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:
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)

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

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)

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

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)