Supernovae are not our creators

[Physics Phreak]

I am sorry, I cannot agree until you convert those km/s values into "days per rotation". I did so and the results were not linear.

Whilst I can't make head nor tail of Weitter's narrative, is he actually claiming the data sets form a linear relationship? A first approximation of the three data sets (using, in ascending order, x = 340, 558, and 643 days) yields the linear function y = (-0.0087)x + 8. In this case the middle value of y deviates from linear by about - 7% (2.93 given, 3.15 calculated). That, to me, suggests the function may be exponential. But of course, with only three data sets not a great deal can be learned!

[Weitter Duckss]

DieChecker

Physics Phreak

I can not not agree with you.

With this problem I encountered in making the text and that's what I noted in the text.

Do not exist two identical bodies (stars) nor the same conditions around the star. I noted that there are overlapping but not drastic first 1/3 is completely different from the last. The causes are partly in measurements and probably there are variations due to differences in mass and so on.

I'm glad you recalculated the in only 7%, personally my assessment is double, more.

I think in today's terms this tool can not be better and, as such, serves a purpose.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Weitter Duckss

[+DieChecker]

Whilst I can't make head nor tail of Weitter's narrative, is he actually claiming the data sets form a linear relationship? A first approximation of the three data sets (using, in ascending order, x = 340, 558, and 643 days) yields the linear function y = (-0.0087)x + 8. In this case the middle value of y deviates from linear by about - 7% (2.93 given, 3.15 calculated). That, to me, suggests the function may be exponential. But of course, with only three data sets not a great deal can be learned!

I believe his claim (and not sure how it fits into the thread topic), is that the rotational velocity of a star directly affects the color of the star. He seems to be implying that the rotational velocity increases/decreases the surface temperature enough that the color of the star can shift to that of a much heavier, or much lighter star. Which I think he has failed to show.

[+DieChecker]

DieChecker

Physics Phreak

I can not not agree with you.

With this problem I encountered in making the text and that's what I noted in the text.

Do not exist two identical bodies (stars) nor the same conditions around the star. I noted that there are overlapping but not drastic first 1/3 is completely different from the last. The causes are partly in measurements and probably there are variations due to differences in mass and so on.

I'm glad you recalculated the in only 7%, personally my assessment is double, more.

I think in today's terms this tool can not be better and, as such, serves a purpose.

I still cannot agree. The rotational velocities, the masses, the radiuses, and color of all the stars on your chart are well known. Thus you could find the Circumference of all of these stars and figure out how many hours each takes for a complete rotation. Then you need to graph the color of what the star is expected to have, based on its mass alone, versus the actual color it is observed to be. Then you can take the degree of difference in color, and correlate those differences to rotational velocity, or rotation duration.

If there is a correlation between rotational velocity and the color of a star, it will show as faster velocities equaling hotter stars. Which will be more to the Blue side of the spectrum. And slower velocity stars will show as moving toward the Red side of the spectrum. If this does not show to be true for the majority of cases, then it can't be said to be true.

I did a rough sketch at this a couple days ago, and I didn't see any correlation immediately, but maybe a larger sample size (1000 stars) might show something.

Edited April 9, 2016 by DieChecker

[Weitter Duckss]

I still cannot agree. The rotational velocities, the masses, the radiuses, and color of all the stars on your chart are well known. Thus you could find the Circumference of all of these stars and figure out how many hours each takes for a complete rotation. Then you need to graph the color of what the star is expected to have, based on its mass alone, versus the actual color it is observed to be. Then you can take the degree of difference in color, and correlate those differences to rotational velocity, or rotation duration.

If there is a correlation between rotational velocity and the color of a star, it will show as faster velocities equaling hotter stars. Which will be more to the Blue side of the spectrum. And slower velocity stars will show as moving toward the Red side of the spectrum. If this does not show to be true for the majority of cases, then it can't be said to be true.

I did a rough sketch at this a couple days ago, and I didn't see any correlation immediately, but maybe a larger sample size (1000 stars) might show something.

In a sample of via 3,700 blue stars is determined that this is the stars with a very fast rotation.

High speed rotation (rotation in relation to the sun) = blue color, high temperature, a small radius and high (above 4) surface gravity.

White stars, faster rotation (sample 120 via the so-called proto stars etc.) have a higher temperature, smaller radius, high surface gravity (reaches above 8) and generally have a disc gas.

At the other end where are red star, the rotation is smaller (in relation to the sun), the larger the radius (mass / radius, Sun = 1), the lower the temperature, the lower the surface gravitacija. All is measured in relation to the Sun.

In these two groups, there is no overlap.

The tool does not serve that accurately locate data in the sequence.

For small star (dwarfs) rotation must be recalculated because the matter is not behaving the same in small and large masses but seeing only small star stencils remains the same.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Weitter Duckss

[+DieChecker]

In a sample of via 3,700 blue stars is determined that this is the stars with a very fast rotation.

High speed rotation (rotation in relation to the sun) = blue color, high temperature, a small radius and high (above 4) surface gravity.

White stars, faster rotation (sample 120 via the so-called proto stars etc.) have a higher temperature, smaller radius, high surface gravity (reaches above 8) and generally have a disc gas.

At the other end where are red star, the rotation is smaller (in relation to the sun), the larger the radius (mass / radius, Sun = 1), the lower the temperature, the lower the surface gravitacija. All is measured in relation to the Sun.

In these two groups, there is no overlap.

The tool does not serve that accurately locate data in the sequence.

For small star (dwarfs) rotation must be recalculated because the matter is not behaving the same in small and large masses but seeing only small star stencils remains the same.

Actually the white stars are "Green" stars and are in the middle of the color spectrum as far as stars are concerned. They are cooler then the blue stars. They also are generally smaller. Also the stars you describe are generally younger and have more hydrogen, and thus burn brighter, and hotter.

The blue stars you are talking about are a subset of a subset. You need to show proof of ALL stars exhibiting this trend.

[Weitter Duckss]

Actually the white stars are "Green" stars and are in the middle of the color spectrum as far as stars are concerned. They are cooler then the blue stars. They also are generally smaller. Also the stars you describe are generally younger and have more hydrogen, and thus burn brighter, and hotter.

The blue stars you are talking about are a subset of a subset. You need to show proof of ALL stars exhibiting this trend.

For white stars I thought the white dwarfs, an apology for the slip of the tongue (not and will not be only because ..).

However are looking for the impossible.

All conditions (input factors) must be the same the mass, the composition of the system (more or less binary system), the density of the material around the star .. All stars and systems are specific and unique, and the results depends on the specifics who rule around the body.

Left and right sides (Hertzsprung-Russell diagram) are clean and the environment is in the right place.

All the stars follow the rules depending on the specifics.

It is not possible to the same number and the same cut of put on of each individual although all we are people.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Weitter Duckss

[badeskov]

While I agree, I think there are others like me who very quickly tire of the game Weitter plays, namely ignoring refutations, never once admitting he is wrong, and simply changing the subject to another piece of ill-informed hogwash. I suspect there are others like me who will avoid responding to those tactics and therefore some bad information may get left unchallenged. I suspect that is the point of the game, from Weitter's skewed perspective.

I do agree that it is hard to deal with, and I guess if it is only the occasional thread...

(Apologies for the meta-discussion, will stop now!)

Pardon me for adding to the meta-discussion, but just wanted to comment on the bolded part myself.

I think it is a combination of three factors that make his threads so difficult. He is definitely very ignorant of science, but I think willful ignorance is only part of the issue. I think his complete lack of skills in the written word in English combined with an absolutely horrible translator are the main factors - I don't even think he understands what he is told (and only God knows what his translator tells him when he reads posts).

But whatever, his threads are absolutely nonsensical ramblings to which one can hardly respond as there is a rarely a substance to respond to (if one can even decipher what is being written).

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Weitter Duckss]

Pardon me for adding to the meta-discussion, but just wanted to comment on the bolded part myself.

I think it is a combination of three factors that make his threads so difficult. He is definitely very ignorant of science, but I think willful ignorance is only part of the issue. I think his complete lack of skills in the written word in English combined with an absolutely horrible translator are the main factors - I don't even think he understands what he is told (and only God knows what his translator tells him when he reads posts).

But whatever, his threads are absolutely nonsensical ramblings to which one can hardly respond as there is a rarely a substance to respond to (if one can even decipher what is being written).

Cheers,

Badeskov

Your comment is OK.

Little him lacking arguments and what the writer wanted to say with a comment.

Did you mean to say that the left side of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram are not fast rotating star, and on the right slowly rotating star, and that this is not a complete theoretical novelty?

Did you mean to say that the relation of the chemical composition of the stars / chemical composition of the remains of supernovae is not a new approach and that no elimination of a series of speculations on the origin and formation of heavier elements?

Please be ye also clearer and provide evidence, because without them the words have no value.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

and provide evidence, because without them the words have no value.

Says the man whose only evidence is his own website.

[badeskov]

Your comment is OK.

Thank you, although I am a bit uncertain to whether you actually understood said comments.

Little him lacking arguments and what the writer wanted to say with a comment.

Case in point. I have no idea whatsoever this sentence means. And I mean none (and, trust me,I have read it many times before deciding to respond to your post).

Did you mean to say that the left side of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram are not fast rotating star, and on the right slowly rotating star, and that this is not a complete theoretical novelty?

Did you mean to say that the relation of the chemical composition of the stars / chemical composition of the remains of supernovae is not a new approach and that no elimination of a series of speculations on the origin and formation of heavier elements?

I have said nothing of the sort. I made a general comment to your posts, the way you post and read replies and how you present your "evidence" and that was all.

Please be ye also clearer and provide evidence, because without them the words have no value.

My words have no value to you, and seemingly other poster's words have no value either because it is very obvious that you do not understand science nor what you are told. And any evidence presented to you would be meaningless to you and a waste of time for others posting here.

By all means of respect, but learn some English or get a better translator.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited to add: It's not that I do not want to debate you, I just can't. There is simply no meaningful communication going on here.

Edited April 9, 2016 by badeskov

[bmk1245]

OK, Duckss, how, for example, rotational velocity of main sequence stars B0V vs A0V, or M0V vs M9V/L0V-L6V, fits your "theory", huh?

(data taken from Catalog of Stellar Rotational Velocities (Glebocki+ 2005); boxes - standard deviation, whiskers - min/max values, squares - mean values)

[Weitter Duckss]

OK, Duckss, how, for example, rotational velocity of main sequence stars B0V vs A0V, or M0V vs M9V/L0V-L6V, fits your "theory", huh?

(data taken from Catalog of Stellar Rotational Velocities (Glebocki+ 2005); boxes - standard deviation, whiskers - min/max values, squares - mean values)

I'm surprised, not how you think. If I had this work would save a lot of time in finding information.

Now there is the official link of the rotation of stars in relation to the temperature, which connects the radius and surface gravity.

Sure you have noticed that the article "The causal relation between a star and its temperature, gravity, radius and color" located within "The observation process and the universe through the database" because the cross-section of the published data, is new observation data through their confrontation on the overall level.

You have probably, by this, concluded the discussion because no longer exist counterarguments for questionable vjerodostojnosi article and questionable sample size. They remain only small finesse about specific conditions related to the stars.

The effects of the rotation are now an indispensable part of the observation of the universe.

[Weitter Duckss]

My words have no value to you, and seemingly other poster's words have no value either because it is very obvious that you do not understand science nor what you are told.

Edited to add: It's not that I do not want to debate you, I just can't. There is simply no meaningful communication going on here.

Incorrectly. I object to only Comentari without arguments. Nevertheless every post I consider valuable as an indicator for something.

[bmk1245]

I'm surprised, not how you think. If I had this work would save a lot of time in finding information.

Now there is the official link of the rotation of stars in relation to the temperature, which connects the radius and surface gravity.

Sure you have noticed that the article "The causal relation between a star and its temperature, gravity, radius and color" located within "The observation process and the universe through the database" because the cross-section of the published data, is new observation data through their confrontation on the overall level.

You have probably, by this, concluded the discussion because no longer exist counterarguments for questionable vjerodostojnosi article and questionable sample size. They remain only small finesse about specific conditions related to the stars.

The effects of the rotation are now an indispensable part of the observation of the universe.

You are basing your "theory" on just 23 stars (!!!), while I posted graph using data of 1800+ stars (and I can go further, with several thousands records).

Seriously, dude, before you come up with your own "theories", you should learn about existing ones. But, I guess, it's waaaay too difficult for you.

[Weitter Duckss]

You are basing your "theory" on just 23 stars (!!!), while I posted graph using data of 1800+ stars (and I can go further, with several thousands records).

Seriously, dude, before you come up with your own "theories", you should learn about existing ones. But, I guess, it's waaaay too difficult for you.

You should have read the comments before the discussion.

Only the blue star pattern of over 3,700 stars ... The table is just a display for further verification because within each link you have to Wikipedia offered a dozen similar star and each again a dozen stars.

Hertzsprung Russell diagram does not show the 100 to 400 billion stars that appear legality.

Though, thanks for the information. They removed many disagreement.

[Blizno]

"Speed + gravity = straight line."

What?...What?

I can't begin to fathom what you are trying to say here.

Simply adding more words to nonsense doesn't make it more reasonable. By the way, I visited the link you posted earlier. Under rotations of stars sometimes it's in units of time, good. That means the time it takes the star to rotate. Sometimes the units are in km/sec. What? What? Rotation is not measured in linear distance over time, come on!

You're grabbing scientific words almost at random and pasting them together into utter nonsense.

"The sun light must have obviously been changing its nature on its way from the Sun to our planet. It is visible on Sun and on Earth, but not between these two objects. There is no visible light immediately outside the atmosphere. The decrease of light visibility is in a direct relation to the density of the atmosphere: the more sparse is the atmosphere, the less of light and the more of darkness is there."

Really? This is just embarrassing. Please take a grade-school science class. The shocking ignorance of these statements appalls me.

STOP wasting people's time until you have at least a child's grasp of the basics.

I'm giving up on this thread. I feel dirty just from reading this garbage.

[Derek Willis]

"Speed + gravity = straight line."

What?...What?

I can't begin to fathom what you are trying to say here.

Simply adding more words to nonsense doesn't make it more reasonable. By the way, I visited the link you posted earlier. Under rotations of stars sometimes it's in units of time, good. That means the time it takes the star to rotate. Sometimes the units are in km/sec. What? What? Rotation is not measured in linear distance over time, come on!

As far as I can see he has taken all his data from Wikipedia. Sometimes the actual rotational period of a star is given and sometimes the inferred velocity of the star's equator is given. These latter figures are derived from the Doppler shifts of line spectra. However, they do not necessarily relate to the actual rotational period of the surface of the star as different layers rotate at different rates.

[Merc14]

"Speed + gravity = straight line."

What?...What?

I can't begin to fathom what you are trying to say here.

Simply adding more words to nonsense doesn't make it more reasonable. By the way, I visited the link you posted earlier. Under rotations of stars sometimes it's in units of time, good. That means the time it takes the star to rotate. Sometimes the units are in km/sec. What? What? Rotation is not measured in linear distance over time, come on!

You're grabbing scientific words almost at random and pasting them together into utter nonsense.

"The sun light must have obviously been changing its nature on its way from the Sun to our planet. It is visible on Sun and on Earth, but not between these two objects. There is no visible light immediately outside the atmosphere. The decrease of light visibility is in a direct relation to the density of the atmosphere: the more sparse is the atmosphere, the less of light and the more of darkness is there."

Really? This is just embarrassing. Please take a grade-school science class. The shocking ignorance of these statements appalls me.

STOP wasting people's time until you have at least a child's grasp of the basics.

I'm giving up on this thread. I feel dirty just from reading this garbage.

I guess if photons aren't reflecting off something they don't exist. Oy vey

[Weitter Duckss]

"Speed + gravity = straight line."

What?...What?

I can't begin to fathom what you are trying to say here.

Simply adding more words to nonsense doesn't make it more reasonable. By the way, I visited the link you posted earlier. Under rotations of stars sometimes it's in units of time, good. That means the time it takes the star to rotate. Sometimes the units are in km/sec. What? What? Rotation is not measured in linear distance over time, come on!

You're grabbing scientific words almost at random and pasting them together into utter nonsense.

"The sun light must have obviously been changing its nature on its way from the Sun to our planet. It is visible on Sun and on Earth, but not between these two objects. There is no visible light immediately outside the atmosphere. The decrease of light visibility is in a direct relation to the density of the atmosphere: the more sparse is the atmosphere, the less of light and the more of darkness is there."

Really? This is just embarrassing. Please take a grade-school science class. The shocking ignorance of these statements appalls me.

STOP wasting people's time until you have at least a child's grasp of the basics.

I'm giving up on this thread. I feel dirty just from reading this garbage.

You is reality garbage, nicely packed fairy tale are you OK.

First, the two bodies due to the attractive force (independently of speed) must approach to each other in a straight line which does not exist in the universe, there is only an ellipse.

Second, the universe is dark. Outside of our atmosphere is completely dark. It you, I think, clear. If the photon particles, which is the carrier of light, why not light the 100 miles outside of Earth's surface?

This myself clearly explained in the discussion on the basis of which was created article: "Are we blind or we do not want to see the dark matter!" http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/the-Universe-rotating.html#17b

Later I made the article: "The causal relation of space and the absence of light and Universe" within "The observation process and the universe through the database."

There are a enough data and measurements which go in favor of that it is realistic interpretation of reality.

[Weitter Duckss]

I guess if photons aren't reflecting off something they don't exist. Oy vey

"When observing the comets, we can see they create a visible tail when approaching a star. That is a clear example of observing the transition of an object without the atmosphere towards the object with the atmosphere. And the slow transformation of a comet we can follow the process which indicates that the light is not appearing by itself but with the occurrence of the visible matter. On this level of observation, the behavior of space, when colliding with radiation, is the opposite one from the behavior of the visible matter. Space is dark and (visible) matter is visible. "

from http://www.svemir-ip...causal-relation

Edited April 11, 2016 by Weitter Duckss

[bmk1245]

Seriously, Duckss, your ridiculous "theories" are beating all time records of stupidity and ignorance.

[Derek Willis]

Weitter, can you please convert the data you give so that it is all presented in terms of stellar rotational periods. For example, you use the Wikipedia data for Betelgeuse and provide the rotational velocity as 5 km/sec. Can you convert that into the rotational period of Betelgeuse please, and do so for all the other stars you list. If you provide all the rotational periods it may be possible to see if your claim has any veracity. If you don't, then it pretty much indicates you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

[Lilly]

If one does not understand the very basics of physics/astronomy the discussion of complex cosmological concepts is virtually impossible. The old, 'you can't learn to run until you learn to walk' reality. Add this to not having a good grasp of the language one is using....the result is what we see here.

[Merc14]

"When observing the comets, we can see they create a visible tail when approaching a star. That is a clear example of observing the transition of an object without the atmosphere towards the object with the atmosphere. And the slow transformation of a comet we can follow the process which indicates that the light is not appearing by itself but with the occurrence of the visible matter. On this level of observation, the behavior of space, when colliding with radiation, is the opposite one from the behavior of the visible matter. Space is dark and (visible) matter is visible. "

from http://www.svemir-ip...causal-relation

Are saying light doesn't exist until we see it? Also, you do know why a comet suddenly has a tail right? Google "Rosetta" ducks