Main Page | Report Page

 

  Science Forum Index » Astronomy Forum » New theory for the formation of the solar system...

Author Message
...
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 5:49 am
 
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_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
 
Brad Guth...
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 5:49 am
 
On Nov 11, 2:49 am, dan at (no spam) at (no spam) pixelphase.com wrote:
[quote]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_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
[/quote]
"The metallicity of a star depends on its mass" isn't all there is to
say. Early stars simply were not metallicity types, and more recent
stars get to be metallicity types regardless of their mass, all
because of what the molecular cloud contained. Hydrogen is
diamagnetic, as are several other elements, and otherwise the electric
binding force is so much greater than gravity.

~ BG
 
Dan BarZohar...
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:04 am
 
Hi,

The "fuel" of the sun is not contained within the sun. The sun is not
like a candle that slowly burns its wax. In the fusion model the sun
is like a candle that burns slowly its hydrogen. The sun does not
contain any fuel with in it. In this way the sun is more like a
toaster. A toaster does not hold fuel it get its energy from the
outside when it is connected to the electricity by wire and this
energy is coming from a generator somewhere. The sun is also like
getting its fuel from the outside. The way that electricity is
delivered to the sun is by the solar cycle. The solar cycle provide
sinusoidal changing magnetic field the sun. The sun is not powered by
static magnetic fields like you suggested in your calculation, but by
changing magnetic fields. You can calculate the energy the sun absorbs
from the magnetic fields from faraday's law. Faraday's law say that a
changing magnetic field induces a voltage in a coil and this voltage
can supply current and heat. In the context of Faraday's law the
changing magnetic fields are the solar cycle that changes the magnetic
polarity of the sun every 11 years. The coil is the sun itself, it is
made of plasma and conduct electricity very well. This way, the solar
cycle induces electric currents in the sun that heat the sun.

The field energy is not important. Electric transformers can supply
energy to whole cities. If you calculate the field energy in their
iron cores it is minuscule compared to what they transfer.

You can see the energy calculation according to Faraday's law here:
http://www.philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=208


Regards,
Dan Bar-Zohar



On Nov 11, 4:59 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneil... at (no spam) MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
[quote]Dan BarZohar wrote:
On Nov 11, 2:33 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneil... at (no spam) MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
dan at (no spam) at (no spam) pixelphase.com 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.

[snip]

Hardly a "new theory", is it? You tried flogging this same
load of drivel as far back as 2007, when it died an ignominious
death due to insurmountable problems with the physics (namely
it contradicts both observation and theory on so many levels
that it should rightly be classed as 'not even wrong').

The corpse of this dead theory does not get prettier nor more
fragrant with time.

Also, if you _must_ share your scratchings, is there some
reason that you multiposted your missive across several
science groups rather than cross posting it? Not good
netiquette.

The Solar nebula hyposesis condradict many observations. For instance,
The angular momentum problem - where did the angular momentum of the
nebula vanished? How chondrules formed - it is hard to explain their
present in most meteorites. And the most important problem - How did
the short lived isotopes get to meteorites. My theory explain those
issues while the solar nebula hypothesis cannot.
You say : "it contradicts both observation and theory on so many
levels". This theory does not condratict any observation I checked it
for years.

Issues with current theoretical models do not make an
argument for another unworkable theory.

Trivial counter argument:  Calculate the energy density of your
magnetic field of a few nanoTeslas, then the total energy
available for a volume the size of the Sun.  Compare with the
measured luminosity of the Sun amd draw the obvious conclusions.

Field strength:         B = 10^-9 T   (your estimate)

Luminosity of Sun:      3.826x10^33 erg/sec = 3.826 x 10^26 J/sec

Permeability constant:  u0 = 4*pi*10^-7 N/Amp^2

Energy density:         rho = (1/2)*B^2/u0 = 4 x 10^-13 J/m^3

Sun's radius:           r = 6.955 x 10^8 m

Sun's volume:           V = (4/3)*pi*r^3 = 1.41 x 10^27 m^3

Field Energy over total Sun volume:  E = rho*v = 5.6 x 10^14 J

So, your 'Galactic magnetic field' represents on the order
of 10^14 Joules over the entire volume of the Sun.  The sun
puts out on the order of 10^26 joules of energy *per second*.

If the Sun could magically transform all the energy of the
magnetic field within it to luminosity it would have to pass
through a volume of space equivalent to L/E = 7 x 10^11
volumes of the Sun per second.  The Sun sweeps out an volume
of space equal to its cross sectional area multiplied by its
velocity through space.

This would make the Sun's velocity through the magnetic field
of the Galaxy V/(pi*r^2*sec) = 9.27 x 10^5 km/sec.

The observed velocity of the Sun through the Galaxy is about
220 km/sec.  So the required velocity your 'theory' would
propose is actually greater than the escape velocity of the
Sun from the Galaxy by several orders of magnitude.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -[/quote]
 
Saul Levy...
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:10 am
 
Another one of our USUAL LOONEY TUNE MORONS!

IGNORE HIM!

Saul Levy


On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:49:57 +0200, dan at (no spam) at (no spam) pixelphase.com wrote:

[quote]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_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[/quote]
 
Androcles...
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:15 am
 
<dan at (no spam) at (no spam) pixelphase.com> wrote in message
news:5gind6ptg11qmg5a307jruemosptfufnlg at (no spam) 4ax.com...
| Hi,
'Bye.
 
Greg Neill...
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:33 am
 
dan at (no spam) at (no spam) pixelphase.com wrote:
[quote]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.
[/quote]
[snip]

Hardly a "new theory", is it? You tried flogging this same
load of drivel as far back as 2007, when it died an ignominious
death due to insurmountable problems with the physics (namely
it contradicts both observation and theory on so many levels
that it should rightly be classed as 'not even wrong').

The corpse of this dead theory does not get prettier nor more
fragrant with time.

Also, if you _must_ share your scratchings, is there some
reason that you multiposted your missive across several
science groups rather than cross posting it? Not good
netiquette.
 
Quadibloc...
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:12 am
 
On Nov 11, 5:33 am, "Greg Neill" <gneil... at (no spam) MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote:

[quote]Also, if you _must_ share your scratchings, is there some
reason that you multiposted your missive across several
science groups rather than cross posting it?  Not good
netiquette.
[/quote]
Odd, though; if you're complaining about that, why did you _add_ at
least one newsgroup (sci.astro.amateur) when you replied?

John Savard
 
Brad Guth...
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:19 am
 
On Nov 11, 11:12 am, Quadibloc <jsav... at (no spam) ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 11, 5:33 am, "Greg Neill" <gneil... at (no spam) MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote:

Also, if you _must_ share your scratchings, is there some
reason that you multiposted your missive across several
science groups rather than cross posting it?  Not good
netiquette.

Odd, though; if you're complaining about that, why did you _add_ at
least one newsgroup (sci.astro.amateur) when you replied?

John Savard
[/quote]
Most here are like dysfunctional parrots, as perpetual hypocrites and
otherwise in naysay/denial of their ever being in denial.

~ BG
 
Greg Neill...
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:59 am
 
Dan BarZohar wrote:
[quote]On Nov 11, 2:33 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneil... at (no spam) MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
dan at (no spam) at (no spam) pixelphase.com 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.

[snip]

Hardly a "new theory", is it? You tried flogging this same
load of drivel as far back as 2007, when it died an ignominious
death due to insurmountable problems with the physics (namely
it contradicts both observation and theory on so many levels
that it should rightly be classed as 'not even wrong').

The corpse of this dead theory does not get prettier nor more
fragrant with time.

Also, if you _must_ share your scratchings, is there some
reason that you multiposted your missive across several
science groups rather than cross posting it? Not good
netiquette.

The Solar nebula hyposesis condradict many observations. For instance,
The angular momentum problem - where did the angular momentum of the
nebula vanished? How chondrules formed - it is hard to explain their
present in most meteorites. And the most important problem - How did
the short lived isotopes get to meteorites. My theory explain those
issues while the solar nebula hypothesis cannot.
You say : "it contradicts both observation and theory on so many
levels". This theory does not condratict any observation I checked it
for years.
[/quote]
Issues with current theoretical models do not make an
argument for another unworkable theory.

Trivial counter argument: Calculate the energy density of your
magnetic field of a few nanoTeslas, then the total energy
available for a volume the size of the Sun. Compare with the
measured luminosity of the Sun amd draw the obvious conclusions.

Field strength: B = 10^-9 T (your estimate)

Luminosity of Sun: 3.826x10^33 erg/sec = 3.826 x 10^26 J/sec

Permeability constant: u0 = 4*pi*10^-7 N/Amp^2

Energy density: rho = (1/2)*B^2/u0 = 4 x 10^-13 J/m^3

Sun's radius: r = 6.955 x 10^8 m

Sun's volume: V = (4/3)*pi*r^3 = 1.41 x 10^27 m^3

Field Energy over total Sun volume: E = rho*v = 5.6 x 10^14 J

So, your 'Galactic magnetic field' represents on the order
of 10^14 Joules over the entire volume of the Sun. The sun
puts out on the order of 10^26 joules of energy *per second*.

If the Sun could magically transform all the energy of the
magnetic field within it to luminosity it would have to pass
through a volume of space equivalent to L/E = 7 x 10^11
volumes of the Sun per second. The Sun sweeps out an volume
of space equal to its cross sectional area multiplied by its
velocity through space.

This would make the Sun's velocity through the magnetic field
of the Galaxy V/(pi*r^2*sec) = 9.27 x 10^5 km/sec.

The observed velocity of the Sun through the Galaxy is about
220 km/sec. So the required velocity your 'theory' would
propose is actually greater than the escape velocity of the
Sun from the Galaxy by several orders of magnitude.
 
Saul Levy...
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 10:56 am
 
All you contradict is SANITY! You have NEVER MADE ANY RATIONAL SENSE!

FUCK OFF, FOOL! You are an IDIOT!

You need a RUBBER ROOM!

Saul Levy


On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 04:52:02 -0800 (PST), Dan BarZohar
<dan at (no spam) pixelphase.com> wrote:

[quote]On Nov 11, 2:33 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneil... at (no spam) MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
dan at (no spam) at (no spam) pixelphase.com 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.

[snip]

Hardly a "new theory", is it?  You tried flogging this same
load of drivel as far back as 2007, when it died an ignominious
death due to insurmountable problems with the physics (namely
it contradicts both observation and theory on so many levels
that it should rightly be classed as 'not even wrong').

The corpse of this dead theory does not get prettier nor more
fragrant with time.

Also, if you _must_ share your scratchings, is there some
reason that you multiposted your missive across several
science groups rather than cross posting it?  Not good
netiquette.

The Solar nebula hyposesis condradict many observations. For instance,
The angular momentum problem - where did the angular momentum of the
nebula vanished? How chondrules formed - it is hard to explain their
present in most meteorites. And the most important problem - How did
the short lived isotopes get to meteorites. My theory explain those
issues while the solar nebula hypothesis cannot.
You say : "it contradicts both observation and theory on so many
levels". This theory does not condratict any observation I checked it
for years.

Regards,
Dan Bar-Zohar[/quote]
 
Dan BarZohar...
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 11:06 am
 
"And yet hydrogen under conditions like at the Sun's
center fuses. This is a fact (or do you think that
hydrogen bombs are fictitious)?"

Yes the sun fuse atoms. All the Helium in the stars is from fusion.
The stars fuse all the elements not just the atoms ligher than iron.
The planets are from the solar wind of the red giant sun so all the
atoms found on earth fused inside the sun. We are sun stuff.

"Calculate the energy provided by a nT magnetic field
changing over the volume of the Sun. The result will
be the same as before. The 'static' (as you called it)
calculation assumed that all the energy available in the
given volume was converted to luminosity. This is
equivalent to saying that the field goes from nT to zero
and back again each time the Sun moves into a new volume
of space."

This scenario where the sun is moving in a magnetic field that produce
heat is incorrect. If this was correct then the kinetic energy of the
sun would be converted to heat and after some time the sun would stop.
There is no energy source found in this scenario.

"I should point out that there's no evidence of a local
galactic field changing at the required rate to 'refill'
the Sun's volume as it moves at 200 km/sec."
The changing magnetic field is the solar cycle. The solar cycle
changes the magnetic polarity of the sun every 11 years. The magnetic
field of the solar cycle is open. It is not like a bar magnet that the
field line start in one poll and close on the other poll. The magnetic
fields of the solar cycle spread to great distances and their origin
is the galactic disk. All stars have stellar cycle. The stellar cycles
are the result of magnetic eddies in the galactic disk. The magnetic
eddies are produced by the supermassive black hole at the center of
the galaxy.
Transformers have laminated iron cores. It is laminated because in
solid iron core eddies will develop and heat the core. Similar
magnetic eddies spread in the galactic disk.
"Since when is the Sun a coil? It's a ball of plasma
that would end up seriously oblate at the charges
moved in such a field."
There are observation of plasma rivers like Jupiter rings. Those
plasma rivers are created by the flow of charges. Why would it oblate?
"Are you suggesting that the energy from the primary
gets to the secondary without traversing the intervening
space? The purpose of the transformer coil is to
concentrate the magentic field lines so the field
isn't 'diluted' over a much larger volume. Ideally the
field would be contained almost entirely within the
volume of the transformer itself, thus maximizing the
field energy density available to the secondary."
The primary create changing magnetic fields, the iron core conduct and
concentrate changing magnetic flux and the secondary is producing
voltage by Faraday's law. The volume of the iron core is very small so
the field energy is also very small compared to the energy transferred
from the primary to the secondary.
Dan Bar-Zohar



On Nov 11, 7:46 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneil... at (no spam) MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
[quote]Dan BarZohar wrote:
Hi,

The "fuel" of the sun is not contained within the sun. The sun is not
like a candle that slowly burns its wax. In the fusion model the sun
is like a candle that burns slowly its hydrogen. The sun does not
contain any fuel with in it.

And yet hydrogen under conditions like at the Sun's
center fuses.  This is a fact (or do you think that
hydrogen bombs are fictitious)?

In this way the sun is more like a
toaster. A toaster does not hold fuel it get its energy from the
outside when it is connected to the electricity by wire and this
energy is coming from a generator somewhere. The sun is also like
getting its fuel from the outside. The way that electricity is
delivered to the sun is by the solar cycle. The solar cycle provide
sinusoidal changing magnetic field the sun. The sun is not powered by
static magnetic fields like you suggested in your calculation, but by
changing magnetic fields.

Calculate the energy provided by a nT magnetic field
changing over the volume of the Sun.  The result will
be the same as before.  The 'static' (as you called it)
calculation assumed that all the energy available in the
given volume was converted to luminosity.  This is
equivalent to saying that the field goes from nT to zero
and back again each time the Sun moves into a new volume
of space.

I should point out that there's no evidence of a local
galactic field changing at the required rate to 'refill'
the Sun's volume as it moves at 200 km/sec.

You can calculate the energy the sun absorbs
from the magnetic fields from faraday's law. Faraday's law say that a
changing magnetic field induces a voltage in a coil and this voltage
can supply current and heat.

Since when is the Sun a coil?  It's a ball of plasma
that would end up seriously oblate at the charges
moved in such a field.

In the context of Faraday's law the
changing magnetic fields are the solar cycle that changes the magnetic
polarity of the sun every 11 years. The coil is the sun itself, it is
made of plasma and conduct electricity very well. This way, the solar
cycle induces electric currents in the sun that heat the sun.

The field energy is not important. Electric transformers can supply
energy to whole cities. If you calculate the field energy in their
iron cores it is minuscule compared to what they transfer.

Are you suggesting that the energy from the primary
gets to the secondary without traversing the intervening
space?  The purpose of the transformer coil is to
concentrate the magentic field lines so the field
isn't 'diluted' over a much larger volume.  Ideally the
field would be contained almost entirely within the
volume of the transformer itself, thus maximizing the
field energy density available to the secondary.





You can see the energy calculation according to Faraday's law here:
http://www.philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=208- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -[/quote]
 
Zanthius...
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:22 pm
 
On Nov 11, 5:04 pm, Dan BarZohar <d... at (no spam) pixelphase.com> wrote:
[quote]The sun is not powered by
static magnetic fields like you suggested in your calculation, but by
changing magnetic fields.
[/quote]
If it is the case that the black hole in the center of the galaxy is
powering the stars in this galaxy by a changing magnetic field,
shouldn't it be possible to detect this field in the interstellar
medium?
 
Brad Guth...
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:43 pm
 
On Nov 11, 2:22 pm, Zanthius <zanthius.d... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 11, 5:04 pm, Dan BarZohar <d... at (no spam) pixelphase.com> wrote:

The sun is not powered by
static magnetic fields like you suggested in your calculation, but by
changing magnetic fields.

If it is the case that the black hole in the center of the galaxy is
powering the stars in this galaxy by a changing magnetic field,
shouldn't it be possible to detect this field in the interstellar
medium?
[/quote]
Zero Hz is hard to detect, as is Planck Hz.

~ BG
 
Greg Neill...
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:46 pm
 
Dan BarZohar wrote:
[quote]Hi,

The "fuel" of the sun is not contained within the sun. The sun is not
like a candle that slowly burns its wax. In the fusion model the sun
is like a candle that burns slowly its hydrogen. The sun does not
contain any fuel with in it.
[/quote]
And yet hydrogen under conditions like at the Sun's
center fuses. This is a fact (or do you think that
hydrogen bombs are fictitious)?

[quote]In this way the sun is more like a
toaster. A toaster does not hold fuel it get its energy from the
outside when it is connected to the electricity by wire and this
energy is coming from a generator somewhere. The sun is also like
getting its fuel from the outside. The way that electricity is
delivered to the sun is by the solar cycle. The solar cycle provide
sinusoidal changing magnetic field the sun. The sun is not powered by
static magnetic fields like you suggested in your calculation, but by
changing magnetic fields.
[/quote]
Calculate the energy provided by a nT magnetic field
changing over the volume of the Sun. The result will
be the same as before. The 'static' (as you called it)
calculation assumed that all the energy available in the
given volume was converted to luminosity. This is
equivalent to saying that the field goes from nT to zero
and back again each time the Sun moves into a new volume
of space.

I should point out that there's no evidence of a local
galactic field changing at the required rate to 'refill'
the Sun's volume as it moves at 200 km/sec.

[quote]You can calculate the energy the sun absorbs
from the magnetic fields from faraday's law. Faraday's law say that a
changing magnetic field induces a voltage in a coil and this voltage
can supply current and heat.
[/quote]
Since when is the Sun a coil? It's a ball of plasma
that would end up seriously oblate at the charges
moved in such a field.

[quote]In the context of Faraday's law the
changing magnetic fields are the solar cycle that changes the magnetic
polarity of the sun every 11 years. The coil is the sun itself, it is
made of plasma and conduct electricity very well. This way, the solar
cycle induces electric currents in the sun that heat the sun.

The field energy is not important. Electric transformers can supply
energy to whole cities. If you calculate the field energy in their
iron cores it is minuscule compared to what they transfer.
[/quote]
Are you suggesting that the energy from the primary
gets to the secondary without traversing the intervening
space? The purpose of the transformer coil is to
concentrate the magentic field lines so the field
isn't 'diluted' over a much larger volume. Ideally the
field would be contained almost entirely within the
volume of the transformer itself, thus maximizing the
field energy density available to the secondary.

[quote]
You can see the energy calculation according to Faraday's law here:
http://www.philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=208[/quote]
 
Greg Neill...
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:28 pm
 
Quadibloc wrote:
[quote]On Nov 11, 5:33 am, "Greg Neill" <gneil... at (no spam) MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote:

Also, if you _must_ share your scratchings, is there some
reason that you multiposted your missive across several
science groups rather than cross posting it? Not good
netiquette.

Odd, though; if you're complaining about that, why did you _add_ at
least one newsgroup (sci.astro.amateur) when you replied?

John Savard
[/quote]
My bad. I ammended the Newsgroups line from memory; it must
have been my imagination that I saw his post there, too.

Feel free to remove sci.astro.amateur from future replies.
 
 
Page 1 of 8    Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Apr 24, 2014 7:05 am