anoopsaxena76
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2009
- Messages
- 109
- Reaction score
- 0
Apparently with a smaller star, the effect of gravity and heating would be less and with no satellite found so far and assuming presence of water bodies on the planet, tides would be absent or negligible. Add to it the 37 day 'solar year', and one face of the rock in perpetual darkness. With an atmosphere, assuming like ours, that would be some weather.
Okay some of the points that immediately come to my mind.
1.) Since it is in a habitable zone, one would expect the temperature to be more or less closer to the one, we have on earth.
2.) The smaller the star, the slower the star burns out, so it means a longer life. What we do not know, or at least I do not know (scientists may have figured out), is which state the star is in?
3.) The distance between the star and the planet itself has to be taken into account.
4.) I think you confused the word weather with "perpetual day" on one side. Weather is due to the inclination on one's axis. That is why my original question.
5.) Does it have a moon? I think we couldn't be sure as yet. There is no way we can detect such a small body so far away. Besides, tides can be generated by the stars itself, depending on the orbit of the planet.
Regards,
Anoop