed wingspan increases 8 times faster than the weight of the flying animal. The secret to flying isn't bigger wings, but lighter bodies.
            For example, an ant can lift 20 times it's own weight. Not because an ant is so strong, but because it's so small.

            The smaller an animal is, the greater it's "strength to weight ratio". It's why gymnasts are not tall. It's why welterweight fighters are faster than heavyweights. They have less bulk to move.

            It feels like this is a debate, but it's not. Here...

            https://www.dinox.org/sizelimit.html

            Here's an essay that explains it in full detail...
            https://www.amazon.com/Being-Right-S...dp/0192860453/
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11520159].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
              Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

              No. Your reasoning is the opposite of reality.

              Again...the weight of an animal grows 8 times faster than their height, assuming the same shape is kept.

              As a flying animal grows in size (weight), the amount of needed wingspan increases 8 times faster than the weight of the flying animal. The secret to flying isn't bigger wings, but lighter bodies.
              For example, an ant can lift 20 times it's own weight. Not because an ant is so strong, but because it's so small.

              The smaller an animal is, the greater it's "strength to weight ratio". It's why gymnasts are not tall. It's why welterweight fighters are faster than heavyweights. They have less bulk to move.

              It feels like this is a debate, but it's not. Here...

              https://www.dinox.org/sizelimit.html

              Here's an essay that explains it in full detail...
              https://www.amazon.com/Being-Right-S...dp/0192860453/
              "This upper limit on the scale of present day life is the reason why it is so surprising that dinosaurs were gigantic. Today's life appears to have reached the maximum size achievable, but life during the dinosaurs' time was much larger. But, this larger relative scale could be explained if all life weighed less because gravity was less at that time due to a Reduced Gravity Earth. In a reduced gravity life would be shifted towards a larger scale exactly as we see in the fossil record."

              Well that's alright then. Dinosaurs were larger because Earth had less gravity when they were around?

              We really don't know how much gravity a larger planet would have around a a far distant star due to not knowing composition and density. We can't answer that yet. We also can't answer what bodily structures on such a planet would be like and how life develops.

              Taking the Earth as a yardstick and saying everything would be based on the same rules, is in my opinion, a dead end.
              Signature

              Where ever you go, there you are.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11520201].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

                "This upper limit on the scale of present day life is the reason why it is so surprising that dinosaurs were gigantic. Today's life appears to have reached the maximum size achievable, but life during the dinosaurs' time was much larger. But, this larger relative scale could be explained if all life weighed less because gravity was less at that time due to a Reduced Gravity Earth. In a reduced gravity life would be shifted towards a larger scale exactly as we see in the fossil record."

                Well that's alright then. Dinosaurs were larger because Earth had less gravity when they were around?
                Good God, that was in the article I suggested? I apologize. I didn't read the whole thing. Earth had the same gravity during all the time any life was present. Some dinosaurs were larger because most of their weight was in their hips and legs. Or they had very thick, short legs.


                Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

                We really don't know how much gravity a larger planet would have around a a far distant star due to not knowing composition and density. We can't answer that yet. We also can't answer what bodily structures on such a planet would be like and how life develops.

                Taking the Earth as a yardstick and saying everything would be like it is here, is in my opinion, a dead end.
                The science special I saw a few nights ago explained how they figured out the mass of the planet. I just don't remember how they did it.

                The point I was making is that a higher gravity planet (assuming life was there at all) would shape the life forms in a certain direction. Meaning smaller size, lighter weight. It would also shape the surface of the planet.



                One interesting thing is...these planets are several times as old as the Earth. So....that may be a factor too.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11520212].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Jonathan 2.0
      More than likely there is Life throughout The Universe. However I could be wrong.
      : )
      Signature
      "Each problem has hidden in it an opportunity so powerful that it literally dwarfs the problem. The greatest success stories were created by people who recognized a problem and turned it into an opportunity."―Joseph Sugarman
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11519946].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
        Originally Posted by Jonathan 2.0 View Post

        More than likely there is Life throughout The Universe. However I could be wrong.
        : )
        Of course, there are a trillion galaxies (at least) with hundreds of billions of stars in the average galaxy. And the elements, physical laws, and chemistry is the same everywhere.

        So where the conditions are right, life will probably occur.

        But most people are thinking of humanoids, like on Star Trek.

        For anything like that to happen, not only would the star and planet need to be an almost exact copy of our Earth and Sun, but billions of events would have to happen in the same order as on Earth, at the same time as on Earth, for anything like humans to evolve on another planet.

        Almost the definition of the word Impossible. but single cell animals? maybe even sea creatures? Why not?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11519949].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Jonathan 2.0
          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

          For anything like that to happen, not only would the star and planet need to be an almost exact copy of our Earth and Sun, but billions of events would have to happen in the same order as on Earth, at the same time as on Earth, for anything like humans to evolve on another planet.
          Thanks Claude. Personally I won't pretend to know anything about all that. I think it's possible that another (maybe more others?) People like Earth would happen without the "constraints" of our Planet.
          Signature
          "Each problem has hidden in it an opportunity so powerful that it literally dwarfs the problem. The greatest success stories were created by people who recognized a problem and turned it into an opportunity."―Joseph Sugarman
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11519952].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
            Originally Posted by Jonathan 2.0 View Post

            Thanks Claude. Personally I won't pretend to know anything about all that. I think it's possible that another (maybe more others?) People like Earth would happen without the "constraints" of our Planet.
            I know. It's called an Anthropomorphism. We give human qualities to non-human things....living or imaginary.

            It's why nearly all deities look like us. It's why we see faces in clouds, tree bark, toast. it's why every alien described by "alien abduction survivors" looks humanoid.

            It's why we think animals behave like us. It's because our brain dedicates an abnormally large amount of power to facial recognition. It's why we imagine that shadows are ghosts.

            Our brains are pattern recognition machines...and the most common pattern to us is our own form and face. So, our first assumption is that other life on other planets is probably going to look like us...with advanced versions of our own technology. It's why we think that these creatures would breath air, have a spoken language, have math, and have cities like we do. All facts and discoveries point away from that...but our imagination demands it.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11519959].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jonathan 2.0
    I'm still not convinced there's intelligent life on Earth.
    (Lol)
    Signature
    "Each problem has hidden in it an opportunity so powerful that it literally dwarfs the problem. The greatest success stories were created by people who recognized a problem and turned it into an opportunity."―Joseph Sugarman
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11519900].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
    Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

    Only 12 light years away? Let's get packing.

    It may be habitable for life forms that evolve there...assuming hundreds of conditions are ideal for life...

    I absolutely love pontificating, don't I?
    That's ok, just as long as you clean it up.

    Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

    I know

    "But if it had land animals, they would be short and squat. Tiny too. Maybe insect size, The largest animal on land may be the size of a cat. Why? Because an increase in size increases in weight at double the weight."

    Does that really follow, we had dinosaurs which were huge in proportion to what we have now.
    A Much bigger planet and bigger land masses could spawn even bigger dinosaurs with bigger muscles to defy the higher gravity.. Remember the Flores island. Animals and the inhabitants evolved smaller because of the limited land.mass.

    I think this is debatable although speculative.
    Yes, l was all ready to pack my bags, and go to a world that is sure to have a large population of fluffy bunnies apart from,...never mind, and Claude, ruins my dreams in one post, boo-hoo, sniff.

    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11519917].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
    Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post


    Drop a mouse off a skyscraper, and it will probably survive the fall. A cat will die...but a horse will explode on impact. Because the weight multiplies at a rate 8 times faster than height.

    Why? Because as we get taller, we also get wider and have more depth (at the same rate). We grow in three dimensions, and height is just one dimension.
    Geesh, mop and bucket for isle eight!

    Originally Posted by Jonathan 2.0 View Post

    More than likely there is Life throughout The Universe. However I could be wrong.
    : )
    Nope.

    Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

    Nope, not buying it

    So, if your going to be big on a higher gravity planet, everything about you would be proportional and functional to support that.. (referring to your outsize humans bit)

    If Earth can spawn and support the very tiny to the very large. No reason a higher gravity planet could not do that too, the potential for animals to be larger is there too

    What about birds and flying insects. To defy gravity, they would have to have larger and stronger wings/spans and the muscles (and body) to support that, so if you see flying creatures, they would have to be bigger.
    Yes, so does the Orville episode when the security officer goes back to her home planet, with substantially stronger gravity, is that possible?

    I suspect that all life there would be different to other humanoids, or Doctor Who with the race that is podgier, and is substantially stronger than humans is more accurate with high gravity worlds.

    Can't remember what the race was called, but Lynck's was his name.

    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11520008].message }}
  • All I know is, there is a fuzzy interlood between wakefulness an' sleep where it is possible to commune with the Cosmos.

    An' I feel sumtimes like ima slumberin' next to a real weirdsy SPACE HAMSTAH.

    Aw but then I wake up an' it is kinda a SHOE or a book I fell asleep readin'.

    But I know implicitly how that hamstah dropped outta deep space to commune with Moi -- if'n only on a surrealsy feelsy level.

    Thing is, gotta figure these celestial hamstahs were around when we got dinosaurs steada hoomans.

    Musta been a real culture shock for Ms T Rex & her buddies to flop out on a rock an' touch leathery exterior to uberfluffball while restin' her sweet lizard brain.

    Tellya, I would wanna figure sum science experiments on them hamstahs.

    Like ... can static electricity be prodooced from the interplay of like hairs on my arms* an' the fur on the hamstahs' bodies?

    Could be a winnah.

    * jus' wanna be clear I ain't no Griller. I chose arm hair over anyplace else bcs that is mostly the goosebump area, which is kinda static electricity terrain.
    Signature

    Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff together.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11520213].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
    https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...f-high-gravity

    The consensus is that super-Earths would make a suitable home for life because their greater mass would encourage the retention of a thick atmosphere. That's essential for protecting life from harsh radiation.
    So eventhough it is circling a red drawf, and as Claude has said, incurrs higher radiation levels, that may not be an issue.

    But getting off the surface may be, although figuring out gravity and licking it, would solve that one.

    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11520277].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

      https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...f-high-gravity



      So eventhough it is circling a red drawf, and as Claude has said, incurrs higher radiation levels, that may not be an issue.
      I thought about the potential for a thicker atmosphere...even how it would make flight easier.

      The problem with Red Dwarf stars is that their radiation is thousands of times stronger than a sun like ours..

      But that's not the worst part...

      These planets, to be in the "habitable zone" have to be a hundred times closer to their star than we are to Earth. And with orbits of just 4 and 12 days...that's about right. So they may be receiving 100,000 times the radiation than we are. And Red Dwarf suns have solar flares that are many time more violent than our Sun's.

      They may have a thick atmosphere...but remember the original article? they are just 10% larger than Earth.

      And...although it would seem that the size of the planet would dictate the atmosphere...it really doesn't. Venus has an atmosphere that is 90 times thicker than Earth's...and the planet is the same size as Earth.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11520440].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

        I thought about the potential for a thicker atmosphere...even how it would make flight easier.

        The problem with Red Dwarf stars is that their radiation is thousands of times stronger than a sun like ours..

        But that's not the worst part...

        These planets, to be in the "habitable zone" have to be a hundred times closer to their star than we are to Earth. And with orbits of just 4 and 12 days...that's about right. So they may be receiving 100,000 times the radiation than we are. And Red Dwarf suns have solar flares that are many time more violent than our Sun's.

        They may have a thick atmosphere...but remember the original article? they are just 10% larger than Earth.

        And...although it would seem that the size of the planet would dictate the atmosphere...it really doesn't. Venus has an atmosphere that is 90 times thicker than Earth's...and the planet is the same size as Earth.
        It might have a moon that is in a Geo-stationary orbit behind the planet, or the suns radiation is greatly diminished?

        Gotta give me some rope here, l will take a habitable moon full of fluffy bunnies than a large, radiated, high gravity planet full of butch ones, lol.

        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11520443].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
          Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

          It might have a moon that is in a Geo-stationary orbit behind the planet, or the suns radiation is greatly diminished?

          Gotta give me some rope here, l will take a habitable moon full of fluffy bunnies than a large, radiated, high gravity planet full of butch ones, lol.

          I think you have hit on something there. In order to circumnavigate a volatile, angry Dwarf that flares up all the time, life just has to be Butch.
          Signature

          Where ever you go, there you are.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11520459].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
          Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

          It might have a moon that is in a Geo-stationary orbit behind the planet, or the suns radiation is greatly diminished?

          Gotta give me some rope here, l will take a habitable moon full of fluffy bunnies than a large, radiated, high gravity planet full of butch ones, lol.

          That's an interesting idea. I don't think a moon can be in a geo-stationary orbit around a planet (meaning that the orbit of the moon around the planet is exactly the same timing as the orbit of the planet around the star)....but I'll look it up...

          Added a second later;
          I didn't have to look it up. The distance from the planet to the moon would have to be equal to the distance between the planet and the star. Literally impossible.

          The moon would then just be a smaller planet at twice the orbital distance (from the sun) of the first planet.

          added later; Oops! For a moon to be tidally locked, it would also have to travel at 12 times the speed of the planet it orbits...assuming it was twice as far away from the star. Meaning....it's not possible. The outer moon would simply escape orbit at that speed.

          But you made me think, and for that I thank you.
          Added a tad later still;

          At the distance from the Red Dwarf, it's possible that the planets are tidally locked with the star, meaning that the same side always faces the star. The dark side would be shielded from the radiation.......but there would never be any light. And the side facing the star would be too hot and irradiated for anything to live. A thin "Twilight region" would circle the planet...where the radiation would be much less (because of the angle..the rays would go through far more atmosphere to get to the surface)...but the winds would be constant and extreme (cold air going to the hot side). Anyway...it's fun to talk about.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11520461].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

            That's an interesting idea. I don't think a moon can be in a geo-stationary orbit around a planet (meaning that the orbit of the moon around the planet is exactly the same timing as the orbit of the planet around the star)....but I'll look it up...

            Added a second later;
            I didn't have to look it up. The distance from the planet to the moon would have to be equal to the distance between the planet and the star. Literally impossible.

            The moon would then just be a smaller planet at twice the orbital distance (from the sun) of the first planet.

            But you made me think, and for that I thank you.
            A world first
            Signature

            Where ever you go, there you are.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11520464].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
    Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

    I think you have hit on something there. In order to circumnavigate a volatile, angry Dwarf that flares up all the time, life just has to be Butch.
    Speaking to a professional fluffy bunny hunter, l wouldn't think that a butch or muscle toned rabbit would be worth catching for Rabbit Stew?

    Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

    That's an interesting idea. I don't think a moon can be in a geo-stationary orbit around a planet (meaning that the orbit of the moon around the planet is exactly the same timing as the orbit of the planet around the star)....but I'll look it up...

    Added a second later;
    I didn't have to look it up. The distance from the planet to the moon would have to be equal to the distance between the planet and the star. Literally impossible.

    The moon would then just be a smaller planet at twice the orbital distance (from the sun) of the first planet.

    added later; Oops! For a moon to be tidally locked, it would also have to travel at 12 times the speed of the planet it orbits...assuming it was twice as far away from the star. Meaning....it's not possible. The outer moon would simply escape orbit at that speed.

    But you made me think, and for that I thank you.
    Added a tad later still;

    At the distance from the Red Dwarf, it's possible that the planets are tidally locked with the star, meaning that the same side always faces the star. The dark side would be shielded from the radiation.......but there would never be any light. And the side facing the star would be too hot and irradiated for anything to live. A thin "Twilight region" would circle the planet...where the radiation would be much less (because of the angle..the rays would go through far more atmosphere to get to the surface)...but the winds would be constant and extreme (cold air going to the hot side). Anyway...it's fun to talk about.
    Dammit, my fluffy bunny dreams all smashed, sniff.

    Ok, there might be another smaller planet orbiting this one, and then the smaller world would have a moon orbiting that which had life as we know it.

    That way it would only be in direct contact with the red drawf, about three months a year. So life could florish, for 7 months and get clobbered the rest, (fluffy bunnies, etc seek refuge in caves, etc).

    A bit like algae that is dormant to almost dead in Death Valley, and comes to life for a short while once a year.

    So if this planet has a few moons/planets around it, then plant and small animals should be there, or could be there.

    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11520516].message }}
Avatar of Unregistered

Trending Topics