White Dwarf Metallic Lines: Simple Explanations, or Complex Excuses?

[@iTeerRex]

Hello Sky Scholar. Always good to see a video from you.

[@kimberleebrackley2793]

Always a pleasure, Dr.Robitaille. Stay strong and take care. We need you.

[@sophiagodsfrend]

God bless you and your family Dr. Robitaille! the Truth will prevail!

[@Socrates-ti2dh]

😇😎😇 👍🫵👍

[@hoon_sol]

I don't even believe in any deity, and am in fact vehemently against it, but even I would definitely prefer it if supernatural forces intervened to help Robitaille in his tireless quest to put astrophysics back on track.

[@amarq1509]

I have watched every one of your vids...probably 3 times. Takes me a few times to get my head around it. Thanks for all you do!

[@dunravin]

The technical content of this video is way over my head but the premise is clear. Main stream science data fudging. Thanks Pierre

[@tisithecount4198]

I think Pierre needs to get to scientific meetings and start convincing astrophysicists. He has the science to back him up, so why not?

[@muskyelondragon]

Folks like him tend to get "disinvited".

[@tisithecount4198]

@@muskyelondragon conferences don’t really work like that, he just doesn’t seem to want to actively participate. I don’t know why.

[@EddieVBlueIsland]

For the same reason Einstein did not return to Germany when the began burning books. Why try and convince people who are closed minded and will hurt you?

[@tisithecount4198]

@@EddieVBlueIsland what?! Who’s gonna hurt him?!! And how would he know they can’t be convinced if he doesn’t publish and present to try?

[@JoseSilveira-newhandleforYT]

Thank you Dr. Robitaille, for another great video!

[@davidmcguinness9187]

Thanks for the video

[@piotrprs572]

I hope I will live for that day. That most of this thing what Mr Robitaille talks. Will be a 'basic and main' knowledge in astrophysics.

[@LightoftheMoon]

Thank you vm, Dr. Robitaille!

[@captainsensible298]

It seems as though Astronomy in general terms has fallen prey to "making shit up" as they go along trap. Instead of changing the hypothesis to fit the measurements as measuring equipment has become more accurate, the researchers simply add unmeasurable, unrepeatable, bizarre new features to the existing hypothesis. So fixed in the paradigm they cannot see the wood for the trees. This is what happens when research is controlled by people with no imagination and or no courage. Thank you for all your presentations, all your work is truly appreciated and we are thankful for your dedication to bringing us enlightenment.

[@keithnorris6348]

The picking and choosing of what will fall on the face of a white dwarf shows that the theory of very dense white dwarf as an explanation must fall flat on it`s face.Thanks Doc for another excellent video show I am looking forward to the next example of real science defeating fanciful stuff.

[@louisvictor3473]

At the very least, it should give them pause and increase the uncertainty of their models. Physics has a strong cultural problem in the field. While physicists no longer claim they already solved physics entirely sans a few kinks like in the early 20th century, the cultural attitude in the field still remains, just begrudgingly dilute a bit. So if observations and data contradict their model, they don't just admit that we don't know enough to make a strong statement, that their models may be incorrect, and only contemplate hypotheticals that assume their models are right right and tend to jump the gun to conclusions. They really want to go back to feeling like they have indeed solved ohysics, they're the smartest boys alive, blah blah blah. The best they will do is admit to models being "incomplete" as if incompletion is not a type of incorrection.

[@jim7634]

Amazing and so informative. Thank You!

[@markbarber7839]

12:43 thanks doc you made me laugh out loud and that's good !

[@FrederickMathieu]

Francois Wesemael was my thesis supervisor. Wow!

[@stevecrothers6585]

Will you inform Wesemael that he is wrong and point him to this lecture in proof? It would be a good idea of your's if you do so.

[@FrederickMathieu]

@@stevecrothers6585 Sorry Steve. No can do. He died of stomach cancer in 2011. Gilles Fontaine of pancreatic cancer 2019(?). For my part I wrote my thesis in the 90s on the astroseismology of zzceti type WD but left astrophysics after.

[@lmwlmw4468]

Great video.

[@barrywilliams991]

It's MAGIC! There is a lot of magical thinking in all of astrophysics and astronomy.

[@briankerr4512]

they see far by standing on the backs of unicorns

[@romado59]

There is five or six ways to create redshift not counting chemistry. The issue is with figuring what percentage each adds to the total. Could there be a way to filter the percentage of each redshift from the total?

[@JoshuaTreeObservatory]

Thank you again; and, a comment which echoes my comment on your last video as well: the only reason the fanciful ideas presently entertained by astronomers which you address in these videos are at all possible is dependent on the present fact that we can actually observe and perceive so extremely very very little of the Universe, and in particular, we cannot resolve any angular diameter of the points of light which we call stars (except for, it is presently claimed, about 2 dozen, albeit barely even in these cases).

[@raycar1165]

Very good Much❤Love

[@EasyThere]

How do they eliminate the light years worth of dust and gas in the gap between the star and observer?

[@VariantAEC]

Wondered that for more than 20 years now.

[@VariantAEC]

That said, the argument here is that the current scientific understanding is that accretion disks, intense gravity of hyperdense objects, and photolevitation are all equally responsible for the Balmer lines of white dwarf stars even in cases that contradict themselves, which obviously makes no sense. This just exposes the nonsense of modern astrophysics and cosmology.

[@briankerr4512]

astral hoover

[@MA9ICAL]

Dr., what is necessary from an equipment or hardware perspective along with resolutions of magnifying or spectral analysis? In other words, how close do we need to be to actually use the science we now understand, to discern what we are actually looking at. What do you imagine we need, and how is it being developed. The conflict you have so eloquently explained in your lecture seems to take so much of the energy of the individuals involved in the formation and forging of these ideas. We need to not have the conflict and just observe. Our answers are there. We just need to increase our focus and resolution. Thank you for addressing sir, if you read this. Good day, and Cheers

[@billjasin8388]

Dr. Robitaille, I am curious, If white dwarf stars are not super dense, is there another plausible explanation for how Type 1A Supernova form? I love your videos keep up the deep dives. Your explanations sure seem to make a lot of sense. Thanks for what you do.

[@Celtokee]

1. Why do you suggest that calcium is "floating in the atmosphere" of the white dwarves? Wouldn't it also emit lines if it were solidly one the surface, atop denser mass below? 2. It is an assumption that red shift is due to velocity. There are other explanations for red shift, e.g., super-dense gravitational fields (as are theorized for WDs).

[@szymonbaranowski8184]

gravitational stuff is just new hype

[@critical-thought]

Another excellent presentation! It is amazing how scientists subvert observations to fit their model. Very backward - science doesn’t work that way (or at least shouldn’t).

[@jasonwarren9279]

What are the spectral lines like for, say, Venus or the moon? Are we able to recreate these lines in a lab with light emitting devices? What sort of spectrum is produced through things like the light flash produced when a cavitation bubble in water collapses?

[@Steaphany]

What of type 1A Super Nova of White Dwarfs which is supposed to be the result of exceeding the Electron Degeneracy pressure ? Is there any grounds to claim Type 1A Nova being standard Candles ?

[@stevecrothers6585]

No, none!

[@Chris.Davies]

Pierre, I watched a couple of videos the other day where the creators are very accepting of the Liquid Metallic Hydrogen nature of our so-called "Gas Giants" (Surely: Liquid Giants!) and rendered it as a liquid surface in their videos. So, the message about LMH is getting out there, it just has yet to penetrate all the way to the inner solar system! Why would planets be made from LMH, but suns get made from gas? How would that even happen? Because a sun is simply a "Liquid Giant Planet" that got so hot and heavy particles started fusing somewhere in, on, or above the surface. Yeah?

[@7eroBubble]

Modern astronomy's house of cards, building one imaginary thing upon another, has finally reached the height of the stars (seems to be a lot of hot air surrounding stars, these days). A very great collapse is due, that is, reputational, not gravitational. Seems that some of astronomy's purported super-giants may actually be dim dwarves, after all ;-)

[@AndrewPrice2704]

Has not a metal scar or blemish been observed on a WD recently? If so, the change in this, or its absence, should provide some interesting data :)

[@chrimony]

I like how the patchwork theory becomes "no doubt".

[@JoeDeglman]

If anything, redshift indicates a lesser atomic/ magnetic flux density, or some other intrinsic property of the object. Definitely redshift does not correspond with a higher density nor a doppler recession, for most objects.

[@henrysiegertsz8204]

If observation disproves the model, that is unacceptable. At all costs, the current model must be supported by any means necessary!

[@drscott1]

👍🏼

[@bobdobbs1431]

at 14:48 you say magnesium instead of sodium. Easy mistake. Thanks for the video.

[@stevecrothers6585]

There is no mistake in the video. If you examine Zuckerman's et al. cited below the video, you will see that the authors refer to Mg I, just as Dr. Robitaille stated (see abstract and Fig. 2 legend).

[@bobdobbs1431]

@@stevecrothers6585 If this is really Stephan Crothers, I am honored. I admire your work greatly. I was hesitant to even post pointing out any mistake by Dr. Robitalle. And now I see I was wrong. I always look forward to your and the Dr. Robitalle's work. Great to see you two teaming up.

[@gamebent]

Sky Scholar, Thank you.

[@TheArneSaknussemm]

So, astrophysicists are denser than the white dwarfs they purport to study...that's what I get from this...

[@JosephOlson-ld2td]

Universe is composed of math particles and hyperdense equations > astrophysics is composed of dark matter, dark energy and black holes

[@jnhrtmn]

My comments are blocked?

[@Critter145]

Two words: Marklund Convection.

[@EddieVBlueIsland]

Science is filled with alot of unknows and we should avoid any doctrine - science is not religion no faith required just imagination, passion, interest and testing truth constantly.

[@multi_misa72]

This one was such an obvious stupidity on part of astronomers misiterpreting the data😢

[@theuglytruth8162]

Stars are like snowflakes, no two the same.

[@paaao]

If you place a strong magnet underneath a ferro cell, you will notice bright pin points that form along the most constructive zones of magnetic/dielectric interference. A galaxy is no different. The black hole at the center where the larger dielectric rest convergence accumulates, leads to constructive and destructive lines of force outward at a massive scale. Any metallic matter free floating in space will accumulate at these points just like the ferro fluid giving rise to highly constructive metallic objects that become compressed and begin nuclear processes as a result. It's really not as complicated as everyone thinks. No one is looking at the bigger picture. All magnetic and dielectric field lines give rise to both birth and death of material matter. This happens over large scales and large time frames, but it isn't magic. Star birth follows a very mathematical frequency line that obviously varies due to chance, but stars are not born via complete chaotic processes that happen to all align perfectly and repeatedly.

[@MojoDudeX]

If you want this channel to be for common people, you'll have to change your language

[@2Hesiod]

The orbital dynamics prove they are hyper-dense.

[@stevecrothers6585]

Not it doesn't. Clearly you did not understand Dr. Robitaille's lecture. White dwarfs are not ultra-dense at all. And they are not gaseous.

[@-WiseGuy-]

The BIG question, Dr. Robitaille, is how has all of this affected your philosophical view of reality? Will you ever share your ideas regarding the nature of the cosmos and possible inferred meaning/purpose to life?