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)

11 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

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.[...]

What? You are not aware of how radius can be estimated from temperature and luminosity?! For some reason I'm not surprised given your history of complete ignorance.

Lets take another example: Rigel A with ρ ≈ 5*10-5ρSun and Teff  12100 K vs 40 Eridani b with ρ ≈ 200000ρSun and Teff  16500 K. How fast (slow) 40 Eridani b has to rotate to be heated to the temperatures more or less comparable to that of Rigel A, but having density 4 billion times greater than Rigel A?

11 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]
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 +).

What? Following you logic, SELENE should had been vaporised while flying around the Moon...

Edited by bmk1245

Share this post


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

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 +).

Re-read introduction of Rigel and all will be clear. (on Wikipedia)
Try it you to compare the two stars of similar mass and similar other parameters.
We're already in a discussion about "The causal relation between a star and its temperature, gravity, radius and color," we found that small bodies (small mass) have some specific characteristics as opposed to the larger star. One circle M star 0.08M Sun closed for a day as opposed to the blue giant 20 or more M Sun. Simply calculation is different for small and large mass but nonetheless are comparable.

Share this post


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

Re-read introduction of Rigel and all will be clear. (on Wikipedia)[...]

Yeah, lets read it

Quote

It has exhausted its core of hydrogen and swollen out to between 79 and 115 times the Sun's radius.

How that fits your brain dead theory?

18 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]
Try it you to compare the two stars of similar mass and similar other parameters.
We're already in a discussion about "The causal relation between a star and its temperature, gravity, radius and color," we found that small bodies (small mass) have some specific characteristics as opposed to the larger star. One circle M star 0.08M Sun closed for a day as opposed to the blue giant 20 or more M Sun. Simply calculation is different for small and large mass but nonetheless are comparable.

Your claim was that rotation/friction (tidal friction included) is solely responsible for star temperature, I brought average densities of the various stars. Now, thats your turn to prove your theory. How way more dense matter gets way less heated than matter of much much higher density, having in mind same velocity, huh?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

19 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Yeah, lets read it

How that fits your brain dead theory?

Your claim was that rotation/friction (tidal friction included) is solely responsible for star temperature, I brought average densities of the various stars. Now, thats your turn to prove your theory. How way more dense matter gets way less heated than matter of much much higher density, having in mind same velocity, huh?

Today I have ill will, on *snip* lock my topic. If you have not read what they're looking for, forget discussion (I read, who cares). This is new to me, censorship, hacking, attacks of all kinds, the removal of comments, etc. I'm good, almost a saint, why me poor attack, although I wear glasses when I write?


Getting back to the topic; no inflated and ipuhanih nor dead stars .. The slower rotation of the body = larger radius, faster rotation = smaller radius (and between mass / radius Sun = 1/1).
The weight of the compressive forces with rotation and tidal forces are the basis for the definition of each star and the body (there and the environment, within a dynamic environment mist and the like may be a longer period of significant inflow of matter on the surface that gives a wrong assessment of the nature of the stars, collisions of small bodies with swirl and cyclone stars (at the poles), etc.).

If there is not enough mass there is no molten body (Mercury, Mars, etc.) independent of other factors. When you include in the formula mass, rotation, tidal forces so quickly you will find that there are countless combinations (but each has a simple solution).

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
removed link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weitter,

Disputes you have with other sites should not be brought here. I have removed your link.

Please take the time to read the rules of THIS site (which can be found here).

In particular I would draw your attention to the relevant parts of this rule:

Quote

3l. Defamation: Do not use this site or its services to attack, promote hatred towards or otherwise defame other web sites, forums, groups or individuals.

Thank you

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Weitter Duckss, it is sum observational data that confirm Yours idea of incorrect the stars evolutionary model.

Tere is a large amount of observational data in astrophysics that indicate the stationarity of the universe. For example, in the work "The energy loss and decay of photons at cosmological distances" were collected observational data that can be interpreted as energy loss and decay of photons at cosmological and intergalactic distances. This means that expansion of the universe never been, that need correction of the stars evolutionary model.

http://vixra.org/abs/1608.0411

Edited by Vladimir P.
A mistake in URL adress
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 hours ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

Weitter,

Sporovi imate s drugim mjestima ne bi trebao biti doveo ovdje. Ja sam ukloniti vaš link.

Molimo uzmite vremena da pročitate pravila ove stranice (koji se mogu naći ovdje ).

Posebno bih skrenuti pozornost na odgovarajućim dijelovima ovog pravila:

Hvala ti

Thank Waspie.
I know that it may seem so, but to me not intended slandered forum where publish. After the abolition of the Forum on space.com (where I published) this forum is to me is welcome. The text is just a joke, especially the part about me, you and others know that I am not a saint, far from it and that lock is my merit (especially knowledge of Russian (but English) language).
Using freedom of speech often I cross the border but all trying to say through satire with no intention to insult, defamation and similar ugly things.
I'd promised, I will not be more, but it would be a lie. I will try. (Link does not work)

Edited by Weitter Duckss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Vladimir P. said:

Weitter Duckss, it is sum observational data that confirm Yours idea of incorrect the stars evolutionary model.

Tere is a large amount of observational data in astrophysics that indicate the stationarity of the universe. For example, in the work "The energy loss and decay of photons at cosmological distances" were collected observational data that can be interpreted as energy loss and decay of photons at cosmological and intergalactic distances. This means that expansion of the universe never been, that need correction of the stars evolutionary model.

http://vixra.org/abs/1608.0411v1

Welcome.
Topic photons we had within a few topics (https://www.academia.edu/31887661/Vacuum_in_space_or_undetected_matter).
For the evolution of the stars I am totally radical, necessary to is "evolution" delete, and as soon forget.
Of course, exclusively with the evidence, and using evidence to explain that the official evolution of stars just fiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2017 at 10:18 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

Today I have ill will, on *snip* lock my topic. If you have not read what they're looking for, forget discussion (I read, who cares). This is new to me, censorship, hacking, attacks of all kinds, the removal of comments, etc. I'm good, almost a saint, why me poor attack, although I wear glasses when I write?

 

[...]

Almost saint, eh? You went on trolling there: when asked what books on stellar evolution you've read, you threw in Sholokhov's "Quiet Don". You are lucky, you weren't banhammered.

On 4/17/2017 at 10:18 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]
Getting back to the topic; no inflated and ipuhanih nor dead stars .. The slower rotation of the body = larger radius, faster rotation = smaller radius (and between mass / radius Sun = 1/1).
The weight of the compressive forces with rotation and tidal forces are the basis for the definition of each star and the body (there and the environment, within a dynamic environment mist and the like may be a longer period of significant inflow of matter on the surface that gives a wrong assessment of the nature of the stars, collisions of small bodies with swirl and cyclone stars (at the poles), etc.).

If there is not enough mass there is no molten body (Mercury, Mars, etc.) independent of other factors. When you include in the formula mass, rotation, tidal forces so quickly you will find that there are countless combinations (but each has a simple solution).

Enough with bs: you claimed that rotation heats stars - faster rotation, hotter stars. Now you are claiming that slower rotation  = larger radius, faster rotation = smaller radius. You are making stuff up as you go along.

Again, READ THE BOOKS, and try to understand what you've read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2017 at 5:00 PM, Vladimir P. said:

Weitter Duckss, it is sum observational data that confirm Yours idea of incorrect the stars evolutionary model.

Tere is a large amount of observational data in astrophysics that indicate the stationarity of the universe. For example, in the work "The energy loss and decay of photons at cosmological distances" were collected observational data that can be interpreted as energy loss and decay of photons at cosmological and intergalactic distances. This means that expansion of the universe never been, that need correction of the stars evolutionary model.

http://vixra.org/abs/1608.0411

Sorry, but listing and explaining whats wrong with your "paper" would take way more than 10 pages. Just one example: you claimed that neutrinos and gamma photons are similar, both travel at the speed of light, both participate in nuclear reactions. First of all, neutrinos aren't massless, so they won't fly at the speed of light. Secondly, about similarities... Thats like claiming "water and fire are similar". Yeah, "similar", kinda... both can destroy your house...

Anyway, let me leave you with the words of Lev Landau:

Quote

Современная физика – сложная и трудная наука, и для того, чтобы сделать в ней что-нибудь, нужно знать очень многое. Тем более знания необходимы для того, чтобы выдвинуть какие-либо новые идеи. Из Вашего письма очевидно, что Ваши сведения по физике крайне ограниченны. То, что Вы называете новыми идеями, есть просто лепет малограмотного человека, наподобие того, как если бы пришел к Вам человек, никогда не видевший электрических машин, и стал бы выдвигать новые идеи в этой области. Если Вы всерьез интересуетесь физикой, то прежде всего займитесь изучением этой науки. Через некоторое время Вам самому станет смешно читать ту чепуху, которую Вы напечатали на машинке.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Almost saint, eh? You went on trolling there: when asked what books on stellar evolution you've read, you threw in Sholokhov's "Quiet Don". You are lucky, you weren't banhammered.

Enough with bs: you claimed that rotation heats stars - faster rotation, hotter stars. Now you are claiming that slower rotation  = larger radius, faster rotation = smaller radius. You are making stuff up as you go along.

Again, READ THE BOOKS, and try to understand what you've read.

I'm good, just all noise to me.


I have shown, so far, enough information that this is true. All new research shows that are blue stars of a fast rotating star.
And vice versa that are the "cold" stars of slow rotating bodies (especially, brawn dwarfs, R Doradus, Betelgeuse, Aldebaran, further in the tables or Wiki).
At the same time, the radius is directly related to the height of the temperature. All of this we have already passed. Please find a red star (mass greater than Sun) that has a fast rotation or the opposite side of the blue and white-blue with slow rotation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18. 04. 2017. at 4:00 PM, Vladimir P. said:

Weitter Duckss, it is sum observational data that confirm Yours idea of incorrect the stars evolutionary model.

Tere is a large amount of observational data in astrophysics that indicate the stationarity of the universe. For example, in the work "The energy loss and decay of photons at cosmological distances" were collected observational data that can be interpreted as energy loss and decay of photons at cosmological and intergalactic distances. This means that expansion of the universe never been, that need correction of the stars evolutionary model.

http://vixra.org/abs/1608.0411

My deep apology Mr. P.F. Vladimir.

In ignorance I behaved stupidly. I did not know that astronomy is your fah. I did not intend to criticize your "Cyclical Evolution of the Galaxys".
My sources are from the English-speaking area (Wikipedia, etc).
Of course, my opinion, I do not mean, change. (I am investigating this area for too long and asking questions from all angles, not thinking about the authorities but about proofs).
The works of the author I do not attack directly, only the official standpoint of science.
Please, you  to accept my apology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

10 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

I'm good, just all noise to me.


I have shown, so far, enough information that this is true. All new research shows that are blue stars of a fast rotating star.
And vice versa that are the "cold" stars of slow rotating bodies (especially, brawn dwarfs, R Doradus, Betelgeuse, Aldebaran, further in the tables or Wiki).
At the same time, the radius is directly related to the height of the temperature. All of this we have already passed. Please find a red star (mass greater than Sun) that has a fast rotation or the opposite side of the blue and white-blue with slow rotation.

Betelgeuse rotational velocity ~5 km/s (v*sin(i); with i = 20 degs making equatorial rotation ~14 km/s), Teff  3600 K, M  12 MSun; Antares v*sin(i) ≈ 33 km/s, Teff  3400 K, M  12 MSun. Suns' equatorial rotational velocity ~2 km/s.

Brown dwarfs (masses lower than MSun), rotational velocities vs temperature:

 

BD_rot_vel_Teff.png.30679f755eb5298bd3e5cf3998d0f37d.png

What you were saying?

Edited by bmk1245
fixed graph
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Brown dwarfs (masses lower than MSun), rotational velocities vs temperature:

I am, clearly stated the measure: mass = mass Sun or greater.
The article is good. Work observes sterile small M stars through rotation and temperature (more the color-spectral type). There was not, to expect the final solution (2008). There are a number of factors that affect a realistic score for the small stars. Small M stars are heavily finished, the transition from planet to star or are still in transition. Especially, it should be separated, stars that are central from others. However, from the paper, it is concluded that the rotations of the M star are small (average of the work is 20 days).

Now we see that I'm not lonely and I'm not the only one seeing, the legality, with that I went a step further.

"Figure 2. The upper plots show light curves of the stars 19c_2_05428 and folded about the same period of 20.68 days; the centre panel showing observations at HJD < 54900 and the panel on the left with observations at HJD > 54900. The lower plots show and 07e_2_02466, folded about the same period of 12.86 days; the centre panel showing observations at HJD < 55000 and the panel on the left with observations at HJD > 55000.

We find some evidence for a change in spot coverage was found in one star with an indeterminate spectral type in the 17hr field, 17d_1_06032, and in the stars 07e_2_02466 and 19c_2_05428 (Fig. 2). In the former, no significant peak in the periodogram, performed over the entire series of observations, corresponded to an obvious periodicity in folded light curves, though the most significant peak in the periodogram for only the later 50% of the observations did correspond to a period for which a folded light curve displayed obvious periodic behavior. In the latter two a strong peak corresponding to the period is found in their periodograms although the amplitude of the variation changes over timescale of months, perhaps similarly indicative in a change in the spottedness of the stars. The changes in both instances happened over a time scale of < 100 days. In both 17d_1_06032 and 19c_2_05428 however, the change in amplitude was dichotomous and does not appear to vary much once the new amplitude is established, whereas in 07e_2_02466 the amplitude varies over hundreds of days"

http://www.epj-conferences.org/articles/epjconf/pdf/2013/08/epjconf_hpcs2012_01006.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18.04.2017 at 5:40 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

Welcome.
Topic photons we had within a few topics (https://www.academia.edu/31887661/Vacuum_in_space_or_undetected_matter).
For the evolution of the stars I am totally radical, necessary to is "evolution" delete, and as soon forget.
Of course, exclusively with the evidence, and using evidence to explain that the official evolution of stars just fiction

Thanks for the responce and your work on collecting observational data that can help build a realistic model of stellar evolution.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Brown dwarfs (masses lower than MSun), rotational velocities vs temperature:

I am, clearly stated the measure: mass = mass Sun or greater.
The article is good. Work observes sterile small M stars through rotation and temperature (more the color-spectral type). There was not, to expect the final solution (2008). There are a number of factors that affect a realistic score for the small stars. Small M stars are heavily finished, the transition from planet to star or are still in transition. Especially, it should be separated, stars that are central from others. However, from the paper, it is concluded that the rotations of the M star are small (average of the work is 20 days).

Now we see that I'm not lonely and I'm not the only one seeing, the legality, with that I went a step further.

"Figure 2. The upper plots show light curves of the stars 19c_2_05428 and folded about the same period of 20.68 days; the centre panel showing observations at HJD < 54900 and the panel on the left with observations at HJD > 54900. The lower plots show and 07e_2_02466, folded about the same period of 12.86 days; the centre panel showing observations at HJD < 55000 and the panel on the left with observations at HJD > 55000.

We find some evidence for a change in spot coverage was found in one star with an indeterminate spectral type in the 17hr field, 17d_1_06032, and in the stars 07e_2_02466 and 19c_2_05428 (Fig. 2). In the former, no significant peak in the periodogram, performed over the entire series of observations, corresponded to an obvious periodicity in folded light curves, though the most significant peak in the periodogram for only the later 50% of the observations did correspond to a period for which a folded light curve displayed obvious periodic behavior. In the latter two a strong peak corresponding to the period is found in their periodograms although the amplitude of the variation changes over timescale of months, perhaps similarly indicative in a change in the spottedness of the stars. The changes in both instances happened over a time scale of < 100 days. In both 17d_1_06032 and 19c_2_05428 however, the change in amplitude was dichotomous and does not appear to vary much once the new amplitude is established, whereas in 07e_2_02466 the amplitude varies over hundreds of days"

http://www.epj-conferences.org/articles/epjconf/pdf/2013/08/epjconf_hpcs2012_01006.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2017 at 5:25 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

I am, clearly stated the measure: mass = mass Sun or greater.

[...]

Read my post again, it starts "Betelgeuse..."

On 4/20/2017 at 5:25 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]
The article is good. Work observes sterile small M stars through rotation and temperature (more the color-spectral type). There was not, to expect the final solution (2008). There are a number of factors that affect a realistic score for the small stars. Small M stars are heavily finished, the transition from planet to star or are still in transition. Especially, it should be separated, stars that are central from others. However, from the paper, it is concluded that the rotations of the M star are small (average of the work is 20 days).

Now we see that I'm not lonely and I'm not the only one seeing, the legality, with that I went a step further.

"Figure 2. The upper plots show light curves of the stars 19c_2_05428 and folded about the same period of 20.68 days; the centre panel showing observations at HJD < 54900 and the panel on the left with observations at HJD > 54900. The lower plots show and 07e_2_02466, folded about the same period of 12.86 days; the centre panel showing observations at HJD < 55000 and the panel on the left with observations at HJD > 55000.

We find some evidence for a change in spot coverage was found in one star with an indeterminate spectral type in the 17hr field, 17d_1_06032, and in the stars 07e_2_02466 and 19c_2_05428 (Fig. 2). In the former, no significant peak in the periodogram, performed over the entire series of observations, corresponded to an obvious periodicity in folded light curves, though the most significant peak in the periodogram for only the later 50% of the observations did correspond to a period for which a folded light curve displayed obvious periodic behavior. In the latter two a strong peak corresponding to the period is found in their periodograms although the amplitude of the variation changes over timescale of months, perhaps similarly indicative in a change in the spottedness of the stars. The changes in both instances happened over a time scale of < 100 days. In both 17d_1_06032 and 19c_2_05428 however, the change in amplitude was dichotomous and does not appear to vary much once the new amplitude is established, whereas in 07e_2_02466 the amplitude varies over hundreds of days"

http://www.epj-conferences.org/articles/epjconf/pdf/2013/08/epjconf_hpcs2012_01006.pdf

As usually, incomprehensible gibberish and complete misunderstanding/misrepresenting of what is being discussed in paper. At what point authors are making conclusion that "average of the work is 20 days", huh? Hint, 19c_2_05428 is K7 (±1.00) class star (singular) not stars (plural).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bmk1245 said:

Read my post again, it starts "Betelgeuse..."

As usually, incomprehensible gibberish and complete misunderstanding/misrepresenting of what is being discussed in paper. At what point authors are making conclusion that "average of the work is 20 days", huh? Hint, 19c_2_05428 is K7 (±1.00) class star (singular) not stars (plural).

 

The average you could have calculated for yourself. The most important thing in the article is that we have an unambiguous link between low temperature and slower rotation. (Although these bodies are below the mass of Sun).

 The following link is for brown dwarfs. Pay attention to mass and rotation around the axis. There are a few, but for example enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_brown_dwarfs#Confirmed_brown_dwarfs_orbiting_primary_stars

next

List of the largest stars  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_stars#List

Only three stars from List had 5,000 ° K. Everything else is even cooler. Isolated a Cassiopeiae S having a temperature as a magma, on Earth.

S Cassiopeiae Temperatura 1.800 K  Radius 930   R , CW Leonis Mass 0.8 M, Radius 700 R, Temperature 2,200 K

Antares A

Mass 12.4M

Radius 883 R

Surface gravity 0.1cgs

Temperature 3400 ± 200 K

Rotational velocity 20 km / s

 B

Mass 7.2 M

Radius 5.2 R

Surface gravity 3.9 cgs

Temperature 18,500 K

Rotational speed 250 km / s

 

V915 Scorpii Temperature 5,100 K Radius 760,

V382 Carinae Mass 20M, Radius 700 R, Surface gravity 0.50cgs, temperature 5,866K, and

 HR 5171

aa

Mass 60-74 M

Radius 1,315 ± 260 Rs

Surface gravity (log g) 0 cgs

Temperature 5,000 K

ab

Mass 3 - 6 Ms.

Radius 312 - 401 R

Temperature 4,800 - 5,200 K

 B

Luminosity 316,000 L

Surface gravity 3.0 - 3.5 cgs

Temperature 26,000 K

 

 

Share this post


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

 

The average you could have calculated for yourself. The most important thing in the article is that we have an unambiguous link between low temperature and slower rotation. (Although these bodies are below the mass of Sun).

 [...]

 

Don't worry, I did, and it's not 20 days. For example, median of period distribution is below 6 days, mode is even lower. Lets see if you will be able to find mean (average, if you don't know what 'mean' means).

12 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

 The following link is for brown dwarfs. Pay attention to mass and rotation around the axis. There are a few, but for example enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_brown_dwarfs#Confirmed_brown_dwarfs_orbiting_primary_stars

[...]

You clearly don't know what is rotational period and what is orbital period. Though, I'm not surprised.

12 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

List of the largest stars  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_stars#List

Only three stars from List had 5,000 ° K. Everything else is even cooler. Isolated a Cassiopeiae S having a temperature as a magma, on Earth.

S Cassiopeiae Temperatura 1.800 K  Radius 930   R , CW Leonis Mass 0.8 M, Radius 700 R, Temperature 2,200 K

Antares A

Mass 12.4M

Radius 883 R

Surface gravity 0.1cgs

Temperature 3400 ± 200 K

Rotational velocity 20 km / s

 B

Mass 7.2 M

Radius 5.2 R

Surface gravity 3.9 cgs

Temperature 18,500 K

Rotational speed 250 km / s

 

V915 Scorpii Temperature 5,100 K Radius 760,

V382 Carinae Mass 20M, Radius 700 R, Surface gravity 0.50cgs, temperature 5,866K, and

 HR 5171

aa

Mass 60-74 M

Radius 1,315 ± 260 Rs

Surface gravity (log g) 0 cgs

Temperature 5,000 K

ab

Mass 3 - 6 Ms.

Radius 312 - 401 R

Temperature 4,800 - 5,200 K

 B

Luminosity 316,000 L

Surface gravity 3.0 - 3.5 cgs

Temperature 26,000 K

So?!

Lets see:

2MASS 0255-47 (L8), Teff 1480 K, vesin(i) 67 km/s;

Sun (G2V), Teff 5780 K, ve  2 km/s;

Canopus (A9 II/F0II), Teff 7000 K, vesin(i) 8 km/s.

How that fits your theory (rotation/friction/temperature), huh?

Share this post


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

Don't worry, I did, and it's not 20 days. For example, median of period distribution is below 6 days, mode is even lower. Lets see if you will be able to find mean (average, if you don't know what 'mean' means).

You clearly don't know what is rotational period and what is orbital period. Though, I'm not surprised.

So?!

Lets see:

2MASS 0255-47 (L8), Teff 1480 K, vesin(i) 67 km/s;

Sun (G2V), Teff 5780 K, ve  2 km/s;

Canopus (A9 II/F0II), Teff 7000 K, vesin(i) 8 km/s.

How that fits your theory (rotation/friction/temperature), huh?

For small bodies 6 days is slow (Pluto / Jupiter, Saturn, etc.). Small mass, slow rotation, and low mixing of matter, it pulls low temperatures. In the translation a little friction (small bodies) low temperature. Jupiter is small but emits 2 x more radiation than received of Sun.
Sun and Canopus are within limits, for 2MASS 0255-47 missing data (mass, radius, environment ...
"2MASS 0255-47: We report a radial velocity for this objectof vrad = 25 ± 4.1 kms-1, which is inconsistent with vrad = 17.5 ± 2.8 kms-1 reported in Zapatero Osorio et al. (2007), and vrad = 13.0 ± 3.0 km s-1in Basri et al. (2000) Giventhe late spectral type, ranging from L6 to L8, and the highrotational velocity of the system (vsin i≈67kms-1, RB08) the uncertainties in all reported radial velocity values - 2MASS 1045-01 and 2MASS 1047-18: Jame "(https://www.researchgate.net), but it does not matter if you have any questions. / publication / 45894648_On_the_kinematic_age_of_brown_dwarfs_Radial_velocities_and_space_motions_of_43_nearby_L_dwarfs)

You still surprise me. When I think it is point, you put unpleasant comma.
unpleasant. You always open my eyes with the warning is not the final but the beginning. I miss a lot of work. Thank you.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Planets shine by reflected light; stars shine by producing their own light.

Let's convince ourselves of the lies of official positions (Evolution, Combustion, Thermonuclear Reactions, etc.).

Super massive stars

S Cassiopeiae  Radius 930   R Sun, Temperatura 1.800 K,

CW Leonis Mass Radius 700 R Sun, Temperature 2,200 K,

They have temperatures lower than

WASP-14b Mass (m) 7.725 + 0.43-0.67 MJ, Radius (r) 1.259 + 0.08-0.058 RJDensity (ρ) 5133 kg m-3,Surface gravity (g) 126.2 m / s² (12.87 g), Temperature (T) 2800 K,

Teide 1 Mass 0.052 M, Radius ~ 0.1 R, Temperature 2600 ± 150 K

2M1207 Mass ~ 0.025 M, Radius ~ 0.25 R, Temperature 2550 ± 150 K

And so called planets

 B Tauri FU  2.375 K (udaljen 700 AU od najbliže zvijezde), 0,440 M Earhh,

HIP 78530 b 2.700 K (710 AU), 24 M Jup,

DH Tauri b 2.750 K (330 AU), 12 M Jup,

CT Chamaeleontis b 2.500 K (440 AU), 2,4 M Jup,

UScoCTIO 108 b 2.350 K (670 AU), 14 M Jup,

Oph 11 B 2.478 K (243 AU) 21 M Jup. (from table)

 

Similar temperature with

DENIS-P J020529.0-115925A Temperature 1,800 K,

OTS 44 Mass 0.011 M Sun, Radius 0.23 -0.57 R, Temperature 1,700 -2,300 K.

If planet (OTS 44) It is among the lowest-mass free-floating substellar objects, with approximately 11.5 times the mass of Jupiter, or approximately 1.1% that of the Sun.“ Wikiwand , („Brown dwarfs are substellar objects that occupy the mass range between the heaviest gas giant planets and the lightest stars, of approximately 13 to 75–80 Jupiter masses (MJ),“ Wikipedia),

Have temperature same or greater of star radius 930 R Sun, how here we can discuss about the credibility of the official theory (they sell these theories as superior knowledge).

Next Brown Dwarfts have the surface temperature identical temperature of the magma of the Earth.

Cha 110913-773444

Mass 8 (+7,−3 ) MJup

Radius 1.8 RJup

Luminosity 0.000096 L

Temperature 1,350 K

PSO J318.5-22

Mass (m) 6.5 [1] MJ

Radius (r) 1.53 RJ

Temperature (T) 1160 (+30, -40) K

Luhman 16A

Mass 0.04-0.05 M

Radius 0.11 R

Luminosity 0.000031 L

Temperature 1350 K

Luhman 16B

Mass 0.03-0.05 M

Radius 0.12 R

Luminosity 0.000025 L

Temperature 1210 K

HAT-P-2b

Mass (m) 8.00 ± 0.97 [4] MJ

Radius (r) 1.106 ± 0.061 [4] RJ

Density (ρ) 7300 ± 1600 [4] kg m-3

Surface gravity (g) 162 ± 27 [4] m / s²

Temperature (T) 1187 K

epsilon Indi

These yield masses of 47 ± 10 and 28 ± 7 times the mass of Jupiter, and radii of 0.091 ± 0.005 and 0.096 ± 0.005 solar radii, for Epsilon Indi Ba and Epsilon Indi Bb, respectively.[29] The effective temperatures are 1300–1340 K and 880–940 K,

Gliese 229 B

Luminosity: 0.000006 * Sun
Mass: 0.05 * Sun (45 * Jupiter)
Diameter: 0.1027 * Sun (1 * Jupiter)

Temperature 970 K (1.300 F)

SCR 1845-6357B.

„The companion, classified as a T-dwarf, has an observed projected distance of 4.1 AU, estimated mass between 40 and 50 times the mass of Jupiter, and an estimated effective temperature of  950 K.“

The Finish, a point, ending doubt in the credibility of these old theories, Evolution, Combustion, Thermonuclear Reactions, etc. out from science in history.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As was said by L.Landau:

Quote

Высказываемые Вами соображения, к сожалению, в высшей степени нелепы. Было бы даже трудно объяснить, в чем заключаются ошибки в Вашем письме. Ради бога, прежде чем рассуждать о Вселенной, приобретите хоть самую элементарную физическую грамотность, а то Вы только ставите себя в смешное положение.

Ваши заметки состоят из наивностей, не представляющих какого-либо интереса. Ясно, что если Вы хотите работать в этом направлении, то Вам для этого надо предварительно проделать немалую работу – познакомиться с предметом. Ведь вряд ли Вы сядете за руль автомобиля, не умея управлять. А физика ничем не легче.

I did not translated it as I expect slavic-to-slavic translation on google would convey message more precisely.

Before trying to overturn stellar evolution, you have to have deep knowledge about it. As you repeatedly have shown, you don't have even rudimentary knowledge about basic physics/math. Explaining more complex concepts beyond linear motion to you, would be an exercise in futility.

Share this post


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

As was said by L.Landau:

I did not translated it as I expect slavic-to-slavic translation on google would convey message more precisely.

Before trying to overturn stellar evolution, you have to have deep knowledge about it. As you repeatedly have shown, you don't have even rudimentary knowledge about basic physics/math. Explaining more complex concepts beyond linear motion to you, would be an exercise in futility.

A classic example, there is no evidence, no counterarguments, but there is criticism that somebody does not know fairytales and does not see truths and reality in fairy tales.
Ordinary propaganda ignorance and attempt to defend the failed theory.
You're right for translation, almost correct.

In the spirit of the previous commentary, demolition failed theory it was brutal (here, also include the topic "Rapidly burning?").
Now you, in the same way, demolition my "theory".

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.