Posted on 08/27/2016 7:25:23 AM PDT by BenLurkin
For starters, to call a planet “Earth-like” generally means that it is similar in composition to Earth. This is where the term “terrestrial” really comes into play, as it refers to a rocky planet that is composed primarily of silicate rock and metals which are differentiated between a metal core and a silicate mantle and crust.
...
What this does not mean, at least not automatically, is that the planet is habitable in the way Earth is. Simply being terrestrial in nature is not an indication that the planet has a suitable atmosphere or a warm enough climate to support the existence of liquid water or microbial life on its surface.
What’s more, Earth-like generally implies that a planet will be similar in mass and size to Earth. But this is not the same as composition, as many exoplanets that have been discovered have been labeled as “Earth-sized” or “Super-Earths” – i.e. planets with around 10 times the mass of Earth – based solely on their mass.
This term also distinguishes an exoplanet candidate from those that are 15 to 17 masses (which are often referred to as “Neptune-sized”) and those that are have masses similar to, or many times greater than that of Jupiter (i.e. Super-Jupiters). In all these cases, size and mass are the qualifiers, not composition.
(Excerpt) Read more at universetoday.com ...
Well, if there aren’t any liberals there I’m ready to give it a shot, just the same.
If a planet is 15 times larger than Earth will Life on the planet be 15 times larger ?
My take on this....within 30 years, we will have the speed thing licked and launch some unmanned probe to reach there and land some explorer vehicle to do soil samples and see about life there. It may take 10 years to get there and get the data back but it’ll settle some arguments.
Meanwhile, we need to sit down and write up some rules because we might land....find human-like characters in a caveman environment, with dinosaurs predators limiting their development. Will we do the Republican-right-thing and kill off the dinosaur population, or will we just shake hands with the natives and wish them well (the Democrat-right thing)?
You know, they could be infinitely more advance than us and want to be left the hell alone.
They will be saddened to hear that Hillary is running for prez again.
Depends on the mass and density of the planet - lower and life could be larger, higher and life could be larger. There is only so much structural strength to a given design. For instance: bones on Earth can only support so much weight, over the limit and the animal is crushed by it own weigh and suffocates.
Animal in a water environment can be really huge since water acts to buoy them - to support them.
On land the Indian elephant is the largest animal that can exist in our current gravity regime.
There is no coherent or scientific argument which allows the dinosaurs to exist as land animals - unless gravity was far less then than today. (nor could they exist today as they lived in an environment with far higher oxygen content.
The Problem with Big Dinosaurs - http://dinosaurtheory.com/big_dinosaur.html
there are numerous Class M planets throughout the galaxy.
All of the inhabitants of these planets are humanoid, and speak English.
And all have attractive females who catch the eye of Captain Kirk.
What does it mean?
It means whatever the research grant application calls for it to mean.
Actually, I just finished watching a great documentary on TV called “Battlestar Galactica”. It explains everything.
All of the inhabitants of these planets are humanoid, and speak English.
And all have attractive females who catch the eye of Captain Kirk.
If you go there, just make sure you're not wearing a red shirt when you beam down.
I want to be here, on EARTH, either in my bed or in my
EARTHLY grave when Yeshua HaMaschiach (Jesus Christ)
returns to this EARTH to regenerate all of it - me
included. I’m weak. Well, scripture reads, “Let the WEAK
say, I am STRONG.” So, “I AM STRONG!”
“It’s a Menshara/class-G planet, Captain.”
I’m curious how many worlds are out there that looked to have once been habitable, but are now scarred radioactive wastelands from technology and war.
Not necessarily, but probably 15 times heavier, which would be a MAJOR problem for Madam Benghazi.
The BS marketing by NASA and the other Big Astro players is nauseating and turns people away from science careers.
“Larger” or fifteen times as MASSive? If it’s the latter then everything would be functioning at 15 g’s. That’s “can’t lift a finger or even breath” territory for an Earthling. But there’s abundant life in ocean depths where exposed terrestrials would be crushed and in other environments you’d assume were totally lethal. So based on how life can adapt on Earth one shouldn’t assume a planet has to be exactly like Terra to support some form.
Hmmm. Maybe 1/15 as tall.
Then all those larger African elephants are specters?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.