Report: White dwarfs is small stars

[Weitter Duckss 34]

White dwarfs (small stars) are not White Dwarfs

Author: Weitter Duckss

Croatian        Pусский

Summary

In order to determine the density of white dwarfs I used a database and created several relations, such as mass/radius of different star types, to create comparable data.  The results acquired in such a way reveal a real image, which is impossible to perceive if analysing only a small or limited quantity of stars and other objects. It doesn't work without a larger sequence of relations of different parameters.

The research represents the interweaving of data for white dwarfs and other hot stars when indicators start displaying comparable results. In these relations the values of rotation, the percentage of the objects orbiting around a central object and the explanation how different speeds of rotation, if unused, influence the irregular derivation of the gravitational results. Some other factors, essential in creating real values in astrophysics, are also analyzed here. The text is designated for all kinds of readers, independently of their levels and sorts of education.

Keywords: White Dwarfs; hot stars;  rotation speed

1. Introduction

The article analyses several parameters, included in several relations, based on which real data representing white dwarfs could be created, in the terms of their real density and some other factors that ascribe white dwarfs into that type of the celestial objects. There are more than 170 links in 10 tables, leading towards the database, in which a reader can check the source of information (reference). The goal of this is not to dispute or to support the mainstream points of view, but to introduce real data checking, which is available these days in the form of the official scientific measuring. The topic on matter is not limited to white dwarfs, but it rather analyzes all star types and the centers of galaxies.

2. Determining the density of white dwarfs and "normal" hot stars  

I use the existing databases in providing evidence to support or dispute the existence of extreme densities of stars and other objects. All evidence are related to the source of information through one or several steps. [1]

The method to acquire reliable data is to create a sequence of relations from the official measuring results, carried out and obtained on the same place and without the possibility to manipulate the results. The selection of evidence to be analyzed is as it is, because generally there are no cumulative data (temperature, mass, radius, luminosity, etc.) for a large number of objects. A part of the evidence are here on purpose, to be relevant and comparable inside the relations. The data from the relations are intended to cover the whole diapason of values: mass, radius, temperature, etc. A single object of a certain type is never an object of analysis, not even in a single case. If based on particular cases, the conclusions tend to be opposite to the real situation.

The claim that white dwarfs have an extreme density (...):

Quote: An Earth-sized white dwarf has a density of 1 x 10⁹ kg/m³. Earth itself has an average density of only 5,4 x 10³ kg/m³. That means a white dwarf is 200.000 times as dense. This makes white dwarfs one of the densest collections of matter, surpassed only by neutron stars. [2]

Firm observational evidence and well-founded theoretical understanding both exist for two classes of compact objects which support themselves against collapse by cold, degenerate fermion pressure: white dwarfs, whose interiors resemble a very dense solid, with an ion lattice surrounded by degenerate electrons, and neutron stars, whose cores resemble a giant atomic nucleus - a mixture of interacting nucleons and electrons, and possibly other elementary particles and condensates. White dwarfs are supported by the pressure of degenerate electrons, while neutron stars ∗also Department of Astronomy and National Center for Supercomputing Applicaions, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801 1 are supported by pressure due to a combination of nucleon degeneracy and nuclear interactions. (References: 75) end quote, [3]

It will be checked whether the relation  of mass and radius between white dwarfs and "normal" hot stars  is extremely different.  

Table 1. The observation of the parallel indicators of mass, radius, temperature and surface gravity

Star	Mass (M☉)	Radius	Mass/Radius	Temperature K	Surface gravity cgs
White Dwarf („Not normal“ hot stars „extremely dense“)
LP 40-365  [1]	0,14	0,078	1,8	10.000	5,80
IK Pegasi B	1,15	0,60 (0,72)	1,92	35.500 ± 1.500	8,95
PSR J0348 + 0432	0,172	0,065	2,65	/	/
Z Andromedae	0,75	0,17  –  0,36	4,41 – 2,08	90.000  –  150.000	/
KOI-74b	0,22	0,043	5,12	12.700	/
WD J0651 + 2844	0,26	0,0371	7	16.530	/
AG Pegasi	0,6	0,08 – 16	7,5– 0,0375	10.000 – 100.000	6,0
HD 149382	0,486	0,0345	14,09	56.300	/
NN Serpentis	0,535	0,0211	25,36	57.000 ± 3.000	7,47 ± 0,01
G 240-72	0,81	0,00984	82,32	5.590 ± 90	8,36 ± 0,02
Sirius B	1,018	0,0084± 3%	121,19	25.000 ± 200	8,57
Normal hot stars
AB7	44	14	3,14	36.000	3,6
AB8 „O“	61	14	4,36	45.000	4,0
HD 93250	83,3 (65)	15,9	5,24	46.000	3,96
BAT99-98	226	37,5	6,03	45.000	/
VFTS 682	137,8	20,2	6,82	54.450 ± 1.960	/
HD 269810	130	18	7,22	52.500	4,0
BI 253	84	10,7	7,85	50.100	4,2
R136a2	195	23,4	8,33	53.000	/
AB8A	19	2	9,5	45.000	4,0
Melnick 42	189	21,1	9,96	47.300	3,9
HD 56925	13	1,26	10,32	112.000	/
R136c	230	18,4	12,5	51.000	/
WR 102	16,7	0,52	32,12	210.000	/
WR 142	28,6	0,80	35,75	200.000	/

Table 1. Relationshift: Mass/radius, temperature and surface gravity

White Dwarf LP 40-365, IK Pegasi B, PSR J0348 + 0432, Z Andromedae, KOI-74b , WD J0651 + 2844, AG Pegasi, HD 149382, HD 149382 and  NN Serpentis have the relation of mass/radius (Sun = 1) from 1,8 to 25,36.

Normal hot stars AB7 , to R136c have the relation from 3,14 to 12,5. Only typical members of these groups are inside these two relations. The data point out, beyond any doubt, that both groups, white dwarfs and normal hot stars are almost identical in terms of density. 

In both of these groups there are objects with very high temperatures (white dwarfs from under 10.000 (4.270 ± 70 Gliese 223.2) to 200.000°K (H1504 + 65, 200.000°K) [4] [5]  (310.000 °K PSR B0943 + 10) like normal hot stars and with high values of surface gravity (white dwarfs 5,80 to 8,95, Normal hot stars around 4 cgs).

Luminosity of white dwarfs is from 0,0005 L☉ (LP 40-365), (0,000085 L☉ G 240-72, 0,056 L☉ Sirius B) to 880 L☉ (Z Andromedae).  

Luminosity of normal hot stars is from 229.000 L☉ (HD 56925) to 708.000 L_☉ (AB7)  5,623.000 L☉ (R136c).

The claim of extreme densities and the existence of supernatural white dwarfs and other hypothetical dense objects (Their average density is about 1,000.000 times denser than the density of the Sun. A single sugar cube sized amount of white dwarf would weigh about 1 tonne. [6]) can't be reliably verified.  Hot stars can be small, medium and large. Their density is similar, according to the determined standards of mass/radius. The data of the relation mass/radius (Sun=1), 1,8 do 25,36, gives no indications of density which equals to 1,000.000 ☉.

2.1. White Dwarfs vs. other types of stars with an emphasis on the speed of rotation

Now, let's determine which basic forces give stars different values of temperature,  luminosity, the relation of mass/radius and the value of surface gravity.

Table 2. The relation (of the section of main star types) of rotation, mass, radius, temperature and type

Star	Speed rotation		Maas Sun=1	Radius Sun=1	Temperature K	Type
White Dwarf
GD 356	115	minutes	0,67	/	7.510,0	white dwarf
EX Hydrae	67	minutes	0.55 ± 0.15	/	/	white dwarf
AR Scorpii A	1,95	minutes	0,81 – 1,29	/	/	white dwarf pulsar
V455 Andromedae	67,62	second	0,6	/	/	white dwarf
RX J0648.0-4418	13	second	1,3	/	/	white dwarf
Pulsar
PSR J0348+0432	39,123	m. second	2,01 ± 0,04	13 ± 2 km	/	pulsar
Vela X-1	283	second	1,88	~11,2	31.500	X-ray pulsar, B-type
Cen X-3	4,84	second	20,5 ± 0,7	12	39.000	X-ray pulsar
PSR B0943 + 10	1,1	second	0,02	2,6 km	310.000	pulsar
PSR 1257 + 12	6,22	m. second	1,4	10 km	28.856	pulsar
Wolf–Rayet stars
HD 5980 B	<400	km/s	66	22	45.000	WN4
WR 2	500	km/s	16	0,89	141.000	WN2-w
WR 142	1.000	km/s	28,6	0,80	200.000	WO2
R136a2	200	km/s	195	23,4	53.000	WN5h
Normal hot stars
VFTS 102	600±100	km/s	~25	/	36.000 ± 5.000	O9:Vnnne
Gamma Cassiopeiae	432	km/s	14,5	8,8	25.000	B0.5IVe
LQ Andromedae	300	km/s	8,0	3,4	40.000-44.000	O4If(n)p
Zeta Puppis	220	km/s	22,5 – 56,6	14 - 26	40.000-44.000	O4If(n)p
LH54-425 O5	250	km/s	28	8,1	45.000	O5V
Melnick 42	240	km/s	189	21,1	47.300	O2If
BI 253	200	km/s	84	10,7	50.100	O2V-III(n)((f*))
Red Dwarf
Gliese 876	96,6	days	0,37	0,3761±0.0059	3.129 ± 19	M4V
Kepler-42	2,9±0,4	km/s	0,13±0.05	0,17±0.04	3.068±174	M5V
Kapteyn's star	9,15	km/s	0,274	0,291±0.025	3.550±50	sdM1
Wolf 359	<3,0	km/s	0,09	0,16	2.800 ± 100	M6.5 Ve
Normal cool stars
HD 220074	3,0	km/s	1,2 ± 0.3	49.7 ± 9.5	3.935 ± 110	M2III
V Hydrae	11 - 14	km/s	1,0	420 - 430	2.650	C6,3e
β Pegasi	9,7	km/s	2,1	95	3.689	M2.5II–IIIe
Betelgeuse	5	km/s	11,6	887 ±203	3.590	M1–M2 Ia–ab
F Type Star
Beta Virginis	4,3	km/s	1,25	1.681 ± 0.008	6.132 ± 26	F9 V
pi3 Orionis	17	km/s	1,236	1,323	6.516 ± 19	F6 V
4 Equulei	6,2±1,0	km/s	1,39	~1,2	6.213±63	F8 V
6 Andromedae	18	km/s	1,30	1,50	6,425±218	F5 V

Table 2. The relation (of the section of main star types) of rotation, mass, radius, temperature and type

A column "Speed rotation" points to very fast rotations of white dwarfs, pulsars, Wolf–Rayet stars and O, B type stars.

Small hot stars make a rotation in a very short period (from miliseconds to a few minutes). Large hot stars rotate at the speed of above 400 km/s (Gamma Cassiopeiae). White dwarfs with a diameter of ~80 km makes a rotation generally in a few seconds (RX J0648.0-4418 13 seconds).

Wolf–Rayet stars are very fast-rotating stars, the speeds of which can be up to 1.000 km/s, which is generally accompanied by very high temperatures (WR 142 200.000°K, 1.000 km/s).

With the decrease of the rotational speed there is also the decrease of a star's temperature. Here it needs to be mentioned that  

Quote: 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 [16]), different sums of the mass and rotation effects to the small and big stars. [7] end quote

Large (medium and small) red stars have the rotation from +0 to above 10 km/s and temperatures of 1.800 to above 4.000°K (S Cassiopeiae 1.800;  W Aquilae 1.800; V Hya 2.160; II Lup 2.000; V Cyg 1.875; LL Peg 2.000; LP And 2.040; V384 Per 1.820; S Aur 1.940; QZ Mus 2.200; AFGL 4202 2.200: V821 Her 2.200; V1417 Aql 2.000; S Cep 2.095;  etc.). [8]

A smaller star needs higher speed to achieve temperatures similar to those of large stars and the reason for it is that a larger object has more matter, which by friction and different speeds of rotation of different layers, creates higher temperatures.

2.2. Similar mass of stars it's situated in different classes (type) and different temperatures

Table 2. can be presented in such a way to create a relation: approximately the same mass/temperature and relate it to a star type. The relation has to show the same results for the same quantity of mass. It is unacceptable to claim that a single quantity of mass abides by several laws of nature or has several states, which would provide different results. The conditions should be almost identical or we are to explain, why a single quantity of mass has different laws of manifestation. The same goes for the claims that stars realize nuclear fission and fusion on the different levels, because there is one and the same quantity of mass on the same place. 

Tabele 3. (5) Star, type / mass / temperature

	Star	Type	Mass Sun=1	Temperature °K
1	EZ Canis Majoris	WN3-hv	19	89.100
2	Centaurus X-3	O	20,5 ± 0,7	39.000
3	η Canis Majores	B	19,19	15.000
4	HD 21389	A	19,3	9.730
5	Kappa Pavonis	F	19 - 25	5.250 – 6.350
6	V382 Carinae	G	20	5.866
7	S Persei	M	20	3.000-3.600
8	DH Tauri b	Planet; dist. 330 AU	12 M Jupiter	2.750
9	HIP 78530 b	Planet; dist. 740 AU	24 M Jup.	2.700 (2.800)

Table 3. Stars, similar mass (except No 8, 9, ), different classes (type) and temperatures. [7]

It is obvious from the table that the relation of the same mass, different temperatures and the other star type can be met only by the evidence from the table 2. The decrease of the rotational speed (with other incoming factors taken into consideration).

This is no exception, but rather a rule, that a majority of the diapason of the star mass, from the smallest to the largest, the stars belong to different types for any quantity of mass.

Table 4.  Type/ mass ~17/temperature

	Star	Type	Mass Sun=1	Temperature °K
1.	WR 2,	WN4-s	16	141.000
2.	μ Columbae	O	16	33.000
3.	Deneb	A	19	8.525
3.	Gamma Cassiopeiae	B	17	25.000
4.	VY Canis Majoris	M	17	3.490
5.	DH Tauri b	Planet; dist. 330 AU	12 M Jupiter	2.750
6.	HIP 78530 b	Planet; dist. 740 AU	24 M Jup.	2.700 (2.800)
7.	NML Cygni	M	50	3.834

Table 4.  Type/ mass ~17/temperature [10]

Table 5.  Type/mass ~2/temperature and radius

Star	Type	Mass (Sun = 1)	Temperature K	Radius (Sun=1)
Alpha Herculis A	M5 Ib-II	2,175-3,250	3.155-3.365	264-303
R Leporis	C7,6e(N6e)	2,5 – 5	2.245-2.290	400±90
Rho Orionis	K0 III	2,67	4.533	25
29_Orionis	G8IIIFe-0.5	2,33	4.852	10,36
BX_Andromedae	F2V	2,148	6.650	2,01
Mu_Orionis	Aa	2,28	8.300	2,85
3_Centauri	B8V	2,47	9.638	2,8
Vela X-1	B0.5Ib pulsar	1,88	31.500	~11,2
HD_49798	sdO5.5	1,50	47.500	1,45
PSR J0348+0432	pulsar	2,01	/	13±2 km
14 Aurigae	white dwarf	1,64	7.498	/
GQ Lupi b	planet	1-36 MJup.	2.650 ± 100	Distance 100 AU

Table 5.  Type/mass ~2/temperature and radius

The result of the two Sun masses is taken to exclude the discussions of the existence of different types of combustion that are created due to different star formations. This is particularly expressed by the planet display, with temperatures of 2650 ± 100, which is a star with an independent process of creating warmth and radiation. This is stressed in the table 4, with planets which temperatures are ~2.700°K and their mass being from 12-24 masses of Jupiter, and the star NML Cygni with its mass of 50 MSun and the temperature of 3.834°K.

2.3. Bodies in distant orbits can be stars – planets

Table 6. Bodies with mass to 13 mass of Jupiter/temperature and distance

Planet and Brown dwarf	Mass of Jup.	Temperature°K	Distance AU
HD 106906 b	11±2	1.800	120
1RXS 1609 b	8 (14)	1.800	330
Cha 110913-773444	8 (+7; -3)	1.300 -1.400
OTS 44	11,5	1.700 - 2.300
GQ Lupi b	1 - 36	2.650 ± 100	100
ROXs 42Bb	9	1.950 ± 100	157
HD 44627	13 - 14	1.600 -2.400	275
DH Tauri b	12	2.750	330
2M1207b	4 (+6; -1)	1.600±100	40
2M 044144	9,8±1,8	1.800	15 ± 0.6
2MASS J2126-8140	13,3 (± 1,7)	1.800	6.900
HR 8799 c	7 (+3; -2)	1.090 (+10; -90)	~38
HR 8799 d	7 (+3; -2)	1.090 (+10; -90)	~24
HIP 65426	9,0 ±3,0	1.450.0 (± 150.0)	9

Table 6. Bodies with mass to 13 mass of Jupiter/temperature and distance

Table 6. eliminates the claims that objects below 13 masses of Jupiter can't have an independent production of high temperatures, which is measured also on stars S Cassiopeiae 1.800;  W Aquilae 1.800; V Cyg 1.875; V384 Per 1.820; S Aur 1.940°K. [8]

2.4. Observing the density of bodies in our system

Table 7. Rotation/density

Body	Rotation		Mean  density g/cm3	Mass Jupiter=1	Magnetic field G	Type
Sun	25,38	day	1,408	1047	1-2 (10–100 sunspots)	G2V
Jupiter	9,925	hours	1,326	1	4,2 (10–14 poles)	planets
Saturn	10,64	hours	0,687	0,299	0,2	planets
Uranus	(−)0,718 33	day	1,27	0,046	0,1	planets
Neptune	0,6713	day	1,638	0,054	0,14	planets
PSR J1745-2900	3,76	second	/	1-3 (mass Sun)	1014	pulsar

Table 7. Rotation/density

Here I will give an additional explanation for a claim that "A small star with a high mass will have a high density, because all of its mass is getting squeezed into a small space…hence, it’s very dense. A larger star of the same mass will have a lower density due to its stuff not getting squeezed so much."[11] through the rotation of an object around its axis.

Jupiter has the fastest rotation in our system, but it doesn't affect the density of the planet – it is lower than the one of Sun, Neptune and Pluto. Saturn is particularly interesting  with its lowest density in the table 7. ( Pan 0,42 g/cm³, Atlas 0,46 g/cm³, Pandora 0,48 g/cm³, Prometheus 0,48±0,09 g/cm³ 67P/Ch-G  0,533 g/cm³, Amalthea 0,857±0,099 g/cm³).

This states that density doesn't change with the increase of mass, temperature and the speed of rotation. The speed of rotation in our system is significant with the objects that are inside the area, rich with matter, i.e., the area, where disks of gas and asteroid belts are created. The higher the frequency of matter incoming onto an object generally means that the discussed object will have a faster rotation and higher temperature.

Fast-rotating hot stars are generally situated in those parts of the space, which is rich with matter (nebulae).

Table 8. ~ % Mass of satellites Satellites /Central body

Body	~ % Mass of satellites Satellites /Central body
Pluto	12,2
Earth	1,23
Neptune	0,385
Sun	0,14
Saturn	0,024
Jupiter	0,021
Uranus	0,00677

Table 8. ~ % Mass of satellites Satellites /Central body

If only the influence of gravity on the objects in an orbit or in the correlation of two stars is exclusively measured, that would be a wrong thing to do and it is presented in table 8. Pluto is the smallest object and it has the biggest percentage of its satellites' mass in the relation an object's mass/its satellites' mass in the orbit.

The stars with a fast rotation create impressive systems, independently of their mass or radius, to the opposite of the stars with a slow rotation.    

Figure 1. a fast rotating object

2.5. The band of matter concentration and the influence of rotational speed on bodies in orbits and centers of galaxies

In the formula for determining the behavior of planets, must be included temperatures of space and proximity to the central body, with special observation of the belt that is richer in matter.

Confirmation of this correctness it's easy to see that the satellites of Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune.. are in the zone where matter is concentrated. Their mass is significantly larger than other satellites.

It is obligatory to observe here reducing the distance of that belt, with shrinking temperatures of space as the planets move away from the central body, independent of the mass of the central body and the speed of rotation, though mass and the speed of rotation is and here very important.

Table 9. Orbital periods days, distance, mass

Exoplanets	Mass Jup.	orbital periods days	Distance AU	BD + 20 2457 c =1 orbital periods days
BD + 20 2457 c	12,47	621,99	2,01	1
HD 213240 b	4,5	951	2,03	+329,01
OGLE-2006-BLG-109Lb	0,73	1.788,5	2,3	+1.166,51
Gliese 317 b	2,5	692	1,5	+70,01
HD 95089 b	1,2	507	1,51	-114,99
HD 183263 b	3,67	626,5	1,51	+4,5
HD 143361 b	3,48	1.046,2	1,98	+424,21
HD 5319 b	1,76	641	1,6697	+19,01
V391 Pegasi b	3,2	1.170	1,7	+548,01

Table 9. Orbital periods days, distance, mass; BD + 20 2457 c =1

Table 9. shows that similar or identical distance of planets from their central object doesn't result with the same orbital period. This data is seriously undermining the idea of the uniformed reduction of the gravitational influence on the objects in our system and it shows that the speed of the objects in the orbit depends on mass as well as on the rotational speed of the central object and the mass of the objects in the orbit.

All these principles mentioned above are the same for the galactical centers, which are the largest objects in the Universe.

Table 10. (7) galaxies, relationship: type galaxies / rotational speed of galaxies

Galaxies	Type galaxies	Speed of galaxies
Fast-rotating galaxies
RX J1131-1231	quasar	„X-ray observations of  RX J1131-1231 (RX J1131 for short) show it is whizzing around at almost half the speed of light.  [22] [23]
Spindle galaxy	elliptical galaxy	„possess a significant amount of rotation around the major axis“
NGC 6109	Lenticular Galaxy	Within the knot, the rotation measure is 40 ± 8 rad m−2 [24]
Contrary to: Slow Rotation
Andromeda Galaxy	spiral galaxy	maximum value of 225 kilometers per second
UGC 12591	spiral galaxy	the highest known rotational speed of about 500 km/s,
Milky Way	spiral galaxy	210 ± 10 (220 kilometers per second Sun)

Table 10. (7) galaxies, relationship: type galaxies / rotational speed of galaxies; No 1-3 Fast-rotating galaxies, No 4-6 Slow-rotating galaxies. From [10]

3. Conclusion

When there is an increase of data quantity in the database, the preconditions are created to discuss the white dwarfs within realistic values as small, fast-rotating stars with the density, which is similar to other, both medium and large, hot stars. Their relation mass/radius is alternately either larger or smaller with the first ones and the second ones. Small fast-rotating stars (white dwarfs, pulsars, neutron stars, Wolf–Rayet stars, proto stars) have gas disks or significant asteroid belts, because they are formed inside the space, rich with matter. Very fast rotation creates fast orbits of gas, small and large objects. With the constant increase of matter, a star gathers it from the orbits (including the process of migration of hydrogen and helium from the smaller objects towards a star [12]) and, because of growth, disks and asteroid belts are growing smaller, accordingly to the relation of: a star's mass/the mass of matter in its orbit. Due to high temperatures of the fast-rotating stars, matter disintegrates into hydrogen (some helium is the product of the process of constant joining of particles). The traces of complex elements on hot objects are detected because there is a constant daily influx of matter, within which there are complex elements and compounds.      

________________________________________________________________

Reference:

[1]. 172 linnks type RX J1131-1231;  HD 183263 b;  Jupiter; GQ Lupi b; dist. 330 AU; BI 253 etc. in one to multiple steps leads to

the source

...

[Saru 6,759]

Thread cleaned

Please avoid using the forum to post (or request assistance with) application/proposal forms for publication.

Thank you.

[Weitter Duckss 34]

OK.

All articles, that I post or post to a forum, have prior or subsequent publication in a scientific journal.

Part of the scientific journals defends this type of publication. So first I post on the forum (here and newteory.ru) and then I send the article to the publisher. Subsequently, I set a link to a published article and journal.

This is probably my bad habit, I'll break with it.

[RoofGardener 12,306]

Could you give us a single-paragraph (max 250 words) executive summary of your research ? 

[Weitter Duckss 34]

The claim of extreme densities and the existence of supernatural white dwarfs and other hypothetical dense objects (Their average density is about 1,000.000 times denser than the density of the Sun. A single sugar cube sized amount of white dwarf would weigh about 1 tonne.  https://www.universetoday.com/24681/white-dwarf-stars/ ) can't be reliably verified.  Hot stars can be small, medium and large. Their density is similar, according to the determined standards of mass/radius. The data of the relation mass/radius (Sun=1), 1,8 do 25,36, gives no indications of density which equals to 1,000.000 ☉.

White Dwarf LP 40-365, IK Pegasi B, PSR J0348 + 0432, Z Andromedae, KOI-74b , WD J0651 + 2844, AG Pegasi, HD 149382, HD 149382 and NN Serpentis have the relation of mass/radius (Sun = 1) from 1,8 to 25,36.
Normal hot stars AB7 , AB8 „O“, HD 93250, BAT99-98, VFTS 682, HD 269810, BI 253, R136a2, AB8A, Melnick 42, HD 56925 and R136c have the relationfrom 3,14 to 12,5. Only typical members of these groups are inside these two relations. The data point out, beyond any doubt, that both groups, white dwarfs and normal hot stars are almost identical in terms of density.  
In both of these groups there are objects with very high temperatures (white dwarfs from under 10.000 (4.270 ± 70 Gliese 223.2) to 200.000°K (H1504 + 65, 200.000°K) [4] [5]  (310.000 °K PSR B0943 + 10) like normal hot stars...

[bmk1245 3,591]

On 9/3/2019 at 5:27 PM, RoofGardener said:

Could you give us a single-paragraph (max 250 words) executive summary of your research ? 

Could be summed up in simple sentence: pure bs laced with sheer ignorance and wrapped in utter incompetence. When you see someone measuring density in mass/length, and not in mass/volume, thats is a BIG RED FLAG. Just an example, Sirius A (main sequence A0 spectral type star) has density* ~0.6 g/cm³ (grams per cubic centimeter) while companion white dwarf Sirius B has density of ~2400000 g/cm³ (over 2 metric tones per cubic centimeter). And that goes for other white dwarfs - from few/several kg/cm³ to metric tones per cubic centimeter.

OP has zero grasp in basic physics and mathematics. And don't get swayed by the so called "scientific papers" OP have published in "scientific journals". Fact is, predatory publishers will publish any kind of nonsense, just give them $.

[*] average density, since core is much denser than outer layers.

Edited September 7 by bmk1245

[Weitter Duckss 34]

4 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Sirius A (main sequence A0 spectral type star) has density* ~0.6 g/cm³ (grams per cubic centimeter) while companion white dwarf

An "interesting" story but you don't provide evidence. You obviously had a bad dream.
Try to show me the formula of the volume without radius.
You are obviously lying, because I have clearly stated the mass (for example: Sirius B 1,018 M Sun; radius 0.0084 ± 3%, etc.).
You do not understand the mass / radius relationship at all (Sun = 1; Sirius B = 121.19).
How can something have extreme density if it has a mass / radius ratio (Sun = 1) of 1.8 to 25.36? At the same time, hot stars with the same mass / radius result (Sun = 1) have: "Sirius A has density ~ 0.6 g / cm3"!!!
Try giving another pearl and show your "advanced" knowledge.
Why don't we see your "scientific" works?
I often have a feeling that you don't even know what you are writing. Do you applaud yourself?

[bmk1245 3,591]

**Snip** Still trying to push mass/radius as density.. Freakin' hilarous!

Case in point - Sirius B (white dwarf) density is ~2400000 g/cm³, while Sirius A - 0.58g/cm³.

**Snip**

Edited November 7 by Waspie_Dwarf
Personal attacks removed. Attack the point of view, not the person.

[Weitter Duckss 34]

On 9/7/2019 at 4:07 PM, bmk1245 said:

Sirius A - 0.58g/cm³.

 

White Dwarf

Star	Mass (M☉)	Radius	Mass/Radius	Temperature K	Surface gravity cgs
KOI-74b	0,22	0,043	5,12	12.700	/
WD J0651 + 2844	0,26	0,0371	7	16.530	/
AG Pegasi	0,6	0,08 – 16	7,5– 0,0375	10.000 – 100.000	6,0

contrary to

Normal hot stars

HD 93250	83,3 (65)	15,9	5,24	46.000	3,96
VFTS 682	137,8	20,2	6,82	54.450 ± 1.960	/
HD 269810	130	18	7,22	52.500	4,0
BI 253	84	10,7	7,85	50.100	4,2

 

Sirius A ..................2,063...........1,711..............1,057276.......9.940.....................4,33

contrary to

White Dwarf

LP 40-365  [1]

0,14

0,078

1,8

10.000

5,80

Watch and cry. Maybe (finally) you start learning. You and your extreme science with false evidence.

**Snip**

Edited November 7 by Waspie_Dwarf
Personal attacks removed. Attack the point of view, not the person.

[bmk1245 3,591]

On 9/7/2019 at 4:39 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

 

White Dwarf

Star	Mass (M☉)	Radius	Mass/Radius	Temperature K	Surface gravity cgs
KOI-74b	0,22	0,043	5,12	12.700	/
WD J0651 + 2844	0,26	0,0371	7	16.530	/
AG Pegasi	0,6	0,08 – 16	7,5– 0,0375	10.000 – 100.000	6,0

contrary to

Normal hot stars

HD 93250	83,3 (65)	15,9	5,24	46.000	3,96
VFTS 682	137,8	20,2	6,82	54.450 ± 1.960	/
HD 269810	130	18	7,22	52.500	4,0
BI 253	84	10,7	7,85	50.100	4,2

 

Sirius A ..................2,063...........1,711..............1,057276.......9.940.....................4,33

contrary to

White Dwarf

LP 40-365  [1]

0,14

0,078

1,8

10.000

5,80

Watch and cry. Maybe (finally) you start learning. You and your extreme science with false evidence.

**snip**

Look, **snip**, density of KOI-74b  is ~3.9 kilograms per cubic centimeter, and, for example, Sun's density is ~1.4 g/cm³.

 

BTW, LP 40-365 density is ~0.4kg/cm³. How that compares to 1.4 g/cm³ of the Sun?

Edited November 7 by Waspie_Dwarf
Personal attacks removed. Attack the point of view, not the person.

[Rlyeh 14,486]

Wait, are you saying stars generate heat by the friction of their spin?

[bmk1245 3,591]

10 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Wait, are you saying stars generate heat by the friction of their spin?

Thats pink horsey of OP.

[Weitter Duckss 34]

@ bmk1245 

„Look, moron, KOI-74b  „ has Mass/Radius 5,12 some as and HD 93250 5,24 (Sun = 1). You claim that  and HD 93250  also has a „density of ~3.9 kilograms per cubic centimeter, and, for example, Sun's density is ~1.4 g/cm³.“

Both bodies have the same ratio mass in volume per cm3.

Why are you telling falsehoods like your sources. They have interest money. **snip**

 

@ Rlyeh

Tables 2 and 3,4,5 offer the answer although this is not the topic here. Why do bodies of the same or similar mass have different temperatures?

Or,

Sirius A ..................2,063...........1,711..............1,057276.......9.940.....................4,33

contrary to

White Dwarf

LP 40-365  [1]

0,14

0,078

1,8

10.000

5,80

Two completely different bodies have the same temperatures.

Additionally

Table 6. planets, large distance orbits, mass/temperature

	Planet	Mass of Jupiter	Temperature K	Distance AU
1	GQ Lupi b	1-36	2650 ± 100	100
2	ROXs 42Bb	9	1,950-2,000	157
3	HD 106906 b	11	1.800	~650
4	CT Chamaeleontis b	10,5-17	2.500	440
5	HD 44627	13-14	1.600-2.400	275
6	1RXS 1609 b	14	1.800	330
7	UScoCTIO 108 b	14	2.600	670
8	Oph 11 B	21	2.478	243

Table 6. Planets at a great distance from the stars with high temperatures and different mass.

And

Table 6. Brown dwarf and planets, mass/temperature

Mass up to 15 MJ/(vs) Mass above 15 M

	Brown dwarf (& planets)	Mass of Jupiter	Temperature °K	Planets orbit AU
1	ROXs 42Bb	9	1.950 ± 100	157
2	54 Piscium B	50	810±50
3	DH Tauri b	12	2.750	330
4	ULAS J133553.45+113005.2	15 -31	500 -550
5	OTS 44	11,5	1.700 - 2.300
6	Epsilon Indi Ba and Bb	40 – 60 (28±7)	1.300-1400 (880-940)	1.500 (between 2,1)
7	2MASS J2126-8140	13,3 (± 1,7)	1.800	6.900
8	Gliese 570	~50	750 - 800	1.500

Mass vs Mass

9	2M 044144	9.8±1.8	1.800	15 ± 0.6
10	DT Virginis	8.5 ± 2.5	695±60	1.168
11	Teide 1	57± 15	2.600±150
12	Epsilon Indi Ba and Bb	40 – 60 (28±7)	1.300-1400 (880-940)	1.500 (between 2,1)
13	B Tauri FU	15	2.375	700
14	DENIS J081730.0-615520	15	950

Table 6. Brown dwarf and planets (at a great distance), relationship: mass up to 15 MJ/(vs) mass above 15 M and Mass vs Mass and temperature. [11]

Or

	Brown dwarf & planets	Mass of Jupiter	Temperature °K	Planets orbit AU
	mass up to 13 Mass of Jupiter
1	CFBDSIR 2149-0403	4-7	~700
2	PSO J318.5-22	6,5	1.160
3	2MASS J11193254-1137466 (AB)	~5-10	1.012	3,6±0,9
4	GU Piscium b	9-13	1.000	2.000
5	WD 0806-661	6-9	300-345	2.500
6	Venus	0,002 56	737	0,723
7	Earth	0,003 15	184 - 330	1,00

Is there another reasonable explanation?

Edited November 7 by Waspie_Dwarf
Personal attacks removed.

[bmk1245 3,591]

On 9/7/2019 at 9:39 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

Is there another reasonable explanation?

Yes, there is another reasonable explanation: you are **snip** who measures density in mass/radius.

What density means you can find here.

Edited November 7 by Waspie_Dwarf
Personal attacks removed.

[Weitter Duckss 34]

On 9/7/2019 at 10:31 PM, bmk1245 said:

What density means you can find here.

Densities of various materials covering a range of values
Material	ρ (kg/m3)[note 1]	Notes
Hydrogen	0.0898
Helium	0.179
Aerographite	0.2	[note 2][8][9]
Metallic microlattice	0.9	[note 2]
Aerogel	1.0	[note 2]
Air	1.2	At sea level

 Etc.

„You **snip** who measures density“ of stars and other bodies using this link.

You probably go to the stars and measure the elements. Wau!

 

Body	Rotation		Mean  density g/cm3	Mass Jupiter=1	Magnetic field G	Type
Sun	25,38	day	1,408	1047	1-2 (10–100 sunspots)	G2V
Jupiter	9,925	hours	1,326	1	4,2 (10–14 poles)	planets
Saturn	10,64	hours	0,687	0,299	0,2	planets
Uranus	(−)0,718 33	day	1,27	0,046	0,1	planets
Neptune	0,6713	day	1,638	0,054	0,14	planets
Sirius A	16	km/s	0,58 (?)	2.063 ± 0.023 MSun	/	A0mA1 Va

Table 7. Rotation/density

Edited November 7 by Waspie_Dwarf
Personal attacks removed.

[Manwon Lender 2,942]

11 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Wait, are you saying stars generate heat by the friction of their spin?

This is an interesting thread thank god I have plenty of popcorn, I think I will just sit on the sidelines and watch.

[Weitter Duckss 34]

54 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

I will just sit on the sidelines and watch.

Nice. You make the most of the fun of the Forum. Still, nothing does not raise adrenaline as a debate.

 

	Star	Temperature K	Rotation speed km/s	Mass Sun 1	Radius Sun 1	Surface gravity cgs
1	Betelgeuse	3.590	5	11,6	887 ±203	-0,5
2	Andromeda 8	3.616±22	5±1	/	30	1±0.25
3	β Pegasi	3.689	9,7	2,1	95	1,20
4<	Aldebaran	3.910	634 day	1,5	44,2	1,59
5	HD 220074	3.935	3	1,2	49,7 ± 9.5	1.3 ± 0.5
6	Beta Ursae Minoris	4.030	8	2,2	42,6	1,83
7	Arcturus	4.286	2.4±1.0	1.08±0.06	25.4±0.2	1.66±0.05
8	Hamal	4.480	3,44	1,5	14,9	2,57
9	Iota Draconis	4.545	1,5	1,82	11,99	2,5
10	Pollux	4.666	2,8	2,04	8,8	2.685±0.09
11	ζ Cyg A	4.910	0.4 ± 0.5	3,05	15	2,41
12	Capella	4.970	4,1	2.5687	11,98	2,691
13	Alpha Pegasi	9.765	125	4,72	3,51	3,51
14	η Aurigae	17.201	95	5,4	3,25	4.13 ± 0.04
15	Eta Ursae Majoris	16.823	150	6,1	3,4	3,78
16	Spica secondary	20.900±800	199	7.21±0.75	3,74±0.53	4.15±0.15
17	λ Scorpii	25.000±1.000	150	14,5	8,8	3,8
18	Gamma Cassiopeiae	25.000	432	17	10	3,50
19	Zeta Puppis	40.000-44.000	220	22,5 – 56,6	14-26	3,5
20	LH54-425 O5	45.000	250	28	8,1	4,07
21	S Monocerotis	38.500	120	29,1	9,9	4,5
22	LH54-425 O3	45.000	197	47	11,4	4,0
23	HD 93129	42.500	130	110	22,5	3,71
24	HD 5980 B	45.000	400	66	22	/
25	BI 253	50.100	200	84	10,7	4,20
26	HD 269810	52.500	173	130	18	4,0
27	Melnick 42	47.300	240	189	21,1	3,90
28	WR 2	141.000	500	16	0,89	/
29	WR 142	200.000	1.000	20	0,40	/

Table 15. Stars, relationship: temperature/rotation speed/ surface gravity and mass/radius. No 1-12 cold stars, 13-29 hot stars.

[Manwon Lender 2,942]

12 minutes ago, Weitter Duckss said:

Nice. You make the most of the fun of the Forum. Still, nothing does not raise adrenaline as a debate.

 

	Star	Temperature K	Rotation speed km/s	Mass Sun 1	Radius Sun 1	Surface gravity cgs
1	Betelgeuse	3.590	5	11,6	887 ±203	-0,5
2	Andromeda 8	3.616±22	5±1	/	30	1±0.25
3	β Pegasi	3.689	9,7	2,1	95	1,20
4<	Aldebaran	3.910	634 day	1,5	44,2	1,59
5	HD 220074	3.935	3	1,2	49,7 ± 9.5	1.3 ± 0.5
6	Beta Ursae Minoris	4.030	8	2,2	42,6	1,83
7	Arcturus	4.286	2.4±1.0	1.08±0.06	25.4±0.2	1.66±0.05
8	Hamal	4.480	3,44	1,5	14,9	2,57
9	Iota Draconis	4.545	1,5	1,82	11,99	2,5
10	Pollux	4.666	2,8	2,04	8,8	2.685±0.09
11	ζ Cyg A	4.910	0.4 ± 0.5	3,05	15	2,41
12	Capella	4.970	4,1	2.5687	11,98	2,691
13	Alpha Pegasi	9.765	125	4,72	3,51	3,51
14	η Aurigae	17.201	95	5,4	3,25	4.13 ± 0.04
15	Eta Ursae Majoris	16.823	150	6,1	3,4	3,78
16	Spica secondary	20.900±800	199	7.21±0.75	3,74±0.53	4.15±0.15
17	λ Scorpii	25.000±1.000	150	14,5	8,8	3,8
18	Gamma Cassiopeiae	25.000	432	17	10	3,50
19	Zeta Puppis	40.000-44.000	220	22,5 – 56,6	14-26	3,5
20	LH54-425 O5	45.000	250	28	8,1	4,07
21	S Monocerotis	38.500	120	29,1	9,9	4,5
22	LH54-425 O3	45.000	197	47	11,4	4,0
23	HD 93129	42.500	130	110	22,5	3,71
24	HD 5980 B	45.000	400	66	22	/
25	BI 253	50.100	200	84	10,7	4,20
26	HD 269810	52.500	173	130	18	4,0
27	Melnick 42	47.300	240	189	21,1	3,90
28	WR 2	141.000	500	16	0,89	/
29	WR 142	200.000	1.000	20	0,40	/

Table 15. Stars, relationship: temperature/rotation speed/ surface gravity and mass/radius. No 1-12 cold stars, 13-29 hot stars.

My comments were not ment to be disrespectful to you or anyone else. But I am not going to join the fight, like I said I will watch and learn.

[bmk1245 3,591]

On 9/8/2019 at 7:28 AM, Weitter Duckss said:

Densities of various materials covering a range of values
Material	ρ (kg/m3)[note 1]	Notes
Hydrogen	0.0898
Helium	0.179
Aerographite	0.2	[note 2][8][9]
Metallic microlattice	0.9	[note 2]
Aerogel	1.0	[note 2]
Air	1.2	At sea level

 Etc.

„You **snip** who measures density“ of stars and other bodies using this link.

You probably go to the stars and measure the elements. Wau!

 

Body	Rotation		Mean  density g/cm3	Mass Jupiter=1	Magnetic field G	Type
Sun	25,38	day	1,408	1047	1-2 (10–100 sunspots)	G2V
Jupiter	9,925	hours	1,326	1	4,2 (10–14 poles)	planets
Saturn	10,64	hours	0,687	0,299	0,2	planets
Uranus	(−)0,718 33	day	1,27	0,046	0,1	planets
Neptune	0,6713	day	1,638	0,054	0,14	planets
Sirius A	16	km/s	0,58 (?)	2.063 ± 0.023 MSun	/	A0mA1 Va

Table 7. Rotation/density

Anyone with little bit of knowledge in math can calculate density, here is the formula: (M_Star*1.9885E33)/((4/3)*pi*(R_Star*69634200000)^3); M_Star -star mass in M_Sun, R_Star - radius of the star in R_Sun;1.9885E33 is the mass of the Sun in grams (1.9885*10³⁰ kg = 1.9885*10³³ g), 69634200000 - radius of the Sun in cm (696342 km = 696342000 m = 69634200000 cm). I'm sure OP won't be able to do that, so I'm asking other UM dwellers to check my math, please.

[bmk1245 3,591]

1 hour ago, Manwon Lender said:

This is an interesting thread thank god I have plenty of popcorn, I think I will just sit on the sidelines and watch.

Dammit... Now I wanna popcorn...

[Rlyeh 14,486]

12 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

Tables 2 and 3,4,5 offer the answer although this is not the topic here. Why do bodies of the same or similar mass have different temperatures?

How do you link their spin to their temperature?

[Weitter Duckss 34]

5 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

How do you link their spin to their temperature?

It is (today) a classic statistic. Create a table with the default parameters (mass, radius, temperature, spectral type, surface gravity, etc.) and pickaxe (search) database available.

2012 was not so easy. I (for some unknown reasons) do the opposite. First, based on following these subject, I create a framework. Later (as in this article) I edit the statistics.

If you consistently follow the principles, no errors. However, my knowledge of the matter also lies in the published information, which leads to subsequent adjustments to articles already published.

 

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.

The lower the temperature, the higher are diversity and presence.

If stars were to burn some fuel, they would lose their mass, which is not the case. On the contrary, they constantly gain mass with the outer mass incoming from the system (comets, asteroids, planets). Furthermore, it is wrong and opposite to the evidence to claim that stars shine because of the radioactive processes deep inside them. Beyond any doubt, they are not radioactive; besides other facts, there is magma on Earth, which shows no sign of radioactivity. To claim that these processes occur deep in the interiority of a star is unacceptable, because, due to high temperature, matter dislocates from the interiority towards surface. It goes vice versa, too, because this is one and the same object, not two distant worlds. All that we don’t understand about stars is evident here, on Earth. It is also heated, except for the crust, the thickness of which is less than one part per thousand, related to the melted part. 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”)...  2012.

[bmk1245 3,591]

On 9/8/2019 at 5:47 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

If stars were to burn some fuel, they would lose their mass, which is not the case. [...]

Stars do lose mass, that is a fact. E=mc² to help: knowing how much energy star radiates (luminosity), one can estimate mass loss. And thats only by radiation related loss. If you account solar winds, mass loss will be higher. There is plethora of scientific papers and book on this subject.

[Weitter Duckss 34]

6 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

There is plethora of scientific papers and book on this subject.

There is an endless book about elves, vampires, zombies, about science, which is science and truth in the first place and no matter what money is, ..

Yet these are just stupid fun for gullible and tractable. If you can't provide evidence of where that matter goes, let's move on.

Let's move on.

Another discovery of the C-2019 interstellar facility.

„One object becomes a nova and a large number (millions) of others with the same parameters just go on the same way. ..

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.
When discussing the vertical trajectories, it is necessary to point out that only the forces of attraction exist there, because an object creates the forces of repulsion in the horizontal direction only.„

Do you remember the comment:

„Which body and with a vertical trajectory in relation to what?

I would say it is not.“

„Things with vertical trajectories aren't usually particularly wide.“

 

What are the dimensions of destruction and creation in the Universe? Posted July 2, 2014

Today it is proven and even more so it has become popular.

It would be convenient to discuss the possible consequences of the impact of these bodies in the vortex of Sun.

Are my calculations from:

doi:  10.18483 / ijSci.1908 2.3. The Processes That Lead to the Acceleration and Deceleration of an Object's Rotation Around Its Axis

realistic or you will say again „I would say it is not.“

[bmk1245 3,591]

On 9/15/2019 at 3:42 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

There is an endless book about elves, vampires, zombies, about science, which is science and truth in the first place and no matter what money is, ..

[...]

And thats what your garbage is, none better than worst kind of scifi 

On 9/15/2019 at 3:42 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

Yet these are just stupid fun for gullible and tractable. If you can't provide evidence of where that matter goes, let's move on.

[...]

 

It was already provided many times for you. **snip**

Edited November 7 by Waspie_Dwarf
Personal attacks removed.