T Tauri phases

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by mongoose427</i>
<br />Is it possible for proto-planets to fission off from the sun while it was in its t-tauri phase of evolution (more specifically before fusion reactions have been initiated at its core)? It seems that the contraction rate of the proto-sun would have been much greater before the opposing thermonuclear reactions began to slow it down.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, normal fission would occur during the T-Tauri contraction phase, and would end when thermonuclear reactions brought contraction to a halt.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I suppose i am a little confused about the point at which the central gas cloud can be considered a "star". Is it determined by luminosity?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It is not relevant to the fission model, and the distinction between a star and a planet is somewhat arbitrary. It is presently set at a mass of 13 Jupiters, allegedly the mass at which thermonuclear processes begin and the star "turns on".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Finally, at this stage how can the proto-sun be differentiated from the gas cloud surrounding it? I have read that it can take millions of years for the energy from fusion reactions to reach the surface of the sun.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In a sense, there is no distinction, and the whole cloud is part of the protostar. But as a practical matter, there is a level we can refer to as a "surface", just as today's Sun appears to have a photosphere with a surface. But in reality, the average, undisturbed density of solar material smoothly declines from center to the top of the corona. And while it can take millions of years for energy to reach the Sun's surface, a protostar has much lower density throughout, allowing the process to be much faster. -|Tom|-

It should be noted that the fusion model of stars is just a model and there is really no reason to believe this model has similarity to the real thing. The belief that this model is correct is not science-it is a belief system.

Thank you for your answers. So what would one be looking for in nearby(!) newborn star systems in terms of early planetary evolution(according to your fission theory that is)? Would this be difficult to resolve even with the new spitzer telescope? I am curious as to whether or not the heat from these early planets would be different enough(i.e. higher) from their environment to be visible by infrared telescopes.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by mongoose427</i>
<br />So what would one be looking for in nearby(!) newborn star systems in terms of early planetary evolution (according to your fission theory that is)?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">T-Tauri and other types of protostars.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Would this be difficult to resolve even with the new spitzer telescope?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No existing or planned telescope has enough resolution to see planets around distant stars. We must use indirect means such as radial velocity changes or transits. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />It should be noted that the fusion model of stars is just a model and there is really no reason to believe this model has similarity to the real thing. The belief that this model is correct is not science-it is a belief system.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Jim, this is wrong on two levels. First, fusion was not mentioned in this thread. I mentioned the fission model, which is a model for planet and moon formation, not a source of internal energy for stars. You would learn much by browsing the Meta Research web site sometime.

Second, the subject of "the internal constitution of the stars" and the whole theory of stellar evolution is a well-developed field based on sound physical principles. That does not make it right. But it doesn't deserve your dismissive sneers either. Study the matter first until you understand it. Then make an informed critique. Remarks based on ignorance make you look foolish. -|Tom|-

Hi Tom, It is nice to read your comments and see you think it may be the stellar theory may be wrong even though I am to. The point I want to make is this is a model and most people believe it is much more than a model. The fact that this model is favored now does not mean very much because the reasons for favoring it are not science.