A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » UK Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New theory for the formation of the solar system



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 11th 10, 10:00 AM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
dan@@pixelphase.com
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 76
Default 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  
Old November 11th 10, 01:39 PM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
Mike Dworetsky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 715
Default New theory for the formation of the solar system

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)

  #3  
Old November 11th 10, 04:03 PM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
dan@@pixelphase.com
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 76
Default New theory for the formation of the solar system

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




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

  #4  
Old November 11th 10, 05:35 PM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
Mike Dworetsky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 715
Default New theory for the formation of the solar system

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)

  #5  
Old November 11th 10, 05:46 PM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
dan@@pixelphase.com
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 76
Default New theory for the formation of the solar system

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


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

  #6  
Old November 11th 10, 10:59 PM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
Mike Dworetsky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 715
Default New theory for the formation of the solar system

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)

  #7  
Old November 12th 10, 04:41 PM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
dan@@pixelphase.com
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 76
Default New theory for the formation of the solar system

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.

Regards,
Dan Bar-Zohar




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

  #8  
Old November 13th 10, 09:54 AM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
Mike Dworetsky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 715
Default New theory for the formation of the solar system

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)

  #9  
Old November 22nd 10, 04:09 AM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
dan@@pixelphase.com
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 76
Default New theory for the formation of the solar system

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

  #10  
Old November 23rd 10, 09:38 AM posted to uk.sci.astronomy
Mike Dworetsky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 715
Default New theory for the formation of the solar system

wrote:
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.


Or, rather, the daughter isotope hasn't yet been found? These "anomalies"
are hardly evidence for a radical overthrow of well-founded existing
theories. More likely they place restraints on the distance and details of
the supernova. For example, the authors of the article you cited point out
that the supernova hypothesis is supported by the Fe60--Ni60 ratio to the
exclusion of other theories.


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.


What do you think a debris disk is? How does it differ from a
protoplanetary disk?

You haven't presented any evidence that hot stars should have huge
protoplanetary disks. Most astronomers believe the opposite, because their
stellar winds are strong and they would have been blown away very quickly.


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


You seem to be obsessed with magnetic fields. These have very little
influence compared to the radiant energy of stars. They just are not all
that strong.

smaller stars in the Orion nebula are affected by the strong magnetic
fields and convert faster energy to mass. Therefore, stars in the


Violates well known physics.

Orion nebula grow very fast. The giant stars also supply strong solar
wind that can condense on nearby stars to form planets. The dense


How would that work?

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.


I don't know of any published claims for observations of free-floating
planets in Orion or elsewhere. Citations?


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


--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 05:08 AM
New theory for the formation of the solar system dan@@pixelphase.com Astronomy Misc 3 November 14th 10 02:18 PM
New theory for the formation of the solar system dan@@pixelphase.com Misc 6 November 12th 10 10:11 PM
Formation of a Solar System??? G=EMC^2 Glazier Misc 36 March 10th 07 07:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.