swansont

First rule of the speculations forum Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure I pointed this requirement out to you, and you still did not comply. It’s explained further here https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/ Palatability is not an issue; your posts don’t convey any coherent thought that I can discern. I think you overestimate how effective your diagrams are at conveying useful, scientific information.

Deterrence usually means in terms if using them. Statistically they are a deterrent; nobody has used them after more than one country had them.

I admit, we discriminate against people who don’t follow the rules.

Needed? No. Needed to force a quick end? Yes. As others have pointed out, a lot of people would have died if the war dragged on, even with no invasion. I think the justifications are sufficient to support the decision. The Allies wanted an unconditional surrender, and needed to force the issue for it to happen quickly. I think B) is moot; justification is not really an issue. Others are stealing the information, and the control of the raw materials is diverse, not concentrated. The US has laws in place to try and keep such technology from spreading, but there’s no “decision” here except on the part of the bad actors who are facilitating the proliferation. And they are not worried about the morality, nor are they under anyone’s control who do worry about the morality.

A setup to separate fools from their money. But there have been efforts such as SETI, so a coordinated scientific effort is possible. But that also means you’d potentially have to admit that you’ve found nothing after years of searching.

What exchemist is referring to here is that the lowest energy state in quantum mechanics doesn’t have zero kinetic energy, unlike in classical systems.

The potential term has variables of acceleration * distance (a*h); the product is larger Even though the acceleration is the same, the position has changed. It is the equivalent to being deeper in a potential well

! 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.