4 ms·

This board is the most skeptic place I know of, so I have a question. How do the ones that accelerate at like 600 G's work? What's the power source and how is t

This board is the most skeptic place I know of, so I have a question. How do the ones that accelerate at like 600 G's work? What's the power source and how is that energy being translated into propulsion? Also, why does the object not light up like meteor when it moves like this? I have doubts about the skeptic position when I hear these sorts of things.

mmastrac 4y ago
More than likely some sort of lens (IR/visual) optical effect.
- erdos4d 4y ago
  Same reply as to the other answer, the guys in the Nimitz case saw the thing move with their eyes.
  - mmastrac 4y ago
    I don't trust eyewitness accounts as there's literally no chain of evidence. We have highdef cameras in every pocket now - let's see a real 4k video of one.
    - erdos4d 4y ago
      What chain of evidence is needed if the actual people involved say they saw something? Their testimony is not open to dispute, you either believe they saw it or you believe they are liars. How would that account be tampered with? Anyway, according to all involved, there is infrared and radar that corroborates the eyewitness accounts. Of course the Navy has that classified, but interestingly, there is no official denial to say otherwise. I think I will believe these people until the service shows me a real reason not to.
      - JoeAltmaier 4y ago
        Of course it's because eyewitness reports of even ordinary events are highly variable. They saw something; that can be true even as it's also true it wasn't what they reported. Nobody is lying. In fact that 'false dilemma' is not a real argument at all. "You're either with us or against us!" "She criticised Capitalism; she must be a Communist!" "Marriage or career, a woman can't choose both!"
        erdos4d 4y ago
        What does any of this have to do with having a "chain of evidence" involved? Chains of evidence (custody) are used to prove physical evidence wasn't tampered with by a malicious intermediary. > In fact that 'false dilemma' is not a real argument at all. "You're either with us or against us!" "She criticised Capitalism; she must be a Communist!" "Marriage or career, a woman can't choose both!" Seriously, are you drunk?
        JoeAltmaier 4y ago
        "You either believe they saw it, or you believe they are liars" That was pretty clearly the false argument, and has no place in a rational discussion.
bergenty 4y ago
Infrared light blobs moved across the sky? There are so many way you can make far away, blurry objects and that’s without even starting to delve into post processing.
- erdos4d 4y ago
  The guys in the Nimitz case saw the thing move with their eyes.

mmastrac 4y ago

More than likely some sort of lens (IR/visual) optical effect.

erdos4d 4y ago
Same reply as to the other answer, the guys in the Nimitz case saw the thing move with their eyes.
- mmastrac 4y ago
  I don't trust eyewitness accounts as there's literally no chain of evidence. We have highdef cameras in every pocket now - let's see a real 4k video of one.
  - erdos4d 4y ago
    What chain of evidence is needed if the actual people involved say they saw something? Their testimony is not open to dispute, you either believe they saw it or you believe they are liars. How would that account be tampered with? Anyway, according to all involved, there is infrared and radar that corroborates the eyewitness accounts. Of course the Navy has that classified, but interestingly, there is no official denial to say otherwise. I think I will believe these people until the service shows me a real reason not to.
    - JoeAltmaier 4y ago
      Of course it's because eyewitness reports of even ordinary events are highly variable. They saw something; that can be true even as it's also true it wasn't what they reported. Nobody is lying. In fact that 'false dilemma' is not a real argument at all. "You're either with us or against us!" "She criticised Capitalism; she must be a Communist!" "Marriage or career, a woman can't choose both!"
      - erdos4d 4y ago
        What does any of this have to do with having a "chain of evidence" involved? Chains of evidence (custody) are used to prove physical evidence wasn't tampered with by a malicious intermediary. > In fact that 'false dilemma' is not a real argument at all. "You're either with us or against us!" "She criticised Capitalism; she must be a Communist!" "Marriage or career, a woman can't choose both!" Seriously, are you drunk?
        JoeAltmaier 4y ago
        "You either believe they saw it, or you believe they are liars" That was pretty clearly the false argument, and has no place in a rational discussion.

bergenty 4y ago

Infrared light blobs moved across the sky? There are so many way you can make far away, blurry objects and that’s without even starting to delve into post processing.

erdos4d 4y ago
The guys in the Nimitz case saw the thing move with their eyes.