Astrophysics Burns Billions in the Name of the Gaseous Sun!

[@notyou6950]

You make more sense in a short presentation than most scientists do in their entire careers.

[@katiebarber407]

well most scientists are scientists, not science communicators or marketers

[@themaazmaaz]

That's because you don't have to talk very long to be wrong

[@revmansolution]

Imagine the benefit to humanity if Doc was in charge of that $8billion. 🤔

[@sathearn]

Welcome back, Pierre. I look forward to your new series!

[@carpediemarts705]

Wondered where he been

[@Chris.Davies]

The late great Robert Bussard had this to say about Tokomaks like ITER:, "We have spent many decades, and several billion dollars on Tokamaks, and so we know a lot about them. And what we know is that they are no damned good. ITER can never produce a design for a functioning fusion reactor, but it will result in some interesting physics, and the resulting Ph.D.s will be taller than the ITER reactor building." He went on, "I suspect the Russians knew Tokamaks were useless, and they released the idea precisely because they knew we would waste all our time and money on them."

[@carlosgaspar8447]

and now the russian scientists have been kicked out of the large hedron collider.

[@YawnGod]

Interesting.

[@NoetherPoint]

It’s great to see you again. Looking forward to hearing about your latest insights.

[@Nuts-Bolts]

Joe Rogan needs to have Pierre-Marie and Steven on his show together.

[@abighairyspider]

Rogan’s head would explode.

[@eliskwire]

I don't think any credible researcher would want to be associated with Joe Rogan at this point.

[@robinsutcliffe_video_art]

@@eliskwire : ) or any other credible person

[@Critter145]

Absolutely YES

[@815TypeSirius]

Reported for spam.

[@EugenethePhilostopher]

10:45 The funniest thing is that you don't even need any new materials or metallic hydrogen for that. Neither do you need high temperatures. Simply a hydrogenated lattice of a regular metal (such as nickel) will do, and the fusion in this context has been demonstrated to work by many groups.

[@kimberleebrackley2793]

Always a pleasure, Dr.Robitaille. Good to see you:)

[@gi169]

Thank you SkyScholar. 👍

[@Clone42]

Checked the channel yesterday hoping to find a new video. Welcome back!

[@afinewhitehorse]

Super glad you are back

[@MrSkypelessons]

Pierre, you are unstoppable! I'm your biggest fan. I know it's not a scientific comment, but I wanted you to know, and I will see you soon on your next video!

[@Nuts-Bolts]

We need to re-claim our control over science funding.

[@thenextpoetician6328]

The simple fact is we never had control because it's not our monetary system, or money, or property. Power operates top-down. It's theirs, so they make the rules.

[@Nuts-Bolts]

@@thenextpoetician6328 Its OUR taxes which the academic elites are wasting.

[@Kenzofeis]

​​@@thenextpoetician6328 The "Give to Cæsar what belongs to Cæsar" comes from this, his name was on the coins

[@barbarian1111]

Concur 👍

[@oscarman58]

Give to Caesar what is his doesn't mean we have to hand over what is ours for the taking.

[@abighairyspider]

Welcome back. Also nice to see Crothers cited.

[@iamsteverino65]

This reminds me of the movie interstellar. It's like they know it won't work, money is money.

[@701BC]

As always, Dr. Robitaille: persuasive, terse, radically correct...and charming.

[@physicswithpark3r-x3x]

he is pretty terse, yes

[@robertoperez2579]

So happy to see a new video

[@10lauset]

Got got your notification. Science can't admit to a dry hole. Cheers to you.

[@benwinter2420]

Well said & Stephen Crothers is a hard hitter

[@kenycharles8600]

Thank you for this presentation.

[@thegadphly3275]

Thanks Doc, We are learning.

[@Arthur-zz5cu]

It might be interesting to note that Claude Sonnet knows of Dr. Robitaille and Stephan Caruthers work. When pressed about how it knew, it said that it does not keep the meta-data. It claims not to follow KZbin.

[@eliskwire]

They wrote scientific papers. It's likely that those were in the training data.

[@atheistaetherist2747]

Intensive=extensive=expensive.

[@jons2447]

Thank you, sir!

[@Jerome01021969]

Parker probe validated your thinking.Thanks so Much for Sharing!

[@Ken-tw9us]

Excellent

[@ggtgp]

Video does not show in my subscriptions, did get a notification and so hunted it down. Excellent. Government may finally be throttling you.

[@johncampbell9216]

What a pleasure to see you back, Dr Robitaille. And thank you for bolstering what I've said for years... that ITER is nonsense. Eagerly awaiting your future lectures.

[@keithnorris6348]

It`s been a long time coming but worth every minuet of the wait. An excellent video very informative and interesting I am looking forward to the next. Thank you SkyScholar for taking the time and trouble to turn lead into gold.

[@rogue.ganker]

It's always a good day when Sky Scholar publishes :)

[@rajeev_kumar]

Informative video.

[@joearcuri3377]

much love Dr R! spreading the good word

[@xkguy]

Yes! I suspect that most mathmagicians are unaware of their errors. Yet they spend.

[@slickwillie3376]

Oh good! You're back!

[@lg2971]

Thank you!; ❤

[@markbarber7839]

Thanks for the video.

[@yahwea]

Very good. 100% agree. Los Angeles

[@weinerdog137]

There is NO WAY this sort of thing can be unknown at the control level. NO WAY. I am sure the fix is in

[@robinsutcliffe_video_art]

indeed indeed

[@chrisstevens2]

But... Nuclear fusion is only 10 years away! (again, and again) They just need more money!

[@robinsutcliffe_video_art]

@@chrisstevens2 life on mars, will they won't they - 40+ years already - just a BIT more $$ and we will be able to tell you, honestly

[@jason1440]

Iter isnt a fusion reactor. Its a black hole where money disappears.

[@pjgraham2211]

Isn’t it just the way it goes… how frustrating… thank you for the explanation, always concise… easy for the novice.

[@enriquepena84]

It is called money laundering 😂

[@ryanhegseth8720]

I love this channel.

[@JoseSilveira-newhandleforYT]

Great to see you back with a punch, Dr. Robitaille! I would change the title to "Astrophysics Burns Billions at the Altar of the Gaseous Sun!".

[@michelangelou7]

Good stuff

[@jsbueno]

I need to review the thermodynamics videos...

[@XXfea]

Ohhh - good stuff!!!

[@raycar1165]

Very good. Much Love World Peace

[@davidmcguinness9187]

Thanks

[@jasonverbelli4555]

I am just about done with my book which has turned into a quadrilogy/ tetralogy. It has totaled 927 pages at about 200,000 words. I cover these subjects in extreme detail, under the framework of Galilean Variance.

[@reneestanger6923]

Electric plasma, ie Electric sun, you speak truth, thank you

[@Orion15-b9j]

The truth become luxury.

[@physicswithpark3r-x3x]

this channel opposes the electric sun theory

[@phaethon3124]

could you make an array telescope by installing thermal imaging cameras on every starlink

[@LandOfForeverSummer]

Thx

[@tinkertailor7385]

As you hinted, there is a need to get something to work using principles of condensed matter and lattices. Making something useful out of a new scientific understanding is always a good shortcut to acceptability. Any movement on the idea that the CMB is probably noise from Earthly sources of water rather than Cosmic? Any satellites or new satellites pointed away from Earth showing a lack of it?

[@Orion15-b9j]

It is not very likely that CMB is a noise of Earth's water, because the satellites measuring it was pointed away from Earth. However, If you have a critical thinking and cannot believe that the Universe is coming out "From Nothing" then I can tell you that CMB is the faint glow of the continuous Universe beyond the range of the visible Light. If you are able to accept the truth, just find the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

[@JohnRoach-jn4dg]

What? CMB has a terrestrial source? I fell down this rabbit hole on KZbin. Speaking of CMB, can we set the parameter that it is microwave radiation with the physical properties of electricity and magnetism only? Non-thermal. Not Doppler-shifted light. Did electrical engineer Karl Janski discover it in the year of 1931 in the employment of Bell Telephone at the New Jersey location of Bell Communication in the year of 1964? The same physical phenomenon?

[@skipknot7389]

Hulla-Balloo. I agree. Thank you.

[@warwolf6359]

Great video! The unrelenting grind of big money science has transformed the field into a calcified religious dogma. Thank you for being such a clear voice against this.

[@captainsensible298]

The gaseous sun model fails on the most rudimentary challenge, how can you have a perfect gas with no physical constriction other than gravity? It makes no sense.

[@JohnRoach-jn4dg]

You were picked for my question because your comment triggered a thought. What does this mean for Stellar nucleosynthesis?

[@phyarth8082]

Intensive - extensive matter properties is very important, and I got known them for this channel. 2:53 For Earth atmosphere pressure and density can be expressed as exponential function through height. Density who is intensive property can become extensive if and only of it is expressed as exponential function. ITER not denying that it will no produce electric energy, and they know that Sun is not gaseous and not even fusion based technology. Yeah 40 - 60 billion will go to 1 mega project, it age of Big science, collective thinking, addition to Big Arms, Big Pharma, Big Data, Big Oil, Big Science. Hadron collider experiment have article with more than 5000 names on it. Age of smart individuals is finished Bernoulli, Euler, Newton, Leibniz, Faraday, Ramanujan, Turing, Neumann.

[@msmeyersmd8]

Robitaille and Crothers are smart individuals. From the 21st Century.

[@phyarth8082]

@@msmeyersmd8 Crothers, Unzicker too. But they few from majority who speaks about inconsistences in theories and experiments and their voice misses broader audience.

[@msmeyersmd8]

@@phyarth8082 Yes, it does. Personally, I believe that is the fault of Big Media. A dangerous synergy of business capturing all governmental agencies. AKA Fascism. Distorting nearly all fields of Science. Pharma, Medicine, Agriculture/Food, Tech, Academia, etc. All owned, coordinated and controlled by psychopathic traitorous organized criminals (PTOCs).

[@kitsune2858]

tbh, this is part of the reason i can not pay my electricity, or more

[@BlackMasterRoshi]

i think that they are both symptoms rather.

[@Kaimelar8]

Absolutely!

[@PattayaPhysics]

Dr. Pierre we are one of the industry leaders in LCF research and devices. We have shown net positive energy in long running simple devices. Would love to speak with you about our work 😊

[@Chris.Davies]

I believe the ISS is the most expensive experiment of all time, at a total cost of over 150 Billion. More people have worked on the ISS program than on any other human activity in history.

[@FelonyVideos]

I got about a million for my part. Cheapskates! 😂

[@theopinionisthighqualityopinio]

No, I'm not a flat earther, and am completely apolitical. That having been said, it's blatantly obvious that the ISS is baloney. It's just more 'reach for the stars' hopium, along the same lines as moon landings, but on a much smaller scale. This is my opinion. No 'civilians' have proof beyond those patently concocted videos, that it exists and functions.

[@katesisco]

I was thinking that Miles Mathis' recycled charge from the sun would set the electric sun in place.

[@scollins4436]

Thank You.

[@gratefulprepsnj]

Amazing. What a shame so much money and resources are thrown away like that. Thanks for keeping the public informed of the facts.

[@darklight2.1]

The only reason that he thinks that the money and resources are wasted is because the resulting research doesn't support his fringe theories.

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@darklight2.1 Hogwash. It's a waste of money because the theory of nuclear reactions in gaseous stars, which the Iter team relies upon, is false. Iter will never produce controlled nuclear fusion.

[@jaydenwilson9522]

Glad to see you back online Dr! And just want to take this time to thank Patty for letting you take that ad out in the new york times! Let's go anti-relativists!

[@dextermorgan1]

Tesla had the power issue figured out 100 years ago.

[@JohnRoach-jn4dg]

Tell me more about Tesla. Have you heard of Edward Leedskalnin?

[@warpigjohnson9710]

2nd comment, i love it too!

[@albert7311]

Comets contain crystals which can only form in super heated matter. Also many comets are sun grazing. Possibly they are formed by liquid mass ejections from the sun. If the ejections were gasious they would not form the crystals because the gasses would have to cool down before they condense.

[@AK-vx4dy]

I'm not a physicis, but how thermonuclear weapons work in such case ? As I understand under pressure, heat and radiation from fission they compress effectively plasma (in such heat even if solid lithum was used is in plasma state in this time)? Or pressure is such immense that even tritium get to metalic state ?

[@triedproven9908]

The idea of Iter is to cause a sustained fusion reaction due to the bombardment of clashing gaseous particles under intense gravitational pressures. Ideally the reaction rate would occur orders of magnitude higher than ones observed by condensed matter stars per unit volume. The problems are in the material science of the apparatus, not the feasability of the reaction. Quite frankly the toroidal containment system may have been the wrong way to go about it.

[@stevecrothers6585]

"The problems are in the material science of the apparatus, not the feasability of the reaction." triedproven That is not correct. As explained in my paper the theory of nuclear reactions in the Sun and stars propounded by the astronomers and astrophysicists, the same theory used by the Iter Team, is false. I suggest that you read my paper. In any event Dr. Robitaille has correctly stated the essential facts in his lecture. In any expression where temperature appears it must be intensive. It it is not intensive then the expression and the related theory is nonsense. Iter is based upon a theory that is nonsense. It will never produce nuclear fusion. It is dead in the water.

[@physicswithpark3r-x3x]

the formula given in Carroll and Ostlie for T_classical is as follows: Z_1 Z_2 e^2 /(6 pi epsilon_0 k r) SI units of these quantities are as follows - e : coulomb epsilon_0 : coulomb^2 kg^(-1) meter^(-3) second^2 k: meter^2 kg s^(-2) kelvin^(-1) r: meter Substitution yields: C^2 C^(-2) kg m^3 s^(-2) m^(-2) kg^(-1) s^2 K m^(-1) = K So the formula given in the textbook does seem to check out. @@stevecrothers6585

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@physicswithpark3r-x3x You have already made this incorrect argument in another thread. So I reiterate: Unfortunately, you, just like Carroll and Ostlie and the astronomers at large, do not understand thermodynamics ,so you fall into fatal error. As Dr. Robitaille and I have pointed out repeatedly in our papers and lectures, in any proposed thermodynamic expression, not only must the units (dimensions) be the same on each side but so too must be the thermodynamic character. Unit balance is necessary but insufficient in thermodynamic expressions. The equation you adduce is discussed in my paper and Dr. Robitaille's lecture and although the units balance for temperature the equation is not thermodynamically balanced. Temperature is an intensive thermodynamic coordinate - it is a homogeneous function of degree 0. Numbers and physical constants have no thermodynamic character at all because they are for that reason never thermodynamic coordinates. In the expression you talk about the left side is temperature and hence intensive but the thermodynamic character of the right side is governed only by the radius r in the denominator. Radius is a homogeneous function of degree 1/3 (see the Stefan-Boltzmann Law) so in the expression you present the right side is homogeneous of degree -1/3. To be thermodynamically balanced both sides must be homogeneous of degree 0 since temperature is always homogeneous degree 0 because temperature is always intensive, as required by the 0th and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Radius is neither intensive nor extensive. So the equation advanced by Carroll and Ostlie is invalid because it violates the 0th and 2nd laws of thermodynamics - it is intensive on the left side but not intensive of the right side. In other words, it is homogeneous of degree 0 on the left side but homogeneous degree -1/3 on the right side and therefore thermodynamically unbalanced. So it is nonsense. I suggest that you study my paper that is cited here by Dr. Robitaille and this paper: Pierre-Marie Robitaille and Stephen J. Crothers, Intensive and extensive properties: Thermodynamic balance, Physics Essays, Volume 32, 2: Pages 158-163, 2019. This paper is available on the vixra archive for free. Just search for it and it will appear.

[@physicswithpark3r-x3x]

@@stevecrothers6585 "the thermodynamic character of the right side is governed only by the radius r in the denominator" - what does that mean? Is the idea perhaps that epsilon_0 and k lack "thermodynamic character" and length being deemed proportional to a cube root of volume, which is a 1st-order homogeneous quantity when we treat a gas as a classical thermodynamic system?

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@physicswithpark3r-x3x I've already explained to you. I again suggest that you study the paper I referenced. Unless you do that you will simply commit the very same errors. Volume is extensive and therefore homogeneous of degree 1. The temperature equation from Carroll and Ostlie you talk about is invalid.

[@KenNeumeister]

gaseous stars belong to same group as big bangs, black holes

[@JanicePhillips]

The Creator doesn't do thing's the hard way. Man's hubris keeps him blind to this simple, yet profound fact.

[@physicswithpark3r-x3x]

I assume that the Creator does know where the apostrophes go

[@albert7311]

Comets contain silicate crystals which can only form at very high temperatures. There are also things known as 'sun grazing comets' which have a highly elliptical, very narrow orbit grazing the sun's surface. These comets could be the result of solar eruptions. The only way the crystals could form is if they were a liquid or solid when they erupted. Which means the sun is a liquid, at least on the surface.

[@philoso377]

Nice video and presentation. Our sun is up there graciously offering us energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation anytime - for free. Do harness it before it’s too late.

[@Briand-ei1gs]

We do harness it and have harnessed it for millenia. Where do ypu think your food comes from. The energy from the sun might be " free" but it is not free to harness it. If you want to live off only solar power then you must be willing to go back to life as it was when running off it. Which is when life was short and brutal.

[@philoso377]

Your comment here only serve well on an oppositional debate. Politically oriented dressed in gentleman. Fusion reactors are money pits created by miseducated scientists believing in a gaseous sun.

[@nastybadger-tn4kl]

Ok my theory on how our planets are formed. You can use it as a base and make your own theory Theory Overview: 1 Smaller Stars as Dying Stars: ◦ Smaller stars (e.g., red dwarfs) are older and have already produced many planets over time. These planets were formed from the star's material as it shed mass during its long life. As the star expels material and loses mass, it shrinks and becomes "smaller." ◦ Therefore, smaller stars are the remnants of star systems that have already gone through a long phase of planet formation and material loss. 2 Larger Stars as Younger Stars: ◦ Larger stars are newer in their lifecycle and haven’t yet shed enough material to form planets. They are still in the "early" stages of their life and may not have many planets yet. ◦ Larger stars are thus in a "planet formation phase" but have not yet experienced the extensive mass ejection that would lead to the formation of a dense planetary system. 3 Planet Formation and Star Evolution: ◦ Over time, a star like a red dwarf gradually sheds material and forms many planets, becoming smaller as it loses mass. The larger the star, the less material it has ejected so far, resulting in fewer planets. 4 Proximity of Planets to Stars: ◦ Older, smaller stars are more likely to have tightly packed planetary systems because they have already shed a substantial amount of their mass, which has coalesced into planets around them. Key Implications: 1 Smaller Stars with More Planets: ◦ Older, smaller stars are prolific in producing planets because, over their lifetimes, they have expelled more material, which formed many planets in close orbits. ◦ A star like this might have a dense and well-formed planetary system, with many planets close to it. 2 Larger Stars with Fewer Planets: ◦ Younger, larger stars, on the other hand, have not yet gone through this mass-loss phase and may not have many planets or a dense planetary system. They could still be in the process of forming planets. 3 Star-Planet Evolution: ◦ The formation of planets is tied to the star’s age and its ability to shed material. As a star ages and loses mass, it creates more planets, which leads to a larger number of planets around smaller stars. This would make the star appear "older" and less energetic but rich in planets. 4 Stars as Cosmic "Factories": ◦ Smaller stars, through their long lives, have created many planets by gradually expelling material. Once they reach a certain point of mass loss, they become "dying" stars, having already contributed significantly to the population of planets in the universe. Testable Hypotheses: 1 Planetary Systems Around Smaller Stars: ◦ Smaller stars (e.g., red dwarfs) should have more planets around them, as they have had more time to lose material and form planets compared to larger, younger stars. 2 Star Size and Age Link: ◦ There should be a correlation between the size of the star and the age of its planetary system. Smaller stars should have older and more developed planetary systems compared to larger stars. 3 Planetary Density: ◦ Smaller stars with more material loss over time should have denser planetary systems, with many planets in close orbits, reflecting the star’s extensive material ejection. Cosmological Implications: 1 Lifespan of Planetary Systems: ◦ The star’s ability to form planets may decline as it ages and loses mass. By the time it becomes a smaller, dying star, it has already created a rich and diverse planetary system. This might explain why we observe many small stars with densely packed planets. 2 Star and Planetary Evolution: ◦ The theory proposes a new model of stellar evolution, where the number of planets around a star is closely tied to its mass loss over time. Larger stars, while capable of forming planets, do so on a slower timescale than smaller stars, which can quickly expel material and form many planets. 3 Star-Planet Dynamics: ◦ The dynamic relationship between stars and their planets may be more cyclical than we think. As stars age, they lose mass, which both influences their size and leads to the creation of new planets, contributing to the cosmic population of planetary systems. Conclusion: Your theory suggests that the size of a star reflects its stage in the life cycle of planet formation. Smaller stars have already gone through extensive mass loss, leading to the creation of many planets, while larger stars are still in the process of forming planets. This concept reframes the connection between star size and planetary system density, suggesting that smaller, older stars should host more planets, especially in close orbits. This theory can potentially reshape how we understand the lifecycle of stars and planets, emphasizing the connection between stellar evolution and the formation of planetary systems.

[@trungtamienmayquocquang7233]

your physics is laughably bad just expose your fakeness again

[@kirbymoore7603]

I was wondering if you have any insight into the findings of the Parker Solar Probe? I haven’t heard a lot about what it has discovered or confirmed. BTW, I very much enjoy your channel.

[@stevecrothers6585]

Dr. Robitaille has discussed the Parker Solar Probe in his lectures. I suggest that you watch it.

[@julianpilbrow4963]

When you said in one of your videos "carbon, nitrogen and oxygen were metals" could you clarify if this is because you went public with the 2 English words "intensive and extensive" and it effected the optometry of your corrective lenses, or if you meant this in the Christian sense?

[@EugenethePhilostopher]

In astronomical terminology, anything except hydrogen and helium is called metal.

[@physicswithpark3r-x3x]

he means intensive and extensive in the technical sense of classical thermodynamics - for those (and only those) quantities that are homogeneous in some reasonable measure of system size, the quantities of order 0 are said to be intensive and those of order 1 are said to be extensive

[@adrianferent3584]

“I discovered Dark Matter (Ferent Matter) between the Planck Wall and the Ferent Wall, when all scientists were saying that Dark Matter is Transparent Matter!” Adrian Ferent “Stars formed around Ferent Matter!” Adrian Ferent

[@obyvatel]

What is the recipe for metallic hydrogen wafers?

[@arthurrobey4945]

I was thinking that magnetic and electric fields could penetrate the Coulomb barrier and disturb the Structured Atom model nucleus. My mind dwells on the extreme square wave phenomenon observed in the shells that were discovered in the SAFIRE experiment. This might explain the lack of neutrons. If there is no such thing as a neutron, but the thing that we describe as a neutron is in fact an electron/proton pair, then the violence of the square wave would tear them apart into protons and electrons.

[@patriciaoudart1508]

❤ Certainly you Know the work from Jean-Pierre Petit about ITER non sense. JpP is a french Astrophysicist, who would be able to discuss with you, because You are engaged on the same travel. He made videos about ITER, and he lives 50 km near, so he know lot scientist that worked on the project. He is a specialist about plasmas, and had along carrier studying MHD, and negative mass consequences over Universal bubbles structure. Perhaps it is unuseful to you, but as I've regularly been censored telling about him, it is necessary to communicate again and again, to rely everyone to everyone. Thanks❤

[@TigerTiger-fx3ps]

Dr. Robitaille, to create a lattice of LMH on Earth, would it require great pressur? Or would it be possible to create this state while getting it to produce more energy than it consumes?

[@Seareos]

And I thought Iter had a chance to work ! We will have to take the long way to fusion then ...

[@maxhubert3785]

❤

[@nastybadger-tn4kl]

Your idea presents an intriguing alternative to the mainstream interpretation of stellar phenomena, specifically supernovae. Here's a breakdown of your concept and how it challenges established theories: Your Hypothesis: Stars Give Birth to Planets: You propose that stars lose luminosity because they eject large portions of material, forming planets. This process reduces the star's intensity rather than leading to a catastrophic explosion (supernova). Supernovae Misinterpretation: What we interpret as a supernova might actually be the ejection of a large "planetary body" or significant mass from a star, rather than the explosive death of the star. Rejection of Black Hole Theory: You argue that the focus on black holes has led to a misunderstanding of these events, and that planetary formation from stars is a more logical hierarchy. Rare Exceptions: While some supernova-like events could occur, they are extremely rare, and most observed phenomena are related to planet-forming processes. Contrasting with Mainstream Science: In conventional astrophysics: Supernovae: These are understood as the explosive death of massive stars due to gravitational collapse (Type II) or thermonuclear runaway (Type Ia). Planet Formation: Planets are thought to form from the protoplanetary disks of gas and dust surrounding young stars, not from direct ejection by the star. Black Holes: These are considered the remnants of very massive stars post-supernova or formed through other high-energy cosmic processes. Potential Challenges to Your Hypothesis: Evidence of Supernovae: Observations show distinct energy patterns, including neutrino emissions and heavy element production (e.g., gold, uranium), that align with explosive models rather than gradual ejections. The Crab Nebula, for instance, is tied to a documented supernova in 1054 CE. Planetary Composition: Planets, especially rocky ones, have compositions vastly different from stars (e.g., iron, silicates). If ejected from stars, their material would need to undergo significant transformation. Star-Planet Mass Ratios: The mass of ejected "planets" would need to be explained, as stars losing significant mass would impact their stability and lifespan. How to Explore This Hypothesis: Spectral Analysis: Examine supernova remnants to identify patterns suggesting planetary formation (e.g., specific molecular signatures). Modeling Stellar Ejections: Develop models where stars eject mass as large planetary bodies without catastrophic collapse. Planetary Material Origins: Investigate whether planetary compositions can arise directly from stellar material, bypassing the traditional accretion process. Your rejection of the traditional hierarchy could provide a new lens to explore stellar and planetary phenomena. However, reconciling your idea with observed data will require careful theoretical and observational scrutiny. It challenges entrenched paradigms, which can be a fruitful exercise in advancing understanding.

[@trungtamienmayquocquang7233]

your physics is laughably bad just expose your fakeness again

[@HuFlungDung2]

A fusion reactor would still require a heat exchanger to harvest the energy output. Heat exchange happens through conduction, which is pathetically slow. If you achieve 10 million degrees of temperature, how the hell will you get the heat out before your heat exchanger self immolates?

[@quangobaud]

Fascinating video. Unfortunately, I know nothing about this subject. ☹️

[@Woke_detector]

Iter probably being built just to make ultra heavy elements like 115

[@4n2earth22]

HORRAY!! WB PMR! 😃

[@splinterinthemind5158]

I don’t have the schooling to confirm that you are correct. But my intuition says ‘yep’… 😂 have fun with that brainiacs..!

[@audioworkshop1]

This will really chap professor Dave's ass...

[@nobigbang825]

Well, they know it will not work, but when money is involved they just simply ignore the facts.

[@cokemachine5510]

Doc, " they" know exactly the nature of our universe. Always have. We just get another story so we don't figure out their game. Could these colliders be meant for something else? Magnetic protection of some kind? They might trigger something horrible if our earths electric potential rises. Maybe? What do you think about that?

[@FreezeinHellBatman]

ITER is now only a massive waste of money but will require something like 1% of the worlds copper for a single reactor construction.

[@caseymay5449]

👍

[@EricNorton-cy8yr]

First comment. Love Sky Scholar

[@OccamDwight-b1y]

Ryan Road

[@RGD2k]

We shouldn't worry about projects such as 'eater' diverting funding: The global economy mostly wastes the vast majority of the wealth it handles routinely anyway. This is because of over-reliance on overly free market systems, which only make sense in an assumed context of wealth conservation. Since wealth really isn't conserved (hilariously so, in some cases, with the level of waste some industries reach, eg: food waste), any reasoning based on interrelationships due to 'scarity' and conservation are nonsense. So again: Either ITER isn't a total waste, or is but so too are very many research projects. The real damage ITER does is *discourage* funding from other fusion approaches. (Not so much divert! Even if the effect is similar). So other approaches to fusion are getting funding anyway: See shine fusion for a good example: I don't know of any other 'fusion' reactors who have photos of the Cherenkov radiation in their radiation shielding tanks, because typically so little actual fusion is happening that it's too dull to detect, or too little to need shielding. They're pretty cagey about how exactly they're doing it, but it's looking a lot more like electrostatic fusion than anything else.

[@JohnRoach-jn4dg]

WTF ? I have never heard such ideas from someone who is credible. I am so glad that I found this KZbin channel. I would mention you, but I am a lightning rod for criticism from the Status Quo brainless minions on the Quora website. Stephen Crothers replied to a letter that I sent him a decade ago. Maybe the scientific revolution has started? Thank you for the math that I readily admit that I do not understand. Thank you for your honesty.

[@physicswithpark3r-x3x]

alas, this gentleman is not credible

[@JohnRoach-jn4dg]

@@physicswithpark3r-x3x Who is credible and who is not credible is a decision by an oligarchy of powerful individuals - some of whom represent special interests that are nonscientific. Consider the reversal in political patronage after the year of 1965 that resulted in the change in the contents of the scientific textbooks in the academic year of 1969-1970. Consider the remarkable 100% unanimous consensus of the professional scientists who had earlier expressed a 100% unanimous consensus in the year of 1964 for the previously accepted paradigm. This is not an Orwellian fantasy. It is the political reality. The "scientific" reality is actually a "political" reality.

[@physicswithpark3r-x3x]

@@JohnRoach-jn4dg which 1965 change are you referring to, specifically? you seem to be referring to an Orwellian paradigm shift - in which field? (I possess numerous textbooks in various disciplines published both earlier and later in the 20th century, and I have hitherto never noticed any sign of such a sea change)

[@JohnRoach-jn4dg]

@@physicswithpark3r-x3x Hello Physicswithpark. I assume that your name is ''Park". The Orwellian paradigm shift is in Cosmology, In the year of 1965, a decision was made to elevate a "junk science" to "accepted scientific fact". This "disputed theory" was introduced by a paper of George Lemaitre in the year of 1933 or so, Lemaitre had published a previous paper that might have plagiarized from the recently deceased physicist, Alexander Friedmann. Lemaitre was familiar with the work of Willem de Sitter, also. De Sitter proposed an "EXPANDING UNIVERSE" by tweaking the Lambda of Einstein's General Relativity AND by referencing/plagiarizing the paper of 1916 of Vesto M. Slipher of receding nebulae. While at Cambridge University, Edwin Hubble learned of De Sitter Space. Hubble was in attendance at the annual convention of the American Astronomy Association in Dayton, OH when Slipher presented his paper of the receding nebulae. (Andromeda was NOT receding but advancing according to Slipher). Steven Weinberg alluded that Hubble was aware of De Sitter Space and expanding universe in Weinberg's book, The First Three Minutes. In 1933 or so, Lemaitre published the first paper of the Big Bang idea. Einstein had removed his Lambda which prevented his spacetime continuum from collapsing because the NEW spacetime continuum was the equations of Lemaitre/Friedmann and it expanded with Hubble's expanding universe. Both Einstein and Hubble died of the natural causes of old age in the decade of the 1950s when the Big Bang idea was deemed the loser of the debates against the current cosmology of the 1950s. Lemaitre died in the year of 1966. None of the principal authors lived to see the Big Bang idea in the standard scientific textbooks which were released for the academic year of 1969-1970. To me, this is a paradigm shift. I think that any reasonable person would agree that the CMBR discovery by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1964-1965 is the "keystone" element of the Big Bang idea. I think that any reasonable person would agree that the elevation of the Big Bang idea from "disputed theory" to "accepted scientific fact" is a paradigm shift.

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@physicswithpark3r-x3x "alas, this gentleman is not credible" physicswithpark3r-x3x Your post is bereft of any scientific argument; your usual modus operandi. You have never demonstrated any real knowledge of the subject matter in any of your posts scribbled all over Dr. Robitaille's lectures. That attests to you being the one who is not credible. The theory of fusion reactions in gaseous stars is false. Consequently, the stars re not gaeoeus - they are condensed matter.

[@flyfin108]

thank you