swansont

I don’t see how you reach this conclusion. Who said debate and investigation are not justified? On the contrary, we’re begging for you to legitimately investigate, instead of the shoddy hand-waving that we currently get. For actual scientific data, instead of de facto attempts to get a waiver from scientific rigor. What’s stopping you, and other like-minded folks, from investigating? Is complaining about having to live up to scientific standards too time consuming? The problem, it seems, is you want others to investigate, and yes, you need to come up with something to motivate most scientists to spend time (and money) on someone else’s pet project. Most scientists have their own research to do.

It sounds like they “withheld” evidence after he stopped working for them, which is…unexpected behavior? My former workplace has not shared information with me since I stopped working there. There is information that would be illegal for them to share with me. It also sounds like your beef is with the Air Force. They are a military organization. But the paradigm here is that “aliens” is not a scientific answer until there is evidence to support that conclusion. The null hypothesis is that aliens do not exist. This is no different than elsewhere in science. So charging someone with finding an explanation that fits with mainstream science is perfectly reasonable, since the default assumption is that these phenomena are not of alien origin. You can only entertain that possibility after all other explanations have been eliminated. Again - just as with the rest of science; experiments have to rule out all confounding effects that might be responsible for a result The real question is why folks who claim aliens (or bigfoot, whatever) exist think that these rules don’t apply to them. (I think lack of awareness of the rules is a likely suspect)

TheCosmologist has been banned for sockpuppetry. We’re convinced he was Gareth. (which they basically confirmed)

I can’t help but notice that you continue to avoid answering my inquiry.

Yes, that’s the result from equation 1.5

You need to work on paying attention to detail. Nowhere in the part you quoted did I use the equation F = ma I agreed that there is a term in there that is m dv/dt, which is a force. They derived this by looking at the momentum of the rocket of mass m has as the result of ejecting a mass ∆m. They did not arrive at this by applying F = ma In Newtonian physics, when considering conservation of momentum, mass can't change. Once you have defined the system (mass M) you can't change it. If a mass m2 is ejected, for example, leaving mass m1, you have to consider both masses, m1 and m2 = (m1 + m2 = M)

Then what is needing to be "debunked" or "explained away"?

Yes. "Relativity" means that some quantities, like time, are relative to the frame you are in. IOW, what you measure and what someone in another frame will measure, will disagree. In your own frame, your own clock ticks once per second. Your meter stick is a meter long. But there will be disagreement on how many seconds passed, and how far you traveled, when comparing to some other frame, because these are relative measurements.

I don’t know why you would ask this, when you don’t (and can’t) show that they do this in the link. They do not appear to use the equation you cite. I can’t find it in the link. I think you’re making this up.

! Moderator Note You have not established that this happens. You can’t ask how something happens while begging the question of whether it does.

No, because that’s not where it’s derived. It’s derived from conservation of momentum, and they divide by delta t, which they make into a derivative by taking the limit as delta t becomes small, just as clearly they explain. equation 1.3 through equation 1.5 Well, that simplification is wrong.They say it has dimension of force. The reason it’s a force is because it was arrived at by taking the time derivative of momentum, which is force, which they explained in equation 1.2. No. They didn’t apply F=m dv/dt, they derived it, and identify it as the reaction force

Nothing needs to be debunked. The burden of proof is entirely on anyone claiming alien origin.

They refer to them as forces because they are. They took momentum and applied dp/dt to it. dp/dt is a force, despite your insistence to the contrary. This is quite clearly spelled out in the derivation. What they did not do is apply F=ma to anything with variable mass. I don’t know how you can claim that they are.

Referring to someone with other than their user name is poor etiquette, and a de-facto accusation of them being a sockpuppet is both off-topic and also a bad-faith post - they might not be. Rules violations should be reported. Let mods figure it out.

Who said anything about bipolar? That sounds like word salad. Last I checked this has nothing to do with the subject being discussed, but go ahead and be obtuse about it, and see if that helps matters

The clocks in the Hafele-Keating experiment did not run at the same rate as the ground clocks. As such, they accumulated a different amount of elapsed time. GPS oscillators are adjusted to run slow on earth so that they run at the correct rate in space, to match the ground clocks. Time does not flow at the same rate for everything.

The only place where F=ma appears is right after equation 1.2, where they note that it comes from F=dp/dt There’s nothing suspicious that I see. It’s not being applied. Conservation of momentum is, and then dp/dt is used to get the force. And that’s how it is applied.

No, they showed there was no electron dipole moment at some level. The article doesn’t say, because it’s a pop-sci report about the experiment. Which is why it uses language that a lay audience might identify with. I thought you were here to discuss physics, not the watered-down verbiage used in press releases and articles like that. How could a point charge have a dipole moment? I wasn’t aware Einstein was so involved in QM. Citations, please.

What equation they used does not impact the validity of an equation they didn’t use. I don’t see PV = nRT anywhere. Is it not valid because they didn’t use it?

You posted a link that refers to a theory paper. Lots of theory explorations go nowhere. Has the been shown to be valid? Has there been experimental confirmation?

Can you cite the reference where scientists have shown electrons to be physically spinning? Physics has recognized the error of thinking the classical electron radius having any physical meaning for quite some time (it’s denoted as classical, after all, reminding us that it’s not derived from QM)

IOW, you assert current physics is wrong, but can’t show it to be wrong, or present the physics that is “correct” That’s science fiction, or possibly magic, not science. It’s not a serious argument.

Right. Because that’s not how they derived the equation. Since dp/dt is zero (there is no net force) it means momentum is conserved. They solve the problem by applying that principle. Other way around

They have units of force because it’s a calculation of dp/dt. A force and its reaction force from Newton’s 3rd law. Newton’s second law refers to the net force, not individual forces, and is indeed given by dp/dt

Where? They number the equations. What number is this equation? I see equation 1.5, which says m(dv/dt) = –vrel(dM/dt) but it’s not equated to force.