[Paul25 (OP)]

◊If an object were to fall at the earth's gravitational acceleration (g=9.8m's2) for an earth year it would reach of speed of light (+1%), this is unique in our solar system.

Could this be evidence for some relationship between a stars mass, the orbital period of planet, the planets mass and the possibility of life arising on that planet? And if so could it also be a signature of some 'creationary element'?

[Kryptid]

If an object were to fall at the earth's gravitational acceleration (g=9.8m's2) for a year it would be within 1% of speed of light

What does that have to do with life?

[Paul25 (OP)]

If an object were to fall at the earth's gravitational acceleration (g=9.8m's2) for a year it would be within 1% of speed of light

What does that have to do with life?

The Earth is the only planet where life is known to exist, it's gravitational acceleration for it's year happens to be within 1% of c? Maybe more than coincidence.

It could be said the probability of finding life on a planet is proportional to it's gravitational acceleration multiplied by its year being within a range of 2% of c.

[Kryptid]

The Earth is the only planet where life is known to exist, it's gravitational acceleration for it's year happens to be within 1% of c? Maybe more than coincidence.

I don't see any relation at all between those two things. Can you actually give some logical reasoning behind your argument?

It could be said the probability of finding life on a planet is proportional to it's gravitational acceleration multiplied by its year divided by c being within a range of 2%

I don't think so. A very massive planet at a much closer distance to the Sun would also fit that criteria, but its chances of supporting life would be far less due to the excess heat. The opposite problem would be true for a distant, low-mass planet.

[Paul25 (OP)]

The Earth is the only planet where life is known to exist, it's gravitational acceleration for it's year happens to be within 1% of c? Maybe more than coincidence.

I don't see any relation at all between those two things. Can you actually give some logical reasoning behind your argument?

It could be said the probability of finding life on a planet is proportional to it's gravitational acceleration multiplied by its year divided by c being within a range of 2%

I just thought it might indicate a 'sweet spot' or more habitable zone. I don't see any obvious relationship either, other than a coincidental result to some calculations.

I don't think so. A very massive planet at a much closer distance to the Sun would also fit that criteria, but its chances of supporting life would be far less due to the excess heat. The opposite problem would be true for a distant, low-mass planet.

I did say proportional to not equal to, of course there are other variables.

[Kryptid]

I don't see any obvious relationship either

So why think it has any meaningful relationship to the probability of life at all?

I did say proportional to not equal to, of course there are other variables.

So in what sense is it proportional?

[syhprum]

To digress as is well know an object falling to Earth from a great distance under the influence Earths gravity only reaches the escape velocity of the Earth not .98c

[jeffreyH]

 Gravity is essential for live. If it didn't anchor both us and the atmosphere to the planet there would be no life. All the other stuff you said is just school room daydreaming.

[puppypower]

Gravity creates pressure. While pressure and temperature is responsible for the phase properties of matter, The earth's gravity and solar heating creates the pressure and temperature conditions, respectively, for water to be in the liquid phase, which is critical to life.
 
The density of liquid water increases with increasing pressure and decreases with increasing temperature. Liquid water forms hydrogen bonds and hydrogen bonds have both polar and covalent character. The polar side of hydrogen bonding makes liquid water denser.

As such, although a range of gravitational pressures can form liquid water, if the pressure is too high the polar-covalent equilibrium of the hydrogen bonds will shift to far to the polar side making life less likely. We are in a sweet spot in terms of Abiogenesis conditions. Once life forms, this equilibrium is less critical, as evident in deep sea life, where pressures can get really high.

An interesting affect is the SOFA channel beneath the ocean. As we go deeper and deeper the gravitational pressure increases and the ocean temperature falls. At a certain point, the speed of sound in water reaches a minimum. This is called the SOFA channel, or the sound fixing and ranging channel. Because of the speed of sound minimum, the SOFA channel is like a sonar reflector. Submarines will tend to hide under the SOFA channel, since surface sonar will bing and not see anything due to the reflection off the channel layer. The SOFA channel would not have been the a place where life could have formed due to high level of polar hydrogen bonding. If the earth had a stronger gravitational field and surface liquid water was too dense, this could inhibit life. We are in a good spot, gravity wise.

[Bored chemist]

Because gravity reduces with distance there's a limit to how fast you can fall.
For the Earth, it's about 11.2 km/s

However there are things in the universe where, if you feel for a year, you would pretty much reach the speed of light.
In order to have a free fall velocity equal to the speed of light, you need to hit the event horizon of a black hole.
It is unlikely that life thrives in black holes.

The original premise of the thread makes no sense. We should just let it die.

[Bored chemist]

Gravity is essential for live. If it didn't anchor both us and the atmosphere to the planet there would be no life.

Without gravity... what planet?

[evan_au]

Is gravitational field strength a parameter that defines life?

For life in a liquid environment, there is a neutral-buoyancy environment, and gravity has very little impact on whether life can exist.

In this scenario, I am not talking about liquid water, but potentially any liquid (including liquid diamond 150km down, liquid iron 6,000km down, liquid hydrocarbons on Titan ,and liquid hydrogen in Saturn's core).

All you need is enough gravity to hold together a mass of matter together.

[Bored chemist]

liquid diamond

Is liquid diamond different from liquid graphite?

[Paul25 (OP)]

The original premise of the thread makes no sense.

I couldn't phrase it in a way that would fit in the subject field.

[Bored chemist]

The original premise of the thread makes no sense.

I couldn't phrase it in a way that would fit in the subject field.

That should have told you something...