What would be causing the insane pressure needed to produce liquid metallic hydrogen on the surface? And remember, we still have no evidence for the existence of liquid metallic hydrogen...
Streng kann man argumentieren, dass das Anfangswertproblem des Zusammenfalls der Wasserstoffwolke besser durch eine Akkumilation an einen soliden Körper gelöst wird, als durch spontane Implusion aka Schmetterdingeffekt und hoffen dass das Ding nicht ein schwarzes Loch wird,. Würde ich als start argument gegen das jetzige Sonnenmodell noch anführn.
Ein schwarzes Loch setzt eine enorme Dichte voraus was durch die Erhitzung während der Kontraktion und die darauf folgende Fusion schlicht verhindert wird. Schwarze Löcher haben sogar ein maximales Wachstum, weil ansonsten in der akkretionsscheibe soviel Energie abgestrahlt wird, dass kein weiteres Material einfallen kann.
"I believe that we have a problem in this science because we tend to form complicated models, many people working on that, and we are missing a scientific culture of truly understanding the nature of physical processes." In the meantime, climate models are ruling our lives.
“All models are wrong, but some are useful” - George E.P. Box. Although some are so wrong that instead of having no idea, you have the incorrect idea. The difference is that some egos accept being wrong more easily than others.
@@florianopohlmann9516so you are buying the liquid sun theory? Liquid metallic hydrogen would be 5.000.000 times denser than the photosphere. How would this work with the supposed mass and density of the sun? How can the granules cool by 500°C within less than 15 minutes when they are formed by a much denser liquid with a way higher thermal capacity? Are you willing to take a critical look at your pet theory when you are asking everyone else to do so?
I had formed the impression that the words atomic / molecular [ H ] were moment to moment a variable by ratio depending on where and when, therefore almost interchangeable. Any way great show as always I am looking forward to the next presentations from you and your colleague in real science Dr P-M R
From the BSM-SG perspective you are missing a lot of importent aspects - the sun core for example. But yes, that the standard model of the sun is unthinkable no doubt.. My working hypothesis is on graphen like aggregate state of hydrogen - impossible to describe in the standard model - in the upper layers. The metalic state could quite be - para od diamagnetic states are purely defined in the vacuum - it's the vacuum modulation matter causes that changes properties.
You making good points, the only issue is the assumption of the newton's bucket. I can show you why is not apply, if you consider an adiabatic expansion of the universe state vectors you get no spinning motion for the fluid. However you get LOCAL spinning and orbital motion evolution.
What is name of the musical theme played in the first 3 sec's [& end] of this video? I have searched everywhere for it! Is it by John Williams? or maybe from a PBS TV show ?
You have not supported the notion that the transition between the photosphere and the chromosphere is "sudden" in any absolute sense. In comparison to the size of the sun, it would be sudden. Opacity would be negative exponential in the photon mean free path length (the shorter the FMP, the more opaque the material), and the mean free path length is inversely proportional to the number density of the sun's atmosphere, which would be negative exponential with increasing r - that is an opacity that is very rapidly decreasing with increasing r, a nested exponential. Therefore, you will go from nearly-transparent to quite opaque quite quickly, and as such would look sudden from our vantage point on Earth. On the other hand, Dr. Robitaille's model doesn't make any sense. See, those line emission/absorption spectra only occur when the gas is quite thin, much less than atmospheric pressure. That's a problem because -if it even exists at all- liquid metallic hydrogen is definitely not stable below 83 GPa pressure, which is much MORE than atmospheric pressure. The kind of pressure that have to exist at the photosphere were it metallic liquid hydrogen would result in the photosphere being thrown off altogether. In order to be stable, the photosphere would have to be underneath a layer of gaseous hydrogen exerting 83 GPa of pressure onto it, which requires some 36 million kilograms of hydrogen to be sitting in a column atop each square meter of the liquid metallic surface. Now, the more observant of you might be wondering, if it takes very low pressure to see a line spectrum, what happens when the pressure is above that? Well, you get a continuous spectrum. Not all at once, mind, but as pressure increases, the lines spread out and start overlapping. We can see the absorption spectrum of water vapor in our own atmosphere is continuous, with large bands of continuous absorption. The halogens are notable examples of strongly colored gasses. Iodine vapor is particularly evil-looking. The reason is because the energy bands that cause those continuous spectra in solids and liquids is due to the proximity of atoms, and has nothing to do with the phase of matter. If two atoms are in close proximity, the single energy level splits, and the closer the two atoms, the wider the split from the original energy level. If you have lots of atoms at various distances, you will get an energy band of available transitions, and therefore continuous absorption/emission bands in the resulting spectrum. The central conceit of Dr. Robitaille's model is wrong: gasses CAN and DO have continuous spectra. With that realization, his entire chain of reasoning just falls apart. Oh, and the corona is _not_ in a thermal equilibrium with the lower layers of the sun - it's subjected to work-heating. That's why it can be millions of degrees, much hotter than the photosphere and chromosphere.
"The central conceit of Dr. Robitaille's model is wrong: gasses CAN and DO have continuous spectra. With that realization, his entire chain of reasoning just falls apart." wyrmofvt There's your problem right there! No amount of line broadening will make gas emissions magically change from band emission into a thermal spectrum. It's painfully obvious from your diatribe that you know nothing about the subject matter. Dr. Robitaille is absolutely right. Only condensed matter emits a thermal spectrum, as the experiments prove. Gases never emit a thermal spectrum because they can't. A vibrational lattice is required to produce a thermal spectrum - gases do not have a lattice structure. Only condensed matter has lattice structure. So the thermal spectrum of the Sun proves unequivocally that the Sun is condensed matter.
@@stevecrothers6585 "There's your problem right there! No amount of line broadening will make gas emissions magically change from band emission into a thermal spectrum." If that were true, then you could build a perpetual motion machine of the second type. The gasses would absorb radiation but be unable to radiate it, and so the gas continues to heat until it's at a greater temperature than its absorbing radiation from, and you can use that temperature difference to drive a heat engine. The only thing required for a blackbody spectrum is for the substance to be a perfect absorber, and indeed the prototypical blackbody is a hole in the side of an oven - not the oven, a _hole_ in the side of an oven. A gas is always as good a radiator as it is an absorber. Of course, in practice, gasses are poor absorbers, so it takes quite a bit of gas for significant absorption, but it does happen. It also requires the gas to be dense, because -if you work out the quantum mechanical processes of absorption in condensed matter- you find that the broadened energy bands that cause continuous absorption and emission spectra are caused by atom proximity, not the phase of matter - the lattice vibrations _are not modeled_ in band structure. It's _not_ the lattice that causes it, but the fact that the atoms are in close proximity. The lattice is just a convenient way for lots of atoms to be in close proximity. "It's painfully obvious from your diatribe that you know nothing about the subject matter." I took coursework on this, bub. It's _textbook_ science. Dr. Robitaille is wrong.
@@wyrmofvt "There's your problem right there! No amount of line broadening will make gas emissions magically change from band emission into a thermal spectrum." Crothers "If that were true, then you could build a perpetual motion machine of the second type. The gasses would absorb radiation but be unable to radiate it, and so the gas continues to heat until it's at a greater temperature than its absorbing radiation from, and you can use that temperature difference to drive a heat engine." @wyrmofvt Sorry to disappoint you but there is no violation of the second law. Gases absorb and emit in bands. Their ability to absorb exactly matches their ability to emit. That is Stewart's law (often incorrectly stated as Kirchhoff's). So, a gas will only absorb where it can emit, and will always be able to radiate what it absorbed. No violation of the second law takes place. "The only thing required for a blackbody spectrum is for the substance to be a perfect absorber" also "I took coursework on this, bub. It's textbook science. Dr. Robitaille is wrong." @wyrmofvt Well, I guess you were not paying attention in class. First of all, blackbody radiation is supposed to be independent of the nature of the walls. That is what is taught in textbooks and what students of physics and astronomy typically learn in their modern physics course during their second year of studies. I also took such courses and more. I am the one that required a perfect absorber! Kirchhoff required temperature equilibrium with an opaque enclosure. He never insisted that the walls were perfectly absorbing. In fact, he did not care about the nature of the material as long as it was opaque. It could even be reflective, since it was independent of the nature of the walls. Planck himself, in his "Theory of Heat Radiation" always used perfect reflectors. He also stated that within a perfect reflector any state of radiation may exist. He then inserted a carbon particle, which he compared to a catalyst which could produce blackbody radiation within the enclosure. Yet, his carbon particle was not a catalyst. It was a perfect absorber and by using it, it was as if Planck had lined the entire walls with a perfect absorber. Planck also wanted to prove that Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission was valid. He devoted the first section of his book to that cause. However, it is clear that Planck's proof is invalid, as we have demonstrated (see Robitaille and Crothers, “The Theory of Heat Radiation” Revisited: A Commentary on the Validity of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission and Max Planck’s Claim of Universality, Progr. Phys, 2015, 2, 120-132). I invite anyone to find any error in our presentation. In reality, Kirchhoff's law has no valid experimental or theoretical proof. Even Hilbert complained about the lack of a theoretical proof. No valid proof has ever been advanced and if you think one exists please provide a citation. You will not find one as I have searched for years. "indeed the prototypical blackbody is a hole in the side of an oven - not the oven, a hole in the side of an oven." @wyrmofvt Once again, you demonstrate that you have not thought about this problem, but are just repeating what you saw in a textbook without reflection. The argument you make here is well known in astrophysics. You will find it for instance in Gray's classic book of stellar photospheres. The problem is that the argument is false. If phase coherent radiation enters a perfectly reflecting cavity through a hole, it can build up standing waves in that cavity. That is how NMR, EPR and MRI cavities work. The radiation is not thermalized. You get standing waves, not blackbody radiation. If you believe otherwise, I suggest you call all the makers of microwave cavities and cell companies and tell them that you have decided that their technology does not work based on that fact that once radiation enters a cavity through a hole, it must become black. Again, you do not understand the subject matter. " It's not the lattice that causes it, but the fact that the atoms are in close proximity. The lattice is just a convenient way for lots of atoms to be in close proximity." @wyrmofvt All of your arguments relative to gases are circular, exactly like those used in astrophysics. They claim that when a gas become optically thick, it will emit as a blackbody. Nonsense. Gases are never optically thick and they always emit in bands. You don't even understand the consequences of your own statements. In the gaseous plasma model of the Sun known as the Standard Model, the gas atoms at the level of the photosphere have the density of a vacuum at 10**-7 g/cm**3. Good luck trying to argue that in such a setting the atoms are in close proximity! You are dealing with a vacuum. "The central conceit of Dr. Robitaille's model is wrong: gasses CAN and DO have continuous spectra. With that realization, his entire chain of reasoning just falls apart." @wyrmofvt No gas have ever been observed to emit as a blackbody. If you believe otherwise, give citations of experimental proof in the laboratory. You need to produce a blackbody spectrum in a free gas or plasma (unconfined by condensed matter), without emission spikes. Good luck. The Sun is condensed matter and that is the only way to properly account for its thermal spectrum. In any case, it is no wonder that like the others who write against me online, you hide under anonymity. At least you are wise enough not to expose to your colleagues your lack of understanding.
@-marierobitaille2095 _Sorry to disappoint you but there is no violation of the second law. Gases absorb and emit in bands. Their ability to absorb exactly matches their ability to emit. That is Stewart's law (often incorrectly stated as Kirchhoff's). So, a gas will only absorb where it can emit, and will always be able to radiate what it absorbed. No violation of the second law takes place._ Then my introlocuter _is_ wrong, *and* you agree with me. He didn't say, "blackbody spectrum," he said "thermal spectrum." There are more thermal emission spectra than the blackbody spectrum. "The only thing required for a blackbody spectrum is for the substance to be a perfect absorber" also "I took coursework on this, bub. It's textbook science. Dr. Robitaille is wrong." @wyrmofvt _Well, I guess you were not paying attention in class._ No, I was. What I stated was _exactly_ right: the _only_ required property for a blackbody spectrum is for it to be a perfect absorber. It is both necessary and sufficient. For if this condition is not necessary, you can have an object radiate as a blackbody, yet not be a perfect absorber. Thus, you can put it and a perfect absorber, both heated to the same temperature, into a perfectly reflective box and there will be a net transfer of heat from the non-black blackbody to the black blackbody - the black blackbody absorbs all heat it gets from the non-black blackbody, but the non-black blackbody doesn't absorb all heat it gets from the black blackbody. That violates the second law, and therefore being a perfect absorber is a necessary condition. It is also a sufficient condition, because if any other condition is required, you can have a perfect absorber that does not radiate as a blackbody. If it radiates more than a black blackbody, then you get the previous scenario; if it radiates less than a black blackbody, then you get a net transfer of heat from the black blackbody to the black non-blackbody. Either violates the second law. So, no other property is relevant for an object to be a blackbody, _exactly_ as I said: "The only thing required for a blackbody spectrum is for the substance to be a perfect absorber". In particular, there is no requirement for the substance to be condensed matter, liquid or solid. _I am the one that required a perfect absorber! Kirchhoff required temperature equilibrium with an opaque enclosure._ Then we agree. I don't care what Kirchoff said. I am WAY to young to have learned from him directly. _No valid proof has ever been advanced and if you think one exists please provide a citation. You will not find one as I have searched for years._ I found one in one minute by googling "blackbody radiation law proof", and the first result was "The Derivation of the Planck Formula," where Plank's law is derived using only a perfectly reflective box (deriving the Rayleigh Jeans law) and the photoelectric effect. The resolution is Plank's law. No mention of carbon being included at any point, and no place where that could be sneaked in. _Once again, you demonstrate that you have not thought about this problem, but are just repeating what you saw in a textbook without reflection._ Only in your dreams. I mean, did you not pick up on the fact that I didn't know that Plank had used carbon in his original formulation? That's because modern proofs (which I learned from) _don't need_ that assumption. And yes, the cavity is an idealization, as if anyone was claiming that we were describing an actual box. The blackbody _itself_ is an idealization - no real body actually radiates as an ideal blackbody (except mabye black holes). It doesn't matter if microwave cavities don't radiate as blackbodies. " It's not the lattice that causes it, but the fact that the atoms are in close proximity. The lattice is just a convenient way for lots of atoms to be in close proximity." @wyrmofvt _They claim that when a gas become optically thick, it will emit as a blackbody. Nonsense. Gases are never optically thick and they always emit in bands._ So does all real condensed matter! Gallium is transparent in the infrared. Glass is opaque in the infrared. FFS, this is why solids and liquids display a range of colors! _You don't even understand the consequences of your own statements. In the gaseous plasma model of the Sun known as the Standard Model, the gas atoms at the level of the photosphere have the density of a vacuum at 10**-7 g/cm**3. Good luck trying to argue that in such a setting the atoms are in close proximity! You are dealing with a vacuum._ Last time I checked, the density of the photosphere is ~0.2 g/cm³. That gives me 10 nm (order of magnitude) on average free mean path. But that means that there are always a small portion of atoms in the process of colliding, and there will be a segment of the population that _is_ 0.5 nm or closer, which gives you some .3 eV of splitting. So yes, you get _a bloody band._ _No gas have ever been observed to emit as a blackbody._ You know what also has never been observed to emit as a blackbody? Liquid metallic hydrogen! What's good for the goose is good for the gander! _In any case, it is no wonder that like the others who write against me online, you hide under anonymity. At least you are wise enough not to expose to your colleagues your lack of understanding._ One minute in google, doctor.
@@wyrmofvt Sorry, but you are lost. You need to find a proof of Kirchhofff's law, not Planck's. There is a difference! You need to learn what that difference is! In your experiment, you forget about reflection. Then your statement: "Then we agree. I don't care what Kirchoff said. I am WAY to young to have learned from him directly." You need to care what Kirchhoff said if you think that the Sun is a gaseous plasma and if you wish to insist that I am wrong. A gaseous plasma Sun absolutely depends on Kirchhoff's law being correct. Go read any astrophysics book to find out. You cannot adopt what I stated (contrary to everything that was taught in coursework) and then state that I was wrong. I will let any physicist or astronomer read what you wrote and that is sufficient to establish that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You cannot even defend accepted physics properly. Again, I am the one that is insisting for perfect absorbers, not the physics community. So, rather than fight with me, go learn what physics is actually saying about blackbody radiation, learn Kirchhoff's law, then come and tell me that I was wrong by providing a proof that Kirchhoff was correct. In any case, the density of the photosphere is said to be about 10**-7 g/cm**3, exactly as I previously stated. Your claim that it is "Last time I checked, the density of the photosphere is ~0.2 g/cm³" is completely off target. Go read any books on the Standard Model. I am done answering you as your writings now prove that you are not at all experienced about this subject matter. In any event, if you are going to argue with others, at least learn the subject matter first.
Alexander, OK, liquid metal hydrogen. But what is a hydrogen atom in REALITY? What's a so-called "atom" in REALITY? What's a so-called "electron" in REALITY? What's a so-called "proton" in REALITY? What's a so-called"photon " in REALITY? When I say in REALITY, I mean what's the TRUE REAL dynamic behind all of these phenomena? 🙄
Look. All science can get us is from speculation, fantasy and myth - towards working models that are incrementally closer to reality (and only in the best of cases). What reality is is Nature/God. Even if we feel confident in explaining "how" all things work, the "why?" question will still remain, and some people still won't be satisfied. In the meantime, better models can and will improve chemistry, biology and all sorts of technology. And not all models need to be the closest, most detailed descriptions of reality, they just need to be useful - the electron flow circuit model got us most of the way to modern day electronics and computers, even though any engineer knows it's wrong.
man, I knew i picked up some serious fraud vibes from you while watching "The Most Fundamental Problem of Gravity is Solved". This channel is clearly a joke.
The more I watch of his stuff the more I realise he doesn't say anything, only makes allusions to an idealised way of being. The biggest recurring theme is that everything needs to be simple - he shoots a lot down just because it's hard to think about.
The suns core will have some really strange states atoms but certainly not a liquid. Most likely similar to a gas but not anything that would look like a gas. It would simply be to hot to form any connection which characterize a liquid.
Dear Dr. Unzicker, have you made a study and video on WHY the general scientific community refuses to countenance a liquid, metallic hydrogen, Sun? Cheers, and thanks, from Australia.
Because it has some problems? We know the radius and the mass of the sun. The photosphere has a density of 0.2g/m3. Metallic hydrogen would have a density of a bit over 1g/cm3 aka it would be 5.000.000 times denser. And of cause everything beneath the surface must be even denser. Aka you will run into a weight problem. And there are good explanation for the continuous spectrum other than gas emissions. This would be break radiation when electrons are stoped or redirected by atomic cores. This will create a continuous spectrum. And because the outer layers of the sun are a gas you will see the Fraunhofer lines. The problem with his models is, that he never thinks about the implications of his ideas. A liquid sun would explain much but create problems at other places. MOND theory would replace the need for dark matter but has problems explaining other observations. Just because a theory does solve one problem doesn’t mean that it must be the correct one.
people who spent their entire careers being wrong, don't like to be told they are wrong, if you present them with evidence they will actually get very, very angry.
@@doltBmB you are totally right. But the problem is that the liquid sun model has problems too. I mentioned the weight problem. Next problem would be the continuous spectrum of giant stars which definitely have a gaseous outer layer. Or the cooling of the granules. They cool down by 500°C in less than 15 minutes which is possible for a gas but a liquid would have a way higher thermal capacity so how can it cool down so fast?
@@svenweihusen57 you have a very typical post-hoc reasoning model, which is deeply irrational, unfortunately if you can't think you can't be convinced, but robitaille answers everything
@@doltBmB I am asking valid questions. And I would be last to claim that we know everything and that everything we know now is right. He is invoking a metastable material in an environment where even stable materials break down. There are simply questions and I don’t see where Robitaille answered them. So when you know the answers tell me where he answered them or what his solution was instead of insulting me. He offers a solution for a problem but this doesn’t mean that his solution is right.
I can't agree more. Ever since I saw the demostration of metallic hydrogen being created, it all just clicked. The sun's core must be metallic hydrogen with a plasma photo-sphere and chromo-sphere slowly being consumed by fusions occurring deep inside the lattice of the core.
Also I think there's another important piece to this... check out "The Electric Sky", by Donald Scott. I think a few more things might click into place. So much good real science (vs. purely theoretical or mathematical) needs to be done. When virtually every new objective observation contradicts the accepted dogma, it just might be time to reexamine our assumptions and look seriously at other theories that often explain the observations of things that "just shouldn't exist" as we often see stated in conjunction with these observations.
The standard solar model has so many logical holes in it that justification for using it at this stage reeks of following the grant money, the same as the continual bizarre investment in dark matter.
It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the observations of a lunar atmosphere in the near infrared. Jtolanmedia1 is studying it on his channel. I appreciate the fact that you are looking at facts, not merely strongly held opinions of people who worship science rather than practice it.
As silly as your comment seems on the surface, modern science should take note that a non solid body of just plasma, would not produce the space-time curvature required to maintain the orbits of all the planets. On a side note, it's fairly obvious that curved space-time doesn't work in general for the regular orbits of the planets, and that they all would have been absorbed by the sun itself long ago if the model were true. Science has failed to recognize that space and time are not "real" things. They are the measures of the passing, expanding, and dying of those things. Once science can start back at square one (which will never happen, because adding and adjusting existing theories is the easiest path forward) they will be able to square the electromagnetic push/pull that is certainly taking place at all scales from the quantum to the astronomical.
Japan's solar observation satellite "Hinode" has discovered the existence of countless circular magnetic fields on the surface of the sun. This circular magnetic field is created by plasma moving on the solar surface, and has the role of compressing the plasma onto the solar surface. Compressed plasma behaves like a liquid.
Light is emitted from a particle in all directions. Why would you even say a "random direction"? How can you call yourself a physicist if you can't even get that right? Every particle sees every other particle in the universe. Likewise, why would anyone think the sun n it's entirety is a gas? A simple measurement of the density of the sun immediately proves otherwise.
You may find myself agreeing, at least for awhile. I consider a temporary fully-matching, no-opposition attitude as a form of thought experiment. What leave me puzzled, is that in the end I haven't brought, nor I have gained, the mathematical tools to complete the thought experiment. In this specific case, could you provide support?
Hello! My question does not concern this topic, but a neighbor topic not far away. Do you think it's possible, that the sun's surface - apart from protons and electrons - also emits neutrons? A neutron on its way into space of course later splits again into a proton and an electron, so we can't decide their origin. In fact for the fusion of He some neutrons have to be generated at first. Perhaps some excess neutrons are generated, which leave the sun before they combine to D or T? Would a neutron detector on board of a probe work? Or can we exclude that neutrons leave the sun, does anyone know 🤔? Best greetings!
Can we just call it a fluid, as in fluid dynamics,(that should cover most cases from conventional liquid to conventional gas, yes?) Calling it a liquid calls upon too much earthly experience and doesn't take into account such great levels of ionization temperature & possibly pressure. Have you considered how magnetic fields can cause magnetostriction & cause increasing apparent pressure & density?
the sun is a solid, the visible surface flows like a magnetic liquid, but there are certain features which have a solid uniform rotation to them which can be identified, so the sun must have a solid surface which is covered by this liquid, keep in mind the liquid layer may well be thousands of kilometers deep. there is a good argument to be made that the solid part is iron, but this gives a problem, an iron sun would be far more massive than the orbits of the planets would suggest, fortunately the late wal thornhill has a solution, given the "z-pinch" theory of star formation, it is likely that the iron shell is hollow, just as on earth in laboratory experiments and natural lighting strikes you can find hollow nodules are formed in this way. so that's the final model for the sun, a hollow shell of iron covered in liquid metallic hydrogen, formed by z-pinch along a galactic current. this would also explain why an electric sun would be the focus of the current, and not the planets, the iron sun would be far more conductive than any other body in the system
I believe in a golden metallic look when I used a telescope to look close and I have a photo of that spectrum. Have been entangled with the Sun with love.
The corona spectrum of Fraunhofer lines are not of actual elements, but they are the very activity of the electrino, electron, muon electron, and tau electron (and their multiple energy level of electron tensor boson force carriers) being these lines. These electron shells, not the chemical elements themselves, (said) detection in the corona, and some 53, 61, or 67 elements from the Fraunhofer chromosphere are also electron shell activity. This destroys the entire subject of Lyman series, Balmer series, Paschen series, and Bracket series of electron transitions - regarding excitement or non-excitment of a singular electron energy gaining (or giving up) outside energies to a higher or lower state of the electron shell. Only these electron levels with their own whole energy values are what are entrained into fusion to these higher elements. There is no jumping up and down of an electron. This whole topic and the subject of light photons or radiactive processes happening is now proven wrong by the electro-static (ES) and electro-gravitic (EG) model, the corrected Solar Model, the corrected Black Hole model, and other vast assortment of separate physics sectors.
johnl8 • What's "electric" in REALITY? What's "magnetic" in REALITY? What's "gravity" in REALITY? What's the TRUE REAL dynamic of all these phenomena? 🙄🤔
A proton is a cluster of 1836 expanding electrons and add a bouncing expanding electron makes a hydrogen atom. “G” calculated from first principles- the hydrogen atom- in 2002. All atoms and atomic objects are expanding at 1/770,000th their size per second per second constant acceleration. Multiplied by earth’s radius equals 16.14 feet: gravity; d=1/2at^2 major part of the Atomic Expansion Equation. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.
@@mikel4879 You seem like an honest question person - versus a damnable troll or AI troll. Remove all statements saying electro-magnetism as this is only related to magnets. There are no magnets in space. There ARE electro-static forces and there ARE electro-gravitic forces in space and elsewhere. The electric force in the electro-static (ES) and electro-gravitic (EG) model is an outward centripetal force. Much like a Meissner force field emanating from a superconductor, creating such properties as anti-gravity properties, the electric force is an outward force and pressure. It is not necessarily related to the "electr"ons. Gravity is a singular source of attraction that is massively misunderstood by modern science and physics. The true object is a graviton - (the smallest composite of electrinos, electrons, muon electrons, and tau electrons) and graviton + (the smallest composite of positrinos, positrons, muon positrons, and tau positrons. The graviton - is a repulsive force. Magnetism is the mis-word for gravity. The gravity object, with a gravitational force field is attractive. The graviton + is an attractive force. At the bottom of the graviton level is the union of the smallest of energies in which there is the unified weak nuclear and strong nuclear forces. ES particulates display the weak nuclear force. EG (with a graviton center in a higher composite object display the strong nuclear force. True understanding of such electrinos and electrons NOT ANNHILATING WITH THEIR COUNTERPART positrinos and positrons, make electrino neutrinos and electron neutrons. As such ES electrons with conjoined ES positrons create ES-ES neutrons. EG electrons with conjoined EG positrons create EG-EG photons. Either an ES electron with a conjoined EG positron - or - a EG electron with a conjoined ES positron creates the hybrid tensor electron boson force carriers ... at all of each layer of energy objects. The ES and EG model SHOWS that actual objects create these electrical force and gravitation force. This is never talked about, documented, or identified in modern science and physics. All talk is thought concepts (like talking philosopy, religion, and spirituality ... as modern academia is modern religion !) versus talking facts and data. Schroedinger's cat is absolute cr*p and has nothing to deal with cosmic or physics events. Much of the massive concepts of science and physics are totally BS. The Lyman series, Balmer series, Paschen series, and Bracket series of electron transition across the multiple levels of the atomic electron shells is totally wrong. Each s-, p-, d-, and f-shell of electrons are completely separate electrons of higher level energies. There are no yo-yo electrons getting excited into higher shells, or vice versa and shooting off photons, or radiactive emissions. If one gets back to simplistic logic and features, you realize how much current superstructure is a wholly flawed and faulty foundation of BS and lies. When you pull out the fauly foundations and derivatifves, the whole system implodes and falls down. The ES and EG model fully explains the Solar Model, the Black Hole Model, space-time fabric, matter fabric, gravity, gravity waves, cosmic tension - negating the Big Bang, cosmic expansion, Doppler shift of galaxies, Doppler and Kelvin temperatures of Fraunhofer element absorption lines and associated Kelvin temperatures ... and so much more ...
@@mikel4879 when you understand Brikelund currents - you see the absolute connection of the hybrid ES/EG or EG/ES tensor bosino and boson force carriers at the multiple electron levels. All electro-MAGNETISM experiments using magnets, wires, electricity etc ... conducts THROUGH a boson force carrier, with balanced electron flow as alternative current on the outside of the actual wire ! When you see this in the Solar Model it explains much.
Collect and collate.., Euler's Fusion-Fission Function is a QM sequence of flash-fractal sync-duration scales, nuclei proximally and all the way out to stars and galaxy scales of superimposed compound hyper-hypo sync-duration structured on the Neutronic => Hydrogen Atomic Form following e-Pi-i Fusion Function continuous concentric shell-horizons built on the real-time Absolute Zero-infinity reference-framing trancendental Clockface intersection at Singularity-point Lensing Partitioning, very complex relative-timing holography. Way above my Amateur skills.
Nimm doch einfach all die Nebensätze, formuliere sie als Prämisse und sag dann was du meinst. Was ich in jedem Video höre ist das gleiche Geschwafel, ununterscheidbar von deinen anderen Videos. Wenn du dann noch versuchen könntest NICHT wie ein Priester im Beichtstuhl zu klingen, werde ich weiterhin deinem Kanal folgen.
According to google " Zonkers is the fast and frantic dice game. " I have found no meaningful relationship or reference to the game that might make the comment understandable but it`s only a limited research. @@nickcarroll8565
The flame experiment proves also greenhouse effect on earth. sodium vapor lamp=earth surface, NaCl flame=earth atmosphere, outcome: less IR is radiated straight into the space
Yes... until you reach saturation for the absorbed frequencies at which point there is no additional energy absorbed for increasing concentrations of NaCl (or CO2 as the case may be) Dang!... Now I'll have to do some calculations to calculate the curves showing the Iimits for various concentrations of 'greenhouse gasses'. 😮 Time for some fun recreational science! 😉
@@carlhoward5469NO! my mind collapses seeing responses like yours. you have apparently zero understanding of physics, yet think to write a qualifying comment. The energy input from the Sun through the atmosphere occurs at different wave lengths than the output from the Earth surface (mainly IR). most of visible light coming from the sun is absorbed and turned into IR (thermal) wavelengths. Now that lR light can't escape the atmosphere into th space, instead is trapped, the same way as the sodium light cant pass the flame (instead it is absorbed and reemited into ALL directions, also BACKWARDS)
I saw this. The only problem with a lot of these models is they all presume external compression of stellar objects. With external compression, naturally, the core would be the most dense region (and as many indicate could become so dense as to collapse into a black hole). The problem with this line of thinking is that there is no evidence of an external compression mechanism. Instead, if you generate a model (akin to a finite element model), whereby each constituent (atom, molecule, or what-have-you) contains an intensive property of attraction (attractors), then let it run, you will quickly discover that the region (say a star, in this case) of highest pressure is not at the core, but in a shell between the center and exterior. What does this mean, exactly? Both the center of a star and the surface will have little to no pressure. Most of the mass concentration will be in the aforementioned shell. It means that, a singularity (black hole), could never form, no matter how big the star is (nor how much matter it will accumulate), as the shell will grow proportionally. The shell would retain it's stability via lateral contributions of gravity, however, since the shell is rotating, it would also mean the thickness at the poles would be less than at the equator. This model would explain supernova events: By some means (perhaps a collision with a very large astronomical object, like a planet), the shell would become unstable, it would implode (in a torsional manner, smashing chunks of the shell together via gravity), then, one would witness simultaneous polar ejecta, and finally, it would explode (spewing the rebounded material to space), along with a lot of radiation in all directions.
Bought and read your book. Excellent work!
What would be causing the insane pressure needed to produce liquid metallic hydrogen on the surface? And remember, we still have no evidence for the existence of liquid metallic hydrogen...
vixra.org/abs/2301.0102
solar surface is over 20G
Streng kann man argumentieren, dass das Anfangswertproblem des Zusammenfalls der Wasserstoffwolke besser durch eine Akkumilation an einen soliden Körper gelöst wird, als durch spontane Implusion aka Schmetterdingeffekt und hoffen dass das Ding nicht ein schwarzes Loch wird,. Würde ich als start argument gegen das jetzige Sonnenmodell noch anführn.
Ein schwarzes Loch setzt eine enorme Dichte voraus was durch die Erhitzung während der Kontraktion und die darauf folgende Fusion schlicht verhindert wird. Schwarze Löcher haben sogar ein maximales Wachstum, weil ansonsten in der akkretionsscheibe soviel Energie abgestrahlt wird, dass kein weiteres Material einfallen kann.
"I believe that we have a problem in this science because we tend to form complicated models, many people working on that, and we are missing a scientific culture of truly understanding the nature of physical processes." In the meantime, climate models are ruling our lives.
All theories are models and without theories you have no idea.
“All models are wrong, but some are useful” - George E.P. Box.
Although some are so wrong that instead of having no idea, you have the incorrect idea. The difference is that some egos accept being wrong more easily than others.
@@Rampart.X before you show me the math, show me the English.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.
@@florianopohlmann9516so you are buying the liquid sun theory? Liquid metallic hydrogen would be 5.000.000 times denser than the photosphere. How would this work with the supposed mass and density of the sun?
How can the granules cool by 500°C within less than 15 minutes when they are formed by a much denser liquid with a way higher thermal capacity?
Are you willing to take a critical look at your pet theory when you are asking everyone else to do so?
I had formed the impression that the words atomic / molecular [ H ] were moment to moment a variable by ratio depending on where and when, therefore almost interchangeable. Any way great show as always I am looking forward to the next presentations from you and your colleague in real science Dr P-M R
From the BSM-SG perspective you are missing a lot of importent aspects - the sun core for example. But yes, that the standard model of the sun is unthinkable no doubt.. My working hypothesis is on graphen like aggregate state of hydrogen - impossible to describe in the standard model - in the upper layers. The metalic state could quite be - para od diamagnetic states are purely defined in the vacuum - it's the vacuum modulation matter causes that changes properties.
You making good points, the only issue is the assumption of the newton's bucket. I can show you why is not apply, if you consider an adiabatic expansion of the universe state vectors you get no spinning motion for the fluid. However you get LOCAL spinning and orbital motion evolution.
What is name of the musical theme played in the first 3 sec's [& end] of this video? I have searched everywhere for it! Is it by John Williams? or maybe from a PBS TV show ?
With me you're preaching to the quire but how do we convince the mainstream?
You have not supported the notion that the transition between the photosphere and the chromosphere is "sudden" in any absolute sense. In comparison to the size of the sun, it would be sudden. Opacity would be negative exponential in the photon mean free path length (the shorter the FMP, the more opaque the material), and the mean free path length is inversely proportional to the number density of the sun's atmosphere, which would be negative exponential with increasing r - that is an opacity that is very rapidly decreasing with increasing r, a nested exponential. Therefore, you will go from nearly-transparent to quite opaque quite quickly, and as such would look sudden from our vantage point on Earth.
On the other hand, Dr. Robitaille's model doesn't make any sense. See, those line emission/absorption spectra only occur when the gas is quite thin, much less than atmospheric pressure. That's a problem because -if it even exists at all- liquid metallic hydrogen is definitely not stable below 83 GPa pressure, which is much MORE than atmospheric pressure. The kind of pressure that have to exist at the photosphere were it metallic liquid hydrogen would result in the photosphere being thrown off altogether. In order to be stable, the photosphere would have to be underneath a layer of gaseous hydrogen exerting 83 GPa of pressure onto it, which requires some 36 million kilograms of hydrogen to be sitting in a column atop each square meter of the liquid metallic surface.
Now, the more observant of you might be wondering, if it takes very low pressure to see a line spectrum, what happens when the pressure is above that? Well, you get a continuous spectrum. Not all at once, mind, but as pressure increases, the lines spread out and start overlapping. We can see the absorption spectrum of water vapor in our own atmosphere is continuous, with large bands of continuous absorption. The halogens are notable examples of strongly colored gasses. Iodine vapor is particularly evil-looking.
The reason is because the energy bands that cause those continuous spectra in solids and liquids is due to the proximity of atoms, and has nothing to do with the phase of matter. If two atoms are in close proximity, the single energy level splits, and the closer the two atoms, the wider the split from the original energy level. If you have lots of atoms at various distances, you will get an energy band of available transitions, and therefore continuous absorption/emission bands in the resulting spectrum.
The central conceit of Dr. Robitaille's model is wrong: gasses CAN and DO have continuous spectra. With that realization, his entire chain of reasoning just falls apart.
Oh, and the corona is _not_ in a thermal equilibrium with the lower layers of the sun - it's subjected to work-heating. That's why it can be millions of degrees, much hotter than the photosphere and chromosphere.
"The central conceit of Dr. Robitaille's model is wrong: gasses CAN and DO have continuous spectra. With that realization, his entire chain of reasoning just falls apart." wyrmofvt
There's your problem right there! No amount of line broadening will make gas emissions magically change from band emission into a thermal spectrum. It's painfully obvious from your diatribe that you know nothing about the subject matter. Dr. Robitaille is absolutely right. Only condensed matter emits a thermal spectrum, as the experiments prove. Gases never emit a thermal spectrum because they can't. A vibrational lattice is required to produce a thermal spectrum - gases do not have a lattice structure. Only condensed matter has lattice structure. So the thermal spectrum of the Sun proves unequivocally that the Sun is condensed matter.
@@stevecrothers6585 "There's your problem right there! No amount of line broadening will make gas emissions magically change from band emission into a thermal spectrum."
If that were true, then you could build a perpetual motion machine of the second type. The gasses would absorb radiation but be unable to radiate it, and so the gas continues to heat until it's at a greater temperature than its absorbing radiation from, and you can use that temperature difference to drive a heat engine. The only thing required for a blackbody spectrum is for the substance to be a perfect absorber, and indeed the prototypical blackbody is a hole in the side of an oven - not the oven, a _hole_ in the side of an oven. A gas is always as good a radiator as it is an absorber. Of course, in practice, gasses are poor absorbers, so it takes quite a bit of gas for significant absorption, but it does happen. It also requires the gas to be dense, because -if you work out the quantum mechanical processes of absorption in condensed matter- you find that the broadened energy bands that cause continuous absorption and emission spectra are caused by atom proximity, not the phase of matter - the lattice vibrations _are not modeled_ in band structure. It's _not_ the lattice that causes it, but the fact that the atoms are in close proximity. The lattice is just a convenient way for lots of atoms to be in close proximity.
"It's painfully obvious from your diatribe that you know nothing about the subject matter."
I took coursework on this, bub. It's _textbook_ science. Dr. Robitaille is wrong.
@@wyrmofvt "There's your problem right there! No amount of line broadening will make gas emissions magically change from band emission into a thermal spectrum." Crothers
"If that were true, then you could build a perpetual motion machine of the second type. The gasses would absorb radiation but be unable to radiate it, and so the gas continues to heat until it's at a greater temperature than its absorbing radiation from, and you can use that temperature difference to drive a heat engine." @wyrmofvt
Sorry to disappoint you but there is no violation of the second law. Gases absorb and emit in bands. Their ability to absorb exactly matches their ability to emit. That is Stewart's law (often incorrectly stated as Kirchhoff's). So, a gas will only absorb where it can emit, and will always be able to radiate what it absorbed. No violation of the second law takes place.
"The only thing required for a blackbody spectrum is for the substance to be a perfect absorber" also "I took coursework on this, bub. It's textbook science. Dr. Robitaille is wrong." @wyrmofvt
Well, I guess you were not paying attention in class. First of all, blackbody radiation is supposed to be independent of the nature of the walls. That is what is taught in textbooks and what students of physics and astronomy typically learn in their modern physics course during their second year of studies. I also took such courses and more. I am the one that required a perfect absorber! Kirchhoff required temperature equilibrium with an opaque enclosure. He never insisted that the walls were perfectly absorbing. In fact, he did not care about the nature of the material as long as it was opaque. It could even be reflective, since it was independent of the nature of the walls. Planck himself, in his "Theory of Heat Radiation" always used perfect reflectors. He also stated that within a perfect reflector any state of radiation may exist. He then inserted a carbon particle, which he compared to a catalyst which could produce blackbody radiation within the enclosure. Yet, his carbon particle was not a catalyst. It was a perfect absorber and by using it, it was as if Planck had lined the entire walls with a perfect absorber. Planck also wanted to prove that Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission was valid. He devoted the first section of his book to that cause. However, it is clear that Planck's proof is invalid, as we have demonstrated (see Robitaille and Crothers, “The Theory of Heat Radiation” Revisited: A Commentary on the Validity of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission and Max Planck’s Claim of Universality, Progr. Phys, 2015, 2, 120-132). I invite anyone to find any error in our presentation. In reality, Kirchhoff's law has no valid experimental or theoretical proof. Even Hilbert complained about the lack of a theoretical proof. No valid proof has ever been advanced and if you think one exists please provide a citation. You will not find one as I have searched for years.
"indeed the prototypical blackbody is a hole in the side of an oven - not the oven, a hole in the side of an oven." @wyrmofvt
Once again, you demonstrate that you have not thought about this problem, but are just repeating what you saw in a textbook without reflection. The argument you make here is well known in astrophysics. You will find it for instance in Gray's classic book of stellar photospheres. The problem is that the argument is false. If phase coherent radiation enters a perfectly reflecting cavity through a hole, it can build up standing waves in that cavity. That is how NMR, EPR and MRI cavities work. The radiation is not thermalized. You get standing waves, not blackbody radiation. If you believe otherwise, I suggest you call all the makers of microwave cavities and cell companies and tell them that you have decided that their technology does not work based on that fact that once radiation enters a cavity through a hole, it must become black. Again, you do not understand the subject matter.
" It's not the lattice that causes it, but the fact that the atoms are in close proximity. The lattice is just a convenient way for lots of atoms to be in close proximity." @wyrmofvt
All of your arguments relative to gases are circular, exactly like those used in astrophysics. They claim that when a gas become optically thick, it will emit as a blackbody. Nonsense. Gases are never optically thick and they always emit in bands. You don't even understand the consequences of your own statements. In the gaseous plasma model of the Sun known as the Standard Model, the gas atoms at the level of the photosphere have the density of a vacuum at 10**-7 g/cm**3. Good luck trying to argue that in such a setting the atoms are in close proximity! You are dealing with a vacuum.
"The central conceit of Dr. Robitaille's model is wrong: gasses CAN and DO have continuous spectra. With that realization, his entire chain of reasoning just falls apart." @wyrmofvt
No gas have ever been observed to emit as a blackbody. If you believe otherwise, give citations of experimental proof in the laboratory. You need to produce a blackbody spectrum in a free gas or plasma (unconfined by condensed matter), without emission spikes. Good luck. The Sun is condensed matter and that is the only way to properly account for its thermal spectrum.
In any case, it is no wonder that like the others who write against me online, you hide under anonymity. At least you are wise enough not to expose to your colleagues your lack of understanding.
@-marierobitaille2095 _Sorry to disappoint you but there is no violation of the second law. Gases absorb and emit in bands. Their ability to absorb exactly matches their ability to emit. That is Stewart's law (often incorrectly stated as Kirchhoff's). So, a gas will only absorb where it can emit, and will always be able to radiate what it absorbed. No violation of the second law takes place._
Then my introlocuter _is_ wrong, *and* you agree with me. He didn't say, "blackbody spectrum," he said "thermal spectrum." There are more thermal emission spectra than the blackbody spectrum.
"The only thing required for a blackbody spectrum is for the substance to be a perfect absorber" also "I took coursework on this, bub. It's textbook science. Dr. Robitaille is wrong." @wyrmofvt
_Well, I guess you were not paying attention in class._
No, I was. What I stated was _exactly_ right: the _only_ required property for a blackbody spectrum is for it to be a perfect absorber. It is both necessary and sufficient. For if this condition is not necessary, you can have an object radiate as a blackbody, yet not be a perfect absorber. Thus, you can put it and a perfect absorber, both heated to the same temperature, into a perfectly reflective box and there will be a net transfer of heat from the non-black blackbody to the black blackbody - the black blackbody absorbs all heat it gets from the non-black blackbody, but the non-black blackbody doesn't absorb all heat it gets from the black blackbody. That violates the second law, and therefore being a perfect absorber is a necessary condition. It is also a sufficient condition, because if any other condition is required, you can have a perfect absorber that does not radiate as a blackbody. If it radiates more than a black blackbody, then you get the previous scenario; if it radiates less than a black blackbody, then you get a net transfer of heat from the black blackbody to the black non-blackbody. Either violates the second law.
So, no other property is relevant for an object to be a blackbody, _exactly_ as I said: "The only thing required for a blackbody spectrum is for the substance to be a perfect absorber". In particular, there is no requirement for the substance to be condensed matter, liquid or solid.
_I am the one that required a perfect absorber! Kirchhoff required temperature equilibrium with an opaque enclosure._
Then we agree. I don't care what Kirchoff said. I am WAY to young to have learned from him directly.
_No valid proof has ever been advanced and if you think one exists please provide a citation. You will not find one as I have searched for years._
I found one in one minute by googling "blackbody radiation law proof", and the first result was "The Derivation of the Planck Formula," where Plank's law is derived using only a perfectly reflective box (deriving the Rayleigh Jeans law) and the photoelectric effect. The resolution is Plank's law. No mention of carbon being included at any point, and no place where that could be sneaked in.
_Once again, you demonstrate that you have not thought about this problem, but are just repeating what you saw in a textbook without reflection._
Only in your dreams. I mean, did you not pick up on the fact that I didn't know that Plank had used carbon in his original formulation? That's because modern proofs (which I learned from) _don't need_ that assumption. And yes, the cavity is an idealization, as if anyone was claiming that we were describing an actual box. The blackbody _itself_ is an idealization - no real body actually radiates as an ideal blackbody (except mabye black holes). It doesn't matter if microwave cavities don't radiate as blackbodies.
" It's not the lattice that causes it, but the fact that the atoms are in close proximity. The lattice is just a convenient way for lots of atoms to be in close proximity." @wyrmofvt
_They claim that when a gas become optically thick, it will emit as a blackbody. Nonsense. Gases are never optically thick and they always emit in bands._
So does all real condensed matter! Gallium is transparent in the infrared. Glass is opaque in the infrared. FFS, this is why solids and liquids display a range of colors!
_You don't even understand the consequences of your own statements. In the gaseous plasma model of the Sun known as the Standard Model, the gas atoms at the level of the photosphere have the density of a vacuum at 10**-7 g/cm**3. Good luck trying to argue that in such a setting the atoms are in close proximity! You are dealing with a vacuum._
Last time I checked, the density of the photosphere is ~0.2 g/cm³. That gives me 10 nm (order of magnitude) on average free mean path. But that means that there are always a small portion of atoms in the process of colliding, and there will be a segment of the population that _is_ 0.5 nm or closer, which gives you some .3 eV of splitting. So yes, you get _a bloody band._
_No gas have ever been observed to emit as a blackbody._
You know what also has never been observed to emit as a blackbody? Liquid metallic hydrogen! What's good for the goose is good for the gander!
_In any case, it is no wonder that like the others who write against me online, you hide under anonymity. At least you are wise enough not to expose to your colleagues your lack of understanding._
One minute in google, doctor.
@@wyrmofvt Sorry, but you are lost. You need to find a proof of Kirchhofff's law, not Planck's. There is a difference! You need to learn what that difference is! In your experiment, you forget about reflection. Then your statement: "Then we agree. I don't care what Kirchoff said. I am WAY to young to have learned from him directly." You need to care what Kirchhoff said if you think that the Sun is a gaseous plasma and if you wish to insist that I am wrong. A gaseous plasma Sun absolutely depends on Kirchhoff's law being correct. Go read any astrophysics book to find out. You cannot adopt what I stated (contrary to everything that was taught in coursework) and then state that I was wrong. I will let any physicist or astronomer read what you wrote and that is sufficient to establish that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You cannot even defend accepted physics properly. Again, I am the one that is insisting for perfect absorbers, not the physics community. So, rather than fight with me, go learn what physics is actually saying about blackbody radiation, learn Kirchhoff's law, then come and tell me that I was wrong by providing a proof that Kirchhoff was correct. In any case, the density of the photosphere is said to be about 10**-7 g/cm**3, exactly as I previously stated. Your claim that it is "Last time I checked, the density of the photosphere is ~0.2 g/cm³" is completely off target. Go read any books on the Standard Model. I am done answering you as your writings now prove that you are not at all experienced about this subject matter. In any event, if you are going to argue with others, at least learn the subject matter first.
Alexander, OK, liquid metal hydrogen.
But what is a hydrogen atom in REALITY?
What's a so-called "atom" in REALITY?
What's a so-called "electron" in REALITY?
What's a so-called "proton" in REALITY?
What's a so-called"photon " in REALITY?
When I say in REALITY, I mean what's the TRUE REAL dynamic behind all of these phenomena? 🙄
Look. All science can get us is from speculation, fantasy and myth - towards working models that are incrementally closer to reality (and only in the best of cases). What reality is is Nature/God. Even if we feel confident in explaining "how" all things work, the "why?" question will still remain, and some people still won't be satisfied.
In the meantime, better models can and will improve chemistry, biology and all sorts of technology. And not all models need to be the closest, most detailed descriptions of reality, they just need to be useful - the electron flow circuit model got us most of the way to modern day electronics and computers, even though any engineer knows it's wrong.
man, I knew i picked up some serious fraud vibes from you while watching "The Most Fundamental Problem of Gravity is Solved". This channel is clearly a joke.
The more I watch of his stuff the more I realise he doesn't say anything, only makes allusions to an idealised way of being. The biggest recurring theme is that everything needs to be simple - he shoots a lot down just because it's hard to think about.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.
The Creator does not begin with inferior designs, therefore the sun's core is likely both solid and liquid.
The suns core will have some really strange states atoms but certainly not a liquid. Most likely similar to a gas but not anything that would look like a gas. It would simply be to hot to form any connection which characterize a liquid.
No wave or wavelength has yet existed. So,no.
Dear Dr. Unzicker, have you made a study and video on WHY the general scientific community refuses to countenance a liquid, metallic hydrogen, Sun?
Cheers, and thanks, from Australia.
Because it has some problems? We know the radius and the mass of the sun. The photosphere has a density of 0.2g/m3. Metallic hydrogen would have a density of a bit over 1g/cm3 aka it would be 5.000.000 times denser. And of cause everything beneath the surface must be even denser. Aka you will run into a weight problem.
And there are good explanation for the continuous spectrum other than gas emissions. This would be break radiation when electrons are stoped or redirected by atomic cores. This will create a continuous spectrum. And because the outer layers of the sun are a gas you will see the Fraunhofer lines.
The problem with his models is, that he never thinks about the implications of his ideas. A liquid sun would explain much but create problems at other places.
MOND theory would replace the need for dark matter but has problems explaining other observations. Just because a theory does solve one problem doesn’t mean that it must be the correct one.
people who spent their entire careers being wrong, don't like to be told they are wrong, if you present them with evidence they will actually get very, very angry.
@@doltBmB you are totally right. But the problem is that the liquid sun model has problems too. I mentioned the weight problem. Next problem would be the continuous spectrum of giant stars which definitely have a gaseous outer layer.
Or the cooling of the granules. They cool down by 500°C in less than 15 minutes which is possible for a gas but a liquid would have a way higher thermal capacity so how can it cool down so fast?
@@svenweihusen57 you have a very typical post-hoc reasoning model, which is deeply irrational, unfortunately if you can't think you can't be convinced, but robitaille answers everything
@@doltBmB I am asking valid questions. And I would be last to claim that we know everything and that everything we know now is right. He is invoking a metastable material in an environment where even stable materials break down.
There are simply questions and I don’t see where Robitaille answered them.
So when you know the answers tell me where he answered them or what his solution was instead of insulting me. He offers a solution for a problem but this doesn’t mean that his solution is right.
Everything is liquid if you look closely and wait long enough
Thanks for another significant video on the liquid metallic Sun, Dr. Unzicker!
I can't agree more. Ever since I saw the demostration of metallic hydrogen being created, it all just clicked. The sun's core must be metallic hydrogen with a plasma photo-sphere and chromo-sphere slowly being consumed by fusions occurring deep inside the lattice of the core.
Metallic hydrogen, liquid metallic hydrogen and liquid metallic helium.
Odds are the age of everything is horribly wrong.
Also I think there's another important piece to this... check out "The Electric Sky", by Donald Scott. I think a few more things might click into place. So much good real science (vs. purely theoretical or mathematical) needs to be done.
When virtually every new objective observation contradicts the accepted dogma, it just might be time to reexamine our assumptions and look seriously at other theories that often explain the observations of things that "just shouldn't exist" as we often see stated in conjunction with these observations.
@@carlhoward5469 "The Electric Universe" by Thornhill & Talbott is a compelling read as well.
@@glenwaldrop8166 how old would you guess? In your own opinion
nope
The standard solar model has so many logical holes in it that justification for using it at this stage reeks of following the grant money, the same as the continual bizarre investment in dark matter.
Love this channel. A breath of honest unbiased approach to theoretical physics. Thank you, Unziker.
It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the observations of a lunar atmosphere in the near infrared.
Jtolanmedia1 is studying it on his channel.
I appreciate the fact that you are looking at facts, not merely strongly held opinions of people who worship science rather than practice it.
u know plasma acts just like a liquid right? its not metallic hydrogen its hot plasma and not atomic in its core
It’s definitely NOT a cloud of fire.
As silly as your comment seems on the surface, modern science should take note that a non solid body of just plasma, would not produce the space-time curvature required to maintain the orbits of all the planets.
On a side note, it's fairly obvious that curved space-time doesn't work in general for the regular orbits of the planets, and that they all would have been absorbed by the sun itself long ago if the model were true.
Science has failed to recognize that space and time are not "real" things. They are the measures of the passing, expanding, and dying of those things. Once science can start back at square one (which will never happen, because adding and adjusting existing theories is the easiest path forward) they will be able to square the electromagnetic push/pull that is certainly taking place at all scales from the quantum to the astronomical.
Japan's solar observation satellite "Hinode" has discovered the existence of countless circular magnetic fields on the surface of the sun. This circular magnetic field is created by plasma moving on the solar surface, and has the role of compressing the plasma onto the solar surface. Compressed plasma behaves like a liquid.
Shure. Glass is a liquid, just a sorta slow moving one. No reason you can't try it on for a very high pressure item a a very high temperature...
Light is emitted from a particle in all directions. Why would you even say a "random direction"? How can you call yourself a physicist if you can't even get that right? Every particle sees every other particle in the universe. Likewise, why would anyone think the sun n it's entirety is a gas? A simple measurement of the density of the sun immediately proves otherwise.
❤
You may find myself agreeing, at least for awhile. I consider a temporary fully-matching, no-opposition attitude as a form of thought experiment.
What leave me puzzled, is that in the end I haven't brought, nor I have gained, the mathematical tools to complete the thought experiment.
In this specific case, could you provide support?
Umm I'd say NO because it's plasma and ionized gas which are different states of matter.
ruclips.net/video/7GSLZnJJcY4/видео.html
Liquid crystal.
Hello!
My question does not concern this topic, but a neighbor topic not far away.
Do you think it's possible, that the sun's surface - apart from protons and electrons - also emits neutrons? A neutron on its way into space of course later splits again into a proton and an electron, so we can't decide their origin.
In fact for the fusion of He some neutrons have to be generated at first. Perhaps some excess neutrons are generated, which leave the sun before they combine to D or T?
Would a neutron detector on board of a probe work?
Or can we exclude that neutrons leave the sun, does anyone know 🤔?
Best greetings!
Can we just call it a fluid, as in fluid dynamics,(that should cover most cases from conventional liquid to conventional gas, yes?)
Calling it a liquid calls upon too much earthly experience and doesn't take into account such great levels of ionization temperature & possibly pressure.
Have you considered how magnetic fields can cause magnetostriction & cause increasing apparent pressure & density?
the sun is a solid, the visible surface flows like a magnetic liquid, but there are certain features which have a solid uniform rotation to them which can be identified, so the sun must have a solid surface which is covered by this liquid, keep in mind the liquid layer may well be thousands of kilometers deep.
there is a good argument to be made that the solid part is iron, but this gives a problem, an iron sun would be far more massive than the orbits of the planets would suggest, fortunately the late wal thornhill has a solution, given the "z-pinch" theory of star formation, it is likely that the iron shell is hollow, just as on earth in laboratory experiments and natural lighting strikes you can find hollow nodules are formed in this way.
so that's the final model for the sun, a hollow shell of iron covered in liquid metallic hydrogen, formed by z-pinch along a galactic current.
this would also explain why an electric sun would be the focus of the current, and not the planets, the iron sun would be far more conductive than any other body in the system
I believe in a golden metallic look when I used a telescope to look close and I have a photo of that spectrum. Have been entangled with the Sun with love.
The sodium is ionized in the flame. Doesn't it then absorb at another frequency?
The corona spectrum of Fraunhofer lines are not of actual elements, but they are the very activity of the electrino, electron, muon electron, and tau electron (and their multiple energy level of electron tensor boson force carriers) being these lines. These electron shells, not the chemical elements themselves, (said) detection in the corona, and some 53, 61, or 67 elements from the Fraunhofer chromosphere are also electron shell activity. This destroys the entire subject of Lyman series, Balmer series, Paschen series, and Bracket series of electron transitions - regarding excitement or non-excitment of a singular electron energy gaining (or giving up) outside energies to a higher or lower state of the electron shell. Only these electron levels with their own whole energy values are what are entrained into fusion to these higher elements. There is no jumping up and down of an electron. This whole topic and the subject of light photons or radiactive processes happening is now proven wrong by the electro-static (ES) and electro-gravitic (EG) model, the corrected Solar Model, the corrected Black Hole model, and other vast assortment of separate physics sectors.
johnl8 • What's "electric" in REALITY?
What's "magnetic" in REALITY?
What's "gravity" in REALITY?
What's the TRUE REAL dynamic of all these phenomena? 🙄🤔
A proton is a cluster of 1836 expanding electrons and add a bouncing expanding electron makes a hydrogen atom. “G” calculated from first principles- the hydrogen atom- in 2002. All atoms and atomic objects are expanding at 1/770,000th their size per second per second constant acceleration. Multiplied by earth’s radius equals 16.14 feet: gravity; d=1/2at^2 major part of the Atomic Expansion Equation. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.
@@mikel4879 You seem like an honest question person - versus a damnable troll or AI troll.
Remove all statements saying electro-magnetism as this is only related to magnets. There are no magnets in space. There ARE electro-static forces and there ARE electro-gravitic forces in space and elsewhere.
The electric force in the electro-static (ES) and electro-gravitic (EG) model is an outward centripetal force. Much like a Meissner force field emanating from a superconductor, creating such properties as anti-gravity properties, the electric force is an outward force and pressure. It is not necessarily related to the "electr"ons. Gravity is a singular source of attraction that is massively misunderstood by modern science and physics. The true object is a graviton - (the smallest composite of electrinos, electrons, muon electrons, and tau electrons) and graviton + (the smallest composite of positrinos, positrons, muon positrons, and tau positrons. The graviton - is a repulsive force.
Magnetism is the mis-word for gravity. The gravity object, with a gravitational force field is attractive. The graviton + is an attractive force.
At the bottom of the graviton level is the union of the smallest of energies in which there is the unified weak nuclear and strong nuclear forces. ES particulates display the weak nuclear force. EG (with a graviton center in a higher composite object display the strong nuclear force.
True understanding of such electrinos and electrons NOT ANNHILATING WITH THEIR COUNTERPART positrinos and positrons, make electrino neutrinos and electron neutrons. As such ES electrons with conjoined ES positrons create ES-ES neutrons. EG electrons with conjoined EG positrons create EG-EG photons. Either an ES electron with a conjoined EG positron - or - a EG electron with a conjoined ES positron creates the hybrid tensor electron boson force carriers ... at all of each layer of energy objects.
The ES and EG model SHOWS that actual objects create these electrical force and gravitation force. This is never talked about, documented, or identified in modern science and physics. All talk is thought concepts (like talking philosopy, religion, and spirituality ... as modern academia is modern religion !) versus talking facts and data. Schroedinger's cat is absolute cr*p and has nothing to deal with cosmic or physics events. Much of the massive concepts of science and physics are totally BS. The Lyman series, Balmer series, Paschen series, and Bracket series of electron transition across the multiple levels of the atomic electron shells is totally wrong. Each s-, p-, d-, and f-shell of electrons are completely separate electrons of higher level energies. There are no yo-yo electrons getting excited into higher shells, or vice versa and shooting off photons, or radiactive emissions.
If one gets back to simplistic logic and features, you realize how much current superstructure is a wholly flawed and faulty foundation of BS and lies. When you pull out the fauly foundations and derivatifves, the whole system implodes and falls down.
The ES and EG model fully explains the Solar Model, the Black Hole Model, space-time fabric, matter fabric, gravity, gravity waves, cosmic tension - negating the Big Bang, cosmic expansion, Doppler shift of galaxies, Doppler and Kelvin temperatures of Fraunhofer element absorption lines and associated Kelvin temperatures ... and so much more ...
@@mikel4879 when you understand Brikelund currents - you see the absolute connection of the hybrid ES/EG or EG/ES tensor bosino and boson force carriers at the multiple electron levels. All electro-MAGNETISM experiments using magnets, wires, electricity etc ... conducts THROUGH a boson force carrier, with balanced electron flow as alternative current on the outside of the actual wire ! When you see this in the Solar Model it explains much.
That is how the particle entities present themselves to the Space - a ballet if fields is the true nature of reality...
Collect and collate.., Euler's Fusion-Fission Function is a QM sequence of flash-fractal sync-duration scales, nuclei proximally and all the way out to stars and galaxy scales of superimposed compound hyper-hypo sync-duration structured on the Neutronic => Hydrogen Atomic Form following e-Pi-i Fusion Function continuous concentric shell-horizons built on the real-time Absolute Zero-infinity reference-framing trancendental Clockface intersection at Singularity-point Lensing Partitioning, very complex relative-timing holography.
Way above my Amateur skills.
If find just one singularity, you have made a fatal systemic error, which is much worse than a calculation error...
Nimm doch einfach all die Nebensätze, formuliere sie als Prämisse und sag dann was du meinst. Was ich in jedem Video höre ist das gleiche Geschwafel, ununterscheidbar von deinen anderen Videos.
Wenn du dann noch versuchen könntest NICHT wie ein Priester im Beichtstuhl zu klingen, werde ich weiterhin deinem Kanal folgen.
ahahaha youve gone zonkers
These kind of ad hominems aren’t particularly helpful. They say more about you than about him or his ideas.
According to google " Zonkers is the fast and frantic dice game. " I have found no meaningful relationship or reference to the game that might make the comment understandable but it`s only a limited research. @@nickcarroll8565
The flame experiment proves also greenhouse effect on earth. sodium vapor lamp=earth surface, NaCl flame=earth atmosphere, outcome: less IR is radiated straight into the space
Yes... until you reach saturation for the absorbed frequencies at which point there is no additional energy absorbed for increasing concentrations of NaCl (or CO2 as the case may be) Dang!... Now I'll have to do some calculations to calculate the curves showing the Iimits for various concentrations of 'greenhouse gasses'. 😮 Time for some fun recreational science! 😉
@@carlhoward5469NO! my mind collapses seeing responses like yours. you have apparently zero understanding of physics, yet think to write a qualifying comment. The energy input from the Sun through the atmosphere occurs at different wave lengths than the output from the Earth surface (mainly IR). most of visible light coming from the sun is absorbed and turned into IR (thermal) wavelengths. Now that lR light can't escape the atmosphere into th space, instead is trapped, the same way as the sodium light cant pass the flame (instead it is absorbed and reemited into ALL directions, also BACKWARDS)
There was a PBS Spacetime episode theorizing that there could be a black hole powering the sun at its center
based on what evidence? and what colour black hole might that be?
I saw this. The only problem with a lot of these models is they all presume external compression of stellar objects. With external compression, naturally, the core would be the most dense region (and as many indicate could become so dense as to collapse into a black hole). The problem with this line of thinking is that there is no evidence of an external compression mechanism.
Instead, if you generate a model (akin to a finite element model), whereby each constituent (atom, molecule, or what-have-you) contains an intensive property of attraction (attractors), then let it run, you will quickly discover that the region (say a star, in this case) of highest pressure is not at the core, but in a shell between the center and exterior. What does this mean, exactly? Both the center of a star and the surface will have little to no pressure. Most of the mass concentration will be in the aforementioned shell. It means that, a singularity (black hole), could never form, no matter how big the star is (nor how much matter it will accumulate), as the shell will grow proportionally. The shell would retain it's stability via lateral contributions of gravity, however, since the shell is rotating, it would also mean the thickness at the poles would be less than at the equator. This model would explain supernova events: By some means (perhaps a collision with a very large astronomical object, like a planet), the shell would become unstable, it would implode (in a torsional manner, smashing chunks of the shell together via gravity), then, one would witness simultaneous polar ejecta, and finally, it would explode (spewing the rebounded material to space), along with a lot of radiation in all directions.
A sun not our sun. It was a possible explanation for some curious objects found by the JWST.
black holes don't exist