Me You and Xenu

[SpyMoose]

Did you know that seventy five thousand years ago there was a massive nuclear war here on the earth? Its true, because a UFO cult believes it (among other things) and we know that UFOologsts are the most open minded people there are.

A general named Xenu rounded up the excess population of the galaxy and annihilated them here on the earth. The souls of these killed people, their "Thetans" are now permanently fused with our own, and hinder our spiritual growth. Fortunately you can find out how to help your thetan here: http://www.scientology.org/ At the church of scientology.

Now, I know that sounds absurd, but it is not more absurd than other things that have been stated on this forum. I even thought the Xenu mythos sounded like it fits pretty well with an idea posed by craterchains.

My real interest here is on what criteria do UFO nuts accept their own beliefs, yet reject other absurd beliefs. Especially something like Scientology, which seems right up their alley. Is it just that they have never heard of it before, or do they act on their own strange senses of logic? When evidence is not a criterion for belief, why don’t they believe everything that comes their way? I suspect it has to do with marketing. UFOology is sort of hip counterculture, thanks to shows like the x-files and many books. Scientology on the other hand has the word church in its name, which probably turns them off.

 

[2inquisitive]

It is easy to make fun of and reject others beliefs as absurd when they differ from
one's own views. Is Scientology absurd? Is Christanity absurd? Are all the religions
of the world absurd? They all would seem so to anyone who doesn't subscribe to
that particular belief. Is Relativity absurd? It, too, would seem so to those who
don't 'believe.' Did you know that, according to Special Relativity, it is possible to
travel a distance in a month that it takes light a billion years to travel, without
ever travelling as fast as light? Seems absurd if you are not educated in physics,
but a physicist will argue the possibility with convection and even refer to you as
a heritic if you officially disagree. And I am not challenging Relativity, just pointing
out some similarities in belief systems. A physicist will state the difference is that
Relativity has been proven, but a Muslim or a Christian may feel their beliefs have
been proven to them. Same thing with someone who believes in the possibility of
UFOs, they feel there is enough circumstancial evidence to justify their beliefs.
After all, has anyone actually traveled a billion light year distance in a month of
their time?

 

[James R]

2inquisitive:

It is easy to make fun of and reject others beliefs as absurd when they differ from one's own views. Is Scientology absurd?

Yes. it is based on Lafayette R. Hubbard's science fiction stories.

Is Christanity absurd? Are all the religions of the world absurd?

No. Scientology is more of a cult than a religion.

Is Relativity absurd? It, too, would seem so to those who don't 'believe.'

Relativity isn't a matter of belief. In principle, anybody can test the foundations of relativity for themselves, and prove that they are correct. In scientology, you have to rely on the word of an ex-science fiction writer.

Did you know that, according to Special Relativity, it is possible to travel a distance in a month that it takes light a billion years to travel, without ever travelling as fast as light? Seems absurd if you are not educated in physics, but a physicist will argue the possibility with convection and even refer to you as a heritic if you officially disagree.

I've never heard any scientist call somebody a "heretic" for not subscribing to a particular scientific theory. Science is evidence-based.

And I am not challenging Relativity, just pointing out some similarities in belief systems. A physicist will state the difference is that Relativity has been proven, but a Muslim or a Christian may feel their beliefs have been proven to them.

Relativity hasn't been proven. However, there is very good evidence that it is a superb theory. No religion has been proven, because that would involve proof that God exists, which is impossible.

Same thing with someone who believes in the possibility of UFOs, they feel there is enough circumstancial evidence to justify their beliefs.

Ah, but is there enough good evidence? Most scientists say no.

After all, has anyone actually traveled a billion light year distance in a month of
their time?

No, but experiments have been done verifying the same effect with smaller distances and times.

 

[Faulty]

I think relativity has been proved. I seem to remember reading that muons created by the collision of cosmic rays with particles in the upper atmosphere can be detected on the surface of the Earth, even though they are supposedly too unstable to exist for the length of time it takes them to travel that distance. Apparently they are able to persist because, travelling at a significant fraction of c, they 'age' more slowly relative to an external time frame. In fact, I think the same sort of effects are produced artificially in particle accelerators.
I also think (but it's not gospel) that satellites such as the GPS contellation take into account the temporal effect of being in a weaker part of the Earth's gravitational field.

 

[Faulty]

I believe that Einstein's Theory of Relativity also predicts the precession of Mercury's orbit around the Sun. Classical Newtonian physics could only explain half of the observed amount. If that's not enough for you, NASA's Gravity Probe B should do it. It was launched on Tuesday 20th April. See here for more.

 

[James R]

Faulty:

Your information regarding the experiments and observations is correct. They provide excellent supporting evidence for the theory of relativity. However, they do not prove that relativity is true, because tomorrow we might conceivably find some problem with relativity, either by experiment or observation. The best we can say right now is that relativity is probably fairly close to whatever the "ultimate truth" is. It has strong supporting evidence, but no proof.

In the sense I am using the word, proof is only really possible in mathematics. No scientific statement is ever proved, because new evidence could always, potentially, contradict the statement.

 

[2inquisitive]

I do not doubt that about everyone that has read any Special Relativity has read of
the muon decay rate as supporting SR. But 'proof?' I think it SUPPORTS SR, but it is not
conclusive proof in my understanding. When a cosmic ray enters our atmosphere, it
decays into positive and negative pions. Exactly at what altitude does this happen,
how many microseconds? The pions then decay into muons. Exactly at what altitude does this happen and how long does it take? Exactly what is the mean life of a muon?
It is estimated at 2.2 microseconds ON AVERAGE, but it varies quite a bit. How is this
mean life determined? An excerpt:
"Measuring the mean lifetime

Measuring the mean lifetime of the muon involves working with an exponential curve in a way similar to that of measuring the half-life of radioactive sample, but the way that the curve is developed is different. An easy way to see the differences is to consider the standard dice throw analogy for radioactive decay. In this analogy a large number of dice is thrown and those that land with a six face uppermost are removed at each throw. A graph of number of dice left vs number of throws is plotted. The decay constant for the situation is 1/6 and hence the half-life of the sample would be expected to be 6ln2 throws i.e. about 4 throws. To model the muon lifetime measurement we would have to take the dice one at a time and continue throwing each individual die until a six occurred. The number of throws before a six occurs represents the lifetime. The die would then be removed from the sample. A graph of number of dice having a given lifetime vs lifetime would then be plotted. The mean lifetime should be 6 throws."

Again, I am not saying the calculations mean nothing, but absolute proof of time dilation and, don't forget, length contraction of the Earth's atmosphere. More muons
are detected at sea level than calculations indicate there should be, so it is said the
muon contracts the Earth's atmosphere to about 1/9 of what it really is giving the
muons less atmosphere to travel through so a higher per centage can reach the surface. Are we positive there are no other factors involved, that all ESTIMATES
are correct? Again, suggestion but not solid proof.
Faulty, I am well aware of the Gravity Probe B mission to validate the frame dragging
predictions of General Relativity. Chances are, it will be confirmed. I personally have
more confidence in GR being near correct than I do SR. In my limited knowledge, I
think SR is 'mostly' correct, but I think there are a few problems.
So, in sum, my view is to not believe everything I hear or read, even scientists sometimes hold different views, even though there is 'evidence' for their view.
For example, is humanity causing great harm to the Earth's atmosphere, such as
Global Warming, or it it just a natural Ice Age and warming cycle that has happened
through millennia? There are scientists on both sides of the isle, are you 100% positive
which are correct? I hesitate to positively dismiss what some other people may be
convinced of if they can show evidence that seems reasonable to me. That is where
differences arise, what may seem reasonable to one may not to another. Scientology,
for example, has no reasonable evidence I can see. I do think 'reasonable' evidence
exists for SR, GR and Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.
Oh, and James, I have seen the term 'heretic' used to describe someone who doubts
Relativity more than once, I am sure Dinosaur has used it on these very forums before,
for one.
http://www.prestoncoll.ac.uk/cosmic/muon/muon.htm

 

[Faulty]

Ok thanks folks. Fair enough - I will think twice in future before using the word "proof".

But I feel the point still remains that relativity is a belief system on firmer footing than those such Scientology or any major religions as the state of belief is approached from different directions.
But if Scientists believe a theory if empirical evidence suggests that it's the best current description of reality, and religions and cults gain followers for reasons best known to the followers, I can't think of any reason why one fantasy would be believed in preference to another.

 

[crazymikey]

To be honest, I am skeptical that relativity is correct. I would like to see some more evidence to suppot the conclusions derived from it:

Mass becomes infinite at the speed of light
Speed of light is constant for all observers
Time stops at the speed of light, and goes backwards, if you go faster

Now, I know we know in principle that less than nanoscopic mass is gained. I know in principle, that time goes slower at higher velocities, only detectable by an atomic clock. Yet how does this translate to the three conclusions above. Will someone explain.

It seems to be that Relativity makes a assumption based on the observable universe assuming c, as 3*10^8 to be infinite velocity - when we actually know for a fact, that c is not an infinite velocity, and c was actually much greater in the beginning of the universe. We are have been able to send pulses 200 times faster than c, also showing that c is not an infinite velocity. There is also a school of thought, that gravity waves travel much faster than C. Hence, does this mean, that Relativity's singular assumption: "Speed of light is relative to all observers" is wrong? Please do explain.

 

[phlogistician]

My real interest here is on what criteria do UFO nuts accept their own beliefs, yet reject other absurd beliefs.

Which is exactly why I asked CrazyMikey if he was a Christian in another thread, and quizzed him over the schism with Craterchains.

Scientists all over the world gather data, and come to similar conclusions. This however doesn't happen with UFOlogy, so one has to question the method and the data. Religious believers don't arrive at consensus either, which is why I guess, you used Scientology as an example, it being a pseudoscientific belief system, like UFOlogy.

 

[phlogistician]

assuming c, as 3*10^8 to be infinite velocity - when we actually know for a fact, that c is not an infinite velocity,

Careful with that terminology there, seems like you're inventing new terms as you type.

'c' is not infinite anything, it's just the fastest speed anything with mass can attain. 'infinite velocity' would imply crossing any distance in zero time. Travelling at the speed of light, it still takes time.

 

[crazymikey]

It would seem it is infinite velocity, as it's the fastest speed anything can travel at. Otherwise why would mass become infinite, or we would need infinite energy to travel to C?