fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV (Fred Baube) (02/27/88)
Isn't it inevitable that somewhere along the way Jupiter will undergo stellar ignition ? I read somewhere that Jupiter could have been a star, if only the same quantity of matter were more compact, creating higher internal pressures. I'm assuming that there is a chemical process that is exothermic (i.e. creating a net energy output, or breaking even, but not requiring an energy *input*) that can process the constituents of the Jovian atmosphere into denser products. If this is the case, then won't some biotek jock invent the bug that will perform this process ? And if it's invented, won't some wise guy let it loose ? More philosophically, isn't any process that increases entropy bound to occur, no matter how great the scale, so long as people can evade the XEPA (Xeno-Environmental Protection Agency) ?
jdd@db.toronto.edu ("John D. DiMarco") (03/02/88)
In article <8802261606.aa19896@note.nsf.gov> fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV (Fred Baube) writes: >Isn't it inevitable that somewhere along the way Jupiter will >undergo stellar ignition ? No it isn't. Jupiter does not have nearly enough mass. >I read somewhere that Jupiter could have been a star, if only the >same quantity of matter were more compact, creating higher >internal pressures. Internal pressure does not make a star - high temperature does. Jupiter could be considered a stellar object only if its internal temperature increased to the point of commencement of Nuclear Fusion. There is no known way for this to occur without considerably more mass. >I'm assuming that there is a chemical process that is exothermic >(i.e. creating a net energy output, or breaking even, but not >requiring an energy *input*) that can process the constituents >of the Jovian atmosphere into denser products. Chemical compounds do not exist (for the most part) in stars - stellar temperatures are too great. In any case, I don't think there is any such possible process. >If this is the case, then won't some biotek jock invent the bug >that will perform this process ? And if it's invented, won't >some wise guy let it loose ? What an idea! I'll fly off to Jupiter and turn it into a star! I'll be famous... :-) >More philosophically, isn't any process that increases entropy >bound to occur, no matter how great the scale, so long as people >can evade the XEPA (Xeno-Environmental Protection Agency) ? Not necessarily. Dropping a Nuclear Bomb on New York will increase entropy, but it does not necessarily have to happen. Do you honestly think that anything that increases the amount of disorder in a system must occur? John -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John DiMarco Hard work never killed a man ... jdd@csri.toronto.edu ... but it sure has scared lots of them! {uunet!utai,watmath!utai,decvax,decwrl,ihnp4}!utcsri!jdd jdd@utcsri.UUCP --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoffrey_Welsh@watmath.waterloo.edu (03/03/88)
> From: fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV (Fred Baube) > Message-ID: <8802261606.aa19896@note.nsf.gov> > Date: 26 Feb 88 21:05:57 GMT > Isn't it inevitable that somewhere along the way Jupiter will > undergo stellar ignition ? I think not. Not nearly enough mass. > I read somewhere that Jupiter could have been a star, if only the > same quantity of matter were more compact, creating higher > internal pressures. But the mass would be more compact (have higher internal pressures) only if there were much more mass surrounding it. It's also been said that, if Jupiter's inner atmosphere wascomposed of carbon, there'd be a diamond the size of the Earth down there. RE: inventing an ignition method for Jupiter & some "wise guy" setting it loose: look at the atom bomb & carry the analogy. Derive your own conclusions. > More philosophically, isn't any process that increases entropy > bound to occur, no matter how great the scale, so long as people > can evade the XEPA (Xeno-Environmental Protection Agency) Stellar ignition decreases entropy (more mass in less volume because the atoms become more complex), so it must be decidedly exothermic to perpetuate. It would still require input of a huge amount of energy. Geoff ( watmath!fido!221.171!izot ) --- ConfMail V3.31 * Origin: The Waterloo Window: WOC's out there? (1:221/171)
hdunne@amethyst.ma.arizona.edu (|-|ugh) (03/04/88)
In article <1988Mar2.125820.352@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> jdd@db.toronto.edu ("John D. DiMarco") writes: }>More philosophically, isn't any process that increases entropy }>bound to occur, no matter how great the scale, so long as people }>can evade the XEPA (Xeno-Environmental Protection Agency) ? }Not necessarily. Dropping a Nuclear Bomb on New York will increase entropy, but }it does not necessarily have to happen. Wouldn't be a bad idea though. :-) Hugh Dunne | UUCP: ..{cmcl2,ihnp4,seismo!noao}!arizona!amethyst!hdunne Dept. of Math. | Phone: | ARPA: hdunne@amethyst.ma.arizona.edu Univ. of Arizona | +1 602 621 4766 | Bitnet: hdunne@arizrvax Tucson AZ 85721 | +1 602 621 6893 | Internet: hdunne@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV (Fred Baube) (03/09/88)
> I don't think anybody really knows what a bi-solar system would do to > the planets, but I have a good feeling that it would make mars a hell > of a more desirable place to live. I wouldn't bet on it ! Assuming that the new sun is not as strong as the original (how strong *would* it be ?), most of the time on Mars you might not even notice any effects on the plane- tary environment, until that time every 1.2 or so Mars-years, when Jupiter *did* warm the planet, causing some sort of chaos. Then again, it might qualify as some sort of season, and any life that evolved, or that we released, would adapt to it and take advantage of it, probably by re-arranging reproductive cycles. On Earth, when seasons change, the net energy flow to Earth is still a constant, and here we're talking about wide variations in that flow. And, since Mars has no oceans and little atmosphere, these effects would not be moderated, nor would the additional energy be stored for long, so one could expect some pretty loopy weather. Then again, maybe the lack of oceans and near-lack of atmosphere mean that the temperature would go up, but not much else would happen !
jps@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Jeff P Szczerbinski) (03/24/88)
In article <8803081408.aa10335@note.nsf.gov> fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV (Fred Baube) writes: > >> I don't think anybody really knows what a bi-solar system would do to >> the planets, but I have a good feeling that it would make mars a hell >> of a more desirable place to live. > I'm not all that knowledgable about physics and the theory behind a double-star system but I would have to say that life as we know it on Earth would either end or come to a very distinctive change. Jupiter itself would be exerting a greater gravity. Its orbit would also change because of this and possibly orbits of many of the others in the solar system. Better to ask this question of someone on sci.astro. Aloha, Jeff Jeff Szczerbinski Univ. of Wisc. - Milwaukee -- Computer Services Division jps@csd4.milw.wisc.edu +1 414 332 3033 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Anarchy -- Its not the law, its just a good idea!"
dbb@aicchi.UUCP (Burch) (03/28/88)
In article <5361@uwmcsd1.UUCP> jps@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Jeff P Szczerbinski) writes: >In article <8803081408.aa10335@note.nsf.gov> fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV (Fred Baube) writes: >> >>> I don't think anybody really knows what a bi-solar system would do to >>> the planets, but I have a good feeling that it would make mars a hell >>> of a more desirable place to live. >> > >I'm not all that knowledgable about physics and the theory behind >a double-star system but I would have to say that life as we know >it on Earth would either end or come to a very distinctive change. >Jupiter itself would be exerting a greater gravity. Its orbit >would also change because of this and possibly orbits of many of the >others in the solar system. Better to ask this question of someone >on sci.astro. > > Aloha, > > Jeff > >Jeff Szczerbinski Univ. of Wisc. - Milwaukee -- Computer Services Division >jps@csd4.milw.wisc.edu +1 414 332 3033 >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >"Anarchy -- Its not the law, its just a good idea!" HOLD THE BOAT! There are one or two problems with the above; 1. Jupiter is Over 4 AU from the Earth on the average day. If it were converted into an M5 red dwarf by some supertechnology, it would not be more bright than two magnitudes brighter than the full moon. 2. Just the starting of fusion would not change Jupiter's gravity, save that it would shed mass as time went by. I would not expect to have much that we could observe in the way of celestial mechanics. 3. Mars has about a two year period. Jupiter has about an 11 year period. this means that Mars will only be near Jupiter about every three years, (Is this the synodic period of Jupiter from Mars? I'm a little fuzzy this (sunday) morning...) Have fun! -- -David B. (Ben) Burch Analysts International Corp. Chicago Branch (ihnp4!aicchi!dbb) "Argue for your limitations, and they are yours." - R. Bach