Namekian time?

[Kaboom]

Translation: "Some (major) suspension of disbelief required."

[Fox666]

You know, if Goku body is hard enough to survive a bullet shot, it should be impossible to create the friction necessairy during the sexual intercourse.

Pratically everything in Dragon Ball requires suspension of disbelief.

[Rocketman]

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.

That's because the sheer amount of light overloads the receptors in our eyes, causing us to only see "bright" and "dark" instead of color.

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.

Which can't happen. Namek would be moving faster in its orbit than the third star would in its. We can't see Mars year-round, for example, because Earth outruns it.

Did you not read my previous comment on Venus?

I did, but it doesn't matter much. Venus used to be Earthlike four billion years ago, and Earth wasn't very Earthlike then. Venus gets twice the heat and light from the Sun that we get, so it boiled (I've also heard the theory that Earth used to have a thick atmosphere like Venus, but the impact that formed the Moon blasted it off).

Namek's oceans should've long boiled away. At the absolute least it should be a hot, steamy world, not a cool, temperate Earth-mimic.

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.

Earth is in the middle of an ice age at the moment. The ice bounces solar radiation back into space.

We also only have one star and Earth has gotten plenty warm in the past. Three would scorch the planet clean.

[dantman]

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.

That's because the sheer amount of light overloads the receptors in our eyes, causing us to only see "bright" and "dark" instead of color.

Yes, but I'm saying that given an animated series mimicking camera viewpoints, white may not necessarily mean a white hot star. Though I don't have much reason to debate more on this point.

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.

Which can't happen. Namek would be moving faster in its orbit than the third star would in its. We can't see Mars year-round, for example, because Earth outruns it.

Yes, given the typical rules of planets that don't generate gravity on their own the magnitude of a star. Though I did accept that possibility hence why I thought to include the notion of a system where Namek and two stars all orbit around one star. Namek orbits closely to what may be a yellow star much like our own while two stars orbit around the outside at opposite points. As Namek starts to leave the light of one outer star it already begins to get light from the star on the other side of the primary sun it orbits. The gravitational force in such a system would also be quite stable. It would also mean I wouldn't need to debate whether white into an animated camera meant white star or not, because if the stars were in fact white they would be stars orbiting the primary star that Namek orbits.

Did you not read my previous comment on Venus?

I did, but it doesn't matter much. Venus used to be Earthlike four billion years ago, and Earth wasn't very Earthlike then. Venus gets twice the heat and light from the Sun that we get, so it boiled (I've also heard the theory that Earth used to have a thick atmosphere like Venus, but the impact that formed the Moon blasted it off).

Namek's oceans should've long boiled away. At the absolute least it should be a hot, steamy world, not a cool, temperate Earth-mimic.

What does it matter whether Venus was Earth-like now or four billion years ago. If Venus can be Earth-like at that distance from the sun then whether it was that way 4 billion years ago then or now doesn't matter, because it indicates that it's possible for a planet in another solar system around another star with an orbit similar to Venus and hence a shorter year instead of at Earth's distance with a longer year is capable of being Earth-like. Perhaps low in statistical possibility of existing as a real live star system we discover, but that doesn't mean impossibility, and statistical improbability means nothing when creating a fictional universe, only impossibility means the fictional world has to break the real world's rules to be reasonable.

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.

Earth is in the middle of an ice age at the moment. The ice bounces solar radiation back into space.

We also only have one star and Earth has gotten plenty warm in the past. Three would scorch the planet clean.

Ice age, sure. How does ice bouncing radiation back into space 'during the day' mean that night is required to radiate things away? And three stars means little to the planet heat if 2 of those stars are a great distance away. And in most triple-star systems, that seams to be how it works.

[Rocketman]

Namek orbits closely to what may be a yellow star much like our own while two stars orbit around the outside at opposite points. As Namek starts to leave the light of one outer star it already begins to get light from the star on the other side of the primary sun it orbits. The gravitational force in such a system would also be quite stable.

No it wouldn't. The stars tugging on each other would pull that system out of whack. And even so, there would still be arrangements where night would fall on Namek.

What does it matter whether Venus was Earth-like now or four billion years ago.

Because life took 500 million years to even begin on Earth, and then it took another 2.5 billion to leave the seas. By the time life was starting on Earth, Venus was dry and dead.

Ice age, sure. How does ice bouncing radiation back into space 'during the day' mean that night is required to radiate things away?

Required, no. Very helpful, yes. The half of the planet that's dark is radiating more energy into space than it's receiving.

[Attitudefan]

dantman,

There are many different types of stars even though you perceive ours as white it actually isn't. It's a yellow star!

[dantman]

dantman,

There are many different types of stars even though you perceive ours as white it actually isn't. It's a yellow star!

Did you even read what I said? I know very well our Sun is a "yellow dwarf" star, I've been talking about the perceived color of a sun. In fact, the color of the light that the sun gives off is not yellow. It's white, we perceive the Sun in different colors, yellow, red, etc... because of how the atmosphere scatters that light [1][2].

I was trying to point out that the color we see from an animated series mimicking the viewpoint of a camera on a planet with a sky may not indicate what type of actual star the sun is.

[Attitudefan]

Well now you said what you were trying to say! I understand. Makes sense.

[dantman]

Namek orbits closely to what may be a yellow star much like our own while two stars orbit around the outside at opposite points. As Namek starts to leave the light of one outer star it already begins to get light from the star on the other side of the primary sun it orbits. The gravitational force in such a system would also be quite stable.

No it wouldn't. The stars tugging on each other would pull that system out of whack. And even so, there would still be arrangements where night would fall on Namek.

Except orbits aren't as limited in type as that would assume: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_ ... animations

Imagine a type (a) where two stars orbit a barycenter taking the same orbit on their own. Where in that barycenter they happens to be a third star. They will have to be a little further since that star in the middle has some additional gravitational force, but despite that since they are orbiting circularly their orbit is stable. Now imagine Namek orbiting that third star in the center. The only time Namek would come close to something resembling darkness (excluding the summoning of the Dragon Balls of course) would be when Namek is in the position of orbit where Namek is perpendicular to the line that the three stars together create. At this point a small area on the side of the Namek globe most distant to all three stars would weaken in it's illumination because there is no star in a physical direct line directing light at it. However considering how the atmosphere refracts light and how gravity bends light(see Wikipedia's article on Night) it's quite possible that within that area there would still be enough light that even at that exact point it would not be night.

What does it matter whether Venus was Earth-like now or four billion years ago.

Because life took 500 million years to even begin on Earth, and then it took another 2.5 billion to leave the seas. By the time life was starting on Earth, Venus was dry and dead.

Except the theory defining how Venus even turned from a habitable planet into, erm, "Hell" as some people call it; Is that where a runaway greenhouse effect occurred. One where Venus was covered entirely by an ocean, and with an environment weak in carbon recycling (presumably lacking in plant life and tectonic activity to subduct the gases back into the earth) the oceans boiled and filled the atmosphere with CO2 creating a greenhouse effect turning it into a planet hotter than mercury which never had such an effect. If Namek in fact was a planet with much plant life and a gravitational environment not like Venus leading to Venus' poor tectonic activity then it's possible for Namek to have continued on without suffering Venus' same fate.

Though we're starting to drift from "Can a habitable planet like Namek exist within the laws of our reality" to "Can a habitable planet like Namek exist within the laws of our reality and create sentient life forms of it's own". We haven't exactly been able to understand if any sentient life forms are on any other planet yet so we don't exactly know as much about what it takes for sentient life to be created as we do about the many possible systems a solar body can be a part of.

[Rocketman]

Imagine a type (a) where two stars orbit a barycenter taking the same orbit on their own. Where in that barycenter they happens to be a third star. They will have to be a little further since that star in the middle has some additional gravitational force, but despite that since they are orbiting circularly their orbit is stable. Now imagine Namek orbiting that third star in the center.

You're forgetting that no orbit can be perfectly circular. Even if the three stars are stable, Namek would get tossed around, because when it's at the far point of its orbit and it lines up with one of the stars, that star will tug on the planet. Namek speeds up on its outward path and slows down on its inward with each pass. Its orbit gets stretched and more eccentric, until it gets too close to one of the stars and gets fried.

If Namek in fact was a planet with much plant life and a gravitational environment not like Venus leading to Venus' poor tectonic activity then it's possible for Namek to have continued on without suffering Venus' same fate.

Except Namek has two extra stars.

Though we're starting to drift from "Can a habitable planet like Namek exist within the laws of our reality" to "Can a habitable planet like Namek exist within the laws of our reality and create sentient life forms of it's own".

It's a valid point, though, when discussing the problems of a 'real' planet Namek.

[Bussani]

I've figured it out! It's so simple! The three stars simply orbit Namek itself.

[TheDevilsCorpse]

I've figured it out! It's so simple! The three stars simply orbit Namek itself.

...because of Super Kami Guru's fat ass, right?

[Monkey D Goku]

I think we can just write it off as Akira Toriyama wasn't thinking about the physics involved with a planet with three suns. Although a actual explanation seems quite hard to say.