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

Report: White dwarfs is small stars

53 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Weitter Duckss
2 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Problem is, your peabrain can't process that information.

Please get involved with the evidence. You do it great sometimes. Where it got stuck. Based on your comments, I modified the article a little (amended).

- Two stars that have the same or similar value in the relation of mass/radius (Sun = 1),  also have the same or similar density per cm3.

From Table 1. we can see that bodies of the same value in the relation of mass/radius (Sun = 1) (White Dwarfs  LP 40-365, IK Pegasi B, PSR J0348 + 0432, Z Andromedae, KOI-74b , WD J0651 + 2844, AG Pegasi, HD 149382, and normal hot stars AB7, AB8 „O“, HD 93250, BAT99-98, VFTS 682, HD 269810, BI 253, R136a2, AB8A, Melnick 42, HD 56925, R136c have the same or similar value the relation of mass/radius (1,8-14,9 (Sun = 1) and they are classifie in White Dwarfs and Normal hot stars with low density (hot stars Sirius A 0,568 g/cm3,  Rigel 0,0563 kg/m3 ..).

and

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

Sirius A

16

km/s

0,568

2,063±0,023 MSun

 weak

A0mA1 Va

Rigel

25±3

Km/s

0,0563 kg/m3

21±3              MSun

/

B8 Ia

PSR J1745-2900

3,76

second

 /

1-3          (mass Sun)

1014

pulsar

Table 7. Rotation/density

Share this post


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

Please get involved with the evidence. You do it great sometimes. Where it got stuck. Based on your comments, I modified the article a little (amended).

- Two stars that have the same or similar value in the relation of mass/radius (Sun = 1),  also have the same or similar density per cm3.

From Table 1. we can see that bodies of the same value in the relation of mass/radius (Sun = 1) (White Dwarfs  LP 40-365, IK Pegasi B, PSR J0348 + 0432, Z Andromedae, KOI-74b , WD J0651 + 2844, AG Pegasi, HD 149382, and normal hot stars AB7, AB8 „O“, HD 93250, BAT99-98, VFTS 682, HD 269810, BI 253, R136a2, AB8A, Melnick 42, HD 56925, R136c have the same or similar value the relation of mass/radius (1,8-14,9 (Sun = 1) and they are classifie in White Dwarfs and Normal hot stars with low density (hot stars Sirius A 0,568 g/cm3,  Rigel 0,0563 kg/m3 ..).

and

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

Sirius A

16

km/s

0,568

2,063±0,023 MSun

 weak

A0mA1 Va

Rigel

25±3

Km/s

0,0563 kg/m3

21±3              MSun

/

B8 Ia

PSR J1745-2900

3,76

second

 /

1-3          (mass Sun)

1014

pulsar

Table 7. Rotation/density

Once again, mass/radius is meaningless in this case, density is the mass divided by the volume. Do you know what volume is?

Share this post


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

Once again, mass/radius is meaningless in this case, density is the mass divided by the volume. Do you know what volume is?

 V=4/3 ·r3π

Other than r, what parameter do you see (4/3 or π)? How many times to repeat no volume calculation without radius size.

Another factor is: they do not provide links for volume. Light eminences do not accept nor the mainstream of the link, if they do not support the hypotheses. Like this is simpler, clearer and does not point to my perceptions of the process in the Universe.

I Use the main stream of evidence to break the main stream stupid hypotheses.

If two bodies have a mass / radius ratio of 5, why is one extremely dense and the other denser than Jupiter and Saturn. It's a simple question, no pitfalls, no endless hollow stories and hypotheses (theory!)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
On 9/16/2019 at 6:32 AM, Weitter Duckss said:

 V=4/3 ·r3π

Other than r, what parameter do you see (4/3 or π)? How many times to repeat no volume calculation without radius size.

Another factor is: they do not provide links for volume. Light eminences do not accept nor the mainstream of the link, if they do not support the hypotheses. Like this is simpler, clearer and does not point to my perceptions of the process in the Universe.

I Use the main stream of evidence to break the main stream stupid hypotheses.

[...]

If you do know how to calculate volume, why you are using mass/radius, and not mass/volume for density, huh? I've already spoon fed you on this issue: (MStar*1.9885*1033)/((4/3)*pi*(RStar*69634200000)3) you will get density in g/cm3.

Seriously, you have zero grasp in basic math/physics, yet you are trying yourself in cosmology. You're even worse than flat earthers in that.

 

On 9/16/2019 at 6:32 AM, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

If two bodies have a mass / radius ratio of 5, why is one extremely dense and the other denser than Jupiter and Saturn. It's a simple question, no pitfalls, no endless hollow stories and hypotheses (theory!)?

Just to think **snip** about: why air is less dense than uranium?

Share this post


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

Just to think (if you are capable of thinking) about: why air is less dense than uranium?

Try to hit the White Dwarf and confirm  Their average density is about 1,000.000 times denser than the density of the Sun“

IK Pegasi B         V=0,50868            M=1,15                mass/V= 2,26075

WR 102               V=0,33113184     M=16,7                             50,433..

Sun (m=1, R=1)       2,355                          1                                0,4246..

Z Andromedae        18,2                           0,75                          18,12

A bit of a remark: the author of this article disagrees with the current estimates of the stars' mass, as he claims they are the product of old hypotheses which lacked enough evidence to support them. The author suggests that a radius be equal to a mass when discussing slowly-rotating stars and that the mass decrease up to 100% with fast-rotating stars. For example, Melnick 42, 21,1 R of Sun, its mass should be around 30 M of Sun (currently, 189 M of Sun).
That would give the option to avoid these illogicalities:

Table 1. Star, type / mass / 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 1. Stars, similar mass (except No 5, 6, 7), different classes (type) and temperatures.

+ Table 3 and 5. in this article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
On 9/16/2019 at 5:12 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

Try to hit the White Dwarf and confirm  Their average density is about 1,000.000 times denser than the density of the Sun“

I...]

Finaly, you've mastered basic math...Wait, not yet? Go back to shool, then we will talk. And you can claim whatever you want - that will remain senseless rant **snip**. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
On 9/16/2019 at 5:50 PM, bmk1245 said:

Finaly, you've mastered basic math..

So **snip** now that you have. your requested information. again you are not satisfied. Your White Dwarfs are less dense than other stars.

2MASS J0523−1403          V 2,42636                Mjup 67,54            Rjup 1,01           M/V  27,84

EBLM J0555-57                     1,396                             85,2                       0,84                  61,03

OGLE-TR-123                          0,00517395     Msun    0,0085         RSun 0,13                 16,4285

Each time, I will add a few examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
On 9/16/2019 at 10:04 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

So **snip** now that you have. your requested information. again you are not satisfied. Your White Dwarfs are less dense than other stars.

2MASS J0523−1403          V 2,42636                Mjup 67,54            Rjup 1,01           M/V  27,84

EBLM J0555-57                     1,396                             85,2                       0,84                  61,03

OGLE-TR-123                          0,00517395     Msun    0,0085         RSun 0,13                 16,4285

Each time, I will add a few examples.

You failed again, miserably: MJun (1.8982×1027 kg) is not the same as MSun (1.9885×1030 kg), and RJup (69,911 km) is not the same as RSun (~696,000 km)

If you calculate correctly, you will get densities:

2MASS J0523−1403 - 87 grams per cubic centimeter;

EBLM J0555-57 - 191 grams per cubic centimeter;

OGLE-TR-123 - 54 grams per cubic centimeters.

Theses densities aren't any near of 10 kg/cm3, or 100 kg/cm3, or 1000 kg/cm3.

Share this post


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

You failed again, miserably: MJun (1.8982×1027 kg) is not the same as MSun (1.9885×1030 kg), and RJup (69,911 km) is not the same as RSun (~696,000 km)

If you calculate correctly, you will get densities:

2MASS J0523−1403 - 87 grams per cubic centimeter;

EBLM J0555-57 - 191 grams per cubic centimeter;

OGLE-TR-123 - 54 grams per cubic centimeters.

Theses densities aren't any near of 10 kg/cm3, or 100 kg/cm3, or 1000 kg/cm3.

Thank you.

Star

Volume Sun=1

Mass, Sun=1

Radius, Sun=1

Mass/volume

Type of star

IK Pegasi B        

0,50868

1,15 

0,6

2,26075 

White dwarf- DA

GD 356                           

0,148

0,67

0,0197

4,514

White dwarf-DC7

Z Andromedae

18,2

0,75 

0,17-0,36

18,12

White dwarf- B1eq

LP 40-365 

 

0,14

0,078

125,27

White dwarf- D

 

Sun (m=1, R=1)      

2,355

1

1

0,4246..

G2V

WR 102              

0,33113184    

16,7

0,52

50,433

WR- WO2

WR 93b

0,20061

8,1

0,44

40,377

WR_ WO3

WR 142                              

1,2058                      

28,6

0,8

23,72

WR- WO2

WR 7

4,711                        

13

1,26

2,76

WR-WN4-s

WR 46                               

5,924                       

14

1,36

2,2633

WR- WN3p-w

WR 3                             

35,921                       

15

2,48

0,4176

WR-WN3-hw

WR 21a

4069,44                        

103,6

12

0,02546    

WR-WN5ha

WR 31a

62231,76                          

17

29,8

0,0002732

WR-WN11h

 

Kepler-70

0,0197

0,496

0,203

25,178

sdB

Ros 47

0,01157

0,35

0,17

30,1724   

M4.0Vn

Kepler-42

0,01157

0,13

0,17

11,236

M5V

YZ Canis Minoris              

0,0801                       

0,308                       

0,324                     

3,845         

M5V

LHS 1140                        

0,015154                         

0,146

0,186

9,63442       

M4.5V

 

70 Ophiuchi B

0,005174

0,70

0,13

135,292

K4V

 

SU Ursae Majoris

0,01097                     

0,105

0,167

9,572      

dwarf nova

 

DEN 0255−4700       

0,001716795       

0,025-0,065     

0,08-0,1      

26,212 

Brown Dwarf-L8/L9

OGLE-TR-123

0,00517395    

0,085

0,13

16,4285

Brown Dwarf-M

 

Share this post


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

Thank you.

Star

Volume Sun=1

Mass, Sun=1

Radius, Sun=1

Mass/volume

Type of star

IK Pegasi B        

0,50868

1,15 

0,6

2,26075 

White dwarf- DA

GD 356                           

0,148

0,67

0,0197

4,514

White dwarf-DC7

Z Andromedae

18,2

0,75 

0,17-0,36

18,12

White dwarf- B1eq

LP 40-365 

 

0,14

0,078

125,27

White dwarf- D

 

Sun (m=1, R=1)      

2,355

1

1

0,4246..

G2V

WR 102              

0,33113184    

16,7

0,52

50,433

WR- WO2

WR 93b

0,20061

8,1

0,44

40,377

WR_ WO3

WR 142                              

1,2058                      

28,6

0,8

23,72

WR- WO2

WR 7

4,711                        

13

1,26

2,76

WR-WN4-s

WR 46                               

5,924                       

14

1,36

2,2633

WR- WN3p-w

WR 3                             

35,921                       

15

2,48

0,4176

WR-WN3-hw

WR 21a

4069,44                        

103,6

12

0,02546    

WR-WN5ha

WR 31a

62231,76                          

17

29,8

0,0002732

WR-WN11h

 

Kepler-70

0,0197

0,496

0,203

25,178

sdB

Ros 47

0,01157

0,35

0,17

30,1724   

M4.0Vn

Kepler-42

0,01157

0,13

0,17

11,236

M5V

YZ Canis Minoris              

0,0801                       

0,308                       

0,324                     

3,845         

M5V

LHS 1140                        

0,015154                         

0,146

0,186

9,63442       

M4.5V

 

70 Ophiuchi B

0,005174

0,70

0,13

135,292

K4V

 

SU Ursae Majoris

0,01097                     

0,105

0,167

9,572      

dwarf nova

 

DEN 0255−4700       

0,001716795       

0,025-0,065     

0,08-0,1      

26,212 

Brown Dwarf-L8/L9

OGLE-TR-123

0,00517395    

0,085

0,13

16,4285

Brown Dwarf-M

 

And you are dead wrong right in the first row :lol:

Do you know what percent is?!!!! Genius, 0.6% isn't 0.6, but 0.006. With values 1.15MSun and 0.006RSun, we get density 7.5x106 g/cm3.(7.5 metric tones per cubic centimeter!).

Share this post


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

And you are dead wrong right in the first row :lol:

Do you know what percent is?!!!! Genius, 0.6% isn't 0.6, but 0.006. With values 1.15MSun and 0.006RSun, we get density 7.5x106 g/cm3.(7.5 metric tones per cubic centimeter!).

 

*Density: Sun=1,408 g/cm3; Jupiter 1,326 g / cm3

 

Star

Volume

Mass, Sun=1

Radius, Sun=1

Mass/volume

Type of star

GD 356                           

0,148

0,67

0,0197

4,514

White dwarf-DC7

Z Andromedae

18,2

0,75 

0,17-0,36

18,12

White dwarf- B1eq

LP 40-365 

 

0,14

0,078

125,27

White dwarf- D

 

Sun (M=1, R=1)      

2,355

1

1

0,4246..

G2V

WR 102              

0,33113184    

16,7

0,52

50,433

WR- WO2

WR 93b

0,20061

8,1

0,44

40,377

WR_ WO3

WR 142                              

1,2058                      

28,6

0,8

23,72

WR- WO2

WR 7

4,711                        

13

1,26

2,76

WR-WN4-s

WR 46                               

5,924                       

14

1,36

2,2633

WR- WN3p-w

WR 3                             

35,921                       

15

2,48

0,4176

WR-WN3-hw

WR 21a

4069,44                        

103,6

12

0,02546    

WR-WN5ha

WR 31a

62231,76                          

17

29,8

0,0002732

WR-WN11h

 

Kepler-70

0,0197

0,496

0,203

25,178

sdB

Ros 47

0,01157

0,35

0,17

30,1724   

M4.0Vn

Kepler-42

0,01157

0,13

0,17

11,236

M5V

YZ Canis Minoris              

0,0801                       

0,308                       

0,324                     

3,845        

M5V

LHS 1140                        

0,015154                         

0,146

0,186

9,63442       

M4.5V

 

SU Ursae Majoris

0,01097                     

0,105

0,167

9,572      

dwarf nova

 

DEN 0255−4700       

0,001716795       

0,025-0,065     

0,08-0,1      

26,212 

Brown Dwarf-L8/L9

OGLE-TR-123

0,00517395    

0,085

0,13

16,4285

Brown Dwarf-M

 

 "You failed again, miserably: MJun (1.8982×1027 kg) is not the same as MSun (1.9885×1030 kg), and RJup (69,911 km) is not the same as RSun (~696,000 km)"

Inside the data check. for a few thousand stars. an error occurs. The table is the first sketch and does not affect the essence of the problem and the result.

Hang on, it you not interested. However, I will explain.

In the table (without R / B 1 and 13) we see:

- small white (hot and fast-rotating) stars may have a lower, equal or higher density than other star types.

- WR stars can be very low to high density.

- the same is true for other stars with established low mass and radius.

- The existence of high density (due to the wrong platform) stars negate Tables 2-9 (especially 7th and 8th).

- the rotation speed does not create a higher density, on the contrary it reduces it. This is especially shown by Jupiter, Saturn ..

 

„A bit of a remark: the author of this article disagrees with the current estimates of the stars' mass, as he claims they are the product of old hypotheses which lacked enough evidence to support them. The author suggests that a radius be equal to a mass when discussing slowly-rotating stars and that the mass decrease up to 100% with fast-rotating stars. For example, Melnick 42, 21,1 R of Sun, its mass should be around 30 M of Sun (currently, 189 M of Sun).

That would give the option to avoid these illogicalities: Table“3, 4 and 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

Dear Author,

Greetings!

This e-mail acknowledges the submission of your paper in
‘International Journal of Physics and Astronomy’. Your paper is now
under double blind peer review process. Please note the following
points for future correspondence.

Manuscript ID: PAS-1158.
Journal: International Journal of Physics and Astronomy
Time of completion of review process: 2-3 weeks*

Please don’t hesitate to contact if you have any query.

Thanks for your interest in International Journal of Physics and Astronomy.

Sincerely,
M. Mamin Ullah
Executive Editor
International Journal of Physics and Astronomy
E-mail: editor@aripd.org

* Time of completion of review process may vary based on the
reviewers’ submission of reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
On 9/19/2019 at 11:32 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

[...]

Inside the data check. for a few thousand stars. an error occurs. The table is the first sketch and does not affect the essence of the problem and the result.

[...]

That wasn't single blunder of yours. Another example, 70 Ophiuchi B, you put 0.13 as radius, while infact it is luminosity. And another example, volume of the sphere with radius=1 (as in your table for the Sun) isn't 2,355.

You can't manage to perform simple calculations, yet you are trying to solve the problems of cosmology.

Anyway, show me any other types of stars (excluding neutron stars and white dwarfs), which would have densities over 10000 g/cm3 (10 kg/cm3). Just one star, just one with density above 10 kg/cm3.

Share this post


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

That wasn't single blunder of yours. Another example, 70 Ophiuchi B, you put 0.13 as radius, while infact it is luminosity. And another example, volume of the sphere with radius=1 (as in your table for the Sun) isn't 2,355.

You can't manage to perform simple calculations, yet you are trying to solve the problems of cosmology.

Anyway, show me any other types of stars (excluding neutron stars and white dwarfs), which would have densities over 10000 g/cm3 (10 kg/cm3). Just one star, just one with density above 10 kg/cm3.

This (have densities over 10000 g / cm3 (10 kg / cm3) is not proof, it is the imagination of incompetent scientists.

Always repeat, they do not have a goal: to discover the truth. Contrary to the lies and fairy tales are sold several times better than the truth.

We don't have to follow their stories without proof.

I hope you don't think the very fast rotation of these bodies is accidental?

P.S. Table 1. I removed and installed a new one. Way, which can be discussed, is not the way of truth. I am  submitted a new (almost) article to the publisher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
On 9/28/2019 at 9:09 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

This (have densities over 10000 g / cm3 (10 kg / cm3) is not proof, it is the imagination of incompetent scientists.

Always repeat, they do not have a goal: to discover the truth. Contrary to the lies and fairy tales are sold several times better than the truth.

We don't have to follow their stories without proof.

I hope you don't think the very fast rotation of these bodies is accidental?

P.S. Table 1. I removed and installed a new one. Way, which can be discussed, is not the way of truth. I am  submitted a new (almost) article to the publisher.

**snip**, how do you think radius of the star is being determined, huh?

Again, give us one example of one star with the density of over 10 kg/cm3.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
Personal attacks removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
On 9/28/2019 at 9:44 PM, bmk1245 said:

**snip** how do you think radius of the star is being determined, huh?

Again, give us one example of one star with the density of over 10 kg/cm3.

**snip** no need to discuss the nonsense and fabrications.

The rotation speed value is closely related to star types, as presented in the tables 2, 3, 4 and 5. At the same time it defines the temperature level of an object, but only faintly affects its density. Density mildly decreases with the increase of the rotation speed, but magnetic field value increases strongly..

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 

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

0,568

2,063±0,023 MSun

 weak

A0mA1 Va

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 [4]   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). „

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
Personal attacks removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
On 9/29/2019 at 7:27 AM, Weitter Duckss said:

**snip** no need to discuss the nonsense and fabrications.

The rotation speed value is closely related to star types, as presented in the tables 2, 3, 4 and 5. At the same time it defines the temperature level of an object, but only faintly affects its density. Density mildly decreases with the increase of the rotation speed, but magnetic field value increases strongly..

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 

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

0,568

2,063±0,023 MSun

 weak

A0mA1 Va

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 [4]   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). „

Cut the crap, show us just one star with density above 10 kg/cm3.

Share this post


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

Cut the crap, show us just one star with density above 10 kg/cm3.

I did not find evidence of the existence of a body with a much higher density than Earth or Venus.

Of course, there are mainstream hypotheses that are not evidence.

If you have evidence (not hypotheses), please give it, "Cut the crap."

Stars and all hot bodies have ¼ the densities of these bodies.

Still, you have to know that this presentation is within the main stream of evidence. My point of view is diametrically opposite. If you understand the whole article, part of my position will be clear to you.

Star

Volume

Mass, Sun=1

Radius, Sun=1

Mass/volume

Type of star

Sunce (M = 1, R = 1)

2,355

1

1

0,4246 ..

G2V

WR 3

35.921

15

2,48

0,4176

WR-WN3-HW

WR 21a

4069,44

103,6

12

0,02546

WR-WN5ha

WR 31a

62231,76

17

29,8

0,0002732

WR-WN11h

Share this post


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

I did not find evidence of the existence of a body with a much higher density than Earth or Venus.

Of course, there are mainstream hypotheses that are not evidence.

If you have evidence (not hypotheses), please give it, "Cut the crap."

Stars and all hot bodies have ¼ the densities of these bodies.

Still, you have to know that this presentation is within the main stream of evidence. My point of view is diametrically opposite. If you understand the whole article, part of my position will be clear to you.

Star

Volume

Mass, Sun=1

Radius, Sun=1

Mass/volume

Type of star

Sunce (M = 1, R = 1)

2,355

1

1

0,4246 ..

G2V

WR 3

35.921

15

2,48

0,4176

WR-WN3-HW

WR 21a

4069,44

103,6

12

0,02546

WR-WN5ha

WR 31a

62231,76

17

29,8

0,0002732

WR-WN11h

Just tiny sample out of many (white dwarfs):

WD 0148+467: mass 0.612, radius 0.01237, density ~460 kg/cm3
WD 0227+050: mass 0.597, radius 0.01387, density ~320 kg/cm3
WD 0232+035: mass 0.703, radius 0.0277, density ~47 kg/cm3
WD 0310-688: mass 0.587, radius 0.01144, density ~550 kg/cm3
WD 0439+466: mass 0.506, radius 0.02858, density ~31 kg/cm3

(P.-E. Tremblay, et al MNRAS, 2849 (2016))

Edited by bmk1245

Share this post


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

Just tiny sample out of many (white dwarfs):

WD 0148+467: mass 0.612, radius 0.01237, density ~460 kg/cm3
WD 0227+050: mass 0.597, radius 0.01387, density ~320 kg/cm3
WD 0232+035: mass 0.703, radius 0.0277, density ~47 kg/cm3
WD 0310-688: mass 0.587, radius 0.01144, density ~550 kg/cm3
WD 0439+466: mass 0.506, radius 0.02858, density ~31 kg/cm3

(P.-E. Tremblay, et al MNRAS, 2849 (2016))

Finally, we swim in the right waters.

Now we can check the credibility (not yours, the evidence).

The easiest check is to look at stars smaller and larger than the "WD", which are the Dwarfs themselves.

Red Star

Volume

Mass, Sun=1

Radius, Sun=1

Mass/volume

Type of star

Ros 47

0,01157

0,35

0,17

30,1724

M4.0Vn

Kepler-42

0,01157

0,13

0,17

11,236

M5V

YZ Canis Minoris

0,0801

0,308

0,324

3,845

M5V

LHS 1140

0,015154

0,146

0,186

9,63442

M4.5V

Brown Dwarf

Volume

Mass Jup

Radius Jup

Mass/volume

Type of star

Teide 1

127,1939

57 ± 15

3,78

0,445

Brown Dwarf-M8

Cha 110913-773444

13,73436

8 (+7, -3), (17)

1,8

0,5825

r. planet/ Brown Dwarf

PSO J318.5-22 12

8,4346

6,5

1,53

0,771

rogue planet

2MASS J0523−1403

2,42636

67,54 MJup

1,01 RJup

27,84

Brown Dwarf-L2.5V

EBLM J0555-57

1,396

85,2  Mjup (~0,081 Sun)

0,84  RJup

61,03

Brown Dwarf

2MASS 0939−2448

0,0120576

0,035    „

0,08    „

29,0273

Brown Dwarf-T8

15 Sagittae

2,350

68,7      „

1          „

29,172

Brown Dwarf-L4

LHS 6343 c

1,13051

62,1      „

0,783  „

54,931

Brown Dwarf-T

 

Sub WD

Volume

Mass Sun

Radius Sun

Mass/volume

Type of star

 

V391 Pegasi

0,02865

0.5±0.05 

0.23±0.03 

17,45

blue-white subdwarf star

 

HD_49798  

7,1795

1,5

1,45

0,2089282

sdO6p

 

NSVS 14256825

0,016153

0,528

0,19

32,687

sdOB / M V

 

2MASS J19383260+4603591

 

0.48 / 0.120

0.223 / 0.158

 

sdBV/M

 

HVS 7

 

3,7

4.0 

 

sdB

 

Kepler-70

0,0197

0,496

0,203

25,178

sdB

PG 1047+003

0,07948

0,5

0,15

62,91

sdBe

 

Groombridge 1830

 

0,661

0.681

 

class G8 subdwarf

 

Kapteyn's Star    

 

0,274

0,291

 

sdM1

 

HD 134439

 

~0,78

0,573

 

sd:K1Fe-1

 

HD 134440

 

~0,73

0.5345

 

sdK2.5

 

 

Check credibility.

"Just tiny sample out of many:

WD 0148+467: mass 0.612, radius 0.01237, density ~460 kg/cm3
WD 0227+050: mass 0.597, radius 0.01387, density ~320 kg/cm3
WD 0232+035: mass 0.703, radius 0.0277, density ~47 kg/cm3
WD 0310-688: mass 0.587, radius 0.01144, density ~550 kg/cm3
WD 0439+466: mass 0.506, radius 0.02858, density ~31 kg/cm3"

We have bodies of the same (or smaller and larger) masses (all are the predicteds), the same (smaller and larger) temperatures than WD. Some are brighter than WD (abbreviation of not of Weitter Duckss), many have higher temperatures. However, "scientists" claim that some are outside the laws of physics.

Once all these bodies were, by definition, as WD. Today, only the WD has retained that deformation of definition. There is no Baba Roga there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
On 9/30/2019 at 4:40 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

Finally, we swim in the right waters.

Now we can check the credibility (not yours, the evidence).

The easiest check is to look at stars smaller and larger than the "WD", which are the Dwarfs themselves.

Red Star

Volume

Mass, Sun=1

Radius, Sun=1

Mass/volume

Type of star

Ros 47

0,01157

0,35

0,17

30,1724

M4.0Vn

Kepler-42

0,01157

0,13

0,17

11,236

M5V

YZ Canis Minoris

0,0801

0,308

0,324

3,845

M5V

LHS 1140

0,015154

0,146

0,186

9,63442

M4.5V

Brown Dwarf

Volume

Mass Jup

Radius Jup

Mass/volume

Type of star

Teide 1

127,1939

57 ± 15

3,78

0,445

Brown Dwarf-M8

Cha 110913-773444

13,73436

8 (+7, -3), (17)

1,8

0,5825

r. planet/ Brown Dwarf

PSO J318.5-22 12

8,4346

6,5

1,53

0,771

rogue planet

2MASS J0523−1403

2,42636

67,54 MJup

1,01 RJup

27,84

Brown Dwarf-L2.5V

EBLM J0555-57

1,396

85,2  Mjup (~0,081 Sun)

0,84  RJup

61,03

Brown Dwarf

2MASS 0939−2448

0,0120576

0,035    „

0,08    „

29,0273

Brown Dwarf-T8

15 Sagittae

2,350

68,7      „

1          „

29,172

Brown Dwarf-L4

LHS 6343 c

1,13051

62,1      „

0,783  „

54,931

Brown Dwarf-T

 

Sub WD

Volume

Mass Sun

Radius Sun

Mass/volume

Type of star

 

V391 Pegasi

0,02865

0.5±0.05 

0.23±0.03 

17,45

blue-white subdwarf star

 

HD_49798  

7,1795

1,5

1,45

0,2089282

sdO6p

 

NSVS 14256825

0,016153

0,528

0,19

32,687

sdOB / M V

 

2MASS J19383260+4603591

 

0.48 / 0.120

0.223 / 0.158

 

sdBV/M

 

HVS 7

 

3,7

4.0 

 

sdB

 

Kepler-70

0,0197

0,496

0,203

25,178

sdB

PG 1047+003

0,07948

0,5

0,15

62,91

sdBe

 

Groombridge 1830

 

0,661

0.681

 

class G8 subdwarf

 

Kapteyn's Star    

 

0,274

0,291

 

sdM1

 

HD 134439

 

~0,78

0,573

 

sd:K1Fe-1

 

HD 134440

 

~0,73

0.5345

 

sdK2.5

 

 

Check credibility.

"Just tiny sample out of many:

WD 0148+467: mass 0.612, radius 0.01237, density ~460 kg/cm3
WD 0227+050: mass 0.597, radius 0.01387, density ~320 kg/cm3
WD 0232+035: mass 0.703, radius 0.0277, density ~47 kg/cm3
WD 0310-688: mass 0.587, radius 0.01144, density ~550 kg/cm3
WD 0439+466: mass 0.506, radius 0.02858, density ~31 kg/cm3"

We have bodies of the same (or smaller and larger) masses (all are the predicteds), the same (smaller and larger) temperatures than WD. Some are brighter than WD (abbreviation of not of Weitter Duckss), many have higher temperatures. However, "scientists" claim that some are outside the laws of physics.

Once all these bodies were, by definition, as WD. Today, only the WD has retained that deformation of definition. There is no Baba Roga there.

For ****$ sake, you can't even calculate volume of the sphere with given radius, you don't know what density is, and in overall, you have zero grasp in basic physics.

Heh, lets have fun, what is the volume of the Sun? What is the mass of the Sun? What is the density of the Sun?

Share this post


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

For ****$ sake, you can't even calculate volume of the sphere with given radius, you don't know what density is, and in overall, you have zero grasp in basic physics.

Heh, lets have fun, what is the volume of the Sun? What is the mass of the Sun? What is the density of the Sun?

 

For ****$ sake, this is now judged by the judges. If you don't know, open the Internet and read it.

Heh, lets have fun, why are WD's so special as opposed to other stars? Is the reason the Bible or the journalistic (scientific) duck?

 

Mass

Temper. K

Type

HIP 12961

0,63

3.838,0

red dwarf star M0V

HR 9038 Ab

0,67

4.620,0

  red dwarf star K3V

Groombridge 1830

0,661

4.759

G8 subdwarf

GD 356

0,67

7.510

white dwarf  DC7

V391 Pegasi

0,5

29.300,0

 subdwarf star

Lacaillea 9352 

0,503

3,692

M0.5V

NSVS 14256825

0,528

42.000,0

sdOB / M V

HD 149382

0.29−0.53

35.000,0

B5 VI

CW Leonis

0,7-0,9

2.000,0

C9,5e

Castor C

0.5992

3.820

 BY Draconis dwarf stars

40 Eridani B

0,573

16.500

white dwarf  DA4

L 97-12

0,59

5.700,0

white dwarf DC8.8

Explain: How does density affect the temperature of a star?

 

Redshift may be wrong? Evidence debunking redshift? Red face Shift?www.everythingselectric.com

Share this post


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

 

For ****$ sake, this is now judged by the judges. If you don't know, open the Internet and read it.

Heh, lets have fun, why are WD's so special as opposed to other stars? Is the reason the Bible or the journalistic (scientific) duck?

 

Mass

Temper. K

Type

HIP 12961

0,63

3.838,0

red dwarf star M0V

HR 9038 Ab

0,67

4.620,0

  red dwarf star K3V

Groombridge 1830

0,661

4.759

G8 subdwarf

GD 356

0,67

7.510

white dwarf  DC7

V391 Pegasi

0,5

29.300,0

 subdwarf star

Lacaillea 9352 

0,503

3,692

M0.5V

NSVS 14256825

0,528

42.000,0

sdOB / M V

HD 149382

0.29−0.53

35.000,0

B5 VI

CW Leonis

0,7-0,9

2.000,0

C9,5e

Castor C

0.5992

3.820

 BY Draconis dwarf stars

40 Eridani B

0,573

16.500

white dwarf  DA4

L 97-12

0,59

5.700,0

white dwarf DC8.8

Explain: How does density affect the temperature of a star?

 

Redshift may be wrong? Evidence debunking redshift? Red face Shift?www.everythingselectric.com

I'll go with the same set

WD 0148+467: mass 0.612, radius 0.01237, density ~460 kg/cm3
WD 0227+050: mass 0.597, radius 0.01387, density ~320 kg/cm3
WD 0232+035: mass 0.703, radius 0.0277, density ~47 kg/cm3
WD 0310-688: mass 0.587, radius 0.01144, density ~550 kg/cm3
WD 0439+466: mass 0.506, radius 0.02858, density ~31 kg/cm3

What points to your bs claim:

"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 ." 

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/330107-report-white-dwarfs-is-small-stars/#comments)

Share this post


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

I'll go with the same set

WD 0148+467: mass 0.612, radius 0.01237, density ~460 kg/cm3
WD 0227+050: mass 0.597, radius 0.01387, density ~320 kg/cm3
WD 0232+035: mass 0.703, radius 0.0277, density ~47 kg/cm3
WD 0310-688: mass 0.587, radius 0.01144, density ~550 kg/cm3
WD 0439+466: mass 0.506, radius 0.02858, density ~31 kg/cm3

What points to your bs claim:

"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 ." 

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/330107-report-white-dwarfs-is-small-stars/#comments)

 

 

I removed that from the article. I chose the second time.

The central theme is (and continues to be):

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

Sirius A

16

km/s

0,568

2,063±0,023 MSun

 weak

A0mA1 Va

PSR J1745-2900

3,76

second

 /

1-3          (mass Sun)

1014

pulsar

Table 7. Rotation/density

The temperature depends on the rotation speed, Table 2. etc.

 This is an indisputable fact (not a hypothesis).

The rotation speed, due to rising temperatures, decomposes complex elements and junctions and reduces the density of stars. Unless there are other factors, it is a basic natural process.

Now this needs to be turned into mainstream evidence (which is based on erroneous old hypotheses and theories).

We visited Pluto and found that at this distance, we did not know how to determine the exact radius. Remember that Pluto also visited Voyager. So much for evidence from bad theories.

Earth's density increases and temperature rises:

Geologic layers of Earth

Depth[113] km

Component layer

Density g/cm3

0–60

Lithosphere[n 14]

0–35

Crust[n 15]

2.2–2.9

35–60

Upper mantle

3.4–4.4

  35–2890

Mantle

3.4–5.6

100–700

Asthenosphere

2890–5100

Outer core

9.9–12.2

5100–6378

Inner core

12.8–13.1

That is the point of my past question, because the evidence, which I gave, are contrary to the basic laws as well as white dwarfs.

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

Star

Volume

Mass, Sun=1

Radius, Sun=1

Mass/volume

Type of star

V391 Pegasi

0,02865

0,5±0,05 

0,23±0,03 

17,45

blue-white subdwarf star

HD_49798  

7,1795

1,5

1,45

0,2089282

sdO6p

NSVS 14256825

0,016153

0,528

0,19

32,687

sdOB / M V

2MASS J19383260+4603591

0,026 / 0,0093

0,48 / 0,120

0,223 / 0,158

18,46 / 12,9

sdBV/M

HVS 7

150,72

3,7

4,0 

0,02455

sdB

Kepler-70

0,0197

0,496

0,203

25,178

sdB

PG 1047+003

0,07948

0,5

0,15

62,91

sdBe

Groombridge 1830

0,744

0,661

0,681

0,8884

class G8 subdwarf

Kapteyn's Star    

0,058

0,274

0,291

4,7241

sdM1

HD 134439

0,4431

~0,78

0,573

1,76

sd:K1Fe-1

HD 134440

0,3596

~0,73

0,5345

2,03

sdK2.5

 

Sun (M=1, R=1)      

2,355

1

1

0,4246..

G2V

WR 102              

0,33113184    

16,7

0,52

50,433

WR- WO2

WR 93b

0,20061

8,1

0,44

40,377

WR_ WO3

WR 142                              

1,2058                      

28,6

0,8

23,72

WR- WO2

WR 7

4,711                        

13

1,26

2,76

WR-WN4-s

WR 46                               

5,924                       

14

1,36

2,2633

WR- WN3p-w

WR 3                             

35,921                       

15

2,48

0,4176

WR-WN3-hw

WR 21a

4069,44                        

103,6

12

0,02546    

WR-WN5ha

WR 31a

62231,76                          

17

29,8

0,0002732

WR-WN11h

 

Lambda Cephei 

17.462,0

51

18-21

0,00292

O6.5If(n)p

NML Cygni

3.898927.371,9

50

1.183,0

0,000000013

M4.5-M7.9Ia-III

Ros 47

0,01157

0,35

0,17

30,1724   

M4.0Vn

Kepler-42

0,01157

0,13

0,17

11,236

M5V

YZ Canis Minoris              

0,0801                       

0,308                       

0,324                     

3,845        

M5V

LHS 1140                        

0,015154                         

0,146

0,186

9,63442       

M4.5V

 

SU Ursae Majoris

0,01097                     

0,105

0,167

9,572      

dwarf nova

 

OTS 44

0,129

0,011

0,23-0,57

0,08527

r. planet/ Brown Dwarf

TVLM 513-46546

0,0031345

0,09

0,11

28,7127

Red/Brown Dwarf-M9

DEN 0255−4700       

0,001716795       

0,025-0,065     

0,08-0,1      

26,212 

Brown Dwarf-L8/L9

OGLE-TR-123

0,00517395    

0,085

0,13

16,4285

Brown Dwarf-M

 

 

Mass and radius of Jupiter (jup = 1), density: Sun=1,408 g/cm3; Jupiter 1,326 g / cm3

 

Star

Volume

Mass Jup

Radius Jup

Mass/volume

Type of star

Teide 1

127,1939

57 ± 15

3,78

0,445

Brown Dwarf-M8

Cha 110913-773444

13,73436

8 (+7, -3), (17)

1,8

0,5825

r. planet/ Brown Dwarf

PSO J318.5-22 12

8,4346

6,5

1,53

0,771

rogue planet

2MASS J0523−1403

2,42636               

67,54

1,01

27,84

Brown Dwarf-L2.5V

EBLM J0555-57                    

1,396                               

85,2 (~0,081 Sun)

0,84 

61,03

Brown Dwarf

2MASS 0939−2448

0,0120576

0,035   

0,08   

29,0273

Brown Dwarf-T8

15 Sagittae

2,350

68,7     

1         

29,172

Brown Dwarf-L4

LHS 6343 c

1,13051

62,1     

0,783 

54,931

Brown Dwarf-T

 

 

Star

Distance AU

Mass Jup

Radius Jup

Temperature K

Type planet

Srars generate their own energy. Planet reflected radiation, do not create their own energy.

2MASS J2126-8140

6.900,0

13,3

/

1.800,0

Planet

ROXs 42B b

140

9

0,9-3

1.800,0-2.600,0

Planet

HIP 65426 b

92

9

1,5

1.450,0

Planet

HR 8799 d

24

7

1,2

1.090,0

Planet

HR 8799 c

38

7

1,3

1.090,0

Planet

DH Tau B

330

11

2,7

2.750,0

Planet

UScoCTIO 108 b

670

14

0,9078

2.600,0

Planet

11 Oph b

472,9

21

0,9078

2.375,0

Planet

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

The analysis of the objects' density in Table 1 (in the relation of mass/volume – star type) points out that there is no consistency that would be related to star types. Inside a same star type there are densities, which are lower, higher or the same as the one of Sun. The old concept's contours are clearly visible in the statements that smaller stars have higher densities and big red stars are inflated objects. [2] However, that concept also lacks consistency. It is particularly important to point out that the mass and radius estimates of the objects that are smaller than the mass and radius of Sun are generally only hypothesized (using the old hypotheses). [3]  If a star has the same mass or radius as Sun, the estimate of its density may follow several different hypotheses. For example, if an object is classified into a type of  "planets", it is less dense than a type known as a brown dwarf. Brown Dwarfs masses are 0,035 and 68,7 (2MASS 0939−2448 and 15 Sagittae) and it makes mass/volume ratio of 29,0273 and 29,1720 respectively. At the same time, planets with the distances of  38-6.900,0 AU have mass/volume ratio around 1 (ROXs 42B b ø 0,6036; HIP 65426 b 1,7395). In a particular type of stars, Wolf–Rayet stars, there are stars with mass/volume ratio of 0,0002732 (WR 31a) to 50,4330 (WR 102). M type stars with large quantities of mass suggest their densities are low, because the effects of their slow rotation don't provide the same results with the objects they are interacted with, to the contrary of faster and fast rotating stars.  Generally, the decrease of density is ascribed to the stars with the increase of mass above 1 M Sun (Lambda Cephei   M 51 MSun, M/V 0,00292; NML Cygni M 51 MSun, M/V 0,000000013).“ 

Share this post


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

[...]

Again

WD 0148+467: mass 0.612, radius 0.01237, density ~460 kg/cm3
WD 0227+050: mass 0.597, radius 0.01387, density ~320 kg/cm3
WD 0232+035: mass 0.703, radius 0.0277, density ~47 kg/cm3
WD 0310-688: mass 0.587, radius 0.01144, density ~550 kg/cm3
WD 0439+466: mass 0.506, radius 0.02858, density ~31 kg/cm3

Show any main sequence star with density over 10 kg/cm3 

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.