PDA

View Full Version : OT, Maybe Evan has seen something......



smagovic
11-09-2006, 07:17 PM
See for yourself http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=415514&in_page_id=1770
Vic

Rustybolt
11-09-2006, 09:15 PM
Using the same logic, there must be unicorns out there.

sidegrinder
11-09-2006, 09:37 PM
I seem to remember a Canadian, Paul Hellyer, "come out" on UFO's about a year ago. Maybe he got pushed back into the closet???

BillH
11-09-2006, 09:52 PM
If you consider how huge the universe is and how many stars and believed to be planetary systems around each of those stars, I believe it to be a certainty that there IS life out there in some forms. I would not be surprised one bit if there was huge civilizations that are now long dead. IF any of them are humanoids the only way that could be is that we share some of their DNA, which would tell you something about how we came to be.
Bigfoot is another mystery. I've said this before on this forum, I've seen big foot. Either it was a hallucination or it was real, or a 7 to 8ft tall human in an ape suite walking with a wide gate 3am in the morning in my uncles back yard 60 yards out in Renton, Washington for no apparent reason. I so wish I had a video camera so I could prove to myself I was not dreaming. I don't really care about others believing me.
There is stuff out there that science can't explain(yet) and thank god, life would be boring if we knew everything.
As far as Aliens attacking us. I would think that if they could reach us, they would be so advanced that their main interests would be studying us rather than declaring war on us.

Evan
11-09-2006, 09:55 PM
I like one of the reader comments on that article:



They arrived with their leader Tony Blair in 1996. From the Planet Corruptus.

wierdscience
11-09-2006, 10:11 PM
If there is intelligent life out there,it wouldn't want anything to do with a species that can't even merge onto the interstate properly.

Evan
11-10-2006, 01:39 AM
The idea that aliens from another star system are visiting us has one very big problem attached.

How did they get here? We can ignore questions such as why since the how is the really big one. There are only a couple of options. Either they travel faster than light or they go slower regardless of the means.

If it is slower then they are most certainly using technology that we can at least conceive of and probably understand. Slower implies another couple of things. Either it is much slower and they are incredibly long lived with life spans of millennia or they for some reason are willing to give up their lives on a trip that takes the individual nowhere so that the decendants will eventually arrive. One must consider the reasons for doing this and lurking about never really showing themselves isn't a very likely explanation. Also, the energies required to make such a journey would be very obvious to us.

If the trip is slower than light but very close to light velocity then long life spans are not a requirement. However, the use and expenditure of truly prodigious amounts of energy are. We haven't noticed anything like that.

The other option is faster than light. We have no notion of how that might be done and all evidence indicates it cannot be done. We have a lot of such evidence. While we surely don't know everything about physics we do know a lot now. There are still unanswered questions.

In order to presume that visiting aliens are able to travel faster than light they then must use physical principles that exist in this universe that we have absolutely no evidence for. This seems very unlikely considering our current level of knowledge. If faster than light travel is possible it means that virtually all we think we know about physics is wrong. Again, this is highly unlikely as what we think we know does a pretty good job of explaining much of what we observe.

So, the two possibilities for traveling here boil down to using propulsion systems that are impossible to hide or using propulsion system that are impossible to exist without invalidating the foundations of our science.

Postulating other mechanisms for travel such as somehow "slipping through dimensions" and other such nonsense are purely science fiction with no basis in reality at all. They are deus ex machina explanations that explain nothing.

kap pullen
11-10-2006, 07:26 AM
Quote Evan;

"In order to presume that visiting aliens are able to travel faster than light they then must use physical principles that exist in this universe that we have absolutely no evidence for. This seems very unlikely considering our current level of knowledge. If faster than light travel is possible it means that virtually all we think we know about physics is wrong. Again, this is highly unlikely as what we think we know does a pretty good job of explaining much of what we observe."



In the year 1491, it was presumed the world was flat.

We have been wrong about physics before.



Quote Evan;

"They arrived with their leader Tony Blair in 1996. From the Planet Corruptus."


I have heard theorys that Ms. H Clinton may be an alien as well.

I have no personal knowlege of either situation.


Kap

madman
11-10-2006, 08:19 AM
As for bigfoot I recommend a .300 win mag go for a knee shot. And for the aliens word on the street is they came from your anus oops i mean Uranus???

Evan
11-10-2006, 08:53 AM
n the year 1491, it was presumed the world was flat.


Only by the uninformed general population. The scientists knew it was a globe as long as over 2000 years ago and even measured the size. Science discovers the rules that govern the universe. We have discovered many of them. We must presume that they apply everywhere and to everything. All evidence supports this. Any other presumption is to presume that magic governs the unverse and that no rules apply. In that case the pursuit of knowledge is futile.

While scientists have obviously been wrong before and will be wrong again that isn't the same as throwing out all that we think we know.

BillH
11-10-2006, 10:18 AM
Evan, I hope there is a way, and if there is, we won't discover it in our life time. Science can not explain everything yet, nor will it ever as there is no cap as to what one can discover.
Yes Even, there is stuff out there that you do not know about nor does google. :)

Evan
11-10-2006, 10:25 AM
Google knows nothing.

People however, do.

What is it that you hope for a way to do?

Lew Hartswick
11-10-2006, 10:46 AM
Only by the uninformed general population. The scientists knew it was a globe as long as over 2000 years ago and even measured the size..

The orig. quote is missing about the 1491 flat earth.

Yes. This missunderstanding of the level of knowledgs of the 15th century is
disturbing in the way it seems to keep apearing today. :-(

Now for a levity break:
From the link at the start of this thread:


And he complains that the project he once ran is now "virtually closed" down, leaving the country "wide open" to aliens.

I suggest most of them are from the "Mid East"
...lew...

BillH
11-10-2006, 11:06 AM
Google knows nothing.

People however, do.

What is it that you hope for a way to do?
Evan, simple answer, make Star Trek reality, except for the communist no money idea and no personal material wealth. Actually Star Wars, I want a light saber, and to choke liberals remotely. Hmm think its time for another Percocet.

Evan
11-10-2006, 11:14 AM
A light saber is a possibility. I can think of a way to make a laser beam stop at a fixed distance in air with no device needed to block the beam. The only catch is the power supply.

How about Star Trek? There is now a way to make a functional stun gun that can also be set to kill. No wires, just an invisible pair of beams of coherent extreme ultraviolet light that ionize the air providing a conductive channel to the victim by which high voltage may be transmitted. It's a taser with no wires. It can also be used to produce invisible "bars" on a prison cell.

As for remotely choking liberals, just send them free vouchers for MacDonalds coffee.

Spin Doctor
11-10-2006, 11:33 AM
As for remotely choking liberals, just send them free vouchers for MacDonalds coffee.

Or a Wally World gift certificate

Cecil Walker
11-10-2006, 11:51 AM
I read the following somewhere and as Sgt Schultz from the old TV show Hogans Heroes would say "Veeery Interesting"

Many will recall that on JUly 8, 1947, witnesses claim and unidentified object with five aliens crashed on a sheep and cattle rance just outside Roswell, New Mexico.

This is a well known incident that has just as many believers as non believers.

However, what many people don't know is that in March 1948, 9 months later, Albert Gore, Jr., Hillary Rodham, John Kerry, William Jefferson Clinton, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, Charles Schumer, and Barbara Boxer were born.

Don't flame me now, i just read it somewhere and thought it was hilarious. I do not know if the dates are correct or not, might make for good research though.

pcarpenter
11-10-2006, 12:52 PM
As for our "current science" and the fact that "scientists" knew the earth was round for a couple thousand years...

E=MC^2 was only postulated in fairly recent decades and has been "demonstrated" a good bit since then and I am sure it will hold until the aliens arrive and teach us otherwise :D Sometimes it takes us a very long time to find things that have been true since the beginning of history.

I agree that perhaps we are not being watched or there may be other explanations. However, I also think that the "because we don't have a formula for it yet, it must not be true" thinking has to go. This is the arrogance of scientists and is the reason they are treated with increasing cynicism. This cynicism is not healthy as it causes some folks to throw everything we know to the wind.

Discoveries happen rapidly sometimes. Until about 50 years ago, we had no solid-state devices. 50 years later, we use microscopes to view the millions of such devices that we can now make in less than a square inch. Whoda thunk? Current knowledge is easily and fairly often outmoded. A good scientist should learn from this past history. The foundational elements are not fire, earth, air, and water. It was not all that long ago in the overall history of man that such misconceptions were widely held among the smartest folks in society.

One of the first things I learned going clear back to primary school was the scientific method. I am amazed at how many times I see scientists skip a few steps and we go straight from hypothesis to law.


Paul

Evan
11-10-2006, 01:14 PM
However, I also think that the "because we don't have a formula for it yet, it must not be true" thinking has to go.

That isn't the view of true scientists. They are looking for what we don't know and finding it. Many times experiments are notable for what they don't find which is often as important as finding what was sought. Examples are the experiments looking for evidence of proton decay. The results to date are negative as no events have been observed that conclusively point to protons being unstable. Setting minimum time bounds on proton decay is every bit as important as finding that they do decay. It places limits on the Standard Model that has far reaching implications.

Another example is the current search for gravity waves by LIGO. This will either confirm Einstein's predictions that gravity produces waves in space and that it travels at the speed of light or it will place bounds that may call for revision of current theories. None of our established theories are complete. We do not know how it all fits together. We are coming closer to the answers all the time and the answers that are found are built on the work of thousands of brilliant minds over thousands of years.

We do know that to accept certain things as fact would require overturning all the work and previous discoveries as being completely incorrect interpretations of how things work. That is unlikely.

pcarpenter
11-10-2006, 02:51 PM
Evan-- I don't think we are at odds on this...I was just very specific in my statement. I think that good scientists think more along the lines of "because we don't have a formula for it yet, it *might* not be true" That tends to drive more exploration and experimentation to prove or disprove. The thing I was arguing against is what I see too often...a jump to declaring something theory or law when if they are honest, they really are only at the "hypothesize or experiment" stage.

paul

Furnace
11-10-2006, 03:09 PM
Was the guy in in the beginning of Star Wars that Darth Vader remotely choked a Liberal in uniform. I just find remotely choking liberals funny, sorry.

BillH
11-10-2006, 03:17 PM
Was the guy in in the beginning of Star Wars that Darth Vader remotely choked a Liberal in uniform. I just find remotely choking liberals funny, sorry.
I doubt it, that guy actually volunteered to serve in the Military.

PSD KEN
11-10-2006, 11:36 PM
I would agree with the late Carl Sagan: "other life out there? Probably"
"Have they visited us? Not likely"

Problems would be immense distances, navagation, etc.

However, UFO activity could explain the missing stuff around my place!

J Tiers
11-11-2006, 12:22 AM
Discoveries happen rapidly sometimes. Until about 50 years ago, we had no solid-state devices.

Paul

That is technically fairly true, although the bipolar transistor was developed as a "point contact" device related loosely to the "cat whisker" detector used way back for radio reception.

And, along about 1929 is when the "field effect transistor" was described technically/theoretically, as a device that could work. it turns out that the bipolar transistor was MADE first, but it was not "described" first.

Now it seems that the bipolar transistor was merely a stepping stone. They are virtually obsolete in most usages, replaced by Mosfets, and IGBTs...

The latter, which stands for "insulated gate bipolar transistor" SOUNDS like a later extension of the bipolar transistor, and it is, but it is actually related more closely to the SCR (thyristor).

So, with a small "kick-start" in terms of ways to physically make them, we COULD have had solid state devices in quantity well prior to WW2. The need wasn't seen, the times (depression) were not amenable to research of that type, and research had not been made the new frenetic-paced thing that the war made it.

JRouche
11-11-2006, 12:38 AM
As for bigfoot I recommend a .300 win mag go for a knee shot.

Hey, I have one of those. With a KDF muzzle brake so I can shoot it.

A knee shot with it becomes an entire leg removable though.

Now, I do have a small .22-250 that might poke a hole through its knee.

But heck, I'm not into hunting monkeys.

Well, not entirely. The hairless brand are easy sport and I dont even need my cannon, just a little bait.

Kinda like dumb fish. JRouche

TECHSHOP
11-11-2006, 01:47 AM
On the FTL travel, I read somewhere, pre-internet era, Albert's theory, "only" indicated that it wasn't possible to move at the speed of light, but didn't "prohibit" something going faster, that could never "slow" down to the speed of light. This was a "math" article and not a "physics" article, but it was published in a "real science" publication (1970s? 1980s? Scientific American or such ).

As for bigfoot, aim of the hip cradle area, "mobility kill", once it stops moving you have plenty of time to take the fuzzy pictures.

Evan
11-11-2006, 02:31 AM
On the FTL travel, I read somewhere, pre-internet era, Albert's theory, "only" indicated that it wasn't possible to move at the speed of light, but didn't "prohibit" something going faster, that could never "slow" down to the speed of light. This was a "math" article and not a "physics" article, but it was published in a "real science" publication (1970s? 1980s? Scientific American or such ).
What that is about is that the equations are symmetrical around the velocity of light. They can be solved both for above and below the velocity of light since the values only become infinite at the velocity of light. This does not imply that solutions above the velocity of light are valid solutions, only that they are mathematically consistent.

It's somewhat like being in debt. Mathematically you possess negative amounts of money.

Millman
11-11-2006, 05:34 AM
yeah, he saw something.....but Mr Google got in the way, for a clear view.

Your Old Dog
11-11-2006, 05:36 AM
It's somewhat like being in debt. Mathematically you possess negative amounts of money.

Got to run into tell my wife how wealthy we are :D :D

Interesting and informative discussion folks but over my head..............I mean the philosophical turn not actual UFO's.

rantbot
11-11-2006, 01:48 PM
E=MC^2 was only postulated in fairly recent decades

Sounds like you reference Einstein's 1905 paper, which was (obviously) published over a century ago.

I'd be surprised if any modern scientific journal would publish such a thing today, because the author lacked what are now considered qualifications (and being correct is not a qualification). This is not a flaw in science, but a flaw in how it is practiced today, mainly stemming from the fact that somehow scientific labor must be paid for. Like, say, modern art, the field has filled with far too many poseurs rather than useful practitioners. This is one small reason why no scientific field can possibly be qualified to guess intelligently at what it doesn't know. It is impossible to make a blanket statement that, say, "we know the basics, there are just a few holes to fill in." One could have said the same thing after Newton's day. But that would have blocked out poor Einstein entirely.

Several centuries before the discovery of nuclear fusion and the Carbon Cycle, ingenious men who wondered how the sun could put out so much energy postulated that gradual shrinkage in the sun's diameter - too gradual to detect with visual instruments from our vicinity - could account for the sun's energy output. Their math was solid, and the phenomenon - if it existed - could indeed account for the sun's radiant energy. But as it turns out that's not how the sun actually works. The point is that we have no idea what we don't know until after we know it. The Somerfeld Atom is another excellent object lesson for those who think the science of their day has nearly all the answers - another excruciatingly ingenious theory which entirely missed all quantum phenomena. Prof. Somerfeld was just a little before his time, and had unfortunately explored, quite thoroughly, a dead end.

Similarly paleontologists who fancy that they have "a pretty good idea" of what the biological and botanical picture looked like during, say, the upper Cretaceous, are totally out to lunch. We have physical remains of a tiny fraction of a percent of the genera of creatures alive at that time. Claiming that one can then have a moderately comprehensive knowledge of the biosphere is as silly as claiming that you're familiar with New York because you've seen a souvenir ashtray with "New York" printed on the bottom. And fer chrissakes don't get me started on that silly iridium "killer asteroid". But don't try to get a research grant if you think it actually is silly. Science as currently practiced is very conservative. The tenure system may have much to do with it. When Leo Szilard approached Rutherford, a very Eminent Man in atomic physics, with his idea that, in the right circumstances, nuclear decays could lead to a sustained chain reaction, Rutherford threw him out of his office. Now, of course, even third world pit-holes like Iran know all about it.

On the other hand there was the energetic Charles Fort, who documented - in four substantial books packed with tedious detail - his conviction that science hadn't a clue as to how the world functions. He wasn't exactly right, either.

It's all very interesting, particularly on a dull Saturday.

Evan
11-11-2006, 03:18 PM
Of course, saying that we don't know what we don't know is a tautology. What we do know does allow us to place bounds on what we don't know.

For instance, it appears that the universe does not allow effect to preceed cause. On the face of it this makes sense but that isn't sufficient criteria to accept it is so. However, numerous experiments of many different sorts have confirmed this to be so. While it may be remotely possible that there are special circumstances where it isn't true it also appears that if such circumstances exist they will also prevent consequences that violate causality.

The idea of cause always preceeding effect is not only common sense it is crucial to the idea that nothing material (including energy) may exceed the velocity of light. Having this as a basis of what we know allows us to make predictions about what we don't know. This is how science works.

As an example, postulating that faster than light travel may be possible and we just haven't discovered how to do it would require the entire basis of modern science to be overturned. What we do know we know most of by direct observation of the natural universe, not by mere supposition and thought experiments.

To allow for the possibility of something such as faster than light travel doesn't just imply that we don't know everything, it would imply that we don't know anything and that predictions made based on what we know are worthless. This does not appear to be the case.

The scientific method is always based upon making predictions based on what we know even though our knowledge is incomplete. We sometimes find that the answers to the questions we ask do require revision to what we thought we knew. Sometimes those revisions are paradigm shifts because what we thought we knew was almost entirely wrong. As our knowledge advances the likelyhood of this happening diminishes. The amount of knowledge that we have gained in the last several hundred years far exceeds what we as humans have learned in the previous ~50,000 years since Homo Sapiens first made an appearance.

No matter how much we learn, we will never know everything. There are questions about the universe that are inherently unanswerable and will remain so.

DancingBear
11-11-2006, 07:35 PM
I thought that relativity didn't prohibit traveling at the speed of light, it just prohibits accelerating to the speed of light. But it's been 25 years since my last physics class, so I could be wrong.

And as far as spaceships go, it's a mighty thin distinction anyway.

But that doesn't rule out the possibility that there's ways to exploit the curvature of space to arrive at a destination sooner than a beam of light would, without actually having a velocity greater than C.

Walt

Evan
11-11-2006, 09:11 PM
I thought that relativity didn't prohibit traveling at the speed of light, it just prohibits accelerating to the speed of light. But it's been 25 years since my last physics class, so I could be wrong.

It doesn't. Light travels at the speed of light and light has energy and momentum. Otherwise it is a pretty fine hair to split since accelerating mass to the speed of light in a vacuum requires infinite energy. That sounds like an unbreakable rule to me.

As for taking advantage of the curvature of space, that presumes it has a curvature you can take advantage of. It appears now that space is either flat or even hyperbolic which would mean, in the case of flat, that there are no shortcuts. If hyperbolic then the "shortcuts" would be "longcuts" instead.

It has been speculated that it might be possible to "fold" space, as in some sort of wormhole. It has also been calculated that to accomplish this would take energy exceeding the entire output of our galaxy, it it were even possible. Not very practical.

The basic problem with FTL travel, as I alluded to prior, is the unresolvable causality paradox it creates.

Let's say we are standing off from the planet Aldeberan at a distance of ten light minutes. The Millenium Falcon breaks out of FTL hyperdrive to find the planet has just been destroyed by the Death Star. Luke calls us on the hyperspace instantaneous radio to tell us this.

We look through our telescope and see no such thing. We see Aldeberan as it was ten minutes ago. The light showing it's demise has not arrived at our location yet.

We throw our ship into FTL hyperdrive and make the trip to Aldeberan in just one minute. This is where the problems begin.

If we only take a minute of travel time then we have advanced into our future by one minute. In that case we should arrive at Aldeberan 9 minutes in it's past and it will still be intact. We blow up the Death Star so it can't blow up Aldeberan.

Now we have a case of effect preceeding cause. The hyperspace radio call that alerted us to the situation is the effect. Because of it we are able to prevent the cause. This is an unresolvable paradox.

In all cases being able to travel faster than light amounts to time travel and immediately produces such paradoxes.

BillH
11-11-2006, 09:16 PM
The answer is out there, I think it just requires a few more revisions to our laws of physics once we have a better understanding of just how things work. Not in my life time.

Mcgyver
12-14-2006, 02:02 PM
Only by the uninformed general population. The scientists knew it was a globe as long as over 2000 years ago and even measured the size. Science discovers the rules that govern the universe. We have discovered many of them. We must presume that they apply everywhere and to everything. All evidence supports this. Any other presumption is to presume that magic governs the universe and that no rules apply. In that case the pursuit of knowledge is futile.

While scientists have obviously been wrong before and will be wrong again that isn't the same as throwing out all that we think we know.

stubbled on this oldish one....

yes and currently many string theory scientists believe there are a multitude of dimension, and existence in which we cannot fathom. Perhaps 2000 years from now as an alien ducks behind a molecule ala douglas adams for quick visit with his mom 12m light years away, they will say the same thing! imo your analysis of must be faster or slower than light is a little to absolute and fails to include all kinds of things like what is the dimensional structure of the universe, time and space.

nobody understands this stuff completely (least of all me :)), new ideas are emerging but not completely developed. for some of them, the mathematics or computational horsepower to further developed or disprove does not yet exist. you reference magic, but it doesn't take much reading of current thought in physics to conclude reality is much stranger than magic or fantasy! quantum mechanics and string theory in partiular. I believe there is structure and consistency and it is not futile, but also that we are only starting to peel back the layers and what might seem 'magic' today (or 100 or 1000 years ago) can easily be understood or revealled in the science of tomorrow.

a few to quotes to humble our certainty

Space travel is bunk."
-- Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of the UK, 1957

"To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the controlling gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can make scientific observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to earth--all that constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage will never occur regardless of all future advances."
-- Lee deForest, American radio pioneer and inventor of the vacuum tube, 1957


"Space travel is utter bilge."
-- Dr. Richard van der Reit Wooley, UK space advisor to the government, 1956

Evan
12-14-2006, 03:13 PM
Important people have made important mistakes before and will continue to do so. It doesn't change the fact that the universe does have limits, absolute limits. There are many things that simply cannot be done regardless of how easy it is to imagine doing them.

Faster than light travel poses certain problems that are unresolveable within the entire framework of science as we know it. To accept faster than light travel, no matter the means, is to collapse the foundations of current science.

This is highly unlikely. Our science is founded on observation of first principles. Conclusions are drawn from those observations and explanations derived. Our explanations of how things work are based on observing how things work.

As I stated before, the notion of causality is the foundation of everything we know and underpins all of science. Faster than light travel or even communication produces the possibility of effect without cause. Revoking this concept requires us to abandon even the simplest of scientific concepts and offers nothing whatever to replace it. Causality is a fundamental part of how the universe operates.

Causality can appear to be violated at the quantum level but never, it seems, in ways that allow for paradoxes to occur. It is so far apparent that the universe "hides" anything that will result in a causality violation, such as a naked singularity. A singularity is postulated to exist inside a black hole and were it not behind the event horizon it would allow for causality violation. The event horizon produced by gravity "shields" the rest of the universe from the possibility.

The special theory of relativity prohibits causality violations from becoming apparent. It is the single most tested theory in all of science. Those tests are based on direct observation of events predicted by the theory and it always predicts correctly.

It is possible that at high enough energies that local causality violations that usually remain hidden can become macroscopic and this may indeed be an explanation for the appearance of the universe itself. There is room in the special theory for this sort of relationship. It is taken into account in the calculations of the energy theoretically required to open a wormhole in spacetime and keep it stable. The size of the wormhole dictates the amount of energy required. For a wormhole with an opening of ~one meter it has been calculated that it would take the entire energy output of a galaxy to establish such.

It is unlikely to say the least that we will ever command such energies. It is equally unlikely that any other beings that we would recognize as a life form could do so either. Any entity that could do so would be have to be regarded as God.

rfrey
12-14-2006, 03:54 PM
It is unlikely to say the least that we will ever command such energies. It is equally unlikely that any other beings that we would recognize as a life form could do so either. Any entity that could do so would be have to be regarded as God.

Oh, great, now you've done it. Now somebody's going to break out that hackneyed old "suitably advanced technology indistinguishable from magic" quote.

Evan
12-14-2006, 04:04 PM
I think someone already did...

Norman Atkinson
12-14-2006, 04:50 PM
Oh, you poor benighted fools if you give any credibility to such guff.

In the years long before most of you were born, British Intelligence amongst other similar institutions spread stories about all sorts of things. The expert on it was Joseph Goebbels and we had his side kick William Joyce as Lord Haw Haw and you had Tokyo Rose. After the War, we hung Joyce which came as a bit - well, unBritish, not cricket, I say , old boy, not on. We had enjoyed his rubbish as if he had to revert to such tripe, we must be on a level score or just imagine, Winning!!!!!!
Spreading gossip is the finest cover for something else. We gave bomber crews carrots to see in the dark to cover the improved bomb aiming.
We built wooden bombs to destroy fake wooden German tanks, air fields etc.
The Brits are good at bull$hit. The classics are the Wooden Horse of Troy but the Great Escape at Stalag Luft 3 re- enacted the Wooden Horse concept.
In a less dramatic way, I was part of another Wooden Horse which has taken more than 50 years to be admitted.We were simply- well, we were!

Coming back to the topic, there is something to conceal- yet again. There always is. Maybe there are actually extra terrestial whatsits- but this guy in the Daily Mail has some to cover.But it ain't funny people with their own spaceships---------as well as ours( oops)

Sleep well, the boggieman might catch you.

Norm

old-biker-uk
12-14-2006, 05:19 PM
I'm inclined to go with Stephen Hawking commenting on 'alien' crop circles -
'When they [aliens] come , we will know & it will probably be very messy"
Mark

HTRN
12-14-2006, 05:29 PM
Evan, simple answer, make Star Trek reality, except for the communist no money idea and no personal material wealth. Actually Star Wars, I want a light saber, and to choke liberals remotely. Hmm think its time for another Percocet.

Darth Vader/2008!


HTRN

madman
12-14-2006, 05:45 PM
Well i was up north. Out with the boys fishing. They were telling me straightfaced (theyre a honest bunch) that Joey had seen a UFO one night take off right out of a lake. He was out with his girlfriend trying to get some he said out in the way back in the bush. They saw light and crawled over a hill to see and a gigantic round glowing disc shot straight up and hovered (said scared him to death he wont ever go back out there he said) and took off. This started a discussion as to what type of weapon we could build to bring down such a craft. Later we had some beers and forgot about it aliens need to have some fun too we figured. Guys said theyre stealing our water. HM

BobWarfield
12-14-2006, 06:38 PM
Nah, they aren't stealing our water, they're terraforming our Earth to fit the climate they're more accustomed to. That's the real source of global warming!

Best,

BW

pntrbl
12-14-2006, 06:40 PM
Interesting stuff. Especially Norm!

The SETI program has been listening for some kind of organized noise from space for years now and has found nothing but random. That has to be taken in the context that we as a planet only started emitting organized radio waves 150 years ago tho. So anything more than 150 light years away, which is a drop in the proverbial bucket, hasn't been able to hear us either. I think it's safe to say that if there's life out there as intelligent as our own it ain't nearby.

The scary thing is to realize we live on the eggshell thin cooled off crust of an 8,000 mile dia. ball of molten rock with something akin to a soapbubble's width of an atmosphere that we are totally dependent on, while spinning wildly thru a debris field around some sort of nuclear furnace.

I'm surprised and eternally grateful to find we're still here! Aliens are are the least of our worries.

SP

Lew Hartswick
12-14-2006, 06:50 PM
In the year 1491, it was presumed the world was flat.

Kap

Evan beat me to it, shucks. I never seem to get a chance to rebut things
like that. :-)
...lew...

Lew Hartswick
12-14-2006, 06:56 PM
Sorry I forgot Its been too long. :-(

madman
12-15-2006, 05:16 PM
Word on the street a big honkin meteorite or asteroid (whats the diff?) is gonna colide with us (planet earth) that year. End of life scenario. I got my waste oil fueled survival shelter ready with the best party supplies i could collect for those years of near comotose hibernation. Probably all die any hows but ill go smiling. Mike (PS any young nubile honeys that wanna come live underground with me can apply) Gonna have to repopulate the earth again. That will be a dirty job but Ill be around 64 years old and hopefully still kicking a bit.

Norman Atkinson
12-15-2006, 05:30 PM
And

Rex Regum et Dominus Dominorum?
Well if Evan can have a quick burst on his banjo or is he drinking his ear drops- so can I

Cheers

Norm

Mad Scientist
12-15-2006, 06:58 PM
If you are contently flying along in you spaceship at the speed of light and you turn on the headlights, what happens? :D

andy_b
12-15-2006, 09:06 PM
The basic problem with FTL travel, as I alluded to prior, is the unresolvable causality paradox it creates.

Let's say we are standing off from the planet Aldeberan at a distance of ten light minutes. The Millenium Falcon breaks out of FTL hyperdrive to find the planet has just been destroyed by the Death Star. Luke calls us on the hyperspace instantaneous radio to tell us this.

We look through our telescope and see no such thing. We see Aldeberan as it was ten minutes ago. The light showing it's demise has not arrived at our location yet.

We throw our ship into FTL hyperdrive and make the trip to Aldeberan in just one minute. This is where the problems begin.

If we only take a minute of travel time then we have advanced into our future by one minute. In that case we should arrive at Aldeberan 9 minutes in it's past and it will still be intact. We blow up the Death Star so it can't blow up Aldeberan.

Now we have a case of effect preceeding cause. The hyperspace radio call that alerted us to the situation is the effect. Because of it we are able to prevent the cause. This is an unresolvable paradox.

In all cases being able to travel faster than light amounts to time travel and immediately produces such paradoxes.

i know this is an older thread, and i am no physicist, but to me i don't see a paradox. first, i don't believe all the crap about time dilation, length contraction, or just because you go faster than light means you move through time. as pointed out several times in this thread, there were many theories that "proved" things that were later disproven.

the way i look at it, let's say it's 10:00. Luke is orbiting Aldeberan and sees it explode. Han is 10-light minutes away. Luke contacts him on the subspace radio and the message gets to Han in a minute (10:01). Han kicks it into 10x hyperdrive and gets to Aldeberan in a minute. i don't care what anyone tells me, Han arrives there at 10:02, not 9:51. the planet is destroyed and there's nothing anyone is going to do about it. just because you get to the planet before the light gets to where you were, doesn't mean what already happened didn't happen.

oh, and i believe gravity travels faster than light, i just have no way to prove it. :)

andy b.

Evan
12-15-2006, 11:16 PM
first, i don't believe all the crap about time dilation, length contraction, or just because you go faster than light means you move through time.

Time dilation is very well proven experimentally. Clocks have been flown on jets and shown to run slower than clocks that stay on the ground. Similar experiments have been done with satellites. In fact, if time dilation weren't taken into account GPS wouldn't work at all. Further, GPS must also take into account the fact that the satellites and their onboard clocks are farther out of the gravity well than clocks on the surface. This makes the clocks run faster while the time dilation of their motion makes them run slower. It doesn't equal out though so a correction is made by making the clocks run a bit slower than they would on the ground. This keeps them synchronized with the ground based clocks. These aren't small effects either. If the corrections were not made GPS locations would drift by hundreds of meters per day.

The time travel aspect occurs because events that are physically separated in space are also separated in time. This is so even if the speed of light is not considered. It could be any speed other than instantaneous. If travel and communication takes time, any time at all, then time is and must be a purely local phenomenon. It is impossible in that case to say it is the same time elsewhere as here since there is no way to verify it.

Because of this if we are removed from an event by a distance we are in that event's past and it is in our future, regardless of the time it takes for travel or communication.

If we accept that the universe has any sort of speed limit then simultanaeity is dependent on the observer. It doesn't matter what the speed limit is. If we don't accept that then the only possibility is that truly instantaneous travel and communication is possible. Again, there is no reason to think so, no evidence for it, and no theory or hypothesis to support the idea. The idea of instantaneous communication and/or travel also collapses everything we have learned since all the evidence is to the contrary.