Robittybob1

That spiral path only continues while there is the transfer of momentum, it is not on some set spiral path. Stop the tidal acceleration and the Moon will stop drifting away. There are a lot of commas in that sentence but to me it reads "the potential energy is getting smaller in magnitude at approximately twice the rate". RB law says the "the potential energy is getting smaller in magnitude at exactly twice the rate". Is there a fault in it?

comes close, similar idea. https://astro.uni-bonn.de/~astolte/StarFormation/Lecture2012_PMS.pdf That is close to what was called the "RB Law", so is the virial theorem a better word for it? Gravitational potential energy is split 50:50. I/2 of the GPE is lost (friction drag etc) and is radiated away and 1/2 goes into kinetic energy of motion. I've never thought of that before but the kinetic energy can't just radiate away. Is the virial theorem just related to stars or all orbiting masses in general? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virial_theorem So the virial theorem holds for large gravitationally bound objects as well as gases in the protoplanetary dust disks. I realize now the RB Law is a simple form of the Virial Theorem.

The problem is understanding a question. I read those questions and half of them I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. So we need to go slower to make sure we are speaking the same language. I suppose that is the benefit of maths, it speaks all languages. "A) the accretion disk increases in density right up to the protostar?" So we had Nebula turning into a protostar, before it became a PMS star. Right agree? So I would say it increases in density all along that chain to the point of planet formation. That is the ultimate density. Then it clears for some reason. "B) or are you looking at a separation via magnetosphere accretion theory.?" I have been looking for the reason the disk separates from the protostar. In this thread I have considered the action of the neutrinos once the deuterium fusion occurs, does that reaction produce energetic neutrinos, also simply the internal DDE effect (a new word) for the material has a high angular momentum from the orbital nature it doesn't need much force to push it back and thin it. I'm open to need ideas for the separation. IDK. "So taking that into consideration "How would you apply DDE ?"" The PMS star (contracting down from the protostar, contracting down from the nebula, has a continuous size reduction and it is hard to say what size it is at what time, but it reduces to a minimum and then gradually expands during the MS stages. So the angles at which the DDE can be applied from vary quite a lot too. When did the protostar start producing radiation that would drive dust (DDE) to slow its free fall into the Sun? IMO it could have been from quite an early stage.

As I said yesterday I would enter the formulas into a excel sheet and apply some values and get the feel of how the formula behaves, then I begin to understand it. If I just look at a complex formula my mind goes numb otherwise.

OK it's late here. Do you think this light can drive the dust back into denser regions to cause planetesimal to accrete and later planet formation by self gravitation? That other paper emphasised the turbulence in the dust disk, whereas I propose the Sun uses this light energised by the DDE (possibly) in a much more orderly fashion forming a series of tori and each torus forming a planet or several minor planets which later combine. This happens in the PMS phase of Sun development before the Lithium burn. I'm finally getting to know the phases better but there's still so much to learn.

You have a point and I'm not sure of the answer where sites say the disk is opaque to light and you say it isn't. Your particles could be millions of times too big. I don't know and I can't keep on just guessing the answers. If the particles were in the size of microns rather than mm^3 that is more than a million times smaller in size reduction isn't it? I want to complete the math of the DDE before I take on too many other topics. We were talking about the radiation coming from the PMS Sun at 5,500 K - light not heat. It is this light that can't penetrate the dust disk. You must agree with that.

That was a very interesting calculation but I wonder about your estimated thickness of the dust disk 0.5 AU is that 0.25 above and 0.25 AU below. That is a very thick disk isn't it. I'll look into that. I did look through the paper and the maths is difficult. I'm just really throwing alternative ideas around more than really doing all the maths. You have also underestimated the amount of mass in the dust disk. A NASA site said only 15% of the dust disk ends up in the planets the rest is lost to the solar system so you will have to multiply it by at least 8 times. 1 mm of 2g/cm^3 is quite a dense dust too. I'd say that is definitely an over estimate. Too thick, too dense and an under estimate of the amount of material just as 3 quickfire objections. But it was a brilliant idea to explore the dust density and I will follow this up. http://www.ita.uni-heidelberg.de/~dullemond/lectures/leshouches2013.pdf That definitely supports my statement.

That was particular to the study I had previously linked on this thread, not that it has never been studied. That link you sent me was about 20 pages long and just reading the abstract reads like an outdated concept. Sorry I haven't got the time just now to read it. Is it like the basis of your knowledge do you accept what is said? If you do maybe I'll force myself to read it just to see where you are coming from.

1983 that's fairly old, there must be something more recent. I'll think you'll find many ideas held pre-1983 have been superseded. Why is redefining the habitable zone nonsensical? I have already discussed the habitable zone and the study did not include Mercury but did include Venus. There was no study on dust clearing of the inner solar system.

I'd like to see that reference. It is completely different to my understanding. Timing planetesimal and planet formation and the timing of the clearing of the dust disk from the inner parts of the Solar System. What was the role of the Sun in doing this. Also defining the extent of the habitable zone. If we get time maybe we should look at your ideas on nebula collapse.

But haven't these already been worked on? I don't have many doubts about the current theories on that topic. So I don't know what the benefit we would get by going back over it unless you can see some major flaws in the current accepted theory. Are you not happy with the current ideas on nebulae?

There is radiation coming out from the dust disks but only what is expected from a black body. I have edited my previous post with a citation. (From the Google search page only but the words are there.)

Thanks if you understand it you might be able to teach me a bit and we will advance the idea in doing so. I never thought we were attempting to model a nebula! What made you think that far ahead in a thread on formation of the Sun? I am sure that is standard physics the dust would act like a black body. All the photons entering a black body absorber will be held within it. I have no doubt there are plenty of dust disks that are opaque. Surely you know this without citations but if you insist I'll see if I can find it. Do you really think it is possible to shine light along the ecliptic through the mass of the dust disk? Googling "Black body" and "dust disk" gives many results http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2008/30/aa8881-07/aa8881-07.html

I was hoping we would go through all those calculations together so there did not need to be thoughts as to whether you've done your calculations wrongly. These sort of problems are not easy so can you be certain that you have done it correctly? Even when I read your post I wonder what it means and I wish we were taking it slowly. I have never seen the type of calculations you seem to be using. What does "One joule is equal to one Newton." mean? Google definition of Joule: "One joule is equal to one Newton.meter" Over a long period of time who knows how much of that energy could be transferred, and there are meters and meters of dust between the Sun all the way out to Mars (more than 200 billion meters) or even further if needed. www.universetoday.com/14828/orbit-of-mars/ If the dust gets that dense that light doesn't get through that virtually implies that other than what is scattered the rest is 100% absorbed hence the momentum is transferred. Even the scattering transfers some momentum (radiation pressure). In fact the photons don't even need to be absorbed to have taken momentum away from the Sun, the momentum is in the photons whether or not they are absorbed. These photons could still be traveling across the Universe. You are also looking at the parameters (size and speed) of the current Sun yet I found references that indicate PMS stars are much larger and spin many times faster, both effects that will intensify the DDE. Please consider coming back and working together so we both remain in agreement step by step.

Have you got a pic of a Chokeberry I've never seen it. Do you like eating them?

I think we have to assume that on average the dust particles are orbiting the Sun so they don't consider small movements, this way that way, for they are averaged out. So the dust will be moving as well as the Sun surface and that will be at a much higher rate than Sun surface but out at the distance to the planets at least all the radiation is coming basically from underneath, only scattered light will be hitting particles in the for or against direction of travel. So basically the momentum will provide lift (outward direction flow of dust maybe???) In those papers they look at one dust particle hit simultaneously from a high momentum and a low momentum photon and see which way it is pushed and or dragged. I spoke to a physics graduate (PhD) who was rather intrigued with the idea that the Sun angular momentum could be reduced by the DDE. I think it might be better just to have a look at the effect on the Sun's rotation first and worry about the dust later. But it doesn't take much imagination to see if the radiation is slowing the Sun it is transferring that momentum to the dust particles and they are being accelerated to a higher orbit. Pressure waves and planets then become possibilities from the pressure from the inside pushing against the falling matter shielded from the radiation by the dust itself. Bands as is commonly seen is what you would then expect and in the core of these planetesimals are being formed. So was it during the the T Tauri phase of the Sun developement that the planets accreted from the inside bands to the next band for the pressure on the inner surface of the dust disk is always the greatest? I would be surprised if relativistic Doppler effect has any part to play.

Instantaneous tangential velocity = distance /time 2*pi()*r/T = 2.00E+03 or more precisely 1.9951E+03 meters/sec on the surface of the Sun so the difference in velocities will be twice that 3.9903E+03 m/sec. I'm working on that. See my prior post thanks "Has 500 nm light got a frequency of 6E+14 Hz?" We have the original frequency and now a difference in speeds.

I need things in words to really understand them. So the ratio of the wavelength is the inverse of the ratio of the frequencies and this is the same as the ratio of velocity difference and ratios of energy and momentum. Something like that. First step is to convert wavelengths to frequencies. Has 500 nm light got a frequency of 6E+14 Hz?

I'll try this from the reference to Doppler effect above: The formulas didn't paste very well but they were the ones where the speeds are much lower than the speed of the wave in the medium e.g the Sun's rotational speed is low compared to the speed of light. They are also working in frequency not wavelengths so we need to change the wavelength back to frequency. Do you agree? Also the velocities are not in radians but something like instantaneous tangential velocities. So we don't seem to have calculated the right values to begin with. We need the difference in velocity of both limbs of the Sun (just at the equatorial regions where one side is going away and the other coming toward an observer at a distance). We need the wavelengths converted to frequencies.

Are you using these values Rotational periods 25.379995 days at the equator or 2192831.568 seconds To convert that to radians per second 2 Pi radians in 360 degrees so that is 2 pi()/2192831.568 In radians per sec = 2.86533E-06 at 5800 wavelength is 500 nm. Radius of Sun 696.3 million m or 6.963E+8 meters What is the formula for the Doppler effect? Are you going to use the ones for sound or is the one here OK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect#General

wavelength max = b/T b≈2900 μm·K T = 5000 K wavelength max = 0.58μm Did I get that right? So that is a peak right in the middle of the visible light range 580 nanometers.

By average do you really mean peak? From the link there is no mention of averages just peaks. There is a full range of wavelengths so when you say emitter wavelength are you still talking about the peak?

Thanks that is a really good thing to know if one wants to build up a library of formulas already written in laTex.

We would need to apply logic laws. Quite interesting to see the discussion develop. I'm just keeping my head down out of the firing line.

Take it softly micro bits at a time ... OK I'll try looking at all of those at the same time I just want to make sure we are using the same values as inputs into the equations, the initial values of the variables and the exact meaning of the symbols used. Can you help me on those please? How is the Wien's Displacement law (WDL) going to help us? Wikipedia on WDL We will just be using the one temperature of the Sun to calculate the P-R effect and the DDE. Were there temperature dependent terms in any of those effects?) We shouldn't compare them by varying the temperatures but using the same temperature at any one time. Temperature of the PMS Sun is a variable but we are not going to vary it while making the comparisons. Sure the Doppler shift calculations will be important but wouldn't the DDE formulas already have them included?