Why do binary systems spiral INTO each other?

Chipper Q
Chipper Q
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 1,540
Credit: 708,571
RAC: 0

RE: I really don't know.

Quote:
I really don't know. About the nova remnant, I think it blasts out too fast, but I really don't know.


I think you're right, meckano. If it's a lone star going nova (one that's 8 or more times the mass of the Sun), then the outer material lights up the galactic neighborhood (from the recoil of the star's core), and either a neutron star, or black hole remains.

I should have said “supernova” - the type where a white dwarf has a close companion, and is drawing material from it such that the white dwarf can gain enough mass to reach ~1.4 times the mass of the Sun, the Chankrasekhar limit, in which case everything is blown to bits – radioactive nickel is one of the elements formed, which gives off lots of energy along with visible light. (See Godard Space Flight Center's page on Supernovae)

And, I also probably should have said “remnants” (plural) - although the Earth's solid core is about the size of the moon... Was it a single fragment, or did many of them coalesce, 4.5 billion years ago? The core is also apparently rotating faster than the rest of the planet, (nice National Geographic article, Earth's core spins faster than surface)...

meckano
meckano
Joined: 22 Feb 05
Posts: 36
Credit: 23,610
RAC: 0

RE: I should have said

Message 18639 in response to message 18638

Quote:


I should have said “supernova” -

And, I also probably should have said “remnants”

although the Earth's solid core is about the size of the moon... Was it a single fragment, or did many of them coalesce, 4.5 billion years ago? The core is also apparently rotating faster than the rest of the planet

nova, supernova, same thing I think. (although Nova is also a tv show. :)

remnants, good, that's what I was answering to. The bits. :)

I've thought alot about planet creation and the meteors we get from the just-outside-of-mars's-orbit meteor belt (van allen belt?) instead of getting another planet. I'm guessing that the particles to create a planet had to be small enough that their momentum was negligable in comparison to what was going on around it. The belt's chunks are acting like car accidents and will never form a planet, unless they pulvarize each other first without sending too much matter into the surrounding planets. (and incase you're asking a hidden question there, it is believed that the moon was created by a large collision between the earth and some other heavenly body.)

The planet rotating, i figure, must be due to the initial direction + momentum of each particle coming into the making of the earth. As for the core, it may still be related to that too. I've never had a theory for the core, but do like to hear theories. I've not seen many or my mind is failing me. :)
And we and the earth are pretty well proven to be made of dead-star matter based on the presence of the element iron.

Core spinning faster? I believe so. Which direction? I'm going to read your links soon. I'd really like to see an interactive "explore the solar system" style "explore the universe" where orientation is preserved/shown. Every time I try to find which way the north pole is pointing through our galaxy I find nothing. I would also like to know the plane of our solar system in relation to the plane of our galaxy.

I really think it would also help peak interest in science studies if people could easily picture this in their head. Knowing which way I am facing in all this galactic 'stuff' on any given day, (as it would be easy to extrapolate from one known day to the next), really gets my metabolism in 'go' mode. :)
- it's not like we're wizzing around the galaxy, we've only been around it (i forget, is it 7 or 23 times) in the last 4.5 billion years; either way it is a small number considering how fast we are going. I saw a show last week that added up planet spin, solar orbit, and galctic orbit and our peak speed, brain failing again, is about 100 000 km's an hour. This is all very interesting, intriguing.

ex: I know the North pole is furthest from the Sun in the middle of winter as I live in the northern hemisphere. On that day I know we are closer to the center of our galactic center based on other readings I've done. It would just be nice to have all the non-numerical details, and the large numerical ones like our peak speed as mentioned above, which ofcourse may be off, like it might be miles per hour and not kilometers(not that it really matters, just a general idea was nice to have so i could, for example, say it here for others to read.)

addit:
hehe, I just had a dying-monitor scare. It was just that I had a relatively small, old, 10 watt nominal, subwoofer(magnet) near my screen. Wow, it starts to visibly affect it 2 feet away.

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

meckano
meckano
Joined: 22 Feb 05
Posts: 36
Credit: 23,610
RAC: 0

edited near end nova

Message 18640 in response to message 18639

edited near end

nova link:
quote: the pressure at the center will exceed the threshold for the carbon and oxygen nuclei to start to fuse uncontrollably. This results in a thermonuclear detonation of the entire star. Nothing is left behind, except ...

Very interesting, love to read new stuff. I always thought that iron was the sfuff of white, brown, and other dwarf stars as I am still in the belief that the inability for a star to go beyond iron creation, no more nuclear reactions possible, is what causes the final-step, explosion. After a little thought, I would have to guess that a too-small a star would not even be able to make it to iron creation, but would still nova.
So the question is:
Does a star massive enough to get to iron creation, if left to itself, always nova into a neutron star, a star not composed of matter as the density is too great for electron movement? Is there a direct relation between pre-nova star processes and post-nova state?

Addit:
Core link:
I'm surprised they seem so surprised at finding it. I thought it was already understood, although the reason I'm about to state may be new and based on the same experiment/findings.
Reason: There was a show saying that the Earth is going to flip it's north and south poles and is in the process of doing so. That there will be, or are, mini north and south poles here and there. To me that explains the Bermuda triangle aeroplane loses, the magnetic-compass problems and bad readings in older and maybe even newer planes.

addit 2, core:
Quote: Their calculations suggest the inner core rotates at a rate of 0.3 to 0.5 degree per year faster than the mantle and crust. That's about 50,000 times faster than the tectonic plates move on the planet's surface. ..."So, 0.3 to 0.5 degrees may not sound like so much, but within the solid Earth system, that is pretty fast,"

From that I get: Well, a bunch of questions.
fact, equator rotation speed: 1666 km/hr
- - http://www.lyberty.com/encyc/articles/earth.html

ok, no way the core is going 50 000 times faster than that, so they must be comparing the speed of the core in Relation to the speed of: one tect. plate to another it's touching. But what they say sounds like they are comparing: one tect. plate to the crust. I thought the plates were the crust?
Am I now to understand that the crust is layered? and the tect. plates are on the outer most layer, and moving around? and that they are comparing:
the core to crust inner layer, and a tect. plate to crust 2nd layer?
OR, and I doubt this option is right,
are they drawing a line from the center of the core to equator, taking the average speed, and then comparing the differences in speed to that average?

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

meckano
meckano
Joined: 22 Feb 05
Posts: 36
Credit: 23,610
RAC: 0

Well got another answer: You

Message 18641 in response to message 18640

Well got another answer:
You can start editing a post within an hour, but you have to hit that post button within an hour too! lol

http://www.lyberty.com/encyc/articles/earth.html

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

Chipper Q
Chipper Q
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 1,540
Credit: 708,571
RAC: 0

RE: I really think it would

Quote:
I really think it would also help peak interest in science studies if people could easily picture this in their head. Knowing which way I am facing in all this galactic 'stuff' on any given day, (as it would be easy to extrapolate from one known day to the next), really gets my metabolism in 'go' mode. :)


Hi, meckano - The best way I've seen it put is, “this is not a trivial problem” :)

In a different thread (light between the galaxies) I was asking about galactic objects having 'comet-like galactic orbits', and learned the following things (quoted from the above thread):

“Just found a database of astronomical catalogs – the CATS database - tremendous amount of data from catalogs covering bright sources, galactic plane sources, also multi-frequency catalogs, and RATAN studies ... and the following quote from the CATS description page helps illustrate {Why the problem isn't trivial}:

Quote:
All astronomical catalogs have a different format and list different observables. It has been a major challenge to provide uniform access to such a heterogeneous collection of data sets based on different methods, using different notations and units (in the absence of a ``standard'' to create catalogs). To satisfy the different needs of users we provide the result of searches through ALL catalogs in two different ways: one is an ordered table with the same basic data from the various catalogues in a homogenized format, while the other provides the result in the native format of each catalogue, listing all the orginally published data columns.


From there, I found SIMBAD - Set of Identifications, Measurements, and Bibliography for Astronomical Data. For objects beyond the Milky Way, there's NED, the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database. For solar system and planetary data, there's NASA's Planetary Data System

And consider this, meckano – that all of that huge collection of data, pertains to when?! For some of the objects we're seeing them as they were years ago, and some data pertains to billions of years ago. Not trivial at all, is it? :) But the solution, in the works, is awesome (quoted from above thread):

“...Gaia is scheduled for launch in '11. Additionally, NASA has the SIM PlanetQuest also scheduled to go up in '11. I didn't realize the magnitude of the astrometric 'task' I was asking about: SIM will need a reference frame whose precision must be commensurate with the precision of the instruments, and will thus construct an Astrometric Grid. Impressive work.”

I'll try to get to some of your other questions if I get some time a little later... Glad your monitor's okay! :)

Chipper Q
Chipper Q
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 1,540
Credit: 708,571
RAC: 0

This just in – not all

This just in – not all massive stars form black holes? – see SPACE.com's article Neutron star found where black hole was expeced

meckano
meckano
Joined: 22 Feb 05
Posts: 36
Credit: 23,610
RAC: 0

RE: This just in – not all

Message 18644 in response to message 18643

Quote:
This just in – not all massive stars form black holes? – see SPACE.com's article Neutron star found where black hole was expeced

interesting, thanks

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

Chipper Q
Chipper Q
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 1,540
Credit: 708,571
RAC: 0

Hi, meckano – I think you're

Hi, meckano – I think you're right about the numbers not making sense regarding the Earth's solid core spinning 50,000 time faster than the tectonic plates (above). Seems a strange comparison to make, although both motions must be related geologically. I tried calculating the difference in rates for points on the Earth's surface, and also on the surface of the solid core, using different radii, and using plate motions as fast as 15 cm/year, and I kept coming up with answers that were greater by at least a factor of 10, like around 500,000 to 1 million times faster. Maybe there was a typo in the article? Like the advance of the core is 0.03 to 0.05 degrees instead of 0.3 to 0.5?? Good of you to notice, anyway!

meckano
meckano
Joined: 22 Feb 05
Posts: 36
Credit: 23,610
RAC: 0

Good of me to

Message 18646 in response to message 18645

Good of me to notice...

That is my cross to bear :)
- I'm a raised troubleshooter

addit:
but it's nice they gave some relative number. I'm just getting techy on it's butt. :D

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.