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 0
Weitter Duckss

Weitter Duckss's Theory of the Universe

90 posts in this topic

29 minutes ago, Weitter Duckss said:

I have not heard that Burger's star rotating several kilometers per second. Definitely not the fastest and not the stars (I use the word body to emphasize that all the bodies are subject the same laws of physics).

http://gizmodo.com/5865280/burger-star-is-the-fastest-spinning-star-in-the-universe-yet

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, aquatus1 said:

I'm not talking about gaining access to anything.  I'm talking about what you are posting here, on this discussion forum.  Here, you have not presented any reason for people to consider you a scientist.  Here, you have not provided support for your idea, neither mathematical models nor abstractions.  You posted, with great conviction, an acceptance letter from a group that is known for making money by taking ideas and charging their owners for it.  If you cannot convince a group of people on a discussion forum that your ideas have merit, you are nowhere near ready to ask a professional journal for review.  This is not about a professional field being closed off to you because of some sort of elite bias.  Even here, in this discussion forum, among average people who work in scientific fields, you have not met the standards for credibility.

Again, until you present the logic behind your work--not a claim, not an explanation, but an actual theory, describing a specific phenomena, and providing an explanation in the form of an actual formula, abstract model, or other verifiable supporting evidence for the explanation of the specific phenomena--then it is completely understandable for people to decide that you are not a scientist.  Not because English is (I assume) a second language, not because there is some sort of elite bias in place, not because of any external excuse, but simply because you have not provided a scientific claim for review.

We do not use the same method. Your are searching for an expert opinion to the discovery of those who earn the publishing untruths, I do not want to be a member of that club.
If I proved some things that are entered in the official correspondence or are proven vision (Pluto does not ring), etc., why require confirmation by incompetent people from the "big" magazine?
It is the same to seek confirmation of the ancient Greeks.
The theory is just an expression, the work is only present evidence without my excessive intervention.
Who can reassure the faithful that there is no God? Try it publish in religious magazines.
The text is intended for a wider circle of readers as stated in the introduction to the book (2008-9) in http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/U potrazi za izgubljenim svemirom.html (sory, only Croatian)
Those who do not believe and constantly checking know what it was about (I met many (thousands)).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Thanks for the link (I do not regard only one body already all bodies and relationships).

"Chevapi" is one of the fast rotating star and totally fits in my link-up (hot star of fast rotation, a small radius (mass / radius, Sun = 1) high surface gravity, color blue).

Share this post


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

"Chevapi"

:blink:

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

We do not use the same method. Your are searching for an expert opinion to the discovery of those who earn the publishing untruths, I do not want to be a member of that club.
If I proved some things that are entered in the official correspondence or are proven vision (Pluto does not ring), etc., why require confirmation by incompetent people from the "big" magazine?
It is the same to seek confirmation of the ancient Greeks.
The theory is just an expression, the work is only present evidence without my excessive intervention.
Who can reassure the faithful that there is no God? Try it publish in religious magazines.
The text is intended for a wider circle of readers as stated in the introduction to the book (2008-9) in http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/U potrazi za izgubljenim svemirom.html (sory, only Croatian)
Those who do not believe and constantly checking know what it was about (I met many (thousands)).

I can guarantee that no one educated in physics, astronomy or quantum theory will ever take you seriously, so you have nothing to worry about.  :tu:

6 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

Thanks for the link (I do not regard only one body already all bodies and relationships).

"Chevapi" is one of the fast rotating star and totally fits in my link-up (hot star of fast rotation, a small radius (mass / radius, Sun = 1) high surface gravity, color blue).

No, your  hypothesis, at least what I can make of it, says the faster something spins the hotter it will be which means the fastest spinning star in the universe, that we know of, should also be the hottest star in the universe.  That isn't the case with either of these stars so back to the drawing boards for you boyo.

 

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


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

We do not use the same method. Your are searching for an expert opinion to the discovery of those who earn the publishing untruths, I do not want to be a member of that club.

I'm not searching for anything.  I am telling you that when you proudly display a notice from a a company that is known for taking advantage of gullible people, it does not make you look like a critical thinker.  Whatever club you want to be a part of, that one should not be it either.  Scammers are not scientists.

Quote

If I proved some things that are entered in the official correspondence or are proven vision (Pluto does not ring), etc., why require confirmation by incompetent people from the "big" magazine?

Because they are unlikely to be incompetent, and no matter how many times you repeat it, it will not change that fact.  You are not credible enough to call their competency into question.  You have to be of equal or greater credibility to do that, and right now, the only evidence you have presented is a letter that supports the idea that you are naive.

You simply are not at a level where you should be taken seriously.  The only thing you do is make claims, as if you were a priest.  If you want to be known as a scientist, or, at least, as someone who actually understands science, you need to demonstrate that you actually do understand it.  Claiming that science is elitist, that peer reviewers are incompetent, etc, etc, are childish tactics, all of which are nothing more than repetition of the phrase "It's not my fault!"

But it is your fault, Weitter.  It is.  You came into a field of which you did not know the language, the culture, or the customs, and you proceeded to tell them everything they do is wrong, and they should listen to you, and no, you don't need to support any of your claims.  Those are not the actions of a scientists, a rationalist, or even a thinker.  Those are the actions of a missionary, someone who is not interested in contributing knowledge, but rather in making other people accept what he believes as truth, regardless of anything else.

And that sort of thing has no place in science.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, aquatus1 said:

Ja ne traži ništa. Ja vam govorim da kad ponosno prikazati obavijest od aa tvrtke koja je poznata po iskorištavanjem lakovjernih ljudi, to ne znači da ti izgleda kao kritičkog mislioca. Bez obzira na klub koji želite biti dio, da se ne bi trebalo biti to bilo. Prevaranti nisu znanstvenici.

Jer oni su vjerojatno da će biti nesposobni, i bez obzira na to koliko puta to ponoviti, to neće promijeniti tu činjenicu. Niste dovoljno uvjerljivi nazvati svoju kompetenciju u pitanje. Morate biti jednaka ili veća vjerodostojnosti to učiniti, a upravo sada, jedini dokaz koji ste predstavili je pismo koje podupire ideju da ste naivni.

Vi jednostavno nisu na razini na kojoj bi trebao biti uzeti ozbiljno. Jedino što trebate učiniti je napraviti tvrdnje, kao da ste svećenik. Ako želite biti poznat kao znanstvenik, ili, u najmanju ruku, kao netko tko zaista razumije znanost, morate pokazati da ste zaista ne razumijem. Tvrdeći da je znanost elitistički, da peer recenzenti su nesposobni, itd, itd, su dječje taktika, a svi su ništa drugo nego ponavljanje fraze "To nije moja krivnja!"

Ali, to je tvoja krivica, Weitter. To je. Došli ste u polje za koju nije znao jezik, kulturu, ili običaje, i nastavila da im kaže sve što im je činiti je krivo, a oni bi trebali slušati vas, i ne, ne treba podržavati bilo koji od vaših zahtjeva. Oni nisu akcije znanstvenika, racionalist, ili čak i mislioca. To su akcije misionar, netko tko nije zainteresiran za doprinos znanje, nego u tome da drugi ljudi prihvatiti ono u što vjeruje kao istina, bez obzira na bilo što drugo.

I takve stvari nema mjesta u znanosti.

"...Until some other opportunity, maybe already in the spring of 2015, when the New Horizons mission will have reached Pluto, it convince us that it does not have rings. The calculations are clear: slow speed of rotation around its own axis, small mass, and even though there is very favorable low temperature, there are no rings. but, it is needed to point out that the values are contiguous, which is demonstrated by the mass of its satellites. Related to their home planet, they are in terms of mass by far beyond the average of the Sun and other planets 8.
The author... "
The first comment is posted 12.07.12.g. in
http://www.vijesti.me/caffe/oko-plutona-kruzi-ipak-pet-satelita-82400
It was not convincing but it is true and it has been confirmed.
One should always distinguish persuasiveness of and "big" source of truth and reality.
"Big" Science is also published the only convincingly, who cares for truth.

Share this post


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

One should always distinguish persuasiveness of and "big" source of truth and reality.
"Big" Science is also published the only convincingly, who cares for truth.

Yes, one should distinguish between something being "big" (or, in more normal terms, "mainstream") and something being persuasive.  One should also distinguish between something being mainstream, and something being automatically suspect, particularly when it is the opposite that is true.  The reason religion has been overwhelmingly deposed by science in the mere 500 years since the Enlightenment is because science is much, much, more credible than religion could ever hope to be.  Yes, science is convincing, and it is convincing precisely because it does not care about "Truth".  Science cares about facts, and science cares about logic.  And, because of that, people have found that science is much more credible and reliable than religion, and have allowed it to become mainstream.

You are quite obviously not a scientist, but a missionary.  You do not present facts, or logic, or rational.  You make claims, take them as givens, and when people object on the basis of logic and reason, you claim that logic and reason are corrupt.

You don't take responsibility for yourself or your ideas.  It has been pointed out very specifically that the problem is in your personal presentation, and yet, you keep trying to claim that it is some problem with "big science" instead.  But none of us here represent big science.  Sure, some of us work directly in scientific fields, but most of us are just rationalists.  We understand science, even if we don't work directly in it.  We have nothing to gain or lose regarding "Big science".  None of the objections that have been made here regarding your presentation would even be entry-level issues for big science.  And yet, you can't even convince duffers like us that you are a credible thinker.  That isn't a problem with big science, Weitter.  That's all on you.

Edited by aquatus1
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, aquatus1 said:

Yes, one should distinguish between something being "big" (or, in more normal terms, "mainstream") and something being persuasive.  One should also distinguish between something being mainstream, and something being automatically suspect, particularly when it is the opposite that is true.  The reason religion has been overwhelmingly deposed by science in the mere 500 years since the Enlightenment is because science is much, much, more credible than religion could ever hope to be.  Yes, science is convincing, and it is convincing precisely because it does not care about "Truth".  Science cares about facts, and science cares about logic.  And, because of that, people have found that science is much more credible and reliable than religion, and have allowed it to become mainstream.

You are quite obviously not a scientist, but a missionary.  You do not present facts, or logic, or rational.  You make claims, take them as givens, and when people object on the basis of logic and reason, you claim that logic and reason are corrupt.

You don't take responsibility for yourself or your ideas.  It has been pointed out very specifically that the problem is in your personal presentation, and yet, you keep trying to claim that it is some problem with "big science" instead.  But none of us here represent big science.  Sure, some of us work directly in scientific fields, but most of us are just rationalists.  We understand science, even if we don't work directly in it.  We have nothing to gain or lose regarding "Big science".  None of the objections that have been made here regarding your presentation would even be entry-level issues for big science.  And yet, you can't even convince duffers like us that you are a credible thinker.  That isn't a problem with big science, Weitter.  That's all on you.

Why representing falsehood and amounts is?
"Big" ... on all media (I reacted on TV "scientific" program) claimed: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune have rings we will discover as they arrive at Pluto.

You claim:

"Credible "Science" cares about facts, and science cares about logic. And, because of that, people have found that science is much more credible and reliable than religion, and have allowed it to become mainstream."

By contrast,

"The calculations are clear: slow speed of rotation around its own axis, small mass, and even though there is very favorable low temperature, there are no rings. But, it is needed to point out that the values are contiguous, which is demonstrated by the mass of its satellites. Related to their home planet, they are in terms of mass by far beyond the average of the Sun and other planets 8. "

These you labeled as, 

"You are quite obviously not a scientist, but a missionary. You do not present facts, or logic, or rational. You make claims, such as givens them, and when people object on the basis of logic and reason, you claim that logic and reason are corrupt. "

If you hold sermon, you try to be credible and principled. I'm not asking you to understand (I completely understand you and your position) only that black is black and so on.

If you adopt the WD seeing the universe, you will understand the difference between faith and science is often just the name (talking about the Universe).

Edited by Weitter Duckss

Share this post


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

Why representing falsehood and amounts is?

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here.

Quote

"Big" ... on all media (I reacted on TV "scientific" program) claimed: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune have rings we will discover as they arrive at Pluto.

I...don't understand the relevance (or the surprise.  We've know about the ring systems of these planets for a long time).

Quote

 

You claim:

"Credible "Science" cares about facts, and science cares about logic. And, because of that, people have found that science is much more credible and reliable than religion, and have allowed it to become mainstream."

 

Yes.

Quote

 

By contrast,

"The calculations are clear: slow speed of rotation around its own axis, small mass, and even though there is very favorable low temperature, there are no rings. But, it is needed to point out that the values are contiguous, which is demonstrated by the mass of its satellites. Related to their home planet, they are in terms of mass by far beyond the average of the Sun and other planets 8. "

 

These are claims.  You are making a statement.  You are not providing numbers, support, references, nothing.  You just make a claim, and expect people to accept it as fact.

That's not how science works, Weitter.  You don't just claim that the calculations are clear.  You show us the calculations, and we determine if they are clear or not.

Quote

 

These you labeled as, 

"You are quite obviously not a scientist, but a missionary. You do not present facts, or logic, or rational. You make claims, such as givens them, and when people object on the basis of logic and reason, you claim that logic and reason are corrupt. "

 

And I stand by my analysis.  You have presented claims, and nothing to back them up.  Show us your work, and the discussion can move forward, but as long as you stand on your claims being taken at face value, no one is going to do that.  You need to show evidence that your claims are credible.

Quote

If you hold sermon, you try to be credible and principled. I'm not asking you to understand (I completely understand you and your position) only that black is black and so on.

A sermon doesn't require you to be credible or principled.  You can say anything you want, and no one is expected, or will even be tolerated, to counter you.  That is not science.

You don't get to sermonize in science unless you have the credentials to do so.  There are enough people blowing hot air as it is, without letting in more people who aren't even including science in all that hot air they are blowing.

Quote

If you adopt the WD seeing the universe, you will understand the difference between faith and science is often just the name (talking about the Universe).

I've highlighted the differences pretty specifically between faith and science.  Claiming that the differences do not exist is on you.  If you refuse to acknowledge those differences and insist on treating science as if it were faith, you will continue to not be considered credible in the scientific community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, aquatus1 said:

And I stand by my analysis. 

Faith (great science and great evidence of the full logic)
For at least a portion of its life, a star shines due to thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium in its core, releasing energy that traverses the star's interior and then radiates into outer space.
The real world (WD "Heated objects (stars)")
"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. 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 and now 4.5 billion of years earlier - but, they are not "(ultramafic (picritic ): SiO2 <45%, Fe-Mg> 8% and up to 32% MgO, temperatures up to 1500 ° C)) ". 5 "

Faith
"In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not. [4] [5] In this sense, gamma rays, X-rays, microwaves and radio waves are also light. Like all types of light, visible light is emitted and absorbed in tiny "packets" called photons and exhibits properties of both waves and particles. this property is referred to as the wave-particle duality. "
Reality
"When observing the arrival of a comet, initially we can see only the object and the dark around it. Light starts to appear around it when the object starts releasing the particles which create the tail of the comet. The common thing to Earth and the comets is matter (particles) ... Nothing is needed between a star (Sun) and an object (the atmosphere of Earth), except waves or radiation. Constant waves' blows warm up the visible matter, which starts shining. Now it is clear why the temperature on the light side of the Moon reaches 390 ° C (about + 120 ° C), while on the dark side it is only 100 ° K (about -170 ° C). But photons are needed as there are by far no valid explanation that they really represent light or that the light from the Sun is traveling to Earth and other objects. " ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WD, your ignorance is matched only by your arrogance.  I'd post some articles describing how magma/lava is formed but apparently you know more than all of science combined.  I'll do it anyways in case someone is reading your stuff and buying it.  

How is lava formed   http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/how-lava-formed

How are stars formed  https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/how-do-stars-form-and-evolve

*snip*

Edited by Saru
Removed derogatory generalisation
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Merc14 said:

WD, your ignorance is matched only by your arrogance.  I'd post some articles describing how magma/lava is formed but apparently you know more than all of science combined.  I'll do it anyways in case someone is reading your stuff and buying it.  

How is lava formed   http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/how-lava-formed

How are stars formed  https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/how-do-stars-form-and-evolve

"There is also heat within the earth produced by the radioactive decay of naturally-occurring radioactive elements."
This is a classic ignorance and lack of knowledge of processes within the hot matter. If there are "There is also heat within the earth produced by the radioactive decay of naturally-occurring radioactive elements. It is the same process that allows a nuclear reactor to generate heat, but in the earth, the radioactive material is much less concentrated." Why there is no radioactivity in the lava? "Sunlight is a portion of the electromagnetic radiation given off by the Sun, in particular infrared, visible, and ultraviolet light." Wiki, the same question?

Avogadro constant (L) is:
6.0221412 x 10 ^ 23mol ^ -1
"Turbulence deep within these clouds gives rise to knots with sufficient mass that the gas and dust can begin to collapse under its own gravitational attraction. Known as a protostar, it is this hot core at the heart of the collapsing cloud that will one day become a star. Three-dimensional computer models of star formation predict that the spinning clouds of collapsing gas and dust may break up into two or three blobs; this would explain why the majority the stars and the Milky Way are paired or in groups of multiple stars . "
The "knots" has gravity greater than gravity biggest stars as manages with his magical gravity do what they can rapidly rotating disk of blue stars with gas or so-called proto stars (read rapidly rotating stars, regardless of mass).
Please link to the "knots" it will be interesting
N. Tesla, R. Boskovic, E. S.Penkala etc. are also out of here.

Share this post


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

"There is also heat within the earth produced by the radioactive decay of naturally-occurring radioactive elements."
This is a classic ignorance and lack of knowledge of processes within the hot matter. If there are "There is also heat within the earth produced by the radioactive decay of naturally-occurring radioactive elements. It is the same process that allows a nuclear reactor to generate heat, but in the earth, the radioactive material is much less concentrated." Why there is no radioactivity in the lava? "Sunlight is a portion of the electromagnetic radiation given off by the Sun, in particular infrared, visible, and ultraviolet light." Wiki, the same question?

Avogadro constant (L) is:
6.0221412 x 10 ^ 23mol ^ -1
"Turbulence deep within these clouds gives rise to knots with sufficient mass that the gas and dust can begin to collapse under its own gravitational attraction. Known as a protostar, it is this hot core at the heart of the collapsing cloud that will one day become a star. Three-dimensional computer models of star formation predict that the spinning clouds of collapsing gas and dust may break up into two or three blobs; this would explain why the majority the stars and the Milky Way are paired or in groups of multiple stars . "
The "knots" has gravity greater than gravity biggest stars as manages with his magical gravity do what they can rapidly rotating disk of blue stars with gas or so-called proto stars (read rapidly rotating stars, regardless of mass).
Please link to the "knots" it will be interesting
N. Tesla, R. Boskovic, E. S.Penkala etc. are also out of here.

Lava is radioactive WD, about as radioactive as the rest of the earth.  Your problem starts with your complete lack of knowledge regarding the electromagnetic spectrum, how it works and what radioactivity is.   This basic ignorance is compounded by a arrogance and hubris that is so all consuming that you are impervious to learning anything beyond what your imagination, such as it is, dreams up.  Above you scoff at computer models designed by people who have spent years studying  the subject while you present nothing but your very flawed thoughts.  As Aquatus said, you have nothing to prove your hypotheses beyond your arrogance and you never will because you obviously  know nothing about the subject.  Honestly, at this point you are just embarrassing yourself but hey, if it makes you happy continue.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Lava is radioactive WD, about as radioactive as the rest of the earth.  Your problem starts with your complete lack of knowledge regarding the electromagnetic spectrum, how it works and what radioactivity is.   This basic ignorance is compounded by a arrogance and hubris that is so all consuming that you are impervious to learning anything beyond what your imagination, such as it is, dreams up.  Above you scoff at computer models designed by people who have spent years studying  the subject while you present nothing but your very flawed thoughts.  As Aquatus said, you have nothing to prove your hypotheses beyond your arrogance and you never will because you obviously  know nothing about the subject.  Honestly, at this point you are just embarrassing yourself but hey, if it makes you happy continue.

 

Mark, this is not just my problem. This is a problem for the WHO. Only with Vesuvius lives over 500,000 people! I do not know who all the he removed restraining order in visit volcanoes? According to the size of the active volcanoes nuclear power plants are a harmless places. Please, be serious, Mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my brain imploded reading this thread.:unsure2:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, XenoFish said:

I think my brain imploded reading this thread.:unsure2:

Perhaps last part enlighten the darkness in the space, which is not darkness already light.

"Ether or vacuum"

Edmond Halley → „gravitational force between Sun and the planets is decreasing with the square distance“. The intensity or power of radiation conducts similarly to the requirements of this law. If the space is a vacuum, the waves, coming from Sun, are not obliged to abide the law of decreasing force.

This should apply only to the existence of matter or obstacles. The following objects have the stated values of temperature on their dark sides: Mercury ~100°K, Europa ~50°K, Pluto ~33°K and in the Oort cloud only 4°K (some sources suggest the range of 2 – 12°K). By observing the night sky it can be seen that the power of  waves, incoming from the stars, loses its intensity while traveling the distance to Earth. If vacuum was present in the space, the space would have the same temperature. It is clear that the space which is closer to a source has a significant temperature, related to that one in the Oort cloud. The space is getting heated, but not as a visible matter, and the evidence of weakening the intensity of light and decreasing of temperature suggest beyond any doubt that there is no vacuum. The decrease of intensity is not equal to the activity of gravity, which indicates there is a sort of matter involved. The usual anomalies are recorded closer to Sun. The temperature on the dark side of Mercury (~100°K) is lower than the one on Mars (~130°K) and there is a similar anomaly on Earth, in the sense of thermosphere. Nevertheless, the fact that waves decrease with distance all the way till 4°K in the Oort cloud can't be disputed. It is clear that the space closer to a star is getting heated up to 130°K. This is not the conduct manner of the empty space that does not interact with radiation. The same situation is with larger systems, galaxies. On the edge of galaxy the temperature is reduced below 3°K. The further the space from the source of waves (radiation) is, the lower the temperature gets and it tends to reach the absolute zero (the temperature of background radiation is 2,7 K).  When the next totality (Multi-Universe) will become measurable, the temperature on its edges would be around 1° K.

Let's also mention here the law of low temperatures: when temperature lowers below the boiling point of helium (4,226°K) the objects start accelerating independently of the reduced gravitational effects, which can be seen with the Oort cloud, the objects at the edge of galaxies and with the sudden speeding up of  Voyager 1 and 2.

                                                                                                   The feature of the outer space is reacting to waves, the ability to get heated and – in a particular way – to conduct itself similarly to visible matter. The relation is this:visible matter makes up to 5% of the Universe, while the rest belongs to the space filled with dark matter. It is not appropriate to look for the 95% of system in the same way as if it would be done for a millionth part of it.

Conclusion: space is not empty, it makes possible for waves (radiation) to move at the speed of 300 000 km/sec., but at the same time it reduces the intensity and power of waves, which is good, because weakened radiation is unable to cause damage to the neighboring systems.

Functioning of the Universe

The Universe is based on the law of attraction. This law is acting under difficult conditions, movements and rotations of objects and systems inside the Universe. If objects share the same orbit or trajectory of movement, they attract each other exclusively with gravitational force. The joining of objects takes place under these conditions (the expression "collision of objects" should not be used at this place). The same laws should apply to planets and galaxies, as well as to gas and dust. The gathering of matter  follows the law of attraction, but here is also the upper sustainable level (limit), which can be supported by the conditions in which the process takes place, i.e., natural conditions. Matter has a constant tendency to gather up, due to gravitational force (no matter of the natural sustainability) and a particle, object or system reject the surplus. A particle is doing it by rejecting smaller parts: electrons, protons, neutrons or helium. The process is generally accompanied byradioactive radiation. Forces of gravity make all objects to be interrelated to some extent, in a certain way they "feel" each other.

When an object rotates, it gathers a smaller quantity of other objects that rotate around it (Sun gathers 0,14 % of its total mass). Rotation creates stellar systems, spherical clusters, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, the Universe, etc. There is a smaller part of disorganized totalities that will at the end become organized or join some unsaturated system.

When a gaseous or liquid object rotates, whirls are created at their poles and in time they may grow into cyclones. On the objects that have whirls, matter on their poles is rotating slower than the matter on their equators; it is the opposite with the cyclones. Supernovae are created when an object of the sufficient size hits into the opening (an eye) of a cyclone or a faster and deeper whirl, penetrating deeper into a star and exploding there, which makes a triggering event to create a supernova. The evidence claim that white and blue stars explode independently of their mass – white dwarfs explode just like white or blue giants – but nothing similar has been related to yellow and red stars, which rotate slower and their whirls are not as deep. There is only a very small part of supernovae, related to the total quantity of stars, since there is also a very small part of white and blue stars inside our galaxy. Blue stars make up to "0,0003%; blue-white stars 0,13%; white stars 0,6% and yellow-white stars 3%" (Wikipedia). That makes less than 4% of candidates for the creation of potential supernovae. That fact makes the minor number of supernovae remnants justified; there are only a few dozens of them in the whole galaxy (i.e., related to 200-400 billion of stars). Having analyzed this relation, it becomes pointless to talk too much about the supernovae, because their minor quantity can not influence the creation of heavier elements in galaxy at all, especially when having in mind that a majority of matter undergoes the process of disintegration during the explosion of a star.

When analyzing the Solar system, it can be deducted that on Earth there is the greatest variety of elements, different in terms of mass. It can also be concluded by observing the objects inside this galaxy that hot objects with lower temperatures have a greater part of heavier elements than shiny, hot stars; in particular, brown dwarfs. There are two ways in one process. The first of them claims that heavier and diverse elements and more significant atmosphere are being created due to higher temperatures (the melted interiority of an object), more frequent geological processes, the change of day and night (due to rotation) and significantly colder polar regions than the rest of an object (in this way CH4 is being crystallized from the atmosphere of Titan, the satellite of Saturn, and removed from the atmosphere). The insufficience of a particular factor negatively influences the variety of creation of the elements (the effects of the lack of rotation are visible on Venus, Io, etc.). The other way claims there is the disintegration of elements. High temperatures disintegrate elements. Both of these ways exist on Earth. The interiority of Earth has a lesser variety and quantity of heavier elements. The composition of magma andlava confirms that; there are no lead, gold, uranium, etc. in it. There are mostly "silica, aluminum, potassium, sodium and calcium" (Wikipedia) with a small amount of the compounds of iron. With the increase of temperature, the variety of elements decreases; that way, the stars consist of hydrogen, helium and a very small part (up to 2%) of the other elements. "Sun generally consists of the chemical elements of hydrogen and helium; they respectively make up to 74,9% and 23,8% of the mass of Sun in the photosphere and all the heavier elements, in astronomy known as metals, make up less than 2% of the mass, including oxygen (around 1% of the mass of Sun), carbon (0,3%), neon (0,2%), iron (0,2%)" (Wikipedia).

When analyzing the particle of hydrogen (H2), the smaller particles (electrons and neutrino) can here be exluded from the main process of creating the more complex particles. Electrons and neutrino participate in creating protons and neutrons (or, heavy protons). The reason for it is obvious, a proton needs the relation with another proton, because smaller particles are unable to keep it stable and in a stable bond. The other reason is that in the Universe the cores of particles exist without the relation to electrons, as it is on Earth. The results of particle collisions in accelerators prove that a proton disintegrates after a few short periods, called particles, into electrons and neutrino and electrons disintegrate into neutrino. Energy is omnipresent – even the smallest particles are made of it. This automatically proves that a particle of electron consists of a large quantity of neutrino and a particle of proton (hydrogen) consists of the combination of electrons and neutrino. The relation of H2 proves the existence of positive and negative charge of a proton. The disbalance of charge (about 5%, which is the quantity expressed by weak hydrogen bond) with the existence of two sorts of charge is responsible for the process of creating, growing and gathering matter. Particles with the same sort of charge repulse each other (electron and neutrino also possess two poles of charge). A proton itself consists of a large quantity of smaller particles which together create a string or thread with two different charges on its ends, which attract each other and, when joining, they create a curled up loop with a positive, negative and neutral pole. They are all clearly noticed when electrons collide with a proton (also known as "Three quarks for Muster Mark"). A thread that is connected gets opened up if there is enough charge and then it can join into the new relation if the conditions are appropriate. That is the way how an interwoven structure of more complex atoms is created. It gives a simple answer to the question, why two or three atoms with the same atomic mass differ utterly (argon, potassium and calcium, etc.) and exist in different aggregate states. The same goes for any pair of the neighboring elements (fluorine – neon, tellurium – iodine, etc.). The isotopes of elements also need to be mentioned here; they additionally confirm this way of creating the particles. Joining and growing of particles goes on even when a particle reaches its upper limits of natural sustainability, due to which a particle rejects the surplus of matter together with radioactive radiation. The same goes for the lower elements (who have irregular structures or the irregular ratio of protons and heavy protons), whose structure can not bear further growth (the system undergoes self-adaptations to achieve the sustainable state).

The age of an object and system is determined through the time needed for a certain mass to be collected and formed as an object in given conditions, as well as for that object to get attracted into a system. An initial value should be a small asteroid, which is estimated to be 4,5 billion of years old, the time which should roughly be enough for the gas particles to join into dust and form an object of ½ kg of weight. Age is not to be measured by measuring distance. The quantity of 13,7(8) billion of light-years, which is the distance to the most distant object in the Universe, is the length by which a circumference of the Universe is determined, with the correction of movement of the most distant objects, which is 270.000 km/sec. The Universe makes a single circle (rotation) in ~94,5 billion of years. Its disk-like appearance and enormous outer speed point out at the vast number of circles made to this day. Rotation gives the Universe a direction or trajectory.


Author: Weitter Duckss (Slavko Sedic) Zadar Croatia 
Traslated by: prof. Zoran Coso zcoso@unizd.hr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2016 at 2:10 AM, Weitter Duckss said:

Mark, this is not just my problem. This is a problem for the WHO. Only with Vesuvius lives over 500,000 people! I do not know who all the he removed restraining order in visit volcanoes? According to the size of the active volcanoes nuclear power plants are a harmless places. Please, be serious, Mark.

Please go and do some studying, your basic knowledge is severely lacking and so is your reading comprehension.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Please go and do some studying, your basic knowledge is severely lacking and so is your reading comprehension.  

Mark help me in choosing subjects for study.
My choice could be:
-Kolaps Gas using nodes with super powers and influence of the speed of collapse, the speed of rotation of the stars and the determination of the age of the stars based on the speed of rotation. The tool for studying sediment and a cup of coffee.
-transformation Radiation in light collisions with matter and re transormacija to radiation after the rejection. Tool use magic, now you see me now you do not see.
Radioactive disintegration of matter with unlimited radiation that we can not complain. Tool, exercise oratory to convince the reader suggestive, it does not see this is our ignorance.
-Introduction With scientific methods. The tool, constantly sinning or represent big institutions with the use of big publishing services through impact.
-Please Help which, this would been the subject?
"The epoch when the very first stars appeared is a key period of cosmic history. These stars began the manufacture of the chemical elements (those heavier than hydrogen and helium) and their light began the reionization of the neutral cosmic gas. These stars thus mark the dawn of the universe ... "

Readers can conclude yourself How Great is value of this article (nothing). (Facebook Slavko Sedić)

"Earth's mass is approximately 5.97 × 1024 kg (5,970 Yg). It is composed mostly of iron (32.1%), Oxygen (30.1%), silicon (15.1%), magnesium (13.9%), sulfur (2.9 %), nickel (1.8%), calcium (1.5%), and aluminum (1.4%), with the remaining 1.2% consisting of trace amounts of other elements. "
The Sun is composed primarily of the chemical elements hydrogen and helium; they account for 74.9% and 23.8% of the mass of the Sun in the photosphere, respectively. [53] All heavier elements, called metals in astronomy, account for less than 2% of the mass, with oxygen (roughly 1% of the Sun's mass), carbon (0.3%), neon (0.2%), and iron (0.2 %) being the most abundant.
When stars form in the present Milky Way galaxy they are composed of about 71% hydrogen and 27% helium, [94] as measured by mass, with a small fraction of heavier elements. "
"Most emission nebulae are about 90% hydrogen, with the remainder helium, oxygen, nitrogen, and other elements." Wikipedia

- ...

Edited by Weitter Duckss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2016 at 10:05 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

Mark help me in choosing subjects for study.
[...]

Studying astrophysics in nearest library would be a good start. That would spare us of utter bs you are posting here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15.10.2016. at 11:29 PM, bmk1245 said:

Studying astrophysics in nearest library would be a good start. That would spare us of utter bs you are posting here.

Unfortunately, long time I have not found a new book.
Creating a book requires time. Today  time mean, be within current events and discoveries. Books covering the period of time that is already outdated (not current).
The following topics will be: "What are working temperatures of elements and compounds in the Universe?" http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#working-temperatures-of-elements

Zahvaljujem svim učesnicima u raspravi i posjetiteljima ove teme. (Cro)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2016 at 4:48 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

Unfortunately, long time I have not found a new book.
Creating a book requires time. Today  time mean, be within current events and discoveries. Books covering the period of time that is already outdated (not current).
The following topics will be: "What are working temperatures of elements and compounds in the Universe?" http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#working-temperatures-of-elements

Zahvaljujem svim učesnicima u raspravi i posjetiteljima ove teme. (Cro)

You have to be kidding me... Springer alone in one year publishes more than dozen books on astrophysics. And then there are World Scientific, Oxford Univ. Press, and other publishers. And then there are ample of scientific journals, real journals, not money scamming predatory crap, like the one you submitted your "paper" to.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

And then there are ample of scientific journals, real journals, not money scamming predatory crap, like the one you submitted your "paper" to.

http://www.ijser.org/editorial-board.aspx


Sory, talking nonsense.
Magazine "ijser" regulates 92 doctors of science with other distinguished editors.
Think before claims or collect evidence.
Publication costs as a translation of two pages.


Magazines that you value charge 10 to 20 times more.

Share this post


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

http://www.ijser.org/editorial-board.aspx


Sory, talking nonsense.
Magazine "ijser" regulates 92 doctors of science with other distinguished editors.
Think before claims or collect evidence.
Publication costs as a translation of two pages.


Magazines that you value charge 10 to 20 times more.

Oh yeah? Please post publication list of, say, Dr. N Reynolds.

Next thing you should know, that predatory publishers are using fake "doctors" (fake persons, or those who got their "education" from diploma mills), or list real ones without their agreement. Also note how many "doctors" are using institutional e-mails (just few), and not gmail, hotmail, yahoo, and how many on the list don't have any contact info, or just go like Dr. Amey G. Patil, B.D.S, or Dr. S.Sumathi, Electronics.

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 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.