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)