Surely it would be more worthwhile to not try to rewrite 20th century science, and instead try to advance it?

__________________
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?

All but the Jupiter/Sun barycenter... It's about half a million miles from the Sun's centre, which puts it beyond the surface of the Sun - at least a little bit.

__________________
bunk: Empty talk; nonsense.
de·bunk: To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/eddo/images/fredheadtsp.gif

Thank you freddo. I suspected it (hence the qualifier) but I'm willing to bet that the Jupiter-Sun point is much closer to the center of the sun than the center of a binary system is to the center of one of the other stars.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

You most certainly are right there... The Jupiter/Sun barycenter, despite the fact it's outside the Sun, is still nearly the entire distance in the Sun's favour. A binary system barycenter would be considerably more 'balanced.' Your point remains quite valid.

__________________
bunk: Empty talk; nonsense.
de·bunk: To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/eddo/images/fredheadtsp.gif

I have several problems with the theory.

For a star to enter a nova stage, the star must first go through the normal lifecycle. Let's say the star has enough mass to expand as a nova. Before this happens, the star will balloon up into a red giant. Our Sun will have a diameter roughly equal to 1 AU. As you can guess, this will destroy the inner three planets, and prolly make Mars a smouldering cinder. Bye-bye life-supporting planets.

Now! For a star to explode as a supernova, it must be greater than 8 solar masses as a main-sequence star. When it enters the red super-giant phase, the star will balloon out to 1.8 billion km in diameter. Yes folks, that's nearly as wide as Jupiter's orbit. You can guess what will happen to Jupiter and the other gas giants. The inner planets are gone, anyway. When the star does go supernova, the violent expansion of the gas would disrupt the planets (in binary systems, one star that goes supernova can fling the other star [a red giant most likely] out of the system in the expansion), if not destroy them entirely.

i don't understand the argument. elements heavier than Fe are formed AFAIK through neutron capture. elements up to Bi83 can form by capturing slow neutrons. for heavier nucleii, indeed a supernova explosion is required to provide a neutron dense enviroment. But Xe54 comes before Bi83 in the periodic table. so a supernova is not really required for Xe to form. or am i missing something?

__________________
Black holes are where God divided by zero.

HI Spaceman Spiff

So good of you to respond. You are absolutely right that the burden of proof is upon me if I am asserting the present models are incorrect. I am trying.

It is a little disconcerting to find that when proof is provided, it is ignored, or dismissed without due consideration. Professor Manuel has experimental proof of our sun exploding, yet it is ignored.

If the evidence indicates our sun blew up, yet current models of star formation do not allow that kind of massive explosion, something has to be resolved. Just ignoring the evidence is not the solution. Assuming someone is wrong without consideration is an injustice. Ignoring him and those who also have written on the topic for 40 years is a sin.

Snowflake.

Hi Kebis and SirThoreth

You both express some disbelief about the suggestion that the ring structure is the result of a star blowing up. Such skepticism is valid since I did not explain how the structure is formed. In a few postings, (I’m trying to catch up) I will present a slightly different evolution of the solar system. While the Solar Nebular Theory is essentially right, the increased effect of gravity proposed by my uniform expansion of space theory causes stars to supernova with a lot less mass then today. I hope the explanation will clear things up a bit.

Oh yes, if you still disagree after reading my model, please explain your theory that corresponds to observation. I would like to compare your explanation of the ring structure to my explanation of the ring structure.

Snowflake

Hi Iain Lambert

Yes you are right that most of the planets we are going to observe are big, so there can be a preferential sifting of the data. But then again, if the largest planets do reside closest to the central star, then the preferential sifting of data would only indicate the normal mass structure of planetary systems.

One thing is certain, the matter distribution of the other planetary systems we have seen appears to be different from the distribution from our system. Also, as we increase the count of planetary systems, almost all are conforming to a planetary structure in which the largest orbiting body is closest to the central star. Ours is appearing to be different form the others.

Theoretical models also tend to create planetary systems with the largest orbiting bodies located next to the central star. If a cloud of material is drifting in space with no angular momentum, all the mass will accumulate at the center of mass. If there is a “small” amount of angular momentum, a binary star will form, if there is enough mass to support two stars. If not, a massive planet is formed next to the central star. The “simplest” models of nebular distribution of material yield planetary structures similar to those observed in deep space, not those like ours where the largest planet is 5 au away from the central star.

In order to establish a planetary system with a mass distribution similar to ours, a differential rotation rate, and a specific mass distribution has to be assumed at various locations from the sun to avoid having the most massive orbiting objects form next to the sun. This complex mix of rotating stellar matter at various locations is a pretty big assumption, and in my opinion, somewhat contrived just to account for what is observed. This leaves questions as to why there would be variations in the rotation rates, what caused these effects? Why would these variations exist at our solar system and not at the ones we have been able to observe?

If theoretical models and observation correspond, (albeit sifted data), then the question has to be asked as to why our solar system is shaped differently. Jupiter is not the closest orbiting body to the sun.

Thank you for your intelligent question.

Snowflake

Hi Archer 17

Thank you for your response and your expressed desire to look at things objectively. While you may be inclined to agree with the presently accepted models, there are annoying problems that the standard model does not explain. They include the following:
1. Evidence of matter being exposed to a nuclear blast altering chemical ratios with a date corresponding to about 5 billion years ago.
2. The distribution of matter in our solar system does not conform to predicted theoretical models of gravitational collapse. The largest orbiting bodies should be located nearest the sun. This is also observationally conformed. Why is our solar system different?
3. Heavy elements such as gold and uranium should have settled in the cores of planets early in the evolution of the solar system. How did this material end up “salted” across the solar system? Standard models may say that this influx of heavy elements is from the influx of meteorites, but the question then becomes:
4. Where did the meteorites come from? Why do they contain elements associated with the interior of a star? Where is the star that blew up? Standard models say that the star blew up so long ago there is no evidence of it left, other than the debris. Is this a real convincing argument? If that were the case the heavy elements should of become locked in the core of planetary objects. Where is the evolutionary process? Did God just make it that way? Do we just accept that answer on faith? Do we just stick to the blind faith model in order to preserve how we think things should be? Or do we evaluate and look for the most logical answer?

Snowflake

Hi Tensor

Thank you for the very thoughtful and considered issues you pointed out. I hope the specific concerns you expressed are addressed adequately.

Your are absolutely right that the center of mass of a rotating binary system is vacant, so you can make the point that most of the mass is not ending up in the center.

My statement does prove the point I am trying to make though. If another star or planet is going to form in a planetary type system it is going to form close to the most massive star. Half the stars we see are binary, the largest planets tend to form near the central star.

The current data from Nasa Planet quest program lists 116 planets. Most have the largest planet located with in 1 au of the sun; our largest planet is located 5.2 au away. This is very unusual. To best visualize how unusual it is to have a Jupiter sized mass located more than 5 au s away click on the following link http://exoplanets.org/multi_panel.gif

Among all those planets, only one Jupiter sized planet is located 5 au away. Most Jupiter sized planets are located within 1 au. Clearly, large planets tend to form close to the central star. What caused our largest planet to be different from observation? What caused our largest planet to not conform to theoretical models?

The following link to NASA’s planet quest is also interesting to look at. It gives a bit more specific data about the planets discovered outside our solar system.

http://planetquest1.jpl.nasa.gov/atlas/atlas_index.cf


Clearly something is wrong, having a Jupiter sized mass 5 aus away is unusual. What caused this kind of distribution of matter to make it different from the rest of the planetary systems? Theoretical models predict planetary systems more in line with the typical distribution of planetary matter observed, not our planetary system. What caused the matter normally located near the central star to be so widely dispersed?

(Before you respond that the distribution may be the result of observational sifting, read my post to Iain Lambert. Such an argument tends to be a bit weak considering the predictions of theoretical models and the ever increasing number of observed planetary systems with the structure of large planets next to the their star.)

Theory must conform to observation.

The other issue you expressed was the necessity for the explosion to be a gentle one, otherwise the material would be blown right out of our solar system. Also as you pointed out, this would not be typical of a super nova.

Part of the reason the explosion is less devastating is the nature of the explosion. I will be explaining how this “gentle supernova” could exist in a posting shortly. It does require invoking my uniform expansion of space theory. As you probably know I have developed a geometric model that proposes that the expansion of space-time is uniform. Instead of stopping the expansion at the boundary of galaxies, I propose that it is a uniform process that includes matter itself. This is a fairly simple premise. Once it is accepted, it allows the evidence of a supernova like explosion of our sun to be compatible with observation. Professor Manuel’s observed evidence of our sun blowing up will make sense. The mass distribution of matter within our solar system will make sense. Observation will conform to theory.

Also, regarding the issue of heavy elements located in our crust you stated the following “ You’re forgetting (or just ignoring cause they don’t fit your idea) thermal convection and currents due to rotation.” If you are implying that these heavy elements are drawn up from within the planet, carried by magma, you are mistaken. There are no heavy elements to be found in any out pouring of lava. Once you get below the crust of the Earth there are no heavy elements, just silica type elements. These elements found on the surface of the Earth can only be deposited by meteorites hitting the Earth after the crust of the Earth has formed. I do not believe the standard solar nebula model adequately explains the source of such an enormous amount of heavy metals distributed only on the surface of planets and moons so late in the evolution of the solar system.

I have addressed every issue you felt invalidated the relationships.

Can you defend the standard model?
Why is there atomic evidence of a star exploding?
Why is the distribution of matter in our solar system out of order?
Where is the star that exploded that produced the heavy elements?
How did all the heavy elements end up on the surface of the Earth when they should of ended up in the core of the planets and core of the sun?

Snowflake.

Hi Jim

Most of the issues you expressed were addressed in response to Tensor’s post and to Iain Lambert;s post. I clearly did not do a very good job describing things when so many misunderstood. I hope I did a better job this time,. Please be sure to read my response to Tensor.

Snowflake

Hi Triangle Man

Thank you for coming to my defense. I appreciate it more than you probably imagine.

Snowflake

Hi Alex. W.

Who knows, maybe you will be a part of rewriting 20th century science.

Snowflake

Hi Vermonter

Thank you for you expression of your specific problems with the theory.

You are absolutely right about the evolution of a nova, and the effects of a supernova, if the effect of gravity were constant. As you have probably noticed, I am proposing a geometric model that allows the expansion of space to be uniform, meaning that matter itself expands with the passage of cosmic time. This results in the effect of gravity to be more powerful in the past. This dramatically changes the evolution of stars. A previous posting I made on this topic here on the BB was on the Hertzsprung-Russell relationship and the evolution of stars.

If the effect of gravity were 20 times greater in the past, then the present sun would very quickly burn its fuel, build an iron core and suffer the fate of a super nova. This is in part what happened. Five billion years ago, the effect of gravity was 70 times greater, as predicted by the proposed uniform expansion of space time theory,(these calculations were part of the first posting). Stars would be smaller since it would take less mass to form them and less effective mass for them to “blow up” . Smaller amount of mass results in a smaller explosion surrounded by more material in the nebula to absorb the explosion. In the next posting I will explain this process in more detail.

You are probably uncomfortable with accepting two radical ideas together. The sun blew up and that the expansion of space-time includes matter. For me it is an issue that will validate the proposed uniform expansion theory. The evidence of our sun blowing up is there, and the standard model does not allow it, as you so aptly pointed out. Something has to give. I think it is the idea that the expansion of space stops at the boundary of galaxies is the idea that is going to have to fall. Once the expansion is understood to include matter, at a very specific rate that preserves celestial and atomic balance, there is no conflict. Theory corresponds to observation.

Snowflake

Hi Dead-Cat

I have been waiting for this question. When I first wrote the posting I used words like “radioactive dating”, which erroneously implies that is the process involved. I was just trying to be allegorical in that our understanding of nuclear processes is fairly understood. I noticed the mistake a few days later but decided to leave it as it was, hoping someone would catch me. You did. Excellent.

The evidence of a super nova is based upon the relative amounts of normal xenon, strange xenon and Helium detected. Strange xenon is a product that is associated with the energy levels found within a supernova. I am going to try and present this topic on a separate posting in the future soon. Thank you.

Snowflake

How our sun blew up and the effect it had on the solar system (According to Snowflake)

1. The distribution of matter before the sun blew up.
According to the proposed the uniform expansion theory, the effect of gravity is a function of cosmic time. Five billion years ago, just before the Sun blew up, the effect of gravity would be 70 times greater than it is today. (The formulas deriving this were in the first posting on this topic.) This would radically alter the mass distribution of the solar system. If a star needs to be about 7 times as massive as our Sun is today to become a supernova, then that means that our Sun would only have to have 1/10 the mass it does to day to become a supernova. Since the available matter to form a solar system is relatively fixed, this would mean that the remaining 90% of the matter in the solar system is outside the Sun.

Some of this matter outside the Sun is located in a series of protoplanet-stars. The first object from the sun is not Mercury, but a Star called Solaris.(A suggested name by Snowflake, I would be interested in other peoples suggestion for this proposed star, perhaps something more appropriate to it’s role of providing a source of heavy metals like gold and uranium) Solaris is located at a distance of 0.1 AU from the sun. The rest of the planet-stars are located in their approximate order, albeit much smaller than they are today. The combined proportional mass of all the protoplanet-stars is almost equal to the mass of the Sun, with Solaris having most of the mass. This results in about 20% of the mass in the solar system bound in celestial objects. The remaining 80% is still distributed in a cloud of material composed of gas and small clumps of matter
.
2. Solaris looses mass and creates a disk shaped sun.
Solaris is so close to the sun, that the atmosphere is drawn from Solaris to the Sun. This results in the angular momentum of Solaris to be transferred to the sun. This inflow of matter results in increasing the rotation rate of our sun dramatically. In response to the increased rotation, the sun flattens it’s shape till it is saucer shaped, the height is 1/10 the diameter.

3. The sun reaches critical mass and blows up as an energetic nova.
With a large percentage of the matter in the solar system still falling into celestial bodies, it takes a comparatively little time for the Sun to reach critical mass and become a kind of super nova, called here an “energetic nova”. Since the sun is disk shaped and rapidly rotating, it creates a unique explosion pattern. The amount of matter located at the poles is less than that found along the equator. Once the sun explodes, the matter at the poles is rapidly blown away. The explosive force that is directed along the equator of the sun meets resistance due to the increased mass. The faster moving and expanding pressure wave from the poles sandwiches the matter along the equator. The bulk of the atmosphere of the sun is confined to a plane and is forced to expand outwards. A massive ring of blazing hot plasma gas is ejected from the sun. It will be called the either the energetic nova ring or simply the “ring of fire”. (Actually there is no real “fire” but there is a lot of plasma, which would look like a kind of fire to the observer.)

Normally when a star supernovas, there would be total devastation. This is not true in this case. The size of the explosion is 1/70 of a supernova; at least 80 percent of the mass of the solar system is in the form of a cloud around the supernova. The effect of gravity is 70 times greater, pulling the material dispersed in the explosion back together. A supernova is like the explosion of a cherry bomb with a few feathers on top; an energetic nova is like a miniature firecracker exploding under a small pillow.

4. The result of the expanding ring of fire and ejecta on the solar system.
a. Solaris is so close to the exploding sun that it explodes as well. Since Solaris was a star, it has heavy elements within its core. The entire atmosphere and the heavy metal core is ejected into the solar system.
b. Star/planet Mercury has all it’s atmosphere ripped off, only a small molten metal core is left behind.
c. Venus misses a direct hit by any large pieces of matter from the destroyed Solaris, (Probably blocked by the sun). The fire ring over sweeps Venus, strips it of its atmosphere and cooks the planet.
d. Within the fire ring are massive molten slugs of metals that once was part of Solaris and some of the Star/planet Mercury. Earth suffers an impact with a piece of this debris. The near planet sized mass distorts the molten mass of Earth on impact. The plastic like collision imparts a spin and elongates the planet. The distortion is big enough, that a “clump” is flung off the Earth, resulting in the creation of the moon
e. The fire ring probably removes most of the atmosphere of Mars.
f. Somewhere between Mars and Jupiter was the beginning of a planet. When a large metal slug impacts the seed planet between Mars and Jupiter, it is smashed to smithereens. The pieces left behind formed the Asteroid belt.
g. The atmospheric component of the fire ring is dramatically slowed down by encountering the gas and smaller particles still in suspension within the solar system. The larger more massive “slugs” of matter are not slowed down as much and begin to speed ahead of the ring of fire. By the time the Fire ring reaches Jupiter, it has slowed enough that instead of removing gas from the planet, more material is added to Jupiter. No longer will the most massive planet be located near the Sun. The metal slugs of matter that were once a part of Solaris, and Mercury, are dispersed enough that Jupiter manages to avoid being hit by any large devastating pieces.
h. Uranus is stuck by one of the large pieces and it forces a tilt of its axis or rotation. Similar to what happened on Earth, pieces of the collision form the moons of Uranus. (5 “large” and about 16 smaller moons). The outflow of the fire ring is still in progress, allowing Uranus to gain more gaseous material.
i. When the fire ring and the associated metal “slugs” reach Neptune, the gravitational force of the sun has slowed the expansion of the “slugs” significantly. This allows Neptune to be able to accumulate matter from the passing debris, making Neptune more massive than Uranus.
j. Any other planets that may have existed outside the orbit of Neptune were smaller, and more prone to destruction if hit by any of the pieces of ejecta from the sun. Pluto is probably a fragment of one of those possible planets.
k. Some of the matter ends up forming the Kuiper belt. Most of the matter begins to fall back to Earth.
l. The matter falling back from deep space begins a cyclic period of meteoric events in the solar system. In fact the creation of our moon may actually have been the result of the cyclic process, rather than from the initial ejection of material from the Sun. Odd shaped meteor impacts on a number of moons in our solar system mark a testament to this intense period of meteor activity.
m. The effect of gravity, according to the proposed uniform expansion theory, was stronger in the past, so the meteor cycle times would be quicker than today. Also, as the effect of gravity diminished, some of the outward bound chunks of material would be lost to space, increasing the number of objects in the Kuiper belt. After millions of cycles virtually all the meteorites are lost to space, confined to a stable orbit, or have become a part of a moon, planet or the sun.

The above outline of events does the following
1. Gives a model that explains how the observed “ring of fire” can be formed.
2. Conforms to Professor Manuel’s experimental evidence that our sun blew up.
3. Reduces the size of the supernova to a size that preserves the solar system.
4. Reduces the size of the iron (or neutron) core to a size that is compatible with Helioseismic studies of the sun.
5. Explains why the most massive planets is located more than 5 au from the sun, while most other planetary systems have massive planets close to the central star.
6. Explains how heavy elements can end up on the surface of the Earth, instead of being found only in the interior of the planet.
7. The association of a massive explosion ripping across the solar system is compatible with the observed effects we see by the evidence of our moon, the tilt of Uranus and it’s moons, the asteroid belt, and the reign of meteors that ravaged the solar system over 4 billion years ago.

All these results are based upon applying just 1 change to what we presently know about space-time. The expansion of space-time is uniform; it does not stop at the boundary of galaxies.

Snowflake.

As science fiction, this might be an interesting story. As actual science, it is baseless speculation.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

I do not think you can draw such conclusions using the extra-solar planet data we have availiable. The only reason that we have found stars with large planets near them is because, with the current technology we have, we would are unable to detect such planets if they were farther away. (That is like saying that because you catch fish with a 200 ft line all fish must live within 200 ft of the surface.) So we cannot make any definitive conclusions about how 'unusual' Jupiter is in that it is farther away from the star.

When you can only detect watermelons, you won't find any grapes.

[Heh, Humphrey and Kilopi... Watermelons and Grapes...]

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

8)

I think the term "blind faith" is a misnomer regarding current theories. Many things you mention as "evidence" for your hypothesis can be explained by current models, meteorites for instance. The problems detecting Earth-sized (and smaller) exo-solar planets has already been addressed by other posters and, like I said earlier, I would need to see a lot more "evidence" unique to your theory alone to find it outside the realm of what Cougar calls "baseless speculation."

SFU`s OP and latest post read almost like scientific papers.I wonder if he can`t get published elsewhere (due to peer review?) or if he`s using the comments here to refine his theory or prepare his defence for the future.

__________________
Pull ye other one, it doth have bell`s on!

Hi TriangleMan

Thank you for your post. There are some conclusions you can draw from observed planetary systems.

1. They exist.
2. Those we have seen tend to have large planets located within 1 au.
3. The simplest theoretical models of planetary formation predict that the largest planets will form closest to the central star. (Theory conforms to observation)

This means that if I propose a theory based upon what is observed, and what is theoretically predicted, the theory cannot be dismissed based upon the premise. Granted, it is not proof that the theory is right, but it is observationally and theoretically consistent.

Is the present model of solar nebular formation observationally consistent? We do not really know since the data is preferentially sifted. The present solar nebular theory is resting on shaky ground since it is relegated to being a theory that is relying on our inability to observe incredibly small motions of a star due to a Jupiter sized planet 5 or more AU away form the sun.

Thank you for your response.

Snowflake

Hi Fredo

If all you can detect are watermelons, you will not find any grapes because you are sitting in a watermelon patch.

Snowflake

Hi Archer17

Since you seem to know about the current theories regarding meteorites, could you explain them here? I would like to compare them to my theory, that way a real evaluation is made. I would like to know why the heavy metal meteorites did not form in the center of the planets very early in the evolution of the solar system? Where did the meteorites come from? Where is the star that blew up?

Before anyone can truthfully characterize my work as “baseless speculation” they should have reviewed my theory. The only response from Cougar after reviewing my theory on uniform expansion www.uniformexpansion.com was on the last paragraph about God. I only use elementary calculus and 9th grade math; it is not difficult to follow.

The theoretical model describing the uniform expansion of space predicts Newton’s Laws of Gravity. This is a big deal. The fact that the model predicts that gravity should diminish with the passage of Cosmic time, is a big deal. This was a conjecture made my Dirac but he was never able to preserve the necessary balance between centrifugal and gravitational forces. I have. This is a big deal. If you want “evidence” based upon my theoretical model alone, please feel free to review the theory on it’s own merits.

Once I established the relationships, I have consistently been testing the theory by applying them to specific situations. So far no one has proved me wrong and I have certainly provided evidence that our current models are wrong.

Snowflake

Hi johnb

Thank you for your response.
You are right, I have had difficulty in getting published, and I am trying to improve my explanations so they are not confusing.

The reason I have had difficultly in getting published is that once one is outside the academic community for 30 years, it is impossible to get published. This has been a very frustrating experience for me. If it wasn’t for the opportunity this forum provides, I do not know what I would do.

Thanks for the post,

Snowflake

Meteors come from numerous sources .. the asteroid belt (which doesn't require Sol exploding to exist BTW), Mars, the Moon, cometary fragments, etc. The fact of the matter is it's impossible to determine the source for each and every one, which is probably why you brought them up. To allow you to review some mainstream ideas in more depth than I'm capable of providing off the top of my head, I've included a couple sources here and here regarding meteors. There are numerous other sources but these two mention composition and pairing, which I thought might prove helpful. The simple fact of the matter is one does not require an exploding sun to justify 'em.

I did and remain unconvinced. I think you put a lot of thought into your theory but IMO it relies on too many unproven concepts (flattened sun, "Solaris," a 'wall of fire', just to name a few) for me to make the necessary leap of faith and abandon mainstream theories. The weak part of your argument continues to be the simple fact that the argument for the sun not exploding hasn't been discredited to anything approaching the degree necessary for your alternate theory to supplant it. I disagree here on two points. Much of what you cite as evidence can be satisfactorily explained with current models and the burden of proof is on you to overturn accepted theories by proving they're wrong, not visa versa.

Thank you sun explosion gnome.

__________________
Valiant Dancer