# My last thread on UFO's

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Trapped, Jan 3, 2014.

1. ### TrappedBannedBanned

Messages:
1,058

No, because to fly, you must have someone flying it. An airplane is an object flying in space, it is technologically flying under control. If something moves in airspace but which is not a vehicle, it isn't ''flying.''

Messages:
27,534

As I have admitted to you many times, the small percentage that remain unexplained, are just that.
Until we have extraordinary evidence to back your hypothesis that it is Alien in nature, they must remain unexplained.

5. ### dumbest man on earthReal Eyes Realize Real LiesValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,454
You are right, of course.

There is no need to read anything "word for word". Heck, the best way to completely misunderstand any written material, is to not read any of the words at all.

So...once again...you are right, of course.

7. ### TrappedBannedBanned

Messages:
1,058
And as I have said, of course it remains unexplained. This doesn't defeat the fact that we have mountains of strong evidence to support it. We might not have the so-called smoking gun proof, the body of evidence is vast enough it literally is knocking the door.

Messages:
27,534

You are so funny...funny peculiar, not funny ha ha....
Point being, if you want to apply your pedantic standards to posts that happen to disgree with you, apply them to your own first. :shrug:

Makes sense?? Of course it does!
So chalk up another right again, OK?

9. ### TrappedBannedBanned

Messages:
1,058
In my book, I speak about class 1, 2 and 3 civilizations, just the way mainstream science views it. Let me give you some idea of the technology a class 3 civilization could entail.

Class 3 civilizations, know how to harness the power of entire galaxies. People at SETI assume they will use methods as primitive as our own. Truth be told, class 3 civilizations would probably use a whole new range of contact. Main reason is that class 0 civilizations like ourselves, would be less appealing to talk to than a much more advanced civilization, for a number of reasons I will fail to explain here.

One of the remarkable technologies they are likely able to use, is the very manipulation of the metric of space and time itself.

In order to understand how the metric contributes energy is to revisit the terms which describe it, namely this term

$-(m\cdot\frac{GM}{r}) = m\phi$

This part describes the potential energy in our gravitational field. What we find are two ratio's

$\sqrt{1-2\frac{m\phi}{\Delta E_{r}}}$

$\sqrt{1-2\frac{m\phi}{\Delta E_{s}}}$

The ratio of the potential to the energy recieved and the ratio of the potential energy to the source of the energy. Therefore, a change in the energy $dE$ would imply a direct change with the potential energy, which depends on the radius of the system,

$\sqrt{1 - 2 \frac{dm \phi(r)}{dE_{r}}}$

$\sqrt{1 - 2 \frac{dm \phi(r)}{dE_{s}}}$

If this energy is given up in quanta, then energy and momentum is carried off in the form of radiation. This radiation for a class 3 civilization would be... most likely child's play for them. Manipulating the metric so that they control sophisticated signals over the vast of space, isn't such a hard thing to contemplate.

$P^{\mu} = (dp, dE/ c)$

To write this in the metric, we state

$\gamma(u) \sqrt{1-2\frac{d m\phi(r)}{d E_{r} + u dp}} = \sqrt{1-2\frac{d m\phi(r)}{\gamma dE_r}}$

$\gamma(u)'\sqrt{1-2\frac{d m\phi(r)}{d E_{s} + u dp}} = \sqrt{1-2\frac{d m\phi(r)}{\gamma dE_s}}$

where one momenta (the source) happens at $t=0$ and the momentum received is made at a later time $t = dt$ respectively.

in order for them to do this, they would need to understand the vaccuum as virtual particles. They would then use these sources to take information from large celestial bodies. SETI would be unlikely to properly decipher such a technology. When we say they can control entire galaxies, they can even control Schwarschild cores defined as a neutron star. This would be the perfect tool to communicate to distant advanced civilizations.

Messages:
27,534

I'm familiar with the Kardashev scale of civilizations, but in reality it is speculative.
I do like it, but one must take the reality of it on face value.
I'm sure some civilizations will be far in advance of us, somewhere/sometime....and what you say about us not being of great Interest to them may well be true.
But I personally see a stage in civilization advancement, where any life that has advanced to the stages we have, would be of Interest.
I also don't go along with the Hawking proposal, that any civilization more advanced then us would be aggressive.
I'm sure by that stage, they would have learnt the folly of war, and would not really want of anything that we have on Earth, as it is available elsewhere.

11. ### TrappedBannedBanned

Messages:
1,058
You share the same opinion as myself and Kaku, it is more likely they are benevolent. However, we can never say never and as I have shown in my investigations, there are cases in which you might suggest, there are more hidden sinister intentions. Such as why they have superior interest in military bases and our weapons facilities, or why some UFO's have proven to be hostile.

But on the larger part, I'd waver towards your theory.

12. ### dumbest man on earthReal Eyes Realize Real LiesValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,454
You are right, of course. You know that.

You are right, of course. You fully understand The Space/Time Continuum. No one can go back and change any Posts, so no misleading can be accomplished by anyone.

You are right, of course. I should do that. Just as you should with what you Posted directly ^^above^^.

You are right, of course. You would not state anything that does not make sense to you.

Okay...again, you are right, of course. You must have an awfully large chalkboard.

Messages:
27,534

My main premise, is that any sufficiently advanced society that has achieved inter stellar travel, would not really want for much. [shrug]
At least that's how I hope it is, if they ever come our way!

14. ### dumbest man on earthReal Eyes Realize Real LiesValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,454
Speculative. Good word.

You are right, of course.

But, is there anything in your ^^above quoted^^ Post, that is not, in reality, speculative?

15. ### Russ_WattersNot a Trump supporter...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,051
Wow. I guess you really, honestly don't know what "UFO" means. Then it isn't an intentional deception, you just don't understand the definition of the most important word you are using! Truly remarkable! I was well aware of your continued misuse of the word, I just assumed it was part of your game; I did not expect that you really didn't know.

The word "flying" in "UFO" just means that it appears to be in the sky. Obviously, if it is unidentified, it may not be in the sky and/or its origin (whether it is a meteor, a craft, a planet, etc.) is unknown.

16. ### Russ_WattersNot a Trump supporter...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,051
You conclude wrong, as usual. It is remarkable how little you absorb of the conversations you are having.

Messages:
27,534

As stated, all speculative, but although this thread is in the "fringe"sections, due to trapped's claim re UFO being of Alien origin [at least some of them] the existence of ETL would be a near certainty based on the near infinite extent of the Universe/space/time, and the sheer near infinite numbers involved. Couple that with the stuff of life being everywhere we look, and most cosmologists are of that opinion.
It would also obviously raise far many more questions, if we were alone, although a satisfactory result from the church/religion point of view.
Hope I was of some assistance.

18. ### TrappedBannedBanned

Messages:
1,058
Not really, I have had the same discussion with my sceptics. You see, is a plastic bag floating in the air, inanimate and lifeless, under no control, really flying?

For something to be an unidentified flying object, someone needs to be controlling the craft. If you want, we could start a new revolution of thinking... no longer inanimate objects are really unidentified flying objects but unidentified floating objects. The key words which are different are flying and floating. Flying implies something which is controlled, floating does not always need to mean this.

19. ### TrappedBannedBanned

Messages:
1,058
Venus appears on crystal clear nights and is in no way flying.

20. ### YazataValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,451
Speaking of 'UFO' reports as reports of 'craft' does appear to place a thumb on the scale, biasing the results toward a desired conclusion that they are indeed vehicles.

Obviously some UFO reports are reports of flying vehicles. I've seen at least two of those myself. Luckily I had my binoculars on a shelf next to my window, and upon employing them my UFOs resolved themselves into an unpainted aluminum-skinned light aircraft making a turn and reflecting the sun, and a rigid airship moving behind a cloud.

But my sense is that most UFO reports aren't reports of real physical vehicles at all. In some cases they are misidentified astronomical or meteorological phenomena.

And in other cases, the reports are probably largely psychological and there might not be anything in the sky that corresponds to the reports. When people really want to see something, they often report seeing those things, even when there's nothing actually there to see. We see that with ghost sightings and it's happened for millenia with religious miracles and heavenly visitations.

As I've said, I'm most inclined to think of the UFO phenomenon as a psychological phenomenon, as a 20th century repackaging of the kind of phenomena that have long been reported in religion, than I am to think of them as evidence of extraterrestrial spaceships. In the 1950's, when the 'flying saucer' wave really was peaking, everyone was excited about putting satellites (and astronauts) into orbit and space-travel was something that most of the general public was talking about. So people started thinking that they saw spaceships in the sky. There's less popular interest in UFOs today, because the general public seems to have lost most of its interest in space-travel. The remaining UFO believers today seem to me to be more hard-core and less idealistic than they were 60 years ago, often very committed to dark conspiracy theories and to the social alienation that those theories imply.

So all in all, probably some UFO reports truly are reports of aircraft in the sky. What makes these reports 'UFOs' is that the aircraft isn't satisfactorily identified. But I'd say that most UFO reports probably aren't caused by flying physical objects at all. They are something else, ranging from misidentified astronomical or meteorological phenomena, imaginative embellishment of more mundane events, hallucinations and other perceptual aberrations, to flat-out lies in a few cases.

It's conceivable that there really is a signal hiding in all the noise, that there really is some unknown physical phenomenon being manifested in a few cases. I don't really believe that, but I'll acknowledge the possibility.

But even if that's true, I'm not convinced that it has to be aliens and their spaceships. It's possible for the sci-fi imagination to picture space animals that periodically have to sound in planetary atmospheres like whales have to rise to the surface of the sea periodically to breathe.

And given the countless 'contactee' stories that always seem to describe humanoid aliens with anatomies very much like our own, I'd suggest, purely for the sake of argument, that if the reports are somehow true, then the humanoids probably aren't aliens at all. They would seem to be humanoid primates like ourselves and probably have a similar and related evolutionary ancestry. So when I'm speculating freely in one of my sci-fi moods, I tend to think that these reported humanoids are much more likely to be time-travelers than space-aliens. They just don't have the appearance of organisms that are the product of a completely different biological history.

But I'm more inclined to think that the humanoid anatomy is evidence that the kind of aliens people typically report observing are the products of human imagination. We always tend to imagine things in terms of our own human experience and interests. It's like the 'God' of theistic imagination, who ends up as a psychological 'person' just like ourselves.

21. ### TrappedBannedBanned

Messages:
1,058

Though we do have some stupid, uneducated people on the face of the planet incapable of telling a conventional explanation for something spectacular (I guess this is a type of Pereidolia) I am actually inclined to believe that there are more UFO's which are genuine than which meets the eye. Consider Dr Hynek who worked for Blue Book, when it closed down, he admitted over the years he became a believer. It was his job to debunk the UFO phenomenon. Interestingly, he gives us some idea ''how many UFO's are natural phenomenon.'' He said for all cases they could explain, which wasn't many, they simply never responded to the public concerning them or they would stamp it with a conventional explanation even if a reasonably sane person would understand it didn't fit the bill.

There are probably a lot more cases then which are actually... genuine. The reason why today many people think the number is lower, is because of Blue Book. But you can thank me later for putting the time and effort into finding the evidence I have been giving sciforums, that really... Blue Book couldn't answer for the largest part of UFO sightings, even though at the time they claimed as much.

22. ### TrappedBannedBanned

Messages:
1,058
I read a report last night, an official document of a crew aboard the USS Roosevelt, an object was seen moving above them, and at a distance changed direction and flew off at an incredible speed.

Do you know what the Air Force said was the explanation? A meteor.

We know this cannot be true, because meteors don't suddenly change direction. Do you not see a pattern in all this?

23. ### TrappedBannedBanned

Messages:
1,058
That's funny because I could swear you questioned as you put it ''the existence of the craft.''

If there are no arguments about there being a real phenomenon, why say this? Remember, you said this in reply to my comment

''most sceptics I speak to are in agreement there is a cover up. The only part we seem to find disagreements on is the origin of the craft.''