The Sun is not Gaseous - it's Metallic Hydrogen

originally posted by: DarthTrader
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.

It's mindless of you to re-post that claim of Pierre's in a post which debunks it, without addressing any of the points that debunk the claim.

Again this is what the astrophysicist said and neither you nor Robitaille have satisfactorily addressed any of this:

briankoberlein.com...
"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."

How is the CMB measuring Earth's oceans using satellites a million miles from Earth, measuring in all directions including away from Earth? It's not, and even if you thought it was, where are the absorption bands from earth's atmosphere in the CMB signal? They aren't there, so it's not measuring Earth's oceans.

Do oceans produce the cosmic microwave background?
"The explanation that oceans are the source of CMB makes no sense. WMAP and Planck probes have seen CMB coming from all directions when they were 1.5 million km away from the Earth: that's 120 times more than the diameter of Earth; the Earth angular size at that distance is 0.5 degree (like the Moon seen from the Earth). Oceans cannot radiate into a detector that is so far away and looking away from the Earth. It would be like the Moon blinding us when we are looking away from it (standing on the Earth).
...
According to Robitaille the CMB spectrum should be associated with the Earth oceans, but oceans do not emit a spectrum that looks exactly like a blackbody spectrum at 2.75 Kelvin."

originally posted by: DarthTrader

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.

Gas has mass, that is why it falls 'downwards' under gravitational attraction.

Considered as a collection of particles (molecules, consisting of two or more atoms) gas can push against itself just as any other collection of particles can. You wouldn't say that sand in a bucket can't push against itself.

The only gas molecules in a tank that interact with the tank walls, are those that directly touch the tank walls.

All the rest of the measurable pressure in the tank are the gas particles pushing only against other adjacent gas particles.

In the atmosphere, gas at the top of the atmosphere is a hundred miles away from the Earth's surface.

The force of gravity drives the atmospheric gas particles together and downwards and the only thing that stops the gas particles from falling all the way down to the surface is that there are other gas particles in the way.

So even if there is no solid surface, gas particles can push against other gas particles.

And because gas has mass, it can collect together to a point central to the total mass - it's center of gravity.