Man of Honour
So which side are you on?
More proof of aliens
- Thread starter Lysander
- Start date
- Status
So which side are you on?
Associate
Anti-gravity, i can conceed, maybe even time travel, but death rays... You go too far sir
Associate
Do be so quick to squash them - i watch 10 hours of Judge Judy every day and i am an expert in all matters pertaining to the family civil court
It took me less than a minute to find one of your posts which puts you in that category, so I'd wind your neck in a bit.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 459
I'm flattered but I doubt I spoke on a subject that I know nothing about with an air of authority.
Nor will you find me attacking peoples view with arguments that are plucked from thin air.
Nor will you find me attacking peoples view with arguments that are plucked from thin air.
Man of Honour
Give some examples so we know what you're on about.
Show me or give me links.
I will give you a clue. It's called refractive index of the medium and is usually greater than one.
Can't wait to see you stuff
refraction is not light bending, its light refracting at the boundary of two mediums where the apparent speed of light differs - there is a difference.
Soldato
Does it drop at 32000 mph and stop suddenly about a foot above the water?
Genuine question, is it possible to shoot something down going at that speed with anything but a laser?
Rail gun maybe? Probably not though
Man of Honour
Yes, if it actually exists and is a physical object rather than simply a light.
To reliably shoot down an aircraft travelling at 32000 mph you'd need to be able to accelerate a projectile of some kind to at least 32000 mph. If such an aircraft exists, whatever technology powers it could power a projectile to at least the same speed. Probably higher because the projectile would be lighter. Manouevering wouldn't be a problem either, for the same reason. Essentially, it's easier to accelerate a missile than a plane.
Or you might shoot it down with something much slower if you lead the target in the right way and the target was moving in a predictable path. It probably wouldn't take much to down a plane travelling at 32000 mph, since the speed of the plane itself would add a huge amount of force to the impact.
Which leads me to think about something else...how would you deal with the heat generated by moving through dense air at 32000 mph? It would be immense.
Man of Honour
Unsurprisingly, you are once again giving a link to something that does not support your claims. If you're not just trolling, take the time to watch/read the stuff you're posting links to.
Since there are physics proposals being mooted to launch sensors into space using photon beams / lasers (quite quick), and computer monitor / phone hologram projection is now in the manufacturing r&d (versus physics research) pipeline... beam holographic projection could potentially account for the speed. You can quickly cover / cross 60km of sky with a flick of your wrist with a torch beam.
Last edited:
Or equipment malfunction.
Or hallucination.
Or a fly on the windscreen
Or blatant lies and invention.
Or...
Colour me utterly unconvinced until the little green men knock on my door, and we discuss the weather, politics and cow mutilation over a nice cup of tea.
Reminds me of crop circles and how they "had" to be made by aliens, with excuses ranging from "why would people create them, it makes no sense" to "these patterns are too geometrically precise to be made by humans". Aliens, yeah right...Or equipment malfunction.
Or hallucination.
Or a fly on the windscreen
Or blatant lies and invention.
Or...
Colour me utterly unconvinced until the little green men knock on my door, and we discuss the weather, politics and cow mutilation over a nice cup of tea.
Yes. And while being human is all we know, and it's naturally protective of health to conclude we are the most sentient living things based on known current facts, it is interesting how ideas of ET's / aliens mainly put their IQ level about the same as ours or a bit less (reptilian brain + tech ability). As our computational thinking ability basically has a 2.5 bit data buffer, and we've achieved reasonable tech excellence with that limitation - I personally find the notion that any potential sentient life that had even 1 bit more than ours would have any necessity for or interest in interaction with our species ridiculous.
Last edited:
The latter. Btw I edited my above post to include the conclusion "ridiculous", I simply forgot to add it.
e: aside, one of my main interests is developing a metacognitive infrastructure for near-real-time cognitive antivirus systems. Why? Most HFA's have a forced interest in how thinking works -our different brain signalling patterns simply make many of the statistically neurally-normal ('neurotypical') thinking and communication patterns very hard work indeed. I'm putting the final touches on a translation guide for autistic ("Vulcan") kids.
e: aside, one of my main interests is developing a metacognitive infrastructure for near-real-time cognitive antivirus systems. Why? Most HFA's have a forced interest in how thinking works -our different brain signalling patterns simply make many of the statistically neurally-normal ('neurotypical') thinking and communication patterns very hard work indeed. I'm putting the final touches on a translation guide for autistic ("Vulcan") kids.
Last edited:
Soldato
The key words here are "appears to". Something can appear to be happening when it actually isn't.
As an example, you can feel that your body has weight thanks to gravity, but jump off a cliff and it would appear/feel as though you are weightless. Until you hit the ground anyway!
Man of Honour
I don't, unless life at least as intelligent as us is commonplace. Even assuming that intelligence is as simple as a single (probably rather arbitrary) data buffer size. It might well be that any life more advanced than bacteria is very rare and thus interesting or that any life is rare and thus interesting, Besides, we've obviously intelligent enough to communicate with, which would be interesting in itself. These hypothetical other people might or might not need to interact with us, but I think that there would probably be some interest amongst them in doing so.
I confess I speak with the biological thinking bias of a type of autism on the question. That is, if information seeking or understanding by an 'ET' were the sole goal, the human range of consciousness and reaction might be quite too easily grasped (eg. from what is written already) and limited to be instructive. For example, our rather schizo relationship to the distal but nonetheless causal effects of time which pervades our inference systems, denied despite Shakespeare and others "telling it like it is", seems central to the human drama and much motivation. We are entertaining, however.
e: Of course, we merit significant nobility for achieving so much with so little (by the hypothetical comparison). The reason I suspect our reasoning may be "too easily grasped" and evaluated is that such is nigh within the grasp of advances in ai. We would be right judging any such hypothesized interstellar nabob entity or so-called advanced technology by the commonsense Newtonian standards of 'will this send me / us down, backward or broke? Or will it help me gain, maintain /preserve or recover?'
Last edited:
- Status