# Thread: Why is the sun in the center of our system?

1. Well.. why is there a hot gas giant in the middle of our system.. My conclusion was that a hot object has an extended gravity circle. Otherwise the sun would in some point rotate around other planets or not?

Well, hmm i figured it out on my way home yesterday.. that is wasn't easy to give an answer.

But still, is it possible that a system has no sun? and something like an antisun (endotherm reaction) with a simular gravity ring.

8) another mindblowing thing, good luck thinktank

2.

3. The sun is where most of the matter in the solar system is, so that's where the solar system's center of mass is located - everything in the solar system orbits about the system's center of mass, which also happened to be where to sun is.

4. Originally Posted by Zwolver
But still, is it possible that a system has no sun? and something like an antisun (endotherm reaction) with a simular gravity ring.

My thought is YES. As long as this "antisun," as you called it, had the same strength of gravity. But then this would not be our system as we would not be able to exhist. The sun gives off heat, but if the "antisun" took heat then it would die much sooner than the sun, and none of us would exhist.

5. Sun was all by his lonesome as a medium sized star, axial spin centrifugally hurled portions of it , as you now see them as planets, basically aligned not by coincidence at and around the sun's ecliptic, in accord with their mass values and the proclamations of Newton's Classical Mechanics.

6. the sun is acctualy not the center of our system, the center of our mass is constantly changing as the planet moves around it. but its very close to the sun

7. actually, the sun is soo much more massive than the planets that the center of mass is always very near to the center of the sun, and always inside of it.

Originally Posted by Zwolver
Well.. why is there a hot gas giant in the middle of our system.. My conclusion was that a hot object has an extended gravity circle. Otherwise the sun would in some point rotate around other planets or not?

Well, hmm i figured it out on my way home yesterday.. that is wasn't easy to give an answer.

But still, is it possible that a system has no sun? and something like an antisun (endotherm reaction) with a simular gravity ring.

8) another mindblowing thing, good luck thinktank
Well, the answer is yes because of your very loose definition if a system. Just look at Jupiter. Jupiter is a gas giant with no fusion going on (as far as we know,) and yet there are still many moons orbiting it (analogous to planets in this case.)

8. hmm, the sun is not that massive. it may have 200.000 times more mass than earth, it only has like 1000 times more mass than jupiter.

But still, suns gravity ring extends with more than 1000 times the gravity ring of jupiter.

why is that?

9. this is because Jupiter experiences more interplanetary attractions and repulsions than that of Sun. This reduces its net field acting on every oter body in space :wink:

But still, is it possible that a system has no sun? and something like an antisun (endotherm reaction) with a simular gravity ring.
Yes. Think of a binary star system where the masses of the stars are comparable. In this system, each star orbits the center of mass, which happens to fall in empty space (roughly half way between them). If you are specifically asking about not having a "sun," the same holds if the stars happen to be planets (i.e., no sun).

william

11. Originally Posted by sunil
this is because Jupiter experiences more interplanetary attractions and repulsions than that of Sun. This reduces its net field acting on every oter body in space :wink:

you mean that because of the particles in jupiter that create the gravitational field, the gravity get's altered, so all other bodies have less effect on jupiter and vice versa?

12. Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
Sun was all by his lonesome as a medium sized star, axial spin centrifugally hurled portions of it , as you now see them as planets, basically aligned not by coincidence at and around the sun's ecliptic, in accord with their mass values and the proclamations of Newton's Classical Mechanics.
this is how i see it, but not just portions of the sun but other objects from space also trapped at there positions cause of the gravitational pull of the sun

13. Originally Posted by zwolver
the sun is not that massive. it may have 200.000 times more mass than earth
I thought it looked a bit dim this morning... LOL

14. Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
Sun was all by his lonesome as a medium sized star, axial spin centrifugally hurled portions of it , as you now see them as planets, basically aligned not by coincidence at and around the sun's ecliptic, in accord with their mass values and the proclamations of Newton's Classical Mechanics.
This view was discarded even before I was a fetus.

The planets condense from the accretion disc that forms upon the collapse of the proto-sun from a large gas/dust cloud.

15. Originally Posted by Zwolver
hmm, the sun is not that massive. it may have 200.000 times more mass than earth, it only has like 1000 times more mass than jupiter.

But still, suns gravity ring extends with more than 1000 times the gravity ring of jupiter.

why is that?
From wiki:
The Sun is the name given to the star of our solar system. The Earth and other matter (including other planets, asteroids, meteoroids, comets and dust) orbit the Sun, which by itself accounts for more than 99% of the solar system's mass.
Seems pretty massive to me...

16. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
Sun was all by his lonesome as a medium sized star, axial spin centrifugally hurled portions of it , as you now see them as planets, basically aligned not by coincidence at and around the sun's ecliptic, in accord with their mass values and the proclamations of Newton's Classical Mechanics.
This view was discarded even before I was a fetus.

The planets condense from the accretion disc that forms upon the collapse of the proto-sun from a large gas/dust cloud.
How could any updated plebe think otherwise? Another statement of the obvious by the incomparably scintillating Ophiolite.

17. Please desist with the snide one liners.

Clearly the conventional, well validated view of planetary origins is not one you consider obvious. If you are going to post controversial views (especially ones that have been thoroughly rejected by science) you might at least choose to include a 'health warning'. The 'spinning off of matter' to form the planets is no longer considered a valid hypothesis. If you have data or analyses that suggests it should be, please share these with us.

18. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Please desist with the snide one liners.

Clearly the conventional, well validated view of planetary origins is not one you consider obvious. If you are going to post controversial views (especially ones that have been thoroughly rejected by science) you might at least choose to include a 'health warning'. The 'spinning off of matter' to form the planets is no longer considered a valid hypothesis. If you have data or analyses that suggests it should be, please share these with us.
H.G. Well's Outline of History. Chapter One.

19. Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
H.G. Well's Outline of History. Chapter One.
That was published in 1920 wasn't it? It isn't exactly on the forefront of scientific knowledge.

20. Originally Posted by Neutrino
Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
H.G. Well's Outline of History. Chapter One.
That was published in 1920 wasn't it? It isn't exactly on the forefront of scientific knowledge.
Dear Ophiliote:
I know better than to underestimate you, you've taught many others the same as well.
On the other hand, what makes this prototype star business a 'theory', and what makes it superior to what does indeed (copyright 1921) seem much more obvious (to me) than the 'updated' prototype dissertation you've corrected me with?
____________________

"The planets condense from the accretion disc that forms upon the collapse of the proto-sun from a large gas/dust cloud."
________________________

Newness in science today is in many ways and on many grounds, highly prone to take the stage as 'theory' when it is hypothesis (Super strings, dark matter, big bang, gravitons, tachyeons, 'old, new, and tired light', quarks, leptons, charm, mesons, collapsation, foam, Copenhagen interpretation, strangeness; 'particles' that have no descret boundaries making them discontinuous from the space surrounding them <a 'particle' has yet to be found> etceteras - all hypotheses.) Is not your proposal also an hypothesis,and if not, why not?

The heavens begat the galaxy.
The galaxy begat the sun.
The sun begat the earth.
The earth begat grass.
The grass begat seeds.
The seeds begat insects, reptiles, mammals and human kind.
Human kind begat Nomads, Civilization & War.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/subedai

21. It seems that Ophiolite and Neutrino have secluded themselves in some sort of hypothetical 'entanglement'?

If 'out dated' age is a consideration here, let's have done with all of Newton's Classical Mechanics and the works of Einstein as well?

22. Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
Newness in science today is in many ways and on many grounds, highly prone to take the stage as 'theory' when it is hypothesis
Some of the examples you cite are not considered theories, but hypotheses. String theory, as I have noted before, is a mastubatory device for theoretical mathematicians, and should never have been accorded the honour of being named a theory. It is a travesty of science to so name it and doing so places real power into the hands of creationists who can then respond with "but evolution is just a theory".
I am normally opposed to capital punishment, but would be happy to see it introduced for the criminal assholes who first called fatuous string conjecture by the name string theory.
Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
On the other hand, what makes this prototype star business a 'theory', and what makes it superior to what does indeed (copyright 1921) seem much more obvious (to me) than the 'updated' prototype dissertation you've corrected me with?
"The planets condense from the accretion disc that forms upon the collapse of the proto-sun from a large gas/dust cloud."
First, I have great affection for Wells' Outline of History. I have two copies of it in my library. (Possibly three if you will consider electronic versions.)
Secondly, I do not actually recall a time when the idea of material being spun off from the sun was considered a viable explanation for planetary formation. The closest I can come to it is Laplace's nebular hypothesis (an improvement on Kant's original idea), but which was itself discarded because of insurmountable problems with the distribution of angular momentum.

23. I am much amused at the number of theories chucked around, some fail at the first hurdle, some last a while longer. When it comes to the meaning of the universe there seem more theories than grains of sand on the Beach. We keep theories all while they appear to fit the 'facts', they are mostly conjecture and, mostly NOT fact.

Suppose for example you open a door and enter a room lit by a single glass portal, within the room you see a dead parrot and a few pieces of rubber scraps (too small to discern anything other than it was rubber). You notice a foul (as opposed to fowl) smell, and there is a stain on the floor.

Newton might contend that the bird died of starvation as there was no sign of food present (or bird droppings), he may also conclude the rubber was irrelevant. A simple explanation that anybody could understand.

Einstein might (after a great deal of thought) decide the bird had learnt to play squash but had been hit by the ball on a rebound, after failing to realise that eventually the ball would come back and hit him irrespective of the direction he initially struck the ball. THe ball had perished with time. When asked about the stain he said "I will explain that in a second theory"

Boyle would contend that the rubber had been part of a ballon filled with gas which when pecked by the bird (searching for sustenance) had ruptured resulting in asphixiation/shock. He might also add that this is confirmed by the peculiar smell.

The quantum physicist might decide the rubber was infact the decayed remains of the bird's eggshell - the egg had appeared along with an anti-egg but a stray photon of light had struck the anti-egg causing an imbalance to occur before the eggs could re-unite and cancel as normal. The anti- egg fell to the floor where in contact with 'normal' matter it dissappeard leaving only a stain. Some might recognise 'Hawking radiation' here - any similarity is completely intended. After a while the physicist was able to modify his hypothesis in the light of obvious flaws.

I used to think science was about observing some natural phenomena and then through a process of experiment, providing an explanation which others could also prove. Up until Einstein we could all understand science, many of us repeated the experiments of others in our classrooms and got the same results. Science used to be FACT. Today it seems more fiction.
Sure if enough people make enough guess's about the big bang one of them will coincide with the truth, but it's the same for the monkeys, the typewriters, and the complete works of Shakespeare.

24. Your criticisms are valid to some extent for the disciplines of particle physics and cosmology. I do not think they apply especially to the Earth sciences, or biology, or a great deal of astronomy.

As to the dead parrot the explanation appears simple. It is a late parrot, it is deceased, it is no more. If someone hadn't attached its legs to a perch with the rubber band it would have been pushing up the daisies long ago. (With apologies to John Cleese and Michael Palin).

25. Gentlemen:
Ophiolite, Neutrino and last but not least, billco.
Been rotflmao so much and so many times here that it's challenging to maintain a properly composed address to all of you.

I haven't been able to locate the diagrammatic portrayal of the spinning sun hurling the planets from its' ecliptic; where I looked for it specifically in Chapter One of Wells' OUTLINE OF HISTORY. I can even recall, vividly, the superbly pen and inked illustrations of it, but, it must have been in a different book. I haven't checked all of Well's text but was sure there was a diagram accompanying it and it's nowhere to be found. Albeit, this isn't a point of contention in this discusssion, after all. That is, it seems to be a settled agreement that this is among the possible explanatons for the title of this thread.

Something else we can apparently agree on is what a clusterflock 'theoretical physics' (is what they're calling a lot of it) - especially in the microcosms - has become (Billco's parrot parody is unpurchaseable).

With all kudos to Max Planck (who is not to be denied, though he certainly has been and continues to be misrepresented).
Hey maybe a true Final Theory of Everything is obliged to include all the straw hats, canes, tap shoes, burlesque and sawdust as well...

(You've heard the news, and, soon enough will emerge, the rest of the story? <We've tried not to let fame and success spoil us?>)

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement