UFOs - The Disclosure Project:Sirius

[shamahan]

I also disagree with the idea that the only possible reason to visit earth is to find something they need. What happened to an interest in learning and discovery? sewhere and establishing communication. I don't see why there should be an assumption that aliens wouldn't be trying to do the same thing.

The key question is:how technologically advanced aliens should be to visit Earth. If you assume that they arrived from nearby system and used "conventional"
technology, then, yes, your reasoning make sense. They should be of compatible level with Earthlings and ,if the Earth was their first discovery of "extraterrestrial life", they surely should be very excited. However, there are no indications that nearby systems have planets capable of supporting life forms
(at least based on the same principles like the need of water etc). I mentioned in my previous post about the ongoing research project identifying such planets.
Unfortunately, all such discovered planets are incredibly far away. To be able to travel from such a planet to Earth you need a radically new technology which would allow to exceed drastically the speed of light. Right now, it is absolutely unclear whether it is even possible. The civilization which has no space barrier should be much more advanced than ours and will have access to literally millions of worlds similar to what we have here. As there are people on our planet who study rain worms (or as they usually called earthworms), definitely there should be creatures belonging to this hypothetical advanced civilization who study worlds like ours. But you do not need to study each and every rain worm to understand the whole species. You would agree that one hardly feels excitement while observing another rain worm or rush to teach the above mentioned worm how to build pyramids...
There is no need to invoke "little green creatures" to explain the progress of mankind. I do not believe that any kind of aliens ever contributed to our civilization. Humans make a tremendous progress in science and technology now as they always did...

[Gaybutton]

If you assume that they arrived from nearby system and used "conventional" technology, then, yes, your reasoning make sense.

Why does it make any less sense if they are extremely advanced? I still don't understand your reasoning as to why that would mean their only reason for coming to Earth would be because they want something. You said it yourself. They would likely be located at extreme distances from Earth. Then even if they want something, why would they need to come here to get it? Science has shown that most of the universe is made of essentially the same materials. What would be on Earth that they can't find elsewhere?

Then there is the question of the odds of finding us at all. The usual comparison scientists make as to the number of stars that exist is there are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on the entire Earth. Compared to that, we're much smaller than the tiniest speck of dust. Even if aliens were able to find us in the first place, what are they coming here for? To me, coming here because they're gay and want to off boys makes as much sense as coming here because they want to take something.

"If they want information, I'll tell them how to make grapefruit sections."
- Woody Allen (Walter Hollander), 'Don't Drink the Water'

[shamahan]

But I argued that they never came...

Chances are the Earth has nothing unique and therefore those advanced aliens who are capable to visit has no reason to do that.

[Bob]

Some of this thread is fair evidence that human perceptions and thinking is, at best, rather untrustworthy. Leaping from a theoretical (even mathematical) probability that there is some form of life form somewhere in the universe to suggesting that alien beings account for any of the ufo's is a leap I'm not taking. Nor does the general scientific community (oh sure, Rich, there's always a crackpot scientist somewhere who's announcing the "National Enquirer" story of the week but even you must admit that the general scientific community doesn't share your thinking).

But now we're leaping to the level of suggesting how they think - why they would or wouldn't visit us. Beam me up, Scotty!

[shamahan]

Beam me up, Scotty!

Bon voyage.

[Gaybutton]

there's always a crackpot scientist somewhere

That's true, but I don't regard Stephen Hawking as a crackpot scientist. That, however, doesn't mean I have to agree with his views as to the consequences if Aliens ever really do start coming here - and I don't agree with him.

The latest scientific theory is a planet-sized object collided with the Earth and that's how the moon got there. The theory also says without the moon, life could not have developed on Earth.

Most reputable scientists agree that for a planet to be able to support life as we know it, it must be the right size, the right distance from its star, must have plate tectonics, must have liquid water, must have a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere, and must have a moon at the right size and distance. Given the number of stars out there, subtract out the number of stars that have no planets. Then subtract out the number of planets that cannot support life.

Mathematically, that should still leave untold billions of stars that have planets capable of supporting life. Subtract out the number of planets where life did occur. Subtract out the number of those planets where intelligent life developed and still exists. Subtract out the number of planets where the intelligent life has reached our level of technology or has gone beyond it.

All conjecture of course, with no proof, but the fact is most scientists agree that it's far more likely that other life supporting planets, probably billions of them, exist in the universe than the likelihood of Earth being the only one in the entire universe.

I believe that. What I don't believe is the idea that Earth has been visited by aliens. I also don't believe that if Earth ever is actually visited by aliens they would come here to be in any way hostile.

[RichLB]

Ok, I'm one of those that believes the evidence supports the notion that non-human visitors exist. Where they came from and what motivates them, though, seems wildly speculative. Dealing with where they come from opens some valid questions.

I have to give serious attention to the distances involved. Any travel limited by Einsteinian physics seems pretty prohibitive. That causes me to consider other possibilities.

One such explanation is movement through time. Theoretically time travel is possible. Physicists have already demonstrated that a particle can be delivered to a target before it was sent - albeit only by milliseconds, but still it moved through time. Perhaps sometime in the future we will discover how to move humans in the same way. If so, this might explain why such visitations are so hard to pin down - our visitors from the future would undoubtedly not want to do anything in their past which could impact their future. The problem of time paradoxes (a man goes back in time and kills his grandfather thus making his own birth impossible) coupled with the butterfly effect would make it in their interest to remain unexplained and/or unexplained.

Another possibility is the notion of parallel universes. Brane theory, new and not widely accepted, argues that the multiverse is composed of an infinite array of films, each of which contain an entire universe. If these branes should ever touch, movement between parallel universes becomes possible. The theory makes my mind boggle, but if these physicists are correct, it could explain where UFOs come from.

To me, the existence of intelligently guided UFOs is provable fact - the evidence meets all standards of scientific proof. I recognize some here continue to deny this but I await their providing me with an explanation for the body of evidence previously presented. Good hearted witicisms just aren't compelling.

[shamahan]

. Physicists have already demonstrated that a particle can be delivered to a target before it was sent - albeit only by milliseconds, but still it moved through time.

Can you provide reference for that? If other facts are as "scientific" as this one, I am afraid the further discussion makes no sense.

[RichLB]

Can you provide reference for that? If other facts are as "scientific" as this one

The statement concerns the results of experiments conducted at Stanford University with the Higgs Bosom particle (often referred to as the God Particle). Other universities have replicated the experiment but the particle is so short lived the equipment necessary to study it is not universally available.

[Gaybutton]

Physicists have already demonstrated that a particle can be delivered to a target before it was sent - albeit only by milliseconds, but still it moved through time.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but . . .

Not so fast: Second experiment refutes faster-than-light particles

By Brian Vastag,March 16, 2012

Anyone who bet against Einstein better get out their wallet.

That’s because those supposedly faster-than-light particles that shook up the world of physics last September are now looking a lot slower.

A second experiment deep in an Italian mountain timed these subatomic particles, called neutrinos, traveling at precisely the speed of light and no faster, a team from the experiment, called ICARUS, announced Friday.

“For us, the timing is perfectly in line with the speed of light,” said Carlo Rubbia, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and spokesman for the ICARUS experiment, in a telephone interview.

The new results pile on to revelations last month that a loose cable may have compromised the original experiment, called OPERA.

Although not the final word, the new results are “the greatest of hammer blows” against the faster-than-light findings, said Matt Strassler, a theoretical physicist at Rutgers University in New Jersey.

That’s because both OPERA and ICARUS operate in the same mountain in Italy, and timed the same neutrinos, which were generated at the giant CERN laboratory on the French-Swiss border some 450 miles north.

That makes the new ICARUS results, which were published online Thursday, “a clear, direct refutation of the OPERA measurement,” said Strassler.

The ICARUS results arrived during a test run of the CERN neutrinos in early November. The OPERA team also measured those neutrinos, and, as in its previous result, saw them flying faster than light.

“We have two experiments with different results,” said Rubbia. “We cannot be both right. One of us is wrong.”

Which experiment is correct?

“I know who is right,” Rubbia said, chuckling. “We are right.”

On Feb. 23, the OPERA group said that a crucial fiber-optic timing cable had a loose connection, possibly leading to an overestimate of the neutrinos’ speed.

Together, the new results and the loose cable all but restore the universe’s ultimate speed limit — the speed of light — set by Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity in 1905.

For more than a century, this speed limit — 186,282 miles per second — has held up.

But in September, the large international team of OPERA physicists reported seeing neutrinos arriving at their experiment from CERN about 60 nanoseconds faster than light.

Despite dissent from some team members, the OPERA scientists announced their results in a scientific paper and a symposium Sept. 23. The announcement generated a wave of global publicity, but also strong skepticism from other scientists. “It’d be a very unlikely result, a very, very surprising result,” Harvard physicist Lisa Randall said at the time.

“No really decent theoretical physicist took this seriously from the very start,” said Nima Arkani-Hamed, a noted theoretical physicist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J. — Einstein’s last academic home. “I certainly did not.”

The reason: Hundreds of experiments have probed the speed of light, and none have seen anything — even ghostly neutrinos — moving faster. And wild theories that propose faster-than-light particles rest on “very shaky foundations,” Arkani-Hamed said.

Final word should arrive in May, after CERN shoots more neutrinos at the OPERA and ICARUS detectors.

Antonio Ereditato, a member of the OPERA team and the head of the Albert Einstein Center for Fundamental Physics in Bern, Switzerland, said he welcomed the latest results.

“These results are in line with our recent findings about the possible misfunctioning of some of the components of our experimental setup,” he told the Associated Press on Friday.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012 ... ew-results

You might also want to read the CERN web site: http://home.web.cern.ch