swansont

Willem F Esterhuyse has been shown the door. Signal/noise has dropped to basically zero.

I see that it is similarly devoid of supporting studies, and no, it is not “more or less exactly the same solution as (your) camp idea” as it does not propose forced relocation, nor does it focus on drug addicts. It, in fact, cites the rule of law, so in that way it’s the opposite of your idea. It’s also only about 15 miles from downtown, whereas you proposed a forced relocation of over 100 miles.

Charges in a penning trap show three separate motion contributions. Your configuration has a similar setup. The resulting ion motion in a Penning trap consists of three independent eigenmotions, two in the radial plane and one in the axial. https://groups.nscl.msu.edu/lebit/lebitfacility/penningtraps/index.html

The fact that they observed it for four months beforehand indicates that they didn’t know when it was going to go supernova. And this was an unusual situation These pre-supernova pyrotechnics came as a big surprise, as previous observations of red supergiants about to blow their tops showed no traces of violent emissions, the researchers said.

I doubt it. A “live” video wouldn’t show much. Research telescopes often take long exposures to gather more light, and it takes a while for a supernova to spread out any appreciable amount. You could get a video from stitching together images from different days, which would show changes in brightness. AFAIK there’s no way to tell when it will happen with any reasonable precision. edit (emphasis added) https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/hubble-watches-exploding-star-fade-into-oblivion “In the time-lapse sequence, spanning nearly a year, the supernova first appears as a blazing star located on the galaxy's outer edge. It initially outshines the brightest stars in the galaxy before fading out of sight.”

Since relativity is well-tested and agrees with nature, isn’t this an admission that your proposal is wrong?

Because of the 14th amendment, perhaps? “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” What enumerated power would let the government do this?

You spend much time in any big North American cities lately? I worked in Washington DC. Never encountered anyone I could identify as a homeless drug addict You need to show the statistics showing escalating crime, and if you can do that, show that this is due to policies. California’s violent crime rate in the past decade, for example, is about half of what it was around 1990. (edit: xpost with TheVat)

There was a light in my yard last night. What was it? Why is no answer forthcoming?

k = 2 (or -1) are the only solutions that have closed orbits (Bertrand’s theorem) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand's_theorem

! Moderator Note Rule 2.12 precludes posting in bad faith, and the rules of speculations require a model and/or evidence. Assertion is not sufficient, and tap-dancing will end up with thread closure

! Moderator Note We require some combination of mathematical model, testable predictions and evidence. Assertion is not enough

There’s a scene in “Resident Alien” where the protagonist is asked by two kids if he poops. He says, “Everybody poops” and the kids giggle, “Just like the book!” Anyway…I didn’t even mention the reaction mass a craft would have to leave behind if it ever landed and took off. (unless one is invoking new physics, which is a problem, because now you need evidence of that, and one can do those experiments in a lab without any stigma of alien research. NASA’s even funded such efforts, IIRC)

You mean dp/dt = F + vdm/dt An object at constant speed v, with no external force on it, shoots equal mass out of opposite ends at a rate of dm/dt, at the same velocity, so the ejected mass has equal momentum in each direction. Your equation predicts that momentum is not conserved. F = 0 so there’s no acceleration, so the object remains at speed v. Where does the momentum change come from?

! Moderator Note This isn’t science news, nor is it broaching a topic for discussion.

A flat lens will bend light, if the index of refraction varies with position. GRadient INdex, or GRIN lenses That still relies on curved surfaces These are called plano-convex (as opposed to bi-convex, curved on both sides) and are quite common.

Anecdotes are not data How about we point out when it does adhere to scientific standards. That would save time. Again, your beef is with the air force. But it’s not like no other scientists have encountered friction in getting ideas accepted. Did anyone say it had to be intentional? No crashes? No alien ever accidentally dropped something? No alien out on a visit ever had to duck behind a tree to relieve themselves? I didn’t actually claim that. I said “Nothing anthropocentric about the limitations of relativity, and the vast distances of interstellar space.” in response to an assertion that objections are anthropocentric, and the suggestion that alien visitation should not be considered extraordinary I’ve invited you to present scientific analysis to the contrary, but you’ve never done so. Anything you’ve said falls well short of scientific standards, like everything else involved with the topic.

A diagram would be quite helpful, because you aren’t specifying enough detail about e.g. orientation.

Then go ahead and use F=ma to come up with the rocket equation. studiot’s comments above brings to mind that martillo never actually stated newton’s 2nd law - that the common statement F =ma (and the correct F = dp/dt) refers to the net external force (as studiot states it, the force imposed on the body)

I don’t see how you reach this conclusion. Who said debate and investigation are not justified? On the contrary, we’re begging for you to legitimately investigate, instead of the shoddy hand-waving that we currently get. For actual scientific data, instead of de facto attempts to get a waiver from scientific rigor. What’s stopping you, and other like-minded folks, from investigating? Is complaining about having to live up to scientific standards too time consuming? The problem, it seems, is you want others to investigate, and yes, you need to come up with something to motivate most scientists to spend time (and money) on someone else’s pet project. Most scientists have their own research to do.

It sounds like they “withheld” evidence after he stopped working for them, which is…unexpected behavior? My former workplace has not shared information with me since I stopped working there. There is information that would be illegal for them to share with me. It also sounds like your beef is with the Air Force. They are a military organization. But the paradigm here is that “aliens” is not a scientific answer until there is evidence to support that conclusion. The null hypothesis is that aliens do not exist. This is no different than elsewhere in science. So charging someone with finding an explanation that fits with mainstream science is perfectly reasonable, since the default assumption is that these phenomena are not of alien origin. You can only entertain that possibility after all other explanations have been eliminated. Again - just as with the rest of science; experiments have to rule out all confounding effects that might be responsible for a result The real question is why folks who claim aliens (or bigfoot, whatever) exist think that these rules don’t apply to them. (I think lack of awareness of the rules is a likely suspect)

TheCosmologist has been banned for sockpuppetry. We’re convinced he was Gareth. (which they basically confirmed)

I can’t help but notice that you continue to avoid answering my inquiry.

Yes, that’s the result from equation 1.5

You need to work on paying attention to detail. Nowhere in the part you quoted did I use the equation F = ma I agreed that there is a term in there that is m dv/dt, which is a force. They derived this by looking at the momentum of the rocket of mass m has as the result of ejecting a mass ∆m. They did not arrive at this by applying F = ma In Newtonian physics, when considering conservation of momentum, mass can't change. Once you have defined the system (mass M) you can't change it. If a mass m2 is ejected, for example, leaving mass m1, you have to consider both masses, m1 and m2 = (m1 + m2 = M)