|Posted by convergenttheories on January 17, 2010 at 7:42 PM|
I am proposing that our formation of planets reflects the presence of at least one, perhaps two, stars prior to ours, that created our solar system. My theory is based on the observations I've made over the years stemming from scientific discoveries made about our solar system. The idea comes from the accepted scientific notion that we are literally made of star stuff, and that our planets, and everything on the planet including us, were formed from star stuff, but the exact mechanisms for this formation has not yet been flushed out. The simple idea that a nebula, our sun's nursery so-to-speak, coalesced our sun, and it's surrounding planets through the formation of an excretion disc of materials that collide and collide until larger bodies sweep up most of the materials into the sun and it's surrounding planets. While I do believe this theory is sound, I do believe that there is a cyclical function that through repetition, form the type of solar system we see today.
My understanding is that the fuel source will limit the level of complexity of furnaced elements produced. Because of this, I am proposing that we are the result of two star processes, perhaps three, because of the way our solar system is formed. This observation might also lead us to a way to find Class M planets through understanding the formation of Solar Systems, as we could then look for systems likely to have rocky worlds with magnetic fields.
I theorize that our Solar System formation as a "Compound" or "Second Generation" Solar System would have begun with a Nebula of gasses, probably mostly Hydrogen, as it was the early Universe and more complex elements wouldn't have existed at that early time of formation.
This first "Proto" star formed from the early Nebula, and it would have been mostly Hydrogen due to it's early age in the Universe. With only a small amount of Helium, and almost all Hydrogen for a source, I refer to these stars as Early, or "Proto" stars, because they are burning this simple fuel. Our first "Proto" star would have only been able to form the "Lower" or "Light" elements on the periodic table during it's lifetime I suspect. I refer to the "Light Elements" formed in the furnace of this "Proto" star, the "Inerts" group of elements. So when our first "Proto" star died, it went through an expulsion event, or went Super Nova, disbursing these "Inerts" that became the building blocks of the first planets. These resulting planets formed from this "Simple" material, mostly gaseous, from debris that would travel out quite far from the death, or Super Nova event. This first star would probably not have a very long life I suspect. It would not live as long as a star with heavier elements in it's furnace to help hold it together during it's lifetime. Upon it's death, the ejecta from our first "Proto" star formed the resulting "inerts" ejecta and formed the gaseous planets, traveling out very far before condensing into clouds, and eventually into the gas giants type of planets we now have in our outer solar system.
This first star would create a debris field that now includes the "Simple" Elements to congeal into the gaseous worlds. Another star would then form again from this material as well, incorporating this "Simple" debris, while the first gaseous planets formed, and as such would have these "Simple" Elements in it's furnace, enabling it to create some of the heavier elements, during it's lifetime. This is possible because the "inerts", these "Simple" Elements, are incorporated in this second star. The planets that would have formed from this "Simple" debris, forming around this Second star, would have been gaseous and have resulting orbits quite far out from the second star that forms from the "Simple" debris. This is because the star would have lacked enough of the heavy elements, that have more gravity to pull them together, as the second star, I suspect. Perhaps this "Transitional" star will have produced some heavier elements when it dies and/or goes Super Nova, but they might not be in concentrations high enough to form truly rocky worlds, so I theorize that a third star would, in some cases, be needed to have these truly rocky worlds.
The second star, a "Transitional" star, incorporating the "Simple" Elements from the first "Simple" star, would possibly be able to create the heavy elements on the periodic table, in the amounts needed to keep the star together for a longer lifetime, and form truly rocky worlds when it dies and/or Super Novas. When this second "Transitional" star dies and goes Super Nova, and has enough of the heavier elements, would consumed the inner gaseous planets, and because of the additional mass in the ejecta cloud, it would have kept the debris together, allowing the outer gaseous planets to remain, while the inner, rocky, planets would have then begin to form around this, now third star forming from the same Nebulous material being recycled yet again. This "Transitional" second star will hopefully be able to create the heavier elements without a third star, and is able to produce the vast quantities needed , and heavy enough to cause the formation of "Heavy" Elemental particles to actually form planets upon it's death.
The resulting "Compound" or "Complex" third, or fourth, star formed would then incorporate these heavy elements from the periodic table, and would have formed a "Complex" solar system that incorporates rocky, heavy planets, orbiting close to the "Complex" star, with gaseous planets orbiting far away from the star, and it would be a very stable star, with a longer life expectancy than the "Simple" stars.
This could be a useful tool when looking for rocky planets, as we now can use spectroscopy to determine if the star would likely have rocky planets around it based on if it is "Compound" or "Complex" or a "Simple" or "Proto" star, or not. It also explains why our solar system looks the way it does, with a plausible explanation for how Saturn would have formed it's ring from the Super Nova debris, and the inner, rocky planets.
If you examine our Solar System, you can see the leftover debris from these expulsion, or Nova events. We have the Ort Cloud, perhaps the remnants of the first star, consisting of very small particles of gasses and ices of the "Simple" elements. Then an asteroid belt that could potentially mark where the Second star debris leftovers stopped expanding. The Ice worlds, and the gas giants are left over, with these demarkation points because, potentially, the reformation of the star consumes what is near it, and as the material is less and less, because of particle to planetary formation, this event gets smaller leaving only the outer debris behind.
Our next asteroid belt is made of more dense, rockier bits, leading me to speculate that there were actually three prior stars instead of two, but I suppose the heavier elements could have been made in enough quantities, so upon the Second star expulsion event, there could be enough material for formation, but I suspect that for the quantities involved a Proto Star, then two increasingly heavier Transitionary Stars, lead to a more stable Heavy Star required to create the inner, rocky planets, that we see today. Based on these demarkations we see lining our Solar System, potentially, there could be evidence for three prior stars to the star responsible for the formation of our planets.
This may be why there is such a range of densities of solar material, like in asteroids, and the reason for cometary formation in our outer solar system zones from "Simple" Element Gasses & Ices the would be the most complex elements present after a Proto Star expulsion event. That remains to be proved from examination of materials we must collect to prove this star to star evolutionary chain does, in fact, exist. Calculating the masses of all the solar bodies to see how much material might have been lost during each expulsion event, and calculate the expected elements in each zone, given some mixing over time. This would enable us to calculate how large each one of the preceding stars would have been, to give us an idea of what to look for when we scan for Class M planets, but we will have to wait and see when the numbers come in.
While I suspect something like this process is responsible for the formation of solar systems that do, in fact, have rocky planets in stable systems, I also get the feeling there's a lot more to this mechanism than contained in my understanding, and I look forward to the exploration, and examination, by my fellow humans, and the observations they will make that, at this time, escape me.
Over the years I have heard several theories about why our solar system is so different from what we have seen so far, including solar system collision, but I can't help but think that our solar system isn't anything abnormal at all, but a natural embodiment of a stable evolution of events that would make this type of configuration very common, and therefor, life would be common, but we won't know until we test our own solar system's debris, and find out.
I will be adding more, and filling in this theory as I work on it.
Allen F. Crabtree IV
1 January 2010