The sun energy source is not nuclear fusion, but magnetic fields from the center of the Galaxy. The sun converts energy to mass and not mass to energy.

Hello,

Visit the site that present this theory at
http://www.magneticgalaxy.com

The Big Bang theory, dark matter and dark energy could be replaced
with a simple theory based on magnetic fields in the galaxy. The
article below contradicts the usual explanation for the sun energy
source as a fusion reactor and suggests that the sun is heated by
magnetic fields from the Galactic center.

The main points of this theory are as follows:

1. The sun energy source is from magnetic fields from the
galactic center.
2. The heat from the magnetic fields leads to high energy
collision between particle in the sun core that creates new particle
and increase the sun mass.
3. All the stars in the galaxy create new mass so the total mass
and the size of the galaxy is increasing.
4. The stars in the galaxy eject dust that freefall to the
galactic center super massive black hole. Thorough the dynamo effect
the potential energy of the dust is converted to magnetic fields.
5. As the galaxy mass and size increase, distance arm of the
galaxy is detached form the main galaxy to create a new galaxy.
6. Galaxies spawn new galaxies and the total number of galaxies
in the universe increase.
7. The universe expands and accelerates from the increase in the
number of the galaxies.
8. The Big Bang cosmological model is replaced by a new
cosmological model that resembles the steady state theory.



The solar cycle is a striking evidence for this theory. Every 11 years
the sun is changing the direction of its dipole magnetic field. The
current solar model assume incorrectly that the change of the magnetic
fields is coming from inside the sun, but it is not, it is coming from
the galactic center and it supply energy that heat the sun. The
magnetic fields from the galactic center reach the sun not directly
but through magnetic eddies in the galactic disk.



The article could be downloaded at:
http://www.pixelphase.com/sun/sun.pdf
http://www.tikunim.co.il/sun/sun.pdf
http://www.philica.com/display_artic...?article_id=65

The article is also in the following newsgroups:
Alt.binaries.astronomy
Alt.binaries.pictures.astronomy

Its title is:
The sun energy source is not nuclear fusion, but magnetic fields from
the center of the Galaxy. The sun converts energy to mass and not mass
to energy.

Abstract:
The sun energy source thought to be a nuclear fusion reactor inside
the sun core. The sun is not heated by fusion reaction but by magnetic
fields coming from the galactic center. The nuclear fusion is a by
product of the magnetic fields heating. The changing magnetic fields
from the galactic center induce electric currents inside the sun that
heat the sun. The heat and the high kinetic energy of particles in the
sun core, trigger high energy collisions that create the main
constituents of matter, electron, proton and neutron. The collisions
also fuse or nucleosynthesis heavier elements like deuterium, tritium,
helium and lithium. This leads to the fact that the stars and galaxies
constantly produce mass and energy. The article will explain the
clockworks behinds the galaxies energy production. The galaxy energy
and mass production cancel out the Big Bang theory and leads to a
steady state cosmological model with large amount of new mass created
that expand and accelerate the universe.




Regards,
Dan Bar-Zohar

I find this very interesting. However, does this represent that all
galaxies have a similar "galactic center super massive black hole"?

Does this also improve upon the missing 96% worth of the mass, as
perhaps being sequestered within each "galactic center super massive
black hole"?

Does the universe itself have its very own extremely extra super
massive black hole to deal with?

What about antimatter; of how much and of where does it coexist?

Outside of gravity, what's the binding or perhaps buffer/repulsion
energy of a given solar system, or that of a moon in relationship to
its planet or binary other?
-
Brad Guth

On 23 Mar 2007 06:01:36 -0700, wrote:

I find this very interesting. However, does this represent that all
galaxies have a similar "galactic center super massive black hole"?

This theory requires that all galaxies have super massive black hole
otherwise they will not have an energy source to heat the stars.

The latest research also finds that all galaxies have a black hole at
their center. Latest research also finds correlation between the black
hole mass and the galaxy mass.

Does this also improve upon the missing 96% worth of the mass, as
perhaps being sequestered within each "galactic center super massive
black hole"?

This theory can explain both dark energy and dark matter. The rotation
curve of the galaxy can be explained with magnetic fields that similar
to electric motor propel the stars forward and increase their speed.

The dark energy that repels the galaxies from each another can also be
explained with magnetic fields. The Meissner effect where a magnet is
floating on a superconductor is a good analogy to the forces between
two galaxies. The magnet is pushed down by gravitation and is repelled
upward by the magnetic field of the super conductor. Similarly two
galaxies are attracted by gravitation and repelled by magnetic fields.
Therefore the magnetic fields are causing the universe to expand,
replacing the dark energy.


Does the universe itself have its very own extremely extra super
massive black hole to deal with?

I don't think so.

What about antimatter; of how much and of where does it coexist?
This theory suggests that new matter is created inside the stars. When
new matter is created it is in pair of matter and antimatter, for
instance, electron and positron. The matter is later annihilating
antimatter using the unequal symmetry between matter and antimatter.


Outside of gravity, what's the binding or perhaps buffer/repulsion
energy of a given solar system, or that of a moon in relationship to
its planet or binary other?

The stars also obey the Meissner effect and they repel each other.
This is way main sequence stars never collide.


-
Brad Guth

On Mar 23, 7:36 am, wrote:
On 23 Mar 2007 06:01:36 -0700, wrote:

Does the universe itself have its very own extremely extra super
massive black hole to deal with?

I don't think so.

Is there a universal nullification center or core element (possibly of
antimatter) that's actually better than any black hole?

But arnt there many other universes of larger or smaller stature to
behold?


What about antimatter; of how much and of where does it coexist?

This theory suggests that new matter is created inside the stars. When
new matter is created it is in pair of matter and antimatter, for
instance, electron and positron. The matter is later annihilating
antimatter using the unequal symmetry between matter and antimatter.

But as far as we know, antimatter can only safely coexist with
photons, such as the core of a given black hole as being safely
surrounded by all of those nearly resting photons.


Outside of gravity, what's the binding or perhaps buffer/repulsion
energy of a given solar system, or that of a moon in relationship to
its planet or binary other?

The stars also obey the Meissner effect and they repel each other.
This is way main sequence stars never collide.

At what +/- point is a given star not worthy of a "main sequence"
rating?

Are the Sirius-a and Sirius-b each of "main sequence" worthy stars?

Our star/sol is a somewhat of a wussy star, and hardly worthy of what
the binary or trinary star systems seem to have going in their favor.

At some point, isn't Sirius-b going to eat Sirius-a alive, and
subsequently nuke our very existence in as little as 8.6 years from
the time of their mutual implosion?

How can two if not three (perhaps four if including sol) such entirely
different stars coexist forever?

Hasn't our wussy little solar system always been under the master
gravity command and/or energy influence of the nearby Sirius star/
solar system that nearly 3 fold more massive than our realm?

Is there something other more powerful than the combined gravity
influence of the Sirius star/solar system that has each of us within
its ever expanding AI/(God like) grip?
-
Brad Guth

On 23 Mar 2007 09:47:30 -0700, wrote:

On Mar 23, 7:36 am, wrote:
On 23 Mar 2007 06:01:36 -0700, wrote:


Is there a universal nullification center or core element (possibly of
antimatter) that's actually better than any black hole?

But arnt there many other universes of larger or smaller stature to
behold?

I think that there is one endless universe. It is always expanding,
its density is not changing. Its mass, energy and number of galaxies
is increasing.



What about antimatter; of how much and of where does it coexist?

This theory suggests that new matter is created inside the stars. When
new matter is created it is in pair of matter and antimatter, for
instance, electron and positron. The matter is later annihilating
antimatter using the unequal symmetry between matter and antimatter.

But as far as we know, antimatter can only safely coexist with
photons, such as the core of a given black hole as being safely
surrounded by all of those nearly resting photons.

The high energy collisions of particles in the sun core create
antimatter that coexist temporarly with matter.




Outside of gravity, what's the binding or perhaps buffer/repulsion
energy of a given solar system, or that of a moon in relationship to
its planet or binary other?

The stars also obey the Meissner effect and they repel each other.
This is way main sequence stars never collide.

At what +/- point is a given star not worthy of a "main sequence"
rating?

Neutron stars, white dwarfs, and red giants are not main sequence.

Are the Sirius-a and Sirius-b each of "main sequence" worthy stars?

Sirius-a is main sequence.
Sirius-b is not main sequence.


Our star/sol is a somewhat of a wussy star, and hardly worthy of what
the binary or trinary star systems seem to have going in their favor.

At some point, isn't Sirius-b going to eat Sirius-a alive, and
subsequently nuke our very existence in as little as 8.6 years from
the time of their mutual implosion?

Sirius-a rotates very fast so it is incresing the spead of Sirius-b by
gravitational tides. They are not going to collide.

How can two if not three (perhaps four if including sol) such entirely
different stars coexist forever?

Hasn't our wussy little solar system always been under the master
gravity command and/or energy influence of the nearby Sirius star/
solar system that nearly 3 fold more massive than our realm?

Sirius is too far.


Is there something other more powerful than the combined gravity
influence of the Sirius star/solar system that has each of us within
its ever expanding AI/(God like) grip?
-
Brad Guth

On Mar 23, 10:27 am, wrote:
On 23 Mar 2007 09:47:30 -0700, wrote:

On Mar 23, 7:36 am, wrote:
On 23 Mar 2007 06:01:36 -0700, wrote:

But arnt there many other universes of larger or smaller stature to
behold?

I think that there is one endless universe. It is always expanding,
its density is not changing. Its mass, energy and number of galaxies
is increasing.

Sorry, I can't quite buy into that singular analogy, of there being
only one forever-expanding mono universe, nor could the likes of
Einstein accept such a narrow mindset of supporting upon any singular
creation notion of such horrific mass somehow getting created out of
whatever's obviously worth far less than thin air, of perhaps as
slight as one atom/m3 if we're talking about collecting from outside
the event horizon or outer most shock wave contour of this universe
that's hosting billions of Earth like or otherwise adaptable planets.


The high energy collisions of particles in the sun core create
antimatter that coexist temporarly with matter.

And since there's supposedly no such thing as new matter or hardly of
new antimatter to behold (only lots of those new and improved photons
as having been continually created and going every which way), then
were the heck did all the antimatter go?

If there's not a super massive black hole at the core of our expanding
universe, as such all the raw energy within the universe simply
doesn't hardly stand a chance at creating new matter, that is unless
photons can somehow manage as though somewhat AI driven or forced into
being associated with their hauling about a bit of existing matter or
antimatter, that's perhaps at best extracted from whatever's just
outside of our known universe.

Does our universe have an event horizon?

Are there antimatter generated photons?


At what +/- point is a given star not worthy of a "main sequence"
rating?

Neutron stars, white dwarfs, and red giants are not main sequence.

What's the best available swag as to a percentage of stars being "main
sequence"?

Is there a specific physical size requirement for being "main
sequence" worthy?


Are the Sirius-a and Sirius-b each of "main sequence" worthy stars?

Sirius-a is main sequence.
Sirius-b is not main sequence.

But Sirius-b is clearly feeding off of Sirius-a. Eventually Sirius-b
could become sufficiently neutron packed and postal as it sucks out
the last of Sirius-a. Then what happens with all of that new and
improved combined mass that's all belonging to Sirius-b.

Are we still losing ground on Sirius, running about even, or are we
closing in?

Obviously you don't actually have hard numbers upon any of this, as
otherwise you'd have posted such numbers as to the Sirius-b rate of
recession as being X-meters per year. It seems there's lots of things
that work by theory, that by way of actual measured science do not
comply with said theory.


Our star/sol is a somewhat of a wussy star, and hardly worthy of what
the binary or trinary star systems seem to have going in their favor.

At some point, isn't Sirius-b going to eat Sirius-a alive, and
subsequently nuke our very existence in as little as 8.6 years from
the time of their mutual implosion?

Sirius-a rotates very fast so it is incresing the spead of Sirius-b by
gravitational tides. They are not going to collide.

That's good news to know that Sirius-a has such an unlimited resource
of God like rotating energy to draw upon, that'll subsequently manage
to keep Sirius-b from ever merging, while otherwise allowing Sirius-b
to continue feeding and forever gaining further energy and mass
potential. In other words, Sirius-a and Sirius-b are each apparently
within your steady state of forever expanding coexistance, regardless
of any Sirius-c or from those other pesky nearby orbital partners,
such as our sol.


How can two if not three (perhaps four if including sol) such entirely
different stars coexist forever?

Hasn't our wussy little solar system always been under the master
gravity command and/or energy influence of the nearby Sirius star/
solar system that nearly 3 fold more massive than our realm?

Sirius is too far.

The hell you say "too far". What else if anything is any closer and/
or representing any better gravity draw or influence upon us, or that
of having been greater at having emitted such absolutely nifty DNA
growth worthy spectrums of energy as subsequently received into our
nearly heathen realm that's becoming more of a dumbfounded species of
DNA than not?

Isn't each and every other thing in the grips of having been in orbit
about something other, or vise versa, including most if not all
galaxies that are seemingly within a vast orbit or otherwise
associated with one another (except for those as having been well
documented as summarily having run smack into one another, which
pretty much unnails that forever expanding universe theory), rather
than coexisting in whatever weird conditional willy-nilly forever
expansion mode that only works for some galaxies?

Are you saying that you folks do not agree with our very own 226
million year galactic cycle?

Are you also implying that the force of gravity always loses out to
the electromagnetic force?

Are you saying this electromagnetic force simply doesn't follow the
laws of physics, and thus can not be tested?

If as you say we're supposedly not being affected in any measurable
way by the horrific mass and truly impressive energy worth of the
Sirius star/solar system, then what if anything, short of a nearby
massive black hole, is in charge?

Do all such main sequence stars spin, and if so how fast?

What's the closest black hole that's worth our taking notice of?
-
Brad Guth