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

Why Atmospheres of Stars Lack Metals?

345 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Weitter Duckss
9 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Once again, thats not answer.

Lets try again. We have star with mass 0.7MSun. Estimate in "detaljističke" way temperature of this star, if it rotates at 2 km/s, and 35 km/s. No need to include "binary effects" for now. Give us just two numbers, not whole bunch of tables.

TW Piscis Austrini

Mass

0.725 ± 0.036[5] M

Radius

0.629 ± 0.051[5] R

Luminosity

0.19[7] L

Temperature

4,711 ± 134[5] K

Rotational velocity(v sin i)

2.93[5] km/s

 

G29-38 Details

 

Mass

0.70 ± 0.03[5] M

Radius

0.01[6] R

Luminosity (bolometric)

0.002[5] L

Surface gravity (log g)

8.15 ± 0.05[5] cgs

Temperature

11,820 ± 175[5] K

 The rotation would be ~ 35 km / s

Share this post


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

[...] 

 The rotation would be ~ 35 km / s

I asked for temperature estimations.

Lets try again.

1. Estimate temperature of the 0.7MSun star with rotational velocity 2 km/s.

2. Estimate temperature of the 0.7MSun star with rotational velocity 35 km/s.

Share this post


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

You're the criticism addressed to the wrong place. Each article mentions: Big Bang, Star Evolution etc. all without proof. I just repeat the evidence. If you listen to politics instead of evidence, that's not my problem.

 

 

I used to listen to politics, but not now. Mainly because they don't answer questions and keep repeating stuff to distract from the fact that they don't answer questions. So why don't you stop repeating stuff and answer bmk's question?

Share this post


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

I used to listen to politics, but not now. Mainly because they don't answer questions and keep repeating stuff to distract from the fact that they don't answer questions. So why don't you stop repeating stuff and answer bmk's question?

This is in the table of the article. What kind of response do you want? I use the evidence to determine legality. I'm not doing the opposite. Everything writes in an article, it just needs to be read.
For the majority of stars I gave the link. If it does not, copy the star name and search the Internet.
In the following answer, down there, there is no policy or avoiding the answer. Everything is written.

Mu Cephei Detalji

 

Masa

19,2 ± 0,1 [7]  M *

Radius

1,260 [8](650 [9] -1,420 [6] )  '

sjaj

283,000 [8]  L 

Površinska gravitacija(log  g )

-0,63 [8]  cgs

Temperatura

3,690 [6](2,595 [10] -3,750 [8] )  K

Rotation

2-5 km/s  ? (procjena)

 

η Canis Majores Details

 

Mass

19 ± 4[6] M

Radius

203 ± 17[6] R

Luminosity

196,000 ± 32,000[6] L

Surface gravity (log g)

1.10 ± 0.05[6] cgs

Temperature

8,525 ± 75[6] K

Metallicity [Fe/H]

-0.25[6] dex

Rotational velocity(v sin i)

20 ± 2[6] km/s

 

HD 21389 Details[2]

 

Mass

19.3 M

Radius

97 R

Luminosity

55,000 L

Surface gravity (log g)

1.75 cgs

Temperature

9,730 K

Rotation

25 km/s

 

 

Deneb  Details

 

Mass

19.19 ± 1.15[7] M

Radius

56.3[6] R

Luminosity

105,442[7] L

Temperature

15,000[3] K

Rotational velocity (v sin i)

50[8] km/s

   

 

WR 102 Details

 

Mass

19[2] M

Radius

0.39[3] R

Luminosity

282,000[3] L

Temperature

210,000[3] K

Metallicity [Fe/H]

0.0[3] dex

Rotational velocity (v sin i)

1,000[2] km/s

Share this post


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

This is in the table of the article. What kind of response do you want? I use the evidence to determine legality. I'm not doing the opposite. Everything writes in an article, it just needs to be read.
For the majority of stars I gave the link. If it does not, copy the star name and search the Internet.
In the following answer, down there, there is no policy or avoiding the answer. Everything is written.

[...]

OK, lets try again.

Mass = 0.7·MSun, rotational velocity = 35 km/s. What temperature according to your "theory" star should have:

1) 2400 K;

2) 4800 K;

3) 9070 K.

Pick one temperature that is closest to predictions of your "theory", do not post measurement data.

Share this post


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

OK, lets try again.

Mass = 0.7·MSun, rotational velocity = 35 km/s. What temperature according to your "theory" star should have:

1) 2400 K;

2) 4800 K;

3) 9070 K.

Pick one temperature that is closest to predictions of your "theory", do not post measurement data.

I have reviewed dozens of stars ~ mass.

The smaller number of these stars (faster rotations) will have a temperature of around 4,800, Trend (average) will range from 4,800 (4,000) to 9,070. A smaller number will have a temperature above 9,070 (the above example is over 11,000). There is not a single number within a myriad of combinations.

 

(((Now Exclusively hypothetical,

mass o, 7 is on the border of small and big stars. Slow rotation of this star gives a temperature below 1.800 ° K (~ 1200-1500 ° K) (if is space clear) to over 4.000 (if space is filled).

Speed of 35 km / s automatically means full of space, and this body has a disk or minimally significant asteroid belt.

The speed of rotation depends on the presence of matter about star. A small number of bodies manages to preserve initial high speeds without the constant flow of new matter (rare extreme examples).)))

 

Again, I warn you, you can not believe the measurements as if they were a holy scripture. It is especially inappropriate to run "valid" conclusions from data for one or several stars.

 

“It should not be recommended to reduce the analysis of the influence of factors to the stars on mass, radius, temperature and the rotation of object around the axis in this reassessment of the old theories, because an inexact impression of the statistical analysis of the other objects may occur. This article should be used only as a quick approximate tool of star positioning, as a kind of control when determining a measurement and, if there are deviations, the cause of deviations must be determined or the measurement should be repeated. 
Temperature and radiance are also affected by the tidal forces from the bigger or smaller binary effect, environment, the density of gas (layers) between the observer and a star, the speed of outer matter influx to the object, especially into a whirl or cyclone on the poles of a star (over 140 tons of space matter is falling daily to the surface of Earth), different sums of the mass and rotation effects to the small and big stars.”  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
On 12/13/2017 at 5:15 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

I have reviewed dozens of stars ~ mass.

The smaller number of these stars (faster rotations) will have a temperature of around 4,800, Trend (average) will range from 4,800 (4,000) to 9,070. A smaller number will have a temperature above 9,070 (the above example is over 11,000). There is not a single number within a myriad of combinations.

[...]

You ARE using observational data, not your "theory".

If you claim that you have theory, then you have to have model. With that model (as in your case) you should come up with single number. So, again,  what is the temperature of 0.7MSun star with 35 km/s rotational velocity?

 

On 12/13/2017 at 5:15 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

 (((Now Exclusively hypothetical,

mass o, 7 is on the border of small and big stars. Slow rotation of this star gives a temperature below 1.800 ° K (~ 1200-1500 ° K) (if is space clear) to over 4.000 (if space is filled).

Speed of 35 km / s automatically means full of space, and this body has a disk or minimally significant asteroid belt.

The speed of rotation depends on the presence of matter about star. A small number of bodies manages to preserve initial high speeds without the constant flow of new matter (rare extreme examples).)))

 

Again, I warn you, you can not believe the measurements as if they were a holy scripture. It is especially inappropriate to run "valid" conclusions from data for one or several stars.

 [...]

WTF "full of space" means?! Seriously, stop for a moment, and think twice (thrice, etc) before posting, because you sound like clueless moron, kinda worse than "Moon have craters, cheese have holes, Moon resembles cheese, hence it must be made of cheese, and, since some cheese brands smell bad, Moon has to be smelling bad. I have a theory!"

So again, what is the temperature of 0.7MSun star with 35 km/s rot. velocity? Is it 5800 K (4000 K + 1800 K)? Give number your theory predicts.

 

On 12/13/2017 at 5:15 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

Again, I warn you, you can not believe the measurements as if they were a holy scripture. It is especially inappropriate to run "valid" conclusions from data for one or several stars.

 [...]

But you ARE using observational data as holy scripture! All tables you posted to support your "theory" ARE measurements!

 

On 12/13/2017 at 5:15 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

“It should not be recommended to reduce the analysis of the influence of factors to the stars on mass, radius, temperature and the rotation of object around the axis in this reassessment of the old theories, because an inexact impression of the statistical analysis of the other objects may occur. This article should be used only as a quick approximate tool of star positioning, as a kind of control when determining a measurement and, if there are deviations, the cause of deviations must be determined or the measurement should be repeated. 
Temperature and radiance are also affected by the tidal forces from the bigger or smaller binary effect, environment, the density of gas (layers) between the observer and a star, the speed of outer matter influx to the object, especially into a whirl or cyclone on the poles of a star (over 140 tons of space matter is falling daily to the surface of Earth), different sums of the mass and rotation effects to the small and big stars.”  

Usual meaningless blabber.

BTW, about your "140 tons of space matter is falling daily to the surface of Earth": Earth is losing about the same amount (50000 tones per year, or about 140 tones per day).

Share this post


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

You ARE using observational data, not your "theory".

If you claim that you have theory, then you have to have model. With that model (as in your case) you should come up with single number. So, again,  what is the temperature of 0.7MSun star with 35 km/s rotational velocity?

 

WTF "full of space" means?! Seriously, stop for a moment, and think twice (thrice, etc) before posting, because you sound like clueless moron, kinda worse than "Moon have craters, cheese have holes, Moon resembles cheese, hence it must be made of cheese, and, since some cheese brands smell bad, Moon has to be smelling bad. I have a theory!"

So again, what is the temperature of 0.7MSun star with 35 km/s rot. velocity? Is it 5800 K (4000 K + 1800 K)? Give number your theory predicts.

 

But you ARE using observational data as holy scripture! All tables you posted to support your "theory" ARE measurements!

 

Usual meaningless blabber.

BTW, about your "140 tons of space matter is falling daily to the surface of Earth": Earth is losing about the same amount (50000 tones per year, or about 140 tones per day).

By clicking on the page you get the following title: The observation process in the universe through the database (1 till 27 short articles) All answers respect the title.

Here we do not talk about:  Weitter-Duckss-Theory-of-the-Universe or Processes in universe .

 The next sentence gives an explanation (not for you, obviously) “The speed of rotation depends on the presence of matter about star.

 The offered link (apologizing to the author) is nonsense or bad hypothesis. Behind the article, old mistakes are transposed into text. The asteroids and comets do not leave the Earth, but they fall to the Earth. The space has no gravity (attractive force).

 Weitter Duckss's Theory of the Universe is a framework (as well as other articles). It differentiates, slow and fast rotations, red and blue stars, ... Today over 95% of results are consistent with "theory". It does not depend on the wrong measurements. For example: The radius of the stars is almost an excellent indicator of the mass of the star. Correction by rapid rotation is less than 30% (extreme 50%).  Other is a consequence of misguidance inflates and unlimited compression of matter the stars. Etc.

Still thanks for commenting and insisting on the "razor". It's always good to check: Did I make a mistake?

Share this post


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

By clicking on the page you get the following title: The observation process in the universe through the database (1 till 27 short articles) All answers respect the title.

Here we do not talk about:  Weitter-Duckss-Theory-of-the-Universe or Processes in universe .

 The next sentence gives an explanation (not for you, obviously) “The speed of rotation depends on the presence of matter about star.

 The offered link (apologizing to the author) is nonsense or bad hypothesis. Behind the article, old mistakes are transposed into text. The asteroids and comets do not leave the Earth, but they fall to the Earth. The space has no gravity (attractive force).

 Weitter Duckss's Theory of the Universe is a framework (as well as other articles). It differentiates, slow and fast rotations, red and blue stars, ... Today over 95% of results are consistent with "theory". It does not depend on the wrong measurements. For example: The radius of the stars is almost an excellent indicator of the mass of the star. Correction by rapid rotation is less than 30% (extreme 50%).  Other is a consequence of misguidance inflates and unlimited compression of matter the stars. Etc.

Still thanks for commenting and insisting on the "razor". It's always good to check: Did I make a mistake?

What is the temperature of 0.7MSun star with 35 km/s rotational velocity? Simple, just bring one number.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan

Any scientific hypothesis makes predictions

It is through the veracity of such predictions that such a hypothesis becomes a theory.   Invalidating those predcitions falsifies the hypothesis

So it should be easy to predict the temperature of, say, 20 different stars based on mass and rotational velocity.  

And then compare with observations.

So answer the question.   What is the predicted temperature of a 0.7MSun star with 35 km/s rotational velocity?   Or, to throw in another random example, a star with 8.5MSun  with 85 km/s rotational velocity?  Then we will see if a star matching that criteria matches your prediction

Simples.

Share this post


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

[...]

So answer the question.   What is the predicted temperature of a 0.7MSun star with 35 km/s rotational velocity?   Or, to throw in another random example, a star with 8.5MSun  with 85 km/s rotational velocity?  Then we will see if a star matching that criteria matches your prediction

Simples.

Since Duckss has "theory", he should stick to his model, not observations, hence the questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

A few notes. Not the same when jogging two people at the same speed, one has 70 kg, the other 205 kg.

It's not the same when running two people of equal weight at the same speed. One person is carrying a flour bag or one running through a crowded path, another half-way. It is not the same if a person runs along the train path, which moves faster in the same direction etc, etc.

The stars do not run in a sterile room with completely identical conditions. There are no two identical fingerprints. With the stars it is even more complicated.

The statistics at one point recognize the behavior (whole spectrum size of mass) of starred stars and stars with fast rotation. These two extremes never coincide. All corrective factors (binary effects ...) can not bridge the gap. Spore rotation bodies (M, K, G) have low temperature, versus ...

This article should be used only as a quick approximate tool of star positioning, as a kind of control when determining a measurement and, if there are deviations, the cause of deviations must be determined or the measurement should be repeated.

Throughout the article I offer examples that break all existing theories and hypotheses. The entire Wikipedia should be rewritten (from this matter).

And, you have noticed that I do not offer my own, but existing (accepted) evidence (measurements).

When the paradigm changes (when with mistakes and fairy tales), we begin to observe the evidence (measurements), then the measurements will change. Now measurements follow theories and hypotheses and adjust themselves.

Share this post


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

A few notes. Not the same when jogging two people at the same speed, one has 70 kg, the other 205 kg.

It's not the same when running two people of equal weight at the same speed. One person is carrying a flour bag or one running through a crowded path, another half-way. It is not the same if a person runs along the train path, which moves faster in the same direction etc, etc.

The stars do not run in a sterile room with completely identical conditions. There are no two identical fingerprints. With the stars it is even more complicated.

The statistics at one point recognize the behavior (whole spectrum size of mass) of starred stars and stars with fast rotation. These two extremes never coincide. All corrective factors (binary effects ...) can not bridge the gap. Spore rotation bodies (M, K, G) have low temperature, versus ...

This article should be used only as a quick approximate tool of star positioning, as a kind of control when determining a measurement and, if there are deviations, the cause of deviations must be determined or the measurement should be repeated.

Throughout the article I offer examples that break all existing theories and hypotheses. The entire Wikipedia should be rewritten (from this matter).

And, you have noticed that I do not offer my own, but existing (accepted) evidence (measurements).

When the paradigm changes (when with mistakes and fairy tales), we begin to observe the evidence (measurements), then the measurements will change. Now measurements follow theories and hypotheses and adjust themselves.

Thanks for proving that your "theory" is just senseless blabber. Stellar evolution models can predict temperature at different evolutionary stages, your theory can predict nothing, zero, ziltch, nada. The only way you will make into wikipedia - as lunatic, the same as flat Earth "theoretician".

Share this post


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

Thanks for proving that your "theory" is just senseless blabber. Stellar evolution models can predict temperature at different evolutionary stages, your theory can predict nothing, zero, ziltch, nada. The only way you will make into wikipedia - as lunatic, the same as flat Earth "theoretician".

Understanding ignorance and disinterest, I do not understand blindness and lies.

This (as well as articles: “Why is "The Evolution of Stars" incorrect?”“Is there "fast and slow combustion" of stars?”The influence of rotation of stars on their radius, temperature...”) eliminates any suspicion in your "just senseless blabber". For you need a better exorcist or more. You and your fairy tale, it's time to grow up.

You watch the evidence and cry.

Planet

Mass of Jupiter

Temperature K

Distance AU

GQ Lupi b 1-36 2650 ± 100 100
ROXs 42Bb 9 1,950-2,000  157
HD 106906 b 11 1.800 ~650
DH Tauri b 12 2.750 330
CT Chamaeleontis b 10,5-17  2.500 440
HD 44627 13-14 1.600-2.400 275
1RXS 1609 b 14 1.800 330
UScoCTIO 108 b 14 2.600 670
Oph 11 B 21 2.478 243
HIP 78530 b 24 2.700 740

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
On 08. 12. 2017. at 10:53 AM, Derek Willis said:

Weitter, you should check your facts. In 1608 Hans Lippershey - a German optician who had settled in Middelberg - applied for a patent regarding his "viewing tube".

Is this article created, by chance, or is the idea picked up from our discussion?

https://www.space.com/21950-who-invented-the-telescope.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis
55 minutes ago, Weitter Duckss said:

Is this article created, by chance, or is the idea picked up from our discussion?

https://www.space.com/21950-who-invented-the-telescope.html

Are you asking if the author of the article - Lauren Cox - was reading the postings on this thread and was inspired to write about who invented the telescope? Or are you asking if it is just a coincidence that she wrote the article? I think the answer is pretty obvious. That is, the entire world of science reads your threads with bated breath because they know what you write will soon become the official scientific texts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Are you asking if the author of the article - Lauren Cox - was reading the postings on this thread and was inspired to write about who invented the telescope? Or are you asking if it is just a coincidence that she wrote the article? I think the answer is pretty obvious. That is, the entire world of science reads your threads with bated breath because they know what you write will soon become the official scientific texts.

You owe me new sarcasm detector. My old one broke after reading your post. <_<

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Are you asking if the author of the article - Lauren Cox - was reading the postings on this thread and was inspired to write about who invented the telescope? Or are you asking if it is just a coincidence that she wrote the article? I think the answer is pretty obvious. That is, the entire world of science reads your threads with bated breath because they know what you write will soon become the official scientific texts.

 

I hate "coincidence". The first part of the text is almost copied from our discussions, about the idea will not even talk.

Only we are not important, they are. Their article is published and protected.

It is important to me that they have excluded Galilee. It is my have go on bile.

The following is Hubble and "his" constant and expansion of the Universe.

“Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître Associate RAS; 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian Catholic Priestastronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven.[2] He proposed the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble.[3][4] He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.[5][6][7][8] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bangtheory of the origin of the universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

Share this post


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

 

I hate "coincidence". The first part of the text is almost copied from our discussions, about the idea will not even talk.

 

Weitter, when I was about ten years old I was given a children's book on astronomy called The Astronomer's Telescope by a famous British amateur astronomer called Patrick Moore. The book describes basic astronomy and the history of astronomy. Here is a quote from the chapter on the history of telescopes:

"Galileo, a great Italian scientist, was the first man to use a telescope for astronomy. He built his telescope after hearing that a Dutchman, Hans Lipershey, had used lenses to make an 'optic tube'."

Anyone who has studied astronomy - or even read a child's book on astronomy - knows that Galileo didn't invent the telescope. The article by Lauren Cox has nothing to do with this thread. Many people who have not studied astronomy have heard of Galileo and mistakenly believe he invented the telescope. But as I have pointed out, even a child's book mentions Lipershey. More detailed books describe how a number of people had independently invented the telescope at around the same time.

So yes, it is entirely a coincidence that Lauren wrote her article at around the same time the subject was being discussed on this thread.

Incidentally, The Astronomer's Telescope also describes how to make a simple telescope using two lenses and two cardboard tubes. I made one when I was a kid and I still have it today.  

Share this post


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

So yes, it is entirely a coincidence that Lauren wrote her article at around the same time the subject was being discussed on this thread.

Which is you this thinking? Or she wrote the first or copied. There is no such thing approximately. Is it important how is the author called?

Share this post


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

Which is you this thinking? Or she wrote the first or copied. There is no such thing approximately. Is it important how is the author called?

No, Lauren didn't copy what was being written in this thread. She just happened to write her article at around the same time. Why don't you check this by contacting her? And in any case, information that has been in the public domain is available to anyone. In an earlier post I mentioned how in August of 1609 Galileo wrote a letter to his brother-in-law mentioning the man in Flanders who had made a telescope. That man was Lipershey, or perhaps one of the other people who independently invented telescopes. So this information has been in the public domain for over four hundred years! I think you should concentrate on answering BMK's questions rather than worrying about people copying threads on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245

Weitter perfected inability to find pertinent information: Lauren Cox wrote that piece back in 2013. Space.com just reposted it again in 2017.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis
43 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Weitter perfected inability to find pertinent information: Lauren Cox wrote that piece back in 2013. Space.com just reposted it again in 2017.

Thank you for that. Perhaps now Weitter will answer your questions rather than indulging in a silly diversion.

Share this post


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

Thank you for that. Perhaps now Weitter will answer your questions rather than indulging in a silly diversion.

Within a few dozen articles on this subject, I list articles that are good.

The objection remains. Why exactly now? Accidental or Intentional?

2010/06/history-of-the-telescope-draft

rice.edu/sci/instruments/telescope

400-jaar-telescopie/

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.