swansont

Felling a little unsafe is positive, IMO. It means not being able to post provocative trash and delete it later, after finding out you’ve overstepped. That’s something you have to think about beforehand. It makes you a little bit accountable for your posts, even if you post under a pseudonym.

Which part are you not getting, and what is the level of your understanding?

Neither is physically possible so science can’t give you a valid answer.

Enemy of the Ducks. Our various frat house banners/shirts were often less subtle; not designed to evade censorship, using that vulgarity that rhymes with Duck. (I was there ‘89-‘95)

The weekend has come and gone…

Right. One has to remember that you use the best model available for the behavior you are investigating. One doesn’t need to invoke QM when classical physics suffices, for example, you don’t have to apply relativity if Newtonian physics will work, and one uses particles when that’s the best model to use.

A stone isn’t a particle

What is the shape of the object in the 2nd photo. Unidentified is a third option. You still haven’t presented links of any leaks of conclusive evidence. They can’t be mundane? What is the evidence that they can’t be? How do you conclusively rule out a pie tin thrown like a frisbee? Which you have apparently accepted without critical analysis, and no link so that anyone else could make comments We can tell the light patch on the ground is close; if that’s standard road it’s no more than ~10 meters away. If the object is above it then it’s as wide as one lane of road. 2 meters. Containing all of the propulsion systems, fuel, life support, etc. But you can’t really tell it’s directly above. It could be bigger and further away, or it could be smaller and closer. IIRC these were alleged to be tens of meters in diameter.

Yes, unknown. Unidentified. Not conclusive. Irresponsible to classify as alien. I don’t know what this means. And can one conclusively identify them as alien? i.e. to the exclusion of any other explanation (within the realm of physical possibility)? Are these leaks of conclusive evidence? What is the conclusive evidence that these objects are of alien origin? This would be a great example of how “evidence” is assessed. How do you know this is “ground effect” (whatever that means)? How do you know it’s actually under the object? (unless you just mean one is at a higher altitude, rather than ‘directly under’) When I was in the navy, the plan of the week included the TFOA reports (Things Falling Off Aircraft). It happens quite a bit.

I remembered reading about a tip to do this with beer, if you want to release some more of the carbonation, which allegedly affects the flavor. From back when a bowl of peanuts was commonplace at a bar. (moved to plain old chemistry)

Where are these clear photos? Especially considering the advances in photographic equipment available to the average person, and its widespread availability. https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/settled.png They can only be considered real if there is evidence that shows it. Asking for evidence that aliens don’t exist is a non-starter. It’s asking to prove a negative. There is evidence of leaks in the government, of high-level secrets, so if aliens exist, then both can be true. But it’s a plausibility argument. Why do people leak all of these other secrets, but the evidence of aliens is somehow not subject to these same motivations?

Burden of proof is with the people claiming aliens.

! Moderator Note This isn’t a conspiracy discussion site.

It’s an anonymous source whose claims can’t be corroborated How does one conclude that they are credible, while others with similar credentials, who deny the existence of aliens, are not?

His brother, Covalent

Stir it vigorously

Why is it astronomically (excuse me, ASTRONOMICALLY) unlikely? Where do you think other viruses came from before we had research labs? One issue here is your insistence that an event is unlikely, without any justification. Another is the line of reasoning that if you can’t wrap your head around something, it must be wrong. Argument from incredulity is a fallacy.

There’s plenty of evidence that players do care about their fans. Many of them run their own foundations to support some cause. Judge, for example, started the All Rise foundation https://www.aaronjudgeallrisefoundation.org Why is it the players are tagged as greedy for wanting millions, when the owners of these franchises are worth billions?

! Moderator Note You need to provide evidence that the premise is true - that the vaccines are dangerous - before you proceed to arguments based on it ! Moderator Note We are not discussing gun control in this thread

a^1 = a

I have to amend my previous statement. They can interfere under other situations, depending on the kind of entanglement. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-68181-1 Interference does not affect the frequency.

The only opportunity for interference would be at the point where they cross.

! Moderator Note You need to post the arguments here, rather than just link to a video.

Likely isn’t the issue. Unlikely things happen all the time. Saying that something couldn’t have happened because it wasn’t likely is an incredibly naïve argument.

N photons? You’re the one saying that there are no particles. How can you invoke Nhf, which admits to the existence of particles? Your proposal is that the EM energy is not quantized, so why can’t the quantized amount be absorbed, leaving the remainder? When you don’t present a consistent argument, it suggests you don’t have an actual model, which is a requirement for discussion in speculations. Not liking things in physics isn’t far from appeal to personal incredulity, which is a fallacy. If you’re not trolling, then stop doing things that look like trolling. The photoelectric effect does not do this, and if you can find an example if a 2 eV photon undergoing compton scattering off of an atom, please present it.