Science Vs Science Fiction

Yep.

Except I couldn't find any ICP ones I was really happy with that didn't circumvent the language filter. ._.

You should put all your other reading on hold and check these out first. I think it would answer most of your questions.

Dark Energy & Matter theories? Yeah... then I'll learn about Spaghettification. On to Pulsars being Alien communication devices. Forward full force until I break down and join some religious fraction. Trying to seperate or combine all these fantasies into one concise vision of a perfect undisputable conviction of devine revelations.

I'll just watch the Movie instead. More entertaining.

Yeah, it's called science. Theories are prevalent in science.

That's what separates the scientists from the lunatics.

Im not honestly sure why everytime I read/hear something Sci-Fi along the lines of Spaghettification, Time Travel and actual Holes in Space. They always refer back to Einstein crediting his work. In any regard. I hope they find what they're searching for. Til they do. Im not interested.

Because It's "Science Fiction," not "Space Fantasy."

A key tenant of science fiction is basing your fictitious creations on some sort of real life basis. Even if doing so is entirely inaccurate. It lends it a credibility in that fictional universe.

It doesn't mean it applies in any way to real life...

Albert Einstein 1879-1955 traveled the Galaxies explaining everything. Anything that does not fit perfectly into such equations must be revisioned into a more cohesive understanding.

I live in the US. Ask me about China. I'll create some mathematical equations based on my understanding of what I know here applying such to there. Now I know everything. Anything disturbing my pristine vision must be met w/ more theories further enhancing my understanding of things I have yet to even prove.

2000yrs from now. Im sure all theories will turn to fact. Maybe even sooner. Planet-X/9 will be a glowing beacon of hope for all of humanity. Mark my words. Along w/ the rest of everything mentioned.

You're literally just speaking gibberish now. Stringing words together in such a way that could be mistaken for sentence structure if someone wasn't paying enough attention...

BUT WAIT. MARK TWAIN WAS ON THE ENTERPRISE (WILL BE ON THE ENTERPRISE? DAMN YOU TIME TRAVEL GRAMMAR!) I HAVE PHOTOGRAPHICAL EVIDENCE.

I just finished reading this thread and he's been doing that since the beginning. After a certain mass of evidence theory's are accepted as fact until someone disproves them. Accepting a theory doesn't mean accepting it absolutely, just that until something "better" comes along that's what you work with. Scientists are always looking for that "something better", constantly criticizing and analyzing theories looking for inconsistencies and making attempts to revise and / or replace them. Unless it's about Global Warming, then it's taboo and "already settled"....

Why do we create new Theories to uphold and support older Theories?
That is the problem. So even when I agree 110%. Now Im talking gibberish. Right.

Ian Brown has a really good series about space combat and how lots of advanced tech would change our lives. It does make a few jumps, namely in us being capable of drawing power from quantum foam via zero point energy (super theoretical) and then being able to use that power to rapidly generate miniature black holes that flicker and move in front of a space ship. He really pays attention to the concepts of time and how slow light speed really is in the vastness of space.

People always assume that when the Klingons show up we can suddenly "see" them the moment they arrive, but in actuality space is so vast and light so slow that it would take hours minutes to hours before we even knew they were there. If they had that same gravity manipulation technology then they could get a small ship to accelerate so fast that it would arrive mere minutes after it's initial light signature was detected. And lets not forget what happens when an object moving at a high percentage of c impacts another object.

Why do you keep referencing Spaghetification, time travel and holes in space? Spaghetification is just a goofy way of describing one of the possible things that could happen to you if you were to approach a blackhole. The idea is based on fact however. gravity affects things more the closer you are to the center of the mass. So as you approach a black hole, in theory, your feet would be pulled faster than your legs which are pulled faster than your hips etc etc and you stretch out. But its one of those things that you are focused on that really has no bearing on anything else. We have already proved gravity affects things differently depending on your altitude.
example:
The acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the earth (assuming equatorial radius) is 9.8 m/s2

Mt. Everest has an elevation of 8848 meters, so the acceleration due to gravity there will be around 9.77 m/s2
which is only a difference of approximately 0.43 %.

You also mention time travel. Thats science fiction at the moment.
Time dilation is real. Its proven. Gravity effects time. Our GPS technology has programing built into it to account for the time dilation. The more mass = the more gravity = the more time dilation. So you could get close enough to a massive object and you would experience time differently than people not close to the massive object. Again this is all confirmed and real. the proof is in the technology in many cars and is in every cell phone on earth.

Holes in space? Do you mean back holes? Thats just a name. They dont look like holes. They would actually look like black planets. and they could also have white hot material swirling around them and crazy swirling light visuals.
Like this:



Actually this is closer to what it would look like:

What data suggests planets hurling into one another creating Orbits beyond the notion of making a greater theory from a smaller one?

Like I said. Even when I agree. Gibberish.

Akson, I have to ask: what exactly are you trying to figure out? This thread is difficult for me to parse, because it seems like every time someone tries to help guide you down a path that would be beneficial to your understanding of astronomy and cosmology, you move your goal posts and/or argue for the sake of arguing.

I don't think you're trolling, and judging by the very patient replies from other posters, many of them don't seem to think you're trolling, either.

But at this point, I feel like it might behoove you to refine your questions. I'm honestly not sure what your questions really are at this point.

It's fine to question the establishment, but to utterly reject the establishment because it doesn't have the answers to every single one of your questions is short-sighted.

If you are looking for Absolute Truth, you won't find it here, nor on YouTube, nor... anywhere, really. It won't be beamed directly into your head. Science is a process of observing and understanding. Is it a perfect process? No, but until there's a major paradigm shift, it's the best process we humans have been able to come up with in regards to understanding the world around us.

I understand.
Which is why I say what I say.

Theoretically speaking using gravity to propell an object through space is not as cool as using gravity to pull space to an object.

Ofc not. Why would I bother.

You say that like it's a bad thing

It wasnt even I whom said such.
Stringing theories together in agreeance. While obviously doing such in a jokingly fashion. Equals gibberish. Apparently.

I dont know China. I can claim I do or try to yet. Unless Im actually there formulating what I know about the world around me does not necessarily define China. Adding onto such philosophies continuously nonstop... (some *** idiot partial quote from page13)
Dont blame me. I fully agreed w/ all of it. Jokingly but still... agreeing = agreeing

Please explain the China comparison to me. This is the second time you've used it, so it seems to have meaning to you, but that meaning is currently lost on me.

From my perspective, yes; science helps us understand China. China is part of our natural world. Trees in China photosynthesize the same way trees in the US do. Are there perhaps different indigenous species of trees in China? Sure! But they're still trees!

Do you think human biology is functionally different in China? Is your point that it could be, simply because you yourself have never observed it? If so, then that could be promising science fiction (eg. Chinese people are advanced fungal lifeforms imitating the rest of humanity), but science fact would prove that demonstrably false.

Otherwise I fear you may be conflating science with social science, which are in fact two different fields, despite what similarities they may share. If you are thinking about the culture or economics of China, these are facets of social science and you're not helping your case by comparing those facets to astronomy.

But this is me guessing. I'd rather you explain your point of view with regard to referencing China so that I don't have to guess.

Please explain the China comparison to me. Dont worry about it. Nothing any Theorycrafting about the unknown that we cannot fix. Like discovering Planets that dont even exist or collisions of planets forming Solar Systems that we never even seen transpire to begin w/. How big must the structure of theories be exactly before the original theory deteoriates into thin air.
Idfk and idfc any longer. I ask questions showing how such original theoritical explanations cannot be and all I get is another theory building upon the original unproven vision.

Sure thing. It's your thread. Carry on.