[Dave Lev (OP)]

Based on the following article:
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/solar-energy/

"Solar energy is created by nuclear fusion that takes place in the sun. Fusion occurs when protons of hydrogen atoms violently collide in the sun?s core and fuse to create a helium atom.

This process, known as a PP (proton-proton) chain reaction, emits an enormous amount of energy. In its core, the sun fuses about 620 million metric tons of hydrogen every second. The PP chain reaction occurs in other stars that are about the size of our sun, and provides them with continuous energy and heat. The temperature for these stars is around 4 million degrees on the Kelvin scale (about 4 million degrees Celsius, 7 million degrees Fahrenheit).

The energy, heat, and light from the sun flow away in the form of electromagnetic radiation (EMR).

However, high energy/temp is needed to start this fusion:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63957085
"getting two identical elements to combine is actually very hard.
Because they have the same positive charge, they naturally repel each other.
A lot of energy is needed to overcome this resistance.
In the Sun, this happens thanks to extremely high temperatures of around ten million degrees Celsius, and significant pressure - more than 100 billion times that of the Earth's atmosphere."
"The waste produced by nuclear fusion is less radioactive and decays much more quickly."

After all of that info, my questions are as follow:
A. Fusion activity:
1. How the Sun could increase its internal temp to that ten million Celsius in order to start the fusion process?
How the internal pressure in the sun due to gravity can gain so high temp?
Do we have any way to measure that internal temp?
2. How do we know that in its core, the sun fuses about 620 million metric tons of hydrogen every second?
Can we really measure that quantity or is it just based on some mathematical assumption?
3. It is stated that "The waste produced by nuclear fusion is less radioactive and decays much more quickly". So somehow there must be some radioactive radiation due to fusion activity. Do we really see any radioactive radiation from the Sun?
4. If Fusion activity was real, why it can't run out of control and bomb the entire Sun

B. Electromagnetic Radiation
6. It is stated: The energy, heat, and light from the sun flow away in the form of electromagnetic radiation (EMR).
Does it means that we clearly observe that the energy, heat, and light from the sun flow away in the form of electromagnetic radiation (EMR)?
7. So why we can't agree that the Solar energy is created ONLY by its EM energy?
8 Why this EM energy can't be created by external tidal forces on the Sun without any need for the Fusion activity idea? .
9. Why do we insist to add the idea of that invisible Fusion activity?

[Halc]

"This process, known as a PP (proton-proton) chain reaction, emits an enormous amount of energy.

The PP reaction is part of the fusion process. It doesn't make any helium, but it makes one deuterium nucleus out of two protons. The fustion reactors on Earth for instance don't do this, and they mine the ocean for already-existing deuterium and tritium and do only the easy part: Merging two deuterium nuclei into a helium nucleus.

PP is prevalent in smaller stars, but the CNO cycle (a catalytic reaction) is more prevalent in larger ones.

"getting two identical elements to combine is actually very hard.
Because they have the same positive charge, they naturally repel each other."

Well that's true of any nuclei, identical or not.

"The waste produced by nuclear fusion is less radioactive and decays much more quickly."

I think they mean 'more quickly than the waste of fission'.

1. How the Sun could increase its internal temp to that ten million Celsius in order to start the fusion process?

Anything under pressure is going to rise in temperature

How the internal pressure in the sun due to gravity can gain so high temp?

Compression causes higher temps. Here's a typical article going on about it, but most of them concern squeezing of air and not so much stellar processes. There is an incredible amount of energy released by all the mass of a star falling so deep into a major gravity well. It would fall further, but the ignition of the star creates a counter-pressure that staves off further collapse for as long as the reaction can be maintained.
https://www.tec-science.com/thermodynamics/thermodynamic-processes-in-closed-systems/why-does-pressure-and-temperature-increase-during-the-compression-of-a-gas/

Do we have any way to measure that internal temp?

Models. No way to directly measure it. We only see the surface and can measure energy output, mass, magnetic fields, etc.

2. How do we know that in its core, the sun fuses about 620 million metric tons of hydrogen every second?

Energy output can be directly measured. E=mc2 does the rest.

Can we really measure that quantity or is it just based on some mathematical assumption?

All measurement is based on mathematical assumptions, so same thing.

So somehow there must be some radioactive radiation due to fusion activity. Do we really see any radioactive radiation from the Sun?

The waste products tend to stay and decay right in the sun. I imagine there are trace amounts in the solar wind and such. One such product is positrons, and those very much don't lost long enough to reach the surface. They don't decay, but they find electrons and annihilate them.

4. If Fusion activity was real, why it can't run out of control and bomb the entire Sun

The temperature of the sun prevents the density of the fuel from reaching explosive levels. That changes when the fuel runs low and the temperature can no longer maintain enough pressure to hold the star material at its current radius. Then collapse occurs, and the gravitational energy released from that collapse ignites the next layer of fuel (helium say) and that does explode.

6. It is stated: The energy, heat, and light from the sun flow away in the form of electromagnetic radiation (EMR).

Much of which is visible light, yes. We directly observe that, yes, even EMR in other frequencies.

7. So why we can't agree that the Solar energy is created ONLY by its EM energy?

It isn't created by EM energy at all. EM energy is the product, not the fuel.

8 Why this EM energy can't be created by external tidal forces on the Sun without any need for the Fusion activity idea?

There are almost no tidal forces on the sun. There's nothing large and close enough to produce them.

9. Why do we insist to add the idea of that invisible Fusion activity?

Because there's the only other source of energy would be that of falling material, and that is nowhere near enough to maintain the energy level for billions of years. A week maybe is it. This question seems to sound like fusion denialism.

[Origin]

I can't believe we are going to be subjected to yet another thread by dave that is filled with wild claims and his misunderstandings.

[Kryptid]

So Dave is a fusion denialist as well? We know that fusion goes on inside of the Sun partly because of neutrinos: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2934-0

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear Halc
Thanks for your support.
However, why do you claim that "There are almost no tidal forces on the sun":

Quote
8 Why this EM energy can't be created by external tidal forces on the Sun without any need for the Fusion activity idea?

There are almost no tidal forces on the sun. There's nothing large and close enough to produce them.

In the following articles it is stated:

http://www.solstation.com/stars3/100-gs.htm

As many as 512 or more stars of spectral type "G" (not including white dwarf stellar remnants) are currently believed to be located within 100 light-years or (or 30.7 parsecs) of Sol -- including Sol itself. Only around 64 are located within 50 light-years (ly), while some 448 are estimated to lie between 50 and 100 light-years -- a volume of space that is seven times as large as the inner sphere within 50 ly of Sol.

As many as 19 G-type stars have been identified as being located in Sol's immediate neighborhood (within 10 parsecs or 32.6 light-years)

https://planetplanet.net/2016/07/12/exactly-how-unusual-is-our-solar-system/
Our Sun is a G star. There are 20 G stars within 30 light years out of almost 400 total stars. The vast majority of stars are M stars, also known as ?red dwarfs?. These small red stars have much longer lifetimes than G stars but shine much fainter. Among nearby stars, the Sun is modestly weird. If give our definition of a ?Sun-like? star some latitude, our star ends up being rare at the 10% level. That is about the fraction of American adults who are vegetarian.

Hence, do you confirm that by average there is a density of 64 G stars density per 50 LY radius around the Sun in the Orion arm?
As the thickness of this arm is about 1000LY, then its radius is 500 LY.
Therefore, if we keep that 64 G stars per 50LY, we should get about 64* 500/50 ^ 3 = 64,000 G stars.
In the article it is stated: "There are 20 G stars within 30 light years out of almost 400 total stars. The vast majority of stars are M stars, also known as ?red dwarfs?
Hence, as 20 G stars means 400 stars in total (including M stars) than do you confirm that 64,000 G stars means about 1,280,000 stars in total (again - just in the radius of 500LY in the Orion arm around us).
Even if there are only 100,000 stars in total around the Sun, why those stars can't set severe tidal forces on the Sun?
With regards to the impact of Tidal forces:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon)
With over 400 active volcanoes, Io is the most geologically active object in the Solar System.[11][12][13] This extreme geologic activity is the result of tidal heating from friction generated within Io's interior as it is pulled between Jupiter and the other Galilean moons?Europa, Ganymede and Callisto.
If IO moon can be so hot as a result of tidal heating from friction generated within nearby objects, why the SUN can't gain its heat due to a similar tidal heating process?
Please remember, IO is relatively small with just few objects around it, while the Sun is very massive with over than 100,000 stars around it.

Quote
1. How the Sun could increase its internal temp to that ten million Celsius in order to start the fusion process?

Anything under pressure is going to rise in temperature

I hope that we all agree that in order to start the fusion process, it is vital for the Sun to increase its internal heat to about 10,000,000 c.
So you claim that the internal Pressure by itself could increase the Sun temp to that 10 Million c.
If that is correct, then why there is a need for a fusion process?
Why can't we just claim that:
1. The internal pressure (I claim for tidal forces) can increase dramatically the internal heat of the SUN.
2. That heat would be transformed into ULTRA strong EM energy by internal dynamo in the Sun.
3. That EM power would set severe magnetic storm at the surface of the Sun and convert the ionized Hydrogen into hot plasma at about 5,000 c (without any need for fusion activity)

Please remember:
All solar activity is driven by the solar magnetic field.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/spaceweather/index.html
"What is solar activity?
A model of the sun's magnetic field lines.
The sun is a magnetic variable star that fluctuates on times scales ranging from a fraction of a second to billions of years.
Credits: NASA
Solar flares, coronal mass ejections, high-speed solar wind, and solar energetic particles are all forms of solar activity.
All solar activity is driven by the solar magnetic field."
Hence, while you insist that the solar magnetic field is due to the fusion activity, I claim that it is due to tidal forces and internal pressure.
Don't you agree that if there was a fusion activity in the Sun core, it could prevent from the Sun' core to rotate and hold the internal dynamo process?
In this case the Sun won't be able to create its EM power that is so vital for the Solar energy process.

[paul cotter]

There is so much error in your last post that it would take too long to counter all this. Two points: Io is affected by changing gravitational gradients but does it glow like the sun-it does not. The heat from compression is a one off occurrence, it will quickly dissipate if no other process takes over. The prodigious output of the sun can only be explained by nuclear processes.

[Kryptid]

If IO moon can be so hot as a result of tidal heating from friction generated within nearby objects, why the SUN can't gain its heat due to a similar tidal heating process?

Because the nearest stars are light-years away. If those stars were capable of producing strong enough tidal forces to heat the Sun into a glowing hot plasma, then they would heat the planets as well.

If that is correct, then why there is a need for a fusion process?

A compressed gas getting hot can't explain why the Sun emits neutrinos.

[Origin]

A compressed gas getting hot can't explain why the Sun emits neutrinos.

Nor does it explain the energy output from the sun, the sun would be cool by now if the only heat was from compression. 
I am seeing a lot of misconceptions from dave about stars, compression and fusion.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Because the nearest stars are light-years away.

That is perfectly OK
The oort cloud extends up to 3.2LY away from the Sun and sets the border of the solar system.
Therefore, it is very clear that even if we just focus on the 400 stars that are located up to 20 LY away from the sun (and ignore all the other millions that are located further away) we should discover that they set severe tidal heat forces on the Sun while each one works from different location.

If those stars were capable of producing strong enough tidal forces to heat the Sun into a glowing hot plasma, then they would heat the planets as well.

Well, the Sun mass is massive by 330,000 times than our planet.
Gravity force formula is as follow:
F = Gm1m2 / r2
Therefore, the gravity/tidal force between any nearby star to the sun should be higher by 330,000 than its gravity/tidal force with our planet.
Therefore, its tidal impact on the planet is neglected.

Nor does it explain the energy output from the sun, the sun would be cool by now if the only heat was from compression.

Sorry, you have a severe mistake!
Please remember:

All solar activity is driven by the solar magnetic field.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/spaceweather/index.html

So, it is not about any kind of energy but about a very specific energy that is called "solar magnetic field" or EM energy!!!
I would compare the solar magnetic field engine to Tesla car engine.
If we would set 100 gallons of gasoline on this tesla engine, would it increase its power or just kill it?
In the same token, any Fusion activity at the Sun core should kill the requested smooth rotation of its internal dynamo.
The only force in the nature that can increase and maintain the EM power of any planet or star is tidal force.
Therefore, Fusion activity at the Sun core won't help it to gain it's requested solar magnetic field energy!

[Dave Lev (OP)]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory
"In physics, the dynamo theory proposes a mechanism by which a celestial body such as Earth or a star generates a magnetic field. The dynamo theory describes the process through which a rotating, convecting, and electrically conducting fluid can maintain a magnetic field over astronomical time scales. A dynamo is thought to be the source of the Earth's magnetic field and the magnetic fields of Mercury and the Jovian planets."

"Tidal heating supporting a dynamo
Tidal forces between celestial orbiting bodies cause friction that heats up their interiors. This is known as tidal heating, and it helps keep the interior in a liquid state. A liquid interior that can conduct electricity is required to produce a dynamo. Saturn's Enceladus and Jupiter's Io have enough tidal heating to liquify their inner cores, but they may not create a dynamo because they cannot conduct electricity.[11][12] Mercury, despite its small size, has a magnetic field, because it has a conductive liquid core created by its iron composition and friction resulting from its highly elliptical orbit.[13] It is theorized that the Moon once had a magnetic field, based on evidence from magnetized lunar rocks, due to its short-lived closer distance to Earth creating tidal heating.[14] An orbit and rotation of a planet helps provide a liquid core, and supplements kinetic energy that supports a dynamo action."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory#/media/File:Dynamo_Theory_-_Outer_core_convection_and_magnetic_field_generation.svg
"Illustration of the dynamo mechanism that generates the Earth's magnetic field: convection currents of fluid metal in the Earth's outer core, driven by heat flow from the inner core, organized into rolls by the Coriolis force, generate circulating electric currents, which supports the magnetic field.[1]"

[Kryptid]

we should discover that they set severe tidal heat forces on the Sun while each one works from different location.

Show us the math to support this assertion.

So, it is not about any kind of energy but about a very specific energy that is called "solar magnetic field" or EM energy!!!

Those magnetic fields come about because the Sun is composed of a conducting, circulating fluid (plasma). The Sun is composed of a conductive fluid because it is very hot. It is very hot because fusion is happening in the core.

I would compare the solar magnetic field engine to Tesla car engine.
If we would set 100 gallons of gasoline on this tesla engine, would it increase its power or just kill it?

False analogy. I just explained above how fusion ultimately gives rise to that magnetic field.

In the same token, any Fusion activity at the Sun core should kill the requested smooth rotation of its internal dynamo.

Can you back that assertion up with a reputable source?

The only force in the nature that can increase and maintain the EM power of any planet or star is tidal force.

Not so. Anything that can provide the needed heat is good enough.

Therefore, Fusion activity at the Sun core won't help it to gain it's requested solar magnetic field energy!

Yes it will, because it keeps the gas hot enough to stay in the plasma phase (necessary for a magnetic dynamo in a star).

You also have not offered an explanation for the neutrinos emitted by the Sun.

[paul cotter]

Absolute unmitigated nonsense, please learn some basic physics. AAGH!, as Alancalverd  recently opined.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:44:28
we should discover that they set severe tidal heat forces on the Sun while each one works from different location.

Show us the math to support this assertion.

Sorry.
I don't need to set any math.
The Dynamo_theory is well established and proved:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory
"In physics, the dynamo theory proposes a mechanism by which a celestial body such as Earth or a star generates a magnetic field. The dynamo theory describes the process through which a rotating, convecting, and electrically conducting fluid can maintain a magnetic field over astronomical time scales. A dynamo is thought to be the source of the Earth's magnetic field and the magnetic fields of Mercury and the Jovian planets."

That theory is clearly based on tidal force:

"Tidal heating supporting a dynamo
Tidal forces between celestial orbiting bodies cause friction that heats up their interiors. This is known as tidal heating, and it helps keep the interior in a liquid state. A liquid interior that can conduct electricity is required to produce a dynamo. Saturn's Enceladus and Jupiter's Io have enough tidal heating to liquify their inner cores, but they may not create a dynamo because they cannot conduct electricity.[11][12] Mercury, despite its small size, has a magnetic field, because it has a conductive liquid core created by its iron composition and friction resulting from its highly elliptical orbit.[13] It is theorized that the Moon once had a magnetic field, based on evidence from magnetized lunar rocks, due to its short-lived closer distance to Earth creating tidal heating.[14] An orbit and rotation of a planet helps provide a liquid core, and supplements kinetic energy that supports a dynamo action."

and it is related to planets and stars:

the dynamo theory proposes a mechanism by which a celestial body such as Earth or a star generates a magnetic field.

Why don't agree with this theory?.

However, you are the one that need to show how the Fusion activity could start.
We all clearly know that in order to start the Fusion activity, the internal star heat should be 10,000,000 c.
So, please, take a young protostar that was a ball of hydrogen and helium and show how the internal pressure could increase its internal temp to that imagination level of 10,000,000 c..
Did you read the message from Origin:

the sun would be cool by now if the only heat was from compression.

If you think that the young protostar can gain such high temp only by its internal pressure/compression than please show the math to support this assertion.

Those magnetic fields come about because the Sun is composed of a conducting, circulating fluid (plasma). The Sun is composed of a conductive fluid because it is very hot. It is very hot because fusion is happening in the core.

The fusion is a random activity.
Therefore, it can't set the N & S magnetic poles in the Sun to be fully gained with the Sun rotation motion:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/science/solar-rotation.html
"The Sun rotates on its axis once in about 27 days. This rotation was first detected by observing the motion of sunspots. The Sun's rotation axis is tilted by about 7.25 degrees from the axis of the Earth's orbit so we see more of the Sun's north pole in September of each year and more of its south pole in March."
So how it works:
Let's assume that there is a nearby star exactly above the Sun's rotation axis
In this case, the Sun tidal impact due to that star would be minimal or almost zero.
However, if we put the same star (and at the same radius from the Sun) directly above the Sun's equatorial regions it will have the maximal tidal impact.
Therefore, although the stars are randomly spread around the Sun, those stars that are located above the Sun's equatorial regions have the maximal tidal heat impact and therefore, the sun poles are fully aligned with its rotation motion.
This is the ultimate prove that the Sun magnetic field is ONLY due to tidal forces.
A random internal fusion activity won't be able to set so high synchronization between the poles and the rotation motion of the sun

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:44:28
Therefore, Fusion activity at the Sun core won't help it to gain it's requested solar magnetic field energy!

Yes it will, because it keeps the gas hot enough to stay in the plasma phase (necessary for a magnetic dynamo in a star).

Please show the Dynamo_theory that is based on Fusion activity

You also have not offered an explanation for the neutrinos emitted by the Sun.

I will think about it and let you know.

[Origin]

we should discover that they set severe tidal heat forces on the Sun while each one works from different location.

False, the gravitational effects on the sun from other stars is negligible.

So, it is not about any kind of energy but about a very specific energy that is called "solar magnetic field" or EM energy!!!
I would compare the solar magnetic field engine to Tesla car engine.

You would be wrong the energy streaming from the sun is due to fusion.

Why don't agree with this theory?.

The dynamo theory has nothing to do with the energy produced by the sun.  The suns energy comes from fusion.  The suns magnetic field comes from the rotating plasma.

So, please, take a young protostar that was a ball of hydrogen and helium and show how the internal pressure could increase its internal temp to that imagination level of 10,000,000 c.

You are the one making the claim here.  You are the one that needs to show that a proto star would not attain the heat and pressure to initiate fusion.

This is the ultimate prove that the Sun magnetic field is ONLY due to tidal forces.
A random internal fusion activity won't be able to set so high synchronization between the poles and the rotation motion of the sun

Stop making wild claims!  The suns magnetic field is not due to tidal forces and it is not due to fusion.  Why don't you just ask questions about things you don't know instead of making wild guesses?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:44:28
we should discover that they set severe tidal heat forces on the Sun while each one works from different location.

False, the gravitational effects on the sun from other stars is negligible.

Well, if we focus on just one nearby star than I fully agree that its gravity force is quite negligible.
However, the tidal impact of millions/billions stars around the Sun is  severe.
I have proved that the density of G stars in our aria is about 64 stars per 50 Ly radius.
Please read again my following explanation:

http://www.solstation.com/stars3/100-gs.htm
As many as 512 or more stars of spectral type "G" (not including white dwarf stellar remnants) are currently believed to be located within 100 light-years or (or 30.7 parsecs) of Sol -- including Sol itself. Only around 64 are located within 50 light-years (ly), while some 448 are estimated to lie between 50 and 100 light-years -- a volume of space that is seven times as large as the inner sphere within 50 ly of Sol.

As many as 19 G-type stars have been identified as being located in Sol's immediate neighborhood (within 10 parsecs or 32.6 light-years)

https://planetplanet.net/2016/07/12/exactly-how-unusual-is-our-solar-system/
Our Sun is a G star. There are 20 G stars within 30 light years out of almost 400 total stars. The vast majority of stars are M stars, also known as ?red dwarfs?. These small red stars have much longer lifetimes than G stars but shine much fainter. Among nearby stars, the Sun is modestly weird. If give our definition of a ?Sun-like? star some latitude, our star ends up being rare at the 10% level. That is about the fraction of American adults who are vegetarian.

Hence, do you confirm that by average there is a density of 64 G stars density per 50 LY radius around the Sun in the Orion arm?
As the thickness of this arm is about 1000LY, then its radius is 500 LY.
Therefore, if we keep that 64 G stars per 50LY, we should get about 64* 500/50 ^ 3 = 64,000 G stars.
In the article it is stated: "There are 20 G stars within 30 light years out of almost 400 total stars. The vast majority of stars are M stars, also known as red dwarfs.
Hence, as 20 G stars means 400 stars in total (including M stars) than do you confirm that 64,000 G stars means about 1,280,000 stars in total (again - just in the radius of 500LY in the Orion arm around us).

Therefore, if we increase the radius around the Sun by 2 we actually increase the total stars by 2^3=8.
Hence, let's assume that at a radius R there is just one star with a gravity force of F.
If we increase the radius by 2 (2R), there will be 2^3=8 stars while each star will have only F/2^2 = 1/4F.
Hence, although the gravity force of each star had been reduced by 4, in total the gravity force of those 8 stars would set a combined gravity force that is stronger by 2 with regards to the single one at radius R.
F(at 2R) = 1/4 F(at R) * 8 = 2 F(at R)   
Therefore, as we calculate the gravity impact of the total millions or even billions of stars in the Orion arm and around it on the Sun, we should find that the combined tidal gravity force is severe.
I'm quite sure that if we could take out the Sun from the milky way galaxy and set it in the open space without any nearby star, its energy would be decrease dramatically due to the missing tidal gravity force.

[Bored chemist]

However, the tidal impact of millions/billions stars around the Sun is  severe.

Here's what you should have said.
"However, the tidal impact of millions/billions stars around the Sun is  severe averages to  zero because, for every star pulling in one direction there is (on average) another star pulling in the opposite direction."

You really need to stop presenting your mistakes as facts. It just makes you look bad.
Really,it's even worse than that.
You could copy this
"Hence, let's assume that at a radius R there is just one star with a gravity force of F.
If we increase the radius by 2 (2R), there will be 2^3=8 stars while each star will have only F/2^2 = 1/4F.
Hence, although the gravity force of each star had been reduced by 4, in total the gravity force of those 8 stars would set a combined gravity force that is stronger by 2 with regards to the single one at radius R.
F(at 2R) = 1/4 F(at R) * 8 = 2 F(at R)   
Therefore, as we calculate the gravity impact of the total millions or even billions of stars in the Orion arm and around it on the Sun, we should find that the combined tidal gravity force is severe.
I'm quite sure that if we could take out the Sun from the milky way galaxy and set it in the open space without any nearby star, its energy would be decrease dramatically due to the missing tidal gravity force."

And replace all the mentions of "gravity" by "light" and all the instances of "mass" by "brightness".


And at the end you would conclude that starlight at night is as bright as sunlight in the day.

So, even if we didn't know why you are wrong, we would still know that you are wrong.

But all I did there was link your idea to Olber's paradox.
So you should have known about the problem with your idea.
So you shouldn't have posted it.

But you did- because you refuse to learn science.


Incidentally, that's still not the biggest problem with your idea.
Tidal forces do not follow the inverse square law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force#:~:text=In%20this%20graph%2C%20the%20attractive,the%20cube%20of%20the%20distance.

If you knew the science, you might have done the right maths and got a sensible answer.

Or you could simply have opened your eyes and seen that we have tide tables that include the Sun and Moon, but not the other stars.

But you refuse to accept that your ideas are wrong.

You are the dogmatist here.
You insist on thinking you are right even though it is literally as clear as day and night that you are wrong.

You are the opposite of science.
Why are you here?

[Origin]

Well, if we focus on just one nearby star than I fully agree that its gravity force is quite negligible.
However, the tidal impact of millions/billions stars around the Sun is  severe.

No it isn't.  Alpha Centauri A and B combined gravitational force is about 100 times weaker than the earths moon gravitational force on the sun.  The same 2 solar masses at twice the distance from earth would be 400 times weaker than the moon.  The same 2 solar mass at 50 ly would have a gravitational force that's 10,000 times weaker than the moon.
That is not going to cause tidal heating.
It is absurd that we have to try and convince you how ludicrous your idea is.  The suns energy is from fusion, this is really not a question in any bodies mind that has even a minimum knowledge of astronomy.

[Kryptid]

Sorry.
I don't need to set any math.

You do if you want to be taken seriously. You need to demonstrate that tidal forces from distant stars are sufficient to heat the Sun up to its measured temperature. If the math doesn't check out, then your idea is wrong.

The Dynamo_theory is well established and proved:

That it is, but that's not the issue here. The fact that the Sun is made of conductive, circulating fluid explains why it has a magnetic field. There's the dynamo theory in action right there. The issue is how you can explain the Sun's great temperature from the tidal forces of objects many light-years away.

That theory is clearly based on tidal force:

It is not. Tidal forces merely supply the heat needed to keep the cores of some heavenly bodies liquid. Any source of heat that can keep the core liquid will work. We have even built a dynamo with liquid sodium metal that creates a magnetic field. Not tidal forces are required to keep that sodium dynamo working.

and it is related to planets and stars:

Yes, dynamos are related to planets and stars. That doesn't mean that tidal forces are needed to maintain every dynamo in every planet and star. Again, any source of energy that can heat the interior into a conductive fluid will work.

Why don't agree with this theory?.

I do agree with the theory. What I disagree with is your assertion that tidal forces are the only way that a celestial body can maintain the internal heat needed to form a conductive fluid. Radioactive decay and residual formation heat also provide warmth to the interiors of planets.

However, you are the one that need to show how the Fusion activity could start.
We all clearly know that in order to start the Fusion activity, the internal star heat should be 10,000,000 c.
So, please, take a young protostar that was a ball of hydrogen and helium and show how the internal pressure could increase its internal temp to that imagination level of 10,000,000 c..

Here is a paper describing the math involved in calculating the upper mass limit on brown dwarf stars (equivalent to the minimum mass needed to start the fusion processes needed for main sequence stars). Temperature is discussed as well. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.08575.pdf

Did you read the message from Origin:

Yes I did. Origin is talking about the loss of heat over time without fusion to keep it going.

If you think that the young protostar can gain such high temp only by its internal pressure/compression than please show the math to support this assertion.

Refer to my link above.

The fusion is a random activity.
Therefore, it can't set the N & S magnetic poles in the Sun to be fully gained with the Sun rotation motion:

Fusion isn't directly responsible for creating the magnetic fields. All fusion does is supply the heat needed to turn the Sun into a plasma. The rotation of the Sun is what determines where the north and south poles are.

"The Sun rotates on its axis once in about 27 days. This rotation was first detected by observing the motion of sunspots. The Sun's rotation axis is tilted by about 7.25 degrees from the axis of the Earth's orbit so we see more of the Sun's north pole in September of each year and more of its south pole in March."
So how it works:
Let's assume that there is a nearby star exactly above the Sun's rotation axis
In this case, the Sun tidal impact due to that star would be minimal or almost zero.
However, if we put the same star (and at the same radius from the Sun) directly above the Sun's equatorial regions it will have the maximal tidal impact.
Therefore, although the stars are randomly spread around the Sun, those stars that are located above the Sun's equatorial regions have the maximal tidal heat impact and therefore, the sun poles are fully aligned with its rotation motion.
This is the ultimate prove that the Sun magnetic field is ONLY due to tidal forces.

That isn't proof. You need to supply the numbers to show that it is plausible. We aren't going to believe you just because you say so.

A random internal fusion activity won't be able to set so high synchronization between the poles and the rotation motion of the sun

The rotation of the Sun itself is what causes the magnetic pole orientation to be where it is, so of course it's going to be synchronized. All fusion does is make the Sun hot. It isn't directly responsible for the magnetic field, only indirectly.

Please show the Dynamo_theory that is based on Fusion activity

This is like asking me to show you the fetal development theory based on sunlight. Although the energy required for a fetus to grow ultimately comes from sunlight (as all the food we eat comes from plants, either directly or indirectly), the study of fetal development has nothing to do with the exact source of the energy needed to produce the food. It's the same thing with a dynamo.

However, the tidal impact of millions/billions stars around the Sun is  severe.

Please demonstrate that this is the case. Your intuition isn't good enough.

Therefore, as we calculate the gravity impact of the total millions or even billions of stars in the Orion arm and around it on the Sun, we should find that the combined tidal gravity force is severe.

So then calculate it. Show that it is "severe".

I'm quite sure that if we could take out the Sun from the milky way galaxy and set it in the open space without any nearby star, its energy would be decrease dramatically due to the missing tidal gravity force.

What you feel "quite sure" of isn't good enough. You need to show this is the case with evidence.

[Kryptid]

Doubling posting, I know, but I did some math. Here's a webpage describing the equation to calculate tidal forces: https://www.astro.uvic.ca/~jwillis/teaching/astr201/maths.7.tidal_heating.pdf

The tidal force is described by: (2GM₁M₂)/r³, where

G is the gravitational constant
M₁ is the mass of one body
M₂ is the mass of the other body, and
r is the distance between the masses.

So now we will calculate the tidal force between the Sun and Alpha Centauri A:

(2GM₁M₂)/r³
((2)(6.674 x 10^-11)(1.9885 x 10³⁰)(2.1452 x 10³⁰))/(4.1097 x ¹⁶)³
((5.694 x 10⁵⁰)/(6.941 x 10⁴⁹)
8.2 newtons per meter

The total tidal force can be computed by multiplying the force per unit distance by the diameter of the Sun:

8.2 x 6.96 x 10⁸= 5.7 x 10⁹ newtons

Now compare that to the tidal forces experienced by Io in its orbit around Jupiter. According to the page linked above, it is 9 x 10²⁰ newtons. So Io experiences tidal forces 100 million times stronger from Jupiter than the Sun does from Alpha Centauri A. So it would take 100 million Sun-like stars at a distance of 4.3 light-years from the Sun to even cause as much tidal force as Io experiences.

Since the Sun is obviously much, much hotter than Io and there aren't anywhere near 100 million stars within a few light-years of us, then tidal heating is woefully insufficient to explain the Sun's temperature.

[Bored chemist]

This is the ultimate prove that the Sun magnetic field is ONLY due to tidal forces.

Since your "ultimate" proof is wrong, we can close the topic.