In my most recent video presentation, I discussed new scientific discoveries that completely rewrite astronomers’
ideas about planet and star formation. Technological data is now routinely suggesting that both planet and star
formation appear to happen on a time scale that is not reconcilable with the slow gradual processes in gravitational
theory. Of course, this only supports a foundational tenet of the Electric Universe which has always proposed that
in a universe where electromagnetism governs the formation of celestial objects, every concept of cosmological time
scales must be completely rethought. Today, the surprises in stellar science continue. Indeed, the discovery I'll be
discussing today challenges the bedrock of astronomer's ideas about the formation of stars. Please note that this
will be part one of a two-part presentation. The subsequent episode will address new discoveries by the James Webb
Space Telescope of galaxies in the so-called ‘Early Universe’ which quote “go beyond what is possible,” which is to say
they are beyond any explanation for mainstream cosmologists. Recently a team of
scientists working with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey discovered a star whose chemical composition is completely
inexplicable, falsifying multiple bedrock theoretical assumptions about the origins and end of a star's life.
Assumptions about the early Big Bang Universe and assumptions about the formation of hypothetical black holes.
The January 15th Science Alert headline, ”Ancient Gigantic Star Exploded in a Way We Didn't Think Was Possible” summarizes
the discovery as follows. “A strange star in the Milky Way bears the signature of a unique explosion of a giant star that
once existed billions of years ago in the era of the cosmic dawn. The chemical composition of the extant star known as
J0931+0038 is so weird that it can only be made up of the leftovers of a huge
star, one at least 50 times the mass of the Sun, that created the elements before it went supernova.” “And this is even
weirder. A star that massive should, according to theory, have collapsed directly into a black hole when it died -
do not pass supernova, do not collect weird element abundances.” The star in question is a low-mass red giant star
whose full light spectrum scientists observed for the first time in 2019 in a region called the Milky Way Halo. As
noted in the above article, this chemical composition is quote, “...unlike anything ever seen before. It was astonishingly
low in elements with odd numbers on the periodic table, like sodium and aluminum, but rich in elements close to iron,
like nickel and zinc. And then the abundances of elements heavier than iron, such as strontium and palladium, were much
higher than they should have been.” Now, in a paper accepted into the Astrophysical Journal Letters, the scientists propose
that the impossible star must have formed from the leftover material of a primordial star 50 to 80 times the mass
of the Sun. But again, here is the contradiction in their reasoning. In standard cosmology, any star
that size is expected to gravitationally collapse inward rather than explode outward as the scientists speculate. The
co-leader of the research, astronomer Sanjana Curtis acknowledges the quandary as
follows. “Amazingly, no existing model of element formation can explain what we see.... It's not just, ‘oh you can tweak
something here and there and it'll work out -- the whole pattern of elements almost seems self-contradictory.” Now this
discovery brings into focus a number of foundational theories in astrophysics today, including solar physics, gravity-
centric cosmology, and Big Bang cosmology, that the Electric Universe has always challenged. Number 1, that stars are
powered by nuclear fusion at their cores and they gravita- tionally collapse when they run out of nuclear fuel. Number 2,
that stars form from the material left over from other stars that exploded as supernovas. Number 3, that the
earliest stars formed from the chemical components immediately available after the hypothetical Big Bang which is
currently estimated to have occurred about 13.8 billion years ago. Although a recent scientific paper actually
proposed doubling the speculative age of the universe to over 26 billion years old, in light of the massively
problematic data from the James Webb Space Telescope. Number 4, that massive stars are expected to gravitationally
collapse into black holes. Hypothetical neutron stars are also speculative, massively dense objects that supposedly form
when stars gravitationally collapse. And finally (5.) all of cosmology continues to operate under the incredible assumption
that the Big Bang actually happened. First, on point number 1, this provides a quick opportunity to explain why I and
others in the Electric Universe community recognize the need to distinguish between plasma cosmology and
the Electric Universe. Probably the most significant theoretical disagreement between the adjacent theories is that
plasma cosmology subscribes to the notion that stars are powered by nuclear fusion at their cores. Although plasma
cosmologists do propose that electromagnetic processes are involved in forming stars and galaxies. This is
also a chance to correct what might be the worst pseudo criticism against the Electric Universe I've ever encountered
and that is the claim that the EU denies the existence of solar neutrinos. This of course is absolutely false. While the EU
does not view stars as quote ”nuclear campfires in the sky” as Wal Thornhill used to colorfully describe
them, it is always recognized that nuclear reactions absolutely happen on the Sun. But in the Electric Universe
these phenomena occur on the quote ”surface of the Sun.” As Wal Thornhill wrote decades ago, the Electric Sun model
expects far more complex heavy element synthesis to take place in the natural particle accelerators and the
photospheric lightning discharges. In that case, all of the various neutrino flavors are generated on the Sun.
What actually happens in the core of any star is not settled science at all. Indeed, the first ever episode of Space
News addressed the problem of the Sun's apparent missing convection. The internal activity that helioseismologists
inferred, suggested only about 1 or 2% of the convection that the standard model requires. It is also not correct that the
problem of missing neutrinos has actually been resolved. Decades ago, scientists on Earth discovered that they
could only detect about one-third of the neutrinos predicted by the standard model. Science headlines pronounced in
the early 2000s that the mystery was settled, that the quote 'missing neutrinos’ change flavor on their journey from the
center of the Sun to the Earth. However, as Wal Thornhill explained in our 2014 video, “Solar neutrinos in the Electric
Universe,” there can be no confirmation of neutrino oscillation between the Sun and the Earth without simultaneous neutrino
measurements being made near the Sun. And of course that poses formidable experimental problems. As we've pointed
out many times, almost every visible feature on the Sun challenges the belief that the Sun is internally powered. For
any newcomer seeking background on the Electric Universe model of the Sun as an externally powered electrical discharge
phenomenon, I recommend the fairly recent three-part Thunderbolt series by Dr. Donald Scott culminating with the
episode entitled “Indeed Our Sun is Electric.” Watch that series of videos, then see if the endless string of
surprising discoveries we're discussing here begin to make more sense. Let me reiterate how important it is not to
interpret this discovery of yet another quote “Impossible Star” as if it's an isolated anomaly. It's the opposite of an
anomaly. It's a pattern demanding not ad hoc tweaks of popular theory, but rather entirely new theoretical pathways. Again,
revisiting my earliest Space News presentations, I'm reminded of the discovery in 2012 of the so-called
’Oldest Star Ever Observed’ at that time, which was called the closest ever seen to the Big Bang Universe. That star was
composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, thus astronomer's inference of the star's primordial origins. But in
’standard reasoning’, such a low-mass star requires the presence of heavier elements in order to form. As the lead
author of a Nature paper on the discovery said, “A widely accepted theory predicts that stars like this, with low
mass and extremely low quantities of metals, shouldn't exist because the clouds of material from which they
formed could never have condensed.” Just a few weeks ago, I discussed in a Thunderbolts video the observations of
multiple other quote “impossible stars” including the smallest ever observed so-called ‘brown dwarf’ star whose
formation was described as gravitationally impossible. I also discussed new evidence of impossibly early
planet formation about the disk of a star. And I can't count the number of times I've discussed the filamentary
network seen in star-forming regions in nebular clouds, filaments whose constant
width is only explicable by the presence of electric currents. In the Electric Universe, stars form from whatever
material is available in a molecular cloud at the time. And it is not possible to tell the age of a star in the
Electric Universe. And of course, the Electric Universe did not begin with a Big Bang. On the question of the end of a
star's life, I encourage viewers to review the March 6, 2020 interview I did of Wal Thornhill, entitled “Supernovas,
Neutron Stars and Black Holes Break The Rules.” We began that interview with the discussion of the so-called ‘zombie star’,
a star that was observed to explode multiple times over a period of half a century. The description of that
impossible star from a Phys.org report is painfully familiar. “The finding, published
by Nature, completely confounds existing knowledge of a star's end of life... somehow, this star exploded more than
half a century ago, survived, and exploded again in 2014.” In that interview I think that Wal offered the most comprehensive
explanation we've ever recorded on the life and death of a star in the Electric Universe. This includes preferable
alternatives to the story of a star gravitationally collapsing into massively dense objects. Neutron stars
were an incredible hypothetical conjecture whose very existence has been repeatedly challenged, if not refuted, by
science discovery. We've discussed many times observations of so-called ‘neutron stars’ that literally break the laws of
physics. This includes neutron stars that shatter the Eddington limit, as well as a neutron star whose pulsar signal is
apparently so rapid, it would require the object to mechanically spin like a
lighthouse at about one quarter of the speed of light, or over 70,000 km/s. In contrast, the peer-reviewed
paper co-authored by Dr. Anthony Peratt explains pulsars as essentially an electrical oscillation whose ideal
analog is found on Earth in the device called the ion trap. Unfortunately, this experimentally verified peer-reviewed
plasma physics explanation receives no attention in the world of astrophysics. All of this goes to say that the entire
story of the origins, life and death of a star, is a story whose foundational tenets have been systematically
undermined and dismantled by science discovery. And you can't separate this story from the larger story of The Big
Bang origins of the universe. Let me repeat the remark by astronomer Sanjana Curtis on the impossible chemical
composition of the Milky Way star J0931+0038. ”Amazingly, no existing model of element
formation can explain what we see....It's not just, ‘oh, you can tweak something here and there and it'll work
out -- the whole pattern of elements almost seems self-contradictory.” Indeed, as
you'll see in my next presentation, cosmologists’ habit of tweaking popular
theories, even in the light of self-contradiction, has led inexorably to the long recognized crisis in cosmology.
What does a crisis call for, other than a willingness to explore radical new
perspectives? Perspectives such as those offered by the Electric Universe and plasma cosmology.
[Music]