The Sun is not a hot ball of gas

[Stephen J. Crothers]

For at least 150 years scientists have claimed that the Sun is a hot ball of gas, despite all the physical evidence that attests that it is condensed matter.

At a recent conference in Pittsburgh, Professor Pierre-Marie Robitaille gave a very powerful lecture on the Liquid Metallic Hydrogen model of the Sun. Here is the lecture:

Professor Pierre-Marie Robitaille: On the Corona & Chromosphere
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Lg5eR7T61A&feature=share

[Michael Wilson]

Then maybe all those people claiming the same about me, will be proven wrong also!

[Chestertonian]

take it up with they might be giants

[dymphna17]

Then maybe all those people claiming the same about me, will be proven wrong also!

Ha!  I was going to say, no, that was my Husband last night!  You beat me to it.   

[Ryan_Patrick]

So maybe they could also be wrong about other things and the god that is science is just as fallible? Sorry, I'm prone to straw men.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Quaremerepulisti]

So maybe they could also be wrong about other things and the god that is science is just as fallible? Sorry, I'm prone to straw men.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's interesting how non-scientists often seem to have much more confidence in science, or think that scientists have much more confidence in it, than scientists themselves actually do.  The history of science is littered with falsified hypotheses.  That's perfectly OK; falsifying the hypotheses is exactly how science progresses.

[John Lamb]

"Stars as hot balls of gas" theory is just the modern capitalist obsession with combustion and fossil fuels.

Maybe the stars are angels.

[misericonfit]

"Stars as hot balls of gas" theory is just the modern capitalist obsession with combustion and fossil fuels.

Maybe the stars are angels.

Is there any reason a star cannot be moved by an angel ? There are difficulties with the notion that stars *are* angels.

[John Lamb]

Is there any reason a star cannot be moved by an angel ?

Not that I know of. I believe the medievals thought they were made up of some higher, incorruptible form of matter and that they were moved by intelligences / angels.

The idea of gravity is a bit rubbish. They can't tell you whether it's a "force" or "curvature in spacetime" or what. All they have are measurements, not explanations. The idea of "force" sounds like an explanation, but when you think about it: what the hell is a force? When Newton first proposed the idea, the great German intellectual Leibniz laughed at the idea of a gravitational "force" attracting objects at a distance as occult, black magic. Indeed, Newton was very involved in alchemy. "Curvature in spacetime" - now this is some modern nonsense. It's like those modernist paintings with no form, just chaos. The idea of spacetime is already ridiculous, nevermind that it curves.

[Michael Wilson]

"Stars as hot balls of gas" theory is just the modern capitalist obsession with combustion and fossil fuels.

Maybe the stars are angels.

Is there any reason a star cannot be moved by an angel ? There are difficulties with the notion that stars *are* angels.

Angels are pure spiritual beings; therefore,  have power over matter and can indeed move and alter matter. Take the example of the Angel that freed St. Peter from prison; he caused the guards to sleep; the manacles on St. Peter's hand to drop off; and the prison gates to open. So Angels can indeed move stars.
As to stars being Angels; since angels are spiritual beings, they cannot be perceived with the senses; while stars can;  Stars (whatever they are) are composed of some sort of matter; which means that they are not spiritual beings therefore not angels.

[james03]

"Stars as hot balls of gas" theory is just the modern capitalist obsession with combustion and fossil fuels.

Combustion is definitely cool.  I just sent my wife a video of a huge flare going off.  And what's not to like about "fossil" fuels?

[John Lamb]

"Stars as hot balls of gas" theory is just the modern capitalist obsession with combustion and fossil fuels.

Combustion is definitely cool.  I just sent my wife a video of a huge flare going off.  And what's not to like about "fossil" fuels?

It was tongue in cheek. Kind of. There is, though, quite a difference between ancient and medieval views of "the heavens" and "the celestial bodies", and the modern view that it is an uninhabitable void governed by a mysterious "force" called gravitation, and the stars and "planets" are balls of gross matter. This materialist view of the sky goes hand-in-hand with the materialist shift in society, in morals, economics, culture. "As Above, So Below". If people think that up above is a meaningless void governed by mechanical forces, they will believe that here below, our earthly society, is a meaningless void governed by mechanical forces.

[james03]

I agree that modern man does not understand final cause, even in a primitive object like the Moon, whose final cause is just to be a moon and have mooness.  Which is why I can easily explain why a forest is actually something vs. a field which is actually something else, something that a sincere materialist really can't.

But as far as mechanical forces, they exist.  As well as math, for that matter.  Since we are talking about the moon, we were able to launch a tiny capsule, send it 200,000 miles, and land it on the moon.  Unless the universe obeys mechanistic laws, laws which God wrote, you would not even attempt this feat. 

[VeraeFidei]

Is there any reason a star cannot be moved by an angel ?

Not that I know of. I believe the medievals thought they were made up of some higher, incorruptible form of matter and that they were moved by intelligences / angels.

The idea of gravity is a bit rubbish. They can't tell you whether it's a "force" or "curvature in spacetime" or what. All they have are measurements, not explanations. The idea of "force" sounds like an explanation, but when you think about it: what the hell is a force? When Newton first proposed the idea, the great German intellectual Leibniz laughed at the idea of a gravitational "force" attracting objects at a distance as occult, black magic. Indeed, Newton was very involved in alchemy. "Curvature in spacetime" - now this is some modern nonsense. It's like those modernist paintings with no form, just chaos. The idea of spacetime is already ridiculous, nevermind that it curves.

Invoking the Jew Leibniz against something "occult" is pretty funny.

[Cassini]

"Stars as hot balls of gas" theory is just the modern capitalist obsession with combustion and fossil fuels.

Maybe the stars are angels.

Is there any reason a star cannot be moved by an angel ? There are difficulties with the notion that stars *are* angels.

Angels are pure spiritual beings; therefore,  have power over matter and can indeed move and alter matter. Take the example of the Angel that freed St. Peter from prison; he caused the guards to sleep; the manacles on St. Peter's hand to drop off; and the prison gates to open. So Angels can indeed move stars.
As to stars being Angels; since angels are spiritual beings, they cannot be perceived with the senses; while stars can;  Stars (whatever they are) are composed of some sort of matter; which means that they are not spiritual beings therefore not angels.

I agree Michael, but it is a long time since anyone in the Church believed angels do move the stars as St Thomas Aquinas taught. Today, thanks to the Copernican revolution in both Church and State, aliens out there are far more credible than angels. If you think I exaggerate read what  the Jesuit Fr Pietro Lazzari, Professor of Church History at the Roman College, consultant to the  Holy Office in 1741 said when they began to undermine the geocentric decree of Pope Paul V in 1633:

'Nor is it relevant to say that here one is dealing with the interpretation of Scripture and an opinion considered being against the faith. It would be unfortunate if, whenever there has been a consensus in the past, we try now to maintain the old shared opinions. Once it was a common opinion, which was supported by citing Scripture, that the heavens were moved by intelligent beings [angels]. Thus at about the same time, in paragraph 4, of book 2 of his Philosophical Course, Cardinal Sfondrati said: "It was and is the opinion of almost all philosophers and theologians that the heavens are moved by intelligent beings." In question 6 of article 3 of De Potentia, St Thomas says that it belongs to the faith." Who among the more erudite and enlightened philosophers or theologians hold it now? Nor do I think that a book denying it would represent a criticism from the sacred Congregation.''

All such science today is based on that Copernican principle of evolution. God created the sun, but to modern science it evolved. Accordingly its structure has to abide with this process. When I opened the video and saw 1+ hour of talk I said here we go, who has such time to waste listening to that.
With the Copernican revolution huge quantities of theology were lost concerning the earth, sun, moon and stars.

'The sun, an admirable instrument, the work of the Most High...breathing out fiery vapours, and shining with his beams, he blindeth the eyes. Great is the Lord that made him, and at his words he hath hastened his course' (Ecc. 43:2-4).

Although disclosed in the Bible, it was not until the twentieth century that man confirmed that the sun does indeed 'breathe out fiery vapours.' The prominences, described today as fantastic jets of gas that appear to spring from its surface. Some of these, known as quiescent prominences, are said to occasionally measure several hundreds of thousands of miles across at their base, though their height does not normally exceed some 15,000 to 30,000 miles. Then there are the eruptive prominences. Narrow at the base, resembling jagged flames, they are ejected from the chromospheres, often with velocities of 50-250 mps, commonly attaining heights speculated to be 50,000 to 250,000 miles, sometimes up to 500,000 miles from the surface. Interestingly, their composition is often described today as chromospheric 'vapours.'

'Practically all life on earth depends on energy from the sun. This energy travels through space as radiation. It comes to earth in a vast spectrum of wavelengths. The shortest are the lethal gamma rays. Then come X-rays, ultraviolet rays, visible light, infrared, microwaves, and the longest of all, radio waves. Remarkably, our atmosphere blocks much harmful radiation while allowing other needed radiation to reach the earth's surface. I was intrigued by the introduction to the Bible's creation account and its reference to light. It states: "God said: 'Let there be light.' Then there was light." Only a very narrow band of the vast spectrum of solar radiation is visible light, but light is vital for life. Plants need it to produce food, and we need light to see. The atmosphere's special transparency to light cannot be a coincidence. Even more remarkable is the tiny amount of ultraviolet light that reaches the earth's surface. Some ultraviolet radiation is critical. We need a small amount of it on our skin to produce vitamin D, which is vital for bone health and evidently for protection from cancer and other diseases. However, too much of this particular radiation causes skin cancer and eye cataracts. In its natural state, the atmosphere allows only a tiny amount of this ultraviolet radiation to reach the earth's surface—and it is just the right amount. For me, that is evidence that someone designed the earth to sustain life.'

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201407/wenlong-he-interview/