q says: "ET visiting Earth ideas are contradicted by physics."
- Thread starter spookz
- Start date
Oh...
Oh come now, time travel and worm holes and things of that sort seem more religious-science than science alone.
Oh come now, time travel and worm holes and things of that sort seem more religious-science than science alone.
Spookz
now you science types refine/modify/denounce/debunk this crackpottery.
i demand citations to all your assertions. (in a language i can understand)
mindless naysaying will be dealt with in an appropiate manner
Tossing a bunch of science fiction and crackpot links on a page and making those demands is crap. Why should we make the effort if you don’t?
the guys could have developed a propulsion system that we havent even imagined possible.
Typical response – pointless. As expected from the believers, they can’t begin to fathom what it is they believe.
now you science types refine/modify/denounce/debunk this crackpottery.
i demand citations to all your assertions. (in a language i can understand)
mindless naysaying will be dealt with in an appropiate manner
Tossing a bunch of science fiction and crackpot links on a page and making those demands is crap. Why should we make the effort if you don’t?
the guys could have developed a propulsion system that we havent even imagined possible.
Typical response – pointless. As expected from the believers, they can’t begin to fathom what it is they believe.
This topic is going to be a dead end.
Q is quite correct in that arguing against your links is pointless, as most of them are probably wrong since ithe science is still being developed.
Currently, it is a leap of faith to say that FTL travel is possible. It is another to say that aliens exist and have developed this technology. It is yet another to say that they randomly came to our planet. It is yet another to think that they decided we were interesting enough to stick around.
It would make more sense to try and figure out what the object is, and then try and figure out what is inside.
Q is quite correct in that arguing against your links is pointless, as most of them are probably wrong since ithe science is still being developed.
Currently, it is a leap of faith to say that FTL travel is possible. It is another to say that aliens exist and have developed this technology. It is yet another to say that they randomly came to our planet. It is yet another to think that they decided we were interesting enough to stick around.
It would make more sense to try and figure out what the object is, and then try and figure out what is inside.
i think it is fantastic that you guys are here posting at sciforums rather than doing cutting edge research at some institution.
the whole world would grind to a halt if that was the case
i mean...as most of them are probably wrong since ithe science is still being developed
...what on earth is that? how can something be wrong if it hasnt been tried yet?
the whole world would grind to a halt if that was the case
i mean...as most of them are probably wrong since ithe science is still being developed
...what on earth is that? how can something be wrong if it hasnt been tried yet?
Which is why you're a moron! I shit on you!
Hehe.
Okay not really, but how about I make up a bunch of bullshit, corroborate it with a bunch of people who can make money off my bullshit and plot to make every strange thing that ever happens part of my bullshit and then act like a moron.. er, i mean like YOU spooky ooky poo.
Persol is right on the money.
You should know it.
I know it.
I wonder if you care though eh?
It'd be interesting to note I'd think that most "debunkers" as "believers" like to put it don't draw conclusions from said evidence, because what conclusion can you draw? Weird stuff happens sometimes? Yeah I believe that? Maybe the government is hiding some stuff? Yeah probably, that's kind of their task from time to time. The government has unimaginable super-tech? Hmm, possible I guess but really moot unless you can get your hands on some to show people so we can bust them.
So let me ask you this:
What do you propose should be done on the basis of the evidence you think you have?
Originally posted by spookz
i think it is fantastic that you guys are here posting at sciforums rather than doing cutting edge research at some institution.
the whole world would grind to a halt if that was the case
You're being an idiot now, which makes me think you don't actually have any actual response.
i mean...as most of them are probably wrong since ithe science is still being developed
...what on earth is that? how can something be wrong if it hasnt been tried yet?
Well, if you actually looked into the theories that YOU brought up, you would know that most of them are mutually exculsive and that they CAN'T all be right. Even ignoring that, if you look at the history of other advanced theories at this level, the MAJORITY have been at least partially wrong... as is too be expected.
Your attempt to say 'it may be possible' is fully correct. Your attempt to mention specifc theories, and then arguing that they are mostly right makes you either A) an idiot, or B) misinformed. Take your pick.
Your complete ignorance of the number of leaps of faith that you need to make to reach 'ET is visting earth' is pathetic.
i think it is fantastic that you guys are here posting at sciforums rather than doing cutting edge research at some institution.
the whole world would grind to a halt if that was the case
You're being an idiot now, which makes me think you don't actually have any actual response.
i mean...as most of them are probably wrong since ithe science is still being developed
...what on earth is that? how can something be wrong if it hasnt been tried yet?
Well, if you actually looked into the theories that YOU brought up, you would know that most of them are mutually exculsive and that they CAN'T all be right. Even ignoring that, if you look at the history of other advanced theories at this level, the MAJORITY have been at least partially wrong... as is too be expected.
Your attempt to say 'it may be possible' is fully correct. Your attempt to mention specifc theories, and then arguing that they are mostly right makes you either A) an idiot, or B) misinformed. Take your pick.
Your complete ignorance of the number of leaps of faith that you need to make to reach 'ET is visting earth' is pathetic.
wes
Okay not really, but how about I make up a bunch of bullshit, corroborate it with a bunch of people who can make money off my bullshit and plot to make every strange thing that ever happens part of my bullshit and then act like a moron.. er, i mean like YOU spooky ooky poo.
stop whining fool. package whatever you want. sell it wherever you want.
Persol is right on the money.
You should know it.
I know it.
I wonder if you care though eh?
first he states...'doable' space travel methods/times - 50/50. We don't know enough.(persol)
then he says...as most of them are probably wrong since the science is still being developed (persol)
where is he "right on the money?" is it the first instance where these methods are held to have potential or the second where they are simply dismissed as wrong. do you not understand that these punks that post here pass themselves off as an authority that has a greater credibility than those that are actually doing the research and experimenting with stuff. it is a simple and old troll that gets played out on all ufo bbs. your intentions are transparent as well, boy!
dumb shit, you lack basic comprehension. an obvious backtrack and the resultant contradiction escapes your notice
It'd be interesting to note I'd think that most "debunkers" as "believers" like to put it don't draw conclusions from said evidence, because what conclusion can you draw? Weird stuff happens sometimes? Yeah I believe that? Maybe the government is hiding some stuff? Yeah probably, that's kind of their task from time to time. The government has unimaginable super-tech? Hmm, possible I guess but really moot unless you can get your hands on some to show people so we can bust them.
hehe, a bunch of garbled crap. neurons just firing randomly eh?
What do you propose should be done on the basis of the evidence you think you have?
i propose to gather them all up, package it into a cylinder and get you to sit on it
Okay not really, but how about I make up a bunch of bullshit, corroborate it with a bunch of people who can make money off my bullshit and plot to make every strange thing that ever happens part of my bullshit and then act like a moron.. er, i mean like YOU spooky ooky poo.
stop whining fool. package whatever you want. sell it wherever you want.
Persol is right on the money.
You should know it.
I know it.
I wonder if you care though eh?
first he states...'doable' space travel methods/times - 50/50. We don't know enough.(persol)
then he says...as most of them are probably wrong since the science is still being developed (persol)
where is he "right on the money?" is it the first instance where these methods are held to have potential or the second where they are simply dismissed as wrong. do you not understand that these punks that post here pass themselves off as an authority that has a greater credibility than those that are actually doing the research and experimenting with stuff. it is a simple and old troll that gets played out on all ufo bbs. your intentions are transparent as well, boy!
dumb shit, you lack basic comprehension. an obvious backtrack and the resultant contradiction escapes your notice
It'd be interesting to note I'd think that most "debunkers" as "believers" like to put it don't draw conclusions from said evidence, because what conclusion can you draw? Weird stuff happens sometimes? Yeah I believe that? Maybe the government is hiding some stuff? Yeah probably, that's kind of their task from time to time. The government has unimaginable super-tech? Hmm, possible I guess but really moot unless you can get your hands on some to show people so we can bust them.
hehe, a bunch of garbled crap. neurons just firing randomly eh?
What do you propose should be done on the basis of the evidence you think you have?
i propose to gather them all up, package it into a cylinder and get you to sit on it
Re: wes
Originally posted by spookz
first he states...'doable' space travel methods/times - 50/50. We don't know enough.(persol)
then he says...as most of them are probably wrong since the science is still being developed (persol)
where is he "right on the money?" is it the first instance where these methods are held to have potential or the second where they are simply dismissed as wrong.
Perhaps you should learn to read. Yes, there may be 'doable' space travel. No, I don't think most of these are 'doable' space travel. Where's the contradiction.
do you not understand that these punks that post here pass themselves off as an authority that has a greater credibility than those that are actually doing the research and experimenting with stuff.
If the 'research and experimenting' you are showing has any bearing, then yes... we are more credible when it comes to the scientific method.
it is a simple and old troll that gets played out on all ufo bbs. your intentions are transparent as well, boy!
Now you're paranoid too?
dumb shit, you lack basic comprehension. an obvious backtrack and the resultant contradiction escapes your notice
What do you propose should be done on the basis of the evidence you think you have?
i propose to gather them all up, package it into a cylinder and get you to sit on it
Well atleast you admit that nothing worthwhile can be done with the quality of evidence that exists.
Originally posted by spookz
first he states...'doable' space travel methods/times - 50/50. We don't know enough.(persol)
then he says...as most of them are probably wrong since the science is still being developed (persol)
where is he "right on the money?" is it the first instance where these methods are held to have potential or the second where they are simply dismissed as wrong.
Perhaps you should learn to read. Yes, there may be 'doable' space travel. No, I don't think most of these are 'doable' space travel. Where's the contradiction.
do you not understand that these punks that post here pass themselves off as an authority that has a greater credibility than those that are actually doing the research and experimenting with stuff.
If the 'research and experimenting' you are showing has any bearing, then yes... we are more credible when it comes to the scientific method.
it is a simple and old troll that gets played out on all ufo bbs. your intentions are transparent as well, boy!
Now you're paranoid too?
dumb shit, you lack basic comprehension. an obvious backtrack and the resultant contradiction escapes your notice
What do you propose should be done on the basis of the evidence you think you have?
i propose to gather them all up, package it into a cylinder and get you to sit on it
Well atleast you admit that nothing worthwhile can be done with the quality of evidence that exists.
persol
Well, if you actually looked into the theories that YOU brought up, you would know that most of them are mutually exculsive and that they CAN'T all be right.
where do i make this assertion?
Your attempt to say 'it may be possible' is fully correct. Your attempt to mention specifc theories, and then arguing that they are mostly right makes you either A) an idiot, or B) misinformed. Take your pick.
where do i argue that most are right?
that is how i got in to this thread. a quest for some answers.
now back your allegations up
Well, if you actually looked into the theories that YOU brought up, you would know that most of them are mutually exculsive and that they CAN'T all be right.
where do i make this assertion?
Your attempt to say 'it may be possible' is fully correct. Your attempt to mention specifc theories, and then arguing that they are mostly right makes you either A) an idiot, or B) misinformed. Take your pick.
where do i argue that most are right?
that is how i got in to this thread. a quest for some answers.
now back your allegations up
Re: persol
Originally posted by spookz
Well, if you actually looked into the theories that YOU brought up, you would know that most of them are mutually exculsive and that they CAN'T all be right.
where do i make this assertion?
'This assertion'? You take issue with my saying 'most of them are probably wrong'. Your only other option is that 'most of them are probably right'. The fact that they are mutually exclusive theories means they can't possibly be mostly right, leaving my original comment as still valid. Your statement that 'how can something be wrong if it hasnt been tried yet' is just nonsense. If I give you 3 options:
1) the ball is solid white
2) the ball is solid red
3) the ball is solid black
I can say with certainty that they are mostly wrong... even without testing it.
Your attempt to say 'it may be possible' is fully correct. Your attempt to mention specifc theories, and then arguing that they are mostly right makes you either A) an idiot, or B) misinformed. Take your pick.
where do i argue that most are right?
When you argued that I was wrong to say 'that most are wrong' you are only left one other option.
that is how i got in to this thread. a quest for some answers.
As I've been stating, expecting people to knowck these down are just silly. Most are wrong. We have no idea which ones. They may all be wrong. This is not support that aliens could travel FTL.
Originally posted by spookz
Well, if you actually looked into the theories that YOU brought up, you would know that most of them are mutually exculsive and that they CAN'T all be right.
where do i make this assertion?
'This assertion'? You take issue with my saying 'most of them are probably wrong'. Your only other option is that 'most of them are probably right'. The fact that they are mutually exclusive theories means they can't possibly be mostly right, leaving my original comment as still valid. Your statement that 'how can something be wrong if it hasnt been tried yet' is just nonsense. If I give you 3 options:
1) the ball is solid white
2) the ball is solid red
3) the ball is solid black
I can say with certainty that they are mostly wrong... even without testing it.
Your attempt to say 'it may be possible' is fully correct. Your attempt to mention specifc theories, and then arguing that they are mostly right makes you either A) an idiot, or B) misinformed. Take your pick.
where do i argue that most are right?
When you argued that I was wrong to say 'that most are wrong' you are only left one other option.
that is how i got in to this thread. a quest for some answers.
As I've been stating, expecting people to knowck these down are just silly. Most are wrong. We have no idea which ones. They may all be wrong. This is not support that aliens could travel FTL.
Re: Re: persol
'This assertion'? You take issue with my saying 'most of them are probably wrong'. Your only other option is that 'most of them are probably right'.
wrong. i simply am not willing to characterize until the scientific theory is fully worked out and all the neccessary experimention carried out. is that not how things should be done? why jump the gun here? why is it me of all people that have to advise you on this?
The fact that they are mutually exclusive theories means they can't possibly be mostly right, leaving my original comment as still valid.
give me examples of the ones that you hold to be "mutually exclusive theories." you appear to hold that only one out of the bunch, if shown to work, automatically negates the science behind the others. i thought that nasa site was the modicum of restraint. they promised nothing, made no outrageous claims. merely explored possibilties.
again the implication you reach is unwarranted.
Your statement that 'how can something be wrong if it hasnt been tried yet' is just nonsense. If I give you 3 options:
1) the ball is solid white
2) the ball is solid red
3) the ball is solid black
I can say with certainty that they are mostly wrong... even without testing it.
the analogy fails to make sense. you are arguing again that the theories are mutually exclusive. even a simple explanation why would prove your point in a more effective manner rather than dragging out colored balls
Most are wrong. We have no idea which ones. They may all be wrong. This is not support that aliens could travel FTL.
these are all statements of faith and wild speculation. you focus on ftl. why? easiest to knock down? you do not know what is wrong but nevertheless most are. that is the most asinine thing i have read in while.
'This assertion'? You take issue with my saying 'most of them are probably wrong'. Your only other option is that 'most of them are probably right'.
wrong. i simply am not willing to characterize until the scientific theory is fully worked out and all the neccessary experimention carried out. is that not how things should be done? why jump the gun here? why is it me of all people that have to advise you on this?
The fact that they are mutually exclusive theories means they can't possibly be mostly right, leaving my original comment as still valid.
give me examples of the ones that you hold to be "mutually exclusive theories." you appear to hold that only one out of the bunch, if shown to work, automatically negates the science behind the others. i thought that nasa site was the modicum of restraint. they promised nothing, made no outrageous claims. merely explored possibilties.
again the implication you reach is unwarranted.
Your statement that 'how can something be wrong if it hasnt been tried yet' is just nonsense. If I give you 3 options:
1) the ball is solid white
2) the ball is solid red
3) the ball is solid black
I can say with certainty that they are mostly wrong... even without testing it.
the analogy fails to make sense. you are arguing again that the theories are mutually exclusive. even a simple explanation why would prove your point in a more effective manner rather than dragging out colored balls
Most are wrong. We have no idea which ones. They may all be wrong. This is not support that aliens could travel FTL.
these are all statements of faith and wild speculation. you focus on ftl. why? easiest to knock down? you do not know what is wrong but nevertheless most are. that is the most asinine thing i have read in while.
Originally posted by spookz
Ideas Based On What We Know
penn state anti matter
laser sails
Both are out. I said 'doable'. They both make someone reaching this planet on a regular basis almost impossible.
Ideas Based On What We’d Like To Achieve
Worm Hole transportation
Do not allow matter to be carried through in any organized way. Also, is kinda 'obvious'. Requires different behave/existance of negative matter then 'negative matter propulsion'
"Warp Drive"
contradict the same laws of physics that predict worm holes and negative mass propulsion (SR)
Negative mass propulsion
Requires different behave/existance of negative matter then 'worm hole transportation'
Millis’s hypothetical "Space Drives"
Is just a general label for things that don't eject mass (AKA: all of the above) Isn't a method like the others
Lists of Some Intriguing Emerging Physics
Besides the ones that deal with the topics above, the require inertia to be a function of the ZPE, which limits it's velocity.
Lists of some preparatory propulsion research
Not FTL (except for those mentioned above)
General Relativity
Vacuum Fluctuations of Quantum Physics
Faster-Than-Light Travel
All 3 are mutually exclusive.
you focus on ftl. why? easiest to knock down?
No, I focus on 'apparent' FTL because it is the HARDEST to knockdown. Without FTL, the chances of aliens be able to or caring to reach us drop even lower. I have no problem saying 'FTL may be possible'. I have a poblem with you proposing that these are actually possible and technologies that aliens would use.
Ideas Based On What We Know
penn state anti matter
laser sails
Both are out. I said 'doable'. They both make someone reaching this planet on a regular basis almost impossible.
Ideas Based On What We’d Like To Achieve
Worm Hole transportation
Do not allow matter to be carried through in any organized way. Also, is kinda 'obvious'. Requires different behave/existance of negative matter then 'negative matter propulsion'
"Warp Drive"
contradict the same laws of physics that predict worm holes and negative mass propulsion (SR)
Negative mass propulsion
Requires different behave/existance of negative matter then 'worm hole transportation'
Millis’s hypothetical "Space Drives"
Is just a general label for things that don't eject mass (AKA: all of the above) Isn't a method like the others
Lists of Some Intriguing Emerging Physics
Besides the ones that deal with the topics above, the require inertia to be a function of the ZPE, which limits it's velocity.
Lists of some preparatory propulsion research
Not FTL (except for those mentioned above)
General Relativity
Vacuum Fluctuations of Quantum Physics
Faster-Than-Light Travel
All 3 are mutually exclusive.
you focus on ftl. why? easiest to knock down?
No, I focus on 'apparent' FTL because it is the HARDEST to knockdown. Without FTL, the chances of aliens be able to or caring to reach us drop even lower. I have no problem saying 'FTL may be possible'. I have a poblem with you proposing that these are actually possible and technologies that aliens would use.