Very beautiful imagery. I didn't know that far away galaxies were discovered hundreds of years ago? I guess I don't know the history of telescopes though. But the narrator mentioned one galaxy was noticed at sea by some sailors.
@Timmehbob I'm not trying to cuss you out actually, though it probably sounded that way. I seriously mean it. I would love to see an actual video of a star forming. And actually the milky way forms about one star a year. Sooner or later we have to catch one at the right moment. You're not an idiot by the way.
@VicTheMouth Interesting facts, thank you. :D And one doesn't necesarily need to be an idiot to act out of idiocy. I'd assume the forming of a star is gradual and hazy, so it would take a long time to get accurate footage of the stars final step in formation.
@Timmehbob You're right that it takes quite a while. But I'm not just saying that just to try and insult you. I'm also saying I wasn't saying that to be a sarcastic jerk.
I've been looking at the so called Plasma Cosmology hypothesis. At the most cursory level, it appears that the orignial researcher, one H. Alfven, a researcher of the RIT Stockholm Sweden did an extensive amount of research into plasma and particle physics. However what has developed into the "Plasma Cosmological Model" has quite a number of holes in it, not to mention being far more poorly developed than either quantum mechanics or the general relativistic models.
@Grospoliner A few of the noteable problems include, "inaccruate representations of star formation, the inability to explain Hubble's Law, the abundance of light elements, or the cosmic background radiation." It has proved somewhat troublesome to find a concise representation of this so called Plasma Cosmology. Suffice it to say that it is not supported by the standard cosmological models and runs contraty to many established scientific principles.
@Grospoliner H Alfven however did win the Nobel Prize for his research into plasma physics, the principles of which remain undisputed, though there seems to be a majority consensus in the scientific community to disregard this particular model for cosmology.
And since you keep acting like you don't know what we're talking about when we ask for your sources, (obviously to avoid looking like the moron that you are) allow me to clarify:
Articles and youtube videos that you get your information from..
I've found very few of them by searching, and what I did find was very vague and failed to explain some of the things explained by REAL scientists..
Sounds like the same shit creationists say.. Keep whining over the fact that the REAL scientists don't agree with you.. Keep hoping that someone is dumb enough to take the word of a youtube troll with no evidence to back your crack pot claims..
0:22 she says in the near by universe?? i don't think that makes sense! lol The word Universe is used to describe the whole of what there is out the to us; so how can there be a near by universe?
Wow, do you think she could talk any faster so that we can miss out on even more information? Fascinating video, but I just wish she would slow down and give people time to actually take in some info.
@JonThm The colors are the result of imaging across the entire spectrum from far infrared to x-ray, it's how it would look if our eyes weren't confined to the narrow portion that we can see. To say it's "lies" simply ignorant. And judging by your spelling and grammar, it's not a surprise that you would say it's so.
No, but I sure will block people who have nothing to contribute to the discussion other than baseless and abjectly erroneous speculation about me. You just made the list, pal. Also, your little "plan" there is a violation of the terms of service and constitutes abuse of the spam reporting feature. All the off-topic posts ABOUT ME are spam, I've been doing my best to stay on topic in the context of this flurry of personal comments directed toward me.
Fert is so desperate for an argument that he's saying the same damn thing that he said 11 hours ago on this same video..
Don't encourage him.. Just flag his comments.. Otherwise he'll just spam his crack pot theories and petty insults all over this video like he did on the last 2..
There is NO reasoning with this guy because he will just reject any evidence and logical arguments you try to throw at him.. He's a troll.. Don't feed him..
More calls to abuse the spam reporting feature. Don't you trolls ever give up? You can't make your case so you try to flag my comments as spam and try to distract me with repeated and continual baseless and erroneous speculations about me. Epic fail. Bye, loser.
To my knowledge star formation has never been observed, but it's speculated that in the past there have been events (gamma bursts and so on) that herald the birth of new stars. I believe chinese astronomers identified a "guest star" that appeared in the sky that may have been a newly born star. Stars aren't born from self-compressing balls of gas undergoing fusion, they are powered by electric discharge.
Sights like this of distant galaxies as they were in the distant past and the births of stars that by now have grown old should inspire us to want to learn all there is to learn about the universe we live in.
I wish the schools, the universities, the researchers, and everyone would once again want to learn just for the sake of learning and that science would become the major focus of all educational programs.
The narrator repeatedly mentions "young stars", yet the age of the stars in question is not known. Ages have been derived based on assumptions and falsified stellar fusion models, these ages are almost certainly specious and will only ever be right by accident. It is not possible to tell the age of a star from its spectrum.
@questionsleadtotruth television needs money,and that money comes from things which are most seen from the people,and bullshit is what people like most of all to spend their days and nights sit on the couch.But we can change that... ;)
@Exile1a The hard part about seeing planets around other stars is we have to watch for wobbling in the star or dimming as the planets pass between the star and us. It takes a long time to see them, but there are undoubtably planets around numerous stars.
I wondered if these where these stars are born, are there enough heavy elements. (anything above helium) to make proto-planetary disks around those stars.
Or that those stars are the first in the cycle and have to die before those elements will be found in that region of space.
So-called "protoplanetary disks" are an absurd fables. Planets don't clump together out of "disks" around stars, they are ejected electrically, like the spherical slag from an arc welder. Also, "heavy elements" don't require that stars "die".
The idea of "singularity" is a slap in the face of science. For such a creature to exist, known, verified principles of physics have to be violated.
As for "novae", a star's mass has absolutely nothing to do with it. What's important in such events is current density at the surface. In many cases these "novae" are fission events, a literal splitting of a star. This creates a higher surface area to volume ratio, which results in a lower current density at the surface.
Planets aren't formed out of "protoplanetary disks", they are ejected whole from larger bodies, like stars or more massive planets. When the current density at the surface of a body like a star becomes high enough, the plasma double layers around them can "explode" and dump the current from the entire circuit into the body. This can cause electrical ejection of material from that body. The ejected material is typically spherical, like planets.
@Exile1a Hi- No, these are not 1st generation stars. It's possible their elemental abundance leans toward the metal-rich since they're 'new stars', but it would depend on the 'stuff' they're made from, and if they've been impacted by nearby supernovae. Planet formation is still a big question, but 'dusty disks' are a definite possibility in star forming regions.
There is no requirement that stars "die" to transmute "lighter" elements into "heavy elements". Z pinch fusion is a known effect of electric discharge, stars are powered by electric currents, each star is the focus of a z pinch so such transmutation could occur at the surface of any bright star.
Stars "dimming" doesn't necessarily mean that a planet is transiting, even extremely regular "dimming", stars are powered by electric currents, those currents can "pulse" and cause such a dimming/brightening cycle that would be as regular as a stopwatch.
@fertilizerspike You seem to know a lot about the "Electric Universe" eh? Interesting. Due to the fact that unless you have more information than everyone else has, how can you say your Idea's are any more "Correct" than what we're working with now?
I have access to the same information we all have access to, but of course most people don't do any research, they accept whatever has been spoon-fed to them by the television or "teachers" or really anyone they perceive to be in a position of "authority". That's not how you do science. I'm not sure which planets you're talking about that have been seen in infrared, so I can't comment on it.
Good sir, is not all information passed down through the generations? The books you've read that give you these idea's all come from "People, Teachers, elders," It isn't the mere perception of authority. Also, based on your comments, it would seem as though your making "Science" out to be a final word... well tis not sir, if the variable brightness in a star isn't because of a planet, then we'll find out and the Idea's will change, and continue to be passed down. ;)
@fertilizerspike I'm afraid your information is incorrect or you're just a little off on your thinking. Stars are not powered by electric current (as in incandescent light bulbs) they run off nuclear reactions. As for your 'dimming' you might be thinking of puslars which emit radiation as they spin (in the form of radio, light, gamma, x-rays, etc) or variable stars whose light change over time. Regular stars do not dim unless something passes between them and us.
You're right that they're not powered "as in incandescent light bulbs", which act very much like an ideal "black body radiator". The sun is more like a fluorescent lamp or an arc lamp than an incandescent. No information about the actual temperature can thus be gained from its spectrum.
Stars are not powered internally by fusion, this idea has been falsified many times over using many lines of evidence.
Suck a cock, you ignorant bastard. I told you the same thing I just told Grospoliner, if you want "source", you'll have to be more specific, I can't read minds.
@fertilizerspike You made that same excuse with me, acting like you didn't know what I was asking for. Either you lack consistency or you are trying to avoid the question, which is pretty apparent.
@fertilizerspike Don't feign ignorance, you know perfectly well what sources we want, mainly the ones that contradict the established scientific standard. You can start by citing your source which illustrates that the sun is not nuclear powered.
Don't project your ignorance onto me, I don't share it.
We have many lines of evidence showing that the sun is not powered internally by fusion.
Sunspots reveal the surface beneath the photosphere is cooler than the photosphere above it. This would not be the case if the sun were powered internally by fusion.
There you go, one single observation falsifies your belief. Are you satisfied now?
A "standard" that ignores science is not "scientific". You have a lot to learn still.
@fertilizerspike You still failed to cite your source. Citing sources takes the form of providing a reference to a published scientific article, such as journal or book.
Incidentally feigned ignorance means for a person to fake the lack of understanding or knowledge about a specified subject. In this case you feigned ingorance in specifically knowing what we want from you regarding sources. You know perfectly well that when you make a claim you must provide evidence to support it.
@fertilizerspike Additionally, in order to cite yourself as a reference, you must cite yourself in a published article. One that has been peer reviewed.
I haven't cited myself as a reference, I have no idea what you're talking about.
Also, peer review is not part of the scientific method, it's not part of science, it's a political process that determines where research funding will go and what information will be published in certain periodicals. That's it.
@fertilizerspike Then we have nothing more to discuss. Your consecutive refusals to provide evidence for your claims and "not understanding what we want" can only lead to the singular conclusion that you have no evidence for your claims nor do you have the slightest inkling as to what you are even talking about. Twice now I have asked you to provide evidence that the sun is not nuclear powered and twice you have failed to cite any source other than your own belief. I am done trying to be nice.
@Grospoliner He has no sources, evidence, nor does he even have his claims and arguments in line.
Go to the video " Interstellar Clouds And Dark Nebulae" and read his comments concerning CERN and neutrinos. Then go to "CERN: First Appearance of Tau Neutrinos" and read his comments on CERN.
Briefly to explain why I want you to look at it. On one video he claims CERN produces neutrinos electricity. Second video he claims CERN does not produce neutrinos and is a weapons laboratory.
@fertilizerspike 1- "E.R.A. Report 5275 Successful Predictions of the Electrical Discharge Theory of Cosmic Atmospheric Phenomena and Universal Evolution By C. E. R. Bruce M.A., D.Sc. (Edin.) F.I.E.E., F.Inst.P. F.R.A.S. (Research Physicist in The Electrical Research Association from 1924 to 1967) 1968 The Electrical Research Association" Bruce explains five "major" and thirteen "minor" "anomalies" in stellar phenomena as electric discharge.
As you can see this paper is dated 1968, this is twentieth century science, here, just one more century and you can be all caught up. When you're finished reading that paper, feel free to try and refute any of it that you think is deserving.
"Dec. 11, 2007: NASA's fleet of THEMIS spacecraft, launched less than 8 months ago, has made three important discoveries about spectacular eruptions of Northern Lights called "substorms" and the source of their power. The discoveries include giant magnetic ropes that connect Earth's upper atmosphere to the Sun and explosions in the outskirts of Earth's magnetic field."
These "magnetic ropes" are birkeland currents, connecting Earth and the sun.
As you can see, no reasonable explanation is offered to explain these "magnetic ropes" between the Earth and the sun in the context of stellar fusion. They are, however, an expected consequence of the electric sun model, which suggests the sun and the Earth are charged bodies interacting electrically. Birkeland currents are readily demonstrated in the lab, unlike stellar fusion models.
"In a spectacular coincidence, a coronal mass ejection (CME) accompanied by an erupting prominence occurred on the southwest limb of the Sun within hours after the destruction of the comets. The CME and prominence were probably unrelated to the comets, being instead the product of weeks of intense magnetic activity in that region of the Sun."
Astronogers routinely pronounce clearly related events as "unrelated". It's perplexing and bizarre.
These astronogers must be coincidence theorists. They think it's just a coincidence that as comets get very close to the sun they're struck by massive "CME".
The "weeks of intense magnetic activity" is readily explained when you realize the sun and the comet are charged bodies. As they draw close, there is an electric discharge between them, causing the comet to flare and producing magnetic fields in its path.
It's worth noting that this has happened again and again. SOHO has observed many comets being basically blasted apart by electric discharges from the sun, all preceded by this same "intense magnetic activity" that's so inexplicable to astronogers. We've also observed Jupiter blasting a comet apart, as it fell it turned into a blazing string of beads, an expected consequence of intense plasma discharge.
As I've already stated, sunspots reveal the surface of the sun is cooler than the photosphere above it. This would not be the case if the sun were lit by heat radiating from inside. Sunspots exhibit the morphology of a "charged sheath vortex", which is an effect of electric discharge in plasma. Astronogers call this a "dark energy problem" of stellar physics because they can't explain it. It's "dark" to them because they ignore electrical effects in space.
If sunspots are electrical, the sun is electrical.
The sun is lit electrically. Stellar fusion models are dismal failures at explaining even the most fundamental properties and behaviours of the sun. It is a laughable hypothesis that was dead on arrival but has been somehow and for some reason kept on life support for a hundred years.
@fertilizerspike you are aware that nuclear bombs, nuclear fission (pretty close to nuclear fusion), create an EMP which was a worry for the US during the cold war because they thought the Russians might launch nuclear bombs into space and knock out all the satellites leaving the US in the dark communications wise
Don't project your ignorance onto me, I don't share it.
We have many lines of evidence showing that the sun is not powered internally by fusion.
Sunspots reveal the surface beneath the photosphere is cooler than the photosphere above it. This would not be the case if the sun were powered internally by fusion.
There you go, one single observation falsifies your belief. Are you satisfied now?
A "standard" that ignores science is not "scientific". You have a lot to learn still.
@Grospoliner Best guess on fertilizerspike's sources, look up Immanuel Velikovsky, Wallace Thornhill, David Talbott, Hannes Alfven and Eric Lerner. He seems to have some kind of odd fussion of ideas centered around the Electric Universe "theory". No really, look them up... it's almost as much fun as reading 50s era Sci Fi.
@AutodidacticPhd Well, I do not think we have to worry about fertilizerspike and his botched science theories on this channel anymore. That's if Best0fScience really did block him.
@LordBrakensiek Well, the trouble is, the Electric Universe nonsense has broad appeal, more so than Plasma Cosmology alone, and as far as I can tell, it's audience is growing. Most people might just dismiss it out of hand, but I've been slowly working my way through their material so that I know where the holes are and how best to expose them... because I suspect we're going to see more new agers and conspiracy theorists taking up its banner (and trolling on its behalf) before too long.
You claim you know where the "holes are" in the electric universe model, well feel free to explain it, I'm dying to hear this.
You and other people are the ones continually bringing up "conspiracy" and things like "new agers", look in the mirror before you go pointing fingers at others. You fear the electric universe model because it adequately explains "mysteries" you've spent your whole adult life learning and believing. Get over it, you believed in bullshit, move on.
Your message was unheeded, I can comment without any trouble at all. Most likely the owner of the channel saw all the comments directed at me personally and is overlooking my responses directed at those individuals. That certainly seems fair.
No, I haven't been blocked, I don't know what makes you think I would.
There is nothing "botched" about the idea that over 99% of the universe is plasma and that plasmas are governed by electric and magnetic forces, they are negligibly affected by "gravity".
What are your sources that can verify what you say is true? I looked it up myself and could not find any reliable information that adequately explained how and why. So maybe you could point me in the right direction since you are supposedly so familiar with the subject.
The people you mention all contributed to this body of knowledge, but don't stop there, don't forget Anthony L. Peratt, a physicist who worked at Los Alamos National Labs, then go to Sandia's web site and learn about their "z machine", plasma physics is a mature science, you need to catch up. This is not the gaslight era of astronomy, this is the twenty-first century.
Sunspots reveal the surface of the sun is cooler than the photosphere. This would not be the case if the sun was heated internally by fusion.
There is also a problem of "missing neutrinos" coming from the sun, in defiance of stellar fusion models. This has been "explained" away by saying they "change flavor". Preposterous.
I'm not thinking of "pulsars", but they're a good example of this sort of electrical "pulsing". Several thousand RPM is SLOW for an oscillation circuit.
@Exile1a Ah I see what you meant now. That's a good question, one I can't answer sadly, you'd have to ask someone invovled with observing those specific objects since they'd be the ones getting the spectrography on them.
@sabertooth1980 I think they must have misclicked. Who could have anything to object to this? It's like voting down a video of a puppy.. who does that!? lol
Friendo, Dr Jason Lisle is one of the foremost astronomers and works at the cutting edge of creation astronomy, astrometry, cosmogony as well as cosmology.
His models accurately reflect what really is going on in our awesome cosmos, that God created in a literal week for us to enjoy and shows how big bang cosmology is inherently flawed.
@hyperseauton cause the bible and religion is not flawed at all.. pure fucking ignorance. Present your evidence that displays how the big bang theory is flawed... present any evidence that is testable to show that god exists.. stop talking about things you clearly do not understand. One day humanity will cure this disease called religion, I only hope it happens soon enough for you to wake the fuck up.
@seanmPWH wow.. seriously? The first thing you type, and its already full of logical fail.. The only thing the bible proves is how large the human imagination really is.. please take your book of fairy tales and burn it for warmth, it is the only really useful thing it can do.
Very awesome video
pjojin0 1 month ago
very informative video
MyDavidsun 1 month ago
thanks for the video
TheSanovita 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice video!
TheSanovita 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice video
TheSanovita 1 month ago
Tops, Good Vishual Video!!
Spasatcom 1 month ago
cool vids, I like this!!..
directorygod 1 month ago
Good!! I like this..
ngeliatduit 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
very informative
MyDavidsun 2 months ago
I like this video
andreeaweed 2 months ago 7
Very beautiful imagery. I didn't know that far away galaxies were discovered hundreds of years ago? I guess I don't know the history of telescopes though. But the narrator mentioned one galaxy was noticed at sea by some sailors.
FlargidyTV 3 months ago
'a fluffy swirl of fairground candyfloss'
does it get better than that?
:-)
SpaceShuttIeAtlantis 4 months ago
there is life in the large magellan nebula.
TheJustinfernandez 1 year ago
I'm curious, has anyone actually observed a star being formed? I truely wish to see video.
Timmehbob 1 year ago
@Timmehbob Whenever you find a video about that, please let me know.
VicTheMouth 1 year ago
@VicTheMouth Eh... I recently learned that stars take thousands of years to form. Please pardon my idiocy.
Timmehbob 1 year ago
@Timmehbob I'm not trying to cuss you out actually, though it probably sounded that way. I seriously mean it. I would love to see an actual video of a star forming. And actually the milky way forms about one star a year. Sooner or later we have to catch one at the right moment. You're not an idiot by the way.
VicTheMouth 1 year ago
@VicTheMouth Interesting facts, thank you. :D And one doesn't necesarily need to be an idiot to act out of idiocy. I'd assume the forming of a star is gradual and hazy, so it would take a long time to get accurate footage of the stars final step in formation.
Timmehbob 1 year ago
@Timmehbob You're right that it takes quite a while. But I'm not just saying that just to try and insult you. I'm also saying I wasn't saying that to be a sarcastic jerk.
VicTheMouth 1 year ago
@VicTheMouth Oh I know. Thanks anywho.:D
Timmehbob 1 year ago
I've been looking at the so called Plasma Cosmology hypothesis. At the most cursory level, it appears that the orignial researcher, one H. Alfven, a researcher of the RIT Stockholm Sweden did an extensive amount of research into plasma and particle physics. However what has developed into the "Plasma Cosmological Model" has quite a number of holes in it, not to mention being far more poorly developed than either quantum mechanics or the general relativistic models.
Grospoliner 1 year ago
@Grospoliner A few of the noteable problems include, "inaccruate representations of star formation, the inability to explain Hubble's Law, the abundance of light elements, or the cosmic background radiation." It has proved somewhat troublesome to find a concise representation of this so called Plasma Cosmology. Suffice it to say that it is not supported by the standard cosmological models and runs contraty to many established scientific principles.
Grospoliner 1 year ago
@Grospoliner H Alfven however did win the Nobel Prize for his research into plasma physics, the principles of which remain undisputed, though there seems to be a majority consensus in the scientific community to disregard this particular model for cosmology.
Grospoliner 1 year ago
And since you keep acting like you don't know what we're talking about when we ask for your sources, (obviously to avoid looking like the moron that you are) allow me to clarify:
Articles and youtube videos that you get your information from..
I've found very few of them by searching, and what I did find was very vague and failed to explain some of the things explained by REAL scientists..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
"peer review is not..."
Sounds like the same shit creationists say.. Keep whining over the fact that the REAL scientists don't agree with you.. Keep hoping that someone is dumb enough to take the word of a youtube troll with no evidence to back your crack pot claims..
"There is nothing "botched" about"
Then cite your sources..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
0:22 she says in the near by universe?? i don't think that makes sense! lol The word Universe is used to describe the whole of what there is out the to us; so how can there be a near by universe?
LukeJF89 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Glad to see fertilizer spike shut down.
216trixie 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Glad to see fertilizerspike shut down.
216trixie 1 year ago
Glad to see fertilizerspike shut down.
216trixie 1 year ago
Glad to see fertilizerspike shut down.
216trixie 1 year ago
her voice makes me dream of far-away galaxies....
neurocrater 1 year ago
Nature deos nuclear fusion from water
JonThm 1 year ago
Wow
rulerhel 1 year ago 5
lolz
marknl25266 1 year ago
Wow, do you think she could talk any faster so that we can miss out on even more information? Fascinating video, but I just wish she would slow down and give people time to actually take in some info.
zoen23 1 year ago
@zoen23 "I just wish she would slow down and give people time to actually take in some info."
Pause option
SlackerSlayer 1 year ago
@SlackerSlayer I mean that she is just talking a mile a minute and it's kind of hard to understand her. Pause option wouldn't really help.
zoen23 1 year ago
@zoen23 I do believe the 'transcript' is posted in the video description area. I thought you wanted to 'take in' the view. SlackerSlayer out.
ISamuelII 1 year ago
False colours are just that - space is black, white and reed.
JonThm 1 year ago
The deep sea gives off light flashes, as it does molecular nuclear fusion, adding 20% to the heat the Earth gets.
JonThm 1 year ago
a ciência, mostrada de uma forma legal de ver!!...
MrUrbanomfm 1 year ago
I don't get why people down thumb these. They're beautiful and informative.
Otokogoroshi 1 year ago
Wonderful
LOVE2Flute 1 year ago
"candy floss" ???
PrivateSlacker 1 year ago
@PrivateSlacker Cotton Candy in American English.
theskepticalheretic 1 year ago
This imagery is absolutely mind blowing! Never in history have we seen so far, and so clearly.
anmoose 1 year ago
how can you dislike this!
NewGenerationAnarchy 1 year ago
Any sign of Spock? Their has to be life somewhere else. They would not want anything to do with us.
jauchiu 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JonThm claims to have a Masters in Engineering and is a PhD candidate. Anyone buy that?
"Petty, but they are all false colours, as stars look white out there! The dyst clouds are nto coloured either. So nice lies!"
Stay in the shallow end of the gene pool, that way you won't get hurt.
drreedindeed 1 year ago
Petty, but they are all false colours, as stars look white out there! The dyst clouds are nto coloured either. So nice lies!
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm The colors are the result of imaging across the entire spectrum from far infrared to x-ray, it's how it would look if our eyes weren't confined to the narrow portion that we can see. To say it's "lies" simply ignorant. And judging by your spelling and grammar, it's not a surprise that you would say it's so.
drreedindeed 1 year ago
Hubble was an amazing investment. BestofScience rocks.
Thanks for the great work.
joethemoproductions 1 year ago
Feterlizer will block any who challenges his beliefs. So just flag him as spam until BestOfScience blocks him from their channel.
LordBrakensiek 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LordBrakensiek
No, but I sure will block people who have nothing to contribute to the discussion other than baseless and abjectly erroneous speculation about me. You just made the list, pal. Also, your little "plan" there is a violation of the terms of service and constitutes abuse of the spam reporting feature. All the off-topic posts ABOUT ME are spam, I've been doing my best to stay on topic in the context of this flurry of personal comments directed toward me.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Lol, blocking me does not keep me from replying to your comments on this channel. It only works for your own channel.
Also,
"So-called "protoplanetary disks" are an absurd fables."
That's just one of many examples how you blindly deny any theory without even providing a real argument to challenge that theory.
LordBrakensiek 1 year ago
Fert is so desperate for an argument that he's saying the same damn thing that he said 11 hours ago on this same video..
Don't encourage him.. Just flag his comments.. Otherwise he'll just spam his crack pot theories and petty insults all over this video like he did on the last 2..
There is NO reasoning with this guy because he will just reject any evidence and logical arguments you try to throw at him.. He's a troll.. Don't feed him..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@JesterAzazel
More calls to abuse the spam reporting feature. Don't you trolls ever give up? You can't make your case so you try to flag my comments as spam and try to distract me with repeated and continual baseless and erroneous speculations about me. Epic fail. Bye, loser.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
1: We've made our cases.. You're just too stupid to understand REAL science..
2: It's not abuse of the spam reporting feature because no one cares about your dip shit theories and retarded logic.. Therefore, it's spam..
3: You said the same thing today that you said yesterday on this same video just so someone would argue with you.. Spam AND trolling..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
Have they seen stars form?
tegf4 1 year ago
@tegf4 in an indirect way yes. b ut because of the time scale its impossible to really see one "turn on" in front of our eyes.
keggerous 1 year ago
@tegf4
To my knowledge star formation has never been observed, but it's speculated that in the past there have been events (gamma bursts and so on) that herald the birth of new stars. I believe chinese astronomers identified a "guest star" that appeared in the sky that may have been a newly born star. Stars aren't born from self-compressing balls of gas undergoing fusion, they are powered by electric discharge.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Then all these theories are fiction and not fact And these people call that science to act that a theory is fact.
tegf4 1 year ago
Fuck TV, this is awesomer.
bangNL94 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@bangNL94 "this is awesomer."
It is far out
SlackerSlayer 1 year ago
Sights like this of distant galaxies as they were in the distant past and the births of stars that by now have grown old should inspire us to want to learn all there is to learn about the universe we live in.
I wish the schools, the universities, the researchers, and everyone would once again want to learn just for the sake of learning and that science would become the major focus of all educational programs.
ZooVisitorMM 1 year ago
Beautiful!
Goronius 1 year ago
this prove universe is in fact a beer. All this bubble stuff. The galaxy is fizzy.
sergiomarchelli 1 year ago
Who were the retards who down thumbed a science video LOL them fuckers need to grow some teeth.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist
Actually, I'd suggest they need to loose some. Be nice if it was through evolution but regrettably individuals don't evolve, only populations.
TrueBrit1000 1 year ago
@TrueBrit1000 ya wisdom teeth suck. PROOF OF EVOLUTION! =D
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
religious extremist 2/251 (+ 1) with true enlightenment of reality
okuma0kuma 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The narrator repeatedly mentions "young stars", yet the age of the stars in question is not known. Ages have been derived based on assumptions and falsified stellar fusion models, these ages are almost certainly specious and will only ever be right by accident. It is not possible to tell the age of a star from its spectrum.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
These "bubbles of glowing gas" around N11 are further confirmation of the electric universe.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
cool
thesparitan 1 year ago
looks sexy
shaolindreams 1 year ago
1:23 candy floss?
Silly UKers.
Promatheos 1 year ago
Why can't this be on television instead of all that bullshit we're fed!
questionsleadtotruth 1 year ago 51
@questionsleadtotruth They do. Start watching PBS
truvelocity 1 year ago
@questionsleadtotruth television needs money,and that money comes from things which are most seen from the people,and bullshit is what people like most of all to spend their days and nights sit on the couch.But we can change that... ;)
MITHWORLD1 1 year ago
@MITHWORLD1 Great comment. we will change that. People are starting to wake up!
questionsleadtotruth 1 year ago
@questionsleadtotruth I agree 100%!
ZooVisitorMM 1 year ago
@questionsleadtotruth
Need more smart people for that
JerkyChid 1 year ago
I wonder could these stars have planets?? Or aren't there enough "heavy" Elements in those regions??
Just curious ^^
Exile1a 1 year ago
@Exile1a The hard part about seeing planets around other stars is we have to watch for wobbling in the star or dimming as the planets pass between the star and us. It takes a long time to see them, but there are undoubtably planets around numerous stars.
Grospoliner 1 year ago
@Grospoliner
I know that. But that wasn't my question.. :P
I wondered if these where these stars are born, are there enough heavy elements. (anything above helium) to make proto-planetary disks around those stars.
Or that those stars are the first in the cycle and have to die before those elements will be found in that region of space.
Exile1a 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Exile1a
So-called "protoplanetary disks" are an absurd fables. Planets don't clump together out of "disks" around stars, they are ejected electrically, like the spherical slag from an arc welder. Also, "heavy elements" don't require that stars "die".
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@Exile1a The stars have to die first to create the heavier elements.
And it has to be big stars otherwise they dont go super nova and create elements higher than iron or spread those elements out into space.
Smaller stars just collapse into white dwarves and the elements are trapped.
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago
@BlackRaptor31 Not too big a star though; super massive stars won't even go nova, they'll just collapse directly into a singularity.
Direkin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Direkin
The idea of "singularity" is a slap in the face of science. For such a creature to exist, known, verified principles of physics have to be violated.
As for "novae", a star's mass has absolutely nothing to do with it. What's important in such events is current density at the surface. In many cases these "novae" are fission events, a literal splitting of a star. This creates a higher surface area to volume ratio, which results in a lower current density at the surface.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@BlackRaptor31
Is my English that bad??
No offence.
But that wasn't my question..
I know how the elements are formed.
I wanted to know if that nebula has heavier elements and thus is there a chance of proto-planetary disks forming around those new stars.
Is there a probability that those stars have planets.. Or is this a first generation of stars?
Exile1a 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Exile1a
Planets aren't formed out of "protoplanetary disks", they are ejected whole from larger bodies, like stars or more massive planets. When the current density at the surface of a body like a star becomes high enough, the plasma double layers around them can "explode" and dump the current from the entire circuit into the body. This can cause electrical ejection of material from that body. The ejected material is typically spherical, like planets.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@Exile1a Hi- No, these are not 1st generation stars. It's possible their elemental abundance leans toward the metal-rich since they're 'new stars', but it would depend on the 'stuff' they're made from, and if they've been impacted by nearby supernovae. Planet formation is still a big question, but 'dusty disks' are a definite possibility in star forming regions.
julsHz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BlackRaptor31
There is no requirement that stars "die" to transmute "lighter" elements into "heavy elements". Z pinch fusion is a known effect of electric discharge, stars are powered by electric currents, each star is the focus of a z pinch so such transmutation could occur at the surface of any bright star.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Grospoliner
Stars "dimming" doesn't necessarily mean that a planet is transiting, even extremely regular "dimming", stars are powered by electric currents, those currents can "pulse" and cause such a dimming/brightening cycle that would be as regular as a stopwatch.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike You seem to know a lot about the "Electric Universe" eh? Interesting. Due to the fact that unless you have more information than everyone else has, how can you say your Idea's are any more "Correct" than what we're working with now?
Also, seeing the planets via infrared help too ;)
hutchings000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hutchings000
I have access to the same information we all have access to, but of course most people don't do any research, they accept whatever has been spoon-fed to them by the television or "teachers" or really anyone they perceive to be in a position of "authority". That's not how you do science. I'm not sure which planets you're talking about that have been seen in infrared, so I can't comment on it.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Good sir, is not all information passed down through the generations? The books you've read that give you these idea's all come from "People, Teachers, elders," It isn't the mere perception of authority. Also, based on your comments, it would seem as though your making "Science" out to be a final word... well tis not sir, if the variable brightness in a star isn't because of a planet, then we'll find out and the Idea's will change, and continue to be passed down. ;)
hutchings000 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike I'm afraid your information is incorrect or you're just a little off on your thinking. Stars are not powered by electric current (as in incandescent light bulbs) they run off nuclear reactions. As for your 'dimming' you might be thinking of puslars which emit radiation as they spin (in the form of radio, light, gamma, x-rays, etc) or variable stars whose light change over time. Regular stars do not dim unless something passes between them and us.
Grospoliner 1 year ago
@Grospoliner
You're right that they're not powered "as in incandescent light bulbs", which act very much like an ideal "black body radiator". The sun is more like a fluorescent lamp or an arc lamp than an incandescent. No information about the actual temperature can thus be gained from its spectrum.
Stars are not powered internally by fusion, this idea has been falsified many times over using many lines of evidence.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Cite your sources then, otherwise I have no desire to deal with your ilk.
Grospoliner 1 year ago
@Grospoliner He won't, believe me. I asked him several times to cite some sources and he rudely ignored my request.
LordBrakensiek 1 year ago
@LordBrakensiek
Suck a cock, you ignorant bastard. I told you the same thing I just told Grospoliner, if you want "source", you'll have to be more specific, I can't read minds.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike You made that same excuse with me, acting like you didn't know what I was asking for. Either you lack consistency or you are trying to avoid the question, which is pretty apparent.
LordBrakensiek 1 year ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
@LordBrakensiek
Also, keep your fat fucking mouth shut about me, troll. Save it for your mother the next time she comes down to the basement to do your laundry.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@Grospoliner
Sources for what? You're going to have to be more specific if you want me to help you.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Don't feign ignorance, you know perfectly well what sources we want, mainly the ones that contradict the established scientific standard. You can start by citing your source which illustrates that the sun is not nuclear powered.
Grospoliner 1 year ago 2
@Grospoliner
Don't project your ignorance onto me, I don't share it.
We have many lines of evidence showing that the sun is not powered internally by fusion.
Sunspots reveal the surface beneath the photosphere is cooler than the photosphere above it. This would not be the case if the sun were powered internally by fusion.
There you go, one single observation falsifies your belief. Are you satisfied now?
A "standard" that ignores science is not "scientific". You have a lot to learn still.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fertilizerspike
"I'm not interested in your opinions about me"
Well I'm not interested in your bull shit theories..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike You still failed to cite your source. Citing sources takes the form of providing a reference to a published scientific article, such as journal or book.
Incidentally feigned ignorance means for a person to fake the lack of understanding or knowledge about a specified subject. In this case you feigned ingorance in specifically knowing what we want from you regarding sources. You know perfectly well that when you make a claim you must provide evidence to support it.
Grospoliner 1 year ago
@Grospoliner
I have no idea what "source" it is you're looking for here. Source for what? Explain more fully and then I can help you.
I can't read your mind, if you want sources for this information, you'll have to be more specific.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Additionally, in order to cite yourself as a reference, you must cite yourself in a published article. One that has been peer reviewed.
Grospoliner 1 year ago
@Grospoliner
I haven't cited myself as a reference, I have no idea what you're talking about.
Also, peer review is not part of the scientific method, it's not part of science, it's a political process that determines where research funding will go and what information will be published in certain periodicals. That's it.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Then we have nothing more to discuss. Your consecutive refusals to provide evidence for your claims and "not understanding what we want" can only lead to the singular conclusion that you have no evidence for your claims nor do you have the slightest inkling as to what you are even talking about. Twice now I have asked you to provide evidence that the sun is not nuclear powered and twice you have failed to cite any source other than your own belief. I am done trying to be nice.
Grospoliner 1 year ago
@Grospoliner He has no sources, evidence, nor does he even have his claims and arguments in line.
Go to the video " Interstellar Clouds And Dark Nebulae" and read his comments concerning CERN and neutrinos. Then go to "CERN: First Appearance of Tau Neutrinos" and read his comments on CERN.
Briefly to explain why I want you to look at it. On one video he claims CERN produces neutrinos electricity. Second video he claims CERN does not produce neutrinos and is a weapons laboratory.
LordBrakensiek 1 year ago
@Grospoliner
I'll try explaining this to you again.
1- many "anomalies" of the sun can be explained in terms of electrical effects
2 - verification of electrical connections between sun and Earth
3 - electric discharge between comets and sun
4 - electric sunspots
The posts following this will explain each in more detail. Take notes, you might learn something.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
As you can see this paper is dated 1968, this is twentieth century science, here, just one more century and you can be all caught up. When you're finished reading that paper, feel free to try and refute any of it that you think is deserving.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
2-
"Dec. 11, 2007: NASA's fleet of THEMIS spacecraft, launched less than 8 months ago, has made three important discoveries about spectacular eruptions of Northern Lights called "substorms" and the source of their power. The discoveries include giant magnetic ropes that connect Earth's upper atmosphere to the Sun and explosions in the outskirts of Earth's magnetic field."
These "magnetic ropes" are birkeland currents, connecting Earth and the sun.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
As you can see, no reasonable explanation is offered to explain these "magnetic ropes" between the Earth and the sun in the context of stellar fusion. They are, however, an expected consequence of the electric sun model, which suggests the sun and the Earth are charged bodies interacting electrically. Birkeland currents are readily demonstrated in the lab, unlike stellar fusion models.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fertilizerspike
3-
"In a spectacular coincidence, a coronal mass ejection (CME) accompanied by an erupting prominence occurred on the southwest limb of the Sun within hours after the destruction of the comets. The CME and prominence were probably unrelated to the comets, being instead the product of weeks of intense magnetic activity in that region of the Sun."
Astronogers routinely pronounce clearly related events as "unrelated". It's perplexing and bizarre.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fertilizerspike
These astronogers must be coincidence theorists. They think it's just a coincidence that as comets get very close to the sun they're struck by massive "CME".
The "weeks of intense magnetic activity" is readily explained when you realize the sun and the comet are charged bodies. As they draw close, there is an electric discharge between them, causing the comet to flare and producing magnetic fields in its path.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fertilizerspike
It's worth noting that this has happened again and again. SOHO has observed many comets being basically blasted apart by electric discharges from the sun, all preceded by this same "intense magnetic activity" that's so inexplicable to astronogers. We've also observed Jupiter blasting a comet apart, as it fell it turned into a blazing string of beads, an expected consequence of intense plasma discharge.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fertilizerspike
4-
As I've already stated, sunspots reveal the surface of the sun is cooler than the photosphere above it. This would not be the case if the sun were lit by heat radiating from inside. Sunspots exhibit the morphology of a "charged sheath vortex", which is an effect of electric discharge in plasma. Astronogers call this a "dark energy problem" of stellar physics because they can't explain it. It's "dark" to them because they ignore electrical effects in space.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fertilizerspike
If sunspots are electrical, the sun is electrical.
The sun is lit electrically. Stellar fusion models are dismal failures at explaining even the most fundamental properties and behaviours of the sun. It is a laughable hypothesis that was dead on arrival but has been somehow and for some reason kept on life support for a hundred years.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike you are aware that nuclear bombs, nuclear fission (pretty close to nuclear fusion), create an EMP which was a worry for the US during the cold war because they thought the Russians might launch nuclear bombs into space and knock out all the satellites leaving the US in the dark communications wise
11235811193049 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Grospoliner
Don't project your ignorance onto me, I don't share it.
We have many lines of evidence showing that the sun is not powered internally by fusion.
Sunspots reveal the surface beneath the photosphere is cooler than the photosphere above it. This would not be the case if the sun were powered internally by fusion.
There you go, one single observation falsifies your belief. Are you satisfied now?
A "standard" that ignores science is not "scientific". You have a lot to learn still.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@Grospoliner Best guess on fertilizerspike's sources, look up Immanuel Velikovsky, Wallace Thornhill, David Talbott, Hannes Alfven and Eric Lerner. He seems to have some kind of odd fussion of ideas centered around the Electric Universe "theory". No really, look them up... it's almost as much fun as reading 50s era Sci Fi.
AutodidacticPhd 1 year ago
@AutodidacticPhd Well, I do not think we have to worry about fertilizerspike and his botched science theories on this channel anymore. That's if Best0fScience really did block him.
LordBrakensiek 1 year ago
@LordBrakensiek Well, the trouble is, the Electric Universe nonsense has broad appeal, more so than Plasma Cosmology alone, and as far as I can tell, it's audience is growing. Most people might just dismiss it out of hand, but I've been slowly working my way through their material so that I know where the holes are and how best to expose them... because I suspect we're going to see more new agers and conspiracy theorists taking up its banner (and trolling on its behalf) before too long.
AutodidacticPhd 1 year ago
@AutodidacticPhd Your right, I guess I need to take another look at them.
LordBrakensiek 1 year ago
@AutodidacticPhd
You claim you know where the "holes are" in the electric universe model, well feel free to explain it, I'm dying to hear this.
You and other people are the ones continually bringing up "conspiracy" and things like "new agers", look in the mirror before you go pointing fingers at others. You fear the electric universe model because it adequately explains "mysteries" you've spent your whole adult life learning and believing. Get over it, you believed in bullshit, move on.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@LordBrakensiek
I sent a message asking B0S to block him.. Either they got my message or fertilizer got tired of getting pwned..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel
Your message was unheeded, I can comment without any trouble at all. Most likely the owner of the channel saw all the comments directed at me personally and is overlooking my responses directed at those individuals. That certainly seems fair.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
That or they don't pay much attention to messages or their comment section..
That actually seems more likely..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@LordBrakensiek
No, I haven't been blocked, I don't know what makes you think I would.
There is nothing "botched" about the idea that over 99% of the universe is plasma and that plasmas are governed by electric and magnetic forces, they are negligibly affected by "gravity".
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike ' . . . 99% of the universe is plasma . . .'
What are your sources that can verify what you say is true? I looked it up myself and could not find any reliable information that adequately explained how and why. So maybe you could point me in the right direction since you are supposedly so familiar with the subject.
LordBrakensiek 1 year ago
@AutodidacticPhd
The people you mention all contributed to this body of knowledge, but don't stop there, don't forget Anthony L. Peratt, a physicist who worked at Los Alamos National Labs, then go to Sandia's web site and learn about their "z machine", plasma physics is a mature science, you need to catch up. This is not the gaslight era of astronomy, this is the twenty-first century.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@Grospoliner
Sunspots reveal the surface of the sun is cooler than the photosphere. This would not be the case if the sun was heated internally by fusion.
There is also a problem of "missing neutrinos" coming from the sun, in defiance of stellar fusion models. This has been "explained" away by saying they "change flavor". Preposterous.
I'm not thinking of "pulsars", but they're a good example of this sort of electrical "pulsing". Several thousand RPM is SLOW for an oscillation circuit.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@Exile1a Ah I see what you meant now. That's a good question, one I can't answer sadly, you'd have to ask someone invovled with observing those specific objects since they'd be the ones getting the spectrography on them.
Grospoliner 1 year ago
Illiterate creationists often say "goditit!"... That's all the science they understand... Retarded fucks.
ArteTuga 1 year ago
2:44
IT'S JIGGLYPUFF
HomoCyborgZombie 1 year ago
who ever voted this video down is a flucking yutz. Science is real And Awesome.
sabertooth1980 1 year ago 34
@sabertooth1980 I think they must have misclicked. Who could have anything to object to this? It's like voting down a video of a puppy.. who does that!? lol
chestbuster1987 1 year ago
@chestbuster1987 Mmmmm Puppies. Tasty Tasty Puppies. And they're cute too!
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
@sabertooth1980 They most likely made a mistake.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan I agree.
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
@sabertooth1980 fuck I said the same shit I should have read the comments first.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
amazing
atheistkyo 1 year ago
cool :-)
carbonhealth 1 year ago
@hyperseauton creation science-fiction really needs some new material
sfg911 1 year ago
@sfg911 Heheh "Creation Science-Fiction" I love it.
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
all hail the COSMOS, sagan we miss soo.
1980albatros 1 year ago 3
Beautiful!
OmegaisNearV2 1 year ago
Informative and entertaining at the same time: we couldn't ask for more!
Thank you for sharing!
danbergam 1 year ago
low quality ;/
sebek23b 1 year ago
@TehJedicake
Creation science ftw!
hyperseauton 1 year ago
@hyperseauton Silence, ignoramus! Intelligent people are having a conversation, so please take your willful stupidity elsewhere.
LordSlag 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@LordSlag
Friendo, Dr Jason Lisle is one of the foremost astronomers and works at the cutting edge of creation astronomy, astrometry, cosmogony as well as cosmology.
His models accurately reflect what really is going on in our awesome cosmos, that God created in a literal week for us to enjoy and shows how big bang cosmology is inherently flawed.
God bless you and your family.
Rand Paul 2012
hyperseauton 1 year ago
@hyperseauton God is flawed . Reject these preconcieved notions and free humanity one person at a time . You pray to Nihil.
ZachVMNTX1 1 year ago 2
@hyperseauton #LOL
TheLegendarySkeptic 1 year ago
@hyperseauton cause the bible and religion is not flawed at all.. pure fucking ignorance. Present your evidence that displays how the big bang theory is flawed... present any evidence that is testable to show that god exists.. stop talking about things you clearly do not understand. One day humanity will cure this disease called religion, I only hope it happens soon enough for you to wake the fuck up.
AtheistCause 1 year ago 2
@AtheistCause See My Video "How the Bible Disproves the Big Bang"
seanmPWH 1 year ago
@seanmPWH wow.. seriously? The first thing you type, and its already full of logical fail.. The only thing the bible proves is how large the human imagination really is.. please take your book of fairy tales and burn it for warmth, it is the only really useful thing it can do.
AtheistCause 1 year ago
@seanmPWH
The Bible is written by man so it is heresay. Anything in it is nothing more than electrical impulses in the human brain.
xetlive 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show