The Liquid Sun: Coronal Heating - Just a Misunderstanding?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- This video reconsiders the evidence for "coronal heating", based on 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/
I can't watch mainstream science because of you and Robitaille and that's just fine. Thanks for the video! LG aus Kanada
Not them, it's the way mainstream scientists and mouthpieces *responded* to them. It came across as unprofessionally desperate and often involved bad-faith tactics. You can see the same behavior in other fields, feigned incredulity is their shield.
i stopped watching mainstream science when my Dean proposed me PhD in Globe Worming, with excitement:
"but nobody would ever be able to verify our simulational 'models'! we can publish every month and never retract never receive critics!"
Alex Jones does the best commentary on science, geared specifically to people allergic to everything mainstream.
@@ezbody how many boosters have you taken?
@@deathsheadknight2137I enjoy watching the Apes shouting “scientific heresy” haha. I feel like we are getting a window of what it was like when people were arguing about plate tectonics.
Watching Pierre-Marie Robitaille lecturing about his theory is a bless. It is like real time listening to any of the other “Giants” in history. What an opportunity. Same like his predecessors who shifted paradigms he is being dismissed by their contemporary mainstreamers. Awesome.
Robitaille doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. That is why he only exists on youtube.
If you are referring to solar physics, I’d disagree with you.
MAGA science kicks ass!
@“Professor”Dave/davejones7632,
Nope. You are the one that only exists on RUclips, sorry.
This has become a very strong series of videos! Thanks for your efforts in this field, Dr. Unzicker. I sure hope we are nearing a much needed paradigm shift.
You are not going to change well-evidenced science with complete gibberish that only exists on youtube.
Indeed, very strong series of videos only one shortcoming, and that’s that they are completely made up.
@davejones7632 Limit the number of comments. Everyone has understood that you do not like the content here, thus don't waste your time. I do tolerate dissent, but not bot-like spam.
One man’s bot like spam, is actually the truth.
Try to post content on any subject where you can predict a result based on your alternative theories and then let’s go check and see if that happens. You can’t do that because you are not performing science.
The million kelvin temperature of the corona is pretty much an observation at this point. This is because the primary observation that leads to this conclusion is that the corona has such a gonzo emission spectrum. If we assume the corona's spectrum is an ordinary one, where the forbidden transitions aren't occurring, then it can't be matched to the known elements. (It was a serious proposition at one point after its discovery in 1867 that there was a yet undiscovered element dubbed "coronium" that made up the corona, the same way that helium was first discovered in the sun - it's why it's called helium.)
The big problem, of course, is that we've discovered all the elements up to oganesson. No element matches the corona spectrum. However, if we suppose that the rogue lines are coming from forbidden transitions, then it's just the usual posse of elements. "Forbidden transition" is a misnomer because they are transitions that take FAR longer to occur than the "allowed" transitions you usually see in spectra. In order to see them, the atoms have to remain undisturbed for a LONG time in comparison. This requires that the corona be exceedingly tenuous.
But in order to remain that tenuous, the corona would have to be millions of kelvin to maintain the pressure it needs to prevent infiltration of atoms from the chromosphere, etc., that will destroy the required extreme tenuousness of the corona, and remain stable.
Up to this point, we haven't invoked anything but well-understood and well-tested physics, and requires no assumptions about the structure of the sun other than the corona has to remain stable. _Any_ model of the sun would have to explain the gonzo spectrum of the corona, and the only viable way to explain that spectrum is for the corona to be exceedingly tenuous and millions of kelvin. If there were any viable alternative, any at all, mainstream science would take it because the conclusion is that absurd at first blush.
Robitalle proposes the only thing that the corona can't be: cool. If the corona is cool, it has to be dense to remain stable. If it's dense, the forbidden transitions disappear, and the spectrum is an ordinary one. If the spectrum is ordinary, then it can't be explained with the known elements. You would need to show that a new element, "coronium," produces the required spectrum, and with the periodic table pretty much buttoned up at this point, good luck with that.
Oh, and those clumps of positively charged metallic hydrogen in the corona? Pure fantasy. Even with all their electrons, metallic hydrogen isn't stable below ~10 gigapascals. Without their electron seas, the chunks would instantly fly apart in a coulumbic explosion. And they don't solve the core problem of the corona, because you can't show where those rogue lines are coming from.
Actually, it is a little more complicated than you describe. In fact, there are two lines of evidence that the solar corona does not heat with elevation. The first, is the realization that the continuous spectrum of the corona has been known for over one hundred years to redden slightly with elevation. The second is that the CO absorption line demonstrates clear cooling with elevation, and this line is thought to be in thermal equilibrium (unlike emission lines which are not in thermal equilibrium). Now, relative to the presence of forbidden lines, you are also not quite on target. The lines are considered forbidden because they cannot occur using electric dipole transitions. Most result from much weaker magnetic dipole or electric quadrupole transitions. Yes, it is true that forbidden lines are more likely to be seen in the free atom when the density is extremely low. That assumes however that nothing is disrupting the electron shells around the atom and that no chemical reaction is involved. When a chemical reaction is involved, then forbidden lines can become strong and that is what I believe we are seeing. It is a question of chemistry and that is the point you are ignoring. The interaction between two atoms can change the electron cloud and transitions which were considered forbidden can now take place. The presence of electropositive condensed matter in the corona is all that is required to stripe an atom like Fe of all but one or two of its electrons. The process disrupts the electron cloud of the atom and as a result, forbidden transitions are not only enhanced, they are selected. Elevated temperatures are not required. Your statements about metallic hydrogen are pure speculation. I restate my case: There is ample evidence for condensed matter, not only in the body of the Sun, but also in the corona, and metallic hydrogen is the only reasonable candidate. The simplest evidence for condensed matter to understand is that, in both regions, seismology measurements can be made. Seismology remains a science of the condensed state even though all the astronomers have tried to claim that they can perform seismology, not only is tenuous matter, but in much better vacuums than can achieved in most laboratories on Earth! So, if your corona truly has the density of a vacuum, how are you performing seismology measurements there? The answer is that the corona is not as tenuous as believed and is filled with condensed matter which has been ejected from the photoshere.
@@pierre-marierobitaille2095 _The first, is the realization that the continuous spectrum of the corona has been known for over one hundred years to redden slightly with elevation._
I'm looking at the corona spectrum right now. It's a line spectrum.
_The second is that the CO absorption line demonstrates clear cooling with elevation, and this line is thought to be in thermal equilibrium (unlike emission lines which are not in thermal equilibrium)._
Well, duh, it would cool with elevation. A particle on its way out is fighting against gravity, so that'll bring the average velocity down. So, it cools down from an ungodly some million kelvin to maybe 900,000 kelvin. Still pretty hot.
_When a chemical reaction is involved, then forbidden lines can become strong and that is what I believe we are seeing. It is a question of chemistry and that is the point you are ignoring._
You have yet to show that there is significant chemistry happening in the corona that will cause the forbidden transitions. Until you show that the kind of chemistry to cause these emissions is occurring in sufficient quantity to explain the emission lines, this explanation is a non-starter.
_The presence of electropositive condensed matter in the corona is all that is required to stripe an atom like Fe of all but one or two of its electrons._
You can't assume the presence of electropositive condensed matter in the corona just because you need it for your notion, _especially_ if said electropositive condensed matter should fly apart in a coulombic explosion long before even _reaching_ the corona. Show that your clumps of metallic hydrogen have the lifetime to reach the corona, then show that they actually do what you speculate them to be able to do, and you might have a point. Until then, it's just speculation on your part.
_The process disrupts the electron cloud of the atom and as a result, forbidden transitions are not only enhanced, they are selected._
Where are your calculations for this?
_Your statements about metallic hydrogen are pure speculation. I restate my case: There is ample evidence for condensed matter, not only in the body of the Sun, but also in the corona, and metallic hydrogen is the only reasonable candidate._
Saying that doesn't make it true. You have yet to show that metallic hydrogen is _stable_ in the conditions of the photosphere, let alone anywhere else. As such, your "only reasonable candidate" is unreasonable to begin with. Your only 'evidence' of condensed matter is that the photosphere has a blackbody spectrum. Well, guess what! Molten iron *doesn't* have a blackbody spectrum - I'm looking at one right now, btw, so don't lie to me and say that it does. So, condensed matter doesn't guarantee a blackbody spectrum, so you need to show that liquid metallic hydrogen _specifically_ has a blackbody spectrum before this will hold water.
_The simplest evidence for condensed matter to understand is that, in both regions, seismology measurements can be made. Seismology remains a science of the condensed state even though all the astronomers have tried to claim that they can perform seismology, not only is tenuous matter, but in much better vacuums than can achieved in most laboratories on Earth!_
Seismology can be done wherever waves propagate through a medium. Condensed matter is the usual subject on earth, but it isn't the only place or medium it can be done.
_So, if your corona truly has the density of a vacuum, how are you performing seismology measurements there?_
Doppler shifts on the (very clearly) line spectrum of the corona - integrate that and get a time-vs-position waveform. A tenuous gas can propagate vibrations, after a fashion. If it propagates vibrations, you can do seismology. Your incredulity is merely a skill issue.
This is basically why you're not taken seriously by the scientific community: you throw out these ideas and expect other scientists to be at your beck and call to test your ideas and do the hard work necessary to make sure that it's even within the realm of possibility, let alone a probable explanation, let alone the only viable explanation. You don't do any of the hard _work_ it would take to advance your theory. Years after I've first heard about your idea, it's still at this primitive stage. Meanwhile, mainstream solar dynamics theory is being worked on by literally thousands of researchers no less distinguished than yourself, and as a body far more familiar with the subject than you can ever hope to be. Think of what you're up against; is it any wonder why you're having a tough time of it?
But let's give you that you are actually correct, and another researcher takes up your mantle to construct a theory of the sun... that researcher is the one who is going to get _all_ the credit for your 'theory', because _he's_ the one to have done the work to turn your notions into an actual working hypothesis.
You're not doing research; you're spitballing.
@wyrmofvt You have yet to show what could cause the corona millions of degrees.
Likely have been caused by an assumption made long ago due to the lack of other plausible explanation for the lines observed on its spectrum.
PS- I couldn’t find a total eclipse coronal spectrum as you described. All the samples I’ve found so far show peaks at certain frequencies but also show a lower intensity continuous (few gaps related to Earth’s atmospheric absorption). Would you tell me where to find it please? Thanks.
@pierre-marierobitaille2095 Could the corona be specularly reflecting x-rays coming from the powerful sources located at the sunspots? In other words, corona is always there regardless if it is a maximum or a minimum, the only difference is that during minimum it is not lit (x-Ray) by sunspots. That is what it looks like to me when I look the corona on x-Ray band images.
@@wyrmofvt You made some statements, I corrected then. I will not be repeating the exercise for every thought that might come into your head. For the sake of the reader however, I will correct two errors you make once again:
"The first, is the realization that the continuous spectrum of the corona has been known for over one hundred years to redden slightly with elevation." Robitaille
"I'm looking at the corona spectrum right now. It's a line spectrum." wyrmofvt
Unfortunately, you fail to see the forest for the trees. The corona has a continuous spectrum (the K-corona). That is the white coronal light one sees during an eclipse. According to modern theory, that light is being produced by the scatterring of photospheric light through relativistic electrons located in the corona. Of course, this is simply reaching for an explanation, because the standard model has no means of accounting for the production of white light in the corona. The "soup" of processes it required to produce such light in the photosphere is unavailable in the corona. So for them, the light must be simply scattered photospheric light. The problem is that the K-corona does redden with elevation and that cannot happen if it is just scattered photospheric light. Conversely, I have argued that the corona is self-luminous. That is because it contains condensed matter and such matter can produce a thermal spectrum. The emission lines are superimposed on the K-corona, that is properly called the E-corona and you are confusing the two.
"The second is that the CO absorption line demonstrates clear cooling with elevation, and this line is thought to be in thermal equilibrium (unlike emission lines which are not in thermal equilibrium)." Robitaille
"Well, duh, it would cool with elevation. A particle on its way out is fighting against gravity, so that'll bring the average velocity down. So, it cools down from an ungodly some million kelvin to maybe 900,000 kelvin. Still pretty hot." wyrmofvt
A lack of knowledge makes a very poor basis for holding a conversation. You need to learn the literature before you write and attack people. The spectrum of the CO absorption lines extends from the chromosphere into the transition zone. The lines are IR lines related to a vibrational-rotational line of the molecule. That is a key point. This is not an emission line caused by an electronic transition. The temperature reported does not increase with elevation, but rather decreases from about 6,000 K down to about 3,500 K. You can consult Fig. 1 in this paper: H. Uitenbroek, The CO Fundamental Vibration-Rotation Lines in the Solar Spectrum. II. Non-LTE Transfer Modeling in Static and Dynamic Atmospheres. Astrophys. J. 2000, v. 536(1), 481-493. Of course, astronomers have tried to discount the observation, by arguing that there are now different regions at different temperatures within the chromosphere and transition zone, because that is their only way to preserve their ultra hot corona. Conversely, I argue that the CO lines are the only lines that are properly reporting temperature because that temperature comes from a vibrational-rotational line, not an emission line. The temperature of the solar atmosphere has clear signs of decreasing towards the transition zone as indicated by CO. This of course changes our understanding that the corona is being heated as a direct result.
The rest of your arguments reflect a lack of both fundamental understanding of spectroscopy and careful consideration of the issues at hand. Good day.
What if the sun friction with space was the issue ?
I can't watch mainstream science because apparently Einstein discovered EVERYTHING. Also, they make sure you periodically get one of those "Einstein was right once again" articles. I'm sick of it all quite frankly. I see what they are doing. I'd be surprised if this comment doesn't get ghosted by ai.
wich ? Temperature friction ? Extreme hot vs extreme cold
I would have thought the question of the exposed surface by a Sunspot being cooler than its Chromosphere might be the greater heat problem exemplified by a fusion powered Star? But there you go! I know you won't be interested, but The Electric Sun Model predicts virtually every feature the sun currently displays. Indeed, the model would be considered wrong if the Corona was not a lot hotter than a Sunspot. Which it is. It appears not so with the Standard Model, which lives on despite its dismal prediction success rate when compared with the Sun’s reality thrown back at them (meaning those adherents desperately trying to hold it up). For example, it does not even predict Sunspots, which the Electric Sun model does.Of course we can perhaps blame the likes of Sydney Chapman, and later Eddington for the, almost English Speaking-Scandinavian science divide that was created, which perhaps caused this. Leaving the likes of Birkeland and later Hanas Alfen et al to continue on their obviously misguided electrical/plasma based science, Nobel prize awards included, they being no longer of the mainstream Anglified perspective. Of course, the real problem with the Electric Sun model being right, which it most likely is, is that it presents a much, much bigger problem to the rest of Cosmology, so must be resisted vigorously.
The electric sun woo is scientifically impossible nonsense. And Alfven certainly knew, and stated, that the Sun was powered by fusion in the core. He wasn't stupid. Unlike some unqualified amateurs on youtube that I could name.
The metallic hydrogen hypothesis can explain many data; however, an explanation is needed of the metallic state itself. Very large pressures are needed for that state. How are those pressures formed at the level of the photosphere?
Why diamonds don’t turn into charcoal when exposed to only 1 atm?
Jupiter is considered large enough to have a metallic hydrogen core. You could fit the entire planet inside the sun's atmosphere, so it stands to reason that there is well and truly enough pressure for it to form at it's lower levels.
@@TheGarrymoore Interesting point of view. Would you care to explain further? We're talking about an atmosphere thousands of kilometers thick here, so even if the density was a fraction of earth's atmosphere, the sheer amount of mass would more than account for the pressure needed for metallic hydrogen to form.
Perhaps you know something I don't?
@@russellcollins4291 Oh, no, my knowledge is very humble, so to say.
@@TheGarrymoore Fair enough. It would be dishonest of me to say I knew what's going on with the sun, but I'm always up for a decent debate. Contrary views are great learning experiences.😁
5:28 There are only a few explanations for the high orders of magnitude. He should have covered them.
Unzicker, would you be able to do a video on the moon landings?
Not my core competence.
We landed on the Moon. Plenty of videos on that.
The variable speed of light is so simple. General relativity is about the changing measures of time and distance which are used to measure the speed of light. This means the speed of light isn't constant across vast distances where the measures of time and distance change. Why don't they teach this in astro physics courses? It's so simple. It explains so many observed anomalies such as superluminal motion and the faster than expected movements of the spiral arms of galaxies.
Maybe because experiments don't support it
_"Why don't they teach this in astro physics courses?"_
Because physicists aren't stupid.
@@davejones7632 You didn't prove anything.
@@JungleJargon Neither did you. Other than proving that you don't understand physics. Go write a paper. Get back to me when you have.
When it comes to definition of temperature, is it macroscopic temperature (in the Boltzmann constant) in applied to gross matter. It is measurable. However, the microscopic temperature, the electron temperature of Plasma is always quoted very high. It is due the non-equilibrium state of electrons in the Plasma. There is no measurement is possible for Plasma, when it not in equilibrium state. The solar corona, it is the electron cloud (lightest matter of other Sun) is an dis-associated matter from the parent atom matter, waiting to recombine with proton to attain near equilibrium state. Such state of matter (Sun corona/electron cloud) need not have regular plasma temperature, which we found in the Plasma cutters.
If we can think that Sun’s radiation emission is due liquid state of Hydrogen,we have to think, the outer corona is an electron cloud, which is already produced so deep inside Sun, but gradually emerged to the height of Sun’s corona. The time travel from electron disassociation from Hydrogen to form a Sun corona cloud could be very large time process. In this time travel, the disassociation electron might have lost the thermal energy to less than 6000K. This could be a possible explanation, where in the electrons in Sun Corona are not attaining equilibrium state (possibly waiting to recombine with proton), but losing temperature much lower than 6000K.
More research is required in this path. Sun Corona temperature could be less then Sun's surface temperature.
_" Sun Corona temperature could be less then Sun's surface temperature."_
Not according to anyone sane.
To resolve the temperature of Sun corona, one must establish what is the matter Sun corona consists of. It could be only electron cloud, which is the lightest matter, that can appear to the outer boundary of Sun atmosphere. But it is charged cloud, could have attained streamed flow due to the Sun magnetic field influence. Solar wind is the best example of it. Such solar winds also reach to Earth. Satellite can be used to detect what solar wind consists of, is it electron cloud or has any other heavier elements like protons, Hydrogen, Helium, etc.
Referring to Sun corona temperature, if it is an electron cloud, there is no known processes, that it can produce temperature on its own. It Sun corona is an electron cloud, it can exhibit only macroscopic temperate, if it measured. Such temperature could be lower than Sun surface emission temperature 6000K
@@davejones7632
@@giridharyerramsetti7117 _"To resolve the temperature of Sun corona"_
We know what it is. Millions of K. That should be obvious from the ion and electron temperatures measured in the solar wind. Which originates in the corona.
@davejones7632 Since you don’t believe stars have a surface, it is a bit difficult to ask you this question: Anyway. Can you prove the solar wind originates in the corona and not on the surface?
@davejones7632 Rephrasing: Can you prove the solar wind originates in the corona and is caused by temperature expansion and not by vaporisation of condensed liquid metallic hydrogen present in the corona?
The temperature of the Sun has never been directly measured from space with the same instrument we use from Earth, a pyrheliometer. There are no real photos of the Sun taken from space using a neutral density filter, as I do from Earth. See where I am going?
At around 3:30 you talk about "metallic hydrogen" - what is the pressure-variation at photospheric altitudes according to your "hypothesis"? What support that pressure from above? How does that correspond to what we know about metallic hydrogen. At around 5:25 you have "hydrogen clusters" - what's the electrostatic energy of those? Considering that we tend to need roughly the same number of neutrons as protons to keep the smaller atomic nuclei together it seems that you're on "very shaky" ground there. We definitely do not need to go back to "individual thinkers" that speculate worse than Aristotle.
Please tell me what you know about liquid metallic hydrogen. Thanks.
Multiple approaches always find truth faster and more effectively.
Disprove that statement and I'll consider your point of view on collective thinking. You may think Aristotle was wrong, but his thinking helped us get to where we are today. Just like every physicist that disproves their own theory, the data is used for further deductive reasoning. Wrong thinking is not useless, it is a learning opportunity. Darwin was wrong too, but because others explored his ideas and learned the truth, we have seedless grapes and use viruses to kill harmful bacteria.
I think Robitaille’s model is a very useful foundation for making predictions on the hydrogen phase diagram.
Clearly the standard stellar model is on way shakier grounds. If one can even call it grounds…
Thank you for highlighting what I see as a serious problem in modern western culture, Alexander... that being the propensity for us to draw ourselves into cliques where groupthink mentalities hold sway and where individuality, innovation and invention is stifled.
Just try raising Robitaille's model in any social setting to find yourself set upon by the peddlers of pedantry, polemic and argumentative fallacy.
And to mention any alternative model is met with scorn and insult, rather than an enlightened scientific discussion. I've had issue with this for years.
@@russellcollins4291 There is no science in Robitaille's 'model'. It is complete nonsense, contradicted by evidence.
This would explain the phenomena of a few observed asteroids and comets that have skimmed through the corona and emerged intact and barely changed. They encounter heat levels in the mid 1000's of degrees K not tens of thousands or millions. Their surface may be ablated or sintered but they are not vaporized. Couple this with the theory that comets are rocky bodies not ice but with a large charge differential and you can see how a body could skim the sun without totally vaporizing.
Nonsense. Most comets that get close disintegrate. And if the corona were only 1000s of degrees, why is it accelerating outwards? Not hot enough for thermal acceleration is it?
_" Couple this with the theory that comets are rocky bodies not ice but with a large charge differential"_
No such 'theory' exists. And we know that the dust: ice ratio is quite high. Have done for some time. Still a lot of ice, though, as observed for decades.
The corona is extremely tenuous and while it has a high _temperature,_ it has very little _heat_ content. It's like dumping a teacup of piping hot water into an olympic sized swimming pool. There will be no appreciable heating in the swimming pool because the amount of heat you added is minuscule - even at its boiling point, a teacup full of water doesn't contain much heat compared to the amount that would take to raise the temperature of a whole big swimming pool.
Also, if a comet was made of rock, it would be an asteroid.
The problem is the density of the Corona. It would be a very good vacuum on earth. This is similar to the reason why you can stand for short periods of time 200°C air but would get massive burns from a second of 100°C hot water.
The amount of X-rays emitted by the corona confirms it is at million degree temperatures; there's no doubt.
As does the existence of the solar wind.
the standard model is full of inobsevable details! it is too much comlex for the tools we actually have.
and yet it ignores the most observabe fact - the surface!
What 'surface'? It is just gas.
@@davejones7632 not all people have eyes
@davejones7632 - Why the theorised “illusional surface” (where the “plasma” gets transparent) happens at the same radius for all different frequencies emitted by the Sun?
@@florianopohlmann9516 The surface is not a plasma. It is overwhelmingly neutral H and He. Some of the H becomes H- ions by collecting electrons from the species down there that have become ionised, due to having low first ionisation potentials. Fe, Ca, etc. H- causes the opacity.
@“Professor”dave - See the scare quotes on “plasma”.
I would love to see you analyze the Electric Sun model and its explanation of the entire solar environment, connecting the Sun through currents to the rest of the Galaxy, and the Solar Atmosphere and currents out to the planets and the Terminal (Double layer) shock wave of the Solar bubble/cell.
You asking too much. If he start answering these questions he will lose his job. I am sure that you know the answer to your questions. I just have to add - The Sun's 11 years cycle is a result of periodic rotational cycle between Sun's and Galactic magnetic fields. If you interested in the continuation of El. Universe concept, please find my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe". Regards
@@valentinmalinov8424 *Damn* you people, always *forcing* me to buy more books!
@@deathsheadknight2137Don't fill sorry for the books my friend. I have spent about $500 just last two months and still I regarding this as the best investment in my life. The books are the most valuable items in our life.
_"I would love to see you analyze the Electric Sun model"_
It is scientifically impossible nonsense that doesn't even exist in the scientific literature. Might as well analyse flat earth.
_"connecting the Sun through currents to the rest of the Galaxy"_
No such currents exist. And even if they did, they are not getting anywhere near the Sun. We might notice that!
The 'electric sun' woo is not science. It is scientifically impossible nonsense.
I think the electric Sun model offers the simplest explanation, that the energy is coming externally (and being expressed) and not internally from the Sun itself.
It would certainly explain the vast increase in electrical activity (expressed by physicists as a 'temperature increase'), Especially if the surface of the sun contains metallic hydrogen. In electrical wires, the current flows in a spiral on the surface of the wire, so it would do so in the electric sun model too.
DC "flows" while AC "pulses" @@russellcollins4291
Exactly Donald E. Scott's theory fits all the observation and can be demonstrated in a lab! Spectrum best shown by an Electric Arc Lamp. Coronal temperature profile elegantly explained
The electric sun 'model' is scientifically impossible nonsense.
@@SamMackrill _"Donald E. Scott's theory"_
'Theory'? Lol. Scott is utterly clueless about physics. And impossible things cannot be demonstrated anywhere.
Excellent
Nice
Thank you for supporting the Demystifysci Demysticon 2024 Conference! I am looking forward to Dr. Robitaille's attendance and talk presentation there!
I like these videos where you continue to build the case. This has to be done because the standard model is now dogma.
Nope, the standard model is backed up by all the evidence. This woo is scientifically impossible, and trivially shown to be so.
The standard model makes physical sense, and is supported by all the evidence. Contrary to the woo in Robitaille's 'model'.
@@marcv2648 No you couldn't. Deal with the evidence. There is enough of it. Are neutrino detections dogma? Is helioseismology data dogma? Are measurements of the solar wind dogma? Et cetera. Sorry, but word salad doesn't cut it.
Americans always like 'The Next Big Thing'. Why worry about 150 year old details? 😎
Feet vs Horse vs Car argument... it's called constant evaluation of Theory based upon New or Old data. What used to be known as The Scientific Method.
i am afraid it is not americans per se... i correlate the end of the science with the influx of the most protected people whose name is not to be mentioned here.
americans constitute the fanbase of this phenomenon in the manner you described.
Yo unzicker ill say this: you care. You're being intrepid, and you know what that means. I don't know what the Sun is, but I see you and wish that you keep pushing. Salut!
wow was just checking your channel out of curiosity and I'm early
The suns density makes a gravity well in space which may focus the energy/heat at the distance of the corona increasing the temp....???
I'm glad that you noted Robitaille's disagreement with your annotation in the graphic at 3.23 onward. Robitaille's model would have the solar interior as a solid. Absolutely black... and relatively cold. Indeed, it is this black solar interior that we see when there are sunspots!
To further help describe what is going on (This is a complicated thing to explain but I'll do my best):
First let's remember what we know about atomic weapons:- the atoms of pure metals will split and release their energy in a violent explosion when subjected to an extreme pressure. This is what makes an atomic weapon work! So we have practical evidence of this phenomena. However, what happens when the pressure around the atoms is so great that they CANNOT release their energy? Their energy is trapped and the atoms exist in a metastable molecular structure. Robitaille reasonably conjectures that this is what the bulk of the Sun is- that the atomic structure in the solar interior is most likely a body-centered cubic arrangement, therefore a solid structure. So let's consider this knowledge in light of Robitaille's metallic hydrogen Sun...
Imagine the star as a solid ball of metallic hydrogen, the atoms (and their potential energy) are contained by immense pressure due to the mass of atoms above. However, at the surface the atoms are exposed to the vacuum of space, where there is zero pressure! So there MUST be a depth where the pressure transitions from "too immense to allow energy release" to "too little to contain the release". Robitaille has reasonably conjectured that this transition zone is a few hundred kilometers beneath the Solar surface.
What happens is that the atoms at this depth break apart and release their energy as the pressure is no longer high enough to contain it. The energy release then blazes towards the surface, much like the bubbles rising through boiling water. This then explains the roiling liquidous surface that we observe.
We see this transition zone when we see Sunspots... the black interior of the Sun becomes visible as a magnetic storm opens a hole in the surface. We can then see the transition zone in action, with the initial releases taking place deep in the hole and moving outwards to the surface.
Indeed, this black mass beneath the transition zone is the inspiration for the concept of a "Black Hole"- a region where the pressure is to great to allow the release of energy. It's not that the gravity is too great (as the fallacious Black Hole model suggests), but the pressure! And the fact we know how atomic weapons work is testament to the fact that Black Holes as stand alone entities cannot be black! Because at some point the pressure at the surface is too low to contain the energy being released from within. This is unavoidable physics!
Remember gravity is a relatively weak force, however, where it is combined with a large mass, it exerts immense pressure towards the interior of that mass. The pressure is an exponential factor of the mass present. By comparison, the gravity is a linear progression.
Is it possible that there is a neutron flux from within the Sun that is enough to ionise the corona? This would give the appearance of very high temperature (because to achieve ionisation from atomic collisions requires those high temperatures), but neutron collisions could ionise the corona gas without creating such high temperatures. A neutron flux would not ionise the chromosphere because the greater density would enable rapid recombination. The illusion of high temperature could only persist in the more dilute environment of the corona gas.
Temp. is a function of particle speed or energy. The surface is subject to some cohesion. Above it, atoms are free to move, expressing their energy.
Beautiful.. Creation of he heavier elements.. They come from somewhere and foe me, this is verified by bog iron.. from a massive CME(s).
Consider a muon (or a lot of them) approaching the Sun. The medium of the galaxy slows as it approaches the sun, creating the gradient of time dilation we associate with gravity and lensing. Motion into the “gravity well” increases the speed of the muon. Entering the corona to a depth that has a raised index of refraction will increase the speed of the muon. At some place the muon fails, not kinetically, rather relativistically, releasing all its energy into the corona.
Why is the Sun’s corona so hot?
There is a claim for metallic hydrogen but IMHO the pressure in the photosphere isn’t high enough or am I missing something? The next question is how this metallic hydrogen reacts to other atoms as the photosphere has roughly 23% helium and 2% other metals. These would put a lot of strain on this metallic hydrogen.
The reason the Corona has a Higher Temperature is because it is caused by an Arc Discharge that is initiated by the potential Voltage Difference that exists between the Sun and it's Heliosphere and Interstellar Space. The enormous voltage difference creates the Arc.... the Temperature of which is much higher than the Sun's surface.
It has nothing to do with with H clusters craving for electrons or any ridiculous "psyentific" explanation.
I am in Full agreement with Making Physics great again
(or rather ..Real Again)
Then, has the corona a different refractive index than presently believed?
Has Sabine Hossenfelder weighed in on this? Should she?
she is slowly takin on against the Worming, do not distract her.
@@sillysad3198the worming?
@@nickcarroll8565 how many boosters have you taken?
Why would she? It is scientifically impossible nonsense that only exists on youtube.
I always enjoy watching your videos, you are man of good understanding of current physics explanations. I’m hoping one day I will be able to give you clear explanations of sun’s true function, that will be key to scientists understand almost everything about the universe it self. Sr. I want you picture this in your mind sun core made up of countless subatomic particles of protons and neutrons. Now I want you think of in your mind one iron atom, with out of any electrons just a nucleus it self, now try to imaging this, suns core exactly the same thing it just a nucleus with out of electrons only with one difference suns core extremely large, no electrons involved. First time ever I will explain how atoms energy becomes dense, atomic shells accumulate all energy to create their density, when subatomic particles expand their energy, quarks stay together within core , moreover shells energy expand according to the pressure exists, just for that reason earths gravitational expansion looks like doughnut shape because that is shell in expanded form. You are constantly talking about liquid hydrogen, Sr. I will insure you there is no liquid hydrogen, if we stopped destruction of atoms from inner core of our sun and stopped the energy function of atoms it will turned out the most dense atom in solid, it would be most heaviest metal in existence. Suns inner core has no hydrogen atom I will guarantee you, I can prove it as well. Now let’s understand why is that suns coronal heat reaches couple of million degrees not on the surface of the sun. After subatomic particles forcefully separated from the inner core internal pressure ejects separated energy onto surface, where suns ejected over heated atoms condense together and spinning none stop, while its cooling down and breaking apart into single subatomic particles and forcefully traveling outward to corona. Now lets understand how corona holds atoms where temperature increases above millions of degrees, if you checked my explanations I explained many times inner core made up with subatomic particles, subatomic particles they go on and off none, that creates rings none stopped, this rings travel from inside out. Right above the corona sun has the first ring, appearance and disappearance of the creates pressure above force the subatomic particles stay below the rings, which would be considered sun’s uppermost atmospheric reach on coronas location. Just like our earth has atmospheric uppermost reach is fifty nine miles deep into space, it works exactly the same way like sun’s gravitational field, is not different, only with one difference, sun’s gravitational field extends billions of miles, earth’s gravitational field expansion is about little more than ten million miles away. Higher the pressure over the inner core farther away the expansion, here is size is matters. I hope all this explanation will help you understand why coronal heat reaches millions of degrees.
Robertaille's model (being simpler) allows for more and better explanations of the different types of stars.
but i remain unconvinced.
Robitaille's 'model' is scientifically impossible nonsense. That is why it only exists on youtube. Just like flat earth.
Robitaille's 'model' is scientifically impossible nonsense. It explains nothing.
If metallic hydrogen is being ejected into space, is there a possibility of capturing some with a vehicle flying by? How far would it be ejected?
metallic hydrogen CLUSTERS may well be ejected. The primary induction (conceptually) is that such hydrogen is not stable when its extreme nucleation pressure suddenly goes missing. So, on the order of nanoseconds, it reverts to ordinary hydrogen. Monoatomic at tens of thousands of °K, diatomic at lower temperatures.
Nanoseconds? That is not what can be clearly seen in videos of CME’s falling back and splashing like water on the Sun’s surface.
@@florianopohlmann9516 My sense of time was way off, to be sure. Zicky's other videos make the 'time to hold together' quite a bit longer. Many minutes. Hours.
However, in all "fairness" to my physics lernin' at University, since the outbursts of coronal mass-ejections is definitely tied to magnetic-loop hotspots under the surface of ol' Sol, there is every reason TO believe that the knots of magnetic energies are deeply involved with making the CMEs highly spinny. Highly vortex-around-toroidal magnetic lines forces. Such billion-ton blobs would definitely hold together more compactly for seemingly outrageous periods of time.
@@robertlynch7520 Also, what is the pressure at the surface of the sun? It can only be "atmospheric" pressure.
Why diamonds don’t turn into charcoal when exposed to only 1 atm on Earth?
Conservation of energy would be the engineering approach to this question. If the results of that calculation don't match the observation then the energy conservation calculation is missing a term or has a gross error in a term.
there is also electrical friction with space magnetic friction with space all these should be detectable at the condess ation huge region .
Plasma on bottom don't have any sens. I think there will be empty space between this semi-metalic lattice. Filled with some v. hot gases that produced by evaporate semi-solid surface of Sun. Because of Sun density is around 40% that have water density. So or while Sun must be in form of liquid witch is stupid I think.
If Sun was whole liquid, it's move in interstallar space, make visible deformation. That we don't see...
So we need some empty space, between visible surface and and true surface. I think Sun have some super conductive metal or metals as core. Then some some kind of gaseous atmosphere. Then this liquid lattice then Chronosphere.
Referring to the slide “Ionized He 30.4 nm extended > 70.000Km” Please note Sun cycle, that can extended up to 12 years.This phenomenon is well stated and followed in the Hindu Calendar, by observing the shadows of Moon light, Sun light and observing Planetary positions keeping star positions constant.
The theme in the Hindu Calander is that Solar cycle cause seasonal variation in rain fall, low rain fall stretching 3-4 years in row, copious rain fall stretching 3-4 years in row and other periods normal. This phenomenon is further observed as El Nino and La Nina patterns in the Indo-Pacific Ocean, that effect rain fall in particular year. Both Sun cycle and El Nino/La Nina patterns can be correlatable if more research is done.
Also, Hindus following Sun Cycle. Kunbha mela/Pushakar ritual performed 12 different river banks covering all the perennial revers across India. Each designated river bank gets rituals once in 12 years in rotation. The exact dates (window of dates) for river rituals for given river bank is calculated as per Hindu Calendar, taking account of leap year of Sun, leap year of Moon and Planetary positions w.r.t to fixed star positions.
I am suggesting more research to be done on Sun cycle, Seasons and Rain fall and their correlation.
,
Thank U 4researching those contradictions ⭐️
Why are you quoting from Zirin's 1967 book? Somewhat misleading, isn't it? Deliberately so, perhaps? Try his 1988 book, or any number of later papers he published.
I think just the cover shown here is from 1967.
@@TheMachian Zirin did much more recent work on the corona. I would suggest reading it. However, that is the least of your problems. You need to explain the coronal x-ray emission, and the existence of the solar wind with a cool corona.
Robitaille has hypotesis for both. Watch more of his videos.
You misunderstand core concepts.
Please explain which ones.
@@bushmangrizz4367 Physics.
@@davejones7632 "Physics." Comprehensive and deadly rebuttal. Thank you for your confession that you are useless.
@@bushmangrizz4367 Do you understand physics? I doubt it, but I will do my best to explain the relevant physics to a layman;
The corona emits x-rays. That will only happen at very high temperatures. Over ~ 1 million K.
And the solar wind would not exist if the corona was much cooler. What is the escape velocity of the Sun? How are you getting ions and electrons to accelerate away from it without them being very hot? Thermal acceleration, in other words.
And what are the temperatures of the ions and electrons in the solar wind? Rather high, I think you'll find. They didn't get heated between the Sun and our spacecraft, so the obvious conclusion is that they were hot when they were in the corona.
@@davejones7632 "Do you understand physics? I doubt it, but I will do my best to explain the relevant physics to a layman;" Hello, Ian Whitaker. Took me a while, but you are Ian.
Temperature is not the only way that an atom can be striped of their electrons. Ask anyone who has ever studied static electricity. When a more electropositive material needs electrons, it can readily scavenge them from a free atom. Robitaille has proposed that the corona is filled with electropositive condensed matter. That is what causes electrons to become stripped away. He has also shown that CO indicates cooling temperatures with elevation and the fact that the continuous spectrum of the corona actually reddens (cools!) with elevation. That has been known since the mid-1800s.
So, look Ian, give it a break, you know a lot less than you think. Your incompetence continues to boggle the mind, as you have demonstrated repeatedly on Sky Scholar. Your correspondence Masters in astrophysics does not do you well. Who do you think you're saving anyway? You don't think about anything or study anything in a serious way and that is why you write nonsense and think you are saving astrophysics. Sorry, it's already dead and you're not helping.
@ ~5:30:- What are we supposed to 'give a fair chance' to? Got any peer-reviewed papers where this nonsense is laid out, so that people who do understand the relevant science can ponder it? If it doesn't exist, how is anyone supposed to assess it?
Progress in Physics is peer-reviewed, whether you like it or not. The question is rather that when you are talking about "people who understand the relevant science" you actually mean the adherents of the standard model, which makes your argument kind of circular. I recognize that such heterodox ideas are hard to swallow for the established model, nonetheless we are doing science here - which means trying an unprejudiced evaluation of the evidence. If you come to other conclusions, so be it. But remain unemotional.
@@TheMachian _"Progress in Physics is peer-reviewed,"_
Nope. It is not. Why do you think it is not indexed by anyone? Why did it appear on Beall's list as a predatory journal? Claiming to be peer-reviewed does not mean that it is. It is a joke journal.
_"you actually mean the adherents of the standard model"_
No, I mean people qualified in anything relevant. Robitaille isn't. You are basically making the same arguments I hear from creationists. And Robitaille is quite likely one of them.
Are you davejones or Dave Farina? You sound pretty much like that teacher.
lol ! “Professor” Dave! It is you! lol
@@florianopohlmann9516 Anything intelligent to say?