All Activity

These are government alerts; I know that the monthly testing of the emergency broadcast system on my TV is rather loud, so it may be that the government dictates this. Amber alerts go to Android phones, too. You can turn these alerts off, which I’m sure that Apple will point out. And likely have medical testimony about whether the alert can do this. But Apple has the big bucks, so they’re a target for lawsuits.

They lied about Roswell... twice... before they released what is now assumed to be the truth. The gov can't be trusted is completely justified, they lie their asses off when it suits them.

MigL pointed out that material has been declassified, and one of the links I recall said that when some Roswell details were released, there were plenty of people who still think there was a coverup, and still think it was aliens. The release did basically nothing. I think you overestimate the effect here - facts don’t make much of a dent with conspiracy folks. “The government can’t be trusted” colors everything.

https://globalnews.ca/news/8851556/apple-lawsuit-amber-alert-hearing-damage/ https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/44560022/Gordoa_et_al_v_Apple,_Inc_et_al I did some Googling, and the maximum output physically possible for Airpods is 100-105 decibels when in the ear. So if they're playing a sound at maximum volume, the maximum decibels their eardrums could be exposed to is 100-105 decibels. Apparently, the family waited two years before filing the lawsuit, but I can't find a source for this as of now, it was a comment made on Reddit. Is 100-105 decibels enough to instantly rupture a person's eardrum and immediately cause permanent hearing damage as the family claims?

- Will Rogers, in a 1932 newspaper column criticizing Herbert Hoover.

you're welcome...

I don't know. Occam tells me, it's nothing.

Desktops have undergone a remarkable evolution since their inception, shaping the way we work and interact with technology. From the bulky machines of yesteryears to the sleek, powerful systems of today, the journey of desktops is a testament to human innovation. With advancements in processing power, graphics capabilities, and design aesthetics, modern desktops cater to a diverse range of needs, whether it's gaming, content creation, or professional tasks. Despite the rise of laptops and mobile devices, desktops continue to hold their ground, offering unparalleled performance and customization options. Join us as we delve into the fascinating world of desktops and explore their past, present, and future.

Well it was intended to be "scary asm" (auto correct) sarcasm I admit to being a bit obtuse when it comes to humor, but the key to controlling nukes is control of fissionable material not secret blue prints. But my point is that technological secrets cannot and should not be something that is kept forever. In this day and age its highly improbable that a tech secret from 50 years ago is still relevant enough to justify allowing a rumor like UFOs to propagate through society. Admission that specific UFO sightings were being covered up due to secret technology would be a profound blow to the whole UFO idea of aliens. That is an important revelation my friend, to both ghosts and UAP but in the absence of evidence of such sensory interference or in the presence of a sighting (of either) that simply cannot be mistaken identity do we really assign the same probability to a supernatural phenomena that we do to a natural phenomena we already have an actual example of? I've seen a ghost, a crying baby sitting on a dresser in my grandma's house (in my defense it was as I woke up from a nights sleep) but it was real to me. I was also the only person to see and hear the baby, there were other people in the house. I was 12, even then I didn't assign much significance to the experience mostly because no one else heard the crying baby as I watched it fade away almost like it evaporated. Weird experience, makes the hair stand up on my neck even now to think of it. Now compare that to a sighting where what was called a day light disk is sighted up close and personal by multiple people. Obviously a structured craft seen by more than one person, still doesn't make it real but would anyone really put both of those in the same category? I honestly do not think so. Thank you!

Your point being??? Hubris won't kill you, it just makes you unhappy, until you die wondering...

Yeah more drive-by nonsense! Keep it up , "Make my Point"

It's really has little to do with how to verbally describe something. Anyone can claim this or that. The wording really doesn't matter. In order to confirm viability of those claims you need something beyond verbal or pictures etc. That tool is mathematics using known physics. A theory has no use whatsoever if it cannot be tested for viability. It's a simple truth I realize it's disappointing to hear that from me but I would lying to state otherwise. It's easy to describe a toriod under geometry. The mathematics exist for Bohmian guiding wave action so at least a large part of the legwork is available. That would be a good start.

Also 10Kg of it at about $4000/g.

Funstrating isn't it. You know somethings there but you can't define it. Any infinite quantity has a finite portion but the finite portion is outside R=0

Plutonium being famously available in every corner drugstore. If what you claim were true, we’d be awash in nuclear weapons - every country and radical group would already have them.

I don't, it was an assumption; which is cogent to the topic. Now where's the fun in that? 🧐 Bolded mine, is it though? This world has been walking a tightrope of disaster, since the revolution that produced a nuclear weapon, which, at best, is a tangential threat; bc there's absolutely nothing you or I can do, to stop the fuckwit that actually pressed the button, and it's not something we can change, unlike the less obvious potential disaster's...

All the Earth orbit crossing asteroids in the solar system of that size are known and tracked but if one were lined up for possible collision in one century's time lt seems enough time to dismantle that asteroid and scatter the bits into not-intersecting-with-Earth orbits. Would not be easy - a massive project that probably requires more cooperation than humanity is capable of? And maybe it can be exploded into a cloud of debris too wide and diffuse to be dangerous. If that were to use up the world's stockpiles of nuclear weapons - using them for good whilst getting rid of them for good would be good. Too good I expect. Something unknown, ie from far out, won't give that much time - a few years of warning (maybe) to do things that will... take a few years to do. If I understand right if the debris isn't scattered wide enough it can be as bad as hitting as one mass. A different kind of won't be easy, with a lot more urgency I suppose.

It's essentially doing what you are, it presents compelling anecdotal testimonials, often with multiple sources, and presents it for consideration of the audience and two scientist's, one a believer and one a denier. It's a bit rich to demand scientific evidence in the context of this discussion.

When the input signal is too low or confusing, the brain will make something up. That's how pareidolia works.

Let's try it this way. I've been specific in my wording. I've never said Bell's inequalities are wrong. I've always only said obviated or overcome. The reason is that the Copenhagen interpretation is just as true as the Holonomic Toroid. The explanation is in found in collision geometry. The Toroid precesses towards the screen, and its precessions bring it closer one wave at a time. It "collides" with the screen anywhere in the Heisenberg sphere and our sub light measuring techniques cannot pinpoint which precession causes the collision. From sublight observers, both are equally true. The Toroid, as a theory, has two uses. One, it gives a unifying three dimensional logic to what can obviously be represented in higher dimensions. It also explains how geometry can make space appear curved even if the same effect can be achieved in flat space and gravity as a higher order precession. Two, it gives a shape to engineer around, because it naturally accomplishes the toroidal superposition space while also denominating the hidden variables. It's the theory of everything because it also explains the Copenhagen interpretation, while the reverse is clearly not true, or else Feinman would have.

Exactly so. A value of a function being undefined somewhere is often part of a function's definition. It does not break math or anything. A singularity exists, by definition A notion of a particle "being there" is undefined, by definition

An important detail as Markus just mentioned R=0, cannot be defined The mathematics breaks down is the short hand descriptive. Its also not part of any finite group. We can't define anything particle related there as well. For the same reasons...if you can't define the spacetime the particles would reside in. Its impossible to define any particle presence

Let’s further assume that clock (1) is far from the BH, and orbits slowly. This clock will see (2) to be still ticking, but at a much slower rate (compared to itself). It will see (3) to initially fall at increasing speed, while its tick rate gradually slows; as it approaches the horizon its descent will appear to slow more and more, and its tick rate appears slower and slower. Its visual appearance becomes dimmer and redder, and it eventually just fades into invisibility. But it will never be reckoned to have reached the horizon. (2) sees (1) to be ticking at a much faster rate, and it will visually appear blue-shifted. (3) will appear similar as described above, just at a different rate; it will also never be reckoned to have reached the horizon. For (3) itself, the time it takes to reach the horizon is finite; the fall time from horizon to singularity is also finite (for a 10 solar mass BH this will be on the order of ~150 microseconds). What tick rates it will see on clocks (1) and (2) will depend on where along its free fall trajectory the clock is - this is a bit of a balancing act between its own position in the gravitational well, and the degree of relative motion between the clocks. However, once it has fallen below the horizon, it should see both (1) and (2) to be ticking faster wrt itself. After the initial free fall period, they would all be seen to be asymptotically slowing towards the same region of space, while gradually fading from view. But they would never quite catch up. This is not simple, since it’s a mathematical model in four dimensions. Spacetime is not a substance, so resist the temptation to think about it that way. The best I can offer is to think about it as a network of relationships - it tells you how clocks and rulers at different places and times are related to one another. Each nexus within the network corresponds to a physical event (meaning: a specific point in space at a specific instant in time), and has attached to it an object (called the metric tensor) which, if you tell it a direction, will give you the spacetime distance to its closest neighbouring nexus in that direction. So it’s a network of separations between events. In special relativity that separation is the same wherever and whenever you are (the metric tensor is just a matrix of constants), but in general relativity it may explicitly depend on where and when you are. For events that are more widely separated (not neighbouring), you add up all the individual separations between the nexus that are in between, so you perform an integration. The global properties of that network as a whole influence local relationships, and the form of local relationships puts constraints on how the global network can look like. Also, if something changes locally, the effects of that will propagate outwards and “ripple along” the network. It’s a bit like a spiderweb. Be careful about the trampoline analogy - it is just a visual plot that tells you how certain length measurements (rulers) are related along a specific coordinate in a specific geometry. It’s not a complete picture of what this spacetime would look like. Technically speaking, it’s the limit of scalar curvature that diverges - the point r=0 isn’t part of the manifold, so no curvature tensors are definable there. This is why the technical definition uses geodesic incompleteness, and not curvature. That just as an aside

I was just paraphrasing something I read many years ago that suggested that given fissile material a low yield bomb could have been made as far back as the middle ages. I thought it outrageous at the time but over the years the reality of the control of fissile material, as you say, is the key, the tech isn't all that complicated. After looking into it since I read that article I've found many detailed drawings of nukes in the literature and the most mysterious part of them was the "trigger" eventually I found out what that was as well. I don't want to die of radiation poisoning from hubris. I discussed this with swansont, the US is not the end all be all of UFO reports, many countries have their own sightings and some even have their own investigation programs. It has been suggested that that many smaller countries as in South and Central America defer to the US to the point of letting the US military into their country when a sighting needs to be investigated. Nothing but anecdotal reports on this but countries like Great Briton, Australia, Canada and NATO have been suggested to be inside the US control when UFOs are involved, again nothing official I am aware of. Russia certainly has their own program, as does France which of course goes against the claim of NATO deferring to the US. Almost certainly most of what I see and hear is filtered by the influence of the US gov. Anyone can be fooled by optical phenomena. Though I had in my younger days interests in photography, astronomy, and various optical phenomena, I was utterly baffled one foggy night going down a quiet country road as a cluster of red glowing balls appeared ahead and slowly rose into the air as I moved towards them. It took a while for my WTF moment to give way to comprehension. If they had been flashing, and there hadn't been fog, I would have understood right away that I was approaching a wind turbine farm. But there was some glitch that night in the electronics that set the normal strobe rate (30/m). So the FAA-required beacons were stuck on, shining continuously. So what would normally be flashing red dots atop distinguishable turbine towers were turned by fog into slowly ascending glowing red balls. A few years later the utility company, in response to complaints from farmers, put in Aircraft Detection Lighting Systems (ADLS), which use radar systems that only turn on turbine lights when an aircraft is approaching the wind farm. That is a cool way to deal with the issue!