swansont

The thing is, I’m not sure what evidence there is that this is a hoax.

! Moderator Note Please review the rules of the forums, which you agreed to follow when you joined. https://www.scienceforums.net/guidelines/ This includes 2.1, “Be civil”

According to a CBS story about the sub you have to sign a waiver acknowledging that the sub is experimental and not certified by any regulatory agency before you go on the dive. part of that vid is embedded in a twitter post here https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/cbs-story-oceangate-missing-titanic-125815139.html

I know this is probably rhetorical, but we can’t know, without more detail. A properly-designed submersible would likely have a way to surface that didn’t rely on the main control. Maybe it did, but there was a leak that couldn’t be overcome by the ballast tanks. Maybe orcas got them.

It’s allegedly required for life to exist. Meaning that if it had a different value, we wouldn’t be here to discuss the issue. That doesn’t mean there’s a design. But maybe that base reality is also a simulation. How do you tell? Why does he have to be lying or mistaken? There are a few people who work on foundations of physics who might be obsessed with such issues. Why does this matter?

Can you provide a link or source that refers to this process? I see explanations that cite refraction, reflection and dispersion. I’m not aware of “color separation” as a physics phenomenon. When I Googled ‘“color separation” rainbow’ the second hit was this thread, which leads me to think it’s not a common expression in rainbow explanations. Which is why dispersion is usually cited.

I’m with Eise - you appear to be using “logic” to mean your ability to understand. IOW, argument from incredulity. The fact that you don’t understand something doesn’t make it wrong or chaotic.

No, not after you edited them. We don’t track that. But you just posted the link, and did not convey this information in text, as required by the rules. And, as studiot notes, it’s a comedy site. There’s no way to fast-forward through the video (on my iPad, at least), so one must waste time wading through nonsense to get to the salient point, and no info about who the person giving the talk is. There’s no credibility offered here. Just the prospect of wasted time.

! Moderator Note No, it didn’t. You must have pasted the wrong link. Your link went to video entitled “Didnt realize how fcked we are” and it spoke about reading thoughts or some such. Rule 2.7 says, in part: members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone which you did not follow.

Re-upping this. Please stop reporting posts for allegedly being from bots.

! Moderator Note And you were wrong. Physics discussion belongs in the physics section No. It has to have a value. Why does 1/137 somehow imply we live in a simulation? If we did, whoever created it has a fine structure constant, or some equivalent. Is it turtles all the way down? Argument from authority is a logical fallacy. Quoting what people believe is meaningless. Why they think what they think might be worth discussing.

Deleting your account would result in the removal of your posts. That’s one reason we don’t do it. Starting a new account when you already have one isn’t permitted.

! Moderator Note You did not present the model, as requested, so this is locked. Do not re-introduce the topic.

! Moderator Note I will reiterate this, officially. No need to further set the stage. Present the model.

! Moderator Note I think so, too. Don’t bring the topic up again

If you could point out where the lack of objectivity is, that would be great. Asking that the evidence presented rise to the same standards in other areas of science is objectivity. I know that people have asked for evidence in previous discussions, and the response has been rather tepid. We get grainy pictures and videos. We never get this weighty evidence. I’ve pointed out the shortcomings in regarding these as scientific evidence.

Short twitter history thread; an anecdote of what happens re:UFOs when people get a bit of an adrenaline rush Lots of fake sightings, and chasing Venus.

! Moderator Note Discussion of waves has been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/131871-waves-split-from-language-development-in-other-homos/

Trump being allowed one more term seems like only a small impediment to him remaining in power, should he win, given his (and his followers’) prior actions and contempt for the Constitution.

Or just imaginations run wild. They see some light shining off animal eyes in the shadows, and with a little mental escalation, it’s a monster. Then you have the fish-tale embellishment in the retelling.

How does something vibrate in only one direction? That sounds like translation. Did you mean along one axis?

Then why would NASA beg to differ?

What do you think NASA is differing about? The paper says “Our observational results, together with laboratory analogue experiments, suggest that phosphorus is readily available in Enceladus’s ocean in the form of orthophosphates” The spelling correction is proper, and they are not claiming that life exists there.

How do you make a clock out of this? 1 minute past, 1 minute past, 2 minutes past, 3 minutes past, 5 minutes past, etc. That’s a lousy clock. You need more than numerology and hand-waving.

Once again, you link to a paper of yours instead of posting the argument here. You’ve been told that this is required. But seeing as your understanding of physics is flawed, I don’t see how citing yourself would be expected to be convincing.