[fappenhosen]

I am glad Tom Bishop is feeling better and able to take on the disbelievers with such relish.

[Gulliver]

Given the elapsed time since TB's last appearance ITT, I suspect that he's given up. So let's review the challenge to FET and its outcome.

1) "Sisters of Sun" and "Stellar Atmospheres": TB failed to indict either, or even comment on either. Applying his standard that my failure to challenge his diagrams (that by not immediately challenging them with my next post) means I accepted the diagrams, TB accepts the both. So we now know the surface temperature of millions of stars. Those temperature all are compatible with RET, but not FET.

2) Contrary to TB's attempt to make fun of the observation of the surface temperature of WISE J085510.83-071442.5, NASA is correct that it's unusually cold, below 0 degree Celsius.

3) RET is consistent with its model of stellar (and near stellar) objects. Nuclear fusion fuels them.

Maybe TB will return soon with another outlandish attack. Let's hope he learns when to apply a closed-system law of thermodynamics first.

[Tom Bishop]

Actually, I just have better things to do on a Sunday than sit here talking to a wall.

Your knowledge is wrong. In nature the second heaviest hydrogen isotope, deuterium, occurs naturally, from either the Big Bang or other stellar activity. So, yes, there is "pre-fused" hydrogen when the brown stars forms. Brown stars can only burn this isotope as their mass is insufficient to burn the lightest hydrogen isotope. This is my point. Brown stars have little fuel that they can burn.  See table 1 of www.lpi.usra.edu/books/MESSII/9038.pdf , less than one part in 1000 in most cases.

The hydrogen atoms were fused from within the star, earlier in its life. It's part of the process and life-cycle of the star. The fused atoms didn't just appear from nowhere. They occurred from that star's stellar activity. In order for the second stage of Stellar Fusion to occur, the first one must occur. It occurred early in that star's life of becoming a star, but it's still part of the overall process for the life cycle of those atoms in that reaction, which is why I said that the process encompasses both steps of the proton-proton chain reaction.

Again, wrong. You've forgotten that the internal convention will continue to heat the surface. If you understood, Newton's Law of Heating, you'd realize that the rate is dependent on the surface temperature. So, it's either cold (already radiated) or still losing the heat at a significant rate.

Bodies don't cool at a significant rate in space. Haven't you been keeping up with NASA's fiction over the years? They go on and on about how heat loss is a major problem in space. It's one of those "amazing facts" they teach grade school children with. The story goes that it is very difficult to get rid of heat generated by instruments in manned and unmanned ships. They say that the Space Shuttle has more issues getting rid of heat than it does trying to stay warm, which is why it flew around with the bay door open.

There is a short story by Frederik Polh called "The Mapmakers," that works on this general premise; a starship, unable to navigate to a planet to obtain air as a coolant, is slowly dying of increasing temperature as it can't rid itself of its own waste heat from internal processes.

[Tom Bishop]

Tom, that's for a closed system.  I hardly think that a brown dwarf star that is burning deuterium in its core and radiating heat into space qualifies as a closed system.  Also, you fail to consider that the brow dwarf could radiate heat out into space faster than the convection can carry the heat from the core.

I am afraid heat loss in space does not work like that. These are very old concepts. I would suggest that you and Gulliver read the story story penned by Frederik Pohl I mentioned above, or otherwise finding some of the educational video media NASA provides to school children about space. Learning about your own theory will do you a lot of good.

[Gulliver]

The hydrogen atoms were fused from within the star, earlier in its life. It's part of the process and life-cycle of the star. The fused atoms didn't just appear from nowhere. They occurred from that star's stellar activity. In order for the second stage of Stellar Fusion to occur, the first one must occur. It occurred early in that star's life of becoming a star, but it's still part of the overall process for the life cycle of those atoms in that reaction, which is why I said that the process encompasses both steps of the proton-proton chain reaction.

Please provide a scientific source for your outlandish claim: All brown stars sustain fusing hydrogen (lightest isotope).

Brown dwarfs are substellar objects too low in mass to sustain hydrogen-1 fusion reactions in their cores, unlike main-sequence stars, which can.

[Gulliver]

Bodies don't cool at a significant rate in space.

Please provide evidence that objects like this brown star does not cool at a significant rate. Just your saying something is true does not make it so.

[Gulliver]

Tom, that's for a closed system.  I hardly think that a brown dwarf star that is burning deuterium in its core and radiating heat into space qualifies as a closed system.  Also, you fail to consider that the brow dwarf could radiate heat out into space faster than the convection can carry the heat from the core.

I am afraid heat loss in space does not work like that. These are very old concepts. I would suggest that you and Gulliver read the story story penned by Frederik Pohl I mentioned above, or otherwise finding some of the educational video media NASA provides to school children about space. Learning about your own theory will do you a lot of good.

Please provide evidence that heat loss in space does not work that way. Why won't you consider a "running-on-empty" brown star's heat production limits? Why do you dismiss that tremendous energies can be irradiated from near-stellar objects? Give us an example where a near-stellar object that is not irradiating away large amounts of energy.

[Rama Set]

Deuterium burning does not necessarily proceed from initial hydrogen fusing in stellar nucleosynthesis but can be the first stage:

Deuterium burning is a nuclear fusion reaction that occurs in stars and some substellar objects, in which a deuterium nucleus and a proton combine to form a helium-3 nucleus. It occurs as the second stage of the proton–proton chain reaction, in which a deuterium nucleus formed from two protons fuses with a further proton, but can also proceed from primordial deuterium.

[markjo]

Tom, that's for a closed system.  I hardly think that a brown dwarf star that is burning deuterium in its core and radiating heat into space qualifies as a closed system.  Also, you fail to consider that the brow dwarf could radiate heat out into space faster than the convection can carry the heat from the core.

I am afraid heat loss in space does not work like that. These are very old concepts. I would suggest that you and Gulliver read the story story penned by Frederik Pohl I mentioned above, or otherwise finding some of the educational video media NASA provides to school children about space. Learning about your own theory will do you a lot of good.

Tom, where does NASA, or anyone else, mention the rate at which the deuterium is fused in this particular brown dwarf and the rate at which the brown dwarf's atmosphere radiates that heat away?   If there is no significant fusion going on in a relatively tiny stellar core, then why should there be any significant heat in the stellar atmosphere?  Also, don't be biased by your human perceptions.  The freezing point of water is still quite balmy compared to the near absolute zero temperature of deep space.

[Tom Bishop]

The hydrogen atoms were fused from within the star, earlier in its life. It's part of the process and life-cycle of the star. The fused atoms didn't just appear from nowhere. They occurred from that star's stellar activity. In order for the second stage of Stellar Fusion to occur, the first one must occur. It occurred early in that star's life of becoming a star, but it's still part of the overall process for the life cycle of those atoms in that reaction, which is why I said that the process encompasses both steps of the proton-proton chain reaction.

Please provide a scientific source for your outlandish claim: All brown stars sustain fusing hydrogen (lightest isotope).

I don't believe I stated that.

Bodies don't cool at a significant rate in space.

Please provide evidence that objects like this brown star does not cool at a significant rate. Just your saying something is true does not make it so.

I did provide evidence. I directed you to learning materials for children.

Why won't you consider a "running-on-empty" brown star's heat production limits?

I don't see what "running on empty" has to do with anything. If the necessary temperature to maintain the Deuretium burn is not achieved, then it is no longer a Brown Dwarf. It is a black ball of inert gas, the final stage.

The fire under a stove of boiling water may be "running on empty," but if a certain temperature is not achieved, the water is no longer boiling.

Why do you dismiss that tremendous energies can be irradiated from near-stellar objects? Give us an example where a near-stellar object that is not irradiating away large amounts of energy.

I can't help those who can't help themselves. The example I gave of the minimal instrumentation heat from space ships keeping them from cooling down, and actually increasing its temperature, despite being surrounded by the "cold" vastness of space is an apt one. Heat transfer via radiation loss is very inefficient, especialy if there is some amount of heat being generated within the body. The rate at which heat is radiated away is given by the Stephan-Boltzmann Law.

Another source: http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/misconceptions.html

"One of the biggest problems in designing spacecraft (even theoretical interstellar ones) is not how to keep them warm, but on the contrary, how to keep them cool. Motors, electronics and such all create heat, and there's nowhere this heat can dissipate to. Vacuum is a good temperature insulator and thus it's very hard to get rid of all that heat. Just putting a big thermal sink on the outer hull of the spacecraft would not be enough because it will radiate heat away too slowly.

One thing which might add to all this confusion is the so-called cosmic microwave background radiation, which is the phenomenon that the entire Universe is basically a black-body radiator of approximately 3 kelvin. Many people get confused by this and believe this means that anything put into deep space will quickly freeze to 3 kelvin.

The background radiation has nothing to do with how fast something will freeze in space. In fact, quite ironically, the effect is the opposite: Background radiation adds to the temperature of the object (in other words, it's another source of heat), it doesn't freeze it. (Of course if it's the only source of heat, it will, naturally, not be enough to keep the object warm. It just means basically that the object has a 3 kelvin heat source around it.)

Still not convinced? Well, consider this:

The Spitzer Space Telescope is an infrared observatory that launched in 2003. Since it detects infrared light, its instruments need to be cooled, or else they will emit infrared radiation which would interfere with the images. To do this, liquid helium was used to cool these instruments to almost absolute zero.

Now, if space was really, really cold, and everything put into space would freeze in seconds, why would they need to use liquid helium to cool off the instruments? Wouldn't the coldness of space be enough?

No, because as said, vacuum is a good insulator, and a very poor way of cooling anything, especially instruments which produce heat. That's why they needed the liquid helium to cool it down."

[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.

[Gulliver]

The hydrogen atoms were fused from within the star, earlier in its life. It's part of the process and life-cycle of the star. The fused atoms didn't just appear from nowhere. They occurred from that star's stellar activity. In order for the second stage of Stellar Fusion to occur, the first one must occur. It occurred early in that star's life of becoming a star, but it's still part of the overall process for the life cycle of those atoms in that reaction, which is why I said that the process encompasses both steps of the proton-proton chain reaction.

Let's try again. Please provide scientific evidence that this star fused hydrogen (lightest isotope) at some time in its life. Since deuterium formed through non-stellar activities during the Big Band and since previous stars may have formed D and expelled it as a nova, you're not able to conclude that the[ existence of D in a brown star means that it made it.

The Spitzer Space Telescope is an infrared observatory that launched in 2003. Since it detects infrared light, its instruments need to be cooled, or else they will emit infrared radiation which would interfere with the images. To do this, liquid helium was used to cool these instruments to almost absolute zero.

Now, if space was really, really cold, and everything put into space would freeze in seconds, why would they need to use liquid helium to cool off the instruments? Wouldn't the coldness of space be enough?

No, because as said, vacuum is a good insulator, and a very poor way of cooling anything, especially instruments which produce heat. That's why they needed the liquid helium to cool it down."[/list]

Please provide scientific evidence that an object light years from any other object, and just a  cannot radiate away enough heat to drop its surface temperature to 200 degree Kelvin. Clearly the need to cool Spitzer has more to do with the Sun's radiation and the crafts internal heat production than you consider.

[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?

[garygreen]

I'm not super up-to-date on my gas laws, but wouldn't the temperature of the gas necessarily decrease as it gets further from the core?  The gas is spreading out over a larger volume, so that means the pressure would decrease, yes?  Which means a decrease in temperature?  And there's definitely less gravitational force acting on the gas, so less energy = lower temperature?

Am I getting those relationships right?

[Gulliver]

I'm not super up-to-date on my gas laws, but wouldn't the temperature of the gas necessarily decrease as it gets further from the core?  The gas is spreading out over a larger volume, so that means the pressure would decrease, yes?  Which means a decrease in temperature?  And there's definitely less gravitational force acting on the gas, so less energy = lower temperature?

Am I getting those relationships right?

You have it right. So, even a ball of just H would have core temperature higher than its surface temperature and would radiate from its surface. No matter how perfect and fast the convection is, there would still be a difference. So even in the extreme case, TB is wrong. Good point gg!

[Tom Bishop]

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. 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.

Let's try again. Please provide scientific evidence that this star fused hydrogen (lightest isotope) at some time in its life. Since deuterium formed through non-stellar activities during the Big Band and since previous stars may have formed D and expelled it as a nova, you're not able to conclude that the[ existence of D in a brown star means that it made it.

I don't see what is so special about Deuterium that it must be made by the Big Bang and nothing else. Deutron can be made with Van De Gaff generators. It is accepted that numerous process can create Deuterium. Modern Astronomy rests on the assumption that there have been multiple generations of stars since the Big Bang. The oldest population of stars, Population III, would have exhausted their fuel supplies long ago.

But if any did still exist they would be easily identifiable, and are oft searched for.

So no, the Deuterium would not have come directly from the "big bang". The Deuterium would have to have come from another star, or created anew.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

I'm not super up-to-date on my gas laws, but wouldn't the temperature of the gas necessarily decrease as it gets further from the core?  The gas is spreading out over a larger volume, so that means the pressure would decrease, yes?  Which means a decrease in temperature?  And there's definitely less gravitational force acting on the gas, so less energy = lower temperature?

Am I getting those relationships right?

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

[Gulliver]

Let's try again. Please provide scientific evidence that this star fused hydrogen (lightest isotope) at some time in its life. Since deuterium formed through non-stellar activities during the Big Band and since previous stars may have formed D and expelled it as a nova, you're not able to conclude that the[ existence of D in a brown star means that it made it.

I don't see what is so special about Deuterium that it must be made by the Big Bang and nothing else. Deutron can be made with Van De Gaff generators. It is accepted that numerous process can create Deuterium. Modern Astronomy rests on the assumption that there have been multiple generations of stars since the Big Bang. The oldest population of stars, Population III, would have exhausted their fuel supplies long ago.

But if any did still exist they would be easily identifiable, and are oft searched for.

So no, the Deuterium would not have come directly from the "big bang". The Deuterium would have to have come from another star, or created anew.

Great! You concede that point. Thanks!

[Tom Bishop]

Let's try again. Please provide scientific evidence that this star fused hydrogen (lightest isotope) at some time in its life. Since deuterium formed through non-stellar activities during the Big Band and since previous stars may have formed D and expelled it as a nova, you're not able to conclude that the[ existence of D in a brown star means that it made it.

I don't see what is so special about Deuterium that it must be made by the Big Bang and nothing else. Deutron can be made with Van De Gaff generators. It is accepted that numerous process can create Deuterium. Modern Astronomy rests on the assumption that there have been multiple generations of stars since the Big Bang. The oldest population of stars, Population III, would have exhausted their fuel supplies long ago.

But if any did still exist they would be easily identifiable, and are oft searched for.

So no, the Deuterium would not have come directly from the "big bang". The Deuterium would have to have come from another star, or created anew.

Great! You concede that point. Thanks!

This point is being debated by astronomers. There is no consensus on where Deuterium in Brown Dwarfs comes from:

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

"Another debate is whether brown dwarfs should have experienced fusion at some point in their history."

Please share with us how you know that Brown Stars have not made their own Deuterium.

Please also let us know how the origin of Deuterium helps your argument that a cloud of burning gas the size of Jupiter can be a million degrees on the inside and colder than ice on the outside.

[Gulliver]

Let's try again. Please provide scientific evidence that this star fused hydrogen (lightest isotope) at some time in its life. Since deuterium formed through non-stellar activities during the Big Band and since previous stars may have formed D and expelled it as a nova, you're not able to conclude that the[ existence of D in a brown star means that it made it.

I don't see what is so special about Deuterium that it must be made by the Big Bang and nothing else. Deutron can be made with Van De Gaff generators. It is accepted that numerous process can create Deuterium. Modern Astronomy rests on the assumption that there have been multiple generations of stars since the Big Bang. The oldest population of stars, Population III, would have exhausted their fuel supplies long ago.

But if any did still exist they would be easily identifiable, and are oft searched for.

So no, the Deuterium would not have come directly from the "big bang". The Deuterium would have to have come from another star, or created anew.

Great! You concede that point. Thanks!

This point is being debated by astronomers. There is no consensus on where Deuterium in Brown Dwarfs comes from:

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

"Another debate is whether brown dwarfs should have experienced fusion at some point in their history."

Please share with us how you know that Brown Stars have not made their own Deuterium.

Please also let us know how the origin of Deuterium helps your argument that a cloud of burning gas the size of Jupiter can be a million degrees on the inside and colder than ice on the outside.

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?