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 1
Weitter Duckss

The Evolution of Stars. LOL

48 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Why is "The Evolution of Stars" incorrect? (Weitter Duckss)

„Stellar evolution starts with the gravitational collapse of a giant molecular cloud .“ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution#Protostar

„Protostars with masses less than roughly 0.08 M (1.6×1029 kg) never reach temperatures high enough for nuclear fusion of hydrogen to begin. These are known as brown dwarfs. The International Astronomical Union defines brown dwarfs as stars massive enough to fuse deuterium at some point in their lives (13 Jupiter masses (MJ), 2.5 × 1028 kg, or 0.0125 M). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution#Brown_dwarfs_and_sub-stellar_objects

This quotation from Wikipedia may had been acceptable in the past, because readers were unable to check the real situation in data bases of stars and other objects inside the galaxy and beyond. These days, when there is a sufficient number of explored objects, exoplanets, brown dwarfs and other stars, galaxies and clusters of galaxies, it is not difficult to conclude that the old theories are completely wrong and badly conceived mind constructions.

In the next table I have given some examples of exoplanets that testify beyond any doubt against the old theories. The mass of Sun is 1/1047 of the Sun mass.

 

 

Exoplanet

 

Maas of Jupiter

 

Temperature K

 

Semi major axis AU/ Parent star spectral typ

1.

Hottest Kepler-70b

0.440 Earth

7.143

0.006            O (sdB)

2.

WASP-33b

4,59 Jupiter

2.451

0.02558         A5

3.

WASP-121b

1.183 J

2.358

0.02544         F6V

4.

WASP-87b

2.18

2.322

0.02946         F5

5.

B Tauri FU braon patuljak

15

2.375

700   M7.25 (M9.25)

6.

WASP-12b

1.404

2.319

0.02293          G0

7.

HIP 78530 b

24

2.700

710                 B9V

8.

Kepler-13b

6.6

2.750

0.03423      8.500°K

9.

DH Tauri b

12

2.750

330                M0.5V

10.

PSR J1719-1438 b

1.2

5.375

0.00442         Pulsar

11.

KOI-368.01

2.1

3.060

0.6                 F6

12.

KOI-55 C

0,0021

6.319

0.0076           B4

13.

CT Chamaeleontis b

2.4

2.500

440,0             K7

14.

HAT-P-7b

1.709

2.733

0.0379           F6

15.

OGLE2-TR-L9

4.34

2.154.6

0.0308           F3

16.

WASP-48 b

0.98

2.030

0.03444       5.990°K

17.

UScoCTIO 108 b

14

2.350

670                  M7

18.

WASP-103 b

1.47

2.508

0.01985           F8V

19.

Kepler-10 b

0,010475

2.169

0.01684            G

20.

WASP-100b

1.69

2.190

0.0457              F2

21.

WASP-72b

1.01

2.210

0.03655            F7

22.

WASP-18 b

1,165 (10.43)

2.187,5

0.02047           F6

23

Oph 11 B

21

2.478

243.0               M9

24.

WASP-78 b

1.16

2.006.7

0.0415             F8

25

KELT-7 b

1.28

2.048

0.04415     6.789°K

26

WASP-111 b

1.83

2.140

0.03914           F5

It can be seen from the table that the planets
Hottest Kepler-70b (7 143° K), PSR J1719-1438 b (5 375° K), KOI-55 C (6 319° K) are far beyond the temperatures for the M-type stars.


M typ star

0.08–0.45

≤ 0.7

2,400–3,700

M 76,45%

From fast-and-slow-combustion.

The rest of the planets from the table, in the matter of temperatures, belong to M-type stars.
The temperature maximum of magma „(komatiite) is 1 600°C(Basalt lava flow usually has the temperature of eruption between 1 100 and 1 250°C.) (Magma is a complex high-temperature fluid substance.)“ Wikipedia.

The planets from the table have the temperatures significantly above the temperature maximums of magma, which, in other words, means that they are either melted liquid (fluidic) objects or stars.

If we follow the idea that the temperature of a planet is related to the small distance from the star that is supposed to be the source of temperature, then there is no explanation for HIP 78530 b (R/B 7.), which is 710 AU far from its main star, similarly like Jupiter (and like R/B 23; R/B 17; R/B 13; R/B 9; R/B 5). The majority of exoplanets from the table is at the distances from 0.02 do 0.05 AU from their main stars, however, to make a conclusion that the influence of a star's proximity is dominant for the temperature of a planet, without realizing they are at the same distance:

Wolf 1061b, ……………...210°K, ………………….0.035509 AU,  
KOI-1843.01, …………….800°K, ………………….0,039 AU,   
Gliese 3634 b, ……………565,4°K, ………………..0,0287 AU,   
Kepler-45b, ………………774°K, ………………….0.027 AU, 
 
HD 63454 b, ……………...926,7°K, ………………..0,036 AU,   
HD 40307 b, ……………...804,5°K,  …………….....0.0468 AU,   
HAT-P-20 b, ………………888,3°K, ………………0.0361 AU,    
WASP-10 b, ………………984,3°K,………………. 0.0371 AU,   
HATS-6 b, ………………...712,8°K,  ………………0.03623 AU,   
Gliese 436 b, ……………...650,3°K, ……………….0.0291 AU, 
 
GJ 160.2 b, ………………..100°K,  ………………...0,053 AU,  
Gliese 1214 b, …………….604°K, ………………....0.01488 AU etc.
could easily be wrong.

If we put into the formula the spectral class of a planet's main star:

WASP-11b/HAT-P-10(b)…K3V,…… 0,0439 AU, .. ….943.2 °K; 
HD 63454 b ……………….K4V,…… 0,036 AU …... ..926,7°K;
HD 330075 b……………..G5,…….. 0,043 AU,…... ..1.023°K;
TrES-2b / Kepler-1b, …….G0V,…… 0.03556 AU,… albedo (Ag) 0,0136;
HD 219134 (b) ……………K3V,.. …...0.0382 AU,……800°K;
HD 102195 (b)…………....K0V, …….0,049 AU,…… 963,1°K;
HD 40307( ~5.000°K….....K2,5V, …..0,0468 AU,…. ..804,5°K;
OGLE-TR-111(b)………….G ili K, …..0,047 AU, …….940°K;
WASP-10(b)…………….…K5,……… 0,0371 AU,….. .946,8°K;
HD 215497 (b)…………….K3V, …….0,047 AU,…….984.3°K;
Gliese 3470 (b)……………3.600°K,….0,031 AU,…. ...604±98°K;

We can add here PSR J1719-1438 b, which rotates around a pulsar (the temperature of which is unmeasurable to our instruments) at the distance of 0.004 AU and has a temperature of 5 348°K, and Hottest Kepler-70b, which rotates around its main star at the distance of 0.006 AU and has the temperature of 27 730°K. Based on these two planets, it is obvious that the temperature of a main star has no dominant influence over the temperature of a planet. (The data used here are from Wikipedia and exoplanet.eu/)

Conclusion

"Growth doesn’t stop with atoms; on the contrary, joining goes on. Through joining, chemical reactions and combined, gas, dust, sand, the rocks named asteroids and comets, … Then, when planets grow to the 10% of Sun’s mass, they become stars, which can be really gigantic (super-giants). Millions of craters scattered around the objects of our Solar system are the evidence of objects’ growth. Constant impacts of asteroids into our atmosphere and soil are the evidence of these processes being uninterrupted today, just the same as it used to be in any earlier period of the past. It is estimated that 4 000 – 100 000 tons of extraterrestrial material falls yearly to Earth." 
from „Universe and rotation/Processes in universe

"It is enough to observe the mass of an object, its relation to other objects, the rotation of an object as well as the rotation of a central object, the composition of an object and the orbital distance to make a valid estimate for every object, without the need for nuclear fusions, fissions and matter combustion."
From „Weitter Duckss's Theory of the Universe“ and „The causal relation between a star and its temperature, gravity, radius and color"

31.03.2017. g.  

 

 

Edited by Weitter Duckss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Verbum sem, nothing more...

Share this post


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

Verbum sem, nothing more...

Viridi aut Franco?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It takes some kind of special stupid putting M class (M8 ± 1) brown dwarf HIP 78530 b in the same basket with hot Jupiters or rocky planets, which are flying ten (or even hundred) times closer to the parent stars (of different spectral classes) than Mercury around the Sun, and making far reaching conclusions.

Again, for umpteenth time, try to learn, "genius". That takes reading thousands of scientific papers, not just wikipedia.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classification of the body is just nonsense without a shred of understanding of the processes in the universe.
It shows this and other articles. High temperature have small and large body independently of the distance from the parent body.
Hottest Kepler-70b have 0.440 mass of Earth and is warmer than 80% of the Milky Way Star (or KOI-55 C 0.0021 mass J, 6319 ° K). What is a star, a planet, as brown dwarf?
The tables are made that have the emphasis on the inconsistency of evolution which is strayed from biology in physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did you measured temperatures, huh?

I know how scientific team got day/night temperatures (their scientific paper and supplements lying on the desktop) on KOI-55.01/02/03, what data were used, and what assumptions they made in their estimations.

Lets see how you come up with 6319 K, 7143 K, etc. Bring it on.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know I use data from the database. Here Wikipedia and exoplanet.eu/.
I do not measure the temperature, others do it.
Please join in the discussion on the same topic on http://www.astronomy.ru/forum/index.php/topic,152649.0.html

You are advocating the evolution in the earlier discussions, now you have the opportunity to immerse me with arguments (I'm looking forward to it).
 
In the article is wrong, "similarly like Jupiter" because Jupiter to 5.20260 AU (wrongly connected data (700 AU and 778.299 GM).

Share this post


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

You know I use data from the database. Here Wikipedia and exoplanet.eu/.
I do not measure the temperature, others do it.
Please join in the discussion on the same topic on http://www.astronomy.ru/forum/index.php/topic,152649.0.html

You are advocating the evolution in the earlier discussions, now you have the opportunity to immerse me with arguments (I'm looking forward to it).
 
In the article is wrong, "similarly like Jupiter" because Jupiter to 5.20260 AU (wrongly connected data (700 AU and 778.299 GM).

I hoped you will try, at least, to figure out how temperatures you listed were measured. Long story short: temperatures of the planets were estimated from temperatures and radii of the host stars, as well orbital radii and albedo of the planets, and, in some cases, temperature contrast.

Stop embarrassing yourself, you made complete fool of yourself once again.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, bmk1245 said:

I hoped you will try, at least, to figure out how temperatures you listed were measured. Long story short: temperatures of the planets were estimated from temperatures and radii of the host stars, as well orbital radii and albedo of the planets, and, in some cases, temperature contrast.

Stop embarrassing yourself, you made complete fool of yourself once again.

You forget that the theme of the evolution of stars (LOL).

Are you saying and that the temperature of the star are not accurate (μ Columbae, type O, 16 M mass of the Sun, the temperature of 33,000 K - VY Canis Majoris, type M, 17 M mass of the Sun, the temperature of 3490 K)?


From the table one ordinal numbers 5, 7, 9, 13, 17 and 23 you completely deny. These bodies are not close to the stars (243-710 AU) and should be regarded as an independent (Edgeworth-Kuiper belt (at 30 AU) to approximately 50 AU from the Sun).


Planet  GJ 758 B mass 45 J; Semi-Major Axis 44.8 AU; temperature 710 ° K (star 758 GJ  mass 0.97 MSun; Effective temperature 5425.0 K), how do you explain this low temperature?

Edited by Weitter Duckss

Share this post


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

You forget that the theme of the evolution of stars (LOL).

[...]

What a cop out. Your OWN WORDS:

Quote

Based on these two planets, it is obvious that the temperature of a main star has no dominant influence over the temperature of a planet.

 

2 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

Are you saying and that the temperature of the star are not accurate (μ Columbae, type O, 16 M mass of the Sun, the temperature of 33,000 K - VY Canis Majoris, type M, 17 M mass of the Sun, the temperature of 3490 K)?

 

[...]

I'm tired of repeating the same stuff again, and again, and again...

Learn, for christ sake, by yourself about O class stars, and then about M class stars.

Heck, even bonobos would be able to learn and understand something.

 

2 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

From the table one ordinal numbers 5, 7, 9, 13, 17 and 23 you completely deny. These bodies are not close to the stars (243-710 AU) and should be regarded as an independent (Edgeworth-Kuiper belt (at 30 AU) to approximately 50 AU from the Sun).

[...]

Are you THAT THICK?!!! Do you know the difference between planet (no fusion reactions, only some decay) and brown dwarf (deuterium/lithium fusion)? Do you see the difference?!

BTW, #13 (CT Chamaeleontis b) mass is 17MJ. Its a brown freakin' dwarf.

 

2 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

Planet  GJ 758 B mass 45 J; Semi-Major Axis 44.8 AU; temperature 710 ° K (star 758 GJ  mass 0.97 MSun; Effective temperature 5425.0 K), how do you explain this low temperature?

As GJ 758 b (T8 spectral class brown dwarf) burns through deuterium and lithium, in the end there is nothing left to burn. Hence brown dwarfs have only one option left - to cool down. Hence low surface temperature on GJ 758 b.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I'm tired of repeating the same stuff again, and again, and again...

Learn, for christ sake, by yourself about O class stars, and then about M class stars.

Heck, even bonobos would be able to learn and understand something.

If I understood you, suffice it to say this is the body of a dwarf, this planet, this is the star and the law is universal? All three have the same mass but the temperature of them is 200-7000 ° C and more. When the star is and drastic (at least those "burned" in the same way, or these are from Grandma, these of, aunts, etc.).
You simply replacing evidence for the hypothesis.
How you recognize that your body burns more quickly and what, burns, if all the bodies (of examples) have the same mass. Why is this planet, another dwarf, extra hot body, conditions are the same? Evolution? Burning? Inventing? Or farce without strongholds in the evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2017 at 4:49 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

If I understood you, suffice it to say this is the body of a dwarf, this planet, this is the star and the law is universal? All three have the same mass but the temperature of them is 200-7000 ° C and more. When the star is and drastic (at least those "burned" in the same way, or these are from Grandma, these of, aunts, etc.).
You simply replacing evidence for the hypothesis.
How you recognize that your body burns more quickly and what, burns, if all the bodies (of examples) have the same mass. Why is this planet, another dwarf, extra hot body, conditions are the same? Evolution? Burning? Inventing? Or farce without strongholds in the evidence?

Pathetic. What you call "hypothesis" actually are theories backed up by tons of observations. Even more, stellar masses are being estimated using the same theories you are trying to disprove.

READ THE FREAKIN' BASICS, once again.

Share this post


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

Pathetic. What you call "hypothesis" actually are theories backed up by tons of observations. Even more, stellar masses are being estimated using the same theories you are trying to disprove.

READ THE FREAKIN' BASICS, once again.

I have nothing against the hypothesis, the hypothesis to be and go down in history.
Let us return to the reasons for the cause. The bodies of the same mass must be at least similar to, but are not. It is not enough to say white, brown, red dwarf and solve the problem. The problem is there. The evolution of the official science does not have any logical (not only correct) answer and solution. The same amount of weight = same combustion, similar temperature and the rest. It can not hypothesis about thermonuclear fusion be the answer, the chemical composition of stars is the same with the same mass.

PG 0112 + 104, mass 0,52 M Sun, temperature 31.300± 500 K;

LP 145-141,  mass 0,75 M Sun; Temperature 8.500°K;

40 Eridana mass, 0.50 M Sun; Temperature 16.500 ° K; 
Van Maanen 2, mass Sun 0.68; Temperature 6.620 ° K;

M stars, Sun 0,08 do 0,45; Temperature 2.400 do 3.700; 76,45% Fraction of all main-sequence stars
Teide 1 mass 0,052, Sun; Temperature 2.600 ° K (
brown dwarfs) etc 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2017 at 9:00 AM, Weitter Duckss said:

I have nothing against the hypothesis, the hypothesis to be and go down in history.
Let us return to the reasons for the cause. The bodies of the same mass must be at least similar to, but are not. It is not enough to say white, brown, red dwarf and solve the problem. The problem is there. The evolution of the official science does not have any logical (not only correct) answer and solution. The same amount of weight = same combustion, similar temperature and the rest. It can not hypothesis about thermonuclear fusion be the answer, the chemical composition of stars is the same with the same mass.

[...]

 

White dwarfs (REMNANTS OF THE STARS) are made of C/O, O/Ne/Mg, with very little H/He in very thin atmosphere.

 

On 4/10/2017 at 9:00 AM, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

PG 0112 + 104, mass 0,52 M Sun, temperature 31.300± 500 K;

LP 145-141,  mass 0,75 M Sun; Temperature 8.500°K;

40 Eridana mass, 0.50 M Sun; Temperature 16.500 ° K; 
Van Maanen 2, mass Sun 0.68; Temperature 6.620 ° K;

M stars, Sun 0,08 do 0,45; Temperature 2.400 do 3.700; 76,45% Fraction of all main-sequence stars
Teide 1 mass 0,052, Sun; Temperature 2.600 ° K (
brown dwarfs) etc 
 

PG 0112+104, LP 145-141, 40 Eridani b, and Van Maanen 2 are white dwarfs of different masses and cooling ages.

How temperature proceeds as white dwarf cools down? Thats how:

WD_cooling.png.cb076a4c56f1f4387686fcd916fa637a.png

Again, READ THE LITERATURE on the subject.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

White dwarfs (REMNANTS OF THE STARS) are made of C/O, O/Ne/Mg, with very little H/He in very thin atmosphere.

 

PG 0112+104, LP 145-141, 40 Eridani b, and Van Maanen 2 are white dwarfs of different masses and cooling ages.

How temperature proceeds as white dwarf cools down? Thats how:

WD_cooling.png.cb076a4c56f1f4387686fcd916fa637a.png

Again, READ THE LITERATURE on the subject.

In Example I have stated the body, of similar mass (white, blue and colorful dwarfs and Snow White). I have noted that the same DNA (hydrogen with some helium and traces of others).
Weakness in the diagram are the year. Where you are acquire just enough birth certificates?
Maybe you were at childbirth or record this event?
Probably you replaced the speed of rotation for the age of the body.
White dwarfs have fast rotation, this is and official position.
Brown dwarfs have the slowest rotation about an axis (also officially or from the database).
Please select to take evidence or seek a birth certificate of midwife.

Share this post


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

In Example I have stated the body, of similar mass (white, blue and colorful dwarfs and Snow White). I have noted that the same DNA (hydrogen with some helium and traces of others).
Weakness in the diagram are the year. Where you are acquire just enough birth certificates?
Maybe you were at childbirth or record this event?
Probably you replaced the speed of rotation for the age of the body.
White dwarfs have fast rotation, this is and official position.
Brown dwarfs have the slowest rotation about an axis (also officially or from the database).
Please select to take evidence or seek a birth certificate of midwife.

From the same "birth certificates" you took temperatures.

BTW, you may want to familiarize yourself with Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism.

Share this post


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

From the same "birth certificates" you took temperatures.

BTW, you may want to familiarize yourself with Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism.

"The Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism is an astronomical process that occurs when the surface of a star or a planet cools. ... The mechanism was originally proposed by Kelvin and Helmholtz in the late 19th century to explain the source of energy of the Sun. by the mid-19th century, conservation of energy had been accepted, and one consequence of this law of physics is that the Sun must have some source of energy to continue to shine. "
AFAIK similarly it was in ancient Greece.
Thanks anyway, now I know where do they come delusions.
80% milk Stars times the (conditional) cold stars M, K type. You with the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism you suggesting that we are already in Manitou hunting, only that we do not know yet?
Where is the evidence of the cooling stars and planets (Earth forget, she was heated)? ... BBL

Share this post


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

"The Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism is an astronomical process that occurs when the surface of a star or a planet cools. ... The mechanism was originally proposed by Kelvin and Helmholtz in the late 19th century to explain the source of energy of the Sun. by the mid-19th century, conservation of energy had been accepted, and one consequence of this law of physics is that the Sun must have some source of energy to continue to shine. "
AFAIK similarly it was in ancient Greece.
Thanks anyway, now I know where do they come delusions.
80% milk Stars times the (conditional) cold stars M, K type. You with the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism you suggesting that we are already in Manitou hunting, only that we do not know yet?
Where is the evidence of the cooling stars and planets (Earth forget, she was heated)? ... BBL

And as always you missed the point by not reading (or, whats more likely, not understanding) text in full. Without nuclear fusion, stars would be short lived. Sun (given its luminosity), for example, would be cool in several million years.

And I already gave you white dwarf temperature vs cooling age graph.

Share this post


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

And as always you missed the point by not reading (or, whats more likely, not understanding) text in full. Without nuclear fusion, stars would be short lived. Sun (given its luminosity), for example, would be cool in several million years.

And I already gave you white dwarf temperature vs cooling age graph.

It will not.

The temperature creates the work of particles due to pressure and tidal forces and rotation of the body. Sun has a massive mass, it is a guarantee of longevity. White dwarf small mass compensates with rapid rotation. Rotation compresses the body and creates large particle friction and creates high temperatures, also longevity.

Fast rotating stars are rarely ~ 0.00003% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_classification#Harvard_spectral_classification).The O, B and A star types have 0.73003% of the total number of Milky Way stars.

88.45% of stars are M (76.45%) and K (12.1%) or bodies with slower rotation. This group also includes hot Jupiter.

Share this post


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

It will not.

The temperature creates the work of particles due to pressure and tidal forces and rotation of the body. Sun has a massive mass, it is a guarantee of longevity. White dwarf small mass compensates with rapid rotation. Rotation compresses the body and creates large particle friction and creates high temperatures, also longevity.

Fast rotating stars are rarely ~ 0.00003% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_classification#Harvard_spectral_classification).The O, B and A star types have 0.73003% of the total number of Milky Way stars.

88.45% of stars are M (76.45%) and K (12.1%) or bodies with slower rotation. This group also includes hot Jupiter.

Tidal forces? Do you mean that planets are inducing tides on the Sun, and those tides are heating Sun?

Now back to reality: density of Van Maanen 2 (Teff = 6220 K) is 500000 times higher than that of the Suns' density, and density of 10 Lacertae (Teff = 36000 K) is 0.05 of the Suns' density. See the problem? Where more friction/heating you'd experience: flying through superdense 500000*ρSun matter, or through the matter of 0.05*ρSun density? And what rotational velocities should be at 500000*ρSun and 0.05*ρSun to keep temperatures 6220K and 36000K?

Share this post


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

Tidal forces? Do you mean that planets are inducing tides on the Sun, and those tides are heating Sun?

Now back to reality: density of Van Maanen 2 (Teff = 6220 K) is 500000 times higher than that of the Suns' density, and density of 10 Lacertae (Teff = 36000 K) is 0.05 of the Suns' density. See the problem? Where more friction/heating you'd experience: flying through superdense 500000*ρSun matter, or through the matter of 0.05*ρSun density? And what rotational velocities should be at 500000*ρSun and 0.05*ρSun to keep temperatures 6220K and 36000K?

Van Maanen 2 (van Maanen's Star) is a white dwarf, Mass    0.68 ± 0.02 M☉, Radius    0.011 ± 0.001R☉.
10 Lacertae  It is a hot blue main-sequence star of spectral type O9V, a massive star, Mass    26.9 M☉, Radius    8.27 R☉.

Due to its mass less body harder to reaches very high temperatures (it does not have enough material  and little body no compressive forces as greater mass body) but larger rotations reaching 30,000 or more ° K (PG 0112 + 104, mass 0.52 M Sun, the temperature of 31.300 ± 500 K; ...).
 
"Temperature / a star's speed of rotation

As a rule, if a star possesses a lower temperature, there is also a slower rotation and its color has the nuances of red. As the temperature grows, the speed of the star's rotation around its axis also grows and its color changes from red through yellow into white and blue10. Although stars possess significantly different masses, they all strictly abide this law, with only a very small number of exceptions to it.

Mass / radius

The radius of a star (mass/radius relation) acts similarly; if the temperature is lower, the radius is bigger, and with the increase of temperature and the speed of rotation there is a decrease of the radius." 
from http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#The-causal

Share this post


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

Van Maanen 2 (van Maanen's Star) is a white dwarf, Mass    0.68 ± 0.02 M☉, Radius    0.011 ± 0.001R☉.
10 Lacertae  It is a hot blue main-sequence star of spectral type O9V, a massive star, Mass    26.9 M☉, Radius    8.27 R☉.

Due to its mass less body harder to reaches very high temperatures (it does not have enough material  and little body no compressive forces as greater mass body) but larger rotations reaching 30,000 or more ° K (PG 0112 + 104, mass 0.52 M Sun, the temperature of 31.300 ± 500 K; ...).
 
"Temperature / a star's speed of rotation

As a rule, if a star possesses a lower temperature, there is also a slower rotation and its color has the nuances of red. As the temperature grows, the speed of the star's rotation around its axis also grows and its color changes from red through yellow into white and blue10. Although stars possess significantly different masses, they all strictly abide this law, with only a very small number of exceptions to it.

Mass / radius

The radius of a star (mass/radius relation) acts similarly; if the temperature is lower, the radius is bigger, and with the increase of temperature and the speed of rotation there is a decrease of the radius." 
from http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#The-causal

Yeah? Well, 40 Eridani b with lower density (200000*ρSun) and lower mass (0.5*MSun), has Teff = 16500 K.

When I'm cutting thick iron, saw (and that piece of iron) gets hot, but when I'm swinging saw in the air, saw don't get hot. Why? With the density of 500000*ρSun, what rotational velocity Van Maanen 2 should have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Yeah? Well, 40 Eridani b with lower density (200000*ρSun) and lower mass (0.5*MSun), has Teff = 16500 K.

When I'm cutting thick iron, saw (and that piece of iron) gets hot, but when I'm swinging saw in the air, saw don't get hot. Why? With the density of 500000*ρSun, what rotational velocity Van Maanen 2 should have?

40 Eridani B
Mass 0.50 M☉
Radius 0.014 R☉
Luminosity 0.013 L☉
Temperature 16,500 ° K


Mass / Radius 0.50 / 0,014 (Sun 1/1).
Although there is no official data from the relation it is evident that 40 Eridani B has fast rotation about an axis.
40 Eridani C
Mass 0.20 M☉
Radius 0.31 R☉
Luminosity 0.008 L☉
Temperature 3,100 ° K


Van Maanen 2 mass 0.68 ± 0.02 M☉, Radius 0.011 ± 0.001R☉.
A relation mass / radius 0.68/0.011 / Sun 1/1,

 the first smaller mass = lower temperature, due to faster rotation (from a smaller radius) Van Maanen 2 makes up less mass and hotter than the Sun.
One should always have reservation under data and take them tentatively, not strictly. Maybe there's terrible things (R.Penrose).

Edited by Weitter Duckss

Share this post


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

40 Eridani B
Mass 0.50 M☉
Radius 0.014 R☉
Luminosity 0.013 L☉
Temperature 16,500 ° K


Mass / Radius 0.50 / 0,014 (Sun 1/1).
Although there is no official data from the relation it is evident that 40 Eridani B has fast rotation about an axis.
40 Eridani C
Mass 0.20 M☉
Radius 0.31 R☉
Luminosity 0.008 L☉
Temperature 3,100 ° K


Van Maanen 2 mass 0.68 ± 0.02 M☉, Radius 0.011 ± 0.001R☉.
A relation mass / radius 0.68/0.011 / Sun 1/1,

 the first smaller mass = lower temperature, due to faster rotation (from a smaller radius) Van Maanen 2 makes up less mass and hotter than the Sun.
One should always have reservation under data and take them tentatively, not strictly. Maybe there's terrible things (R.Penrose).

'bout that... LP 145-141 has ~200000*ρSun and Teff = 8500 K. How does THAT fits your theory?

Basically, you are claiming that hypersonic aircraft flying at sea level (on Earth) would experience less heating than, say, flying in outer space.

Share this post


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

'bout that... LP 145-141 has ~200000*ρSun and Teff = 8500 K. How does THAT fits your theory?

Basically, you are claiming that hypersonic aircraft flying at sea level (on Earth) would experience less heating than, say, flying in outer space.

LP 145-141, missing radius. Mass 0.75 (or 0.61) Mass Sun, with a temperature of 8,500 ° K, the radius should would be  below 0.7 (or below 0.55) Sun.
The rule (if there is no erroneous measurement, measurements through a gas or dust, interference of other bodies, etc.) Of the body less, mass of the sun but more temperature from the Sun have a smaller radius (faster closing the circle around the axis). Gradation is myriad.
Supersonic plane is modest speed for discussion. 20 km / s is 72,000 km / h. Space bodies in meeting with the atmosphere, most commonly burnt off. Bodies which are moving closer to the surface of another body suffer more friction regardless whether there is atmosphere or not (atmosphere +).

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 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.