Originally posted by (Q)
Have you actually picked up and read a physics book? If so, you would realize just how much your ET visiting Earth ideas are contradicted by physics.

ok q
lets hear your objections
anybody!

its very ignorant to think that the physics we know are the only physics and that our understanding of physics is infalable????

i think its the weakest form of anti ufo/et visitation argument

Originally posted by (Q)
Ives

I’ve offered to answer questions regarding the science behind space travel yet you refuse to ask. You must know well enough that if you do begin understanding these issues, you’re belief system will begin falling like a house of cards. It is quite obvious you prefer to remain oblivious to reality and ignorant to the facts and would much rather choose to wallow in fantasy. It is little wonder you and your ilk are patronized for your beliefs.

It truly is pathetic when people don’t want to learn anything. You have my pity.

cmon home little q

Hi spookz.

Since I'm not a scientist, I'm not qualified to comment on what is possible and what is not. Since I'm not convinced of the validity of the ETH as an explanation for UFOs, the ability to traverse the distances between the stars is a tangental issue.

For some reason, the debunkers continually try to derail UFO discussions by re-directing it to this issue. It is a fairly effective move; certainly I have fallen for it and become involved in useless, circular arguments with debunkers.

Good debunking can be a pleasure. We are discussing a subject in which reasonable minds can differ. To me, there is evidence supporting the proposition that something unknown, and of intelligence, is behind some incidents in the phenomenon. Since the debunkers continually re-direct the conversation towards the question of physics, it appears they feel that this gives them some kind of advantage in the debate. To me, this is putting the horse before the cart; we really should be looking at what the available data is about UFOs rather than forming a hypothesis (the ETH) which cannot be tested or proven proven absent some kind of extraordinary event.

Now, when UFO proponents suggest this, we see that the debunkers, in a panic, insist that we really are pushing the ETH, but must mask this belief to make our position acceptable. This is just another way to keep the argument framed on their own terms. It is a comical cycle:

Proponent: UFOs appear to be a genuine phenomenon suggestive of intelligence.

Debunker: There's nothing suggestive of ET in the phemonenon.

Proponent: - - Okaaaay, but I didn't say anything about ET. I said the phemonenon was suggestive of intelligence.

Debunker: The physics involved make it impossible for ET to travel between the stars.

Proponent: Welll, maybe, maybe not. Hynek called this faith in the current understanding of science "temporal provincialism". But anyway, there are many, many incidents by credible observers that suggest that something is happening, particularly in the atmosphere, that seems intelligently reactive to a human presence, and to our senses appears artificial.

Debunker: That's a closet argument for ET. Your masking your true agenda. ET visiting the Earth is a fiction.

Proponent: I see no reason why we should ignore this kind of repeated event in the atmosphere. All we are asking is that the phenomenon be investigated publicly.

Debunker: You won't discuss the physics of interstellar flight? You're a coward who can't think. Nothing will be gained from the study of UFOs. No public money should be directed towards it. You're a fool patroning nutters who are writing UFO books only for the money.

Of course, this argument could be made against any author, including debunkers. And I've always wondered what is so damn un-American by someone with some expertise writing a book and making some money from it. When did that become a sin? This just shows how shallow the debunkers arguments are. Only on their terms, and every one who disagrees with them is weak minded or a charlatan.

Such conversations produce nothing and many of us, eager for actual conversation, turn and walk away at this point, while the debunker sneers "coward" at our backs. Well, whatever. Fortunately, I don't much care what many debunkers think. Their approach is anti-scientific and anti-empirical, which is indefensible on its face.

Since the debunkers continually re-direct the conversation towards the question of physics, it appears they feel that this gives them some kind of advantage in the debate. To me, this is putting the horse before the cart

The horse does come before the cart.

How can one be convinced ET is visiting Earth without thinking about how they got here? Isn’t that putting the cart before the horse?

i do not understand. the theories are there. research is being done. there is a strong possibilty that something might come out of this. i think it is just a matter of time. lemme check out what current research/theories are out there, post em and the skeptics can knock em down

unless of course q simplifies matters and lays down the objections over the feasibiilty of interstellar travel

It is a fairly effective move; certainly I have fallen for it and become involved in useless, circular arguments with debunkers. (ives)

*you guys are real veterans at this game aint ya'll;)

Amongst all the billions of star systems in our galaxy, how did ET manage to find Earth?

How many species of ET do you think are visiting Earth?

How do you think ET manages to travel throughout our galaxy?

What do you think ET purpose for visiting Earth?

Why do you think ET has not shown themselves to us all?

Amongst all the billions of star systems in our galaxy, how did ET manage to find Earth?

well kjppo was playing truant with his buds and got lost. they came across earth. this is their new hangout...smoke weed/anal probes/blah. honestly !kids these days!

How many species of ET do you think are visiting Earth?

2! no wait...3! no wait...99!

What do you think ET purpose for visiting Earth?

to fuck the bitches

Why do you think ET has not shown themselves to us all?

bad plastic surgery

*if you do not understand why these questions are irrelevant just ask. i dont mind repeating shit

I think Qs point is, assuming it is ET is jumping to conclusions. There are other as unlikely or more liekly options that people disregard. Note that people saying they see aliens does not mean they exist. People also see Elvis, angels, the devil, and pink elephants. Without some kind of proof of what UFOs are, you can't just say that they are aliens.

How do you think ET manages to travel throughout our galaxy?

the guys could have developed a propulsion system that we havent even imagined possible.

other than that, i'll take the liberty of assuming the same epistemological principles that we use is applicable to the aliens (hardly a revolutionary concept given that they are assumed to inhabit the same spacetime as we do)

the simplest way to go about this is figuring out how we would attempt interstellar travel

Ideas Based On What We Know

penn state anti matter (http://www.engr.psu.edu/antimatter/)

Robert Forward’s interstellar laser sails, 1980’s ]laser sails (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/warp/ideaknow.htm#sail)

Ideas Based On What We’d Like To Achieve

Worm Hole transportation (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/warp/ideachev.htm#worm)

Alcubierre’s "Warp Drive" (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/warp/ideachev.htm#alcub)

Negative mass propulsion

(http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/warp/ideachev.htm#neg) Millis’s hypothetical "Space Drives" (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/warp/ideachev.htm#millis)

Some Emerging Possibilities

Lists of Some Intriguing Emerging Physics (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/warp/possible.htm#intrig)

Lists of some preparatory propulsion research (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/warp/possible.htm#prep)

General Relativity (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/warp/possible.htm#genrel)

Vacuum Fluctuations of Quantum Physics (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/warp/possible.htm#vac)

1994 Workshop on Faster-Than-Light Travel (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/warp/possible.htm#work)

now you science types refine/modify/denounce/debunk this crackpottery.
i demand citations to all your assertions. (in a language i can understand)
mindless naysaying will be dealt with in an appropiate manner

The point isn't if interstellar travel is possible. That's a seperate issue. The point is looking for evidence that they are actually here.

All you have are UFOs, whih are unidentified for a reason... no proof of anything else.

Originally posted by Persol
Without some kind of proof of what UFOs are, you can't just say that they are aliens.

if you are content to say nothing, more power to you. as you can see i am far from being reticent on the subject.;)

speculating on motives is a waste of time. i am sure you know the difficulties of doing that with humans, yes?

Originally posted by Persol
The point isn't if interstellar travel is possible. That's a seperate issue. The point is looking for evidence that they are actually here.

All you have are UFOs, whih are unidentified for a reason... no proof of anything else.

you are welcome to define the topic post as you see fit cos i kinda dig ya rap and shit
i however will stick to it if you dont mind
lemme break it down

ET visiting Earth ideas are contradicted by physics."

*physical laws do not allow for space travel
*physical laws do not allow for space travel due to a lack of efficient propulsive systems
*physical laws do not allow for space travel at "vast distances"
*physical laws do not allow for space travel due to constraints of time
*et is incapable of motion
*physical laws do not allow for space travel due to frail biological systems (life span-not really physics)

Ok, if you're only trying to show that it's possible I've got no issues here. I'll move along :)

come to think of it, my breakdown goes off on a tangent

except for the first, the others take into consideration, the peculiarities of our biology. nothing to do with physics really

Originally posted by Persol
Ok, if you're only trying to show that it's possible I've got no issues here. I'll move along :)

no dont
next up... habitable planets....followed by....sentient life.....followed by...... advanced civ

i still wait on q
you will not be allowed to backtrack

Originally posted by spookz
no dont
next up... habitable planets....followed by....sentient life.....followed by...... advanced civ

i still wait on q
you will not be allowed to backtrack I'm still watching, but I don't disagree that any that stuff is possible. I just don't see any evidence for ET (which might be expected)

lots of stuff is possible. i am gonna say it is "highly likely"!;)

habitable planets....sentient life..... advanced civ... - I can buy "highly likely"
'doable' space travel methods/times - 50/50. We don't know enough.
ET visiting earth - unfounded

I say, credible people have seen metal discs in the sky. There are pictures and movies that have them. But with computers as they are, it is easy to say that a movie is a fake, therefore I have concluded that seeing is believing, I have seen and I know. However to the best of my knowledge I have never ever seen an ET in my entire life. Therefore I think it would be illogical to jump to the conclusion that these metal discs are alien-made. Since nature is not capable of making floating metal discs that move sometimes at speeds of 9,000 mph I am left to one alternative. Some of these UFO's are man made, such as odd planes, and others have no wings and fly by an odd means of propulsion while being silent for the most part, it is the fast metal type that I believe are man made.

from the future i presume;)

Oh come now, time travel and worm holes and things of that sort seem more religious-science than science alone.

ahh
you are a child

Spookz

now you science types refine/modify/denounce/debunk this crackpottery.
i demand citations to all your assertions. (in a language i can understand)
mindless naysaying will be dealt with in an appropiate manner

Tossing a bunch of science fiction and crackpot links on a page and making those demands is crap. Why should we make the effort if you don’t?

the guys could have developed a propulsion system that we havent even imagined possible.

Typical response – pointless. As expected from the believers, they can’t begin to fathom what it is they believe.

still trolling eh:D

it is simple. lay down your objections to interstellar travel. do not concern yourself with others.

you made a frikking claim. back it up!

perhaps you are looking for funding in order to make the effort?:D

Sorry spookz

Half your entire vocabulary consists of profanity.

And since you considered my questions 'stupid' and provided answers with kindergarten mentality, I will ignore you.

naturally. q now whines like a child

what a frikkin circus
q is ignored....q ignores...rampant trolling

Originally posted by James R
Half of the problem here is that the discussion seldom gets into details. Instead, things go back and forth, with skeptics flatly denying the possible existence of alien visits, and believers simply naming supposed events as if everybody should know about them and come to the same conclusions.


this is what you fucks turned this forum into, not i!

This topic is going to be a dead end.

Q is quite correct in that arguing against your links is pointless, as most of them are probably wrong since ithe science is still being developed.

Currently, it is a leap of faith to say that FTL travel is possible. It is another to say that aliens exist and have developed this technology. It is yet another to say that they randomly came to our planet. It is yet another to think that they decided we were interesting enough to stick around.

It would make more sense to try and figure out what the object is, and then try and figure out what is inside.

i think it is fantastic that you guys are here posting at sciforums rather than doing cutting edge research at some institution.
the whole world would grind to a halt if that was the case

:D

i mean...as most of them are probably wrong since ithe science is still being developed

...what on earth is that? how can something be wrong if it hasnt been tried yet?

:D

Originally posted by spookz
this is what you fucks turned this forum into, not i!

Which is why you're a moron! I shit on you!

Hehe.

Okay not really, but how about I make up a bunch of bullshit, corroborate it with a bunch of people who can make money off my bullshit and plot to make every strange thing that ever happens part of my bullshit and then act like a moron.. er, i mean like YOU spooky ooky poo.

Persol is right on the money.

You should know it.

I know it.

I wonder if you care though eh?

It'd be interesting to note I'd think that most "debunkers" as "believers" like to put it don't draw conclusions from said evidence, because what conclusion can you draw? Weird stuff happens sometimes? Yeah I believe that? Maybe the government is hiding some stuff? Yeah probably, that's kind of their task from time to time. The government has unimaginable super-tech? Hmm, possible I guess but really moot unless you can get your hands on some to show people so we can bust them.

So let me ask you this:

What do you propose should be done on the basis of the evidence you think you have?

Originally posted by spookz
i think it is fantastic that you guys are here posting at sciforums rather than doing cutting edge research at some institution.
the whole world would grind to a halt if that was the case
You're being an idiot now, which makes me think you don't actually have any actual response.

i mean...as most of them are probably wrong since ithe science is still being developed
...what on earth is that? how can something be wrong if it hasnt been tried yet?
Well, if you actually looked into the theories that YOU brought up, you would know that most of them are mutually exculsive and that they CAN'T all be right. Even ignoring that, if you look at the history of other advanced theories at this level, the MAJORITY have been at least partially wrong... as is too be expected.

Your attempt to say 'it may be possible' is fully correct. Your attempt to mention specifc theories, and then arguing that they are mostly right makes you either A) an idiot, or B) misinformed. Take your pick.

Your complete ignorance of the number of leaps of faith that you need to make to reach 'ET is visting earth' is pathetic.

Okay not really, but how about I make up a bunch of bullshit, corroborate it with a bunch of people who can make money off my bullshit and plot to make every strange thing that ever happens part of my bullshit and then act like a moron.. er, i mean like YOU spooky ooky poo.

stop whining fool. package whatever you want. sell it wherever you want.

Persol is right on the money.

You should know it.

I know it.

I wonder if you care though eh?

first he states...'doable' space travel methods/times - 50/50. We don't know enough.(persol)

then he says...as most of them are probably wrong since the science is still being developed (persol)

where is he "right on the money?" is it the first instance where these methods are held to have potential or the second where they are simply dismissed as wrong. do you not understand that these punks that post here pass themselves off as an authority that has a greater credibility than those that are actually doing the research and experimenting with stuff. it is a simple and old troll that gets played out on all ufo bbs. your intentions are transparent as well, boy!

dumb shit, you lack basic comprehension. an obvious backtrack and the resultant contradiction escapes your notice

It'd be interesting to note I'd think that most "debunkers" as "believers" like to put it don't draw conclusions from said evidence, because what conclusion can you draw? Weird stuff happens sometimes? Yeah I believe that? Maybe the government is hiding some stuff? Yeah probably, that's kind of their task from time to time. The government has unimaginable super-tech? Hmm, possible I guess but really moot unless you can get your hands on some to show people so we can bust them.

hehe, a bunch of garbled crap. neurons just firing randomly eh?

What do you propose should be done on the basis of the evidence you think you have?

i propose to gather them all up, package it into a cylinder and get you to sit on it

Originally posted by spookz
where is he "right on the money?"

Currently, it is a leap of faith to say that FTL travel is possible. It is another to say that aliens exist and have developed this technology. It is yet another to say that they randomly came to our planet. It is yet another to think that they decided we were interesting enough to stick around. (Persol)

you say:

is it the first instance where these methods are held to have potential or the second where they are simply dismissed as wrong. do you not understand that these punks that post here pass themselves off as an authority that has a greater credibility than those that are actually doing the research and experimenting with stuff. it is a simple and old troll that gets played out on all ufo bbs. your intentions are transparent as well, boy!

i told you to get back on your meds bitch. the overlord will not be denied! you have been warned!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by spookz
first he states...'doable' space travel methods/times - 50/50. We don't know enough.(persol)

then he says...as most of them are probably wrong since the science is still being developed (persol)

where is he "right on the money?" is it the first instance where these methods are held to have potential or the second where they are simply dismissed as wrong.
Perhaps you should learn to read. Yes, there may be 'doable' space travel. No, I don't think most of these are 'doable' space travel. Where's the contradiction.

do you not understand that these punks that post here pass themselves off as an authority that has a greater credibility than those that are actually doing the research and experimenting with stuff.
If the 'research and experimenting' you are showing has any bearing, then yes... we are more credible when it comes to the scientific method.

it is a simple and old troll that gets played out on all ufo bbs. your intentions are transparent as well, boy!
Now you're paranoid too?

dumb shit, you lack basic comprehension. an obvious backtrack and the resultant contradiction escapes your notice

What do you propose should be done on the basis of the evidence you think you have?
i propose to gather them all up, package it into a cylinder and get you to sit on it
Well atleast you admit that nothing worthwhile can be done with the quality of evidence that exists.

Well, if you actually looked into the theories that YOU brought up, you would know that most of them are mutually exculsive and that they CAN'T all be right.

where do i make this assertion?

Your attempt to say 'it may be possible' is fully correct. Your attempt to mention specifc theories, and then arguing that they are mostly right makes you either A) an idiot, or B) misinformed. Take your pick.

where do i argue that most are right?

Originally posted by spookz
i do not understand. the theories are there. research is being done. there is a strong possibilty that something might come out of this. i think it is just a matter of time. lemme check out what current research/theories are out there, post em and the skeptics can knock em down

unless of course q simplifies matters and lays down the objections over the feasibiilty of interstellar travel


that is how i got in to this thread. a quest for some answers.

now back your allegations up

Originally posted by spookz
Well, if you actually looked into the theories that YOU brought up, you would know that most of them are mutually exculsive and that they CAN'T all be right.
where do i make this assertion?
'This assertion'? You take issue with my saying 'most of them are probably wrong'. Your only other option is that 'most of them are probably right'. The fact that they are mutually exclusive theories means they can't possibly be mostly right, leaving my original comment as still valid. Your statement that 'how can something be wrong if it hasnt been tried yet' is just nonsense. If I give you 3 options:
1) the ball is solid white
2) the ball is solid red
3) the ball is solid black
I can say with certainty that they are mostly wrong... even without testing it.

Your attempt to say 'it may be possible' is fully correct. Your attempt to mention specifc theories, and then arguing that they are mostly right makes you either A) an idiot, or B) misinformed. Take your pick.
where do i argue that most are right?
When you argued that I was wrong to say 'that most are wrong' you are only left one other option.

that is how i got in to this thread. a quest for some answers.
As I've been stating, expecting people to knowck these down are just silly. Most are wrong. We have no idea which ones. They may all be wrong. This is not support that aliens could travel FTL.

'This assertion'? You take issue with my saying 'most of them are probably wrong'. Your only other option is that 'most of them are probably right'.

wrong. i simply am not willing to characterize until the scientific theory is fully worked out and all the neccessary experimention carried out. is that not how things should be done? why jump the gun here? why is it me of all people that have to advise you on this?

The fact that they are mutually exclusive theories means they can't possibly be mostly right, leaving my original comment as still valid.

give me examples of the ones that you hold to be "mutually exclusive theories." you appear to hold that only one out of the bunch, if shown to work, automatically negates the science behind the others. i thought that nasa site was the modicum of restraint. they promised nothing, made no outrageous claims. merely explored possibilties.

again the implication you reach is unwarranted.

Your statement that 'how can something be wrong if it hasnt been tried yet' is just nonsense. If I give you 3 options:
1) the ball is solid white
2) the ball is solid red
3) the ball is solid black
I can say with certainty that they are mostly wrong... even without testing it.

the analogy fails to make sense. you are arguing again that the theories are mutually exclusive. even a simple explanation why would prove your point in a more effective manner rather than dragging out colored balls

Most are wrong. We have no idea which ones. They may all be wrong. This is not support that aliens could travel FTL.

these are all statements of faith and wild speculation. you focus on ftl. why? easiest to knock down? you do not know what is wrong but nevertheless most are. that is the most asinine thing i have read in while.

Originally posted by spookz
Ideas Based On What We Know
penn state anti matter
laser sails
Both are out. I said 'doable'. They both make someone reaching this planet on a regular basis almost impossible.

Ideas Based On What We’d Like To Achieve
Worm Hole transportation
Do not allow matter to be carried through in any organized way. Also, is kinda 'obvious'. Requires different behave/existance of negative matter then 'negative matter propulsion'

"Warp Drive"
contradict the same laws of physics that predict worm holes and negative mass propulsion (SR)

Negative mass propulsion
Requires different behave/existance of negative matter then 'worm hole transportation'

Millis’s hypothetical "Space Drives"
Is just a general label for things that don't eject mass (AKA: all of the above) Isn't a method like the others

Lists of Some Intriguing Emerging Physics
Besides the ones that deal with the topics above, the require inertia to be a function of the ZPE, which limits it's velocity.

Lists of some preparatory propulsion research
Not FTL (except for those mentioned above)

General Relativity
Vacuum Fluctuations of Quantum Physics
Faster-Than-Light Travel
All 3 are mutually exclusive.


you focus on ftl. why? easiest to knock down?
No, I focus on 'apparent' FTL because it is the HARDEST to knockdown. Without FTL, the chances of aliens be able to or caring to reach us drop even lower. I have no problem saying 'FTL may be possible'. I have a poblem with you proposing that these are actually possible and technologies that aliens would use.

honestly persol
you are the coolest frikkin cat
however...hopefully, perhaps another physicist will drop in and slap you silly

:)

vrob and 2inquisitive:

in the interest of efficiency i can confidently say "what persol said". we use ET technology to share our brain and collectivate against those who would expose us. :bugeye:

LOL.

Originally posted by wesmorris
vrob and 2inquisitive:

in the interest of efficiency i can confidently say "what persol said". we use ET technology to share our brain and collectivate against those who would expose us. :bugeye:

LOL.

Originally posted by 2inquisitive
I'd just like to hear your comments on the thread dealing with the Belgian reports. I'd like to hear your rational examples of the number of
different things the reports indicate, thus excluding their credibility.

wrong frikkin thread moron

Originally posted by spookz
wrong frikkin thread moron

"regardless I'll go over there and check it out and say something there."

Emphasis added to highlight stupidity.

Spookz has destroyed this thread, by making us all argue and get angry thus forgetting what we are actually talking about.

Nah, that's just the way spooks and wes talk to each other. Why
are you angry?

Well, because the thread was dashed to peices with thier bickering. They have succesfully shot the thread in the head thus forgetting the whole subject.

Why do need ALL proposed propulsion systems for interstellar travel?
One that worked correctly would do nicely. Let's take the warp drive
first. (Always liked Star Trek ;) )

Alcubierre?s "Warp Drive"

Here?s the premise behind the Alcubierre "warp drive": Although Special Relativity forbids objects to move faster than light within spacetime, it is unknown how fast spacetime itself can move. To use an analogy, imagine you are on one of those moving sidewalks that can be found in some airports. The Alcubierre warp drive is like one of those moving sidewalks. Although there may be a limit to how fast one can walk across the floor (analogous to the light speed limit), what about if you are on a moving section of floor that moves faster than you can walk (analogous to a moving section of spacetime)? In the case of the Alcubierre warp drive, this moving section of spacetime is created by expanding spacetime behind the ship (analogous to where the sidewalk emerges from underneath the floor), and by contracting spacetime in front of the ship (analogous to where the sidewalk goes back into the floor). The idea of expanding spacetime is not new. Using the "Inflationary Universe" perspective, for example, it is thought that spacetime expanded faster than the speed of light during the early moments of the Big Bang. So if spacetime can expand faster than the speed of light during the Big Bang, why not for our warp drive? These theories are too new to have either been discounted or proven viable.
===============================================
by Persol:

"Warp Drive"
contradict the same laws of physics that predict worm holes and negative mass propulsion (SR)
=============================================

response:
Quite a statement there, Persol. Which "laws of physics" are these? Perhaps you mean the "postulates" of the Special THEORY
Of Relativity? If you mean spacetime expanding faster than the
speed of light contradicts the special THEORY of relativity, then I'm
afraid STR is in trouble. See my posts in "the application of the
scientific method" thread to address this, rather than me taking up
space repeating it. Dark energy comprises 75% of the universe, so
it is not rare. It is the same as the negative energy needed for the warp drive, also known as repulsive-gravity, and also known as
:eek: anti-gravity. I didn't state "we" could build such a propulsion system today, but it should theoretically possible in the
future. If there is a "they" and "they" are much more advanced
than us, maybe they already have. Also, in a similar vein, have
you read Prodkletnov's fairly recient paper? Quite interesting.
You can get the whole paper by clicking on the pdf link.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0209051

That's my point. Most of these theories are wrong. That's the way science works. I have no problem agreeing that one MIGHT work, but it was ludicrious for spookz to expect Q to dash them to pieces considering we don't even know if they are based on solid ground.

What I've been saying over and over is that using these examples is a red herring, since the only thing we can judge them against is each other (hence the contradiction method to showing atleast most are wrong). The real issue is completely seperate, because even if FTL is avaiable, there is no reason to think that an alien race would develop the same form of FTL travel (assuming more then 1 way is possible).

But all of this is very tentative, and the issue here is that while anything is possible, ET visitiations appears unlikely (ranking the steps that would be needed). To suggest something this unlikely, actual proof that this is what is happening is needed.

. It is the same as the negative energy needed for the warp drive
You are confusing negative energy, with negative matter (which lead to anti-gravity). Anti-gravity is not negative energy.

however...hopefully, perhaps another physicist will drop in and slap you silly
I think not:) We travel in packs and show no weakness. ;)

ludicrious for spookz to expect Q to dash them to pieces considering we don't even know if they are based on solid ground

Originally posted by (Q)
Have you actually picked up and read a physics book? If so, you would realize just how much your ET visiting Earth ideas are contradicted by physics.

what am i to make of this? i take it at face value. mindless generalizations will be met with equally "mindless" challenges. i see no reason to accomodate his trolling. if you wanna get caught up in his battles....your call!
Originally posted by (Q)
How do you think ET manages to travel throughout our galaxy?

so i post the page......and get laughed at
you actually take issue with the post containing the links?
look how the stuff is characterized

Ideas Based On What We’d Like To Achieve
Ideas Based On What We’d Like To Achieve
Lists of Some Intriguing Emerging Physics

people are actually attempting to do something and you fault them for that?
it is so obvious that this shit is speculative but you insist that i hold them to work.... "most of them are probably right" (persol)

step back please. (at least for a few days, i need to chill):)

using these examples is a red herring

you should also take into acct that i know next to nothing about physics
my intentions are not dishonest

hey spookz

you were right, it was the wrong thread.

and yes I know this is teh wrong thread to say that was the wrong thread but i'm too lazy to look up the other one.

lol.

emphasis added to highlight stupidity.

double that. this is the right thread so I'm even stupider than the previous assertion of stupid.

hey
been there done that;)

by Persol:
me: "It is the same as the negative energy needed for the warp drive"
You are confusing negative energy, with negative matter (which lead to anti-gravity). Anti-gravity is not negative energy.

=================================================
from the warp drive article:
First, to create this effect, you?ll need a ring of negative energy wrapped around the ship
Perhaps I am a little confused here. Negative energy is what is stated
to be needed for the ship, not negative matter. What is your interpertation of "negative matter"? I am familiar with anti-matter,
which has been created in particle accelerators, anti-protons and
such. It is not believed to have anti-gravity properties, but results
in analiation and the creation of energy when it comes in contact
with matter. Dark matter makes up over 20% of the universe, but
its properties are unknown are far as I know. Dark energy is the
stuff that makes up 75% of the universe and has been called many
names. About all that is known about it is its observed effects, namely the repulsive-gravity properties that is causing the increasing rate of expansion of the universe. Calling it anti-gravity
is debated because of General Relativity, but that seems to be how
it acts, pushing massive objects apart rather than pulling them
together like gravity. Yes, I know GR describes gravity as warping
spacetime rather than an attractive force, but the local group of
galaxies are approaching each other however you want to describe
gravitational properties.Do you believe dark energy is a property of dark matter? It seems
reasonable to me, but I don't recall seeing that stated as a hypothesis so far. I don't know if you read the paper by Prodkletnov and Modanese that I linked earlier, but there seems
to be a repulsive beam generated that passes through all forms
of matter to repulse all forms of matter on the other side, like
a concrete floor does not stop the attractive properties of gravity.
I realize the paper is controversial and Prodkletnov is very secretive about the process. He is said to be very concerned that
the discovery will be used to benefit mankind and not be monopolized by the military to create weapons, such as a beam
to disrupt a satellite's orbit. Controversial and early research I
know, but very interesting to me if it is true. I know it is said to
contradict General Relativity, but so does dark energy. But isn't
that mainly because of GR's interpertation of gravity as a warpage
of spacetime and not a force, and hence, an anti-force is not possible? Not getting into the four known forces, strong and weak
nuclear etc. :confused:

what am i to make of this?

Simple. Answer the question - have you ever picked up a physics book and read it? And understood it?

troll
already answered
your hedging however indicates you cannot back your assertion up

i do not understand microwave ovens. therefore they do not work;)

already answered

Answered what? You've done nothing but copy/paste and toss profanities around.

Go finish high school.

Answered what?

unable to keep track of the thread? see an answer that i made to persol (a few posts up) that would have rendered your question moot. it is the lack of a meaningful response to the challenge that has you yapping nonsense. for instance..

*Amongst all the billions of star systems in our galaxy, how did ET manage to find Earth?
*How many species of ET do you think are visiting Earth?
*What do you think ET purpose for visiting Earth?
*Why do you think ET has not shown themselves to us all? (q)

what is the relevance of this to interstellar travel. you ask loaded questions in a juvenile attempt to troll the thread.

* How do you think ET manages to travel throughout our galaxy? (q)

just 1 one of 5 actually worth something. what you do here is throw the question back at my face fully knowing that i am not qualified to answer. like i said... a pathetically obvious troll. you lack sophistication and style.

You've done nothing but copy/paste and toss profanities around.

transparent attempt to divert attention. this thread is about you and your claims, not mine. i have to prove nothing here as i have made no claim. i post stuff for your consideration. others are making some headway with material provided. you troll impotently. i am not surprised. the thread is now in the hands of more competent individuals (relative to me) who have some actual knowledge. perhaps if you join that discussion rather than troll impotently at my direction, you could make a positive contribution

Go finish high school.

heh heh. solid retort!

*if there are more promising avenues to approach on this subject, bring em out. no need to rely on a single source

Originally posted by spookz
unless of course q simplifies matters and lays down the objections over the feasibility of interstellar travel

you are in control. you can kill this thread in one kickass post. do you have the cojones to do so?

:D

tell the whole board why physics forbids interstellar travel

Originally posted by spookz
ET visiting Earth ideas are contradicted by physics. (q)

lay them out and i will expose them to be erroneous. i dare you!:D (spook)


http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31105&perpage=20&pagenumber=3

New theories and laboratory-scale effects have emerged in the scientific literature which provide new approaches to seeking major propulsion breakthroughs. NASA has established a program to begin exploring these possibilities. Since the propulsion goals are presumably far from fruition, a special emphasis of the program is to identify affordable, near-term, and credible research that could make measurable progress toward these propulsion goals. To kick-off the program, collaborative networking, internet communication, and workshops are being used. During a recent workshop, many of these new approaches were reviewed, and several research task ideas were generated for taking the next steps toward propulsion breakthroughs. A NASA Research Announcement has been chosen as the mechanism to solicit and support research, once sufficient funds become available. A peer review system has been drafted to rank these and other future proposals. In the interim, other funding opportunities such as the SBIR and STTR are available.

NASA BREAKTHROUGH PROPULSION PHYSICS PROGRAM (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/TM-1998-208400.htm)

so ahh q
what can you bring to the table apart from bleating.....

nay! naaay! naaaaaaaay!!!!:D :D

From the link:

It is known that gravity, electromagnetism and spacetime are coupled phenomena. Evidence includes the bending of light, the red-shifting of light, and the slowing of time in a gravitational field. This coupling is most prominently described by General Relativity [25]. Given this coupling and our technological proficiency for electromagnetics, it has been speculated that it may become possible to use electromagnetic technology to manipulate inertia, gravity, or spacetime to induce propulsive forces

Its interesting to note that Einstein spent the better part of his life trying to develop a unified field theory combining gravity with electromagnetism, and was ultimately unsuccessful.

einstein einstein
he's our man
if he can't do it
no one can!

What is your problem? Above is a quote from the link you provided - it is a major flaw in his understanding of GR - hence the link is useless.

Of course, I didn't expect you to understand it. :rolleyes:

I dislike, yay, even hate Einstine. Reality should be backed by equations, not vise-versa.

Originally posted by (Q)
What is your problem? Above is a quote from the link you provided - it is a major flaw in his understanding of GR - hence the link is useless.

Of course, I didn't expect you to understand it. :rolleyes:

==============================================

Are you saying Einstein had a major flaw in his understanding of GR
because he believed electromagnetic forces and gravity were linked?
After all, he spent the rest of his life trying to develope a unified field theory. The guy in the article agrees with Einstein and says if the theory is unified, it is SPECULATED that it MAY become possible to
use electromagnetic technology to manipulate inertia, gravity or
spacetime to induce propulsive forces. It is known that gravity
effects EM forces, the speculation is if the opposite is true. Podkletnov's paper, if true, would confirm it. The paper WAS
published in a peer-reviewed physics journal. And I am aware
that the way GR is currently interpited, electromagnetism is not
allowed to affect gravity. I have seen some argue that under GR,
gravity is not a force. They say gravity is described as warping
space and time. But again, gravity IS one of the four known
fundamental forces, so I don't quite follow that view.

Are you saying Einstein had a major flaw in his understanding of GR...

No. I'm talking about the guy who wrote the article.

The guy in the article agrees with Einstein and says if the theory is unified, it is SPECULATED that it MAY become possible to
use electromagnetic technology to manipulate inertia, gravity or
spacetime to induce propulsive forces.

No, Einstein did not agree with that.

Podkletnov's paper, if true, would confirm it. The paper WAS
published in a peer-reviewed physics journal.

So what? His paper was refuted.

millis is directly referencing another author...

This coupling is most prominently described by General Relativity [25].

[25] Misner C. W., Thorne, K. W., and Wheeler, J. A. (1973) Gravitation, W. H. Freeman & Company, NY.

Coupling of Electromagnetism and Gravitation in the Weak Field Approximation (http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/3-1/tajmar-final.htm)

a reconciliation (pdf) (http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-272/aflb272p333.pdf)

i see some are not content to sit on their ass and bleat nay

hehe - you linked a paper which you have not a clue.

Once again, you confirm your ability to say nothing.

it is an attempt to show your dogmatic attitude. you sit on your ass and blindly accept the status quo. if it were up to you retards we would be still grunting away in the stoneage



Equate nature's laws with our current understanding of nature's laws. Then label all concepts such as antigravity or interdimensional mobility as mere flights of fancy "because what present-day science cannot explain cannot possibly exist." Then if an anomalous craft is reported to have hovered silently, made right-angle turns at supersonic speeds or appeared and disappeared instantly, you may summarily dismiss the report.



see q? true to form.

I see you're still trying to muster up a response.

Good luck with that.

:D

According to Cook's report, the GRASP document made these observations about Podkletnov's work:

*An anti-gravity beam four inches (10 centimeters) wide has been demonstrated in Russia, successfully repelling objects more than a half-mile (1 kilometer) away with negligible power loss.

*Such technology could be engineered into a new weapons system capable of vaporizing objects.

*Objects placed over a rapidly spinning disc of superconducting material lost up to 2 percent of its weight, a feat NASA was unable to replicate during the 1990s but plans to try again soon using hardware built to Podkletnov’s specifications.

Gravity Shielding Still Science Fiction, Boeing Says (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/gravity_research_020731.html)

Advanced Propulsion Comes Of Age (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/advanced_propulsion_020522-1.html)

by the way q, the glenn research center (transient inertia effects, quantum vacuum energy, zero-point electromagnetic energy and Casimir forces, or exploring anomalous superconductor gravity effects and superluminal quantum tunneling) gets close to a billion dollars in funding;)

in post by Q:
"The guy in the article agrees with Einstein and says if the theory is unified, it is SPECULATED that it MAY become possible to
use electromagnetic technology to manipulate inertia, gravity or
spacetime to induce propulsive forces."
Q's response:
No, Einstein did not agree with that.
=========================================

I wasn't too clear in my above statement. I was referring to the
guy in the article agreeing with Einstein that a unified field theory
should be possible. Do you think Einstein was wrong for thinking
this, Q? Now, what do you think the implications are for a theory
that unifies the four known forces, Q? Do you think it would be
important and why? Are you claiming to be aware of Einstein's
SPECULATION if the four known forces are unified, and why he
thought it important enough to devote most of his life's work to that
end?
============================================

in post by Q:

"Podkletnov's paper, if true, would confirm it. The paper WAS
published in a peer-reviewed physics journal."

So what? His paper was refuted.
============================================

The final version of the paper by Podkletnov, the one linked, was
published on Monday, 15th of Sept. 2003 at 12:53:29 GMT. You
made the claim that this paper was refuted, Q. Now you must
back up your claim with a link, or admit you were talking out your
a**. No links to the 1995 event when Podkletnov pulled his paper
BEFORE publication and all kinds of wild speculation abounded.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0209051

Spookz.

I'm pretty damned sure that FTL is possible.

However, there is about squat for experimental evidence (that I'm aware of) to support my sure self. As such, that's just a hopeful opinion based on nothing more than experience and insight. Science needs more than that to allow engineers to actually build stuff to test ideas.

The math/physics/materials/manufacturing/etc. just isn't in a way to say "yeah that can be done".

Doesn't mean it can't be, it's like asking if a transporter can be built though, or "where the hell is my flying car"? It's somewhere way off in the unknown for now.

Okay the flying car isn't as far off as FTL I'd guess, but you know what I mean.

However, there is about squat for experimental evidence (that I'm aware of) to support my sure self.

sure there is. ftl has been observed experimentally. the controversy is in the interpretation of this and whether sr has been violated. my limited understanding is that while energy or info cannot exceed light speed, the wave associated with the transfer can (phase velocity) chiao's experiments can be found here (http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/chiao/research.html)

As such, that's just a hopeful opinion based on nothing more than experience and insight.

i can dig that but lets keep that b/w us shall we?

Doesn't mean it can't be, it's like asking if a transporter can be built though, or "where the hell is my flying car"? It's somewhere off in the unknown for now.

cool. lets all just shut the hell up. we'll just jet around for the rest of eternity. hey perhaps et will give us ftl ships. that would really save us the trouble of thinking yes?
;)

LOL.

Spookz.

I didn't imply that people shouldn't be questioning the paradigm. I didn't imply that people shouldn't be as creative and dedicated to overcoming seemingly impossible problems as they can possible be.

I just tried to show that the pardigm is natural and that all endeavors beyond the scope of the pardigm MUST BE viewed with great skepticism by the pardigm.

From the perspective of the human race, we have to ensure that the house we build can hold our weight before we let the old one burn.

somehow i do not think life is gonna afford us that luxury. history shows that most radical change involves serious upheavel. (i'll check into to that tho)

somehow i do not think life is gonna afford us that luxury. history shows that most radical change involves serious upheavel. (i'll check into to that tho)

Good. This bloated lazy bitch-assed planet is overdue for a shake-up. Time to slap the fat and ride the (ftl) wave...

Originally posted by (Q)
Ives

I’ve offered to answer questions regarding the science behind space travel yet you refuse to ask. You must know well enough that if you do begin understanding these issues, you’re belief system will begin falling like a house of cards. It is quite obvious you prefer to remain oblivious to reality and ignorant to the facts and would much rather choose to wallow in fantasy. It is little wonder you and your ilk are patronized for your beliefs.

It truly is pathetic when people don’t want to learn anything. You have my pity.

well? as you can see...plenty of questions. what do you have to offer apart from useless oneliners..

"it is a major flaw in his understanding of GR - hence the link is useless."

"Its interesting to note that Einstein spent the better part of his life trying to develop a unified field theory combining gravity with electromagnetism, and was ultimately unsuccessful. "

"No, Einstein did not agree with that. "

"So what? His paper was refuted."

that's it for the whole thread. (plus the ad hominems) you say absolutely nothing! cmon teach! teach!

*this blind worship and adulation of einstein speaks volumes.

- It is ridiculous not to admit the possibility that we are being visited by ET.

- It is ridiculous to think there is a high probability that we are being visited by ET.

Based on what Wes?

What are your reasons for those 2 statements?

Originally posted by VRob
Based on what Wes?

What are your reasons for those 2 statements?

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

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

perhaps a version of the belgian flap wes?

Originally posted by spookz
perhaps a version of the belgian flap wes?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean.

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

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

Maybe it's a private entity doing it.

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

*shrug*

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

There is no cap on the universe, only our understanding of it at a given time.

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

Originally posted by (Q)
There is no cap on the universe, only our understanding of it at a given time.

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

So it would seem, yes. Do you think that makes FTL 100% for sure impossible?

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

I CAN'T WAIT to hear Q's response to this one.

For an object to move at or over the speed of light, yes.

Originally posted by (Q)
For an object to move at or over the speed of light, yes.

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

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

Further as you know, your answer doesn't mean that great distances can't be traveled in a period of time that equates to FTL.

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

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

you find all this more plausible than the possibilty of et? what on earth do you think we are? what are we doing flying around the planets? what cherished position have you elevated us to in your scheme of things? can you not even notice how religious you sound?

i believe q imagines that if ftl cannot be violated his problem is solved.
well listen my dogmatic follower of the new religion...science, et comes from a nearby star system
*they hibernated on the way over, currently parked on the dsotm
*their lifespan is measured in millions of years (nano/regeneration/whatnot)
so brother q, either way, there goes the neighborhood! darn pesky aliens

wait! they emerge from the bowels of the earth!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/you find all this more plausible than the possibilty of et?

yes. you don't?

/what on earth do you think we are?

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

/what are we doing flying around the planets?

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

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

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

/can you not even notice how religious you sound?

what the hell are you talking about?

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

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

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

the point is to look for terrestrial reasons first.

Originally posted by spookz
[i]can you show me where i made this leap?

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

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

Originally posted by wesmorris
Well, my somewhat limited understanding of physics agrees with you, but

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

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

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

give me 10 dissimilar possibilities. rank it

do it in the belgian thread when attempting to determine origins

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

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

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

sorry, i meant give your take on the belgian flap

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

yes. you don't?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the point is to look for terrestrial reasons first.

and if they are inadequate? what do you do?

/give me 10 dissimilar possibilities. rank it

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

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

you will not pimp this ass beyatch. :)

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

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

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

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

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

well that's what you got so...

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

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

i appreciate your honesty. i'll also spare you my thoughts on that

;)

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

of course spookz, but do they exist? can they travel far enough to get here? did they surivive their own hitlers, etc? do you realize the upcoming risks? man, the risks involved as you increase the phase of society (you know about the phases right?), phenomenal. if we don't kill each other off with wars, high energy experiments (not like those now days, I'm talking trying to harnes power on the level of the planet, like a single source with enough juice to power the whole planet) are likely to eradicate us in the blink of an eye.

maybe they transcended into a dimension/form that we can't even relate to? maybe you don't even get considered until your species makes the transcendence... maybe a LOT of unimaginable shit.

sure it's reasonable to think that we would be doing what we are doing, but until we can at least confirm the existence of ONE ET society, it is not reasonable to believe anythign about it.

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

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

why would you think i would want you to fall to your knees? what the hell is wrong with you? have a civil goddamn conversation without being paranoid for chrissake. i don't give a damn what you worship asshole, you're my bro, i'm just sharing my goddamn opinion with you. don't ask for it if you don't like it. you are a moron if you don't see the relevance. the need in the haystack thing is US dumbass. how to you find US in something the size of the universe? should we just assume ET
cares because you think we do?

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

/that is an unecessary assumption and is not logical either.

on what basis? it's not an assumption, it's an opinion paranoid jackass! it is exactly logical with known shit abou tthe universe. it may not jive with your goddamn ignorant et assuming ass but that is not my problem! i'm your fucking bro trying to tell you what i know! i don't give a fuck if you buy it! it's just what I think. if you respect me, you'll give a fuck what I think, take it under consideration and form your own goddamn opinion. i appreciate what you think as well, but i've been there done that! i've aged, thought more, seen more and decided that it's all a racket for the most part. it'd be badass to play with ET toys but so far i'm stuck with my x-box and geforce3. that's cool with me. *shrug*

goddamn paranoid fucker.

/you are flailing b/w two extremes here. et exists/et does not exist. if he does he is here/if he does he is not here

*sigh* those are not two extremes spookz. those are two facets of the same idea. a culture has to survive the eperiements leading to FTL in order to use it. are you paying attention? am i speaking swaheli again? i get in a hurry sometimes... did i type something crazy? if you're gonna call me flailing back it up.

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

the point is to look for terrestrial reasons first.

/and if they are inadequate? what do you do?

about what? about explaining it? uhm, I dunno, depends on your resources/priorities/conviction.

Originally posted by spookz
i appreciate your honesty. i'll also spare you my thoughts on that

;)

I am always honest and frequently wrong.

Originally posted by wesmorris
how to you find US in something the size of the universe? should we just assume ET cares because you think we do?


We would not be to hard to find if ET was out there. In fact, we've been broadcasting our existence for all to hear for well over 50 years. We even upped the ante so to speak with our nuclear weapons testing during the 40's.

When we aquire the means to travel to distance stars, we will.

When/If we discover life living on one of those planets from a distant star, we will explore.

So IMO,

IF ET is out there, and has the means to travel to distant stars, they've likely been here.

The question, "why would they be interested in us?" is insane.

/We would not be to hard to find if ET was out there. In fact, we've been broadcasting our existence for all to hear for well over 50 years. We even upped the ante so to speak with our nuclear weapons testing during the 40's.

50 light years eh? That's not very far in terms of universal terms eh? Pretty local, but within that sphere you have a point... it's just not a very big one (as it is correlated with the size). That's a pretty small sphere.

/When we aquire the means to travel to distance stars, we will.

Sorry but fucking DER. The question is more "if" than "when" as attempting to acquire such ability is a highly risky bizness. I'd bet it can be done, but maybe we all die trying to find it. I'd say you can't risk doing most of the experiments it'd take to build something capable of reaching the stars anywhere near the solar system. If you create a mini-black hole or the equivalent type of energy, you're risking the entire solar system ya know?

/When/If we discover life living on one of those planets from a distant star, we will explore.

Again, you've mastered the obvious!

/So IMO, IF ET is out there, and has the means to travel to distant stars, they've likely been here.

Ya see it's THAT statement that is insane to me, given the sheer volume of the universe. Not even distance but number of stars. Well, distance and time too.

Oh and again, you have about zilch evidence to backup the ability to travel to the stars is possible. Lots of good imagination stuff and I'm into it.. but still, if you're making realistic guesstimatoins about the likelihood of ET visits, it's important to consider that as a complete unknown, not an assumption you make based on your knowledge of science fiction.

/The question, "why would they be interested in us?" is insane.

:mad:

That is presumptuous as hell. You think you're interesting eh?

:rolleyes:


Now that I stop and think abou tit for a second I would say that there is simply no way to know if there is a top end to comprehension, as such, any bullshit presumptions we make in attempts to estimate probabilities blah blah are all wholly pointless. We can either prove that they're here or we can't, end of story.

I will give you that it's interesting and somewhat fun to fantasize about this stuff. Again, I want to take a ride on a badass spaceship goddamnit. I think however, it's unwise consider it more than fantasy while you have no tangible basis under which to do so.. but that's just my opinion of watching out for good mental health. You will do as you must! ;)

Further though, I was wondering last night: what story which people think "aliens did it" couldn't be substituted with "god did it" and you couldn't reject or defend the argument any better.

Originally posted by wesmorris
50 light years eh? That's not very far in terms of universal terms eh? Pretty local, but within that sphere you have a point... it's just not a very big one (as it is correlated with the size). That's a pretty small sphere.

Do you have any idea how many stars are within 50 light years of our planet?

/When we aquire the means to travel to distance stars, we will./

Sorry but fucking DER.

I'm glad we agree on something. Unfortunately, this falls into one of the skeptics favorites.... 'Why would they want to visit us'.

/When/If we discover life living on one of those planets from a distant star, we will explore./

Again, you've mastered the obvious!

See previous response. My point here is that when we are capable, we will explore the universe. Why is it so hard to think that maybe other civilizations are already doing it.

/So IMO, IF ET is out there, and has the means to travel to distant stars, they've likely been here./

Ya see it's THAT statement that is insane to me, given the sheer volume of the universe. Not even distance but number of stars. Well, distance and time too.

Finally, the old "They can't get here from there because of the vast distances". I was wondering when this excuse would rear its ugly head.

Oh and again, you have about zilch evidence to backup the ability to travel to the stars is possible

The evidence that we've been visited is available. Is there available proof? No. But if there was, we wouldn't be having these discussions.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EVIDENCE & PROOF!


/The question, "why would they be interested in us?" is insane. /

That is presumptuous as hell. You think you're interesting eh?

Who said anything about me being interesting?? :rolleyes:

BTW: Yes I am.

Our Civilization gets excited at the possiblity of micros found on Mars? Are they interesting?

When we eventually find life outside of our planet/Solar system, ect... do you actually think we're going to as ourselves.... Hmmm, this race is kind of boring. I don't think we should explore its world, culture.... Another :rolleyes:!

Life everywhere is worth exploring. In fact, with our War-mongering attitudes, I would think anyone stumbling across us would want to keep close tabs on what we're doing.

1. Our #1 pastime is killing each other.

2. We're actually open about our plans to militarize space! :mad:

Can't you see this?

Further though, I was wondering last night: what story which people think "aliens did it" couldn't be substituted with "god did it" and you couldn't reject or defend the argument any better.

Food for thought for all those who follow the Bible.

Finally, the old "They can't get here from there because of the vast distances". I was wondering when this excuse would rear its ugly head.

IT is sheer ignorance to refuse to accept facts that you assume to be excuses and then fail to provide any explanation.

The evidence that we've been visited is available.

Thre is no hard evidence - the so-called evidence available is little more than exagerated hyperbole.

Originally posted by (Q)
Finally, the old "They can't get here from there because of the vast distances". I was wondering when this excuse would rear its ugly head.

IT is sheer ignorance to refuse to accept facts that you assume to be excuses and then fail to provide any explanation.

The evidence that we've been visited is available.

Thre is no hard evidence - the so-called evidence available is little more than exagerated hyperbole.

You are an egotistical Moron Q.

This sheer ignorance you babble on about has been provided to you in the Belgian Incident thread. How did you respond?

"It's impossible for a vehicle to move at those speeds and to manuever in that manner, thus, the entire incident is null and void. :rolleyes:

It doesn't get any more IGNORANT than that.

Rob claims I said:

"It's impossible for a vehicle to move at those speeds and to manuever in that manner, thus, the entire incident is null and void.

It is indeed a sad state of affairs when believers must resort to lying to make their point.

Originally posted by (Q)
Rob claims I said:

"It's impossible for a vehicle to move at those speeds and to manuever in that manner, thus, the entire incident is null and void.

It is indeed a sad state of affairs when believers must resort to lying to make their point.

Then why don't you tell us what you said on the Belgian incident.

Was it a crazy foreign Govmt?

Mass delusion?

Falty radar on multiple ground and multiple air radar devices?

Falty video cameras?

Hoax purpotrated on the Belgian Govmt?

Or, all of the above?

If I remember correctly, you simply said "It's impossible for a vehicle to perform those manuevers and speeds. Please explain where I was mistaken.

If I remember correctly, you simply said "It's impossible for a vehicle to perform those manuevers and speeds. Please explain where I was mistaken.

No, you don't remember correctly.

it cannot be that hard to refer back to the thread for the quote. you are paraphrasing his words. you have to make that clear otherwise it can be denied on a technicality.

secondly, even tho you are free to make your opinion know here, you gotta figure out you are merely being redundant if you pursue the line. q's position is known. there is no need to pry something out again.

2inq has some questions. your argument merely distracts from this. another page or so, it will be forgotton. that would be unfortunate and this thread would have been a waste of time

you focus on personalities. dont! while it is fun it gets tedious after awhile.

do not feed the troll.
you have been warned;)

lets focus on interstellar travel. the belgium crap has its own thread
thanks

of course spookz, but do they exist?

do you know of any biological lifeforms that inhabit the universe? if you do, how much of a stretch is it to imagine an additional lifeform?

can they travel far enough to get here?

this is like asking you...wes, can you travel far enough to get to la. do you mean if you are capable of making the trip? ok. exactly how do you presume to find this little nugget of info? first, their very existence is in doubt but yet you wanna throw questions at them? the only way these personal factoids can be discerned is if one takes for granted that et does in fact exist. i dont think you do that but yet you persist in this line of questioning.

i can call you up and inquire about your health. do you have a hotline to et?

if we can figure out how to travel b/w the stars, other sentient life (if present) can probably figure it out as well. making that assumption will not be that much of a step to take given that we now know of a propulsive system that enable feasible trips in accordance with the peculiarities of human biology (lifespan).

did they surivive their own hitlers, etc?

i suppose you will be wondering about alien genitalia next

do you realize the upcoming risks? man, the risks involved as you increase the phase of society (you know about the phases right?), phenomenal. if we don't kill each other off with wars, high energy experiments (not like those now days, I'm talking trying to harnes power on the level of the planet, like a single source with enough juice to power the whole planet) are likely to eradicate us in the blink of an eye.

i don't believe it is possible to digress from the subject matter anymore than this. well done

maybe they transcended into a dimension/form that we can't even relate to? maybe you don't even get considered until your species makes the transcendence... maybe a LOT of unimaginable shit.

you have absolutely no clue as to what "reasonable assumptions" would indicate. i am not surprised as you usually bring out some "everything is subjective" stuff at this stage. (the lunatics opinion is given equal weight) why should we not be methodical about the investigation? let us take it step by step. consider a then resolve. move to b then resolve. if a is unresolvable, is b dependent on a or can we move on to it? here is your m.o.....sajfapoifhaopEfnadfguifhdkvn. how does one make progress in your world?

sure it's reasonable to think that we would be doing what we are doing,

holy cow, what are you smoking? (hey wes, i am typing while i am typing)

but until we can at least confirm the existence of ONE ET society, it is not reasonable to believe anythign about it.

really? if i say et is not a marshmallow, would you believe that? if i say et is not a star, would you believe that? do you get the gist? rule out some stuff and narrow possibilities

funny, the larger the universe the greater the probability of other sentience. yes or no? whose case are you making here here?

you are a moron if you don't see the relevance. the need in the haystack thing is US dumbass. how to you find US in something the size of the universe? should we just assume ET cares because you think we do?

why is this relevant? why are et's motives the issue here? these kinds of questions have prior assumptions attached to them....et is presumed to have feelings, et lives at the end of the universe and not right next door......do you see why it is useless to speculate in this manner?

again you wanna divine et's intent, his motivations before establishing his existence

on what basis? it's not an assumption, it's an opinion

on second thoughts it sounds like the ramblings of a lunatic. you just walk around in circles.

paranoid jackass!

what is paranoid about me questioning you?

it is exactly logical with known shit abou tthe universe.

(but if he does he almost surely isn't HERE. )

ok how is this known? why is et not here? explain the logic. what secrets are you privy to?

it may not jive with your goddamn ignorant et assuming ass but that is not my problem!

and i said it was?

i don't give a fuck if you buy it! it's just what I think. if you respect me, you'll give a fuck what I think, take it under consideration and form your own goddamn opinion.

so why do you get so mad and defensive when i tell you what i think of it?. after all aint we supposed to exchange ideas and debate on em? you want me to accept your shit and shut the hell up, is that it?

all this for...flailing? i like that. hop this way puppet!;)

i appreciate what you think as well, but i've been there done that! i've aged, thought more, seen more and decided that it's all a racket for the most part.

sorry, in that case i fear regression. what have you done btw? dont tell me you have been chasing ufo? what about the little part? (as opposed to "most part"

how so? how come you are so mad? aint i cool? kinda unusual yes?

*sigh* those are not two extremes spookz. those are two facets of the same idea.

ok. lemme try. if i am at gf's, i am not at work/if i am at work, i am not at gf's........a match? again..if i am hungry. i eat/if i am not hungry, i dont eat....?

now would you perhaps wanna ask what my point is?. well that is exactly what i wanna ask you. stating the obvious is a waste of time

a culture has to survive the eperiements leading to FTL in order to use it. are you paying attention? am i speaking swaheli again?

yes you are. you rap obvious shit and anchor it to a scientific procedure. lets revisit....

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

you follow this with....

a culture has to survive the eperiements leading to FTL in order to use it.

non sequiter ja? what's this about survive? oh... i see...I'm talking trying to harnes power on the level of the planet, like a single source with enough juice to power the whole planet) are likely to eradicate us in the blink of an eye.

heh heh do you listen to yourself? the immensity!! we are a speck!! eradicate!! armageddon! the universe! the magnitude!

you are shocked and awed at it all to the point of pathology. what happened wes? were you born yesterday? discovering the wonders of the universe for the first time?.

if you're gonna call me flailing back it up.

i did not call you that. it is an action. you move from one point to another. an action is attributed to you

"maybe they transcended into a dimension/form that we can't even relate to? maybe you don't even get considered until your species makes the transcendence... maybe a LOT of unimaginable shit." <-Wes

Hey, there is only one dimension, its called reality, welcome back. The lists of "maybes" and "what ifs" are insanely long and usually stupid, using the "what if" justification is the most idiotic way of trying to prove something.

Originally posted by manmadeflyingsaucer
Hey, there is only one dimension, its called reality, welcome back.

Surely you're not serious. The 'reality' you speak of consist of at least four dimensions and as many as 11 or something, depending on who you ask (and I mean credible scientists working on string theory, quantum loop gravity, blah blah).

Originally posted by manmadeflyingsaucer
The lists of "maybes" and "what ifs" are insanely long and usually stupid, using the "what if" justification is the most idiotic way of trying to prove something.

*sigh*

what? where is the actual argument you're presenting? i say your claim is irrelevant to my comments, as I've only provides ridiculous what if's to illustrate the ridiculous conclusion that has been reached. further, i'm not trying to prove anything really... as it's impossible to prove. actually, my entired ramblings here are basically summarized by "it's impossible to prove without proof". there is nowhere near the evidence it takes to prove something like aliens are visiting us. it's possible, but doubtful.

/do you know of any biological lifeforms that inhabit the universe? if you do, how much of a stretch is it to imagine an additional lifeform?

not much but there is no evidence. i'd bet for sure there at least has been life out there. just a what level of development and proximity to earth? are there any alive out there now? almost surely.... but with no evidence, it's basically fantasy to claim this as given. you see spookz: no evidence -> no conclusios. I suppose a lot of poeple telling you about it being true though is plenty good enough evidence for you? fine by me.

/this is like asking you...wes, can you travel far enough to get to la.

No, it isn't. You need to study some goddamn cosmology/physics. I'm not saying it's impossible but your comparison is wholly invalid.

/do you mean if you are capable of making the trip? ok.

I don't see how that is different.

/exactly how do you presume to find this little nugget of info?

You are the one claiming it's probably been done already. I only brought it up to illustrate your presumption.

/first, their very existence is in doubt but yet you wanna throw questions at them?

LOL. Yeah. That's right. Surely you're not serious.

/the only way these personal factoids can be discerned is if one takes for granted that et does in fact exist. i dont think you do that but yet you persist in this line of questioning.

It is one of a chain of unanswered questions, yet you seem to feel comfortable ignoring it and just jumping right to "ET is here!". Is that right or whassup?

/i can call you up and inquire about your health. do you have a hotline to et?

Why do you persist is retarded BS? It is not an equivalent question. Any question regarding the chain of leaps of faith it takes to believe that ET is visiting is fair game to ask of a believer don't you think? Do I have to specify where I am in the chain all the time? Seems like you're keeping track fairly well, so you waste my time fucking with me about obvious bullshit? You must nto think it's fair so why?

/if we can figure out how to travel b/w the stars, other sentient life (if present) can probably figure it out as well. making that assumption will not be that much of a step to take given that we now know of a propulsive system that enable feasible trips in accordance with the peculiarities of human biology (lifespan).

no, we don't. there are theoretical systems that could accomplish that, but we don't know it. so we don't know if we can figure out how to go to the stars, so scratch any assumption you would base on that, because as of yet it's unwarrented. if you want to make the assumption, that's fine, but to get the "et is here" you gotta make what i deem an unnacceptable chain of assumptions. again, it's not impossible, just unlikely.

/i suppose you will be wondering about alien genitalia next

what kind of BS is this man? why you fucking with me? that is a fair goddamn observation. survival of a species would be seemingly quite rare beyond certain stages of development. hard to say really since we're the only one we know of at this point. i'd welcome news of others.

/i don't believe it is possible to digress from the subject matter anymore than this. well done

idiot. again, this is a perfectly valid observation about the development of a species (which is part of ET existing to get here), and you try to pretend it's freakin nonsense. does that make it easier for you to believe or something?

/you have absolutely no clue as to what "reasonable assumptions" would indicate.

you trolling bitch, fuck you.

/i am not surprised as you usually bring out some "everything is subjective" stuff at this stage. (the lunatics opinion is given equal weight) why should we not be methodical about the investigation?

show me where i said or implied "we shoudln't be methodological about the investigation".

stupid bitch.

you're the fuckign moron implying that all goddamn day.

if you WERE methodological about it, you'd be forced into the same conclusion that the goddamn paradigm comes to: INCONCLUSIVE DUE TO LACK OF EVIDENCE.

IDIOT.

man you're a dumbass unworthy of my response.

I waste no more time on you fuckhead.

if you WERE methodological about it, you'd be forced into the same conclusion that the goddamn paradigm comes to: INCONCLUSIVE DUE TO LACK OF EVIDENCE

i claim et beyond a shadow of a doubt i presume? where?

*whats up with this out of control emotions anyway? chill! i bet you are shakin with rage ja?;)

I waste no more time on you fuckhead.

excellent. in matters of et, you rule nothing in or out. everything imaginable is possible. i cannot think of more useless approach to the topics that comes up in the pseudo science forums. you also make your attitude quite clear.

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

why so hardcore?
-because it's something that i think people are trying to pimp me. there's a lot of money in it for the pimps selling books to perpetuate it.... not to mention the emotional connection a lot of people ma