swansont

You did. “My question is simple can michelson-morley type experiment be able to detect a particle with an energy of 1×10−64 J or a stream of such particles @ 1×10−64 J⋅Hz−1” A stream of particles, you used units of J-s. Flux implies a rate, i.e. an energy per unit time. You did not identify this as the action. If you had, you would have been asked what the action has to do with the problem. L = KE-PE = 1/2 mv^2 - mgh and the action is the time integral of the Lagrangian. KE increases in free fall, and PE gets smaller as h decreases. Even if L were constant, as with the example I gave above, the integral still gives you a factor of time.

That’s not the subject of this thread, and delving into the topic is preaching. The passage (since people should’t have to click on a link) being Do not be tempted to worship and serve what you see in the sky—the sun, the moon, and the stars. The LORD your God has given these to all other peoples for them to worship. But you are the people he rescued from Egypt, that blazing furnace. He brought you out to make you his own people, as you are today. And the NIV translation says 19 And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly array—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the Lord your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven. 20 But as for you, the Lord took you and brought you out of the iron-smelting furnace, out of Egypt, to be the people of his inheritance, as you now are https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%204&version=NIV So one might wonder if that part about the moon being for others is a bit of poetic license

But why didn’t you Google the passage in question? Or did you, and get no matches in the Bible? Could it be the only Google hit is this thread?

Yes, a point of reference. Agreed upon, for convenience. But not special. I can describe a duration with any number of units if time, but the duration is the same. Because action is not energy. In the example of a constant KE with PE=0, the action would be KE*t, which is linearly increasing with time. You even gave an example that clearly showed that the action would increase in magnitude over time! But you keep confidently posting as if you know what you’re talking about, and the evidence is that you don’t, at least not at a depth consistent with your confidence. Here, you clearly don’t understand what action is, but are posting like you do.

Not special. Units can’t be special. Physics has to work regardless of the units we use. It’s one reason we look to unitless constants (e.g. fine structure) if we think there’s insight to be had

I suspect that’s basically it, but it’s also not consistent with the WotW reference. So I want to know the thought process so the misconception(s) can be identified. The closest example might be the susceptibility of New World populations to diseases brought by Europeans, but they weren’t wiped put and the susceptibility wasn’t because they had modern medicine. Quite the opposite, since vaccines would have helped immensely.

Units are a pretty basic concept, and if you aren’t getting that right, I don’t know how to fix it. Participating in a physics thread assumes some basic knowledge. When you make claims that have no basis in physics, and just insist that you’re right, you’re going to get that kind of characterization. There isn’t even a bridge to mainstream physics to see where the misconception is and point it out, and you’re ignoring the corrections.

Yin and yang are not genetic/biological concepts.

That’s not an acceptable answer.

How does genetic diversity lead to our deaths? You need to walk us through the thought process here.

Partial credit, since it refers to people who rejected him, not people who didn’t know he existed, as you had said. "What do people do, who don't know you exist?" God replied "I made the Moon for people to Worship" So God did not make the moon for them to worship

What does either renormalization or Planck’s constant have to do with the Michelson-Morley experiment? The fact that the energy is small is the problem. The thermal energy in the apparatus would be vastly greater, and you’d never see fringes.

You can, of course, normalize a rate per any arbitrary unit of time. The amount of charge per unit of time being a current, the amount of work done per unit of time being power, the distance traveled per unit of time being speed, etc. Then when you multiply by an elapsed time, you get a meaningful result.

I assume* you have a calculation or reference that backs this up. *I actually think you don’t. Bullshitting is not tolerated well ‘round these parts.

How about not. If you want to discuss something or ask a question present it, but no tap-dancing, please. If you had said that, no, the energy is simply kinetic energy then my answer would still be no. The wavelength/size argument would still likely apply, but then you’d have a thermal distribution of the particles to worry about, which would wash out the fringes. Detection of the particles is another huge problem, but the specific reference to M-M puts the focus on interference. Is the OP sufficiently addressed? It most certainly does not.

It’s moot. The ethics/morals distinction is less important IMO than the point that it swings in the opposite direction than you claimed. Treatments and cures don’t diminish the survivability of the species, and it saves lives. How is that unethical?

Which is not units of a rate. In 1 sec, how much energy has been delivered? You multiply by time. You get the wrong units.

I asked for a link. Googling on “two nail experiment” (with quotes) yields zero results. That’s easy: this doesn’t happen. Not since 1983, at least. Prior to that experiments refined the value, but the changes were quite small.

Dept of Labor is in the executive branch. Trump’s pick has to be confirmed by the senate, but is this in doubt? (even as a few senators express concern and one possibly votes against)

You didn’t mention UAPs but the paper does. But why the focus on point-like objects, as I asked. Did they look for other anomalies? Plenty of things up there now are visible, such as things described here https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/satellites/ And I saw they mention brightness specs, but did they analyze modern pictures to see how often GSO objects would show up under equivalent exposure conditions? Another thing - they mention GSO, but only a geostationary orbit would give a point. GSOs move in a long exposure, so I don’t see why they would offer this as a solution. Any object flashing from a sufficient distance would give point-like signals, and if it were tumbling so the flashes could periodically repeat you could get several as it passed through the field of view, whether it was in orbit or not.

You should know better; the material for discussion needs to be posted. But if the images appear on just one plate and not on another from a few hours earlier, or several days later, then you can’t say the object was in orbit, as you claimed. Geosynchronous orbit (GSO) was mentioned as one possibility, but not by you. Any other orbit wouldn’t show up as point-like, since these were long exposures, which are details you also failed to include. You just asked about objects in orbit, so my response was not a non-sequitur, as it can’t “not follow” information that was not presented. The thing is, why would you get point-like images from anything other than GSO or a star? If it’s something else then the emission or reflection has to be bright and very brief, and likely not from anything in orbit, which would leave streaks/lines. If they are from the brief orientation of certain shapes that reflects sunlight to us, they also have to be far enough away so that little light is reflected in other orientations. Lower orbits don’t do this - e.g. you can track LEO objects across a significant arc when they’re visible. So if it’s some other source, (UAP) one must explain why they are only seen away from earth and not close by (referring to an orbital scale) At least they admit and discuss defects/contamination as a possibility.

Youtube and facebook but not a journal reference probably means it’s someone doing “vibe physics” with an AI chatbot.

This doesn’t answer the question. Also you said it wasn’t about morals — you made the distinction that allows you to avoid addressing one point but then backtrack to avoid another. The first avoidance suggests you agree that increasing average lifespans (helping people live) is morally a good thing. So if these are shared average morals then isn’t it also ethical? But that’s mostly moot, since I think the premise is bogus. “aren't we effectively shallowing our own gene pool to the point that we can't survive, for want of a better metaphor, outside?” Having treatments and cures broadens the gene pool, as CharonY pointed out. A diverse population is more likely to have some individuals survive. The premise seems to be based on some notion of dilution of the gene pool, i.e. genetic purity, which is a flawed social concept, not a biological one.

It was just a mention because of an objection to UFOlogists being ridiculed, and Loeb kind of invites it with shoddy science like the truck thing.

Repeating this doesn’t make it workable and ignores the objections that have been raised. The details don’t really matter if the premise is fatally flawed.