YFW black body radiation require a lattice structure so stars have to be more than compressed gas. Physics and especially astrophysics has been fundamentally flawed for a century to the degree that we don't really know what temperature is. Dr. Pierre Marie Robitaille may just be the greatest living scientists. His revelations are going to change everything.Lab tested physics is so back bros!Missing Link Between Quantum & Classical Physics - Dr. Pierre Marie Robitaille, DemystifySci +415https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmFqt1-O7fwEverything We Know About Temperature is Wrong - Dr. Pierre Marie Robitaille - DemystifySci +416https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf-sKeeWaeY
Call me when he makes the Theory of Everything podcast. Until then, he is a quack.
>>16963250>Until then, he is a quack.It's funny because he's one of the only ones that actually isn't a quack.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbeNoN63BUY
>>16963253>stellar demographicswhy do 13% of the stars produce 50% of the light?
>>16963286It has to do with the lattice structure present within the star, not the density of the "gasses that make up the star".
>>16963253one wrong-way driver? thousands of them!
>>16963335Imagine basing all your physics on the assumption that Planks black body equations apply to all materials when they clearly only apply to materials with inherent lattice structures.
>Lab tested physics is so back bros!So where is his paper of his experiment proving only solids emit black bodies?> when they clearly only apply to materials with inherent lattice structures.Based on what?>Planks Maybe finish high school before trying to overturn physics.
>>16963325>its not due to stellar genetics>its due to socio economic factors and environmental racismgot it libtard
>>16963363>So where is his paper of his experiment proving only solids emit black bodies?https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0507007>Based on what?His experience with MRI scans for starters. Maybe watch the video yourself?
>>16963375>>So where is his paper of his experiment proving only solids emit black bodies?>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0507007He presents no experimental results of his own. Did you even look at it?How is it you want a return to "lab-based" physics, but blindly accept his claims without any experimental testing. >His experience with MRI scans for starters. MRIs have nothing to do with back body radiation. >Maybe watch the video yourself?You made this claim, and now you say you cannot defend it. You seem to be just parroting what he claims without any rational understanding.
>>16963395>MRIs have nothing to do with back body radiation.I'm not going to paraphrase the whole video for you and then the part II second video. I did break down the entirety of both videos into a simple concept. Black-body radiation requires a lattice structure to emit light. I just googled the guy's name to find that paper because I don't know much about him other than just having watched the video. I don't know what papers he has written but I do know that he mentions them and says they are easy to find in the video. You're right I rushed right over and started a thread right after watching the video because I am enchanted by the possible implications of his claim. Either this is going to be groundbreaking or it isn't. I happen to think he is right and this is a nail in the coffin of theoretical physics, but I certainly could be wrong. And of course you are free to think what you want about how stupid I am.
>>16963424>I did break down the entirety of both videos into a simple concept. Black-body radiation requires a lattice structure to emit light.This is a claim, one that requires justification. You repleted it, and said it was "clear". But when asked why it is clear, you shrug and point to the videos.I have watched his videos before, they are completely absent of substance. None of his papers actually justify it either. I'm perfectly well aware that he has never done a single lab experiment to test this claim of his, despite making these claims for decades.
>>16963346soooglass can't have black body radiation? Or tar? Or wood? None of this shit has a lattice structure
>>16963346tell me more anon. Why is it that plancks technique of utilizing the partition function looks eirely similar to encoding the partition problem on an ising machine (with its lattice assumption)will i learn more in these papers?
>>16963346> when they clearly only apply to materials with inherent lattice structuresStrange then that the derivation doesn't require lattices at all.https://web.phys.ntnu.no/~stovneng/TFY4165_2013/BlackbodyRadiation.pdf
>>16963671As a mathematical abstraction, he just had to fit the data. Furthermore, he strictly built on Kirvchoff's laws which are invalid. I don't mind all of the retards that call Robitaille a quack and spout off against his metallic sun theories. They are picking the easy target while the steel man quietly pervades through larger academia. Of note, the particular case mentioned in the pdf is the one that isn't universal. A resonant cavity could have a modal cap at a selected band because the cavity is reflecting some other temperatures instead of being a result of the temperature of the given body. So unless you have a universal claim which invalidates or incorporates the case, your argument is safe to ignore. Sorry planck, you were intelligent but the people before you were tards so your formalism is false.
>>16963750>a mathematical abstraction, he just had to fit the dataAh yes, that scientific method. What a load of nonsense eh?
>>16963242>black body radiation require a lattice structurestopped reading there
>>16963756The scientific method isn't about assuming things and baking them into your model. If it was science, how did he miss that it wasn't a universal condition? The error is strictly a theoretical miss that specifically was not tested. Nice straw man.
>>16963786You really are a retard.
>>16963767>coat box in graphite to make it black>observe light>this must be how it works all the time for everything
>>16963801>applies far more broadly than just graphite boxes>anything in thermal equilibrium emits radiation close to a blackbody spectrum depending on how good an emitter it isfeel free to unrape yourself with a counterpoint
>>16963242>we don't really know what temperature isspeak for yourself
>>16963815>>16963815>anything in thermal equilibrium emits radiation close to a blackbody spectrumfrom the google AI:>Generally, low-density gases do not produce a true black-body spectrum; they emit discrete emission lines. Gases only emit a continuous black-body spectrum if they are extremely hot and dense (optically thick), causing emission lines to overlap and interact with the electromagnetic field, such as in stars or high-pressure plasma.I wonder why "they" think that gases only emit a continuous black-body spectrum if they are extremely hot and dense?!?
>>16963750>he strictly built on Kirvchoff's lawsWhere exactly:https://inspirehep.net/files/9e9ac9d1e25878322fe8876fdc8aa08d>Kirvchoff's laws which are invalidBased on what exactly?
>>16963815>>16963826Imagine believing that the gravity of the gas "inside" a star can at some point somehow stop gas from expanding outside the star.
>>16963865What are you even talking about? No one mentioned gravity.
>>16963848On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum (Planck)Both directly referenced and further recursively held under Stefan-Boltzmann. Kirchhoff's law permitted generalization of their(S-B) T^4 law.
>>16963898>Both directly referencedWhere in Einstein's derivation that I linked is it invoked?
>>16963907You are so obviously bad faith I am tempted to not even answer because you stand as a demonstration of the retards. Do you see where Einstein puts plancks constant, do you want to take a guess where that constant came from?
>>16963913>Do you see where Einstein puts plancks constant, do you want to take a guess where that constant came from?I'm having trouble finding Planck's constant in Kirchoff's law. All it says is that the emissivity and absorptivity are the same.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation
>>16963919Bro what are you talking about? Kirchoff probably wrote his law before Planck was even born. Everything was swept under the rug for so long they forgot what was under there.
>>16963923First you claimed Einstein based his derivation off Kirchoff. But it's not mentioned. Then you claimed Einstein cited it. Not true.Now you implied that Planck's constant must have come from Kirchoff's laws. It didn't. More bullshit. Each time your claim is debunked, you move the goalposts again. But all you've demonstrated is that you are full of shit.And to cap it all off you have never actually attempted to engage with the other point. The fact that you just baselessly claim Kirchoff's law is wrong without ever justifying what you think is wrong it it. Youtube man says it's wrong so it must be so.
>>16963929are you actually this dense? Planck's constant is On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum. Does Einstein refer to Planck's constant? Yes. Is Kirchoff's malformed law a basis in Planck's derivation? Yes. Is Einstein therefor wrong? Yes, in the general case. Though there could be some particular case of it be just so-and-so where the invalid assumptions of the law are accidentally supported.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ozfCWPRi1Q
>>16963931>Is Kirchoff's malformed law a basis in Planck's derivation? Yes.A law is not a constant. You've hit rock bottom with this desperate attempt. I'm still waiting for your refutation of Kirchoff's actual law. But I'm actually convinced you don't even know what it is.
>>16963872The prevalent theory in astrophysics is that stars are obviously gas that has been compressed by the gravity of the gas. That's supposedly why gas stars give off black-body radiation when under normal conditions gas does not give off black-body radiation. It doesn't make sense at all that gas compresses because of it's own gravity, but every astrophysicist believes this.
>>16963937You are in complete meltdown mode, every post is some different target. So first, would you agree that if Kirchoff's law is not universal that the previous statements are valid: Planck, Einstein and 100+ years of science are wrong? The one I am referring to is his law on thermal radiation specifically, because there is another very well known law that is notoriously wrong as well.If you agree that it is complete detrimental for all of science, then I will happily demonstrate how it isn't universal; however, if you think there is some other valid reason why it doesn't matter, then that would be the more important road.
