Rogue Failed Star Is One of Smallest Ever Seen | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 8123410 United States 01/30/2012 06:27 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 8767486 United States 01/30/2012 07:34 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 8123410 United States 01/30/2012 07:37 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
aether User ID: 1412926 United Kingdom 01/30/2012 07:59 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | How The Earth Got Its Water There is only one place in the known universe that is capable of covering a planet sized object in a body of water. - The plasma coma of a brown dwarf star. Quoting: observationBrown dwarf stars exhibit spectral bands that show they are nothing but a huge pile of methane and water, with a photosphere temperature of only 1250.6 ºF. Some brown dwarfs have been detected with temperatures as low as 350ºF. To put that in perspective, the temperatures in the upper thermosphere of the Earth can range from about 500° C (932° F) to 2,000° C (3,632° F) or higher. A planet like Earth could literally orbit inside the photosphere of a brown dwarf quite comfortably - Which is precisely where the Earth got its massive bodies of water from. If the Earth was to orbit inside the plasma coma of a brown dwarf star, it would be shrouded in a constant red glow (perfect for plant growth), while a constant water/hydrocarbon rain poured down on the planet. Gee, that would also explain how the earth got its vast oil and gas reserves too! [link to www.libertariannews.org] |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 8767486 United States 01/30/2012 08:00 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | How The Earth Got Its Water Quoting: aether There is only one place in the known universe that is capable of covering a planet sized object in a body of water. - The plasma coma of a brown dwarf star. Quoting: observationBrown dwarf stars exhibit spectral bands that show they are nothing but a huge pile of methane and water, with a photosphere temperature of only 1250.6 ºF. Some brown dwarfs have been detected with temperatures as low as 350ºF. To put that in perspective, the temperatures in the upper thermosphere of the Earth can range from about 500° C (932° F) to 2,000° C (3,632° F) or higher. A planet like Earth could literally orbit inside the photosphere of a brown dwarf quite comfortably - Which is precisely where the Earth got its massive bodies of water from. If the Earth was to orbit inside the plasma coma of a brown dwarf star, it would be shrouded in a constant red glow (perfect for plant growth), while a constant water/hydrocarbon rain poured down on the planet. Gee, that would also explain how the earth got its vast oil and gas reserves too! [link to www.libertariannews.org] Hey that's really cool info, thanks. |
Astromut Senior Forum Moderator User ID: 4211721 United States 01/30/2012 09:42 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I'm among those who would say a 6 MJ object is not even a brown dwarf, which has a cutoff at 13 MJ; that's the minimum mass to fuse deuterium. A brown dwarf does undergo fusion, but only for a brief time early in its life until its limited deuterium supply is consumed. A 6 MJ object is just a free-floating planet. Some astronomers divide brown dwarfs from large planets like this by the method of formation, so they call it a brown dwarf because it probably formed on its own via gravitational collapse like a star, but I disagree with that method. In some cases it would be extremely hard if not impossible to correctly determine whether an object formed by accretion or gravitational collapse. A mass cutoff based on a given criteria, such as deuterium fusion, provides an unambiguous solution to the problem. This is like saying a car is a truck because it was built in a truck factory even though it came out as a car. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 9864152 United States 01/30/2012 09:49 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I'm among those who would say a 6 MJ object is not even a brown dwarf, which has a cutoff at 13 MJ; that's the minimum mass to fuse deuterium. A brown dwarf does undergo fusion, but only for a brief time early in its life until its limited deuterium supply is consumed. A 6 MJ object is just a free-floating planet. Some astronomers divide brown dwarfs from large planets like this by the method of formation, so they call it a brown dwarf because it probably formed on its own via gravitational collapse like a star, but I disagree with that method. In some cases it would be extremely hard if not impossible to correctly determine whether an object formed by accretion or gravitational collapse. A mass cutoff based on a given criteria, such as deuterium fusion, provides an unambiguous solution to the problem. Quoting: Astromut This is like saying a car is a truck because it was built in a truck factory even though it came out as a car. great info thanks. will have to look this over and consider. |
Astromut Senior Forum Moderator User ID: 4211721 United States 01/30/2012 09:55 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | How The Earth Got Its Water Quoting: aether There is only one place in the known universe that is capable of covering a planet sized object in a body of water. - The plasma coma of a brown dwarf star. Quoting: observationBrown dwarf stars exhibit spectral bands that show they are nothing but a huge pile of methane and water, with a photosphere temperature of only 1250.6 ºF. Some brown dwarfs have been detected with temperatures as low as 350ºF. To put that in perspective, the temperatures in the upper thermosphere of the Earth can range from about 500° C (932° F) to 2,000° C (3,632° F) or higher. A planet like Earth could literally orbit inside the photosphere of a brown dwarf quite comfortably - Which is precisely where the Earth got its massive bodies of water from. If the Earth was to orbit inside the plasma coma of a brown dwarf star, it would be shrouded in a constant red glow (perfect for plant growth), while a constant water/hydrocarbon rain poured down on the planet. Gee, that would also explain how the earth got its vast oil and gas reserves too! [link to www.libertariannews.org] Hey that's really cool info, thanks. Except that it's absurd. A planet could not orbit within the photosphere of a brown dwarf, it would be like trying to orbit within the atmosphere of Jupiter. You wouldn't even complete a single orbit, the drag from the atmosphere would cause the planet to fall into the brown dwarf. I'm sympathetic to libertarian ideals, so it really upsets me to see them spout such utter nonsense. It only harms their cause with rational people like me. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 9210101 Brazil 01/30/2012 10:00 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I'm among those who would say a 6 MJ object is not even a brown dwarf, which has a cutoff at 13 MJ; that's the minimum mass to fuse deuterium. A brown dwarf does undergo fusion, but only for a brief time early in its life until its limited deuterium supply is consumed. A 6 MJ object is just a free-floating planet. Some astronomers divide brown dwarfs from large planets like this by the method of formation, so they call it a brown dwarf because it probably formed on its own via gravitational collapse like a star, but I disagree with that method. In some cases it would be extremely hard if not impossible to correctly determine whether an object formed by accretion or gravitational collapse. A mass cutoff based on a given criteria, such as deuterium fusion, provides an unambiguous solution to the problem. Quoting: Astromut This is like saying a car is a truck because it was built in a truck factory even though it came out as a car. No, it is like saying that 6 MJ objects are now dwarf stars too. |
aether User ID: 1412926 United Kingdom 01/30/2012 10:02 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | How The Earth Got Its Water Quoting: aether There is only one place in the known universe that is capable of covering a planet sized object in a body of water. - The plasma coma of a brown dwarf star. Quoting: observationBrown dwarf stars exhibit spectral bands that show they are nothing but a huge pile of methane and water, with a photosphere temperature of only 1250.6 ºF. Some brown dwarfs have been detected with temperatures as low as 350ºF. To put that in perspective, the temperatures in the upper thermosphere of the Earth can range from about 500° C (932° F) to 2,000° C (3,632° F) or higher. A planet like Earth could literally orbit inside the photosphere of a brown dwarf quite comfortably - Which is precisely where the Earth got its massive bodies of water from. If the Earth was to orbit inside the plasma coma of a brown dwarf star, it would be shrouded in a constant red glow (perfect for plant growth), while a constant water/hydrocarbon rain poured down on the planet. Gee, that would also explain how the earth got its vast oil and gas reserves too! [link to www.libertariannews.org] Hey that's really cool info, thanks. Except that it's absurd. A planet could not orbit within the photosphere of a brown dwarf, it would be like trying to orbit within the atmosphere of Jupiter. You wouldn't even complete a single orbit, the drag from the atmosphere would cause the planet to fall into the brown dwarf. I'm sympathetic to libertarian ideals, so it really upsets me to see them spout such utter nonsense. It only harms their cause with rational people like me. Geostationary orbit That is what all the mythology throughout the world uniformly states -- mythology from every nation, region, tribe, and period, in thousands of languages, in hundreds of forms, from every continent -- they all resound, "a large planet stood above the North Pole for a very long time." Every country, that is, except those more than 10 degrees below the equator. Quoting: observationThe mythology of regions as far removed as Siberia, North Africa, and Guatemala all agree. |
Astromut Senior Forum Moderator User ID: 4211721 United States 01/30/2012 10:05 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I'm among those who would say a 6 MJ object is not even a brown dwarf, which has a cutoff at 13 MJ; that's the minimum mass to fuse deuterium. A brown dwarf does undergo fusion, but only for a brief time early in its life until its limited deuterium supply is consumed. A 6 MJ object is just a free-floating planet. Some astronomers divide brown dwarfs from large planets like this by the method of formation, so they call it a brown dwarf because it probably formed on its own via gravitational collapse like a star, but I disagree with that method. In some cases it would be extremely hard if not impossible to correctly determine whether an object formed by accretion or gravitational collapse. A mass cutoff based on a given criteria, such as deuterium fusion, provides an unambiguous solution to the problem. Quoting: Astromut This is like saying a car is a truck because it was built in a truck factory even though it came out as a car. No, it is like saying that 6 MJ objects are now dwarf stars too. No, the only reason they're saying it's a brown dwarf is because of the method of formation. There are two camps, those that say there should be a mass cutoff based on a physical criteria like deuterium fusion, and those that say it should be based solely on how it formed (accretion from a protoplanetary disc or gravitational collapse). The latter is like saying a car is a truck because it was built in a truck factory even though it came out as a car. |
Astromut Senior Forum Moderator User ID: 4211721 United States 01/30/2012 10:09 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Except that it's absurd. A planet could not orbit within the photosphere of a brown dwarf, it would be like trying to orbit within the atmosphere of Jupiter. You wouldn't even complete a single orbit, the drag from the atmosphere would cause the planet to fall into the brown dwarf. I'm sympathetic to libertarian ideals, so it really upsets me to see them spout such utter nonsense. It only harms their cause with rational people like me. Geostationary orbit That doesn't explain or fix anything with the claim. The drag from the atmosphere would cause the brown dwarf to absorb the planet if it were orbiting within the star's photosphere. You can't just establish a stationary or synchronous orbit at any arbitrary orbital radius. Even worse for your ridiculous myth, you can't establish a geostationary orbit anywhere but directly over the equator at zero inclination. Anything else is merely geosynchronous and not stationary. Last Edited by Astromut on 01/30/2012 10:11 AM |
Sword of mercy User ID: 9866306 United Kingdom 01/30/2012 10:26 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
aether User ID: 1412926 United Kingdom 01/30/2012 10:30 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Except that it's absurd. A planet could not orbit within the photosphere of a brown dwarf, it would be like trying to orbit within the atmosphere of Jupiter. You wouldn't even complete a single orbit, the drag from the atmosphere would cause the planet to fall into the brown dwarf. I'm sympathetic to libertarian ideals, so it really upsets me to see them spout such utter nonsense. It only harms their cause with rational people like me. Geostationary orbit That doesn't explain or fix anything with the claim. The drag from the atmosphere would cause the brown dwarf to absorb the planet if it were orbiting within the star's photosphere. A planet too, begins its existence like any star in the zeta-pinch region of a galactic electric plasma current. Depending on the current density and the length of the building process, some stars become giants, and some get cut off before they even become stars. And in between we have the brown dwarf stars. Quoting: observationIt in the star forming process the resulting star becomes too large, it typically fissions under the built-up electric stress. Of the nearest 100 bright stars within a 25 parsecs radius, 40% are such fissioned binary stars - stars split into two by electric stress fracturing. Of the remaining, 15% have formed triple star systems like Alpha Centauri, and 5% have become quadruple star systems. Only 40% of the group examined have remained as single star systems, with some among them that are significantly brighter than our Sun. The fissioning appears to limit the maximum size of a star. The 'gentle' brown dwarfs in comparison are only rarely found in binary form. Also the corresponding lower energy density in the smaller brown-star system is more conducive to the formation of water and the retention of it by a planet like the Earth. Water is essential to nearly all life. Chemically, it is the product of oxygen and hydrogen, the most abundant ignoble gases in the universe (see: Cosmic abundance table). In the 'harsh' environment of a powerful star, however, like the Sun in our solar system with solar winds blowing at speeds of a thousand kilometers per second, a light atmosphere is too easily swept away and is therefore hard to develop, but not so in the gentle environment of a brown dwarf star. When the star forming current flow is interrupted, the star forming process stops. If the process is interrupted early, the star goes dark and cold and remains too small to maintain itself. However, remaining electrically charged the failed stars becomes acquired by a more powerful and active star where it becomes a planet. In some cases the scavengers may be small stars themselves, like a brown dwarf. It is also known that each star, big or small, is surrounded by an electromagnetic heliosphere just as a planet is surrounded by a magnetosphere (Jupiter's spans 10.3 million kilometers). Brown dwarfs of type L can be 30-90 times larger in mass than Jupiter. Jupiter's moons all orbit within it magnetosphere, and so could a planet of a brown dwarf star. Most likely the Earth and Mars had in their earlier history orbited within a brown-dwarf star system. With a brawn star being much less massive than the Sun, a brown dwarf's photosphere temperature is proportionately cooler, a mere 700-900 degrees Kelvin for a type L brown dwarf. Its photosphere would be producing a predominantly red and blue light that combines into purple with only a small UV and X-ray component, in comparison with the radiance of the Sun at 5,800 degrees, and with intense radiation in the UV and x-ray band. Since the photosphere of a brown dwarf is substantially far the surface and low in temperature a captured planet would likely be orbiting beneath the glow of the photosphere where life is not only possible but seems far more likely to find a cradle there than on a planet orbiting outside a star! Inside, it would be surrounded by radiant energy without dark periods and without seasons, or tropics or ice-caps. Such an environment would be extremely benign toward life, and it would be well protected from cosmic radiation. Life on earth might have begun in this type of an environment, with sunlight being everywhere and constant. [link to 2011energy.alternate-healing-science-christian.ca] i imagine you don`t like this sort of talking Last Edited by aether on 01/30/2012 10:31 AM |
aether User ID: 1412926 United Kingdom 01/30/2012 10:39 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | It is also known that each star, big or small, is surrounded by an electromagnetic heliosphere just as a planet is surrounded by a magnetosphere (Jupiter's spans 10.3 million kilometers). Quoting: observationgravity? Saturn. Quoting: observationWhen the Cassini spacecraft from Earth arrived at Saturn in 2004, it promptly found two previously unseen moons. They turned out to be the smallest bodies seen until then around the ringed planet. The tiny natural satellites are about 2 miles and 2.5 miles in diameter. That's smaller than the city of Boulder, Colorado. Previously, the smallest moons seen around Saturn were are about 12 miles across. The moons are 120,000 miles and 131,000 miles from the center of planet Saturn between the moons Mimas and Enceladus. [link to www.spacetoday.org] |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1334578 Serbia 01/30/2012 10:49 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I'm among those who would say a 6 MJ object is not even a brown dwarf, which has a cutoff at 13 MJ; that's the minimum mass to fuse deuterium. A brown dwarf does undergo fusion, but only for a brief time early in its life until its limited deuterium supply is consumed. A 6 MJ object is just a free-floating planet. Some astronomers divide brown dwarfs from large planets like this by the method of formation, so they call it a brown dwarf because it probably formed on its own via gravitational collapse like a star, but I disagree with that method. In some cases it would be extremely hard if not impossible to correctly determine whether an object formed by accretion or gravitational collapse. A mass cutoff based on a given criteria, such as deuterium fusion, provides an unambiguous solution to the problem. Quoting: Astromut This is like saying a car is a truck because it was built in a truck factory even though it came out as a car. No, it is like saying that 6 MJ objects are now dwarf stars too. No, the only reason they're saying it's a brown dwarf is because of the method of formation. There are two camps, those that say there should be a mass cutoff based on a physical criteria like deuterium fusion, and those that say it should be based solely on how it formed (accretion from a protoplanetary disc or gravitational collapse). The latter is like saying a car is a truck because it was built in a truck factory even though it came out as a car. So, nothing to worry for tomato plants, right? |
Astromut Senior Forum Moderator User ID: 4211721 United States 01/30/2012 10:49 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Astromut Senior Forum Moderator User ID: 4211721 United States 01/30/2012 10:52 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 9867617 United Kingdom 01/30/2012 10:58 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 9867228 South Africa 01/30/2012 10:58 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 9864152 United States 01/30/2012 11:22 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I'm among those who would say a 6 MJ object is not even a brown dwarf, which has a cutoff at 13 MJ; that's the minimum mass to fuse deuterium. A brown dwarf does undergo fusion, but only for a brief time early in its life until its limited deuterium supply is consumed. A 6 MJ object is just a free-floating planet. Some astronomers divide brown dwarfs from large planets like this by the method of formation, so they call it a brown dwarf because it probably formed on its own via gravitational collapse like a star, but I disagree with that method. In some cases it would be extremely hard if not impossible to correctly determine whether an object formed by accretion or gravitational collapse. A mass cutoff based on a given criteria, such as deuterium fusion, provides an unambiguous solution to the problem. Quoting: Astromut This is like saying a car is a truck because it was built in a truck factory even though it came out as a car. Ok. but I think the point here is that some astronomers do set the threshold at a lower level. sometimes the issue is whether the scientific community accepts a certain standard or not, regardless of the opinion of individual scientists. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 9864152 United States 01/30/2012 11:24 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I'm among those who would say a 6 MJ object is not even a brown dwarf, which has a cutoff at 13 MJ; that's the minimum mass to fuse deuterium. A brown dwarf does undergo fusion, but only for a brief time early in its life until its limited deuterium supply is consumed. A 6 MJ object is just a free-floating planet. Some astronomers divide brown dwarfs from large planets like this by the method of formation, so they call it a brown dwarf because it probably formed on its own via gravitational collapse like a star, but I disagree with that method. In some cases it would be extremely hard if not impossible to correctly determine whether an object formed by accretion or gravitational collapse. A mass cutoff based on a given criteria, such as deuterium fusion, provides an unambiguous solution to the problem. Quoting: Astromut This is like saying a car is a truck because it was built in a truck factory even though it came out as a car. Ok. but I think the point here is that some astronomers do set the threshold at a lower level. sometimes the issue is whether the scientific community accepts a certain standard or not, regardless of the opinion of individual scientists. related thread. Thread: CHXR 73B straddles the line between the largest planets and the smallest stars. |
danwa User ID: 1522311 United States 01/30/2012 11:31 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 9869430 United States 01/30/2012 11:36 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 789975 United States 01/30/2012 11:51 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Astromut Senior Forum Moderator User ID: 4211721 United States 01/30/2012 11:53 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I'm among those who would say a 6 MJ object is not even a brown dwarf, which has a cutoff at 13 MJ; that's the minimum mass to fuse deuterium. A brown dwarf does undergo fusion, but only for a brief time early in its life until its limited deuterium supply is consumed. A 6 MJ object is just a free-floating planet. Some astronomers divide brown dwarfs from large planets like this by the method of formation, so they call it a brown dwarf because it probably formed on its own via gravitational collapse like a star, but I disagree with that method. In some cases it would be extremely hard if not impossible to correctly determine whether an object formed by accretion or gravitational collapse. A mass cutoff based on a given criteria, such as deuterium fusion, provides an unambiguous solution to the problem. Quoting: Astromut This is like saying a car is a truck because it was built in a truck factory even though it came out as a car. Ok. but I think the point here is that some astronomers do set the threshold at a lower level. sometimes the issue is whether the scientific community accepts a certain standard or not, regardless of the opinion of individual scientists. related thread. Thread: CHXR 73B straddles the line between the largest planets and the smallest stars. Depending on composition, it's possible that even that 12 MJ object fused deuterium. 6 MJ is awfully low though, it's nowhere near that dividing line. 13 MJ is just a rule of thumb, the actual mass cutoff really depends on composition but it's around ~13MJ give or take a little. The astronomer quoted in the article is in the "formation camp" rather than the "mass camp." The IAU definition of a planet, at the moment, only applies to our solar system (as mentioned in the article), so the situation is still very fluid. I'm just stating my position in the mass camp. Last Edited by Astromut on 01/30/2012 11:55 AM |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 3999553 United States 01/30/2012 12:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 3999553 United States 01/30/2012 12:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1307021 United Kingdom 01/30/2012 01:12 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 3999553 United States 01/30/2012 01:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |