swansont

There are many instances where it’s been confirmed that the witness was not lying about seeing something they could not unidentify, so to me this is a non-starter. I’ve seen a UFO. I was able to later identify it.

It’s assumed to be close to equilibrium. That’s what the stirring would do.

The dipole moment depends on the charge and the separation distance (p = qd), so it would be related to the electronegativity and the size of the molecule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_dipole_moment

It tells you something about the thermal conductivity. It depends on heat transfer properties, area and the heat capacity of the object https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_cooling#Rate-of-change_of_temperature-difference_version_of_the_law

Why not both? A lot of what appeals to the base on the left is actually a moderate position. It's just being painted as extreme by the opposition. Raising taxes on the rich is undo-ing an extreme move. A 70% marginal tax rate on top earners, for example, is actually a moderate position, in that it was the norm (or even be considered generous) for a long stretch of time. See also: https://boingboing.net/2019/03/13/they-were-socialist-invader.html

A short story about when I was in my postdoc at TRIUMF and we were trying to trap K-37 atoms. K-37 is radioactive with a short half-life and nobody know its exact spectroscopic properties (nobody ever had enough around to study it), so the laser frequency needed to do this was unknown. We had a rough estimate, but had to search more precisely. After doing so for a few days (continually - 24/7 experiment), we saw a glow from the trap. It went away when we tuned the laser by several MHz. But that wasn't enough to announce we'd trapped it, because we still had to do systematic tests to show that the only conclusion was that the signal was from the atoms. We had to confirm that it wasn't scattered light, or some weird behavior of the detector, or anything else that might account for the signal. Only after we had done that did we announce, and write the paper to say we'd trapped the atoms. That's the kind of rigor I expect. And that's not even an extraordinary phenomenon. There are few parallels in science for UFOs. It's not something you can do in a lab. It's not something you can model — even one-offs like supernovae or (more recently) black hole mergers, where you can't predict where and when they will happen, you can at least compare the data to a model. And with those, you have instruments that are tailored to investigating the phenomena. Partly because you know what kind of signals to look for, and you can look just about everywhere. Which leave a pretty large gap between the evidence that has been presented, and Klaatu and Gort landing on the mall in DC. And it doesn't help that the strategy in presenting evidence has been quantity instead of quality. If you're trying to convince someone, a bunch of lousy evidence probably isn't the way to go, because what's the motivation to sort through mountains of poor evidence?

It means we want to see some actual quantum mechanics.

“Citation needed” means back up your claim. Can you point to where they “told them if they couldn't come to the proper conclusion to apply for more money“ You tell me. Is there any reason to think the other link is better? If it is, why bother with the bad one?

You have presented no actual evidence that contradicts this. Have you pointed to any actual official Air Force commentary? Because this is just anecdotal. Citation needed. No. I deal with enough crackpottery here on SFN. I don't go looking for it. But I took a look at the links. From the econd one: "The filed report indicates the object was black in color with no structural features. The object size was larger than 300 feet. No exterior lights. No emissions. The object was hovering at less than 500 feet in altitude. The object was over one mile away from the witness. No landing was observed." There is no explanation of how this information was determined. Which makes it almost worthless. How do you know if something is bigger than 300 feet and less than 500 feet up, or a mile away? Estimates of distance require knowing the size. Estimates of size depend on knowing the distance. If that's the best you have, then the best you have is crap.

They all have issues, which is why I asked you to pick one for analysis.

It was in the context of the remark that allegedly, seasoned operators could differentiate between real and spurious signals. Which by itself is an admission that not all operators could make that distinction. I read the response as offering the possibility that, if the claim about the abilities was true, the operators were part of the latter group. You were also railing on about the Air force, and Philip Klass was (is?) a "senior editor for Aviation Week magazine" No? The thrust of the quoted material in the OP is that these are assumed to be spacecraft. A large part of the problem is that there are people (some very vocal) who are unsatisfied with "unidentified" as an answer. When you try and give them your best assessment, still others are unsatisfied with that answer. There is a certain amount of dissatisfaction stems from not getting the answer they wanted it to be (a sentiment expressed earlier in this thread) "Cover up" implies they knew what was there. I certainly hope you aren't talking about crop circles. Scientifically speaking, there isn't a lot of evidence, there are anecdotes. If you have a beef that things aren't being investigated scientifically, remember that the Air Force is not a science institution. _ _ _ _ As I said earlier, if there was anything to this, you would expect the sighting frequency to go up with people having cameras. And my comment that our technology has gotten better over time. (This is in a similar vein to the observation that "introduction of digital filters in the 1970s led to a steep decline in UFO sightings on radar.") That's an actual scientific hypothesis one could test.

Pick one of these and present an analysis of how it would work in a "cold" system.

You've said this a number of time but without reference. What "dumb radar operators" What ad hominems? Who are the people with an agenda? AFAIK the only agenda here is science, and any conclusion other than "we don't know" is an unscientific one. And not "it was aliens" There are a number of examples where it was actually Venus. But that, too, gets ignored when rigor goes out the window. Nothing wrong with the former, and as for the latter, no, probably not. Simply because there is't enough data to make that determination. It sure seems like you are. "Yes, I am claiming a cover up!" "I can make a very credible argument as to how and why aliens might be nearby." "My idea is that aliens are already here" Why is it that "unidentified" has to mean anything more than "unidentified"? The crux of the matter is a lack of evidence. There isn't more data to study. e.g. you get a radar signal. There isn't another platform that you can bring online to study the phenomenon in real time, to get more data. It doesn't happen in a way that you can do a systematic study. It's not like that area of London you mentioned, where you could actually go and set up equipment to get more data, because the phenomenon had a specific location. At least looking for ghosts you have the advantage of a localized phenomenon. UFO study in that sense is less amenable to being rigorous than ghost hunting. That's a reason why decrying the lack of study is so ludicrous. I don't care about what the average person thinks. We're discussing science. When has science been satisfied with a supernatural explanation? What citation can be provided for the non-existence of credible sightings of a non-mundane phenomenon?

IOW the null hypothesis is not that it's aliens, it's that it's a mundane phenomenon. You need to be able to positively exclude mundane explanations in order to conclude that it's aliens. And if evidence is lacking, there is no way to do that.

1. There are no error bars shown, so you can't really say that it didn't. I would not be surprised if the error bars would be larger as you went back in time. 2. The effect is logarithmic, so you have to look at it in terms of e.g. doubling. Going from 200 ppm to 400 ppm has the nominally same effect as going from 400 ppm to 800 ppm. That should increase temperature around 2 ºC The concentration did not even double, so (all else being equal) the effect would be smaller. It's also possible that the climate sensitivity was different under the conditions present 550 mya. 3. It is not known (at least from this graph) what else was going on at that time that might have had an opposing effect on temperature or the aforementioned climate senitivity. e.g. changes in the sun, changes in our orbit or inclination, continental configuration, etc.

1. Yes. 2. Unknown. AFAIK the thinking is no, it's not physical, which us why other approaches are being investigated. 3. The planets wouldn't notice, gravitationally, since gravity wouldn't be different.

Something was observed,. It seemed like lightning, and was spherical. Ball lightning. Yes. UFOs are also assumed to be real phenomena. We just don't know exactly what they are. You are conflating "UFO" with "alien" and it's the latter that lacks evidence. What predetermined conclusion would that be? You can't say it's "there is no evidence that aliens exist" when a) there is no evidence you can present, and b) it's not a conclusion. It's the assertion that "it's aliens" that is not taking evidence at face value. And who is claiming this? No. That makes the situation I described worse. I said nothing about getting "more dangerous" (and I don't know what that has to do with this) and I think it's objectively and trivially true that our ability to observe things has gotten better in whatever reasonable interval of time you want to pick. Is that not your position? How does this help your case? That the scientifically unreasonable position was not simply assumed to be the case, just because some people asserted it? The phenomena was simply unidentified, until enough evidence could be obtained to come to a conclusion. Can you see the actual parallel here?

That's a small effect, though. Thermal motion is far more energetic than typical translational energy. (It ties in with why running water, e.g. a river, can freeze. The translational energy is small compared to the thermal energy)

It's a business publication (the International Business Times), so the factor by which one needs to temper their expectations from a pop-sci publications has to be squared.

It's bad headline writing to couch this as right vs wrong. AFAIK it was a conjecture, not a conclusion. Did Darwin even know about hydrothermal vents? (Plus the idea they had a role in abiogenesis is old. It's bad to present this as a new idea. Here's an article from 1988. It's against the idea, but it shows it was being discussed. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11536607)

And recreated in a lab setting. https://www.livescience.com/7035-mysterious-ball-lightning-created-lab.html But I don't see how ball lightning is an example of "hand waving away evidence". It seems to me that it's the opposite of that. A phenomenon was observed, but solid confirmation of it was lacking. What evidence was hand-waved away? This is called "conventional wisdom" and has been a bane of science for a long time. What conclusive evidence is there that UFOs are aliens? Conclusive meaning you can positively eliminate all other (scientifically reasonable) explanations? Couple with that, what plausibility argument exists that is not based on conjecture and wishful thinking that a piloted or autonomous craft could get here from interstellar distances? Why, with the explosion of the number of people carrying a camera with them at all time, haven't we seen better pictures? (and is there data showing the number of observations has scaled with the number of potential picture-takers?) This brings to mind the question of why, as our detection methods get better, do we not find "aliens" more easily? The aliens are far from home, and it seem unlikely that they are doing R&D and deploying new technology "in the field" and there would not be time for new craft to get here with more advanced technology. They are presumably stuck with whatever they had when they left home.

A lot of variables here. If these are pure tones, there are locations where the amplitude and phase difference will result in having them destructively interfere, so a microphone at that point will record (basically) nothing. (microphones having a spatial extent means that the amplitude will be small but not zero)

Not my point. “...that we theorize may contain trillions of comets and other icy bodies." We don’t know what’s there. It’s conjecture.

There are a number of examples of this. many point out issues of simultaneity being relative. Trains and flashes of light as the train and platform observers are adjacent, for example. In general, in these examples one tries to simplify the scenario, so that only one behavior is being investigated and tested. Every added caveat is an opportunity to misunderstand what's going on.

This video, with the following description (emphasis added): "Far beyond even Pluto and the Kuiper Belt is a vast and mostly empty region of space that we theorize may contain trillions of comets and other icy bodies."