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

Quicker "burning" and temperature of star

92 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

bmk1245
2 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

Are you saying that there is a collapse, for star mass of 0.08 mass Sun arising collapse of the nebula, as, and the planet?
Why there is no collapse for "A vast assemblage of molecular gas with a mass of approximately 10 ^ 3 to 10 ^ 7 times the mass of the Sun is called a giant molecular cloud (GMC)" (consist largely of ionised helium and hydrogen)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_cloud#Giant_molecular_clouds

[...]

Thats why you need to study subject, what conditions are required for collapse.

2 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

You forget the chemical composition is the same Hydrogen 73.46%, Helium, 24.85%. The weight is the same. No stage, these are stories. (If you check the rotation of the star, you'll see are different, as, and radius, color, etc.).

[...]

Both started in the same way (sperm, eggs):

care_for_the_needs_of_the_elderly_and_he

iStock_000014256613XSmall.jpg

Why they are so different, huh?

2 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

I do not know for algebra but I know for evidence.
Vesta density, 3.456 g / cm3, the diameter of 525.4 ± 0.2 (mean), "composition of the Howard EUCRO, and Diogenes meteorites." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_Vesta#Surface_composition etc.
Sun density of 1.408 g / cm3, the diameter of 1,392,000 km, Equatorial radius 695.700 km, compositionHydrogen 73.46% Helium, 24.85%.

It is in accordance with your "geometry"? Quickly think up new geometry.

Remind me, why Vesta doesn't have thick atmosphere?

Share this post


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

Word salad.

You offer something concrete, with a salad can not do anything.
Vesta is a small body, there is no molten core which products of the geological processes, due which created the atmosphere.


The atmosphere is irrefutable proof of the existence of (different) active geological processes as Titan, Io, Pluto, etc.. Geological processes are real "combustion" which creates complex elements and compounds and of course degradation of complex elements and compounds occurs due to very high temperatures.
This is the basic reason why the stars that make up 99% of the systems have only hydrogen and helium (other (O2, etc.) in traces, Unlike of small bodies (Mercury, Earth, etc.) which are very rich in complex elements and compounds.


There are no secrets to real observation, all the evidence is there and there are not the necessary hypothesis, fiction and vivid imagination which sells fog.

Edited by Weitter Duckss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
On 1/11/2017 at 9:38 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

You offer something concrete, with a salad can not do anything.
Vesta is a small body, there is no molten core which products of the geological processes, due which created the atmosphere.


The atmosphere is irrefutable proof of the existence of (different) active geological processes as Titan, Io, Pluto, etc.. Geological processes are real "combustion" which creates complex elements and compounds and of course degradation of complex elements and compounds occurs due to very high temperatures.
This is the basic reason why the stars that make up 99% of the systems have only hydrogen and helium (other (O2, etc.) in traces, Unlike of small bodies (Mercury, Earth, etc.) which are very rich in complex elements and compounds.


There are no secrets to real observation, all the evidence is there and there are not the necessary hypothesis, fiction and vivid imagination which sells fog.

rf_fp.gif

Not even wrong...

Following your logic, Io must have the most densest atmosphere, yet its only few nbars (~10-9 atm)

And, BTW, you do realize that the Sun have elements heavier than He enough to make 6000 Earths?

Share this post


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

And, BTW, you do realize that the Sun have elements heavier than He enough to make 6000 Earths?

What's inside a star onli are assumptions. It in part we can assume using the density of the stars and the chemical composition of the magma. Indications that is the core of silicate and that is higher in less hot stars.
All the confusion are caused because there are (initially) measurements onli atmosphere and no one but no one, it is not asking the question for it.
True, today is easy to be clever, but someone has to begin it, official circles will not, because a good living from the old days.

1 hour ago, bmk1245 said:

Following your logic, Io must have the most densest atmosphere, yet its only few nbars (~10-9 atm)

It will not be. It's great miracle that Io has an atmosphere at all.
In https://www.academia.edu/29185426/What_are_working_temperatures_of_elements_and_compounds_in_the_Universe it explains.

SO2 has a melting point -72 ° C; boiling point of -10 ° C. Io has the highest temperature of -143 ° C (minimum -183 ° C) and so much temperature level almost automatically removes CO2 from the atmosphere. That would, there, the atmosphere, there must be conditions. Conditions on Io moon are not at all suitable for SO2 because the temperature must be above -10 ° C, only those conditions Iowould have, imposing the atmosphere.

Share this post


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

What's inside a star onli are assumptions. It in part we can assume using the density of the stars and the chemical composition of the magma. Indications that is the core of silicate and that is higher in less hot stars.
All the confusion are caused because there are (initially) measurements onli atmosphere and no one but no one, it is not asking the question for it.
True, today is easy to be clever, but someone has to begin it, official circles will not, because a good living from the old days.

It will not be. It's great miracle that Io has an atmosphere at all.
In https://www.academia.edu/29185426/What_are_working_temperatures_of_elements_and_compounds_in_the_Universe it explains.

SO2 has a melting point -72 ° C; boiling point of -10 ° C. Io has the highest temperature of -143 ° C (minimum -183 ° C) and so much temperature level almost automatically removes CO2 from the atmosphere. That would, there, the atmosphere, there must be conditions. Conditions on Io moon are not at all suitable for SO2 because the temperature must be above -10 ° C, only those conditions Iowould have, imposing the atmosphere.

Oh dear... Seriously. drop it, paint some pictures, knit gloves for spiders, make alcohol free vodka, or whatever... Physics ain't for you.

Share this post


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

Oh dear... Seriously. drop it, paint some pictures, knit gloves for spiders, make alcohol free vodka, or whatever... Physics ain't for you.

I agree  " Physics ain't for you. "

Sory on bad English

Observation of the Universe through color

It is a known thing that when waves (light) passing through a prism to create rainbow color spectrum. Sunsets expose the event as particular beauty because in a short period of time to see all the colors of the spectrum and it always ends with red. The shroud or the atmosphere of the Earth behaves like a prism. Because of the curvature of the Earth, and therefore the atmosphere due to the length of the passage through the prism of changing the color. The longest passage of waves (and the lowest intensity) through the atmosphere gets wonderful shades of red. This event there in the morning and evening, so we can not exclude Doppler effect.

When we observe the universe and we discover galaxies at the same time we observe an increase in the red spectrum how growing distance. Most distant galaxies are also the largest shift towards in red. Today it is attributed to the expansion of the universe due to the Doppler effect, or if the body moving away from us, the waves are longer and the color is red, what are speed, distancing greater, the greater the shift towards the red spectrum. Instead of expansion, I watched the effects of the rotation of the Universe, which fully meets the results obtained by observing the Universe for the red spectrum of color. In formula I am included data that closer galaxies have red and blue spectral shift and that after a certain distance, there is only red shift and that the rate at closer galaxies negative and positive (more than 100 km / sec) while the farthest have the speed of 270,000 km / sec .

Definitely that rotation completely covers observations of astronomers unlike of expansion in which today no one, not believe (except official circles), on rotation, there are no paradoxes.

However the problem begins with the rainbow. All the data obtained are based on binding of the spectral shift for the speed of the galaxies (expansion) and did not took into account that the spectral shift depends on the distance of the object (I did not I took at the rotation of the Universe because everything is nice agree without the need for additional questioning) .

It should be noted and very important fact that although after a certain distance we register only redshift, while we simultaneously we register and collisions of galaxies (registered and 72 collision of galaxy clusters) indicating that the illusion that the speed distancing or rotation increased, because the collision means blue shift in the spectrum for bodies which collide.

The illusion is from the angle observation of galaxies through speed but is fully consistent with the distance of objects, where red means that both objects have a similar distance from the point of view. Light tends to the redshift with the weakening of intensity due to the distance traveled.

It's lucky that I'm the rotation universe approached from multiple angles but even so will need to re-access the measurement of the actual speed of rotation of the universe and time required to, the Universe, close the whole circle, 94.5 billion years ago now appears very unconvincing, a high probability, is that this number is several times higher. This is another wooden stake in the coffin for the expansion of the Universe and the Hubble constant expansion of the universe. 13.01.2017.y.

Edited by Weitter Duckss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
On 1/15/2017 at 8:35 AM, Weitter Duckss said:

I agree  " Physics ain't for you. "

Sory on bad English

Observation of the Universe through color

 

It is a known thing that when waves (light) passing through a prism to create rainbow color spectrum. Sunsets expose the event as particular beauty because in a short period of time to see all the colors of the spectrum and it always ends with red. The shroud or the atmosphere of the Earth behaves like a prism. Because of the curvature of the Earth, and therefore the atmosphere due to the length of the passage through the prism of changing the color. The longest passage of waves (and the lowest intensity) through the atmosphere gets wonderful shades of red. This event there in the morning and evening, so we can not exclude Doppler effect.

When we observe the universe and we discover galaxies at the same time we observe an increase in the red spectrum how growing distance. Most distant galaxies are also the largest shift towards in red. Today it is attributed to the expansion of the universe due to the Doppler effect, or if the body moving away from us, the waves are longer and the color is red, what are speed, distancing greater, the greater the shift towards the red spectrum. Instead of expansion, I watched the effects of the rotation of the Universe, which fully meets the results obtained by observing the Universe for the red spectrum of color. In formula I am included data that closer galaxies have red and blue spectral shift and that after a certain distance, there is only red shift and that the rate at closer galaxies negative and positive (more than 100 km / sec) while the farthest have the speed of 270,000 km / sec .

Definitely that rotation completely covers observations of astronomers unlike of expansion in which today no one, not believe (except official circles), on rotation, there are no paradoxes.

However the problem begins with the rainbow. All the data obtained are based on binding of the spectral shift for the speed of the galaxies (expansion) and did not took into account that the spectral shift depends on the distance of the object (I did not I took at the rotation of the Universe because everything is nice agree without the need for additional questioning) .

It should be noted and very important fact that although after a certain distance we register only redshift, while we simultaneously we register and collisions of galaxies (registered and 72 collision of galaxy clusters) indicating that the illusion that the speed distancing or rotation increased, because the collision means blue shift in the spectrum for bodies which collide.

The illusion is from the angle observation of galaxies through speed but is fully consistent with the distance of objects, where red means that both objects have a similar distance from the point of view. Light tends to the redshift with the weakening of intensity due to the distance traveled.

It's lucky that I'm the rotation universe approached from multiple angles but even so will need to re-access the measurement of the actual speed of rotation of the universe and time required to, the Universe, close the whole circle, 94.5 billion years ago now appears very unconvincing, a high probability, is that this number is several times higher. This is another wooden stake in the coffin for the expansion of the Universe and the Hubble constant expansion of the universe. 13.01.2017.y.

Hogwash... Sheer ignorance, or stupidity, or combination of both, nothing more...

BTW, recent study found no evidence for anisotropy. What do you have to prove your rotating Universe? Zero, zilch, nada, zip...

Share this post


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

BTW, recent study found no evidence for anisotropy. What do you have to prove your rotating Universe?

Again I agree, the article in your link is "Hogwash ... Sheer ignorance, or stupidity, or combination of both" or grandmother's stories for children who do not know what the evidence is.


"To do this, they used maps of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation: the oldest light in the universe created shortly after the Big Bang."


CMB does not come from a single point (the Big Bang), CMB coming from all directions. How Big Bang we have?
Furthermore, what connection have CMB with a rotation of the Universe? If CMB comes of neighboring Universe (or from some other source) why should rotation had some importance? If CMB are started before the formation of stars and galaxies, according to which, the calculation coming now?
Try to explain why CMB arrive instead that they leave (maybe you do not acknowledge the speed of the radiation or waves in the universe)?

Share this post


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

Again I agree, the article in your link is "Hogwash ... Sheer ignorance, or stupidity, or combination of both" or grandmother's stories for children who do not know what the evidence is.

 

[...]

OK then, show your evidence (what kind of data, how that data fits your model, etc) for rotating Universe

6 minutes ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]
CMB does not come from a single point (the Big Bang), CMB coming from all directions. How Big Bang we have?
[...]

And, lets stop here. Do you know theories that lied path to Bing Bang theory?

If you would've tried to read even popsci literature, you would've have some grasp on the issue. Next thing, scientific literature, experimental and theoretical works.

Honestly, what you are trying to do? Overthrow existing theories? Getting Nobel prize? What?

Share this post


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

OK then, show your evidence (what kind of data, how that data fits your model, etc) for rotating Universe

You know very well that there are sets (cluster) of stars that rotate (rotating galaxies), but that there are clusters of galaxies rotating, recently was an article on collision 72 clusters of galaxies, again it is a blue shift in the universe. There is no evidence for the Big Bang. CMB is proof of the complete negation of the Big Bang fabrications.
 

 

10 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Honestly, what you are trying to do? Overthrow existing theories? Getting Nobel prize? What?


The constant stress that my primary goal to clean Astrophysics of nonsense. I do not know, did you notice that the drastic drop in the number of articles of base used stories for young children. Anything less is material for me and less with my comments. Yesterday I first read an article from NASA that 20% of the material came from space to Ceres. This is 20% of the convergence of my evidence on the establishment and formation of the body in the Universe.
https://www.facebook.com/slavko.sedic "Do not Judge an asteroid by its Cover: Mid-Infrared Data from SOFIA Shows Ceres' True Composition
Scientists discover that a surface layer of dry interplanetary dust partially masks the water-rich interior of dwarf planet Ceres.
NASA.GOV "

"Nobel prize" I leave it for an official a failed (most often) science and advertising of failed projects.

Share this post


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

You know very well that there are sets (cluster) of stars that rotate (rotating galaxies), but that there are clusters of galaxies rotating, recently was an article on collision 72 clusters of galaxies, again it is a blue shift in the universe. There is no evidence for the Big Bang. CMB is proof of the complete negation of the Big Bang fabrications.

[...]

What article (source, please), and how it negates BB?

2 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

The constant stress that my primary goal to clean Astrophysics of nonsense. I do not know, did you notice that the drastic drop in the number of articles of base used stories for young children. Anything less is material for me and less with my comments. Yesterday I first read an article from NASA that 20% of the material came from space to Ceres. This is 20% of the convergence of my evidence on the establishment and formation of the body in the Universe.
https://www.facebook.com/slavko.sedic "Do not Judge an asteroid by its Cover: Mid-Infrared Data from SOFIA Shows Ceres' True Composition
Scientists discover that a surface layer of dry interplanetary dust partially masks the water-rich interior of dwarf planet Ceres.
NASA.GOV "

"Nobel prize" I leave it for an official a failed (most often) science and advertising of failed projects.

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

The only nonsense here is yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis
13 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

CMB does not come from a single point (the Big Bang), CMB coming from all directions. How Big Bang we have?
 

You don't seem to understand the Big Bang. There is no "center" to the universe - i.e. the location of where the Big Bang occurred. The "center" is everywhere. Imagine the universe having only two dimensions. Now imagine the universe as being the surface of a balloon. On the surface are many dots representing galaxies. As the balloon is blown up, the surface expands and the galaxies all move away from one another. However, there isn't anywhere on the surface of the balloon that can be said to be the "center". It is difficult to grasp in three dimensions (or four, if time is included) but the principle is the same. And that is why the cosmic background radiation is everywhere, and does not originate from a single point somewhere in the universe.

Edited by Derek Willis

Share this post


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

You don't seem to understand the Big Bang.

Not helps two, three or x dimension. It all boils down that volume size of ping-pong balls is increased to a radius of 13.7 billion ly. Therefore, is not expansion without real measures and values. There is zero point when moving radiation (400,000 years of "Big Bang). This volume is one body (denser than the stars) which begins to radiate. Since the radiation does not have its the speed and direction of movement, since when radiation is moving backwards?

What are working radiation while space is increased for 13.7 billion ly?
If the Hubble constant indicates that the universe is expanding faster (270,000 km / sec), why is this speed in the first billion years? Neighboring galaxies (in the present) have a negative speed or 100 and more km / sec.
The claim that the bodies of 13.7 billion years ago moving faster than us today is contrary to the Hubble constant. Wherever you decide that, you go, you will not find the Big Bang.

10 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

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

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

Share this post


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

Not helps two, three or x dimension. It all boils down that volume size of ping-pong balls is increased to a radius of 13.7 billion ly. Therefore, is not expansion without real measures and values. There is zero point when moving radiation (400,000 years of "Big Bang). This volume is one body (denser than the stars) which begins to radiate. Since the radiation does not have its the speed and direction of movement, since when radiation is moving backwards?

What are working radiation while space is increased for 13.7 billion ly?
If the Hubble constant indicates that the universe is expanding faster (270,000 km / sec), why is this speed in the first billion years? Neighboring galaxies (in the present) have a negative speed or 100 and more km / sec.
The claim that the bodies of 13.7 billion years ago moving faster than us today is contrary to the Hubble constant. Wherever you decide that, you go, you will not find the Big Bang.

RedDwarf-Justice_zps89a81e39.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

 

@bmk1245

I do not inziztiram at the hearing. If someone wants to debate I am here that I give my view.
On the other forums I set article, just for information, without discussion. The article was accepted, the publication goes in the first month.
I am always ready to exchange views on any matter within the matter about universe.

No one has to (except me) postavljti discussion within the topic, especially now because

I have sent article. I must say that is article from the beginning of the discussion different from the article in the publication and my site, for this  I would like to thank..

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.