is there evidence for alien abductions etc.?

well, stuff is considered from our perspective. it really has little to do with a et/ufo hypothesis that is based on observation and evidence. consideration of this hypothesis would obviously include the assumption that et has at the very least, had figured out a viable mode of propulsion and shielding to get here. i gotta repeat that impressing with the vastness of space and the consequent need for ftl leaves me unmoved since occam says that et could be right next door

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here's one of my favorite flying entity stories!

This one is shorter
I put it here because of the personal encounter the poster gives. The shortened news item is actually repeated twice, for "mysterious" reasons.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Of course, since it was at night, and the officer is a Mexican with probably only a high-school degree, he was probably just seeing an unusually large owl or other nocturnal bird.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(that's sarcasm, not racism !)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Funny!

First read about this one last winter, if I remember correctly.
Apparently the thing was videotaped not too long afterwards. Well, I suppose it's debatable whether it was the SAME thing.

Apparently there's been several flying entities videotaped in Mexico in the last couple years.
I especially like the "Entity Reunion in the Sky", just because of the name given to the event!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How do you know there aren't people WAY past theorizing?

I'm only saying...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

it is little nuggets like this that make a mockery out of intuition...the quickest way of getting from point a to b is to reduce speed.

makes me wanna rip my brains out

ahh
just realized variations of this are already employed with launch timings and planned trajectories aka let your destination come to you

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

... Precisely so. Annoying, I know, but often times the most efficient solution turns out to be the least immediate to occur - hence, I suppose, why it took mankind the better part of 900 years after the Romans to develop such a thing as an indoor toilet which didn't equally double up as being a window at the same time.

Indeed, indeed. Hence the description of attaining a position stationary relative to the motion of ever thing else's motion, and no mention of zero motion whatsoever.

You're not at all easily distracted are you? Bugger.... Going to have to watch that in future. Still, thank you for the courtesy of actually reading folks. Nice to see your all paying attention...

Bugger....

Rather than seeing the eventuality of particulate material impact producing a catastrophic release of energy on contact at close to light speeds as being a problem best avoided, why not actively encourage it?

One of your principal limitations with deep space travel at close to C velocity is always going to remain the amount of fuel y'can both carry and afford to expend - and by fuel we're meaning here the release of energy channelled into thrust.

Now, indeed, even a feather, if impacted by anything travelling fast enough is going to cause a considerable bang, even if impacting into relatively stable material that material once so struck is going to release a good deal of energy which, if anticipated, could be channelled and put into productive use if the ship was designed in such a fashion as to harness such an event.

Think of a ramjet engine - rather than relying on a smooth, gradual increase in constant thrust a series of explosions are set off once underway rapidly one after the other in close succession bringing about a massive increase in overall thrust in very short order.

Now if particulate matter at such colossal speeds as approaching that of light forms such an abundance as to be a potential impediment to light speed travel - use them. Build the ship in such a way as to actively encourage an in feed of particulates into the core of the engine structure and channel them to impact unstable nuclear materials - channel the blast out the back and you have thrust.

The one thing you can never find enough to expend when approaching light speed is energy - so anything you get for no additional energy outlay is to be grasped with open arms.

Cost's you no additional energy to achieve, all you have to worry about is designing a slipstream ship offering a low enough forward profile for the habitable sections to minimise impact risk and ensure that the forward in-feed to the drive section does as much as possible to attract particulates in preference to the rest of the thing...

Not exactly the answer you were looking for, but a potential solution if indeed your initial posit regarding the problem of particulate material for light speed vehicles proves indeed significant enough to warrant it.

Don't y'just love reversible problems...?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes, that kind of thing has been postulated, but I think it will fall flat near C. From what I remember of my physics lectures, magnetic fields flatten in the direction of travel, so a field around a stationary particle is symmetric, but the faster it moves, the more it favours the 'tail' of the moving object, and this deformation is proportinal to it's velocity.

Although I guess this will have the effect of concentrating the 'field lines' at the 'face' of the particle so any particles will experience quite rapid acceleration?

I guess what this also means is that any craft travelling at such speeds would need to be a tube or ring, with magnetic field lines protecting the craft in a toroid like shape.

I'm off to google and see if there are any thought machines based on such ideas.

 

what do you mean by 'next door'? ie., already here? or close dimension? or both? or...?

 

really interesting question. ie., as in ....could there ever be an end TO theory and knowledge?isthat what you mean?
could there be an advanced intelligence that needs no furthe theories as they have mastered reality....?

hmmmmmm? i personally don't think so/ for one, understanding myself at least. one cant hop all knowledge at one time.....you hve a forgettory and memory. otherwise your head would burst. so there always has to be not-known. i imagine that this is same for all life forms no matter how so-called developed

take the 'Greys'---look at how 'advanced' they is. they can treat US like 'we' treat
animals for 'testing'. but wiat, they seem to lack a HUUUGE capacity for emotion and empathy. at least the nasty-soundin ones did/do.....a good example i'd say. cause we aint all bout techno...we are also emotional beings. and i very much value that, and would not bow to any so-called superior being. sure they might prod me and even reape me witout my consent. but they cant get respect by force init?

 

What I meant is HUMANS who already understand the gravity-electromagnetism connection and can manipulate it through technology.

Reverse electromagnetism "someone" called it.

I didn't make it up. I'm only saying...

 

If anyone looks at any of the eyewitness reports of flying discs and how they are able to distort space and accelerate thousands of miles per hour from a dead-stop in less than a second, if they can be PROVEN to have some validity, then trying to use nuclear energy or ion drives or solar sails or whatever else to approach light would become obsolete and unnecessary.

The maneuverability of many UFOs defies explanation if you apply any kind of normal propulsion designs. For example, instant changes in trajectory at sharp angles while at very high speeds. These characteristics have been reported over and over again for decades. I fail to see how VTOL craft are capable of that, without killing someone or exploding.
Most of these objects are noted for their unusual silence, even at high speeds.
Again, if someone takes even a small percentage of these sightings seriously, they point to something that is NOT anything like rockets or jets, but a type of force-field.

A thousand years ago, the Wright brothers aircraft would have been a magical chariot of the gods.
Why are people thinking that solid fuel propulsion, or anything the uses a solid force (particles, etc) to propel itself, is the wave of the future?

If a person can manipulate gravity and warp space, there is no telling how quickly a light year could be traversed.
And since many reports of UFOs point to such a "warp drive" then it makes the skeptical refrain of "but what about the vast distances of space travel" rather trivial.

Just my thoughts!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Harriers and their friends haven't been around long enough to explain all the anomalous sightings of the past (or present).

By the way, I don't know the maximum speed at which a Harrier can make it's sharp angled turns or go from horizontal flight to vertical descent, but I'm guessing it isn't very fast, as far as jets go.

 

Principally, precisely so - it should mean that both the oncoming particulate and the in-feed for the drive section have nicely compressed, relatively dense fields surrounding their respective oncoming face - any particulate with an equally charged polarity gets deflected, everything else goes straight down the gullet of the thing without touching the sides.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

... Yup, a ruddy big one, probably along the lines of a pod-racer - not so much a single ship as it were but a carry-all, something other vessels would attach too and be accelerated by. That way, if there were a disaster in deep space the drive section would take the brunt of the damage in preference whilst the actual vessels themselves could detach still travelling by inertia - equally, it would avoid having to build one of these monstrosities everytime y'built a starship - the drive section for the long haul does all the hard work, swings by where the smaller vessels are due and releases them close by, picking up whatever's due for return on the way. Each individual vessel of course would have to be capable of half light speed travel in oder to get across whatever solar system, accelerate towards the carry-all and decelerate from close to light speed after release but they'd be relatively short range in comparison.

 

Y'might find this amusing,here... It certainly amuses the b'jesus out of most readers, however it does offer a relatively valid explanation concerning exactly how that sort of manoeuvrability is not only physically possible, but unavoidable.

Gives y'something which looks, acts and behaves exactly the way a UFO's supposed to without it actually using an engine at all. As I say, might amuse...

 

Looks interesting so far. I'm not completely done reading it just yet. Getting there.

 

So far however, it appears that to create wormholes, warp space, or even use this magnetic effect uses up a lot of energy, and the simple truth is, we aren't detecting energetic events at anything near the rate at which UFOs are reported.

So there would either have to be a low energy way to warp space, or we would have to use exotic matter, forces, or dimensions that we are currently unaware of, or do not look for in space.

 

That's logical. Since UFOs exist they must use a warp drive, and because they use a warp drive that means they do exist.
Explain that again...
Do reports of UFOs point to invisible pink fairies that carry them around? They're the ones that dig the holes in space, you know.
Edit: Harriers can't make sharp-cornered turns at any speed. To do so they'd have to slow to a halt, then turn on the spot, then accelerate again.

 

do we purposefully look for "energetic events?"
if these "energetic events" occur somewhere around this solar sysyem, are they guaranteed detection?
big ufo/small ufo/mothership....do they all have warp capabilities?
what are the rates of ufo reports? 10 per year? 20? 100? do we include..."hey, speck in the sky, could be ufo"?

 

Yup.... sorry, I keep doing this. But it's a good question, wanted a crack.

Yes, in answer to your first, at any given time there's a hell of a lot of deep field astronomical projects quadding the sky up squinting for all manner of very long range energetic events - nova's, pulsars, stellar nursery's, black holes as well as a wide range of lower end emission events, neutrinos, exotic particles etc. The sky's pretty well gridded up observation wise - something exotic like a wormhole opening up locally really would show up, you'd get a sudden in stream of particles, like neutrino's at the very least, coming out of nowhere without any kind of astronomical event to account for it.

It'd be very brief, but quite unmissable.

That being said however a "warp drive" ship could probably drop in quite unnoticed - no one would go bombing around a solar system at anything like the sort of speeds getting too it would require, it'd be a case of dropping out of warp (which, indeed, really is just a pure piece of the Star Trek it sounds) and cruising across the elliptic. You're point regarding "big ufo/small ufo/mothership....do they all have warp capabilities?" is highly well made - it's extremely doubtful anything designed for entering the atmosphere would possess anything appreciably much by way of long rage capabilities - you'd be looking at something, be it either craft or probe, operating along the lines of an orbit to surface shuttle and reconnaissance vehicle. It'd require a carrier and most likely be orbitally deployed.

It's an assessment consistent with reported UFO characteristics - highly generalised, unidirectional airframe, suggestive more of a vehicle designed for atmospheric passage rather than actual flight itself - a subtle distinction perhaps, but aeronautically significant enough to mention.

Nothing sanely is going to want to either use warp drive or open a wormhole in atmosphere - both would cause massive atmospheric disturbance, disastrously in the case of the latter - opening a wormhole in atmosphere would be like opening the window of a passenger jet at 29 thousand feet - there'd be a massive decompression event. A tad hard to miss....

As for using warp drive, or spacial compression as it's sometimes called, in atmosphere the whole idea of the thing is that space is manipulated to compress space (and thus distance) ahead of the vehicle and stretch it out at the back facilitating arrival whilst physically moving very little. There's another version of along similar lines using a compressed spacial warp behind the ship to form a wave which the ship essentially rides to its destination - in either event, any form of spacial compression taking place inside an atmosphere is equally going to compress whatever else is in the degree of space being so affected - in this case the atmosphere, the density of which under such an effect as a spacial warp would become somewhat problematic to over come.

If the bow wave from a normal jet pushes enough air out of the way to cause a sonic boom - the sound a spacial warp would make would make would be more along the lines of the sound of a hydrogen bomb going off. The pressure wave generated in itself would have a not terribly dissimilar effect...

I know you're not specifically asking about that, but it's been cropping up along the course so I just thought I'd bung it in since I'm passing.

As to you're latter: "what are the rates of ufo reports? 10 per year? 20? 100? do we include..."hey, speck in the sky, could be ufo"?" that honestly depends upon what's currently showing on either the TV or the movies - The base level of reported UFO sightings generally runs along the lines of between 70 to 120 reports a year, here in the UK itself. Over the course of the last few years reported incidences have been dwindling markedly, as they tend to between Hollywood blockbusters or Spielberg produced TV mini series, which isn't merely irony, there is an actual correlation between what people see on the telly and the urge to look up at the sky at night and observe something either "unusual" or "inexplicable"...

Following the screening of Spielberg's last opus "Taken" reported UFO sightings went up over the course of the three months it screened for round about 250-300 over base. During the years 1996-97 during the televisual and cinema fest that was the release of Independence Day, MIB, First Contact, Fire In The Sky, X-files, etc reported sightings spiked at around the 700+ mark.

The actual figures for unresolved incidents however are low. Very. Over the course of 5 decades in the UK you're only looking at about 12 genuinely unresolved incidences regarding UFO's specifically.

Most reports, most years, genuinely are a case of "..."hey, speck in the sky, could be ufo."

As usual, overlong, but covering all of the bases....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

y'know, if you keep this up, this forum could get quite respectable.
i am so not worthy....

in any case my ufo report count is rather conservative in the sense that i will not include those of the kind you mention. it is probably just opportunists and crackpots that come crawling out of the woodwork after a particularly decent blockbuster

my eyewitnesses would be culled by the standards, glenn mentions

he also mentioned (i think) that professional types should be accorded more weight in their testimony over joe blow (expert witnesses testifying in court)

the availability of additional evidence (video/radar) would obviously give a sighting more weight than others without them

of course, as luck would have it, the only actual et visit to earth was seen by a single illiterate peasant in the andes mts.
since that does not measure up to my standards, it was summarily dismissed

ahh, the pitfalls and perils of ufology

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hi, my name is Will, I'm making a documentary for school, and i wanted to make it about something unusual like alien abduction or conspiracy theorists. If any one wants to chuck a bit of info my way, or a point of view, or even if you know anyone in England who GENUINELY believes they have meet with aliens, please feel free to reply or email me, would be much appriciated.
Thanks