Until the discovery of the first exoplanets, it was thought star systems would be pretty much like ours (with a high likelyhood of earthlike planets harboring life, as they'd remain in a stable orbit.
But large exoplanets orbiting their star very closely could only be explained if they had migrated from further away.
In order for a planet to form itself, it must have enough matter to do so and too close from a star, the orbital path would not concentrate enough matter for that purpose.
Further away, there is enough matter....But this means migration...How can that be possible?
Because of resonance.
All those exoplanets discovered mean migration becomes the rule rather than the exception.
Which brings a new theory about our own solar system.
Had Jupiter been further and Saturn closer (places reversed), Saturn would have been pushed further inward, which would have pushed Earth even more inward than it is today.
This planet migration issue makes it even more unlikely we'll find earthlike life elsewhere
Space/Science » in reply to Regarding earthlike planets
re: Resonance
The whole thread (39 posts)
- Regarding earthlike planets
- re: Resonance
- ejection
- life on ejected planets
- re: life on ejected planets. - Ejected planets is one thing...
- Monitoring globular star clusters
- life on ejected planets
