Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The World's Biggest Secret


OntarioSquatch

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, badeskov said:

It is indeed baffling, since the GovernmentTM seems to the able to construct massive conspiracies, involving hundreds of thousands of people that in some miraculous way can all stay quiet and not speak of the secrets they were exposed to, yet at the same screw up simple burglaries (like Watergate, involving very few people). Mind boggling. 

Yeah. That is one of the questions I have always had. Massive disclosure. Extra-Terrestrial live out there. ET visitation. Where are the military satellites looking out, keeping an eye for us? Non-existent. Left to civilian entities. I always felt that was a huge tell-tale. 

There was indeed truth to it and there still is, albeit it has diminished significantly. There was a huge thing about the fear of Soviet technology being able to penetrate US airspace, which obviously after the end of the Cold War turned out to be bogus. But nobody knew that during the Cold War as the Intelligence and Surveillance was simply not up to par.  

That is another nail in the coffin of the promoters of this nonsense, Yet, they seem to be coming back continuously.

Cheers,
Badeskov

My dad had books from the late '70s early '80s about Air Forces of the World, one was an atlas of all known or estimated aircraft in every country's air force and the commentary on each country was really interesting.  There was a lot of fear of the Soviet Union written in those pages.  Back when there wasn't even a single photograph of the Su-24 but one, a silhouette of its shadow, and we were speculating the giant radar it must be carrying.   Then there was commentary in other books of the same vintage about the rumor of a new Soviet air superiority fighter alleged to be in development.  On the strategic side of the fence, the Soviet nukes nicknamed the "Satan", that one was pretty good too.

It's kindof a paradox because I do believe that alien life exists out there somewhere.  I think it's plausible to say the least.    But even if aliens are smart enough to figure out how to travel the stars, they very well may have decided not to.  If they're smart enough to thrive for millions of years without annihilating each other, their own planet is probably in very good hands.   Even if there's space traveling aliens, I think it's fantastic thinking on our part to think that we are at the center of their interests for some reason. 

We have military satellites and radar watching all kinds of things though.  I think a bigger tell might be that we're not prioritizing space technology as much as we could.  A knowledge of aliens would be a big driver in spending and it'd materialize differently than what we're seeing like the US hanging up the space shuttle and riding shotgun with the Russians.  Not that we're out of the spacecraft business, but there probably wouldn't be these long interludes so behind the curve like this.  They wouldn't have outsourced orbital transport to the private sector so readily, I think that's a good tell.

Another tell is just counting the money.   NASA's budget is not that big in the grand scheme of things but its budget is the whipping boy of spending cuts when the officials are cutting spending.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We may not always see eye to eye, Yamato, but you nailed those few posts.. :D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yamato said:

My dad had books from the late '70s early '80s about Air Forces of the World, one was an atlas of all known or estimated aircraft in every country's air force and the commentary on each country was really interesting.  There was a lot of fear of the Soviet Union written in those pages.  Back when there wasn't even a single photograph of the Su-24 but one, a silhouette of its shadow, and we were speculating the giant radar it must be carrying.   Then there was commentary in other books of the same vintage about the rumor of a new Soviet air superiority fighter alleged to be in development.  On the strategic side of the fence, the Soviet nukes nicknamed the "Satan", that one was pretty good too.

It is pretty amazing how far we have gotten since then. I remember reading newspaper articles about planes being spied on and nobody had any clue what they were really capable of.

Quote

It's kindof a paradox because I do believe that alien life exists out there somewhere.  I think it's plausible to say the least.    But even if aliens are smart enough to figure out how to travel the stars, they very well may have decided not to.  If they're smart enough to thrive for millions of years without annihilating each other, their own planet is probably in very good hands.   Even if there's space traveling aliens, I think it's fantastic thinking on our part to think that we are at the center of their interests for some reason. 

It is indeed a paradox. I find it rather arrogant to believe that the Earth is being so frequently visited as claimed by numerous proponents of ET visitation, let alone they helped build the pyramids, crashed at Roswell and what else you have. We are but a speck in an infinite ocean of empty space. How the heck are they finding us and why do they keep coming back? 

Not that I think they ever found us nor are visiting.

Quote

We have military satellites and radar watching all kinds of things though. 

Indeed, and all military birds are looking at the Earth, not out into space. The only birds looking into space are civilian birds. I would figure that if there really was a known presence out there, we would be looking out as well.

Quote

I think a bigger tell might be that we're not prioritizing space technology as much as we could.  A knowledge of aliens would be a big driver in spending and it'd materialize differently than what we're seeing like the US hanging up the space shuttle and riding shotgun with the Russians.  Not that we're out of the spacecraft business, but there probably wouldn't be these long interludes so behind the curve like this.  They wouldn't have outsourced orbital transport to the private sector so readily, I think that's a good tell.

Another tell is just counting the money.   NASA's budget is not that big in the grand scheme of things but its budget is the whipping boy of spending cuts when the officials are cutting spending.

Indeed. If there really was a presence out there, I am convinced more nations would be collaborating instead of just keeping an eye on each other.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited by badeskov
Typo
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be a misconception about time dilation when it comes to high speed travel. If an observer on Earth watches a spaceship fly by at speeds close to the speed of light, then a clock on the spaceship would appear to be slower than a clock on Earth. An observer on the spaceship looking at Earth would notice that the clocks on Earth appear to be moving slower as well. Observers on both the Earth and the spaceship see that the other clocks are slowed down. The easy way to remember this is that there is no preferred frame of reference. If the opposite did not appear to happen, then we could choose the fastest clock as the preferred frame of reference.

The confusion here might be the twin paradox. In that a spaceship takes one of the twins on a fast flight somewhere and then comes back to Earth. The twin on the spaceship is younger than his twin who remained on Earth. The difference is that the twin on Earth did not experience the accelerations do speed up and then slow down to reverse course and speed up and then slow down to return to Earth. It is during those accelerations that the twin on the spacecraft experiences events that the Earth twin did not. Time slows down in high gravity fields.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, stereologist said:

There seems to be a misconception about time dilation when it comes to high speed travel. If an observer on Earth watches a spaceship fly by at speeds close to the speed of light, then a clock on the spaceship would appear to be slower than a clock on Earth. An observer on the spaceship looking at Earth would notice that the clocks on Earth appear to be moving slower as well. Observers on both the Earth and the spaceship see that the other clocks are slowed down. The easy way to remember this is that there is no preferred frame of reference. If the opposite did not appear to happen, then we could choose the fastest clock as the preferred frame of reference.

The confusion here might be the twin paradox. In that a spaceship takes one of the twins on a fast flight somewhere and then comes back to Earth. The twin on the spaceship is younger than his twin who remained on Earth. The difference is that the twin on Earth did not experience the accelerations do speed up and then slow down to reverse course and speed up and then slow down to return to Earth. It is during those accelerations that the twin on the spacecraft experiences events that the Earth twin did not. Time slows down in high gravity fields.

 

You lost me.  I thought that time gets slower as you approach the speed of light and stops completely at the speed of light.  This means that after acceleration to .9999 the speed of light while cruisng at .9999 the speed of light time will be nearly stopped regardless of the acceleration.  Is that not correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Merc14 said:

You lost me.  I thought that time gets slower as you approach the speed of light and stops completely at the speed of light.  This means that after acceleration to .9999 the speed of light while cruisng at .9999 the speed of light time will be nearly stopped regardless of the acceleration.  Is that not correct?

If you are on the spaceship you have no idea that time is slowing down. The slow down is what an external observer sees. In other words, time is relative between observers. Time seems normal on any frame of reference. The only way to notice a difference is to look at another frame of reference.

Say you are cruising around at close to the speed of light. The only way you know you are cruising around at the speed of light is that you are looking at some other place to use as a reference. If you did not and were in an enclosed area and the spaceship was not changing speed then you would no way of telling if you were moving fast or not. Think about piloting an aircraft. At a fixed velocity you feel the same if you are moving at 0mph on the tarmac or 500mph. The same is true in the spacecraft. Nothing is acting on you.

Within the spaceship time is normal. On a planet being passed time is normal. But the observers on the planet and spaceship notice that time is not normal for the other observer. They both see the same effect: time is slowed for the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, stereologist said:

 They both see the same effect: time is slowed for the other.

Agree with all the deleted and that is how I understood things.   The above, especially the bolded is new to me.  For the person on the space ship time has actually slowed down and an observer standing on earth would see it that way, especially when one twin is only an hour older and his fellow twin has aged 40 years.  What I don't get is how the person on the space ship would perceive time as slowing down on earth?  If I was on the ship and could observe the clock on earth it would be spinning like a blender wouldn't it, giving the impression time had speeded up on earth (which it hasn't), no? (Not saying you are wrong, only that it isn't clicking in my head if you know what I mean)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The observer on Earth sees a spaceship fly by close to the speed of light. The observer in the space ship sees the Earth fly by at close to the speed of light. Each can think of themselves as stationary and the other in motion. Each observer is in similar setting. Something went by them fast. Each could also think they are the ones moving fast and went by something not moving.

The symmetric nature of this is also found with the length contraction. The classic example of this is the pole vaulter. Suppose a 10m pole vaulter runs through a 10m garage and they are going fast enough that the vaulter is only 1/2 their width they are at rest. As they run through the garage their speed shrunken 5m pole easily fits inside. If the garage doors slam down and reopen the vaulter gets through just fine. From the pole vaulters point of view they can assume to be at rest watching a 5m wide garage go by them. The doors slam down and smash their 10m pole.

Not really. What happens is that from the vaulters frame of reference they see the doors come down ad go up at different times allowing them to fit through unscathed. The same thing happened. The vaulter went through unscathed but the order of events was not the same.

It is a bit tricky, but the simplest idea to keep things working right is that the length contraction and the time dilation is seen symmetrically between frames of reference making no frame of reference more preferred than another.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, stereologist said:

The observer on Earth sees a spaceship fly by close to the speed of light. The observer in the space ship sees the Earth fly by at close to the speed of light. Each can think of themselves as stationary and the other in motion. Each observer is in similar setting. Something went by them fast. Each could also think they are the ones moving fast and went by something not moving.

The symmetric nature of this is also found with the length contraction. The classic example of this is the pole vaulter. Suppose a 10m pole vaulter runs through a 10m garage and they are going fast enough that the vaulter is only 1/2 their width they are at rest. As they run through the garage their speed shrunken 5m pole easily fits inside. If the garage doors slam down and reopen the vaulter gets through just fine. From the pole vaulters point of view they can assume to be at rest watching a 5m wide garage go by them. The doors slam down and smash their 10m pole.

Not really. What happens is that from the vaulters frame of reference they see the doors come down ad go up at different times allowing them to fit through unscathed. The same thing happened. The vaulter went through unscathed but the order of events was not the same.

It is a bit tricky, but the simplest idea to keep things working right is that the length contraction and the time dilation is seen symmetrically between frames of reference making no frame of reference more preferred than another.

Got it, I see what you are saying now, thanks for your patience and great explanation!   :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, stereologist said:

Within the spaceship time is normal. On a planet being passed time is normal. But the observers on the planet and spaceship notice that time is not normal for the other observer. They both see the same effect: time is slowed for the other.

I know this is a thought experiment and that it is repeated in many places for many years, but I'm not so sure that this can be true. 

Another simple thought experiment yeilds a completely opposite result.

Say there is a Star 365 light years from Earth, and it consistently dims and then brightens once a year as seen from Earth. The light seen on Earth is 365 years old. Now we take off in a Starship and travel towards the Star at a high fraction of (c) light speed say 0.9995% and we make the trip in one year travel time, then we would see the Star pulse Dim/bright once every day on our one year trip. Here the Star would act like a clock and we would see it ticking off Time faster on our trip not slower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Got it, I see what you are saying now, thanks for your patience and great explanation!   :tu:

I think this quote from Niels Bohr is appropriate when dealing with things like this: 

"Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it"

I know it was about quantum theory, but I think it applies to relativity too.


 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

I think this quote from Niels Bohr is appropriate when dealing with things like this: 

"Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it"

I know it was about quantum theory, but I think it applies to relativity too.


 

I said I see what he is saying, I didn't say I understand it, I am accepting it as it is.  :D  It is like if we watch a space ship disappear into a black hole it will never disappear.  Today my son said he has heard a theory that our whole universe exists inside a black hole, who am I to argue.:tsu:

Edited by Merc14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
On 23/01/2017 at 6:20 AM, badeskov said:

We are but a speck in an infinite ocean of empty space. How the heck are they finding us and why do they keep coming back? 

 

Space isn't empty...you only need to look into the night sky to appreciate that. ;)

If they have already found us, then there's an estimated 8.7 million reasons to keep coming back. We would find it a major breakthrough to find evidence of even the simplest forms of life on a neighbouring planet, so to discover a planet such as ours with such a varied array of species would, I imagine, warrant further investigation by another intelligent lifeform.

If anything, I find it rather arrogant to assume that's it out of the realms of possibility that we've ever been visited.  I'd rather keep an open mind and neither hold a belief/disbelief and, instead, live by the ethos of 'I just don't know'.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Clouds said:

Space isn't empty...you only need to look into the night sky to appreciate that. ;)

True, I was making an attempt of some poetic freedom here.

Quote

If they have already found us, then there's an estimated 8.7 million reasons to keep coming back. We would find it a major breakthrough to find evidence of even the simplest forms of life on a neighbouring planet, so to discover a planet such as ours with such a varied array of species would, I imagine, warrant further investigation by another intelligent lifeform.

It is a question that has been discussed for years on UM, and here is a good example of such a thread from October 2006 by Hazzard.  

Quote

If anything, I find it rather arrogant to assume that's it out of the realms of possibility that we've ever been visited.  I'd rather keep an open mind and neither hold a belief/disbelief and, instead, live by the ethos of 'I just don't know'.

I don't think anybody in this thread (let alone at UM) have ever categorically stated that extraterrestrial visitation is not possible or has never happened. Just that we have absolutely no evidence whatsoever for it has ever happened or is happening. Absolutely none.

Cheers,
Badeskov 

Edited by badeskov
Clarity.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2017 at 7:57 PM, lost_shaman said:

I know this is a thought experiment and that it is repeated in many places for many years, but I'm not so sure that this can be true. 

Another simple thought experiment yeilds a completely opposite result.

Say there is a Star 365 light years from Earth, and it consistently dims and then brightens once a year as seen from Earth. The light seen on Earth is 365 years old. Now we take off in a Starship and travel towards the Star at a high fraction of (c) light speed say 0.9995% and we make the trip in one year travel time, then we would see the Star pulse Dim/bright once every day on our one year trip. Here the Star would act like a clock and we would see it ticking off Time faster on our trip not slower.

You are thinking that a year is experienced where? You are treating relative time as some sort of absolute time. That doesn't exist.

According to Einstein and not me, things are symmetrical. A slowed down clock is seen by both sides.

Here the star is a clock. That clock would be observed to slow down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, badeskov said:

I don't think anybody in this thread (let alone at UM) have ever categorically stated that extraterrestrial visitation is not possible or has never happened. Just that we have absolutely no evidence whatsoever for it has ever happened or is happening. Absolutely none.

 

You asked the question of "Why do they keep coming back?", so I gave a credible answer. ;)

I was merely pointing out the fact that a belief system is a two sided coin. You yourself  choose not to believe that a visitation has ever occured throughout history, and others do believe...yet regardless of any (lack of) evidence, I'd prefer to sit on the edge of that coin in the void of the 'undecided'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Clouds said:

Space isn't empty...you only need to look into the night sky to appreciate that. ;)

If they have already found us, then there's an estimated 8.7 million reasons to keep coming back. We would find it a major breakthrough to find evidence of even the simplest forms of life on a neighbouring planet, so to discover a planet such as ours with such a varied array of species would, I imagine, warrant further investigation by another intelligent lifeform.

Agreed.  Assuming that life formed somewhere else, that evolution took at least one branch to a tech-savvy race, that successfully overcame such (very likely) possibilities like self annihilation, annihilation by an 'incoming', etc, that desired to leave their planet, and that overcame the immense technological challenges, not the least of which being time and distance.  And that came in *our* specific direction, despite the fact that as we now know, planets like ours are probably as common as dirt..

 

But let's just gloss over and ignore those issues and proceed down the 'logical' path..

8 hours ago, Clouds said:

If anything, I find it rather arrogant to assume that's it out of the realms of possibility that we've ever been visited.

I'm sorry...??  WHO said that?  I mean it's a great strawman, but to paraphrase you..  I find it rather disingenuous to create an argument that doesn't exist and take a side.  I also regard it as entirely sensible, and in no way arrogant, to not assume something has happened UNLESS there is significant evidence..  That does NOT mean I reject the possibility - if someone turns up evidence, I'll gleefully accept that some aliens did overcome what seem to be overwhelmingly unfavorable issues, and visited us.  I would then ask some questions though - why didn't they arrive with fanfare, or leave something obvious?  It's not like we would be a threat to a stellar-travel-capable race.

8 hours ago, Clouds said:

  I'd rather keep an open mind and neither hold a belief/disbelief and, instead, live by the ethos of 'I just don't know'.

Which is what almost all of us here do... without opening our minds so far that ... well, you know..

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

I'm sorry...??  WHO said that?  I mean it's a great strawman, but to paraphrase you..  I find it rather disingenuous to create an argument that doesn't exist and take a side.  I also regard it as entirely sensible, and in no way arrogant, to not assume something has happened UNLESS there is significant evidence..  

I never said anyone did say/type that, though I assume by your profound use of bold type & CAPS that you've got your knickers in a twist!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Clouds said:

I never said anyone did say/type that, though I assume by your profound use of bold type & CAPS that you've got your knickers in a twist!

So let's just repeat - you said this:

Quote

If anything, I find it rather arrogant to assume that's it out of the realms of possibility that we've ever been visited.

But now you admit no-one said that - so, you are criticising 'arrogant' people that do not exist....?  Yup, makes sense to me.  :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

So let's just repeat - you said this:

But now you admit no-one said that - so, you are criticising 'arrogant' people that do not exist....?  Yup, makes sense to me.  :wacko:

Ermm...my comment was in reference to people in general. You're under the assumption it was to a specific person or persons in this thread. 

Maybe that explains your rather defensive postal manner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Clouds said:

You asked the question of "Why do they keep coming back?", so I gave a credible answer. ;)

By all means of respect, you gave your opinion. Sadly, all any of us have are opinions at this point in time.

18 hours ago, Clouds said:

I was merely pointing out the fact that a belief system is a two sided coin. You yourself  choose not to believe that a visitation has ever occured throughout history, and others do believe...yet regardless of any (lack of) evidence, I'd prefer to sit on the edge of that coin in the void of the 'undecided'.

Yes, I have very consciously chosen to believe that extraterrestrial visitation is not happening and has never happened based on the "evidence" that has not only been presented, but that I have been part of discussing for the last 10 years on this very board. But with emphasis on believe, as I and others recognize there is no evidence either way.

Cheers,
Badeskov

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

So how is it going with the january disclosure ?

I must have missed it. :whistle:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

So how is it going with the january disclosure ?

I must have missed it. :whistle:

You and me both. Like all the other disclosures since the rise of Greer and his fanciful ilk......

Cheers,
Badeskov

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2017 at 6:24 PM, Clouds said:

Ermm...my comment was in reference to people in general. You're under the assumption it was to a specific person or persons in this thread. 

Maybe that explains your rather defensive postal manner?

So people in general are arrogant about not believing?    I've never heard anyone put the key in it and lock it up.   Based off of the lack of evidence, and the long odds against it, being 99% certain is not arrogant in any way.  

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.