swansont

Hardly. Ports are located on these flooded coasts, and a lot of people. These areas that would be “opened up” have little infrastructure, which would have to be built up, and so are hardly a replacement.

In the article Moontanman linked to, which is basically a summary of the video https://inf.news/en/science/61f2e43c267cae2d5a6057e1979788c7.html “Soon after, the scientists realized that this small celestial body was rotating at about 80 kilometers per hour, and it took 5 hours and 30 minutes to make a full circle.” This is looking like the Gish gallop. One claim doesn’t pan out, so you queue up another. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop Yes, it does. As exchemist has shown, the rotation is not sufficient to do what the video asserts. It’s sensationalism, not science.

But what is the gravitational attraction (no calculation given), and what is the adhesive force of possible materials? Even if it’s just ice? The link says 80 km/hr, which is a little over 20 m/s, which gives about the same acceleration. (8 x 10^-3) So not only is this small, it’s also probably not artificial gravity - it’s around a milli-g. They can make BS claims because they don’t do any of the physics that would show that they’re full of it.

What would it look like? We have a different definition of “detail” since they state it without any analysis. That’s the detail I want. Your link is more of the same. Did any scientists write a paper about this object, and publish in a peer-reviewed journal? Is it rotating faster than expected? What is the expected amount? The video suggested it, quite strongly, and you posted the video. You can’t say it has these properties when the properties aren’t given. How much gravity? Where is the analysis? All the video did was say that rotation would create artificial gravity, but you can’t conclude that the rotation has such a purpose. Most objects in space rotate. Most are acknowledged to be naturally occurring. Rotation does not imply it’s a spacecraft. It’s massively flawed logic to suggest, as in the video, that it does. That’s weak tea. Don’t post videos and links that talk about alien spacecraft if you aren’t endorsing the idea. edit: there are literally hundreds of observed objects with rotation periods less than one hour https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fast_rotators_(minor_planets) So “it’s rotating too fast” needs more of an analysis.

It's not clear that they did. The people talking in the 8 min video are not NASA people (though I didn't watch the whole thing) and the NASA folks shown are from old footage. Data from NASA has to be made publicly available. I don't see how you can claim this, since there are virtually no details given to support the claim. All we know is that the object is big and it's rotating, but beyond that not much is shared. I wish someone would tell us what we should expect to find before we find it. Saying so after the fact doesn't count as a prediction. Is it? Where's the analysis? This is one reason why just posting videos by themselves is against the rules - they rarely contain a sufficient amount of detail, and one can't easily analyze information that is just spoken into the microphone. The fact of the matter is that such objects are known to rotate from the effects of solar radiation (the YORP effect), but I didn't hear anyone say this - it was all conspiratorial suggestion that this is a spaceship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YORP_effect From a scientific standpoint the first video is sensationalist crap. Almost like it's targeting a pop-sci, credulous audience on TV or something.

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