Top 10 Reasons the Universe is Electric (Electric Universe Theory)

[Clete]

From Walt Thornhill's paper "Toward a Real Cosmology in the 21st Century" The Open Astronomy Journal, 2011, 4, (Suppl 2-M5) 191-210


While advancing technology provides a deluge of new
information and surprises about the cosmos, our understand-
ing of the universe has stalled for at least a century. More
thoughtful scientists are beginning to express frustration
about the lack of breakthroughs in fundamental physics
while the technology around them seems to advance at a
faster pace every day. It can be argued that the problems
stem from modern education, which no longer fosters
"desire and pursuit of the whole" but rather a narrow prescribed ex-
pertise devoid of historical context. The selection of earlier
‘giants’ whose shoulders we must stand on is predetermined
and unquestioned. But standing on someone else’s shoulders
does not make us taller. The debates and politics that sur-
rounded the consensus that raised those ‘giants’ to their ex-
alted status are lost in the myth-making. We must worship
the sainted geniuses our forefathers chose for us. Question-
ing the ‘laws,’ the contradictions and misleading language of
science is discouraged. Yet educators are surprised by the
growing disinterest in science. Perhaps it is because Big
Bang cosmology has nothing to offer about life and the hu-
man condition. Instead, our cosmology is a bizarre narrative
of miracles, chance, isolation and the hopelessness of even-
tual total darkness or a return to a cauldron of rebirth. This
claim may seem harsh but the clamour of dissent is rising.
Sir Fred Hoyle, who coined the dismissive name “Big Bang”
maintained a healthy skepticism throughout his career:

Big-bang cosmology is a form of religious fundamental-
ism, as is the furor over black holes, and this is why these
peculiar states of mind have flourished so strongly over the
past quarter century. It is in the nature of fundamentalism
that it should contain a powerful streak of irrationality and
that it should not relate, in a verifiable, practical way, to the
everyday world. It is also necessary for a fundamentalist
belief that it should permit the emergence of gurus, whose
pronouncements can be widely reported and pondered on
endlessly—endlessly for the reason that they contain nothing
of substance, so that it would take an eternity of time to distil
even one drop of sense from them. Big-bang cosmology refers
to an epoch that cannot be reached by any form of
astronomy, and, in more than two decades, it has not produced
a single successful prediction” [8]

Thanks to Einstein’s promoters, Big Bang cosmology has
become an exercise in geometric metaphysics and computerized
‘virtual reality,’ with its practitioners vying for attention
with the most bizarre confabulations. It began by wedding
the distinctly different concepts of time and space into a
‘fourth dimension.’
“Henceforth space by itself, and time by
itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only
a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent real-
ity” [9].
There is an unconscious irony in the use of the word
‘reality’ in such a context. If time is a dimension, point me in
the direction of time! Meaningless statements such as
“Gravitational waves are ripples in the fabric of space and
time and are an important consequence of Einstein's general
theory of relativity,”[10] epitomize the imaginary nature of
theoretical physics. What material object is ‘the fabric of
space-time’ and how does matter cause it to ‘ripple?’ Those
who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. We
have returned full circle to the Pythagoreans with their inner
circle of ‘mathematikoi.’ The Big Bang hypothesis is no bet-
ter than the two thousand year old Ptolemaic model of the
cosmos, with the Earth at the center of everything and ad hoc
epicyles added as necessary to preserve a geometric model.


[8] Hoyle F. Home is Where the Wind Blows. Calif: Univ Sci Books
1994; p. 413.
[9] Minkowski H. Space and Time. In: Lorentz H, Ed. The Principle of
Relativity: a Collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and
General Theory of Relativity. New York: Dover Publications Inc
1952; p. 75.
[10] Svitil K. LIGO Observations Probe the Dynamics of the Crab Pul-
sar. Caltech News Release 2008; 2: Available from:
http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13154.

 

[Clete]

Astronomers watch them being made in such explosions. Reality trumps any theoretical issues.

I just presented you multiple examples of those very scientists saying otherwise. THEY DO NOT MAKE ANY SUCH OBSERVATIONS!!!!

They do observe the existence of some heavy elements in the remnants of supernova explosions but not nearly all of them and not nearly in the quantities required to produce the amount we know for a fact exist.

Do you understand how we can tell what elements are being made?

Yes, I do! That's a big part of the reason I know that you are talking out of your hat here. They do not know for a fact that all the extant heavy elements were created in supernova explosions. They do NOT know that no matter how much of my posts your ignore nor how many times you want to repeat that they do. They do not - period!

We observe heavy elements being made in such explosions.

Some elements, yes. Not all and not enough.

Do you have any evidence whatever for them being made in nature, some other way?

I did present such evidence, you ignored it. Supernova explosions cannot account for the even the amount of iron in the universe, which doesn't even require a supernova in the first place, never mind the amount of the really heavy elements like gold, lead and tungsten, etc. which would require orders of magnitude more supernovas than any observational science can begin to support. The ad hoc solution to this problem is not to question the theory but simply add more and more time to the age of the universe.

As I suggested in my previous post, which you also ignored, the reason they THINK these elements are created in supernova explosions and not during the life of the star is because the creation of such elements does not expel energy but rather requires energy to be added to the system. This energy is provided by - you guessed it - gravity! If you permit the electric force to add this energy, the need for supernova explosions goes away.

Further, the existence of L-type brown dwarfs is evidence that heavy elements are produced in ways other than supernova explosions. These brown dwarfs are designated L-type because of the presents of lithium in their spectra but they are brown dwarfs precisely because they are too small to be shining from internal thermonuclear power. This is what is called falsifying evidence. It isn't merely a surprise or unexplained. It is that but more than that it is not possible if current theories about how lithium (and other heavy elements) is created are true.


Clete

 

[gcthomas]

Clete, The Open Astronomy Journal is full of low quality papers, and their publisher was found guilty of publishing fake papers while claiming to have peer reviewed and take the $800 fee to do so.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27458/title/OA-publisher-accepts-fake-paper/

This doesn't really count as peer review, and is closer to vanity publishing. There are plenty of reputable journal, so why did this guy pick this one? Easy target, perhaps, to be able to claim some form of credibility?

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that astronomers observe heavy elements being produced in supernova explosions)

I just presented you multiple examples of those very scientists saying otherwise.

No. You did not. You posted some issues with theories explaining how it happens. We can directly observe the production of these heavy elements in supernova explosions by spectrographic analysis, showing the elements appearing.

And as you learned, the process can be reproduced in labs by generating the sort of energies found in such explosions, so we have two independent sources of data showing it happens.

You're essentially in the same boat as that engineer who "proved" that bumblebees can't fly.

THEY DO NOT MAKE ANY SUCH OBSERVATIONS!!!!

They do.

They do observe the existence of some heavy elements in the remnants of supernova explosions

But none in supergiants before the explode. For the obvious reason.

but not nearly all of them

Show me a spectrographic analyis of a supernova that did not detect heavy elements.

and not nearly in the quantities required to produce the amount we know for a fact exist.

Show me your calculations.

Yes, I do! That's a big part of the reason I know that you are talking out of your hat here. They do not know for a fact that all the extant heavy elements were created in supernova explosions. They do NOT know that no matter how much of my posts your ignore nor how many times you want to repeat that they do. They do not - period!

In the same sense that they don't know for a fact that gravity will be working tomorrow morning. If you can show that it happens any other way than it is observed to happen in supernovas, you should show us.

Some elements, yes. Not all and not enough.

Show us your numbers.

I did present such evidence, you ignored it. Supernova explosions cannot account for the even the amount of iron in the universe,

Since it's produced in pretty much all stars at the end of their lives, and since such stars become red giants and blow off most of their mass into space, that makes sense. I'd still like to see your numbers, though.

which doesn't even require a supernova in the first place, never mind the amount of the really heavy elements like gold, lead and tungsten, etc. which would require orders of magnitude more supernovas than any observational science can begin to support.

Show us the numbers.

The ad hoc solution to this problem is not to question the theory but simply add more and more time to the age of the universe.

No need. As you see, the generation of heavy elements is already documented to happen in supernovas.

As I suggested in my previous post, which you also ignored, the reason they THINK these elements are created in supernova explosions and not during the life of the star is because the creation of such elements does not expel energy but rather requires energy to be added to the system.

That's the reason. And when they tested it in the lab, turns out it's right. You need the kind of energies that are found only in supernovas to do it.

This energy is provided by - you guessed it - gravity! If you permit the electric force to add this energy,

Problem is twofold. First, there's no evidence whatever for those elements heavier than iron being produced by stars not undergoing a supernova explosion. And second, observed reactions in the lab show that the forces of gravity in such a collapse are sufficient to fuse the higher elements.

Further, the existence of L-type brown dwarfs is evidence that heavy elements are produced in ways other than supernova explosions. These brown dwarfs are designated L-type because of the presents of lithium in their spectra but they are brown dwarfs precisely because they are too small to be shining from internal thermonuclear power. This is what is called falsifying evidence. It isn't merely a surprise or unexplained. It is that but more than that it is not possible if current theories about how lithium (and other heavy elements) is created are true.

You've been misled badly on that. Lithium has an atomic number of three. Yes, three. It's the third lightest element in this universe. And the evidence suggests that small amounts of lithium existed before stars even formed.

 

[Clete]

You've been misled badly on that. Lithium has an atomic number of three. Yes, three. It's the third lightest element in this universe. And the evidence suggests that small amounts of lithium existed before stars even formed.

This is the only sentence in your entire post that was responsive. The rest has already been said and repeated. Your ignoring it doesn't count as a refutation. I can't tell if you're intntionally ignoring it or are just missing the point. It seems to be a mixture of both but I really don't care to repeat it again.

I haven't been misled at all. The amounts of lithium required to be detected in something as dim as a brown dwarf would be in quantities far in excess of those that could even begin to be accounted for by big bang processes. Further, whatever lithium would have been produced in the big bang (if it happened at all) would have been an unstable isotope of lithium that would have quickly decayed back into more stable forms of Helium and Hydrogen. There is NO known mechanism to account for the creation of lithium in brown dwarfs - umm - except in the Electric Universe paradigm.

 

[Clete]

I was milling around looking for evidence/testimony in support of the Electric Universe theory outside the The Thunderbolts Project website. In about three seconds I found the following page that lists several peer reviewed papers on subjects related to electrical processes in space, most (if not all) of which are not directly related to "The Electric Universe Theory" but nevertheless support the general idea that it puts forward.

http://www.electricuniverse.info/Peer_reviewed_papers

 

[gcthomas]

Clete, The Open Astronomy Journal is full of low quality papers, and their publisher was found guilty of publishing fake papers while claiming to have peer reviewed and take the $800 fee to do so.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27458/title/OA-publisher-accepts-fake-paper/

This doesn't really count as peer review, and is closer to vanity publishing. There are plenty of reputable journal, so why did this guy pick this one? Easy target, perhaps, to be able to claim some form of credibility?

This ^^^, Clete.

 

[Stripe]

The theory of evolution has been put through the utmost tests and processing and is established as much if not more so than gravity.

:rotfl:

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[The Barbarian]

Clete writes:

Further, the existence of L-type brown dwarfs is evidence that heavy elements are produced in ways other than supernova explosions. These brown dwarfs are designated L-type because of the presents of lithium in their spectra but they are brown dwarfs precisely because they are too small to be shining from internal thermonuclear power. This is what is called falsifying evidence. It isn't merely a surprise or unexplained. It is that but more than that it is not possible if current theories about how lithium (and other heavy elements) is created are true.

Barbarian observes:
You've been misled badly on that. Lithium has an atomic number of three. Yes, three. It's the third lightest element in this universe. And the evidence suggests that small amounts of lithium existed before stars even formed.

It's not a heavy element as your belief requires; it's the third lightest element.

This is the only sentence in your entire post that was responsive.

It's a major problem for your belief, and one that seems to have no solution, but to declare this very light element to be a "heavy element."

However, there's more. You made several claims about quantities of heavy elements, and I asked for your numbers. You've declined to show us, so I'm wondering why you believe this without any evidence.

You claimed that heavy elements do not form in all supernovae. I asked you to provide evidence of a spectral analysis of even one that did not, and you declined to show us one.

You claimed that supernovae cannot account for the amount of iron in the universe (but again just an assertion with no numbers) and I pointed out that main sequences stars (the most common kind, like our Sun) produce huge quantities of iron and as they burn out, blow off their mass into space. So again, a failure for your belief.

I haven't been misled at all.

You had been convinced that lithium was a heavy element. In fact, it's a very light element, and was likely in the universe long before stars.

The amounts of lithium required to be detected in something as dim as a brown dwarf would be in quantities far in excess of those that could even begin to be accounted for by big bang processes.

Show us your numbers. Lithium is present in brown dwarfs, precisely because they lack the mass (and therefore the pressure) to fuse lithium nucleii.

Low-mass stars rapidly deplete the rather small amount of lithium they have,while larger stars can have some lithium remain in the stellar atmosphere. And it turns out that supernovae can produce lithium which is ejected into space and can become part of a brown dwarf:

But now, a team led by Luca Izzo of Sapienza University of Rome and ICRANet, Pescara, Italy, has used the FEROS instrument on the MPG/ESO 2.2-metre telescope at the La Silla Observatory, as well the PUCHEROS spectrograph on the ESO 0.5-metre telescope at the Observatory of the Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile in Santa Martina near Santiago, to study the nova Nova Centauri 2013.

This star exploded in the southern skies closed to the bright star Beta Centauri back in December 2013 and was the brightest nova so far this century, visible even to the naked eye.

The shining nova offered detailed data that shows the clear signature of lithium being ejected out into space at two million kilometres an hour, the first detection of the element from a star explosion. Co-author Massimo Della Valle of INAF–Osservatorio Astronomico di Capodimonte, Naples and ICRANet, Pescara, Italy said the finding was very important step in understanding our Universe.

“If we imagine the history of the chemical evolution of the Milky Way as a big jigsaw, then lithium from novae was one of the most important and puzzling missing pieces. In addition, any model of the Big Bang can be questioned until the lithium conundrum is understood,” she said in an ESO statement.

Although the Nova Centauri 2013 explosion didn’t send a lot of lithium out into the galaxy, probably less than a billionth of the mass of the Sun, there have been billions of novae in the history of the Milky Way. That’s enough to explain the observed and unexpected amounts of lithium in our galaxy.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/bridai...ery-of-lithium-in-the-milky-way/#2cef5d79174e

Further, whatever lithium would have been produced in the big bang (if it happened at all) would have been an unstable isotope of lithium that would have quickly decayed back into more stable forms of Helium and Hydrogen.

Nope. Turns out, the ratio of isotopes is about 92% Li6 and about 8%Li7,both of which are stable, and both of which were present after the Big Bang.

There is NO known mechanism to account for the creation of lithium in brown dwarfs

Except the fact that is already present in clouds of dust and gas from which brown dwarfs form.

- umm - except in the Electric Universe paradigm.

Unnecessary. But show us your evidence that electrical forces can generate the energies required for fusion into lithium nucleii.

 

[Nihilo]

I think that astronomically, lithium is considered a heavy element. Hydrogen and helium, the two lightest elements, make up more than 90% of the baryon matter of the universe, with hydrogen alone accounting for 75%. FWIW.

 

[Stripe]

We observe heavy elements being made in such explosions. Do you have any evidence whatever for them being made in nature, some other way?

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity2.html#wp11867751

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[gcthomas]

I think that astronomically, lithium is considered a heavy element. Hydrogen and helium, the two lightest elements, make up more than 90% of the baryon matter of the universe, with hydrogen alone accounting for 75%. FWIW.

You are right. They are of course not actually heavy elements in any other context, but then again, astronomers refer to anything heavier than helium as a metal.

 

[Clete]

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity2.html#wp11867751

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

Excellent! Just the sort of thing I was looking for and couldn't find readily.

Here's an excerpt that is directly relevant to the discussion...

Nuclear Combustion

Since February 2000, thousands of sophisticated experiments at the Proton-21 Electrodynamics Research Laboratory (Kiev, Ukraine) have demonstrated nuclear combustion31 by producing traces of all known chemical elements and their stable isotopes.32 In those experiments, a brief (10-8 second), 50,000 volt, electron flow, at relativistic speeds, self-focuses (Z-pinches) inside a hemispherical electrode target, typically 0.5 mm in diameter. The relative abundance of chemical elements produced generally corresponds to what is found in the earth’s crust.

... the statistical mean curves of the abundance of chemical elements created in our experiments are close to those characteristic in the Earth’s crust.33

Each experiment used one of 22 separate electrode materials, including copper, silver, platinum, bismuth, and lead, each at least 99.90% pure. In a typical experiment, the energy of an electron pulse is less than 300 joules (roughly 0.3 BTU or 0.1 watt-hour), but it is focused—Z-pinched—onto a point inside the electrode. That point, because of the concentrated electrical heating, instantly becomes the center of a tiny sphere of dense plasma.

With a burst of more than 1018 electrons flowing through the center of this plasma sphere, the surrounding nuclei (positive ions) implode onto that center. Compression from this implosion easily overcomes the normal Coulomb repulsion between the positively charged nuclei. The resulting fusion produces superheavy chemical elements, some twice as heavy as uranium and some that last for a few months.34 All eventually fission, producing a wide variety of new chemical elements and isotopes.

For an instant, temperatures in this “hot dot” (less than one ten-millionth of a millimeter in diameter) reached 3.5 × 108 K—an energy density greatly exceeding that of a supernova! The electrodes ruptured with a flash of light, including x-rays and gamma rays. [See Figure 202.] Also emitted were alpha and beta particles, plasma, and dozens of transmuted chemical elements. The total energy in this “hot dot” was about four orders of magnitude greater than the electrical energy input! However, as explained in Figure 199 on page 382, heat was absorbed by elements heavier than iron that were produced by fusion. Therefore, little heat was emitted from the entire experiment. The new elements resulted from a “cold repacking” of the nucleons of the target electrode.35

Dr. Stanislav Adamenko, the laboratory’s scientific director, believes that these experiments are microscopic analogs of events occurring in supernovas and other phenomena involving Z-pinched electrical pulses.36

The Proton-21 Laboratory, which has received patents in Europe, the United States, and Japan, collaborates with other laboratories that wish to verify results and duplicate experiments.​

As I said, if you permit the possibility that the electric force is involved, all kinds of possibilities show up. Indeed, according to the EU, supernovas are an electric phenomenon as are the stars themselves.

Clete

 

[Clete]

It's a major problem for your belief,

It is not my belief. I'm simply arguing their side of the debate. I am open to the possibility that at least part of what the EU proposes is correct but I have not rejected all of the rest of science and adopted the EU as my cosmological paradigm. In fact, I don't even think the two are mutually exclusive - at least not entirely.

and one that seems to have no solution, but to declare this very light element to be a "heavy element."

Every element other than hydrogen and helium are considered "heavy elements" by everyone everywhere. I didn't come up with the BBT nor any of its "predictions". It's the Big Bang boys that say that, not me.

However, there's more. You made several claims about quantities of heavy elements, and I asked for your numbers. You've declined to show us, so I'm wondering why you believe this without any evidence.

I showed you the numbers. I will not repeat it.

You claimed that heavy elements do not form in all supernovae.

I claimed that not all heavy elements are formed in all supernova explosions. Which is true.

I asked you to provide evidence of a spectral analysis of even one that did not, and you declined to show us one.

There are lots of elements that have not been observed via spectral analysis in supernova explosions. They are all presumed to be present because the standard model predicts them but they have not all be physically observed. And many that have been observed have not been in sufficient quantities to account for the amounts we know for a fact exist, as I have already stated.

You claimed that supernovae cannot account for the amount of iron in the universe (but again just an assertion with no numbers) and I pointed out that main sequences stars (the most common kind, like our Sun) produce huge quantities of iron and as they burn out, blow off their mass into space. So again, a failure for your belief.

No matter how many times you ask or how you ask it, I will not repeat it.

Now I'm done repeating that. If this continues for much longer, I'll end the discussion. The whole thread is right here for you to read. Read it.

You had been convinced that lithium was a heavy element. In fact, it's a very light element, and was likely in the universe long before stars.

It is a "heavy element" according the BBT.

Show us your numbers. Lithium is present in brown dwarfs, precisely because they lack the mass (and therefore the pressure) to fuse lithium nucleii.

Low-mass stars rapidly deplete the rather small amount of lithium they have,while larger stars can have some lithium remain in the stellar atmosphere. And it turns out that supernovae can produce lithium which is ejected into space and can become part of a brown dwarf:

But now, a team led by Luca Izzo of Sapienza University of Rome and ICRANet, Pescara, Italy, has used the FEROS instrument on the MPG/ESO 2.2-metre telescope at the La Silla Observatory, as well the PUCHEROS spectrograph on the ESO 0.5-metre telescope at the Observatory of the Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile in Santa Martina near Santiago, to study the nova Nova Centauri 2013.This star exploded in the southern skies closed to the bright star Beta Centauri back in December 2013 and was the brightest nova so far this century, visible even to the naked eye.

The shining nova offered detailed data that shows the clear signature of lithium being ejected out into space at two million kilometres an hour, the first detection of the element from a star explosion. Co-author Massimo Della Valle of INAF–Osservatorio Astronomico di Capodimonte, Naples and ICRANet, Pescara, Italy said the finding was very important step in understanding our Universe.

“If we imagine the history of the chemical evolution of the Milky Way as a big jigsaw, then lithium from novae was one of the most important and puzzling missing pieces. In addition, any model of the Big Bang can be questioned until the lithium conundrum is understood,” she said in an ESO statement.

Although the Nova Centauri 2013 explosion didn’t send a lot of lithium out into the galaxy, probably less than a billionth of the mass of the Sun, there have been billions of novae in the history of the Milky Way. That’s enough to explain the observed and unexpected amounts of lithium in our galaxy.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/bridai...ery-of-lithium-in-the-milky-way/#2cef5d79174e

I'm back to not being able to tell whether you're just missing the point. This doesn't seem to refute anything that has been said except that it claims that there are enough supernovae to account for the amount of lithium that exists. The problem is that there aren't and haven't been and never will be. The universe is not nearly old enough. The Milky Way has less than 50 supernovae a year. Do the math.

Further, even if the math worked, which it doesn't, it would still be far too dispersed into the vastness of interstellar space. Even if the whole entire mass of the star was turned into Lithium, the explosion, in just a few centuries would have it spread out over an area of thousands of square light years. There just isn't enough of the stuff being produced in these explosions to account for all the matter in the universe.

Nope. Turns out, the ratio of isotopes is about 92% Li6 and about 8%Li7,both of which are stable, and both of which were present after the Big Bang.

I can no longer find it but I just this morning read on one of the NASA sites that contradict this claim. Regardless, it was a tiny fraction of what was created at the big bang and none of that lithium would remain today. It will have all been melted into other elements inside trillions of suns since then or at least the vast majority of it would have been and thus cannot account for what is found in even one brown dwarf, never mind the trillions of them that likely exist.

Except the fact that is already present in clouds of dust and gas from which brown dwarfs form.

Question begging.

They do not know how brown dwarfs form.

Unnecessary. But show us your evidence that electrical forces can generate the energies required for fusion into lithium nucleii.

See the excerpt in my previous post. It's not only possible, it's easy.

Clete

 

[Clete]

I think that astronomically, lithium is considered a heavy element. Hydrogen and helium, the two lightest elements, make up more than 90% of the baryon matter of the universe, with hydrogen alone accounting for 75%. FWIW.

This is exactly correct. Hydrogen and Helium where generated in the Big Bang along with trace amounts of Lithium and Barium. Trace amounts meaning, cosmologically meaningless but not zero. The rest of the extant Lithium and Barium was created, according to the standard model, by fusion in the heart of stars just like every other "heavy element".

 

[The Barbarian]

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity2.html#wp11867751

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

I know your guy believes the "fluttering crust" made it all happen. But show us your evidence for that belief. He just declared it, and then failed to show his evidence.

 

[The Barbarian]

Since February 2000, thousands of sophisticated experiments at the Proton-21 Electrodynamics Research Laboratory (Kiev, Ukraine) have demonstrated nuclear combustion31 by producing traces of all known chemical elements and their stable isotopes.32 In those experiments, a brief (10-8 second), 50,000 volt, electron flow, at relativistic speeds, self-focuses (Z-pinches) inside a hemispherical electrode target, typically 0.5 mm in diameter. The relative abundance of chemical elements produced generally corresponds to what is found in the earth’s crust.

... the statistical mean curves of the abundance of chemical elements created in our experiments are close to those characteristic in the Earth’s crust.33

Each experiment used one of 22 separate electrode materials, including copper, silver, platinum, bismuth, and lead, each at least 99.90% pure. In a typical experiment, the energy of an electron pulse is less than 300 joules (roughly 0.3 BTU or 0.1 watt-hour), but it is focused—Z-pinched—onto a point inside the electrode. That point, because of the concentrated electrical heating, instantly becomes the center of a tiny sphere of dense plasma.

(your source)

But...

Dr. Stanislav Adamenko, the laboratory’s scientific director, believes that these experiments are microscopic analogs of events occurring in supernovas and other phenomena involving Z-pinched electrical pulses.36

Doesn't seem to fit the EU doctrine. If the "fluttering crust" did it, it would require incredible amounts of electricity. Show us that any such effect could produce the sort of energy over the entire earth that this lab managed to put in a fraction of a millimeter with huge effort.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
However, there's more. You made several claims about quantities of heavy elements, and I asked for your numbers. You've declined to show us, so I'm wondering why you believe this without any evidence.

I showed you the numbers. I will not repeat it.

Just link the post where you did so, and I'll bring them forward and compare them to the claims. I don't see them anywhere, but perhaps I missed. Just give a link to the right post so we can settle this.

 

[The Barbarian]

I claimed that not all heavy elements are formed in all supernova explosions. Which is true.

Which ones do you think are not, and what is your evidence for that?

 

[Clete]

The Barbarian,

Since our current discussion has devolved into you asking me to do little more than repeat myself, I'm changing the subject. Only this time we're going to discuss the material presented in the videos. It will help you if you actually do watch them if you haven't already.

What mechanism do main stream scientists suggest is responsible for the pervasive magnetic fields that stretch across whole galaxies and even connect galaxies? Do they have a theory or even a wild guess? Is there any part of the gravity-centric standard model that even allows for the arms of galaxies to be conducting an electric current, which is the only way for such magnetic fields to be produced?

How long before we start hearing about "dark-magnetism"? Maybe dark matter is magnetic!

That last question was clearly sarcasm but isn't that really the pattern over the last century? Whenever something comes up that falsifies the standard model, some ad hoc idea is simply plugged in to fill whatever hole was just blasted through the current theory.

Also, is there any work being done under the standard model to explain the distribution of gasses is nebulae? What gravitational force could account for the filamentary helical patterns that we can clearly see? Why is there resistance to the idea that they are in fact Birkeland currents (i.e. electrical currents flowing through plasma)?

And finally, what process, according to the standard model, accounts for the tightly focused beams of charged particles that emanate across light years of space from things like pulsars, black holes and whole galaxies like M87?

Clete