[Tom Bishop]

This is really easy. You argued that the D must have been made by the BD. I challenged that. (It's an unanswered question.) You presented your own reasonable arguments backed up with even a quote that agreed you might be wrong. I thanked you for your concession Any questions?

In absence of consensus, I don't see how my opinion on the matter is wrong.

How does the origin of Deuterium help your argument that a planet-sized ball of burning gas can vary in temperature by over a million degrees?

[Gulliver]

This is really easy. You argued that the D must have been made by the BD. I challenged that. (It's an unanswered question.) You presented your own reasonable arguments backed up with even a quote that agreed you might be wrong. I thanked you for your concession Any questions?

In absence of consensus, I don't see how my opinion on the matter is wrong.

How does the origin of Deuterium help your argument that a planet-sized ball of burning gas can vary in temperature by over a million degrees?

When you state that X is true when X is not know to be true or false, then you've erred. When did you prove that that BD's temperature varies by over a million degrees? Are you assuming that D burning continues in all BDs forever? Are you applying typical cases to a specific one without justification?

[Rama Set]

Per the article in the OP, this is a Brown Dwarf star.

According to Wikipedia Brown Dwarfs are fueled by Deuterium, the beginning stage of the full Stellar Nucleosynthesis process.

"Since hydrogen burning requires much higher temperatures and pressures than deuterium burning does, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs"

We also learn from that same article that Deuterium burns at a minimum of 10^6K

"Deuterium is the most easily fused nucleus available to accreting protostars, and burning in the center of protostars can proceed when temperatures exceed 10^6 K."

10^6 K = 999727 Celsius

Uh oh...

Just to back up for a second. The Wikipedia article on Brown Dwarfs says that they must be above 13 M_J to fuse deuterium (aka deuterium burning). This brown dwarf is below that threshold:

WISE J085510.83-071442.5 is estimated to be 3 to 10 times the mass of Jupiter. With such a low mass, it could be a gas giant similar to Jupiter that was ejected from its star system. But scientists estimate it is probably a brown dwarf rather than a planet since brown dwarfs are known to be fairly common. If so, it is one of the least massive brown dwarfs known.

I noticed that as well. If this star is under 13 Jupiter Masses, and the calculations demand a 13 Jupiter Mass minimum, it is just further evidence to show that the calculations in astronomy are unreliable.

No, there is no requirement that all BDs must fuse deuterium as per the source you cited. Why are you asserting that the BD in question burns deuterium without evidence?

It's another nail in the coffin. I'm not aware of any theories exist speculating of self-luminous gas giant planets like Jupiter sitting in interstellar space.

Perhaps ithe theory does not exist. Perhaps it does and you are not aware of it. Either way, that has no bearing on the existence of the BD being described and it's sub-zero C temperature. Would a lack of germ theory make the existence of germs impossible?  Hardly.

[garygreen]

You forgot the part about the outer layers being recycled into the core.

No, I mentioned that in my first post.  Hot matter leaves the core.  It cools as it expands.  After it cools it falls back down toward the core where it is heated again and process continues.  It's like a big circle.  That's what convection is.  Convection doesn't automatically lead to instant thermal equilibrium. 

Heat transfer takes time.  Stars are huge.  The end.

[DDDDAts all folks]

The center of the earth is very hot. The surface of the earth varies in temperature allowing liquid water to form (it's not so hot).

Why can't a star have the same property?

Nothing like the earth. Stars are clouds of gas, and the outer layers are recycled into the core via convection.

Tom the model you're using for convection etc... is for main sequence stars (i.e. something like our sun) the star under examination here is a brown dwarf star which does not have the mass to cause a chain reaction that powers a star like our sun. The heat flow mechanism within its core is not the same as the one you're proposing.

It's a failed star that lies on the cusp of being a planet.

[garygreen]

A thought experiment just came to mind.  Here's how you can know that convection doesn't lead to thermal equilibrium.

Suppose that the BD suddenly is in equilibrium: the gas around the core is just as hot as the core.  Heat transfer will cause the star to lose that equilibrium.

Atoms at the surface will cool.  Some of them will be ejected from the star and take their energy with them, cooling the surface.  Many of them will radiate energy, also cooling the surface.  Those atoms will tend to fall toward the core.

Atom at the core will heat up.  Gravity will pull them together, and the increase in pressure will increase the temperature of the core.  Those atoms will tend to move away from the core and cool and they reach the surface.

Convection doesn't cause immediate equilibrium.  Heat transfer takes time.

[markjo]

A thought experiment just came to mind.  Here's how you can know that convection doesn't lead to thermal equilibrium.

Before you put too much thought into your experiment, first we should all agree as to what constitutes thermal equilibrium.  Does it mean that the temperature throughout the brown dwarf is the same or does it mean that the brown dwarf dissipates as much heat into space as it generates in its core resulting in relatively stable temperature zones?  Personally, I vote for the latter.

[garygreen]

A thought experiment just came to mind.  Here's how you can know that convection doesn't lead to thermal equilibrium.

Before you put too much thought into your experiment, first we should all agree as to what constitutes thermal equilibrium.  Does it mean that the temperature throughout the brown dwarf is the same or does it mean that the brown dwarf dissipates as much heat into space as it generates in its core resulting in relatively stable temperature zones?  Personally, I vote for the latter.

I take Tom to be saying that because the core is very hot, and because convection carries heat away from the core toward the surface, that the surface ought to be as hot as the core.

[Tom Bishop]

This is really easy. You argued that the D must have been made by the BD. I challenged that. (It's an unanswered question.) You presented your own reasonable arguments backed up with even a quote that agreed you might be wrong. I thanked you for your concession Any questions?

In absence of consensus, I don't see how my opinion on the matter is wrong.

How does the origin of Deuterium help your argument that a planet-sized ball of burning gas can vary in temperature by over a million degrees?

When you state that X is true when X is not know to be true or false, then you've erred. When did you prove that that BD's temperature varies by over a million degrees? Are you assuming that D burning continues in all BDs forever? Are you applying typical cases to a specific one without justification?

As previously discussed, if the minimum temperature is not achieved, the power source cannot be maintained, and the Brown Dwarf is no longer a Brown Dwarf. Is is a black ball of inert gas, the final stage.

No, there is no requirement that all BDs must fuse deuterium as per the source you cited. Why are you asserting that the BD in question burns deuterium without evidence?

The source I quoted in the second post says that Brown Dwarfs burns deuterium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium_burning

"Since hydrogen burning requires much higher temperatures and pressures than deuterium burning does, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs"

Perhaps ithe theory does not exist. Perhaps it does and you are not aware of it. Either way, that has no bearing on the existence of the BD being described and it's sub-zero C temperature. Would a lack of germ theory make the existence of germs impossible?  Hardly.

I don't see how your argument that Astronomy is wrong supports your position.

No, I mentioned that in my first post.  Hot matter leaves the core.  It cools as it expands.  After it cools it falls back down toward the core where it is heated again and process continues.  It's like a big circle.  That's what convection is.  Convection doesn't automatically lead to instant thermal equilibrium. 

Heat transfer takes time.  Stars are huge.  The end.

Not instant, but the systems are attempting to equalize at all levels.

The primary cooling comes from radiation loss, not "cooling as it expands". If there were no radiation loss, there would be no convection. This is a ball of gas. Heat rises to the top. Gas cooled by radiation loss at the surface falls to the core via convection, just as the cold air in a heated room falls to the floor, where it is recycled into the heater and brought up anew.

The argument that in an environment like that, a difference of a million degrees can be maintained in an equalizing, convective body, is simply absurd. Heat is constantly being moved to the top. It's nothing like earth.

[Rama Set]

As previously discussed, if the minimum temperature is not achieved, the power source cannot be maintained, and the Brown Dwarf is no longer a Brown Dwarf. Is is a black ball of inert gas, the final stage.

No, there is no requirement that all BDs must fuse deuterium as per the source you cited. Why are you asserting that the BD in question burns deuterium without evidence?

The source I quoted in the second post says that Brown Dwarfs burns deuterium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium_burning

"Since hydrogen burning requires much higher temperatures and pressures than deuterium burning does, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs"

You deliberately truncated the quotation above.  Here it is in full with the part you left out in bold:

"Since hydrogen burning requires much higher temperatures and pressures than deuterium burning does, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs,

and have masses between about 13 and 80 times the mass of Jupiter."[/list]

This part is crucial since we have already established that not all brown dwarfs are above 13 M_J, particularly the one that is being discussed in this thread.  So, once again, your assertion that WISE J085510.83-071442.5 burns deuterium and so must have a core temperature in the millions of degrees Celsius is patently false.

Perhaps ithe theory does not exist. Perhaps it does and you are not aware of it. Either way, that has no bearing on the existence of the BD being described and it's sub-zero C temperature. Would a lack of germ theory make the existence of germs impossible?  Hardly.

I don't see how your argument that Astronomy is wrong supports your position.

Where did I say that the Astronomy is wrong?  Your misrepresentation of my arguments is truly terrible. 

To recap, you have not a leg to stand on to say that WISE J085510.83-071442.5 has a core temperature in the range of millions of degrees and your red herring about "self-luminous gas giant planets like Jupiter sitting in interstellar space" is derailing the topic of the BDs temperature.

[Tom Bishop]

As previously discussed, if the minimum temperature is not achieved, the power source cannot be maintained, and the Brown Dwarf is no longer a Brown Dwarf. Is is a black ball of inert gas, the final stage.

No, there is no requirement that all BDs must fuse deuterium as per the source you cited. Why are you asserting that the BD in question burns deuterium without evidence?

The source I quoted in the second post says that Brown Dwarfs burns deuterium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium_burning

"Since hydrogen burning requires much higher temperatures and pressures than deuterium burning does, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs"

You deliberately truncated the quotation above.  Here it is in full with the part you left out in bold:

"Since hydrogen burning requires much higher temperatures and pressures than deuterium burning does, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs,

and have masses between about 13 and 80 times the mass of Jupiter."[/list]

This part is crucial since we have already established that not all brown dwarfs are above 13 M_J, particularly the one that is being discussed in this thread.  So, once again, your assertion that WISE J085510.83-071442.5 burns deuterium and so must have a core temperature in the millions of degrees Celsius is patently false.

The 13 Jupiter Mass minimum is more a rule of thumb based on observations rather than anything of mathematical significance.

If this star is not being powered by Deuterium, then what is it being powered by? Something mysterious?

[Rama Set]

As previously discussed, if the minimum temperature is not achieved, the power source cannot be maintained, and the Brown Dwarf is no longer a Brown Dwarf. Is is a black ball of inert gas, the final stage.

No, there is no requirement that all BDs must fuse deuterium as per the source you cited. Why are you asserting that the BD in question burns deuterium without evidence?

The source I quoted in the second post says that Brown Dwarfs burns deuterium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium_burning

"Since hydrogen burning requires much higher temperatures and pressures than deuterium burning does, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs"

You deliberately truncated the quotation above.  Here it is in full with the part you left out in bold:

"Since hydrogen burning requires much higher temperatures and pressures than deuterium burning does, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs,

and have masses between about 13 and 80 times the mass of Jupiter."[/list]

This part is crucial since we have already established that not all brown dwarfs are above 13 M_J, particularly the one that is being discussed in this thread.  So, once again, your assertion that WISE J085510.83-071442.5 burns deuterium and so must have a core temperature in the millions of degrees Celsius is patently false.

The 13 Jupiter Mass minimum is more a rule of thumb based on observations rather than anything of mathematical significance.

If this star is not being powered by Deuterium, then what is it being powered by? Something mysterious?

Sounds like a question for the professionals Tom.  In the meantime, unless you can find some proof that this BD has a core in the millions of degrees, perhaps you should retract the comment?

[Gulliver]

Sounds like a question for the professionals Tom.  In the meantime, unless you can find some proof that this BD has a core in the millions of degrees, perhaps you should retract the comment?

I agree, Tom. You're out of your leagues and RS has good advice.

[Tom Bishop]

Sounds like a question for the professionals Tom.  In the meantime, unless you can find some proof that this BD has a core in the millions of degrees, perhaps you should retract the comment?

The equations say that Deuterium burning requires a minimum temperature. If it's not Deuterium being burnt, then you are going to have to provide an alternative mechanism.

The argument that "we don't know what's powering it" is a tact admission that Astronomy is not reliable as a science.

[Gulliver]

Sounds like a question for the professionals Tom.  In the meantime, unless you can find some proof that this BD has a core in the millions of degrees, perhaps you should retract the comment?

The equations say that Deuterium burning requires a minimum temperature. If it's not Deuterium being burnt, then you are going to have to provide an alternative mechanism.

The argument that "we don't know what's powering it" is a tact admission that Astronomy is not reliable as a science.

No, saying that your theory doesn't cover all observations, yet, is reliable science. This case requires only an atypical origin or condition of the BD. For example, it may have ran out of fuel and is cooling in accordance with the Gas Laws. Why can't the BD have lost mass since its D-burning days to a passing star millions of years ago?

[Tom Bishop]

As previously discussed, if the minimum temperature is not achieved, the power source cannot be maintained, and the Brown Dwarf is no longer a Brown Dwarf. It is a black ball of inert gas, the final stage.

[Rama Set]

Sounds like a question for the professionals Tom.  In the meantime, unless you can find some proof that this BD has a core in the millions of degrees, perhaps you should retract the comment?

The equations say that Deuterium burning requires a minimum temperature. If it's not Deuterium being burnt, then you are going to have to provide an alternative mechanism.

The argument that "we don't know what's powering it" is a tact admission that Astronomy is not reliable as a science.

I do not have to provide an alternative. I made the claim that the BD was not burning deuterium and I have substantiated it. I also never said "we don't know what's powering it" and made no "tact[sic] admission that Astronomy is not a reliable science. You should trying to force your opinions in to my words it makes you appear desperate.

[Rama Set]

As previously discussed, if the minimum temperature is not achieved, the power source cannot be maintained, and the Brown Dwarf is no longer a Brown Dwarf. It is a black ball of inert gas, the final stage.

Your opinions are not substantiated by scientific literature.

[markjo]

The 13 Jupiter Mass minimum is more a rule of thumb based on observations rather than anything of mathematical significance.

If this star is not being powered by Deuterium, then what is it being powered by? Something mysterious?

Who said that this star is >13 Jupiter masses?  A bit of digging reveals that WISE J085510.83–071442.5 is estimated to be about 3-10 Jupiter masses and is designated as a sub-brown dwarf.

Also of note:

In addition, many brown dwarfs undergo no fusion; those at the low end of the mass range (under 13 Jupiter masses) are never hot enough to fuse even deuterium, and even those at the high end of the mass range (over 60 Jupiter masses) cool quickly enough that they no longer undergo fusion after a period of time on the order of 10 million years.

[Rama Set]

The 13 Jupiter Mass minimum is more a rule of thumb based on observations rather than anything of mathematical significance.

If this star is not being powered by Deuterium, then what is it being powered by? Something mysterious?

Who said that this star is >13 Jupiter masses?  A bit of digging reveals that WISE J085510.83–071442.5 is estimated to be about 3-10 Jupiter masses and is designated as a sub-brown dwarf.

Also of note:

In addition, many brown dwarfs undergo no fusion; those at the low end of the mass range (under 13 Jupiter masses) are never hot enough to fuse even deuterium, and even those at the high end of the mass range (over 60 Jupiter masses) cool quickly enough that they no longer undergo fusion after a period of time on the order of 10 million years.

Please read the rest of the thread. This point has already been brought to Tom's attention and he has not yet found a way to get his argument back on track.