Scientists now confirm superheavy element 114! (Antigravity), page 9

Hello everyone.

I would like to comment on some of the things we have heard about the confirmation of the existence of element 114 during the course of these posts. My post will include many quotes of previous posts, links to articles, direct quotes of things mentioned in the videos that were previously provided and other dizzying stuff, so bear with me for a moment. I hope that this will clear out any misconceptions you may have about the subject at hand.

Let’s start with the first post.

“Lifttheveil” writes:

So, yet another fact mentioned by Ufologists has been confirmed that has been previously ridiculed and denied, I think the (un) official line till now was it was a Russian myth that Ufologists jumped on, Steve Greer must be happy at this recent revelation, or should I say, confirmation

Actually, the possibility of the existence of superheavy elements was never disputed by the scientific community. As a matter of fact, there was a stipulation during the late ‘60s about the possibility of finding stable elements around element 114. The oldest article I could find was written by Robert W. Holcomb and posted on the 5th December 1969 issue of Science magazine.

(Reference: “Heavy Elements: A Feud over 104 and a Future for 114.” Robert W. Holcomb. Science. 5 December 1969. 166: 1254-1255)

There was a very informative video, provided by “SaturnFX”, where an actual professor from the University of Nottingham explains why this confirmation is so important. If you missed, it you can see the video here.

From the above video, I would like you to keep some things, which explain the basis of every scientific process. I will place them here with timeframes from the video:

3:08-3:32 : Now, the real importance of this experiment is that the original work in Russia has been repeated somewhere else. Nobody doubts it that the Russian experiment was correct, but it is a general principle of science that nobody believes an experiment completely until it has been repeated.

3:42-4:02 : But, of course, just because the same person does the same thing twice, they might be making the same mistake without realizing it. So, if somebody else, using completely different equipment in a completely different lab, does the same experiment and gets the same results, then everybody will believe it.

This explains the (quite arduous) process required for something to become widely accepted in the scientific community. Otherwise, anyone could claim anything is true, like the amazing post of “ZombieOctopus” demonstrates!!!

Claims are irrelevant until they are proven to be correct. For example, someone could say that “the system around the X star, which is Y light years away from Earth, is comprised of 11 planets and planet #4 away from the star is inhabited by intelligent life”. Until there is a way to go there, take actual measurements and confirm it, this is just an unsubstantiated claim.

It is also important to mention that the confirmation of the (very, very, very short) existence of element 114 has nothing to do with claims about the existence of element 115. Element 114 was observed after the fusion of Plutonium (or “Element 94”) with Calcium (or “Element 20”) (94 + 20 =114 protons. See! Real science isn’t so difficult to understand!).

After a short period of time, it broke down to other, smaller elements.

Please remember that, when we say that an element is “stable” we do not mean “solid” (although all elements that are solid in room temperatures are also stable). Being “stable” means that the element can remain in its original form (not decay) long enough for us to do something with it. Sorry about the short lecture. I thought it was relevant.

To be continued...