Namekian time?

[Kiddo626]

Okay, as we all know, one year on Earth is the result of taking 365 days to revolve around the sun. One Namekian year is 130 days, which could easily be explained by being in a different galaxy, revolving around a different sun. The thing is, Namek has three suns surrounding it, removing all possibilities of "night time," so to speak. So, I guess the question I have concerning this can be broken down into two parts:

A.) With no night, how can the Namekians know one day from the next?
B.) With three suns, how does the planet Namek revolve in order to complete the 130 days in the Namekian year?

Now, I know that this is most likely something Toriyama didn't think through all that well, but if there can be an in-universe explanation for it, then I'm all ears.

[Darkprince410]

1) They could base it on the position of one of the suns. Just to give an idea, if, say, the Earth didn't actually grow any darker during the night time (even though we're facing away from the sun), we'd still be able to tell that a day has passed by the return of the sun in the sky again. Since there are three suns in the Namekian system, if they were to base the passing of the day on when "Sun A" reaches X point in the sky, that'd probably suffice for them. There's no indication that all three suns are the same size, intensity, and color, so I'm sure they'd be able to distinguish between them and be able to use one as a frame of reference.

2) It's not actually said that it revolves around all three. It's more likely that the planet revolves around one of the suns ("Sun A"), and that because of their relatively close proximity, the other two stars give off enough light that what would normally be the dark side of the planet is just as brightly illuminated as the "light side" would.

[Bussani]

Darkprince410 already gave a good answer, so I'll just add that multiple star systems apparently aren't as uncommon was astrologists once thought they were, but how they work varies from example to example. I can only guess what Namek's orbit must be like, especially since it has to prevent any form of night. Check out the Wikipedia page for more info.

[Kiddo626]

Both of you have great points, but that just brings up a somewhat related question: One year on Venus is 225 days, and it's considered the hottest planet in our solar system. Since Namek has a shorter year, that means it's closer to its sun than Venus. So, with that, plus two more suns, shouldn't Namek be blazing hot? I mean, the Namekians, as well as Gohan and co., seemed to be living comfortably without so much as breaking a sweat, temperature-wise at least.

[dantman]

Both of you have great points, but that just brings up a somewhat related question: One year on Venus is 225 days, and it's considered the hottest planet in our solar system. Since Namek has a shorter year, that means it's closer to its sun than Venus. So, with that, plus two more suns, shouldn't Namek be blazing hot? I mean, the Namekians, as well as Gohan and co., seemed to be living comfortably without so much as breaking a sweat, temperature-wise at least.

In terms of heat due to proximity to the sun Mercury would be the hottest. Venus is only the hottest because the atmospheric mass is 92 times that of earth. Filled with CO2 and sulfur dioxide. Leading to Venus having a huge greenhouse effect heating up the planet immensely.

In fact according to the Wikipedia article (which even seams to have a citation for this information) studies suggest that Venus once had an earth-like atmosphere billions of years ago.

[Bussani]

Both of you have great points, but that just brings up a somewhat related question: One year on Venus is 225 days, and it's considered the hottest planet in our solar system. Since Namek has a shorter year, that means it's closer to its sun than Venus. So, with that, plus two more suns, shouldn't Namek be blazing hot? I mean, the Namekians, as well as Gohan and co., seemed to be living comfortably without so much as breaking a sweat, temperature-wise at least.

Great question. In our own solar system it's true that the planets closer to the sun have a shorter orbit than our Earth, because a) they have less distance to cover, and b) the sun's gravity is stronger at closer distances, so they have to move faster to not fall in. However, Namek isn't our solar system, so its star could have a different mass from ours (in fact, Namek could be orbiting two stars that are orbiting each other!). If our sun actually had twice the mass it does, we'd feel twice the gravity from it that we do, and Earth would have to orbit faster; our year would be approximately 258 days instead of 365. I'm not 100% sure I'm doing the math right, but I think if Namek was the same distance from its star as Earth is from its, and Namek's star(s) had eight times the mass of our own, then its year would work out at around 130 days.

[dario03]

Both of you have great points, but that just brings up a somewhat related question: One year on Venus is 225 days, and it's considered the hottest planet in our solar system. Since Namek has a shorter year, that means it's closer to its sun than Venus. So, with that, plus two more suns, shouldn't Namek be blazing hot? I mean, the Namekians, as well as Gohan and co., seemed to be living comfortably without so much as breaking a sweat, temperature-wise at least.

Is it ever stated that a Namekian year is measured by how long it takes for the planet to go around their sun?
Also did Namek and New Namek have the same length of year? (Though I guess it wouldn't matter to much since the charge time for the dragonballs didn't change IIRC)

And theres a bunch of ways Namek could be not blazing hot even if its year is shorter and was measured by going around their sun. Perhaps their sun isn't as hot, perhaps Namek orbits it faster, perhaps something in their atmosphere, etc, etc.

[Bussani]

Is it ever stated that a Namekian year is measured by how long it takes for the planet to go around their sun?

No, but that's the definition of a year. That said, I'm not sure it's ever explicitly said that the Namekian balls recharge more quickly because Namek has shorter years, or even that Namek has shorter years at all. It could just be something fans have assumed.

[Attitudefan]

Their sun could be a different type, like a red dwarf, which means that even though the planet could be close to the sun it doesn't mean it'll be blazing hot. It could still be very frigid depending on the size of their star and the planet itself plus the type of atmosphere they have. There are many actual stars that are very cool when compared to our sun, and planets that are close to those stars are not necessarily boiling. Some are frozen.

[Darkprince410]

Just because Namek's year is so short doesn't mean that it's necessarily close to their sun. As dario said, it's easily possible that their distance from the primary sun they orbit is the same distance as it is between the Earth and the Sun, but their actual revolution speed is far faster.

[Rocketman]

A star heavier than the Sun would also burn hotter. A star ten times more massive than the Sun would be three thousand times brighter.

[dario03]

A star heavier than the Sun would also burn hotter. A star ten times more massive than the Sun would be three thousand times brighter.

Isn't the hotter part only true for stars of the same type? Betelgeuse is a red giant and is ~18 times as massive as the sun but is only around ~63% as hot.

[Darkprince410]

Mass doesn't necessarily correspond to weight or heaviness though. The heaviest stars in the universe actually tend to be the smallest, due to their overall density (why neutron stars are far heavier than a white dwarf like the Sun, even though the Sun has a mass several thousand times higher).

[dario03]

Mass doesn't necessarily correspond to weight or heaviness though. The heaviest stars in the universe actually tend to be the smallest, due to their overall density (why neutron stars are far heavier than a white dwarf like the Sun, even though the Sun has a mass several thousand times higher).

Yes, weight is affected by gravity but mass is not, however in your star comparison I think your confusing mass with volume. Neutron stars typically have more mass than the sun but are much smaller is size. Your right about the density though since that is measured by how much mass is in a given volume.

And the sun is a yellow dwarf (I'm guessing white dwarf was just a mis print)

[Attitudefan]

Mass doesn't necessarily correspond to weight or heaviness though. The heaviest stars in the universe actually tend to be the smallest, due to their overall density (why neutron stars are far heavier than a white dwarf like the Sun, even though the Sun has a mass several thousand times higher).

This is true! But not all big/small stars correspond to heat. It is usually the type of star like if it is a white or blue star it is VERY hot! If it is a red star type, especially if it is a dwarf, it is cooler than the Yellow type stars. The coldest star types are brown ones.

[Kiddo626]

This is true! But not all big/small stars correspond to heat. It is usually the type of star like if it is a white or blue star it is VERY hot! If it is a red star type, especially if it is a dwarf, it is cooler than the Yellow type stars. The coldest star types are brown ones.

If I remember correctly, the suns on Namek were either yellow or white, so Namek should have been very hot. With that in mind, I would probably have to go with the theory someone posted earlier of smaller suns, faster rotation in order for the comfortable temperature on Namek to make sense.

[Attitudefan]

This is true! But not all big/small stars correspond to heat. It is usually the type of star like if it is a white or blue star it is VERY hot! If it is a red star type, especially if it is a dwarf, it is cooler than the Yellow type stars. The coldest star types are brown ones.

If I remember correctly, the suns on Namek were either yellow or white, so Namek should have been very hot. With that in mind, I would probably have to go with the theory someone posted earlier of smaller suns, faster rotation in order for the comfortable temperature on Namek to make sense.

Yeah, they were yellow and white. Though I swear there was some kind of red moon or something in the sky too!

[dantman]

This is true! But not all big/small stars correspond to heat. It is usually the type of star like if it is a white or blue star it is VERY hot! If it is a red star type, especially if it is a dwarf, it is cooler than the Yellow type stars. The coldest star types are brown ones.

If I remember correctly, the suns on Namek were either yellow or white, so Namek should have been very hot. With that in mind, I would probably have to go with the theory someone posted earlier of smaller suns, faster rotation in order for the comfortable temperature on Namek to make sense.

Yeah, they were yellow and white. Though I swear there was some kind of red moon or something in the sky too!

Light is generally white. Any star will generally look white if you look right at it.

[Rocketman]

Light is generally white. Any star will generally look white if you look right at it.

No they don't. You can look up at the stars at night and see they have different colors.



Basically, Namek is impossible.

A triple-star system, yes. We've found tons.

A triple-star system with a planet, yes. No reason there couldn't be one.

A triple-star system with a planet that never has night....now you're getting crazy, but there probably is a way to finangle the orbit so the planet weaves between the stars as they circle each other. It wouldn't be a stable system, and eventually the planet would fall into one of the stars or get tossed out of the system, but you could maybe make it happen.

A triple-star system with a planet that never has night and is completely Earthlike in every way...no. Can't happen. Our solar system only has one star, and Venus is an absolute hellhole just from being 30 million miles closer. A planet that never has night is a planet that is never able to radiate the energy it receives from its star out into space.

[dantman]

Light is generally white. Any star will generally look white if you look right at it.

No they don't. You can look up at the stars at night and see they have different colors.

Sorry, I mean sun. As in if you look directly at a sun you'll generally see enough light that it looks to be white. Though actually given how known triple-star systems work that's actually probably not necessary.

Basically, Namek is impossible.

A triple-star system, yes. We've found tons.

A triple-star system with a planet, yes. No reason there couldn't be one.

A triple-star system with a planet that never has night....now you're getting crazy, but there probably is a way to finangle the orbit so the planet weaves between the stars as they circle each other. It wouldn't be a stable system, and eventually the planet would fall into one of the stars or get tossed out of the system, but you could maybe make it happen.

Not necessarily. Typical triple-star systems seam to be ones where stars are orbiting other stars. In one known one HD 188753 a binary star orbits around another star. For a planet to be a part of a triple star system it need only orbit around one sun. With other suns orbiting around the star Namek orbits around one need only have a star orbit on the other side of Namek at a rate that results in matching Namek's path. Or instead of two stars both orbit the one star instead of forming a binary star.

A triple-star system with a planet that never has night and is completely Earthlike in every way...no. Can't happen. Our solar system only has one star, and Venus is an absolute hellhole just from being 30 million miles closer. A planet that never has night is a planet that is never able to radiate the energy it receives from its star out into space.

Did you not read my previous comment on Venus?

In terms of heat due to proximity to the sun Mercury would be the hottest. Venus is only the hottest because the atmospheric mass is 92 times that of earth. Filled with CO2 and sulfur dioxide. Leading to Venus having a huge greenhouse effect heating up the planet immensely.

In fact according to the Wikipedia article (which even seams to have a citation for this information) studies suggest that Venus once had an earth-like atmosphere billions of years ago.

And as for never has night. Do remember our polar caps have day for 6 months out of the year. I doubt night has much to do with radiating things away.