Good book. Buy it to get a solid read on the basics of Pierre-Marie Robitaille’s (PMR) model of the condensed matter Sun; also to financially support PMR and all those who dare to raise their hand and say something does not add up with explanations we have inherited.
Alexander Unzicker (AU) condenses the voluminous work of PMR into 1) how the spectrographic data suits a photosphere that is liquid/solid much better than it supports the standard model of a gaseous photosphere. 2) What is this “condensed matter Hydrogen”, which all of us have a difficult time imagining. 3) A collection of various observations that are basically impossible if the photosphere, chromosphere, and corona are purely gas/plasma. 4) Some general thoughts on PMR’s model and complaints against the inability of the ruling astronomical community to see the obvious flaws in their own models.
I love it when an author will illuminate even one aspect of an historical & theoretical complex topic. For me, AU clarified the opacity problem. The standard model assumes that all the light of the Sun is produced in the center, and slowly makes its way out to the surface. In the laboratory, gas will absorb and emit light in only discrete wavelengths. How then to explain the continuous, blackbody spectrum seen from the photosphere? Shouldn’t it be a spectrum of a large number of discrete lines and gaps? The mathematics of the standard model breaks up the region below the photosphere into little shells, and assumes each of these shells absorbs and emits light according to blackbody physics, hence when you add up all the shells, you get a blackbody spectrum! Classic circular reasoning, which now gets passed off as “oh, that has already been explained. You should familiarize yourself with the literature”. Uh, I just did, and the reasoning is poor.
I found Part 2 weak, AU’s usual skill of simply explaining complex ideas was not in high gear. Of course, if I regularly spent more time with phase diagrams, and the differences between phase change and state change, I might have gotten more out of the chapter.
I also found Part 4 weak, as I was expecting cosmological musings on PMR’s revolutionary model, and instead got some brief touchings on star sizes, how we measure mass, the H-R diagram. Throughout, AU assumes that stars have nuclear fusion in their centers, and that there can be no electrical nature to stars, using phrases like “it is obvious that stars are electrically neutral”, and “there are no serious alternative models to gravity-produced-fusion”. Even a purely kinetic-thermal modeling of the star’s atmosphere results in a predicted charge separation producing a 600 volt drop from Sun to Earth. Data of traveling double layers in the solar wind gives a comparable value. My point being, that AU obviously thinks the EU theories are stupid, so maybe has never looked at all the evidence supporting electric stars & planets.
The data shows me that all our models, even PMR’s, have not yet embraced the magnitude of the revolution required. We must change our concepts of matter/energy much more fundamentally. Now, when we describe the Sun, we use Earthly concepts. Temperature is a perfect example. The theory of temperature was developed around steam engines, to which it applies very well. Then we extend this concept to solar matter. Ooops – bad idea. Solar matter is so entirely different than terrestrial, that the Earth must have a dozen or two discrete layers to successfully step down the solar wind to a world where steam engines are possible. “But matter is everywhere the same” says the old-guard. Not so. And the useful revolution will pursue that thread.
Summary: Good book. Buy it. Read it.
For me, the radical aspect of PMR's work isn't the Liquid Metallic Hydrogen model of the Sun, but rather, his critique of Kirchhoff's law, and the downstream ramifications to understanding Blackbody radiation. The ruler we use to measure the universe is wrong. The issues around red shift, and the unexplained transmutation of materials in Metamaterials, (like what Safire exhibited and as experienced by metamaterial researchers who account for it by calling it "contamination"), really outline that any theories we have created that make use of the old rulers, needs to be rebuilt from scratch. I would assume that even some of the foundations of Electrical Theory, and Plasma Dynamics, will be subject to some of this kind of re-examination. Personally, I'm super excited by the fact that the actual Universe we live in will be found to look far different from the one described by QM, Relativity, and even EU. Our understanding of the nature of Energy, Entropy, Atoms, and everything made from them is about to be turned on its head. (In my opinion)
I don't understand why Robitaille does not talk about the various electric phenomena on the sun. It is so obvious to me, and is the reason I started following the electrical universe theories and its variants.
The electrical currents are clearly visible on the sun. The plasma ropes are all electrical currents, similar to what we see in a plasma ball. We can observe strong zeeman effect around them. Especially at the start and end, where we see the sun-spots. There are also lightning like phenomena. Something is giving these sun-spots enormous electrical charges. The free electrons in fluids can turn sunspots black.
But for some weird reason mainstream astronomy pretends that some "frozen" magnetism can create all this. These astronomers pretend that you can get magnetism without electrical currents. And NASA's most abhorrent theory is that magnetic field lines can collide and produce energy. With an university degree covering EM, it looked like NASA turned astrology into physics.
Robitaille adds some interesting observations. From the solar spectrum we can see that there are a lot of +2 and -2 ions. This gives various chemical reactions. What produces these ions? Helium nuclei? It would be interesting if this also drives the electrical charge in the sunspots.
The Electrical Universe goes only one step further. Its solar model assumes that the sun has a current from the surface towards the universe (either negative or positive current). Because we can not explain this current with our current understanding, does not mean that it does not exist.
The explanation may be related to Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. They seem to be driven by electrical currents, and may cause electrical currents. Seems fully in line with some electric sun model. These reactions may also produce the +2 and -2 ions. Did you get such ions in the Safire Project?