Mordred

Then explain what your trying to accomplish. You kept pushing DDE, Poynting vectors etc throughout this thread. What does that have to do with how the Sun formed?

"Nebulae are often star-forming regions, such as in the "Pillars of Creation" in the Eagle Nebula. In these regions the formations of gas, dust, and other materials "clump" together to form larger masses, which attract further matter, and eventually will become massive enough to form stars. " https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebula Now ask yourself what caused a nebulae to collapse".? They can be balanced in distribution so never collapse. Leading theory with evidence support of iron 60 I believe it was (which can only be formed in super nova events) is a nearby super nova is the cause

You need to model a nebula in order to form a star/Sun. A) nebula density B) average density C) material type ie hydrogen, lithium deuterium etc. D) average blackbody temperature of nebula E) condensed anisotropy development F) Jeans equations (hydrodynamic) G) along with f cause of collapse H) isothermal sphere distribution of mass to protoplanetary disk. (Hydrodynamics) However right now you need to know the basic physics. We covered blackbody to redshift. We haven't gotten into shell theorem, Keplers laws in particular elliptical orbits Then we need hydrodynamic approximations (which involves mass/energy to temperature/pressure relations). star formation involves a lot of relations and knowledge.

I have no problem with that, nor did I state there isn't an influence. We showed that there is. However our goal is to model a nebulae. One isn't going to do that particle by particle. My suggestion is to start looking into metrics that will teach you how to model multiparticle systems. Then we can incorporate Poynting vector and possibly DDE into those metrics. That's the little trick with modelling. A model may or may not be correct and most can be improved. The techniques of those models can be used in adapting to a new model. We can continue doing the single particle influences now if you choose or later. Doesn't matter to me. I'm just here to help. Eventually though you Will need to learn hydrodynamics to accomplish what your after. http://blogs.hsc.edu/sciencejournal/files/2014/03/Chaudhry.pdf http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.2973 A particular direction is accretion theory.

Assuming an average movement of the dust is about the best you can do realistically. For example now that your more aware of the calculations involved. Ask yourself "How much difference can 0.00395 nm wavelength have on a dust particles movement" One joules/m^3 is equal to 6.24×10^18 eV One joule is equal to one Newton. so assuming 100% transfer to a 1 metre cubed body (unrealistic) 0.00395 nm corresponds to 3.1388*10^5 eV not even a Newton. a dust particle wouldn't get a full m^3 of that energy. It would only recieve a miniscule fraction from DDE. That's assuming 100% absorbtion. amazing what happens when you crunch the numbers. Poynting Robertson metric uses mie scattering, and luminosity. The above was the DDE effect itself. Even if we run through the calcs for Poynting Roberston. I think you will find the primary contribution to how planets develop will be more due to what's involved in density waves via Nebulae theory. DDE and Poynting vector would be minor players to the hydrodynamic influence. They may have influence but it's small comparatively. For your modelling, now that you have a better understanding I think you'll agree that a focus on understanding the influence of density waves may be your most applicable step towards your model. This is one of the reasons the astronomy textbooks cover density waves when explaining nebulae theory in particular when covering planetary formation. (The handy part of density wave hydrodynamics is that it's a multiparticle metric) it treats the dust in the same manner as an ideal gas. So the techniques and formulas used there will be extremely handy to model your multi particle system. I'm positive you'll agree it would be nearly impossible to model a nebulae particle by particle. So you will need the hydrodynamic metrics.

[latex]5.9958*10^{14}[/latex] Hz Close enough lol. My fault on that formula typed the wrong relation halfway through lol I fixed it. [latex]v=\frac{c}{\lambda}[/latex] Ok now you know the relations. After you calculate the DDE for a static observer, (handy for a reference). If the observer is moving toward or away from you will need to do vector addition. To calc the new redshift/blueshift. Now this far it's easy. What if the object is moving left or right? For that step we need a difference formula. I want you to look at transverse Doppler effect this entire page is important to understand. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect Next work out the orbit of a dust particle, (remember it will probably be moving in the directory of the Suns rotation) Also probably elliptical. You now have the tools to model build DDE on dust. Keep in mind at a certain radius from the Sun DDE won't matter as it will get the energy from both sides of the Sun. Hope that helps, play around with the relations, practice conversions, then build you new skills into the full metric The blackbody temperature and these conversions will help gather data from datasets you may have but just had the wrong data type for your skill upon first reading. This will open up a larger volume of useful data.

[latex]f=\frac{c}{\lambda}[/latex] [latex]e=\frac{ch}{\lambda}[/latex]

You can for the purpose of learning choose rounded off values. At the moment were more interested in the steps themselves. Very good, remember to learn latex you can quote a post with a formula so do that on my post (it will help learn the rules and syntax) Here is some useful relations. [latex]\frac{\Delta_f}{f} = \frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o} = \frac{v}{c}=\frac{E_o}{E}=\frac{hc}{\lambda_o} \frac{\lambda}{hc}[/latex] Remember baby steps we will modify this formula for dust later. [latex]f=\frac{c+v_r}{c+v_s}f_o[/latex] c=velocity of waves in a medium Vr is the velocity measured by the source using the sources own proper-time clock(positive if moving toward the source vs is the velocity measured by the receiver using the sources own proper-time clock(positive if moving away from the receiver)

This one will work to start with. We will need to adapt this one later. Those values will work were just training on how to model build atm

yes in the case of the spectrum of our sun. and yes correct. now take the suns diameter calculate the radius and roatation speed to calculate the blueshift on one side then redshift on the other. Redo the above calc at 5800 k. when you do that you just calculated DDE influence from our sun today. post what values your going to use for rotation velocity, diameter and temp. first do a static observer. Don't worry this will get more complex as we go.

Yes in the wavelength values in our Sun the peak is in the yellow green spectrum. However there is considerable power in the ultraviolet. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation

what temperature you choose will be up to you, I'll show you how the equations work but you'll be doing the main calcs. for now we won't worry about the differential rotation of the Sun. It spins faster at the equators than any other latitude. So we will just use the equator rotation rate at the very edge. Weins law is going to help, because not all datasets will have the info your looking for. You may just get the luminosity or blackbody temp. Then its up to you to calculate the rest. so for starters lets assume you have a blackbody temperature from peak wavelength from the Sun at 5000 degrees. You can use Weins law to now calculate the average wavelength. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law now use the formula on this page to calculate the emitter wavelength. The Weins displacement constant is on that page as well. Should be straightforward.

Then you should be careful what you type on the first. Power requirements isn't a mere detail in practicality.

Before you worry about DDE specifically I would run through the Doppler shift calcs. Get a feel on those equations. Also run the calcs for Weins displacement law, convert wavelength to Blackbody temperature and back a few times. For PR, a preliminary is luminosity, key note play with brightness and surface area of the emitter. (This is based on the confusions you've had on this thread) One bite of the Apple at a time as they say

Normally I would use excel and scilab. (Similar to matlab). Except I have to replace my laptop. So lately I do the calcs by hand or on Wolfram.

Umm no. Definitely not even close to reality. First off gravity doesn't travel faster than c. Secondly the sheer power requirements to manipulate spacetime is immense. (Google the theoretical Alcubierre drive) coincidencally requires exotic materials. The sheer power requirements vs the lack of gain. (Not faster than electromagnetic). Makes gravity completely impractical for communication. Remember gravity is the weakest of the 4 forces. The strong and weak force are too limitted in range. Electromagnetic has the best range/power ratio. Best part is were already using it

I type all my latex in, its easy with a little practice on the syntax

Lol now I'm curious how many times I mentioned that useful hydrodynamic concept on this forum lol

Here is a list of latex symbols for various characters. When you do latex, type the word latex at the beginning and surround that word with [l.tex ] then type latex at the end surround it with [/l.tex ] use the forward slash in front of latex. (Replace the dot with the letter a) If you quote this post look at this demo. ( I'll do a greek character and fraction combo) [latex]w=\frac{\rho}{p}[/latex]

have you ever looked at how far a radio signal progogates through space before it gets effectively washed out and indiscernable from the background radiation? Have you ever considered how far the nearest star is from us and how long it takes light to reach us? let alone the nearest known Earth like planet in the habitable zone were aware of ? How long does it take for a planet to develop a technologically advanced enough race for space travel? How many extinction events ocur in our hazardous universe from Comets, meteors Planetary collisions etc?? the question your asking cannot be determined from a timeline based on a sim no matter how accurate the sim may be. These types of questions were not even involved in the sim.

yeah I can give you a hand later on, currently working 12 hour days in the field this week so my time scedule is tight.

mankind certainly isnt 3.5 Billion years old, and our spaceflight technology is less than 100 years. Some things take a logical amount of time to develop the necessary technology. Would a 3.5 billion year ago microbe care if life is on another planet??? would it even be able to percieve such? the quoted argument in my opinion is poorly thought out. Not by you but by Tegmarks

it depends on how you define the system your describing. I think Sean Carroll has an appropriate expression. "There’s nothing incorrect about that way of thinking about it; it’s a choice that one can make or not, as long as you’re clear on what your definitions are" you can choose either choice conserved or not. depending on how your modelling the system. If your modelling just the thermodynamic aspects you'll conclude more often than not that it is conserved, but if your modelling the system via an evolving spacetime, with GR its not. this is one of those cases where there isn't a wrong answer, the answer will depend on the system state your modelling. as far as the cosmological constant vs the Higgs field here is a non technical article. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24043-dark-energy-could-be-the-offspring-of-the-higgs-boson/

As Strange showed there is some debate whether energy is conserved or not. It's rather an open question. It gets rather confusing, particularly for the laymen. In GR it's considered that energy isn't a conserved quantity. This implies neither does the FLRW metric. However it's not quite that simple, if you read Cosmology textbooks that deal primarily with the particle aspects its considered conserved. On Cosmology textbooks that covers more heavily on the GR aspects its not. Sean Carroll's article has a half decent explanation. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/ though he adds yet another dimension lol

Good article its written in a good clear format, it essentially conforms to what Ive been explaining to you. Good study aid, I'll probably add it to my database. you can treat it as a rotating frame of reference