Professor-M

🧐 It has been over twenty years since it became apparent that the Universe is full not only of red-dwarf stars , but also of rocky planets orbiting said stars . The scientific consensus since then has become that these worlds are relatively hostile to life , and thus are not suitable candidates for future inhabitation . The reasons for this are varied , and include environmental factors such as extremely intense radiation regimes , inadequate volatile resources , and inadequate atmospheric densities . There are however , several significant underappreciated mitigating factors which could potentially moderate the abovementioned negative ones , and result in these particular exoplanets actually being not only survivable , but permanently livable as well . The foremost factor regarding the above is the directionality of the hard radiation given off by red-dwarf stars . Most of this is emitted in the poleward latitudes of these stars , and thus does not collide with the planets orbiting in the plane-of-the-ecliptic of these bodies . The second most impactful (and surprising) factor is the likely prevalence of at least some atmosphere on many of these worlds , this resulting from both robust and near-eternal volatiles replenishment regimes , and also moderately strong planetary magnetic-fields . The tertiary moderating factor is the likely presence of constantly circulating atmospheres evidencing planetary superrotation , and thus taking excess thermal energy from the starlit sides and redistributing it to the unlit sides of these planets . Lastly , tidal-heating might have a significant effect upon the thermal regime of these worlds, this then affecting their overall abilities to maintain planetary dynamos , and by extension , planetary magnetic-fields as well . There are also a myriad of lesser factors which could potentially affect both the usability and the hhabitability of the abovementioned planets , but the number of parameters and synergies involved is far to large for any facile generalizations .

So... , wherever we go , we'll bring our own "sick" with us , and maybe back to Earth ! 🤓

🤓 Fellow Spacers , Pathogenic diseases take enormous lengths of time to develop from scratch . No pathway for their development has yet existed on Mars, so... scratch ! The biggest risk by far is the same one that already exists on our space-stations , that of mutated pathogens fielding profoundly greater transmissibility and lethality than they normally possess .

It's a set of parameters , one the literal but unlikely scenario , the second the much more realistic one . The 46-seconds a century obviously is the former, equating to seize-up in 78 centuries. The latter should be 2300 , equating to just over 1.57 centuries . So almost 8k. years and under 1.57 centuries ; both well under ten-million , as originally stated . I will allow for a dropped decimal point in the original calculations , caused apparently by profound physical exhaustion and late-night in-the-head calculating . I am sure you can identify with this , right ? 😵 *Very busy ; refining right now .

🧐 I don't bullshit , I estimate or calculate . Also , using various search-engines yields only descriptions of the subject process which have less math in them than mine displayed up above . In otherwords , the involved variables make it impossible to produce a credible figure here , only the below process descriptions and numerical approximations are possible in this case . If we use Mr. Janus' figure of 27,000 times Luna's tidal-effect on Earth , then multiply that figure by a factor of 50 due to the mass increase likely needed to gestate an Earth-class moon around a Jupiter , then we get a sum-total of 135,000 times the tidal slow-down rate induced by Luna . Since that slow-down currently sits at ~1.7millisecond a century , the Question's moon could be expected to be slowing at about 46-seconds a century , or 46k.sec. per millennium . Even if we presume some sort of capture scenario whereby an Earth is placed in close orbit to Jupiter , then we calculate a slow-down rate of 46k.sec. per 50-millenia . The above means that the subject planet would theoretically cease rotating in under two-thousand years , one-hundred thousand if the host-planet is only one Jupiter-mass . Realistically , slow-down would be faster early on , and slower later on . This means that the above estimate could be off quite a bit , BUT even then , would still be nowheres near the initial estimate of ten-million years . *Now then , considering that the above Question simply seeks descriptions of the processes and consequences of having an Earth in close orbit around a Jupiter (full-mass or other) , and that NONE of the other writers came close to engaging in making the number of descriptive calculations that were demanded of me , I must ask why only I have to write a numerical treatise where they obviously do not . 🧐

🤓 Modification - An Earth situated very near Jupiter would be at the bottom of the greatest gravity-well in the outer solar-system . This draws in a steady and heavy influx of asteroidal and cometary materials, assuring that Earth’s atmosphere would be endlessly replenished . The planet would freeze up soon after tide-lock , but it's atmosphere would remain . This iceball-Eatth would periodically build up an excess of carbon-dioxide from volcanic activity , this resulting in relatively short interludes of global warm-up from the "greenhouse-effect" . Abundant surface water and plate-tectonics would inevitably combine to sequester said CO2 , returning the planet to iceball status fairly quickly , by geological standards . *. The below Reference addresses the likely atmospheric cycle should Jupiter's radiation-belts prove capable of stripping off much of Earth’s atmosphere . https://photos.app.goo.gl/sBj1Wyu4Jwrh7cLJ8

🤔 Regarding the disagreements within the botanical community ; these range from functional to taxonomic to phylogenetic to evolutionary . Finding and sifting through bunches of botanical forums (such as in the above link) for such debates could take weeks , but searching-up "Botanical disagreements on carnivorous plants" will give you quick results . *Example of major scholarly debate regarding plant carnivory : https://photos.app.goo.gl/vWTGB8rH7Pxamj2PA

Mr. Exchemist , click the link , then read the paragraph discussing "Murderous-plants" . This is from a large thread in another Forum hotly debating this subject . *I shan't link to another Forum . Mr. CharonY , my perception is that ANY struggle for resources can , over time , lead to profound changes in the morphology and function of involved species . If the absence of predators leads to an over-abundance of prey animals , many may become diseased or starve out . This may provide an unusual but steady supply of vital nutrients for the abovementioned plant-predators . Logically , over time those better-suited to take advantage of this supply will do better , and eventually outbreed those less-suited . The end result ? "The Running-Tree" !! 🫡

Biology-Fans , the Post-Question above is specifically referring to plants/trees that have evolved to trap , ensnare , poison , or even run down large animals . This meaning those above the size of geckos , hummingbirds or mice . Nature abhors a vacuum , and given an ecological niche being unutilized in a specific environment , will often make do by altering , through natural-selection , a species normally incapable of filling that niche . The above applies both to the Kingdoms of Plantea and Animalia , but with minimal crossover between the two . However , as always there are exceptions . The most obvious and well-known of these would be the carnivorous plants ; pitcher-plants , fly-traps , and honeydews for example . Less well-known known are those which kill various creatures , but do not directly "eat" them. These are the protocarnivores, plants which indirectly absorb nutrients from the bodies of their victims . The question of whether large animals poisoned by plants/trees , and dying where their roots can gain sustenance from the nutrients leaching through the ground into their roots , qualify as victims of protocarnivorous plants , is currently the topic of much debate . Similarly , this question also applies to large creatures entangled in thorny brambles , and dying if they can't escape . Non of the abovementioned scenarios involve highly mobile plants , however , the capabilities of some known plants to engage in sudden motions indicate that a series of coordinated movements , even by larger plants and trees , could well be possible . This could even encompass what we would call "running" ; a series of powerful action propelling an entity across a stretch of surface at speed . If a plant/tree could make evolutionary changes of this magnitude , then tying prey up in it's branches would definitely be doable . If the above predation paradigm were to actually become extant , then the issue of speedy absorption of the prey's nutrients becomes paramount . Just as animal-predators need to feed before any of their competitors can steal their prey , plant-predators would also need to adopt fast-feeding strategies and equipment . Given the complete absence of digestive-systems in most plants , but their ability to absorb nutrients in liquid form , the most likely strategy they would employ would be to quickly and forcibly remove the victim's nutrients from their body . The best example available in nature for this is that of spiders ; they inject digestive enzymes into their victims , this dissolving their soft-tissues, and enabling the predators to suction-out the resultant slurry , often crushing the prey's body in the process of feeding . *No evidence of such macropredadory plants has yet been found , however , given the vast scope of space , it is likely that the above has already come into being somewhere in the cosmos . These "Running-Trees" are doubtless out there , and future explorers of exoplanets would be well-advised to be aware of this shocking possibility . 🤓 https://photos.app.goo.gl/mFg3pav8g8FkoU3X6

Gentlemenses , True , it is difficult to predict exactly when we will gain specific capabilities . However , once we can make our Model-Ts (so to speak) , we can easily ship them out to distant lands without having to manufacture them there . 🤓

On the other hand... The higher the technology level , the easier and cheaper to make devices are . Consider the Model-T automobile ; making these today would be ridiculously simple , yet they could easily be made to last forever. Mars is currently a bridge to far for much in-situ utilization , but the next era of techno-industrial advancement will likely make that practical . As to negative medical effects imbued upon settlers by the Martian environment ; advanced biomedical facilities will be able to produce the necessary drugs and other treatments , while weight-suits combined with exoskeletons will enable the "Martians" to stress and load their musculoskeletal components while accomplishing the physical tasks necessary to keep the colonies functioning . *My Reference-Post : ^/photos.app.goo.gl/k9bBZXmdzA4Zr2WZ9

🤔 Mr. CharonY , Biomedical mitigation will doubtless be well ahead of where it is at present ; the list of medical conditions which have yielded to modern medicine in the last century is endless . So too will be the list of those conditions mitigated by near-future cures and treatments , these likely including those engendered by partial gravity .

🤓 Indeed Mr. Jolgus , that would place it in the category of "introduced everywhere" , and begets the question of anisotropy examined in the link above . Personally , I wonder if such an introduction would really be enough to account for the apparent black-hole mass overages referenced in the theory of Cosmological-Coupling .

🤓 Universal-Gentlemen , I am attempting to sleuth out which of two paradigms applies here ; is Dark-Energy created by "super-compression" of mass-energy , as with black-holes , this implying that it then spreads out to the regions of lowest density in the universe . OR is D-E preferentially directly generated within low-density regions , or even generated throughout ALL of space , then slipping-out through the areas of high density on it's way to those of low-density ?

Hallo MigL ! 🤓 I think that there would be "method to the madness" with this ; the characteristics you are describing would have averages and predictable patterns , even while appearing random and chaotic on the surface. This would be analogous to the overall manifestation of gravity within the Universe ; fairly constant when seen from the largest perspective , but seeming to be unpredictably intense when examined from many local ones . The behavior of Dark-Energy is now under more scrutiny than ever before , primarily because of advancing technology in the field of astronomy . This particularly applies to the dynamic history of .D-E. throughout the history of the Universe . *Reference Article below : https://www.astronomy.com/science/dark-energy-may-be-changing-over-time/

I hear you , but... Is not the question related to the subject in Mordred's thread ? Cosmological-Coupling is actually a rising physics theory and much about it is unclear, but the discussions in the thread could definitely help define it for me . Also , five years is like yesterday to me . I'll bet that many of the participants in the abovementioned thread would actually find contrasting it with C-C quite enervating . Seriously now , these Threads are like a living library of interesting books . Does it not make sense to let the readers peruse ALL of the books , then dive into the ones that actually catch their interest ? Personally , I'd bet big bucks that the books themselves would rather be utilized once in a while , rather than moldering away even though they still have much to offer . *Newer is not always better , so how's about liberalizing the strictures here , and perhaps upping the enjoyment factor of the participants, and increasing their numbers ? 🤓

Yes Doctor , but... We can detect their gravitational effects , so... from what ? 🤔

Cosmo-Folk (and Doctors) , There is another possible source of invisible mass in deep interstellar space , this being gravity-waves . Although we have begun to measure and use gravity-waves to evaluate very distant cosmic phenomena , there has so far been minimal appreciation of the existence and effects of attenuated and primordial gravity-waves upon the Universe and it's contents . These G-Ws are unimaginably diluted by distance , and thus weak in energy-content . However, 13.8-billion years of their constant generation have doubtless soaked the cosmos with an endless ocean of them . The total virtual (relativistic) mass of this abundance of putative gravitons must actually be a cosmically significant amount, likely being a large portion of the missing "mass-energy" addressed up above . *Reference Article below : PremiumColossal gravitational waves—trillions of miles long—foun...Detected by studying rapidly spinning dead stars, these giant ripples of spacetime likely came from merging supermassive black holes—and they may reveal clues about the nature of the universe.

Mr. Mordred , True , the Cosmological Principle has become ever more ensconced in mainstream physics as empirical evidence for it mounts . However , the anisotropic and inhomogenous effects engendered by budding theory of Cosmological Coupling have yet to be quantified . *Contributions to this knowledge base would be greatly appreciated . ^ Read "Cosmological Coupling" in the Section "Speculations" . https://scienceforums.net/topic/136535-cosmological-coupling-split-from-dark-matterenergy-hubble-tension-solved/?&do=findComment&comment=1294783

Mr. Swansont , I personally partake in these discussions only to put forth my take on various concepts I find interesting , and to see what other people think about said ideas . I am not a big numbers guy , but if you want I will let you interpret for me . The below link involves a more formulaic approach than I have so far taken . I chose it because it does address the issue of regional versus global effects . Also , as regards black-hole gravitational effects , the gist of what I was saying was that cosmological-coupling changes the gravitational effects induced by B-Hs quite a bit , but only the parts of the Universe close to those will ever feel said changes . Finally , I grant you theat Inflation Theory explains that the Universe is expanding ever faster , but... whatever the rate of expansion is , it would be more if there were no extant gravity to oppose it . https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/11/1/81 *Regarding regional variations in D-E : ^ Dynamical Dark-Energy Models : https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013CQGra..30u4003T/abstract **BTW - Dr. Swansont , I believe your explanation below , but like many am left wondering "What the heck IS Dark-Energy , and why does it behave so ?" .

Mr. MigL , Yes , but... Cosmological-Coupling propounds a process whereby some of the mass-energy introduced to the Universe by Cosmic-Expansion is infused into it's black-holes , this greatly increasing their mass over time .

Alright gentlemen , some support coming . Cosmological-Coupling is so far a THEORY , one still amenable to interpretation and logic . The concept of gravity slowing down the Universe’s expansion is now well established , even the relatively new paradigm of "Inflation" acknowledging this effect . C-C Theory fundamentally links black-holes and the expansion of the Universe's space , with the subject B-Hs disproportionately growing by utilizing some of the energy driving this expansion . Logically then , black-holes reduce the expansion of space on a regional basis , this because locally , gravity travels at much greater speed than the expansion of space . However , at great distance the opposite is true . The logical consequence of the above is that black-hole concentrations retard the local expansion of space significantly more than absence of them does . Varying masses of black-holes in different regions of space must then , slow said expansion in direct proportion to their overall masses . **Addendum - Over the last 13.8by. , the rate of cosmic-expansion has varied . If C-C is valid , this would have reduced and/or increased the growth-rate of the subject black-holes . *Reference Articles below : Scientists find first observational evidence linking black holes to dark energy | University of Michigan News : //share.google/WDqMBhHgsW8dSlFhe *Also : //www.science.org/content/article/mystery-force-behind-universe-s-accelerating-expansion-may-not-be-so-constant-after-all

It is not , just awkward . 🤓 https://youtu.be/36UQCZEsY9g?si=Z6_Bq1bdxyQuD3oK

🧐 It was the YouTube Video I referenced , but the thread kept deactivating it . I have not been using cut-and-paste , but will take a look at it . Now just like the other writers here , I need freedom to move , in order to write quality Posts .

🤔 Alright , How's about Video Links ? . I'm having problems with both those and photos . Mr. Exchemist , Photos enables me to bring in a picture of the desired Link to copy , and videos are often the best for explaining complicated topics like .171. Now if you'd like to tell me how to do cut-and-paste on a cheap Samsung phone , I'm all ears . Otherwise , I have to transfer the Links letter by letter .