wrote:
Hi,

Many of the short lived isotopes have half life much shorter than a
million years, Calcium 41, for instance have half life of 0.1 million
years.
The main problem with the theory that a supernova created by shock
waves the solar system is that a supernova should create some elements
that are missing from the solar system. A supernova create should
create Sn 126 but this element is missing. Therefore, red giant is
more likely to be the source of the short lived elements than
supernova and this red giant is the sun. There are other problems with
the supernova model.

Or, rather, the daughter isotope hasn't yet been found? These "anomalies"
are hardly evidence for a radical overthrow of well-founded existing
theories. More likely they place restraints on the distance and details of
the supernova. For example, the authors of the article you cited point out
that the supernova hypothesis is supported by the Fe60--Ni60 ratio to the
exclusion of other theories.


The images of protoplanetary disks could be either a debris disks or
bow shocks. Debris disk could be created by collisions of planets or
asteroids or from condensations of the solar wind. The bow shocks in
the Orion nebula are created from the collision of solar winds. The
solar wind of the giant stars is colliding with that of nearby smaller
stars and creates a bow shock. Protoplanetry disks similar to what is
expected from the solar nebula hypothesis do not exist. Blue giant
stars should have huge protoplanetary disks but despite extensive
search such a protoplanetary disk of a blue giant was never found.

What do you think a debris disk is? How does it differ from a
protoplanetary disk?

You haven't presented any evidence that hot stars should have huge
protoplanetary disks. Most astronomers believe the opposite, because their
stellar winds are strong and they would have been blown away very quickly.


According to my theory the Orion nebula is also the birth place of new
stars. In the Orion nebula there are giant stars and there is high
density of stars. The blue giants consume a lot of energy so the area
where they are found have strong magnetic fields that supply a lot of
energy. The giant stars have stellar cycle of a short period of about
5 years compared to 11 years of the sun. The amplitude of this stellar
cycle is also higher. So the changing magnetic fields in areas like
the Orion nebula are very strong and supply a lot of energy. The

You seem to be obsessed with magnetic fields. These have very little
influence compared to the radiant energy of stars. They just are not all
that strong.

smaller stars in the Orion nebula are affected by the strong magnetic
fields and convert faster energy to mass. Therefore, stars in the

Violates well known physics.

Orion nebula grow very fast. The giant stars also supply strong solar
wind that can condense on nearby stars to form planets. The dense

How would that work?

population of stars in the Orion nebula can help to release the
planets and turn them into free floating planets. Many free floating
planets and brown dwarfs are observed in the Orion nebula. Those
planets will grow by converting energy to mass and will become stars.

I don't know of any published claims for observations of free-floating
planets in Orion or elsewhere. Citations?


Dan Bar-Zohar



On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 08:54:27 -0000, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:

wrote:
Hi,

Those extinct short lived isotopes were produced by the sun 4.6
billion years ago. At that time the sun was a red giant and had
strong solar wind. The solar wind condensed and formed meteorites
and comets. Those days the short lived isotopes are not found, but
their decay products are found in meteorites. It is hard to explain
the presence of those short lived isotopes 4.6 billion years ago
without a red giant sun because they decay very fast. If the source
was external from a supernova the short lived isotopes should decay
before they were incorporated in the meteorites.

There is no known mechanism by which a condensing protostar could
create these short-lived isotopes (relatively short-lived--some have
half lives of many millions of years, which I would not regard as
"decay[ing] very fast". Again, you quote sources but do not seem to
actually read them. It requires in several cases the r-process
(only thought to exist in supernovae) to form them. Any isotope with
a half life of more than a million years could find itself part of a
condensing pre-solar nebula. Nearby supernovae could seed a cloud
of condensing gas and dust with these isotopes.

Tell me again why, when we observe disk-like protostar nebulae in
star-forming regions like Orion, we are not really seeing star and
solar system formation (proplyds)?

On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:59:36 -0000, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:

wrote:
Hi,

There are many short lived isotopes that are found in the solar
system. There is much research going on in this field to
understand the early history of the solar system according the
the solar nebula hypothesis.


in google books - Encyclopedia of the solar system.

http://books.google.com/books?id=G7U...system&f=false


Regard,
Dan

I don't think you can read. The table on that page says these are
*Extinct radionuclides* that were present very early when the solar
nebula formed,
4.6 BY ago, which have since decayed to stable daughter isotopes.
They are absolutely not present today, which is what you have
claimed. If you don't think you claimed this, do read what you
wrote below.


On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:35:09 -0000, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:

wrote:
Hi,

The sun converts energy to mass. The energy comes from the
magnetic fields of the solar cycle. The neutrino emissions from
the sun are the result of the mass production. The muon
neutrinos from the sun are not the result of neutrino
oscillation. They are produced by reactions involved with the
mass production and the second family of the standard particle
model.

http://www.philica.com/display_artic...article_id=126

If stars produce their mass by conversion of energy to mass than
the young stars are red dwarfs and old stars are blue giant.
This leads to the fact that stars are growing from planets.
Red giants are created by long Maunder minimum that cools the
star. The sun was a red giant 4.6 billion years ago and its
solar wind created the object of the Kuiper belt. This is
evident from the short live isotopes found in meteorites and
can explain the formation of chondrules.

Regards,
Dan Bar-Zohar

Violates *all* known physics and astronomy. Also, short lived
isotopes are specifically not found in meteorites (other than
those which are decay products of long-life isotopes that are
found). If you have evidence to the contrary you should present
it (references, etc).

On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:39:22 -0000, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:

wrote:
Hi,

The sun energy source is not fusion. The sun and other stars
are heated by magnetic fields from the supermassive black
hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy.
With this idea it is possible to trace the formation of the
solar system. The sun and stars formed separately. First the
sun formed and then after some time the planets formed. Red
giants are not dieing stars. Stars fluctuate all the time from
being a red giant to being a regular star. The sun was a red
giant 4.6 billion years ago as evident from meteorite age. The
solar planets formed from the strong solar wind of the red
giant sun.

Aside from the fact that your "theory" contradicts all known
physics (a minor trifle, I'm sure you will say), from theory of
gases to nuclear physics to electromagnetism, to name a few,
how does your "theory" account for the detection of solar
neutrinos?


For more details read the article:

http://www.philica.com/display_artic...article_id=210

http://www.pixelphase.com/sun/solarsystem.pdf


Abstract

How the solar system formed, is a puzzle that challenged
scientists for many centuries. The current accepted theory is
the Solar Nebula Hypothesis originated by Kant and Laplace in
the 18th century. In reference 1 it was suggested that the sun
energy source is not fusion but magnetic fields from the
center of the galaxy. The Solar nebula Hypothesis cannot
coexist with a sun powered by magnetic fields. As shown on
reference 4, those magnetic fields create mass that slowly
increase the mass of the sun. The sun is growing not from
dust from the interstellar space but from synthesis of new
particles in the sun interior. The sun and the planets formed
separately, the sun came first and then the planets follow.
In the standard solar model stars are turned into red giants
when the hydrogen in their core is depleted and the energy
production stop. Stars do not work on fusion, but on magnetic
fields, so they turn into a red giant when their energy supply
from the magnetic field is stopped. Stars that have a very
long Maunder minimum, for tens of million of years, in which
their stellar cycle is weak, will turn into a red giant.
The exoplanet search programs found that stars with planets
have higher metallicity compared to stars without planets. The
metallicity of a star depends on its mass. Massive stars have
higher pressure and temperature in their core that increase
the fusion rate of heavy elements. Stars with planet, that
show higher metallicity, had higher mass in the past that
created the high metallicity. They went through a significant
mass loss that decreased their mass but did not change the
high metallicity. Those stars significant mass loss occur
when they turned into red giants. Red giants have strong
stellar wind that disperses the star outer layers into
interstellar space. This stellar wind creates comets that
form planets around the star. The high metallicity of the sun
indicates that it was a red giant. The solar planets where
born from the solar wind of the red giant sun. The solar
system shows many evidences in support of an ancient red
giant sun. The energy calculation in reference 4 suggests
that stars are slowly growing by converting the energy from
the magnetic fields to mass. The gradual mass increase
indicates that more massive stars are also older, so
according to the standard solar model there is a mix up
between older and younger stars. Older stars are not the
smaller stars like red dwarfs but the heavier stars like blue
giants. The idea that stars are slowly growing from small
sizes, and the fact that the latest exoplanet search programs
found large number of exoplanets, leads to the conclusion
that stars originate from planets. The development steps
leading to the creation of stars from planets include: growth
of the planet by cold accretion of comets and asteroids;
separation of the planet from the star; magnetic ignition of
the planet when it reaches the size of a brown dwarf; and
growth of the star by conversion of the energy from the
magnetic fields to mass.

Regards,
Dan Bar-Zohar

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)