swansont

Nothing. They just wouldn't be moral issues. (Though one must recall that Jacob Wohl did try this)

IOW this is something you just made up.

An atom’s ground state is relative to the free state. False vacuum vs tru vacuum would shift both. It would still take 13.6 eV to ionize hydrogen, and the ground state will still be at -13.6 eV Can you point to some actual physics that says otherwise? The probability distribution depends on the shape of the potential well. You brought up hydrogen, which has a 1/r potential. That will behave differently than a square well with a constant potential, or some other shape. Each has a different solution to the Schrödinger equation. The 1D simple harmonic oscillator has a potential that varies as x^2

You just told me it did not. There is no highest level. n can have any value. At large values the levels are close together, approximating a continuum. Yes.

How does that apply to an atom? n follows the shape of the potential well? What does that mean? Energy depends on n, but they are not the same thing. In hydrogen, for example, it depends on 1/n^2 That’s the probability distribution, not the energy

My position is that my confusion and ignorance reflect your poor explanation That doesn’t help. It doesn’t explain what the variables are, and how one might determine their value. Are these observables? What do they represent? If not, how can you determine what they are?

Not sure what this means. False vacuum? An atom isn’t a vacuum. and a false vacuum implies a lower energy state. What state is below the ground state? n goes to infinity, so there is no highest state. The energy state differences become small, approximating a continuum. The orbital angular momentum changes, too, and approaches the classical solution for large L

Yes, that would be a Rydberg state. Which approaches a classical solution.

And delta, and epsilon, and k, and n, and a whole bunch of terms. "We" can't do it because you haven't told us what all the terms mean. Why don't you do it, and show your work? Baloney.

Develop implies it's not there yet. These are SBIR awards, meaning they are given to companies here on earth. What the ISS has is 3-D printing. Fabrication of parts. Not manufacturing, and certainly not large-scale. You were talking about O'Neill cylinders (which, of course, were not proposed for travel) You've made a lot of assumptions, which you have not examined for reasonability. Space is a vacuum. There are no in situ materials for manufacturing. You have to go somewhere, like a moon or an asteroid. No, that doesn't wash. You didn't ask how fast a drone can move. Speed of a drone is meaningless to know, unless it was being compared to the speed of the UFO. Is there any evidence of the UFO speed? No, he clearly is talking about a sphere. A swarm would not block all visible radiation from a star, it would only block some of it. http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/SETI1.HTM "the mass of Jupiter, if distributed in a spherical shell revolving around the sun at twice the Earth's distance from it" No. Read his very short paper. Once again, the true answer is "no" but you refuse to acknowledge this, and contort your response rather than admit that it's not.

Have we done any manufacturing in space? Have you presented an analysis to support the claim that it will cut costs to do so? I didn’t say you made a claim about speed. You referred to a claim about speed. I want to know details about what you’re referring to. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120270-us-navy-ufo-video/page/5/?tab=comments#comment-1140011 All known physics? Freeman Dyson was able to popularize an idea that violates all known physics? How does it violate the laws of thermodynamics? Newton’s laws? I never mentioned a Dyson swarm. Stop pretending I did. (funny how the don’t mention how a Dyson sphere violates all physics, though) I never claimed otherwise. Is the ISS a Dyson swarm? Straw man. My comment was regarding extraterrestrials visiting, and these are not crewed vessels. Are you not capable of determining whether or not I called something impossible? You have not answered questions, and provided jokes instead. Not acknowledging that you made a reference to speed. Every reference of mine to a logical fallacy is tap-dancing. Based on our experience building things in space? You say pithy things like this, but provide NO analysis to back it up. You can search this thread. The search box is in the upper right corner (choose the “this topic” radio button)

You asked “How about the speed claims?” I want details. You don’t get to back out by saying they weren’t yours. You brought it up. You need to defend it. No, assume I meant what I said. My point. Have your claims been tested to a degree that would allow one to see if there is a similar violation? Or are they flights of fancy with similar disregard? And yet one of these actually exist (using technology from ~60 years ago) and the others do not. Don’t be moving the goalposts. I did not claim anything was impossible, especially in the context of physics laws being violated. My first response was to the claim about people who “think it likely that extra terrestrials may have visited Earth” You talked about physics preventing it. (I noted that you don’t have any analysis to support that.) And now we’re at “impossible” Nope. Not letting you get away with that, especially on top of you backing out of other claims. Every time you are asked to support claims, you start tap-dancing. Scale is often a problem

Were any of claims regarding speed the result of measurement? That’s almost equivocation. One can cite hypothetical technology like Dyson spheres under the same notion, but it ignores all of the technological steps that are required to work that get glossed over, since there’s no analysis being done. Orbital insertion, OTOH, relies less on specific technology and more on physics analysis. Can you offer up either one (detailed analysis of technology, or physics)?

“physics in no way prevents star travel” Were any claims made based on measurements? As with Alex’s comment earlier, how about not relying on unproven technology or science that is not currently confirmed. Conjecture is not evidence

Appealing to future discovery does not comprise evidence And that’s all one can say. We don’t know what they are. No conspiracy, please. Claimed (again) without evidence.

I take it that’s a “no” The incident showed up on radar of the aircraft? Irrelevant in regard to my question. Yes, well...physics.

That the event happened is absolute - it happened in all frames. Where and when are relative.

Our rules require that you provide the information without requiring that anyone watch videos. You've been a member long enough to know how things work here. Four sailors on the Princeton do not represent independent lines of information. They count, at most, as one report that it was picked up on the Princeton's radar.

Yes No. Position and time are relative.

n=4 isn't going to give you a classical solution. n = 4000 might.These systems are hard to investigate because they are so easy to ionize at that point.

Posting an example of applying your approach to some basic experiment would be illuminating, instead of describing in terms of names of variables (of which there are so many). We can speak of momentum (linear and angular) and energy, but "v overbar" and "omega" have no meaning. Actual solutions to physics problems is one obvious difference. Thus far, at least.

People are bad at judging distances and speeds (because you need distance to know speed), so there is no quantitative analysis from eyewitness reports. They saw something. AFAICT, that's about as much as you can say. Is there even support for saying this showed up on multiple radar screens? I have seen this claimed. What I have not seen is substantiation of the claims.

A video from a person is not an analysis from multiple radars, which you claim exists. Where is that analysis, which would definitively show distances, velocities and accelerations via triangulation.

Claimed without support. Faster moving air means the virus can travel further before leaving the room, per the paper I linked to. Meaning you might infect everyone before getting a chance to filter the air. Hot air rises, so exiting through the floor isn't always the best option.

It becomes the classical solution when n is large. Again: why would you want to do this?