swansont

! Moderator Note This was explained to you in your thread ! Moderator Note Mainstream threads are not the place to bring up objections to mainstream science.

There’s no suggestion of anything that’s testable in the context of some new model.

I’ve mentioned what needs to be done. Anybody who’s serious about the subject needs to do that. If they lack the will to do so, oh well. The status quo will continue. If they are claiming more than what the evidence shows, then they are mistaken.

What is there to investigate if there isn’t any rigor? It’s not like these phenomena are being held to a different standard that’s present in science. The frustration, apparently, is being held to the same standard. If the necessary information isn’t there, it isn’t there. It would be like LIGO or CERN (or any lab result) getting a signal but something isn’t calibrated (and can’t be retroactively calibrated). Too bad, but the data are worthless. You can assume there is a phenomenon to be investigated, but you can’t just assume a given observation is an alien. Relying on random observations is unlikely to ever give rigorous data. What you can do is set up coordinated, rigorous investigation, just like amateur scientists do in other fields. e.g. instead of one, you have multiple cameras at known locations, so you can triangulate positions and get speeds. But if anybody is doing this, we haven’t been made aware of it. Because that’s all there is under these circumstances

The time dilation is not simply a function of g; it’s the gravitational potential that’s important. for constant g, the dilation is given by gh/c^2. The distance matters. As md65536 points out, a larger wheel with the same g will have a larger dilation. v^2 is bigger. Or, if you want to view it via the acceleration, ah is bigger.

What is extraordinary about it? The talking head claims it was flying fast, but there’s no analysis given, and AFAICT no way to validly conclude this. We don’t know how big it is, and so we don’t know how far away it is. The plane is moving (as TheVat points out) so for all we know this was basically stationary with respect to the ground, and the plane flew past at several hundred kph. Perhaps this was a Boeing and something fell off the front. Can we discount this possibility? Same problem as with basically all videos that get posted - there’s no way to get any useful information from them, thus they remain unidentified. So not like this, if it were in the foreground and blurred a little, and at lower resolution? What maneuvers? Joe Rogan even points out that the plane is moving. As for the shape, wind will do that, and phone cameras use a rolling shutter which distorts objects moving with respect to the camera. https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-is-rolling-stutter/

! Moderator Note No, I don’t think we do. Your previous thread using this diagram was locked, and you were told not to bring it up again. You say you have math, so you get one chance here to post something that complies with the rules (some combination of a model, some falsifiable claim, evidence). We’re not going to have you string us along as before.

! Moderator Note You posted this in classical physics, about optics. Optics is what needs to be discussed. Not karma or creepiness or arachnophobia (which you had a thread on, and it was closed) or any unsubstantiated musing on any topic.

What biology class was this? I’m guessing it was not college level. I think the food chain is more nuanced than this, once you study in some depth, as TheVat’s and CharonY’s posts would imply.

I’m sure a search engine can shed some light on this

It’s not a matter of you being an idiot. The details here involve advanced physics. Quantum oscillations don’t involve motion as you normally think about it - it’s not like a pendulum, where you can make the amplitude a little smaller. In quantum systems the energy differences are like steps, and in the ground state there isn’t a lower step.

A rotation will slow the clock down; this has been independently measured citations 82-84 in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity You can analyze these as equivalent to gravitational redshifts with acceleration v^2/r

! Moderator Note What does this have to do with optics? Please stay on topic, whatever that is

Saying this is not the same as “there is a paradox except in the case where we postulate a privileged reference frame” but at this point I’m not surprised that you don’t see this. ! Moderator Note At this point you’re just repeating earlier claims, without making any correction to your errors, so there’s no point in continuing. Closed. Don’t re-introduce the topic.

Carnivores eat herbivores, and sometimes other carnivores. This notion of producers and consumers seems overly simplistic. Like someone is applying a very rudimentary economic model to it.