swansont

How does something vibrate in only one direction? That sounds like translation. Did you mean along one axis?

Then why would NASA beg to differ?

What do you think NASA is differing about? The paper says “Our observational results, together with laboratory analogue experiments, suggest that phosphorus is readily available in Enceladus’s ocean in the form of orthophosphates” The spelling correction is proper, and they are not claiming that life exists there.

How do you make a clock out of this? 1 minute past, 1 minute past, 2 minutes past, 3 minutes past, 5 minutes past, etc. That’s a lousy clock. You need more than numerology and hand-waving.

Once again, you link to a paper of yours instead of posting the argument here. You’ve been told that this is required. But seeing as your understanding of physics is flawed, I don’t see how citing yourself would be expected to be convincing.

They are viewed differently. A rainbow is not projecting the light onto a screen as we do with a prism. i.e. we typically don’t look at the prism. If we did, from a similar distance as a rainbow, we would only see one color. But if we had a bunch of prisms, separated by an appropriate distance, we would see a rainbow. The same principles of refraction and dispersion apply. With rainbows, there is also a reflection..

Not having found it yet does not mean it won’t eventually happen. And there’s experimental evidence that there is mass we can only detect gravitationally, and that the universe’s expansion is accelerating. There was a time that beta decay appeared to violate conservation of energy and angular momentum.

What evidence do you have that dark matter and dark energy are unverifiiable? And you are wrong. It’s not a measurement issue. That’s a separate phenomenon.

Which is color separation, as a result of refraction and dispersion, which is what’s happening in a prism.

They did not discover life on Enceladus, or anywhere beyond earth, and state this in the article.

We can explain some of the universe. So is length. We don’t know what length is in the same way we don’t know what time is. So would any set of numbers. “We” don’t think it was random. Babylonians used a base 60 numbering system, and there are reasons why this makes sense. (both 60 and 12 are divisible by a lot of numbers)

Possibly, but as Hal Holbrook said in All the President’s Men, “these aren’t very bright guys” One photo of the many boxes showed a photocopier. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/photos-from-trump-indictment-show-boxes-of-classified-documents-stored-in-mar-a-lago-shower-ballroom

The sycophants are running for VP. They know Trump’s getting the nomination, unless he has a stroke or something, so they can’t alienate him. The question I have is did anyone copy classified documents, and if so, have they testified to the grand jury? Because there’s no reason to make copies unless you’re giving (selling) them to someone else.

What does this have to with my point that the multiple views were of the fireball, not the alleged aliens? Though there is something to look at here; everyone agrees that there is a fireball, because it’s bright and green. Quite obvious. But we don’t know how fast it’s moving or how big it is, because we don’t know how far away it is. Any estimates on that will vary; if it’s 100m away or 1000m away, the numbers you’d get would differ by a factor of 10.. As for the back yard, the video has been “enhanced” and we don’t know how it was altered. We don’t have any “control” video to see what kind of visual artifacts show up with this enhancement under similar lighting, but where everyone agrees no aliens are there. These are the kinds of things that have to happen for these to start to be considered scientifically rigorous. But nothing connecting the UAP and the alleged creatures. The lack of objectivity is the problem.

These are of the green falling object, right? That something fell is not in dispute. Don’t substitute this for the video of the alleged beings. Nobody claimed this, and presenting a straw man makes your position less credible. Further, it’s not entirely clear that one can claim that whatever caused the fireball landed in the yard. Some people are just assuming this.

Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not a measurement issue, despite his early description of it. It’s a fundamental feature of QM for non-commuting variables; position and momentum are Fourier transforms of each other, and that’s the source of the relation. You can’t give a valid criticism of something you don’t have a grasp of.

That applies to the first day only, as an anti-spam measure. You can say this, but you would be incorrect. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not superposition or superstate (whatever that is)

They could have seen something. Not aliens, but not a complete fabrication. It’s night, they’re on edge, and it’s difficult to judge sizes and distances without a reference. Why does this have to be the specific scenario? The 911 call, and discussion with police in the video just says two beings, 8 to 10 feet tall, with big eyes. Did the 911 call say anything about the craft? Did they say it landed there, or is that just being assumed here? What if there’s no actual connection between the light in the sky and the call to the police. Just in the mind of the people. The light triggers the imagination, perhaps the hear a noise, and all of the sudden everything unusual they see, they think it’s aliens. We don’t know. But neither do the people that are filling in the blanks with the assumption that it’s aliens. None of that is evidence.

There are more possibilities than aliens vs prank. Lots more.

It’s reminiscent of ghost hunters who record sounds, and then “enhance” them to extract sounds. It’s noise (data noise) so something in it is likely to sound like something, if that’s what you filter to find. And add in looking for faces/shapes, which is pareidolia I was also amused by the interpretation of someone stammering a bit as hiding something, rather than being unpracticed in ad-libbing in front of a camera. When all you have is a hammer, etc.

That’s underwhelming.

Is this relevant? Links to a substack article (not really a “report”), with Matt Taibbi as one of the authors. How sure are we that he’s not just making stuff up or distorting the facts, like with his twitter files “reporting”? (apparently Michael Shellenberger was also involved in that fiasco)

! Moderator Note It’s pretty clear that it is pointless to continue. Your understanding is too limited, you don’t appear to be interested in learning anything and you admit to not being able to follow the math. You have not presented material asked of you. It’s all potshots and repeating the same misunderstandings. If you view what people have posted as nonsense, the problem is with you, not with them. The posts are fine. The problem is with your comprehension. Thread closed. Do not bring the subject up again.

The speed of light was measured long before Einstein. It had a value. c refers to that speed. Not rational to you, but your demonstrated confusion about all this points to you as the problem. The argument is quite rational to people who can follow it. Yes, exactly. So when the rod is moving at v, light should move at c+v if they are moving in the same direction. We can find the time to travel the distance of the rod + the distance the rod moves (which we have already established as r + vt) using d = velocity * time t = d/v = r + vt/c+v rearranging, we get ct + vt = r + vt, which simplifies to ct = r, so t=r/c But Einstein’s equation, using the constant c in all frames, is t = r/c-v The equations are different. One of the motivations for the paper Light has a speed, so of course it has a value. Einstein never specified that value; the actual number doesn’t matter for his argument. He never refers to it as “consistency of motion” he calls it the “constancy of the velocity of light” meaning it is a constant and not variable Yes, a fixed value. Not variable. The number attached to this isn’t mentioned. Einstein was not advocating an absolute system. He was arguing for a relative system. Hence the name, theory of relativity Einstein wasn’t spelling out the current (prior to 1905) state of physics, he was proposing something new Whatever What? His proposed solution is the explanation I fixed the post, but it would help if you could learn how to use the quote function properly Einstein’s equation did not use “classical” physics. He used a constant c for the moving frame!

! Moderator Note It’s been moved to Speculations, wei guo, you need to follow our rules - post your material here, and provide evidence to support your claims