1828 replies to this topic

[quillius]

nopeda, on 26 March 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

Best to consider all possibilities imo, and the only reason I disbelieved that xts were coming around is because I believed humans would be able to detect and track them if they did. Now I don't believe that any more. As for whether they have been here or not: Maybe not, and if not that covers that. But if they have then that involves a lot more thinking, so in order to consider that possibility it requires a lot more thought than to consider the other.

I assure you I do consider all the possibilities that I can think of.

The reason you gave for disbelieving originally is somewhat of a logical fallacy, though it seems that you have progressed from that position.

and yes lots more thinking is vital

[Myles]

booNyzarC, on 27 March 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

I concur.  I can understand the attraction to such an idea though.

Oh I also understand.  I think it can be tracked down the the explorer in all of us.  Simplified as it is, wanting to believe that aliens have been visiting us is a way of exploring (albeit at a rudimentary level).  Same with bigfooters and Loch Ness believers.

[sean2011]

Mr Right Wing, on 08 March 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

I dont see anything special with the pyramids except to think those Egyptians had a lot of spare time on their hands.

well you haven't seen them then. people take thwem for granted that it was all about putting stones on top of each other. what most people don't realise is how exact they have to be, and this is where the whole alien or special tools come into it. the first stones are cut perfectly, exactly the right shape, if they were a couple milimetres out then the whole thing wouldn't work.

they must of planned it for ages, how would a race calculate such a thing, or build it with there such sinmple tools, people need to watch some documentaries and take a close look at it. there so many things wot are odd, it does make you wonder.

[Myles]

sean2011, on 27 March 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

well you haven't seen them then. people take thwem for granted that it was all about putting stones on top of each other. what most people don't realise is how exact they have to be, and this is where the whole alien or special tools come into it. the first stones are cut perfectly, exactly the right shape, if they were a couple milimetres out then the whole thing wouldn't work.

they must of planned it for ages, how would a race calculate such a thing, or build it with there such sinmple tools, people need to watch some documentaries and take a close look at it. there so many things wot are odd, it does make you wonder.

But with time and manpower, it can be accomplished by humans.  

I admit I have not seen the them in person.   I have however seen and read where the stones are not as perfect as some whould have you believe.  I don't know this for fact.   Either way, they are a marvel.

[bouncer]

sean2011, on 27 March 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

well you haven't seen them then. people take thwem for granted that it was all about putting stones on top of each other. what most people don't realise is how exact they have to be, and this is where the whole alien or special tools come into it. the first stones are cut perfectly, exactly the right shape, if they were a couple milimetres out then the whole thing wouldn't work.

they must of planned it for ages, how would a race calculate such a thing, or build it with there such sinmple tools, people need to watch some documentaries and take a close look at it. there so many things wot are odd, it does make you wonder.

Ancient man accomplished many other things too..Trepanning for example, or neolithic brain sugery. From the stone age...

let those words sink in, Neolithic...brain surgery

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Trepanning

In my view that shows a higher order of thought about medicine/illness and treatment... than just building blocks up.

Or maybe...aliens showed them how to do it!!

[nopeda]

psyche101, on 27 March 2012 - 03:48 AM, said:

You seem to think because you stated "Ohh, no my aliens were here before the big bang" suddenly makes your whole concept original. It does not. You have no idea what even existed before the big bang, and how long it takes for a big bang to initiate. It could be billion of billions of years for all we know, or it happened at all. And you are also using an idea of multiple big bangs, again, no way to possibly know that. What you are doing is plagiarising some movies and

You're still thinking like a little kid who has seen one or two movies and learned of possibilities that were new to him, not being aware that lots of other people were discussing such possibilities long before the little kid, or you in this case, learned about them in a couple of movies. The idea that the universe is going through cycles of expansion and contraction is not a new one, and in fact some people feel the ancient Hindus expressed that same concept in their literature thousands of years ago. Since I know the concept is a popular one and it may have been around thousands of years ago, I'm not impressed that you learned about it in some movie before I referred to it.

[nopeda]

psyche101, on 27 March 2012 - 03:53 AM, said:

We all know what Magrathea is. . .a Google

You're STILL going on about that story I told you I didn't like.  

[nopeda]

psyche101, on 27 March 2012 - 03:56 AM, said:

What we do know is that faster than light travel is impossible

"Faster than light" relative to what? On Earth speed is relative to the surface, but what do you want to claim it's relative to in space, and why?

How do you think you could possibly have found out that "ftl" is impossible?   Did you "learn" it in a movie?

[nopeda]

booNyzarC, on 27 March 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

I can understand the attraction to such an idea though.

One is that if it's true, it would be better to at least consider the possibility rather than naively try to pretend it's impossible for some reason(s). There is absolutely no reason to think it's impossible and only reason to believe it is possible. There's also no reason to think it's unlikely that xts have been here and only likely that they have been if xts that are good at space travel exist anywhere in our vicinity. And on top of everything it's every bit as likely as not that this is a project planet for advanced beings. On the plus side if it is, we're not in as much danger of being impacted by things that would mess us up (unless the xts running the operation decide to let them) as we appear to be now. As it is we're helpless to prevent something big from coming in and destroying civilization as we know it. That's just one of the reasons we're stupid for not putting more effort into space ourselves. We should have stations and observatories on the moon and be mining asteroids by now too, but nooooo....

[Myles]

nopeda, on 27 March 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

"Faster than light" relative to what? On Earth speed is relative to the surface, but what do you want to claim it's relative to in space, and why?

How do you think you could possibly have found out that "ftl" is impossible?   Did you "learn" it in a movie?

Actually we do know that it is impossible in space as well.   You should read more than the alien newspapers.

[Oniomancer]

nopeda, on 27 March 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

"Faster than light" relative to what? On Earth speed is relative to the surface, but what do you want to claim it's relative to in space, and why?

How do you think you could possibly have found out that "ftl" is impossible?   Did you "learn" it in a movie?

How exactly do you think they measured the speed of light in the first place?

http://en.wikipedia....al_measurements

[psyche101]

nopeda, on 27 March 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

You're still thinking like a little kid who has seen one or two movies and learned of possibilities that were new to him, not being aware that lots of other people were discussing such possibilities long before the little kid, or you in this case, learned about them in a couple of movies. The idea that the universe is going through cycles of expansion and contraction is not a new one, and in fact some people feel the ancient Hindus expressed that same concept in their literature thousands of years ago. Since I know the concept is a popular one and it may have been around thousands of years ago, I'm not impressed that you learned about it in some movie before I referred to it.

No I am not, you are just very annoyed because I have exposed your inspiration. Yes the idea of the Universe ending and reforming has been bandied about, but it is a Hypothesis. If that actually happens, nobody knows, and the time frames would be ridiculous. I broached the subject of the Universe and it's proposed states, I asked you how could a species survive for potentially billions of year without any resources whatsoever - you know like the state of the Universe before the big bang. I see you dodged that to add some more Ad Homs to make yourself feel better about plagiarising other tales.

The movie concepts are not mine, they do not refer to expansion and contraction of the Universe, and you have stated that you do not like the movies that you stole your idea from. So if you do not like them, then it stands to reason that you have seen them to dislike them. Therefore you are playing dumb yet again aren't you? I see you also artfully dodged that the time frames that you seem to think are so accurate are pretty loose, they give or take a trillion years or so, which is outside of this Universe.

Do you feel the Ad Homs help support your position?

Edited by psyche101, 28 March 2012 - 02:21 AM.

[psyche101]

nopeda, on 27 March 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

You're STILL going on about that story I told you I didn't like.  

It matters not if you liked it or not - you stole the plot to make up this idea. You know, the one you know nothing about that you have an opinion on?

[psyche101]

nopeda, on 27 March 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

"Faster than light" relative to what? On Earth speed is relative to the surface, but what do you want to claim it's relative to in space, and why?

Relative the the observers frame of reference of course. Do you want me to leave you some links to help you along, or I can recommend a documentary or two explaining the principle for you to plagiarise?

nopeda, on 27 March 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

How do you think you could possibly have found out that "ftl" is impossible?   Did you "learn" it in a movie?

Here you go, try this movie, I suggest you plagiarise it




LISA

Albert Einstein

You see the trick is to work and play. That way I know what is going on around me, and also when people do their darndest to try and fool me Even Stephen Hawking likes Star Trek. The problem you seem to have is you are struggling with distinguishing the two.

[psyche101]

sean2011, on 27 March 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

well you haven't seen them then. people take thwem for granted that it was all about putting stones on top of each other. what most people don't realise is how exact they have to be, and this is where the whole alien or special tools come into it. the first stones are cut perfectly, exactly the right shape, if they were a couple milimetres out then the whole thing wouldn't work.

they must of planned it for ages, how would a race calculate such a thing, or build it with there such sinmple tools, people need to watch some documentaries and take a close look at it. there so many things wot are odd, it does make you wonder.

It was planned for ages. There are a whole bunch of holes on the southern side that are geometric points which line up the angles. Things like stars and sunlight were used to make the alignments. A shadow makes one hell of a very long straight edge.