It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

HZ - CHZ - GHZ. Are they associated with STAR make up or just a STAR and planet location?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
I have observed much data about areas where humans of EARTH can potentially settle and call another planet new home. The area is considered the circumstellar habitable zone (CHZ). I came upon a question for ANY who are able to answer as best as they can. The question is: IF STARS ARE RELATED TO THE HZ or CHZ ARE THE STARS IN QUESTION BEING MINERALLY AND CHEMICALLY COMPARED TO EARTH STAR SOL THE SUN. Or are these areas just associating with HZ or CHZ due to them just having stars present in the planetary location ratio. I ask because if the actual STAR make up is not assessed then, yes some of these planets may have life and existing Fauna and Flora. BUT due to the make up of the STAR these Fauna and Flora may be harmful to Earth natives if the Star sending the radiation isn't = to or near the same chemical balance as SOL. Are you seeing where I am going with this. In short a planet may exist in a HZ but if the STAR is not similar to SOL it may be a wasted trip to say the least and even dangerous due to effects of ingested Fauna and Flora if hunting occurs. this WILL modify the species native to Earth in a harmful way. To add it may also cause what may be considered helpful enhanced abilities depending on the STAR of interest.

-------
habitable zone (HZ) galactic habitable zone (GHZ) circumstellar habitable zone (CHZ) definitions below.
In astronomy, the habitable zone (HZ) is the distance from a star where an Earth-like planet can maintain liquid water on its surface[1] and potentially therefore Earth-like life. The habitable zone is the intersection of two regions that must both be favorable to life: one within a planetary system, and the other within a galaxy. Planets and moons in these regions are the likeliest candidates to be habitable and thus capable in theory of bearing extraterrestrial life similar to our own.

The habitable zone is not to be confused with the planetary habitability. While planetary habitability deals solely with the planetary conditions required to maintain carbon-based life, the habitable zone deals with the stellar conditions required to maintain carbon-based life, and these two factors are not meant to be interchanged.

Life is most likely to form within the circumstellar habitable zone (CHZ) within a solar system, and the galactic habitable zone (GHZ) of the larger galaxy (though research on the latter point remains in its infancy). The HZ may also be referred to as the "life zone", "Comfort Zone", "Green Belt" or "Goldilocks Zone".[2]

A "Goldilocks planet" is a planet that falls within a star's habitable zone, and the name is often specifically used for planets close to the size of Earth.[3][4] The name comes from the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears, in which a little girl chooses from sets of three items, ignoring the ones that are too extreme (large or small, hot or cold, etc.), and settling on the one in the middle, which is "just right". Likewise, a planet following this Goldilocks Principle is one that is neither too close nor too far from a star to rule out liquid water on its surface and thus life (as humans understand it) on the planet. However, planets within a habitable zone that are unlikely to host life (e.g., gas giants) may also be called Goldilocks planets. The best example of a Goldilocks planet is the Earth itself.



[color=gold]
Sorry not the deepest of threads but something 1 has been thinking about. So what do you think ATS
The question please answer as best as you can thanks.

IF STARS ARE RELATED TO THE HZ or CHZ ARE THE STARS IN QUESTION BEING MINERALLY AND CHEMICALLY COMPARED TO EARTH STAR SOL THE SUN for effects on potential native Fauna and Flora (especially if the intent is to farm and hunt or even transfer native earth fauna & flora to non native planet). Or are these areas just associating with HZ or CHZ due to them just having stars present in the planetary location ratio, and no data about star compound FULLY assessed before claiming these areas to be human HABITABLE ZONES.
Thanks

edit on 10/5/11 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
EX: humans find planet find a way to get there see fauna & flora feel its safe. After weeks or months exposure the humans realize the planet is not safe and it was a 1 way trip there. This is why I ask.

NAMASTE*******



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
The habitability of a planet (a planet or natural satellite's ability to support or sustain life, as we know it) is completely different than the habitable zone of a parent star.

Planetary Habitability

Habitable zone

The habitable zone of a star is used to determine if a planet should be analyzed for it's habitability. Most certainly, we would also have to analyze the composition of the star in order to determine whether a planet is habitable or not. More importantly, *all* life on the candidate planet would be alien to us, regardless of whether this life were to drink water and breath oxygen (as we do), the life on this planet would have been sustained and diversified by the makeup of the chemicals that allowed life to begin and survive. All the way from it's DNA make-up to the microbe's in the air that it breathes and the water it drinks to survive.

In summary, the habitable zone is not used to say that a planet or natural satellite is habitable. It is used to narrow down potential planetary and natural satellite candidates for further habitability analysis.

-saige-



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
If I get you are you asking if the makeup of the stars are studied?
Well yes, it's quite easy all things considered. You just need to do a spectroscope reading of any star and it will tell you exactly what it is made from and how much of what elements. Even amature astronomers are able to do this if that is the path they choose.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 5-10-2011 by pazcat because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by saige45
 


saige45, thank you for sharing. You seem to understand what I am getting at..

edit on 10/5/11 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by pazcat
You just need to do a spectroscope reading of any star and it will tell you exactly what it is made from and how much of what elements. Even amature astronomers are able to do this if that is the path they choose.


That is what I was wondering if the stars in regions of potential Earth native new homes are evaluating the STAR make up to see if it carries same attributes as the SOL. Because each star may have different radiation effects on the planet and the Fauna and Flora on its growth is effected. I didnt know if when these hz are shared with public if the scientist keep in mind the effects from the star even if it has simular chemical reads from it.

Thanks for your input.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 

I never liked the term "Goldilocks Zone" as it claims knowledge that we do not yet have. It assumes that the Earth is in a habitable zone for life and that all the other planets and moons in our solar system are not, making life there non-existent. Mars appears dead not because it is too far from the Sun but because it has too thin an atmosphere. Venus has too thick an atmosphere and too much heat and this is not necessarily because it is too close to the Sun.

Let's look at one of Jupiter's moons, well outside this Goldilocks zone, named Euopa.

This "tidal heating" causes Europa to be warmer than it would otherwise be at its average distance of about 780,000,000 km (485,000,000 miles) from the sun, more than five times as far as the distance from the Earth to the sun. The warmth of Europa's liquid ocean could prove critical to the survival of simple organisms within the ocean, if they exist.
Life could exist in the ocean on the moon Europa that orbits around Jupiter.

How about Saturn's moon Enceladus?

Covered in water ice that reflects sunlight like freshly fallen snow, Enceladus reflects almost 100 percent of the sunlight that strikes it. Because Enceladus reflects so much sunlight, the surface temperature is extremely cold, about -201° C (-330° F).
...
There are fissures, plains, corrugated terrain and other crustal deformations. All of this indicates that the interior of the moon may be liquid today, even though it should have been frozen eons ago.
Another liquid ocean! The "Goldilocks Zone" is bunk, for the most part.

How about Saturn's moon Titan?
The atmosphere and surface of this moon is thick with methane which is in liquid form at the temperature of around -289 degrees Fahrenheit (-178 degrees Celsius). This means there are great rivers, lakes and oceans of methane as these hydrocarbons exist in liquid form at these temperatures and rain down on this moon.

Here is a nice picture of the moon Titan which I found on this site;
NASA Discovers Life On Saturn’s Moon Titan – Maybe…
I don't agree with that claim but I cannot say that life does not exist there as we just don't know enough. Perhaps methane or something similar could be the solvent in life that replaces water which gives rise to a different kind of life form that would be lethal to us. This is pure speculation but I think it is in line with part of your question.
edit on 10/5/2011 by Devino because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 


Thanks Devino I see what you are saying. alot of the data is based off speculation and guesses. I just remember this year there were a few releases that there was x amount of planets found that could sustain Earth life and wondered are the scientist considering the STAR emissions effecting the planets of interest. The point you just made proves more to the theory that some locations may be getting overlooked just because they don't fit the data of the leading scientist. If the need to MOVE ever comes to play I HOPE THE SCIENTIST ARE CONSIDERING THIS. to SAVE A TRIP WASTED OR GENETIC MODIFYING OF THE TRAVELERS. Those moons I always feel there is life swimming inside them. I even envisioned areas where there may exist large upside down somewhat caverns protruding inward making space for non swimming creatures as well. I guess as always we have to await some divine help to know the truth for sure.

Thanks again



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 


No worries, I know a guy who has written a book on it. Know next to nothing about it myself though.
Having a quick search there are a few databases of known stars spectra, I would guess that these databases may even be used when selecting stars to research. At least that would make sense.
For instance our sun is a G2V spectral type so it stands to reason they would start looking there.

www.phys.unm.edu...
stellar.phys.appstate.edu...
www2.astro.psu.edu...
www.astronexus.com...

There is bound to be more.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 

I never liked the term "Goldilocks Zone" as it claims knowledge that we do not yet have. It assumes that the Earth is in a habitable zone for life and that all the other planets and moons in our solar system are not, making life there non-existent. Mars appears dead not because it is too far from the Sun but because it has too thin an atmosphere. Venus has too thick an atmosphere and too much heat and this is not necessarily because it is too close to the Sun.
I really believe that they should modify the term to something like "Earthborn Sustaining Zone".


Actually you mention many of the other bodies in our own solar system (including Venus) and how we do not know enough. I for one could not agree with you more. Reminds me of a short story (I swear it was an Outer Limits Episode) where man terraformed Venus and killed the silicon based lifeforms inhabiting the planet because "We did not know enough". And I am most certain that we will continue to not know enough because when it comes to what constitues life, our current science and understanding is very prejudiced.

-saige-
edit on 5-10-2011 by saige45 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by saige45
 


Nope, Venus has many things going against it to sustain any life. For one it is the hottest planet in the solar system, with a surface temperature around 900º F throughout the planet (hot enough to melt several metals). This is because of its thick heat insulating atmosphere, which also causes the surface pressure to be like if you were a thousand feet below an ocean on earth, crushing. This is caused by many things but in layman terms, (because I am not going to dig into references), Venus rotates slower than it orbits the sun. One interesting fact about Venus is that a day on Venus is actually longer than a year on Venus. A Venusian day lasts 243 days, and a year is 224 days. That means that the day on Venus is 19 days longer than the year. This bakes CO2 out of the rocks that under the extreme pressure insulate the heat by adding more CO2 into the atmosphere, and the high equatorial winds that orbit the planet every few days (note the 'V' shape of the cloud cover in photos centered around the equator) at astronomically horrendous speeds, keeps the entire planet hotter than Mercury, even during its long 'nights', on that side of the planet.

Plus, it is too close to the sun.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 

This is conventional wisdom and that which I consider "inside the box” type thinking. You are correct for the most part but I feel we should be careful here in that this type of wisdom has led us down the wrong path before.

Speculating that Venus has always been there (4.5 billion years), it’s thick atmosphere is a product of a runaway greenhouse effect and no life exists there are just that, speculations. The fact is that we do not know enough about our closest neighbor to answer these questions.

How can we prove the age and history of Venus?
Is Venus’ think atmosphere a product of heating through a greenhouse effect or vise versa?
What is the source of this extreme heat on Venus?
Is there life on Venus?

Think the possibility of life on Venus is absurd? Well think again.
www.space.com...



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join