pavelcherepan

You present BS and anecdotes, nothing more. Maybe you can search for papers describing this ailment, when masturbation causes itchiness of the head and dryness in the eyes and who knows, you might find someone else from your species. I don't think many people have the same thing.

Wow! It's a sad day for all crackpots out there!

Robitty, most of your questions would be easily resolved of you carefully peruse Wikipedia pages on the following topics: evolution of solar system, t tauri stars, radioisotopic dating, evolution of Sun. Please study those carefully and come back with more serious questions. Sorry, can't provide links, I'm on the plane atm.

Not hotter. Just brighter. Effective photosphere temperatures of T Tauri stars are about the same as the sun ~5500 K but they are bigger and hence higher luminosity. The more time paseses, the less of daughter isotopes you have and the less of mother isotopes. It gets increasingly harder to measure relationship between those and as a result the error increases exponentially (correct me if I'm wrong ) with the increase of the time period measured.

Radioisotopic dating methods have a margin of error which depends on the time interval measured. At time frames comparable with the age of solar system you are looking at an error margin of some plus or minus 100 million years (maybe a bit smaller). The number I quoted is the best fit of several independent datings of the oldest known inclusion in a chodritic meteorite. Your number seems like it can fall on the far end of the error margin. Where did you get this from?

What do you mean by space being relative to time?

Robbity, first of all, stars in T Tauri stage a proto-star already emits light, even though fusion hasn't started in the core. This is due to contraction heating. In fact, these stars have higher luminosity than what they will have in the future as main sequence stars, because they are simply larger. So you can't say that there are neutrinos coming, but there's no light. There is definitely light and there's solar wind and there might or might not be neutrinos. Secondly, I've said it many times before and I hope you take a note of it this time. Even if there is fusion during T Tauri stage, it's only lithium burning, or pp II chain and there's not much lithium, so the total output of this fusion is probably tiny compared to the heat generated due to contraction. And lastly, yes, based on what we've seen so far, Sun should have gone through T Tauri stage. It seems like it's a normal stage of development for all main sequence stars. Thanks a lot Mordred. It's not my strongest suit too, but I'm doing my best to try and remember what I had in the uni, because geology curriculum covers a lot on formation of Solar System.

In T Tauri stage if the only fusion reaction that happens is 7Li + 1p -> 2 4He then there should be no neutrinos produced. I think you're digging in a wrong place.

Why are you telling me to do calculations for you? You can also try searching Google Scholar as there may be some papers on this topic. Neutrino flux may be significant, but the gas cloud is still a pretty good vacuum. There's not much matter for neutrinos to interact with and the chance of neutrino interacting is tiny. For any interaction to occur a neutrino should find itself very close to the nucleus of an atom within the range of weak interaction and this is very-very unlikely. The current solar neutrino flux at the surface of the Earth is about 1011/m2 which is orders and orders of magnitude smaller than the number of atoms per square meter of surface and also given that over 99% of any atom is empty space it's very unlikely for any given neutrino to happen to pass within some 10-18 m from the nucleus.

You've been told before that even if you have interaction between a neutrino and some particle of the disk (which would be exceedingly rare) you can't have much of momentum change, because even if neutrinos have mass, it should be minuscule. Only during supernova explosions you can have a neutrino flux of such a density and matter of such a density as well that you end up having major interaction.

OK, let's try and explain it. Imagine standing in the rain. Let's assume rain is very consistent and there is x drops of water falling on you every second and these drops are pretty evenly distributed. Now you start running. There will still be x drops of water falling on you every second, but there will be disproportionally more of them falling on the front of your body compared to the back. Also in your rest frame droplets falling on your front will have a higher momentum, because you'll have to add your own velocity v to droplet's velocity. And so if you were going at a constant velocity you'd end up losing momentum and slowing down. Same story here. There's a "rain" of particles coming from the sun and dust particles are moving in orbits around the sun. Normally solar wind particles would hit the dust particle in the direction perpendicular to it's direction of travel and so you'd expect them to be slowly moving to a higher orbit, but because they are "running" into this "rain" there is a discpropotionally high number of collisions to the front of the particle. These collisions would decrease particle's orbital velocity and cause it to spiral into the sun. But it only applies to a particular size range somewhere between 1 micron and 1 mm. Because the volume and hence the mass and hence the momentum of a particle increases by the cube of it's radius. At the same time the number of collisions with solar wind particles depends on surface area which is proportional to the square of radius. Hence the larger a particle gets, the higher the ratio becomes between momentum and number of collisions. As a result large particles won't be very affected by this effect. Smaller particles are so light that they will be blown to the outer reaches of the system. That's it in a nutshell.

No. I was talking mostly about volatiles and gas, not about dust. Ok, so abberration should have something to do with clearing of dust. But any case it would start from the inner system and going outwards.

Please read my posts carefully. I did say that once hydrogen fusion begins radiation pressure stops the contraction and the star becomes a main sequence star. Just as I said before. Contraction stops normally when temperatures in the core become sufficient for hydrogen fusion. Aberration has nothing to do with it. I believe that clearing proceeds from the inner regions to the outer. Models show that water and some other volatiles would be expelled from the inner SS but then will gather in a relative large quantities just behind the frost line, and so it's no surprise that Jupiter formed there.

During T Tauri stage the proto-Sun is still contracting, not expanding. And it keeps heating up due to contraction. It still does radiate, but he radiation pressure is too weak to stop gravitational attraction. Once thermonuclear fission starts in the core, some 50 million years later the radiation pressure finally equalizes with gravity and the star enters the main sequence. Correct. I will be getting progressively hotter as per ideal gas law. EDIT: Had a look at some more stuff and during T Tauri stage stars might also might do thermonuclear lithium burning. It still doesn't classify as a separate stage, though.

That's a good explanation! Thanks!

Alpha Tauri is Aldebaran, an orange giant star in the final stages of life. Did you mean T Tauri? Sun should have been T Tauri-type star in the very early stages of Solar System evolution, some 4.57 bya and it's supposed to have been in that form for some 50 million years or so before finally making it onto the main sequence.

- Yes - ? - They travel to singularity like all else. What happens after we don't know. - The very existence of any object/particle implies it must possess energy. No energy = no Universe.

Yeah, that does seem strange. I'll re-check my data.

Your estimate for metallic hydrogen density contradicts with current estimates of ~0.6-0.8 g/cm3, which invalidates all your calculations. http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2011/PP-26-07.PDF

I'm checking a few papers at the moment, but they all seem to give different results from what you've come up with: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032063399000434 So it does assume/model that the total amount of heavy elements in Saturn is about 25 Earth masses, but the ice/rock core is only about 7 Earth masses. Another paper gives a range that covers your result as well, but says that the range can be reduced by 7 Earth masses, depending on the amount of helium sedimentation: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/431325/pdf

granpa, so what is your discussion point here? EDIT: Looked up the estimated composition of Saturn and it doesn't have anywhere near enough oxygen to form 19.4 Earth masses of water ice. Unless your "ice core" includes ammonia and other potential ices, although Saturn is only estimated to have about 0.01% of ammonia by volume, so that won't change things drastically. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032063399000471

Arete +1. This discussion started deteriorating from hilarious to creepy. Many celebrities also have ideal bodies and make girls want to be like them and men to have someone with an ideal body too. Don't try to blame all on porn.

That really depends on the size of the ship. For example, as awesome as Hubble telescope is, it still can't see Apollo lander on the Moon and it's really close by. If the ship is not enormous in size you won't be able to notice it, because modern telescopes won't be able to resolve such a small object.

I think your best bet would be to try and tackle all these ideas one by one, rather than piling them up like that. If you take one of your ideas, do a proper research, find evidence to support it and structure it well in your head, we could have some interesting discussions. But as things stand now and based on past experience I'm pretty sure I won't see any proof of your ideas and so any discussion is pointless.

It's the whole purpose of predictions. you're not meant to have them observed immediately. A theory needs to predict some new effects, and normally predictions are done via mathematical framework. On the other hand, if you say you have a theory and you don't want to do maths, no one will take you seriously. It's a standard form of contraction in English - would+have = would've. I assure you, it's not just my style.