Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sonjouten05

  1. You just need pressure to make it condense right? Cooling the temperature while slowly increasing the pressure should allow it to bind appropriately into a solid block of hydrogen. From there bombard it with an energetic high neutron containing isotope of a radioactive element (preferably one that can be produced on site and has a relatively short halflife) the energy by the particles decaying and the neutrons produced should locally fuse a substantial margin of the hydrogen atoms, as to whether you can produce more than our current methods that aren't breaking even.. probably. Seems a little more efficient and easier to do (assuming the idea radioactive isotope isn't rare/expensive/over radioactive.
  2. its not science i have issue with. it is it's "witnesses"
  3. i actually love the scientific method, but i also understand the nature of the world. you tell the wrong person the truth and they will "watch the world burn" so to speak. i am actually big fans of both relativity and evolution, i think theyre more or less as accurate as we could expect being human. But i also know that they replaced almost equally believed theories at the time. I believe in science, but i know its either incomplete or hidden, there are many reasons to hide the most powerful aspects mind you... Hiroshima tells us that much..
  4. It's been speculated that hydrogen.. at the right pressure is a metal (been theorized since the creation of the current periodic table which is why its the only gas in the metal section, and also thought to be in Jupiter's core).. Wouldnt such a material be easier to fuse than say.. regular hydrogen gas? obviously its a solid its coulomb limit is much different, its proton's spacing being much closer than in a normal gas form. Does make interesting questions in regards to its superconductivity.. would it even reach that state? or would it be similar to pure uranium and just.. "not"
  5. Think about it... the most "up to date" theories we have regarding the parts of physics and science in general (Relativity cant be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, neither can even evolution.. but its the most accurate explanations in their perspective fields)
  6. its using the magnified rays to heat up water and turn turbines, right?
  7. Its been theorized for a couple of hundred years or so, but according to my theory.. its the balanced corotation of a positron and and electron.. what makes me come to that conclusion? Where does the electrons om the sun go? Straight up creating its magnetic field. Making an electron imbalance with it and the normal "ether". Positrons, electrons and neutrino all have similar mass making them all different electrical charges of the same particle.
  8. Perhaps space is just a weird union of positrons and electrons (lowest measurable units of mass, also known as the ether) and dark mass/energy is a result of their imbalances (some mixing some not) as a result of time flow imbalances.
  9. I believe due to the nature of the universe that life in and of itself is actually quite "common place." I believe its on all the planets and even the sun, but exists in such a way its either too primative or too advanced for us to know thats what it is. My evidence is speculative at best i know, but for one thing Extremophiles (the fact that closer to earth based life can handle such extremes), any compound whether its a molecule or a compex super organism will survive til it can't. Evidence two, storm systems by a vague definition are living things. They reproduce, grow, consume, require gases, use electrical energy or produce it, etc.. storm on jupiter? Thousand year old life form. Makes you wonder what else is under there huh?
  10. Mostly due to its similarities to electromagnetism, and the fact that time has an "obvious flow" to it. The tricky part but totally cool, gravitational semi conductors, capable of computing literally on a whole nother level.
  11. i think multiple time particles exist, but.. the chances of them affecting a local area enough to notice are significantly lower than the whole galaxy's flow of time. This possibly explains why some galaxies are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light( the relative speed of light's difference between both planes are so different, that it kinda just appears that way) in other words it seems like such a long distance from galaxy to galaxy because its flow of time is *negligible from our perspective. it should fit in with relativity, i dont see why not.
  12. Ironically i think its one per galaxy or whatever but it goes so fast it hits every "space" within it in our interpretation of the smallest of a second. It being so fast and small is of course why well never find it.
  13. Just its relationship with electromagnetism (not some force but very different cousin)Time flows through space and makes gravity like electrons going through metals make electromagnetic waves.
  14. How can you explain the flow of time without implying a charge? (Past and future), + -
  15. Time has a charge, equal but different than electromagnetism. Thats why it flows, my guess is its dependant on the local geometry separate from the universe as a whole. (Alternate dimension)
  16. The initial problem is containing the "space/time" i know that. But *obviously it can be done. My suggestion is really just seeing what we can do or come close to with our current technology and see if we can hold it for any amount of time in electromagnet containment. Similar to what they use for fusion chambers. Go from there.
  17. Well yeah, except that.. the speed of light depends highly on the medium it goes through (completely stops on walls), id imagine gravity has a similar effect relative to the observer.
  18. Because the velocity of the gravitational waves change relative to a stationary observer. Different speeds will be needed if around earths immediate gravity field because ones set for empty space will crush on earth, etc..
  19. Dude, the gravity produced pulling on the wall of the device is the universe 's at large. Time dilation will surely effect the relative gravitational pull wouldn't it?
  20. Newton was smart as heck, just so you know.. just a product of his environment.. but it uses a lot of concepts of relativity and in all honesty provides the most logical explanation for the fermi paradox (and oddly tells us we underestimated the amount of sapient sentient life) because their species lifetime is probably astronomical comparatively. Like seriously, what do you think neutron stars really are? Sun sized in about 5 sq miles? Sounds like alien to me.
  21. i dont see a non rotating mass holding together very long, even if its gravitational mass is substantial, theyre surely moving in some way undetected. if you ever watched dbz, it would be close to the effects of the hyperbolic time chamber, but a big ball fixed on the inside with gravity pushing out. the walls of the chamber will be the ground of the environment, if youve ever had a bucket full of water spinning it very fast youd see exactly what i mean. think of it as an inverse planet, with its sun its core.
  22. slightly outside, just enough for the desired effects. according to relativity it is possible, and actually llikely when you consider the logical nature of the fermi paradox( the universe is simply to big for it to be *true)
  23. those affects are due to its core being there, were not simulating the core of a black hole, just the effects in its immediate gravitational effect on its environment(time dilation, space compression, etc..)
  24. Does a black hole not do that? to space-time i mean? close to the singularity it slows down things and squeezing it.. etc. i think its worth trying, dont you? gather data from that and go from there.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.