New Data on Formation of Solar Systems

The new data? Lots and lots of exo planets have been discovered, and
are continuing to be discovered, as more powerful visual instruments
are being invented.

So if there are this many planets, hundred of thousands of them, in
fact, they could not have all been formed by supernovae which somehow
put on the brakes to form all these solar systems. Supernovae are
just not that common. Planets are very common. Further, there is
nothing known in the universe that could get the supernovae blasts to
put on the bakes hard enough to get such solar systems to form.

On Feb 16, 7:27*pm, Mark Earnest wrote:
The new data? *Lots and lots of exo planets have been discovered, and
are continuing to be discovered, as more powerful visual instruments
are being invented.

So if there are this many planets, hundred of thousands of them, in
fact, they could not have all been formed by supernovae which somehow
put on the brakes to form all these solar systems. *Supernovae are
just not that common. Planets are very common. *Further, there is
nothing known in the universe that could get the supernovae blasts to
put on the bakes hard enough to get such solar systems to form.

You got good arguments.

So how many hundred billion years old is this universe that's
saturated with planets (perhaps a whole lot more planets than stars)?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Feb 16, 11:47*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Feb 16, 7:27*pm, Mark Earnest wrote:

The new data? *Lots and lots of exo planets have been discovered, and
are continuing to be discovered, as more powerful visual instruments
are being invented.

So if there are this many planets, hundred of thousands of them, in
fact, they could not have all been formed by supernovae which somehow
put on the brakes to form all these solar systems. *Supernovae are
just not that common. Planets are very common. *Further, there is
nothing known in the universe that could get the supernovae blasts to
put on the bakes hard enough to get such solar systems to form.

You got good arguments.

So how many hundred billion years old is this universe that's
saturated with planets (perhaps a whole lot more planets than stars)?

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

It seems that if the universe were extreme amounts older than our
solar system,
the part of the universe includes us would have already spent itself,
We would
not even be here.

Hi,

You are right the solar nebula hypothesis is not correct. I have
suggested instead a new theory:

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 planets formed separately. First the sun formed
and then after some time the planets formed. Red giants are not dying
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. There are two facts that support this idea.
One is the presence of chondrules in many meteorites and the second is
the presence of short lived isotopes in meteorites and comets.
Observations of red giant stars show that they eject large amount of
material and dust. This material resemble in composition to the
material in the solar system.


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


On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 22:27:06 -0800 (PST), Mark Earnest
wrote:

On Feb 16, 11:47Â*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Feb 16, 7:27Â*pm, Mark Earnest wrote:

The new data? Â*Lots and lots of exo planets have been discovered, and
are continuing to be discovered, as more powerful visual instruments
are being invented.

So if there are this many planets, hundred of thousands of them, in
fact, they could not have all been formed by supernovae which somehow
put on the brakes to form all these solar systems. Â*Supernovae are
just not that common. Planets are very common. Â*Further, there is
nothing known in the universe that could get the supernovae blasts to
put on the bakes hard enough to get such solar systems to form.

You got good arguments.

So how many hundred billion years old is this universe that's
saturated with planets (perhaps a whole lot more planets than stars)?

Â*http://translate.google.com/#
Â*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenetâ€�

It seems that if the universe were extreme amounts older than our
solar system,
the part of the universe includes us would have already spent itself,
We would
not even be here.

On Feb 17, 3:10*am, wrote:
Hi,

You are right the solar nebula hypothesis is not correct. I have
suggested instead a new theory:

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 planets formed separately. First the sun formed
and then after some time the planets formed. Red giants are not dying
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. There are two facts that support this idea.
One is the presence of chondrules in many meteorites and the second is
the presence of short lived isotopes in meteorites and comets.
Observations of red giant stars show that they eject large amount of
material and dust. This material resemble in composition to the
material in the solar system.

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

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 22:27:06 -0800 (PST), Mark Earnest

wrote:
On Feb 16, 11:47*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Feb 16, 7:27*pm, Mark Earnest wrote:

The new data? *Lots and lots of exo planets have been discovered, and
are continuing to be discovered, as more powerful visual instruments
are being invented.

So if there are this many planets, hundred of thousands of them, in
fact, they could not have all been formed by supernovae which somehow
put on the brakes to form all these solar systems. *Supernovae are
just not that common. Planets are very common. *Further, there is
nothing known in the universe that could get the supernovae blasts to
put on the bakes hard enough to get such solar systems to form.

You got good arguments.

So how many hundred billion years old is this universe that's
saturated with planets (perhaps a whole lot more planets than stars)?

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

It seems that if the universe were extreme amounts older than our
solar system,
the part of the universe includes us would have already spent itself,
We would not even be here.

Yes, metallicity and magnetic fields are clearly in charge of much of
what's taking place, and gamma is clearly a result of that
interaction. However, fusion is also happening.

However, planets creating stars seems a stretch, though somewhat less
stretchy when we consider the vast bulk of planet mass is in the form
of gas giants that could merge and/or grow into becoming brown dwarfs,
then becoming red dwarfs before reaching full main sequence worthy
stars (however without such mergers exploding is the trick that you'll
need to better explain).

Converting magnetic energy into mass seems unlikely. Do you have a
working prototype that'll demonstrate this?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Feb 17, 8:58*am, Brad Guth wrote:
On Feb 17, 3:10*am, wrote:



Hi,

You are right the solar nebula hypothesis is not correct. I have
suggested instead a new theory:

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 planets formed separately. First the sun formed
and then after some time the planets formed. Red giants are not dying
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. There are two facts that support this idea.
One is the presence of chondrules in many meteorites and the second is
the presence of short lived isotopes in meteorites and comets.
Observations of red giant stars show that they eject large amount of
material and dust. This material resemble in composition to the
material in the solar system.

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

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 22:27:06 -0800 (PST), Mark Earnest

wrote:
On Feb 16, 11:47*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Feb 16, 7:27*pm, Mark Earnest wrote:

The new data? *Lots and lots of exo planets have been discovered, and
are continuing to be discovered, as more powerful visual instruments
are being invented.

So if there are this many planets, hundred of thousands of them, in
fact, they could not have all been formed by supernovae which somehow
put on the brakes to form all these solar systems. *Supernovae are
just not that common. Planets are very common. *Further, there is
nothing known in the universe that could get the supernovae blasts to
put on the bakes hard enough to get such solar systems to form.

You got good arguments.

So how many hundred billion years old is this universe that's
saturated with planets (perhaps a whole lot more planets than stars)?

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

It seems that if the universe were extreme amounts older than our
solar system,
the part of the universe includes us would have already spent itself,
We would not even be here.

Yes, metallicity and magnetic fields are clearly in charge of much of
what's taking place, and gamma is clearly a result of that
interaction. *However, fusion is also happening.

However, planets creating stars seems a stretch, though somewhat less
stretchy when we consider the vast bulk of planet mass is in the form
of gas giants that could merge and/or grow into becoming brown dwarfs,
then becoming red dwarfs before reaching full main sequence worthy
stars (however without such mergers exploding is the trick that you'll
need to better explain).

Converting magnetic energy into mass seems unlikely. *Do you have a
working prototype that'll demonstrate this?

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

My "Spin is in theory" can be used for planet(rock) when used when Sun
was a photostar. Its super fast spin extracted its heavy elements,and
they ended up in its accretion disk. TreBert

On Feb 17, 3:58*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Feb 17, 3:10*am, wrote:





Hi,

You are right the solar nebula hypothesis is not correct. I have
suggested instead a new theory:

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 planets formed separately. First the sun formed
and then after some time the planets formed. Red giants are not dying
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. There are two facts that support this idea.
One is the presence of chondrules in many meteorites and the second is
the presence of short lived isotopes in meteorites and comets.
Observations of red giant stars show that they eject large amount of
material and dust. This material resemble in composition to the
material in the solar system.

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

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 22:27:06 -0800 (PST), Mark Earnest

wrote:
On Feb 16, 11:47*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Feb 16, 7:27*pm, Mark Earnest wrote:

The new data? *Lots and lots of exo planets have been discovered, and
are continuing to be discovered, as more powerful visual instruments
are being invented.

So if there are this many planets, hundred of thousands of them, in
fact, they could not have all been formed by supernovae which somehow
put on the brakes to form all these solar systems. *Supernovae are
just not that common. Planets are very common. *Further, there is
nothing known in the universe that could get the supernovae blasts to
put on the bakes hard enough to get such solar systems to form.

You got good arguments.

So how many hundred billion years old is this universe that's
saturated with planets (perhaps a whole lot more planets than stars)?

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

It seems that if the universe were extreme amounts older than our
solar system,
the part of the universe includes us would have already spent itself,
We would not even be here.

Yes, metallicity and magnetic fields are clearly in charge of much of
what's taking place, and gamma is clearly a result of that
interaction. *However, fusion is also happening.

However, planets creating stars seems a stretch, though somewhat less
stretchy when we consider the vast bulk of planet mass is in the form
of gas giants that could merge and/or grow into becoming brown dwarfs,
then becoming red dwarfs before reaching full main sequence worthy
stars (however without such mergers exploding is the trick that you'll
need to better explain).

Converting magnetic energy into mass seems unlikely. *Do you have a
working prototype that'll demonstrate this?

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If the sun energy source is magnetic fields then it converts enegy to
mass. The muon neutrinos flux from the sun is not from neutrino
oscillations but from the conversion of energy to mass.

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

If the stars convert energy to mass, they are always getting bigger.
So, stars start with a small mass and they grow bigger slowly over
billion of years. Brown dwarfs have the lowest mass that enables
conversion of energy to mass. Below the mass of a brown dwarf the star
grow by accretion by collecting comets - similar to what Jupiter is
doing. After the star accreted enough material and has the mass of a
brown dwarf it is ignited by magnetic fields and start climbing along
the main sequence of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. See this
calculation on the conversion of energy to mass.

http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=208

Observations confirm that there are plenty of objects in all masses
from planets to brown dwarfs to red dwarfs. If there were many planets
and many brown dwarfs but nothing in between then you could say that
it is not making sense that stars are born from planets. However, this
is not the case and there is a continuum in mass between planets and
brown dwarf. If you take a chick and a chicken you would expect a
continuum between the size of a chick and a chicken as it grows.

The planet merger is a nice idea but the planet search programs showed
that many of the planetary systems have only one planets.

Dan Bar-Zohar

**** OFF, DAN! You are TOTALLY WRONG AND A WACKO NUTJOB!

STOP BOTHERING US WITH YOUR ****!

Mark Earnest is a DUMBASS WITH A VERY POOR EDUCATION!

Saul Levy


On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:10:59 +0200, wrote:

Hi,

You are right the solar nebula hypothesis is not correct. I have
suggested instead a new theory:

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.

Regards,
Dan Bar-Zohar


On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 22:27:06 -0800 (PST), Mark Earnest
wrote:

On Feb 16, 11:47*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Feb 16, 7:27*pm, Mark Earnest wrote:

The new data? *Lots and lots of exo planets have been discovered, and
are continuing to be discovered, as more powerful visual instruments
are being invented.

So if there are this many planets, hundred of thousands of them, in
fact, they could not have all been formed by supernovae which somehow
put on the brakes to form all these solar systems. *Supernovae are
just not that common. Planets are very common. *Further, there is
nothing known in the universe that could get the supernovae blasts to
put on the bakes hard enough to get such solar systems to form.

You got good arguments.

So how many hundred billion years old is this universe that's
saturated with planets (perhaps a whole lot more planets than stars)?

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

It seems that if the universe were extreme amounts older than our
solar system,
the part of the universe includes us would have already spent itself,
We would
not even be here.

On Feb 16, 10:27*pm, Mark Earnest wrote:
On Feb 16, 11:47*pm, Brad Guth wrote:



On Feb 16, 7:27*pm, Mark Earnest wrote:

The new data? *Lots and lots of exo planets have been discovered, and
are continuing to be discovered, as more powerful visual instruments
are being invented.

So if there are this many planets, hundred of thousands of them, in
fact, they could not have all been formed by supernovae which somehow
put on the brakes to form all these solar systems. *Supernovae are
just not that common. Planets are very common. *Further, there is
nothing known in the universe that could get the supernovae blasts to
put on the bakes hard enough to get such solar systems to form.

You got good arguments.

So how many hundred billion years old is this universe that's
saturated with planets (perhaps a whole lot more planets than stars)?

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

It seems that if the universe were extreme amounts older than our
solar system,
the part of the universe includes us would have already spent itself,
We would
not even be here.

If given the average life of stars like our sun to being worth ten
billion years, then perhaps it only stands to reason that the current
cycle we're in is by no means the first. Many stars that started out
larger and/or more massive than our sun have already become spent and/
or having imploded into giving off heavier elements, of which it takes
those heavier elements in order to create planets like Earth.

Those enormous gamma bubbles above and below our galaxy are yet
another dead giveaway that a large number of stars have been recycled,
and that takes time (perhaps a billion years per massive stellar cycle
and otherwise 100 billion years per supermassive black hole unless
merging BHs were the cause).

At any rate, 0.5c is the fastest anything molecular can be made to
travel because nothing can explode at faster than c, so that alone
makes the universe that has reached 13+ billion ly distance worth
something much older.

A star of mostly hydrogen and helium doesn't create highly metallicity
saturated planets, at least not from it's initial main sequence cycle.

You do agree that stars recycle and thereby offer more metallicity
worthy replacements?

So, how old is the known universe?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Feb 16, 10:27*pm, Mark Earnest wrote:
On Feb 16, 11:47*pm, Brad Guth wrote:


On Feb 16, 7:27*pm, Mark Earnest wrote:

The new data? *Lots and lots of exo planets have been discovered, and
are continuing to be discovered, as more powerful visual instruments
are being invented.

So if there are this many planets, hundred of thousands of them, in
fact, they could not have all been formed by supernovae which somehow
put on the brakes to form all these solar systems. *Supernovae are
just not that common. Planets are very common. *Further, there is
nothing known in the universe that could get the supernovae blasts to
put on the bakes hard enough to get such solar systems to form.

You got good arguments.

So how many hundred billion years old is this universe that's
saturated with planets (perhaps a whole lot more planets than stars)?

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

It seems that if the universe were extreme amounts older than our
solar system,
the part of the universe includes us would have already spent itself,
We would
not even be here.

If given the average life of stars like our sun to being only worth
ten
billion years, then perhaps it only stands to reason that the current
cycle we're in is by no means the first. Many stars that started out
larger and/or more massive than our sun have already become spent and/
or having imploded into giving off heavier elements, of which it takes
those heavier elements in order to create planets like Earth.

Those enormous gamma bubbles above and below our galaxy are yet
another dead giveaway that a large number of stars have been recycled,
and that takes time (perhaps a billion years per massive stellar cycle
and otherwise 100 billion years per supermassive black hole unless
merging or colliding BHs were the cause).

At any rate, 0.5c is the fastest anything molecular can be made to
travel because supposedly nothing can explode at faster than c, so
that alone makes the universe that has reached 13+ billion ly distance
worth something much older.

A proto-star of mostly hydrogen and helium doesn't create highly
metallicity saturated planets, at least not from it's initial start-up
or main sequence cycle.

You do agree that stars recycle and thereby offer more metallicity
worthy replacements?

So, how old is the known universe?

Perhaps I should have asked; how old do you want this universe to be?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”