stars orbiting non-stars

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

please do not introduce any speculative ideas about the source of the energy of stars - this thread is about stars and their orbits, at a stretch we could touch upon accepted ideas of stellar fusion; but new notions about energy and novel ideas about electromagnetism belong only in the Speculations forum.

[acsinuk]

OK Imatfaal

 

I would like to extend the star orbit non-star to look at it from not only a gravitational but 3D magnetic attraction point of view. But keeping in mind what you have just said will start a new topic called " WMAP balance of universe using 3D electromagnetic forces only" as this needs new physics.

CliveS

[Didymus]

!

Moderator Note

 

please do not introduce any speculative ideas about the source of the energy of stars - this thread is about stars and their orbits, at a stretch we could touch upon accepted ideas of stellar fusion; but new notions about energy and novel ideas about electromagnetism belong only in the Speculations forum.

If speculation against forum guidelines, that's one thing... But, when the person who posted the original question says that the thread has come to the intent of their original question.... Please don't tell the original poster that they're off the topic of the thread they started.

 

The point isn't a speculation on electromagnetism.... No one suggested that. The point was to ask the physics-astronomy section their observation of what astronomy says about physics.

 

In the general physics section, a conversation about the conservation of energy (not just electricity) lead to a disagreement about whether gravity played a part in the sun's heat and the earth's internal heat. One side suggested that the earth's molten core was a product of radioactive material in the core and that the pressure of gravity plays essentially no role in the earth's heat... Let alone the formation of those elements in the earth's core. Chicken and egg stuff... Is the core hot because of those elements, or are those elements there because the core is hot and under pressure? This extended to the sun... We get energy from the sun as part of the atomic action there.... But is it a coinsidence that all celestial objects with that reaction happen to be very massive? Or is the sun's own gravity fueling that reaction? Would that reaction happen absent that amount of gravity?

 

Hence, this thread. The role gravity plays in a celestial body's thermal activity is on topic for the astronomy section.

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

acsinuk, as you already state yourself, what you are talking about belongs in a new topic, and therefore a new thread. Stop bringing it up here.

Didymus, as long as you ask good questions or start an interesting discussion, there is really no limit to the number of threads you can open. If you have another question or wish to discuss something else, it is really a better idea to open a new thread, even if this was "your" thread, opened by you. A person who has opened a thread can still take that thread off-topic, and we really don't like to moderate two separate discussions in one thread. So, unless you really must ask questions about the internal heat of the sun or earth here (please explain the relation to the 1st post), please consider to open a new thread for this.

[Sensei]

Sun mass is 1.9891*10^30 kg and average density 1.4 g/cm^3

The smallest star must have mass ~8.3% of it,

1.9891*10^30 kg * 0.083 = 1.650953*10^29 kg

 

Gold has density 19.3 g/cm^3. That's 13.8 more than average Sun density.

If there could exist object with radius r=126,619 km all made of gold, it would have the same mass as the smallest possible star.

That's 82% higher radius than Jupiter (~69,911 km).