To: Hacklehead
“The potentially habitable super-Earth....”
So a 200-lb person on earth would weigh 720 pounds there, and its parent star is 7 times as far away as the NEXT nearest star to earth.
Barbara Streisand on the “potentially habitable” horseclinton.
7 posted on
09/12/2011 2:51:31 PM PDT by
treetopsandroofs
(Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
To: treetopsandroofs
So a 200-lb person on earth would weigh 720 pounds there, and its parent star is 7 times as far away as the NEXT nearest star to earth.The weight is also dependent on radius. If this place has double the radius as earth, his weight is only 180 pounds.
How is all this holding up regarding the "Drake Equation" which esimated the frequency of habitable plants?
10 posted on
09/12/2011 3:00:25 PM PDT by
cicero2k
To: treetopsandroofs
While the mass of the planet is 3.6 times as great as the Earth's; you wouldn't weigh 3.6 times as much there. That's because the force of gravity varies by the square of the radius of the planet & the heavier planet would have a larger radius than the Earth (if it is Earth-like in its composition). For instance, the Earth is about 80 times as massive as the Moon — yet the force of gravity here is only about 6 times as great as on the surface of the Moon.
To: treetopsandroofs
I don’t think they’re talking about habitable by humans but by native life. Plants, maybe animals of some sort.
19 posted on
09/12/2011 3:14:44 PM PDT by
muir_redwoods
(Somewhere in Kenya, a village is missing an idiot)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson