Witnesses For Ufo Congressional Hearing

[fluid1959]

Witnesses For UFO Congressional hearing

If statements made by these High Clearanced individuals holds to be true.

This could be the most important video you ever watched. I also
find it disturbing that this was released 2 years ago and yet being an avid reader and news watcher heard nothing of this and only found this video through my own Internet searching and diligence.

http://www.topsecrettestimony.com/npcc_full.wmv

Anyone with common sense. And a little investigation could see that these are real events. But all I hear are arguments concerning speed of light travel Einsteins Theory etc.

It's nice to see scientific minds in action

But who cares whether or not Humans (earthlings) can comprehend faster than light travel. The issue here is that High ranking Individuals with their fingers on the button to nuclear warheads, beleive we are currently being visited and or disarmed by UFO's. I personally have researched the majority of witnesses described in

http://www.topsecrettestimony.com/6monthsummary.htm

and found they are who they say they are. And were where they said they were. Which tells me this topic needs to be disclosed no matter what the outcome. There is nothing here to debunk. Only the very stupid could watch this video and come to the conclusion it needs no further examination. I have read that when originally broadcast the first hour was jammed or blacked out. If you have any Information relating to this. I would love to hear from you
Another related site created by Dr. Steven Greer in his effort to disclose UFO power sources can be found at http://www.seaspower.com

Warning not heeded so far !
President Eisenhower 1961
"In the councils of Government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

Dr. Ted Loder Interviewed by EV World (www.EVworld.com)
the morning of August 14, 2003

[Alternative Real One Player can be d/l http://www.freecodecs.com download alternative real audio

Part 1 of EV World Interview http://www.seaspower.com/tloder1.ram
Part 2 of EV World Interview
http://www.seaspower.com/tloder2.ram
Part 3 of EV World Interview
http://www.seaspower.com/tloder3.ram
Part 4 of EV World Interview
http://www.seaspower.com/tloder4.ram

[j2k4]

Damn-

Wish I had 2 hours to spare. :(

[Rat Faced]

I dont think it will lead to anything new either.....except maybe another spate of UFO documentaries on TV.

I think the cover-up re: UFOs left the conspiarcy theory premise behind a long time ago....theres just TOO MUCH evidence for them to cover up....its actually a joke for them to deny some of this stuff now.

[Ron]

That's a 70 MB link mate!! :o
Could you tell me what's so important about it?

[SodiumChloride]

That would be great if this were 100% true and it would grow in popularity. "I want to believe" :D The extraterrestrials are sceptical of us because of our warlike nature. They aren't revealing themselves to the general public because they think it'll scare us into attacking them.

[Ron]

E.T.'s with the knowledge to travel through space are afraid of us humans who can barely make it to the moon and back?

ROFLMAO!!

[3rd gen noob]

i haven't downloaded this video

i am entitled to my opinion

my opinion is as follows:

UFO's are bollocks

thank you for your time

[Ron]

Do you mean UFO's are bollocks, or flying saucers?

I mean, I see UFO's every single day of my life. :ph34r:


Well, I know they're birds of course, I just can't identify them.

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by Ron@15 August 2003 - 09:35
Do you mean UFO's are bollocks, or flying saucers?

I mean, I see UFO's every single day of my life. :ph34r:


Well, I know they're birds of course, I just can't identify them.
whoops...i must be more precise with my sweeping statements...

aliens/ET's and their assorted vehicular crafts are bollocks

[SodiumChloride]

That lady with the funky hair said that there is an alien moonbase on the dark side of the moon :blink: No pink floyd jokes, please!

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by 3rd gen noob@15 August 2003 - 09:37

whoops...i must be more precise with my sweeping statements...

aliens/ET's and their assorted vehicular crafts are bollocks
Alien ships are a pretty common sight. Especially in the Straits of Florida.

:ninja:

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@15 August 2003 - 10:46
Alien ships are a pretty common sight. Especially in the Straits of Florida.

:ninja:
shame there's no bona-fide proof then...:P

[SodiumChloride]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@15 August 2003 - 02:46
Alien ships are a pretty common sight. Especially in the Straits of Florida.

:ninja:
Like the 1950s chevy truck? :P

[MagicNakor]

Indeed. More often than not, wooden boats. ;)

:ninja:

Edit: Here's some bona-fide proof, though.

http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/immigration/refugee-boat.jpg

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by 3rd gen noob@15 August 2003 - 08:31
i haven't downloaded this video

i am entitled to my opinion

my opinion is as follows:

UFO's are bollocks

thank you for your time
You are indeed entitled to your opinion.


However denyng any evidence that is contrary to your opinion is ignorance....you dont have to accept such evidence, but refuse to look at it?


Makes you sound like GW Bush, and we all know how intelligent he is.

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@15 August 2003 - 12:29
You are indeed entitled to your opinion.


However denyng any evidence that is contrary to your opinion is ignorance....you dont have to accept such evidence, but refuse to look at it?


Makes you sound like GW Bush, and we all know how intelligent he is.
i'm not ignorant...i just don't want to spend hours downloading a video which will do nothing to change my opinions

i'm a huge sceptic when it comes to things like ghosts and aliens.
my history is grounded in science, and on the whole, i don't believe something unless i see it or it can be proved by science...

[Rat Faced]

The video includes people that have been part of the whole thing.

Includes ex CIA, FAA, FBI etc etc.

They also say its not a Government cover up as such....in fact at least 2 administrations had no idea about any of this stuff.


They arent saying "Little Green Men" are trying to contact us or anything...just putting facts on the table.

The FAA guy was funniest (one of the 1st to speak, about 10-15 minutes into the Press Conference)...the CIA took a case over, and said the meeting "hadnt happened", then FORGOT to take the FAA investigation tapes with them, and the FAA report.

The guy has an official FAA investigation from start to finish (including the video/audio tapes of the incident).....and nowhere to send it.

UFO's arent an FAA matter.

[Skweeky]

3rd gen noob


Do you believe in gravitons? Black holes? The new isle of chemicals?

All things most people are sure of they exist, but science hasn't proven yet they do....

[djflypson]

i think western scientists are the most ignorant of them all ... facts and nothing but the facts ... if they can't touch it they ridiculise it, if they cannot proof it within their limited models they laugh with it; in any case you don't get serious consideration from these guys.

And then there are people who are not scientists, but swallow ALL their shit, cause thats just the easiest for your troubled unconsciuos mind. Way to go ... it wasn't me !

:D like global earthwarming, mother earth, and overpopulation is real crap ! :D sure

Just don't believe everything, not even this video, but you do can think of yourself ! At least try it.

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by Skweeky@15 August 2003 - 13:26
3rd gen noob


Do you believe in gravitons? Black holes? The new isle of chemicals?

All things most people are sure of they exist, but science hasn't proven yet they do....
black holes have been proven (depending of course upon one's definition of a black hole)

they are much like neutron stars, which are also proven

never heard of the new isle of chemicals...

[Barbarossa]

Originally posted by SodiumChloride@15 August 2003 - 00:19
That would be great if this were 100% true and it would grow in popularity. "I want to believe" :D The extraterrestrials are sceptical of us because of our warlike nature. They aren't revealing themselves to the general public because they think it'll scare us into attacking them.
So, they think the general public they are hiding from is more likely to be hostile and attack them than the secret services they've been in contact with? How peculiar... ;)

[djflypson]

http://www.disclosureproject.org

is this video originally Broadcast Live on Wednesday, May 9, 2001 ?
worldnews without news ?

???

[fluid1959]

Star Trek "First Encounter"

Only when the Vulcans got to earth !

We shot em down! :angry:

[fluid1959]

Anyone with common sense. And a little investigation could see that these are real events.

But unfortunately this country has a surpluss of "moron sheep"

Can you say Baaaaaaaa

I only wish the Aliens had big Teeth and an appetite for Moron Ass cheeks"

Yum Yum

It would make thee next few years so much more enjoyable.

[SodiumChloride]

Originally posted by barbarossa+15 August 2003 - 06:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (barbarossa @ 15 August 2003 - 06:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-SodiumChloride@15 August 2003 - 00:19
That would be great if this were 100% true and it would grow in popularity. "I want to believe"&nbsp; :D&nbsp; The extraterrestrials are sceptical of us because of our warlike nature. They aren't revealing themselves to the general public because they think it'll scare us into attacking them.
So, they think the general public they are hiding from is more likely to be hostile and attack them than the secret services they've been in contact with? How peculiar... ;) [/b][/quote]
Mob mentality. People would be frightened and hell would break loose. If we humans were spying on some other intelligent lifeforms on another planet, would we want to scare them silly? Naw

[SodiumChloride]

Originally posted by Skweeky@15 August 2003 - 05:26
The new isle of chemicals?
Are you referring to the "isle of stability" that forms when you graph the number of neutrons required to make a nucleus of an element stable? The isle that only forms when you get atoms with 100+ protons?

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by SodiumChloride+16 August 2003 - 04:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SodiumChloride @ 16 August 2003 - 04:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Skweeky@15 August 2003 - 05:26
The new isle of chemicals?
Are you referring to the "isle of stability" that forms when you graph the number of neutrons required to make a nucleus of an element stable? The isle that only forms when you get atoms with 100+ protons? [/b][/quote]
i definitely believe in nuclear physics :P

[imnotanaddict]

I think this is a very interesting topic, although the vid (taking several hours to
download) Iv&#39;e not seen. I have seen (several times in my life/which were several years apart) objects in the sky that I could not identify by shape or eratic movement. Of course thats not to say that there was&#39;nt a rational explanation.


One point I would like to make is, if for instance we say its possible that UFO&#39;S
exist, than its not to much of a stretch to say that time travel is possible too.
Could in fact be interlinked. (any Matrix fan could see the simalarities)
Which only leads to questions.
Are UFO&#39;S in fact coming out of the future, back in time?
Or are they traveling for light years in suspended anamation exploring the different
Galaxies?


There are as many theory"s as questions. Some ludicrous, but at this point
anything is possible.

Why would UFO&#39;S be studying or evaluating us?
It&#39;s interesting that UFO activity (or sightings) were hightened in 1945 when the developement of the Atomic Bomb was made toward the end of World War II.
Were we possibly being monitered by aliens?
Were they in fact sending us a message that this advanced technology could
and would alter what future (if any) mankind would have.
Were we seen as a threat to them or were we meant to see-what a threat(in the future) a Nuclear War might be to the existence of mankind.

If we are being watched, studied, whatever what are there motives if any?


With their technology being far superior to ours, have they not made a more
formal contact with us because we are&#39;nt ready as a species to contribute anything
worthwhile in return? Would we take that technology (if offered) and use it in unexceptable and destructive ways? Why would they help us if in fact it could
lead to the eradication of us (if that wasnt their intentions).

I personally can"t say I beleive in UFO&#39;S or Aliens but I will admit I think that there existence is possible if not likely. I think this could be a fun topic for
people to state their veiws or even hopes.

One thing I would be interested in knowing is peoples veiws on:
Could our civalization handle it mentally if we were visited by an advanced
civalization. Would there be looting in the streets. people carrying signs of
armageddon? Would it be seen as a spritual uplifting? Would they be perceived
by some to be GODS, Freaks or be seen to have the same eerie characteristics
of an unliked neighbor.


Mabe I should have started a different topic since Ive not even seen the video this
topic was made in reference to. If my edicate sucks sorry.

[djflypson]

i saw it streamed in an embedded windows mediaplayer (i guess), as when you click the original link posted; no need to download it, just to see it.

i don&#39;t get it how this pressconference has been kept quite.
I do understand that the laughter will fade away and make way for bigmouths, wathever their fear drives them to.

I&#39;ll bet that even when non-earthly-life has become a common good, people will still denie or continue to say there is no proof. :D

ihope i&#39;m prepared.

[evilbagpuss]

The issue here is not whether aliens exist.. of course they do. How many galaxies are there? How many stars are there in those galaxies? How many planets in orbit around those stars? The chances of none of these planets being able to support life is ridiculous. Its a foregone conclusion based on simple probability.

The real issue is do they have the technology to travel at the necessary speeds to reach us within a reasonable amount of time?

Bear in mind the length of time between the first powered flight by humans and the moon landings and it doesnt require a huge leap of faith to assume that any civilisation which can survive long enough could probably reach the required level of technology.

Assuming they have reached that stage of development and could make it all the way over here its not beyond the realms of possibility that they would treat us as a primitive species or even bacteria in a petri-dish. A mere scientific curiosity to be studied at leisure.

Bacteria in a petri dish doesnt know its being studied by humans but does that mean humans dont exist? If aliens do exist and have made it over here why would they bother communicating with us?

I doubt we have anything in the way of resources or knowledge that they would want or need.

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 August 2003 - 12:13
The issue here is not whether aliens exist.. of course they do. How many galaxies are there? How many stars are there in those galaxies? How many planets in orbit around those stars? The chances of none of these planets being able to support life is ridiculous. Its a foregone conclusion based on simple probability.
prove it

<_<

it&#39;s simple to say something such as you have, but to prove it is a lot more difficult

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by 3rd gen noob
prove it

it&#39;s simple to say something such as you have, but to prove it is a lot more difficult

Why dont you prove that not one of those billions upon billions upon billions of planets can support life? Apart from ours of course. Just the one.

Its probability theory, simple maths. The chances that none of these multitude of planets could support life is preposterously low. It&#39;s possible but given the huge number of planets the chances of that being the case are so negligible that its not even worth entertaining the idea.

You&#39;ve got more chance of winning every lottery in the world in the same week by buying just one ticket from each country. You&#39;ve got more chance of doing that every week for a year than there is of Earth being the only planet capable of supporting life in the entire Universe. The ideas ridiculous.

Bring into the equation that there may be other completely different lifeforms that can survive in completely different environments (silicon based life perhaps?) and you&#39;ve just reduced the chances of us being the only life in the Universe to an even smaller amount.

[imnotanaddict]

evilbagpuss

The real issue is do they have the technology to travel at the necessary speeds to reach us within a reasonable amount of time?


I don&#39;t understand, if they have the technology to travel light years why would
time be an issue. Even we our on a breakthrough (with our on technology).

http://www.cryonics.org/prod.html

Cryonic Suspention:
(1) Many biological specimens have been frozen, stored at liquid nitrogen temperature where all decay ceases, and revived; these include whole insects, vinegar eels, many types of human tissue including brain tissue, entire human embryos which have later grown into healthy children, and a few small mammalian organs.

(2) While cryonics is still controversial, growing numbers of respected mainstream scientists, researchers, and medical doctors, particularly in the field of nanotechnology, have looked at cryonics and developed ideas as to just why and how reviving a person safely from cryonic suspension is possible, in spite of the damage from old age, disease, accident, ischemia, and the freezing process itself.

In short: ever-increasing scientific advances, growing experimental evidence, and informed and reputable scientific opinion is coming together and telling us that it can be done. And the technology that will allow us to do it is being developed.

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by imnotanaddict
I don&#39;t understand, if they have the technology to travel light years why would
time be an issue.

Even travelling at the speed of light it would take a hell of a long time to reach the nearest star to us. 1 light years is the distance you can travel at the speed of light in a year. I cant remember how many light years the closest star is exactly but its a hell of a lot. The next closest is much much further than that and so on.

The cryogenics point is a good one. But then you have the problem that by the time you reach your destination everyone you knew back on the originating planet could be dead.

Then you have to consider the problems of communicating with the originating planet over those huge distances.

Using light speed travel and cryogenics you could send out colonists and explorers but you would be unable to take orders from the home planet or send info back without it taking generations.

So.. you&#39;d have to have a propulsion system and a communication system that could either travel at many times the speed of light or be totally independent of time and/or space.

That would be one hell of an advanced species (&#33;) hence the petri-dish analogy.

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 August 2003 - 12:48
Why dont you prove that not one of those billions upon billions upon billions of planets can support life? Apart from ours of course. Just the one.
just because an atmosphere/environment can support life doesn&#39;t mean there actually is life there

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 August 2003 - 13:19
Even travelling at the speed of light
for such an &#39;expert&#39; in this field it&#39;s funny that you&#39;ve never heard of relativistic mass

this is the principle which suggests that no massive body may travel at (or beyond) the speed of light

the theory is supported by experiments already conducted

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by 3rd gen noob
for such an &#39;expert&#39; in this field it&#39;s funny that you&#39;ve never heard of relativistic mass

this is the principle which suggests that no massive body may travel at (or beyond) the speed of light

the theory is supported by experiments already conducted

lol. Ever heard of a paradigm shift? Heres an example.

Newton stated that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

This paradigm held true for hundreds of years then Einstein came along and gave us the theory behind nuclear power and proved Newton wrong.

E=MC2

Energy = mass mulitpled by the speed of light squared.

Clearly not an "equal and opposite reaction"

Be sure.. in time Einsteins paradigm will be blown to pieces too. Its inevitable. Certain aspects of Einsteins theories of the Universe were shown to be incorrect. I cant remember the exact details but I think it was something to do with the rate at which the Universe is expanding. I cant recall if it was meant to be constant or variable in Einsteins paradigm but nevertheless he is gradually being proved wrong in certain areas, or more accurately his theory is being refined.

I never claimed to be an expert btw, just an amateur enthusiast.

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 August 2003 - 13:34
Newton stated that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

This paradigm held true for hundreds of years then Einstein came along and gave us the theory behind nuclear power and proved Newton wrong.

E=MC2

Energy = mass mulitpled by the speed of light squared.

Clearly not an "equal and opposite reaction"
newton&#39;s third is completely unconnected to nuclear physics

newton&#39;s third is also one of the fundamental laws and has NEVER BEEN DISPROVEN

please don&#39;t try to patronise me

relativistic motion has been proven by experiment

how much more proof would you like before you believe something?

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by 3rd gen noob+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3rd gen noob)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>newton&#39;s third is completely unconnected to nuclear physics

newton&#39;s third is also one of the fundamental laws and has NEVER BEEN DISPROVEN

please don&#39;t try to patronise me

relativistic motion has been proven by experiment

how much more proof would you like before you believe something? [/b]

lol&#33;&#33;

Please explain to me how these 2 things can be true

"Every action creates an equal and opposite reaction"

"Energy = Mass x Speed of light squared"

Just because its "Nuclear physics" (merely a label) it does not seperate it from Newtons laws at all. Its still matter and motion and energy.

Newtons laws were proven by experiment for hundreds of years. Then they were shown to be false by Einstein. You cannot have it both ways. They are not seperate theories existing in seperate worlds dealing with seperate objects. Newton was wrong in this particular area.

You havent proven anything your merely repeating the results of experiments and ignoring the historical paradigm shifts.

If you still dont believe Einstein blew away Newtons paradigm read this.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/...8157961167.html (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/07/1028157961167.html)

<!--QuoteBegin-Einstein&#39;s relativity theory hits a speed bump

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[/quote]

Why cant Einsteins theories be blown away by a new paradigm in the future? He had it wrong about quantum physics so why not this?

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 August 2003 - 14:10
You havent proven anything your merely repeating the results of experiments and ignoring the historical paradigm shifts.
neither have you, it must be said

ok, say you&#39;re right, can you explain for stupid people like myself exactly the connection between newton&#39;s third and e=mc2

[imnotanaddict]

evilbagpuss

Be sure.. in time Einsteins paradigm will be blown to pieces too. Its inevitable. Certain aspects of Einsteins theories of the Universe were shown to be incorrect. I cant remember the exact details but I think it was something to do with the rate at which the Universe is expanding. I cant recall if it was meant to be constant or variable in Einsteins paradigm but nevertheless he is gradually being proved wrong in certain areas, or more accurately his theory is being refined.

You might be interested in this.
http://www.discover.com/apr_03/featspeed.html

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by 3rd gen noob
neither have you, it must be said

ok, say you&#39;re right, can you explain for stupid people like myself exactly the connection between newton&#39;s third and e=mc2

OK. Newtons 3rd stated that

"for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"

Which if you ignore the loss of energy through friction is (or was) basically true.

Einsteins theory says that

Energy = Mass x speed of light squared

That is... when the reaction takes place the inherent energy in the matter is converted to a new amount of energy multiplied by the speed of light squared.

So if your multiplying the original energy by the speed of light squared your not going to get an "equal amount" of energy back out are you?

Another way to put it would be....

E = M (newton)
E = MC2 (Einstein)

They cannot both be true can they? Think about an atom bomb how can Newtons 3rd apply to that reaction? It cant.

Dont take my word for it though, read a few papers because I can tell you wont believe me till you read it from some Uni professor.

The point Im making is that our current paradigm forbids faster than light travel and instead tries to get round the problem by creating wormholes (Stephen Hawking talks about his possibility).

However Einsteins paradigm, like Newtons is susceptible to small gradual refinements and/or massive paradigm shifts which could blow it away. You seem to be saying that Einstein has got it perfect and our idea of physics will never change.

What Im saying is that by looking back at history this is highly unlikely. So faster than light travel might be possible but like Newton back in the old days we just havent worked out how to break the old rules.

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 August 2003 - 14:23
Dont take my word for it though, read a few papers because I can tell you wont believe me till you read it from some Uni professor.
that&#39;s funny cos i believed my uni proferrsor when he said newton&#39;s third was true...

<_<

[evilbagpuss]

Here are links all from UK universities verifying what I have told you. Those in pdf form are from googles cache.

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:jULoI...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 (http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:jULoIxjX0akJ:homepages.ed.ac.uk/ajbird/research/papers/Paradigm.pdf+site:.ac.uk+newton+einstein+paradigm&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

http://homepages.ed.ac.uk/ajbird/teaching/...basic_ideas.htm (http://homepages.ed.ac.uk/ajbird/teaching/Philosophy_of_Science/Kuhn_basic_ideas.htm)

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:CB4RI...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 (http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:CB4RIud9Qh4J:users.ox.ac.uk/~whns/PhilSciLectures/lect3%264.99.doc+site:.ac.uk+newton+einstein+paradigm&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:Ofrbc...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 (http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:OfrbcGC5gRUJ:www.qub.ac.uk/phil/courses/science/Handout7.doc+site:.ac.uk+newton+einstein+paradigm&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

In the interests of world peace I&#39;m politely asking you to email/talk to your professor and ask him about this.

I suspect that when he said its true he meant for the vast majority of things not related to nuclear power so as not to complicate the issue during teaching. But I am fairly sure that in the purest sense Newton was proved wrong by Einstein because as you can see Newtons theory simply cannot co-exist with Einsteins.

I think the misunderstanding is that in practice nuclear power is a seperate issue but in a technical/purist sense it is all part of the same thing.

I may be wrong but I&#39;m 99.999% sure I&#39;m right. So in the meantime I&#39;ll defer to you professor to sort it out once and for all.

[SodiumChloride]

Originally posted by imnotanaddict@17 August 2003 - 06:22
You might be interested in this.
http://www.discover.com/apr_03/featspeed.html
That was a very interesting read&#33; Towards the end it reminded me of a dripping faucet on a cosmic lake. Something like a big bang, then expansion, then a big bang, then expansion, et cetera.

The universe expands like a ripple in a lake from a drop of water, then another drop, another, and another, forever, as the waves of galaxies from previous bangs continue to expand like ripples. B)

[Barbarossa]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 August 2003 - 13:23

So if your multiplying the original energy by the speed of light squared your not going to get an "equal amount" of energy back out are you?

Another way to put it would be....

E = M (newton)
E = MC2 (Einstein)


Of course you are getting the same amount of energy&#33;&#33;&#33;

E=Energy, M=Mass, what E=MC2 is saying is that there is that amount of energy locked up in matter..

You can&#39;t just invent energy out of thin air, it just doesn&#39;t work like that, unless you&#39;re Stephen Hawking, who is expecting dozens of "mini-black holes" to pop up any time now.


From what I could make out, Einsteins theories were an extension of Newtons laws, they did not (as such) contradict them.

Anyway, how this relates to extraterrestrials I don&#39;t know. I just hoped they&#39;re advanced enough to explain "light" to me, cos no-one on earth can seem to be able to&#33;

"So teacher, is light a wave or a particle?"

"It&#39;s a particle, acting in a wave-like manner"..

PAH&#33; What a load of bollocks.

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by barbarossa@18 August 2003 - 11:12
Anyway, how this relates to extraterrestrials I don't know. I just hoped they're advanced enough to explain "light" to me, cos no-one on earth can seem to be able to!

"So teacher, is light a wave or a particle?"

"It's a particle, acting in a wave-like manner"..

PAH! What a load of bollocks.
light is composed of an electric field and a magnetic field

as for it being either a wave or a particle, you're right in that it can be thought of as both

as the theory of wave-particle duality suggests

p.s. i'm still unsure how e-mc2 contradicts newton's third law...

edit: the energy calculated in the equation "e = mc2" is the relativistic energy...

[Barbarossa]

Originally posted by 3rd gen noob+18 August 2003 - 10:15--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3rd gen noob @ 18 August 2003 - 10:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-barbarossa@18 August 2003 - 11:12
Anyway, how this relates to extraterrestrials I don't know. I just hoped they're advanced enough to explain "light" to me, cos no-one on earth can seem to be able to!

"So teacher, is light a wave or a particle?"

"It's a particle, acting in a wave-like manner"..

PAH! What a load of bollocks.
light is composed of an electric field and a magnetic field

as for it being either a wave or a particle, you're right in that it can be thought of as both

as the theory of wave-particle duality suggests

p.s. i'm still unsure how e-mc2 contradicts newton's third law...

edit: the energy calculated in the equation "e = mc2" is the relativistic energy... [/b][/quote]
Nope, still don't get it, and now you've brought in magnets and electrics, that's just making it worse...

[lynx]

Originally posted by imnotanaddict@17 August 2003 - 14:22
You might be interested in this.
http://www.discover.com/apr_03/featspeed.html
I can see a major flaw in their VSL theory.

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 ?

Fortunately, I have a solution too. How can we keep the speed of light constant, and consequently the energy equation balanced, but at the same time make it possible for electromagnetic and gravitational effects to cross the proto universe ? Well if the distance is the same and the speed is the same, there is only one thing left that we can change, and that is time.

So how do we change the rate at which time passes ? This is already well documented in black hole theory, observers outside the black hole will see an item falling into the black hole appear to &#39;wink out of existence&#39;, but for the item falling in, time seems to get slower and eventually almost stand still. It will reach the centre of the black hole after an infinitely long period of time. The cause of these effects is gravity - as per Einstein&#39;s theory of relativity.

In the young universe, there was so much matter compressed into such a small space that gravity must have been immense, and we don&#39;t need to go back as far as the universe being the size of a pin head (which I believe to be utter nonsense) for this to be the case. The consequence of this immense gravity would be a change in time itself just as when an object approaches a black hole.

It would be possible for the universe to remain in this near black hole condition almost indefinitely, but as the universe slowly expanded gravitational fields would diminish and time would gradually become more like we know it. To an observer from our position it would appear to have been an almost instantaneous event and the change would seem like some sort of explosion - the big bang.

Edit: the big bang theory also appears to need an early period of rapid inflation which slows down later - the changing nature of time means that there was longer for a constant rate of inflation to have occured, but again to us as observers this time is compressed to the initial inflation would appear to be much higher as required.

[3rd gen noob]

great post, lynx

this is the first post to make sense to me in the whole thread pretty much...

[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; :blink:

[lynx]

Originally posted by imnotanaddict@18 August 2003 - 15:03
http://www.word1.co.il/physics/bigbang.html
interesting

3. The Gravitational Redshift and Bending of Light.&nbsp; In a 1911 paper, A.Einstein stated that light propagating near a massive star must be gravitationally attracted to the star and accelerated toward it. Therefore, the velocity of light passing near the star must continuously increase, with a bending of light toward the star. When light moves out or away from a star, the attraction toward the star will continuosly reduce the light velocity. This results in reducing the frequencies of all spectral components of the light, thus in a gravitational redshift.
In this and other trials to explain the phenomena, Einstein "forgot" that nothing can be physically added to or deducted from the velocity of light in his empty space, and denied his own 1905 postulate of the universal constancy of light velocity in that empty space. Though his formulae for the gravitational redshift and bending of light are based on false reasoning and not always yield the observed values, these phenomena are well established physical facts, explainable by the electron positron lattice (epola) structure of space.

Whoever wrote this paper does not understand the theory of relativity, or more likely deliberately misrepresents it. Einstein did not say that the light is accelerated toward a star etc, he was well aware of the constancy of the velocity of light. Einstein&#39;s theory says that TIME is affected by gravity, so to an observer unaffected by that gravity the light appears to bend towards the star, while to the beam of light it is travelling in a straight line.

I have not read the whole article, having read such a dreadful misquoting of Einstein&#39;s work I could not see any merit in reading further.

[fluid1959]

It&#39;s nice to see scientific minds in action :huh:
But who cares whether or not Humans (earthlings) can comprehend faster than light travel. The issue here is that High ranking Individuals with their fingers on the button to nuclear warheads, beleive we are currently being visited and or disarmed by UFO&#39;s. I personally have researched the majority of witnesses described in http://www.topsecrettestimony.com/6monthsummary.htm and found they are who they say they are. And were where they said they were. Which tells me this topic needs to be disclosed no matter what the outcome. There is nothing here to debunk. Only the very stupid could watch this video and come to the conclusion it needs no further examination.

There is no need to d/l this file unless you want to keep a copy as it will start playing immediately http://www.topsecrettestimony.com/npcc_full.wmv

[djflypson]

yes, the best spam i&#39;ve ever read.

[Pitbul]

so when i watch this and i did download it and want my own copy but is this basically Gov&#39;t personel confirming that Aliens do exist and have visited us

[clocker]

Originally posted by Pitbul@20 August 2003 - 15:28
so when i watch this and i did download it and want my own copy but is this basically Gov&#39;t personel confirming that Aliens do exist and have visited us
Exactly.

How else can you explain Michael Jackson?

[fluid1959]

According to one of these witnesses, there is a Alien Base on the far side of the moon. Mushroom shaped buildings and structures That means get ready for some excitement as Europe and Japan are both sending up moon probes this year. :unsure:

[bigboab]

Wow&#33; This is absolutely mind blowing stuff.

George Bush and intelligence in the same paragraph. Its beyond my comprehension.

[Pitbul]

im actually glad that there will most likely be Alien Life i still kinda hold back from fully believeing but i truly can&#39;t wait to actually see these Aliens. im only 15 but i know the overall importantce to this and what a big step for all of mankind.so if what they say is really true then i wish i could take a look into ten years.

[dwightfry]

I googled this to find out how real it is and found out that one of the witnesses showed a famous picture of a UFO, and claimed it to be real, but it was proven a fake 30 years ago. This doesn&#39;t mean that the entire conference was rubbish, but it is something to think about.

I do believe most of this, but that&#39;s just me. ;)

[Pitbul]

Originally posted by dwightfry@22 August 2003 - 09:35
I googled this to find out how real it is and found out that one of the witnesses showed a famous picture of a UFO, and claimed it to be real, but it was proven a fake 30 years ago. This doesn&#39;t mean that the entire conference was rubbish, but it is something to think about.

I do believe most of this, but that&#39;s just me. ;)
how do u know it was proved fake? the U.S Gov&#39;t can easily get someone to say they are Fake.

[dwightfry]

True.

This is all I know.

The E-mails (http://mailman.efn.org/pipermail/skeptix/Week-of-Mon-20030602/001269.html)

[fluid1959]

When the Truth comes out ?

1) Solar/Sun Lasco/Soho satellite photos of UFO&#39;s in nasa&#39;s own released photo&#39;s. (research Euro seti) video found on Kazaa

2) Cattle mutilations Approx 30,000 cases or 30,000,000 dollars worth of cattle . Not one arrest. hmmmmmm Did detectives forget how to detect ?

3) Crop circles/landing sites bearing radiation and other odd characteristics
Crop circles have appeared in over 40 countries worldwide. Must be a conspiracy to fool who ?
(must be those crazy british boyz with their ropes and boards they surely get around.)

4) Mars - Pyramids Face tubes etc. anything interesting found is surely an area avoided with nasa probes.. why ?

5) Witnesses public - Betty and Barney hill The famous case of Betty and Barney Hill was a first for the UFO phenomenon for many reasons. Although it wasn&#39;t the first reported abduction, it was the first to be formally investigated and also marked the entrance of hypnosis into UFOlogy. It wasn&#39;t however the first mysterious happening in New Hampshire.
also see Betty&#39;s Star Map- Marjorie Fish

The allagash 4 "Undeniable Evidence of Alien Intervention." The account of the 1996 abduction of four men while on a canoe trip in the Allagash Wilderness in Maine. This incident ranks as one of the most compelling abduction accounts because it is supported by multiple witnesses

plus many many more

6) Government Witnesses - project disclosure and it&#39;s 450 witnesses in Government Cia FBI NSA Army Navy Marines AirForce
as well as Corporate Testimony

7) Moon Landing or hoax or something in between just a few high resolution pictures of the moons light and darkside would have stamped this out 30 years ago. We can go to the moon but we apparently can&#39;t photograph it very well why ?. Think maybe by apollo 16 we would have brought the appropriate camera ? Why do Some beleive .. If we went to the moon it wasn&#39;t in a rocket. (do the research)

8) Things for debunkers to read Friedman versus Klass (Klass = Klueless Ass (just my personal opinion)

9) An average of 70,000 ufo sightings reported each year&#33;

10) reported crash sites
Rosewell, New Mexico 4 July 1947
Spitzenbergen, Norway 1952
and many many more ( do the research)

11) Famous Landings
Rendlesham Forest will always be remembered as the UK&#39;s answer to Roswell, being as it is the only other UFO incident that has received official recognition from the government and military. It is the most significant UFO incident ever to have occurred in the UK and one of the most significant anywhere in the world.

Debunkers = Dont they need more swamps ? for their swamp gas theories ?


.

[Biggles]

Whilst I am happy with the maths that the probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe does exist and I am even prepared to accept that we may have been visited by some of them, I am sceptical as to what this really means to us.

We, as a species, tend to think the people in the next village are weird. We definitely struggle with neighbouring countries and as for people of a different skin colour....

So, just how happy would we be if a bunch of aliens came to live here. :blink:

I suspect they would very quickly get the blame for every ill to fall on man and either have to zap us to protect themselves or pack up and go.

Perhaps if we cracked living together as a species we might find that we can then look expectantly to the stars.

Just a thought - as Winnie the Pooh might say. :)

[lynx]

There was an interesting program on TV the other day, all about the likelyhood of the existence of intelligent life.

Apparently, there is a well known equation for calculating the probability, but unfortunately I can&#39;t remember the name of the person who invented it. Essentially it is simply a case of multiplying the probabilities of various things. And it turns out that these probabilities are all known, with the exception of 1 term in the equation. The only thing we don&#39;t know is how long a civilisation which has both the will and the technical capability of making contact actually lasts, because we are the only one we know of and ours is still going.

However, it is interesting to note that if we assume such a civilisation lasts for 1000 years, it turns out that the number of intelligent life forms likely to exist in our galaxy is about 1. And that is us.
Of course, if we assume that such a civilisation only lasts for about 100 years, it means that that the number of intelligent life forms existing in our galaxy will be about zero, but then again if it only lasts 100 years it probably means we will have blown ourselves up.

Edit: actually, I made that last bit up. I think that the unknown term is anti-logarithmic, so 100 years and 1000 years are not significantly different, I think you have to get up to about 10000 years before the number becomes 2. In any case, it isn&#39;t just about how long our civilisation lasts, if there are other civilisations out there it depends on how long they last too.

[bigboab]

Lynx do you mean intelligent life on this planet or the possibilty of intelligent life on another planet? :rolleyes:

[chalice]

This species needs to encounter a new civilization.
We&#39;re running out of things to blow up.

[Biggles]

If any visiting life forms are intelligent I think they may have noted our tendancy to cast fictional alien life forms as cannon fodder. They may not be keen on this as a concept. Indeed it might suggest to them that we haven&#39;t really progressed much beyond medieval witch hunts.

If I was an alien I would be keeping my head down. :ph34r:

[lynx]

Originally posted by bigboab@9 September 2003 - 21:05
Lynx do you mean intelligent life on this planet or the possibilty of intelligent life on another planet? :rolleyes:
The whole point was about intelligent life anywhere, and from that how many there are likely to be. So if the likelihood is that there is 1 intelligent life form in our galaxy, then since we are one it is unlikely that there will be another.

But I make no claims about whether we would qualify as an intelligent life form.

[Biggles]

or heads if applicable :rolleyes:

[Barbarossa]

Originally posted by lynx@9 September 2003 - 21:22

But I make no claims about whether we would qualify as an intelligent life form.
I agree, the jury&#39;s still out on that one :huh:

[j2k4]

It would seem that we must develop a working theory on "relative intelligence" then, yes? :lol:

[exeus]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 August 2003 - 11:13
The issue here is not whether aliens exist.. of course they do. How many galaxies are there? How many stars are there in those galaxies? How many planets in orbit around those stars? The chances of none of these planets being able to support life is ridiculous. Its a foregone conclusion based on simple probability.

The real issue is do they have the technology to travel at the necessary speeds to reach us within a reasonable amount of time?

Bear in mind the length of time between the first powered flight by humans and the moon landings and it doesnt require a huge leap of faith to assume that any civilisation which can survive long enough could probably reach the required level of technology.

Assuming they have reached that stage of development and could make it all the way over here its not beyond the realms of possibility that they would treat us as a primitive species or even bacteria in a petri-dish. A mere scientific curiosity to be studied at leisure.

Bacteria in a petri dish doesnt know its being studied by humans but does that mean humans dont exist? If aliens do exist and have made it over here why would they bother communicating with us?

I doubt we have anything in the way of resources or knowledge that they would want or need.
i agree fully&#33; is good to see that there are other non sheep out there

[Pitbul]

Originally posted by exeus+10 September 2003 - 07:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (exeus @ 10 September 2003 - 07:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-evilbagpuss@17 August 2003 - 11:13
The issue here is not whether aliens exist.. of course they do. How many galaxies are there? How many stars are there in those galaxies? How many planets in orbit around those stars? The chances of none of these planets being able to support life is ridiculous. Its a foregone conclusion based on simple probability.
[/b][/quote]
very good piont cause actually the probability of aliens existing in all those planets are greater then them not existing.

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by Pitbul+19 September 2003 - 14:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Pitbul @ 19 September 2003 - 14:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by exeus@10 September 2003 - 07:51
<!--QuoteBegin-evilbagpuss@17 August 2003 - 11:13
The issue here is not whether aliens exist.. of course they do. How many galaxies are there? How many stars are there in those galaxies? How many planets in orbit around those stars? The chances of none of these planets being able to support life is ridiculous. Its a foregone conclusion based on simple probability.

very good piont cause actually the probability of aliens existing in all those planets are greater then them not existing. [/b][/quote]
got any proof for that?

[Snee]

Here is some some reading material (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000&pageNumber=1&catID=2), which claims to give you the distance to the nearest lifeform sharing your exact composition.

[Pitbul]

Originally posted by 3rd gen noob+19 September 2003 - 09:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3rd gen noob @ 19 September 2003 - 09:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Pitbul@19 September 2003 - 14:46

Originally posted by exeus@10 September 2003 - 07:51
<!--QuoteBegin-evilbagpuss@17 August 2003 - 11:13
The issue here is not whether aliens exist.. of course they do. How many galaxies are there? How many stars are there in those galaxies? How many planets in orbit around those stars? The chances of none of these planets being able to support life is ridiculous. Its a foregone conclusion based on simple probability.

very good piont cause actually the probability of aliens existing in all those planets are greater then them not existing.
got any proof for that? [/b][/quote]
its a probability moron not proof. its like if you buy 1000 lottery tickets your bound to win at least 1 dollar out of those lottery tickets.

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by Pitbul@19 September 2003 - 22:42
its a probability moron not proof. its like if you buy 1000 lottery tickets your bound to win at least 1 dollar out of those lottery tickets.
lmfao

you call me a moron, yet you manage to say something as stupid as this... :rolleyes:

[bigboab]

Snny could you translate thar for me?

[Snee]

Originally posted by bigboab@22 September 2003 - 04:34
Snny could you translate thar for me?
The entire thing could take a while to explain, but what I like most about it is the following statement:


One of the many implications of recent cosmological observations is that the concept of parallel universes is no mere metaphor. Space appears to be infinite in size. If so, then somewhere out there, everything that is possible becomes real, no matter how improbable it is.

Meaning that there is a chance for just about everything that could possibly happen to happen somewhere. It goes on to lay out a couple of different models on the structure of the universe or makroverse.

The author would have it that the probability exists for you to have an exact twin either in this universe at a distance of
10 to the 10^28 meters from where you are now, or in a parallel universe.

[Hellie]

The issue here is not whether aliens exist.. of course they do. How many galaxies are there? How many stars are there in those galaxies? How many planets in orbit around those stars? The chances of none of these planets being able to support life is ridiculous. Its a foregone conclusion based on simple probability.





very good piont cause actually the probability of aliens existing in all those planets are greater then them not existing.&nbsp;


got any proof for that?&nbsp;
here´s the proofhttp://www.xtec.es/~xripoll/et.gif :D

[bigboab]

Just think there could be a reverse universe and we could all be kicking butt in a similar Forum. :D :D :D

[SodiumChloride]

Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Both possibilities are equally terrifying.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by exeus+10 September 2003 - 15:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (exeus &#064; 10 September 2003 - 15:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-evilbagpuss@17 August 2003 - 11:13


The real issue is do they have the technology to travel at the necessary speeds to reach us within a reasonable amount of time?

Bear in mind the length of time between the first powered flight by humans and the moon landings and it doesnt require a huge leap of faith to assume that any civilisation which can survive long enough could probably reach the required level of technology.

Assuming they have reached that stage of development and could make it all the way over here its not beyond the&nbsp; realms of possibility that they would treat us as a primitive species or even bacteria in a petri-dish. A mere scientific curiosity to be studied at leisure.

Bacteria in a petri dish doesnt know its being studied by humans but does that mean humans dont exist? If aliens do exist and have made it over here why would they bother communicating with us?

I doubt we have anything in the way of resources or knowledge that they would want or need.
i agree fully&#33; is good to see that there are other non sheep out there[/b][/quote]
I guess this approach would indicate that the aliens would be intrisically different from us, which would be scary.

Since humans have discovered the vastness of space and the ability to transmit data across it, we have been sending out information to whatever might be able to receive and understand it 24/7 and at the same time listening for any reply or similar broadcast.

The discovery of space and the reality of space flight has really tickled the fancy of the common man and scientist alike. Space aliens are the bridge between faith in a God and concrete reality. They are a statistical possibility and a hope that there is "something more, something bigger" than our petty, painful world.

I would imagine that any intelligent civilization would have the same fascination that we have once they realize what could be out there. I would guess that they would start sending out data by utilizing electromagnetic radiation, hundreds if not thousands of Earth years before they have the ability to actually locate and travel to a distant galaxy. We have received nothing and we have pretty good equipment in detecting the spectrum of EMR.

To think that they kept totally quiet until thay had the technology in place to travel across the universe and spy on whatever is there, just for shits, would indicate a rather suspicious and fearful mentality.

In addition, if they are like humans at all, they would want to communicate with us and try and give us either advice or technology which might allow us a better life. It may not be the right thing for us, like the Peace Corp building a bridge because they think a tribe should have one, but they would certainly make the attempt.


As for the certainty of other intelligent life due to probability, many Christians say that it is even impossible here, and God must have done it. I personally agree that if we assume the Big Bang and the sheer size of the universe and number of solar systems, that there is a good chance there is another intelligent race out there. I also agree that they could already possess the technology because Earth was shackled in it&#39;s scientific endeavors for thousands of years by Religion. Without that disruption I am confident we would be zooming about space now and probably living eternally on Earth (for another thread- not a joke).

[Billy_Dean]

When you look at the perceived age of the universe, 15,000,000,000 years old, and the age of our solar system, approx 4,500,000,000, you can see why solar systems and galaxies would have come and gone before ours started to form. When you then look at the age and complexity of life on Earth, and the timespan of our so called "intelligence", we occupy a miniscule place in space-time. Another intelligent life form out there could be billions of years in front of us, in fact, using the probability theory, there SHOULD be. But they haven&#39;t found us.

The strange thing about all this speculation on other intelligent life forms, is that if a particular asteroid hadn&#39;t crashed into the Earth 65 million years ago, there probably wouldn&#39;t be any "intelligent" life on Earth to discuss it. Evolution ensures we are a unique product of our environment and circumstances. Probabilities aren&#39;t facts.

As to the UFO thingie; I remember a few years ago there were seven plane crashes involving civilian airliners in that year. Three of them were videoed happening. In that same year there were many thousands of so-called UFO sightings, and not one photo, let alone a video. IMO it&#39;s all bunkum, the US government wants the world to believe in them, it keeps their minds off what&#39;s really going on.


:)

[lynx]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@25 September 2003 - 06:08
When you look at the perceived age of the universe, 15,000,000,000 years old, and the age of our solar system, approx 4,500,000,000, you can see why solar systems and galaxies would have come and gone before ours started to form.&nbsp; When you then look at the age and complexity of life on Earth, and the timespan of our so called "intelligence", we occupy a miniscule place in space-time.&nbsp; Another intelligent life form out there could be billions of years in front of us, in fact, using the probability theory, there SHOULD be. But they haven&#39;t found us.

The strange thing about all this speculation on other intelligent life forms, is that if a particular asteroid hadn&#39;t crashed into the Earth 65 million years ago, there probably wouldn&#39;t be any "intelligent" life on Earth to discuss it.&nbsp; Evolution ensures we are a unique product of our environment and circumstances.&nbsp; Probabilities aren&#39;t facts.

As to the UFO thingie; I remember a few years ago there were seven plane crashes involving civilian airliners in that year.&nbsp; Three of them were videoed happening.&nbsp; In that same year there were many thousands of so-called UFO sightings, and not one photo, let alone a video.&nbsp; IMO it&#39;s all bunkum, the US government wants the world to believe in them, it keeps their minds off what&#39;s really going on.


:)
Our solar system is &#39;fourth generation&#39;.
First generation systems consist purely of hydrogen->helium conversions. When these systems die, they produce the elements up to carbon.
Second generation systems are those made up of the elements produced by first generation systems, and the death of these systems produces more complex elements (I believe up to iron, but I can&#39;t be remember to be certain).
Third generation systems are those made up of elements produced by first and second generation systems. Their death produces the more exotic (trans-iron) elements.
Finally, and it really is finally (there are no more stages beyond this) the fourth generation systems are created from the elements from previous generations, and it is only fourth generation systems which are capable of supporting life as we would recognise it.

All these generations of star systems take time, and it estimated that the minimum amount of time per generation is about 3.5 billion years. So the earliest that a fourth generation system could have started to form is after about 10.5 billion years. Add to that the current age of our system, 4.5 billion years, and you get 15 billion years, the age of the universe.

The result of this is that the current time is just about the earliest that intelligent life could exist in the universe, so your theory that intelligent life could be billions of years ahead of us just doesn&#39;t work, although I would accept the possibility of millions of years.

As for such intelligent life not having &#39;found&#39; us, what has there been to attract them to this planet? It is only in the last 100 years or so that we have been emitting anything into space that is in any way different from any other planet/star system. And since those emissions can only have travelled a distance of 100 light years, the number of other star systems which could have been reached is extremely limited. If any star system in that range was more advanced than us, surely we would have detected similar emissions from them.

The only other way we could be detected is if a wandering spaceship just happened to be passing through this tiny sector of the universe, a region less than 3*10^-25 of the total. A probability so infinitesimal as to be ignored.

As far as I am aware, the US government and its agencies have repeatedly stated that they have no evidence of UFO activity, but because it has a secret testing area known as Area 51, some people seem to want to insist it is hiding UFO&#39;s, aliens, or whatever other fanciful notions seem to spring to their minds.

Edit: typo, clarification

[Billy_Dean]

LYNX:

The result of this is that the current time is just about the earliest that intelligent life could exist in the universe, so your theory that intelligent life could be billions of years ahead of us just doesn&#39;t work, although I would accept the possibility of millions of years.

This is also a theory, it proves or disproves nothing. If your theory was 10% out, it would push the required time back to 8-9 billion years. If the theoretical age of the universe were underestimated by 10% also, my original hypothesis could easily be possible. Theories are not fact.


:)

[ilw]

Lynx are you taking into account the relativity of time?

[lynx]

The estimates are based on the ratios of the amounts of various elements, it is based on observed fact, not theory. If the age of the universe is 10% wrong (and I believe they are now estimating the age of the universe at 13.5 billion years) then the estimates of the minimum age of a generation also adjusts by 10%, as does the age of our solar system, since they are all based on the same criteria.

But in any case, this doesn&#39;t change the fact that we are undetectable (as being different) at a range of more than about 100 light years.

@ilw, the relativity of time only really has a significant effect when gravitiational forces are extremely high. In any case, that would tend to shorten the age of the universe and so make other intelligent life less likely. This is contrary to one of my previous posts, which tended to suggest that high gravitational forces would lengthen the age of the universe - I was looking at it from the point of view of an external observer, which in the case of the universe would be impossible.

[Billy_Dean]

They are still estimates and theories, not facts.



:)

[ilw]

I meant that relative to planets far away, we are travelling at speeds where relativity matters, billions of years could pass there and only a few million here or vice versa. As i understand it time doesn&#39;t really have much meaning.

[Billy_Dean]

Another opinion here ...

Superstring theory. (http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo1.html)

... and an exerpt here ...


So it seems safe to estimate that the age of the Universe is at least 15 billion years old, but probably not more than 20 billion years old.




:)

[fugley]

Yes but what about "the cheese" theory???

:blink:

[bigboab]

It doew not count Fug. It was made the other way round. :P

[Snee]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@25 September 2003 - 16:50
Another opinion here ...

Superstring theory. (http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo1.html)

... and an exerpt here ...


So it seems safe to estimate that the age of the Universe is at least 15 billion years old, but probably not more than 20 billion years old.




:)
It&#39;s m-theory now, BD, the strings have been meshed into a globular membrane with the addition of another dimension, m-space, to the equation, wherein there is a myriad of alternate universes.

A lot of things, like the weakness of gravitational forces, are now explained with the help of parallel universes.

Something I saw on BBC prime (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/paralleluni.shtml)