NASA astronauts pass UFO 'lie detector test'

[Black Monk]

14 hours ago, seanjo said:

No, I'm a believer in the laws of physics.

 

 

We're talking civilisations much more advanced than ours. Just because us humans haven't (yet) got the technology to traverse huge distances in space doesn't mean that nobody else has.

Is it not demonstrated that a true flying machine, self-raising, self-sustaining, self-propelling, is physically impossible?
— Joseph LeConte, November 1888

It is apparent to me that the possibilities of the aeroplane, which two or three years ago were thought to hold the solution to the [flying machine] problem, have been exhausted, and that we must turn elsewhere.
— Thomas Edison, November 1895

I can state flatly that heavier than air flying machines are impossible.
— Lord Kelvin, 1895

I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning, or of the expectation of good results from any of the trials we heard of. So you will understand that I would not care to be a member of the Aeronautical Society.
— Lord Kelvin, 1896

The present generation will not [fly in the next century], and no practical engineer would devote himself to the problem now.
— Worby Beaumont, January 1900

The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which men shall fly along distances through the air, seems to the writer as complete as it is possible for the demonstration to be.
— Simon Newcomb, 1900

 

Edited April 22, 2018 by Black Monk

[Black Monk]

3 hours ago, seanjo said:

That's all well and good, but it's Sci-Fi, not fact...yet...

For us humans, but not necessarily for other intelligent creatures living on other planets.

[GlitterRose]

I never thought they were lying. 

It's just not clear what they actually experienced. 

With Buzz Aldrin, it's pretty clear that it was a natural phenomena.

[Hazzard]

Lets back it up a bit here. Interstellar space travel is much more difficult than indicated in movies and television series, such as Star Trek and Star Wars. First, it is not possible to travel at speeds greater than the speed of light - the physics of the universe prevent it. Second, traveling near the speed of light is impractical for biological organisms. Collisions with particles even the size of a grain of sand would be catastrophic. An even worse problem is that the light from ordinary stars would be blue-shifted all the way to the gamma end of the spectrum when traveling near the speed of light. These gamma rays would destroy all biological life, even if it were in suspended animation, if that were even possible. In essence, these problems would restrict the speed of travel to well below the speed of light. The most optimistic estimate for the presence of extraterrestrial civilizations would put them maybe 2000 light years apart. Space travel over this distance would be impractical. So, even if we are not alone in this galaxy, it would be highly unlikely that any extraterrestrial civilization could have visited us. What about warp drive? Lightspeed? Maybe the aliens can create wormholes and get here in essentially no time? It doesnt matter. Ill worry about how they got here once Im convinced that theyve really made the scene. To get here they need to know were we are. I think that the real question is, how would they know about us at all?

[Myles]

On 4/21/2018 at 6:05 PM, Dejarma said:

the thing is, you don't know do you-- & neither do i

 

So it is all a matter of a guess.  I tend to guess with the overwhelmingly  most likely.  That Aliens are not flying around Earth.  

[stereologist]

On 4/16/2018 at 2:48 PM, paperdyer said:

The statement should be "They can't break the laws of physics as we understand and define them."  How do we know we're right!  Just like mathematics.  Why are there so many different "types".  There should be one type you can use to prove everything. Just to start some discussion, 1 divided by 3 can be written as 1/3 or 0.3.......... to infinity.  So 3 X 1/3 =1.  # x 0.3........ = 0.9................ Not the same number except for practical purposes.

No. The same laws of physics apply. 

In your number example you suggest that there is a difference in the numbers due to representation. No. They are the same number. Representation doesn't matter.  For example 1 divided by 3 can be written as .1 in base 3. It's still the same number regardless of representation. When you say "Not the same number" you are incorrect. 

There is no alien physics or human physics. There is physics. 

[stereologist]

On 4/22/2018 at 6:32 AM, Dejarma said:

It's not ranting. It's the obvious & needed thing to say when someone puts forward the opinion that you have..

You yourself stated: 'Energy is the key, it is the energy barrier that needs to be overcome'

something could have overcome this barrier years ago= you must agree this is a possibility surely?

You can't over come the energy barrier. As you reach relativistic speeds the mass increases and goes unbounded as you approach the speed of light. That is why particle accelerators move particles to high speeds. The relativistic mass greatly exceeds the rest mass. It takes more and more energy to push the particles because the mass increases. 

The warp drives of star trek and other stories changes the size of space. You go faster because you make the distance less. The idea is to avoid pushing harder which has energy problems.  Is there away around the FTL issue? Maybe. We don't know. One thing for sure is that there is no imaginary physics out there to use. 

[stereologist]

On 4/22/2018 at 7:33 AM, Black Monk said:

We're talking civilisations much more advanced than ours. Just because us humans haven't (yet) got the technology to traverse huge distances in space doesn't mean that nobody else has.

Is it not demonstrated that a true flying machine, self-raising, self-sustaining, self-propelling, is physically impossible?
— Joseph LeConte, November 1888

 

It is apparent to me that the possibilities of the aeroplane, which two or three years ago were thought to hold the solution to the [flying machine] problem, have been exhausted, and that we must turn elsewhere.
— Thomas Edison, November 1895

 

I can state flatly that heavier than air flying machines are impossible.
— Lord Kelvin, 1895

I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning, or of the expectation of good results from any of the trials we heard of. So you will understand that I would not care to be a member of the Aeronautical Society.
— Lord Kelvin, 1896

 

The present generation will not [fly in the next century], and no practical engineer would devote himself to the problem now.
— Worby Beaumont, January 1900

 

The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which men shall fly along distances through the air, seems to the writer as complete as it is possible for the demonstration to be.
— Simon Newcomb, 1900

 

Do you realize that these are not all physicists?

LeConte - geologist

Edison - inventor that did not work on planes

Kelvin - got the age of the Earth wrong, did not believe in evolution.  So h e got some things wrong as he got many things right. BTW, he didn't say the first quote. That's a false tale. The second quote might be a quote. It expresses his skepticism.

Beaumont - wrote about cars

Newcomb - astronomer

 

Here are lots more quotes.

https://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/quotes.html

All you've shown is that making an appeal to authority is a bad idea and that I agree with wholeheartedly.

[Dejarma]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

You can't over come the energy barrier.

oh well, that's that then

[IronReb]

Please don't beat me up to bad, just throwing some thoughts out. Open to being educated where I am wrong here...

Gravity warps space, pulling things into the center of it, an apple falls to the ground because of Earths mass warping space and pulling everything to its center?

Matter (mass) and energy are one and the same?

If enough energy is harnessed into a single spot, would it create gravity?

If you created enough gravity to warp space around you which also warps time, could you not in theory warp space time enough that you could instantly move from one place to the other with the distance being how much space you have warped?

When this occurs, one would not actually move at all and what would seem only an instant to the one warping space would be xxxxxxxx number of years to an outside observer allowing you to travel xxxxx number of light years in distance in an instance?

If you had the means to warp space time around you, traveling across the cosmos in an instance would not break physics laws because you never moved to begin with right?

The next step in my mind is how do you create enough mass/energy to create a worm hole (black hole?) and not be crushed by the immense gravity.

What if the laws of physics where things have a positive and negative state could be controlled to a point that the negative side of your warp drew space time toward you but with enough positive value localized around you to keep from being crushed unto infinity? 

 

And no, Im not smoking dope FYI.

Just a hypothetical discussion.

[stereologist]

10 hours ago, IronReb said:

Please don't beat me up to bad, just throwing some thoughts out. Open to being educated where I am wrong here...

Gravity warps space, pulling things into the center of it, an apple falls to the ground because of Earths mass warping space and pulling everything to its center?

Matter (mass) and energy are one and the same?

If enough energy is harnessed into a single spot, would it create gravity?

If you created enough gravity to warp space around you which also warps time, could you not in theory warp space time enough that you could instantly move from one place to the other with the distance being how much space you have warped?

When this occurs, one would not actually move at all and what would seem only an instant to the one warping space would be xxxxxxxx number of years to an outside observer allowing you to travel xxxxx number of light years in distance in an instance?

If you had the means to warp space time around you, traveling across the cosmos in an instance would not break physics laws because you never moved to begin with right?

The next step in my mind is how do you create enough mass/energy to create a worm hole (black hole?) and not be crushed by the immense gravity.

What if the laws of physics where things have a positive and negative state could be controlled to a point that the negative side of your warp drew space time toward you but with enough positive value localized around you to keep from being crushed unto infinity? 

 

And no, Im not smoking dope FYI.

Just a hypothetical discussion.

All good questions. My understanding is that energy does warp space. It doesn't take any particular amount to do that.

The problem with the move instantly is that you still have to move. You also have to deal with the fact that other things are also warping space. Moving across the cosmos using warped space is not as simple as you suggest. 

What if the amount of energy required would vaporize you or create a gravity that crushes you or tidal effects kill you or some other disastrous issue?

Gravity does not have a plus/minus. The positive/negative is EM.

The upshot is that there is physics and we are bound by physics. Does it prevent some things? Yes. But, we are clever and can learn to work within the universe we live in.

[ChrLzs]

On 4/25/2018 at 12:11 PM, IronReb said:

Please don't beat me up to bad, just throwing some thoughts out. Open to being educated where I am wrong here...

We welcome and embrace all with genuinely open minds - it's only those who wish to push barrows and not listen to opposing views that may get a hard time..

Quote

Gravity warps space, pulling things into the center of it, an apple falls to the ground because of Earths mass warping space and pulling everything to its center?

Tick.  In other words, yes, that's pretty much right..  Just bear in mind that the 'rubber-sheet' analogy, where you can visualise heavy objects warping a rubber sheet, is a good way to start.. but it's not really accurate as it is trying to represent what is effectively a '4th dimension' with 3D objects.

Quote

Matter (mass) and energy are one and the same?

Well, yes they have an 'equivalence' that comes from the E=mc² equation, but getting from one to the other is fiendishly difficult.  In terms of converting mass to energy, it is difficult to start up, somewhat inefficient and usually incomplete, despite being powerful (eg nuclear fusion/fission).  In terms of converting energy back to mass,it's incredibly difficult and as far as I know (please correct me, science nuts!), we have only done it at a very low level - eg turning a gamma ray into an electron/positron pair. 

Quote

If enough energy is harnessed into a single spot, would it create gravity?

Again, happy to be corrected, but no.  Anything in that spot would get mighty hot though..

Quote

If you created enough gravity to warp space around you which also warps time, could you not in theory warp space time enough that you could instantly move from one place to the other with the distance being how much space you have warped?

I don't think anyone to date has come up with a mechanism for this, or any evidence that an intense wormhole/blackhole/whatever might link to a different location or a different universe.  It's an interesting hypothesis, but nothing much more than that.

Quote

If you had the means to warp space time around you, traveling across the cosmos in an instance would not break physics laws because you never moved to begin with right?

But wait, if you never moved, then we now have two of you....  There are a lot of paradoxes and issues to work through, and to date, the laws of physics that we currently have seem to prohibit this sort of thing.  But who knows - maybe something will turn up..

Quote

The next step in my mind is how do you create enough mass/energy to create a worm hole (black hole?) and not be crushed by the immense gravity.

That's just one of a lot of problems.  One thing that has always bothered me is .. where exactly would you go, and why?  In other words, WHY that particular place and not another?  Similarly, if time travel is possible, why aren't we already being visited by time travelers?

Quote

What if the laws of physics where things have a positive and negative state could be controlled to a point that the negative side of your warp drew space time toward you but with enough positive value localized around you to keep from being crushed unto infinity?

At this point, we think that there a few things, gravity being one, that don't have a negative.  Until we find evidence to the contrary, that can put a stop to a lot of stuff!

Quote

And no, Im not smoking dope FYI.

I've got nothing against that, in moderation (although I have never partaken myself), I mean, even the remarkable Carl Sagan was a user...

Quote

Just a hypothetical discussion.

And you even know what hypothetical means?  Kudos to you!  Nice first post - I hope you stick around and engage..

Edited April 26, 2018 by ChrLzs

[IronReb]

On ‎4‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 11:26 PM, ChrLzs said:

Don't know where to discuss this here so dropping here........

Totally off topic of what we were discussing earlier but......

What is your thoughts on this...tetrahedral geometry and Fibonacci in nature after watching this....... warning , video is almost 2 hours long

 

[IronReb]

Take note at 35 minutes in ...a spinning sphere versus a stationary sphere...btw, I am well aware that according to nasa, the face on mars was debunked as lighting effects...

Edited April 29, 2018 by IronReb

[Minimalists]

14 minutes ago, IronReb said:

Totally off topic of what we were discussing earlier but......

What is your thoughts on this...tetrahedral geometry and Fibonacci in nature after watching this....... warning , video is almost 2 hours long

 

And what exactly has NASA not told about this? I am curious. I see this stuff posted yet no one posts evidence that directly connects NASA to covering up this stuff...My question is why would NASA want to cover it up? What do they gain by covering it up?

Edited April 29, 2018 by Alien Origins

[IronReb]

No idea how to answer that....I posted it because in the video it talks a lot about tetrahedral geometry which got me to instantly thinking of the Fibonacci numbers and wondering if there is a connection between the two.

[Minimalists]

2 minutes ago, IronReb said:

No idea how to answer that....I posted it because in the video it talks a lot about tetrahedral geometry which got me to instantly thinking of the Fibonacci numbers and wondering if there is a connection between the two.

 Well I am not a geometry major and my math sucks so I will have to take your word for it....And I know nothing about the Fibonacci Numbers.

[IronReb]

Just now, Alien Origins said:

 Well I am not a geometry major and my math sucks so I will have to take your word for it....And I know nothing about the Fibonacci Numbers.

Google it, it will blow your mind. All in nature you will see a pattern, numbers of pedals on a flower, numbers of spirals in a pinecone.

[IronReb]

Maybe even up to the number of spirals in a galaxy ....cant confirm that though

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, IronReb said:

No idea how to answer that....I posted it because in the video it talks a lot about tetrahedral geometry which got me to instantly thinking of the Fibonacci numbers and wondering if there is a connection between the two.

Tetrahedrons are connected to Fibonacci numbers how?

[IronReb]

4 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Tetrahedrons are connected to Fibonacci numbers how?

Assuming the guy in the video was not talking a bunch of BS...19.5 degrees could be expressed in many different places involving pyramids in Mexico, places on mars and Jupiter...just like the Fibonacci numbers appear all in nature..maybe the 19.5 degree is a natural number that our ancestors realized as a sacred number?  Did you watch the video?

[stereologist]

1 minute ago, IronReb said:

Assuming the guy in the video was not talking a bunch of BS...19.5 degrees could be expressed in many different places involving pyramids in Mexico, places on mars and Jupiter...just like the Fibonacci numbers appear all in nature..maybe the 19.5 degree is a natural number that our ancestors realized as a sacred number?  Did you watch the video?

I did not watch the video but I've heard the BS about 19.5 degrees many times. It covers pyramids, volcanoes, and whatever the speaker wants to pretend is true.

The Fibonacci numbers appear in many places. That is correct, but they have been given a magical mystique which is really odd. They are a sequence. There are plenty of sequences. The main difference is that the Fibonacci are easy to describe. That allows people to trick those without a math background that there is something special.

Take squares. They tell us how objects fall faster and faster. They tell us how lights appear to dim as we step back from them. They tell us why the bark of trees cracks as the trees grow. Magical in any way? no.

Can you tell me what was claimed about 19.5 or where this BS appears in the video?

[IronReb]

No, I can't. I try to keep an open mind to both sides of the argument though. There was one interesting thing about 30-35 minutes into it though in regards to a rotating sphere versus a none rotating sphere and gravity though. Please, by all means, please disprove the BS of this video or any other source I come across. One learns from multiple sources do they not?

[IronReb]

the 19.5 degrees was referenced to places on Mars and Jupiter and the pyramids in Mexico is that is what you were asking.

[ChrLzs]

5 hours ago, IronReb said:

What is your thoughts on this...tetrahedral geometry and Fibonacci in nature after watching this....... warning , video is almost 2 hours long...

 

Sorry, Iron, but I started at about 32 minutes in, and when he:

• contradicted well-known (and EXTREMELY well-tested physics)
• repeated hogwash from Bruce De Palma, who is (sorry, was as I understand he is now dead) an over-unity/free energy loonie/scammer (pick one)
• vomited out a pile of word salad and bulldung about the "hyper-dimensional space time boundary", without a single proper citation or explanation... I stopped watching.

 

Mate, do you know just how many loonies or scammers have claimed they knew the 'secret' to boundless free energy?  Do you know how many of those people have managed to even do a basic demonstration in front of knowledgeable engineers (you know, those who know, and are bound by, the Laws of the Universe)?

True open-mindedness (the type where your brains don't fall out..) doesn't mean accepting any old garbage, just because it is a topic you might not be familiar with - it also requires that you take the time to:

1. read up on the topic from the mainstream science, and see what the limitations are and, more importantly, why we think those limitations and laws apply.

2. do a bit of basic checking on the quality of your sources.  Eg a quick Google on Bruce DePalma will show you NO mainstream science site that endorses him, and information like this:

http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Bruce_E_DePalma

De Palma died shortly after one of the most embarrassing failures (and ALL of his tests were failures) where his latest and best 'over-unity' device just overheated and died, showing no indication whatsoever of the claims.  It was immediately abandoned by the suckers folks who had invested in it.  That's what these guys do, use weasel words and impressive sounding terms to fleece money off people who do not understand why the Laws of Thermodynamics exist.

The guy in the video is Richard C Hoagland, I believe?  Oh dear. (Funny how they edited out the part where he introduces himself - well knowing how many people would immediately tune out...)  here's how his *own* book publisher describes him:

Quote

 

a unique mixture of amateur scientist, genius inventor, scam artist, and performer, blending true, legitimate speculative science with his own extrapolations, tall tales, and inflations

 

His own publisher calls him a scammer?  Wow.

Thing is, if we *could* somehow extract free energy from space or create an 'over-unity' device that always put out more energy than it received, then there is no way in hell you could cover that up, and our entire society would change immeasurably...  But the old 'no free lunch' principle applies, and you do not and will not get free energy by moving levers and spinning magnets.  Sure, science and the Universe may have some surprises yet in store, but if anything *real* is discovered, you won't hear about it first from the tinfoilhat brigade of Hoagland and his ilk.

Anyway, sorry to sound harsh, but I've wasted way too much of my time dealing with Hoagland in the past.

If there's something in that video that you found interesting (I didn't get to the bit about Fibonacci sequences and tetrahedral geometry, sorry) then why not start a new thread and explain what you found interesting and why.  It would be well worth reading up on both topics beforehand, and then relistening to what Hoagland says, as it is his habit to simply throw in lots of ideas and unrelated concepts that he thinks might fit his topic, and that the average Joe won't understand.  This is a well known technique, where instead on focusing on simple concepts and fully and comprehensively explaining how they dovetail into the overall claim, one at a time.. the tinfoiler will instead go on a Gish Gallop, knowing that no-one will be bothered to check a long list of ideas and debunk every one.

So, beware.. if these are topics you are not familiar with, then Hoagland might sound as if he's got something - do come on back if you think that's the case..  But that man's history precedes him, and without some actual testable claims, I'll pass.

Ask yourself, instead of all the talk, grandiose scientific terms and poorly annotated diagrams that generally show not much more than pattern matching... why doesn't Hoagland actually explain the terms, and then show the methodology, the raw data and maths, the fully annotated video?  Why doesn't he describe how he has applied Scientific Principles, eg:

• show the actual observations
• discuss the existing research
• form a hypothesis
• test the hypothesis using all relevant controls (null, negative/positive/placebo, randomisation/blind/double-, controlled variables, elimination of bias, etc)
• record data
• draw conclusion
• seek replication 

That's what *real* scientists do.  Scammers post Youtube videos about faces on Mars... and ask you to donate.  Please don't take my post too personally - my disdain is towards Hoagland, De Palma and some others like Steven Greer, who are in the Hall of SHAME.