Nebula questions

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by KeLP</i>
<br />I have a few questions after reading the latest Meta Research Bulletin (vol. 17, 1) and the model of Solar System formation. Since I'm a non-scientist, please bear with me if the terminology is imprecise.

The objection to the mainstream Primeval Solar Nebula Hypothesis (PSNH) seems primarily with the formation of planets from the disk. In the article, a supernova event flattens and condenses a gaseous nebula and the sun is formed by gravitational collapse. It is unclear why the flattened disk is needed: I would think that gravitational collapse of a gaseous nebula could occur without the intervention of a supernova, without flattening, though requiring a much greater time to form the sun, and this collapse would impart a spin to the proto-sun just by the uneven accretion of matter. Is the flattening necessary?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
No. But the probability of collapse and the speed of collapse would (logically) be enhanced by the flattening (squeezing the atoms and molecules and dust particles closer together) process.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Nebulae are said to occur from exploded suns. But explosions eject matter in many directions, so it is unclear how enough matter (gas and dust) from an exploded sun is coherently moving in the same direction to later form a complete solar system. I've read that suns max out at 150 solar masses. How large of a sun would have had to explode, then the remnants be flattened, to eventually result in our Sol solar system?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
IMO nebulae large enough to form a new solar system are unlikely to be the result of a single stellar explosion. This is how I envision the process happening:<ul>
<li>A star goes nova, and scatters some atoms and dust</li>
<li>Another star goes nova, portions of the clouds from each collide, some of those collisions result in a larger, somewhat flattened cloud.</li>
<li>Another star explodes, more cloud collisions occur, more flattening and growth occur.</li>
<li>After this happens enough times, a cloud that has grown large enough and flat enough reaches a tipping point and begins to collapse and rotate, eventually forming a star and some planets.</li>
</ul>
Stars of 150 solar masses are about the largest we have observed. If one subscribes to a theory that embraces the physical possibility of a singularity, stars that accumulate much more mass than this will collapse into a black hole. Although the math of such theories can make excellent predictions, a mass with a radius of zero is a show stopper for me. The math is OK, but the physics is not.

The deep reality equivalent of a black hole, complete with thousand and million Sol masses, and escape velocities above the speed of light, is know as a Mitchell star.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> And can the composition and size of different suns be explained by the gravitational collapse of nebulae, or must some have been formed in another way? I'm thinking that if a certain amount of condensed matter forms a proto-sun, does the starting composition of the nebula determine the class of sun or can the rate of condensing vary enough to amass hugely different amounts of matter before the sun is formed?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hmm. I can envision other processes. Or the same process following different detail paths due to variations in starting conditions. They are likely to be exceptions rather than rules, but in an infinite universe we will have no shortage of rare things to amaze us.<ul>
<li>A cloud that starts with a serious hydrogen deficit should create star(s) different from most.</li>
<li>A dieing star could steal enough hydrogen from a companion to rejuvenate itself.</li></ul>

But until we have the ability to observe these things up close and over prolonged periods all we can do is speculate. Of course that same objection could be applied to most of what we "know" about stellar and galactic formation and evolution.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Also, some exploding suns must have ejected some of their gaseous cloud outside their galaxy, and also the blast wave from supernovas must at times escape the galaxy. Given a Universe that does not start at the Big Bang, but rather has always been, should there not be some suns formed that lie in the space outside Galactic structures?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Im not aware of any that have been observed. A single Sol-class star midway between here and the Andromeda galaxy would be invisible with current technology. But they must be there, so it is just a matter of time before we can confirm it.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> In Seeing Red, Arp shows the Seyfert galaxies as creating offshoot galaxies that over time become normal galaxies such as our Milky Way. This process would be analogous to the fission process by which planets are formed.
I would envision from that the following scenario, kinda a "fission all the way down" model which at first glance seems logical:

1. Seyfert Galaxy ejects High-Redshift Objects (HROs). It is not clear to me if this ejection would be in the form of twin single masses, or many discrete "blobs" of matter that form the object seen. Perhaps either is possible.

2a. If the High-Redshift Object is a single mass, it may eject what evolves into Galaxies. These Galaxies cool and condense unevenly, evolving into suns or forming pre-suns that in turn "fission" suns.

2b. If HRO is a collection of "blobs", it could condense and cool directly into suns or pre-suns.

3. Suns fission planets and planets fission moons as per the Meta Model.

What are the objections to such a scenario?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Your speculations sound reasonable to me. And MM expects that, as we look up and down the size coordinate axis, we will see similar processes and similar objects. But neither of these ensures that such speculations are an accurate description of reality over any specific range of sizes.

Regards,
LB

Ken,
One of your questions -

<b>... should there not be some suns formed that lie in the space outside Galactic structures?</b>

Triggered memories of several interesting speculations I have run across in years past. I do not remember where I read these so I cannot give them proper attribution (although I am pretty sure they appeared in <i>Analog</i>, a science fiction and science fact magazine that I have subscribed to for decades). Both begin with the observation that what we can see in the night sky has influenced our theorizing about the nature of the universe. In particular, given what we see in the sky it was easy to imagine that Earth is the center of the universe and that everything else revolves around it. A few early men argued for other models. But until you begin to make detailed observations with a telescope, it sure looks that way.

Anyway, I hope you and the others enjoy them.

===

When we look at the sky everything appears to revolve around us. So the first speculation wonders: what if there had been one or more obvious exceptions? In particular, what if Venus had a moon as large as ours? It would be visible to the unaided eye, and it would obviously not be revolving around Earth.

Under such conditions we might have developed a modern view of the universe thousands of years sooner than we did. Might other advances also have occurred sooner? It seems clear that this would have changed the course of human history.

It is impossible to know, with any certainty, how. But it could be fun to speculate.

Regards,
LB

The second speculation takes us in the opposite direction. Suppose that Sol, and her bevy of planets, moons, asteroids and comets, were located far away from any other stars, in one of those great voids between galactic clusters? Hundreds of millions of light years from the next closest star. Nothing would be visible to the naked eye outside of the solar system. No stars. No galaxies. Nothing.

Now suppose that Earth was the only planet to form. No other planets, no asteroids, no comets. The only thing we could see in the sky is Sol and Luna.

Next, suppose that our moon also did not form. Now all we can see in the sky is Sol.

Finally, suppose that Earth has become tidally locked to Sol. One day and one year are the same amount of time. The same point on Earth is always directly under the sun, like Earth appears from the surface of Luna. In such a situation the universe would appear to be totally unchanging. Over time, as we moved around on the surface of the planet, we could figure out that we were on the surface of a ball, but we would be hard pressed to ever guess that this ball was orbiting that big round bright thing in the sky.

===

We could throw in one more fascinating twist. Suppose Earth's moon is still with us, and still shows us the same face all the time, but that it is just far enough away that its orbital period is exactly one day. And therefore exactly one year.

Now it is not just Sol that appears to hover motionless in the sky. Always over head, or always near the horizon, or always somewhere on the other side of the planet, depending on where you live. The only two objects we can see up there now are motionless. If you stand back and watch from a distance, Luna is in fact orbiting Earth, and Earth is in fact orbiting Sol.

But from the surface of Earth it does not look that way.

We might never develop a modern concept of the universe under such conditions. Even the telescope might not be enough to break out of this trap. It was not until we built some fairly big scopes that we were able to see anything outside of our home galaxy. And the only reason we did build bigger scopes was to better see the things we could already see.

If some of us did build bigger scopes they would still not see anything new in the sky until those scopes reached a specific size. Sooner or later we probably would build one. And sooner or later we probably would turn it on some blank part of the sky. And sooner or later we probably would notice a faint smudge.

Probably.

===

So. We could have been luckier. Or we could have had worse luck. I wonder if there are other aspects of reality that we are unaware of because be happen to live in a void of some sort?

We may already have the equivalent of small telescopes for observing this aspect of reality, but they appear to do nothing that we recognize as interesting (IOW, repeatable). Unless and until we built the equivalent of bigger telescopes we would remain in this trap.

LB

Larry,

Interesting points. I think of William Blake: "Does the Eagle know what is in the pit, or wilt thou go ask the Mole?" Or my recent reading of Jean Buridan's medieval essays on such effects as Gravity, concluding, logically, that the Earth is the center of the Universe. Perspective has a lot of influence.
There is a corollary to these thoughts that applies to Science in the larger perspective. Assuming the Scientific Laws remain the same (and if not, I don't want to go there), the inhabitants of those alternate Earths will still find 2+2=4, still experience Gravity, still have water freezing and evaporating at certain temperatures. Over time, as more and more discoveries are made, they should come to recognize certain core facts that we recognize.
Here lies the nexus between Scientific Fact and Scientific Speculation or Hypothesis. Molecules made of Atoms are facts, immutable; the Speculation as to how they fit together and what they look like and how they do what they do is changable as more information is gathered, but not the actual Fact that a something called a Molecule composed of things we call Atoms exists. It is when scientists assume the Speculation to be Fact that perspective is unnecessarily narrowed and important discoveries can be lost or long delayed. MetaResearch readers need not be told this, of course.

In a way, this is at the heart of my questions. Basically, I'm asking, are there any supporting facts, or is it more purely speculation?
I accept the arguments that the Solar System could form from a gaseous nebula. The first question is, "Is this the norm for star formation?" If so, if all stars are said to form from the gaseous nebulae of exploded older stars, my analysis goes thusly:
Start with a Galaxy of 1 million stars (very small Galaxy ).
If all 1 million stars explode and I allow a generous 40% of the particles and gases to coalesce into nebulae and reform stars, we get a Galaxy 40% smaller in star number, or 400,000 stars, with the remaining 60% of particles and gas filling the galactic space and between galaxies.
A few Hypotheses, falsifiable, arrive from the model:
1. Older Galaxies have fewer stars.
2. Older Galaxies have less matter (mass?).
3. Older Galaxies have lower luminosity. May not be true, newer stars may be brighter
than older stars.
4. Older Galaxies should tend to be larger in geometric volume, since exploded nebulae
would spread beyond the original Galactic boundaries.
How these can be measured is beyond my expertise.

The second possibility is that formation of a sun and planets from a nebula is a rather rare event. We start with stars otherwise formed, they explode, and certain star classes, like our G-class Sol, result if certain conditions are met. I'd speculate that a very small amount of matter would meet the necessary conditions, so G-class stars would be very rare until late in a Galaxy's evolution when many of the non-nebula-formed stars are gone (assuming G-class stars out-live the others, etc. etc.). Brings up the question, how many G-class stars, percentage-wise, exist in our Galaxy? Are they rare or common or can we even really tell?

Another objection to nebula-formation of stars as common is in the amount of matter that coalesces and forms a star. If we accept Arp's view of Seyfert Galaxies birthing other Galaxies, the amount of matter in a Seyfert must be tremendous. If most every time a star-forming amount coalesces it forms a star, which often eventually explodes into another nebula, is it reasonable to assume the amount of matter in a Seyfert could be brought together? It seems to me it would be very hard to amass enough matter at that scale if at the much smaller scale of suns and solar systems we commonly have fissioning of planets and exploding planets and suns.

All of this means nothing, of course, if our Supercluster of Galaxies is unusual. We're back to your point on perspective. The speculation that our Solar System formed from a gaseous nebula works well from a political prospective: proponents of the mainstream PSNH are more likely to look at the Meta Model fission model if you start from their revolving disk and even give a more convincing "how" to its evolution, which I perceive was done. From the above thoughts, I just find it hard to envision as anything but a rare event if true, and wondered if there was anything in the known composition of the Solar System or speculation on the early stages that led to a nebula-based hypothesis being preferred.

That's way too much blathering on my part, so I'll stop.


Ken

"With Stupidity and Sound Digestion, Man may front much." -- Diogenes Teufelsdrockh