Leaderboard

Well, thank you. So, am getting a glimmer now of what this is about... This famous Gould assertion would also make a great thread here at SFN. UAPs are disparate phenomena, not necessarily arising from some common phylogenetic tree branch, is what you're saying?

I have to agree, I know I'm supposed to be a true believer nut case, but these documents are of unknown providence, in fact they are copies of copies sent anonymously to a UFO researcher back in the 70s or 80s if I remember correctly. I've googled this to death and I can't find a source but I'll keep trying.

It's hard to decipher some of your oracular comments. Can you offer a summary of what the podcast is about, in case I don't have the 41 minutes required to hear it? And how it's relevant?

I think the comparisons are what philosophers call "trivially true." His math is correct but it misses the point. Medical errors kill more people than mass shootings but medical errors don't jump out in a movie theater or shopping mall or school and start slaughtering. Mass shootings have unique aspects of horror because of their psychological effects and ability to spark mass fear - and destruction of what were perceived as safe spaces in our lives. So, yes, Neil does tend to be glib and dismissive sometimes.

You may want to read Dies the Fire by SM Stirling. Read it about twenty years ago, enjoyed his exploration of that same idea. I don't recall any pausible explanation of how explosives were nullified, but many details of the book elude me atm. Being a pointed sticks guy (i.e. humans can't really be trusted as a species with anything beyond pointed sticks), I will follow your inquiry with interest. Sounds like the Hard SF end of the spectrum. Good place to be! I notice, when browsing the fiction section of a library, that there is a cluster of really good hard SF authors under the letter B. Stephen Baxter, David Brin, Gregory Benford, Ben Bova, Greg Bear, couple others. And of course Arthur C. Blarke! 🤔

Without links to their source and a way to vet them they are worthless.

Thanks! I'll rephrase my question; please give a detailed definition of chronovibration including: Measurement: How can chronovibration be measured experimentally? What specific methodologies or instruments are used? Verification: Are there empirical experiments that have verified the existence of chronovibration? If so, could you describe these experiments and their outcomes? Units and Quantization: What units (preferably in SI units) are used to quantify chronovibration? Is chronovibration considered a quantized phenomenon, occurring in discrete packets, or is it a continuous variable? Conservation and Relativity: Is chronovibration a conserved quantity within the framework of your theory? How does chronovibration behave under the principles of relativity, particularly in different inertial frames of reference? Additionally: If the aspects I mentioned do not apply, could you explain other relevant properties?

Don't exaggerate, MigL. Pigliucci is perfect for the job. I think the problem is simply that many scientists, like Tyson and Krauss, have no idea that (nearly) no philosopher today sees philosophy as a way to empirical truths. Also see the feud between Krauss and David Albert.

I'm sure he'd be a lot more agreeable as to the value and purpose of Philosophy if he had the opportunity to chat with our own Eise.

If you listened to the pod-cast, maybe... You'd understand, just a little bit more, what the map might look like...😉

Observing pedestrian crossing the street - thought experiment. The experiment is split in three systems: System 1 There is two pedestrians at position A. Pedestrian 1 is moving at speed of v1=1m/s and goes to position B and return backwards to position A. The distance d1=2m time t1=2sec speed v1 is constant. This is all observed by non moving pedestrian 2. System 2 The pedestrian 1 is not moving. The road is moving at speed of v2=1 m/s The pedestrian 1 moves from point A to point E. the distance d2=2 m Time t2=2s The speed v2 =1 m/s is constant This is observed by pedestrian 2. The third system is system 1 and system 2 taking place simultaneously. The trajectory of movement of pedestrian 1 has zig zag pattern - this is observed by pedestrian 2. The total length dt=2.84m The total time travelled is tt=2.84sec the total observed speed is vt=dt/tt=1 m/s The speed of pedestrian 1 is 1 m/s - constant - in all three systems . The observed distance was increased because system 1 and system 2 are applied simultaneously. It will take longer time for pedestrians 1 ,traveling at constant speed to move on Bigger distance of observed trajectory 2.84 m. There is difference in observed time and length but the observed speed is constant. Opinions?