Hi Archer17

Thank you for the interesting links on meteorites. Notice than none of them explain the reason for the intense period of meteorite activity so late in the evolution of the solar system, there is no evolutionary process offered. Where is the star that blew up that allowed gold to end up on the surface of the Earth? Why didn’t the heavy meteorites end up in the cores of planets?

You stated the following.
“…… the argument for the sun not exploding hasn’t been discredited to anything approaching the degree necessary for your alternate theory to supplant it.”

Professor Manuel’s work is proof. Experimental evidence indicates the sun blew up. I wasn’t aware that any kind of degree of proof is necessary to prove or disprove a theory; one hard cold fact should do it.

I would not expect you to be convinced that my model is correct. I would expect you to notice that it is an attempt to resolve observation with theory.

I also would expect you to hold present models somewhat suspect. In order for them to remain valid they must ignore professor Manuel’s work.

All the conflict resolves itself if just one simple concept is accepted, the expansion of space time does not stop at the boundary of galaxies, it is a uniform field effect that includes matter itself.

Snowflake

SnowflakeUniverse,

I think that other posters to this thread, such as Archer17, have done a pretty good job of explaining the problems with your theory, based upon available evidence. I'd more or less just be retreading the ground they've already walked, which doesn't really seem necessary.

__________________
Sleep? Isn't that that totally inadaquate substitute for caffeine I've heard so much about?

Quantumfoamy.com, my astronomy/astrophotography blog.

We can go back and forth indefinitely as to what constitutes proof of your/Prof. Manuel's theory Snowflake. I continue to be skeptical..I agree and this is probably the best way for me to end my participation here. There are others here much more versed on the topic of the "expansion of space-time" than I am and since this is a major component of your model I'll allow others to address it.

This has been one of the more civil "disagreements" I've had on this board and if it turns out that you are on to something I hope Prof Manuel and you get the credit you deserve.

Sorry, dude, I have to call BS on this one - just because an object is too small for your optical acuity to be able to detect it, doesn't mean it's not there. After all, can you see a paramecium with the naked eye? No? Does that mean it doesn't exist? Of course not - an invention called the microscope proved that. Likewise, as our own planet-hunting methods improve, we're finding smaller and smaller planets - see this article for an example of improving techniques, let alone a counter to your argument - the way planets are forming around Vega proves you can have all the ingredients for rocky inner planets without a nova or supernova in that system.

I'll give you another example - say some astronomer on a world orbiting, oh, Tau Ceti, or Epsilon Eridani, used the exact same technique we're using to look at Sol. Guess what - he wouldn't see Earth, or Mars, or Venus, or Mercury, but Jupiter and Saturn would show up just fine.

Keep in mind that Jupiter's radius is around 11 times that of Earth, has around 1300 times the volume, and 317 times the mass of Earth. A planet like that is a hell of a lot easier to find.

__________________
Sleep? Isn't that that totally inadaquate substitute for caffeine I've heard so much about?

Quantumfoamy.com, my astronomy/astrophotography blog.

I think it's interesting that SFU keeps ignoring the effects of vulcanism (volcanoes bringing magma from below) as the reason for heavy metals near the surface. This effect is seen daily around the world and has gone on for billions of years.

I also find it interesting he brings up the large planets being found in narrow (<5AU) areas to the star they circle as further evidence. AFAIK the method would preferentially find only large planets in a closer orbit. Perhaps SFU should wait until a larger survey sample comes out instead of looking at only 116 planets as a true indicator.

__________________
Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Asimov's addition - "Or ignorance."

"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage

You could keep the astronomy out of it altogether. If watermelons are all you can find, and you're sitting in a field of grapes with a single watermelon at the centre - what are you going to see? Still melons.

It may only be worthwhile to look at watermelon patches, but the point remains.

All this talk of delicious fruit and I'm still surprised Humph hasn't popped his head in!

__________________
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

Please provide support for this assertion. And quantify what you mean by "close".

I'm not convinced this is theoretically predicted, AND it seems certain that we only observe large planets because those are the only ones we are able to detect. To try to reach conclusions based on such observational bias is... not very smart. Any resulting "theory" would not be able to be taken very seriously because of its extremely shaky foundations.

To be continued....

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

Except that scientific papers are usually backed by some solid evidence, a feature SFU's speculations sorely lack. He also tends to jump to unsupported conclusions, which is not a common activity in scientific papers.

Clearly many people have criticized SFU's ideas and have pointed to flaws, but SFU doesn't seem to admit to any flaws that would require modifying the theory - rather, he simply dances around them. This would not seem to be a serious or effective "refinement" process.

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

And immensely likely that this is the reason why snowflake finds getting his papers published to be 'impossible.'

Yes. In fact the alien astronomer (using the same methods humans currently use,) wouldn't "see" the nice clear images of Jupiter and Saturn that we do, but instead detect their presence mainly within our Sun's wobble.

Also, I think many of the "Jupiter-like" extra-solar worlds that we have detected are larger than Jupiter. :wink:

I'm thinking, what if there were a thousand cherry pies, and inside one of them was a grape? Who'd notice?

Thanks for the heads-up Musashi

Hi Snowflake, sorry for the delay in getting back to you.


I don't think it proves your point. For example, the closest multiple star system is Alpha and Beta centuari. They are separated by 24 AU approximately a bit more than the distance between the sun and Uranus. And Proxima is about 10,000 AU away. 55 cancri is a multiply star system with planets. The two stars are approximately 1150 AU apart. The larger star has planets, go here for data on the planets. The main point here is that most of the mass of these two star systems ( If you want, I can give you information on other binary systems) are separated by quite a bit from the center of the system, which conflicts with you statement on stars or planets forming close to the center of the system.

Well, I've given you two systems whose mass is not really that close (and I have info on others if you want it) You're not taking all the information into account. What are the masses of those stars? How do the mass of the planet compare to the mass of the star? I really think that it is much to small a sample.


I was not allowed on the planetquest site. It says I don't have the access rights. However, if you analyze another chart on the exoplanets.org site , you may find something different. It lists 108 planets (I don't know why there is a difference between the two charts). For planets less than 1 AU from the primary, 38 out of 54 are Jupiter sized (I admit, I limited Jupiter sized planets to those that are greater than .75 of Jupiter's mass). From 1-2 AU 23 out of 23 are Jupiter sized. At 2-3 AU 20 out of 20. From 3-4 AU it's 9 out of 9 and greater than 4 AU it's 2 out of 2 (1 each at greater than 4 and greater than 5). To summarize 38 out of 54 (70%) of the planets are Jupiter size or bigger at less than 1 AU. Greater than 1 AU it's 54 out of 54 (100%) that are greater than Jupiter mass. There are simply more Jupiter sized planets greater than 1 AU away than there are less than 1 AU (54 to 38 ). Which doesn't match your statement that most Jupiter sized planets are less than 1 AU away from the star.


Statistically, what is typical? Looking at the numbers, I really don't think, statistically, our system is as far out of alignment with the other systems as you claim.


Well, one thing you overlook is that it is easier to find a planet that is closer to a star than it is one that is farther away. Using current methods, we have to look for the "wobble" of the star. The further away the planet is, the longer that "wobble" will take to discern and the smaller that wobble will be. As a result, we should find planets that are closer to the star. I also think that you are not accounting for differences in angular momentum during the formation of the systems in the distribution of mass and planets.


In fairness, I'll withhold my comments on this until you post on the nature of the explosion. Except to point out that expansion is not so cut and dried as to stop at the boundries of galaxies. It's simply that gravity is strong enough to overcome the expainsion, within and outside galactic boundries. For example, within the local group, several galaxies are approaching each other and our local group is moving toward the Virgo cluster. Hardly an indication of expansion stopping at the boundaries of galaxies.


Care to comment on this study concerning uranium activity in lava flows from eruptions in 1983 and 1986 among others?

Would you care to comment this, this, and this. These three, are studies on mantle rock that include heavy radioactive elements. I can also point you to other studies on uranium in magmatic plutons.

Not, I feel, very adequately and I have raised questions about those items you addressed.

__________________
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

Thanks. I aim to please.

__________________
Sleep? Isn't that that totally inadaquate substitute for caffeine I've heard so much about?

Quantumfoamy.com, my astronomy/astrophotography blog.

The angular momentium issue.

The current accepted model describing the formation of the solar system is usually called the solar nebular model. Advocated by Descartes, Kant and Laplace it has become the most popular explanation for the structural configuration of our solar system. A large rotating nebular cloud of material gravitationally collapses into a rotating disk. This disk of rotating material collapses further to form the sun and the planets. A proto-sun forms first, and once formed, intense radiation from the Sun disperses the lighter elements outwards (This is due to the T-Tauri stage of stellar evolution). The lighter elements expanded away from the sun are gravitationally garnered by the outer planets, which is proposed to explain the difference in composition between the inner planets and the outer planets of our solar system.


A rotating nebular configuration of matter should result in a rotation rate conformant to Kepler’s Law’s. A particle moving too fast away from the center of mass of the nebula to be retained gravitationally would be lost to space. Those particles that are moving too slow tangentially to the center of mass to keep their distance from the center of mass would fall towards the center of mass; these particles falling towards the proto sun would then either fall into the proto sun or begin to establish an elliptical orbit around the proto sun. Elliptical orbits would be transformed to circular orbits due to collisions with other particles in the nebular field. This collision process also is responsible for the transformation of a spherical distribution of matter in the nebular cloud to a disk like distribution of matter. It is also the process we observe that is responsible for the rings observed around Saturn and other planets. Ultimately a Kepler like distribution of material in the nebular cloud would result. Those particles closest to the sun would have the highest rotational velocity, and those furthest away would have the slowest.

Since the sun and planets all rotate around in the same direction, it appears that the nebular cloud from which our solar system formed had an inherent angular momentum. If the nebular cloud had an inherent angular momentum then as the matter collapsed into the sun, that angular momentum would be carried to the sun, increasing it’s rotational rate, but the overall angular momentum of the system would be the same.

This presents a puzzling situation as reported by Bradley W. Carroll and Dale A. Ostlie in their book Modern Astrophysics,(which is one of the best undergraduate/graduate texts on Astrophysics I know). The following quote is from their chapter on the formation of the Solar System page 890 “One problem that has frustrated most attempts at developing an adequate picture of how the solar system developed concerns the distribution of angular momentum. ……..the angular momentum of (Jupiter) exceeds the rotational angular momentum of the Sun by roughly a factor of 20. A more detailed analysis shows that even though the Sun contains 99.9% of the mass, it only contains about 1% of the angular momentum of the entire solar system, with most of the remainder associated with Jupiter. To complicate matters further, the Sun’s spin axis is tilted 7 degrees with respect to the average angular momentum vector of the planets, making it hard to envision how such a distribution of angular momentum could develop. “ …(From a nebular cloud).

The next paragraph then gives an interesting observation made by the authors about the angular momentum of stars and their size. A graph is given which generally shows the relationship between angular momentum and size of a star. Generally, the larger the star the greater the angular momentum. There is also a general departure from the relationship as stars get smaller than an A5 star, (a mass equivalent to less than 2.5 solar masses) This departure resulted in the following conjecture to be made by the authors “ Does this observation indicate that the formation of most (or all) low-mass stars leads to the formation of planetary systems that contain the “missing” angular momentum hinted at the Fig. 21.16?”

(For those of you who do not have this text on Astrophysics I should describe the relationship indicated by the graph. If the angular momentum of Jupiter is added to that of the sun, the angular momentum of our solar system then falls in line with the relationships describing the angular momentum of the larger stars. The angular momentum of the Sun by itself is orders of magnitude less than expected both when compared to other G0 stars and especially compared to the trend indicated by the mass - angular momentum relationship of large stars. )

The text then lists three theories that have been proposed to resolve the angular momentum issue. Again quoting from the same text we have the following quote: “At this point we are confronted with the sticky problem of transporting angular momentum outward through the disk, with researchers proposing various solutions to resolve the issue. One idea requires that viscosity within the disk caused slowly orbiting particles farther out to speed up because of collisions with higher-velocity particles occupying slightly smaller orbits. A second suggestion involves plasma drag in a co rotating magnetic field. Charged particles trapped in the protosun’s field were dragged along as the field swept through space. In response, the protosun’s rotation speed slowed because of the toque exerted on it by the magnetic field lines. Yet a third possibility argues that gravitational torques may have been responsible. In this scenario, initial deviations from axial symmetry produced density waves in the disk. Gravitational torques then resulted in the simultaneous transfer of angular momentum outward and mass inward, clearing the disk of non accreted material on a time scale of 10^5 10^6 years. An advantage of the gravitational torque mechanism is that it does not produce the complete mixing of the disk that might occur in other processes. This means that the gravitational torque mechanism would have maintained any early inhomogeneities, such as the compositional “fingers” from the supernova remnant. “

The explanation I propose to account for the angular momentum being transferred to the outer planets is that the Sun exploded. If a rapidly rotating sun were to explode, as proposed earlier, it would also cause a dispersion of the angular momentum away from the Sun, The outer atmosphere of the sun would be rotating the fastest as it accreted material from the proposed Solaris star. Once the Sun achieved critical mass, it exploded and dispersed this rapidly rotating material off into space. Since the early evolution of the solar system is so violent in my proposed model, it is easy to explain how the axis of rotation of the Sun be inclined 7% from the plane containing the planets. The proposed model predicts that the angular momentum of the sun would be reduced, and that is what is observed.

OK. There are 4 possible theories now proposed to resolve the angular momentum issue. Three within the mainstream, and one outside. Which do you believe in? Which are you willing to defend?


Those of you who feel that asserting that our sun exploded about 5 billion years ago is too outrageous, or too outside the mainstream of currently held thought to possibly be right should consider the thoughts of a couple of professional astronomers. Again quoting from the Astronomical Text on Astrophysics, “Based upon all of the observational and theoretical information presently available, it appears that a reasonable scenario for the formation of the solar system can now be described. It is important to note, however, that because of the complexity of the problem, revisions in the model (both minor and major) are likely to occur in the future.”

Snowflake.

Gee, Mr. Flake, doesn't the fact that the sun is currently alive and well tend to argue against the assertion that it "exploded" in the past? The sun is still there! Hello?

Sounds awfully plausible to me.

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

Hi cougar.

The sun is there because it reformed after it exploded. This process of reformation is accelerated due to the iron left at the core after the energetic nova has occurred, and the increased effect of gravity (according to the proposed theory) at this early stage of evolution of our solar system. Do not forget that even the standard accepted model describing the formation of solar systems requires multiple death and rebirth of stars in order to account for the observed heavy elements in our solar system.

While the Plasma drag in a co rotating magnetic field has it’s advocates, there is increasing evidence that this model is not consistent with describing the ever-increasing observations of multiple planetary systems with a large planet within 1 au of its star. Why isn’t the drag carried out to those secondary planets? If the proposed phenomenon works here, why not there? Again, one can make a fix, but the number of fixes are increasing.

Another problem with the Plasma drag problem is that it does not produce the observed difference between the inner and outer planets. Again quoting from “Modern Astrophysics” “The advantage of the gravitational torque mechanism is that it does not produce the complete mixing of the disk that might occur in other processes.” (Analysis based on the charged particle models have a hard time predicting this kind of asymmetric distribution of various densities of matter within the solar system) continuing quote “This means that the gravitational torque mechanism would have maintained any early inhomogeneities, such as the compositional “fingers” from the supernova remnant.” (The “fingers” are formed as a result of a hypothesized distant supernova that shot debris through the nebular cloud that would form our solar system. Those supernova remnants are what are also reputed to have provided the heavy elements such as gold and uranium observed in our solar system, according to the traditional solar nebular model.)

(A problem with the compositional “fingers” theory is realized with the new planetary formation models which have been proposed to account for the formation of so many planets so close to their star. Once planets begin to march in towards their central star, the formation of these “fingers” would tend to become unstable and non-persistent. The supernova remnants in the "standard" model is not from our sun, but of a distant supernova that spread debris through the nebular field and which seeded our solar system with the heavy elements.)

The plasma drag model does not explain why the angular momentum vector of the sun is inclined 7degrees in relationship to the planetary plane. Any divergence in momentum would tend to be evened out after a few billion years of electromagnetic interaction that is supposed to be strong enough to transfer 99 percent of the angular momentum of the sun to another planet.

Snowflake

Hate to jump back in here again but, snowflake, explain why we aren't seeing stars explode, and then re-form all the time. You make it sound common. Your theory still doesn't pass muster, for the same reasons I stated before. Conventional theory explains- more simply- what you require a leap of faith to explain otherwise. Your theory won't get off the ground if you plan to submit it as it is now. Why? You can't prove it (long winded dissertations notwithstanding), that's why. And you have to, plain and simple. It doesn't help when you ignore mainstream alternatives. You need to prove them wrong .. and in my book, you haven't. I say the sun didn't explode like you claim and so will others, trust me.

I think the simplest way to approach a critique of this hypothesis is to use Occam's Razor, and I think that is what most people have been driving at in this thread. Essentially, the contemporary theory for the formation of the Solar System best fits observation with a comparatively simple explanation. Snowflake's hypothesis, on the other hand, requires the consideration of events that aren't immediately backed up by observation, and the hypothesis is more complex than necessary to equate with what is observed. Does that make sense?

Cheers.

__________________
Nowhere in all space or on a thousand worlds will there be men to share our loneliness. ...in the principles of evolution we have had our answer: of men elsewhere... there will be none, forever. - Loren Eisely, The Immense Journey, 1956.

Don't forget too that helioseismology-- a very successful endeavor-- relies on the standard model of the Sun being correct. If the core were iron, the images of the far side of the Sun would be way off.

Count me in the others. I would join in here, but I'm kinda busy on another thread. Except to say, he didn't answer my questions on radioactive elements in the crust.

__________________
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

Hi Archer17

“Explain why we do not see stars explode all the time” .

The effect of gravity is a function of time, as predicted by my uniform expansion of space. (Which was a hypothesis of Dirac and Gamow, two Nobel prize winners. ). Since the effect of gravity is less now, the number of exploding stars is greatly diminished, as evidenced by the present rate stars consume energy. Even galaxies 100 million light years away are not observed that far in the past relative to a multi billion year old universe.

It is only by observing very distant objects that there is any indication of stars exploding all the time. This was a topic addressed on my posting on quasars and supernova fires.

It should also be noted that even the standard model requires a supernova. Usually it is assumed that debris from some supernova early in the evolution of our galaxy flew through the nebular cloud that would form our solar system. This supernova is required to account for the evidence of heavy elements in our solar system. Since there is evidence of “metals” in other galaxies, they too must have had supernovas within their system.

Both my model and the standard model require a supernova, (or I prefer to call it an “energetic nova” to help differentiate the amount of energy output predicted by my theory in comparison to a classic present day supernova).

Also you stated that I must prove other theories wrong. I do not think I will ever do that. I just will provide the simplest explanation and it will be left to the reader as to which explanation they will keep.
Note, that I predicted that the sun must have blown up in the past, since the effect of gravity was so intense. If the sun did explode in the past, any rotating matter would be flown off, carrying the angular momentum of the sun with it. This is observed, so the theory conforms to observation. Present day theories that try to explain the angular momentum issue are very complex and have to make a number of assumptions in order to make things work out.

What explanation do you believe in accounts for the angular momentum issue? Compare it to the one provided.

Snowflake

Hi Jovianboy

I think my explanation of the observed structure of the solar system is the simplest. Regarding the Angular momentum issue, my hypothesis is clearly the simplest one. Sun blows up, angular momentum dispersed. Other explanations are much more complex and dependant on specific configurations. Compare for yourself. This site will provide links to the various theories that propose planet migration. Eventually you can get to the Angular momentum issue. (Tried to provide a direct link but pages at this site are “nested”.
http://exoplanets.org/science.html

Snowflake

Hi Bad Astronomer.

You suggested that my model would result in an iron core that would be too big to be consistent with Helioseismology. This is not the case.

Professor Manuel needed a large Iron core for our sun to explode in order to be consistent with present solar models. Since the effect of gravity is a function of time, according to the uniform expansion theory, 5 billion years ago it would take a much smaller star to explode. A much smaller iron core would result from this explosion.

Helioseismic measures of the sun limit the possible size of an iron core to within .05R. If the proposed iron core were any bigger it would cause a distortion of the observed temperature values determined to be within the sun. An Iron core would alter the temperature distribution at the core since the core would no longer be the location with the most intense energy production. This decrease in temperature from the anticipated temperature had been observed by Helioseismic analysis, so again the theoretical model is conforming to observation. (In a previous post I provided a link that showed the discrepancy between the measured temperature distribution in the core of the sun relative to the anticipated theoretical temperature distribution, assuming models that have no iron core.)

Based on the relationships developed in the uniform expansion theory, the amount of mass our sun would need 5 billion years ago to become an “energetic nova” would only be 1/70 of it’s present mass. The size of the iron core left behind from a star 1/70 the mass of the sun would be small enough to reside within the .05R limit.

Theory conforms to observation.

Since the size of the sun exploding is only 1/70 of what it is now, that leaves a the bulk of the matter in the solar system located in the nebular disk. Once the sun blew up, the material in the disk would help “muffle” the extent of the distribution of matter, resulting in a supernova that does not distribute matter so far away that it becomes impossible to reform a solar system.

Snowflake.

I am not an astronomer, but I think the chemical composition of the sun indicates that it is not a first generation star. Other stars must have exploded so the sun formed from their "debris" and has now heavy elements.

__________________
Never stop questioning.

http://www.circlemakers.org

Archer17 said, “Explain why we do not see stars explode all the time”.

Are you making this up as you go along? You seem to be inventing new phenomena that are not seen anywhere in the cosmos. Please point to an example, distant or otherwise, where a supernova, a nova, an "energetic nova", or a "whatever nova" shows evidence of an "explosion" and has resulted in a solo G-type star like our Sun.

My theory is that when our solar system was forming, the Easter Bunny sneezed, causing the solar accretion process to be not entirely successful. The matter that was not captured by the Sun transported much of the angular momentum back into interstellar space as it escaped. This is observed, so the theory conforms to observation.

My point is, to claim a theory "conforms to observation" is not really the holy grail that you seem to think it is. The following scenario makes SO much more sense....

Despite some minor controversy as to how this angular momentum question can best be resolved, nearly all astronomers agree that some version of the condensation theory is correct. The details have yet to be fully worked out, but the broad outlines of the processes involved are quite firmly established.

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

I've a few problems with this,

1. Just because great scientist believe it doesn't make it so. Herschel thought there were beings living under the surface of the sun, Newton wasted half his life on alchemy and numerology.

2. If you are correct then galaxies at z=1 should have a huge number of supernovae. Do we see this?

3. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't stars explode due to core collapse, if so where is the collapsed core?

4. if G varies then so must the length of the year, is there evidence in the fossil record for this?

Stars explode because the core stops providing enough energy to keep the rest of the star from imploding.

__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

Actually I requested you "explain why we aren't seeing stars explode, and then re-form all the time." Like you claim our sun did.I know stars explode, it's what you propose following an explosion that I find hard to believe. Since Cougar, Astrobairn, and wedgebert followed up on this I'll refrain from duplicating their questions/comments here. Let's just say that I haven't seen anything that would cause me to doubt the standard model. It does work you know!If you can't prove established theories wrong, "simplest explanations" won't cut it. People won't abandon mainstream theories without proof of what you claim.I presume you are referring to the proposed magnetohydrodynamic forces when you talk about mainstream angular momentum assumptions. Cougar addresses this "assumption" rather well in his post. While we're on the subject of making assumptions: Isn't saying our sun exploded 5 billion years ago an assumption? What about your theory regarding heavy element concentrations?Cougar's "reputable" source covers it quite nicely.I did and yours came in second. :wink:

But, is there any evidence of those distant exploding stars reforming as your supposition asserts?

The standard model uses supernovae to explain the formation and subsequent presence of heavy elements, and does so quite nicely. It does not require a supernovae to start the formation process for a solar system.

Is your "energetic nova" the only way a planetary system can form? If so, how do you explain the relatively young systems (much less than 5BY) we have found? Does gravity weaken on some sort of log curve in your supposition?

You don't need to "prove them wrong" but you must offer an explanation that answers all the questions they do and answers them at least equally well. You should also be able to use your supposition to answer the questions the stanadrd models cannot. I haven't seen any evidence of either in your posts.

And your supposition makes the assumption that gravity weakens over time and that the sun exploded and reformed 5BY ago. Then it goes on to include an accepted standard model for angular momentum dispersion.

Seems like the standard model uses fewer assumptions.

Me, too, also.

What he said, and for the reasons outlined above.
1) Your model makes two large assumptions based on very little "evidence" (your interpretation of observations and some circular reasoning).
2) Your model answers no questions that the standard model cannot.
3) Your model offers no direct evidence (huge numbers of ancient supernovae, distant stars exploding and reforming).
4) Your model does not address the formation of planetary systems happening now (w/o resorting to the standard model).

(fixed quote attributions)

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

I have worked in helioseismology and seen Manuel's model pop up from time to time. Many good arguments have been given against the model on this thread.

Personally, I see the solar models based on standard stellar evolution as beeing infinitely superior to the non-standard models because they are models that are now very developped, that yield predictions that have all agreed with the observations (abundance gradients in the Sun, depth of the convection zone, Helum abundance, neutrino fluxes - finally!). The models have been tested and work well (better than could have ever been imagined) without any tweaking.

Furthermore solar models are computed from the same codes and the same physics that also work so well for stellar astrophysics in general. The Sun is a normal star.

In alternative models such as the supernova progenitor model, the Sun cannot be a normal star. In addition these models are purely hand-waving. I have never seen a model fully worked out that would give real numbers that could be tested.

It is true that helioseismology can be fooled if the solar structure is changed in certain specific ways. But you have to work at it!