swansont

But what have they done that Facebook and Meta haven’t? Russia has used Facebook to try to influence elections. Elon Musk is beholden to China for Tesla’s success, but there’s no talk of banning Twitter.

One might note that there’s a bunch of actual evidence to analyze, and models that can be applied, which distinguishes this from UAP discussion.

What is TikTok doing that Facebook and Meta aren’t, that makes it worthy of banning?

Define what you mean by “real” What new information is created?

splodge has been banned as a sockpuppet of JustJoe

I assure you, a vacuum does not conduct electricity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark_gap “Resistance between the electrodes may be as high as 10^12 ohms when the electrodes are separated by gas or vacuum which means that little current flows even when a high voltage exists between the electrodes”

So why call heat flow gravity 2? Heat flow is independent of gravity. It can flow in the opposite direction, it can flow perpendicular to it, it can flow in the same direction. You’ve explained nothing with your idea. Heat flow can be from conduction, convection or radiation. It’s not a single mechanism.

Saying “gravity2” doesn’t explain it, so that’s hardly a valid objection. Newtonian gravity is an attraction of masses with an inverse-square dependence on distance. Heat flow does not behave that way. Why not? Because you haven’t given any legitimate reason to adopt such a model.

How does the current get from the earth to the moon without traversing the vacuum of space? Energy is a property, not a substance, as is conductance. Electrical energy is not attracted to conductance. It’s gravitational. “attraction to conductivity” isn’t a phenomenon in physics. Charge is attracted or repelled by other charge, via the electrostatic interaction.

Which is it? Are they being asked to get to net zero, or are they being asked to each achieve the same reduction? If it’s the latter, could you please provide a link (for a change) to the documentation of this? If it’s the former, then a country that emits 1 million tons of CO2 doesn’t have to do as much as a country that emits 1 billion tons. You can’t freely swap raw numbers and percentages in the conversation

But a nation that does not emit much CO2 doesn’t have to do as much. Your point reflects one of the biggest problems - the attitude that any one individual’s effort won’t have a big impact, so why bother? Instead of accepting that everyone has to do their part if the problem is going to be solved.

Also profit, unless blocked by legislation.

For the temperatures in question, thermal radiation is IR. But what does this have to do with breathing? Less oxygenated? Still not tied to breathing.

Is there any evidence (i.e. published studies) to support this?

Conductance of the vacuum? What conductance is that?

It’s not temporarily conserved, and there is no force involved. Heat flow spontaneously happening from hot to cold is a basic idea in thermodynamics.

Still meaningless.

That is not the same as “gravity and Magnetism are synonymous” which was my objection.

Until you show a source, your number is fiction.

Citation? I don’t know what this is supposed to mean. What’s been negated? Solar cell efficiency has increased over time, and the cost per watt has dropped even faster. https://sites.lafayette.edu/egrs352-sp14-pv/technology/history-of-pv-technology/ (see that? It’s a link that supports my claim - graphs that quantify the increase in efficiency and drop in cost) 4.6% https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions

Which is likely a result of being subsidized a decade ago, which spurred R&D and investment in manufacturing. Higher efficiency and economy of scale makes for a good feedback loop.

Not every problem is finding the sides of a right triangle. There are solutions to integrals that use the other trig functions.

Yes, everything is a conspiracy. It’s Mulder and Scully, which was totally real and not a fictional show. Or… The “other” category is because the military is a hard-core bureaucracy and everything needs to go in a “bin” but also pragmatic enough that they aren’t going to create a category for every one-off incident or try and come up with six unique names for six things not easily described and don’t fall into the other categories.

It’s called “other” because it’s not airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, government or industry developmental programs, or a foreign adversary system. It’s the uncharacterized reports that have the “unusual flight characteristics”

And yet the subject keeps popping up And this keeps not happening. What does happen is a request for scientific evidence, when ET is offered up.