Energy Partition in the Sun - Liquid Metallic Hydrogen Model!

[@kimberleebrackley2793]

Always a pleasure Dr. Robitaille, thank you for more Sun sense. Keep well and safe

[@MrSkypelessons]

Fantastic, as always, and worth watching more than once, as always.

[@clivekennedy6616]

I cancel that dislike with my like

[@primonomeultimonome]

@@clivekennedy6616 It didn't work out well, apparently.

[@mikeuk666]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/aZe3fY2Keqpqo7c

[@Severe_CDO_Sufferer]

LOL, and even required sometimes... (if you Really want to understand it) otherwise, whatever time you spent watching it during the first viewing, was 100% completely wasted. so here I go... Round #2 ;-p

[@Severe_CDO_Sufferer]

@@primonomeultimonome Sure it did... (about 2K well, actually) it's just that the other 38 cancellations were a little quieter about it, that's all.

[@jons2447]

Hello, Professor Robitaille: EXCELLENT! Thank you for all you do. I love it when you point out the contradictory inconsistencies and irreconcilable differences. I can't imagine what these 'scientists' are thinking. Were they not taught that all their ideas and theories must conform to proven science? Keep up the good, nay, great work. Have a GREAT day, Neighbor!

[@user-lb8qx8yl8k]

Yeah did you really understand all of that?

[@danielarcher369]

Hi Pierre, i made a paper on red (dwarf) stars evolving into brown dwarfs. Maybe you can also investigate flare stars and apply your model to see what would happen when flare stars (red stars) keep cooling (2nd law of thermodynamics)....? Regards, Daniel

[@ryanhegseth8720]

You gotta throw it all out, stars are not what we were taught they were. It’s not science. If the distances/sizes are wrong or if they are liquid/solid, you gotta start over trying to figure out what they are. All we know is that we were wrong, intentional or not.

[@danielarcher369]

@@ryanhegseth8720 stars are born hot and large, they cool and shrink over time becoming planets. Simple.

[@roldanching]

You guys ...you make me feel student. God bless you fam. Very appreciated.

[@johnlord8337]

Robitaille's lattice of graphite/graphene and metallic hydrogen is partially showing the true lattice. True superconductive material does not fit into conventional 3D Bravais lattices. In the electro-static (ES) and electro-gravitic (EG) model of the universe, superconductive elements are no longer in 3D but chiral twisted and flattened into near-2D dimensions. Thus, a conventional 3D sugar cube model, as Hydrogen with a hexagonal Bravais lattice, ... with a twist of the top and counter-twist of the bottom will flatten down the sugar cube into a near-flat sugar wafer. This is what metallic hydrogen appears like. The 3D Bravais lattice for Helium (!) is a hexagonal close packed - but when in superconductive stasis it is a near-flat hexagonal close packed object. As such, Bose-Einstein superconductive materials (and Cooper paired electrons) all fall into a new super-statis: Alchemy Science/Physics Superconductive physics (displaying the Meissner force field) Earth Solids Super-solids (hyper-colloidals/hyper-metals, crystallin-metallin Water Liquids Flow metals (i.e. metallic hydrogen)(hyper-water) Air Gasses Cold flow plasma I(hyper-air) Fire Plasma Cold flow plasma-II (hyper-light) Aether (recognized or negated) The Aether of sub-quantum particulates, energies, and forces Because these superconductive elements are near-flat near-2D objects, they also have super-elemental status as "conduits" between the Aether and the matter universe. Like a water hose and water flowing through the hose, superconductive elements have unlimitted Aether particulates, energies, and forces coming through these quantum portals. These objects in their own way are eternal power sources. With the superconductive supersolid graviton core of the stellar engine, this object is running on direct energies and forces from the Aether. The core is a conduit, and not the source of power. The Aether is the power source. The super-solid graviton core makes a location for electro-gravitic (EG) cosmogeny accretion of the surrounding free cosmic hydrogen. This gas cum liquifed Hydrogen is then supercompacted into superconductive metallic Hydrogen in the photosphere. The same photosphere fuses Hydrogen into Helium up to the level of Iron. All of this has no direct or indirect linkage to colors, frequencies, energies, and thermonuclear Kelvin ratings.

[@earthbob]

Appreciate your time and efforts in illuminating the understanding of equipartition. Excelsior!

[@Goalsplus]

But I was taught X and got my degree based on repeating it back therefore I must obey it and never question it.

[@amommamust]

Stellar video, as always... :)

[@bndjaric]

TY i love your videos and they are like food for the mind :-)

[@wombatius6112]

Great video! Please keep them coming, they are very much appreciated.

[@Parayogi]

Thank you, beautiful work as always!

[@LostHorizon52]

The detail and discipline you put into your analysis of the significance of all the data we have from the sun is simply astounding .. thanks, as always, Dr. Robitaille.

[@ETALAL]

Good morning Debbie 💜💡👉🌻🍀

[@LostHorizon52]

@@ETALAL Good morning Al 💜🌻💜🌻💜

[@mikeuk666]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/aZe3fY2Keqpqo7c

[@tberry79]

@@midlander4 Credentials do not prove someone’s argument to be true or false.

[@summerbrooks9922]

This is so revealing that I am taking notes. This definitely is not boring at all. Thanks a million for the love of physics, Dr. ROBITAILLE!

[@robertdoneright8709]

The BEST lecture yet!!! ~ Thanks so much for your very dedicated efforts! So many quality people benefit greatly from these videos. Thank You! Pierre-Marie Robitaille

[@primonomeultimonome]

Benefit how?

[@benwinter2420]

@@primonomeultimonome You again . . please explain how it's not an benefit . . if you dare

[@primonomeultimonome]

@@benwinter2420 I guess it all depends on how one reacts to the content of the video. Most people here refuse to accept the "official" science and yet welcome Dr. Robitaille's unsupported claims without any critical thinking whatsoever. I don't see how that's beneficial, unless the benefit is the same given by religions and cults to their followers, by relieving the stress of reality on the minds of the weak.

[@benwinter2420]

@@primonomeultimonome 'Refuse to except the official science' . . now why would that be ? . . oh because official science cannot explain a single phenomena in the heavens as in their constant bewilderment

[@primonomeultimonome]

​@@benwinter2420 Not sure what you mean by "explaining". Science predicts, starting from some given initial conditions. What has Dr. Robitaille predicted and verified?

[@qkitselectronics5415]

Seems like you have forgotten more then most people will ever know, for anyone that doesn't understand this statement, wait a few years, ask a lot of questions and never let someone tell you "I could explain it but you wouldn't understand it". Thank you for taking the time to explain this to us so we can understand what's going on in the system in which we live.

[@user-lb8qx8yl8k]

You understood all of this?

[@Deliquescentinsight]

Really compelling work, I am not a specialist, but I appreciate there is true revision taking place here!

[@VidarrKerr]

It is happening in epic proportions I've never seen in 50+ years. "They" are attempting to re-write everything and are completely dismantling science. It used to be that the hard sciences were impenetrable from these people, but they have forced their way in with money and deception. They are ruining the image of science, completely undermining it and all scientific institutions. These people used to only exist in the social sciences; now, they own almost all our greatest universities from top to bottom. edit: When I look back to the very schools I attended and worked at and what has happened in the last 5-10 years, it turns my stomach. It is actually enraging. They are literally working to put us into another Dark Age. UofM (Mich) 2000 & 2001 Yale 2005

[@VidarrKerr]

@@midlander4 I imagine you know all about this then... What was this video for? Do you think he is talking to you? LOL. Child.

[@eltonrobb6208]

@@VidarrKerr Control of information means you can control the masses. They want to control us -- a true philosopher is more dangerous than a worker.

[@VidarrKerr]

@@eltonrobb6208 Exactly right. They used the social sciences for so long and with such determination, propagandizing and brainwashing students And professors, to take out the hard sciences. I never thought I would see it in my lifetime. They are actively working to destroy what we think we know. I had another professor from Columbia U come to Yale to lecture a grad class; he told the students we (all of us) don't know anything about what we think we know. I was thinking he was talking about some quantum biology, or something, until he started questioning things like gravity. I said in front of the students, how about you jump out of the window and show us then. We were on the 6th floor. The guy was serious. Unreal. They think that they will be the Prophets of Truth and Reality. They tell us what we can and cannot believe, even if it is observable in front of our faces that they are lying. That is their plan, and I am sad to say it seems to be working.

[@VidarrKerr]

@@midlander4 In your case, I am am certain.

[@bjh3661]

Dr Robittaille, your videos are the only ones on youtube for which I click the "like" button before I click the "play" button.

[@stsomewhereP30]

@@midlander4 How sad that you have so little to contribute that you choose to spend your time being a troll on channels.

[@stsomewhereP30]

@@midlander4 Examples please. Let's see, a snarky troll thinks anyone is interested in their rants without giving any detail... umm vary persuasive! How about you objectively provide some facts and there can be a discussion. Science is about giving a hypothesis then giving evidence to support that hypothesis. (Why do I get the feeling this is (Not)Prof Dave's smurf account. midlander4 offers the same level of discourse to opposing views.)

[@stsomewhereP30]

@@midlander4 Should have know it was not worth attempted to engage. No real information. Baseless words you have not proof of. Have a good life, hope some day you can be happy and have an open mind.

[@primonomeultimonome]

@TheRealVerbz Actually, the claims made at 0:18 by Dr. Robitaille are basically the same claims made by flatearthers to deny the shape of the Earth. Would you be able to explain to me why gases shouldn't be able to collapse because of gravity exactly like the rest of the matter in the universe?

[@primonomeultimonome]

@TheRealVerbz In other words, you have no idea, right?

[@lakeice7581]

Thanks for this update.

[@ChechenScienceAcademy0204]

As always excellent explanation!

[@digdug6515]

❤️ your videos and information....but mostly your humble pleasant attitude..👍

[@6point5by55]

I see one "thumbs down". I guess Proctology Dave must have dropped by.

[@JamesWebbKilledTheBigBangStars]

You almost beat me to it. lol

[@primonomeultimonome]

Or maybe a couple of physicists passing by?

[@benwinter2420]

Ouch

[@benwinter2420]

@@primonomeultimonome Those pointy hat wearer wizards are staring at their black holes in a black mirror & building up to a big bang

[@rd9831]

@@benwinter2420 wonder who they are going to bang next.

[@philoso377]

In page 12:42 - I missed an explanation on where did the energy in the “big cup” came to be and where it will be in what form. How and why hydrogen become metallic, conductive?

[@Cericle]

Note to Pierre Robitaille's video editor: When you pause the video to read the small subtitles, the youtube player options display on top of the text, which makes reading the subtitles quite annoying. Recommend more legible text and raised >8% of screen height to avoid being obscured?

[@Devast8r34]

Thank you for all your content

[@mykulpierce]

As a tangent, when adding energy to a molecule to one of its degrees of freedom, must it always be distributed to the others? And if so, do certain degress of freedom act as buffers to eachother?

[@gregsmith1719]

Brilliant explanation! Keep it up!

[@JoseSilveira-newhandleforYT]

Thanks Dr. Robitaille!

[@ETALAL]

🌻🙏🍀

[@FinehomesofNewHampshire]

Settle down! 😆

[@FinehomesofNewHampshire]

@@ETALAL Bub!

[@ETALAL]

@@FinehomesofNewHampshire Bro ! 😁 Im here for the brain exercise

[@lucycarin]

@@ETALAL my vocabulary...😂👊🏼

[@erinmcdonald7781]

I love the way you logically break things down and thoroughly cover topics. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with those of us seeking real science. 💚🌎🌞💫

[@weinerdog137]

Watching this more than once.

[@weinerdog137]

@@ianw7898 could be. But, whether my reach exceeds my grasp, i will still try to make a better revelation.

[@weinerdog137]

@@ianw7898 until we acheive an unified model, it is all workarounds. Get it? Fear of losing control drives fear in the controlled. Counterproductive at some point.

[@weinerdog137]

@@ianw7898 IEEE has subscribed to the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE model since it's conception. I see you already know everything, it is nice, until you realize you do not. Then figuring out what you should forget takes work. Celebrate the solstice and enjoy xmas.

[@weinerdog137]

@@ianw7898 well, you are very prepared for this exchange, aren't you? A. Peratt has stated in a recent interview that work done at the USGov expense has left academia in the stone age. As USGOV are the only ones that can afford the cost. A great deal of those results have been occulted for NatSec...I guess time will tell if that bifurcation of knowlegde was wise or not.

[@weinerdog137]

@@ianw7898 SAFIRE is simply repeating work that was done at MIT 20-30 years ago. There is obvously a serious information war going on...I know what I know, and I know what you are.

[@helenalderson6608]

Thank you. Another enlightening video

[@lachesisatropos5139]

Absolutely awesome! Thank you!

[@mohanrajaloganathan5587]

Dr.R what do you think as source of energy for sun, do you have opinion on EU

[@VDananic]

I have one question about the lattice formed by hydrogen atoms: how it is stabilized?

[@penguinuprighter6231]

With little nails.

[@joshuamattimore2084]

Always appreciated. Keep them coming. Bless you.

[@nicholastidemann9384]

It's quite simple: I see a Sky Scholar video, I click it.

[@donnamarie9593]

Ditto!!!! 🎉

[@gregoryturner1505]

Another great video.

[@captainsensible298]

Great description

[@JamesHolben]

Doc...you are an inspiration....

[@geiroskars]

Thank you for your great work and keeping my brain working :)

[@eltonrobb6208]

One thing to remember about his liquid plasma model, Sol -- our star -- is still connected to the Galactic Electric Circuit. SAFIRE tested the idea that Sol is electric. What Doctor Pierre-Marie R (I can't spell his name right now) is a model of what Sol is made of. This doesn't refute the SAFIRE project's findings, but rather refutes the gaseous model of our star. So far, we cannot do experiments to prove the LMH model -- but that won't stop us! Liquid Metallic Hydrogen is being investigated as an alternative jet fuel. Perhaps one day, we will have a laboratory that will prove the LMH model of the Sun. But right now we have continued observations of the Sun with our solar satellites and telescopes.

[@mickleblade]

Lol, you actually believe the thunderbolts project?

[@eltonrobb6208]

@@mickleblade Don't you?

[@mickleblade]

@@eltonrobb6208 potato theory shot down long since, Thornton 's a scam artist.

[@eltonrobb6208]

@@mickleblade Can't you recognize truth when you see it? Don't you ask?

[@mickleblade]

@@eltonrobb6208 yes, exactly. Do you believe in the fairy godmother too?

[@juano3000]

One question. At min 13:36 the photospheric material is moving, parallel to the flare, or perpendicular to the flare?

[@erinmcdonald7781]

Was questioning part of that myself....Upon review, I believe it's parallel to sun. 😁🖖

[@Nuovoswiss]

A couple of counter-points: a lattice is not necessary for standard blackbody emission spectra. Molten salts seem like a good physical analogue to the surface of the sun, and they emit via the expected blackbody spectrum. Hydrogen at 6000 K isn't nearly as ionized or dense as a molten salt, but it doesn't need to be given the large scale. I would argue that the reason that "lab" plasmas have sharp emission peaks is because they are created via electrical discharge or oscillating electric fields (RF excitation). A purely thermal plasma should have a relatively smooth blackbody spectrum. The analogue for that would be the spectra of an LED being driven by an electric current, vs one emitting solely due to heat. Lastly, even if the energy in the sun was largely in convection, we should expect it to become almost entirely thermal, since that's what happens in every other fluid.

[@stevecrothers6585]

"A couple of counter-points: a lattice is not necessary for standard blackbody emission spectra. Molten salts seem like a good physical analogue to the surface of the sun, and they emit via the expected blackbody spectrum. Hydrogen at 6000 K isn't nearly as ionized or dense as a molten salt, but it doesn't need to be given the large scale. I would argue that the reason that "lab" plasmas have sharp emission peaks is because they are created via electrical discharge or oscillating electric fields (RF excitation). A purely thermal plasma should have a relatively smooth blackbody spectrum. The analogue for that would be the spectra of an LED being driven by an electric current, vs one emitting solely due to heat. Lastly, even if the energy in the sun was largely in convection, we should expect it to become almost entirely thermal, since that's what happens in every other fluid." Nuovoswiss 1. Molten salts can never be a proper analogue to the surface of the Sun. The primary constituent of the stars is hydrogen, well recognised throughout astronomy, and that offers no chemical possibility of behaving like a molten salt. A hydrogen base lattice is necessary on the stars. I looked your claims up. You are not being altogether forthright. Molten salts tend to have high absorption over limited range at low wavelength. They emit close to blackbodies over very limited range and at times their emissive behaviour does not even follow Stefan's law with increasing temperatures. They do not emit the expected blackbody spectrum as you claim. The emissivities are usually less than 1, about 0.6 to 0.8 and in some regions much less, although they can approach 1 in a limited spectral band. Here are some examples including a dissertation: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359431118351123 aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4984419 etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=osu1480539289737113&disposition=inline 2. Hydrogen gas cannot produce a blackbody spectrum. 3. Your claim about a plasma producing a smooth blackbody spectrum is nonsense. Astrophysics has had decades to produce such a result in the lab and it has never occurred. It never will. The astronomers use opacity tables involving many species in order to try to compute a spectrum for the Sun. It is all nonsense and we have had more than 60 years of it! In any case the emissivity of a gas goes down with increase in temperature as explained in this lecture. They have access to translational degrees of freedom and therefore cannot ever act as proper blackbodies. 4. Your claims about all fluids becoming fully thermal due to convection is also off target. You are wishful thinking rather than acknowledging that astronomers missed the mark. Dr. Robitaille predict no coupling between translational degrees of freedom and the vibrational degrees of freedom on the Sun and his argument is powerful. In any case, Planck was correct on this one. Astronomers don't get to set a temperature to the Sun using its thermal spectrum. Equipartition does not exist in the Sun. It does not even exist for most materials (but I will give you that it works great for gases). The hydrogen bond in water also has much too low of a bond strength to be affected by changes in temperature. That vibrational mode is essentially fully populated at all temperatures just slightly above absolute zero. It does not participate in any thermalisation process beyond that. That is the problem for the Penzias and Wilson signal, as Dr. Robitaille has already highlighted. Whether or not thermalisation occurs in a fluid depends upon the nature of the fluid and the metallic hydrogen lattice of the Sun with its extended conduction bands is nothing like typical fluids on Earth.

[@stevecrothers6585]

"A couple of counter-points: a lattice is not necessary for standard blackbody emission spectra. Molten salts seem like a good physical analogue to the surface of the sun, and they emit via the expected blackbody spectrum. Hydrogen at 6000 K isn't nearly as ionized or dense as a molten salt, but it doesn't need to be given the large scale. I would argue that the reason that "lab" plasmas have sharp emission peaks is because they are created via electrical discharge or oscillating electric fields (RF excitation). A purely thermal plasma should have a relatively smooth blackbody spectrum. The analogue for that would be the spectra of an LED being driven by an electric current, vs one emitting solely due to heat. Lastly, even if the energy in the sun was largely in convection, we should expect it to become almost entirely thermal, since that's what happens in every other fluid." Nuovoswiss 1. I looked your claims up. You are not being altogether forthright. Molten salts tend to have high absorption over limited ranged at low wavelength. They emit close to blackbodies over very limited range and at times, their emissive behavior does not even follow Stefan's law with increasing temperatures. They do not emit the expected blackbody spectrum as you claim. The emissivities are usually less than 1, about 0.6 to 0.8, although they can approach 1 in a limited spectral band. Here are some examples including a dissertation: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359431118351123 aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4984419 etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=osu1480539289737113&disposition=inline 2. Hydrogen gas cannot produce a blackbody spectrum. 3. Your claim about a plasma producing a smooth blackbody spectrum is nonsense. Astrophysics has had decades to produce such a result in the lab and it has never occurred. It never will. The astronomers use opacity tables involving many species in order to try to compute a spectrum for the Sun. It is all nonsense and we have had more than 60 years of it! 4. Your claims about all fluids becoming fully thermal due to convection is also off target. You are wishful thinking rather than acknowledging that astronomers missed the mark. Dr. Robitaille predict no coupling between translational degrees of freedom and the vibrational degrees of freedom on the Sun and his argument is powerful. In any case, Planck was correct on this one. Astronomers don't get to set a temperature to the Sun using its thermal spectrum. Equipartition does not exist in the Sun. It does not even exist for most materials (but I will give you that it works great for gases). The hydrogen bond in water also has much too low of a bond strength to be affected by changes in temperature. That vibrational mode is essentially fully populated at all temperatures just slightly above absolute zero. It does not participate in any thermalization process beyond that. That is the problem for the Penzias and Wilson signal, as Dr. Robitaille has already highlighted.

[@Nuovoswiss]

@@stevecrothers6585 Sorry, I saw your last reply, I just haven't had time to reply to it yet. There's a lot to respond to.

[@MarsStarcruiser]

@@stevecrothers6585 Some interesting things you brought up here, except comparisons you are drawing, would they even apply to metallic hydrogen in the same way as they would the gas? Only descriptors I can find on metallic hydrogen was as they increased the pressure, the hydrogen went from clear to reflective with metallic sheen as metallicity was reached, ultimately to opac and black. Ironically it does actually sound a lot like the sun spots, so maybe hydrogen is achieving metallicity, at least somewhere.

[@ETALAL]

Thanks Fantastic video 💜💡🍀🌻🙏

[@JoseSilveira-newhandleforYT]

Agree!

[@cactusjenny12]

I love to hear your science.

[@penguinuprighter6231]

Tell us your favourite bit.

[@dorhinj23]

PMR - my science crush. dont let the bastards grind you down brother!

[@truBador2]

Thank you. New appreciation for Planck from me, having no background. There is a rumor that in the vacuum of space astronauts could not see the sun (or stars for that matter), even though the sun could theoretically kill them in any number of different wavelengths. Astronaut Collins from Apollo 11 said they couldn't see the stars without "the optics", which suggests some viewing device.

[@maryjordan7957]

Oh, man! I haven't had this much fun in years!!!!!!! Thank you, Sky Scholar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! God bless you and everyone there!

[@kirbymoore7603]

Thank you for another informative lecture. I look forward to all your messages. I am hoping Dr Robitaille may someday address the results of the Parker Solar Probe (PSP). I am not certain if the PSP data supports or contradicts Dr Robitaille's theories (or if the PSP has anything to do with them at all), but it would be interesting to hear from the good Doctor on the PSP results.

[@mariofurtado3458]

Excellent!

[@johnos4892]

Thanks for the info.

[@doltBmB]

If you have large chunks of material moving together how does that translate to temperature? Sure there's more energy, but touching a cruise ship in motion doesn't make it any hotter, so why would the surface of the sun be?

[@doltBmB]

@@ianw7898 The friction is not the temperature of the ship.

[@doltBmB]

@@ianw7898 That is only at the interface between two masses moving at different velocities, the velocity itself is not a temperature, the temperature of friction comes from the kinetic energy being transfomed, it slows down the motion. The ship is not hotter just because it is moving. Are you acting stupid or really?

[@doltBmB]

@@ianw7898 So you are stupid.

[@billpeck1237]

WOW, Sky Scholar is replacing University with his research and interp. Cheers for free thought. Anyone else here have to memorize the proton chain of nuclear fusion theory? I vow never to repeat it unless I am making fun of it and its ignorance of basic gas dynamics. He is onto something here!

[@billpeck1237]

@@ianw7898 Certainly it has applications, but to base our understanding of stars on it is a bit too religious for me.

[@billpeck1237]

@@ianw7898 Trad solar physics has no way to predict the suns many cycles. Plasma is a much more dynamic and inclusive explanation.

[@spamdump4459]

So Bill, was this your first interaction with Ian?

[@billpeck1237]

@@spamdump4459 Yup. Trolls gotta eat too I spose.

[@vincemorgan9640]

@@ianw7898 Ian. As you would not write with such an authoritative approach if you were unable to produce published work of your own I would like very much to read it. Please be so kind as to point me to some of that material. TYIA

[@EinarBordewich]

Does this mean that any measurement of gaseous bodies - like the temperature measurements made by satellites of earth for example - will be wrong?

[@jt6mania558]

The "PROFESSOR" is still recovering for the last video, well done

[@sailblackmagic]

Great video, thank you

[@angelhelp]

This is a wonderful video easily understood by anyone who had a decent high school chemistry teacher! That first quote from Planck certainly gives one pause as one contemplates how errors built upon errors for so many years.

[@primonomeultimonome]

So did the chemistry teacher claim that gases have no mass? Because that's the consequence of what is said from the beginning of the video.

[@angelhelp]

@@primonomeultimonome Of course she didn't, but you knew that already, just as you know that what you label a consequence simply isn't a logical deduction. I shall not reply further to your statements, so feel free to promulgate your worst interpretation.

[@primonomeultimonome]

@@angelhelp I suppose you won't reply because what is said at 0:18 is simply pure nonsense, and as such impossible to support.

[@johnsmith-fr3sx]

I think you make your case that the current accepted model of the Sun is broken. But I do not agree with the idea that gas cannot be trapped in its own gravitational well. If there is a source of thermal energy it does not have to cool off and condense. It will form an exponentially stratified density distribution even if it has convecting layers. We do see this process in planetary atmospheres. The gases making up those atmospheres exponentially stratify. Removing the planetary surface will not make the gas instantly disappear into space it will collapse into a smaller volume. Of course, if the total mass of the gas is too small, then it will dissipate due to lack of sufficient gravity to overcome thermal ejection. And it requires a sufficent source of energy to maintain the gas as a gas. In the case of the Sun one has both enough mass and enough energy to have a gas ball. However, that does not contradict your model since it is clear that the Sun has an actual surface and CMEs show condensed matter being transported and not a gas. There is enough mass to produce gravity sufficient to maintain a condensed matter state in the face of very high temperatures. One could define a star as an object that has enough mass to maintain a condensed state for the fusion driven heat output. As noted elsewhere the alleged near surface density of the Sun is ridiculously small, near laboratory vacuum levels. Given the radiation pressure alone such a low density would be ejected and not just near the surface. Given exponential stratification, there would be a thick outermost shell of the Sun that would have very low density that would be ejected. So the gas ball Sun model would lead to evapouration to the point where the thermal energy production dropped enough to stop substantial thermal ejection. But the Sun is alleged to maintain such a super low density outer layer and have a well defined "apparent surface". It really looks like a condensed matter state is the only equilibrium configuration possible for a star.

[@zyxzevn]

I think that temperature is a combination of vibrations and electromagnetic energy. So we have kinetic energy, potential energy, energy of electron bands, energy of magnetic fields. Etc. In solar flares we get electrical short-cuts. And these are well-known to produce x-rays. The electrical currents can be seen in the plasma-ropes on the sun. They even move the plasma. Sometimes into both directions (positive and negative ions move different directions). And unlike what the mainstream claims, these ropes do not follow magnetic field lines, but follow electrical field lines. The electrical fields can be measured using the Stark effect, which is now mistaken for the Zeeman effect. The Zeeman effect only is correct around the electrical plasma currents. Based on the Stark and Zeeman effect we can see that the fields are immense. Around 1T for magnetic fields around the currents, and around 10kV/m at the dark spots.

[@calvincheney7405]

Dr. Robitaille, is it possible to model a helium element expelled by the sun that travels on the solar wind to earth & supposition the changes in characteristics as it enters through the various levels of atmosphere to reach the planet? Would that help confirm the characteristics of metallic hydrogen at it's origin?

[@calvincheney7405]

@@ianw7898 to my understanding, every element known to man is expelled by the sun. Why would helium not be among them?

[@calvincheney7405]

@@ianw7898 I understand what you've said for the most part. Thank you, I shall dwell on this~

[@PeterMilanovski]

Every time I hear that sound right at the beginning of the video, it reminds me of a track that I used to listen to by "Etienne de Crecy", called "Am I Wrong". I have rediscovered it now and I'm listening to it all over again!

[@SgtHenick]

Keep it up!

[@JungleJargon]

The speed of light isn’t constant considering that neither time nor distance are constant and they compound the effect that alters the speed of light.

[@drscott1]

Thank you

[@PeterTheSAGAFan]

What if at the center of the gravitational collapse of a Star you have proto-planets that have coalesced into a nucleus?? Then, you could have the regular gravitational collapse, do you not?

[@MrWolynski]

Here is the theory of stellar metamorphosis which explains that process. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eX6TeZxmjtx0gKM

[@EinarBordewich]

Just to be precise. At 5:11 you quote Max Planck's work "The Theory of Heat Radiation" from 1914. Sec. 24. The correct section is 25 😀

[@Armin777777]

Thank you !!

[@TrusePkay]

Photosphere is not 6000°C, it's million of degrees, up to 7 million°C. What about the sunspots that are said to be 3000°C I find this hard to swallow...

[@Nikolateslau.s.a]

I would like to know what you think of the sun model presented by Eric Dollard it would be a very interesting video to see two different ideas and the result👍

[@t00by00zer]

@@midlander4 yeah, the Ohio State University likes to hire idiots. You vacuous moron. Gaseous sun model is DEAD.

[@t00by00zer]

@@midlander4 Nobel Prize? Are you kidding? They gave Obama one because he was black. He then proceeded to oversee the creation of ISIS and never ending drone strikes. The Nobel is absolutely meaningless anymore. Bunch of cloistered back slappers congratulating each other on fooling the general population yet again. Found any of the "dark matter" yet? We've spent BILLIONS looking for it.

[@t00by00zer]

@@midlander4 racist? That's too easy. Means nothing these days. People throw that around like a salt on a winter highway. You don't know what a racist is, obviously. When you are lauded as being the first "black" President, and then awarded a Nobel Peace prize for it, it's pretty easy to do the math, unless you're pig ignorant. Clueless rube.

[@t00by00zer]

@@midlander4 what you know about astrophysics is summed up in two words . . . "Dark Matter."

[@donaldbest7621]

Equal energy would not necessarily equate to equal movement? A rotating object might take a different amount of energy to travel an equal distance as an object moving in a straight line, or back and forth? That would be how a “quanta” of energy could cause multiple vibrational results in a system with compound movements of freedom with in the same system? I have a curious mind.

[@user-dv1xe1uh7m]

The people who go against the narrative get the most flack. As always great video.

[@jacksagriculturalmuseumm908]

Real scientific physics, this man is a great teacher and his explanations are provable in a lab and mathematically no theory given as fact

[@ShifuCareaga]

Just in time for my paper... Thanks!

[@Mrch33ky]

Great lecture. Thank you!

[@illumencouk]

The term 'translational degrees of freedom' may possibly be what the Tower of Babel and the introduction of many different languages eludes to?

[@jinnythewonder8104]

I have a question sir. If sun is made of liquid metalic hydrogen then would it can be related to recent acceleration of decreasing the earth magnetic fields?

[@jinnythewonder8104]

@@ianw7898 Thank you.

[@D3cker1]

The old dude with the glasses KNOWS...

[@paparika4057]

Keep it up

[@geohiker9196]

Dr Robitaille, if the sun is liquid metallic Hydrogen, what would this imply for all other theories of star formation, life and death, novas etc? Very interesting.

[@geohiker9196]

@@ianw7898 Fair statement. I'm asking if...

[@WilliamWilliamster]

Caution should be taken concerning X-ray production and temperatures as X-rays can be produced via the breaking of chemical bonds during adhesive tape removal (pulling the tape off...) in low atmospheric pressure conditions.

[@gert4754]

Txs Dr. Robitaille, brain still digesting lol

[@quantumsquatch727]

Great mind.. kind soul.. So deserving of a nobel prize. Robitaille, you are an amazing person. An inspiration indeed.. Thank You!

[@jenntrump6723]

There is no finer feeling inside, than hearing truth of our sun - resonating within my body as truth! I see many new journal papers skirting this issue. Brave man, Dr. Sun I name you!

[@EinarBordewich]

We know that the radiation S from the sun at Earth's average distance Re is 1370 W/m2. And if we calculate the sun temperature T based on the Sun Radius Rs and the Earth orbit radius Re with this formula S*4*pi*Re^2 = a*T^4*4*pi, we get T = 5780Kelvin. So you actually argue that this formula is wrong to use for the sun? What formula can we then use to calculate the sun?

[@rexmann1984]

I wonder when everyone else is gonna figure out you're not crazy?

[@odogkar]

After a 50 - 100 years, maybe, it will be a Robitaille Prize of Real Science (instead of a Nobel Prize of Shame)

[@joeskis]

@@midlander4 what do you mean? Seems like this entire video is evidence. Laws of physics isn't evidence to you?

[@philliplow5379]

@@joeskis "Two and two equal four", err, when are you going to publish some fcking evidence?

[@primonomeultimonome]

Maybe you can explain to me why gases cannot collapse into stars? At 0:18 I'm already lost, I can't find any physics law supporting Dr. Robitaille's argument.

[@xkguy]

@@midlander4 PMR published an ad in the NYT in about 2000 at the urging of a friend. He references his many published papers. When you are challenging a paradigm there is always resistance. I do not think he is as worried about recognition as we are that he will be recognized. The truth will come out. Maybe he is around to get accolades or maybe the people benefit from his work after he is gone. Maybe someone else will claim his ideas are really their ideas. Hopefully those people are already teaching on KZbin...or they'll look pretty silly.

[@gregsmith1719]

Question -- Why are there explosions on the sun? Flairs? Sun spots? CME? Why is it not stable? These fundamental questions are not settled.

[@vume7722]

Stars form from gas or plasma, why is it classified as gas?

[@oliver1834]

its not its plasma

[@nathanlynswanson6020]

the smallest of particles have both an internal and external structure. they alterrnately inhale and exhale an inlsulating oil which is finer and more dense than matter and in doing so they atract to each other bodily. i imagine them being 4 sided pyramids with valvular conduits bore thru them in such a way that one has its base as an inhaler and the other an inhaler.

[@georgerodriguez8361]

My understanding is that a gasious cloud making up our sun means that the days of our sun is limited. However a solid surface of the sun means that unlike many documentaries our sun is here to stay...therefore our earth and moon are not in danger as some would have us believe...

[@StephenGoodfellow]

I like a lot of what Pierre-Marie Robitaille is putting down, but deep convection currents below the Sun? How are the precise helioseismology oscillations coming from a chaotic convection from an inner core survive? This is not only a problem for Pierre-Marie Robitaille's inner sun, but the standard hydrogen-fusion core model as well: kzbin.info/www/bejne/onqXeGmwir5ngs0

[@AnthonyMungara-xt4mf]

Professor and scientists like him will make science great again ❤

[@donniegoodman8679]

My wife says you're right and the other guy is wrong. My wife is always right

[@andrzejmalachowicz8583]

so what is the temperature of the Sun?

[@danielarcher369]

hot

[@t00by00zer]

@TheRealVerbz Hopefully you've watched Doc's presentation on it.

[@markmartens]

I'd like to see 'more simplified models' of which you speak PM. Mark Martens, Accidental Scientist.

[@JesseKozlowski]

Greetings :)

[@primonomeultimonome]

So, if you are a scientist, may you tell me what law Dr. Robitaille is citing at 0:18 to support the fact that gases cannot collapse? I am not aware of any.

[@jimlovesgina]

@@primonomeultimonome Gases spontaneously collapsing has only occurred in your garage laboratory, apparently. It's alive! Alive!

[@MrMooagi977]

@@primonomeultimonome kinetic theory of gases. Gases always expand to to occupy it's container in a vacuum. Law of diffusion phenomena. Gases will disperse among other gases to be evenly distributed. First Law comes under behaviour of gases. The second law is part of mass transfer. In both cases, the gases expand from it's source of origin.

[@primonomeultimonome]

@@jimlovesgina Is that a way to declare that you have no understanding of any physics law whatsoever?

[@Alasdair-Morrison]

G'Day Mate

[@markedwinwebb]

Professor Dave is NOT pleased.

[@ozradek1]

Excellent explanation! I definitely learned something here and another mystery gone.

[@bobbrown7511]

Excellent. Well done!

[@terminate5888]

There's so much wrong with this video. Just because graphite can produce a near-perfect black body spectrum does not mean the sun is made out of a similar structure. You also seem to think that a body only produces a black body spectrum if it's in thermal equilibrium. This is not true. The reason why we measure an object's emission spectrum at thermal equilibrium is to get an accurate reading of its temperature. Here on earth if it's not in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings it will quickly radiate exponentially. However, the sun is constantly generating energy. The sun's temperature does not change very much and so we can get a consistent emission spectrum of the sun. It's also very massive and so even if fusion stops it may take thousands ( if not millions) of years for its surface to significantly cool as it has a very low surface area to volume ratio. The same can be true for a light bulb filament. The filament itself is not in thermal equilibrium. But the constant generation of heat keeps the filament at a nearly constant temperature, so we can get an accurate reading of its emission spectrum. As far as I understand, vibrational and rotational modes do not contribute to temperature but only to the heat capacity of the gas. Temperature is to do with the average momentum of the particles within a substance like a gas. As the sun is a plasma made of protons and electrons and neutrons (and not molecules) only translational degrees of freedom exist.

[@MrWolynski]

I think he needs to apply these ideas to white dwarfs, they would fit better.

[@philoso377]

I can see three schools of science in my life time. (1) natural (2) fictional (3) quantum Agenda? (1) to know nature deeper (2, 3) monopoly of status quote and funding Lead by (1) real nature, backed by experiment & proof (2) day dreamers, backed by mathematician (3) mathematician, backed by lawyers & politicians

[@philoso377]

@polka Said?

[@MrWolynski]

I finally got it. It has been bothering me for some time. He is correct in that stars are not formed from spontaneously collapsing gas clouds, I also realized this back in 2012. The problem is that he is taking the argument of gas not collapsing spontaneously and applying it to stars that have already formed and are evolving, which are composed of gaseous and plasmatic matter. He is saying since stars cannot form from gas clouds spontaneously collapsing (correct), that gaseous and plasmatic stars cannot exist (incorrect). This is why he is referred to as being a "crank/crackpot" by the dogmatists. The dogmatists are saying stars form from collapsing gas clouds (which is wrong), and also say gaseous and plasmatic stars exist (which Robitaille says do not exist, yet they are directly observed). So both the dogmatists are wrong and Robitaille are wrong, both about different things. Both are probably unwilling to give up any ground though. That is unfortunate. So he is taking a correct insight, that stars cannot form from collapsing gas clouds, and taking it were it does not belong, a model of the Sun that is not needed. If anything, Robitaille needs to focus on star birth, not their evolution. That is where he would do the most good, where any specific model of a star being liquid would most apply, meaning white dwarfs, which are insanely dense and are condensed matter.

[@stevecrothers6585]

Dr. Robitaille's lecture is about the Sun, and the Sun is condensed matter.

[@danielarcher369]

@@stevecrothers6585 plasma has different states, saying it just condensed matter is too simplistic. The sun also has a solid-like surface (in the iron spectrum), we even have evidence of solar tsunamis that wash over an underlying layer (that look like mountains) that are undisturbed by the tsunami but it is all plasma. Thus we can say the sun is a plasma with lots of spectacular plasma physics happening; in the end it is just hot and ionized. We also know the sun loses matter and that the sun is an open system, it must and will lose heat/energy over time. This means the sun is cooling, plasma cooling means the sun will also shrink....and in time stop shining and becoming a gas type planet.. etc.

[@MrWolynski]

@@danielarcher369 Thank you for responding. The solar granules also convect on huge scales. Robitaille is making a hard sale, from my perspective because of solar granulation: kzbin.info/www/bejne/sJ-llqaLrLuCpc0 Those flows are travelling ~10-15,000 mph, or ~7 kilometers/sec. Condensed matter would be ripped apart moving that fast. It would be more appropriate to apply any sort of condensed matter physics to white dwarfs, red dwarfs and late stage stars. I disagree with the liquid metallic hydrogen solar model, the Sun probably has condensed matter internally, that is where any sort of surface would be located.

[@danielarcher369]

@@MrWolynski yw, i do think PMR is right in that we need a surface to explain the spectrum, but reverting to condensed matter is indeed a hard sell. We need to learn more about plasma physics and the states it can display characteristics off. The sun is confirmed to have layers, that also rotate at different speeds. For instance there is an inner core layer that rotates faster than the outermost surface layer, this hints at different types of matter, i think the matter could be more gas the deeper you go and maybe even liquid. Stars also built their iron-nickel cores and that is solid matter.... / so it gets cooler the deeper you go in the star stages... and in later stages this turns around (maybe).. . just musing, food for thought.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@midlander4 Haaa! You ignorant lout. Glad to see you still can't learn.