Green Baron

This is nonsense. The paper cites correctly. It is Myrvold who mixes up data to support his claims. The moment he publishes a peer reviewed paper in the same journals i will take him serious. Edit: i forgot to mention: authors usually publish their work exactly for being constructively discussed and criticised. Some times there are cases of fraud or cheating, but usually, they are revealed even if it might take some time. Seeing fraud or cheating in published work usually tells more about the squaller than the authors. And a PhD costs 20.000 funds these days.

Proposal to paint a red checker board pattern on it and design specesuits for the pets. Also, before lauch, thoroughly search the cargo bay / pods for scatterbrained detectives and agents.

I read, he is as well an "expert" for Dinosaur growth rates ....

It was per definition 1kg until recently. It is little bit less now because of all the rubbing and cleaning and photographing ... I can imagine that an x-act number in reference to the freezing point of water will be available in a few cesium atom vibrations.

Fun (?) fact: the American Squirrel was introduced in Europe and seems to be fitter than the European red version. It is replacing it. Better memory, eh ? Or ruthless enough to rob bird feeders ? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242084905_Introduction_of_the_American_grey_squirrel_Sciurus_carolinensis_in_Europe_A_case_study_in_biological_invasion

Just for completeness:

Apparently, the wild speculations at the far fringes of science and beyond have not yet been published. -------------- In the meantime, something from the science front on the matter: https://export.arxiv.org/abs/1810.02148 The authors suggest that 'Oumuamua is unlikely one of the objects that fits our classification. But there could be quite a range of possible situations where icy planetesimals could be ejected from protoplanetary disks and Oma may be one of them. Also, as these objects may be rare in our vicinity, it may be difficult to find a sample in the meteorite data at hand.

ESO blog post on the matter. I haven't read it (not the time), maybe it is interesting for you guys: https://www.eso.org/public/blog/searching-for-an-exoplanet/ One figure met my eye: 4.3km/h. Apparently the observed speed change. Doh.

Just checked the ESO site: the VLTI (I=interferometer) has a resolution power of a milliarcsecond at near infrared wavelengths (or as they say 0.1 AU at 100pc). So from that point it could do it if other circumstances permit and Barnard b does exist (which is not yet confirmed).

And observation time. These machines have a procedure for proposals and a consortium chooses which ones to carry through. There is a long list to work through and they are "booked" a long time in advance. So, even if they decide now to look at Barnard's face, it might take a year or so until they actually do. But, who knows, maybe somebody is so nice and gives up his turn in favour of .... (speculating :-))

I wouldn't call it a "problem", there are already extraordinary results with the VLT and its new planet imager SPHERE. https://www.eso.org/public/usa/news/eso1821/ (370ly away) Just give it a few years more, i say. It is young technology, procedures, data evaluation, observation techniques, that is all in development. Soon(tm) we'll have an image of a rocky planet around a nearby star :-)

Just tried to log in as Green Barnard .... It took 20 years of observation but there is a good chance that Barnards's Star has a cold rocky planet of >=3 earth masses and an orbit of around 233 days, derived from angular motion. Angular size of orbit could be 220 milliarcseconds, making it a candidate for future direct observation. For comparison, structures that can be resolved with the EHT are in the range of 20 microarcseceonds ... paper

Timelapse and photo series of an exoplanet (Gas giant Beta Pictoris B) in a distance of 63ly. It orbits its sun in a distance comparable to Saturn and an orbit takes ~22 years. Images taken by the VLT. https://www.eso.org/public/videos/ https://www.eso.org/public/images/potw/ Getting closer ;-) (looks like the ESO site has momentary problems with its links) Youtube works: I am pretty confident that a larger interferometer with the participation of one of the huge dishes under construction can get a pretty close look on much smaller objects closer to their suns.

Probably depends on what one puts in it. And there may be "squirrel proof" designs out there. Can be interpreted as an example of negative environmental effects of feeding wild birds, as sorry as i am to state this ...

The most reasonable proposal (and btw. welcome :-)) i find. I see two things: first the orbits must be absolutely circular or the planets would peep around the sun's edge. Or they must be absolutely synchronous because of the different velocities on their respective orbits. Second: the sun must not be too "heavy", so that light bent around it does not allow for too deep a view behind it. This setup worked for the last few hundred years (one does not need more, powerful telescopes aren't that old yet), and then something happens, a periodical or single time constellation of other planets, that slightly changes the orbits .... I like your idea :-) Improbable imo: both civs must have developed identically during billions of years of evolution, so that they reach a state of using radio at the same time.

@kerbiloid, you don't have the complete picture. We don't see the pictures of the so called "collateral damage" caused by automatic weapons, drones, guided bombs and so on because they are too terrible and filtered out. Dead children in the street after the "erroneous" bombing of a school, or hospital (which is done systematically by all sides). People torn apart, burnt, suffocated and so on. I could post some but that will call the moderators and is not an appropriate content here. A friend of mine works in a news department of a large German public company (The ZDF) and regular sorts out pictures like these. She needs help every now and then ... This is mostly done by automatic weapons these days. The murderers never see their victims. Not even in the every day news.

I wanted to quit, but you don't let me :-) I have actually described how they form and so have you, right ? It is the pressure equalization between under- and upper wing surface. And they are behind the wing up to several kilometers, not at the side or under it. There are a plethora of photographs all over the web visualizing them. An airliner has heavy ones, a glider almost none with its high aspect. Were the wing shoving air down, the air would be squeezed to the side when it lands or takes of, causing heavy gusts to nearby thing like waiting aircraft, people at the fences, etc. But there is no such thing. Behind the craft, though, things can get funny. But you surely know that - horizontal spacing separation and all that. Quitting one more time :-)

Dude, some of the drag is induced by the wing depending on lift (heavily depending on design, very little from a highly effective glider), but apart from that drag and lift are fundamentally different things, actually two of the fundamental forces on a flying apparatus. But lift induced drag plays little role at low aoa. That is (again) why i proposed that experiment. Again, i don't move air down nor does a wing. If it did, you'd have heavy winds at the side of a landing or starting aircraft, which is not the case. The equalizing of the pressures mostly takes place behind it, in the wake turbulence. Which probably is the induced drag you meant. But that is an outcome of the generated lift (or the pressure difference), it is not the cause of it. With that, I quit. It doesn't move the world at all. Have a nice one everybody :-)

@mikegarrison, what i was arguing against and especially with my "no airfoil pushes air down" was the notion that through collision with air and at high angle of attacks lift is generated, like a fan that blows at an angled sheet of metal. Which will then do funny things if let go but it will not dynamically fly. Two much drag and too little lift is called dynamic stall, which i tried to point out. It is only drag, not flight because the flow around the surface is disrupted. If pushed or drawn by powerful engines, the contraption may still fly, though. But many planes don't even have engines. Which is fun. It is the profile that keeps the wing in the air and the flow around it, in that we all agree. That happens even at 0 degrees angle of attack with an asymmetric profile, whichever definition one sees fit. In this case the drag vector is very short, as we know, and the plane flies very fast. Or, if it is a very effective design, it glides at ratios of 50-60, which is not rare among glider planes. @Arugela suggested that the aircraft rests on air that it deflects downwards, if i understood it correctly, but this is not the case, it is the underpressure part that contributes at least 2/3rds to the lift, depending on configuration, design, circumstances. Of course somewhere in the dynamic system, the force that the aircraft borrowed from the flow around its wings must be paid back in form of air moving down or spiraling behind it (induced drag). But this is hardly deflection. A landing craft, for example, though at high angles of attack and with a configuration that produces much drag and high lift, does not cause a storm on the ground because of a downwash or so. You can stand 200m aside from a landing A380 and wont be blown away by the several hundred tons that settle there. Though behind hit it may get turbulent ;-) Are we all content with that ?

And that is not called suction ?

My problem was with the formulation wings are pushing air down. That raises mental pictures of air molecules colliding with surfaces and thus pushing things up while at the same time are reflected down through drag and resistance. Such a state can be held with riding on or hanging at a powerful engine, but it is not exactly explaining why a plane (and then i am always thinking of glider planes and small propeller planes at low speeds) actually flies. Of course, in sum all forces must add up to 0 while in flight and the action that keeps a plane up must have a counter action in the mass of the air flowing by. No question. The original proposal upthread was that an aircraft "stands on thicker air" and that is not the case, in contrary it hangs at low pressure, which can easily be demonstrated with a small model. Yes. And they hang themselves at the propeller and use the propeller air to vent the control surfaces.

If you have powerful engines you can push anything against the drag and it'll generate some lift somehow. An asymmetric airfoil at 0 degrees aoa will still produce lift, without deflecting anything on its underside (sucking air down if you see it that way). That's why i suggested the experiment.

We were talking about asymmetric profile. No airfoil pushes air down. I do not understand how this comes up over and again. Do the bloody experiment. Here is one of a million more or less equal explanations. Believe it or not ;-) https://web.mit.edu/2.972/www/reports/airfoil/airfoil.html And that part works against an airfoil flying. It is called form drag (or so). And if it gets too high and the flow around the airfoil ceases, it stalls. The higher the aoa, the closer the stall. You get much drag and in the beginning a little more lift, that abruptly rips off when the aoa gets too high. We have an asymmetric one here, for ease of understanding. 0-30% percent contribution to the overall lift, depending on many things. The pressure, if it exists, contributes only a very small part. The airfoil hangs at the unerpressure. Do the experiment. Nope. No (properly flying) wing pushes air down. That is pure drag and the definition of a dynamic stall. A wing moving only by its form drag. Even wikipedia has it right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stall_(fluid_mechanics)#Formal_definition ;-)

That is a stall or short before. Do the experiment. 0(!) aoa. The wing will lift up and try to accelerate forward against the airstream. BECAUSE the suction on top of it lifts it. The force vector over the wing, in the first 3rd over the profile depth, shows up and in front. Just do it ;-)

If it was impact, then why does the wing move forward ? Experiment 1: Build a balsa wing with an asymmetric profile, underside flat, upper side arched, exact profile doesn't matter. Hold the end of one wing and drag it around you, holding the wing level to the airstream. You will realise how the outer part is sucked upwards with 0 aoa(*). If you have managed a nice profile and very light balsa it will do so long before any compression takes place. Observe the outer edge. Experiment Stage 2: If you glue a light balsa stick with a paper control surface for pitch to the wing, put some weight in the front before the wing, you can experiment with the aoa until you find a nice configuration for a stable glide. Then let it fly, it now knows how to do it :-) Try it ;-) If the wing was really just pushed by compression, bad things would happen because that an unstable condition aka stall. (*) Let's say you have a 4-6mm thick, 5cm wide and 30cm long balsa leaf, have managed a somewhat 1/3 to 2/3 profile depth on the upper half, the leaf will actually lift itself at walking speed. Impossible to explain with compression. Edit: visibly underpressure, extreme case: