advanced aliens or ancient humans?

[nopeda]

Sure they are. You don't think birds and flying fish resemble flying vehicles?

Not enough for them to be representations of birds or flying fish. They clearly appear to be representing air vehicles, not any sort of animal. Why do you want so badly for them to be representing things they don't appear to be representing, do you know?

[nopeda]

I do not believe that you have been discussing the subject for 37 years, or you would not still be at this ludicrous conclusion.

I've been discussing the subject itself for longer than that. It's the idea of the possible cycling of the universe I may have only be aware of for about 37 years. And for the majority of the time I've been considering these things I was convinced that xts were not coming around the Earth and quite possibly had never been here at all. It wasn't until I recently learned about all the evidence that they have been here that it all began to make sense. Naively I had thought that humans would be able to detect them if they were flying around in our atmosphere, but since my thinking has matured imo, I now feel that if such beings do exist they're most likely able to absorb electromagnetic radiation with their vehicles so we have no way of detecting them when they don't want us to. It seems obvious now. And btw the only concept I learned about from "movies" was the transporter concept more than 37 years ago from the old Star Trek tv series when I was still in early grade school (actually I can't recall ever not being aware of that concept), and the concept of transparent aluminum from whatever ST movie that was. Not that it makes any difference where I learned what.

[nopeda]

I did not say descriptions did not exist, I said pictures were modern additions.

What do the descriptions describe, and where can we read them?

[nopeda]

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.

. . .

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.

If there was no red shifting and blue shifting of light I might believe that, but there is so I don't.

Edited April 16, 2012 by nopeda

[nopeda]

nopeda 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.

. . .

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

No doubt the sails looked like birds to them from a long way off, and they realised that it was not a bird when they saw that it was a ship.

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...

[nopeda]

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

Relative to what?

[Arbitran]

If there was no red shifting and blue shifting of light I might believe that, but there is so I don't.

I'll note, red/blue-shifting of light deals with the direction that the light is traveling relative to the observer, not the speed of the photons: which is constant, unless marginally slowed by interacting with matter, such as an atmosphere, liquid, etc.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Arbitran

[nopeda]

Who won't?

Other intelligent life forms.

Really, you had to ask that?

Since you appeared to be making claims about beings you appear to believe do not exist, of course I had to ask. I also wonder why you would be making claims about beings you believe do not exist.

[nopeda]

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.

And they all just came up with the idea? Do you think it's part of human DNA to imagine that such creatures exist, or did exist? If not, why and how do you think they all came up with the concept and found it significant enough to carve out sculptures of the things?

[nopeda]

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.

Did any of your research so far explain why we would see sphinx type beings with the head of a human and the body of a cat, and other type beings who have the head of a dog and the body of a human? Why those particular combinations? Also, how many places do you know of where people depicted or described beings with human bodies and dog heads? Apparently there are a number of them where they depict and probably describe beings with cat bodies and human heads. What does it all mean?

Also, has any of your research indicated that dogs were either put here to help humans progress, or/and were altered by xts so that they would be better partners for humans?

[nopeda]

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

Sure. It doesn't mean they did exist, but the fact that people took the time and effort to carve depictions of them into rock is evidence that they did whether they did or not. More evidence of that would be if people in different parts of the world, who had no way of communicating the idea between each other, took the time and effort to carve depictions of them into rock...

[nopeda]

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.

Huh?

[nopeda]

I'll note, red/blue-shifting of light deals with the direction that the light is traveling relative to the observer, not the speed of the photons: which is constant, unless marginally slowed by interacting with matter, such as an atmosphere, liquid, etc.

Objects we are moving away from appear red shifted, while objects we're moving toward are blue shifted. That happens on Earth with sound, but in the Earth's atmosphere the sound waves are restricted from moving "faster than the speed of sound" by the properties of the medium itself. The sound still appears higher in pitch to us when it's approaching, and lower when moving away (Doppler shift), because the wavelengths are compressed and expanded even though the velocity of the waves remains constant relative to the medium. If light is similarly restricted then something must be imposing the restriction, but so far things like the following lead me to believe it is not:

"Light from moving objects will appear to have different wavelengths depending on the relative motion of the source and the observer.

. . .

Observers looking at an object that is moving away from them see light that has a longer wavelength than it had when it was emitted (a redshift), while observers looking at an approaching source see light that is shifted to shorter wavelength (a blueshift).

. . .

The radial velocity is usually approximated by v(rad) = cz, where c is the speed of light, The medium bright galaxy is moving away at 15,000 km/sec with z = 0.05, while the faintest and most distant galaxy is moving away at 75,000 km/sec with z = 0.25. When z is larger than 1 then cz is faster than the speed of light and, while recession velocities faster than light are allowed, this approximation using cz as the recession velocity of an object is no longer valid. Thus for the largest known redshift of z=6.3, the recession velocity is not 6.3*c = 1,890,000 km/sec. It is also not the 285,254 km/sec given by the special relativistic Doppler formula 1+z = sqrt((1+v/c)/(1-v/c)). The actual recession velocity for this object depends on the cosmological parameters, but for an OmegaM=0.3 vacuum-dominated flat model the velocity is 585,611 km/sec. This is faster than light.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/doppler.htm

[psyche101]

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.

Well I certainly seem to be one up on you as I do understand, I reject your musing. On the other hand, you have blatantly shown that concepts such as E=MC2 are completely beyond you and that you struggle to comprehend the vastness of space.

[Arbitran]

Objects we are moving away from appear red shifted, while objects we're moving toward are blue shifted. That happens on Earth with sound, but in the Earth's atmosphere the sound waves are restricted from moving "faster than the speed of sound" by the properties of the medium itself. The sound still appears higher in pitch to us when it's approaching, and lower when moving away (Doppler shift), because the wavelengths are compressed and expanded even though the velocity of the waves remains constant relative to the medium. If light is similarly restricted then something must be imposing the restriction, but so far things like the following lead me to believe it is not:

"Light from moving objects will appear to have different wavelengths depending on the relative motion of the source and the observer.

. . .

Observers looking at an object that is moving away from them see light that has a longer wavelength than it had when it was emitted (a redshift), while observers looking at an approaching source see light that is shifted to shorter wavelength (a blueshift).

. . .

The radial velocity is usually approximated by v(rad) = cz, where c is the speed of light, The medium bright galaxy is moving away at 15,000 km/sec with z = 0.05, while the faintest and most distant galaxy is moving away at 75,000 km/sec with z = 0.25. When z is larger than 1 then cz is faster than the speed of light and, while recession velocities faster than light are allowed, this approximation using cz as the recession velocity of an object is no longer valid. Thus for the largest known redshift of z=6.3, the recession velocity is not 6.3*c = 1,890,000 km/sec. It is also not the 285,254 km/sec given by the special relativistic Doppler formula 1+z = sqrt((1+v/c)/(1-v/c)). The actual recession velocity for this object depends on the cosmological parameters, but for an OmegaM=0.3 vacuum-dominated flat model the velocity is 585,611 km/sec. This is faster than light.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/doppler.htm

I was always under the impression that there was no necessary "medium" which imposes the restriction of velocity to the luminal speed: apart perhaps from space-time itself. I mean, unless we're resurrecting the concept of ether, then the fact that light moves at a certain speed and no faster within a vacuum is concrete evidence (even within invoking Einstein) that that is the maximum attainable speed for matter and energy. The only possible exception would involve the speed at which space-time itself is moving (such as during inflation), or equations factoring in things like negative mass: a fascinating concept, but not proven scientifically. Essentially, the only way to increase the speed of light would be to introduce it to a medium with less in it that a total vacuum. As of course it is not clear as to whether this is even remotely possible, I think it's safe to say that matter and energy do in fact have a speed limit in a vacuum. The only way around it being a miraculous region of negative-density space--which is, again, not impossible, but not shown to be strictly possible either. It's all rather speculative until someone finds/generates a particle of negative-mass matter.

[psyche101]

Not enough for them to be representations of birds or flying fish. They clearly appear to be representing air vehicles, not any sort of animal. Why do you want so badly for them to be representing things they don't appear to be representing, do you know?

They are clearly not planes and helicopters. The Abydos Helicopter has been clearly explained by many professionals, but if you just turn a blind eye to what they have to say you will continue to believe it is a helicopter.

[psyche101]

I've been discussing the subject itself for longer than that. It's the idea of the possible cycling of the universe I may have only be aware of for about 37 years. And for the majority of the time I've been considering these things I was convinced that xts were not coming around the Earth and quite possibly had never been here at all. It wasn't until I recently learned about all the evidence that they have been here that it all began to make sense. Naively I had thought that humans would be able to detect them if they were flying around in our atmosphere, but since my thinking has matured imo, I now feel that if such beings do exist they're most likely able to absorb electromagnetic radiation with their vehicles so we have no way of detecting them when they don't want us to. It seems obvious now. And btw the only concept I learned about from "movies" was the transporter concept more than 37 years ago from the old Star Trek tv series when I was still in early grade school (actually I can't recall ever not being aware of that concept), and the concept of transparent aluminum from whatever ST movie that was. Not that it makes any difference where I learned what.

I do not believe you. Your maturity tells me that you have been looking at this for about 3 months. It sounds like you are travelling backwards, your claims are most certainly back to front here. You seem to elevate yourself above the average person and due to this knowledge that you have convinced yourself of, I detest that. You seem to believe that because you cannot see them that you make up some invisible cloak to explain it. That alone should tell you that your theories are batty at best.

[psyche101]

What do the descriptions describe, and where can we read them?

Aren't you telling this story?

[Myles]

Sure. It doesn't mean they did exist, but the fact that people took the time and effort to carve depictions of them into rock is evidence that they did whether they did or not. More evidence of that would be if people in different parts of the world, who had no way of communicating the idea between each other, took the time and effort to carve depictions of them into rock...

"It doesn't mean they did exist" " is evidence that they did wether they did or not"? What the heck are you talking about. A hershey mark in my underwear is not evidence that feces grows from the crotch area of underwear. It is if we go by your method. I should start a new thread.

I can provide more evidence of this than you can for ancient aliens.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Myles

[psyche101]

If there was no red shifting and blue shifting of light I might believe that, but there is so I don't.

You do know Hoyle was wrong about his steady state Universe and that observations have proven this? Hubble's law does not violate the relative position of an observer at all. For any inertial observer, any light signal moves through empty space with the same constant speed.

Your beef seems to be that you think something must slow down light, I find your analogy terrible with sound because sound moves the atmosphere to create something we can hear. How do you find sound performs in space where light exists? Does that not indicate something to you right there? Have you considered that light moves at it's maximum velocity at all times?

[DONTEATUS]

Cerntanally,Yuck,Yuck,Yuck ! Sound travels at speeds what ever there pre-Amp`s can push them ANd Those guys at Millieways,the Resta`rant at the End of the Universe Love a Great Band,just ask Ford Prefect !

[psyche101]

No doubt the sails looked like birds to them from a long way off, and they realised that it was not a bird when they saw that it was a ship.

You can try to convince yourself of that, but the same thing happened when Cook went to New Zealand. When Endeavour arrived in New Zealand in October 1769, the people of Turanganui (Poverty Bay) thought it was a floating island or an ancestral bird from Hawaiki. It was only when small boats that the indigenous likened to canoes arrived that caused alarm in the indigenous sparking conflicts. The large boats sailed past colonies undeterred and all traditional historical record conforms. Historical record says large white birds carried invaders to the shores of Australia and New Zealand, but as we all well know, tall ships are not large white birds.

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...

Just like today, many things that we are still cataloging. All UFO's that have been identified to date have had a prosaic explanation. There is absolutely no reason to think your proposal is a different situation. The Hessdalen valley stands testament to this beginning of understanding this wide ranging phenomena.

[psyche101]

Relative to what?

Again for what the 5th time?

ANY POINT IN THE UNIVERSE.

Try reading slower, see if that helps?

[psyche101]

I'll note, red/blue-shifting of light deals with the direction that the light is traveling relative to the observer, not the speed of the photons: which is constant, unless marginally slowed by interacting with matter, such as an atmosphere, liquid, etc.

Absolutely spot on Arbitran. Well said. I hope you can get through!

[psyche101]

Since you appeared to be making claims about beings you appear to believe do not exist, of course I had to ask. I also wonder why you would be making claims about beings you believe do not exist.

I never said any such thing. I said that I am quite certain that your views of the Vedas is a zealous one that has over reacted blindly. I said I do not believe the Gods mentioned in the Vedas are aliens and that there is not sufficient proof to conclude this is the case. I have said the the Universe is too vast to travel all around it, and that even FTL travel will still be extremely restrictive and I have said that any trek through space even with the aids of time dilation and length contraction is still lin the majority of cases going to be a one way journey. I said that you do not respect the vastness of space. I also said that communications is the best way to initiate contact, and logically it should precede a physical presence. That's just common sense.

I did not at any time say Aliens do not exist, and I would appreciate it if you could point out what prompted you to make such an accusation. Link please.