Talk:2062: Barnard's Star - Revision history

BunsenH: gravitational influence

2024-11-16T22:37:48Z

gravitational influence

172.71.242.86 at 17:30, 2 February 2023

2023-02-02T17:30:05Z

Adeblanc: added info. about Gliese 710 and clarified issue of red-dwarf lifetime

2023-02-02T14:44:31Z

added info. about Gliese 710 and clarified issue of red-dwarf lifetime

162.158.78.232 at 13:22, 10 January 2019

2019-01-10T13:22:57Z

Dgbrt at 18:34, 24 October 2018

2018-10-24T18:34:33Z

Ianrbibtitlht at 13:48, 24 October 2018

2018-10-24T13:48:36Z

172.69.62.160 at 13:32, 24 October 2018

2018-10-24T13:32:45Z

172.69.62.160 at 13:32, 24 October 2018

2018-10-24T13:32:05Z

162.158.94.20 at 12:17, 24 October 2018

2018-10-24T12:17:55Z

141.101.69.45 at 08:45, 24 October 2018

2018-10-24T08:45:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:37, 16 November 2024
Line 18:		Line 18:

	Two points. First, a star called Gliese 710 will pass through the Solar System in about 1.3 million years. Predictions of how close it will come vary, but seem to cluster around 0.3 lighyears (ly) and 0.05 ly. Both estimates mean the star will pass through the Oort cloud. There is even a small chance it will pass just outside the Kuiper belt. This star is informally called "Uncle Jimbo's Star" because it's coming right at us. Second, your basic star-shaped star is an easy thing to study in detail and an easy thing to model. The sun has a radiative core; it cannot add fresh fuel. As a result, it burns up about 10% of its hydrogen and goes out. Barnard's star is convective throughout, so it constantly mixes fresh hydrogen into its core. As a result, Barnard's star will consume 50 - 80 % of its hydrogen before going out. The reacting masses of the Sun and Barnard's star are almost the same. Since the bolometric luminosity of Barnard's star is around 0.0035 that of the sun, it can reasonably be expected to last around 300 times longer - around 3 trillion years. That's a crude guess. More accurate models give an even longer life. Some of the really little ones will still be shining some 10 trillion years from now. {{unsigned\|Adeblanc\|14:44, 2 February 2023}}		Two points. First, a star called Gliese 710 will pass through the Solar System in about 1.3 million years. Predictions of how close it will come vary, but seem to cluster around 0.3 lighyears (ly) and 0.05 ly. Both estimates mean the star will pass through the Oort cloud. There is even a small chance it will pass just outside the Kuiper belt. This star is informally called "Uncle Jimbo's Star" because it's coming right at us. Second, your basic star-shaped star is an easy thing to study in detail and an easy thing to model. The sun has a radiative core; it cannot add fresh fuel. As a result, it burns up about 10% of its hydrogen and goes out. Barnard's star is convective throughout, so it constantly mixes fresh hydrogen into its core. As a result, Barnard's star will consume 50 - 80 % of its hydrogen before going out. The reacting masses of the Sun and Barnard's star are almost the same. Since the bolometric luminosity of Barnard's star is around 0.0035 that of the sun, it can reasonably be expected to last around 300 times longer - around 3 trillion years. That's a crude guess. More accurate models give an even longer life. Some of the really little ones will still be shining some 10 trillion years from now. {{unsigned\|Adeblanc\|14:44, 2 February 2023}}
		+
		+	Scholz's star has a mass of about 0.15 suns, vs. Neptune's 5.149x10-5 suns. Scholz's star passed about 52,000 AU from us, vs. Neptune's orbital radius of 30.1 AU. So at its closest approach, the star's gravitational influence on the inner solar system was (0.15/5.149x10^-5) * (30.1/52,000)^2 times that of Neptune, or 9.8x10^-4. [[User:BunsenH\|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH\|talk]]) 22:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:30, 2 February 2023
Line 17:		Line 17:
	Faster comunication than photons could be possible with plasma entanglement but I'm still skeptical as to whether or not stars are big giant sentient brains. Why is it traveling so fast I wonder... a remnant of some previous galactic merger?		Faster comunication than photons could be possible with plasma entanglement but I'm still skeptical as to whether or not stars are big giant sentient brains. Why is it traveling so fast I wonder... a remnant of some previous galactic merger?

−	Two points. First, a star called Gliese 710 will pass through the Solar System in about 1.3 million years. Predictions of how close it will come vary, but seem to cluster around 0.3 lighyears (ly) and 0.05 ly. Both estimates mean the star will pass through the Oort cloud. There is even a small chance it will pass just outside the Kuiper belt. This star is informally called "Uncle Jimbo's Star" because it's coming right at us. Second, your basic star-shaped star is an easy thing to study in detail and an easy thing to model. The sun has a radiative core; it cannot add fresh fuel. As a result, it burns up about 10% of its hydrogen and goes out. Barnard's star is convective throughout, so it constantly mixes fresh hydrogen into its core. As a result, Barnard's star will consume 50 - 80 % of its hydrogen before going out. The reacting masses of the Sun and Barnard's star are almost the same. Since the bolometric luminosity of Barnard's star is around 0.0035 that of the sun, it can reasonably be expected to last around 300 times longer - around 3 trillion years. That's a crude guess. More accurate models give an even longer life. Some of the really little ones will still be shining some 10 trillion years from now.	+	Two points. First, a star called Gliese 710 will pass through the Solar System in about 1.3 million years. Predictions of how close it will come vary, but seem to cluster around 0.3 lighyears (ly) and 0.05 ly. Both estimates mean the star will pass through the Oort cloud. There is even a small chance it will pass just outside the Kuiper belt. This star is informally called "Uncle Jimbo's Star" because it's coming right at us. Second, your basic star-shaped star is an easy thing to study in detail and an easy thing to model. The sun has a radiative core; it cannot add fresh fuel. As a result, it burns up about 10% of its hydrogen and goes out. Barnard's star is convective throughout, so it constantly mixes fresh hydrogen into its core. As a result, Barnard's star will consume 50 - 80 % of its hydrogen before going out. The reacting masses of the Sun and Barnard's star are almost the same. Since the bolometric luminosity of Barnard's star is around 0.0035 that of the sun, it can reasonably be expected to last around 300 times longer - around 3 trillion years. That's a crude guess. More accurate models give an even longer life. Some of the really little ones will still be shining some 10 trillion years from now. {{unsigned\|Adeblanc\|14:44, 2 February 2023}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:44, 2 February 2023
Line 16:		Line 16:

	Faster comunication than photons could be possible with plasma entanglement but I'm still skeptical as to whether or not stars are big giant sentient brains. Why is it traveling so fast I wonder... a remnant of some previous galactic merger?		Faster comunication than photons could be possible with plasma entanglement but I'm still skeptical as to whether or not stars are big giant sentient brains. Why is it traveling so fast I wonder... a remnant of some previous galactic merger?
		+
		+	Two points. First, a star called Gliese 710 will pass through the Solar System in about 1.3 million years. Predictions of how close it will come vary, but seem to cluster around 0.3 lighyears (ly) and 0.05 ly. Both estimates mean the star will pass through the Oort cloud. There is even a small chance it will pass just outside the Kuiper belt. This star is informally called "Uncle Jimbo's Star" because it's coming right at us. Second, your basic star-shaped star is an easy thing to study in detail and an easy thing to model. The sun has a radiative core; it cannot add fresh fuel. As a result, it burns up about 10% of its hydrogen and goes out. Barnard's star is convective throughout, so it constantly mixes fresh hydrogen into its core. As a result, Barnard's star will consume 50 - 80 % of its hydrogen before going out. The reacting masses of the Sun and Barnard's star are almost the same. Since the bolometric luminosity of Barnard's star is around 0.0035 that of the sun, it can reasonably be expected to last around 300 times longer - around 3 trillion years. That's a crude guess. More accurate models give an even longer life. Some of the really little ones will still be shining some 10 trillion years from now.

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:22, 10 January 2019
Line 14:		Line 14:
	:That doesn't mean it's that old now. It means it will last that long, which means it's a relative youngster at this stage of its life. I'm sure a trillion years is a very general estimate for its lifespan, which is highly dependent on its mass. As for the source of this estimate, it's probably well-sourced on Wikipedia that serves as the source of much of the explanation's current content. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 13:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)		:That doesn't mean it's that old now. It means it will last that long, which means it's a relative youngster at this stage of its life. I'm sure a trillion years is a very general estimate for its lifespan, which is highly dependent on its mass. As for the source of this estimate, it's probably well-sourced on Wikipedia that serves as the source of much of the explanation's current content. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 13:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
	::And click the Wiki link for {{w\|Red dwarf}} in the explanation. You will read: "...Red dwarfs therefore develop very slowly, maintaining a constant luminosity and spectral type for trillions of years, until their fuel is depleted. Because of the comparatively short age of the universe, no red dwarfs exist at advanced stages of evolution." --[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 18:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)		::And click the Wiki link for {{w\|Red dwarf}} in the explanation. You will read: "...Red dwarfs therefore develop very slowly, maintaining a constant luminosity and spectral type for trillions of years, until their fuel is depleted. Because of the comparatively short age of the universe, no red dwarfs exist at advanced stages of evolution." --[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 18:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
		+
		+	Faster comunication than photons could be possible with plasma entanglement but I'm still skeptical as to whether or not stars are big giant sentient brains. Why is it traveling so fast I wonder... a remnant of some previous galactic merger?

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:34, 24 October 2018
Line 13:		Line 13:

	:That doesn't mean it's that old now. It means it will last that long, which means it's a relative youngster at this stage of its life. I'm sure a trillion years is a very general estimate for its lifespan, which is highly dependent on its mass. As for the source of this estimate, it's probably well-sourced on Wikipedia that serves as the source of much of the explanation's current content. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 13:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)		:That doesn't mean it's that old now. It means it will last that long, which means it's a relative youngster at this stage of its life. I'm sure a trillion years is a very general estimate for its lifespan, which is highly dependent on its mass. As for the source of this estimate, it's probably well-sourced on Wikipedia that serves as the source of much of the explanation's current content. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 13:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
		+	::And click the Wiki link for {{w\|Red dwarf}} in the explanation. You will read: "...Red dwarfs therefore develop very slowly, maintaining a constant luminosity and spectral type for trillions of years, until their fuel is depleted. Because of the comparatively short age of the universe, no red dwarfs exist at advanced stages of evolution." --[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 18:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:48, 24 October 2018
Line 11:		Line 11:

	"a small Red dwarf has a lifespan of about a trillion years." A trillion years? Any source for this? The universe is around 14 billion years old. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.160\|172.69.62.160]] 13:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)comicreader		"a small Red dwarf has a lifespan of about a trillion years." A trillion years? Any source for this? The universe is around 14 billion years old. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.160\|172.69.62.160]] 13:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)comicreader
		+
		+	:That doesn't mean it's that old now. It means it will last that long, which means it's a relative youngster at this stage of its life. I'm sure a trillion years is a very general estimate for its lifespan, which is highly dependent on its mass. As for the source of this estimate, it's probably well-sourced on Wikipedia that serves as the source of much of the explanation's current content. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 13:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:32, 24 October 2018
Line 9:		Line 9:

	Am I'm the only one, who is reminded by the beginning "...AAAA" and the ending "EEEEEAAA..." to the [https://xkcd.com/417/ "The Man Who Fell Sideways" comic]?--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.20\|162.158.94.20]] 12:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)		Am I'm the only one, who is reminded by the beginning "...AAAA" and the ending "EEEEEAAA..." to the [https://xkcd.com/417/ "The Man Who Fell Sideways" comic]?--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.20\|162.158.94.20]] 12:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
−	:"a small Red dwarf has a lifespan of about a trillion years." A trillion years? Any source for this? The universe is around 14 billion years old. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.160\|172.69.62.160]] 13:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)comicreader	+
		+	"a small Red dwarf has a lifespan of about a trillion years." A trillion years? Any source for this? The universe is around 14 billion years old. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.160\|172.69.62.160]] 13:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)comicreader

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:17, 24 October 2018
Line 7:		Line 7:
	:Obviously, stars, being in vacuum, don't talk in classic acoustic way. But they emit lot of light, which includes radio emissions ... and remember that properly encrypted signal is hard to recognize from random noise. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 23:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)		:Obviously, stars, being in vacuum, don't talk in classic acoustic way. But they emit lot of light, which includes radio emissions ... and remember that properly encrypted signal is hard to recognize from random noise. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 23:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
	Stars can talk but usually don't. Maybe because they are under a lot of pressure ? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.45\|141.101.69.45]] 08:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC) BadJokeNinja		Stars can talk but usually don't. Maybe because they are under a lot of pressure ? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.45\|141.101.69.45]] 08:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC) BadJokeNinja
		+
		+	Am I'm the only one, who is reminded by the beginning "...AAAA" and the ending "EEEEEAAA..." to the [https://xkcd.com/417/ "The Man Who Fell Sideways" comic]?--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.20\|162.158.94.20]] 12:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:45, 24 October 2018
Line 6:		Line 6:
	:I think it was a NOVA doco where they describe the inner workings of the sun and how hydrogen atoms, photons, plasma, and magnetic flux interact, and it sounded a heck of a lot like the function of neurons and signals in the brain. Maybe I was just high, but I got to thinking that, with photons from every star in the universe connecting to every other star, the stars are in constant communication with eachother in some sort of neural-like network with each star having it's own neural-like network complete with it's own sentient thoughts (albeit probably far outside the realm of our imagination). FORTY TWO! {{unsigned ip\|162.158.74.27}}		:I think it was a NOVA doco where they describe the inner workings of the sun and how hydrogen atoms, photons, plasma, and magnetic flux interact, and it sounded a heck of a lot like the function of neurons and signals in the brain. Maybe I was just high, but I got to thinking that, with photons from every star in the universe connecting to every other star, the stars are in constant communication with eachother in some sort of neural-like network with each star having it's own neural-like network complete with it's own sentient thoughts (albeit probably far outside the realm of our imagination). FORTY TWO! {{unsigned ip\|162.158.74.27}}
	:Obviously, stars, being in vacuum, don't talk in classic acoustic way. But they emit lot of light, which includes radio emissions ... and remember that properly encrypted signal is hard to recognize from random noise. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 23:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)		:Obviously, stars, being in vacuum, don't talk in classic acoustic way. But they emit lot of light, which includes radio emissions ... and remember that properly encrypted signal is hard to recognize from random noise. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 23:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
		+	Stars can talk but usually don't. Maybe because they are under a lot of pressure ? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.45\|141.101.69.45]] 08:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC) BadJokeNinja