New Clues on Galaxy Evolution! Clues? Clues??

[michaelwmoss]

Based on what calculations? The current mass of the sun? The current rate at which it's depleting it's mass? Are you assuming that the current rate of reaction is a constant extrapolating back in time?

Based on it's current rate and assuming that rate to be constant, how much time do you think the sun has until it's energy is "used up"?

I sorta answered this in the last point. I will agree that there is very little likelyhood that the Sun's depletion rate is constant (Look at the recent CME's that happened a few years ago, essentially large "Belches" if you will coming off of the sun, bigger than normal)

There is also the possibly of an additional source of Helium for the Sun (Or even a constant form) that we haven't even been able to (Or may never) discover.

If we go by basic physics alone, eventually that energy should be finite and I would think that at least 1 million years would be long enough for that energy to be depleted.

Interesting conversation and field of topic none the less though

 

[Johnny]

Let me ask you this: Do you have any evidence that the sun was not formed at the beginning of the universe?

As far as I know, the age of the sun can only be inferred indirectly from the age of the solar system. However, the inference that the sun was not present at the beginning also can be made from two other ideas which are heavily supported by evidence. First, the age of the universe is some around 14 billion years old. Second, the sun only has enough fuel for around 10 billion years. Thus, the sun could not have been present at the beginning of the universe or it would have already burned out.

but it seems to me that it would have even be burned out after 1 million years, UNLESS the sun has a source of Helium which we are not currently aware of or Science hasn't discovered (Which would be the case either way)

The sun's source of helium is hydrogen fusion. Incidentally, Lord Kelvin's estimates of the Earth's age went from early estimates of 400 million years old to a mere 24 million years old because scientists of his time couldn't conceive a fuel source that would last that long. This was before the nuclear era.

 

[soothsayer]

Let me ask you this: Do you have any evidence that the sun was not formed at the beginning of the universe?

How about this, from Wikipedia:
The Sun will spend a total of approximately 10 billion years as a main sequence star. Its current age, determined using computer models of stellar evolution and nucleocosmochronology, is thought to be about 4.57 billion years.

For a more credible source check out this site:
http://xd12srv1.nsstc.nasa.gov/ssl/PAD/solar/default.htm

Most likely, neither one of us will find apt evidence to prove either point (After all that's been a LONG time ago) but it seems to me that it would have even be burned out after 1 million years, UNLESS the sun has a source of Helium which we are not currently aware of or Science hasn't discovered (Which would be the case either way)

You'll have to take that up with NASA...good luck. My money's on them, though. Have you ever sent someone to the moon?

 

[michaelwmoss]

As far as I know, the age of the sun can only be inferred indirectly from the age of the solar system. However, the inference that the sun was not present at the beginning also can be made from two other ideas which are heavily supported by evidence. First, the age of the universe is some around 14 billion years old. Second, the sun only has enough fuel for around 10 billion years. Thus, the sun could not have been present at the beginning of the universe or it would have already burned out.

How do scientists calculate something like this? Both of those are astronomically high numbers to link to and to find evidence for. Are we talking through Carbon Dating Methods? Light Traveling Through Space? etc etc?

The sun's source of helium is hydrogen fusion. Incidentally, Lord Kelvin's estimates of the Earth's age went from early estimates of 400 million years old to a mere 24 million years old because scientists of his time couldn't conceive a fuel source that would last that long. This was before the nuclear era.

Can they now? What is ultimately the source of the Hydrogen? Has that discovery been made? If so, that's an amazing discovery of science.

Thanks for continuing the dialogue. I like this very much

 

[michaelwmoss]

How about this, from Wikipedia:
The Sun will spend a total of approximately 10 billion years as a main sequence star. Its current age, determined using computer models of stellar evolution and nucleocosmochronology, is thought to be about 4.57 billion years.

For a more credible source check out this site:
http://xd12srv1.nsstc.nasa.gov/ssl/PAD/solar/default.htm


You'll have to take that up with NASA...good luck. My money's on them, though. Have you ever sent someone to the moon?

Thank you for the link above. Cool stuff. Begs the question: Will the sun go Supernova or will it expand and cool to the point it almost literally goes "poof". Even then it wouldn't cool off to the point before it expands and takes all of the planets with it.

I also find it interesting that our sun is a loner. If you take at look at other systems, several have multiple stars:

http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_sources/binary_stars2.html

Sometimes I wonder if our system didn't have two stars at one time (Perhaps The Other Being Jupiter?? We do see evidence of other galaxies with multiple stars close enough to literally "feed" each other energy)


How about this star, Rigel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigel/

Definately not a kind of star you want with life around. Our sun does appear to be very special in that there can be life in fairly close proximity to it.