Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Karlis

Derrick Pitts, Astronomer, Wants UFOs Studied

54 posts in this topic

Here's how I see it.

Our solar system is a raltively young solar system in a galaxy that has some 300 billion other such solar systems.

Now, if you beleive in evolution, you would have to consider that intelligent lifeforms developed on other planets

in our galaxy billions of years ago. billions.

How long does one think it would take for these intelligent beings to figure out how to tour the galaxy/universe?

I would be inclined to think that ET's from many star systems within our galaxy and beyond

have visited our solar system/planet hundreds of millions of years ago as a fait accompli

And if hat actually proves not to be the case, why, oh why ostricize those of who only wish to investigate that which should logically exist?

I don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My view is that research and study have been done, for at least decades, but for whatever reason the gate-keepers prefer to keep it all secret.

Hi BR

I like to look back at the times. If we consider the "super computers" that took astronauts to the moon and back, and compare them to todays calculators, they might come up a bit short. Technology is increasing, private enterprise is so large it can afford billions just for a 2 second TV ad, education is better than ever and with the advent of the Internet in depth knowledge and resources are accessible at one's finger tips.

As such, I find it hard to believe that a grade 5er could not avail themselves with as much information as any "Government" had back in the 40's. Heck I gave my son night vision googles for Christmas two years ago. Imagine that in 1950!

And of course, the global arrangement of Government makes the US Government CT simply unworkable. It just makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I did was quote him from that Huffington Post article. His meaning was clear enough to me. The man is simply an imbecile when it comes to UFOs and doesn't know enough to say ANYTHING about it. On this subject he's a total idiot.

Frankly I don't care what he talks about as long as he just stays out of our hair, because only a fool would say something like that.

That is the thing, he does not say that at all, only that paper implies he does. These are the actual words of Lord Martin Rees. UFO's are not so much as discussed with Rees. The ETH is.

"We should look by all possible techniques," Rees said. "We've no idea what's out there, and so we should look for anything that might seem to be some sort of artifact rather than something natural.

The headline is just a lie from what I can see. He seems to have no intention of getting in anyone's hair or other parts. The paper simply lied about what he said to create a dramatic headline. It's absolute rubbish.

I read the adjoining article. Crikey Moses, that is one crappy paper. I am hoping it is just the "Weird News" section that has extremely low reporting standards.

*ETA, I bet that Lord Martin Rees believes that UFO's do exist. He has not implied otherwise.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's how I see it.

Our solar system is a raltively young solar system in a galaxy that has some 300 billion other such solar systems.

Now, if you beleive in evolution, you would have to consider that intelligent lifeforms developed on other planets

in our galaxy billions of years ago. billions.

How long does one think it would take for these intelligent beings to figure out how to tour the galaxy/universe?

I would be inclined to think that ET's from many star systems within our galaxy and beyond

have visited our solar system/planet hundreds of millions of years ago as a fait accompli

And if hat actually proves not to be the case, why, oh why ostricize those of who only wish to investigate that which should logically exist?

I don't get it.

Interesting subject Earl.

How long ago do you figure Pop 3 type stars were creating elements that could eventually form life? I.E, when do you think life could have first formed, alternatively, when do you think it was possible for the first building blocks of life to exist?

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the thing, he does not say that at all, only that paper implies he does. These are the actual words of Lord Martin Rees. UFO's are not so much as discussed with Rees. The ETH is.

The headline is just a lie from what I can see. He seems to have no intention of getting in anyone's hair or other parts. The paper simply lied about what he said to create a dramatic headline. It's absolute rubbish.

I don't know what you're reading, but Lord Martin Rees said the exact same thing about UFOs in the other Huffington Post article.

"I think most astronomers would dismiss these," Rees said. "I dismiss them because if aliens had made the great effort to traverse interstellar distances to come here, they wouldn't just meet a few well-known cranks, make a few circles in corn fields and go away again."

Not only is that insulting, but it's purely and simply dumb and false.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/lord-martin-rees-aliens-ufos_n_1892005.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lord Martin Rees is an ignoramus about UFOs.

*snip*

Edited by Saru
Removed non-topical images

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what you're reading, but Lord Martin Rees said the exact same thing about UFOs in the other Huffington Post article.

"I think most astronomers would dismiss these," Rees said. "I dismiss them because if aliens had made the great effort to traverse interstellar distances to come here, they wouldn't just meet a few well-known cranks, make a few circles in corn fields and go away again."

Not only is that insulting, but it's purely and simply dumb and false.

http://www.huffingto...ref=mostpopular

I took that quote directly from the article referenced in the OP. This link.

Many astronomers say there's nothing of any scientific merit that could result in the study of UFOs.

Which as we can see is a play on words that results in a lie.

That is clearly the ETH, not UFO's or the also mentioned (in the article) UAP.

And Hynek said pretty much exactly the same thing, one could surmise Hynek was his inspiration.

I have come to support less and less the idea that UFOs are ‘nuts and bolts’ spacecraft from other worlds. There are just too many things going against this theory. To me, it seems ridiculous that super intelligences would travel great distances to do relatively stupid things like stop cars, collect soil samples, and frighten people. I think we must begin to re-examine the evidence. We must begin to look closer to home.

J. Allen Hynek

LINK

​Yet Hynek is reverred, and Rees is derided? How does that work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took that quote directly from the article referenced in the OP. This link.

Many astronomers say there's nothing of any scientific merit that could result in the study of UFOs.

Which as we can see is a play on words that results in a lie.

That is clearly the ETH, not UFO's or the also mentioned (in the article) UAP.

Yes, I got that quote from Rees in the very same article, where he says no astronomers should take UFO reports seriously, which is most definitely not something that Hynek ever would have said. Just the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lord Martin Rees is an ignoramus about UFOs.

Yet the man has not offerred his opinion on them? I am having trouble following you, Lord Rees has not mentioned the UFO phenomena at all, he is talking about the ETH. How can he be determined an ignoramus on something he has not offered an opinion of? The media made the leap from UFO to ETH, not Lord Rees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I got that quote from Rees in the very same article, where he says no astronomers should take UFO reports seriously, which is most definitely not something that Hynek ever would have said. Just the opposite.

But that is what the article says, not Lord Rees, only the reporter has that opinion of Lord Rees, and it seems quite obvious that the reporter is a dimwit who does not recognise the difference between UFO and ETH. The quote is a link, if you follow it, only the ETH is discussed, even though UAP are referenced and it is not in any way the words of Rees. The fault lies not with Lord Rees, but a lousy reporter. It pains me to see people get paid to vomit garbage like this, when so many qualified people are looking for work. Lord Rees specifically states he does not believe backyard hick stories and crop circle claims, and to be quite frank, I cannot blame him. You yourself do not believe the more outrageous claims, and that is what is being referred to here by Lord Rees. For all you and I know, he may not even know the name Thomas Mantell.

As such, the above is a lie, and this can be proven by the very article it appears in. The paper makes the claim for Lord Rees, nobody else does. You will not find a quote referring to the UFO phenomena, only the ETH. We should not have to suffer such fools. And it strikes me that you are attacking the wrong person. Only the reporter makes the claims you have been protesting.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that is what the article says, not Lord Rees, only the reporter has that opinion of Lord Rees, and it seems quite obvious that the reporter is a dimwit who does not .

As such, the above is a lie, and this can be proven by the very article it appears in. The paper makes the claim for Lord Rees, nobody else does. You will not find a quote referring to the UFO phenomena, only the ETH. We should not have to suffer such fools. And it strikes me that you are attacking the wrong person. Only the reporter makes the claims you have been protesting.

Well, you'll have to take that up with the Huffington Post then,l because he is quoted DIRECTLY in two articles as saying exactly what I posted--and even you posted it once!

*snip*

Edited by Saru
Removed non-topical images

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you'll have to take that up with the Huffington Post then,l because he is quoted DIRECTLY in two articles as saying exactly what I posted--and even you posted it once!

How can he sound bad when the paper does the talking for him? Easy I suppose, he is at the mercy of the academic abilities of the reporter, which as we can see quite clearly in this article appear to be almost non existant.

I really do not think I should have to speak to the newspaper? They know they lied to sell headlines, I have posted more than once the ABC expose of the NT News, and how that paper was proven to be doing the same thing the Huffington post here is. And you saw their response! As I said, we should not have to suffer such fools, that is for the credulous.

I still do not follow you, what you posted was a quote about Crop Circles and pertaining to the ETH. You know as well as I do that the ETH and the UFO phenomena are two different things. It is more than clear the Rees never said a single thing about UFO's and what you posted does not change that, Lord Rees does not mention UFO's in the quote you posted either.

What both you and I have posted does not have a quote from Rees that mentions a UFO. Here it is:

"I think most astronomers would dismiss these," Rees said. "I dismiss them because if aliens had made the great effort to traverse interstellar distances to come here, they wouldn't just meet a few well-known cranks, make a few circles in corn fields and go away again."

How does that pertain to the UFO phenomena, and not the ETH? Where are the letters U, F and O?

Do you consider J Allen Hynek a buffoon for making an almost identical statement?

That statement is clearly pertaining to alien life, and does not so much as mention the UFO phenomena, which the article focuses on. He is referring to the crackpot stories, which you have also said definitely exists and feel you can "pick out" as non genuine and comprise the wilder claims. As such, I simply do not understand your position with Rees. I do believe the article has mislead you, as indeed it was intended to do.

You say Rees is a Buffoon because the paper says he deos not believe in UFO's yet Rees never said that at all. If he has, may I please ask you to post the direct quote of Rees saying UFO's do not exist. Reading the article, I can see only the person who wrote the silly story put those words in Lord Rees mouth. Something I thought we all frown upon here?

I do not see how other personalities affect the inaccuracy of the article to be honest. I am only saddened that this reporter managed to fool others to bolstering what is only his personal opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What both you and I have posted does not have a quote from Rees that mentions a UFO. Here it is:

How does that pertain to the UFO phenomena, and not the ETH? Where are the letters U, F and O?

Do you consider J Allen Hynek a buffoon for making an almost identical statement?

You say Rees is a Buffoon because the paper says he deos not believe in UFO's yet Rees never said that at all. If he has, may I please ask you to post the direct quote of Rees saying UFO's do not exist. Reading the article, I can see only the person who wrote the silly story put those words in Lord Rees mouth. Something I thought we all frown upon here?

I do not see how other personalities affect the inaccuracy of the article to be honest. I am only saddened that this reporter managed to fool others to bolstering what is only his personal opinion.

I don't know what else to say about this subject, since he very clearly said that he didn't believe ETs were coming here in UFOs. I just don't know how you're so sure that the reporters simply made up those quotes.

If you look up Rees you will also see that he has made some very different statements about this subject in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what else to say about this subject, since he very clearly said that he didn't believe ETs were coming here in UFOs. I just don't know how you're so sure that the reporters simply made up those quotes.

If you look up Rees you will also see that he has made some very different statements about this subject in the past.

I may have a slight advantage in having been made aware of Lord Rees contributions via the astronomy community, that is why I am a little stunned at the low level of reporting in this article. The article is worthy of Pravda, and Vanity Fair. It is a shame to see this paper drop to that level.

He did not say anything about UFO's at all, he never mentioned them in the article. He said only that he is unconvinced hat ET is here, he says ET could be here, but he canot see evidence to support that. Again, it is only the paper that makes the leap for him. He never uttered the letters U, F and O.

LINK - Royal astronomer: 'Aliens may be staring us in the face

“They could be staring us in the face and we just don’t recognise them. The problem is that we’re looking for something very much like us, assuming that they at least have something like the same mathematics and technology,” he said.

“I suspect there could be life and intelligence out there in forms we can’t conceive. Just as a chimpanzee can’t understand quantum theory, it could be there as aspects of reality that are beyond the capacity of our brains.”

Lord Rees used the conference in January, entitled The Detection of Extra-terrestrial Life and the Consequences for Science and Society, to ask whether the discovery of aliens would cause terror or delight on earth.

I gotta say, I think you have him all wrong. He is the sort of guy you want onside I reckon. The bolded above links to an audio file of the conference. I think the Huffington Post owes Lord Rees an apology.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting subject Earl.

How long ago do you figure Pop 3 type stars were creating elements that could eventually form life? I.E, when do you think life could have first formed, alternatively, when do you think it was possible for the first building blocks of life to exist?

for the first 10 million years post big bang.

universe is about 13.75 years old.

our solar system is about 4.5 billion years old.

other star systems had plenty of time to evolve billions of years ahead of ours

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for the first 10 million years post big bang.

universe is about 13.75 years old.

our solar system is about 4.5 billion years old.

other star systems had plenty of time to evolve billions of years ahead of ours

Gidday Mate.

Yes, agreed, but these were population 1 & 2 stars, no heavy elements existed. Planets were scare, life non-existant. There had to be a point in the Universe where it became possible for life to exist, the Universe has not been capable of supporting life for 14 billion years, that is my point.

At what point do you think Life arose, and what sort of a head start on out system would that particular instance have? And what part of space do you think life first arose in? With the Universe expanding billions of years means we get very far apart. Do you think we all started in one spot and spread out from there, like our "out of Africa" hypothesis, or do you think it was like lights coming on across a city at dusk? Blinking into existence all over the shop?

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may have a slight advantage in having been made aware of Lord Rees contributions via the astronomy community, that is why I am a little stunned at the low level of reporting in this article. The article is worthy of Pravda, and Vanity Fair. It is a shame to see this paper drop to that level.

I gotta say, I think you have him all wrong. He is the sort of guy you want onside I reckon. The bolded above links to an audio file of the conference. I think the Huffington Post owes Lord Rees an apology.

I'm very leery of people like him, lest they turn out to be another H.P. Robertson or Edward Condon, yet another one of these government scientists with intelligence connections who simply pooh-pooh the whole subject in public, regardless of what they really know in private. I can think of plenty of examples of scientists like those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gidday Mate.

Yes, agreed, but these were population 1 & 2 stars, no heavy elements existed. Planets were scare, life non-existant. There had to be a point in the Universe where it became possible for life to exist, the Universe has not been capable of supporting life for 14 billion years, that is my point.

At what point do you think Life arose, and what sort of a head start on out system would that particular instance have? And what part of space do you think life first arose in? With the Universe expanding billions of years means we get very far apart. Do you think we all started in one spot and spread out from there, like our "out of Africa" hypothesis, or do you think it was like lights coming on across a city at dusk? Blinking into existence all over the shop?

Hi psyche....

R U sure about that...? Here is what I get when I look -

"Population III stars are stars from the very earliest years of the Universe. They are stars with extremely low "metal" content." - and as I said before, they lasted about 10 million years, a virtual blink of the eye.

anyway, I have always favored the "blinking into existence all over the shop" theory but I do know there are many scientists that believe in the "coming out of africa" model, as it can be shown that substances *do* go from one planet to the next in any solar system and it is summized that debris carrying comets/asteroids can go from solar system to solar system and do likewise. But just because it *can* happen that way does not mean that is the way it happened.

If our solar system was formed and birthed life on one of its planets in about 4 billion years, I see no reason why life could not have evolved in other solar systems just as quickly, which means as far back as 9.5 billion years ago.

what is your opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi psyche....

R U sure about that...? Here is what I get when I look -

"Population III stars are stars from the very earliest years of the Universe. They are stars with extremely low "metal" content." - and as I said before, they lasted about 10 million years, a virtual blink of the eye.

anyway, I have always favored the "blinking into existence all over the shop" theory but I do know there are many scientists that believe in the "coming out of africa" model, as it can be shown that substances *do* go from one planet to the next in any solar system and it is summized that debris carrying comets/asteroids can go from solar system to solar system and do likewise. But just because it *can* happen that way does not mean that is the way it happened.

If our solar system was formed and birthed life on one of its planets in about 4 billion years, I see no reason why life could not have evolved in other solar systems just as quickly, which means as far back as 9.5 billion years ago.

what is your opinion?

HI EOT

Sorry, you are right, I am always dyslexic when it comes to population stars, I get them face about every time.

But you are wrong about the pop III stars, the supernovae laten about 10 million years. The stars themselves, several hundred million years. Otherwise, I'd pretty much agree that Iron was abundant enough 10 billion years ago to consider life beginning to take form. However, you mention evolution, how long do you think it took for life itself to evolve? How long do you think proto life might have needed to evolve into microorganisms, and then onto more complex creatures?

My opinion. (Concise version)

Considering the harsh conditions in the early universe, I suspect proto life might start forming into life maybe as soon as 4-6 billion years after the big bang? Then maybe another 2-4 billion years to look somewhat like life as we know it, then maybe another 2-4 billion years to attain what we would call intelligence? So my guess would be the first intelligence may have arisen as long as 5 billion years ago?

In my opinion, I also would favour the blinking on all over the place idea. Stars spread the blocks far and wide, there wold be species we never possibly could see out there no matter how fast you go. Building blocks for life are found throughout space.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very leery of people like him, lest they turn out to be another H.P. Robertson or Edward Condon, yet another one of these government scientists with intelligence connections who simply pooh-pooh the whole subject in public, regardless of what they really know in private. I can think of plenty of examples of scientists like those.

I am more leery of the media. They have no accountability, no structure, nothing. They can say what ever they want, and usually do. Science suffers terribly at the chinese whispers of the media circles. Or should I say media circus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HI EOT

Sorry, you are right, I am always dyslexic when it comes to population stars, I get them face about every time.

But you are wrong about the pop III stars, the supernovae laten about 10 million years. The stars themselves, several hundred million years. Otherwise, I'd pretty much agree that Iron was abundant enough 10 billion years ago to consider life beginning to take form. However, you mention evolution, how long do you think it took for life itself to evolve? How long do you think proto life might have needed to evolve into microorganisms, and then onto more complex creatures?

My opinion. (Concise version)

Considering the harsh conditions in the early universe, I suspect proto life might start forming into life maybe as soon as 4-6 billion years after the big bang? Then maybe another 2-4 billion years to look somewhat like life as we know it, then maybe another 2-4 billion years to attain what we would call intelligence? So my guess would be the first intelligence may have arisen as long as 5 billion years ago?

In my opinion, I also would favour the blinking on all over the place idea. Stars spread the blocks far and wide, there wold be species we never possibly could see out there no matter how fast you go. Building blocks for life are found throughout space.

I would find it odd if other life didn't exist in the universe because the universe is so HUGE. Now if life did advance to the level of space travel you also have to take into account how long would it take them to get to a planet like ours. Are they so advanced that they can travel at the speed of light ( which I doubt ) or did they figure out a way to get around the universe ignoring light speed travel altogether. Then again maybe there not traveling any real distance at all but are just jumping dimensions. Opinions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would find it odd if other life didn't exist in the universe because the universe is so HUGE. Now if life did advance to the level of space travel you also have to take into account how long would it take them to get to a planet like ours. Are they so advanced that they can travel at the speed of light ( which I doubt ) or did they figure out a way to get around the universe ignoring light speed travel altogether. Then again maybe there not traveling any real distance at all but are just jumping dimensions. Opinions?

OK, good call!

The vastness of space is a bit of a fallacy though, even though I agree with you, because it is big does not mean it holds life. But we feel comfortable with that assumption.

Thats is the problem isn't it. The Universe is unimaginably huge. So big that travel is not going to allow us to ever see the other side of the Universe, especially considering the rate of expansion. But we all have to start someplace.

We have the ability to travel between the stars. Check this link - Project Orion. Nuclear Propulsion.

Back as far as 1960, we could have taken to the stars. The Nuclear test ban treaty halted the project for a fear of fallout back to earth. The idea was to use nuclear detonations on a "pusher plate" to propel a craft through space. It was estimated we might achieve 8-10% the speed of light in city sized spaceships. The motto of the project was Saturn by '72 I think.

Imagine had we taken of in 1960 for Alpha Centauri. We would be there now, exploring.

So should we not see at least some clunky spaceships that took the first steps? Satellites Debris? Probes? None have even been found. That does not discount life, it does not discount space travel. But we are in a remote location, a long way from anything. The galaxy and the Universe as you say is massive. I do not doubt for a second that others are also wading into space, and some might be regular travellers, but I do not see any evidence in nature or otherwise that such distances can be spanned in a reasonable amount of time.

But if we are seeing advanced species, surely their earlier efforts might leave a mark of some sort?

So, why would the first contact not be communications? Safe, long distance, cheap, low risk and good returns on investment.

I think when ET notices us, or vice versa that it will be more akin to a phone call than shaking hands. It just makes sense to me. You can find out if the atmosphere is toxic or not, you can find out if the inhabitants are friendly or not, and you can learn everything you need to know before taking the risk of crossing space. You eliminate risk, you eliminate quarantine, you eliminate most cost. It seems "intelligent" to me to phone ahead, and rather silly to blindly jump in with both feet and go poking around a veritable minefield.

I also agree they are not likely to be traversing the speed of light. I do not see anyone doing that ever from anyplace. I see them using time dilation, length contraction and so forth, which can assist us so greatly that theoretically we can reach the center of the Galaxy in a mere 12 years, but I do not see anyone outrunning a massless particle.

Thanks for asking.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HI EOT

Sorry, you are right, I am always dyslexic when it comes to population stars, I get them face about every time.

But you are wrong about the pop III stars, the supernovae laten about 10 million years. The stars themselves, several hundred million years. Otherwise, I'd pretty much agree that Iron was abundant enough 10 billion years ago to consider life beginning to take form. However, you mention evolution, how long do you think it took for life itself to evolve? How long do you think proto life might have needed to evolve into microorganisms, and then onto more complex creatures?

My opinion. (Concise version)

Considering the harsh conditions in the early universe, I suspect proto life might start forming into life maybe as soon as 4-6 billion years after the big bang? Then maybe another 2-4 billion years to look somewhat like life as we know it, then maybe another 2-4 billion years to attain what we would call intelligence? So my guess would be the first intelligence may have arisen as long as 5 billion years ago?

In my opinion, I also would favour the blinking on all over the place idea. Stars spread the blocks far and wide, there wold be species we never possibly could see out there no matter how fast you go. Building blocks for life are found throughout space.

For our own purposes we pretty much agree that intelligent life would exist throughout the universe several billion years ago.

Just look at the technological progress humans have made in the last 100 years - amazing!

Now think of where we'll be in a billion years,,, 4 billion years from now. Our imaginations are not that good but I think you may agree that we will conquer "long distance" space travel by use of wormholes probably in the next 100 years. maybe less.

This is why it is so easy for me to think that this planet could have been visited a billion years ago or more, by any number of intelligent ET beings from our own galaxy and possibly beyond.

it's a fait acompli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, good call!

I also agree they are not likely to be traversing the speed of light. I do not see anyone doing that ever from anyplace. I see them using time dilation, length contraction and so forth, which can assist us so greatly that theoretically we can reach the center of the Galaxy in a mere 12 years, but I do not see anyone outrunning a massless particle.

Thanks for asking.

They are already here and have been here a long time. Anyone who doesn't know that by now is just out to lunch or has their head buried in the sand.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For our own purposes we pretty much agree that intelligent life would exist throughout the universe several billion years ago.

Just look at the technological progress humans have made in the last 100 years - amazing!

Now think of where we'll be in a billion years,,, 4 billion years from now. Our imaginations are not that good but I think you may agree that we will conquer "long distance" space travel by use of wormholes probably in the next 100 years. maybe less.

This is why it is so easy for me to think that this planet could have been visited a billion years ago or more, by any number of intelligent ET beings from our own galaxy and possibly beyond.

it's a fait acompli

Hrrmzz, I am not so sure that we can ever travel via wormholes or through deep space in such a short cut fashion. If such existed in nature, I would be more inclined to think so, but black holes do not go to other areas of space. I'd like to see something more convincing that such can be created, made large enough to use, and then be held open long enough to use. To my experience, wormholes seem to create more problems with space travel than they solve.

In one billion years, many are pegging us to be extinct. There is a theory about the time span a species can survive.

But I did not think that with time all answers come. Consider drag racing. They said we would never break the 7 second quarter mile.

Till someone did it in 6. Then 5. Now we are into sub 5 second quarter mile runs. Some boffins said that would kill a human body like 100 years ago. Not the case!

But where do we go from here? Can we do a sub 3 second run? Maybe - 2 second? Holy Cow. 1 Second? No. No conventionally aspirated engine can ever cross a quarter mile in under one second, no matter what you do to it. It's simply impossible and there is nothing anyone can do about it. But could a space shuttle do it? Well, the acceleration of a top fuel drag racing vehicle is actually faster than the space shuttle, but lets look at something like re-entry and a rolling start. Could the quarter mile then be covered in one second? Lets go out on a limb and say yes, indeed it can!

What happens when you get to .001 of a second? How do you better that? Will time better it? It canot! Everything has limits. I think Einstein found the Universal speed limit. The universes equivalent to 1+1=2. It is what it is. I see absolutely nothing that indicates otherwise outside of science fiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.