1828 replies to this topic

[R4z3rsPar4d0x]

What are you guys refering to ? What looks like air vehicles?

[Quaentum]

nopeda, on 18 October 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

AGAIN you blatantly flaunt your own dishonesty by parading the fact that you have no examples. Hilarious!

You make it so clear to everyone that you long ago ran out of rebuttals to use against the facts and evidence that has been  presented to you.  It's sad really that you continue to make yourself look foolish in your replies and now you change what I posted much like a 4th or 5th grader would do.  In fact it reminds me of a child sticking their fingers in their ears and singing loudly so nothing gets in.

You probably don't even realize that by making the changes you did, even though my name remains at the top,  you are the one making the post you are replying to and just assigning my name to it.  As such, your reply can not be aimed at me as that was not my post so it must be aimed at the one who made the post...You.  So you are now calling yourself dishonest which is something that has been evident for some  time in this thread.

[Quaentum]

nopeda, on 18 October 2012 - 07:00 PM, said:

You would have to post it in order to seem like you might possibly be honest if I challenged you to do so. I expect you would fail completely if I did. But I've been told various things about why they look as they do and the one you appear to like best is the idea that parts of them have just fallen away in the most incredibly coincidental way that it makes them appear to resemble air vehicles. Not only would it be almost unbelievably coincidental IF that is what happened, but it looks nothing at all like that's what did happen either. Those two things are huge aspects imo, and reasons why I can't accept your favorite possibility.

You have been told things and showed analysis of why they look like they do.  You of course have the right to not believe in evidence even though disbelieving evidence does nothing to strengthen your stand but erodes it further.  How it looks to you and what you believe will always take second place to evidence no matter how much you might like to believe otherwise.

As far as your supposed challenge, there was no challenge.  If I had made a statement about the subject matter that had never been covered before you could challenge me to provide the evidence.  My posts referred to posts made by others in this thread.  The information is there in the previous posts and challenging me to repost it so you don't actually have to look it up yourself can't actually be a challenge since it does exist in this thread, just a tired attempt by you to have it re-posted so you can take the lazy way out of ignoring it once again.

[Quaentum]

nopeda, on 18 October 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

It's certainly not that way if I'm right. If I'm right other people have tricked you into believing something exists even though it doesn't, but they didn't trick me. Since you think space does exist, then how do you think it's different after space ends? What do you think is there instead after "space" runs out? If nothing, how do you think that nothing is different than the nothing I consider to surround us INSTEAD OF space?

However, for you to be right, there must be evidence to back up that view.  Since you love challenges, let me issue one to you.  I challenge you to submit evidence to support your claim that time/space doesn't exist.

[Myles]

nopeda, on 18 October 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

There isn't even a comparison between a situation with mountains that just happen to look like tits and carvings in stone that were deliberately intended to represent something. That's a basic you should try to comprehend and then maybe you can move on to something worthwhile.

There certainly is.  You believe carvings look like air vehicles even though they are not.   I believe 2 mountains look like boobies even though they are not.   I have as much proof to back up my "boobie theory" as you do to back up your air vehicle thought.

[synchronomy]

R4z3rsPar4d0x, on 18 October 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

What are you guys refering to ? What looks like air vehicles?

I believe the OP is referring to this:
http://hallofthegods...ery-abydos.html

[DONTEATUS]

Can we just say that E.T must have his ways  ,and when they come to gather us all up for Dinner We will be the first to know !

[DieChecker]

nopeda, on 17 October 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

The frequency and velocity would add or subtract but the energy level would probably remain unchanged imo. If that's the case then that would be how they can tell how the light has been shifted, if it didn't have the correct amount of energy for the particular frequency. The velocity would be reduced when it hits the adjustment area, as it is when it enters glass and water. The velocity is reduced but the frequency stays the same. If what causes the adjustment is large like the galactic magnetosphere then humans have never been able to do a test outside of it, which is what at this point I expect is the case. If light travels significantly faster when outside the adjustment area then even light sources that are moving away from us could produce light that has a velocity which needs to be slowed down in order to be at 186K miles per second. I'm not saying that's how it is, but how it could be. It would explain the situation.

You're neglecting a little thing called "conservation of energy". You can have the wavelength change with the velocity of light, but you can't have mysterious velocity changes with no change in wavelength. Where would the energy go? Absorbed? Drained away? Where the energy goes is what is making your supposed adjustment. And since there is no known property, or field, or substance, that would fit that energy change, we have to say that is only speculation until such a time as a test can be performed.

What we do know is that within our solar system c is a constant. Transmition times to the Voyager probes, the furthest man made objects fall into totally predictable schedules. There is no known data to support speeds faster then our value for c.

[R4z3rsPar4d0x]

synchronomy, on 18 October 2012 - 09:51 PM, said:

I believe the OP is referring to this:
http://hallofthegods...ery-abydos.html

Thanks synch I didnt think that I would get an answer to that

[nopeda]

Quaentum, on 18 October 2012 - 07:24 PM, said:

Quote

nopeda, on 18 October 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:
AGAIN you blatantly flaunt your own dishonesty by parading the fact that you have no examples. Hilarious!

. . . you are now calling yourself dishonest

I have nothing to be dishonest about. Apparently you do though since you can't produce any examples but you want people to believe that you "could".

[nopeda]

R4z3rsPar4d0x, on 18 October 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

What are you guys refering to ? What looks like air vehicles?

The Abydos helicopter and company. I've been told by people in this forum that they don't resemble air vehicles, which is dishonest since it wouldn't be known as the Abydos helicopter if it didn't look like a helicopter. I've also been told that they are carvings that have been carved over, carvings which parts have fallen off of, carvings that have been plastered over a bit, plastered over and then carved, and probably everything except that they were carved to appear as they do. But! They LOOK like they were carved to appear as they do, and all the other suggestions seem incredibly unlikely. It would be stranger if those stone carvings just happened to fall apart in ways that made them look like air vehicles than it would if they were inspired by things humans saw imo even if they were what they appear to be. Notice there's also a flying insect carved nearby which is omitted from many of the pics:

http://vejprty.com/abylet1.jpg

So whether they are representing air vehicles or not there IS evidence that they are, and there has been dishonesty encouraged for whatever reasons people have been dishonest. I've even been encouraged to accept the idea that the carvings could have been inspired by clouds.

[nopeda]

Quaentum, on 18 October 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

Quote

nopeda, on 18 October 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:
You would have to post it in order to seem like you might possibly be honest if I challenged you to do so. I expect you would fail completely if I did. But I've been told various things about why they look as they do and the one you appear to like best is the idea that parts of them have just fallen away in the most incredibly coincidental way that it makes them appear to resemble air vehicles. Not only would it be almost unbelievably coincidental IF that is what happened, but it looks nothing at all like that's what did happen either. Those two things are huge aspects imo, and reasons why I can't accept your favorite possibility.

The information is there in the previous posts and challenging me to repost it so you don't actually have to look it up yourself can't actually be a challenge since it does exist in this thread, just a tired attempt by you to have it re-posted so you can take the lazy way out of ignoring it once again.

You have amusing ways of trying to get out of your need to back things up. And fyi, not believing any of the various things people have told me because they clearly appear to be untrue is NOT necessarily "the lazy way out". They do NOT appear to have just fallen apart, and they do NOT appear to have been carved over. They appear to have been carved as they are except for a piece in front of the helicopter, afaik.

[nopeda]

Quaentum, on 18 October 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

Quote

nopeda, on 18 October 2012 - 02:04 PM, said:
It's certainly not that way if I'm right. If I'm right other people have tricked you into believing something exists even though it doesn't, but they didn't trick me. Since you think space does exist, then how do you think it's different after space ends? What do you think is there instead after "space" runs out? If nothing, how do you think that nothing is different than the nothing I consider to surround us INSTEAD OF space?

However, for you to be right, there must be evidence to back up that view.  Since you love challenges, let me issue one to you.  I challenge you to submit evidence to support your claim that time/space doesn't exist.

The fact that neither have ever been detected is strong evidence from my pov. The fact that it seems nothing would be different if they didn't/don't exist along with the first fact is strong evidence imo. The fact that if time did exist and have influence on things it would have to influence everything in the universe simultaneously and for eterinity requireing some amount of energy to be continuously provided and distributed along with the first two facts is strong evidence imo. It also simplifies some things and answers some questions. Like is it possible to travel back in time?

[nopeda]

Myles, on 18 October 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

Quote

nopeda, on 18 October 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:
There isn't even a comparison between a situation with mountains that just happen to look like tits and carvings in stone that were deliberately intended to represent something. That's a basic you should try to comprehend and then maybe you can move on to something worthwhile.

There certainly is.

Only with mountains which were carved in stone by humans to represent something. So see if you can come up with any examples of what you think you're trying to talk about, and remember they MUST have been deliberately carved into stone by humans.

[nopeda]

Quote

DieChecker, on 19 October 2012 - 05:58 AM, said:

You're neglecting a little thing called "conservation of energy". You can have the wavelength change with the velocity of light, but you can't have mysterious velocity changes with no change in wavelength.
. . .
What we do know is that within our solar system c is a constant. Transmition times to the Voyager probes, the furthest man made objects fall into totally predictable schedules. There is no known data to support speeds faster then our value for c.

If we're in an adjustment area then that's how it would necessarily seem to us until we can do some testing outside of it, if that ever happens.

Here's something that led me to believe doppler shifting would be maintained even after the adjustment had been made:
_________________________________________________________
http://www.alternati...itterEffect.htm
. . .
The laser beam starts at the left, passes through the glass, then exits the right of it. We know that light slows down as it passes through a transparent medium. The amount of slow-down is determined by the reciprocal of the refractive index of the medium. In the case of glass it’s around 1.52. But let’s simplify things by making it 1.43. This makes the slow-down amount 0.7, i.e. 70% of light speed.

So as the beam moves through the glass it is going at 0.7c. But what is this speed relative to? To the glass of course. Once the beam enters the glass it starts moving from atom-to-atom within the glass. Each atom becomes a new launch point for the light and that is what the beam moves relative to. To make a weak analogy, it is like someone running first on dry land then through waist-deep water: the water is the medium that determines current speed, not the dry land.

The beam then exits the block and returns to its full speed. It is now travelling at c. But relative to what – the laser or the glass? Again: the glass. The beam can no longer be influenced by the laser since it left that long ago. The final layer of atoms in the glass represents the beam’s most recent launch point so they are what determine the beam’s current speed.
We’ll now complicate the situation a little as shown:

Now there are two lasers. One is standing motionless and the other is moving toward the glass. On the other side of the glass is an observer who will monitor the beams.

Assuming the ballistic theory of light is correct, the light from the moving laser will strike the glass at a slightly higher velocity. For arguments sake we’ll say the laser is going at 0.1c. So the two beams will hit the glass – one at c and the other at 1.1c.

The beams strike the glass. Then what? They both slow down of course. But by how much: does the ‘motionless’ beam slow to 0.7c and the ‘moving’ beam to 0.8c?

Answer: they both slow to 0.7c. The beam is now inside the glass and is moving relative to it. The initial speed of the laser can no longer have any effect on the current beam speed because, as before, the beam is now moving from atom to atom within the glass. Those atoms are what control the speed.

The beams then reach the other side of the glass and exit. The beams now go back to full speed: c. But relative to what – the lasers? No, the glass of course! Like the earlier example, the original beam speed is no longer important. The beams exiting the glass now move with identical speed.

This is not to say the beams will be identical in all aspects. The beam from the moving laser strikes the glass at a higher velocity and its light waves will appear to have a frequency 10% higher. This frequency will be preserved throughout the process. And the observer will see the moving laser beam as having a higher frequency – a Doppler shift!  But the final velocity of both beams will be the same: c.
. . .
http://www.alternati...itterEffect.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Edited by nopeda, 23 October 2012 - 09:20 PM.