Airbrush

On 12/23/2021 at 4:34 AM, dimreepr said:

Now were back to my initial question, why are they hiding?

Like any wildlife photographer, you hide from your subject, so you don't mess up your observations.

My theory is that they are so omniscient, (IF they are here) that they know the current state of our technology, so they can avoid being "too captured" by it.  By that I mean the best evidence the Nimitz pilots could capture looks stupid.  They have lots of video of small blurry objects traveling in a straight line at constant speed.  Why not the physics-defying maneuvers?  The aliens know that poor evidence will convince few enough people, so they can continue business as usual, unhampered by humans. 🙂

On 12/21/2021 at 3:32 AM, swansont said:

Have we found few because there are few, or because detecting them is difficult?

Like all humans are fascinated by e.g. bugs? 

Or is it that a few of them would be fascinated by us, and the rest are just going about their duties.

No? Where do they get their resources, then?

 

1.  Have we found few because there are few, or because detecting them is difficult?

Last I heard 3/4 of local stars are red dwarfs that have mega flares and their habitable zone is so close to the red dwarf that they would be tidally locked.  Super-Earths are very common, could a super-earth around a red dwarf support intelligent ETs?  I just read an article that said mega flares from red dwarfs blast out closer to the poles of the red dwarf than from the equator, which would less of a threat to life on tidally-locked super-earths.

https://earthsky.org/space/red-dwarf-stars-superflares-red-dwarf-planets-habitability/#:~:text=Bottom line%3A Planets orbiting red dwarf stars could,on fully convective stars occur at high latitudes

2.  Like all humans are fascinated by e.g. bugs?   Or is it that a few of them would be fascinated by us, and the rest are just going about their duties.

If intelligent, technological life is VERY rare, we would be very interesting to any other that had the ability to travel here.

3.  No? Where do they get their resources, then?

They can get their resources from the Kuiper belt and asteroid belt much easier than from Earth.

It seems to me, considering the very few earth-like planets we have found, it might be that intelligent, technological ETs are rare.  So if, or when, ETs ever stumbled upon us, it is most probable that they arrived here a long ago.  Perhaps they had plenty of time to figure out Earth languages.  We have stealth, they must have better stealth, so they can easily abduct people and take their cell phones and other technology, to be disassembled, analyzed, and thoroughly understood.  What is the likelihood that ETs, that can perform interstellar travel, that arrived here a long time ago, and had a long time to analyze our languages and read ALL our news, ALL our science, would they know more about Earth than we do, and know more about us than we know about ourselves?

They must be fascinated by us!  They don't need our resources.  They don't want to eat us.  They would like to monitor us.  They are sophisticated and think Earth is the best circus within a thousand light years.  Be proud to be an Earthling.

The Dark Forest theory:  "The only kind of alien civilizations out there are quiet ones or dead ones."

On 12/10/2021 at 4:16 AM, dimreepr said:

Why do you assume more advanced is better?

"The war of the worlds" springs to mind.

Here's one:

Why are they hiding?

I assume more advanced because we think it is very, very difficult to travel to other stars.  If they can get here, they must be very far advanced in technology compared to us.  Does that mean they could know more about us than we know about ourselves?  Do we know more about lab mice than the mice know about themselves?

Maybe they are hiding from us to not disrupt what they are observing.  We don't intend to get mixed up in lab experiments so much that it affects the experiments.  We try to not have our thumb in front of the camera lens when we take a photo.  Maybe they understand us so thoroughly that they know exactly how much they can reveal to us (blurred, fuzzy photos and video) without us reacting in a manner that would disrupt they observations of us.

Here are a few questions about intelligent aliens:

IF they are here, no matter where they came from, they are far more advanced than us.   Probably they are thousands or millions of years more advanced, rather than merely decades or centuries more advanced.  We have stealth that fools the best radar, why would they not?  Why would they have lights to show themselves to us?  Because they are unable to be completely stealthy?  Because they want to be seen a little bit but not too much?  With so many cell phones with high-definition photo and video cameras, why not more clear pictures of them?  Because they have been studying us for thousands of years and they know more about us than we know about ourselves?  They are aware of our technological abilities, so when cameras in cell phones became very common, they were aware of this and so became more careful to not be seen too much?

Why are all the recent video, starting from the Nimitz pilots in 2004, only show craft flying at a constant speed when we are told their craft can make 90 degree turns that would cause thousands of G forces which would mean the crew are not soft beings but robots designed to withstand high G forces?

On 11/14/2021 at 12:52 PM, Godot said:

First, transuranes are terribly unstable, with half-life in the millisecond range. (see below for some more...). Then, these unstable superheavy nuclei would decay into lighter nuclei, eventually ending up in one of the four possible decay series. (One of these, the Neptunium cascade, is technically extinct in earths natural element composition, as the half-life of its most stable isotope is in the million-years-range - while Earth has a few billion years of age)

So, unless you're thinking REALLY big, no chance that these nuclei are stable...

....

Nuclear physics, however, predicts that at certain nucleic weights with appropriate proton numbers, the nuclei should again be more stable. The best known is the element 110 island of stability. The wikipedia entry concerning that is quite good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability. As of now, we don't yet have the techniques to get those isotopes with the sufficent neutron numbers, though, but the less-stable isotopes that were generated did AFAIK mostly behave as predicted.

The question where trans-irons come from - after all, nuclear fusion kinda "stops" at iron - has been partially answered / demonstrated: The merger of neutron stars mentioned above. https://www.science.org/content/article/neutron-star-mergers-may-create-much-universe-s-gold

But beware, that case isn't closed yet, there's much ongoing debate: Look here for a more differentiated take: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2026110118.

Still, we know that NS mergers do generate heavy elements, and there's no reason that there should be a cap at somewhere around 100 Da. That superheavy stuff just tends to decay really, really fast...

Does this mean that elements heavier than uranium cannot live very long?

If there was a stable, long-lived element, heavier than uranium, somewhere in this galaxy, could we detect it?

Is it possible that in a certain region of the galaxy there was a series of supernovas of massive stars, creating a second generation of massive stars that also went supernova after only hundreds of millions of years.  And this process continued more times than our solar system did.  Is it possible that matter that is heavier than uranium could have been created?  If there existed elements, in other solar systems, heavier than uranium, could we detect it?

On 9/30/2021 at 7:20 AM, Althistorybuff said:

OK, thanks for the feedback. It sounds like the answer is that very close-in planets around red-dwarf stars would see tidal forces so strong that it would evntually force a large moon to spiral into and crash. Then, the planet eventually would become tidally locked. I appreciated all the help. 

That is similar to what happens to a binary star system that is orbiting, and gets too close to, a supermassive black hole.  The pair gets torn apart, one crashes into the BH and the other get shot out of the galaxy.

18 hours ago, MigL said:

Don't go away Airbrush.

The Big Bang theory is based on certain observations, like galactic recession increasing linearly with increasing distance and the CMBR.
It is also predicated by GR, and the assumption that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.

So yes, you are right, it is an assumption.; and at large enough distances, a fairly accurate assumption, for the observable universe.

Similarly GR does not allow for preferred frames, and a center of expansion certanly implies a preferred frame ( never mind the fact that the expansion with a center would look totally different unless we are the center; and what that implies for Religion ). So, unless drastic changes were made to GR, it would cease to be a viable theory.

You are then left with the problem of having to explain the observational evidence for isotropic universal expansion, and the homogenous/isotropic CMBR. These are actual physical observations, and cannot be assumed away; they require an explanation.

How would you do that ?
B

Thank you MigL.  That's what I call an answer!  You get +1 for that. 🙂

19 hours ago, zapatos said:

Thursday

Please quote the post where I promote police violence.  It is not easy to track down "Thursday."

You think I'm a Trumper when I have always been a very vocal never-Trumper.  Please give me some other examples of my posts that make me sound like a Trumper.  You are not a very good judge of personalities.  I've known you, thru your posts here, for about a decade.  We both started posting here about a decade ago.  After a decade of posting, you think I'm a Trumper. 😄

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

My plan is to let the experts do their thing. As usual.

It didn't work on Jan 6th, I hope they get it right this time.  Now they have experience. 🙂

On 9/9/2021 at 3:47 PM, zapatos said:

You are a typical Trumper. Quit promoting tactics that lead to police violence.

When was the last time I promoted police violence?  Something I do often?  I'm not promoting anything, wise guy.  You make it sound like I'm arguing a view point for a violent confrontation at the Capitol, but I'm not.  I'm brain storming.  What's your plan for defending the Capitol? 

I already revised my plan.  Have the same kind of fencing as on Jan 6th (that won't hurt anyone) but fasten the segments together more securely so the rioters cannot pull them apart and club the cops with them.  Anyone who jumps the fence will be zip tied and put in the paddy wagon.  Even peaceful protesters are routinely zip tied and taken to the police station to be booked.  It's called "good trouble."

Anyone think the rally on Sept 18th will be as big or bigger than Jan 6th?

On 9/10/2021 at 1:10 PM, zapatos said:

At some point it helps if one accepts they are an amateur trying to have an in depth discussion with experts. When that happens, one no longer tries to argue they are right, but instead tries to understand why they are wrong.

It's hard to understand how a Ferarri functions when your automotive knowledge is based upon playing with matchbox cars.

I'm speaking of myself of course.

That means that since I am not an expert I should go away.  Thanks pal.

I'm not trying to argue I'm right.  I'm asking how do they know what they say they know?  They say "there can be no center or edge" to what we see as the big bang.   I still haven't seen a coherent answer.  Nobody is sure about anything beyond the observable universe.  I'm asking for your best guess.  I'm no expert, so I'm asking.  Can you answer my questions?  Einstein said something like "a good scientist should be able to explain their work to a child" basically.  At least lead the child in the right direction.  I have not seen the direction yet.

22 hours ago, beecee said:

What  knowledge I have of WW2 is simply the number of isolated incidents that in hindsight changed the course of the war...the invention of radar, code breaking, Hitler invading the Soviet......If these things had not have taken place, the result/s may have been different.

Agreed, there were a number of pivotal things during the war that miraculously saved the allies.  It looked like divine intervention, or good luck.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Which would have to surround the entire area, like Disneyland.

Ok then, have that flimsy fencing that was there on Jan. 6th.  Just attach the pieces together more securely.  Anyone jumping the flimsy fence gets arrested.  Also have many more cameras, cops, and paddy wagons.

I don't know the DC area and thought you could put road blocks with check points on the streets leading to the Capitol building.  Is there a lot of wide open space around the Capitol building?

14 hours ago, MigL said:

If the universe is not homogenous and isotropic, rewinding the clock back wll not lead to the Big Bang.
If the universe is not expanding equallyin all directions there is no Big Bang.

Thanks for answering the questions.

Please try to answer this one more time, because I can't find the first answer.  The universe is homogenous and isotropic for a volume less than 100 billion LY in diameter.  How do they know it must be that way to infinity assuming space does not curve?  Observations show that the universe is flat or so slightly curved that it is undetectable.

Interesting in the Hawking interview Youtube I posted above, Hawking never mentioned a flat universe.  He said it was always curved, but in a way unimaginable.  So if you travel in a straight line from Earth, you will necessarily return to Earth after curving around the universe.  That would mean the universe is not infinite in size.  The question is how far is the finite loop around the universe?  It must be further than the edge of the observable universe, because they have not detected the same configurations of galaxy clusters looking both directions.

I'm a big fan of the history of WW2.  Recently I saw Fury for the second time and think it is a great movie and recommend it to anyone interested in WW2.

There are a few problems I have with the film and wish it could be redone.  The ending was wrong, along with a few other things.   I became obsessed with this.  So I set to formulate a plan for a disabled Sherman tank, and only 5 guys, to defend against an attack by 300 SS troops on the supply lines for a division of US troops.  I became emotionally involved with my plan.  I'm good at visualizing things.  The mission was of great importance so you have to give your life for it if necessary.  The movie could have been so much better.   I would like to know what anyone thought about the movie and my plan.  What would YOUR plan be if you were the commander a disabled Sherman tank in this predicament?

At the end of the movie the gunner “Bible” asked the tank’s commander Collier "What is your plan?"  The only “plan” that Sergeant “Wardaddy” Collier had was play dead until surrounded, then shoot the first German to open a hatch, throw a few grenades out the hatch, and open up with only the bow 30 and the cannon.  Turns out it was a stupid plan. A tank commander as experienced as Sgt Collier (N. Africa to Germany) could have done better.  He should have planned to fight for less than 10 minutes using all 4 guns, and many grenades, then escape running the other way, under cover of smoke grenades.  Patton had ordered tankers to improve their frontal armor, which Fury did NOT.  They had 3 flimsy logs hanging from each side.

What they needed to do was kill about 50 - 100 enemy and seriously injure another 50 - 100, and disable all vehicles, to cripple the Nazi counterattack against the supply line for a US division of 10,000 troops.  In the first few minutes of the ambush, they could inflict enough damage.  The biggest worry to the tankers should be a great number of soldiers carrying panzerfaust anti-tank rockets, which had a range of 30 to 60 yards, depending on the type.  Also, tankers should know that a grenade is an ideal weapon to defend a tank against infantry.  Just throw grenades out the hatches.  Everybody outside is in trouble.  They should always carry at least 100 grenades and 50 smoke grenades to cover retreat.

The tank should have thicker timber logs hanging from the sides.  These logs serve two functions.  They stop panzerfaust rockets and they are used to cross deep mud.  They should also have reinforced their frontal armor using sand bags, tank wheels, and metal plates, tied or welded to the hull.  They should have stacked sand bags in front of both top-mounted machine guns.   Leave all the hatches wide open, like any survivors are gone.  This is critical to the success of their ambush, for the enemy to let their guard down.  The 76mm was previously elevated and carefully sighted down the road, then the turret turned away to not appear as a threat.  The tank looks very dead from a distance.  The enemy may stray too close and bunch together, to view the apparently dead Sherman, to their peril.

Since the crew will exit the tank through the belly hatch, they should put debris, timber or rocks, in front of the tank to conceal the view under the tank.  Since the tank is facing the approaching enemy column, they want the enemy's view under the tank blocked.  Ellis is ready to fire the bow 30, Sgt Collier is inside the turret, ready to pop up and fire the top 30 from behind sand bags, and Gordo is hiding behind the turret ready to fire the 50, also behind sand bags.  ALL ammo cans are close at hand next to each gun for quick reloading. Bible is ready to sight and fire the 76mm as quickly as possible, firing one high explosive (HE) shell every 5 seconds, angled down at close range to throw shrapnel, rocks, and dirt at the enemy, firing continuously for about 3 minutes (36 shells), HE shells to disable vehicles, decimate troops, and destroy supplies.

The plan for the cannon, after disabling all enemy vehicles, focus on ONE side of the road, while the 3 machine guns sweep the other side.  That way the cannon doesn’t waste time traversing left and right, allowing a higher rate of fire, into the same spot, as the enemy scatters off the road, running INTO the cannon fire.  The cannon fires 5 shells at the same spot, just off the road but in front of the enemy, to create a shot-gun effect.  The cannon firing low to blast rocks and dirt, along with shrapnel, at the enemy.  The crew will try to keep the enemy in FRONT of the tank, at a distance, to prevent the enemy flanking left or right for 5 minutes.

When the SS column reaches 5 or 10 yards away, Gordo is hiding behind the turret, and he starts lobbing grenades as fast as he can, one grenade every 4 seconds.  He is protected behind sand bags stacked in front of the 50 cal.  They have several buckets full of grenades handy behind the turret, and a bucket full of smoke grenades.  When the first grenade explodes, that signals the 30 cals to open up.  After Gordo throws a dozen grenades, he also opens up on the 50 cal.   Three machine guns and a cannon, firing continuously for 3 minutes should do the job to cripple the counterattack.  For a few precious minutes the enemy will be too busy running and dodging bullets and grenades, so they cannot effectively return fire, but only for a few minutes.   Ellis continuously fires the bow 30, and Gordo and Collier continuously fire their guns.   At the same time, Bible is firing the cannon with Grady reloading as quickly as possible.  The first minute is most critical because the enemy will quickly spread off the road and make harder targets.  The crew needs to inflict most of their damage in the first minute.

They need to kill or seriously injure all enemy close to the tank, and avoid being encircled by panzerfausts.  After several minutes of continuously firing several cans of 30 caliber ammo, Sgt Collier drops down into the turret and all the way to the floor, and exits through the floor hatch.  He crawls on his belly under the tank to the rear to get up and cover Gordo who is firing the 50 cal.  Collier has his assault rifle, all his side-arm ammo, and a few buckets full of grenades and smoke grenades to cover their retreat.   Bible fires the cannon for another minute or two, with Grady reloading.  After firing 40 or 50 HE rounds, Bible fires a smoke shell at point blank range to signal retreat.  Then Collier and Gordo starts lobbing smoke grenades from behind the tank.  Bible and Grady drop to the floor to exit through the floor hatch, crawling to the rear with their side arms and ammo, while Ellis and Gordo continue firing. 

After a few minutes of continuous firing, Ellis is the last to exit the tank through the floor hatch.  Gordo continues firing the 50 cal, with the other 4 crew covering him.  Then Gordo jumps down to the ground to shelter behind the tank with the other crew.  They all throw smoke grenades to cover their retreat. After it gets smoky, each crew throws a few more grenades far into the smoke screen, so the enemy stays flat on their bellies and heads down. 

The ambush took under 10 minutes.  All surviving crew take their side arms, all their ammo, a full canteen of water, and run like hell, zig-zagging towards the tree line. They split up with the plan to converge somewhere safe in about 15 minutes.  The enemy will be so stunned from the intense punishment, they may not even send a pursuit squad, but are forced to attend to their many seriously wounded.  If a pursuit squad is sent, they make an easy target for ambush.   The SS attack on division supply lines was disabled by the heroic crew of Fury.

39 minutes ago, swansont said:

How do you have a checkpoint without fencing?

Fencing only to channel people through checkpoints with metal detectors, where they are identified and searched for weapons.  Like getting into Disneyland.

9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I don't see where you'd put a checkpoint and I imagine most of these people won't wear masks anyway. Just put up a few cameras.

Several checkpoints, one on each street leading to the Capitol.  Sept. 18th will probably be hot, so maybe more people won't wear masks, agreed.  On Jan. 6th many people were wearing masks, helmets, goggles, hoodies, everything to conceal identities.  Yet hundreds were identified.  There were a number of cameras on the 6th, have more cameras for the 18th.

Does anyone think Sept. 18th will be as big a crowd as Jan. 6th?  My guess is no because of the many arrests on the 6th, and there was a lot of hype for the 6th we don't see now.   And you don't have Trump directing the crowd to the Capitol saying that he was coming with them.  They believed him, so they were emboldened.  They thought Trump would be there like Moses to part the Red Sea, and all the cops would join the Trumpers into the Capitol to overthrow the election and do whatever else they wanted to do.  When they realized that Trump was not there, it didn't matter because they really like the guy.

8 hours ago, MigL said:

If the universe is not homogenous and isotropic, rewinding the clock back wll not lead to the Big Bang.
If the universe is not expanding equallyin all directions there is no Big Bang.

You don't seem to understand the Big Bang very well.
Maybe you should ask questions, or read up on it, before making assertions.

I asked 7 questions in my post.  I love astronomy and cosmology and try to watch every documentary that I can.  I sincerely seek the truth.  I just have a few questions and so far nobody wants to answer them. 🙂

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

.......unnecessary casualties on both sides; escalation of hostilities; police defections with a resultants lack of cohesion in their ranks. The whole situation is so fraught right now, any incident can potentially set off a major confrontation. 

Yes, I see what you mean.  To announce to the rally-goers that crossing a certain threshold is illegal and they will be arrested, and there is no fence to stop them, it will look like entrapment.  I guess they better have a fence, but the same amount of fencing as the Jan 6 rally?  I don't think as many people will attend this one, and they won't be as aggressive, considering they don't have Trump egging them on, and saying "I will be there with you."  Then he goes home and watches it on TV.  Maybe they don't need as much fencing and maybe no razor wire?

5 hours ago, zapatos said:

You are a typical Trumper. Quit promoting tactics that lead to police violence.

I am sooo not a Trumper.

6 hours ago, MigL said:

No, assertions carry baggage.

A center, or an edge, implies homogeneity and isotropy fly out the window; and we lose two sides of the foundation of the Big Bang Theory.
They also imply a preferred frame, something which is not allowed by GR.
With GR no longer valid, we lose the third foundation of the Big Bang Theory.
We are left with a pretty wobbly structure.

Just because we don't know what something is, does not mean we don't know what it can't be.
That is the essence of science ( to wax Philosophical ), falsify what cannot be, and keep narrowing down the options of what it can be.

Why can't homogeneity and isotropy vary or end, over great distances?  We can see only about 46 billion LY.  Compared to infinity that is tiny.

To say the universe has no center and no edge is an assertion that carries baggage.  Why must we assume that homogeneity and isotropy continue to infinity?  All we can see is a tiny fragment of the universe, the observable portion.  Why must we assume that a trillion light years away the universe looks the same as here?   This is all assuming no curvature of space.  If space is curved then does that mean it has a finite size since the universe would be the distance traveling from Earth curving back to Earth?  That distance would be finite.

Did you see Neil deGrass Tyson interview Hawking?  This is a wonderful episode of Star Talk, even has Michio Kaku.  When asked about before the big bang Hawking said something like "Nothing was around before the big bang.  Space and time together form a space/time continuum which is not flat but curved by matter and energy."

Here is the Youtube of the interview.  Advance to 14:36 to hear Stephen answer this question:

Hawking doesn't think the universe is flat and extending to infinity, but rather curved.  Does that mean it is impossible to travel in a straight line to infinity, or must you necessarily return to your starting point no matter what directions you travel?  Is Hawking guessing?  But there was something around before the big bang, the potential for a big bang.