Space News & Updates!

[UncleWede]

Wait, someone just told me we could beat the speed of light with wormholes. Doesn't that require black holes to begin with??? Now I'm never going to get to see a real alien other than 1MOREMOD

[1MOREMOD]

Watch movies they use real aliens in filming. Big industry secret.

[Axius]

Originally Posted by 1MOREMOD

Watch movies they use real aliens in filming. Big industry secret.

Mars Attacks by far had the best real alien cast ever.

[1MOREMOD]

Are those the wimpy big head variety?

[Axius]

Wimpy. Big head. In a glass sphere. They yell a lot. Have neat-o lazer guns.


Also had the very bangable Natalie Portman and Lisa Marie.

[UncleWede]

And they really shot all of Congress

[Axius]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

And they really shot all of Congress

That scene in itself made for the horrible plot and story line not seem so bad.


That was until reality came back and congress was still in full swing.

[AW335TT]

Originally Posted by DJKapeesh

Just one of the many videos presenting evidence

[u2b]https://youtu.be/KqVOxq7mE48[/u2b]

Wait ... Is the universe no longer a holograph?? I thought the only reason anything exists is because I was observing it and without me, there would be nothing... I don't feel as important anymore :/

[1MOREMOD]

I think it still works that way.

[Doc Oc]

Originally Posted by DJKapeesh

Gravity is about 1/3 earth
Almost no oxygen but the water discovery means we can possibly create water through plants and bacteria



Planetary evidence and finding which do not match previous assumptions which are based on the way we think the universe works. I'm not saying what is right or wrong and I learned the same thing you learned in school, the difference is when I see evidence suggesting otherwise I consider it.

Apparently all these new phenomenons can be explained through a science being labeled the electric universe which can explain why we don't see dirty snow balls flying through space or any signs of the big bang catastrophe like we previously thought we would. The good news is IF the big bang did not happen then the universe is not expanding and getting further away and black holes do not exist. But I does leave a lot of questions to be answered now as well.

I'm lost, what would an electric universe have to do with black holes? I thought we've already proven that they exist at the center of most galaxies....and stars still burn out and supernova to create them, no?

[DJKapeesh]

Originally Posted by Doc Oc

I'm lost, what would an electric universe have to do with black holes? I thought we've already proven that they exist at the center of most galaxies....and stars still burn out and supernova to create them, no?

No... If your interested look at some of the videos on that youtube channel. I am not the best representative for "Walt Thornhill" and his research

[MrPrena]

Originally Posted by DJKapeesh

Gravity is about 1/3 earth
Almost no oxygen but the water discovery means we can possibly create water through plants and bacteria



Planetary evidence and finding which do not match previous assumptions which are based on the way we think the universe works. I'm not saying what is right or wrong and I learned the same thing you learned in school, the difference is when I see evidence suggesting otherwise I consider it.

Apparently all these new phenomenons can be explained through a science being labeled the electric universe which can explain why we don't see dirty snow balls flying through space or any signs of the big bang catastrophe like we previously thought we would. The good news is IF the big bang did not happen then the universe is not expanding and getting further away and black holes do not exist. But I does leave a lot of questions to be answered now as well.

Originally Posted by Doc Oc

I'm lost, what would an electric universe have to do with black holes? I thought we've already proven that they exist at the center of most galaxies....and stars still burn out and supernova to create them, no?

Basically OP believes EMF is more dominant force than gravitational force.
PER MASS, yes, he is right, but it doesn't work like that.


As per High school AP Physics

Coulomb's law is shown below:

F = K*(q1*q2)/r^2

where F is the electrostatic force, K is Coulomb's constant, q1 and q2 are the scalar charges of the two objects, and r is the distance between the two objects. The value of K is 8.987 x 10^9 N*m^2/C^2.

The law of universal gravitation is shown below:

F = G*(m1*m2)/r^2

where F is the gravitational force, G is the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of the two objects, and r is the distance between the two objects. The value of G is 6.67 x 10^-11 N*m^2/kg^2

That being said, the OP is not putting a "density" as a factor.
Even a damn density of Helium (He) would collapse the star from gravity. Of course stars will have a different fate depends on Chandrasekhar Limit.

Even at the density of He is that crazy of a gravity, but imagine if it gets denser and denser due to gravity and the density.
I am not sure if density of black hole is as dense as atomic nuclus/nuclei, but if it is, due to "density" , gravitational as as strong as strong nuclear force.

http://wiki.chemprime.chemeddl.org/i..._Atomic_Nuclei

There are 4 forces. Gravitational, Electro-magnetic, weak Nuclear, and Strong nuclear.

[DJKapeesh]

Originally Posted by Doc Oc

I'm lost, what would an electric universe have to do with black holes? I thought we've already proven that they exist at the center of most galaxies....and stars still burn out and supernova to create them, no?

Super nova you say?

Stars exploding you say?

Stars have been observed to be born in clouds in space or nebula's, similar to how lightning strikes in our sky and we have no idea how or why for sure. In fact we don't even know why the lightning is hotter than the temperature of our sun.

Originally Posted by MrPrena

Basically OP believes EMF is more dominant force than gravitational force.
PER MASS, yes, he is right, but it doesn't work like that.


As per High school AP Physics



That being said, the OP is not putting a "density" as a factor.
Even a damn density of Helium (He) would collapse the star from gravity. Of course stars will have a different fate depends on Chandrasekhar Limit.

Even at the density of He is that crazy of a gravity, but imagine if it gets denser and denser due to gravity and the density.
I am not sure if density of black hole is as dense as atomic nuclus/nuclei, but if it is, due to "density" , gravitational as as strong as strong nuclear force.

http://wiki.chemprime.chemeddl.org/i..._Atomic_Nuclei

There are 4 forces. Gravitational, Electro-magnetic, weak Nuclear, and Strong nuclear.

You assume black holes are fact and "proven" but proven how? In fact there is a video of so called black hole not devouring gas cloud passing by and again scientist come up with another "adaptation" to the rules since we are so "fixated" on the idea that it MUST be right.

http://www.nature.com/news/why-galactic-black-hole-fireworks-were-a-flop-1.15591

What about a neutron star too then, dense matter right? Again more bending science to understand the unknown instead of considering alternatives. Here is another video explaining this theory relating to an electric dominant universe:

On a final note this is a great conversation and look forward to some more opinions and responses.

[DJKapeesh]

Originally Posted by Axius

I would think we would end up extinct before we could figure out a way to efficiently travel to, collect abundant resources for human life, and THEN turn around and bring it all back to earth. No?

Maybe not, all a matter of understanding the proper physics and relationships in the universe which may eventually lead to light speed or better.

Originally Posted by MrPrena

Basically OP believes EMF is more dominant force than gravitational force.
PER MASS, yes, he is right, but it doesn't work like that.


As per High school AP Physics



That being said, the OP is not putting a "density" as a factor.
Even a damn density of Helium (He) would collapse the star from gravity. Of course stars will have a different fate depends on Chandrasekhar Limit.

Even at the density of He is that crazy of a gravity, but imagine if it gets denser and denser due to gravity and the density.
I am not sure if density of black hole is as dense as atomic nuclus/nuclei, but if it is, due to "density" , gravitational as as strong as strong nuclear force.

http://wiki.chemprime.chemeddl.org/i..._Atomic_Nuclei

There are 4 forces. Gravitational, Electro-magnetic, weak Nuclear, and Strong nuclear.

One last thing for another discovery and related to Einstein
Part 1

Part2

[MrPrena]

OP, which academic institute (astrophysics/physics dept) adopted "Electric Universe" hypothesis?

[DJKapeesh]

Originally Posted by MrPrena

OP, which academic institute (astrophysics/physics dept) adopted "Electric Universe" hypothesis?

My point exactly, they have not. But the question should be why not consider it?
(*edit* not entirely true because the experiments are being held in a laboratory at an institution I will find the name for u later)

But when you have scientist celebrity's for the first time in today's society "Stephen Hawkings" where his fame and fortune comes from these philosophy's it is very difficult from a quack to come from left field with a whole new idea of science.

Lets see some other examples of this:

"The credit the earth was round is usually given to the Greek philosopher Pythagoras and his school, although several of his contemporaries also believed the Earth was round. Almost 2000 years before Columbus was born, these ancient Greeks argued that because the moon was a shphere and the sun was a sphere, the Earth should be a sphere."

"It was not until the 16th century that a geometric mathematical model of a heliocentric system was presented, by the Renaissance mathematician, astronomer, and Catholic cleric Nicolaus Copernicus, leading to the Copernican Revolution. In the following century, Johannes Kepler elaborated upon and expanded this model to include elliptical orbits, and Galileo Galilei presented supporting observations made using a telescope."

I would not be surprised if in the future we are forced to at least "change how we think" based on actual evidence we are seeing.

Notice that up to this point the most common statement coming from scientist at NASA and other institutes are "We are not sure".

We are not sure why we are seeing mountainous ridges and no ice on a comet which was thought to be a dirty snowball.

We are not sure why Pluto has so much diversity on the surface and mountainous ridges and craters when the atmosphere doesn't support it. How it can be so far from the sun but still exhibit a comet like tail.

Great Conversation

[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by MrPrena

OP, which academic institute (astrophysics/physics dept) adopted "Electric Universe" hypothesis?

Ummm... Youtube! I have like 3 PhDs from Youtube.

[DJKapeesh]

Originally Posted by dreamingat30fps

Ummm... Youtube! I have like 3 PhDs from Youtube.

It's just easier to present the news via video rather than multiple reading articles. You can learn a lot on youtube now a days tho.

[Axius]

Originally Posted by DJKapeesh

It's just easier to present the news via video rather than multiple reading articles. You can learn a lot on youtube now a days tho.

Youtube is the video version of Wikipedia where anyone can post just about anything, and as long as it sounds good, anything can be believable to the right audience.

Like a guy posting a Youtube how to change oil. First, add new oil, then take off the filter, turn the car on and let it run to mix the oils together to cleanse the system for about 20 minutes with the foot on the throttle. Once the oil has been properly mixed, and captured, turn the car off, put the new filter on, refill with newly mixed oil. BADABOOM!



All I'm saying is everything online needs to be dictated and researched well beyond Youtubes, blogs, and articles written by incoherent 'scholars' basing things off their opinions.

[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by Axius

Youtube is the video version of Wikipedia where anyone can post just about anything, and as long as it sounds good, anything can be believable to the right audience.

Like a guy posting a Youtube how to change oil. First, add new oil, then take off the filter, turn the car on and let it run to mix the oils together to cleanse the system for about 20 minutes with the foot on the throttle. Once the oil has been properly mixed, and captured, turn the car off, put the new filter on, refill with newly mixed oil. BADABOOM!



All I'm saying is everything online needs to be dictated and researched well beyond Youtubes, blogs, and articles written by incoherent 'scholars' basing things off their opinions.

Yeah but that's hard and takes waaay too much time. How will I have time then to spread all my amazing new knowledge to the fine people on facebook??

[DJKapeesh]

Originally Posted by Axius

Youtube is the video version of Wikipedia where anyone can post just about anything, and as long as it sounds good, anything can be believable to the right audience.

Like a guy posting a Youtube how to change oil. First, add new oil, then take off the filter, turn the car on and let it run to mix the oils together to cleanse the system for about 20 minutes with the foot on the throttle. Once the oil has been properly mixed, and captured, turn the car off, put the new filter on, refill with newly mixed oil. BADABOOM!



All I'm saying is everything online needs to be dictated and researched well beyond Youtubes, blogs, and articles written by incoherent 'scholars' basing things off their opinions.

100% agree.

Again not endorsing any science as fact because "I did not do the research"

But if you do your research on "Walt Thornhill" who I have emailed personally and been to a convention where he spoke, then you will know he is legit.

Hope this interested someone to at least read about some of these things

[Axius]

Originally Posted by dreamingat30fps

Yeah but that's hard and takes waaay too much time. How will I have time then to spread all my amazing new knowledge to the fine people on facebook??

Hire a 19yo blonde secretary. You're new to this aren't you?

Originally Posted by DJKapeesh

100% agree.

Again not endorsing any science as fact because "I did not do the research"

But if you do your research on "Walt Thornhill" who I have emailed personally and been to a convention where he spoke, then you will know he is legit.

Hope this interested someone to at least read about some of these things

I enjoy reading up on stuff like this, and I think everything about human life, planetary expeditions, extraterrestrial skepticism, etc. is pretty astounding. I just hate that you literally have to filter through the bullshit (like everything I guess), to find factual information that hasn't been bastardized by someone's own opinion.

Problem is, too many people are so eager to believe the first thing they read or hear, which I credit to Wikipedia and Youtube (and yes, there is pertinent and accurate information on both if you know what you're looking for).