Recent content by pood

From what.I have been able to ascertain, only high-altitude nuclear tests can eject matter into outer space. I would like more input on this. I guess the idea is that ground-based nuclear tests can eject matter into outer space but that this matter will burn up in the atmosphere before it...

Cite? Evidence?

I did not realize that stuff from nuclear detonations could achieve escape velocity. I stand very corrected.

Yes, I learned something new. They could have achieved escape velocity, but would have burned up in the atmosphere.

Can you link the Metabunk thread?

OK. Look forward to your analysis. However I don’t think the authors are engaging in wishful thinking but rather offering the idea that NTAs are consistent with the data while other explanations have serious flaws. So it’s an open question,

I don’t know any video games. I don’t play them.

I should mention that in this article, the subhead: Is really repulsive in its entirety. No, it is not a “smoking gun” nor a “bombshell.” This is clickbait. It very nearly put me off from reading the article, but I did anyway, and it’s probably the most comprehensive article I’ve read on this...

As an aside, let’s look at this appeal to authority stuff. Such an appeal is when you say, ‘x is an authority in his field, so what he says must be right,” This is obviously wrong, because arguments stand or fall on their own weight and not because someone, no matter how authoritative they...

To recap: Neither the authors of these studies nor the astrophysicist I quoted claimed these data show aliens. Nor did I. I made no appeal to authority — the notion is daft. We have interesting data that suggest the POSSIBLE presence of artificial artifacts in space before Sputnik. The...

This is a discussion about science, Steve. I thought you were a big science guy? :unsure: Evidently not.

But then again!

From the above link:

A pretty in-depth back and forth discussion here. The subhead is terrible and almost dissuaded me from reading, but it’s a good article that explores this issue from a number of angles. “Bombshell new research” in the subhead is not my thing. :rolleyes:

Phys.org weighs in.