what would be the smallest size for a "terran" planet

>>9140683
?

>>9140646
>what would be the smallest size for a "terran" planet which supports life,has gravity etc?

Flat, or round?

I've never actually considered this idea before. You could in theory have a planet with surface gravity equal to earth's as small as you like as long as it has the right mass to compensate, but eventually the pressure would be too high for the outer layer to sustain life. I have no idea where that point would be though.

Is that the crab nebula?

assuming the plantet is a giant lump of tungsten (instead of iron), which is about 3 times denser
meaning you could have "Earth" 3 times smaller in mass
I'm too lazy to calculate the exact proportions

>>9140835
This would not work you brainlet. Gravity would be way stronger because you are closer to the core.

>>9140730
round
>>9140815
yep, followed this tutorial to make it https://youtu.be/0uMK3YopP_c

>>9140730
All planets are flat

>>9141741
t. /x/

>>9141989
that's rude to /x/
not even they are that fucking retarded

A few centimeters. All it needs is an atmosphere and a magnetic field to protect itself from sun winds as well as water and stuff to make proteins out of.

>>9140646
That looks a lot like the crab nebula.

File: pangea-supercontinent.png (24KB, 727x374px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 727x374px

>>9140646
>could it be a one continent planet

>>9140971
How is that a problem, now you can make even smaller earth

File: this guy gets it archer.jpg (204KB, 628x434px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 628x434px

>>9142315
>not even they are that fucking retarded

Well, you SAY that...

>>9142361
it is the crab nebula, see
>>9141739

>>9140646
It would need gravity close to that of Earth in order to maintain the atmosphere. You would still also need a strong magnetic field too but that would not have saved Mars, just delayed the atmospheric loss.

And yes, you could do with a single continent. That was the case early on in Earth's geological history. Look up Pangea and Gondwanaland.

Motto: reunite Pangea! Now!

>>9140646

I think the limit is the escape velocity of oxygen, so gravity would have to be strong enough to prevent atmospheric loss. At that point, you could basically scale everything down on the surface (oceans, land, etc) then make the core as dense as possible to fit within the mass you need.

>>9143669
>>9145290
So what would a high gravity world look like in terms of flora and fauna?

>>9146380
THICC

>>9146385
Would tress be shorter or taller?

File: bscap0087.jpg (69KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1600x900px

>>9140646
easy

>>9146380
Different

>>9146400
shorter and thiccer

File: aiaf02_300dpi_1024x1024.jpg (63KB, 1000x516px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1000x516px

>>9146385
so space dwarfs and goblins?

>>9146458
Kek

>>9140646

Any size really. All that is needed is 10 m/s gravity on it's surface. So if someone were to somehow make a special type of super dense rock, it would be possible to have a planet with a surface of a square mile but still be able to retain liquid water and oxygen. For how long though, is another matter entirely.

It's kind of like a giant greenhouse in that regard.

>>9146628
literally

>>9148343
but earth is 9.81m/s we should all be dead?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!