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

Derek Willis
4 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

Wonderfully.  ?Today laws allow theft and legalize everything that was acquired by theft. Should all be excited when they gain the benefit of stolen things? Who normal, glorify thieves? Maybe Hubbell (Theory of Expansion of the Universe)?

Weitter, you should check your facts. In 1608 Hans Lippershey - a German optician who had settled in Middelberg - applied for a patent regarding his "viewing tube". However, the application was turned down because a number of other people were also known to have been making what we now call refracting telescopes at the same time. Lippershey's patent application was mentioned in a circular sent to all the Dutch embassies throughout Europe, and this is how Galileo and other scientists learned about it.

So you see, Galileo didn't steal the idea for the telescope. By 1609 many scientists already knew of its invention, and that no patent had been granted. The idea for the telescope was, as we would now say, in the public domain. As I said above, Galileo mentioned his excitement when he learned of the viewing tube made by the optician in Flanders. If he was going to steal the idea, don't you think he would have kept quiet?

Yet again you demonstrate your ability to write something without carrying out even the most basic research. That might be why some of Galileo's texts are - four hundred years later - still the official texts. Whereas your texts are, and always will be, nothing more than a source of amusement and bemusement.

Share this post


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

It is an irony Weitter chose to mention Galileo, a man to whom truth an integrity mattered. So much so he would only recant his "blasphemy" when shown the instruments of torture, and who spent the remainder of his life under house arrest. And who indeed - had Weitter bothered to look it up - described his excitement when he learned about a "viewing tube" made by an optician in Flanders.

Derek Willis

 

You are badly informed. Hans Lippershey (from Holland is) brought a telescope that offer (for) the Navy. Galileo requested and got sketches (for checking). In the short interval (until the scheduled date), he made improvements and introduced himself as his invention.. Pure abuse of authority and position and classical theft (see documentary film about that).

 

bmk1245

 

Report theft, please. You have to learn (you know it, but ...) to distinguish creative work and innovations from theft.

Several examples of binary systems

Star

Mass Sun 1

Temperature K

Sirius A

2,02

9.940

Sirius B

0,978

25.200

 

Alpha Crucis α1

17,8±6,05

24.000

Alpha Crucis α2

15,52

28.000

 

Epsilon Aurigae A

2,2-15

7.750

Epsilon Aurigae B

6-14

15.000

 

Procion A

1,499

6.350

Procion B

0,602

7.740

 

Castor A

2,76

10.286

Castor B

2,98

8.842

Castor C

0,5992

3.820

 

Share this post


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

You are badly informed. Hans Lippershey (from Holland is) brought a telescope that offer (for) the Navy. Galileo requested and got sketches (for checking). In the short interval (until the scheduled date), he made improvements and introduced himself as his invention.. Pure abuse of authority and position and classical theft (see documentary film about that).

Can you provide a link to the documentary please.

Here is a quote from a letter written by Galileo to his brother-in-law, dated 29 August 1609, and cited in The Ascent of Man, a book by Jacob Bronowski:

"You must know, then, that it is nearly two months since news was spread here that in Flanders there has been presented to Count Maurice a spy-glass, made in such a way that very distant things are made to look quite close, so that a man two miles away, can be distinctly seen."

Weitter, why don't you look this up?

Galileo didn't request and receive sketches. Once he was given the clue he worked it out for himself. In his letter he goes on to say:

"This seemed to me so marvellous an effect that it gave me occasion for thought; and it appeared to me that it must be founded on the science of perspective. I undertook to think about its fabrication."

Weitter, produce a link to the documentary, or admit you are making this up to hide your own ignorance.

And by the way, the letter from Paulo Sarpi is now known to have been written later than it is dated, in an attempt by Sarpi to claim the telescope was a "Protestant" rather than "Catholic" invention.

Edited by Derek Willis

Share this post


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

Can you provide a link to the documentary please.

Here is a quote from a letter written by Galileo to his brother-in-law, dated 29 August 1609, and cited in The Ascent of Man, a book by Jacob Bronowski:

"You must know, then, that it is nearly two months since news was spread here that in Flanders there has been presented to Count Maurice a spy-glass, made in such a way that very distant things are made to look quite close, so that a man two miles away, can be distinctly seen."

Weitter, why don't you look this up?

Galileo didn't request and receive sketches. Once he was given the clue he worked it out for himself. In his letter he goes on to say:

"This seemed to me so marvellous an effect that it gave me occasion for thought; and it appeared to me that it must be founded on the science of perspective. I undertook to think about its fabrication."

Weitter, produce a link to the documentary, or admit you are making this up to hide your own ignorance.

And by the way, the letter from Paulo Sarpi is now known to have been written later than it is dated, in an attempt by Sarpi to claim the telescope was a "Protestant" rather than "Catholic" invention.

Unfortunately I can not, I do not specify films. Only National Geographic and this year.
Invention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_telescope#Invention

220px-Lipperhey.jpg
 
Notes on Hans Lipperhey's unsuccessfully requested a patent on the telescope in 1608

The first record of a telescope comes from the Netherlands in 1608. It is in a patent filed by Middelburg spectacle-maker Hans Lippershey with the States General of the Netherlandson 2 October 1608 for his instrument "for seeing things far away as if they were nearby".[12] A few weeks later another Dutch instrument-maker, Jacob Metius also applied for a patent. The States General did not award a patent since the knowledge of the device already seemed to be ubiquitous[13][14] but the Dutch government awarded Lippershey with a contract for copies of his design.

Share this post


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

Unfortunately I can not, I do not specify films. Only National Geographic and this year.
Invention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_telescope#Invention

220px-Lipperhey.jpg
 
Notes on Hans Lipperhey's unsuccessfully requested a patent on the telescope in 1608

The first record of a telescope comes from the Netherlands in 1608. It is in a patent filed by Middelburg spectacle-maker Hans Lippershey with the States General of the Netherlandson 2 October 1608 for his instrument "for seeing things far away as if they were nearby".[12] A few weeks later another Dutch instrument-maker, Jacob Metius also applied for a patent. The States General did not award a patent since the knowledge of the device already seemed to be ubiquitous[13][14] but the Dutch government awarded Lippershey with a contract for copies of his design.

Weitter, you said I should look at a documentary film to confirm what you claimed about Galileo stealing the idea of the telescope. Now you say you do not specify films. I can only conclude that you "invented" the documentary. I already explained that Lippershey didn't receive a patent, and that was because the telescope was already in the public domain. You are simply making things up to to try and hide your ignorance of this matter. That really is deplorable. 

Share this post


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

Weitter, you said I should look at a documentary film to confirm what you claimed about Galileo stealing the idea of the telescope. Now you say you do not specify films. I can only conclude that you "invented" the documentary. I already explained that Lippershey didn't receive a patent, and that was because the telescope was already in the public domain. You are simply making things up to to try and hide your ignorance of this matter. That really is deplorable. 

 

First, I gave the link for a clear demo, that Galileo invented a telescope.

Secondly, it can be seen that the Netherlands is the land of the telescope and the link of Galilee with the Netherlands.

Thirdly, I gave who published the movie film and when.

And without the film it is clear that the lie is that Galileo has invented a telescope as you claim.

 

Galileo's telescope

 

The original Dutch telescopes were composed of a convex and a concave lens, as this construction did not invert the image. Lippershey's original design had only a 3x magnification, which was improved by Galileo the following year. Galileo had heard of the "Dutch perspective glass" by means of which distant objects appeared nearer and larger and states that he solved the problem of the construction of a telescope in one night. A few days afterwards, having succeeded in making a better telescope than the first, he took it to Venice where he communicated the details of his invention to the public and presented the instrument itself to the Senate. Galileo may thus claim to have invented the telescope independently, although Galileo's immense improvement of the instrument overshadowed to a great degree the credit due to Lippershey as the original inventor.

Mark the text to appear

http://www.history-of-the-microscope.org/hans-lippershey-invented-the-telescope.php

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

 It does not matter what history is today filled with thieves. It is important that it continues to exist as an official knowledge and not removed from the literature. The readers are deliberately misled.

There is constant looting in the act, which is a desirable act. Why is odd odd that plagiarism is generally present?

Edited by Weitter Duckss

Share this post


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

 

First, I gave the link for a clear demo, that Galileo invented a telescope.

Secondly, it can be seen that the Netherlands is the land of the telescope and the link of Galilee with the Netherlands.

Thirdly, I gave who published the movie film and when.

And without the film it is clear that the lie is that Galileo has invented a telescope as you claim.

s the original inventor

http://www.history-of-the-microscope.org/hans-lippershey-invented-the-telescope.php

 

So you are saying the documentary appeared on National Geographic? Alright, I will see if I can find it.

In the bold letters you seem to be saying that I claimed Galileo invented the telescope. I made no such claim. It was YOU who made that claim.

So, are you saying it was Galileo who invented the telescope, or are you now saying it was Lippershey? The link you have provided says Lippershey applied for a patent but was refused because other telescopes were already in existence. I already told you that.

How is you can't understand this? And as I demonstrated, in his letter Galileo mentioned the "spy glass" in Flanders. Hence, Galileo's own words say he did not invent the telescope. And if he mentioned the spy glass in Flanders, how can you say he "stole" it? If no one was able to gain a patent, that means the telescope was in the public domain and Galileo was free to make his own.

Why don't you just admit you were wrong about this?

Edit: I might spend some time looking for the documentary. However here is a link to a National Geographic article. This describes how Galileo heard about the telescope made by Lippershey. This is what I and others have said. So are you saying National Geographic would say this in an article, but something totally different in the documentary?

https://voices.nationalgeographic.org/2011/05/25/brief-history-of-the-astronomical-telescope-i-galileo-galilei/

 

 

Edited by Derek Willis

Share this post


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

 It does not matter what history is today filled with thieves. It is important that it continues to exist as an official knowledge and not removed from the literature. The readers are deliberately misled.

There is constant looting in the act, which is a desirable act. Why is odd odd that plagiarism is generally present?

I think you can rest securely in the knowledge that no one will steal your ideas. :whistle:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
On 12/8/2017 at 4:37 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

bmk1245

 

Report theft, please...

Already did. Right here, in this thread.

On 12/8/2017 at 4:37 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

 You have to learn (you know it, but ...) to distinguish creative work and innovations from theft.

There is nothing creative in copy/pasting.

On 12/8/2017 at 4:37 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

Several examples of binary systems

[...]

OK, how much energy Sirius A radiates due to:

1) mass;

2) rotation speed;

3) binary effects?

Share this post


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

OK, how much energy Sirius A radiates due to:

1) mass;

2) rotation speed;

3) binary effects?

Mass of Sirius is larger than the body in the offered tables. So, it shines because it satisfies the mass. The difference between (1,600 °) 1,800 ° K and 9,940 ° K generates rotation speed and binary effects (8.2 and 31.5 AU ...).

This is original and does not exist anywhere else.

 

Derek Willis

Read the rehearsals on the offered links. and you, put a point on that matter.

It is completely unimportant to me: who has invented and invented it. I am not, and it is not my theme.

I passed the information. I always support the information. Both good and wrong lead to the right conclusion. You take or leave.

 

Noteverythingisaconspiracy

You quickly forget. I started publishing in the expectation that I would stop plagiarizing parts of my texts. We talked about this and in this topic. In the beginning of the publication there was no link. the color of the star with rotation. not anywhere mention the growth of the body (steady growth). nobody considered it necessary to discuss the bodies coming to the stars and the consequences. ... see articles on my website.

All the stuff on these topics is classic plagiarism. That's why I said (seriously and in jest) that will, all the articles, be only a pale copy of my texts, which merits today steal second "scientists".

At the end of the article http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#Where-is-the-truth-about-Big-Bang-theory some of the examples of my fight with windmills.

Share this post


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

Mass of Sirius is larger than the body in the offered tables. So, it shines because it satisfies the mass. The difference between (1,600 °) 1,800 ° K and 9,940 ° K generates rotation speed and binary effects (8.2 and 31.5 AU ...).

This is original and does not exist anywhere else.

[...]

Thats nonanswer.

Sirius A radiates ~1028 J/s. How much of it comes from:

1) mass (in J/s);

2) rotation speed (in J/s);

3) "binary effects" (in J/s)?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Derek Willis

Read the rehearsals on the offered links. and you, put a point on that matter.

It is completely unimportant to me: who has invented and invented it. I am not, and it is not my theme.

I passed the information. I always support the information. Both good and wrong lead to the right conclusion. You take or leave.

 

I suppose this is as close an admission as we will get that Weitter doesn't have a clue what he is talking about either on the history of science or on science itself.

Share this post


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

[...]

You quickly forget. I started publishing in the expectation that I would stop plagiarizing parts of my texts. We talked about this and in this topic. In the beginning of the publication there was no link. the color of the star with rotation. [...]

Paper published back in 1965 (and references therein) proves that you are liar, pathetic, ignorant liar.

Share this post


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

Paper published back in 1965 (and references therein) proves that you are liar, pathetic, ignorant liar.

 

Your link

“we do not encounter the abdunance.-induced changes in the color and magnitudes  of field stars. having oterwise the some liminosities and surface temperatures.

Recently, the rotational velocities of virtually all Hyades star have been determined  to spectral type G0 V. and cluster membership is well delineated from studies of proper motions and radial velocities ..”

 answer others scientists, not mine

 “The discussion could be much simplified if it were not necessary to test the efficacy of the theoretical development by referring to observations. Unfortunately, such a comparison is necessary and the results are at the moment somewhat inconclusive. This unhappy situation arises from the retrospectively obvious fact that axial rotation does not play a dominant role in determining the directly observable properties of stars. Indeed, if rotation were a dominant factor, earlier attempts at describing stellar structure and evolution would have met with little success. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that the structure and final evolution of highly evolved stars are greatly influenced by the total angular momentum which they retain from their earlier history. In order to understand the angular momentum distribution present in the final state, it is necessary to understand the effects of stellar evolution on the total angular momentum and its distribution.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/

My text

The temperature of stars is directly related to the speed of its rotation. Those with slower rotation are red, while with the increase of the rotation speed, also increases the glow and temperature of a star. As a consequence, it turns white and blue. If we consult the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, it is obvious that both very small and super giant stars can have the same glow; they can be white, red or blue. The mass and quantity of so-called fuel that they supposedly burn is obviously an unacceptable answer – there are stars of the same mass, or sizes, but with a completely different glow. If we were to try to explain that by the presence of different elements, it would make no sense. Diversity of elements depends exactly on the temperature heights: the higher the temperature, the lower the diversity and order of elements. Etc. http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#1growth

diagram

Share this post


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

I suppose this is as close an admission as we will get that Weitter doesn't have a clue what he is talking about either on the history of science or on science itself.

When you have the data as much as I (about this), equally we'll talk. We are now spending space `without a connection´.

Share this post


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

 

Your link

“we do not encounter the abdunance.-induced changes in the color and magnitudes  of field stars. having oterwise the some liminosities and surface temperatures.

Recently, the rotational velocities of virtually all Hyades star have been determined  to spectral type G0 V. and cluster membership is well delineated from studies of proper motions and radial velocities ..”

 [...]

So, you've managed to read just one page out of 9?! Not to mention that you obviously misunderstood what you quoted. READ WHOLE PAPER AND PAPERS REFERRED THEREIN, for f's sake!

1 hour ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

 “The discussion could be much simplified if it were not necessary to test the efficacy of the theoretical development by referring to observations. Unfortunately, such a comparison is necessary and the results are at the moment somewhat inconclusive. This unhappy situation arises from the retrospectively obvious fact that axial rotation does not play a dominant role in determining the directly observable properties of stars. Indeed, if rotation were a dominant factor, earlier attempts at describing stellar structure and evolution would have met with little success. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that the structure and final evolution of highly evolved stars are greatly influenced by the total angular momentum which they retain from their earlier history. In order to understand the angular momentum distribution present in the final state, it is necessary to understand the effects of stellar evolution on the total angular momentum and its distribution.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/

[...]

Thats just introduction (and I'm 100% sure you are clueless what it is about). Have you read whole paper? I guess not.

Here is what you would have found in conclusions, if you would have managed to read whole paper:

Quote

Considering the uncertainties present in the theory and the difficulties encountered in observing second-order effects, it appears that excellent agreement now exists between theory and observation at least on a qualitative basis.

(emphasis mine)

 

1 hour ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

The temperature of stars is directly related to the speed of its rotation. Those with slower rotation are red, while with the increase of the rotation speed, also increases the glow and temperature of a star. As a consequence, it turns white and blue. If we consult the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, it is obvious that both very small and super giant stars can have the same glow; they can be white, red or blue. The mass and quantity of so-called fuel that they supposedly burn is obviously an unacceptable answer – there are stars of the same mass, or sizes, but with a completely different glow. If we were to try to explain that by the presence of different elements, it would make no sense. Diversity of elements depends exactly on the temperature heights: the higher the temperature, the lower the diversity and order of elements. Etc. http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#1growth

<snip>

That brings back question I posted earlier. 

Sirius A radiates ~1028 J/s. How much of it comes from:

1) mass (in J/s);

2) rotation speed (in J/s);

3) "binary effects" (in J/s)?

 

PS the fact that you've been banned from Croatian forum, means only one thing - you don't make sense even in your native language...

Share this post


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

So, you've managed to read just one page out of 9?! Not to mention that you obviously misunderstood what you quoted. READ WHOLE PAPER AND PAPERS REFERRED THEREIN, for f's sake!

Thats just introduction (and I'm 100% sure you are clueless what it is about). Have you read whole paper? I guess not.

Here is what you would have found in conclusions, if you would have managed to read whole paper:

(emphasis mine)

 

That brings back question I posted earlier. 

Sirius A radiates ~1028 J/s. How much of it comes from:

1) mass (in J/s);

2) rotation speed (in J/s);

3) "binary effects" (in J/s)?

 

PS the fact that you've been banned from Croatian forum, means only one thing - you don't make sense even in your native language...

 

Although the two of us are on the opposite sides of the arena, however, enough, we understand each other.

You realize that I'm making detaljističke estimates. I work framework, within a large number of (available) data.

Here there is a problem about which we had the theme:

Can we believe in data of measurements?

„Dysnomia, the moon of Eris, is beyond our abilities to acquire data in a credible way (that is obvious when talking about the less distant object of Haumea), but it should not be forgotten that nowadays scientists introduce, with "a high probability“, "relevant“ data for the exoplanets that are tens and thousands of light-years away. Therefore, the measurements are unreliable and should be treated as such, i.e., with caution.“ http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#working-temperatures-of-elements

 Size and mass of very large stars: Most massive example, VY Canis Majoris (17 ± 8 M). Others are Rho Cassiopeiae (14-30 M), Betelgeuse (11.6 ± 5.0 M), and the blue Pistol Star (27.5 M). The Sun (1 M) Wikipedia

 300px-Well-known_stars.png

"A Beautiful Example" of Mathematics and Logic! Great mass has a small volume and vice versa. No wonder what about the density circulating fairy tale.

 

 

 

Edited by Weitter Duckss

Share this post


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

[...]

You realize that I'm making detaljističke estimates. I work framework, within a large number of (available) data.

[...]

I don't care about your lame excuses. You are making claims that stellar evolution theory is wrong, you are making claims that your "theory" explains almost everything about stars, so put up, or shut up.

If you are making detailed estimations, lets try again: we have star with mass 0.7MSun. Estimate in "detaljističke" way temperature of this star, if it rotates at 2 km/s, and 35 km/s.

 

1 hour ago, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

Here there is a problem about which we had the theme:

Can we believe in data of measurements?

„Dysnomia, the moon of Eris, is beyond our abilities to acquire data in a credible way (that is obvious when talking about the less distant object of Haumea), but it should not be forgotten that nowadays scientists introduce, with "a high probability“, "relevant“ data for the exoplanets that are tens and thousands of light-years away. Therefore, the measurements are unreliable and should be treated as such, i.e., with caution.“ http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#working-temperatures-of-elements

 Size and mass of very large stars: Most massive example, VY Canis Majoris (17 ± 8 M). Others are Rho Cassiopeiae (14-30 M), Betelgeuse (11.6 ± 5.0 M), and the blue Pistol Star (27.5 M). The Sun (1 M) Wikipedia

 300px-Well-known_stars.png

"A Beautiful Example" of Mathematics and Logic! Great mass has a small volume and vice versa. No wonder what about the density circulating fairy tale. 

So, now you don't trust measurements, while building your "theory" on the same measurements?! Thats hilarious! More hilarious than your ignorance about measurements and estimations of the properties of exoplanets...

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I don't care about your lame excuses. You are making claims that stellar evolution theory is wrong, you are making claims that your "theory" explains almost everything about stars, so put up, or shut up.

If you are making detailed estimations, lets try again: we have star with mass 0.7MSun. Estimate in "detaljističke" way temperature of this star, if it rotates at 2 km/s, and 35 km/s.

 

So, now you don't trust measurements, while building your "theory" on the same measurements?! Thats hilarious! More hilarious than your ignorance about measurements and estimations of the properties of exoplanets...

I build my "theory" on universal principles that are not dependent on wrong measurements due to fallacy of the old theory. I look at all the results with a great reserve.

For discussion I use official results for negating old claims. Errors and inconsistencies, only you, can be removed, building the relationship of a series of their evidence.

This does not crashes my texts, only the old misconceptions.

The article is from the beginning of the fifth month. Not published as a theme here, just Annexes "Can we believe and data of measurements?". It's not fair that I sometimes do not have the advantage. Now I am correcting a deliberate mistake.

 

 Reassessment of the old but still employed theories of Universe through database checking

  The goal of the article is to reassess, exclusively with the evidence from the available databases, old but nowadays dominant theories of star evolution, thermonuclear combustion (fusion) of matter needed for the heat of stars, the effect of the gas cloud collapse speed to the temperature and age of stars.
-The starting basics are that mass directly defines the temperature of a star.
Big stars / small bodies

Star

Radius Sun 1

Temperature K

S Cassiopeiae 

930

1.800

CW Leonis

700

2.200

To the opposite

Star

Mass M Sun

Temperature K

2M1207

~0,025

2550 ± 150

Teide 1

0,052

2600 ± 150

VHS 1256-1257

0,07-0,015

2.620 ± 140

Van Biesbroeck's star

0,075>

2.600

DENIS 1048-1039

0,075>

2.200

Teegarden's Star

0,08

2.637

DX Cancri

0,09

2.840

TVLM 513-46546

0,09

2.500

Wolf 359

0,09

2,800 ± 100

All stars from  List of the largest stars with their radius over 700 R of Sun are having the temperatures between 1.800 and 5.100°K and are cold stars, mostly of M class.
-(big stars)/to the opposite, there is a star and brown dwarfs that are distant from their main star (100 -740 AU) and that rules out the influence of the star on the temperature of the planet or brown dwarf. (Planets shine by reflected light; stars shine by producing their own light)

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 flagrant examples that show that an object's mass is not the one that causes different temperatures of stars or other objects and that mass is not directly related to the great differences in the objects' temperatures. 
-If we look at the stars with the similar masses  (0,5 do 0,7 M Sun …)

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

 

Sun

1

5.772

Sirius B

0,98

25.200

Gamma Piscium

1,03

4.885

Arcturus

1,08

4.286

 

VX Sagittarii

12

2.400 – 3.300

Antares

12,4

3.400

E Canis Majoris

12,6

22.900

 

μ Columbae

16

33.000

WR 2

16

141.000

VY Canis Majoris

17

3.490

Α Crucis α1

17,8

24.000

 

WR 102

19

210.000

WR 134

19

63.100

Deneb

19

8.525

η Canis Majores

19,19

15.000

Mu Cephei

19,2

3.750

HD 21389

19,3

9.730

 

WR 46

25

112.000

S Monocerotis 

29,1

38.500

 

MU Normea

33,3

28.500

QU Normea

43

17.000

NML Cygni

50

3.834

 

Several examples of binary systems

Star

Mass Sun 1

Temperature K

Sirius A

2,02

9.940

Sirius B

0,978

25.200

 

Alpha Crucis α1

17,8+6,05

24.000

Alpha Crucis α2

15,52

28.000

 

Epsilon Aurigae A

2,2-15

7.750

Epsilon Aurigae B

6-14

15.000

 

Procion A

1,499

6.350

Procion B

0,602

7.740

 

Castor A

2,76

10.286

Castor B

2,98

8.842

Castor C

0,5992

3.820

 

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).  
Based on these examples of the same masses and different temperatures, it can be ruled out that thermonuclear reaction inside a star is the cause of its temperature level. Same or similar levels of mass and identical chemical composition of stars should produce the same amount of thermonuclear fusion of matter and consequently the same or similar level of temperature. These examples prove the opposite, i.e., that this is not the case.
It can be determined in the same way that the age of stars is not related to the level of temperature. Similar mass inside the gas cloud of the similar chemical composition like that of stars should abide by the same principles, mass, stellar system, identical chemical composition of the planets around that star, etc.; the examples show the failure to abide by these (or any other) rules.
  
-The following examples connect mass, radius and temperature.

Star

Mass Sun 1

Raius Sun 1

Temperature K

Bellatrix

8,6

5,75

22.000

Alnitak Ab

14 ± 3

7,3 ± 1,0

29.000

Alnitak B

16

7,2

29.000

Alnitak Aa

33 ± 10

20,0 ± 3,2

29.500 ± 1000 

EZ Canis Majoris 

19

2,65

89.100

AB7 WR

23

3,4

105.000

MU Normea

40

25

28.500

AB7 O

44

14

36.000

Melnick 42

189

21,1

47.300

R136a1

315

28.8-35.4

53.000 ± 3000

 

 

UY Scuti

7-10

1.708 ±192

3.365

Betelgeuse

11,6

887 ±203 

3.590

VX Sagittarii

12

1.350–1.940

2.400-3.300

Antares

12,4

883

3.400

VY Canis Majoris

17

1.420 ±120

3.490

V602 Carinae

17,7

1.050

3.432

VV Cephei A

18,2

1.050

3.826

Mu Cephei

19,2

1.260

3.750

WOH G64

<25

1.540

3.200

NML Cygni

50

1.183

3.834

If in a relation of mass/radius (Sun = 1), mass exceeds a radius, then the temperatures will be higher, and on the opposite: if a radius exceeds mass, the temperatures are lower.   
-When the rotation around the axis is introduced into the analysis 
„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.“
The sample of the analyzed blue stars in this article consists of more than  3.700 units.

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

A star’s rotation around the axis is related to its radius. The faster the rotation is, the smaller is the radius, i.e., the diameter of a star gets smaller with the increase of the rotation speed.   
The higher speed of the rotation around its axis and smaller stellar radius are related to the higher temperatures (and higher surface gravity), and the opposite: the lower speeds of rotation enable bigger stellar diameters, lesser amounts of friction and the pressure to the surface and they also create lower temperatures. 

Higher or lower stelar density is a product of the relation mass/stellar radius. There are higher and lower limits of density. Matter constantly tends to be less dense ( Sun 1,408 g/cm3); from the total amount of starsin Milky Way, 96,15% are the stars of the classes M, K and G with low temperatures, up to ~ 6.000 K. Very small, even insignificant part of them are extremely hot, hot and warm stars, 3,85% (class O making only ~0,00003%) and with the white dwarfs probably following this percentage.  
It should not be recommended to reduce the analysis of the influence of factors to the stars on mass, radius, temperature and the rotation of object around the axis in this reassessment of the old theories, because an inexact impression of the statistical analysis of the other objects may occur. This article should be used only as a quick approximate tool of star positioning, as a kind of control when determining a measurement and, if there are deviations, the cause of deviations must be determined or the measurement should be repeated. 
Temperature and radiance are also affected by the tidal forces from the bigger or smaller binary effect, environment, the density of gas (layers) between the observer and a star, the speed of outer matter influx to the object, especially into a whirl or cyclone on the poles of a star (over 140 tons of space matter is falling daily to the surface of Earth), different sums of the mass and rotation effects to the small and big stars.  
If we check the data of the objects' masses, we can see that independent objects with a bigger mass have a higher temperature, but the level of temperature is limited (
S Cassiopeiae 3,5-10 M Sun,  Radius 930   R Sun, Temperature 1.800 K) and it is more notable in smaller objects, which are in the phase of melting and changing into a star. ..    
Databases used here: Wikipedia, Wikiwand, exoplanet.eu, openexoplanetcatalogue and other sources used by these encyclopedias etc.

27.04.2017. g.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Willis

How many more times do we have to see these lists of stars!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
3 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

How many more times do we have to see these lists of stars!

Everytime we ask him a question he can't answer.......... So in short: Everytime. :rolleyes:

Share this post


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

How many more times do we have to see these lists of stars!

Repeating is the mother of knowledge.
Still, if you've been tracking, all the tables are different, the stars are repeating very little.
The whole list is used.
In short, the official "evolution" of the star is observed.
The first part looks at the same mass of stars with a wide range of temperatures. In the end, all the tables, affect one in common, which is the cross section of all others. I was looking for a long time, but I did not find the truth in official positions. You have the truth, now just use it for the general good and open completely new ones. paths in science universe.

Noteverythingisaconspiracy
You searched for evidence. Why weep now?

Share this post


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

Repeating is the mother of knowledge.

No. Real science is the mother of knowledge. Repeating is what politicians and propagandists do. They believe that if you repeat something often enough, no matter how untrue it is, people will eventually believe it.

Share this post


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

<snip> 

Once again, thats not answer.

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

Share this post


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

No. Real science is the mother of knowledge. Repeating is what politicians and propagandists do. They believe that if you repeat something often enough, no matter how untrue it is, people will eventually believe it.

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

 

 

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.