>>4782279
>geofag still in this thread
>minimum requirements for a planet to harbor life?
That's very hotly debated. There are a vast array of conditions to consider & how they interact with each other, then you have to define what is life. Most people say water & oxygen, but Earth had little free oxygen when life first developed. With water argument requires all conditions supply water in sufficient quantities, and any other thing (such as oxygen) will determine many of the conditions. I've seen very convincing arguments that life could develop in a methane ocean in the complete lack of the presence of oxygen (one of the moons of Jupiter, I forget which one. It had methane volcanoes when one of our probes passed by).

Every condition you can imagine, including all the ones in this thread like radiation and temperature and tides ... however you want define the possibility of life, define the conditions that will support it. You can get really science fiction fast on it. Could life exist inside a star? David Brin wrote a book called Sundiver that explores that very question. Brin is no hack, he's a very successful sci fi writer who happens to be a professor of astrophysics.

Read up on the conditions on Mars & Venus in wikipedia. It is strongly believed that life can exist on both those planets (and the methane oceans of one of Jupiter's moons). Now imagine life can probably live in much harsher conditions. Perhaps Mercury? I doubt it, but wouldn't be shocked. More like mildly surprised. And a bit excited. That would open massive possibilities all over the universe IF that turned out to be true.

Also, distinguish between "harbor" life and "develop &/or evolve" life. Very different things.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/an/

Thread:

how different would life be if we were on a tidally locked planet? would we develop sleep? would life even develop on the other side of the planet…