White Dwarfs AREN'T Hyper Dense? Quasi-molecules and Spectroscopic Proof!

[@hoon_sol]

Pierre-Marie is clear evidence that all you need is a single genius to completely revolutionize a discipline. We've seen it over and over again throughout scientific history.

[@michaelgeisdorf6641]

Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille destroying the ‘Standard Cosmological Model’ one video at a time! Boom 💥

[@kevconn441]

lol

[@paulburrell4120]

Another win for the condensed matter model

[@johngreg8910]

Yeah Sky Scholar! 😀Thank you for answering the very question I had been wanting to ask.😀

[@multi_misa72]

Voiceover is ok but i enjoy seeing you doc. Thanks a bunch anyway.🤓

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

Fascinating! ^.^

[@keithnorris6348]

Thank you soooo much Dr P-M R . I marched today with about 300,0000 + ( three hundred thousand plus ) others asking for " reasonable behaviour 2 from an administration in the middle east. I wondered if I was good to do so and now that I got home I see your video, which is such a great reward to me that I feel that I did the right thing to join in asking for improved behavior by means of being more reasonable. I think it not a coincidence that your explanation of the observations and data gather therein is the more reasonable explanation of White Dwarfs. As always I am looking forward to your next presentation as a means to make astronomy more sensible to all.

[@adairjanney7109]

If you live where I think the whole world believes you are all on the same page

[@FelonyVideos]

There is only 1 country in the middle east that you could march like that without risk of beheading, LOL.

[@kimberleebrackley2793]

Always a pleasure, Dr.Robitaille.

[@gyrogearloose1345]

Way above my pay-grade here Dr Robitaille! And from reading many comments, I see that I am not alone. So may I respectfully inquire Sir, what is your target audience? For whom are you disclosing your findings in great detail? I follow you and subscribe because of your creds as an engineer and an eminent challenger of the status quo in Astrophysics. I have first-hand knowledge of the sorry state of many "philosophically impaired" scientists. They follow the worn-out paths of the past without question - always busy to fill in the cracks around them - never a thought for the wide horizons of fresh knowledge. You are a champion of new thinking, based on hard research and real principles. I beg you - since you are presenting on KZbin - please present your findings intelligibly for the layman!

[@xkguy]

Dr Robitaille is establishing his idea for Primacy. He is a very modest guy but it is important to him that his work is known. In 2000 (or so) he took out a full page add in the New York Times Sunday Edition. If you cannot get your work published else where and you want credit...well...shell out a hundred grand and show you are serious! btw, you can get caught up. Start with Sky Scholar #1 and spend a few hundred hours watching each episode until you understand it. By the time you are done, you'll be up to snuff!

[@gyrogearloose1345]

Alright! Thanks for your info and comments ... @@xkguy

[@murb2586]

Honestly I would love to see a proper series debate between you and those that support the science you criticize and those that criticize you back.

[@albertperson4013]

Dr. R's 'criticisms' are shown with facts from previous papers and his own theories as any proper scientist will also present.

[@murb2586]

@@albertperson4013 Firstly, reading papers would require the reader to be able to conclusively and accurately verify all of the data, the processes with which the data was gathered and the process with which it is calculated or modeled, which would be a tremendous undertaking to say the least, as well we wouldn't need to be watching KZbin videos for concise explanations or innovative insights. For me, I believe a proper real-time one on one debate may help to clear up the reasons there's disparity in thesis manifest from the same body of research. furthermore, Dr Robitaille himself challenges much of the established foundational research in a way someone who isn't committed to the science could never, nor fully understand. It's obvious that Dr. Robitaille isn't the only one writing papers and citing them, it may be fascinating to understand where the disconnect is between the two schools of thought, per se, if indeed as you'd said, they are pulling from the same body of foundational knowledge, doing some cases they are obviously not. Otherwise what's the explanation for not only the difference in opinion but the vehement indignation by those that adhere to what is commonly referred to as 'standard model mainstream' conclusions, and could you even venture a legitimate assessment without the opportunity to hear their objections or assertions, or both of the other? Who knows we may even find that what we believe to be entrenched beliefs based on popular science are not as absolute as they are presented in publications. I'm pretty confident Dr Robitaille could effectively hold his own and more importantly reach out to those that he could never have before. Thanks

[@murb2586]

@@albertperson4013 I tried to respond to you but it got deleted, not sure why. It posted and a couple minutes later disappeared.

[@LecherousLizard]

@@murb2586 YT uses some kind of AI to scour through comments. If the AI detects any blacklisted words or phrases, it will hide the comment (it's not "deleted" it's still there and can still get you banned from commenting). This is why a comment may appear posted, but if you refresh the page it won't be there, but it may appear after 5 minutes, because the AI got a lot of comments to sift through. Compare that to times when comments didn't "disappear", back then they were posted the moment you pressed "Reply" and that was the end of it.

[@leelafferty954]

Pierre-Marie, thanks for doing the heavy lifting, with such aplomb! .

[@Critter145]

Gravity is not the driver of cosmology, the electric force is.

[@daryls212]

And it's magnificently magnetic.

[@allanroser1070]

Please then explain the process of how a photon is emitted from Graphite... it is NOT an electrical process.

[@kevconn441]

lol

[@daryls212]

@@allanroser1070 A byproduct of a process?

[@allanroser1070]

​@daryls212 I guess everything ultimately fits your statement... but on this case it's not an explanation of how and why... I am fully behind the EM "force" and its dominance over the Gravitational "force" ... but in the case of Graphite emissions neither of those phenomena can account for it. Cheers mate 👍

[@JoseSilveira-newhandleforYT]

Thank you Dr. Robitaille, for another fascinating video!

[@paulthomas963]

You are a refreshing breath of sanity in the hysterical kookery passing for physics these days.

[@MultiverseMediaSpace]

O! I love your description tab, keep linking! Your channel looks great.

[@ryemccoy]

Question, since they say a dwarf planet isn't a planet, is a dwarf star not a star? Also, another question, is a short man not a man...is a small car not a car...? Do "scientists" not understand what an adjective is? 🤣

[@nzuckman]

The way "dwarf" is used in astronomy is a bit arbitrary. A star is a dwarf if it weighs less than 5 solar masses. A planet, on the other hand, is dwarf if it hasn't cleared other debris from the neighborhood of its orbit.

[@j.pershing2197]

Our local dwarf stars Jupiter and Saturn are in dark mode. After shedding mass they have little chance of attaining glow mode within the Suns heliosphere. They are stars because they emit more energy than they recieve from the Sun.

[@CarlJones14]

​@@j.pershing2197brilliant comment.

[@JoeDeglman]

There are NASA groups that get funding to study minor planets and asteroids and other NASA groups that get funding to study the major planets. The campaign to demote Pluto was spearheaded by the NASA group that could only get the funding to analyze the data from the New Horizons probe for minor planets and asteroids. It was no coincidence that Pluto was demoted right after the launch of the New Horizons probe. Make some cash available to a NASA group that can only study "minor stars" and consider white dwarfs demoted.

[@JoeDeglman]

@@nzuckman Some of the major planets have asteroid debris and have not cleared there orbits yet. Jupiter for examples has at least 7000 trojans in its orbit. Mars 14 Neptune 28 Venus 1 Earth 2

[@Nate_Web_1776]

Great video, thanks for the details.

[@Kenzofeis]

"I love it when you talk science to me"

[@gi169]

Thank you SkyScholar.

[@JoshuaTreeObservatory]

Thank you for your videos as they help me in my efforts to understand. I want to emphasize one observational reality which is neither directly in support nor opposition to your spectroscopic analysis: even in the biggest of telescopes, no angular diameter of Sirius A or B (or almost any star at all other than the Sun) can be resolved. Amazing! Or, as Christopher Graney at the Vatican Observatory puts it: we cannot see the stars, we can only see their light. If not for this fact, debates about the radius of stars would not be as they are here--although yet at least for my part I will also allow that space beyond our Solar System may be non-Newtonian and/or non-Euclidean.

[@MultiverseMediaSpace]

So red shift isnt only streaching over time?

[@j.pershing2197]

Halton Arpe Have a look at what he stated about red shift. Halton Arpe is a great start

[@MultiverseMediaSpace]

Thank you.

[@guytech7310]

Question: What is a "Boo Star". Most the hits I get are related to Halloween, and some academic papers, but I didn't find a definition for a "Boo star" Thanks

[@guytech7310]

Nevermind, I figured it out: "Lambda Boötis is a white A-type main sequence dwarf with an apparent magnitude of +4.18. It is the prototype of a group of rare stars known as Lambda Boötis stars, all of which are dwarf stars with unusually low abundances of metals in their spectra. Its diameter has been directly measured to be 1.7 times that of the Sun.[7]"

[@jooky87]

Dr can you make all this science more digestible?

[@jargowares]

Dr. Robitaille, does the solar magnetosphere better match the condensed matter model of the sun or the standard model? Or is there no difference in the magnetosphere for either model?

[@Joe-j5j1u]

So how do we measure true mass. I've always been skeptical of proposed masses of stellar objects that are light YEARS away or are they truly that far away? So much we can't prove

[@romado59]

The unequally spaced spectrums lines argues against gravitational redshift. Is that what this topic is about?

[@rooskohn8990]

My simple brain came up with the question: Could a white dwarf be a gaseous giant planet that is becoming a star versus a dying star? So on the rise instead of decay?

[@daryls212]

And that's interesting in that Arthur C. Clarke's, 2001 A Space Odyssey and sequels, he has Jupiter turning into a star, with esoteric assistance. Creator Source? It was a great read.

[@guytech7310]

In many observed White dwarfs The halo of the gas\plasma from its red giant stage can be observed. Also observed of white dwarf remnants of type 1a supernova Not sure how a gas giant could transform into a white dwarf since it would need to be of considerable density. White Dwarfs have the ability to strip the away the outer layers of larger companion stars. When they obtain enough mass from the companion, they explode via type 1a supernova. I suppose some of the Super massive planets orbiting very close to a parent star, might be the remnants if red dwarf stars, which would be the reverse of your question.

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@guytech7310 Dr. Robitaille will address this in his next video release on 25 March. If you email him he will, I'm sure, give you a link for an advanced viewing.

[@guytech7310]

@@stevecrothers6585 Thanks. Thanks for your work! Need a paper or video about Einstein Rings are just caused by refraction (ie no instance lenses across all EM bands, usually just one or two). Einstein Rings are obviously Refraction, but refraction is completely ignored as if it does not exist. Also I think Gravity is likely just the Strong interaction. Either direct or a derivative. SI persists beyond 1 radii, just the force drops, from about 10KN to about 1N at 3 radii. Once Gravity is accepted not interacting with EM, then we can move forward! As long has Physics continues to believe Gravity & EM are related we are stuck for the past 100+ years: dead in the water.

[@danielarcher369]

It would be the other way around. Stars cool and become planets. They are the same objects just at different ages.

[@johnlord8337]

The Electro-static (ES) and Electro-gravitic (EG) model says that any said red shift is only the manifestation of sub-quantum particulates as graviton photino, electrino photino, and small electron photino. These all have variable light velocity (less-than-light-speed) which causes them to be gravitationally captured by a larger gravitational object (versus true photons with full light speed escape velocity ... displaying their various gravitational lensing deflections). These sub-quantum particulates continue to exist as orbitals and light of the stellar engine. This is nothing to do with Doppler shift, or Kelvin temperature. Any of the Lyman, Balmer, Paschen, Pfund, and Humphreys series of electron transitions are properties of the multiple-levels of Birkelund (force carrier) currents - that manifest from sub-quantum to high quantum currents and powers. Their string and ring theory convections as Birkelund currents, like the sun's photosphere convection cycle (Be'nard's Convection) are the fluid movements of these sub-quantums and their associated Birkelund current. These are the actual (above) series of light and energy emissions from any star of sub-solar mass to supra-solar masses in the Herzsprung-Russell chart.

[@johnlord8337]

These Lyman, Balmer, Paschen, Pfund, and Humphrey series of electron transitions are directly related to the fusion processes in the photosphere (sub-quantum fusion) and chromosphere (quantum fusion). Electron excitement (ionization) at the sub-quantum level of fusion happens via sub-quantum tensor bosinos creating regional tension of the particulates and sub-quantum matter fabrics. These sub-quantum tensor bosinos are the veritable sub-quantum-level of Birkelund currents, having the tensor as the carrier wave, while the ALTERNATING CURRENT of the electrical and gravitational forces flow along that medium. Electron excitement from the electrical force RAISES these same electron transitions and overcomes the Van der Wahl's radius. This allows the force carrier's gravitational force fusion of the sub-quantum nuclei into a higher elemental status - eventually the level of Hydrogen fusion into Helium happens. With the fusion process completed, the force carrier removes from the new fusion element, pulling back in any excess electrical force - seen as these electron transitions. The tensor bosino force carrier moves from the region as a moving Birkelund current, and the matter fabrics return back to a relaxed status of cosmic tension.

[@romado59]

Nobody likes a Mockingbird. Your babble is just words stringed together from some chat bot. @@johnlord8337

[@davidmcguinness9187]

Thanks

[@Alasdair-Morrison]

Can you save your voice and Ai likeness so we can enjoy your videos well into the future

[@Devast8r34]

Thank you ALL at Sky Scholar

[@stevecrothers6585]

All the work on the Sun and stars is the work of Dr. Robitaille alone. There is no team working with him. The only lectures on SkyScholar that are not the work of Dr. Robitaille are those by invited speakers, of which there are very few.

[@nonlinearplasma]

Can you define charge? It is not clear which definition you're use when saying the hydrogen is surrounded by "charge" are you using the DC electricity definition or particle physics definition. These 2 definitions are slightly different and different again to an atom, here you are talking about atomic charge in motion (particle physics) as part of a DC plasma current. And so 3 different definitions of charge are used and it would be helpful if you could be specific about which definition you are using. Thanks keep up the good work. Incomprehensible MHD equations used below the surface model a Liquid medium. 🎉🎉🎉

[@3vil3lvis]

It is the failure of Cosmology in applying linear equations to discreet systems. Real matter isn't infinitely divisible, nor is it infinitely compressible.This was the same issue that occurred with the ultraviolet catastrophe and will need a similar solution as the one that Max Plank employed.

[@albertperson4013]

White Dwarves should be the liquid metallic hydrogen 'center' of a star that lost its outer layers, right?

[@brynduffy]

FYI Pierre: You are getting through.

[@oberonpanopticon]

Nah, he’s gonna continue scamming gullible people until he’s forgotten by time.

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@oberonpanopticon "Nah, he’s gonna continue scamming gullible people until he’s forgotten by time." oberonpanopticon This is precisely the nature of comments from those ignorant of the subject and bereft of scientific acumen. Point out and prove an error by Dr. Robitaille to show readers that you are not just a hateful nitwit.

[@traianradulescu3911]

My brain is much more dense now. Unlike DA white stars. Than You for clarifiying that.

[@JamesKing2understandinglife]

i hope that I get to see widespread accepance that the sun is not gaseous plasma and is solid metallic hydrogen...No big bang and no black holes possible.

[@MultiverseMediaSpace]

I am semi-new to this, what is up with the red shift surrounding Beatelgeuce? What I saw makes it look like a blooming flower.

[@williamabbott9437]

Like a lotus?

[@MultiverseMediaSpace]

Yes, or a gardenia

[@BlackMasterRoshi]

is that really a "red shift" you're talking about?

[@Critter145]

🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@maxhubert3785]

❤

[@Jueyes-vg2gb]

Wizardry

[@Socrates-ti2dh]

😇😎😇

[@oberonpanopticon]

Ohhh, it’s _this_ guy. I knew I was getting crackpot vibes.

[@VariantAEC]

Is there anything wrong with what was actually covered here? Cliffnotes version YT is pretty picky with longer comments these days.

[@stevecrothers6585]

"Ohhh, it’s this guy. I knew I was getting crackpot vibes." oberonpanopticon This is precisely the nature of comments from those ignorant of the subject and bereft of scientific acumen. Point out and prove an error by Dr. Robitaille to show readers that you are not a nitwit.

[@oberonpanopticon]

@@stevecrothers6585 I’d rather be called a nitwit than actually be one. I don’t humour people like you. Did you know it says gullible on the ceiling?

[@VariantAEC]

@@oberonpanopticon Still no answer as to what could be wrong with the Dr.s' assessment? What a shocker.

[@stevecrothers6585]

@@oberonpanopticon : "I don’t humour people like you." oberonpanopticon You don't need to - you are a joke all on your own. As anticipated you did not advance any scientific argument; only the usual drivel. That is precisely because you have no knowledge of the subject matter and no scientific acumen. And despite that you think yourself able to criticise Dr. Robitaille in thorough ignorance of his arguments. People like you are a dime a baker's dozen.

[@doltBmB]

I assume you mispronounced "lambda bootis" initially but the edit to fix it is really obvious and distracting

[@daniellassander]

I so wish you had a clue what you were talking about. The mass can be inferred by its orbit which we can easily measure, then we can see its surface temperature by comparing it to what we know about Em radiation and temperature, then we can see how luminous it is and that gives us the information to tell us how big it is. So we knows its mass, and the actual size, which tells us how dense it has to be, we also know its temperature. By knowing its mass and size we can also say what its gravity is, and its roughly 350,000 times that of earths gravity, at that gravity 1 gram of hydrogen here on earth would have a weight of 350 kilos. A cube of 1 meter cubed has roughly 1 kilo of hydrogen here on earth, on Sirius b that would have the weight of 350 tons. 1 Cubic meter of lead has the weight of roughly 11 tons here on earth, but hydrogen on Sirius B has to be almost 35 times denser then lead here on earth. The math isnt hard to do for something that simple and the math says you are wrong. You can check out its properties easily by doing some simple maths, starting with the ideal gas law would be a good place to start, that could tell you its internal pressure for example, that gives us an actual force, now we need to find something that can stand up to that force and it turns out that there are only two known possible forces that of electron degeneracy and that of neutron degeneracy, but for the size of Sirius B it has to be Electron degeneracy. You are all perfectly free to look up any of this yourself, and see if i did any mistakes in the math. You are free to point out any faults in the math but there are none, so you are arguing against actual mathematics, so i suggest you take this problem you have with a mathematician.

[@BlackMasterRoshi]

hahahah yeah "ok"

[@romado59]

Measuring the mass is not in question. The size of a star in most cases is not known because of inability to resolve the disk. To guess the temperature through the spectrum is not well defined, i.e., are you measuring a temperature or a voltage potential. P.S., Mocking anyone will not win you any debates, even when it seem the norm everywhere.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

"I so wish you had a clue what you were talking about." Did you actually watch this video and the others that preceded it? Dr. Robitaille went into excruciating detail why the white dwarfs cannot be super dense. One thing that has also been discovered is that astrophysicists are super dense.

[@guytech7310]

The Point is another data point to disprove Special Relativity: Gravity Bends light. There are a whole serious of videos on this YT Channel that disproves it. This video is just another nail in the SR coffin.

[@bushmangrizz4367]

@@guytech7310 Absolutely. I love it.