It seems the nascent cloud around our proto sun needs a kick in the butt to start the cloud spinning around the sun. Without the spin the stuff just gets pulled into the new star.
Originally posted by sonhouse http://phys.org/news/2015-08-solar-formation-dont.html
It seems the nascent cloud around our proto sun needs a kick in the butt to start the cloud spinning around the sun. Without the spin the stuff just gets pulled into the new star.
My understanding is that all clouds of dust contain some inherent spin.
Given that nearly every star has planets it would seem that there is either a flaw in the article or nearly every planetary system required some equivalent kick start.
Originally posted by twhitehead My understanding is that all clouds of dust contain some inherent spin.
Given that nearly every star has planets it would seem that there is either a flaw in the article or nearly every planetary system required some equivalent kick start.
Is this really a fact? That nearly every star has planets? I wouldn't think so...
Originally posted by twhitehead I have not been able to find clear statistics, but am talking based mostly on watching a number of different talks on Kepler data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoplanet
There is at least one planet on average per star.
Note that the above statistic is a minimum.
[quote]About 1 in 5 Sun-like stars have an "Earth-sized" planet in ...[text shortened]... nite. It seems to me that it implies that more than 50% of stars would have at least one planet.
It would make sense to think of the interaction of supernovae with nascent solar systems. A supernova will send a shock wave hundreds of light years in all directions, almost all anyway, and therefore any new suns born in that volume of space would ALL get a kick start, all the clouds of stuff around those new born suns shaken up by the massive energy output of that nova. So one supernova can send shock waves in a volume of space 20 million cubic light years. A far size chunk of the entire galaxy. It wouldn't take many such nova's to jump start planetary processes in an entire galaxy.
Originally posted by twhitehead I have not been able to find clear statistics, but am talking based mostly on watching a number of different talks on Kepler data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoplanet
There is at least one planet on average per star.
Note that the above statistic is a minimum.
[quote]About 1 in 5 Sun-like stars have an "Earth-sized" planet in ...[text shortened]... nite. It seems to me that it implies that more than 50% of stars would have at least one planet.
"There is at least one planet on average per star"
Say ten stars with one solarsystem with 10 planets gives one planet on average per star.
You avoid the gen I stars. Why so?
About 1 in 5 Sun-like stars have an "Earth-sized" planet... Perhaps one in five Sun-like stars, ok, but Sun-like star are not very common.
Originally posted by FabianFnas [b]"There is at least one planet on average per star"
Say ten stars with one solarsystem with 10 planets gives one planet on average per star.
You avoid the gen I stars. Why so?
About 1 in 5 Sun-like stars have an "Earth-sized" planet... Perhaps one in five Sun-like stars, ok, but Sun-like star are not very common.[/b]
Sun like stars are still quite numerous, rather on the large size galactically speaking, our sun is in the top 5% of star masses in the galaxy. Word on the street is sun like stars are only about 10% of all stars in the galaxy. Still, that leaves about 20 billion sun like stars in the Milky Way. They are also saying about 1 in 5 such stars has planets so 4 billion stars with planets around them. If we ever develop some method of going faster than light, it is going to be a field day for planetologists!
Originally posted by twhitehead My understanding is that all clouds of dust contain some inherent spin.
Given that nearly every star has planets it would seem that there is either a flaw in the article or nearly every planetary system required some equivalent kick start.
It might be that they don't have 'enough' spin...?
I was of the belief that they needed a kick to start contracting, not to give spin.
However star formation regions are pretty much guaranteed to have supernova in/near them as
the bigger stars race through their fuel in ~1 million years or so.
Originally posted by FabianFnas Say ten stars with one solarsystem with 10 planets gives one planet on average per star. .
As I said, it is a minimum.
You avoid the gen I stars. Why so? Because I know nothing about how many gen 1 starts are in the galaxy. Please tell us what percentage of starts they make up.
Perhaps one in five Sun-like stars, ok, but Sun-like star are not very common. So, find us a statistic for brown dwarfs which are much more common.
Originally posted by FabianFnas However, I see giant gas bodies not as planets but as brown dwarfs. But I know that I am in a minority to think like that.
So you call Jupiter a 'brown dwarf'? How many planets do you think our solar system has?
19 Aug '15 06:42
Solar system jump started by supernovae!:
Back to Top