Jovian planets do not have a solid surface, therefore their atmospheres are thick all the say to where their surface would be. Their atmospheres have more gasses than those surrounding terrestrial planets.
The terrestrial planets are less massive and therefore have less gravity. As a result, much of the lighter gases could escape, in the process of planet formation.
The outer planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune) are all gas giants. That is, they are huge compared to Earth, and the consist mainly of gas. They don't have a surface on which you could stand.
Gas giants formed farther out from the Sun where it was cooler and there was more material available to build up their massive atmospheres. Terrestrial planets, like Earth and Mars, formed closer to the Sun where it was hotter, so only rocky material could condense into solid planets. This difference in formation location led to the varied compositions and characteristics of the planets in our solar system.
It is a double or multiple star which could make planets less likely to be surrounding it.
Jovian planets do not have a solid surface, therefore their atmospheres are thick all the say to where their surface would be. Their atmospheres have more gasses than those surrounding terrestrial planets.
The terrestrial planets are less massive and therefore have less gravity. As a result, much of the lighter gases could escape, in the process of planet formation.
Other than Earth, no planets have been confirmed to be habitable. We do know of planets in other star systems upon which liquid water could theoretically exist but we can't measure the composition of the planets atmospheres therefore we can't know for certain whether or not they are habitable.
The chemical reactions between Earth's atmosphere and the atmospheres of other planets would depend on the specific composition of each atmosphere. Interaction could lead to chemical changes, such as oxidation reactions or the formation of new compounds. However, without specific details on the atmospheres in question, it's difficult to predict the exact nature of the reactions.
It is difficult to determine the "sentence of thickest" as this phrase does not have a standard meaning in English grammar or language. Could you provide more context or clarify the question?
Powered flight is possible with no atmosphere at all, otherwise Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong would still be stuck on the moon.
Planets located in the habitable zone of their star (where liquid water can exist), planets with rocky compositions, planets orbiting stable stars, and planets with atmospheres that could support life would be the best candidates to search for extraterrestrial life.
The inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars, are rocky terrestrial planets found closer to the Sun. They have solid surfaces, thin atmospheres, and are typically smaller in size compared to the outer gas giants. These planets have shorter orbital periods and are characterized by higher temperatures compared to the outer planets.
It would be difficult for humans to breathe on other planets as the atmospheres are very different from Earth's. For example, on Mars the atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide with very little oxygen. Special equipment would be needed to survive on other planets.
The ratio of the thinnest layer to the thickest layer depends on the context. In a general sense, it could be any fraction from 0 to 1 (thinnest being 0 and thickest being 1).
After discovering non-carbon based life-forms at the deepest depths of our own planets' oceans, we are faced with the possibilty that life could exist on other planets even though they might or do possess atmospheres unsuited to the conventional carbon-based forms of life as we know them here on earth
The outer planets are gas planets