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.


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

[Swift]

DanBarZohar,

First, welcome to BAUT.

Second, your thread is clearly advocating your own non-mainstream idea, what we call ATM, or Against The Mainstream. All such threads must be in our ATM forum, and your post has been moved there.

Advocates of ATM ideas are required to follow specific rules to present their ideas on BAUT. If you have not done so I strongly suggest that you review our rules (particularly rule 13) and our advice for ATM advocates. you will be expected to follow these rules, including defending your idea, presenting evidence for it, and answering questions put to you about it.

If you are not prepared to follow these rules, you need to say so at once, at which point this thread will be closed.

If you have any questions or concerns, you can Report my post (clicking the little triangle with ! in it in the lower left corner of this post) and let us know your concerns.

[baric]

Q1) please explain the process of magnetic ignition

[DanBarZohar]

Hi,

According to the solar nebula hypothesis, the accepted theory of the formation of the solar system, the stars are created from collapsing clouds of gas and dust. The star at the middle of the cloud is heated by the rapid infall of gas. At certain point the temperatures of the central protostar are so high that they cause thermonuclear ignition. The thermonuclear ignition causes the star to shine by its own.

According to my theory stars are not created by a cloud of gas, instead the star is growing gradually from a planet. Magnetic ignition is the point where the planet is turned into a star that shines. A planet in the size of 10 Jupiter mass will not shine. Brown dwarfs are defined to be in the mass range between 13 and 80 Jupiter mass. Brown dwarf have luminosity so the point where a planet is turned into a star is when its mass is near that of a low mass brown dwarf.


The energy the star absorbs from the magnetic fields is related to its radius raised to fifth power. From equation 1.2 at this link:

http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=208

A slight change of the star radius will considerably change the energy captured by the star. This way a 10 Jupiter planet will not shine, while after a magnetic ignition, a 15 Jupiter mass star will shine.

Dan Bar-Zohar

[John Mendenhall]

Please show the equations for converting magnetic fields to mass. (Particles?)

[Van Rijn]

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.

I'm not aware of any evidence that the sun's mass is increasing. Please note here what this "reference 4" refers too, and your specific evidence for a mass increase.

[macaw]

Hi,

The sun energy source is not fusion.

Q1: No? Mainstream references say the contrary:

^ Broggini, Carlo (26–28 June 2003). "Nuclear Processes at Solar Energy". Physics in Collision: 21. arXiv:astro-ph/0308537.

The sun and other stars are heated by magnetic fields from the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy.

Q2: That is a hell of a lot of radiative energy. How come that The Earth doesn't get any of this energy and needs to get it from the Sun? Is the Earth exempt? Or only the stars qualify?

Q3: How does the energy know how to go only to the stars and not to the planets?

[DanBarZohar]

Hi,

Using Faraday's law it is possible to calculate how much energy the sun absorbs. The sun magnetic field changes its polarity every 11 years so this changing magnetic field induces electric currents inside the sun. The electric currents supply energy and heat to the sun. The energy that is absorbed by the sun from the magnetic fields is calculated in here:

http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=208

Equation 1.2 can be used to calculate the energy absorbed by the stars.
This energy is converted to mass using Einstein's equation.

Dan Bar-Zohar

[DanBarZohar]

Hi,

Reference 4 is this link:
http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=208

The sun mass is increasing very slowly. In the link above the energy the sun absorbs is calculated using Faraday's law. Converting this energy to mass gives the mass increase of the sun which is about 10^11 kg/sec. The proof can be found in the neutrino flux from the sun. The sun produces muon neutrino flux. The muon neutrinos are not from neutrino oscillation. The conversion of energy to mass inside the sun involves reactions of particles from the second family of the standard model that produce the muon neutrino.


Dan Bar-Zohar

[tusenfem]

DanBarZohar, please stop linking to your website in every message.
You should present your stuff here in the thread, not let people go to your own site for every little answer that you give.

[baric]

Magnetic ignition is the point where the planet is turned into a star that shines.

Yes, you have stated this already.

Q1 (again) ) please describe the physical process by which you believe that magnetic energy is converted to heat

Q2) How does the amount of mass involved trigger this process

If you have equations, please show them.

The sun and other stars are heated by magnetic fields from the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy.

Q3) How do you explain the existence of stars that are not orbiting SMBH and their similarities to stars that are?

[Jim]

DanBarZohar, please read the sticky on Electric Universe ideas and make sure you are covering new ground.

[Van Rijn]

Hi,

Reference 4 is this link:
http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=208

The sun mass is increasing very slowly. In the link above the energy the sun absorbs is calculated using Faraday's law. Converting this energy to mass gives the mass increase of the sun which is about 10^11 kg/sec. The proof can be found in the neutrino flux from the sun. The sun produces muon neutrino flux. The muon neutrinos are not from neutrino oscillation. The conversion of energy to mass inside the sun involves reactions of particles from the second family of the standard model that produce the muon neutrino.

Ah, so this "reference 4" is simply one of your own claims?

So you have no external evidence, from any major, peer reviewed material, showing that the sun's mass is increasing?

[DanBarZohar]

Hi,

The standard solar model or the fusion sun is only a theory. This theory is supported by only one observation – the neutrino flux from the sun. However, for a long time there was a neutrino problem regarding the sun. The electron neutrino flux from the sun was only third of what it should be according to theory. The neutrino flux from the sun contradicted the standard solar model. Later the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory found that the sun produces muon neutrino flux and the neutrino problem was solved by neutrino oscillation. However, this is incorrect; the sun produces muon neutrino flux without neutrino oscillations. The sun convert energy to mass and muon neutrinos are produced from this conversion.

Planets receive this energy too, but due to their small size they are heated only slightly. Both Jupiter and Saturn have heat surplus, if the sun was their only energy source they would be colder. They have an internal energy source and this is the magnetic fields. The energy surplus is also observed in extrasolar planets especially hot Jupiters.

Dan Bar-Zohar

[Nowhere Man]

Remember, in science, there is no such thing as "only a theory." A scientific theory has a great deal of evidence to support it. There are "only hypotheses," "only ideas," and so forth. A scientific theory is never "only" or "mere."

Fred

[macaw]

Planets receive this energy too,

The question was "how come the stars receive energy from the black hole in the center of the galaxy (as per your claim) and the planets don't"? Please answer the original question, not your distortion of the original question.

Both Jupiter and Saturn have heat surplus, if the sun was their only energy source they would be colder. They have an internal energy source and this is the magnetic fields.

Q4: Your original claim was that the source of energy was the black hole in the center of the galaxy. Are you changing that claim to claim that Jupiter and Saturn are also sources of energy?

Q5: How about the stars in the other galaxies, do they also get their energy from black holes?

Q6: How come that we have never detected any energy emitted by such black holes? How does your ATM reconcile this absence with the enormous amount of energy put out by the stars? How does that amount of energy travel from your black hole to the stars it "energizes"?

[DanBarZohar]

Hi,

The sun changes its magnetic polarity every 11 years. This can be observed by a telescope using the Zeeman effect or measured directly by probe like Ulysses. The fact that the sun changes its magnetic polarity every 11 years is undisputed. This changing magnetic field induces electromotive force or voltage around the circumference of the sun. This voltage can be understood and calculated using Faraday's Law. This is similar to a transformer. A changing magnetic field in the transformer core induces voltage and current in the secondary winding of the transformer. The sun is made of hot plasma which is a very good conductor so the voltage created by the magnetic fields cause according to ohm's Law strong electric currents inside the sun. Those electric currents heat the sun by ohmic heating similar for instance to glowing wires of a toaster.

The amounts of energy the star absorb depend on its radius raised to the fifth power. Observations can support this idea. Red dwarfs have low luminosity while Blue giants have high luminosity and strong stellar wind.

At the center of every galaxy there is a SMBH. Without the SMBH the galaxy cannot produce energy and the stars will not shine. The SMBH spread magnetic eddies to the stars that heat the stars. The stars eject solar wind and produce circum stellar envelops that feed the SMBH. The dust, gas and debris falling to the SMBH produce magnetic field by the dynamo effect. Those magnetic fields again supply energy to the star. Therefore, there is an energy cycle in the galaxy that the SMBH is at its center. A galaxy without a SMBH is a paradox; it is like a city with electricity and lights that is not connected to a power plant.

Dan Bar-Zohar

[Rhaedas]

I think baric's questions are crucial to answer, otherwise this isn't even a hypothesis at best.

[DanBarZohar]

Hi,

Both stars and planets receive energy from the SMBH at the center of the Milky Way.
The amount of energy received depends on the radius of the star or planet raised to the fifth power. Star receive large amount of energy so they can shine, planets receive small amount of energy so they only show heat surplus.

Dan Bar-Zohar

[Garrison]

Planets receive this energy too, but due to their small size they are heated only slightly. Both Jupiter and Saturn have heat surplus, if the sun was their only energy source they would be colder.

Yes they have internal heat sources, as does the Earth for that matter, do you have any evidence that those internal processes plus solar radiation are inadequate to explain their temperatures?

The energy surplus is also observed in extrasolar planets especially hot Jupiters.

Dan Bar-Zohar

Hot Jupiters are in hot because they orbit close to their star, that is in fact practically the definition of the term. Do you have any observational data that says otherwise?

[DanBarZohar]

Hi,

Every galaxy have a SMBH at its center and all the stars in the universe are powered by magnetic fields. See the explanation above of the energy cycle in the galaxy.

The SMBH at the center of the Milky Way is hidden behind layers of gas and dust so we can't observe it directly. On other galaxies we can see the effect of the SMBH. Quasars and active galactic nucleus are created by the SMBH and demonstrate the high energy created by infall of material to the SMBH.

Dan Bar-Zohar

[Jim]

DanBarZohar, it might be better, rather than placing a truncated question in the title of your post, to use the Reply With Quote button under the post with the questions you are addressing. This places the entire question in your reply and avoids readers having to scroll up to find it. You can always delete text from the quote to leave only the question(s) being answered.

[macaw]

Hi,

Both stars and planets receive energy from the SMBH at the center of the Milky Way.

This is demonstrably false since the Earth is receiving the energy from the sun.

The amount of energy received depends on the radius of the star or planet raised to the fifth power.

Q7: How did you derive this formula?

Star receive large amount of energy so they can shine, planets receive small amount of energy so they only show heat surplus.

Q8: Show how your above formula agrees with actual measurements.

[macaw]

At the center of every galaxy there is a SMBH.

Q9: What type of proof do you have for this claim? Generally, black hole presence is inferred from Shapiro delay or from gravitational lensing. So , what is your proof of he above claim?

Without the SMBH the galaxy cannot produce energy and the stars will not shine.

Q10: What proof do you have of that?

The SMBH spread magnetic eddies to the stars that heat the stars.

Q11: How do you reconcile the above claim with the fact that BH emit minuscule amounts of energy?

The stars eject solar wind and produce circum stellar envelops that feed the SMBH. The dust, gas and debris falling to the SMBH produce magnetic field by the dynamo effect.

Q12: What proof do you have of the above?

Those magnetic fields again supply energy to the star. Therefore, there is an energy cycle in the galaxy that the SMBH is at its center. A galaxy without a SMBH is a paradox; it is like a city with electricity and lights that is not connected to a power plant.

Q13: What happens to the energy that is radiated into empty space. It has been radiated since billions of years ago, how does your above system compensate for the lost energy?

[redshifter]

Hi,

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.

How do you reconcile this 'theory' with the many observations of solar nebula containing young proto stars (i.e. not red giants) with planetary disks--complete with gaps indicating the formation of planets?

How many stars have been observed 'flucuating all the time from being a red giant to a regular star'?

[baric]

I have another question..

Q4) does this magnetic energy from the SMBH diminish with distance? If so, shouldn't we see larger stars distributed much more closely to the galactic center and smaller stars on the outer edges?

[DanBarZohar]

DanBarZohar, please read the sticky on Electric Universe ideas and make sure you are covering new ground.

Hi,

My theory is not related to the electric universe theory. The electric universe theory is incorrect and in conflict with observations. For instance, it assume that the stars are heated by external electric currents that flow throughout the galaxy, however probes like Ulysses and Soho that circled the sun found no evidence of such currents.

Dan Bar-Zohar

[DanBarZohar]

Yes they have internal heat sources, as does the Earth for that matter, do you have any evidence that those internal processes plus solar radiation are inadequate to explain their temperatures?

Hi,

The accepted idea about Jupiter heat surplus is that gravitational contraction supplies this heat. If the heat surplus is from magnetic fields it would be possible to calculate the energy that Jupiter receives from the magnetic fields using equation 1.2 above. In a previous article Philica 149 I concluded that Jupiter have a stellar cycle that drive its trade winds and the great red spot. The trade winds are electrically charged where opposite flowing winds have different electric charge. The great red spot is an electric vortex that is driven by the electric potential between opposite flowing trade winds.

Hot Jupiters are in hot because they orbit close to their star, that is in fact practically the definition of the term. Do you have any observational data that says otherwise?

The heat from the star is not enough to explain their temperature. Here is a paper that suggests a solution.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0612/0612603.pdf

Dan Bar-Zohar

[neilzero]

Space probes have measured the magnetic field of the sun and planets. Apparently the magnetic field from the galactic central black hole is quite weak in our vicinity, and thus not strong enough to account for the photosphere temperature of our Sun, without the help of nuclear fusion. Neil

[DanBarZohar]

This is demonstrably false since the Earth is receiving the energy from the sun.

Jupiter is very far from the sun and at the same time it is very big. Therefore the ratio between the energy from the sun and the energy from the magnetic fields is small. This make Jupiter heat surplus obvious. For earth this ratio is much bigger.

Q7: How did you derive this formula?

The calculation can be found in philica in the link above. The basis for this calculation is measurement of the magnetic field of the sun by probe Ulysses. According to Faraday's law this changing magnetic field induces voltage in the sun that creates electric currents. The electric currents supply heat and energy to the star. The formula is derived from this calculation.

Q8: Show how your above formula agrees with actual measurements.

This formula is derived from measurement of the probe Ulysses. According to this formula the amount of energy the sun absorbs from the magnetic field is much larger than the sun luminosity and the mass loss of the solar wind. The energy the sun absorb is so large that most of it can be used to convert energy to mass.

Dan Bar-Zohar