Dude, I never said the Sun would go super nova. But I did use the term nova, which was incorrect as you pointed out. Thanks.
Could Jupiter become a second Sun?
- Thread starter Hermann
- Start date
Dude, I never said the Sun would go super nova. But I did use the term nova, which was incorrect as you pointed out. Thanks.
Oh, I think I know what you mean.....the Sun growing right?
And no, Jupiter won't gain from it, Jupiter will loose gas to the Sun.
newjupitersun
Registered Member
Jupiter May Become A Temporary Star - Metallic Hydrogen Catches Fire
There are a few strange things about Jupiter, first it is covered in metallic hydrogen, second NASA calls it a failed star because it is not large enough to ignite via normal fusion, third many ancient prophecies actually reference Jupiter as a God who becomes.
An interesting question to add, is it possible for Jupiter to completely catch on fire? Metallic hydrogen is considered a super fuel and if enough asteroids strike Jupiter for several days it is possible that the metallic hydrogen might completely ignite and take about 1,000 years or more for the surface fire to go out, thus becoming a temporary star for a 1,000 years and then converting back into Jupiter once more.
“Temporary Star” is an old astronomy term that comes to mind when thinking of the possibility of Jupiter’s metallic hydrogen - [ https : / / www . llnl . gov / str / Nellis . html ] catching fire because as it is bombarded by an incoming large asteroid belt – the snake eating its tail. What is interesting to note is that when looking at NASA image data on orbital paths of asteroids their actual orbital pattern takes on the shape of a snake eating its tail. - [ http : / / bit . ly / oQjuum ]
Also, what is interesting to note is that the ancient Sumerian translation of the word "Nibiru" literally means "Jupiter" - [ http : / / scr . bi / n0UiZo ] - the return of Jupiter.
The new Mayan calendar end-date that takes leap year into account is October 28, 2011 - [ http : / / bit . ly / huYp8X ] . It is hard to say for sure but the Mayan end date should reveal a new Jupiter star – more to follow – [ http : / / www . newjupitersun . com ] .
There are a few strange things about Jupiter, first it is covered in metallic hydrogen, second NASA calls it a failed star because it is not large enough to ignite via normal fusion, third many ancient prophecies actually reference Jupiter as a God who becomes.
An interesting question to add, is it possible for Jupiter to completely catch on fire? Metallic hydrogen is considered a super fuel and if enough asteroids strike Jupiter for several days it is possible that the metallic hydrogen might completely ignite and take about 1,000 years or more for the surface fire to go out, thus becoming a temporary star for a 1,000 years and then converting back into Jupiter once more.
“Temporary Star” is an old astronomy term that comes to mind when thinking of the possibility of Jupiter’s metallic hydrogen - [ https : / / www . llnl . gov / str / Nellis . html ] catching fire because as it is bombarded by an incoming large asteroid belt – the snake eating its tail. What is interesting to note is that when looking at NASA image data on orbital paths of asteroids their actual orbital pattern takes on the shape of a snake eating its tail. - [ http : / / bit . ly / oQjuum ]
Also, what is interesting to note is that the ancient Sumerian translation of the word "Nibiru" literally means "Jupiter" - [ http : / / scr . bi / n0UiZo ] - the return of Jupiter.
The new Mayan calendar end-date that takes leap year into account is October 28, 2011 - [ http : / / bit . ly / huYp8X ] . It is hard to say for sure but the Mayan end date should reveal a new Jupiter star – more to follow – [ http : / / www . newjupitersun . com ] .
Last edited:
No it isn't.
So what? Superstitions aren't science.
No.
Fires require oxygen as well as a combustible.
You've obviously seen some very strange snakes.
Only if you're gullible enough to believe Sitchin - a noted crank.
More specious crap.
Please stop reading crank sites, try science instead.
Nice first post.
Welcome.
But do you believe that things are following some ancient prophesy?
Science doesn't work like that.
Don't worry about Dwyddwydr, he's always like this.
Last edited:
Undersea Lava Flow.
Are you implying that molten rock is fire?
It looks like fire to me.
What does it look like to you?
Look, here's a book about it.
What does it look like to you?
Look, here's a book about it.
Last edited:
Undersea Lava Flow.
That's not fire. That's incandescence. Look at the filament of an incandescent light bulb; it will be even brighter and yellower. Doesn't mean it's burning.
Hot lava is not on fire -- it simply glows white/orange/red hot depending on its temperature.
If Jupiter were going to become a fusion star, it would have done so billions of years ago. It's outermost layer is cold gaseous H and He. It is speculated that its interior, in addition to a core of solid, gravitationally differentiated material similar to Earth's (iron/nickel core, Si, Al, Mn, etc. oxide mantle), has a hydrogen-metal component surrounding the rocky core.
If Jupiter were going to become a fusion star, it would have done so billions of years ago. It's outermost layer is cold gaseous H and He. It is speculated that its interior, in addition to a core of solid, gravitationally differentiated material similar to Earth's (iron/nickel core, Si, Al, Mn, etc. oxide mantle), has a hydrogen-metal component surrounding the rocky core.
Incandescent.
Yes, nice word, and a better description of undersea lava.
Fire does often include flame.
But a fire that has died down and is incandescent is still called a fire.
And a fire with electric bars and no flame is still called a fire.
Fires do not always need Oxygen, as Dwyddyddyr said.
See Sodium burning in Chlorine here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ftw7a5ccubs
So you could call the lava a fire, but incandescent is better.
Re Flame.
Can you have flame in other atmospheres than oxygen.
Could you have flame on Jupiter?
Yes, nice word, and a better description of undersea lava.
Fire does often include flame.
But a fire that has died down and is incandescent is still called a fire.
And a fire with electric bars and no flame is still called a fire.
Fires do not always need Oxygen, as Dwyddyddyr said.
See Sodium burning in Chlorine here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ftw7a5ccubs
So you could call the lava a fire, but incandescent is better.
Re Flame.
Can you have flame in other atmospheres than oxygen.
Could you have flame on Jupiter?
Last edited:
The definition of fire is rapid oxidation releasing heat, light and combustion products (smoke and ash.) You can't have oxidation without oxygen.
However the term "fire" is often loosely (and somewhat incorrectly) used to refer to processes like fusion (i.e. the "fires" of the sun) and other chemical reactions not involving combustion. (BTW the sodium + water reaction is accurately called "fire" since the hydrogen released combines with oxygen and results in quite a bit of energy.)
Mmmh..... so the definition of fire is rapid oxidation.
So how did people use the word before the existence of Oxygen was known about?
Ceci n'est pas un feu electrique
So how did people use the word before the existence of Oxygen was known about?
Ceci n'est pas un feu electrique
Last edited:
Mmmh..... so the definition of fire is rapid oxidation.
So how did people use the word before the existence of Oxygen was known about?
Ceci n'est pas un feu electrique
Let me help. What you should say at this point is, "Oops, I was wrong, I did some research and molten rock is not fire".
Everybody is wrong sometimes going off on tangents and refusing to admit your error makes you look silly.
No, you can't call it a fire unless you are speaking your own language that is just like English, but different when you want it to be. Fire is a word with definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire
OK Origin, I give in.
It's not a fire.
It was Dwydyddwyr I was trying to argue with anyway.
Just on principle.
No problem. That only make me think you are a reasonable person interested in learning, like myself.
Well at least someone is talking sense.
. . . ever heard of binary star systems? . . .
