I want to believe...

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by Here4money, Sep 19, 2019.

  1. Here4money

    Here4money

     
  2. Overnight

    Overnight

    So did Fox Mulder...
     
  3. Actually, ET has been on Earth coexisting with Homo Sapiens for thousands of years. We are in the process of evacuating the Earth as I write this because of systemic breakdown of planetary management. Too bad the humans never really cooperated with each other which caused inefficient redundancies in research projects such as particle colliders, astro imaging, materials science, and energy technology. They never were able to reach a species saving technological critical mass or to stabilize their culture during their time of peak prosperity.

    So long and thanks for Robin Williams.
     
    Tsing Tao likes this.
  4. Overnight

    Overnight

    That was impressive. And you gave away your fandom of Douglas Adams.

    I think I like you.
     
  5. Here4money

    Here4money

     
  6. No laws of physics were broken. The visual anomaly shown on screen had no radar contact indicating there was no physical aspect to it. Radar jamming you say? Sure, why not. But it did not come from the visual anomaly. More on that later. When the operator switched switched to infrared, a steady heat signature showed up. The operator noted there were no tell tale signs of propulsion exhaust or atmospheric disturbance caused by the visual anomaly. This further supports the non physically of the visual anomaly. Later the visual anomaly zooms off at “incredible speeds well beyond what our technology is capable of”. This is without any indication of increased atmospheric drag, the forming of a condensation cloud, or any evidence of power output. Then it is reported there is another other contact .6 seconds later at a distance of 40 miles, as I recall, or a speed of a bit less than 80 miles per second. A physical object, even if it could take the heat, g-forces, and had the enormous power required would still cause the air to incandesce at at higher energy wavelength approaching all the way to soft x-rays, perhaps. There would also be a sonic boom. Yet another indication the observers were not dealing with a physical object. Now back to radar jamming: It came from one or several other naval assets in the area in order to confuse the aviators.

    So what was the visual anomaly and why were there recurrent sightings? The visual anomaly was caused by two or more intersecting lasers that left an interference pattern that could be seen by the aviators. The purpose for this was to test aviation personnel reactions. Several tests would likely include studies that both informed and not informed naval aviators about “sightings” in advance. Part of this navel study may now also include the public in order to evaluate any reactions with the backup plan of letting the test results known should the public have an extreme reaction.

    So sorry, no ET for ET.

    Edit: I forgot to consider time for the anomaly to slow down. Energy levels into hard X-rays. Also at 80 miles per second or whatever, the object would gain altitude fast. The physics just does not work in any way for a physical object.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2019
  7. Here4money

    Here4money

    Did you actually study physics or do you just play one on the internet?


    The operator noted there were no tell tale signs of propulsion exhaust or atmospheric disturbance caused by the visual anomaly. This further supports the non physically of the visual anomaly.
    Sure, if the argument is that only conventional propulsion could be used, which is the complete opposite of what's being argued.

    "indication of increased atmospheric drag"?
    What does that mean? Drag on the body? How are you going to tell if it has enough force to overcome it?

    the forming of a condensation cloud
    would not happen at sea level

    or any evidence of power output.
    the whole argument is an unconventional propulsion system, in any case there's reporting of "white water" as it lingers there. later referred to as a “disturbance” in the ocean. The water was churning, with white waves breaking over what looked like a large object just under the surface.
    https://www.history.com/news/uss-nimitz-2004-tic-tac-ufo-encounter


    Then it is reported there is another other contact .6 seconds later at a distance of 40 miles
    He says 60 miles in 30 seconds or 2 miles per second, which is hypersonic speed, so sure, heating of the skin beyond dissociation temperature and sonic boom assuming the object is subjected to air drag. If we're talking interstellar aliens here, there must be suspension of disbelief and physics as we know it.

    Having said that, I suppose the experiment on the pilots' senses could be likely as you mention. I've seen "fantastic" news stories planted by 3rd world shit holes when trying to change political discussion as well. I'd like to think we're not at those stages yet, but it's likelier than "aliens".
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2019
  8. Reply to your post is inline below:

    "Here4money, post: 4939991, member: 496573"]Did you actually study physics or do you just play one on the internet?
    I just “Play one” one the internet.

    The operator noted there were no tell tale signs of propulsion exhaust or atmospheric disturbance caused by the visual anomaly. This further supports the non physically of the visual anomaly.
    Sure, if the argument is that only conventional propulsion could be used, which is the complete opposite of what's being argued.
    No matter what type of propulsion is used, the surrounding area is affected and heat is generated. If you have more questions, look up Sir Issac Newton.

    "indication of increased atmospheric drag"?
    What does that mean? Drag on the body? How are you going to tell if it has enough force to overcome it?
    At the extreme speeds that are indicated when the object shot off, air would be compressed and become incandescent. There is no way around this.

    the forming of a condensation cloud
    would not happen at sea level
    A condensation cloud can happen at sea level to high altitude under a sufficiently great enough pressure differential caused by high speeds. It is not unusual to see condensation trails off of wingtips on aircraft taking off or landing. At high altitude and breaching supersonic speeds, and aircraft will show a condensation cloud.

    or any evidence of power output.
    the whole argument is an unconventional propulsion system, in any case there's reporting of "white water" as it lingers there. later referred to as a “disturbance” in the ocean. The water was churning, with white waves breaking over what looked like a large object just under the surface.
    The disturbance in the water was likely caused by a sub. The long narrow object shown near the surface of the water appeared to be a small missile.

    https://www.history.com/news/uss-nimitz-2004-tic-tac-ufo-encounter


    Then it is reported there is another other contact .6 seconds later at a distance of 40 miles
    He says 60 miles in 30 seconds or 2 miles per second, which is hypersonic speed, so sure, heating of the skin beyond dissociation temperature and sonic boom assuming the object is subjected to air drag. If we're talking interstellar aliens here, there must be suspension of disbelief and physics as we know it.
    The laws of physics affect everyone. The energy source of a mass, whether it is fusion, gravitational, electromagnetic, or quantum disassociation, would still affect the surrounding environment and generate heat and a particular electromagnetic signature.

    Having said that, I suppose the experiment on the pilots' senses could be likely as you mention. I've seen "fantastic" news stories planted by 3rd world shit holes when trying to change political discussion as well. I'd like to think we're not at those stages yet, but it's likelier than "aliens".
    Actually, my human “Theory” part of my previous post was tongue-in-cheek. The most likely scenario was the aviator in question was either set up by other aviators or they were all in on it together.

    There are roughly 2 trillion galaxies that we know about. Each galaxy has roughly a average of 500 billion stars in it. A suitable single star that would be suitable for Earth’s life forms ranges in size from slightly larger than our sun to smaller represents roughly 20% of the stars in the universe. Larger stars have shorter lifespans, which do not give life enough time to develop intelligence. A planet of near Earth’s size is necessary as if it is too small, it’s core would solidify too quickly, causing the loss of its magnetic field and subsequent loss of its atmosphere through solar wind before potential life could become intelligent. If the planet is too large, it may be impossible for intelligent life to escape the planet’s gravity. The planet would need to be within a habitable “zone” around a star. The planet would likely need a moon of significant size as well for less extreme seasons and many other important factors. Life on a habitable planet would have to survive asteroid impacts and not be near any massive stars. By “near”, I am talking light years.

    All told, maybe 1 out of a thousand stars may have the potential or has possessed intelligent life in its past. In the mid 2020’s, we may be able to image planets out to 30 light years. We probably only be able to only image a pixel or a few, but enough to measure these planet’s light in order to determine atmosphere composition and temperature.

    Eventually visiting a promising extra-solar system planet is a daunting challenge. Multiple generations of humans or aliens (And we know how hard it is for humans to get along even for a few minutes) and a massive spaceship payload would be required. First, we would need to be able to utilize resources in the asteroids, moons, and maybe planets in our solar system.

    If, or when, we and an alien life form visit the other, wouldn’t we, or they, want to say “Hi”, after the long journey rather than play hide and seek, as is sometimes shown in “UFO” sightings?
     
  9. Here4money

    Here4money

    Reply to your post is inline below:

    "Here4money, post: 4939991, member: 496573"]Did you actually study physics or do you just play one on the internet?
    I just “Play one” one the internet.

    cool

    The operator noted there were no tell tale signs of propulsion exhaust or atmospheric disturbance caused by the visual anomaly. This further supports the non physically of the visual anomaly.
    Sure, if the argument is that only conventional propulsion could be used, which is the complete opposite of what's being argued.
    No matter what type of propulsion is used, the surrounding area is affected and heat is generated. If you have more questions, look up Sir Issac Newton.

    Not really, Einstein proved Newton's law of universal gravitation (an extension of the 2nd law) wrong and further proved classical mechanics wrong at the quantum level, intergalactic travel and/or teleportation would in theory not disturb the surroundings. If we're thinking aliens, the science would have to linger in the realm of "fantasy" more than science fiction. Try explaining an internal combustion engine or cellular signals to a caveman.

    "indication of increased atmospheric drag"?
    What does that mean? Drag on the body? How are you going to tell if it has enough force to overcome it?
    At the extreme speeds that are indicated when the object shot off, air would be compressed and become incandescent. There is no way around this.

    Sure, if you are subscribing to physics and conventional propulsion systems as we know it.

    the forming of a condensation cloud
    would not happen at sea level
    A condensation cloud can happen at sea level to high altitude under a sufficiently great enough pressure differential caused by high speeds. It is not unusual to see condensation trails off of wingtips on aircraft taking off or landing. At high altitude and breaching supersonic speeds, and aircraft will show a condensation cloud.

    Condensation clouds form at high altitude by nucleating water at low temperature around dust particles on the fuselage of aircraft. It would not happen at the sea level where this "UFO" was observed.

    or any evidence of power output.
    the whole argument is an unconventional propulsion system, in any case there's reporting of "white water" as it lingers there. later referred to as a “disturbance” in the ocean. The water was churning, with white waves breaking over what looked like a large object just under the surface.
    The disturbance in the water was likely caused by a sub. The long narrow object shown near the surface of the water appeared to be a small missile.

    ok

    https://www.history.com/news/uss-nimitz-2004-tic-tac-ufo-encounter


    Then it is reported there is another other contact .6 seconds later at a distance of 40 miles
    He says 60 miles in 30 seconds or 2 miles per second, which is hypersonic speed, so sure, heating of the skin beyond dissociation temperature and sonic boom assuming the object is subjected to air drag. If we're talking interstellar aliens here, there must be suspension of disbelief and physics as we know it.
    The laws of physics affect everyone. The energy source of a mass, whether it is fusion, gravitational, electromagnetic, or quantum disassociation, would still affect the surrounding environment and generate heat and a particular electromagnetic signature.

    See above.

    Having said that, I suppose the experiment on the pilots' senses could be likely as you mention. I've seen "fantastic" news stories planted by 3rd world shit holes when trying to change political discussion as well. I'd like to think we're not at those stages yet, but it's likelier than "aliens".
    Actually, my human “Theory” part of my previous post was tongue-in-cheek. The most likely scenario was the aviator in question was either set up by other aviators or they were all in on it together.

    There are roughly 2 trillion galaxies that we know about. Each galaxy has roughly a average of 500 billion stars in it. A suitable single star that would be suitable for Earth’s life forms ranges in size from slightly larger than our sun to smaller represents roughly 20% of the stars in the universe. Larger stars have shorter lifespans, which do not give life enough time to develop intelligence. A planet of near Earth’s size is necessary as if it is too small, it’s core would solidify too quickly, causing the loss of its magnetic field and subsequent loss of its atmosphere through solar wind before potential life could become intelligent. If the planet is too large, it may be impossible for intelligent life to escape the planet’s gravity. The planet would need to be within a habitable “zone” around a star. The planet would likely need a moon of significant size as well for less extreme seasons and many other important factors. Life on a habitable planet would have to survive asteroid impacts and not be near any massive stars. By “near”, I am talking light years.

    All told, maybe 1 out of a thousand stars may have the potential or has possessed intelligent life in its past. In the mid 2020’s, we may be able to image planets out to 30 light years. We probably only be able to only image a pixel or a few, but enough to measure these planet’s light in order to determine atmosphere composition and temperature.

    Eventually visiting a promising extra-solar system planet is a daunting challenge. Multiple generations of humans or aliens (And we know how hard it is for humans to get along even for a few minutes) and a massive spaceship payload would be required. First, we would need to be able to utilize resources in the asteroids, moons, and maybe planets in our solar system.

    If, or when, we and an alien life form visit the other, wouldn’t we, or they, want to say “Hi”, after the long journey rather than play hide and seek, as is sometimes shown in “UFO” sightings?

    ok
     
  10. You have incomplete knowledge on the difference between our world and quantum mechanics. We live and observe in the macro, or non-quantum world. A individual atomic-sized particle may do something we don’t understand, but anything larger, such a molecule involved in a chemistry reaction or a flying aircraft can be modeled quite reliably.

    Nucleation or seeding is not required for condensation. A sufficiently low pressure boundary is sufficient, as caused by supersonic or even subsonic speeds with favorable conditions. If you know any pilots, talk to them about this. Ask a pilot if a condensation cloud would form if a aircraft suddenly lost cabin pressure.

    As far as propulsion systems, they all have to follow the laws of physics. As does our atmosphere.

    Never quite reaching the end...