Electric Universe

[Anderas]

It's bad that you apparently ignore any argument.
I can speak only for the electric side as i don't have enough experience on the other fields, where I rely on the experts - they tell me it's wrong because they have tested some details? So it is wrong. End of discussion.

My personal opinion here, i post it just because it is fun to see your responses. I will stop if you continue to deliberately not answer because then it's not fun for me. In your last posting you were causing me to laugh loud, especially the parts where you explain that the sun is "sucking" energy and the part where you explain that the satellites are protected because of van allen. So here's another answer from me.

1. Again, a small ball of Iron like the Earth is a much better conductor than the sun's plasma. Following your logic that the Vacuum is indeed one of the best conductors in the universe; there should be a permanent lightning connecting the sun with the earth, so powerful that it destroys the earth. No, the sun's plasma is not a better conductor than Iron - because iron is much more massive. Where is it, the lightning connecting the sun and the earth?

2. And then, please, explain how your "vacuum plasma" with one particle per cubic metre can possibly deliver enough energy to light up the sun. I already asked for that some times. Show me how a force, 10ˆ9 times weaker than the sun, can drive the sun. It is like an ant delivering enough heat for entire New York City; this is why I was laughing when you wer writing that. My proposal: Show me how much Energy the sun is emitting. Calculate the area that is needed to let the sun "suck" enough energy out of a 1-part-per-m³ Plasma. The area is not cubic metres, it is two dimensional like a wire diameter because you explained that there are several suns connected in one string. Then, after you have finished, tell me how any one electrical part can "suck" energy, because "sucking energy" is a concept pretty much unknown to electronics - normally it has to be pushed into it.

3. Explain how science is working if you think that the scientists are not trying to find new stuff that is unknown today and in contradiction to some existing stuff.

4. Satellites are not only orbiting close to earth. They are everywhere in the solar system and are functioning everywhere. In contradiction to your theory, they are working less good in the vincinity of the "energy sucking" (therefore, in your opinion, protective) sun and better if they have some security distance.

5. Explain double star systems. In your theory they wouldn't exist because the bigger star would "suck" all the energy and the smaller star would not shine like Jupiter does not shine.

Ah, and a little afterthought:
6. Another point you ignored: How do you explain the fusion experiments ITER (France), JET (US) and WENDELSTEIN (Germany); and the press release of Mitsubishi regarding fusion; if fusion is according to your theory not a functioning method to generate energy?

Hop, the ball is on your side. I expect detailed answers to each of the five points.

[knightkrawler]

I don't even understand what GB and Flesh have posted here.

I'll write a summary, starting with the sun. In the electric universe model the sun is a plasma arc discharge caused by an electric z-pinch...

Thanks for trying, but you lost me at this point.

All I ever wanted to do in this thread is make whoever feels currently (yes, my take on an intended pun) receptive aware of what I actually did post. In words.
Information is not automatically true as soon as it is put into words.
That is it. That's all I tried to say. Everybody will know in how far they may be reproached for doing otherwise and just believing what they hear. Most posters here have efficiently disproved doing that.

I'll evaluate: Information is not automatically truer than contradicting earlier information as soon as it is put into words.

So, why do I post again, derailing the thread from its actual topic, if I don't even have a clue what you're talking about?
Because I did not put myself in any drawer and yet I feel I got shoved into one. I didn't, simply because I have no freakin' clue of physics. I can manage to get my bathroom door open without banging my head, most of the time.
To update, now I don't understand what 5 people have said in this post, instead of just 2. I'm the only one I understand. But I'm, you know, the paranoid language guy.

Continue, I'll try to follow.

[cynthialee]

Seeing how the theories have not been totally validated I hereby suggest that the ancients were right in the first place.
Apollo drives his fiery chariot across the heavens and that is just that. The sun is just a god chariot.

Apollo Attack 20 Defend 20 Mind 25 Body 100 no equipment restrictions

[knightkrawler]

Apollo Attack 20 Defend 20 Mind 25 Body 100 no equipment restrictions

Nah, those are too close to my Dragon stats...

[Gold Bearer]

It's bad that you apparently ignore any argument.

What? What argument? I haven't avoided anything.

I can speak only for the electric side as i don't have enough experience on the other fields, where I rely on the experts - they tell me it's wrong because they have tested some details? So it is wrong. End of discussion.

Just like that. What have they tested, how have they tested it, what results did they get specifically that falsified it, how were they able to test it here on Earth and do they have a better explanation for all the vast amount of evidence showing that electricity does flow through space?

My personal opinion here, i post it just because it is fun to see your responses. I will stop if you continue to deliberately not answer because then it's not fun for me. In your last posting you were causing me to laugh loud, especially the parts where you explain that the sun is "sucking" energy and the part where you explain that the satellites are protected because of van allen.

What's funny about that? The sun creates a z-pinch that concentrates a current flow through a small area and increasing the current density. Z-pinches aren't theoretical, they are estalblished science. I'm not sure if the belts carry a charge or not, I think I've seen a model where they're caused by the a current but I'm really not sure about this. I don't think the standard model explains the belts.

..."sucking"..."suck"..."suck"..."sucking energy"..."energy sucking"..."suck"

I never even said suck. Do you know what quotation marks are for? I really don't think you have the either the knowlege or the debating skills to pull off such a cocky attitude to be honest.

1. Again, a small ball of Iron like the Earth is a much better conductor than the sun's plasma. Following your logic that the Vacuum is indeed one of the best conductors in the universe; there should be a permanent lightning connecting the sun with the earth, so powerful that it destroys the earth. No, the sun's plasma is not a better conductor than Iron - because iron is much more massive. Where is it, the lightning connecting the sun and the earth?

Have you seen the size of the Earth compared to the sun? Do you honestly believe that infinitesimal spec of iron provides an easier path for the galactic current stream than the sun? There is a direct electrical connection between the Earth and the sun, and the other bodies in the solar system. The aroras and lightning storms of Earth show this. The a charge separation between the Earths surface and the space surrounding it. Water droplets moving around in a cloud can't create charge but what they can do is allow a path for the discharge to reach the Earth. Look at sprites and elves. Lightning comes from outside the planet.

2. And then, please, explain how your "vacuum plasma" with one particle per cubic metre can possibly deliver enough energy to light up the sun. I already asked for that some times. Show me how a force, 10ˆ9 times weaker than the sun, can drive the sun. It is like an ant delivering enough heat for entire New York City; this is why I was laughing when you wer writing that. My proposal: Show me how much Energy the sun is emitting. Calculate the area that is needed to let the sun "suck" enough energy out of a 1-part-per-m³ Plasma. The area is not cubic metres, it is two dimensional like a wire diameter because you explained that there are several suns connected in one string. Then, after you have finished, tell me how any one electrical part can "suck" energy, because "sucking energy" is a concept pretty much unknown to electronics - normally it has to be pushed into it.

Space is a perfect conductor because it has no resistance. That's useless for generating a usable charge that can power anything because electrical energy is actually powered by the resistance in the flow of electrons. The ideal carrier for liberated electrical energy has a tiny resistance. The lower the resistance the better, as long as it has some resistance. Any more resistance than the bare minimum reduces the amount of usable energy because you loose more by restricting the current than what you gain from the resistance itself. Plasma is almost a perfect conductor so that's exactly what's needed.

3. Explain how science is working if you think that the scientists are not trying to find new stuff that is unknown today and in contradiction to some existing stuff.

It's run on consensus. Anything that promotes a model that's not officially approved is marginalised and even punished. Mainstream science has become more dogmatic than religion. It's completely broken and has been supporting failed models for decades.

4. Satellites are not only orbiting close to earth. They are everywhere in the solar system and are functioning everywhere. In contradiction to your theory, they are working less good in the vincinity of the "energy sucking" (therefore, in your opinion, protective) sun and better if they have some security distance.

What? You need to rewrite that. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

5. Explain double star systems. In your theory they wouldn't exist because the bigger star would "suck" all the energy and the smaller star would not shine like Jupiter does not shine.

It's debatable whether double star systems actually exist, they're purely theoretical. I don't think they've actually been shown to exist and are just assumed based on the results of experiments needed to stars to get anywhere near predicted results from the standard model. I'm not entirely sure about that but I know that at least most supposed twin stars are based on flimsy evidence and assumptions that don't hold up. Having said that, I don't see why two closely gravitationally bound bodies much closer together and with more similar conductivity than Jupiter and the sun couldn't easily share a current.

6. Another point you ignored: How do you explain the fusion experiments ITER (France), JET (US) and WENDELSTEIN (Germany); and the press release of Mitsubishi regarding fusion; if fusion is according to your theory not a functioning method to generate energy?

Because there's no case to answer. The issue isn't whether or not nuclear fusion can be used to produce energy, it's obvious that it can. The issue is whether it can be used to contain and sustain the reaction and still have energy left over that can be used. It's not only never been achieved, it's never been shown to be possible even in principle, much less shown to be capable of liberating enough left over energy to generate the amount of radiation put out by stars. Even if it is possible, the sun shows so many features that can't be explained by the fusion model but follow naturally from an electrically driven sun.

Hop, the ball is on your side. I expect detailed answers to each of the five points.

Your arguments are very flimsy and show a fundamental misunderstanding of both what you're trying to argue for and trying to argue against. I think you need to start again. Forget what you think you know and look at the two opposing models. The EU model is so much more scientifically sound on every level that it's now at the point where anyone who knows the arguments and still refuses to accept it can only be objecting to it on the grounds that they don't want it to be true for their own reasons because the evidence speaks for itself. My turn.

1. What force do you think is responsible for accelerating the solar wind away from the sun? Do you think it's gravity, one of the nuclear forces, electromagnetism or some undiscovered force? Those are your only four choices.

2. What force do you think is responsible for correcting the gravitational disturbances of the planets on each other? Same four choices.

3. Same choices again, what force do you believe is responsible for the shapes of galaxies that exactly mimic the shapes produced in labs by running a strong electrical current through plasma?

4. And same choices once more, what force is responsible for organising stars that are in the process of forming into strings that are thousands of lightyears long?

5. Oh, one more, I forgot all about this. What force do you think is responsible for the recently discovered lining up of the nebulae close to the galactic core so that they're all aligned with the electrical current flow proposed by he EU model?

6. Why is the sun so much hotter at the corona than at the surface if the sun's power is driven internally?

7. Why is the neutrino count about 1% of what was predicted if the nuclear fusion isn't less than 1% what was predicted?

8. What mechanism is responsible for the overturning of convection on the sun in the area of sunspots.

9. The Ibex mission was funded on the bases thirty predictions about the heliospheric boundary conditions, all of which failed but were completely in line with what the EU models predicted. "The models that have been thought to predict what should happen are all incorrect." - Stamatios Krimigis, Physicist, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. The lack of a bow shock at the edge of the solar system was exactly what the electric universe model predicted and so was the presence of exited neutral atoms. These have absolutely no explanation using the standard model. I presume you must think that the lack of a bow shock at the edge of the solar system which was predicted by the electrical model and has no explanation in the standard model was a lucky guess? There's also been a concentration of energetic neutral atoms detected outside the solar system which was also predicted by modelling the solar system as an electrical circuit. Another fluke I suppose? If you read the reports they all say how shocked they were to find the things that were expected and expressly predicted by EU proponents. There's no bow shock because the solar system sits in a larger electrical environment so the charged particles keep on accelerating after they reach the edge of the solar system. The build up of energetic neutral atoms was an even more impressive prediction. They're caused by the fact that positrons moving in the opposite direction to the electrons can't travel around the circuit so they build up and recombine with the electrons coming the other way to produce energised electrically neutral atoms. What's your explanation?

10. And besides all of that, given that we now know just how much magnetics is involved in the universe on large scales and it's physically impossible to produce a sustained magnetic field in the absence of an electrical current because they're two different manifestations of the exactly the same process (that's why it's called the electromagnetic force), how can anyone with even an ounce of scientific honesty claim that there are no electrical currents in space?

This isn't all of them, it's only about half. I'll write the rest up at some point. There's some really good ones that I haven't mentioned yet. If you can find anywhere near that many flaws in the EU model you'll have done better than all the other people that have tried to debunk it combined. One genuine flaw would be a nice start.

[Gold Bearer]

Seeing how the theories have not been totally validated I hereby suggest that the ancients were right in the first place.
Apollo drives his fiery chariot across the heavens and that is just that. The sun is just a god chariot.

Well it makes far more sense than the fusion model.

[Anderas]

First of all, i think Apollon should have better stats. He is a God, after all, so maybe giving him some permanent defense successes on top of his defence dices would be just fine.

Before I say something about your arguments, let's please finish what is already on the table. If we have finished my six points, i will come to yours, i promise, even if I have to read myself into other fields than my own.

You didn't at all answer on my question how a weak current can fuel a strong burning star like the sun. I will do it for you now.

If you want to light up the magnetic forces to 10ˆ7 and drive it by a force which has 10ˆ-2. This is important as you stat the sun is electrically driven.
There is a differrence of 10ˆ9 between them, so you'd need 10ˆ9 square metres of weak magnetic lux to light up one square metre of Sun - assuming that there is some magical process in the EU which allows the gathering and concentrating of Energy in such a scale.
To light up the entire surface of the sun, you'd need a circle of the diamter of the sun (13.8 x 10ˆ6 km ) times 10ˆ9 (then square and pi). That makes (13.8 x 10ˆ15)ˆ2 x pi
You have a "wire" diameter of 145 light years if you want to light up the sun with this weak current. Without taking a look at the emitted energy. This is just the amount space needed to stack the space magnetic field to solar heights.Very simple. In fact, a little bit too simple and therefore wrong, but i come to that later.
Take a piece of paper. Draw a circle with 14,5 cm diameter. Make a dot in the middle. That's our solar system. Measure 4 mm. Make a dot. This is our next neighbour solar system. If you want to fuel them both, you'd have to make the circle bigger. If you want to add all our neighbours, you'll find 70-100 stars in this circle.
You see, our energy source has to be much stronger than it is possible, because in our surrounding there are more suns which need fuel and would take away our share of fuel.

If you say now "Yes but the current is stronger than you assume"... no it is not. It is corresponding to a magnetic force of roughly 10ˆ-2.

I don not yet take into account that you want to employ some magic energy gathering mechanism (stretching 145 light years around the sun... woah!)
Forget about the Z-Pinch. This is NOT the mechanism.
Z-Pinch is drawing wires (or plasma) together, if there is electrical current in them flowing in the same directon AND have a strong enough time-gradient to build up magnetic force. If you have no time-gradient then it doesn't apply - so if you want to keep the sun alight several billion years, it doesn't apply on a large scale. If the Z-Pinch would be the answer, the sun would flicker 1 time per second.

Why has my estimation been wrong?
Well, I estimated that the magnetic flux behaves linear, that it stacks up, that it is gatherable and that i have to heat just a circle of the diameter of the sun. In reality, you have to heat much more (the surface), it doesn't stack well and there is no mechanism to gather 145 light years of magnetic flux. So in reality the amount of space needed to heat the sun would need to be MUCH larger and there is still an "energy sucking" mechanism missing. My estimation is too wrong to publish it in a scientific magazine, but correct enough to show how absurd this theory is.



Second point.
You state earth is to small to get electrical energy next to the sun. Well, the sun has 109 times the diameter of the earth. So in terms of diameter we are just under 1% of the sun. As we just found out that the sun has to suck in the energy from a large amount of space, some of it will always be behind the earth seen from the sun. As you like to point out, electrical currents take the easiest way.

your most cited plasma with nearly no resistance: It is conductive like copper. It is to be found inside Plasma reactors set under artificial pressure.
Sun surface plasma: less pressure, less conductive. 1-100 ohm resistance per meter.
massive large chunks of Iron: much less than 1 Ohm resistance per meter
Vacuum plasma with 1 particle per cubic metre: much more than 10ˆ9 ohm resistance.

So the earth is both, better conductive than sun plasma and better conductive than space vacuum.
If the earth has the bad luck to lie in the path of a current strong enough to heat up the sun, it will explode. Very simple.

I disregard your argument about thunder and lighning, as it is obvious you don't know anything about ligning storms it wouldn't be fair to attack you here. It is also not our topic. Just a tip: There is no water in the clouds; it's frozen up there and builds hail clumps big enough to damage airplanes sometimes.


Third. Space as conductor.

You have two ways of transmitting electrical energy.
First, elecrical currents. Impossible with 1 meter of vacuum between two particles. Space is not at all conductive. You can fly up there and measure yourself if you want. Or write an email to the ISS astronauts, ask them to measure the vacuum resistance please. It's easy. It has been done. It doesn't need to be discussed. There are no electrical currents in the vacuum of a strength that would count.

Second possibility is to transmit energy via radio waves (or light or radar... any electromagnetic waves.)
In that case you need either high tech or you need a perfectly fitting antenna and a diode to get the energy out of the wave and into the receiver.
I close my eyes and i imagine that the sun is full of diodes.. where's the antenna? Ok, i continue to close my eyes and i imagine the sun itself, it's full size, is a superlarge antenna fitting to some superslow & big electrical waves. So now. If i accept that the sun is indeed a diode and an antenna at the same time, it could be heated from somewhere else.
Core Question: If the size of the sun is the antenna, why are there suns of different sizes? Why do suns continue to shine after they transform from a yellow star to a red giant? Why do they continue to shine after they repel their outer hull and just a little white dwarf remains?
Ok. Obviously the sun's size is not an antenna. We disregard this thought. It is not the way to receive energy for the sun.

So the empty space is not cunducting and radiowaves are not a fitting mechanism to heat the sun. Where does the electrical current come from these EU guys are dreaming of?

Third. Satellites.
I did ask you a very clear question. Why do people not secure their satellites against vacuum conductivity? You responded something with Van Allen which is clearly not the reason. We have satellites everywhere in the solar system, a lot of them beyond the van allen belt. So if the vacuum is indeed one of the best conductors nearly without resistance, then their electronics should immediately break down as soon as they are inside this vacuum. Just do an experiment: Take a bathtub of water, put salt into it to make it better conductive, throw your computer inside, see if it continues to function. NO don't do it. All the electrical short circuits because of too much conductivity would destroy your computer immediately. So imagine the vacuum plasma with 1 particle per cubic metre would be conuctive - all the sattelites would immediately break down. Why do they function? Again, the test is just to measure the vacuum resistance. You could do it on the earth. Generate a vacuum and measure the resistance. You could ask Zealot to do it inside their brand new machine!

fourth. Double star systems.
There are photos existing. If you deny a photo to be a prove, we can stop the discussion. Just copy and paste "Double Star System" into Google Picture Search. you should rather explain instead of denying them.

fifth. Mad Scientists.
If you think scientists get funded by religious scientist believers, you're wrong. They get funded by anybody who has money to fund them and is interested in their topic. If a scientist fails to deliver results for any reason, his funding gets stopped. There is no central source for funding. One large source is the state, for sure, but a lot of private companies have also their projects running together with the universities. If you think you could convince a private investor with some religious dogma, you're wrong. Scientists are there to produce the basis for new technologies because someone wants to sell these technologies. One of the latest offsprings are for example quantum encryption and quantum bits, which was regarded as impossible some 10 years ago by .... whom? by scientists.

sixth. Fusion.
It is generating energy. It is not denyable.



For your info, Wendelstein in germany developped some new technologies to contain the plasma and to treat the neutron radiation.
JET in the meanwhile, generated energy.
ITER is being built at the moment; and is there to gather all the fusion technologies in one machine to prove it can generate energy in a useable way. Target is to produce 10 times more than it consumes.

[Gold Bearer]

This is going to be a very quick response because I don't have time (or the motivation right now) to write a detailed reponse to all of your points, but I'll do it soon.

First of all, i think Apollon should have better stats. He is a God, after all, so maybe giving him some permanent defense successes on top of his defence dices would be just fine.

I agree.

Before I say something about your arguments, let's please finish what is already on the table.

I posted my questions first.

If we have finished my six points, i will come to yours, i promise, even if I have to read myself into other fields than my own.

Fair enough.

If you want to light up the magnetic forces to 10ˆ7 and drive it by a force which has 10ˆ-2. This is important as you stat the sun is electrically driven.
There is a differrence of 10ˆ9 between them, so you'd need 10ˆ9 square metres of weak magnetic lux to light up one square metre of Sun - assuming that there is some magical process in the EU which allows the gathering and concentrating of Energy in such a scale.
To light up the entire surface of the sun, you'd need a circle of the diamter of the sun (13.8 x 10ˆ6 km ) times 10ˆ9 (then square and pi). That makes (13.8 x 10ˆ15)ˆ2 x pi...

How do you think you know the strength of the current required to power the sun or the volume of space required to produce it? You're making some very broad and completely bassless assumptions and just running with them in a very amusing attempt to refute something that you have very little understanding of. There has been a calculation of the galactic current voltage, I'll see if I can find it.

I don not yet take into account that you want to employ some magic energy gathering mechanism (stretching 145 light years around the sun... woah!)
Forget about the Z-Pinch. This is NOT the mechanism.
Z-Pinch is drawing wires (or plasma) together, if there is electrical current in them flowing in the same directon AND have a strong enough time-gradient to build up magnetic force. If you have no time-gradient then it doesn't apply - so if you want to keep the sun alight several billion years, it doesn't apply on a large scale. If the Z-Pinch would be the answer, the sun would flicker 1 time per second.

You're going to have to elaborate on this. Why exactly would the sun flicker once per second if it were at the focal point of a z-pinch? Also I have no idea what you actually mean by that. Do you mean the whole sun (as in all of it at the same time) would go out for some period of time and then light back up? Why? If you mean individual parts of it would flicker separately then what size? Are we taking a wave that would start at the pole where the current is coming in travel around the outside of the sun? Why would any of this happen?

"energy sucking"

Stop using quotation marks when you're not quoting me!

I disregard your argument about thunder and lighning, as it is obvious you don't know anything about ligning storms it wouldn't be fair to attack you here. It is also not our topic. Just a tip: There is no water in the clouds; it's frozen up there and builds hail clumps big enough to damage airplanes sometimes.

You contradict yourself here. You say there is no water in clouds (of course there is) and then you refer to frozen water in clouds. There is no reason why a charge should be generated by moisture in clouds. Lightning is never explained, they just say it happens when there's clouds. Well this is why. Look up sprites and elves. These are the connections between the clouds and the external electrical current supply. Lightning is very much part of this topic!

Double star systems.
There are photos existing. If you deny a photo to be a prove, we can stop the discussion. Just copy and paste "Double Star System" into Google Picture Search. you should rather explain instead of denying them.

I never denied the existence of double star systems. I said that at least most of them are assumed without any direct observations.

Fusion.
It is generating energy. It is not denyable.

Of course fusion generates energy. That's not the issue. A nuclear explosion is a perfect example of the point I'm making. It would take far more energy to contain a nuclear explosion than the process itself liberates making utterly useless as a sustained source of energy for a star, and stars have to not only contain it but have enough left over energy to put out all the heat and light that they emit. Even if nuclear fusion is shown to be a viable way of producing usable energy, that's obviously not how the sun works when you look at the characteristics of it.

For your info, Wendelstein in germany developped some new technologies to contain the plasma and to treat the neutron radiation.
JET in the meanwhile, generated energy.
ITER is being built at the moment; and is there to gather all the fusion technologies in one machine to prove it can generate energy in a useable way. Target is to produce 10 times more than it consumes.

In 1950 the target was to produce usable energy through nuclear fusion within twenty years.

[cornixt]

Space is a perfect conductor because it has no resistance. That's useless for generating a usable charge that can power anything because electrical energy is actually powered by the resistance in the flow of electrons. The ideal carrier for liberated electrical energy has a tiny resistance. The lower the resistance the better, as long as it has some resistance. Any more resistance than the bare minimum reduces the amount of usable energy because you loose more by restricting the current than what you gain from the resistance itself. Plasma is almost a perfect conductor so that's exactly what's needed.

If you can't even get basic measurable physics correct then I see no hope. Space has loads of resistance (the puns just make themselves). The terms you use don't even make sense in the context you use them. I'm going to have to bow out here, I see no productive resolution is going to occur. You either don't know what you are talking about or you are trolling. Believe whatever you want, the whole dragons and ancient beings makes more sense than anything you have said, regardless of whether EU has any merit or not.

[Gold Bearer]

Space is a perfect conductor because it has no resistance. That's useless for generating a usable charge that can power anything because electrical energy is actually powered by the resistance in the flow of electrons. The ideal carrier for liberated electrical energy has a tiny resistance. The lower the resistance the better, as long as it has some resistance. Any more resistance than the bare minimum reduces the amount of usable energy because you loose more by restricting the current than what you gain from the resistance itself. Plasma is almost a perfect conductor so that's exactly what's needed.

If you can't even get basic measurable physics correct then I see no hope. Space has loads of resistance (the puns just make themselves). The terms you use don't even make sense in the context you use them. I'm going to have to bow out here, I see no productive resolution is going to occur. You either don't know what you are talking about or you are trolling. Believe whatever you want, the whole dragons and ancient beings makes more sense than anything you have said, regardless of whether EU has any merit or not.

You’re the one who’s trolling. All you can say is that doesn’t make sense. You can give no details about why you believe it doesn’t make sense. What I said in that paragraph is accurate. A perfect conductor is useless for liberating energy, because it’s a perfect conductor. If you want usable energy there has to be some resistance. The lower the resistance the better, as long as the medium has some. This is what makes plasma such a good medium for transporting usable electrical currents. This isn’t complicated.

Can I please talk to somebody who has the first clue what they’re talking about and isn’t just mud slinging in the hope that some of it might magically stick.