The Sun is not Gaseous - it's Metallic Hydrogen

I absolutely love Dr. Robitaille's research. You have to give him a few viewings because the subject is very complex and any one episode will seem a bit nutty, but together it paints a very clear picture based on real physics and explains how current astrophysics is desperately entering the realm of fantasy to save the cosmology of present day and the nebular hypothesis which is the "geocentric universe" of our day.

The basic premise is that the sun has observable phenomena that can only be explained if the sun has a surface. A gas doesn't have a surface and therefore can't generate much of the properties such as the sun-quakes we observe. It gets much more complex than that when he talks his field of magnetic resonance imaging where a lot of this field works with black body radiation.

I hope this intrigues you enough to dive into this subject and spark a conversation.

youtu.be...

If I remember correctly, a star from birth to death goes thru the entire periodic table, and ending with producing iron which starts the death of the star.

originally posted by: DarthTrader
I absolutely love Dr. Robitaille's research. You have to give him a few viewings because the subject is very complex and any one episode will seem a bit nutty, but together it paints a very clear picture based on real physics and explains how current astrophysics is desperately entering the realm of fantasy to save the cosmology of present day and the nebular hypothesis which is the "geocentric universe" of our day.

The basic premise is that the sun has observable phenomena that can only be explained if the sun has a surface. A gas doesn't have a surface and therefore can't generate much of the properties such as the sun-quakes we observe. It gets much more complex than that when he talks his field of magnetic resonance imaging where a lot of this field works with black body radiation.

I hope this intrigues you enough to dive into this subject and spark a conversation.

youtu.be...

At Solar temperatures, it is mostly plasma, which is an even higher energy state of matter than gaseous. However, Hydrogen is actually a metal, no matter what state of matter it is in.

Also, the torsional effects of the differential spin of the solar surface, which causes magnetic field lines to continually make-and-break, and produces flares and sunspots, would not be evident if it was a uniform solid metallic sphere.

One of the first things is that he states that gasses cannot self compress. I'm not exactly sure what he means but I can measure atmospheric pressure here on Earth and can also calculate its compression due to gravity, which happens to be the same as measured. The same gravitational pressurization of Solar gasses due to gravity is not an irrational thing to claim.

Similarly, he describes the vibrational effects upon the binding of Carbon atoms as being applicable, and yet we know the majority of the Sun is Hydrogen. It isn't going to form into the layers of hexagonal lattices like Carbon, so I'm not sure what he is trying to get at?

Additionally, I have a hot cup of coffee in front of me. It also has convection currents (and because of the heat differentials), so I'm not sure how that means it can't have the temperature it has?

a reply to: DarthTrader

Did you see this video debunking Robitaille?

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: DarthTrader

Did you see this video debunking Robitaille?

This video is actually utterly retarded and yes I watched it - you should perhaps watch Robitalle's classy and well thought responses to the snide, untrained, idiotic high school science teacher posing as a scientist/engineer who went up against the world's best MRI physicist.

I would accept your apology AFTER you do your homework.

If science were a cage match, Robitaille grabbed "Professor Dave" (not a professor) and swung him like a baseball bat repeatedly into a metal dumpster.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: DarthTrader

Nice! He is making assumptions that are not correct so of course he has different ideas!

Here is a weird one: gravity is not the attraction of matter but the continuous pressure of ALL matter against each other!

There should be some weird shapes (there are… but that is besides the next statement) but everything is basically snowball shaped. From atoms to galaxies, the basic form is a sphere; not a pancake; not layers like a cake; not cubes or hexagons but spheres.

The fact that it can be described as the “inverse distance” between matter should tip you off that that is a bassackwards idea!

Ao think of it the other way. Then it makes more sense! No need to appeal to a “metallic hydrogen core” or “an electronic universe” but just the wrong relationship being described!

Also means Einstein is incomplete in the equations. Which is the same thing as the “four minute mile” argument which is false (or, was true until disproven).

The heavy objects in Universe have quantum relationships at their heart. And we can not describe everything from that point of view yet. So we end up with strange ideas and alternate theories that try to “best fit” to “what is scientificly proven” without regards to the fact that science is a theory.

Either we know everything now or someone is keeping us from knowing that which we are not supposed to question.

I don’t think we know everything!

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DarthTrader
I absolutely love Dr. Robitaille's research. You have to give him a few viewings because the subject is very complex and any one episode will seem a bit nutty, but together it paints a very clear picture based on real physics and explains how current astrophysics is desperately entering the realm of fantasy to save the cosmology of present day and the nebular hypothesis which is the "geocentric universe" of our day.

The basic premise is that the sun has observable phenomena that can only be explained if the sun has a surface. A gas doesn't have a surface and therefore can't generate much of the properties such as the sun-quakes we observe. It gets much more complex than that when he talks his field of magnetic resonance imaging where a lot of this field works with black body radiation.

I hope this intrigues you enough to dive into this subject and spark a conversation.

youtu.be...

At Solar temperatures, it is mostly plasma, which is an even higher energy state of matter than gaseous. However, Hydrogen is actually a metal, no matter what state of matter it is in.

Also, the torsional effects of the differential spin of the solar surface, which causes magnetic field lines to continually make-and-break, and produces flares and sunspots, would not be evident if it was a uniform solid metallic sphere.

One of the first things is that he states that gasses cannot self compress. I'm not exactly sure what he means but I can measure atmospheric pressure here on Earth and can also calculate its compression due to gravity, which happens to be the same as measured. The same gravitational pressurization of Solar gasses due to gravity is not an irrational thing to claim.

He explains atmospheric pressure on earth per the laws of physics, gas pressure on earth is because the earth has a surface. It's that simple. In fact he explains it against "idiot dave" here.

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: DarthTrader

Nice! He is making assumptions that are not correct so of course he has different ideas!

Here is a weird one: gravity is not the attraction of matter but the continuous pressure of ALL matter against each other!

Can you cite him on that and time stamp it? Because I've read his stuff and listened to hours of it and that doesn't ring a bell the way you've described it. Which means perhaps how you understood it is fractional to what he's said before.

There should be some weird shapes (there are… but that is besides the next statement) but everything is basically snowball shaped. From atoms to galaxies, the basic form is a sphere; not a pancake; not layers like a cake; not cubes or hexagons but spheres.

Not sure what you're getting at right here.

The fact that it can be described as the “inverse distance” between matter should tip you off that that is a bassackwards idea!

Ao think of it the other way. Then it makes more sense! No need to appeal to a “metallic hydrogen core” or “an electronic universe” but just the wrong relationship being described!

Also means Einstein is incomplete in the equations. Which is the same thing as the “four minute mile” argument which is false (or, was true until disproven).

The heavy objects in Universe have quantum relationships at their heart. And we can not describe everything from that point of view yet. So we end up with strange ideas and alternate theories that try to “best fit” to “what is scientificly proven” without regards to the fact that science is a theory.

Either we know everything now or someone is keeping us from knowing that which we are not supposed to question.

I don’t think we know everything!

If you compress many gases, they'll turn to liquid.
The sun is hot, but made of basically the same stuff as earth.

Even iron turns to gas at a high enough temperature...

But with enough gravity? Maybe plasma reaches a super state where it resembles a solid.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DarthTrader
I absolutely love Dr. Robitaille's research. You have to give him a few viewings because the subject is very complex and any one episode will seem a bit nutty, but together it paints a very clear picture based on real physics and explains how current astrophysics is desperately entering the realm of fantasy to save the cosmology of present day and the nebular hypothesis which is the "geocentric universe" of our day.

The basic premise is that the sun has observable phenomena that can only be explained if the sun has a surface. A gas doesn't have a surface and therefore can't generate much of the properties such as the sun-quakes we observe. It gets much more complex than that when he talks his field of magnetic resonance imaging where a lot of this field works with black body radiation.

I hope this intrigues you enough to dive into this subject and spark a conversation.

youtu.be...

At Solar temperatures, it is mostly plasma, which is an even higher energy state of matter than gaseous. However, Hydrogen is actually a metal, no matter what state of matter it is in.

Hydrogen is not a "metal" and when we say metallic hydrogen we mean it is a liquid to solid state whether or not it is ionized (plasma).

So I'm not sure where you got your info from but that is completely wrong.

originally posted by: lordcomac
If you compress many gases, they'll turn to liquid.
The sun is hot, but made of basically the same stuff as earth.

Even iron turns to gas at a high enough temperature...

But with enough gravity? Maybe plasma reaches a super state where it resembles a solid.

This is more accurate and more to the point.

The Sun is resembling a solid ionized metal. A metal-plasma. Such plasma does exist, the state of plasma is not restricted to gaseous.

Here is an example of a solid state plasma:
physicstoday.scitation.org...

originally posted by: DarthTrader

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DarthTrader
I absolutely love Dr. Robitaille's research. You have to give him a few viewings because the subject is very complex and any one episode will seem a bit nutty, but together it paints a very clear picture based on real physics and explains how current astrophysics is desperately entering the realm of fantasy to save the cosmology of present day and the nebular hypothesis which is the "geocentric universe" of our day.

The basic premise is that the sun has observable phenomena that can only be explained if the sun has a surface. A gas doesn't have a surface and therefore can't generate much of the properties such as the sun-quakes we observe. It gets much more complex than that when he talks his field of magnetic resonance imaging where a lot of this field works with black body radiation.

I hope this intrigues you enough to dive into this subject and spark a conversation.

youtu.be...

At Solar temperatures, it is mostly plasma, which is an even higher energy state of matter than gaseous. However, Hydrogen is actually a metal, no matter what state of matter it is in.

Also, the torsional effects of the differential spin of the solar surface, which causes magnetic field lines to continually make-and-break, and produces flares and sunspots, would not be evident if it was a uniform solid metallic sphere.

One of the first things is that he states that gasses cannot self compress. I'm not exactly sure what he means but I can measure atmospheric pressure here on Earth and can also calculate its compression due to gravity, which happens to be the same as measured. The same gravitational pressurization of Solar gasses due to gravity is not an irrational thing to claim.

He explains atmospheric pressure on earth per the laws of physics, gas pressure on earth is because the earth has a surface. It's that simple. In fact he explains it against "idiot dave" here.

But I can go up above the surface of the Earth and observe a different, and yet mathematically consistent pressure in the atmosphere.

Surely at that point the atmosphere is pushing only against itself, and not against the surface of the Earth.

You don't require a surface to explain the pressures observed.

originally posted by: DarthTrader

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: DarthTrader

Did you see this video debunking Robitaille?

This video is actually utterly retarded and yes I watched it - you should perhaps watch Robitalle's classy and well thought responses to the snide, untrained, idiotic high school science teacher posing as a scientist/engineer who went up against the world's best MRI physicist.

I would accept your apology AFTER you do your homework.

If science were a cage match, Robitaille grabbed "Professor Dave" (not a professor) and swung him like a baseball bat repeatedly into a metal dumpster.

www.youtube.com...

I did watch his video and that's why I had to see if he was peer reviewed - nope because he is a radiologist.

Robitaille's sun theory debunked at 17:58 mark on the video I posted above.

Robitaille owes all of us an apology.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DarthTrader

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: DarthTrader

Did you see this video debunking Robitaille?

This video is actually utterly retarded and yes I watched it - you should perhaps watch Robitalle's classy and well thought responses to the snide, untrained, idiotic high school science teacher posing as a scientist/engineer who went up against the world's best MRI physicist.

I would accept your apology AFTER you do your homework.

If science were a cage match, Robitaille grabbed "Professor Dave" (not a professor) and swung him like a baseball bat repeatedly into a metal dumpster.

www.youtube.com...

I did watch his video and that's why I had to see if he was peer reviewed - nope because he is a radiologist.

Robitaille's sun theory debunked at 17:58 mark on video.

Robitaille owes all of us an apology.

I'm sorry you feel that way and reveal such ignorance. Robitaille quite clearly explains each of "fake professor" high school teacher's "debunk" video. None of which you address.

Which means you're are just a dishonest person not interested in learning anything.

If you knew anything about radiology and MRI's you'd understand why Robitaille makes a great astrophysicists.

But you wouldn't know anything about that either.

originally posted by: DarthTrader

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DarthTrader

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: DarthTrader

Did you see this video debunking Robitaille?

This video is actually utterly retarded and yes I watched it - you should perhaps watch Robitalle's classy and well thought responses to the snide, untrained, idiotic high school science teacher posing as a scientist/engineer who went up against the world's best MRI physicist.

I would accept your apology AFTER you do your homework.

If science were a cage match, Robitaille grabbed "Professor Dave" (not a professor) and swung him like a baseball bat repeatedly into a metal dumpster.

www.youtube.com...

I did watch his video and that's why I had to see if he was peer reviewed - nope because he is a radiologist.

Robitaille's sun theory debunked at 17:58 mark on video.

Robitaille owes all of us an apology.

I'm sorry you feel that way and reveal such ignorance. Robitaille quite clearly explains each of "fake professor" high school teacher's "debunk" video. None of which you address.

Which means you're are just a dishonest person not interested in learning anything.

If you knew anything about radiology and MRI's you'd understand why Robitaille makes a great astrophysicists.

But you wouldn't know anything about that either.

Robitaille is a radiologist not an astrophysicist .

originally posted by: DarthTrader

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DarthTrader
I absolutely love Dr. Robitaille's research. You have to give him a few viewings because the subject is very complex and any one episode will seem a bit nutty, but together it paints a very clear picture based on real physics and explains how current astrophysics is desperately entering the realm of fantasy to save the cosmology of present day and the nebular hypothesis which is the "geocentric universe" of our day.

The basic premise is that the sun has observable phenomena that can only be explained if the sun has a surface. A gas doesn't have a surface and therefore can't generate much of the properties such as the sun-quakes we observe. It gets much more complex than that when he talks his field of magnetic resonance imaging where a lot of this field works with black body radiation.

I hope this intrigues you enough to dive into this subject and spark a conversation.

youtu.be...

At Solar temperatures, it is mostly plasma, which is an even higher energy state of matter than gaseous. However, Hydrogen is actually a metal, no matter what state of matter it is in.

Hydrogen is not a "metal" and when we say metallic hydrogen we mean it is a liquid to solid state whether or not it is ionized (plasma).

So I'm not sure where you got your info from but that is completely wrong.

So, when you melt lead (Pb), it is no longer a metal, but it has become a liquid? And, if you heat lead hotter, it becomes a gas, but still is no longer a metal?

It appears that you are confusing the phase of a substance, with the definition of the group of its atoms.

Hydrogen is in group 1 in the Periodic Table because it has many attributes of Alkali Metals.

Also, if Hydrogen when condensed would form the "metallic Hydrogen" that is referenced as the matter making up the Sun in the video, then it is a metal.

a reply to: DarthTrader

All gasses are forms of matter.

All forms of matter have Mass.

All mass exerts a gravitational force.

The greater the volume of matter, the greater the total gravitational force.


With sufficient mass, and thus sufficient gravitational force, a sufficient volume of gas can self-compress...without the presence of a solid (or metallic) surface against which it can compress.

a reply to: DarthTrader
Unfortunately you make it sound like a battle between Professor Dave and Pierre Robitaille, but that's not an accurate description of the real dispute.

The real dispute is between Pierre Robitaille and almost all actual cosmologists and astrophysicists with credentials in that field. I don't think even Pierre Robitaille disputes this graphic from Professor Dave's video, where Robitaille basically says all astrophysicists are idiots (hint: that's not true):



So even if you don't like "professor Dave" credentials, that graph is is still essentially true and I don't think Robitaille denies it.

So let's see what Brian Koberlin with a PhD in astrophysics says about Robitaille. First, his credentials:

briankoberlein.com...

I’m a first-generation college student with a Ph.D. in Physics and have published research in physics, astrophysics, and computational astrophysics. I currently work for the National Radio Astronomy Observatory.

Here's a blog where he comments on Robitaille's pseudoscience:

briankoberlein.com...

Consider, for example, the case of one Pierre-Marie Robitaille. Robitaille is a radiologist who around 2000 became convinced that physicists and astrophysicists were seriously wrong about basic physics. He believes that Kirchoff’s blackbody radiation law is wrong, and in 2002 he took out a full page ad in the New York Times to promote his ideas, because his theory is “both too simple and unexpected to stand any chance of publication in the peer reviewed physics literature.”

Robitaille makes several wild claims about astrophysics. He claims that the cosmic microwave background isn’t due to the thermal remnant of the big bang, but rather due to microwaves reflected off the surface of Earth’s oceans. He claims the Sun isn’t powered by nuclear fusion in its core, but is instead a layer of liquid metallic hydrogen at 7 million degrees. His work hasn’t been published in refereed astrophysics journals, but has appeared in vixra (created to counter the elitist arxiv) and Progress in Physics, which is an alternative science journal.

How do you begin to counter such ideas? Well, we could start with the fact that the blackbody law has been confirmed experimentally in numerous ways, or that the cosmic microwave background matches a thermal blackbody to extreme precision, or that stellar temperatures derived from the blackbody law match temperatures found by atomic line spectra. We could point out that the CMB has been observed by satellites millions of miles away from Earth, and aimed away from Earth’s surface, or that reflected microwaves wouldn’t give a blackbody curve due to absorption bands in both water and Earth’s atmosphere. You could point out that his liquid-metal Sun model relies upon thermal blackbodies to be impossible, that his argument in favor of a liquid photosphere is that it looks liquid, and that his main argument against gravity-driven solar fusion is that the model uses mathematics.

Rational Wiki more or less says Robitaille a.k.a. Sky Scholar may be a fine radiologist, but in astrophysics, he's way off.

Pierre-Marie Luc Robitaille a.k.a. Sky Scholar (born 1961) is an accomplished radiologist and a Nobel disease-type crank. As director of magnetic resonance imaging research for the Department of Medicine of Ohio State University from 1989-2000[1] he made major advances in the science of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), leading the project to build the 8 Tesla Ultra High Field human MRI scanner.

In 2000, he was asked to step down from his position as director (though he remains a professor) when he began to promote theories that were outside his actual realm of expertise, specifically related to non-mainstream beliefs in the areas of astronomy and physics: he maintains that satellite measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation, believed by most astronomers to be an afterglow of the Big Bang, are actually observations of a glow from Earth's oceans.[note 1]

He also maintains that the sun is not a ball of plasma but is, in fact, made of liquid metallic hydrogen. None of his ideas have been accepted by any reputable physics publication.

Robitaille has been presented as a physicist, cosmologist, and even an astrophysicist, though anyone who has gained actual credentials in these fields would beg to differ. Criticism of his crank ideas ranges from accusations of cherry picking evidence to a failure to understand even rudimentary thermodynamics.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DarthTrader

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DarthTrader
I absolutely love Dr. Robitaille's research. You have to give him a few viewings because the subject is very complex and any one episode will seem a bit nutty, but together it paints a very clear picture based on real physics and explains how current astrophysics is desperately entering the realm of fantasy to save the cosmology of present day and the nebular hypothesis which is the "geocentric universe" of our day.

The basic premise is that the sun has observable phenomena that can only be explained if the sun has a surface. A gas doesn't have a surface and therefore can't generate much of the properties such as the sun-quakes we observe. It gets much more complex than that when he talks his field of magnetic resonance imaging where a lot of this field works with black body radiation.

I hope this intrigues you enough to dive into this subject and spark a conversation.

youtu.be...

At Solar temperatures, it is mostly plasma, which is an even higher energy state of matter than gaseous. However, Hydrogen is actually a metal, no matter what state of matter it is in.

Also, the torsional effects of the differential spin of the solar surface, which causes magnetic field lines to continually make-and-break, and produces flares and sunspots, would not be evident if it was a uniform solid metallic sphere.

One of the first things is that he states that gasses cannot self compress. I'm not exactly sure what he means but I can measure atmospheric pressure here on Earth and can also calculate its compression due to gravity, which happens to be the same as measured. The same gravitational pressurization of Solar gasses due to gravity is not an irrational thing to claim.

He explains atmospheric pressure on earth per the laws of physics, gas pressure on earth is because the earth has a surface. It's that simple. In fact he explains it against "idiot dave" here.

But I can go up above the surface of the Earth and observe a different, and yet mathematically consistent pressure in the atmosphere.

Surely at that point the atmosphere is pushing only against itself, and not against the surface of the Earth.

You don't require a surface to explain the pressures observed.

Yes you require a surface to explain pressure - this is Boyle's gas law. Become a grad student, be less of a 5th grader in your understanding of the world.

There's not a surface in the middle of a pressure tank containing a gas yet all the gas has a pressure. And only because it is contained within a surface.

The atmosphere is an inside out tank that is "contained" by a center of mass and therefore has pressure as it pushes against that center of mass.

Gas itself cannot become that center of mass and will have nothing to "press" against.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: DarthTrader
Unfortunately you make it sound like a battle between Professor Dave and Pierre Robitaille, but that's not an accurate description of the real dispute.

The real dispute is between Pierre Robitaille and almost all actual cosmologists and astrophysicists with credentials in that field. I don't think even Pierre Robitaille disputes this graphic from Professor Dave's video, where Robitaille basically says all astrophysicists are idiots (hint: that's not true):

So even if you don't like "professor Dave" credentials, that graph is is still essentially true and I don't think Robitaille denies it.

So let's see what Brian Koberlin with a PhD in astrophysics says about Robitaille. First, his credentials:

briankoberlein.com...

I’m a first-generation college student with a Ph.D. in Physics and have published research in physics, astrophysics, and computational astrophysics. I currently work for the National Radio Astronomy Observatory.

Here's a blog where he comments on Robitaille's pseudoscience:

briankoberlein.com...

Consider, for example, the case of one Pierre-Marie Robitaille. Robitaille is a radiologist who around 2000 became convinced that physicists and astrophysicists were seriously wrong about basic physics. He believes that Kirchoff’s blackbody radiation law is wrong, and in 2002 he took out a full page ad in the New York Times to promote his ideas, because his theory is “both too simple and unexpected to stand any chance of publication in the peer reviewed physics literature.”

Robitaille makes several wild claims about astrophysics. He claims that the cosmic microwave background isn’t due to the thermal remnant of the big bang, but rather due to microwaves reflected off the surface of Earth’s oceans. He claims the Sun isn’t powered by nuclear fusion in its core, but is instead a layer of liquid metallic hydrogen at 7 million degrees. His work hasn’t been published in refereed astrophysics journals, but has appeared in vixra (created to counter the elitist arxiv) and Progress in Physics, which is an alternative science journal.

How do you begin to counter such ideas? Well, we could start with the fact that the blackbody law has been confirmed experimentally in numerous ways, or that the cosmic microwave background matches a thermal blackbody to extreme precision, or that stellar temperatures derived from the blackbody law match temperatures found by atomic line spectra. We could point out that the CMB has been observed by satellites millions of miles away from Earth, and aimed away from Earth’s surface, or that reflected microwaves wouldn’t give a blackbody curve due to absorption bands in both water and Earth’s atmosphere. You could point out that his liquid-metal Sun model relies upon thermal blackbodies to be impossible, that his argument in favor of a liquid photosphere is that it looks liquid, and that his main argument against gravity-driven solar fusion is that the model uses mathematics.

Rational Wiki more or less says Robitaille a.k.a. Sky Scholar may be a fine radiologist, but in astrophysics, he's way off.

Pierre-Marie Luc Robitaille a.k.a. Sky Scholar (born 1961) is an accomplished radiologist and a Nobel disease-type crank. As director of magnetic resonance imaging research for the Department of Medicine of Ohio State University from 1989-2000[1] he made major advances in the science of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), leading the project to build the 8 Tesla Ultra High Field human MRI scanner.

In 2000, he was asked to step down from his position as director (though he remains a professor) when he began to promote theories that were outside his actual realm of expertise, specifically related to non-mainstream beliefs in the areas of astronomy and physics: he maintains that satellite measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation, believed by most astronomers to be an afterglow of the Big Bang, are actually observations of a glow from Earth's oceans.[note 1]

He also maintains that the sun is not a ball of plasma but is, in fact, made of liquid metallic hydrogen. None of his ideas have been accepted by any reputable physics publication.

Robitaille has been presented as a physicist, cosmologist, and even an astrophysicist, though anyone who has gained actual credentials in these fields would beg to differ. Criticism of his crank ideas ranges from accusations of cherry picking evidence to a failure to understand even rudimentary thermodynamics.

Robitaille points out quite well that these so called "Cosmologists" and "Astrophysicists" are too stupid to realize their own instruments are tainted by the Earth's Microwave radiation due to its oceans.

The Russians were smart enough to know the CMB radiation was a bunch of microwaves from the ocean.

Why aren't Americans that smart?

Robitaille explains it using physics, perhaps you should listen to him more than these bozo Astrophysicsists who just got their teeth kicked in by the JWST finding galaxies further than can be possible in today's "cosmology".