New Stars

[jegs2]

One question: Why do we not see new stars every night?

[Wicked Pilot]

From what train of logic and math did you derive that we should be seeing new stars every night?

[Mr. B]

Maybe he is talking about hollywood.

[Lagmonster]

New stars at night. Hmm.

I'm going to go out on one hell of a limb here, total shot in the dark, top of my head, tell me what ya think.

You're going to tell us that because we don't, god made the sky just as it is, aren't you?

I mean, I'm guessing, but, hell, tell me I'm crazy. I could stand it.

[Mr Bean]

Because people rarely look up at night, two it takes quite a few years to get a start going, three it takes even longer for that stars light to reach us, four did you count all the stars in the night sky. How come you DONT know there are new stars ever night?

[Wicked Pilot]

Hey Jegs, are you going to answer my question, or are you already admitting defeat?

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Because it takes time to create a star, and even more time for that light to reach us.

As for Hollywood, anyone can become an overnight music sensation with a microphone, a blank CD, and a pair of fake . No talent or effort needed. YOu don't have to write your own music, do your own dance steps, or even pick out your own outfits!

[SPOOFE]

One question: Why do we not see new stars every night?

With the naked eye: Because, even on the clearest night, you can only see about a thousand stars at once in the sky. Don't believe me? Count 'em sometime.

With a telescope: Who says we're not?

[Enforcer Talen]

-wonders how you could tell if it's a new star or an old one- do they change color when you count them?

[Lusankya]

The rate of formation of stars within our vision is less than 1/day.

ie. if f is the number of stars that are visible with the naked eye, then:

df/dt < 1

where t is measured in days.

[SCVN 2812]

Considering just how many stars there are in the sky, it's going to take time to notice "new" already ancient by the time their light reaches us stars.

[Tsyroc]

One question: Why do we not see new stars every night?

Light polution.

[jegs2]

If the universe is of infinite size and of infinite age, with new stars in various stages of birth or develpopment and size going on all the while, and with these stars at infinitely variable distances from the earth (some far and some near) and with their light radiating outwards at 300,000,000 meters per second and finally reaching the earth for us to see (with the naked eye or a telescope), why don't we see new ones?

[CorSec]

Stop begging the question. You asked your question once already and a few people have given you some very good postulations that perhaps you should consider before continuing.

[Mr. B]

If the universe is of infinite size and of infinite age, with new stars in various stages of birth or develpopment and size going on all the while, and with these stars at infinitely variable distances from the earth (some far and some near) and with their light radiating outwards at 300,000,000 meters per second and finally reaching the earth for us to see (with the naked eye or a telescope), why don't we see new ones?

*sarcastic mode* Why don't you go count them tonight and tell us the number. Then tomarow do it agian and compare the numbers. *sarcastic mode*

[Lusankya]

Why can't you see pluto with the naked eye for half the year?

(Here's a hint: It's the same reason we don't see new stars every night.)

[jegs2]

No answers, outside of sarcasm and opinion, have been supplied for the original question, as I suspected would be the case, so until an educated (not subjective) answer is given, the question stands.

[Lagmonster]

If the universe is of infinite size and of infinite age, with new stars in various stages of birth or develpopment and size going on all the while, and with these stars at infinitely variable distances from the earth (some far and some near) and with their light radiating outwards at 300,000,000 meters per second and finally reaching the earth for us to see (with the naked eye or a telescope), why don't we see new ones?

Where has it been established that the universe is of infinite age? Most major scientific theories that I have heard of hold that the universe is NOT infinite, at least not in any form to produce stars (to put it very, very simply).

Problem: You're assuming that the universe has the ability to create objects of that size *constantly* and within the limited range THAT WE CAN SEE. Given the *known* extreme distance between stars, let alone galaxies, galaxy clusters and onwards out, AND the extraordinary conditions and length of time it takes to form stars (in human terms), what kind of cosmic ego makes you think that you, with a life of a mere seventy-odd years, are going to have any one star's birth become visible to you within that short time span?

Given enough time, and enough matter close enough to us to form a new star (you're not allowing for the possibility that we're at a local maximum given matter distribution in our region of the galaxy), we *will* have new stars created, but the fact that the earth is a freaking pinpoint on the cosmic map also means that the chance of seeing it is really small. You have to remember that the star has to produce light that a) isn't blocked by other stellar phenomena, b) has had enough time to reach your eye and c) is actually travelling towards the earth.

[Lagmonster]

http://www.noao.edu/outreach/latest/

http://www.noao.edu/outreach/latest/ngc1999about.html

I really, really hope these links works. It *should* show at least one of the 'star factories' we can see. These links were taken from the National Optical Astronomy Laboratory's website. I'm sure you could find better if you looked.

[Zoink]

Stars aren't formed in open space, they are formed in nebula or "star factories" (I'm sure the above links will explain it better than I can).

We can only see stars in about a 5000 light year radius, and anything at or past that distance are super bright stars. Most of the bright stars you see in the sky are really close, maybe under 100 light years.

As far as I know, none of these star-forming nebula are close enough to earth to see newly-formed stars with the naked eye. Also, these dense clouds of gas obscure stars.

[jegs2]

If the universe is of infinite size and of infinite age, with new stars in various stages of birth or develpopment and size going on all the while, and with these stars at infinitely variable distances from the earth (some far and some near) and with their light radiating outwards at 300,000,000 meters per second and finally reaching the earth for us to see (with the naked eye or a telescope), why don't we see new ones?

Where has it been established that the universe is of infinite age? Most major scientific theories that I have heard of hold that the universe is NOT infinite, at least not in any form to produce stars (to put it very, very simply).

Problem: You're assuming that the universe has the ability to create objects of that size *constantly* and within the limited range THAT WE CAN SEE. Given the *known* extreme distance between stars, let alone galaxies, galaxy clusters and onwards out, AND the extraordinary conditions and length of time it takes to form stars (in human terms), what kind of cosmic ego makes you think that you, with a life of a mere seventy-odd years, are going to have any one star's birth become visible to you within that short time span?

Given enough time, and enough matter close enough to us to form a new star (you're not allowing for the possibility that we're at a local maximum given matter distribution in our region of the galaxy), we *will* have new stars created, but the fact that the earth is a freaking pinpoint on the cosmic map also means that the chance of seeing it is really small. You have to remember that the star has to produce light that a) isn't blocked by other stellar phenomena, b) has had enough time to reach your eye and c) is actually travelling towards the earth.

Lagmonster:

Thanks for your response. The NOAO links of NGC 1999 and Oroinis V380 were of excellent quality and they opened without a hitch.

Is the matter distribution in our region of the galazy cyclic? Can this be observed or measured or is it realized to be only a mathematical possibility?

The problem of numbers versus time versus distance(s) still bothers me.

Recorded observations of the night sky over many generations, spanning certainly hundreds and probably thousands of years, do not memnion any increase in the numbers of stars--at least not that I am aware of. There aren't any additions to the stars in the constellations of ancient star charts.

For the purpose of this discussion, "star" means only a star that is close enough to be seen from earth (at any time during Earth's existence).

1: The longer the period of star genesis (compared to Earth Time), the less likely a new star is to be observed from Earth.

2: The more stars undergoing genesis, the more likely we are to see new ones, (provided their light reaches us during our existence).

3: The number of existing stars is imeasurably large.

Therefore the period of star genesis must either be immeasurably long or else punctuated by bursts of star genesis, the results of which have not been documented by mans observation of new stars in the night sky.

4: The vast differential between the distances to stars (even within our sphere of potential observation), would tend to disperse their appearances over time as their expanding spheres of new light finally reached Earth. I assume that the differentials are great. I don't know it, because these distances cannot be measured accurately, even from Earth at opposite sides of its orbit around the sun. As I understand it, the distances to stars in light-years are derived from (perceived) size and brightness. The impression that the universe is expanding is derived from red-shift of the spectrums of starlight.

The dispersal of appearances over time would increase the probabiliy of new ones being observed at any one time during Earth's history.

5: The age of the universe cannot be measured. It can only be very crudely estimated. Measurements of background radiation in space cannot give a definite age because the initial conditions for calculations from these measurements must be assumed. The initial conditions were not observed and cannot be measured. Is the universe young or old?

There appear to be too many variables that cannot be sufficiently nailed down to arrive at a meaningly accurate answer as to why we don't see new stars. At least it still puzzles me.

Back to you for more thought and insight.

[Mr. B]

jegs2 what do you hope to gain/prove/discover from this thread?

[Spanky The Dolphin]

jegs2, why the fuck are you still begging the question when it has been addequately answered? You're like a five-year-old who keeps asking "Why?" when their parents answer their question.

"Daddy, why can't we see the stars during the day?"
"Because the light from the Sun is so much brighter than the light from the stars."
"Why?"
"Because the Sun is a lot closer to Earth than the other stars are."
"Why?"
"Because the Earth goes around the Sun."
"Why?"
"Because the Sun's gravity makes the Earth orbit around it."
"Why?"
"Because the Sun is much larger than the Earth."
"Why?"
"Because elephants have flat feet!"
"Okay, Daddy."

[Zoink]

Will try again with more detail:

Is the matter distribution in our region of the galazy cyclic? Can this be observed or measured or is it realized to be only a mathematical possibility?
....

aren't any additions to the stars in the constellations of ancient star charts.

...

Stars ONLY form in large clouds of hydrogen gas. Look up at the sky and see if you can spot any... you'll see you can't. So seeing new stars forming just isn't going to happen. If you'd like to see new stars you'll have to pull out a powerfull telescope.

The nearest star forming region is the orion nebula. At 1500 light years, you aren't going to see new stars with the naked eye. If you'd like to see what you're dealing with, pull out a pair of 10x binoculars and look at Orion's knee, you'll see a little blurry patch, which is that nebula. Within that blurry mess are clumps of hydrogen gas that are hiding newly formed stars.... stars which are too far away and too dim see with anything but a telescope.

...aren't any additions to the stars in the constellations of ancient star charts...
is the matter distribution in our region of the galazy cyclic?

Stars form in clumps, then after billions of years they disperse. For one of those new stars in the Orion Nebula to become one of the constellation stars, it would have to travel about 1400 light years towards us (THAT MEANS AT LIGHT SPEED 1400 YEARS!... its not traveling at light speed so it would take MILLIONS/BILLIONS OF YEARS).

Star formation is also very slow. When I say "new stars" I mean "stars that have formed recently". Stars don't *poof* into existance. Gravity collapses hydrogen gas until fusion occurs. This protostar will continue to grow until the outward pressure of its solar wind overcomes the gravitational force pulling more hydrogen gas inward. Powerfull telescopes are only perhaps 100 years old, radio/infrared/xray telescopes maybe half that. Looking at the Orion nebula, over the course of 50-100 years, you aren't going to see any real difference!

4 Billion years ago, our Sun formed in a similar clump of hydrogen.

[jegs2]

Zoink:

Thanks for the info. The "form in clumps" theory is new to me. I'll have to research it