swansont

In which case the craft is not encased in ice, and the radiators would tend to melt the ice. But yes, shedding heat is generally a problem - since all you have is radiation - and it gets worse as the craft gets larger (volume grows faster than surface area). This is especially an issue when they are warmed by the sun. Radiating fins that are near each other don’t work well, since they “see” each other and absorb almost as much as they emit. i.e. two such fins are only marginally better than one, not twice as good. Ice by itself could only radiate a few hundred watts per square meter. (a perfect radiator would emit ~300 W at most at 273K) To extract electrical energy you have to…wait for it…reject heat. Yes. But you wouldn’t be limited to the radiators being below the freezing point of water, and radiated power varies as T^4. Something at the boiling point of water radiates ~3.5 as much power as at the freezing point, all else being the same

We’re talking about the feasibility of encasing something in ice as a radiation shield, and I’m telling you that you’d bake everything inside if you did that. They wouldn’t die from radiation but they’d be just as dead. It’s not a viable solution.

! Moderator Note Also not that link shorteners are not permitted. The link has to show the destination site.

Only if you completely ignore the laws of thermodynamics.

You might notice I was referring to the ice layer you suggested, which won’t work, since the interior heat has to escape the container. That wasn’t clear, and I don’t agree that we can easily generate strong magnetic fields on the scale necessary. We can generate strong fields on a scale of several meters.

The heat has to escape somehow. Making the outer later be ice just makes the interior hotter, at the cost of a lot of energy. Which has no effect on the emission EM radiation

One of the dni documents in the OP talked about reporting bias; an AFB has more instruments and more people in a position to see things (your random person isn’t looking toward the sky most of the time, and these airports are typically away from population centers, so you have relatively dark skies) and, of course, they potentially attract the attention of foreign adversaries.

That doesn’t change the fact that we are actively looking at the skies. At the very least we look for objects that might collide with the earth, and if the objects are too small/faint to see, you can’t write it off as being passive - it’s a technical limitation. Which should show up in IR viewing, and it doesn’t depend on reflection of sunlight. What does it say that we don’t see anything? Multiple IR telescopes have been in operation since the late 70s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_telescope#Infrared_telescopes (and this is the sort of technical discussion that has a basis in science, so kudos to you for engaging in that direction)

We're going to start seeing royal descendants die off, like we're in an Agatha Christie novel.

As if we aren’t already scanning everywhere in all available frequency bands where we might expect a signal.

You posted the video. You posted “it is what an alien colony space station would look like” and “The object was rotating too fast to be made out of rock and ice” You can’t abdicate this responsibility. If you aren’t prepared to defend the claims you post, don’t post them. Otherwise it’s like “ring and run” This is moot, since there’s nothing of sufficient strength trying to break it apart.

Michio Kaku has a tendency to oversell things while diluting the science for lay audiences.

But when a scenario that is offered up is later debunked, especially so easily as these Arawn claims, it means it wasn’t vetted in the first place. Just credulous acceptance. There’s no reason to expect that the next example will be any better, and some reason the expect it will be worse, if we’ve been given the most promising examples first.

Hardly. Ports are located on these flooded coasts, and a lot of people. These areas that would be “opened up” have little infrastructure, which would have to be built up, and so are hardly a replacement.

In the article Moontanman linked to, which is basically a summary of the video https://inf.news/en/science/61f2e43c267cae2d5a6057e1979788c7.html “Soon after, the scientists realized that this small celestial body was rotating at about 80 kilometers per hour, and it took 5 hours and 30 minutes to make a full circle.” This is looking like the Gish gallop. One claim doesn’t pan out, so you queue up another. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop Yes, it does. As exchemist has shown, the rotation is not sufficient to do what the video asserts. It’s sensationalism, not science.

But what is the gravitational attraction (no calculation given), and what is the adhesive force of possible materials? Even if it’s just ice? The link says 80 km/hr, which is a little over 20 m/s, which gives about the same acceleration. (8 x 10^-3) So not only is this small, it’s also probably not artificial gravity - it’s around a milli-g. They can make BS claims because they don’t do any of the physics that would show that they’re full of it.

What would it look like? We have a different definition of “detail” since they state it without any analysis. That’s the detail I want. Your link is more of the same. Did any scientists write a paper about this object, and publish in a peer-reviewed journal? Is it rotating faster than expected? What is the expected amount? The video suggested it, quite strongly, and you posted the video. You can’t say it has these properties when the properties aren’t given. How much gravity? Where is the analysis? All the video did was say that rotation would create artificial gravity, but you can’t conclude that the rotation has such a purpose. Most objects in space rotate. Most are acknowledged to be naturally occurring. Rotation does not imply it’s a spacecraft. It’s massively flawed logic to suggest, as in the video, that it does. That’s weak tea. Don’t post videos and links that talk about alien spacecraft if you aren’t endorsing the idea. edit: there are literally hundreds of observed objects with rotation periods less than one hour https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fast_rotators_(minor_planets) So “it’s rotating too fast” needs more of an analysis.

It's not clear that they did. The people talking in the 8 min video are not NASA people (though I didn't watch the whole thing) and the NASA folks shown are from old footage. Data from NASA has to be made publicly available. I don't see how you can claim this, since there are virtually no details given to support the claim. All we know is that the object is big and it's rotating, but beyond that not much is shared. I wish someone would tell us what we should expect to find before we find it. Saying so after the fact doesn't count as a prediction. Is it? Where's the analysis? This is one reason why just posting videos by themselves is against the rules - they rarely contain a sufficient amount of detail, and one can't easily analyze information that is just spoken into the microphone. The fact of the matter is that such objects are known to rotate from the effects of solar radiation (the YORP effect), but I didn't hear anyone say this - it was all conspiratorial suggestion that this is a spaceship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YORP_effect From a scientific standpoint the first video is sensationalist crap. Almost like it's targeting a pop-sci, credulous audience on TV or something.

But what have they done that Facebook and Meta haven’t? Russia has used Facebook to try to influence elections. Elon Musk is beholden to China for Tesla’s success, but there’s no talk of banning Twitter.

One might note that there’s a bunch of actual evidence to analyze, and models that can be applied, which distinguishes this from UAP discussion.

What is TikTok doing that Facebook and Meta aren’t, that makes it worthy of banning?

Define what you mean by “real” What new information is created?

splodge has been banned as a sockpuppet of JustJoe

I assure you, a vacuum does not conduct electricity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark_gap “Resistance between the electrodes may be as high as 10^12 ohms when the electrodes are separated by gas or vacuum which means that little current flows even when a high voltage exists between the electrodes”

So why call heat flow gravity 2? Heat flow is independent of gravity. It can flow in the opposite direction, it can flow perpendicular to it, it can flow in the same direction. You’ve explained nothing with your idea. Heat flow can be from conduction, convection or radiation. It’s not a single mechanism.