New star sheds light on how Sun behaved in its younger days
Models based on the young star just 30 light years away showed how the Sun behaved during its early years, the time when life began on Earth.
The Sun has been fuelling life on Earth for millions of years, burning up to produce constant energy as astronomers study hidden surface mysteries and coronal differences. However, very little is known about its early days in our solar system and how it led to the emergence of life on the planet.
A new star detected by Nasa could offer insights into our own Sun and reveal how it all began. The young star, just 30 light-years away, could work as a time machine and shed light on the Sun and tell us about its younger days in the system as it developed over billions of years.
The research published in The Astrophysical Journal states that studying the star provides deeper insights into the impact of coronal emissions, stellar winds and atmospheric erosion of early Venus, Earth, Mars, and young Earth-like exoplanets.
Our Sun has a twin
While it is impossible to go back in the past and look at conditions that favoured life on Earth, studying stars in the vicinity of our solar system can help in enhancing the knowledge around how life began. The Milky Way Galaxy has over 100 billion stars, and one in ten share characteristics with our Sun, and many are in the early stages of development.
Dubbed Kappa 1 Ceti, the star is estimated to be between 600 to 750 million years old, around the same age as our Sun was when life developed on Earth. According to Nasa, due to its close distance, it is like a neighbour who lives on the next street over (in cosmic terms). It also has a similar mass and surface temperature to our Sun, making it a “twin” of our young star at the time when life arose on Earth, and an important target for study.
Researchers have designed a model to predict some of Kappa 1 Ceti’s most important, yet difficult to measure, characteristics, taking input from the Hubble Space Telescope, Nasa’s Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite and NICER missions, and ESA’s XMM-Newton.
How was the Sun in its younger days?
The Sun, 4.65 billion years old, is in middle age as it sends life-sustaining energy towards Earth. However, it was not always like this. During its toddler years, just after it was born, researchers estimate that it rotated three times faster, had a stronger magnetic field, and shot out more intense high-energy radiation and particles.
Over millions of years, that impact has become limited to the poles where they are now observed as bright flashes of dazzling light known as auroras. “Four billion years ago, considering the impact of our Sun’s wind at that time, these tremendous lights were likely often visible from many more places around the globe,” Vladimir Airapetian, a senior astrophysicist in the Heliophysics Division at Nasa said.
Researchers said that the high level of activity in the Sun’s nascence may have pushed back Earth’s protective magnetosphere, and provided the planet not close enough to be torched like Venus, nor distant enough to be neglected like Mars with the right atmospheric chemistry for the formation of biological molecules.
Astronomers are now looking for a rocky planet, which could be Earth’s twin and represent it in its younger days to complete the story of the evolution of the planet. “Similar processes could be unfolding in stellar systems across our galaxy and universe,” they said.
See more here: indiatoday.in
Header image: NASA
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I consider this article desires some pondering. However, what does it matter what I consider and SEE???
I see that NASA scientist evidently ignore COMETS; something that Newton did not ignore. If one reads the third book of The Principia you will find that he pondered, at length, the rare two comets, which approached the sun so closely and swung around it in a day and then spend nearly a hundred years, far, far from the sun. were
These two comets were so easy to observe with the naked eye and whose motion were so easy to explain by the gravitation influence of the Sun’s mass. But if one reads carefully you will find he considered this action which is termed IMPUlSE (a force acting briefly on a body and producing a finite change of momentum–New Oxford American Dictionary). Which according to what Newton wrote, this dictionary did not get it right.
Everyone should read what Newton wrote!!! If one doesn’t, one must admit that one is ignorant.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Jerry:
It’s like Will Rogers said, we’re all ignorant, just about different things. The astronomers don’t like to mention the comets because they know these sputtering balls of ice are rapidly deteriorating in their orbits and in a few thousand years will all be gone. Since they have no explanation for this anomaly, they just invented the Ort cloud. Kind of like inventing a fake virus for the allopathic medical racket. For life to exist, particularly in the wide diversity of complex creatures as on earth, it is self evident that the sun’s radiation (intensity) would have to be minutely controlled just like everything else. Had the sun been more intense in it’s earlier days, as this article indicates, no life here here would be possible. Considering the constant loss of energy (mass) by the sun, billions of years ago it would not only be way too intense but it’s gravitational pull would have been far greater, therefore pulling the planets in and not in their present orbits.
This article states there are over a hundred billion stars (suns) in this one galaxy. They mention young stars and we know there are stars that have burned out (super novas), ap. 200 visible. These burned out stars are constantly occurring at about one every 25 years. However astronomers have never seen a star being formed. All of these factors indicate not a planet and solar system billions of years old but instead only thousands of years old.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Some history; in 1950 an controversial book, Worlds in Collision’, by Immanuel Velikovsky was published. Read about Velikovsky and the result of his scholarship. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky). It is an interesting story.
The cemtal assumption of Velikovsky’s ideas was that in the beginning of our solar system Venus had an orbit similar to that of the two comets which Newton had opportunity to observe. And evidentially it passed very near to the Earth and there was a gravitational interaction which produced the planetary arrangement of Venus, Earth, and Mars with their presently observed physical properties of rotation, positions, etc. in the presently known solar system.
And a significant portion of Velikovsky’s imagination (idea) was based upon Old Testament Scripture. Like ; “let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse ‘sky’.” (Gen. 1:6-8a NIV). “And God said “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, let dry ground appear.” And it was so. God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” (Gen. 1:9:10a NIV)
Now I jump ahead a bit to preserve a chronological order. “When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens—and no shrub of the fried had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground—the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden, and there he put the man he had formed. And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out o the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food.” (Gen 2:4b-9a NiV)
More to follow. This is enough for one to ponder: True or False???
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hi Jerry:
Velikovsky’s attempt to explain what God accomplished in 6 days can be thrown in the junk bin with all the other astronomers. God spoke light into existence but fashioned Adam from the clay and breathed into it the breath of life. This term describes the infusion of the human spirit and is not used with animals that are merely referred to as living beings.
I have posed in my previous comment on this article several problems that PSI readers and you Jerry need to answer rather than letting them just fall through the cracks or maybe swept under the rug. It should be added that God in his omniscience put the universe in motion, and it needs no intervention from earthly demigods such as those of the the WEF or CDC with their fake viruses or phony climate change lies.
Romans 1:22 Context
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Mark,
I try to not respond to your nonsense; however it seems your efforts are to create confusion. If one were to “explain” everything completely, the book would have tp be enormous. But someone has concluded that a picture (observation) is worth a thousand words. But I doubt if anyone considers this to be a precise statement. So I try to offer inexact, but general ideas to counter your nonsense so that a reader might be aware that there are usutwo ways to look (see) at the same thing: the right way or the wrong way. So I try to give a reader something to decide. And if I didn’t they might not consider there is another way than the nonsense (my opinion) you present.
While I do not always agree with James or Herb, I consider some of which they write is the right way and I do not claim what I write is always correct (the right way). But I know that Galileo, Newton, Agassiz and many, many other SCIENTISTS actually used the fact of what they did (experimentation) and what they sometimes merely observed that which nearly everyone has commonly observed but everyone did not recognize the consequences of these common observations.
So I came here this morning to ask Readers: Have you noticed that the ice, which first freezes on a body of liquid water always has a quite smooth surface???
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Jerry:
As usual you have not answered anything but just postured around with your usual sudo scientific ostentatiousness while pontificating about your icons of the past. By the way, you forgot to mention your hero, the plagiarist and Zionist zealot Einstein. I fail to see what Herb and James have to do with this issue and I may not “write the right way” but my scientific enquires are in fact of much greater scientific and impact (and also interest) than your interminable discussions on water droplets in solution.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Mark and PSI Readers,
Consider this: (https://principia-scientific.com/nasa-industrial-complex-new-twist-eisenhowers-warning/)
Have a good day, Jerry
,
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Jerry:
The primary consideration of your article is money appropriations in view of the “Cold War.” This psy. op. was a fabrication created when the Soviets (Bolshevik Jews) who had supposedly been our wonderful allies during the contrived WW2 were flipped around so they could be used in the Hegelian dialectic confrontation for the fake “Cold War.” The propped up Soviets required constant agricultural, technological and financial aid from the west (mostly U.S.) for their entire 70 year existence. This includes the whole time of the alleged Cold War when in fact American corporations were building massive industrial and military facilities and feeding the Russians while pretending to be preparing for nuclear confrontation (another fake I have covered on PSI). When word finally began to get to the public about all of the huge aid, such as the 40 sq. mi. Kama River Truck plant we were building the Zionists knew the fake Soviet program would have to be phased out to make room fore the new “War On Terror” for Greater Israel. Read Stanford Hoover Inst. researcher Anthony Sutton “Wall Street and The Bolshevik Revolution.”
Before the War, the Swiss Jew Eisenhower was an obscure Colonel that had never been close to combat but he had gotten the attention of ((( Roosenvelt’s))) radical lesbian wife Elenor. Eisenhower was not capable of making real strategic decisions but mostly rode around with his female driver. The entire conflict was staged from start to finish but Eisenhower was responsible for one of the most shameful episodes in Amer. history. He deliberately murdered ap. 1 million German POW’s from starvation and exposure. Read James Basque “Other Losses.”
Reply