New theory for the formation of the solar system.

[danbarzohar]

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 planets formed separately. First the sun formed and then after some time the planets formed. Red giants are not dying 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. There are two facts that support this idea. One is the presence of chondrules in many meteorites and the second is the presence of short lived isotopes in meteorites and comets. Observations of red giant stars show that they eject large amount of material and dust. This material resemble in composition to the material in the solar system.

The idea that the sun was a red giant is absurd according to the standard solar model and the solar nebula hypothesis. Still, there are many evidences in the solar systems that support this idea. Two striking evidences are found in meteorites:

1. Short lived isotopes in the solar system. The Half life of Calcium 41 is 0.1 million years. It cannot be that this isotope was injected to the solar system from the outside. If it was produced by external red giant or supernova it should decay before reaching the solar system.
2. Chondrules are found in large amount in many meteorites. The chondrues are condensate of silicate gas. Chondrules formation requires a silicate gas to pass from a high temperature to a colder temperature. This is found in red giants. The solar wind of the red giant is hot near the star and colder far away. In the solar nebula hypothesis the material is passing from a cold environment to a hot one so the chondrules cannot form.

For more details read the article:

http://www.philica.com/display_article.php?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

[higginsdj]

What a load of gibberish. If the sun is heated not by fusion but by the "magnetic fields from the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy" then why isn't everything else in the galaxy so heated (including us)?

If you care to look at the current database of stars with exoplanets and their metalicity, you will see that metalicity plays no obvious part, ie it's an even spread.

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

I think this needs peer reviewing

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by mswhin63

I think this needs peer reviewing

From Philica …

Mr Dan Bar-Zohar

Based at Open University of Israel, Israel

Has published 6 Articles and 0 Observations

At this moment, the mean peer-review ratings for this user’s work on Philica (based on 5 reviews, where a score of 100 represents ‘average’ quality) are:


Originality = 123.48

Importance = 39.03

Overall quality = 22.33

These values will change whenever a new review of this author’s work appears, as well as whenever somebody reviews the work of anybody who has reviewed Mr Bar-Zohar’s work.

Mr Bar-Zohar has contributed 0 reviews/comments to Philica.

Dan,

I'd suggest submitting your work to a peer-reviewed journal in the first place, rather than to Philica and then looking for others to review it.

After all .. its a long paper !

Cheers

[higginsdj]

So who reviews it - those actually qualified to do so or those who enjoy a good yarn?

The paper contradicts everything we know today. It states that the sun is growing in mass at a rate of 10^11 kg/sec! Where is the evidence - where is the supporting observation? I guess our theories of gravitation no longer hold now.... Perhaps we are all held in place by magnetism and not by gravity!

And to cap it all off - his 4 primary references are himself!

I guess this is magnetisms version of the Electric universe theory!

[CraigS]

From Philica .

On the other hand, Philica articles can only be published by people who are bona fide academics. This means that the authors here were all judged competent to work as researchers, thinkers and/or educators by the people who employed them. If such a person goes to the trouble of writing a paper, we believe it should be published. If you disagree with its content you can deal with this by giving it negative reviews which everybody can read, and which can therefore allow people to interpret the paper with caution (or to choose to hide it from their view). But just because you disagree with a paper, does this really mean it should never see the light of day at all? This is academia, not Fascism!
…
Another important safeguard is that when joining Philica, members affirm that they are employed by a recognized organization such as a university or government body. Anybody falsely claiming to be a member of an organization is committing fraud, and if anybody were to claim a bogus affiliation we will assist law enforcement organzations and the affected institutions in tracking them down.

It seems the reviewers are co-members of the Philica site who themselves, may have met the above criteria.

Cheers

[higginsdj]

Seriously, they are going to try to get someone on fraud!

No formal checks, its the honesty system....

Of course, if this is a bonafide employee at a university, why isn't the paper published via more formal mechanisms (and Philica and pixelphase are not one of those formal mechanisms)

[CraigS]

Yep … there's a 'back-door' for 'Independent Researchers', also.

They have to state their qualifications, contact details etc, and then the Philica admins approve/disapprove membership.

Overall folks, I'd let this one go.

I agree with David's comments, and I don't particularly wish to be used to review an 'idea'. I'd prefer to let the real peer-review journal committees do that, before we get into any more messy discussions, here at IIS.
(We've been 'round that roundabout many times, eh ?)

If I were Dan, I'd drop it in at Thunderbolts. They'd love to see it.
As a matter of fact, I think they'd claim ownership rights !

Cheers

[higginsdj]

I have no issue with new science or new theory - I've just been 'brought up' on the premise that 'extraordinary' theory requires 'extraordinary' evidence.

Cheers

[CraigS]

That would be a rational approach, David !

My latest catch-cry for the Science Forum..

Purpose: To promote scientific rationale in Astronomy, Space Exploration, Physics, Bio-sciences and related fields. Be aware of your beliefs and biases. Present them as beliefs. Respect others’ beliefs at all times. Respect others. No spamming.

Where have ya been lately, man ?

Cheers

[higginsdj]

Busy with new equipment. Replaced my old parallel ST-8 with a new USB STL1001e. I had to replace the observatory PC (plus OS - Plus new versions of all the control software to suit the new OS and camera), rebalance the scope, recalibrate pointing, autofocus mechanisms and autoguiding.

Then, I had to fit the old ST-8 to the new L200 Spectrograph kit (well I had to build the L200 from the kit) and then calibrate it. If you thought photometry was hard.......

Cheers

[danbarzohar]

Originally Posted by higginsdj

What a load of gibberish. If the sun is heated not by fusion but by the "magnetic fields from the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy" then why isn't everything else in the galaxy so heated (including us)?

If you care to look at the current database of stars with exoplanets and their metalicity, you will see that metalicity plays no obvious part, ie it's an even spread.

Hi,

All the stars and planets are heated by the magnetic fields of the supermassive black hole. The amounts of energy the star absorb depend on the fifth power of its radius. Therefore, stars are absorbing a lot of energy and planet absorb much less. There is heat surplus in Jupiter and Saturn. If Jupiter and Saturn were heated only by the sun their temperature should be lower than what is measured. They have an internal heat source and this is the magnetic fields.

Stars with planets have higher metallicity than stars without planets.

http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/...1411.text.html

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...805.4826v1.pdf

Dan Bar-Zohar

[bojan]

I wish we ignored this thread...

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by bojan

I wish we ignored this thread...

Ditto

[higginsdj]

I'll bite my tongue.....

[[1ponders] (Paul)]

Originally Posted by bojan

I wish we ignored this thread...

So do we

[ArcaneMagik (Craig)]

Originally Posted by danbarzohar

1. Short lived isotopes in the solar system. The Half life of Calcium 41 is 0.1 million years. It cannot be that this isotope was injected to the solar system from the outside. If it was produced by external red giant or supernova it should decay before reaching the solar system.
2. Chondrules are found in large amount in many meteorites. The chondrues are condensate of silicate gas. Chondrules formation requires a silicate gas to pass from a high temperature to a colder temperature. This is found in red giants. The solar wind of the red giant is hot near the star and colder far away. In the solar nebula hypothesis the material is passing from a cold environment to a hot one so the chondrules cannot form.

1) 41Ca is produced by neutron activation of 40Ca.


2) The solar nebula or a protoplanetary environment are possible places of formation.

Proposed energy sources are:

Impact melting
Meteor ablation
Hot inner nebula
FU Orionis-type outburst of the early sun
Energetic bipolar-shaped outflows
Nebular lightning
Magnetic flares
Accretion shocks
Nebular shocks
Supernova radiation and shock wave

Thank you wiki.

Also all solar winds are hotter closer to the star, and cooler further away.

Preaching to the choir really though. Not like the OP is going to come back and admit they are completely wrong.

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

Hmmmmm, the theory sounds very familiar.
And the replying post (his 2nd post) oozes of the same person and the same non-plussed reply.

You can register under any name, but your theories will still give you away.

This is Announced in the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum :
"The Moderation Team has been monitoring Attiyah Zahdeh's threads for the last few weeks and there is pattern of behaviour that is not in the spirit of the Forum. I.e. his threads are just regurgitaion of the same opinions and information that have already been posted elswhere on the internet by him over literally dozens of times. Therefore I am closing this and the other threads."

Go here to see posts and theories by Attiyah Zahdeh to see what I mean. http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=&...=0&oq=attiyah+

This person and his gibberish is known in many forums.
Members of 'My Astro Space' forums should be familiar with his 'theories'.

[[1ponders] (Paul)]

So guy you think this is more likely to belong in the General Chat forum??
Locked.