Witnesses For Ufo Congressional Hearing

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by lynx+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As everyone keeps pointing out there&#39;s that little equation E=mc2. So if the speed of light was much higher and then dropped to the levels we observe now, then energy levels must also have been much higher. Where did that energy go to ?
[/b]

I only skimmed through that article but arent they saying that Einsteins theory, in some areas at least, is wrong?

@3rd gen noob

<!--QuoteBegin-http://sciencesky.com/faq12.html
Ques : 4 Is Newton&#39;s third law of motion is incorrect ?
Ans : Specifically it is true in special cases only. The third law of motion will hold good if the
(i) Magnitude of action is precisely equal to that of reaction.&nbsp;
(ii)&nbsp; The direction of action is precisely opposite to direction of reaction.&nbsp;
&nbsp; These two conditions are not obeyed in numerous cases; hence scientifically the third law of motion may not be regarded as correct in all cases. The third law of motion is true in limiting cases only.
[/quote]

What do you think?

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss+18 August 2003 - 12:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss @ 18 August 2003 - 12:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> @3rd gen noob

<!--QuoteBegin-http://sciencesky.com/faq12.html
Ques : 4 Is Newton&#39;s third law of motion is incorrect ?
Ans : Specifically it is true in special cases only. The third law of motion will hold good if the
(i) Magnitude of action is precisely equal to that of reaction.&nbsp;
(ii)&nbsp; The direction of action is precisely opposite to direction of reaction.&nbsp;
&nbsp; These two conditions are not obeyed in numerous cases; hence scientifically the third law of motion may not be regarded as correct in all cases. The third law of motion is true in limiting cases only.

What do you think? [/b][/quote]
these two "loopholes" seem to be true because of friction

the basis of your argument seems to be that

because e = m and e = mc2, this cannot be allowed, however, the e involved in each of these is a different e

much like p = iv and p = v2/r

[lynx]

Surely, according to Newton, e=0.5mv2, but this is talking about the energy involved in changing velocity by v, not the absolute energy of a system. It does not take into account that relativistic mass increases with velocity, since that phenomenon was unknown.
But if you apply relativistic mass to Newtons equation and integrate to the speed of light you get e=mc2, so the theories do not conflict, it is merely that there is more to add to Newton&#39;s theory.

[evilbagpuss]

Anyway.. the point I was trying to make with my limited knowledge of the subject is that Einsteins theory was a massive paradigm shift which changed our view of the world.

That paper, and the general theory of relativity that followed it, revolutionised the way scientists understood the universe, and history has remembered it ever since as a shift from Newtonian physics - where space, time, motion and gravity are separate and proceed with rigid, clockwork elegance - to Einsteinian physics, where things bend, stretch and pull on each another in most unusual ways.
In between these paradigm shifts, there are leaps in understanding

Another massive paradigm shift could easily allow for faster than light travel, and thus the idea of an alien species who have discovered how to do this (which would allow them to travel to Earth in a practical timeframe) is not completely unrealistic.

Failing that we&#39;ve always got Hawkings wormholes to fall back on

My main point is that the idea of an alien species existing is hardly ridiculous. The idea that they could find some way to travel here is not ridiculous either.

Of course people want proof but you have to bear in mind that

1. Just because something has not or cannot been proven does not mean it doesnt exist. e.g. DNA has always existed even before we could prove it.

2. If aliens are whizzing around Earth they would have no reason to provide us with that proof or to make contact with us.

So should we automatically accept the idea of ET&#39;s travelling in UFO&#39;s? Of course not, but to deny it by default and refuse to look at any alleged evidence "just because" is also a mistake. This approach reminds me of the guys who refused to even look through Copernicus&#39;s telescope let alone consider his theories.

Say for instance someone did have undeniable proof of ET&#39;s. They would lose their job, their funding and be made a laughing stock of the scientific community. The real shame here is that this reaction would have nothing to do with the evidence.

[imnotanaddict]

http://www.word1.co.il/physics/bigbang.html
interesting

[Barbarossa]

If alien visitors to this planet were that advanced, that they could travel vast distances at supralight speeds to get here, then I&#39;d think they&#39;d be advanced enough to cover their tracks alot better than it looks like they have been doing.

i.e.

1). They would not crash in New Mexico
2). They would not leave any memory at all of abductions in their abductees
3). They would not leave whopping great big crop circles everywhere
4). They would not appear on anyone radar as an unidentified blip then shoot off at impossible speeds
5). They would not cause any weird electromagnetic effects in the middle of nowhere
6). They would not leave the inside-out carcasses of cattle lying around in the fields

Since all of these events have been reported to have been caused by extraterrestrials, I hereby claim that extraterrestrials would not be this clumsy, therefore they are not caused by extraterrestrials, therefore extraterrestrials have not visited this world.

Obviously this is not proof, because it could all be a smokescreen to put us off the scent, but if ET really is up there dicking around and causing all this aggro then he is too immature for me to bother with.

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by barbarossa
. They would not crash in New Mexico
2). They would not leave any memory at all of abductions in their abductees
3). They would not leave whopping great big crop circles everywhere
4). They would not appear on anyone radar as an unidentified blip then shoot off at impossible speeds
5). They would not cause any weird electromagnetic effects in the middle of nowhere
6). They would not leave the inside-out carcasses of cattle lying around in the fields

Since all of these events have been reported to have been caused by extraterrestrials, I hereby claim that extraterrestrials would not be this clumsy, therefore they are not caused by extraterrestrials, therefore extraterrestrials have not visited this world.

Just because they havent made contact it doesnt follow that they would care if they did leave traces behind. Maybe they dont give a damn either way.

Do we care if the bacteria in a petri-dish notices us or not?

Besides no-one takes any of those things seriously anyway. If theres no police force willing to look at the evidence seriously you can be as clumsy as you like when committing a murder

[Rat Faced]

Ok...I just got O&#39;Level Physics....no scientist.

But can you budding Carl Sagons explain to me..



1/ If, on reaching the speed of light, mass is infinate (i heard that on some science program somewhere).....and light can be shown to be a particle. Why arent we splattered all over the place due to its momentum?

2/ If nothing can go faster than the speed of light.....what is a Tachion? (sp?)

3/ Isnt the current theory that space is folded in on itself? So the quickest way from A-B isnt necessarily a straight line....and so huge 1000&#39;s light year distances may not be involved?

4/ Isnt Einsteins Theory of relativity just that? A Theory?

5/ Isnt it true, that even the best Scientists in the world will admit....."we know nothin&#39; yet&#33;"....?



Just interested.....

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@18 August 2003 - 17:18
1/ If, on reaching the speed of light, mass is infinate (i heard that on some science program somewhere).....and light can be shown to be a particle. Why arent we splattered all over the place due to its momentum?

2/ If nothing can go faster than the speed of light.....what is a Tachion? (sp?)

3/ Isnt the current theory that space is folded in on itself? So the quickest way from A-B isnt necessarily a straight line....and so huge 1000&#39;s light year distances may not be involved?

4/ Isnt Einsteins Theory of relativity just that? A Theory?

5/ Isnt it true, that even the best Scientists in the world will admit....."we know nothin&#39; yet&#33;"....?



Just interested.....

1/ light isn&#39;t truly a particle.
it&#39;s also worth remembering you can slow light down by using various materials

2/ don&#39;t know

3/ i think you&#39;re talking about wormholes here. they would require huge amounts of energy to open and haven&#39;t been proven yet

4/ yes, but with proof

5/ yes

[fugley]

Nanooo Nanoooo&#33;