The Sun: Liquid Metallic Hydrogen

[@josepablolunasanchez1283]

I love nerd discussions like this. For many people, nerd is an insult. For me it is the opposite. It is the exquisite sum of research, reasoning and thought provoking ideas. A delicious way to finish my day. Thank you for making this video.

[@deathsheadknight2137]

Wow, this uploaded while i was watching your and Dr. Robitaille's latest videos. How timely!

[@nfineon]

Sorry but my education in modern western academia does not allow me to consider any competing hypothesis other than the standard model which is my orthodoxy, thus a challenge to any established ideas is a direct attack upon me, my ego and all that I hold dear.

[@universalflamethrower6342]

I feel you, professor Dave's classes might have been hard but he taught me real science is about feelings and not facts

[@joevonzarelli106]

Lol, it is like that for many... God bless them

[@gmw3083]

​@@universalflamethrower6342His zionist buddy Benny Shapiroo found that out too...

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@gmw3083 That makes zero sense. Are you an antisemite? If so, you might want to go to your antisemite channels. This one is about science.

[@ezbody]

Don't worry, you are all very special, privy to the secret knowledge of powerful cabals and gods of the multiverse. 👍

[@ayandas874]

As I said in the previous video. You do not need that high temperature to create plasma. You can reduce that by applying an electromagnetic field, or create just with a strong electromagnetic field. With less pressure, you can make plasma with even less temperature.

[@Chris.Davies]

Yes. What the universe is mostly comprised of: dark plasma and nanometre scale dust particles. That's what so-called "Dark Matter" is.

[@DroppedBass]

In addition, for liquid metallic hydrogen, you need both very high pressures and low temperatures (in the order of magnitude 10^15 Pascal, temperature cannot be higher than a couple of hundred K; at lower pressures, the temperature has to be even lower). None of those conditions are met on the surface of the Sun.

[@AstralTraveler]

@@Chris.Davies Yup. Funny How physicist refuse to use MHD in simulation of galaxies and the cosmic web

[@AstralTraveler]

@@DroppedBass That's why part of plasma escapes the Sun and makes the solar wind. The deeper you go the higher is the pressure and state of plasma is changing.

[@rluker5344]

@@DroppedBass The phase diagram shows 10000K in the stability range of liquid metallic hydrogen. And the liquid metallic hydrogen layer does not need to be tremendously thick, it just needs to not be optically blocked between it and us for the sun's emitted light spectrum to look like that of liquid metallic hydrogen. The inside of the sun can still be plasma, there can be layers of different phases that exist due to equilibrium stabilities. Like partially frozen lakes. A layer of liquid metallic hydrogen that is boiling, condensing, and has a different layer underneath might offer a plausible explanation for a lot.

[@jeebusk]

I appreciate these discussions

[@terrylandess6072]

He explained conductivity in less time than I could have imagined. It does help to have a laymen's knowledge of basic principles.

[@marcv2648]

Yes, I like the phlogiston theory example. I know you've mentioned it before since Kuhn covers it in Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The interesting thing for me is the progress through 3 theories. Phlogiston Theory had conflated combustion with heat. Lavoisier sorted this out by discovering oxygen, and separating combustion from heat. Lavoisier thought heat was a subtle fluid though (a holdover concept from phlogiston), and developed Caloric Theory. The main tenet of Caloric Theory was that heat can not be created or destroyed, only transferred. Which is elegant, seductive, and model for future laws. It just happened to be wrong. Even though the theory was wrong it still provided a solid base for the Carnot cycle, and lots of valid science. Finally, after decades of pushing and mounting evidence, scientists like James Joule began to convince people that heat was convertible into mechanical energy. Thus we arrived at thermodynamic theory where energy can neither be created or destroyed, rather than heat. Lord Kelvin was a skeptic on the convertibility of heat into mechanical motion for years. I think the historical evolution of theories is so interesting. Both phlogiston and caloric had lots of supporting evidence, and many brilliant scientists supported them on broad based evidentiary grounds. Eventually they were falsified and superseded. So many lessons here.

[@LibrawLou]

Was it Lavoisier who performed a blinking eyes experiment as his head fell into the basket of the guillotine? I have never heard if it was true, nor if his friends confirmed seeing his evidence of a brief consciouness after decapitation...

[@marcv2648]

@@LibrawLou It's a question for the ages.

[@eachday9538]

What a coincidence that someone who studied energy was named Joule

[@6Craig6Christ6]

@eachday9538 this is fantastic 👏

[@bobbarclay316]

As a teen I found Isaac Azimoths non-fiction books. My favorite gave a history of the universe along with the theories that led to current understanding.

[@samuellowekey9271]

It's amazing that scientists are probing the far reaches of the universe to try to gather clues about the origins of our universe while at the same time they're still debating whether our own sun is a gas, plasma or liquid. It's fascinating. I suspect you may be right.

[@bitskit3476]

Yeah. Unfortunately, the prevalence of certain theories in academia has led to false notion that science is just a collection of known facts that we're simply adding to. That's quite simply *not* how science works. True science is all about eternally falsifiable hypotheses, reproducible experiments, and empirical observations. Many theories are unfortunately riddled with holes or contradict experimental evidence, and there's a tendency to be willfully ignorance about such things.

[@sumdumbmick]

wait til you notice that they claim blackholes have space-time singularities at their core based on the assumption that the pressure of energy/matter is incapable of countering gravity simply because the escape velocity reached c. yet those same people will talk about the inflationary period of the universe, wherein the energy density was so high that it created a pressure so great that it resulted in expansion at rates massively exceeding c. that is, they accept a claim that the entire universe could explode from a pinpoint, but that the sun compressed into a basketball will collapse forever... those are obviously contradictory. absolutely no mathematics predicts space-time singularities anywhere, let alone as the product of the evolution of blackhole. the reason the two became connected is that blackholes came out of a thought experiment about space-time singularities in GR. not understanding that distinction is a logical fallacy that we teach second graders to avoid, and yet somehow every theoretical physicist in history made it. that should be humiliating, but somehow they'll just squirm their way out of it with more nonsensical talking.

[@ruslb818]

Actually there is no debate at all.

[@0ned]

@@ruslb818 and if you read Unzicker's The Higgs Fake, you'll likely note that there's also no evidence. CERN has a seat at the United Nations because we live under global military tyranny. To state the blatantly obvious which we're brainwashed to deny, the United Nations is an obvious extension of nationalist power to the global political theatre. It is, here notedly, not the United Peoples, an extension of populist power to the global political theatre.

[@0ned]

The Constitution of the Sun and Stars Carl Frederick Krafft According to the accredited science of today, the sun and stars are gaseous bodies with temperatures of millions of degrees inside. The scientific profession is so sure of this that anybody who thinks otherwise is simply not given a chance to be heard, although a simple calculation under the gas laws will show that any celestial body similar to the sun, and with a density approximately equal to that of ocean water, would explode immediately if heated to a temperature of millions of degrees centigrade. Our sun is just an average star, and a mere glance at it should be sufficient to convince anybody that it cannot be gaseous inside. A ball of gas would not have a sharp circular outline like the periphery of the sun. Gaseous clouds do exist elsewhere in the universe, but they do not appear as suns or stars. The periphery of the sun does, however, bear a remarkable resemblance to a horizon of ocean water. This conclusion is further corroborated by the density of the sun which is just slightly greater than that of ocean water-exactly what would be expected if the sun consists mainly of water, but with a solid core at the center. If the heat from the sun really came from a hot interior, then as the late Dr. Hermann Fricke of Germany has pointed out, sunspots should be incandescent and not dark. Numerous photographs have been taken of sunspots from all angles, and these photographs show beyond any possibility of a doubt that sunspots are nothing else than splashes in the luminous layer. The luminous material is thrown to the sides, leaving a wide open hole at the center through which the dark interior of the sun can be viewed-perhaps not absolutely dark, but much darker that the luminous surface with its temperature of 6000 degrees. According to all authentic science of today, we are supposed to believe that within this dark interior there is raging a temperature of 50,000,000 degrees! It is just too much for the writer to swallow. The heat of the sun is probably generated by bombardment of its outer atmosphere by cosmic rays consisting of subatomic particles drawn in by the gravitational force of the sun. We have a similar heated layer in the upper atmosphere of our earth where cosmic ray intensity is much greater and the temperature is hundreds of degrees higher than at the surface of the earth. Since the gravitational force at the surface of the sun is thirty times that at the surface of the earth, it is not difficult on this basis to account for the 6000 degree temperature at the surface of the sun, without making any fantastic assumptions of interior temperatures of millions of degrees. A hot outer atmosphere would not necessarily heat up the interior of the sun, as has often been argued. Heat can travel only by radiation, conduction, or convection. Radiation is stopped immediately by even the thinnest layers of opaque material, and conduction through thousands of miles of poorly conducting material is a very slow process. There remains then only convection, and in a gravitational field the effect of convection is always to produce stratification-the hotter masses rising to the top and the cooler masses sinking to the bottom. If now we make the reasonable assumption that the effect of convection is greater than the combined effect of radiation and conduction, then any large celestial body with sufficient water on it should act like an automatic refrigerator-its interior remaining cool indefinitely notwithstanding the generation of heat on its surface. Some of the water on the [25] surface of the sun will undoubtedly be evaporated by the intense heat, and may even become dissociated into oxygen and hydrogen, but the reverse of these processes will also occur, until a condition of equilibrium has been established. The ultimate result will be a gigantic turbulence on the surface of the sun, such as can be observed any time, but which will leave the interior of the sun unaffected. The cosmic rays which are drawn in by gravitational force consist mainly of subatomic particles such as protons, electrons and neutrons. If these are clusters of vortex rings which were produced in the interstellar ether by the turbulence of light and heat waves, then we have here a cyclic process which could go on indefinitely. The energy which leaves the sun and stars in the form of light and heat radiation is again returned to them in the form of cosmic ray particles, and any matter which is annihilated during this process is similarly returned from interstellar space. Annandale, Virginia February, 1961. NOTE: Sunspots are not caused by explosions from inside the sun because they would then be covered by huge clouds similar to the mushroom clouds of atomic explosions. FURTHER COMMENTS: Recent photographs taken from a high altitude balloon have shown most clearly that sunspots are definitely splashes, and a well defined splash cannot be produced in a gas but only on the surface of a liquid. The surface of the sun, except for its gaseous atmosphere, must therefore be liquid. The darkness of sunspots has at times been attributed to large masses of condensate plunging into the hot gaseous surface of the sun and cooling the gases locally. If this were the true explanation, then it would be difficult to explain, not only the splash itself, but also the granular formation of the luminous material which has every appearance of clouds in the sun’s atmosphere. If the heat and light of the sun really does come from its interior, then it would be the spaces between the clouds which should be luminous, and not the clouds themselves. Photographs however have clearly shown that whenever adjacent clouds (luminous granules) leave tiny openings between them, the space behind them thus exposed is always relatively dark-never luminous or incandescent. The luminosity of these cloudlike granules is probably produced by cosmic protons and neutrons drawn into the sun’s outer atmosphere by gravitational force and condensing into helium ions or atoms. We do not need to assume that such cosmic protons and neutrons are in every respect identical with the protons and neutrons that have been produced in physical laboratories, and the extreme conditions of temperature, pressure, electrification and neutron concentration that exist on the surface of the sun have never been duplicated simultaneously or even approximated artificially. Let us therefore not be so rash as to say the formation of helium in the atmosphere of the sun from cosmic protons and neutrons would be impossible. From THE STRUCTURE OF THE ATOM by Carl Frederick Krafft, BSRF. The Structure of the Atom by Carl F. Krafft Here is the theory, based on observation and astute insight, that the atom is a vortexian structure, rather than the "swarm of flies" type of atom conceived through high energy electrical experiments. Also included is an Alternative Explanation for the Red Shift, and the Constitution of the Sun and Stars.

[@giakon1]

thanks Maestro di Fisica Pierre-Marie Robitaille!!!

[@Quroxify]

This is great. Being a bit uneducated on theory of EM emissions I was delighted at two places around 4:25 and 11 minutes about the behavior of electrons to have so many choices to emit different wavelengths. I was ignorant about that. Kudos I feel enlightened. This is such a masterful expose of a "revolutionary" theory. You are a frontrunner and a logical warrior. Chuckling because near the end you took a sheepish confident air as you built bridges to disbelievers while standing pat on som pretty convincing arguments. Again, I'm astounded this should take over like wildfire. Thanks to you and of course Dr Robitaille

[@leeharrison2722]

I am sorry to say that the claims folliwing from "continuous spectrum" are wrong, because they ignore Lorenz broadening, and multi-atomic Raman processes. The observed spectrum of the sun has conspicuous absorption lines .. most of these are from metal ions in the photosphere, at relatively low densities. These are not at issue here. 2. Photons are emitted from atoms at very high temperature and pressure, whatever the local equation of state. At this condition gas atoms experience very high collision rates, and the Lorenz broadening that results yields the "continuous" spectrum. Secondarily the high density means that there are second-order couplings to nearby atoms, allowing strong inelastic scattering, also broadening the spectrum.

[@hoon_sol]

I'm sorry to say that those claims have been addressed and thoroughly debunked at length already; it's just total nonsense. You'd never get anything even remotely close to the observed spectrum through any kind of broadening unless the Sun were almost ~200,000 K.

[@stevecrothers6585]

"I am sorry to say that the claims folliwing from "continuous spectrum" are wrong, because they ignore Lorenz broadening, and multi-atomic Raman processes." leeharrison Incorrect. No amount of line broadening by any means will magically convert the band emissions from gases into a thermal (planckian) spectrum distribution over frequencies. Gases simply do not and cannot emit thermal spectra because they do not possess a lattice structure. Only condensed matter can have a lattice structure.

[@DerSkavenmann]

It's not a matter of having a lattice structure. Otherwise a hot liquid like lava wouldn't glow (and liquid, metallic hydrogen or whatever) Towards the core, the sun becomes a very opaque and dense plasma and this provides the black body background that you can see the Fraunhofer Lines superimposed upon. These come from the gas between the opaque deeper layers and us observers.

[@hoon_sol]

@@DerSkavenmann: Lava does have a sufficiently crystalline lattice structure to act as a black body; that's exactly why it glows the way it does. The Sun becomes opaque already at the surface of the photosphere, which is the surface of the liquid metallic hydrogen plasma that constitutes the condensed matter making up the majority of the Sun. Above it is the chromosphere, which is a less dense layer where the liquid metallic hydrogen is boiling off into gaseous hydrogen.

[@DerSkavenmann]

@@hoon_sol A black body does not need to be a crystal. I don't know where this strange idea comes from... Otherwise a single crystaline diamond would glow brighter than sood and any metal would start to get darker once it liquifies. Pretty sure that's not the case. Black body radiation depends on the absorption of the material. Get any substance sufficiently opaque and it will give you black body radiation. The plasma of the sun is opaque, hence black body.

[@andymouse]

Phlogiston ! thats a fascinating story and I always enjoy your presentations....cheers.

[@Jack__________]

With that much gravity, I think it’s impossible for it to be gaseous except for whatever could be considered it’s atmosphere.

[@0ned]

Borderland Sciences Research Foundation Journal of Borderland Research >> Vol. 43 >> No. 05 The Constitution of the Sun and Stars Carl Frederick Krafft According to the accredited science of today, the sun and stars are gaseous bodies with temperatures of millions of degrees inside. The scientific profession is so sure of this that anybody who thinks otherwise is simply not given a chance to be heard, although a simple calculation under the gas laws will show that any celestial body similar to the sun, and with a density approximately equal to that of ocean water, would explode immediately if heated to a temperature of millions of degrees centigrade. Our sun is just an average star, and a mere glance at it should be sufficient to convince anybody that it cannot be gaseous inside. A ball of gas would not have a sharp circular outline like the periphery of the sun. Gaseous clouds do exist elsewhere in the universe, but they do not appear as suns or stars. The periphery of the sun does, however, bear a remarkable resemblance to a horizon of ocean water. This conclusion is further corroborated by the density of the sun which is just slightly greater than that of ocean water-exactly what would be expected if the sun consists mainly of water, but with a solid core at the center. If the heat from the sun really came from a hot interior, then as the late Dr. Hermann Fricke of Germany has pointed out, sunspots should be incandescent and not dark. Numerous photographs have been taken of sunspots from all angles, and these photographs show beyond any possibility of a doubt that sunspots are nothing else than splashes in the luminous layer. The luminous material is thrown to the sides, leaving a wide open hole at the center through which the dark interior of the sun can be viewed-perhaps not absolutely dark, but much darker that the luminous surface with its temperature of 6000 degrees. According to all authentic science of today, we are supposed to believe that within this dark interior there is raging a temperature of 50,000,000 degrees! It is just too much for the writer to swallow. The heat of the sun is probably generated by bombardment of its outer atmosphere by cosmic rays consisting of subatomic particles drawn in by the gravitational force of the sun. We have a similar heated layer in the upper atmosphere of our earth where cosmic ray intensity is much greater and the temperature is hundreds of degrees higher than at the surface of the earth. Since the gravitational force at the surface of the sun is thirty times that at the surface of the earth, it is not difficult on this basis to account for the 6000 degree temperature at the surface of the sun, without making any fantastic assumptions of interior temperatures of millions of degrees. A hot outer atmosphere would not necessarily heat up the interior of the sun, as has often been argued. Heat can travel only by radiation, conduction, or convection. Radiation is stopped immediately by even the thinnest layers of opaque material, and conduction through thousands of miles of poorly conducting material is a very slow process. There remains then only convection, and in a gravitational field the effect of convection is always to produce stratification-the hotter masses rising to the top and the cooler masses sinking to the bottom. If now we make the reasonable assumption that the effect of convection is greater than the combined effect of radiation and conduction, then any large celestial body with sufficient water on it should act like an automatic refrigerator-its interior remaining cool indefinitely notwithstanding the generation of heat on its surface. Some of the water on the [25] surface of the sun will undoubtedly be evaporated by the intense heat, and may even become dissociated into oxygen and hydrogen, but the reverse of these processes will also occur, until a condition of equilibrium has been established. The ultimate result will be a gigantic turbulence on the surface of the sun, such as can be observed any time, but which will leave the interior of the sun unaffected. The cosmic rays which are drawn in by gravitational force consist mainly of subatomic particles such as protons, electrons and neutrons. If these are clusters of vortex rings which were produced in the interstellar ether by the turbulence of light and heat waves, then we have here a cyclic process which could go on indefinitely. The energy which leaves the sun and stars in the form of light and heat radiation is again returned to them in the form of cosmic ray particles, and any matter which is annihilated during this process is similarly returned from interstellar space. Annandale, Virginia February, 1961. NOTE: Sunspots are not caused by explosions from inside the sun because they would then be covered by huge clouds similar to the mushroom clouds of atomic explosions. FURTHER COMMENTS: Recent photographs taken from a high altitude balloon have shown most clearly that sunspots are definitely splashes, and a well defined splash cannot be produced in a gas but only on the surface of a liquid. The surface of the sun, except for its gaseous atmosphere, must therefore be liquid. The darkness of sunspots has at times been attributed to large masses of condensate plunging into the hot gaseous surface of the sun and cooling the gases locally. If this were the true explanation, then it would be difficult to explain, not only the splash itself, but also the granular formation of the luminous material which has every appearance of clouds in the sun’s atmosphere. If the heat and light of the sun really does come from its interior, then it would be the spaces between the clouds which should be luminous, and not the clouds themselves. Photographs however have clearly shown that whenever adjacent clouds (luminous granules) leave tiny openings between them, the space behind them thus exposed is always relatively dark-never luminous or incandescent. The luminosity of these cloudlike granules is probably produced by cosmic protons and neutrons drawn into the sun’s outer atmosphere by gravitational force and condensing into helium ions or atoms. We do not need to assume that such cosmic protons and neutrons are in every respect identical with the protons and neutrons that have been produced in physical laboratories, and the extreme conditions of temperature, pressure, electrification and neutron concentration that exist on the surface of the sun have never been duplicated simultaneously or even approximated artificially. Let us therefore not be so rash as to say the formation of helium in the atmosphere of the sun from cosmic protons and neutrons would be impossible. From THE STRUCTURE OF THE ATOM by Carl Frederick Krafft, BSRF. The Structure of the Atom by Carl F. Krafft Here is the theory, based on observation and astute insight, that the atom is a vortexian structure, rather than the "swarm of flies" type of atom conceived through high energy electrical experiments. Also included is an Alternative Explanation for the Red Shift, and the Constitution of the Sun and Stars. ...

[@Jack__________]

@SciDeb so why doesn’t the outward force from fusion and electromagnetic repulsion blow it all apart? (Because the gravity is so strong and the hydrogen is so dense that it is more comparable to lava than it is to a cloud.)

[@Jack__________]

@SciDeb you underestimate gravity. Of course in certain situations there are forces that out perform gravity… but do you forget about black holes and neutron stars? We’re not talking about an individual quantum particle… we are talking about so much mass that the sun is still 99% of the mass of the entire solar system. The sun is dense. Very. Very. Dense.

[@rogerscottcathey]

Not a plasma

[@rogerscottcathey]

@SciDeb : lol

[@Thisisaweirdthing2makeusdo]

This was fascinating. Thank you.

[@nikospitr]

Regarding the culture, I think the problem is the relentless hunt of publications and references/citations. People afraid that if he spends time to something not commonly accepted (thus, having great risk of not being the correct path) he might lose the train. Might lose his job, etc. Thats why almost everybody goes mainstream.

[@Chris.Davies]

Think "funding" and you're on the right path.

[@svenweihusen57]

Maybe because this mainstream has jumped through countless hoops to be considered as fact. Let’s take his own words. This metallic hydrogen would only form under immense pressure aka have huge density. What would this do to the mass of the sun as the radius of the sun known as well as its mass. Second he is claiming that the boiling means that the molecular state is changed into the metallic state again which shouldn’t be possible because the pressure at the surface is to low to form this liquid hydrogen. Third he is showing that the hexagonal nature of the boiling liquid hydrogen would result in a pattern comparable to the pattern on the sun. Sounds good but about which kind of dimensions are we talking here? These convection cells on the sun have a typical diameter of 1500km aka they have NOTHING to do with some internal structures of the liquid hydrogen.

[@keithnorris6348]

Great stuff as always, I`m looking forward to the next show. Have a completely amazing one in the mean time.

[@nightwaves3203]

That's a fun way to describe molecular state actions going on in solar objects. Checking data from the solar satellites sniffing emissions could give clues to what has everyone stumped.

[@kasel1979krettnach]

I think that 1 in 1 billion electron does the job given the thickness of the photosphere. but curious to do the calculation. a good example how shallow school books sometimes are.

[@benrasmussen9878]

very interesting, I really enjoyed your presentation. Thanks

[@OdjoAdja]

the core of the sun is ionized solid material in liquid state with super high temperatures which create the plasma in the surface..😊

[@Name-ot3xw]

Other than the solid core, this is more or less how I envisioned it. I suppose that since we speculate that Jupiter has a mettalic hydrogen core I should have assumed that the sun might have one as well.

[@KN-vz8dj]

It is not true that the only observable of the Sun is it's spectrum. We have the total mass, radius, the fact that the Sun is at hydrostatic equilibrium, the limb darkening and neutrino flux to mention a few. What does this model say about these?

[@davestorm6718]

Good points.

[@Dan-gs3kg]

When it comes to the solar mass we are unsure of what is the total force of the system let alone the composition of the Sun. Much ado with the composition problem of the Earth, a lot more carbon than thought is in the core. The hydrostatic equlibrium points to the liquid metallic hydrogen. Limb darkening, and darkening in general relates to the specularity of the metallic or semi-metallic hydrogen, and the angle of incidence. Neutrino flux is funny, as we continue to be wrong about it. No reason to privilege a model in terms of it.

[@rogerscottcathey]

Robitaille talks about the oblique emissivity, bright at the limbs, dark face on

[@KN-vz8dj]

What we see in the Sun is that it looks darker as we move from the center towards the edge of Sun's visible disk, i.e. the opposite. This is very easily explained by the current model, by the way.@@rogerscottcathey

[@KN-vz8dj]

@@Dan-gs3kg We can infer the mass of the Sun from the law of gravitation, Earth's period around the Sun and the distance to the Sun, all of which are known to a very high precision. No need to know anything about the internal staructure of the Sun. Same for the radius. Then it becomes a question "what kind of internal structure do we need to keep a ball of this size and this mass at hydrostatic equilibrium? If the "liquid model" can do this, I'd like to hear it. Concerning neurino flux, the problem of "missing neurinos" was solved more trhan 20 years ago, if that's what you are referring to.

[@Baka_Komuso]

Glad to see the good Professor is keeping up with the advances in modern physics. Eureka! ;)

[@0ned]

Keep your shirt on! 🤣🤣🤣

[@0ned]

Archimedean Love is like Platonic Love only slightly less perfect.

[@dankurth4232]

@@0nedArchimedean love is slightly less perfect than Platonic because it’s more natural and hence it’s more perfect

[@keithnorris6348]

With the the " metallic state model " being proposed in 1935 I would suggest that the ` good professors ` are in fact " the advances in modern physics " or at least the representation of the significance of those advances.

[@0ned]

@@dankurth4232 it makes you want to stick your toe in the bathtub and then run around naked⸮ 😃

[@Joyce-i6t]

Looks like the most comprehensive scientific explanation star structure

[@fullyawakened]

sure, if you know absolutely nothing about stars and don't know this is 100% bullshit

[@Joyce-i6t]

Can you please share your explanation about sun structure in KZbin be very exited 😂@@fullyawakened

[@rogerforsman5064]

@@Joyce-i6t Why KZbin? Read a science book about stars instead!

[@Joyce-i6t]

I do but these books 90% fantasy , everything describes top but else is mystery @@rogerforsman5064

[@alejandrorivera2734]

How will the spectrum look like for a thin liquid layer of helium and hydrogen in different proportions? This layer will explain the ripples shown by Robitaille on top of the solar surface

[@steffytheking]

So I wonder if sunspots are possibly solid metallic hydrogen while the rest of the surface is liquid metallic hydrogen or possibly the other way around. I would think that the liquid metallic hydrogen would be less conductive potentially acting as a solar capacitor and absorbing some energy from the magnetic field until an opposite field gets too close creating powerful flares/cme’s. Also, I wonder if gravity plus the magnetic field pulling in combined with radiation pressure outward could be what creates the pressure environment necessary for metallic hydrogen to exist on the suns surface. Btw, smart people, I am not a physicist but a layman so forgive me if what I say is (clears throat), excuse my French, what you would call stupid.

[@bricaaron3978]

We were always taught that The Sun is a mass of incandescent gas... ...a gigantic nuclear furnace.

[@qubex]

This is a just a tiny step away from Flat Sun Theory.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

Sooooo funny. Please tell us how.

[@DailyCorvid]

Because it relies on throwing out conventional things like basic Spectromology, radiology, density, known provable science. It's absolutely ridiculous this. The mans slying towards flat-earth you watch...@@bushmangrizz4367

[@Nuovoswiss]

Gas tube emission lines are a result of the gas not actually being in thermal equilibrium, as the electron temperature (that's a distinct quantity, for those unfamiliar) is much higher than the proper (ie, average molecular kinetic energy) temperature. Some "cold fire" torches are a cool example of this, and there are a couple builds of those on youtube.

[@Nuovoswiss]

Even neutral molecules like hydrogen have transient electric dipole moments (ie, Van der Waals interactions). If you accelerate an electric charge (or dipole) radiation is emitted proportional to that acceleration (Maxwell's laws). Blackbody photon emission is totally explicable in terms of these transient dipoles in gas-phase molecular collision (acceleration).

[@terrylandess6072]

This made me wonder how an atom maintains it's energy charge. It's like a battery that alone would last forever.

[@Nuovoswiss]

@@terrylandess6072 They don't, electrons return to their lowest energy orbital, usually within microseconds. For ionic species (like table salt) it just so happens that lowest energy level is around a different atom, resulting in net charge imbalance, but no usable energy from that.

[@terrylandess6072]

@@Nuovoswiss but there is still something there that keeps it 'attached' hense 'splitting the atom' or am I missing something with the nature of hydrogen? Thanks for getting back to me.

[@Nuovoswiss]

@@terrylandess6072 "splitting the atom" is done at the nucleus depth scale. Atoms themselves operate at the angstrom length

[@terrylandess6072]

@@Nuovoswiss Okay, okay - I start to see a bit. Splitting the atom is unnatural where fusion is normal.

[@Wtf-eva]

What happens to CMEs when the metallic lattice flies away from its electromagnetic heat source? I didn’t finish the video before commenting 😅

[@nikospitr]

You are very good teacher !

[@0ned]

Columbia University was courting my 3.9 math GPA and I told them to remove me from their mailing list after I read Peter Woit's character assassination of Unzicker.

[@0ned]

🤣🤣🤣 I actually cited Robert Axelrod's Complexity studies in Cooperation to poke the vulnerability in their competitive agenda - Ivy League teaches divide and conquer when scientific progress requires peer review, a group effort.

[@MisterWolf-lr7oi]

He's actually a high school teacher whose scientific career failed a long time ago, so now he's grinding his own axe in revenge against the whole physics community, without showing any signs of understanding anything about physics.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@MisterWolf-lr7oi "He's actually a high school teacher..." And you're actually a loser with nothing important to say.

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@MisterWolf-lr7oi : Really! Prove it. You certainly haven't demonstrated any knowledge of physics.

[@DataScienceDIY]

Your arguments seem to be predicated primarily on the notion that the sun emits a continuous spectrum. Have you considered that the spectrum may not be as continuous as you assume, but that instead we are limited in our ability to distinguish between wavelengths as they become very close together? At the temperatures in the photosphere, is it not possible that there are simply enough possible transition energy states for the plasma that the spectrum looks continuous due to its emission lines being indistinguishably close?

[@thewetcoast]

"We've had a lot of dead ends in the history of science and the earlier we get out of this (standard model of the sun), the better it will be for the knowledge of humankind."

[@G-ra-ha-m]

The aether is making a comeback, relabelled as 'quantum space'. The past era knew more than us.

[@avibhagan]

@@G-ra-ha-m aether, is practically the Higgs field . They used to use interferometry to disprove aether , and that was all valid until someone built a 4 mile long interferometer with a 1 MW laser , to measure gravitational waves and now we know why nobody detected aether before. Their equipment wasn't sensitive enough . If the available interferometers could detect gravitational waves in the Higgs field , 200 years ago , they would have used that as proof for aether.

[@G-ra-ha-m]

@@avibhagan I read about someone who continued the aether drift experiments, years after it was declared void, to protect Einstein's theories. He consistently measured a small drift.

[@avibhagan]

@@G-ra-ha-m I never heard about that before ! Thanks for mentioning it. I'll look it up. I wonder if his drift showed any correlation to the drift in G that the International Bureau of Weights and Measures has recorded over the last 70 odd years ?

[@rogerforsman5064]

@@G-ra-ha-m No they did not!

[@Nebukanezzer]

"Gasses emit discrete lines and this is a continuous spectrum" lol what? The sun has an absorption spectrum, it is as far from continuous as you can get. Gasses don't emit discrete lines if they are emitting light due to being hot, brother. And the sun is plasma anyway.

[@mathoph26]

Alex I think you dont need a hard model to prove the liquid state: you take the 3d free electron gas model (which means electrons can move) in a cube or sphere (harder because of spherical bessel eigenvalue) with zero wave function above the Sun radius. Then you obtain the same quantification that photon gas: you have the approximate Black body spectra. To take into account random electron covalent bound: be prepared for really hard computations...

[@RafaelBirkner]

I'm surprised someone even proposed to assume the sun is a gas baloon, simply look at the "gas giants" planets, they are clearly condensed liquid gases and even possibly with solid cores

[@rogerforsman5064]

Not really gas is it? More like ionized plasma!

[@nickauclair1477]

18:20 how could anyone not see it now

[@DailyCorvid]

This is reminiscent of flat earth science. You can see through a spectrometer telescope that it is a gas with a molten core. The colours give it away and the radiation patterns, do not match at all what a liquid would give off. Not to mention if it was liquid hydrogen it would actually be cold not hot. This is ludicrous.

[@Aaron-zu3xn]

at these pressures wouldn't it become solid in the center and have everything circulating around it at lower pressure?

[@alexanderg-p3z]

I would expect to find Plutonium, Uranium, gold, lead, Iron.. in the center of the Sun.

[@ZJasko]

Should it not then be possible to measure a change in the emission spectrum (blackbody to hydrogen spectral bands) in the coronal ejection material?

[@ChadLuciano]

it's already done with Stereo A and Stereo B satellites

[@daveherd6864]

You can look at it as nothing makes a good gravity well like liquid metal and the sun crates a good one at that

[@87solarsky]

Makes one wonder why solar gravitational considerations are getting so little interest...

[@ZaydDepaor]

I'll just have to take his word for it, he sounds like an honest guy, this may as well have been in Chinese for me....I probably understood between 5-10%.

[@DailyCorvid]

That is the intention, this guys a flat-earther prepping people for the big NASA lie bit. I don't buy it this is nonsense. Spectrometer reading says gas, temperature reading says gas, core dynamics and radiation says gas.

[@verdikulk6193]

Is it possible to verify your thesis? I think it is a interesting thesis, but the question always is, are we able to verify the thesis, and what would it cost to check the thesis..

[@samuellowekey9271]

Can scientists who propose that the sun is a gas or plasma (or both) verify what they say?

[@DaxVJacobson]

Is it possible to verify the current theory of how the Sun formed and works? A consensus of clueless people seems to be the prevailing view now. I hope someday they look back on it with scorn the way that we look back at the witch trials.

[@verdikulk6193]

@@samuellowekey9271 with the technology today we should be able to verify, so what would be worth science if thesis would not being tested?

[@rogerscottcathey]

Watch it through

[@verdikulk6193]

@@rogerscottcathey calculations are not proof, a probe to the sun with an spectrum analyzer to verify the thesis is...

[@j.r.8176]

Thank you sir. Very interesting. Subscribed.

[@DavidConnerCodeaholic]

Where does the sun’s X-ray shadow begin/end? I guess it’s not so easy to determine, but whats the furthest into the sun’s angular measure that we’ve observed high frequency EMF reaching earth?

[@DavidConnerCodeaholic]

There are shortcomings in models that predict the spectrum for stellar blackbody radiation. This would cause the radiation’s frequency to spread out a bit, I think. It’s very complex, since the particular reabsorption, transmission and emission mechanics cause energy to “bounce around”

[@DavidConnerCodeaholic]

It would be a bit like starting over after the continental drift guy’s theory. Many assumptions in about mass distribution & stellar age astrophysics depend on what a star’s spectrum implies about the mass contents.

[@hoon_sol]

What's funny is that liquid metallic hydrogen is admitted to exist on both Jupiter and Saturn, but when it comes to the Sun on the other hand...

[@glenwaldrop8166]

Right? Modern science is no better than the days of old, people just argue quicker on Twitter than by letter.

[@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv]

The Sun on the other hand is a plasma so its not a liquid.

[@hoon_sol]

@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv: The Sun is indeed plasma; liquid plasma, to be precise. The fact that the Sun is condensed matter is beyond obvious to anyone with even basic knowledge of physics at this point.

[@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv]

@@hoon_sol Plasmas are NOT liquids. Liquids are not ionized matter. They are mutually exclusive. The Sun is not condensed matter either. Anyone with a basic knowledge of physics SHOULD know that but Unzuker decided he was going to ignore the evidence and the actual physics. Funny how he has no backing from physicists. Maybe one other C r an k. I am not impressed by that sort of thing.

[@hoon_sol]

@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv: Plasma and liquid are two entirely separate categories; plasma refers to whether ionization is present, and liquid is a phase of matter. You can have gaseous plasma and you can have liquid plasmas (like the Sun). Liquids are not normally ionized, but under the extreme pressures where liquid metallic hydrogen forms, you get an ionized liquid: a liquid plasma. And yes, the Sun is absolutely condensed matter, that's not even a question at all at this point. All observed evidence demonstrates that fact clearly; the only reason many people still think the Sun is a gas is because it was one of the first proposed models, and has simply stuck since then despite being obviously and quite blatantly incorrect. And no one is seeking to impress you; no one really cares if you prefer to keep chanting religious nonsense like "the Sun is a gas!", science still progresses without people like you holding it back.

[@Rene-uz3eb]

2:00 I don't get why he's saying the surface of the sun could not be a plasma. Too hot, too cold, why?

[@TheMachian]

Aplasma forms at 157000 K , not 6000.

[@freehat2722]

Repulsive charges are barely covered and solar winds (yeah I know it's slightly different) are blowing off those protons and electrons. A lattice implies bonds.

[@sillysad3198]

let's look at a metor, as it enters the atmosphere it glows. does it heat the gas to the plasma temp? no. but SOME atoms got ionized and glow. maybe this miniscule fraction of glowing atoms at 6000K is simply enough for the sun?

[@hoon_sol]

The black-body glow of a meteor stems from the meteor itself being a black body. I don't think you quite understand what temperature means in this context or how exactly gases emit light. Gases emit light at very specific frequencies, which is why e.g. the aurora is a mix of such particular colors (corresponding to various excitation states of the atoms). When talking about the temperature of the Sun on the other hand, it's about the spectrum based on the temperature that corresponds to a given black body of that temperature. There's simply no way around this; the only attempt made to reconcile this fact with the current mainstream models is saying, "well, this and this effects causes broadening of the spectral lines", but there's absolutely no way such broadening could occur at those temperatures (like he says in the very beginning, you'd need a temperature of something like ~175,000 K for that to occur).

[@sillysad3198]

@@hoon_sol i am not responding to you, i am just clarifying for the readers. i have seen a "fireball" a front of glow at a certain distance in front of the descending object.

[@hoon_sol]

@@sillysad3198: You're not clarifying anything, you were asking questions; and if those questions were rhetorical you are a terrible rhetorician, and definitely don't understand physics, just like I explained above. Any gases being heated up around the meteor itself will emit light in much the same way like the aurora, with a wide range of different colors. This may appear white to you if it's bright enough, but if you actually measure the spectrum it will not even remotely look like a black-body spectrum. So again: what we're seeing at 6000 K is the equivalent of a black-body spectrum at that temperature, not emissions from individual atoms in the gases of the chromosphere and corona. In fact, you might have heard of the so-called "coronal heating problem", i.e. the observation that the corona itself appears to have a temperature of a million kelvins; this is of course nonsense, but occurs due to chemical effects that excite individual atoms in the gas. This is something Robitaille has explained at great length in his work.

[@Matlockization]

The spectrometry reveals a liquid metal hydrogen on the sun's surface. However, we don't know what's inside. Some videos indicate that the highest temperatures achieved by the sun, lie outside the sun. Is there liquid metal helium inside the sun ? Or a derivative lithium ??? I'm not too sure about a sun plasma core. Has anyone crushed a drop or less of hydrogen metal in the lab ? What are the properties of new and old suns ? Is it easier to break the strong electromagnet forces between particles using different frequencies (John Hutchison) whilst still under the pressure of super magnets ???

[@willsteele9249]

John Hutchison, shown how frequencies and magnets can start to sublimate metals.

[@Matlockization]

@@willsteele9249 I know, it was pretty extraordinary. I think he was on to something. Did Hutchison pass his work onto anyone after passing away ?

[@willsteele9249]

I don't think he's dead. I know he said that the US govt and Canada govt stole all his work. I agree with you he was so ahead of his time with his work on levitation and the duality of the electromagnetic force/radio frequency. I'm also surprise more people on KZbin don't really talk about of him. @@Matlockization

[@ryanhegseth8720]

I absolutely believe this to be correct, a condensed matter sun and I don’t have any problem with it because I’m not bound to the sun being a certain size, distance, density but scientific consensus is, so if you’re bound to scientific consensus you have a problem then.

[@rogerforsman5064]

But you are bound to the sun via gravitational interaction!

[@EinarBordewich]

At 14:10 you present a graph called "Pressure as a function of height..." Here you say we will get 600GPa at 8x10^6 meter height??? First off all at 8x10^6 meter the pressure is almost zero in your graph. Second what is the 0 height reference point? The surface or the center? Something is wrong in the graph or my understanding of it.

[@hoon_sol]

He said it quite clearly: "what thickness of the chromosphere would you need to produce that pressure?" In other words, the x-axis is the thickness (height) of the chromosphere in meters, and the pressure is the pressure at that height. So the ~550 GPa pressure at 0 meters would correspond to the pressure right at the surface of the photosphere, while approaching 0 at around 8 * 10^6 meters. What might confuse you is that the entire graph is modeled based on a specific height of the chromosphere; if he were to draw the same graph for a model of a more shallow chromosphere, the entire line would be shifted down and to the left, with a lower pressure at 0 meters and with 0 Pa at a lower height.

[@bassmechanic237]

Very compelling

[@julianhatton1109]

Great Show

[@onlytimewilltell204]

Im no physicist but from my simple education all elements have an atomic signiture in the spectrum of ultraviolet light from the sun rays so to say that the sun is made of liquid hydrogen does not account for all elements in the spectrum please correct me if lm wrong

[@justtrolin]

could not follow all this, but science gets a like. :)

[@No2AI]

The fact that the sun does not burn out is amazing …. I wonder if it is decreasing in mass as it burns up .

[@echerlin]

If the Sun were burning, it could only last a few thousand years. With hydrogen fusion, it can lose mass for billions of years before becoming a red giant and then a white dwarf.

[@DCGreenZone]

Outside the box thinking that may just destroy the box as we know it. It's happened before, it will happen again. 👍

[@rogerforsman5064]

Not this time thou!

[@knappieboy]

After watching CME's blast off for several years now, it definitely looks like the sun is "spitting" liquid. Plasma is considered a liquid right?

[@gmw3083]

The liquid black hole sun is the core of the living earth. The magnetohydrodynamic heart. We see its negative white light projected as the daystar in the sky canopy.

[@highwaltage]

would the sun be a sustained z-pinch?

[@michaeldautel7568]

You are looking at the Sun after it has already hit the ignition point. All those Hydrogen atoms are stacked as tall as half the diameter of the Sun,how much taller does this stack need to be before the fusion reaction reaches equilibrium? Once the reaction starts the sun begins to emit energy sufficient to overcome the gravity pulling all the atoms to the core. The temp at the surface is nowhere the temp at the core. What happens at the intermediate stages?

[@IncoGnito-ji5du]

I'd love me a glass of sun.

[@rentlastname2824]

Great stuff. Keen to hear your interpretation of Smoot’s CMB monopole spectrum with its T = 2.728 K Planck function..

[@sillysad3198]

consider me mad, 2K is approx the temp of the interstellar gas. and this "gas" is very ionized for multiple reasons unrelated to the temperature.

[@stevecrothers6585]

When Smoot removed the quadrupole with his computer he introduced systematic artifacts into his images, mere spots before his eyes which he mistook for data, and called these spots 'ripples in spacetime'. There is no CMB. Dr. Robitaille has proven that the alleged CMB is actually an emission from Earth, from the oceans, via the hydrogen bond in water. The alleged CMB monopole has never been detected beyond ~950 km of Earth (the orbital altitude of COBE); precisely because Earth is the source of the emission. It is a fact that the alleged CMB monopole signal has never been detected at L2. The most sensitive radio telescope ever built, 56/2.4, in Armenia, designed by Professor Paris Herouni, has a self-noise of 2.6 K. When Professor Herouni sampled the cosmos in 1989 with 56/2.4 the radio antenna returned 2.6 K, the self-noise of the telescope. Imn other words, 0 K for the alleged CMB. There is no CMB and hence no Big Bang. The cosmologists live in fantasy land.

[@sumdumbmick]

@2:04 it's unnecessary to propose an alternative when pointing out that something is mistaken. the widespread inability of people to grasp this is one of the main reasons I left science. if someone truly doesn't grasp that the choices aren't simply between their personal interpretation and whatever you're able to personally convince them of with a 15 second sales pitch, they're not someone whose opinions should ever be considered anyway. the true situation is that whatever they believe is wrong, whatever you're proposing is also wrong, and their initial interpretation of your proposal is probably wronger than wrong because you're not coddling their ego and presuppositions so they'll misinterpret everything you say and strawman it into absurdity. however, it can be the case that one proposal is less wrong than another, and the most important part is that the truth doesn't care if anyone ever understands it. so regardless of who's convinced of what, the way things truly are will carry on, unimpressed with everyone's pageantry. and this is something that science misunderstands. science requires people to be convinced. it requires proselytism. so given this, and the fact that the truth doesn't give a damn about what anyone thinks, it's impossible for science to ever be properly rigorous. and for this reason No True Scotsman arguments about what is and isn't pseudoscience, what qualifies as 'good science', what the scientific method is, etc. are just silly. a good scientist is simply one who gets published. that's it. it has nothing whatsoever to do with rigor, the truth, method, or any of that other nonsense, it's purely about whether or not you get published. and getting published is about rhetoric and convincing people with your 15 second sales pitch. which is the source of the problem I opened with.

[@asgrrr]

I appears from this video that your sole basis for claiming that the Sun is metallic hydrogen is that a plasma cannot create the Sun's observed emission spectrum. This is patently false. Compton scattering of photons originating below the surface can do this, something you have previously dismissed without proper treatment.

[@woody5109]

This makes so much sense, fill a balloon with methane and light it, boom. Now soak a sponge ball of the same size in gasoline, it will burn for an hour. Simplistic explanation but it works.

[@stuart6478]

Holy core these guys have been to and touched the sun?! Incredible

[@Sudden-Death]

This makes total sense actual science not propeganda science

[@timothykitchens9972]

Sooo, how good of a conductor would such a massive ball of liquid metal hydrogen be?

[@lyntonblair9016]

so if there are no electrons, the sun is a proton mass?

[@cubic-h6041]

Wow, and here I thought Hydrogen was the simplest of the elements. Dang.

[@Kalumbatsch]

Unzicker's Real Unsinn

[@phaethon3124]

it would be interesting to hear unzicker talk about betelgeuse. is it low mass/low pressure so not staying in the metallic blackbody state?

[@Facetime_Curvature]

Can we really assume that hydrogen is a part of the alkali metals? Isn't there some debate about that? I was under the impression that it is actually unique from that group.

[@helengrives1546]

It would be a very interesting line of thought. A liquid ball shaped sun. Could that mean that the universe is also a liquid and not flat? A spinning universe is more elegant more like almost everything we observe.

[@rogerforsman5064]

Why is a spherical universe more elegant? I don't think physical laws care if they are elegant or not!

[@ObiWanCannabi]

technically everything is a liquid, watch the earth for long enough and every surface is moving, its just time scales that change, at the right temperature and pressure everything is metallic, hell get your numbers right up and everything is the same. Space, time, mass, energy, its all the same thing.. what if: beneath our feet is as counter intuitive as orbital mechanics, at the surface of our planet gravity is at its strongest agreed? as you travelled to the core of the planet the pressure increases but gravity decreases as you have the mass of the planet pulling you in equal directions, so contrary to belief the core of the planet is the most gravity null place in our local area of space, what do you think it does to the core of the planet, it must be a weird place where density is fighting gravity, or there would be more mass on the crust than in the core Anyone know what the acidity levels of Saturn or Jupiter are? id put money on them being massive balls of liquid/gas that are planet eaters, the pH or potential of hydrogens would possible be enough to consume planers, what if the colours we see are the remains of old planetoids that were put into solution, but gas giants are more a kin to failed stars than they are to planets, but we class them as planets, discarding dwarf planets, weird how we classify things so willy nilly, no thought for future generations that might be using andromeda collectors, because solar collectors are only working around Sol right? once we use them around a different star they change? we are so used to the pressure being what we have around us, and the local temperature to determine what elements are, we spent billions of dollars chasing the periodic table up to what 118? but this is just what we would perceive from our limited perspective, the brief moment at our pressure and temperature doesnt have to represent what the element might appear as in nature. There are islands of stability everywhere if you just change the resting state of the universe, and what is more consistent of a pressure for the universe? 1 atmosphere or the core of planets, average out that average pressure of the universe, i bet its way more than 1 atmosphere but its just spread so thin, do we see islands of stability because we too are living on a small island of stability..

[@gnorman-ct2lt]

I wonder what's in the core of the sun.If you look at the earth it gets heavier the closer you get to the core.

[@davestorm6718]

The core shouldn't be the densest part. See my earlier posts as to the difference between an externally compressed system and a self-compressing system. In a nutshell, a self-compressing system will have it's highest density and pressure in a shell between the center and exterior. The problem with most models I've seen is they use an externally compressed model (compressed by what force?) which would always result in the core being the densest portion of a large body. You can add matter to the exterior of a body and continue doing so (accumulate), but the shell (or zone) of highest density will only grow outwards proportionally. For the Earth, you can go deep into the ocean and the pressure increases, that is true, but you aren't going anywhere deep enough to see the pressure max out (8km vs 6400km), then decrease as you get to the center (~2000km). With a self-compressing model, you won't ever get a black hole, the high density "shell" or region would eventually become unstable and collapse (as we observe) - you can't get a collapse with a radial gradient of mass.

[@davestorm6718]

Just to add an analogy here on an externally compressed system vs a self-compressing system: An example of an externally compressed system would be a sphere submerged in water - the sphere would have force vectors perpendicular to its surface at every point. This is NOT what happens in large celestial bodies, yet, so many physics models use this (the foundational assumption is incorrect).

[@gnorman-ct2lt]

@@davestorm6718 iv ground a few metal convex lens over the years and it'll make you look at planetary physics in a whole new way.

[@oldskool235]

I will be publishing soon, but I can tell you that you are correct. What I found out is that the universe is very simple. I mean simple to the point that relativity and quantum physics are nothing more than mental masturbation with numbers. You can't believe how simple it is.. it's a combination of the EU model and sound. So simple. Good work so far, I enjoy watching your videos.

[@rogerforsman5064]

Looking forward to do a peer review of your theory!

[@pierreleroy4326]

This is genuinely fascinating and topic presentation is very clear and well put together. The somewhat condescending tone of it all tho, … is it purely for entertainment purpose, or lack there of One might as well say? Creatively, that’d be some stylistic choice for sure, certainly not a must… Nice touch I guess

[@rogerforsman5064]

The condescending tone is because he is right and every other scientist are wrong!

[@clmasse]

If you want to be taken seriously, please give references, especially for the phase diagram of hydrogen (other than Robitaille, it goes without saying.)

[@TheMachian]

You are right. however, this one is just wikipedia.

[@clmasse]

@@TheMachian There is no reference in Wikipedia.

[@martf1061]

The sun is not only liquid. It,s made of all known states of matter. Earth is made of all known state of matter also. Solid (soil) liquid (water) gas ( atmosphere ) and plasma ( core )

[@hatac]

It should be noticed that almost all the geological theories of the people that opposed Wegener's hypothesis have in fact been over turned and often that was unrelated to plate tectonics. Global seismic mapping and core drilling has wrecked many a theory. Part of the rejection of plate tectonics was that they thought it was a creationist theory when it wasn't. Friendly fire in the creation evolution debate is fairly common. There is a young earth creationist version now that works well, J.R. Baumgardner. It makes interesting predictions.

[@rogerforsman5064]

Is that when he simulated the flood of Noah?

[@wiretrees]

thankyou sir

[@R6AAO]

Metallic explains the density but hydrogen has very weird actions under extreme heat and pressure. I think the Sun is made of a yet to be discovered highly radioactive, very heavy isotope of hydrogen, probably something crazy like H10 or higher. It's definitely higher than H6.

[@glennswart1487]

where does direct evidence that liquid metallic hydrogen exists cone from?

[@AaronAlso]

I'm curious how this theory corresponds to the NASA paper from 2020 regarding Lattice Confinment Fusion. It would seem that the metal lattice state would be an ideal condition for fusions of the molecular state atoms. In my mind, these two things seem to coincide to create a better model of stars and fusion in general.

[@keithallpress9885]

I have never seen any problem with a liquid or solid star or even the Jovian so-called gas giants. We know almost nothing experimentally about the phase diagram of materials at such pressures but the extrapolation is very reasonable postulate. Not only that there is probably about 30% helium and it may well fractionate toward the core. We already know that condensed helium states are likely to have very strange quantum behaviours including superconducting properties, not to mention weird things like electron bubbles. Black dwarf stars especially could well be cold and metallic, as fusion only ever consumes a fraction of the hydrogen.

[@vincenttelfer4206]

the sun is magma and eventually will be rock, our sun is a planet, if earth was covered with magma earth would appear as a sun from Mars

[@jasonjacoby]

This one is my favorite.

[@emanuellasker3650]

What if the core was formed by an impossible application of an inconceivable force?

[@Dan-gs3kg]

Why yeah, we don't conceive of electricity in space.

[@chrisayers7625]

Thanks for adding the phase diagram. There’s really not a resason the sun couldn’t have a high temperature metallic core. Supposedly, the earth has a warm core also. This is getting interesting.

[@0ned]

Liquid metallic hydrogen isn't really hydrogen and helium-3 isn't really a helium isotope. Both are hybridium, a different element of number 1.5 and weight 3, known since the 1930s and censored from all save the most trade secret corporate espionage or complete fringe publications.

[@freeforester1717]

Diehold foundation, Doug Vogt. Series 4. Watch them, all of them.

[@hoon_sol]

It's not just a core, the metallic lattice extends all the way out to the photosphere.

[@hoon_sol]

@@freeforester1717: That that delusional nonsense somewhere else, I'm sure you'll find some fellow paranoid schizophrenics who are willing to waste their time with you.

[@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv]

Yes there is a reason, its fusion heated plasma and has no metallic core. He made up utter nonsense as always.

[@slickwillie3376]

Very interesting.

[@Utesfan100]

I would very much like to see the hydrogen phase plot with a curve drawn on it representing the theoretical temperature and pressure as a distance from the center of the Sun. The measurement of the state boundaries in the region of liquid hydrogen is very recent, so models older than a decade or so would not even have it as a reasonable state to explore.

[@clmasse]

The critical point of hydrogen is very low, both in temperature and pression. Then in the sun, liquid and gaz are the same thing.

[@Utesfan100]

@@clmasse How close to the liquid metal phase does it get? At what depth? See the diagram at 9 minutes.

[@clmasse]

@@Utesfan100It is the diagram in Wikimedia Commons of unknown origin [image reference needed]. The other available diagrams are not so clean cut. Metallic liquid surely stand for metallic fluid, since it is far beyond the critical point.

[@Utesfan100]

@@clmasse Yes. I am just saying a plot of the temperature and pressure for various radial distances would be a nice addition to the diagram for the discussion at hand.

[@DFF1234]

we physicists are far from uhited one day we'l laugh when we finally know the complete truth i respect most physicists

[@davidrandell2224]

“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.

[@krumplethemal8831]

Ionized iron on the surface.. it's why the surface of the sun is a pool of magnetism..

[@uwelinzbauer3973]

Hallo! Neulich habe ich ein Video von Sabine Hossenfeld /Universität Stuttgart angeschaut, wo sie die Frage gestellt hat, was in der Physik schief läuft und konstatiert, dass die modernen Modelle noch nicht alles befriedigend erklären können. Ich habe mich ehrlich gesagt bis zu diesem Video hier auch noch nie gewundert, dass im Sonnenlicht nur Absorptionslinien zu finden sind und keine Emissionslinien, sondern ein kontinuierliches "Schwarzkörper"- Spektrum. Habe nur immer wieder mitbekommen, daß sich immer wieder viele wundern, dass die Korona so viel heißer ist als die Sonnenoberfläche. Was mir immer auffällt beim anschauen der Bilder von der Sonne von SDO ist, dass in allen Wellenlängen die intensive Strahlung ihren Ursprung irgendwo über der Oberfläche zu haben scheint und es unten drunter eher dunkler wird als heller. Wird weiter unten weniger Energie frei gesetzt oder ist die Materie da eben so dicht, dass sie opak für die Strahlung ist? Bin ja nur Laie, also bitte um Verzeihung, wenn ich massiven Unsinn verzapfe: aber habe mich auch schon gefragt, ob sich unter der Sonnenoberfläche vielleicht schlicht der Ereignis Horizont eines schwarzen Lochs befindet. Wenn Materie ohne Wiederkehr ins Zentrum entweicht, müsste das physikalisch die Innenseite der Kugel-Grenz- Oberfläche kühlen nach dem Prinzip der Verdunstungs Kälte. Oje, jetzt kommt bestimmt ein Shitstorm vom Ausmaß eines Sonnensturms...😢 Herzliche Grüße!

[@Jueyes-vg2gb]

I think PMR has proven his point, at least in the fact that the stars are not Gaseous plasma. The reason they won't accept it is simple imo. It has profound UNSCIENTIFIC implications, like how the hell did they get there?

[@hoon_sol]

*_«The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.»_*

[@DailyCorvid]

None of the people in this video or commentary streams are scientists at all, they're just repeating other chunks of commentary that they think sounds plausible... That's how we have 50% of them thinking Earth is flat, Gravity is a NASA conspiracy and that the sun is a frozen liquid. It's insane, there is nothing scientific about any of that stuff.

[@ChadLuciano]

Tesla's quote...just copied and pasted for a YT comment..."so deep and clear.....ahahahahahahahaa

[@hoon_sol]

@@ChadLuciano: Thank you for providing us all with an example of someone who thinks neither deeply nor clearly!

[@ChadLuciano]

You are just arrogant and your ignorance insults yourself, have a nice angry life Kim.@@hoon_sol

[@DailyCorvid]

I thought he was being sarcastic personally... It was a mega generic dumb Tesla quote, after they lost 35% of their share value in 3 hours of Elon talking.

[@DerMig590]

It's not hydrogen, it's a boiling sphere of metals. They miscalculated the mass by prolly 1500% at least!

[@ryanhegseth8720]

Even though it’s true, they will never accept it because they would have to admit that they’re wrong about gravity, also the distance /size /density and mechanics of the sun.

[@rayray6548]

while alternative models and new ideas are crucial for scientific progress, they need to be supported by strong empirical evidence and must be consistent with established observations. As of now, the liquid metallic hydrogen model of the Sun is not widely accepted within the scientific community due to these challenges and inconsistencies.

[@rchas1023]

Does this create superconductor layess ?