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
8 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Paper published in 1999 proves that you are LIAR. Uneducated, ignorant, and delusional liar. Period.

Not only "that you are LIAR", already also the word for you, as a code, as a spell.
Whatever, in general, you have links between this article and "Theory of Zadar". What kind of similarity exists between the "science" that "sees" the Big Bang and my article that negates Big Bang and sets the processes of steady growth of body in the universe.
The point is not, as noise, Balkan shepherd, already need to know what you're discussing. What is the reason for you lowering your discussion on this level? I do not fight (we do not know each other) we just discuss. You have a vocabulary (?), Choose the words that match this page.
You can not expect a Balkan man to call you on culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
On 10/28/2017 at 9:50 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

Not only "that you are LIAR", already also the word for you, as a code, as a spell.
Whatever, in general, you have links between this article and "Theory of Zadar". What kind of similarity exists between the "science" that "sees" the Big Bang and my article that negates Big Bang and sets the processes of steady growth of body in the universe.
The point is not, as noise, Balkan shepherd, already need to know what you're discussing. What is the reason for you lowering your discussion on this level? I do not fight (we do not know each other) we just discuss. You have a vocabulary (?), Choose the words that match this page.
You can not expect a Balkan man to call you on culture.

You accused others for "plagiarizing" your ideas, while you steal ideas from others and present them as your own (see my post here).

Just to add bit more:

Quote

Speculations concerning multiple worlds, either in a spatial or a temporal sense, can be traced back to the pre-Socratic philosophers, when such ideas were first discussed by Anaximander and Anaximenes. In the late renaissance, they figured prominently in the cosmology of Giordano Bruno and since then ideas of multiple worlds have been a standard ingredient in cosmological speculations. They appear,
for example, in the eighteenth-century scenarios of Thomas Wright and Immanuel Kant. The most discussed of these speculations is probably the scenario considered by Ludwig Boltzmann in 1895 in connection with the thermodynamic state of the universe predicted by the law of entropy increase. In effect, the Austrian physicist suggested that a sufficiently large universe would consist of a multitude of separate
subuniverses, some of which (including our own) would be in low-entropic states while the universe as a whole would be in an equilibrium state corresponding to maximum entropy.
16
Within the tradition of twentieth-century relativistic cosmology the notion of many universes may first have been mentioned by Eddington, shortly after the notion of the expanding universe had been introduced in cosmology. In a paper of 1931 he pointed out that the accelerated expansion of the closed Lemaˆıtre-Eddington universe would eventually lead to a situation where ‘Objects separating faster than the velocity of light are cut off from any causal inference on one another, so that in time the universe will become virtually a number of disconnected universes no longer bearing any physical relation to one another’.17At about the same time the Japanese physicist Tokio Takeuchi presented the first relativistic model of a temporal multiverse, that is, a cyclic universe with an infinite number of cycles.18A few years later, Richard Tolman, while examining inhomogeneous models (not satisfying the cosmological principle), noticed the possibility of a universe containing independent homogeneous regions of different density and curvature. Some of these regions, he wrote, ‘might be contracting rather than expanding and contain matter with a density and stage of evolutionary development quite different from those with which we are familiar’.19

(Helge Kragh. (2009) Contemporary History of Cosmology and the Controversy over the Multiverse. Annals of Science 66(4), pages 529-551)

So, here yea go, that makes you thief as well... In overall - uneducated, ignorant, and delusional lying thief. 

Share this post


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

You accused others for "plagiarizing" your ideas, while you steal ideas from others and present them as your own (see my post here).

So far, you have argued, that all what I write is stupidity. Now you've become a fan of this knowledge. You have noticed that the offered evidence and presentation are correct. For me that is the greatest compliment.
For plagiarism, my advice, Start the official process for plagiarism. A little advertising, for my, is welcome. Or maybe you're just strong on the noise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
On 10/31/2017 at 9:34 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

So far, you have argued, that all what I write is stupidity.[...]

It is, plain stupidity, no more or less.

On 10/31/2017 at 9:34 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

[...] Now you've become a fan of this knowledge.[...]

Nope. Not in any way.

On 10/31/2017 at 9:34 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]  You have noticed that the offered evidence and presentation are correct. [...]

You have offered zero, ziltch, nada, zip. Period.

On 10/31/2017 at 9:34 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]   For me that is the greatest compliment.[...]

Are you THAT stupid?

On 10/31/2017 at 9:34 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]  For plagiarism, my advice, Start the official process for plagiarism. A little advertising, for my, is welcome. Or maybe you're just strong on the noise?]

Who, on Earth, would go through suing mental patient? Beat it, Weiter, Beetlejiuce is waaaay more smarter than you.

Edited by bmk1245

Share this post


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

It is, plain stupidity, no more or less.

Is the stupidity and scientific confirmation of part of Weitter Duckss theory for you? Same as: official science on one side claims "Pluto has rings", I lonely on the other side "Will not Go"  http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#no-ring-around-Pluto . It's a compliment when you, the evidences, you call stupidity.

"It's long been theorized that such objects exist -- asteroids or comets moving around between the stars and occasionally passing through our solar system -- but this is the first such detection..“  from article NASA (1.11.2017 objavljeno na Facebook)

While they speculated, others have accurately calculated the absence of orbits and other possible consequences. It should just read.

Opposite to the process of rotation there is the approaching of an object to the poles of a central object, where there are no orbits created, but only collisions of the incoming objects with the central object. These objects also have a speed, just as the objects that approach straight or with an inclination towards the equator do, but these speeds neither create orbits, nor there are observations to support such claims. If there is no rotation, there is also no orbit, no matter what the speed of the incoming object is.“ https://www.academia.edu/26326626/Weitter_Ducksss_Theory_of_the_Universe

„One object becomes a nova and a large number (millions) of others with the same parameters just go on the same way. It is necessary to consider some very rare factors, like, for example, the impacts of large objects into planets, but even more rare – those that hit only a small part of the objects (one event in more than ten million of objects - stars).

Within the growth of an object, some smaller object is starting a reaction when colliding with a star. If that should remain a rare event, it needs to be a specific event under the specific conditions. The only possible specificity is for that object (the errant objects, incoming from outside the Solar system) to arrive vertically onto one of the poles and to hit the opening of a cyclone that exists on the poles of stars. That way, it would get an opportunity to break into the interior of an object. Comet ISON is the evidence that objects with vertical trajectories really exist in the Universe.“  http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/the-Universe-rotating.html#12b

Ja ću nastaviti pisati "gluposti", vi nastavite svjedočiti "istinu".

Share this post


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

Is the stupidity and scientific confirmation of part of Weitter Duckss theory for you? Same as: official science on one side claims "Pluto has rings", I lonely on the other side "Will not Go"  http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#no-ring-around-Pluto . It's a compliment when you, the evidences, you call stupidity.

"It's long been theorized that such objects exist -- asteroids or comets moving around between the stars and occasionally passing through our solar system -- but this is the first such detection..“  from article NASA (1.11.2017 objavljeno na Facebook)

While they speculated, others have accurately calculated the absence of orbits and other possible consequences. It should just read.

Opposite to the process of rotation there is the approaching of an object to the poles of a central object, where there are no orbits created, but only collisions of the incoming objects with the central object. These objects also have a speed, just as the objects that approach straight or with an inclination towards the equator do, but these speeds neither create orbits, nor there are observations to support such claims. If there is no rotation, there is also no orbit, no matter what the speed of the incoming object is.“ https://www.academia.edu/26326626/Weitter_Ducksss_Theory_of_the_Universe

„One object becomes a nova and a large number (millions) of others with the same parameters just go on the same way. It is necessary to consider some very rare factors, like, for example, the impacts of large objects into planets, but even more rare – those that hit only a small part of the objects (one event in more than ten million of objects - stars).

Within the growth of an object, some smaller object is starting a reaction when colliding with a star. If that should remain a rare event, it needs to be a specific event under the specific conditions. The only possible specificity is for that object (the errant objects, incoming from outside the Solar system) to arrive vertically onto one of the poles and to hit the opening of a cyclone that exists on the poles of stars. That way, it would get an opportunity to break into the interior of an object. Comet ISON is the evidence that objects with vertical trajectories really exist in the Universe.“  http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/the-Universe-rotating.html#12b

Ja ću nastaviti pisati "gluposti", vi nastavite svjedočiti "istinu".

rf_fp_sc.GIF.e3271ab18aaf1b0da4f094db382b303e.GIF

Show me cyclones on Sun's poles.

Show me the matter (comets, asteroids, gas) of the mass of two Earth Moons falling into those cyclones every year.

Not only you are clueless in astrophysics, you are clueless in basic physics (starting with classic mechanics and thermodynamics) as well.

Share this post


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

Show me cyclones on Sun's poles.

Show me the matter (comets, asteroids, gas) of the mass of two Earth Moons falling into those cyclones every year.

Not only you are clueless in astrophysics, you are clueless in basic physics (starting with classic mechanics and thermodynamics) as well.

I will speak slowly that you can understand.

Attractive forces are equal in each point of a body. The universe is the volume in which matter is found in every direction from a body (stars).
Different rotation speeds are evidence of the existence of processes that accelerate rotation around the axis.
"One object becomes a nova and a large number (millions) of others with the same parameters just go on the same way."
It is normal for us to see bodies in orbit due to rotation. It is not normal to claim that there are no attractive forces and matter on the poles.
In the clouds, where there is plenty of matter, we find most of the fast rotating stars.
Look for the Sun on the Internet (as far as I remember: the speed of the cyclone (vortex) is 500 km / h).
Try, the Universe to look through photos telescopes instead through of the hypothesis. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
On 11/4/2017 at 3:53 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

I will speak slowly that you can understand.

Attractive forces are equal in each point of a body. The universe is the volume in which matter is found in every direction from a body (stars).
Different rotation speeds are evidence of the existence of processes that accelerate rotation around the axis.
"One object becomes a nova and a large number (millions) of others with the same parameters just go on the same way."
It is normal for us to see bodies in orbit due to rotation. It is not normal to claim that there are no attractive forces and matter on the poles.
In the clouds, where there is plenty of matter, we find most of the fast rotating stars.
Look for the Sun on the Internet (as far as I remember: the speed of the cyclone (vortex) is 500 km / h).
Try, the Universe to look through photos telescopes instead through of the hypothesis. :D

So, you don't have evidence for cyclones in Suns poles, nor matter (of the mass of two Moons per year) falling into those cyclones. What a shock!

Now, we have Jupiter with ~13 km/s equatorial rotation and with ~110 K (@ 0.1 bar ) effective temperature, and we have Sun with ~2 km/s equatorial rotation and with ~5800 K effective temperature. How your wacky "friction" theory explains these facts? And how your theory explains observational data that hotter stars (O5, with temperatures of ~45000 K) rotate (on average) slower than cooler stars (B5, with temperatures of ~15000 K).

 

Share this post


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

So, you don't have evidence for cyclones in Suns poles, nor matter (of the mass of two Moons per year) falling into those cyclones. What a shock!

Now, we have Jupiter with ~13 km/s equatorial rotation and with ~110 K (@ 0.1 bar ) effective temperature, and we have Sun with ~2 km/s equatorial rotation and with ~5800 K effective temperature. How your wacky "friction" theory explains these facts? And how your theory explains observational data that hotter stars (O5, with temperatures of ~45000 K) rotate (on average) slower than cooler stars (B5, with temperatures of ~15000 K).

 

cikloni-na-polovima

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1005012626384

“Astronomers have solved a mystery over small, unusually hot blue stars, 10 times hotter than our Sun, that are found in the middle of dense star clusters.

The international team found the so-called blue hook stars throw off their cool outer layers late in life because they are rotating so rapidly, making them more luminous than usual.
https://phys.org/news/2015-06-blue-stars-unusually-hot.html#jCp

 

Exceptions can not build conclusions. It is better to ask:

- “When checking a database, it is found that the objects of the same mass can have completely different temperatures, ranging from stellar spectral class M to O (- WR 2, type WN4-s, 16 M Sun, temperature 141.000 K; -μ Columbae, type O, mass 16 M of Sun, temperature 33.000 K; –  VY Canis Majoris, type M, mass 17 M of Sun, temperature 3.490 K).

 

And always keep in mind:
“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.” - http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#Reassessment-of-the-old-but-still-employed-theories-of-Universe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
On 11/9/2017 at 5:26 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

cikloni-na-polovima

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1005012626384

“Astronomers have solved a mystery over small, unusually hot blue stars, 10 times hotter than our Sun, that are found in the middle of dense star clusters.

The international team found the so-called blue hook stars throw off their cool outer layers late in life because they are rotating so rapidly, making them more luminous than usual.
https://phys.org/news/2015-06-blue-stars-unusually-hot.html#jCp

 

Exceptions can not build conclusions. It is better to ask:

- “When checking a database, it is found that the objects of the same mass can have completely different temperatures, ranging from stellar spectral class M to O (- WR 2, type WN4-s, 16 M Sun, temperature 141.000 K; -μ Columbae, type O, mass 16 M of Sun, temperature 33.000 K; –  VY Canis Majoris, type M, mass 17 M of Sun, temperature 3.490 K).

 

And always keep in mind:
“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.” - http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#Reassessment-of-the-old-but-still-employed-theories-of-Universe

Again, why Jupiter (12 km/s) is much colder than the Sun (2 km/s)? Why Saturn (10 km/s) is much colder than the Sun (2 km/s)? Why Uranus (2.5 km/s) is much colder than the Sun (2 km/s)? Why Neptune (2.5 km/s) is much colder than the Sun (2 km/s)?

Do you understand questions?

Now, your claim is that temperature of the stars is due to friction, and, with higher rotational velocities there is more friction. So, Jupiter (according to your theory) must have temperatures way more higher than the Sun. Show me Jupiter having temperatures way above 6000 K.

Share this post


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

Again, why Jupiter (12 km/s) is much colder than the Sun (2 km/s)? Why Saturn (10 km/s) is much colder than the Sun (2 km/s)? Why Uranus (2.5 km/s) is much colder than the Sun (2 km/s)? Why Neptune (2.5 km/s) is much colder than the Sun (2 km/s)?

Do you understand questions?

Now, your claim is that temperature of the stars is due to friction, and, with higher rotational velocities there is more friction. So, Jupiter (according to your theory) must have temperatures way more higher than the Sun. Show me Jupiter having temperatures way above 6000 K.

http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#Heated-objects-(stars)

The mass which creates pressure and the effects of the gravitational forces of Sun are responsible for the melted core. That is the reason why Venus is more warm than Earth and has more active volcanoes, although it is smaller than Earth6.  Therefore, there are convincing and verifiable evidence for the objects to shine. They start shining when they reach a sufficient mass if they are in a distant orbit or are independent, or when they reach a sufficient mass and the effects of the gravitational forces if they are closer to the central object (the most often, to a star). Earlier, people were taught that for an object to become a star, it would be sufficient to reach 10% of Sun's mass. Now, the ever-improving technology is providing more and more new evidence to change that mass level. That mass level has become even more blurred through the discovery of exoplanets and more detailed observation of brown dwarfs, because the mass level was unable to provide the needed answers7. By observing two adjacent objects (so-called binary objects), like Sun-Venus, Earth-Moon, etc, the existence of a strong activity of gravitational forces, combined with the movement of objects in an orbit and rotation of one or both objects  were discovered. (So-called binary system is a rarity; it rarely happens so that there are only two objects in a relation, so this term will be used instead of two concrete objects, like Pluto and Charon, although Pluto has four more satellites.) The speed of rotation of a central object also influences the reduction of mass, for an object to start shining. If there are two stars with the same mass and different speeds of rotation, the star that rotates faster is warmer. These effects are automatically transferred to the orbiting object. It goes the same for such an orbiting object. The faster rotation creates more matter friction inside the object, which results in a higher temperature and stronger magnetic field (if the object has an independent rotation).
It is enough to observe the mass of an object, its relation to other objects, the rotation of an object as well as the rotation of a central object, the composition of an object and the orbital distance to make a valid estimate for every object, without the need for nuclear fusions, fissions and matter combustion.

http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#Reassessment-of-the-old-but-still-employed-theories-of-Universe

Star

Mass Sun 1

Temperature K

HD 149382

0,29-0,53

35.500±500

PG0112+104

0,5

30.000

40 Eridani B

0,5

16.500

Lacaillea 9352 

0,503

3.626

L 97-12

0,59

5.700 ±90

Zeta Cygni B

0,6

12.000

Procion B

0,6

7.740

Van Maanen 2

0,68

6.220

HD 4628

0,7

5.829

G29-38

0,7

11.820

 

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

 

Star

Mass Sun 1

Radius Sun 1

Temperature K

Rotation speed

Arcturus

1,08

25,4

4.286

2,4  km/s

R Doradus

1,2

370± 50

2.740

340 day

HD 220074

1,2

49.7 ± 9.5

3.935

3 km/s

Kappa Persei

1,5

9

4.857

3 km/s

Aldebaran

1,5

44,2

3.910

634 day

Hamal

1,5

14,9

4.480

3,44 km/s

Iota Draconis

1,82

11,99

4.545

1,5 km/s

Pollux

2,04

8,8

4.666

2,8 km/s

Beta Ursae Minoris

2,2

42,6

4.030

8 km/s

Beta Andromedae

3-4

100

3.842

7,2 km/s

Betelgeuse

11,6

887 ±203 

3.590

5 km/s

 

WR 102

19

0,39

210.000

120 km/s

IK Pegasi

1,65

1,6

7.000/35.000

<32,5

Alpha Pegasi

4,72

3,51

9.765

125 km/s

η Aurigae

5,4

3,25

17.201

95 km/s

Eta Ursae Majoris

6,1

3,4

16.823

150 km/s

Spica secondary

6,97

3,64

18.500

87 km/s

Spica primary

10,25

7,7

22.400

199 km/s

Gamma Cassiopeiae

17

10

25.000

432 km/s

Zeta Puppis

22,5 – 56,6

14-26

40.000-44.000

220 km/s

S Monocerotis

29,1

9,9

38.500

120 km/s

Alnilam

30-64,5

28,6-42

27.000

40-70 km/s

Alnitak Aa

33 ± 10

20.0 ± 3.2

29.000

110 ± 10 km/s

 

Etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245

Your own words "the star that rotates faster is warmer."

OK, I'll ask you again: why Jupiter (12 km/s) is much colder than the Sun (2 km/s)? Why Saturn (10 km/s) is much colder than the Sun (2 km/s)? Why Uranus (2.5 km/s) is much colder than the Sun (2 km/s)? Why Neptune (2.5 km/s) is much colder than the Sun (2 km/s)?

Do you understand questions? Even more, do you have mental capacity to understand questions,huh?

Edited by bmk1245

Share this post


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

Your own words "the star that rotates faster is warmer."

OK, I'll ask you again: why Jupiter (12 km/s) is much colder than the Sun (2 km/s)? Why Saturn (10 km/s) is much colder than the Sun (2 km/s)? Why Uranus (2.5 km/s) is much colder than the Sun (2 km/s)? Why Neptune (2.5 km/s) is much colder than the Sun (2 km/s)?

Do you understand questions? Even more, do you have mental capacity to understand questions,huh?

These gaseous planets do not have enough mass. They have small pushing forces (as opposed to Sun). Rotation 12 km / sec is insufficient (falls to slower rotation, see last table).

Observing these planets independently as "those gaseous planets are solid (and solid / melted) objects with impressive atmospheres. There are solid objects with even lower density: Pan 0.42 g / cm3, Atlas 0.46 g / cm3, Pandora 0, 48 g / cm3 - all of them the satellites of Saturn. "

Here, they play a role and other factors in their diversity

 “The conclusion would be that it is a very complex and dynamic pattern related to the processes of objects' creation – it is constantly moving and growing. The complexity of objects is related to the space temperature, the mass of an object and the total sum of tidal forces. Furthermore, the complexity is influenced by the position of an object related to the planet, Sun, as well as the asteroid belt. The important role also belongs to time when object got captured, for how long the object had been near Sun (perihelion) and at what distance.

http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#differences-in -structure

Share this post


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

These gaseous planets do not have enough mass. They have small pushing forces (as opposed to Sun). Rotation 12 km / sec is insufficient (falls to slower rotation, see last table).

Observing these planets independently as "those gaseous planets are solid (and solid / melted) objects with impressive atmospheres. There are solid objects with even lower density: Pan 0.42 g / cm3, Atlas 0.46 g / cm3, Pandora 0, 48 g / cm3 - all of them the satellites of Saturn. "

Here, they play a role and other factors in their diversity

 “The conclusion would be that it is a very complex and dynamic pattern related to the processes of objects' creation – it is constantly moving and growing. The complexity of objects is related to the space temperature, the mass of an object and the total sum of tidal forces. Furthermore, the complexity is influenced by the position of an object related to the planet, Sun, as well as the asteroid belt. The important role also belongs to time when object got captured, for how long the object had been near Sun (perihelion) and at what distance.

http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#differences-in -structure

You claimed that temperature of the stars depends on rotation velocity and friction.

Again: why Jupiter (12 km/s) is much colder than the Sun (2 km/s)? Why Saturn (10 km/s) is much colder than the Sun (2 km/s)? Why Uranus (2.5 km/s) is much colder than the Sun (2 km/s)? Why Neptune (2.5 km/s) is much colder than the Sun (2 km/s)?

WHY JUPITER IS COLDER THAN SUN?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa

Do we have a case of 2 AI's conversing with each other? 

Share this post


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

Do we have a case of 2 AI's conversing with each other? 

Nope, I'm moron trying to converse with i-Fridge.

Fridges, as you know, are getting smarter (in some bizarre ways) day by day....

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Nope, I'm moron trying to converse with i-Fridge.

At least you are a grounded moron with a good sense of humor.  That puts you way ahead.

Share this post


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

You claimed that temperature of the stars depends on rotation velocity and friction.

Again: why Jupiter (12 km/s) is much colder than the Sun (2 km/s)? Why Saturn (10 km/s) is much colder than the Sun (2 km/s)? Why Uranus (2.5 km/s) is much colder than the Sun (2 km/s)? Why Neptune (2.5 km/s) is much colder than the Sun (2 km/s)?

WHY JUPITER IS COLDER THAN SUN?????

 

Discussion is about the star (a body that is hot due to the mass, mass and velocity of rotation, mass, rotation and binary system effects). The planets (small bodies that have not yet fulfilled the conditions of melt of the entire body) are not  jet the star. There is a star planet, see the planet table.

(http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#1growth "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. ...

 If radiation doesn’t exist on Earth, it doesn’t exist on stars either, because the principle needs to be the same. But there is information that the objects, the mass of which exceeds 10% of Sun’s mass, produce glow. The force of attraction is a correction factor to this percentage: if an object is in its orbit closer to a star, the mass of the glowing object is significantly below 10%. That is proved by the vast majority of exoplanets discovered so far (“hot Jupiters”).

Earth shouldn’t be forgotten in this sense; although it hasn’t lost its crust, it is hot. The limit when pressure, due to the mass growth, causes the melting of an object needs to be determined more precisely. Once more, we can determine that the forces of pressure are solely responsible for that; objects are hotter in their centers than closer to surface or on it. The events take place exactly on the place where the forces of pressure are the strongest. It was thought until recently that planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune have cores of frozen liquid hydrogen. Of course, that can’t be true because Jupiter and Neptune emit two times more heat than they receive from Sun – that is a clear evidence of the melted core.")

Edited by Weitter Duckss

Share this post


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

 

Discussion is about the star (a body that is hot due to the mass, mass and velocity of rotation, mass, rotation and binary system effects). The planets (small bodies that have not yet fulfilled the conditions of melt of the entire body) are not  jet the star. There is a star planet, see the planet table.

[...]

More than often you are blabbering about universality, so, again, why Jupiter is way cooler than the Sun?

2 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

 

(http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#1growth "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).[...]

Show me chemical reactions that turn hydrogen into carbon, oxygen, uranium, etc.

2 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

 

[...]

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.

[...]

... and mass loss is about the same amount (~ 100000 tons).

But ok, how much mass Sun gains per year?

2 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

 

[...]

If radiation doesn’t exist on Earth, it doesn’t exist on stars either, because the principle needs to be the same. But there is information that the objects, the mass of which exceeds 10% of Sun’s mass, produce glow. The force of attraction is a correction factor to this percentage: if an object is in its orbit closer to a star, the mass of the glowing object is significantly below 10%. That is proved by the vast majority of exoplanets discovered so far (“hot Jupiters”).

[...]

Radiation does exist on Earth. Lava is radioactive - Thorium 230, Uranium 238, etc, concentartions are in the order of parts per million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245

Just to add one more fact: Sun is losing ~5.5 million tones per second. Now, Weitter, how much stuff falls into the Sun, huh?

Share this post


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

More than often you are blabbering about universality, so, again, why Jupiter is way cooler than the Sun?

Show me chemical reactions that turn hydrogen into carbon, oxygen, uranium, etc.

... and mass loss is about the same amount (~ 100000 tons).

But ok, how much mass Sun gains per year?

Radiation does exist on Earth. Lava is radioactive - Thorium 230, Uranium 238, etc, concentartions are in the order of parts per million.

The law of universality means that the two bodies have the same mass, rotation and binary system effect, then all other values are identical.

If you repeat the same miscalculation many times, you do not become smarter, indeed.

Your nuclear bomb physics is meaningless. I have shown this in the example:

“(- WR 2, type WN4-s, 16 M Sun, temperature 141.000 K; -μ Columbae, type O, mass 16 M of Sun, temperature 33.000 K; –  VY Canis Majoris, type M, mass 17 M of Sun, temperature 3.490 K).”

WR2 has rotation around the axis 500 km/s; μ Columbae 111 km/s; red stars look from the table above (Sun 1.123 km/s).  There is no, your, (universal, bomb, etc.) theory that explains this. I do not need theory, I have proof, that's enough for me.

 You persisted why a quick mouse does not shake the ground or slow an elephant, haloo.

If there are radiation on Earth you urgently publish for volcanologists and people that living alongside volcanoes. It will be a first-rate sensation. They're all stupid, just you're smart.

Share this post


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

The law of universality means that the two bodies have the same mass, rotation and binary system effect, then all other values are identical.

If you repeat the same miscalculation many times, you do not become smarter, indeed.

Your nuclear bomb physics is meaningless. I have shown this in the example:

“(- WR 2, type WN4-s, 16 M Sun, temperature 141.000 K; -μ Columbae, type O, mass 16 M of Sun, temperature 33.000 K; –  VY Canis Majoris, type M, mass 17 M of Sun, temperature 3.490 K).”

WR2 has rotation around the axis 500 km/s; μ Columbae 111 km/s; red stars look from the table above (Sun 1.123 km/s).  There is no, your, (universal, bomb, etc.) theory that explains this. I do not need theory, I have proof, that's enough for me.

 You persisted why a quick mouse does not shake the ground or slow an elephant, haloo.

If there are radiation on Earth you urgently publish for volcanologists and people that living alongside volcanoes. It will be a first-rate sensation. They're all stupid, just you're smart.

Nice try in diverting from issue.

Again. HOW MUCH STUFF FALLS INTO THE SUN EVERY YEAR?

Share this post


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

Your nuclear bomb physics is meaningless.

Have you had time to come up with an explanation for how nuclear weapons work or are they a hoax ?

If you want to be take seriously you really have to start answering our questions with real answers. Saying that nuclear physics is meaningless isn't really usefull if you don't tell why you think so, or atleast come up with an alternative.

Share this post


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

Nice try in diverting from issue.

Again. HOW MUCH STUFF FALLS INTO THE SUN EVERY YEAR?

I've already said, using existing evidence, avoiding guesswork. Until before some day, it was not known that stars attracted matter and poles. I am here, I tried with you to discuss this and it did not work. Only a concrete wall. As we respect that Earth is not the center of the universe, that law of attraction of matter is ubiquitous, then the ratios are valid: the mass and speed of rotation of the Earth / Sun.

6 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Have you had time to come up with an explanation for how nuclear weapons work or are they a hoax ?

If you want to be take seriously you really have to start answering our questions with real answers. Saying that nuclear physics is meaningless isn't really usefull if you don't tell why you think so, or atleast come up with an alternative.

That's what you're trying to imply. My assertions are clear: there is no evidence (there is evidence for the opposite) about the mapping of nuclear bombs in processes in the universe.

I just warn: in the universe there are no bottles, screws, labs ... that create special conditions. Everything happens without interference of humans and supernatural forces.

Share this post


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

I've already said, using existing evidence, avoiding guesswork. Until before some day, it was not known that stars attracted matter and poles. I am here, I tried with you to discuss this and it did not work. Only a concrete wall. As we respect that Earth is not the center of the universe, that law of attraction of matter is ubiquitous, then the ratios are valid: the mass and speed of rotation of the Earth / Sun.

[...]

I'll ask again: how much mass falls into the Sun (per year)? Just give approximate number.

You are throwing word "evidence" more than often, yet you are unable to show actual evidence.

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.