life in multiple star systems

I think I heard that more star systems are binary, or triple, than
single stars. Whether or not, we do know that many star systems are of
multiple stars orbiting one another. We have seen the renditions by
astroartists of what it would look like to have two sun's in your
planet's sky. Indeed the book Nightfall by Isaac Asimov and Robert
Silverberg depicts a world, if I remember correctly, with six suns and
because of this night time never comes because there is always at
least one, usually multiple suns in the sky. It seems to me the
chances of life in, let us take a double system for simplicity, would
have little chance for surviving. Let us say the system was such that
the secondary was 30 AU from the primary and the habitable planet was
at 15 AU from the primary, then, when the secondary was on the
opposite side of the primary from the planet, it would be very cold.
Then when the planet was in between the two stars, it would be very
hot. Would not such extremes make it very difficult for life to
evolve? I mean the season's would be so complicated, and numerous, and
long in cycles because the two stars would be in so many different
arrangements before they lined up once again with say the planet in a
straight line with the two stars both on opposite sides of the planet.
Evolution would not know what to think, once an adaptation was
selected for, everything would have changed, and would have been
rendered obsolete. We have four seasons in North America, pretty much
the flowers know when to bloom, and the leaves to fall off the trees,
the birds when to build nests, the fish when to spawn, due the simple
cycles of the earth around one star. In Alaska the bears hibernate
during winter have adapted to six months of dark and cold, and have
adapted to six months of it is always day. Easy patterns for evolution.

"Ian" wrote in message
...
|I think I heard that more star systems are binary, or triple, than
| single stars. Whether or not, we do know that many star systems are of
| multiple stars orbiting one another. We have seen the renditions by
| astroartists of what it would look like to have two sun's in your
| planet's sky. Indeed the book Nightfall by Isaac Asimov and Robert
| Silverberg depicts a world, if I remember correctly, with six suns and
| because of this night time never comes because there is always at
| least one, usually multiple suns in the sky. It seems to me the
| chances of life in, let us take a double system for simplicity, would
| have little chance for surviving. Let us say the system was such that
| the secondary was 30 AU from the primary and the habitable planet was
| at 15 AU from the primary, then, when the secondary was on the
| opposite side of the primary from the planet, it would be very cold.
| Then when the planet was in between the two stars, it would be very
| hot. Would not such extremes make it very difficult for life to
| evolve? I mean the season's would be so complicated, and numerous, and
| long in cycles because the two stars would be in so many different
| arrangements before they lined up once again with say the planet in a
| straight line with the two stars both on opposite sides of the planet.
| Evolution would not know what to think, once an adaptation was
| selected for, everything would have changed, and would have been
| rendered obsolete. We have four seasons in North America, pretty much
| the flowers know when to bloom, and the leaves to fall off the trees,
| the birds when to build nests, the fish when to spawn, due the simple
| cycles of the earth around one star. In Alaska the bears hibernate
| during winter have adapted to six months of dark and cold, and have
| adapted to six months of it is always day. Easy patterns for evolution.

Goldibears and the three locks doesn't work, huh?

On Jun 2, 12:31*am, "Androcles" .
2011 wrote:
"Ian" wrote in message

...
|I think I heard that more star systems are binary, or triple, than
| single stars. Whether or not, we do know that many star systems are of
| multiple stars orbiting one another. We have seen the renditions by
| astroartists of what it would look like to have two sun's in your
| planet's sky. Indeed the book Nightfall by Isaac Asimov and Robert
| Silverberg depicts a world, if I remember correctly, with six suns and
| because of this night time never comes because there is always at
| least one, usually multiple suns in the sky. It seems to me the
| chances of life in, let us take a double system for simplicity, would
| have little chance for surviving. Let us say the system was such that
| the secondary was 30 AU from the primary and the habitable planet was
| at 15 AU from the primary, then, when the secondary was on the
| opposite side of the primary from the planet, it would be very cold.
| Then when the planet was in between the two stars, it would be very
| hot. Would not such extremes make it very difficult for life to
| evolve? I mean the season's would be so complicated, and numerous, and
| long in cycles because the two stars would be in so many different
| arrangements before they lined up once again with say the planet in a
| straight line with the two stars both on opposite sides of the planet.
| Evolution would not know what to think, once an adaptation was
| selected for, everything would have changed, and would have been
| rendered obsolete. We have four seasons in North America, pretty much
| the flowers know when to bloom, and the leaves to fall off the trees,
| the birds when to build nests, the fish when to spawn, due the simple
| cycles of the earth around one star. In Alaska the bears hibernate
| during winter have adapted to six months of dark and cold, and have
| adapted to six months of it is always day. Easy patterns for evolution.

Goldibears and the three locks doesn't work, huh?

Not sure, just think it would be rare to work out.

Dear Ian:

On Jun 2, 12:23*am, Ian wrote:
I think I heard that more star systems are binary, or
triple, than single stars. Whether or not, we do know
that many star systems are of multiple stars orbiting
one another.

But most of those systems won't have planets. At least not as close
in as you are about to approximate...

We have seen the renditions by astroartists of what
it would look like to have two sun's in your planet's
sky. Indeed the book Nightfall by Isaac Asimov and
Robert Silverberg depicts a world, if I remember
correctly, with six suns and because of this night
time never comes because there is always at
least one, usually multiple suns in the sky.

Multi-sun systems dates back at least to the Skylark series by E.E.
Doc Smith. Not that those were paragons of scientific veractiy.

It seems to me the chances of life in, let us take a
double system for simplicity, would have little
chance for surviving.

I don't agree.

Let us say the system was such that the
secondary was 30 AU from the primary and the
habitable planet was at 15 AU from the primary,
then, when the secondary was on the opposite
side of the primary from the planet, it would be
very cold.

Add extra atmosphere. Have organisms that hybernate, or like may be
on Mars, use hydrogen peroxide as their working fluid.

Then when the planet was in between the two
stars, it would be very hot. Would not such
extremes make it very difficult for life to
evolve?

No, it'd just be different than we have, is all.

I mean the season's would be so complicated,
and numerous, and long in cycles because the
two stars would be in so many different
arrangements before they lined up once again
with say the planet in a straight line with the
two stars both on opposite sides of the planet.

Once a year.

Evolution would not know what to think, once
an adaptation was selected for, everything would
have changed, and would have been rendered
obsolete. We have four seasons in North
America, pretty much the flowers know when to
bloom, and the leaves to fall off the trees, the
birds when to build nests, the fish when to spawn,
due the simple cycles of the earth around one star.

In Alaska the bears hibernate during winter have
adapted to six months of dark and cold, and have
adapted to six months of it is always day. Easy
patterns for evolution.

Evolution is probably not as limited as you think. Look at the life
cycle of the influenza virus. It travels between three different
species of host organisms...

David A. Smith

On Jun 2, 6:57*am, dlzc wrote:
Dear Ian:

On Jun 2, 12:23*am, Ian wrote:

I think I heard that more star systems are binary, or
triple, than single stars. Whether or not, we do know
that many star systems are of multiple stars orbiting
one another.

But most of those systems won't have planets. *At least not as close
in as you are about to approximate...

We have seen the renditions by astroartists of what
it would look like to have two sun's in your planet's
sky. Indeed the book Nightfall by Isaac Asimov and
Robert Silverberg depicts a world, if I remember
correctly, with six suns and because of this night
time never comes because there is always at
least one, usually multiple suns in the sky.

Multi-sun systems dates back at least to the Skylark series by E.E.
Doc Smith. *Not that those were paragons of scientific veractiy.

It seems to me the chances of life in, let us take a
double system for simplicity, would have little
chance for surviving.

I don't agree.

Let us say the system was such that the
secondary was 30 AU from the primary and the
habitable planet was at 15 AU from the primary,
then, when the secondary was on the opposite
side of the primary from the planet, it would be
very cold.

Add extra atmosphere. *Have organisms that hybernate, or like may be
on Mars, use hydrogen peroxide as their working fluid.

Then when the planet was in between the two
stars, it would be very hot. Would not such
extremes make it very difficult for life to
evolve?

No, it'd just be different than we have, is all.

I mean the season's would be so complicated,
and numerous, and long in cycles because the
two stars would be in so many different
arrangements before they lined up once again
with say the planet in a straight line with the
two stars both on opposite sides of the planet.

Once a year.

Evolution would not know what to think, once
an adaptation was selected for, everything would
have changed, and would have been rendered
obsolete. We have four seasons in North
America, pretty much the flowers know when to
bloom, and the leaves to fall off the trees, the
birds when to build nests, the fish when to spawn,
due the simple cycles of the earth around one star.

In Alaska the bears hibernate during winter have
adapted to six months of dark and cold, and have
adapted to six months of it is always day. Easy
patterns for evolution.

Evolution is probably not as limited as you think. *Look at the life
cycle of the influenza virus. *It travels between three different
species of host organisms...

David A. Smith

It was just a sort of question that popped up in my head. I realized
after that I was thinking more of it being difficult for advanced life
to evolve, certainly viruses could survive in very drastic conditions,
but I was thinking something as advanced as humans, might be
difficulty. But you have got me convinced that perhaps it would not be
a problem.

On Jun 2, 4:33*pm, Ian wrote:
On Jun 2, 6:57*am, dlzc wrote:





Dear Ian:

On Jun 2, 12:23*am, Ian wrote:

I think I heard that more star systems are binary, or
triple, than single stars. Whether or not, we do know
that many star systems are of multiple stars orbiting
one another.

But most of those systems won't have planets. *At least not as close
in as you are about to approximate...

We have seen the renditions by astroartists of what
it would look like to have two sun's in your planet's
sky. Indeed the book Nightfall by Isaac Asimov and
Robert Silverberg depicts a world, if I remember
correctly, with six suns and because of this night
time never comes because there is always at
least one, usually multiple suns in the sky.

Multi-sun systems dates back at least to the Skylark series by E.E.
Doc Smith. *Not that those were paragons of scientific veractiy.

It seems to me the chances of life in, let us take a
double system for simplicity, would have little
chance for surviving.

I don't agree.

Let us say the system was such that the
secondary was 30 AU from the primary and the
habitable planet was at 15 AU from the primary,
then, when the secondary was on the opposite
side of the primary from the planet, it would be
very cold.

Add extra atmosphere. *Have organisms that hybernate, or like may be
on Mars, use hydrogen peroxide as their working fluid.

Then when the planet was in between the two
stars, it would be very hot. Would not such
extremes make it very difficult for life to
evolve?

No, it'd just be different than we have, is all.

I mean the season's would be so complicated,
and numerous, and long in cycles because the
two stars would be in so many different
arrangements before they lined up once again
with say the planet in a straight line with the
two stars both on opposite sides of the planet.

Once a year.

Evolution would not know what to think, once
an adaptation was selected for, everything would
have changed, and would have been rendered
obsolete. We have four seasons in North
America, pretty much the flowers know when to
bloom, and the leaves to fall off the trees, the
birds when to build nests, the fish when to spawn,
due the simple cycles of the earth around one star.

In Alaska the bears hibernate during winter have
adapted to six months of dark and cold, and have
adapted to six months of it is always day. Easy
patterns for evolution.

Evolution is probably not as limited as you think. *Look at the life
cycle of the influenza virus. *It travels between three different
species of host organisms...

David A. Smith

It was just a sort of question that popped up in my head. I realized
after that I was thinking more of it being difficult for advanced life
to evolve, certainly viruses could survive in very drastic conditions,
but I was thinking something as advanced as humans, might be
difficulty. But you have got me convinced that perhaps it would not be
a problem.

That is something like bacteria could definitely thrive in drastic
conditions.

On Jun 2, 4:33*pm, Ian wrote:
On Jun 2, 6:57*am, dlzc wrote:









Dear Ian:

On Jun 2, 12:23*am, Ian wrote:

I think I heard that more star systems are binary, or
triple, than single stars. Whether or not, we do know
that many star systems are of multiple stars orbiting
one another.

But most of those systems won't have planets. *At least not as close
in as you are about to approximate...

We have seen the renditions by astroartists of what
it would look like to have two sun's in your planet's
sky. Indeed the book Nightfall by Isaac Asimov and
Robert Silverberg depicts a world, if I remember
correctly, with six suns and because of this night
time never comes because there is always at
least one, usually multiple suns in the sky.

Multi-sun systems dates back at least to the Skylark series by E.E.
Doc Smith. *Not that those were paragons of scientific veractiy.

It seems to me the chances of life in, let us take a
double system for simplicity, would have little
chance for surviving.

I don't agree.

Let us say the system was such that the
secondary was 30 AU from the primary and the
habitable planet was at 15 AU from the primary,
then, when the secondary was on the opposite
side of the primary from the planet, it would be
very cold.

Add extra atmosphere. *Have organisms that hybernate, or like may be
on Mars, use hydrogen peroxide as their working fluid.

Then when the planet was in between the two
stars, it would be very hot. Would not such
extremes make it very difficult for life to
evolve?

No, it'd just be different than we have, is all.

I mean the season's would be so complicated,
and numerous, and long in cycles because the
two stars would be in so many different
arrangements before they lined up once again
with say the planet in a straight line with the
two stars both on opposite sides of the planet.

Once a year.

Evolution would not know what to think, once
an adaptation was selected for, everything would
have changed, and would have been rendered
obsolete. We have four seasons in North
America, pretty much the flowers know when to
bloom, and the leaves to fall off the trees, the
birds when to build nests, the fish when to spawn,
due the simple cycles of the earth around one star.

In Alaska the bears hibernate during winter have
adapted to six months of dark and cold, and have
adapted to six months of it is always day. Easy
patterns for evolution.

Evolution is probably not as limited as you think. *Look at the life
cycle of the influenza virus. *It travels between three different
species of host organisms...

David A. Smith

It was just a sort of question that popped up in my head. I realized
after that I was thinking more of it being difficult for advanced life
to evolve, certainly viruses could survive in very drastic conditions,
but I was thinking something as advanced as humans, might be
difficulty. But you have got me convinced that perhaps it would not be
a problem.

Directed panspermia along with a followup of applied physics and
technology can survive almost anywhere.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On 02/06/2011 3:23 AM, Ian wrote:
I think I heard that more star systems are binary, or triple, than
single stars. Whether or not, we do know that many star systems are of
multiple stars orbiting one another. We have seen the renditions by
astroartists of what it would look like to have two sun's in your
planet's sky. Indeed the book Nightfall by Isaac Asimov and Robert
Silverberg depicts a world, if I remember correctly, with six suns and
because of this night time never comes because there is always at
least one, usually multiple suns in the sky. It seems to me the
chances of life in, let us take a double system for simplicity, would
have little chance for surviving. Let us say the system was such that
the secondary was 30 AU from the primary and the habitable planet was
at 15 AU from the primary, then, when the secondary was on the
opposite side of the primary from the planet, it would be very cold.

snip

There are two models for double star systems where life "as we know it",
might be able to evolve.

(1) Stars are very close to each other, let's say the stars are closer
to each other than Mercury is to the Sun. In such a situation, the two
stars would effectively become a single larger star as far as the
radiation intensity on any worlds orbiting them. The worlds would be
orbiting both stars at the stars' common center of mass.

(2) The stars are very far apart, let's say a few light-months apart.
The stars are still part of the same system, but just more loosely
bound. Any planets in the system would be orbiting either one star, or
the other one, and the alternate star would just become a slightly
brighter distant star. The alternate star might not produce enough power
to heat the other worlds significantly. Might raise temperatures by a
degree or two.

Yousuf Khan

On Jun 2, 8:06*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 02/06/2011 3:23 AM, Ian wrote:

I think I heard that more star systems are binary, or triple, than
single stars. Whether or not, we do know that many star systems are of
multiple stars orbiting one another. We have seen the renditions by
astroartists of what it would look like to have two sun's in your
planet's sky. Indeed the book Nightfall by Isaac Asimov and Robert
Silverberg depicts a world, if I remember correctly, with six suns and
because of this night time never comes because there is always at
least one, usually multiple suns in the sky. It seems to me the
chances of life in, let us take a double system for simplicity, would
have little chance for surviving. Let us say the system was such that
the secondary was 30 AU from the primary and the habitable planet was
at 15 AU from the primary, then, when the secondary was on the
opposite side of the primary from the planet, it would be very cold.

* * * * snip

There are two models for double star systems where life "as we know it",
might be able to evolve.

(1) Stars are very close to each other, let's say the stars are closer
to each other than Mercury is to the Sun. In such a situation, the two
stars would effectively become a single larger star as far as the
radiation intensity on any worlds orbiting them. The worlds would be
orbiting both stars at the stars' common center of mass.

(2) The stars are very far apart, let's say a few light-months apart.
The stars are still part of the same system, but just more loosely
bound. Any planets in the system would be orbiting either one star, or
the other one, and the alternate star would just become a slightly
brighter distant star. The alternate star might not produce enough power
to heat the other worlds significantly. Might raise temperatures by a
degree or two.

* * * * Yousuf Khan

That answers tha question definitively. Thank you.

On Jun 2, 9:33*pm, Ian wrote:
On Jun 2, 8:06*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:





On 02/06/2011 3:23 AM, Ian wrote:

I think I heard that more star systems are binary, or triple, than
single stars. Whether or not, we do know that many star systems are of
multiple stars orbiting one another. We have seen the renditions by
astroartists of what it would look like to have two sun's in your
planet's sky. Indeed the book Nightfall by Isaac Asimov and Robert
Silverberg depicts a world, if I remember correctly, with six suns and
because of this night time never comes because there is always at
least one, usually multiple suns in the sky. It seems to me the
chances of life in, let us take a double system for simplicity, would
have little chance for surviving. Let us say the system was such that
the secondary was 30 AU from the primary and the habitable planet was
at 15 AU from the primary, then, when the secondary was on the
opposite side of the primary from the planet, it would be very cold.

* * * * snip

There are two models for double star systems where life "as we know it",
might be able to evolve.

(1) Stars are very close to each other, let's say the stars are closer
to each other than Mercury is to the Sun. In such a situation, the two
stars would effectively become a single larger star as far as the
radiation intensity on any worlds orbiting them. The worlds would be
orbiting both stars at the stars' common center of mass.

(2) The stars are very far apart, let's say a few light-months apart.
The stars are still part of the same system, but just more loosely
bound. Any planets in the system would be orbiting either one star, or
the other one, and the alternate star would just become a slightly
brighter distant star. The alternate star might not produce enough power
to heat the other worlds significantly. Might raise temperatures by a
degree or two.

* * * * Yousuf Khan

That answers tha question definitively. Thank you.

And, it is very interesting!!!