Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
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?

342 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Derek Willis
48 minutes ago, Weitter Duckss said:

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/

I don't know what you are talking about. People write articles all the time about many subjects. BMK showed how the first article you linked to was written in 2013. None of the articles have anything to do with with this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
22 hours 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.

Derek Willis

First read both articles and compare them. Your claim is unfounded.

Again I repeat, the article goes in favor of me. The article does not deny my work. There is nothing personal here. If someone needs to react, to be responsible in Unexplained Mysteries. Our discussion, with a scientific emphasis, should also be fun. Do not advocate for someone else's defense. Only discussion, evidence and fun.
Leave the bile in this year and happy to enter into the New Year with a lot of evidence and a lot of skepticism.

Share this post


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

Derek Willis

First read both articles and compare them. Your claim is unfounded.

Again I repeat, the article goes in favor of me. The article does not deny my work. There is nothing personal here. If someone needs to react, to be responsible in Unexplained Mysteries. Our discussion, with a scientific emphasis, should also be fun. Do not advocate for someone else's defense. Only discussion, evidence and fun.
Leave the bile in this year and happy to enter into the New Year with a lot of evidence and a lot of skepticism.

Blah, blah, blah... You are the one who brought Lauren Cox's article into discussion as a sort of conspiracy.

Next thing, your "Stars Lack Metals" claim have no slightest ground. Here it the paper on solar element abundances (Table 1). Show me lack of iron (Fe) lack in Solar photosphere. Show me lack of cobalt (Co) in Solar photosphere, Show me... etc. CAN YOU DO IT?

 

Edited by bmk1245

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
On 12/22/2017 at 2:32 PM, Derek Willis said:

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

Chances are next to the nil... Zero, ziltch, nada, zip...

Share this post


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

Derek Willis

First read both articles and compare them. Your claim is unfounded.

Again I repeat, the article goes in favor of me. The article does not deny my work. There is nothing personal here. If someone needs to react, to be responsible in Unexplained Mysteries. Our discussion, with a scientific emphasis, should also be fun. Do not advocate for someone else's defense. Only discussion, evidence and fun.
Leave the bile in this year and happy to enter into the New Year with a lot of evidence and a lot of skepticism.

Which claim are you now talking about? Are you still going on about who invented the telescope? Or are you talking about people writing articles because they have allegedly been reading this thread?

Firstly, the telescope. Galileo DID NOT INVENT THE TELESCOPE!

Secondly, the articles. The articles were not written because the authors have been reading this thread. But you know what? Even if that had of been the case, I DON'T CARE!

Now, will you answer BMK's question regarding the energy of rotating stars.

Share this post


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

Blah, blah, blah... You are the one who brought Lauren Cox's article into discussion as a sort of conspiracy.

Next thing, your "Stars Lack Metals" claim have no slightest ground. Here it the paper on solar element abundances (Table 1). Show me lack of iron (Fe) lack in Solar photosphere. Show me lack of cobalt (Co) in Solar photosphere, Show me... etc. CAN YOU DO IT?

 

„The new solar chemical composition is supported by a high degree of internal consistency between available abundance indicators, and by agreement with values obtained in the solar neighborhood and from the most pristine meteorites. There is, however, a stark conflict with standard models..

The chemical composition of the Sun 3

the six most abundant elements: hydrogen, helium, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and neon.“

 As a consequence, it is not possible to rely on meteorites to determine the primordial solar system abundances for such elements.

They are of profound importance for the understanding of our own solar system and the Sun’s interior structure and evolution. Unfortunately, photospheric abundances cannot be determined with the same accuracy as those from meteorites.“ Table „Indirect photospheric estimates have been used for the noble gases“ Etc. This is more than enough.

Sun Photospheric composition (by mass) Wiki

Hydrogen

73.46%[13]

Helium

24.85%

Oxygen

0.77%

Carbon

0.29%

Iron

0.16%

Neon

0.12%

Nitrogen

0.09%

Silicon

0.07%

Magnesium

0.05%

Sulfur

0.04%

 

 

most abundant elements hydrogen, helium, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and neon vs next table

 

 

  Melting point °C

  Boiling point °C

% crust of the Earth

% mantle of the Earth 
Zemlje

 

Melting point °C

 Boiling point °C

% crust of the Earth

% mantle of the Earth

SiO2

   1.713

   2.950

60,2

46

Si

1.410

2.355

27,7

21,5

Al2O3

   2.072

   2.977

15,2

4,2

Al

660,35

2.467

8,1

2,2

CaO

   2.613

   2.850

5,5

3,2

Ca

839

1484

3,6

2,3

MgO

   2.825

   3.600

3,1

37,8

Mg

648,85

1.090

1,5

22,8

FeO

   1.377

   3.414

3,8

7,5

Fe

1.535

2750

5,0

5,8

Na2O

   1.132

   1.950

3

0,4

Na

97,81

882,95

2,8

0,3

K2O

     740

      -

2.8

0,04

K

63,65

774

2,6

0,03

Fe2O3

 1.539 -  1.565

Not Available

2.5

 

Fe

1.535

2750

 

 

H2O

   0

  100

1,4  (1,1)

 

H

-259,14

-252,87

 

 

CO2

   -56

Sublimation -78,5

1,2

 

O

-218,35

-182,96

46,6

44,8

TiO2

   1.843

   2.972

0,7

 

Ti

1.660

3.287

 

 

P2O5

sublimes

   360

0,2

 

P

44,15

280 P4

 

 

Sunce

 He 24,85 % , H 73,46% , O 0,77% , C 0,29% , other 0,53%

 

He

-272,20

-268,934

 

 

most abundant elements hydrogen, helium, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and neon is real world the rest are yours bla ... My Table is is real world without speculation.

 

Read though again " Why there are differences in structure of the objects in our system?

Napomena: ja nikada ne gledam tko je autor članka. Čitam samo što piše. Sve autore zovem istim imenom Autori. Ime i prezime mi ništa ne znače.

 

Share this post


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

„The new solar chemical composition is supported by a high degree of internal consistency between available abundance indicators, and by agreement with values obtained in the solar neighborhood and from the most pristine meteorites. There is, however, a stark conflict with standard models..

The chemical composition of the Sun 3

the six most abundant elements: hydrogen, helium, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and neon.“

 As a consequence, it is not possible to rely on meteorites to determine the primordial solar system abundances for such elements.

They are of profound importance for the understanding of our own solar system and the Sun’s interior structure and evolution. Unfortunately, photospheric abundances cannot be determined with the same accuracy as those from meteorites.“ Table „Indirect photospheric estimates have been used for the noble gases“ Etc. This is more than enough.

Sun Photospheric composition (by mass) Wiki

Hydrogen

73.46%[13]

Helium

24.85%

Oxygen

0.77%

Carbon

0.29%

Iron

0.16%

Neon

0.12%

Nitrogen

0.09%

Silicon

0.07%

Magnesium

0.05%

Sulfur

0.04%

 

 

most abundant elements hydrogen, helium, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and neon vs next table

 

 

  Melting point °C

  Boiling point °C

% crust of the Earth

% mantle of the Earth 
Zemlje

 

Melting point °C

 Boiling point °C

% crust of the Earth

% mantle of the Earth

SiO2

   1.713

   2.950

60,2

46

Si

1.410

2.355

27,7

21,5

Al2O3

   2.072

   2.977

15,2

4,2

Al

660,35

2.467

8,1

2,2

CaO

   2.613

   2.850

5,5

3,2

Ca

839

1484

3,6

2,3

MgO

   2.825

   3.600

3,1

37,8

Mg

648,85

1.090

1,5

22,8

FeO

   1.377

   3.414

3,8

7,5

Fe

1.535

2750

5,0

5,8

Na2O

   1.132

   1.950

3

0,4

Na

97,81

882,95

2,8

0,3

K2O

     740

      -

2.8

0,04

K

63,65

774

2,6

0,03

Fe2O3

 1.539 -  1.565

Not Available

2.5

 

Fe

1.535

2750

 

 

H2O

   0

  100

1,4  (1,1)

 

H

-259,14

-252,87

 

 

CO2

   -56

Sublimation -78,5

1,2

 

O

-218,35

-182,96

46,6

44,8

TiO2

   1.843

   2.972

0,7

 

Ti

1.660

3.287

 

 

P2O5

sublimes

   360

0,2

 

P

44,15

280 P4

 

 

Sunce

 He 24,85 % , H 73,46% , O 0,77% , C 0,29% , other 0,53%

 

He

-272,20

-268,934

 

 

most abundant elements hydrogen, helium, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and neon is real world the rest are yours bla ... My Table is is real world without speculation.

 

Read though again " Why there are differences in structure of the objects in our system?

Napomena: ja nikada ne gledam tko je autor članka. Čitam samo što piše. Sve autore zovem istim imenom Autori. Ime i prezime mi ništa ne znače.

 

Oh for smeg's sake... Metal abundance in Sun and meteorites are almost the same, SEE TABLE 1.

I'll make easier for you: vi ste glupi jer niste razumjeli to.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Oh for smeg's sake... Metal abundance in Sun and meteorites are almost the same, SEE TABLE 1.

I'll make easier for you: vi ste glupi jer niste razumjeli to.

Read my comment and read your comment and you will immediately understand who it is. "You are dumb because you did not understand it".

1 H 12.00;  2 He [10.93 ± 0.01]; O 8.69 ± 0.05; Fe 7.50 ± 0.04 vs. Hydrogen

73.46%; Helium 24.85%; Oxygen 0.77%; Iron 0.16% etc.

 

The second is a dumb comparison of the composition of the Sun and other bodies (Meteorites). That is why I gave a table with the chemical composition of Earth

and Ø density g/cm3

R/B

Objekt

Satelit

Ø density g/cm3

Radius km

Poluos orbite km

1

Mars

Phobos

1,876

11,27

9.376

2

 

Deimos

1.4718

6,2

23.463,2

3

Jupiter

Amalthea

0,857

83,5

181.365,84

4

 

Io

3,528

1.821,6

421.700

5

 

Europa

3,013

1.560,8

670.900

6

 

Ganymede

1,936

2.634,1

1.070.400

7

 

Callisto

1,8344

2.410,3

1.882.700

8

Saturn

Janus

0,63

89,5

151.460

9

 

Enceladus

1,609

252,1

237.948

10

 

Tethys

0,984

531,1

294.619

11

 

Dione

1.478

561,4

377.396

12

 

Rhea

1.236

763,8

527.108

13

 

Titan

1,8798

2.575,5

1.221.870

14

 

Hyperion

0.544

135

1.481.009

15

 

Iapetus

1,088

734,5

3.560.820

16

Uranus

Miranda

1,20

235,8

129.390

17

 

Ariel

1.592

578,9

191.020

18

 

Umbriel

1,39

584,7

266.000

19

 

Titania

1,711

788,4

435.910

20

 

Oberon

1,63

761,4

583.520

21

Neptun

Proteus

~1,3

210

117.647

22

 

Triton

2,061

1.353,4

354.800

23

Pluto

Charon

1,707

603,6

19.591

24

Haumea

Hi`iaka

~1

~160

49.880

25

Haumea

 

2,6

620

 

26

Eris

 

2.52

1163

 

27

Pluto

 

1,86

1.187

 

28

Neptune

 

1,638

24.622

 

29

Uranus

 

1,27

25.362

 

30

Saturn

 

0,687

58.232

 

31

Jupiter

 

1,326

69.911

 

32

Ceres

 

2,161

965,2

 

33

Vesta

 

3,456

572,6

 

34

67P/Ch-G

 

0,533

4,1x3,3x1,8

 

35

Mars

 

3,9335

3.389,5

 

36

Earth

 

5,514

6.371

 

37

 

Moon

3.344

1.737,1

384.399

38

Venus

 

5,243

6.051,8

 

39

Mercury

 

5,427

2.439,7

 

40

Sun

 

1,408

695.700 eq

 

 

Now read back your comment and your enclosed "Evidence". If you attach the text to other people's, try to defend it by the power of proof, not the new copy of the text.

All works (except mine) are pure speculation without head and tail (without any evidence).

How can the density of 1.408 have the same chemical composition as the density of 3.528-5.514 g / cm3?

What mathematics use you and your authors?

Share this post


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

Read my comment and read your comment and you will immediately understand who it is. "You are dumb because you did not understand it".

1 H 12.00;  2 He [10.93 ± 0.01]; O 8.69 ± 0.05; Fe 7.50 ± 0.04 vs. Hydrogen

73.46%; Helium 24.85%; Oxygen 0.77%; Iron 0.16% etc.

 

The second is a dumb comparison of the composition of the Sun and other bodies (Meteorites). That is why I gave a table with the chemical composition of Earth

and Ø density g/cm3

R/B

Objekt

Satelit

Ø density g/cm3

Radius km

Poluos orbite km

1

Mars

Phobos

1,876

11,27

9.376

2

 

Deimos

1.4718

6,2

23.463,2

3

Jupiter

Amalthea

0,857

83,5

181.365,84

4

 

Io

3,528

1.821,6

421.700

5

 

Europa

3,013

1.560,8

670.900

6

 

Ganymede

1,936

2.634,1

1.070.400

7

 

Callisto

1,8344

2.410,3

1.882.700

8

Saturn

Janus

0,63

89,5

151.460

9

 

Enceladus

1,609

252,1

237.948

10

 

Tethys

0,984

531,1

294.619

11

 

Dione

1.478

561,4

377.396

12

 

Rhea

1.236

763,8

527.108

13

 

Titan

1,8798

2.575,5

1.221.870

14

 

Hyperion

0.544

135

1.481.009

15

 

Iapetus

1,088

734,5

3.560.820

16

Uranus

Miranda

1,20

235,8

129.390

17

 

Ariel

1.592

578,9

191.020

18

 

Umbriel

1,39

584,7

266.000

19

 

Titania

1,711

788,4

435.910

20

 

Oberon

1,63

761,4

583.520

21

Neptun

Proteus

~1,3

210

117.647

22

 

Triton

2,061

1.353,4

354.800

23

Pluto

Charon

1,707

603,6

19.591

24

Haumea

Hi`iaka

~1

~160

49.880

25

Haumea

 

2,6

620

 

26

Eris

 

2.52

1163

 

27

Pluto

 

1,86

1.187

 

28

Neptune

 

1,638

24.622

 

29

Uranus

 

1,27

25.362

 

30

Saturn

 

0,687

58.232

 

31

Jupiter

 

1,326

69.911

 

32

Ceres

 

2,161

965,2

 

33

Vesta

 

3,456

572,6

 

34

67P/Ch-G

 

0,533

4,1x3,3x1,8

 

35

Mars

 

3,9335

3.389,5

 

36

Earth

 

5,514

6.371

 

37

 

Moon

3.344

1.737,1

384.399

38

Venus

 

5,243

6.051,8

 

39

Mercury

 

5,427

2.439,7

 

40

Sun

 

1,408

695.700 eq

 

 

Now read back your comment and your enclosed "Evidence". If you attach the text to other people's, try to defend it by the power of proof, not the new copy of the text.

All works (except mine) are pure speculation without head and tail (without any evidence).

How can the density of 1.408 have the same chemical composition as the density of 3.528-5.514 g / cm3?

What mathematics use you and your authors?

Read the paper. On page 8, chapter 3, there is explanation about numbers you see in Table 1. Again, read the paper.

Share this post


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

Read the paper. On page 8, chapter 3, there is explanation about numbers you see in Table 1. Again, read the paper.

More talk, German tra la la or your bla, bla ..

Ringpipe without end and beginning.

page 7, 8, 9 your link

 “As seen in Fig. 3, with 3D hydrodynamical models for the solar atmosphere it is now possible to achieve highly satisfactory agreement with observed profiles of typical weak and intermediate strong lines (the wings of strong lines reveal more 8 Asplund et al. about the pressure broadening data than the employed model atmosphere). It is important to remember that this is achieved without invoking the free parameters necessary in any 1D analysis (micro- and macroturbulence) in the line formation calculations. Such line broadening can thus be explained as the result of the Doppler shift arising from the convective motions with a smaller contribution from the solar oscillations (e.g Nordlund, Stein & Asplund 2009, and references therein). Indeed, even the observed line shifts and asymmetries are very well reproduced with 3D models (e.g. Asplund et al. 2000b). The co5bold solar model produces good overall line profiles (e.g. Caffau et al. 2008a) but whether this extends also to line asymmetries has not yet been investigated. In summary, the 3D hydrodynamical model atmosphere (Trampedach et al. 2009) that we draw results from in this review outperforms 1D model atmospheres in the available observational tests, from granulation topology and center-to-limb variation to H lines and the detailed profiles of metallic lines. For the purposes of photospheric abundance determinations, the 3D solar model employed here appears to be a very realistic representation of the solar photosphere. No large differences are expected from using our 3D model or the corresponding co5bold model (Caffau et al. 2008a) given their overall similarities. 3 PHOTOSPHERIC ABUNDANCES Our recommended solar photospheric elemental abundances are listed in Table 1, which also provides the corresponding meteoritic values for CI chondrites to be discussed in Sect. 4.1. [Throughout this review, we adopt the customary astronomical scale for logarithmic abundances where hydrogen is defined to be log ǫH = 12.00, i.e. log ǫX = log(NX/NH) + 12, where NX and NH are the number densities of element X and hydrogen, respectively.] Fig. 4 shows how the solar abundances vary with atomic number, illustrating several key features of nuclear and stellar physics: the high primordial H and He abundances; the fragile nature of Li, Be and B; the relatively high abundance of elements involved in stellar H-, He- and C-burning, modulated by the odd-even effect and the α-capture effect; the high nuclear binding energy and near nuclear statistical equilibrium for the Fe-peak; and the production of the heavy elements through successive neutron capture with peaks around the magic nuclei possessing closed neutron shells (e.g. Pagel 1997). In this review, we have attempted to reanalyse the solar abundances of (nearly) all elements in a homogeneous manner with the best possible atomic data and state-of-the-art solar modelling. As a guiding principle, we have been very discerning when selecting the lines for each element, since inclusion of dubious lines only increases the abundance scatter and tends to skew the results towards higher abundances due to blends. The analysis has been carried out using several 1D and 3D model atmospheres and with non-LTE effects accounted for whenever possible, all done with the same well-tested computer codes. Unless specified otherwise, the results presented here have been based on the 3D hydrodynamical solar model atmosphere of Trampedach et al. (2009). Below we present in some detail how the abundances were derived but the full description of the analysis (including line lists with all the relevant data for the transitions) will appear in a forthcoming series of articles in Astronomy & Astrophysics (Asplund et al. 2009a,b,c, Grevesse et al. 2009, Sauval et al. 2009, Scott et al. 2009b). The chemical composition of the Sun 9 There are a wide range of potential sources of error in solar and stellar abundance analyses, from inaccurate input data for the transition (gf-values, line broadening etc) to difficulties in estimating line strengths (finite S/N, continuum placement, blends etc), to inadequacies in the atmospheric and line-formation modelling (1D, LTE, mixing length and microturbulence parameters, continuous opacities, etc). No consensus exists in the solar abundance literature on how the uncertainties should be quantified. Some authors have used the standard deviation arising from the chosen sample of lines to represent the total error for a given species whilst others have employed the standard error of the mean or some different measure altogether. Previous compilations of the solar chemical composition contained a mixture of different error estimates, since the values were taken from sources with differing modus operandi. We have attempted to quantify three possible syst..”

Share this post


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

More talk, German tra la la or your bla, bla ..

Ringpipe without end and beginning.

page 7, 8, 9 your link

 “As seen in Fig. 3, with 3D hydrodynamical models for the solar atmosphere it is now possible to achieve highly satisfactory agreement with observed profiles of typical weak and intermediate strong lines (the wings of strong lines reveal more 8 Asplund et al. about the pressure broadening data than the employed model atmosphere). It is important to remember that this is achieved without invoking the free parameters necessary in any 1D analysis (micro- and macroturbulence) in the line formation calculations. Such line broadening can thus be explained as the result of the Doppler shift arising from the convective motions with a smaller contribution from the solar oscillations (e.g Nordlund, Stein & Asplund 2009, and references therein). Indeed, even the observed line shifts and asymmetries are very well reproduced with 3D models (e.g. Asplund et al. 2000b). The co5bold solar model produces good overall line profiles (e.g. Caffau et al. 2008a) but whether this extends also to line asymmetries has not yet been investigated. In summary, the 3D hydrodynamical model atmosphere (Trampedach et al. 2009) that we draw results from in this review outperforms 1D model atmospheres in the available observational tests, from granulation topology and center-to-limb variation to H lines and the detailed profiles of metallic lines. For the purposes of photospheric abundance determinations, the 3D solar model employed here appears to be a very realistic representation of the solar photosphere. No large differences are expected from using our 3D model or the corresponding co5bold model (Caffau et al. 2008a) given their overall similarities. 3 PHOTOSPHERIC ABUNDANCES Our recommended solar photospheric elemental abundances are listed in Table 1, which also provides the corresponding meteoritic values for CI chondrites to be discussed in Sect. 4.1. [Throughout this review, we adopt the customary astronomical scale for logarithmic abundances where hydrogen is defined to be log ǫH = 12.00, i.e. log ǫX = log(NX/NH) + 12, where NX and NH are the number densities of element X and hydrogen, respectively.] Fig. 4 shows how the solar abundances vary with atomic number, illustrating several key features of nuclear and stellar physics: the high primordial H and He abundances; the fragile nature of Li, Be and B; the relatively high abundance of elements involved in stellar H-, He- and C-burning, modulated by the odd-even effect and the α-capture effect; the high nuclear binding energy and near nuclear statistical equilibrium for the Fe-peak; and the production of the heavy elements through successive neutron capture with peaks around the magic nuclei possessing closed neutron shells (e.g. Pagel 1997). In this review, we have attempted to reanalyse the solar abundances of (nearly) all elements in a homogeneous manner with the best possible atomic data and state-of-the-art solar modelling. As a guiding principle, we have been very discerning when selecting the lines for each element, since inclusion of dubious lines only increases the abundance scatter and tends to skew the results towards higher abundances due to blends. The analysis has been carried out using several 1D and 3D model atmospheres and with non-LTE effects accounted for whenever possible, all done with the same well-tested computer codes. Unless specified otherwise, the results presented here have been based on the 3D hydrodynamical solar model atmosphere of Trampedach et al. (2009). Below we present in some detail how the abundances were derived but the full description of the analysis (including line lists with all the relevant data for the transitions) will appear in a forthcoming series of articles in Astronomy & Astrophysics (Asplund et al. 2009a,b,c, Grevesse et al. 2009, Sauval et al. 2009, Scott et al. 2009b). The chemical composition of the Sun 9 There are a wide range of potential sources of error in solar and stellar abundance analyses, from inaccurate input data for the transition (gf-values, line broadening etc) to difficulties in estimating line strengths (finite S/N, continuum placement, blends etc), to inadequacies in the atmospheric and line-formation modelling (1D, LTE, mixing length and microturbulence parameters, continuous opacities, etc). No consensus exists in the solar abundance literature on how the uncertainties should be quantified. Some authors have used the standard deviation arising from the chosen sample of lines to represent the total error for a given species whilst others have employed the standard error of the mean or some different measure altogether. Previous compilations of the solar chemical composition contained a mixture of different error estimates, since the values were taken from sources with differing modus operandi. We have attempted to quantify three possible syst..”

rf_fp_sc.GIF.46aad6297c3a28aaee2a05c24a1460dc.GIF

Oh dear... Have you any slightest clue what that paper is about?!

You've just show again what a total smeghead **** you are....

Share this post


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

rf_fp_sc.GIF.46aad6297c3a28aaee2a05c24a1460dc.GIF

Oh dear... Have you any slightest clue what that paper is about?!

You've just show again what a total smeghead **** you are....

 

„the high nuclear binding energy and near nuclear statistical equilibrium for the Fe-peak; and the production of the heavy elements through successive neutron capture with peaks around the magic nuclei possessing closed neutron shells.“

Use your head to understand the obvious.

Sun:

Oxygen

0.77%

Carbon

0.29%

Iron

0.16%

Neon

0.12%

Nitrogen

0.09%

Silicon

0.07%

Magnesium

0.05%

Sulfur

0.04%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% crust of the Earth

% mantle of the Earth 
Zemlje

 

% crust of the Earth

% mantle of the Earth

SiO2

60,2

46

Si

27,7

21,5

Al2O3

15,2

4,2

Al

8,1

2,2

CaO

5,5

3,2

Ca

3,6

2,3

MgO

3,1

37,8

Mg

1,5

22,8

FeO

3,8

7,5

Fe

5,0

5,8

Na2O

3

0,4

Na

2,8

0,3

K2O

2.8

0,04

K

2,6

0,03

Fe2O3

2.5

 

Fe

 

 

H2O

1,4  (1,1)

 

H

 

 

CO2

1,2

 

O

46,6

44,8

TiO2

0,7

 

Ti

 

 

P2O5

0,2

 

P

   

 

Sun is a deplorable manufacturer in the production of the heavy elements. The Earth is by the production of the heavy element number one in our system.

Actually, how does it work on Earth, but it does not work on the Sun. Your Sun has nuclear processes and a poor chemical composition. The earth has no processes, like the Sun, which is mentioned by your authors and others. But it does not matter that the Earth is number one + has life.

Which mathematician do you use, and your authors?

 

Share this post


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

 

„the high nuclear binding energy and near nuclear statistical equilibrium for the Fe-peak; and the production of the heavy elements through successive neutron capture with peaks around the magic nuclei possessing closed neutron shells.“

Use your head to understand the obvious.

Sun:

Oxygen

0.77%

Carbon

0.29%

Iron

0.16%

Neon

0.12%

Nitrogen

0.09%

Silicon

0.07%

Magnesium

0.05%

Sulfur

0.04%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% crust of the Earth

% mantle of the Earth 
Zemlje

 

% crust of the Earth

% mantle of the Earth

SiO2

60,2

46

Si

27,7

21,5

Al2O3

15,2

4,2

Al

8,1

2,2

CaO

5,5

3,2

Ca

3,6

2,3

MgO

3,1

37,8

Mg

1,5

22,8

FeO

3,8

7,5

Fe

5,0

5,8

Na2O

3

0,4

Na

2,8

0,3

K2O

2.8

0,04

K

2,6

0,03

Fe2O3

2.5

 

Fe

 

 

H2O

1,4  (1,1)

 

H

 

 

CO2

1,2

 

O

46,6

44,8

TiO2

0,7

 

Ti

 

 

P2O5

0,2

 

P

   

 

Sun is a deplorable manufacturer in the production of the heavy elements. The Earth is by the production of the heavy element number one in our system.

Actually, how does it work on Earth, but it does not work on the Sun. Your Sun has nuclear processes and a poor chemical composition. The earth has no processes, like the Sun, which is mentioned by your authors and others. But it does not matter that the Earth is number one + has life.

Which mathematician do you use, and your authors?

 

What part of "Throughout this review, we adopt the customary astronomical scale for logarithmic abundances where hydrogen is defined to be log eH= 12.00, i.e. log eX= log(NX/NH)+ 12, where NXand NHare the number densities of element X and hydrogen, respectively" you can't understand?

Edited by bmk1245

Share this post


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

What part of "Throughout this review, we adopt the customary astronomical scale for logarithmic abundances where hydrogen is defined to be log eH= 12.00, i.e. log eX= log(NX/NH)+ 12, where NXand NHare the number densities of element X and hydrogen, respectively" you can't understand?

OK. I did not understand. So Sun and Earth have the same chemical composition, just, it, I still do not understand. The tables I have submitted are false, because they do not have logotypes that are more accurate than the percentage. If we have logotypes then the chemical composition of Sun and meteorites is the same. What are you trying to say or change? It, that we are blind and can not see the difference? That your claims about the evolution of stars is accurate? That evidence can only be offered by your team? Anything else (though true) must be a lie?
You look at the evidence in front of you, but you still have no desire or courage to accept the truth.
Do Earth and Sun have the same chemical composition or do they not have? The question is eliminatory. 21st century or blindness?

Share this post


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

OK. I did not understand. So Sun and Earth have the same chemical composition, just, it, I still do not understand. The tables I have submitted are false, because they do not have logotypes that are more accurate than the percentage. If we have logotypes then the chemical composition of Sun and meteorites is the same. What are you trying to say or change? It, that we are blind and can not see the difference? That your claims about the evolution of stars is accurate? That evidence can only be offered by your team? Anything else (though true) must be a lie?
You look at the evidence in front of you, but you still have no desire or courage to accept the truth.
Do Earth and Sun have the same chemical composition or do they not have? The question is eliminatory. 21st century or blindness?

Again, what part of "Throughout this review, we adopt the customary astronomical scale for logarithmic abundances where hydrogen is defined to be log eH= 12.00, i.e. log eX= log(NX/NH)+ 12, where Nand Nare the number densities of element X and hydrogen, respectively" you can't understand?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
On 12/21/2017 at 1:26 PM, 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.

Consider the fact this thread has been going on nearly forever. It is bound to overlap much of modern history, and numerous scholarly papers.  Making much progress here are we?  As a casual sometime observer, Weitter, it seems like a rather slow moving train.

Share this post


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

Consider the fact this thread has been going on nearly forever. It is bound to overlap much of modern history, and numerous scholarly papers.  Making much progress here are we?  As a casual sometime observer, Weitter, it seems like a rather slow moving train.

Can you justify  and the following: "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

Approval of minor examples opens the door for unscrupulous machination.

Share this post


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

[...]

Approval of minor examples opens the door for unscrupulous machination.

43?

Share this post


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

43?

“A centered heptagonal number

This can also be calculated by multiplying the triangular number for (n – 1) by 7, then adding 1. Or

The New General Catalogue object NGC 43, a barred spiral galaxy in the constellation Andromeda or

Odd Squad Agent 43 is one of the main villains: Agent Todd” ???

Still, everything in relation to 43 does not change the reality that the church is the creator of science that you support. You continue to believe in the Bible, I will use evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
On 25/12/2017 at 8:03 AM, Weitter Duckss said:

 

„the high nuclear binding energy and near nuclear statistical equilibrium for the Fe-peak; and the production of the heavy elements through successive neutron capture with peaks around the magic nuclei possessing closed neutron shells.“

Use your head to understand the obvious.

Sun:

Oxygen

0.77%

Carbon

0.29%

Iron

0.16%

Neon

0.12%

Nitrogen

0.09%

Silicon

0.07%

Magnesium

0.05%

Sulfur

0.04%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% crust of the Earth

% mantle of the Earth 
Zemlje

 

% crust of the Earth

% mantle of the Earth

SiO2

60,2

46

Si

27,7

21,5

Al2O3

15,2

4,2

Al

8,1

2,2

CaO

5,5

3,2

Ca

3,6

2,3

MgO

3,1

37,8

Mg

1,5

22,8

FeO

3,8

7,5

Fe

5,0

5,8

Na2O

3

0,4

Na

2,8

0,3

K2O

2.8

0,04

K

2,6

0,03

Fe2O3

2.5

 

Fe

 

 

H2O

1,4  (1,1)

 

H

 

 

CO2

1,2

 

O

46,6

44,8

TiO2

0,7

 

Ti

 

 

P2O5

0,2

 

P

   

Sun is a deplorable manufacturer in the production of the heavy elements. The Earth is by the production of the heavy element number one in our system.

Actually, how does it work on Earth, but it does not work on the Sun. Your Sun has nuclear processes and a poor chemical composition. The earth has no processes, like the Sun, which is mentioned by your authors and others. But it does not matter that the Earth is number one + has life.

Which mathematician do you use, and your authors?

 

If our current ideas about the formation of elements is wrong, it would mean that fusion and fission doesn't exist, so this brings us to a question. Guess which one.....

How does nuclear weapons work in your system ? 

Remember I have given you examples of fission in nature, so don't reuse you argument that fission is only possible in a lab. There have been 2121 nuclear explosions so far, so I hardly think it is just a lab curiosity anymore. The citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would probably agree with me on that.

Share this post


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

If our current ideas about the formation of elements is wrong, it would mean that fusion and fission doesn't exist, so this brings us to a question. Guess which one.....

How does nuclear weapons work in your system ? 

Remember I have given you examples of fission in nature, so don't reuse you argument that fission is only possible in a lab. There have been 2121 nuclear explosions so far, so I hardly think it is just a lab curiosity anymore. The citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would probably agree with me on that.

 

If you are from the US, the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki certainly, neither under what price, will not agree with you.

You want to say that there is super intelligence of the Universe that compiles and detonates nuclear bombs? Besides, that intelligence, have a way to do it without radoactive radiation and traces of radiation?

 

(The constant growth of matter - the circular process I.)

Only long-living particles, such as proton with its variants, neutron, electron, neutrino and energy (photon), take part in the formation of universe. If the process of atom splitting is turned opposite, i.e. if an atom is created from the split particles – abiding the rule that only long-living particles take part in the atom formation – there is a result that it consists of a large number of neutrino, electrons and energy. All the interphases finally split into electrons, neutrino and energy. It is not to be expected that a formation lasting less than a one-billionth part of a second can separately exist or that so short period of time is enough for a particle to be formed out of these transitive formations. Finally, these transitive formations have never been registered to exist separately in nature. An electron is ~1836 times smaller than a proton; it can, therefore, be expected that it also consists of a large number of neutrino, similar to this quantity.

Now the two atom poles need to be explained. In chemistry, a hydrogen is said to be univalent, but there is also a weak hydrogen bond, occurring in the chemical processes C-H…O. Depending on the acidity of a compound, the force of this bond is estimated around 5% of the usual bond.

Material particles can only get combined if they have different charges. The most obvious example for it is that a proton (H) doesn’t exist alone or with an electron, but in a pair (H2). Why would a particle join another same particle with the same charge and not the electrons, which are omnipresent and have a different charge?

The only possible reason for it is the bipolarity of a particle, in which one pole is dominant over the other; however, the dominated pole is much stronger than a few electrons that are unable to overcome the other pole (here, the negative pole of a proton). The process of proton joining another proton makes indisputable evidence of the existence of two poles. Electrons are not the only one having a negative charge, because, if they were, there would be no atom joining.

Atoms would be saturated with electrons and matter wouldn’t exist at all. In the particle accelerators has been discovered that there are positive electrons and neutrino, which is a clear indication of bipolarity of these particles, too. It can be estimated through the weak hydrogen bond that the force of the negative pole is worth over 90 electrons. That is indeed a great barrier, which can’t be filled with electrons and neutrino. The composition of neutron tells us that only two electrons and neutrino enter that bond and that it is not stable at all (it is stable for only around 17 minutes or 1.01 x 103 seconds). On the other hand, a bond H2 is permanent, at least until the moment of entering a chemical process.

A large number of neutrino and electrons with energy create a thread, which at its ends has different charges. When these ends are connected, a thread becomes a small spherical object. During an electron impact in a collider, three peaks can be registered: neutral one at the place of connection and positive and negative charges on the sides. Here we immediately see the existence of atomic geometry, which changes as the atoms grow by joining.

Joining is not similar to arranging little spheres or blocs; it is obvious from the van der Waals radius: the atoms with 200 protons and neutrons have a smaller radius than the atom of oxygen (16 elements) or nitrogen (14 elements), etc. When a proton is influenced by a sufficient amount of charge, greater than his weak bond, a thread opens and joins with the similar one, a “newcomer”. That is the only possible explanation of great differences among argon, potassium and calcium, all of which have the same or very similar number of protons and neutrons. Their differences originate from their different structures of connecting protons and neutrons.

An atom begins to reduce when the joining overgrows the natural sustainability conditions. The joining and growth of atoms are constant because of the constantly incoming new particles. That is why an atom needs to discard the surplus, may it be a proton, a neutron or a helium core – all the same. Radiation appears with that process. Discard of the surplus and radiation are only the consequence of balancing atom from an unfavorable into a more favorable state.

Growth doesn’t stop with atoms; on the contrary, joining goes on. Through joining, chemical reactions and combined, gas, dust, sand, the rocks named asteroids and comets, etc., are all created. Even further, planets are created the same way. Then, when planets grow to the 10% of Sun’s mass, they become stars, which can be really gigantic (super-giants).

Millions of craters scattered around the objects of our Solar system are the evidence of objects’ growth. Constant impacts of asteroids into our atmosphere and soil are the evidence of these processes being uninterrupted today, just the same as it used to be in any earlier period of the past. It is estimated that 4 000 – 100 000 tons of extraterrestrial material falls yearly to Earth. We had seen the impacts of objects with Jupiter, Moon, etc. It is completely impossible to talk about a primeval formation, even less about a simultaneous one. There is a particular history, age and mass in each and every object; they are not the same with any other object. Generally, a bigger object should also mean an older object, but there are also some corrective factors, because of the conditions in which the objects exist.

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.

The temperature of stars is directly related to the speed of its rotation. „ from Processes in universe

 

Share this post


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

 

If you are from the US,

I wouldn't think it should be very difficult, for a genius such as you, to figure out what country I am from. (Hint: Its not the US) 

Quote

the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki certainly, neither under what price, will not agree with you.

I am pretty sure they will agree with me that nuclear fission isn't just a lab curiosity..... do you even read the post you are responding to ?

Quote

You want to say that there is super intelligence of the Universe that compiles and detonates nuclear bombs?

What on Earth made you think that I believe that ? I have said no such thing.

Which brings me back to the question I just asked you: do you even read the post you are responding to ?

Quote

Besides, that intelligence, have a way to do it without radoactive radiation and traces of radiation?

Again I have made no statements about a super intelligence... ever. 

Are you saying that there was no radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the attacks ? I would really love to see some documentation on that. 

Quote

 „(The constant growth of matter - the circular process I.)

Only long-living particles, such as proton with its variants, neutron, electron, neutrino and energy (photon), take part in the formation of universe. If the process of atom splitting is turned opposite, i.e. if an atom is created from the split particles – abiding the rule that only long-living particles take part in the atom formation – there is a result that it consists of a large number of neutrino, electrons and energy. All the interphases finally split into electrons, neutrino and energy. It is not to be expected that a formation lasting less than a one-billionth part of a second can separately exist or that so short period of time is enough for a particle to be formed out of these transitive formations. Finally, these transitive formations have never been registered to exist separately in nature. An electron is ~1836 times smaller than a proton; it can, therefore, be expected that it also consists of a large number of neutrino, similar to this quantity.

Now the two atom poles need to be explained. In chemistry, a hydrogen is said to be univalent, but there is also a weak hydrogen bond, occurring in the chemical processes C-H…O. Depending on the acidity of a compound, the force of this bond is estimated around 5% of the usual bond.

Material particles can only get combined if they have different charges. The most obvious example for it is that a proton (H) doesn’t exist alone or with an electron, but in a pair (H2). Why would a particle join another same particle with the same charge and not the electrons, which are omnipresent and have a different charge?

The only possible reason for it is the bipolarity of a particle, in which one pole is dominant over the other; however, the dominated pole is much stronger than a few electrons that are unable to overcome the other pole (here, the negative pole of a proton). The process of proton joining another proton makes indisputable evidence of the existence of two poles. Electrons are not the only one having a negative charge, because, if they were, there would be no atom joining.

Atoms would be saturated with electrons and matter wouldn’t exist at all. In the particle accelerators has been discovered that there are positive electrons and neutrino, which is a clear indication of bipolarity of these particles, too. It can be estimated through the weak hydrogen bond that the force of the negative pole is worth over 90 electrons. That is indeed a great barrier, which can’t be filled with electrons and neutrino. The composition of neutron tells us that only two electrons and neutrino enter that bond and that it is not stable at all (it is stable for only around 17 minutes or 1.01 x 103 seconds). On the other hand, a bond H2 is permanent, at least until the moment of entering a chemical process.

A large number of neutrino and electrons with energy create a thread, which at its ends has different charges. When these ends are connected, a thread becomes a small spherical object. During an electron impact in a collider, three peaks can be registered: neutral one at the place of connection and positive and negative charges on the sides. Here we immediately see the existence of atomic geometry, which changes as the atoms grow by joining.

Joining is not similar to arranging little spheres or blocs; it is obvious from the van der Waals radius: the atoms with 200 protons and neutrons have a smaller radius than the atom of oxygen (16 elements) or nitrogen (14 elements), etc. When a proton is influenced by a sufficient amount of charge, greater than his weak bond, a thread opens and joins with the similar one, a “newcomer”. That is the only possible explanation of great differences among argon, potassium and calcium, all of which have the same or very similar number of protons and neutrons. Their differences originate from their different structures of connecting protons and neutrons.

An atom begins to reduce when the joining overgrows the natural sustainability conditions. The joining and growth of atoms are constant because of the constantly incoming new particles. That is why an atom needs to discard the surplus, may it be a proton, a neutron or a helium core – all the same. Radiation appears with that process. Discard of the surplus and radiation are only the consequence of balancing atom from an unfavorable into a more favorable state.

Growth doesn’t stop with atoms; on the contrary, joining goes on. Through joining, chemical reactions and combined, gas, dust, sand, the rocks named asteroids and comets, etc., are all created. Even further, planets are created the same way. Then, when planets grow to the 10% of Sun’s mass, they become stars, which can be really gigantic (super-giants).

Millions of craters scattered around the objects of our Solar system are the evidence of objects’ growth. Constant impacts of asteroids into our atmosphere and soil are the evidence of these processes being uninterrupted today, just the same as it used to be in any earlier period of the past. It is estimated that 4 000 – 100 000 tons of extraterrestrial material falls yearly to Earth. We had seen the impacts of objects with Jupiter, Moon, etc. It is completely impossible to talk about a primeval formation, even less about a simultaneous one. There is a particular history, age and mass in each and every object; they are not the same with any other object. Generally, a bigger object should also mean an older object, but there are also some corrective factors, because of the conditions in which the objects exist.

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.

The temperature of stars is directly related to the speed of its rotation. „ from Processes in universe

 

Linking to your own articles serves no purpose. 

Have you ever considered the fact that no one else agrees with your ideas as a hint that they might be wrong ? 

Having new ideas is perfectly good, infact thats how we learn new things, but clinging onto them long after they have failed is not healthy.

Some friendly advice from me to you: You really need to evaluate your position very carefully before you waste you life on a fools quest.

I'm not trying to be condecending here, I am really trying to be helpfull.

Edited by Noteverythingisaconspiracy

Share this post


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

Some friendly advice from me to you: You really need to evaluate your position very carefully before you waste you life on a fools quest.

You have no reason to be angry. A little humor can not justify your sudden change of style of expression. In the discussion I avoid ugly words, I use only a little humor. Check out all my comments, I did not make any ugly words to you. If I portrayed that Nature or the Universe are not human artefacts, it is not the reason of anger. If you're offended, my apology.

 

“Have you ever considered the fact that no one else agrees with your ideas

Brave sentence, to your sorrow, you and I know it is incorrect.

as a hint that they might be wrong ?

To ako netko se cijeli život bavi fizikom neće nikada značiti da poslije njega neće stići drugi fizičari te da je fizike nestalo njegovim odlaskom. Pa da i ne dolazi nitko, treba popraviti sve njegove propuste, jer nema vjerojatnosti da sav rad bude bezgrešan, to nije u osnovi prirodnih zakona. Ako ne vidite grešku, nastavite raditi i otkriti ćete je, ako ne odmah onda vremenom, ili će je otkriti netko drugi. Bitno je da vam trud bude popločan dobrim namjerama.” From book 

Work and make mistakes is normal. Deliberately make mistakes, and deliberately confuse readers is not normal.

My biggest mistake is that I use the official evidence, for which, you claim, that in them no one believes. Such statements confuse and put a question mark in their intent.

Is it incorrect that there are stars that are not covered by any official theory that you represent?

 

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

These are the official evidence, which I have not invented.

 

Share this post


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

You have no reason to be angry.

I'm not angry.

4 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

A little humor can not justify your sudden change of style of expression.

I think people know that I appreciate humour and I don't think I have changed my style of expression lately ? It's allways been a mixture of humour and seriousness.

4 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

In the discussion I avoid ugly words, I use only a little humor.

I actually agree with you there. 

4 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

Check out all my comments, I did not make any ugly words to you.

No you didn't and I don't think I used any ugly word to you ?

4 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

If I portrayed that Nature or the Universe are not human artefacts, it is not the reason of anger. If you're offended, my apology.

It takes a lot more than that to offend me. You ain't even close to that.

4 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

“Have you ever considered the fact that no one else agrees with your ideas

Brave sentence, to your sorrow, you and I know it is incorrect.

No I do not know that its incorrect. Considering that your idea could be wrong is a fundamental aspect of science.

4 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

as a hint that they might be wrong ?

To ako netko se cijeli život bavi fizikom neće nikada značiti da poslije njega neće stići drugi fizičari te da je fizike nestalo njegovim odlaskom. Pa da i ne dolazi nitko, treba popraviti sve njegove propuste, jer nema vjerojatnosti da sav rad bude bezgrešan, to nije u osnovi prirodnih zakona. Ako ne vidite grešku, nastavite raditi i otkriti ćete je, ako ne odmah onda vremenom, ili će je otkriti netko drugi. Bitno je da vam trud bude popločan dobrim namjerama.” From book 

No idea what that means ?

4 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

Work and make mistakes is normal. Deliberately make mistakes, and deliberately confuse readers is not normal.

Where have I made a mistake, deliberate or not ?

4 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

My biggest mistake is that I use the official evidence, for which, you claim, that in them no one believes. Such statements confuse and put a question mark in their intent.

Again if you can't explain your idea to others it might be because it is faulty.

4 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

Is it incorrect that there are stars that are not covered by any official theory that you represent?

 

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

These are the official evidence, which I have not invented.

You have yet to explain those numbers in a way that makes sense to us. Everytime we ask you to expand on them you change the subject or link to yourself.

Its clear that English isn't your native language, not being a native English speaker myself I can understand that, but I think you should consider getting someone who do write English to help you. Again this is an honest attempt to help you get your point across, because what you are doing now is clearly not working. 

Share this post


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

You have yet to explain those numbers in a way that makes sense to us. Everytime we ask you to expand on them you change the subject or link to yourself.

 

The article is completely clear with the full explanation of all numbers. This table explains that these are not planets by definition Planets shine by reflected light these are stars, which, by themselves, produce temperature (“stars shine by producing their own light”).

This data that says that the mass of stars can be from 1 to 12 (24) mass Jupiter has a higher temperature than:

 

Star

Radius Sun 1

Temperature K

S Cassiopeiae 

930

1.800

CW Leonis

700

2.200

 

For S Cassiopeiae claim that:  “it is estimated at 3.5 x 10-6 solar masses per year”.

So these two tables, placed side by side, remove fairy tales about the official, evolution of stars, masses needed for nuclear processes and a whole host of other meaningless official claims.

All other tables serve the same purpose. I think, that clearer and simpler can not be written. My articles were intended for readers without a high-minded tricks. Only evidence as opposed to official fables.

Edited by Weitter Duckss

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.