swansont

One thing about what John Oliver said - “we don’t know what it is” is an answer, and whatever label you attach (UFO, UAP) saying it’s unidentified is an answer. There isn’t enough information to make an identification. And he notes that “a rigorous, evidence-based, data-driven scientific framework is essential” which is what I’ve been saying. This has to be treated on equal footing as any other bit of science. Conclusions have to be derived from the evidence. You need better data.

Gravity provides the centripetal acceleration. They were at some location in a potential well, and the explanation used that, but gravity and acceleration are equivalent.

! Moderator Note Rather than contacting anyone, you should just not hijack threads to talk about your pet theory

Anecdotes. Avi Loeb is being “ridiculed” because in his most recent incident he made outlandish claims about something on the ocean floor being of interstellar origin and possibly alien. He used seismometer data that turned out to be from a truck driving on a nearby road and he didn’t bother to check with seismologists. Among other issues, apparently. Claiming something not supported by the evidence is poor science. https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/truth-harvard-astronomer-alien-spherules/ Being criticized for doing poor science and overstepping - much like Pons and Flieschmann were criticized - is not evidence of a systematic plan to ridicule. Loeb is not a good example to try and use.

There isn’t going to be more information in those reports as time goes on, so I don’t see how this analogy is relevant. Research will move toward success if you improve the quality of the research, as I’ve pointed out numerous times. You keep harping on ridicule - and suggesting it’s systematic - without presenting evidence of it. Pointing out the poor quality of data and the nonscientific approach is not ridicule, it’s a statement of fact. True skepticism is part of science.

Analog media can’t fail?

1600 reports, and yet I don’t recall any of these being offered up in these discussions. I have to think they contain nothing conclusive.

The moving twin is accelerating. You can’t move around a circle without accelerating.

It does have lower heat conduction; Kr is even lower. Probably a function of the higher mass - diffusion rates should be dependent on that.

And what have they found?

Driving across the US and back at highway speeds accumulates a couple of nanoseconds of time dilation. Most can ignore it, but if you’re transporting an atomic clock (as part of a calibration effort) you have to account for it. The quality of the clock matters, too.

But that’s a velocity-induced blueshift. The acceleration is incidental; you’ll see that blueshift regardless of the acceleration details.

a = dv/dt It will be v/t only if acceleration is constant and you start from rest. a = 2d/t^2 for constant acceleration, starting from rest. Doing the proper math gives you the factor of 2, which doesn’t come from unit analysis This would seem to be irrelevant to the twin paradox discussion.

Those are the units, but not the equation. Is there a point here?

There were Mössbauer experiments done with rotors - the emission/absorption moves out of resonance as you increase the rotation speed. citations 82-84 in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

Link to the news?

The twins paradox typically idealizes the accelerations; the clocks are set equal after the space twin is up to speed, and the turnaround takes negligible time. The only importance of the acceleration is that it shifts the space twin into a different inertial frame. A rotating system is accelerating, and a clock in that system would tick at a rate depending on the instantaneous speed. The same would apply to a clock under continuous linear acceleration.

I think it’s what is the difference between using 1 bomb to kill these people, or using bombs from a few hundred planes. The US had already killed 100k civilians in the raid on Tokyo, and several tens of millions of civilians died in the war, and even more if you include the resulting disease and famine. If the issue is the WMD, then the number of civilian deaths wouldn’t seem to be the issue.

Between audiobooks and video, and possibly other causes, fewer people read these days. “Data indicate a sharp decline in reading over the last decade. The percent of U.S. adults who read at least one book (in print or electronically) in 2022 was 48.5, 6.1 percentage points lower than in 2012” https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/newsbrief/index.html?record=4377 I am dubious about the claims “machines are becoming more intelligent than majority of humans together with increased abuse of drugs” because machines aren’t intelligent (AI is a label, but it’s just a re-branding of “algorithm”) and no evidence was provided that drug abuse is increasing

! Moderator Note No optics, and chock full of unsubstantiated musings. The opposite of what I said. Don’t bring this up again.

! Moderator Note Rule 2.11 Solicitations requiring non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements, or insisting that discussions must take place privately, are not permitted. We are here to discuss science, in the open (and "I have an idea, can someone do the math for me" typically woefully underestimates the amount of effort this involves).

Material needs to be posted here. What’s the electric dipole moment of a charged ring?

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.