I'm not putting it all in the DoD's court. They can exploit it all while being responsible for very little.
Here's an interesting story:
"Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) pilots spotted a “foo fighter” in the skies of Karachi during a domestic flight PK-304 on Saturday, 26 January 2021 in daylight. According to details, the PIA aircraft was flying at 35,000 feet when the flight captain noticed a white round object above the jet. The flight crew immediately started filming the object and after landing found that similar sightings had been reported in the past across the world. The flight captain said that the round object had a metal ring around it and was emitting white light from the center. He added that it was difficult to determine whether the object was hovering or moving slowly due to relative motion. Upon further investigation it turned out to be a lenticular cloud."
Here's an interesting story:
"Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) pilots spotted a “foo fighter” in the skies of Karachi during a domestic flight PK-304 on Saturday, 26 January 2021 in daylight. According to details, the PIA aircraft was flying at 35,000 feet when the flight captain noticed a white round object above the jet. The flight crew immediately started filming the object and after landing found that similar sightings had been reported in the past across the world. The flight captain said that the round object had a metal ring around it and was emitting white light from the center. He added that it was difficult to determine whether the object was hovering or moving slowly due to relative motion. Upon further investigation it turned out to be a lenticular cloud."
Me neither. My previous post was for the thread participants who seem to think (believe) that the DoD is hiding some evidence of alien or future technology.
Though the thread has been quite enjoyable 🙂
Though the thread has been quite enjoyable 🙂
Here is exactly what I wrote:-
“How about gravity assist acceleration of satellites? These wield the curvature of space-time due to gravity to facilitate kinetic acceleration.
Examples: Voyager I, Voyager II and the Parker probe - the first two to gain energy, the last to remove it.”
Here is a dictionary definition of wield:
Wield | Definition of Wield at Dictionary.com
You cannot ‘wield a trajectory’. You can however wield gravitational space time curvature to alter a trajectory - a subtle but important difference.
Answer the question. Simple and easy to do. Feel free to use facts and numbers.
slingshot acceleration definition physics - Google Search
I couldn't find a definition of "slingshot acceleration" that fits this scenario. Could you please provide me with a link describing the phenomenon you're referring? Thank you.
I don't know, Bonsai sounded like semantics and pedantry bother him.
As you called it, "gravity assist acceleration of satellites", assisted by gravity, not manipulated gravity of a targeted planet. We wield the trajectory and speed of satellite to get it close enough to a target planet (but not too close to get sucked in) to use the existing gravity of that planet for the "slingshot" acceleration. It takes calculations and planning ("to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively").
Then ask a specific question.
To someone educated in physics, your wording sounds awkward, vague, and just wrong. There is no such thing as "wielding the trajectory and speed" of a satellite. Trajectory and "speed" (velocity) are effects, not causes. Gravity "assist" is a real, measurable, predictable force; not just "so-called." Momentum is proportional to velocity and exerts a real force on the satellite. Momentum is proportional to velocity, which is maybe what you allude to when you say "wield the trajectory and speed" of the object.
I’ve been asking specific questions for quite a while, as have others here.
The questions were
1. simply show the evidence that aliens have visited Earth
2. Show how, given our knowledge of evolution, the galaxy is full of advanced alien civilizations
But as yet, no answers. Just the usual obsfucation, bait and switch tactics, and a call by the UFO cognoscenti to ‘have an open mind’.
The questions were
1. simply show the evidence that aliens have visited Earth
2. Show how, given our knowledge of evolution, the galaxy is full of advanced alien civilizations
But as yet, no answers. Just the usual obsfucation, bait and switch tactics, and a call by the UFO cognoscenti to ‘have an open mind’.
Question: Do you have actual point you want to make, or an opinion to express? It's really not clear, you seem simply to want to be contrary.
How about giving a concise, accurate statement of position?
How about giving a concise, accurate statement of position?
Maybe start a new thread if this is all you’re curious about.
There’s plenty of possible explanations for the UFO phenomenon, alien visitation being one of more far-fetched.
Hypothesis, theory and facts are NOT a thing to be believed in, they are independent & can stand alone without the stupidity of the human. The very word, "belief" by definition exists without proof.
The hypothesis is an idea, a construct...under this title, it has no proof. The theory indeed HAS proof, but really not enough to change its position to that beyond theory....once enough proof, evidence, peer consensus has been acquired, it undergoes a change of state to that of "An emergent truth", a fact.
"Belief" is a wholly different thing. You can spout off, " no its not, its a belief" all you want, but it won't change anything, it cannot change...that's like saying, "Up is down", trying to redefine something is inane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Rick....
Last edited:
"Both scientific laws and scientific theories are produced from the scientific method through the formation and testing of hypotheses, and can predict the behavior of the natural world. Both are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence.[31] However, scientific laws are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[32] Scientific theories are broader in scope, and give overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics. Theories are supported by evidence from many different sources, and may contain one or several laws.[33]"
"A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence have been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a law.[31][34][35] Both theories and laws could potentially be falsified by countervailing evidence.[36]
Theories and laws are also distinct from hypotheses. Unlike hypotheses, theories and laws may be simply referred to as scientific fact.[37][38] However, in science, theories are different from facts even when they are well supported.[39] For example, evolution is both a theory and a fact."
"A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence have been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a law.[31][34][35] Both theories and laws could potentially be falsified by countervailing evidence.[36]
Theories and laws are also distinct from hypotheses. Unlike hypotheses, theories and laws may be simply referred to as scientific fact.[37][38] However, in science, theories are different from facts even when they are well supported.[39] For example, evolution is both a theory and a fact."
You're the one spouting here. I'm not interested in a hostile conversation. 😎
"...evolution is both a theory and a fact..." Curious, when Eratosthenes set about to confirm his theory of a spherical world via experimentation, is the spherical world still considered a theory?
The weight of evidence inside a theory becomes an immutable fact & no longer exists as a theory.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick...
The weight of evidence inside a theory becomes an immutable fact & no longer exists as a theory.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick...
Thank you for that explanation, very informative indeed. I do understand the difference between scientific fact and theory, however I fail to see how a theory is a fact. Take for example "string theory", "dark matter/energy". No evidence of their existence whatsoever. But they need to exist to validate/explain hypotheses arrived at about other phenomena. As far as evolution is concerned, it's interesting Darwin used his observation of the adapting beaks of birds in an alternate habitat to verify and declare as "fact", the theory of evolution when their are virtually no transitional fossils to be found. Oh sure..."Here's a transitional fossil for ...". Whatever. However logical it may seem intuitively, there is no "evidence". Show me an incremental sequence over millions of years of an animal slowly transitioning from one creature to another. Any organism for that matter. A plant. Taker yer pick.
Show me the facts. The "proof". It's a huge jump from changing the shape of a beak to changing into another animal altogether. That's where theory turns into "belief" requiring "faith". There are no established "facts" for the theory of evolution, only assumptions.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.