Cassel

No way. With such rotation, the poles would be invisible to us. Well, what about the event horizon? If it's a black hole, where is it? It should be visible in the form of a light, thin ring.

In that case, the brightness of the ring should be the same, because the ring is circling around the black hole and in no point moves away from us or does not moves towards us.

1. Well I read about jets "are emitted as an extended beam along the axis of rotation" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_jet If we're already playing a game of evidence, how was it proven? From what you see on picture, there is no event horizon in the picture, so it's not a black hole. Error in synchronizing telescopes that were at different heights, not the Doppler effect. Randomly maybe not, but ... unfortunately, I am not allowed to write about it. If you think that we are in some respect exceptional to such an extent that we can not be threatened by a sudden and new threat to our planet, that's cool. I do not think so, that is, we are exceptional, but that does not mean that there are no new and sudden threats waiting for us.

Oops, I've edited my previous post and added a bit about it. Apparently you are right, but the distance and angle, what if a small change of angle is enough for the wave to hit our solar system? It still reminds me more of a synestia that will create the entire solar system all at once, once it cools down.

If even the photons are moving away from us, how do we see them? What provides us with information that they exist? Here is an additional obstacle between these photons and our telescope, there is a black hole that should intercept anything that would try to turn back. From this first video cover photo, I imagine that we should see something like a photo of SgrA *. So what moves away from us is invisible to us. I hope you're right. I see it that way, after all this ring is orbiting around the black hole, so the bottom is the closest to us, the top farthest, and the right and left sides move towards us or on the contrary, move away, depending on which direction the ring rotates. Either the picture is rotated 90 degrees or something does not fit. edit: Although I probably do not understand it correctly. If the magnetic waves of the black hole are directed towards us, then this picture does not make any sense at all. What we should see is the ring of exactly the same brightness like because we are looking at it as if from above and not from the perspective, so there is nothing going away from us and nothing comes towards us any faster. I know, I watched the conferences and there they said that you can clearly see the horizon of events, and I can not see anything in this picture, so I do not know if I am watching the right picture.

It does not make sense if something has been fired by a black hole in the opposite direction, why do we see it? Did he say that the magnetic waves from this black hole are directed towards us? It's probably a big threat? I watched another video from his channel and showed the horizon of events there, but here you can not see the event horizon. Well, it reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synestia Edit: What is on the right side of the hole does not move away from us, it only gets towards us. What you see on the left is moving away from us. Why then is the bottom lighter, and what is behind the black hole is darker?

Why is the part of the ring being brighter?

Does it have to? You can connect them and turn while in pairs?

That is not the question ;-)

It is only natural that if you live in the forest you want to know what kind of animal lives next to you, because you do not want to be eaten at night.

You are right. I think that representatives of the most developed ideology would contact us, it is natural that they would have the most developed technology. And even if they would allow other ideologies to exist on the same planet, those would be subordinate. [snip]

I would ask them what religions they profess. That would help me learn about their ethical norms and the history of their civilization.

Abort it before it develops to a level where killing will cause moral dilemmas. What?

What about this statement that they could use crew Dragon? Would they be able to take Orion to Earth's orbit without a FH second stage? edit: What if Orion would take off without crew and abort system? The crew would have been delivered with the help of Dragon?

Victory? 747 will probably be beyond the range of the enemy, is this not the role of an aircraft carrier? Besides, there are no rules in war. Several armies are already preparing for such conflicts. I have seen a rocket launcher video hidden on a transport ship in a container or in a truck that drives up under the city, shoots and continues as a civilian vehicle. Some ideas for BD armory ;-) As you said, there would be a risk of mistake, so in some sense, the plane will have stealth properties. In addition, the mothership itself can move on a regular passenger flight route, and the drones just disappear from the radar when they dock in it.

What is the difference between Accretion disk and Synestia?

And? So you will not only carry out the first strike, but will still expose your opponent to the risk of destroying a civil plane, which will greatly undermine his reputation during the war. Two birds with one stone? During the Second World War, I think the British impersonated civilian ships to more easily destroy U-Boots?

I see that no noticed to the fact that if a fast spinning hot planet can produce the moon. The fast spinning star (or almost star) should be able to create a planet that will be pushed away from this star. Soon someone will probably modify this synestia hypothesis and remove the necessity of two collisions with Earth, and instead write that the Earth and the moon were created directly from the material from the forming star.

Maybe you should understand that what you are referring to is not knowledge, but suppositions? So saying that we do not know X is certainly more scientific than the fanatical defense of some hypothesis based on one sample of rocks and few assumptions. That's what Jupiter's orbit looks like. What does it matter? Jupiter is the largest object, and now gradually captures smaller ones. Isn't this what the clearing of the orbit is about? Nobody claims that it must be the second Jupiter. But maybe Ceres can be built from it or smaller body, it doesn't matter, how large it will be. Fact is there is material that can form into planet. Or the result of clearing the orbits of other planets. Evidence? So we can come up with any explanation and that most people believe will be true.

Can you fly to your opponent by pretending to be a civilian plane, hit first and retreat quickly?

My guess is it can work with drone-fighters... and range of 747 makes it very interesting concept.

So how do you think how planet's orbit that has not yet cleared it would look like? Is there any simulation like Jupiter was clearing his orbit? [snip] I am not talking about definition, but about what we can observe today. It looks like Jupiter has not yet cleared his orbit from tiny bodies. The asteroid belt looks like the planet has not formed yet. There are no bodies like Trojans in the Earth's orbit, so the Theia hypothesis does not make sense. After such a collision on Earth's orbit in L points should be a mass of small bodies. Is there any geological evidence, eg samples of the earth's crust, the original one from before the impact? [snip]

You did not understand my question. "circular reasoning" is not about testing There is no trace of this planet. The only thing we have is simulations. Have you listened to this video, which I inserted at the very beginning? There the doctor says that she is based only on simulations and experiments with her "cannon", there is nothing more. This is one sample from one scientist.

It all came from the assumptions that the rocks are actually from the moon and that the whole moon has the same composition? At the same time we have only one sample of these rocks? So why do you treat such research and these hypotheses seriously? We should wait for more samples from other places on the moon before we start making hypotheses about collisions that did not happen.

[snip] You suggest your own assumptions without proving the correctness of these assumptions. This approach creates an cognition bubble that can not be left out, and if you reject all scientific trends that contradict your initial assumptions, you will not be able to see where you are making a mistake. Most hypotheses or even modern theories can be undermined by the logical error of the "Circular reasoning". Its orbit is not cleared, why we call Jupiter a planet? How do you suggest to distinguish a planet that is just clearing its orbit from the one that has already done it, but still there are some objects in its orbit? And is there any evidence that such an event took place? Here you are just committing a logic error, which I wrote earlier and second "Confirmation bias". You assume that your belief is true, so you interpret different events to confirm your belief. At the same time, you reject anything that contradicts your view.