The Second Solar Spectrum and The Enigmatic Sodium D1 Line

[@beebop9808]

The quest for honest science is never a bad venture. A hard road traveled when narratives are created to support desired results and funding becomes the laboratory. You're a good man Doc.

[@beebop9808]

Anger and hate clouds perspective and breeds error in results and judgement.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@ianw5439 "Typical crackpot word salad." Dr. All Knowing, please tell us where Dr. R. goes off the rails.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@DrWhom "quest for honest science is never a bad venture - true, but this channel, not so much" Where might that be that Dr. R. is wrong? Oh, again, you confess you have no point. Why waste your time here? Who made you cartel gatekeeper?

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@ianw5439 "As does being a creationist nutjob, with a religious agenda, and with no idea about even basic physics. Why do you think this loon only exists on youtube, and is only followed by the hard of thinking? Hmmm?" Wrong on all accounts as usual. You have no idea who is watching this channel and taking note. You believe in Creationism more than Dr. Robitaille by all accounts. The Big Bang is a made up theory by a Catholic Priest with absolutely no evidence to back it up.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@DrWhom "just reminding you of your silliness and what you really are. Keeping it real" Your hold on reality is barely real.

[@asdf8asdf8asdf8asdf]

Quite aside from any conclusions (or agreement/disagreement therewith) we all have to be impressed the epic endurance and diligence that goes into researching these videos

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@DrWhom "no, we do not" How would you know. You have not contributed a single thing of importance to science.

[@JamesHolben]

absolutely

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@DrWhom " I always though that money came out of his own pocket, which I thought both foolish and admirable, but it seems much more likely that it came out of the creationist war chest" There you go again with inconsistency. The Big Bang is creationism. There is no evidence that all matter in an infinite universe can be squashed down to nothing and explode into existence. Complete nonsense unless you believe in a Creator. Which you unwittingly do. There is no Big Bang. Only credentialed Big Bang idiots believe in magical thinking.

[@KennethKustren-lr6tg]

@D-bag .... You came to this channel to troll . You have no knowledge to share, and Your opine is just as useful as Your INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER giving You access . A total waste .

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@DrWhom "when did I ever mention the Big Bang? we were talking about who was insane enough to put up the money for Mr R's insane actions" Then you missed the point. Which is kind of your thing. Always missing the point. Never having an argument. Just classless insults.

[@kevinkeys3556]

Where is professor Dave now??? This is brilliant and insightful video created by a real scientist, Dr. Robitaille.

[@kevinkeys3556]

@@DrWhom professor dave..... Is that you.....are you hiding in disguise, again????? Because we all know professor dave is the biggest Fanboy of the Sky Scholar channel.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@DrWhom "I guess he's doing fine with real science, while you cheer on claptrap?" Ha haa! At least you Kettle Boys are consistent. Never having any point to make. You either didn't watch the video or you can't follow it. Which is it?

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@DrWhom "paranoia is another common crackpot affliction" Why are you here? Dr. R. is a crackpot as you say. He will fade away. You are the paranoid one trying to save your reputation built on magical construction blocks.

[@kevinkeys3556]

@@DrWhom WOW!!!! I thought you were going to call me a flat Earther. The question I have is why do you watch or even comment on a channel like this. Sitting in your high palace of academic brilliance. Just to belittle people or the content??? I think you have a itchy brain but your to scared to even contemplate other theories to relieve it. Maybe an evil person who goes around scratching their backside in disbelief. Stop scratching that part and open your mind up a little. Oh such a brilliant scientist with all the answers aren't you. Give me a break B.S dave.

[@kevinkeys3556]

@@ianw5439How many accounts do you have, P dave????

[@MrSkypelessons]

Another great lesson. Thanks, Dr. Robitaille. You have an excellent way of communicating complex ideas.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@midlander4 Poor Midlander, you useless, lazy, incompentet troll. The point of this video is that Stenflo did not consider chemistry in his experiment. Because of that, he was even willing to change quantum mechanics! But potassium dimers exist and so do argon-potossium molecules! This again shows that astronomers don't know what they are talking about. Unlike Dr. Robitaille, they know no chemistry and as a result continue to come up with nonsense. More magical thinking. Go back to your Harry Potter books.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@ianw5439 "Only if you don't understand physics. Like him." Oooooo, good one Dr. Kettle. I see you are giving yourself the lone thumbs up you are so desperate to be relevant. You are defending magical thinking. Good for you.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@ianw5439 "Only if you don't understand physics. Like him." Do you honestly believe anyone gives a flying fudge about what you have to say? Go find something useful to do with your life. All of your idiot comments have not stopped Pierre's channel from growing and the word getting out on what a sad sorry state astrophysics is in.

[@kimberleebrackley2793]

Always a pleasure Dr.Robitaille. Keep kicking the bs out of your way, we need more people unafraid to step out of the mainstream. Keep well and thank you

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@midlander4 "Hey Kimberley! Thanks for telling us you don't have a science degree" Really? That's your answer whenever someone new posts here. They don't have a science degree! You are seriously dull. You can't even think of something interesting to insult with. Just the same tired one. And again, no scientific point in sight.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@DrWhom "stepping out of the mainstream is fine... but you gotta mind what you step into!" Gerardus, you are so far outside your lane and have so little understanding of what Dr. Robitaille is talking about, you are the last person that should be criticizing anyone. You, Midlander and Ian, the Kettle Brothers.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@DrWhom "talking about vacuous insults..." It got you to respond. Having another night alone...

[@JamesHolben]

You continue to dispel the centuries of bad science....for which we will always be grateful Doc.

[@JamesHolben]

@@DrWhom Negative Nancy strikes again!

[@bushmangrizz4367]

​@@midlander4 Poor Midlander, you useless, lazy, incompentet troll. The point of this video is that Stenflo did not consider chemistry in his experiment. Because of that, he was even willing to change quantum mechanics! But potassium dimers exist and so do argon-potossium molecules! This again shows that astronomers don't know what they are talking about. Unlike Dr. Robitaille, they know no chemistry and as a result continue to come up with nonsense. More magical thinking. Go back to your Harry Potter books.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@JamesHolben "Negative Nancy strikes again!" Wow. Insightful. How does Gerardus, the living human garbage can do it?

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@DrWhom "he does not, and we will not" And again, another useless point. Excuse me, no point.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@ianw5439 "Where did that happen? He is just another unqualified youtube crackpot." Why do you concern yourself with a crackpot that no one is listening to? Because you are losing and you are mental.

[@Larry_Druhall]

Thank you. I, and others, sincerely appreciate you meaningful and powerful videos. My hope is that you can continue to gift us with these videos. Thanks again.

[@Larry_Druhall]

@@midlander4 Your comment contains two errors. But you appear to think you "know" many things somehow, including my degrees? You can have the last word(s) here. All the best to you.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@Larry_Druhall Larry, you are taking the correct course to ignore these bastards. But I love pointing out to them that they never have a valid point. It's just school kid insults and not very good ones at that.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@midlander4 "you've just confirmed what I said. Stick to making music instead of pretending to understand physics, ok mate?" Calling the kettle black again, you useless human garbage. Never a scientific point. Who has no science degree? And if you have one, it has not served you well.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@DrWhom "If you have any qualifications in science, you ought to be very very disappointed with yourself" Says they guy who couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@ianw5439 "Irony, much? Lol. How are you creating stars again? Silence." LOL. Repetition much. Same stupid comments. Gases do not collapse in on themselves. Go read a high school chemistry text book.

[@EthanA1122]

"Boy",...I say to myself as I sit and listen to this latest installment, "wouldn't it be so much fun to understand every aspect of what Dr. Robitaille is discussing?" And then I bring myself back down to Earth! If I were as studied as he, then I would only end up competing with him for his position at Ohio State University. Luckily for him and I, my experience in life has been different. However, I do find the conclusions fascinating. And I absolutely do understand the conclusions and their implications...this is what is important to me! Thank you sir for your integrity! Thank you sir for reaching out to us who some would say do not deserve your wisdom. And thank you sir for lifting up the truth as a beacon by which we may steer!

[@infinateU]

@@midlander4 a!aaaaahahaha! Wat, is bill nye the science guy still popularly accepted? Or is he now "alienated" considering all the evidence on main stream media pertaining to the existance of intelligent extraterrestrials?

[@JoeDeglman]

Plasma Physics 101 is previously known as Bob Smith. He and Ian W claim to be a plasma experts, but both are amateurs at best, and both are wanna bee, but they have shown some signs that they have learned a minimal or mediocre amount about plasma physics. The standard model is indeed a load of crap. 'The impact of multi-fluid effects in the solar chromosphere on the ponderomotive force under LTE and NEQ ionization conditions' arXiv 2211.09361 "The chromosphere is where high FIP elements remain neutral while low FIP elements are ionized. It is here that chemical fractionation in the solar atmosphere must begin. Observations suggest that neutral elements remain well mixed with hydrogen, while ionized elements are preferentially pushed upwards (Meyer 1985; Feldman 1992; Testa 2010; Testa et al. 2015)"

[@JoeDeglman]

Robitaille's main point seems to be that these electron transitions can only occur due to chemical reactions, which must occur in the solar atmosphere and mainly in the chromosphere. Other studies on these transitions show that they occur during electric current flow in chemical mixtures, etc. There are in fact peer-reviewed articles, regarding the chromosphere, to this effect, on arXiv. Chemical fractionation must occur in the chromosphere where particles are ionized and propelled out of the chromosphere by ponderomotive force and by First Ionization Potential. The problem isn't due to a lack of good data. But the attempt to fit the data to the standard model is the problem.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@midlander4 "You do realize he's a total grifter and a joke with actual scientists? You didn't?" Again, clueless as ever as to what "actual" scientists think.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@ianw5439 "Not strictly true! He is a joke amongst those who have actually heard of him. The vast majority won't have!" Now now, Ian Braveheart. We know that you and plasma physics 101 are the same person. Oh my, you worry so. If he is a joke why waste your time on the site? Because you know you are losing. But cheer up, it's all for the good. BTW, still believe gases can collapse in on themselves and defy the laws of thermodynamics? Still believe that gaseous suns can support transverse waves? Still "believe" in the Creationist Big Bang Theory by a Catholic priest? I thought so.

[@senseibear2436]

Thank-you Professor! I am so grateful for these classes on the most relevant and up-to-date (updated now) concepts in solar physics. I strongly recommend to anyone who hasn't studied them, to hit up the playlists on this channel - the more fundamental the topic the better. Wonderfully presented study material it is... xx

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@ianw5439 "He hasn't got a clue about solar physics. Or any other sort of physics. That is why this laughable dross only exists on youtube." Sure, sure, Plasma Physics 101. You keep repeating the mantra. Says the guy who thinks gases can collapse in on themselves. And believes Catholic priests who invent the Big Bang literally with no scientific basis and then you call everyone else religious crackpots. Aren't you kind of clueless to see the obvious starring you in the face?

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@DrWhom "and is applauded by rubes" Isn't that what the cartel journals do? The blind leading the blind, especially in astrophysics.

[@xkguy]

@@ianw5439 ...or...solar physics ignores spectroscopy...please explain your answers.

[@davestorm6718]

@@ianw5439 Spectroscopy does not actually tell us the Sun is completely gaseous. Spectroscopy is a very broad field of study and certainly not confined to gases. Spectroscopy also does not actually tell us the temperature of the sun - it depends on the wavelengths you consider, the specific elements & specific molecules that absorb or emit photons (and which electron orbitals, and external effects), the calculations you choose and a lot of scientific consensus (standards), which can be off by orders of magnitude (this is why, historical papers concerning the temp of the photosphere, chromosphere & corona have varied wildly over the years - even the Parker probe is getting readings way off). Thermodynamics of plasma systems is extremely complex (hell, there are STILL disagreements on the temperature of a simple hot electrode in arc furnaces and simple electrodeless discharge lamps - why calorimeters are used to confirm real temperatures of any system vs a spectral analysis, which is unreliable). Robitaille is certainly not clueless about spectroscopy (you don't greatly improve MRI imaging, like he did, w/o a very strong background in this area - specifically radio-spectroscopy). Your comment about him being a creationist is completely unfounded (but nice try, albeit weak-minded attempt to discredit someone - though, you probably got that from RationalWiki - the smear campaign Wiki to discredit any scientist that does not follow mainstream dogma - which, in and of itself, is anti-science and more akin to religion. The same Wiki with authors that support incredibly stupid ideas like solar roadways, hyperloops, space elevators, tritium fusion reactors, and other nonsense). When you can head up a major department at a university for over a decade with tangible results, then, perhaps you can smear all you want. But I don't believe you have any credentials of any merit, nor any inventions, to your name. Do you? What university? Any patents? Have you ever truly challenged anything that you've been taught?

[@keithnorris6348]

Great work Dr Robitaille, always a joy to hear your analysis. I think the only way forward at that lab level is to perform the same experiment with an sequence of nobel gases. We deserve it, we are worth it, as indeed is the subject. Looking forward to your next revelations God bless you and your work.

[@JoeDeglman]

'The impact of multi-fluid effects in the solar chromosphere on the ponderomotive force under LTE and NEQ ionization conditions' arXiv 2211.09361 "The chromosphere is where high FIP elements remain neutral while low FIP elements are ionized. It is here that chemical fractionation in the solar atmosphere must begin. Observations suggest that neutral elements remain well mixed with hydrogen, while ionized elements are preferentially pushed upwards (Meyer 1985; Feldman 1992; Testa 2010; Testa et al. 2015)"

[@KennethKustren-lr6tg]

@D-bag .... PLS .... LEAVE US A LINK TO ALL OF THE PAPERS THAT YOU HAVE HAD WHICH HAVE PASSED PEER REVIEW ... W8N 4IT .

[@justinfalzon6854]

You are a rockstar. ❤

[@justinfalzon6854]

@@ianw5439 He's way too smart to be one of those replaceable piston rods you call professor. One repays their teacher poorly if they always remain a student.

[@justinfalzon6854]

@@DrWhom Yeah, like Fauci. Who lies to the face of PhD Senator that they don't know what 'gain of function' is. We do. You're lying. LoL.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@ianw5439 "He may be. He sure as hell isn't a physicist." Ooooo, Ian, that one cut to the core. How many times have you repeated that now - at least a few hundred, maybe a thousand? You are boring and incompetent.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@DrWhom "there's always a sense of chip on shoulder with cranks" Says the guy who hides behind a pseudonym and can never make a scientific argument. You don't even watch the videos. You are as useless and mental as Ian.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@ianw5439 "He is a creationist clown who is physics-illiterate. Why do you think this crap only exists on youtube?" The Big Bang is the ultimate Creationist fabrication and you believe in it.

[@Goalsplus]

Great work again.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@midlander4 "How would you know? You're not a scientist, so why does anyone care what you think about a universally derided KZbin charlatan?" Mr. Kettle, everyone is wondering the same about you. Clearly, a nonscientist as you never have a point.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@DrWhom "his point seems pretty clear to me" If you like magical thinking, of course it would.

[@martinsoos]

When the issue isn't the issue. Thank you for helping change the process of proof.

[@whgordon6109]

Excelent Presentation! Many Thanks

[@Devast8r34]

Thank you Dr. Robitaille

[@carlubambi5541]

Great explanation

[@chrisstevens2]

Loved the thumbnail!

[@briankerr4512]

I don't understand a darn thing you said ... I'm still happy to watch ... if only for the conclusion

[@johnsmith-fr3sx]

The support for the dogma is paramount. That is the message being sent loud and clear by Stenflo and other such "physicists".

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@midlander4 "What the af are you talking about?" If you have to ask more proof you are clueless.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@midlander4 "and Sky Scholar's clueless worshippers without science degrees can't spell "dissent". There you have it..." Right, the fact someone makes a typo proves the point about all things magical in astrophysics. Focus of the small irrelevant details, never make a point, and hopefully the ignorant masses won't notice. Sorry, Bucko, more and more people are noticing astrophysicists are scientific incompetents. Collapsing gases, ripples on the surface of the Sun, ridiculous Big Bangs by a Catholic priest no less. And you wonder why people like Dr. Robitaille are calling you out. Surprise!

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@DrWhom "now you've misspelled midlander... anyway, he works with satellites and understands SR, well, yes, he would have to, wouldn't he?" And another troll with absolutely nothing useful to say.

[@asdf8asdf8asdf8asdf]

I think they're either out of business (or have gone silent while they go for patents and protection) but a lot of this plasma electric solar element work may have some useful answers over at the Safire project

[@lmwlmw4468]

Great video Dr...!!!

[@Mrch33ky]

@@DrWhom Provide the necessary proofs for your assertion or shut ye olde trap.

[@justsayin3553]

Pump up the volume! ✨ ATP

[@jasonmorello1374]

From a few side segments, I also seem to hear that the likely magnetic and electric effects of moving plasma at rather significant speed are given no account as well, and to your points on chemistry issues, electricity allows for some pretty strange chemistry to occur in our local earth reference, I cannot begin to guess what thousands of times the amounts would have at plasma state levels. Though it definitely raises question with astrophysical modeling, it also shows an arrogance that energies we are not seeing are not changing, thru coherent re emission and variety of other mechanics known to pull blocks of emission fully out of view, but in this case the dynamic nature of a swirling plasma makes so much of this nearly rainfall on a pond levels of complexity.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@ianw5439 "Complete gibberish." Why are you here then?

[@MrGrimv1G]

keep up the good work!

[@konradcomrade4845]

14:01 additional argument: wouldn't a strongly accelerated Na_atom (pushed by a moving magnetic field) give rise to, and/or enable the optical transitions and polarisations, that are so hard to explain for an atom, which is at rest or moves at slow speeds?

[@asdf8asdf8asdf8asdf]

If not already familiar you might find the work of Vivian Robinson (and his affiliation with the quantum bicycle group) to be helpful here. Viv has some very accurate nuclear models and his work critically fundamentally and irrevocably depends on the proper analysis of momentum both atomic and nuclear.

[@asdf8asdf8asdf8asdf]

@@DrWhom irrevocable -. "in a way that cannot be changed or reversed".

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@DrWhom ""irrevocably" - I don't think you know what that means" Who cares what you think. You are dull and never have anything interesting to say.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@DrWhom "close enough! now ponder the sense of the locution "irrevocably depends on analysis"" Go pound salt, Shakespeare.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@DrWhom "you seem perturbed" You seem dull.

[@jnhrtmn]

I lose it at "spin". The word is not appropriate for what it is in modern physics. I think that there is a mechanism for what they call spin, but spin has become just another mnemonic device like a law or constant but with a variable quantity. Describing what you see it do is not an understanding. No one wants their paradigm to be the impossible wrong one, but I am applauding this effort. I love this!

[@jnhrtmn]

@@DrWhom Look at my explanation for the "cause" of the gyroscopic effect. Analogous math descriptions can miss causality completely, and the scientific method don't care as long as the analogous and wrong description is "consistent." Cause is reality. Analogy is not reality.

[@jnhrtmn]

@@DrWhom If you understood the "cause" of the gyroscopic effect, you would see that you can make a gyro with straight-lined velocities. Mnemonic devices didn't do that for you. Everything after the right-hand rule (mnemonic device) is BS or accidentally correct. Even Maxwell's equations use a cross product, and a cross product turns numbers perpendicular for no physical reason. At that point, you've lost touch with reality, so "why" are electricity and magnetism perpendicular to each other? That part is missed, and a consistent "description" remains. It only gets goofier from here.

[@jnhrtmn]

@@DrWhom You did not look at my latest video. If you think angular momentum created what is known as the gyroscopic effect, you will be elevated. If not, give it up.

[@jnhrtmn]

@@DrWhom OH YEAH, you are the rote memory follower. You are helping make my point, thanks.

[@jnhrtmn]

@@DrWhom Using your scientific method, aliens would describe a school bus with math from far away. That math would say, "The wheels on the bus go round and round." That math "describes" EVERYTHING they see it do, but it misses ALL of the important things that you see up close. You may not get this, but other people might find it funny and true.

[@EinarBordewich]

What is the difference between absorption of photon energy by a electron who jumps to a higer orbital state, and a absorption of a photon by bending, rotation or stretching in a molecule? Can we measure if a photon is emitted from electron shells emission or if it comes from bending emission? Are bending, rotation or stretching not governed by electron quantum states?

[@EinarBordewich]

@@DrWhom Are bending, rotation or stretching not governed by electron quantum states?

[@MimsicalRenegade]

Salty 🧂

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@DrWhom "yay, we are playing jeopardy! er... "how is your cum today?" I always thought you were a sexual deviant. The idiot Gerardus speaks again. And again, no point to make that is scientific.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@DrWhom "I always thought small children are not safe around you" The pot calling the kettle black again. And again, dull as ever.

[@BB-cf9gx]

Thankyou.

[@GuantanamoBayBarbie3]

I wish somebody could dumb this down for the average layman. Can anybody summarize what this is about & why it matters?

[@FreezeinHellBatman]

The light from the Sodium-....Sulfur/molecule lamp....SUN consists of atomic emission lines of mercury and sodium....sulfur, but is dominated by the sodium D-line emission. This line is extremely pressure (resonance) broadened and is also self-reversed because of absorption in the cooler outer layers of the arc....photosphere, giving the lamp...SUN its improved color rendering characteristics. In addition, the red wing of the D-line emission is further pressure broadened by the Van der Waals forces from the mercury atoms in the arc....Photosphere. What about potassium-Selenium what color lamp would that be?

[@FreezeinHellBatman]

@@ianw5439 japper twaddle palavar darpa prattle

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@ianw5439 "Gibberish." Where?

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@ianw5439 "Yep, more gibberish. Stick to the day job, yes?" Okay Dr. Kettle, if you say so. NOT! Never a point to argue. You are lazy, incompetent, and a coward.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@ianw5439 "All of it! You think that is actual science? Lol." LOL. Another confession that you don't have a point to argue. Thanks. Repetition much?

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@ianw5439 "Bushman Grizz There is no point to argue against, child. Care to explain the idiotic ramblings of the demented OP? Thought not." You don't even watch the videos. You have no point. You're mental.

[@JoeDeglman]

'The impact of multi-fluid effects in the solar chromosphere on the ponderomotive force under LTE and NEQ ionization conditions' arXiv 2211.09361 "The chromosphere is where high FIP elements remain neutral while low FIP elements are ionized. It is here that chemical fractionation in the solar atmosphere must begin. Observations suggest that neutral elements remain well mixed with hydrogen, while ionized elements are preferentially pushed upwards (Meyer 1985; Feldman 1992; Testa 2010; Testa et al. 2015)"

[@JoeDeglman]

@@midlander4 Only to those who have failed to do diligent research. It actually shows that it is now accepted, from data obtained directly from solar probes and solar observatories, that the Chromosphere must be plasma or chemical in nature. Perhaps give it a read because it actually dovetails with this very video, and the fact that the problem isn't a lack of data to this effect, but a failure of the standard solar model to explain the data. In fact, NASA has lots of data that defy the standard cosmology model. The problems arise in trying to defibrillate the Einstein, given that that data contradicts the standard models.

[@JoeDeglman]

@@midlander4 What is typical of people who merely parrot the standard model is that they typically respond in a demeaning manner rather than providing any experiment or evidence that supports their claim. They rely on the perception of others who parrot the consensus and haven't done any actual research on their own, (to make them sound legit by popularity), but do not rely on any evidence to support their claims. So, show me how the standard model does explain the plasma nature of the chromosphere, that is detailed from the solar observatories and probes, in the arXiv paper above that I referenced.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@midlander4 Poor Midlander, you useless, lazy, incompentet troll. The point of this video is that Stenflo did not consider chemistry in his experiment. Because of that, he was even willing to change quantum mechanics! But potassium dimers exist and so do argon-potossium molecules! This again shows that astronomers don't know what they are talking about. Unlike Dr. Robitaille, they know no chemistry and as a result continue to come up with nonsense. More magical thinking. Go back to your Harry Potter books.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@midlander4 Poor Midlander, you useless, lazy, incompentet troll. The point of this video is that Stenflo did not consider chemistry in his experiment. Because of that, he was even willing to change quantum mechanics! But potassium dimers exist and so do argon-potossium molecules! This again shows that astronomers don't know what they are talking about. Unlike Dr. Robitaille, they know no chemistry and as a result continue to come up with nonsense. More magical thinking. Go back to your Harry Potter books.

[@thedarkmoon2341]

Where are the solar spectrum data used here obtained from?

[@BB-cf9gx]

Expand "more" twice. An extensive list of papers, journals and references is supplied.

[@thedarkmoon2341]

@@BB-cf9gx Thanks. So these observations are from Earth based telescopes only?

[@BB-cf9gx]

@@thedarkmoon2341 Various including NASA/JAXA Hinode 1. You would know that from watching the presentation. Try bypassing Google and go directly to the papers that are being referenced.

[@BB-cf9gx]

@@ianw5439 he has a hypothesis. They have a hypothesis. Whats your hypothesis?

[@BB-cf9gx]

@@ianw5439 you're an idiot. If you listened to his presentation and I bet you haven't, in any event you have no idea what he's talking about. For all you know he has a recipe for salt biscuits.

[@BB-cf9gx]

There are gatekeepers and cancelists in this comments section.

[@tisithecount4198]

Gatekeeper to what? Science isn’t done on KZbin. It’s done in labs and published in journals. This isn’t that.

[@BB-cf9gx]

@@tisithecount4198 tell us more gatekeeper. Tell us more. We need your enlightening perspective on science. Einstein himself would kneel in your presence. Of course we want you to reference the appropriate papers and journals you are published in.

[@MrSkypelessons]

Bots with 0 content on their channel (except 3-second videos of the kettle boiling) programmed to spit out the same old 'you haven't got a science degree' and 'you are a joke'. Ignore them. No point talking to them, when chatGPT is free.

[@tisithecount4198]

@@BB-cf9gx that's not even a coherent thought. In what way am I a "gatekeeper?"

[@MrWolynski]

@@tisithecount4198 bullshit. Science is a method of trial and error of a stated hypothesis. The whole journal nonsense is pushed by academics. Tell me, how many classified govt projects are in published journals? So they aren’t doing science? What a load of crap.

[@Moment2Forever]

At 2x speed it sounds like some real intellectual !@#$

[@davidmcguinness9187]

Thanks

[@UtubeAW]

There’s climate & it’s changing, however data show atmospheric CO2 levels actually follow climate shifts. Research! Do some!

[@oakhillclassroom4827]

the sun is over active and in a cycle that is changing the climate yes based on solar winds ruining the atmosphere.... we are also about to go into a mini ice age or cooling event soon ....

[@johncampbell9216]

The climate changes regularly, and its changing back to what it was in 1950 because we’ve cut the number of flights this last couple of years. You see, what we’ve experienced as “climate change” is a wholly northern hemispheric phenomenon, caused entirely by the layer of exhaust-contaminated vapor produced by the thousands of aircraft we’ve been flying this past 70 years. Now, having almost entirely stopped these flights temporarily, the atmosphere has had a chance to clear much of this pollution and return the climate back to relative norms. Hence all the storms that has been experienced recently as the northern hemispheric atmosphere releases heat. Meanwhile, note absolutely no problem… or change… in the southern hemisphere.

[@hawklord100]

Astronomy has got so used to making guess's that no one can refute (billions of light years away, two black holes collide... lol) that they are even beiving themselves to be right, just by looking through a telescope they don't even bother trying to devise experiments to test their hypothesis

[@Kiyoone]

this is too complicated for a normie like me... but i got the spirit

[@keithnorris6348]

Along time ago I used to think that. Although today there is still a long way for me to go I have got a grip of the basics from a relatively modest level of study.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

PERIODIC TABLE OF THE ELEMENTS: (copy and paste from my files): Potential completion of the Periodic Table of the Elements: I currently believe that there are 120 chemical elements in this universe. If a person were to look at how electrons fill up the shells in atoms: 2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 8 (seven shells), and realizing that energy could freely flow in this universe if nothing stopped it from doing so, then a natural bell shaped curve might occur. An eighth energy shell might exist with a maximum of two elements in it, chemical element #119 (8s1) and chemical element #120 (8s2). Chemical Element #119 (8s1): #119 I put at the bottom of the Hydrogen group on the Periodic Table of the Elements. It only has one electron in it's outer shell with room for only one more electron. Energy might even enter the atom through the missing electron spot and then at least some of the energy might get trapped inside of the atom under the atom's outer shell. Chemical Element #120 (8s2): #120 I put at the bottom of the Helium group since it's outer shell is full of electrons. It might have some of the properties of group two, Beryllium group (Alkali Earth Metals group) since it has two electrons in it's outer shell; as well as some of the properties of the Helium group (Noble Gases group) since it's outer shell is full of electrons; and if you look at the step down deflection of the semi-metals and where #120 would be located on the chart, it's possible #120 might even have some semi-metal characteristics. #120 would be the heaviest element in this universe. I believe chemical element #120 could possibly be found inside the center of stars. When a neutron split inside of this atom, it would give off one proton, one electron, neutrinos and energy. The proton and electron would be ejected outside of the atom since all their respective areas are full. One proton and one electron are basic hydrogen, of which the Sun is primarily made up of, and the Sun certainly gives off neutrinos and energy. And note, it's the neutron that split, not a proton. So even after the split, there are still 120 protons inside of the atom and the atom still exists as element #120. The star would last longer that way. In addition, if the neutron that split triggered a chain reaction inside of the star, this could possibly be how stars nova, (even if only periodically). If stars were looked at as if this theoretical idea were true, and found to even be somewhat true, then we might just have a better model of the universe to work with, even if it's not totally 100% true. And if it's all 100% true, then all the better.

[@JoeDeglman]

You should check out the SAM or Structured atomic model, by Edo Kaal. A branched structure of the nucleus. This model works well to describe the solar particle abundances. It seems that according to the SAM model, fusion would tend to bypass helium for a more stable dense pack of oxygen or carbon. The flux ribbons in the solar atmosphere have the potential to make many of the 'missing' elements, but the heavier ones are instable due to the branched structure of the nucleus. The problem with the standard model is that helium 3 is more abundant than helium 4. Helium 4 seems to be produced as alpha particles, by fission of the unstable elements that are created in the prominences, flares and flux ribbons. So, helium is not as good of geometrically stable dense pack as carbon and oxygen and fusion will tend to skip helium. Helium 3 occurs in the Chromosphere due to current flow and the addition of a proton-electron pair to the deuterium atoms. But helium 4 is electrically neutral upon fission and makes it back to the chromosphere surface without interacting much with other chemicals. Neutrinos only occur in fusion as a byproduct of the proton-proton chain. It is German propaganda from the 1905 Einstein era to cover up what really is the truth about fusion vs fission. In reality, neutrinos occur in fission, and when the proton is broken down or annihilated to produce e=mc2 energy. e=mc2 energy cannot be produced by fusion. According to the old German papers, fission reaction is likely not due to neutron chain reaction, but due to beta decay chain reactions inside of a mirrored cavity, requiring a resonant frequency, to sustain beta decay, rather than 'neutron' bombardment. The neutron was another invention of the 1905 era German propaganda. Neutrinos are most likely crystalline chunks that break off of the proton structure upon annihilation.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@JoeDeglman Do my gravity test and 'if' true, have the literal theory of everything for this universe: WARNING: (CONTAINS EXISTENTIAL MATTERS): GRAVITY: (copy and paste from my files): Here is the test for the 'gravity' portion of my TOE idea. I do not have the necessary resources to do the test but maybe you or someone else reading this does, will do the test, then tell the world what is found out either way. a. Imagine a 12 hour clock. b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions. c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions. (The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.) d. Direct a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields. e. Do this with the em fields on and off. (The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to energy frequency match the laser and em fields for optimal results, cancelling out the em modalities of the laser, thereby leaving behind the gravity modality.) f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects. (Including the utilization of ferro cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.) (And note: if done right, it's possible a mini gravitational black hole might form. Be ready for it. In addition, it's possible a neutrino might be formed before the black hole stage, the neutrino being a substance with a very high gravitational modality with very low 'em' modalities.) (An alternative to the above would be to direct 3 high powered lasers, or a single high powered laser split into 3 beams, each adjustable to achieve the above set up, all focused upon a single point in space.) 'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done. 'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what 'gravity' was not, which is still something in the scientific world. This test can speak for itself. It will either be true, partly true, or not true at all. It will either show what gravity truly is, might be, or is not. Science still wins either way and moves forward. * And note: Whether my gravity test or another's, a gravitational black hole would have to be formed to prove the concept as being really true. A gravitational black hole that 'if' self fed itself, could literally wipe out this Earth and all on it, possibly this solar system, possibly put a black hole in this section of our galaxy, and potentially even causing a ripple effect in this galaxy and surrounding universe. But hey, if it does, no worries. Nobody would be left to prosecute those who did so. (Possibly famous last words: "Hey, it worked. Ooooppppssss.................) But as NASA has already proven that low gravity conditions over a prolonged period of time is harmful to the human species, and large rotating space ships won't really work for space bases on planets and moons, those space bases probably being needed somewhere along the way out of this solar system and galaxy, we need to figure out what gravity truly is and see if we can generate artificial gravity so as to have smaller space ships and proper gravity conditions for space bases on planets and moons. Otherwise, at least all human life will most probably die and go extinct one day. Currently, no exceptions. * Added note: Just trying to save at least 1 single species from this Earth to exist beyond this Earth so that life itself from this Earth has continued meaning and purpose to. Gives me something to do while I exist, otherwise, what is it all and everything for? Even if my TOE idea were correct, but if it did not help species survive beyond this Earth, what good would it ultimately be? So, are you feeling lucky? Doing nothing and at least the entire human species eventually dies and goes extinct with a high degree of certainty. Doing a gravity test, (mine and/or another's), and there is at least a slim chance of literally wiping out this entire Earth and all on it, and possibly more. Do you and other's truly want me to prove my TOE idea as being really true? But also: Questions: Are at least some black holes in this universe due to a species who were trying to discern what 'gravity' truly was, came up with a test to do so, were successful, but the black hole generated (to prove what gravity truly was) self fed itself and wiped them and at least their entire planet out? What species might have existed where a black hole now resides? (Since all of life itself is ultimately meaningless in the grand of scheme of things anyway, do the gravity test and see what occurs?) * Added note: Suggestion: 'IF' society did not want to do the gravity test, one suggestion might be to at least create a model as if it were true, then see how that model matches with observations and predictions. It might be possible to discern the theory of everything without actually generating a gravitational black hole (which would definitely prove the TOE idea as being really true).

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@JoeDeglman THEORY OF EVERYTHING IDEA: (copy and paste from my files) Revised TOE: 3/25/2017a. My Current TOE: THE SETUP: 1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism. 2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.). 3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them. 4. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them. 5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them. FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO: 6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field. 7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field. 8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality. 9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons. 10. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary. 11. Quarks also supposedly have a charge to them and then would also most likely have electro-magnetic fields associated with them, possibly a different arrangement for each of the six different type of quarks. 12. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do. THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA: 13. Personally, I currently believe that the directional force in photons is "gravity". It's the force that makes the sine wave of EM energy go from a wide (maximum extension) to a point (minimum extension) of a moving photon and acts 90 degrees to the EM forces which act 90 degrees to each other. When the EM gets to maximum extension, "gravity" flips and EM goes to minimum, then "gravity" flips and goes back to maximum, etc, etc. A stationary photon would pulse from it's maximum extension to a point possibly even too small to detect, then back to maximum, etc, etc. 14. I also believe that a pulsating, swirling singularity (which is basically a pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon) is the energy unit in this universe. 15. When these pulsating, swirling energy units interact with other energy units, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe. 16. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate. 17. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure. 18. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons). THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY: 19. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up. 20. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency. 21. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies. NOTES: 22. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 23. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 24. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well. 25. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM with the energy unit, this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. Of which with the current theory of understanding, how come the forces of nature haven't evolved by now since the original conditions acting upon the singularity aren't acting upon them like they originally were, billions of years have supposedly elapsed, in a universe that continues to expand and cool, with energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense? My theory would seem to make more sense if in fact it is really true. I really wonder if it is in fact really true. 26. And the universe would be expanding due to these pulsating and interacting energy units and would also allow galaxies to collide, of which, how could galaxies ever collide if they are all speeding away from each other like is currently taught? DISCLAIMER: 27. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty.

[@JoeDeglman]

@@charlesbrightman4237 Gravity is a buoyant force in the Aether density gradient. Matter is made of charged particles and all matter, therefore, is a condenser of the Aether, and in accordance with the Charles P. Steinmetz dielectric gradient, gravity is a buoyant force in that gradient. Ron Hatch has material on this gradient. Aether density differences are the solution to all of these problems, back EMF, gravity, redshift, clock speed, clock frequency, dark matter, etc. Just like in air, via density differences, all of these effects occur with light as a result of density differences in the Aether medium. A variable density Aether is not only required for energy waves to occur, but a variable density Aether is the Grand Unifying Theory. The main problem in standard cosmology is the Newtonian mass function. or spooky action. Spooky action cannot manifest in either electrons or photons. Photons always have a spin defined by cosine of the polarity of the magnetic field known as Faraday rotation. Electrons always reorient their spin IAW the left-hand rule due to motion, regardless of direction through a magnetic field. Planets and stars are driven by a Lorentz force in the Aether,. When we shift 1/2 mv^2 or e=mc^2 from a Newtonian function to an Aether density function, it solves these issues with searching for 'dark matter.' Newton did lots of experiments with the 'evanescent Aether' and proposed a variable density, Aether. Newton just didn't make the connection and did lots of data-fudging to fit the '3-body' problem and tides to his Newtonian mass function. Nikola Tesla was right. Energy can only manifest itself by the motion of the Aether medium particles. In fact, the magnetic field, the dielectric, and the Aether condensed around matter must be of a dipolar nature, just like photons are dipoles particulate matter with momentum. the only difference between a magnetic field, dielectric and the evanescent Aether is in how their energy is manifest.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@JoeDeglman a. " Gravity is a buoyant force in the Aether density gradient." 1. How exactly? 2. What exactly is 'Aether' for it to have density gradient? b. "Matter is made of charged particles and all matter, therefore, is a condenser of the Aether,..." 1. How exactly? 2. And again, what exactly is 'Aether' and how exactly does it condense? c. "...and in accordance with the Charles P. Steinmetz dielectric gradient,..." 1. Where does this 'dielectric gradient' come from and how does it do what it supposedly does? d. "A variable density Aether is not only required for energy waves to occur, but a variable density Aether is the Grand Unifying Theory." 1. Prove that the 'Aether' even actually exists besides just as a concept. e. "When we shift 1/2 mv^2 or e=mc^2 from a Newtonian function to an Aether density function, it solves these issues with searching for 'dark matter.'" 1. How exactly do numbers and mathematical constants exist for your formulas to do what your formulas appear to do? 2. Dark Matter has not been proven to exist yet, (and probably does not actually exist). f. " Energy can only manifest itself by the motion of the Aether medium particles." 1. What exactly is the 'Aether'? 2. How exactly does the Aether have medium particles? 3. How exactly do these Aether medium particles make energy? g. "In fact, the magnetic field, the dielectric, and the Aether condensed around matter must be of a dipolar nature, just like photons are dipoles particulate matter with momentum." 1. How and where does the magnetic field come about from the Aether? 2. How exactly does the Aether condense around matter? 3. Where does matter even come from then? 4. What causes photons to exist and be dipoles particulate matter with momentum? h. "the only difference between a magnetic field, dielectric and the evanescent Aether is in how their energy is manifest." 1. See also my posts that I just posted on one of your videos. i. I do not expect you to answer the above questions, and certainly not here, but they are items that you should be able to answer should you be asked to.

[@atheistaetherist2747]

If atoms have a nucleus then it is probable that photons hug & orbit a nucleus (at the speed of light), forming photon loops, which they call electrons (which i call atomic-electrons). Similarly photons hugging & propagating along the outside surface of a say Cu wire (at the speed of light) can (i say) be named electons, & the nett flow of electons gives us what can (i say) be named electicity (along a conductor)(wire). The 2 silly conventional forms of electricity are not true. 1. The first is the silly skoolkid electricity - that electricity is due to electrons drifting along inside a wire. 2. The second is the better silly electricity - that electricity is due to the Poynting (em) Field or Poynting (em) Vectors or somesuch in the volume surrounding a wire or wires. 3. Thirdly we have the Heaviside energy current - a transverse slab of E×H field, propagating along a pair of wires at the speed of light (Theory-H). 4. Fourthly we have the Ivor Catt version of Theory-H, which Ivor called Theory-C. 5. But more recently Ivor superceded Theory-C with his Theory-D. 6. All of which have been superceded by my electon-electicity. Aether is the fundamental essence, & photons (an excitation & annihilation of aether) are the fundamental quasi-particle, & elementary particles (atomic-electrons & free-electrons & muons & quarks etc) are looped photons. There are no such things as hard little spinning electrons orbiting in atoms. All is photons. Except that radio waves are not photons & photons are not radio waves - radio waves are em radiation - photons radiate em radiation (which i call photaenos)(but photaenos can wait for another day). But, if the best model(s) that we have today involves pseudo hard little spinning nuts orbiting a nucleus then so be it.

[@JoeDeglman]

All indications are that the nucleus is comprised of particles, dipole protons, plus electrons, with no actual neutrons. The quantum model works pretty well to describe electron transitions of the electron positions without the need for the Uncertainty Principle. But the problem in the nucleus is trying to model the structure by the gravity well, or the orbital model. that is where the standard model invokes the 'Uncertainty Principle' to try to defibrillate the quantum wave function model. Check out the structured nucleus concepts of Eugene Wigner, Edo Kaal, or Norman D. Cook. Edo Kaal proposes that the electron 'orbitals' are actual defined positions, not orbiting, and the positions are defined by 'charge points' in the nucleus.', like plasma tufts. Where is Aether comes in to play, according to Nikola Tesla, is that all charge particles are condensers of the Aether. It is the Aether bubble around charged particles and atoms that gives them the surface tension for the electrons to stay out of the nucleus and for the nucleus not to go into 'gravitational collapse' or singularity. Then the Aether 'soft shell' around electron, and the nucleus, comes to equilibrium, not high-speed orbit, but the dielectric nature of the Aether particles allows the Aether bubble to rearrange itself, and the dipole orientation of its dipole particles, and engage in flux cancelation to neutralize the Coulomb forces around a neutral atom. The Bohr orbital model arises from the fact that, in order to observe an atom or electron, the electron is induced into an orbit due to the input energy. But at equilibrium the electrons move to a defined position, dictated by the charge point locations on the nucleus structure. People like Heavyside, Dollard, and Wheeler, try to use Nikola Tesla quotes to claim than an electron is not a charge particle, but an 'end terminal out of counter-space.' But when you look into Tesla's patents, he makes it clear that an electron is a charged particle and condenser of the ether medium. In fact, Tesla claims that the electron can be removed from the Aether steam to create a pure radiant energy. Telsa was not a fan of the 'counter-space.' Matter, neutrons, and protons are crystalline-dense-packs of the dipole Aether particles, or photons.

[@atheistaetherist2747]

@@JoeDeglman My orbiting atomic-electrons are photons (an extension of the JG Williamson model) -- which i think obviates most of the problems that u mention. QED etc are over my head. The UP is krapp. Edo Kaal's model sounds like the Miles Mathis model (which i like)(the molecular alpha particle model of an atom). There is no need for Tesla's aether bubbles - everything we see & feel in our world is photons -- & photons do not gravitationally collapse etc (OOPS -- no -- Conrad Ranzan explains that photons can/do collapse). Aether duznt need a dipole aether model. Pure radiant energy is the photon - together with the energy of photaenos that radiate from every photon (em radiation) - together with the forced sideways movement of the photaeno field (probly the magnetic field part of the em field). Photons have a central helix (which gives the wave like effect) - plus photons have photaenos that radiate from the helix (photaenos give us everything that is em). Radio is photaenos, not photons. Photons are not radio.

[@JoeDeglman]

@@atheistaetherist2747 The Aether bubble requirement comes from experimental observation. An electron outside the atom, at equilibrium, has no magnetic dipole moment, is perfectly spherical. Electrons inside the shell structure, and inside the nucleus, must be able to cancel the coulomb forces in the nucleus, and in the electron shell, by rearranging the shape and dipole moment of the dielectric Aether shell around the electron, to cancel the coulomb forces in the electron shell. According to the SAM model, the electrons do not orbit, but fit into defined locations dictated by charge points on the nucleus. Electrons only orbit when there is enough energy injected into the shell to overcome the coulomb forces, that keep them in a defined lattice, causing the electrons to start to orbit. I agree with most of the SAM model, except for that fact that protons have a rather large magnetic dipole moment, meaning that they are not considered building block particles, but by experiment can be broken into smaller crystalline chunks per the particle chart. Quantum computing experiments show that while you can control the spin of an electron electrically, the spin always reorients back to orthogonal, left-hand rule, when the electron moves through a magnetic field, regardless of direction of travel. So, electron spin must be read within a few nanoseconds to be of any use as a qubit in a computer processor. This fact, by the way, makes electron teleportation impossible outside of a few nanoseconds. Photon spin is also useless in 'quantum spooky action' due to the fact that photon spin, or wave polarity, is always dictated by a cosine function of the magnetic field polarity, known as Faraday Rotation. The left-hand (or right-hand) rule for moving charged particles implies a soft dielectric shell around all charged particles. Faraday rotation, and the fact that there is no magnetic monopole to a magnetic field, implies a dipole particle nature to the magnetic field.

[@JoeDeglman]

@@atheistaetherist2747 Also light does not transmit by photon, but by energy wave. Photons are particles, of a ballistic nature, as in a particle beam from a laser cavity. Light is an energy wave in a medium, not of a ballistic nature. According to Avogadro, an electron, and a proton carry 1/2 mole of photons, or Aether particles, each.

[@atheistaetherist2747]

I know little about experiments. But photons have quasi-mass & i think momentum & angular momentum & quasi-spin & of course energy. And, all particles are made of a photon or photons. I think that some of what u (& Faraday & Co) describe is a property of light, not of individual free-photons. All light consists of individual free-photons - sometimes flying in formation (photons are sticky)(even tho they have no nett charge in the far-field)(but they do have nett charge in the near-field). Photons can be treated as being ballistic (plus having some other bending etc properties)(photons are slowed & bent & veer due to nearby mass). Photons always propagate at the speed of light (either along a surface of a say Cu wire, electicity -- or when orbiting -- or when in a loop). There are 2 kinds of electrons - (1) orbital-atomic-electrons (photons that are hugging a nucleus) -- & (2) free-electrons (photons that have formed a loop by biting their own tail)(or loops)(or by biting another photon)(JG Williamson). I agree that free-electrons might be able to sit at a certain position in or on a nucleus (plum pudding atom). They say that an electron & a proton make a neutron. U might be correct that there is a need for an orbital-atomic-electron to have sufficient energy to overcome coulomb forces. It might be time to explain - a neutrino is a pair of identical photons sharing the same helical axis - a neutrino has twice the mass of a single photon - a neutrino has zero nett charge etc in not only the far field but also the near field, hence is very slippery. Mass (gravity-mass) is due to the acceleration of the inflow of aether towards photons (of all kinds) where the aether is annihilated. Hence a photon is a hole in the aether (plus an excitation of the aether), the hole propagating at the speed of light. Hence everything in our world is not really a thing, it is a hole (an anti-thing). Funny that.

[@michaelc424]

Just a question for the Sky Scholar editor. Are comments currently turned off?

[@adampetrowsky1771]

👍

[@drscott1]

👍🏼

[@CaptainLazerus]

Yeah, but she optically thiccc tho