Lets Talk About Things Science Cannot Explain

[BAYLOR]

Maybe only a brown dwarf, possibly still a gas giant. They are described as "failed stars", Jupiter isn't a failed star, it's a gas giant. A common thing.

Im trying imagine what life her would be like if Jupiter had been a star instead of gas Giant.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Warmer.

 

[BAYLOR]

Warmer.

To the point of being uninhabitable?

 

[Ray McCarthy]

o the point of being uninhabitable?

No idea. Sorry

 

[J Riff]

Emitting flashes brighter than the sun, this I gotta see..... aaah! my eyes!
I have no idea how that happens, let's think. It's trying to explode, and just shooting out parts of its core? How could that be especially bright. No idea. What a great time to be alive.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

this I gotta see..... aaah! my eyes!

Do NOT stare into laser with the remaining eye.

 

[Vertigo]

Im trying imagine what life her would be like if Jupiter had been a star instead of gas Giant.

This is only my suspicion, I certainly have no great knowledge here but...

If Jupiter was say double it's current mass then it might have made it to sun status but it would be a pretty small sun and we're four times farther from Jupiter as from the sun at our closest approach (our orbit 1AU Jupiter's orbit 5.2AU). Now I believe the heat received from the sun at Jupiter's orbit is tiny compared with at our orbit so, bearing in mind the distances involved and probable output of a Jupiter star, I don't think you would notice a much difference other than a particularly bright star in the sky.

I suspect the most noticeable effect would be gravitational. Jupiter's gravitation already has a significant impact on the organisation of the solar system; if it was double the mass I guess that effect would be double?

 

[Mirannan]

This is only my suspicion, I certainly have no great knowledge here but...

If Jupiter was say double it's current mass then it might have made it to sun status but it would be a pretty small sun and we're four times farther from Jupiter as from the sun at our closest approach (our orbit 1AU Jupiter's orbit 5.2AU). Now I believe the heat received from the sun at Jupiter's orbit is tiny compared with at our orbit so, bearing in mind the distances involved and probable output of a Jupiter star, I don't think you would notice a much difference other than a particularly bright star in the sky.

I suspect the most noticeable effect would be gravitational. Jupiter's gravitation already has a significant impact on the organisation of the solar system; if it was double the mass I guess that effect would be double?

AFAIK anything up to maybe 10x Jupiter's mass is regarded as a planet; between 10 and approx. 75Mj is regarded as a brown dwarf. As already said, the main effect of a much bigger Jupiter would be gravitational; the heat from even a minimum-mass red dwarf in Jupiter orbit would be trivial. The light might not be, compared to moonlight for example.

 

[JunkMonkey]

if it was double the mass I guess that effect would be double?

I would have thought at least squared. Possibly cubed.

 

[REBerg]

I just stumbled across this quote from the great independent scientist James Lovelock, which pretty much encapsulates my own thoughts:

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth."

I had a protracted exchange on another site comparing religion and science.

My argument was that all experimental verification of a scientific theory eventually reaches the unknown and takes a leap of faith. Thus, science is really just another religion.

I was severely beaten about the head and shoulders for that theory.

 

[Parson]

I was severely beaten about the head and shoulders for that theory.

As they always say, "The truth hurts."

 

[REBerg]

As they always say, "The truth hurts."

"Truth"? Uh-oh.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I had a protracted exchange on another site comparing religion and science.

My argument was that all experimental verification of a scientific theory eventually reaches the unknown and takes a leap of faith. Thus, science is really just another religion.

I was severely beaten about the head and shoulders for that theory.

It depends what level of veracity you want. If you want to include the microscopic scale (ie quantum mechanics) then fair enough. But that to me, and to the overwhelming majority of scientists, seems rather pointless, if not meaningless, since we don't live on the microscopic scale. Newton's three laws of motion - the macroscopic scale, where we live - count as a truth in my book.

 

[JunkMonkey]

It depends what level of veracity you want. If you want to include the microscopic scale (ie quantum mechanics) then fair enough. But that to me, and to the overwhelming majority of scientists, seems rather pointless, if not meaningless, since we don't live on the microscopic scale. Newton's three laws of motion - the macroscopic scale, where we live - count as a truth in my book.

Good point.

How many quarks can dance on the head of a pin?

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Good point.

How many quarks can dance on the head of a pin?

iirc they're not allowed to exist in isolation. So... none!

 

[JunkMonkey]

ok then, 'sets of quarks' - I suppose they would have to do some sort of organised formal dance: Strip the Willow or a quadrille, or something.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

As they always say, "The truth hurts."

The Truth shall make you Fret.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

some sort of organised formal dance

I had thought more like some sort of Morris Dance.

 

[BAYLOR]

Good point.

How many quarks can dance on the head of a pin?

42?

Im guessing.

 

[J Riff]

I dunno. But, these giant structures made by animals are probably only fully explainable by the aminals themselves. Who knew that beavers were visible from space?
Biggest Animal-Made Structures In The World - Odd Culture