Where does the mass go the sun looses?
Thomas Heger
I have a simple question: Where does the mass go the sun looses?
The sun looses a lot of mass every second, but what happens to that mass?
My personal point of view: we find a portion later as planets. But what do
you think?
Or does the universe 'burn down'?
Greetings
TH
Sam Wormley
>
> I have a simple question: Where does the mass go the sun looses?
Some mass converted to energy is radiated away...
Solar wind that has escape velocity... escapes...
About 9.13*10^-14 Solar masses per year in the case of our Sun.
See: http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.3807
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_mass_loss
BURT
It is released as electromagnetic radiation spreading out into space.
Mitch Raemsch
Androcles
"Thomas Heger" <tomhe...@web.de> wrote in message
news:g8hu3s$ttv$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
> Hi Ng
>
> I have a simple question: Where does the mass go the sun looses?
The sun radiates energy, that energy can only come from the mass it loses.
Mass and energy are the opposite sides of the same coin. The exact mechanism
is a matter for research, but you can only detect the existence of mass by
applying a force or reflecting light from it. Whilst it is intuitive to the
think
of mass as "stuff", at the atomic level it is forces that really count -
atoms
are mostly empty space.
hhc...@yahoo.com
Bravo Mitch. This is the first time that I have seen you post a
sensible answer to a thought-out question. Keep doing this and it may
help you appear to readers as at least having some sanity remaining.
Harry C,
Uncle Al
>
> Hi Ng
>
> I have a simple question: Where does the mass go the sun looses?
Sunshine, solar wind.
> The sun looses a lot of mass every second, but what happens to that mass?
Sunshine, solar wind.
> My personal point of view: we find a portion later as planets. But what do
> you think?
> Or does the universe 'burn down'?
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Thomas Heger
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:im%qk.57494$lO6....@newsfe20.ams2...
Since the are a lot of stars and all loose mass, does the universe gets
'lighter'?
Yousuf Khan
In addition to what everybody else said, another source of mass loss is
from the Sun's own nuclear fusion reactions, which is around 4 million
tons of matter per second! Of course that's gets radiated away as mostly
neutrinos and photons.
Yousuf Khan
Androcles
>
> "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:im%qk.57494$lO6....@newsfe20.ams2...
>>
>> "Thomas Heger" <tomhe...@web.de> wrote in message
>> news:g8hu3s$ttv$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
>>> Hi Ng
>>>
>>> I have a simple question: Where does the mass go the sun looses?
>>
>> The sun radiates energy, that energy can only come from the mass it
>> loses.
>> Mass and energy are the opposite sides of the same coin. The exact
>> mechanism
>> is a matter for research, but you can only detect the existence of mass
>> by
>> applying a force or reflecting light from it. Whilst it is intuitive to
>> the think
>> of mass as "stuff", at the atomic level it is forces that really count -
>> atoms
>> are mostly empty space.
>>
> Agreed. But does it 'go somewhere'?
Yes, mass becomes energy and radiates. It goes everywhere,
omnidirectionally.
As far as anyone knows the process isn't reversible, we can't turn energy
back
into mass. Of course there are theories in abundance such a black holes
that suck it back in but I don't have any theories and refuse to speculate.
I simply accept that the sun shines and to do so the process must be
nuclear.
That process has led to nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons.
It certainly cannot be chemical, although it shares the same equation.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MC2.htm
> Since the are a lot of stars and all loose mass, does the universe gets
> 'lighter'?
I have no idea and neither does anyone else. If you ever find out, let us
know.
Thomas Heger
"Yousuf Khan" <bbb...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:48ac97df$1...@news.bnb-lp.com...
wouldn't that have an effect on the rotation curves of planets and whole
galaxies?
TH
PD
The sun radiates in all directions. To give some idea of what this
means, here is how to build a scale model:
Sun -- use a small kickball, about 8" (20cm) in diameter.
Earth -- use a peppercorn, about 0.08" (2mm) in diameter.
Set the "sun" on your front porch. Now take the peppercorn and walk 78
feet (25m) away. This will likely be across the street.
The amount of stuff radiated by the sun that is intercepted by the
Earth, or for that matter any planet in the solar system, is
incredibly tiny. (The model planets would be strung out over 1000 m
from your model sun.)
PD
hanson
>>> "Thomas Heger" <tomhe...@web.de> wrote:
>
::TH:: Where does the mass go the sun looses?
>>>
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> schrieb:
The sun radiates energy, that energy can only come from
the mass it loses. Mass and energy are the opposite sides of
the same coin. The exact mechanism is a matter for research,
but you can only detect the existence of mass by applying
a force or reflecting light from it. Whilst it is intuitive to the
think of mass as "stuff", at the atomic level it is forces that
really count - atoms are mostly empty space.
>>>
Agreed. But does it 'go somewhere'?
>
Yes, mass becomes energy and radiates. It goes everywhere,
omnidirectionally. As far as anyone knows the process
isn't reversible, we can't turn energy back into mass. Of
course there are theories in abundance such a black
holes that suck it back in but I don't have any theories and
refuse to speculate. I simply accept that the sun shines and
to do so the process must be nuclear. That process has
led to nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons. It certainly
cannot be chemical, although it shares the same equation.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MC2.htm
>
Since the are a lot of stars and all loose mass, does the
universe gets 'lighter'?
>
I have no idea and neither does anyone else. If you ever find
out, let us know.
>
ahahahaha.. well, then let's do what all the big shot
astro-physicists researcher do: Make up a fucking
story, .... well, it doesn't have to be fucking, though.
>
Invent a story and call it theory, just like is seen on the
"learning" program channels each week on TV ,
5 to 10 times... with reruns and updates... ahahaha...
>
So, the Einstein Dingleberries and QMassmasters
say that the Photon has no mass, only momentum.
And that momentum is contained in solar radiation
and solar wind (which contains massive particles)
that follow any given geodesic path.
>
Therefore then all that emitted momentum and mass
will sooner or later impact & be absorbed into/onto
some collections point in the cosmos, the "points"
being gas clouds or meteorites, planetisimals, or space
dust, or stars, or white, brown or black dwarfs, black
holes, magnetars, pulsars, neutron stars, ...or onto
one of the many any other fucking " **ars" they have
invented/identified and labeled so far.... ahahaha..
>
And when enough stuff is gathered at a any one location
by this wonderful "Action at a distance" then the nuclear
cooking begins all over again... ahahahaha...
>
See, the universe has always "the same weight"
See it's easy... Selling it is the harder part!... ahaha...
>
Thanks for the laughs.... ahahaha... ahahahanson
Eric Gisse
> Hi Ng
>
> I have a simple question: Where does the mass go the sun looses?
Out.
Mass-energy ---> EM
Mass ---> Solar wind
Androcles
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:AP2rk.336$w51.116@trnddc01...
In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth.
And the Earth was without form and void, and darkness
was upon the face of the deep.
Only some young scribe was yawning and copied it down wrong,
it is Heaven that is without form, deep, dark and void, the Earth
has the form of a fucking sphere in case anyone ever noticed.
Trouble is the illuminated manuscript had such nice pictures the
abbot decided to let that minor detail slide.
Sam Wormley
> Since the are a lot of stars and all loose mass, does the universe gets
> 'lighter'?
>
>
Have you heard of these conservation laws?
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ConservationofEnergy.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ConservationofMomentum.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ConservationofAngularMomentum.html
thomheg
But don't you see the problem I want to address?
If all the suns in the universe loose mass to radiation, than there will
be at a time only radiation and no mass. That does not make sense and
cannot be.
So the radiation must show up somewhere else as mass. The question is,
where that could be. I personally think, it generates planets or smaller
objects like the kuiper belt.
Thomas Heger
Artfishlintlgenz
Maks sens to me. wut say yu, worms? (u insignfkunt puss frm pmpl) jus
kiding worms, u hot sht
Art
YKhan
> > In addition to what everybody else said, another source of mass loss is
> > from the Sun's own nuclear fusion reactions, which is around 4 million
> > tons of matter per second! Of course that's gets radiated away as mostly
> > neutrinos and photons.
>
> > Yousuf Khan
>
> wouldn't that have an effect on the rotation curves of planets and whole
> galaxies?
The mass of the whole Sun is 2.2 x 10^27 tons, so a loss of 4 million
tons is a measly 1.82 x 10^-19 per cent (i.e. approx 182 thousand
million million millionth of a percent). So that's not even
significant. If the Sun were to convert its entire mass to energy, at
that rate it would require 17 million million years. The Sun won't
make it that far, within 5 billion years it will likely have turned
into a white dwarf.
Yousuf Khan
The Ghost In The Machine
<tomhe...@web.de>
wrote
on Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:16:55 +0200
<g8hu3s$ttv$03$1...@news.t-online.com>:
Considering that the solar wind is primarily radial,
about the only way it could aggregate into a planetesimal
is if it collides with an already-orbiting dust spec or
planetesimal. The object will change orbit, though
probably not by an awful lot once it gets bigger than
a small pebble -- it's a variant of the old square-cube
problem. At best, it might circularize the orbit, but
that's about it. Comets introduce outgassing into
the equation; not quite sure what that'll do. Many
comets have highly elliptical orbits, so obviously
they're nowhere near circularized yet...and may never be.
The light simply radiates away. If we're lucky someone in,
say, the Sirius system is staring up at the sky and might
see a rather faint star, as the Sun's absolute magnitude is
+4.83, and from Sirius we'd have a magnitude of about +2.4.
Not all that impressive, though Sol would be visible.
A few other nearer stars will also see a rather faint
yellow star and might even detect Jupiter's wobble, but
stars that are farther away will need telescopes to gather
enough light to see our star.
As for the Universe "burning down", yes, I do believe
that the consensus is that we'll suffer a heat death,
with the stars burning out, blowing up, or both. The
Sun's mass is such that it will bloat and become
a red giant (helium fusion is far hotter than hydrogen
fusion), then blow off a shell or some such and
become a white dwarf. (A star somewhat larger than
our Sun will suffer a more exotic fate, possibly
even becoming a black hole. The Sun isn't big enough.)
Depressing, but fortunately this won't happen for
billions of years...though "global warming" far worse
than our current crisis will eventually boil off
every ocean on Earth -- and this is *before* it becomes
a red giant. We have maybe 500 million years at best
before we need to go to a cooler locale, because of
stellar phenomena (of course we might not have that
long because of CO2, CH4, and other such "greenhouse
gases" trapping the Sun's energy on Earth and raising
the average temperature).
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Warning: This encrypted signature is a dangerous munition.
Please notify the US government immediately upon reception.
0000 0000 0000 0000 0001 0000 0000 0000 ...
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Artfishlintlgenz
> On Aug 20, 12:16 pm, "Thomas Heger" <tomheg_...@web.de> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ng
>
> > I have a simple question: Where does the mass go the sun looses?
>
> Out.
>
> Mass-energy ---> EM
> Mass ---> Solar wind
Hey gizz, thenwut?
Art
Sam Wormley
> Sam Wormley schrieb:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>> I have a simple question: Where does the mass go the sun looses?
>>
>> Some mass converted to energy is radiated away...
>> Solar wind that has escape velocity... escapes...
>> About 9.13*10^-14 Solar masses per year in the case of our Sun.
>>
>> See: http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.3807
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_mass_loss
> Thanks for the link.
> But don't you see the problem I want to address?
> If all the suns in the universe loose mass to radiation, than there will
> be at a time only radiation and no mass. That does not make sense and
> cannot be.
What you are saying is you don't want that outcome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
> So the radiation must show up somewhere else as mass. The question is,
> where that could be. I personally think, it generates planets or smaller
> objects like the Kuiper belt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk
>
> Thomas Heger
>
Thomas Heger
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ms7rk.252124$TT4.186144@attbi_s22...
> thomheg wrote:
>> Sam Wormley schrieb:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have a simple question: Where does the mass go the sun looses?
>>>
>>> Some mass converted to energy is radiated away...
>>> Solar wind that has escape velocity... escapes...
>>> About 9.13*10^-14 Solar masses per year in the case of our Sun.
>>>
>>> See: http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.3807
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_mass_loss
>> Thanks for the link.
>> But don't you see the problem I want to address?
>> If all the suns in the universe loose mass to radiation, than there will
>> be at a time only radiation and no mass. That does not make sense and
>> cannot be.
>
> What you are saying is you don't want that outcome.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
>
I think, that the entropy in the universe does not increase. It is a
misconception to extent our experiences to cosmology, since what we regard
as useful energy means nothing on cosmic scales. It is our choice to run a
car and so we have to put gas into the tank to make it move, but on large
scale one pattern is as good as any other and the universe can't loose
energy or gain entropy.
Thomas Heger
Sam Wormley
>
> I think, that the entropy in the universe does not increase. It is a
> misconception to extent our experiences to cosmology, since what we regard
> as useful energy means nothing on cosmic scales. It is our choice to run a
> car and so we have to put gas into the tank to make it move, but on large
> scale one pattern is as good as any other and the universe can't loose
> energy or gain entropy.
>
> Thomas Heger
>
>
You should study the laws of thermodynamics... which nature appears to
agree with. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ThermodynamicLaws.html
G=EMC^2 Glazier
About 11 million tons each second(Asminov) Go chase free photons as
they arrive to hit intelligent life eyes on Andromeda.planet bert
The Ghost In The Machine
<herbert...@webtv.net>
wrote
on Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:07:10 -0400
<18699-48A...@storefull-3334.bay.webtv.net>:
> Uncle Al (of Irvine) The sun loses its mass by releasing photons.
> About 11 million tons each second(Asminov) Go chase free photons as
> they arrive to hit intelligent life eyes on Andromeda.planet bert
>
Sol also loses mass by throwing out the solar wind -- charged particles
that on occasion wreak havoc on telecommunications equipment, and
can generate beautiful auroras at the poles.
My computations suggest 4.38 million metric tonnes per second
from the radiation alone (3.94 * 10^26 W).
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
/dev/signature: No such file or directory
Y.Porat
---------------
it is not only radiation
in addition there is massive particles as well
Y.P
----------------------------
Y.Porat
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> > Hi Ng
>
> > I have a simple question: Where does the mass go the sun looses?
>
> Sunshine, solar wind.
>
> > The sun looses a lot of mass every second, but what happens to that mass?
>
> Sunshine, solar wind.
-----------------------------
so Uncle understood at last that
ENERGY HAS MASS !!
good for you Uncle
you learn slow
but better late than never !!!
you are doing much faster than some
**young* crackparroters here !!
(not to mention th e old Goats here (:-)
keep well
Y.Porat
----------------------------------
>
Thomas Heger
I now second law of thermodynamics. But what garantees an increase of
entropy?
If it were a statistical effect, than it compares states someone has to
define. But as said before, on large scale there is nobody to do this. That
means, useful is a term we define as we use our machines. There entropy
allways increases, but that is our personal point of view as we have to pay
for gas, if we want to run a car. But the universe is as happy with heat as
with crude oil.
So where is evidence, that entropy increases at all in the universe and what
is the sense of such a statement?
Thomas Heger