MigL

oh sure. Throw me under the bus... 😄😄

Ahh That's where the problem is ! I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about. You mentioned earlier about us having our heads buried in the sand... Maybe you should get your head out of your a*s. What exactly are you a Prof. of ?

Newton is not applicable at relativistic speeds. Wiki on Kinetic Energy Kinetic energy - Wikipedia Especially relevant is the section on 'Relativistic Kinetic Energy of Rigid Bodies'. Do a little research before posting nonsense and embarassing yourself.

What if we added Antimony to the water of the oceans ? Would that help ? I'm sorry, I'm being silly and facetious. Seems to be a requirement in this thread.

Too late ! By the way, mass and inertia are not the same thing either. Mass is resistance to inertia change. So now you've stated that mass, volume and inertia are equivalent. Can you get more confused ?

Nobody 'jams' the satellite transmitter , although there have been attempts at lo-orbit satellite killing missiles. What you do is 'swamp' the local reciver with spurious noise, burying the signal. It is a simple matter for a trio of AWACS, at say 200 mi. distance, to pick up the satellite signal, do triangulation and transmit the modified ( and not quite as accurate ) signal to the networked, and securely linked, F-35, which then fires its missile, and V Putin is history.

This thread seemed to be a good learning opportunity for MPMin, who gave the appearance of being very interested certain ideas. Until the guy with the 'crazy' eyes, who calls himself a Prof. derailed it.

How many more times ??? You've been told repeatedly over the last two weeks that your recollections of pre-WW2 science are wrong, yet you shrug off each instance and either move on to another inane subject, or double down on your previous claims. What is the point of letting you know what is wrong with what you are saying ? You only chose to ignore it. That is not discussion. That is an obstinate old fool, who believes he knows more than he actually does.

Specific gravity is otherwise known as relative density. It is usually a ratio compared to the density of water, and as such, it is a unit-less number. Do a dimensional analisys and see which of us doesn't make sense mathematically. Stick to what you know; ask about what you don't.

Because electromagnetic radiation can be seen as a repetitive signal of a specific frequency and wavelength, you might want to look at the effects of gravitational time dilation, such that light experiences a relative ( between different potentials ) stretching of the time-base ( red -shift ) as it climbs out of a gravitational well.

All of that gibberish is inconsequential to the property of mass. Stick to what you know; ask questions about what you don't.

GPS is a 'local' receiver of time/location information from the orbiting satellites. You might be able to 'swamp' the local receiver so that it can't detect the satellite signals, but a military system would use AWACS, software translation, and a secure digital link ( see NATO's Link 16, for example ), to transmit location information, and still get the job done. V Putin is lucky his 'enemies' are not like him. If someone wanted him dead, he would be.

If there is an event horizon present, then the wavelength of any radiation emitted within( that travels at c ), is stretched to infinity ( and its frequency reduced to zero ). IOW, nothing leaves the event horizon ( simplistic explanation ). If the gamma ray was emitted well outside the event horizon, then yes, as Eise explained, it would lose enough energy climbing out of the gravitational well to be red-shifted to much longer wavelengths, such as those of visible light. There is something to be said for a well-posed question.

You gotta stop living in the past. Science has moved on since B Franklin. AJB was ( still is ) one of our most well respected members. Don't be putting him into the same sentence as idiotic perpetual motion machines. Stick to what you know; ask questions about what you don't.

Mass ( inertial ) is that property of a system, that resists changes in inertia, of that system. Nothing more, nothing less. That is the definition of mass as I know it. If you should need an explanation, be sure to ask.

you don't seem to have reflected on much during your vacation. Why not stick to what you know, and try to learn some science from the many people here who are knowledgeable in it ? If you wish to discuss the history og Grumman's Bethpage ( Long Island ) facility, its many Navy fighters, its lunar lander program, many unbuilt projects, and collaboration with Northrop, I would be more than glad to engage in conversation. As for science, I'm sorry, but you are out of your depth.

Try that with a military GPS.

I don't think anyone says that. However, we have a theory that models photons mathematically as EM waves, and it makes some pretty impressive predictions, in the ranges where it is applicable. For any answers to you questions about quantization, I suggest reading up on Quantum Electrodynamic Field Theory. Another mathematical model ( with a slightly different range of applicability ), which also makes a very impressive set of predictions

If you should still require an answer, please re-word the question, and I'll attempt too answer it. Otherwise, this does belong in a different thread. edit The reason I brought it up was due to my recent exchange with Der_neugierige, in, the now 'trashed', Hijack From Homosexualism; Genes and the Environment

Since you're introducing possible scenarios, consider the following. A small fast/agile aircraft carrier with a complement of 8-16 F-35s, possibly with AWACS radar coverage, and 'buddy' type re-fueling assets. The F-35 has an operational radius of about 500 km, which can be extended with buddy re-fueling, or even stealth-defeating external fuel tanks, such that 700 km is not an issue. The current US inventory anti-radar missile is the Raytheon AGM-88 HARM, which tracks enemy radar up to 150 km , back to its source. The only way to defeat, is to turn off your radar, but then you are blind, and cannot fire missiles at the carrier. The HARM's successor, HDAM, has a built in GPS and fiber-optic gyro, such that when the target is aquired, switching off the radar will not defeat the missile. Your only hope is to get out of there faster than a M5 missile can cover 150 km. No US aircraft has ever been lost to surface-to-air missiles when HAR|M has been flying cover/SEAD mission. The big if, which only larger Navies are able to provide, is network-centric warfare, or greatly improved situational awareness, provided by networking every electronic asset in the field, from AWACS, JSTARS and the parallelled radars of individual F-35s into the C3, command and control system. The systems have become the largest expenditure in modern warfare. Bombs, missiles, aircraft and even ships, are just the 'scalpels' in the modern operating theater; the systems and electronic assets are the surgeons.

Very well, I'll oblige. If I believe I'm not a 'he' or a 'she', but rather, a 'them', you may humor me because you don't wish to offend me, but you are under no obligation to validate the 'reality' I have created in my own mind. Since there is no more evidence supporting either view, why would you have me believe everyone elses differing viewpoints, rather than my own ? IOW, why believe someone else is a 'them', because their mind tells him/her so, rather than what my mind tells me that he/she is ? Which is the conspiracy here ?

There is certainly a more and more 'accepted truth', but I think that is more to do with the fact that people generally don't want to offend others with the reality of the situation. This might be a better fit in another thread, should you wish to discuss it further.

No, that won't do.

That is essentially correct. However, making the case for cannonballs is not very productive. The fact remains that missiles/impactors ( or whatever you wish to call them ), have to have some sort of guidance. It is not easy to hit something 1-2000 km away, much less explode at height, and re-enter with multiple MIRVs. The one clear advantage defensive missiles have, is that they know exactly where the incoming missile is going to be ( or hoping to be ), and an intercept course is much easier to solve for. Think of it like bsaeballs. It is very difficult to hit an outfielder with a baseball. Yet, if you know that baseball is coming across home plate, it isn't tto difficult to tag it with a bat. good to hear from you, Moon.

My take on the issue ... ( I know you've been waiting for it ) Everyone is free to believe whatever they want, imagine, or construct as a 'reality' in their own mind. Sometimes we end up calling thse people, visionaries, but most times we end up calling them delusional. What you don't have the right to do, is to force everyone else to agree with that reality you've created in your own mind. And that is what conspiracy theories usually are. But it is happening more and more with the dozens of 'genders' and sexual orientations, that people 'see' in themselves and expect others to see also. ( but that, alas, is a different thread ) Needless to say, your delusional reality is just that, delusional. And others do not need to aknowledge it.