Svemir, ipak se vrti - NASLOVNICA
multiuniverse Author: Weitter Duckss (Slavko Sedic) Zadar Croatia
Traslated by: prof. Zoran Coso

before 2016.

Universe and rotation Processes in universe The introduction or prologue
New published articles

Weitter Duckss's Theory of the Universe The observation process in the universe through the database (1 till 23)


The observation process in the universe through the database


1. Is there "fast and slow combustion" of stars?
2. Why Mars does not have the atmosphere like Titan or Earth?
3. Observing the Universe through colors
4. Vacuum in space or undetected matter?
5. Why is "The Evolution of Stars" incorrect?
6. Reassessment of the old but still employed theories of Universe through database checking
Can we believe in data of measurements?
7. Where is the truth about Big Bang theory?


1. Gravitational waves – a great discovery or a great scandal (a plagiarism)?
2. Natural Satellites and Rotation
3. Why there is a ring, an asteroid belt or a disk around the celestial objects?
4. The causal relation between a star and its temperature, gravity, radius and color

5. The causal relation of space and the absence of light in Universe
6. What is background radiation telling us?
7. They have seen a black hole in action! ...?
8. The Reverse Influence of Cyclones to the Rotation of Stars

9. Why iron did not sink when Earth was hot?
10. Why there is not one and the same atmosphere on the objects of our system?
11. Supernovae are not our creators
12. The Wrong Ideas About Life Creating Zones

13. What Are The Lakes On Titan Made Of?
14. Why there are differences in structure of the objects in our system?
15. What are working temperatures of elements and compounds in the Universe?
16. There is no ring around Pluto! ?


Publication (References) other Universe and rotation The observation process in the universe 5.2017.y. etc. etc. (comments on articles;; NASA etc.)     


1. Is there "fast and slow combustion" of stars?

The analysis of this topic is a continuation of 
„The causal relation between a star and its temperature, gravity, radius and color“  and „Why there are differences in structure of the objects in our system? “ .

The goal of the analysis is to point at the existence of real evidence that there is no matter combustion process through the radioactive disintegration of complex atoms.

The key points of this study are the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy (100-400 billion (2.5×1011 ±1.5×1011), the assessment of  the star ratio in the Milky Way, the red-colored stars (type M) that make more than 76,45%, the orange-colored stars (type K) 12,1%, the yellow-colored stars (type G) 7,6%, which altogether make 96,15% of the total quantity of stars in the galaxy of Milky Way) and other stars 3,85% (Harvard spectral classification), by observing the stars inside and outside the main sequence of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram.

The analysis is to begin with the table 1, in which masses and temperatures of some stars are given; it is showed with a few examples that stars with a similar mass do not have a similar temperature and can be one or more spectral classes far from each other, often even at the opposite ends (μ Columbae, type O, mass 16 M of Sun, temperature 33 000 K –  VY Canis Majoris, type M, mass 17 M of Sun, temperature 3 490 K).

The stars are composed of 71% of hydrogen, 27% of helium and the rest are the other elements; therefore, it seems realistic and objective to analyze stars of the same or similar masses, because the chemical compositions are similar. However, there is no indication from the mass of an object that the combustion under the same conditions provides the same or similar temperatures. With taking into consideration the fact that some smaller value as a corrective factor needs to exist, due to different layout and masses of the objects, orbiting around a star, it is all the same impossible to balance the relation, because the differences in temperature are too big. It can be ruled out with a total certainty that a bigger mass of a star at the same time means the higher temperature of the same star.

The relations of mass and temperature in the table 1 present that fact beyond any doubt.

Table 1.



Mass (M Sun)

Temperature K

1 39 Leonis 0,98 3.740
2 Sirius B 0,987 25.200
3 Luyten  726-8 A 1,02 2.670
4 BPM 37093 1,1 11.730
5 84 Ceti  1,168  6.356
6 Theta Sculptoris 1,25 6.395
7 Gamma Crucis 1,3 3.626
8 Zeta Leporis 1,46 9.772
9 Aldebaran 1,5 3.910
10 Hamal 1.5 4.480
11 Γ Doradus 1,57 7.200
12 Fomalhaut 1,98 8.590
13 Castor α Gem Aa 2,76 10.286
14 Castor A Gem Ba 2,98 8.842
15 Antares 12,4 3.400
16 Ε Canis Majoris 12,6 22.900
17 Α Crucis α1 17,8 24.000
18 Α Crucis Α2 15,52 28.000
19 HR 5984 10 27.000
20 Spica 10,25 22.400
21 Deneb 19 8.525
22 Η Canis Majoris 19,19 15.000
23 QU Normae  43 17.000
24 M Normae  40 28.500

The observation of type M and K stars is presented in the following table, because these stars make up to 88,55% of the total quantity of stars in the Milky Way galaxy. When 7,6% of type G (yellow) stars are included in the previous quantity, there is more than 96,15% of Milky Way stars with a relatively low temperatures, ranging from 2 400 to 6 000° K. They all automatically represent those stars that could by no means combust matter fast and have a short period of existence. The rest of 3,85% cannot represent a relevant quantity of stars, upon which the hypotheses of fast matter combustion and short existence period were created. If there is a low surface temperature on a star (Betelgeuse and other type M, K and G giants), it cannot be classified in the same group as the stars with high temperatures. It is unrealistic to claim that there is the same combustion value with high and low temperatures. When masses and temperatures in those 96,15% of the total quantity of stars are related, a conclusion can be drawn that there is no mass-based combustion and neither the results, related to the combustion of stars.
If the rest of 3,85% of stars of type O, B and A (table 3) are included into the analysis, the indicators are the same as with the type M, K and G. A bigger mass does not mean the higher temperature.

Table 2



Mass (M Sun)

Radius (R Sun)

Temperature K

Spectral type


M typ star


≤ 0.7
















Alpha Herculis






UY Scuti


1,708 ± 192




VX Sagittarii






VY Canis Majoris

17 ± 8

1,420 ± 120




VV Cephei






S Persei


780 - 1,230




NML Cygni








1,540 - 1,730

3,200 – 3,400


To look and List of largest stars

Table 3



Mass(M Sun)

Radius(R Sun)

Temperature K

Star type


HD 149382






PG PG 0112+104






Zeta Cygni B






Procyon B






HD 4628 






LP 145-141



8.500 ± 300



IK Pegasi



7.700 / 35.500



Zeta Cygni A





56 Pegasi






HD 160529



8.000 – 12.000



Α Crucis α2






Α Crucis α1






P Cygni






Eta Carinae Car B


14,3 – 23,6




BP Crucis  






Eta Carinae Car A

~100 -200

60 – 800

9.430 – 35.200


To look and List of the hottest stars

Earth and Venus are the ideal examples of proving the matter melting and the processes, related to the beginning of melting an object. There are melted interiors in both of these objects, with the fact that Venus, although having lesser mass than Earth, has higher temperatures of the interior and the atmosphere as well. The presence of more numerous and more significant active volcanoes than on Earth points to that conclusion.

Matter disintegration is related to nuclear fusion and nuclear fission, which cause radioactive radiation as a byproduct. This radiation does not exist (generally or in a significant amount) in lava and magma; if it were, life on Earth would not exist. This is not some small quantity of mass that should produce radioactivity, but at least 10.111 million of cubic kilometers (km3) and this is something that cannot be unnoticed, especially when it is known there is a dislocation of melted matter inside an object.
It is equally important to point out that Jupiter and Neptune emit more heat waves than they receive from Sun, which points out, beyond any doubt, that these two objects also have melted interior parts.

Melting of the interiors of Venus and Earth is conducted by tidal forces (with mass and rotation as the corrective factors), where the object closer to Sun has higher temperatures than the more distant object. On Jupiter, mass and rotation are responsible for melting and which create the forces of pressure that are strong enough to melt matter. Temperatures are the highest and the forces of pressure the strongest in the centers of planets (and stars).

It can be concluded that there is no matter combustion inside stars and other objects; there is no radioactive matter disintegration; there is no hydrogen ignition that leads to the creation of stars; finally, the age of objects cannot be determined based on their rotations, because an object is created by a constant gathering of matter with the assistance of gravitational forces.

There is only the activity of atoms, produced by tidal forces and the forces of pressure. The atom activity creates heat. The higher the temperature, the lower the average density (Mercury 5, 427; Sun 1, 408 g/cm3)... (All data in the article are from Wikipedia en)

2. Why Mars does not have the atmosphere like Titan or Earth?

This article is a continuation of
Why there is not one and the same atmosphere on the objects of our system?and
What are working temperatures of elements and compounds in the Universe?.

Of course, in this work I will not deal with the question, how the atmosphere of Mars disappeared and where it went. I will leave that question to those smart people, who have been chasing ghosts and fantasies of the past for already 50 years, when people were discussing 400 canals on Mars, the Martians and their beautiful ladies with three breasts, the pyramids and faces on Mars. I will not talk about golden little cages, in which fleas from camels in the deserts of Mars were caught and held. Those who expected such topics will be disappointed, because I will talk only about hard evidence.

The minimal temperature on Mars is -143°C, while the average and maximal one are -63°C and +35°C respectively. The chemical composition of its atmosphere is: carbon-dioxide 95,97%; argon 1,93%; nitrogen 1,89%; oxygen 0,146%; carbon-monoxide 0,0557%, which in total makes 99,9917% of the elements and compounds, present in its atmosphere.

(The geological composition of the Mars surface: Mars is a terrestrial planet, consisting of the minerals of silicon and oxygen, metals and other elements that usually form rocks. The plagioclase feldspar NaAlSi3O8 to CaAl2Si2O8; pyroxenes are silicon-aluminium oxides with Ca, Na, Fe, Mg, Zn, Mn, Li replaced with Si and Al; hematite Fe2O3, olivine (Mg+2, Fe+2)2SiO4; Fe3O4 .. Wikipedia)

A lack of hydrogen and hydrogen-based compounds is a very important fact for the atmosphere of Mars, but also for Mars in general. When certain smart people realize that there can be no water without hydrogen, maybe then will they stop writing about water on Mars and stop this massive, yet futile search for the fictional water. It needs to be specially noted here that the melting point of hydrogen is -259,14°C and its boiling point is -252,87°C, which means that if there were hydrogen on Mars, it should be possible to detect it in the chemical composition of the atmosphere and surface. Earlier mentioned data rule out that possibility. If the chemical composition of Mars and its atmosphere gets "corrected", maybe water will even start flowing.

The average atmospheric pressure on the surface of Mars is 0.636 (0.4–0.87) kPa, 0.00628 atm or only 0,6% of the Earth's atmospheric pressure (101,3 kPa).

The following evidence is provided in the next image


This closeup view from NASA's Curiosity rover shows finely layered rocks, deposited by wind long ago as migrating sand dunes. Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/MSSS

If it is known that the composition of atmosphere mostly (95,97%) consists of CO2 and that CO2 freezes at -56,6°C (CO2 has the melting point of -56,6°C (its triple point at 5,1 atm) and it evaporates at -78,5°C, Wikipedia), that the minimal temperature on Mars is -143°C and having seen the image showing a rock that consists of a sequence of thin leaflike layers, it can be determined, how the processes of CO2 occur on Mars.

During night, in the region outside the polar circle, CO2 from the atmosphere gets frozen and creates a thin crust, which is covered by sand, carried around by the wind, which is constantly blowing, because of the temperature differences. Thin layers are created that way and in time, a very porous rock is created out of them, too. The frozen crust that is uncovered by sand or discovered by wind gets evaporated into atmosphere. Therefore, it can be said there is the thermodynamic cycle of CO2 on Mars. The atmosphere of CO2 on Mars is unable to improve, due to the constant removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, which takes place because of the low temperatures during night and even lower temperatures in the polar regions (-143°C). In the polar regions there is the accumulation of CO2  layers, because the temperatures are lower than the point of sublimation (-78,5°C) and melting point (-56,6°C).

We can only wait for argon (which is now present at 1,93%), nitrogen (now at 1,89%) and oxygen (now at 0,146%) to fill the atmosphere; their melting and boiling points are much below -143°C. It is not difficult to notice that, except for argon (now at 0,930%), the other two elements are the main elements in the atmosphere of Earth.

All data are gathered from Wikipedia.



3. Observing the Universe through colors

It is generally known that waves (light), when passing through a prism, create a rainbow, a spectrum of colors.
Sunsets are represented as the events of particular beauty, because one can in a short period of time see all of the spectrum colors, with red always at the end. The covering of Earth, or atmosphere, acts like a prism. The colors change due to the curvature of Earth and its atmosphere, too, and because of the length of passing through the prism (also, Sun and Moon appear to be at their full size at sunrise and sunset). The longest wave passing through the atmosphere, which results in the lowest intensity or force of the waves, produces beautiful nuances of red. This occurrence takes place both in the morning and in the evening, therefore the Doppler effect as the only explanation can be ruled out, because in the mornings there is a decrease of distance, which is the situation opposite to the one, occurring in the evenings.


When observing the Universe and discovering galaxies, at the same time the rise of red spectrum is seen there with the increase of distance of an object. The greatest shift into red belongs to the most distant galaxies. These days, that fact is ascribed to the expansion of Universe, due to the Doppler effect, i.e., the faster the objects are moving away, the waves are longer and the color is red. Also, the greater the speeds of moving away, the greater the spectral shift into red. Instead of expansion, I included the effects of rotation – which absolutely meet the results, obtained by the observations of Universe within the spectrum of red – in my observation of Universe. The closer galaxies show both red and blue spectral shift (the speeds are both positive and negative by 100 and more km/s), but after a certain distance there is only the red shift (the speed of 270 000 km/s is estimated for the most distant galaxies). It is certain that rotation meets to the fullest the results, obtained by the astronomical observations, unlike expansion, in which – besides the official clique – nobody believes any more. Unlike expansion, rotation does not create paradoxes.

However, the problem starts with a rainbow.

All gained data are formed on the base of relating the spectral shift to the speed of galactic movement (expansion) and relating the spectral shift to the distance of an object was not considered. Greater distance weakens the intensity (force) of waves (radiation). Lesser intensity of waves is registered as a greater shift into red.
A very important fact needs to be stressed here: although after certain distance only red shift is registered, at the same time – on that and on all other distances – the collisions of galaxies are registered. 72 collisions of clusters of galaxies were registered, even though there is a red shift among all of them. These collisions indicate it is an illusion that the speeds of moving away or rotations only increased, because a collision stands for a blue spectral shift for the colliding objects. The illusion appears only from the observation of galaxies through the increase of speed.
There is an increase of speed along with the weakening of the intensity of waves, but by no means in numbers that are these days taken as an undeniable evidence. The rotation of the clusters of galaxies and the Universe is occurring many times slower and it can be seen from the similarities between the more closer and very distant galaxies.

All observations are completely in harmony with the passed distance of the waves towards objects, as well as with the increase of speed; here, red means that the observed galaxies that are colliding into each other have a similar distance from the point of observation and they have the same red shift, even though they approach each other from the opposite directions. These galaxies have a blue shift between themselves and at least one of them should be approaching the observer.
The light, given by galaxies, is moving towards the increase of red shift with the weakening of the intensity of waves (radiation), due to the passed distance and, in lesser degree, due to the increase of speed towards the surface of the clusters of galaxies and the Universe.
January 13th 2017.


4. Vacuum in space or undetected matter?

The article is a continuation of:
Are we blind or we don't want to see the dark matter!  and
Why is the Universe cold? from the beginning of 2014.

(„Outer space  has very low density and pressure, and is the closest physical approximation of a perfect vacuum. “  ).
The intensity (or illuminance or irradiance) of light or other linear waves radiating from a point source (energy per unit of area perpendicular to the source) is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source; so an object (of the same size) twice as far away, receives only one-quarter the energy (in the same time period).)“

However, this is wrong.

„The decrease of intensity is not equal to the activity of gravity, which indicates there is a sort of matter involved. The usual anomalies are recorded closer to Sun. The temperature on the dark side of Mercury (0 ° N, 0 ° W ~100°K; 85 ° N, 0 ° W 80° K) is lower than the one on Mars (~130°K) and there is a similar anomaly on Earth, in the sense of thermosphere.“

If the data about the Moon are checked:

„Surface temp. on the moon:  a minimum on equator 100° K,  and
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter measured the lowest summer temperatures in craters at the southern pole at 35 K (−238 °C; −397 °F) and just 26 K (−247 °C; −413 °F) close to the winter solstice in north polar Hermite Crater. This is the coldest temperature in the Solar System eve measured by a spacecraft, colder even than the surface of Pluto.“

These results (evidence) could by no means be related to the decrease of intensity of radiation with the square distance from the source (Sun). If there are any evidence to support the opposite view, then the inverse-square law does not apply any more.

The examples to support the negation of vacuum can be found in the entire volume of the Universe, there is the particle gathering to form nebulae, etc., instead of abiding the law of equalizing the different particles' pressures inside a volume.   

(„That said, gas in a vacuum system at normal conditions, between atmospheric pressure and somewhere slightly below 1 torr, is dense enough that it will flow towards the lower pressure – the mechanical pump inlet.“)  )

When comparing the formations of nebulae in the Universe and clouds on Pluto, on the moon of Titan, or on Earth, one can identify the commonality of the phenomenon, which does not depend on the laws of vacuum. The formation occurs under the same principles when talking about the formation of matter structure, due to the attraction and other forces that are present inside the milieu, known as matter. The fact that matter measuring in the space outside the atmosphere is impossible does not mean we have to shut our eyes before the evidence of its existence.

1. By Credit: NASA, Jeff Hester, and Paul Scowen (Arizona State University) -, Public Domain                                        
2. Zadar WDuckss

The existence of matter can be observed here, on Earth, too. A balloon, inflated 2-3 km deep under the water surface, will explode just before the surface or on it, due to the air expansion. The similar thing happens to the balloons, which are sent outside the atmosphere – they explode at the maximum altitude of 40 km above the surface of Earth, due to the equalizing the pressures. There are different kinds of matter and different outcomes, but the final outcome is the same: the pressures get equalized. The balloons are moving in the direction, which is opposite to the activity of gravitation and they exclusively abide the law of equalizing the different pressures. The balloons "know" where is the less dense matter inside a volume.   

Different kinds of matter coexist one by the other and the transition from one into the other is more or less defined. That is impossible between matter and vacuum, because the pressures of matter and vacuum always tend to equalize and that is not what can be seen between the atmosphere and vacuum and with the gas (particle) gathering into nebulae, etc.

Right here, just outside (even inside) the atmosphere, there is the kind of matter, which is known to us, which had been defined and its influence on the visible matter calculated – it only remains to be detected.

February 12th 2017.

5. Why is "The Evolution of Stars" incorrect?

„Stellar evolution starts with the gravitational collapse of a giant molecular cloud .“

„Protostars with masses less than roughly 0.08 M☉ (1.6×1029 kg) never reach temperatures high enough for nuclear fusion of hydrogen to begin. These are known as brown dwarfs. The International Astronomical Union defines brown dwarfs as stars massive enough to fuse deuterium at some point in their lives (13 Jupiter masses (MJ), 2.5 × 1028 kg, or 0.0125 M☉).

This quotation from Wikipedia may had been acceptable in the past, because readers were unable to check the real situation in data bases of stars and other objects inside the galaxy and beyond. These days, when there is a sufficient number of explored objects, exoplanets, brown dwarfs and other stars, galaxies and clusters of galaxies, it is not difficult to conclude that the old theories are completely wrong and badly conceived mind constructions.

In the next table I have given some examples of exoplanets that testify beyond any doubt against the old theories. The mass of Sun is 1/1047 of the Sun mass.

    exoplanet   Maas of Jupiter

  Temperature K   Semi major axis AU/ Parent star spectral typ

1. Hottest Kepler-70b 0.440 Earth 7.143 0.006            O (sdB)
2. WASP-33b 4,59 Jupiter 2.451 0.02558         A5
3. WASP-121b 1.183 J 2.358 0.02544         F6V
4. WASP-87b 2.18 2.322 0.02946         F5
5. B Tauri FU braon patuljak 15 2.375 700   M7.25 (M9.25)
6. WASP-12b 1.404 2.319 0.02293          G0
7. HIP 78530 b 24 2.700 710                 B9V
8. Kepler-13b 6.6 2.750 0.03423      8.500°K
9. DH Tauri b 12 2.750 330                M0.5V
10. PSR J1719-1438 b 1.2 5.375 0.00442         Pulsar
11. KOI-368.01 2.1 3.060 0.6                 F6
12. KOI-55 C 0,0021 6.319 0.0076           B4
13. CT Chamaeleontis b 10,5-17 2.500 440,0             K7
14. HAT-P-7b 1.709 2.733 0.0379           F6
15. OGLE2-TR-L9 4.34 2.154.6 0.0308           F3
16. WASP-48 b 0.98 2.030 0.03444       5.990°K
17. UScoCTIO 108 b 14 2.350 670                  M7
18. WASP-103 b 1.47 2.508 0.01985           F8V
19. Kepler-10 b 0,010475 2.169 0.01684            G
20. WASP-100b 1.69 2.190 0.0457              F2
21. WASP-72b 1.01 2.210 0.03655            F7
22. >WASP-18 b 1,165 (10.43) 2.187,5 0.02047           F6
23 Oph 11 B 21 2.478 243.0               M9
24. WASP-78 b 1.16 2.006.7 0.0415             F8
25 KELT-7 b 1.28 2.048 0.04415     6.789°K
26 WASP-111 b 1.83 2.140 0.03914           F5

It can be seen from the table that the planets
Hottest Kepler-70b (7 143° K), PSR J1719-1438 b (5 375° K), KOI-55 C (6 319° K) are far beyond the temperatures for the M-type stars.
M typ star 0.08–0.45 ≤ 0.7 2,400–3,700 M 76,45%

from fast-and-slow-combustion.

The rest of the planets from the table, in the matter of temperatures, belong to M-type stars.
The temperature maximum of magma „(komatiite) is 1 600°C(Basalt lava flow usually has the temperature of eruption between 1 100 and 1 250°C.) (Magma is a complex high-temperature fluid substance.)“ Wikipedia.

The planets from the table have the temperatures significantly above the temperature maximums of magma, which, in other words, means that they are either melted liquid (fluidic) objects or stars.

If we follow the idea that the temperature of a planet is related to the small distance from the star that is supposed to be the source of temperature, then there is no explanation for HIP 78530 b (R/B 7.), which is 710 AU far from its main star, Jupiter Semi-major axis 5.20260 AU, Edgeworth–Kuiper belt at 30 AU to approximately 50 AU from the Sun (and like R/B 23; R/B 17; R/B 13; R/B 9; R/B 5). The majority of exoplanets from the table is at the distances from 0.02 do 0.05 AU from their main stars, however, to make a conclusion that the influence of a star's proximity is dominant for the temperature of a planet, without realizing they are at the same distance:

Wolf 1061b, ……………...210°K, ………………….0.035509 AU,  
KOI-1843.01, …………….800°K, ………………….0,039 AU,   
Gliese 3634 b, ……………565,4°K, ………………..0,0287 AU,   
Kepler-45b, ………………774°K, ………………….0.027 AU, 
HD 63454 b, ……………...926,7°K, ………………..0,036 AU,   
HD 40307 b, ……………...804,5°K,  …………….....0.0468 AU,   
HAT-P-20 b, ………………888,3°K, ………………0.0361 AU,    
WASP-10 b, ………………984,3°K,………………. 0.0371 AU,   
HATS-6 b, ………………....712,8°K,  ………………0.03623 AU,   
Gliese 436 b, ……………...650,3°K, ……………….0.0291 AU, 
GJ 160.2 b, ………………..100°K,  ………………...0,053 AU, 
Gliese 1214 b, …………….604°K, ………………....0.01488 AU i td.
could easily be wrong.

If we put into the formula the spectral class of a planet's main star:

WASP-11b/HAT-P-10(b)…K3V,…… 0,0439 AU, .. ….943.2 °K;
HD 63454 b ……………….K4V,…… 0,036 AU …... ..926,7°K;
HD 330075 b………………G5,…….. 0,043 AU,…... ..1.023°K;
TrES-2b / Kepler-1b, ……...G0V,…… 0.03556 AU,… albedo (Ag) 0,0136;
HD 219134 (b) ……………K3V,.. …..0.0382 AU,……800°K;
HD 102195 (b)…………….K0V, ……0,049 AU,…… 963,1°K;
HD 40307( b) ~5.000°K…..K2,5V, …0,0468 AU,…. ..804,5°K;
OGLE-TR-111(b)…………G ili K, …0,047 AU, …….940°K;
WASP-10(b)………………K5,…….. 0,0371 AU,….. .946,8°K;
HD 215497 (b)…………….K3V, ……0,047 AU,…….984.3°K;
Gliese 3470 (b)……………3.600°K,…0,031 AU,…. ...604±98°K;

We can add here PSR J1719-1438 b, which rotates around a pulsar (the temperature of which is unmeasurable to our instruments) at the distance of 0.004 AU and has a temperature of 5 348°K, and Hottest Kepler-70b, which rotates around its main star at the distance of 0.006 AU and has the temperature of 27 730°K. Based on these two planets, it is obvious that the temperature of a main star has no dominant influence over the temperature of a planet. (The data used here are from Wikipedia and


"Growth doesn’t stop with atoms; on the contrary, joining goes on. Through joining, chemical reactions and combined, gas, dust, sand, the rocks named asteroids and comets, … Then, when planets grow to the 10% of Sun’s mass, they become stars, which can be really gigantic (super-giants). Millions of craters scattered around the objects of our Solar system are the evidence of objects’ growth. Constant impacts of asteroids into our atmosphere and soil are the evidence of these processes being uninterrupted today, just the same as it used to be in any earlier period of the past. It is estimated that 4 000 – 100 000 tons of extraterrestrial material falls yearly to Earth."
from „Universe and rotation/Processes in universe

"It is enough to observe the mass of an object, its relation to other objects, the rotation of an object as well as the rotation of a central object, the composition of an object and the orbital distance to make a valid estimate for every object, without the need for nuclear fusions, fissions and matter combustion."
From „Weitter Duckss's Theory of the Universe“ and „The causal relation between a star and its temperature, gravity, radius and color" 31.03.2017. g.


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

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

Star Radius Sun 1 Temperature K

S Cassiopeiae  930 1.800
CW Leonis 700 2.200

To the opposite


Mass M Sun

Temperature K




2550 ± 150

Teide 1


2600 ± 150

VHS 1256-1257


2.620 ± 140

Van Biesbroeck's star



DENIS 1048-1039



Teegarden's Star



DX Cancri



TVLM 513-46546



Wolf 359


2,800 ± 100

Gliese 777



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


Mass of Jupiter

Temperature K

Distance AU

GQ Lupi b 1-36 2650 ± 100 100
ROXs 42Bb 9 1,950-2,000  157
HD 106906 b 11 1.800 ~650
DH Tauri b 12 2.750 330
CT Chamaeleontis b 10,5-17  2.500 440
HD 44627 13-14 1.600-2.400 275
1RXS 1609 b 14 1.800 330
UScoCTIO 108 b 14 2.600 670
Oph 11 B 21 2.478 243
HIP 78530 b 24 2.700 740

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


Mass Sun 1

Temperature K

HD 149382 0,29-0,53 35.500±500
PG0112+104 0,5 30.000
40 Eridani B 0,5 16.500
Lacaillea 9352  0,503 3.626
L 97-12 0,59 5.700 ±90
Zeta Cygni B 0,6 12.000
Procion B 0,6 7.740
Van Maanen 2 0,68 6.220
HD 4628 0,7 5.829
G29-38 0,7 11.820


Sun 1 5.772
Sirius B 0,98 25.200
Gamma Piscium 1,03 4.885
Arcturus 1,08 4.286


VX Sagittarii 12 2.400 – 3.300
Antares 12,4 3.400
E Canis Majoris 12,6 22.900


μ Columbae 16 33.000
WR 2 16 141.000
VY Canis Majoris 17 3.490
Α Crucis α1 17,8 24.000


WR 102 19 210.000
WR 134 19 63.100
Deneb 19 8.525
η Canis Majores 19,19 15.000
Mu Cephei 19,2 3.750
HD 21389 19,3 9.730


WR 46 25 112.000
S Monocerotis  29,1 38.500


MU Normea 33,3 28.500
QU Normea 43 17.000
NML Cygni 50 3.834

Several examples of binary systems


Mass Sun 1

Temperature K

Sirius A 2,02 9.940
Sirius B 0,978 25.200


Alpha Crucis α1 17,8+6,05 24.000
Alpha Crucis α2 15,52 28.000


Epsilon Aurigae A 2,2-15 7.750
Epsilon Aurigae B 6-14 15.000


Procion A 1,499 6.350
Procion B 0,602 7.740


Castor A 2,76 10.286
Castor B 2,98 8.842
Castor C 0,5992 3.820

When checking a database, it is found that the objects of the same mass can have completely different temperatures, ranging from stellar spectral class M to O (- WR 2, type WN4-s, 16 M Sun, temperature 141.000 K; -μ Columbae, type O, mass 16 M of Sun, temperature 33.000 K; –  VY Canis Majoris, type M, mass 17 M of Sun, temperature 3.490 K). 
Based on these examples of the same masses and different temperatures, it can be ruled out that thermonuclear reaction inside a star is the cause of its temperature level. Same or similar levels of mass and identical chemical composition of stars should produce the same amount of thermonuclear fusion of matter and consequently the same or similar level of temperature. These examples prove the opposite, i.e., that this is not the case.
It can be determined in the same way that the age of stars is not related to the level of temperature. Similar mass inside the gas cloud of the similar chemical composition like that of stars should abide by the same principles, mass, stellar system, identical chemical composition of the planets around that star, etc.; the examples show the failure to abide by these (or any other) rules.
-The following examples connect mass, radius and temperature.


Mass Sun 1

Raius Sun 1

Temperature K

Bellatrix 8,6 5,75 22.000
Alnitak Ab 14 ± 3 7,3 ± 1,0 29.000
Alnitak B 16 7,2 29.000
Alnitak Aa 33 ± 10 20,0 ± 3,2 29.500 ± 1000 
EZ Canis Majoris  19 2,65 89.100
AB7 WR 23 3,4 105.000
MU Normea 40 25 28.500
AB7 O 44 14 36.000
Melnick 42 189 21,1 47.300
R136a1 315 28.8-35.4 53.000 ± 3000



UY Scuti 7-10 1.708 ±192 3.365
Betelgeuse 11,6 887 ±203  3.590
VX Sagittarii 12 1.350–1.940 2.400-3.300
Antares 12,4 883 3.400
VY Canis Majoris 17 1.420 ±120 3.490
V602 Carinae 17,7 1.050 3.432
VV Cephei A 18,2 1.050 3.826
Mu Cephei 19,2 1.260 3.750
WOH G64 <25 1.540 3.200
NML Cygni 50 1.183 3.834

If in a relation of mass/radius (Sun = 1), mass exceeds a radius, then the temperatures will be higher, and on the opposite: if a radius exceeds mass, the temperatures are lower.  
-When the rotation around the axis is introduced into the analysis
„The international team found the so-called blue hook stars throw off their cool outer layers late in life because they are rotating so rapidly, making them more luminous than usual.“
The sample of the analyzed blue stars in this article consists of more than  3.700 units.


Mass Sun 1

Radius Sun 1

Temperature K

Rotation speed

Arcturus 1,08 25,4 4.286 2,4  km/s
R Doradus 1,2 370± 50 2.740 340 day
HD 220074 1,2 49.7 ± 9.5 3.935 3 km/s
Kappa Persei 1,5 9 4.857 3 km/s
Aldebaran 1,5 44,2 3.910 634 day
Hamal 1,5 14,9 4.480 3,44 km/s
Iota Draconis 1,82 11,99 4.545 1,5 km/s
Pollux 2,04 8,8 4.666 2,8 km/s
Beta Ursae Minoris 2,2 42,6 4.030 8 km/s
Beta Andromedae 3-4 100 3.842 7,2 km/s
Betelgeuse 11,6 887 ±203  3.590 5 km/s


WR 102 19 0,39 210.000 120 km/s
IK Pegasi 1,65 1,6 7.000/35.000 <32,5
Alpha Pegasi 4,72 3,51 9.765 125 km/s
η Aurigae 5,4 3,25 17.201 95 km/s
Eta Ursae Majoris 6,1 3,4 16.823 150 km/s
Spica secondary 6,97 3,64 18.500 87 km/s
Spica primary 10,25 7,7 22.400 199 km/s
Gamma Cassiopeiae 17 10 25.000 432 km/s
Zeta Puppis 22,5 – 56,6 14-26 40.000-44.000 220 km/s
S Monocerotis 29,1 9,9 38.500 120 km/s
Alnilam 30-64,5 28,6-42 27.000 40-70 km/s
Alnitak Aa 33 ± 10 20.0 ± 3.2 29.000 110 ± 10 km/s

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

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

27.04.2017. g.

Continued, additional links. 03.05.2017. y.

Can we believe in data of measurements?

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

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

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


Density [kg/m³]

Basalt magma


Andesite magma


Rhyolite magma


„Estimates of average density for the upper crust range between 2.69 and 2.74 g/cm3 and for lower crust between 3.0 and 3.25 g/cm3, Sun 1,408 g/cm3“.  Wikipedia

Increasing temperature decreases the density.

Quotations from Wikipedie

White dwarfs resist gravitational collapse primarily through electron degeneracy pressure. (By comparison, main sequence stars resist collapse through thermal pressure.) The Chandrasekhar limit is the mass above which electron degeneracy pressure in the star's core is insufficient to balance the star's own gravitational self-attraction. Consequently, white dwarfs with masses greater than the limit would be subject to further gravitational collapse, evolving into a different type of stellar remnant, such as a neutron star or black hole. (However, white dwarfs generally avoid this fate by exploding before they undergo collapse.) Those with masses under the limit remain stable as white dwarfs.
The currently accepted value of the limit is about 1.4 M.

Sirius B

This mass is packed into a volume roughly equal to the Earth's (radius 0,0084 ± 3%   ).  The current surface temperature is 25,200 K.  Because there is no internal heat source, Sirius B will steadily cool as the remaining heat is radiated into space over more than two billion years.
A white dwarf forms only after the star has evolved from the main sequence and then passed through a red-giant stage. This occurred when Sirius B was less than half its current age, around 120 million years ago. The original star had an estimated 5 M☉and was a B-type star (roughly B4–5) when it was still on the main sequence. While it passed through the red giant stage, Sirius B may have enriched the metallicity of its companion.

Procyon B

With a surface temperature of 7,740 K, it is also much cooler than Sirius B; this is a testament to its lesser mass and greater age. The mass of the progenitor star for Procyon B was about 2.59+0.22−0.18 M and it came to the end of its life some 1.19±0.11 Gyr ago, after a main-sequence lifetime of 680±170 Myr.

Van Maanen 2

Like other white dwarfs, it is a very dense star: its mass has been estimated to be about 68% of the Sun's, yet it has only 1% of the Sun's radius. The outer atmosphere has a temperature of approximately 6,220 K, which is relatively cool for a white dwarf. As all white dwarfs steadily radiate away their heat over time, this temperature can be used to estimate its age, thought to be around 3 billion years.
The progenitor of this white dwarf had an estimated 2.6 solar masses and remained on the main sequence for about 9 × 108 years. This gives the star a combined age of about 4.1 billion years. When this star left the main sequence, it expanded into a red giant that reached a maximum radius of 650 times the current radius of the Sun, or about 3 astronomical units

L 97-12

The mass of L 97-12 is 0.59 ± 0.01 Solar masses, and its surface gravity is 108.00 ± 0.02cm·s−2, or approximately 102,000 of Earth's, corresponding to a radius of 8,887 kilometres (5,522 miles), or 139% of Earth's.
L 97-12 has temperature 5,700 ± 90 K, almost like the Sun, and cooling age, i.e. age as degenerate star (not including lifetime as main-sequence star and as giant star) 2.65 ± 0.10 Gyr. Despite it is classified as "white dwarf", it should appear yellow, not white, nearly the same color as the Sun.

LP 145-141

LP 145-141 has only 75% of the Sun's mass, but it is the remnant of a massive main-sequence star that had an estimated 4.4 solar masses. While it was on the main sequence, it probably was a spectral class B star (in the range B4-B9). Most of the star's original mass was shed after it passed into the asymptotic giant branch stage, just prior to becoming a white dwarf. 

Wolf-Rayet star

The spectra indicate very high surface enhancement of heavy elements, depletion of hydrogen, and strong stellar winds. Their surface temperatures range from 30,000 K to around 200,000 K, hotter than almost all other stars.

WR 2 

the exact rotation rate is not known. Estimates range from 500 km/s

WR 46 
The effective temperature is over 110,000K, the luminosity greater than 600,000 times the solar luminosity (L☉), the mass around 25 times that of the Sun (M☉) and a radius of 2.9 times the solar radius (R☉). The terminal velocity of the stellar wind reaches 2450 km/s

WR 142

Mass    20 M☉
Radius 0.40 R☉
Luminosity (bolometric)        245,000 L☉
Luminosity (visual, LV)         847  L☉
Temperature    200,000  K
Metallicity [Fe/H]       0.0  dex
Rotational velocity (v sin i)  1,000 km/s  


Mass    9.0 ± 0.6  M☉
Radius 6 ± 3  R☉
Luminosity (bolometric)        170,000  L☉
Temperature 57,000  K
Age     3.5-5.5 Myr


Mass    28.5 ±1.1 M☉
Radius 17 ± 2 R☉
Luminosity (bolometric)        280,000  L☉
Temperature    35,000  K
Age     3.5 -5.5  Myr

The brightest member, γ² Velorum or γ Velorum A, is a spectroscopic binary composed of a blue supergiant of spectral class O7.5 (~30 M☉), and a massive Wolf-Rayet star (~9 M☉, originally ~35 M☉).  The binary has an orbital period of 78.5 days and separation varying from 0.8 to 1.6 astronomical units. 

WR stars

Mass loss is influenced by a star's rotation rate, especially strongly at low metallicity. Fast rotation contributes to mixing of core fusion products through the rest of the star, enhancing surface abundances of heavy elements, and driving mass loss

neutron star

As the star's core collapses, its rotation rate increases as a result of conservation of angular momentum, hence newly formed neutron stars rotate at up to several hundred times per second. Some neutron stars emit beams of electromagnetic radiation that make them detectable as pulsars.


The combination of the star's temperature and luminosity places it toward the upper right corner of the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram. The star's evolved state means that it can no longer hold on to its atmosphere due to low density, high radiation pressure

contrary to

Gravitational collapse is the contraction of an astronomical object due to the influence of its own gravity, which tends to draw matter inward toward the center of mass. Gravitational collapse is a fundamental mechanism for structure formation in the universe. Over time an initial, relatively smooth distribution of matter will collapse to form pockets of higher density, typically creating a hierarchy of condensed structures such as clusters of galaxies, stellar groups, stars and planets.


7.Where is the truth about  Big Bang theory?

Let us check some old articles1, 2, 3, with the use of more evidence/hypotheses relations. The theme is expansion of the universe, CMB, blue shift ..

„Although widely attributed to Edwin Hubble, the law was first derived from the general relativity equations by Georges Lemaître in a 1927 article where he proposed the expansion of the universe and suggested an estimated value of the rate of expansion, now called the Hubble constant.: v = H0 r. ..
For most of the second half of the 20th century the value of  H0 was estimated to be between 50 and 90 (km/s)/Mpc.“

The most distant objects in the universe are the galaxies  GN-z11 13,39 bn.  ly (billion light years), EGSY8p7 13,23 bn. ly, GRB 090423 13,18 bn. ly, etc.

„The term "protogalaxy" itself is generally accepted to mean "Progenitors of the present day (normal) galaxies, in the early stages of formation.”. 

The age of universe is (Wikipedia,  arXiv:1502.01589 ) 13.799 ± 0.021 billion years.

„The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological description of the development of the Universe. Under this theory, space and time emerged together 13.799±0.021 billion years ago with a fixed amount of energy and matter that has become less dense as the Universe has expanded. ..
when the temperature was around 3000 K or when the universe was approximately 379,000 years old. As photons did not interact with these electrically neutral atoms, the former began to travel freely through space, resulting in the decoupling of matter and radiation.

The speed of light in a vacuum is defined to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s.“ 

As well as

„One interpretation of this effect is the idea that space itself is expanding. Due to the expansion increasing as distances increase, the distance between two remote galaxies can increase at more than 3×108 m/s, but this does not imply that the galaxies move faster than the speed of light“ 

If an emission of light happened 13,39 light-years ago  (GN-z11 13,39 bn ly (billion light years), EGSY8p7 13,23 bn. ly, GRB 090423 13,18 bn ly, etc.“), one could ask: did light travel at all through these 13,39 bilion ly, since we can see it now?

Photo by ESA

If the official science 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 bn ly (billion light years), EGSY8p7 13,23 bn. ly, GRB 090423 13,18 bn ly, etc.“

„About 300,000 years after the Big Bang, at a temperature of 3000 K, the universe becomes transparent.“ Wikipedia hr.

and they still say

„The light that comes from the "edges" of the universe started on your way to us at the time of last scattering of photons at 3000 K. This is the light gathered by the satellite COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer), and later the WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe)“

Then, these two universes in the picture should be placed in such a way they could meet the need for the light from the edges of universe to be the light from the small universe inside the present-day universe (since it is claimed the universe is expanding). Our Earth can be placed in any place of the big universe.

How is it possible for an event of a single point to arrive from the edges of the present-day universe? The same goes for the center of galaxy, it can be only in one direction. The small universe can freely be placed around or outside the present-day universe, but the results will remain unchanged; light will not be appearing from the edges of universe, but exclusively from a single point. For better understanding, our location – which could be in any chosen point in universe – can be connected with the small universe with a line and it immediately becomes obvious that, in the case of a universe in the time of 300-400 thousand years after Big bang, light needs to be coming from a single point (it is impossible in the case of two universes, proto-universe and present-day universe, that so-called proto-light, or the light of the distant past, would be coming from all directions).
The only possible idea is that the light from the distance of more than 13 billion years would be coming from present-day universe to the universe of 300-400 thousand years after Big Bang, but that goes against all official claims.
These evidence point to the non-existence of the so-called Big Bang. The readings of the ever increasing red shift with the increase of distance between galaxies can support that. If „the most distant objects in the universe are the galaxies  GN-z11 13,39 bn ly (billion light years), EGSY8p7 13,23 bn. ly, GRB 090423 13,18 bn ly, etc.“ are also the fastest objects, then, according to Big Bang, these galaxies are also the oldest ones.

The relation is obvious: the greatest speed is related to the oldest and most distant objects.

How can, then, Hubble's law be valid? How can universe be spreading with the increasing speed, if that applies only for the oldest and most distant galaxies?

The same applies for the cosmic microwave background (CMB). Let us apply here the idea of „small“ and „big“ universe. CMB, just as light, hasn't got even the theoretical possibility to arrive from the „small“ universe, particularly because the speed of light (and cosmic microwave background, too) are in the terms of speed beyond the spreading speed of universe, according to Big Bang. These types of radiation have always been moving in the outer direction and there is no possibility for them to be moving inwards (radiation supposedly arriving from all directions, from the „edges“ of universe).

The lack of evidence to support the spreading of universe can also be seen in the existence of  blue shift of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. The objects in universe collide with each other, they do not run away one from another. Smaller objects, stars, galaxies and clusters of galaxies – they all collide. „ ... (with) Space Telescopes we have now observed 72 collisions (Cluster of galaxies), including both ‘major’ and‘minor’mergers.“

It is incorrect that:

1. „Light and radiation are arriving from the „edges“ of universe, from different directions“?,
or, this is incorrect:
2. „There was a Big Bang and everything related to it“?

The first are the evidence (and can be accepted), while the other is a bad hypothesis (and can be rejected).
The first is science and the scientific attitude, the second is religion and belief, the official attitude of the church.
The question is simple: science (1) or imposed religion belief (2)?

See also: Ashwini Kumar Lal, Ph.D. and Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D. Added later.


Censorships of the authors' works and the legalization of published plagiarisms
Why are they allowed to freely plagiarize?

Plagiarism is forbidden to all but high-ranking science magazines and organizations. The others, who are ranked lower than them, must not plagiarize, because there are severe sanctions for it, such as the loss of career, metaphorical dragging someone's reputation through mud by both high- and low-ranking institutions and all kinds of media. To the contrary, „high-ranking players“ who do plagiarize, they get rewarded for it and remembered by history as great scientists.

„Although widely attributed to Edwin Hubble, the law was first derived from the general relativity equations by Georges Lemaître in a 1927 article where he proposed the expansion of the universe and suggested an estimated value of the rate of expansion..“

Even though the author is known and the act of stealing his merits from him was recognized, we keep reading today about Hubble's law and his constant, although he has no credits for them, except for having unconditionally accepted someone else's work as his own and taking their merits.

The plagiarism law is clear and unambiguous; immediately after recognition, the plagiarized work should be removed (which is something low-ranking authors, magazines and others must abide by), but, to the opposite and against the law, there are acts of glorifying plagiarism at stake and the memory of the real author is very often forgotten.
The low-ranking authors have no means to remove the plagiarism  of „high-ranking players“ by themselves, because the system itself is not only inert, but it also imposes its will further on, regardless of scrupulousness, like, for example, here: Hubble, Galileo and telescope, etc. Plagiarism is punishable by law and such works need to be automatically removed from all media, encyclopedias and debates. Nobody talks about the sportsmen who use illegal drugs to improve performance as heroes and medal winners – to the contrary, their medals and merits get taken away, with all the sanctions brought upon them.

These are the reasons why so-called low-ranking authors can't publish in famous, high-ranking science magazines; a legalization of plagiarism rules there.

May 16th 2017.

A few of my own examples:

The „Dark Flow“ & existence of other  Universes = plagijat
1. Гравитационные волны - открытие (или скандал, т.е. плагиат) мирового масштаба?


Weitter Duckss <> 10. 10. 2013.

prima rh4a

Vaš citat: and Richard Holman, professor at Carnegie Mellon University, predicted that anomalies in radiation existed and were caused by the pull from other universes in 2005.
 Rad "svemir, ipak se vrti" kao Theory of Zara je razmatrao još 2004. godine Edital Committee of EDP Sciences iz Francuske. Vrtnja svemira i postojanje drugih je u osnovama rada, a Dark Flow je samo dio koji se može naći u ovome tekstu.
Dio teksta koji je na engleskom nalazi se na: zajedno sa ovjerenom Zadarskoj teoriji kao i povratni mail iz Francuske. 
Zaključak: Multisvemir i Dark Flow i dosta drugog nije nikakva novost već samo kopiranje dijelova  već objavljene materije na mojoj stranici.
S poštovanjem.
Weitter Duckss

Područje privitaka



Slavko Sedić <> 02. 07. 2015.    
Deer Sir / Madam,

"Rapidly rotating second-generation progenitors for the 'blue hook' stars of ω Centauri" Marco Tail, Francesca D'Antona, Enrico Vesper, Marcello Di Criscienzo, Paolo Ventura et al.

Nature (22 June 2015) | doi: 10.1038 / nature14516
It contains parts of my work as part of the basic ideas which are located at:

Please check the authenticity of origin and whether it is plagiarism wrapped in fine, cellophane or unintentional copyright infringement.

„As temperature gets higher, a variety of elements gets poorer; the heated stars generally consist only of hydrogen and helium, with other elements below 1%. Both of these processes can be traced on Earth; the other one is visible through the composition of magma. Magma consists of the lower order atoms, which is confirmed by its cooled rocks. Neither gold nor silver or any other higher order element, exist in magma; for them to be created, more conditions need to be met.
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.“

Weitter Duckss (Slavko Sedić)
Zadar Croatia <> 02. 07. 2015.

prima Slavko

Dear Dr Sedić,
Thank you for your email. We would advise you to submit a presubmission enquiry to our editors via our manuscript system here - 

If you experience any problems with this system please do not hesitate to contact us.

For more details on how to submit please view our guidelines at

Best wishes,
Nature Administration

From: Slavko Sedić [
Sent: 02 July 2015 07:13
Subject: The authentication of the article, search the

Weitter Duckss <> Prilozi16. 03. 2016.

prima info

Dear Sir / Madam,
Article: "Young Stars May Feast frantically, Grow Chaotically, New Study Shows'
By Charles Q. Choi, Contributor | March 15, 2016 07:12 am ET
copyright infringing my works " "
It is disputable that the published article claims that this is a new idea and simulation which indicate the growth of the body due to the influx of new substances and that their contribution.
The attached is evident that this is incorrect.
Please remove the article.
As this is not the first case, please, responsible editor read out my work how in the future not be coming up the same situation.
Best regards.
Weitter Duckss (Slavko Sedic ) Zadar Croatia


Jun 23, 2015
"This is the first time that we could determine the individual orbits of such pieces of debris around a comet. This information is very important to study their origin, and is helping us understand the mass loss processes of comets," says Davidsson.

Read more at:


1 / 5 (4)Jun 23, 2015
The existence of a body in orbit around the comet means that the comet has a rotation about an axis.
 Quote: "The number of satellites orbiting around a planet is directly related to the mass of a planet and its rotation around its axis.
Small Pluto has a radius of 2,300 km, 0,002 of the Earth's mass; It has several satellites, one of which is really big, compared to Pluto. Pluto makes a single rotation around its axis and 6.4 days!
Mercury has a radius of 4,880 km, 0,055 of the Earth's mass; it has no satellites and neither does Venus, which radius is 12 104 km and the mass is 0.82 (!) of the Earth's mass. What they have in common is the lack of rotation (their rotation around their axes is approximately the same as their rotation around the Sun). "


4.3 / 5 (6)Jun 23, 2015
Quote: "The number of satellites orbiting around a planet is directly related to the mass of a planet and its rotation around its axis ..."
What is the source of your quote?


1 / 5 (3)Jun 24, 2015
Quote: "The number of satellites orbiting around a planet is directly related to the mass of a planet and its rotation around its axis ..."
What is the source of your quote?

My website: posted on the forums in the US, HR and Ru.


4 / 5 (4)Jun 24, 2015
@wduckss: Thanks.

Have you written up your idea in the form of a paper? If so, have you published it? Have you submitted it to a relevant, peer-reviewed journal?




1. Gravitational waves – a great discovery or a great scandal (a plagiarism)?

It is probably very difficult to find a single person, who has not been informed of the great, globally important discovery of gravitational waves and that is the reason why it is unnecessary to give any additional links here.
Gravitational waves are registered out there, somewhere far away (at the distance of 1,3 billion of light-years).

„The gravitational force is a force by which Earth, Moon or any other massive object attracts another object towards itself. By definition, it is the weight of an object, Fgrav = m * g

The assertion of the authors to have seen a collision of two hypothetical, scientifically unproven objects (the collision of two „black holes“) indicates that „something is rotten in the state of Denmark.“ Why? A great discovery does not need such presentations that automatically cause suspicion and start large-scale discussions. The only possible reason could be that they are throwing dust in our eyes and covering the truth about what they have really discovered.

A new article suddenly appeared on February 25th, and all of a sudden, a new change of the already new paradigm occurred again. Gravitational waves could be created by pulsars that have a fast rotation!
This utter „shift“ seems to be at the core of the discovery, as well as the confirmation that these are not the gravitational waves, predicted by Einstein himself (he did not create nor did he accept the term „black hole“), but the waves emitted by every object that rotates around its axis; the faster the rotation – the more important the waves, and vice versa.

This is no Einstein anymore, this is Weitter Duckss and his texts, made in the last 12 years.
The Theory of Zadar was published in 2004. and there it is stated:

„The rotation of particles within a system, as well as the parts of a system inside the particular structures, is the weight, and is also a gravity, which unites the force of attraction, caused by the magnetic force, and the force of repulsion, which, due to the rotation, emits the waves in the direction away from the object. This is expressed the best on the astronomical objects that possess rotation (the objects without their own rotation do not emit waves); due to the atoms movement direction, synchrotron radiation appears and creates the waves of repulsion, which are influencing the neutral energy.“

„A quote of a part of the text from the year of 2008: „... Celestial objects rotate around their axes; the rotation creates waves, which travel away from an object and in that way create repulsion forces, which prevent the objects, captured in the orbits around them, from falling onto them. Electromagnetic forces constantly direct smaller objects towards the greater, dominant object, which, due to its rotation, constantly repulses and deflects the incoming object until it gets captured in the orbit of the dominant object. That is why objects oscillate on their trajectories; electromagnetic forces of repulsion and attraction simultaneously affect them… “ “.

A question could be asked here: how is it possible that gravity, as a force of attraction, creates the reverse force at the same time? These waves should be moving towards the center of gravity and not away from it; therefore, there should be nothing to be measured.

It seems that this is only a too much of a hussle (even the president Obama praised the discovery) and only an attempt to disguise the next American plagiarism by creating such a great machination.

2. Natural Satellites and Rotation (The Roche limit out)

"The Roche limit for a rigid spherical satellite is the distance, d, from the primary at which the gravitational force on a test mass at the surface of the object is exactly equal to the tidal force pulling the mass away from the object

Roche limit Wikipedia

Pluto moon Styx is located just 42.656±78 km etc. Sidereal rotation period of Styx is 3.24 ± 0.07 d.

I have earlier published the possibility that distant satellites of an object can have their own satellites. This statement is based on the reduced gravitational influence of a star, a irregular form and low temperatures, which facilitate the appearance of an independent rotation. The independent rotation is a basic precondition of the orbit existence. I will state here only the statistics of the known facts for the satellites inside our Solar system.
The temperature of the space where Mercury is situated is  ~80-100° K (measured on the shadow side of the object) and ~4°K in the Oort cloud.

Unlike Earth, Mars, etc., Mercury and Venus do not have an independent rotation or satellites. Earth and Mars have satellites with a synchronous rotation. The other planets have satellites, which are closer to planets and are synchronous (internal satellites), but they also have external satellites, which have their own rotations, i.e., they are not synchronous with the rotation of a planet  (113 satellites with an eccentric and retrograde rotation have been discovered around 4 giant planets).

It is very important to state that satellites with the irregular form (for examle, 148 x 85 x 62 km) can both be internal and with a synchronous rotation and can be external, with an independent rotation (usually a chaotic one, due to an irregular form). The same goes for the satellites that have a regular, round shape. It clearly points out that an object's form is not essential for the synchronous and independent rotation to exist. A distance from a satellite to a planet or an object of a star has much more to do with it.

The irregular satellites of Jupiter (so-called irregular natural satellites) begin with Themisto, Leda, Himalia, Lysithea,... and the last known are Megaclite and S/2003 J 2. Themisto is some 7.391.650 km away (0.04941 AU), while S/2003 J 2 some 30.290.846 km. 1

The natural external satellites of Saturn with the rotation begin with Kiviuq, some 11.294.800 km away and the last known is Fornjot, 24.504.879 km away. 2

The natural satellites of Uranus with the rotation begin with Francisco, some 4.276.000 km away, and ends with Ferdinand, which is 20.900.000 km away. 3

The natural satellites of Neptune with the rotation begin with Nereid, which is 5.513.818 km away, and ends with Neso,  which is 49.285.000 km away. 4

There are only five known satellites of Pluton, out of which only Charon is synchronous, while the others have their own rotations. 5

The data, related to the rest of the more distant objects in the Kuiper belt, are still undiscovered.

To sum up the statistics for the satellites, it can be concluded that there is a solid rule that the satelites that are closer to a planet or a star do not have an independent rotation like the external satellites, t.e., they are trapped. Also, there is a tendency for a share of objects having an independent rotation to increase with the lowering of the temperature of the space, in which the observed objects are situated.

It is also clear that rotation is a characteristic of the both regular and irregular formed objects. Also, synchronous satellites of the regular and irregular form are those that are closer to a planet. There is also a tendency that smaller objects are more irregular than larger objects; irregularity disappears with dwarf planets, while with planets there is only a regular, round form.

Since there is a significant number of satellites with an independent rotation, it should be stressed that there is a great probability for some of them to have their own satellites. Attention should be given to that, during the following astronomical observations of these objects.

3. Why there is a ring, an asteroid belt or a disk around the celestial objects?

“Inside the Roche limit, orbiting material disperses and forms rings whereas outside the limit material tends to coalesce.
The Roche limit for a rigid spherical satellite is the distance, d, from the primary at which the gravitational force on a test mass at the surface of the object is exactly equal to the tidal force pulling the mass away from the object

Roche limit " Wikipedia. All out.

In these times, rings are seen mostly just as a decoration of a celestial object and are related exclusively to the collision of an object with another object that possesses a ring. It is the same with the Moon-like satellites: there is the opinion that it is a product of collision between a Mars-sized object (Theia) and Earth (but why there is no ring around Earth, then?). There are disks of gas and dust around some stars, which are named protostars6. Their name should signify that they are still being formed out of the disk matter, but the fact is being overlooked that there is a star in the center and the disk being a product of the relation between matter and the object in the center.

The data, collected on Wikipedia, are no longer scant; it is sufficient – only by examining them – to determine what are these rings, how are they created and what are the causes of their existence.
There are 4 gaseous giant planets and 2 lesser, asteroid-like objects7 with the rings inside the Solar system. There is also an asteroid belt around the Sun.

Around 900 stars with asteroid belts or disks around them have been discovered until this time; some of the most famous are Beta Pictoris8, 51 Ophiuchi, Tau Ceti, Fomalhaut, Epsilon Eridani, Zeta Leporis, Vega,  the Sun, …). The data from our system make the basis of the knowledge, but if the existing data for 900  stars and the majority of galaxies are included, these facts become clear:

  1. The rings occur only around the objects, which have their own independent rotation around their axis;
  2. The size of a ring is directly correlated with mass, the speed of rotation, the temperature and the quantity of matter around an object;
  3. The existence of a ring is not related with the mass of an object and its speed of rotation.

The objects with a ring but without their own rotation have never been dicovered yet. That conclusion is drawn from the irregular galaxies, which do not have their own rotation and a formed center (An irregular galaxy is a galaxy that does not have a distinct regular shape, unlike a spiral or an elliptical galaxy. Wikipedia). It is clear that they do not have a recognizable disk-shaped form, as the galaxies with a formed center and a rotation around their axis do. Regular galaxies, those with a rotation around their axis, consist of a galactic center, the diameter of which can be up to 30.0009  light-years, and a formed ring (with the spiral galaxies) or disk (with the elliptic galaxies), the diameter of which can be over 100 00010 light-years. All satellites of the Solar system, together with Mercury and Venus, could also be included here, with the important remark that very low temperatures and irregular shape of the distant satellites in the Kuiper belt around planets can also have their own rotation, as well as the objects around that satellite.

A vast majority of stars, which have been identified up to now as having a disk, an asteroid belt or a ring, are very fast rotating stars11 with a smaller radius (a relation of mass/radius, related to the Sun) and a stronger surface gravity. Gaseous giant planets of the Solar system have at the same time higher speeds of rotation and lower temperatures of the surrounding area. However, there are different results, too. The rings exist around the objects with the red nuances, which temperatures are below 5 or 4.000°K (Beta Pictoris b …). It means that these objects have a slower rotation and some of them have a relative radius bigger than the relative mass (for example, an object, with a mass of the 1,7 Sun mass, has a radius of the 2,3 Sun radius) and a weaker surface gravity. It proves beyond any doubt that if there is a rotation of an object, there is also a possibility of forming a ring and other smaller objects in the orbit around it.

Bigger objects (such as stars and galactic centers) and faster rotation produce bigger rings and a very fast speed of rotation produces a disk (elliptic galaxies and so-called protostars6).

The rings, asteroid belts and disks have their own orbits and an orbital speed that is no different to the other objects' orbits. The faster rotation of an object and an orbital speed, measured closer to the object, is higher and it decreases with the distance from the main object. It needs to be pointed out here that this rule is not applied when an orbit is in the area where the temperature is below 4,21°K (the low temperatures law); the objects there have a higher speed than the one that would have been given to them by the gravity of a main object (the Oort cloud, the edges of galaxies,...).

4. The causal relation between a star and its temperature, gravity, radius and color

Since the dawn of time people have been observing stars, their glow and color. The modern science has taken viewpoint that everything related to stars has to do with the combustion of the complex particles and their change into helium and hydrogen12.

The intention of this paper is to examine this matter from the more realistic perspective by using the widely-accepted and available evidence on Wikipedia. My framework is always the same Universe-and-rotation


Temperatura K


Masa (Sun 1)

Radijus (Sun 1)

Povr.gravit. cgs

R Doradus


340 days






5 km/sek






643 days






2,4±1,0 d






558 d




Fomalhaut b


2,93 km/s






25,38-34,4 d






119 d






23 d






8,0 km/sek




Beta Pictoris


130 km/sek






128    „






93 km/sec






12,5 h (sati)




Sirijus a






Castor  α Gem Aa


18 km/sek




Pleione 28 Tau


329 km/sek






347 km/sek




Albireo B


<0,6 days






250 km/sek






250 km/sek




Sirijus b








130±10 km/s




Temperature / a star's speed of rotation

As a rule, if a star possesses a lower temperature, there is also a slower rotation and its color has the nuances of red. As the temperature grows, the speed of the star's rotation around its axis also grows and its color changes from red through yellow into white and blue10. Although stars possess significantly different masses, they all strictly abide this law, with only a very small number of exceptions to it.

Mass / radius

The radius of a star (mass/radius relation) acts similarly; if the temperature is lower, the radius is bigger, and with the increase of temperature and the speed of rotation there is a decrease of the radius.

Rotation and temperature / surface gravity

Lower temperatures and slower rotation also mean weaker surface gravity. On the other hand, higher temperatures and faster rotation mean stronger surface gravity. There are typical representatives of these laws, but there are also less typical stars, which abide that law. It is absolutely impossible for a star from the first third to have even a slightly similar values as the stars from the last third.

The list of stars could be extended to the rest of them all, but it would follow the parameters from a table that is randomly chosen by leaving out stars which do not have the needed values published.
The table contains comparable data; the mass range is small, although even a very large mass range would not change the law (Lacaille 8760 13  T = 3.800 K, the speed of rotation of 3,3 km/s, mass of 0,6, radius of 0,51, surface gravity of 4,78(?). These data are related to the agreement that small stars are dwarf stars, which, though small, possess an extreme gravitational force and a high value of surface gravity that is assigned to them without a valid reason. The other data are in accordance with the law. As we can see, the mass is a small one (0,6) and therefore gravity should be in accordance with the mass and the rotation speed of 3,3 km/s, or approximately 15 days; that value should be below 2 CGS).

If there are no less than two of these parameters, it is possible to determine the rest of the parameters with a high percentage of precision (if a relative value of mass (compared to Sun) and radius are known; also, relative mass and surface gravity; relative mass and rotation; etc.).

5. The causal relation of space and the absence of light in Universe

The goals of the research, which has been conducted from 2003. till 2015., were to find out why the space between the objects in Universe is dark; furthermore, to find evidence that space is not empty and to determine its characteristics; to answer the question, is there an interaction between radiation and space; and finally, to determine the reasons of differences in temperatures in Universe.

The sun light must have obviously been changing its nature on its way from the Sun to our planet. It is visible on Sun and on Earth, but not between these two objects. There is no visible light immediately outside the atmosphere. The decrease of light visibility is in a direct relation to the density of the atmosphere: the more sparse is the atmosphere, the less of light and the more of darkness is there.

Correlating this fact with other objects of our system we can see that the behavior of the objects with atmosphere is identical, while the objects with an unsignificant or no atmosphere at all have only a surface that is lighted, followed by a field without light.
When observing the comets, we can see they create a visible tail when approaching  a star. That is a clear example of observing the transition of an object without the atmosphere towards the objects with the atmosphere. In the slow transformation of a comet we can follow the process which indicates that light is not appearing by itself but with the occurrence of the visible matter. On this level of observation, the behavior of space, when colliding with radiation, is the opposite one from the behavior of the visible matter. Space is dark and (visible) matter is visible. When traveling away from the source (a star), radiation does not create a relation to space which would result in the appearance of light; on the other side, when radiation collides with the visible matter, a phenomenon of light is being created. The observations within the whole Universe support this idea: light is created when the visible matter is influenced by the radiation of a star, while the rest of space, without the visible matter, is dark and it is directly adjacent to the space with the visible matter.

In the further research of space the focus of attention is on the possible interaction of radiation and space, which would rule out the idea of empty space. Empty space does not interact with radiation, it is void.

The radiation of Sun changes through space – its intensity (force) is weakening as the distance from the source is increasing. The pressure of the electromagnetic radiation, measured in µPa (µN/m² and N/km²), is as follows: 915, on the distance of 0.10 AU (astronomical units) away from Sun; 43.3 on Mercury; 9.15 on Earth; 0.34 on Jupiter. Or, measured in pound-force per square miles (lbf/mi²): 526, 0.10 AU away from Sun; 24.9 on Mercury: 5.26 on Earth; 0.19 14 on Jupiter. 

The average intensity of the solar radiation, in W/ m², is as follows: 9 116.4 on Mercury; 1 366.1 on Earth; 50.5 on Jupiter; 0.878 15 on Pluto.
The interaction of space and radiation directly influences the temperature of an object. On the following objects' surfaces it is as follows: 440°K on Mercury; 288°K on Earth; 152...16 on Jupiter. The space around the objects has the same decreasing curve starting from the Sun towards the end of the system. The same goes for the dark side of the objects. The lowest temperature on Mercury is 100°K, on Uranus 49°K, on Pluto 28°K, in the Oort cloud 4°K. During observation, a compensation for the atmospheric influence and the interior temperature of an object needs to be taken into consideration, as these are the factors of interference when comparative data are being acquired. However, even without doing that, it is completely obvious that a curve of the radiation decreasing effect is in accordance with the distance from the source of radiation.

Space is interacting with radiation. The temperature is the highest on the places where the radiation is the strongest. The more the distance increases, the more the radiation gets weaker, all the way towards the absolute zero. The influence of radiation is manifested with the same decreasing curve on the opposite side of an object, where the temperature can not be causally related to the solar wind or highly energetic particles.

Through checking the behavior of some forms of visible matter (water, etc.), we can see that the temperature of some form of visible matter is the highest on its surface, because it is the place of collision of radiation and matter and the closest place to the source of radiation. As distance increases, radiation gets weaker (the temperature is 0-3°C on the bottom of the ocean) 17. Having in mind the factors of interference (density, etc.), we can conclude that there is a comparative and obvious similarity in fields of invisible and some forms of visible matter. It points out that space, in which there is visible matter, is filled with it, with some of its characteristics having been measured for already a long time. (14 15 16)

The low temperatures are responsible for some strange physical laws in the Universe. The objects that are close to the central object (a star or the center of a galaxy)  are rotating around the central object faster than the more distant objects, due to the stronger gravitational influence. However, this law can not be applied on the edge of a stellar system or a galaxy – it gets ruled out by the low temperature. When the temperature decreases below the critical point of 4.21°K, it makes possible for the objects to rotate faster in their orbits from the objects with higher temperatures, provided the gravity is weak enough. Except for the edge of a galaxy, it can also be indirectly seen inside our Solar system by observing the objects, incoming from the Oort cloud towards the center of the system. Their speeds are higher than the one of Pluto or those objects in the Kuiper belt. Some of these are the fastest objects in our system  18: the speed of the comet Hale-Bopp is 52.5 km/sec; the comet Halley, 66 km/sec; the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 hit the surface of Jupiter at the approximate speed of ~58 km/sek.  19.
The critical temperature point, which causes the increase of the gravitational influence, is the boiling point of helium, 4.21°K.  20.


6. What is background radiation telling us?

We have been trying for already a few decades to improve our instruments in order to "see Big Bang". During that time the instruments have been improved by many times and have become more precise, but the advancement is still minimal. The bravest among the scientists claim to have lowered the limit of 400 000 light-years from the beginning of Big Bang to 300 000 light-years. Even if that was true, it is only a minimal result, compared to the efforts that have been put into improving the precision of the instruments.

The first discussions of background radiation started in 1948. and then in 1964. Arno Allan Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson discovered and thereby proved its real existence.
I had been writing (among other things) about illogical claims about the meaning of background radiation in the article: Why telescopes lie?
"It goes similar with the devices for measuring background radiation, which estimate the distance from the source to the device, i.e. Earth.

Let’s assume it originates from the Big Bang. If a background radiation from 13 billion of years ago travels at the speed of light, while matter at its best travels 10% slower, with taking the same starting place into account – how is it possible for them to meet now? What is the calculation that explains it?"

The temperature interval of background radiation from 2,4 to 2,7° K is the key to help us discover their origins. When we look upon the night sky with our bare eyes or with some instruments, we can see there is a different intensity in radiation incoming from the stars. We immediately relate that fact with the idea of stars having different sizes, radiances and distances. It goes the same with background radiation, which reflects different distances, radiances and sizes of radiating objects that are located outside our Universe. At the same time, we can conclude from the fact that background radiation approaches from all directions that the whole volume around our Universe is covered with these objects and the temperature interval describes their structure in the depth of the volume.

By discovering background radiation, we have found out that our Universe is not the only one, but only a part of a greater whole, which is been named Multiverse for already some time and out of different reasons. The rotations of star systems, star clusters, galaxies and clusters of galaxies prove there is a recognizable pattern of reconstructing the greater volume that is surrounding our Universe. With the evidence of temperature decreasing with the increase of distance from the source of radiation (a star), we can reconstruct the dynamics and the manner of objects inside this new volume. The more distant the objects are, the temperature is lower and tends towards the absolute zero. At the same time, the objects increase their speed, which is why the objects inside the new volume are faster with the increase of distance.

The stated reasons explain why there are adequate instead of needed results, in spite of the highly improved instruments.


7. They have seen a black hole in action! ...?

„Black Hole's Rejected Snack Becomes Science Goldmine
At the time, it was assumed G2 was composed of a nebulous collection of stellar gases. It was also assumed that, while undergoing extreme tidal warping, the cloud would be stretched out like a long noodle, with tendrils being sucked into the black hole’s accretion disk. ..“

But… nothing happened.

When we read articles, we try to understand their message and news they bring to the readers. Only a few of us check these information through the available data.

This is the official viewpoint: the size of a super-massive black hole is ~ 0,001-400 AU ( ) . The central diameter of our galaxy in the equatorial area is 40 000 light-years and from one galaxy pole to the other one, 30 000 light-years (
To make a comparison, a ligh-year is a distance of  9,461 × 10 ^ 12 km, while the astronomical unit (AU) is ~150 million km. Except for the Sun, the star that is the closest to Earth is Proxima Centauri, which is 4,3 light-years away.

Even if there was a maximal super-massive black hole in the center of our galaxy, it would be at least 15 000 light-years away from the surface area of the galaxy in its polar regions and 20 000 light-years in the equatorial area. Such a black hole would be covered with a layer of matter, 15 000 – 20 000 light-years thick. 
Now, when all the evidence are here on the same place, we can rightfully ask, whatever do they write about, what kind of nonsense is that? Does anyone check their texts and where are the reviews?

We are used to (because we are taught to) listen to the scientists and trust them because they have the authority and therefore their statements are not to be questioned. The reality is completely different. The credibility of scientific articles is very questionable and you can not read scientific texts the way laws are read, but with a high level of scepticism.

The information of the first observation of the "black hole" devouring a star is of the same level of (in)credibility. The last contact to a star can be made from a distance of a few tens of thousands light-years from the position of a black hole, marked by the scientists. How can they then claim that a star has a contact with an imaginary object at this distance? It can not be possible – not even in the wild imagination – for the teleportation of this time to carry objects – especially of that size – to these distances.

If the observed event was that a star disappears at the top of the galaxy pole, then there has to be a realistic reason for it, the one that is in accordance to the existing evidence and the laws of physics. The rotation of the galactic center cretaes cyclones at the poles, like those at the poles of gas giants and the Sun. Only the cyclones could be responsible for the events that are ascribed to the imaginary black hole and non-existing teleportation.


8. The Reverse Influence of Cyclones to the Rotation of Stars

It is generally accepted today that cyclones are related to the rotation of celestial objects. Studies have confirmed the existence of cyclones at the poles of gas giants and Sun. Observations also point out beyond any doubt that the cyclones exist at the galactic centers, at the so-called pulsars and at the neutron stars. Rotation around their own axis is a characteristic of every star (without exceptions), cluster of stars, most of the galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Rotation around their own axis is omnipresent in Universe.

When an object rotates, its gravitational force also rotates with it. Its range is unlimited, but it decreases with the square of the distance, i.e., the influence of gravitational force decreases with the increase of distance. Although the influence of gravitational force becomes minimal already after a distance of a light-year, its role in shaping the system is very important. Everything should be observed in a vast period of time. The longer the period, the more organized the system is.


Every object has many layers, due to different forces of pressure in the depths of the object. Where the forces of pressure are the strongest, there the matter is the most solid. It is so at the centers of objects. It is not about having iron or other metals of high density here; the same matter is more solid at the center than in the surface area. The cyclones appear as the consequence of the liquid (or gaseous) object's rotation.
For the majority of stars, the cyclones are relatively shallow and do not go deep into the object, because the majority of stars in our galaxy – which should probably be some kind of an average value for the whole Universe – are slowly-rotating red stars (70% of all stars in our galaxy are small, slowly-rotating red stars, with other red and yellow stars included here).

As time passes by, the cyclones start having more and more important role in shaping the objects, due to absorption of the warmer matter at the bottom of the cyclone and the colder one at its top. The cyclone's velocity is higher than the velocity of the surrounding matter, which steadily accelerates, influenced by the cyclone. As time passes by, it can be seen as a difference in velocities of the matter on the poles and the matter in the equatorial area. At the same time this is the dominating process on the stars, but not the only one.

The action of a cyclone influences deeper layers, too. The cyclone there absorbs warm matter with its rotation, with which it also influences the inner layer. The inner layer accelerates, too; at first, the acceleration is slower, but in time or due to the outer influence (the absorption of larger objects) it gets faster and the cyclones become more important. This is at the same time the reason why fast-rotating stars explode much more frequently than slowly-rotating ones, i.e., red stars. A larger cyclone goes deeper into the body of a star. When it absorbs a larger object, it explodes in the layers deep under the surface, which may cause the whole star to explode. When that occurs, a shock wave movement through the poles of a star can be clearly seen and it relates this event to a cyclone.

Applying this to galactic centers produces very similar results. For example, there is a very small number of elliptic or fast-rotating galaxies. The essential difference, however, is that there exists not a single object, which size could activate the explosion of a galactic center.

If nuclear fusion, fission and matter combustion existed in reality, the centers of galaxies would have become extra-large supernovas a long time ago. But, it does not happen in the Universe, not even when galaxies collide.


9. Why iron did not sink when Earth was hot?

Even though it is being steadily abandoned, the theory of the creation of Earth, stating that Earth was hot at the beginning and have been steadily cooling down since, is still the dominant one. In that theory (of course, the wrong one) there is an explanation of iron sinking towards the center of Earth, which has been regarded as "clear evidence" that the nucleus of Earth consists of melted iron, as the nucleus is more dense than the rest of Earth.
("The pressure in the center is more than 3-4 million bar, and the temperature is 3 000 – 4 000 K. It is believed that the nucleus consists of iron and nickel and the mantle of silicate minerals. " Wikipedia)

It is absolutely unnecessary to relate the density of nucleus to the heavy and dense element of iron when it is generally accepted that, due to pressure, there is always a more dense layer of matter at the bottom then at the top. It is obvious from the table on Wikipedia and it would be very interesting to sort the layers according to the density of particular atoms.

The ground upon which people walk, or Earth's crust, posesses the greatest variety of natural elements, which decreases towards the lower layers. If the composition of magma or basaltic rocks is analyzed, it becomes obvious that many elements, existing in crust, are absent from the layers of upper mantle and mantle. Iron is present in all of these three upper layers; it did not sink, after all, probably because it had not been introduced to the idea of sinking.

In the composition of stars, measured by spectroscopy, only hydrogen and helium are present there, with more complex atoms being present only in traces. If we add this to the earlier mentioned facts, we can conclude that, with the increase of temperature (above the melting point of the elements included), the complexity of atoms is reduced and in the end there are permanently only hydrogen and helium (in a smaller share).

This image can be expanded onto the geology of our own planet. It shows that ice ages on Earth keep shortening steadily and there is a constant increase in temperature. 70-140 tons of space matter is falling daily on Earth and it adds up to the small but steady increase of pressure inside the planet.

If data regarding brown dwarfs are also included
("WISE 1828+2650 Its temperature has since been revised and newer estimates put it in the range of 250 to 400 K (−23–127 °C, −10–260 °F).
In April 2014, WISE 0855−0714 was announced with a temperature profile estimated around 225 to 260 K and a mass of 3 to 10 MJ.
It was also unusual in that its observed parallax meant a distance close to 7.2±0.7 light years from the Solar System." Wikipedia
) we can conclude that nowadays Earth, together with Venus, belongs to brown dwarfs. The research data show that on brown dwarfs there is an atmosphere with nitrogen and ammonia, with a possibility for water to exist.

The origin of Earth (and other objects) can only be related to growth and gathering matter together in Universe. The sequence of gathering matter can be seen through the existence of gas, dust, lesser and larger asteroids and comets, small planets, planet-size objects, small and large stars and centers of galaxies at the same place (in the same part of Universe). When their mass is insufficient, the objects are cold. Matter gets warmed up with the increase of pressure and other forces: gravity, the interrelation of two or more objects, fast rotation. After a critical point (the sum of forces) they become hot objects that emit radiation (which we interpret as light).

10. Why there is not one and the same atmosphere on the objects of our system?

The position of an object (i.e. its location) determins which geological processes will be there. Volcanoes exist on the internal objects of the system, while the ejection of cold matter is present on the objects in the outer layer, which is significantly colder than the internal one. It is important to mention that the observation is related to the currently existing situation in the system. The current arrangement of objects, regarding their mass, location, atmosphere, etc., by no means need not have been set as it is now; the arrangement in general is a consequence of many events, occurr ing in a system during a period of time. A clear evidence to that fact have been noticed in other systems with planets (exoplanets) or where a star rotates around the other one (Sirius A and B).

The occurrence of atmosphere is directly related to different geological processes: volcanoes; ejection of cold matter; attraction of new particles of matter; activity of intensive radiation; activity of gravitational forces among two or more objects on each other; rotation of objects (when different temperatures of day and night occur); constant bombardment of other, lesser or larger objects; inclination and form of an object; the change of calendar seasons; etc. The age of an object deserves to be particularly singled out here, although it will not be discussed now.

When a formation of atmosphere on the internal objects takes place, aside from a quantity of geological processes, the following needs to be taken into consideration: "Nitrogen does not burn nor it supports combustion. It is a bit easier than air and poorly soluble in water, chemically unreactive. ... 99,8% of all carbon on Earth is found combined in minerals, mainly carbonates... Only 0,01% of carbon exists in living beings. ... After hydrogen, carbon creates more compounds than all the other elements put together" (Wikipedia)

Although CO2 is mutual for all of the three planets with atmosphere, the differences among them occur due to the distance from Sun, rotation, mass; they caused different geological processes. The proximity of Sun and the lack of rotation – notwithstanding the similar masses – created the atmosphere of Venus: CO2 96,5% and nitrogen 3,5%. The rotation of Earth, the change of calendar seasons, binary relations between Earth and Moon and colder environment (related to that of Venus) are suitable for the creation of water, which in the form of rain removes CO2 from the atmosphere in the favor of nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%). The insufficient mass of Mars (manifesting itself in the lack of geological processes of the atmosphere formation) causes the beginning of the atmosphere formation: CO2 95,97%, nitrogen 1,81%, argon 1,93%,...  67/P Churyumov – Gerasimenko comet is a transitive object, partially belonging to the internal region and partially to the outer region (perihelion: 1.2432 AU, aphelion: 5,6829 AU). Its mass is small, but it possesses rotation and different distances from Sun. There are also free particles of oxygen and nitrogen. Its composition consists mainly of carbonates and of some water, etc.

The objects in the colder, outer region are divided into gas giants and other objects.

Some of the elements and compounds related to Titan and Pluto

The atmosphere of Titan consists of: Stratosphere: 98.4% nitrogen (N2) 1.4% methane (CH4),  0.2% hydrogen (H2);  Lower troposphere:  95.0% N2, 4.9% CH4 (Wikipedia). The similar, only much thinner atmosphere, exists on Pluto, too. Significant presence of methane reveals there is no water in hydrological cycle to reduce such a high level of methane in its atmosphere. The common thing for Titan and Pluto is a distinguished binary system, which accelerates geological processes. Mass and structure of an object also have an important role in increased geological processes. A larger mass is less compact and easily subject to changes, which is generally sufficient for a particular chemical element or compound to change its state of matter and produce the cold ejection of matter (ice volcano or ice geyser). The cold ejection of matter exists on Pluto, where the temperature maximum is -210°C; at this temperature nitrogen turns liquid.

On the colder places there are elements and compounds of the lower melting point (N2, CH4,…), while warmer objects, such as Venus, Mars, Earth (at certain time in the past, the atmosphere of Earth also consisted mostly of CO2), create the atmosphere from the carbon cycle (CO2, CO, carbonates, ... ). ("It lead to 'another atmosphere' being created; at the beginning it consisted of carbon-dioxide and nitrogen, with some water vapor, but practically without oxygen." Wikipedia). The common thing for all but two objects are hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and carbon, but their particular presence is different, due to the earlier stated reasons. ("The composition of Saturn's atmosphere: ≈ 96% hydrogen (H2), ≈ 3% helium (He), ≈ 0,4% methane (CH4), ≈ 0,01% ammonia (NH3), ≈ 0,01% deuterium (DH). Ice: ammonia (NH3), water vapor (H2O), ammonium hydrosulfide (NH4SH). " Wikipedia).

The active elements (hydrogen, helium, nitrogen and carbon) create an atmosphere according to the local conditions.

11. Supernovae are not our creators

We have been listening for too long that supernovae (or just, novae) are responsible for our existence. They brought heavy, essential elements to our planet. Iron, uranium and other complex elements are said to have come from the universe to form our Earth.

Slikovni rezultat za Crab Nebula SN 1054 remnant (Crab Nebula).

To make the absurdity even bigger, there are not so many (only a few dozen) remains, made by the star explosions. According to Wikipedia, the amount of these supernova remains inside our galaxy ranges from 25 (or 40, if planetary nebulae are included) to 100, if all other nebulae and particle clouds are included (a molecular cloud, Bok globules, interstellar cloud, etc.). For the sake of the example: if we identify every nebula or cloud to be an exploded star – which is highly incorrect – and compare them to the total quantity of stars in the galaxy (100 – 400 billion of stars), it can be concluded that it is a completely neglectable quantity, in terms of the observations of the processes inside the galaxy and beyond.

How is it possible to draw the conclusion that a phenomenon of a neglectable significance is able to deliver complex elements to a few hundred billion of stellar systems and also create a vast number of new stars, just as the hypothetical black holes and neutron stars?

That disbalance, although catches the eye terribly, keeps getting away with it and becomes a fundamental science and a constant source of creating the unlimited number of continuous fabrications (which could by no means be identified with science or even science fiction).

  “The Sun is composed primarily of the chemical elements hydrogen and helium; they account for 74.9% and 23.8% of the mass of the Sun in the photosphere, respectively. All heavier elements, called metals in astronomy, account for less than 2% of the mass, with oxygen (roughly 1% of the Sun's mass), carbon (0.3%), neon (0.2%), and iron (0.2%) being the most abundant.“

The density of a star is very low, less than 1,5 g/cm3 (Sun: 1,408), which clearly indicates the complete absence of complex elements. A bit higher density of gases that create a star appears due to the forces of pressure, which make the gases more compact inside that space or a star.

Where does it even come from, the claim that the explosion of an object, composed of hydrogen and helium, delivers its non-existing complex elements? If the stars before the explosion were composed only of the complex elements, then again, their small quantity presents only a neglectable significance, which can not be related to the complex particles of 100 – 400 billion of stellar systems. Besides, there is the disintegration of particles at work, due to the enormous explosion (the estimates are that only a small part of the stellar matter remains as a nebula).

The nebulae are generally composed of hydrogen and some helium, and other elements existing in insignificant quantities. It has never been discovered that there are silver, gold, uranium or generally any other complex element present on the stars or nebulae (at least, not in the quantities that are needed to establish such a hypothesis).

It also needs to be pointed out that the general information on Wikipedia also distinguish nebulae and clouds from the stellar explosions: there are 25 examples mentioned under the section of supernovae remains and 40 examples under the section of planetary nebulae (which also include the remains of supernovae).

The explosion of the star that later became known as the Crab Nebula, had taken place in 1054. and during this period of 1000 years it has moved less than 6 light-years away from the center (its diameter is some 11 light-years). The intensity of radiation and waves decreases with the square distance; matter spreads out much slower, therefore, there are no nebulae with the diameter longer than 200-600 light-years (a molecular cloud, which was not created by the stellar explosion and it does not represent the remains of a supernova).

There are no valid evidence to scientifically accept the idea that supernovae are the cause of all our ignorance, i.e., that they are responsible for the appearance of the complex elements on our planet – they are absolutely innocent.

12. The Wrong Ideas About Life Creating Zones

We are not inclined to change the old hypotheses; we stubbornly keep on using them even when they are made completely useless.

Based on the observations of the Solar system we have concluded that a suitable life creating zone extends from Venus to Mars, holding on to the hard evidence that there is life on Earth, which we had been looking for on Venus and have given up, but we stubbornly keep searching to prove that we were right, when the inhabitants of Mars and Venus are concerned. The evidence that completely oppose to this viewpoint are made irrelevant. Mars is as dry as a desert, there is no water or suitable atmosphere on it, the radiation on it is serious, the robots were unable to find even a single thing that would at least give a hope, neither fossils nor bacteria, or any other signs of even the most simple life form... Even if they were to be hit in the head by a hammer, they would not give up the stories about the life on Mars, in this or any other past time.

They are so infatuated or hypnotized with this belief that, like the religious believers, they see and recognize the places where water once flew, where a lake was placed, where geysers were,.... just like the old fortune tellers, who are looking at the coffe grounds after having a cup of coffee and, now being satisfied, start making up stories just to earn a few coins or another coffee.

The Goldilocks Zone is an imagination or conclusion making based on the one out of 100 – 400 billion of systems in our galaxy. Since the Universe is vast, they are unable to keep seeing it as dynamic, constantly changing, with permanent processes that do not correlate the existence of life neither to zones nor to areas.
The objects keep growing all the time (they get bigger). When an object reaches a certain level of mass (<10% of the Solar mass), it grows into a star. In the previous period, such an object still has a crust and develops life (with the obligatory condition of rotation), since for the long period of time, very intensive geological processes take place on such an object, which is not dependent on zones; it could be placed on the distance of Jupiter and Neptune. The evidence to support the claim can be found in the observations of brown dwarfs. According to the new criteria, Earth and Venus are also able to be considered as such objects.

("One of the Y dwarfs, called WISE 1828+2650, was, as of August 2011, the record holder for the coldest brown dwarf – emitting no visible light at all, this type of object resembles free-floating planets more than stars. WISE 1828+2650 was initially estimated to have an atmospheric temperature cooler than 300 K—for comparison the upper end of  room temperature is 298 K (25 °C, 80 °F). Its temperature has since been revised and newer estimates put it in the range of 250 to 400 K (−23–127 °C, −10–260 °F").
In April 2014,  WISE 0855−0714  was announced with a temperature profile estimated around 225 to 260 K and a mass of 3 to 10  MJ
. ).

If only the objects orbiting around a star are considered (there are also smaller, independent objects ), first of all, mass and radius of a star, then its temperature and the speed of rotation and only then the mass and the distance of the orbiting object need to be taken into account. An Earth-sized object in the position of Mars is still unsuitable to create life, because tidal forces are much weaker, the melted core is smaller, the geological activities are less active and also, it would be an ice age in that orbit .... – nothing even similar to our Earth.

For the orbit of Mars to become life-friendly, that object would need to have a mass bigger than Earth. Or, a star should possess a faster rotation, which causes higher temperature, faster orbit, stronger tidal forces, or a significantly bigger mass, which would, with given rotation, cause higher temperature and stronger tidal forces. By observing the exoplanets we can see that the systems are not the same, not even similar (the bigger planets and stars can be found in the orbits that are smaller than that of Mercury and with temperatures above 1 000°C – which means they do not have a crust. There are no identical objects, let alone systems.

Do forget the Goldilocks Zones  – the illusions and fiction do not constitute evidence.

13. What are the lakes on Titan made of?

Due to its thick atmosphere, Titan is constantly an object of interest. Details about its origin, composition, the reasons for such a thick atmosphere to exist, why is it – like Earth – primarily (98%) composed of nitrogen, is it suitable for life, what would the possible life forms look like, etc., are sought to be found by all possible means.

Articles about the existence of methane oceans on Titan (the satellite of Saturn) have been published these days on almost all portals related to cosmology after a radar research ( or, "..has A sea of pure methane. ... The moon has three large seas, all located in the northern polar region, that are surrounded by small lakes. So far, just one large lake has been found in Titan's southern hemisphere. ", etc).
This is, however, hardly a news, as this is just a confirmation of earlier knowledge that there are oceans of hydrocarbons on Titan ("The possibility of hydrocarbon seas on Titan was first suggested based on Voyager 1 and 2") ). Even missions with research probes were sent to the surface of this satellite (Cassini-Huygens).

Problems occur when we have a look at the database of Titan: the average temeperature on Titan is -179,5°C, with nitrogen consisting 98% of atmosphere. Basins of liquid were discovered in the northern and southern polar areas, which are much colder than average, according to the general principles of temperature arrangement on an object, due to the different influence of tidal forces on the equator and the poles of an object. Methane changes into solid state of matter at the temperature of -182,5°C and ethane at the temperature of -182,8°C.

This has a certificate in a new measurement of the stratosphere at the south pole of Titan, which is 40 ° less than average temperatures.
("Titan's hemispheres have responded in different ways to these seasonal changes. The wintry effects have led to a temperature drop of 72 degrees Fahrenheit (40 degrees Celsius) in the southern polar stratosphere over the last four years." ) The subsequent added, author.

Liquid state of matter for nitrogen ranges from -210°C to -195,795°C.

The difference of only 3°C between the average temperature of Titan (-179,5°C) and the melting point of methane (-182,5°C) definitely eliminates the possibility of methane and ethane to be in the liquid state of matter in the polar areas of Titan. They can be there only in the solid state of matter, because the temperature in the polar area needs to be at least 20°C lower than the average temperature.
Only nitrogen can be found in the liquid state of matter inside the polar caps (its melting point ranges from -210°C to -195,795°C) and – beyond any doubt – this is pointed out by the atmosphere composition, which is 98% composed of nitrogen.

The existence of basins in the equatorial areas would be able to support the idea of liquid hydrocarbons, the indication of which is the atmosphere composition, but, it would rather be like nitrogen on Pluto, which is on the edge of melting and hardening. The evidence are firm solid parts of surface that move on the mildly melted nitrogen. These data are of the Titan atmosphere composition ("Stratosphere: 98.4%  nitrogen  (N2), 1.4%  methane  (CH4), 0.2%  hydrogen  (H2); Lower  troposphere: 95.0% N2, 4.9% CH4"  ) and they suggest such possibility.

The deficiency of methane (CH4) in the atmosphere is caused by the temperatures lower than -182,5°C, which eliminate methane from the atmosphere and sediment it on the surface, while nitrogen remains the dominant element of the atmosphere.


14. Why there are differences in structure of the objects in our system?




Ø density g/cm3

Radius km

Poluos orbite km















































































































































































































































695.700 eq


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

The data from the table clearly point out that it is quite difficult to recognize the pattern that could attract the attention with its clarity and simplicity. If we take a fact that higher density also means more complex chemical structure of the objects, regarding chemical elements and compounds, we can conclude that an object's density has no clear regularity. The object 67P/Churymov-Garasimenko, classified as a comet, has a lower density of all so-called gaseous planets. Although it is relatively close to Sun, its aggregate state is solid, so Philae could easily land on its surface. This fact clearly states that gaseous planets are solid (and solid/melted) objects with impressive atmospheres. There are solid objects with even lower density: Pan 0,42 g/cm3, Atlas 0,46 g/cm3, Pandora 0,48 g/cm3 – all of them the satellites of Saturn. Etc.

The objects that are closer to the central object possess a higher density (due to the higher tidal force effects), as well as the objects with bigger masses and higher temperatures of space (Ariel/Umbriel; Titania/Oberon; Proteus/Triton; Rhea/Iapetus; Galileo's satellites; Phobos/Deimos; internal/external planets; etc). Of course, it does not mean that all objects belong to this group. The very division of asteroids into S, M and V type suggests a dramatical deviation. One part of objects becomes more dense in the beginning of their approach to the Sun (because volatile matter disappears and higher temperatures help the creation of the more complex elements). The other part of objects was created during the disintegration of objects (the internal – the higher density, and the external – the lower density), due to the collisions. In both cases a continuation of growth must be taken into consideration, as the lesser objects keep arriving to their surfaces. A certain portion of satellites also does not abide the strict law (density, mass, space temperature and distance to the central object), which implies the different past of these objects before they got captured by the central object. A part of it definitely belongs to the different composition of objects that constantly bombard satellites and other objects. It is unlikely that more dense asteroids from the asteroid belt would hit the outer objects, unlike the interior ones, because the gravitational force of Sun is dominant.

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

The goal of this article is to eliminate the biblical-style of thinking of simultaneous creation of all objects and their inability to change during time, as well as to point out that everything could be explained by the already existing evidence and processes.


15. What are working temperatures of elements and compounds in the Universe?

Science keeps falling into a trap these days and continues to observe the objects in the Universe without taking into account the most important factor: the importance of influence of the temperature level that belongs to an observed object. The similarities of the other objects to Earth have been rather frequently imposed to us, over and over again, as the attempts to prove the wrong hypotheses.

It is generally accepted that there are higher temperatures in the objects and spaces that are closer to a star, as well as the fact that elements and compounds have significantly different working temperatures at which either of these change their aggregate state, from solid into liquid or they sublimate, and from liquid into gas and vice versa. The working temperature of water is from 0 to +100°C; oxygen from -218,35 to -188,14°C; nitrogen from -209,86 to -195,75°C; methane from -182,5 to -161,49; hydrogen from -259,14 to -252,87°C; helium from -272,20 to -268,934°C;  sulphur dioxide from -72 do -10°C , etc.

The process that initiates with the working temperature starts with heating up, which makes it possible for the aggregate state to change from solid into liquid (or sublimate into gas) and from liquid into gas. There is a reverse process when the elements and compounds, after their breakthrough from an object into its atmosphere, meet the temperatures that are lower than the boiling point, when gas turns liquid, or the melting point, when gas or liquid turn solid.

There is a vast number of examples for the influence of the temperature level on the beginning of the process of changing the aggregate state of different elements and compounds. The lower working temperature of nitrogen on Pluto is closer to solid state. There are two sources of temperature on Pluto: internal one, which is generated due to the influence of tidal waves of the binary system with Charon, and the external one, generated by Sun and being different in perihelion and aphelion, on the light and dark side and on the equator and the poles. If the temperature on Pluto is considered here, minimal one being -229°C and maximal one being -210°C (-218 Wiki), and the atmosphere being insignificant (the surface pressure is around 1 Pa, while on Earth it is 101,325 kPa), it is easy to demonstrate which processes and with which elements and compounds will take place there. It needs to be said that surface temperatures are not the same as the internal ones, which in a particular places, where, due to the tidal forces, a friction takes place and matter emissions or crusts occur, become higher than maximal ones (when the friction stops, matter gets cooled down, i.e., the temperature lowers rapidly with the increase of distance to the point of friction). By the quantity of elements and compounds in the atmosphere or on the surface of an object it is possible to determine quite precisely the temperatures in the internal parts of that object.

On the moon of Io, these temperatures reach above -10°C, because there is SO2 in the atmosphere and it is the compound that changes its aggregate state on Io (there is a liquid SO2 in the craters). Low temperatures on Io turn this compound into crystals, which end up on the surface very quickly. The difference between Io and Europa is in the tidal forces, which are stronger on a closer object, which also has a higher density and a more complex chemical structure.

On Europa, the working element is oxygen (its melting point is 54,8°K; the boiling point is 90,19°K), because the moon's temperature ranges from 55 to 125°K.
The temperature amplitudes between the light and dark side, as well as the temperatures on the equator and on the poles create the process of the oxygen crystallization and its removal from the atmosphere to the surface.  
The surface temperatures on Europa don't offer the possibility for the water ice to create the landscape on the surface, because water melts down at 273°K or 0°C, while the maximal surface temperature on Europa is 125°K or -148°C.

The temperatures on Titan, with the average temperature of -179,5°C, don't enable the reverse process of nitrogen, so it accumulates in the atmosphere, while methane (CH4) participates in very active processes, which throw methane into the atmosphere, but there are also the active processes of its deposition from the atmosphere, which indicates the existence of temperatures above -161,49°C and below -182,5°C.

The tidal waves affect all the objects, but differently. The objects closer to the source of tidal waves, or where the sum of tidal waves from different sources is bigger, experience the more intense processes and the chemical structure of objects is more complex (see the article "Why there are differences in structure of the objects in our system?"), but the amplitudes and the level of temperature (whether the object is closer or further from Sun or another dominant object; day and night; equators and poles) determine, which elements and compounds will become working ones and how intense it will all be, and also, how will these processes look like for every particular object inside our system and in the Universe.


16. There is no ring around Pluto! ?

12.7.2012 08:32


The Hubble Space Telescope has discovered that there are five, not four, satellites orbiting around a dwarf planet of Pluto. 

Weitter Duckss  
a comment on the article

In today's show "Universe", broadcasted on, they were talking about the discovery of rings around Pluto, made by the space probe "New Horizons" (the first data are from 2015.). The rings around an object are related to its mass, the speed of rotation and its temperature. The mass of Pluto is small, its speed of rotation is slow and even though the low temperatures are favorable, the rings cannot be formed. Just as it is in the text, a greater mass and higher speed of rotation mean more satellites. If there is no rotation, there are no satellites either (Venus, Mercury).  

It is completely clear now that there are no rings around Pluto (confirmed by NASA). The scientists have been taking these rings for granted. I published my estimate (calculation) for the first time on July 12th 2012. at 8:32 on the link, in which I stated that the possibility for Pluto to have rings is almost neglectable. I also wrote about it here:  
„Until some other opportunity, maybe already in spring of 2015, when the mission New horizons will have reached Pluto, to convince us that it does not have rings. The calculations are clear: slow speed of rotation around its own axis, small mass, and even though there is very favorable low temperature, there are no rings. But, it is needed to point out that the values are contiguous, which is demonstrated by the mass of its satellites. Related to their home planet, they are in terms of mass by far beyond the average of the Sun and other 8 planets. 
The author“

The scientists were guided by the "scientific" method: if there are rings around Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, then it is "purely logical" for Pluto to have them, too. Nothing would be strange if they didn't start publicly bragging themselves with these results, claiming they were "completely certain about it" and filming "scientific" shows on tv. 

If one's argument is: "It must be like that, because there is a sequence", it would be unfair if they had guessed by accident, or, as it is said: "Even a blind hen sometimes finds a grain of corn". On the contrary, they had terribly embarrassed themselves and now, as always when they lose, they offer some (senseless) explanations that Charon was the cause of their problems. In the case of Saturn, scientists claim that its satellites are the keepers of the rings, that the rings would disappear without them, and now, there is an opposite approach, claiming that the satellites are the cause for the rings not to appear. 

My position in doing the estimate of the possibility for Pluto to have rings (when compared to "science" that claims something in advance – it must be wrong) was this: the mass of Pluto is small (mass is not a significant factor of ring formation anyway), its speed of rotation around the axis is very low (6,4 days) and the temperature is significantly lower than on gas giants. 
I have included in my estimate that Pluto, notwithstanding its small mass, low speed of rotation and favorable low temperatures, has relatively more satellite mass than other planets (relation: mass of a planet / mass of its satellites).
Except for low temperatures, nothing pointed at the existence of a ring or a cloud of particles that rotate around it (the newest search of "New Horizons").    
In the meantime, an asteroid with a ring (Chariklo) had been found, so the estimate could have given the same result even if I had excluded the influence of mass of an object on the ring formation. The most important factors are the speed of rotation (90%) and the level of environmental temperature.   

My comment about the non-existence of rings around Pluto, before the confession of  NASA:

Slavko Sedić · 
Rings on Pluto? Quote from the article in 2013:
Until some other opportunity, maybe already in spring of 2015, when the mission New horizons will have reached Pluto, to convince us that it does not have rings. The calculations are clear: slow speed of rotation around its own axis, small mass, and even though there is very favorable low temperature, there are no rings. But, it is needed to point out that the values are contiguous, which is demonstrated by the mass of its satellites. Related to their home planet, they are in terms of mass by far beyond the average of the Sun and other 8 planets.
Like · Reply · Jul 2, 2015 7:25am

Gary Moretti · 
Most Of Us Went
Pluto seems to lack a ring structure made of dust particles but likely has atmospheric bands of gas that move between Pluto and Charon these gas bands are a feature in the shared atmosphere between Pluto and Charon.
Like · Reply · Jul 4, 2015 1:20pm

Slavko Sedić · 
Gary Moretti 
It is possible, but the chances are very small.
Like · Reply · Jul 7, 2015 5:08pm


Weitter Duckss's Theory of the Universe

- Light
- Heated objects (stars)
- Rotation of an object
- Ether or vacuum
- Functioning of the Universe

Published in the "International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research (ISSN 2229-5518)" etc. 2016.  

Author: Weitter Duckss (Slavko Sedic) Zadar Croatia

The Universe is the main theme, which is discussed in this paper. The objectives are creating the sequence of relations or connections of two or more relations of evidence (for example, mass – radius) to create new measurable values. The observation starts from the obvious (red stars make up to 76,45% of all stars in our galaxy) and namely such importance is given to that matter. Making conclusions based on some spectacular, but minor values, is avoided (for example, shiny blue stars make only 0,00003% from the total quantity of the stars in our galaxy).

The analysis of every topic is based on the big totalities (the total number of galaxies, the total number of stars in the Milky Way), on the regularities that apply to all observed units – with the exceptions included – or phenomena related to all objects, avoiding the partial or individual separated parts of the totality. The Universe is here analyzed through the formation of matter, its growth and disintegration. Rotation is introduced as a feature that must be addressed to; it creates the relations between the neighboring and distant objects. The age of the Universe is analyzed through the approximate minimal assessment of time needed for some object to reach a particular stage by gathering matter, for example: a time needed to create a cluster of stars, consisting of a few tens of thousands of stars in a single place, due to the gravitational force and rotation. The analysis starts from the assessment that the majority of notions and evidence are generally familiar to vast majority of readers, therefore no particular links, leading to the definitions of a star, a galaxy, rotation, blue and red spectral shift, etc., are cited here. The notions such as gravity, tidal forces, rotation, etc., do not follow officially accepted definitions and they often differ structurally; for example, gravity is a sum of effects of the gravitational force and rotation, due to which EM forces also rotate and thus influence the objects within the orbit, but also further away, until the limits of the gravitational force are reached. The component of time also needs to be acknowledged here. The hierarchy that follows generally and widely accepted rules is not used within this paper.

The whole paper is an abstract, a material that contains no endless explanations. Only minimal quantity of needed evidence are introduced here, as a result of the experience gained in many discussions on several forums in the Republic of Croatia, United States (2) and Russian Federation (2), etc. These discussions have contributed to the quality of this paper and hereby I thank to all who have participated in these discussions and to the visitors (there were more than 100 000 visits to my themes on portals with over 1 000 comments, even without the data for my own web-site).


I will start with something easy and generally accepted – a nice theme, of which we think we know everything to the smallest detail and we take it as an undisputable fact. Light. Why there is light on Earth and outside Earth there is a completely dark space?

We know it comes from Sun (a bit of it comes from the other stars, too) and that Sun is the light-giving object. The question is, how it can give light to us if already 100 km outside the atmosphere of Earth there is no light? The same thing happens on Moon or Mercury, with the only difference that there is dark space on them immediately next to the surface, because they do not have an atmosphere.

Note: all pictures, including these here too, are taken from the internet

When observing the arrival of a comet, initially we can see only the object and the dark around it. Light starts to appear around it when the object starts releasing the particles which create the tail of the comet. The common thing to Earth and the comets is matter (particles). 1,2

The evidence are so obvious here that no explanation is needed (only visible matter is shining). The only thing that requires an explanation is, why matter is shining, which makes light to appear. The example can be made out of heat spreading from hot objects. A hot object is emitting waves, which we perceive as heat (there are no photons,  "heatons", etc.). Microwave oven is the most obvious example. There is no heat source, only waves, but in the collision of waves and matter, a meal becomes warm and it can also get burned. Nothing is needed between a star (Sun) and an object (the atmosphere of Earth), except waves or radiation. Constant waves' blows warm up the visible matter, which starts shining. Now it is clear why the temperature on the light side of Moon reaches 390°K (about +120°C), while on the dark side it is only 100°K  (about -170°C). No photons are needed as there is by far no valid explanation that they really represent light or that the light from Sun is traveling to Earth and other objects.

There is also the speed of light, which is also considered to be an undisputable fact. How can light have a defined speed, when there is no light between the objects in the space? If there was some, it would be a light space between Sun and Earth, not a dark one. There is only the speed of radiation or waves. Dawn, or morning light, appears much earlier than the actual appearance of Sun (this is called diffraction or secondary effects of wave blows that transfer sideways from the collision of waves and matter; this occurrence is not present on Moon and objects with no atmosphere).

Heated objects (stars)

Let's stay with light and convince ourselves why the objects (stars) are shining, i.e., why they become heated objects. They start shining, depending on a few factors (are they independent objects or they are orbiting around a star). The objects that are orbiting start shining already when they reach the size of Earth, even earlier. In our system – beside Sun – Earth and Venus are shining and there are increased levels of radiation on Jupiter and Neptune. If you have visited an active volcano, or have been near one (it is calculated there are some 500 active volcanoes3), or have seen a TV show about volcanoes, you can immediately realize that Earth is shining or emitting its own radiation. Besides, it is known that it is very hot under the crust of Earth, i.e., there is a melted matter ("the analyses imply the temperatrure of the Earth's core is about 5700 K and the pressure is variable, around 330-360 gigapascals"4).

The claims that there is a radioactive disintegration need to be dismissed as incredible; more than half a million of people live only around Vesuvius in Italy and they are not irradiated. Lava can be hot, but never radioactive. The conduct of matter in blast furnaces for melting iron is known; therefore, it is also known that hot mass is dislocating, which means that radioactive elements should be equally present in lava now and 4,5 billion of years earlier – but, they are not "(Ultramafic (picritic): SiO2 <45%, Fe-Mg> 8% and up to 32% MgO, temperature up to 1500°C))". 5

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

Rotation of an object and its far-reaching effects

The effects of the rotation could be analyzed through the rotation of an object and total rotational effects of a smaller or larger system (Universe). Nevertheless, it is not good to divide these two features, because they originate one from the other and influence each other inseparably. It will not be analyzed here, what it had been like earlier and how it all had been developing, but instead, the analysis of the Universe and its objects as they are right now and the omnipresent relations within it.

All the objects, observed by the astronomers, are moving, rotating and creating interrelations. The gravitational forces define the direction or the shortest way from one object to the other, while the movement of a central object and its rotation bend and prolong the way of approaching. If an object is approaching vertically to an equator and movement direction of a central object (which, by definition, needs to be a larger object, which can dictate the rules), the gravitational forces need to adjust the direction of the created movement length of a central object in every single point, thus changing the direction slowly to a curve. At the final stage, the rotations of both objects, with the speed included, place the incoming object into the orbit. If a classical gravitational force in isolated conditions is to be analyzed, the direction would never be prompted to change into an ellipse; there would always be the collision, like in the example of an apple and Earth. To ascribe the formation of orbit to the speed of an incoming object is simply not satisfying, because the classical gravity only attracts an object independently of its speed. The creation of orbit needs to include the rotations of objects, as well as the movement of a star in the orbit inside the galaxy and the movement of galaxy inside the cluster of galaxies.

Rotation can be analyzed in the broader way, too. Just like with the magnets, it is not only an object that rotates – but its gravitational forces rotate, too. For example, if there is an eruption that makes a large emission of radiation (waves), which last equally or more than a single rotation, then radiation also rotates in the direction of rotation and its constant blows correct the movement direction of an object. This needs to be analyzed also in the relation of the size differences of two objects. Sun possesses 99.86% of the whole system's mass and it influences with a significant, consequential force on a small object.

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

Besides rotation around the axis, every object also has an orbital movement direction: a star system is rotating around a galaxy, a galaxy is rotating around a cluster of galaxies, while these objects are rotating around the Universe. By observing the stars in our galaxy, it is easily noticed there are bright and hot stars on one side and red, colder stars on the other. Also, bright stars are rotating fast, while red stars are rotating slower and are colder. There is a regularity that red stars make up to ¾ (76,45%) of stars in our galaxy, while blue stars (or, "O" type stars), which are rotating very fast, make up to only 0,00003% 8.  If published articles are consulted, an opposite ratio is found: everyone is writing about the shiny, colossal stars. Insufficient information are there about the main feature of our galaxy – smaller, red stars. It should never be forgotten that, besides red color, smaller stars could also be brown, yellow and white. White dwarfs are very fast-rotating and very hot stars.
A central object's speed of rotation is directly related to the orbital speed of planets and their total mass. If two objects have the same mass, but different speeds of rotation, the object with the faster rotation has more objects in the orbits, beside a smaller radius, higher temperature, stronger superficial gravity. Faster and very fast rotations also create more significant asteroid belt and gas disk. This is the only reason why Pluto has no rings, because his slow rotation (6,4 days) – with a small mass – is insufficient to create rings; gas, dust and smaller objects end up on the planet or its satellites. The objects without an independent rotation (such as Venus, Mercury, etc.) can't direct the other objects into their gravitational field. The same principle goes for the objects with rotation when an incoming object arrives to the polar region, where only the gravitational force exist.

"Ether or vacuum"

Edmond Halley → „gravitational force between Sun and the planets is decreasing with the square distance“. The intensity or power of radiation conducts similarly to the requirements of this law. If the space is a vacuum, the waves, coming from Sun, are not obliged to abide the law of decreasing force.

This should apply only to the existence of matter or obstacles. The following objects have the stated values of temperature on their dark sides: Mercury ~100°K, Europa ~50°K, Pluto ~33°K and in the Oort cloud only 4°K (some sources suggest the range of 2 – 12°K). By observing the night sky it can be seen that the power of  waves, incoming from the stars, loses its intensity while traveling the distance to Earth. If vacuum was present in the space, the space would have the same temperature. It is clear that the space which is closer to a source has a significant temperature, related to that one in the Oort cloud. The space is getting heated, but not as a visible matter, and the evidence of weakening the intensity of light and decreasing of temperature suggest beyond any doubt that there is no vacuum. The decrease of intensity is not equal to the activity of gravity, which indicates there is a sort of matter involved. The usual anomalies are recorded closer to Sun. The temperature on the dark side of Mercury (~100°K) is lower than the one on Mars (~130°K) and there is a similar anomaly on Earth, in the sense of thermosphere. Nevertheless, the fact that waves decrease with distance all the way till 4°K in the Oort cloud can't be disputed. It is clear that the space closer to a star is getting heated up to 130°K. This is not the conduct manner of the empty space that does not interact with radiation. The same situation is with larger systems, galaxies. On the edge of galaxy the temperature is reduced below 3°K. The further the space from the source of waves (radiation) is, the lower the temperature gets and it tends to reach the absolute zero (the temperature of background radiation is 2,7 K).  When the next totality (Multi-Universe) will become measurable, the temperature on its edges would be around 1° K.

Let's also mention here the law of low temperatures: when temperature lowers below the boiling point of helium (4,226°K) the objects start accelerating independently of the reduced gravitational effects, which can be seen with the Oort cloud, the objects at the edge of galaxies and with the sudden speeding up of  Voyager 1 and 2.

                                                                                                   The feature of the outer space is reacting to waves, the ability to get heated and – in a particular way – to conduct itself similarly to visible matter. The relation is this: visible matter makes up to 5% of the Universe, while the rest belongs to the space filled with dark matter. It is not appropriate to look for the 95% of system in the same way as if it would be done for a millionth part of it.

Conclusion: space is not empty, it makes possible for waves (radiation) to move at the speed of 300 000 km/sec., but at the same time it reduces the intensity and power of waves, which is good, because weakened radiation is unable to cause damage to the neighboring systems.

Functioning of the Universe

The Universe is based on the law of attraction. This law is acting under difficult conditions, movements and rotations of objects and systems inside the Universe. If objects share the same orbit or trajectory of movement, they attract each other exclusively with gravitational force. The joining of objects takes place under these conditions (the expression "collision of objects" should not be used at this place). The same laws should apply to planets and galaxies, as well as to gas and dust. The gathering of matter  follows the law of attraction, but here is also the upper sustainable level (limit), which can be supported by the conditions in which the process takes place, i.e., natural conditions. Matter has a constant tendency to gather up, due to gravitational force (no matter of the natural sustainability) and a particle, object or system reject the surplus. A particle is doing it by rejecting smaller parts: electrons, protons, neutrons or helium. The process is generally accompanied by radioactive radiation. Forces of gravity make all objects to be interrelated to some extent, in a certain way they "feel" each other.

When an object rotates, it gathers a smaller quantity of other objects that rotate around it (Sun gathers 0,14 % of its total mass). Rotation creates stellar systems, spherical clusters, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, the Universe, etc. There is a smaller part of disorganized totalities that will at the end become organized or join some unsaturated system.

When a gaseous or liquid object rotates, whirls are created at their poles and in time they may grow into cyclones. On the objects that have whirls, matter on their poles is rotating slower than the matter on their equators; it is the opposite with the cyclones. Supernovae are created when an object of the sufficient size hits into the opening (an eye) of a cyclone or a faster and deeper whirl, penetrating deeper into a star and exploding there, which makes a triggering event to create a supernova. The evidence claim that white and blue stars explode independently of their mass – white dwarfs explode just like white or blue giants – but nothing similar has been related to yellow and red stars, which rotate slower and their whirls are not as deep. There is only a very small part of supernovae, related to the total quantity of stars, since there is also a very small part of white and blue stars inside our galaxy. Blue stars make up to "0,0003%; blue-white stars 0,13%; white stars 0,6% and yellow-white stars 3%" (Wikipedia). That makes less than 4% of candidates for the creation of potential supernovae. That fact makes the minor number of supernovae remnants justified; there are only a few dozens of them in the whole galaxy (i.e., related to 200-400 billion of stars). Having analyzed this relation, it becomes pointless to talk too much about the supernovae, because their minor quantity can not influence the creation of heavier elements in galaxy at all, especially when having in mind that a majority of matter undergoes the process of disintegration during the explosion of a star.

When analyzing the Solar system, it can be deducted that on Earth there is the greatest variety of elements, different in terms of mass. It can also be concluded by observing the objects inside this galaxy that hot objects with lower temperatures have a greater part of heavier elements than shiny, hot stars; in particular, brown dwarfs. There are two ways in one process. The first of them claims that heavier and diverse elements and more significant atmosphere are being created due to higher temperatures (the melted interiority of an object), more frequent geological processes, the change of day and night (due to rotation) and significantly colder polar regions than the rest of an object (in this way CH4 is being crystallized from the atmosphere of Titan, the satellite of Saturn, and removed from the atmosphere). The insufficience of a particular factor negatively influences the variety of creation of the elements (the effects of the lack of rotation are visible on Venus, Io, etc.). The other way claims there is the disintegration of elements. High temperatures disintegrate elements. Both of these ways exist on Earth. The interiority of Earth has a lesser variety and quantity of heavier elements. The composition of magma and lava confirms that; there are no lead, gold, uranium, etc. in it. There are mostly "silica, aluminum, potassium, sodium and calcium" (Wikipedia) with a small amount of the compounds of iron. With the increase of temperature, the variety of elements decreases; that way, the stars consist of hydrogen, helium and a very small part (up to 2%) of the other elements. "Sun generally consists of the chemical elements of hydrogen and helium; they respectively make up to 74,9% and 23,8% of the mass of Sun in the photosphere and all the heavier elements, in astronomy known as metals, make up less than 2% of the mass, including oxygen (around 1% of the mass of Sun), carbon (0,3%), neon (0,2%), iron (0,2%)" (Wikipedia).

When analyzing the particle of hydrogen (H2), the smaller particles (electrons and neutrino) can here be exluded from the main process of creating the more complex particles. Electrons and neutrino participate in creating protons and neutrons (or, heavy protons). The reason for it is obvious, a proton needs the relation with another proton, because smaller particles are unable to keep it stable and in a stable bond. The other reason is that in the Universe the cores of particles exist without the relation to electrons, as it is on Earth. The results of particle collisions in accelerators prove that a proton disintegrates after a few short periods, called particles, into electrons and neutrino and electrons disintegrate into neutrino. Energy is omnipresent – even the smallest particles are made of it. This automatically proves that a particle of electron consists of a large quantity of neutrino and a particle of proton (hydrogen) consists of the combination of electrons and neutrino. The relation of H2 proves the existence of positive and negative charge of a proton. The disbalance of charge (about 5%, which is the quantity expressed by weak hydrogen bond) with the existence of two sorts of charge is responsible for the process of creating, growing and gathering matter. Particles with the same sort of charge repulse each other (electron and neutrino also possess two poles of charge). A proton itself consists of a large quantity of smaller particles which together create a string or thread with two different charges on its ends, which attract each other and, when joining, they create a curled up loop with a positive, negative and neutral pole. They are all clearly noticed when electrons collide with a proton (also known as "Three quarks for Muster Mark"). A thread that is connected gets opened up if there is enough charge and then it can join into the new relation if the conditions are appropriate. That is the way how an interwoven structure of more complex atoms is created. It gives a simple answer to the question, why two or three atoms with the same atomic mass differ utterly (argon, potassium and calcium, etc.) and exist in different aggregate states. The same goes for any pair of the neighboring elements (fluorine – neon, tellurium – iodine, etc.). The isotopes of elements also need to be mentioned here; they additionally confirm this way of creating the particles. Joining and growing of particles goes on even when a particle reaches its upper limits of natural sustainability, due to which a particle rejects the surplus of matter together with radioactive radiation. The same goes for the lower elements (who have irregular structures or the irregular ratio of protons and heavy protons), whose structure can not bear further growth (the system undergoes self-adaptations to achieve the sustainable state).

The age of an object and system is determined through the time needed for a certain mass to be collected and formed as an object in given conditions, as well as for that object to get attracted into a system. An initial value should be a small asteroid, which is estimated to be 4,5 billion of years old, the time which should roughly be enough for the gas particles to join into dust and form an object of ½ kg of weight. Age is not to be measured by measuring distance. The quantity of 13,7(8) billion of light-years, which is the distance to the most distant object in the Universe, is the length by which a circumference of the Universe is determined, with the correction of movement of the most distant objects, which is 270.000 km/sec. The Universe makes a single circle (rotation) in ~94,5 billion of years. Its disk-like appearance and enormous outer speed point out at the vast number of circles made to this day. Rotation gives the Universe a direction or trajectory.

Traslated by: prof. Zoran Coso




It is quite enough to look at one of the numerous photos of the universe and its parts to realize that it is a volume spreading away in all directions for as far as our telescopes and space-researching satellites can see through. That fact should never be forgotten, even for a moment; otherwise it could easily happen that we perceive the voluminous space as a surface, a plane, or compare it to the objects or occurrences on Earth.

There are no lines, curves or any other geometrical objects in a volume; there is only an open volume spreading as far as some 13.8 billion of light-years away. That number is valid for an object (a galaxy), detected and registered by our instruments from the surface of Earth. That was possible only due to constant emission of radiation by the objects, larger than 10% of the Sun’s mass (and some smaller smaller ones, too, that meet the requirements for it). Our instruments register that radiation as light.


Let’s assume that in that space there are only two objects, stars. No matter how great the distance between them may be, radiation, as well as the force of attraction (or, gravity), will reach one from another, if given enough time. The thing that radiation and gravity transferred from one object to another during the time of 13 billion of years, while traveling at the speed of ~ 300 000 km/sec., tells us nothing about the history of these objects. It can only be concluded that it takes that much time for the radiation to traverse across that space. You have to realize that galaxies consist of stars, radiation of which can only be registered. The stars should live at least for the time, needed by radiation to traverse that way and be registered by our instruments. Why am I pointing that out? From the explosions of stars (Novas and Supernovas) it became clear that the period from the beginning of the explosion until its turning down is very short. After that, radiation is at stop. If there is no star, there are also no instruments’ readings. The remaining nebula does not emit light – only deflects it – if there is no radiation source to illuminate it.

Let’s also check the following statement that some 400 000 years from the start of the expansion, or the creation of universe – recently, it became 300 000 – a compact mass started to brighten up and that was the time when radiation (light) appeared for the first time. Without a shred of evidence or a basis for such thing, that mass is claimed to have been very hot, hotter than all stars. That seems to be logical if you cram up the whole universe in such a small space. For that to be true, we should today already have some evidence for it. The most convincing and most simple evidence would be to have that objects on our photos. The problem is that there is not such an object, because if it existed, due to its mass, heat and quantity of radiation it would have cast its shadow over a great part of the universe or its photos. The saying, “If it is not here, it doesn’t mean that the object doesn’t (or, didn’t) exist”, does not apply here; the instruments are devices that register existing and radiation-emitting objects; they are unable to make things up. Such an object would be impossible not to detect, even with the less powerful instruments.

The statement that galaxies were created the first is totally illogical. Without radiation-emitting stars, galaxies would have been dark objects, undetectable to our instruments at these distances. Universe is an extremely cold and dark place and if there were no radiation-emitting objects (i.e. stars), we would not be able to see or register anything, unless we would be physically close to an object of observation. It is absolutely certain that the galaxies, which are registered as the furthest from us, are only a sum of a large number of stars that create light inside galaxies. That is the only way for us to detect them.

Now, if we were to claim that stars also are older than 13.8 billion of years, we would be right. It would be a great mistake to claim that these stars were created from the disintegration of other stars or from something else that was older than them. Such a claim would be contradictory to the constant expansion of the universe and galaxies that are in the process of formation (protogalaxies), as it would imply that the earlier size of the universe had been larger or at least the same as now. That idea would automatically rule out expansion and further development of the universe on that basis.

I am not trying here to defend the viewpoint of the expansion of universe, but to the contrary: I want to point out the incoherence of that depleted idea, built on imaginary assumptions and without evidence, or at best, with inadequate explanations of the particular evidence. As for the age of the radiation-emitting objects from that distance, the only correct thing to claim is that they exist there for all these billions of years and that they are stars by which galaxies were created. We register only the total radiation of the group, because an individual object fades away after a few million (not billion!) of light-years.

Let’s get back to the example of two stars, with the distance of 13 billion of light-years between them. With given time (in this case: 13 billion of years), needed to these stars to “feel” each other begins the activity of stellar forces, as well as the formation of their interrelation. If the objects are of the similar masses, there is a dual system. All the observed stars, without an exception (up to date, millions of stars were already observed), rotate around their axis and that is a basic principle, from which any statement or conclusion can be made. Here, we can investigate the statement that a rotation of one object causes and influences the rotation of another one, no matter the distance between them, if given enough time to traverse that distance.

The force of attraction (gravity) and the rotation of objects are basic preconditions to create dual or more complex systems (spherical and other groups of stars, galaxies and groups of galaxies). If gravity was the only existing or even dominating force, there would be no universe at all. Without the main creator of all systems – the rotation of objects, which places the falling objects into their orbits – the objects would fall vertically one upon the other. Rotation should not be observed only in the frame of a rotating object, but as a whole of an object and the space, with the attraction forces in it. Not only an object rotates, but the forces within its space rotate with it, too. With the increase of distance, decreases the power (intensity) of radiation and attraction forces. The closer the objects are to a star, the greater is the influence of its force upon them. The observations support that claim; in our system, the fastest is Mercury and the slowest is Pluto (of course, the objects in the Kuiper belt are even slower).

Distance is no real obstacle which would prevent the realization of one object’s activity upon another. The only obstacle to it would be the lack of needed time, i.e. if the life span of an object is shorter than the distance between the two objects. In reality, these distances are shorter and the longest ones are measured in millions of light-years; that is the distance between the neighboring galaxies. According to some estimates, there are around 100 billion of galaxies; I haven’t found any data or statement about the quantity of them existing in the present time, opposed to the quantity having existed in the past time. Just as well, I have found no data explaining where the present stops and the past begins.

An object that rotates around its axis also has the direction of movement. Our Sun moves at the speed of around 200 km/sec. inside our galaxy. The galaxy has a similar speed of movement inside our local group of galaxies. Recent researches determine that speed to 552 ± 6 km/sec. related to the cosmic background radiation. Some of them determine the speed to 630 km/sec. Related to our galaxy, there are slower galaxies, moving at the speed of around 100 km/sec. As the distance towards the end of universe increases, the speed of galaxies also increases; those that are the furthest from us are also the fastest ones. Their speed is close to the speed of radiation, 270 000 km/sec.

A great obstacle to accepting the idea of the rotating universe was the attempt to relate the rotation of universe to the perspective and construction of galaxies, i.e. the existence of a dominant center, the galactic structure that is very impressive in comparison to the rest of a galaxy. All of the observations of universe failed to find anything similar to that structure; the universe seemed identical in all directions. Furthermore, for the galaxies it goes just the same as for the stellar systems: the objects closer to the center are faster than the more distant objects. It is opposite to that in the universe: the most distant objects move close to the speed of light, while the speed of the internal galaxies is relatively very slow.

There were other systems in the universe that could have been observed instead, but galaxies are so popular that their fame hasn’t faded for the last 80 years. Apart from their beauty, spherical groups of stars weren’t observed at all and it can also be stated that the groups of galaxies were discovered as such only a few years ago. The structures of these groups lack dominant centers; they are only supposed to exist. Everyone agree that they rotate by the speed above zero (0), otherwise they would have collapsed. Due to the intensive glow that interferes with our instruments, it is not easy to gain these data from the group of stars, while the groups of galaxies are still too far away; nobody has probably tried to gain those data yet. We can only conclude with the assistance of mathematics that the outer stars or galaxies move faster than the interior ones, otherwise there would be no spherical groups.

Relatively recent researches showed, to the utter surprise, that the observed groups of galaxies move in the same direction. That was unexpected to find in the expanding universe, where the movement should be in outward direction. The authors of these researches hesitated for three years to publish these data, because they were unable to include the results neither in the generally accepted theory of the Big Bang, nor in some other, less famous theories. Finally they proclaimed that some dark flow is pulling the groups of galaxies in an unknown direction.

It is important to mention that the observed groups of galaxies are situated in the half of universe where we are situated, too. Therefore, it is impossible to talk about the expansion of universe or the space between galaxies, because, if that was the case, the groups of galaxies would have an outward direction, which they don’t. It can be concluded from the published results that they move horizontally towards the convex part of the universe – a feature that majority of objects have in their equatorial areas.

The radical supporters of the expansion of universe don’t allow the statement that it is a photo of universe, but a photo of proto-universe, an image from the moment of 400 000 years after the beginning. If that is the case, it is very difficult, rather impossible, to answer the question: where did our galaxy, neighboring galaxies and nearer groups of galaxies come from in our universe? Either that is the universe that used to be and there are no objects from the present time in it, or that is the universe as it really is. There is a famous case of Andromeda, the galaxy that is more than two million of light-years far from us; it is going to collide with our galaxy in a few billion of years. According to the expansion supporters, that event is developing from the past towards present time, because they claim it is more than two million of light-years far in the past. It would be a collision of past and present time, which is impossible: past events, without exceptions, remain in the past and don’t get interwoven with the present or future time.

The case is similar with the cosmic background radiation; a new source of its origin should be looked for and named, because nothing and nobody has ever arrived from the past. However, the authors of “Dark Flow” managed to evade that trap. They simply presented their results in the photo of the universe, where the results were obtained from, and stayed away from the polemic with the past, presenting the results in the terms of distance, which was the only correct thing to do anyway.

The collisions of galaxies are no rarity; on the contrary, they are very frequent occurrence in the universe, just as approaching and evasion of objects. If the universe (space, expansion) gets larger, where do collisions and other interrelations of the neighboring galaxies come from? The galaxies should be constantly spreading away and distancing one from another. The observations show something different to that; the obtained results are the photos of a large number of galaxies closely interrelated or in the state of collision, regardless of the distance from us. Of course, this can be brought down to the level of the rotating groups of galaxies, but they are also an inexplicable anomaly of space and expansion being enlarged. If there is a certain code of behavior (i.e. expansion), then the objects are expected to abide that code, with one or a few possible exceptions, but completely opposite behaviors – such as: the collisions of galaxies and smaller objects; the rotation of galaxies and groups of galaxies; the rotation of stellar systems and their groups; and coordinated direction of movement with the rotation – are by no means expected.


Let’s discuss from the viewpoint of expansion the decrease of galaxy movements from the surface to the center of universe. Our galaxy is in the present time and it moves at the speed of 200 km/sec. The furthest galaxies, often named as protogalaxies, are 13.8 billion of light-years far from us and they move at the speed of 270 000 km/sec. Let’s have a look at the Hubble Constant. It says that universe expands ever faster. Let’s try now to reconcile this constant with the idea that the oldest objects were moving nearly at the speed of radiation and today, the speed is only 200 km/sec.

Either the expansion is almost over or there is something seriously wrong with the idea of expansion. If we have it their way and move ever further to the past, why does the speed increase and why does Mr. Hubble claim the universe spreads nearly at the speed of light?

When we consider the rotation of universe, there are no confusions or inaccuracies of this kind. The outer objects move faster, while those at the center move slower. The objects that are 13.8 billion of light-years away from here need to be at least a bit older than that, in order for the radiation to constantly fill in the space between here and there. As long as radiation keeps arriving, we know that the radiation-emitting objects physically exist out there.

For already a few years, the researches of galaxies have continuously been prolonging the list of galaxies, which have a Doppler blue shift. The number of these galaxies has already arisen to 7 000; however, a part of the scientific world does not approve that quantity and acknowledges approximately 100 galaxies with spectral blue shift. No less than 100 galaxies have a negative speed related to our galaxy; that means the distance between us is decreasing – either they approach to us or we approach to them.

Today I have read on some portal that there is not a single one absolutely blue shift; if it were, our main ideas about the structure of universe would be changed. I wondered, is this really something to think about? What does “absolutely” mean to them? Some time in the future Andromeda is going to collide with our galaxy; what is relative there? Either they will collide, which would mean that the distance between the galaxies is decreasing, or they won’t, which would mean that the evidence are false and that many people know nothing. The existence of blue shift is undisputable evidence that the structure of universe is not created by expansion, but by rotation.

Expansion stands for rectilinear movement of the objects towards outside, but all the researches point out that all systems in the universe rotate (stars, groups of stars, galaxies and groups of galaxies) and that all move in curves, not in rectilinear trajectories. That clearly points out that objects move in elliptic orbits in universe. The universe can only be a sum of the objects’ movements in it and the universe is exactly that, because there is no universe without objects existing in it. The universe is just another group, a group of galaxies and galactic groups. In order for a group to exist, it must have a speed of rotation higher than zero (0). Evidence shows that the most distant objects move at the speed of 270 000 km/sec.

The activity of attraction force (gravity) between objects is impossible in the universe, where objects move towards outside nearly at the speed of light. The intensity of attraction force is not adequate to oppose to that great or much slower speeds. 1684. Sir Edmund Halley proved that gravitational force between Sun and planets decreases with the square distance. The same goes for the other objects. Although the range of attraction force is practically endless, its intensity weakens fast; that can be seen in our system’s planets’ speeds: Mercury 47.362 km/sec., Pluto 4.7 km/sec.

Actually, even the lowest speed in the universe, 100 km/sec, is enough to overcome gravity, i.e. to prevent attraction force from realizing effects of creating interrelations between two or more objects. The reason for the realization of gravitational effects is that the neighboring objects have the same direction (curve) of movement. In observing our close surroundings, small differences in distance of objects from the central part (volume) of universe give to the more distant object a bit greater speed. It contributes to the evasion of objects (galaxies) if the distance is enough to overcome the attraction forces of both objects. In the same trajectory it can be expected that even the lowest intensity of the attraction force during a longer period of time can cause objects to join, or, more popularly said, to collide, even though it is more correct to use the term joining (by approaching). The objects on the same trajectory have the same speed of movement.

Among a hundred billion of galaxies there are also some other events, caused by the structure of universe. For example, two groups of galaxies, because of the different directions of their rotations, may cause a classic collision of two or more galaxies. The same goes for the galaxies themselves. In the multitude of objects, a multitude of different events can be expected, because of the complexity of the system itself.

The same direction of the objects’ movement explains that there are galaxies in the outer area, where they move at the speed of 270 000 km/sec. That is the speed of all other objects in that area, therefore the activity of attraction force is similar as at the lower speeds.

Let’s check now the validity of the Hubble Constant (the constant of expanding the universe) under the conditions of the rotation of universe. “By using the Doppler effect, Hubble concluded that the distances of galaxy and its speed of distancing were proportional, i.e. further galaxies are distancing from us at higher speeds.” The speeds of the other galaxies, compared to ours, are generally higher and the further they are, the faster they proportionally get, with the exception of those galaxies, which have a blue shift and negative speed. The number of them is 100 to 7 000, with a note that this number constantly increases. When the groups of galaxies, which by their rotation create different speeds of their own galaxies, are included in Hubble’s law, we can see that law is not the best solution, taking into consideration the basic mistake of the objects moving towards outside.


A rotating object (universe) has a direction of movement. Based on everything that has been proved about the universe so far, it means that direction can’t be outside some kind of a system and there can’t be only one whole.

That space (multi-universe) has one basic characteristic and it is that the temperature of that space is lower than the temperature of universe, since the background radiation arrives from that area and its temperature is 2.4 – 2.7° K. It is a higher value that will be decreasing on the ends of that space, and the speed of rotation of that next group will in the outer region be higher than the speed of universe’s rotation (270 000 km/sec.). The end of constructing ever larger groups would be at the temperature of 0° K – the absolute zero temperature.

The space of the absolute zero temperature would possess a very great number of groups, in one of which we are. The temperature between stellar systems and galaxies is ~ 4° K. That means it decreases by 1.5° K between greater systems. It makes it possible to conclude that beyond our universe there are no more than 3-4 levels. The height of temperature depends on the source (stars); when the space increases, the temperature’s influence gets ever lower. The last level is similar to a spherical group of stars, outer side of which is a pure energy.

It is necessary to realistically evaluate the behavior of matter below the melting temperature of helium (-272.20° C); it would provide a better description of the upper level.


As it is obvious from the process researches on Earth, processes are of the circular nature: they are formed, developed and ended. Nothing is different in the universe either: matter is formed, grows by consolidation and gets disintegrated. Matter disintegration is a very frequent event in universe. The most drastic examples are the explosions of stars, named as novae and supernovae, depending on the size of the exploding star. Other ways of matter disintegration occur with the collisions of objects in universe and radiation colliding with visible matter.

The first evidences of matter disappearance (disintegration) were noticed in laboratories all around the world, where short-living formations (one in 2.2 x 106 parts of a second) were registered. They were named muons. The following researches went in two directions: the first one wanted to prove that matter, in general, disintegrates. Then a construction of basins filled with a liquid matter was started (the order of magnitude was above 1033 of protons), with a large number of detectors deep underground, to avoid the interference of cosmic radiation.

Evidence gained by this experiment was that matter doesn’t disintegrate on its own.

The second direction was the collision of long-living particles (protons, neutrons and electrons) in the more and more powerful accelerators, the most powerful of which is the still active Collider (LHC) in Switzerland. The initial goal was to split an atom (proton) and determine its elements. It was also important to establish, whether its structure corresponded to the already existing atom definition, which determined the features of atom as a system similar to that of the Solar system.

All these formations were short-living, one billionth part of a second. A discovery of muon was also very interesting; that discovery had then become a basis on which it was immediately concluded that similar collisions occur when radiation hits the atmosphere of Earth. Having in mind that a muon is ~ 8 times smaller than a proton, one may ask: when a particle is disintegrated in universe, why do we register only muons, but not other particles, obtained by the split of proton? The reason is trivial: the difference of charges between a muon and Earth; Earth has a positive charge and it attracts that part of a proton, which has a negative charge. The rest of a proton has a positive charge and therefore could not have been registered in the laboratories.

Official science still rejects the idea of a proton as a three-pole particle, two of which carry a charge (the dominant one is positive, the other pole is negative) and the third one has no charge. The existence of three poles was exchanged by three quarks, which became visible when a proton was bombarded with an electron. The problem remained the same, because when a proton was being split, it didn’t split into quarks (sporadic events were ascribed to quarks). If quarks were real, they would be long-living particles, which they are not.

A great contribution of these experiments was the discovery of the smallest long-living particle, named neutrino. In every single one proton split experiment, a proton would finally, after a number of interphases, split into electrons and neutrino. Earlier, just as it is now, the scientific world had been fascinated with short-living particles and interphases of proton-splitting; therefore, this evidence hasn’t been widely discussed at all. It doesn’t fit into the existing paradigms of atom or in the hypotheses of its appearance.

The probable problem with neutrino was the fact they were too small for our instruments to be detected. Even today, it is difficult to precisely determine their mass; more recent data of the neutrino mass are 0.320 ± 0.081 eV / c2 (sum of three flavors), When there is a lack of data, fanciful and sensational statements begin to appear. Generally, they have nothing in common with science. A basic problem with neutrino is that it is been observed outside the laws of matter, although it is a product of matter. Neutrinos take part in the formation of neutron, as well as electrons. That is why a neutron has a bigger mass than a combined mass of a proton and adjoined electrons. As I frequently point out, it is easier to tell people fanciful fabrications – such as: neutrino act as ghosts; they pass through matter so easily, as if there were no matter at all; tens of thousands pass through your eyes every second (“How is it possible that you don’t see them?”), etc. – than to say the truth. There is not much of it in these statements anyway, but what can be done about it...

(The constant growth of matter - the circular process I.)

Only long-living particles, such as proton with its variants, neutron, electron, neutrino and energy (photon), take part in the formation of universe. If the process of atom splitting is turned opposite, i.e. if an atom is created from the split particles – abiding the rule that only long-living particles take part in the atom formation – there is a result that it consists of a large number of neutrino, electrons and energy. All the interphases finally split into electrons, neutrino and energy. It is not to be expected that a formation lasting less than a one-billionth part of a second can separately exist or that so short period of time is enough for a particle to be formed out of these transitive formations. Finally, these transitive formations have never been registered to exist separately in nature. An electron is ~1836 times smaller than a proton; it can, therefore, be expected that it also consists of a large number of neutrino, similar to this quantity.

Now the two atom poles need to be explained. In chemistry, a hydrogen is said to be univalent, but there is also a weak hydrogen bond, occurring in the chemical processes C-H…O. Depending on the acidity of a compound, the force of this bond is estimated around 5% of the usual bond.

Material particles can only get combined if they have different charges. The most obvious example for it is that a proton (H) doesn’t exist alone or with an electron, but in a pair (H2). Why would a particle join another same particle with the same charge and not the electrons, which are omnipresent and have a different charge?

The only possible reason for it is the bipolarity of a particle, in which one pole is dominant over the other; however, the dominated pole is much stronger than a few electrons that are unable to overcome the other pole (here, the negative pole of a proton). The process of proton joining another proton makes indisputable evidence of the existence of two poles. Electrons are not the only one having a negative charge, because, if they were, there would be no atom joining.

Atoms would be saturated with electrons and matter wouldn’t exist at all. In the particle accelerators has been discovered that there are positive electrons and neutrino, which is a clear indication of bipolarity of these particles, too. It can be estimated through the weak hydrogen bond that the force of the negative pole is worth over 90 electrons. That is indeed a great barrier, which can’t be filled with electrons and neutrino. The composition of neutron tells us that only two electrons and neutrino enter that bond and that it is not stable at all (it is stable for only around 17 minutes or 1.01 x 103 seconds). On the other hand, a bond H2 is permanent, at least until the moment of entering a chemical process.

A large number of neutrino and electrons with energy create a thread, which at its ends has different charges. When these ends are connected, a thread becomes a small spherical object. During an electron impact in a collider, three peaks can be registered: neutral one at the place of connection and positive and negative charges on the sides. Here we immediately see the existence of atomic geometry, which changes as the atoms grow by joining.

Joining is not similar to arranging little spheres or blocs; it is obvious from the van der Waals radius: the atoms with 200 protons and neutrons have a smaller radius than the atom of oxygen (16 elements) or nitrogen (14 elements), etc. When a proton is influenced by a sufficient amount of charge, greater than his weak bond, a thread opens and joins with the similar one, a “newcomer”. That is the only possible explanation of great differences among argon, potassium and calcium, all of which have the same or very similar number of protons and neutrons. Their differences originate from their different structures of connecting protons and neutrons.

An atom begins to reduce when the joining overgrows the natural sustainability conditions. The joining and growth of atoms are constant because of the constantly incoming new particles. That is why an atom needs to discard the surplus, may it be a proton, a neutron or a helium core – all the same. Radiation appears with that process. Discard of the surplus and radiation are only the consequence of balancing atom from an unfavorable into a more favorable state.

Growth doesn’t stop with atoms; on the contrary, joining goes on. Through joining, chemical reactions and combined, gas, dust, sand, the rocks named asteroids and comets, etc., are all created. Even further, planets are created the same way. Then, when planets grow to the 10% of Sun’s mass, they become stars, which can be really gigantic (super-giants).

Millions of craters scattered around the objects of our Solar system are the evidence of objects’ growth. Constant impacts of asteroids into our atmosphere and soil are the evidence of these processes being uninterrupted today, just the same as it used to be in any earlier period of the past. It is estimated that 4 000 – 100 000 tons of extraterrestrial material falls yearly to Earth. We had seen the impacts of objects with Jupiter, Moon, etc. It is completely impossible to talk about a primeval formation, even less about a simultaneous one. There is a particular history, age and mass in each and every object; they are not the same with any other object. Generally, a bigger object should also mean an older object, but there are also some corrective factors, because of the conditions in which the objects exist.

Inside this process there is a process of growth and disintegration of elements, which is related to temperature and rotation. The atoms of the lower order are generally present on smaller objects: asteroids, comets and the majority of satellites and smaller planets. When an object’s mass is sufficiently increased, given other forces, too, it becomes geologically active. Its temperature grows inside and outside its crust, due to the formation of heated core. The atoms of the higher order are created under these conditions. The more active and warm a planet is, the higher is the presence of the higher order elements. However, at certain point temperature begins to destroy (disintegrate) higher elements.

As temperature gets higher, a variety of elements gets poorer; the heated stars generally consist only of hydrogen and helium, with other elements below 1%. Both of these processes can be traced on Earth; the other one is visible through the composition of magma. Magma consists of the lower order atoms, which is confirmed by its cooled rocks. Neither gold nor silver or any other higher order element, exist in magma; for them to be created, more conditions need to be met.

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”).

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

What is still there to be discussed is the matter disintegration via stellar explosions. The observations affirmed that a majority of matter disappears when a star explodes. As old laws prohibit the loss of matter because of the principle of mass conservation (it is claimed that all mass has appeared at once and that there can be no changes), the missing matter had been replaced with a black hole, an object that doesn’t belong to physics, since its laws are out of it. The astronomers stated that matter disappears; they didn’t see or measure the formation of a black hole. Its mass should be measurable in the terms of mass, but it is not done. There are only speculations and assumptions, of course, without evidence. It makes no sense to claim that certain objects were discovered somewhere in the universe rotating around something that we are unable to register as a black hole. There has been nothing so far in the physical research that couldn’t be subdued to the laws of physics. There has been nothing that would tell us that density could be out of the laws of matter. It is even more inconvenient to make such a quasi-physical theory, which provides no hard evidence, a part of the official science and school handbooks. All stellar and galactic systems, with the exception of the spherical groups of stars and galaxies, have a central object that makes more than 90% - generally more than 99% - of the total mass. The diameter of the central object also is near these figures. It would be reversed with the black holes: larger objects would be rotating around smaller ones, which is contradictory to all the facts gathered by observation from the beginnings of observation till today.

A cyclone is already confirmed occurrence in the universe. It is created because of the rotation of object, system and universe itself. All stars, as well as fluid planets, have cyclones on their poles. There is nothing different in the centers of galaxies and that is probably the only explanation of the void, in which the presence of objects can’t be detected, yet there are stars rotating around it. A reason for the impossibility of registering is in the slower rotation of an object or system in their respective centers. Therefore, light can’t penetrate through the gaseous layer. Besides, a cyclone can be created out of the dark matter, which is registered with difficulties.


The accelerator experiments have shown that particles disintegrate during collisions; it transfers from the visible into the invisible matter. The forces of the same values, as well as an endless quantity of collisions, occur during the explosions of stars, similarly as it happens in the accelerators. That proves beyond any doubt that the majority of matter from the exploding star disintegrates from the visible into the invisible matter and energy.

During the 1980s the experts of subatomic physics discovered that particles jump out of field, with the remark that only those that have been fully formed survive, while the others (a vast majority) immediately return to the field. This is exactly the opposite process to the split of atom: the invisible matter becomes visible to our instruments through the particle joining.

Since this goes against the majority of laws and theories, all further researches were stopped there, just as Sir Fred Hoyle’s suggestion about the particle formation in order to explain the expansion of universe.

The colossal process of matter circulation in the universe is closed by the formation of particles. No less than one star per galaxy explodes in a 100 years (some claim, one in a 1000 years). There are 100 – 200 billion of galaxies in the universe. If the frequency is one star (nova) in a thousand years, in only a million of years there are 1000 explosions that disintegrate a majority of matter. That number needs to be multiplied with at least 100 billion – a number of galaxies in the universe – to get a total number of explosions in the universe in a million of years.

Let’s check some rules of behavior, imposed to matter in the universe. Even though there are 100 billion of galaxies in the universe and in average 200 billion of stars in our galaxy, there is a complete dark in the space between the objects. Everyone likes to say that universe is a vast space and that there are not enough stars, but it is enough to look at the night sky to see a large number of stars and conclude that these claims don’t remove the doubt about something being wrong.

It is a complete dark only some 20 km from the surface of Earth. We can see Earth glowing when we look at the photos of it taken from Moon or even from a further place. It is obvious that when Earth glows, Moon glows, too, but it is a complete dark between them. How can that be? If light consists of photons and if its range is practically unlimited, why is it dark?

Let me make two examples that “explain” that phenomenon. The first is the official viewpoint that space is void and light has nothing to reflect off to be registered. It is unclear why something that glows needs reflection to start glowing. Why that light is not visible in the universe? If it arrives to Earth, with or without reflection, why is it dark only 20 km from the surface of Earth? What is actually arriving?

The second one is the explanation given by Isaac Asimov. He said we were looking into past when looking in the universe. Also, he said that the universe has a red shift and because of a phase shift we see a dark universe. It sounds convincing. When we look at the galaxies, according to that, they represent the regression to the past, but we see the galaxies that are distanced (I apologize: old) 13 billion of light-years. Obviously, there are two kinds of light: one that shines and the other that doesn’t. Yet, it doesn’t explain why there is dark only 20 km from us? It is present time there, not the past.

As this is something completely new, I will use only the most obvious evidence.

The Sun emits radiation (not light), which by itself is not made of photons and it doesn’t glow either. There is a dark space without a visible matter between the Sun and Earth. Light appears when radiation collides with the visible matter; in our case, with the atmosphere. On the Moon, it is the Moon’s surface, etc. Radiation doesn’t glow, nor does matter, except for the radiation-emitting objects. Light is created when there is a collision of radiation and matter.
The space between objects (between Sun and planets, etc.) is closely related with light or dark. Let’s check if there is anything in that space, which is officially considered to be void.

A void space can neither increase nor decrease the speed of objects in it, or in any way participate in creating interrelations with objects or radiation. If an astronaut’s rope that ties him to the ISS were to break, we know he would be permanently moving through space.

However, it is not all like that. The radiation from Sun loses its power (intensity) with the increase of the way they traverse. There is a sunset on Pluto, and a hot day on Moon; this is the evidence that something deprives the power of radiation. If we take a look at the night sky, we will see the radiation of stars arriving, but they are very weak. The weakening of intensity is obvious in comparing the objects’ temperatures: Mercury, minimum - 173°C, maximum +427°C; Mars, minimum -143°C, maximum +35°C; Pluto, minimum -235°C, maximum -210°C; etc. The objects closer to Sun are warmer on the sunny side and less cold on the dark side. Let’s compare this to the visible matter. Let’s take water for the example. The intensity of light is very expressed closer to surface; as we go deeper, the intensity gets weaker and dark begins to dominate. Temperature is at its peak on the surface and it decreases as we go deeper.

It is obvious that the visible matter – in this case, water – follows the same laws as the space outside our atmosphere. This space doesn’t act as a void space; on the contrary, it seems to be very similar to the space with the visible matter. Therefore, this space is not empty and it intensively participates in the processes in the universe. That can only be so-called dark matter and energy.

Besides similarities, there are differences, too: as the consequence of the collision with radiation, the visible matter produces light, and dark matter doesn’t. Medium and high temperature is a characteristic solely of the visible matter, while low temperature is a characteristic of the dark matter, but also of the visible matter, when it is outside the intensive radiation. It is a bit warmer than dark mater, however, because of the low radiation. Even though, the difference between them is minimal.

There is another key difference: the visible matter has a significant charge that is easily registered. The invisible matter has no charge, at least nothing that our instruments could register. However, if it is partially made of neutrino, some charge should be registered, nevertheless. That may be impossible to register today, but at least it will be possible in the future, when the instruments are going to be more accurate. Not before we fill the space of universe and outside it with the elementary matter (dark matter and energy) will we be able to observe the universe in real terms. Temperature can be credited for some strange laws in the universe. Gravity is a sum of the attraction forces and the rotation of an object. Due to the effects of gravity, the objects that are closer to the central part (a star or a galaxy) rotate faster around the central object than the more distant objects, because of the increased intensity of gravitation. However, at the edge of the system of a star and a galaxy, that rule is rejected by the low temperature.

When the low temperature falls below the critical point, together with the weak gravitational activity it makes possible for the objects to create higher speeds in orbits. The observations have confirmed these for the other galaxies. When we talk about our system, it can be confirmed based on the comets arriving from the Oort cloud; some of them have greater speeds than Pluto and some are even faster than Mercury. On average, that speed is about 2.5 times higher than Pluto, but those more than 10 times higher are also possible. The change of behavior occurs when temperature falls below the melting point of hydrogen (-259.14). The temperature in the Oort cloud is between 4 and 12°K, which is enough for the objects to accelerate.

(Cyclone instead of black holes)

The rotation of objects causes one specific thing that is generally present in the universe: the cyclones. They exist on the poles of Saturn, Jupiter, Sun, stars and galaxies. Liquid objects (stars), as well as gaseous ones (fluid planets), create cyclones on their poles due to rotation and magnetic forces. The stars with higher speeds of rotation around their axis have more significant cyclones with higher speeds than the objects, which rotate slower. These objects have more objects trapped in their orbits and they gain mass faster, because a higher speed of rotation means a stronger gravity (gravity as a sum of attraction forces and rotation). In general, their masses are larger than these of the objects with the lower speeds of rotation. The flow of time shouldn’t be neglected; time is a strong corrective factor: an object, tens of quadrillions of years old, is superior by its mass to a younger object.


There are two ways of creating galaxies with their recognizable rotating center. The first is that a star with a higher speed of rotation survives all the challenges of the dynamic universe and sufficiently increases its mass so that the number of objects in its orbit can be considered a further growing galaxy.

The other is to create a cyclone out of gas or invisible matter inside the irregular galaxy and with the assistance of rotation. That cyclone turns the irregular galaxy into a regular one.

The similarity of these ways is obvious, because even the fast-rotating stars, just as all the rest, have a cyclone in the center, from one pole to the other. A switch of poles occurs when there are slower cyclones on the stars; the cyclones then fail to reach one another. Due to that, matter on the poles rotates faster than the one in the center, in the equatorial area. Faster rotation balances an object and alternating switches of poles are then unexpected. A compactness of crust (surface layer) is what prevents the switch of poles on Earth.

Galaxies also have their maximum of size, sustainable in the universe. Just as atoms, they should also discard a surplus of matter. There are some indications of it, but I will leave it for some other time, as I haven’t studied the evidence thoroughly.

Even though they are credited for the preservation of its integrity, the cyclones on the poles of a star are also its Achilles’ heel and they cause its disintegration in two ways. The first is that, due to an outer activity, a cyclone stops or significantly slows down. It would cause an annular disintegration of an object, because the mass of the object, lead by inertia after the cyclone slowing down and the loss of a major part of gravity (rotation), starts to distance itself from the center. If the cyclone stopped, the center remains empty and if it only slowed down, a part of mass remains in the center as a new object: a planet, a star or some other object in the formation around the cyclone. The other way of disintegration is the one that causes the explosions of stars. This way of disintegration is mostly spoken of, out of obvious reasons (it looks colossal and tickles the imagination) and out of objective reasons (it creates an emission of strong radiation, which is easy to detect, unlike the annular nebula, where there is none). Essentially, it is the same event that takes place when an object arrives from the outside vertically to one of the stellar poles, hits the eye of a cyclone and penetrates deep into the interiority of the star. If the incoming object is not large, its explosion will influence the speed and rhythm of the cyclone and if it is larger, its explosion will cause the star to explode.

Under these conditions, a clear definition of the law that causes the disintegration of stars can be found, opposite to the so-called burning and consumption of fuel. Stars explode no matter what the size is and whether they are a central object or a rotating object around another star. That is an insurmountable obstacle for the explanation about the burning of fuel, which needs to answer, why the mass of an object is not the condition of the fuel consumption. Now we can see why there is no chain reaction and why the object, exploding in the orbit around a star, doesn’t destroy the main star, too. The reason is trivial: side impacts don’t cause explosions because matter melts with the central object (the part that is captured by the attraction force). I will maybe some other time speak about a mathematical model explaining this.

(The constant growth of matter - the circular process II)

We can get to know better the processes of growth of the objects and their interrelations from the viewpoint of our system. Whatever object inside the Solar system is observed, it is obvious that it is covered with craters, formed after the impacts of the larger or smaller asteroids and comets. It is a pretty lucky circumstance that we were able to visit from a short distance all planets and many satellites, asteroids and comets. “New Horizons” is soon going to approach Pluto – which is a bit planet, a bit not – and bring us more or less known facts, which we could have calculated anyway. But, you never know, maybe there will be some surprise, even a little one.

The craters on Moon, Mercury, Callisto… are particularly interesting to observe, because these are solid objects without the significant geological activities that would abrade or devastate them.

It certainly doesn’t mean that the craters are there from the so-called beginning of the system. On the contrary, the photos show the older craters, which were eroded in consequence of the arrival of new objects, which again create new craters. The research of Earth tells us that craters are no old news; their age is not measured in billions of years. Earth is geologically active; it erodes the craters relatively fast. The meteorite of Ob took place more than 100 years ago, and during these years we have seen a large number of asteroid collisions with Earth. Many of them managed to pass through the atmosphere and hit the ground. We have seen comets hitting Jupiter and Sun. We even have a photo of the impact on Moon. It all witnesses a constant activity that constantly increases the mass of planets and other objects. It is beyond any doubt that formation was not an instantaneous event, but a process, which lasts at the same intensity, consolidates objects until they become stars. They finish their voyage in explosion and matter disintegration at the very beginning, in the elementary matter (dark matter and energy).

This comprehension opens up new questions or imposes new answers that differently define the age of the space objects, as well as the age of the universe itself. The age of Earth can’t be related any more to the age of its crust; it was obvious even before that doing so is not the best solution. Besides that, based on the circular processes in the universe – such as the formation of visible matter, growth, disintegration and regression to the beginning – the age of universe can’t be determined even by far. It is particularly funny to talk about the age through the distance of objects, registered by our instruments. When radiation starts from the formatted star, it lasts until the star becomes a nova, if it was younger and smaller, or supernova, if it was older and larger.

The age of Earth itself is very difficult to determine approximately. The calculation needs to start with the age of a small asteroid, the age of which had been estimated to 4.5 billion of years. It was tried to set that same value as the age of the Earth’s crust, even though there was not a single evidence or any similarity link between these separated worlds. Earth constantly renews its crust, just as a snake does with its skin; it happens through the plate tectonics, volcano activity and constant approach of the new, extraterrestrial matter, which is estimated to be 4 000 – 100 000 tons per year.

This data are the next fact by which the age could be determined. Its shortcoming is that its value decreases with the size of an object or increases if the object increases. The intensity of approaching or enlargement is similar in very long period of time. There are data for Earth that its mass, with the help of the Sun’s gravitational effects, created a melted core; in fact, only the crust is solid, but its relative thickness is measured in parts per thousand. The melted Earth is in terms of age significantly further than the solid objects as Mercury, Mars, Moon, etc. – their age, compared to the age of Earth, is measured below one part per thousand.

When I speak of a quadrillion of years in my estimates of the Earth’s age, that is only the estimate of the lower limit of age, gained from the age of the asteroid – which is, by the way, questionable – and from its annual growth, calculated from the facts of 4 000 – 100 000 tons of the incoming extraterrestrial material per year. At the moment, that quantity is enough to break the illusion of 4.5 – 4.8 billion of years of the Earth’s age. That quantity had been calculated for the crust and very carelessly applied to the whole Earth.

Generally: the larger the object, the older it is. When it grows up to 10% of the Sun’s mass, it loses its crust and becomes a solar object, a star. However, it shouldn’t be forgotten that this questionable limit had been established long ago; the recent researches, conducted with the use of more advanced instruments, have significantly lowered that limit. There also exist objects, which become solar objects, even though their mass can be compared to the mass of Jupiter or even less; the cause of that are the forces of attraction and the rotation of the central object.

The age of universe can be estimated only from its disc form. We can assume that it takes a high outer speed, a long period of time and large number of rotations to achieve this form. If we determine the distance of the furthest galaxies from us, which is estimated to be 13.8 (13.7) billion of light-years, to be the radius of universe from the approximate center – where we are situated – to the outer parts, and by calculating the circumference with the formula 2rπ, with taking the speed of the outer region in the calculation (270 000 km/sec. / 0.9 of the speed of light), there is the result: the universe makes a single turn in approximately 94.5 billion of years.

This result should be multiplied with a large number of rotations, needed to create a disc form. It is clear now that the age of universe is not really important, because it is an enormous number, which, due to its enormity, has no theoretical or practical value to us.

The introduction or prologue

Nowadays, when all the understandings of Universe are laden with past, it is not easy to present even the most obvious evidence to change the existing but completely worn-out pattern, which is based on the ideas that do not belong to physics. I will mention only some of them: everything rotates, but Universe flies apart in all directions. The basis for this statement was found in the red spectre of the observed galaxies: the further they are, the bigger is the shift toward the red spectre. The atoms of the same charge attract each other. Matter can have an unlimited density; a little spoonful of such a matter, found in neutron stars, pulsars and sometimes in dwarf stars, is heavier than the Himalayas... In spite of the evidence, obtained by observing, that stellar systems and galaxies, but also the groups of stellar systems and the groups of galaxies rotate, it is claimed that Universe – or the sum of the rotating objects – flies apart nearly at the speed of light. Also, the further the observed objects in Universe are, the further in the past are they placed; that way, it is not said any more that these objects are, for example, 13 billion of light-years away, but that they are 13 billion of years old. It is the same case here, on Earth, Moon and the planets, but here we apply another solutions and transform the distance measured in light-years into kilometres.

When reading the texts from this area, it becomes clear that when kilometres are no more applicable, length is replaced by age. There is nothing wrong for different authors to perceive Universe on their own way, but the problem emerges when their opinions become the official point of view of institutions and school books. Through influence and the constant need of commercialization, the quality filters are becoming more and more propulsive to the texts that are delivered by influential groups. Besides, most of these magazines sustain themselves by charging for the materials they publish, which makes it even more difficult for these texts to be observed objectively and supported with hard evidence. Since the vast spaces of Universe are almost endless and it is impossible for the technology of this time to shed some light on all of these areas, there is a lot of space for different irrational statements, which are often only a fantasy, without a real basis. Due to that, we project earthly solutions to Universe, which would not be bad by itself, I will repeat it again, if the quality filters had not been allowing them into official points of view and the education of young generations... It is especially difficult to recognize a fact that, in spite of the large quantity of new knowledge, obtained by new technologies, we still have obsolete understandings of Universe, 50 and more years old. With all due respect for the earlier authors' contribution, new understandings, not laden with past, should be published. We often value the results from the past better than the new understandings. Respect to all these authors of the past, but the knowledge of Universe needs to go on.

Technology development would be pointless if it would not bring some new values to replace the old ones. 100 years ago, the success of the brothers Wright was a colossal one in their time, but for the present time their plane has nothing to do outside the museum; it is pointless to compare it with the Space Shuttle, which is, by the way, also obsolete and it ended up in the museum, too. Such a reality needs to be accepted as a normal sequence of events; we should be taking relevant facts into consideration and leave the past time to history.

The following text has also been significantly changed from the time the Zadar Theory had been created (in 2003.) until now. When I first published this theory (in 2004.), it was a completely heretical understanding in that area, totally opposite to the generally accepted standards of that time. Some of the news it introduced were, as follows: matter is created from the dark matter and energy, it grows and in the form of supernovas it mostly disintegrates. That closes the ever-repeating circular process. The rotation of Universe had been officially mentioned mostly at the times when it had been rejected. The only favorable theory, or at least the dominant one, was the Big Bang theory.
The Zadar Theory ruled out the possibility for the vacuum to exist and because of the rotation of Universe, it analyzed the space beyond Universe for the first time. Two years later, it also ruled out quarks from atoms completely and replaced them by curve-shaped strings, consisting of neutrino.

Today, the Zadar Theory is no more a heretical text, but more or less an accepted understanding of Universe. Its opponents are some hard-liners, who are reluctant to make any changes at all, but it also has more and more supporters. In the discussions on our forums, as well as on the American and Russian ones, more evidence were demanded. There were also some comments that everything in the theory is already known and that there is nothing new in it. It is a clear sign that this material has tranformed from a heresy to a standard understanding, especially with the younger people. It also needs to be said that some portals banned, deleted and subjected to censorship the comments and themes that were set there for already some time.

I will start the statement here with the rotation of Universe, although the sequence is irrelevant; one could also start with the processes in Universe, if not even with the more easy topic. In total, it will be an intersection and a summary of the materials that were collected since 2003. until now; I will not go into more than just a basic ideas, while the details that will not be found here could be found in my earlier works or could be concluded with the use of logical thinking.

Author: Weitter Duckss (Slavko Sedic) Zadar Croatia
Traslated by: prof. Zoran Coso

Svemir, ipak se vrti - NASLOVNICA