The sun energy source is not nuclear fusion, but magnetic fields from the center of the Galaxy. The sun converts energy to mass and not mass to energy.
d...@pixelphase.com
To read more download the document here:
http://www.pixelphase.com/sun/sun.pdf
http://www.tikunim.co.il/sun/sun.pdf
Its title is:
The sun energy source is not nuclear fusion, but magnetic fields from
the center of the Galaxy. The sun converts energy to mass and not mass
to energy.
Abstract:
The sun energy source thought to be a nuclear fusion reactor inside
the sun core. The sun is not heated by fusion reaction but by magnetic
fields coming from the galactic center. The nuclear fusion is a by
product of the magnetic fields heating. The changing magnetic fields
from the galactic center induce electric currents inside the sun that
heat the sun. The heat and the high kinetic energy of particles in the
sun core, trigger high energy collisions that create the main
constituents of matter, electron, proton and neutron. The collisions
also fuse or nucleosynthesis heavier elements like deuterium, tritium,
helium and lithium. This leads to the fact that the stars and galaxies
constantly produce mass and energy. The article will explain the
clockworks behinds the galaxies energy production. The galaxy energy
and mass production cancel out the Big Bang theory and leads to a
steady state cosmological model with large amount of new mass created
that expand and accelerate the universe.
Sam Wormley
Your theory is contradicted by direct evidence for the pp-chain nuclear
reactions going on in the core of the Sun (Marty).
The original gravitational collapse heated the gas... kinetic energy
was great enough for nuclear fusion (pp-chain) to begin and sustain
itself.
See: http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter17/17f02.html
The Sun's primary energy source is the p-p chain whereby helium is
fused from hydrogen in the core of our sun. Density, pressure and
temperature profiles, solar neutrino (anti neutrino) energies and total
radiated energy confirm the standard solar model.
Density, pressure an temperature profiles are measured by analysis
of the Sun's vibration modes, rates, etc.
The [once] Solar Neutrino Problem Has Been Closed
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/586-1.html
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News
Number 617 December 13, 2002 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein, and James
Riordon
PHYSICS STORIES OF 2002. The top two physics stories for the past 12
months were the total accounting of neutrinos from the sun by the Sudbury
Neutrino Observatory (SNO), thus solving the solar neutrino problem (Update
586; www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/586-1.html); and the formation
and detection of antihydrogen atoms at CERN (Updates 605 and 611,
www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/605-1.html and
www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/611-1.html). Other notable physics
developments for the year include stopping and storing light in a solid
(Update 571), the observation of phase-transition behavior in nuclei (572),
publication of some unsent letters by Niels Bohr to Werner Heisenberg (576),
interferometry with C-70 molecules (579), a dispute over "fusion" in
sonoluminescence (579, 599), most precise tests of special relativity (571,
590), sharper maps of the cosmic microwave background (591), "droplet" of
light (596), claims for element 118 retracted (597), verification of the
notion that the second law of thermodynamics can be violated on small
spacetime intervals (598), high precision measurements of CP violation in B
meson decays and in the g-2 factor of the muon (600), scandal at Lucent
(606), record high laboratory magnetic fields (614), polarization in the
cosmic microwave background detected (606), 2002 Nobel prize for physics
(608), noise can improve balance (612), and longest measured atomic lifetime
(616). All the above Update items can be retrieved from our archive at
www.aip.org/physnews/update.
REACTOR ANTI-NEUTRINO DISAPPEARANCE, measured by a detector in Japan,
supports the idea that neutrinos oscillate from one type to another and that
they possess mass. Nuclear reactors produce several things: heat,
electricity, spent fuel rods, and neutrinos. The neutrinos (or, to be more
exact, electron anti-neutrinos) are a result of fission reactions inside the
reactor core. But some of the electron antineutrinos, once they're underway
and moving through the Earth, manifest one of the weirdest phenomena in all
of physics, namely the ability to exist as a composite of several
sub-species. That is, what we call a neutrino is really several (perhaps
three) neutrinos in one. At any point along its trajectory the generic
neutrino might (if you were to capture it just then) appear as an electron
neutrino, but farther along it might look like a muon neutrino, in which
case it would elude detectors tuned to detect only electron nu's.
The Kamioka Liquid Scintillator Anti-Neutrino Detector (KamLAND) sets out
to sample this odd mode of being. The apparatus, basically a huge reservoir
of optically-active liquid viewed by numerous phototubes, looks for
interactions in which an incoming nu strikes a proton, creating in their
stead a trackable neutron-positron pair. KamLAND resides in an underground
lab beneath Toyama, Japan. It is a sort of telescope peering not at
galaxies in the sky; instead it stares through a block of terrestrial crust
looking for the neutrino warmth cast off by a constellation of 69 reactors
in Japan and Korea.
Taking into account the laws of physics governing the reactions in the
reactor cores, the known power ratings for the reactors, their aggregate
reactor-detector distances, and the duration of the experiment (145 days),
one would expect seeing 86 true events, whereas the actual number was 54.
The researchers conclude that the disappearance of events is due to neutrino
oscillation.
This result is not merely a confirmation of oscillation research carried
out with solar nu's at such detectors as Super Kamiokande in Japan and the
Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) in Canada (see Update 586,
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/586-1.html). For one thing
KamLAND studies anti-neutrinos rather than neutrinos. Furthermore, the
production of neutrinos in a reactor is much closer at hand and better
understood than is the case for the sun. The KamLAND finding also serves to
narrow the theoretical explanation of the neutrino's split personality.
(Eguchi et al., paper submitted to Physical Review Letters, text and
background information at:
http://hep.stanford.edu/neutrino/KamLAND/KamLAND.html)
The "solar neutrino problem" was solve a few years ago:
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/586-1.html
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/608-1.html
Note these papers by John N. Bahcall, Sarbani Basu, M. H. Pinsonneault:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9805135
http://pdg.lbl.gov/1998/solarnu_s005313.pdf
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/beamline/24/3/24-3-bahcall.pdf
Also read:
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/Papers/Popular/JohnRayhistory/johnrayhistory.html
http://www.fynu.ucl.ac.be/librairie/theses/gustaaf.brooijmans/node26.html
http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/kirsten/gallex/detector.htm
Neutrino producing reactions adapted [by Lang]
from Bahcall (1989). The termination percentage is a fraction of terminations
of the proton-proton (pp) chain, 4p --> alpha + 2e+ + 2v_e, in which each
reaction occurs. Since in essentially all terminations at least one pp neutrino
is produced and in a few terminations one pp and one pep neutrino are created,
the total of pp and pep terminations exceeds 100%
Name Reaction % Termination Neutrino Energy, q
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pp p + p --> H² + e+ + v_e 100 q < 0.420 MeV
pep p + e- + p --> H² + v_e 0.4 q = 1.442 MeV
hep He³ + p --> He4 + v_e 0.00002 q < 18.773 MeV
Be7 Be7 + e- --> Li7 + v_e 15 q = 0.862 MeV 89.7%
q = 0.384 MeV 10.3%
B8 B8 --> Be7 + e+ + v_e 0.02 q < 15 MeV
Calculated Solar neutrino fluxes at the Earth's Surface
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pp 6.0 x 10^10 cm^-2 s^-1
pep 0.014 x 10^10 cm^-2 s^-1
hep 8 x 10^3 cm^-2 s^-1
Be7 0.47 x 10^10 cm^-2 s^-1
B8 5.8 x 10^6 cm^-2 s^-1
Other relevant papers by John N. Bahcall, Sarbani Basu, M. H. Pinsonneault:
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9805135
http://pdg.lbl.gov/1998/solarnu_s005313.pdf
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/beamline/24/3/24-3-bahcall.pdf
And here is something fun you can do:
http://www.physics.mun.ca/~jjerrett/protonproton/pp.html
More fun references:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/solarpp.html
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/8/0,5716,63188+1+61627,00.html
> http://www.eps.org/aps/meet/APR00/baps/abs/S5690002.html
d...@pixelphase.com
wrote:
Thus theory does not contradict the density, pressure and temperature
of the sun. It also does not contradict the observed amount of solar
neutrinos. The neutrinos are created in two separate processes. The
first is the fusion and the second is the transformation of energy to
mass. For instance when high speed electrons and positron collide in
the sun, or in a collider, heavier particles is created accompanied by
a neutrino.
This is also written in the document:
Neutrino emission from the sun
For three decades there was a neutrino paradox related to the sun. The
sun emitted only third of the neutrinos that where expected from the
standard solar model based on the sun fusion. However the paradox was
solved lately by experiments done at SNO neutrino detector. The
neutrinos once believed to be massless like photons but know are known
that the neutrinos have mass. The existence of mass of the neutrino is
based on the fact that when neutrinos pass in space there are
oscillations between the three flavors of the neutrinos. The SNO
neutrino detector confirmed that and settled the long neutrino
paradox. Assuming that the SNO findings are correct and there is no
contamination that influenced the data, there is seemingly a conflict
between the theory presented here and the SNO findings. If the sun is
heated by the galactic center magnetic fields and the fusion is only a
by product and limited in scope, then the neutrino emission supposes
to be much smaller then in the full scale fusion of the standard solar
model. The solution to this conflict is that the nucleosynthesis of
the building blocks of matter electron, proton and neutron emits
neutrinos.
For instance you can see the emission of neutrino in the collision of
electron and positron that creates a quark:
e+e- > W+W- > q qbar uv
The collision creates quark pair, muon and neutrino.
The emission of neutrinos from the sun is the sum of the neutrinos
from the small scale fusion reaction, and mainly from creation of new
particles and mass.
Ho Ho Ho
d...@pixelphase.com wrote:
> To read more download the document here:
> http://www.pixelphase.com/sun/sun.pdf
> http://www.tikunim.co.il/sun/sun.pdf
>
>
>
> Its title is:
> The sun energy source is not nuclear fusion, but magnetic fields from
> the center of the Galaxy. The sun converts energy to mass and not mass
> to energy.
>
> Abstract:
> The sun energy source thought to be a nuclear fusion reactor inside
> the sun core. The sun is not heated by fusion reaction but by magnetic
> fields coming from the galactic center. The nuclear fusion is a by
> product of the magnetic fields heating. The changing magnetic fields
> from the galactic center induce electric currents inside the sun that
> heat the sun.
Have you ever measured the galactic core's magnetic field at the
Sun's position, to be generating an energy>mass transform, ... or
even be heating a weiner for that matter!
The next time you go to MacDonalds dont think of it as you eating
a hamburger, rather it eating (even creating!), you. What else do
the Golden Arches mean?
The one thing your theory does invoke, however, is the thinking
patterns of small children. They see ice and fire on a rocket on
television and assume: "ice makes fire", and the reverse !
Think about it.
d...@pixelphase.com
wrote:
You dont need magetic fields for magnetic induction heating. It can be
demonstrated with simple experiment. You can read this in the document
near the integral.
Stuart Chapman
What a great theory! Why hadn't I thought of that before?
Stupot
Greg Neill
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 01:34:42 -0600, Ho Ho Ho <par...@yahoo.org>
> wrote:
>
> You dont need magetic fields for magnetic induction heating. It can be
> demonstrated with simple experiment. You can read this in the document
> near the integral.
Okay, you're right off the deep end and into the
region of "what color is the sky in your world?"
With such a flimsy grasp of physics and technology,
how can you hope to generate your own consistent
and viable theories?
Sam Wormley
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 06:07:10 GMT, Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com>
> wrote:
>
> Thus theory does not contradict the density, pressure and temperature
> of the sun. It also does not contradict the observed amount of solar
> neutrinos. The neutrinos are created in two separate processes. The
> first is the fusion and the second is the transformation of energy to
> mass.
And the neutrino energies in "transformation of energy to mass"
just happen to be 0.420 MeV, right!
My tilt meter is quivering before I even get it unboxed!
Chris L Peterson
<ten.no.e...@nampahc.trauts> wrote:
>What a great theory! Why hadn't I thought of that before?
Because you were crippled by a properly functioning brain and a good
education?
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
Eugene Griessel
>On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 19:53:32 +1100, Stuart Chapman
><ten.no.e...@nampahc.trauts> wrote:
>
>>What a great theory! Why hadn't I thought of that before?
>
>Because you were crippled by a properly functioning brain and a good
>education?
>
Seems he lacks a healthy dose of gullibility as well. A totally
dysfunctional dupe in other words.
Eugene L Griessel
...Every morning is the dawn of a new error...
KLM
Stuart Chapman wrote:
Spoof understood!
KLM
Greg Neill wrote:
Same as on FOX News! You say it, sort of, so it must exist -
somewhere?
d...@pixelphase.com
Griessel) wrote:
The solar cycle is a striking evidence for this theory. Every 11 years
the sun is changing the direction of its dipole magnetic field. The
current solar model assume incorrectly that the change of the magnetic
fields is coming from inside the sun, but it is not, it is coming from
the galactic center and it supply energy that heat the sun.
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 19:53:32 +1100, Stuart Chapman
> <ten.no.e...@nampahc.trauts> wrote:
>
> >What a great theory! Why hadn't I thought of that before?
>
> Because you were crippled by a properly functioning brain and a good
> education?
That is entirely likely. But there's another reason that one must
wonder if it's a "great theory". What does it really change?
Now, if the poster had proposed a more *radical* theory - the one from
James Churchward, repeated by George Adamski, that the planets aren't
warmed by electromagnetic radiation from the Sun, which follows an
inverse-square law, but by other emanations which have to react with
our atmosphere to produce heat... then all the planets could have about
the same temperature.
In this way, wise space aliens could live comfortably on Venus - and on
Neptune - who basically look exactly like humans.
If one is going to overturn all of established scientific knowledge,
one might as well *get* something out of it!
John Savard
Greg Neill
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:32:18 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene
> Griessel) wrote:
>
> The solar cycle is a striking evidence for this theory. Every 11 years
> the sun is changing the direction of its dipole magnetic field. The
> current solar model assume incorrectly that the change of the magnetic
> fields is coming from inside the sun, but it is not, it is coming from
> the galactic center and it supply energy that heat the sun.
Balderdash. Where are your figures for the energy density
of the ambient galactic magnetic field at the Sun's location
in the galaxy?
If the field were strong enough to provide enough energy
to account for the Sun's energy output, it would slam
together every bit of ferrous metal in the solar system;
there'd be no solar system.
Take a physics course.
d...@pixelphase.com
The sun is huge so only small magnetic fields produce a lot of energy.
The sun is thermally insulated because the space doesnt conduct heat.
The sun also has conductivity higher then copper.
What we get from this theory:
1. The Big Bang will be replaced by a steady state theory.
2. No need for dark energy and dark matter.
3. We understand where all the matter in the universe came from.
4. We understand how the galaxies are created (spawned by other
galaxies).
5. We understand why the universe is accelerating
6. We can better evaluate the fusion research on earth
Starlord
from the Supermassive Black Hole that's in the center of our galaxy.
Now you can find company with the other kooks down in the Super Massive
Cyber Black Hole.
--
There are those who believe that life here, began out there, far across the
universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the forefathers of the
Egyptians, or the Toltechs, or the Mayans. Some believe that they may yet be
brothers of man, who even now fight to survive, somewhere beyond the
heavens.
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html
<d...@pixelphase.com>Barfed on Everyones Screen:
Chris L Peterson
>What we get from this theory:
>1. The Big Bang will be replaced by a steady state theory.
>2. No need for dark energy and dark matter.
>3. We understand where all the matter in the universe came from.
>4. We understand how the galaxies are created (spawned by other
>galaxies).
>5. We understand why the universe is accelerating
>6. We can better evaluate the fusion research on earth
A few of these are contrary to simple observation. Others are very
nicely explained by current theory.
A new theory has to provide better explanations for observation than the
old theory (yours doesn't seem to). It wouldn't hurt if you could also
point out specific deficiencies in current theory (which you haven't).
Greg Neill
> On 15 Dec 2006 05:47:24 -0800, jsa...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
>
> The sun is huge so only small magnetic fields produce a lot of energy.
Show how this is possibble mathematically.
> The sun is thermally insulated because the space doesnt conduct heat.
Heat also radiates. Also, the solar wind is a form of
convection that transports heat from the Sun.
> The sun also has conductivity higher then copper.
References please.
>
> What we get from this theory:
> 1. The Big Bang will be replaced by a steady state theory.
> 2. No need for dark energy and dark matter.
> 3. We understand where all the matter in the universe came from.
> 4. We understand how the galaxies are created (spawned by other
> galaxies).
> 5. We understand why the universe is accelerating
> 6. We can better evaluate the fusion research on earth
Show all of the above mathematically.
In science, if you have something to say you write an
equation.
William Foley
<d...@pixelphase.com> wrote in message
news:t2q1o2dadefb9la26...@4ax.com...
Greg Crinklaw
> A few of these are contrary to simple observation. Others are very
> nicely explained by current theory.
>
> A new theory has to provide better explanations for observation than the
> old theory (yours doesn't seem to). It wouldn't hurt if you could also
> point out specific deficiencies in current theory (which you haven't).
FYI: This is the "plasma physics" pseudoscience that I tried to warn you
about before... still haven't thanked me yet. :-) I tried to warn you
it was going around again...
You all should just ignore this guy. In most cases you aren't dealing
with someone who created or even understands the "theory" but a
"convert", usually a wanna-be scientist, who has an ax to grind with the
"establishment" (meaning he failed his undergrad physics course). These
people stumble upon a web site or "paper" and suddenly "see the light"
with regard to how all of modern physics is totally wrong, which is
really about explaining away their own academic failures. Arguing with
these people is rather pointless. A simple statement to the effect that
their theory is not based in reality should suffice.
Greg
--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
To reply take out your eye
d...@pixelphase.com
<theskyhou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Greg:
I put this theory in the news group to find if someone can bring a
conclusive observational proof that this theory is incorrect.
Two possible contradicting claims where that the neutrino flux is in
disagreement and that the magnetic fields are not strong enough.
I answer those claims and I don't think they contradict the theory.
Chris L Peterson
>I put this theory in the news group to find if someone can bring a
>conclusive observational proof that this theory is incorrect.
>Two possible contradicting claims where that the neutrino flux is in
>disagreement and that the magnetic fields are not strong enough.
>I answer those claims and I don't think they contradict the theory.
It isn't the responsibility of the rest of the world to spend their time
shooting holes in your theory (although to some extent it seems that has
been done). Rather, it is _your_ job to explain what holes in the
present, commonly accepted theories exist, and how these are filled by
your theory.
I point this out for the benefit of lurkers here who may not fully
understand how science works, not particularly for you (since it has
been demonstrated in the past that you are not interested in operating
scientifically).
Greg Crinklaw
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 07:43:46 -0700, Greg Crinklaw
> <theskyhou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Greg:
>
> I put this theory in the news group to find if someone can bring a
> conclusive observational proof that this theory is incorrect. Two
> possible contradicting claims where that the neutrino flux is in
> disagreement and that the magnetic fields are not strong enough. I
> answer those claims and I don't think they contradict the theory.
Climbing on to my soapbox now (because I have nothing better to do at
the moment).
"Prove me wrong." That's classic pseudoscience methodology. Yes, cling
to your irrational theory until someone proves it wrong--but they never
will, because you will simply ignore everything they say that does not
fit your irrational belief. We've seen it all before you see. The
pattern is quite obvious.
I'll let you in on a little secret. Lean close to the keyboard.
(whispering) It's not really about the theory, it's about the method.
Truly. The term "scientific method" is oft repeated but little
understood, particularly by people like yourself. You see, the problem
is that people are idiots. All of us: idiots. The only hope we have is
science, which understands above all that one thing: that we are idiots,
and collectively takes the steps necessary for idiots (all astoundingly
prone to delusion) to understand the world around them objectively.
You sir, will probably never understand how profound what I just said
is. I'm sure it is a complete non-sequitor to you. You are now likely
thinking, "what is he blathering on about?" or "he's ignoring the real
question!", etc. And that is the difference in a nutshell: between you
and me, between the gullible and the knowledgeable, between astrology
and astronomy, between the irrational and the rational; the difference
is simply the understanding that we are all basically irrational idiots.
And you don't get that. Like an alcoholic, the first step to rational
thought is to admit you have a problem. For by not realizing that you
too are an idiot, you open your mind to delusion... like this "theory"
of yours.
Humility is the greatest virtue, and although science appears arrogant
on the surface, it is in fact the built in humility that makes it so
successful. And no-one can argue with the success of science. It is
the most successful idea ever conceived by man. All one has to do is
look around at the modern world to see that. No--the arrogant one is
the supremely irrational human being who will never comprehend or
recognize the vast capability for delusion of his/her own irrational
mind.
The truly funny thing is that you likely think you have the real answer
and the rest of us don't get it! Who's the joke really on eh? Well,
all of modern physics and astronomy, of course! LOL! You think we're
all idiots... and that's a good start. But the most important idiot is
you; the path to true understanding lies therein.
Greg
P.S. since someone is obviously now going to call me an idiot to be
funny, I'll beat you too it: yes, I am an idiot too. But I am an idiot
blessed with a very powerful idea: awareness of self-idiocy! And no,
that's not idiotic at all. And thankfully, we are surrounded by many
other self-aware idiots here on SAA. So I raise my glass and say,
"here's to the idiots of SAA!"