[img]https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/A3ZuIeVseEwAqEM9GDDH8w--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTgwO2g9NDEw/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/a461536c706611ba6ee1076440aa9cea[/img]
[quote=Yahoo]The planet is just a shade bigger than Saturn – and its gravity is only 300 times stronger than what we feel on Earth.
The newly-measured star, called EBLM J0555-57Ab, is located about six hundred light years away.
The star is likely as small as stars can possibly become, as it has just enough mass to enable the fusion of hydrogen nuclei into helium – the fusion which powers the Sun.[/quote]
[quote=Yahoo]If it were any smaller, the pressure at the centre of the star would no longer be sufficient to
enable this process to take place.[/quote]
Here's the [url=https://uk.news.yahoo.com/twinkle-twinkle-astronomers-find-smallest-ever-star-102048146.html]article[/url], pretty cool stuff. Though I am sure it's not the smallest star, of its type I think is what is interesting.
Poor kid, hes problably bullied in the cosmos.
"Its gravity is only 300 times stronger than what we feel on Earth."
Oh, glad to know if I ever visit that I'd only be lightly crumpled as I instantly burnt to a cinder.
[QUOTE=Arctic-Zone;52467512]"Its gravity is only 300 times stronger than what we feel on Earth."
Oh, glad to know if I ever visit that I'd only be lightly crumpled as I instantly burnt to a cinder.[/QUOTE]
"hey wanna take a trip to the surface of the sun"
"nah too much gravity let's go to that smaller one"
Weird, I remember people saying Jupiter could've never been a star because it's too small, and here's this tiny little ball of fire that said fuck you I'm gonna fuse those atoms anyway.
That starlet is obviously a shitload denser, but you know what I mean.
[QUOTE=V12US;52467718]Weird, I remember people saying Jupiter could've never been a star because it's too small, and here's this tiny little ball of fire that said fuck you I'm gonna fuse those atoms anyway.
That starlet is obviously a shitload denser, but you know what I mean.[/QUOTE]
It's the mass that matters not size
[QUOTE=Quark:;52468214]It's the mass that matters not size[/QUOTE]
fitting avatar
[QUOTE=Quark:;52468214]It's the mass that matters not size[/QUOTE]
yes, he said that
It's so cute! I could eat it righ- :blaze:
[QUOTE=V12US;52467718]Weird, I remember people saying Jupiter could've never been a star because it's too small, and here's this tiny little ball of fire that said fuck you I'm gonna fuse those atoms anyway.
That starlet is obviously a shitload denser, but you know what I mean.[/QUOTE]
There's a class of gas giants that are [I]almost[/I] stars that are higher mass than Jupiter/Saturn and still higher in radius: they only lightly fuse a few elements though, and don't manage to fuse hydrogen (brown dwarfs).
Jupiter could never have been even a brown dwarf - it simply does not have the mass. I think the article could've done better emphasizing the importance of mass. This star has a mass nearly the same of Trappist-1: about 0.08 solar masses. Jupiter has a mass of 0.0009 solar masses, which is far far smaller than the article makes it sound.
This star is interesting because it's radius is 30% less than that of Trappist-1 (making it comparable to a gas giant [I]in radius[/I]), so I have to wonder why
Incredible. Physics is freaking rad :excited:
[QUOTE=V12US;52467718]Weird, I remember people saying Jupiter could've never been a star because it's too small, and here's this tiny little ball of fire that said fuck you I'm gonna fuse those atoms anyway.
That starlet is obviously a shitload denser, but you know what I mean.[/QUOTE]
The size of a planet actually isn't a straight line in terms of radius relative to mass.
Once you start approaching and go beyond Jupiter's mass, the gravitational pull will start causing the planet to contract slightly relative to the content. The upperbound for a gas giant, even one several times the mass of Jupiter, is only around 15% to 20% larger than what we see from conditions similar to our Jovian planet due to this. Even when closer to a parent star, the upperbound is only around 50% wider than Jupiter normally, and that's because the intense heat received causes these Hot Jupiters to expand.
Once a planet has enough mass to become larger than a brown dwarf (~80 Jupiter masses) and is able to undergo nuclear fusion, the size starts relating to the mass more linearly again (barring the more exotic types, like neutron stars), with brown dwarfs and similarly-sized objects (about 13-80 Jupiter masses) also being significantly larger than the largest planets.
So like, what would it be like if Jupiter became a star anyways, and how could it happen?
[QUOTE=J!NX;52468637]So like, what would it be like if Jupiter became a star anyways, and how could it happen?[/QUOTE]
The solar system would have probably destabilized, as it was once far more compact before Jupiter and Saturn reached a 1:2 resonance early in the solar system's life (which is also believed to have flipped the positions of Neptune and Uranus and would also be responsible for Planet X's odd orbit if it exists, as a Neptune-sized object is believed to have been ejected or nearly ejected in most simulations). If you're asking how it could happen [i]today[/i]? Then it can't without the solar system being utterly destroyed by an impossibly disastrous event that resulted in a foreign star colliding with Jupiter somehow.
Realistically, there wasn't enough material in the protoplanetary disc to create a binary star system with our sun's mass for one of the stars, as almost all of the content aside from the sun amounts to somewhat less than 2 Jupiter masses combined, nearly only 2%-4% of what is needed on it's own to create a red dwarf star.
However, let's say it didn't destabilize and we somehow managed to have every other planet intact with the same conditions, with Jupiter being a red dwarf of around 90 Jupiter masses to solidify it's existence as a star:
The solar system would become a binary that is still dominated by the sun by far. From the Earth, a red dwarf Jupiter would be bright enough to cast faint red-tinted shadows at night (for perspective, Venus and Jupiter both can cast shadows visible by the human eye on Earth, but light pollution from cities tends to make it more difficult to spot, with Jupiter's being virtually impossible without actively looking for them in ideal conditions), but not enough to cast a sky coloration that would make it impossible to see stars (basically, the sky at night would still most likely remain black). The interactions of the moonlight and Jupiterlight would thus be somewhat interesting, especially when the moon would occasionally pass in front of Jupiter, which would cause a visible and somewhat quick change in the shadows as Jupiter disappeared behind the edge of the visible disc of the moon.
All of the other planets would still orbit the Sun from our perspective, rather than what would imagine as both despite the barycenter of the system being outside of the sun, although Saturn likely would be destabilized by the hill sphere of this "Jupiter Star", and end up being further out by the perturbations, making it dimmer. Comets travelling through the solar system would likely be visibly altered in trajectory by the object, as well. I don't believe the asteroid belt would have remained in place had Jupiter been 90 times more massive, either, as the reason it exists is mostly down to the region not being stable enough to coalesce into a single object. Mercury would likely have also been destabilized and possibly even ejected, as it is currently the planet with the most eccentric orbit and is significantly affected by Jupiter already, with the other rocky planets being more stable but likely with somewhat higher eccentricity than observed today, yet not completely unstable. This hypothetical Jupiter Star would likely have a large amount of objects orbiting it up close, much like the gas giants do, but not enough to be visibly separated from the parent object without a telescope.
Theoretically, there would be a second habitable zone that could potentially be capable of fostering life at around eight times or more further than the Galilean moons, which since many of Jupiter's moons were made largely with water ice, could even possibly be oceanic moons with [i]vaguely[/i] similar conditions to early Earth. However, this Jupiter Star would experience flare ups which would make it unforgiving for life compared to the stability of our Sun (especially since such objects, like most large moons, would be tidally-locked with one side always in perpetual starlight and one in perpetual darkness), and mean that the brightness as observed from other Solar objects would vary inconsistently.
[QUOTE=The Duke;52468698]The solar system would have probably destabilized, as it was once far more compact before Jupiter and Saturn reached a 1:2 resonance early in the solar system's life (which is also believed to have flipped the positions of Neptune and Uranus and would also be responsible for Planet X's odd orbit if it exists, as a Neptune-sized object is believed to have been ejected or nearly ejected in most simulations). If you're asking how it could happen [i]today[/i]? Then it can't without the solar system being utterly destroyed by an impossibly disastrous event that resulted in a foreign star colliding with Jupiter somehow.
Realistically, there wasn't enough material in the protoplanetary disc to create a binary star system with our sun's mass for one of the stars, as almost all of the content aside from the sun amounts to somewhat less than 2 Jupiter masses combined, nearly only 2%-4% of what is needed on it's own to create a red dwarf star.
However, let's say it didn't destabilize and we somehow managed to have every other planet intact with the same conditions, with Jupiter being a red dwarf of around 90 Jupiter masses to solidify it's existence as a star:
The solar system would become a binary that is still dominated by the sun by far. From the Earth, a red dwarf Jupiter would be bright enough to cast faint red-tinted shadows at night (for perspective, Venus and Jupiter both can cast shadows visible by the human eye on Earth, but light pollution from cities tends to make it more difficult to spot, with Jupiter's being virtually impossible without actively looking for them in ideal conditions), but not enough to cast a sky coloration that would make it impossible to see stars (basically, the sky at night would still most likely remain black). The interactions of the moonlight and Jupiterlight would thus be somewhat interesting, especially when the moon would occasionally pass in front of Jupiter, which would cause a visible and somewhat quick change in the shadows as Jupiter disappeared behind the edge of the visible disc of the moon.
All of the other planets would still orbit the Sun from our perspective, rather than what would imagine as both despite the barycenter of the system being outside of the sun, although Saturn likely would be destabilized by the hill sphere of this "Jupiter Star", and end up being further out by the perturbations, making it dimmer. Comets travelling through the solar system would likely be visibly altered in trajectory by the object, as well. I don't believe the asteroid belt would have remained in place had Jupiter been 90 times more massive, either, as the reason it exists is mostly down to the region not being stable enough to coalesce into a single object. Mercury would likely have also been destabilized and possibly even ejected, as it is currently the planet with the most eccentric orbit and is significantly affected by Jupiter already, with the other rocky planets being more stable but likely with somewhat higher eccentricity than observed today, yet not completely unstable. This hypothetical Jupiter Star would likely have a large amount of objects orbiting it up close, much like the gas giants do, but not enough to be visibly separated from the parent object without a telescope.
Theoretically, there would be a second habitable zone that could potentially be capable of fostering life at around eight times or more further than the Galilean moons, which since many of Jupiter's moons were made largely with water ice, could even possibly be oceanic moons with [i]vaguely[/i] similar conditions to early Earth. However, this Jupiter Star would experience flare ups which would make it unforgiving for life compared to the stability of our Sun (especially since such objects, like most large moons, would be tidally-locked with one side always in perpetual starlight and one in perpetual darkness), and mean that the brightness as observed from other Solar objects would vary inconsistently.[/QUOTE]
:eng101:
Any porn of this yet?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
