The MisleadingTerm-Earthlike
Sept 24, 2023 18:52:01 GMT -5
Post by Radrook Admin on Sept 24, 2023 18:52:01 GMT -5
The Misleading Term-Earthlike
You have very possibly noticed how some atheist astronomers constantly referring to certain newly-discovered planets orbiting other stars, or anywhere else in the universe, as being Earthlike.
Such a term, of course, always manages to elicit visions of a blue beautiful orb, graced with vast oceans, green sprawling forests, and a somewhat similar atmosphere to our Earth.
Well, unfortunately, the term Earthlike, can be very misleading, since the planets that are being referred to as Earthlike, turn out to be absolutely nothing like our Earth when subjected to close examination. In fact, they can turn out to be the exact opposite, except for some rather insignificant generalities.
Let's consider some examples of these so-called Earthlike planets, and what exactly is the criteria that these astronomers are using to apply the Earthlike term to them.
The main criteria for categorizing a planet as being Earthlike, are the following. It has to be located within the Goldilocks Zone.
The Goldilocks Zone, is the planet's orbital distance from its star that permits a tolerable temperature, and the existence of liquid water. Our planets Venus, and Mercury and Mars, although rocky planets, are not within that zone.
Now, such planets are classified as habitable, not because they have the exact life-sustaining abilities that Earth has, such as an identical, breathable, and radiation-protective atmosphere, but merely because they offer a solid surface, their temperature might be manageable, with technological assistance, their gravity falls within the tolerable range, and liquid water is deemed capable of being present. Nothing more.
www.space.com/35069-what-is-an-earthlike-planet.html
But is that really enough in itself to justify that classification of Earthlike? As it turns out, no it isn't. Especially when the very significant details that should disqualify them from being tagged as earthlike, are being totally downplayed or unceremoniously ignored.
Such a term, of course, always manages to elicit visions of a blue beautiful orb, graced with vast oceans, green sprawling forests, and a somewhat similar atmosphere to our Earth.
Well, unfortunately, the term Earthlike, can be very misleading, since the planets that are being referred to as Earthlike, turn out to be absolutely nothing like our Earth when subjected to close examination. In fact, they can turn out to be the exact opposite, except for some rather insignificant generalities.
Let's consider some examples of these so-called Earthlike planets, and what exactly is the criteria that these astronomers are using to apply the Earthlike term to them.
The main criteria for categorizing a planet as being Earthlike, are the following. It has to be located within the Goldilocks Zone.
The Goldilocks Zone, is the planet's orbital distance from its star that permits a tolerable temperature, and the existence of liquid water. Our planets Venus, and Mercury and Mars, although rocky planets, are not within that zone.
Now, such planets are classified as habitable, not because they have the exact life-sustaining abilities that Earth has, such as an identical, breathable, and radiation-protective atmosphere, but merely because they offer a solid surface, their temperature might be manageable, with technological assistance, their gravity falls within the tolerable range, and liquid water is deemed capable of being present. Nothing more.
www.space.com/35069-what-is-an-earthlike-planet.html
But is that really enough in itself to justify that classification of Earthlike? As it turns out, no it isn't. Especially when the very significant details that should disqualify them from being tagged as earthlike, are being totally downplayed or unceremoniously ignored.
An example are planets orbiting red dwarf stars that are tagged in that way. Are they indeed as earthlike as certain astronomers are claiming? Well, please notice that Earth's sun is a stable star that does not periodically threaten life on Earth by suddenly flaring due to some type of core instability.
Yet, in stark contrast, these dwarf stars, which constitute approx. three-fourths of all stars, and around which these planets usually orbit, tend do just that. They tend to periodically, and unpredictably, shower their planets' surfaces with intense, deadly radiation.
Furthermore, these red dwarf stars, have yet another very significant downside that make their planets significantly unearth like, they tend to gravitationally keep their them with one side bathed in perpetual light, and their opposite side eternally engulfed in a frigid darkness. It is called tidal locking.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitability_of_red_dwarf_systems
The following video illustrates this dishonest classification despite such compelling disqualifying evidence.
Yet, in stark contrast, these dwarf stars, which constitute approx. three-fourths of all stars, and around which these planets usually orbit, tend do just that. They tend to periodically, and unpredictably, shower their planets' surfaces with intense, deadly radiation.
Furthermore, these red dwarf stars, have yet another very significant downside that make their planets significantly unearth like, they tend to gravitationally keep their them with one side bathed in perpetual light, and their opposite side eternally engulfed in a frigid darkness. It is called tidal locking.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitability_of_red_dwarf_systems
The following video illustrates this dishonest classification despite such compelling disqualifying evidence.