Are "superhabitable" planets a real possibility or just an hyperbole?

Are "superhabitable" planets a real possibility or just an hyperbole? How can we know that Earth doesn't have the perfect conditions for life to develop?

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    any planet without humans is superhabitable

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

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

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        you are dumb

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >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

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >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

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          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.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          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.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

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

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How about hyperhabitable?

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

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

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

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

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      hmmm, good question

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *