I don't think we should assume that every star is a sun
Every sun is a star, sure, but not reasonable to assume all of these have their own planetary systems.
In fact, the Drake equation, used a figure of 0.5 for the proportion of stars that have planets, but I can only think is is far too high.
I think far older stars are likely to have planets, less so new newer ones being churned out of star nurseries.
Who knows though!
(
LemonEntryMyDearWatson This time, Moriarty, the hand is on the other foot, Fri 2 Jul 2010, 12:57,
Reply)
Wouldn't older stars have formed in regions with fewer heavier elements?
And as such have less raw material for planet building?
(Edit - by heavier, I mean larger than lithium)
(
TheAlmightyBeev, Fri 2 Jul 2010, 13:14,
Reply)
Good point
My reasoning was that there was more available raw matter to be collected into the stars accretion discs with the birth of older stars. With newer stars being born, any excess matter would be likely poached by other nearby embryonic stars.
I didn't even consider the distribution of the elements needed for planet formation though; maybe the age of the star gives an approximation towards the type of planet it may have; older stars having gas giants? I don't know; interesting though
An interesting
(
LemonEntryMyDearWatson This time, Moriarty, the hand is on the other foot, Fri 2 Jul 2010, 13:46,
Reply)