5 ms·

At the very least you should probably look at the theory before claiming to discredit it. The "radiation" is lower energy microwaves which are quickly scattered

• lisper 13y ago
  > At the very least you should probably look at the theory before claiming to discredit it. I didn't claim to discredit it. All I did was point out that there's no evidence for the theory, and that it would require rewriting most of the known laws of physics. Other than that I specifically said I saw no problem with it. > The "radiation" is lower energy microwaves which are quickly scattered. Scattered by what? The behavior of light is well understood. It doesn't just scatter randomly, whether or not it's "lower energy microwaves" (whatever that could possibly mean). And why would the fact that the microwaves are scattered matter? Microwaves would still be detectable even if they are "scattered". Look at the sky: that blue color you see is visible light scattered by the atoms in earth's atmosphere. Why would scattered microwaves be any less detectable than scattered visible light? (Feel free to treat those as rhetorical questions, by the way.) > As for your other questions, these are addressed in the theory. How about reading that first. Life is too short to spend time doing a detailed debunking of every crackpot idea that comes along.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]