More than 90 percent of objects found in the vast outer-solar system reservoir may have been born around other stars
in [Physics]
|
Prev: More than 90 percent of objects found in the vast outer–solar system reservoir may have been born around other stars
Next: WHEN BLACK HOLES SLOW DOWN --
From: Brad Guth on 13 Jun 2010 16:51 On Jun 13, 12:16 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/13/10 10:23 AM, Brad Guth wrote: > > > btw, a star doesn't get to being a red supergiant without first having > > lost at least a third of its original mass. > > > ~ BG > > Um... I think there is plenty of evidence that stars lose substantial > mass as part of their violent red giant phase. But so much depends on > the main sequence mass of the star, for that dictates what nuclear > processes will follow after main sequence life. > > For stars to produce White Dwarfs, Main Sequence mass ranges from > 0.8-8 solar masses. With core masses between 0.6 and 1.44 solar > masses are destined to become white dwarfs. This was the case for > Sirius B and will be so for Sirius A. > > Brad, I suggest you do a bit of self education concerning stellar > evolution. The are many excellent textbooks and other sources of this > information. Been there and done some of that, but thanks anyway. According to your own peers, stars must first lose considerable mass before their reduced gravity permits their outer shell becoming a red giant or supergiant. Our very own passive sun currently consumes <1.4e18 kg/year of itself (not including parts of explosive CMEs that manage to get away). In other words, our sun as of 5e9 years ago had a few percent of extra mass, and another 5e9 years from now it'll be worth several percent less. It's actually the average rate of CME mass loss that truly matters, of perhaps 0.5<1e20 kg/year. The helium flashover of our sun should happen at something less than 1e30 kg (possibly as little as .5e30 kg). ~ BG
From: palsing on 13 Jun 2010 19:12 On Jun 13, 12:37 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > You do realize Im working with the tidal radii grip that Sirius has > on our solar system, and not the other way around... This statement alone shows that you do not really understand the science. The escape velocity formula cited by Gregg do not imply a 'direction' ... \Paul A
From: Brad Guth on 13 Jun 2010 20:49 On Jun 13, 4:12 pm, palsing <pnals...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 12:37 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > You do realize Im working with the tidal radii grip that Sirius has > > on our solar system, and not the other way around... > > This statement alone shows that you do not really understand the > science. The escape velocity formula cited by Gregg do not imply a > 'direction' ... > > \Paul A Perhaps that's his problem. You simply can't place something as massive as the original Sirius star/solar system nearby anything else, without that situation causing Newtonian interactions. Ever heard of a barycenter? Do you think such a barycenter wasn't created? ~ BG
From: palsing on 13 Jun 2010 21:36 On Jun 13, 5:49 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 4:12 pm, palsing <pnals...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 13, 12:37 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > You do realize Im working with the tidal radii grip that Sirius has > > > on our solar system, and not the other way around... > > > This statement alone shows that you do not really understand the > > science. The escape velocity formula cited by Gregg do not imply a > > 'direction' ... > > > \Paul A > > Perhaps that's his problem. The problem is all yours because you just don't get it. > You simply can't place something as massive as the original Sirius > star/solar system nearby anything else, without that situation causing > Newtonian interactions. > > Ever heard of a barycenter? > > Do you think such a barycenter wasn't created? > > ~ BG Well, to start with, the original 'massive' Sirius system was nowhere near the solar system when it was born, so that's a non-starter. What it 'was' then doesn't affect what it 'is' now, about 3 solar masses. Strictly speaking, a barycenter can be defined as a simple center of mass, so sure, there is technically a barycenter between the Sirius system and the solar system. But the term barycenter is most commonly used to describe the center of mass of two or more bodies orbiting around each other, such as the Earth and the Moon. Since we are not in orbit with Sirius (and there is absolutely no doubt about this, no matter how much 'intuitive intelligence' you think you have), the 'barycenter' between systems could more correctly be referred to as the center of mass... but who would care about this? Between the solar system and all other objects in the galaxy there are billions and billions of such 'barycenters', they are just numbers and, for the most part, meaningless. I'm surprised that you aren't saying similar things about the Alpha Centauri system. It is about 2 solar masses total, compared to Sirius' 3 solar masses, but it is only half as far away. Clearly it exerts a greater gravitational tug on us than does Sirius. What, not as romantic? \Paul A
From: Sam Wormley on 13 Jun 2010 21:10
On 6/13/10 7:49 PM, Brad Guth wrote: > On Jun 13, 4:12 pm, palsing<pnals...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 13, 12:37 pm, Brad Guth<bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> You do realize I�m working with the tidal radii grip that Sirius has >>> on our solar system, and not the other way around... >> >> This statement alone shows that you do not really understand the >> science. The escape velocity formula cited by Gregg do not imply a >> 'direction' ... >> >> \Paul A > > Perhaps that's his problem. > > You simply can't place something as massive as the original Sirius > star/solar system nearby anything else, without that situation causing > Newtonian interactions. > > Ever heard of a barycenter? > > Do you think such a barycenter wasn't created? > > ~ BG F = m1 m2 G / r^2 Calculate the force between the Sirius system and the solar system and let us know what the answer is. r = 2.64 � 0.01 pc m1 = 1.9891 � 10^30 kg m2 = 5.9628 � 10^30 kg |