Tough I agree with most of your point, you forgot that it is all theory.

Maybe something we ''know'' today will be proved wrong in 50, 100 or 200 years and they will look back at us and say: ''How could they have believed that? What a bunch of morons.''

Just like we do when we look down on history.

Just saying.

It looks like this was an attempt to explain gravity before Einstein did. General relativity turned out to be surprisingly accurate though.



My point is that theories are theories because they have been tested and proven to work. Mind you, there are always short comings of a theory, which a later theory does eventually close.

People come up with different shit every day, and they are generally not based in anything formal. Not saying that this was crazy for coming up with it, but the whole electric sun theory isnt exactly accepted by the scientific community

This post was edited by khemist on Jul 3 2013 04:15pm

soo we go with 1 theory and forget the rest? good job...Einstien's theories at the time seemed mostly correct, now we look at things in a better light.

Not saying Einstien was wrong, but looking at things in the dark a person can only do soo much...

What do you mean?

This post was edited by khemist on Jul 3 2013 04:22pm

Michio kaku disagree's with Einstein in more then 1 theory thanks too technology we have today...We see things in a better light Then possible in Einstein's time....for example traveling in a black hole is now believed possible...

Well it is but you would most likely die of tidal forces in a pretty short amount of time.

Michio Kaku says all the text books we have need to be tossed in the trash...Soo keep studying just know what you read is just a theory that has already been proven wrong in some cases..

"x says this about y, so you're wrong"

Cite your sources, preferably scientific journals. Until then, all your claims are false.

michio Kaku is one source....Not sure his stance on the electric universe but he claims a lot of our text books wrong...

This post was edited by doomchaser on Jul 3 2013 06:01pm

He is not a source. He does not have empirical evidence or any journals written on any of the subjects you're claiming he does.

I could tell you that 2+2=5, but that doesn't make me credible.