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

Quicker "burning" and temperature of star

92 posts in this topic

76,45 % of the total number of stars Milky Way Galaxy are red stars.

Alpha Herculis, Spectral type M5 Ib-II; Mass 2.5 MSun; Radius 264 - 303 R Sun; Temperature 3,155 - 3,365 K

Aldebaran, Spectral type K5; Mass 1.5±0.3 M Sun Radius 44.2±0.9; Temperature 3,910

Mira, Spectral type M7 IIIe; Mass 1.18 M Sun Radius 332–402RSun; Temperature 2918–3192 K

VY Canis Majoris, Spectral type M2.5I; Mass 17 ± 8 M Sun Radius 1,420 ± 120 R Sun; Temperature ~3,490K

UY Scuti, Spectral type M4Ia; Mass 7-10 M Sun Radius 1,708 ± 192 R Sun; Temperature 3,365°K

S Persei, Spectral type M4.5; Mass 20 M Sun Radius 780 - 1,230 R Sun; Temperature 3,000–3,600 K

VV Cephei, Spectral type M2 Iab; Mass 18.2 M Sun Radius 1,050 R Sun; Temperature 3,826 K

VX Sagittarii, Spectral type M4eIa; Mass 12 M Sun Radius 1,350–1,940 R Sun; Temperature 2,400–3,300 K

NML Cygni, Spectral type M6; Mass ~25 M Sun Radius 1,183 R Sun; Temperature 3,834 K

WOH G64, Spectral type M5; Mass 25 M Sun, Radius 1,540±5%– 1,730 R Sun; Temperature 3,200 – 3,400 K etc., etc., ...


M typ star: red color 0.08–0.45 Maas Sun, ≤ 0.7 R Sun, Temperature 2,400–3,700 K Very weak; 76.45% Fraction of all main-sequence stars of Milky Way Galaxy (Harvard spectral classification) Wikipedia


This table I am added that would readers could get a clear insight that the mass and color the stars are not directly (prevailing) in relation.
At the same time this is evidence that "burning inside a star" also are not in related to the mass of the star. From the table shows that that is not exactly that greater mass automatically means quicker "burning", a higher temperature and a shorter Lifetime of the stars. 
Equal color and temperature have a star of mass 0.08 mass of the Sun as well as the stars that have a mass of 20 and 25 mass of the Sun and all the other red stars which are masses between 0.08 and 25 Sun mass.
Together, M, K and G stars or red (76.45%), orange (12.1%) and yellow (7.6%), the stars make up 96.15% of the total number of stars the Milky Way galaxy. Temperature range these star is from 2,400 K to 6,000 K.

HD 160529          mass 13 M Sun; R 150-300 R Sun; Temperature 8.000 – 12.000°K Spectral type B

Eta Carinae Car A mass ~100 -200 M Sun; R 60 – 800 R Sun; Temperature 9.430 – 35.200°K; Spectral type O

                      Car B mass 30 -80 M Sun; R 14,3 – 23,6 R Sun; Temperature 37.200 °K; Spectral type O

P Cygni                mass 30 M Sun; R 76 R Sun;  Temperature 18.700°K; Spectral type B

BP Crucis            mass 43 M Sun; R 70 R Sun;  Temperature 178.100°K; Spectral type B

Α Crucis α1          mass 17,8 M Sun; R / R Sun;  Temperature 24.000°K; Spectral type B

Α Crucis α2           mass 15,52 M Sun; R / R Sun;  Temperature 28.000°K; Spectral type B

IK Pegasi            mass 1,65 / 1,15 M Sun; R 1,6 R Sun;  Temperature 7.700 / 35.500°K; Spectral type A

WD 0346 + 246  mass 0,15 M Sun; R 0,11 R Sun;  Temperature 3.800°K; Spectral type M

Procyon B          mass 0,602 M Sun; R 0,12 R Sun;  Temperature 7.740°K; Spectral type F

HD 4628              mass 0,70 M Sun; R 0,749 R Sun;  Temperature 5.829°K; Spectral type K

HD 149382         mass 0,486 M Sun; R 0,0345 R Sun;  Temperature 56.300 / 3.000 ?°K; Spectral type A

Mu Ursae Majoris mass 0,70 M Sun; R 0,749 R Sun;  Temperature 5.829°K; Spectral type K

56 Pegasi           mass 5,4 M Sun; R 680 R Sun;  Temperature 4.416°K; Spectral type K

Zeta Cygni A     mass 3,05 M Sun; R 15 R Sun;  Temperature 4.910°K; Spectral type G

                    B      mass 0,6 M Sun; R / R Sun;  Temperature 12.000°K; Spectral type A
Wikipedia

http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#The-causal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh oh.  :huh:- he's back

Okay, better than 3/4's of the stars in our galaxy are red stars. Let's take that as a given.

Sooooo.....?

Edited by Likely Guy
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And... the link you provide is a reference, to yourself. :wacko:

That's spam at the worst or at best, simple self promotion.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

And... the link you provide is a reference, to yourself. :wacko:

That's spam at the worst or at best, simple self promotion.

This is just a supplement to the article "The causal relation between a star and its temperature, gravity, radius and color" (attached link).
These days are the frequent stories about burning inside stars. Data open eyes.

Share this post


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

This is just a supplement to the article "The causal relation between a star and its temperature, gravity, radius and color" (attached link).
These days are the frequent stories about burning inside stars. Data open eyes.

You simply piled stars of different evolutionary stages, and think that you stumbled onto some major discovery. Its not. Young massive stars are hotter than young stars with lower mass. And young low mass stars may be hotter than old very massive stars. (I use young/old in evolutionary stage context).

To make it more clear (K.S. de Boer and W. Seggewiss, Stars and Stellar Evolution, EDP Sciences, 2008):

HR124334.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Young massive stars are hotter than young stars with lower mass.

We must to harmonize definitions. You Define a young or old star (please).
My definition arising from the constant growth of matter due to the attractive force (without the bogeyman). The discussion we will continue accepting the definition of what is what.
Am looking forward to the debate.

Share this post


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

We must to harmonize definitions. You Define a young or old star (please).
My definition arising from the constant growth of matter due to the attractive force (without the bogeyman). The discussion we will continue accepting the definition of what is what.
Am looking forward to the debate.

For the sake of simplicity, take stars that just started to burn hydrogen (zero age main sequence, ZAMS on the graph).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

For the sake of simplicity, take stars that just started to burn hydrogen (zero age main sequence, ZAMS on the graph).

Earth and Venus burn. Can we do from this point?

The stars have significantly higher density than hydrogen (Sun 1,4 ..) is a problem because  a gas body does not exist outside the nebulae and  molecular clouds (Density at stp (0 °C and 101.325 kPa)    0.08988 g/L
when liquid, at m.p.    0.07 g/cm3

(solid: 0.0763 g·cm−3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen).

How hydrogen can burn if  do not exist body of hydrogen? 
Let's start with different mass and the same temperature with the question of why and how is it possible?  Without engaging in what is old, the chicken or the egg or the atmosphere or the body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nm

Quote

nm

Edited by JesseCuster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weitter, densities for substances are generally given under standard conditions of temperature and pressure.  This includes your given figure for solid hydrogen that you quote from Wikipedia in your post above.

From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_conditions_for_temperature_and_pressure

Standard temperature and pressure (STP) as a temperature of 273.15 K (0 °C, 32 °F) and an absolute pressure of exactly 100 kPa (1 bar). Standard ambient temperature and pressure (SATP) as a temperature of 298.15 K (25 °C, 77 °F) and an absolute pressure of exactly 100 kPa (1 bar).

Obviously the temperature and pressure inside a star are far more extreme than that and thus your quoted figure for the density of hydrogen under standard temperature and pressure is irrelevant.  Hydrogen under the kind of pressure that exists at the centre of a star will have a much higher density than your quoted figure. This is not the first time you have made this fundamental error and been corrected on it.

If you continue to make such basic fundamental errors and refuse to correct your misunderstanding, then why should anyone take anything you say seriously?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2016 at 4:02 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

Earth and Venus burn. Can we do from this point?

The stars have significantly higher density than hydrogen (Sun 1,4 ..) is a problem because  a gas body does not exist outside the nebulae and  molecular clouds (Density at stp (0 °C and 101.325 kPa)    0.08988 g/L
when liquid, at m.p.    0.07 g/cm3

(solid: 0.0763 g·cm−3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen).

How hydrogen can burn if  do not exist body of hydrogen? 
[...]

What any of that has to do with final stages of star formation, right before hydrogen fusion reactions start? Temperatures at that time in the core are reaching over 1 million K, density - several dozens g/cm3.

On 12/14/2016 at 4:02 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

Let's start with different mass and the same temperature with the question of why and how is it possible?  Without engaging in what is old, the chicken or the egg or the atmosphere or the body.

Different mass of what, and same temperature of what?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, JesseCuster said:

 Hydrogen under the kind of pressure that exists at the centre of a star will have a much higher density than your quoted figure.

Besides the hypothesis,, whether you have evidence for the claim?
Under pressure (for example) water can not thicken, why you think that metallic hydrogen can be a condensed?
 

 

20 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

What any of that has to do with final stages of star formation, right before hydrogen fusion reactions start? Temperatures at that time in the core are reaching over 1 million K, density - several dozens g/cm3.

The connection is obvious. There is evidence (here on Earth, Venus, etc.) that burning does not start with  burning hydrogen.

20 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Different mass of what, and same temperature of what?!


R Doradus, the temperature of 2740 ± 190; mass 1.2. /
IK Pegasi Temperature 7.700 / 35.500 ° K; mass 1.65 / 1.15 M Sun;
Two stars of the same mass, different temperatures.

WD 0346 + 246 mass 0.15M Sun; Temperature 3800 ° K;
NML Cygni, Spectral type M6; Mass ~ 25 M SunTemperature 3,834 K
Two stars of the same temperature, different mass. etc.

Share this post


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

Besides the hypothesis,, whether you have evidence for the claim?
Under pressure (for example) water can not thicken, why you think that metallic hydrogen can be a condensed?

[...]

Not surprisingly, you are wrong again.

Experimental data - solid line (R.J.Hemley et al, Nature 330, 737)

H20_pressure_density.png

20 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

The connection is obvious. There is evidence (here on Earth, Venus, etc.) that burning does not start with  burning hydrogen.

[...]

:blink:

What the hell you are talking about?! What that even means?!

20 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]
R Doradus, the temperature of 2740 ± 190; mass 1.2. /
IK Pegasi Temperature 7.700 / 35.500 ° K; mass 1.65 / 1.15 M Sun;
Two stars of the same mass, different temperatures.

WD 0346 + 246 mass 0.15M Sun; Temperature 3800 ° K;
NML Cygni, Spectral type M6; Mass ~ 25 M SunTemperature 3,834 K
Two stars of the same temperature, different mass. etc.

So? You are taking stars that are in completely different evolutionary stages. Back to the graph I posted, and draw vertical line at selected temperature, say 6300 K, and you will see that stars with different masses can have that temperature (depending on star evolutionary phase).

Now, pick any evolution track for selected star mass, and see how temperature changes, when star evolves.

 

And, for umpteenth time, read the literature on the subject, before making "science", cause with every post you are making fool of yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bmk1245

The first example is
(R Doradus, temperature of 2740 ± 190; weight 1.2. /
IK Pegasi temperature of 7,700 / 35,500 ° K; weight 1.65 / 1.15 M Sun; )
two stars of the same mass (by you and the same evolutionary phases) have different temperatures. Of course, be examples of this kind of line up until tomorrow or until you exhaust the existing published data on the stars but you do not even it will not be evidence
(84 Ceti mass 1,168; temperature 6.356K;
Zeta Leporis mass 1.46; temperature 9.772K;
Theta Sculptoris mass 1.25; temperature 6.395K;
39 Leonis mass 0.98; temperature 3.740K;
Aldebaran mass 1.5; temperature 3.910K;
Hamal mass 1.5; temperature 4.480K;
γ Doradus 1.57: temperature 7.200K;
Sirius B mass 0.987; Temperature 25.200K;
Luyten 726-8 A mass1,02; temperature 2.670K;
BPM 37093 1.1 mass; Temperature 11.730K;
Fomalhaut mass 1.98; temperature 8.590K;
Gamma Crucis mass 1.3; temperature 3.626K;

QU Normae mass 43; Temperature 17.000K;
μ Normae mass 40; Temperature 28.500K;

Castorα α Gem Aa mass 2.76; Temperature 10.286K;
              α Gem Ba mass 2.98; temperature 8.842K;

Antares mass 12.4; temperature 3.400K;
ε Canis Majoris mass 12.6; Temperature 22.900K;
α Crucis α1 mass 17.8; Temperature 24.000K;
               α2 mass 15.52; Temperature 28.000K;
HR 5984 mass 10; Temperature 27.000K;
Spica mass 10.25; Temperature 22.400K;
Deneb mass 19; temperature 8.525K;
η Canis Majoris mass 19,19; 15000K temperature; etc., etc.) itd

Share this post


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

bmk1245

The first example is
(R Doradus, temperature of 2740 ± 190; weight 1.2. /
IK Pegasi temperature of 7,700 / 35,500 ° K; weight 1.65 / 1.15 M Sun; )

two stars of the same mass (by you and the same evolutionary phases) have different temperatures. Of course, be examples of this kind of line up until tomorrow or until you exhaust the existing published data on the stars but you do not even it will not be evidence
[...]

R Doradus is red giant, while IK Pegasi A is main sequence star. Not the same evolutionary stage, by far.

Seriously, try painting, singing, dancing, maybe there you will succeed. Science ain't your horsey.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@bmk 1245

If you say so, 1.2 M Sun is not the same as a 1.15 M Sun, these are different worlds, sory "Not the same evolutionary stage".


However I need some more data that Iend up (that I fix, etc.) article. There must be an Achilles' heel, only is needs to find.                                                                                                      

You can detect inconsistencies and remember, this is a forum, a debate that exercises the convolutions and we learn something new or check existing knowledge without costing (for my this is just a hobby and fun).


Leafing through the the data I noticed that the same mass means (for a particular group) and similar (never the same) temperature. It is about important, most, this is in accordance with the percentage of types of stars (but never are no the same percentages).

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

You can detect inconsistencies and remember, this is a forum, a debate that exercises the convolutions and we learn something new or check existing knowledge without costing (for my this is just a hobby and fun).

So why you never take into consideration what others tell you, when they point out the fallacies of your propositions? 

If, as you said, we are here to debate, check and learn, you do realise that it has to be both ways? 

People here engage thenselves reading what you propose and giving not only their point of view, but solid science and verified data (that usually contradict what you say). 

On the other hand, you should be open to critics and recognise when something you thought up actually doesn't work or is just plain wrong. 

 

That you can call it a forum. 

Otherwise please open your blog (if you haven't already) and write whatever you want there, without the issue of others bothering you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Parsec said:

So why you never take into consideration what others tell you, when they point out the fallacies of your propositions? 

If, as you said, we are here to debate, check and learn, you do realise that it has to be both ways? 

People here engage thenselves reading what you propose and giving not only their point of view, but solid science and verified data (that usually contradict what you say). 

On the other hand, you should be open to critics and recognise when something you thought up actually doesn't work or is just plain wrong. 

 

That you can call it a forum. 

Otherwise please open your blog (if you haven't already) and write whatever you want there, without the issue of others bothering you.

 

Let's look at it from the other side.

If they are evidence a solid and unequivocal why it is difficult to accept? How to accept criticism behind which does not stand the evidence or the evidence which are wrong I on the them clearly show the evidence in the debate?

We are not in the church from the Middle Ages to accept fiction and commands without question, because goes head.

 

I have offered in debate evidence which no doubt negate:

- the internal burning stars (of official position), the existence of burning hydrogen,

- a link (predominant) between the mass and temperature,

- the existence of different evolutionary stages as an explanation of "life" of stars (KS de Boer and W. Seggewiss, Stars and Stellar Evolution, EDP Sciences, 2008)

- the existence of the collapse of gas that tries to describe the formation of stars and bodies,

- existence start hydrogen fusion reactions.

A persistent may continue to wear opaque goggles and hold the plugs in their ears and constantly to repeat the mantra without acceptance, evidence that the world is not based on illusions (poorly worded hypotheses) instead, that by using evidence they enter the real universe.

Edited by Weitter Duckss

Share this post


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

 

Let's look at it from the other side.

If they are evidence a solid and unequivocal why it is difficult to accept? How to accept criticism behind which does not stand the evidence or the evidence which are wrong I on the them clearly show the evidence in the debate?

We are not in the church from the Middle Ages to accept fiction and commands without question, because goes head.

 

I have offered in debate evidence which no doubt negate:

- the internal burning stars (of official position), the existence of burning hydrogen,

- a link (predominant) between the mass and temperature,

- the existence of different evolutionary stages as an explanation of "life" of stars (KS de Boer and W. Seggewiss, Stars and Stellar Evolution, EDP Sciences, 2008)

- the existence of the collapse of gas that tries to describe the formation of stars and bodies,

- existence start hydrogen fusion reactions.

A persistent may continue to wear opaque goggles and hold the plugs in their ears and constantly to repeat the mantra without acceptance, evidence that the world is not based on illusions (poorly worded hypotheses) instead, that by using evidence they enter the real universe.

Well, I have a few minutes, so let's dig in it. 

 

This (the one you've just shown) is exactly the wrong attitude to have when you seriously and genuinely  want to share thoughts with people. 

Unless I missed something, you are not Moses, nor Muhammad, who allegedly received the Truth directly and first hand from God.

So, since you are just a regular person who in his spare time thinks about big things, why are you so closed to confrontation? 

Why so reluctant to actually test if your proposal can be even slightly true? 

 

And you didn't show any evidence, the scientists you quote did, through years of studies and direct observations. 

What you did, is proposing a different way to read that data, nothing more. 

Already from here you should notice something is wrong with what you say. 

Of course you can't see it, otherwise you would have understood it threads and threads ago. 

You expect to understand better these things than the people who actually studied what you want to talk about. 

 

And your biggest fallacy lies in the fact that you are actually using data gathered by people you consider basically wrong and unreliable. 

So how can you trust their studies? 

How can you base your assumptions on data presented by those people? 

As far as you know, it could all be wrong. 

And if you are using wrong data, how can your deductions be right? 

You should question everything, not just things that don't match with your idea. 

And the fact that you cherry pick only what (you think that) fits with your preconstructed beliefs, doesn't help. At all. 

 

You should start from scratch, using your own data, gathered and studied by you. 

Only then you can be taken a little bit more seriously. 

Right now, you are just a stubborn and arrogant person who thinks to have the truth in his pocket and to be better and smarter than anybody else. 

And I can assure you this is not the case. 

Share this post


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

@bmk 1245

If you say so, 1.2 M Sun is not the same as a 1.15 M Sun, these are different worlds, sory "Not the same evolutionary stage".
[...]

You are comparing late phase (red giant R Doradus) with remnant (white dwarf IK Pegasus B). Its like comparing elderly man weighing 70 kg with 70kg corpse...

Very short and excellent tutorial about solar type star evolution (from protostar to white dwarf). Please read it (and, preferably, links therein too), cause you don't have a slightest clue about stellar evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Parsec said:

And your biggest fallacy lies in the fact that you are actually using data gathered by people you consider basically wrong and unreliable.

It's true I'm not Moses and not a believer, I am W. Duckss and test ideas directly to the forum in the debate, not in closed magazines and portals.
I try not to impose ideas, only create relationships between evidence and evidence on contrary presentations.
If you think that my position is good, against entire official science, you Be the me and defend my views just 24 hours.
Please, you do not use philosophy in debate with me because this is my narrow area, you use arguments.

2 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

You are comparing late phase (red giant R Doradus) with remnant (white dwarf IK Pegasus B).

I enclose the table again or see the introductory table.

 

Star

Mass (M Sun)

Temperature K

1

84 Ceti 

1,168 

6.356

2

Zeta Leporis   

1,46

9.772

3

Theta Sculptoris                      

1,25

6.395

4

39 Leonis                                

0,98

3.740

5

Aldebaran                              

1,5

3.910

6

Hamal

1.5

4.480

7

Γ Doradus                              

1,57

7.200

8

Sirius B                                  

0,987

25.200

9

Luyten 726-8 A                     

1,02

2.670

10

BPM 37093

1,1

11.730

11

Fomalhaut

1,98

8.590

12

Gamma Crucis

 

                     

1,3

3.626

13

QU Normae                         

43

17.000

14

Μ Normae                            

40

28.500

 

15

Castorα α Gem Aa                

2,76

10.286

16

              Α Gem Ba                

2,98

8.842

 

17

Antares      

12,4

3.400

18

Ε Canis Majoris                   

12,6

22.900

19

Α Crucis α1                          

17,8

24.000

20

               Α2                          

15,52

28.000

21

HR 5984                              

10

27.000

22

Spica

10,25

22.400

 

23

Deneb

19

8.525

24

Η Canis Majoris                 

19,19

15.000

Share this post


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

I enclose the table again or see the introductory table.

[...]

So? Again, what that suppose to mean?

Since you threw away all achievements in experimental, observational and theoretical astrophysics, how you determined mass and temperature of these stars? Let me guess, you used "flawed" results from literature! Ain't that nice....

If you still not get it what you are doing, let me put in this way: you are showing photographs of young and old people, and then claim that wrinkles aren't age related, that wrinkled old lady was born with that much wrinkles on her face:

fdaefc968b8cad8654a3f1251c54087a.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Let me guess, you used "flawed" results from literature!

Alright. I accept (the reserve) how you determined mass and temperature of these stars and evidence generated by these methods. This is the evidence from the tables. What with the evolution of the star does not recognize nor Darwin, to the clumsy fiction without the evidence. Here we look at the universe from an initial the evidence without hypothesis. Only on the evidence (I try) to build the questions and answers.
Leave your old lady, look at the evidence.
What evidence points to the evolution, which measurement?
There is only data for weight, temperature, radius, rotation speed, atmospheric composition, density and geometry measures. Who is to measure the evolution, combustion, ignition of hydrogen, age (except me), nuclear reactions and how and why they should be different for the bodies with the same mass?
I accept and I offer evidence, do not accept and do not smoke stories without credible and universal the evidence.

Share this post


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

Alright. I accept (the reserve) how you determined mass and temperature of these stars and evidence generated by these methods. This is the evidence from the tables. What with the evolution of the star does not recognize nor Darwin, to the clumsy fiction without the evidence. Here we look at the universe from an initial the evidence without hypothesis. Only on the evidence (I try) to build the questions and answers.
Leave your old lady, look at the evidence.
What evidence points to the evolution, which measurement?
There is only data for weight, temperature, radius, rotation speed, atmospheric composition, density and geometry measures. Who is to measure the evolution, combustion, ignition of hydrogen, age (except me), nuclear reactions and how and why they should be different for the bodies with the same mass?
I accept and I offer evidence, do not accept and do not smoke stories without credible and universal the evidence.

Oh sweet ignorance...

Short history of how scientists came up with nuclear reactions inside stars. And confirmation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Oh sweet ignorance...

Short history of how scientists came up with nuclear reactions inside stars. And confirmation.

"Physicists at the turn of the 20th century realized that the existing paradigm for stellar energy production was wrong."


Thanks for the article, which is me, returned in the time of dinosaurs.
Today we know that the Sun is not a gaseous body (1.408 g / cm3) and we know that there are no radio active radiation, which would confirm this bad, hypothesis. In essence it is wrong to think that the matter is burned and will be shut down, while there are compressive forces matter creates temperature and it is a permanent process with no time limit.
 
All this is written in the "Universe and rotation" http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#Processes

"The temperature of stars is directly related to the speed of its rotation. Those with slower rotation are red, while with the increase of the rotation speed, also increases the glow and temperature of a star. As a consequence, it turns white and blue. If we consult the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, it is obvious that both very small and super giant stars can have the same glow; they can be white, red or blue. The mass and quantity of so-called fuel that they supposedly burn is obviously an unacceptable answer – there are stars of the same mass, or sizes, but with a completely different glow. If we were to try to explain that by the presence of different elements, it would make no sense. Diversity of elements depends exactly on the temperature heights: the higher the temperature, the lower the diversity and order of elements.

diagram

The lower the temperature, the higher are diversity and presence.

If stars were to burn some fuel, they would lose their mass, which is not the case. On the contrary, they constantly gain mass with the outer mass incoming from the system (comets, asteroids, planets). Furthermore, it is wrong and opposite to the evidence to claim that stars shine because of the radioactive processes deep inside them. Beyond any doubt, they are not radioactive; besides other facts, there is magma on Earth, which shows no sign of radioactivity. To claim that these processes occur deep in the interiority of a star is unacceptable, because, due to high temperature, matter dislocates from the interiority towards surface. It goes vice versa, too, because this is one and the same object, not two distant worlds. All that we don’t understand about stars is evident here, on Earth. It is also heated, except for the crust, the thickness of which is less than one part per thousand, related to the melted part. If radiation doesn’t exist on Earth, it doesn’t exist on stars either, because the principle needs to be the same. But there is information that the objects, the mass of which exceeds 10% of Sun’s mass, produce glow. The force of attraction is a correction factor to this percentage: if an object is in its orbit closer to a star, the mass of the glowing object is significantly below 10%. That is proved by the vast majority of exoplanets discovered so far (“hot Jupiters”).

Earth shouldn’t be forgotten in this sense; although it hasn’t lost its crust, it is hot. The limit when pressure, due to the mass growth, causes the melting of an object needs to be determined more precisely. Once more, we can determine that the forces of pressure are solely responsible for that; objects are hotter in their centers than closer to surface or on it. The events take place exactly on the place where the forces of pressure are the strongest. It was thought until recently that planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune have cores of frozen liquid hydrogen. Of course, that can’t be true because Jupiter and Neptune emit two times more heat than they receive from Sun – that is a clear evidence of the melted core. .."

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.