life supporting atmospheres

Nasa seriously needs to consider how can they detect a moon orbiting a
planet if they wish to find signs of life. without a large enough moon
in a stable orbit the planet will never support life.

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 11:10:11 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Nasa seriously needs to consider how can they detect a moon orbiting a

planet if they wish to find signs of life. without a large enough moon

in a stable orbit the planet will never support life.

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 8:10:11 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Nasa seriously needs to consider how can they detect a moon orbiting a

planet if they wish to find signs of life. without a large enough moon

in a stable orbit the planet will never support life.

Very few exoplanets will have any moon even half as massive as ours in relationship to the mass of its planet. Supposedly, Mars once had a sufficiently massive moon.

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 11:10:11 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Nasa seriously needs to consider how can they detect a moon orbiting a

planet if they wish to find signs of life. without a large enough moon

in a stable orbit the planet will never support life.

Odd that there would HAVE to be a moon the size of our own, and not a black hole the size of a gumball - as if it would not have been possible for eons of generations of creatures (or (now alien?) races) who have lived here before, to have "manufactured" a BH, in order to create the tidal effect.

Perhaps humans were the result of extraterrestrials having made a deal with the original inhabitants, so that we could be kept at bay on the earth as subjects, in order to prove ourselves capable first, until receiving permission to exit the planet.

On Monday, August 5, 2013 12:00:02 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2013 11:10:11 AM UTC-4, wrote:

Nasa seriously needs to consider how can they detect a moon orbiting a



planet if they wish to find signs of life. without a large enough moon



in a stable orbit the planet will never support life.



Odd that there would HAVE to be a moon the size of our own, and not a black hole the size of a gumball - as if it would not have been possible for eons of generations of creatures (or (now alien?) races) who have lived here before, to have "manufactured" a BH, in order to create the tidal effect.



Perhaps humans were the result of extraterrestrials having made a deal with the original inhabitants, so that we could be kept at bay on the earth as subjects, in order to prove ourselves capable first, until receiving permission to exit the planet.

Prison planet Earth has a very strong possibility, as a biodiversity experiment of ETs terraforming that went so terribly wrong on so many levels.

On Monday, August 5, 2013 6:43:27 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, August 5, 2013 5:16:52 PM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:


The only reason would be that the earth seems to be cooling of, over a similar time scale: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/2...cooling-trend/ which can only mean that all of the inner planets have been doing the same thing.







The output of our sun is not reducing, and the inner core of Earth will likely remain sufficiently hot long after our sun is depleted and having turned into a little white dwarf of perhaps only 4e29 kg (a 5th of its current mass).



Are you sure about that? On page 24 of the following document, look how the earth temperature has dropped 68 degrees Fahrenheit over the past (cough) 60 million years, and ask yourself, what will it be like in another 60 million years from now?:



http://plutoportal.net/~bullock/Homedocs/PhDThesis.pdf



Venus may just be the place for anyone capable of speeding time up, or slowing themselves down, while the rest of the world speeds towards its own self-destruction. The promising thing about Venus is that it may represent what the earth looked like 2 billion years ago, so perhaps in another 2 billion years, Venus will be a new Eden while the earth will be a dead cinder.

Looking for another terrestrial Eden with its climate that's just right, is cutting the odds of that happening by another million to one.

Are you sure about passing up a million perfectly viable planets, just so that you and other naked Goldilocks can frolic in the nude, is such a good idea?

You do realize the the surface of Earth is less than 5% naked Goldilocks worthy as is. Most of us humans need to apply technology in order to survive..

So what if another planet or moon is too hot or too cold, when good technology can resolve most if not all of those issues.

On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 09:43:45 -0700, "Hägar" wrote:


"Brad Guth" wrote in message
...
On Monday, August 5, 2013 8:07:56 AM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message



Life can exist/coexist on moonless planets, especially if the core energy
hasn't been depleted. With applied technology, even life on Venus is
possible.


There was life on Earth 4.3 B years ago in the form of Karyotes and
Eukaryotes. There was no oxygen. There was no liquid water. There was
nothing but chaos, yet there was life, which tells me that life in the
Universe is the rule, rather than the exception. Now, for intelligent life
to evolve, a large Moon may well be required, but we don't really know, do
we, since we, humans, haven't really been anywhere beyond the range of
naked-eye visibility. Our instruments are not yet anywhere near the
resolution required to detect anything in other Solar Systems ... we can
only "see" the largest, Jupiter sized planets, whose images add up to three
or 4 pixels ... great for detail work.


other than atmosphere and water the most important thing on a planet
would be the magnetic field. A large moon orbiting a planet has a very
large impact on the sustainability of that magnetic field. a planet
the size of earth or even mars will have a magnetic field for awhile
even without a moon. without that magnetic field then the atmosphere
will eventually burn off not too mention the high levels of radation
that the planet will be subjected to. So in order to have a planet
sustain life on a planet The large moon would be totally necessary.

On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 12:00:02 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 11:10:11 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Nasa seriously needs to consider how can they detect a moon orbiting a

planet if they wish to find signs of life. without a large enough moon

in a stable orbit the planet will never support life.

Odd that there would HAVE to be a moon the size of our own, and not a black hole
the size of a gumball - as if it would not have been possible for
eons of generations of creatures (or (now alien?) races) who have
lived here before, to have "manufactured" a BH, in order to create the
tidal effect.

Perhaps humans were the result of extraterrestrials having made a deal with the origina
l inhabitants, so that we could be kept at bay on the earth as
subjects, in order to prove ourselves capable first, until receiving
permission to exit the planet.

the gumball hole theroy would work I am sure if the gravity woulld be
the same as a larger moon it is just that the only problem with that
is there would be no way to detect the black hole also the fact that a
black hole that size would most likely erode after a few billion years
if not sooner

On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 14:01:14 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
wrote:

On Monday, August 5, 2013 12:00:02 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2013 11:10:11 AM UTC-4, wrote:

As a friendly footnote/advisement:
Just because Venus is not suitable for our naked Goldilocks to frolic about, is not a valid reason
to believe that no other forms of life have evolved and/or having
adapted to that hellish environment.

Applied technology greatly expands the Goldilocks scope of survivable environments (including
right here on Earth), as is the relatively safe bet for those
planning on being essentially stranded on Mars.

Venus is adaptable, although of those foolishly planning on a Venusian nudest colony are going
to be very discouraged at what reality has to offer.

if venus had a moon the size of ours it is very possible that it would
have developed life. the necessary raw materials were there that is
if it has or at any time had a large amount of water there

On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 10:16:57 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 14:01:14 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth

wrote:



On Monday, August 5, 2013 12:00:02 PM UTC-7, wrote:

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 11:10:11 AM UTC-4, wrote:



As a friendly footnote/advisement:

Just because Venus is not suitable for our naked Goldilocks to frolic about, is not a valid reason

to believe that no other forms of life have evolved and/or having

adapted to that hellish environment.



Applied technology greatly expands the Goldilocks scope of survivable environments (including

right here on Earth), as is the relatively safe bet for those

planning on being essentially stranded on Mars.



Venus is adaptable, although of those foolishly planning on a Venusian nudest colony are going

to be very discouraged at what reality has to offer.



if venus had a moon the size of ours it is very possible that it would

have developed life. the necessary raw materials were there that is

if it has or at any time had a large amount of water there

Advanced intelligence wouldn't need very much water (a few ppm would likely be more than sufficient), and whatever atmospheric heating from the mostly geothermal considerations would also be easily managed.