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

Do in the Universe is chaos reigning?

Recommended Posts

Weitter Duckss

A topic I want to write about. The question now is: is the Universe (processes) ordered or is it chaos or something between chaos and orderliness. If I am writing, I am voting for a fully edited Universe and beyond.

To begin the discussion, I offer an edited table with an obvious example of system orderliness.

Body

~ % Mass of satellites
Satellites /Central body

Radius km

 Distance AU

Temperature

ø

Pluto

12,2

1 188,3±0,8

39,48

44

Earth

1,23

6 371,0

1

287,16 (61-90)

Neptune

0,385

24 622,0±19

30,11

55 (0,1 bar)

Sun

0,14

695 700

-

5 772 (Ph.sph)

Saturn

0,024

58 232

9,5826

84 (0,1 bar)

Jupiter

0,021

69 911

5,2044

112 (0,1 bar)

Uranus

0,00677

25 362±7 

19,2184

47 (0,1 bar)

Venus

No satellites

6 051.8±1,0

0,723332

737 K

I would be glad to open all events in favor of or against chaos and orderliness. 

Has the time arrived to provide answers (or discussions) about the cognitive and the unknowable in the discussion of the forum? Maybe some think it's a topic for "smart" heads and institutions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Waspie_Dwarf

Why are you cherry picking?

You have included Pluto but not included other dwarf planets.

You have excluded Mercury and Mars. 

Cherry picking is a logical fallacy,  those using it are guilty of scientific fraud.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
5 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

Why are you cherry picking?

You have included Pluto but not included other dwarf planets.

You have excluded Mercury and Mars. 

Cherry picking is a logical fallacy,  those using it are guilty of scientific fraud.

I think it is not scientific fraud as there is no science involved, it is called "Psuedo-Science"  ( @Weitter Duckss ).

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xeno-Fish

I can't even make sense out of the title.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

That is the beginning of the debate. I left out the big tables. Reason? I want to listen, I don't want to impose my evidence. If one wants, he is free to download the topic (instead of me). There is no lie and deception.
I haven't started writing this topic, I'm just meditating and looking for a way and a framework.
Why are you attacking? I just vote in order.
The inclusion of Mercury, Mars and smaller bodies and satellites will increase the orderliness of the system. I used to give more complete tables. The same comments!
Not proving anything, I started a discussion to find out: what to pay attention to?
Equally, I can represent chaos. You decide what you can defend. To me what's left. Order or chaos, I don't care. Is it the same for you?

R/BObjectSatelliteØ density g/cm3Radius kmSemi axis orbit km

R/B

Object

Satellite

Ø density g/cm3

Radius km

Semi axis orbit km

1

Mars

Phobos

1,876

11,27

9.376

2

 

Deimos

1.4718

6,2

23.463,2

3

Jupiter

Amalthea

0,857

83,5

181.365,84

4

 

Io

3,528

1.821,6

421.700

5

 

Europa

3,013

1.560,8

670.900

6

 

Ganymede

1,936

2.634,1

1.070.400

7

 

Callisto

1,8344

2.410,3

1.882.700

8

Saturn

Janus

0,63

89,5

151.460

9

 

Enceladus

1,609

252,1

237.948

10

 

Tethys

0,984

531,1

294.619

11

 

Dione

1.478

561,4

377.396

12

 

Rhea

1.236

763,8

527.108

13

 

Titan

1,8798

2.575,5

1.221.870

14

 

Hyperion

0.544

135

1.481.009

15

 

Iapetus

1,088

734,5

3.560.820

16

Uranus

Miranda

1,20

235,8

129.390

17

 

Ariel

1.592

578,9

191.020

18

 

Umbriel

1,39

584,7

266.000

19

 

Titania

1,711

788,4

435.910

20

 

Oberon

1,63

761,4

583.520

21

Neptun

Proteus

~1,3

210

117.647

22

 

Triton

2,061

1.353,4

354.800

23

Pluto

Charon

1,707

603,6

19.591

24

Haumea

Hi`iaka

~1

~160

49.880

25

Haumea

 

2,6

620

 

26

Eris

 

2.52

1163

 

27

Pluto

 

1,86

1.187

 

28

Neptune

 

1,638

24.622

 

29

Uranus

 

1,27

25.362

 

30

Saturn

 

0,687

58.232

 

31

Jupiter

 

1,326

69.911

 

32

Ceres

 

2,161

965,2

 

33

Vesta

 

3,456

572,6

 

34

67P/Ch-G

 

0,533

4,1x3,3x1,8

 

35

Mars

 

3,9335

3.389,5

 

36

Earth

 

5,514

6.371

 

37

 

Moon

3.344

1.737,1

384.399

38

Venus

 

5,243

6.051,8

 

39

Mercury

 

5,427

2.439,7

 

40

Sun

 

1,408

695.700 eq

 

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

Share this post


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

A topic I want to write about. The question now is: is the Universe (processes) ordered or is it chaos or something between chaos and orderliness. If I am writing, I am voting for a fully edited Universe and beyond.

To begin the discussion, I offer an edited table with an obvious example of system orderliness.

Body

~ % Mass of satellites
Satellites /Central body

Radius km

 Distance AU

Temperature

ø

Pluto

12,2

1 188,3±0,8

39,48

44

Earth

1,23

6 371,0

1

287,16 (61-90)

Neptune

0,385

24 622,0±19

30,11

55 (0,1 bar)

Sun

0,14

695 700

-

5 772 (Ph.sph)

Saturn

0,024

58 232

9,5826

84 (0,1 bar)

Jupiter

0,021

69 911

5,2044

112 (0,1 bar)

Uranus

0,00677

25 362±7 

19,2184

47 (0,1 bar)

Venus

No satellites

6 051.8±1,0

0,723332

737 K

I would be glad to open all events in favor of or against chaos and orderliness. 

Has the time arrived to provide answers (or discussions) about the cognitive and the unknowable in the discussion of the forum? Maybe some think it's a topic for "smart" heads and institutions?

I don’t get what your point is.  What is it about the values displayed in the tables that indicates to you order, or chaos?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crikey

Weitter Duckss said- I would be glad to open all events in favor of or against chaos and orderliness. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well Mother Earth has been hanging there for billions of years, so there's no chaos in her neck of the woods except for the odd little meteor hit..:D

rel-Hangs-earth-large.jpg

Edited by Crikey

Share this post


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

I don’t get what your point is.  What is it about the values displayed in the tables that indicates to you order, or chaos?

The table is a set of mainstream evidence in one place. She speaks with evidence instead of empty words.

The first table is (though true) set because it indicates chaos. There is nothing to relate to. The order arrives only after deep analysis and proof. Part of the analysis is in the article attached behind the second table.

It’s easy to say chaos or order and pile up evidence for each other or another. It is difficult to pass through the barrage checks.

2 hours ago, Crikey said:

Well Mother Earth has been hanging there for billions of years, so there's no chaos in her neck of the woods except for the odd little meteor hit..:D

Nicely said. Now within reality: everything is moving. Earth orbits the Sun, the Sun inside a galaxy, galaxies within a cluster of galaxies ... Nothing stands still, everything is gravitationally bound, and growing by attracting matter ..

Question: is the Earth order, and meteor chaos? Why is, the odd little meteor, chaos?

Share this post


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

 

Question: is the Earth order, and meteor chaos? Why is, the odd little meteor, chaos?

Well the Earth has survived for billions of years, and occasional little meteor hits don't bother her, they're not very chaotic at all..:D

Share this post


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

Well the Earth has survived for billions of years, and occasional little meteor hits don't bother her, they're not very chaotic at all..:D

:D Perhaps you met with the data that the meteor struck the Earth (and other bodies) can speed up or slow down the rotation. A little but it works. So meteorites (which have also survived for billions of years) a little though tickle  our planet and slightly increase its mass.image.jpeg.303ac02817322fa0993f309cd303ab43.jpeg Ah yes, by the way they exterminate dinosaurs! Slikovni rezultat za žaljenje za dinosaurusima

How the meteor survived for billions of years?

Share this post


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

How the meteor survived for billions of years?

 

Meteors are debris floating around after the Big Bang explosion, the big ones are dangerous but none have completely destroyed the earth yet..:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa

Maybe I just can't discern the order.  So far this thread looks like chaos.

Edited by Tatetopa
typo
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Meteors are debris floating around after the Big Bang explosion, the big ones are dangerous but none have completely destroyed the earth yet..:)

Although there was no Big Bang.

The first types of radiation originated from 320,000 to 380,000 years after a hypothetical Big Bang. So at that time there are no debris, planets and stars.

According to constant growth processes, this is normal reality. Yet the question was why the meteor is 4.5 Ga (mainstream assessment) remained small and the other bodies are large and very large (some large red stars and centers of galaxies)? The same question applies to gas and dust. Is there order here or is it chaos?

Slikovni rezultat za pitam se, pitam

 

Share this post


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

..there was no Big Bang.

 

I read that the enormous release of pure energy in the BB converted itself into atoms and molecules. The reverse happens in a nuclear explosion, where a small amount of matter converts into tremendous energy.

Or are scientists now saying something different about the BB?

Edited by Crikey

Share this post


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

 

I read that the enormous release of pure energy in the BB converted itself into atoms and molecules. The reverse happens in a nuclear explosion, where a small amount of matter converts into tremendous energy.

Or are scientists now saying something different about the BB?

Nuclear explosion or explosion of stars or both?

Big Bang is a hypothesis, it is not logical to compare a real event with nonexistent.

However, you open question: why an identical process has two opposite solutions?

Or material occurs or is dezitegrira.

Big Bang is God's creation, nuclear explosion is a human creation.

Does the difference stems from this?

Slikovni rezultat za Has science revealed God?  Slikovni rezultat za pope and s. hawkings Slikovni rezultat za pope and s. hawkings

Share this post


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

Big Bang is a hypothesis, it is not logical to compare a real event with nonexistent.

 

The universe is expanding like shrapnel from an explosion isn't it?

Share this post


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

 

The universe is expanding like shrapnel from an explosion isn't it?

„4.5. Rotation vs. Expansion
A simple check of these claims can be made. If we place our Earth as a point inside the volume of the whole Universe some 300-400 thousand light years after the Big Bang, when the first radiation (cosmic microwave background) starts to appear (BD + 17 ° 3248 is a cluster in the Milky Way, only 968 light years away and the estimated age of  13,8±4 G years) and check the progress of expansion.
Our location within the expansion has the same direction with the closer and more distant neighboring galaxies and a red shift with more significant quantities is impossible in that direction. The astronomers have found nothing similar in their observations.
We have a claims, „The universe is spreading“, then there should be a small universe (with a small diameter) 300-400 thousand years after the so-called Big Bang, and a big universe, in which „...the most distant objects in the universe are the galaxies GN-z11, 13,39 G etc.
If an emission of light happened 13,39 light-years ago  (EGSY8p7, 13,23 G  ly, etc.), one could ask: did light travel at all through these 13,39 bilion ly, since we can see it now? [33]
Our Universe is created inside a whole that has started to brighten up  ("when photons started to travel freely through space" Wikipedia), which is in total accordance with "the radiance (CMB, cosmic microwave background) is almost even in all directions".
CMB (according to Big Bang theory), the photons started traveling freely into space, which is not our Universe. It is an area outside the whole, from which the radiation starts and inside which stars and galaxies (our Milky Way included, too) were created.
The radiance (CMB) is even in all directions and, according to Big Bang theory, it should mean that CMB and other radiations return back into the whole, from which they started 13,7 billion of years ago, because the radiance (CMB) is almost even in all directions and they don't originate from a single point, which should represent a starting whole, from which photons (CMB and other radiations) started.
Radiation is coming from all directions of the Universe, which is contradictory to the expansion of the Universe.

Table 22. the direction of the farthest galaxies within the Universe

 

Galaxy

Right ascension

Declination

Red shift

Distance G ly

1

HCM-6A

02h 39m 54.7s

−01° 33′ 32″

6,56

12,8

2

SXDF-NB1006-2

02h 18m 56.5s

−05° 19′ 58.9″

7,215

13,07

3

TN J0924-2201

09 h  24 m  19,92 s

-22 ° 01 '41,5 "

5,19

12,523

4

UDFy-38135539

03h 32m 38.13s

−27° 45′ 53.9″

8,6

13,1

5

A2744 YD4

00h 14m 24.927s

−30° 22′ 56.15″

8,38

13,2

6

BDF-3299

22h 28m 12.26s

−35° 09′ 59.4″

7,109

13,05

7

SSA22−HCM1

22h 17m 39.69s

+00° 13′ 48.6″

5,47

12,7

8

EQ J100054+023435

10h 00m 54.52s

+2° 34′ 35.17″

4,547 (280.919 km/s)

12,2

9

ULAS J1120+0641

11h 20m 01.48s

+06° 41′ 24.3″

7,085

13,05

10

ULAS J1342 + 0928 

13h 42m 08.10s

+13h 42m 08.10s

7,54

13,1

11

GRB 090423

09h 55m 33.08s

+18° 08′ 58.9″

8,2

13

12

IOK-1

13h 23m 59.8s

+27° 24′ 56″

6,96

12,88

13

A1703 zD6

13 h 15 m 01.0 s

+51° 50 04

7,054

13,04

14

Q0906 + 6930

09h 06m 30.75s

+69° 30′ 30.8″

5,47

12,3

15

MACS0647-JD

06h 47m 55.73s

+70° 14′ 35.8″

10,7

13,3


Table 22. the direction of the farthest galaxies within the Universe distance 12,2 -13,3 G ly

There is no significant red shift in only one direction – a similarly significant red shift is found in all directions. There is nothing that would imply that something different from the other directions is happening in any particular direction (the possibility that we are in the very center of the Universe and that everything is distancing itself from us is disputed by collisions, smaller and larger mergers and the different speeds of the observed objects (blue and red shift) (table 19, 20, 21 and 22).

A following result can be concluded from these data: there is no expansion, but a rotation of the Universe and all the objects within it. Similarly to any spherical cluster of stars or galaxies, the speeds of the objects inside it are lower than the speeds of the objects outside such a cluster. The Universe is no exception either.

7. Conclusion
A rotation of the Universe can be observed: from the rotation of the local group of galaxies, the rotation of the  Virgo Cluster; the different galactic speeds – while the closer galaxies have many times higher speeds from the significantly more distant galaxies; from the gravitational connection of: galaxies, clusters, superclusters that rotate around some center. The rotation is visible from the omnipresent merger and collisions between objects and systems, which have a blue shift between themselves and occur in the whole volume of the Universe, in all directions and at all distances.“

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crikey

Do the majority of scientists believe the Big Bang happened or not?

Share this post


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

Do the majority of scientists believe the Big Bang happened or not?

Faith and evidence are on diametrically opposite sides. Who cares what they believe in? All that matters is the evidence.

As you can see, the evidence clearly negates the Big Bang, without any doubt.

From a long angle, a few more evidence.

"The existence of redshift above the value (z) 5 pointed out that if (z) continues to grow, the concept of mainstream – 13,8 Gly (Big Bang) – is going to fall apart. Nowadays, the instruments register the value (z) of 11,9. When there is an overwhelming resistence from reactionary institutions and scientists, despite the newest measurements, then there appear unbelievable new ideas that do not belong to physics nor they represent science. The theme that is discussed here is one of them.

Figure 2. The Expanding Universe
The universe
Figure 2. The Expanding Universe – history (my compilation)

If there was a Big Bang, all the waves from that time should be approaching from a single direction, as shown in the figure 2. If radiation started for the first time 320 000 – 380 000
years after the explosion, during the so-called period of clearing the compact thick mass, then that radiation is impossible to measure today, no matter what mathemathical method may be used in the process. The reason to it is that all galaxies are created inside that mass that started emitting radiation. Since mainstram science also disagrees with the idea that the expansion of Universe or matter movement was faster than the spreading speed of waves in the space (which is still dubbed vacuum by the same mainstream), it can be seen that so-called measurements from that time are impossible to have been done.

Figure 3. The Early Universe
The universe
Figure 3. The Early Universe 320,000-380,000 years after the Big Bang, points 1-4 of Milky Way

We measure the objects, the age of which is estimated by mainstream to be withdrawn into past approximately as far as to the so-called early Universe, when the emission of radiation started. Points 1-4 in the so-called early Universe are some of the positions where our galaxy originated (Milky Way: 13.8 ± 4 billion years is age for BD +17° 3248; about 13.5 billion-years-old, 2MASS J18082002-5104378 B ..).
Within the most distant galaxies must be objects of similar age. Milky Way has a redshift (z) 0, the outermost galaxies have a redshift (z) 11.
Early Universe is also related to a small diameter, because the expansion has been taking place during all 13,8 Gly, due to which a contemporary volume of Universe should be created. If it was true that this small diameter of Universe started emitting radiation, besides the need for it to arrive from a single direction, it would have been obvious that this radiation left so-called early Universe with a diameter of only four times the diameter of our galaxy (under the condition that the expansion had been taking place at the speed of light). The universe has about 100 billion galaxies.
The deepest radiation of the early Universe needed to travel through only  200.000 ly in order to leave our Universe. The other problem is that the mainstream claims that Universe spreads ever faster, because the most distant galaxies show the most important redshift.
However, it is forgotten here that the mainstream also claims the most distant galaxies are the oldest galaxies.

GN-108036 The redshift was z = 7.2, meaning the light of the galaxy took 12.9 billion years to reach Earth and therefore its formation dates back to 750 million years after the Big Bang Redshift z=7.213.
GN-z11 ≈32 billion ly (9.8 billion pc) (present proper distance); ≈13.4 billion ly (4.1 billion pc) (light-travel distance); Helio radial velocity 295.050 ± 119.917 km / s

M33 -0,000607  (z) 2,38-3,07  Mly distance -179± 3 km/s
M64 0,001361   (z) 24± 7  Mly 408±4  km/s
CID-42  0,359    (z) 3,9  Gly 89.302 km/s
MS 1054-03

 

0,8321   (z)

 

6,757 Gly 246.759  km/s

So, what is correct here: that the most distant galaxies withdraw at the fastest speed, or that the oldest galaxies had been withdrawing at the fastest speed?
If the most distant galaxies are at the same time the oldest, then the fastest were the galaxies in the far past, so-called protogalaxies – and that is opposite to the claim that Universe spreads ever faster.
The next table shows that radiation incoming from the distances of more than  
12 Gly from all directions of the volume of Universe are measured.
Table 4. the direction of the farthest galaxies within the Universe

  Galaxy Right ascension Declination Red shift Distance G ly
1 HCM-6A 02h 39m 54.7s −01° 33′ 32″ 6,56 12,8
2 SXDF-NB1006-2 02h 18m 56.5s −05° 19′ 58.9″ 7,215 13,07
3 TN J0924-2201 09 h  24 m  19,92 s -22 ° 01 '41,5 " 5,19 12,523
4 UDFy-38135539 03h 32m 38.13s −27° 45′ 53.9″ 8,6 13,1
5 A2744 YD4 00h 14m 24.927s −30° 22′ 56.15″ 8,38 13,2
6 BDF-3299 22h 28m 12.26s −35° 09′ 59.4″ 7,109 13,05
7 SSA22−HCM1 22h 17m 39.69s +00° 13′ 48.6″ 5,47 12,7
8 EQ J100054+023435 10h 00m 54.52s +2° 34′ 35.17″ 4,547 (280.919 km/s) 12,2
9 ULAS J1120+0641 11h 20m 01.48s +06° 41′ 24.3″ 7,085 13,05
10 ULAS J1342 + 0928 13h 42m 08.10s +13h 42m 08.10s 7,54 13,1
11 GRB 090423 09h 55m 33.08s +18° 08′ 58.9″ 8,2 13
12 IOK-1 13h 23m 59.8s +27° 24′ 56″ 6,96 12,88
13 A1703 zD6 13 h 15 m 01.0 s +51° 50′ 04′ 7,054 13,04
14 Q0906 + 6930 09h 06m 30.75s +69° 30′ 30.8″ 5,47 12,3
15 MACS0647-JD 06h 47m 55.73s +70° 14′ 35.8″ 10,7 13,3

Table 4. the direction of the farthest galaxies within the Universe distance 12,2 -13,3 G ly [6]

The table shows galaxies from 00h 14m 24.927s to 22h 28m 12.26 s equatorial and −35° 09′ 59.4″ to +70° 14′ 35.8″ to the north/south from the celestial equator. Namely the measurements of galactic distances, advocated by the mainstream, indicate that similar distances are measured in all directions. These measurements represent the volume of Universe as being opposite to their claims of total maximum age of Universe of 13,8 Gly. The forms of radiation (measured recently) above 12 Gly approach from all parts of the volume. 
Now, from the table that recalculates real distances above 5 (z) and less into Big Bang constructs, it is again obvious that the diameter of Universe is twice as big as 13,8 Gly. When "real" values of  correct interpretation of redshift are included 
(With a redshift of 5.47,[1][2] (Q0906 + 6930) light from this active galaxy is estimated to have taken around 12.3 billion light-years to reach us.. distance to this galaxy is estimated to be around 26 billion light-years (7961 Mpc). (Wikipedia)
there is another problem. 12,3 billion light-years multiplied with 2 makes 24,6 billion light-years, which is by 1,4 Gly less, if a limiting condition that radiation and expansion have been moving at the same speed is taken into consideration. The same difference continues to grow when (z) grows:
ULAS J1120+0641 Redshift 7.085±0.003[1]; distance 28.85 Gly (8.85 Gpc) (co-moving[2];  12.9 Gly (4.0 Gpc) (light travel distance), the difference is 3,05,
UDFy-38135539 (z) 8,6; The light travel distance of the light that we observe from UDFy-38135539 (HUF.YD3) is more than 4 billion parsecs[13] (13.1 billion light years), and it has a luminosity distance of 86.9 billion parsecs (about 283 billion light years), the difference is 270 Gly.
 Here, the data should also be included, that for dist. 2.4 Gly we measure red shift (z) 0,211 (Abell_222(3); za dist. 12,0 Gly we measure (z) 1,26, 1,27 (Lynx Supercluster) and other data from Table 3.
The galaxy  GN-z11  dist. 13,39 Gly has (z) 11,09  and it has a more significant redshift by 10,63 (4) than  Lynx Supercluster (1,26(7) 12.9 billion light years) but the distance is larger only by 0,49 Gly.
For the distance of 0,7 Gly Musket Ball Cluster there is a value of 0,53 (z), while the difference here is 10,63 Gly. The difference of (z) 10,63 matches Abell 1835 IR1916  which has (z) 10 and recommended age (distance) of 13,2 Gly. 
Let us repeat that:
„The proper distance for a redshift of 8.2 would be about 9.2 Gpc, or about 30 billion light years.“  „With a redshift of 5.47, (Q0906 + 6930)  light from this active galaxy is estimated to have taken around 12.3 billion light-years to reach us.. distance to this galaxy is estimated to be around 26 billion light-years (7961 Mpc). [12]
The rotation of Universe (instead of expansion) that is based on the similar principles as the rotation of clusters of galaxies or stars, is also unable to accept such confused data, because there are no very significant deviations by the volume of cluster. The internal galaxies move slower than the external ones, but make a single orbital cycle approximately at the same time. Under these conditions the measured value of redshift (z) and current distance between the measured objects are approximately the same. In the case Universe would be rotating, its diameter is presented in the table 4 and if the definition of redshift value, according to the mainstream, is used, the diameter goes above  25 Gly.
When including the decrease of wave intensity (with the increase of speed, currently used by the mainstream) as a dominant value in determining distances of objects in Universe, it would completely remove the existence of two values of interpreting distance or Comoving distance- light travel distance. Also, the obstacles to calculate real values of redshift would be gone. Very large quantity of objects (measured recently) will be the part of the volume of our Universe, a part of them will be waves incoming from the neighboring universes (our local group of universes).
„By applying the analogy of the ascending sequence of events, the more we are distanced from the source of radiation, the lower are the temperatures. Between the multi-universes, they are a bit closer to the absolute zero. The temperatures decrease as the wholes grow. An endlessly large volumetric belt of energy is expanding after the last ascending whole and the temperature there is absolute zero.
By the analogy, inside this belt there is an endless quantity of the wholes, similar to that one, but it is very likely that the whole with the absolute zero temperature in it could be the outer and the last whole in the hierarchy that goes further into the 3-D infinity (at least the infinity as humankind understands it).„"

Share this post


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

All that matters is the evidence.

 

Scientists say the universe is expanding (as proven by the greater red shift of far-away objects), or are they now saying something different?...Expansion seems to be the evidence that there was a Big Bang, and that all the stars are the "shrapnel" like the outward-flying debris from any explosion-

 

 

 

 

Edited by Crikey

Share this post


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

 

Scientists say the universe is expanding (as proven by the greater red shift of far-away objects), or are they now saying something different?...Expansion seems to be the evidence that there was a Big Bang, and that all the stars are the "shrapnel" like the outward-flying debris from any explosion-

 

 

 

 

Yes. We see it in our galaxy. Stars like the "shrapnel" orbit the center of the galaxy.

Yes, galaxies rotate, galaxy cluster rotates, galaxy superclusters rotate ...

The expansion has become of increasing red shift of the observed galaxies (20-30 years of the last century).

Basically all of this information was subsequently revised.

Today is: Recent research have discovered 200.000,0 galaxies in the interaction (21. lis 2019. - Record-number of over 200,000 galaxies confirm: galaxy mergers ignite star bursts Two galaxies in the process of merging. Credit: NASA/ESA/).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

Article finished and available at https://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#There-is-no-Chaos-in-the-Universe-Judgment-and-Argument

There is no Chaos in the Universe (Judgment and Argument)

Summary

The first part of the article deals with chaos that includes very different star systems. Inside a system there are objects with a lot of satellites and those with none. Some planets in distant orbits and brown dwarfs are warmer than some stars. The objects and stars of the same mass have completely different temperatures and are often classified into almost all star types.

There is light inside an atmosphere or on the surface of an object without an atmosphere, but it disappears just outside the atmosphere or the surface of the object without the atmosphere. There are galaxies with the blueshift and redshift; although the Universe expands faster and faster, there are 200 000 galaxies and clusters of galaxies that merge or collide.  There are enormous differences in the quantity of redshift at the same distances for galaxies and larger objects, i.e., there are different distances – with the differences measured in billions of light-years – for the same quantities of redshift.

The other part of the article removes chaos and returns order in the Universe by implementing identical principles in the whole of the volume and for all objects. This text is intended for a very broad circle of readers.

Keywords: chaos, processes in space, stars, galaxies, ordered universe

1. Introduction

The current events in astronomical measurements and observations are used here and they are classified into 14 tables. All data are linked to their source. Based on the usage of data, a chaotic behavior of the processes in the Universe is returned to order and it is pointed to processes that are valid in the whole of the volume and are applied to all objects.

The differences registered at different objects are a consequence of the conditions that are specific for each object.

The method of verification is based on the comparison of different sequences of data, in order to create a comprehensive image of the processes that affect a star, its orbits, mass, the speed of rotation, color, the level of temperature, etc.

The main feature or goal of this method is acquiring universality and removing any paradox that might negate the conclusions and their verification.

This article relies on my already published articles that use the same or similar data (https://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html), which describe more thoroughly and always from another perspective some sections of this topic.

2. Chaos?

The analysis of the Universe, if it is not comprehensive, seems chaotic. Gravity does not explain the difference between the planets without satellites and planets with many dozens of satellites, as well as rings. Pluto (mean radius 1.188,3±0,8 km) has five discovered satellites, which make 12,2% of its mass. Venus has no satellites, although its diameter is five times larger than the one of Pluto.

Table 1. ~ % Mass of satellites Satellites /Central body

 

Body

~ % Mass of satellites
Satellites /Central body

Radius km

 Distance AU

ø Temperature K

 

1

Sun

0,14

695 700

-

5 772 (Ph.sph)

2

Venus

No satellites

6 051.8±1,0

0,723332

737 K

3

Earth

1,23

6 371,0

1

287,16 (61-90 y)

4

Mars

is negligible (two satellites)

3 389,5  ± 0,2

1,523 679

210

5

Jupiter

0,021

69 911

5,2044

112 (0,1 bar)

6

Saturn

0,024

58 232

9,5826

84 (0,1 bar)

7

Uranus

0,00677

25 362±7 

19,2184

47 (0,1 bar)

8

Neptune

0,385 (Triton 0,3)

24 622,0±19

30,11

55 (0,1 bar)

9

Pluto

12,2

1 188,3±0,8

39,48

44

Table 1. ~ % Mass of satellites Satellites /Central body

A table, Mass of satellites /Central body, seems chaotic. The same goes for ø temperatures, too, which do not decrease with the increase of distance from a star and if they do decrease, they do it at a pace that is unpredictable. Mercury is colder than Venus and Uranus than Neptune. If the temperatures from the dark side of the objects are included here, the illusory chaos seems to be complete.

Table 2. Sun system, temperature deviation, temperatures/ distance

 

The body in orbit around the Sun

Minimum temperatures °K

Distance from the Sun AU

1

Mercury

80 (100 equator)

0,39

2

Moon

100

1

3

Mars

143

1.52

4

Vesta

85

2,36

5.

Ceres

168

2,77

6

67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko

180

3,46

8

Callisto

80±5

5.20

9

Triton

38

30,11

10

Pluto

33

39,48

Table 2. Sun system, temperature deviation, relationship: minimum temperatures °K/distance from the Sun AU. (2018. W. Duckss) [1]

Although Mercury is 0,39 AU far from Sun, its lowest temperature is lower than these of Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Vesta, Ceres and 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. The temperature of Callisto, which is 5,2 AU far, is approximately the same as that of Mercury. It is particularly obvious that the lowest temperature of 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko (180°K, distance 3,46 AU) is by 100°K higher than the lowest temperature of Mercury, or the one of Ceres (168°K), which is twice as high than the one of Mercury at the distance of 2,77 AU.

A seemingly complete chaos appears with the discovery of the exoplanets.. etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

https://www.bircupublishing.com/

 cropped-LOGO_BIRCU_PUBLISHING-removebg-preview-1.png

 

EDITOR

WhatsApp-Image-2020-03-19-at-22.47.14-e1585281482648-150x150.jpeg

Muhammad Ridwan

State Islamic University of North Sumatera Indonesia

Weitter-Duckss-150x150.jpg

Weitter Duckss

Independent Researcher, Zadar, Croatia

Prof.-Vladimir-A.-Tregubov-150x150.jpg

Prof. Vladimir A. Tregubov

Peoples Friendship University, Moskwa, Russian Federation

Dr.-Pedro-Ramos-Brandao-150x150.jpg

Dr. Pedro Ramos Brandao

Évora University - Interdisciplinary Centre for History, Cultures and Societies, Portugal

Prof.-Mai-Dar-150x150.jpg

Prof. Mai Dar

Philipps University Marburg, E Tc, Department Member, Germany

Gayane-Poghosyan-Ph.D-PhD-150x150.jpg

Gayane Poghosyan, Ph.D

PhD Institute of Agricultural Radiology, Armenia

Ramlan-M.-Hum-150x150.jpg

Ramlan, M. Hum

Lecturer of Linguistics at University of Jabal Ghafur, Aceh-Indonesia

Dr.-Moath-Abdrabu-Eldbari-150x150.jpg

Dr. Moath Abdrabu Eldbari

Umm Al-Qura University - Department of Mechanical Engineering, Egypt

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.