Przybylski's Star & The Total Denial of Reality - Aliens, Undiscovered Elements, and more!

Real Physics Talk, Munich, Germany, 2019: Pierre-Marie Robitaille
• Real Physics Talk: Pie...
What Elements are in the Sun?
• What Elements are in t...
The Life Cycle of the Stars | Pierre-Marie Robitaille [OTF2017]
• The Life Cycle of the ...
Dr. P.M. Robitaille | OTF2019 | Revelations Through MRI
• Dr. P.M. Robitaille | ...
P.-M. Robitaille, Lessons from the Sun, Progr. Phys., 2011, 3, 100-102.
www.ptep-online...
P.M. Robitaille, Forty Lines of Evidence for Condensed Matter - The Sun on Trial: Liquid Metallic Hydrogen as a Solar Building Block, Progr. Phys. 2013, 90-142. www.ptep-online...
Sky Scholar videos on classification:
Different Star Types? The HR Diagram Explained!
• Different Star Types? ...
What Colors are the Stars? Luminosity, Color, and Temperature Explained!
• What Colors are the St...
Przybylski's star
en.wikipedia.o...
A. Przybylski, HD 101065-a G0 Star with High Metal Content, Nature 1961, 189, 739. www.nature.com...
A. Przybylski and P. Morris Kennedy, The spectrum of HD101065,
Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacific, 1963, 75(445), 349-353.
iopscience.iop...
S. Hubrig, et al., Magnetic and pulsational variability of Przybylski’s star (HD 101065), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 2018, 477(3), 3791-3800. doi.org/10.109...
P. Gilster, The Challenges of Przybylski’s Star, March 28, 2017.
www.centauri-d...
“Anomaly” -Could a Strange Star Signal a Civilization Billions of Years Beyond Sapiens, The Daily Galaxy, November, 21, 2020
dailygalaxy.co...
J. Wright, Przybylski's Star I: What's that? | AstroWright
sites.psu.edu/...
T. Nowakowski , Przybylski's star is an extremely slow rotator, study finds, Phys.org, May 1, 2018.
phys.org/news/...
C.S. Powell, The Strangest (and Second-Strangest) Star in the Galaxy, Discover Magazine, July 1, 2017.
www.discoverma...
C. R. Cowley, et al., Abundances in Przybylski's star, Mon. Not. Roy. Astro. Soc., 2000, 317(2), 299-309.
academic.oup.c...
W.P. Bidelman, Tc and Other Unstable Elements in Przybylski's Star, ASP Conference Series, Vol. 336, Proc. Symposium, June 17-19, 2004, Austin, Texas. adsabs.harvard....
D.W. Kurtz, HD101065 - Przybylski's Star: A Most Peculiar Star Exotic Stars as Challenges to Evolution, Astron. Soc. Pac., 2002, 279, 351.
adsabs.harvard....
V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, J. K. Webb, Isotope shift and search for metastable superheavy elements in astrophysical data, Phys. Rev. A, 2017, 95, 062515.
journals.aps.o...
arxiv.org/abs/...
C. Samanta, P. Roy Chowdhury, D.N. Basu, Predictions of Alpha Decay Half lives of Heavy and Superheavy Elements, Nuclear Physics A, 2007, 789(1-4), 142-154.
arxiv.org/abs/...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...

[@Critter145]

Dr Robitaille, if you have heard of or seen anything on “See the Pattern”, they talk a lot about the Structured Atom Model and subsequent elemental transmutation in an electrical discharge environment. I would like to propose that your assertions and theirs work together to produced an energized, deuterated environment in which elements are created in the photosphere. Again, I love your work. Have a great day, Sir.

[@doltBmB]

I believe there was a presentation at an EU conference that Robitaille attended also. Very interesting stuff.

[@KevinRavensberg]

The idea of a structured atom is quite old, as early as 1908 (Occult Chemistry) where Annie Besant described various observed (using a remote viewing technique) structures for different atoms and correlated the number of smallest observed objects (Anu) with the periodic table's atomic number. These observations were at the time seen as pseudoscientific, even though the approach was systematic and verifiable between different ''viewers''.

[@daemonnice]

I just watched part two on his transmutation series with SAM and it seems to me Edo has got this on the right path. What would be the next atom up that could easily electrically fission to these short lived elements on a continuous basis? I think that's the question.

[@bjh3661]

The SAFFIRE project has achieved transmutation experimentally in exactly the form you describe

[@AAABTonto]

@@bjh3661 YES !

[@bobbrown7511]

This is amazing! Thank you so much! Keep fighting!

[@tacpreppers4906]

Top of the day Dr, Robitaille. Keep up the great work. I have no doubt history will remember you as the force that shed light on the fanciful nature of the standard model.

[@crazymiket1970]

Thank you for bringing clarity and facts to help others understand the flaws in the standard solar model of our sun. Keep up the great work! I'll be watching!

[@kimberleebrackley2793]

Always a pleasure Dr. Robitaille. Keep up your great work debunking the endless supply of bunk. Keep well

[@ETALAL]

☮💞🤗

[@Critter145]

Thank you so much for your work, Dr Robitaille.

[@jasonviberg9807]

The shortcomings of the solar model will continue to be overlooked by mainstream astronomy for as long as possible. We have to look no further than the treatment of “the father of observational astronomy” Galileo as evidence. You’re in great company Pierre and the order of Canada awaits you! Let’s hope we all live long enough to see that happen.

[@ResortDog]

I'm looking at all the circumstantial, contingency, consensual, concomitant & condemning evidence, like in a recent widely publicized election evidence, as proof the facts are being ignored, by not simply proving them wrong though complete ignorance without acknowledging they exist, while trying to silence those who stated them viciously.

[@witalian1]

There are also newer examples of such persecution. James Watson had his nobel prize taken away because he spoke a non PC truth.

[@witalian1]

@@ianw7898 The current model can not produce the planets that we observe. Both in the solar system and exoplanets. The current model was completely wrong about the structure of every comet and asteroid so far explored. There are plenty of other things wrong with it that are not related to planet systems. Many stars and galaxies have been observed the are impossible in the standard model.

[@witalian1]

@@ianw7898 No it can't. Yes it's true. Not the standard model for sure.

[@hoptoads]

@@ianw7898 Well there must be some short comings at least, otherwise we wouldn't keep getting statements like " what we have observed comes as a complete surprise " from astrophysicists when they have published their findings based on newly acquired data. If the standard model was so accurate there wouldn't be nearly as many "surprises" that keep being revealed with our latest and continually improving technological tools. There would simply be more confirmation of what is known, but verified in increasingly finer resolution.

[@ValkyrieGothic]

Another great vid Dr Robitaille!

[@dirremoire]

Why is it that when they encounter problems with the standard model, astrophysicists are willing to do anything but re-examine the standard model?

[@hellavadeal]

Stepping outside the paradigm is hard to do. It will get ridiculed and no papers will be published until it finally get enough followers to change the views.

[@4n2earth22]

It is no longer "science", but it is a religion called "scientism".

[@asb3pe]

Because they refuse to re-examined their "already proven beyond any doubt" foundational assumptions... What happens when you construct a tall edifice atop a faulty foundation? (Definition: Edifice: An elaborate conceptual structure) Well, everything is fine and dandy, until suddenly one day you get a catastrophic collapse of the entire thing. I pray they realize it before their entire careers are buried in the rubble of that collapse, but I doubt it, seems to be human nature to "stay the course right up until the bitter end".

[@dinf8940]

when your low on the ladder you need to parrot the narrative to get promoted/grants/citations/recognition, and once you are higher youve got too much invested, your work, your frends etc, in fact youve repeated it for so long that you probably convinced yourself hierarchical structures are great, and work fantastic almost anywhere - well, except in science

[@fiddledotgoth]

Sorry if I'm comment bombing a bit here, but I could not find "Tinfoil scholar" in a utube search; shadowbanned or deleted...

[@wchiwinky]

Thank You Dr Robitaille! The gravity of aliens storing nuclear waste in G0 stars is short lived...

[@DaxVJacobson]

Sounds like another job for Dark matter! More magic pixie dust that only lives in places other than our solar system!

[@blarmosanchez2593]

I find your lack of faith DiStUrBiNg

[@mikejones-vd3fg]

Im not a fan of made up particles to fill holes in made up theories, but when you zoom out on the universe it looks like a neural network brain... consciousness cant be measured either, yet it makes atoms move, think to move your mouse, see! an immeasurable force just moved atoms. In that way i can see there dark matter being a thing, perhaps the universes' consciousness which like our own would behave the same way, seemingly immeasurable yet has effects on the real matter.

[@rdlongview83]

@@blarmosanchez2593 LOL!

[@dsm5d723]

They say Dark Energy, I say Unruh(ly)-Weiner Radiation.

[@S730SD]

Well, don't forget the unicorns that harvest pixie dust & transmute it to super flerovium :)

[@sadist71]

as per usual fantastic content. keep up the good work :)

[@alexanderhugestrand]

I'm truly fascinated by your patience with all those people who criticize you. Keep up the good work!

[@SpaceWeatherNewsS0s]

Donde estato Mr. Roboto?

[@trollmcclure1884]

Lolotto!

[@Ozarkprepper643]

@@trollmcclure1884 I think when they repeat it over and over they sound a little robotic LOL

[@kathywinkler9802]

Great discussion! ..... I look forward to your posts!! ..... Thank-you, Sir!!

[@konavader]

Aloha Dr., have a great day.

[@briankerr4512]

cant happen soon enough

[@donaldbest7621]

Here, the Sagan quote says stars were dump sites of aliens, but he completely dismissed Emanuel Velikovsky.

[@Armin777777]

Briliant, as always. Thank you!

[@charlesfarmer9474]

Well done - thank you Dr R. I’m no physicist but I still enjoy scientific discussions.

[@nobodymatters3294]

Always enjoy your videos, thank you.

[@ETALAL]

Thanks Pierre, very interesting presentation. 🙏☮💞🤗👍

[@kristinessTX]

Excellent video. Very informative and interesting. Also, love seeing a know-it-all get put down a peg or two. My son thinks he knows everything and I’m dumb… It just hits home and it’s all very satisfying to watch. Also, I wish people would stop saying “Um, no you’re wrong” and be more respectful to others opinions. At the end of the day, right now you can’t prove who’s right and who’s wrong. Foster discussion-don’t be the annoying know-it-all

[@Nuru_77]

thank you thank you thank you Dr. Robitaille !!

[@adeeperbluegreen]

Please consider Rumble for your content as I will be closing all Google accounts including my subscriptions in KZbin. Again, great content. Keep the debate going as we appear to have stagnation of thought on this topic.

[@steffenritter7497]

Thank you, sir. I was referred to your channel by Suspicious Obseservers, and found your talk, above, to be quite interesting. I don't pretend to understand all that you said, because my formal training is in philosophy (that, and theology, is what I teach, to ministerial students). But I've been fascinated by astronomy since childhood ... I seem to never get enough information.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@midlander4 And you are utter bollocks.

[@jacquelinebrunder2384]

The Safire project has produced lots of strange transmutations as did the simple "cold fusion" (matter unwinding actually) "jam jars" of Pons and Flesichman in the 1980's as proved in numerous labs including Los Alamos during the early 90's.

[@allanroser1070]

Safire has done so through the medium of Condensed Matter.... our old friend the " Lattice"

[@jacquelinebrunder2384]

@@allanroser1070 And what are standing shock waves on the surface of the sun if not a "lattice"?

[@allanroser1070]

@@jacquelinebrunder2384 A Standing Shock Wave? ... a Standing Wave is a Standing Wave .. a Shock Wave is by definition the compressed expanding force from a central point? ... a shock wave with enough energy like that from an underwater nuclear detonation can compress the water around it to momentarily cause the water to produce a lattice as the wave pass's through it but I dont think either of those waves have a physically bonded lattice structure?. If you have material that suggests otherwise I will sure read it.

[@jacquelinebrunder2384]

@@allanroser1070 In matter in a single universe yes but in a hot plasma working in a multi-verse there is more at work. And the standing shockwave is powered by transmutations. If you stick to your one universe blinders view just because you seem to be locked in one you will never understand physics that sees no dimensions only electro-magnetic-spin concept interactions that give rise to a multiverse through partial mirror reactions of said single enfolding electro-magnetic-spin object. The multiverse has no need of dimensions or time only the conceptual interactions of the knots (particles) and fields formed by that constantly enfolding EMS object.

[@allanroser1070]

@@jacquelinebrunder2384 Ok thanks.

[@Sharlenwar]

Aliens? Really? Toxic waste dumped into stars? ***sighs*** And to think science is at hand here. Thanks for your content!

[@bradleysmith2021]

Magic particles that we can’t find, but swear are there?

[@nobodymatters3294]

Fukushima has 3 million Glad bags of nuclear waste to be moved to another planet, we are just waiting for alien contractors to get back to us.

[@davestorm6718]

@@nobodymatters3294 Before the Vogons blow up the Earth to make a hyperspace freeway, lol!

[@Sandude]

Yes, our understanding of planet formation and the age of the universe makes it almost a statistical impossibility that we are the only intelligent species ever to appear in this universe. Still, the possibility that we find another civilization out there is entirely ridiculous.

[@Nekrumorfiini1]

@@Sandude hahaha, look, that guy believes in the big bang! let's all point and laugh!

[@chrismarc4879]

Thanks Sir..

[@ETALAL]

🙏👍☮💞

[@chogardjr.]

lol scientists admit they have a problem 😂 Great Job!

[@jamesa702]

Looks like the boundaries of understanding cosmological parameters is experiencing a bit of Tinkerbell adjustment...

[@stensballe3683]

Thanks for another great video.

[@MagnaMagnanimous]

Very entertaining. You address the alien hypothesis as you do with everything; humility. Oh, and with evidence and references of course. You're an artist of empiricism.

[@primonomeultimonome]

I must have missed the "humility" part...

[@L35inColorado]

"The standard model is true, and it will be defended, even if we have to invent star-based nuclear waste collection sites run by aliens, and that's how science works!"

[@roostertn]

It's settled science...

[@antonmoric1469]

Thank you, Dr. Robitaille, for yet another insightful examination of why the Standard Model theory is as scientifically supported as the theory of spontaneous generation.

[@alfredsutton7233]

It’s time to move beyond the current model. Amen.

[@MG.50]

Be careful with Wikipedia. They are not always accurate, and they claim citations are necessary but put in their own information without citation. We were cautioned in my first research methods course that Wikipedia was NOT an acceptable citaton for peer reviewed papers. However, it is a good starting point for a first broad search during the literature review stage. Just be sure to cross check their articles with several, more scholarly sources.

[@87solarsky]

Also check for signs of "tampering", e.g. censorship / sabotage, etc. Happens all the time on Wikipedia...

[@Michaelmas68]

I’m a fiction writer Wikipedia is a great resource for that, fiction

[@JoseSilveira-newhandleforYT]

Thank you Dr. Robitaille, for another very interesting video and another nail in the coffin of the gaseous model.

[@Ozarkprepper643]

I thought timing was everything. I was first on here yesterday. Not one of knowledgement. The comment was the same that's the one I did today on S.O. , and that received Bunches of responses.

[@JoseSilveira-newhandleforYT]

@@Ozarkprepper643 I guess it is indeed timing. Sometimes good timing is not to be early, but to be ahead of the main group of viewers, that will see the comment at the beginning. I always change the default display for each video to "newest first" and start reading from the bottom, to have a sequential view of the comments.

[@Ozarkprepper643]

@@JoseSilveira-newhandleforYT I shouldn't even really said anyting. I was feeling down, I had someone flipped me off and then flipped me off again and threatening. But they deleted that. Asked them to address me directly with there problem. And someone else jumped on me as if I was the problem. When I said nothing derogatory, that made me pissed because I don't need to be lectured, and I never said anything negative anyway. Then I had someone knocking my religion for absolutely no reason. I don't care about myself but you do not knock my faith. And I'll stand to the death without denying it. Yhey have since deleted the whole post. LOL So you caught a whiny part of me coming out. I was feeling sorry for myself and I apologize. Docial media has its downfalls and I know that. That's why I've stayed off as long as I did. But there are individuals like yourself I enjoy interacting with. Regardless if we don't always see eye-to-eye it makes no difference, we respect each other which is what it's all about. I'm babbling again sorry. Have a good night, your probably about to go to bed. Take care.

[@JoseSilveira-newhandleforYT]

@@Ozarkprepper643 I understand you completely! It's so tempting to be a keyboard warrior, protected by anonymity, that most of these trolls with too much spare time and very little between their ears (except the ready made sentences from their preferred social cult), just can't help it. Impunity is the source of all evils! I believe that attacking someone's religious beliefs in public, is one of the lowest forms of incivility - doesn't matter what one thinks - other people's beliefs are sacred and untouchable!

[@Ozarkprepper643]

@@JoseSilveira-newhandleforYT Thank you my friend.

[@GrizzlyAdams83]

I love your work - keep it up 😎👏🏻

[@paulmoffat9306]

I think that one clue to this mix of elements, is the extremely slow rotation speed. 'Normal' stars have a fairly rapid rotation, that would cause shearing effect in the interior, that would tend to inhibit the 'percolation' of elements in the core reactor to the surface. A slow rotation could bring more to the surface through convective circulation.

[@Nuts-Bolts]

If it was found that Au could be cheaply synthesized by lattice confinement, there would be no shortage of private funding OR better still divert the funding for Dark Matter over to this.

[@davestorm6718]

Some LENR projects have reported the synthesis of palladium from lighter elements. Though they're not exactly sure if it's actual lattice confinement fusion with some "help" (from say X-ray generated charge clusters or neutrinos) and they won't dare say the phrase "cold fusion" - at least not in the US where all researchers are firmly scolded if they even mention anything resembling cold fusion (the research continues in pretty much every other country & new discoveries made continually, however). Potential "violations" of the coulomb barrier are outright rejected by mainstream science and you will be blacklisted to even entertain the notion (sad) that you can break it at far lower energy levels (non-bombardment fusion is blasphemy).

[@dirremoire]

Lattice confinement synthesis will be the defining technology of the letter half of this century.

[@2Hesiod]

Not only does the standard model not work, but the missing mass indicated by the galactic rotation curve probably is within the stars.

[@whgordon6109]

Awesome video Doc. Many Many Thanks!

[@Dan-gs3kg]

Did you bring up the paper about magnetic dust balls? The paper that states that the magnetic field of a star that underwent supernova prevents any of the mass from exiting the star's sphere of influence?

[@BlackMasterRoshi]

I've heard of that one. Do you have a link to the paper?

[@Dan-gs3kg]

@@BlackMasterRoshi `Magnetic Imprisonment of Dusty Pinballs by a Supernova Remnant` or DOI `10.3847/1538-4357/ab86bf`, it's been covered by Suspicious Observer's channel a few times.

[@afshinshahzamani2297]

There is another way of disproving the standard model. It has been nearly 60 years since Przybylski & Morris Kennedy's publication. That is more that 3 half-lives for Promethium's most stable isotope. If Promethium is not formed inside Przybylski's star, a new spectral measurement of the star should show a significantly attenuated intensity peak for Promethium. P.S. The hypothesis that Flerovium 298 or some other stable super-heavy element might be the reservoir for Promethium and the other observed f-block short-lived element is interesting and very exciting. It should be easy to test this hypothesis, and if it is verified, the findings would be of great importance. If there is a stable super-heavy element (e.g. Flerovium 298) in Pryzbylski's star, then it must be present in the star's spectral data, and that should point. The unique spectrum should help us identify the precise isotope, and hence test our understanding of the theoretical Islands of Stability. Dr. Robitaille, I think your hypothesis is more likely to be valid, but the alternative - if true (though doubtful) - would be incredibly exciting.

[@earthbob]

We often overlook that Astrophysicists are people, too.

[@t00by00zer]

Most in the astrophysics community are basically high priests. They have a system based on pure religious fervor and little scientific support.

[@earthbob]

@@t00by00zer Belief versus fact often overlooks the fact that we are limited by our five senses, not enhanced.

[@t00by00zer]

@@earthbob we make up for it by being clever. We already know a lot about the low pressure environment we call space. But instead of going off the data from experiments in that environment, astrophysicists concoct the most ludicrous fantasies to explain their distant observations. Black holes, neutron stars, dark matter . . . all ad-hoc nonsense with nothing of substance to back it up via experimentation.

[@earthbob]

@@t00by00zer Data is like matter, in the sense that it is indestructible. It is how the data is reported that can change it. How are these times much different when Copernicus developed his model independently of Aristarchus of Samos, an ancient Greek astronomer who had formulated such a model some eighteen centuries earlier? Research and development proceeds whether accepted, or not. We continue to acquire, analyze an disseminate. We run it up the flag pole and they either shoot, or salute, facts withstanding.

[@AutoEngineerVideos]

@@earthbob I think you're mistaken about data being indestructible. For instance, when the Hadley Climatic Research Unit was asked for the original, unadjusted temperature data for central England that extends back further than any other temperature data, they sheepishly had to admit that they had destroyed the original manuscripts deleted the computer files that held the compiled data, and nobody had thought to document how and why the individual data points had been adjusted (eliminating the possibility of calculating the original data), so all they had left was the adjusted data. The original data is gone forever: destroyed. Thus, with this one example, it's shown that data can indeed be destroyed. Do you still have the experimental data from your high school physics classes? I suspect not. Where is it? Gone with the paper it was written on: to the recycler, where it's turned into indecipherable mush and turned into new paper? Gone to landfill, where it has rotten and become indecipherable mush? Been burned, turning it into a plasma that we call a flame, then recombining the atoms into CO2, H2O and some dust that we call ash? Sorry to contradict you, but data is indeed very destructible.

[@Horus9339]

Thank you, my eldest loves physics and I am pushing him to see that he could be ahead of the curve if he acknowledges that people like yourself have seen something amiss with science and physics at this present time. The future will tell if he sees me as nothing more than a silly old man.

[@ferebeefamily]

Thank you for the video.

[@jupiterhorizon]

I think you should consider doing a piece on the lanthanide series, particularly the even number lanthanide elements. They have properties that are very interesting. I'm not the best at articulating things. So all I can say, is if you think about it, you'll understand what I am talking about..

[@klikklakis]

It never cease to amaze me that "scientists" and science fiction writers have so much in common. Is it possible that years of isolation in a university environment divorces "scientists" from reality completely.

[@orion3267]

I thought it was already known and proven through the Safire Project that a star can make its own elements?

[@davestorm6718]

While the Safire Project does make its own elements electrostatically, the mainstream rejects that stars could operate in the same fashion (or have components that do) because this would require galactic circuitry (which is claimed to not be observed in space). This is unfortunate.

[@davestorm6718]

@@ianw7898 It does. Look up Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor for details on Inertial Electrostatic Confinement Fusion Reactor (it's certainly a real thing). This is basically what Safire is in certain operational modes (typically 20KV range and higher). It could, like you say, be a scam, but not in this regard.

[@multi_misa72]

Allways makes my day to se new video, thank you doc.

[@jeanwalke6015]

This is one of the best of all the channels on UTube. I can name few others. Not having the background to support understanding a large portion of what is discussed, it is still amazing what I have learned by merely watching.

[@penguinuprighter6231]

You haven't learned anything. But you like the anti establishment narrative.

[@gregoryturner1505]

Excellent.

[@KZgun4hire]

Another interesting observation is the binary star Wolf Rayet 140 which has two gaseous stars interacting with each other in such a way that they produce dust (somehow out of gas). What process causes two gaseous bodies to create non gaseous dust?

[@KZgun4hire]

More dust. Apparently the dimming of Betelgeuse was caused by the gaseous sun emitting a cloud of dust. Really what kind of elements would constitute that dust? What kind of a gaseous star model would allow for the creation of dust. Some gas dust or bull dust more likely!

[@bjh3661]

Epic. As always.

[@LouisHansell]

I wrote a paper for school proving that aliens stored nuclear waste on stars. But the dog ate my homework.

[@Ozarkprepper643]

Now that truly is too bad. Thank of the career you could have had pushing propaganda. LOL ✌️🤠

[@Ozarkprepper643]

Now that truly is too bad. Thank of the career you could have had pushing propaganda. LOL ✌️🤠

[@robertfox506]

LOL the aliens did it. These are our scientists!

[@adeeperbluegreen]

...and we pay them with our tax dollars.

[@garyedwards5345]

It has as much validity as any other explanation.

[@eu29lex16]

@@adeeperbluegreen We pay them to chase leprecauns, and the same people promote atheism and wanna look smart by doing just that.

[@eu29lex16]

@佐藤謙二 I think so.

[@Nathan-op5nm]

Always love your rational approach to astronomy DR. Robitaille! I would be curious on your view on star "nurseries" or "birthed" stars! In other words with the current model that you are proposing(instead of the standard model) can stars be "birthed" out of plasma and gas or would they have to be made in place or "as they are"? Do you have a view on this?

[@dosomething3]

Whatever alternate explanation we have, needs to account for the fact that we find these elements on only one star.

[@summerbrooks9922]

LSD in a spectral lab?

[@KaliFissure]

I’ve worked out a topology and cosmology which is actually all based around thermodynamics and what I would call the Ricci vortex that we live in. I the stumbling block for you in accepting will be the non Euclidean geometry.

[@JamesHolben]

"years of exciting research ahead..." No doubt Dr.Robitaille...with you leading the pack.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@midlander4 And yet you still watch this publication. Love it.

[@wesspence]

Just beautiful!

[@WildVke]

Thank you Dr. @Sky Scholar

[@tomnoyb8301]

Super-stable atoms that decay in minutes? Why not super-volatile elements with 10^9 yr half-lives?

[@gert4754]

Txs Dr. Reality :)

[@Ozarkprepper643]

Doctor reality I like that😉✌️✌️

[@joshuarich7527]

Bump for the Algorithm...great video as always ..

[@4n2earth22]

Not at all unlike a baby's smile..... "It must be gas".

[@dirremoire]

Usually, I'm one of the first to say "It's aliens!", but in this case, it ain't aliens.

[@Kenzofeis]

If we dumped 8000 tons of Pu into Sol, would it even be detectable from an interstellar distance?

[@dirremoire]

I wouldn't do it. I think that would be a violation of EPA regulations.

[@bretthess6376]

No.

[@paulstanek156]

What about element 115

[@capttrinity9668]

Could the star be forming new elements in its core or on its surface in the extreme plasma environment. Even our own sun could be brewing elements there itself.

[@fredfarquar7679]

Indeed, did you not hear the good doctor say that all the known elements have been found in the solar wind?😊👍

[@LecherousLizard]

Turns out Giorgio Tsoukalos was right and it was, in fact, "Aliens!" all along

[@thisoldditty]

Thank You

[@dsm5d723]

Aliens = we have no more RATIONAL MATHEMATICAL bullshit. All of them are doing it now. Thank you very much sir.

[@michaelc424]

I was startled to see the intro screen-shot intro to this video. On the right it looked like an alien, even perhaps a grey. Am I right, is that a pic of Ian? Inquiring minds want to know Pierre, how did you capture that image of Ian? How hard did you have to parse the data to obtain that image? It looks like an alien, it quakes like an alien, it must be Ian. And Pierre you honestly do not have a clue how to deal with the entrenched and wrong cosmological pundits. Yes I agree that family is more important than most anything, but truth is more important than everything. I am still a big fan of your videos.

[@guytech7310]

Question: I presume it difficult to measure small trace elements in stars with normal rotation speeds, and the super heavy elements are only detectable because of Prybylski's star rotates extremely slowly? Are there any other slow rotating stars that can used for an additional data point? Thanks

[@erasethepatterns1]

Off topic question... If all stars have number like HD101065 aka Przybylski's Star, then what is, if we have, the number or designation for our Sun? Or what about Saturn? It used to pull up on Aladin sky survey but not for a long time now. I know these type question are frowned upon by those who decide what's allowed but F'them.

[@humanitech]

Perhaps the main problem and paradox of the standard model and it's ongoing position is that it initially was/is founded on a theoretical maths hypothesis, put forward when real data at best was very limited. But it got quickly accepted, gaining more and more followers and credibility....Simply by seeming to a be a neat, logical and tidy mathematical hypostasis and solution.. So it was quickly considered and promoted to be the truth by mainstream.. However the irony is, that the truth of the cosmos remains out there... to be fully explored, observed and verified, and our technology has evolved and is getting far more advanced, accurate and focused. Therefore irrespective of what we have oreviously theorised or believed... it is inevitable that our ongoing technological advancement will eventually reveal and confirm the real actual processes of the great eternal cosmic recycling factory...and No, we'll never know for sure when it started or when it will finish - because it potentially doesn't have a start nor will it ever finish or end. Science should just be happy about researching and reporting on what is observable... but sometimes it seems they are becoming more and more like priests... blindly defending questionable theories, or fighting eachother... rather than collaborating to get closer to the truth...and not fudge the evidence and data or worse invent more and more abstract things that might not even be there. Funnily in both science and religion there should be no shame in trying but getting things wrong.. But typically with humans it becomes a dogmatic game, to dismiss, ridicule or belittle eachother.. like kids in the playground. This in science is a shameful behaviour - especially when choosing to either be selective or fudge or hide data, or continue to defend or maintain lies and contraditions - when the evidence both questions, suggests or confirms the need to look more laterally and collectively. Humans seem to like to make everything into a stupid competitions...which is our biggest ongoing failing.

[@aquarionh2o132]

I think it’s also time for cosmology and solar physicists to acknowledge the cyclical nature of Nova events on stars, be they binary or not. These nova events can be of varying magnitudes raging from super flare to super nova, with that latter being exceedingly rare.

[@summerbrooks9922]

What about a mini-nova? I understand that it remains a thing.

[@aquarionh2o132]

@@summerbrooks9922 Yes. Agreed.

[@russhensel]

When you have some theory, that you can support, and that overturns so much of "established" physics you can usually count on a lot of discussion in the big physics journals. Often this is followed by a Nobel. Can someone tell us how things are coming on these 2 fronts?

[@stevenunua2118]

HOW can there only be 35k subscribers so sad

[@crazy8sdrums]

There are people that have a fuller, more accurate cosmology that explains such phenomena, but inside such cosmology is a 'secret' that could break the brains of most people on Earth. They will not relinquish control of the people for the sake of a better understanding of the Universe.

[@observingcreation7826]

Dr. Robitaille, is it possible for a high pressure system to* exist adjacent to a low pressure system without a physical barrier?

[@bipolatelly9806]

"aliens stole the whisky" Husband to wife..... tomorrow.

[@craigcampbell7638]

I love it

[@infinateU]

....THANKS dave.

[@francis5518]

I love this!!!!

[@dm95b]

If it takes 30,000 years for core heat to reach the surface how can there be heavy elements with short half lives at the surface?

[@peterdambier]

I am glad they did not come up with the logical: This star does not exist at all. We are looking at a mirror image of our own star and the aliens are us getting rid of our waste in the sun. Time is no problem if that mirror was made out of Dark Matter reflecting not from back in time but from the future. Just matter of definition. Easier than HEAVY elements :) Made my day. Thank you.

[@AusFin316]

Robitalle Solar Model deemed safe for public consumption 😁👍

[@BigNewGames]

According to the laws of conservation energy converts into elementary particles upon coming to rest, m=E/c², see pair production theory. So why can't all the elements be made in the solar wind, not entirely produced by the star itself but in combination with the energy of other stars mixing and or adding to the energy coming from the star? Energy cannot be destroyed. But it can be converted into elementary particles. This would explain why short lived particles appear to be coming from stars even though the stars are billions of years old.

[@fredfarquar7679]

It IS all connected through electricity and magnetism, but I feel the influence of other stars and the galactic or cosmic medium would be far too tenuous to have any significant effect on the production of elements in a given star. It would be more logical that the elements are made through the individual star's intense fields in the photosphere and corona.

[@BigNewGames]

@TheRealVerbz So you're saying that after the big bang that energy did not eventually convert into matter? The laws of conservation between matter and energy contradict your opinions.

[@BigNewGames]

@TheRealVerbz And also remember according to Stephen Hawking, virtual particles emerge from a black hole just outside it's event horizon because of their gravitational energy. And then there's pair production theory too.

[@BigNewGames]

@TheRealVerbz You forgot the most common observations that contradict general relativity's predictions on the motion/trajectory of mass, dark matter and dark energy.

[@BigNewGames]

@TheRealVerbz I agree, there was no big bang.

[@pedrosura]

You have to love the irony with Sagan. When presented with people that claim to witness aliens and their spaceship, Sagan said “ nutjobs, delisional, crazy, mentally unstable, in need of mental therapy”. When comfronted with a space oddity Sagan is like “Aliens did it!”!!! PS. If our Sun is currently making heavier elements, why cant we detect them? But instead detect them in a Star almost 400 light years away?

[@tirlonburke9875]

why is it not possible that a neutron star and the visible star "merged"?

[@OolaHula]

If nuclear waste was shot into the sun, would it absorb or redirect the waste back into the solar system with the solar wind & CME's?

[@sc2543]

Sun diving nuclear comet 🚀⚡☀⚡🛡

[@Ricca_Day]

Institutionalized Science is no less a Certified Priesthood than any other institution of the mortal mind. Sadly, high intelligence is no inoculation for hubris, just as Science, not being approached Scientifically offers little hope of help for the future of its own members.

[@ebrelus7687]

Problem came from commercialisation and popularization of science to general public and this part of it that despite not having basic qualifications was put in universities. Too many arrogant ppl above created too many arrogant ppl below lured to think they are above too... Institutions & centralization happens everywhere but it isn't always lacking meritocracy. After WW2 science did "own shit" nonbothered, well except medical... That was already highjacked. Now even most critical mathematic branches got infected. Science was made for truth but now is made to manipulate ppl & project alternative reality to make money & get fame.

[@Ricca_Day]

@@ebrelus7687 Brilliant summation. Couldn’t agree more. It’s a tragic turn against actual Knowledge, being a fabricated set of systems that are only “devoted” to proving falsely postulated premises, far more often than not. Having been involved with both collegiate and postgraduate “Higher Education” for the better part of my life, I feel this betrayal of Truthful pursuits quite keenly. It’s hard to see that those things that are presented as “Truth” are just the latest opinions of individuals in positions of power, who are so heavily financially invested in their own propaganda that they are utterly incapable of speaking sincerely. Blessings 🌷

[@ebrelus7687]

@@Ricca_Day Well said. This snowballed since 1970 systematically. I feel privileged to deviate from mainstream flow of things by a chance (paradoxaly on university but more thanks to internet & opening up to broader english space & a by definition nonmainstream freedom movement which questions very foundations, looking source & origin of things being as they are). It's an interesting experience because it's usually joining a nonstandard company. The usual path is to sink into common flow without questioning anything, incorporating yourself into environment to fit into social "laws of physics", becoming a spineless comformist - where the fastest adaptation means smooth progression on the system's ladder, in process of the race forgetting true values in life. Usually those breaking free are somehow rejected from the bubble, damaged by it, sometimes just randomly without any good reason, left confused. Some are lucky to have a smart parents or learning on somebody else's errors/sacrifices. That's why it's so important to appreciate similar ppl, despite them often walking on a thin line of too far alternativeness. The honest truth seeking, no matter what it objectively represents is something that connects us best. And straightens our paths. It's not about fighting the system wasting energy but building our own space & foundations with strong healthy uncorrupted principles, sometimes that gut compass too. So that others had a place to restart & recover too. Greetings.

[@louisvictor3473]

Generally, I think it is a mistake to completely ignore extraa terrestrial intelligence as part of an explanation... But it shouldnt be something you evoke just to try to add yet another patch to cover yet another hole in a model that already looks like pure patchwork. But I guess, in the present global society in which attention is currency in the market place of ideas, combined with academia's and academics' hubris, even acknowledging that other models might have something of value is giving attention alway from themselves, and they can't have that - development of human knowledge be damned.

[@davestorm6718]

I disagree. It's probably the safest thing to do - ignore the ET explanation. Based on the trillions/quadrillions of tons (think planetary mass levels) of "dumping" that would be required to - continually - replenish a star with these elements, so they could even be detected. The "alien dumping" idea is patently absurd on this point alone.

[@davestorm6718]

The neutron star "feedstock" idea is equally absurd as a star of such type is not going to give up it's mass magically to anything less massive (at least not continually nor without an external collision).

[@louisvictor3473]

@@davestorm6718 I like how you try to oppose my general point with the specific example that I gave as a case of "not like this though" and sees no contradiction. It is almost as if, for a reason or another, you missed what I actually said entirely, but responded anyway.

[@davestorm6718]

@@louisvictor3473 - Not trying to confuse, but I disagree with ANY alien explanation (wholly or partly) - and was clarifying for others as to why - based on the obscene amount of matter that would have to be injected (regardless of the means) into a star for us to see it from where we are. Not trying to dis anyone.

[@louisvictor3473]

​@@davestorm6718 Again, this explanation of this particular example that you're listing doesn't go against anything I said. I literally pointed out it is bad one, a mere (proposed) patch to the standard model. It is not about dising anyone, it is that you're trying to disagree with something I supposedly said while using something inherently implied in what I said - it just doesn't compute.

[@captainsensible298]

when 95% of astrophysicists have based their entire career on certain "assumptions" instead of seeking truth the result is if they don't believe it they won't see it. The old adage "if I hadn't seen it I wouldn't believe it" can be re written "if I didn't believe it I wouldn't have seen it". The assertion the traditional model is flawed is akin to attacking their entire belief system. There is no point in trying to change opinions, we move on regardless.

[@mykulpierce]

Seems rather absurd that they propose the theoretical island of stable heavy elements would have such extreme half lives without being already detected in our solar system or on Earth. Astrophysics seems like a series of shortcuts on speculation with absurd amount of funding.

[@keesdevos4816]

Aliens regularly adding promotheum?

[@ebrelus7687]

Probably since watching Prometheus movie but most of them are born on earth :-)

[@johnlord8337]

There needs to be a consideration in the electro-static (ES) and electro-gravitic (EG) model of the stellar engine. The photosphere fuses Hydrogen into Helium up to Iron. The chromosphere fuses Nickel up to the highest of elements. As shown by others looking at the corona holding region of elements (within the greater Meissner force field), there were (said) 67 elements (previous Sky Scholar videos). The very reason WHY some stars SHOW these long-lived elements in their corona, while others DO NOT should be more looked at. As to this research, it goes to the very solar mass of each star (i.e. corrected Herzsprung-Russell-Lord chart), with such sub-solar mass stars (dwarf stars etc), and to which star masses such higher Lanthanide and Actinide series of elements could be made in the chromosphere, and then reside in the corona, ... or be so heavy that they literally are blown away from the corona by the "solar wind !" Thus, we might NOT SEE higher radiactive elements in more active stars with a higher solar wind, versus lazy stars and lower solar wind retaining some of their higher elements in their coronas. This brings out the point that the stellar engine, depending on sub-solar, solar, or supra-solar masses could make the entire periodic table of elements, and that one can't just take a snapshot of a star, and say they have this - and not this in their fusion processes. Sherlock Holmes - Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. In the same measure, just because YOU can't find these many other fused elements in the corona or chromosphere, doesn't mean they are not being made, but that you can't track their production and emission from the stellar engine. It is entirely possible that the sub-solar mass engines can only produce UP TO a certain level of elements, while bigger solar mass engines can perform the entire fusion process. How active those smaller stellar engines (weak or strong) and supra-stellar engines (weak or strong) conduct their fusion processes ... and their solar winds. This would dictate what is seen (or not seen) as artifacts from its production in the corona. Any consideration of claimed accretionary theory of high-level elements coming from earlier generations of stellar engines and their (super)novas making these higher fusion elements, doesn't admit that such a current stellar engine could and did make them. With the new studies of the 5 levels of tensor boson force carriers as the additional energy currents (gravitational and electrical force overcoming the Coulomb Barrier) as the actual non-thermal fusion activity of the stelalr engine, this dictates that the fusing the 2 nucleus and the 2 electron shells together, must then take back their energies in the force carrier currents to another fusion of elements elsewhere, leaving the steady state newly fused element. Tensor boson force carriers are the hidden (and missing) portions of fusion, that answer up to 31 different unanswered problems across all of the disparate physics sectors that the Standard Model can't (or won't) explain.