Higher Luminaries.

In article ,
"Alan OBrien" wrote:

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
oups.com...
The definition of a star is a burning ball of gas but that is incorrect
if the theory of Solar Luminescence is wrong. Incandescent perhaps.

I thought that a planet was anything that moved in the night sky. Planetes -
moving. Anything except stars, in fact.

That was a long time ago--and I don't believe it included comets or
meteors. Since then the Sun and Moon have been excluded and the Earth
included; Uranus and Neptune included on discovery; likewise for Pallas,
Ceres, and a few other asteroids, which were subsequently demoted to the
ranks of the "minor planets"; and ultimately Pluto included (with
arguably weak justification).

--
Odysseus

Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"Weatherlawyer" wrote in
oups.com:

The definition of a star is a burning ball of gas but that is incorrect
if the theory of Solar Luminescence is wrong. Incandescent perhaps.

As is most likely the case.

I would say that a better definition would be that a star is any body that
has at some stage during its' existence been able to initate the weak
nuclear reaction p + p = d + e+ + v. That rules out gas giants that could
only initiate deuterium burning.

You do realise that nuclear reactions of any sort have never been
observed on any star, don't you?

So what is the definition of a planet?

How about whatever the IAU says it is?

Which is?

Weatherlawyer wrote:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"Weatherlawyer" wrote in
oups.com:

The definition of a star is a burning ball of gas but that is incorrect
if the theory of Solar Luminescence is wrong. Incandescent perhaps.

As is most likely the case.

What are you blathering about? The sun is incandescent because the
energy released by its nuclear reactions needs to escape from the
surface. You cannot power the sun with chemical energy - it runs out
far too quickly ( a la Lord Kelvin vs Darwin).

Are you a closet YEC?

I would say that a better definition would be that a star is any body that
has at some stage during its' existence been able to initate the weak
nuclear reaction p + p = d + e+ + v. That rules out gas giants that could
only initiate deuterium burning.

I'd be inclined to allow as a star any self gravitating object that
initiated nuclear fusion reactions even it was only for a few million
years to burn off the light isotopes D2, Li6, Li7, Be9, B10, B11. Too
bad if they don't make it to a full hydrogen burning main sequence
star.

Non-stars would be objects that have never initiated nuclear fusion at
their cores.

You do realise that nuclear reactions of any sort have never been
observed on any star, don't you?

I suggest we send you to the centre of the sun to observe them then.

The neutrino flux from solar nuclear reactions is detected on Earth.

Regards,
Martin Brown

In article ,
Alan OBrien wrote:

I thought that a planet was anything that moved in the night sky. Planetes -
moving.

You are confusing etymology with meaning.

In any case, the Greek word means "wandering" rather than simply
"moving", referring to their independent motion compared with that of
the stars.

-- Richard

In article .com,
Weatherlawyer wrote:

I would say that a better definition would be that a star is any body that
has at some stage during its' existence been able to initate the weak
nuclear reaction p + p = d + e+ + v. That rules out gas giants that could
only initiate deuterium burning.

You do realise that nuclear reactions of any sort have never been
observed on any star, don't you?

So what powers one?

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE".
Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bull**** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In message .com,
Weatherlawyer writes

Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"Weatherlawyer" wrote in
oups.com:

The definition of a star is a burning ball of gas but that is incorrect
if the theory of Solar Luminescence is wrong. Incandescent perhaps.

As is most likely the case.

I would say that a better definition would be that a star is any body that
has at some stage during its' existence been able to initate the weak
nuclear reaction p + p = d + e+ + v. That rules out gas giants that could
only initiate deuterium burning.

You do realise that nuclear reactions of any sort have never been
observed on any star, don't you?

Welcome back, troll. Or are you just thick? You have heard of solar
neutrinos? Direct evidence of nuclear reactions. Also observed coming
from SN1987A.

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote
Isn't the point that Jupiter (and Saturn, only more so) is radiating more energy than it receives? They both have internal
energy sources. Uranus, OTOH, is not radiating an excess.
IIRC, the Earth is currently radiating slightly _less_ energy than it receives.

Interesting point, but if Earth were radiating less energy than it received,
wouldn't that mean it was warming up?

Global warming aside, cos I think that's a separate issue really, I
would definitely expect Earth to be _cooling_ (still), albeit very
slowly. There's heat remaining from Earth's formation (a lot), and
there's heat from nuclear fission inside the planet. And, I guess,
heat from gravitational tidal forces, mainly from the Sun and the Moon.

What about Uranus then? Are you saying you think it is at thermal
equilibrium with its surroundings? (I don't know whether it is or
not.) But again, intuition suggests to me that it probably still has
residual heat to lose from its formation, and therefore probably is
doing so, which by your definition would make it net luminous.

Intesesting one. I still don't think it's as easy as people say, to
say some planets (or whatever bodies) are "luminous" and imply that
the rest aren't.


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie

JRS: In article .com
, dated Thu, 29 Jun 2006 01:17:07 remote, seen in news:uk.sci.astronomy,
Martin Brown posted :

I'd be inclined to allow as a star any self gravitating object that
initiated nuclear fusion reactions even it was only for a few million
years to burn off the light isotopes D2, Li6, Li7, Be9, B10, B11. Too
bad if they don't make it to a full hydrogen burning main sequence
star.

There needs to be an indication of sufficient reaction. The Earth does
not become a star if it is shown that, sometime in the past, a pair of
over-excited deuterons combined here. Perhaps if more than 50% of the
output energy at any time, or overall, came from fusion; or if fusion
was ever enough to overcome gravitational shrinkage.

Neither does it become one because surface organic pollution has
initiated fusion using LiD.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. / ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Correct = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SoRFC1036)

Dr John Stockton wrote in news:G7qNy0CkbCpEFwg4
@merlyn.demon.co.uk:

JRS: In article .com
, dated Thu, 29 Jun 2006 01:17:07 remote, seen in news:uk.sci.astronomy,
Martin Brown posted :

I'd be inclined to allow as a star any self gravitating object that
initiated nuclear fusion reactions even it was only for a few million
years to burn off the light isotopes D2, Li6, Li7, Be9, B10, B11. Too
bad if they don't make it to a full hydrogen burning main sequence
star.

There needs to be an indication of sufficient reaction. The Earth does
not become a star if it is shown that, sometime in the past, a pair of
over-excited deuterons combined here. Perhaps if more than 50% of the
output energy at any time, or overall, came from fusion; or if fusion
was ever enough to overcome gravitational shrinkage.

Neither does it become one because surface organic pollution has
initiated fusion using LiD.


I suppose you do have do exclude the actions of organic agents. How about
machine entities ;-).

Klazmon.

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article .com,
Weatherlawyer wrote:


I would say that a better definition would be that a star is any body that
has at some stage during its' existence been able to initate the weak
nuclear reaction p + p = d + e+ + v. That rules out gas giants that could
only initiate deuterium burning.

You do realise that nuclear reactions of any sort have never been
observed on any star, don't you?


So what powers one?

And how do you explain the neutrino flood
emitting from the sun.
Each neutrino means some nuclear reaction
has taken place.
No reactions,no neutrinos.