It is said that the solar systam was formed from supernova and the whirling clouds generated by that supernova then clustered together to form our star and planets. It is also said that the Moon was formed from a collision of a large body with the Earth during the time the solar system was formed. I know there have been alternative theories on the creation of the Moon, that attempt to explain why the Moon always has the same side facing the Earth, and it was textbook to have alternative theories on how the Moon was formed since it was not proven. I could help but wonder if the model for solar formation has been proven or if that is the only model that has been passed down over the years. In other words, what scientist has proven the current model for solar formation? I don't think astronomers have made observations of other solar systems that are in a phase that we would say that is what our own solar system would have looked like when it was forming. I may be wrong, if so please provide a link. Most observations of stellar nuseries that I have seen consisted of giant nebula that are clusters of stars in gas. I don't think this situation is consistant with what we think of as solar formation in our own solar system, the Sol System. This lead me to an alternative theory of solar formation, asking the question how could our own solar system form from these stellar nuseries. One popular theory on supernova suggest that stars will go supernova the moment they start to produce iron in the core. There is a sudden collaspe in the size of the star and then reaches a critical point to where it explodes. So then what happens to the iron? I think this is a good place to start because there is a lot of iron on Earth and inside of its molten core. I think most of the star that imploded onto the newly formed iron core would bounce off that core like a rubber ball hitting a sidewalk. This could be a hard detail to point out in the mathmatics of stars, because most of it is just a linear section from the core to the edge to simplify the equations. It would require a three dimensional description of the elasticity of the stars make up, which I have not done. So then my hypothesis is that the iron core of a star going supernova would then remain consintrated into a body that is the location of the star. A dead star could leave behind an iron core that is mostly in tact, that has not been thrown into the debree of the supernova. This could then mean that the Earth is the core of a dead star, or that the Earth is a dead star. So then what if the Earth was the core of a dead star? The debree would be sent out in all direction, and then possibly create an orbiting body in the same way we believe that bodies are formed in the solar system. I think the moon could be a result of this debree. I think most of the star dust ended up collecting on the Moon, and a lot of the heavier elements where left back on Earth. Then since they where once a part of the same body, then the same side of the Moon could remain facing Earth. Then the Earth could get caught in orbit around our sun with the Moon sometime after its death as a star, along with other failed stars that are smaller, like the gas giants. So then the solar system could be seen to be formed from a steller nursery, because then the solar system would be mostly formed from dead stars getting caught into the orbits of other stars, and the large collections of gas forming the gas giants are most of the gas that consisted of that nusery that didn't form into a star. So then the number of stars would thin out, and then there wouldn't be as many stars like around our solar system compared to that of a steller nusery.
This is not exactly correct. The solar system formed from a molecular cloud. This is essentially a large concentration of primarily hydrogen and trace elements. Any of the heavier elements are from previous generations of stars and any elements heavier than iron are from supernovas. But the overwhelming majority of the solar system is not from a supernova. It is possible that a supernova triggered the inital collapse of the molecular cloud that formed the solar system. The current most likely theory is the collision theory. It is not surprising that the moon is gravitationally locked with the earth based on the collision theory. And by the way none of this will ever be proven, theories are not proven - good theories are accepted as the most likely explanation. Theories are not proof. If you want absolutes you must go to religion or pseudo-science. The theory has not been 'passed down over the years'. The theory of the formation of the solar system is under continuous review and modification as new evidence and data is obtained. The idea that sun formed in an open cluster from a molecular cloud is in fact consistent with current theories. The current theory of supernovas of massive stars is that the when the nuclear fuel is spent there is a collapse of the star. As light elements are fused to heavier elements there is energy released creates a pressure that counter acts the affects of gravity preventing collapse. When the star fuses most of the lighter elements it begins to produce iron - the fusion of lighter element to iron does not release energy is consumes energy - so it does not create a pressure. At some tipping point the internal pressure is overcome by gravity and the star collapses creating a supernova. Supernovas never leave an iron core. No star ever leaves an iron core. The remnants of a supernova is a neutron star or a black hole - not an iron core. Much of the iron and the other elements are 'blown off' into space during the explosion. The high temperatures and violent explosion of the supernova produce the element heavier than iron such as uranium. It isn't. But the iron in the earth was produced by stars. The carbon in your body was produced by stars. (You are stardust, you are billion year old carbon - appologies to Joni Mitchel). Collapse of a molecular cloud makes much more sense and all the evidence points to that. The theory is very detailed and makes very logical sense. I suggest you do some research star formation or take an astronomy course at a community college - my guess is that you would find it very enjoyable.
I beleive smaller stars would leave an iron core, not every supernova could leave a neutron star or black hole. Smaller stars would not have the required mass in order to create a neutron star or black hole. I just fail to see how the newly formed iron core would be sent off in the explosion of a small star that does not have that many solar masses. There should be some core left behind just like in a neutron star, because the iron is formed in the center and everything collaspes around on it equally in all directions. This would have to form things like diamond or things that are harder than iron, since the stars lifetime has ended the moment it got to iron. I don't see how the iron being in the core could be sent out in the explosion of a supernova. It got me wondering if we are not star dust, but actually star core. Doesn't quite have the same ring to it. But, IDK if there is carbon on the moon, I would think that the star dust has failed to create life in that respect. I would like to know more about what materials the Moon has been found to be made up of, I predict from the theory it would be made of mostly lighter elements. I know a theory is not proof, and some would probably rather say it was an hypothesis, but the theory has an hypothesis, but maybe it is hypothesis on top of hypothesis. In my theory, there would also be a cloud and nearby supernova, a star would have to go supernova before it got caught into the Suns orbit, and at one time have been inside of a stellar nusery that have gas clouds. I think to be able to prove or disprove the theory, one would have to know how large a star would be in order to create an iron core in the supernova and if that can relate to what we see in the planets. I think iron is an abundent resource on Earth. It may help to know how abundant it is and what not. I think the core of the Earth is made of heavy metals and that is used to explain the magnetic feild around the Earth.
What you believe is not correct. Supernovas leave a neutron star, black hole or possible a more exotic core - but never an iron core. True they will end up as dwarf stars. Sent off? Huh? Do some research on star formation. Stars like the sun will move to red giant phase and then will shed some of it's outer layers and contract over time to a white dwarf - it will not leave an iron core. Hardness has nothing to do with it. That is good because nothing like that happens! We aren't.
So then what happens when a dwarf star goes supernova? Or will a dwarf star never go supernova? If the outlayers of a star collaspe on its core and bounce off that core in order to create a supernova, then the core should always remain there. There would be no real reason why the core should explode outwards with the other layers that bounced off of it. The first stars would naturally be smaller and burn out faster. Then after they go supernova sheading their outter layers they would be less massive, and then they would lose any tug of war they had going on with other nearby stars. So then I think these stars I am talking about would have to be less that a solar mass, less massive than our Sun. It would be like saying that the first stars that formed went supernova before they could even form something as massive as a dwarf star for instance. For example, draw a circle then draw lines of force hitting that circle and then bouncing off of it. For all intents and purposes that circle will still be within the circle, do you get what I am saying? There has to be some way for the iron to escape the core of a star in order for there to be an Earth like planet.
This is really showing that you do not have a grasp on a stars life cycle. If you google star life cycle or main sequence stars you will learn a lot in a short period of time.
I think this is really showing that you are not really willing to teach anyone about it on this forum. As I recall dwarf stars do go supernova and last a lot longer than bigger stars. I thought maybe I should tell you just in case you didn't forget yourself, since you failed to mention that in your comment. Maybe it doesn't take that much iron to make a star go supernova. I was hoping someone willing to give up that type of information would indugle me. I was told that scientist think the solar system was formed mostly from the same supernova because it formed a uniform disc shape. But, the galaxy also mimics the same type of behaivor of forming a disc, so I don't think it is really a necassary requirment. I never heard anyone mention that a galaxy is formed from its central black hole for instance or one giant body.
It doesn't take iron at all. The type of supernova you just mentioned (type 1A supernova, white dwarf) explodes due to fusion of its carbon and oxygen components. While that's mostly true (most of the heavy elements in the solar system probably came from the same supernova) it did not "form the disc shape." That forms due to mutual gravitational attraction between gas and dust in a spherical area. The shockwave of a supernova may have contributed to early condensation of the pre-solar nebula, but that would have resulted in spherical collections of matter, not disks. Disk formation would come much later, as gravity, friction and gas pressures started taking over.
What type of supernova would it take in order to create iron? How big would that iron core have to be at least?
