Call me when he makes the Theory of Everything podcast. Until then, he is a quack.

File: star_demographic.jpg (30.2 KB)

30.2 KB JPG

>>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 demographics
why do 13% of the stars produce 50% of the light?

>>16963286
It has to do with the lattice structure present within the star, not the density of the "gasses that make up the star".

>>16963253
one wrong-way driver? thousands of them!

File: black-body_curve.png (112.3 KB)

112.3 KB PNG

>>16963335
Imagine 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 racism
got 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/0507007
He 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.

>>16963346
sooo
glass can't have black body radiation? Or tar? Or wood? None of this shit has a lattice structure

File: 1752451758705684.jpg (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB JPG

>>16963346
tell 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 structures
Strange then that the derivation doesn't require lattices at all.

https://web.phys.ntnu.no/~stovneng/TFY4165_2013/BlackbodyRadiation.pdf

>>16963671
As 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 data
Ah yes, that scientific method. What a load of nonsense eh?

>>16963242
>black body radiation require a lattice structure
stopped reading there

>>16963756
The 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.

>>16963786
You 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 is
feel free to unrape yourself with a counterpoint

>>16963242
>we don't really know what temperature is
speak for yourself

>>16963815
>>16963815
>anything in thermal equilibrium emits radiation close to a blackbody spectrum

from 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 laws
Where exactly:
https://inspirehep.net/files/9e9ac9d1e25878322fe8876fdc8aa08d

>Kirvchoff's laws which are invalid
Based on what exactly?

>>16963815
>>16963826
Imagine believing that the gravity of the gas "inside" a star can at some point somehow stop gas from expanding outside the star.

>>16963865
What are you even talking about? No one mentioned gravity.

>>16963848
On 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 referenced
Where in Einstein's derivation that I linked is it invoked?

>>16963907
You 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?

File: Screenshot 2026-04-23 215040.png (4.7 KB)

4.7 KB PNG

>>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

>>16963919
Bro 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.

>>16963923
First 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.

>>16963929
are 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.

>>16963872
The 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.

>>16963937
You 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.

>>16963937
>I'm still waiting for your refutation of Kirchoff's actual law.
Watch the video or read the paper you moron.

When Kirchhoff formulated his law of thermal emission [1,2], he utilized two extremes: the perfect absorber and the perfect reflector. He had initially observed that all materials in his laboratory displayed distinct emission spectra. Generally, these were not blackbody in appearance and were not simply related to temperature changes. Graphite, however, was an anomaly, both for the smoothness of its spectrum and for its ability to simply disclose its temperature. Eventually, graphite’s behavior became the basis of the laws of Stefan [7], Wien [8] and Planck [3].

For completeness, the experimental basis for universality is recalled [1,2,5,6]. Kirchhoff first set forth to manufacture a box from graphite plates. This enclosure was a near perfect absorber of light (ε =1, κ =1). The box had a small hole, through which radiation escaped. Kirchhoff placed various objects in this device. The box would act as a transformer of light [6]. From the graphitic light emitted, Kirchhoff was able to gather the temperature of the enclosed object once thermal equilibrium had been achieved. A powerful device had been constructed to ascertain the temperature of any object. However, this scenario was strictly dependent on the use of graphite.

Kirchhoff then sought to extend his findings [1,2,5]. He constructed a second box from metal, but this time the enclosure had perfectly reflecting walls (ε =0, κ =0). Under this second scenario, Kirchhoff was never able to reproduce the results he had obtained with the graphite box. No matter how long he waited, the emitted spectrum was always dominated by the object enclosed in the metallic box. The second condition was unable to produce the desired spectrum.

>>16963937
>>16964092
As a result, Kirchhoff resorted to inserting a small piece of graphite into the perfectly reflecting enclosure [5]. Once the graphite particle was added, the spectrum changed to that of the classic blackbody. Kirchhoff believed he had achieved universality. Both he, and later, Planck, viewed the piece of graphite as a "catalyst" which acted only to increase the speed at which equilibrium was achieved [5]. If only time was being compressed, it would be mathematically appropriate to remove the graphite particle and to assume that the perfect reflector was indeed a valid condition for the generation of blackbody radiation.

However, given the nature of graphite, it is clear that the graphite particle was in fact acting as a perfect absorber. Universality was based on the validity of the experiment with the perfect reflector, yet, in retrospect, and given a modern day understanding of catalysis and of the speed of light, the position that the graphite particle acted as a catalyst is untenable. In fact, by adding a perfect absorber to his perfectly reflecting box, it was as if Kirchhoff lined the entire box with graphite. He had unknowingly returned to the first case. Consequently, universality remains without any experimental basis.

>>16964093
>>16964092
>Watch the video or read the paper you moron.
I did. It he doesn't ever deal with Kirchofff's actual law, which is about the symmetry between emisifiivity and absorptivity:
>>16963919

>>16963990
>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?
No. You haven't demonstrated this is the case.

>>16963988
>It doesn't make sense at all that gas compresses because of it's own gravity
There is a big difference between "I don't understand it" and "it doesn't make sense".

>>16964101
The question is a hypothetical. It is about the form. You don't care if the basis of a chain of reasoning is invalid. You believe valid sound conclusions can come from baseless premises and faulty reasoning. Great, so then I don't have to demonstrate any claim because all claims are valid by your definition. The mere act of making a claim is its proof.
QED.

>>16964105
>You don't care if the basis of a chain of reasoning is invalid.
You never actually showed they were invalid.
> You believe valid sound conclusions can come from baseless premises and faulty reasoning.
Nor did you show these things were part of the premise of Einstein's derivation.
>all claims are valid by your definition
Absolutely not what I said.

>>16964111
>You never actually showed they were invalid.
a single spec of graphite shows that they were invalid but you refuse to believe this for an unknown reason.

>>16964111
>>Nor did you show these things were part of the premise of Einstein's derivation.
You are ignoring what's right in front of you.

Nonetheless, physics has long since dismissed the importance of Kirchhoff’s work [9]. The basis for universality, no longer rests on the experimental proof [i.e. 9], but rather on Einstein’s theoretical formulation of the Planckian relation [10, 11]. It has been held [i.e. 9] that with Einstein’s derivation, universality was established beyond doubt based strictly on a theoretical platform. Consequently, there appears to no longer be any use for the experimental proof formulated by Kirchhoff [1,2,5]. Physics has argued [9] that Einstein’s derivation of the Planckian equations had moved the community beyond the limited confines of Kirchhoff’s enclosure. Einstein’s derivation, at least on the surface, appeared totally independent of the nature of the emitting compound. Blackbody radiation was finally free of the constraints of enclosure.

In his derivation of the Planckian relation, Einstein has recourse to his well-known coefficients [10,11]. Thermal equilibrium and the quantized nature of light (E=hυ ) are also used. All that is required appears to be 1) transitions within two states, 2) absorption, 3) spontaneous emission, and 4) stimulated emission. However, Einstein also requires that gaseous atoms act as perfect absorbers and emitters or radiation. In practice, of course, isolated atoms can never act in this manner. In all laboratories, isolated groups of atoms act to absorb and emit radiation in narrow bands and this only if they possess a dipole moment. This is well-established in the study of gaseous emissions [12]. As such, Einstein’s requirement for a perfectly absorbing atom, knows no physical analogue on earth. In fact, the only perfectly absorbing materials known, exist in the condensed state. Nonetheless, for the sake of theoretical discussion, Einstein’s perfectly absorbing atoms could be permitted.

>>16964111
>>16964120
In his derivation, Einstein also invokes the requirement of thermal equilibrium with a Wien radiation field [8], which of course, required enclosure [1,2]. However, such a field is uniquely the product of the solid state. To be even more specific, a Wien’s radiation field is currently produced with blackbodies typically made either from graphite itself or from objects lined with soot. In fact, it is interesting that graphite (or soot) maintain a prominent role in the creation of blackbodies currently used at the National Bureau of Standards [13-17].

Consequently, through his inclusion of a Wien’s radiation field [8], Einstein has recourse to a physical phenomenon which is known to be created exclusively by a solid. Furthermore, a Wien’s field, directly involves Kirchhoff’s enclosure. As a result, claims of universality can no longer be supported on the basis of Einstein’s derivation of the Planckian relation. A solid is required. Therefore, blackbody radiation remains exclusively a property of the solid state. The application of the laws of Planck [3], Stefan [7] and Wien [8] to non-solids is without both experimental and theoretical justification.

>>16963937
>A law is not a constant.
In Kirchoff's case it appears that a law is an experimental proof, and that experimental proof has been shown to be flawed.

kek i remember this guy
he was getting shilled by electric universe people ages ago

>>16964101
>There is a big difference between "I don't understand it" and "it doesn't make sense".

There is a big difference between experimenting with and observing how gasses behave on Earth and assuming gas just magically takes on different properties when in large enough quantities in space. Experiments have been done here on earth showing that gas does not emit black-body radiation. The burden of proof rests with explaining why "gas" behaves differently in stars. There is no proof, just incorrect assumptions about what you are observing when you measure black-body radiation coming from stars.

>>16964134
> The burden of proof rests with explaining why "gas" behaves differently in stars.
Well for one stars aren't made of gas, they are formed of plasma. So your argument is completely void.

>>16963750
>He just had to fit the data
But I thought you said that it requires an assumption of a lattice structure, and didn't you say we need a return to experiment? Now you are telling me that Blackbody radiation is an empirical observation.

>>16964200
A century of pseuds perpetuating a primitive logical fallacies/fraud as science is a different concern from some recent theories that might be possible alternatives. No alternative is required to refute somthing. It is up to the reddit babies to defend the science by pretending not to understand Kirchoff's lie and its implications for the rest of their dogma.

>>16964215
> defend the science by pretending not to understand Kirchoff's lie and its implications for the rest of their dogma.
I have no idea what argument you are even trying to make. You just seem mad.

>>16964145
Plasma has new been observed to give off black-body radiation here on Earth, so your argument is completely void.

>>16964226
wtf are you talking about? There are many plasma processes involving free electrons that can emit or absorb a continuous spectrum. e.g thermal bremsstrahlung, compton scattering and photoelectric recombination.

> here on Earth
so you want to ignore the Sun, the most blatantly obvious example? for what sane reason?

>>16964220
>I have no idea what argument you are even trying to make.
Kirchoff's "law" requires one spec of graphite that he did not properly account for in his experimental proof. He didn't think that the one spec of graphite in his perfect reflector void was producing the black-body spectrum that he observed, but he was wrong. The one spec of graphite completely invalidates his law. It's that simple, but alas you are a simpleton.

>>16964230
> he thinks a single experiment is taken as "proof"
kek.

The law has been repeatedly verified and also theoretically derived. It's a trivial law that essentially says in an equilibrium: energy in = energy out. That's it. There's no hidden depth to it.

>>16964233
Which experiment are you referring to?

>>16964240
Too lazy to ask your search engine?

https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/IHTC/proceedings-abstract/IHTC14/49408/899/350708?redirectedFrom=PDF

https://www.scribd.com/document/844360218/Experimental-verification-of-Kirchhoff-law

This is grade school shit anon. Just admit you're wrong and move on with your life.

>>16964228
from google ai
>thermal bremsstrahlung
The thermal bremsstrahlung curve rises upwards and reaches the blackbody curve, but first only at the low-frequencies! The emission becomes optically thick first at low frequencies, the break is known as the low-frequency cutoff.

Plasma does give you a black-body radiation approximation, but emission lines are also present.

This is confusing because when you measure the spectrum of your plasma through a little window inside the reaction chamber you cannot remove the contribution of the walls. The spec of graphite from Kirchoff's lie is still present in the observation chambers today doing the work of giving off black-body radiation frequencies that are observed and attributed falsely to plasma. No one removed the graphite from the walls of black-body observation chambers and that graphite is still doing work that is unaccounted for when "measuring" observed black-body radiation frequencies of plasma.

>>16964242
Does that experiment include a graphite lined observation chamber perhaps??

>>16964245
>emission lines are also present.
No shit. Black Body Radiation is an *ideal* law, in other words it more often than not doesn't perfectly match reality. For example emission lines, anything that's quantized such as electron energy levels means it can't be a perfect black body since it doesn't absorb or emit all frequencies. It's why stars are almost perfect black bodies, because they are so opaque and have so many free electrons they absorb everything.

>>16964248
>because they are so opaque
Where's your proof that "opaque gas" exists? Because the stars give off black-body radiation?
They go over all your objections in detail in the video. You have not watched the video, or your ability to comprehend what they say in the video is severely limited for some reason. Quit being disingenuous.

>>16964253
I'm not going to watch some schizo, got enough of that already in this thread.

> Where's your proof that "opaque gas" exists?
As was said earlier, the sun isn't a gas.
> Because the stars give off black-body radiation?
Er... yes? Experimental observation of the sun shows it's a near-perfect black body. Are you honesty going to deny that?

>>16964260
>I'm not going to watch some schizo, got enough of that already in this thread.
If this is the case then you are a genuine sad pathetic and disingenuous piece of shit.

>Experimental observation of the sun shows it's a near-perfect black body. Are you honesty going to deny that?

Of course not! What's being denied is that the perfect black-body radiation being observed is somehow not related to the lattice structure present in the makeup of the sun. Google tells me that the the Sun is a "huge, glowing sphere of hot gas". Unfortunately black-body radiation requires a lattice structure that is not present in "opaque plasma gas". Opaque plasma gas does not exist. Metallic hydrogen does exist.

>>16964263
> the lattice structure present in the makeup of the sun
schizos, schizos everywhere!

>>16964263
> opaque plasma gas does not exist.
That 1.4million km wide ball of plasma outside your window would seem to disagree. Free electrons and other particles are a medium that is pretty much ideal for absorbing every electromagnetic frequency under the sun.

>>16964269
>1.4million km wide ball of plasma
Lol who told you it was plazma?!? They go over where the "stars are gas" myth model came from in the end of the first video, which of course you haven't watched because you are a disingenuous piece of shit. The "stars are gas" model no longer holds water, but no one cares for some reason. Keep on keeping your head in the sand though.

>>16964272
> "stars are gas"
You keep using those words. Stop. No one is going to watch your video.

>>16964118
>a single spec of graphite shows that they were invalid but you refuse to believe this for an unknown reason.
Why don't you state very clearly what you think Kirchoff's law even is. If your argument is that perfect blackbodies don't exist, that is not shocking, nor is it a violation. Robitaille is also deeply confused on this point.

>>16964126
You completely ignored the point I made. So I will do the same.

>>16964253
>Where's your proof that "opaque gas" exists?
The earth's atmosphere is opaque at mainly wavelengths.

File: ssmcsq.png (13.8 KB)

13.8 KB PNG

>>16964272
>The "stars are gas" model no longer holds water,

Meanwhile, actual physicists measure the oscillations traveling through the Sun using Doppler helioseismology. If one compares the sound speed of those oscillations to the standard solar model based on the gaseous model, one can predict the sound speed to better than 1%. Let us known when Robitaille's model can be tested against data. Not just this, but also the standard model predicts the neutrino spectrum and rate. And there are models which can reproduce the solar spectrum to high precision.

This is what real physics looks like, not posting quack videos on Youtoob. Actual physics want to test their claims, not just assert that they know how the universe works. Robitaille doesn't do experiments, nor does he use real observation tests.

>>16964275
>Stop
Talk to the dictionary
star
/stär/
noun
A celestial body that generates light and other radiant energy and consists of a mass of gas held together by its own gravity in which the energy generated by nuclear reactions in the interior is balanced by the outflow of energy to the surface, and the inward-directed gravitational forces are balanced by the outward-directed gas and radiation pressures.

I have no idea why you think that I should stop saying that "stars are made of gas" when that's the literal definition of a star.

>>16964278
>The earth's atmosphere is opaque at mainly wavelengths.
Oh really? Does that have anything to do with what we are talking about?


Current astrophysics says that if you have a gas and you make it dense enough it supposedly becomes “optically thick” and creates a nice black-body radiation curve. The implication is that if you have a gas that is dense enough to produce a black body curve that’s because the gas is so dense that it’s black. Black gas will never be reproduced in a laboratory. The argument that astrophysicists make is a circular argument. “Gas must get so dense in stars that it becomes black and creates a black-body radiation curve!" No one currently recognizes that the vibration of atomic nuclei in a lattice is the physical requirements to create a clean black-body light curve.

>>16964272
>>16964282
>The "stars are gas" model is outdated

The gaseous sun was first proposed in the 1860s as far as I know, during a time when gas lamps were used. There is no proof that you will find that a star is any form of gas. There is 19th century maths about the sun being gas that are still just assumed to be correct for literally no good reason at all. The sun's temperature is above the critical point of hydrogen. In 1935, physicists Eugene Wigner and Hillard Bell Huntington theoretically predicted that molecular hydrogen would transform into an atomic metal under extreme pressure. Their seminal paper, "On the Possibility of a Metallic Modification of Hydrogen," published in The Journal of Chemical Physics, estimated this metallization would occur at roughly 25 GPa (250,000 atmospheres). You don’t even believe that stars are gas! Why don’t you believe that they are metallic hydrogen and that’s why they produce a nice black-body curve?

>>16964480
Your reference for a scientific discussion is a dictionary. Seriously?!

In the field of astrophysicis a "gas" means something quite different and very specific. Strictly speaking astonomers use the word 'gas' to denote the elements hydrogen and helium (anything heavier is a metal). So when astronomers say a star is mostly gas they are just talking about it's constituent elements, physically the atoms are in a plasma state with all their electrons stripped off the nucleus.

>>16964242
One if pay walled and the other doesn't even test the case in question. Great job retard.

>>16964282
Real physics isn't some data absent a methodology. A graph is not proof of the claim. A measurement is not itself a scientific theory.

>>16964505
>Oh really? Does that have anything to do with what we are talking about?
Yes, it's what you asked for. You said there were no opaque gases in labs, which is bullshit. The physics of absorption lines is deeply tied to blackbody radiation, the only different is that the absorption and emission coefficients are much higher.

> No one currently recognizes that the vibration of atomic nuclei in a lattice is the physical requirements to create a clean black-body light curve.
Still awaiting that proof.

>>16964511
>estimated this metallization would occur at roughly 25 GPa (250,000 atmospheres)
And where is Robitaille's experiment, showing that metallic hydrogen produces a spectrum like that of the Sun? Oh that's right, he's never done this. You demand astronomers put their model in a box, but don't require the same.

Nor has he done any serious modeling of how this extreme pressure would form on the surface of an object, when in reality it takes the extreme conditions inside planets to form metallic hydrogen.

>>16964794
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9702105
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11207-025-02480-6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helioseismology

>>16964800
https://www.loc.gov/
Just read the library of congress to find out why you are wrong.