From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Sun Jul 21 2002 - 06:54:01 MDT
On Sunday, July 21, 2002 8:06 AM Amara Graps amara@amara.com wrote:
> I sincerely doubt these years that there a 'conventional model'.
I agree. I'm not an expert in the field, but I've seen at least two
models touted, from a stellar close encounter to the nebular hypothesis.
I'm sure there are more, especially with the data from extrasolar
planets gleaned over the last several years.
>>Based on these findings, they concluded
>>that the solar system formed directly from
>>the debris of a single supernova, and the
>>sun formed on the supernova's collapsed core.
>
> I'm not sure his 'one' supernova assumption
> is right. Evidence points to a series of
> supernovae explosions forming our Local Bubble.
> Consecutively? Simultaneously?
This is what I've heard too -- that the Sun is a later generation star
and the solar system was seeded with debris from earlier supernovae
explosions.
> (btw, deja-vu this discussion.. last winter here?)
Well, don't all list discussions have a cycle? With new members coming
aboard and old members not paying attention (like me; I can't read all
the posts or even all the good ones), this is bound to happen. At
least, we don't constantly discuss abortion.:)
Cheers!
Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:36 MST