• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Life on tidal locked planets

Obviously it would be different.

While I know little about the area of (insert whatever long-ass words indicate someone who studies the possible evolutionary processes on hypothetical planets in another solar system), I would guess that the majority of life on the planet would be near the line between dark and light sides - that area would be the most likely to have some changes equivalent to day/night cycles, unless the planet is somehow completely tidal locked, and stays in an orientation that never changes beyond an extremely small amount (which, given the scale we speak of here, could be hundreds of feet, I think?)...


Anyway...

It's all guesswork, really - you can extrapolate from the information you know, but I doubt we'll know for sure unless we somehow visit a tidal locked planet in the distant future...
 
Could life evolve on a tide-locked planet? Would it ever make the step from sea to land without tides?
Life on the ocean fringes would occasionally be stranded by rising and falling tides, and survivors would pass on their adaptation. Without tides that couldn't happen.
 
Life has the ability to flourish is extremely harsh conditions. At one point we thought plants could not exist without photosynthesis. But recently we've found plants thriving on the ocean bottom where no light penetrates. They are living on methane. We also found crabs in the same area living in water hot enough to melt lead.

I think on a tidal locked planet life may not exist at the very hot substellar point, but it may very well thrive on the dark side of the planet. I think enough heat could transfer via weather to keep living cells from freezing.
 
EagleAye said:
Life has the ability to flourish is extremely harsh conditions. At one point we thought plants could not exist without photosynthesis. But recently we've found plants thriving on the ocean bottom where no light penetrates. They are living on methane. We also found crabs in the same area living in water hot enough to melt lead.

I think on a tidal locked planet life may not exist at the very hot substellar point, but it may very well thrive on the dark side of the planet. I think enough heat could transfer via weather to keep living cells from freezing.
Click to expand...
Hmm, hadn't thought of that aspect...
 
The Mark said:
Obviously it would be different.

While I know little about the area of (insert whatever long-ass words indicate someone who studies the possible evolutionary processes on hypothetical planets in another solar system), I would guess that the majority of life on the planet would be near the line between dark and light sides - that area would be the most likely to have some changes equivalent to day/night cycles, unless the planet is somehow completely tidal locked, and stays in an orientation that never changes beyond an extremely small amount (which, given the scale we speak of here, could be hundreds of feet, I think?)...


Anyway...

It's all guesswork, really - you can extrapolate from the information you know, but I doubt we'll know for sure unless we somehow visit a tidal locked planet in the distant future...
Click to expand...

The word you're looking for is xenobiology.

And I think there's a theory that planets with atmospheres, in the "sweet spot" for liquid water, that are tidally locked would have SEVERE weather that could stir things enough to mimic the effects of tides.
 
If it had an atmosphere, I imagine the winds would circulate in such a way as to transport heat away from teh equator and towards the poles in such a way that might expand the potential habitable zones beyond the narrow bands we might otherwise imagine -- providing the atmosphere did not freeze out on the dark side.
 
What if...? said:
The word you're looking for is xenobiology.

And I think there's a theory that planets with atmospheres, in the "sweet spot" for liquid water, that are tidally locked would have SEVERE weather that could stir things enough to mimic the effects of tides.
Click to expand...
I considered using that word, but I wasn't sure it was the right one...meh.
 
I'm pretty sure the planet must spin. I wouldn't count basic life out but I don't figure there would be time for advanced life on such a hostile planet with very small (perhaps minute) reasonable temp fluctuations. The 'sweet spot' of mild weather would be almost non-existant. On earth, we've been evolving for what, ~4b years. We've got a billion or two before this planet gets too hot. That looks like ~6b years from conditions conducive to basic life, whether by abiogenesis or aliens shooting stuff all over the place (my preferred theory). I figure a planet that doesn't spin gets roasted before anything has a shot of moving.

From the article:
Tidal locking depends on the planet's mass and its distance from its star.
Click to expand...
What about the moon? I'm pretty sure such relative (to the planet) mass is required (presumably at some range of distance) to get it spinning. No? Did I miss a major discovery and the moon has nothing to do with earth spinning? Did I learn it wrong.


ps. After Mars, we gotta go all the way to Pluto (the next rock). Pluto appears to be quite some gift (a life raft), maybe better than a real planet. It shouldn't feel bad about being de-planetized. Fortunately, there's water along the way.
 
ecofarm said:
What about the moon? I'm pretty sure such relative (to the planet) mass is required (presumably at some range of distance) to get it spinning. No? Did I miss a major discovery and the moon has nothing to do with earth spinning? Did I learn it wrong.
Click to expand...
The moon has become tidally locked to the earth. Venus spins and it doesn't have a moon.
 
ecofarm said:
What about the moon? I'm pretty sure such relative (to the planet) mass is required (presumably at some range of distance) to get it spinning. No? Did I miss a major discovery and the moon has nothing to do with earth spinning? Did I learn it wrong.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the moon has a big effect on the spin of the Earth. You learned it right. I suspect that a planet wouldn't become tidally locked if it had a large moon like ours. But a planet without one could.
 
EagleAye said:
Yeah, the moon has a big effect on the spin of the Earth. You learned it right. I suspect that a planet wouldn't become tidally locked if it had a large moon like ours. But a planet without one could.
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough, the moon IS tidally locked to the earth - it's always facing the same way from our perspective...
 
The two specialized fields of Cosmology that examine such questions are Exobiology and Comparative Planetology. Carl Sagan was a pioneer in the latter field.
 
as I understand it, the size and distance of our moon stabilizes the earth's spin, otherwise the earth could wobble badly and really mess things up...
 
Remember that tidal locked planets are usually very close to the parent star, just as close or even closer than Mercury is to the Sun. This situation is problematic to life for many reasons. Such proximity almost guarantees that any atmosphere/vapor has either been sucked off by gravity or blown off by the powerful solar wind. This is turn strongly suggests that the planet is bathed-in/penetrated-by extremely energetic particles which destroy/alter/sever molecular bonds.
 
Tashah said:
Remember that tidal locked planets are usually very close to the parent star, just as close or even closer than Mercury is to the Sun. This situation is problematic to life for many reasons. Such proximity almost guarantees that any atmosphere/vapor has either been sucked off by gravity or blown off by the powerful solar wind. This is turn strongly suggests that the planet is bathed-in/penetrated-by extremely energetic particles which destroy/alter/sever molecular bonds.
Click to expand...

the samller the sun the closer the planet can be. At least thats what I read.
 
matsuiny2004 said:
the samller the sun the closer the planet can be. At least thats what I read.
Click to expand...

However, the smaller the mass of the star, the smaller the force of gravity it exerts; therefore in order for a planet to be tidally locked around a smaller star it would have to be in a closer orbit to that star so it would still be awfully freakin hot.

Now perhaps there maybe a smattering of exceptions around a very dense but relatively cool white dwarf for example. The planet would become tidally locked at a greater orbital distance than with a less dense star. The temperature may be more hospitable, but this still leaves the issue of gravity ripping off the atmosphere. The ratio of planetary gravity to solar gravity that would be needed to cause the tidal locked situation would be the same as anywhere else, so the gravitational force would be fairly constant regardless of the parent star I would think (time would also be a variable here, but the gravity differential is the main factor).

In regards to the solar wind situation, maybe Tashah can answer how intense we should expect the solar winds from a white dwarf to be relative to other stars.
 
Last edited:
marduc said:
However, the smaller the mass of the star, the smaller the force of gravity it exerts; therefore in order for a planet to be tidally locked around a smaller star it would have to be in a closer orbit to that star so it would still be awfully freakin hot.

Now perhaps there maybe a smattering of exceptions around a very dense but relatively cool white dwarf for example. The planet would become tidally locked at a greater orbital distance than with a less dense star. The temperature may be more hospitable, but this still leaves the issue of gravity ripping off the atmosphere. The ratio of planetary gravity to solar gravity that would be needed to cause the tidal locked situation would be the same as anywhere else, so the gravitational force would be fairly constant regardless of the parent star I would think (time would also be a variable here, but the gravity differential is the main factor).

In regards to the solar wind situation, maybe Tashah can answer how intense we should expect the solar winds from a white dwarf to be relative to other stars.
Click to expand...

What if the star were a neutron star? As in the book, "The Intergral Trees" by Larry Niven.
 
No-one ever consider that a tidally locked planet could be the right temperature for liquid water on the light-side?

It would probably be easier for life in a tidally locked planet like this. There would be no temperature variations in area to area, so organisms wouldn't need to expend any energy for thermal homeostasis adaptation.
 
Tashah said:
Remember that tidal locked planets are usually very close to the parent star, just as close or even closer than Mercury is to the Sun. This situation is problematic to life for many reasons. Such proximity almost guarantees that any atmosphere/vapor has either been sucked off by gravity or blown off by the powerful solar wind. This is turn strongly suggests that the planet is bathed-in/penetrated-by extremely energetic particles which destroy/alter/sever molecular bonds.
Click to expand...

You don't know that. You're making assumptions on a very limited set of information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom