Fezmid Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Many scientists theorize that Jupiter is made up of the elements that created our sun. That's different than them saying that Jupiter will *become* a star in the future... CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ1 Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Many scientists theorize that Jupiter is made up of the elements that created our sun. Jupiter is extremely large, and has the Mass many times that of earth. Theory's state that Jupiter was made up of all the things of the sun, but never reached the critical mass necessary to produce fusion. If you look out into space, most solar systems are two star systems. Would be different living in a world with two suns. Interestingly, the fact that are solar system has only one star may be the very reason that we exist. A second sun in our solar system would probably have ruined our planet for life....... 205574[/snapback] Current theory believes that about 100 x Jupiter's mass would be required to form a proto-star. Brown dwarfs, which are many times more massive than the super Jupiters, are themselves regarded as 'failed' stars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB27 Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Current theory believes that about 100 x Jupiter's mass would be required to form a proto-star. Brown dwarfs, which are many times more massive than the super Jupiters, are themselves regarded as 'failed' stars. 205598[/snapback] Clearly I wasn't going to put the whole theory here, yes, much more mass is needed than Jupiter has, but the theory still stands, Jupiter is what is left of the attempt of a second star. It could never become a star, again not enough mass, also the theory of something crashing into it causeing a reaction turning it into a star is out too. If you disagree, check out Shoemaker-Levy comet that crashed into it. Another interesting solar system fact: The two moons of mars are slowly being pulled into mars due to gravity. Eventually, 200 million years (maybe more) they will collide with Mars. The end result will be that Mars will sport rings similar to Saturn (less ice than saturn, but rings none the less). To bad we won't be around to see it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Any research capable of creating an immediate benefit for humanity will probably get funded by the private sector. Goverment can fund research projects that are too risky, or whose benefits are too long-term, for the private sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Forgive my ignorance, but if Jupiter had become a second star, and this Titan is very similar to early Earth, does that mean that a second Earth could have been created? Is Titan as far away from Jupiter as we are from the Sun? Also, why would a second star, that far away, have meant the end of us? Would it have had an effect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Forgive my ignorance, but if Jupiter had become a second star, and this Titan is very similar to early Earth, does that mean that a second Earth could have been created? Is Titan as far away from Jupiter as we are from the Sun? Also, why would a second star, that far away, have meant the end of us? Would it have had an effect? 205762[/snapback] The Sun is much farther away from the earth then Titan is Jupiter. The sun is over 93 million miles away. If Jupiter was a second star the earth would be hundreds of degrees hotter and could not contain life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Forgive my ignorance, but if Jupiter had become a second star, and this Titan is very similar to early Earth, does that mean that a second Earth could have been created? Is Titan as far away from Jupiter as we are from the Sun? Also, why would a second star, that far away, have meant the end of us? Would it have had an effect? 205762[/snapback] Earth is approximately 150 billion kilometers from the sun. Jupiter is about 588 million km from us. Even a slight nudge in either direction, respective to radiation hitting the Earth, may cause large impacts in the average weather. It is possible that the type of life that thrived in these alternate conditions would be quite different that what we have today. Your first question is one that we will hopefully get a few hints about, in the next few days... http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/kid...e/distance.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Thanks guys, I appreciate the education. I have been following the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Just a question, because I really don't know, but isn't there a better way we could be spending $3.3 billion? I mean, what would have happened if it hadn't worked or hadnt gone to plan? And even now that it has, are we going to gain "$3.3 Billion in new knowledge" that will be usable even in the next 100 years? Seriously, some of you seem excited, and I don't know much about this (except for a couple articles) and was wondering about it. Thanks. 205433[/snapback] if man dont keep exploring the universe, we would be on an island, speeking bad "british" english, thinking the world is flat. i think all real discoveries are made due to 2 reasons: mans natural curiosity and war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 The Sun is much farther away from the earth then Titan is Jupiter. The sun is over 93 million miles away. If Jupiter was a second star the earth would be hundreds of degrees hotter and could not contain life 205772[/snapback] Actually, if Jupiter were a star it would be a very small, dim one, and the radiation flux from it hitting the earth would be very small compared to that of the sun...on the order of about 0.01%. The sun itself shows a variance in luminosity of ten times that, so the radiation from a "Jupiter-sized star" (let's just say the smallest feasable true star) isn't really even discernable from the sun's natural variance itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Actually, if Jupiter were a star it would be a very small, dim one, and the radiation flux from it hitting the earth would be very small compared to that of the sun...on the order of about 0.01%. The sun itself shows a variance in luminosity of ten times that, so the radiation from a "Jupiter-sized star" (let's just say the smallest feasable true star) isn't really even discernable from the sun's natural variance itself. 205907[/snapback] wow. im impressed, and i dont understand any of it... if it becomes a star... we wouldnt even really notice... not even at night??? what would that do to earths orbit??? and how would it become a star anyways?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 I believe that for a planet to conceivably sustain life, it needs to be ~0.7-1.3 Astronomical Units (1AU=~93 million miles, or the distance from the sun to the earth) from a star about the size of our solar system's G2-class star. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 I'm just happy that we have an ideal distance from a star for carbon and other elements to coexist in a stable fashion, a fortuitous orbit around said star providing cyclic changes, and a moon of the right size and gravitational pull to keep this planet from wild rotational axis swings, enough vulcanism to keep the atmosphere and oceans in a regenerative state, and so on. I guess that's coincidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 I'm just happy that we have an ideal distance from a star for carbon and other elements to coexist in a stable fashion, a fortuitous orbit around said star providing cyclic changes, and a moon of the right size and gravitational pull to keep this planet from wild rotational axis swings, enough vulcanism to keep the atmosphere and oceans in a regenerative state, and so on. I guess that's coincidence. I'm sure thousands of others across the universe are saying the exact same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted January 14, 2005 Author Share Posted January 14, 2005 I believe that for a planet to conceivably sustain life, it needs to be ~0.7-1.3 Astronomical Units (1AU=~93 million miles, or the distance from the sun to the earth) from a star about the size of our solar system's G2-class star. 205925[/snapback] When you consider that life flourishes near undersea vents, an environment that is toxic to life as we know it and twice the boling point, it seems like could arise in much harsher climates. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 I'm sure thousands of others across the universe are saying the exact same thing. 205932[/snapback] Your tune will change with age. Wait and see. Everybody's does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo mike Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Just a question, because I really don't know, but isn't there a better way we could be spending $3.3 billion? Yeah- In Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 When you consider that life flourishes near undersea vents, an environment that is toxic to life as we know it and twice the boling point, it seems like could arise in much harsher climates. That's why I said "conceivably." We only can explain our current views on "life." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Your tune will change with age. Wait and see. Everybody's does. Well we went from the earth being flat, to being round. From the universe revolving around the earth to the earth revolving around the sun and only a teeny-weeny (in scientific terms) part of the universe. Then our solar system was the only one with planets revolving around it. Frankly I don't know WHOSE tune changes more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Well we went from the earth being flat, to being round. From the universe revolving around the earth to the earth revolving around the sun and only a teeny-weeny (in scientific terms) part of the universe. Then our solar system was the only one with planets revolving around it. Frankly I don't know WHOSE tune changes more. 205964[/snapback] Suit yourself. Look up Pascal's Wager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts