q says: "ET visiting Earth ideas are contradicted by physics."

Originally posted by VRob
Based on what Wes?

What are your reasons for those 2 statements?
Click to expand...

1) There is no way to rule out the possibility. Any appeal to "ftl isn't possible" is ridiculous, since it just doesn't SEEM possible. There is no cap on the universe, only our understanding of it at a given time. Further, there is nothing contradictory in nature about beings visiting a place. Since it cannot be rationally ruled out, it is entirely possible.

2) The is no physical evidence (that i am aware of) to indicate that we have been visitied by ET. Further Persols points about faith. It takes a leap of faith to think ET exists. Another to think they are more advanced than us. Another to think they could travel FTL and another to think they would find us/be interested in us. Further, the there is a ton of evidence for the propesntiy of humans to supply and believe wholly irrational explanations regarding phenomenae they don't understand. Even intelligent well meaning people do this all the time. People tend to take from their experience to categorize their input ya know? That's just the way brains work it seems, pattern recognition and all.
 
Originally posted by spookz
perhaps a version of the belgian flap wes?
Click to expand...

I'm not exactly sure what you mean.

I'd guess there's some weird stuff that happened there, but there is no real reason to suggest it is ET. I'd say if it's true maybe some gov'ments got sum splaining to do. Er, rather some misinformation and flat denial to do. ;)

Hehe. Oh and you know I think it's really the smartest move to flatly deny or misinform the public regarding shit that is super-secret. Oh, and maybe it's not so smart to fly experiment ET looking spacecraft near populations, but maybe there is an agenda I'm not aware of.

Maybe it's a private entity doing it.

Maybe it's literally an illusion. People have done some exerimenting with projecting images into the sky. Maybe that's why it doesn't make any noise.

*shrug*

Just saying, there are a million possibilities to exhaust before thikning ET, unless there is something to compel one to think differntly.
 
There is no cap on the universe, only our understanding of it at a given time.

Actually, there is a cap – it’s called the speed of light and is a direct result of the permeability and permittivity of space.
 
Originally posted by (Q)
There is no cap on the universe, only our understanding of it at a given time.

Actually, there is a cap – it’s called the speed of light and is a direct result of the permeability and permittivity of space.
Click to expand...

So it would seem, yes. Do you think that makes FTL 100% for sure impossible?
 
Originally posted by wesmorris
So it would seem, yes. Do you think that makes FTL 100% for sure impossible?
Click to expand...

I CAN'T WAIT to hear Q's response to this one.
 
Originally posted by (Q)
For an object to move at or over the speed of light, yes.
Click to expand...

Well, my somewhat limited understanding of physics agrees with you, but I don't think it wise to assume it absolute unless you're engineering something for an application that requires practical consideration of this knowledge.

In other words for the most part, of course to solve current problem you have to use current physics, but that doesn't mean current physics is the end of the road, nor that there isn't a way to cheat the speed of light problem.

Further as you know, your answer doesn't mean that great distances can't be traveled in a period of time that equates to FTL.
 
Originally posted by wesmorris
Maybe it's literally an illusion. People have done some exerimenting with projecting images into the sky. Maybe that's why it doesn't make any noise.

Just saying, there are a million possibilities to exhaust before thikning ET, unless there is something to compel one to think differntly.
Click to expand...

you find all this more plausible than the possibilty of et? what on earth do you think we are? what are we doing flying around the planets? what cherished position have you elevated us to in your scheme of things? can you not even notice how religious you sound?
 
i believe q imagines that if ftl cannot be violated his problem is solved.
well listen my dogmatic follower of the new religion...science, et comes from a nearby star system
*they hibernated on the way over, currently parked on the dsotm
*their lifespan is measured in millions of years (nano/regeneration/whatnot)
so brother q, either way, there goes the neighborhood! darn pesky aliens

wait! they emerge from the bowels of the earth!
 
wes

1) There is no way to rule out the possibility. Any appeal to "ftl isn't possible" is ridiculous, since it just doesn't SEEM possible. There is no cap on the universe, only our understanding of it at a given time.

you introduce metaphysical speculation to a discussion that does not warrant it. what could be possibly gained by the possibility of all things that one is capable of imagining?

lets take a look at a lifeform in this universe...us... and compare it to a purple and pink, flying dinocamel. can you not make a distinction b/w the two? do you not think it ludicrous to give equal weight to both? the difference being that while one is the product of an imaginative speculation, there is at the very least a logical procedure to deduce the existence of the former. in the case of et at the wheel, the evidence is not strong enough to make a definite claim but the hypo cannot be ruled out (if you do not understand why eyeball the belgian incident and note the properties attributed to the ufo)

here is another possibility....ratjapbastard. try some particularly cool logical paradoxes and imagine existence

Further, there is nothing contradictory in nature about beings visiting a place. Since it cannot be rationally ruled out, it is entirely possible.

rather vague. if i were to say aliens visit mars and hold us out as the example, it seems an extremely innocuous claim. if i claim rats visit mars, that is another thing altogether. but perhaps i nitpick...

.... there are certain a priori assumptions we have to make before admitting the possibility of et at the wheel. the first is existence of habitable planets. the second is of sentient life. the third is a necessary level of tech in order to be a spacefaring civ. none of these are farfetched as we already have an example of the three assumptions mentioned... namely earth and its inhabitants. for the sake of simplicity i am grossly anthropomorphizing to avoid muddling the issue.

now look at the situation at hand, we have stuff flying around that defy a simple explanation. an impartial take on this situ cannot rule out the et hypothesis. you do this not on the grounds that "anything is possible" but rather on probabilities

2) The is no physical evidence (that i am aware of) to indicate that we have been visitied by ET. Further Persols points about faith. It takes a leap of faith to think ET exists. Another to think they are more advanced than us. Another to think they could travel FTL and another to think they would find us/be interested in us.

can you show me where i made this leap? then you can show where the others did the same. perhaps it would be cool to be afforded the opportunity to mount a defense, or at the very least provide a clarification against this accusation of fanaticism. or perhaps you just vaguely generalize about ufology?

Further, the there is a ton of evidence for the propesntiy of humans to supply and believe wholly irrational explanations regarding phenomenae they don't understand. Even intelligent well meaning people do this all the time. People tend to take from their experience to categorize their input ya know? That's just the way brains work it seems, pattern recognition and all.

i mentioned this in a post to james. the brain attempts to make a "best fit". regardless, to go from there to allegations of outright belief and dogma does a lot of people an injustice. for instance...the trained professionals in the belgian govt. there is no fanatical component to a simple psychological mechanism. (exceptions to the rule as always, exist)
 
/you find all this more plausible than the possibilty of et?

yes. you don't?

/what on earth do you think we are?

people. are you unaware of what people can accomplish? did you notice the electron box you're typing into?

/what are we doing flying around the planets?

it's called a space program. they send satellites and stuff that way. eventually they'll sends people.

/what cherished position have you elevated us to in your scheme of things?

what kind of question is that? i refer you to the question of the electron box before.

/can you not even notice how religious you sound?

what the hell are you talking about?

no i don't sound religious, you're reading something into it.

do you know how ignorant you sound? have you any comprehension of the incredible vast scale of the universe? talk about a need in a haystack. man, we're a lepton in a need in stack of hay the size of the universe. hell that's probably an over-estimation of size.

i have no idea if ET exists, but if he does he almost surely isn't HERE. He could be, but I got no reason to think he is.

the point is to look for terrestrial reasons first.
 
Re: wes

Originally posted by spookz
can you show me where i made this leap?
Click to expand...


You do know I wasn't even talking to you right? Vrob asked me to state why I think those two things from before and I was giving him an explanation.

Because it looks like you were talking to me as if I'd accused you of something, which I didn't.
 
Originally posted by wesmorris
Well, my somewhat limited understanding of physics agrees with you, but
Click to expand...

q is a self styled expert in physics. i doubt if he has worked out the math for any of the stuff he claims to understand. i havent seen numbers on q's posts. he merely parrots the prevailing paradigm and growls furiously at those that seek to disturb it. perhaps it turns him on? either way it seems kinda pathological

absolutely no need to qualify your understanding to anyone. it is a trolling technique employed by frauds in order to prevail. (no math, no comment)
 
wes

Just saying, there are a million possibilities to exhaust before thikning ET,...

give me 10 dissimilar possibilities. rank it

do it in the belgian thread when attempting to determine origins

....unless there is something to compel one to think differntly. (wes)

which is exactly how cases come to my and others attention in the first place. there are anomalies observed

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. (wes)

sorry, i meant give your take on the belgian flap
 
Last edited:
Whether true FTL is possible or not, I don't know. To travel between
two distant planets, say 30 lyrs apart, in a reasonable amount of
time IS theoretically possible, based on the physics as we know them
today. I'm sure Q is aware of the Special Theory of Relativity and
theoretical length contraction of space due to relativistic speeds,
speeds near the speed of light. A vehicle accelerating to .999c can
reach a planet 30 light years away in a matter of months of the
travelers time. From the travelers frame of reference, his clock is
running normally and the distance between the two planets is
contracted, allowing him to reach his destination quickly and only
aging a few months. The problem has always been, from the frame
of reference of his home planet, the home planet and the rest of
the universe has aged over 30 years during the travellers trip.
And of course, what kind of propulsion can achieve those speeds?
Something new has been theorized in the last few years, based on
measured and verified observations. The observation was objects
at the edge of the observable universe that are receding from us
at a speed faster than light. The universe was also speeding up
in its expansion, expanding at a faster and faster rate. The mechanism for this expansion has to be something with a repulsive
effect on matter, pusing the galaxies apart. Dark energy is what it
is normally called. Quintessence is the leading hypothesis to explain this dark energy. Quintessence has a repulsive (similar to
anti-gravity) effect on matter, and it is theorized to do something
else. It "stretches" the fabric of space itself, the opposite of relativity's "contracting" space. A vehicle accelerated by this
dark energy to relativistic speeds could conceivably "contract"
space in front while "stretching" the "contracted" space behind.
Results? A 30 light year trip in months of the travellers time, as
stated by Special Relativity. A question. Since the space between
the traveller and his home planet would no longer be contracted
during this trip to another planet, would both only age months?
I am not aware of this question being addressed by physics yet,
but I would think it eventually would be.
 
Re: Re: wes

Originally posted by wesmorris
You do know I wasn't even talking to you right? Vrob asked me to state why I think those two things from before and I was giving him an explanation.

Because it looks like you were talking to me as if I'd accused you of something, which I didn't.
Click to expand...

no. you made a general statement. it was addressed in general to all those that consider the possibilties and probabilties of et's existence and his visits here. you claim it takes a leap of faith. i do it by making the necessary inferences and deductions with the evidence that is present. you discount this (evidence) and refuse to take into consideration on the grounds that it could be inaccurate. tell me now, how you can say that i am not making a leap of faith here given your reasoning?

here is why a "leap of faith" has no relevance to this thread. contrary to all the opinions of the skeptics i do not see that used by the proponents that dare consider an et hypothesis. perhaps if i let the good belgian general explain....

The third category makes up of those who are convinced of the existence of the UFO and which do not exclude the assumption of their extraterrestrial origin. They are in general people who carried out a major study of the problem and who, in conclusion, recognize the reality of the observations of flying objects whose nature and performances largely exceed the field of the technical capabilities acquired to date. They venture on a slipping ground for the simple reason that they pose an assumption without stable scientific base. It is true that as of today nobody succeeded in proving the existence of an extraterrestrial civilization, and moreover, of a civilization able to visit us thanks to means which come out of the field of the possibilities of our technology. A great moral courage is thus necessary to publicly acknowledge the consideration of such an assumption. It is always necessary to pass the psychological threshold of the taboo attached to such a standpoint seen as ridiculous: an important step. Moreover, confusion is lurking between believing in an extraterrestrial assumption and taking it into account during field research. Any investigator who would not take this type of assumption into account would neglect a major element and his research would not be objective anymore. That does not mean that it must inevitably believe in this assumption.

now this is very important i think. people on the ground once convinced of the veracity of the data and subsequent analysis, will consider the et hypo. this consideration does not imply that others are necessarily ruled out.

lets eyeball a simple flight to dallas. you know nothing of engines/aerodynamics/piloting/radar. yet you get on and fly anyway. you seen it been done and feel comfortable

now these very same people that you trusted your life to are now assumed to have lost their minds when the et hypo is considered.

"leap of faith" translates to that. perhaps a pilot suddenly has faith in air powering his jet and foregoes the refueling. you throw rationality out of the door and let your mind run riot. that is the implication of a leap of faith. belief without the slightest bit of support, logical or evidentiary!

you will not question the logistics and players of a routine flight. yet the moment an anomality is reported, the protestations begin. the accusations of incompetence, the hallucinations, the misjudgements. it is pathology. plain and simple
 
wes

yes. you don't?

the terrestrial origin sounds plausible. it has a slight edge over et. error and delusions very unlikely. it depends on the players.

here is what i see. i notice beecham's thread. i see the usual players. i laugh. shit like that is an absolute waste of time. there is nothing to deduce, nothing to infer, nothing to measure. what the hell can be said about a frikkin speck in the sky? i demand a higher standard of evidence. if not present, i rather speculate on pussy (shaved/hairy, straight/lesbo)

it's called a space program. they send satellites and stuff that way. eventually they'll sends people.

point was that, if we can, it is not unreasonable to think that other sentient beings are doing the same

do you know how ignorant you sound? have you any comprehension of the incredible vast scale of the universe? talk about a need in a haystack. man, we're a lepton in a need in stack of hay the size of the universe. hell that's probably an over-estimation of size.

i fail to see the relevance. what about it? is this supposed to shock and awe? perhaps fall to my knees and give thanks?

i have no idea if ET exists, but if he does he almost surely isn't HERE. He could be, but I got no reason to think he is.

that is an unecessary assumption and is not logical either. you are flailing b/w two extremes here. et exists/et does not exist. if he does he is here/if he does he is not here

so you have no reason to think he is here. do you have a reason to think he is there? (hey you started it):D

the point is to look for terrestrial reasons first.

and if they are inadequate? what do you do?
 
Re: wes

/give me 10 dissimilar possibilities. rank it

hey man, i honestly don't care much. believe what you will. I don't believe what you do and I gave you some stuff i thought might explain it. that is all you get. i'll think some, but I'm not spending all damn night trying to rationlize this shit. suffice it to say that unless there's physical evidence, I'm not buying anyone selling an ET story.

/do it in the belgian thread when attempting to determine origins

you will not pimp this ass beyatch. :)

....unless there is something to compel one to think differntly. (wes)

/which is exactly how cases come to my and others attention in the first place. there are anomalies observed.

Yes, but how many people who know anything about science buy this crap? Show me someone credible that is educated in physics/etc who will represent. I have watched a ton of shit regarding this stuff and well, everyone i saw was debunked by penn and teller, hardcore IMO.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. (wes)

/sorry, i meant give your take on the belgian flap

well that's what you got so...

it's just that spooky baby, i'm just not buying anyting ET until it can be shown to me, firsthand. even then i'll still doubt until I'm riding on the spaceship talking with SLKVLWE!!!#!#$ from LF!!!KF!, or he's projectiing shit into my brain. EVen then I'm not buying it until it's been long enough to convince me that it's not a total hallucination.

why so hardcore?
-because it's something that i think people are trying to pimp me. there's a lot of money in it for the pimps selling books to perpetuate it.... not to mention the emotional connection a lot of people make with it. it's myseterious and high-tech... that makes most people easy prey, especially giving the godless a place to look for interesting meaningful stuff that doesn't make you do homework (besides indulging in the mystery, which is fun).
- because it's beyond the realm of my experience. i've heard a lot of trash talked about it, but I've never seen a single shred of anything to back it up. sure i've seen a lot of stuff via multimedia this or that, but I have seen ZILCH firsthand. naturally then the longer i go without anythign, the loger i think "what a crock" regardless of who says what.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top