swansont

No, I don’t have one. If you Googled it, you’d likely find dozens of hits in various forms, all probably unattributed.

Why do you think it would be?

That’s a “you” problem. Not understanding something does not make it a paradox. In this case it’s an issue of relativity - that the rate of the passage of time depends on the frame of reference of the observer.

I can assure you that particles can go more than 3 cm before annihilating, and looking at a blue sky is not the best way of detecting particles.

There a pithy saying - FTL, causality, relativity: Pick two. IOW if you want FTL you have to give up either causality or relativity. Whatever you end up with will not be how our universe behaves.

Is this a question about vision, or about physics?

Unless this is the summary of an existing (i.e. published) paper, or in a textbook somewhere, it’s your conjecture, which means speculations. So yes, that’s where it should have been posted, and where it now resides.

! Moderator Note You need to provide the science behind this proposal.

! Moderator Note We aren’t discussing your model. You posted this in a mainstream section, which means mainstream science. And a model means math; you have to have the ability to make specific predictions. If you have an actual model, it needs to go in its own thread in speculations, and no other threads.

If this is the Danube experiment, there was a classical channel. Your “radio signal” was not FTL. https://www.nature.com/articles/430849a The classical signal was free-space, and the teleported photon went via an optical fiber. “Because of the reduced velocity of light within the fibre-based quantum channel (two-thirds of that in vacuo), the classical signal arrives about 1.5 microseconds before the photon.”

Felling a little unsafe is positive, IMO. It means not being able to post provocative trash and delete it later, after finding out you’ve overstepped. That’s something you have to think about beforehand. It makes you a little bit accountable for your posts, even if you post under a pseudonym.

Which part are you not getting, and what is the level of your understanding?

Neither is physically possible so science can’t give you a valid answer.

Enemy of the Ducks. Our various frat house banners/shirts were often less subtle; not designed to evade censorship, using that vulgarity that rhymes with Duck. (I was there ‘89-‘95)

The weekend has come and gone…

Right. One has to remember that you use the best model available for the behavior you are investigating. One doesn’t need to invoke QM when classical physics suffices, for example, you don’t have to apply relativity if Newtonian physics will work, and one uses particles when that’s the best model to use.

A stone isn’t a particle

What is the shape of the object in the 2nd photo. Unidentified is a third option. You still haven’t presented links of any leaks of conclusive evidence. They can’t be mundane? What is the evidence that they can’t be? How do you conclusively rule out a pie tin thrown like a frisbee? Which you have apparently accepted without critical analysis, and no link so that anyone else could make comments We can tell the light patch on the ground is close; if that’s standard road it’s no more than ~10 meters away. If the object is above it then it’s as wide as one lane of road. 2 meters. Containing all of the propulsion systems, fuel, life support, etc. But you can’t really tell it’s directly above. It could be bigger and further away, or it could be smaller and closer. IIRC these were alleged to be tens of meters in diameter.

Yes, unknown. Unidentified. Not conclusive. Irresponsible to classify as alien. I don’t know what this means. And can one conclusively identify them as alien? i.e. to the exclusion of any other explanation (within the realm of physical possibility)? Are these leaks of conclusive evidence? What is the conclusive evidence that these objects are of alien origin? This would be a great example of how “evidence” is assessed. How do you know this is “ground effect” (whatever that means)? How do you know it’s actually under the object? (unless you just mean one is at a higher altitude, rather than ‘directly under’) When I was in the navy, the plan of the week included the TFOA reports (Things Falling Off Aircraft). It happens quite a bit.

I remembered reading about a tip to do this with beer, if you want to release some more of the carbonation, which allegedly affects the flavor. From back when a bowl of peanuts was commonplace at a bar. (moved to plain old chemistry)

Where are these clear photos? Especially considering the advances in photographic equipment available to the average person, and its widespread availability. https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/settled.png They can only be considered real if there is evidence that shows it. Asking for evidence that aliens don’t exist is a non-starter. It’s asking to prove a negative. There is evidence of leaks in the government, of high-level secrets, so if aliens exist, then both can be true. But it’s a plausibility argument. Why do people leak all of these other secrets, but the evidence of aliens is somehow not subject to these same motivations?

Burden of proof is with the people claiming aliens.

! Moderator Note This isn’t a conspiracy discussion site.

It’s an anonymous source whose claims can’t be corroborated How does one conclude that they are credible, while others with similar credentials, who deny the existence of aliens, are not?

His brother, Covalent