Did our sun blow up 5 billion years ago? - Page 4

Cougar · #91 (**permalink**) 15-January-2004, 06:18 PM

Snowflake, I think you would do well to read the very current book, Sunquakes: Probing the Interior of the Sun by Jack B. Zirker, John Hopkins University Press, 2003. It got a good review in the Jan 8, 2004 issue of Nature by Jorgen Christensen-Dalsgaard from the Theoretical Astrophysics Center, Danish National Research Foundation, and the Institute of Physics and Astronomy, University of Aarhus, Denmark.

Jovianboy · #92 (**permalink**) 16-January-2004, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse

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

I can't find anything on the linked site related to dispersal of solar angular momentum. It may be there, but I really don't have time to search the whole site and its links. Instead, I ran a search (see below) and found a couple of sites which confirmed that which I was already aware of. That is, the Sun's angular momentum has been largely dispersed through its magnetic field in the form of solar wind (acting as a drag on the Sun's rotation). This is the current (and relatively simple) theory used to explain loss of angular momentum, and it seems to make good sense. I am at a loss to see how you can reach the conclusion that the Sun exploding is the clearest and simplest hypothesis explaining loss of angular momentum. I have never heard that idea before, and you have not explained the mechanism by which this would work. In my opinion that makes it pure suppostion.

Loss of solar angular momentum:

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/~rfitzp...es/node68.html

http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/...52/aa8852.html

Note added later: I've just read the thread more carefully and realised that this has already been covered by other posters. Sorry for the repetition.
Cheers.

themusk · #93 (**permalink**) 27-January-2004, 09:20 PM

I'm a newbie to the board, with little more to offer here than commentary. I must give credit to those of you who have formulated intelligent responses to snowflake's post. When I read snowflake's original post, I was at a loss for words, between the skewed facts, the misinterpretations of data, and difficulty even with basic notions such as the relative weight and uses of theory and observation. I guess I'm not, myself, cut out to be a debunker of bad science, though I greatly appreciate a good debunking.

cenwyn · #94 (**permalink**) 28-January-2004, 08:09 AM

It takes 6 minutes (roughly, I know I'm off here) for the light of the sun to reach the earth. Even in the past, if it had exploded at all, we'd A: not be here or B: not have much time to talk about it.

Tensor · #95 (**permalink**) 28-January-2004, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by themusk

I was at a loss for words, between the skewed facts, the misinterpretations of data, and difficulty even with basic notions such as the relative weight and uses of theory and observation. I guess I'm not, myself, cut out to be a debunker of bad science, though I greatly appreciate a good debunking.

Notice though that you recognized what was wrong. Hang around here enough, read enough, learn enough, and you will be able to debunk those areas that you know.

BTW, welcome to the board.

themusk · #96 (**permalink**) 28-January-2004, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tensor

Notice though that you recognized what was wrong.

Oh I know, I know. Six or so years of making the basement of Gamow Tower at CU your de-facto home will leave you with a clue or two about why fantasy physics doesn't work :-)

Quote:

Hang around here enough, read enough, learn enough, and you will be able to debunk those areas that you know.

Knowledge, yes, but patience? Some of this stuff is just overwhelmingly bizarre. It's not just bad (astro)physics, its bad biology, bad engineering, bad archeology, bad history, even bad theology, bad grammar, and bad spelling-- all imaginable badness rolled up into one. It's not even good fiction. Where does one even begin?

I guess I've been isolating myself from the woo-woos, and I'm in shock to see what kind of nonsense some people are promulgating.

Cougar · #97 (**permalink**) 28-January-2004, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by themusk

It's not just bad (astro)physics, its bad biology, bad engineering, bad archeology, bad history, even bad theology, bad grammar, and bad spelling-- all imaginable badness rolled up into one.

Hence the name of the site... and the book! You're right, though - the bad-ness is sometimes overwhelming. I usually just pick one little bad item that strikes me as particularly bad and try to point out the reason I see it as bad. Of course, I don't know much of this stuff off the top of my head, so a bit of research is necessary to firm up my support. Thanks to Al Gore for seeing that the early Internet got funded (not that he created it with his programming skills!) so research on most anything of interest is but a google away. (Actually, I use AltaVista Advanced for the boolean search operators, the field specification capabilities, and especially the near operator.)

wedgebert · #98 (**permalink**) 28-January-2004, 08:27 PM

I do the same thing. If I see things about Luna, nuclear fusion or black holes, I tend to step in. Other than that, I tend to only comment on things that jump out at me. Eithe way, I always google me up some information to strenghen my case.

Tensor · #99 (**permalink**) 28-January-2004, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wedgebert

I do the same thing. If I see things about Luna, nuclear fusion or black holes, I tend to step in. Other than that, I tend to only comment on things that jump out at me. Eithe way, I always google me up some information to strenghen my case.

Same here. But, right now I feel like I'm in quicksand.

tbm · #**100** (**permalink**) 21-September-2005, 11:26 PM

Did the sun blow up 5 billion years ago? No.

Regards, tbm

Mosheh Thezion · #**101** (**permalink**) 22-September-2005, 06:29 AM

i SAY IT DID... but it wasnt a star then... it was a big dwarf.... small and dark

which exploded into our solarsystem of atoms.. which then recondensed back into planets, and a star of atoms surrounding what was left of the dwarf...

and when stars nova... they leave the dwarf behind as clear evidense.

-MT

antoniseb · #**102** (**permalink**) 22-September-2005, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion

when stars nova... they leave the dwarf behind as clear evidense.

Thanks for your considered opinion in this. Do you believe that all dwarfs are the result of such an explosion, and that all stars are built up around dwarfs?

Vermonter · #**103** (**permalink**) 22-September-2005, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse

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

I know this is an older post, but...
It's not a very good practice to use one unproven theory to prove another, and thus prove your original theory. Even if gravity were stronger in the past, the sun simply doesn't have the mass needed for it to fuse iron. It'd get to carbon and then stop there. You need much more massive stars to reach the iron-burning stage. If the sun did explode, the force of it would indeed cause the surrounding material to expand out into space. Addionally, if gravity were 50-70 times stronger 5 billion years ago, why are galaxies at distance from each other? You model would have them be gravitationally held to each other.

As mentioned previously, stars that cast off their outer shells as novae or supernovae are left with a [dwarf star and] neutron star at the core [, respectively]. The star may radiate energy over the next several million years, but it would never fuse hydrogen again. We're talking about a city-sized star here. Even if it did accrete matter around it, it wouldn't be able to fuse any of it.

How does your theory deal with neutron stars anyway? If they are so compact now, what about if gravity was what you say it was ~5 billion years ago? Would that mean all neutron stars are degenerate black holes?

Vermonter · #**104** (**permalink**) 22-September-2005, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse

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

Think about the composition of the gaseous giants in our solar system. They are primarily hydrogen. Why don't the inner, rocky planets have more hydrogen in their atmospheres, or be made up of hydrogen? It's because of the properties of hydrogen and the heat radiated from the sun at increasing distances. In the inner solar system, the temperature is such that hydrogen molecule move around very fast, its quite hard for a rocky planet to trap them in the atmosphere. The velocity of hydrogen molecules is related to how much heat the recieve. Out around Jupiter and beyond, the hydrogen molecules found there move much slower, because there's less energy given to them by the sun. This allows bodies to accumulate them much easier, like Jupiter. When the solar system was forming, hydrogen was the most abundant resource, and once the protoplanet of Jupiter started forming, it could gather hydrogen around it easily once it started orbiting the young Sun. The rocky planets didn't have those resouces availible, so they could form of heavier materials towards the inside of the system.

Vermonter · #**105** (**permalink**) 22-September-2005, 05:24 PM

And now I just realize how old this thread actually is...wow I feel old.

Mosheh Thezion · #**106** (**permalink**) 23-September-2005, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antoniseb

Thanks for your considered opinion in this. Do you believe that all dwarfs are the result of such an explosion, and that all stars are built up around dwarfs?

is it not true that all stars leave them behind?????
-MT

Vermonter · #**107** (**permalink**) 23-September-2005, 09:47 PM

Some stars leave dwarfs behind at the end of their lifecycle, usually just the solid core of carbon with a few extra layers. More massive stars leave behind a neutron star, or if massive enough, a black hole. Dwarfs are the product, the remains. Newly forming stars do not form around a dwarf core.

BlackStar · #**108** (**permalink**) 23-September-2005, 09:58 PM

Is not our Sun considered a "dwarf star"? And a "variable" one at that?

Van Rijn · #**109** (**permalink**) 23-September-2005, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackStar

Is not our Sun considered a "dwarf star"? And a "variable" one at that?

The sun is a typical spectral class G2 main-sequence star. Such stars are called "Yellow Dwarfs." Many cooler main sequence stars are called "Red Dwarfs." "White dwarfs," on the other hand, are not main sequence stars. Don't be confused by similar terms.

The sun is not what is usually referred to as a "variable star."

I'm curious about why you asked these questions. Could you elaborate?

Mosheh Thezion · #**110** (**permalink**) 25-September-2005, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vermonter

Some stars leave dwarfs behind at the end of their lifecycle, usually just the solid core of carbon with a few extra layers. More massive stars leave behind a neutron star, or if massive enough, a black hole. Dwarfs are the product, the remains. Newly forming stars do not form around a dwarf core.

you base that on what???

fusion again... its everywhere and i say its wrong...
see my arguements.. as you know where..

if we based our view strickly n the evidense without fusion.. then suddenly the idea that the core was there at the beginning is not so insane...

what would a new solar system look like?? (that exploded as i describe?)
maybe..

-MT

Vermonter · #**111** (**permalink**) 25-September-2005, 04:26 PM

Mosheh, you haven't been providing any solid evidence for you theory. We have observed stars at different stages of their lifecycle, and can base what we know off of some of that. Why do you continue to say that fusion is invalid? Other posters have been showing you examples of how fusion works, and why it works. Think about the tremendous pressure and temperature within the center of the star. By this point, atoms are flying about at tremendous speeds. You have to overcome the natural repulsive effect that ionized hydrogen has on one another, it's like trying to stick two magnets together at the same end, it's really difficult. But in the core, this is possible. Hydrogen slams into another and fuses, forming deuterium. This fuses with another hydrogen isotope, forming Helium-4. During each stage of the reaction, energy is given off as gamma rays and smaller particles, and heat as light.

antoniseb · #**112** (**permalink**) 25-September-2005, 04:30 PM

I'm also kind of confused about why you say fusion doesn't work. Can you point to places where you have explained this? This thread is a little too large for me be happy about just diving in to start reading from the beginning.

seohtu · #**113** (**permalink**) 25-September-2005, 05:35 PM

I have occasionally entertained the notion that the inner planets out to Mars were originally gas giants that had their gas shell blown off by some kind of stellar explosion, the outer planets forming afterwards, but I'm allowed to entertain those notions because I'm not presenting the ideas as fact or provable theory. It's just brain exercise.

The argument that the presence of elements that must be formed within a supernova crucible indicates that the sun went supernova cannot be paired with an argument that the explosion was so much smaller that it provided none of the other observed signs of having gone supernova. You cannot depend on only a portion of a theory and discount the remaining symptoms of that theory - it is the combination of symptoms that validates the theory to begin with.

Is Snowflake the same person as Michael Mozina? And are they related to this Dr. Manuel? All of their arguments bear great similarity, not only in content, but in phrasing.

The image posted appears to be a condensing gas cloud, from my limited exposure to illustrations of the concept previously. It is not my understanding that a star going nova or supernova does so in a planar fashion. What would be the mechanism by which such intense energy is directed only on a single plane and not elsewhere? Was this the argument about angular momentum that I skimmed over earlier? (such LOONG posts here).

Is it argued that the matter "spun" off of the star? If so, this isn't really a novic explosion, is it? And how would that produce the elements that exist as "proof" of the theory?

Any of these questions that have already been addressed can simply be ignored. I only checked out the thread because my ponderings about Mars possibly having a core of Cheez-Whiz fell apart and I needed something else to work my brain on. (Need to find a source of milk in interstellar space - any ideas?)

Sincerely, kinda,
Derrick Baumer

Mosheh Thezion · #**114** (**permalink**) 25-September-2005, 09:30 PM

Isn't it a pretty picture.? No one commnents on the picture.. gee

Antoniseb
and see the last 2 pages of the thread that johnw started so as to crush me.
-MT

antoniseb · #**115** (**permalink**) 25-September-2005, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion

Isn't it a pretty picture.? No one commnents on the picture.. gee

The picture is a disk of dust and gas surrounding the central supermassive black hole in the center of a galaxy. I saw no real connection between this object and the point you were trying to make. You seemed to be talking about stellar mass objects. So what should I have said. Point out that the picture is interesting but not germain to the topic? I thought it was better to let it go by, since it also didn't seem to be key to your argument. It could only distract us.

Thanks for the pointer to your anti-fusion thing.

Mosheh Thezion · #**116** (**permalink**) 25-September-2005, 11:30 PM

to be fair this is the link..
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/new...998/22/image/a
and yes, its supposed to be galaxy core black hole.
-MT

JohnW · #**117** (**permalink**) 26-September-2005, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion

and see the last 2 pages of the thread that johnw started so as to crush me.

What are you talking about? I started that thread to try to keep the discussion of your ideas in one place, instead of spread around dozens of other hijacked threads.

If I wanted to "crush" you (and I'd love to see your evidence showing that that was my intention), all I would need to do is stand back and watch you do the job yourself. "Fusion is wrong" indeed.

Duane · #**118** (**permalink**) 27-September-2005, 12:19 AM

Well, I finally got all the way through this thread! I am so proud of me!!!

Quote:

If there is a mistake in Professor Manuel’s work, then prove where the mistake is in his analysis.

I have been over this with Dr Manuel on several occasions. Dr Manuel discovered 30 or so years ago that there were odd isotopic abundances in certain meteorites he was studying. Using that finding, he developed a theory of a iron-cored sun.

Since that time, all of the meteorites he used have been studied further, and in all cases it was found that not only were there odd isotopes, but there was also differing sizes of grains the isotopes were contained in. This necessarily means that they could not have arisen in a single supernova explosion, but rather arose in at least two and more likely more SN explosions.

Further, the studies have also identified material that could only have arisen in non-main sequence giant and supergiant stars, as well as W/R stars. In other words, the material is not from one source, it is from many.

Dr Manuel's mistake was, and remains, that he does not follow the ongoing research on the very meteorites he himself toutes as supporting his theory. When questioned about that ongoing research, he either ignores the question or treats the new research as if it does not exist.

antoniseb · #**119** (**permalink**) 27-September-2005, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duane

I have been over this with Dr Manuel on several occasions.

I agree with Duane, except (as Duane also believes) this is not the only error in Dr. Manuel's methods or analysis. I would characterize another set of his errors as the idea that somehow terrestrial abundances are considered the norm in his work, whereas it is pretty likely that a great deal of mass-fractionation occured in the hot creation of the planets. His work tries to work on the assumption that the Sun has a similar compostion to the Earth.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode