Habitable Planet outside fo the solar system

Mercury is geologically inactive and our sun has a much greater gravitational affect on a planet that close than any red dwarf. The reason why moons like Io are geologically active is due due to tidal forces which strength is inverse cubic in proportion to the distance. In other words the planet would have to be REALLY close to have strong tidal force exerting on it. And of course the planet can't be too close to its star or it will burn up.
This one is much closer than Mercury to its star, and its 5 times the size of Earth.

Bill, whats the mean temperature of Mars?
 
Not very surprising in the sense that for many it was an evidence that there are planets in other galaxies/solar system close to our earth, it is very cool however to finally have a proof.

I kinda feel I was born at the wrong time when reading such article. I envy future generations who will go explore unknown planets.

How many civilizations have had their golden age before our time. . . Who are they? Do they even exist. What about other life forms? So many questions that won't be answered in my lifetime, this is sad. :( Unless of course we are invaded in the next few decades by them! :goodjob:
 
This one is much closer than Mercury to its star, and its 5 times the size of Earth.

Oh, I was basing my Mercury example on Cuivienen's comet that the new planet was about as close to its star as Mercury is to ours.

The article says that the new planet orbits at a distance ~14 times closer than Earth which makes it's orbit 7 times closer than that of Mercury. I am still not sure if this is close enough. I would have to a little research and a little math to find out how much tidal force it experience relative to known satellites.
 
We Europeans discovered something important? Great!
 
This one is much closer than Mercury to its star, and its 5 times the size of Earth.

Bill, whats the mean temperature of Mars?

-46 C, apparently.

Anyway, if you'd like to calculate the Habitable zone of a planet, I created a program for it quite awhile ago. It's located here.
 
Actually, I don't see why this planet would be tidally locked to its star at all. The star is much, much, much less massive than the Sun, and you need relatively massive objects or very short distances to cause tidal locking. Since Mercury isn't even tidally locked to the Sun (just harmonized), I think it's highly unlikely that this planet is tidally locked.

It is too close and the mass of the star is more than enough.
 
http://www.solstation.com/stars/s20ly.htm

I'd like people to think about the odds involved here. There are 129 stars within 20 light years. (130, including Sol, I think). There are at least 3 confirmed planets in the 'life-zone' in that small number. Even if we exlude Earth ('cause we're special) we still have Mars and this find (plus the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, which give us hope).

2 planets among 130 (at least) is pretty good odds, considering that there are 200 billion stars in our galaxy alone.

This is one reason why I constantly extol people to encourage rapid and sustainable progress.
 
So did the article say how many light years away it was?

How many light years is 120 trillion miles?
 
The article says it is tidally locked, but you are right in part, they might be wrong. I guess it is difficult to see if a planet rotates from 20 light years away. But you don't need a huge massive sun to lock a planet. Our moon is tidally locked to the Earth and the Earth is not that big.

Oops, well, then, it probably is tidally locked, though I have no idea how they could know from so far away. Yes, you don't need a big object to cause tidal locking, but if the object doing the locking is smaller, the distance needs to be much smaller too. (The Moon is obviously much closer to the Earth than Mercury is to the Sun.)
 
Yes, you don't need a big object to cause tidal locking, but if the object doing the locking is smaller, the distance needs to be much smaller too.

Tidal "force", actually being the difference in gravity over the span of the affected body, falls off about as the third power of distance to the primary, so moving the planet closer has a lot to say. Therefore, for instance, Earth will eventually become tidally locked to the Moon, not the Sun (except it's been calculated to take more time than the projected main-sequence lifespan of the Sun).
 
Mercury is geologically inactive and our sun has a much greater gravitational affect on a planet that close than any red dwarf. The reason why moons like Io are geologically active is due due to tidal forces which strength is inverse cubic in proportion to the distance. In other words the planet would have to be REALLY close to have strong tidal force exerting on it. And of course the planet can't be too close to its star or it will burn up.

Actually it's the opposite: What the inverse cubic relationship means is that the force increases more sharply as you reduce the distance. I.e. if you halve the distance, gravitational force increases by a factor of 4, while tidal effects increase by a factor of 8.
 
Oh, I was basing my Mercury example on Cuivienen's comet that the new planet was about as close to its star as Mercury is to ours.

The article says that the new planet orbits at a distance ~14 times closer than Earth which makes it's orbit 7 times closer than that of Mercury. I am still not sure if this is close enough. I would have to a little research and a little math to find out how much tidal force it experience relative to known satellites.
I did the math!

Code:
Body A		Body B		Distance (AU)	Mass Body B (earths)	Mass*Distance^(1/3)	tidal force (relative to lunar)
Earth		Moon		2.5700E-03	1.2300E-01		7.2461E+06		1.0000E+00
Mercury		Sun		3.8710E-01	3.3295E+05		5.7399E+06		7.9214E-01
Io		Jupiter		0.002819	3.1780E+02		1.4186E+10		1.9578E+03
Europa		Jupiter		4.4860E-03	3.1780E+02		3.5203E+09		4.8581E+02
Ganymede	Jupiter		7.1550E-03	3.1780E+02		8.6761E+08		1.1973E+02
Callisto	Jupiter		1.2580E-02	3.1780E+02		1.5961E+08		2.2028E+01
Gliese 581 c	Gliese 581	0.073		1.1098E+05		2.8529E+08		3.9371E+01
There's significant tidal forces, but probably not enough to maintain a liquid metal core.
 
FTW! :woohoo:

Come on Nasa. You've got competition. Get a move on! :p

Now if only we would stop these silly wars and use the money wasted into making space travel cheaper...
 
Actually it's the opposite: What the inverse cubic relationship means is that the force increases more sharply as you reduce the distance. I.e. if you halve the distance, gravitational force increases by a factor of 4, while tidal effects increase by a factor of 8.

Pessimism and Optimism. I noted that a small increase in distance translates into a sharp decrease in tidal affects while you noted that a small decrease in distance translates into a sharp increase in tidal affects.

But as I have said, Mercury is very close to the Sun and yet it doesn't experience volcanism due to tidal affects.
 
Pessimism and Optimism. I noted that a small increase in distance translates into a sharp decrease in tidal affects while you noted that a small decrease in distance translates into a sharp increase in tidal affects.

But as I have said, Mercury is very close to the Sun and yet it doesn't experience volcanism due to tidal affects.
As you can see from my math above, Gliese 581 c experiences about 50 times the tidal effects of Mercury.
 
Back
Top Bottom