Standard Solar Model: Falsified by Telescope Evolution
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- This video gives a short argument for the Liquid Metallic Hydrogen model of the Sun, developed by Pierre-Marie Robitaille. For going more in depth I recommend:
Sign up for a talk by Pierre-Marie Robitaille: www.eventbrite...
My book:
www.amazon.com...
Robitaille's Channel: / skyscholar
Robitaille's papers:
www.ptep-onlin...
www.academia.e...
Mind also my backup channel:
odysee.com/@Th...
My books: www.amazon.com/Alexander-Unzicker/e/B00DQCRYYY/
Incredible images. I remember asking my supervisor about the surface temperature of stars and got the usual response of how it's not well defined because it's all just a gaseous plasma etc. Being a student I just swallowed it of course. I wonder how many established truths students are being force fed everyday. Worrying.
You got sucked in by clickbait. Just do a little research into this guy and find out what his real credentials are.
What are they?
@@alexheydon651 troll
@@alexheydon651 first of all you do not add anything to the discussion or the ideas, you attack the man. Second, what are your credentials and achievements?
Looks like you are swallowing anti-establishment narratives and pseudoscientific nonsense. Your supervisor was correct.
so, in simple terms, standard model argues the sun's outer layers are similar to like Jupiter's cloudy outer layers, but you're arguing that the outer layers of the sun are more like lava?
Hydrogen in metallic form
as far as i understand, this particular argument addresses the hypothesis of this "cloudy" business:
if this layer is transforming the radiation spectrum then how does it preserve the sharpness of the picture?
how does it look transparent? when it is claimed to do opaque job.
either way: Hydrogen is the lightest element. How do we know that the sun is still mostly hydrogen and not perhaps a hydrogen covered core of heavier elements. Yes I know that we know the mass and volume of the sun, but if the standard model was right, the hydrogen clouds could be bigger and a heavy core could be hidden underneath.
Since nobody actually knows what's below the surface that's basically it, except that the whole sun is a considered and treated mathematically as a gas in the standard model.
However Dr. Robitaille proposes that the formation of stars from a gravitational collapse of a gas cloud is a mistaken theory that cannot happen if the laws of thermodynamics are considered universal. Instead there has to be what he calls condensation phenomena happening that are (electro-)chemical in nature rather than gravitational. Space dust can't stick to itself, grow huge like a snowball, compress itself as by an external force and light up as a star that's hot as a welding arc. IMHO we been wrong about the Sun and stars since the 1920's.
@donaldduck830 But would the universe have had enough time to generate the sheer amount of heavy elements to strew trillions of stars with solid cores of those elements after only 3 generations? Or are you assuming the age of the universe to also be wrong. Something perhaps also not entirely implausible methinks.
In the Electric Universe Model the sun may be a plazmoid generating its own containment fields. Could these containment fields be interpreted as a surface?
Suns are plasmoids. The EU model is pseudoscience. Plasma cosmology is where it's at.
😉
"Our equations for the sun, for example, as a ball of hydrogen gas, describe a sun without sunspots, without the rice-grain structure of the surface, without prominences, without coronas. Yet, all of these are really in the equations; we just haven't found the way to get them out."
Richard Feynman;-)
I translate: sun is not a gas ball and we do not science, we are no scientists;-)
Did he say, "Yet, all of these are really in the observations..." ??
Because otherwise, it seems like he said the equations don't have them, but the equations have them.
But logically, the problem with an equation would be that it doesn't match either observational data or experimental data.
... or maybe he's talking about two different kinds of equations??? But that doesn't seem clear
Thank you for supporting Dr. Robitaille and the upcoming Demystifysci Conference!
i've been enjoying the series. This episode was less convincing for me. When you talk about the pixel =22 km. The photo zoomed in part of the photo was not a single pixel. It looked to be composed of many pixels. In addition. When i think about boiling water in a pot. A bubble breaking on the surface of the pot does not mean the bubble goes all the way to the bottom of the pot. The rest of the series makes sense to me. This one needs more work, in my opinion.
No one shows a single pixel when talking about the resolution of the photo. Why would you want to see one pixel? The entire point of his comment was the *scale* of the photo.
@@glenwaldrop8166 Do you remember the example showing a rectangle representing 22km across and 500 km down? He talked about how unlikely it would be to have a hole only 22km across that would reach 500km down. But the picture shown of the area that was claimed to reach 500km down. Was made up of many pixels. Meaning his rectangular example was inaccurate to the picture shown.
I have same objections
it's the other way around, no? the granules are underneath the photosphere. I think that's where the misconception is coming from. the 500km photosphere is not where light is emitted from, it's the region where light travels without being scattered, or a majority of it does. so the granular surface is visible through a transparent region. so rather than looking at bubbles, it's more like being able to see the bottom of a container full of water. not too surprising. he actually says in the viedo around 1.45 the photosphere is 'intransparent' by which I think he means opaque. But it's the opposite, the photosphere is transparent until we get down to a region where the denisity and temparatures mean the plasma becomes opaque.
@@user-dx1bq3ps5z So the sun's surface is below it photosphere?
Have I understood correctly, that the outer layer of the Sun is liquid hydrogen???
Do they call it metallic hydrogen?
@@grantschiff7544 could be.
Well, that's the process of science of course. Models get updated as new information arrives and if things do not fit it's a sign that a paradigm shift is needed.
I have a question. Not an expert here, but just a popular science guy: There's talk about advances in angular resolution but how are things in the temporal resolution? The sun is a very dynamic object. Can we glance any information about the phase transition zones of the sun by looking at a sequence of images rather than the averaged look of single stills?
Sir, may I suggest you buy a new microphone to further improve your audio quality, and cut the highs slightly.
Love your perspectives. Thank you for sharing.
I talk to flat earth people somewhat regularly, and I think that there would be a lot less of them if scientists and the IFLS crowd would actually look at the data available.
About 3/4 of any given conversation is basically "your 4th grad science teacher was entirely too confident in simplistic models", which makes it understandable but unfortunate that they throw out the baby with the bath water.
Flat Earthers don't quite understand one simple point: that the Flat Earth model was indeed the accepted theory for a long time, until a better model replaced it. You can't go back to a model that has been refuted. You can only go forwards to a model that's better than all those before it.
It's tied to Christianity. For them to not be insane, they would have to give up believing in a Magical Invisible Sky Fairy.
The surface is definitely fluidic (states of matter here), not gas. It's complicated by also being electrically charged and magnetically infused, with thermodynamic currents (caused by heat transfer and radiation), differential rotations (not a rigid spinning body) and possibly material segregation where different zones have variable composition. Laminar flow doesn't apply so forget using the "easy" fluid mechanics formulas in trying to make sense of its behavior, plus we simplify everything to toy physics when putting an overhead slide presentation. This was pretty much the description my astronomy professor give me back in 1975 and it has stuck with me since.
I wonder when proponents of the standard solar model will acknowledge what's right in front of their eyes.
Im sorry but you and Unzicker are not getting it. You live in a reality that is different to what you believe.
Its not an accident or mistake that the standard models of physics and cosmology. Its by design. Deliberate sabotage of what humanity thinks it knows.
So my prediction is simple, no paradigm shift.
The observable universe will be explained away with garbage scientism such as yet another unfalsifiable idea like dark matter.
There is nothing to wonder about. Just look up who that Robitaille is that Unzicker is so passionately about. It turns out this Robitaille doesn't even understand basic concepts in physics like what pressure is an what the difference between a gas and a plasma is. You may wan't to have a look at Prof. Dave debunking some of his views in watch?v=Zi_mQ0sKOfo
Maybe when they're selling $200 tickets to rubes like you.
When? More like IF! Scientists can be remarkably immobile when their basic beliefs are challenged by new evidence, and they thus tend to ignore or tear down that evidence as a first reaction. We will see.
I wonder when you guys will actually study Astronomy and stop spreading pseudoscientific hogwash.
Does this finding result in a quantitatively different neutrino emission from the sun than in the standard model?
Thanks for your very insightful videos! I have one question. Decades we’ve heard about the potential lifespan of the sun, but if your theory is correct we need another look at this. What is your estimate on the lifespan of the sun, based on your theory?
The Universe is perhaps infinite and eternal. The BigBong [BB ]😉 is undoubtedly wrong [See Thunderbolts , 'See The Pattern' Utuber channels and elsewhere]. In essence, elements are created out of hydrogen and electric current [proven in the SAPHIRE experiment] and ions contained in Birkeland filaments/currents that initially form stars in a plasma Z-pinch events and then grow the stars. These stars may split into several stars or eject other mass that result in planets. It a relatively new [60 years] hypothesis but one that's well supported by observational evidence and predicts and explains phenomenon better than the BB theory. There's much more. Go learn. Contribute.
Looking at the Sun through a suitable instrument is extraordinary. The violence and motion is palpable.
Spectroscopy readings from the Sun can only leave us guessing what lies beneath. Going by your theory, there must be some kind of metallic liquid derivative (probably the first three elements of the periodic table) deep within the sun to cause a runaway fusion reaction. Can we duplicate the conditions of Sun's core in a lab ? If so, then there is no need for these giant fusion reactors.
Fusion is the opposite process of fission;-)
Amazing work ❤
Thank you a great video as always. I notice that it has made me feel more cheerful than I have been recently following the news of the death of Mr Gonzalo Lira , Jnr in custody
FYI, "falsified" does not mean "proven false", instead, it means "fabricated" or "asserted with false evidence." [edit] nevermind, this comment was incorrect. While a less common usage, turns out 'falsify' can be used to mean "to prove false". [/edit]
In science, 'falsified' does mean to be proven false. It does not mean fabricated. Fabricating evidence is considered to be scientific fraud.
@@marcv2648 wow you're right. I looked it up in dictionary to confirm, and yes, it is a less common usage, but it is used that way.
@@networkedperson It is the common usage in any field of scientific inquiry.
Some have postulated the sun has an iron like solid surface. Sunspots being black, because, they are black, not contrast because of lower temps
I would like to get access to the unmolested data and pictures, these are either CGI or modified
So, sun is not naked, atleast it have a thick skin! Is there any chance to build a collider about it?
You and Dr Robitaille are pioneers in challenging the standard model status quo that has arguably been disproved by both of your works and research. Thank you for the continued efforts to prove what is really out there with physics and thermodynamics! ❤
Electric Univers also challenge standard model of Universe.
@@piotrprs572That's also nonsense.
They are not the "Pioneers" For your information even the physics of the future is here already - just find the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440come back here when you've quantised gravity or found a prediction for string theory
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 The amazing thing about that nonsense is it was used to create the 20th Century technologies by men such as Nikola Tesla and James Clark Maxwell. Also of note, the I.E.E.E. (International Electrical and Electronics Engineering) subscribes to plasma cosmology / Electric Universe as well as plasma physicists worldwide.
Thank you Dr. Unzicker. I recently ask another solar physicist who was discussing the magnetic fields of the sun, if the sun had strong magnetic fields would not it have to have electrical forces and currents that are explain by the Maxwell equations.
I have not heard back from him.
Don’t neutron stars have crust?
forst it would be nice to prove they exist.
Incredible mass changes calculations!
Do you have any ideas as to what kinds of solar mechanisms may be responsible for the prolonged grand solar (sunspot) minima in the Sun (on the photosphere), such as the Maunder Minimum of 1645-1715 ?
that's a good point.
Liquid or gas... What does it matter? Both are fluid, pretty sure the sun is made of plasma.
Nothing is really refuted by either.
There are serious consequences. From what I know (I'm not a scientist), if Dr. Unzicker is correct, that means that stars cannot form due to gravitational collapse of large gas clouds. That's not a trivial detail.
My take (the only one) on this guy's theories. Nobody with a serious job in the field has a time and energy to prove that this all is a nonsense. Moreover, it is well known, that it is not possible to prove it to the bearer of the ideas (BoI for now). First of all, BiO's do not have enough scientific background to understand the serious arguments - and if they had, they would never come up with this. Second - any dispute must necessarily stay on a basic middle school level knowledge base and the argumentation cannot be supported by deeper understanding and knowledge - since they lie to us - in cases that do not support our hypothesis. So here: Unziker misses what is the resolution, where is 1 pixel size on the photo (see the Earth size); he has no idea about the dynamic range of the image either, what means black color. Since it is a movie snapshot, no idea, where there are compression artifacts. The previous METALLIC video - he assumes the pressures of 10^11 Pa where there are 10^4 Pa. Matter at these sun's surface temperatures is in a plasma form, kinetic energies are beyond binding energies a belief in metallic bonds here is sad and ridiculous in the same time. Good bye, good luck 40 thousands subscibers
1. Make predictions using your theory. 2. Test those predicitions empirically. 3. Publish the paper. 4. Nobel!
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Carl Sagan
Depends. If you are first and got the backing of power, you can get away with the most extraordinary lies. Too many examples to count.
Fucking Edgar Monitz win Nobel , look how good lobotomy is , how revolutionary . My ass
@@donaldduck830Right, the plasma Sun conspiracy. As if tens of thousands of physicists gained something from hiding the true nature of the Sun.
When the granulation dissipates would it be hydrogen blocks dissolving due to the reduced pressure at the surface? This also implies great circulation of the sun's interior.
does this mean fusion is not real?
Jeans instability mode was taken as an excuse for a gravity driven gas collapse model in sun formation and followed by Einstein’s planetary collapse model for black hole, can be taken as special case.
In Jeans model, the total mass and g force of a sphere of hydrogen gas can be accumulated naturally to a point larger enough to trigger off self compression and collapse on its own. Also ignore the fact that the counter g force also exists outside such sphere equally strong to prevent that from happening. Not even if the model sphere is a galaxy wide.
Telescope? Is unnecessary.
Jean's model made one fatal mistake: It assumed an externally compressed system (actually drawn out!), instead of a true self-compressed system (whereby all elements act as an attractor). The highest density zone in the latter model is not in the center. (we did a FEA model of this decades ago and the result initially appeared unexpected, but a good thought experiment should make it obvious).
An externally compressed system (like a sphere under water) is linear (the magnitude of all pressure vector components perpendicular to the surface equals the magnitude of the pressure in the center).
This is NOT the same as a self-compressing system (which is nonlinear).
@@davestorm6718thanks for updating me of your concept and numerical speculations. It may as well be right.
Jean’s instability model found in the internet describes me that kinetic energy normally equals to potential energy in a gas volume can be accidentally triggered into nonlinear state of self collapsing, and eventually nuclear reactions.
Frankly, our points may be opposing, but are in agreement on our objective? That, no, we don’t need any telescope as suggest in this video to refute a theory that sun exists after a gravity lead collapse.
@@philoso377 Not really opposing fusion and compression, just rather the location of that high compression zone. From the model we created decades ago (me and a couple other guys, one wanted a model for his black hole thesis that would show a gravitational collapse) that did not "work" as expected (highest density/pressure zone, after thousands of iterations, was in a shell, not in the center), we concluded either the model initial premise was wrong or the programming was wrong (though it would be later called an "evolutionary" program), OR everyone else was making a grave mistake. The thesis guy couldn't use the work as it conflicted with the idea that a star could get so massive, it would collapse into a singularity. Problem was, if the highest area of pressure was in a shell somewhere between the center and exterior of a star (say, like in the "Convection Zone" of the standard model), then it, no matter how much matter was accumulated by the star, could never reach a pressure that would crush matter into a point [singularity] or black hole. The other takeaway from this is this would mean that fusion would occur in this shell, and if the shell became unstable, the star would implode, not explode, at first, then explode like we observe in novas and supernovas. It also appears to support, due to rotation creating thinner regions at the poles, lesser output of EM radiation (also observed). If my computer model is correct, of course. I plan on creating a new one with the latest computing power (this time in 3D - mine was in 2D, I did extrapolate assumptions) and open up the source code to those willing to take a crack at it or offer improvements (or add more tensor dimensions to include thermal and electrostatic properties of each "element" in the model). I found some gravity modeling programs, but, lo and behold, they presume the external compression paradigm - so this needs to be written from scratch (I'd kill for the long lost source code in Fortran - I didn't keep the floppies, unfortunately).
@@davestorm6718sorry for your lost of valuable code. I trust you can reproduce it unless we also lost the concept behind it. .. Do you mean if the region began with free gas a volume spanning one or more galaxy wide there still be gravity contraction and further into a nuclear reaction?
Alexander, i would like to extend the discussion into the topic of Earth's cliamte change. Is there a way to contact you privately? We can also discuss here. As a start, can you calculate the "global warming" in actual units of energy (Joules ), strictly using the definition of GMST provided by IPCC. It gives me 10^19 joules over 100 years. This number reveals a lot about the GHG hypothesis, but i wonder why nobody is ever calculating it.
Where does the energy to uphold this (whatever) status quo come from?
The inertia of stubbornness
Does anyone know if the "liquid hydrogen" is in its super critical state?
I’m confident in my education and intelligence but This is specialized. Still looking for any major implications for the contemporary cosmological model and how a liquid sun changes that. New to the channel so anyone have a link to that?
In a nutshell: the implications are that stars cannot form due to gravitational collapse of gas clouds.
It is time now to look at Robitaille's falsification of the CMB.
Wait! You're saying there's a surface we can walk on?!
The sun is also kind of distillation/rectifing column for periodic table elements up to iron. So if the heaviest elements are gathered in the Sun center core then it is not i think possible 4 hydrogen thermonuclear fussion due to other elements inhibiting or poissoning hydrogen/proton thermonuclear reaction in the core. There are scientists indicating hypothesis of fussion on the surface atmosphere of the Sun.
There is a new discovery in how the solar model exists and operates - as well as black holes and their event horizon having much the same properties. There is the photosphere, chromosphere and the corona. The photosphere is composed of gravitationally-captured (new sub-atomic particulates ...) graviton-level photinos, gluon-level photinos, ...higher electrino-level photinos ... and the possiblilty of electron-level photons. As such, these electro-gravitic objects have lesser enegies and attractive internal gravitational forces (WITH variable and lesser-than-light speed) than the higher muon-level and tau-level photons (at light speed). They are neither dissolved, dematerialized, nor destroyed by the greater gravitational source, but continue around this source as a flowing plasma. But, they act like their own singular tennis balls existence, continuing their smaller orbitals around this greater gravitational force and exhibit their light in this captured region. As such you seen the sun's many "granular" and flowing surfaces. These are these variable and lesser-than-light speed gravitationally-captured photinos.
I didn’t understand your comment but I liked it for the amount of effort you put in👏🏻
So we are back to claiming that Light has Mass and now using Gravitons which don't exist in calculations to prove other things that don't exist?
@@jaydenwilson9522 You statement is not tongue-in-cheek humor, but another troll ad hominem attack without any worthy comment. To say light HAS mass (i.e. Newtonian and Einsteinian classical physics) is a sweeping charade. Mass, size, volume, and density do NOT constitute gravity. There must be smaller particulates within electrons, positrons, protons, neutrons, neutrinos, photons ... are all constructs of small composites. And some of those have gravittional potential ... with the smallest of very small energy values.
To say all modern calculations are a sweeping validation of megating something having gravitational properties - only shows that modern science and physics do NOT have all the answers, ... and tweaked calculation of THEORETICAL physicists do NOT validate negation. (Sherlock Holmes) "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." In reference, absence of evidential gravitons in your calculations is not evidence of absence and negating that they don't exist.
So troll on little one, move along, move along, nothing to see or read here for educationally impaired perps.
It's a solid metal core with a positive charge. It sis interacting with the negative plasma environment creating all the Electromagnetic energy...it's Electric!
Reeks of dipole theory. Thanks.
Wow. So its all part of the Plasma Universe. So cool!
I am super interested to know what Nibiru is going to have to say about all this.
We should know pretty darn soon! 🙂
i understand you know who is responsible for the solar spectrum and can easily point it out.
@@sillysad3198 All will be revealed in due time - Nibbs' time (I like to call him Nibbs. Sometimes, I call him Nibbles. 🙂)
@@-108- thank you. this is all we need to know about "science" (tm)
Models never are „true“, they are the mathematical framework which helps to predict the development of certain aspects of reality up to a certain degree of correctness only. Therefore they never be falsified, they all have a limited scope and deliver more or less „wrong“ predictions outside of the respective boundaries. Hence, the only thing we can do, is to find out and make clear, that the limits of usability of the model are tighter than we may have thought. And if this is the case, we should be motivated to find model wich better fits to reality. To do this, we try different hypothesis. The problem in contemporary’s physics: Unfortunately, only few scientists (in any) differentiate clear enough between reality, hypothesises, theories and models.
You can rely on knowledge of what you see to a point, but can never be knowledgeable of what you don’t see yet confident of what you saw. Passing that down through time, while others assume or look away from the reality of.
Is a "sunspot" a depression in the "surface" of the sun? If it was a gas, maybe magnetic fields could somehow move or displace the gas/plasma, but if it was a liquid, I would think it would be MUCH more difficult to move or displace fluid given the MUCH stronger gravitational field at the "surface" compared to the earth.
Perhaps what you don’t realize is that sunspots, coronal holes, and plasma filaments are all primarily the result of electromagnetic forces, not gravity. And have you not noticed that coronal mass ejections and filament releases accelerate as they go up from the surface? Gravity cannot cause that.
Great video, Dr. Unzicker!
The images definitely look like convection cells in a viscous liquid
Good God, is there anything that's truthful in this world anymore?
There is as much truth as falsehood. Only debate can catalyse the truth to emerge.
Good point👍❗️
The Sun's surface corresponds best with the behavior of high energy plasma physics which is self organizing over very large distances. The columnar structures are controlled by Birkeland electrical currents as explained in the 'Electric Universe' videos.
A fool thinks they know everything, but a wise man knows that he knows nothing. And just like that we have to revise everything we thought we knew.
very interesting idea, although I don't quite understand it
Sun is around 5000+- miles high & 50km wide & less than 5000 deg goto (VIBES of Cosmos channel )
I see. Who measured it, and with what?
@@Biosynchro Goto that channel for EQUATIONS and Visuals ! Vibes of Cosmos channel! Also c Full Moon reflect LARGE LAND masses U NEVA Seen b4!
Why do other scientists not react or arrive at the same conclusions if they see the same pictures you are showing us?
The Universe is perhaps infinite and eternal. The BigBong [BB ]😉 is undoubtedly wrong [See Thunderbolts , 'See The Pattern' Utuber channels and elsewhere]. In essence, elements are created out of hydrogen and electric current [proven in the SAPHIRE experiment] and ions contained in Birkeland filaments/currents that initially form stars in a plasma Z-pinch events and then grow the stars. These stars may split into several stars or eject other mass that result in planets. It a relatively new [60 years] hypothesis but one that's well supported by observational evidence and predicts and explains phenomenon better than the BB theory. There's much more. Go learn. Contribute.
Those scientists are off doing the actual science to process the images and use them correctly, instead of collecting images to prove radically different ideals based off of a glancing look. Note this guy does not have a doctorate in physics, it’s in neuroscience, he only has a diploma in physics. He# less a scientist and more a critic, making scientists accountable to the tests, experiments, theories and spending to make sure they can actually explain their models effectively.
He’s not a scientist, He’s a shit stirrer which is an important job to have in all fields, but while he wants scientists to answer questions off of quick glances, scientists take a lot longer to answer questions which has been peer reviewed and quintuple checked
Because the other scientists are actually scientists.
@@meatballg8655Yeah, Galileo was a shit stirrer who had no credentials either….the same with Velikovsky…..and the scientist who stupidly tried to tell the scientific leaders of Europe in the late 1700s that rocks could fall from the sky. He was humiliated and his career nearly ruined because he was absolutely wrong… until the greatest scientist of the time managed to come up with similar evidence that rocks do, indeed, fall from the sky…..
@@fredfarquar8301 Noone here was claiming Galileo was a shit stirrer, except for you in order to misuse him for a flawed counterargument. Stop comparing yourself to Galileo.
I've always regarded it as a kind of plasma.
it would be cool if it were the kind of green plasma from 90s scifi that melts flesh from bones. 😁
would love to wathc your videos but every single one of em is plagued with noises, cant stand em sry
this one has alien talking in background
im sorry but, gas and ionized plasma are not the same
These days, cgi is a scientist's best friend. They love to alter reality to fit their fairy tales. There is no way I would be able to accept that telescope data without full transparency, which is not likely to happen.
Maybe someday but not today.
On the international space station in near zero gravity a candle flame naturally form a sphere that is interacting with the environment relative to its surface. We could have a surface on the Sun formed by the same process, based on conformal geometry where scale is not relative and only angle are important.
Except inside the ISS there is an atmosphere pushing back against the expanding fumes produced by the flames' combustion. In space there is no such atmosphere to push back.
Academic argument of no practical use. Is there any use for the data that would result from a winner of the debate? I can tell you Mr. Unzicker that the surface is indeed not a gas. It is obvious there is a crust. Seems like a complete waste of time.
The picture you're using is from the solar Parker probe, so why only show the ground based telescopes when talking about the resolution.... sorry, won't let me comment. I can only reply on someone else's comment ?
@@jakelyons2211 Really? The only comment you have is on the presentation?
The answer to that question is no,
WTH is everyone talking about? There was a completely free Palestinian state in Gaza. The two-state system was already implemented. And look how well it worked...
The explanation is not very good. As a layman I do not understand.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics: quite simple.
@@adrianalanbennett thanks. I got this much, but I am not clear on why the surface cannot be this thick. How does he know the density of the surface? What are the effects that indicate a different density/thickness? I think it could be communicated better
Brilliant! Just discovered your channel, though I've read your book ages ago. :) Institutionalised modern science is so rubbish, laugh.
I knew it was pop corn
As a non-physicist but a biochemist, I was getting interested in this, until I looked up who Robitaille was. This whole overture has parallelisms with the situation where an anasthesiologist called Hameroff suggested a model of quantum consciousness woo with microtubules which roger penrose gobbled up.
Pseudoscience sir. I'm no longer convinced purely by association with Robitaille's woo.
Your argument is that you get weird vibes from Robitaille? Hahaha. Very scientific.
Yeah, Robataille knows nothing about spectroscopy or physics at all. His development of the modern MRI machine was just dumb luck.
Smfh
@@fredfarquar8301So why can't he answer simple questions such as why should a gas cloud of sufficient size be unable to collapse due to gravity?
@weekendtradesman102 I'm not Ian. The word 'quantum woo' goes around a lot when one talks about Deepak Chopra for instance. I suppose I used it in that sense. Drivel a better word?
@@fredfarquar8301 @nickcarroll8565 I wasn't aware of Robitaille and as I said, I'm not a physicist so I was getting interested in this perspective. But upon investigating I realized that the established community of physicists disregard him and he does not publish in reputed peer reviewed journals. As someone who trusts the academic community's better informed judgment, I now disregard my initial interest. And I realized how dangerous it was. The other day, I told my boss, who is also a chemist, that the sun is liquid metallic hydrogen. Then I read about his nonsense about the CMB, disregarding evidence for blackholes and how he treats celestial objects as benchtop experimental systems, disregarding gravity, suggesting gases would disperse in space so stars have to be liquid, and it was enough to make me stop getting into this dangerous wormhole.
I'll tell my boss tomorrow that what I told her is shit.
Simple.
Love love love this channel
nor liquid or gas lol
Yeah , its PlAsma in the Standard Model , but who rally knoes? The pictures are very interesting , show a granurality in the surface , show that the Sun its much more complex than i gess😊
Just you wait, professor Dave is going to debunk you big time bahahaha that guy is such a tool
He is a superficially thinking impostor.
Science uses the SWAG method of understanding .
The S.cientific W.ild A .ss G.uess 😂
"its a simple question Dr. if the moon was made of cheese would you eat it?"
Name Surface gravity
Sun 28.02 g
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_gravity
i still can not accept the liquid H model,
it certainly LOOKS liquid but this lattice business is shaky as a liquid, what would constitute BONDS of this lattice?
Plasma
@@WorksopGimp at 6000K
@@sillysad3198 yes
@@user-lu9kv6bd9i on the surface
The math suggest that under immense pressure hydrogen changes it's behaviour and forms structures. Some nanosecond experiments claim having witnessed such so it's at least feasible. Although the direction is good this theory has a lot of things to work out, TBO.
WHOM WAS THAT MENTOR OF HUBBLE...THAT DIED FROM MERCURY POISONING .....??
lots of hand waving . anyone who uses the word falsify typically doesnt understand it
Hypotheses are falsified all the time. Not sure what you're on about.