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

wrote in message
...
| Hi,
'Bye.

On Nov 11, 2:49*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 metallicity of a star depends on its mass" isn't all there is to
say. Early stars simply were not metallicity types, and more recent
stars get to be metallicity types regardless of their mass, all
because of what the molecular cloud contained. Hydrogen is
diamagnetic, as are several other elements, and otherwise the electric
binding force is so much greater than gravity.

~ BG

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

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 -

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.

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.