the greatest story ever told!

Does it Pass the BLACKBODY RADIATION Test?

We start with blackbody radiation, because the Cosmic Microwave Background, is the only perfect blackbody in the universe, and cosmologists claim it is the product of the Big Bang. The afterglow from the light of last scattering. As it happens, blackbody radiation is an area of reality that mankind understands very well. As such, it is quite a simple exercise to ascertain whether or not the cosmological claim is true or false. Let's consider the proven experimental laws that govern blackbody radiation.

First recall, the chapter that dealt with Intellectuals and was titled "Science Capture." From that section we learned that genuine scientific discoveries are not enough to ensure the forward progress of mankind, because Intellectuals are ever ready to corrupt the work of genuine pioneering scholars, bending the results of hard won experimental proofs to fit their metaphysical narratives. Thus, we are like a math student who is trying to figure out where he went wrong in a long calculation. He has to trace his steps back until he comes to the last step he completed correctly! Only then, can he carry on with any confidence. Similarly, we have to go back to the last correct experimentally verified proofs of the laws of physics. Put another way, we have to trace our steps, until we find the last laws that are tied to physical reality by experimental proofs and observational data. And then course correct, from there. That is the only way to escape the metaphysics that is current cosmology! Sometimes, it employs false principles, as in the case of Planck's universality, as we will soon find out. And at other times, it willfully corrupts proven scientific laws in an effort to bend reality to its own metaphysical will, as in the case of Kirchhoff's law - a brazen corruption of Stewart's law. All the heavy lifting in terms of sounding the alarm that Scientism was trying to usurp Science has been done by the brilliant PM Robitaille. He is, in a very real sense, a whistleblower! One, who deserves the outmost credit, for his courageous stand and diligence, in the face of continual ridicule and unforgiving ostracism. PM Robitaille, is not an Intellectual. He is is a highly competent man, who has accomplished much in his life. In our exposition, we will rely heavily on his online videos, that give clear and precise demonstrations of the issues at hand.

Stewart's Law

Balfour Stewart established a simple and elegant relationship between the power of a perfect blackbody to both absorb and emit light when at equilibrium. We know that blackbodies are both perfect absorbers and perfect emitters of all frequencies of light. But, Stewart discovered the relationship governing those two features of blackbodies. We recall our lesson on how heat is transferred through radiation, by again expressing the basic formula Stewart used:

Total Incoming Light = Absorbed Light + Reflected Light + Transmitted Light

More commonly, the relationship between the total light and the variables is expressed as a ratio of the total incoming light - meaning we divide all mathematical expressions on both sides of the equal sign, by "Total Incoming Light." Since, anything divided by itself, is equal to 1. The new equation when expressed in the form of ratios now becomes:

1 = Absorptivity + Reflectivity + Transmissivity

The three variables listed on the right are the only possible outcomes that an object can produce in response to incoming heat radiation. Either it absorbs, reflects, or transmits the photons. The last option applying, if the object is see through. It is important that we do not confuse absorbing and re-emitting photons, with reflecting them! The closest substance to a near perfect reflector, is silver. But, for the purpose of making the point 100% clear, let us imagine, an as yet undiscovered perfect reflector. Such a substance would reflect a 100% of the heat radiation aimed at it. Whereas a blackbody is different: it would firstly absorb 100% of the incoming light, and then instantly emit all of it out again. If it didn't emit 100% of the incoming heat radiation back out, its temperature would rise, until it reached thermal equilibrium at a new higher temperature! At which point, its ratio of absorbed to emitted rays would once again be equal. These two examples should make the differences between absorptivity and reflectivity clear. For that reason, the absorptivity expression, in the above equation encompasses both the processes of absorbing and immediately emitting radiation. There is no term in the above formula for "emission" because it is included in absorptivity. Do not get scared by our representing the scenarios mathematically. There is no maths work. It is just an aid, a short cut to show what is happening in each of the different scenarios! We now, compare the equations for three different scenarios, below. The first scenario deals with a perfect blackbody; the second formula deals with an ideal reflector; and the third, a perfectly transparent object, or material that lets all the light through. In each equation below, the numbers represent the ratios in the order, they are reflected above, i.e., absorptivity is always first, reflectivity second and transmissivity third.

1) 1 = 1 + 0 + 0; 2) 1 = 0 + 1 + 0; and finally 3) 1 = 0 + 0 + 1

Of course, in practice, there is only one real blackbody; no perfect reflector, only close approximations like silver; and no perfectly transmitting entity on earth. Look at the window closest to you. If is completely clean, you might think it is perfectly transparent, but some of the light is reflected back to you, since you can see yourself in the window. The only perfectly transparent medium in the universe is dark matter. That is the only entity that does not interact with light and allows it to pass it through unhindered. What does all that mean? That in real life none of our calculations are as clean as they are above. In real life the numbers are fractions of two or more of the variables. As such real calculations involve fractions whose totals, must add up to 1. If you have properly understood what we have just outlined, then you can explain why Stewart's law of equivalence: that "at thermal equilibrium and in [the] absence of convection and conduction, the absorptivity of an object equals its emissivity," as Robitaille puts it* (What is Stewart's Law? The Law of Equivalence Explained - from 2:55 - 3:03) only applies to blackbodies. If not, carefully re-read this section until you get a clear understanding. The clue is that reflectivity and trasmissivity do not have an absence of conduction and convection. If you can explain why only an element with perfect absorptivity has that dynamic, you have understood. If not, this principle is so fundamental to the workings of the universe that I will give a little further explanation. For, if we do not understand it, we will not discern when and how reality is being misrepresented, through the false claims of Science capture. So, let us illustrate the principle with an example. If a substance is an 85% reflector, it only absorbs and emits 15%, and the law of equivalency does not apply. Why not, since it absorbed 15%, and emitted 15%? Look at Stewart's Law again: "The absorption of a plate [or element] equals its radiation." In our case, the absorption is 15%, but the radiation is, the 15% that is emitted as radiation plus the 85% that is radiated as a reflection. In other words the radiation is 100%, but the absorption is 15% - not equal. Hence, the law of equivalency does not apply. Likewise, if it is a 50% reflector: it reflects 50% of the incoming radiation and absorbs and emits 50%, meaning 100% radiation, but only 50% absorption. Again, no equivalence.

The only scenario where equivalence is reached is with a perfect absorber, because it has no other means of handling the incoming radiation! It absorbs all of it and it emits all of it. This is no trivial matter, hence I spend so much time on it. It holds great significance in the workings of the universe. For equivalence to apply, no other function must be happening except absorbing and emitting of light in equal amounts - and that only occurs in a perfect blackbody. You can apply similar reasoning to see why the law of equivalence does not apply to transmissivity. Here is Stewart's law, in his own words* (Found at 2:50 in Robitaille's video: What is Stewart's Law? The Law of Equivalence Explained!):

Whereas Joules' law of equivalence, had to do with the relationship between work and energy, Stewart's law, had to do with the relationship between the power of a blackbody to absorb, and to emit, thermal radiation, they are equal. The ratio of absorbed light over total incoming light is called absorptivity. And when absorptivity equals one, it means we are dealing with a non-reflective, opaque blackbody! It is obvious that blackbodies cannot be transparent materials or objects, since perfect absorptivity requires zero transmissivity - as borne out, by our simple equation, above! From this knowledge we learn, that all true blackbodies, must, by definition, be opaque! That is significant. I like Robitaille's summary of Stewart's Law:

We now move to consider how this intuitive and self explanatory law was corrupted and twisted out of all shape by one, Gustav Robert Kirchhoff.

Kirchhoff's Law

In 1859, one year after, Stewart had formulated his law, Kirchhoff claimed the very same discovery! How did he get away with it, since priority always holds sway in Science? The first to publish is credited with the discovery. He claimed Stewart's formulation was incorrect in its details. He changed the meaning of this simple law by adding non-physical elements to it. Put another way, he added features to the law that were not experimentally proven! Hence, unscientific if we are being kind and metaphysical, or anti-Science, if we are being brutally honest. And, Kirchhoff, deserves nothing but brutal honesty.

Kirchhoff recognized that true blackbodies must be opaque, stating,

But, Kirchhoff wanted to formulate a law that had greater significance than mere equivalence between the absorptive and emissive powers of a blackbody. He wanted a universal law of emissivity! That is, one that extended the law of radiant equivalence, past blackbodies, to all cavities [or elements], whether blackbodies or not - as is brought out in his statement: "the same brightness, whatever its nature may be in other respects." We proved intuitively, through one simple equation and three scenarios why only blackbodies could have the property of Stewart's law of radiant equivalence, but Kirchhoff wanted all substances to have this "brightness" regardless of their "nature!" Universality! We can see as much, by how he formulated his equations. Let's compare. Stewart's equation is,

absorptivity = emissivity

And it applies only to blackbodies. This is Kirchhoff's equation and how he arrived at it,

ε/A = f (T,v)

Don't let the symbols scare you! In words, it amounts to Emissivity over Absorptivity is equal to some function f that depends only on the temperature T, multiplied by the frequency v. Where, E is emissive power, and A is absorptive power. So far, he has only stated pretty much what Stewart had. In Kirchhoff's case, his formula would be true, only where E and A were both 1. And that, 100% emissivity and 100% absorptivity, is the definition of a blackbody. So Kirchhoff's law would be limited, like Stewart's to blackbody radiation. But, Kirchhoff wanted his law to have a larger scope, than merely governing the dynamics of blackbodies. He thus changed the denominator on the left hand side, from absorptive power to absorptivity. Remember, absorptivity is a ratio. So, in the case where absorptivity is 1 - which is always the case with blackbodies - the formula would still hold true, and equate to,

ε/1 = f (T,v) which simplifies to ε = f (T,v) since, on the left side ε divided by 1 is just ε

This is where the degradation of Stewart's Law took place, for suddenly, we now have a very different reality! Why is this so radically different to what Stewart had proposed? When the absorptivity term was left in the denominator, people knew the formula depended on absorptivity being 1, but they also knew absorptivity had a range of possible values from 0 to 1. By solving for "absorptivity" in the unique case that applies to blackbodies, which is what making absorptivity equal to 1 does, and then leaving it out, Kirchhoff used results that apply to blackbodies and applied them to all bodies. Let me put that another way, as long as he represented the left hand side of the equation fully, that is, ε/A the equation was tending towards dishonesty but still not a lie. But when he plugs the value that only blackbody radiation can provide in the denominator, making the left side ε/1, which in turn is just ε, he solves the equation for blackbody values. The problem is that he then applies ε = f (T,v) to all bodies, knowing that that answer only applies to blackbodies! Expressed in words, his formula is: Emissive power is equal to some function which depends on the temperature, multiplied by the frequency, where T is temperature and v is frequency. He leaves out that this formula is only valid when the absorptivity is the unique case of blackbodies. Whereas, Stewart based his law of equivalence, solely on blackbody radiation - which is the only place it applies; Kirchhoff was trying to claim that full emissive power - that is, blackbody radiation - was dependent, not on the object being a blackbody, but rather, on a function that depended on the object's temperature and frequency "regardless of the nature or its walls." In other words: Kirchhoff was asserting the object is a blackbody, whether it was a blackbody, or not! The law of radiative equivalence went from defining blackbody radiation, to being a universal concept that applied to all objects. Robitaille sums up the deviation nicely:

The two men are using the same principle: the law of equivalence between the absorbing power and the emissive power of a blackbody to reach opposite conclusions. We painstakenly worked through Stewart's proof and the formulation of his equation, and saw that it agreed with real life. So, how would Kirchhoff use the same facts to reach a contradictory conclusion? The answer is - he couldn't! He would need to fudge the data, to cook the books, or - if we're being exceedingly kind - to be creative with the truth. And creative, he was! This is how mathematicians can use maths to misrepresent the truth. Maxwell did it to Faraday when he tried to add ethers to Faraday's pioneering definition of self-propagating electromagnetic waves. The work was complete! It didn't need any additions. And Maxwell's meddling wasn't due to scientific principles but because he was under the impression that Faraday's work needed an ether, a medium that fills all Space that light could use to move through empty Space. While we admit that Kirchhoff's abuse of the lesser educated Stewart was cleverly deceptive, we also acknowledge that you can't cheat reality. Thus Kirchhoff's formula must be falsifiable! And Robitaille provides the debunking proof shortly.

Kirchhoff's First Treatment of His Law

Getting back to Kirchhoff and his formula, he had a problem. He needed to furnish some sort of proof for his equation. Stewart's Law was intuitive because it was tied to physical reality. However, as Kirchhoff's claims had no link to reality, he needed to devise a clever proof to try and validate his formula. Disregarding all integrity, he decided to use, not opaque, but transparent materials to establish his law about opaque blackbodies! Remember that it was Kirchhoff himself who had defined blackbodies as "an opaque ... body." Regardless, in his first presentation of his law, he used transparent plates, that were backed by mirrors. First, I will include Robitaille's description of Kirchhoff's presentation, and secondly include a sketch of Kirchhoff's presentation, as depicted by PM Robitaille, in Figure 72.

Then the sketch ...

Figure 72 - Nice trick, but we SEE right through it!

Tranparent Motives

Many objects are more than the sum of their parts, and can thus not be duplicated, simply by putting together different entities that are tally of the parts. A car has four wheels. Motorcycles have two wheels. Putting an axle between two motorcycles, will not make them a car. Similarly, Kirchhoff miscalculated, when he planned to mimic the effect of law of equivalence resulting from true opaque blackbody radiation, by emulating its effect through a transparent medium backed by reflecting mirrors.

Did you catch the ruse? The plates were transparent, not opaque, and they were backed by mirrors, which ensured that the radiation that passed through the plates, was reflected back. Thus, Kirchhoff was approximating the effect of a blackbody: absorber and emitter of light; by mimicking its operation using two complementary devices: transparent plates - to mimic absorption; and reflective mirrors behind them - to mimic emission within the cavity, thus keeping all the radiation between the two plates, as would be the case, had the cavity materials been opaque blackbodies. Next, Robitaille explains where, Kirchhoff's treatment falls short of being scientific.

He Misunderstood the Very Concepts He Was Trying to Prove

When two tennis players are volleying, does it ever happen that the tennis ball, suddenly merges, with one of the tennis rackets. No! As long as their rally keeps going, the ball will keep bouncing back and forth, between the two rackets - from one player to the other. What if the rally lasted for 100 back and forths - would that make a difference? What if the rally lasted for a 1000 back and forths - would the tennis ball merge, with one of the rackets, then? Again, the answers are "no and no." Is there any number of imaginary back and forths that would suffice, to merge the ball with one of the rackets? No. And, this is true, even if the rally lasted for a million, or a billion back and forths, the ball would not merge and become one with either of the two rackets. This is the point Robitaille is making above! The "reflections" that Kirchhoff, imagined in his mind relate to the "bouncing" of our tennis ball "in the interior of the cavity", the "absorption" to merging with the tennis racket, that is, being absorbed into "the walls." Absorption and reflection are two totally different dynamics in thermal radiation, and Kirchhoff does not discern the difference! His treatment of the proofs of the law of equivalence, showed his ignorance of the processes of heat transfer via radiation.

I call it "treatment," because both of Kirchhoff's so-called proofs for his law, were only theoretical; neither being experimentally tested! The schematic drawing that lays out Kirchhoff's first "proof," was theoretical. He never actually built an apparatus and tested his theory, like the Scientific method demands! Don't you remember taking science in grade school and they taught you how to memorize the steps with this easy acronym: P.A.M.O.C - "people are made of cells." The letters stood for Purpose, Apparatus, Method, Observation, and Conclusion. That was how you carried out scientific experiments! I only bring up grade school science class to show how fundamental apparatus is to reaching conclusions. It is the second step. How is it that Kirchhoff reached conclusions, without ever building and testing them on some apparatus? Be that as it may, he never did. Pathetic Intellectual. When the great scientists of history offered sketches with their published results, those sketches were of real experiments, and were provided, so that other scientists could copy the experiment and verify the results - independently! When Kirchhoff made sketches, it was equivalent to Stan Lee drawing Iron Man - a figment of his imagination. Untested. Unproven. Unreasonable. The reason published discoveries are called findings or results, or proofs, is because, they are the product of experiment. Now, what do you call something which has no link to the real world and is the product of a failed thought process? I call it metaphysics. Kirchhoff called it a universal law! Chutzpah! Despite all evidence to the contrary, he presented his law in the following way,

Kirchhoff's law would indeed come to be universally applied. And because of that it lies at the very bottom of the jenga building blocks of cosmology. That is why it is relevant to us. But to remove this bottom block from the jenga-like structure of current cosmology, we first need to falsify it! Since it is not only untrue: but also clearly and demonstrably false! That is not hard to do. The credit for this proof belongs to inimitable Professor PM Robitaille. Recall that the absorptivity ratio that formed the denominator in Kirchhoff's formulation of his law, A, highlighted in red below, described the ratio between absorbed light over total incoming light, and had a range from 0 to 1! What did that range represent? Different. Types. Of. Absorptive. Power. As. Found. In. Different. Types. Of. Elements! For instance an ideal absorber, i.e., a perfect blackbody - like the Mighty CMB, most closely approximated by graphite, or soot covered cavity walls on earth - would have an absorptivity ratio of 1; and a perfect reflector, as most closely approximated by silver on earth - would have an absorptivity ratio of 0. What happens if we plug those numbers, into Kirchhoff's equation?

ε/A = f (T,v)

ε/1 = f (T,v) = E = f (T,v) = TRUE

ε/0 = f (T,v) = UNDEFINED

Every grade-schooler knows that anything divided by zero is undefined, which means, not found in real life! So, if a "result" for something that exists, such as the near perfect reflector silver, says "not existing," which of the two must we do away with: the mathematical error that yields a result of "undefined;" or, must we deny the existence of what clearly exists? Have you never seen silver? Silver is a near perfect reflector, meaning its value in this equation would be near zero. Robitaille explains the situation mathematically:

Kirchhoff tried to use the exclusive territory of blackbodies, which are the only objects that have an absorptivity of 1, to generalize his equation and apply it to all objects. Without conducting any experiments, he felt, he could just summon a law into existence. Wth no experimental or theoretical backing, his ill-defined theories actually prove the opposite point, to the one he was trying to establish. There are other failings Kirchhoff committed in formulating his so-called law, but as scientists know, it only takes one counter-proof to falsify a theory. We have highlighted 3! The zero limit in Kirchhoff's equation produces a result that is undefined, meaning the equation is invalid; there is no experimental evidence supporting Kirchhoff's claims, and abundant experimental evidence proving it is not true; and lastly, there is no theoretical proofs for Kirchhoff's conclusions. We showed that he didn't even understand the dynamics of the variables he was trying to describe. So, that even on theoretical grounds, even before we design experiments to test the theory, his claims fall apart. He didn't understand and account for reflectivity in his calculations and his theoretical treatment of the problem was based on transparent objects, when he knew perfectly well, that blackbodies are always opaque! Consider two opposite quotes from his paper setting out his "law,"

The first shows that he understood blackbody radiation to be be produced by bodies that light could not pass through - opaque bodies. The phrase "always the same brightness" refers to blackbody radiation. He understood this. But, when it came to testing his false theory, to produce the result he wanted, he cooked the books, by changing the inherent feature of all blackbodies - the fact that they are opaque - for in his theoretical proof, he used a transparent plate backed by a reflecting mirror. Even if his calculations had correctly accounted for all dynamics, which they did not, the proof would have been for transparent bodies, not for blackbodies, which are always opaque, by his own admission! You can work that out for yourself, from his definition of a blackbody:

A body that absorbs "all rays which fall upon" it cannot simulatenously be TRANSPARENT! Transparency, being defined as allowing rays to pass through it. So, Kirchhoff's ideas on blackbody radiation are clearly wrong. Be that as it may, they were the foundation upon which Max Planck, Kirchhoff's devoted student, built his own theories of blackbody radiation and to which he attached universal significance, without any justification.

The Problem with Planck's Supposed Proofs for Kirchhoff's Law

The electromagnetic spectrum is a marvelous wonder! So full of information and utility. Think of the fantastic James Web Space Telescope, that has captured the minds of stargazers everywhere. It was built to function in the infrared range of electromagnetic radiation because this range of the spectrum held several features that yield better observations than the visible range of light. Chris Pattison of the YouTube channel of the same name, does a great job of explaining why we use telescopes that use different kinds of light, to investigate the universe. The universe is entitled Why is JWST an infrared Telescope?

All Blackbody Radiation is Unpolarized

The point is that different types of electromagnetic radiation have different types of properties, dynamics and uses! This point is trivial if you are not paying attention, but if you want to understand the universe, it is critical: because, once again - everything that we know about the universe, we have learnt from light!

That is why, it is extremely significant, that deriving his proof for Kirchhoff's law of blackbody radiation, Planck used polarized light, to formulate proofs for unpolarized light - for all blackbody radiation is unpolarized. That's like demonstrating some dynamic feature of a rear wheel car, but driving a front wheel drive car for the demonstration. In the textbook Fundamental of Optics - Fourth Edition, By authors: Frances A Jenkins, and Harvey E White, this well known feature of blackbody radiation is stated:

"These equations apply, of course, only to the radiation from an ideal blackbody. ... the emission of unpolarized radiation." Not recognizing that unpolarized and polarized radiation is fundamentally different, is like not recognizing the difference between radio waves and x-rays - both forms of electromagnetic radiation: and thinking they can be used interchangeably! Try listening to x-rays, or telling your dentist to use the radio when she wants to see if you have cavities. The differences between various types of electromagnetic radiation hold great significance. Hence, Planck's use of polarized light to furnish proofs for unpolarized blackbody radiation is anti-scientific. The apple fell very close to the tree. For Planck was a devoted student and the spiritual progeny of Kirchhoff. And just like him he switched out known scientific criteria, for his own preferences, when it was convenient to his cause. Robitaille starts his debunking of Planck's claims about blackbody radiation with this sad acknowledgement:

Have you ever heard the expression "never meet your heroes?" Our focus now turns to: in what ways, did the great Max Planck "sidestep ... known experimental physics?" The answer is: he ignored evidence, in favour of speculation, among other notable ways. All of which we will now detail and expose.

The Significance of Trying to Establish UNIVERSALITY

To define and try to understand what Planck was trying to achieve with universality, we must think back to our section on temperature scales and the different arbitrary units that different scientists came up with in trying to define such scales. Some based zero, on nothing else but the coldest day of winter where they lived. Certainly, not a strong case for establishing universality, when people live in locations with differing weather patterns and conditions. In defining the units of their discoveries, humans are always trying to find natural units. What does that mean? It means, instead of using meters and miles - standards of human invention; humans would like to discern a natural unit of measurement. This is especially significant in terms of gaining priority for one's achievements. For instance in there are three temperature scales, with roughly half the world using Celsius, and most notably the United States using Fahrenheit. But why do all scientists, no matter where they are from use Kelvins? Because it is the most fundamental scale, the one closest to being the natural temperature scale of the universe, since its reference point for absolute zero is universal. So, a scale that is imposed by nature itself, and not dreamt up by humans is the best way to ensure universality, and the acclaim that comes with such a discovery. Recall when Lavoisier traveled the world, to define the meter. That is the best humans can do. So, the measurement unit(s), tell us nothing about nature, because the reference points, even if, not chosen arbitrarily, are still an imposition on nature. However, if a natural unit, was discovered, it would be a monumental achievement, because that person, would have discovered, not just how one or other aspect of nature works, but they would have discovered a building block of nature itself! This was the dream Planck was chasing, when he established the four units of nature, which he called: Planck time, Planck temperature, Planck mass and Planck distance! He was spurred on, in his mission, by the tantalizing prospect, that his esteemed professor Gustav Kirchhoff, had seemed to have discovered a law that applied to all bodies universally - blackbody radiation:

Certainly, the discovery of a universal dynamic seemed to hold a lot of promise, for the discovery of natural and universal units. Discovering the function must be halfway to discovering the units it wants to be measured in. In his single-minded focus on achieving what is viewed as his greatest achievement - which is saying a lot, for someone who also discovered quantum mechanics - Planck overlooked all the laws of established physics! Here he is, defining the significance of his goal:

That was his goal, in his own words! You can see why such a prospect was appealing. Indeed he viewed it, as others would also come to view it - as his crowning achievement. Where Newton managed to unite heaven and earth by showing that the same force that was responsible for regulating the orbits of the planets, was also responsible for falling apples here on earth. Kirchhoff would surpass that by discovering universal units for all reality. We have already covered why his incorrect treatment of the polarization of light, nullified his claims about blackbody radiation "the universal law of radiation" - which, as you saw in the quote above is the basis for his efforts at achieving universality. Next, we will show why thermal equilibrium, renders Planck's claims impossible. And, lastly, we will expose a fundamental inconsistency between Kirchhoff and Planck, which shows that each of the two men used opposing premises, yet claim, to have arrived at the same conclusion. A physical impossibility!

Thermal Equilibrium with Planck's Supposed Proofs for Kirchhoff's Law

Commenting on Planck's supposed claims as to proving the existence of universal measurements, Robitaille makes this clear assessment:

Do you remember that in Kirchhoff's equation he described a function f but failed to find its mathematical expression. It was Planck he discovered it, and it is valid, but only for blackbody radiation. Part of that expression, is what Planck called the "quantum of action." Recall also that he discovered quantum mechanics. The quantum of action is the basic discrete energy unit in quantum mechanics and is equivalent to a photon of light.

Here is the crux of the matter, and it becomes clear when we consider Planck's treatment of the supposed, thermal radiation within bodies or objects. Consider Planck's following quotes and how, what you already know, can help you to spot the "sidestep[ping] of known experimental physics."

Intelligence, is going from what you know to what you don't know. In other words, using the knowledge you already possess to solve for unknown variables - solving for 'x'. What do we know about how heat operates in substances, and moves them through their phases of matter? We know that solids and liquids cope with increased heat by increasing their degrees of freedom on the subatomic level. This is accomplished through conduction and convection. Doing so as a means to reach thermal equilibrium internally, throughout the substance. We also know that thermal radiation is the way that elements come to thermal equilibrium with their surroundings! Thermal radiation is always external, and never occurs internally. However, here Planck, turns proven experimental facts on their head by claiming that the "surface of a body never emits rays." That is exactly the portion of a body that is responsible to emitting thermal radiation. What's more, he states that the surface: "allows part of the rays coming from the interior to pass through." Robitaille comments in disbelief:

A sieve, is precisely, what Planck went on to describe blackbodies as being:

If the law of equivalence, which defines blackbodies, and was so eloquently described by its proper discoverer, Stewart is true, then we know that, in conditions of thermal equilibrium a blackbody will emit as much light as it absorbs. That's how it maintains thermal equilibrium. Otherwise, its temperature would rise. That being the case, how is it that Planck now asserts that such objects are "completely transmitting?" We know from our earlier formula, one that the derivation of all blackbody formulas use as their starting point - even the ones that later corrupt the results - that absorptivity, which incorporates absorption and emission, is a different variable to transmissivity - the ability to "completely [transmit] ... incident radiation." I express the equation again for your ease of reference, and further mark out the variables, which Planck is trying to pretend are the same, in the contrasting colours of red and blue to show, first, that they are not the same properties, and second to prove that in their full application, they are actually binary realities. When you have one at a 100%, it, by definition, means the other must be at zero. For the right side of this simple equation and the left side must be equal. It's called an equation, for just that reason.

1 = Absorptivity + Reflectivity + Transmissivity

In the universe, there is one perfectly absorbing blackbody, the CMB. Graphite and soot covered surfaces, are close approximations on earth, but they are not perfect blackbodies. In a perfect blackbody, we know the Absorptivity is equal to one, which means the other terms in our above formula must all be zero for the equation to balance - as seen below.

1 = 1 + 0 + 0

Planck's claims is an attempt to turn physics on its head! Blackbodies are defined by absorptivity, therefore they are represented by the red variable. So how is it that in describing blackbodies, Planck now claims "A rough surface having the property of being completely transmitting ... is described as black?" A surface which is completely transmitting is the exact opposite of a blackbody, which is defined by perfect absorptivity and emission - and must therefore be opaque! Blue vs Red. What is going on here? To find out, we have to contrast three quotes: one from Kirchhoff, the second from Planck, and the third from Stewart in order to identify the very elusive culprit:

Versus Planck ...

Contrasted with Stewart's original finding ...

Taken together, these three quotes allow us to tease out the deception. It is obvious from Kirchhoff's quote that he talking about surfaces, for "bodies which, for infinitely small thickness, completely absorb all rays which fall upon them," can ONLY be a surface, since rays don't fall upon the insides of objects without encountering their surfaces first. And, these surfaces are of "infinitely small thickness," which means, in a blackbody, the point of first contact is sufficient to "completely absorb all rays," and then of course, to emit then instantaneously in order to maintain thermal equilibrium. The rays are falling upon the first points of contact on "bodies," which of course, means their surface!

So, Planck is creating a false impression through his description. We can see that when we analyse Stewart's quote. He speaks of "the absorption of a plate," clearly referencing a surface! And these structures don't have to be thick, they can be "infinitely thin." There is no partitioning between surfaces and internal particles. Any part of the blackbody which has light fall upon it can completely absorb and emit it. In practice this means their surfaces.

Was Planck confused? How could he misunderstand so basic a point? Lest you think this was an oversight on Planck's part, here is his damning recognition that he is aware of what he is doing - sidestepping "known experimental physics,"

It is untrue to say Kirchhoff, some 40 years earlier, was "assuming," when he initially defined blackbodies. It was an experimentally proven fact! You'll recall that Balfour Stewart had proven it over a year before Kirchhoff made the same claim. Robitaille comments on the rigorous nature of Stewart's application of the scientific method,

So Planck knew the science and its history. If not ignorance, how can we then understand Planck's failure to grasp the true nature of blackbodies? Again, Robitaille fills in the blanks.

Planck was not doing science to discover something new. He was reverse-engineering the facts to reflect a narrative he was desperate to promote - Universality. That is the proof for a second fundamental flaw in Planck's pursuit of universality. We move to a third ...

Absorption From Bodies that are of "Infinitely Small Thinness" for Kirchhoff's Law

Whereas, Kirchhoff defined blackbodies as opaque, but then later, used transparent bodies to prove their dynamics; Planck goes even further, in deviating from known physics and states that blackbodies, are actually transparent. He stated:

So, blackbodies had been corrupted from Stewart’s initial standard of being perfect absorbers, to being "completely transmitting," or transparent. Compare the above, with Kirchhoff's original standard for blackbodies, as bullied from, and proven experimentally - a year earlier - by Balfour Stewart:

The "sidestep[ping] of all experimental physics" is clear from the wording! But what are the details, so we can confirm the facts, for ourselves? Remember, we are only operating on the level of Evidence Profiles. For that we want demonstrable proofs! Not just the manipulation of words and their definitions. In that regard, let's consider the undisputed existence of standing waves.

What are Standing Waves & how are they Created?

What are standing waves and why is understanding them important to our discussion on blackbody radiation and reflecting cavities? Because standing waves falsify Kirchhoff's theory. That, in turn, falsifies or debunks Planck's theory of universality. So, we want to understand them well enough that we can explain them to a five year old. As far as radiation goes standing waves are created by reflecting cavities, which means any opaque container that has a small hole in it to let light in. If the walls of such a cavity are made of a near perfect reflector like silver, they cause the incident light to be reflected by the inner walls of the cavity. Think of a hollow ping pong ball, drill a small hole in it. The light that enters will be reflected by the inner surface and be more or less trapped inside for a while. If this ping pong ball is made of silver - a near perfect reflector - it will create reflected waves, which will interfere with waves traveling in n opposite direction. If the ping pong ball is large enough, it will create standing waves, or phase coherence from the interference patterns caused by the reflected light. Why and how? Fortunately, this is very simple. Let us start with a technical definition of standing waves:

Figuring out was is going on with radiation inside a cavity is more abstract and thus a bit harder to understand than using something which we can relate to easily and which is visible, that our senses can appreciate, and grasp quicker. For this reason we will attack the subject, not by thinking about reflecting cavities directly, but by employing the much more familiar example of using a string, to create standing waves. It's an experiment you can easily do yourself at home. Once, we understand the simple concept of standing waves, we will then apply our knowledge to reflecting cavities and see how that affects the claim that all bodies produce blackbody radiation. For purposes of illustration, the best YouTube tutorial I could find for you on the subject was one from a channel called "Flipping Physics" - as in turning it upside down. The video is entitled Standing Waves Introduction, and we will be referring to it extensively in this section - for both illustrative purposes, and timely definitions of the different features of standing waves. If you are completely unfamiliar with the concept, you would do well to take the eleven and a half minutes to watch the video in its entirety. It's very good. This will allow you to catch what is going on in our discussion more fully, on your first reading.

When you generate a wave pulse, in a string of certain length, that wave pulse automatically comes to an "end" since it is of a certain length. It is unlike light waves, which can travel from one end of the universe to the other, because they are self-sustaining, once generated. Such a string then has two ends: the end you are holding, and the end where the string terminates. The first thing to acknowledge is that the second end can be "fixed," or "free." That is, tied to something, or loose. When you generate a wave pulse in a string with a free end, the wave will simply be reflected back to you. On the other hand, if you have tied the string to something on the second end, creating a fixed end, then the wave pulse will have two features: it will be reflected back to you as in the first "free end" example, but it will now also be inverted. Inverted just means it will come back with the opposite orientation. It will now be upside down, if you like. As you keep creating wave pulses from your end, more and more reflected waves will also keep coming back to you. For our experiment we are going to be using a string with a fixed end. What will happen when your newly created wave pulses, meet up with the reflected and inverted wave pulses? Many of you will know the answer from science class: the two waves will create an interference pattern. Interference patterns can happen in two ways "constructive" interference and "destructive" interference. Constructive meaning the sizes of the waves add up, and destructive meaning they subtract from each other. If two waves of the exact same size interfere constructively they will produce a new wave that is twice as high. If two waves of the exact same size interfere destructively they will cancel each other out. But what does that look like?

What are Nodes?

The place where two wave pulses of the exact same height, one upright and the other inverted meet and cancel each other out is called a node. A wave has two nodes and a peak in the middle. Two waves, one with an upright peak and the second with an inverted peak, make up a wavelength. Question: how many nodes does one wavelength have? The answer is not four, but three, because in the middle, the waves share a node, thus they have a node at the beginning and the end of the wavelength, but only one shared node in the middle. So far so good. The definition from the tutorial is found underneath, with its time stamp,

As an aside, notice that the fluctuations are called waves, but the flat-line is where the nodes are is called equilibrium. I bring your attention to this, just to emphasize visually the difference between fluctuations and nodes. If the fluctuations in the current day cosmic microwave background where present when it appeared, then it was never at equilibrium. Since the data tells us it was at equilibrium at initial condition, we realize that the fluctuations appeared afterwards! Back to our discussion: the peaks are called "antinodes" because they are where the waves constructively interfere most, creating the highest peak between the two nodes. Next, under the topic of "frequency" we tackle something called "phase coherence." What is that?

What is Frequency?

In our experiment so far, we have referred to your generating of wave pulses as just moving the string up and down. A more accurate way of describing that is to use the term frequency. Frequency just means how many times are we moving the string up and down in one second. As an example, our string were to vibrate up and down 10 times every 5 seconds, then it has a frequency of 2. Frequency you will remember is named after our old friend Heinrich Rudolf Hertz.

What is Phase Coherence?

Watching the part of the video called "the standing wave pattern" is very helpful in visualizing what is going, and I recommend it. However watching the portion called "standing wave patterns only work at certain wavelengths" is a must. It is a must because it will help you to understand why standing wave patterns only occur at certain frequencies. In short standing wave patterns only work if the string is vibrated a certain number of times per second - at a certain frequency. The video explains this well in its last section, from 9:36 to the end. You will immediately visually notice the difference between frequencies that can create standing waves, and ones that are in between such frequencies. What's the difference? If the fixed end does not terminate in a node, you will not get standing waves. Think of if like playing catch with someone. You and your partner are both like nodes, fixed ends. The arc of the ball is like a wave, tha is, half a wavelength. If you must both stand still - fixed ends - what will happen if your partner throws the ball over your head, will you be able to throw it back? Of course not, because you didn't catch it. For the game of catch to continue, both of you must throw accurately. That continuous game of catch, is like our standing wave pattern. The mathematical definition is,

Or put another way ...

The most important variable in these calculations are where are the nodes. Since there ar two nodes at either side of a wave, that is, every half wavelength, that becomes the multiple by which you must calculate standing waves. The conclusion to the tutorial is the simple statement:

When waves are in phase, it means their peaks - above equilibrium - also called their crests, and the their troughs - below equilibrium - are aligned. Coherence means adding diverse elements together well. So phase coherence means the upright wave and the inverted wave add up together well - in phase, and thus create standing waves. They have the same number of wavelengths, that is, half waves and nodes! That brings a close to our definition of standing waves and phase coherence. Of course they are called standing waves, because unlike regular transverse waves which appear to move from left to right, or outward from a central point - as when you drop a pebble into still water; standing waves look stationary. The interference pattern doesn't move from left to right - because they are being reflected back and forth between two points, like a tennis ball in a tennis match. Thus, they stand in place, as "standing waves." Next, we apply our newfound knowledge to "reflecting cavities" and what they tell us about the universality of "blackbody radiation," our above outlined aim.

Electromagnetic Waves Can ALSO Generate Standing Waves

It's not just children with strings who can make standing waves. Thermal radiation also has the capacity to generate standing waves. This technology is used in cell phone towers and in many other industries, such as resonance imaging in the medical field. With ropes, standing waves are created by the wave impulse being reflected back to its source, because the rope being tied to an end on the far side, forces the wave to reflect. The question we have to answer is, with electromagnetic radiation, what relates to the tied far end? What forces the electromagnetic wave to be reflected back? The fact that it is hitting against a reflective surface!. In technological applications, usually elements like silver are used to form reflective cavities, as silver is the closest element on earth to an ideal reflector. In the same way that graphite is the closest thing to an ideal absorber. So, silver is neither transparent, nor is it an absorber, instead it is the best reflector yet discovered on earth, making it ideal for people who are building reflective cavities. The existence of elements like silver, and silver reflective cavities, which can create standing waves, and produce phase coherence if their dimensions are right for the wavelength of the incident light, is another fatal blow to Kirchhoff's Law. I have highlighted the debunked portions, which when speaking of cavities formed from all types of elements - which would include silver, triumphantly stated:

Our Conclusions About Standing Waves

What does the existence of near perfect reflectors mean vis a vie Kirchhoff's law of universal blackbody radiation? It means it is false. Twice, in the above quote he asserted as law that blackbody radiation "is therefore independent of the nature of the walls," and again that any such cavity will always produce "the same brightness whatever its nature may be in other respects." Wrong. Not all cavities are can produce blackbody radiation. This is for the simple reason, that blackbodies do work, in converting normal incoming radiation into blackbody radiation! That is not, and cannot be the case, for near perfect reflectors, because they never absorb the incoming radiation but merely reflect back exactly what was incoming. Standing waves, by definition, are created when radiation is not absorbed! For, if a standing wave were absorbed, it would disappear. Only reflected waves can produce standing waves, proving that not all cavities or walls produce blackbody radiation. As blackbody radiation can only be produced by absorbing surfaces. Attached, are some videos where Robitaille elaborates on this truth through thought experiments. You will find them informative and very illuminating*.

Now, to the point of this whole section. It may not be obvious to you how Kirchhoff's Law relates to cosmology. It may not be obvious why it is the bottom jenga block in the wobbly jenga-like structure that is the standard model of cosmology, according to Bjorn Ekeberg? Kirchhoff's law is the metaphysical foundation of all current cosmology. We know the first part of that statement is true, because there is no experimental proof of Kirchhoff's Law. In other words, there is no proof that links it to the real world, to physical reality - to the science of Physics, hence, it is metaphysical! But what about the second part? How do know it is the "foundation of all current cosmology?" Because that is what Big Bang Theorists, themselves, claim.

It's Turtles ALL the Way Down!

How Kirchhoff’s Law Relates to the BIG BANG?

We have now come to understand how blackbody radiation is created via a lattice that is responsible for producing photons. So why do cosmologists believe that the hot Big Bang soup was responsible for creating the only perfect blackbody radiation in the universe, the cosmic microwave background? Because they base their proof on Kirchhoff's Law. Kirchhoff's Law state that the only conditions you need to produce blackbody radiation is thermal equilibrium, and an opaque enclosure regardless "of the nature of the walls." Thus, any entity can produce blackbody radiation, as long as it meets that criteria, whether it has a lattice or not. That is the connection. Big Bang cosmologists believe Kirchhoff's Law is the scientific proof for the origin of the cosmic microwave background without the need for a lattice structure! Additionally, they imagine the hot Big Bang soup meets the two conditions of Kirchoff's Law because they claim the Mighty CMB was generated at the moment of last scattering at a temperature of 3 000 kelvin meeting the thermal equilibrium conditions. (Nevermind that their equilibrium conditions include fluctuations. Let's only focus on the even more glaringly incorrect main point.) And they imagine the second criteria of an opaque enclosure is met by the fact that they claim the universe was diffuse to before recombination, before the moment of last scattering. (Again, in an effort to stick to the main point, we will overlook the fact that diffuse and opaque are two different things. Diffuse means cloud like and opaque means impenetrable to light - non-transparent.) Thus, Big Bang cosmologists through these two factors believe they have met Kirchhoff's conditions for explaining the production of a blackbody spectrum. And that is their explanation for the appearance of the Mighty Cosmic Microwave Background!

Kirchhoff’s Law not only provides the foundation for the metaphysics of cosmology as defined in Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, but it also provides a nested explanation for a large part of all of astrophysics. What do I mean? Remember the "it's turtles all the way down" explanation that flat earthers gave in ancient times for the explanation of what was holding up the turtle that was holding up the earth? It's the exact same with cosmologists, but instead of turtles, it's Kirchhoff's law. It is repeatedly used to justify metaphysical processes. Like Russian dolls nested one inside the other, each metaphysical structure conjured up by Big Bang cosmologists is inhabited by another metaphysical that is itself grounded in Kirchhoff's Law. Having seen how it is applied to the universe as a whole through the Big Bang, we now turn to how they use Kirchhoff’s Law to describe how stars - including our Sun - were born and function.

How Kirchhoff’s Law Relates to the SUN & STARS?

Big Bang cosmology, also says that stars are made up of gases, but everyone reading this knows that the empirically established scientific discipline of Spectroscopy tells us that gases do not produce continuous thermal spectra, only banded spectra. The sun has a continuous, near blackbody spectrum. So why try to force the gas narrative for the Sun and stars? Because Kirchhoff's Law states that any element can create such spectra; and their hot plasma (gas) origins demand that whatever evolves from initial conditions be made of hydrogen gas. There are two excellent videos from Robitaille that explain the history of how the gaseous model of the Sun originated, and what the standard model of the Sun says about what it is made of and how it functions. They are entitled: History of the Gaseous Sun with Dr Robitaille and The Solar Spectrum in the Standard Solar Model! respectively.

A short history of the development of the gaseous sun follows.

Since astronomers want to insist that the Sun is made of gaseous material, they have to deny that it has a surface, because gases cannot possess a surface. Recall, that solids have a definite shape and definite volume; liquids have no definite shape, but a definite volume; and gases have neither a definite shape, nor a definite volume! Thus, gases cannot hold a shape. Instead, they expand to fill the container, when in a container and dissipate into the air or empty space if outside the Earth. Have a look at this NASA illustration of the different phases of matter and how they relate to each phase's ability to hold a shaped on its own. The illustration will make clear to you why a gas cannot be the material from which the Sun - the most perfectly spherical object ever discovered can be made of a gas. Robitaille's further quote helps us with another detail,

We will not address the highlighted portion of the above quote just yet. But I include it, so you can take note of the statement file it away. Its significance will become clear a little later. Dr Robitaille continues:

I have divided the quote into two sections: not highlighted and highlighted. Read each carefully, so as to discern the difference between them. The non-highlighted portion represents the scientific method. And, involves observational data, along with experiments to find some evidence to support any proposed theory.

The highlighted portion is the exact opposite. Not having any observational data or experimental evidence, it relies instead on assumptions: "Rather, since the Sun is believed to be composed ...." The word invoke means "To appeal to or cite in support or justification."* (Wordnik) Invoking is the opposite of evidence. Evidence is supplied. Empty speculations invokes metaphysical descriptions for support. We have come full circle. I promised you that contrary to Neil DeGrasse Tyson's claims about the God of the gaps, it was not God, but empty Intellectualism as practiced in the sciences that formed a scientism of the gaps. And so it has proven to be. "Invoke" was the word Degrasse Tyson used to assert the utter hopelessness of trying to merge reason and faith, of trying to marry religion with science. Remember these words from the very beginning of our journey?

The point is clear. People only "invoke" when they do not have evidence. And that's the difference between the non-highlighted and the highlighted section of Robitaille's last quote - evidence and the lack of it. The last piece of the invoking puzzle in the scientific arena is the "associated mathematical treatment [that] would commence right away." That's where a previous quote from K Dunnigan again comes to our aid in helping us to realize how scientists manipulate reality and pull the wool over people's eyes:

For evolutionary cosmologists, whether they believe in the Big Bang Inflationary universe, which results in non-scientific multiverses according to Hossenfelder, or in cyclical universes, like Roger Penrose, their only constant is it must not include, or be based on fiat! Their "foregone conclusion." At the other end of the spectrum, they hold cherished ideas for which they have no observational evidence or empirical proof. In fact their ideas such as the topic we have been considering - the Big Bang - fly directly in the face of all the evidence. We have not finished Paul Steinhardt's analysis of how the five "apparent salient features" of the Mighty CMB prove that the Big Bang never occurred, but once we have, you will see plainly why the both Big Bang is not compatible with the evidence as found in the Mighty Cosmic Microwave Background. To make sure their flawed conceptions of the universe avoid scrutiny, they tie everything together with a mathematical bow, knowing the average person is deathly afraid of anything mathematical - and so will not investigate. PM Robitaille continues his exposition:

He now shows the double benefit of mathematics to scientists. The first is what we have detailed above - it gives them breathing room from the public who pay for their day dreaming through taxes. The second is they can use it to build models of non-existent realities. Or, to put it more directly, to build models of unrealities! Things which could not exist in the real world. Scientists never present these models as models to the public. Instead to the public they insist, their models are representations of reality - when nothing could be further from the truth. We continue with our expose or how the Sun came to be gaseous in current cosmology,

Here, we learn what scientists believed who understood Evidence Profiles. Secchi, and Faye understood - as did many in their times, before the science got corrupted - that only solids and liquids could produce light with a continuous spectrum, because with the development of spectroscopy, everyone knew that gases produce banded spectra and solids and liquids - condensed matter - produced continuous spectra! Hence, it was only logical to such men, that the continuous spectrum of the Sun, meant its surface was composed of some sort of condensed matter: either solid or liquid. In his next quote, Robitaille quotes Faye. Pay close attention to his reasoning. I add a second quote from Kathy Joseph of the excellent YouTube channel Kathy Loves Physics & History, which delves into the history of scientific discoveries, for some context. She refers to a name all chemistry students will at least be familiar with, to show why it was common scientific knowledge that continuous spectra are the product of solids and liquids, while banded spectra are produced by gases:

That "optical fingerprint" is what we refer to as an Evidence Profile. Such empirical identifiers can never be confused with each other - otherwise, they are not fingerprints! If gases had continuous rainbow spectra, we would not be able to tell them apart! The "distinct bands" all fit - at different positions - into the same rainbow background. There only way to tell them apart is if their "optical fingerprints" are not continuous and only form bands! Watch the video from about 3:32 to 3:48 to see the effect in action. None of this is science fiction or "invoked." You will carefully note that Bunsen found such evidence through experiment. He didn't invoke the notion and then try and persuade others to believe it through mathematical gymnastics. It was an empirically established fact, not only by Bunsen, but many others who repeated his results through their own experiments - including one, Norman Lockyer! His name - which we know from an earlier chapter, for his contributions to understanding the composition of the Sun - will become relevant to this part of our story in just a minute. As for Robitaille's quote: again, we see a discipline of the Sciences sidestepping a known empirical requirement! Sidestepping the evidence to build a metaphysical narrative of your liking is a pattern you will see over and over again, if you are paying attention. Next, we come to a critical turning point. Leading astronomers put their weight behind the gaseous Sun. Crucially, they did so without any evidence! Always begs the question: "Why?" Why would scientists band together to form a consensus without evidence? That's not science. Science is asking where is the evidence and trying to replicate the results in order to either falsify the claims, or endorse their validity. I'm always of scientists who band together in consensus. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. Not to mention when they do in the absence of any evidence! Always a red flag. Nevertheless:

With such momentum, the gaseous Sun became conventional wisdom. Interestingly, we remember that Lockyer was the man who discovered Helium and the chromosphere because of his understanding of Evidence Profiles and how spectroscopy worked. But, here we find him claiming the exact opposite to be true, by his siding with those who are sidestepping Evidence Profiles to assert something without any experimental evidence. This becomes more sinister when you listen to Robitaille's conclusion,

It is sinister because this conclusion is not new! Compare the dates. The sidestepping of known scientific laws happened in 1865, but it was in 1859 that Bunsen had discovered that "Solids and liquids basically make a continuous rainbow, but burning gases make distinct bands of light. An optical fingerprint." What is going on? It gets worse, for one of the co-conspirators - which is the only fitting name for people who form a consensus without any evidence for it - Lockyer, would make significant discoveries that demanded the exact opposite understanding to that which he was here asserting, only 3 and 5 years later! But he never took his name of this list, or said I was wrong, the evidence is to the contrary! In 1868, three years after his endorsement of a gaseous Sun, Lockyer used his excellent knowledge that the Sun was not a gas, but made of either solid or liquid material(s) to discover, and carefully name the Chromosphere of the Sun. That is the red flames, we clearly see enveloping the Sun, whenever there is a total solar eclipse. Two years later, he again used his knowledge of spectroscopy to discover the element Helium, which he named in 1871. But you may think I am too harsh on Lockyer, how do we know that he understood the principles he was renouncing in 1865? Because his thought process behind his discoveries prove his keen understanding of the subject. Here is Joseph with the details:

So far, so good. The stars and Sun are definitely "burning objects" so we immediately appreciate the great boon to knowledge that spectroscopy will yield. We now have a mechanism for giving us detailed information about the one entity which will teach us everything we will empirically come to know about our universe. For, everything we know about the universe we have learned from light! Keep the timeline of developments clear in your mind. In 1865 Lockyer, who did not have a classical training in astronomy was among those who claimed the Sun was made of gases. He was what would be called an amateur astronomer in our day - but he had a brilliant mind! In 1867, two years after making those claims, he and his wife Winnifred are delighted to learn about spectroscopy, and throw their energies into learning its ins and outs. When we studied spectroscopy in detail in earlier chapters, it was with a purpose. We weren't just learning for the sake of knowledge. We were learning so that we could understand the evidence in this section. Let us quickly recall a specific point that we learned from none other than Gustav Kirchhoff himself. Joseph narrates:

Let's stop there. Please watch the video to refresh your memory as it involves demonstrations of these concepts. Before we come to Kirchhoff's conclusion, we want to correctly identify the variables at play in this experiment. We know that Kirchhoff burned a gas - sodium - in front of his lamp, but what substance was burning in the lamp? Was it also a gas. Many of us are familiar with the kinds of lamps used in Kirchhoff's time, as they are still widely used. They burned liquid sources of energy, usually paraffin. Let us continue.

We will not go into every detail, since we have already studied spectroscopy at length. The purpose of this refresher is to bring clarity to the discussion at hand. What does Kirchhoff "immediately" realizing that "he had the solution to ... [the] mystery of lines in the sunlight called Fraunhofer lines" mean? If he equated his experimental results with the spectrum of sunlight with its bands of Fraunhofer lines, what does that tell you about the true nature of the Sun? What is the sun made of? Does the fact that the earth has an atmosphere and clouds confuse you into thinking the earth is made of gases and clouds? Why such confusion about the Sun when the evidence is clear? If the evidence from experiment is that Fraunhofer lines against a backdrop of a continuous spectrum are produced by a gaseous medium, being burned in front of a liquid medium, why is the conclusion that opposite to the evidence when it applies to the Sun? The Sun is obviously made from either liquid or solid elements that produce its continuous spectrum, but a gaseous atmosphere which produces its distinct superimposed band spectra - Fraunhofer lines. We continue with Joseph's narration,

You must admit - that was a fantastic accomplishment! Simple and brilliant. Science at its best. Now we move on to Lockyer and his "sidestepping" of known laws of spectroscopy. Keep in mind that Kirchhoff's discovery happened in 1859, six years before Lockyer took his stand that stars were made of gases and We do not care much about his initial stance, that might have been due to misunderstanding one or more key concepts of spectroscopy. What is of interest to us is if he ever withdrew his views once he mastered the science of spectroscopy? And master it, he did! Lockyer was a natural at spectroscopy, not only coming to understand its nuances, but also grasping all its power - enabling him to innovate ingenious experiments, that he used to settle disputes about the nature of the universe. Case in point is how he settled the matter of sunspots in March of 1866, one year after he had said the Sun and distant stars were made of gas.

So in a short time after he and his wife decided to learn about spectroscopy he understood it well enough to use it in a practical way to solve real world problems. So good had he become at understanding and using spectroscopy as a tool that kept always looking for problems he could solve using it. Joseph continues,

This was a major challenge because not only did he set himself an ambitious task, but the conditions to study such phenomenon only came around with total solar eclipses. That presented two problems, he didn't have the money to travel to India to study the coming eclipse, and it was more than two years away and he wanted to know the results as soon as possible. He would have to devise another way to carry out his experiment. Joseph gives us some insight into his thinking and approach to solving the problem:

The ingenious experiment Lockyer came up with to search for these "red flames" that escaped "all other methods of observation at other times" proved his thorough understanding of spectroscopy. The fact that these flames escaped "all other methods of observation" meant he would have to innovate a whole new process of observation, if he were study them outside of the opportunity provided by eclipses. And innovate he did! Directing his telescope to the rim of the Sun did nothing in terms of isolating the red flames, because the Sun's brightness was too great and overshadowed any and all light coming from the red flames. Thus,

To disperse means to separate from one another and is obviously the opposite of the words gather and concentrate. By adding more prisms he could effectively multiply the dispersions making the bright light of the core of the Sun weaker and weaker. But what effect would multiple prisms have on the line spectra?

The simplicity and ingenuity behind Lockyer's experiment are impressive to this day. What a great mind, he understood that liquids and solids, condensed matter, had different Evidence Profiles than the banded spectra of gases. It was from this knowledge that both he and Stewart concluded the red flames must be made of gases, because like the sodium gas in Kirchhoff's experiment, they emitted their spectrum, their "optical fingerprints" in distinct bands! Lockyer understood clearly that it was the differences in the phase of matter that determined the kind of spectrum that an element produces. Solid and liquid phases generate continuous spectra and gases, distinct banded spectra. And, he used that knowledge most effectively to design a seven prism telescope that would help him to isolate and identify the red flame spectra while dispersing away the continuous spectrum of the Sun itself.

But, Lockyer wasn't the only person in 1868 who had an interest in spectroscopy, or understood the principles behind continuous and banded spectra. Another scientist named Joules Janssen, had the same interests and background knowledge. He was in India to view the total eclipse, but also wanted to study the phenomena of the red flames further, outside the rare conditions of solar eclipses. Understanding the dynamics behind the different types of spectra, he came up with the exact same plan as Lockyer had,

This additional example serves to illustrate that the view among scientists was that the different types of spectra represented different phases of matter. At least among the ones who believed in evidence - and who used it to innovate new technologies and discover new features of our universe! As it happened, the discoveries of both men came to light at the same time. Sitting in the audience was Herve Faye. He offered a solution as to which of the two gentlemen deserved recognition for this excellent discovery - both!

Of course Faye is one of the two men, the other being Secchi, that we quoted Robitaille referencing earlier as believing that the photosphere is "composed of clumps of solid or liquid matter...." "They believed that the white light emitted by our solar surface could only be produced by condensed matter" said Robitaille. This understanding that the Sun was condensed matter, but the red flames a gas, couldn't have been made clearer, than when Lockyer came to naming the envelope of "red flames."

How was the envelope of gaseous red flames different from the rest of the Sun? Lockyer was intimately acquainted with the all the principles of spectroscopy. This is reflected in the name he chose to call the red flames: Chromosphere, but also, and more importantly in the reasoning behind the choice of name. He wrote:

On the one hand he realized that both the chromosphere and the "cool absorbing atmosphere" were gaseous, because of the type of spectrum each produced. But, more importantly, for our discussion, he wanted to distinguish it from the "white light-giving photosphere. Why is that significant? Because "white light-giving" is synonymous with saying "continuous spectrum producing!" That has always been the case. From the time of Isaac Newton, who made the discovery that white light can be divided by a prism into a continuous rainbow spectrum, down to our day! Below I include two illustrations of that fact: one depicting Newton's discovery; and the second from our day. To show that our experimental proofs of this truth have not changed. "White light-giving" has always, and will always mean producing a continuous spectrum! And, that's the important detail. That's what Joseph means when she says Lockyer who was spending every clear day studying the chromosphere, found that, "it went around the entire Sun, but was different from the rest of the Sun." The rest of the Sun, i.e., the body of the Sun, was "different" in that it was a different phase of matter - condensed matter: either liquid or solid, but not gaseous. Everyone at that time, understood it that way - including Herve Faye, who came to Lockyer's defense when the Paris Academy of Sciences was deciding how to divide the honours between Lockyer, who was the first to think of the idea of a multi-prism telescope to isolate the banded spectrum of the chromosphere by dispersing to zero the continuos spectrum of the "white light-giving photosphere;" and Janssen, who thought of the clever innovation almost two years later, but was the first to implement it. For proof of that everyone equated "white light-giving" with continuous spectrum, I again provide multiple quotes reflecting the thinking of the times as taken from Kathy Joseph's video:

The proof of the pudding is in the engineering behind the multi-prism telescope:

Now, for some contemporary views held by astronomers in Lockyer's time, as expressed through Joseph's words and Robitaille, except in the one case where I could find a direct quote - through Bunsen's own words:

And ...

Then some quotes from Joseph ...

And Joseph on Janssen's and Lockyer's thinking behind how they engineered the design of the multi-prism telescopes:

And, lastly Bunsen,

The reasoning is clear. The question then, arises. At this point: why didn't Lockyer correct his earlier assessment that the Sun was made of gaseous material? It's been 154 since Lockyer made that discovery and 151 since he named the "red flames" the Chromosphere. Why must Dr Robitaille continue to fight for recognition of a fact that was known and openly acknowledged more than 15 decades ago?

You might think, "how do we know that continuous spectrum cannot be caused by compressed gases" such as are invoked as existing at the center of the Sun? The answer is because dense gases have never been observed to produce a continuous spectrum. This is what Robitaille meant when he said "Now, the body of the Sun was already considered gaseous in 1865. But, back then, there was no observational evidence that it was a gas. In fact, I haven't seen any evidence to this day." The experimental evidence from Fraunhofer, Bunsen, Kirchhoff, Lockyer and Janssen shows us that white light continuous spectra are from incandescent solids and liquids, while gases only produce band spectra. That should be our understanding until evidence is furnished to the contrary! If there is a result of a highly dense gas that can generate a continuous spectrum, let it come to light. Until then, it is anti-science to claim the Sun is a gas without any proof! It is a breach of scientific integrity, and a metaphysical "sidestepping" of known physical laws! If the experimental proofs have not changed, how is it that the conclusions have changed? Experimental proofs led Herve Faye to conclude: "Incandescent solids and liquids alone give continuous spectrum, while the gases or vapors supply but a spectrum reduced to only a few luminous rays" as quoted by Robitaille. This is why Robitaille correctly declares,

The nested nature of false ideas doesn't help the cause of Big Bang cosmologists. Nested theories are like Russian dolls that fit one inside the other, with the umbrella theory being the fundamental one that the nested theories must fit inside of, as they are based on it validity. The problem is that like our jenga analogy, when the most fundamental concepts are proved to be false they bring down all the other theories that were based on them. And, so it is with the Big Bang. We have seen how Kirchhoff's Law is used to try and explain how the Big Bang produced blackbody radiation even thought it doesn't have a lattice. Nested inside that, we have seen how the Sun and the stars are falsely claimed to be gases from their atmospheres all the way down to their cores - again based on the false and now thoroughly disproven Kirchhoff's Law. Kirchhoff's Law is the most fundamental piece to the whole jenga universe of Big Bang cosmology, and its demise cannot but bring down with it all other concepts that were based on it! We draw some conclusions from our discussion:

SINCE KIRCHHOFF'S LAW FAILS THE BLACKBODY RADIATION TEST, IT IS FALSE, & ITS CONCLUSIONS ONLY APPLY TO ACTUAL BLACKBODIES. THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE BLACKBODY IN THE UNIVERSE - THE MIGHTY COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND

KIRCHHOFF'S LAW IS FUNDAMENTAL TO THE BIG BANG THEORY & ITS SUPPOSED PRODUCTION OF THE MIGHTY CMB. SINCE KIRCHHOFF'S LAW HAS BEEN DEBUNKED, THE BIG BANG THEORY WHICH RESTED ON ITS VALIDITY IS ALSO FALSIFIED. FURTHER, WE MUST FIND AN ALTERNATE EXPLANATION FOR THE COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND

SINCE THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF KIRCHHOFF'S LAW & THE BIG BANG BEING FALSIFIED ARE THAT ALL SUBSEQUENT THEORIES BASED ON THEM ARE ALSO WRONG, WE NOW APPRECIATE THAT THE SOLAR MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE IS FALSE. STARS ARE NOT GASEOUS AS WHITE LIGHT ONLY PRODUCES A CONTINUOUS SPECTRUM & CONTINUOUS SPECTRA HAVE ONLY EVER BEEN PRODUCED BY CONDENSED MATTER - SOLIDS OR LIQUIDS & NOT GASES

SINCE THE SOLAR MODEL FOR STAR FORMATION HAS BEEN FALSIFIED, THE TRUTH BEHIND THE ORIGIN & ENERGY SOURCE OF ALL THE STARS IN THE UNIVERSE ARE STILL TO BE IDENTIFIED

SINCE THE SOLAR MODEL FOR STAR FORMATION IS WRONG, WE REALIZE THAT THE PROPOSED BIG BANG LIFE CYCLE OF STARS IS WRONG & CANNOT BE THE SOURCE OF THE PERIODIC TABLE OF ELEMENTS. THEREFORE, THE MECHANISM & ENERGY SOURCE FOR ALL THE MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE IS STILL TO BE IDENTIFIED