Wich level of life are we talking about?
Microbial?
full Biosphere?
Sentient lifeforms?
I was thinking they were unlikely to have anything in full Biosphere level or above. Mcrobial life is kind of "meh" on the level of intersting stuff to find.
NASA's announcement
- Thread starter NEXUS12
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Microbial?
full Biosphere?
Sentient lifeforms?
I was thinking they were unlikely to have anything in full Biosphere level or above. Mcrobial life is kind of "meh" on the level of intersting stuff to find.
Looks like Paradox agrees with the OP. 
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...e-discovery-of-the-trappist-1-system.1001193/
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...e-discovery-of-the-trappist-1-system.1001193/
You assume a species that has united would be hostile the fact they didn't destroy themselves shows either they united peacefully or one group dominated the others only 1 implies conquest the other not.
Or maybe it has sentient life but not on the level of Humans who doesn't want space dinos
Plants would be pretty neat. Depending on where they are in such an environment, they'd probably have purple chlorophyll.
Why are we assuming life would develop like it did on earth 1 planet is not a big enough sample to assume what life on other planets are what if they arent even carbon based life for instance what if the creatures breath nitrogen instead of oxygen.
M stars tend to flare a lot, too. That's actually the biggest issue, IMO, as the flares can efficiently strip atmospheres from planets. Without a somewhat stable atmosphere life seems a bit unlikely. The other things (tidal locking, tidal heating causing increased volcanism, etc) aren't ideal, but I don't think would be enough to say life couldn't develop there for sure. It really depends on how active the star is- if it's an active flaring M dwarf the chance for life is basically zero.
Again isn't the thin strip that the sun isn't fully in the sky isn't that an area were life can exist?
That's why I said the tidal locking wasn't enough to say there couldn't be life. You could still have life develop on the terminator, or even in the areas with permanent sunshine. Hell, atmospheres are pretty efficient at redistributing energy- you could even have life on the dark side of the planets. The main issue is that you generally need to have an atmosphere of some kind to have life, and being around an M dwarf there is a high risk that flares could strip the atmospheres of any planets orbiting the star.
True but it could also mean the atmosphere is still there but it is being stripped overtime.
Oxygen is abundant and offers a good Energy defect towards other very common Elements (like carbon), while also allowing a energy effective return cycle (photosynthesis).
There are only so many elements in the Periodic table, and how common they are is based on galactic factors.
We might not share a planet, but we do still share a set law of physics and a universe. Possibly even a galaxy.
I am not considering Earthlife the gold standart. I consider it "bog-standard".
You are mixing up "Tidally locked, only 20% Population capacity" with "Tidally locked, but stil la nice place to evolve".
Tidal locking throws the habitable segment of the planet totally out of whack. And the climate too. On earth we could only use 30% of the surface area. But at least the other 70% go towards a stable climate.
The atmosphere would be completely gone over thousands of years, let alone the millions it takes life to evolve.
Even a minor reduction per year adds up to total stripping over the timeframes we are talking about.
I thought tidally locked was when one side is constant facing the sun the other space if so the thin sip where the sun is not fully shining is livable correct or am I confusing it with something else.
So then why dont we just assume there are all dead rocks shouldn't this a be a non discussion.
Tidally locked is when one side is constantly facing the sun, like you said. There's no reason why life couldn't develop on the side in constant sunlight though- it's not like it would be baking the surface if the planet is in the habitable zone. The side that gets no sunlight is a different story- it would be colder (but an atmosphere might make the dark side not orders of magnitude colder than the sunlit side), but you wouldn't have the sunlight input so you couldn't have things like photosynthesis (or equivalent processes) going on.
Really depends on what the star is doing- if it's a flaring M dwarf, then yes, finding life should be a non discussion. If it's stable, then maybe it's ok.
Under tidally locked scenarios:
One side would be permanently baking in the sun. Uninhabitable
The other side would be cold as the northpole. Uninhabitable.
A small strip in the twilight might have moderate temperatures.
How it goes from there depends on the Atmosphere:
It might offer a good energy distribution. Or cause massive permanent storms to make even the moderate area uninhabitable from primtive life.
You were saying "Atmospheric stripping would not mater at all for the evolution of life."
I said "It does under the timeframes needed for Evolution."
You said: "Then why do we look for life at all?" I am not quite sure how you got there.
Well if it's in constant sunlight, it would actually probably be baking, it's been receiving constant, uninterrupted energy from the star for the last who-knows-how-many millions or billions of years. All that energy goes towards heat...
you say I'm wrong, but then proceed to repeat my point in a more detailed fashion.... I said that life on Earth is built to live on Earth, that applies to all of it; sure if you take a deep sea Tubeworm and put in in your house it will die just as quickly as you'd die at the bottom of the deep ocean, but that's to be expected sense those lifeforms are built to live in their given environments, but not the other's.
Which an atmosphere would redistribute. I mean, we do have a semi- analog in the solar system in Uranus. It's nearly 90 degree axial tilt means that one side of the planet can be facing the sun for prolonged periods of time, but it's atmosphere fairly efficiently redistributes the incoming
Right, but Uranus is almost entirely comprised of atmosphere, and is a lot farther away from the sun. If you're in a closer orbit (like these planets are) you get a lot more radiation from the star. On top of which, atmospheres also do a LOT to insulate planets as well, and the planets being rocky would result in the surface absorbing a whole lot of energy which it would re-emit as heat.
Except the stars radiation output is puny, which is why even at sub mercury orbits the planets are getting less radiation than the Earth does. Yeah, it's more than Uranus, but it's not more than what the Earth is getting. The atmospheric insulation depends a whole lot on the composition of the atmosphere. For example, water clouds have extremely high albedo (at least at visual wavelengths, not sure if that holds true in the IR where this star is putting out most of it's light), which means they reflect much of the incoming radiation back into space. So if you're forming a lot of clouds on the sunlit side, this will drive the effective albedo of the planet up and decrease the incoming radiation flux.