Snowflake, I'll admit this is not my area of expertise and much of your initial post made my eyes glaze over but I think your reasoning against a solar explosion was more convincing than your pro-explosion points:
Quote:
|
1. Radioactive dating. Professor O.K. Manuel, a nuclear chemist ( web.umr.edu/~om )has determined that our sun had to become a supernova about 5 billion years ago. This conclusion is based upon the relative amounts of radioactive strange xenon found within samples from the moon, meteorites and the atmosphere of Jupiter. A star had to blow up to form these elements in the percentages detected and the only star close enough to explode is our sun. (Note, whether or not the explosion of our sun was a nova or supernova will be discussed later).
|
I'll admit this one is beyond my area of knowledge but wouldn't these xenon readings be more prevalent in other places besides those you mentioned? If these xenon measurements are correct why completely rule out another source for these readings? Unless one allows for a conspiratorial suppression of facts, wouldn't we be hearing more about this?
Quote:
|
2. Astronomical evidence. There is evidence that when a star explodes, matter is dispersed in a pattern that is conducive to the formation of planetary systems. If an explosion yields a formation that could form planetary systems, it is logical to assume that our solar system was formed as a result of such an event. Click here: New Era Dawns in Search for Other Worlds
|
This requires a leap of faith in that you are implying that novas generate planets based on the dispersal of the matter of an exploding star when current models of solar system formation work quite nicely.
Quote:
|
3. A simple temporal sequence. If our sun did explode about 5 billion years ago, the date of the formation of the Earth and the rest of the solar system, which is about 4.6 billion years ago, results in a neat sequential evolution.
|
This is presumptuous in that you're using established time-lines to illustrate the logic of an unproven concept.
Quote:
|
4. A simple source for heavy elements like iron and gold. The only source for heavy elements in the solar system is from the destruction of a star that has lived a lifetime. For our Earth to have these elements, a source has to be found. The simplest source available is our own sun since evidence of its existence is obvious.
|
IMO the sources of heavy elements are satisfactorily explained by current models and just because the sun also happens to be a star doesn't mean it has to be the source of these heavy elements.
I'm sure there are many here that are more saavy on the subject of planetary formation and solar characteristics than I am, but based on my modest knowledge I have a hard time believing the sun blew up and agree with R.A.F. that the burden of proof belongs squarely on Prof. Manuel to prove such a claim.