NationStates Jolt Archive

Once again, are you positing that the conspiracy to cover-up aliens on earth is led by a tiny cabal, or by a large swathe of the government?

You seem to be talking as if 'they' can do whatever 'they' want; that 'they' are capable of pulling the wool over not only the public's eyes, but the eyes of the rest of the US government, not to mention the intelligence services of any number of nations.

It doesn't add up.

How hard is it for a man in a dark suit to TELL a sheriff what he REALLY saw? Coverup completed in time for breakfast.

I'm quoting this because I think it needs to be repeated.

A post referring to what some people said in an unnamed and unlinked documentary, on the history channel, needs to be repeated? Liberal atheists show superior logic again!

How hard is it for a man in a dark suit to "TELL a sheriff what he REALLY saw? Coverup completed in time for breakfast.

It doesn't APPEAR to work on YOU, so why would it WORK on anyone ELSE?

That 100s of species, just on this planet are new formed and go extinct every day. So you think there is even the slightest chance of creatures on earth to have the same genetic makeup (actually be the same species) anscreatures on other planets?

Do you have the slightest bit of evidence that it's even possible?But you have no evidence of this, because we have never seen an extra-terrestrial. Therefore we can not make the comparison. They could be exactly like us. It's highly unlikely, but we can't say one way or the other because we lack evidence of any kind.

A post referring to what some people said in an unnamed and unlinked documentary, on the history channel, needs to be repeated? Liberal atheists show superior logic again!The last thing this forum needs is another troll. Especially a sub par one. You have no idea what my political leanings or religious preference is.

This from the man who is arguing that the mathematical possibility in an infinite universe of alien races evolving is 100%. Given your own argument, how can you argue that it's not a statistical certainty? Without compromising your already laughably obliterated position?

I didnt see any tangable rebuttle.

The last thing this forum needs is another troll. Especially a sub par one.

Please do not insult me.


You have no idea what my political leanings or religious preference is.

I am sorry, this is the second time I have done this, I must not pretend to be God and act as judge. I shall flagellate for a second time.

It doesn't APPEAR to work on YOU, so why would it WORK on anyone ELSE?

Because I dont buy into bullshit!

I didnt see any tangable rebuttle.

Quite. Liberal atheists should learn from Dragontide, he has clearly shown superior and enlightened awareness and understanding. While his conclusion about the liberal atheist truth cover-up is wrong (it is God, not aliens), you can still learn from him.

I didnt see any tangable rebuttle.

If you argue that it is impossible for species identical to those on Earth to evolve elsewhere in the galaxy, then I argue that it is impossible for intelligent life to have evolved on a planet other than Earth. Both suppositions depend on the exact same assumption that, in the infinite cosmos, there exist enough chances for both to occur.

For you to maintain logical consistency, you are REQUIRED to accept either both or neither.

Because I dont buy into bullshit!

Yet you assume everyone else would. Fail more.

If you argue that it is impossible for species identical to those on Earth to evolve elsewhere in the galaxy, then I argue that it is impossible for intelligent life to have evolved on a planet other than Earth. Both suppositions depend on the exact same assumption that, in the infinite cosmos, there exist enough chances for both to occur.

For you to maintain logical consistency, you are REQUIRED to accept either both or neither.

EXACTLY the same? That would means ALL the planets would have had to began their evolution at exactly the same time. Every weather pattern would be exactly the same. If a flea bites an ox on Earth, an exact duplicate of that flea will bite an exact duplicate of the ox at exactly the same time?..... Otherwise, things would evolve differently and there would most likely be uncurable diseases on most life bearing planets which would explain a quest for medcine from other worlds....hell we quarantine folks that only went to the moon!

Because I dont buy into bullshit!
How are you immune when others, from ourselves to sheriffs to farmhands, aren't?

Maybe you should look into just how many possibilities there are when it comes to things like evolution and mutation. Why would other planets have cows (just like ours) or newts or oysters or poodles or rice or.....

If you think I'm over reaching - why would these 'aliens' have technology that enables them to travel multiple lightyears through space, undetected, with astounding regularity...

...but they're apparently too stupid to take TWO cows, and breed their own.

How are you immune when others, from ourselves to sheriffs, aren't?

Typically liberal atheists have minds corrupted by demonic forces, they cannot appreciate the evidence that scientific organisations like NASA try and cover up. Dragontide is on the path to finding the truth, for now he assumes aliens, but the truth he must seek is GOD!

EXACTLY the same? That would means ALL the planets would have had to began their evolution at exactly the same time. Every weather pattern would be exactly the same. If a flea bites an ox on Earth, an exact duplicate of that flea will bite an exact duplicate of the ox at exactly the same time?..... Otherwise, things would evolve differently and there would most likely be uncurable diseases on most life bearing planets which would explain a quest for medcine from other worlds....heell we quarantine folks that only went to the moon!

And in the infinite cosmos, those odds move to statistical certainty. Like I said, it relies on the exact same assumption. If you are unable to admit that it is POSSIBLE for another planet to have evolved identically to Earth, then you are being intellectually dishonest, since your entire basis for the existence of aliens relies on this statistical certainty.

What biblical truths has NASA covered up?
Oh, man. Man. You really didn't know? I mean, it's the XXI century. Every child knows that by now.


http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13876.msg650025#msg650025

A: NASA did not send rockets into space; instead, they spent a fraction of their funding on developing increasingly advanced computers and imaging software to cover their lies.

A: Although their main objective can only be speculated upon, the most favored theory is that of financial gain. In a nutshell, it would logically cost much less to fake a space program than to actually have one... so those in on the Conspiracy profit from the funding NASA and other space agencies receive from the government.

A post referring to what some people said in an unnamed and unlinked documentary, on the history channel, needs to be repeated? Liberal atheists show superior logic again!

http://shop.history.com/detail.php?a=71863

I can't link to the footage itself, but there's a link to the product if you want to obtain a copy for yourself.

Or, alternatively, do what I did, and wait till they repeat it.

http://shop.history.com/detail.php?a=71863

I can't link to the footage itself, but there's a link to the product if you want to obtain a copy for yourself.

Or, alternatively, do what I did, and wait till they repeat it.

I have no interest in liberal atheist propaganda.

Oh, man. Man. You really didn't know? I mean, it's the XXI century. Every child knows that by now.


http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13876.msg650025#msg650025

A: NASA did not send rockets into space; instead, they spent a fraction of their funding on developing increasingly advanced computers and imaging software to cover their lies.

A: Although their main objective can only be speculated upon, the most favored theory is that of financial gain. In a nutshell, it would logically cost much less to fake a space program than to actually have one... so those in on the Conspiracy profit from the funding NASA and other space agencies receive from the government.How could I forget that? I am shamed...

And in the infinite cosmos, those odds move to statistical certainty. .

Now let's explore more likely sceneros. JUST the 1-4 hundred billion stars in our galaxy. If 1/10,000% of them has inteligent life, that's 1-4 million planets.

I have no interest in liberal atheist propaganda.

Stop being a troll.

Now let's explore more likely sceneros. JUST the 1-4 hundred billion stars in our galaxy. If 1/10,000% of them has inteligent life, that's 1-4 million planets.But in an infinite universe, it is certain that somewhere there is an identical planet to Earth, right down to this ridiculous thread.

But in an infinite universe, it is certain that somewhere there is an identical planet to Earth, right down to this ridiculous thread.

That called a parallel universe. Different subjet.

So no one can find these satanic cult surgens in a helicopter. Dont fret. They do not exist.

Stop being a troll.

Please refrain from insulting me. I believe this could constitute a flame, but I shall not report you.

Now let's explore more likely sceneros. JUST the 1-4 hundred billion stars in our galaxy. If 1/10,000% of them has inteligent life, that's 1-4 million planets.

1 in 10,000? What do you base that on?

That called a parallel universe. Different subjet.

So no one can find these satanic cult surgens in a helicopter. Dont fret. They do not exist.So you ignored that bit where they examined the corpses and found nothing that couldn't be explained with a predatory/decomposition explanation?

And no, if this universe is infinite, somewhere in it in time (will)exist(s)(ed) the identical match of this planet. Not a parallel universe, this universe.

Please refrain from insulting me. I believe this could constitute a flame, but I shall not report you.

Given the fact that you've already had a thread deleted for being spam, that you've posted this same pseudo-religious claptrap in a variety of different threads where it had no relevance, and that you're contribution to which I responded is an obviously trollish 'liberal atheist' conspiracy nonsense, I welcome you reporting me.

I'm sorry, but if you don't like being told not to troll, you could simply not troll. See how that fits you.

1 in 10,000? What do you base that on?The same thing as all his other claims. Nothing.

that you've posted this same pseudo-religious claptrap in a variety of different threads where it had no relevance

The truth is always relevant.

The truth is always relevant.

Argue it with moderation. I've wasted enough time on you.

Argue it with moderation. I've wasted enough time on you.

As I said, I will not take it to moderation, I think the case is settled.

A post referring to what some people said in an unnamed and unlinked documentary, on the history channel, needs to be repeated? Liberal atheists show superior logic again!

Quite. Liberal atheists should learn from Dragontide, he has clearly shown superior and enlightened awareness and understanding. While his conclusion about the liberal atheist truth cover-up is wrong (it is God, not aliens), you can still learn from him.

Typically liberal atheists have minds corrupted by demonic forces, they cannot appreciate the evidence that scientific organisations like NASA try and cover up. Dragontide is on the path to finding the truth, for now he assumes aliens, but the truth he must seek is GOD!

"Liberal atheists", "Liberal atheists", "Liberal atheists" *squawk*; is all I'm hearing in these posts; in these posts which seek to deliberately get a rise out of a certain group of people who don't hold the same beliefs as you; people who question them, in order to avoid answering questions legitmately. This is nothing more than a thin-veiled attempt of flamebaiting.

Definition:

Flamebait: Posts that are made with the aim of angering someone indirectly. Not outright flame, but still liable to bring angry replies. Flame baiting is a far more subtle and covert action; it is an underhanded tactic that is designed to provoke a response from another player. It's in the same context of trolling but with flamebaiting it's just the one person.

One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

Consider this a warning.

I am sorry, once again. Please suggest a term that will convey the same meaning, but that does not constitute flamebait, so I can go on to be a productive and rule abiding member of the forum.

As I said, I will not take it to moderation, I think the case is settled.

Hey yall, it was Yumv that chased away all the invisable satanic witchdoctors with wings with her God talk. I guess all the cows will be safe now!

So you ignored that bit where they examined the corpses and found nothing that couldn't be explained with a predatory/decomposition explanation? With not one single drop of blood spilled in the hundreds of times it has happened over the decades, your darn tootin I ignored it!


And no, if this universe is infinite, somewhere in it in time (will)exist(s)(ed) the identical match of this planet. Not a parallel universe, this universe.

Fine. I'll give you that one. (since its irrelevant)

With not one single drop of blood spilled in the hundreds of times it has happened over the decades...
Your proof of this being...?

EDIT: Some of the cases of mutilated cows have allegedly had no blood spilt (or "present"), but by no means all of them.

There's no consistent account for the mutilations.

Yea! NOW! Not from the 60s thru the 90s and God know how much earlier than that.

Soldering irons existed well before the 60s, and electrically heated metal components even earlier. You have nothing and further demonstrate your utter lack of ability to form a coherent argument.


And never with a soldering iron. Organs removed. All the blood gone. Not one drop spilled. No foot prints. Just blind whacked out idiots who didn't want to make a thorough investigation and jump on the alien bandwagon.

Fixed for accuracy.

Or It's just an alien doing research.

No. It was the spaghetti god, who is every bit as provable as your little green men, playing tricks with your fragile creationist styled minds that categorically reject logic in manufacturing pathetic excuses to justify unfounded beliefs.

Your proof of this being...?
http://www.crystalinks.com/animal_mutilation.html
Cattle Mutilation Phenomena refers to thousands of cases in North America


EDIT: Some of the cases of mutilated cows have allegedly had no blood spilt (or "present"), but by no means all of them.

There's no consistent account for the mutilations.

That's because SOME of them actually were mauled by Coyotes and whatnots, but those reports dont mention sightings and/or crop circles.

I think we can all agree on one thing. Since this has been an issue for so many years, there should be one of two websites available:

www(dot)UFOsarereal(dot)gov
or
www(dot)UFOhoax(dot)gov

With ALL the data available. (now that the major powers have found recent common ground and share many common goals)

http://www.crystalinks.com/animal_mutilation.html
That does not constitute proof.

That constitutes largely unsourced claims and wild speculation.

I think we can all agree on one thing. Since this has been an issue for so many years, there should be one of two websites available...
But why, if you don't accept the government reports currently in the public domain, would you accept the ones that came out on this hypothetical site?

It appears as if you've made up your mind about the whole affair, and are waiting for the US government to confirm it.

http://www.crystalinks.com/animal_mutilation.html




That's because SOME of them actually were mauled by Coyotes and whatnots, but those reports dont mention sightings and/or crop circles.

I think we can all agree on one thing. Since this has been an issue for so many years, there should be one of two websites available:

www(dot)UFOsarereal(dot)gov
or
www(dot)UFOhoax(dot)gov

With ALL the data available. (now that the major powers have found recent common ground and share many common goals)

And if this website was created, and didn't support your preconceptions, you would just scream conspiracy some more. What's the point in trying to convince you when you're so stubbornly entrenched in your opinions that you've abandoned even the pretenses of logic and reasoning? Anything that doesn't conform to what you've already decided is dismissed without even a second look. In short, you're hopeless, and there's no point in the government trying to convince you of anything.

That does not constitute proof.

That constitutes largely unsourced claims and wild speculation.


But why, if you don't accept the government reports currently in the public domain, would you accept the ones that came out on this hypothetical site?

It appears as if you've made up your mind about the whole affair, and are waiting for the US government to confirm it.

I want to know what is on those documents that Bill Clinton requested when he became president. So does he.

And if this website was created, and didn't support your preconceptions, you would just scream conspiracy some more. What's the point in trying to convince you when you're so stubbornly entrenched in your opinions that you've abandoned even the pretenses of logic and reasoning? Anything that doesn't conform to what you've already decided is dismissed without even a second look. In short, you're hopeless, and there's no point in the government trying to convince you of anything.

Then where are the witchdoctors? They have to exist in great quanity or something else drained those cows. It's pretty simple.

With not one single drop of blood spilled in the hundreds of times it has happened over the decades, your darn tootin I ignored it!So were the examiners part of the conspiracy?

I want to know what is on those documents that Bill Clinton requested when he became president.
That would be the documents that Ryan, 13, from Belfast, requested Clinton get for him (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSMhNk8wSng&feature=related).

Then where are the witchdoctors? They have to exist in great quanity or something else drained those cows. It's pretty simple.
The choice isn't between cultists and aliens; there's a whole range of things that could have happened to the poor beasties.

What a lot of folks in this thread are confused about is why you jump to assume that the explanation for many phenomena is alien intervention.

Then where are the witchdoctors? They have to exist in great quanity or something else drained those cows. It's pretty simple.And you still have not made a convincing argument that the something was aliens.

That would be the documents that Ryan, 13, from Belfast, requested Clinton get for him (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSMhNk8wSng&feature=related).


Well of course he didn't pony up. Ryan was a proddie.

And you still have not made a convincing argument that the something was aliens.

That is correct. I have explained what it is not. If you read all I've posted, please tell what's left? What else could it be?

Take your time because Vicar of Dibley is coming on in a few.

I won't won't won't won't....will be back in a bit! :D

Then where are the witchdoctors? They have to exist in great quanity or something else drained those cows. It's pretty simple.

Who claimed witchdoctors? Stop dealing with strawman and form a real argument. Cows drained of their blood is no more evidence of aliens as it is evidence of vampires. Are you arguing that vampires are real?

That is correct. I have explained what it is not. If you read all I've posted, please tell what's left? What else could it be?

Take your time because Vicar of Dibley is coming on in a few.

I won't won't won't won't....will be back in a bit! :DThis is where the snag is. You claim that it was alien. The proof of that claim is on you. It is quite an extraordinary claim, so it requires extraordinary evidence. And you've ignored, not debunked, other more simple explanations such as predators and attention grabbing farmers. Do you think the people who examined the corpses and determined they were caused by predators are actually part of a conspiracy? Or do you believe they were lying? Why do you dismiss their analysis?

That is correct. I have explained what it is not. If you read all I've posted, please tell what's left? What else could it be?
Almost an infinite amount of natural or supernatural causes (provided you believe in the supernatural).


Well of course he didn't pony up. Ryan was a proddie.
*high fives*

Almost an infinite amount of natural or supernatural causes (provided you believe in the supernatural).


It was you Chumbly, going around mutilating cows to play tricks on Dragontide's malleable mind. Tricksies Chumbly! :p

I'd be willing to hear him out.

It was you Chumbly...
Nice one.

Give the game away, why don't you!

*grumbles*

Almost an infinite amount of natural or supernatural causes (provided you believe in the supernatural).


Which natural causes?

Do you know of any examples that look as real as this one?

You could fake that with two hours and some video software. It's points of lighter green moving across a darker green background, with the occasional other mark.

Even if you assume it was filmed, look at the V shape those 'ships' are making. On infrared, a flock of geese would look like that. Next?

Now let's explore more likely sceneros. JUST the 1-4 hundred billion stars in our galaxy. If 1/10,000% of them has inteligent life, that's 1-4 million planets.

Myself from previous threads on this subject. Note that if your assumption of 1/10000 stars has intelligent life still implies there is less than a 0.2% chance another intelligent lifeform exists within 50 light years, which is the maximum distance for communication to have occurred.

I find the numbers interesting, and if anything I suspect they may be on the low side, especially if we go for "total alien civilisations in our galaxy, including those which have ceased for some reason".

On the other hand, even with the highest number they suggest - 38000 - and rounding it up - 40000 - we still have life as a vanishingly rare phenomenon. Presuming there are roughly 200000000000 (2E11) stars in the Milky Way, we have the percentage of inhabited stars as 0.00002%.

This would gel rather well with the fact that we haven't encountered any sort of reasonable evidence for an alien civilisation yet (and that's presuming we would recognise alien lifeforms when we saw them).

Cunning observations on life - I like it.

As for the apparent lack of life on habitable planets, I point to a few factors. Firstly, we have only yet discovered one such planet. While they are more common than some people had expected, they are definitely not cluttering the place up.

Secondly, there is the actual chance that life arises. Even with a planet potentially habitable, we don't have the faintest idea how likely it is that life will form there, and that this will develop into an advanced civilisation (c.f. my comments on the Drake Equation in previous threads).

Thirdly, there is still a wonderfully simple explanation - they're too far away. There are approximately 13500 stars within 100 light years of us. Narrowing to 50 ly to allow for a response, this reduces to only 1700 stars or so. From wikipedia, roughly 10% of stars are like the sun, and from here (http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/releases/ssc2008-05/release.shtml), we note that up to about 60% of sun-like stars could form rocky planets. Thus with a lot of rash assumptions, and completely ignoring binary systems, we might assume there are 100 star systems vaguely like ours within 50 light years. While we obviously have only one data point on the subject, I would submit that the chance that two such systems have independently developed civilisations capable of radio communication at the same time is incredibly small*. Thus we shouldn't expect to see any transmission from extraterrestrials, even if they exist**.

*Say, for the purpose of argument, that the chance an Earth-like planet forms life is 1%. This already cuts it down to about one - us. I have no idea where to even start with the time corrections, but an age difference of even a few million years - nothing on a galactic scale - would probably ensure that the other civilisation will never cross tracks with us.

**The same (very rough) numbers I've been arguing from should show why I believe this as well. Even given the same rash assumptions about distribution of rocky planets, we could still expect there to be about 12 billion rocky planets orbiting sun-like stars in the galaxy (presuming 200 million stars). Given even 0.1% chance of any life forming, and a further 0.1% chance of that life developing into technological civilisation, that still leaves 12000 technological civilisations or so in our galaxy.

Edit: I hope I've been clear with how rough many of these numbers are - we simply don't have the data to provide accurate figures for many of these. If you'd care to suggest better approximations, please do so. If you wish to enquire about how I computed any figures, or sources for figures, do ask.

It's just a figure pulled out of thin air, because I don't think it's particularly likely that life will arise on a planet, even if said planet is a rocky planet orbiting a single sun-like star. Habitable zone, bad galactic neighbourhood, freak meteorites, generic bad luck, etc. Naturally, it's extremely disputable.

However, even if one argues that all Earth like planets will form life eventually, the widely differing ages of planets should still easily ensure that there are no other technological civilisations near us*. A fact backed up by the observation that we have not yet picked up any radio signals from a seemingly artificial source, despite some years of watching for them.

For the other recent threads, try UFO in Wichita! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=583145), There are at least 361 intelligent alien civilisations... (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=582531), and Xenopolicy (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=582637). And for future reference, don't try and compose such posts in elinks...

*Note that I feel technological civilisations/intelligent species will tend to self destruct reasonable rapidly, compared to others.

I also recommend reading the threads linked to in this last post, where TRR and I spent several pages talking about interstellar travel and communication. Note also that if, as I feel I have demonstrated, it is effectively impossible for life to travel between stars, then all of your contentions about crop circles and mutilation must have alternate explanations. If you wish for aliens to be the explanation, you have to disprove me and demonstrate how they could have done it.

Myself from previous threads on this subject. Note that if your assumption of 1/10000 stars has intelligent life still implies there is less than a 0.2% chance another intelligent lifeform exists within 50 light years, which is the maximum distance for communication to have occurred.


Could you fill me in on what communication distance has to do with it? If were talking about light speed ships or beings that live for millions of years. that would be irrelevant, wouldnt it?

Could you fill me in on what communication distance has to do with it? If were talking about light speed ships or beings that live for millions of years. that would be irrelevant, wouldnt it?

First,I should make it clear that I am assuming all the known laws of physics apply universally, because otherwise it's impossible to carry out any sort of useful speculation. In particular, it is impossible to transmit information faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.

Now, for aliens to even consider visiting us, they must first have some way of knowing we are here (this is another assumption, but if it isn't true, they would be expanding evenly in every direction, which takes much longer). We as a species have only been emitting radio signals that are obviously artificial for, at most, 100 years - roughly the date when Marconi made his first transmissions (this is a fairly arbitrary choice, as they were very weak signals, but still works nicely as a symbolic choice). This therefore means that only alien species within 100 light years could have possibly found out about our existence and that we are intelligent beings.

Presume that if an alien species were to get a radio signal of some sort from us, they instantly sent a light-speed response of some sort (instead of debating and politicking about it for a while). Even so, were they more than 50 light years away, they could not have both received a signal from us and sent a response. Hence we can discard them from our reckoning at this time, as we need only concern ourselves with alien civilisations which might have possibly been able to communicate with us.

In my previous post, I presented the calculations I used to determine how many stars, sun-like stars, planets, and potentially habitable planets there are within this radius. I then used your completely baseless figure for the percentage of stars with intelligent life, applied it to the number of stars in 50 ly, and determined the chance one of them could also have intelligent life, and hence the chance some alien civilisation could have communicated with us. It was rather small.

I've just realised that I was two orders of magnitude out, as you had a % sign. The chance, therefore, given your own assumptions about how common life is, is 0.002% that there is an alien civilisation present which could have possibly communicated with us. Given any reasonable assumptions for th speed of interstellar travel, the chance becomes vanishingly tiny that they could have sent a ship to us - a fact backed up by the fact we have detected no such ship, when it would have been almost impossible not to. Hence, we can discard the possibility of extraterrestrial visitation at this time in our history.

Well still 1-4 hundred billion planets in the Milky Way. The likelyhood % could still be very high.

So a most likely scenero for communication would be relay stations. (now that would be funny as hell if they also had to pay roaming charges) :tongue:

Since so much of the UFO debate has been covered in this thread, we shouldnt leave out transportation. Can they go warp-9 like in Star Trek or use jump gates? Magnetic propulsion? Or do they just live for millions of years and and conduct 100,000 year missions?

Well still 1-4 hundred billion planets in the Milky Way. The likelyhood % could still be very high.

So a most likely scenero for communication would be relay stations. (now that would be funny as hell if they also had to pay roaming charges) :tongue:

Since so much of the UFO debate has been covered in this thread, we shouldnt leave out transportation. Can they go warp-9 like in Star Trek or use jump gates? Magnetic propulsion? Or do they just live for millions of years and and conduct 100,000 year missions?
The likely hood in the range of 50ly probably isn't that high.

Those are useless speculations to be honest. We haven't seen any credible evidence that aliens have come to Earth, and you want to discuss their transportation methods?

Well still 1-4 hundred billion planets in the Milky Way. The likelyhood % could still be very high.

Doesn't matter - if they are not within 50ly, it is impossible for any communications between us and them to have occurred. I have already explained why, given your own assumptions, the chance is less than 0.002% there is another intelligent civilisation withing 50ly (and given your posts, I'm doubting if there's even one here).


So a most likely scenero for communication would be relay stations. (now that would be funny as hell if they also had to pay roaming charges) :tongue:

Even if you have relay stations, one of those relay stations has to be within 50ly of us. Are you acting dense deliberately here?


Since so much of the UFO debate has been covered in this thread, we shouldnt leave out transportation. Can they go warp-9 like in Star Trek or use jump gates? Magnetic propulsion? Or do they just live for millions of years and and conduct 100,000 year missions?

I already said that I have assumed current physics applies - thus faster than light travel and communication is impossible. If you wish to deny this, be my guest, but don't be surprised if I ignore everything you have to say.

Why are UFO's always crashing or been seen in desolate areas?

Why was there never before an UFO landing on Time Square, NY?

I do believe in aliens. But I don't think they are able to find us, let be silent about reaching us.

Why are most people believing that those aliens are superior to humans? Odds are equal that they are not more than a bunch of morons.

Doesn't matter - if they are not within 50ly, it is impossible for any communications between us and them to have occurred. I have already explained why, given your own assumptions, the chance is less than 0.002% there is another intelligent civilisation withing 50ly (and given your posts, I'm doubting if there's even one here).


That was assuming that only 1 in 10,000 had intelligent life. It could just as easily be one in 10.

Even if you have relay stations, one of those relay stations has to be within 50ly of us. Are you acting dense deliberately here?
I am refering to how THEY would keep in contact with each other while on missions. And with all the ancient hints of UFO's (spacesuit cave drawings and such) I don't think picking up a broadcast is that big of a prerequisite.


I already said that I have assumed current physics applies - thus faster than light travel and communication is impossible. If you wish to deny this, be my guest, but don't be surprised if I ignore everything you have to say.

Dont flatter yourself into thinking your words are that awe inspiring. :rolleyes:

Some of the laws of physics got knocked on their ass when it was discovered that black holes move.

And a multi million year life span would certainly not be out of the question. A housefly lives for a day. Sea turtles and other creatures live up to 100,000x longer.

Which natural causes?
Any number of natural causes; already proposed or not, known to science or not.

Any number of natural causes; already proposed or not, known to science or not.

Any number? Of something that drains every drop of a cow's blood without bite marks? I think you better go back to the witchdoctor theory.

Any number? Of something that drains every drop of a cow's blood without bite marks?
Yes.

Seepage of blood, pooling and natural decomposition are three.

Again, this is all providing that blood is actually not present, and I've seen no documented evidence of this happening on a large scale.

That was assuming that only 1 in 10,000 had inteligent life. It could just as easily be one in 10.

Oh? I already explained, a few posts ago, why such a high estimate would be silly. I did so based on facts. Would you care to show why it could be anywhere near as 1 in 10?


I am refering to how THEY would keep in contact with each other while on missions. And with all the ancient hints of UFO's (spacesuit cave drawings and such) I don't think picking up a broadcast is that big of a prerequisite.


Last time we had a spate of threads on this, I went through a site with a bunch of those pictures, and suggested alternatives for every single image.


Dont flatter yourself into thinking your words are that awe inspiring. :rolleyes:

I don't need to be awe-inspiring, I just need to be right.


Some of the laws of physics got knocked on their ass when it was discovered that black holes move.

Cite, please? That doesn't sound very likely to me at all.


And a multi million year life span would certainly not be out of the question. A housefly lives for a day. Sea turtles and other creatures live up to 100,000x longer.

Never even touched on that. Not that it helps, for several reasons: firstly, interstellar travel still runs into the problem of life support, which is needed even if one's natural life span is nigh on eternal. Secondly, interstellar travel still also runs into the problem of speed - namely, that nothing fitting the current laws of physics will give you a practically rapid form of travel between stars. As a result, they're unable to have found out about us and then come and visited. Finally, any drive providing for sufficient speed would also be incredibly obvious to Earth-based monitoring systems, but we haven't seen anything. The utter impracticality of every UFO design proposed for long-distance space travel is also something worth noting. All in all, you still haven't shown how they could have done it, even if they live for a million millenia.

That was assuming that only 1 in 10,000 had intelligent life. It could just as easily be one in 10.The only thing these two numbers have in common is that they are both baseless.
I am refering to how THEY would keep in contact with each other while on missions. And with all the ancient hints of UFO's (spacesuit cave drawings and such) I don't think picking up a broadcast is that big of a prerequisite.And you are basing this off of what? You are interpreting UFOs in cave drawings. What evidence do you have that they are actually renderings of past aliens by the people of the time? So far you've produced no evidence of any of your claims. Either produce some evidence or stop pretending we are clueless for not believing your baseless claims.

Yes.

Seepage of blood, pooling and natural decomposition are three.

Again, this is all providing that blood is actually not present, and I've seen no documented evidence of this happening on a large scale.

Oh so now, it just didnt happen.

Not just the blood drained. internal organs, surgically removed.
http://www.ob1.com/fyfecow.html

...All in all, you still haven't shown how they could have done it, even if they live for a million millenia.
And moreover, these space-faring creatures would have to be within certain physical parameters for us to be able to spot them.

Oh so now, it just didnt happen.
I have heard nor seen little but unsourced claims, such as the ones on the site you've just posted.

You seem to be under the impression that a website stating:

"In over ten thousand (10,000) reported cases of livestock mutilations reported since 1967, the organs and tissue taken are always the same. Sex organs removed, tongue cut deep into the throat and removed. Individual eyes and cars or sometimes both have been excised. The jaw stripped to the bone in a large oval cut and all tissue cut clean. Rectums are cored out, almost like a stovepipe had been inserted and all the tissue and muscle has been pulled out.

All of this has been accomplished on these thousands of animals with no evidence of blood present at the incision in some cases the entire blood supply of the animal had been drained, yet without cardio-vascular collapse."constitutes proof.

Where is the author of this website getting his information? Where is the evidence for over ten thousand reported cases of livestock mutilations since 1967, etc., etc.? Where are the autopsy reports, statements from veterinarians?

Where is the evidence?

On top of this, even if we can show evidence of tens of thousands of mutilations, what shows us aliens are behind them, rather than Chupacabra or cultists, as have also been proposed?

Any number? Of something that drains every drop of a cow's blood without bite marks? I think you better go back to the witchdoctor theory.

Vampires. Already covered this. That, or God. Either one has exactly the same amount of supporting evidence as aliens.

Oh? I already explained, a few posts ago, why such a high estimate would be silly. I did so based on facts. Would you care to show why it could be anywhere near as 1 in 10?

It could be lower than that. There are too many things to sustain life in space. Now we even know that microbs can thrive for 1.5 million years, burried in ice. http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/04/16/microbes.antarctic.discovery/index.html
There's a lot of iron and ice in space.

Last time we had a spate of threads on this, I went through a site with a bunch of those pictures, and suggested alternatives for every single image.
Some were pretty ridiculous too.



Cite, please? That doesn't sound very likely to me at all.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/universe/blackhole_race.html

I Never even touched on that. Not that it helps, for several reasons: firstly, interstellar travel still runs into the problem of life support, which is needed even if one's natural life span is nigh on eternal. Secondly, interstellar travel still also runs into the problem of speed - namely, that nothing fitting the current laws of physics will give you a practically rapid form of travel between stars. As a result, they're unable to have found out about us and then come and visited. Finally, any drive providing for sufficient speed would also be incredibly obvious to Earth-based monitoring systems, but we haven't seen anything. The utter impracticality of every UFO design proposed for long-distance space travel is also something worth noting. All in all, you still haven't shown how they could have done it, even if they live for a million millenia.

Again you are not thinking in practical terms. Life support for them could be anything. Hell, maybe Earth is a form a life support. (or more like a grocery store)

And you have to think that the basic sci fi theory would apply. If some race travels the stars and there is a lot of home bound intelligent life to be found, alliances would be made and the task of exploring solar systems would be shared.

Life support for them could be anything. Hell, maybe Earth is a form a life support. (or more like a grocery store)

And you have to think that the basic sci fi theory would apply. If some race travels the stars and there is a lot of home bound intelligent life to be found, alliances would be made and the task of exploring solar systems would be shared.
I think we can all agree that hypotheticals are cool.

That was assuming that only 1 in 10,000 had intelligent life. It could just as easily be one in 10.

It could just as easily be 0.

Especially given how long it took for life - much less, 'intelligent' life - to show up on this planet.

Even if every planet in the universe was capable of showing some form of life, sooner or later, examining the lifecycle of our planet, and the proportion of it which would be a window of opportunity for First Contact... and then allowing for something like that on every other planet?

We could be living in a universe that has historically been full of life, and none of it might ever have met another 'intelligent' being.

Where is the evidence

Well I thought you would be keeping up with your own side of the debate but...

You HAVE heard that a satanic cult was concidered as a theory? That's because they thought poeople were drinking the blood. (and eating the organs)

Here is a link that also contains an FBI link.
http://worldvieww.blogspot.com/2009/03/cattle-mutilations.html

It could be lower than that. There are too many things to sustain life in space. Now we even know that microbs can thrive for 1.5 million years, burried in ice. http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/04/16/microbes.antarctic.discovery/index.html
There's a lot of iron and ice in space.

Irrelevant. I recommend you reread the second post I quoted in here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14739423&postcount=308), where I ran the numbers to work out how many star systems within 50ly could reasonably be expected to support life as we know it. The answer was 100 or so, including our own. Remembering that even a few million years of timing difference one way or the other would mean entire civilisations can rise and fall without ever encountering each other, the chance there is another space-level civilisation at this time is vanishingly small.


http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/universe/blackhole_race.html

Has nothing whatsoever to do with what you claimed. Try again.


Again you are not thinking in practical terms. Life support for them could be anything. Hell, maybe Earth is a form a life support. (or more like a grocery store)

And I'm not thinking in practical terms? My dear sir, I have been sticking solely to well known, generally accepted scientific fact, and making logical deductions from it. I have marked my assumptions and estimates as such, made my methodology clear, and shown exactly why you are wrong. All you have offered is baseless speculation.

While life support for alien physiology is obviously an unknown, certain suggestions are more likely than others. That is they would need heating to a particular temperature, an atmosphere, and food and water. This then necessitates power, good vacuum hull technology, and various other things. And also necessitates making it foolproof for thousand year voyages between star systems, because if your life support fails halfway to Epsilon Eridani or Gleise 581, you've had it. This is a massive problem to overcome (and is discussed rather intelligently in Arthur C. Clarke's excellent novel Rendezvous with Rama, where it is observed that, over a voyage of that length, your atmosphere would seep out through the hull, among other issues).


And you have to think that the basic sci fi theory would apply. If some race travels the stars and there is a lot of home bound intelligent life to be found, alliances would be made and the task of exploring solar systems would be shared.

Still hits the same issue - the chance that an intelligent race is present within 50ly is vanishingly small.

It could just as easily be 0.


We could be living in a universe that has historically been full of life, and none of it might ever have met another 'intelligent' being.

If the number is just 1, then 1 could become 10,000 with Earth on a waiting list.

Well I thought you would be keeping up with your own side of the debate but...

You HAVE heard that a satanic cult was concidered as a theory? That's because they thought poeople were drinking the blood. (and eating the organs)

Here is a link that also contains an FBI link.
http://worldvieww.blogspot.com/2009/03/cattle-mutilations.htmlThe lack of plausibility of one claim does not increase your claim's plausibility by default. Show evidence for your claims.

The lack of plausibility of one claim does not increase your claim's plausibility by default. Show evidence for your claims.

Furthermore, recall Mr Holmes' maxim: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". As I believe I have adequately eliminated the possibility of aliens, and Dragontide seems certain it cannot have been animal predation or similar, it therefore must be a Satanic blood cult.

Ahhhh. Very interesting theory. They stole their daddy's station wagon! :D

But really, I don't understand what reason an adult alien would have for doing the things attributed to ETs.

Furthermore, recall Mr Holmes' maxim: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". As I believe I have adequately eliminated the possibility of aliens, and Dragontide seems certain it cannot have been animal predation or similar, it therefore must be a Satanic blood cult.That settles that. Who's up for some tea and cocaine?

I always have that quote rattling around in my head for some reason. I blame it on my father.

Irrelevant. I recommend you reread the second post I quoted in here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14739423&postcount=308), where I ran the numbers to work out how many star systems within 50ly could reasonably be expected to support life as we know it. The answer was 100 or so, including our own. Remembering that even a few million years of timing difference one way or the other would mean entire civilisations can rise and fall without ever encountering each other, the chance there is another space-level civilisation at this time is vanishingly small.
The sheer number of sightings make increasingly large.


Has nothing whatsoever to do with what you claimed. Try again.

You want me to explain the new physics of a moving black hole to you?


And I'm not thinking in practical terms? My dear sir, I have been sticking solely to well known, generally accepted scientific fact, and making logical deductions from it. I have marked my assumptions and estimates as such, made my methodology clear, and shown exactly why you are wrong. All you have offered is baseless speculation.

While life support for alien physiology is obviously an unknown, certain suggestions are more likely than others. That is they would need heating to a particular temperature, an atmosphere, and food and water. This then necessitates power, good vacuum hull technology, and various other things. And also necessitates making it foolproof for thousand year voyages between star systems, because if your life support fails halfway to Epsilon Eridani or Gleise 581, you've had it. This is a massive problem to overcome (and is discussed rather intelligently in Arthur C. Clarke's excellent novel Rendezvous with Rama, where it is observed that, over a voyage of that length, your atmosphere would seep out through the hull, among other issues).



Still hits the same issue - the chance that an intelligent race is present within 50ly is vanishingly small.

I dont understand how you (and Arthur Clarke) could come to such a conclusion. Hell a ship could be made out of a plastic that wouldnt scratch if you nuked it. Were damm close to having that ourselves.
http://www.fsu.edu/news/2005/10/20/steel.paper/

The sheer number of sightings make increasingly large. Sightings. Of things that you have not shown to be of intelligent extra-terrestrial origin. Back to that whole evidence thing.

Furthermore, recall Mr Holmes' maxim: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". As I believe I have adequately eliminated the possibility of aliens, and Dragontide seems certain it cannot have been animal predation or similar, it therefore must be a Satanic blood cult.

It comes down to cults or aliens dosnt it?

Sightings. Of things that you have not shown to be of intelligent extra-terrestrial origin. Back to that whole evidence thing.

My bad....Reported sightings.

It comes down to cults or aliens dosnt it?
Clearly not.

My bad....Reported sightings.
Reported sightings of unidentified flying objects.

Not identified alien spacecraft, unidentified flying objects.

Furthermore, recall Mr Holmes' maxim: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". As I believe I have adequately eliminated the possibility of aliens, and Dragontide seems certain it cannot have been animal predation or similar, it therefore must be a Satanic blood cult.

Except that the people who actually examined these cases concluded that it was natural decomposition.

You HAVE heard that a satanic cult was concidered as a theory? That's because they thought poeople were drinking the blood. (and eating the organs)
Yes, I've heard of the theory.

It seems as unsubstantiated as that of alien intervention.

Here is a link that also contains an FBI link.
http://worldvieww.blogspot.com/2009/03/cattle-mutilations.html
Finally, we get to some tangible evidence.

Now, that's a lot of paperwork that I'm afraid I don't have the time to delve through. If you wish to go through it, I'm very willing to look at evidence culled from the reports.

I would note, however, that the first two reports, from state veterinarians and the chief of the Mammalogy Section in the US Fish and Wildlife Service respectively, state that the mutilation reports they looked at are consistent with predation of small mammals.

You want me to explain the new physics of a moving black hole to you?

This isn't directed at me, but I would really like to hear your explanation. It should be entertaining.

maybe he's being paid, or its just a joke to him.

This isn't directed at me, but I would really like to hear your explanation. It should be entertaining.

Not as entertaining as your post. I was poking fun at Uv for wanting me to explain something that is still being researched.
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v57/i8/p4778_1

We model a radiating, moving black hole in terms of a worldtube–null-cone boundary value problem. We evolve this data in the region interior to the worldtube, but exterior to a trapped surface by means of a characteristic evolution based upon a family of ingoing null hypersurfaces. Data on the worldtube is induced from a Schwarzschild spacetime, but the worldtube is allowed to move relative to the static Schwarzschild trajectories. When the worldtube is stationary (static or rotating in place), a distorted black hole inside it evolves to equilibrium with the Schwarzschild boundary. A boost of the worldtube with respect to the Schwarzschild black hole does not affect these results. The code also stably tracks an unlimited number of orbits, when the worldtube wobbles periodically. The work establishes that characteristic evolution can evolve a spacetime with a distorted black hole moving on a 3-dimensional grid with the controlled accuracy and long term stability necessary to investigate new facets of black hole physics.


:rolleyes:

I've come to the conclusion that Dragontide is one of three options:

1. Young, naive, and a sci-fi nerd - the result being wishful thinking based upon the flawed science of pulp science fiction.
2. A troll, playing dumb to frustrate us.
3. Completely barking mad.

It's frustrating to encounter someone so completely unable to present a consistent argument, who selectively ignores those who counter the arguments he does make, goes off on tangents completely unrelated to the previous discussion flow, maintains no internal logic or reasoning yet berates all others who do as illogical.

Dragontide, are you 16?

I've come to the conclusion that Dragontide is one of three options:

1. Young, naive, and a sci-fi nerd - the result being wishful thinking based upon the flawed science of pulp science fiction.
2. A troll, playing dumb to frustrate us.
3. Completely barking mad.

It's frustrating to encounter someone so completely unable to present a consistent argument, who selectively ignores those who counter the arguments he does make, goes off on tangents completely unrelated to the previous discussion flow, maintains no internal logic or reasoning yet berates all others who do as illogical.

Dragontide, are you 16?

And you still add nothing to a conversation when you post.

Where is the evidence?

Dragontide's nether regions I believe. Now if we could just arrange for a colonoscopy...

And you still add nothing to a conversation when you post.

When I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, I attempted to engage in a constructive debate with you. You completely ignored my points, because they destroyed yours completely.

I no longer give you the benefit of the doubt.

Not as entertaining as your post. I was poking fun at Uv for wanting me to explain something that is still being researched.
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v57/i8/p4778_1


:rolleyes:

How is this at all relevant?

Your link earlier was about particles moving quickly around a black hole, possibly in an accretion disk (I wasn't paying that much attention). What does this have to do with the topic? A moving black hole = aliens can hitch a ride and go around in circles really fast as the black hole moves through the galaxy and then yank themselves out of orbit when they've reached their desired location (with no way back, mind you)?

edit: some additional points: 1. Can you explain what you just linked there? In plain English. I'm doubtful that you understood it (not meaning that I think you're stupid, I just mean that I didn't hear some of those words until 2-3 years into a physics degree, let alone have any idea what they meant until then). 2. Just about everything is still being researched. That doesn't mean you can't explain what is already understood about it.

Some of the laws of physics got knocked on their ass when it was discovered that black holes move.

Ah, this is where it started...

There is no reason I can think of that black holes could not move. I don't actually think this was ever an issue. Please cite a scientific source that states that it was against the laws of physics for a black hole to move. We know black holes move. There's a black hole at the centre of every galaxy (well, at least of a particular size...) and we know galaxies move, including their black holes. Further, if a massive star becomes a black hole, it will probably continue moving as the progenitor star was moving (unless the supernova was lopsided and brought it to a stop). The fact that black holes move isn't new physics. Please show why you think this is the case.

Finally, we get to some tangible evidence.

Now, that's a lot of paperwork that I'm afraid I don't have the time to delve through. If you wish to go through it, I'm very willing to look at evidence culled from the reports.

I would note, however, that the first two reports, from state veterinarians and the chief of the Mammalogy Section in the US Fish and Wildlife Service respectively, state that the mutilation reports they looked at are consistent with predation of small mammals.

I didnt say they are all unexplained. Those folks do have to deal with natural attacks as well.

We are not in a race. Take your time reading any links I post.

Moving black holes:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080429-black-hole-superkick.html

A colossal black hole has been spotted exiting its home galaxy, kicked out after a huge cosmic merger took place.


The event, seen for the first time, was announced today.



Now since there were people asking about this, it's obvoius no one on this thread learned about a catapulted black hole in their physics class.

And you still add nothing to a conversation when you post.This coming from the guy who, despite having posted more than anyone else in this thread, has yet to come up with a coherent theory backed by evidence.

Pot meet kettle.

This coming from the guy who, despite having posted more than anyone else in this thread, has yet to come up with a coherent theory backed by evidence.

Pot meet kettle.

The length of this thread should tell you that 100% proof is not available or burried in a black vault somewhere. You have just flat out dismissed several points of logic because a UFO has not flown straight up your ass.

The length of this thread should tell you that 100% proof is not available or burried in a black vault somewhere. You have just flat out dismissed several points of logic because a UFO has not flown straight up your ass.I've dismissed them, because you haven't shown any evidence. And it isn't just me. Several of the posters have asked you for evidence. And you keep ignoring us.

I'm not asking you for a rectally inclined extra terrestrial to fly up my ass; I'm just asking for something more than your arrogant say so.

The length of this thread should tell you that 100% proof is not available or burried in a black vault somewhere. You have just flat out dismissed several points of logic because a UFO has not flown straight up your ass.

And you're an escapee from a top secret mental asylum for the deranged. Logic dictates you must be due to your clinging insistence of non-proof as proof. The proof of your status as a escapee just isn't 100% available and is buried in a black vault somewhere.

This is likelier to be true than your alien stories and is just as plausible.

I just finished reading this entire thread, and my brain is bleeding out my ears. Dragontide, could you possible for once link a site that does not have 'ufo' or 'fringe' or 'geocites' in the url? Perhaps a blog written by a clear and educated author with actual scientific merit? I'm getting tired of reading 'www.ufosarereal.net/fringe' or whatever you keep linking because its completely biased nonsense.

Moving black holes:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080429-black-hole-superkick.html



Now since there were people asking about this, it's obvoius no one on this thread learned about a catapulted black hole in their physics class.

What laws of physics were violated by this?

Also, yes, you don't learn about black holes being catapulted out of their host galaxies in physics classes. You tend to learn about galaxies in astronomy classes with some brief look at black holes (unless this is the topic for the class) and you learn about black holes in a general relativity class. This specific topic is not often dealt with since it's a little specialized (i.e. maybe if you're studying galaxy mergers, this is relevant and you'll learn about it, otherwise it's unlikely).

I would like to apply for the job of UFO cover-up. Where do I submit my application? I have a strong working knowledge of government systems and a strong ethic of doing my job. I know current policy is that all resumes and applications must be submitted through USAJobs...so is there a link there I should follow?

Zukariaa;14741376'] could you possible for once link a site that does not have 'ufo' or 'fringe' or 'geocites' in the url?

You and me both are standing in that same line:

http://www.disclosureproject.org/
The Disclosure Project is a nonprofit research project working to fully disclose the facts about UFOs, extraterrestrial intelligence, and classified advanced energy and propulsion systems. We have over 400 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET technology, and the cover-up that keeps this information secret.

On Wednesday, May 9th, 2001, over twenty military, intelligence, government, corporate and scientific witnesses came forward at the National Press Club in Washington, DC to establish the reality of UFOs or extraterrestrial vehicles, extraterrestrial life forms, and resulting advanced energy and propulsion technologies. The weight of this first-hand testimony, along with supporting government documentation and other evidence, will establish without any doubt the reality of these phenomena.

What laws of physics were violated by this?

What indeed!

What indeed!That's the question. And your answer is?

That's the question. And your answer is?

The answer indeed is something that I am indeed required to provide you. Do you understand, indeed, do you appreciate this answer now?

You and me both are standing in that same line:

http://www.disclosureproject.org/

Again your site has nothing. Just claimed testimonies and no hard evidence. Of course, we have no way of verifying their claimed numbers either, since they don't list any of them, and only let you see their summary, for a fee of course. How Nigerian of them. I suppose they have a billionaire widow who wants to send me their fortune if I would only share my bank account number.

That's the question. And your answer is? What laws of physics were violated by this?



One of the unlocked secrets of the universe, isnt it? What kind of energy innovations could we learn? How could we simulate it to power cellphones and airplanes? Hey....how about maybe a....... space ship? If you didn't get the answers from physics, astronmy or sex education, then it must be something new.

We are not in a race. Take your time reading any links I post.
There's over 120 pages of material in those files. I'm not going digging through that for evidence to support your rather wild assertions.

If you think the FBI files show evidence of extraterrestrial mutilation, then find the evidence and show it to us.

One of the unlocked secrets of the universe, isnt it?

No laws of physics were broken. No unlocked secrets of the universe were discovered. Black holes are not static objects. Your attempt to try and paint it as one and then blathering the motion of one as a mystery is nothing more than the rants of the brain addled or the dishonest.

One of the unlocked secrets of the universe, isnt it? What kind of energy innovations could we learn? How could we simulate it to power cellphones and airplanes? Hey....how about maybe a....... space ship? If you didn't get the answers from physics, astronmy or sex education, then it must be something new.

Was this supposed to be a coherent post addressing your claim that the laws of physics were violated (and presumably rewritten) in response to the discovery of black holes in motion?

Was this supposed to be a coherent post addressing your claim that the laws of physics were violated (and presumably rewritten) in response to the discovery of black holes in motion?

The laws of physics (what we perceive) change a lot don't they?
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/timedilation.htm
The Special Theory of Relativity (as developed by Einstein) obtains a set of equations (i.e. the Lorentz Transformation formulae) which relates length and time units of two systems moving uniformly relatively to each other. Unlike the equations of the usual Galilei Transformation, these are not merely a linear transformation (describing the change in distance between two points due to the motion), but they are non-linear in the velocity due to an additional factor γ containing the ratio of the velocity and the speed of light (see for instance my Aberration page for details). This factor γ corresponds to the amount of 'length contraction' and 'time dilation' that, according to Special Relativity, should be taken into account if transforming length and time units between different reference frames moving relatively to each other with non-zero velocity. However, this re-scaling of the space and time coordinates is in fact the result of Einstein ignoring the principle of the constancy of the speed of light by applying the usual vectorial velocity addition and then subsequently trying to compensate for this error by making a further error and changing the given length and time definitions

And in the infinite cosmos, those odds move to statistical certainty. Like I said, it relies on the exact same assumption.
In my opinion, that's a retarded rebuttal:

1. Cosmos is not infinite

2. The chance of evolving into a specific individual species *can be* (depending on how variable life really is) "infinitely" smaller than what the number of similar planets in the universe is.

A far fetched example for the point 2: 5,000 generations - million years of evolution - each generation has 95% chance of both generating a cow, pig, human, <insert species>-like 'trait' and retaining rest of the 'traits' - The chance of ending up with <insert species here> is 0.95^5000 or 1 to 10^112: 1 + 112 zeroes, trillion times larger number than googol and quadrillionquadrillion times larger than the estimated number of molecules in the universe.


A much more valid rebuttal would be scientific advancement: You would think that an interstellar species would be smart enough to take biopsies without killing the host animal and, on the other hand, would be able to clone species without breaking a sweat based on tissue sample....Maybe they're even able to find the impact of specific genes just by looking at them? One thing these so-called aliens wouldn't have to do is kill off dozens of specimens in quest for knowledge.



Therefore the logical conclusion is that IF the perpetrators are aliens then one - or more - of the following must apply....

1. There were dozens of species with absolutely NO information sharing capability flying around in the 70s and 80s in US of A.

2. The aliens were what we'd call rednecks, teenagers. That is idiots who tend to make a mess out of simple things.

3. Despite the advanced technology, culturally retarded - eg. cows reminded them of some ancient god figure whose slicing & dicing is said to bring good fortune.

4. Into exotic products extracted from the cows - vanity items, eg. cow uterus as a wall ornament - before perfecting cloning technique and starting up farming (read: organ cloning) themselves.

5. For shits and giggles: The cosmic Goofballs toying with poor human farmers.


So either we're the target of cosmic jokers, cultists, xenophobes, backyard hillbillies, purveyors of exotic commodities OR there's a completely rational explanation for the mutilations.

...for some odd reason, I'm leaning on the latter. :tongue:

One thing to remember, Dragontide, is that UvV's figure of 50 ly is for communication. This determines the radius that signals could have been sent to and come back, at the speed of light. For any aliens to have landed on Earth based on those signals, the radius drops rapidly. If alien ships move at 10% of c they will need to be within about 9 ly of Earth (9 years for the signal, 90 for the journey). Moving at 25% of c they must be within 20 ly of Earth, and so on. As the radius drops off, the number of possibly inhabited planets also goes down.

This doesn't change the fact that any alien ship entering the solar system would be detected. Life support systems and such all require power and will generate heat, which must either be radiated or fry the ship's occupants. Even on minimal power, it would still have to slow down when approaching us, generating more heat.

As for the whole "laws of physics" stuff, I don't even get the point your trying to make. We (that is, humans) only change our guesses at the laws of physics when there exist direct observations that invalidate our old guesses. We do not change them so aliens could visit Earth to explain phenomena that can be already be explained.

In my opinion, that's a retarded rebuttal:

That's great, but irrelevant.

If the existence of aliens is predicated upon the assumption that the odds of anything occurring in the universe approach 1:1 because of the vastness of the universe, then my assumption is entirely as accurate as his. If we're forced to conclude that the existence of aliens is a statistical certainty because of the billions of stars and trillions of planets in our galaxy alone, then we can accept that anything is a statistical certainty to occur somewhere, because of all the opportunities for it to occur.

My point is that it's a stupid assumption to think that, just because there are so many stars, that it is a statistical certainty for life to have evolved on multiple planets. We have no idea how common life is in this universe, much less intelligent life, so it's stupid to assume that must have occurred elsewhere just because there are lots of planets.

Seems to me that it would be in the Government's interest for people to think there was a crashed UFO, and they probably cultivate that belief.

Think about it... If whatever was really happening was truly a sensitive military secret then the more people who believe tales of aliens and flying saucers the further off the scent people get.

I'm not saying I don't believe in the possibility of aliens or visitors from other worlds, I'm only saying that if this really were an example of it, then the military has taken the absolutely worst possible approach at keeping a lid on it at every single turn.

If the existence of aliens is predicated upon the assumption that the odds of anything occurring in the universe approach 1:1 because of the vastness of the universe, then my assumption is entirely as accurate as his. If we're forced to conclude that the existence of aliens is a statistical certainty because of the billions of stars and trillions of planets in our galaxy alone, then we can accept that anything is a statistical certainty to occur somewhere, because of all the opportunities for it to occur.

My point is that it's a stupid assumption to think that, just because there are so many stars, that it is a statistical certainty for life to have evolved on multiple planets. We have no idea how common life is in this universe, much less intelligent life, so it's stupid to assume that must have occurred elsewhere just because there are lots of planets.
It's not a stupid assumption at all. You're right though that it's only an assumption - an educated guess if you will - however the probabilities do differ because the fact is that we have already studied one planet more or less properly - Earth - and have found life on it, therefore the observed fact is that 100% of the Earth-like planets we've studied has life on it.


Now we come to a main principle guiding SETI: Analogies - Study what you can and apply it to unknown:

- We have no reason to believe that there aren't any Earth-like planets out there: That is, planets orbiting a star not too much unlike our sun within the habitable zone with several other similar characteristics (eg. mass, rotational cycle, composition, maybe moon, etc...)

- We have no reason to believe that life couldn't form on them: Life has either formed here on/in Earth under Earth-like conditions or elsewhere and travelled here & thrived on our planet.

- Therefore the concurrent existence of extraterrestrial life is a logical assumption to make, considering the sheer size of the universe based on the observations we have: We have no evidence indicating that Earth or solar system is in anyway special and by special I do mean winning-a-lottery-jackpot-10-times-in-a-row special.


As for intelligent life....Consider, for example, the Drake equation: Selecting values that would lower the value to 1 across the entire universe would be ridicously small. On the other hand, 100% of planets with life we've studied has bred intelligent life, thefore the probability is not infinitely small.


Ultimately, I do agree that it's a question of probabilities: I acknowledge that it is entirely possible that we're alone, but the likelihood of that event is relatively small based on the evidence we have (hence assuming that life exists out there makes sense)....

....but not anywhere near as small as finding compatible flora & fauna elsewhere, unless it's transported there, assuming common life (hence assuming life won't resemble ours makes sense).

The sheer number of sightings make increasingly large.

Fallacious. I have said "I do not believe that aliens can have reached us, for all of these excellent and powerful mathematical and logical reasons." You have said "Nuh-uh, people see UFOs, thus aliens must exist." To apply Conan Doyle's maxim in a more serious context, there are many possible explanations for most UFO phenomena. You are persistently sticking for what is perhaps the most unlikely one of them all, and have in no way yet proved all of the others are impossible. Furthermore, myself and others in this thread have proved every one of your relevant contentions flat out wrong.


You want me to explain the new physics of a moving black hole to you?

No. I don't think you would have the slightest chance of explaining even the physics of a static black hole to me. I seriously doubt you could explain the physics of a simple rocket to me. I simply want you to provide some sort of evidence there is actually new physics, in particular, that the laws of physics were 'turned on their heads' when moving black holes were observed.


I dont understand how you (and Arthur Clarke) could come to such a conclusion. Hell a ship could be made out of a plastic that wouldnt scratch if you nuked it. Were damm close to having that ourselves.
http://www.fsu.edu/news/2005/10/20/steel.paper/

You evidently know nothing about the issues that interstellar travel and life support in space present. If you want my advice, you'd shut up about it now, instead of continuing to prove your ignorance.

Except that the people who actually examined these cases concluded that it was natural decomposition.

Well, yes, but let's not let facts get in the way of a perfectly good piece of conspiracist rhetoric, shall we?

Ah, this is where it started...

There is no reason I can think of that black holes could not move. I don't actually think this was ever an issue. Please cite a scientific source that states that it was against the laws of physics for a black hole to move. We know black holes move. There's a black hole at the centre of every galaxy (well, at least of a particular size...) and we know galaxies move, including their black holes. Further, if a massive star becomes a black hole, it will probably continue moving as the progenitor star was moving (unless the supernova was lopsided and brought it to a stop). The fact that black holes move isn't new physics. Please show why you think this is the case.

*applauds*

If I recall correctly, you study/studied physics through degree level, didn't you?


Moving black holes:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080429-black-hole-superkick.html

Now since there were people asking about this, it's obvoius no one on this thread learned about a catapulted black hole in their physics class.

Irrelevant. You claimed that the fact black holes could move overturned existing laws of physics. We denied that, and asked for proof. We did not ask for proof that a black hole could move - every one of us who had the slightest bit of knowledge about physics already knew that. We asked for proof that this in some way contradicted previous phsyics, proof which you have been singularly unable to provide.

The laws of physics (what we perceive) change a lot don't they?

Only when we have something more accurate to replace them with. So far we haven't(to my knowledge) changed the laws of physics to allow for FTL travel. Sure, you can tell us that aliens could have done such things, but that accomplishes nothing. Aliens could have mastered alchemy and created a city of gold. Aliens could have created a form of functional magic powered by collective belief. Aliens could live in a microscopic civilisation in a teacup orbiting Polaris. Any number of ridiculous things could happen. That doesn't mean they did happen, are happening or ever will happen.

If the number is just 1, then 1 could become 10,000 with Earth on a waiting list.

Missing the point.

How long has this species been on this planet? How long, in a form that COULD communicate with alien interactors? How much longer will this species dwell on this sphere?

If we look at humanity being only a few tens of thousands of years old, out of billions of years of planetary lifecycle, even if EVERY planet has life at SOME point, the chances any TWO planets would have life at the same time are statistically tiny.

Add to that, it would have to be an intelligence near enough to us, or looking directly at us, to notice.

The 'waiting list' is the problem, not the solution.

One of the unlocked secrets of the universe, isnt it? What kind of energy innovations could we learn? How could we simulate it to power cellphones and airplanes? Hey....how about maybe a....... space ship? If you didn't get the answers from physics, astronmy or sex education, then it must be something new.

What are you talking about?

You said the laws of physics were violated by the 'sudden revelation' that black holes move.

Since there's never been any good reason to believe that black holes DON'T move - how exactly do you think this is rewriting physics?

Of course, the black hole thing is a red herring, anyway, since it has no real connection to the topic - UNLESS you're suggesting that aliens are visiting us by volunteering to lock themselves into high particle density orbits? Wouldn't it be easier, cheaper and safer for these aliens to travel outside of the pull of a gravity well?

Missing the point.

How long has this species been on this planet? How long, in a form that COULD communicate with alien interactors? How much longer will this species dwell on this sphere?

If we look at humanity being only a few tens of thousands of years old, out of billions of years of planetary lifecycle, even if EVERY planet has life at SOME point, the chances any TWO planets would have life at the same time are statistically tiny.

Add to that, it would have to be an intelligence near enough to us, or looking directly at us, to notice.

The 'waiting list' is the problem, not the solution.

Here's something slightly related (and in my opinion, rather cool) to think about.

Picture, if you will, a spiral galaxy, floating gently through the vast depths of intergalactic space. Somewhere in one of the arms of this galaxy, orbiting a small yellow star, there is a planet, rocky and barren, freshly cooling from its formation. Over time, life appears, however that might happen - by meteoroid, by random chance, or by divine intervention. Miraculously, it doesn't just die out, but instead hangs on, grows, evolves. Entire species and kingdoms of creatures rise and fall, and eventually one appears with that most elusive of qualities - intelligence.

With time, they have tamed and cultivated the planetary surface about their territories, constructed rudimentary ships, long roads, and colossal walls. The ideas of science are conceived, grow and flourish. Technology proceeds apace. The radio is invented, and their first tentative transmissions begin their long voyage to the edges of the universe. Soon, the skies are filled with electromagnetic chatter, growing in intensity year upon year.

Then catastrophe and calamity, be it by internecine warfare, technological accident, or freak astral phenomenon. The death of the species and the world, collapsing again into barren brokenness for the rest of eternity. The only trace left of this once-great species are a few shattered ruin on a dead world, and the ever expanding shell of their radio transmissions, expanding, light year by light year, across the entire universe.

Now repeat this 10 times, a hundred, a thousand, maybe a million, in one galaxy alone. And multiply countless times, for every galaxy in the universe. Countless civilisations, each living and dying alone, leaving behind it only one monument on the galactic scale - the invisible, incredibly faint bubble of their radio waves, the single indisputable sign of intelligent life.

Kinda cool, isn't it? (Or at least I thought so. Not sure how good a job I've done conveying the ideas I had in text here, but I think it's an okay attempt.)

Here's something slightly related (and in my opinion, rather cool) to think about.

Picture, if you will, a spiral galaxy, floating gently through the vast depths of intergalactic space. Somewhere in one of the arms of this galaxy, orbiting a small yellow star, there is a planet, rocky and barren, freshly cooling from its formation. Over time, life appears, however that might happen - by meteoroid, by random chance, or by divine intervention. Miraculously, it doesn't just die out, but instead hangs on, grows, evolves. Entire species and kingdoms of creatures rise and fall, and eventually one appears with that most elusive of qualities - intelligence.

With time, they have tamed and cultivated the planetary surface about their territories, constructed rudimentary ships, long roads, and colossal walls. The ideas of science are conceived, grow and flourish. Technology proceeds apace. The radio is invented, and their first tentative transmissions begin their long voyage to the edges of the universe. Soon, the skies are filled with electromagnetic chatter, growing in intensity year upon year.

Then catastrophe and calamity, be it by internecine warfare, technological accident, or freak astral phenomenon. The death of the species and the world, collapsing again into barren brokenness for the rest of eternity. The only trace left of this once-great species are a few shattered ruin on a dead world, and the ever expanding shell of their radio transmissions, expanding, light year by light year, across the entire universe.

Now repeat this 10 times, a hundred, a thousand, maybe a million, in one galaxy alone. And multiply countless times, for every galaxy in the universe. Countless civilisations, each living and dying alone, leaving behind it only one monument on the galactic scale - the invisible, incredibly faint bubble of their radio waves, the single indisputable sign of intelligent life.

Kinda cool, isn't it? (Or at least I thought so. Not sure how good a job I've done conveying the ideas I had in text here, but I think it's an okay attempt.)

Yeah, that's basically what I was talking about, too. Extinction Level Events are pretty much part of life - for a planet. So - it's only a matter of time before our oh-so-comfortable planet of today is rocked by some phenomenon that leaves it's dominant lifeforms as memories. And we're adding to that, ourselves.

So - even if we detect intelligent life in space - there's no real reason to think that the signs we just heard... in any way relate to a species that still even exists.


I was playing Spore just recently, and I was almost into the galactic core when I encountered one of my own species - which kind of illustrates what I'm thinking. Knowing that I (personally) had 'created life' (I must have more than a dozen occupied worlds, from various games on there), it took me all that time (from when Spore came out, until just a short time ago) to find 'life' I KNEW existed, within a far smaller selection of 'worlds'... and with the ability to move between those worlds at such a rate that travel time is negligible.

Extrapolating THAT into real terms - where travel ISN'T going to be instantaneous, where aliens WOULDN'T have definitive prior knowledge of our existence, and where the universe is far more VAST... it becomes mathematically improbable that any alien would ever happen across our world while we are here.

I heard about this on monday, and I searched for a thread on it, but didn't find any. (yeah, I know it's a wee bit old)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/04/20/ufo.conference/index.html?iref=newssearch



I, for one, seriously believe him.
I've no reason to disbelieve him of yet.
I got my own experiences.

One thing to remember, Dragontide, is that UvV's figure of 50 ly is for communication. This determines the radius that signals could have been sent to and come back, at the speed of light. For any aliens to have landed on Earth based on those signals, the radius drops rapidly. If alien ships move at 10% of c they will need to be within about 9 ly of Earth (9 years for the signal, 90 for the journey). Moving at 25% of c they must be within 20 ly of Earth, and so on. As the radius drops off, the number of possibly inhabited planets also goes down.

This doesn't change the fact that any alien ship entering the solar system would be detected. Life support systems and such all require power and will generate heat, which must either be radiated or fry the ship's occupants. Even on minimal power, it would still have to slow down when approaching us, generating more heat.

As for the whole "laws of physics" stuff, I don't even get the point your trying to make. We (that is, humans) only change our guesses at the laws of physics when there exist direct observations that invalidate our old guesses. We do not change them so aliens could visit Earth to explain phenomena that can be already be explained.

As shown above, the speed of light just might can be broken. I think it's pretty damm stupid for people to think they know the secrets to the universe, based on what they have learned in a class.

As shown above, the speed of light just might can be broken. I think it's pretty damm stupid for people to think they know the secrets to the universe, based on what they have learned in a class.
So, how many FTL signals has mankind sent?

So, how many FTL signals has mankind sent?

If any ever have been, I would not expect that information to go public.

If any ever have been, I would not expect that information to go public.

David Sereda has a theory about a ship that has converted mass into light. If something weighs in at zero mass, getting it to do the speed of light costs next to no energy. (which could explain all the sightings of a ball of light as a UFO)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1655089/posts

http://ufonasa.terra-ent.com/

If any ever have been, I would not expect that information to go public.

Right, like proof of god by lack of proof. Why don't you go argue that instead? At least you'd have more numskulls singing your chorus.

If any ever have been, I would not expect that information to go public.

So, again you present possibilities as though they support your point. They don't. Everyone with a half decent understanding of science knows that the various laws and theories could and probably will change over time. So yeah, maybe we'll find a way to go FTL. Maybe some other species somewhere in the universe already has. Maybe they're within 100ly and used their FTL ship to visit us. Maybe they're from further away and stumbled upon us by accident. Maybe almost every world government has some kind of shadowy group within it that is aware of this and is hiding it from the public.

And maybe Jewish lizardmen orchestrated the economic downfall of mammalian society. :rolleyes:

An open mind is one thing. But requiring some sort of evidence that isn't poorly doctored material is a necessary step I think.

Exactly. There's a BIG difference between an open mind and a willingness to believe wild and wacky myths.

Exactly. There's a BIG difference between an open mind and a willingness to believe wild and wacky myths.

That's just what the Lizardmen WANT you to think!

I can understand covering up alien technology so that our military can have super uber weapons. I just cannot think of any other reason why there would be a cover up.

I can understand covering up alien technology so that our military can have super uber weapons. I just cannot think of any other reason why there would be a cover up.

For supposedly super uber weapons, they've all taken years of conventional research and are distinctly not uber.

Right, like proof of god by lack of proof. Why don't you go argue that instead? At least you'd have more numskulls singing your chorus.

I see that you and many others, still cannot grasp the meaning of a probability debate. If there were rock solid proof then no one would even care what that astronaut saw.

Well, yes, but let's not let facts get in the way of a perfectly good piece of conspiracist rhetoric, shall we?

Oh clearly facts have no place on the other side of the argument.

*applauds*

If I recall correctly, you study/studied physics through degree level, didn't you?

Yes I did. Though even basic knowledge of physics and astronomy should be sufficient to figure out that this laws of physics being rewritten for moving black holes thing is bogus. I mean, conservation of momentum.

I see that you and many others, still cannot grasp the meaning of a probability debate. If there were rock solid proof then no one would even care what that astronaut saw.

Given your continued ignorance of statistical improbability, basic physics, reliance on fringe groups of zero credibility, your inability to even follow an argument honestly and continued flogging of non-evidence as evidence, the probability of you being a troll is extremely high.

I see that you and many others, still cannot grasp the meaning of a probability debate. If there were rock solid proof then no one would even care what that astronaut saw.

I don't think he claimed to see anything. At least not while in space.

Also, yes, if there was rock solid proof of alien visitations, nobody would give a shit about sightings or abduction reports because there would be actual evidence.

Given your continued ignorance of statistical improbability, basic physics, reliance on fringe groups of zero credibility, your inability to even follow an argument honestly and continued flogging of non-evidence as evidence, the probability of you being a troll is extremely high.

Given your ignorance of how many times in histroy "they said it couldnt be done" then it was done, Id say you skipped too much school.

Does anybody want to discuss David Sereda's theory?

I see that you and many others, still cannot grasp the meaning of a probability debate. If there were rock solid proof then no one would even care what that astronaut saw.

The probability that God is responsible for all the things you attribute to aliens is a lot higher than aliens actually existing. Especially considering that we have an entire book written about God and his actions that counts as "evidence" under the laughable standards of that word that you have set up.

Or vampires. Could be vampires.

The probability that God is responsible for all the things you attribute to aliens is a lot higher than aliens actually existing. Especially considering that we have an entire book written about God and his actions that counts as "evidence" under the laughable standards of that word that you have set up.

Or vampires. Could be vampires.

Well sure. If there is a God (and I believe there is) then he certainly would be everywhere and not just the God of Earth. Does it say in the Bible anywhere what the nature of the universe is? Where is that part about tachyons and nebulas? God let's us know what we need to know, when we need it. Now I don't believe God is perfect. Mankind is the proof!

If there were rock solid proof then no one would even care what that astronaut saw.
Of course we would.

But anecdotal evidence and unsourced claims don't constitute as rock solid proof. What we're saying is that holding up the videos and much of the text that you've posted as evidence for alien visitation -- and only alien visitation -- is a little silly, for there are many other explanations for what could have caused the witnessed phenomena.

None of us are discounting the possibility of intelligent alien life in the universe altogether, we're simply saying that the evidence for any of this life visiting Earth is either not conclusive or non-existent.

As shown above, the speed of light just might can be broken. I think it's pretty damm stupid for people to think they know the secrets to the universe, based on what they have learned in a class.Where is this shown above?

From your own link:

The "kick" the black hole receives is akin to the recoil of a rifle. It can propel the black hole to speeds of up to several thousand kilometers per second, according theoretical simulations. The escaping black hole Komossa and her team observed was racing along at 5,900,000 mph (2,650 kilometers per second).

Which is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,639mps, well short of light speed (186,000mps).

Given your ignorance of how many times in histroy "they said it couldnt be done" then it was done, Id say you skipped too much school.

Does anybody want to discuss David Sereda's theory?

I call shotgun on this, although it's going to take a while for me to finish the post. I should have it up by this evening, I hope.

I call shotgun on this, although it's going to take a while for me to finish the post. I should have it up by this evening, I hope.

Basicly, is it impossible to transform matter into energy? And why?

Given your ignorance of how many times in histroy "they said it couldnt be done" then it was done, Id say you skipped too much school?

Given your continued bald faced lies, straw men and false attributions worthy of Goebbels, I find that you are doing nothing but reinforcing the theory that you are a troll. A lousy one at that.

Basicly, is it impossible to transform matter into energy? And why?

http://fasteddie.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/nuclear-bomb-explosion.jpg

http://fasteddie.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/nuclear-bomb-explosion.jpg

Like I said, "it cant be done" has been proved wrong over and over again. Even as early as just last year:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencetopics/largehadroncollider/3351876/Large-Hadron-Collider-First-subatomic-particle-collision-to-happen-next-week.html
Although there was much ballyhoo last week about the first particles - protons - to whirl around the LHC at a shade under the speed of light, the real aim of the exercise is to bring counter rotating beams of particles into collision in the four "eyes" - detectors - of the machine to recreate conditions not seen since just after the birth of the universe.

This is the aspect of the experiment that has triggered all the angst and hand-wringing by doomsayers and Jeremiahs who fear that the collisions will mark the end of the world, as it tumbles into the gaping maw of a black hole.

These fears have been dismissed as nonsense by Dr Evans, along with scientists such as Prof Stephen Hawking, who say that the end of the world is not nigh.



And it still has not blown up. Cool pic though!

Like I said, "it cant be done" has been proved wrong over and over again. Even as early as just last year:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencetopics/largehadroncollider/3351876/Large-Hadron-Collider-First-subatomic-particle-collision-to-happen-next-week.html


Dragontide once again demonstrates the utter inability to read by taking up unrelated occurrences and then attempting to shoehorn his peculiar brand of foolery. One could almost think it a form of dementia. Or an alien visitation advocate variant of Deep Kimchi.

Perhaps he could work for big oil as a global warming denier.

Dragontide once again demonstrates the utter inability to read.

Ummm. It was a picture. I would have appreciated an explination as to why it would go boom. Do you have one?

WARNING. INSANELY LONG POST, FULL OF SNARK AND VENOM, IS AHEAD. READ AT YOUR OWN PERIL.

Given your ignorance of how many times in histroy "they said it couldnt be done" then it was done, Id say you skipped too much school.

Does anybody want to discuss David Sereda's theory?

Sure. Sereda's 'theory' (you and he both misuse the word completely) is complete bullshit, his claims are either provably false or conveniently unsubstantiable, and his claimed knowledge of physics is evidently a total lie.

Working from the first link you give, because there is no useful and relevant content whatsover on the second.

David Sereda has a theory about a ship that has converted mass into light. If something weighs in at zero mass, getting it to do the speed of light costs next to no energy. (which could explain all the sightings of a ball of light as a UFO)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1655089/posts

http://ufonasa.terra-ent.com/

I'm going to work through the first link you provided here, quote every answer of his, and show his mistakes or the claims he's made that can't be defended. As a result, this will be a long post.


Initially I got involved in UFOs because I saw one in Berkeley, California, in 1968 on my way home from elementary school. It was a clear day in California, and my friend Tommy and I noticed a large crowd of people pointing at the sky. There was a clear metallic disc hovering there for a good twenty minutes. After we watched it for a while it just blinked out.

I had some interesting dreams after that — dreams of one set of colored lights spinning one way and another set of colored lights spinning the other way on the same axis — and I never knew exactly what those dreams meant until much later in my life.


Fine. I can't prove or disprove this one way or the other, as it's what he claims to have happened to him. I note, however, that there are conveniently no sources from other people who claimed to have witnessed the event, and no photographs. I also seriously doubt the veracity of the story, for reasons that should become clear as we continue.

This next answer is rather long, so I've broken it up and taken it by paragraphs.


I worked on environmental issues most of my life. And at one point I worked for a group of physicists who were involved with non-radioactive, helium-free fusion. A scientist from MIT named Dr. Bogdan Maglich had invented a new type of nuclear energy fusion reactor that could produce in one square meter a gigawat — a jillion watts — of energy. That is the amount of energy put out by a full-scale nuclear reactor!


While Dr Bogdan Maglich does indeed seem to be a real person, I have my doubts about the quality of his research. His unconventional habit of suing his scientific critics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdan_Maglich) would seem to indicate a lack of ability to actually substantiate his ideas.


Maglich spent 27 million dollars on three or four prototypes, and he got to the point in the late 1980s where he was one experiment away from actually proving a working power-plant model. At that point, the U.S. Air Force, at the request of Major G. Lamberson at Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, NM, spent almost three million dollars doing computer feasibility studies on the prototypes. And the results were astounding, ground-breaking work on fusion power. A lot of the research was "classified," but it basically proved that the next model would succeed. There was no reason for failure.


Major G. Lamberson does not seem to exist, beyond the mention given to him in this article. Note, rather conveniently, that the relevant work is all, of course, "classified", meaning that Sereda can't back up his claims. How nice, you'll just have to take his word for it. As we shall see, however, his word is rather doubtful.


The head of NASA at the time was Gene Fletcher, and he put a request before Congress that they fund the next phase, because it would provide NASA with the ultimate space-based power system. Congress turned Fletcher down, and continued to turn his down for three years in a row.


Again, no evidence for Gene Fletcher ever existing, much less being the director of NASA, exists. Doesn't this just look better and better for Mr Sereda's claims?


I actually got to speak to Congress on this issue in 1993. I spoke with a panel of brilliant physicists about the debate concerning Tokomak Fusion[1], which is basically the main thrust of fusion research in this country. Most of the government funding is monopolized for Tokomak Fusion, with most of the work and experiments being done at Princeton University.


Again, no sources are provided for this claim, which seems dubious in light of the large amounts of work being done on other types of fusion, such as the HiPER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiPER) experiment.


Two fuels are fused — deuterium, which is the isotope of hydrogen sometimes called "heavy hydrogen," and tritium, which is radioactive hydrogen. Ninety percent of all the energy that comes out of that reaction is pure radioactivity, so it is not an environmental option whatsoever. But the public has been led to believe that this type of fusion will supply them with a safe environmental energy source.


This is rather misleading to flat out false. Firstly, D-T is only one of rather a few possible reactions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion#Criteria_and_candidates_for_terrestrial_reactions) that are available. Secondly, energy from these is indeed radiated as heat - I would be interested indeed to see a way of doing something useful with the energy without turning it into heat. Thirdly, D-T fusion produces only free neutrons as radiation, plus some high energy photons. It is rather misleading to call this 'pure radioactivity', evidently intending to evoke images of blue glowing boxes of nuclear fuel.


We were fighting for a different kind of fusion — one that had met most of its criteria in its experimental models for a fraction of the cost, and was literally the cleanest, most environmentally friendly form of fusion — that is, Deuterium and Helium Free Fusion. According to the National Resource Defense Council studies on nuclear fuel cycles, Helium Free is the cleanest of all nuclear fuels.


There are three rather astonishing claims in here. All are completely unsourced. Some searching through the NRDC website (http://nrdc.org) reveals no trace of the claimed studies.


So we had scores of Nobel Laureate prize winners supporting it, including Murray Gell-Mann (Nobel Prize, Physics, 1969), and Glen Seaborg, who chaired the Atomic Energy Commission under Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. The list of supporters went on and on. Yet despite that, no one in Congress would fund it. So I formed a company in 1992 with a wealthy Saudi individual, and we went out and had meetings with the richest people in the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Europe, and tried to get them to fund it. And no one would do it.


Again, there are absolutely no sources provided for all these claimed famous physicists having supported the ideas claimed. Furthermore I find it highly unlikely that, if the ideas Mr Sereda claimed to be presenting were really as convincing and groundbreaking as they are claimed to be, no individual or group could be found who would risk a little venture on what might turn out to be an incredible windfall. After all, he's already told us all they needed was to build the next one, then it would all be done.


Yes, fuels that are far more advanced than gasoline and hydrogen or any of the fuels we use today.


In context, this is completely nonsensical - we do not use gasoline for nuclear fusion.


For instance, nine grams of Helium3 can produce the same amount of energy as a thousand barrels of crude oil. But you have to know how to extract it. That's the trick.

Presumably this would be based on a direct mass->energy conversion of the helium-3, as opposed to burning the oil. Which is a little dubious - firstly, fusion doesn't do direct mass->energy conversion. Secondly, one could actually do that with oil as well, and get rather more energy from it.


If we would have put the money into this ten years ago — back in 1989 — we'd have these types of power plants in all our major cities, and we'd all have the cheapest form of electricity.


Still no proof has been presented about how fantastic this really is, besides Mr Sereda's say-so.


So my background comes from being around physicists and learning physics from a business perspective, and for public relations and communications. To do this, I had to learn a lot about science, and I was around many of the biggest names in this field.

While he may have been around the biggest names in the field (which I doubt) the amount he managed to pick up from them can be put to shame by a single relatively intelligent secondary schooler, as we shall see shortly.


Around 1994 or 1995, I was introduced to Martin Stubbs, who was a program manager of a cable TV station and had archived hundreds of hours of space shuttle missions. He had studied the tapes and found there were UFOs appearing during several missions. A professional photographer friend, Michael Boyle, phoned me and suggested I take a look at these films.


Again, note how these films are not referenced beyond claims they exist, and no links to them are provided. If they were really as clear as he seems to think, why are they not all over the web?

I shall skip the next three responses, as they are simply continued discussion of the claimed UFOs, and are thus worthless without the actual photographic evidence he claims. It is worth noting, however, that the aptitude with mathematics and physics he demonstrates when we pick up the discussion again casts serious doubt on his claims about the behaviour of these UFOs.

Picking up the thread again, we get into the first really crackpot stage of things. Again, I will be chunking a huge piece of text.


Essentially, we can start with aircraft and aviation and spacecraft today. We're used to seeing physical objects move with certain characteristics because we live in the physical dimension.

Well, 'tis technically just about correct. If, of course, you say "we are used to seeing motion behave in a certain way because we life in (according to general relativity) four-dimensional space-time".


Einstein's law prohibited mass, or "solid objects," from attaining the speed of light because as you move mass faster and faster in the physical, you encounter resistance. When you move a boat through water, the water impedes the boat. The faster you go, the harder it becomes to move, because the water's resistance increases. It becomes more and more difficult to push the boat through the water.

Not quite true. If, for example, one is moving in a vacuum, then there is no* resistance acting against you. Yet you still cannot exceed the speed of light, and the closer in which you get to it, the more wierd the relativistic effects get. You can accelerate an object infinitely close to the speed of light, but to do so requires an infinite amount of energy, and the mass of the object will (for very complicated reasons) get infinitely large. Dakini is the person to ask about this.


When you move an aircraft through air mass, the same thing happens. Our speed limit in air is much higher than it is with water, but air mass impedes an aircraft in the same way that water impedes a boat.


Still irrelevant, as according to relativity, an object cannot exceed the speed of light in a vacuum, which by definition has no mass to impede motion.


It was extremely difficult to break the sound barrier, which is 660 miles per hour. When we try to get space craft to go anywhere near the speed of light, it just gets extremely difficult. You can actually get close to it, but it will cost you an enormous amount of energy.


As it happens, we haven't tried to get spacecraft even beyond a tiny fraction of c. This is because there is simply no point in putting in all that energy for accelerating them, when we can get them moving quite fast enough already. See, again, previous comments on what the lightspeed barrier actually is.


In 1989, I had a conversation with Dr. Earl VanLandingham of NASA. He's now retired, but at that time he was the head of Propulsion Power and Energy, and went on to become head of Space Access and Technology for all of NASA.


For a change, there does appear to be a Dr. Earl VanLandinham. Isn't that a surprise?


When I asked VanLandingham about the ET question, he said that when you consider the amount of energy it takes for a spacecraft to arrive at Earth from another star system, the energy system emitting from the craft would be so massive we would detect the signal well in advance of the spacecraft's arrival.


Why, that's exactly what posters such as myself have been saying since page 2, as it happens. Good to hear the real scientists agree with us.


Our nearest stars are Alpha Centauri A and B. They are 4.2 and 4.3 light years from earth. That means that even if you could do the speed of light, it would take you 4.3 years to get there, and that would be if you were in a constant mode of space travel just doing the speed of light.


As it happens, this is also true. What a change this makes. Shall we see how long it lasts?


Particle Accelerators accelerate subatomic particles to faster and faster velocities and basically slam them into each other. In experimentation, scientists basically accelerate protons, which are the main portion of the atom, and get them up to 99 percent of the speed of light. But it costs a trillion electron-volts of energy to get them there.


Well, he's manage to still not get it wrong. Will it last?


How much energy is a trillion electron volts? It is five thousand times more energy then is released in a nuclear explosion. Nuclear explosions release 200 million volts of energy, which is staggering as far as we are concerned.

No. This paragraph displays a level of physical ignorance almost mind-boggling in its stupidity. If Mr Sereda really has any sort of physics education, I hope his teachers have been long since fired for sheer incompetence.

So, where are the problems? Well, a trillion electron volts really is a very impressive sounding figure, isn't it? So let's compare it to something. Consider blinking your eyes. While accurately estimating the force needed is rather tricky, shall we assume for the moment it is approximately 8 microNewtons? Sounds nice and small, doesn't it? The distance is roughly 1cm, and there are two eyes. Plugging into the appropriate formula for energy - Force * distance - and converting to electron volts, we find almost exactly 1 trillion eV! Now, I'd heard about a face which could launch a thousand ships, but I've never heard of one which can blow a navy into matchsticks by blinking coquettishly.

Furthermore, nuclear explosions (what a vague category) do not release 200 million volts of energy, for several reasons. The first and simplest is that volts are not a measure of energy, but of potential difference. While this seems a minor objection, it is rather important - this level of incompetence demonstrates clearly our illustrious author has no idea whatsoever what he is talking about, and is singularly unqualified to make any sort of suggestion about physics. Next, of course, is the fact that nuclear explosions release from 4 * 10^9 J to 2 * 10^15 J (from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons)). In electron volts, this is somewhere between 2 * 10^28 (over 20 thousand trillion trillion), and 1 * 10^34 (over 10 billion billion trillion). Needless to say, Mr Sereda is painfully wrong yet again.


So to produce a trillion electron volts — and we can only produce that much for about a second — costs an enormous amount of energy. If a space ship were using this type of technology to get close to the speed of light and visit us from another star system, they would have an energy signal of over a trillion electron-volts pulsating from their craft in a continuous stream of energy. And that is something that every amateur radio astronomer and every radio oscilloscope would pick up well in advance of the arrival of a spacecraft.

That's exactly what Dr. VanLandingham said, and we've never seen anything like that.

Well, the first part of this is wrong, as was explained previously. The rest is (apart from being a huge number of orders of magnitude out) is roughly correct, as was (again) already explained upthread rather clearly.


So what I propose is a new theory in the field of physics, and the UFO field, in particular. I propose that somehow these craft are able to convert their mass into light. Essentially, once you can make a spacecraft into a photon — a particle of light — then according to Einstein's theory they weigh in at zero mass.

This, however, is complete and total nonsense, and Mr Sereda's understanding of relativity is shown to be (at the very best) that of someone who slept through high school physics.

As it happens, however, one can turn matter into light. One simply hits it with an equivalent amount of antimatter, and stands well clear of the resulting gamma photons. This, however, is a rather one-way process, as most explosions are.


If something weighs in at zero mass, getting it to do the speed of light in Einstein's formula costs next to no energy — maybe a couple of volts.


Wrong. First, yet again, volts are not energy. Secondly, if something has a rest mass of 0kg, it is automatically moving at the speed of light, because it's a photon (or other similar particle).


So my concept is that what these ETs are doing is taking steel or metallic spacecraft and basically reducing their mass down to zero before they even try to move them around. And once they reduce their mass to zero, then they can go at lightspeed on a very small amount of energy.

No they can't, because this is completely impossible. Not only this, were it possible, I'm not sure how turning themselves into a puff of light is really going to help travel, given that you can't exactly do much once you're there, apart from faintly illuminate people.


What that tells us, if that is what they are doing, is that they can convert their mass into light. They also can disappear into different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, just as I witnessed in Berkeley, California, on that day in 1968.

It isn't what they're doing. Next?


Further, the pilots or occupants would not experience any G forces. G force is the gravity force you get when you're going at a high velocity and you start turning. You can experience that even in your car when you try to make a turn doing seventy miles an hour. Your body will be pushing off to one side. In an aircraft you go much faster, and when you try to turn, the forces of gravity cause you to experience this force — which is very physical.

This is also wrong, due to a complete misunderstanding of circular motion. By this point, I can't even be bothered to correct it, but he has completely misunderstood what g forces are, why they are experienced, and what causes them to increase or decrease.


If you were a spacecraft doing three thousand miles an hour and you did a sudden turn, if you had mass, your spacecraft would explode. The atoms would simply implode on each other and you would have a nuclear fission and fusion explosion as a result of the turn.

You can turn just as fast in a spacecraft doing 3000 mph as you can in the same spacecraft doing 30 mph. Turning speed - known as angular velocity - is simply a measure of how fast your angle changes with respect to time. When using the same force to produce the turn, the same end result will occur. Now, the turning circle will be wider with higher velocity, but that's not the same thing.

Mr Sereda also completely misunderstands exactly how spacecraft move, but that's not surprising, given everything else he's misunderstood so far.


So I propose that if the spacecraft has reduced its mass to zero and become pure light energy, and if it can make a 90-degree turn and experience no G force, it must be able to go right through solid objects. It can disappear — be invisible — and it can attain light speed on a small amount of energy.

No it can't, because it doesn't have any thrusters or devices to turn. It will be redirected by gravity, but nothing else. In atmosphere, it will be scattered into nothingness within moments, and solid objects will (unless reflective) cause it to disappear in a rapidly spreading cloud of randomly moving photons. Furthermore, it will already be moving at lightspeed. These observations are yet more evidence that Mr Sereda is spouting first class bullshit.


If a craft were visiting us from another star system and had the kind of properties I'm talking about, it would not be detectable in the energy sense that Einstein equates to E=mc² — i.e., that energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared. When you run a zero-mass spacecraft through this formula, of course, your energy comes out as zero.

Of course E=mc^2 won't give you a useful answer. E=hf will though, and such a spacecraft would have energy - indeed, it would be energy, as that's all photons are.


When I considered the amount of energy you need in a physical model to move a spacecraft at the speed of light, I can't even accept that that type of energy is even attainable for more than a couple of seconds.

That is because you have no idea what you're talking about. The fact that it's impossible to move an object with non-zero rest mass beyond the speed of light is simply a happy coincidence.


Wormholes are another very exotic form of space travel proposed by modern physicists, but that would cost you the energy that a hundred billion suns put out for an entire year. Our galaxy has a hundred billion suns in it, so they are saying that to produce a worm hole you need all that energy for an entire year of every star in our galaxy. The numbers are so ridiculous and impossible that I cannot accept that that is how these UFOs are doing it.

No, because they aren't doing it. No aliens are coming to visit us. Furthermore, wormholes are a) merely a theoretical construct, and b) rather impractical for travel - it's this spaghettification thing.


The reason NASA cannot accept the UFO phenomenon is because they are stuck in Einsteinian physics. They cannot see another way out of this. So when they look at the UFO phenomenon, they say it can't be real because Einstein's law says if they are moving at that speed we should be seeing this huge energy signal, and we're not. So that's one of the main reasons the presence of UFOs is negated and mainstream physicists don't take this seriously.

And the reason they are 'stuck' in Einsteinian physics is because NASA employs skilled, competent physicists, not talentless, incompetent idiots like Mr Sereda here.


However, if you look at what I'm proposing — that mass can turn into light and be reduced to zero — then you have a whole new set of possibilities.

Yes - a whole new set of ways to laugh your head off while wondering if it really is possible for anyone to be this stupid.

So let us plunge bravely ahead, from the realm of the simply stupid to the completely batshit insane. Anyone still reading?


It is. There are stories of masters and yogis who have been able to do exactly this with their own bodies. Christ in his resurrected body can literally appear anywhere on the planet in a blink of an eye because that body is made of pure light and can move around. It is free of the laws of physical matter.

Irrelevant, unprovable, and displays (yet again) his complete misunderstanding of light, matter, energy, and physics itself.


In the Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramahansa Yogananda[3] there are many stories of yogis who could do the same thing.

This claims a citation, but I can't help but think a book about Hindu religion is possibly not the best source for basing an argument about physics on.


So where does this go next? How do you convert mass into light? This is where I've had a major revelation in physics. It's going to be hard to do in an interview, but I'm going to try.

Antimatter, I already said. What nonsense is he going to come up with?


Everything in front of you right now — everything that you see that appears physical — is just waves when you look at it at a micro-atomic level.

Hmm, maybe. Or it's just particles, which is why we have the term 'wave-particle duality'. But let us investigate where he's going with this.


When we look into any substance we see atoms. Initially, we saw that the atoms were made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. The proton is a positively charged nucleus that has an electron spinning around it at an incredible speed, like a little planet, in an essentially wave-particle relationship.

No, not really. I thought this guy was supposed to be excellent at physics, not failed-high-school level.


All of those waves have frequencies.

Yes, standard property of a wave. Of course, in the case of subatomic particles, they're not waves at all, but are rather 'spinning' particles.


Our planet Earth is a giant particle moving through a wave relationship. The wave is actually the energy sphere that the planet is moving through — a path, if you will.

Yeah...


This relationship shows up everywhere you look. The brain is like a particle of mass and actually produces a wave. The Galaxy itself is the ultimate wave-particle relationship. We see all these planets and stars and gases spinning around, getting closer and closer to a black hole.

...This is complete nonsense, and he is using his terms in a way no physicist would even comprehend, because it's so completely stupid.


When physicists look at even smaller particles, they aren't even particles any more — they are waves. That's known as the particle-wave duality.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is called 'ignorance'.

So the question is: If ultimately everything is just waves, what is the difference between the one thing we know that can attain the speed of light, which is a photon, and ordinary matter?

A photon has zero rest mass. That's what. What nonsense is he going to suggest?


The answer is really quite amazing.

"What is it then?"
"Well, if you must pry..."
"I must, I must"


Scientists have found out that solid mass is actually in a near-zero state of frequency. In other words, its electromagnetic frequency is at or near zero.

Complete and utter trash.


Light, however, is high in frequency.

Ditto. Look at radio waves, for example, for a very clear disproof of this.


So, in theory, you could change the frequency of mass, turn it into a high frequency state, and it would take on the properties of photons.

No, actually, it wouldn't.


The only thing we can see on this planet that escapes Earth's gravity are photons. Photons are light particle waves that are bouncing off of the Earth and going out into space and not being pulled back by the Earth's gravity. They levitate. They bounce off walls and go shooting back into space, possibly giving someone out there a picture of what the Earth looks like.

Oh dear...

Among other thing we can see which escape Earth's gravity, there's this little construction NASA produced called the Saturn V rocket. No, photons do not levitate. Yes, if there is someone out there, they can see what Earth looks like by observing the photons which bounce off it - this is called "seeing".


So there has to be something about these little guys that contains the answer, not only to light-speed travel but to levitation and many other phenomenal things.

Yes, it's zero rest mass. Has nothing to do with levitation though.


In 2000 I invented a model — what I call the Galaxy Clock — that allows us to look at the wave-particle relationship in 3D. Today, we use what is called an oscilloscope, which allows us to look at waves, and we measure the number of peaks per second in that wave relationship. That gives us our frequency. Frequency means how frequently a wave oscillates per second (the Galaxy Clock may be viewed at UFONasa.com).

Oh dear, junk invention alert.


When I decided actually to look at the wave in the UFOs — we're talking about two months after I made this invention — I was in Maui studying with a zero-point energy scientist named Steve Okerlund. He purchased a huge TV and a thousand-dollar VCR, because we wanted to have the best freeze-frame possibilities.

This is useless. No matter how good your TV and VCR, the quality of videotape is low enough it won't make a difference. Furthermore, the technical characteristics of a TV screen will hopelessly pollute any attempts to measure frequencies or the like from objects displayed on it.


We looked at the very largest UFO that was pulsating and moving all across the top of the tether on Mission SGS-75, and when we freeze-framed the waves, I was so astounded — I knew exactly what I was looking at! We had three waves that kept repeating themselves over and over, and they told me everything that was happening with the craft. It was the answer to the propulsion system and how we could reverse-engineer this sort of thing ourselves.

What we saw, basically, was a series of waves that were going from a low-frequency state to a medium-high-frequency state and then to an ultra-high-frequency state — which is exactly what is needed to transform mass, which is very low in frequency, to light, which is very high in frequency.

No, it isn't. It's utter nonsense, complete trash, and totally worthless. At best, it displays total incompetence about how one takes measurements and readings, at worst, it demonstrates a deliberate intention to mislead.


That was the revelation. I saw a clear signature of a series of transitional waves moving from low to ultra-high. The Golden Phi spiral that we see when we run the image through a wave clock is a wave in transition going from low to ultra-high.

No it isn't. It's utter nonsense, total pseudoscience, and has nothing whatsoever to do with any form of physics.


These craft are not using rocket engines, they are pulsating the steel or metallic structure of their craft with a series of waves that, I propose, transform its mass into light.

I don't care what you propose, you are (as has been demonstrated before) flat out wrong.


The next thing I did was to find a scientist, John Hutchinson, the inventor of the Hutchinson effect. He's used Tesla coils, Vandegraff generators, and Tesla radio coils to pulsate objects. In one case, which is recorded on film, he pulsates a 75-pound steel cannonball with very low frequency Vandegraff waves and then medium-high-frequency radio waves and ultra-high radio waves — and the cannon ball levitates! This huge piece of steel hovers above a wooden table.

Let me quote Marc Millis, who actually worked for NASA on spacecraft propulsion, about John Hutchison's ideas:


This "Hutchison Effect" has been claimed for years, without any independent verification — ever. In fact, its originator can't even replicate it on demand. This has been investigated more than once, been part of documentaries on The Discovery Channel, but still never seems to pass critical muster. This is in the category of folklore. In general, the "American Antigravity" web site caters to such folklore and its enthusiasts.


In other words, we can quite safely discard this completely as fringe nonsense.


And we can clearly see the revelation. We can see how these very large UFOs are silently witnessed hovering above cities, houses, and farmers' fields. There's no rocket or thrust.

No, we can't, because you have singularly failed to produce any sort of demonstration which isn't based on completely false and nonsensical physics.


So we have the first part of the answer.

Nope. We're still wondering why we even bother to read this shit.


Now, if you can make a space shuttle or any spacecraft levitate by raising its frequency, we would see the same relationship between mass and photons. All objects with mass fall into the Earth's gravity except for photons, and we know that photons are in a higher frequency state than mass.

Repeating things which are wrong may make them true for the Bellman, but not for you.


The exciting thing is, once you can convert mass into light, it can leviate but it also can disappear. Once you're there, you can maintain a state of zero mass with a small amount of energy. And further, you can attain the speed of light on very small amounts of Einsteinian, or physical, energy. This is how I believe the UFOs are doing it.

I don't care what you believe, because you are flat out wrong.

We now depart entirely from reality, which must be refreshing, for the rest of the interview. The last paragraph, however, deserves a little consideration, as it sums up so clearly what is wrong with citing Mr Sereda as a scientist.


But, that's all just theory. And when you have a theory, you have to set out to prove it. It's as good as any theory out there, but proving it is pretty tough work.


No, it isn't theory. It is, at the most generous, a hypothesis, which is the scientific term for a guess with no evidence one way or the other. A 'theory' is something quite different - it is a falsifiable hypothesis which has been backed up by all of the tests done so far. His suggestions, however, are completely false. Proving it is thus not merely hard work, but impossible.

Because I'm feeling vindictive after having had all this stupidity inflicted on me, I shall close with this parting shot:


[H]is first aspiration in life was to become an astronaut.

Failed the intelligence test, did he?

END OF WAVE OF SNARK, VENOM, AND PHYSICS. THREAD NOW SAFE FOR HUMANITY

Well, I think that should have dealt with any attempt to cite him. I still can't believe I did that - the sheer lack of knowledge displayed was actually painful. Any questions?

[H]is first aspiration in life was to become an astronaut.


You can see why he wanted to be an astronaut, he's that far out.

Basicly, is it impossible to transform matter into energy? And why?

No, just hit it with an equally large chunk of antimatter. For more detail, read post #406 in this thread.

Like I said, "it cant be done" has been proved wrong over and over again. Even as early as just last year:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencetopics/largehadroncollider/3351876/Large-Hadron-Collider-First-subatomic-particle-collision-to-happen-next-week.html

And it still has not blown up. Cool pic though!

Completely and totally irrelevant.

No, just hit it with an equally large chunk of antimatter. For more detail, read post #406 in this thread.

As it happens, however, one can turn matter into light. One simply hits it with an equivalent amount of antimatter, and stands well clear of the resulting gamma photons. This, however, is a rather one-way process, as most explosions are.

And where are your results from this fasinating experiment? What tools did you use? Why would another world be limited to what resourses Earth has? What if one team of alien scientists worked on the problem for 1,000,000 years?

There is an awful lot of universe out there......who are we to say that no intelligent life exists beyond our solar system?

I question there being intelligent life within our solar system.

And where are your results from this fasinating expiriment?

Standard high-school level physics --- unlike you, I pay attention in class, it seems. If you really demand a source, try, for example, the third sentence of this wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron).

Is that really the only possible objection you have to offer, considering the ideas you just brought up for us were completely destroyed?

(And why is it appropriate that "bringing something up" is a UKian euphemism for vomiting?)

Edit: Ah, add an edit, will you? Very well...

What tools did you use

Well, at its simplest, one can use positrons, electrons, and a couple scintillators to pick up the results. It's not exactly a hard experiment, just fiddly.

Why would another world be limited to what resourses Earth has?

I don't think you quite understand what any of this discussion is about, do you? We are talking about fundamental particles here. They are the same everywhere in the universe - this is a founding principle of scientific investigation, and discarding it will make your ideas amusing and useless.

What if one team of alien scientists worked on the problem for 1,000,000 years?

Wouldn't help them. Well, they might discover other ways to turn matter into pure energy - that is, light. Still doesn't help at all, because my objections were (if you had read and comprehended the post) raised at many more levels, including the complete and total misunderstanding of the behaviour of light and matter the author of your article demonstrated.

SNIP

tl;dr

tl;dr

Expected. It mostly existed to make a point, and to give me a rather nice post to refer back to with every one of his pieces of scientific idiocy for the next five pages.

You may find it amusing though - it basically devolves into pure snark by halfway through, I must admit, but it also destroys the nonsense Dragontide linked for us.

I question there being intelligent life within our solar system.

Point, and I must nod. It certainly hasn't been shown to exist, but that's because of a huge government conspiracy to cover it up. We spent billions of dollars over several decades to cover up all true intelligence, and then create intelligence hoaxes so that we can disprove them.

The ultimate goal of all this, of course, was to get G.W. Bush elected to office, as he seemed like the best of what's left.

One thing which entertains me in general is the refreshing democracy of ideas when it comes to UFOs and other fringe science. It seems that, while physicists are normally the source to go to for ideas and information about physics, the topic being UFOs means that everybody and their dog can have an opinion and argue it loudly, despite not knowing the first thing about physics. If you have to ask questions like "wait, what's this antimatter thing" and "who says lightspeed is a barrier" and stuff, your opinion is not informed enough to be relevant.

Standard high-school level physics --- unlike you, I pay attention in class, it seems. If you really demand a source, try, for example, the third sentence of this wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron).

Is that really the only possible objection you have to offer, considering the ideas you just brought up for us were completely destroyed?

(And why is it appropriate that "bringing something up" is a UKian euphemism for vomiting?)

Edit: Ah, add an edit, will you? Very well...



Well, at its simplest, one can use positrons, electrons, and a couple scintillators to pick up the results. It's not exactly a hard experiment, just fiddly.



I don't think you quite understand what any of this discussion is about, do you? We are talking about fundamental particles here. They are the same everywhere in the universe - this is a founding principle of scientific investigation, and discarding it will make your ideas amusing and useless.



Wouldn't help them. Well, they might discover other ways to turn matter into pure energy - that is, light. Still doesn't help at all, because my objections were (if you had read and comprehended the post) raised at many more levels, including the complete and total misunderstanding of the behaviour of light and matter the author of your article demonstrated.

If aliens are traveling to Earth, how they get here would be of great importance. The guy said he saw a UFO so he would have a solid motive to try to figure it out. Maybe an alien figured out a technique. Maybe for such a process to work takes 1000 years after the button is pushed. Maybe materials can be synthasized or diluted that work.

I pointed out the "they said it couldnt be done" because those that said it did not understand how "it" could be done. But it was done anyway by someone that did understand. How can we know what level of understanding someone might have that lives light years away? We cant. So we should not dismiss such possibilities so quickly.

*Huge Cut*Well, I think with that wonderful post we can call it a wrap.

And...

/thread.

What if one team of alien scientists worked on the problem for 1,000,000 years?

Well, for starters they've must have had nothing better to do for a really long time. But hey, why don't you introduce me to your alien scientist friends?

Well, for starters they've must have had nothing better to do for a really long time.

Unless that is only 10% or so of their life time. A house fly lives a day. Sea turtles and other creatures live up to 100,000 times longer. Multi million year life spans would not be out of the question.

Still there are better places in the universe to visit than a planet dominated by more or less intelligent primates. People used to believe in dragons, vampires and monsters waiting under your bed, but in this day and age the Greys are the preferred mythological mystery. Sooner or later they will mutilate your cow, better be prepared!

Ummm. It was a picture. I would have appreciated an explination as to why it would go boom. Do you have one?

Observe how Dragontide not only attempts to dodge once again, he now cannot differentiate between a picture and a news link when making an argument. Also observe his inability or unwillingness to acknowledge the comprehensive rebuttal to his argument and those of his ilk. In addition, he presents hopes as fact. Further evidence of a forcible disconnect between perception and thought processes and his potential as a propaganda officer of some backwards and superstitious dictatorship.

If aliens are traveling to Earth, how they get here would be of great importance. The guy said he saw a UFO so he would have a solid motive to try to figure it out. Maybe an alien figured out a technique. Maybe for such a process to work takes 1000 years after the button is pushed. Maybe materials can be synthasized or diluted that work.

I pointed out the "they said it couldnt be done" because those that said it did not understand how "it" could be done. But it was done anyway by someone that did understand. How can we know what level of understanding someone might have that lives light years away? We cant. So we should not dismiss such possibilities so quickly.

Dismiss the possibilities? Of course not. We should not, however, accept anything anyone says just because it's wrapped in sciencish jargon. Sedaras should be doing the basic research on his ideas, not posting blather on the Internet that can be picked apart as it was above. That's how science works. You do the research, you present your results, other people duplicate your work and results, cheering crowds carry you to Stockholm and the King of Sweden gives you this ginormous gold medal and a check for lots of money.

Blather <> Science. Reproducible results = Science.

Unless that is only 10% or so of their life time. A house fly lives a day. Sea turtles and other creatures live up to 100,000 times longer. Multi million year life spans would not be out of the question.Once again, you are discussing an alien species' lifespan before you've presented any evidence they even exist. You're going about this in the wrong order. There could be aliens made out of LEGOs, or Stickle Bricks, or they could be giant peanuts, or be made out of pure energy, or be mute. Literally an infinite number of possibilities, all completely useless until we find some data that backs them up. If you have any such data to back your claim, I'd like to see it.

If any ever have been, I would not expect that information to go public.
Look, the problem is that...

If mankind didn't develop FTL signalling then the volume of space where we - as a civilization - would be visible would have a radius of (with impeccable alien technology) ~40-50 ly

That's not a lot and probably encompasses very few habitable starsystems*


* You can pretty much remove binary/multiple stars, brown dwarfs, volatile stars, giants, etc.. from the list

Still there are better places in the universe to visit than a planet dominated by more or less intelligent primates.

Now I never said they came to Earth first nor would I concider it likely that Earth would be anywhere near first.

But at the very least, a race sending out a few million unmanned drones to get basic information about as many systems as possible could draw their interest. Even if all they knew was we had dinosaurs long ago, I think they would drop by.

Those hypothetical ancient aliens do the most amazing things, don't they? Now I'm a big fan of science fiction, but there's a reason we don't call it science fact. As long as there is no empirical evidence present, we're just entertaining ourselves with fairytales here when talking about visitors from outer space.

Now I never said they came to Earth first nor would I concider it likely that Earth would be anywhere near first.

But at the very least, a race sending out a few million unmanned drones to get basic information about as many systems as possible could draw their interest. Even if all they knew was we had dinosaurs long ago, I think they would drop by.

A million probes you say?

Let's say it takes one year to study a star system (incl. travel & data collection, both completely impossible according to laws physics as we know them) that means studying approx. million starsystems per year.

Milky Way has 200-400 billion stars.

That means alien probe would visit any given starsystem once every, oh I don't know, 200 to 400 THOUSAND YEARS.

If aliens are traveling to Earth, how they get here would be of great importance. The guy said he saw a UFO so he would have a solid motive to try to figure it out. Maybe an alien figured out a technique. Maybe for such a process to work takes 1000 years after the button is pushed. Maybe materials can be synthasized or diluted that work.

I pointed out the "they said it couldnt be done" because those that said it did not understand how "it" could be done. But it was done anyway by someone that did understand. How can we know what level of understanding someone might have that lives light years away? We cant. So we should not dismiss such possibilities so quickly.

You can, because those 'ideas' that Sedara put forth and you are attempting to defend are completely and totally impossible. You cannot synthesise a material that would work, because my arguments apply on the level of subatomic particles. If you want to claim that it could possibly be done, you need to show where I was wrong. You have been completely and totally unable to.

This thread has been fairly simple: you have claimed something vaguely scientific, we have completely disproved it. You are committing endless logical fallacies, and simply ignoring posts and points which destroy your nonsensical contentions.

I, and others, have made it inescapably clear that you have to accept the rules of science if you want to make scientific claims. One of those is that you don't get to say "Well, what if all the rules didn't apply?" It might give you interesting (but probably just bad) SF, but it won't give you a very useful place to have a scientific debate from.

It is true that, if aliens were traveling to Earth, how they got here would be rather important. Throughout this thread, every one of the arguments you have produced for why aliens might possibly be able to travel to Earth, short of pure magic, has been completely and totally destroyed. The conclusion is that aliens are not traveling to earth, as you have singularly failed to show how they possibly could.

Well, I think with that wonderful post we can call it a wrap.

And...

/thread.

Thank you. Observe, please, Dragontide's complete failure to comprehend the arguments I put forth.

Look, the problem is that...

If mankind didn't develop FTL signalling then the volume of space where we - as a civilization - would be visible would have a radius of (with impeccable alien technology) ~40-50 ly

That's not a lot and probably encompasses very few habitable starsystems*


* You can pretty much remove binary/multiple stars, brown dwarfs, volatile stars, giants, etc.. from the list

Hehe. I already ran the numbers, as it happens, see this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14739423&postcount=308). Further extended and explained in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14739909&postcount=310).

A million probes you say?

Let's say it takes one year to study a star system (incl. travel & data collection, both completely impossible according to laws physics as we know them) that means studying approx. million starsystems per year.

Milky Way has 200-400 billion stars.

That means alien probe would visit any given starsystem once every, oh I don't know, 200 to 400 THOUSAND YEARS.

Which could yield a LOT of life. Not ALL the life but a lot. So far we cannot confirm or deny any system but our own so this is still a 50/50 debate.

Which could yield a LOT of life. Not ALL the life but a lot. So far we cannot confirm or deny any system but our own so this is still a 50/50 debate.

He granted completely impossible premises, and arrived at a conclusion which still destroyed your contentions.

This is not a 50/50 debate. This is not even a debate. This is a massacre. There is not one plausible and scientifically accurate theory provided to explain how aliens could have both visited from another planet and fit the observations UFO proponents claim.

I can tell you, right now, that we have discovered over 300 planets beyond those in our own star system. Exactly one is possibly able to support life, and that one does not have advanced life (no radio signals recieved). There is utterly no real, scientific evidence to suggest the existence of extraterrestrial life, especially intelligent life capable of visiting us.

Which could yield a LOT of life. Not ALL the life but a lot. So far we cannot confirm or deny any system but our own so this is still a 50/50 debate.How do you figure this is a 50/50 debate? You're implying that both sides are equally plausible, despite your complete lack of evidence, and UvV's complete debunking of that wild thought (best I can come up with, because it aint a theory) of
Sedera's?


Because it's a 99.9999999/00.0000001 'debate' from this view. I think you may be delusional.

He granted completely impossible premises, and arrived at a conclusion which still destroyed your contentions.

This is not a 50/50 debate. This is not even a debate. This is a massacre. There is not one plausible and scientifically accurate theory provided to explain how aliens could have both visited from another planet and fit the observations UFO proponents claim.

I can tell you, right now, that we have discovered over 300 planets beyond those in our own star system. Exactly one is possibly able to support life, and that one does not have advanced life (no radio signals recieved). There is utterly no real, scientific evidence to suggest the existence of extraterrestrial life, especially intelligent life capable of visiting us.

Pretty much all of this debate is based on how far Earth is from other systems. How about how close are other planets to other systems. (and dont forget multiple star systems) I submit that if one space faring race found intelligent life in one system, they would never stop looking for more.

Pretty much all of this debate is based on how far Earth is from other systems. How about how close are other planets to other systems. (and dont forget multiple star systems) I submit that if one space faring race found intelligent life in one system, they would never stop looking for more.

Maybe so. But so far, you have singularly failed to demonstrate a) that other intelligent life exists (although this one seems rather likely), b) that the best way of looking for other life is through slow, error prone probes, not radio, and c) that interstellar travel for living beings is practicable, or even possible.

This debate is based on much more than distance. The fact that you haven't realised this doesn't bode well for any arguments you put forward.

Maybe so. But so far, you have singularly failed to demonstrate a) that other intelligent life exists (although this one seems rather likely), b) that the best way of looking for other life is through slow, error prone probes, not radio, and c) that interstellar travel for living beings is practicable, or even possible.

This debate is based on much more than distance. The fact that you haven't realised this doesn't bode well for any arguments you put forward.

Distance and slow (maybe slow) probes become irrelivent if we are talking about a multi million year time frame.

Distance and slow (maybe slow) probes become irrelivent if we are talking about a multi million year time frame.

No they don't. This has already been made clear, read post #310. Yet again, you completely fail to comprehend the level the discussion is taking place on.

Edit: Just to reiterate yet again, the reason distance and speed are still relevant is very simple - humanity has only been an 'advanced'* species for about 100 years. Unless you are seriously proposing that alien ships set off for Earth a few million years ago, very serious flaws appear in your 'argument' (and if you are proposing that, even more serious flaws appear).

*defined, for the sake of the discussion, as "a species capable of communicating via radio"

For another point to add, it matters not one whit how close together other star systems are (beyond certain parameters). The important thing, as far as we are concerned, is the distance between us down here and anything that happens to be up there.

Distance and slow (maybe slow) probes become irrelivent if we are talking about a multi million year time frame.Distance and slow probes also become irrelevant if we are talking about Aliens with teleportation powers. Or aliens that ride dragons that fly faster than the speed of light, or aliens that bend reality to their will.

Without evidence, what's the point?

Or aliens that ride dragons that fly faster than the speed of light,

I want a dragon that flies FTL...

I want a dragon that flies FTL...You and me both. What an awesome way to bounce around the cosmos. I hope the aliens leave one of them behind.

Distance and slow (maybe slow) probes become irrelivent if we are talking about a multi million year time frame.

Well as modern humans have only been around a couple of hundred thousand years...seems a pretty random approach.

I want a dragon that flies FTL...

You and me both. What an awesome way to bounce around the cosmos. I hope the aliens leave one of them behind.

Good to see people are treating the thread with appropriate gravitas.

Well as modern humans have only been around a couple of hundred thousand years...seems a pretty random approach.

Ninja'd you, I'm afraid.

Unless you are seriously proposing that alien ships set off for Earth a few million years ago, .

I believe I have made that point quite a few times. Possibly even a first visit a couple of hundred million years ago. But not just "looking for Earth"

As far as aliens visiting Earth BECAUSE of radio (and TV) from Earth, I don't think that is very likely at all.

I believe I have made that point quite a few times. Possibly even a first visit a couple of hundred million years ago. But not just "looking for Earth"

As far as aliens visiting Earth BECAUSE of radio (and TV) from Earth, I don't think that is very likely at all.

You better hope not. They might be aliens like those in Fredric Brown's story "The Waveries."

I believe I have made that point quite a few times. Possibly even a first visit a couple of hundred million years ago. But not just "looking for Earth"

As far as aliens visiting Earth BECAUSE of radio (and TV) from Earth, I don't think that is very likely at all.

Oh good - you're completely wrong.

Given the sheer number of stars and planets in the galaxy, there is no conceivable reason to launch a pinpoint mission to a single one, unless you have confirmed signs of intelligence there. However, Earth only confirmed itself as such within the last 100 years, making suggestions of million year missions to Earth simply nonsense.

Furthermore, there are still many remaining objections. For a start, these ships would have been quite easily detected arriving in the solar system, yet they did not show up on anything. Secondly, all the previous objections about the impracticality of interstellar travel apply a thousandfold (at least). Finally, the compete impracticality, to the point of being active death traps, of any UFO design as a long distance, long term interstellar craft also now applies. And this is just to begin with.

Oh good - you're completely wrong.

Given the sheer number of stars and planets in the galaxy, there is no conceivable reason to launch a pinpoint mission to a single one, unless you have confirmed signs of intelligence there. However, Earth only confirmed itself as such within the last 100 years, making suggestions of million year missions to Earth simply nonsense.

Furthermore, there are still many remaining objections. For a start, these ships would have been quite easily detected arriving in the solar system, yet they did not show up on anything. Secondly, all the previous objections about the impracticality of interstellar travel apply a thousandfold (at least). Finally, the compete impracticality, to the point of being active death traps, of any UFO design as a long distance, long term interstellar craft also now applies. And this is just to begin with.

I never said ANYTHING about a pinpoint mission! (other than to say it's not likely)

And why do you (and others) keep suggesting that the people of Earth would be the main reason for them to visit? What is wrong with a quest for medicine and materials? How about for colonization? How about JUST because they figued out how to solve the FTL problems?

And I doubt they would have that big of a problem with some sort of stelth technology.

And I doubt they would have that big of a problem with some sort of stelth technology.Considering their non-existence, I can agree with you on this point.

I never said ANYTHING about a pinpoint mission! (other than to say it's not likely)


A large scale search would take insane amounts of time. The earlier figure of 200-400 thousand years was too low, IMO, because visiting a star system per year is hopelessly impractical.


And why do you (and others) keep suggesting that the people of Earth would be the main reason for them to visit? What is wrong with a quest for medicine and materials?


A civilization advanced enough to be able to travel interstellar distances is unlikely to need Earth for medicine/materials. It would be perfectly capable of finding it's own raw materials closer to home, and it could make medicines itself.


How about for colonization?


They'd pick a closer system to home.


How about JUST because they figued out how to solve the FTL problems?


There isn't a solution for the FTL problems. If you'd like to propose one, feel free, but somehow I doubt it. Aliens are bound by the same laws of physics as us, they aren't magic.


And I doubt they would have that big of a problem with some sort of stelth technology.

It's simply not possible to have a stealth spacecraft. On-board systems (such as life-support, engines, etc.) generate heat. Heat must either be kept (frying anything and everything on board) or radiated off (which is detectable). Unless you'd care to suggest another way (no, 'magic' isn't an answer) for it to work, I think we'll assume that you could detect a spacecraft.

I never said ANYTHING about a pinpoint mission! (other than to say it's not likely)

How else will they reach Earth after traveling for a million years?


And why do you (and others) keep suggesting that the people of Earth would be the main reason for them to visit?

What possible other reason could there be, than interest in the presence of other intelligent life? You have still not suggested a plausible one that can fit with your claims about UFOs actions on Earth.


What is wrong with a quest for medicine and materials?

Any civilisation advanced enough to travel for millions of years to reach a particular planet is capable of acquiring any possible material it needs, or even synthesising them itself, without interstellar travel.


How about for colonization?

Note a distinct lack of alien colonies on Earth. Disproven.


How about JUST because they figued out how to solve the FTL problems?

It has already been made inescapably clear that this debate presumes certain things, among them that science applies.

Furthermore, you misunderstand the nature of the lightspeed limit. It has been shown, rather neatly, that you can either have causality and relativity, causality and FTL, or relativity and FTL. As you rather want causality for the universe to have any sort of sense, you have to pick either relativity or FTL. Considering the vast amounts of scientific evidence in favour of relativity, you need a very good and very convincing reason for denying it. You have no such reason. Hence we can safely conclude FTL is impossible.


And I doubt they would have that big of a problem with some sort of stelth technology.

They would, because it's utterly impossible.

I note you also completely avoided my challenges based on the implausibility of interstellar travel. You also fail to account for the total lack of any sign of alien craft in our observations of space. In short, you have still singularly failed to produce any convincing evidence.

*snip*
I note you also completely avoided my challenges based on the implausibility of interstellar travel. You also fail to account for the total lack of any sign of alien craft in our observations of space. In short, you have still singularly failed to produce any convincing evidence.

Come on, be fair, there was that thing in the Sedaras post about Berkeley in 1968. I'm sure quite a lot of people were standing around on street corners seeing things in those days.

And since the basic assumption is that the Aliens have solved FTL - you wouldn't understand how even if they explained it to you - why couldn't they just run over here for stuff? Maybe Earth stuff tastes good to them? Or it's just different. Everyone likes a change, right?

And I doubt they would have that big of a problem with some sort of stelth technology.Wait a second, you are proposing they have stealth technology that prevents us from seeing them approaching Earth, but for some reason they refuse to use this stealth tech when they are tooling around earth cutting up cows?

Come on, be fair, there was that thing in the Sedaras post about Berkeley in 1968. I'm sure quite a lot of people were standing around on street corners seeing things in those days.

And since the basic assumption is that the Aliens have solved FTL - you wouldn't understand how even if they explained it to you - why couldn't they just run over here for stuff? Maybe Earth stuff tastes good to them? Or it's just different. Everyone likes a change, right?

Indeed. The aliens are also invisible pink flying unicorns, who can breathe fire that doesn't burn you. Furthermore, pixies are real, there really is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and trickle-down economics works.

Unfortunately for Dragontide, this debate is founded in reality.

Edit: Just noticed the dig at Berkeley. Well played, man, well played.

Indeed. The aliens are also invisible pink flying unicorns, who can breathe fire that doesn't burn you. Furthermore, pixies are real, there really is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and trickle-down economics works.

Unfortunately for Dragontide, this debate is founded in reality.

Edit: Just noticed the dig at Berkeley. Well played, man, well played.

Don't know about the rest, but I do know there's not pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

http://www.citizenx.cx/img/comics/tn/brevity-leprechaun.jpg.html

How else will they reach Earth after traveling for a million years?
Earth would be one of many stops along the way.


Any civilisation advanced enough to travel for millions of years to reach a particular planet is capable of acquiring any possible material it needs
Thank you! Because I think that is JUST what they did.


Note a distinct lack of alien colonies on Earth. Disproven.

Would they have to colonize every single planet? No! Debunked!


Furthermore, you misunderstand the nature of the lightspeed limit. It has been shown, rather neatly, that you can either have causality and relativity, causality and FTL, or relativity and FTL. As you rather want causality for the universe to have any sort of sense, you have to pick either relativity or FTL. Considering the vast amounts of scientific evidence in favour of relativity, you need a very good and very convincing reason for denying it. You have no such reason. Hence we can safely conclude FTL is impossible.
Like I said. There are new discoveries all the time. Even a magnetic drive engine is a possible answer.


They would, because it's utterly impossible.

You also fail to account for the total lack of any sign of alien craft in our observations of space. Which would indicate stelth technology



In short, you have still singularly failed to produce any convincing evidence.
Yea right! :rolleyes:

I note you also completely avoided my challenges based on the implausibility of interstellar travel.
Then you were not paying attention.

Earth would be one of many stops along the way.

A large-scale exploration of the galaxy would be fruitless. It would involve massive numbers of crews and ships, with no actual benefits. Exploring a couple near-by systems (if interstellar travel is even possible) maybe, but the entire galaxy?

Thank you! Because I think that is JUST what they did.

Did you notice the "synthesising it's own" mention? That's the thing that means that they don't have to come to Earth to get it.


Would they have to colonize every single planet? No! Debunked!


Given that we're hundreds upon hundreds of light years from any alien planets, it seems unlikely that colonisation ships would be coming this way.

Like I said. There are new discoveries all the time. Even a magnetic drive engine is a possible answer.

New discoveries do not violate the laws of physics that often. Did you notice that the speed of light is an absolute limit?

Which would indicate stelth technology

No. Stealth technology has been shown to be impossible. This indicates that alien ships haven't visited.

Yea right! :rolleyes:

Oh? Where's your evidence then?


Then you were not paying attention.

So how does interstellar travel work then? David Serada is not a valid source.

Earth would be one of many stops along the way.

Why? Firstly, if they did so, why have they arrived in huge numbers at (completely coincidentally) one of the high points of our technological civilisation? Secondly, why do the reported types and characteristics of UFOs reflect rather accurately the public perception at a particular time? Thirdly, you still have not shown that interstellar travel is even possible. Finally, why would they embark on an extensive and expensive voyage of discovery, when radio, spectral analysis, and various other scientific tools make it totally pointless?


Thank you! Because I think that is JUST what they did.

You have snipped my comment misleadingly. In the full sentence, it goes on to explain that they would have no possible reason to wish to travel to Earth, because they could synthetically manufacture any material they needed. Idiocy is one thing, but outright misrepresentation of my position through misleading quotes is quite another, and I shall ask you not to do it again.


Would they have to colonize every single planet? No! Debunked!

You claimed they might have traveled to Earth for colonisation. As they haven't colonised Earth, your claim is competely baseless.


Like I said. There are new discoveries all the time. Even a magnetic drive engine is a possible answer.

You completely and totally misunderstand the physics involved. Please provide some indication you actually read the paragraph you claimed to respond to. I made it clear that the objection was not simply "there isn't a good enough drive", but "if you can, you have to either disprove relativity and discard causality, neither of which is sensible or scientifically acceptable".

Furthermore, the lightspeed limit is not one you can break like the sound barrier. For sound, all you need to do is put on a better engine. For light, there is absolutely no engine possible which can do it.There is not enough energy in the entire universe to accelerate a particle with non-zero rest mass past the speed of light.


Which would indicate stelth technology

It is completely impossible to design stealth technology for space. For a clear explanation of the science involved, please read this link (http://projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3w.html#nostealth), which is even pitched at a relatively low level for you.


Yea right! :rolleyes:

Oh? Where was it? David Sereda, whose ridiculous ideas have been completely debunked? Grainy pictures of UFOs? Unsubstantiated accounts of cattle mutilation? Handwaving all contrary evidence as "conspiracy"?

Perhaps you'd like to mention this convincing evidence again, as it seems to have slipped past the entire rest of the thread.


Then you were not paying attention.

Handwaving and claiming magical FTL engines is avoiding. Ignoring impossibility of stealthy entrance to a star system is avoiding. Not disproving the contention that life support for interstellar missions is impractical is avoiding.

I rest my case.

I never said ANYTHING about a pinpoint mission! (other than to say it's not likely)

And why do you (and others) keep suggesting that the people of Earth would be the main reason for them to visit? What is wrong with a quest for medicine and materials? How about for colonization? How about JUST because they figued out how to solve the FTL problems?

And I doubt they would have that big of a problem with some sort of stelth technology.

If aliens have stealth technology... why do so many people claim they've seen them? Indeed - isn't that the basis of the whole debate? If there were aliens, WITH stealthy technology... there'd be LESS 'evidence' than you're claiming.


Why do you believe aliens are capable of the kind of science that will enable them to transport across the universe... but you DON'T believe they can make their own medicine or materials? You're arguing transmutation... matter into light. An alien species that could master FTL through transmutation? They don't have to go ANYWHERE to find anything.


Lastly - the colonization thing. If aliens were coming here to colonize, why do people KEEP seeing them... yet no colonies?

Which would indicate stelth technologyWould you mind answering my question then?

And I doubt they would have that big of a problem with some sort of stelth technology.Wait a second, you are proposing they have stealth technology that prevents us from seeing them approaching Earth, but for some reason they refuse to use this stealth tech when they are tooling around earth cutting up cows?

Why do your aliens use stealth tech when approaching Earth, but not once they are in Earth's atmosphere, flying around dissecting cows within visual range of humans?

And I doubt they would have that big of a problem with some sort of stelth technology.

Observe how Dragontide insists on magic as a solution, despite the complete debunking of it as impossible several times over in the past thread.

Just like a YEC creationist!

Then note how he advocates the magic solution, completely pretending that it undermines his earlier point about sightings.

Perhaps he has ADHD?

Which could yield a LOT of life. Not ALL the life but a lot. So far we cannot confirm or deny any system but our own so this is still a 50/50 debate.
With the as-far-as-we-know-it-utterly-impossible premises given, an alien probe visiting once every 200-400 millennia means the chance of discovering sufficiently advanced humankind - ie. species showing signs of civilization (culture, cities, agriculture) based on a cursory glance (few months) - is around 0.5-5% (detection range of 2k to 12k years [1 CE to 10k BCE])

The probability (with the premises granted), I'd guess, is around one in fifty and you still hold it as a certainty - That aliens are in contact with Earth & humankind.

btw. the "radiosphere" emitted by mankind doesn't impact the probability by much

btw2. Q: "WAIT?!?!? WHAT IF THE SURVEY IS LIMITED ONLY TO 'INTERESTING*' TARGETS?" A: Let's suppose only one in 20-30 systems is interesting. With a million starsystem search annually that's a visitation once every 6000-20000 years., assuming they deem solar system as 'interesting*' (see below), which would still yield in average around 30-40% chance of detecting sufficiently advanced humankind - A species, no, a civilization distinguishable from a simple hunter-gatherer animal.

* Define interesting to an advanced species: Is it perhaps a volatile star that might threaten their home system? Exotic stellar conditions capable of generating arcane forms of energy? Developing gas giants as a source of light elements? Otherwise mundane hunk of rock teeming with life? Particularly interestingly shaped oort cloud? Stellar corona resembling the alien equivalent of hymen?



Another point to think about is this:

If the ETs are really here then...

What is the motivation for them to remain a secret - or (the XFiles alternative) revealing themselves only for the chosen group of people?

Earth holds absolutely no special resources crucial to nor technology to threaten a wildly more advanced species: Why the smoke & mirrors?


It is completely impossible to design stealth technology for space. For a clear explanation of the science involved, please read this link (http://projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3w.html#nostealth), which is even pitched at a relatively low level for you.
Depends on your definition of stealth.

Coasting behind an asteroid or other screen might count as stealth.

Also, from purely theoretical standpoint, it's not impossible to conceive a device which would project the heat that is created non uniformly so that detection from a specific angle is hard/nigh impossible.

Of course that probably still requires handwavium propulsion fo' breaking.

Earth holds absolutely no special resources crucial to nor technology to threaten a wildly more advanced species: Why the smoke & mirrors?

Not to interfere with the normal development. Possibly a policy of said Aliens. If they are in fact here watching us.

This thread has amused me this day.

This thread has amused me this day.

Nothing more entertaining than Aliens. Possibly ghosts however not as much.

Observe how Dragontide insists on magic as a solution, despite the complete debunking of it as impossible several times over in the past thread.

Just like a YEC creationist!

Then note how he advocates the magic solution, completely pretending that it undermines his earlier point about sightings.

Perhaps he has ADHD?

Lol, such a cynic.

Why? Firstly, if they did so, why have they arrived in huge numbers at (completely coincidentally) one of the high points of our technological civilisation? Secondly, why do the reported types and characteristics of UFOs reflect rather accurately the public perception at a particular time? Thirdly, you still have not shown that interstellar travel is even possible. Finally, why would they embark on an extensive and expensive voyage of discovery, when radio, spectral analysis, and various other scientific tools make it totally pointless?

If they first arrived up to a couple hundred million years ago. why would they stop coming now? No I cannot explain how they do it. That still does not make it impossible.

You have snipped my comment misleadingly. In the full sentence, it goes on to explain that they would have no possible reason to wish to travel to Earth, because they could synthetically manufacture any material they needed. Idiocy is one thing, but outright misrepresentation of my position through misleading quotes is quite another, and I shall ask you not to do it again.

Everything in the universe cannot be sythesized.


You claimed they might have traveled to Earth for colonisation. As they haven't colonised Earth, your claim is competely baseless.

So if you have a look around at a Motel 6 then decide to stay at the Hilton, your visit to Motel is erased from the fabric of time?

You completely and totally misunderstand the physics involved. Please provide some indication you actually read the paragraph you claimed to respond to. I made it clear that the objection was not simply "there isn't a good enough drive", but "if you can, you have to either disprove relativity and discard causality, neither of which is sensible or scientifically acceptable".

Furthermore, the lightspeed limit is not one you can break like the sound barrier. For sound, all you need to do is put on a better engine. For light, there is absolutely no engine possible which can do it.There is not enough energy in the entire universe to accelerate a particle with non-zero rest mass past the speed of light.
Maybe if your talking about some sort of jump to lightspeed. That would require a lot of energy. A continious thrust over ...a few months, a few years... Voila!

It is completely impossible to design stealth technology for space. For a clear explanation of the science involved, please read this link (http://projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3w.html#nostealth), which is even pitched at a relatively low level for you.

"Earth" science! And your link says this: "This is with current off-the-shelf technology. Presumably future technology would be better."

An interesting read:
http://www.warpdrivetheory.org/photonwd/photonwarpdrive.html

Would you mind answering my question then?


Why do your aliens use stealth tech when approaching Earth, but not once they are in Earth's atmosphere, flying around dissecting cows within visual range of humans?

You are confusing masking the output of an interstellar engine with some sort of cloaking devise that would make them invisible to the human eye.

If they first arrived up to a couple hundred million years ago. why would they stop coming now? No I cannot explain how they do it. That still does not make it impossible.

If they'd first arrived hundreds of millions of years ago, why didn't they set up shop and go T-Rex hunting? 'cause that's what I'd do if I could get to Earth some seventy million years ago.

You are confusing masking the output of an interstellar engine with some sort of cloaking devise that would make them invisible to the human eye.

And Dragontide once again demonstrates the schizophrenic argument style. Observe how he states that interstellar engines, which would have emissions in the visible spectrum, can be masked, and then in the same breath, sabotages his own argument by saying it cannot be applied!

And, might I add...what the hell is so special about this janky ball of silica, nickel and iron?

And Dragontide once again demonstrates the schizophrenic argument style. Observe how he states that interstellar engines, which would have emissions in the visible spectrum, can be masked, and then in the same breath, sabotages his own argument by saying it cannot be applied!

Wow! You finally, almost made a non-troll post with half a fucking point! Congradulations!

I would not think an interstellar drive engine would be used once a ship has entered a solar system and certainly not while in Earth's atmosphere. I would not be supprised if the could travel from Saturn to Earth with the energy of a watch battery.
If they'd first arrived hundreds of millions of years ago, why didn't they set up shop and go T-Rex hunting? 'cause that's what I'd do if I could get to Earth some seventy million years ago.

Was it 70 or more like 170? And yes I am thinking along those same lines. Not "hunting" though, research would be more likely.

You are confusing masking the output of an interstellar engine with some sort of cloaking devise that would make them invisible to the human eye.Ok, a similar but related question: If they aren't overly concerned with being seen while on Earth(no obvious attempts to conceal themselves while flying around Earth, leaving landing marks and cow corpses everywhere rather than taking the whole cow or breeding their own), then why would they bother masking their engine heat?

You would expect them to try to stay concealed everywhere or nowhere, not sometimes and sometimes not.

Ok, a similar but related question: If they aren't overly concerned with being seen while on Earth(no obvious attempts to conceal themselves while flying around Earth, leaving landing marks and cow corpses everywhere rather than taking the whole cow or breeding their own), then why would they bother masking their engine heat?

You would expect them to try to stay concealed everywhere or nowhere, not sometimes and sometimes not.

Ahh. But crop circles have pretty much stopped happening. And then again, maybe they do NOT use any form of stelth, just low energy. Then it would be luck of the draw for someone with a telescope to spot it.

Breeding their own cattle (that they took from us) would be a possibility at that. Maybe their cattle started dying off and the were looking for a cure.

Wow! You finally, almost made a non-troll post with half a fucking point! Congradulations!

"I wasn't making unfounded arguments that have no basis in reality with my deliberate ignoring of valid points that destroyed my arguments. Really!"

A classical evasion once again by Dragontide


I would not think an interstellar drive engine would be used once a ship has entered a solar system and certainly not while in Earth's atmosphere. I would not be supprised if the could travel from Saturn to Earth with the energy of a watch battery.

Clearly the schizophrenic argument is Dragontide's favorite, as you can all observe how he again makes the argument of visual spectrum masking which he then argues against in the same breath for no particular reason that can be logically discerned other than derangement.

And let's not forget how he goes from aliens with vastly powerful energy output systems mandatory for any form of interstellar travel to the amount of energy no greater than that of a watch battery. Yet another manifestation of schizophrenia?

"I wasn't making unfounded arguments that have no basis in reality with my deliberate ignoring of valid points that destroyed my arguments. Really!"

A classical evasion once again by Dragontide



Clearly the schizophrenic argument is Dragontide's favorite, as you can all observe how he again makes the argument of visual spectrum masking which he then argues against in the same breath for no particular reason that can be logically discerned other than derangement.

And let's not forget how he goes from aliens with vastly powerful energy output systems mandatory for any form of interstellar travel to the amount of energy no greater than that of a watch battery. Yet another manifestation of schizophrenia?

Notice that I have been saying "Might be" "possibly" "could be" etc...Which invalidates your childish trolling. Now do yourself a favor and learn what a philosophical debate is.

And, might I add...what the hell is so special about this janky ball of silica, nickel and iron?

The singapore slings at the long bar.

Ahh. But crop circles have pretty much stopped happening. And then again, maybe they do NOT use any form of stelth, just low energy. Then it would be luck of the draw for someone with a telescope to spot it.

Breeding their own cattle (that they took from us) would be a possibility at that. Maybe their cattle started dying off and the were looking for a cure.Why leave corpses? Why avoid abducting anyone of merit? Why not blatantly and publicly open the lines of communication between us and them?

And running down this rudimentary list of questions (let alone the more specific ones that UvV touched on) makes me doubt the likeliness that we are being visited by aliens. Every objection or request for clarification has a convenient dodge that is wholly untestable and therefore meaningless.

Why leave corpses? Why avoid abducting anyone of merit? Why not blatantly and publicly open the lines of communication between us and them?

maybe they just dont care what people think on a planet with so much violence, unnecessary poverty and the likes. (we suck)

Notice that I have been saying "Might be" "possibly" "could be" etc...Which invalidates your childish trolling. Now do yourself a favor and learn what a philosophical debate is.

Now pay attention NSG. Notice how Dragontide now uses "might be", "possibly" but tries to involve things that operate on "is" like basic physics? And then when called on it he tries to change the technical problems with his stance and claim it to be "philosophical", even though he still tries to flog non-philosophical arguments which he tries to excuse with "magic"?

What does that say about this character? Nothing good, and certainly nothing honest, I assure you.

maybe they just dont care what people think on a planet with so much violence, unnecessary poverty and the likes. (we suck)
Then what about the abductees? Why abduct what you don't care about?

Why come to this planet at all if you aren't interested in its dominant, intelligent species?

it's only city folk who make such a big deal about that ufo thing. why heck, out in country where i grew up, we used to have little green guys land their ufo's behing the local general store and pizza joint all the time. nobody thought any big thing of it.

i just don't get what's such a big deal about it. sure there here. they've always been here. dropping by as long as there's been a here for them to visit.

now that we can almost make some of the same kinds of machines they have, just cause most of us haven't visited outside our own solar system itself, give it time, if we don't destroy ourselves first we'll eventually grow up enough to borrow the keys to the edsil.

maybe they just dont care what people think on a planet with so much violence, unnecessary poverty and the likes. (we suck)

And why do they then use stealth equipment and why do they then try to hide when they come to earth?

Why come to this planet at all if you aren't interested in its dominant, intelligent species?

You mean dolphins and mice? :)

And why do they then use stealth equipment and why do they then try to hide when they come to earth?
because we're DANGEROUS idiots. who invest in ways and excuses to beat each other over the head and trying to impress each other when we could be using the same to create universal abundance and gratification instead.

sheesh. can anything not be more obvious.

because we're DANGEROUS idiots. who invest in ways and excuses to beat each other over the head and trying to impress each other when we could be using the same to create universal abundance and gratification instead.

sheesh. can anything not be more obvious.

But according to some people in this thread they have FTL-drives etc. Surely they much then have the possibility to develop a superduper stun weapon +5?

If the aliens are using stealth, it could be because our militaries may have limited ability to destroy the aliens or have already shot some of their vehicles down and the fact that we humans also harness stealth technology.

If the aliens are using stealth, it could be because our militaries may have limited ability to destroy the aliens or have already shot some of their vehicles down and the fact that we humans also harness stealth technology.

yes, it is extremely probable there have been a number of incidents, and like all diplomacy it gets a bit complex, but boils down to why provoke hostility when it can be avoided.

Then what about the abductees? Why abduct what you don't care about?
Why come to this planet at all if you aren't interested in its dominant, intelligent species?
The actions of man and what makes us tick are two different things.

And why do they then use stealth equipment and why do they then try to hide when they come to earth?

Maybe they don't use stelth and man only thinks they could detect them because we use (what will some day be concidered) antiquated science.

Do they hide? We would know if the disclosure project were made into law. If I am wrong in my assumptions then what are they hiding?

If they first arrived up to a couple hundred million years ago. why would they stop coming now?


Why would they still be showing up all the time. Have they nothing better to do, than buzz the apes for several million years?


Everything in the universe cannot be sythesized.


Why?

You're talking about technology that would allow someone to exceed the speed of light... why can't they restructure atoms?

You are confusing masking the output of an interstellar engine with some sort of cloaking devise that would make them invisible to the human eye.

Why make a 'stealth' vessel that you can see?

If I am wrong in my assumptions then what are they hiding?

Sometimes, an absence of evidence is an absence of evidence, rather than some super secret cover-up.

Why make a 'stealth' vessel that you can see?

Ask the world's top military governments that. Why do they call it stelth when it can be seen, just not detected by radar?

Sometimes, an absence of evidence is an absence of evidence, rather than some super secret cover-up.

Then those files that Clinton got in the early 90s should not have had all that black ink on them to cover up the printed words.

Ask the world's top military governments that. Why do they call it stelth when it can be seen, just not detected by radar?

But you're arguing that a race advanced enough to make jaunts across the universe... is also subtly hiding their craft before they touch atmosphere, but then flying around like idiots where ANYONE can see them once they're here.

The point of stealth is to hide.

Then those files that Clinton got in the early 90s should not have had all that black ink on them to cover up the printed words.

Barely even worth dignifying.

Just because there has been redaction, doesn't mean every black blob covers the words "Alienz r Reel!"

Far more likely would be obscuring any sensitive data, as they did with the recently released torture memoes. There are blackouts even though torture is described - because the sensitive information that might be obscured isn't relevant to the situation, and could have adverse impact.

That doesn't mean a government conspiracy.

Why would they still be showing up all the time. Have they nothing better to do, than buzz the apes for several million years?

scientists are strange people with odd interesting hobbies. whatever world they come from. even human ones.

But you're arguing that a race advanced enough to make jaunts across the universe... is also subtly hiding their craft before they touch atmosphere, but then flying around like idiots where ANYONE can see them once they're here.

The point of stealth is to hide.

It was suggested that that in order to achieve lightspeed, a massive burst of energy would be needed that could be detected from far away. If there are other space faring races besides them, such stelth could come in handy in open space. If they hovered over the White House or NYC, that would be "flying around like an idiot"

It was suggested that that in order to achieve lightspeed, a massive burst of energy would be needed that could be detected from far away. If there are other space faring races besides them, such stelth could come in handy in open space. If they hovered over the White House or NYC, that would be "flying around like an idiot"

Didn't you present 'evidence' that suggested they WERE doing just such activities? I know I've seen footage that's supposed to be aliens over Mexico City.

The photonic ship is a red herring, and not a good one. Sure, you could convert a ship to light. Awesome. You could then send it to wherever you wanted. Yay.

No fucking use, of course, because the PILOT is not made of light - so his ship would reflect off of him, refract around him, or encounter some kind of diffusion just from his proximity. Which means - it wouldn't carry him anywhere.

The BEST you could hope for, is that, if it was coherent enough, it would hit him like laser. Which is a mighty fancy and expensive way of getting dead.

Unless you are arguing that the pilot could ALSO become light... in which case, why would he need a ship?

Barely even worth dignifying.

Just because there has been redaction, doesn't mean every black blob covers the words "Alienz r Reel!"

Far more likely would be obscuring any sensitive data, as they did with the recently released torture memoes. There are blackouts even though torture is described - because the sensitive information that might be obscured isn't relevant to the situation, and could have adverse impact.

That doesn't mean a government conspiracy.

Sensitive data from a bunch of idiots using a trick of the light and other UFO hoax techniques? If they are ALL bogus, how could there be anything worth hiding?

Didn't you present 'evidence' that suggested they WERE doing just such activities? I know I've seen footage that's supposed to be aliens over Mexico City.

The photonic ship is a red herring, and not a good one. Sure, you could convert a ship to light. Awesome. You could then send it to wherever you wanted. Yay.

No fucking use, of course, because the PILOT is not made of light - so his ship would reflect off of him, refract around him, or encounter some kind of diffusion just from his proximity. Which means - it wouldn't carry him anywhere.

The BEST you could hope for, is that, if it was coherent enough, it would hit him like laser. Which is a mighty fancy and expensive way of getting dead.

Unless you are arguing that the pilot could ALSO become light... in which case, why would he need a ship?

There are a lot of fake videos. I tend to not trust the ones where the cameraman fails to film the ship flying away. Why stop filming something that is right in front of you? Did they ALL run out of film at the wrong time?

Ask the world's top military governments that. Why do they call it stelth when it can be seen, just not detected by radar?

Because radar is used to acquire targets that are too far to be seen with the naked eye and military aircraft that cannot be detected by radar are as good as invisible insofar as weapons response goes.

Once again, you demonstrate staggering amounts of ignorance and try to pretend it makes you clever.

Everything in the universe cannot be sythesized.

You have no way to prove/show this. Also, if aliens needed materials from cows for medicine, they would take some cows and breed their own. They wouldn't want to require a hard-to-reach resource (that is, the bovine population of Earth) for their medicine.

So if you have a look around at a Motel 6 then decide to stay at the Hilton, your visit to Motel is erased from the fabric of time?

You can 'look around' with a large enough telescope. Also if they only looked around and din't want to come back, why have they had so many visits (at least, you seem to ascribe all UFOs to aliens).

Maybe if your talking about some sort of jump to lightspeed. That would require a lot of energy. A continious thrust over ...a few months, a few years... Voila!

This snippet shows a complete lack of understanding for relativity. The point with light-speed is that it is a barrier that cannot be broken. With sound you just put a bigger engine, or give it more time to speed up. With light, this doesn't work. If you speed up a craft to most of the speed of light, it will have gained a lot of energy. Energy is equivalent to mass (through E = mc^2) so the ship will gain a little mass. As you increase its speed (and thus energy) further, the mass increases more and the energy required to speed it up increases again. This is a never-ending cycle, and to hit the speed of light, you would need an infinite amount of energy. Steady acceleration to light-speed is just as impossible a 'jump'.

"Earth" science! And your link says this: "This is with current off-the-shelf technology. Presumably future technology would be better."


But some things are just not possible. Shall I explain once more why stealth in space doesn't work?

Systems on a spaceship, such as life-support and engines, generate heat.

Heat will accumulate in a spaceship.

If heat is radiated off the spaceship, a detectable signal (infrared radiation) is emitted, so the ship is not stealth.

If heat is not radiated away, the insides of the spaceship will increase in temperature until anything on board cannot live.

Do you have any solutions to this?
One thing to remember is that current science is probably reasonably reliable. A lot of modern theories (such as general relativity) have been observed to be correct in a lot of cases. If you have complete proof that all current guesses are wrong, and have formulated new versions of the theories that make everything work, feel free to publish it.

Depends on your definition of stealth.

The one we've been using so far is 'does not emit detectable signature to human observatories'.

Coasting behind an asteroid or other screen might count as stealth.

The problem is that that requires a lot of asteroids coming very near Earth. I think we might have noticed these.

Also, from purely theoretical standpoint, it's not impossible to conceive a device which would project the heat that is created non uniformly so that detection from a specific angle is hard/nigh impossible.

Good point. Unfortunately, it still fails to solve:

Of course that probably still requires handwavium propulsion fo' breaking.

Yes. To slow a ship going at interstellar travel speeds, you will need a lot of energy. This will be detected.

Good point. Unfortunately, it still fails to solve:


No, it doesn't work. Even if you project all your heat in the opposite direction of your heading, it will leave a trail behind, and the earth isn't a static object. Maybe at extreme ranges beyond the solar system where the earths orbital path isn't enough for you to detect the trail as your position changes, but it won't work once you close in.