Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Red Dwarf ayy lmaos by William Hartmann - Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:34:12 EST ID:y3vStdZD No.57154 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1516041252879.jpg -(66050B / 64.50KB, 1024x768) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 66050
In this thread ITT we discuss the habitability of red dwarf systems
Scientists have theorized that these planets could be habitable despite being tidally locked with their stars. They believe there would be enough convection between the light and dark sides to maintain oceans, an atmosphere etc.
I think it would be interesting how life would evolve on such a world, particularly intelligent life. Imagine how the material conditions of the world would affect culture, technological development, geopolitics etc.
Robert Wilson - Thu, 18 Jan 2018 17:50:40 EST ID:vw5K93xT No.57156 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It's mostly just an exercise in science fiction, but I'll bite. You'd think most life would tend to populate the 'twilight zone' between the light and dark sides. Unless the planet had a moon (which it couldn't, I guess?? or at least it would also be tidally locked) any lifeforms there wouldn't have any concept of large scale biological cycles, or if they did, they couldn't rely on solar events. There wouldn't even be seasons on such a world, so their notion of time, if they developed sentience, would probably be somewhat different from ours. They would probably be dependent on observing stars to measure the passage of time at all, which means that, for example if they had a stratified society, with some living on the dark side and some living on the light, the night side would tend to host the time-keepers, and perhaps be the host of academic disciplines in general, since only they could see the stars to tell time. Likewise, the day side is the only side awash with energy, so would presumably be the home of the resource-extracting underclasses.

Other than that, if such a planet indeed had a stable enough thermal environment to support life, I don't see that there would be many obstacles more significant to them than exist for life existing in general.
Maximilian Wolf - Fri, 19 Jan 2018 20:26:36 EST ID:hGyQlc1t No.57157 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I think tidal locking can be a good thing if you don't want to live on the planet but deconstruct it to build artificial habitats along the same orbit of the planet around the star.
Imagine fusion powered mass driver ejecting material straight "up" from the planet surface directly into the orbit of the star.
Or even better an orbital ring facing the star lifting material from the surface and the using centrifugal force to to the same, but in all directions which ALL point directly to the orbital plane. You could create a Dyson swarm with nothing else.

Wow thinking if that turns out to be viable a tidal locked planet might turn out to be prime real estate in a Kardashev II+ society...
James Elliott - Sat, 20 Jan 2018 03:52:20 EST ID:8u+dSE/5 No.57160 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I don't see why such a planet wouldn't have a moon. In fact it'd need one to have a magnetic field, which would be necessary to stave off the brutal solar winds.
I like the idea of lunar and stellar time keeping.
I also figured the extreme points on the light and dark sides would be largely uninhabited with underground communities. These could be centers of intellectual and religious life for various reasons.
Another thing worth noting is that the weather would be very consistent on such a world. I think this would accelerate development. Imagine using wind power and knowing where the winds will come from, their strength etc.
The geopolitics of such a planet would be very interesting, especially as societies developed. I imagine there would be wealthy, advanced societies in the terminator zone that would come to dominate the light and dark sides.
Carl Seyfert - Sun, 21 Jan 2018 20:14:26 EST ID:p73EfNkl No.57162 Ignore Report Quick Reply

... wut? a planet does not need a moon to have a magnetic field lol
Heinrich Olbers - Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:55:07 EST ID:Sl126oYP No.57164 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yeah that's a good point. Regular reminder that earth's magnetic field is generated because it has a giant sphere of liquid iron spinning really fucking fast in its core.

I did a little more digging on the tidally locked planet's moon question, and it turns out while it's not strictly impossible for a red dwarf star's tidally locked planets to have a moon, it could only occupy a very narrow window around the planet to avoid being pulled into the star or crashing into the planet. Because this window is extremely close to the planet for a planet that would also be in the golidlocks zone of a red dwarf system, the moon would have to orbit extremely quickly in order to maintain a stable orbit across cosmically significant time. So, while such a system *could* exist, it would probably only be stable on the order of millions of years, which would probably make actually finding one exceedingly rare.
Thomas Gold - Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:23:08 EST ID:VC6NeROG No.57165 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I appreciate you doing some research and welcome anything you have to contribute.
I wonder if orbiting the star would be enough for the planet to cause enough tidal heating and convection to generate a magnetic field.
If not, I think the concept of a red dwarf earth is out the window, and the galaxy is a lonely place.
Bernard Burke - Fri, 26 Jan 2018 12:54:15 EST ID:Jn0rqear No.57167 Ignore Report Quick Reply
So about generating magnetic fields through tidal thermal effects, I'm not so sure. I think the generation of a planet's magnetic field is dependent on its chemical composition and the composition of its host star. A planet needs to be made mostly of a magnetic metal like nickel, cobalt or iron to generate a magnetic field afaik. Red dwarf stars are old by definition, and also have the longest lifespans of all stars, existing for trillions of years unlike our sun's mere billions, which means they are almost all first or at most second generation stars with very low metallicity, which means their planetary systems will also mostly be very poor in heavier elements, including the magnetic ones.
This is why most of the planets we've discovered around red dwarf systems are hot jupiters and such, ultra-giant balls of hydrogen and helium -- back when these red dwarf systems formed, there simply weren't any of the heavier elements in existence yet. Star systems closer to the center of galaxies have higher metallicity and thus a higher probability of life being possible -- because the chance for many generations of main sequence stars to share heavier elements in the same relative space is so much greater due to the density. (At the same time, radiation is much more intense in galactic centers, so the 'rare earth' problem takes on an additional layer.)

So, in general, red dwarf stars and earth-like life-bearing exoplanets are just a poor fit for each other. Yet, the number of red dwarf systems is so great that we should expect life of some description to 'find a way,' whic even on an infinitesimal number of them could still be millions of planets, although they likely would need to survive without the comforts life on earth takes for granted, like an atmosphere (or conversely, a terrestrial surface) and magnetic field to shield you from scorching radiation. Also you should remember most estimates of the habitability of the galaxy such as in the Drake equation/Fermi paradox rely on the number of main sequence stars in the galaxy, rather than less hospitable types like red dwarfs, so you shouldn't fret too much. By all odds, the galaxy still should be teeming with life.
Harlow Shapley - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 17:22:00 EST ID:p73EfNkl No.57180 Ignore Report Quick Reply

i dont think you have a strong understanding of the four fundamental forces. the interaction between a star and a planet (gravity) does not affect the electromagnetism of the planet in question
Hannes Alven - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 19:43:07 EST ID:NyLhIW/E No.57182 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>> the interaction between a star and a planet (gravity) does not affect the electromagnetism of the planet in question
Well, no, gravity isn't the only fundamental force that causes interaction between stars and planets. We are absolutely electromagnetically affected by our star, we are bathed in its EM radiation continuously, but that's not at all the reason we have an magnetic field on earth, and I never suggested it was.

I suggested that stars with low metallicity necessarily have planetary systems with low metallicity, and that you can't have a magnetic planet without it being composed of a sufficient proportion of magnetic metals (you need other things too, like a sufficient mass, which is apparently why Mars' magnetic field collapsed.) The relationship between a star's composition and its planets' magnetism occurs during the proto-stellar phase, when the star is accumulating whatever heavy elements will go into its accretion disk. Only if enough magnetic metals are present will there be a planet with sufficient mass to maintain a liquid core of cobalt, nickel or iron. After the planetary system has formed, the electromagnetic interaction between star and planets is limited to effects directly caused by the electromagnetic radiation of the star and how it interacts with the electromagnetic field, if any, of its planets, which sustain on their own merits after that point.

In sort you either misunderstood my post or yourself don't have a firm understanding of how the four fundamental forces relate to the physics of the formation of star systems and planets.
Stephen Hawking - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 15:23:04 EST ID:p73EfNkl No.57184 Ignore Report Quick Reply

ok ok i guess if you want to take it back to the actual formation of the planet, which is a function of the gravitational force between the star and planetoid, then fine, it has an eventual determining effect on the existence and/or strength of the planet's electromagnetic field. however i didn't think you meant it in a historical sense, but rather a consistent determination of the EM from G which i was saying is not true.
Charles Bolton - Tue, 13 Feb 2018 12:18:11 EST ID:4uIlxD// No.57190 Ignore Report Quick Reply

I feel like if life developed on any planet it would spread and adapt to all envitonments.

Imagine a planet with three wildly divergent patterns, in the hot, twilight, and dark sides.

Any intelligent ayyylmaos would want to access resources from the other zones, the technology and methods developed to survive and colonize the opposite side of their planet would translate well to space travel. The history of the conquest of their own planet would be fascinating.

What would it do to a society to have half the planet living in hostile conditions?

What if two separate races descended from entirely different trunks of an evolutionary tree that branched in the microbial era became sapient separately, isolated from each other by their wildly different environments?
Charles Bolton - Tue, 13 Feb 2018 12:30:08 EST ID:4uIlxD// No.57191 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Jupiter has a magnetic field from its metallic hydrogen core. Gas giant's have moons big enough to hold an atmosphere, and the tidal forces from orbiting close to a gas giant have been observed to create geologic and weather activity.

Could Jupiter sized gas giant's exist close enough to a gas dwarf to be warm enough to evolve life? Would the magnetic field of such a hypothetical gas giant protect its moons?

Earth life hates radiation because it denatures proteins, a fundamental structure in all earth life, Earth life even uses proteins to store the information that makes evolution possible.

Are there any classes of molecules capable of the kind of structural and interactive diversity of proteins that aren't as vulnerable to radiation?
Viktor Ambartsumian - Thu, 15 Feb 2018 03:10:20 EST ID:m3P6k9jA No.57193 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518682220337.gif -(45588B / 44.52KB, 640x452) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>Earth life hates radiation because it denatures proteins, a fundamental structure in all earth life
In the beginning, it hated oxygen because it oxidized proteins. It's not inconceivable that carbon-based life in in an environment with ionizing radiation could adapt to mitigate the damage and use the energy.

>Are there any classes of molecules capable of the kind of structural and interactive diversity of proteins that aren't as vulnerable to radiation?
All molecules are, under a few feet of water.

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.