#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Higher Luminaries.
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? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Higher Luminaries.
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Higher Luminaries.
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Higher Luminaries.
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Higher Luminaries.
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Higher Luminaries.
"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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Higher Luminaries.
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) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Higher Luminaries.
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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Higher Luminaries.
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Multidimensional Man | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 31st 06 03:58 PM |
THE SECRET TEACHINGS OF THE MYSTERY SCHOOLS | [email protected] | Policy | 0 | December 21st 05 09:40 AM |
THE SECRET TEACHINGS OF THE MYSTERY SCHOOLS | [email protected] | Policy | 0 | December 21st 05 09:40 AM |
Beyond Linear Cosmology and Hypnotic Theology | Yoda | Misc | 0 | June 30th 04 07:33 PM |
Mind-2, Time waves and Theory of Everything | Yoda | Misc | 0 | April 20th 04 06:11 AM |