q says: "ET visiting Earth ideas are contradicted by physics."
- Thread starter spookz
- Start date
Re: wes
/way too vague. there are different theories proposed.
you have demonstrated that you don't have a damn clue as to what would or wouldn't be vague, as you have about nill understanding of science/physics.
/i like to know specifically, what current laws are violated by these proposals.
which two proposals?
/persol and q attempts to identify the errors, 2inq disagrees. what is this evidence you speak of? i guess i'll have to google again and find some "expert" to do the job for you naysayers.
lemme know which 2 and I'll give you what I know.
/secondly as 2inq indicates, violating a postulate is not the same as violating a law. lets eyeball a quote
That's true to an extent, but if the postulate is a reasonable approximation of reality, your statement is absolutely pointless. the current model of the universe in terms of basic physics has a high degree of confidence and oodles of experimental evidence backign it up. peep this beeyatch.
/point is you gotta get specific as to what it is being violated.
under what hypothetical circumstance?
Bummer if you accidentally send earth spiraling into oblivion or something!
/more doomsday stuff wes? careful, the crackpot factor for this stuff is greater than ufology.
LOL. Your ignorance is profound spooky. My comment was a very realistic concern about relativistic mass. Think of it this way my ignorant spooky bro: If all of the sudden another jupiter came into orbit around the sun, do you have a clue what would happen? How about if a jupiter size object just wandered through the solar system? Do you have a remote clue as to the potential effects? I doubt it, or you wouldn't have said that. You see spookz, an object travelling a x percent the speed of light would gain the relativistic mass of a planet I'd think, depending on the rest mass of the object and the value of x. Now, there may be other factors that would make my concerns void.. like I dunno.. I'd have to ask one of the actual physicists like Dino to be pretty sure. Persol or Q might know, I'm not sure.
You seem to miss a significant point.
/i compared understanding of physics b/w the two species and not the physics per se
and you rail on me for sounding like a crackpot?
that simply doesn't make any sense. I have no idea what you think you just said, but it sounds like gibberish to me, especially considering that it is in defense of the following:
"1-the laws of physics forbid it....or
2-et visiting implies et exists. then for no reason at all our understanding of physics is assumed to be theirs as well. what goes on here? we go to the same schools and share the same curriculum? our evo progressed in tandem?"
I don't know what language you're freakin speakin, but it isn't the same one I'm familiar with, or you simply don't make a lick of sense and have somehow convinced yourself that you do.
The main difference could be for instance 1,000,000 extra years of formal study of the same systems, in which case your perspective has some validity.
/covered by "our evo progressed in tandem." ie" evolution began at the same instance/period in time and progresses at the same rate for the two.
"covered"? What you say is "covering something" was asked as a question? How does a question cover something as an answer? What the hell are you talking about? I cannot discern anything even remotely intelligent about the what you just said. It just sounds like gibberish.
You're a smart guy man, but your lack of comprehension of physics makes you say retarded things regarding this topic
/more doomsday stuff wes? careful, the crackpot factor for this stuff is greater than ufology
That is simply arrogant and assenine. You don't know what you're talking about so you assume I don't either. Dude, when you undertake large tasks (like going to the moon, travelling around the solar system, building a skyscraper, whatever), you have to take all the potential stuff into account (to the best of your ability). Do you understand what relativisitic mass is? Do you understand a gravitational system? These things you would get if you had a decent education, which you apparently do not. I would suggest you pull your head out of your ass. You see spookz, an object of mass X cannot travel the speed of light because of relativisitic mass (and this is all verified/tested). As you close on the speed of light, your mass increases and it requires more energy to push you (please note that this doesn't mean that down the road we won't figure out something you can do to space-time or whatever that could impact this observation). It would take infinite energy to push an infinite mass. That's the main reason that pushing a mass the speed of light isn't possible, as far as is known.
Further, if you introduce a large mass to a system already in some sort of gravitional harmony, like a solar system with orbits, etc, you take a large risk of upsetting the balance that already exists. This isn't science fiction, this is basic science 101. If you were more than a hack, you'd understand this and I wouldn't have to waste time explaining extremely simple shit to your goddamn thick skull. Yet you make your snide fucking comments eh? Some peace maker.
You know I wouldn't even mind explaining simple shit to you if you would pull your head out of your ass and listen, instead your ego demands that you insinuate that I'm stupid. I hope it makes you feel better, but does it help you understand anything?
/way too vague. there are different theories proposed.
you have demonstrated that you don't have a damn clue as to what would or wouldn't be vague, as you have about nill understanding of science/physics.
/i like to know specifically, what current laws are violated by these proposals.
which two proposals?
/persol and q attempts to identify the errors, 2inq disagrees. what is this evidence you speak of? i guess i'll have to google again and find some "expert" to do the job for you naysayers.
lemme know which 2 and I'll give you what I know.
/secondly as 2inq indicates, violating a postulate is not the same as violating a law. lets eyeball a quote
That's true to an extent, but if the postulate is a reasonable approximation of reality, your statement is absolutely pointless. the current model of the universe in terms of basic physics has a high degree of confidence and oodles of experimental evidence backign it up. peep this beeyatch.
/point is you gotta get specific as to what it is being violated.
under what hypothetical circumstance?
Bummer if you accidentally send earth spiraling into oblivion or something!
/more doomsday stuff wes? careful, the crackpot factor for this stuff is greater than ufology.
LOL. Your ignorance is profound spooky. My comment was a very realistic concern about relativistic mass. Think of it this way my ignorant spooky bro: If all of the sudden another jupiter came into orbit around the sun, do you have a clue what would happen? How about if a jupiter size object just wandered through the solar system? Do you have a remote clue as to the potential effects? I doubt it, or you wouldn't have said that. You see spookz, an object travelling a x percent the speed of light would gain the relativistic mass of a planet I'd think, depending on the rest mass of the object and the value of x. Now, there may be other factors that would make my concerns void.. like I dunno.. I'd have to ask one of the actual physicists like Dino to be pretty sure. Persol or Q might know, I'm not sure.
You seem to miss a significant point.
/i compared understanding of physics b/w the two species and not the physics per se
and you rail on me for sounding like a crackpot?
that simply doesn't make any sense. I have no idea what you think you just said, but it sounds like gibberish to me, especially considering that it is in defense of the following:
"1-the laws of physics forbid it....or
2-et visiting implies et exists. then for no reason at all our understanding of physics is assumed to be theirs as well. what goes on here? we go to the same schools and share the same curriculum? our evo progressed in tandem?"
I don't know what language you're freakin speakin, but it isn't the same one I'm familiar with, or you simply don't make a lick of sense and have somehow convinced yourself that you do.
The main difference could be for instance 1,000,000 extra years of formal study of the same systems, in which case your perspective has some validity.
/covered by "our evo progressed in tandem." ie" evolution began at the same instance/period in time and progresses at the same rate for the two.
"covered"? What you say is "covering something" was asked as a question? How does a question cover something as an answer? What the hell are you talking about? I cannot discern anything even remotely intelligent about the what you just said. It just sounds like gibberish.
You're a smart guy man, but your lack of comprehension of physics makes you say retarded things regarding this topic
/more doomsday stuff wes? careful, the crackpot factor for this stuff is greater than ufology
That is simply arrogant and assenine. You don't know what you're talking about so you assume I don't either. Dude, when you undertake large tasks (like going to the moon, travelling around the solar system, building a skyscraper, whatever), you have to take all the potential stuff into account (to the best of your ability). Do you understand what relativisitic mass is? Do you understand a gravitational system? These things you would get if you had a decent education, which you apparently do not. I would suggest you pull your head out of your ass. You see spookz, an object of mass X cannot travel the speed of light because of relativisitic mass (and this is all verified/tested). As you close on the speed of light, your mass increases and it requires more energy to push you (please note that this doesn't mean that down the road we won't figure out something you can do to space-time or whatever that could impact this observation). It would take infinite energy to push an infinite mass. That's the main reason that pushing a mass the speed of light isn't possible, as far as is known.
Further, if you introduce a large mass to a system already in some sort of gravitional harmony, like a solar system with orbits, etc, you take a large risk of upsetting the balance that already exists. This isn't science fiction, this is basic science 101. If you were more than a hack, you'd understand this and I wouldn't have to waste time explaining extremely simple shit to your goddamn thick skull. Yet you make your snide fucking comments eh? Some peace maker.
You know I wouldn't even mind explaining simple shit to you if you would pull your head out of your ass and listen, instead your ego demands that you insinuate that I'm stupid. I hope it makes you feel better, but does it help you understand anything?
Last edited:
Idiots
A man "convinced against his will" is of the same opinion still.
A man "convinced against his will" is of the same opinion still.
Originally posted by spookz
snide comments? where? i think you are pissed cos you were forced to crack open a textbook
am i right or am i wrong mr wes "pottymouth" morris
LOL
You kill me man.
Oh and hey, I'm a goddamn veteran. That only gets you one thing: Permanent license to curse freely (except around the those under 15 or so, which if they are on the net I cannot help because I have no idea who is looking at this so i assume adult, but realize it's wrong sometimes)!
wes "cranky" morris
which two proposals?
how does "these proposals" translate to "two proposals"
lemme know which 2 and I'll give you what I know.
you just flirt with the thread. look at 2nd page, 2nd from last (default view)
That's true to an extent, but if the postulate is a reasonable approximation of reality, your statement is absolutely pointless.
so ah the postulate can be iffy while the statement cannot? i mean you just admit a margin of error ("reasonable approximation")that indicates the statement may have a point/ yet you say"absolutely pointless"
i smell dishonesty
under what hypothetical circumstance?
umm, lets go with warp drive
LOL. Your ignorance is profound spooky. My comment was a very realistic concern about relativistic mass.
you got to understand that most of these proposals work around these problems. they do not aim at flouting laws. nor do they ignore them. instead they look for loopholes. in the case of Alcubierre's warp drive, i do not think the spaceship moves at all. it is carried around on a chunk of spacetime
the hard part remains (figuring out a practical application of the theory)
and you rail on me for sounding like a crackpot?
what is with you? i do no such thing. a light jab thats all.
that simply doesn't make any sense. I have no idea what you think you just said, but it sounds like gibberish to me, especially considering that it is in defense of the following:
umm earthers know quantum/newton, aliens know newton. the physics is there for both. the aliens never had a eureka moment where quantum stuff is concerned. one species is more advanced than the other.
savvy? not yet?
I don't know what language you're freakin speakin, but it isn't the same one I'm familiar with, or you simply don't make a lick of sense and have somehow convinced yourself that you do.
oh i am pretty convinced in this case
"covered"? What you say is "covering something" was asked as a question? How does a question cover something as an answer? What the hell are you talking about? I cannot discern anything even remotely intelligent about the what you just said. It just sounds like gibberish.
thats cos your neurons are firing at random kiddo
first. do you see a question mark? does the sentence structuring even remotely resemble a question?
there is a statement in response to your crap...
covered by "our evo progressed in tandem."
followed by an explanation of said statement....
ie" evolution began at the same instance/period in time and progresses at the same rate for the two
now where is the question? again...
"The main difference could be for instance 1,000,000 extra years of formal study of the same systems, in which case your perspective has some validity."
i already took it into account by noting that the 2 species could be at different stages of evolution
You're a smart guy man, but your lack of comprehension of physics makes you say retarded things regarding this topic
so? being hard ass about it implies nefarious agenda (paranoid enough for you?)
That is simply arrogant and assenine. You don't know what you're talking about so you assume I don't either.
youse like a bitch. all sensitive and menopausal and cranky and moody and lots of other stuff
This isn't science fiction, this is basic science 101.
so what? laws are meant to be circumvented. stop being such a good little robot
You know I wouldn't even mind explaining simple shit to you if you would pull your head out of your ass and listen, instead your ego demands that you insinuate that I'm stupid. I hope it makes you feel better, but does it help you understand anything
hush. you misjudge me. you also try my patience. the troll in me is dying to be unleashed. i'll have you red faced and apoplectic in no time at all pal
which two proposals?
how does "these proposals" translate to "two proposals"
lemme know which 2 and I'll give you what I know.
you just flirt with the thread. look at 2nd page, 2nd from last (default view)
That's true to an extent, but if the postulate is a reasonable approximation of reality, your statement is absolutely pointless.
so ah the postulate can be iffy while the statement cannot? i mean you just admit a margin of error ("reasonable approximation")that indicates the statement may have a point/ yet you say"absolutely pointless"
i smell dishonesty
under what hypothetical circumstance?
umm, lets go with warp drive
LOL. Your ignorance is profound spooky. My comment was a very realistic concern about relativistic mass.
you got to understand that most of these proposals work around these problems. they do not aim at flouting laws. nor do they ignore them. instead they look for loopholes. in the case of Alcubierre's warp drive, i do not think the spaceship moves at all. it is carried around on a chunk of spacetime
the hard part remains (figuring out a practical application of the theory)
and you rail on me for sounding like a crackpot?
what is with you? i do no such thing. a light jab thats all.
that simply doesn't make any sense. I have no idea what you think you just said, but it sounds like gibberish to me, especially considering that it is in defense of the following:
umm earthers know quantum/newton, aliens know newton. the physics is there for both. the aliens never had a eureka moment where quantum stuff is concerned. one species is more advanced than the other.
savvy? not yet?
I don't know what language you're freakin speakin, but it isn't the same one I'm familiar with, or you simply don't make a lick of sense and have somehow convinced yourself that you do.
oh i am pretty convinced in this case
"covered"? What you say is "covering something" was asked as a question? How does a question cover something as an answer? What the hell are you talking about? I cannot discern anything even remotely intelligent about the what you just said. It just sounds like gibberish.
thats cos your neurons are firing at random kiddo
first. do you see a question mark? does the sentence structuring even remotely resemble a question?
there is a statement in response to your crap...
covered by "our evo progressed in tandem."
followed by an explanation of said statement....
ie" evolution began at the same instance/period in time and progresses at the same rate for the two
now where is the question? again...
"The main difference could be for instance 1,000,000 extra years of formal study of the same systems, in which case your perspective has some validity."
i already took it into account by noting that the 2 species could be at different stages of evolution
You're a smart guy man, but your lack of comprehension of physics makes you say retarded things regarding this topic
so? being hard ass about it implies nefarious agenda
(paranoid enough for you?)That is simply arrogant and assenine. You don't know what you're talking about so you assume I don't either.
youse like a bitch. all sensitive and menopausal and cranky and moody and lots of other stuff
This isn't science fiction, this is basic science 101.
so what? laws are meant to be circumvented. stop being such a good little robot
You know I wouldn't even mind explaining simple shit to you if you would pull your head out of your ass and listen, instead your ego demands that you insinuate that I'm stupid. I hope it makes you feel better, but does it help you understand anything
hush. you misjudge me. you also try my patience. the troll in me is dying to be unleashed. i'll have you red faced and apoplectic in no time at all pal
Once again I go back on my promise not to address Q. I've really got to stop saying that, don't I?
But Q, I have to admit you made me laugh with Don’t worry your secret is safe.
And your post was not wholly unreasonable. (Somebody stop me, it must be the holidays or something).
Yet from all the money and effort so far wasted in this endeavor has failed to provide anything of value, other than to line the pockets of people like Hynek.
That's a pretty subjective interpretation. I think the history of the phenomenon itself is a fascinating insight into perception and epistemology that can teach us much about humanity itself, even if you are right and there is nothing to the phenomenon. And of all the criticisms one might make of Hynek, this is pretty weak. It makes an assumption that you are correct, and that there is no reason whatsoever to study the phenomenon. Therefore, anyone publishing on it must be a huckster. This theory is full of gaps in logic and reason as well, Q. Way too easy to toss out there with no supporting evidence. Proponents get called on it by you when they make assumptions, and I'm calling you on this one. Evidence please, besides your opinion, that Hynek was out only to line his pockets.
Assuming intelligence is as big a leap of faith as assuming ET. Any other possibilities that have ever come to light are of a terrestrial nature and have provided no value to anyone.
Nonsense. You are asking us to disregard decades of human perceptions entirely. Those perceptions, including interpretations of staffers in nearly every study conducted by the military and/or government, or contracted by the government, have gone beyond the conclusion of intelligence and even leaned towards ET, a mistake of reason which I outlined above. Your statement requires us to disregard too much that by everything we have learned, suggests intelligent rather than random behavior. Your denial of this does not make it so.
But Q, I have to admit you made me laugh with Don’t worry your secret is safe.
And your post was not wholly unreasonable. (Somebody stop me, it must be the holidays or something).
Yet from all the money and effort so far wasted in this endeavor has failed to provide anything of value, other than to line the pockets of people like Hynek.
That's a pretty subjective interpretation. I think the history of the phenomenon itself is a fascinating insight into perception and epistemology that can teach us much about humanity itself, even if you are right and there is nothing to the phenomenon. And of all the criticisms one might make of Hynek, this is pretty weak. It makes an assumption that you are correct, and that there is no reason whatsoever to study the phenomenon. Therefore, anyone publishing on it must be a huckster. This theory is full of gaps in logic and reason as well, Q. Way too easy to toss out there with no supporting evidence. Proponents get called on it by you when they make assumptions, and I'm calling you on this one. Evidence please, besides your opinion, that Hynek was out only to line his pockets.
Assuming intelligence is as big a leap of faith as assuming ET. Any other possibilities that have ever come to light are of a terrestrial nature and have provided no value to anyone.
Nonsense. You are asking us to disregard decades of human perceptions entirely. Those perceptions, including interpretations of staffers in nearly every study conducted by the military and/or government, or contracted by the government, have gone beyond the conclusion of intelligence and even leaned towards ET, a mistake of reason which I outlined above. Your statement requires us to disregard too much that by everything we have learned, suggests intelligent rather than random behavior. Your denial of this does not make it so.
Re: wes "cranky" morris
/how does "these proposals" translate to "two proposals"
I don't know where I got two, but it's easie when you provide a link or are semi specific. i thought you were talking about this:
"1-the laws of physics forbid it....or
2-et visiting implies et exists. then for no reason at all our understanding of physics is assumed to be theirs as well. what goes on here? we go to the same schools and share the same curriculum? our evo progressed in tandem?"
or something. Okay I know what you mean now.
/you just flirt with the thread.
the gaul is astounding.
/look at 2nd page, 2nd from last (default view)
no. i'm not in default view. you clarified, let it go.
That's true to an extent, but if the postulate is a reasonable approximation of reality, your statement is absolutely pointless.
/so ah the postulate can be iffy while the statement cannot?
everything is iffy, but some things more than others.
/i mean you just admit a margin of error ("reasonable approximation")that indicates the statement may have a point/ yet you say"absolutely pointless"
margin of error is not an applicable term. it implies you measured somethign or performed a statistical analysis on something. did you? a "reasonable approximation" would be fundamentally true, but acknowledging the resolution of the measurement. Infinite accuracy of any measurement is impossible.
/i smell dishonesty
you nose is clogged up with your bullshit I guess. questioning my honesty is simply pointless and wastes your time.
under what hypothetical circumstance?
/umm, lets go with warp drive
Okay, there are theories that say it's possible but no experimental evidence to back it up. That means in the mean time, it's impossible. As soon as technology/additional/supporting theory (e.g. material science, computer science/electrical engineering)
LOL. Your ignorance is profound spooky. My comment was a very realistic concern about relativistic mass.
/you got to understand that most of these proposals work around these problems.
well, you said you were just jabbing so I'll drop it, but I'd like you to back your statement up if you think you can. i suspect you just made that up because it seemed obvious and didn't realize you made a huge assumption. you might be right, but most of the proposals I've read haven't mentioned the impact of relativistic mass on the solar system. it might be cuz that's not a concern I'm not sure, but it's a solid question.
/they do not aim at flouting laws. nor do they ignore them. instead they look for loopholes.
of course and I'm aware of that. part of your problem is that you think when I say "this isn't possible" you don't ask the right questions to follow it up. the reference frame in time is important. FTL is currently technically impossible due to lacking tech/theory. Sure some basic theories are there, but they are not fully developed, as you have to develop the theory based on experiments in satification of finding it.
/in the case of Alcubierre's warp drive, i do not think the spaceship moves at all. it is carried around on a chunk of spacetime
the hard part remains (figuring out a practical application of the theory)
that sounds cool and stuff and maybe they'll even get to try to build one, who knows. doesn't mean it will work. it should maybe, but until you try it you can't say for sure and since tech is still a ways off.. for now it's not known if the theories are sound. Building a prototype or performing "proof of concept" experiments will change that, but those are still some time off. Did you hear however, that some dudes actually did a few milliseconds of fission earlier this year? Awesome! furher, i also read today that the found the oldest known planet sometime last year, like 11 or 12 billion years old, placing the opportunity for evolution to take hold like 5 billion years before previously thought. Awesome again! I love new stuff!
/thats cos your neurons are firing at random kiddo
lol. yeah it's ME, all by myself. i'm making no sense and you're making total sense. sure. yeah I'm not buying that spookz. you are at least as full of shit as me. my guess is that you are a least 2X the shit concentration.
/first. do you see a question mark? does the sentence structuring even remotely resemble a question?
no which is why you are insane.
YOu said
"i compared understanding of physics b/w the two species and not the physics per se"
in reference to:
""1-the laws of physics forbid it....or
2-et visiting implies et exists. then for no reason at all our understanding of physics is assumed to be theirs as well. what goes on here? we go to the same schools and share the same curriculum? our evo progressed in tandem?"
which has question marks, and then said:
"covered by "our evo progressed in tandem.""
to which I replied:
""covered"? What you say is "covering something" was asked as a question? How does a question cover something as an answer? What the hell are you talking about? I cannot discern anything even remotely intelligent about the what you just said. It just sounds like gibberish."
So whose nuerons are firing at random?
/now where is the question? again...
I just showed you.
/youse like a bitch. all sensitive and menopausal and cranky and moody and lots of other stuff
Uh huh. It's just that when people don't make a lick of damn sense and insist that they do and then defame everything I say in defense of that lack of sense that I get a bit annoyed.
/so what? laws are meant to be circumvented. stop being such a good little robot
just a dig I presume, since you know I am by far no robot.
/hush. you misjudge me. you also try my patience.
Oh so when it's YOUR patience that's tried the issue becomes important eh? Enough for:
/the troll in me is dying to be unleashed.
that is simply sad. poor little troll. dude. why don't you kill that troll, it's disgusting. the world would be better off without it. your ego might suffer though.
/i'll have you red faced and apoplectic in no time at all pal
Why you wanna talk shit boy? pal? what the fuck is your 'pal'? i'll gladly be your bro but I'm not your fuckign 'pal', jackass.
/how does "these proposals" translate to "two proposals"
I don't know where I got two, but it's easie when you provide a link or are semi specific. i thought you were talking about this:
"1-the laws of physics forbid it....or
2-et visiting implies et exists. then for no reason at all our understanding of physics is assumed to be theirs as well. what goes on here? we go to the same schools and share the same curriculum? our evo progressed in tandem?"
or something. Okay I know what you mean now.
/you just flirt with the thread.
the gaul is astounding./look at 2nd page, 2nd from last (default view)
no. i'm not in default view. you clarified, let it go.
That's true to an extent, but if the postulate is a reasonable approximation of reality, your statement is absolutely pointless.
/so ah the postulate can be iffy while the statement cannot?
everything is iffy, but some things more than others.
/i mean you just admit a margin of error ("reasonable approximation")that indicates the statement may have a point/ yet you say"absolutely pointless"
margin of error is not an applicable term. it implies you measured somethign or performed a statistical analysis on something. did you? a "reasonable approximation" would be fundamentally true, but acknowledging the resolution of the measurement. Infinite accuracy of any measurement is impossible.
/i smell dishonesty
you nose is clogged up with your bullshit I guess. questioning my honesty is simply pointless and wastes your time.
under what hypothetical circumstance?
/umm, lets go with warp drive
Okay, there are theories that say it's possible but no experimental evidence to back it up. That means in the mean time, it's impossible. As soon as technology/additional/supporting theory (e.g. material science, computer science/electrical engineering)
LOL. Your ignorance is profound spooky. My comment was a very realistic concern about relativistic mass.
/you got to understand that most of these proposals work around these problems.
well, you said you were just jabbing so I'll drop it, but I'd like you to back your statement up if you think you can. i suspect you just made that up because it seemed obvious and didn't realize you made a huge assumption. you might be right, but most of the proposals I've read haven't mentioned the impact of relativistic mass on the solar system. it might be cuz that's not a concern I'm not sure, but it's a solid question.
/they do not aim at flouting laws. nor do they ignore them. instead they look for loopholes.
of course and I'm aware of that. part of your problem is that you think when I say "this isn't possible" you don't ask the right questions to follow it up. the reference frame in time is important. FTL is currently technically impossible due to lacking tech/theory. Sure some basic theories are there, but they are not fully developed, as you have to develop the theory based on experiments in satification of finding it.
/in the case of Alcubierre's warp drive, i do not think the spaceship moves at all. it is carried around on a chunk of spacetime
the hard part remains (figuring out a practical application of the theory)
that sounds cool and stuff and maybe they'll even get to try to build one, who knows. doesn't mean it will work. it should maybe, but until you try it you can't say for sure and since tech is still a ways off.. for now it's not known if the theories are sound. Building a prototype or performing "proof of concept" experiments will change that, but those are still some time off. Did you hear however, that some dudes actually did a few milliseconds of fission earlier this year? Awesome! furher, i also read today that the found the oldest known planet sometime last year, like 11 or 12 billion years old, placing the opportunity for evolution to take hold like 5 billion years before previously thought. Awesome again! I love new stuff!
/thats cos your neurons are firing at random kiddo
lol. yeah it's ME, all by myself. i'm making no sense and you're making total sense. sure. yeah I'm not buying that spookz. you are at least as full of shit as me. my guess is that you are a least 2X the shit concentration.
/first. do you see a question mark? does the sentence structuring even remotely resemble a question?
no which is why you are insane.
YOu said
"i compared understanding of physics b/w the two species and not the physics per se"
in reference to:
""1-the laws of physics forbid it....or
2-et visiting implies et exists. then for no reason at all our understanding of physics is assumed to be theirs as well. what goes on here? we go to the same schools and share the same curriculum? our evo progressed in tandem?"
which has question marks, and then said:
"covered by "our evo progressed in tandem.""
to which I replied:
""covered"? What you say is "covering something" was asked as a question? How does a question cover something as an answer? What the hell are you talking about? I cannot discern anything even remotely intelligent about the what you just said. It just sounds like gibberish."
So whose nuerons are firing at random?
/now where is the question? again...
I just showed you.
/youse like a bitch. all sensitive and menopausal and cranky and moody and lots of other stuff
Uh huh. It's just that when people don't make a lick of damn sense and insist that they do and then defame everything I say in defense of that lack of sense that I get a bit annoyed.
/so what? laws are meant to be circumvented. stop being such a good little robot
just a dig I presume, since you know I am by far no robot.
/hush. you misjudge me. you also try my patience.
Oh so when it's YOUR patience that's tried the issue becomes important eh? Enough for:
/the troll in me is dying to be unleashed.
that is simply sad. poor little troll. dude. why don't you kill that troll, it's disgusting. the world would be better off without it. your ego might suffer though.
/i'll have you red faced and apoplectic in no time at all pal
Why you wanna talk shit boy? pal? what the fuck is your 'pal'? i'll gladly be your bro but I'm not your fuckign 'pal', jackass.
Okay, there are theories that say it's possible but no experimental evidence to back it up. That means in the mean time, it's impossible. As soon as technology/additional/supporting theory (e.g. material science, computer science/electrical engineering)
cool
we now hypothesize an advanced species using warp drive as an explanation for the ufo sightings
solid! lemme do a q and declare victory (jes kidding)
cool
we now hypothesize an advanced species using warp drive as an explanation for the ufo sightings
solid! lemme do a q and declare victory (jes kidding)
/we now hypothesize an advanced species using warp drive as an explanation for the ufo sightings
we could also hypothesize that angels did it, or a number of terrestrial explanations like manmade craft, illusions, mass hypnosis, mind experiments, conspiracy, etc.
you can hypothesize whatever you'd like. the case for advanced species using warp drive as an explanation for UFO sightings will remain beyond the scope of credibility until solid proof is produced.
we could also hypothesize that angels did it, or a number of terrestrial explanations like manmade craft, illusions, mass hypnosis, mind experiments, conspiracy, etc.
you can hypothesize whatever you'd like. the case for advanced species using warp drive as an explanation for UFO sightings will remain beyond the scope of credibility until solid proof is produced.
kmguru
Staff member
you can hypothesize whatever you'd like. the case for advanced species using warp drive as an explanation for UFO sightings will remain beyond the scope of credibility until solid proof is produced.
To the inhabitants of the small islands in the Indian Ocean: there are no airplanes that fly up in the sky, because we do not have any solid proof.
To the inhabitants of the small islands in the Indian Ocean: there are no airplanes that fly up in the sky, because we do not have any solid proof.
Oh, and I think hard evidence = solid proof.
/To the inhabitants of the small islands in the Indian Ocean: there are no airplanes that fly up in the sky, because we do not have any solid proof.
Untrue, you can go with your island compadres and point to the planes as the fly over head. It would be difficult to draw a rational explanation for them. It's likely they might blame ET or some god don't you think?
/To the inhabitants of the small islands in the Indian Ocean: there are no airplanes that fly up in the sky, because we do not have any solid proof.
Untrue, you can go with your island compadres and point to the planes as the fly over head. It would be difficult to draw a rational explanation for them. It's likely they might blame ET or some god don't you think?
Righty, I'm going to interject at this point, excuse me.
FTL travel, warp drives and wormholes.
One word, energy.
Warp drive, surfing through space, compressing space behind the ship, compressing it in front, and 'falling' forwards. Except the maths has been done and it would require more than all the energy in the universe to warp space in such a way. So, nice idea, but with some real, hard limitations. Supposedly, things riding along on warp drive don't experience the effects of acceleration, either. This I don't understand yet (need to do some reading) as far as I understand it, having a bit of warped space around you, is like being next to a large gravity well (as matter warps space time), and motion is created for the same reasons. Therefore, as gravity can rip things apart via tidal forces (ie gravitational differential across the object), why doesn't warp drive? Or was warp drive such a theoretical idea that it only ever considered moving a point and not a real object, like a space craft? Perhaps. Us physicists are prone to idealising situations, you must have heard the joke about the physicist who came up with the formula to predict the outcome of horse races 99.9% of the time? Worked perfectly for spherical horses running on a perfectly smooth surface in a vacuum, .....
Wormholes. Right, wormholes require black holes, and pots of energy. In fact, rather prohibitive amounts of energy. Like destroying large planets to create very small wormholes type energy. So, practical limits. How close are we to a black hole that we can use? We'd have to travel to one (unless we are getting even more far fetched ideas about making our own!), and we need to be able to supply massive amounts of energy to it. So there would have to be a supermassive star, perhaps in an accretion system with a black hole, we'd need to syphon some energy off that accretion system, and use it to power the field generators, while not getting sucked into the black hole, being irradiated to bits bit the x-rays an e-uv, or have our equipment dazzled by the massive magnetic fields caused by the ionised stream of matter.
Well, you'd think we'd notice the massively energetic events surrounding the ends of wormholes with all the orbiting telescopes up there, designed to see black holes, gamma rays burts, etc. Except we just don't see them. We really would expect to see the fallout from the exotic matter no longer being held in place by those gigantic magnetic fields. Rosat and EUVE at least should have seen them.
Of course, how would aliens know to aim a the end of their wormhole at us? Creating one is incredibly energy intensive, and you'd want to recce your 'landing site' before setting off. Our radio signals have only just reached the nearest stars, so how many of these stars are located near black holes? Shall we find that out for the purposes of debate (action on everybody, find stars near black holes, within terrestrail broadcast range.).
For further stars, our of radio broadcast range, well, they could have deteced the 'wobble' of our sun as caused by the planets. At present, we can only detect the wobble of stars which is caused by massive planets. Such massive planets tend to be gas giants, so don't host life. So, let's propose how aliens detect planets that may host life, and conserve the resources they have to create that energy hungry wormhole. Action on everybody again.
Of course, wormholes probably rip anything entering them to bits thanks to the massive tiday forces they create at the mouth. Let's see if we can dig up some research whcih proposes how we could overcome that.
What I WILL NOT accept, is the handwave of the technology fairy, that will invent something convenient. Because we end up with circular logic, and I'm not religious.
FTL travel, warp drives and wormholes.
One word, energy.
Warp drive, surfing through space, compressing space behind the ship, compressing it in front, and 'falling' forwards. Except the maths has been done and it would require more than all the energy in the universe to warp space in such a way. So, nice idea, but with some real, hard limitations. Supposedly, things riding along on warp drive don't experience the effects of acceleration, either. This I don't understand yet (need to do some reading) as far as I understand it, having a bit of warped space around you, is like being next to a large gravity well (as matter warps space time), and motion is created for the same reasons. Therefore, as gravity can rip things apart via tidal forces (ie gravitational differential across the object), why doesn't warp drive? Or was warp drive such a theoretical idea that it only ever considered moving a point and not a real object, like a space craft? Perhaps. Us physicists are prone to idealising situations, you must have heard the joke about the physicist who came up with the formula to predict the outcome of horse races 99.9% of the time? Worked perfectly for spherical horses running on a perfectly smooth surface in a vacuum, .....
Wormholes. Right, wormholes require black holes, and pots of energy. In fact, rather prohibitive amounts of energy. Like destroying large planets to create very small wormholes type energy. So, practical limits. How close are we to a black hole that we can use? We'd have to travel to one (unless we are getting even more far fetched ideas about making our own!), and we need to be able to supply massive amounts of energy to it. So there would have to be a supermassive star, perhaps in an accretion system with a black hole, we'd need to syphon some energy off that accretion system, and use it to power the field generators, while not getting sucked into the black hole, being irradiated to bits bit the x-rays an e-uv, or have our equipment dazzled by the massive magnetic fields caused by the ionised stream of matter.
Well, you'd think we'd notice the massively energetic events surrounding the ends of wormholes with all the orbiting telescopes up there, designed to see black holes, gamma rays burts, etc. Except we just don't see them. We really would expect to see the fallout from the exotic matter no longer being held in place by those gigantic magnetic fields. Rosat and EUVE at least should have seen them.
Of course, how would aliens know to aim a the end of their wormhole at us? Creating one is incredibly energy intensive, and you'd want to recce your 'landing site' before setting off. Our radio signals have only just reached the nearest stars, so how many of these stars are located near black holes? Shall we find that out for the purposes of debate (action on everybody, find stars near black holes, within terrestrail broadcast range.).
For further stars, our of radio broadcast range, well, they could have deteced the 'wobble' of our sun as caused by the planets. At present, we can only detect the wobble of stars which is caused by massive planets. Such massive planets tend to be gas giants, so don't host life. So, let's propose how aliens detect planets that may host life, and conserve the resources they have to create that energy hungry wormhole. Action on everybody again.
Of course, wormholes probably rip anything entering them to bits thanks to the massive tiday forces they create at the mouth. Let's see if we can dig up some research whcih proposes how we could overcome that.
What I WILL NOT accept, is the handwave of the technology fairy, that will invent something convenient. Because we end up with circular logic, and I'm not religious.
kmguru
Staff member
Yes, too much energy requirement. However, I was talking to a physicist/engineer friend of mine who works at an unnamed government facility. He said:
If we can harness the gravity force (they are doing some experiments), we could move through what could be considered interdimensional space and arrive at the other end quickly with minimal energy use. Our biggest energy use is to get out of this planet due to gravity.
On the interdimension subject, he said that they think, our universe is made up of several 3 dimensional space structures that coexist with a very short but stable distance to each other and that the gravity is the only force that can affect from one space to the next.
The fact that they are doing some serious high energy experiments...may be he is telling the truth, may be he is pulling my leg. But he did say that soon they are going to send a probe outside earth to test the theory.
If we can harness the gravity force (they are doing some experiments), we could move through what could be considered interdimensional space and arrive at the other end quickly with minimal energy use. Our biggest energy use is to get out of this planet due to gravity.
On the interdimension subject, he said that they think, our universe is made up of several 3 dimensional space structures that coexist with a very short but stable distance to each other and that the gravity is the only force that can affect from one space to the next.
The fact that they are doing some serious high energy experiments...may be he is telling the truth, may be he is pulling my leg. But he did say that soon they are going to send a probe outside earth to test the theory.
thanks. that is exactly my point. you do not rule it out as a possibility. if you plan on being objective when investigating an ufo incident, it should be taken into consideration. we have already ascertained that it is quite likely other advanced species exist in the universe. we note the ufo exibits intelligent behaviour. something like us is in control.
now, when looking for possible explanations, how rational is it to consider everything imaginable as a cause for the ufo. do you not know that there are certain criteria to be met?. check out your angels. they have wings, they seem kinda immaterial. who in their right mind would introduce this as a hypo for ufo? probably those who are intent on introducing the ridicule factor into the discussion. (general statement) at least wes, you didnt bring up that purple pink thingy. looky here.....
THE SANTA CLAUS GAMBIT: This trick consists of lumping moderate claims or propositions together with extreme ones. If you suggest, for example, that Sasquatch can't be completely ruled out from the available evidence,the skeptic will then facetiously suggest that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny can't be "completely" ruled out either.
do you get the picture? this line of reasoning pops up all the time. its no wonder i feel the need to adopt a hard line in response to this garbage
lets check out as an example... 10 ufo incidents and estimate probabilties. in all the cases an et/manmade: hypo is shows the least amount of conflict with the observed facts. in both cases we make assumptions based on what has been observed. namely that et and humans possess a level of tech that we are not familiar with. the human angle is explained by "top secret projects." the et..well, they are advanced.
moving on to mass hypnosis...how would one even begin to explain away ufo incidents by this? a league of evil hypnotists roam around creating ufo incidents by mind raping unsuspecting morons for some unknown nefarious purposes
hallucinations: here all incidents are attributed to neurological events. so humans periodically collectively hallucinate at random times. i mean throughout history it hs been alluded to happen....angels, jesus, goblins, etc. if this was a accepted medical fact, the world would be a very unsafe place
delusions: boring...lemme refer to a quote that cuts thru the bullshit...
What I'm interested in, is what constructs such as "mass delusion" and "mass hallucination" say about the Professional Paradigm of psychology and how it works. Psychology has a long history of interpreting evidence by means of constructs such as "irrationality" and "panic". The medieval witch craze was supposed to be a product of mass delusion and panic. Except that, in all probability, it wasn't, it was a somewhat understandable reaction to the
effects of ergot poisoning. Disasters were supposed to cause people to fly into hysterical panic. Until David Canter analyzed human behavior during the King's Cross Underground fire and discovered people doing nothing of the sort. People were supposed to be fundamentally irrational in the way they made decisions -- until that turned out to be largely an artifact of the way in which researchers had presented their decision-making problems to their subjects.
There's a pattern here -- a pattern of flawed interpretations imposed on the data by researchers who have defined a paradigm in which they, the researchers, are detached, authoritative, collectively (if not individually) infallible, and above all, objective. A paradigm which defines its human subjects as irrational, gullible, deluded, manipulable, and above all, unaware of the paradigm and its dynamics. A paradigm defined, in other words, by a power relationship.
This is important, because it explains the hidden significance of concepts like "mass delusion" and "mass hallucination". They are constructs imposed by one group of people upon another group of people to control the credibility of the target group's behavior and utterances. I don't believe it's any accident that the terms "delusion" and "hallucination" originated within psychiatry. But whereas academic psychologists are socially empowered to define other people's subjective states as "delusion" or "hallucination" -- or, in the case of "mass delusion", to deny them even the reality of possessing an individual subjective state at all -- no-one is socially empowered to define psychologists in this way, even on the basis of exactly the same sorts of behaviors. (cathy)
ok
i am gonna give you a chance to develop scenarios on the other two possible causes you bring up...mind experiments, conspiracy. hit me wessie.
i feel like a laugh
conspiracy:
I could buy your assertion, or indoctrinate you into a believe system or subculture, altering your propensity to interpret your input. E.G: Heaven's gate type of stuff. I doubt this in the Belgian Flap, but it's plausible for x perctage of reported cases.
mind experiments:
anyone who has invested much time in art bell should know about this. there are a group of individuals who claim that you can basically fully control a person's mind using some Electromagnetic whatzamajig. i have no idea if it is plausible or not, but to me it's more plausible than ET actually being here.
of course anything is possible spookz, but when you're investigating stuff you need some meat to dig into. with no solid evidence (like physical evidence), you've got nothing to dig into. so as I said before.. no credibility.
I could buy your assertion, or indoctrinate you into a believe system or subculture, altering your propensity to interpret your input. E.G: Heaven's gate type of stuff. I doubt this in the Belgian Flap, but it's plausible for x perctage of reported cases.
mind experiments:
anyone who has invested much time in art bell should know about this. there are a group of individuals who claim that you can basically fully control a person's mind using some Electromagnetic whatzamajig. i have no idea if it is plausible or not, but to me it's more plausible than ET actually being here.
of course anything is possible spookz, but when you're investigating stuff you need some meat to dig into. with no solid evidence (like physical evidence), you've got nothing to dig into. so as I said before.. no credibility.