# Tag Info

1

This answer is not as much an answer as it is several questions you should consider and, I hope, answer. Part One: The Radiation Problem. As I remember, Earth's atmosphere stops most X-rays and gamma rays from reaching the surface. That is why X-ray and gamma ray telescopes are in satellites and space probes above the atmosphere. MolbOrg's answer claims ...

5

As a comment. There are different https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk 's including those which are thermal, similar to a star (as I understood) soo maybe handwave if it is backdrop/just a premise for the stuff to be. The shape of the thing may be a bigger deal and a disk is not necessarily a great case. Radiation by itself is not necessarily a life ...

6

The disk itself can shade you Consider a luminous disk with an additional point light source in the center. If you are above or below the plane of the disk, it is very bright from both disk and point source. But in the plane of the disc you receive only radiation from the edge. The rest of the disc is interposed between you and light emitting materials ...

2

legio1's answer is jaw-dropping but I see nothing in the math to disagree with. However, I am going to disagree anyway and say there is no habitable zone--the problem is the luminosity of the black hole won't hold steady enough for life. Planets might at times be of a suitable temperature but that state won't persist over long periods.

5

Taking "439 trillion times brighter" to mean the "stellar" luminosity is 439 trillion times the sun, we can make some rough calculations. The inner boundary of a stellar habitable zone is approximated by: $$inner = \sqrt{L_s \over 1.1}$$ Where Ls is luminosity is solar units and the result is in AUs. Plugging in the given value, we get: ...

1

You've got a big problem here: Land erodes. The only reason we have continents is plate tectonics--otherwise the continents would have eroded into the oceans long ago and we would have a 100% water world. You are after 40% land--every bit of that 40% must be volcanoes (or recently deceased volcanoes that haven't eroded away yet.) That's not going to be a ...

0

There is a quite long and insightful BBC article on this topic: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170111-the-unexpected-ingredient-necessary-for-life/ So the atmosphere, climate and geographics would certainly differ from our world and it would be unlikely a planet like that would produce the same very specific atmosphere composition and conditions that made ...

Top 50 recent answers are included