3 ms·
It isn't clear to me what specific observation he's trying to explain. The most important thing to know about bethe bloch is that everyone abuses it and applies
by yummypaint 6y ago
It isn't clear to me what specific observation he's trying to explain. The most important thing to know about bethe bloch is that everyone abuses it and applies it when it isn't really applicable. SRIM is intended for things like calculating penetration depth when implanting ions in materials (maybe a couple MeV energy at most). There will be oodles of physics in play at higher energies that aren't considered by SRIM, especially above pion production threshold near 140 MeV. I can also tell you that a 500 GeV proton beam will be moving nearly the speed of light and so will not look like a tictac or other recent observations. Also, making such a beam would require a huge stable facility, not portable at all. Making such beams is also outrageously energy innefficient. It typically isn't even thought about because it's so low.
- injb 6y agoYou might need to follow some of the older links (e.g. [1]) but there's a very clear and specific statement of what he's explaining: this is what he claims Bob Lazar observed at the so-called Area 51 (Groom Lake). He claims Lazar knew exactly what it was but decided to show his friends and tell them it was UFOs. Now he is stuck with that lie because if he ever tells the truth, he could be prosecuted. That's the theory anyway - I'm not saying any of that is correct but it strikes me as by far the most plausible theory I've heard. Applying this theory to the tic tac thingy was something I just thought of, not something the author of that website ever claimed (to my knowledge). The problem I have with statements like "they're too big/expensive/non-portable for that" is that we already know that we're dealing with something that we can't explain. In other words: at least one of our beliefs about the state of some kind of technology is very wrong. One thing I keep hearing about these objects is that they move instantly, as if they have no mass. Well, then, they probably have no mass - that's the simplest explanation. [1] https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/area-51-and-other-strange-places/looking-at-the-bob-lazar-story-from-the-perspective-of-2018/ https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/area-51-and-other-strang...
- modzu 6y agojust because it hasn't been explained easily does not imply there's a problem with our beliefs about technology. for example, that they are objects at all is already an assumption that could be wrong. what do you make of this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus