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

Quicker "burning" and temperature of star

92 posts in this topic

On 12/19/2016 at 5:09 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

"Physicists at the turn of the 20th century realized that the existing paradigm for stellar energy production was wrong."


Thanks for the article, which is me, returned in the time of dinosaurs.
Today we know that the Sun is not a gaseous body (1.408 g / cm3) and we know that there are no radio active radiation, which would confirm this bad, hypothesis. In essence it is wrong to think that the matter is burned and will be shut down, while there are compressive forces matter creates temperature and it is a permanent process with no time limit.
[...]

Epic fail...

First of all, gamma rays from Sun's core are being effectively absorbed by outer layers, and thats why we can't detect them. Second, detected neutrinos of certain energies show proton-proton process in Sun's core (even more, measured neutrino flux is close to the value predicted by standard solar model). Third, density of Sun's core is ~150 g/cm3, while density at the visible surface is only tiny fraction of that on Earth's atmosphere. Fourth, if Sun's energy would have been produced by "compressive forces" (or fairy dust, or <whatever bs you can come up with>) only, Sun would have been dead long time go. Fifth, stars do lose mass through radiation and solar wind (Sun, for example, is losing over 5 million tons per second).

Seriously, sometimes I feel like I'm talking to a bag of pistachios...

Share this post


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

Seriously, sometimes I feel like I'm talking to a bag of pistachios...

It is now clear to me why do not radiate nuclear reactors. Gamma radiation does not really exist! Is not important what is the reactor in diameter ~ 1.4 million kilometers, nor that matter dislocate (from outside to the inside and vice versa)? We have a shield from Star Trek.

Pressure forces are constant and do not have the  time constraints. If there is enough mass in a small space, there are compressive forces and there nothing not dies, if we have a large space the nebula and molecular clouds, etc.
If Sun is 99.86% and if the system loses matter where disappears this matter, the nearby stars? What is with the law on attraction of matter, whether it is the law of attraction or rejection of the matter?

Share this post


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

It is now clear to me why do not radiate nuclear reactors. Gamma radiation does not really exist! Is not important what is the reactor in diameter ~ 1.4 million kilometers, nor that matter dislocate (from outside to the inside and vice versa)? We have a shield from Star Trek.

Pressure forces are constant and do not have the  time constraints. If there is enough mass in a small space, there are compressive forces and there nothing not dies, if we have a large space the nebula and molecular clouds, etc.
If Sun is 99.86% and if the system loses matter where disappears this matter, the nearby stars? What is with the law on attraction of matter, whether it is the law of attraction or rejection of the matter?

Dude, I'm not that drunk to understand your jabber jibber...

You were given lots of stuff, spoonfed with data... 

Anyway, have a nice holidays.

Share this post


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

It is now clear to me why do not radiate nuclear reactors. Gamma radiation does not really exist! Is not important what is the reactor in diameter ~ 1.4 million kilometers, nor that matter dislocate (from outside to the inside and vice versa)? We have a shield from Star Trek.

Pressure forces are constant and do not have the  time constraints. If there is enough mass in a small space, there are compressive forces and there nothing not dies, if we have a large space the nebula and molecular clouds, etc.
If Sun is 99.86% and if the system loses matter where disappears this matter, the nearby stars? What is with the law on attraction of matter, whether it is the law of attraction or rejection of the matter?

OK, now I'm dead drunk, so I'll bring some points.

Where do you get that gamma radiation doesn't exist, huh? I clearly said that gamma from Sun's core isn't accessible due to absorption in outer layers. Heck, Earth's upper atmosphere absorbs all of the Sun's gamma rays produced in corona. Thats for starters.

Secondly, you have to show how that Sun mass can retain eternal heat (due to gravitational compress), while producing 1.3 kW/m2 at 1 a.u. Just show it, I dare you, or shut the efking smeg up.

Share this post


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

Dude, I'm not that drunk to understand your jabber jibber...

Sory. I am under the impression debate on space.com via Facebook (http://www.space.com/34992-giant-alien-planet-ruby-clouds-weather.html?fb_comment_id=fbc_1187262411323684_1187685397948052_1187685397948052)
and on phys.org via Facebook
(Http://www.space.com/35084-betelgeuse-red-giant-star-cannibal.html?fb_comment_id=fbc_1465107750175955_1465505706802826_1465505706802826)

I enclose now open? answers, comments, or whatever it is (if you want to Join Now).
Soon I will lose the will to replies.

" ha ha ha :) No history. LOL. So when you compare 100 of humans by their intelligence or by the height, would you disregard their age? They are all humans after all LOL. You may compare spectral type, yes. But then you must not mention mass of star, or rotational speed, or other characteristic which are bonded to age, or mass or composition of star. 
What you can measure is only surface temperature(from which the spectral type results)If you could measure temperature of the core you would have different result... helim burning red giants and supergiants have much hotter cores than main sequence stars. Heavier elements nucleosynthesis need even hotter star core.
You use evidence and missinterpret it by disregarding further relevant facts. Badly used evidence leads to bad conclusions. How many times I need to repeat the same. 
Dead star is white dwarf, neutron star, even stellar black hole- because they were "alive" when they burnt their fusionable mass." and 

"Slavko Sedić OK, so assume composition of earth if you can see and measure only upper atmosphere, for example at 100km height. What would you get? Negligible amounts of anything other than hydrogen, oxygen, argon and carbon. Also average density of earth measured that way would drop from 5.51 to 5.34g/cm^3. You would need knowledge of physics, chemistry to determine probable composition deeper than what you can observe. The same with jupiter. Otherwise you tell only nonsense, like you do here... because what you can observe is not what there is. Experiments would help you to model inner of body, but when you can't do that because of lack of relevant knowledge then your conclusions are worthless"

Share this post


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

Sory. I am under the impression debate on space.com via Facebook (http://www.space.com/34992-giant-alien-planet-ruby-clouds-weather.html?fb_comment_id=fbc_1187262411323684_1187685397948052_1187685397948052)
and on phys.org via Facebook
(Http://www.space.com/35084-betelgeuse-red-giant-star-cannibal.html?fb_comment_id=fbc_1465107750175955_1465505706802826_1465505706802826)

I enclose now open? answers, comments, or whatever it is (if you want to Join Now).
Soon I will lose the will to replies.

" ha ha ha :) No history. LOL. So when you compare 100 of humans by their intelligence or by the height, would you disregard their age? They are all humans after all LOL. You may compare spectral type, yes. But then you must not mention mass of star, or rotational speed, or other characteristic which are bonded to age, or mass or composition of star. 
What you can measure is only surface temperature(from which the spectral type results)If you could measure temperature of the core you would have different result... helim burning red giants and supergiants have much hotter cores than main sequence stars. Heavier elements nucleosynthesis need even hotter star core.
You use evidence and missinterpret it by disregarding further relevant facts. Badly used evidence leads to bad conclusions. How many times I need to repeat the same. 
Dead star is white dwarf, neutron star, even stellar black hole- because they were "alive" when they burnt their fusionable mass." and 

"Slavko Sedić OK, so assume composition of earth if you can see and measure only upper atmosphere, for example at 100km height. What would you get? Negligible amounts of anything other than hydrogen, oxygen, argon and carbon. Also average density of earth measured that way would drop from 5.51 to 5.34g/cm^3. You would need knowledge of physics, chemistry to determine probable composition deeper than what you can observe. The same with jupiter. Otherwise you tell only nonsense, like you do here... because what you can observe is not what there is. Experiments would help you to model inner of body, but when you can't do that because of lack of relevant knowledge then your conclusions are worthless"

OK, I'm not that drunk. What the hell are you trying to say?! Just bring numbers of how long Sun would stay hot solely by gravitational contraction. Just bring the numbers,

Share this post


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

What the hell are you trying to say?! Just bring numbers of how long Sun would stay hot solely by gravitational contraction. Just bring the numbers,


The numbers come after the event. Earth "combustion" but there is no (according to official science) none input factor for nuclear combustion and there is no radiation.

Share this post


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


The numbers come after the event. [...]

Seventeen. Seventeen and two thirds. Try to figure out what that means.

 

7 minutes ago, Weitter Duckss said:


[...] Earth "combustion" but there is no (according to official science) none input factor for nuclear combustion and there is no radiation.

Where do you get your "facts". Earth's core is quite radioactive.

Share this post


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

Where do you get your "facts". Earth's core is quite radioactive.

Lava and magma deny this claim. There are a dislocation.

On the next comment I will answer for ~ 5 hours.

Edited by Weitter Duckss

Share this post


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

Lava and magma deny this claim. There are a dislocation

[...]

Just a question. What is magma, and how it relates to the core.

30 minutes ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

On the next comment I will answer for ~ 5 hours.

Having in mind utter ignorance, five hours won't make a difference.

 

Share this post


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

Just a question. What is magma, and how it relates to the core.

In blast furnace process of dislocation is removed by adding carbon, etc.

"Carbon, other elements, and inclusions within iron act as hardening agents that prevent the movement of dislocations that otherwise occur in the crystal lattices of iron atoms." Wiki


The difference temperature in body (the center towards the outside of the body) is created, moving warmer substance to the outside and colder towards the inside.
If there is radiation in the center there would have in the lava, but there is no because the lava is not radoaktivna.
 

While you is well known:
"Magma meaning" thick unguent "is a mixture of molten or semi-molten rock, volatiles and solids that is found beneath the surface of the Earth ..

Magma develops within the mantle or crust when the temperature-pressure conditions favor the molten state ..

The geothermal gradient averages about 25 ° C / km with a wide range from a low of 5-10 ° C / km within oceanic trenches and subduction zones to 30-80 ° C / km under mid-ocean ridges and volcanic arc environments .. "Wiki

Share this post


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

In blast furnace process of dislocation is removed by adding carbon, etc.

"Carbon, other elements, and inclusions within iron act as hardening agents that prevent the movement of dislocations that otherwise occur in the crystal lattices of iron atoms." Wiki

[...]

So? Carbon steel loses strength with temperature increase.

 

11 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]
The difference temperature in body (the center towards the outside of the body) is created, moving warmer substance to the outside and colder towards the inside.
If there is radiation in the center there would have in the lava, but there is no because the lava is not radoaktivna.
[...]

Actually, lava is radioactive, though levels are low. For example, South Chile lava is enriched in Uranium.

 

11 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

While you is well known:
"Magma meaning" thick unguent "is a mixture of molten or semi-molten rock, volatiles and solids that is found beneath the surface of the Earth ..

Magma develops within the mantle or crust when the temperature-pressure conditions favor the molten state ..

The geothermal gradient averages about 25 ° C / km with a wide range from a low of 5-10 ° C / km within oceanic trenches and subduction zones to 30-80 ° C / km under mid-ocean ridges and volcanic arc environments .. "Wiki

Again, so?

Share this post


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

Actually, lava is radioactive, though levels are low.

We are talking about, dislocation of matter from the center (nucleus) to the surface (the earth lava).

Constant circulation of matter shows that there is no radiation (which would be responsible for heating the interior of the body, radioactive decay or fusion, etc.). If there is a radioactive radiation in the body we would have them on the surface. The layers alternated matter. Lava reaches temperatures up to 1,600 ° C, and the temperature can not be attributed to decay, because it could easily measured, but not measured.
Low radioactivity is another topic, not related to this matter.


If we can not prove radioactive decay of matter here on Earth is pointless to argue that apply here each laws while on the stars apply other laws (not on the stars do not we measure radioactive radiation which, corresponding to the fusion or the radioactively decaying of matter).


The main obstacle to combustion is universality. The two bodies of the same mass have completely different values of temperature, radius, color, shine, surface gravity, the other two bodies completely different mass have the same temperature, radius (mass / radius), etc.

Share this post


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

We are talking about, dislocation of matter from the center (nucleus) to the surface (the earth lava).

 

The Earth's core at the center is solid to a radius of about 1,250 km, so how can there be any dislocation or circulation of matter from the center to the surface?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

The Earth's core at the center is solid to a radius of about 1,250 km, so how can there be any dislocation or circulation of matter from the center to the surface?  

Let's talk a little about the solid core.

Which metal remains solid at 5.100-6.378 ° C? Highest melting point (solid in a liquid state) have Wolfram 3.407; Osmij 3.054; Tantal 3.023 ° C, all the others elements have a melting point below 3.000 ° C. Iron, which suggests official science, has a melting point on 1.535 ° C.  Highest boiling point (liquid in gaseous state) is 5.657, 5.622, 5.425, 5.197 ° C, others are below 5.000 ° C.

If and we accept solid core and radioactive radiation due to radioactive decay, how remove radioactivity from adjacent layers and all to surfaces?

Share this post


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

Let's talk a little about the solid core.

Which metal remains solid at 5.100-6.378 ° C?

The core remains solid because the melting temperature increases with pressure. Look up the Clausius-Clapeyron Relation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

The core remains solid because the melting temperature increases with pressure. Look up the Clausius-Clapeyron Relation.

About this, we have already discussed in another topic.
Here is approach different. The density of the Earth and most of the smaller body is greater than the density of the star (Sun). With increasing temperature (above boiling point) falling average density of the body (statistics). But this drop has a lower limit which is incidentally similar to the "gaseous" planets.

"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 poorer; the heated stars generally consist only of hydrogen and helium, with other elements below 1%. Both of these processes can be traced on Earth; the other one is visible through the composition of magma. Magma consists of the lower order atoms, which is confirmed by its cooled rocks. Neither gold nor silver or any other higher order element, exist in magma; for them to be created, more conditions need to be met."

from http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#Processes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2016 at 6:24 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

We are talking about, dislocation of matter from the center (nucleus) to the surface (the earth lava).

Constant circulation of matter shows that there is no radiation (which would be responsible for heating the interior of the body, radioactive decay or fusion, etc.). If there is a radioactive radiation in the body we would have them on the surface. The layers alternated matter. Lava reaches temperatures up to 1,600 ° C, and the temperature can not be attributed to decay, because it could easily measured, but not measured.
Low radioactivity is another topic, not related to this matter.


If we can not prove radioactive decay of matter here on Earth is pointless to argue that apply here each laws while on the stars apply other laws (not on the stars do not we measure radioactive radiation which, corresponding to the fusion or the radioactively decaying of matter).


The main obstacle to combustion is universality. The two bodies of the same mass have completely different values of temperature, radius, color, shine, surface gravity, the other two bodies completely different mass have the same temperature, radius (mass / radius), etc.

Certain isotopes of U, Th, Ra, Pa, etc, in lava/magma more than enough to prove radioactive decay.

And to add to what Derek said, high temperature and high pressure experimental data on iron:

fig3.png

(link to the paper therein).

Share this post


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

About this, we have already discussed in another topic.
Here is approach different. The density of the Earth and most of the smaller body is greater than the density of the star (Sun). With increasing temperature (above boiling point) falling average density of the body (statistics). But this drop has a lower limit which is incidentally similar to the "gaseous" planets.

"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 poorer; the heated stars generally consist only of hydrogen and helium, with other elements below 1%. Both of these processes can be traced on Earth; the other one is visible through the composition of magma. Magma consists of the lower order atoms, which is confirmed by its cooled rocks. Neither gold nor silver or any other higher order element, exist in magma; for them to be created, more conditions need to be met."

from http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#Processes

You are constantly trying to prove that calculus is wrong, while being clueless in arithmetics, so to speak...

Share this post


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

Certain isotopes of U, Th, Ra, Pa, etc, in lava/magma more than enough to prove radioactive decay.

And to add to what Derek said, high temperature and high pressure experimental data on iron

The Earth's crust in the chemical composition has a radioactive elements that may or may not get into the lava. There is case of low radioactivity lava.
Thanks for the link although from the link is clear that my claims stand, especially because we discuss about the stars where temperatures are in the center of millions ° K although and there are claims that are the core of iron, and in solid state.
I hope that you agree that the diagram is not the solution. For the Earth, very far-fetched, for law of universality no way.
When you to suspect and remove one straw from a whole she it crashes and demands more and more answers.
Earth's first straw (and all happiness that is).

Share this post


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

The Earth's crust in the chemical composition has a radioactive elements that may or may not get into the lava. There is case of low radioactivity lava.
Thanks for the link although from the link is clear that my claims stand, especially because we discuss about the stars where temperatures are in the center of millions ° K although and there are claims that are the core of iron, and in solid state.
I hope that you agree that the diagram is not the solution. For the Earth, very far-fetched, for law of universality no way.
When you to suspect and remove one straw from a whole she it crashes and demands more and more answers.
Earth's first straw (and all happiness that is).

OK, I've exhausted all possible ways to teach you, so I'll leave you (for now) with Luguber, that of Lifelover, Framtid:

 

Edited by bmk1245
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<snip>

Edited by bmk1245

Share this post


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

The Earth's crust in the chemical composition has a radioactive elements that may or may not get into the lava. There is case of low radioactivity lava.[...]

Back on topic. Have you even tried to read research on magma isotope content? Answer is, not.

23 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]
Thanks for the link although from the link is clear that my claims stand, especially because we discuss about the stars where temperatures are in the center of millions ° K although and there are claims that are the core of iron, and in solid state.
I hope that you agree that the diagram is not the solution. For the Earth, very far-fetched, for law of universality no way.[...]

Theoretical and experimental results suggest Earth's core is solid, what do you have to prove otherwise?  

23 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]
When you to suspect and remove one straw from a whole she it crashes and demands more and more answers.
Earth's first straw (and all happiness that is).

What the hell do you have in mind? You are the one who is pulling the straws, with ZERO knowledge in astrophysics and geochemistry achievements. Beat it, schmuck, your "theories" are worthless, ain't even theories, just garbage.

Share this post


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

Back on topic. Have you even tried to read research on magma isotope content? Answer is, not.

Of course, with the upward growth of matter and have strongly position on the subject but it is a different subject. 

(Not all the atoms follow that pattern; there are other patterns, too: more similar or different structures are characteristically to themselves connected to each other to create a new atom. Such atoms can usually be split into the elements that form them. As there is an infinite quantity of particles, all connections occur in a full volume of mostly very different particles.

In such a vast quantity, another type of connection may also occur.
An element consists of one or more particles, threads, that are defficient or sufficient; such a particle tends to achieve a balance. All particle-creating environments have their own characteristics, but all of them have an upper limit of sustainment of connected particles. On Earth, the upper limit goes from polonium (Po) to uranium (U).

It is important to know that connecting does not follow the rule of the upper limit; it occurs to the contrary of the rule. Such an element takes new particles and at the same time rejects those particles that have already been a constituent part of the element, with radiation that accompanies such a process.) from http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/the-Universe-rotating.html#6c

4 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Theoretical and experimental results suggest Earth's core is solid, what do you have to prove otherwise?

First, there is no material that can withstand the test at 6,000 °. Second, the better results they get by looking at in remains of a cup of coffee. An excerpt from the article: 

On the contrary, simulation study [de Koker et al., 2012] suggests that (dκ/dP)T is less pronounced in liquid iron. However, it should be noted that theoretical models were constrained at 2000 K and above, which is much higher than our experimental temperature. Besides, we also noted that the simulated κ at 5 GPa and 2000 K (55 W/m · K) is obviously smaller than our measured value (65 W/m · K). Plus, ambient pressure ρcalculated at 2000 K from de Koker et al. [2012] (~85 μΩ · cm) is also inconsistent with experimental result of liquid iron (~140 μΩ · cm) reported by Yousuf et al. [1986]. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL054347/full 

High pressure and temperature electrical resistivity of iron and implications for planetary cores

4 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

your "theories" are worthless

Keyword teory only (desirable), decoration. 2010. It was The Universe, what is it ?, 2012. The rotating Universe, after all, 2014. The Universe and rotation. The theory is been 2004.y. Theory of Zadar. Today it is The observation process and the universe through the database.
So, you're right, not a theory. The reason: most of the parts of is proven and formed on the evidence (with a lot of philosophy and sarcasm).

Edited by Weitter Duckss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2016 at 10:27 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

Of course, with the upward growth of matter and have strongly position on the subject but it is a different subject. 

(Not all the atoms follow that pattern; there are other patterns, too: more similar or different structures are characteristically to themselves connected to each other to create a new atom. Such atoms can usually be split into the elements that form them. As there is an infinite quantity of particles, all connections occur in a full volume of mostly very different particles.

In such a vast quantity, another type of connection may also occur.
An element consists of one or more particles, threads, that are defficient or sufficient; such a particle tends to achieve a balance. All particle-creating environments have their own characteristics, but all of them have an upper limit of sustainment of connected particles. On Earth, the upper limit goes from polonium (Po) to uranium (U).

It is important to know that connecting does not follow the rule of the upper limit; it occurs to the contrary of the rule. Such an element takes new particles and at the same time rejects those particles that have already been a constituent part of the element, with radiation that accompanies such a process.) from http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/the-Universe-rotating.html#6c

[...] 

Word salad, senseless garbage.

On 12/28/2016 at 10:27 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

First, there is no material that can withstand the test at 6,000 °. Second, the better results they get by looking at in remains of a cup of coffee. An excerpt from the article: 

On the contrary, simulation study [de Koker et al., 2012] suggests that (dκ/dP)T is less pronounced in liquid iron. However, it should be noted that theoretical models were constrained at 2000 K and above, which is much higher than our experimental temperature. Besides, we also noted that the simulated κ at 5 GPa and 2000 K (55 W/m · K) is obviously smaller than our measured value (65 W/m · K). Plus, ambient pressure ρcalculated at 2000 K from de Koker et al. [2012] (~85 μΩ · cm) is also inconsistent with experimental result of liquid iron (~140 μΩ · cm) reported by Yousuf et al. [1986]. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL054347/full 

High pressure and temperature electrical resistivity of iron and implications for planetary cores

Keyword teory only (desirable), decoration. 2010. It was The Universe, what is it ?, 2012. The rotating Universe, after all, 2014. The Universe and rotation. The theory is been 2004.y. Theory of Zadar. Today it is The observation process and the universe through the database.
So, you're right, not a theory. The reason: most of the parts of is proven and formed on the evidence (with a lot of philosophy and sarcasm).

You simply don't have a clue on how that kind of experiments are performed. Thats your problem, you are as clueless as a bag of pistachios. Again, go to the library, order the books on the subject, learn. Then follow research on the daily basis, read scientific papers. Then, you will be able to argue. Now, you are just a moron, who's trying to peddle idiotic "theories".

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.