Theory Proposes New View of Sun and Earth's Creation

Spaceref ^ | May 20, 2004

[SteveH]

Here's an image:

(OK, so I really found the article from that other conservative EBB...;-)

[farmfriend]

.

[Consort]

There are probably many ways for suns and planets to form.

[P.O.E.]

From what I remember iron is about as high on the table a sun will create (and my memory is rusty on that, so to speak). So supernova is the machine for the higher elements. Makes me wonder if we are the first such experiment.

[MonroeDNA]

Nice post!

[aimhigh]

..a new theory..

.. anything but God... anything but God... anything but God... anything but God... anything but God... anything but God... anything but God... anything but God..

[JSteff]

As the Pope said once (along these lines).. creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

The Lord created and put in motion all that still goes on creating. Maybe the beauty of all it is that we ended up being one, maybe the only one, of those solar systems that allowed life.

Did the Lord make anything easy for us? Did he give us nuclear power, antibiotics, or open heart surgery? No, he gives us the things to do this but leaves us to discover and use them the best we can.

How we use them determines whether we have learned what he taught us in the beginning.

[PatrickHenry]

PING. [This list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and some other science topics like cosmology. FReepmail me to be added or dropped. Long-time list members get all pings, but can request evo-only status. New additions will be evo-only, but can request all pings. Specify all pings or you'll get evo-pings only.]

[Shryke]

creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

I happen to agree, but.....what does evolution have to do with this article?

[RadioAstronomer]

A star uses the weak force to “burn” (nuclear fusion). Three processes we observe are proton-to proton fusion, helium fusion, and the carbon cycle. Here is an example of proton-to-proton fusion, which is the process our own sun uses: (two protons fuse -> via neutrino interaction one of the protons transmutes to a neutron to form deuterium -> combines with another proton to form a helium nuclei -> two helium nuclei fuse releasing alpha particles and two protons). The weak force is also necessary for the formation of the elements above iron. Due to the curve of binding energy (iron has the most tightly bound nucleus), nuclear forces within a star cannot form any element above iron in the periodic table. So it is believed that all higher elements were formed in the vast energies of supernovae. In this explosion large fluxes of energetic neutrons are produced which produce the heavier elements by nuclei bombardment.

[RightWhale]

Somebody, possibly at a table of proto-astronomers having coffee in the break room between classes, said there were several supernovas in our region over a period of time, and we now reside in a hollow region swept free of dust about 500 light years in diameter.

[longshadow]

I'll ask the obvious question: where is the remnant of the massive star that went supernova that seeded our solar system with all that iron 60 whose daughter products they find in the meteorites? Shouldn't we have a "Crab Nebula" sort of thing sitting in our galactic backyard if this is accurate? Or, are they suggesting after 4 billion years, all evidence of it would have long since dissipated?

[RightWhale]

An old supernova would be nothing but a small burnt-out cinder by now, all the dust blown away or condensed into planets and comets. Crab nebula is very recent, just this morning in astronomical time.

[PatrickHenry]

I'll ask the obvious question: where is the remnant of the massive star that went supernova that seeded our solar system with all that iron 60 whose daughter products they find in the meteorites? Shouldn't we have a "Crab Nebula" sort of thing sitting in our galactic backyard if this is accurate?

I don't know what a 4-billion-year-old nebula would look like from the inside, and that's probably our perspective. It probably clouds our "outlook" a bit, but unless one is looking at a nebula from the outside, its existence may not be obvious.

[longshadow]

An old supernova would be nothing but a small burnt-out cinder by now, all the dust blown away or condensed into planets and comets.

I suspected that might be the case ....

[JSteff]

Re-Read Post 6

[Dimensio]

Huh?

What does a religious concept like a god have to do with scientific theory?

[Shryke]

Re-Read Post 6

Done. I repeat, how are these two concepts related? And how did evolution get into the mix?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I'll ask the obvious question: where is the remnant of the massive star that went supernova that seeded our solar system with all that iron 60 whose daughter products they find in the meteorites?

That's the first thing I thought. There should be a nearby neutron star or a black hole. Maybe it's a massive star flyby?

[longshadow]

That's the first thing I thought. There should be a nearby neutron star or a black hole. Maybe it's a massive star flyby?

As was already pointed out, the enormous time since the event pretty much wipes out the observable evidence. Even if a remnant were still in the neighborhood, it's doubful we'd know unless it was radiating energy..... and I don't know if neutron stars cam last 4+ billion years without depleteing virtually all of its angular momentum.