swansont

How do clocks (such as used in the Hafele-Keating experiment) “perceive” time?

When did these gentlemen provide a urine or blood test to confirm that they weren’t under the influence of one of the many drugs that were legal at the time? If you can’t rule out hallucinations, it’s not conclusive. It’s also curious that these aliens seem to use technology somehow familiar to the people - a luminous mineral for light, a shoulder bag containing gas (what gas would this be?) Those are not descriptions of advanced technology. ”the specific gravity of the creature was less than an ounce” for being seven feet tall? And they were carrying items! “outside of a large rudder there was no visible machinery” How does a rudder function in outer space? This is your best example of having “so much data”? You described this as “It reads so matter of fact but it's more like a guy detailing his experiences while drinking shroom tea.” Where is your calculation of this probability?

My follow-up would be to do it in feet, if the OP returns. If it depends on the unit system it’s not meaningful. (edit: as you point out; xpost)

Dealing in vague assertions is one of the issues that fall under the “lack of rigor” umbrella. I can’t comment on such a nebulous claim. I have not seen where anyone has asserted the data must be wrong. I’m not aware of claims where there is actual data. I know where people have asserted that the conclusions are wrong, because a conclusion was claimed that was not conclusively supported. Who is ignoring it completely? Saying that eyewitness testimony is unreliable is not ignoring it. Saying “what eyewitness testimony?” would be ignoring it. Show where it’s being ignored. Another thing I’m not a fan of is straw man claims. Until you support your claims, that’s what these appear to be. Playing the victim to cover for a lack of evidence. Some people might agree that the best defense is a good offense, but it becomes obvious that it’s always attack and complain, instead of any kind of thorough, scientific analysis. Another unsupported claim of data being ignored Yes, there was a time before science existed. That’s hardly the fault of science, though. And now that it exists, we ask that it be applied. Please explain how the second statement does not imply the first. If the data are inconclusive, that’s the conclusion. It’s not dismissing the data. How do you gather more data about an event? You would have to show that it lies outside our current understanding. One might proceed without assuming everyone is familiar with this event and the alleged evidence. Or why a search of “stockton” only shows one post from you: the one you just posted. As if you’ve not actually brought it up before. Which is a commonality with conspiracy theories: there is no evidence because that’s what happens with a conspiracy (except that’s never what happens) Nobody has to explain an incident away. It’s nice when that happens, but the burden of proof is with the UFO crowd. Stop trying to shift that responsibility. Another thing to consider is that every time someone cries wolf (i.e UFO) and a mundane explanation is confirmed, it further damages the credibility of anyone making claims, and underscores the fact that the UFOlogists’ standards are lax and their analysis shoddy.

Let’s see the math

Indeed. The lack of rigor is frustrating to people who are used to it in scientific inquiry. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable in legal circles, which is a lower standard than science has. “Objective” in science means measurements and recorded data. I don’t think the data are being dismissed. The conclusions are. Apply the same standard. We didn’t “dismiss” lightning - the phenomenon was observed. It was studied under somewhat controlled circumstances. Show me the scientific experiments that show UFO phenomena must be aliens.

The impact is from the recoil, which changes the KE, causing heating (or cooling under the right conditions) Now multiply by the scattering rate. The reason laser cooling works is that you can pretty easily scatter millions of photons/sec with the D2 transition. Even for scattering rates that are significantly smaller, it will have an effect when integrated over the course of ~10,000 sec Not quite. That’s the KE of a Na atom moving 2.5 cm/s If the atom were moving 250 m/s, you could stop it or double its speed with 10^5 scatters (if the atom were moving toward/away from the source. That doesn’t match up with your numbers.

! Moderator Note One incorrect answer is enough. No need to repeat it. (electricity is not an EM wave, and does not flow at c)

He’s talking about resonant scattering - i.e. absorption with an allowed transition - which is not the same thing. He’s right that that explanation doesn’t work, for reasons he gives, but that’s not the QM explanation being offered. So one can make the case that he’s debunking a strawman. Absorption by a virtual state doesn’t permit transfer of energy or momentum to the atom; the only possibility is for the photon to continue on along the same path. (Which, again, is not the case he discusses)

Where does he say that? (time stamp)? My problem with what I saw was already raised elsewhere - he states that the wave from the electron motion travels at a different speed, but that’s just a circular explanation. If the E field oscillations travel at c, then why would the other oscillations travel slower? He just states this with no explanation.

Yes. The speed change from a scatter is going to be a few cm/s. You’d need the scattering rate, too.

I’m not sure how much, but I see blue light scattered by the atmosphere, and that light originally came from the sun.

Yes. And photons get absorbed and emitted, by virtual states (so there is no energy or momentum imparted) and this takes time. So the photons travel at c, but the light takes longer to traverse the medium - it slows down. In the classical view, the permittivity of a medium is larger than the vacuum value; the EM field can’t oscillate as it does in free space - because it’s interacting with the electrons in its vicinity - so it slows down and has a shorter wavelength

Photon absorption is often a dipole interaction. There is a transition dipole moment, which gives rise to certain selection rules. If the photon changes direction, momentum has been imparted, and thus, kinetic energy. The amount of energy imparted is small, so the wavelength is only changed by a small amount - to first order it can be ignored.

You have to pay attention to detail in what is said. Light slows down in a medium. Photons do not. — talking about light and talking about photons are not exactly the same thing.

Primarily for military applications? My microwave oven disagrees. So does my wi-fi router. There’s nothing under discussion here that can’t be found in a textbook, news article, or as a reasonable extrapolation of other easily-accessible information. You can swallow various devices as medical diagnostics with wireless communication for data collection. So these are slightly larger than pea-sized https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/capsule-endoscopy/about/pac-20393366 “in 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the SmartPill, an ingestible capsule that measures pressure, pH, temperature, and transit time as it passes through a person’s gastrointestinal tract.” https://www.inverse.com/science/ingestible-sensor-digestive-system

Defrosting organs? I’m not sure why you would need an internal transmitter, since microwaves can penetrate.

No kinetic energy loss, from mechanics. Energy can be transferred from one particle to another. But there is no energy loss. The atom is in the same energy state. Photon energy shifted to or from the atom’s kinetic energy. Why does that matter? The net result is translation. Radiation pressure is responsible for clearing out the gas near a star after fusion is initiated. For the tail on a comet. And you can have e.g. Rayleigh scattering, another elastic process.

! Moderator Note Someone reported the thread; it was closed so the mods could evaluate the report. No, it’s not a problem.

If a photon is re-emitted when the atom drops back to its original state, what is inelastic about the process?

Elastic scattering just means there’s no change in the energy level of the atom or molecule. If the photon is absorbed and re-emitted in a different direction, there is momentum transferred to the atom. It’s the basis of laser cooling. How much “coldness” is contained in an object at 0K?

No concrete evidence means just that - there is no concrete evidence, and you can’t draw the conclusion that it’s aliens. You seem to have admitted that there isn’t any conclusive evidence. Since not everyone is familiar with that, they might arrive at a different explanation. Nothing anthropocentric about the limitations of relativity, and the vast distances of interstellar space.

What does the pea have to contain? All the electronics and the energy source? Really small circuits are certainly possible. Commercially-available ones a little larger than your parameters can be found, and could be made smaller. One limiting factor would be if you have a power requirement

“real” being nonzero but still exceedingly small. How big of a balloon would be required to lift the payload to that height, and would you risk doing that knowing that it might or might not get close to any target of interest, and could be shot down well before that happened? I would imagine the risk is greater from a ground-based bomb in a van, that could be placed in sufficient proximity to a target. A balloon bomb is a threat from a movie writer.

In a word, yes. The same standard, at least, as any scientific endeavor. Possibly higher, since extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but certainly not a lower standard of evidence. Is there a scientific field where “something unusual” is sufficient to draw a definite conclusion? How do you determine the competence? The recent balloon adventures uncovered a story related to this “When the USS New York was sailing towards Iwo Jima in 1945, the crew spotted a silver sphere flying high overhead that seemed to follow the battleship for hours. Concerned that the shiny orb might be a Japanese balloon weapon, the captain ordered it shot down. After the guns failed to score a hit, a navigator realized that they were attacking Venus.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2023/02/03/japanese-balloon-bombs-world-war/ Flawed analogy. You and others keep doing the equivalent of insisting that bigfoot exists, and additionally, is anybody saying not to investigate?