swansont

If they can’t identify them, they can’t restrict the possibilities

altaylar2000 has joined the not-chat

altaylar2000 has been suspended for thread hijacking, bad faith arguments and soapboxing. Upon their return they will be in the mod queue

Or possibly this is not the case, if we consider the folly of imposing human morality standards on non-human species. Why?

That’s one alternative, not the alternative.

Why is there only one alternative?

That column did not say that aliens have visited Earth. Among the things it did say was that there literally are objects flying around that no one, including U.S. Navy pilots, can identify, and we have to puzzle out what that means. There are flying objects we can’t identify, and no, they aren’t aliens. That doesn’t seem controversial, or something we should expect will change.

This is a quite unsatisfactory response, in that there is no thing that everyone knows, and the implications of possibly “knowing” things that are not true. Two reasons to support your claims. For what does China pay the United States?

But if you applied actual physics to the problem, you might see the circumstances under which this could and could not happen.

No, you asserted it. You have not presented any supporting evidence or experimental results.

Oh, do tell. Walk through this example in detail

Yes, you have established that.

Establish that it’s true, first.

Water vapor and liquid water have some strong absorption features of increasing strength as you move into the NIR and IR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water

! Moderator Note Is there a question here? Or are you just here to broadcast your imperfect understanding? (i.e. studiot was not wrong in their assessment)

There are two separate issues. Does the product contain what is claimed (which was your question, AFAICT), and is the treatment safe and effective. The FDA would be involved with the second issue if this were a drug. Most supplements are not regulated in the US as drugs, but probably would be in terms of food safety.

It's up to you to show this is true (which it isn't)

The fact that you suffer certain side-effects does not mean that other people experience the same side-effects.

Your argument means you claim to see the sun because it reflects off of dust in space, and aren't getting light directly from it.

! Moderator Note You broke the first rule of the religion and philosophy forum Philosophy/religion forum rules: 1. Never make it personal a. Disagreements about beliefs should never be in the form of attacks on the believers. If you want to try again without the provocation, you can open a new thread.

Not at all. You claimed something about seeing things because light reflects off of "dust and so on" but there would much less of this in any vacuum, and yet we can see light sources just fine, with no dimming. It doesn't depend on any refection, because if it did, it would be harder to see as we improved the vacuum. (plus the problem of geometry and forming an image if the light were coming from multiple directions) You're just making stuff up, which is one reason you can't support it rigorously (and consequently have to make straw man arguments), and it's gotten very tiresome.

Where did anyone claim a pure vacuum exists?

Some of us have object permanence, and realize that things still exist even when we aren't able to see/detect them.

No dust (or “and so on”) in a vacuum system.

Oh, come on. Don’t be obtuse. Nobody has claimed all light comes from direct sources, or all light comes from reflection. You can see a direct source in an otherwise dark room.