swansont

I think the main issue is that you’re jumping the gun looking for an astronomical explanation when the first task is corroborating the observation. Somebody would have noticed, and documented an extended darkness. Dust doesn’t give you the mass you require for your conjecture.

If you could reduce gravity then the atmosphere can more easily escape the planet completely. If you were far from gravity, or if you made the tube in a circle around a planet but then you’re in a situation where a vacuum is likely preferable because atmosphere gives you drag

Pre-teens and teens win a lot of (open) weightlifting competitions, do they?

The big space sausage

“From six o’clock darkness came over the whole earth until nine o’clock” That sounds like an eclipse, and dictates a minimum angular size. Either you use this or you don’t, but if you’re going to waffle, there’s not much point to this, is there? You’re admitting that the document is not a valid source of information. That the darkness account is a gross exaggeration, much like global flood is. How is this determined? Mersa? What’s that? More fiction? This is a great example of something that’s speculation and lends itself to scientific analysis. A pity that you aren’t willing to present the science and just want to push a narrative.

Replaced with link

Colorado, Utah and Oklahoma in the US. https://www.usgs.gov/publications/uranium-bearing-carbonaceous-nodules-southwestern-oklahoma https://nmgs.nmt.edu/publications/guidebooks/downloads/32/32_p0165_p0170.pdf

Nope. EU spending was (in USD) $176B in 2005 and $258B in 2022. There was a post-2008 decline, almost like there was an economic crisis, not caused by Europe, that might have had an effect. And budget cycles are long, so anything happening in the last few month is likely not driven by the current Trump administration https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/euu/european-union/military-spending-defense-budget Care to revise your premise? And explain the “anti-democratic” issue here? And people are free in the US to vote for representatives who align with their wishes. But in several states, they don’t do this.

Yes, it was different. Pretty much incoherent. People can’t answer a question if they can’t tell what’s being asked. Genes are considered good if they increase survival probability. Bad if they decrease it. Since genes can affect more than one specific trait, sometimes there are good and bad effects. e.g. a single sickle-cell gene affords protection against malaria. Two copies and you suffer bad effects.

The operation is different - qubits instead of bits. There are some things they would better at, a prominent example being factoring numbers, because those operations can be done in parallel. But the record for number of qubits demonstrated was just over 1000 fairly recently. And as exchemist pointed out, decoherence is a problem. Entangling a large number of particles isn’t easy, and keeping them entangled is also not easy. I attended a talk by Bill Phillips (Nobel in 1997) a few years back where he expressed a similar opinion. In particular, he pointed to a company that liked to litigate when people questioned their product, and flat-out stated it’s not an actual quantum computer.

The sun is at the center of the earth’s orbit. The radiation pressure is radially outward. Perpendicular to the velocity. So if radiation pressure is supposed to be the aether, it can’t speed anything up in the direction of the earth’s travel, or in the opposite direction. But radiation pressure where experiments are carried out is much smaller, since light gets reflected and absorbed throughout the atmosphere. It does not pass through the earth. The mirrors in the experiment aren’t even pointed at the sun, so what does this have to do with anything? Nobody else thinks radiation pressure is the aether. This is just a pile of nonsense that is not coherent. Just obtuseness. Din’t bring it up again.

They have more flexibility in their tendons and ligaments, weaker muscles, and for young ones, their bones haven’t all fused yet. Much more flexible. Puberty (with its rapid growth) reduces that, and it just gets worse as you age.

How big of an object can cause a faux eclipse of that duration? How fast is it moving in this orbit at that time? Does that fit with your proposed orbit? What is its mass, given the size? Are there any records of seeing this huge object in the sky before and after the event? Which means really, really big, because it needs sufficient angular size to completely block the sun for 3 hours.

Why does the area of a mirror matter for a calculation an effect on the whole earth? I don’t know where you’re getting these numbers. Your math is not at all clear, and you don’t need to put an “x” in an equation to denote multiplication. I don’t know what 8x20e-8 is supposed to mean or where it comes from. That’s very odd notation. 1x10e-8 is either 1e-8 or 1 x 10^-8. You seem to be mashing these two notations together. F2-F2 is identically zero 300000 km/s + 30 km/s = 300,030 km/s (the forum software seems to do this math automatically!) That’s a variation by a part in 1e4 300000 km/s - 30 km/s = 299,970 km/s So how does your answer differ by less than a part in 10? So what does solar radiation have to do with this? The solar radiation is perpendicular to the earth’s motion. It’s not in the direction of our motion, or opposite to that. More bollocks. Kinetic energy is kinetic energy. There’s no 1 second duration involved.

A different path length was not required, since a difference in speed would generate a phase shift. In Michelson’s description, the path lengths are equal, and the different directions were critical. https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Luminiferous_Ether Absolutely irrelevant See the derivation in the link I provided. It quite clearly shows how a speed difference leads to a travel time difference, and a different path length as measured by wavelengths of the light and thus a phase shift of the interference fringes

Moderator NoteRules require that the material for discussion be posted here. Not as attachments.

Why does this matter, even if it were accurate? The issue is how fast we are moving through the aether (it had been previously determined that we are not at rest with respect to it) and any interaction with glass is not the issue. The aether was proposed as the medium through which light travels. We care about the composition and properties of the aether. Two rays of light traveling in opposite directions can’t be traveling at the same speed with respect to that medium.

Which would be spherical. It’s an oblate spheroid; the rotation means there is an equatorial bulge. Gravity, being spherically symmetric, dictates the shape, as long as the object is massive enough so that gravity can overpower any structural forces (hydrostatic equilibrium). That’s one of the criteria for calling something a planet. Not really feasible. Our atmosphere is breathable for of order 10 km, on top of a radius of ~6400 km. It’s a thin layer. Extending it - and not even by very far - would mean a thicker atmosphere at ground level.

More from the same author https://www.planetearthandbeyond.co/p/starship-dead-end “SpaceX still has a long way to go before Starship becomes a viable launch vehicle. It still has to successfully land the upper stage, reuse an upper stage, reach orbit, deliver a payload to orbit, reach a useable payload capacity, conduct a cryogenic fuel transfer between two starships in space (which has never been done before), perform a successful long-duration flight test, conduct a successful uncrewed lunar landing and conduct a crewed lunar landing. All of which, for context, was meant to be achieved by January 2025!”

There are multiple definitions of species. Groups that normally don’t interbreed (for a variety of reasons) can be considered two different species. But when they do, viable (and fertile) offspring can result.

Thank you

See how easy it is to follow the rules? Try doing that from now on.

The cited paper called this a minor contribution. Do you have a citation that suggests otherwise?

Speculation requires more than rough drawing and made-up numbers.

Can you clarify what the Hell’s Creek formation is?