Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 14:49:33 UTC No. 16181516

>>16181512
any planet without humans is superhabitable

Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 15:01:37 UTC No. 16181533

>>16181512
All the "Earth like planets" and "super Earths" are identified via minimal data and basically all you get is some numbers to make a graph out of. You use these basic numbers to extrapolate a huge amount of conjecture and then pontificate on the conjecture to confuse low IQ normies into thinking you know more than you actually do.

They have the most basic bare bones data like composition of the atmosphere and if water exists there. They make a few guesses based on it's distance from it's star and other such base level data. Then they spend months or years theorizing what it COULD mean then present these theories are confirmed facts. Mind you all these theories are made via limited data about deep space that could also be incomplete or outright wrong making all theories based on this original error are also in error.

Bottom line is scientists have no idea what these planets are like, it's 99% guessing. There are endless variables not accounted for that could completely change the picture and the "Earth like" nature of the planet. Science still knows little to nothing about many of the planets and moons in our own solar system. Take Neptune for instance or Pluto. We can't figure those planets out so why could we do it for one light years away? We can't.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 15:06:34 UTC No. 16181540

>>16181512
It is a possibility, for a planet to be superhabitable, as we put it, it would need to have a more diverse ecology than on Earth, less temperature differences among the regions, and more shallow oceans, it would also need to be older than Earth's age, slightly bigger in size, and maybe even less gravity so that it allows the lifeforms to grow more easily

The ideal star it would need to orbit would be a K-Type

Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 15:06:35 UTC No. 16181541

>>16181512
>Are "superhabitable" planets a real possibility
Well, we live on one, so yes. We can easily imagine a planet that is just barely habitable compared to Earth.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 15:07:01 UTC No. 16181542

>>16181533
wrong, astronomy gets easier with increasing distance, as you can see The Big Picture

Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 15:07:59 UTC No. 16181544

>>16181541
I don't think you know what superhabitable is meant in the context, we define them as planets that are explicitly better-suited for life than here on Earth

Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 16:55:10 UTC No. 16181705

>>16181512
How about hyperhabitable?

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 18 May 2024 20:09:15 UTC No. 16181909

>HAY GUISE, IS MUH RETARDED STAR TREK FANTASY LIFE REAL!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Anonymous at Sun, 19 May 2024 10:29:25 UTC No. 16182587

>>16181909
Idiot

Anonymous at Sun, 19 May 2024 10:48:26 UTC No. 16182606

>>16181544
In what way could a planet possibly be "better-suited" for life than Earth? What parameters would be different?

Anonymous at Sun, 19 May 2024 10:54:39 UTC No. 16182611

>>16181540
>would need to have a more diverse ecology than on Earth
What ecologies are lacking on Earth? What kind of living systems do we not have which are possible?
>less temperature differences among the regions
But you just said you wanted more diverse ecologies. Less diversity of physical conditions will inevitably lead to less diverse ecologies. It would also mean certain kinds of life forms wouldn't have a niche (consider penguins vs birds of paradise - in a planet of near-uniform temperature, you won't get both)
>more shallow oceans
That's good for some marine life, bad for others. Reduced ocean volume relative to atmosphere would also mean a greatly diminished capacity to act as a heat sink and carbon sink, not to mention greater chances of oceans/seas drying our completely, as has happened in the Earth's past.
>bigger than Earth, less gravity
I don't see how you achieve this whilst still having a molten iron/nickel core to provide a protective magnetosphere

Anonymous at Sun, 19 May 2024 11:26:36 UTC No. 16182642

>>16181542
you are dumb

Anonymous at Sun, 19 May 2024 13:08:17 UTC No. 16182730

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superhabitable_world

Anonymous at Sun, 19 May 2024 17:52:59 UTC No. 16183025

>>16182611
>What ecologies are lacking on Earth? What kind of living systems do we not have which are possible?
for one we have
>viruses
>fall damage
>uv rays
>lots of desolate desert places
>deserts are growing
>if the ice melts we lose a bunch of land

Anonymous at Sun, 19 May 2024 20:29:39 UTC No. 16183282

>>16183025
>>viruses
Arguably an inevitability
>fall damage
Not if you're a mouse or smaller, or a bird, or a bat
>uv rays
UV rays help annihilate potentially harmful compounds which would otherwuse accumulate in the atmosphere, can help drive mutation, and also kills viruses
>desolate desert places
Supports greater biodiversity as life adapts to extreme environments. Cacti, aloe Vera, dancing spiders/lizards, penguins, polar bears, etc
>deserts are growing
Some are growing, some are shrinking. Besides, they are very changeable in Earth's history. The Sahara was green within mankind's prehistory
>if the ice melts we lose a bunch of land
We also gain a lot more shallow coastal seas, which are the most productive parts of the ocean and support the greatest biodiversity / varieties of life . And during the glacial maximums, we have lots more land as significant portions of the Earth's water become landlocked.

Anonymous at Sun, 19 May 2024 20:43:28 UTC No. 16183292

>>16181512
Is pink vegetation an indicator that they're superhabitable as your pic imply?

Anonymous at Sun, 19 May 2024 20:51:41 UTC No. 16183303

>>16183025
>>viruses
It's possible that there wouldn't be any complex multicellular life without viruses
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129583-300-origin-of-organs-thank-viruses-for-your-skin-and-bone/
Just because you don't like or appreciate the role some aspect of our world plays in the greater story of life, doesn't mean it's something we'd be better of without.

Anonymous at Sun, 19 May 2024 20:56:48 UTC No. 16183311

is it possible for a planet to have evolved entirely flora lifeforms with no fauna on it?

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 00:41:40 UTC No. 16183624

>>16183311
hmmm, good question