Quicker "burning" and temperature of star

[Weitter Duckss]

8 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

You simply don't have a clue on how that kind of experiments are performed.

Thanks to the irrefutable "evidence and cons arguments".

Article on this topic is over (yet is without correction), next week is going to translate.
In the Croatian language you can look at
"Postoji li „brzo i sporo sagorijevanje“ zvijezda?"
http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/
Thank you for your participation, you and other participants in the discussion and the readers.
Good luck to all new 2017 years!

[bmk1245]

2 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

Thanks to the irrefutable "evidence and cons arguments".

[...]

You WERE given enough info to revise your "theories", yet...

2 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

Article on this topic is over (yet is without correction), next week is going to translate.
In the Croatian language you can look at
"Postoji li „brzo i sporo sagorijevanje“ zvijezda?"
http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/
[...]

Still keepin' brainfartin'?

2 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

Thank you for your participation, you and other participants in the discussion and the readers.
[...]

Thanks to your kind, we would still be sitting in the caves, and arguing "Duckss said that berry <lilly of the walley> is safe to eat"... Boom, all Duckss' followers are dead... After awhile another Duckss appear, and... story goes on...

2 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

Good luck to all new 2017 years!

Happy new year, Duckss. I really hope, you'll discover what library is.

[Rlyeh]

On ‎24‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 6:17 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

It is now clear to me why do not radiate nuclear reactors. Gamma radiation does not really exist! Is not important what is the reactor in diameter ~ 1.4 million kilometers, nor that matter dislocate (from outside to the inside and vice versa)? We have a shield from Star Trek.

So we've detected gamma radiation but it doesn't really exist. How did you come to this asinine conclusion?

[bmk1245]

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

[...] How did you come to this asinine conclusion?

Star Trek shield... 

[Weitter Duckss]

On 31.12.2016. at 0:05 PM, Rlyeh said:

So we've detected gamma radiation but it doesn't really exist.

This was the sakrazam on the claim

"First of all, the gamma rays from the sun's core are being effectively absorbed by the outer layers, and thats why we can not detect them."

How can it be possible that a body diameter of ~ 1.4 million kilometers products but does not emit gamma radiation?

[Rlyeh]

6 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

This was the sakrazam on the claim

"First of all, the gamma rays from the sun's core are being effectively absorbed by the outer layers, and thats why we can not detect them."

How can it be possible that a body diameter of ~ 1.4 million kilometers products but does not emit gamma radiation?

It's already been explained for you.

[Weitter Duckss]

2 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

It's already been explained for you.

Instead of explanations, evidence please.

What is the exchange, displacement of matter in general and between the layers?

What about the hot material that rises to the surface, millions of cubic meters? Where is radioactivity?

Nuclear discharges little radiation and raise to panic. People normally walking around active volcanoes.

We do not measure gamma rays from the stars, when existgamma rays, it is a first-rate news.
Counter evidence does not exist.

[Rlyeh]

1 hour ago, Weitter Duckss said:

Instead of explanations, evidence please.

You first. Refute the existence of gamma radiation. Can you show that we have never detected it? 

1 hour ago, Weitter Duckss said:

What is the exchange, displacement of matter in general and between the layers?

What about the hot material that rises to the surface, millions of cubic meters? Where is radioactivity?

Nuclear discharges little radiation and raise to panic. People normally walking around active volcanoes.

We do not measure gamma rays from the stars, when existgamma rays, it is a first-rate news.
Counter evidence does not exist.

Stars don't produce GRBs? bull****.

http://www.space.com/34269-first-double-star-system-gamma-rays.html

[Weitter Duckss]

7 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Stars don't produce GRBs? bull****.

"For the first time ever, scientists have seen a double-star system in another galaxy emitting gamma rays," (article) / Milky Way has 100-400 billion stars (Wikipedia) / "We do not measure gamma rays from the stars , when exist gamma rays, it is a first-rate news. (from my comments).

Yes, I know about this and a number of similar articles, and know that this is a very rare event for the stars in the galaxy and beyond, as I mentioned in a comment.
Although this event is rare, my estimates are that the event of short duration and it is difficult to register.
The event is tied for the arrival of matter (smaller the bodyes), the polarity of the stars when the collision produces gamma radiation.

[Rlyeh]

It must be very rare since according to you gamma radiation doesn't exist.

[Weitter Duckss]

5 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

It must be very rare since according to you gamma radiation doesn't exist.

I do not know where you read it, but it does not matter.

Tabela 3.

	Star (zvijezde.)	Mass (M Sun)	Radius (R Sun)	Temperature K	Star type
1	HD 149382	0,486	0,0345	56.000/3.000?	A
2	PG 0112+104	0,5	/	30.000	WD
3	Zeta Cygni B	0,6	/	12.000	A
4	Procyon B	0,602	0,12	7.740	F
5	HD 4628	0,70	0,749	5.829	K
6	LP 145-141	0,75	/	8.500 ± 300	DQ
7	IK Pegasi	1,65/1,15	1,6	7.700 / 35.500	A
8	Zeta Cygni A	3,05	15	4.910	G
9	56 Pegasi	5,4	680	4.416	K
10	HD 160529	13	150-300	8.000 – 12.000	B
11	α Crucis α2	15,52	/	28.000	B
12	α Crucis α1	17,8	/	24.000	B
13	P Cygni	30	76	18.700	B
14	Eta Carinae Car B	30-80	14,3 – 23,6	37.200	O
15	BP Crucis	43	70	178.100	B
16	Eta Carinae Car A	~100 -200	60 – 800	9.430 – 35.200	O

 

[bmk1245]

13 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

I do not know where you read it, but it does not matter.

Tabela 3.

 

Just checked one somewhat outlandish temperature, for BP Cru (Wray 977 B hypergiant), it should be 18100 K as per source (wiki's ref.3, which is using data from here), not 178100 K, clear mistype in wiki.

Anyway, are you starting that same bs once again?

[Weitter Duckss]

3 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Just checked one somewhat outlandish temperature, for BP Cru (Wray 977 B hypergiant), it should be 18100 K as per source (wiki's ref.3, which is using data from here), not 178100 K, clear mistype in wiki.

Anyway, are you starting that same bs once again?

Thank you. I corrected table 3.

As I said earlier, you have eye and feeling for details.

[bmk1245]

21 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

Thank you. I corrected table 3.

And what this table means? Just random stars piled in...

[Weitter Duckss]

3 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

And what this table means? Just random stars piled in...

Tables are the relations of mass and temperature and indicates that higher weight does not mean higher temperatures and faster burning stars. The biggest stars are mostly cold (M, K, G type) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_stars#List and are mostly Type M.

Article covers the over 99% of stars the Milky Way galaxy (small, large, bright, star from the main sequence and outside of the main sequence, all types of stars as and  the chemical composition of the star (stars are composed of 71% hydrogen and 27% helium and some other elements , the Wiki) and there is even a little hint of of combustion of matter.

There is no nor a small possibility of binding the speed of rotation of the stars for determining the age of the star.
See for yourself.
(Article after finishing now is the translation (on Croatian http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/))

[bmk1245]

On 1/4/2017 at 5:28 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

Tables are the relations of mass and temperature and indicates that higher weight does not mean higher temperatures and faster burning stars. The biggest stars are mostly cold (M, K, G type) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_stars#List and are mostly Type M.

[...]

For umpteenth time, read about star evolution, and try to understand what you've read.

On 1/4/2017 at 5:28 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

Article covers the over 99% of stars the Milky Way galaxy (small, large, bright, star from the main sequence and outside of the main sequence, all types of stars as and  the chemical composition of the star (stars are composed of 71% hydrogen and 27% helium and some other elements , the Wiki) and there is even a little hint of of combustion of matter.

[...]

Combustion? So, finally, you admit that stars are powered by nuclear processes?

On 1/4/2017 at 5:28 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

There is no nor a small possibility of binding the speed of rotation of the stars for determining the age of the star.
See for yourself.
(Article after finishing now is the translation (on Croatian http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/))

Nine fridges, mesa guess?

[Weitter Duckss]

10 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

For umpteenth time, read about star evolution, and try to understand what you've read.

Combustion? So, finally, you admit that stars are powered by nuclear processes?

Nine fridges, mesa guess?

Read? The reality is that stars have the same or similar chemical composition of 71% hydrogen and 27% helium and some other elements (O2, etc.).

You can not put into evidence a story about evolution (evolution means diversity). Diversity does not exist in the chemical composition (worth observing) only in the mass, the rotation speed, radius, color, surface gravity and the environment.
For combustion there is no single real evidence within the law of universality.

The same temperature have the O and M stars and the other in series and the opposite, where she here combustion, where she here pattern of legality combustion?
New article about Mars you can look at http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/, may be the next topic.

[bmk1245]

4 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

Read? The reality is that stars have the same or similar chemical composition of 71% hydrogen and 27% helium and some other elements (O2, etc.).

You can not put into evidence a story about evolution (evolution means diversity). Diversity does not exist in the chemical composition (worth observing) only in the mass, the rotation speed, radius, color, surface gravity and the environment.

[...]

Again, read scientific literature, for christ sake!

4 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

For combustion there is no single real evidence within the law of universality.

[...]

What the hell is the law of universality? Are we discussing ethics here?

And yeah, there is proof of nuclear reactions in stars: neutrino flux from the Sun with energies and flux pointing to proton-proton chain in the core.

4 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

The same temperature have the O and M stars and the other in series and the opposite, where she here combustion, where she here pattern of legality combustion?
[...]

You sound like Jar Jar Binks on heavy drugs. What the hell do you mean?

[Weitter Duckss]

3 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Again, read scientific literature, for christ sake!

What the hell is the law of universality? Are we discussing ethics here?

And yeah, there is proof of nuclear reactions in stars: neutrino flux from the Sun with energies and flux pointing to proton-proton chain in the core.

You sound like Jar Jar Binks on heavy drugs. What the hell do you mean?

I do not use drugs, alcohol, coffee, and do not chasing women. I was just a skeptic, and I do not buy the story, I observe only the relation through the evidence.
If you insist on something, then, provide real evidence instead of "And yeah, there is proof of nuclear reactions in stars". Combustion in stars does not provide answers - why two bodies of the same mass and chemical composition do not have the same temperature or why seven stars, the same mass and chemical composition, belong in 7 Spectral types of stars (class O, B, A, F, G, K, M ...) or ...

[bmk1245]

18 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

I do not use drugs, alcohol, coffee, and do not chasing women. I was just a skeptic, and I do not buy the story, I observe only the relation through the evidence.
If you insist on something, then, provide real evidence instead of "And yeah, there is proof of nuclear reactions in stars". [...]

I already did, in my earlier post. Here is the link to the article written on the basis of research paper.

18 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...] Combustion in stars does not provide answers - why two bodies of the same mass and chemical composition do not have the same temperature or why seven stars, the same mass and chemical composition, belong in 7 Spectral types of stars (class O, B, A, F, G, K, M ...) or ...

Yes, it does. Here is the simplest explanation (you can't get any simpler), pay close attention to the explanations on the figure 4. See how Sun (or Sun mass star) moves from G to M?

[Weitter Duckss]

4 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

I already did, in my earlier post. Here is the link to the article written on the basis of research paper.

Yes, it does. Here is the simplest explanation (you can't get any simpler), pay close attention to the explanations on the figure 4. See how Sun (or Sun mass star) moves from G to M?

-"using a detector buried deep below the mountains of central Italy .. producing a deuterium nucleus (heavy hydrogen, made of a proton and a neutron) plus an antielectron and a neutrino. This is the start of a whole sequence of reactions: Protons collide with deuterium to produce helium-3; helium-3s combine to give helium-4 plus protons; other reactions produce lithium, beryllium, and boron. .. Neutrinos pass easily through the overlying rock" 
"In the core of the Sun, energy is released through sequences of nuclear reactions that convert hydrogen into helium."

"Jupiter Composition by volume    
by volume:
89.8±2.0%    hydrogen (H2)
10.2±2.0%    helium (He)

Sun Photospheric composition (by mass)
Hydrogen    73.46%[12]
Helium    24.85%

Oxygen    0.77%

Earth Chemical composition
iron (32.1%), oxygen (30.1%), silicon (15.1%), magnesium (13.9%), sulfur (2.9%), nickel (1.8%), calcium (1.5%), and aluminium (1.4%), with the remaining 1.2% consisting of trace amounts of other elements." Wikipedia

It seems that Earth has the best fusion. WD

-"Now if you were to look inside the Sun's core today, you would see that there is about 35% hydrogen and 62% helium. Helium is denser, so it sinks to the center of the core."

 "Sun has a density of up to 150 g/cm3[67][68] (about 150 times the density of water)"   (Average density 1.408 g/cm³ )

Helium
when liquid, at m.p.    0.145 g/cm3
when liquid, at b.p.    0.125 g/cm3" Wikipedia

Be serious. WD

[bmk1245]

18 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

-"using a detector buried deep below the mountains of central Italy .. producing a deuterium nucleus (heavy hydrogen, made of a proton and a neutron) plus an antielectron and a neutrino. This is the start of a whole sequence of reactions: Protons collide with deuterium to produce helium-3; helium-3s combine to give helium-4 plus protons; other reactions produce lithium, beryllium, and boron. .. Neutrinos pass easily through the overlying rock" 
"In the core of the Sun, energy is released through sequences of nuclear reactions that convert hydrogen into helium."

"Jupiter Composition by volume    
by volume:
89.8±2.0%    hydrogen (H2)
10.2±2.0%    helium (He)

Sun Photospheric composition (by mass)
Hydrogen    73.46%[12]
Helium    24.85%

Oxygen    0.77%

Earth Chemical composition
iron (32.1%), oxygen (30.1%), silicon (15.1%), magnesium (13.9%), sulfur (2.9%), nickel (1.8%), calcium (1.5%), and aluminium (1.4%), with the remaining 1.2% consisting of trace amounts of other elements." Wikipedia

It seems that Earth has the best fusion. WD

[...]

Read about planet formation, and you well get some clue why composition of Earth is so different from atmospheric composition of Sun (Jupiter).

18 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

-"Now if you were to look inside the Sun's core today, you would see that there is about 35% hydrogen and 62% helium. Helium is denser, so it sinks to the center of the core."

 "Sun has a density of up to 150 g/cm3[67][68] (about 150 times the density of water)"   (Average density 1.408 g/cm³ )

Helium
when liquid, at m.p.    0.145 g/cm3
when liquid, at b.p.    0.125 g/cm3" Wikipedia

Be serious. WD

At pressure of 23.3 GPa (230000 atm) and 300 K temperature, density of helium is 1.17 g/cm³ (experimental results, H.K.Mao et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 2649 (1988)). Now, what is the pressure and temperature in Sun's core?

[Weitter Duckss]

10 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Read about planet formation, and you well get some clue why composition of Earth is so different from atmospheric composition of Sun (Jupiter).

At pressure of 23.3 GPa (230000 atm) and 300 K temperature, density of helium is 1.17 g/cm³ (experimental results, H.K.Mao et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 2649 (1988)). Now, what is the pressure and temperature in Sun's core?

We discussed about illogical collapse of gas in the second topic, let's not go down that road.

The zero point is the reality, the present state of the stars. The evidence is the same mass, the same chemical composition, why is everything else differently (it does not matter which size weight).
How would you explain that to with the past?
Why would for same stars been burning differently?
I note that I do not want to impose attitude, only I do not want to listen to stories without evidence, logic and uniform approach for every body in the universe within the identical conditions.

The second part of the "density of helium is 1.17 g / cm3," how does that fit into 150 g / cm3?

Why the asteroid Vesta 2.5 x denser than the Sun? No the terrible pressure and cold is, It is the same with all the other bodies.
There is no a uniform law if you observe only one body.

[bmk1245]

12 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

We discussed about illogical collapse of gas in the second topic, let's not go down that road.

 

[...]

You won't get away that easy. Please, point out illogic and flaws in Jeans work related to nebula stability.

12 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

The zero point is the reality, the present state of the stars. The evidence is the same mass, the same chemical composition, why is everything else differently (it does not matter which size weight).
How would you explain that to with the past?
Why would for same stars been burning differently?
[...]

Different evolutionary stages: one star just starts to burn hydrogen in the core, the other halfway through shell hydrogen burning, third is in the end of core helium burning, etc, etc.

12 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

The second part of the "density of helium is 1.17 g / cm3," how does that fit into 150 g / cm3?

Why the asteroid Vesta 2.5 x denser than the Sun? No the terrible pressure and cold is, It is the same with all the other bodies.
There is no a uniform law if you observe only one body.

To understand that, you should start with Arithmetics for Dummies, followed by more complex math, basic physics, and so on... You are like kindergartener, who can count to 3 only, but claims that tensor algebra is wrong...

[Weitter Duckss]

5 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

You won't get away that easy. Please, point out illogic and flaws in Jeans work related to nebula stability.

Are you saying that there is a collapse, for star mass of 0.08 mass Sun arising collapse of the nebula, as, and the planet?
Why there is no collapse for "A vast assemblage of molecular gas with a mass of approximately 10 ^ 3 to 10 ^ 7 times the mass of the Sun is called a giant molecular cloud (GMC)" (consist largely of ionised helium and hydrogen)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_cloud#Giant_molecular_clouds

 

5 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Different evolutionary stages: one star just starts to burn hydrogen in the core, the other halfway through shell hydrogen burning, third is in the end of core helium burning, etc, etc.

You forget the chemical composition is the same Hydrogen 73.46%, Helium, 24.85%. The weight is the same. No stage, these are stories. (If you check the rotation of the star, you'll see are different, as, and radius, color, etc.).
 

 

5 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

To understand that, you should start with Arithmetics for Dummies, followed by more complex math, basic physics, and so on... You are like kindergartener, who can count to 3 only, but claims that tensor algebra is wrong...

I do not know for algebra but I know for evidence.
Vesta density, 3.456 g / cm3, the diameter of 525.4 ± 0.2 (mean), "composition of the Howard EUCRO, and Diogenes meteorites." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_Vesta#Surface_composition etc.
Sun density of 1.408 g / cm3, the diameter of 1,392,000 km, Equatorial radius 695.700 km, compositionHydrogen 73.46% Helium, 24.85%.

It is in accordance with your "geometry"? Quickly think up new geometry.