While I do not doubt MachOne saw something he nor perhaps anyone else can explain, I doubt it was an alien space craft.<br><br> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. An old grainy photo of me holding a football is evidence enough to convince someone I played football, a similarly grainy photo of me holding an alien does not tote the load.<br><br>
I think he meant the one with the profile pic with the interesting complexion. <br><br>BTW, I don't go the alien space craft route either. If the pix we see published are anything to go by, those aliens have more models than Toyota.<br><br>
I don't doubt that people have seen "things". While these "things" may be unexplained, and thus they really are Unidentified Flying Objects, that doesn't mean they are space craft holding a bunch of gooey green bug-eyed monsters.<br><br>It would help to look at the science.<br><br>It is known that the speed of light is the fastest speed attainable in nature. It is also known that it is impossible for an object with any appreciable mass to attain this speed. Even a large fraction of this peed would require a fuel load the size of the Earth itself for a modest-size spacecraft.<br><br>So let's pick on a speed which, though very fast, is theoretically attainable. Like, a million miles an hour. A million miles an hour would get you to the Moon in fifteen minutes. Around the world once in one and one half minutes. Mars in a little over a day (when Mars is close to Earth). The Sun in three days or so. Like I said, fast.<br><br>Of course, there are problems making this speed. Using conventional rockets and propellants, you'd have to carry the equivalent of several Empire State Buildings full of fuel just to get there. Then you'd have to carry the same amount of fuel to decelerate, unless you were willing just to whiz by. Then, of course there's the return journey: two more loads of fuel. So picture a gigantic space craft with a little button on the end representing something the size of the Space Shuttle.<br><br>So, where do we go? It might make sense to pick the closest star, which would be Proxima Centauri, 4.3 light years away. Now, Proxima Cen is a dinky little star, which it is nevertheless inadviseable to get too close to, since it is a "flare star": every once in a while a burst of radiation just pops off, scouring clean any life which might be in the way of the flare. But let's go there anyway.<br><br>At a million miles an hour, it would take over 2,800 years. Think of someone the age of Yoda as witness to the birth of Christ. Now think how old he might be in 2002. 2,800 years ago, there was no Roman Empire. Egyptians were still building pyramids. Oh, wait, round trip: 5,600 years. To the closest star. A million miles an hour.<br><br>"Ah," you say,"What about space warp?" I'm not going to say this science fiction concept is absolutely impossible. I am going to say it is extremely unlikely. The only thing which can "warp" space to any degree is a black hole and matter gets torn apart before it can get too close to one of those. Let's be reasonable here: anything is possible in our minds, but just because I write, "24 carat gold comes out of my butt." that doesn't mean I acquire new wealth every morning. Likewise, to make the leap from seeing something we cannot explain to space monkeys in a giant, intergalactic hub cap is too great a leap to support logically.<br><br>[color:red]John</font color=red>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I don't doubt that people have seen "things". While these "things" may be unexplained, and thus they really are<br> Unidentified Flying Objects, that doesn't mean they are space craft holding a bunch of gooey green bug-eyed<br> monsters.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>correct that is all that is really at stake here.. <br>the fact that there exist objects that are as yet unidentified and flying...<br><br>lets ask ourselves one question though.. some where in the scriptures of the Bible it is stated that Christ would return in a period roughly equating 2000 years, in our guestimation of the translations of how far apart two mountains are...<br> <br>Would this not give credence to the story that Christ himself had a UFO to get about in?<br><br>C'mon guys, I am joking, don't get your crucifixes in a knot. <br><br>
Yeah, I doubt at all whether MachOne or Watcher or SteveG for one moment thought that little Aliens were pushing these lights around. I did not see one mention of any windows with green faces behind..No one mentioned motors or flames from exhausts. Don't lets start treating this thread in that fashion or we will never come up with a logical solution for the issue of such strange sightings.<br><br>As many have so far tried to assure.. there has to be a reason for people seeing things that they are loathe to publish for fear of being labelled... <br>Well we know that everthing has a cause and an effect.<br><br>In the case of UFO's, we know some of the effect but what is the cause? <br><br>
Loc: I am not Big Ben
Well, whichever.. I did not feel dismissed nor unrespected.<br>-by yourself.<br>Maybe some of the other posts stirred me to say things in my reply to your post that did not apply to you, which may have given you that impression.<br><br>
There is a lot we don't know yet. There are some things we actually do know, but which we cannot understand yet. One of those things, and an amazing one, is nonlocality. It is one of the few theories which has been proved, thus all forthcoming theories and proofs in science must take this one into account. Nonlocality, as most of us know these days, is a phenomenon by which two events are linked simultaneously at great distances. They occur outside of time, apparently, for their actions are instantaneously simultaneous—they go far beyond the speed of light. <br><br>An example of nonlocality: twin photons, born in pairs, have identical polarity. Once they leave their point of origin, they may be twin photons, but they are no longer physically connected in any way that we know of. The twin photons can be reflected so that one goes north and the other goes south, or any direction you want. At that point, they will be travelling away from each other, each receeding from the point of origin at the speed of light, and (in that strange, relativistic way) from each other also at the speed of light. <br><br>Here's what gets weird. Let's send them in opposite directions. Now let's run our northbound photon through a calcite crystal and change its polarity. Meanwhile, we have an observer in Mars capturing the other one as it passes by, and... voila! Its polarity has ALSO changed! Change it back, and measure our original northbound photon, and someone on the star Polaris will capture it as it goes by and it, too has also changed back. Each of them is inextricably linked to the other forever. Change one, and the other one also changes at that same instant, though they be trillions of miles apart. There is no way that any "signal" could get from one to the other in any way that we know, using any particles or other means that we know of. So, the change has occurred in a nonlocal way. <br><br>That's just one example of what we don't know or understand. There simply is no point in saying things like "the fastest anything can travel is... " or "the universe is far too big to..." or anything else. We just don't know some of these things. Or, more aptly put, we know just enough to make ourselves seriously confused. <br><br>Shooshie<br><br>Shooshie's Stuff
Let's put it this way: if lightspeed is somehow not the fastest speed anything can travel, the theory of relativity cannot hold true. The reason the theory was elucidated by a mathematician is that once the constant of the speed of light is introduced, everything falls into place mathematically. But the speed of light must be a constant.<br><br>Up until now, everything about relativity which is observable has proven to be right. The quantum effect you mentioned is obviously unprovable at this point since we do not have observers on Mars (for one thing). Quantum effects in general are extremely strange, but to my knowledge have only been observed on a micro level, not the macro level you suggest. And even if observable, one does not extrapolate anything from it, ie: strange effect (a) doesn't mean we have to blindly throw out all current knowledge of the universe simply because we're suddenly weirded out. The fact that we understand how bumblebees fly, when they were not supposed to be able to, does not invalidate everything we learned about aeronautics in the last century.<br><br>No, I prefer our current understanding of the universe and the way it works, as incomplete as it may be, over a blind faith that, yes, we really can travel faster than the speed of light if we just wish hard enough and tap our ruby slippers together three times.<br><br>[color:red]John</font color=red>
Loc: the ancient forests of MiddleE...
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>That's just one example of what we don't know or understand. There simply is no point in saying things like "the fastest<br> anything can travel is... " or "the universe is far too big to..." or anything else. We just don't know some of these things. Or,<br> more aptly put, we know just enough to make ourselves seriously confused. <p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Well Sooshie I can only agree with you..Personally, I think that we are too far up our own coits, when it comes to what we think we know.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The fact that we understand how bumblebees<br> fly, when they were not supposed to be able to, does not invalidate everything we learned about aeronautics in the last<br> century.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Well and good, it is true that learning how a bumble bee flies does enhance our knowledge of aeronautics but it also tells us that it does not pay to ever think we are correct in whatever mathematical assumption we make.<br><br> Why, we still have not invetsigated all the legacy of math and astronomy that Pythagoras bequeathed us.<br><br>Let us not allow one person's evaluation of cosmic math entrap us. Even Einstein would change his mind if he disacovered a quaver in any constant.<br><br>We see all the time; any one famous scientist or historian, attempting to maintain/retain the foothold on fame they garnered by making a theory no one else had yet debunked..by debunking any new theorem that may shed some light on their own indiscrepancies.<br><br>=============================================================<br>| "Behold the Turtle, he maketh no progress ==== until he sticketh out his neck." |<br>=============================================================
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.