Timeline for Could a planet with an unusually high heavy metal content sustain life? [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 21 at 0:34 | history | closed |
Trish Escaped dental patient. sphennings Joachim jdunlop |
Needs details or clarity | |
| Mar 20 at 8:36 | comment | added | Joachim | @JBH A natural shield, sustained by the muses. I can feel another creation myth forming. The Ainur as gods of rock :) | |
| Mar 19 at 18:22 | comment | added | JBH | @Joachim I'm thinking a planet with that much heavy metal doesn't need a magnetosphere. Compressed atmosphere from the necessarily loud music would cause the solar wind to just bounce off. Something like what you'd see on a poster if today's heavy metal music was at a 1960s rock festival. Psychedelic and loud. Really loud. | |
| Mar 18 at 20:50 | comment | added | Joachim | @TheDemonLord Nah, a planet with that much Heavy Metal could never sustain a magnetosphere - like ear drums, it would just burst, eternally :) (You must be the life of the party, especially if the party happens to be thrown by geologists :) | |
| Mar 18 at 18:50 | comment | added | TheDemonLord | The urge I have to answer this, completely ignore the geology tag and talk about my favourite Music Genre and how much better life would be if things were 70% Heavy Metal \m/ is overwhelming... | |
| Mar 18 at 18:15 | comment | added | Slarty | At 70% heavy metals there would be very little room for much else. If the remaining 30% included oxygen then the surface would end up covered in heavy metal oxides and there would be even less room for other materials. | |
| Mar 18 at 16:26 | answer | added | Richard Kirk | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 18 at 12:15 | comment | added | Vesper | You need to split the question "sustain life" into more elementaly checks, like "will it turn into a gas giant", "will it develop crust", "will it develop revolving core so magnetosphere would be present", "will it have enough water" etc etc. Each answer could then result in slight or dramatic changes to your solar system (a lone planet won't support life due to lack of energy), as you would discover boundaries on other parameters for your planet and star. And IMHO having high heavy metal contents in the core is not an obstacle for sustaining life at all. | |
| Mar 18 at 4:03 | comment | added | JBH | (a) You need to downgrade from science-based to science-fiction. The only planet we know of that can sustain life is Earth and it's not 70% metal at the surface. (b) I assume you mean 70% at the surface. Earth's total mass is 30% iron and maybe another 8% other metals. You're more than doubling that if the whole thing is 70% (better be a small planet or the gravity will be ugly). (c) Too much metal kills life as we know it, but who's to say life couldn't evolve under your conditions? That, of course, is the problem - who is to say it can or can't... we have only one data point. | |
| Mar 18 at 2:41 | review | Close votes | |||
| Mar 21 at 0:34 | |||||
| Mar 18 at 1:55 | comment | added | CommunityBot | Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking. | |
| S Mar 18 at 1:53 | review | First questions | |||
| Mar 18 at 1:55 | |||||
| S Mar 18 at 1:53 | history | asked | Ellie Cressy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |