1828 replies to this topic

[psyche101]

nopeda, on 11 April 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:

You're the one who said I learned the concept from a movie, not me. I said I believe I learned it from my dad. Apparently you didn't learn it from a movie either since you can't even give an example of a movie that includes it. You apparently learned it from me, and it makes you feel lame because I was thinking about it 37 years before you ever heard about it.    It's hilarious that you want me to prove when I learned about it. We discussed it in my high school, but I guess you can't comprehend something like that. Even though you can't, this will tell anyone who can how common a theory it is:

http://is.gd/gkmo4L

I did not say you stole the omnipotent concept from a movie.  I said you stole the plot of planet making from HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy, and I said you stole the Avatar idea from the movie Avatar. You said I had to make your omnipotent being fit a movie, not I, there are far older sources that you could get the idea of an omnipotent being than the movies, or your Google link. The most famous story that is known world wide about an omnipotent being is the Bible. That has indeed been around much longer than 37 years, and for the record, I do not believe that you have been discussing the subject for 37 years, or you would not still be at this ludicrous conclusion. Your track record for fact is a poor one so I do not see why that claim would be any different.

Edited by psyche101, 11 April 2012 - 10:53 PM.

[psyche101]

nopeda, on 11 April 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

I believe your attempt to explain the air vehicles is lame bullsh*t in regards to the pics I referred to, and if you believe it yourself it doesn't say much for you.

Really? Is that why instead of quoting the lengthy post I left and refuting each point, you throw out in insult?

That certainly says how much you know about your own claim. You do not have the guts to tackle my post! It would seem that you are all talk, and no action. Such is common with people than need to rely on a belief though.

nopeda, on 11 April 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

So far I believe there are descriptions of flying vehicles in ancient Indian texts, but if there are none then you should be able to find a quote of a respectable person saying so since other people say that there are. They say there are a LOT of them, so if they're lying then you should be able to quote several respectable people who are saying that they're lying. If you can't, then you have nothing worth thinking about.

I already have given quotes from a list of Universities on the last page, which you are afraid to answer with regards to the helicopter. Are you tripping over yourself and trying to refer to the Vimena section I posted?

http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=4261395

I did not say descriptions did not exist, I said pictures were modern additions. Please read the posts of you are to attempt to respond to them. I do offer you that courtesy. Look at the part of my post that you copied. It says the pictures are modern constructs, do you deny this? Are you even reading what you post?

[psyche101]

nopeda, on 11 April 2012 - 04:40 PM, said:

Relative to what?


No one has. Someone said to your frame of reference, but that doesn't really mean anything especially in regards to whatever other frames of reference. Do you think YOUR frame is at rest and all others are in motion, or what? And even if so, that doesn't mean light emitted from your frame doesn't have a higher combined velocity with things it impacts in frames of reference that are moving toward it, and slower for things moving away. That's what causes red and blue shifting imo.

Seeming as you are a bit slow to pick up on the many times I have answered your question, I will try to make it as easy to understand as is humanly possible

Relative to what?

ANY point in the Universe. If you are observing something at the speed of light you will register it as moving at the speed of light. As you have not understood any link I have left to date, perhaps this one will be more accommodating for you - The speed of light

For light, it would be natural to expect that one could similarly add and subtract velocities. Suppose that I measure a particular light signal's speed, and find the usual value of 299,792.458 kilometers (186,000 miles) per second. If I see a fast spaceship chase right after that signal, moving at half the speed of light (c/2), I would expect that an observer on that spaceship would measure the speed of my light signal at merely c - c/2 = c/2, half the value that I measured.

Not so, according to special relativity! Simply subtracting speeds would only give the correct answer if the observer on that space-ship measured space and time, distance and duration in the same way that I do. As we have seen on the previous page, that's not the case. From my point of view, for instance, the measuring rods on the speeding spaceship are shorter than my own, and its clocks run more slowly than mine. Taken together, all of these relativistic effects combine in precisely the right way to result in a surprising phenomenon: Even from the point of view of an observer on the speeding spaceship, my light signal moves with exactly the same speed, c=299,792.458 kilometers per second.

This phenomenon is far from coincidental. In fact, it is a systematic feature of special relativity. All the different relativistic effects combine, quite generally, so that the following postulate holds true: For any observer on one of the space stations (for any inertial observer, in short), any light signal moves through empty space with the same constant speed, c=299,792,458 kilometers per second, independent of the motion of the light source.

The speed of light is the only speed that is, in this sense, independent of the observer and thus absolute. It also plays the lead role in all of special relativity.

First of all, it defines the absolute speed limit for the transfer of energy, matter and information. No object, however strong the forces acting upon it, can ever be accelerated to light speed. (Some reasons why that is so are given in the section E=mc2.)

Secondly, the speed of light c is a ubiquitous parameter in the equations of special relativity. If the relative speed v is small compared to c, so are the relativistic effects. With v close to c, the relativistic effects become prominent, but with speeds small compared to c, such as the speeds we encounter in everyday life, relativistic effects are almost unnoticable.



With regards to that latter part of your post. how can anything be at rest when space is expanding? Obviously you missed, or did not understand the conversation I had with Arbitran about warp bubbles and rest frames? All of the questions you asked were discussed yesterday. Please try to keep up.

[psyche101]

nopeda, on 11 April 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

  


The pic I referred to has depictions of air vehicles imo, put there to represent things people saw that looked like that. So what do you think the things they saw that looked like that were, if not air vehicles? And don't say birds, or cows...

Something unusual to them. It was more likely something from another culture not understood like when the Australian Indigenous saw Captain Cook arriving and described his clipper ship as a huge white bird.


As two of the ship's boats approached the shore all but two of some thirty Aborigines who retreated to the bushes. Descendants of those Aborigines who lived at Kurnell and witnessed Cook's landing emphatically claim that their people did not run away and hide. Beryl Beller recalls: "When they saw a big white bird sailing into the Bay, that's what was handed down to me, they saw this big white bird coming, these two Aborigines went down as a warning party to let them get the children and hide them! They stood their ground and the others were [in the bushes as] a back-up to protect the family groups. On the rock stood two warriors, and there were about thirty marines. Two against thirty!"

LINK


And we know quite well that Captain Cook did not sail massive Birds to Australia.

[psyche101]

nopeda, on 11 April 2012 - 05:29 PM, said:

If any such beings exist anywhere how do you know how long they have been capable of space travel and how do you know what's reasonable to them?

Being able to traverse space for a long time does not make space smaller, physics are the same here and in the Sombrero Galaxy, in fact everywhere. As such, Aliens have to play by the same rules as we do and nothing in our observable vicinity indicates intelligent life is anywhere near us.

Do you think that there are no limits? That all things are infinite, and one just keeps getting faster and faster with time do you?

[psyche101]

nopeda, on 11 April 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

Who won't?

Other intelligent life forms.

Really, you had to ask that?

[psyche101]

Arbitran, on 11 April 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

As a note here, the Sphinx has been altered: it was originally a statue of a lion--the human head was added considerably later. This is evident from the comparative lack of wearing on the head, as well as the fact that it just plain doesn't seem to fit on the body the way it should if it were meant to be there. What happened to the lion head, nobody knows.

I have read that hypothesis here is a link for anyone who has not seen it - The Great Sphinx of Giza reborn as a lion in the desert

But to the best of my knowledge it is not an accepted hypothesis. If the Sphinx is such an oddity, why does it show up in so many places?



Purushamriga or Indian sphinx depicted on the Shri Varadaraja Perumal temple in Tribhuvana, India



Male purushamriga or Indian sphinx guarding the entrance of the Shri Shiva Nataraja temple in Chidambaram


La Granja, Spain, mid-18th century


Ancient Greek sphinx from Delphi.

That is but a few examples, there are many more.

[Arbitran]

psyche101, on 11 April 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

I have read that hypothesis here is a link for anyone who has not seen it - The Great Sphinx of Giza reborn as a lion in the desert

But to the best of my knowledge it is not an accepted hypothesis. If the Sphinx is such an oddity, why does it show up in so many places?



Purushamriga or Indian sphinx depicted on the Shri Varadaraja Perumal temple in Tribhuvana, India



Male purushamriga or Indian sphinx guarding the entrance of the Shri Shiva Nataraja temple in Chidambaram


La Granja, Spain, mid-18th century


Ancient Greek sphinx from Delphi.

That is but a few examples, there are many more.

Well-noted. I was merely indicating that the Great Sphinx in particular appears to have a head which doesn't quite match its body. Just a side-note.

[psyche101]

Arbitran, on 12 April 2012 - 12:01 AM, said:

Well-noted. I was merely indicating that the Great Sphinx in particular appears to have a head which doesn't quite match its body. Just a side-note.

I grant it is an interesting question. And one worth asking.

[Arbitran]

psyche101, on 12 April 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:

I grant it is an interesting question. And one worth asking.

Agreed.

[Myles]

psyche101, on 11 April 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

I have read that hypothesis here is a link for anyone who has not seen it - The Great Sphinx of Giza reborn as a lion in the desert

But to the best of my knowledge it is not an accepted hypothesis. If the Sphinx is such an oddity, why does it show up in so many places?



Purushamriga or Indian sphinx depicted on the Shri Varadaraja Perumal temple in Tribhuvana, India



Male purushamriga or Indian sphinx guarding the entrance of the Shri Shiva Nataraja temple in Chidambaram


La Granja, Spain, mid-18th century


Ancient Greek sphinx from Delphi.

That is but a few examples, there are many more.

To Nopeda, this is clearly evidence that these creatures existed.    Right Nopeda?

[Alienated Being]

Myles, on 12 April 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

To Nopeda, this is clearly evidence that these creatures existed.    Right Nopeda?

I would say that this indicates, beyond a reasonable doubt, the existence of the purported creatures.

Looooooooooool

[Gabriels_Girl]

nopeda, on 07 March 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

Several of the things about the ancient alien theory seem to support the idea imo. One question that comes up is whether it seems more likely that advanced beings made the pyramids and stacked up a bunch of huge skillfully cut rocks in a number of different places all over the planet, or that ancient humans did that themselves. Since we can't figure out how they could have done it today, what are the chances that a bunch of different separate societies of ancient humans were able to figure out how to do it thousands of years ago? Really it seems more likely that aliens had a big hand in it. It seems more likely than not that there are beings who can get around in space in the universe. The bigger question is whether or not they have been to Earth, and the stacking of the huge rocks is evidence that they have. Also it seems that where there are such examples the humans usually/always refer to beings from the sky. Does it seem like people thousands of years ago would do things to suggest that aliens had been here, just to try to fool people thousands of years in the future? Or at any point in the future? Why would they? If people believed in beings from the stars back then, why would they think people wouldn't still believe in them in the future? And of course the bigger question of how could they do the things that were done?

In geological terms, all the pyramids were basically built around the same time. It is possible that the human mind could have jumped thousands of years in evolution to have the intelligence to build up the pyramids. This could be part of the missing link.
So in my opinion it is very possible for human beings at that time could have gotten themselves in which is a foreign object in your body which could be described as a foreign being, thus, making the form being an alien.

[Myles]

Alienated Being, on 12 April 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

I would say that this indicates, beyond a reasonable doubt, the existence of the purported creatures.

Looooooooooool

Can you hear the crickets?   Nopeda is nowhere to be found.

[nopeda]

psyche101, on 11 April 2012 - 10:46 PM, said:

To interpret Gods as aliens is no better than tose that ascribed natural phenomena to the gods. I think what is required is a deeper look into what these Gods may refer to, and a more holistic approach to the Vedas themselves. Man is well known for using allegory to explain things, I really cannot fathom why it is insisted that this cannot possibly be the case here.

It can be the case and I'm aware of it. The difference is that now I'm aware that it might not be too, but you can't get that far and quite possibly never will be able to.