If the sun burns 600 million tons of hydrogen every second, how much hydrogen is that in a year?
If the sun can last another estimated 4-6 billion more years, how much hydrogen is that (6 billion years worth)?
Where in the world is all that hydrogen? Inside the sun? Inside the fire? Why doesn't it all burn away?
Do scientist really know these answers, or are they just really arrogant?
limitgov: If the sun burns 600 million tons of hydrogen every second, how much hydrogen is that in a year? If the sun can last another estimated 4-6 billion more years, how much hydrogen is that (6 billion years worth)? Where in the world is all that hydrogen? Inside the sun? Inside the fire? Why doesn't it all burn away? Do scientist really know these answers, or are they just really arrogant?
It's not fire. That's a chemical reaction. The sun is powered by fusion which is a nuclear reaction. Yes, the sun contains enough hydrogen to sustain itself. Consider the volume of the sun and the mass of plasma contained therein.
The mass of the sun is about 2.192x10^27 tons. At the rate of 6.0x10^8 (600 million) tons per second, and assuming all of the sun's mass is hydrogen to start with, it would theoretically take about 1.16x10^11 (116 billion) years to convert it all into helium. More realistically, however, only a small fraction of the sun's total mass is under conditions that allow fusion to occur.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
What they aren't telling you is that it runs out on December 21st, 2012. Just like in the Mayan Calendar.
Scientists don't want to tell you because they work for the man.
IIRC, only the gas near the core of the star reaches the proper temperatures and pressures to fuse. As a star ages, the gas at its core is converted from hydrogen into helium, then from helium into heavier elements like carbon, oxygen, silicon, (not sure of the specific order) until it either burns out or it develops an iron core and collapses. This collapse can either explode in a supernova or fall into a singularity, forming a black hole. LOTS of info on stars on Wikipedia.
You go, limitgov. Expose those arrogant, so-called 'scientists', and their so-called laws of physics.
Somebody has to stop this! This is absolutely unsustainable! This hydrogen is not renewable! Think of the children! The Sun must be regulated!
Tax the brightest 1%!
Peak Sun
Don't worry, the sun's increasing energy output is expected to render Earth uninhabitable in only a billion years.
"It's not fire. That's a chemical reaction. The sun is powered by fusion which is a nuclear reaction. Yes, the sun contains enough hydrogen to sustain itself. Consider the volume of the sun and the mass of plasma contained therein."
I see. So, the sun is basically a huge ball of hydrogen? A giant ball, with enough hydrogen to last billions of years?
Wouldn't the heat from the fusion, light the hydrogen on fire?
Don't you people watch Doctor Who? Jeez I am glad that I am a time traveler and have seen the implosion of the sun. It happens on a Friday btw. The sun decided to take a early weekend.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
"Wouldn't the heat from the fusion, light the hydrogen on fire?"
To my knowledge it essentially is a giant ball of fire, hence the heat. Then again, I'm not keen on the natural sciences. So perhaps I have given the wrong image.
"to my knowledge it essentially is a giant ball of fire"
or is it a giant ball of hyrdogen? something has to fuel the fire.
limitgov:Wouldn't the heat from the fusion, light the hydrogen on fire?
No, not at all. Fire is an oxidation reaction. Where's the oxygen in a huge ball of hydrogen?
"No, not at all. Fire is an oxidation reaction. Where's the oxygen in a huge ball of hydrogen?"
Hmmm. So, there can be zero fire without oxygen?
If fire requires oxygen by definition, then it follows that fire is impossible without oxygen.
That's a big "if", as other oxidizers are possible.
I think it's time the Sun paid its fair share.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
"That's a big "if", as other oxidizers are possible."
So, fire is possible without oxygen?
limitgov: "It's not fire. That's a chemical reaction. The sun is powered by fusion which is a nuclear reaction. Yes, the sun contains enough hydrogen to sustain itself. Consider the volume of the sun and the mass of plasma contained therein." I see. So, the sun is basically a huge ball of hydrogen? A giant ball, with enough hydrogen to last billions of years?
The sun is a giant ball of mainly hydrogen, yes.
Fire is a chemical reaction known as oxidation, meaning it is the combination of oxygen with something. Oxygen is very reactive, thus why fire is so common.
Fire puts out heat and light, so does the sun, which is why we liken the sun to fire. However, there's no fire in the sun in the sense of oxidation happening. There's very little oxygen.
The main reaction is two hydrogen nuclei ramming together because of gravity and heat and fusing into a helium nucleus. This fusion releases mass amounts of energy, which come to us as heat and light from the sun. Eventually enough helium can get in the core to begin producing lithium, carbon, oxygen, and ultimately iron, in a process known as stellar nucleosynthesis. (Although oxygen is produced, it would never be able to oxidate anything, a star is simply too hot to allow compounds to exist.)
When the star has created large amounts of iron, it starts to hit a wall. Iron is very hard to fuse into heavier elements, and when it does it's apparently an extremely violent reaction.
Eventually, enough iron builds up in the core that the star explodes in a supernova. The resulting explosion, if you can imagine an explosion taking literally years to progress, creates all the heavier elements known to exist.
Yes, fluorine is a good example of non-oxygen oxidizer.
But not inside a star, the conditions are too harsh for any chemistry, so to speak.
Our star will not supernova. It is not the right type of star for that. It will become a red giant, then a nebula. Its core will remain the longest, as a white dwarf.
The core of the Sun is by now more than half helium, by the way. The heat it releases is energy, not fire, which transfers slowly up through the various layers and is finally released as photons.
so, for some reason, the energy released by hydrogen fusing together is required for plants to live? and helps us make vitamin d?
or will any light do those things?
Living things are adapted to specific range of wavelength of the light (which happens to overlap with the range of the Sun - strange, huh?). So yes, any light will do, provided it is in the correct range (e.g., pure red will be probably bad for both plants and sunbathing).
BTW, may I suggest Wikipedia? I heard they have more articles than these humble forums ;)
"BTW, may I suggest Wikipedia?"
No....no you may not.
Living things are adapted to specific range of wavelength of the light (which happens to overlap with the range of the Sun - strange, huh?
Not that strange really. Just natural selection.
Sorry, I was trying to be sarcastic for no reason :)
Haha. Sorry, I considered that maybe you were being sarcastic, but I wasn't sure. The interwebs are rubbish with communicating subtly. Someone needs to invent a sarcasm smilie.
Consumariat: Living things are adapted to specific range of wavelength of the light (which happens to overlap with the range of the Sun - strange, huh? Not that strange really. Just natural selection.
Smells like circular reasoning to me!