A young sun - a response

You're conjecturing gets a bit silly doesn' it? The sun is going to do some damage to parts of the solar system. In about another 4 or so Gyrs! It is not going to destroy the galaxy.I'm presuming you think the end by fire is near. If 4 billion years near? It now appears that he didn't make it old enough. LOL

Hi Eta,Is there any possible way that a phenomea could exist inside the realm of the mathmatical model for our Sun in which it could "switch on" from a theoretical zero state and start emitting the same quality of light on day 3 (1 day = 24 standard earth hours) similiar to a lightbulb switching on or does it require at least 30,000 years for the light to reflect and amplify before it reaches a quality to escape the Sun's own sphere of influence? Could the Sun be as a lightbulb or is it more like a laser prysm?What color would the Sun appear to someone on the Earth if they were looking up at it at the zero state and then how would the color progress to where you need some LSD to comfortably stare at it without eye protection?Finally, does the evidence support that the Earth was always the same distance from the Sun?------------------

quote:

---

If I stand out in the woods and say something but my wife isn't there to hear it, am I still wrong?

---

I agree with what you said earilier about why God would place lithium and berillyium in the atmosphere of the Sun if he was just creating a light source. Does the Sun require a certain amount of each of these elements in order for it to start working or is the pressence of them purely because they were already in the neighborhood and were incorporated in the gravitational collapse?I'm wondering if there is any way that the Sun could not ignite without the pressesnce of these 2 elements to begin with or does there pressence act as a type of solar catalyst to greatly speed up the fusion ramp up rate.

quote:

---

While debating in this forum, when it degrades down to "Tit for Tat", - I prefer tits!!

---

[This message has been edited by Lizard Breath, 12-01-2003]

No - it takes say 10,000 to 1,000,000 years for the photons to get out. The exact number depends on how much care you take in the calculation.The opacity of the material just determines that. Opacity (from the word opaque) is basically the measure of the ability of a material to hinder the transport of light through it.Don't use the words reflect and amplify. They are not applicable here. In fact all the photons produced in the core are hard X rays - but after all the scatterings over the 30,000 years they come out of the Sun they are mostly the visible photons we see.As to the Earth's distance from the Sun.Well there is nothing to support it was not at this distance. And there is evidence that the solar luminosity has not varied much (as seen from the Earth) over a long period of time which indicates the Earth's orbit has not strayed.Also the fact that the orbit is circular hints that the orbit has not changed much.

Eta,Where did the energy come from that the Earth and the other planets in our own solar system are using to achieve their orbiting speeds through space?

The Lithium and Beryllium was there to begin with.There is some produced in the core as part of the fusion process but this is instantly destroyed anyway.The Sun does not need these elements from the start to work.

Well think of the initial collapsing cloud.As it contracts it is going to spin up, just as the ice skater does when they bring their arms in.This angular momentum is retained by the forming planets, that is why they all go the same way around the Sun.This is actually one of the chief difficulties in modeling this process, getting rid of a lot of angular momentum is needed to get what we observe. There are ways of doing this but it isn't easy to calculate.

What was the "cutoff factor" if there is one that divided where the boundries of the Sun stopped in the original matter procurment and the inner planets formed? Also, why are there several inner planets instead of 1 giant planet or at least why is there only 1 planet in each orbital plane and not like in the case of Mercury or Jupiter, 2 or more?I know these are big questions but I'm curious as to the why of the makeup of our inner solar system. The most curious thing to me is the Sun is so consistant as almost pure hydrogen at the start but then you get these solid planets formings and then all of a sudden - Jupiter. Why don't the planets go from gasseous to solid instead of the random order we have?

That makes good sense to me. Is that why all of the planets are arrayed in the same plane as well?I don't remember this from school but do the planets orbit the Sun around it's equator similar to how sattelites orbit the equator of the Earth in Geo Sync orbit? (I know that the planets are not in geo sync with the Sun)Finally, am I going to have to pay a per credit hour fee for having an Astro Physisist answer my Jeeves par questions?

Ok this is a complex question. Well at least with regard to details.Simple picture:Central star forms with an accreting disc of material.Once the star starts to shine it blows away most of the gas surrounding it. Also the heat produced sublimates the lighter ices and such so you get a fractionation process.Thus the material in the disc that is nearer to the star are the most refractory substances (iron/nickel/silicates) which end up forming the inner rocky/metallic planets. Farther out it is mostly gases and such so the planets there tend to be the large gas giant planets.This is a very simplified picture of a very complex process.

Yes, the fact they are coplanar is a consequence of this.Yes the planets orbit approx in the plane of the Suns equator.Again, what you would expect from the collapsing cloud hypothesis.

Would the Earth and Mars be older then than Jupiter and Saturn. If so, might this be a reason why we don't have any civilization ending asteroids hitting the earth or the other inner planets because now that Jupiter is here it acts as the giant vacume cleaner to take care of that and preserve what ever is happening on the inners?

Probably not. The process is assumed (with some good reasons) to happen at the same time.But Yes, Jupiter especially is very important for acting as you say. Remember Jupiter has more mass than all the other planets put together.Jupiter is approx. 3 times the mass of all the other planets combined.

go hereThe Planets (plus the Dwarf Planet Pluto) - Enchanted LearningKind of a decent planet data summary.

quote:

---

What was the "cutoff factor" if there is one that divided where the boundries of the Sun stopped in the original matter procurment and the inner planets formed? Also, why are there several inner planets instead of 1 giant planet or at least why is there only 1 planet in each orbital plane and not like in the case of Mercury or Jupiter, 2 or more?

---

Good questions! And, unfortunately, it is an incredibly complex process. For example, you'll find that some extrasolar planets that we've discovered have planets bigger than Jupiter orbitting right next to their stars!You have a number of forces going on here. You of course have the gravity of the newly developing star in the center keeping everything in orbit. You have the early solar wind blowing outwards, giving you sort of a reverse centrifuge (lighter and easlier-ionized materials are pushed outwards more). You have the issue of what temperatures things can condense at (solids condense more easily). While at all distances, the cores of the planets tend to be solids or ice (with more of the heavier materials inward), the midrange-distance planets will have an orbit that sweeps through a larger volume of gas (the inner gas being taken or blown off by the star itself, and the outer areas being less dense), accumulating more. Furthest out, you get the ice giants, which aren't able to accumulate as much gas around their icy cores before the inner gas giants hog it all (because the ice giants develop more slowly due to the reduced density of the disk at the point that they orbit in). Furthest out you get your kupier belt objects, which can hardly accumulate anything around them, and remain small.However, the process isn't nearly so simple. Large bodies like Jupiter disrupt matter accretion in bodies like the asteroid belt every time they pass. If an asteroid is far enough out, Jupiter can end up flinging it into a highly elliptical orbit (changing Jupiter's orbit slightly as well); this gets us things like centaurs.It is this capability to "fling" other bodies that leads to one possibility for why "hot Jupiters" occur: that they flung enough matter outwards as to draw themselves inward. The closer they get, the more radiation pressure they will receive from their star (which is magnified by the fact that hot planets "inflate"), pushing it outward, so it can orbit at a balance point. It is likely this radiation pressure which prevents it from suffering from Roche's limit as moons of planets do.Most of this is very difficult to model, however (to get a good model you need a huge number of calculations), so there's a lot of different proposals out there.I can't wait until we learn more about other solar systems. For example, will we find planets with harmonic orbits, or even multiple planets at Lagrange points in orbits around the star (like we see with some moons like Dione and Helene)? Will ice giants get flung inwards and create huge water worlds? Will we find "supercomets", where planet-sized objects have gotten flung into comet-like orbits? It's really interesting to think about.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 12-01-2003]