Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Weitter Duckss

Weitter Duckss's Theory of the Universe

90 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ChrLzs

Weitter, you can easily prove clever how you are and how you didn't get suckered, by:

1. Show us your finally published paper, and keep us updated on how many genuine cites you get over time.

but more importantly

2. Post the peer reviews that you got for your paper before publication (and also editorial comments, including the authors names).

 

If you can't do that, maybe you should consider the fact that you have been scammed.

Because, well.. you HAVE.  But prove me wrong.  You'll note I asked you for this earlier but you ignored that.  Will you keep ignoring it?

 

Also, one other comment.  A theory of the universe is a pretty large topic.  With which recognised other experts in the field have you collaborated?  Or are you cleverer than all the scientists over the centuries who have carefully pieced together the current theories (the ones you can't seem to find anywhere..) that explain all the myriads of observations and data sets, and include all the necessary mathematics (none of which we have seen from you)?

Edited by ChrLzs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Weitter Duckss
On 21.10.2016. at 8:54 AM, bmk1245 said:

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.

I entered a phase of verification (not subjective) and the results will probably have next week.
That something stinks in the state Denmark suggests the following  (the title is my, and the introduction or the other is blank), but is too early to draw conclusions.

(The observation process in the universe through the database[Full-Text ]

The goals of the research, which has been conducted from 2003. till 2015., were to find out why the space between the objects in Universe is dark; furthermore, to find evidence that space is not empty and to determine its characteristics; to answer the question, is there an interaction between radiation and space; and finally, to determine the reasons of differences in temperatures in Universe.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
On 10/23/2016 at 10:15 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

I entered a phase of verification (not subjective) and the results will probably have next week.
That something stinks in the state Denmark suggests the following  (the title is my, and the introduction or the other is blank), but is too early to draw conclusions.

(The observation process in the universe through the database[Full-Text ]

The goals of the research, which has been conducted from 2003. till 2015., were to find out why the space between the objects in Universe is dark; furthermore, to find evidence that space is not empty and to determine its characteristics; to answer the question, is there an interaction between radiation and space; and finally, to determine the reasons of differences in temperatures in Universe.)

 

Again, these scammers would publish paper claiming that the Sun is bonfire lit by gnomes.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Again, these scammers would publish paper claiming that the Sun is bonfire lit by gnomes.

You mean it isn't? 

No doubt the colour of the gnomes is related to their rotational velocity. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
On 25.10.2016. at 11:27 AM, bmk1245 said:

Again, these scammers would publish paper claiming that the Sun is bonfire lit by gnomes.

I do not understand, and despite a number of evidence you is hard to accept the reality. Not important revelation already the truth and evidence.
The color and height temperature in between are with speed of rotation, in this, do not doubt and official science. They are published articles on the subject (as: "The international team found the so-called blue hook stars throw off their outer layers cool late in life because they are rotating as rapidly, making them more luminous than usual" http: // phys. org / news / 2015-06-blue-stars-unusually-hot.html), etc. (this sample is over 3,700 stars).
It is time pastreplace current time.
You dispute W. Duckss, (yet unpublished (read plagiarized) parts "theory"), but spare the science that you represent, because this part of the "theory" has been proven and is part of the official science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
On 21.10.2016. at 1:02 PM, ChrLzs said:

Weitter, you can easily prove clever how you are and how you didn't get suckered, by:

1. Show us your finally published paper, and keep us updated on how many genuine cites you get over time.

but more importantly

2. Post the peer reviews that you got for your paper before publication (and also editorial comments, including the authors names).

 

If you can't do that, maybe you should consider the fact that you have been scammed.

Because, well.. you HAVE.  But prove me wrong.  You'll note I asked you for this earlier but you ignored that.  Will you keep ignoring it?

 

Also, one other comment.  A theory of the universe is a pretty large topic.  With which recognised other experts in the field have you collaborated?  Or are you cleverer than all the scientists over the centuries who have carefully pieced together the current theories (the ones you can't seem to find anywhere..) that explain all the myriads of observations and data sets, and include all the necessary mathematics (none of which we have seen from you)?

I deliver links for WD theory.

http://www.ijser.org/onlineResearchPaperViewer.aspx?Weitter-Duckss-Theory-of-the-Universe.pdf

http://www.ijser.org/research-paper-publishing-september-2016_pageU.aspx

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Nobody asked for more links.  Post the peer reviews and editorial comments from your 'publisher', or simply admit you have been scammed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
17 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

I do not understand, and despite a number of evidence you is hard to accept the reality. Not important revelation already the truth and evidence.
The color and height temperature in between are with speed of rotation, in this, do not doubt and official science. They are published articles on the subject (as: "The international team found the so-called blue hook stars throw off their outer layers cool late in life because they are rotating as rapidly, making them more luminous than usual" http: // phys. org / news / 2015-06-blue-stars-unusually-hot.html), etc. (this sample is over 3,700 stars).
It is time pastreplace current time.
You dispute W. Duckss, (yet unpublished (read plagiarized) parts "theory"), but spare the science that you represent, because this part of the "theory" has been proven and is part of the official science.

Thing is, your "theory" states that star rotation makes them hotter/cooler, i.e. wind is created by swinging trees. So, once again, epic fail.

Share this post


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

Thing is, your "theory" states that star rotation makes them hotter/cooler, i.e. wind is created by swinging trees. So, once again, epic fail.

I'm not asking always  why (mainly statistics).
Rotation space hot body is a complex process. The layers of the body do not have the same speed, creates friction, etc. Higher speed = more friction (the value of the effects of labor) and higher temperatures, higher compressive forces ..
In the second row of are mass and binary effects.

Share this post


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

I'm not asking always  why (mainly statistics).
Rotation space hot body is a complex process. The layers of the body do not have the same speed, creates friction, etc. Higher speed = more friction (the value of the effects of labor) and higher temperatures, higher compressive forces ..
In the second row of are mass and binary effects.

Again, BS.

Jupiter rotates at ~12km/s (cloud-tops velocity), so, according you "theory", Jupiter should be shining as G0 star (5980 K)...

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Again, BS.

Jupiter rotates at ~12km/s (cloud-tops velocity), so, according you "theory", Jupiter should be shining as G0 star (5980 K)...

Not. Remains (along with a series of corrective factors) in force to the body begin to glow when they reach 10% of the mass of the sun. (Part: "Heated objects (stars)")

In the next article rotation is taken for granted. Already you can see the statistical form or confirmation of the law that faster rotation means and more effective.

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-nasa-missions-harvest-passel-pumpkin.html
 
"The most extreme member of the group, a K-type orange giant dubbed KSW 71, is more than 10 times larger than the sun, rotates in just 5.5 days, and produces X-ray emission 4,000 times greater than the sun does at solar maximum. "

Share this post


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

Not. Remains (along with a series of corrective factors) in force to the body begin to glow when they reach 10% of the mass of the sun. (Part: "Heated objects (stars)")

[...]

rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-smiley-emo

Just in previous post you claimed that rotation is primary parameter in temperature, now you are saying its not?!

 

5 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

In the next article rotation is taken for granted. Already you can see the statistical form or confirmation of the law that faster rotation means and more effective.

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-nasa-missions-harvest-passel-pumpkin.html
 
"The most extreme member of the group, a K-type orange giant dubbed KSW 71, is more than 10 times larger than the sun, rotates in just 5.5 days, and produces X-ray emission 4,000 times greater than the sun does at solar maximum. "

 

I see your attention span is worse than I thought:

Quote

The stars coalesce to form a single rapidly spinning star initially residing in a so-called "excretion" disk formed by gas thrown out during the merger. The disk dissipates over the next 100 million years, leaving behind a very active, rapidly spinning star.

Howell and his colleagues suggest that their 18 KSwAGS stars formed by this scenario and have only recently dissipated their disks. To identify so many stars passing through such a cosmically brief phase of development is a real boon to stellar astronomers.

BTW, have you heard of conservation of angular momentum? When you figure out what it is, you may get the clue why merger (KSwAGS stars) products spin rapidly.

Share this post


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

rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-smiley-emo

Just in previous post you claimed that rotation is primary parameter in temperature, now you are saying its not?!

 

 

I see your attention span is worse than I thought:

BTW, have you heard of conservation of angular momentum? When you figure out what it is, you may get the clue why merger (KSwAGS stars) products spin rapidly.

Again you are wrong (along what you have not read Part: "Heated objects (stars)").
Generally you are on the right. If the two bodies (planetoid, planet and higher) have the same mass, a higher temperature has a body that has a faster rotation (if are and other factors the same). Now you connect with that the Jupiter emits 1.6 x more (heat) waves than it receives from the Sun.
 
We're talking (mostly) about hot bodies (which emit radiation or light).

"These 18 stars rotate in just a few days on average, while the Sun takes nearly a month,"
But you are right, skipping parts often without meaning and which are long ago became out (your quote). The hypothesis of the collapse of gas long ago became a copy of heliocentric system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
26 minutes ago, Weitter Duckss said:

Again you are wrong (along what you have not read Part: "Heated objects (stars)").
Generally you are on the right. If the two bodies (planetoid, planet and higher) have the same mass, a higher temperature has a body that has a faster rotation (if are and other factors the same). Now you connect with that the Jupiter emits 1.6 x more (heat) waves than it receives from the Sun.
 
We're talking (mostly) about hot bodies (which emit radiation or light).

"These 18 stars rotate in just a few days on average, while the Sun takes nearly a month,"
But you are right, skipping parts often without meaning and which are long ago became out (your quote). The hypothesis of the collapse of gas long ago became a copy of heliocentric system.

Blah, blah, blah...

Kinda funny, the link you brought here doesn't support your "theory". I was curious, will you be able to see that. Apparently, not. Lets back to it (I've even bolded parts you missed)

8 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

In the next article rotation is taken for granted. Already you can see the statistical form or confirmation of the law that faster rotation means and more effective.

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-nasa-missions-harvest-passel-pumpkin.html
 
"The most extreme member of the group, a K-type orange giant dubbed KSW 71, is more than 10 times larger than the sun, rotates in just 5.5 days, and produces X-ray emission 4,000 times greater than the sun does at solar maximum. "

How hot K type stars are? Cooler than the Sun. 0:1 (and not in favor of your "theory").

Paper mentioned in your link investigates 20 rapidly rotating stars, of which only four are hotter than the Sun (one is A type, and three F type), other 16 stars are G and K type (as hot as the Sun, or cooler). 0:2 (not in favor of your "theory").

Edited by bmk1245
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
16 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Blah, blah, blah...

Kinda funny, the link you brought here doesn't support your "theory". I was curious, will you be able to see that. Apparently, not. Lets back to it (I've even bolded parts you missed)

How hot K type stars are? Cooler than the Sun. 0:1 (and not in favor of your "theory").

Paper mentioned in your link investigates 20 rapidly rotating stars, of which only four are hotter than the Sun (one is A type, and three F type), other 16 stars are G and K type (as hot as the Sun, or cooler). 0:2 (not in favor of your "theory").

You're right. This type of star https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_binary so far I have not explored. He belongs to the second line "In the second row of mass and are binary effects."
I'll start of this article https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=12399&button=popular
because the superficial look there is something wrong.
Congratulations to the observation, a forum used to it. The Forum is not a place where one person holds lecture, others just nod their heads.

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  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.