New theory for the formation of the solar system.

[ncjunk]

One or two questions:-

Isn't the metallicity of a star determined by its make-up of Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Neon? I would be interested to know how the mass of a star can alter its metallicity if these components aren't present initially.

Also, the limited understanding i have is the the fusion within a star continually changes elements from one type to another i.e. Hydrogen to Helium and once hydrogen is depleated then helium to heavier elements. If we have fusion, which appears to be occuring, and magnetic effects from the galactic field then surely the fusion process will still run out at some point leaving only magnetic heating effects but the star could not live on forever in its original state? How does the star regain Hydrogen?

I will keep reading as it's quite interesting to read up on all of this. My initial reaction is not to agree with it but you have to read these things as well. A fair bit of effort looks to have gone into it :-)

[ncjunk]

I would also like to hear your response to the description of star formation with respect to Angular momentum from this link:-

http://mblogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/06/24/braking-news-for-creationism/

Ignore the creationism bit as it is only the description and explanation of Angular momentum that is relavent to this forum.

I think you use the fact that the suns angular momentum is less than 3% of the total angular momentum in the solar system as a basis in one section so would be interested in your response to this piece.

Thanks

[danbarzohar]

"If stars swell and shrink between regular main sequence stars and red giants then what about binary star systems? Would one not absorb the other when they swell up?

Why can't we detect these magnetic fields?"

In a binary system the stars are far enough from each other. Compared to the solar system, if the first star was the sun, then the second star would typically appear between Jupiter and Neptune. However, there are binaries that are so close to each other that if one of the stars will turn into a red giant some of its mass will transfer to the second star.

The fact that the distance of the stars in a binary system is comparable to a planetary system and planets can grow to be a star show that the origin of a binary system is a planetary system. A star and a planet can evolve to a binary system as the planet became a star.

The magnetic fields associated with the solar cycle were measured by probe Ulysses as it passes above the sun pole.

Bar-Zohar, D. (2010). The sun can absorb large amount of energy from weak magnetic fields due to its low resistivity. PHILICA.COM Article number 208.

Dan Bar-Zohar

[brianb]

I would be interested to know how the mass of a star can alter its metallicity if these components aren't present initially.

(This is conventional astrophysics)

In a massive star, late in its life, the helium core becomes so massive that it can no longer be supported by degeneracy pressure. It then contracts & heats (adiabatically) to the point where fusion of helium to the carbon group begins; the energy output sufficing to stop the collapse. If the star is massive enough, the process eventually proceeds to heavier elements until the iron group is reached; at this point there is no energy available from continuing fusion, and a type II supernova event is inevitable.

Meanwhile, heavier elements are being continuously produced (at a low rate) by the r- and s- processes involving neutron capture.

Now it so happens that the shell burning processes in evolved stars is rather unstable (one reason why most of them are variable) and in any event much of the atmosphere is convective, so heavy elements produced in the core can be "dredged up" to the photosphere and so appear in the visible spectrum. This mechanism may seem improbable but it is the only mechanism by which relatively short lived heavy isotopes like technetium-99 can be detected, as they are in the spectrum of some red giants. The stuff would have decayed if it had been derived from the material from which the star formed, it can't have got there by recent infall because of the strong stellar wind so it must have been produced in the star's core and dredged up to the surface within a few multiples of its 211,000 year half life.

If Tc-99 is being dredged up, it is certain that other elements (C, O etc) produced in the core are also migrating to the outer parts of the star by the same mechanism. So these stars are increasing their metallicity.

[ncjunk]

(This is conventional astrophysics)

In a massive star, late in its life, the helium core becomes so massive that it can no longer be supported by degeneracy pressure. It then contracts & heats (adiabatically) to the point where fusion of helium to the carbon group begins; the energy output sufficing to stop the collapse. If the star is massive enough, the process eventually proceeds to heavier elements until the iron group is reached; at this point there is no energy available from continuing fusion, and a type II supernova event is inevitable.

Meanwhile, heavier elements are being continuously produced (at a low rate) by the r- and s- processes involving neutron capture.

Now it so happens that the shell burning processes in evolved stars is rather unstable (one reason why most of them are variable) and in any event much of the atmosphere is convective, so heavy elements produced in the core can be "dredged up" to the photosphere and so appear in the

visible spectrum. This mechanism may seem improbable but it is the only mechanism by which relatively short lived heavy isotopes like technetium-99 can be detected, as they are in the spectrum of some red giants. The stuff would have decayed if it had been derived from the material from which the star formed, it can't have got there by recent infall because of the strong stellar wind so it must have been produced in the star's core and dredged up to the surface within a few multiples of its 211,000 year half life.

If Tc-99 is being dredged up, it is certain that other elements (C, O etc) produced in the core are also migrating to the outer parts of the star by the same mechanism. So these stars are increasing their metallicity.

Thanks Brian,

Although I know most of that, I lack knowledge on the finer details. How does a star which is only made up of Hydrogen and helium, when "born", differ from one that contains a mix (I say mix but what I mean is one that contains a small percentage of other elements). Does the composition of the heavier elements and types of elements that can be created vary depending on the initial composition or are we saying that sufficient mass enables the creation of any other elements. What is the range of elements that can be created from Helium?

Quite interested in the percentage of resultant elements based on initial composition of star.

Of course I know the general description of a stars life but that general discription probably contains many QI type errors in it! (in my brain that is :-))

But in any case it is nice to ask a few questions based on the initial thread topic to get a better understanding of how this theory relates to other topics.

I am off to do some more reading.

[brianb]

How does a star which is only made up of Hydrogen and helium, when "born", differ from one that contains a mix (I say mix but what I mean is one that contains a small percentage of other elements). Does the composition of the heavier elements and types of elements that can be created vary depending on the initial composition or are we saying that sufficient mass enables the creation of any other elements. What is the range of elements that can be created from Helium?

Don't have time to type in a whole astrophysics text book, try this one.

Basically the metallicity of a main sequence star doesn't affect its evolution significantly, though the opacity has a profound effect during the collapse of the original dust & gas cloud and also during mass loss to the stellar wind during the red giant / supergiant phase. When atomic nuclei formed after the Big Bang, all was hydrogen (77%) and helium (23%) with only a tiny amount of lithium and essentially none of anything else; all the "heavy" elements present in today's universe (about 1%) have been formed in stellar cores (plus a relatively small amount in accretion disk hot spots in cataclysmic binaries); that which is now outside stars has either been dredged up from the core and blown out as stellar wind, or ejected from the star in explosions of one sort or another.

[ncjunk]

Perfect! Thanks for that link!

[meteoriot]

You say gamma rays have nothing to do with fusion. I'm looking at a physics book now telling me that high energy protons and gamma rays are released in fusion reactions. Also earlier you explained away accretion discs as something else yet you now use accretion discs to support your theory. These aren't the only holes and contradictions I have spotted in your theory. You seem like you have a lot of knowledge or you are quoting other literature but if a beginner like me can spot holes in your theory then surely it wont hold up to anyone who knows better.

[meteoriot]

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

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

Thank you.

' Nullius in verba '

[danbarzohar]

"This thing kind of reminds of the discussions on the Flat Earth Society forums (I lurked there when bored ), 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?"

Galaxies create new galaxies through globular clusters. Every galaxy both spiral and elliptical have globular clusters. Some of those globular clusters grow bigger and evolve to a dwarf galaxy. There are observations of objects that their size put them between globular clusters and dwarf galaxies. Those observations confirm the idea that galaxies spawn new galaxies through globular clusters. As galaxies grow from globular cluster their central black hole is also growing from the accreted material. Small globular clusters have small black holes. Large globular clusters and dwarf galaxies have middle size black hole and large galaxies have supermassive black hole. The supermassive black hole creates the energy for the galaxy and the existence of the galaxy depends on it, that is why every galaxy have a supermassive black hole. This also explains the correlation between the mass of the supermassive black hole and the mass of the galaxy. It is hard to explain why there is a supermassive black hole in every galaxy by the "accepted" theories.

The magnetic fields are too weak to be felt. The effect on the sun is that it heats the sun and create new mass in the sun core to increase the mass of the sun.

The conversion of energy to mass is demonstrated in particle accelerators. High speed particles are collided together to create a shower of new particles. The rest mass of the new particles is larger than the rest mass of the original particles, so there is a conversion of the kinetic energy of the original particles to mass. The same thing happens inside stars. The high temperature gives the particles high speed and as they collide they create new mass.

Dan Bar-Zohar

[Macavity]

I think I preferred this one:

How to Prevent Earthquakes

Dropping a 10,000 ton weight several tens of metres onto the ground has a certain appeal.

[danbarzohar]

"One or two questions:-

Isn't the metallicity of a star determined by its make-up of Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Neon? I would be interested to know how the mass of a star can alter its metallicity if these components aren't present initially.

Also, the limited understanding i have is the the fusion within a star continually changes elements from one type to another i.e. Hydrogen to Helium and once hydrogen is depleated then helium to heavier elements. If we have fusion, which appears to be occuring, and magnetic effects from the galactic field then surely the fusion process will still run out at some point leaving only magnetic heating effects but the star could not live on forever in its original state? How does the star regain Hydrogen?

I will keep reading as it's quite interesting to read up on all of this. My initial reaction is not to agree with it but you have to read these things as well. A fair bit of effort looks to have gone into it :-)"

According to the standard solar model the high metallicity of more massive stars stem from their young age. Since they consume their fuel very fast very massive stars must be young. It is believed that the metallicity of the galaxy increases over time from supernova explosions. So stars that formed lately must have higher metallicity. However this is incorrect. According to my theory the more massive stars are older. Older stars have more time to absorb energy from the magnetic fields and to convert more energy to mass. This is like living things, a chicken is older and heavier then a chick. The older chicken had more time to collect food so it is bigger than the chick. Stars are the same. Older stars had more time to absorb energy from the magnetic fields and by that to grow bigger. Blue giant are very old while red dwarfs are young. There is a correlation between the mass of a star and its metallicity. More massive stars show higher metallicity. More massive stars have higher temperature and pressure in their core that increase the production of metals. The star gains it mass by converting energy to mass, so the mass of the star is created internally by the star and it is not collected from material outside the star. This is also true for the star metallicity. The star metals are created inside the star and are not collected from the outside.

When the star converts energy to mass it produce mostly hydrogen and some of this hydrogen is fusing into helium. The continued production of hydrogen keeps the hydrogen levels up. According to the standard solar model there should be depletion of hydrogen depending on the star age but such depletion is not observed.

Stars with planets show high metallicity because planets are created when the star turn into a red giant. In the red giant state the star lose mass but keep its original high metallicity. Before it turned to a red giant the star was more massive with high metallicity.

Dan Bar-Zohar

[danbarzohar]

"I would also like to hear your response to the description of star formation with respect to Angular momentum from this link:-

http://mblogs.discovermagazine.com/b...r-creationism/

Ignore the creationism bit as it is only the description and explanation of Angular momentum that is relavent to this forum.

I think you use the fact that the suns angular momentum is less than 3% of the total angular momentum in the solar system as a basis in one section so would be interested in your response to this piece."

This theory for the formation of the solar system is dualistic. The sun formed first and after billions of years the planets formed.

The planets formed from mass ejected by the sun when the sun was a red giant. When the sun was a red giant the outer layers of the sun expanded and ejected strong solar wind. This solar wind absorbed the sun angular momentum. This is like an ice skater that stretches his arms. The solar wind is like the skaters arms that reduce the rotation speed of the sun. As the solar wind carried with it the sun angular momentum it delivered the angular momentum to the forming planets. In this way through the massive solar wind of the red giant sun the angular momentum transferred from the sun to the planets. The end result is that the planets have much of the angular momentum of the solar system while the sun rotate slowly compared to other stars.

Dan Bar-Zohar

[danbarzohar]

"You say gamma rays have nothing to do with fusion. I'm looking at a physics book now telling me that high energy protons and gamma rays are released in fusion reactions. Also earlier you explained away accretion discs as something else yet you now use accretion discs to support your theory. These aren't the only holes and contradictions I have spotted in your theory. You seem like you have a lot of knowledge or you are quoting other literature but if a beginner like me can spot holes in your theory then surely it wont hold up to anyone who knows better."

Gamma rays are created by fusion but since the sun is opaque you cant see those gamma rays on the sun surface. The gamma rays on the sun surface are from flares and cosmic rays. If you look down you cant see the hot earth core since the soil is opaque. The moon have stronger gamma ray radiation than the sun.

To explain how stars are born from planets I used cold accretion to show how planets gain mass. By that I mean the fall of objects like meteorites and comets to the planets. Fall of meteorite and comets to the planets is observed in earth and in other planets and add slowly mass to the planets. For instance, the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 that fell in 1989 to Jupiter.

Dan Bar-Zohar

[meteoriot]

Earlier you said gamma rays have nothing to do with fusion! At least now you admit they do have everything to do with it!!! So planets get bigger from collisions with meteorites and comets do they? Are you aware how comets and meteorites form? Think about what your saying. This IS accretion!!! I am no longer participating in this debate as it's no longer logical, it's almost as your making it up as you go along. Too many contradictions and illogical reasoning. Mine were only 2 examples. Thanks.

[ncjunk]

Thanks for the replies Dan.

I am reading through "The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe" but its in spanish so that will slow me down until i am used to the technical translations. Will then do a bit of further reading on standard theory star formation and lifecycle. Hopefully re-read your pdf later in the year after i have a better understanding of the physics.

[NickK]

Not to bore you but after being subjected to three years of set theory and formal methods turning english into maths and then formally proving it..

A formal proof is built up of interlinked statements drawn from a set of accepted facts. Each successive statement defining a property of the system that, in it's entirety, equates to true.

The majority of your statements have started out without this. For example:

"Galaxies create new galaxies through globular clusters."

That is a statement. As it stands there is no truth in it.

[RayGood]

So much speculation and theories. To me, I see the obvious evidence of intelligent design everywhere. Incredible size, and beauty. Something that has always troubled me though, is just how to get around Boyle's gas laws for a cloud of gas and dust to contract under its own gravity to begin nuclear fusion

If pressure waves from exploding stars are the drive here, how many stars do you have to loose to get one. That seems like a declining runaway trend to me. And there are countless numbers of stars out there! Its just a terrible shame it takes too long for stars to form for us to actually say we've seen it. Its a theory that cannot be fundamentally proven, and so requires believe to a certain extent.

I know there are images of stars becoming brighter in nebulae, but I think it is entirely fair also to suggest the possibility that dust from the nebula region (causing the reddening appearence) is just clearing out of the way, giving the apperance of a star being born.

There are loads of theories out there. And we all have the right to come up with them, when applying testable demonstrable and repeatable scientific principles, the laws, etc.

Remeber, thats the fun of it. Its exploration on the grandest scale. And I am so glad that we have liberties and freedom to expound our knowledge through experimentation, but also through direct and in-direct observation, the latter that brings about theories, not facts. So until there is 100% evidence that is demonstratable, testable and repeatable, then stellar birth is open to all reasonable hypothesis and theories. Having faith in time (millions, if not billions of years) is not evidence enough for me at least, anyway.

But everyone is different. And that is only fair. Oh and its more fun to.

Just a quick note, soemthing that might contribute to nuclear fusion processes within the sun, might also be gravatational collapse. That is assuming a fact of course, that nuclear fusion is a driving force in our sun. I have seen some observational data over the last few decades showing an overall decreasing trend in the solar diameter. Of course this data also shows intermediate fluctuations, which is to be expected, but I find the overall trend an interesting observation, none the less. And I have heard the arguments for instrumental error. And I was not convinced by this, as such causes are unlikely to result in overall trends in the data. It could be argued that the matter transference into energy is causing the shrinkage, but am unsure as to whether this would cause the amount indicated by the trend over such a short period, soely by means of nuclear fusion. You certainly could not extrapolate long periods of time from that, because some time back long ago and far away, the sun would be engulfing the earth. But that is assuming uniformity in the rate of contraction that has been observed in recent times. And there is know way to know that for sure. But I'll stop there, cause I admit, I ain't no nuclear physics expert, just an observer .

I like theories! Bring them on. We can then all decide for ourselves.

Freedom of choice

[sixela]

It takes years of training to "decide for oneself" if some theories make sense. To "decide or oneself" one should test hypotheses. Before hypotheses can be tested, they have to be expressed (enough to actually predict something that can then be tested).

Oh, and I like theories. But in science these should not be confused with hypotheses. And hypotheses should not be confused with ideas.

[brianb]

A formal proof is built up of interlinked statements drawn from a set of accepted facts.

That's not strictly true: unless you replace "accepted facts" by "axioms".

You can construct a geometry that is different to Euclid's by changing the axioms used and constructing a set of theorems that can be proved using the axioms that you've chosen. Whether that geometry is useful or not may depend on your application: and, if you're working on a curved surface, Euclid's geometry breaks down, not because there is any problem with the proofs of the theorems but because one of the axioms is false (parallel lines do meet).

soemthing that might contribute to nuclear fusion processes within the sun, might also be gravatational collapse.

Of course it does, the potential energy of the particles in the original dust cloud - converted into kinetic energy by gravitational attraction - is what heats the core of the forming protostar sufficiently to get nuclear fission started.

The key here is the energy levels involved. The Sun radiates energy at such a rate that, if all the potential energy was converted to radiation by gravitational collapse, and the radiation output remained constant, the Sun could shine for only about 30 million years. A long time, certainly, but the record in the rocks of the Earth indicates that the Sun has been shining steadily for about 150 times as long as that ... clearly most the energy is coming from something other than gravitational collapse, and the only energy sources sufficiently powerful to account for such a long life time are nuclear reactions.

[Tadakun]

Best policy with nutters ...

zing

[rabbithutch]

If my education had been better - and if I had been more intelligent - I might have been able to understand more of the thesis presented and offer meaningful critique; but that is not to be in what is left of my life.

Thank you, Dan, for writing a most fascinating document. I have not yet read it all, nor will I ever understand it. I have, however, been stimulated by the bits that I have been able to fathom. I will return to the website many times and hope to follow the thesis more carefully, but my powers of concentration diminish with age.

There is one point that I would ask you about - not because I have any basis for the question or any logic behind the thought - but I wondered if the magnetism force that you write about might not affect Earth's geology, also.

Although the reason might be better communications and the pressure of the news cycle, it seems to me that the number and intensity of earthquakes reported has increased over the last decade. Their dispersion across the planet seems to be greater as well. It is difficult for me to believe that plate tectonics and vulcanism are the major causes. Have there been studies correlating solar maximums and minimums with any geologic phenomena on earth? Are there any means of measuring the magnetism emanating from the black hole at the center of the universe? Is it possible to describe the force mathematically if it is not empirically measurable? Would it not be reasonable to postulate that the magnetic forces affecting the sun and other stars would also affect earth albeit with differing manifestations?

This is not by any means an attempt to belittle your work or to "wind you up." I lack the knowledge and skill to do so. It is simply the intellectual curiosity of an old man who fills his mind with data and speculation and lacks the wisdom or knowledge to assess them.

Thank you again.

[danbarzohar]

"Not to bore you but after being subjected to three years of set theory and formal methods turning english into maths and then formally proving it..

A formal proof is built up of interlinked statements drawn from a set of accepted facts. Each successive statement defining a property of the system that, in it's entirety, equates to true.

The majority of your statements have started out without this. For example:

"Galaxies create new galaxies through globular clusters."

That is a statement. As it stands there is no truth in it. "

In the 1960s Fred Hoyle steady state theory competed with the big bang theory. One problem of the steady state theory was that it was unable to explain how new matter was created to drive the expansion of the universe. According to the big bang galaxies were created from the clouds of hydrogen and helium gas of the big bang. If new mass is created inside stars it cancels the big bang theory in favor of a theory that resembles the steady state theory. So how galaxies form? One idea is that the arm of spiral galaxies can detach and form a new galaxy as in M51. I rejected this idea because there are not many observations similar to M51. Globular clusters on the other hand are found in every big galaxy in both elliptical and spiral. There are also observations of objects that their sizes are between that of a globular cluster and a dwarf galaxy. The Milky Way contains many globular clusters and there are 14 dwarf galaxies in orbit around it. There is a continuum in the size of the objects from small globular clusters to dwarf galaxies to full size galaxies. The supermassive black hole is developing according to the size of the object. Globular clusters have small black hole at their center, larger globular cluster show a mid size black hole at their center and full size galaxies have supermassive black hole. The continuum in the size of the objects and the size of the black hole show clearly that galaxies are born from globular clusters.

The Milky Way is a descendant of M82 at the center of the Virgo Cluster.

Dan Bar-Zohar

[sixela]

Thank you for illustrating rabbithutch's point even more clearly.

By the way, in the M81 group, M81 is the big guy and M82 the smaller one being almost ripped apart by it. The group is also one of the closest ones to the local group and certainly not in the middle of the Virgo supercluster (and not part at all of the Virgo Cluster sans 'super' if you're a stickler for nomenclature). Both groups are on the outskirts in a filament linking us through the Fornax Cluster to the Virgo cluster.