tgflynn

60 ms·

601.
by tgflynn 7y ago
I'm having trouble seeing what it is about this scenario that would make it look so different from a star with planets (which is still very hard for us to detect) or surrounded by clouds of smaller debris. Is the idea that the habitats
602.
by tgflynn 7y ago
> Its signal will become indistinguishable from background radiation at a distance of slightly over 625 light years. Doesn't that depend on how large the receiving antenna is, because the larger the antenna the smaller the source an
603.
by tgflynn 7y ago
I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for. Dealing with large amounts (by some definition) of training data is at the heart of the "whole process", so I'm not sure what you could learn without that element. One
604.
by tgflynn 7y ago
Yes, I suppose as long as the street name is recognized it will usually go to the right carrier, at least for fairly short streets.
605.
by tgflynn 7y ago
I wonder how many of those there are in the US. I used to work on postal address recognition software and I don't recall that we had any capability for recognizing strings of digits that contained fractions. It was a long time ago now,
606.
by tgflynn 7y ago
Yes, of course. But I understood (perhaps incorrectly) your comments as intending to have broader applicability. The case of flat-earthers has always seemed like an extreme outlier to me even compared to other conspiracy theorists.
607.
by tgflynn 7y ago
I guess there's a distinction to be made between people who appear firmly committed to ill-supported beliefs and those who plausibly may just be basing their beliefs on inaccurate information. It's true that I generally don't
608.
by tgflynn 7y ago
Don't you think there's a danger that letting incorrect (especially wildly wrong) statements stand unchallenged on the internet encourages those ideas to spread further ?
609.
by tgflynn 7y ago
That definitely could have been made clearer. I looked all over the page for a link to an actual paper and missed it. I never would have guessed it was the link on what appeared to me to be an author's name.
610.
by tgflynn 7y ago
Well, I don't see how you can make progress without formulating theories (more correctly, hypotheses). I think the problem is when people become attached to a particular hypothesis. Many people seem unable to accept that they only hav
611.
by tgflynn 7y ago
I think the Pentagon's statements confirming their origin alone would make them admissible in a court so I'm not sure why they felt the need to obtain that expert opinion. Again that says nothing as to what they actually show.
612.
by tgflynn 7y ago
But we have lots of evidence about the Nimitz incident that doesn't appear to have anything to do with AAWSAP/AATIP. There's a video that the government has confirmed as being authentic and showing an object they consider to
613.
by tgflynn 7y ago
> Linear algebra is exactly where "dimension" gets its abstract but very limited definition as a property of spaces, best summarized as an axis or direction, rather than a kind of space itself Yes, but adding an extra dimension
614.
by tgflynn 7y ago
In that case I think it's you who is misunderstanding the word. Unfortunately I haven't the time to give you a course on Linear Algebra so unless you can explain in more detail why you believe that the word "dimension"
615.
by tgflynn 7y ago
Well if humans had always followed the approach you suggest they would never have mastered fire or discovered agriculture. Would you rather be living as a hunter-gatherer or some non-human primate ?
616.
by tgflynn 7y ago
I agree with some of what you say in that introducing theories for which there is absolutely no known evidence doesn't exactly help their credibility. However: > A "dimension" is an axis, not a universe, I don't think
617.
by tgflynn 7y ago
Some of what you say may be true but I don't see how a billionaire "runs out of funding" for a hobby that only costs 10 or 20 million over 5 years.
618.
by tgflynn 7y ago
That's easy: subjective experience.
619.
by tgflynn 7y ago
I don't recall seeing anything in the article about experts being asked if the videos are legitimate. I think very few people question that the videos are real because the DoD has confirmed them and isn't thought to be in the hab
620.
by tgflynn 7y ago
> I just assume the Universe is so big (and expanding) that nobody besides bacteria could make it alive to Earth. Why would you assume that ? Even if the speed of light is an absolute barrier why do you rule out the following: - ET'
621.
by tgflynn 7y ago
Sorry I don't understand what you're saying here. Could you please elaborate ? (It might help to clarify who the different instances of they and them are referring to.)
622.
by tgflynn 7y ago
Yeah, one possible explanation for a lot of this is that the US military has been scammed by a bunch of quacks and they lack personnel with sufficient scientific competence to evaluate what they are being sold. I don't see how it could
623.
by tgflynn 7y ago
The US Navy has said that they are unable to identify the objects in those videos. Assuming they aren't lying I would be inclined to think that they would be better at identifying those objects than a retired video game developer (no
624.
by tgflynn 7y ago
> Wind/solar on the other hand are intermittent, and always need to be complemented with "dispatchable" energy sources to handle the base load. I've seen people claim here that battery storage already represents a goo
625.
by tgflynn 7y ago
From what I've seen almost everyone who "specializes" in UFO's ends up going off the deep end in one way or another. Some people who tend to try to stick to what's verifiable are: John Greenwald - Specializes in FOI
626.
by tgflynn 7y ago
I don't think so. It's at least conceivable that an induced plasma phenomenon could be visible to radar, IR and the human eye.
627.
by tgflynn 7y ago
One possible theory is that they aren't massive objects at all but instead are some sort of 3D projection in the air, probably involving plasma produced with high powered lasers, RF beams or particle beams. That would require technolo
628.
by tgflynn 7y ago
I might have agreed with you, until the US Navy admitted it's encountering aircraft it can't identify, which in some cases have been described as defying our understanding of physics and aerodynamics. Being able to identify aircra
629.
by tgflynn 7y ago
Then do you know why he did that ? I don't know much about Kit Green but the image he appears to be trying to project is that of a serious, though open-minded, researcher. Trying to sell someone a device to communicate with the dead
630.
by tgflynn 7y ago
Yes, that's what I meant.

More ›