Binary Solar System

[Manticore]

I always thought that the reason Columbus got funding was that King Ferdinand (who knew how big the world really was) wanted to get rid of him permanently because Columbus was seeing a bit too much of Queen Isabella.

[pavelcherepan]

I always thought that the reason Columbus got funding was that King Ferdinand (who knew how big the world really was) wanted to get rid of him permanently because Columbus was seeing a bit too much of Queen Isabella.

 

I've heard that version too, but I haven't seen much evidence in support.

[EdEarl]

Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth about 1700 years before Columbus read about it.

 

It is inconsistent for one to realize stars are spherical, yet believe the Earth is flat. Gravity makes them both; thus, they have similar shapes.

[stefan r]

 

Really? It has to do with freeing the nuclei of the electrons which increases the density and actually reduces the actual kinetic energy and harbors it as potential instead. Basically, the energy that would have been expressed as heat, it is the pressure that prevent the nuclei from collapsing into a denser form of matter (neutrons). I believe this can also halt the fusion process under certain conditions. Oh, or it because it runs out of fuel.

 

This is also the base limit, which is not considerate of rotation. That would be like measuring the excitement of a merry-go-round while only at rest. Another thing to consider is that both the stars combined only have a grand total of exactly 1 solar mass. Also, another thought is that we've only really been able to look at one star up close, and if we have gotten it wrong about it's makeup or density, than that could change our entire understanding of star formation and life cycles as a whole. If you look at a list of stars in our local group, and only look at the stars between 1-2 solar masses, you'll find that except for the ones that are dwarf stars or non-hydrogen fusing stars, almost all are less dense than our star, but all of them more massive.

 

Also, it is theorized that the core of the Sun extends to about 20-25% of its entire diameter at an average of 5x the density of water... and the plasma layer that follows is 1/6000 the density of air at sea level? A smaller denser core made of something else would do a lot to soften that ratio between the density of matter of the same type.

 

Also, the core of the Sun progressively exerts an increasing gravitational force on the surface due to the fact that the lighter elements are less dense than the heavier elements they become. As the core shrinks, its density increases, displacing the distribution of mass as being closer to the mean gravitational center. This actually causes the sun to have an increase in it's luminosity of about ~1% per year. Sorry, don't mean to bore you with trivial facts, but it just seems logical to assume that there might a smaller denser core at the foundation of all these processes?

 

...or maybe I should just try to get a photo of Bigfoot?

 

You say to look at stars between 1 and 2 solar masses. Yes these are more obviously massive than the sun. They will also be hotter because their cores are burning hydrogen. Heat causes expansion which lowers density. If you look nearby stars 0.5 to 1 solar mass they are less massive. They are also more dense. There is a consistent trend among most stars. The sun's properties fit with the main sequence.

 

A star with a white dwarf core will blow out into a red giant. You could argue that red giants are a white dwarfs with a mostly hydrogen atmosphere.

 

 

Also, it is theorized that the core of the Sun extends to about 20-25% of its entire diameter at an average of 5x the density of water... and the plasma layer that follows is 1/6000 the density of air at sea level? A smaller denser core made of something else would do a lot to soften that ratio between the density of matter of the same type.

 

No, that is just gravity. Jupiter does something similar. So does our atmosphere.

 

A white dwarf has a density closer to 10⁶ x density of water. A white dwarf cannot be surrounded by a atmosphere of hot hydrogen. The heat and pressure would ignite hydrogen fusion and blow it away from the surface. This is the mechanism behind novas. We can also demonstrate fusion in labs on earth. Gas can orbit around a star the same way that planets stay around a star. Orbiting gas will form an accretion disk. Gas molecules orbiting perpendicular (or at high angles) will collide with the disk.

 

 

...This actually causes the sun to have an increase in it's luminosity of about ~1% per year...

 

So in 1917 the sun had 37% of the current luminosity? In 17 A.D. the Romans would have seen a sun with 2.7 x 10^-9 the luminosity we see? The Roman sun would have been less bright than a sliver of crescent moon is today? Socrates saw Sirius as brighter than the sun? Please post a reference to an article that backs this up with data.

[beecee]

So far I don't believe we have any evidence or reason to believe that our solar system is part of a binary system.

Unlike the majority of systems, it appears the Sun is our only star.

All I see in this thread is plenty of ifs and buts and supposes and what ifs.

Along with of course an example of dabbling in science fiction.

[AbnormallyHonest]

 

You say to look at stars between 1 and 2 solar masses. Yes these are more obviously massive than the sun. They will also be hotter because their cores are burning hydrogen. Heat causes expansion which lowers density. If you look nearby stars 0.5 to 1 solar mass they are less massive. They are also more dense. There is a consistent trend among most stars. The sun's properties fit with the main sequence.

 

This is true, but would it matter if the atmosphere formed around another star, or just the same star. If it were not a binary star system, but perhaps just another source of hydrogen that fueled the atmosphere of the Sun after it burned out once. I'm only suggesting that there must've been some gravitational convergence that would've caused the atypical structure of our solar system as opposed to those we observe elsewhere. Even if it were a gas giant, or a failed star that would've merged with the Sun after it was a red giant, it would account for why it returned to it's main sequence. Even if that larger gas giant was absorbed by the Red Giant, it would've cause the collapse by providing more fuel for the hydrogen fusion process, and restarting the main sequence life cycle again and leaving the heavier elements of the inner planets and average the elliptical orbits of those bodies.

 

A star with a white dwarf core will blow out into a red giant. You could argue that red giants are a white dwarfs with a mostly hydrogen atmosphere.

 

 

I would argue that a white dwarf is the core of a red giant once all the fuel of its atmosphere was burned out, but the fusion that makes it inflated and "red" is a helium process, not a hydrogen one. Reintroducing hydrogen into the system would revert the red giant back to a hydrogen fusing star, or would hide the core in a shroud of hydrogen fusion.

 

You say to look at stars between 1 and 2 solar masses. Yes these are more obviously massive than the sun. They will also be hotter because their cores are burning hydrogen. Heat causes expansion which lowers density. If you look nearby stars 0.5 to 1 solar mass they are less massive. They are also more dense. There is a consistent trend among most stars. The sun's properties fit with the main sequence.

 

 

No, that is just gravity. Jupiter does something similar. So does our atmosphere.

 

A white dwarf has a density closer to 10⁶ x density of water. A white dwarf cannot be surrounded by a atmosphere of hot hydrogen. The heat and pressure would ignite hydrogen fusion and blow it away from the surface. This is the mechanism behind novas. We can also demonstrate fusion in labs on earth. Gas can orbit around a star the same way that planets stay around a star. Orbiting gas will form an accretion disk. Gas molecules orbiting perpendicular (or at high angles) will collide with the disk.

 

It would only blow out into a nova if the gravity prevented the release of energy. This would prevent a stasis between kinetic energy an density. If it collapses to a point that gravity does not allow this stasis, the potential energy will build until there is a runaway release of kinetic energy, which we call supernovae.

 

So in 1917 the sun had 37% of the current luminosity? In 17 A.D. the Romans would have seen a sun with 2.7 x 10^-9 the luminosity we see? The Roman sun would have been less bright than a sliver of crescent moon is today? Socrates saw Sirius as brighter than the sun? Please post a reference to an article that backs this up with data.

 

That is the current rate of luminosity increase. The increase is due to the fact that the fusion process produces heavier elements than the lighter elements that fueled them. These elements are denser and heavier and fall to the core. As the core become composed more of the heavier waste, it becomes denser. As it shrinks, it allows the fusing portion of the atmosphere to become closer to the center mass, which would cause it to be within a stronger gravitational field. This process shrinks the volume of the a star over time, and that compression is what causes the increase in luminosity. This is a progressive process, and as it continues to change its makeup, the greater the rate of change.

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_evolution_(English).svg#/media/File:Solar_evolution_(English).svg

Edited June 28, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest