|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
New theory for the formation of the solar system
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. 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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
New theory for the formation of the solar system
wrote in message ... | Hi, 'Bye. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
New theory for the formation of the solar system
On Nov 11, 5:49*am, 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. 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 : 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. I'll bet you're using the Tokamak as an example of controlled magnetic fusion @ 20M degrees to verify your magnetically torqued fusion process for the sun. It is suggestive that a black hole's self-induced magnetic torsion, which is a phenomena of spatial anisotropy, could be introduced into mostly non-magnetic materials, or even materials that have become stripped of their electrons, through influence of a field of "spatial inertia anisotropy"[3]. A black hole could fit this kind of anisotropy perfectly for inducing "magnetically torqued" fusion. Wouldn't you be inclined also to believe that there seems to be a relationship between the core of a galaxy that would, at least theoretically, have a 'closed manifold' of v_photon c, or FTL neutrinos, gluons, (strong force), intermediate vector bosons (weak interaction), and/or gravitons (gravitational interactions) being 'traded' or even 'transported' during a Lambert style 'covariant' exchange', between the cores of galaxies and the cores of brown-dwarfs? Sort of like having the magnetic torquing mechanism on the inside, forming the horizontal space that has virtually negates the coulombic interaction (give or take a few months of galactic planar precession from the (-) to the (+) side of the galaxy at a solar speed of 220 km/sec), while the vertical 'gamma' space'[1] above and below the galactic plane represents a kind of universal phase regulator of the governing relationship between the covarianted exchanges taking place between large numerous galactic cores, and between a single large and numerous other much smaller, cores. No doubt that the statistical and thermodynamic behavior of all masses would be different for different sized cores - but this could only be validated through the spectrums of individual stars in other galaxies. One could arrange the data to suggest that there were only the condensation of matter/energy inside of a particular galaxy with changing constants for different sized galaxies. Of course, most of this is just conjecture, but the argument seems to support a steady-state theory or non-expanding, infinite universe, with a varying speed of light over time, e.g. Varying Speed of Light theory, Joao Magueijo: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../0305457v3.pdf and John Moffat[2] (physicist): http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...705.4507v1.pdf American [1] http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...02/gamma-space "canonical ensemble, in physics, a functional relationship for a system of particles that is useful for calculating the overall statistical and thermodynamic behaviour of the system without explicit reference to the detailed behaviour of particles. The canonical ensemble was introduced by J. Willard Gibbs, a U.S. physicist, to avoid the problems arising from incompleteness of the available observational data concerning the detailed behaviour of a system of interacting particles—for example, molecules in a gas." [2] http://www.johnwmoffat.com/books.html [3] ON THE NATURE OF THE PRIMORDIAL FIELD, Bruce DePalma, 27 February 1997 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
New theory for the formation of the solar system
Hi,
I didnt understand much of what you are saying. I agree that the universe is in a steady state. The universe is infinite and eternal. Galaxies and stars are also eternal. New stars and galaxies are always created and they rarely die. This is what is driving the expansion of the universe. New galaxis are created from globular clusters. The globular clusters grow first to a dwarf galaxy and then to a full galaxy. Regards, Dan Bar-Zohar On Nov 12, 4:28*am, American wrote: On Nov 11, 5:49*am, 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. 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 : 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. I'll bet you're using the Tokamak as an example of controlled magnetic fusion @ 20M degrees to verify your magnetically torqued fusion process for the sun. It is suggestive that a black hole's self-induced magnetic torsion, which is a phenomena of spatial anisotropy, could be introduced into mostly non-magnetic materials, or even materials that have become stripped of their electrons, through influence of a field of "spatial inertia anisotropy"[3]. A black hole could fit this kind of anisotropy perfectly for inducing "magnetically torqued" fusion. Wouldn't you be inclined also to believe that there seems to be a relationship between the core of a galaxy that would, at least theoretically, have a 'closed manifold' of v_photon c, or FTL neutrinos, gluons, (strong force), intermediate vector bosons (weak interaction), and/or gravitons (gravitational interactions) being 'traded' or even 'transported' during a Lambert style 'covariant' exchange', between the cores of galaxies and the cores of brown-dwarfs? Sort of like having the magnetic torquing mechanism on the inside, forming the horizontal space that has virtually negates the coulombic interaction (give or take a few months of galactic planar precession from the (-) to the (+) side of the galaxy at a solar speed of 220 km/sec), while the vertical 'gamma' space'[1] above and below the galactic plane represents a kind of universal phase regulator of the governing relationship between the covarianted exchanges taking place between large numerous galactic cores, and between a single large and numerous other much smaller, cores. No doubt that the statistical and thermodynamic behavior of all masses would be different for different sized cores - but this could only be validated through the spectrums of individual stars in other galaxies. One could arrange the data to suggest that there were only the condensation of matter/energy inside of a particular galaxy with changing constants for different sized galaxies. Of course, most of this is just conjecture, but the argument seems to support a steady-state theory or non-expanding, infinite universe, with a varying speed of light over time, e.g. Varying Speed of Light theory, Joao Magueijo: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../0305457v3.pdf and John Moffat[2] (physicist): http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...705.4507v1.pdf American [1] http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...02/gamma-space "canonical ensemble, in physics, a functional relationship *for a system of particles that is useful for calculating the *overall statistical and thermodynamic behaviour of the *system without explicit reference to the detailed behaviour *of particles. The canonical ensemble was introduced by *J. Willard Gibbs, a U.S. physicist, to avoid the problems *arising from incompleteness of the available observational *data concerning the detailed behaviour of a system of *interacting particles—for example, molecules in a gas." [2] http://www.johnwmoffat.com/books.html [3] ON THE NATURE OF THE PRIMORDIAL FIELD, Bruce DePalma, 27 February 1997- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
New theory for the formation of the solar system
Dan BarZohar wrote:
Hi, I didnt understand much of what you are saying. I agree that the universe is in a steady state. The universe is infinite and eternal. [snip further unsupported assrtions] Seems you've got a lot of accumulated evidence to review. Better screw your ass into a chair and get started. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
New theory for the formation of the solar system
On 11/12/2010 2:50 PM, Greg Neill wrote:
Dan BarZohar wrote: Hi, I didnt understand much of what you are saying. I agree that the universe is in a steady state. The universe is infinite and eternal. [snip further unsupported assrtions] Seems you've got a lot of accumulated evidence to review. Better screw your ass into a chair and get started. He's already screwed his HEAD into a chair. That's so his ass won't get lonely... -- Liberals take note: The US Constitution is NOT a suicide pact. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New theory for the formation of the solar system | Greg Neill[_6_] | Amateur Astronomy | 89 | November 19th 10 04:08 AM |
New theory for the formation of the solar system | dan@@pixelphase.com | Astronomy Misc | 3 | November 14th 10 01:18 PM |
Formation of a Solar System??? | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 36 | March 10th 07 06:01 AM |
The formation of the Solar System | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 2 | August 13th 04 02:32 PM |