Good job….except that means paying to house him for life.
Death would be kinder and cheaper….especially if it’s at his own hands.

Odd posting from @bobknight33, since MAGA still insists this was a false flag operation, no one died, no one injured, and only crisis actors who were trotted out as a reason to take yer guns.
Marge Green went so far as to chase some of the surviving children,screaming and spitting at them in her rage over their existence and their nerve to want stronger gun regulations after nearly being murdered.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2021/01/19/marjorie-taylor-greene-supported-conspiracy-theory-that-parkland-massacre-was-false-flag-plann
ed-shooting/?sh=40d079754f8c

I’m glad at least a few photons of sunlight might finally be seeping in, but I’m not hopeful that the darkness won’t drive them out.

One of the things that intrigues me is that, say, in the span of one of those billions of years that, say, a single photon escapes from a black hole; life, in a completely unfathomable form, may exist in or around that sngle photon -- but for "only" a few million years.

A big part of the Zero's reputation came from racking up kills in China against a lot of second-rate planes with poorly-trained pilots. After all, there was a reason that the Republic of China hired the American Volunteer Group to help out during the Second Sino-Japanese War – Chinese pilots had a hard time cutting it.

The Wildcat was deficient in many ways versus the Zero, but it still had superior firepower via ammo loadout. The Zero carried very few 20mm rounds, most of it's ammo was 7.7mm. There are records of Japanese pilots unloading all their 7.7mm ammo on a Wildcat and it was still flyable. On the flip side, the Wildcat had an ample supply of .50 cal.

Stanley "Swede" Vejtasa was able to score seven kills against Japanese planes in one day with a Wildcat.

Yes, the discovery of the Akutan Zero helped the United States beat this plane. But MilitaryFactory.com notes that the Hellcat's first flight was on June 26, 1942 – three weeks after the raid on Dutch Harbor that lead to the fateful crash-landing of the Mitsubishi A6M flown by Tadayoshi Koga.

Marine Captain Kenneth Walsh described how he knew to roll to the right at high speed to lose a Zero on his tail. Walsh would end World War II with 17 kills. The Zero also had trouble in dives, thanks to a bad carburetor.

We were behind in technology for many reasons, but once the Hellcat started replacing the Wildcat, the Japanese Air Superiority was over. Even if they had maintained a lead in technology, as Russia showed in WW2, quantity has a quality all of it's own. We were always going to be able to field more pilots and planes than Japan would be able to.

As far as Soviet rockets, once we were stunned by the launch of Sputnik, we kicked into high gear. You can say what you will of reliability, consistency, and dependability, but exactly how many manned Soviet missions landed on the moon and returned? Other than Buran, which was almost a copy of our Space Shuttle, how many shuttles did the USSR field?

The Soviets did build some things that were very sophisticated and were, for a while, better than what we could field. The Mig-31 is a great example. We briefly lagged behind but have a much superior air capability now. The only advantages the Mig and Sukhoi have is speed, they can fire all their missiles and flee. If they are engaged however, they will lose if pilots are equally skilled.

As @newtboy has said, I am sure that Russia and China are working on military advancements, but the technology simply doesn't exist to make a Hypersonic missile possible at this point.

China is fielding a man portable rifle that can inflict pain, not kill, and there is no hard evidence that it works.

There is no proof that the Chinese have figured out the technology for an operational rail gun on land, let alone the sea. We also have created successful railguns, the problem is POWERING them repeatedly, especially onboard a ship. If they figured out a power source that will pull it off, then it is possible, but there is no concrete proof other than a photo of a weapon attached to a ship. Our experts are guessing they might have it functional by 2025, might...

China has shown that long range QEEC is possible. It has been around but they created the first one capable of doing it from space. The problem is, they had to jury rig it. Photons, or light, can only go through about 100 kilometers of optic fiber before getting too dim to reliably carry data. As a result, the signal needs to be relayed by a node, which decrypts and re-encrypts the data before passing it on. This process makes the nodes susceptible to hacking. There are 32 of these nodes for the Beijing-Shanghai quantum link alone.

The main issue with warfare today is that it really doesn't matter unless the battle is between one of the big 3. Which means that ANY action could provoke Nuclear conflict. Is Russia going to hypersonic missile one of our carriers without Nukes become an option on the table as a retaliation? Is China going to railgun a ship and risk nuclear war?

Hell no, no more than we would expect to blow up some major Russian or Chinese piece of military hardware without severe escalation! Which means we can create all the technological terrors we like, because we WON'T use them unless they somehow provide us a defense against nuclear annihilation.

So just like China and Russia steal stuff from us to build military hardware to counter ours, if they create something that is significantly better, we will began trying to duplicate it. The only thing which would screw this system to hell is if one of us actually did begin developing a successful counter measure to nukes. If that happens, both of the other nations are quite likely to threaten IMMEDIATE thermonuclear war to prevent that country from developing enough of the counter measures to break the tie.

Was hoping for an actual experiment.

You cannot both "detect" a photon/electron before it "enters a slit" and have it go through and "detect" it again at the back. That part is (probably) hogwash.

Detection at this scale really means fatal crash or at least deflection.

From what has been observed it would appear that in such an experiment an individual electron takes all the possible paths through both slits and the "waves" that "interfere" are waves of probability of the particle passing through detection points.

While it might as well be magic, really, QED does have observable rules, and this video might make it appear as though one could change the outcome by blinking an eye, which is not the case.

To make any headway stop thinking about tiny marbles. Think about tiny cartoon characters moving so fast they are smudged to invisibility whirring their tiny appendages around - you can only tell which particle and where it is if you swat it or it hits a wall and stops moving. There is no "detect but keep going as if nothing happened".

I was taught that E=(+-)MC2. (This implies antimatter)

I'm disappointed he wasn't totally clear that all he was doing was adding kinetic energy to the base equation. Of course that adds energy to the system, but the base equation is about mass/energy (how much total energy a certain resting mass contains) not all energy. Heat the mass, you need another equation. Make it radioactive, another.

Also, maybe it's been proven wrong by now, but I recall experiments showing photons do have at least a pseudo mass, proven by their ability to move objects (like the spinning black and white squares inside a vacuum toy and theoretical solar sails).

Any time you "see" an electron or photon, you change the scene (more like you only see the effects of when they hit something).

If you try to "display" the "position" of an electron or photon relative to something else, like another electron or photon, or a matchbox for scale, you get in complicated trouble.

You can't bounce a laser pulse off a photon. Something lost in translation from Swedish? Like a sarcasm tag somewhere?

https://www.tesla.com/blog/upgrading-autopilot-seeing-world-radar
even cooler, as of a recent update the Tesla can actually bounce radar underneath and around the car ahead to the one in front of it (albeit probably at a lower resolution)
"Taking this one step further, a Tesla will also be able to bounce the radar signal under a vehicle in front - using the radar pulse signature and photon time of flight to distinguish the signal - and still brake even when trailing a car that is opaque to both vision and radar."

That bit about the shrimp able to reflect a photon of light with rotating polarity is wrong I think. They were probably trying to say reflecting polarized light and also able to vary the angle of polarization. So for one photon, no matter how far away you are when you detect it, it will always have the same polarization. And the photon .1sec later will have a different angle.

Congratulations! Your comment on Riding Light: A journey of a photon through our solar system has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 5 Badge!

Your video, Going Interstellar - Photonic Propulsion, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I'm confused. They imply a 3 day trip to mars is possible, but is that at the maximum speed photonic propulsion can deliver, or do they include the acceleration and deceleration times? As I understood it, photonic propulsion can deliver extreme speeds, but only at a minimal acceleration. That means that maximum speed is much faster, but accelerating to that speed takes immensely longer, and the same goes for deceleration. Maybe they've invented a new method I've not heard of with much higher acceleration, but that's not really mentioned in the video.
They actually seem to imply they plan to use the same tech as cyclotrons, which means essentially a huge rail gun (and that's not photonic propulsion BTW, it's magnetic). Again, the amount of propulsion is miniscule, but the top speed is high with that method. Yes, you can expel matter at near speed of light, but only in tiny amounts and using huge amounts of energy.
Yes, it may take 10 minutes to achieve 30% the speed of light....with single molecules or atoms.
There are MANY reasons why we can't do this at macro sizes. Just look at the size of a cyclotron needed to accelerate an atom to those relativistic speeds. Now think about sizing that up to accelerate enough matter to move a spaceship instead of a single atom and it's likely near the size of the entire planet. We won't be building a cyclotron that size ever, nor will we likely ever shrink the accelerators to a size where they can fit inside a spaceship to shoot trillions of atoms out like a light speed gun. They are just too big and use too much power. Maybe once fusion is perfected and miniaturization also perfected it could work for interstellar travel, but never for local space travel, the acceleration levels are just too small.
Also, it seems solar sails give the same or better acceleration to the same top speeds without the impossible technology....but they don't work too well for stopping except at other stars.

photons are massless at rest.

Riding Light: A journey of a photon through our solar system has been added as a related post - related requested by jimnms.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Riding-Light-A-journey-of-a-photon-through-our-solar-system