it wouldnt be the same because there is no oxygen on mucury unlike earth and mars
No. On Mercury you would weigh 37% of what you weigh on Earth.
Possibly - but you would probably get the same advantage by moving to the Moon, which is a lot closer and more likely to be habitable sooner than a Mercury habitat would be.The life-extension effects (if any) would be due to the lower gravity. If you are referring to the time dilation effects related to Mercury's position deeper in the Sun's gravity well, the differences would be a matter of seconds over the course of a lifetime.
If someone could live on Mercury and still used an Earth clock, they would be the same age, 13 Earth years.However, if you lived there and had measured your age as 13 Mercury years, you would be just 3 Earth years old. Mercury's year, the time it takes to go around the Sun, is only about 88 days. So 13 Mercury years would be 13 x 88 or just 1144 Earth days (3.13 Earth years). Mercury completes an orbit 4 times while Earth is making just one.Conversely, if you moved to Mercury and wanted to express your age here (13 Earth years) in Mercury years, you would say that you were almost 54 Mercury years old (You are 4745 Earth days old, which is 53.9 Mercury years).
No, even if glass and mercury expanded at the same rates, a common mercury thermometer would not be feasible because the volume of mercury would still change non-linearly with temperature due to its high thermal expansion coefficient. This would result in inaccurate temperature measurements.
Nobody would live very long on Mercury.But I think what you're asking is: "How many times does Mercury revolve aroundthe sun in the same time that it takes the Earth to make 15 revolutions ?"Since Mercury's period of revolution is 87.97 Earth days, I get 62.3 Mercury yearsin 15 Earth years.
Except for the gravity, living on Mercury would require the same type of environment as living in orbit around the Earth. There is no real atmosphere on Mercury, so you would have to bring your own oxygen, along with fuel, food, and water. Some water and hydrogen fuel could be extracted from water ice found in very deep craters. The ideal location would be in a crater near one of the poles, where the temperature would not become too hot, and where ice from comets or meteors is thought to be most prevalent. Two polar outposts located several kilometers apart could share power if each was in sunlight for half of each Mercury day (176 Earth days long).
Yes, it would be , as this is the only time we know.
The planet Mercury does not have a breathable atmosphere and is generally not an easy place to live, but with sufficient technological support people could live there. People live on the international space station, where they also have to bring their own air with them, and where they face similar difficulties to those which they might face on the planet Mercury. It would be expensive but not impossible (but then, the same is true of health care reform).
The liquid metal "mercury" (also known as quicksilver) is not connected with the planet of the same name. The metal is refined on Earth from the mineral "cinnabar" (mercury sulfide).
ford comet, mercury maverick, mercury cougar, mercury meteor..ford falcon...if any had these would be the ones that would that would interchange with mustang..not sure if thats what you inquire..these i know for ford i believe
Mercury and salt are not inherently magnetic, so they will not be affected by a magnetic force in the same way that magnetic materials like iron or nickel would be. Therefore, a magnetic force would not repel mercury and salt.
The pressure at the bottom of a 76 cm column of mercury in a barometer would be equal to the atmospheric pressure pushing down on the mercury column. This is because the height of the mercury column in a barometer is directly related to the atmospheric pressure. Thus, the pressure at the bottom of the mercury column would be the same as the air pressure at the bottom of the atmosphere.