Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI
SpaceKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Space Forum / Astronomy / January 2006



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Star light Why not so Bright ????

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
G=EMC^2 Glazier - 21 Jan 2006 21:41 GMT
Fainter stars are more abundant.     Some stars are millions of times
brighter than our Sun,and others that much dimmer.                  Lets
go to stars that are only 50 LY away and most can not be seen without a
telescope.  So of the the billions,and billion(I sound like Sagan) we
only see 8 thousand with our naked eyes    Its like being inside a swarm
of fireflies,and each one keeping their proper distance from each other.
We are moving towards Vega at 12 miles per second problem is Vega won't
be at this same spot by the time we get there..                 Reality
is we have two space probes on their on trajectories, "being man made"
they will leave the solar system,and say in about a million years get
close to Sirius. If there was random motion of stars in galaxies we
would have chaos.   Nature did it right. Roman soldiers moved in a
proper motion to stay close or form a wedge. Sardines do it. Goose
stepping Nazi"s did it. Our stars in the grand galaxy do it better than
stuff in our solar system  Go figure                    TreBert
Scott Miller - 21 Jan 2006 21:42 GMT
Actually, estimates are that Voyager II will be "in the area" of Sirius
in about 40,000 years.

As to abundances of faint stars, two aspects play a role.  Some stars
are dim because they are far away, and obviously there are more far away
stars than nearby ones.  The other aspect is that there are more red
dwarfs than other types, and for two reasons.  Easier to put together
under the circumstances of gravitational collapse and they have longer
lifetimes than high mass stars.

As to your last statment, it is without context.

> Fainter stars are more abundant.     Some stars are millions of times
> brighter than our Sun,and others that much dimmer.                  Lets
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> stepping Nazi"s did it. Our stars in the grand galaxy do it better than
> stuff in our solar system  Go figure                    TreBert
G=EMC^2 Glazier - 22 Jan 2006 23:57 GMT
Scott  Nice to see you posting again. My post always need criticism. I
really don't mind if its constructive,or makes people think how to get
back with a good point.  Don't like to be put down by people of little
wit.   I'm more liberal in my thinking than Bert. Conservatives  even
with the best evidence showing they are wrong are ignorant and bigoted
they obstinately adhere  to their unreasonable stupid conservative
ideas.           "Much like Bush"     My last sentence I was comparing
our solar system to the Milky Way galaxy. Like our Sun being the hub to
which every thing revolves. Stars (all the 100 billions) revolve around
a central bright hub. Big difference is our spiral galaxy is very
flat,and the solar system planets do not revolve around in a flat plane.
You mention red dwarfs,let me mention "brown dwarfs" these bodies might
be very plentiful like our biggest planet Jupiter almost fits When an
object with less than 8% of our sun gravity can't get its compression up
to create enough heat.    Reality is "white dwarfs" have to be the most
common shinning star If not in this spacetime than in the future.
Well Scott reality is its easier to criticize. Its like looking over
one's shoulder. Posting stuff on top of my head makes hind sight so easy
for you and others.  Glad you still read my posts. You don't have to be
bashful. Jump right in. The water is not that deep..     You might like
me better than Bert.   TreBert
Scott Miller - 22 Jan 2006 03:04 GMT
Actually, the galaxy's disk has breadth to it and our Sun does not orbit
in a flat plane through the disk but bobs and weaves above and below an
average circular path.  The solar system's planetary plane is quite
flat, save for Pluto.

There is a spherical region of material orbiting the Sun, much as the
galactic halo is a spherical collection of stars and globular clusters
above and below the plane of the Milky Way.  It is striking in the
similarity of the two.

> Scott  Nice to see you posting again. My post always need criticism. I
> really don't mind if its constructive,or makes people think how to get
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> bashful. Jump right in. The water is not that deep..     You might like
> me better than Bert.   TreBert
G=EMC^2 Glazier - 23 Jan 2006 04:50 GMT
Scott  With 100 billion stars in it our galaxy it looks like a suny side
up fried egg. very flat are spiral galaxies.  I have always been amazed
looking at them edge on. True planets circle the Sun on a mutual plane
for the most part. Kind of a little mystery why a gas compressed by
gravity gets so flat??   I know what answers astronomers give,but I have
questions for them on it.    Scott thanks for reading and criticizing.
I've got lots more stuff coming up. So stay tuned in.   TreBert
William Oertell - 24 Jan 2006 01:52 GMT
> Scott  With 100 billion stars in it our galaxy it looks like a suny side
> up fried egg. very flat are spiral galaxies.  I have always been amazed
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> questions for them on it.    Scott thanks for reading and criticizing.
> I've got lots more stuff coming up. So stay tuned in.   TreBert

  One reason put forth for the shape of the solar system is that the
original gas cloud from which the solar system condensed had some rotational
velocity, and as it compressed its rotation increased (conservation of
angular momentum) thus forming a disk.
G=EMC^2 Glazier - 24 Jan 2006 13:25 GMT
William  was the gas cloud before it started spinning in the shape of a
ball ?. Are elli
G=EMC^2 Glazier - 24 Jan 2006 13:35 GMT
Sorry William my dog Rudy hit the send key. She is very rude.  Yes it is
said the revolving of the gas cloud made our galaxy spin flat like a
frisbee. Planets then were created were  inside this flat dust and gas
disk area. Now having used up this stuff they kept the revolving
speed,and plane.for the most part   TreBert
G=EMC^2 Glazier - 24 Jan 2006 13:50 GMT
William Having a hard time this morning for I wanted to add these facts.
Of all the types of galaxies the most massive and most common are the
ellipticals. Just think of how much more a sphere can hold over a disk.
I wonder William if the spiral arms open up with age? Or are they pulled
out over time using Mach theory.  Maybe they show us that angular motion
is winning over gravity  TreBert
William Oertell - 25 Jan 2006 03:59 GMT
> William Having a hard time this morning for I wanted to add these facts.
> Of all the types of galaxies the most massive and most common are the
> ellipticals. Just think of how much more a sphere can hold over a disk.
> I wonder William if the spiral arms open up with age? Or are they pulled
> out over time using Mach theory.  Maybe they show us that angular motion
> is winning over gravity  TreBert

   Hoyle put forth a theory many years ago that I think still sounds the
most plausible of all the ones I've heard.  It's not terribly different from
current theories except concerning how the planetary disk formed.  His
theory was that the gas cloud from which the solar system formed condensed
enough to light the sun's nuclear furnace.  The resulting magnetic field and
solar wind pushed the disk outward, and as it got further from the sun it
cooled off.  Collisions became frequent and material stuck together to form
planets.  The lighter gasses weren't available to form planets until the
disk material got further from the sun, thus explaining why the gas giants
are the ones furthest from the sun and the rocky ones closer.  It kind of
explains why there's all sorts of leftover material out in the Kuiper belt,
which, of course, wasn't known back in Hoyle's time.  His theory also neatly
explains why the planets all lie pretty much in the same plane.
   FWIW, most of Hoyle's theories were pretty awful.  I believe he's most
infamous for his steady-state theory, which posits that hydrogen is
constantly created out of nothingness.  Pretty bad!
John Zinni - 25 Jan 2006 05:24 GMT
>> William Having a hard time this morning for I wanted to add these facts.
>> Of all the types of galaxies the most massive and most common are the
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> neatly
> explains why the planets all lie pretty much in the same plane.

>    FWIW, most of Hoyle's theories were pretty awful.

"Fred's contributions to astronomy are monumental and far-reaching. Although
he might be best remembered for his more daring scientific pursuits - his
unorthodox cosmology and more recently his support of panspermia, there is
scarcely an area of astronomy that has not been touched in some way by his
genius. Very often modern astronomers are unaware that areas of their own
speciality rest firmly on foundations laid by Fred Hoyle several decades
ago. Fred Hoyle's work on nucleosynthesis in collaboration with William A.
Fowler and Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge led to our present-day
understanding of the origin of chemical elements in stars. It was Fred
Hoyle's original prediction of the presence of an excited state of the
nucleus of the atom Carbon via his studies of the structure and evolution of
stars that heralded a long and profitable collaboration with Caltech nuclear
physicist Willy Fowler."
http://www.astrobiology.cf.ac.uk/fredhoyle.html

"Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler and Hoyle worked out the nucleosynthesis
processes that go on in stars, where the much greater density and longer
time scales allow the triple-alpha process (He+He+He -> C) to proceed and
make the elements heavier than helium. "
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html

"He spent much time at Caltech, where he followed up the ideas adumbrated in
his famous 1946 paper, "The Synthesis of the Elements from Hydrogen"
(published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society), in a
long and fruitful collaboration with Fowler on nuclear processes in stars
and supernovas. This research was codified in a classic 1957 article,
universally referred to as "B^2FH" (published in Reviews of Modern Physics),
which Hoyle and Fowler coauthored with Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge. Many
of us felt that Hoyle should have shared Fowler's 1983 Nobel Prize in
Physics, but the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences later made partial amends
by awarding Hoyle, with Edwin Salpeter, its 1997 Crafoord Prize."
http://www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-11/p75b.html

"In the 1950's and 60's the predominant theory regarding the formation of
the chemical elements in the Universe was due to the work of G.Burbidge,
M.Burbidge, Fowler, and Hoyle. The BBFH theory, as it came to be known,
postulated that all the elements were produced either in stellar interiors
or during supernova explosions. While this theory achieved relative success,
it was discovered to be lacking in some important respects. To begin with,
it was estimated that only 1-40f all matter found in the Universe should
consist of helium if stellar nuclear reactions were its only source of pro-
duction. In fact, it is observed that upwards of 25% the Universe's total
matter consists of helium---much greater than predicted by theory! A similar
enigma exists for the deuterium. According to stellar theory, deuterium
cannot be produced in stellar interiors; actually, deuterium is destroyed
inside of stars. Hence, the BBFH hypothesis could not by itself adequately
explain the observed abundances of helium and deuterium in the Universe."
http://astron.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/bbn.html

"In the 1950s Hoyle collaborated with William Alfred Fowler and Geoffrey and
Margaret Burbidge in developing a theory on the origin of the elements,
which earned Fowler the Nobel Prize for physics in 1983. In 1957 they
published I. Synthesis of the Elements in Stars, the first comprehensive
account how the elements are produced in the interior of stars. The "I" in
the title meant that there would be a second paper. However, part II never
appeared. Fowler has acknowledged his debt to Hoyle in his autobiography
written for the Nobel Foundation: "Fred Hoyle was the second great influence
in my life. The grand concept of nucleosynthesis in stars was first
definitely established by Hoyle in 1946.""
http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/hoyle.htm

> I believe he's most
> infamous for his steady-state theory, which posits that hydrogen is
> constantly created out of nothingness.  Pretty bad!
G=EMC^2 Glazier - 25 Jan 2006 14:11 GMT
Zinni  It was Fred Hoyle making the mistake of using nothingness to
create that gave me the idea that space has an intrinsic energy that
gravity could compress into a big bang,and hence create all that is. One
of my first and well received theories. That is when I came up with
G=EMC^2 and that was 61 years ago come Feb.9 06     TreBert
G=EMC^2 Glazier - 31 Jan 2006 13:46 GMT
Best to keep in mind that if the universe had just one Sun like star,and
its light did not obey the inverse square law there would be no life.
TreBert
G=EMC^2 Glazier - 31 Jan 2006 19:49 GMT
I could have said just one star who's light does not dim with the
inverse square law would be brighter than all the stars in  the
universe. TreBert
ah - 22 Jan 2006 00:26 GMT
> Fainter stars are more abundant.     Some stars are millions of times
> brighter than our Sun,and others that much dimmer.                  Lets
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> stepping Nazi"s did it. Our stars in the grand galaxy do it better than
> stuff in our solar system  Go figure                    TreBert

Wot?
Signature

ah

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.