Is the Sun four days off center in the solar system?

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: GenerationGap
a reply to: flammadraco

What started that supernova you referred to? Where did the gas come from that fueled it?

Just curious, as you seem pretty confident in your religion/faith so there must be something more to it that's likely interesting.

This sounds like some science denialism, but I'm feeling generous this morning.

First: we can see stars across the galaxy that are in various stages of life. We've witnessed supernovae, we know of many "stellar nurseries", we see stellar disks, which is a stage of a star's life prior to it joining the main sequence. Nuclear physics matches up very well with our observations and our presumptions on what is happening in a star's interior. I'll give this caveat here once, but it can be assumed throughout this post: we don't know everything. There are still mysteries to be solved. But science is like whittling a stick into a sculpture: a mistake doesn't mean we scrap the whole project, and not knowing the end result doesn't mean we stop working.

We can look at galaxies that exist at very, very remote distances from ours. Assembling knowledge from across our scientific disciplines, we can roughly measure the distances to these galaxies in different ways. If we see a supernova occur in one, it provides us with a distance measurement. This is because there are relatively fixed conditions under which a certain type of supernova occurs, so if we see one, and make measurements of the light coming from it, we know enough of the variables to limit the distance at which it occurs from us to a range.

Also we know that at a certain range, the expansion of space itself is a far greater factor of an observed galaxy's relative speed to Earth. So at the absolute furthest reaches of the observable universe, we can estimate distance based solely on a galaxy's red shift, i.e. how far light that is produced by that galaxy is bent towards the longer wavelengths. The higher the red shift, the further away.

Summary so far: we can, with some accuracy, measure a rough distance to distant galaxies.

Now, when we look at the furthest galaxies, we see light coming from the stars that galaxy is composed of. Interestingly, this light tells us (through a scientific field called "spectroscopy") something about the composition of those stars. And in the galaxies at the edge of the observable universe, stars are lacking in "heavy" elements, that is, elements above Helium on the periodic table. Since this only occurs in stars that are billions of light-years away, and light that we can see from those stars is literally billions of years old (since it took that long for its light to get to us), we make the assumption that billions of years ago, stars lacked heavy elements. Stars closer by (our sun, for instance) have plenty of these elements.

Summary so far: we can measure the distance to galaxies, and distant galaxies are made of stars with almost no heavy elements in them.

Now we have a picture of the universe's evolution. We know that beyond the most distant galaxies we can see lies a barrier known as the Cosmic Microwave Background. This barrier is, as far as we can tell, the remnants from the universe's birth. It represents a period in universal history when the matter of the universe was so compressed, it did not allow for stars and galaxies to form. Space was a high-energy soup of matter too hot to form elements as we know them now. And when space expanded enough to allow matter to cool, it formed hydrogen and helium. Hydrogen and helium, to this day, are the most abundant elements in the universe. Main-sequence stars run on hydrogen fusion. When a star begins to fuse helium, its days are numbered. Interestingly, though fusion in stars is responsible for the elements beyond helium.

Summary so far: Distant stars (which equate to the most ancient stars) are formed of hydrogen and helium, which were made in the beginning of the universe. Elements beyond helium only exist due to fusion in the core of a dying star.

When a star DOES die, the manner of its death depends on its size. Stars like our sun die a wimpy death: they expand as they run out of fusable hydrogen, then collapse as they run out of fusable helium, shedding their outer gas layer and exposing a hot core called a white dwarf.

When a BIG star dies, it does so with a bang. Gravitational pressure is much greater in the heart of a large star, allowing it the energy to fuse elements beyond helium. Truly monstrous stars have the capability to fuse elements all the way up to iron in their cores. When the fusion center of a big star runs out of fusable material, look out! Massive explosions occur.

The supernova death of large stars releases a frightening amount of energy. Consider this: when observing a supernova in a distant galaxy, we are seeing the light from one single (dying) star. Galaxies consist of billions of stars. ONE STAR's demise can outshine the light from the entire rest of it's home galaxy. That's colossal energy being released.

The energy is so high, in fact, that many instantaneous fusions occur that go beyond what the gravitational energy allowed to happen in the star's core prior to explosion.

EVERY NATURALLY-OCCURRING ELEMENT that exists above iron on the periodic table exists because of supernovae. EVERY NATURALLY-OCCURRING ELEMENT that exists between helium and iron on the periodic table exists because of stellar fusion.

Now, to your question, which in essence is: where did our sun come from? Our sun formed like every other star (except for first-generation stars) has ever formed. Dust from a supernova, or more likely, from multiple supernovae. Our sun contains elements above helium. Since our sun contains elements above helium, and is not currently in the process of dying itself (which will happen when it begins making helium into heavier elements in its core), it is comprised of material that has ALREADY BEEN PART OF ANOTHER STAR.

Great explanation!! I would add that when looking into space we are looking into the past. Being that we are seeing the farthest galaxies as they were 12 or 13 billion years ago. As you look at closer and closer stars you can watch what equates to a slide show of the evolution of the universe.

Funny part is a lot of the Big Bang stuff was theorized before we could look back very far and what we've found has confirmed it. Which is amazing!!


Obviously you mentioned this in your very eloquent post, but think you should have focused more one the time travel like power of looking light years away.

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Very detailed and deep post, but I doubt that person who this was written for will even read part of it. Sad. but still worthy and detailed post.

To give some insights at how big 'big' stars are compared to our little planet and our 'little yellow disk', here is video that shows the scale.... just imagine devastation one of gigantic stars going supernova to its surrounding...





And the quote from second video....

"We live on an insignificant planet of a sad star lost in a galaxy tucked in a forgotten corner of a universe in which there are many more galaxies than people. We are a lonely speck in the great cosmic dark. If we are alone in the universe, this would be a terrible waste of space "

Carl Sagan

It is not small wonder that people like poster who believes science is mere belief are mentioned in NG video - Evacuate Earth, documentary on what might happen if we know that we have to abandon earth. Very interesting watch... wonder if poster can recognize himself.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Very detailed and deep post, but I doubt that person who this was written for will even read part of it. Sad. but still worthy and detailed post.

To give some insights at how big 'big' stars are compared to our little planet and our 'little yellow disk', here is video that shows the scale.... just imagine devastation one of gigantic stars going supernova to its surrounding...

And the quote from second video....

"We live on an insignificant planet of a sad star lost in a galaxy tucked in a forgotten corner of a universe in which there are many more galaxies than people. We are a lonely speck in the great cosmic dark. If we are alone in the universe, this would be a terrible waste of space "

Carl Sagan

It is not small wonder that people like poster who believes science is mere belief are mentioned in NG video - Evacuate Earth, documentary on what might happen if we know that we have to abandon earth. Very interesting watch... wonder if poster can recognize himself.

Hehe I watched evacuate the earth on net flux last night!! Great show, prob my third time watching it!!!



I've seen all the universe episodes multiple times as well. I wonder how big the proto stars were compared to the biggest one from the video you posted?

a reply to: Entreri06

I see where you are coming from, but IMO calling science a religion is definitely an attack, and a direct insult to the thousands of scientists that work in the field collecting the evidence and studying it. Equating something substantially backed by evidence and experiment to something that has zero objective evidence in support of it, and people blindly believe on a whim is complete hogwash and flat out false. I'm not accusing you of doing this, for sure, but if I were a scientist I'd feel very insulted by that person's statement, though you make a decent point about the brainwashing. The funny thing is that they think they are right.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Entreri06

I see where you are coming from, but IMO calling science a religion is definitely an attack, and a direct insult to the thousands of scientists that work in the field collecting the evidence and studying it. Equating something substantially backed by evidence and experiment to something that has zero objective evidence in support of it, and people blindly believe on a whim is complete hogwash and flat out false. I'm not accusing you of doing this, for sure, but if I were a scientist I'd be very insulted by that statement.

Tho I'm definately in your side of this particular fence. I think most that use it don't think it's an attack. They have been brainwashed to think it's true. So from the POV of the person saying it, it's probubally kinda a compliment. Since they are putting science (falsely) on the same level as there religion, which they base most of there lives on.

Feel me?

originally posted by: Entreri06
Hehe I watched evacuate the earth on net flux last night!! Great show, prob my third time watching it!!!



I've seen all the universe episodes multiple times as well. I wonder how big the proto stars were compared to the biggest one from the video you posted?

That is interesting coincidence... I love those shows, lots of interesting ideas and you can learn many things that you would otherwise never know.

From what I know, it is believed that whole nebula of gas is used to create proto star, bigger the star, more material needed... I don't know of comparison / scale video. It would be interesting to learn size of material needed to fuel mega stars...

Speaking of religious science deniers, Father George Coyne calls this science denial and belief of some that scriptures are science fundamentalist approach and plague.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: Entreri06
Hehe I watched evacuate the earth on net flux last night!! Great show, prob my third time watching it!!!



I've seen all the universe episodes multiple times as well. I wonder how big the proto stars were compared to the biggest one from the video you posted?

That is interesting coincidence... I love those shows, lots of interesting ideas and you can learn many things that you would otherwise never know.

From what I know, it is believed that whole nebula of gas is used to create proto star, bigger the star, more material needed... I don't know of comparison / scale video. It would be interesting to learn size of material needed to fuel mega stars...

Speaking of religious science deniers, Father George Coyne calls this science denial and belief of some that scriptures are science fundamentalist approach and plague.

Seems like the stars would be getting smaller as the cycle continued and the universe expands. I'm guessing you have MASSIVE suns that explode and mix to make slightly smaller suns. Wash rinse repeat.

The sun is not central to the orbits of the planets? thinking about it, yes, all orbits are 'egg' shaped, so yes, perhaps that is true?

Oh good grief. Can we please stop trying to look for an explanation in science and math all while quoting The Bible?

"Genesis says the Sun and Earth were created on the same day"? Give me a break.

SCIENCE tells us that the Sun was created several billion years before Earth.

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Nope! the Earth was created with the same material as the sun whilst the sun was in formation!

Also God never created the sun, it was formed by gas from a Supernova some time ago!

The Sun is a god ... in the archaic sense of the word ... a god is simply a natural law

No eye or telescope yet has located God however

a reply to: artistpoet

A god is a natural law? So Newton's third law of motion is a god? How does that make any sense?

a reply to: Barcs

are you saying the earth being closer to the sun and farther from the sun has nothing to do with our seasons?

dec 25 almost winter if not actual winter the earth is said to be the furthest from the sun. Yet in the article I found in my dads bible did say it was closer?

the four day off center of a 360 degree elongated orbit of the earth some one called it a folci or something of that nature. it is begining to make sense to me what the article is saying by listening to you all discuss it without me.

Not sure who the article was written by the small clipping bears no marks of the which magazine.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Barcs

are you saying the earth being closer to the sun and farther from the sun has nothing to do with our seasons?

That would be correct. The Earth being at Perihelion or Aphelion is not what gives us different seasons. It is the Axial tilt of the planet that affects the change of seasons. For example, 4th of July weekend 2014 gave extremely hot temperatures in most of the Northern Hemisphere yet the Earth was in Aphelion( its farthest distance from the sun during its year long orbit).

dec 25 almost winter if not actual winter the earth is said to be the furthest from the sun. Yet in the article I found in my dads bible did say it was closer?

Who said the Earth was farthest from the Sun during December? Please refer to the accompanying photo perhaps it will explain it better than I could.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Barcs

are you saying the earth being closer to the sun and farther from the sun has nothing to do with our seasons?

dec 25 almost winter if not actual winter the earth is said to be the furthest from the sun. Yet in the article I found in my dads bible did say it was closer?

the four day off center of a 360 degree elongated orbit of the earth some one called it a folci or something of that nature. it is begining to make sense to me what the article is saying by listening to you all discuss it without me.

Not sure who the article was written by the small clipping bears no marks of the which magazine.

Yup lol it's all about the tilt, nothing to do with the distance.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Barcs

are you saying the earth being closer to the sun and farther from the sun has nothing to do with our seasons?

That ought to be obvious from the fact that when it's summer in the Northern hemisphere, where we are, it's winter in the Southern Hemisphere.

Christmas in Australia is in the summer.

a reply to: GetHyped

As I said "god" or indeed "godess" have an archaic meaning as I described ... referring to Ancient Egypt ... long before Newton

Reference being ... Dr Ramses Seleem ... translator of the "Egyptian Book Of The Dead" or "Coming Forth By Day" which is it's true title

a reply to: artistpoet

Then the definition has been watered down so much as to be meaningless for the discussion at hand.

a reply to: GetHyped

Then the definition has been watered down so much as to be meaningless for the discussion at hand.

Well ok ... I stand admonished as should any who bring religion into this topic

it is not the "creation' myth-metaphor that caused the 4 day, off center orbit... the early Earth (it is theorized) was goosed in the butt by a Mars sized object which caused a big chunk of the Earth-Planet to form our present Moon

I have a fantastic hypothesis that Ceres, presently in the Asteroid belt, is what remains of that once larger object which grazed the Earth to create the Moon some 3.5 billion years ago

the Earth's axis tilt and the elliptical orbit ...along with the orbit tilt- - - are all results of that collision between the 2 proto-planets in the late solar system formation time frame, thanks
Now.... that unique sequence of events might be the actual hand-of-God in the affairs of nature to make the Planet a habitable place for man-beast-plant-fish life...a mere tweaking of natural physics rather than a sequence of 7 'POOFs' of creation

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Barcsit is begining to make sense to me what the article is saying by listening to you all discuss it without me.

One would hope you're walking away with some knowledge of astrophysics and geology, and not something that will be used to perpetuate fantasy. One is not holding one's breath.