: Last Updated: 17 April 2024

The Helios nebula

This article The Helios nebula was originally an integral part of the parent article "Why are we here?", but given the fact the parent article was growing extremely huge, I decided for the sake of simplicity to have the section "The Helios nebula" on a separate thread for simplicity and easy reading. See below the summary of the main article "Why are we here?" and the location of The Helios nebula, in section 1 article 5. I recommend and encourage you to read all these articles in order (after all, they follow the chronological order of our creation) so that you get the whole picture of really why are we here

Section 1, our star the Sun, without it nothing will be possible

The Primeval Atom
The grapefruit fluctuations at quantum level
The inflation period
Floating in the magic of hydrogen
The Helios nebula

Section 2, the perfect position of planet Earth in the Universe, and the chain of random accidents that caused your existence

Section 3, the abstract of your thoughts and the illusion of control

5. The Helios nebula - 1 billion years to 9.1 billions years after the big bang

The semantic of the word 'nebula' can be used to describe both the death of a star as well as the birth of new others. Our Sun, according to Science, is a third generation star, meaning that the hydrogen it contains has already experience the interaction with at least two previous stars, now gone. All the hydrogen in the Sun must have suffered the blast and gamma rays flood of at least two previous supernovas or supernovae, causing it to compact and contract in the third generation star that is our Sun. The first generations stars were the first ones ever to have been formed, and all of them must have (being initially so massive) exploded into supernovas, leaving behind either black holes or neutron stars. Then the 2nd generations stars were formed from the leftovers of the first generation stars. They burn much slowly but eventually they too collapsed or interacted with one another, exploding into yet again more supernovas or transforming themselves into white dwarf stars from which detritus our Sun formed, a third generation star. It is estimated that 3 to 5 new stars form every year just in the Milky Way, all of them being 3rd generation stars or even beyond

Our Sun must have been part of a Nebula when it was young, which other stars where part of that nebula? At present our closest star is Proxima Centauri, at just 4.2 light years away, but it has been the closest for only the last 32,000 years, that is 0.032 of the 4.6 billions years of age of the Sun, absolutely nothing! The Gaia spacecraft seems to have found so far at least 2 other stars that have the same elements signature composition as our sun, meaning that they were form in the same nursery Nebula. One of them is called "HD 162826" and the other one "HD 186302", the former being 110 light years way while the other about 184 light years away.... pretty long distances for our closest related sun-family

During my research, I did not find a specific name for the nebula where our sun was born, so I'll call this nebula "Helios Nebula". I would love that Science could go back with its instruments 4.6 billions years ago, when this nebula was formed, and study it, to figure out how many stars where in this nebula, where the gas and dust came from, how many supernovas where needed, any black holes around, etc. What is left from this "Helios Nebula", the nebula where our Sun was created? Go and figure, the time scale is enormous. In these 4.6 billions years lots of stars, drifting in space, have passed through our Sun neighbourhood

This video, which expand 10 light years only, shows the current vicinity of stars around our Sun; notice the prominent position of the bright Sirius at just 8.6 light years away:

The Sun has only circle the Milky Way 22 times since its creation (technically, we can therefore say that the Sun is a 22 years-old-galactic-star). When our Sun ignited in the galaxy the milky way was 9.1 billion years old, and this is it: after the Sun ignited no more hydrogen will come to its rescue, once it burns it all that will be the end of it, the life of our Sun is determined by the amount of hydrogen used in its creation, and in that sense hydrogen equals time. That also means that there is no more creation of new materials that can be "broadcast" by the sun, unless from extraterrestrial source (which probably will be older) all of the atoms that you see around you and in planet Earth are at least 4.6 billions years old or older. So yes, technically you look pretty good for all of your atoms to be 4.6 billions years old, just imagine in how many "entities" have your atoms resided and animated before they chose to sustain your body and its thoughts.....do you hate spiders? Where your atoms perhaps part of a butterfly in the Pleistocene -2.5 millions years ago- that was eating by a spider? Could this refinements of atoms be an conductor to 'tune' the atoms and allows them to host abstracts thoughts, able to ponder about their own existence? Hummm, it makes you think

Okay, jumping back again into the unstoppable road of Science towards enlightenment, let's face now another big bump: in Science the theories need to be proved and tested, and the theory that the Sun formed out of a Nebula and that the solar system formed out of the cloud of gas around the Sun, like an accretion disk, seems to be a pile of work-in-progress, there are still lots of things that we don't understand, and a lot more research needs to be done in this area. For example, this theory doesn't explain the behaviour of hydrogen: gravity cannot compact it to such extend that it ignites, the hydrogen tend to expand (as long as it has space) when it is compacted because it gets hot, further more when it gets compacted it turns into liquid: why did it not turn to liquid into space, to plasma? There must have been another chemical reaction or another element in play that caused the hydrogen to ignite, the answer of compacting it by gravity is not good enough. Could there be the supernova factor the one that "pushed" the clouds to create stars? And if so, how could the first ever supernova be created, when there was not enough 'push' by any other supernova to compact the cloud of gas?

One of the main issues of the solar system cloud-theory is the position of Jupiter and Saturn, the gas giants: they cannot had formed in the position where they are now. If they formed by a circling spinning of gas that "eventually" compacted, that far away from the sun, the gas will spin very slow and it will take, if ever, 20 times the age of the Universe for the gas to be compacted into a planet the size of Jupiter or Saturn. Just like on the Piñata Game, astronomers are throwing blows with their eyes covered, aiming to hit aided by chance the answer to the gas planets formation, and in one of those blows they stipulated that, okay, maybe Jupiter and Saturn were formed closer to the sun and then somehow "migrated" to their current orbit. How could these two chaps migrate just like that? Only a passing star or black hole would have caused such migration of orbits of these two giants, and in any case, in all the simulation that scientist have done of this theoretical migration, the Mars problem arises, and Mars never end up where it is now

This problem of gas planet formation so far away for its parent star gets extrapolated to the insanity when we consider the position of the other two gas giants: Uranus and Neptune, both so far away from the sun that it is impossible a distant remnant of a cloud-like could have been formed them just by gravity. But undoubtedly, they are there, they were created. What other forces were involved in the gas giants creation? To solve this problem scientist use a very (to my opinion) naive and simplistic answer: "okay, then the gas giants must have formed closer to the Sun and the "migrated" or "shifted" afterwards".... Hello? Seriously? Where did the rocky planets went while this migration took place? The force of the migration would have pushed the Earth out of the solar system. What could have caused this migration anyway? A by-passing star? If so, why didn't it affect at all to the rocky planets? Could it be, I wonder, that when the Sun ignited, all the planets were formed and the solar-wind pushed the planets away? If not, does it means that our solar system is unique due its formation, where the big boys migrate outward in the solar system, leaving the space for the small ones to thrive, undisturbed in the inner solar system, and eventually create Life? And due to this unique migration, does it render Life an extraordinary one-time only event in the Universe? And another intriguing question: why Jupiter is not a star? It certainly has the right composition of Hydrogen and is bigger than other stars that we see that have ignited their hydrogen in the sky. Yes, indeed more research is needed to solve the so many inconsistencies that we have in the Helios Nebula chapter

I'd like to share this video of Barry Setterfield, where he raised some legitimate questions that yep... some of them are not quite answered yet by Science and they need to be. Remember guys and gals, be aware of bias-influence and don't be afraid of asking questions, no matter how weird they are: we need to understand how the Universe works, and not to change the Universe so that it can fit our current understanding

Of the two twin-stars of our Sun that Science has found so far, do they have rocky planets like Earth that can sustain Life? We must find out whether earth-like-planets are a unique rare occurrence, and once in a lifetime Universe event, or if they are commonly widespread across the Cosmos. Either way, with these stars being at over 100 light years away, chances are that any twin Earth 2.0 planet that they might host are definitely and totally out of reach
When the sun ignited, was the Earth formed? Probably yes, it must have been frozen cold, far away from the image of "hot molten surface" that many sources picture the early Earth like, though at the time of Theia collision the surface must have melted. Science has dated the age of the Earth at 4.4 billions years old based on zircon crystal found in Australia, in the surface of the planet... If the surface is 4.4 billion years old, then the interior must be older, right? My point is why do we assume that the Sun has to be formed first and then after the planets? Maybe the Earth was a protoplanet, 70% of its size long before the sun ignited, as the dust originated by the star previous to the sun. Can somebody please explain me why we assume that the Earth formed after the Sun was grown up and shinning? It could have potentially existed before
So... where is the black hole, neutron star and/or white dwarf that created our Sun? In other words, where is the remnant of its core? It is not hidden under the carpet! It must be somewhere pretty close... and yes it is... I think. The star Sirius A, which is 8.6 light years away, has a small companion called Sirius B, small draft star that could well be the remaining grandfather or our Sun. Does the sun spins around Sirius?
Why does the sun experience a cycle of 11 years? Sun spots, an indication of the internal nuclear reactions of the sun, are fluctuating up and down in a predefined cycled of 11 years, does this have a relation to the way our home star rotates? The sun rotates once every 25 hours in the equator and once every 35 days at the poles. Do these rotations have a relation with the 11 years cycle? Is the sun rotation unique or does another star share a similar gravity pattern of 11 years? Why 11 and not 13? Do the two found sibling stars of our sun experience the same 11 years life cycle? Why does the sun returns (as seen from Earth) to exactly the same position it has in the sky in cycles of 33 years?

It is not possible to finish this chapter without an acknowledgment to one of the most beautiful creation of the human race: the periodic table, an amazing job started by Russian chemist Dimitri Mendeleev, that clearly shows there is order in the Universe, the fact that you can put its elements in their atomic weight order, in a table that make sense no matter how many new elements are found, is very significant: there is indeed structure around us.... does it mean there is meaning too?

Credit: Jennifer Johnson

References: