Charles Brightman
The Wall Street Journal
comments
Comments by "Charles Brightman" (@charlesbrightman4237) on "The Stealth Submarine-Sailboat Drone the U.S. Navy Is Using Near Iran | WSJ Equipped" video.
3
Hydrogen powered, electric drone propellers, plus:
'BATTERYLESS BATTERIES':
To help power equipment in outer space:
Potential endless energy source basically anywhere in this universe:
a. Small aluminum cones with an electrical wire running through the center of the cones, cones spaced apart (not touching I'm thinking) but end to end.
b. Electromagentic radiation energy in the atmosphere interacts with the aluminum cones.
c. Jostled atoms and molecules in the cone eventually have some electrons try to get away from other electrons of which those electrons gather at the larger end of the cone, of which also creates an area of positive charge at the smaller end of the cone.
d. The electron's in the wire are attracted to the positive end of the cone and the positive 'end' in the wire are attracted to the negatively charged end of the cone.
e. Basically a 'battery' has been created inside the electrical wire itself, different areas of electrical potential. Basically a 'wire battery' or a 'batteryless battery', however one wanted to call it.
f. Numerous cones placed end to end increases the number of 'batteries' in the wire.
(In series to increase voltage, in parallel to increase amperage).
* Via QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics) whereby electromagnetism interacts with electrons in atoms and molecules, one would have to find the correct 'em' frequency for the correct material being utilized for the cones. The shape of the cones could also come into play. The type and size of the wire as well as the type and thickness of the insulation between the cones and the wire would also be factors.
* Of course also, possibly 2D triangles made up of certain materials with a conductor going down through the center of the triangle could possible achieve the same 'batteryless' battery system.
* Plus possibly with the 2D concept, layered 2D's that absorb different energy frequencies, thereby increasing the net output.
2
1
@@gmailaccount9962 AND POSSIBLY:
QUESTION:
DO ALL GALAXIES EVENTUALLY COLLAPSE IN UPON THEMSELVES?
a. Modern science claims that 'gravity' is matter warping the fabric of spacetime.
b. There is a lot of matter in a galaxy which would put a huge dent in spacetime.
c. How could a galaxy not collapse in upon itself if space and time were warped to make it so?
d. Or, is modern science wrong as to what 'gravity' truly is?
e. And what exactly is 'space' that it can be warped?
f. And what exactly is 'time' that it can be warped?
g. Modern science claims that from nubula clouds in this universe that new stars, planets, moons, solar systems and a new galaxy can form.
h. Modern science claims that nubula clouds come from supernova'd stars.
i. It must have been a huge star that supernova'd so as to be able to generate a nebula cloud large enough to generate more stars, planets, moons, solar systems and a new galaxy.
j. Or, is modern science wrong about how all nebula clouds form?
k. Is it at least possible that galaxies collapse in upon themselves, go supernova, thereby generating enough matter and energy so as to be able to generate new stars, planets, moons, solar systems and a new galaxy?
l. Galaxy -> Collapses in upon itself -> Supernova's -> Huge nebula cloud forms -> New galaxy eventually forms.
m. Possibly been going on throughout all of eternity past, is going on today, and possibly will be going on throughout all of future eternity?
n. Possibly also why there are so many unanswered questions concerning the singular big bang theory, because the singular big bang theory is not really true?
o. The universe always existed in some form, never had a beginning, and might possibly never have an end? No Creator necessary? Is that even why in part some cling to a singular big bang theory so as to be able to still in part be able to justify a Creator God existing (which probably does not actually exist in actual reality)?
p. Modern science claims that an expanding 'space' of this existence will end in a 'big freeze'. But is it more correct that this existence will not end in a big freeze but just that galaxies and life just come and go in this eternal existence? Life just has to find a way to stay alive in outer space with galaxies that come and go, otherwise life ends one day from something, including possibly a collapsing galaxy?
1
Also, a question:
DO ALL GALAXIES EVENTUALLY COLLAPSE IN UPON THEMSELVES?
a. Modern science claims that 'gravity' is matter warping the fabric of spacetime.
b. There is a lot of matter in a galaxy which would put a huge dent in spacetime.
c. How could a galaxy not collapse in upon itself if space and time were warped to make it so?
d. Or, is modern science wrong as to what 'gravity' truly is?
e. And what exactly is 'space' that it can be warped?
f. And what exactly is 'time' that it can be warped?
g. Modern science claims that from nubula clouds in this universe that new stars, planets, moons, solar systems and a new galaxy can form.
h. Modern science claims that nubula clouds come from supernova'd stars.
i. It must have been a huge star that supernova'd so as to be able to generate a nebula cloud large enough to generate more stars, planets, moons, solar systems and a new galaxy.
j. Or, is modern science wrong about how all nebula clouds form?
k. Is it at least possible that galaxies collapse in upon themselves, go supernova, thereby generating enough matter and energy so as to be able to generate new stars, planets, moons, solar systems and a new galaxy?
l. Galaxy -> Collapses in upon itself -> Supernova's -> Huge nebula cloud forms -> New galaxy eventually forms.
m. Possibly been going on throughout all of eternity past, is going on today, and possibly will be going on throughout all of future eternity?
n. Possibly also why there are so many unanswered questions concerning the singular big bang theory, because the singular big bang theory is not really true?
o. The universe always existed in some form, never had a beginning, and might possibly never have an end? No Creator necessary? Is that even why in part some cling to a singular big bang theory so as to be able to still in part be able to justify a Creator God existing (which probably does not actually exist in actual reality)?
p. Modern science claims that an expanding 'space' of this existence will end in a 'big freeze'. But is it more correct that this existence will not end in a big freeze but just that galaxies and life just come and go in this eternal existence? Life just has to find a way to stay alive in outer space with galaxies that come and go, otherwise life ends one day from something, including possibly a collapsing galaxy?
1