Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

New theory for the formation of the solar system.


Recommended Posts

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:

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Objective peer-review? (Yes I know this is often fashion orientated)

A good enough point as a theory to start with, however I don't see anything linking the parts.

I could theorise that the universe as we see it is the inside of a star, the star spots (ie sun spots) are black holes sucking the matter out just as coronal ejections do now. The mottling of radiation at the start of the universe is the mottling of the outside turbulence we see on the sun.

I don't have the science to prove it or to disprove it. Not bad for a few seconds thinking time but does it really fit into the story lines of the book I'm writing (slowly)..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

A bad theory like the example you gave will always be in conflict with facts and observations. For instance, we know from the microwave background radiation that the temperature of the universe is 2.7 degrees so it is too cold to be in a star.

If you do a thought experiment and assume that the sun was a red giant 4.6 billion years ago, you can check this hypothesis against facts and observations. Tens of probes were launched to different part of the solar system and collected large amount of data. It is possible to check the hypothesis of a red giant sun 4.6 billion years ago against this data to find conflicts. Not only that there are no obvious conflicts, the data seems to support this hypothesis. The Oort cloud is a remnant of the red giant sun. The chondrules which are created by condensation of silicate gas were created when the red giant sun ejected hot silicate gas that cooled and condensed far from the sun. And most importantly the short lived isotopes found in the solar system are from a red giant star and it is unlikely that those short lived isotopes came from far away red giant since they would have decayed before reaching the solar system.

Observations of red giant stars also support this hypothesis. Red giant star eject strong stellar wind and large amount of material that can easily be enough to form planets. The composition of the material ejected by red giants show strong similarity to the material that is found in meteorites and in the planets in the solar system

If the evidence support a red giant sun then it is unlikely that the solar nebula hypothesis and the standard solar model are correct and a sun powered by magnetic fields is a plausible solution.

Here are some highlights of this theory:

1. The sun energy source is from magnetic fields from the galactic

center.

2. The heat induced by the magnetic fields leads to high energy

collision between particle in the sun core that creates new particle

and increase the sun mass.

3. All the stars in the galaxy create new mass so the total mass and

the size of the galaxy is increasing.

4. The stars in the galaxy eject dust that freefall to the galactic

center supermassive black hole. Thorough the dynamo effect the

gravitational potential energy of the debris and dust is converted to

magnetic fields.

5. As the galaxy mass and size increase, globular clusters are

detached form the main galaxy to create new galaxies.

6. Galaxies spawn new galaxies and the total number of galaxies in

the universe increase.

7. The universe expands and accelerates from the increase in the

number of the galaxies.

8. The Big Bang cosmological model is replaced by a new cosmological

model that resembles the steady state theory.

9. Stars grow gradually from conversion of energy to mass.

10. Stars are born from planets, they first grow by accretion and

then by conversion of energy to mass.

11. Stars fluctuate from main sequence to a red giant. When the

magnetic fields are strong the star is in the main sequence, when the

magnetic fields are weakened the star turn to a red giant.

12. The sun was a red giant 4.6 billions years ago.

13. The planets were created from the strong solar wind of the red

giant sun.

Regards,

Dan Bar-Zohar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the Neutron stars, White dwarfs ... What I mean is, if the Sun converts into a Red Gian and then once again into a type-G star, where do the white dwarfs come from if this is a continous cycle ?

I thought the same, what about all the heavy elements such as iron, platinum etc that need the fusion processes within a star in order to form. Also what about the accretion discs where we can see planets forming around other stars. And then there are the laws of physics and gravity that fit almost perfectly within the processes that scientist believe and NASAs super computers simulate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The title 'new' doesn't really belong in the title, as these ideas date from the early 70s and earlier. The fact they've been universally rejected for this long should tell us something (oddball theories with new descriptive powers often get the cold shrug at the start, but it doesn't bode well for you to be ignored for so long after that initial reaction).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

So why aren't the rest of the bodies in the solar system lumps of molten magma? I'm sure the forces you mention are not selective just to a specific celestial body such as our sun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that you're wasting your time trying to use logic to approach this hypothesis. No logic, and certainly no knowledge of astronomy or astrophysics has been used cobbling it together, just wild speculative and unsubstantiated flights of fancy, and you can't have a reasoned argument with them.

It wouldn't even make good science fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that you're wasting your time trying to use logic to approach this hypothesis. No logic, and certainly no knowledge of astronomy or astrophysics has been used cobbling it together, just wild speculative and unsubstantiated flights of fancy, and you can't have a reasoned argument with them.

It wouldn't even make good science fiction.

Your right. I've only just renewed my interest in astronomy and im at the beginning of my learning curve. Most people who read the above probably dismissed it as nonsense right away but for me i took it as a test. Am I wrong in what I said as I struggle with the little info I have learnt to determine what is fact and what is theory? There are many conflicting 'facts' in what I read, watch on tv and what I learn on my astronomy course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Meteorit.

It's good that you took it as a test, used your own reasoning, and figured out that it didn't make sense....don't just take what people say as the truth...use your own grey matter!!....that's what my Dad used to tell me, and I'm glad he did :glasses1:

As for fusion and gamma rays....I'm not a nuclear physicist, but many folk on here know a lot about that side of things.

Cheers

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thing kind of reminds of the discussions on the Flat Earth Society forums (I lurked there when bored :glasses1:), they used the same kind of logic and arguments with their "facts" thrown in.

I wouldn't know where to start in tearing that "theory" apart. I'd like to know how and what formed the massive black hole at the centre of the galaxy if not through the accepted theory of stellar evolution, how it's magnetic field would possibly affect us and the sun and how "high energy collision in the sun's core" would lead to more mass being created out of nothing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"so it our sun that's going to implode! hope my new filter comes before then lmao"

The sun is not going to turn to a red giant soon. According to this theory the sun will turn to a red giant when the solar cycle is weakened. The solar cycle show no signs of weakening. Even if the solar cycle is weakend it will take tens of millions of years antil the sun will turn to a red giant.

Dan Bar-Zohar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What about the Neutron stars, White dwarfs ... What I mean is, if the Sun converts into a Red Gian and then once again into a type-G star, where do the white dwarfs come from if this is a continous cycle ?"

The star will turn to a red giant and back to the main sequence when the magnetic fields of the solar cycle are weakened for a short period. If the magnetic fields are weakened for a longer period the star will develop a circumstellar envelop. Still longer period for the weakening of the magnetic fields will produced a white dwarf and a planetary nebula.

Usually the magnetic fields are weakened for a short time and the star return to the main sequence. Very rarely the star will die. Stars are basically eternal they live forever. This is why the universe is expanding. The stars never die but there are always new stars forming. The star can be compared to a living thing like a wolf. When the wolf eats a lot it gets fat (Star is converting energy to mass from strong magnetic fields). When the wolf does not eat it is losing weight (The star turns to a red giant and loses mass to a strong stellar wind). In the rare event that the wolf is not eating for a long time it dies (The star turn to a white dwarf).

Dan Bar-Zohar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I thought the same, what about all the heavy elements such as iron, platinum etc that need the fusion processes within a star in order to form. Also what about the accretion discs where we can see planets forming around other stars. And then there are the laws of physics and gravity that fit almost perfectly within the processes that scientist believe and NASAs super computers simulate."

The heavy elements of the star are created inside the star core by fusion. There is a correlation between the star mass and its metallicity - the heavier the star is the higher its metallicity. However, the fusion in the stars is not the source of energy as the hydrogen atoms are created by the magnetic fields by conversion of energy to mass.

The accretion disks are either a debris disks or a bow shocks from the collision of solar winds. In the Orion nebula there are many such bow shocks. A solar wind of a giant star can engulf the solar wind of a nearby smaller star to produce a bow shock.

This theory does not defy the laws of physics except in one point. The galaxy does not obey the conservation of mass and energy it produce mass and energy from nothing. The mass and energy of the universe must have come from somewhere otherwise the universe would be empty. According to the big bang theory the mass and energy of the universe was create by an explosion also from nothing. The fact that galaxies produce energy and mass from nothing leads to the birth of new galaxies from globular clusters and to the expansion of the universe.

Dan Bar-Zohar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

So why aren't the rest of the bodies in the solar system lumps of molten magma? I'm sure the forces you mention are not selective just to a specific celestial body such as our sun!"

The energy that the star absorb from the magnetic fields depend on its radius riased to the 5th power R^5. Since the planets are much smaller than the sun they absorb less energy. However, both Jupiter and Saturn radiate much more energy than what is absorbed by the sun so they have an internal heat source. This internal heat source is the magnetic fields.

Bar-Zohar, D. (2009). Stellar rotation is driven by magnetic fields in the galactic disc. PHILICA.COM Article number 149.

Dan Bar-Zohar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.