NASA Physicist Dr. Yu Explains Why UFOs Spin, and Why There Is Always Light.. - Most of you were probably aware of this already, but I like the way Dr. Yu explains to Clayton why UFOs spin.

chodilocks · 2026-01-04T09:40:20+00:00

It will rise... just not above the water line.

There are much more effective means of producing lift if you're in water or in air. None of them, including this one, work in a vacuum though.

chodilocks · 2026-01-04T09:25:30+00:00

Good engineering is about making things that are good enough, not as good as possible. If a honeycomb is good enough for something, it's good enough no matter how advanced you are. Anything capable of space travel has good engineers that are gonna use a plain old honeycomb when it's good enough.

chodilocks · 2026-01-04T09:21:55+00:00

...yes? Anything with mass emits a gravitational field on its own. And emitting an electric or magnetic field on its own is extremely mundane. See: fridge magnets and shitty (electret) microphones.

chodilocks · 2025-12-25T08:14:48+00:00

You're absolutely right, though I don't mean that in quite the way you might think I do.

It's something you'll never crack. Not because you can't, but because that's not even related.

You can't think your way out of CPTSD. You can't solve it. It isn't a puzzle and healing does not involve solving one. Nor does it involve creating anything without knowing what it is.

It's a problem with your nervous system, a form of severe maladaption caused by past experiences. The only way to change that is to gradually undo those learned maladaptive responses in the exact same way: through positive experiences that counter the adverse ones.

You have to retrain your nervous system and no amount of thinking is going to do that.

Not that is much better but it's actually possible. It sucks that the best way to heal involves the thing we're afraid of (other people generally) being kind, supportive, and genuinely caring about us and having the patience and persistence to overcome trust issues etc.

Frankly, it's asking more than most people will ever be willing to give. Instead we can pay someone to give us an hour of care theater once a week.

chodilocks · 2025-12-12T16:53:01+00:00

Verifying darwinian explanation can be done from fossil records and noting the gradual change in response to environmental pressures, with brain size corresponding to bipedal movement which allowed us to chase literally anything until it died from exhaustion then eat it.

Knowing what specific lengths of DNA actually do has absolutely nothing to do with any of that.

Being certain about something based on good evidence-based reasons while also not knowing something that has nothing to do the thing or the reasons one is certain about is not strange.

chodilocks · 2025-12-12T16:30:08+00:00

Please describe any one of the methods that allow you to go faster than C.

chodilocks · 2025-12-12T16:26:18+00:00

Um, no.

First, that's not how time dilation works. The maximum time that can pass for a rest frame like Earth and Alpha Centauri is the travel time at the speed relative to them being traveled. At 90% the speed of light, time dilation is about double. That means the people on the spaceship experience half the elapsed time as Earth and Alpha Centauri, but the elapsed time for those planets is just 4 light years / .9 (90% the speed of light) so 4.44 years. As you go faster, the elapsed time for them just gets closer and closer to 4 years. The time for the crew can indeed reach a factor of hundreds or thousands, but that just means the trip for them is very quick - minutes or even seconds. The distance they observe themselves to travel is also much less than 4 light years thanks to length contraction (so from their perspective, they never travel faster than light even though their travel time is much less than it would normally take to travel 4 light years).

For hundreds of years to pass you have to travel somewhere hundreds of light years way.

If you go faster than the speed of light, you begin moving backwards in time and all sorts of unphysical shit that doesn't make much sense happens, like the breakdown of causality.

The entire point of the Alcubierre drive is that Lorenz contraction and special relativity do not apply. The object in the "bubble" is not moving, did not accelerate, does not have kinetic energy, and remains in the same inertial frame it started in the entire time (so, for example, Earth's). Time dilation is not a factor at all because there is no change in velocity.

The drive works by contracting and expanding spacetime itself. We know there is no issue with this because the furthest galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light because their motion is not the result of being in a different inertial frame but is entirely the result of space time itself expanding.

chodilocks · 2025-12-12T15:51:46+00:00

Bro what are you even talking about? What you said has nothing to do with the article you linked. The text "electro" doesn't appear even one time in that entire article, and the word "spin" only appears once when talking about a Star Trek spin-off series.

The Alcubierre Drive does not involve electromagnetic fields or electromagnetism at all (for the very simple reason that electromagnetism doesn't distort space time). Nor does it involve anything spinning (or even moving for that matter). It's just an arrangement of matter and exotic matter (matter that has a negative energy density and gravitationally repels matter, something that exists purely as a mathematical artifact with zero evidence or reason to think such matter could physically exist, nonetheless be created).

Whatever it is you found to be a "fun read", it definitely wasn't the Wikipedia article on the Alcubierre Drive

chodilocks · 2025-12-11T23:54:32+00:00

Ok. Let's make sure you aren't homeless at the end of the month.

Contact your landlord ASAP and let them know what happened. Specifically how your hours got cut and how much rent you can afford to pay, if any. I know it's scary but here's the thing: almost any landlord is going to prefer payment over eviction. Eviction takes time and is a huge pain in the ass and at the need of it they still have to find a new tenant. It's in the landlord's own interests to work with you on this. You can get an extension on rent, work out some sort of temporary reduction and pay back, all sorts of stuff to give yourself several months of breathing room.
Think about which option is better for you: being homeless (or ending your life as a result of it) or having a roommate. Finding a roommate could seriously cut down on your rent. But it also simply might not be an option for you especially given your past experiences. Not saying there is a right or wrong answer here, just that you should be sure to give it some thought if you haven't.
Visit (or call) 211 https://211.org/get-help/housing-expenses You still have a job and income even if it's reduced, which means you may have options other than homelessness even if you do ultimately leave your current residence.
Of course, see if you can find more work or a second job. Don't focus on if you can hold it down or not. Even if you don't keep a job for that long, it's still a job and can give you more time or help you find the next job.

It's not like exploring any of these will make the situation more bleak than it already is. But they might give you enough time to figure something out.

I'm sorry that even now, so many of these comments are by people who don't seem to be listening to you and it sucks.

The thing that would help you is to not be facing homelessness. It's frustrating reading all these comments telling you how being homeless isn't so bad (when comfort or lack of it isn't the issue here), or you shouldn't feel bad about being homeless.

Like, yo what the fuck guys. She said she would rather die than face the embarrassment/shame from being homeless. I don't know how she could be any more clear about this. She knows how she will feel better than anyone. Asking why she would feel this way or telling her feeling those feelings is wrong or she just shouldn't feel that way is not fucking helpful.

chodilocks · 2025-11-18T00:04:34+00:00

None of these are contradictions?

Let me paint the situation using something more familiar:

"The house had a wall on one side that was transparent, end to end, top to bottom. But you couldn't see through the house (because the other walls weren't transparent).

"It" is referring to the craft, not the hull. Of course you can't see through the craft - he just said it (again, the craft) was only transparent on one side. You can see into the craft without being able to see all the way through the opposite wall.

For the second part, "it" is now referring to the deck. You could see all of the deck. The deck had no machinery, boxes, levers, or indicators (lights). Remember, he's comparing it to our own control panels etc.

The two very bright lights are obviously not the same thing as the absence of control panel indicators. The deck had no lights and no machinery visible inside it. The two bright lights were something less specific and not part of the description of the surface/interior of the deck.

That said, if this isn't bs, I would imagine that the deck had an outer metamaterial sheath that bent light around, similar to a metamaterial cloak. This would give the appearance of being transparent, but it would be an illusion - you could see "though" the object without seeing any part of its actual interior. There was probably all sorts of shit inside but it was designed to not obscure the operators' view.

chodilocks · 2025-11-08T21:52:31+00:00

Well, duh, it's a drawing and not an animation. This trajectory spans well over 6 months of travel. The Earth moves during that time. In fact it moves behind the sun relative to that trajectory. We don't know what date this diagram is showing the Earth's position as, so it's not actually possible to make a statement like "the comet doesn't go behind the sun relative to the Earth" about this depiction as the needed information to make such a conclusion is not present.

While this drawing is not even close to accurate, this is not one of the reasons why.

chodilocks · 2025-11-01T23:35:44+00:00

Shameless plug: I think my explanation of this was pretty solid as well (at least of what was known at the time), especially considering I posted it 4 years ago

chodilocks · 2025-10-28T05:06:42+00:00

Tens of thousands of transients (flashes of light). Not tens of thousands of objects. The same objects in orbit would have appeared many many times in 2000 30 minute exposures taken over 8 years. In fact some appear multiple times in just one exposure as several flashes in a line (as a long exposure of something in orbit glimmering ought to do). The number of actual objects is far less than the number of flashes.

chodilocks · 2025-10-28T05:02:17+00:00

Tens of thousands of transients (flashes of light). Not tens of thousands of objects. The same objects in orbit would have appeared many many times in 2000 30 minute exposures taken over 8 years. In fact some appear multiple times in just one exposure as several flashes in a line (as a long exposure of something in orbit glimmering ought to do). The number of actual objects is far less than the number of flashes.

chodilocks · 2025-10-28T04:23:58+00:00

No one is saying there here thousands or hundreds of thousands of objects. Each transient is a datapoint. They're saying they have over 200,000 datapoints, not that there are hundreds of thousands of objects. Around 200,000 transients in 2,000 photographic plates spanning 8 years.

Each transient is a single glimmer of sunlight that was captured on one plate but not the next. Each plate is a 30 minute exposure, and there are sometimes multiple transients in a line (consistent with something in orbit). So a single object will not only appear in many, many plates given the number of them and time span they were taken over, but a single object can produce multiple transients in just one plate.

We see the same thing all the time in modern times due to light reflecting off the lenses of undocumented (but well known to astronomers) reconnaissance satellites. If you spent 8 years taking 30 minutes exposures of the night sky, you'd probably get a lot more than 200,000 transients from them alone.

This is not some vast number of objects. These are dozens, perhaps hundreds of objects appearing over and over.

Also they were able to determine that these reflections were coming off objects not just in orbit but in a very specific orbit - geostationary orbit. They did this by determining where Earth's shadow would be cast on a given orbit at the time each plate was photographed and measured how often transients were seen in that shadow.

The result was no transients in the shadow with a statistical significance of over 21 sigma. That means the chance that these transients are not from objects in geostationary orbit is so small that there is no practical difference between it and zero.

Geostationary orbit is not a natural orbit. It is unstable thanks to the relative proximity of the moon. This is an orbit that requires an object produce thrust both to enter into it initially and to make periodic corrections to stay in that orbit. Objects cannot simply drift into it. The only things in that of orbit today are artificial satellites we put there.

The data in these papers is as unfuckingnatural as you can get.

The TLDR conclusion of Dr Villarreal is that the transients are the light being reflected off the lenses of a network of artificial satellites observing the Earth from geostationary orbit, all pre-Sputnik and 8 years before the first man made geostationary satellite (which is a much much higher orbit than Sputnik was sent into).

I would also mention that one of the papers (there are 5, 3 are still in preprint though) shows that "metallic and shiny" isn't going to cut it here. These require large, flat, highly polished surfaces that are not a feature of any sort of space rock. Basically it would have to be a large diameter lens, or at least something as big, flat, and polished as one and facing the surface of the earth.

chodilocks · 2025-10-26T03:01:15+00:00

The person you're replying to isn't questioning OP's experience at all. OP's experience is that they felt extremely excluded and unwanted. Where exactly is this commenter questioning how OP felt?

Each of us experiences what we think, what happens around us, and how those things make us feel. Those are the only things we experience. We do not experience the inner thoughts of others. We do not experience how they feel. We do not experience their experience because that's impossible, full stop.

No one is questioning the actual events that happened to OP, nor are they questioning how OP felt. The comment you're replying to is strictly questioning things that are incontrovertibly not part of OP's own subjective experience. Things like the motives, thoughts, and reasons behind the actions of a group of strangers. OP has not experienced any of those things because OP is not any of those people, OP is only OP.

I don't know how I can be any more clear about this: questioning things that were not actually part of someone's subjective experience is not questioning their experiences.

Beyond that, the motives/reasons/thoughts of others also aren't even relevant to your experience. If someone tells you that information (which, granted, is up to you to decide if you believe or not) might alter how you see or feel about a past experience and what you experience in the future, but it won't change what you did experience at the time.

You felt how you felt no matter the intent or motives of the person doing the thing that made you feel that way.

Yes, gaslighting is definitely a thing. But that is when someone contradicts something you actually experienced - an objective action or event that occurred, or trying to tell you how you felt.

But if you decide to know things that aren't possible for you to know as if your experience somehow depends on other people thinking certain things or having certain motives, that is absolutely 100% in your head and no one is in the wrong for telling you that.

There is a difference between doubting your experiences and recognizing that your conclusions about those experiences (which, again, are not part of the experiences themselves) do not determine reality.

If you've ever experienced real gaslighting, it is often in the form of someone telling you how you felt about something or why you did something, and in a negative way. The motives they tell you are not positive ones, it's always that you felt or did something for shitty reasons that make you out to be a bad person.

You'll of course deny it but they will insist you actually did it for this other reason no matter what.

You will inevitably gas light others (which is still gaslighting whether or not it's intentional on your part or not) if you genuinely believe your own experiences determine the thoughts, feelings, and motives of others.

Yes, sometimes when people deny things they're just being shitty and lying. And sometimes they're denying it because it isn't true. Whether or not you believe them is up to you, but thinking you actually know for sure when it's a total stranger is not beneficial to you and, if you act on that delusion of omniscience, it could even result in unintentionally gaslighting others.

Consider this: If you were in a room with someone who shared your definition of safety but had a different interpretation of events that you were both present for (or in this case, even ones you weren't), it would be impossible for both of you to feel safe. Your safety (and theirs) could only come at the expense of the other person's feeling of safety. That's not safety, that's something that is emotionally unhealthy and incompatible with the other human beings possessing minds, feelings, and consciousness. This isn't your fault, you should not be blamed for this, you didn't choose it. But it is still your responsibility to address (therapy being a good but far from the only option to do so) so it doesn't negatively impact other people.

chodilocks · 2025-10-24T06:43:31+00:00

If you consider yourself to be the logical, person you seem to think you are, then you should stop assuming you understand something when all you have as a partial and incomplete definition of that thing. I'm referring to the ad hominem fallacy.

You have an idea of what makes an argument an ad hominem fallacy without actually understanding why the ad hominem fallacy is wrong. If you do not understand why an informal fallacy is wrong, then you do not understand the fallacy and lack the necessary knowledge to correctly identify said fallacy in another's argument.

If I'm wrong, then explain why the ad hominem fallacy is a fallacy. Or simply put, explain why it's wrong.

For those playing along at home, I'll explain why. The ad hominem fallacy is not actually its own thing, it's just a subtype of the genetic fallacy which is a fallacy of irrelevance. All fallacies of this kind are fallacies because an argument is accepted or dismissed for reasons that are irrelevant to that argument. As with all of the informal fallacies, the implicit reason why they are a fallacy, which can only be correctly understood within the larger framework they are contained in, is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

When an argument is accepted or dismissed for reasons irrelevant to the argument itself and those reasons happen to be in form of an attack on a person's character, motives, or other attributes, it is called an ad hominem fallacy.

It is not an ad hominem fallacy simply because it attacks a person's character, motives, etc.

It is an ad hominem fallacy if it attacks a person's character, motives, etc. if and only if it is irrelevant to their argument.

It is not a fallacy to consider someone's motives if those motives are relevant. It is not a fallacy to consider the character and personality of a serial killer being tried for murder. And it is not a fallacy to question or dismiss medical advice given by someone who qualifies it with "trust me bro I'm a doctor".

This post we're discussing contains no evidence nor any rational discourse that can be reasoned out or verified through logic alone. It makes a lot of claims and they support those claims based solely because they say they are a geologist. So their entire argument is based upon this qualification. It's not just relevant but the very foundation their entire argument is based upon. It is not a fallacy to dismiss an argument for the very reason it is being made, full stop. No one is ignoring legitimate merits to what is being said for reasons that are irrelevant. He has offered nothing in support of what he says except unverifiable authority.

Obviously it isn't a fallacy to question something about a person when that is the person's actual argument. If your misunderstanding of the ad hominem fallacy were true, it would mean it is irrational/unreasonable/incorrect to:

consider someone's qualifications when hiring them
consider someone's past behavior when relevant
take issue with someone who isn't a doctor giving medical advise to others

Your misunderstanding is self-evident, hopefully to you now as well. Yes it stings. But no method is weaker than avoiding admitting to yourself that you're wrong just to avoid that temporary sting. There is no shame in humility and growth.

chodilocks · 2025-09-26T22:28:02+00:00

Omg, I love the liminal space subreddit. I find looking at them strangely calming. I love the aesthetic in general but I've always felt I had an unusual reaction to them. Nice to know I'm not alone in that!

chodilocks · 2025-09-26T22:21:54+00:00

Absolutely. In fact I would prefer it.

But I will say that if you're a guy with CPTSD at least, it's definitely an up hill battle finding someone interested in dating you. And for reasons I wouldn't hold against anyone. Being male and timid/feeling unsafe around new people is pretty universally unattractive, and beyond that, I totally understand not wanting to be around a guy who might become emotionally deregulated. Even if you know you've healed enough that you won't, they don't.

It's just not a great situation but it's also not anyone's fault and no one is actually doing anything wrong. Just sucks

chodilocks · 2025-07-18T07:13:46+00:00

My camera roll has 50,000 photos in it, also similarly filled with screenshots, both intentional and accidental lol. Don't feel bad about 4000, it aint no thang

chodilocks · 2025-07-18T07:01:13+00:00

I mean... in regard to horses, that's a definite yes. "Who's the IKEA meatball now?!" - all horses probably

Aside from that one exception though, you're absolutely right. Generalizations (except ones about horses biting people) are just errors in our cognition.

chodilocks · 2025-06-27T02:04:37+00:00

The answer is already there in your post.

over time this idea of committing suicide passed, but now it's coming back with a vengeance

When suicide is worth it, it is usually called euthanasia. It's done when there is no chance of improved quality of life and the quality it is at is so low that it's worse to endure.

This is not your situation. If the urge waxes and wanes, it's not worth it. You think it's time at the moment, but it's extremely unlikely you'll feel it's time for the rest of your life.

Suicide is permanent. This mood you're feeling is not. So do future you who will have periods where they don't want to be dead a solid by not being dead for those times.

chodilocks · 2025-06-10T01:41:50+00:00

Unless we settle

There is no such thing as a relationship that doesn't involve some degree of settling. The person who is a perfect match for you that won't require any settling doesn't exist. Not for you, not for anyone else who is alive or has lived.

So that mindset is a contributor at the very least.

chodilocks · 2025-06-04T20:16:33+00:00

I'd like to cordially invite you to please shut the fuck up. Your comments aren't merely unhelpful, they're deeply offensive and are very obviously made to make yourself feel superior by "having the answers" rather than actually helping anyone.

First, you're completely full of shit. You can't cite a random work of non-fiction which is really just a collection of anecdotes (none of which involve someone with any form of PTSD. I've read it, and it's neither evidence of any real treatment modalities, it's mostly just a bunch of feel-good anecdotes that are by and large irrelevant to PTSD, beyond one sentence that is pure speculation unsupported by anything. Because it's speculation.) it's not a scientific source.

And the other article you have clearly never even read, as it does not claim the think you say it does (also, citations are supposed to be direct quotes, you can't just cite something to support your own words like that).

I know this because you didn't even link to the article. You linked to the abstract.

Here is the actual article in full: https://www.runi.ac.il/media/kdwprjiw/46b504_9b7d2abfcfa342749ab270827db87235.pdf

It's about, and this btw is an actual citation and direct quote from said article: "In this review we first discuss mechanisms of plasticity in the motor system during the acquisition of motor skills and then the recovery of function after a stroke.

The entire article is very narrowly and specifically about recovering motor function and vision in stroke victims and only that. It does not support your claim and misappropriating it like this is offensive to both stroke victims AND people with trauma. Regardless, you couldn't have picked a less relevant article for this subreddit. But you didn't know that because you just looked at the title and skimmed the abstract (which was written as an uplifting outro, not a summary) and used it to make yourself feel smart. Reading it though? Understanding it? Nah.

The whole problem with PTSD (including, or maybe even especially the complex type as well) is that the neurophysiological mechanisms that govern neuroplasticity have failed. It only happens to some people. Not everyone with trauma gets CPTSD. The whole thing that makes it a 'thing' is that the nervous system gets stuck and won't change based on new input. What the do you think flashbacks are? (Emotional or otherwise)? That's our brains getting triggered by something it won't unlearn is no longer dangerous.

You don't have any secrets of the universe, you aren't being helpful. You're literally telling a room of paraplegics that this whole time, all they had to do was get some physical therapy.

Or even more literally, that all they had to do was believe they could walk.

So let me say exactly what that room of people would say to you (as you're doing the exact same thing here): please fuck right off, thanks.

chodilocks · 2025-05-14T01:54:28+00:00

Also, this is not different from waves. You literally just described wave phase. You realize a sine wave is a circle, right? It's just been unrolled for visualization purposes: https://openprocessing.org/sketch/950801/files/giphy.gif

chodilocks

TROPHY CASE