Search results

When you sling claims of posts being offtopic, yes. No shame in looking it up. Yes, the screenshot at the top of the post originated with the titular document, as was obvious from the formatting. Again, easy to check before slinging a rude accusation.

Are you claiming that these collisions lose so much energy to heat and deformation that the speed of the falling top section should be noticeably affected?

no, the lack of rigidity of the floor seats has been discussed above

Yes. Which is why bringing it up on Metabunk is a good idea.

You're saying the OP is OT. Gotcha.

F=m×a a=gravity m=a lot A large mass hitting a stationary small mass undergoes a change of momentum, but its change in velocity is smaller if the ratio if masses is higher. Henkka imagines a car hitting another car (~ equal mass), resulting in a large change of velocity, but I imagine a...

That post starts with a screenshot of an item in the topical document, and adds well-sourced evidence relating to it. It's a good example of an on-topic post, of a quality that many other posts on Metabunk don't meet.

The greater the "impact force", the less deceleration. High school physics.

Have you ever seen a train hit a car on a railroad crossing? The train is "going smoothly" nonetheless.

From your article: As ball lightning has no established properties, it cannot be argued to be a probable match for any given report. It is fair to say that it's likely that one or more unknown phenomena exist that have triggered eyewitness accounts of hovering balls of light, but there's...

It'd be great if the expectations (of what happens when a group remembers an event) had some evidence to support them. Then we could decide which way is actually probable.

i just wish people would do minimal research on these types of claims Figure 1. Cartoon by Martijn illustrating the theory on Ball Lightning by Abrahamson and Dinniss. Figure 4. The only sphere caught on a high-resolution photograph. The spheres have the size of about 2-3 mm. On the movies...

Another site sailing straight through the debunk. Quoting ufoinsight.com: Perhaps one of the loudest skeptical voices – as in many other cases – was that of Phillip Klass. He would offer that the ring was not the result of space craft from another world landing on the Johnsons’ farm, but the...

I don't think I support that conclusion. NCSTAR 1-6: A few pages later, the report states that WTC2 lost "1/3 of the connections to the east exterior wall on floor 83". But the main mechanism inducing instability is the column buckling induced by the sagging floors pulling columns inward...

The debrief document has it as "anonymous site" written in a strange code. @REMEMBEREDLANGUAGES points out that the same information was previously published in two English attributed papers. I think that's useful to know.

Thankfully we don't need to decide. Generally, I feel that people who'd be able to raise @Oystein 's nit picks are not the target audience for the video. The more interesting question is, does either of you feel that something important has been left out? I think the idea that "multiple large...

I think it's clear from laboratory experiments and reports that there are likely several different mechanisms that cause ball lightning.

The whole event lasted roughly 1.12 seconds. And the object was moving. So I'm not sure it radiated enough heat to ignite foliage?

I'm sure the unedited, not-slowed video of the event is around, I simply wasn't able to find it quickly.

This one: That information primarily comes from eyewitness accounts; ball lightning is rare enough that no scientists have ever observed it in the field while they had equipment to measure its properties. At least not until the summer of 2012, when the authors of the new paper were out on the...