swansont

Yes, it’s another term for the main group (but also includes the noble gases) and has the property I described. They are also the most abundant of the elements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main-group_element

The elements in each column have similar behaviors, because they have the same shell-filling.

No. When you let go of a ball, you haven’t given it energy. If you throw a ball you impart energy to it, but gravity affects the ball whether or not you gave it energy.

What?

You calibrate a length, of say, one meter, on some transportable item. Let’s call it a “meter stick” I measure the rod by comparing it with the meter stick. Why do you think there is a temporal component to this? The length is independent of time.

A lack of explanation is simply that. It’s not evidence. I don’t have to show what can cause such sightings. I’m simply pointing out that it’s not evidence. Not being able to draw a conclusion means aliens is one of the things that you can’t conclude. edit: I invited people to post supporting evidence earlier. No takers.

There’s the negative proposition - eliminating the possibility, which you can’t do. But there’s the positive proposition - establish that it’s aliens, which AFAICT nobody has come close to doing. The former does not own the burden of proof. The latter does.

The reports aren't being "handwaved away" - it's just being pointed out that a phenomenon without explanation does not count as evidence. And this "prodiditious" (prodigious?) amount of evidence is basically nil, if one uses the same standard as in science. Which is what we want here, being a science discussion site. IOW, "we can't explain this" or "something triggered the radar" ≠ "it's aliens"

The universe is 3-D. The solar system is approximately 2-D, with far fewer moving parts.

I would suggest using a search engine for such inquiries https://lmgtfy.app/?q=Open+Command+Prompt+as+administrator

We've done and we do that, so...

Makes sense to me that recognizing patterns would be helpful in survival, and being better at it would give a selection advantage. Especially for a medium-sized species that lacks innate "weaponry" and can't run particularly fast. Run that into a feedback loop, and being able to figure out where food will be, how to hunt more effectively, where predators will be, etc. and how to fashion weapons and tools, and be the first to effectively exploit that niche, and you get us. Yes. One of the drawbacks is seeing patterns that aren't there, but then again, discretion is the better part of being devoured by a predator.

Or predictable but in subtle ways, i.e. more than one or two variables. I think prediction is the key here, in ways that go beyond a Pavlovian response. The world still follows rules, but the rules might not be simple, which limits the accuracy of prediction (or reconstruction of past events/patterns).

Look, not travel. If you observe a galaxy 1 billion LY from us, you are seeing it as it was roughly 1 billion years ago (there will be some discrepancy owing to motion and expansion) Images from e.g. Hubble from very distant galaxies are looking far into the past, i.e. close to the BB. But travel? No.

! Moderator Note From rule 2.8 Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. IOW, threads should not look like blog posts.

Perhaps reading this would help https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

This new learning amazes me. Explain again how sheep's bladders can be employed to prevent earthquakes. Anyway, here’s the punchline from the article (note: it’s OK, and in fact preferred, to include a relevant excerpt from a link)

The material doesn’t really matter in terms of how it operates. I remember doing this with string and with copper wire. Yes they are, as they are sound waves. Evidence that they are longitudinal rather than transverse.

As I’m sure everyone recalls, this thread is not about aliens This thread is: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/124844-aliens-from-space-split-from-time-to-talk-about-ufos-or-now-as-the-military-calls-them-uaps/

If they have no mass or resistance to change in momentum, then it has no resistance to change in momentum. Adding zero an infinite number of times still leaves you with zero. You don't have a model. You don't make the distinction between any of this. You are co-opting physics terminology, but then assigning behavior that is not consistent with existing physics. e.g. your interaction is not gravitation, because we already have a model for that. Your particles are not gravitons. You can't discuss momentum or mass because your interaction does not follow the laws of physics. If your entities had no mass they must travel at c. They would not collect anywhere. You need new physics to explain other behavior. If you have a field, then make a model using that field. But until you have a model what you have is a story. And it's not a good story, because chapter 2 says one thing, and then chapter 5 says something different, like it was written by someone else and they were trying to get out of a plot hole, without any effort at continuity. And stories aren't enough for discussion in speculations. Case in point: No mass means infinite acceleration under the influence of a force. So either it's nonsense, or you abandon Newton's laws of motion, meaning you come up with a formulation where you can discuss this, with all the equations that allow one to calculate the results you are insisting on.

I don’t find false dichotomies to be all that interesting.

Why would it be infinite? Force is a vector, so an isotropic distribution will add up to zero; for every one at some distance and direction, there would be one at the same distance in the opposite direction. If all they are doing is exchanging energy with each other, the total stays the same. No decrease in temperature. As you say, these interactions are elastic, so there is no dissipation. Some could combine into one, perhaps, but this would require others to have a lot of energy. It might be interesting to model how many could combine, and under what conditions, and for how long. If a high-energy entity comes along, it would break such a combination up. It’s impossible to get my head around your contradictory claims. Does it show this? What is a “light frequency”? More hand-wavy twaddle But you also have suggested they produce spin and charge and mass, while having none of these properties. Why would there be gaps? Gravity is now undetectable? IMO you haven’t done science. You don’t have a model in any meaningful sense, and this is far from “unheard of” That’s not for you to determine You need to have a model and testable predictions

Pull? Do you mean a force? How can you have a force on an object that does not resist a change in momentum? How do they shed energy to get to (or approach) absolute zero? How can one piece together you model when you keep posting contradictory information? They do not resist a change in momentum, but there is a resistance to a change in momentum. You can’t have both. I remember you asserting this, but not where your model shows this. When things are A but also not A, that makes comprehension very difficult. This is a fundamental problem of qualitative claims. You can say things that are inconsistent. With proper math, this doesn’t happen. One reason physics insists on models.

Yes. Can you figure out why? Why would you do this? Athletes tend to have discipline, or develop it. What about gay athletes? What of their self-control? Why haven’t we seen widespread reports about gay athletes unable to properly compete because of “distraction”? (because this is ridiculous?)

And I’m asking how this happens. If they are affected by all other fairies, then certainly they should be affected by one other fairy, and a fairy-fairy interaction could be described. You seem to start this already, with two fairies being described, but the next step is explaining what, precisely, is exhibiting the 1/r^2 behavior. It can’t be a force like in Newtonian physics, because these do not resist a change in momentum. How does your model get to where they have an “effective mass”?