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.
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.
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
smaller stars in the Orion nebula are affected by the strong magnetic
fields and convert faster energy to mass. Therefore, stars in the
Orion nebula grow very fast. The giant stars also supply strong solar
wind that can condense on nearby stars to form planets. The dense
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.
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