Spent Stars-->Cosmic Background of 5K = ?e?? years
BradGuth
"How long does it take a solar white dwarf to become perceptibly
cool?"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.research/browse_frm/thread/c2f2294c879f28ee/e0feb8ba7045dd47?hl=en#e0feb8ba7045dd47
On Aug 8, 9:38 am, will...@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote:
> In article <mt2.0-11310-1186569...@hercules.herts.ac.uk>,
> Jonathan Thornburg <jth...@silentbox68.aei.mpg.de> writes:
>
> > There's a nice review talk
> > on the various heat-transfer mechanisms in a talk presented by Armen
> > Sedrakian (Tuebingen) to the numerical relativity group at the Albert
> > Einstein Institute (Potsdam), archived on their web site at
> >http://numrel.aei.mpg.de/Events/Seminars/archive/2006-2007/2007feb01....
>
> That's very nice for neutron stars, but I wouldn't expect neutrinos
> to play much part in cooling of white dwarfs. The specific heat
> calculation is quite complicated, but I still don't know about the
> heat transfer from core to surface.
>From Steve Willner's topic entro: "How long does it take a solar white
dwarf to become perceptibly cool?"
> What cooling mechanisms are there other than radiation from the
> surface?
Unfortunately, folks here in this anti-think-tank of Usenet naysay
land don't really have an honest clue, other than their best swag as
to what makes our own sun tick, therefore knowing much less of any
white dwarf that's likely going to take yet another 100 billion if not
greater than a few trillion years in order to consume all of its cache
of whatever energy and subsequently cool off to becoming anything
below the thermal threshold of a given black dwarf (assuming that's
still a touch warmer than a geothermally active planet like Earth
that's supposedly losing 80 mw/m2, and that's merely 1/256th of what
Venus is losing), and from that point taking yet another 100 some odd
trillion years for getting everything all the way down to the thermal
energy worth of the cosmic background, meaning that our cozy 5 K or
supposedly colder than 3 K cosmic background is potentially much older
than the touted 13.7 billion years worth.
According to the physics and best available science of others, it's
looking as though the majority of brown dwarfs may actually represent
as much as 100 billion years of cosmological time, and we're just now
getting instruments up and far enough away from our polluted Earth for
accomplishing the task of detecting such brown dwarfs, whereas
whatever black dwarfs may simply not be all that detectable or even
exist.
If in fact our universe was once upon a time an ungodly super massive
black hole that gave birth to the likes of secondary massive black
holes and/or those hotter than 20X solar mass neutron stars that could
have become black holes, and if there's supposedly 97% of our universe
as going undetectable, means that perhaps it's actually a cosmic realm
that's chuck full of those spent stellar items becoming pesky black
dwarfs that are by now trillions of years old.
Perhaps a large enough white->brown-->black dwarf could also become
the seed on behalf of formulating itself into a small black hole, with
a highly insulated core average density as great as 1e15 g/cm3 (if not
having converted all of its remaining carbon into pure diamond, or for
all we know antimatter), which by rights should still sustain a great
deal of thermal energy that's so nicely insulated by the thick crust
or shell of that spent star.
Another somewhat weird notion; if perchance the substantial stellar
core density of a white dwarf somehow goes away by the time of having
become a black dwarf, whereas then how about Venus as having once been
a brown-->black dwarf of Sirius (aka Sirius B) or derived from
whatever nearby alternative?
Even though there's not a solid surface/crust to a white dwarf, for
the sheer heck of it try using R-1024/km in order to see via the
regular physics and of thermal dynamics as to how long for such a
stellar core of a given white dwarf to become worth something of a
brown-->black dwarf (perhaps cool enough to becoming a rogue planet or
even that of an inert salty old moon like item of relatively low core
density). If there was merely 100 km worth of a semi-solid crust to
deal with should equal an impressive R-factor of at least 1.024e5, and
it gets a whole lot better yet if there's a Venus like robust
atmosphere along with extremely dense clouds of S8 to further insulate
that entire globe. You'd think that a minimal insulating crust of
R-1024/km that's associated with any potential black dwarf might
become a worthy depth or thickness of 1000 km (representing an R-
Factor of 1.024e6), whereas the maximum basalt insulation worth of
perhaps reaching R-1024/m makes that R-Factor worth 1.024e9, or a
thermal coefficient loss of merely .97656e-9:1, and even that's not
including whatever R-Factor a good photon sphere of an event horizon
might contribute.
How does one ever get rid of such stellar core heat that's sustained
via such horrific gravity and having ever since become so well
insulated?
>From all of this stellar aging what-if, I was equally wondering as to
what's the most likely average density of a black dwarf/(spent star)?
BTW, within this original topic of "How long does it take a solar
white dwarf to become perceptibly cool?", and upon my having posted a
given reply, why are those robo or MIB spooks and moles of Usenet's
damage control intentionally running key words together? (such as:
"variousheat-transfermechanisms" or "meanheattransferfrom") Are there
actually such special insider encryption methods of posting for those
intending to remain ultra stealth or cloak and dagger like?
- Brad Guth -
jacob navia
You tackle brown dwarfs now?
Because your brown antisemitic "speeches" did not
meet any answer?
You are just a NAZI.
BradGuth
And your superior genetics is telling us that you're just a good old
pro all-American bigot at heart that's hiding out in France because???
In other words, you're just as equally dumbfounded about spent stars
as most of us, but otherwise too much in denial to admit that you
really don't know all there is to know. At least we now know that
much, don't we.
Do you have anything constructive or the least bit informative
pertaining to spent stars, or don't you?
BTW, how is my being focused upon affordably salvaging our environment
and for otherwise keeping as much focus upon obtainable goals being
"NAZI" worthy? (is that what your puppet Hitler was doing?)
- Brad Guth -
Hagar
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189545686.3...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I think the dude is another one of Fart Deco's failed hate-monger students.
Just a bit too dim to qualify as a bulb ...
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
That seems to be the case, of "jacob navia" insisting that his all-or-
nothing interpretation which suits whatever faith-based swarm and
thereby creation-only as well as Earth-only crapolla analogy is all
there is. Why on Earth can't we have both, the random cosmic
happenstance and later having intelligent design coming in for the do-
everything terraforming effort, that's ultimately responsible for
ending up in the horrific mess that we're in. I for one would
seriously like to associate with and thus blame some weird or
perverted God (especially of one holding offshore bank accounts and
shooting friends in the face) for all of this mess, wouldn't you!
Clearly once upon a time (according to our terrestrial all-knowing
Gods of that BB) most everything was star like, as in extremely hot
and nasty as all get out. I'd say for the first billion years you'd
be hard pressed to find much of anything that wasn't either a star or
that of a black hole containing whatever potential of taking or giving
birth to other stars.
As to exactly how many billions of years old this universe actually
is, I do not believe it's recorded down in any terrestrial stone
tablets or within whatever Dead Sea scrolls, nor has the regular laws
of physics come up with a viable game plan that's other than being the
usual hocus-pocus status quo (aka cover thy butt) approved. Perhaps
this is a bigger than BB problem, especially since any form of
revisionism is simply not allowed to stand, even as an honest rant.
I'd actually buy into the latest cycle or mutation of our local
universe as being worth 13.7 billion years. But, since that +/-
whatever age doesn't tell us the average density of a spent star, so
what?
Wouldn't it be a good thing to know what an old dark brown or nearly
black star is worth?
- Brad Guth -
Art Deco
>Even though there's not a solid surface/crust to a white dwarf, for
>the sheer heck of it try using R-1024/km in order to see via the
>regular physics and of thermal dynamics as to how long for such a
>stellar core of a given white dwarf to become worth something of a
>brown-->black dwarf (perhaps cool enough to becoming a rogue planet or
>even that of an inert salty old moon like item of relatively low core
>density). If there was merely 100 km worth of a semi-solid crust to
>deal with should equal an impressive R-factor of at least 1.024e5, and
>it gets a whole lot better yet if there's a Venus like robust
>atmosphere along with extremely dense clouds of S8 to further insulate
>that entire globe. You'd think that a minimal insulating crust of
>R-1024/km that's associated with any potential black dwarf might
>become a worthy depth or thickness of 1000 km (representing an R-
>Factor of 1.024e6), whereas the maximum basalt insulation worth of
>perhaps reaching R-1024/m makes that R-Factor worth 1.024e9, or a
>thermal coefficient loss of merely .97656e-9:1, and even that's not
>including whatever R-Factor a good photon sphere of an event horizon
>might contribute.
Only Brad Guthball could apply R-value insulation factors to stars and
then dare to post the resulting squishy mess to rec.org.mensa.
--
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads for alt.astronomy
Wee Davie Tholen is a grade-school lamer
Trainer and leash holder of:
Honest "Clockbrain" John
nightbat "fro0tbat" of alt.astronomy
Tom "TommY Crackpotter" Potter
<http://www.caballista.org/auk/kookle.php?search=deco>
"Classic erroneous presupposition. Others developed websites
so that they could have the Last Word, Deco. In the newsgroups,
I could counter their lies."
--David Tholen
chatnoir
Spent Stars - You mean like Britney Spears?
John "C"
"chatnoir" <wolfb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1189573674.6...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 11, 7:22 pm, Art Deco <e...@caballista.org> wrote:
>
> Spent Stars - You mean like Britney Spears?
Deco don't like women!
HJ
--
"Silly little awards"
- pinku-sen...@caballista.org
"I don't like out-of-control kookologists; they make AUK look bad."
- pinku-sen...@caballista.org
"we (tinw) really do it for our own entertainment"
- pinku-sen...@caballista.org
"There are no rules"
- Kadaitcha Man (RIP)
"Everything I type is a lie."
- Art Deco <er...@caballista.org>
I know AUK to be exactly what it is...a pit of chaos...nothing more,
nothing less.
- K.A. Cannon
BradGuth
the usual topic/author stocking case, whereas the warm and fuzzy likes
of "jacob navia" and the usual gauntlet of others spewing their faith-
based infomercial physics and carefully scripted science that always
manages to exclude whatever evidence rocks their good ship LOLLIPOP,
insisting upon their all-or-nothing interpretation which suits
whatever faith-based swarm mindset, and thereby reinforcing upon their
creation-only as well as their Earth-only formulated analogy that's
supposedly all there is to behold. However, why on Earth can't we
have both the random cosmic happenstance and later having intelligent
design coming in for the do-everything terraforming effort, that's
ultimately responsible for ending us up in the horrific terrestrial
mess that we're in. I for one would seriously love to associate with
and thus blame some weird or perverted God (especially of one holding
offshore bank accounts and shooting friends in the face) for all of
Clearly once upon a time (according to the very best of our
terrestrial all-knowing wizards in favor of that all-inclusive BB)
most everything was star like, as in extremely hot and nasty as all
get out. I'd say for the first few billion years you'd be hard
pressed to find much of anything that wasn't either becoming a star or
that of a black hole containing whatever potential of taking or giving
birth to other stars.
As to exactly how many billions of years old this universe actually
is, I do not believe it's actually recorded down in any terrestrial
stone tablets or within whatever Dead Sea scrolls, nor have the
regular laws of physics come up with any viable game plan that's other
than being the usual hocus-pocus status quo (aka cover thy butt)
approved. Perhaps this topic is a little bigger than resolving our BB
problem, especially since any form of history or science revisionism
is simply not allowed to stand, even as an honest rant.
Because I'm such a nice and fair minded guy, I'd actually buy into the
latest cycle or mutation of our local universe as being worth 13.7
billion years. However, since that +/- whatever billion year age
doesn't begin to tell us the average density of a spent star, so what?
Wouldn't it be a good thing to know what an old dark brown or nearly
black star density is worth?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_dwarf
"Typical atmospheres of known brown dwarfs range in temperature from
2200 down to 750 K (Burrows et al. 2001)." This puts Venus at 735 K
just below the thermal realm of a brown dwarf or spent star.
Just because Venus at 735 K is acting somewhat old brown dwarf like
hot and nasty, isn't actually all that technically insurmountable,
that is unless you're one of those absolute mindset naysayers that's
still not quite as smart as a hot rock and therefore in total denial
of their being in denial about ETs and of other intelligent life
that's off-world, not to mention in denial about our badly failing
environment, yet in full compliance as to whatever our resident LLPOF
warlord(GW Bush) has to say.
Besides all of what I've interpreted from quality radar images about
Venus that's looking so perfectly intelligent/artificial worthy, it
seems that our Venus w/o moon is very much alive and well worth our
exploring, as offering a nifty wealth of a thriving planetology that's
either much newer than Earth or representing that of a cosmic version
of physics that doesn't play fair or much less by the rules. Either
Venus is a somewhat dull brown dwarf of a spent star, or it's a
somewhat newish planet that arrived into our solar system as of not so
terribly long ago, as perhaps including and/or dragging along an icy
Selene/proto-moon as becoming our somewhat salty moon that may well
have required some degree of lithobraking/(glancing encounter) in
order to stick around (sort of speak). Of course, even Venus has been
somewhat tidal locked into showing the same face as pointed at Earth
every 19 month cycle, making the odds of Venus arriving w/o moon and/
or without having interacted with Earth highly unlikely.
- Brad Guth -
jacob navia
> in the horrific terrestrial mess that we're in.
You are part of that mess, you NAZI.
Didn't you see my name?
JACOB.
Yes I am a JEW, and I do not like your antisemitic
drivel, accusing us of being the root of
all evil, like Hitler.
And I am tired of letting pass this rubbish that
you spew day after day like somebody with cholera...
Go to the toilet Guth, USENET is not the place
you want to go.
Go to the toilet!
jacob
Next Generation
Ohh, poor innocent Jew who have never done anything wrong in his/her
entire life and knows that a Jewish fingernail is not worth 100.000
Palestininans. I can feeeel your pain.............(***!!)
You feel tired of the gas-chambers looming on the horizon? Forgive my
spelling as English is my second language.
BradGuth
> BradGuth wrote:
> > in the horrific terrestrial mess that we're in.
>
> You are part of that mess, you NAZI.
I agree that I've become a small part of this ongoing mess. However,
please specify as to the collateral damage and carnage of the innocent
that I'm supposedly responsible for.
>
> Didn't you see my name?
>
> JACOB.
>
> Yes I am a JEW, and I do not like your antisemitic
> drivel, accusing us of being the root of
> all evil, like Hitler.
Oddly, most Jews that I know of are good folks. By way of example,
what are you?
Is the truth what you folks call being "antisemitic"?
>
> And I am tired of letting pass this rubbish that
> you spew day after day like somebody with cholera...
>
> Go to the toilet Guth, USENET is not the place
> you want to go.
>
> Go to the toilet!
Why, is that where God's truth is hidden, that some Jews are seriously
bad folks that are seldom if ever policed by their own kind (excluding
Christ of course, as you folks did a real number on his deserving ass)
BTW, Hitler wasn't one of my puppets. Can you say the same?
- Brad Guth -
BradGuth
> Ohh, poor innocent Jew who have never done anything wrong in his/her
> Palestininans. I can feeeel your pain.............(***!!)
>
> You feel tired of the gas-chambers looming on the horizon? Forgive my
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yids of a feather have to stick together. It's a faith-based cult
swarm like thing, that's not by any means limited to the Jewish faith.
I suppose if they'd kick a few more of their own nasty butts from time
to time, as such I'd have a somewhat moderated view as to what such
faith-based groups are otherwise doing behind our backs.
- Brad Guth -