Solar System Formation

Supernova Remnants

Fukang_Pallasite_Meteorite
Fukang Pallasite Meteorite
Nuclear Fusion in a Star
Nucleosynthesis In a Star

The traditional description for the formation of our solar system is that everything here formed as a function of forming in a concentration of interstellar dust and hydrogen gas. The cloud contracted under its own gravity and our proto-Sun formed in the center, surrounded by the swirling disk of the solar nebula. We now think that description significantly lacks merit in the earliest phases of formation for several reasons.

Nucleosynthesis & Nuclear Boundary Burning

Stars nearing the end of their lives hold an onion like structure of elements. The traditional Periodic Table reflects the atomic constructs and their relationships to one another. The green crystals shown at right in this Pallasite Meteorite are a mineral named Olivine and comprised of (Mg2+Fe2+)2SiO4. Employing Occam’s Razor is it more likely Pallasite Meteorites were formed by collapsing gas and dust in the earliest moments of our solar system or is it more likely that they formed during a supernova event and I draw your attention to the stellar elemental layering at left. All of the chemical elements necessary to produce the object on display to the right are shown in the star at left. It does not take a rocket scientists to see stellar collapse and rebound resulting in the supernova event and its ejecta then producing the object at the right.

Reconciling Insights

Our star is considered a 3rd generation star. That means that it is comprised of two prior supernova events. That means that the material comprising our solar system contains the material from those supernova events. It is no great surprise then to bring together this information to show that the object on display at right, a pallasite meteorite, is from one of those events. To think that we can hold in our hands such material is simply amazing.

Interesting as all of this is, and it is nothing new to astronomers necessarily, it does raise certain issues needing reconciliation. Where is the rest of the remnants from these supernova events and why can we not see any of that material today? We then diligently pull out ephemeris after ephemeris looking through inventories of candidates. We calculate our star’s velocity and that of our galaxy relative to the local cluster. Taking a simplex view of the situation we determine those structures are likely on the other side of the galaxy by now. Using our best guess about the age of these objects we place it consistent with the age of the Earth itself.

There is a factor that few like to talk about much. They do not because it causes indigestion and heartburn. If these objects are from a supernova event then they had to travel from where that Event transpired to the location where they are today, here on the Earth, likely in a museum or collection somewhere. It is too simplex to say that our star has simply drifted away from those supernova events carrying with it these remnants. First that presumption is made because it was not considered possible the alternative would be for the material forming our star drifted here across interstellar distances from events all over the galaxy. The reason that alternative is generally not considered is the amount of time involved in such a journey is immense. So much so that it would take more time than there is available since the time of the Big Bang as defined by M1.

What happens though if we mode shift these considerations given that predominant thinking behind them does not unify physics we find new motivation to ask a few more questions. The unified Universe under The Emergence Model grows immensely old to the point of being unknowably ancient. I (McGowen) must explain what I mean by this. First know that we have described our Universe Bang to Bang, and in that description we find distinction between ‘our’ universe and ‘the’ [real] unified Universe. This statement then refers to ‘the’ unified Universe which is immensely larger than ‘our’ Universe. The implication from our insights are that what we perceive inside our particle horizon is not all there is. The Bang to Bang article articulates the insights leading to that conclusion. The pallasite object shown at right demands we ask these questions and pursue this line of investigation, because we can in fact hold it in our hands. What it represents then must be held as self-evident.  The Big Bang as defined by M5 (not by M1) occurred somewhere between 50 to 120 billion years ago. Those estimates are based on z-factor reconciliation from the WMAP data and a review of data from the Lambda CDM. We were not able to conduct anywhere close to a precise or complete inventory of objects necessary to increase the precision or resolution on that conclusion because we simply did not have the resources to conduct that particular investigation to our satisfaction much less that of others. However, we were able to show that even our Universe grows many multiples older than the traditional Big Bang model and in that age we find room for material transfer from supernova events to where we find these objects today. Consequently our investigation served its intended purpose. We leave to others to push these other investigations. In addition to significantly increased age that also happens to explain objects like BX442, Visible Spectra, and coincidently accomplishes unification we find the holistic conclusions compelling.

Holistic Consistency with Nature

The Emergence Model is holistically consistent with what we find in the actual real unified Universe described herein by our Bang to Bang article. The illustrations here illuminate a few factors from the original systems review. Not just our star but our planet is a product of supernova events long ago and potentially very far away. There is now a need to conduct a comprehensive systems review across all branches and disciplines of philosophy, especially including epistemology, and science. Behind all of this is the framework of Elegant Reasonism which brought the analytical power to discern these insights. SolREI is now in heavy development of the Elegant Reasonism 101 course. That course is online right now and is free during the development effort. It is highly subject to change and evolution but it is there right now and it is free. The reasons to release such a vehicle is simple – to help people learn faster what this is all about. When we are finished with the development effort the course will be locked down and it will be $249.95 to take. So inspect it now while you can. Participate if you like. Contact us if there are aspects you would like to see there that we are not working on. We appreciate all the help we can get.

 

 

 

 

 

McGowen

By Charles McGowen

Charles C McGowen is a strategic business consultant. He studied Aerospace Engineering at Auburn University '76-'78. IBM hired him early in '79 where he worked until 2003. He is now Chairman & CEO of SolREI, Inc. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2439-1707