Our very ordinary Sun

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
OK it came into existence 4.5 billion years ago,much larger than it is
today,and it was"red"seems it had to contract some more before it became
yellow(yes)

It probably did not settle in to becoming a yellow star until after....

Than after a dozen million years or so,it began to
transform its hydrogen into helium.

It probably appeared red because of surrounding dust and gas restricting its
output until well after nuclear fusion began in its core.

The only difference of man made
H-bombs is the fusion output in the core of stars is controlled I do
have a theory how we could control fusion.

You don't have a theory, in the scientific sense of the word anyway. You have
an untested idea which might possibly be molded into an hypothesis which would
then possibly be testable (actually to be a valid hypothesis, that is exactly
what it would have to be - testable).


Still this 90% of all stars (just average) has a planet going around it with much life.
Bert


There is no observational evidence that such is the case. A majority of stars
are in fact multiple star systems that possess very limited potential orbital
distances depending on the separation of the stars in the system. This would
significantly reduce the number of life-supporting planets.

protons DO NOT orbit anything eles, THEY are the center of the H1 atom and also
make up the 2nd major unit of all other atom centers.



--
In This Universe The Night was Falling,The Shadows were lenghtening
towards an east that would not know another dawn.
But elsewhere the Stars were still young and the light of morning lingered: and
along the path he once had followed, Man would one day go again.

Arthur C. Clarke "The City & The Stars"

SIAR
www.starlords.org
Bishop's Car Fund
http://www.bishopcarfund.Netfirms.com/
Freelance Writers Shop
http://www.freelancewrittersshop.netfirms.com

"Andrew McKay" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 05:17:15 GMT, David Knisely
wrote:
What I still have a problem with is that people seemed to understand
the atomic table well before science was advanced enough to undertake



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.493 / Virus Database: 292 - Release Date: 6/25/03

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 08:52:29 -0700, "Starlord"
wrote:

protons DO NOT orbit anything eles, THEY are the center of the H1 atom and also
make up the 2nd major unit of all other atom centers.

From my original message:

BTW, so as to make it entirely clear - I was absolutely hopeless with
Chemistry when at school, so if there is a simple explanation to the
above then I'm afraid it passed me by.

It's just gobbledegook to me

Andrew

Do you need a handyman service? Check out our
web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk

Hi there. You posted:

What I still have a problem with is that people seemed to understand
the atomic table well before science was advanced enough to undertake
subjective proof. For example the number of protons orbiting (e.g.) a
Hydrogen atom. It wasn't as if they could peer into a microscope and
count the protons!

BTW, so as to make it entirely clear - I was absolutely hopeless with
Chemistry when at school, so if there is a simple explanation to the
above then I'm afraid it passed me by.


Well, protons are the core of the Hydrogen atom, so they don't "orbit"
Hydrogen. Electrons exist in shells or "orbitals" around the proton, so
in a sense, they "orbit" the nucleus of Hydrogen. There are several
types of Hydrogen which behave chemically almost identically with
regular Hydrogen. The first is Deuterium, which has a core or "nucleus"
containing one proton and one neutron. Then, there is Tritium, which
contains one proton but *two* neutrons. Deuterium is fairly rare when
compared with regular Hydrogen, and Tritium is unstable and decays. A
Hydrogen Bomb works by using a regular small fission bomb to trigger a
fusion reaction involving Deuterium and Tritium (for a complete
discussion of this, do an Internet search to see how it is done). In
stars, two types of fusion reactions take place naturally which also
fuse Hydrogen nucleii (ie: protons) into Helium nucleii (alpha
particles), but neither involves a Deuterium-Tritium reaction of the
type found in man-made thermonuclear explosions. Clear skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 27-Aug. 1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

Andrew McKay wrote:

What I still have a problem with is that people seemed to understand
the atomic table well before science was advanced enough to undertake
subjective proof. For example the number of protons orbiting (e.g.) a
Hydrogen atom. It wasn't as if they could peer into a microscope and
count the protons!

What do you mean by "subjective proof"?

BTW, so as to make it entirely clear - I was absolutely hopeless with
Chemistry when at school, so if there is a simple explanation to the
above then I'm afraid it passed me by.

Not a very short one, I'm afraid. But here's a brief sketch in which
I'll 'drop' a few names and terms that you can look up. The idea that
matter is made of "atoms" (_atomos_ means "indivisible" in Greek)
goes back something like 2500 years to Democritus, but the first
modern atomic theory came in the early nineteenth century, from John
Dalton. At roughly the same time people like Antoine Lavoisier
introduced quantitative methods to chemistry, leading to the field of
stoichiometry, the study of the proportions in which chemicals
combine with each other. Studies of gases allowed the relative
molecular weights of substances to be determined. Various patterns
relating the chemical properties of the elements to their atomic
weights were observed, and Dmitri Mendeleev formed them into a 'big
picture' that became the modern periodic table. But only atomic
weights were known, not atomic numbers, until the discovery of the
nucleus by Ernest Rutherford, and subsequent work that identified its
composition. By about 75 years ago it was understood that the number
of protons in the nucleus determine the chemical properties of an
element, manifested through its tendency to bind a like number of
electrons, the exchanges or rearrangements of which constitute
chemical reactions.

--Odysseus

During a perfect moment of peace at Mon, 07 Jul 2003 05:17:15 GMT,
David Knisely interrupted with:

In a nuclear bomb, it is a deuterium-tritium reaction which takes place (used because it works
faster than the proton-proton reaction which stars use).

It's also worth noting that higher mass stars use the
Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen chain to help fuse H-He. That is nothing like
how the H bomb works.

"Odysseus" wrote...
in message ...

Andrew McKay wrote:
. . .
BTW, so as to make it entirely clear - I was absolutely hopeless with
Chemistry when at school, so if there is a simple explanation to the
above then I'm afraid it passed me by.

Not a very short one, I'm afraid. But here's a brief sketch in which
I'll 'drop' a few names and terms that you can look up. The idea that
matter is made of "atoms" (_atomos_ means "indivisible" in Greek)
goes back something like 2500 years to Democritus, but the first
modern atomic theory came in the early nineteenth century, from John
Dalton. At roughly the same time people like Antoine Lavoisier
introduced quantitative methods to chemistry, leading to the field of
stoichiometry, the study of the proportions in which chemicals
combine with each other. Studies of gases allowed the relative
molecular weights of substances to be determined. Various patterns
relating the chemical properties of the elements to their atomic
weights were observed, and Dmitri Mendeleev formed them into a 'big
picture' that became the modern periodic table. But only atomic
weights were known, not atomic numbers, until the discovery of the
nucleus by Ernest Rutherford, and subsequent work that identified its
composition. By about 75 years ago it was understood that the number
of protons in the nucleus determine the chemical properties of an
element, manifested through its tendency to bind a like number of
electrons, the exchanges or rearrangements of which constitute
chemical reactions.

--Odysseus

Allow me to add only that the periodic table, which grouped
the elements by similar properties, had several "gaps" at first.
So scientists went on a discovery quest to find the elements
that would fill these gaps. All of these elements were found
eventually, and all the gaps were filled.

I find it intriguing that science came up with such a useful tool
so early on in its modern endeavors.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Life without love is
A lamp without oil,
Love without prejudice
A world without soil,
Tool without toil.

Paine Ellsworth

Painius wrote:

Allow me to add only that the periodic table, which grouped
the elements by similar properties, had several "gaps" at first.
So scientists went on a discovery quest to find the elements
that would fill these gaps. All of these elements were found
eventually, and all the gaps were filled.

IIRC Mendeleev himself predicted the properties of at least two
elements that had not yet been discovered (Ga & Ge?), in the face of
criticism that his table was a product of numerological mysticism,
not of science. When an element with the density, conductivity,
electronegativity, &c. he had predicted was discovered, the critics
said it was just a lucky guess ... but when a second one was found to
fit perfectly in another of his 'gaps' they were forced to admit
there might be something to the idea. This goes to show that it's a
theory's quantitative predictions that are the 'proof of the
pudding'; in science these will always trump philosophical considerations.

--Odysseus

"Odysseus" wrote...
in message ...

Painius wrote:

Allow me to add only that the periodic table, which grouped
the elements by similar properties, had several "gaps" at first.
So scientists went on a discovery quest to find the elements
that would fill these gaps. All of these elements were found
eventually, and all the gaps were filled.

IIRC Mendeleev himself predicted the properties of at least two
elements that had not yet been discovered (Ga & Ge?), in the face of
criticism that his table was a product of numerological mysticism,
not of science. When an element with the density, conductivity,
electronegativity, &c. he had predicted was discovered, the critics
said it was just a lucky guess ... but when a second one was found to
fit perfectly in another of his 'gaps' they were forced to admit
there might be something to the idea. This goes to show that it's a
theory's quantitative predictions that are the 'proof of the
pudding'; in science these will always trump philosophical considerations.

--Odysseus

....as well as trump die-hard skepticism!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
a Secret of the Universe...
so please don't breathe a word of this--
the Moon above will smile perverse
whene'er it sees two lovers kiss;
(breathe not a single word of this!)

Paine Ellsworth