yet dispite the mathematics
sightings continue
as well as depictions , paintings , in art and in cave drawings , sculptures
need we go on really , I mean really
monuments , pyramids etc
Yeah, people see Chinese Lanterns and shout 'UFO!' sightings say more about the observer than the alleged observation.
Only someone with a severely distorted sense of aerodynamical possibilities mistake phenomena for chinese frikken lanterns. Those who should out ''ufo'' when they see one, should not even be allowed into an intelligable discussion on the issue.
But it happens. It even happened in a video _you_ linked to, yet you failed to recognise what they were!
I think you will find I debunked your chinese lantern claim. Your video proved the Pheonix Lights could not have been chinese lanterns,
as has been before, in your video whilst the chinese lanterns seem very similar to the formation of the pheonix lights at the beginning, the equidistant seperation between the objects quickly break out of symmetry. The Pheonix Lights remained in a line and evenly seperated for about an hour, maybe over.
Go figure.
I don't even need to rehash statements with you. We should have a neutral agreement by now.
Is really appreciating there is an intelligence beyond us, so beyond us even that we may not even speculate it without the ridicule?
Intelligence is vast and broad. There are 6-7 maybe even 8 now billion people on this planet.
Relativity permits solutions to these problems you speak of. There are real scientific ways around the problem which you seem to fail to understand an advanced civilization would be aware about and put into practice.
And yet, they have all named their stars using the Greek alphabet.Of course the chance that there is another intelligent life form with these capabilities within this distance of the earth that we can't detect is also pretty remote.
All of this is just mad supposition. What the hell do you base this on? You base this on the current level of our technology, and our understanding of the universe. This whole post is like listening to my ten year old tell me about how the world works. It is based on his lack of knowledge and limited imagination.These are the 133 stars that could possibly support life within 50 Light Years from Earth. (There are roughly 1,400 total stars but most of them are red dwarfs)
It's almost absurdly improbable that any life form further out than this could have both learned of the Earth's existence and made the trip to the Earth within the last 70 or so years even with technology that is vastly superior to anything we have or are even planning.
Of course the chance that there is another intelligent life form with these capabilities within this distance of the earth that we can't detect is also pretty remote.
For reference, Voyager 1, after 44 years, is about 120 AU from the earth.
The nearest star on that map is about 272,000 AU from the earth, the furthest over 3 million AU.
That's all within our Galaxy.
Which is about 120,000 light years across and contains many billions of stars.
But that is a tiny distance in comparison to the distance to the next Spiral Galaxy which is about 3 million LY away.
So there is no reason to believe that any intelligent civilization would even bother exploring outside their own galaxy.
The maths has been done, and while wormholes are theoretically possible, to create one, and keep it stable enough to pass though would take more energy than there is in the Universe. That said, it would be an incredibly energetic event, and like I said, we just don't detect those.
So really, you fail to understand.
It's almost absurdly improbable that any life form further out than this could have both learned of the Earth's existence and made the trip to the Earth within the last 70 or so years even with technology that is vastly superior to anything we have or are even planning.
First of all, we don't discover any planets by gravitational lensing.Is that right... can you tell me how long we have been mapping the stars and locating the presence of planets through gravitational lensing?
Very short amount of time, yet we have uncovered 500 earthlike candidates, I believe someone told me here. In light of this, I'd say your premise is highly faulty.
No you fail to understand, terribly as most likely ill-informed about the physics.
A wormhole is indeed a solution to relativity. But who needs a wormhole to time travel? All you need is a strong enough gravitational distortion, like a cold run-down nuclear star, like a nuetron star. There would be enough gravitational distortions around one of them to constitute some noticable time dilation effects.
There is also the alcubierre drive which is created from the relativistic postulate that the universe is dynamic, can be bent and warped.
There are also more primitive means of travelling quite reasonably large distances by using what is called the Sling Shot effect. All those concerned about massive amounts of energy required to accelerate an object to very high speeds might be achievable by using the gravitational attraction of planets.
All of this is just mad supposition. What the hell do you base this on? You base this on the current level of our technology, and our understanding of the universe. This whole post is like listening to my ten year old tell me about how the world works. It is based on his lack of knowledge and limited imagination.
You also base this on information that is released to the public. If you had bothered to read the entire thread, I have already proved otherwise.
Nice try though.
First of all, we don't discover any planets by gravitational lensing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens
As far as mapping the heavens with telescopes, we've been doing that for hundreds of years. The 60 inch telescope at Mt Wilson began operation in 1908 and it's just expanded since then, such that not including Hubble we have currently over 40 large professional telescopes with apertures over 3 meters scanning the heavens every night.
The map I produced is pretty much a given to be accurate, we are pretty well aware of what is around us locally.
No, that's not what I said.
That was your number.
We have been looking with Kepler at a field of ~500,000 stars, of which about ~170,000 are of a reasonable size to possibly support a solar system with habitable planets and after three years we have discovered exactly 33 planets, of which only ONE is somewhat earthlike and in the GLZ, but still not at all habitable.