The Sun is NOT a Plasma - Don't Parrot!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 июн 2024
- 3:43: people argue that the free electrons do not come from hydrogen, but from other substances, ok. Still, this is not enough to explain the entire light production.
This video argues that the solar spectrum alone is overwhelming evidence for a Sun consisting of condensed matter. Moreover, it is certainly not a "plasma", as many claim.
For going more in depth I recommend:
Sign up for a talk by Pierre-Marie Robitaille: www.eventbrite.com/e/demystic...
My book:
www.amazon.com/Liquid-Sun-Com...
Robitaille's Channel: / skyscholar
Robitaille's papers:
www.ptep-online.com/
www.academia.edu/34889541/Pro...
• Unzicker On Robitaille...
Mind also my backup channel:
odysee.com/@TheMachian:c
My books: www.amazon.com/Alexander-Unzicker/e/B00DQCRYYY/ 
Наука
Be careful: this video is misleading. Perhaps the main physics error is the direct use of the Boltzmann probability distribution, which does not tell us directly what the ionization level is. To do that, better is what is known as the Saha equation. The Saha equation shows that ionization arises not only from temperature, as is the focus in this video, but also density. Gases can become ionized at both high and low density, for any temperature. I recommend examining numerical calculations based on the Saha equation where species population is plotted versus density; temperature is only half the story. However, even Saha does not apply to the part of the sun that we see because Boltzmann (in this video) and Saha (which is derived from it) assume thermodynamic equilibrium. [For the technically inclined: the error made in the video arises because Boltzmann gives relative probabilities, not absolute probabilities. Saha gives ratios of populations accounting for entropy, which is what is needed. See around the 13:25 mark in the video.] It is well understood that the surface of the sun and surrounding atmosphere are not in such an equilibrium because of the intense photon source that is the sun. Saha shows that the physics is much more complex, but it needs to be extended: while the quantum states are in a steady state equilibrium, it is not thermal equilibrium. The type of equilibrium is called, not surprisingly, "coronal equilibrium"; this is oddly not mentioned in this video - look it up. As for whether the sun is a plasma, it most certainly is. To understand this we need to define what a plasma is and understand the range of matter that is in this state. A plasma is a state of matter that has properties derived from free charges. For example, a metal is often considered a plasma. A plasma can be very dilute, as in interstellar space; or, it can be denser than a solid, as in stars and fusion energy experiments here on Earth. Plasmas can be gas like, as in the sun, or strongly coupled and show liquid-like or even crystalline behavior, as in a white dwarf. Some good rules of thumb for testing whether something is a plasma are: is it a good conductor, or does it respond strongly to a magnetic field? [Another technical note: can a plasma be condensed matter? Condensed matter implies that the matter condenses, which we associate with bonding. In most plasmas, there is no bonding. But, since a metal can be considered a plasma, and they bond, a metal is both a plasma and condensed matter.] Finally, what about the radiation? Starting inside the sun, we have a fully ionized, mostly hydrogen plasma that is extremely dense. There can be no line radiation; the entire sun is filled with radiation that lies on a continuum. This radiation arises primary from electron-proton collisions and is called Bremsstrahlung ("braking radiation"). This form of radiation is "free-free" in the sense that no discrete bound energy levels play a role: electrons go from one continuous free state to another continuous free state, emitting radiation as a consequence. This continuous radiation diffuses toward the surface of the sun where it escapes, some of it toward us and our detectors. As that continuous radiation passes through the colder atmospheres of the sun and Earth, parts of it are absorbed: this is exactly what we see -- a continuous spectrum with discrete absorption lines. It is a very beautiful thing: search for "spectrum from the sun" and choose Images. There is a great TED-Ed video called "Solid, liquid, gas and ... plasma?", which is a great introduction to plasmas if you want more.
Forgive me but I can’t tell if you are agreeing with him or disagreeing with him. It seems you agree that plasma can exhibit “liquid-like” behavior. Is that to say that you agree the sun behaves like a liquid when it comes to its spectrum but not in other metrics? Is your issue nominal or is there a different problem you are trying to address?
@@G3UDO There are parts I disagree with and parts I agree with. The parts I disagree with are that we don't understand the sun and what it is composed of. We understand the sun extremely well and all scientists agree on the sun: it is one of the most studies objects in the universe. There is nothing new here and there is no controversy. We completely understand the spectrum we see here on Earth. Regarding your question, the plasma in the sun (and most stars) in "liquid-like" in a certain, limited sense: the particles are quite correlated (and maybe strongly coupled), like a liquid. But, there is a key difference in that plasmas, despite these liquid-like correlations, are very much not like a true liquid in that they don't form a surface, there is no surface tension. (I am using the basic definition of a liquid that separates it from a gas, which cannot form a surface and therefore fills its container. The plasma in the sun would fill the universe it it were not for gravity holding it in one place. In other words: dense plasmas, and strongly coupled plasmas, are "liquid-like", but they are not true liquids. My main point is that inside of the sun there are no discrete lines (it's bremsstrahlung) and that star-sized continuous spectrum is what emerges at the sun's surface, some of which is absorbs by gases between the inner surface and our detectors - no mystery here.
@@michaelmurillo1484 Obviously the idea that "all scientists agree on the sun" isn't true. You wouldn't be here if that were the case. Are you saying that the only thing that defines a liquid as a liquid is surface tension?
@@G3UDO No, I am just using surface tension as an example because most people learn it that way. The old idea that there is solid, liquid, gas and plasma is very outdated. We now know of many different phases of matter: superfluids, liquid-crystals, various magnetic phases and so on. The way we think about phases of matter is in terms of order parameters, which are usually connected with symmetries. In fact, one could argue that plasmas are not a phase of matter in the modern, true sense. Here is how you can see that. Suppose you have any phase of matter of your choosing, and it is at finite temperature. If anything is at finite temperature, including you, there is a finite ionization, however small that might be. And, because we can't reach exactly absolute zero, everything would be a plasma by definition. That is, there isn't some phase transition when matter suddenly becomes a plasma, unlike freezing when a liquid or gas becomes a solid. So, to your question: what is a liquid and what is a plasma? Plasma physicists have a clear definition, and one I alluded to in my first post: the properties of the material need to "care" that it is ionized. Although you, and I, are partially ionized, we don't consider ourselves to be plasmas because it doesn't affect the properties of our tissues, hair and so on. A test you could perform is this: put a magnetic near something - does it response strongly? if no, not a plasma. A great example that physicists like to debate is a flame: is that a plasma? Definite disagreement among even plasma physicists on this this! But, that's fine because it really doesn't matter what we call it - it is what it is. Same is true for a "liquid" - what definition do you use? The usual definition is different symmetry from a solid, which has a very low symmetry, and has a triple point (which implies it has a surface tension and you are within the critical point). But, what if you are beyond the critical point - what is that?! The point is that modern physics takes a nuanced approach to thinking about what a "phase of matter" is. going back to this video, what we know about stars is that they are very dense; as a result, the correlations among the particles is strong, and resembles a liquid (this is quantified by the pair correlation function); but, if you removed gravity, the particles would not stick together, they would drift apart. (In fact, the pressure is very high and it would explode. This sometimes happens when the pressure exceeds what gravity can hold back.)
@@michaelmurillo1484 If your problem was just with his explanation of Saha's equation why disregard the rest of it (which by the way, isn't the calculation of a ratio absolute in a certain sense)? I don't see how any of this negates the possibility of a change in state at scale. Even if the phase at the corona indicates a plasma how does that imply the entire volume of the sun is in that state?
Wait a minute don't we have pretty good models of high density plasma dynamics from fusion and nuclear weapons experiments?
Yes. I have no idea why he's omitting fusion in the core.
@@Chronicskillness i hope he gets around to it. I don't care for his tone, but if he can use his theory to give us cheap, clean fusion energy I don't care how he presents his argument.
@@JinKeeHe is a conman
I’m not going to pretend I’m well versed on this subject but reading into it I see there are exotic properties measured in this field, giving the plasma attributes that both resemble a gas and a solid simultaneously. Given this fact wouldn’t a natural next step be to consider the phenomenon as something that might resemble a liquid, even as just a thought experiment? I don’t see why that hypothesis wouldn’t be valid. There are far more people dismissing that than there are people trying to consider it and I don’t get it. It seems more like mass formation psychosis than it does genuine dispute.
@@G3UDO Well that's because you are not well versed
1:35 - "I made a grossly inaccurate statement in my last video and a bunch of people called me out on that. I think this proves I'm actually very smart." is one HELL of a flex XD
So the sun is not a plasma but an electrolight. Ok, got it! Thanks!
LOL!!!
Saved.
yes electrolytes are extremely hot thats why they have to be diluted in water
@@deadgavin4218 So if my electro lights get hot then l should immediately place them in water. Ok, got it. Thanks.
President Camacho was actually right, it IS what plants crave
Except the photosphere is FAR FAR hotter than the inside of the Sun, as seen during sunspots. Yah, the Sun merely SPEWS lots of plasma...also, laboratory tests have produced plasma with far lower temperatures than your postulates. Since we KNOW we can produce plasmas in the laboratory - with electricity - with far far less energy required, and far far lower temperatures. Birkeland figured it out over 100 years ago.
Fooled most of his audience though. Not surprising.
@@hoochygucci9432 half of his audience in the comments seem to be butthurt whiners like you so does that mean you're fooled somehow?
But those technical plasmas do not emit a thermal spectrum.
Pierre Marie has created a most awesome channel.
It is one of the best comedy channels out there. Not so good for physics though.
@@davejones7632
It is pretty funny to hear him say "I am correct. Let's move on" in a dead pan over and over 🤣
@@ivoryas1696 Of course he is correct! He is doing God's work! Physics is a foreign country to him, but if it fits in with his religious beliefs, who are we to argue :)
What's really mind blowing is the sun has a
lower energy density per volume than a compost pile.
And that's in the core! Not sure what it is in the photosphere but much much lower. Also the atmospheric pressure at the photosphere is thought to be roughly one tenths that of earth at sea level.
@@vh1167
Active compost, around 100 watts per m^3 heat generation.
Sun's energy release = 3.8 E26 watts .
Vol of the sun is 1.4 E27 m^3.
Energy generated in the sun per m^3 of solar volume = 0.27 W m^3.
A compost pile energy density per m ^3 is actually 370 times more than the sun on a volume basis if my calculator is working tonight...lol
It’s power density not energy density. The sun most surely has a higher energy density (in terms of heat energy) than a compost pile. But the compost pile has a higher power density.
How come the irradiating surface is 6000k and the photosphere is 1,000.000 k?
Off-grid RUclipsrs did a video on heating their shower with compost.
They coil a few hundred feet of hose inside the compost heap and by the time the water gets to the shower it's quite warm but not scalding.
The temperature at the SURFACE of the sun is six thousand degrees, the temperature increases to MILLIONS of degrees by the time you reach the core...the hydrogen is at varying levels of partial ionization near the surface but is a fully ionized plasma before too long!
Sure you can say it's in a state of condensed matter...it's also a supercritical fluid, to me the distinction you're trying to make is merely semantics and a distinction without a difference!
Finally someone else saying it lol. This is a silved problem!
we have not seen deeper than the photosphere.
so anything within that photosphere is mere conjecture.
stop parroting conjecture and hearsay as FACT.
the ONLY fact is that we have not seen beyond the photosphere.
Dude I’m video fixed himself a strawman of the mainstream position and concluded it doesn’t work. No duh. Nobody suggested the sun is a fluorescent light source. It does fluoresce, but nobody suggested that is the sole source of the emission spectrum. The sun is composed of very hot gas of varying compositions and ionization (plasma). We’ve known hot matter glows a continuous spectrum since forever.
This is a giant waste of time.
so you can point to the producer of the 6000K spectrum. right? right?
@@rogerphelps9939 so you can point to the producer of the 6000K spectrum. right?
We know there is hydrogen and helium in the sun, because of the absorption, not emission, of those spectrum lines. With the assumption of a continuous spectrum coming from the hotter inner core of the sun, then absorbed partly by the gas in the shell, this seems to fit in with the theory that it is partly made by gas and partly by plasma.
Dear Unzicker Sir,
To form a crystal lattice, bond formation should occur. Since hydrogen has only one electron in the outer most shell, it can form a covalent bond (1s-1s) to form a molecule. Generally, to form a cubic/hexagonal lattice at least 3 or more covalent bond formation should take place. The theory of bond formation in atomic orbitals limits the hydrogen lattice. It is possible that at such high temperatures degeneracy occurs and some new form of physics is taking place.
Regards
Sandeep
In a previous video Unzicker said liquid metallic hydrogen. No covalent bonds or localized orbitals involved.
@@mistersir3020 Liquid metallic hydrogen is not what we observe in the Sun. What do you mean that there would be no covalent bonds or orbitals involved? That is what is needed in a liquid.
This sky scholar acolyte also apparently doesn’t understand how the convective zone of a star operates and how that separates the vastly hotter core and the radiative zone from the photosphere…
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 No covalent bonds in liquid metal.
Also how do you "observe" it cannot be liquid metal? In another video, Unzicker showed that the Sun is clearly a liquid. You know, splashing 'n all.
@@mistersir3020 I apologise for not being clearer; I was referring to the properties of ordinary liquid hydrogen. But in liquid metallic hydrogen, the delocalised electrons and free-roaming protons are capable of exhibiting electrical properties, wherein covalent bonds become degenerate. Hence, this does not undermine the fact that the liquid metallic hydrogen we observe in Jovian planets is not what makes up the Sun. Instead, the Sun is clearly composed of plasma, and there is no evidence to suggest that it is made of liquid. That doesn’t even make any sense!
Excuse me, Alexander, would you please explain if the sun is liquid, is there above this liquid has no gaseous atmosphere? And if there is an atmosphere, what is the temperature of this atmosphere? Is this hot atmosphere not ionized and does not emit light? I am just curious.
I remember the professor doing calculations to determine when a heavy hydrogen laden pellet being hit with laser energy heats and compresses into a plasma which was opaque to laser energy. This opaque wall was the inner part of the pellet that then compressed to extreme pressure and temp because laser energy could not get through the plasma wall and was blasting away the outer part of the pellet creating a shock wave compressing the inner part of the pellet. It seems to me there is a workable understanding of plasma. (But not necessarily flawless).
Inertial confinement fusion, and extremely similar to the implosion type fission bomb design, but the size of the tip of a needle. And 192 1-petawatt lasers...
The lattice of LMH is considered a one-component plasma. The electrons are allowed to move around in the lattice because they are not bound to individual protons. So you can say the Sun is a plasma.
Here is what Nasa has to say about the sun
The Sun is made of super-hot, electrically charged gas called plasma. This plasma rotates at different speeds on different parts of the Sun.
If NASA says its a plasma its a plasma. Thats how I have to take it. I dont know this Unzicker guy from adam but I trust NASA to know about the sun.
The better term is "Mostly plasma with a fraction of hydrogen ions"
a condensed matter with delocalized electrons is called a conductor or metal, look it up (hence the M in LMH)
@@szocsdaniel Plasma is a great conductor, and the Sun's photospheric plasma is liquid metal. So we're both right.
@@gentrywinn The solar photosphere is not plasma. It is overwhelmingly neutral H and He. Too cool for much ionisation down there.
There are many elements in the sun apart from hydrogen. Many have ionisation energies around 5eV. These elements are partially ionized and contribute free electrons which can form h- ions. This has all been known for 80 years. Try reading a text book on astrphysics!
What hasn’t been known is that planets are older/dead stars. This meaning stellar evolution is planet formation. All the stars in the sky are the youngest Earths, and all the exoplanets are the oldest stars. The astronomers 100% wrong, again.
@@MrWolynski where is all the hydrogen and helium? how did earth srink so much? is UY Scuti going to be a very very very big earth?
I thought books on astrophysics, which mostly regurgitate tradition and dogma, were the problem here!
I would like to know if the sun's spectrum can be reproduced in a lab by heating a low density gas (comprised of the photosphere's various elements in appropriate proportions) to 6000 C. If this has been done already and the sun's spectrum reproduced with the help of those h- ions, this would be widely known, correct?
@marku606 why would you use a low density gas at 6000 degrees? Its the core of the sun doung all the fusion, its a tad hotter and denser than that
Correct. Bloody difficult experiment!
Thanks for the video
Yes, the normal ideas of what a gas is, does not relate to the sun (I think). Even over-heated, because a gas ball cannot exist without magnetic forces. Thus, even so, there must be (electro) magnetic powers, holding that not-gass (or a mass) into its grip. On the other hand such a ball of heated material must send out a continuous spectrum, that seems logical to me. But does plasma also not have a continuous spectrum? Does it depend on the gasses that are involved? That seems logical to me, because the ionization of gas "X" will give another spectrum compared to the ionization of gas "Y". Perhaps the magnetic forces that hold the plasma in its space also have an effect on the strayed out spectrum? For the biggest part it depends on the molecular gasses structure, as far as I know. Correct me if I am wrong. The broadness of the spectrum (only an idea) will (of course or perhaps) depend on the temperature of the plasma and the gasses involved and captured inside that magnetism (I think...). Anyway: a very interesting video! and thanks! 27 dec. 2023.
What are the spectral lines created by two Hydrogen atoms fusing into a Helium atom? Are they discrete and not continuous?
oh - this is the perfect question - yes it exposes the entire thing as not very thorough and thus absurd to be mocking.
Well, I guess I misjudged this.
You do know of the hydrogen anion and the Saha equation. Wow
Could you please point me to a source that makes you think the Saha equation is unphysical ?
While you may not agree with the law's specific form, I'd like to try to persuade you that the question of ionisation fraction is more complicated than a simple boltzmann factor.
Yes, each individual states likelihood of being filled is given by the Boltzman factor.
We neglect the density of states though.
In the Maxwell Boltzmann distribution for example, we need to consider that there are ever more high energy states. You may remember the derivation considering momentum spheres.
More phase space, more microstates ...
More entropy from a chemists point of view.
The thermal ionisation is analogous to dissolution of salts. That can happen spontaneously, even if the process is endothermic, because the entropy is higher.
So even though only one of every trillion ionised states is filled, there are millions of them and that is enough to be significant.
That is the problem I stated. Multiple ionization energies. I tried to tell Robitaille and Crothers this but they refuse to listen.
@MrWolynski
Unfortunately... that doesn't surprise me...
Brawndo has what plants crave.
That line popped into my head when I saw the intro. Underted movie for sure, especially considering it's looking more like a future documentary film with each passing year.
-Fun- dumb fact. During production design the writer/!director Mike Judge was trying to envision what style of cloth extremely lazy and stupid people would wear in the movies dystopian future. A costume designer knew about a new kind of shoe that looked so ridiculous she pitched it to Mike and he put the footwear in the film. Those shoes were the newly released crocks that are now massively popular.
(11:40) "Compton scattering..... that does not change very much the wavelength" - what is your basis for making this sttement?
You have not answered my question, so be it. In the video you skirt the phenomenon of Compton scattering, which CAN explain the emission spectrum of the sun as observed. Your behavior does not indicate that you are interested in the truth or in rational conclusions. If you do not address Compton scattering properly, the credibility of this video at least is destroyed.
So is a nuclear fusion reactor in impossibility if the fusion of gaseous atoms is not what's taking place to emit energy?
How can i contact you? I have discovered how we interpreted light as a wave and particle. With this understading i also solve double slit experiment and superposition and entanglement of particles.
its plasma, and the earth is a globe.
no earth is a geoid.
a globe is too perfect.
@@jaydenwilson9522#FlatGlobeDuality #SchrodingersEarth #BasicPhysics
@@Ghryst EXACTLY!
Lets mediate the models!
Its a false dichotomy to chose one or the other...
Flat Earth has had HUGE success with its model in architecture.... newton still used terrestrially, etc. etc.
When don't need one or the other, that's scarcity thinking.
This is the Age of Abundance, of Aquarius and we can have our cake and eat it too!
@@jaydenwilson9522 its all about perspective.
general relativity says that perspective of the observer matters.
i dont know about you, but from my perspective, the world is flat. i dont need to conduct any special calculations and account for the curvature of the earth to go about my daily life.
its only when one takes the perspective of a position substantially above the surface of the earth, that measurements actually begin to detect the curvature. you project a laser on a flat surface such s a salt-lake, and that beam will be parallel to the earth for as far as it can beam, even beyond the "curvature horizon" (they explain this as atmospheric refraction, but that's simply a theory/model, something a flat-globe earth can explain differently).
two pertinent scientific facts that astrophysics seems to forget : results are relative to the perspective of the observation. and the method used to make the observation can affect the results.
to me, a flat-globe superposition just seems like a no-brainer
regarding 3:40, how is it a problem to have the energy to ionize the hydrogen atom to begin with? Couldn't the atoms ionize inside the star where there's plenty of energy and reach the surface ionized?
I personally would rather listen to and try to understand you well reasoned arguments, because it`s a lot of " fun, ding! ". I don`t care to much for money, cause money don`t get thigs right. I hope you had a Merry Christmas and will have a happy new year.
Excuse my ignorance, but what would be the effect of helium that supposedly makes up about 25% of the sun?
Brilliant exposure; pun semi-intended. Liking and subscribing. What I like about you is that you don't seem compelled to have an answer now, at any cost (even at the cost of lying or nonsense), like most scientists seem to be. I love it when someone exposes our ignorance without an agenda. The only problem is that then people WITH an agenda jump in to fill the void with their effluent; but that's another problem. I have a few questions:
Question 1: I'm not a physicist but I'm wondering what's the Brownian motion average velocity for these hydrogen atoms at 6000k or whatever temperature ... Is there any chance that the spread in the spectrum is caused by atomic scale Doppler effects?
Question 2: States of matter are scale-dependent, as defined ... For example, if you were a giant, about an AU tall, and a second of your time was like a dozen millennia to Earth, you would experience the material of our planet as a liquid. It would feel to your touch like a tiny drop of lava, perhaps. ((No, wait; the Earth IS mostly 'lava'; bad example; let's switch to Mars or Pluto, or some big asteroid for that matter: if a long span of time felt like milliseconds, the material would seem liquid to your giant fingers.)) Could it be that there are more than one way states of matter vary with scale, and that the material of the Sun is like a gas/plasma mixture at the small scale but a liquid or a solid (or a gel) at larger scales? Perhaps the magnetic lines give the Sun more structure than we might think. Just throwing that on the table, whatever worth it may be.
Question 3: Alternatively, could it be that there are liquid and/or solid layers internal to the Sun? But if so, how does that play out with seismic wave propagation measurements of the Sun, of which I've been superficially aware for many years?
Question 4: And now for a real question, what exactly is necessary for spread spectrum emission? Materials that absorb hydrogen lines and re-emit the energy in multiple lines? "Black body radiation" never told me much about how radiation works in detail. Has there been an effort to analyze what black body means and how closely hydrogen gas or plasma resembles a black body, and if so how? And how does the Sun compare to other stars? I mean, we judge the distance of stars by Doppler effect, but to measure Doppler effect we need recognizable patterns of spectral lines; no? Does the Sun fail to provide such patterns? Or does it present a mixture of spectral lines and wide spectrum noise overlaid?
EDIT: Question 5: Do you even read the comments section? I don't see your replies anywhere. In one of the comment threads below, ShivaTD420 wrote, *_"the plasma in the core emits gamma radiation. Which is a high energy photon. These photons scatter taking 170k years to reach the surface. During scattering lower energy level photons are emitted in the millions. By the time the photons reach the surface you get the average of 6k of continuous spectrum",_* which sounds to me like a sound explanation.
EDIT2: I just read in a comment that in some previous video you said the Sun is made of liquid metallic hydrogen. So I retract what I said about your exposing an inconsistency without an agenda. I hope I'm wrong now.
Doppler is not sufficient. Continuous spectrum needs condensed matter, that is liquid metallic hydrogen is this case. Another video will follow. Yes there are seismic waves, whichprove a real surface.
@@TheMachian Can't wait for the next video, then.
@@TheMachianFollowing closely your reasoning, a liquid hasn't a continuous spectrum either, despite the experimental evidence of the contrary. Where do you put the cursor? There are lines in the solar spectrum that allow to know its chemical composition, and even to discover unknown elements like helium. How much continuous is continuous?
@@TheMachian _"Continuous spectrum needs condensed matter"_
No, it doesn't.
_" Yes there are seismic waves, which prove a real surface."_
No, they don't. They were predicted before they were ever seen.
Okay but why can't it be both? Considering the immense pressures inside the sun it's likely some form of plasma under a pressure gradient. So halfway between condensed matter and a gas. This would explain why it appears to have properties of both. Or am I missing something?
Bravo! Sehr klug & tapfer!
Has data from the Parker Solar Probe given us any new insights?
Good question, I tought it would provide decisive evidence maybe. Turned out it does not really get that close to the Sun. Sungrazer comets appear more interesting, see chap. 12of my book.
Thank you! I really like the numerical analysis and Mathematica graphics to drive the point home
Can one make long is short? If Sun is not a plasma, then what is it?
How do the observed magnetic fields associated with the heliosphere affect the emitted radiation?
Good to hear your thinking … but you missed the xray production above the photosphere opacity… the invisible corona. This is 10^9 degrees and a source of heat and strong xray- UV flux much greater than the visible surface … i think the plasma is mostly not visible in the corona but it is there. Production of fast particles n x rays.
Correct me if Im wrong but it is hard to equate images of the photosphere with a solid surface and liquid hydrogen would require much high pressure at 6-12 k degrees. It looks like a plasma my friend.
Possible vid idea (cause I'm bad at maths but decent with logical concepts)...
Would berkland currents supply the necessary magnetic "force/pressure" needed to coalesce the H atoms into the lattice, then power the "glow"?
(I'm familiar with the SAFIRE Project Concepts and beginning experiments as well as SkyScholar...hard not being a maths guy.)
Thx for your Videos. They are an added help.
Want to improve your math skills, take more naps. Your subconscious mind organizes information in your sleep.
I scored in 98th percentile learning aptitude for math concepts and I sleep ten hours a night and nap five minutes sporadically and randomly through the day
Also eat more healthy fats like avocado and olive, more long chain complex carbohydrates like whole grain foods.
The brain is made of fat and fueled by sugar.
The answer: www.youtube.com/@ThunderboltsProject
So have I and very interesting. Different potential at different planets due to solar wind charging hence may cause large potential differences like a giant capacitors.
Did you mean 'Birkeland' currents? They only exist in planetary magnetospheres. So, the answer is a resounding NO!
Am I accurate in saying that if hydrogen has >20 spectral lines and powerful magnetic fields which can affect electron behavior (shift spectral lines) then the overall distribution is almost continuous?
The problem you do not get the electron out of the ground state, whcih requires 10.2 eV. Zeeman effect is not sufficient.
It doesn't matter. A sufficiently dense, isothermal gas will produce a BB spectrum. It matters not whether it is gas or anything else. Only the temperature is relevant at sufficient density.
@@TheMachian 13.6 eV for H. Which is what the Sun is mostly composed of.
What sbout it being a plasma in the corona and a cool solid toward the center?
I was wondering can we duplicate the gravitational pressure of the sun on to half a cup (or less) of liquid metal hydrogen together with all the particle bombardment and cause a fusion reaction ?
You can by squeezing the metallic hydrogen with a magnetic field or crushing it with laser light (or maybe hitting it very hard on a diamond anvil) which is what fusion researchers are doing right now.
@@JinKeethe suns a blacksmith!?
@@JinKee Yes, but fusion researchers are doing it on plasma, not liquid metal hydrogen.
@@Matlockization the National Ignition Facility got ignition with a cryogenic hydrogen target they shot with their laser array. You could put a metallic hydrogen target in there if metallic hydrogen wasn't so difficult to work with.
@@JinKee I'm afraid, you're right. Although I wouldn't say working with metal hydrogen is the problem, but producing the stuff in sufficient quantities.
This misunderstanding has been annoying me for years. Thanks for your efforts to educate the misinformed public.
your comment is pure nonsense. if you actually knew ANY physics, then you would realize that unzinger must be wrong, even if you don't know exactly how. but you don't know any physics. therefore, how could you possibly assess whether his claims are correct? you can't. so why are you flapping your jaws?
@@victorfinberg8595Why are you so hostile to random strangers on the internet?
@@projekcja when people post garbage, it does warrant a strong response.
the real question is, why are you focusing on "hostility", and completely ignoring the SUBSTANCE of my post?
some people (very few) have studied physics. in many countries, adults can complete basic schooling, knowing essentially ZERO physics.
that's perfectly fine. there are many things worth doing, and physics is only one of them.
but someone who knows zero physics has NO business commenting on physics.
and yet there he is, the guy to whom i demonstrated "hostility", who did exactly that.
is it clear now?
i also note that the original poster, from a position of zero relevant knowledge, sets himself up as knowing better than the "misinformed public".
but of course, that one zipped right by you.
furthermore, virtually all the commenters here are doing exactly the same: none of them know any physics, and they are all cheering on the guy who DOES know physics, but is deliberately suppressing critical information.
this is the sort of thing that is completely standard for flat earthers and young earth creationists.
here, it is actually shocking.
@@victorfinberg8595 Why did you even watch this video, if you know its totally wrong?
@@gonzogeier because it's NOT totally wrong. it's mostly right, and requires a pretty good knowledge of physics to even start assessing it.
and that's what's really so annoying about it.
if you hire your neighbour's cousin to fix your car, and he mixes up metric and imperial screws, that's your fault. but if you get your car fixed by the company that built it, you most certainly CAN expect them to know the difference.
physicists should NOT be making basic physics mistakes.
I had a thought about light, lensing, rotation and such. How do we see what isn't sightable? Why isn't !t? Right between the eyes.
How does relative spacetime density affect the behavior of plasma or gas? Obviously time is not operating at the same relative rate inside the sun as it is on Earth or outside of the solar system as the mass of the sun produces relative spacetime compression.
You're right, hydrogen at 6000 K is not technically considered a plasma. While it's certainly hot enough for significant hydrogen ionization (around 85% at that temperature), full ionization, a defining characteristic of a plasma, doesn't occur until much higher temperatures, around 10,000 K for hydrogen. At 6000 K, hydrogen exists in a partially ionized state often referred to as a "partially ionized gas" or "non-ideal plasma." In this state, some hydrogen atoms have lost their electrons, creating free electrons and protons, but a significant portion remains neutral. This gives the material properties distinct from both fully ionized plasmas and ideal gases. But I want ask you that if
Actually sun's temprature is not stable at 600 k? Is it fluctuates?
The Sun's temperature actually varies depending on the layer we're talking about. Surface (photosphere): This is the visible layer we see, and it has an average temperature of around 5,505 Kelvin (K). That's hot enough to melt almost any element on Earth!
It's the shape of the spectrum and the incredibly unlikely idea of ancient photons making their way up from the core to create what appears to be a black body spectrum.
@@davestorm6718 right exactly..black body spectrum/radiation. And when we think of sun we think of extraordinary luminous ball of light. But if you went to go inside the sun. It's dark. This light if it tries to travel anywhere it hits another atom then it's emitted again and before it can go anywhere it gets absorbed again this happens again again and again so essentially what it say is that a photon that is born in the core of The sun,takes between 100,000 to million years or may be more to exit the sun and then it takes the just 8 minutes to reach the earth. And this ancient light which is ghost gives the planet light and drives millions of years of evolution. You are right about this ancient photons. The light is ghost. And this ghost light is what give lives and evolution. What more mind blowing then this? This tells that we all are ghost made of ghost in very poetic style.
@@shadowoffire4307 I made a comment elsewhere explaining how the highest density of a star is actually not at the core, earlier, but in a shell between the surface and the center. We did a geometric vector proof 30 years ago, in a computer model, but it was rejected. In a nutshell, an externally compressed system is not equivalent to a self compressed system. Too many models (flawed ones) keep using an externally compressed system as their foundation & wonder why observations are not matching predictions in cosmology. One of which, is the standard solar model.
In brief, light won't be making nearly as long of a journey (meaning less interactions, meaning extremely unlikely they would form a blackbody spectrum). That's the other piece of the puzzle. Similarly, other models use points to represent astronomical objects and incorrectly calculate E per unit area as they assume in their models that light radiates straight from the center (inverse square law) and wonder why the observed emissions are always higher than calculated ones.
None of that answers Unzicker's question of how you would eliminate all those hydrogen emission lines from all the emission layers below the surface. When we look at the sun's spectrum, there is no trace of those emission lines, but if we use the standard model, there should be.
@@davestorm6718what's the name of the highest density region?
What would any plasma do under the influence of the huge gravity the Sun contains. So high that everything is compressed into solid.??????
From the Stefan Boltzmann law, the Sun surface Temperature should match the energy rate output and that should match the spectral curve and the peak (ignoring absorption lines and emission lines created in the space between us and the sun).
Do they match with a particular Sun temperature? Temp & peak emission wavelength & overall spectral curve & total energy output rate should all match.
Are you saying Blackbody radiation curve breaks down at plasma temperatures?
Are you using a different definition of plasma? Ionized atoms and free electrons
Are you ignoring radiation emitted due to ions being accelerated in electric fields & magnetic fields?
just looking at my gas lighter having a pure blue flame turning my screwdriver yellow hot. the iron is bright, the gas isn't. but what about an acetylene torch ? same thing at much hotter temperatures.
liquid or not - it is a good example how imprecise school books are. I personally think that 1 in 10^9 electron does the trick given the thickness of the suns outer layers. and thats why we see hydrogen absorption and not emission lines.
@@kasel1979krettnach you have a nice phd topic right there.
prove us that this amount of atoms is sufficient.
it could be, you just need to show it.
@@sillysad3198 not my area of expertise. electrical engineer here - but i'm always suprised about these kind of paradoxes .
@@kasel1979krettnach as
@annettelupau9759 mentioned - the heart of the question is to know the spectrum of the process of two Hydrogen atoms fusing into a Helium atom. Without that model everything presented in the video is less than impressive.
The Stefan-Boltzmanns Law was developed for hard solid objects and surfaces and was never intended for gass or plasma. So the use of this law for a gaseous Sun or the atmosphere like they do in climate change physics is totally wrong.
(12:30) "Only a lattice can transform that ... radiation into that 6000 K heat we observe" What is your basis for making this statement, sir?
I guess ignorance is is basis. He probably doesn't know that tick enough layer of plasma is opaque and can therefore radiate as a black body.
ruclips.net/video/7GSLZnJJcY4/видео.html
You need antennas of proper size for emitting radiation. It is as simple as that. ("Plasma" is not the solution)
@@TheMachian Emission is a process inverse to radiation and can have many forms. ~300 km of photosphere plasma is enough to become opaque to its own radiation. Above that layer there is not enough ionized nuclei so it is transparent enough to allow us to see the photosphere "surface" - the radiation given up by the its plasma.
Thankyou.
Will this be published in some peer reviewed journals?
No, his peers are too busy with Flat Earth research.
I assume that was irony!
@@davejones7632
Same.
so what is it ?
How do you explain the heat of the Corona.
It is the standard model that fails to explain this. In the LMH model, the temperature of teh Corona of millions of K is not real. The actual measurment is ionized iron.
@@TheMachian No, the standard model explains it pretty well, and the mechanisms responsible have been observed. And what on Earth do you mean, "it is ionized iron"? Pretty much everything is ionised in the corona. If the corona was not at millions of degrees, the solar wind would not exist.
According to this vacuum energy explanation, since quantum theory holds that vacuum contains virtual particles, the rapidly moving interface between water and gas converts virtual photons into real photons. This is related to the Unruh effect or the Casimir effect. The argument has been made that sonoluminescence releases too large an amount of energy and releases the energy on too short a time scale to be consistent with the vacuum energy explanation.
At approx. 12:18 it is stated that condensed matter and a lattice would be needed. Well, why not just high density or, correspondingly, pressure? In another video pressure broadening of spectral lines is mentioned by the same author but immediately deemed insufficient. Unfortunately no indication is given about how one without enough knowledge of spectroscopy could use a calculator to check that it is insufficient. Moreover, what about the spectrum emitted by hot liquid metals or salts? These have no lattice, to the best of my knowledge. BTW, it would have been very interesting, to at least see the isotherm of Hydrogen at aprox. 6000K with a marker pinpointing the state at the sun's surface. This, in my opinion, would have helped understanding the situation, since, at least with gases under less extreme conditions, the gas-liquid transition (if any) can be observed along the isotherm.
We found that hydrogen is turning inside out and outside in, in a Mobius like way. It 'works with' both sides of a surface.
Bremsstrahlung (German for braking radiation) produces a continuous spectrum from plasma (according to what little physics I know).
Haven't purchased your book on the subject, but I'm sure you and PM Robitaille are aware Prof. Leif Holmlid has done experimental work with condensed matter H(-), more recently relabeled H(0), showing how this form of matter may actually exist. Reminds me of Bose Einstein Condensates, if I may.
In other words, hydrogen effective radius is scalable in proportion with the deBriglie wavelength model of spectral emission.
The larger the effective radius of hydrogen electron orbtial, the longer the wavelength of emitted light.
The longer the wavelength, the higher the red shift. From my 1969 high school physics textbook by Taffel.
I had the pleasure of attending the Dynamic Earth Conference in Bath Uk back in 2019, where the main presentation was the Safire Project. Which was undertaken to prove the Electric Sun hypothesis, which it appears to have done so very successfully. The Electric Sun model requires only a plasma atmosphere so in that respect it concurs with your conclusions. However, clearly the problem is with the Standard Model.
since you don't know any physics, you should not be claiming to know physics
_"the Safire Project"_
Which was a scam. And had nothing to do with solar physics. The 'electric sun' woo is scientifically impossible nonsense, invented by unqualified mythologists.
And those lines are indeed superposed. And very strongly in fact. But in negative, as atoms also costume in those wave lengths.
Added your view into my recent story on Medium:
The Main Observation Problem, Challenging Astronomy, Solved Today
The consensus is slow at times. I wrote a book debunking the constant speed of light. You can’t have a constant speed of light when the measures of time and distance are not constant. The changes to time and distance that are the result of the amount of gravity compound the changes in lightspeed.
Standard Theory/Model was replaced 21 years ago by Expansion Theory. How long will you ‘live’ in the dark?
I'm on the fence when it comes to your expertise on this. First and foremost, you didn't mention spectral broadening at all, which contributes to a more continuous looking spectrum in any situation where particles are moving/colliding with high velocities. A deltav equivalent to 6000K broadens a spectral line by ~ 300%.
Also, i'd expect you do adress the density of the plasma/gas at various distances form the core. The core is thought to have a pressure of 200 GigaPascal, the photosphere still on the order of a millions of Pascals (10bar), so why would you assume the spectral lines would be similar to those of sparse gases?
Temperature broadening: No. 6000 K correspond to about 10000 m/s, v/c= Delta lambda/lambda is thus 3.3*10^(-5). I am talking about the photosphere. The pressure there is not measured directly. In the liquid metallic hydrogen model, it must be assumed much higher.
@@TheMachian _The pressure there is not measured directly. In the liquid metallic hydrogen model, it must be assumed much higher._
The pressure can't just be assumed to be higher - you have to show that the required pressure is plausibly sustainable at the photosphere. The higher layers of the sun have to be pressing down hard enough on the photosphere to keep it in place, otherwise, the pressure below just flings away the photosphere. That's a problem because the higher layers of the sun are even more tenuous.
The pressure at the photosphere may not be measured directly, but there are definite bounds on its probable value.
Since we can't measure the matters in the sun directly, we have to go with indirect measurements. An article indirectly about this non-plasma theory, "What in the World Is Metallic Hydrogen?" can be found using Google. (Sorry, new rules on this site doesn't allow the link). If the sun can be shown to be made of metallic hydrogen of some kind, that would be a sensational discovery indeed. So, because it would lead to so many theories about the sun and many other things in the universe being radically different than what science tells us, we also have to ask for very strong proof for this theory to be a fact. A lot of different things can generate a continuous spectrum, so there seems to be more than one alternative theory for that. Metallic helium isn't studied in great detail so far either, and other stuff could theoretically produce the same solar output so to speak, so maybe we can wait for a more robust explanation when we have more data about the properties of metallic hydrogen and other relevant stuff hypothesized to make up the matter that causes the continuous spectrum of the sun (at least to a great extent).
We have many spheres around the earth with plasmas in and through them in different layers behaving differently
👉Plasma can be strongly coupled for example, it does not have to behave like a gas, it can behave more like liquid or ever as a solid state.
That's not the standard model in Astronomy though. They model it as a gaseous plasma.
imagine speaking statements without lifting the burden of proof, couldn't be me
Startling, and a cautionary tale: if physics cannot yet explain the sun and have not just an incomplete but an inorrect model of it then what else could they indeed be wrong about? Hmmm!
These are called the "open questions in physics". For instance Newtonian mechanics was good enough to land on the moon but not good enough to predict the relativistic perturbations of the orbit of Mercury. It took Einstein to predict the orbit of Mercury, and in so doing made the relativistic corrections to the timings on the GPS system work. If you have ever used GPS then tracking was thanks to the ability for scientists to adopt new predictive models.. When new facts come to light, scientists change their minds. That is how progress works.
Or... we know and give this information out for free and this man is scamming you to buy his con book
It explains the Sun very well, and is supported by the evidence.
@matthewsheeran
*_Woah_*_ there_ dude. Skepticism is _already_ baked into the scientific method. Not _all_ critiques are worth throwing out the bath for...
And which condensed matter can exist with such a temperature?
A neutron star I suppose since they are very hot condensed solid matter but definitely not a star that's still fusing helium and hydrogen or heavier elements. In any case this guy is full of it.
Thank goodness for this guy. I was foolishly believing decades of scientific results from astronomers and space probes.
Try to distinguish direct observations from model assumptions. I admit, not always easy.
this is finally the most interesting intersection of unresearched and observable!
Nothing final, this is only the beginning!
😋
Liquid sun model is attested to Carl Frederick Krafft, 1960s.
That doesn't prove that it's not an even older concept still.
What are you doing Herr Unzicker? Explaining Physics properly? What is your idea? To make sense and reason with people?
That's not going to work... on a more serious note, thank you for devoting your time to pass this question around, it is a very interesting one, the workings of our very own private star no less.
Cheers.
Here is what nasa says about the sun.
"The Sun is made of super-hot, electrically charged gas called plasma. This plasma rotates at different speeds on different parts of the Sun." So given what Nasa says or some guy on the internet Im going with NASA
Yea. Go with NASA: ruclips.net/video/w21K4KiYd4I/видео.html
@TheMachian Nothing personal but I don't have the knowledge to affirm or deny. I have to go with people I trust.
What do you think about Eric Lerner?
BTW, the only person dumber than me in cosmology is professor dave.
there is some noise from your microphone
Don't they teach us that heavier elements like iron...etc (basically everything that's not hydrogen) are formed in suns, distributed when a sun goes super nova?
If thats so does a sun gradually go from gas to liquid metals over it's lifetime?
What about the density of the sun? Kepler should be clear, doesn't it?!
Somewhere in You Tube there is a video showing Coronal Rain. Large arcs of material, presumably electrically conductive enough to be lifted high above the photosphere by moving magnetic fields. Some of this material is ejected as coronal mass ejections, but the vast bulk of it falls back eventually…and some of this is as coronal rain, huge “droplets” about 20km in diameter and hundreds of kilometeres high. Upon landing back on the photosphere , thsy have been observed to create WAVES in it, suggesting it is far denser than first thought….and density, leading to Pauli Exclusionsl effects…leasing to the Plankian Bell Curve,, ehich requries a dense radiator.
Alex, you accounted temperature for plasma to form, but have not accounted photoelectric effect splitting hydrogen into proton and electron = plasma.
You would need 13.6 or at least 10.2 photons, hard ultraviolet. And then, the argument is circular. Split and recombine, where is the net production?
@@TheMachian Density of light per square cm on the Sun > 45,000 than on the Earth (closer to ×60,000 because 25% of light is consumed by Earth's atmosphere). Even more, if account consumption in Sun atmosphere: ×10^5 photons density per square unit gives food for thought.
subbed for the cold open.
Yeah that was great.
SOOOOOOOOO funny, selling spare electrons like ice cream on a hot day. Fantastic allegory.
both do not pass logic test . Gas would vaporise , liquid also solid also . A protection is needed . Incoherent magnetism would disapear coherent magnetism too.
It may not be a plasma, but wouldn't the pressure of the sun bring hydrogen to a liquid or supercritical form at some depth? As you said in the liquid form hydrogen would indeed emit the expected blackbody radiation. Then closer to the surface hydrogen would become gaseous, and as you said in this form it would only have narrow bands of absorption, letting the blackbody radiation emitted in the lower parts go through uninterrupted. And since in these specific bands hydrogen is a good absorber and a good emitter, it would just reemit what it absorbs until the radiation finally escapes in space, giving the blackbody profile we see.
we need a 1000 of students producing us relevant models, pressure by depth etc.
For starters, if you also use your "calculator", you will discover the densest part of the sun is not in the center. There is a geometric vector difference between an externally pressurized system (say the pressure of water on a sphere in the ocean) and a system of which it's constituents pull each other together (cumulative gravitational attraction of constituent bits of matter) - a self compressing system. In the latter, the highest density zone will be a shell between the center and the outside. This can be proven with a vectorized finite element model. All too often physicists keep making the same assumption equating the first type with the second type. We did this in engineering school to help a budding physicist (in Fortran) model gravitational compression, but because our results were in disagreement with the consensus science, our computer model was rejected outright. Imagine that!
The latter model also explains why stars explode (when you think about it - a shell eventually becomes unstable as it grows with the star's growth and becomes affected via asymmetric gravitational attraction from neighboring stars (possibly a large Jupiter sized planet), then collapses (implodes) and explodes outward. This is buried in the astronomical data! This also explains why a star cannot become so dense as to create a singularity (that's simply not possible).
@@davestorm6718 That's very cool! Is it caused by the fact that the "force" one would feel at the center of a self compressing system is zero, and the maximum "force" is thus in a shell somewhere between the center and the surface.
@@davestorm6718is this because of the internal force of nuclear explosion at the center meeting the force of gravity at said shell?
Have you looked into works of "theoria apophasis" aka Ken Wheeler. He has unified theory of everything and book on magnetism. He does criticism on atomism and promotes aether.
How 'hot' is the Sun's hydrogen fusion generator? Next, what constitutes the putative 'Solar Wind'!?!
the sun is plasma in arc mode
Sure, Compton scattering change the energy a little. But a photon emitted at the core (or half way it is the same) is a long way from the surface. The thickness and the density are many orders of magnitude greater than usual in the laboratory. It is about thousands or millions of Compton scatterings. Here again don't trust your intuition, the real number is likely out of this rather large interval. I hope you're still holding your calculator.
I'm a 55yr old man arguing with a 7th grade math teacher
how -2² =-4 is wrong
He's citing a calculator to prove he's right. Its in 7grade math books too.
So the country is already fallen apart we don't have 7grade mental ability.
I'm getting the same kind of vibes. Frustration.
What is your definition of a plasma?
What is their definition of a plasma?
What logical arguments do you have to claim their definition is wrong?
Why?
In this video I only saw your argument why the sun doesn't meet your criteria for plasma.
How many atoms have to be ionized to be a plasma? 100% 50% 0.01%? Just excited not ionized?
What about a fluorescent bulb that is often used as an example of a plasma? Florescent lights don't peek in the x-ray spectrum, so they wouldn't be a plasma either, why are they used as an example?
It sounds like to me you define a plasma as being much more ionized then they do.
How would you deal with the US education system for the whole country teaching -2²=-4?
(-2)^2 = 4
Because that's how math works.
You're disturbing a negative property to an already negative value. I don't understand how this isn't self evident.
-2^2 = -1 x 2 x 2 = -4.
Or were you missing some brackets in the original statement? (-2)^2?@@Chad_Thundercock
@@Chad_Thundercock holt math 1 for 7th graders said otherwise
@@Chad_Thundercock what that seventh grade book does is say that according to pemdas it should be treated as subtraction and be an operation after exponents and treat the negative separate from the number, to think of it as multiplied by -1 , and read it as -(2²)
None of that makes sense, how is a human supposed to write a negative number, an infinite amount of parentheses? Think of it as subtraction but multiply? If it is separate like multiplied, then -2² is -1*2² but using the rules of math you can't separate the negative like that.
@@NewtonInDaHouseYo
Yes, I assumed the formula would transcribe as I intended but it didn't quite work out that way. The ^ thingy was supposed to make the superscript notation.
That's my fault. Good catch, though. Nicely spotted.
I've edited the original to be more concise but you're absolutely right about that. Thanks for catching that for me.
Why you assume that extremely high temperature is the only way of having plasma on surface of Sun?
H- is not a solution. There are not enough electrons. Then, 6000 K would still be molecular hydrogen, thus why should H- form?
Great work mate. Philosophy of Science teaches the parotting phenomenon. Another example is 'The first horse was the size of a fox terrier'. Repeated endlessly.
10:15 you are misinterpreting your own graph. I can only assume you have wavelength on the x axis, in which case you can see rhe peak is close to rhe ionisation energy.
My goodness, you have Nailed this absolutely. thank you.
there is no way fusion happens in any different state than plasma is there?
Could you please care of not touching the microphone while talking? Thank you. The clearer sound would help non-English speaking listeners, interested in your content, to better catch the matter. Joined your Channel recently, found it substantial a lot.
You are right. I am sorry for the noise, tried to cut it where possible. Will imporve :-)
Yes the sun is plasma by definition.
At that sort of pressure, is there any difference between gas, liquid, or solid? Or between plasma and charged liquid or solid?
You are very clever in the way you mix up some real physics with your own belief system. Luckily for you, most of the audience of this channel is very illiterate in the subject (as we can see in the comment section), so you can get away with it. Indeed, you atract the kind of audience who loves a conspiracy theory.
Simple question:
How can a liquid stay liquid at the surface of the sun? That is quite a miracle. (Temperatures of ~5800K, pressures of ~0.1 atm)
As usually, you come with a sensible down-to-earth explanation to the pink unicorns made up to "fit" narrow minded physicists. You always bring some fresh air into the stale atmosphere of the present 100 y. o. fancy and full of ad hoc assumptions physics that we are bogged down. Since Einstein stretched,bended and squished space to fit his huge imagination we are doomed to rely on more imagination and less experimentation. String theory is the best example of how far the beauty of equations prevail over facts and rationality. I subscribe your yt channel for ages. I devoured all your books and it is always with a skipped heartbeat of anticipation I receive these emails announcing that some very interesting views/analysis are arriving for my insatiable thirst for real physics. Please, dr Unzicker keep up with this phenomenal courage to cast light where it is being shadowed by grants and popular brainless views‼️👏🏻
A broken clock is right twice a day but a broken military clock is right only once a day.
Disinformation must always have some truth to get people to believe it.
Einstein was never more than a fake pacifist shill for Princeton Zionist Military cliques.
Fraud is racketeering but counterintelligence is espionage.
This is organized psychological warfare, not just wild imagination.
Michelson Morley disproved the stationary ether. Globalist history remembers it having disproved the ether.
It actually demonstrated that the ether rotates slightly faster than the earth like a gentle breeze on a high speed sailboat.
Michelson Morley was conducted in a stone basement at sea level.
The ether wind is much faster at high altitude.
Dayton Miller showed this.
Maurice Allais did extensive research to show this, even that Einstein admitted that Dayton Miller disproved Special Relativity in the 1930s.
After Miller died, Einstein was Robert Shankland's handler disposing of Miller's data in the 1950s. James DeMeo exposed this in the 1990s.
since you don't know any physics, and have no clue about any of this, why are you flapping your jaws?
@@victorfinberg8595 Excellent counter argument 👏👏
@@somethingelse9228 what else do you expect from a "finberg"
@@somethingelse9228 not an argument. it's a QUESTION. see the question mark?
but then, it's no surprise that you can't read with comprehension.
i repeat, since you don't know any physics, why are you flapping your jaws?
15:03 freeze frame and screenshot PLUG PLUG
so if it is not a gas, what is it?
ruclips.net/video/Jay_R36biQg/видео.html
@@TheMachian Got a peer-reviewed paper? By a physicist?
if not the Sun, but is any other star a Plasma?
it seems like the inner motility of the sun contradicts your absolute stand that the sun consists of condensed matter, It might be that you have an argument for a crust of condensed matter, but it seems even more likely that the 100,000 year journey of a photon to reach the surface could account for the spectrum without appealing to condensed matter which should have been noticed on the surface by solar telescopes. 100,000 years of diffusion is a lot of diffusion. At the very least it is incorrect to argue it is "condensed matter" without any plasma component instead of the actual fact that you have evidence that indicates a condensed matter component - as the motility is evidence for a plasma component.
What is sun then?
Liquid metallic hydrogen.