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

Why Atmospheres of Stars Lack Metals?

163 posts in this topic

Why Atmospheres of Stars Lack Metals?

Author: Weitter Duckss (Slavko Sedic)

Inside this process there is a process of growth and disintegration of elements, which is related to temperature and rotation. The atoms of the lower order are generally present on smaller objects: asteroids, comets and the majority of satellites and smaller planets. When an object’s mass is sufficiently increased, given other forces, too, it becomes geologically active. Its temperature grows inside and outside its crust, due to the formation of heated core. The atoms of the higher order are created under these conditions. The more active and warm a planet is, the higher is the presence of the higher order elements. However, at certain point temperature begins to destroy (disintegrate) higher elements.

As temperature gets higher, a variety of elements gets poore

The topic of this article is evaporation of atoms and compounds inside hot objects.

Strictly speaking, when temperature rises above the point when an atom shifts into the gaseous state, the atom goes into the atmosphere. Atmosphere is the best indicator of a hot object's composition. It is not the case on Earth.   

At the bottom of sea or ocean, there are hot spots, where water gets heated far above the boiling point, but water does not evaporate. Heated water gets cooled down fast, as it moves towards the surface. 3  Aerated water, mostly created on the surface layer by heat waves from Sun,  goes into the atmosphere.

On the moon of Io, SO2 from cold volcanoes does not create an atmosphere due to the low temperatures on the surface (minimal surface temperature 90°K, average one is 110°K and maximal one is 130°K) and above the moon's surface. The low temperatures immediately crystallize SO2 (its boiling point is 263°K, melting point is 201°K) and thus make it return to the moon's surface.4 

There are elements and compounds inside lava and magma that are incompatible with a liquid state, because their boiling points, as well as the melting points, are higher than the temperatures of lava (SiO2, MgO, Al2O3, TiO2 etc.).

   

 

Melting

point °C

Boiling

 point °C

% crust of

the Earth

% mantle of

 the Earth

 

Melting

point °C

Boiling

 point °C

% crust of

the Earth

% mantle of

 the Earth

SiO2

   1.713

   2.950

    60,2

46

Si

1.410

2.355

27,7

21,5

Al2O3

   2.072

   2.977

15,2

4,2

Al

660,35

2.467

8,1

2,2

CaO

   2.613

   2.850

5,5

3,2

Ca

839

1484

3,6

2,3

MgO

   2.825

   3.600

3,1

37,8

Mg

648,85

1.090

1,5

22,8

FeO

   1.377

   3.414

3,8

7,5

Fe

1.535

2750

5,0

5,8

Na2O

   1.132

   1.950

3

0,4

Na

97,81

882,95

2,8

0,3

K2O

     740

      -

2.8

0,04

K

63,65

774

2,6

0,03

Fe2O3

   1.539 –          ..-  1.565

Not Available

2.5

 

Fe

1.535

2750

 

 

H2O

   0

  100

1,4  (1,1)

 

H

-259,14

-252,87

 

 

CO2

   -56

Sublimation -78,5

1,2

 

O

-218,35

-182,96

46,6

44,8

TiO2

   1.843

   2.972

0,7

 

Ti

1.660

3.287

 

 

P2O5

sublimes

   360

0,2

 

P

44,15

280 P4

 

 

Sunce

  He 24,85 %,  H 73,46%,  O  0,77%,  C  0,29%,  other 0,53%

He

-272,20

-268,934

 

 

 

Why there are elements and compounds in the melted matter that have boiling and melting points above the temperatures  of lava and magma (why there are compounds in lava that have melting points far below the temperature of lava)?

The temperature of lava is from 500°C to 1 600°C („Magmas of komatiitic compositions have a very high melting point, with calculated eruption temperatures in excess of 1600 °C. 5).

The temperature of mantle is 500 – 900°C, and of the core 4 000°C (the average thickness of mantle is 2 886 km).    

If that matter is coming out of core,  2 886 km is by many times enough for it to gets cooled down, especially if a time frame is taken into account (most of the volcanoes are inactive for centuries). High temperatures in the core dissolve the elements with high quantity of protons into the elements with lower quantity of protons (from the table: Fe has 26, Ti 22, K 19, the most commonly found Si has 14 protons (oxygen has 8 protons)).

Complex atoms are created inside the crust of Earth due to the action of different temperatures (between mantle and crust) and pressure. Furthermore, oxides are created by the constant influx of oxygen and carbohydrates by the influx of hydrogen (CH4, CxHx). The compound of oxygen and hydrogen is water, etc.

 

Lava is mostly created by compounds that are in the solid state on the temperatures of lava  

( Al Si 3 8 - Na Al Si 3 8 - Ca Al 2 Si 2 8 (Feldspars), respectively MgO Melting

point 2,825 °C, boiling point 3,600 °C,  Al2O3  2,072 °C/2,977 °C; SiO2 1,713 °C/2,950 °C; TiO2 1,843 °C/ 2,972 °C, CaO 2.613 °C/2886 °C, FeO 1.377 °C/3.414 °C, Na2O 1132 °C/1.950 °C  etc., which is best demonstrated in the presence ratio of the two compound groups:

Anorthosite je Ca Al 2 Si 2 8 . 90-100 /Na Al Si 8  0-10 via bytovnit 79-90 /30-10 labradorite 50-70 / 50-30, Oligoclase 10-30 / 90-70, albit 0-10 /100-90, or

Basalt generally has a composition of 45–55 wt% SiO2, 2–6 wt% total alkalis, 0.5–2.0 wt% TiO2, 5–14 wt% FeO and 14 wt% or more Al2O3. Contents of CaO are commonly near 10 wt%, those of MgO commonly in the range 5 to 12 wt%,

Granite: SiO2 72,04% (silika gel), Al2O3 14,42% (glinica), K2O 4,12%, Na2O 3,69%, CaO 1,82%, FeO 1,68%, Fe2O3 1,22%, MgO 0,71%, TiO2  0,30%, P2O5 0,12%, MnO 0,05%  etc.

data are from Wikipedia).

The explanation that granite turns liquid at low temperatures with the pressure of a few atmospheres does not explain why it is in a liquid state in lava at the pressure of one atmosphere.

 

Volatile elements and compounds (the boiling points of which are below the temperature of lava) evaporate from lava, but, because of low temperatures that are lower (for example, lava is 1 200°C, air is 15°C, melting point of magnesium is 648,85°C and boiling point is 1 090°C; instead of evaporating into atmosphere, magnesium particles get cooled down by low temperatures and they stay on the lava surface (which affects the level of lava viscosity: lower temperatures have smaller quantity of elements and compounds that change their state from liquid into gaseous and vice versa; with the increase of temperature, that quantity increases and viscosity decreases)) and the process goes on until a particle of magnesium becomes a compound of MgO, with the melting point of  2 825°C and boiling point of  3 600°C (or it only stays as Mg, in the process of hardening and cooling down the lava).

 

Let us have a look at this from the viewpoint of subduction and spreading away of the tectonic plates. If there is a process of creating melted matter by friction in the subduction of plates (convergent boundaries) and the results are volcanoes – then why in the process of spreading away of plates (divergent boundaries) there is melted matter? Two opposite processes create the same outcomes and provide a simple answer: there is melted matter (magma) under ther crust.

I am hereby stopping any further discussion of providing evidence for the process of creating and existing of the oxide compounds, etc., although they (evidence) are almost obvious by themselves, when the comparison of Sun's and Earth's compositions is done.

 

Sun photospheric composition (by mass)

Melting point °C

Boiling point °C

 

Hydrogen

73.46%

-259,14

-252,87

Helium

24.85%

-272,20

-268,934

Oxygen

0.77%

-218,35

-182,96

Carbon

0.29%

3.547,00

4.827,00

Iron

0.16%

1.535,00

2.750,00

Neon

0.12%

 -248,67

-246,05

Nitrogen

0.09%

 -209,86

-195,75

Silicon

0.07%

1.410,00

2.355,00

Magnesium

0.05%

   648,85

1.090,00

Sulfur

0.04%

   112,85

444,674

Sun, average density           1.408 g/cm3

Temperature photosphere : 5,772 K

 

Today, the relation of pressure with density and temperature does not exist, but to the opposite, that the increase of pressure gets matter diluted and density decreases.

The accepted theories (for Sun) suggest that pressure for a matter layer, which is 552.000 km thick, and with the gravity of the object, which mass is ~2 x1030 kg, results in the density of 0,2 g/cm2 (radiative zone), and, as the opposite to this, there is the pressure inside the core of Earth, which is  5.100-6.378 km deep under the surface, and with the gravity of the object, which mass is ~6 x 1024 kg, results in the density of 12,8-13,1 g/cm2. This (the relation of accepted theories) does not sound convincing and it is not justified by science.

 

Accepting that: 

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, etc., are all created. Even further, planets are created the same way. 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 2

 

the processes on and in the stars are similar to the processes on melted planets and other minor objects. Interiority of a star is a mix of matter, which is chemically less diverse (both in quantity and diversity) than lava (magma). 

Due to the long-term exposure of more complex atoms and compounds to the temperatures above their boiling points, they get dissolved into atoms of hydrogen, helium, oxygen (~74/24/1/).      

M type of stars (fraction of all main-sequence stars 76.45%), due to temperatures of 2 400–3 700°K can have on their surfaces, the majority of oxides, existing in lava nad magma on Earth, are in a liquid state. The expected diversity of chemical compounds will be lower, but the readings of compound presence will be lower, because the layer above a star is colder than the boiling points of atoms and compounds; here they get crystallized and fall on the surface.

Inside stars (melted objects), hot matter constantly tends to move towards the surface, but it gets slowed down by high pressure and rotation in layers, so it gets cooled down.

The hottest place on a star is its center. Matter that is melted above the boiling point moves towards the colder surface and even colder atmosphere. Because of the high temperatures, the photosphere and atmosphere (4 100°K on Sun) should be full of heavy metals, but they are not.

A problem here is that surfaces of a part of stars (F, A, B, O, WR, white dwarfs (Sun 5.500°C, Sirius 9.940°K, WR 2 141.000 , etc.)) are also above the boiling points of atoms; here, the process occurs on the edge of a cold surrounding outside the visible matter. If the cores of stars (Sun...) were created of heavy metals (iron,...), they would have been proportionally represented on the surface and atmosphere of a particular star.   

The claims that there is a radioactive disintegration need to be dismissed as incredible; more than half a million of people live only around Vesuvius in Italy and they are not irradiated. Lava can be hot, but never radioactive (low radiation that exist in the lava is considered that they are not harmful to people and life).

Radioactive elements and compounds are present in the crust of Earth. Lava can go through that matter and demonstrate radioactivity, but that does not provide evidence of magma being radioactive. Plates and volcanoes move.

The conduct of matter in blast furnaces for melting iron is known; therefore, it is also known that hot mass is dislocating, which means that radioactive elements should be equally present in lava now and 4,5 billion of years earlier – but, they are not "(Ultramafic (picritic): SiO2 <45%, Fe-Mg> 8% and up to 32% MgO, temperature up to 1500°C))".

The mass which creates pressure and the effects of the gravitational forces of Sun are responsible for the melted core. That is the reason why Venus is more warm than Earth and has more active volcanoes, although it is smaller than Earth.

Therefore, there are convincing and verifiable evidence for the objects to shine. They start shining when they reach a sufficient mass if they are in a distant orbit or are independent, or when they reach a sufficient mass and the effects of the gravitational forces if they are closer to the central object (the most often, to a star). Earlier, people were taught that for an object to become a star, it would be sufficient to reach 10% of Sun's mass. Now, the ever-improving technology is providing more and more new evidence to change that mass level.6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the fiesta of ignorance continues... No surprise...

Ah, look, water melts at 0C, and sodium chloride at 800C, and eutectic composition melts at -21C

h2o-nacl_phase_diagram.gif

Holly crap, can't be!

 

Seriously, stop spamming science threads with your ignorant bs, buy freakin' physics books, or visit library, and study.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Greeting bmk1245

"Dear Author: Weitter Duckss (Slavko Sedic),
Your paper has been accepted for publication, your paper will be published in current edition ( September 2017 Edition).

The last date to complete the registration process is October 16th, 2017.
 
Tracking ID :   3297
Title :  Why Atmospheres of Stars Lack Metals?" GSJ Publication
Thanks for the warning.
 
Edited by Weitter Duckss

Share this post


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

Greeting bmk1245

"Dear Author: Weitter Duckss (Slavko Sedic),
Your paper has been accepted for publication, your paper will be published in current edition ( September 2017 Edition).

The last date to complete the registration process is October 16th, 2017.
 
Tracking ID :   3297
Title :  Why Atmospheres of Stars Lack Metals?" GSJ Publication
Thanks for the warning.
 

I couldn't find the article............. but that might have something to do with the fact that the registration date is 9 days from now. Sadly I don't have a time machine. :whistle: 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I couldn't find the article............. but that might have something to do with the fact that the registration date is 9 days from now. Sadly I don't have a time machine. :whistle:

Greeting.
Mail I received a little before. From the last release of my article (http://www.globalscientificjournal.com/researchpaper/The-influence-of-rotation-of-stars-on-their-radius-temperature.pdf) the article will be published around November 10th.
Until then, we can whistle together.

Share this post


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

Greeting bmk1245

"Dear Author: Weitter Duckss (Slavko Sedic),
Your paper has been accepted for publication, your paper will be published in current edition ( September 2017 Edition).

The last date to complete the registration process is October 16th, 2017.
 
Tracking ID :   3297
Title :  Why Atmospheres of Stars Lack Metals?" GSJ Publication
Thanks for the warning.
 

Accepted by whom/what? Predatory journal? Figures...

Well, they will accept flat Earth 'theory'....

Share this post


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

Greeting.
Mail I received a little before. From the last release of my article (http://www.globalscientificjournal.com/researchpaper/The-influence-of-rotation-of-stars-on-their-radius-temperature.pdf) the article will be published around November 10th.
Until then, we can whistle together.

Jeez, are you THAT blind?

Well, on the other hand, there's a sucker born every minute...

Anyway, what about H2O and NaCl solution melting point, huh? Any insights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Accepted by whom/what? Predatory journal? Figures...

Well, they will accept flat Earth 'theory'....

You are all concerned (https://www.academia.edu/ (Weitter Duckss), http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/267586-the-universe-is-rotating/, vselennaâ and vraŝenie ( start teleskopy surprise? ...) - http://www.newtheory.ru/astronomy/vliyaniya-vrashcheniya-zvezd-na-ih-radius-temperaturu-t4400-20.html, http://www.ijoar.org /journals/IJOAR/Volume4_Issue11_november2016.html The observation process in the universe, http://www.ijoart.org/research-paper-publishing_october-2016.shtml Universe and rotation,
www.globalscientificjournal.com etc).
Two doctors were there with me. Society is comfortable. If they were all crazy, why would not I be crazy? I'm happy that your sources are smart.

Share this post


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

You are all concerned (https://www.academia.edu/ (Weitter Duckss), http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/267586-the-universe-is-rotating/, vselennaâ and vraŝenie ( start teleskopy surprise? ...) - http://www.newtheory.ru/astronomy/vliyaniya-vrashcheniya-zvezd-na-ih-radius-temperaturu-t4400-20.html, http://www.ijoar.org /journals/IJOAR/Volume4_Issue11_november2016.html The observation process in the universe, http://www.ijoart.org/research-paper-publishing_october-2016.shtml Universe and rotation,
www.globalscientificjournal.com etc).
Two doctors were there with me. Society is comfortable. If they were all crazy, why would not I be crazy? I'm happy that your sources are smart.

Doctors of what? Doctors in dealing with mental patients? Well, that figures...

Anyway, why H20/NaCl solution melts at -21C, huh? WHY? How that fits your theory?

Share this post


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

Greeting bmk1245

"Dear Author: Weitter Duckss (Slavko Sedic),
Your paper has been accepted for publication, your paper will be published in current edition ( September 2017 Edition).

The last date to complete the registration process is October 16th, 2017.
 
Tracking ID :   3297
Title :  Why Atmospheres of Stars Lack Metals?" GSJ Publication
Thanks for the warning.
 

Can you please post a better reference to this alleged article (or at least journal).

Cheers,
Badeskov

PS: why do I have my doubts that this is in any way, shape or form peer reviewed?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, badeskov said:

Can you please post a better reference to this alleged article (or at least journal).

Cheers,
Badeskov

PS: why do I have my doubts that this is in any way, shape or form peer reviewed?

To be fair, Einstein wasn't too keen on peer review. Look what happened when he submitted a paper to Physical Review in 1936 questioning his earlier pronouncements on gravity waves. The editor John Tate anonymously adjusted some of the great man's maths. This incensed Einstein, who refused to submit any more papers to the Review. But there were two big differences between Albert and Weitter. The first was that Albert was willing to admit when he was wrong, and the second was that he was, well, a genius. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

To be fair, Einstein wasn't too keen on peer review. Look what happened when he submitted a paper to Physical Review in 1936 questioning his earlier pronouncements on gravity waves. The editor John Tate anonymously adjusted some of the great man's maths. This incensed Einstein, who refused to submit any more papers to the Review. But there were two big differences between Albert and Weitter. The first was that Albert was willing to admit when he was wrong, and the second was that he was, well, a genius. 

Agreed. But now we are in 2017. I have about 146 papers under my belt, maybe 10 of them not peer reviewed because they were for popular science kinds of things to entice younger students. The rest have all gone through the rigorous dread of peer review (I used to be one of those evil b*****s years back - and the nonsense I had to reject, oh boy. Lilly can attest to that, especially that I was an evil b*****).

Cheers,
Badeskov  

3 people like this

Share this post


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

Ah, look, water melts at 0C, and sodium chloride at 800C, and eutectic composition melts at -21C

Good for you, I was wondering who would bring this up first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weitter, its about energy and not enough energy.  Badeskov would be better to say this but I will go ahead.

I am sure you know this already.  A hydrogen molecule (H2) weighs slightly less than two hydrogen atoms.  It is in a slightly lower energy state than 2 hydrogen atoms, it has given up energy / mass   But the protons have to be forced very close together for nuclear forces to overcome electrical repulsion.  It takes a whole lot of energy to slam protons together, overcome their electrical repulsion and make them stick.   Pressure and temperature seem to work, near relativistic speeds seem to work. 

Planetary pressure and temperature aren't enough to do it.    The thermal energy of magma can assemble or disassemble some compounds but it doesn't have enough energy to push protons together to form more massive elements.  We are not looking at not quite enough energy, we are looking at a shortfall of 5-6 orders of magnitude. 

By the way what are higher and lower order elements?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tatetopa said:

Weitter, its about energy and not enough energy.  Badeskov would be better to say this but I will go ahead.

I am sure you know this already.  A hydrogen molecule (H2) weighs slightly less than two hydrogen atoms.  It is in a slightly lower energy state than 2 hydrogen atoms, it has given up energy / mass   But the protons have to be forced very close together for nuclear forces to overcome electrical repulsion.  It takes a whole lot of energy to slam protons together, overcome their electrical repulsion and make them stick.   Pressure and temperature seem to work, near relativistic speeds seem to work. 

Planetary pressure and temperature aren't enough to do it.    The thermal energy of magma can assemble or disassemble some compounds but it doesn't have enough energy to push protons together to form more massive elements.  We are not looking at not quite enough energy, we are looking at a shortfall of 5-6 orders of magnitude. 

By the way what are higher and lower order elements?

 

From some of his earlier posts it seems that Weitter Duckss doesn't get the distinction between elements and molecules. It looks like he thinks that nuclear and chemical reactions follow the same rules. From what i remember he doesn't believe that stars are powered by fusion. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

From some of his earlier posts it seems that Weitter Duckss doesn't get the distinction between elements and molecules. It looks like he thinks that nuclear and chemical reactions follow the same rules. From what i remember he doesn't believe that stars are powered by fusion. 

I'm just a dumb engineer, not even a physicist, but I try to keep up with current developments as I can.  I can still remember the epiphany when I realized galaxies are not blasting away from each other like rocket ships. Of course I knew the universe was expanding but bang! I finally got it. That was a most enjoyable click in my synapses.  I will admit that I tried to read every line of Weitter's posts, but I must have skimmed through a few parts.  I panic when I step in verbal quicksand.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Anyway, why H20/NaCl solution melts at -21C, huh? WHY? How that fits your theory?

The table shows the melting point and boiling point for lime elements and joints (magma). The question I asked myself was: "Why are there elements and compounds in the melted matter that have boiling and melting points above the temperatures of lava and magma (why there are compounds in lava that have melting points far below the temperature of the lava)?

The temperature of the lava is from 500 ° C to 1 600 ° C ("Magma of composite compositions have a very high melting point, with calculated eruption temperatures above 1600 ° C." 5)
The answer is in "Volatile elements and compounds that evaporate from the lava, but due to low temperatures (for example, lava is 1 200 ° C, air is 15 ° C , the melting point of magnesium is 648.85 ° C and the boiling point is 1 090 ° C, and instead of evaporating into the atmosphere, the magnesium particles are cooled down by low temperatures and they remain on the lava surface (which affects the level of lava viscosity "
Hydrogen, oxygen, helium etc are boiling at very low temperatures. Mix media, such as at 500 to 1600 ° C, with pressures. Looking at the composition of the lava and point of the boiling point of the joints and atoms (any) lava and magma can not be liquid. The composition of the lava is incorrect because it neglects the process of forming compounds (mainly oxide).

8 hours ago, badeskov said:

Can you please post a better reference to this alleged article (or at least journal).

http://www.globalscientificjournal.com/researchpaper/The-influence-of-rotation-of-stars-on-their-radius-temperature.pdf 

7 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

The first was that Albert was willing to admit when he was wrong, and the second was that he was, well, a genius. 

If you follow my articles, you've surely seen that recent articles have a series of corrections. Theory of Zadar (2004) and WD Theory (2016) are two different work on the same subject. I'm loud when I change the paradigm as in http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#spectrum-of-colors for 270,000 km / s.

 

6 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

 It takes a whole lot of energy to slam protons together, overcome their electrical repulsion and make them stick.

Actually not. "Proton- String" http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Theory-of-Zadar.html 2004.
"By the way what are higher and lower order elements?" Atoms with small and large number of protons. Vodik, helij ... Mg, ... lower order, .. etc

 

6 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

From some of his earlier posts it seems that Weitter Duckss doesn't get the distinction between elements and molecules. It looks like he thinks that nuclear and chemical reactions follow the same rules. From what i remember he doesn't believe that stars are powered by fusion.

There is, little truth. There is a big difference in the processes in space and the lab. My interest is only the Universe and why it is so. For example: why H2? The electron is countless! Why then does the proton look for another proton? Why is the chemical composition of the Universe hydrogen, some helium, and other atoms, in traces (up to a maximum of 1-2%)?
I look at the overall relationships and how small parts fit into one whole. ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

200_s.gif

Start with basic physics, WD.

Share this post


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

From some of his earlier posts it seems that Weitter Duckss doesn't get the distinction between elements and molecules. It looks like he thinks that nuclear and chemical reactions follow the same rules. From what i remember he doesn't believe that stars are powered by fusion. 

Yeap. Even more, he negates inverse square law...

Share this post


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

Weitter, its about energy and not enough energy.  Badeskov would be better to say this but I will go ahead.

I am sure you know this already.  A hydrogen molecule (H2) weighs slightly less than two hydrogen atoms.  It is in a slightly lower energy state than 2 hydrogen atoms, it has given up energy / mass   But the protons have to be forced very close together for nuclear forces to overcome electrical repulsion.  It takes a whole lot of energy to slam protons together, overcome their electrical repulsion and make them stick.   Pressure and temperature seem to work, near relativistic speeds seem to work. 

Planetary pressure and temperature aren't enough to do it.    The thermal energy of magma can assemble or disassemble some compounds but it doesn't have enough energy to push protons together to form more massive elements.  We are not looking at not quite enough energy, we are looking at a shortfall of 5-6 orders of magnitude. 

By the way what are higher and lower order elements?

 

Your are trying to convince fridge not to drink your beer...

Share this post


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

Agreed. But now we are in 2017. I have about 146 papers under my belt, maybe 10 of them not peer reviewed because they were for popular science kinds of things to entice younger students. The rest have all gone through the rigorous dread of peer review (I used to be one of those evil b*****s years back - and the nonsense I had to reject, oh boy. Lilly can attest to that, especially that I was an evil b*****).

Cheers,
Badeskov  

I totally agree. I was of course being facetious, and more is made of Einstein's dislike of peer review than was really the case. And indeed it is unfair to say peer review didn't exist in the past. For example, as you will probably know, when Einstein submitted his famous three papers to Annalen der Physik in 1905 they were not peer reviewed in the way we think of the process. They were, however, read by non other than Max Planck before being accepted! Also, Einstein had discussed his ideas with his little Olympia Academy before writing up the papers. Marcel Grossmann, one of the greatest mathematicians of the twentieth century was a member, so Albert would have been pulled apart if he was talking nonsense. What annoyed him about Physical Review was that no one had the courtesy to contact him before making the changes.

Even in its most basic form, the way scientists discussed their work in the past - albeit with just a few fellow scientists - provided far more rigor than the process Weitter is following.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

For example: why H2? The electron is countless!

H2 has lower energy than hydrogen atoms, but not very much.  It doesn't take much energy to start a reaction between H2 and O2.  It takes a lot more energy to fuse H into HE , C and O and on up the chain.  Do you find insight in quarks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

H2 has lower energy than hydrogen atoms, but not very much.  It doesn't take much energy to start a reaction between H2 and O2.  It takes a lot more energy to fuse H into HE , C and O and on up the chain.  Do you find insight in quarks?

http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#1growth
Here I devoted a little more attention to this topic. It's short. I like texts with a bit of words.
If it is not enough we will continue.
I replaced the Quarks with the strings of 2006.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Here I devoted a little more attention to this topic. It's short. I like texts with a bit of words.
If it is not enough we will continue.
I replaced the Quarks with the strings of 2006.

I must commend you on the amount of thought and energy you have devoted to this.  You are prolific.  I am not in a position to support or disprove you by the force of my own intellect, I rely on reading the work of others in the field who have constructed logical pictures of the universe that seem internally comprehensive and  consistent.  You certainly have a different approach, and it seems contrary to some of what I think I have learned about how the universe is put together. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I must commend you on the amount of thought and energy you have devoted to this.  You are prolific.  I am not in a position to support or disprove you by the force of my own intellect, I rely on reading the work of others in the field who have constructed logical pictures of the universe that seem internally comprehensive and  consistent.  You certainly have a different approach, and it seems contrary to some of what I think I have learned about how the universe is put together. 

Good one, you are encouraging ignorance. Keep the pace.

Gosh, we are doomed.

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.