|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
New theory for the formation of the solar system
Hi,
The sun energy source is not fusion. The sun and other stars are heated by magnetic fields from the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy. With this idea it is possible to trace the formation of the solar system. The sun and stars formed separately. First the sun formed and then after some time the planets formed. Red giants are not dieing stars. Stars fluctuate all the time from being a red giant to being a regular star. The sun was a red giant 4.6 billion years ago as evident from meteorite age. The solar planets formed from the strong solar wind of the red giant sun. For more details read the article: http://www.philica.com/display_artic...article_id=210 http://www.pixelphase.com/sun/solarsystem.pdf Abstract How the solar system formed, is a puzzle that challenged scientists for many centuries. The current accepted theory is the Solar Nebula Hypothesis originated by Kant and Laplace in the 18th century. In reference 1 it was suggested that the sun energy source is not fusion but magnetic fields from the center of the galaxy. The Solar nebula Hypothesis cannot coexist with a sun powered by magnetic fields. As shown on reference 4, those magnetic fields create mass that slowly increase the mass of the sun. The sun is growing not from dust from the interstellar space but from synthesis of new particles in the sun interior. The sun and the planets formed separately, the sun came first and then the planets follow. In the standard solar model stars are turned into red giants when the hydrogen in their core is depleted and the energy production stop. Stars do not work on fusion, but on magnetic fields, so they turn into a red giant when their energy supply from the magnetic field is stopped. Stars that have a very long Maunder minimum, for tens of million of years, in which their stellar cycle is weak, will turn into a red giant. The exoplanet search programs found that stars with planets have higher metallicity compared to stars without planets. The metallicity of a star depends on its mass. Massive stars have higher pressure and temperature in their core that increase the fusion rate of heavy elements. Stars with planet, that show higher metallicity, had higher mass in the past that created the high metallicity. They went through a significant mass loss that decreased their mass but did not change the high metallicity. Those stars significant mass loss occur when they turned into red giants. Red giants have strong stellar wind that disperses the star outer layers into interstellar space. This stellar wind creates comets that form planets around the star. The high metallicity of the sun indicates that it was a red giant. The solar planets where born from the solar wind of the red giant sun. The solar system shows many evidences in support of an ancient red giant sun. The energy calculation in reference 4 suggests that stars are slowly growing by converting the energy from the magnetic fields to mass. The gradual mass increase indicates that more massive stars are also older, so according to the standard solar model there is a mix up between older and younger stars. Older stars are not the smaller stars like red dwarfs but the heavier stars like blue giants. The idea that stars are slowly growing from small sizes, and the fact that the latest exoplanet search programs found large number of exoplanets, leads to the conclusion that stars originate from planets. The development steps leading to the creation of stars from planets include: growth of the planet by cold accretion of comets and asteroids; separation of the planet from the star; magnetic ignition of the planet when it reaches the size of a brown dwarf; and growth of the star by conversion of the energy from the magnetic fields to mass. Regards, Dan Bar-Zohar |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New theory for the formation of the solar system | Greg Neill[_6_] | Amateur Astronomy | 89 | November 19th 10 04:08 AM |
New theory for the formation of the solar system | dan@@pixelphase.com | Astronomy Misc | 3 | November 14th 10 01:18 PM |
New theory for the formation of the solar system | dan@@pixelphase.com | Misc | 6 | November 12th 10 09:11 PM |
Formation of a Solar System??? | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 36 | March 10th 07 06:01 AM |