Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Weitter Duckss

Weitter Duckss's Theory of the Universe

90 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Weitter Duckss's Theory of the Universe

Author: Weitter Duckss (Slavko Sedic) Zadar Croatia

The Universe is the main theme, which is discussed in this paper. The objectives are creating the sequence of relations or connections of two or more relations of evidence (for example, mass – radius) to create new measurable values. The observation starts from the obvious (red stars make up to 76,45% of all stars in our galaxy) and namely such importance is given to that matter. Making conclusions based on some spectacular, but minor values, is avoided (for example, shiny blue stars make only 0,00003% from the total quantity of the stars in our galaxy).

The analysis of every topic is based on the big totalities (the total number of galaxies, the total number of stars in the Milky Way), on the regularities that apply to all observed units – with the exceptions included – or phenomena related to all objects, avoiding the partial or individual separated parts of the totality. The Universe is here analyzed through the formation of matter, its growth and disintegration. Rotation is introduced as a feature that must be addressed to; it creates the relations between the neighboring and distant objects. The age of the Universe is analyzed through the approximate minimal assessment of time needed for some object to reach a particular stage by gathering matter, for example: a time needed to create a cluster of stars, consisting of a few tens of thousands of stars in a single place, due to the gravitational force and rotation. The analysis starts from the assessment that the majority of notions and evidence are generally familiar to vast majority of readers, therefore no particular links, leading to the definitions of a star, a galaxy, rotation, blue and red spectral shift, etc., are cited here. The notions such as gravity, tidal forces, rotation, etc., do not follow officially accepted definitions and they often differ structurally; for example, gravity is a sum of effects of the gravitational force and rotation, due to which EM forces also rotate and thus influence the objects within the orbit, but also further away, until the limits of the gravitational force are reached. The component of time also needs to be acknowledged here. The hierarchy that follows generally and widely accepted rules is not used within this paper.

The whole paper is an abstract, a material that contains no endless explanations. Only minimal quantity of needed evidence are introduced here, as a result of the experience gained in many discussions on several forums in the Republic of Croatia,United States (2) and Russian Federation (2), etc. These discussions have contributed to the quality of this paper and hereby I thank to all who have participated in these discussions and to the visitors (there were more than 100 000 visits to my themes on portals with over 1 000 comments, even without the data for my own web-site).

Light

I will start with something easy and generally accepted – a nice theme, of which we think we know everything to the smallest detail and we take it as an undisputable fact. Light. Why there is light on Earth and outside Earth there is a completely dark space? ...

Siehe weiter unten: 

http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#Weitter-Duckss-Theory-of-the-Universe

Edited by Saru
Removed personal information

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:unsure: - Oh oh.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Weitter Duckss said:

Light

I will start with something easy and generally accepted – a nice theme, of which we think we know everything to the smallest detail and we take it as an undisputable fact. Light. Why there is light on Earth and outside Earth there is a completely dark space? ...

 

 

Fairly damned easy to answer, we have a sun that provides our light because we are near enough to it. No mystery about it

Question. why is there darkness in some rooms of your home? till you turn a light on?... Big philosophical debate about it? No course not....its so damn obvious

 

you said:  Why there is light on Earth and outside Earth there is a completely dark space? ...

I disagree.  I can see the moon and stars even when its dark....in fact...ESPECIALLY WHEN ITS DARK.... why is that?   do answer...

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure any rebuttals made, will be water off a Duckss's back.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- Thread cleaned -

Weitter - it's best not to include personal information such as contact details or certificate scans in your posts.

The discussion should be focusing on the merits or otherwise of the theory being presented.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, seeder said:

 

Fairly damned easy to answer, we have a sun that provides our light because we are near enough to it. No mystery about it

Question. why is there darkness in some rooms of your home? till you turn a light on?... Big philosophical debate about it? No course not....its so damn obvious

you said:  Why there is light on Earth and outside Earth there is a completely dark space? ...

I disagree.  I can see the moon and stars even when its dark....in fact...ESPECIALLY WHEN ITS DARK.... why is that?   do answer...

"... Is a completely dark space?

We know it comes from the Sun (a bit of it comes from the other stars, too) and that Sun is the light-giving object. The question is, how it can give light to us if already 100 km outside the atmosphere of Earth there is no light? The same thing happens on the Moon or Mercury, with the only difference that there is dark space on them immediately next to the surface, because they do not have an atmosphere. ... "
&
"... And the slow transformation of a comet we can follow the process which indicates that the light is not appearing by itself but with the occurrence of the visible matter. On this level of observation, the behavior of space, when colliding with radiation, is the opposite one from the behavior of the visible matter. Space is dark and (visible) matter is visible. When traveling away from the source (a star), radiation does not create a relation to space which would result in the appearance of light ; on the other side, when radiation collides with the visible matter, the phenomenon of light is being created. ... "
from http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#causal-relation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Habitat said:

I'm sure any rebuttals made, will be water off a Duckss's back.

It will be to me, glad that youyou start with bursts counter arguments.
I hope that is not your range incorrect translation the words from the German language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

"... Is a completely dark space?

We know it comes from the Sun (a bit of it comes from the other stars, too) and that Sun is the light-giving object. The question is, how it can give light to us if already 100 km outside the atmosphere of Earth there is no light?

For heaven's sake, try to understand atmospheric scattering.  That's why we have 'daylight' that looks like it does down here on the surface, ie a bright blue sky.  It's why the astronauts who went to the Moon (and those doing EVA's at the ISS, etc..) could work in 'daylight', even though the sky was dark.  A dark sky is NOT devoid of light - it looks 'dark' *because* there is nothing for all the photons that are passing by to HIT.  There may be billions of photons passing through your 'dark space', and gee, that's how we get to see the Moon's surface - when all those photons are hitting it...

I find it hard to comprehend how someone trying for a theory of the universe could not understand something so childishly basic, and easy to test and observe.  There is absolutely no merit or logic in what you are saying, Weitter.

6 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

The same thing happens on the Moon or Mercury, with the only difference that there is dark space on them immediately next to the surface, because they do not have an atmosphere. ... "

As above, NO dark space.  Just no atmosphere = no bright sky.  Nothing to do with absence of light.

6 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

"... And the slow transformation of a comet we can follow the process which indicates that the light is not appearing by itself but with the occurrence of the visible matter. On this level of observation, the behavior of space, when colliding with radiation, is the opposite one from the behavior of the visible matter. Space is dark and (visible) matter is visible. When traveling away from the source (a star), radiation does not create a relation to space which would result in the appearance of light ; on the other side, when radiation collides with the visible matter, the phenomenon of light is being created. ... "
from http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#causal-relation

Absolute nonsensical gibberish.  Word salad of the worst kind.  Plus - do NOT cite your own website as if it is a reference.  You really need to THINK and learn the basics first.  This absence of light business is absolute drivel - hogwash of the first order - and you will never be taken seriously for as long as you hang onto this silliness.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The universe is filled with energy, originating from many sources and traveling in all directions.  Your eye is a detector attuned to a band of wavelengths that are useful to us for survival.  Light or photons, or wave energy is there all the time.  You are confusing the detector with the energy it detects.  When you close your eyes, is it dark? This argument is similar to the old saw about the tree falling in  the forest.  If no one is around does it make a noise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My theory of the universe is it contains sensible answers to sensible questions. Nonsensical questions, not so much.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ChrLzs

"  A dark sky is NOT devoid of light - it looks 'dark' *because* there is nothing for all the photons that are passing by to HIT.  There may be billions of photons passing through your 'dark space', and gee, that's how we get to see the Moon's surface - when all those photons are hitting it... "

Treba razlikovati valove (zračenja) od fotona. U tamnom prostoru ako ne postoji vidljiva materija tada ne postoji niti svjetlost, mrak je jer postoje samo zračenja. Ako ne postoje izražena zračenja u prostoru gdje mi imamo vidljivu materiju opet je, mrak, tamne maglice, tamna strana planeta (tijela) itd.

svjetlo-tama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

The universe is filled with energy, originating from many sources and traveling in all directions.  Your eye is a detector attuned to a band of wavelengths that are useful to us for survival.  Light or photons, or wave energy is there all the time.  You are confusing the detector with the energy it detects.  When you close your eyes, is it dark? This argument is similar to the old saw about the tree falling in  the forest.  If no one is around does it make a noise?

If you close your eyes you do not change the facts. Insrtumenti have no eyes and register light and darkness. According to the Sun from the Earth 150 kilometers above the Earth's surface is dark. There is no atmosphere (visible matter), there is no light. This fact can not change the opening and closing the eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Weitter Duckss said:

ChrLzs

"  A dark sky is NOT devoid of light - it looks 'dark' *because* there is nothing for all the photons that are passing by to HIT.  There may be billions of photons passing through your 'dark space', and gee, that's how we get to see the Moon's surface - when all those photons are hitting it... "

Treba razlikovati valove (zračenja) od fotona. U tamnom prostoru ako ne postoji vidljiva materija tada ne postoji niti svjetlost, mrak je jer postoje samo zračenja. Ako ne postoje izražena zračenja u prostoru gdje mi imamo vidljivu materiju opet je, mrak, tamne maglice, tamna strana planeta (tijela) itd.

svjetlo-tama

Did you now forget this was an English forum, Weitter?  That sort of response is quite rude, expecting your reader to translate what is likely to be more inane waffle... Indeed, judging by the next post... (tbc) 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Weitter Duckss said:

If you close your eyes you do not change the facts.

Well duh.  You do change the physiology of the eye, and you do stop your perception of the light via that sense.

Quote

Insrtumenti have no eyes and register light and darkness.

Agreed.  And in the 'darkness' of space they WILL register any and all light and radiation that falls on the sensor, even though none of that may be visible.  The 'darkness' may be filled with billions of passing particles and lots of EM radiation, none of which is visible or has any effect UNTIL IT STRIKES SOMETHING.    Maybe it is poor translation but that is the reverse of what you keep saying.

Quote

According to the Sun from the Earth 150 kilometers above the Earth's surface is dark.

This is a perfect example of meaningless gibberish.  The earth rotates and revolves around the Sun, so at any given moment it may be receiving full overhead sunlight, oblique sunlight, horizontal rays at sunset/rise, rays that are just passing overhead after sunset or before sunrise, rays that are any number of kilometres overhead as it gets deeper into night (this is why we see satellites and the ISS only in the hours immediately after sunset (or before sunrise) - that's when the sunlight is still passing low enough to illuminate them, even though it is dark at the observer's location.  And near midnight of course, the suns shadow stretches above your location in a huge extended cone of darkness.  Then there are all the light rays coming from other objects, if they are appropriately located - the Moon, planets, stars, then the background cosmic radiation, and so on.  The darkness is filled with rays and particles - sure the amounts do vary dramatically depending on what is in the field of view..

This stuff is so painfully obvious, I think the only person who could possibly benefit here is Weitter...

Anyway, the important point is that even dark 'voids' generally have lots of particles and radiation passing through them.  And it's all pretty much well-known and easily measurable / easily verifiable... 

Quote

There is no atmosphere (visible matter)

In a vacuum?  Well of course there isn't.  But then you go on to this utter hogwash...:

Quote

, there is no light.

What??????    no, No, NO, NO!  That dark void may indeed be full of passing light/radiation and you couldn't tell until you put something in it that was affected.  In exactly the same way that someone can hide in full view of an audience just out of range of a brightly spot lit stage and then reveal themselves by walking into the spotlight.  Up until that moment, nobody could tell that there were bright light rays passing through that dark void...

Seriously, Weitter - what is it about that which you cannot grasp??

Quote

This fact can not change the opening and closing the eyes.

???????  And that posting, like the rest of this silliness, was a complete waste of my time and the forum's.  Is there anyone here who thinks Weitter is onto something?  If so, can you put it into words that make sense?

Edited by ChrLzs
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Walter, imagine you are in the vacuum of space and someone is shining a laser beam over the top of your head. You will not see the laser beam because none of the photons enter your eye. The person then tilts the laser downwards and it shines in your eye. You will then see the laser beam. Please do not try this at home - use a torch instead!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

 Is there anyone here who thinks Weitter is onto something?  If so, can you put it into words that make sense?

He might be on the laughing water, it's Oktoberfest !

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ChrLzs

"Agreed. And in the 'darkness' of space they will register any and all light and radiation that falls on the sensor, even though none of that may be visible. The 'darkness' may be filled with billions of particles passing and lots of EM radiation, none of which is visible or has any effect UNTIL IT STRIKES SOMETHING. Maybe it is poor translation but that is the reverse of what you keep saying.
& Until you put something in it that was affected. "


While claiming the contrary this is the similarity.
1st there should be a sufficient number of particles that can be measured (billions of particles is just the tip of a pin, our instruments are not so fine) as an asteroid, nebulae etc.
2nd waves (radiation) must to hit something that would glows, if not in what to hit can not produce brightness.

Light

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

Walter, imagine you are in the vacuum of space and someone is shining a laser beam over the top of your head. You will not see the laser beam because none of the photons enter your eye. The person then tilts the laser downwards and it shines in your eye. You will then see the laser beam. Please do not try this at home - use a torch instead!

More important is that there is no rays, rays exists only if there is matter. From laser only come out invisible the radiation. When the radiation hit matter, then and only then we can register light.
Radiation without matter and matter without the radiation are dark (Sun or stars have matter and the radiation).
Or is space dark or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Weitter Duckss said:

More important is that there is no rays, rays exists only if there is matter. From laser only come out invisible the radiation. When the radiation hit matter, then and only then we can register light.
Radiation without matter and matter without the radiation are dark (Sun or stars have matter and the radiation).
Or is space dark or not.

This is the biggest pile of nonsense I have read in many years (and given the huge piles of nonsense you have posted before that is REALLY saying something)..

Your knowledge of science is totally non-existent (unlike rays in a vacuum which DO exist).

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

ChrLzs

"  A dark sky is NOT devoid of light - it looks 'dark' *because* there is nothing for all the photons that are passing by to HIT.  There may be billions of photons passing through your 'dark space', and gee, that's how we get to see the Moon's surface - when all those photons are hitting it... "

Treba razlikovati valove (zračenja) od fotona. U tamnom prostoru ako ne postoji vidljiva materija tada ne postoji niti svjetlost, mrak je jer postoje samo zračenja. Ako ne postoje izražena zračenja u prostoru gdje mi imamo vidljivu materiju opet je, mrak, tamne maglice, tamna strana planeta (tijela) itd.

svjetlo-tama

Weitter, this is not a Croatian site. Please post your responses in English.

2g. Language: As this is an English speaking site we ask that our members post only in English.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Weitter Duckss said:

Light

 

Did the astronauts who walked on the moon carry torches? No?

why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Weitter Duckss said:

More important is that there is no rays, rays exists only if there is matter. From laser only come out invisible the radiation. When the radiation hit matter, then and only then we can register light.
Radiation without matter and matter without the radiation are dark (Sun or stars have matter and the radiation).
Or is space dark or not.

Walter, imagine you are blindfolded and are in the vacuum of space. Someone is throwing pool balls over your head. You don't know there are any pool balls until the thrower decides to aim one at your head. Just because you couldn't see the pool balls that missed your head doesn't mean they didn't exist. Please don't try this at home - use table-tennis balls instead.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, seeder said:

 

Did the astronauts who walked on the moon carry torches? No?

why not?

They were on the sunny side where waves with matter and produce light. On the dark side of the moon should "flare".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

Walter, imagine you are blindfolded and are in the vacuum of space. Someone is throwing pool balls over your head. You don't know there are any pool balls until the thrower decides to aim one at your head. Just because you couldn't see the pool balls that missed your head doesn't mean they didn't exist. Please don't try this at home - use table-tennis balls instead.

Your comments fun for me. Like.
However we know, because we see bodies that reflect the radiation coming from the dark space and go into the dark space. Light exists only where there is matter (and waves) ie the the bodies or particles. Only when the comet begins broadcasting particle appears light.
We are not talking about the distant expanses where measurements are questionable, already at a distance of 0 miles respectively about space next to the instrument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't unread this thread.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.