RichF

True about the radiation but I don't think it would be that big of deal. What it boils down to is that in a binary system the closer you get to the star the greater chance there is of finding a planet that hasn't been flung out of the system.

Yes but it is believed that both stars formed at the same time. In the case of Alpha Centauri it is more of a question of whether planets would be able to form due to the gravitational forces and solar winds.

I hope they exist......32 year round trip at 1/4 the speed of light. I hope it's possible sometime but I don't think it'll happen in my life time.

Edit: and yes Wikipedia is awesome! Great taste & less filling; try it.

Thanks for the replies; the location of the habitable zones makes since. Alpha has 9% more mass than the sun which would push the habitable zone outward a bit. On the other hand, Beta has 10% less mass than the sun so it's habitable zone would be closer to the star.

Soooo Beta's radiation would have a greater impact on Apha's habitable zone than Alpha would have on Beta's habitable zone. Correct

These stars are close, but not that close. They are not very far off in size and they do a little dance with their orbits. Good stats here....

http://homepage.sunrise.ch/homepage/schatzer/Alpha-Centauri.html

The two brightest components Alpha Centauri A and B form a binary. They orbit each other in 80 years with a mean separation of 23 astronomical units (1 astronomical unit = 1 AU = distance between the Sun and Earth).

Below are Uranus's statistics; given that it has about the same distance and orbital period to the sun as Alpha and Beta have to each other, I thought it might make a good comparason of what each star would do to the other's planets.

Orbital Semimajor Axis: 19.19 AU

Revolution Period about the Sun: 84 years.

Temperature at Cloud Tops: -200o C ( -328o F)

Average Cloud Top Temperature (K): 73K

The two stars probably have an impact on the other's inner planets (if they exist) but from the naked eye the companion star would look like a really really bright star....nothing else. From Uranus, the Sun is a hell of long ways off.

Please feel free to correct me.

Alpha Centauri B??? I'm curious as to why Alpha Centauri A is not included in this list since it is the same spectral type as our sun. B is a K1 class star, cooler than our sun, while A is a G2 class star, the same as our sun. Both stars are thought to be able to sustain planets with in the orbit of Jupiter; so why would they pick B over A?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11427824/

Top 5

Beta Canum Venaticorum, Turnbull's top prospect. It's a sunlike star about 26 light-years away in the northern constellation Canes Venatici. Astronomers have been looking for planets around the star but have found none to date.

 

HD 10307, another sunlike star about 42 light-years away. It has nearly the same mass, temperature and metal content as our sun — plus a companion star.

 

HD 211415, which has about half the metal content of the sun and is a bit cooler.

 

18 Scorpii, a popular target for proposed planet searches. The star is almost an identical twin of the sun, Turnbull says.

 

51 Pegasus, which was the first normal star beyond our solar system known to have a planet. The Jupiterlike planet was detected in 1995, and Turnbull believes 51 Pegasus could harbor Earthlike planets as well.

 

 

Not too dim, not too bright

Turnbull said the top five prospects for the Terrestrial Planet Finder mission were chosen a bit differently, because the TPF's instruments would look for the signature of planets circling around the target stars. The star couldn't be too bright — otherwise the planets themselves would be lost in the star's glare. It couldn't be too dim — otherwise there wouldn't be enough energy to sustain life as we know it. Here are the TPF prospects she came up with:

 

Epsilon Indi A, about 11.8 light-years from Earth, leads Turnbull's list. It's a star somewhat cooler and smaller than our sun, and was recently found to have a brown-dwarf companion. "Star Trek" fans consider it the home of the Andorian race. In the original "Star Trek" series, it was the base of operations for an evil entity called "Gorkon."

 

Epsilon Eridani, 10.5 light-years away, is a star somewhat smaller and cooler than our sun, and is already known to have at least one planet. By some science-fiction accounts, Epsilon Eridani is the parent star for Vulcan, Mr. Spock's home planet on "Star Trek." However, Trekkers have come to favor another star in the same constellation....

 

Omicron 2 Eridani, also known as 40 Eridani, is now cited in most "Star Trek" literature as Mr. Spock's home turf. It's a yellow-orange star about 16 light-years away, and is roughly the same age as our sun.

 

Alpha Centauri B is part of the triple-star system closest to our own sun, just 4.35 light-years away. It's long been considered one of the places in the Milky Way that might offer terrestrial conditions — and it's often cited in science-fiction tales, including Isaac Asimov's Foundation series.

 

Tau Ceti is in the same brightness category as our sun. It's metal-poor, compared to the sun, but long-lived enough for life forms to evolve. It has also served as a locale for science-fiction works ranging from Ursula Le Guin's "The Dispossessed" to the TV show "Earth: Final Conflict."

For referance...

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Centauri

2. Isaac Asimov's "Alpha Centauri"

Why

Edited due to poor English.

Cool,, thanks!

Thanks for the responses and info! I need to check my threads more often! Rather than starting a new thread I'd rather continue on this one. This stuff really intrigues me!!

A couple of questions...

When a polar shift or movement occurs, does the core itself shift or does the polarity move along the core?

Magma is magnetically polarized correct? If so, wouldn't movements in the polar magnetic locations cause the magma closest to the core to alter it's normal path?

Could alterations in the direction of magma cause an increase in volcanic activity on the surface?

A URL, for what it's worth, that I posted in an alcohol vested thread a while back..

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/timeline.html

Anyone catch the Little Ice Age on the Disc Channel a couple of weeks back! I found it really interesting how they mapped the weather changes in the northern hemisphere to the movement of the magnetic pole!

Anyways..Thanks,

Rich

So polar shifts happen and I was wondering if the Earth's rotational axis or wobble would be effected by such a change? I'm guessing that the magma rotating around the core would be in chaos during the shift and I imagine that it would effect the wobble somewhat:confused: .

A good article if anyone is interested.....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/timeline.html

Just 'cause I like the little bug eyed guy... :eek:

Thanks,

Rich

Surely you jest.

No I do not; I'm currently working in WSAD's J2EE environment and while I would like to see Java come out on top' date=' the development environment is lacking when compared to Visual Studio.NET's.

Spoken like a true Bill Gates fan. I think that your professor either has Microsoft stock or he is pulling your leg.

He was an instructor I had at a Java training session that I attended a year ago. The guy had a PHD in Comp-Sci and a masters in Psychology.

I tend to agree with Pangloss's assessment.

I've worked with both IBM's WASAD J2EE and Microsoft's C#/VB.net development environments. While I love the idea of open source and nonproprietary software solutions, I can produce the same product in half the time in .Net. Java is progressing but will it be able to mature before .Net takes the market place from it?

IBM or Microsoft...An instructor I had once said "Just who is the evil empire and who is the rebel alliance; the lines are too blurred to be drawn."

So, can Java compete or is .Net destined to rule the net?

Thanks,

Rich

The things to check for are the are the stars spectral type, the star to planet distance, orbit and the planet size. A suitably sized planet within the "life zone" where liquid water can exist and has a "normal" orbit, I think that's what I think they're looking for.

JMO from what I remember.

Somthing about Alpha Centauri has always intrigued me. Alpha Centuri A is a G2 type star and B is a K1 type star; they orbit each other every 80 years if I remember correctly. While A is the same spectral type as our sun, B is a colder star but well within the threshold of being able to support liquid water on a orbiting planet. I read a book by Isaac Asimov a while back which stated that both stars could support planets within the orbit of Jupiter; outside of that, they couldn't maintain a circurlar orbit due to the gravitaional pull of the second sun.

Proxima Centaui is not a close companion of the other 2 stars and cannot support life as we know it. There have also been disputes as whether or not it is a part of the Centauri system due to it's distance from the other 2.

Quick Edit...

It's difficult to detect planets in the system due to the binary stars. To date all planets have been discovered due to their gravitational force causing their star to wobble. Since binary stars cause themselves wobble, it's hard to detect a planetary gravitational influence.

Oh my, I'm a UBER nerd.

Thanks for the replies; for the hell of it I might try to see if noaa.gov has any info on temperature change before and after Dec. 26. I'm lazy, so I'll get around to it eventually.

Oh, and the bug-eyed little dude makes me laugh!

True, but could such a wave disrupt normal ocean currents; in effect churning the ocean? Could this cause a mixing of the colder waters with the warmer ones above?

Discuss...I'm going to bed, gott'a work tomorrow dang-it.

Ok, I'm no meteorologist but I know that the weather on the west coast is influenced by the temperature of the pacific ocean. I'm curious, could the Tsunami have displaced enough warm water into or drawn enough water out of the Pacific to temporarily change the weather pattern? I know that we're talking about a butt load of water in the pacific, but hey thought I'd ask.

so the founders of marvel and DC are psychic? and can see the future??? i wana be a super hero. or maby, just maby be a super villan!!! dun dun dunnnnnn!!!! Muhuhahahaaaa!!!

Troll...

Anyways, found some time to look some stuff up tonight.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnetic_031212.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnetic_031212.html

That's all well and good, but also entirely hypothetical. Is there actually any data linking long term climate change to pole reversals?

Ok, I'm tired of repeating myself. Can we agree or disagree on some things....

1. The planet's magnetic field blocks solar radiation.

2. Magnetic field lines do fluctuate.

3. Fluctuations in the magnetic field lines do cause more or less solar radiation into the planet's atmosphere.

4. Increased/decreased solar radiation can cause heating/cooling of the planet's surface.

I'm tired of typing this. If you have a specific point that you disagree with, please state it and back it up.

I did a bit of digging: the last reversal was around about 780,000 years ago. We've had 6 ice ages come and go since then, and many before then.

I linked a NASA study in a previous post relating to field reversal periods, please read it. As far as Ice ages, see above comment relating to increased/decreased solar radiation resulting in fluctuations in the magnetic field line terminators.

Ok, what if I were to modify the theory so that increased solar radiation does not increase the evolutionary tract, but climate change caused by said radition does. Now don't read this like this happens over a couple of years, it takes a lot of time.

I'm tired of typing this over and over so I'll be short....

1. The magnetic field lines break apart, moving away from the poles.

2. The planet heats causing a global climate change. Nature must adapt.

3. MANY years later, the magnetic field lines reconverge at the opposite poles allowing the least amount of solar radiation in. The planet eventually cools and an ice age begins. Nature must adapt again.

Oh, and my Solar Cycle tie in....

The amount of charged particles (ie. solar acivity) during a solar cycle can cause minute variations in the position of the magnetic field lines. An overabundance or lack of solar activity be resposible for short term climate changes. If I'm not mistaken, the Farmer's Almanac actually predicts weather patterns from the previous years solar activity.

I'm also theorizing that large amounts of solar activity over an extende period may cause enough irregularities in magnetic field line positions that would eventually causing them to reverse. May sound crazy, but hey it's a thought.

Sorry for any misspellings, I was typing fast.

The idea of a failing magnetic field was not one I intended to portrey. As I stated at the top of my previous post....

"When the field line terminators are together at the poles they make one large field; however with a reversal the field line terminators separate making a bunch of smaller, weaker fields until they once again rejoin at the opposite pole."

As for the "it just keeps out charged partlicles arguement"....

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/earth_poles_991027.html

"Magnetic energy generated in the Earth's core results in a geomagnetic field. This phenomenon, which makes compass navigation possible, also deflects and absorbs harmful solar radiation."

In response into new theories on how often magnetic shifts occur, please read...

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/earth-magnetic-04a.html

http://www.psc.edu/science/Glatzmaier/glatzmaier.html

In repsonse to....

"most mutations have more to do with replication errors in the process of making more DNA than with radiation, though radiation can cause them as well, of course. But generally that means EM radiation, which the magnetic field doesn't affect."

As far as mutations go. Iirc, long term exposure to even low radiation sources can cause cellular mutations...such as cancer. I'm not talking about monkey's growing wings, but if a mutation was passed on into the general population that provided an advantage...it will eventually permiate throughout the population.

The idea of a failing magnetic field was not one I intended to portrey. As I stated at the top of my previous post....

"When the field line terminators are together at the poles they make one large field; however with a reversal the field line terminators separate making a bunch of smaller, weaker fields until they once again rejoin at the opposite pole."

As for the "it just keeps out charged partlicles arguement"....

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/earth_poles_991027.html

"Magnetic energy generated in the Earth's core results in a geomagnetic field. This phenomenon, which makes compass navigation possible, also deflects and absorbs harmful solar radiation."

In response into new theories on how often magnetic shifts occur, please read...

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/earth-magnetic-04a.html

http://www.psc.edu/science/Glatzmaier/glatzmaier.html

In repsonse to....

"most mutations have more to do with replication errors in the process of making more DNA than with radiation, though radiation can cause them as well, of course. But generally that means EM radiation, which the magnetic field doesn't affect."

As far as mutations go. Iirc, long term exposure to even low radiation sources can cause cellular mutations...such as cancer. I'm not talking about monkey's growing wings, but if a mutation was passed on into the general population that provided an advantage...it will eventually permiate throughout the population.

The answer is quite simple, it's because the remote has a "Pause" button.

Edit: And don't forget about the "Mute" button.

The answer is quite simple, it's because the remote has a "Pause" button.

Edit: And don't forget about the "Mute" button.

You know now that I think about it....

As you can see below, the magnetic field blocks the solar wind. Charged particles are also known as radiation. When the field line terminators are together at the poles they make one large field; however with a reversal the field line terminators separate making a bunch of smaller, weaker fields until they once again rejoin at the opposite pole.

This results in a weaker magnetic field allowing more radiation in and would heat the Earth. When the fields reallign at the opposite pole, they allow far less radiation in causing a cooling effect.

To quote National Geographic....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0909_040909_earthmagfield.html

"Earth's geodynamo creates a magnetic field that shields most of the habited parts of our planet from charged particles that come mostly from the sun. The field deflects the speeding particles toward Earth's Poles.

Without our planet's magnetic field, Earth would be subjected to more cosmic radiation. The increase could knock out power grids, scramble the communications systems on spacecraft, temporarily widen atmospheric ozone holes, and generate more aurora activity. "

Top: A simulation of Earth's magnetic field structure. Bottom: An image of what Earth's magnetic field might look like during a reversal

Here's an mpg of the above reversal simultation.

http://www.psc.edu/research/graphics/gallery/CORRECTno_earth.mpg

I here by declare this a valid theory.

You know now that I think about it....

As you can see below, the magnetic field blocks the solar wind. Charged particles are also known as radiation. When the field line terminators are together at the poles they make one large field; however with a reversal the field line terminators separate making a bunch of smaller, weaker fields until they once again rejoin at the opposite pole.

This results in a weaker magnetic field allowing more radiation in and would heat the Earth. When the fields reallign at the opposite pole, they allow far less radiation in causing a cooling effect.

To quote National Geographic....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0909_040909_earthmagfield.html

"Earth's geodynamo creates a magnetic field that shields most of the habited parts of our planet from charged particles that come mostly from the sun. The field deflects the speeding particles toward Earth's Poles.

Without our planet's magnetic field, Earth would be subjected to more cosmic radiation. The increase could knock out power grids, scramble the communications systems on spacecraft, temporarily widen atmospheric ozone holes, and generate more aurora activity. "

Top: A simulation of Earth's magnetic field structure. Bottom: An image of what Earth's magnetic field might look like during a reversal

Here's an mpg of the above reversal simultation.

http://www.psc.edu/research/graphics/gallery/CORRECTno_earth.mpg

I here by declare this a valid theory.

Problem: The fields don't actually protect the poles from radiation - moving charges will "orbit" magnetic field lines (F = qv x B)' date=' so what really happens is that the magnetic field protects the equatorial/temperate areas by redirecting some charged particles [i']toward[/i] the poles. Ever wonder why they are called the Northern Lights?

 

And it only affects charged particles.

 

 

edit to add: another theory slain by an ugly fact

Drats, you spoil my fun.

Problem: The fields don't actually protect the poles from radiation - moving charges will "orbit" magnetic field lines (F = qv x B)' date=' so what really happens is that the magnetic field protects the equatorial/temperate areas by redirecting some charged particles [i']toward[/i] the poles. Ever wonder why they are called the Northern Lights?

 

And it only affects charged particles.

 

 

edit to add: another theory slain by an ugly fact

Drats, you spoil my fun.