1828 replies to this topic

[booNyzarC]

DieChecker, on 25 June 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

Hey! Post "Spoiler" next time.

Yeah really... I haven't seen it yet but I plan to.

[DONTEATUS]

Its about time someone told the truth in here ! Aliens Are coming to take us away -Auh-Ha ! To the Funny farm !

[Sensible Logic]

nopeda, on 21 June 2012 - 09:34 PM, said:

Then tell me what evidence that xts have been here you are able to recognise. So far it appears you can't recognise any of it at all, meaning of course you can't get to the starting line as I pointed out before.

You can't recognize what doesn't exist.  You have belief there is evidence but no actual evidence

nopeda said:

To find the absolute speed of your vehicles you of course would have to include the velocity of the surface of the planet they are on, plus the velocity of the planet's orbit around a star, plus the velocity of the star's orbit around the center of the galaxy, plus whatever else. Here are some of the velocities that you need to factor into your attempt to find the absolute speed of vehicles on the surface of this planet:
_________________________________________________________
a spot on the equator rotates at approximately 1037.5646 miles per hour
. . .
Notice that you are off by well over a million miles per hour. Try to get it closer than that if you can...try again...

First:  We are talking actual speeds not absolute speeds of the vehicles.
Second:  The vehicles being in the same area are equally affected by the rotation of the earth.  If they are both at the equator they are both traveling west to east at about 1037 mph.  Say they are traveling away from each other, one east and one west, each traveling 60 mph according to their speedometers.  When the rotation of the earth is factored in the one traveling west (with the rotation of the earth) is going 1097 mph and the one traveling east (against the rotation) is actually traveling west at 977 mph.  The relative speed is 120 mph away from each other.  Of great interest is that if we ignore the rotation of the earth and use only the actual speeds of 60 mph for each vehicle we arrive at the same answer.  Proof that because they are in the same area and equally affected by the rotation of the earth we can ignore the rotation and arrive at the correct answer.  In the same way we can ignore the earth's revolution around the sun, the solar system around the galactic center and the galaxy through the universe.  it would be different if they were not in the same area of the earth or on different worlds, etc... but since they are in the same area, and equally affected by those motions the examples I gave previously are quite valid.

nopeda said:

There's no reason to think someone on the Earth and someone on the moon would see a flash of light from someplace else at the same time, so again you can't get to the starting line. You appear to be clueless about all of this, yet desperately want people to believe you're somehow some sort of an authority.

Since we are not talking about a flash of light but a beam of light similar to a laser beam, there is no reason to believe that they wouldn't be able to see the beam at the same time.

I am not now nor have I ever indicated I am an expert in anything yet I seem to be able to comprehend some basic concepts you have problems with.

[nopeda]

DONTEATUS, on 26 June 2012 - 01:26 AM, said:

Its about time someone told the truth in here ! Aliens Are coming to take us away -Auh-Ha ! To the Funny farm !

If any xts have ever even traveled through our star system without landing on Earth, people who disbelieve that they could have are more ready for the funny farm than those who consider the possibility that they have. In fact from my pov even if no xts have ever been around here people who disbelieve they ever chould have been are still more ready for the funny farm than those who consider the possibility that they have.

[nopeda]

psyche101, on 25 June 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

childish interpretations at Abydos.

So far you haven't explained why either:

1. people carved over the old carvings but didn't bother to take the time and effort to make them look the way they wanted them to look.

or

2. people carved over the old carvings and deliberately carved them in ways that clearly appear to depict air vehicles. Not just one ramdom type of air vehicle either, nor several examples of what appear to be the same type, but instead depictions of what clearly appear to be several different types of air vehicles.

Can't you appreciate what an unlikely blundering coincidence it would be if 2. is correct? It seems no more likely that they would accidently gouge out depictions of several different types of air vehicles without having any clue that's what they were doing, than that such vehicles have been brought here in the past by intelligent beings who are good at interstellar space travel.

[nopeda]

Sensible Logic, on 26 June 2012 - 02:23 AM, said:

You have belief there is evidence but no actual evidence
. . .
First:  We are talking actual speeds not absolute speeds of the vehicles.
. . .
Since we are not talking about a flash of light but a beam of light similar to a laser beam, there is no reason to believe that they wouldn't be able to see the beam at the same time.
. . .
I am not now nor have I ever indicated I am an expert in anything yet I seem to be able to comprehend some basic concepts you have problems with.

If there were no evidence then no one would believe xts have been here. It's not that there is no evidence, it's that you're not able to even recognise any much less try to develop any realistic distinctions between which things are worthwhile bits of evidence to take into consideration and which are not worth thinking about.

From the start I referred to the distinction between velocities relative to the surface of the Earth and those which are not. YOU came up with the concept of absolute speed and I told you from the beginning that even if it did exist you would have no way of knowing the absolute speed of anything. You were off by more than a million miles per hour in your first attempt to "explain" or whatever the absolute speed of 2 vehicles on the surface of this planet.

For one thing unless the distance between the point of emission and each observer is exactly the same there's no reason to think the light would take the exact same amount of time to reach each observer. And for another, if it's a tight beam then it wouldn't be able to spread enough to reach both Earth and the moon. You don't seem able to appreciate some of the most basic but significant aspects of what you're trying to talk about, much less comprehend aspects that I have problems with. You STILL!!! have not been able to try to explain what you think you mean by absolute speed and what you want people to think it would be relative to, for example.

[DieChecker]

I don't think we can know the absolute speed of anything, since we don't really know where "absolutely still" is. The movement of the galaxy through space and everything inside that system can be measured using outside reference points. But the individual speed, the speed of the galaxy compared to a motionless, non-expanding point of reference cannot be determined in my opinion. There is no way for us to toss out a "marker" or "bouy" and then measure off how fast the Earth's absolute speed is at any one time. The best we can do is guestimate the rate of expansion and then from that and measuring off a large number of other galaxys, we can create a number that is the supposed speed of the galaxy, but there is no way to proove if it is the real Absolute speed.

[Sensible Logic]

nopeda, on 26 June 2012 - 09:40 PM, said:

If there were no evidence then no one would believe xts have been here. It's not that there is no evidence, it's that you're not able to even recognise any much less try to develop any realistic distinctions between which things are worthwhile bits of evidence to take into consideration and which are not worth thinking about.

As I have said before, belief is not evidence.  Millions of people believe in God with zero evidence and millions of children believe in Santa Clause with no evidence. You and others believe there is evidence but you have been shown that some of what you believe is evidence is actually not evidence and your belief is misplaced, but you ignore what you have been shown or what the experts indicate because ancient aliens as a fallacy is unacceptable to you but not because of evidence that they existed but only by your belief that this is so.

nopeda said:

From the start I referred to the distinction between velocities relative to the surface of the Earth and those which are not. YOU came up with the concept of absolute speed and I told you from the beginning that even if it did exist you would have no way of knowing the absolute speed of anything. You were off by more than a million miles per hour in your first attempt to "explain" or whatever the absolute speed of 2 vehicles on the surface of this planet.

As I said the error was mine in using absolute instead of actual and made my changes accordingly though you seem to have missed that.  The early examples of two vehicles in the same are of the earth were valid then as now as I showed in my last post.  Because the motion of the earth, solar system, and galaxy affect each vehicle equally, they can be ignored when calculating the relative motion of the vehicles one to another.  I also showed that you only deal in relative speed of objects and not the actual speed of the objects.

nopeda said:

For one thing unless the distance between the point of emission and each observer is exactly the same there's no reason to think the light would take the exact same amount of time to reach each observer. And for another, if it's a tight beam then it wouldn't be able to spread enough to reach both Earth and the moon. You don't seem able to appreciate some of the most basic but significant aspects of what you're trying to talk about, much less comprehend aspects that I have problems with. You STILL!!! have not been able to try to explain what you think you mean by absolute speed and what you want people to think it would be relative to, for example.

It was never stated that the beam reached the earth and the moon just that it passed the observers and they saw it at the same time.  You can if you wish use the mid point between the earth and the moon with an observer on each seeing the beam the moment it passes them both.  You still need to state what you believe the speed of the beam is as it passes both observers.

[Myles]

Oh no.   He's still using the old "clearly appear to depict air vehicles".  

What a load of BS.

[nopeda]

Myles, on 27 June 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

Oh no.   He's still using the old "clearly appear to depict air vehicles".  

What a load of BS.

Here's a clue that will probably be more than you can comprehend much less appreciate, but one of the depictions would not be commonly referred to as a helicopter if it did not clearly appear to depict a helicopter.

Why are you so desperate for them to not be depicting what they are so clearly depicting, do you have any idea about that???

[nopeda]

Sensible Logic, on 27 June 2012 - 02:06 AM, said:

As I have said before, belief is not evidence.  Millions of people believe in God with zero evidence and millions of children believe in Santa Clause with no evidence.
. . .
As I said the error was mine in using absolute instead of actual and made my changes accordingly though you seem to have missed that.  The early examples of two vehicles in the same are of the earth were valid then as now as I showed in my last post.  Because the motion of the earth, solar system, and galaxy affect each vehicle equally, they can be ignored when calculating the relative motion of the vehicles one to another.
. . .
It was never stated that the beam reached the earth and the moon just that it passed the observers and they saw it at the same time.  You can if you wish use the mid point between the earth and the moon with an observer on each seeing the beam the moment it passes them both.  You still need to state what you believe the speed of the beam is as it passes both observers.

There is evidence of God and plenty of evidence of Santa Clause for children. Unless you learn to accept that you can never get to the starting line. You are NOT there yet, and quite possibly will never get to it during your entire life. It's pitiful really, and I must feel sorry for you to some extent because of it.

It doesn't matter whether you say absolute or actual. There's no reason to go on and on about the velocity of things relative to the surface of the Earth afawk. You're just desperately going at that *hopefully* because you've finally learned that your absolute speed idea really is something you could never know anything about like I told you. Of course if you finally did learn it you can't afford to give me credit for pointing it out to you from the start.



Your interpretation of light is quite amusing. Light it made up of bundles of energy called photons, and they have to hit a person in the eyes before the person can see the light. That means that beams which pass by the Earth and moon without ever contacting either could not be seen by people on either. You can see beams of light sometimes in hazy environments, but if there is nothing to reflect photons from the beam so they hit people in the eyes, people can no see the beam. So if a beam passed between the Earth and moon with nothing to bounce photons from the beam into people's eyes, no one would be able to see the beam.

If the speed of every bit of light that hits the Earth is 186K miles per second relative to the surface of the planet, that means something MUST be adjusting all light that hits this planet so that it impacts the planet at that velocity. WHAT do you think regulates the speed of all incoming light? Or do you have no idea what could possibly be doing it but you just take it on faith that something is doing it somehow and you don't care how or what is doing it?

[nopeda]

DieChecker, on 26 June 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

I don't think we can know the absolute speed of anything, since we don't really know where "absolutely still" is.

That's what I've been pointing out from the start, but it seems to be taking a while for the significance of it to sink in, IF it has sunk in for anyone yet at all.

[Myles]

nopeda, on 27 June 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

Here's a clue that will probably be more than you can comprehend much less appreciate, but one of the depictions would not be commonly referred to as a helicopter if it did not clearly appear to depict a helicopter.

Why are you so desperate for them to not be depicting what they are so clearly depicting, do you have any idea about that???

Nopeter you are clearly not capable of understanding what "clearly" means.

[Slave2Fate]

Myles, on 27 June 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

Nopeter you are clearly not capable of understanding what "clearly" means.

[Myles]

Slave2Fate, on 27 June 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

That's perfect.