Moontanman Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 The closest Earth sized planet has been found orbiting Alpha Centauri, while too close to it's parent star to be earth like in climate it is close to the right size. http://www.space.com/18097-alpha-centauri-stars-planet-explained-infographic.html 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janus Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Pack up the Jupiter 2, Robinsons, you're finally heading out! Hey, fifteen yrs late is better than never. (Exactly 15y in fact. The launch date for the Jupiter 2 was Oct 16, 1997.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illegal username Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Have they confirmed the presence of fungus and/or mindworms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer 03 Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Have they confirmed the presence of fungus and/or mindworms? Have they confirmed more than its existence? Cancer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted October 27, 2012 Author Share Posted October 27, 2012 Have they confirmed more than its existence? Cancer They have confirmed it s far to hot for life as we know it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer 03 Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 They have confirmed it s far to hot for life as we know it... Exactly, so why would we find/be looking for life forms that are as advanced as fungus (above)? That is absurd. Cancer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted October 27, 2012 Author Share Posted October 27, 2012 (edited) Exactly, so why would we find/be looking for life forms that are as advanced as fungus (above)? That is absurd. Cancer I think that's called sarcasm... Another take on this has to do with the nearest star having an earth sized planet. Until recently it was assumed that double stars like the Alpha Centauri system do not have planets but now we know that not only do multiple star systems have planets there is an Earth sized one just 4.5 light years away. Is this statistically significant? Edited October 27, 2012 by Moontanman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janus Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 I think that's called sarcasm... Actually, I believe it is a joke referencing the PC game "Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri", which was a sequel to "Civilization". Fungus and mindworms were a couple of the problems you had to deal with in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer 03 Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 I think that's called sarcasm... Another take on this has to do with the nearest star having an earth sized planet. Until recently it was assumed that double stars like the Alpha Centauri system do not have planets but now we know that not only do multiple star systems have planets there is an Earth sized one just 4.5 light years away. Is this statistically significant? Actually, I believe it is a joke referencing the PC game "Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri", which was a sequel to "Civilization". Fungus and mindworms were a couple of the problems you had to deal with in the game. Moontanman, A planet that is the size of Earth has no reason to be in any way more inhabitable than a planet that is twice the size of Earth. Unless you believe that the period of rotation of a larger planet would be insufficient for life due to uneven periods of warmth due to starlight. However, if it is true that this planet is much too hot to sustain any form of life, then period of rotation or revolution or any other planetary movement or characteristic would obviously be disregarded. As for you, Janus, I now understand why "fungus" and "mindworms" were referenced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted October 27, 2012 Author Share Posted October 27, 2012 Moontanman, A planet that is the size of Earth has no reason to be in any way more inhabitable than a planet that is twice the size of Earth. Unless you believe that the period of rotation of a larger planet would be insufficient for life due to uneven periods of warmth due to starlight. However, if it is true that this planet is much too hot to sustain any form of life, then period of rotation or revolution or any other planetary movement or characteristic would obviously be disregarded. As for you, Janus, I now understand why "fungus" and "mindworms" were referenced. What does rotational speed have to do with it? The planet is too close to it's star to support life as we know it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer 03 Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 What does rotational speed have to do with it? The planet is too close to it's star to support life as we know it... If the planet were at a perfect distance from a nearby star, which it is not, its period of rotation would matter because if it is extremely slow, one side of the planet could be very cold while the other could be very hot. And yes, I do realize that is it far too close "to support life as we know it." Cancer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted October 28, 2012 Author Share Posted October 28, 2012 If the planet were at a perfect distance from a nearby star, which it is not, its period of rotation would matter because if it is extremely slow, one side of the planet could be very cold while the other could be very hot. And yes, I do realize that is it far too close "to support life as we know it." Cancer I see, no one but you brought the rotational speed into this.... but you do have a point. I'm not willing to say that a slow rotating planet would by necessity be non conductive to life but it would present some unique challenges for life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer 03 Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 I see, no one but you brought the rotational speed into this.... but you do have a point. I'm not willing to say that a slow rotating planet would by necessity be non conductive to life but it would present some unique challenges for life. Yes, I agree. Cancer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akh Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 If the planet were at a perfect distance from a nearby star, which it is not, its period of rotation would matter because if it is extremely slow, one side of the planet could be very cold while the other could be very hot. And yes, I do realize that is it far too close "to support life as we know it." Cancer The issue of slow rotation is more than just temperature related. Rotation (and mantel convection) appear to be needed to produce a magnetosphere. Without a magnetosphere, the solar wind of the system star will strip a planet of its atmosphere and irradiate the planet with high energy particles. Light, volatile compounds and elements are stripped first (hydrogen) making the planet inhospitable to life as we know it. Venus (slow rotation) and Mars (apparent lack of mantel convection) are good examples. But there is still chances for life in the Venusian upper atmosphere and underground on Mars. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Until recently it was assumed that double stars like the Alpha Centauri system do not have planets but now we know that not only do multiple star systems have planets there is an Earth sized one just 4.5 light years away. Is this statistically significant? I think it was established more than a decade ago, via simulation, that there were plenty of stable planetary orbits in binary systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) I think it was established more than a decade ago, via simulation, that there were plenty of stable planetary orbits in binary systems. I think the problem was not the stable orbit per se - but that the accretion disk would not behave in a way conducive to planetary formation. I was listening to a Material World past episode a few days ago - I will dig out a link. </h3> <h3>Material World 18th Oct: Badgers, Ants and New Planets Thu, 18 Oct 12 Duration: 29 mins Lord Krebs, architect of the previous badger culling trial, on the scientific evidence surrounding the controversial policy. Plus Chris Lintott on the discovery of a new planet, Adam Hart talks about flying ants and Stuart Clark with space stamps. http://www.bbc.co.uk...rammes/b01nbrj7 Sorry the discussion is about a planet around 4 stars. \edit - podcast link that I think works for non_uk http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/material/material_20121018-1800a.mp3 Edited October 30, 2012 by imatfaal Addition of link 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer 03 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 The issue of slow rotation is more than just temperature related. Rotation (and mantel convection) appear to be needed to produce a magnetosphere. Without a magnetosphere, the solar wind of the system star will strip a planet of its atmosphere and irradiate the planet with high energy particles. Light, volatile compounds and elements are stripped first (hydrogen) making the planet inhospitable to life as we know it. Venus (slow rotation) and Mars (apparent lack of mantel convection) are good examples. But there is still chances for life in the Venusian upper atmosphere and underground on Mars. Very good analysis, I'm impressed. Cancer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts