Arnold and DeVito in "Twins"?

[CapnAwesome]

How is the content of the thread related to the title?

It took me a second to get it. In twins Arnold is this amazing paragon and Danny is the runty 'crap left over'

Not sure that it's a great parallel to Jupiter and the sun, but there it is.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There was enough "crap left over" for four large planets.

[Anomalocaris]

This speculation springs from the idea that most stars are binaries. Jupiter would be Sol's "failed brother star". If so it was a spectacular failure because Jupiter got the barest scraps after the sun was done gorging.

I try to have patience with the SciFi channel.

I think there is a difference between formation of binary system, where the primordial nebula collapses into two distinct stellar cores, and formation of has giant planets, which forms from the debris disk around a stellar core. That’s not to say a stellar core can’t failed to grow sufficiently so it never become a full fledged star, nor a gas giant planet can’t ever keep growing so much it becomes a star. But there is a distinction in the method of formation between most gas giant planets and most stars.


Also, recently some astronomer suggested our solar system is actually a second generation system. This suggest the sun originally had a much more massive planetary system with much more massive planets, formed from a massive circumstances debris disk. But these planets lasted by just a few million years before they gravitationally perturbed eachother and interacted fatally with what remains of the original debris disk, so some of the plunged into the sun and others escaped into interstellar space. Our solar system then formed out of the much depleted debris disk around the infant sun.

[Brian37]

This speculation springs from the idea that most stars are binaries. Jupiter would be Sol's "failed brother star". If so it was a spectacular failure because Jupiter got the barest scraps after the sun was done gorging.

I try to have patience with the SciFi channel.

It was not the Si Fi Channel, it was the "SCIENCE CHANNEL" the two are not related.

This show, is not a crappy "reality show". Although it employees dramatic editing and simulations, like the COSMOS series hosted by Neil, it runs along the same lines of sticking to facts.

It made sense to me watching it. You have a death of a prior star, huge gas clouds, gravity takes over, and one or even two bodies can end up collecting enough hydrogen in any given solar system, and you have twin stars, where the rest of the material ends up being planets. In our case from what the show was saying our sun simply gorged faster and got enough gravity and heat to ignite and Jupiter did not.

[Anomalocaris]

No,  the sun and Jupiter are not thought to have formed at the same time nor by the same means.  The sun formed first by gravitational collapse of large molecular clouds.  When the sun has formed sufficiently for its own gravity to pull material from the nearby parts of molecular into a dense spinning debris disk around itself, Jupiter and Saturn then started to form inside the disk by accretion of the solids in that disk, before it grew enough for its own gravity to start pulling in gas from the disk.

So sun first, then Jupiter.    They were never in a race to become stars.  The sun has to have accreted most of its mass and locked irreversibly on course to be a star before condition is present for Jupiter to even start forming.   The formation of Jupiter was always subordinate to the sun.

This may help put this in perspective, the sun is a thousand times more massive than all other objects in the solar system, combined, including the 8 planets, all the moons, all the asteroids and comets.  All of them.

Jupiter is enormous as a planet, and also the dominant reservoir of angular momentum in the solar system, but it is embody only an insignificant fraction of the total mass and gravitational potential energy of the solar system.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This speculation springs from the idea that most stars are binaries. Jupiter would be Sol's "failed brother star". If so it was a spectacular failure because Jupiter got the barest scraps after the sun was done gorging.

I try to have patience with the SciFi channel.

I think there is a difference between formation of binary system, where the primordial nebula collapses into two distinct stellar cores,  and formation of has giant planets,  which forms from the debris disk around a stellar core.    That’s not to say a stellar core can’t failed to grow sufficiently so it never become a full fledged star, nor a gas giant planet can’t ever keep growing so much it becomes a star.   But there is a distinction in the method of formation between most gas giant planets and most stars.


Also, recently some astronomer suggested our solar system is actually a second generation system.  This suggest  the sun originally had a much more massive planetary system with much more massive planets, formed from a massive circumstances debris disk.   But these planets lasted by just a few million years  before they gravitationally perturbed eachother and interacted fatally with what remains of the original debris disk, so some of the plunged into the sun and others escaped into interstellar space.  Our solar system then formed out of the much depleted debris disk around the infant sun.

I agree with you, but the show quoted made the point in my first paragraph above. That provoked my last sentence.

---

This speculation springs from the idea that most stars are binaries. Jupiter would be Sol's "failed brother star". If so it was a spectacular failure because Jupiter got the barest scraps after the sun was done gorging.

I try to have patience with the SciFi channel.

It was not the Si Fi Channel, it was the "SCIENCE CHANNEL" the two are not related. 

I didn't say "Si Fi Channel", nor did I mean "SyFy Channel". I was relating my opinion of some of their programing, verging on science fiction.

[Brian37]

No,  the sun and Jupiter are not thought to have formed at the same time nor by the same means.  The sun formed first by gravitational collapse of large molecular clouds.  When the sun has formed sufficiently for its own gravity to pull material from the nearby parts of molecular into a dense spinning debris disk around itself, Jupiter and Saturn then started to form inside the disk by accretion of the solids in that disk, before it grew enough for its own gravity to start pulling in gas from the disk.

So sun first, then Jupiter.    They were never in a race to become stars.  The sun has to have accreted most of its mass and locked irreversibly on course to be a star before condition is present for Jupiter to even start forming.   The formation of Jupiter was always subordinate to the sun.

This may help put this in perspective, the sun is a thousand times more massive than all other objects in the solar system, combined, including the 8 planets, all the moons, all the asteroids and comets.  All of them.

Jupiter is enormous as a planet, and also the dominant reservoir of angular momentum in the solar system, but it is embody a significant fraction of the total mass and gravitational potential energy of the solar system.

Holy crap, YES, that is exactly what the show was saying.  Gravity and material favored the sun FIRST.  Jupiter formed after, but could not gain the same amount of gravity and material and heat to become a star. 

Everyone keeps missing the point the show was conveying understanding why other solar systems end up with binary stars where we did not, MIGHT explain why Jupiter did not end up a binary star and did not ignite. OF COURSE THE SUN IS BIGGER.

The show was NOT claiming Jupiter was as big as the sun, it ways saying it never got to the point of becoming a star. 


https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...ople-call/

[Anomalocaris]

No, the reason why the solar system didn’t end up being a binary probably has little to do with Jupiter not growing big enough.  Jupiter never had a chance to grow big enough.  Most binary stars became binaries not because one of the planets growing in the circumstellar debris disk grew too big.    They became binary stars because the region of the molecular cloud from which they formed had too much angular momentum, so instead of collapsing to form a single stellar core, the region collapsed into two or more cores orbiting each other.   If there would later be planets, then the planets will form out of the debris disks around each of these stellar cores.

The show you saw took the fact that the sun and Jupiter has similar compositions and ran with it, and ignored the details of our understandings of how the sun and planets formed.

Also, we really don’t know whether the sun is or had been part of a true binary system, not a fake binary with planets pretending they once had a shot at becoming stars.   The possibility that the sun actually has a very dim true stellar companion that orbits the sun in an very extended orbit has not, AFAIK, been totally ruled out.     We may yet find the sun has a brown dwarve or extreme red dwarve companion in a very extended orbit that takes 20-30 million years to complete.  

In addition, we think the sun formed in a dense stellar nursery that later dispersed.   The sun could well have formed as part of a binary star system, but the companion star was stripped away by close encounters with other stars in the same stellar nursery very early in solar system’s history.

What we know of the solar system precludes the sun from having a bright companion star right now, or any companion star at near or moderate distances during much of solar system’s history.  But it does not preclude the sun from having a very distant and dim companion star now,  or a companion star of a wide range of brightness in a moderate or distant orbit very early in our sun’s life.

Finally, that said, the notion that most stars are parts of binaries appears incorrect.  More recent data suggest at least in solar system’s neighborhood, most stars are singletons.