1

New Theories / Re: The dark planet theory?

« on: 03/11/2017 14:46:06 »

Could you fill us in a little more about this 9th planet? Links to discussions, circumstantial evidence, etc.?

I'd be happy to;

http://www.caltech.edu/news/caltech-researchers-find-evidence-real-ninth-planet-49523

2

New Theories / Re: Are UFOs Real?

« on: 30/10/2017 09:58:19 »

The UFOs in the story were (according to claims) touched, not identified. 

This says otherwise, your account of this from watching the videos is quite honestly wrong, if someone touches something it is considered identified, just as @Thebox said. Whether this identification is by sight or by touch, it is still identified regardless. Therefore it wouldn't be considered a UFO anymore, to give it another name it would be an IFO ( Identified Flying Object) Or maybe a SIFO ( Self Identified Flying Object). In any circumstance, it is identified and would no longer be a UFO. So that is why I wouldn't watch the videos, moreover, I prefer videos with actual fact and not just some stories.

3

New Theories / Re: What doe's an object have that is equal to another object?

« on: 27/10/2017 11:21:06 »

but in our atmosphere, they fall at different rates of velocity.

No, the feather still falls at the same force, but the air slows it down. G is a constant to all objects.

Many apologies, I was supposed to have mentioned that air slows the feather, I seem to have missed it out.

4

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 25/10/2017 12:07:08 »

Personally, I am of the belief that the universe is a multiple big bang universe, a reason for this is if we take a look at the matter that is currently held in the universe it doesn't really conform to what the original big bang was. Now the explanation for this is that we all know it is a big bang but the universe can't have expanded to the size it was supposed to have been immediately after the big bang. If in theory there is such a thing as dark matter/energy it would have to have been around since the immediate aftermath of the big bang. Now without being there, we won't know if it is true. But a double big bang at the same time is far more likely in my opinion. One being material matter, I.E. visible matter and the other being dark matter, so if in retrospect this is right it would have been two big bangs caused by the collision of the dark and light matter. Therefore the materialization of a big bang. On their own, it could have been so that they were two rather insignificant areas of energy and matter that wouldn't explode on their own.