Відео

Comments like that shows a bias and the probability that you´re American is very high.

Most of what China does is with stolen technologies. Under communism, is it hard to innovate and invent. So they steal secrets from others.

🎉😢

US still debating whether they’re male or female

We are talking about tiny tiny amounts of fusion, so the released energy is not Sun level amounts of energy. A lot of energy, but it can be captured and contained.

f'ken magnets, how do they work?

The sun also has huge gravity. We don't have that so need to compensate with higher temperatures.

We have to compensate with extra energy, for the HUGE pressure at the Sun's core.

Great question from the peanut gallery today 🎉🎉🎉❤ I had the same thought 💭

Ummm, yea it does. Not to the visual eye using small amounts like Earth's gravity, but looking at the extreme, a black hole sucks EVERYTHING in it....even light. That's how we can find black holes a kachillion miles away right now - the lack of starlight in areas where it should be. Ergo (using what we presently know about science) light is affected by gravity if strong enough.

Yes it does, lol

@ Are Einstein's light claims bent? On the 29th of May 1919, British Astronomer Arthur Eddington and clockmaker Edwin Cottingham set up a temporary observatory on the Equatorial island of Principe, just off the West Coast of Africa. Simultaneously, a second team had set up an observatory in Sobral, Brazil. Their collective intention was to test the theories laid down by one Albert Einstein and prove once and for all if Einstein's predicted gravitational influence on light was correct. The occasion was a rare Equatorial Solar Eclipse, offering a perfect opportunity to take a series of photographic plates using astrographic equipment. The intention was to record the position of stars adjacent to the Sun on the day of the eclipse and then compare the positions of the stars relative to images taken some months prior- or later. This, they believed, would determine whether the mass of the Sun in the foreground had distorted (bent) the otherwise straight path of the light coming from the star to the lens. The teams took their images, with the Sobral team remaining a few months to collect more before announcing their results. The results did indeed show a distortion in the light path from the background stars. This revelation became international news. Eddington secured his place in history and Einstein was celebrated as the great science champion of our age. However, there's a fly in their ointment: Nowhere in the records published on the experiments had either team considered Solar atmospheric refraction. You see, the Sun's atmosphere extends some 9 million kilometres from the solar surface- that's SEVEN TIMES the Sun's diameter! Why is this significant? In terms of physics, an atmosphere (a combination of gases held in physical cohesion by the gravity generated by a large mass) is considered a fluid. Fluids are known to bend light in a phenomenon we call "refraction". This is the same effect as a glass lens or a body of water. In terms of the experiments of Eddington et al, the solar atmosphere extended beyond the outer edges of the astrographic plates. Since no mention is made of the solar atmosphere in any of the papers published by either team, we must assume that they failed to account for the effects of atmospheric refraction in their observations. Therefore, we cannot discount the possibility that what they in fact recorded was the distortion caused by the solar atmosphere and not by gravity, as they- and Einstein- had claimed. Furthermore, it is claimed that the only mass large enough to distort light is that of a star however, there is no phenomenon that cannot be replicated in a laboratory. A simple proof of the idea that light can be distorted by the gravitational potential of a mass may be proved with a large lump of Osmium- the densest material known to man- and a laser beam! Yet, we have no record of any such experiment and therefore no secondary corroboration of a claimed phenomenon that upholds all of the more outlandish claims of twentieth-century physical science! We are (apparently) forced to accept that Eddington's observation was a good experiment and that gravity bends light on that basis, and that basis alone! It stretches credulity beyond reasonable limits

@ Are Einstein's light claims bent? On the 29th of May 1919, British Astronomer Arthur Eddington and clockmaker Edwin Cottingham set up a temporary observatory on the Equatorial island of Principe, just off the West Coast of Africa. Simultaneously, a second team had set up an observatory in Sobral, Brazil. Their collective intention was to test the theories laid down by one Albert Einstein and prove once and for all if Einstein's predicted gravitational influence on light was correct. The occasion was a rare Equatorial Solar Eclipse, offering a perfect opportunity to take a series of photographic plates using astrographic equipment. The intention was to record the position of stars adjacent to the Sun on the day of the eclipse and then compare the positions of the stars relative to images taken some months prior- or later. This, they believed, would determine whether the mass of the Sun in the foreground had distorted (bent) the otherwise straight path of the light coming from the star to the lens. The teams took their images, with the Sobral team remaining a few months to collect more before announcing their results. The results did indeed show a distortion in the light path from the background stars. This revelation became international news. Eddington secured his place in history and Einstein was celebrated as the great science champion of our age. However, there's a fly in their ointment: Nowhere in the records published on the experiments had either team considered Solar atmospheric refraction. You see, the Sun's atmosphere extends some 9 million kilometres from the solar surface- that's SEVEN TIMES the Sun's diameter! Why is this significant? In terms of physics, an atmosphere (a combination of gases held in physical cohesion by the gravity generated by a large mass) is considered a fluid. Fluids are known to bend light in a phenomenon we call "refraction". This is the same effect as a glass lens or a body of water. In terms of the experiments of Eddington et al, the solar atmosphere extended beyond the outer edges of the astrographic plates. Since no mention is made of the solar atmosphere in any of the papers published by either team, we must assume that they failed to account for the effects of atmospheric refraction in their observations. Therefore, we cannot discount the possibility that what they in fact recorded was the distortion caused by the solar atmosphere and not by gravity, as they- and Einstein- had claimed. Furthermore, it is claimed that the only mass large enough to distort light is that of a star however, there is no phenomenon that cannot be replicated in a laboratory. A simple proof of the idea that light can be distorted by the gravitational potential of a mass may be proved with a large lump of Osmium- the densest material known to man- and a laser beam! Yet, we have no record of any such experiment and therefore no secondary corroboration of a claimed phenomenon that upholds all of the more outlandish claims of twentieth-century physical science! We are (apparently) forced to accept that Eddington's observation was a good experiment and that gravity bends light on that basis, and that basis alone! It stretches credulity beyond reasonable limits

What’s your PhD in astrophysics?

Abu sheytan, la ilaha il allah tekbir Allah u ckrackbar!

😂

Cozz mose or Cosmos?!

Well how else were you gonna spread life forms and terra form throughout the cozmos lol 😂 duh everyone knows that

Not nuclear bombss!! They use nuclear fission like the sun