Aliens: What to look for, and how

[Success_Machine]

Potentially obvious ways of detecting ET on exoplanets include artificial light sources (city lights), and atomic spectra of atmospheric effects (urban air pollution, NO, NO2, SO2, O3). See the links below:

Composite Photo of Earth's Cities at Night - see the website:

http://www.space.com/cgi-bin/click2wallpaper.pl?picture=/entertainment/downloads/spaceart/images/earthatnight_1280.jpg

Testing the spectra of the atmosphere over alien cities would also tell us a lot about their technology, state of industry, etc, if they have any. Either way we should build an interferometer telescope that can resolve city-sized objects roughly 20 km across. But we would want to search a large number of solar systems for terrestrial planets. Many of the nearest solar systems are known although the sample is still theoretically incomplete. Setting the theoretical population density of nearby stars equal to those found within 5 parsecs provides a basis for predicting the number of stars even further from earth.

Graph (courtesy of RECONS, the Research Consortium on Nearby Stars):

http://www.chara.gsu.edu/RECONS/missing.html

The indicated curve has the equation:

N = 1.3358 * e ^ (0.1828 * R)

where R = radius of a sphere in lightyears with earth at the center
N = number of solar systems within range(R)

This formula shows that we must build a telescope that can see 74 lightyears if we want to investigate 1 million solar systems for signs of intelligent life. At this distance a city-sized target 20 kilometers wide corresponds to an angular width (parallax) of 337.6 nano-arcseconds, or 9.38E(-11) degrees.

Next we need to determine the size of telescope mirror required to resolve targets this small. The formula for telescopic resolution is given as

alpha = 20 * W / b

where,
W = wavelength of light detected in micrometers
b = diameter telescope, or, baseline of interferometer in centimeters
alpha = smallest resolved-target size in arcseconds

The shorter the wavelength the smaller the telescope mirror required. For example the human eye detects visible wavelengths, but the Aricebo radio telescope detects radio wavelengths. The angular resolution of Aricebo is only half as good as the human eye, for its design wavelengths, yet is huge in comparison. On the other hand it is easier to build telescopes to detect longer wavelengths than shorter ones, since the quality of the detector is less critical. Only recently have long baseline optical interferometer telescopes been successfully built for the visible wavelengths. In the future, under the umbrella of NASA's Origins Program, space telescopes using optical interferometry will be put into service.

NASA's Origins Program:

http://origins.jpl.nasa.gov

Currently on schedule for launch is the Starlight Mission which will act as a testbed for non-tethered optical interferometer telescopes flying in exact formation. The Starlight spacecraft will be launched in 2005.

Starlight Mission:

http://starlight.jpl.nasa.gov

The baseline separation for this pair of spacecraft will never be more than a couple hundred meters, and unfortunately this telescope is not expected to find anything new - merely use the new technique to duplicate previous observations by other conventional optical telescopes. But it will prove the technology!

The goal:

To search the nearest 1 million solar systems for signs of intelligent life we will need an interferometer that can function at a 337.6 nano-arcsecond resolution. This hypothetical array will see city-sized targets on planets at a distance of 74 lightyears. According to the above equation, working at a wavelength of 0.7 microns (red light), it must have a baseline separation of 414.7 km. This is equivalent to a telescope with a 414.7 km-diameter main reflector mirror.

Ultimate Problem:

The earth rotates as it goes around the sun. As such a telescope that can create a 20 km-per-pixel image will see the city traverse the pixel in just 43 seconds. At 74 lightyears distance the amount of light from an omnidirectional light source will decrease in brightness by a factor of nearly 1E(-29). The combined areas of the telescopes must collect a minimum of 2500 photons per second to form a single recognizable interferogram. Since an entire city at night would emit millions of watts of light it may be possible to form an image that can discern city lights and urban air pollution spectra on distant planets: using many-telescope arrays, where each telescope has a hubble-sized light bucket. The future of astronomy is outlined at the following website:

The Future of Remote Sensing:

http://www.itss.raytheon.com/cafe/anthol/remote.html

Whatever direction the space program goes in the next 50 years, I want to see this image taken of a distant alien planet:

Composite Image of Earth's Cities at Night:

http://www.space.com/cgi-bin/click2wallpaper.pl?picture=/entertainment/downloads/spaceart/images/earthatnight_1280.jpg

Every star has a habitable zone. There MUST be life out there!

Cheers!

[George LoBuono]

There is much (secret) research on the subject of electrogravity. The irony of electrogravity is that its increments borrow heavily from space-time through a deeper dimensional relationship, supposedly. (See Col. Tom Bearden's writings on scalar electromagnetism on the web, for example). In other words, as Bearden writes, destructive interference (in three dimensions) of electromagnetism "bleeds into" electrogravity, and vice versa: destructive interference of electrogravity bleeds into electromagnetism. This is supposed to relate to negative energy (a kind of gravity), or what are called squeezed state fluctuations in the vacuum of space-time (see Hawking's notes on fluctuations in the vacuum of gravity also). In short, electrogravity borrows heavily from the surrounding space-time continuum and speeds the passage of time therein, thus potentially allowing faster-than-light communications---in any alien form of technology. *Again, not a flat space-time propagation, but a kind of back door quantum cosmological connectedness (i.e. Wheeler Feynman) that spends energy and speeds time. So, in such a sense, if we were looking for aliens, we wouldn't waste time looking for flat space-time electromagnetism; instead we would look for gravity fluctuations that, in turn, could be leaked into electromagnetic form through destructive interference, then read. Rather than being a Cartesian linear propagation, it would connect opposite ends of the universe in a sense, an absorber theory kind of relationship, thus the speeding of time and the deeper dimensional relocating of the "information." As such, it would not define local space-time characteristics as indivisible, as adequate in terms of the definition of information. Instead, we would tease the information out of a deeper electrogravitic relationship, as Bearden suggests. (Not a violation of relativistic constraints, but a re-integration of the parameters of its observation---in both larger, and, at the same time, finer increments of conjugate incidence).

[Success_Machine]

I am just curious.... are you an idiot? Did you have trouble understanding my post and this is your way of making fun of it? If so that's really retarded.

[George LoBuono]

Frankly, as a 45-year old man, I am unaccustomed to behaviors such as yours. You literally are a "junior" member, in that, at least. Your comments concern one limited area of investigation. If you would read the sources on electrogravity and more, you would see that it is serious science. Just because you aren't familiar with it, does not mean that it is neither valid nor of interest. Mark my words: in a matter of years electrogravity will begin to dominate our research technology. Diversity allows for creativity. Your attitude reminds me of the least dignified objections to relativity 96 years ago.

[WildBlueYonder]

I think that with the Earth, our Sun & our Galaxy all rotating around the Universe, we should cross someone's emission trail, I'm sure that we are leaving a trail, a 24 hour rotating beacon, as we scream around the Galaxy. So, if there is intelligent life out there, they should be able to see or hear us, or us them sometime in the future. It seems to me our only problem is, if they or we blink, while we are in position to see each other. We have had radio for over a hundred years, & TV for at least 50, we can only hope that all others are somewhat like us, that they have anoligus sensory organs, that they develope radio, TV, telescopes, lasers, & radar like us, that they are exploring the world around them and that tiny window of opportunity does not miss us.

Live long and Prosper!

[Bobby Lee]

I think if one goes and gets a Mirror you'll find all the proof you will need? Unless xxmillions of years of evolution has made a gold plated timex??

JUST A THOUGHT

Bob

[ripleofdeath]

hey george i wont even start to pretend i know exactly or even mostly what you are talking about except that it sounds essentialy like travel and since we all like to go for holidays (some psychological... :D {success machine
ARE YOU A PROFFESSOR OF PHYSICS?} )
I THINK ITS QUITE FUNNY THE FACT THAT THINGS ARE LOOKING TO A STATE OF TRAVEL that discards the concept of drive propulsion after soo much of our
polluted society has blindly chassed this idea past the obviouse annomilies that even people 100 years ago were stating:)
but it is good to hear that the bias is on the side of
proberbility rather than moral values
:)
groove on all (just a guy with key-board :D )

[ripleofdeath]

:)

[bone]

Originally posted by Success_Machine
Potentially obvious ways of detecting ET on exoplanets include artificial light sources (city lights), and atomic spectra of atmospheric effects (urban air pollution, NO, NO2, SO2, O3). See the links below:

Composite Photo of Earth's Cities at Night - see the website:

http://www.space.com/cgi-bin/click2wallpaper.pl?picture=/entertainment/downloads/spaceart/images/earthatnight_1280.jpg

Testing the spectra of the atmosphere over alien cities would also tell us a lot about their technology, state of industry, etc, if they have any. Either way we should build an interferometer telescope that can resolve city-sized objects roughly 20 km across. But we would want to search a large number of solar systems for terrestrial planets. Many of the nearest solar systems are known although the sample is still theoretically incomplete. Setting the theoretical population density of nearby stars equal to those found within 5 parsecs provides a basis for predicting the number of stars even further from earth.

Graph (courtesy of RECONS, the Research Consortium on Nearby Stars):

http://www.chara.gsu.edu/RECONS/missing.html

The indicated curve has the equation:

N = 1.3358 * e ^ (0.1828 * R)

where R = radius of a sphere in lightyears with earth at the center
N = number of solar systems within range(R)

This formula shows that we must build a telescope that can see 74 lightyears if we want to investigate 1 million solar systems for signs of intelligent life. At this distance a city-sized target 20 kilometers wide corresponds to an angular width (parallax) of 337.6 nano-arcseconds, or 9.38E(-11) degrees.

Next we need to determine the size of telescope mirror required to resolve targets this small. The formula for telescopic resolution is given as

alpha = 20 * W / b

where,
W = wavelength of light detected in micrometers
b = diameter telescope, or, baseline of interferometer in centimeters
alpha = smallest resolved-target size in arcseconds

The shorter the wavelength the smaller the telescope mirror required. For example the human eye detects visible wavelengths, but the Aricebo radio telescope detects radio wavelengths. The angular resolution of Aricebo is only half as good as the human eye, for its design wavelengths, yet is huge in comparison. On the other hand it is easier to build telescopes to detect longer wavelengths than shorter ones, since the quality of the detector is less critical. Only recently have long baseline optical interferometer telescopes been successfully built for the visible wavelengths. In the future, under the umbrella of NASA's Origins Program, space telescopes using optical interferometry will be put into service.

NASA's Origins Program:

http://origins.jpl.nasa.gov

Currently on schedule for launch is the Starlight Mission which will act as a testbed for non-tethered optical interferometer telescopes flying in exact formation. The Starlight spacecraft will be launched in 2005.

Starlight Mission:

http://starlight.jpl.nasa.gov

The baseline separation for this pair of spacecraft will never be more than a couple hundred meters, and unfortunately this telescope is not expected to find anything new - merely use the new technique to duplicate previous observations by other conventional optical telescopes. But it will prove the technology!

The goal:

To search the nearest 1 million solar systems for signs of intelligent life we will need an interferometer that can function at a 337.6 nano-arcsecond resolution. This hypothetical array will see city-sized targets on planets at a distance of 74 lightyears. According to the above equation, working at a wavelength of 0.7 microns (red light), it must have a baseline separation of 414.7 km. This is equivalent to a telescope with a 414.7 km-diameter main reflector mirror.

Ultimate Problem:

The earth rotates as it goes around the sun. As such a telescope that can create a 20 km-per-pixel image will see the city traverse the pixel in just 43 seconds. At 74 lightyears distance the amount of light from an omnidirectional light source will decrease in brightness by a factor of nearly 1E(-29). The combined areas of the telescopes must collect a minimum of 2500 photons per second to form a single recognizable interferogram. Since an entire city at night would emit millions of watts of light it may be possible to form an image that can discern city lights and urban air pollution spectra on distant planets: using many-telescope arrays, where each telescope has a hubble-sized light bucket. The future of astronomy is outlined at the following website:

The Future of Remote Sensing:

http://www.itss.raytheon.com/cafe/anthol/remote.html

Whatever direction the space program goes in the next 50 years, I want to see this image taken of a distant alien planet:

Composite Image of Earth's Cities at Night:

http://www.space.com/cgi-bin/click2wallpaper.pl?picture=/entertainment/downloads/spaceart/images/earthatnight_1280.jpg

Every star has a habitable zone. There MUST be life out there!

Cheers!

[HOWARDSTERN]

WHOA NOW! COOL OFF! Have some respect for each others pov.

Cooperation, as well as the consideration of others thoughts, have always been more fruitful than derison of others' ideas!

Life on other worlds? Simplistic!

Fluid conversion of the radioactive mass (star)! So easy!

- no matter the high (lethal) amount of radiation, and

- no matter the horrible chemicals present, and

- no matter the excessive gravity forces (specific gravity).

If the world has:

a) energy supplied by a reliable and consistant star, and

b) reasonable fluids, to constantly convert the energy forms, and

c) that these fluids may be in the form of water or other forms, and

d) most importantly, that the environment remains consistant, or in other words, does not change faster than the rate of the evolution of any promising life that may be forthcoming, and

e) that other surrounding worlds may act as vaccum cleaners for comets and large meteors, so as to prevent catastrophies upon the proposed world.


As long as there is a reliable and consistant environment, with a good reliable source of energy, then life will find a way.

Constantly changing environmental conditions are bad for burgeoning life.

Look at the facts here on Earth:

Slash & burn activities in the rainforests happen too fast for the indigeous inhabitants to adjust (evolve) so as to compensate, thus evolve to meet the fast changing conditions.

Existing life hates change. It evolves reluctantly to compensate for these environmental changes, thus it is reasonable that the very same laws apply to other worlds.

ENERGY SUPPLIED AND CONSISTANT ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS!

That's the Formula!

Apply yourselves to that which I have freely given to you previously today. Understand this, and you'll be able to predict quite exactly, the possibility of life on an planet, so long as you know the environment!

Best wishes///////

ps. STOP BEING ASSHOLES TO EACH OTHER.

Two assholes never solved a problem, they only got bigger!

[HOWARDSTERN]

Originally posted by Bobby Lee
I think if one goes and gets a Mirror you'll find all the proof you will need? Unless xxmillions of years of evolution has made a gold plated timex??

JUST A THOUGHT

Bob

Now BoB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GD!!!!!!

Are you really saying that that your reflection exhibits life!??????????????????

Secondly, whats the deal with the XXX rated millions of years??? Not to mention the gold plated timex evolution???

I don't get it!

[HOWARDSTERN]

Originally posted by ripleofdeath
hey george i wont even start to pretend i know exactly or even mostly what you are talking about except that it sounds essentialy like travel and since we all like to go for holidays (some psychological... :D {success machine
ARE YOU A PROFFESSOR OF PHYSICS?} )
I THINK ITS QUITE FUNNY THE FACT THAT THINGS ARE LOOKING TO A STATE OF TRAVEL that discards the concept of drive propulsion after soo much of our
polluted society has blindly chassed this idea past the obviouse annomilies that even people 100 years ago were stating:)
but it is good to hear that the bias is on the side of
proberbility rather than moral values
:)
groove on all (just a guy with key-board :D )




Get some help RIP!


okokokokokoko..............humor me.....:

I THINK ITS QUITE FUNNY THE FACT THAT THINGS ARE LOOKING TO A STATE OF TRAVEL that discards the concept of drive propulsion after soo much of our
polluted society has blindly chassed this idea past the obviouse annomilies that even people 100 years ago were stating:)"
"


What the hell does that mean? I'm out there, But i'm too tired to try to translate! RIPOPPPPPPPPP!!!!!

And the rest of these college boyz are too dumb to understand.

So tell me plain RIP! pLEASE TRASNSKATE.

[ripleofdeath]

i have heard it said that many years ago some of the astronamers said that other planets would be too far away to travel to by any normal means of going from point a-through to point be...............?
galalio(spelling might be wrong and the person) LOL
bear with me please
...and as it seems, there is the most common logical path, to connect the thought, that life on other planets exists......
i have also heard it mentioned that some of our more distant(many years ago...even hundreds of years) intilectuals have said that we will need to fold or bend space and time to get there...
so...
it seems that most theory points to the idea of time and space(place/level of reality/world)
being intertwined in a ply-able way
we know we cannot travel at light speed ...so it seems
and yet we have visits by et s from other planets
and yet people (scientist seem to be still looking at things like cold fusion drive thingeys(which would be prety dam groovy to go to the moon with but maybe not
visit a potential neighbour) is it possible that "they"
are looking at time travel at the moment or jumping into subspace through a generated hole...?
i hope that makes more sence
NOTE i never intend to insult anyone as much as ask them to look at the bigger picture in some way that will make them question there own personaly placed limits to ... as we call it"theory"
i dont belive in physical abuse ie smacking kids and the rest that is seeded from that but a sharp shock of some sort(psychological) can sometimes allow a new view point or a smaller wall in the mind of the psycologicaly bombbarded[that we all are if exposed to all "normal" media
...
HENCE
Peace...Love...and missery to all greed merchants
:)
groove on all

[George LoBuono]

There is much talk about how we should re-parameter our science now, in the post-quantum era. Clearly, the quantum basis is indispensable, yet, as string theorists like to point out, we need to reconcile the once seemingly-irreconcilable disagreement between relativity and quantum mechanics, hence the "post quantum" label. The Copenhagen convention looked at a difficult enigma in scinece of the 20th century and worked out a strange, yet important new set of considerations. We need to do the same now, once again. We are all diverging without common agreement. No doubt Edward Witten's idea of M-theory, or multiple mathematics is important---he argues that extradimensional phenomena require seemingly weird, extra types of mathematics for each extra dimension, if I am not mistaken. For example, based on what we observe in quantum theory---nonlocality, immediate transitions across gaps in space-time, condensed matter states, etc, we can pose a mathematic in which there are no whole numbers. Why? Because the only whole number (one) that would exist in the physics of this universe would be that of the entire universe from the beginning to the end of time, and, even then it would only approach a whole number (one) quantity, at which point (for obvious reasons) it would fold back in upon itself, intravert or involute strangely (non-locally), as the universe apparently did, does. In short, our physics should instead all be enumerated to the right of the decimal point, with alternative, multiple values. The Cartesian idealization of point-singular ordinates (impossible in our new model, for example) and the bronze age idea of things, concrete qualities, etc. ---all are consequences of old and drastically mistaken whole number mathematical idealizations. Think about this one for a while--in terms of black holes (not entirely singlular, in that they are dimensioned in time, gravity, and space) and other weird phenomena... It is a basic mathematic, yet an apparently necessary one. No doubt there are more.

[ripleofdeath]

hey sccs machine
i have heard the theory that it could be possible for a race of people to live underground for hundreds of years
... with sufficient technology.
if this were true and say a planet or moon that had no
internal lava type stuf like the earth supposedly has...
would we be able to detect it under a km of rock of the sorts that are found on some of our neighbouring planets and moons?
and do we have any satalite bouncing / relay of images that are on the dark side of any of these?
another one... :)
can we put a satalite around the moon or mars indefinity?
or is the decay or wat ever to much
please use idiot language cos i aint a student of fissyhicks or anywho like that :D
groove on

[George LoBuono]

Here's a basic fact of importance: Whenever an electron jumps from one energy level, or orbit/shell, to another, it does so instantaneously. This is an accepted fact of the standard model; all quantum physicists agree on this. In other words, albeit a small jump in space, it is nonetheless faster than light. We see precisely such a jump in transistors, ironically--the basis of the computer in front of you. When electrons in semiconductor chips arrive at a non-conductor barrier (silicon), they stop and wait a measured amount of time. Then, through a strange trick of the dopant (beryllium) seeded within nearby silicon, they disappear from the one side of the silicon barrier and instantly appear on the other side. Scientists say they "tunnel through" the doped semiconductor.

In short, the very existence of discretes, or distinct energy levels that communicate faster than light whenever an electron jumps from one energy level to another, is proof that the entire energy condition of the universe is apparently premised on instantaneous transitions. Quantum physics is thus considered weird, in a sense. As Richard Feynman once said, the essence of quantum physics can be understood in a simple two-slit experiment (in which a photon can be in two places at once AND CAN ALSO "KNOW," FASTER THAN LIGHT, what occurs on the other side of the slit barrier, before it approaches the slit, through which it passes.

Again, we need another Copenhagen-like convention to resolve such strangeness. Indeed, we should probably begin to premise our basic concept on the more unusual, yet definitive aspects of quantum "anomalies"--for example, the thingless or non-concrete nature of all quanta, the ability of quanta to be in multiple places at the same time, the seemingly faster than light relationship in what is known as "quantum connectedness," the faster-than-light case for all energy level transitions. In a sense, we are looking at a model in which the very center of a black hole, the singularity, is, in ways, a quantum of a strange sort. The new negative energy dynamics described in Scientific American's January 2000 article "Negative Energy, Wormholes and Warp Drive" are very important science. Negative energy involves a kind of negative cycle in which the universe "connects large scale to small scale, from the cosmic to the hyper-miniature. Hence, when the authors of the article say that negative energy fluctuations (a.k.a. electrogravity) occur when scientists aim lasers together to create destructive interference (waves that cancel out), they are basically agreeing with ret. Col. Tom Bearden's snopsis: "destructive interference of electromagnetism converging in three dimensions (i.e. along the x, y and z axes) bleeds into electrogravity, and conversely, destructive interference of electrogravity bleeds back into electrogravity."

This is a basic reciprocity, yet inherently entails marginal distortions of time and space, or electrogravity--which can be teased out of the nucleus' deeper dimensional connectedness to the larger continuum. In a sense, the very existence of precise similarities between all quanta, i.e. the fact that photons, electrons, etc. have exact standard characteristics, is "communicated" faster-than-light universally. Instead of reading such similarities as things, singular givens of concreteness of a sort, we should probably think of them as being communicated via negative energy relationships, in part, a kind of fractional wave form or deeper dimensional precision (kindred to Wheeler Feynman's absorber theory-- or Feynman's sum over histories seen in "imaginary time" --which isn't so imaginary. It is simply how the small scale is deeper dimensionally connected to the greater cosmic. It is "communicated" and is, in fact, "information." Read the Scientific American article. It is a breath of fresh air, inspired work by Einstein's contemporaries.

Also, look at Kaluza Klein, other Einstein contemporaries who argued that all electromagnetism is simply manifestations of gravity in a deeper fifth dimension (perhaps more dimensions). In short, the faster than light, or instantaneous jump of electrons from one energy level to another is easy, everyday proof of such a relationship. It was always just beneath our noses, so to speak... or better yet, within the space between our ears.

[(Q)]

George

Whenever an electron jumps from one energy level, or orbit/shell, to another, it does so instantaneously. This is an accepted fact of the standard model; all quantum physicists agree on this.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that when an electron moves from a higher energy state (excited state) to a lower energy state (ground state), it does so along the order of 10^-9 seconds, which is not instantaneous.

[chroot]

Originally posted by George LoBuono
Here's a basic fact of importance: Whenever an electron jumps from one energy level, or orbit/shell, to another, it does so instantaneously.
Uhhhhhhhh..... no, they don't move instantaneously. Sorry. No "quantum physicists" would agree with this.
When electrons in semiconductor chips arrive at a non-conductor barrier (silicon)...say they "tunnel through" the doped semiconductor.
No. A standard BJT operates by charge injection; a MOSFET operates by field effect. Neither involve any quantum mechanical tunneling process.
is proof that the entire energy condition of the universe is apparently premised on instantaneous transitions.
What exactly is an "energy condition?"
Quantum physics is thus considered weird, in a sense. As Richard Feynman once said, the essence of quantum physics can be understood in a simple two-slit experiment (in which a photon can be in two places at once AND CAN ALSO "KNOW," FASTER THAN LIGHT, what occurs on the other side of the slit barrier, before it approaches the slit, through which it passes.
I don't recall Rich ever saying this. What you're actually attempting to describe is known as the Einstein-Padolsky-Rosen paradox ("spooky action-at-a-distance"), which is essentially a philosophical question about the nature of the Universe. There are several interpretations of quantum mechanics which deal with this philosophy.
the more unusual, yet definitive aspects of quantum "anomalies"--for example, the thingless or non-concrete nature of all quanta
Please don't become a writer.
a black hole, the singularity, is, in ways, a quantum of a strange sort.
Pointedly, we don't know exactly what happens near or at a singularity, or even if Nature allows singularities to exist.
The new negative energy dynamics described in Scientific American's January 2000 article "Negative Energy, Wormholes and Warp Drive" are very important science.
I'll make you a deal -- I'll read the article before I comment. But modern science does not include the term 'electrogravity....'
This is a basic reciprocity, yet inherently entails marginal distortions of time and space, or electrogravity--which can be teased out of the nucleus' deeper dimensional connectedness to the larger continuum.
Are you sure you didn't mean The force of magnetism is the result of a torque generated by the energy vortex Shadows associate with electromagnet energy, which causes a 'tilting' of the W axis of the fourth spatial dimensions?
In a sense, the very existence of precise similarities between all quanta, i.e. the fact that photons, electrons, etc. have exact standard characteristics
What are 'exact standard characteristics?'
It is a breath of fresh air, inspired work by Einstein's contemporaries.
It is fishwrap designed to sell ad space.
In short, the faster than light, or instantaneous jump of electrons from one energy level to another is easy, everyday proof of such a relationship.
But you're forgetting, again, that this doesn't actually happen. Perhaps it really is just in the space between your ears.

And I must say I'm a bit disappointed by this whole thread: I was expecting something about "Aliens: What to look for, and how."

- Warren

[George LoBuono]

Warren, Certainly, much of the above is debatable, but, in the jump to a higher energy level, the transition is effectively instantaneous, isn't it? You noted the drop toward a more retarded wave function condition--inward toward the nucleus, due to a loss of energy. On second thought, I should correct myself: none of the electrons transitions would be completely instantaneous, but would, at best accelerate toward infinity. Correct me if I am wrong, but the tunneling of a an electron in a semiconductor, its disappearance then reappearance, is effectively instantaneous. If you were to argue the case for at least some measurable time interval, then we might have to model the activity in terms of a negative energy, extra-dimensional model, only a near-simultaneity of sorts. Also, how can you explain Wheeler Feynman absorber theory solely in terms of the speed of light? *Aliens wouldn't get here unless they could exceed the speed of light, which, in Einstein's theories, is stated by ASSUMPTION as a limit. It has never been proven an unbreakable limit, to wit Hawking's black holes that allow the escape of particles--due to negative energy, of course. Hawking actually argues that they would marginally exceed the speed of light to escape, then would slow for a concomitantly brief period after escaping the black hole's event horizon.

Finally, this entire universe could not have escaped from its original singularity if we were entirely bounded by your linear constraint. Yet here we are... Faster than light relationships make no sense in terms of flat spacetime propagation, of course, but in terms of extra dimensions, they are more plausible. You argue in terms of solely local quantities, the whole-numbered energy values for an electron, the table-top values of other quanta. Not that such are invalid, of course... Instead, you probably need to also model a multi-mathematical parallel or parallels in your reasoning. Sure, you can quote various texts, all of which invariably run into the Einstein limit, the speed of light, etc. But all of those texts cannot definitively explain quantum peculiarities, the beginning of the universe, Hawking's evaporating black holes, and more.

Hawking and others' models of "quantum cosmology" may seem flawed in terms of more traditional localized constraints, yet they at least pose the universal value (any valid integrated, or unified physics, value) in every reference. My more generic response to your line of reasoning is: how can you hope to adequately model the universe and its quanta if you limit yourself to one, solely linear kind of mathematic--premised on a Cartesian coordinate system in which every point is infinitely small and non-existent, essentially posing an unchanging static value for any and all of its parameters? Such is literally impossible, only idealized, as is our whole-number mathematic. We invented it to model order, yet no whole numbers can be found in nature, none. They are only construed as such, but cannot exist apart from the larger, more definitive universal whole, the only whole refence of validity. Quanta can be idealized as islolated, yet they are always smeared out and around, possibly also inward also. They are always affected by various "forces" (perhaps better seen as "effects," of a more complex multidimensional sort in negative energy dynamics).

Any infinitely small (Cartesian point-singular) quantity would undergo relativistic effects or distortions (i.e. negative energy fluctuations), and, in the case of space-time, literally teeming with virtual particles that appear and disappear before they can be observed, we actually measure the Casimir effect. The Casimir effect partly proves that the Cartesian reference is only idealized--rendering many of your assumptions invalid. Try shrinking any reference point infinitely and what do you get? Weird distortions in the very structure of space-time that only string theory and other more advanced models can even approximate. Take a look at Louis Neilsen's (Denmark) physics of Holistic Quantum Cosmology with Decreasing Gravity (on the web). I'm not selling anything here, Warren. You're simply reciting someone else's ideas without even questioning them. I mean no disrespect---you've obviously studied such phenomena, yet you clearly, unmistakeably need a multi-mathematic (see Witten's M theory), you need to get past the impossible and unsustainable limitations of an archaic mathematic--Cartesian flatland models of categorically deeper phenomena. Black holes do not disappear from this universe, and, according to any basic model of negative energy dynamics or electrogravity, if you will, they CANNOT be infinitely deep. Instead, they interact with us gravitationally---they determine the structure of this galaxy and probably the larger universal energy condition. *I seem to have coined the term energy condition, yet it is nonetheless a valid universal concept.

Even in Einstein's view of relativistic equivalency, all points of reference seem equal, yet all are DEEPLY active, as is the energy condition of the entire universe (the entire universal reference on values for all energy phenomena--excluding no single black hole, excluding no gravitic or "electrogravitic" phenomena. )

Read CSETI's testimony, in which nearly 600 former defense, intelligence and aviation officials state that they have seen UFO's and even extraterrestrials. Former astronauts with PhD's (at least two such) are among them. Many of the witnesses describe electrogravity in detail, its technology (captured or reverse-engineered) and its necessity for viable interstellar travel as described in the www.disclosure.org (CSETI testimony). Electrogravity isn't just weird; it is reportedly alien, literally.

[chroot]

Originally posted by George LoBuono
in the jump to a higher energy level, the transition is effectively instantaneous, isn't it?
No.
but would, at best accelerate toward infinity.
What does "accelerate toward infinity" mean? How can you accelerate toward an abstract concept?
Correct me if I am wrong, but the tunneling of a an electron in a semiconductor, its disappearance then reappearance, is effectively instantaneous.
You are wrong.
If you were to argue the case for at least some measurable time interval, then we might have to model the activity in terms of a negative energy, extra-dimensional model, only a near-simultaneity of sorts.
We model tunneling as a spread in a particle's wave function (the square of which represents measurement probability) such that the particle has a non-zero probability of appearing on the opposite side of the potential barrier. It requires no negative energy or extra dimensions, or any other hogwash.
Also, how can you explain Wheeler Feynman absorber theory solely in terms of the speed of light?
I have no idea what you're asking me to do.
the speed of light, which, in Einstein's theories, is stated by ASSUMPTION as a limit.
No, all of relativity is derived essentially from Lorentz transforms. The derivation quite easily shows how momentum can increase without bound, but velocity cannot.
It has never been proven an unbreakable limit
Every experiment done to date in particle accelerators indicates it is a limit.
to wit Hawking's black holes that allow the escape of particles--due to negative energy, of course.
There is no need to invoke any spooky negative energy to explain Hawking radiation.
Hawking actually argues that they would marginally exceed the speed of light to escape, then would slow for a concomitantly brief period after escaping the black hole's event horizon.
Wrong. Hawking radiation deals with virtual pairs that are created outside the event horizon. One happens to fall in, one happens to escape. The black hole has thus lost mass and energy. No particles can ever escape from within the event horizon.
Finally, this entire universe could not have escaped from its original singularity if we were entirely bounded by your linear constraint.
I have no idea what "escaped" means, or how you're making the case that Big Bang cosmology and relativity are not compatible.
but in terms of extra dimensions, they are more plausible.
Not necessarily. Operations of the Lorentzian O(3,1) group could be extended to higher dimensions without changing their form.
You argue in terms of solely local quantities, the whole-numbered energy values for an electron, the table-top values of other quanta.
Once again, I have no idea what you're talking about. Whole numbered energy values? You can pick any units you'd like to describe energy. Whole numbers in one unit system are not whole numbers in another.
Instead, you probably need to also model a multi-mathematical parallel or parallels
And what exactly would a "multi-mathematical parallel" be?
But all of those texts cannot definitively explain quantum peculiarities, the beginning of the universe, Hawking's evaporating black holes, and more.
Apparently neither can you.
how can you hope to adequately model the universe and its quanta if you limit yourself to one, solely linear kind of mathematic--premised on a Cartesian coordinate system in which every point is infinitely small and non-existent, essentially posing an unchanging static value for any and all of its parameters?
We don't limit ourselves to Cartesian coordinate systems. General relativistic calculations, for example, are performed in a tensor bundle. You can represent any geometry by any convienent coordinate system.
We invented it to model order, yet no whole numbers can be found in nature, none.
If I declare that the speed of light is 1 unit, then the speed of light is a whole number. If I take an apple out of my bag and put it on my table, I have one apple on my table.
Quanta can be idealized as islolated, yet they are always smeared out and around, possibly also inward also.
"inward?"
They are always affected by various "forces" (perhaps better seen as "effects," of a more complex multidimensional sort in negative energy dynamics).
The concept of a force is a pre-eminent one in physics. In no sense does modern physics suffer from a lack of non-rigorous hand-waving of the sort you prefer.
Any infinitely small (Cartesian point-singular) quantity would undergo relativistic effects or distortions (i.e. negative energy fluctuations), and, in the case of space-time, literally teeming with virtual particles that appear and disappear before they can be observed
How can a quantity fluctuate? What are you talking about?
we actually measure the Casimir effect. The Casimir effect partly proves that the Cartesian reference is only idealized
The Casimir effect has nothing to do with anything Cartesian.
Try shrinking any reference point infinitely and what do you get? Weird distortions in the very structure of space-time that only string theory and other more advanced models can even approximate.
What is a "reference point?" How may I "shrink" one?
Take a look at Louis Neilsen's (Denmark) physics of Holistic Quantum Cosmology with Decreasing Gravity (on the web). I'm not selling anything here, Warren.
Why? Holism? Physics?
You're simply reciting someone else's ideas without even questioning them.
You don't know me in any respect whatsoever. You have no idea what I have questioned, or in what manner I have questioned it.
I mean no disrespect---you've obviously studied such phenomena, yet you clearly, unmistakeably need a multi-mathematic (see Witten's M theory)
No, I clearly, unmistakably, do not need a theory whose very named is nonsense.
you need to get past the impossible and unsustainable limitations of an archaic mathematic--Cartesian flatland models of categorically deeper phenomena.
I believe I, and every other person trained in GR or QM goes beyond "Cartesian flatland" as a matter of course.
Black holes do not disappear from this universe, and, according to any basic model of negative energy dynamics or electrogravity, if you will, they CANNOT be infinitely deep.
Deep? Since when have black holes had a "depth?"
*I seem to have coined the term energy condition, yet it is nonetheless a valid universal concept.
You're missing one part of the "coining" process -- the definition.
Even in Einstein's view of relativistic equivalency, all points of reference seem equal, yet all are DEEPLY active, as is the energy condition of the entire universe (the entire universal reference on values for all energy phenomena--excluding no single black hole, excluding no gravitic or "electrogravitic" phenomena. )
I have no idea what the hell this means. Active? Universal reference? Electrogravitic? Speak English.
Read CSETI's testimony, in which nearly 600 former defense, intelligence and aviation officials state that they have seen UFO's and even extraterrestrials.
Who cares? You were all about telling me to question things, and not fall for dogma. Who says your dogma is better than mine? My dogma can beat up your dogma.
Former astronauts with PhD's (at least two such) are among them. Many of the witnesses describe electrogravity in detail, its technology (captured or reverse-engineered) and its necessity for viable interstellar travel as described in the www.disclosure.org (CSETI testimony). Electrogravity isn't just weird; it is reportedly alien, literally.
Mmmmhmmm...

- Warren

[(Q)]

George

Are you referring to this link:

http://www.disclosureproject.org/

If so, that website is full of complete nonsense.

[Adam]

First, "mmm-hmm" does not constitute an intelligent reponse.

Now, for the woefully ignorant, I shall let you in on a little secret: the military forces of the technologically advanced nations have technology not seen by the general public. Advanced stuff. Generally, if technology moves from the military into the civilian sector, it often takes 5 or 10 years. But much tech simply never gets released into civilian hands. And I guarantee there are terms used in the military, around the world, which have been used for centuries, which civilians generally do not know.

A very important thing to remember is that the military watches and listens far more than any of you civilians do. Every warship, recon plane, satellite, and remote communications and EW station for every military on the planet is constantly watching and listening, for anything. I myself have seen UFOs - in other words, things I could not identify. Not aliens, not flying saucers, merely things I could no identify. Most people who listen and watch for a living will see such blips and odd signals at one time or another.

[chroot]

Originally posted by Adam
Now, for the woefully ignorant, I shall let you in on a little secret:

I believe that George LoBuono is totally, 100% correct.

[George LoBuono]

Warren, I'm not a physicist, but Feynman is widely quoted for his remark about the two slit experiment neatly illustrating the essentials of quantum mechanics. Also, a two-slit experiment isn't EPR, nor is EPR philosophical. EPR, and Bell's theorum have been demonstrated with split laser beams on lab tabletops. To a certain extent, both pose ironies that allow for more evolved explanations than those we see today.

Obviously, I cannot demonstrate negative energy to you, BUT, the two PhD's who wrote the Scientific American article (not fishwrap, is it?) cite professionally-recognized production of negative energy fluctuations in vacuum, as described above. Clearly, I tend to interpret and speculate about some of what I discuss, but, my own ideas aside, there is growing scientific discussion of "electrogravity." Also, until you've read the CSETI testimonies (570 on tape to date), you might not want to judge them. They are made by credible, professional engineers, some PhD's, astronauts, ranking generals, men who worked in the White House, and even men who directed nuclear missile sites---not men who are prone to prolonged fits of delusion. Their observations are corroborated and succinct, documented in the public record.

Every appearance of major new ideas seems radical, if not impossible, i.e. as did relativity in 1905, yet invariably, our entire framework for physics is revolutionized by new discoveries. Unlike John Horgan's The End of Science, I have little doubt that we are on the verge of a major sea change of ideas. According to widespread testimony of highly credible professionals--prepared to go before the US Congress to press for disclosure of what they have seen in black budget labs, here in the US, we are at least decades into an electrogravitic or scalar electromagnetic revolution of physics. The notion of electrogravity isn't mine, but I do try to re-examine it in a context that you no doubt would consider speculative. I've personally witnessed the use of electrogravitic technologies, here in the United States. Others' reports about similar events are numerous and often impeccably well-qualified, albeit controversial. Assuming that you live in Britain, I should add that electrogravitic technology has been reported as existing in your country also. However, it is all black budget. It isn't openly acknowledged, except by those whistleblowers who are part of what is known, here in the US, as the Acclimation Project---slow, gradual leaks of info. of the sort, including reports about extraterrestrial technology. (See the book by Col. Philip Corso--also controversial, yet written by a highly professional man.)

I am a published writer of literature and investigative news reports, Warren, but I'm not a professional scientist. My wife is a doctoral candidate in electrical engineering, hence your arguments are not new to me.

Please, read the Lawrence Ford PhD and Thomas Roman PhD article in Sci Am--it covers new ground, which, if I am not mistaken, you will travel across over and over again, in the relatively near future. Science is not a body of certainties. All theories remain open questions, subject to revision. Try destructively interfering electrogravity in three dimensions on a tabletop in a lab. You will surely note phenomena of a curious sort in the process, provided your equipment is phased, timed and tuned correctly.

You get the last word, here. I'm not a science professional, but I have heard the discussions of numerous science professionals of a very evolved sort on this very topic. I may have mis-stated a few specifics, owing to having done graduate study in history, not the physical sciences. Nonetheless, I do not misrepresent the basic drift of what those incredibly gifted and futuristic minds have communicated. Electrogravity is not illusion. It is a staple of the US defense structure, which tried to keep it quiet, yet failed to do so. The cat is out of the bag, forever, it seems...

[chroot]

Originally posted by George LoBuono
Warren, I'm not a physicist, but Feynman is widely quoted for his remark about the two slit experiment neatly illustrating the essentials of quantum mechanics.
You misquoted him. As I distinctly said, Feynman did not say what you said he said.
Also, a two-slit experiment isn't EPR, nor is EPR philosophical.
Yes, it is an example of EPR. The resolution of the paradox is philosophical.
Obviously, I cannot demonstrate negative energy to you, BUT, the two PhD's who wrote the Scientific American article (not fishwrap, is it?) cite professionally-recognized production of negative energy fluctuations in vacuum, as described above.
I read the article. It's based entirely on stuff that doesn't exist. Sure, you can call the cause of the Casimir effect "negative energy," because the region between the plates has less energy than a normal vacuum. That's just a matter of semantics -- where you choose to put your index of what "zero" is. In the same sense, their usage of the term "negative energy" with relation to Hawking radiation is sketchy at best. The two "forms" of negative energy (Casimir, and Hawking) are in fact nothing at all similar, any more than 1 duck is similar to 1 elephant.

The rest of the article describes all of the amazing technologies that could be realized if we could collect negative energy -- energy which bends space the opposite way of positive energy. Even the "negative energy" between plates in the Casimir apparatus can't do this. This stuff doesn't exist. It hasn't ever existed. There are no established theories that might give credence to the idea it might exist.
Clearly, I tend to interpret and speculate about some of what I discuss, but, my own ideas aside, there is growing scientific discussion of "electrogravity."
You'd do well as a "professional author" to indicate when and how your prose wanders into abject speculation.
Also, until you've read the CSETI testimonies (570 on tape to date), you might not want to judge them. They are made by credible, professional engineers, some PhD's, astronauts, ranking generals, men who worked in the White House, and even men who directed nuclear missile sites---not men who are prone to prolonged fits of delusion. Their observations are corroborated and succinct, documented in the public record.
Who cares? There are nutters in every field, and at every rung in the educational ladder.
Every appearance of major new ideas seems radical, if not impossible, i.e. as did relativity in 1905
This is a tired and inaccurate argument. Relativity did not seem radical at all -- Einstein simply gathered the existing theories of Lorentz, Poincare, Minkowski and others. Physicists already had enough puzzles on the table, and relativity solved many of them. Few people in the physics community fought relativity -- most embraced it.
I have little doubt that we are on the verge of a major sea change of ideas.
I don't really care what John Horgan says, but I tend to agree with you -- I think we are certainly on the verge of a major upheavel in physics. Right now, the standard model fails to describe quantum gravity, and there are many puzzles left unsolved in particle physics. There's a strong chance the next Big Theory is coming soon. But you know what? It's not going to be the 'electrogravity' pushed by a bunch of kooky UFOlogists with no physical training.
According to widespread testimony of highly credible professionals--prepared to go before the US Congress to press for disclosure of what they have seen in black budget labs, here in the US, we are at least decades into an electrogravitic or scalar electromagnetic revolution of physics.
Do you have your foil hat on?
I've personally witnessed the use of electrogravitic technologies
Step 1. Define 'electrogravitic technology.'
Step 2. Provide indisputable proof that it has been used. Anecdotes don't count.
here in the United States. Others' reports about similar events are numerous and often impeccably well-qualified, albeit controversial.
You're really placing way too much faith in the strength of credentials.
Assuming that you live in Britain, I should add that electrogravitic technology has been reported as existing in your country also.
Step 1. Step 2.
However, it is all black budget. It isn't openly acknowledged, except by those whistleblowers who are part of what is known, here in the US, as the Acclimation Project---slow, gradual leaks of info. of the sort, including reports about extraterrestrial technology. (See the book by Col. Philip Corso--also controversial, yet written by a highly professional man.)
Your mind is stuffed full of conspiracy theories... it's a shame.
I am a published writer of literature and investigative news reports, Warren, but I'm not a professional scientist.
Then kindly get back to writing articles on Bigfoot sightings, and shut the hell up about physics.
Please, read the Lawrence Ford PhD and Thomas Roman PhD article in Sci Am
I did.
it covers new ground
It does not.
which, if I am not mistaken, you will travel across over and over again in the relatively near future.
Highly doubtful.
Science is not a body of certainties. All theories remain open questions, subject to revision. Try destructively interfering electrogravity in three dimensions on a tabletop in a lab. You will surely note phenomena of a curious sort in the process, provided your equipment is phased, timed and tuned correctly.
Care to be less vague?
You get the last word, here. I'm not a science professional, but I have heard the discussions of numerous science professionals of a very evolved sort on this very topic.
How can you even hope to understand the 'very evolved sort' of talk on a subject in which you don't even have an elementary understanding?
I may have mis-stated a few specifics, owing to having done graduate study in history, not the physical sciences. Nonetheless, I do not misrepresent the basic drift of what those incredibly gifted and futuristic minds have communicated.
You're missing something -- something big. Science is not about "drifts" and gists and halfling concepts. Science is about rigor, precision, and empirical evidence. You haven't a clue what you're reading.
Electrogravity is not illusion. It is a staple of the US defense structure, which tried to keep it quiet, yet failed to do so. The cat is out of the bag, forever, it seems...
"I'm shaking in my little space boots."

- Warren

[(Q)]

George

I've personally witnessed the use of electrogravitic technologies, here in the United States....Assuming that you live in Britain, I should add that electrogravitic technology has been reported as existing in your country also.

The link below will take you to a crank site. In it, Jerry E Bayles has proclaimed Electrogravity as a Unified Field Theory. An excerpt from one of his many papers (Electrogravity Energy Resonance As A Vertical Energy Ladder To Space), of which he has obviously spent much time working:

Thus a UFO could be standing still (and be invisible) if it were totally in the imaginary wavefunction mode.

This may also explain why UFO's seem at times to be translucent and also why they would want to avoid radar. Radar would tend to interfere with the wavefunction, maybe even cause the UFO to crash. Just a Roswell type thought.

http://www.electrogravity.com/

Electrogravity is not illusion.

That much is true - Electrogravity is a delusion.

[wet1]

I would suggest that we would look for a CO2/O2 signature. Why?

For one, we must look for what we know. We do know that life can and does exist under these circumstances.

We stand a far better chance of communicating and finding life that we are reasonably familiar with. Even in this area it is difficult enough. We know that dophins are reasonably intellegent. That is not to say that they have writing, civilization advances, ect. Only that they stand the chance of "being possibly able" to communicate, and only with help we might develop. Whether they actually can or ever will is of no matter. Only that they are of close enough that it might be possible.

The above is a lackluster example of what troubles we would enounter if we actually found intelligent life elsewhere, no matter the conditions.

The carbon dioxide-oxygen cycle is well enough understood that we could reasonably expect to find life where the free oxygen percentage is high enough as it does not occur naturally without some sort of life to aid it. Whether that life be bacteria or higher functioning creatures would be wide open to speculation.

Any other form/enviroment would well pass us by without even a notice and just as well.

Any advanced race within the parameters of our own enviromental criteria would most likely be self-evident. Our civilizations have shown that advance is keyed to available energy. The higher we have risen in tech advance, the more energy has been needed to sustain that civilization. More energy used, the more wasteful emissions are there for telltales of our presence. Another civilization would most likely have the same types of signatures. If they don't is probable that we are too different to communicate or for their presence to do us any good.

The distances and vastness of space insure that we could look under every nook, rock, and cranny for the rest of our species' life and never find anything that resembles advanced life without narrowing the search's parameters to something we could handle.

[George LoBuono]

Warren, If you were to post an opinion on a history or writing board that, at some point, showed a lack of professional precision, do you think anyone on that board would suggest that you "shut the hell up" about either subject---or compare your ideas to loose talk about "Bigfoot"? It is doubtful, of course. Other non-professionals on this board also suggest untested (and unproveable) alternative ideas. If anything, Sci Forum's discussions may actually gain by some of their creative input--provided such writers don't make false claims about experimental results and professional credentials.

Here a few quotes that diverge from your opinions: (from p. 80 of Steven Hawking's Black Holes and Baby Universes) "A black hole is a region of space from which it is impossible to escape if one is traveling at less than the speed of light. But the Feynman sum over histories says that particles can take any path through space-time. Thus, it is possible for a particle to travel faster than light. The probability is low for it to move a long distance at more than the speed of light, but it can go faster than light for just far enough to get out of the black hole, and then go slower than light. In this way the uncertainty principle allows particles to escape from what was thought to be the ultimate prison, a black hole." Hawking goes on to suggest that this would be more likely for a smaller, (hypothetical) "primordial" black hole, than for a stellar mass version, since the f.t.l. distance required would be much smaller. Speaking of superluminal physics, many major university physics departments have groups working on superluminal phenomena relating to various technologies.

Also, re the time it takes a particle to tunnel through a barrier, i.e. in a transistor: (from p.177 of Paul Davies' book About Time) "there is a subtle difference between determining when a particle tunneled, and how long it took. If we are only interested in the total duration between start and finish, and not the actual moment of tunneling, there is a chance we can still measure it... In fact, the Berkeley researchers attempted to do just that (Chiao, Kwait and Steinberg)." *Using an apparatus in which photons arrive at a beam splitter simultaneously and, for reasons of quantum interference, go to the same detector, they placed a barrier in one of the paths, requiring the photon to tunnel through the barrier. Again, Davies writes: "When the experiment was actually performed, the results were amazing. With the barrier inserted, the photon that tunneled arrived first! In other words, the barrier seemed to speed the photon up. But the photon was already traveling at the speed of light, so on the face of it, the photon that tunneled did so faster than light! The Berkeley group inferred a boost to the photon's velocity of some 70 percent--i.e., the photon tunneled at over five hundred thousand kilometers per second." The speed of light is 300 thousand km/sec.

Again, Davies writes about how long a particle takes to tunnel: "Textbooks on quantum mechanics give a variety of answers. According to some authors the process is instantaneous: the particle simply disappears from one side of the barrier and instantly reappears on the far side. Others say the time is simply not defined--we can never know the answer."

Due to the uncertainty principle, the fewer number of times that a wave cycles, the less certain we can be of its frequency. As T. Kuphaldt suggests, "taking this concept to its logical extreme, a short pulse -- a waveform that doesn't even complete a cycle -- actually has no frequency, but rather acts as an infinite range of frequencies." Again, due to the uncertainty principle, electrons exist as probability "clouds," not as discrete pieces of matter. This "thingless" and non-concrete nature of all quanta is enigmatic, counter-intuitive to some, as it was, initially, for Einstein. Others have suggested that the logical extremes of the uncertainty principle have even weirder implications, i.e. Feynman's sum over histories, in which a moving quantum's wave functions extend throughout the entire universe, such that the apparent waveform is due to the fact that the universe's other wave functions cancel, except for, and leaving only, the interference that we observe as the quantum's path of travel.

Hawking went further, suggesting that the logical extreme of the uncertainty principle would permit so much energy to be momentarily "borrowed" from empty space, in the form of rapidly appearing, then disappearing "virtual" particles, that some such fluctuations would allow a black hole to appear, then disappear. To some this seems ridiculous, because, within a black hole's event horizon, space and time are thought to be reversed. So, the effects would be exotic if a singularity were to "actually" appear. String theory suggests that such a phenomena could cause a kind of dimensional flip, a reversal that would extend inward--deeper than the basic Planck limit on time and wavelength. As such, there would be actively fluctuating inward dimensions of space-time, or would it be time-space? Or, instead, would there be merged qualities of sorts, a convergence, smeared out universally, of gravity and electromagnetism (and time), if not more? In either case, I agree with a recent article in New Scientist: black holes aren't "real." They can't be whole numbered quantities, due to the merged character of the phenomena within them. As I suggested, in an alternative mathematical sense, they are simply fractional, parts of a much greater universal quantity (over the "whole" of time).

What I suggested in previous posts, is that the supposed infinite mass of singular conditions may not be solely "mass," as we would define it in terms of our tabletop physics perspective on measurable quanta, but may, instead, be of an extra-dimensional character, given the contradictions inherent in the notion of the "infinite" density within any singularity. Hawking speaks of tidal uncertainties within a singularity, which, in various writings on electrogravity, may have a kind of alternately-cycled correlation to larger scale (negative energy) fluctuations which extend far across the universe, albeit manifest locally at much finer, sub-Planck intervals, i.e. within the extra dimensions of Calabi Yau topologies. In fact, why would our marginally fuzzed observations of a macro (eye apparatus) even be definitive at all? Not to deny good science, but... what if the only definitive perspective on events occurs at the microscopic level, i.e. at deeper dimensional, merged quality sub-Planck levels?

Again, to speculate freely, which, unlike yourself, I have no qualms about doing, Warren --- maybe those hundreds of witnesses featured in CSETI testimony aren't speaking pure nonsense, as you and another gentleman on this board argue. Maybe their experience is simply different from yours. Frankly, and this is meant with no disrespect, it's hard to see how you will ever conceive of a new framework if you don't suspend your basic conclusions, at least temporarily, to consider fairly radical alternatives.

Again, we don't see electrons moving across the distance between an atom's energy levels, due to the incompatibility of their wave function and the distance, so how can we state that we know the time it takes for an electron to jump up from one valence shell to another? When a probability cloud (the electron) that is smeared around in space-time instantaneously accepts a discrete amount of light energy, then travels across a gap in which it cannot be measured, there are obviously problems. Also, due to the uncertainty principle, we can't state its exact location and speed at the same time, hence it would either exist in various places--if we were to posit a sub-luminal travel across the gap, or it would travel at a speed that we cannot determine if we suppose a certain location. If you have a definitive source on electron velocity, can you quote it?

Finally, do you think there are virtual particles, virtual photons, etc. in space-time, or anywhere else, for that matter? The very existence of space is mystery from the quantum perspective, as is a quantum from the perspective of nothingness.

[George LoBuono]

I was obviously wrong about all quantum phsicists positing an instantaneous jump across atomic energy levels. But, then again, I haven't found a source that state a given speed, either. A source, anyone? :confused:

[chroot]

George,

Good lord, you have diarrhea of the mouth. Perhaps if you shut the big trap for a while and l i s t e n e d, you might learn something.

Originally posted by George LoBuono
Warren, If you were to post an opinion on a history or writing board that, at some point, showed a lack of professional precision
You see, George, I don't go onto history and writing websites and pollute them with nonsense. You, however, do go onto science websites and pollute them with nonsense. This is the fundamental difference between you and I.
Sci Forum's discussions may actually gain by some of their creative input--provided such writers don't make false claims about experimental results and professional credentials.
And what could they possibly gain?

Ok now, let's have a look-see at your bibliography:

John Horgan's "The End of Science"
Stephen Hawking's "Black Holes and Baby Universes"
Paul Davies' "About Time"

Three essentially crackpot-drivel pop-sci paperbacks sold at grocery stores everywhere.

Can you define any of the following for me?

- Minkowski space
- The Feynman path integral
- The commutator relation
- A probability amplitude
- The vacuum solution to Einstein's equation

No? Why not? Think about this for a moment:

Do you really think these books will teach you anything? Do you really think that "getting an education in physics" is done by reading Hawking? If so, I fear for your sanity.

You need to understand that you will never gain a deep insight into physics from prose, because prose is not precise enough. The prose in those trash-sci books on your shelf was inspired from various qualities of various mathematical formalisms which you do not understand. You have no hope of being able to apply the prose in any context. At best, you'll just confound yourself by arriving at various misunderstandings that are allowed by the prose, but not by the more rigorous math behind it.
Feynman sum over histories says that particles can take any path through space-time. Thus, it is possible for a particle to travel faster than light.
Sorry, but that's like saying "you can choose any roadways you'd like to go home tonight, so it's possible to go a billion miles an hour." It's wrong. Point of fact, if you do some research into the Feynman path integral, you'll discover that, in fact, it clearly says nothing about superluminal motion.
The probability is low for it to move a long distance at more than the speed of light, but it can go faster than light for just far enough to get out of the black hole, and then go slower than light. In this way the uncertainty principle allows particles to escape from what was thought to be the ultimate prison, a black hole."
Invoking the uncertainty principle to cover up holes in one's knowledge is not a tactic likely to succeed in an argument, George. The truth is that, of course, the uncertainty principle means that all of our beloved conservation laws can be broken by a particle, because a particle does not have a precise position in space.
Speaking of superluminal physics, many major university physics departments have groups working on superluminal phenomena relating to various technologies.
They certainly have projects that deal with the propagation of waves through various well-prepared media, such that the early part of the wave contains enough information for the wave to be reconstructed before completely entering the medium. In a very similar way, as has been pointed out on this board, you can make your own version of superluminal "motion" by waving a paper in front of a lightbulb. If you're far enough away, the shadow will move faster than light. You still cannot send particles, or information, faster than light.
Also, re the time it takes a particle to tunnel through a barrier, i.e. in a transistor:
ELECTRONS DON'T TUNNEL IN NORMAL TRANSISTORS.
requiring the photon to tunnel through the barrier. Again, Davies writes: "When the experiment was actually performed, the results were amazing. With the barrier inserted, the photon that tunneled arrived first! In other words, the barrier seemed to speed the photon up. But the photon was already traveling at the speed of light, so on the face of it, the photon that tunneled did so faster than light! The Berkeley group inferred a boost to the photon's velocity of some 70 percent--i.e., the photon tunneled at over five hundred thousand kilometers per second." The speed of light is 300 thousand km/sec.
I'll have to look further into this experiment to demonstrate how it does not actually say what you think it says -- your prose is not specific enough for me to recognize the misunderstanding. I'll get back to you.
Again, Davies writes about how long a particle takes to tunnel: "Textbooks on quantum mechanics give a variety of answers. According to some authors the process is instantaneous: the particle simply disappears from one side of the barrier and instantly reappears on the far side. Others say the time is simply not defined--we can never know the answer."
Energy and time are related through an oddball version of the uncertainty principle. Since you know the initial and final energies of the system, you cannot ever know precisely the time frame in which that measurement of energy is correct. In that sense, the time is simply undefined. It still doesn't mean that we're going to make starships and talk to Klingons.
Due to the uncertainty principle, the fewer number of times that a wave cycles, the less certain we can be of its frequency.
I wasn't aware of a commutator relation between k and v. Please, derive it for me.
As T. Kuphaldt suggests, "taking this concept to its logical extreme, a short pulse -- a waveform that doesn't even complete a cycle -- actually has no frequency, but rather acts as an infinite range of frequencies."
This is called Fourier analysis, and hardly has any implication to faster than light travel.
i.e. Feynman's sum over histories, in which a moving quantum's wave functions extend throughout the entire universe, such that the apparent waveform is due to the fact that the universe's other wave functions cancel, except for, and leaving only, the interference that we observe as the quantum's path of travel.
They don't extend over the entire universe. They extend over the particle's horizon. That is a different concept entirely. Do you understand what a horizon is?
Hawking went further, suggesting that the logical extreme of the uncertainty principle would permit so much energy to be momentarily "borrowed" from empty space, in the form of rapidly appearing, then disappearing "virtual" particles, that some such fluctuations would allow a black hole to appear, then disappear.
QED certainly could allow virtual particles to fall within a Schwarzschild radius. So?
To some this seems ridiculous, because, within a black hole's event horizon, space and time are thought to be reversed.
Uh, no.
String theory suggests that such a phenomena could cause a kind of dimensional flip, a reversal that would extend inward--deeper than the basic Planck limit on time and wavelength.
When you see phrases like 'dimensional flip,' you should walk away slowly...
In either case, I agree with a recent article in New Scientist: black holes aren't "real." They can't be whole numbered quantities, due to the merged character of the phenomena within them. As I suggested, in an alternative mathematical sense, they are simply fractional, parts of a much greater universal quantity (over the "whole" of time).
Who cares what you think? Who cares what New Scientist thinks? What is it with your fascination with "whole numbered quantities?" What are you even talking about?
Hawking speaks of tidal uncertainties within a singularity
No one can reputably speak of anything "within" a singularity, owing to the fact that singularities have zero size.
sub-Planck intervals, i.e. within the extra dimensions of Calabi Yau topologies.
Please stop using words you obviously don't understand.
Again, to speculate freely, which, unlike yourself, I have no qualms about doing, Warren --- maybe those hundreds of witnesses featured in CSETI testimony aren't speaking pure nonsense, as you and another gentleman on this board argue.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
- Philip K. Dick
Maybe their experience is simply different from yours. Frankly, and this is meant with no disrespect, it's hard to see how you will ever conceive of a new framework if you don't suspend your basic conclusions, at least temporarily, to consider fairly radical alternatives.
I know nothing of the Universe -- nor do you. I'm a professional, and I spend my days doing astrophysical research. I think I am finely attuned to the idea of exploration. There are many unanswered questions, and I hope to help unravel some of the answers. I just think you have no idea how incredibly bogus your 'radical alternatives' really are. There is no reason for me to continue to consider 'radical alternatives' that are plainly stupid.
how can we state that we know the time it takes for an electron to jump up from one valence shell to another?
We can't. That doesn't mean it happens instantaneously.
If you have a definitive source on electron velocity, can you quote it?
The entire concept of 'electron speed' is bogus. Subatomic particles don't behave like billiard balls.
Finally, do you think there are virtual particles, virtual photons, etc. in space-time, or anywhere else, for that matter? The very existence of space is mystery from the quantum perspective, as is a quantum from the perspective of nothingness.
QED is one of the most successful scientific theories of all time. I think I'd do well to at least keep it in mind, yes.

- Warren

[Rambler]

seems to me that someone's making themselves out to be the world authority in physics (I'm looking at you chroot :bugeye: ).

---------
John Horgan's "The End of Science"
Stephen Hawking's "Black Holes and Baby Universes"
Paul Davies' "About Time"

Three essentially crackpot-drivel pop-sci paperbacks sold at grocery stores everywhere
---------
what exactly have you had published??? why isn't your name known to the entire world...not just those who choose to read sciforums??


---------
Do you really think these books will teach you anything? Do you really think that "getting an education in physics" is done by reading Hawking? If so, I fear for your sanity.
---------

do you really believe that you know more about it the HAWKING?? really?? I'm stunned!!! truely, I guess holding the chair in mathematics at Cambridge is strictly for crackpots.

you need to take a step back and get over yourself. Throwing insults around the way you do doesn't give your rants any more weight.

oh and one last thing....

---------
ELECTRONS DON'T TUNNEL IN NORMAL TRANSISTORS.
---------
I beg to differ. Would you like the names of a few Electronics101 text books???

[chroot]

Originally posted by Rambler
seems to me that someone's making themselves out to be the world authority in physics (I'm looking at you chroot :bugeye: ).
Am I supposed to care what you think? The only thing that matters to me is: truth. It doesn't matter who says it or how they say it; what matters to me is that it's correct. Everything I've said is correct.
what exactly have you had published??? why isn't your name known to the entire world...not just those who choose to read sciforums??
I'm a part-time graduate student and research assistant under a very well-published professor of astronomy and astrophysics at a very well-known university. My name has appeared on various posters and such to date, and will continue to become more common as my own research comes to fruition, though it's taking a while.....
do you really believe that you know more about it the HAWKING?? really?? I'm stunned!!! truely, I guess holding the chair in mathematics at Cambridge is strictly for crackpots.
No, genius, I didn't say that I know more than Hawking. I'll repeat what I said, since you seem to have trouble with reading comprehension:
Originally posted by chroot
Do you really think that "getting an education in physics" is done by reading Hawking?
Besides, Hawking is not the "chair in mathematics," he's the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics. At least get his title right if you intend to use it as an argument.
I beg to differ. Would you like the names of a few Electronics101 text books???
Well, let's see here, genius: I hold a bachelor's in electrical engineering, and I work as an applications engineer for one of the largest semiconductor manufacturers in the world. And if you're interested in learning about tunneling in semiconductor systems, you'd be much better off consulting a text on condensed matter or semiconductor device physics, NOT an electronics text.

So I consulted my copy of "Semiconductor Physics & Devices" by Neamen. Looking up "tunneling" in the index points me to the three-page treatment of the tunnel diode, which is in fact one of the only examples of quantum-mechanical tunneling in semiconductor devices. Neamen has the following to say:
The tunnel diode is a pn junction in which both the n- and p-regions are degeneratively doped... this device does demonstrate the phenomenon of tunneling
The definiton of "degeneratively doped" semiconductor, is of course, a semiconductor so highly doped that it no longer behaves like a semiconductor. As Neamen puts it:
If the impurity concentration increases, the distance between the impurity atoms decreases and a point will be reached when donor electrons, for example, will begin to interact with each other... This overlap occurs when the donor concentration becomes comparable with the effective density of states. When the concentration of electrons in the conduction band exceeds the density of states, the Fermi energy lies within the conduction band [i.e. the bulk material has become an electron conductor]... in a p-type semiconductor... the Fermi energy will lie in the valence band [i.e. the bulk material has become a hole conductor]
I'll leave it to you to verify that neither BJTs nor FETs use any form of degenerative doping.

And since you were so snide as to refer me to any "Electronics101" text, I took the liberty of cracking open my copy of Hambley's "Electronics, 2nd Edition." Not surprisingly, neither the index nor the table of contents seem to contain the word 'tunneling.'

I'm going to leave you with a suggestion, Rambler: if you don't know something, shut up.

- Warren

[Rambler]

Chroot,

--------
Am I supposed to care what you think? The only thing that matters to me is: truth. It doesn't matter who says it or how they say it; what matters to me is that it's correct. Everything I've said is correct.
--------

Frankly...YES you are supposed to care what other people think [on this forum] that's what Sciforums is for!!!! If you really don't care then on your bike sunshine, your not needed.

And what's this truth your on about??? being the intelectual giant you present yourself as, surely you must realise that only a fool would consider theoretical physics as an absolute truth!!!...further just because you have a hard time digesting the possibilty that your closely held tuths maybe flawed or incomplete doesn't give you the right to call anyone who may have misunderstood them an idiot, (let me remind you that at some point you were just as nieve). How about you take the time to demonstrate what you know and point out where an argument maybe incorrect instead of saying it's wrong and then insulting the person who wrote it.

--------
I'm a part-time graduate student and research assistant under a very well-published professor of astronomy and astrophysics at a very well-known university. My name has appeared on various posters and such to date, and will continue to become more common as my own research comes to fruition, though it's taking a while.....
-------

well then thanks for putting it all in perspective, a part-time grad student with he's name on some posters yep... with those acheivements behind you I can see how you can judge Hawking's (and others) works as:

"essentially crackpot-drivel pop-sci paperbacks sold at grocery stores everywhere"

I guess he should have just worked a little harder and got he's name on a few posters hey??

When I get home I'll dust off some of those books for you mmmkay?? (Bare with me chroot there is a point to be made here.)


(yes I realise this post is FULL of spelling mistakes and bad grammer)

[chroot]

Originally posted by Rambler
Frankly...YES you are supposed to care what other people think [on this forum] that's what Sciforums is for!!!!
I don't think you, or anyone else, can really define what sciforums is for.
And what's this truth your on about??? being the intelectual giant you present yourself as, surely you must realise that only a fool would consider theoretical physics as an absolute truth!!!
When did I ever say I consider the standard model to be the absolute truth? I don't remember saying anything of the sort, actually -- what I did, say, however, is that some hypotheses can be immediately proven false (such as much of what George has said), and that it's pointless to waste any additional time considering those hypotheses.
further just because you have a hard time digesting the possibilty that your closely held tuths maybe flawed or incomplete doesn't give you the right to call anyone who may have misunderstood them an idiot
They aren't complete. I know this. And you know what? I absolutely have the right to call someone an idiot when they attempt to challenge a theory they don't even understand.
How about you take the time to demonstrate what you know and point out where an argument maybe incorrect instead of saying it's wrong and then insulting the person who wrote it.
It seems that I generally do try to do this.
well then thanks for putting it all in perspective, a part-time grad student with he's name on some posters yep... with those acheivements behind you I can see how you can judge Hawking's (and others) works
The ad hominem argument is not a strong one.
I guess he should have just worked a little harder and got he's name on a few posters hey??
Okay, let's put THIS into perspective: I am not attacking Hawking personally. He is a bright man, to be sure, but he has recently been wasting his time publishing paperback after paperback full of time warps and wormholes. What I am trying to convey is simply the following:

You can't get an education in physics by reading paperback prose books. George has read several paperback prose books, and feels he is now competent to have a discussion about theoretical physics. He is not.
When I get home I'll dust off some of those books for you mmmkay?? (Bare with me chroot there is a point to be made here.)
What's your point to be made? That electrons really do tunnel in normal transistors? You really have no idea what you're talking about.

- Warren

[Rambler]

-----
I don't think you, or anyone else, can really define what sciforums is for.
-----

Certainly isn't a vehicle for you to release all that misplaced anger Warren....hows that for a start. And my orignal point stands, if you don't care what people think then GO AWAY, why participate in a discussion you don't care about??.

----
When did I ever say I consider the standard model to be the absolute truth? I don't remember saying anything of the sort, actually -- what I did, say, however, is that some hypotheses can be immediately proven false (such as much of what George has said), and that it's pointless to waste any additional time considering those hypotheses
----

so prove them false...just saying your wrong you IDIOT doesn't constitute a proof.

----
They aren't complete. I know this. And you know what? I absolutely have the right to call someone an idiot when they attempt to challenge a theory they don't even understand
----

If you don't treat your collegues with that kind of disrespect then don't spew it out here, or are you some kind of eleetist nerd that only treats part-time grad students with their names on posters with respect?? (ooh that was petty but hey i'm just as human as you)

----
It seems that I generally do try to do this
----

no you don't!! you call it a crackpot theory throw some other insults in the mix, say it's wrong and move on. That's lazy and as I said earlier not needed...any fool can throw insults around Warren.

---
Okay, let's put THIS into perspective: I am not attacking Hawking personally. He is a bright man, to be sure, but he has recently been wasting his time publishing paperback after paperback full of time warps and wormholes. What I am trying to convey is simply the following:

You can't get an education in physics by reading paperback prose books. George has read several paperback prose books, and feels he is now competent to have a discussion about theoretical physics. He is not.
---

and here is the reason for my initial post on this thread.

He most definetly is!!! your job as participant in the discussion is to show him where he's interprtation of the theory is incorrect and why!!
if the discussion is below you don't participate, if you want to point out where he has misinterpreted the theory fine...but for god sakes man step OFF, you DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING!!!


---
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I get home I'll dust off some of those books for you mmmkay?? (Bare with me chroot there is a point to be made here.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What's your point to be made? That electrons really do tunnel in normal transistors? You really have no idea what you're talking about.
----

No that's not it...stay tuned. I'm sure (even if you do think you know it all) you are still capable of learning.

[George LoBuono]

Imagine this: You're sitting with a major semiconductor industry person, talking about Silicon Valley. He seems to know quite a bit---he should, he's the CEO of IBM. (This is a true story). In fact this man was the CEO of IBM only a few years ago, and, in his book about the company he wrote that his entire industry is based on reverse-engineered technology, technology that was copied from downed/captured alien craft materials... extraterrestrials. His book hit the stands about three years ago and was in the news for the alien story. Also, another founder and Silicon Valley chief, Joe Firmage, says that it is an "open secret" among Silicon Valley's top execs that their industry is, in part, premised on captured/downed and then reverse-engineered alien technology. *Firmage, himself, says he had a kind of experience, reportedly with extraterrestrials, yet difficult to verify. His personal anecdote aside, how do we account for the report about his colleagues? Again, Charles Schulman, the founder of the American Computer Company in Massachussets, said a military general gave him blueprints for a device, the "transfer capacitor," which was reverse engneered from a downed alien craft. Schulman proceeded to manufacture the device. *Schulman sold his co about three years ago. Schulman's story is available on the web.

So, what is going on here? Do all of these people lie? Why would they and numerous others risk their professional credibility to make such statements? People with enough money and stature don't need strange attention, yet they speak nonetheless.

It would seem that, if such testimony is true, and if the French defense ministry's famous report (see Leslie Kaen) is true (also the British defense report by Nick Pope, plus the statements of Russia's chairman of the joint chiefs of staff), then aliens have already arrived. If so, it is doubtful that they would do so at light speeds. The damage done by a speck of dust would ruin any craft, plus the time problem would be a major obstacle. If such reports are true (they often allege a kind of electrogravitic technology), then aliens may have used a seemingly faster-than-light technology, a new principle of science that isn't a flat space-time propagation, but a kind of shortcut that avoids the collosal energy requirements of Kip Thorne's wormhole model. How so? Perhaps we need to think outside of the old box, at least to consider the possibility...

[chroot]

Originally posted by George LoBuono
So, what is going on here? Do all of these people lie? Why would they and numerous others risk their professional credibility to make such statements? People with enough money and stature don't need strange attention, yet they speak nonetheless.
No, they're probably not consciously lying -- they're nutcases, and don't realize it. Ask any psychiatrist -- anyone, at any level of the social or business ladder, can go nuts.

Seeing as I work in the semiconductor industry, and consider myself mostly sane, I have to say the following: you don't know what you're talking about and don't believe everything that you read. Trust me, aliens didn't give us the microprocessor. That's got to be the stupidest goddamn thing I've ever heard. You've really outdone yourself, George.

- Warren

[Darth Terent 666]

If other intelligent life were to come to us, they wouldn't just come in a "spaceship" in a straight line to Earth. Doing so would take thousands, if not millions of years, and also, like George said, a particle just as tiny as a grain of sand could damage the craft beyond repair.

Most likely, they would have to put Quantum Mechanics to work. In Quantum Mechanics, particles, such as ions, gluons, etc., constantly teleport between different points in the universe, or, if M theory is correct, other universes as well. So, the "aliens" may have figured out how to harness the power of the Quantum particles enabling them to teleport between two points in the universe at any given time. It is sort of like a wormhole.

However, the problem is that when you Quantum leap, you can't decide WHERE you will appear. However, these beings are probably WAY more advanced then we are, so they might know more then we do.

[Novacane]

What would be the logical reason for an intelligent group of aliens to travel hundreds or thousands of light years to our planet Earth anyhow? If they landed here, they would probably risk losing thier spaceship being taken away from them, stripped down and torn apart over it's superior technology and then the aliens would probably be 'wisked' away to parts unknown for endless hours of questioning from secret governement agents, plus hundreds of medical exams all for the sake of science. If I were them, I'd say forget about coming to planet Earth. 'No' real good reason to come here.

[Darth Terent 666]

It is possible that the "aliens" former planet is no longer in the condition to support life.
Perhaps they have to move to find another hospitable planet, since theirs' might be too polluted and ruined.
Even though Earth has problems, to them, it is like heaven. So it actually makes sense for them to travel all this while to colonize our planet.

Either that, or their species might be dying out, so they might have to use our genetics to clone. Cloning is real, and it has been done before, so they might want to do that in order to keep their race alive. We humans are a fresh and easy target, so if they have the sophisticated technology to reach us fast, then they actually might want to come.

[Novacane]

It is possible that the "aliens" former planet is no longer in the condition to support life.
Perhaps they have to move to find another hospitable planet, since theirs' might be too polluted and ruined.
Even though Earth has problems, to them, it is like heaven. So it actually makes sense for them to travel all this while to colonize our planet.

Either that, or their species might be dying out, so they might have to use our genetics to clone. Cloning is real, and it has been done before, so they might want to do that in order to keep their race alive. We humans are a fresh and easy target, so if they have the sophisticated technology to reach us fast, then they actually might want to come.

Like heaven? Reach us fast? If they 'ever' do come here, Based on earth's waring history, I think they would be 'crazy' to land here and risk their lives and their spaceship, especially if they landed somewhere in the middle of Washington D.C. Right Gort?:D

[Darth Terent 666]

Yeah, but that does not mean that Earth is the problem. It's US that's the problem, not the Earth.
If they were to find some way to get rid of us (some way, don't debate it), then finally they WOULD be able to use Earth.
And it's true, to them, Earth would be a good planet to live on.

[Novacane]

Yeah, but that does not mean that Earth is the problem. It's US that's the problem, not the Earth.
If they were to find some way to get rid of us (some way, don't debate it), then finally they WOULD be able to use Earth.
And it's true, to them, Earth would be a good planet to live on.

There's a famous ranch down in Crawford, Texas where the aliens could land first and make a quick introduction before they start their crusade :D

[WildBlueYonder]

It is possible that the "aliens" former planet is no longer in the condition to support life.
Perhaps they have to move to find another hospitable planet, since theirs' might be too polluted and ruined. sorry for the late response, I've been distracted with other projects, etc...but

if an alien species is advanced enough to travel quantumly, they should have developed @ least 4 technologies by now:
1) terraforming their own near-by planets
2) lo-tech; the efficient use of raw resources, clean energy production
3) rehab, reclaim & resource extraction from former waste
4) recycling, reuse, green tech (I know, what a novel concept!)

Even though Earth has problems, to them, it is like heaven. So it actually makes sense for them to travel all this while to colonize our planet.would they have a higher moral sense than us, & maybe really have a "Prime Directive"?

Either that, or their species might be dying out, so they might have to use our genetics to clone. Cloning is real, and it has been done before, so they might want to do that in order to keep their race alive. sounds like "Stargate", but if they're really that advanced, why the "mad scientist" scenario, why not do DNA research & gene-splicing on their own species, instead of some wild gambit on being able to do inter-species clones?

We humans are a fresh and easy target, so if they have the sophisticated technology to reach us fast, then they actually might want to come.true, but now that you've blown our cover, it’s your fault, you, you ‘Baltesar’, you, it’s all your fault