A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What dictates galaxy and planetary system sizes?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 3rd 17, 11:55 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 273
Default What dictates galaxy and planetary system sizes?

In article , jacobnavia
writes:

Le 21/12/2016 =E0 13:32, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) a =E9crit :
the quantities are
determined, as is everything, by the constants of nature and by initial
conditions,


Since most of the mass of a planetary system is in the star, the limit
to its mass is the limit of the mass of a star.


I'm not sure what you mean. Above a certain mass, nuclear fusion will
set in, so anything more massive is a star, by definition. (There is
also the Hayashi limit related to convection, so the lower limit for
stable nuclear fusion might be a bit higher, around 0.08 solar masses.)
The upper limit for a star is a few hundred solar masses. (Probably
anything more massive can't form before what has already contracted has
ignited, keeping out additional material.) I'm not an expert here, but
the mass range in stars is 2--3 orders of magnitude. It is not directly
(and if indirectly, very indirectly) to any size of the universe.

Now, stars when they become obese, start producing antimatter that
destroys the star before it is fully built, the limit on star sizes
determines, as a consequence, the size of the planetary systems...

Is that correct?


Not sure what you mean about the antimatter. Stars have a range in mass
as described above, the lower limit corresponding to the upper limit of
a planet. What the lower limit of a planet is depends on the definition
and, for some definitions, might depend on composition, but covers many
more orders of magnitude.
  #12  
Old January 4th 17, 03:34 AM posted to sci.astro.research
jacobnavia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 105
Default What dictates galaxy and planetary system sizes?

Le 03/01/2017 =E0 23:55, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) a =E9crit :
Not sure what you mean about the antimatter.


For instance this:
(http://astronomynow.com/news/n1001/06essence/)
quote
As part of the ESSENCE supernova search, astronomers have discovered a
distant star that exploded when its centre became so hot that matter and
anti-matter particle pairs were created.

The star, known as Y-155, was once a magnificent 200 times the mass of
our Sun, but around seven billion years ago it became unstable, forcing
a runaway thermonuclear reaction that ended in a cataclysmic explosion
visible halfway across the Universe.
end quote

[[Mod. note -- While some antimatter was created during the star's
destruction, that does NOT say that the creation of that antimatter
*caused* the destruction. In fact, it didn't -- as the passage you
quoted says, a runaway thermonuclear reaction is what destroyed the
star. The (small amounts of) antimatter was "just" a byproduct.
-- jt]]
  #13  
Old January 4th 17, 10:09 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Richard D. Saam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 240
Default What dictates galaxy and planetary system sizes?

On 1/3/17 4:55 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
In article , jacobnavia
writes:

Le 21/12/2016 =E0 13:32, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) a =E9crit :
the quantities are
determined, as is everything, by the constants of nature and by initial
conditions,


Since most of the mass of a planetary system is in the star, the limit
to its mass is the limit of the mass of a star.


I'm not sure what you mean. Above a certain mass, nuclear fusion will
set in, so anything more massive is a star, by definition. (There is
also the Hayashi limit related to convection, so the lower limit for
stable nuclear fusion might be a bit higher, around 0.08 solar masses.)
The upper limit for a star is a few hundred solar masses. (Probably
anything more massive can't form before what has already contracted has
ignited, keeping out additional material.) I'm not an expert here, but
the mass range in stars is 2--3 orders of magnitude. It is not directly
(and if indirectly, very indirectly) to any size of the universe.

Assuming your 2--3 orders of magnitude range
galactic size (presently ~10^20 - ~10^24cm)
and star planetary system size (presently ~10^13 - ~10^17 cm)
contained in a Hubble radius (presently ~10^28 cm)
What establishes the voids
on the order of 3 orders of magnitude between
and do these ratios maintain themselves with redshift
and within what theoretical framework?

Richard D Saam

[[Mod. note -- This wording presupposes that there are "voids" and that
they are "established". I know of no good reasons to reject the null
hypothesis that there's no particular connection between these size
scales.
-- jt]]
  #14  
Old January 6th 17, 05:03 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 273
Default What dictates galaxy and planetary system sizes?

In article , "Richard D.
Saam" writes:

the quantities are
determined, as is everything, by the constants of nature and by initial
conditions,

Since most of the mass of a planetary system is in the star, the limit
to its mass is the limit of the mass of a star.


I'm not sure what you mean. Above a certain mass, nuclear fusion will
set in, so anything more massive is a star, by definition. (There is
also the Hayashi limit related to convection, so the lower limit for
stable nuclear fusion might be a bit higher, around 0.08 solar masses.)
The upper limit for a star is a few hundred solar masses. (Probably
anything more massive can't form before what has already contracted has
ignited, keeping out additional material.) I'm not an expert here, but
the mass range in stars is 2--3 orders of magnitude. It is not directly
(and if indirectly, very indirectly) to any size of the universe.

Assuming your 2--3 orders of magnitude range
galactic size (presently ~10^20 - ~10^24cm)
and star planetary system size (presently ~10^13 - ~10^17 cm)
contained in a Hubble radius (presently ~10^28 cm)
What establishes the voids
on the order of 3 orders of magnitude between
and do these ratios maintain themselves with redshift
and within what theoretical framework?

Richard D Saam

[[Mod. note -- This wording presupposes that there are "voids" and that
they are "established". I know of no good reasons to reject the null
hypothesis that there's no particular connection between these size
scales.
-- jt]]


Indeed. Note that galaxies range over more orders of magnitude in mass.
Between solar-system scale and galactic scale there are things like
giant molecular clouds; between galactic scale and Hubble-length scale
there are groups of galaxies, clusters, superclusters. There is also
the structure of dark matter, about which less is known.

To a first approximation, the sizes of solar systems and galaxies don't
change with the expansion of the universe. The Hubble radius changes if
the Hubble constant changes. The Hubble constant has increased since
the big bang, but as the universe approaches exponential expansion
asymptotically, the Hubble radius will approach a constant value.

[[Mod. note -- In addition to the things the poster mentioned, globular
clusters and dwarf galaxies are some other important astro-things that
lie between solar-system and galactic size.
-- jt]]
  #15  
Old January 7th 17, 09:03 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Richard D. Saam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 240
Default What dictates galaxy and planetary system sizes?

On 1/6/17 10:03 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
In article , "Richard D.
Saam" writes:

the quantities are
determined, as is everything, by the constants of nature and by initial
conditions,

Since most of the mass of a planetary system is in the star, the limit
to its mass is the limit of the mass of a star.

I'm not sure what you mean. Above a certain mass, nuclear fusion will
set in, so anything more massive is a star, by definition. (There is
also the Hayashi limit related to convection, so the lower limit for
stable nuclear fusion might be a bit higher, around 0.08 solar masses.)
The upper limit for a star is a few hundred solar masses. (Probably
anything more massive can't form before what has already contracted has
ignited, keeping out additional material.) I'm not an expert here, but
the mass range in stars is 2--3 orders of magnitude. It is not directly
(and if indirectly, very indirectly) to any size of the universe.

Assuming your 2--3 orders of magnitude range
galactic size (presently ~10^20 - ~10^24cm)
and star planetary system size (presently ~10^13 - ~10^17 cm)
contained in a Hubble radius (presently ~10^28 cm)
What establishes the voids
on the order of 3 orders of magnitude between
and do these ratios maintain themselves with redshift
and within what theoretical framework?

Richard D Saam

[[Mod. note -- This wording presupposes that there are "voids" and that
they are "established". I know of no good reasons to reject the null
hypothesis that there's no particular connection between these size
scales.
-- jt]]


It is acknowledged that
the universe size (uniform?) distribution parameters
are not at equilibrium.

Indeed. Note that galaxies range over more orders of magnitude in mass.


Size may be more important parameter.

Between solar-system scale and galactic scale there are things like
giant molecular clouds; between galactic scale and Hubble-length scale


No, the molecular clouds are between planetary and galactic radius
in a size range 15-600 light years (1.4x10^19 - 5.7x10^20 cm)
The literature indicates these to be star planetary system precursors
or perhaps star planetary systems that did not make it.

there are groups of galaxies, clusters, superclusters.


but the unit of measure is the galaxy as in clusters of
and the filamentous, layered structure of these superclusters
may be an indication of galaxy orthokinetic formation by shear
associated with H = c/Hubble Radius.

There is also
the structure of dark matter, about which less is known.


A very closely studied dark matter entity is the Bullet Cluster
with size ~.5 Mpc (1.5x10^24 cm) falling within galaxy size.
There may be more diffuse dark matter structures
with a precursor star planetary characteristic
analogous to molecular clouds above.

To a first approximation, the sizes of solar systems and galaxies don't
change with the expansion of the universe.


Our solar system is the star planetary system reference
with its size going out to the Kuiper Belt at
20 - 50 AU (3.0x10^14 - 7.5x10^14 cm)
and out to the Oort cloud at
0.8 - 3.2 light year (7.6x10^17 - 3.0x10^18 cm)
The Kepler spacecraft has found planets in other star planet systems
but is not sensitive to more diffuse Kuiper and Oort like structures
that probably exist.
Future spacecraft may obtain information
on analog Kuiper and Oort components in these star planet systems.

Aren't the early galaxies (~million years after the big bang)
much smaller (primitive) than present galaxies
suggesting that star planetary systems had not formed at that time?

The Hubble radius changes if
the Hubble constant changes. The Hubble constant has increased since
the big bang, but as the universe approaches exponential expansion
asymptotically, the Hubble radius will approach a constant value.


as perhaps galactic and star planetary system sizes
approach a constant value.

[[Mod. note -- In addition to the things the poster mentioned, globular
clusters and dwarf galaxies are some other important astro-things that
lie between solar-system and galactic size.
-- jt]]


In as much as a globular cluster is a spherical collection of stars
that orbits a galactic core as a satellite,
a globular cluster may be considered stars as part of a galaxy
and within the galaxy size.

Dwarf galaxies sizes fall within galaxy size range
(compared to the milky way) as follows:

milky way 200000 lightyear (1.9x10^23 cm) 2.5x10^11 solar mass
Ursa Major II Dwarf 1800 lightyear (1.7x10^21 cm) 5.0x10^6 solar mass
NGC 2419 520 lightyear (4.9x10^20 cm) 900,000 solar mass

The two Dwarf galaxy masses compared to their size
indicate that they are less dense than the milky way
further indicating that size
is a better structure comparative parameter.

Richard D Saam

  #16  
Old January 8th 17, 05:13 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 273
Default What dictates galaxy and planetary system sizes?

In article , "Richard D.
Saam" writes:
[[Mod. note -- This wording presupposes that there are "voids" and tha=

t
they are "established". I know of no good reasons to reject the null
hypothesis that there's no particular connection between these size
scales.
-- jt]]


It is acknowledged that
the universe size (uniform?) distribution parameters
are not at equilibrium.


If you mean that the sizes of SOME things change with time, then yes.

Indeed. Note that galaxies range over more orders of magnitude in mass=

..

Size may be more important parameter.


Why?

Between solar-system scale and galactic scale there are things like
giant molecular clouds; between galactic scale and Hubble-length scale


No, the molecular clouds are between planetary and galactic radius
in a size range 15-600 light years (1.4x10^19 - 5.7x10^20 cm)


This is also between solar-system scale and galactic scale. (It is also
between atomic scale and galactic scale.) Normally one uses the next
lower and next higher scales to denote a range.

but the unit of measure is the galaxy as in clusters of


This is somewhat arbitrary, based on objects visible to and recognized
by us.

and the filamentous, layered structure of these superclusters
may be an indication of galaxy orthokinetic formation by shear
associated with H =3D c/Hubble Radius.


Why?

There is also
the structure of dark matter, about which less is known.


A very closely studied dark matter entity is the Bullet Cluster
with size ~.5 Mpc (1.5x10^24 cm) falling within galaxy size.
There may be more diffuse dark matter structures
with a precursor star planetary characteristic
analogous to molecular clouds above.


Clusters are rare objects. Most galaxies are not in clusters. Most
dark matter is probably not in clusters. The Bullet Cluster is not
representative of the universe.

To a first approximation, the sizes of solar systems and galaxies don't
change with the expansion of the universe.


Our solar system is the star planetary system reference
with its size going out to the Kuiper Belt at
20 - 50 AU (3.0x10^14 - 7.5x10^14 cm)
and out to the Oort cloud at
0.8 - 3.2 light year (7.6x10^17 - 3.0x10^18 cm)
The Kepler spacecraft has found planets in other star planet systems
but is not sensitive to more diffuse Kuiper and Oort like structures
that probably exist.
Future spacecraft may obtain information
on analog Kuiper and Oort components in these star planet systems.


Right.

Aren't the early galaxies (~million years after the big bang)
much smaller (primitive) than present galaxies


Yes; galaxies grow with time.

suggesting that star planetary systems had not formed at that time?


Planetary systems probably formed along with the corresponding stars,
but this is unrelated to the size of the galaxy.

The Hubble radius changes if
the Hubble constant changes. The Hubble constant has increased since
the big bang, but as the universe approaches exponential expansion
asymptotically, the Hubble radius will approach a constant value.


as perhaps galactic and star planetary system sizes
approach a constant value.


Why? The scales of galaxies and planetary systems are not influenced by
the size of the universe.

[[Mod. note -- In addition to the things the poster mentioned, globular
clusters and dwarf galaxies are some other important astro-things that
lie between solar-system and galactic size.
-- jt]]


In as much as a globular cluster is a spherical collection of stars
that orbits a galactic core as a satellite,
a globular cluster may be considered stars as part of a galaxy
and within the galaxy size.


It seems like you are defining things to meet your expectations.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Orbits Are Askew in a Nearby Planetary System Sam Wormley[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 0 May 25th 10 11:19 PM
Another new planetary system imaged Gordon Stangler Astronomy Misc 21 December 11th 09 07:16 AM
Irregular galaxy, faint blue galaxy follow Solar System pattern;#169; 3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 4 August 25th 09 09:47 AM
Planetary system around two stars... HW Vir dlzc Astronomy Misc 11 February 13th 09 04:41 AM
Planetary Classification System(s) Willie R. Meghar Amateur Astronomy 5 August 19th 06 07:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.