It's me again with another perplexing article from Astrobio.net .
http://astrobio.net/news/modules.php...rder=0&thold=0
According to this article, plate tectonics are necessary for life, and smaller planets wouldn't have them. And
"The team found that super-Earths would be more geologically active than our planet, experiencing more vigorous plate tectonics due to thinner plates under more stress".
OK, I don't know why plate tectonics would be related to the size of a planet. I thought it had more to do with 1) whether the planet was hot inside, and 2) whether there was another planetary body exerting gravity against it. I believe Jupiter's moon Io is very geologically active because Jupiter's gravity pulls its insides around (which causes it to be hot & have lots of lava, in fact they call it the 'pizza pie planet'.
So one could say that "pizza is what's on Io's Plate."
)
I would actually think the Super Earths would be less geologically active, because there is so much more mass in them, thus higher gravity, and if they have a hot core, there would still be so much more material shielding the core from the surface.
Interestingly, the article thinks that Super Earths would be a great vacation spot, with temperate climate & lots of balmy hot springs. Sure, the gravity would be 3X that of Earth, but the author doesn't think that would be such a problem.
I do! I thought you would weigh 3X as much? Who would want that???