Submitted by Gari_305 t3_1093gc0 in Futurology
Comments
vicethal t1_j3wpq7v wrote
Tidally locked sounds like it might have a ring of permanent twilight from pole to pole along the unmoving terminator line. It'd be a radically different climate, but no reason it couldn't have liquid water.
Raspberries-Are-Evil t1_j3wxca0 wrote
> but no reason it couldn't have liquid water.
Yea true. The other issue is radiation from the host star. But, underwater warm oceans with life? Id say very possible.
One good thing about Red Dwarfs is time. They are in the main sequence for 10s-100s of billions of years, a lot of time for evolution.
foofly t1_j3wz35l wrote
>Yea true. The other issue is radiation from the host star.
The article did mention that the star was particularly stable with no flares in the years that it was observed.
vicethal t1_j3wzro6 wrote
Is there any buildup to a solar flare, or is it just instant lethal radiation? Water's great shielding and aquatic life would still be able to turn amphibious, as long as dry land isn't certain death.
foofly t1_j3x1k69 wrote
They're known for being stable, but I'm not sure about how flares work.
Alias_The_J t1_j3y3pfe wrote
According to a recent study, red dwarf flares generally originate away from the equatorial plane, so the frequency of impact may be low on astronomic timescales.
pab_guy t1_j3xfvuc wrote
Convection between hot and cool zones has gotta make those regions a weather nightmare, no?
vicethal t1_j3xp1o8 wrote
Definitely. As a perk, it might mean easy wind power. As a drawback, it might make spacecraft design a lot more complicated (or maybe aerospaceplanes can ride thermals to the top of the atmosphere, I have no idea)
For life evolving there, I still like the idea of amphibians: if the winds come and go, they can colonize land gradually while using heavy, shielding water as shelter.
Professor226 t1_j3zxp2r wrote
No tidally locked means you need to pay a subscription fee to use the ocean.
leaky_wand t1_j3xa3lu wrote
Isn’t being in the habitable zone already an indicator of it not being too close to the host star? I thought that was part of the definition of the habitable zone.
Intafadah t1_j3xsnfr wrote
From my understanding Red Dwarf stars are a lot smaller and have less luminosity then sun-like stars, there for its habitable zone is a lot closer then the latter.
Kunama_Namadgi t1_j40gqey wrote
I’m so sick of all these tidally locked planets😂
Ivebeenfurthereven t1_j3vxic7 wrote
Reminder that Venus is an Earth-size planet in the habitable zone. (In fact, historically many people thought there could be a civilisation under the clouds, an idea that only really died when we started to take absurd temperature readings and the Soviets successfully deployed landers to the hellscape below)
Still, exciting thought.
ConfirmedCynic t1_j3vyy1m wrote
It isn't, actually. 0.72 AU but the Sun's habitable zone extends from 0.9 AU to 1.5 AU. It may have been at one time, when the sun was dimmer.
I guess this all depends on who you ask about the boundaries of the habitable zone though, answers vary.
Elan_Morin_Tedronaii t1_j3y3adz wrote
I remember watching a video with I think Carl Sagan? Where he talks about how there may be dense jungles underneath the thick venusian atmosphere.
Lurlex t1_j3yn3bh wrote
If it was Cosmos, I think I remember the same. Except, what he was saying is that we had discovered within the last decade (at the time of filming, the 1970s) that this was NOT the case. When he was talking about Venusian jungles, he was referring to what people once speculated.
I may be wrong about that, I don’t remember the year in which Russia got that lander onto the surface. There is a big focus on both versions of Cosmos in illustrating how old ideas have died out in favor of new ones, however, so he and Neil both talked about past incorrect hypothesis all the time to contrast them against what we know now.
ObiWanCanShowMe t1_j3wys7r wrote
If there are 2, there are trillions.
Upstairs-Motor2722 t1_j3yzzx0 wrote
This is the line they sold me with on pest control.
johnfogogin t1_j3w0zkj wrote
Orbits every 37 days? So its zipping around the star?
Good-Advantage-9687 t1_j3w59nr wrote
That particular star is not very big. It is a red dwarf after all.
Yeuph t1_j3wlhwh wrote
I wonder what the "gravity" difference is when you're standing outside of the orbit vs when you're inside the orbit being pushed outward while standing on the planet. It's probably small but measurable.
I think the centrifugal force causes a weight difference of about 0.5% on the Earth standing on the equator vs standing on the poles, it's pretty large actually
Schyte96 t1_j3wuus6 wrote
-
That is due to the centrifugal force due to the rotation of the Earth, and not the orbit of the Earth around the Sun.
-
Only 1/3rd of that 0.5% is due to the centrifugal force, the rest is due to the oblateness putting you about 21km further from the center of the earth when on the equator vs the poles.
I think both of these effects would be smaller, as the planet is likely tidally locked, making it's rotation slower than Earth, which also makes the equatorial bulge smaller.
Yeuph t1_j3wyfcl wrote
Yes I know it is due to the centrifugal force, which was why I said that.
The question about the planet was not about that, it was about the effect of a fast orbit on perceived gravity depending upon which side of the planet you were on relative to the orbit
The earth thing was just to show these types of effects can have measurable effects, not that it was exactly the same
ChalupaCabre t1_j3wu251 wrote
Do you mean you wonder what the gravitational force is on that planet, compared to earth’s whopping 9.807 m/s²?
ChalupaCabre t1_j3wtqs4 wrote
Earth is also zipping around our star at 67,000mph and yet I don’t feel a damn thing.
johnfogogin t1_j3wulr4 wrote
Yet it takes us 365.25 days to get around it.
ChalupaCabre t1_j3wv4zw wrote
Yeah earth days… 24 hours because earth is also spinning at a rate of 1037.7mph.
Everything’s so dang fast! It’s like a dang carnival ride, except it isn’t making me throw up!
BlondeMomentByMoment t1_j3xal6d wrote
I’m a bit nauseated by our plants condition, but that’s another topic altogether.
Keep your arms and hands inside the ride ;)
ChalupaCabre t1_j3xlevy wrote
You just need some herbal psilocybin tea to settle you. Thanks Mother Nature!
BlondeMomentByMoment t1_j3y4fm6 wrote
You’re not wrong.
I’m becoming more educated about treatments with such a thing and plan to involve myself in a little horticulture.
ChalupaCabre t1_j3yzamu wrote
Totally off topic… but I read a few books and listened to some podcasts, then started micro and macro dosing psilocybin about 3 years ago.
I’m not saying my lifelong bouts of depression are cured, but I have never been better!!
It was pretty “grey market” stuff here.. technically illegal, but cops & government don’t really go after people. Happy to say that as of January 1st it’s legal for small amounts of possession as a trial run for 3 years.
I think psilocybin/mdma type therapies could do wonders on people with addictions, depression and PTSD among dozens of other non-beneficial mental health issues.
BlondeMomentByMoment t1_j3z3evq wrote
I really appreciate your comment.
I’m absolutely on board with psychedelics for treatment of depression, anxiety, PTSD and so on. There’s a lot of data to support the benefit.
It’s been decriminalized where I live. Psychedelics can be possessed , grown, gifted.
There are therapists, they don’t dispense, but they act as guides.
I haven’t looked much at the subreddit here. Ive got a PharmD friend and another friend that worked as a grower in the cannabis industry. Her friend that owned that have a company that sells growing medium, lights etc. they used to grow mushroom and gave her some spores. I’ve got a perfect little closet in the basement of my old house.
Feel free to message me anytime to talk about it.
I don’t know where to get anything. Ketamine IV was a huge fail for me. Mostly because the practitioners didn’t prepare or guide me.
Sorry for the novel. I just really appreciates your comment.
Congrats on feeling better. I’d take feeling less awful as a win.
[deleted] t1_j3xw41e wrote
[removed]
Gari_305 OP t1_j3vtkkb wrote
From the article
>NASA's leading planet-hunting spacecraft has spotted its second planet that matches Earth's size and may be able to retain liquid water — and both worlds orbit the same star.
Also from the article
>NASA's Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) launched in April 2018; since then, the mission has discovered 285 confirmed exoplanets and more than 6,000 candidates. One of the most intriguing of the confirmed planets is a world dubbed TOI 700 d, which is about the size of Earth and located in its star's habitable zone. Now, scientists have determined that the planet has a neighbor that's just as tantalizing, thanks to an October 2021 alert that the Earth-orbiting telescope had seen something interesting.
>
>"We first started looking at it and we're like, 'Is this real?'" Emily Gilbert, an astronomer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, told Space.com. Gilbert and her colleagues are presenting the research at the 241st meeting of the American Astronomical Society, being held this week in Seattle and virtually.
FuturologyBot t1_j3vx93y wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305:
From the article
>NASA's leading planet-hunting spacecraft has spotted its second planet that matches Earth's size and may be able to retain liquid water — and both worlds orbit the same star.
Also from the article
>NASA's Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) launched in April 2018; since then, the mission has discovered 285 confirmed exoplanets and more than 6,000 candidates. One of the most intriguing of the confirmed planets is a world dubbed TOI 700 d, which is about the size of Earth and located in its star's habitable zone. Now, scientists have determined that the planet has a neighbor that's just as tantalizing, thanks to an October 2021 alert that the Earth-orbiting telescope had seen something interesting.
>
>"We first started looking at it and we're like, 'Is this real?'" Emily Gilbert, an astronomer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, told Space.com. Gilbert and her colleagues are presenting the research at the 241st meeting of the American Astronomical Society, being held this week in Seattle and virtually.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1093gc0/astronomers_find_2nd_earthsize_planet_in/j3vtkkb/
Bewaretheicespiders t1_j3x95c5 wrote
My problem with those claims is that there is no way they can validate their method without actually going there.
umassmza t1_j3xwc9p wrote
At some point we will go somewhere, and it’ll be a one way trip where those leaving won’t ever see the destination. Kinda terrifying, but also really cool we’re looking for the destination.
[deleted] t1_j3zxmtx wrote
[removed]
MajorIsaiahLight t1_j40d4wx wrote
Please post the distance in light years from earth when posting about these habitable planets. Cheerio.
[deleted] t1_j3wpxie wrote
[deleted]
durezzz t1_j3wumpo wrote
i see this same stupid, copy and pasted comment on every thread about a new exoplanet.
Raspberries-Are-Evil t1_j3w8hti wrote
Planets like this not good candidates for "Earth like" conditions as they are too close their host star and are tidally locked. One side will be boiling hot, the other freezing cold and there will be a lot of radiation.
These planets are easier to detect which is why we keep hearing about them.