What you never knew about the birth of our sun
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-10-2012, 06:54 PM (This post was last modified: 01-10-2012 07:02 PM by Ozzie.)
What you never knew about the birth of our sun
I have a subscription to Astronomy magazine, and this month's issue had a fascinating article on the stellar nursery that gave birth to our sun.

The nature of the cradle that birthed our Sun

Using astronomical models, scientists have estimated that the star cluster that gave birth to our mother star would have contained between 1,000 to 10,000 stars, but no more than that. The reason being that the lack of large objects beyond 30AU demonstrates that our sun never got terribly close to another star in the nursery. Had it done so, the planetary nebula would have been distorted or ripped off altogether. In other words, we would not be here or if we were, we would see an abundance of large objects beyond 30AU...therefore our stellar nursery was a rather small one with a moderate amount of stars. However, life in the stellar nursery would have meant that we would have swapped some of our planetary nebula with the planetary nebula of other stars...so even though we are the children of our Sun, somewhere in the Milky Way we have several aunt stars that contributed some of the star dust that makes up our bodies.

The greatest light show on Earth

If we had a time machine and traveled back to approximately 7.5-10 million years after the creation of our planetary nebula, we would have been treated to the greatest fireworks show of our life. From the quantity of daughter material of Iron-60 in the asteroids in our solar system, we now know that there had to be a massive star 1 light year away from our sun. A star this massive would only have had a lifespan of 7.5 million years, so in order for our solar system to have the quantity of daughter material of Iron-60, this massive star would have had to go hypernova no more than 10 million years after the formation of our planetary nebula, or else the stellar nursery would have dissipated by then and we would not have the quantity of trace materials that record its existence. Astronomical models show that the explosion of this sister star would have been so great that had we been there to see it explode, it's brightness would have overpowered the brightness of our own sun. So for a long time we would have been treated to a light show so bright that we would not have been able to discern the light from our mother star, the Sun. It would have truly been heaven on Earth (or at least heaven on our planet's disk of accretion.)

Our twin sister stars

Scientists estimate that the likelihood of a star like the sun forming in our Milky Way is .02%, which means that in a stellar nursery of 10,000 stars there would have been 200 starts just like our sun (check my math, I suck at math.) Assuming most of them haven't been swallowed by black holes, or their planets (at least half of them should have formed planets) have not been sterilized by gamma rays from supernovas or hypernovas, it is conceivable that in at least some of the planets from some of these sister stars, the conditions for life could have arisen.

So I wonder... if intelligent life did arise in any of our sister suns, could there be an astronomer half-ways across the Milky Way looking back in our direction wondering if intelligent life ever arose in one of the sister stars to his own star? If so, would this astronomer's findings be appreciated by his culture, or is he having to contend with Creationists on his own home world who insist in strictly adhering to superstition from an ancient book that could have never envision the true grandeur of the birth of his own star? If there truly is a sister race of humanoids in one of those sister stars, and if they have the technology to unravel the mysteries of our universe, I hope his society has progressed to the point where it is no longer in danger of being repressed by the vestiges of ancient superstition. I would never wish on our stellar brothers and sisters the pain, the suffering, and the stagnation that holds our species back from achieving it's full potential.

Stop the itchy blanket of Creationism from spreading to our classrooms. Say no to Iron Age superstitions Evil_monster
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Ozzie's post
01-10-2012, 07:26 PM
RE: What you never knew about the birth of our sun
(01-10-2012 06:54 PM)Ozzie Wrote:  I have a subscription to Astronomy magazine, and this month's issue had a fascinating article on the stellar nursery that gave birth to our sun.

The nature of the cradle that birthed our Sun

Using astronomical models, scientists have estimated that the star cluster that gave birth to our mother star would have contained between 1,000 to 10,000 stars, but no more than that. The reason being that the lack of large objects beyond 30AU demonstrates that our sun never got terribly close to another star in the nursery. Had it done so, the planetary nebula would have been distorted or ripped off altogether. In other words, we would not be here or if we were, we would see an abundance of large objects beyond 30AU...therefore our stellar nursery was a rather small one with a moderate amount of stars. However, life in the stellar nursery would have meant that we would have swapped some of our planetary nebula with the planetary nebula of other stars...so even though we are the children of our Sun, somewhere in the Milky Way we have several aunt stars that contributed some of the star dust that makes up our bodies.

The greatest light show on Earth

If we had a time machine and traveled back to approximately 7.5-10 million years after the creation of our planetary nebula, we would have been treated to the greatest fireworks show of our life. From the quantity of daughter material of Iron-60 in the asteroids in our solar system, we now know that there had to be a massive star 1 light year away from our sun. A star this massive would only have had a lifespan of 7.5 million years, so in order for our solar system to have the quantity of daughter material of Iron-60, this massive star would have had to go hypernova no more than 10 million years after the formation of our planetary nebula, or else the stellar nursery would have dissipated by then and we would not have the quantity of trace materials that record its existence. Astronomical models show that the explosion of this sister star would have been so great that had we been there to see it explode, it's brightness would have overpowered the brightness of our own sun. So for a long time we would have been treated to a light show so bright that we would not have been able to discern the light from our mother star, the Sun. It would have truly been heaven on Earth (or at least heaven on our planet's disk of accretion.)

Our twin sister stars

Scientists estimate that the likelihood of a star like the sun forming in our Milky Way is .02%, which means that in a stellar nursery of 10,000 stars there would have been 200 starts just like our sun (check my math, I suck at math.) Assuming most of them haven't been swallowed by black holes, or their planets (at least half of them should have formed planets) have not been sterilized by gamma rays from supernovas or hypernovas, it is conceivable that in at least some of the planets from some of these sister stars, the conditions for life could have arisen.

So I wonder... if intelligent life did arise in any of our sister suns, could there be an astronomer half-ways across the Milky Way looking back in our direction wondering if intelligent life ever arose in one of the sister stars to his own star? If so, would this astronomer's findings be appreciated by his culture, or is he having to contend with Creationists on his own home world who insist in strictly adhering to superstition from an ancient book that could have never envision the true grandeur of the birth of his own star? If there truly is a sister race of humanoids in one of those sister stars, and if they have the technology to unravel the mysteries of our universe, I hope his society has progressed to the point where it is no longer in danger of being repressed by the vestiges of ancient superstition. I would never wish on our stellar brothers and sisters the pain, the suffering, and the stagnation that holds our species back from achieving it's full potential.

Hmmm, 0.02% of 10,000 is 2.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2012, 07:47 PM
RE: What you never knew about the birth of our sun
The supernova from one of the younger twin stars most likely pushed debris together, much as a spoon would be used to mix in a cauldron. All the necessary building blocks for our current solar system could have possibly been put into place and set in motion by this supernova.

Thanks for posting!

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2012, 08:06 PM
RE: What you never knew about the birth of our sun
If there are stars in our galaxy similar to our sun, does that really mean anything? Wouldn't the potential of life still rely on how far the planets lie from the stars?

"Leave the atom alone."
-E.Y. Harburgh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2012, 09:59 PM
RE: What you never knew about the birth of our sun
(01-10-2012 07:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-10-2012 06:54 PM)Ozzie Wrote:  I have a subscription to Astronomy magazine, and this month's issue had a fascinating article on the stellar nursery that gave birth to our sun.

The nature of the cradle that birthed our Sun

Using astronomical models, scientists have estimated that the star cluster that gave birth to our mother star would have contained between 1,000 to 10,000 stars, but no more than that. The reason being that the lack of large objects beyond 30AU demonstrates that our sun never got terribly close to another star in the nursery. Had it done so, the planetary nebula would have been distorted or ripped off altogether. In other words, we would not be here or if we were, we would see an abundance of large objects beyond 30AU...therefore our stellar nursery was a rather small one with a moderate amount of stars. However, life in the stellar nursery would have meant that we would have swapped some of our planetary nebula with the planetary nebula of other stars...so even though we are the children of our Sun, somewhere in the Milky Way we have several aunt stars that contributed some of the star dust that makes up our bodies.

The greatest light show on Earth

If we had a time machine and traveled back to approximately 7.5-10 million years after the creation of our planetary nebula, we would have been treated to the greatest fireworks show of our life. From the quantity of daughter material of Iron-60 in the asteroids in our solar system, we now know that there had to be a massive star 1 light year away from our sun. A star this massive would only have had a lifespan of 7.5 million years, so in order for our solar system to have the quantity of daughter material of Iron-60, this massive star would have had to go hypernova no more than 10 million years after the formation of our planetary nebula, or else the stellar nursery would have dissipated by then and we would not have the quantity of trace materials that record its existence. Astronomical models show that the explosion of this sister star would have been so great that had we been there to see it explode, it's brightness would have overpowered the brightness of our own sun. So for a long time we would have been treated to a light show so bright that we would not have been able to discern the light from our mother star, the Sun. It would have truly been heaven on Earth (or at least heaven on our planet's disk of accretion.)

Our twin sister stars

Scientists estimate that the likelihood of a star like the sun forming in our Milky Way is .02%, which means that in a stellar nursery of 10,000 stars there would have been 200 starts just like our sun (check my math, I suck at math.) Assuming most of them haven't been swallowed by black holes, or their planets (at least half of them should have formed planets) have not been sterilized by gamma rays from supernovas or hypernovas, it is conceivable that in at least some of the planets from some of these sister stars, the conditions for life could have arisen.

So I wonder... if intelligent life did arise in any of our sister suns, could there be an astronomer half-ways across the Milky Way looking back in our direction wondering if intelligent life ever arose in one of the sister stars to his own star? If so, would this astronomer's findings be appreciated by his culture, or is he having to contend with Creationists on his own home world who insist in strictly adhering to superstition from an ancient book that could have never envision the true grandeur of the birth of his own star? If there truly is a sister race of humanoids in one of those sister stars, and if they have the technology to unravel the mysteries of our universe, I hope his society has progressed to the point where it is no longer in danger of being repressed by the vestiges of ancient superstition. I would never wish on our stellar brothers and sisters the pain, the suffering, and the stagnation that holds our species back from achieving it's full potential.

Hmmm, 0.02% of 10,000 is 2.

no it's not it's 200.

wait, my bad, yes it is.

10,000*0.02 is the same as 10,000 * 2% rather then 0.02% need to do 10,000*0.0002

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2012, 10:34 PM
RE: What you never knew about the birth of our sun
"What? You never knew about the birth of our sun?"

Dagnammit!

How could I know?

You didn't even tell me you were pregnant?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2012, 07:08 AM
RE: What you never knew about the birth of our sun
(01-10-2012 08:06 PM)DreamWeaver Wrote:  If there are stars in our galaxy similar to our sun, does that really mean anything? Wouldn't the potential of life still rely on how far the planets lie from the stars?

The type of star is important because the life cycle of the star depends on its mass and composition. Big, hot stars don't live very long (and they die violent deaths), so there might not be enough time for life to get going on their planets.

Also, it may be very important as to how, or if, planets form around stars of different masses.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
02-10-2012, 12:31 PM
RE: What you never knew about the birth of our sun
For the math wizards correcting my math...I did warn you that I am atrocious at math. I haven't had a math class in 9 years (last time I took a college math) and I was average at best. Like most Americans who are not in accounting, estate planning, engineering, or the sciences, I get by every day without having to do anything more complex than adding, subtracting, some multiplication, and the occasional simple division problems. Excuse my lack of mathematical abilities, though it's the story that matters (and not my lack of mathematical prowess.)

Stop the itchy blanket of Creationism from spreading to our classrooms. Say no to Iron Age superstitions Evil_monster
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2012, 05:20 PM
RE: What you never knew about the birth of our sun
(02-10-2012 12:31 PM)Ozzie Wrote:  For the math wizards correcting my math...I did warn you that I am atrocious at math. I haven't had a math class in 9 years (last time I took a college math) and I was average at best. Like most Americans who are not in accounting, estate planning, engineering, or the sciences, I get by every day without having to do anything more complex than adding, subtracting, some multiplication, and the occasional simple division problems. Excuse my lack of mathematical abilities, though it's the story that matters (and not my lack of mathematical prowess.)

See what happens when you disregard math? Your calculations would've ended with the fifty percent assumption, cause here we are. But no, you go down the path of false assumption and strain yer brain with extraneous hypothesizing. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
03-10-2012, 03:53 PM
RE: What you never knew about the birth of our sun
(02-10-2012 07:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-10-2012 08:06 PM)DreamWeaver Wrote:  If there are stars in our galaxy similar to our sun, does that really mean anything? Wouldn't the potential of life still rely on how far the planets lie from the stars?

The type of star is important because the life cycle of the star depends on its mass and composition. Big, hot stars don't live very long (and they die violent deaths), so there might not be enough time for life to get going on their planets.

Also, it may be very important as to how, or if, planets form around stars of different masses.

It also has a lot to do with where our star has ended up; between the spiral arms of the Milky Way. Our solar system isn't playing out in the middle of a busy spiral arm highway, with heavy comet traffic and other crap to run into us. We're way out in the relatively quiet suburbs... we're pretty damn lucky.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: