Saying you drempt about a public figure dying(especially one you follow) is statistically normal. for instance if i had a dream that charlie sheen died of and overdose it doesn't mean i predicted the event, it just means out of the millions of people that know of him its very possible that...
Sounds like a scaled down gauss cannon or rail gun would be easier to make. Just make sure your rocket is non Ferris. But I don't know if that would count as a magnetic launch.
I was reading about possible future propulsion systems and they all pretty much work by accelerating fuel back to produce forward thrust, accept for magnetic propulsion. Initially when you first turn on the current to an electro magnet there is a rapid oscillation that occurs until the magnet...
How fast would the electrons be moving? Or how long have they been accelerating? Or how strong is the electric field? lead or and electromagnetic field would work best. The electromagnetic field may be able to alter the corse of the electron so that it misses the designated location, but...
it appears the video is being taken through a piece of glass. the moving cloud is just an image behind the camera reflecting off the glass. if a cloud moved that erratically it would also cause movement in the clouds around it because of air flow.
it couldent have been the moon because it the moon was next to the sun the surface of the moon facing us would be away from the sun so it wouldent have been very bright. my vote is on soe sort of atmospheric refraction.
Even if a radical event happens that ejects millions of tons a debris into the atmosphere and blocks out the sun it would take months or even years before their is a large global cooling.
To answer the original question i would say that the reason that it is acknowledged that a civilization capable of self maintaining space travel would be expected to be peaceful is they don't have to use their resources on developing weaponry. The human race has got a long way to go before this...
so grammatical errors aside, u r saying that smaller distances do exist but we can't see on a scale smaller than Plancks?
and its more redundant than contradictory. not being able to put a definite size on the universe means its infinite. a shorter version would be" if space is infinitely large...
so if we can't put a limit on the size of the universe and it is accepted that space is infinitive in size then y can't space also be infinitely small? there is a limit on how far we can see into space so y don't we assume the same in relation to how small something is? so if the theoretical...