Thread: Evidence of Alien Visitors?

Originally Posted by Robinjazz

Is the Big Bang factual, or is it the consensus of modern scientists who believe the universe was created that way?

That's an excellent question, Robin. The Big Bang Theory is the best explanation we have, so far, to explain what is observed and what is measureable. It is not a perfect concept and is constantly being challenged and refined. It greatest strength is in its ability to predict certain things about the universe. For instance when the concept was first developed it suggested that the universe should contain approximately 75% hydrogen, 24% helium, and 1% other scattered elements. Since then we have found that those proportions are exactally what we find throughout the observable universe. Another prediction the theory made was that due to the high temperatures which existed in the small, hot early universe, we should still be able to find some pervasive 'after-glow' remaining from the BB itself. That after-glow was sought for many years without success until it was found, by accident, while technicians were trying to eliminate a persistant white-noise sort of interference which nagged early micro-wave radio reception. It was determined that the noise polluting those micro-wave broadcasts came from every direction was at almost exactlly the right frequency for the ancient light from the dawn of the universe. Later research has actually mapped that micro-wave background radiation across the entire observable universe.

The strength of any scientific theory comes from its ability to withstand testing. As soon as a scientist publishes a theory, other scientists start trying to disprove it. A true theory must make predictions and it must be testable, to qualify as a 'Theory'. Einstein's Theories of Special and General Relativity are still being put to the test almost 100 years after they were first published. So far, they have survived every test, but no scientist will claim that they have been "proven", only reinforced. It's the same way with the Big Bang.

A funny thing about Einstein and the BB -- he didn't like the idea. He believed in the concept of a 'Steady State' universe. An infinite and eternal, unchanging universe. But, while working with his General Relativity equations he found that the equations said the universe should be expanding. The only way he could make the numbers work was to add, what he called, a "Cosmological Constant". This troubled him greatly. He called the Cosmological Constant his greatest blunder. Much later, the astronomer Edwin Hubble found that many of the 'spiral nebulae' seen through telescopes were actually individual galaxies, and that they were all receeding from us, and from each other, at a rate which matched Einstein's Cosmological Constant. So there are checks and ballances within astronomy, physics, and cosmology. Nothing is ever taken at face value.

Originally Posted by Terry D

We do refine theories all the time as our tools and our knowledge grow, but the fundamentals of the mechanics of the universe are not ging to be changed. Science doesn't speak of "absolutes", but the basic concepts like gravity, space-time, and lightspeed have withstood every test. Any theory which doesn't get redefined over the span of 100 years isn't being studied very hard.

That's not exactly what I meant. As time passes, some flaws are found in existing laws theories, and new ones also show up. We can't tell for certain what kind of technology may arise by the results of finding out that something that was previously "physically impossible" suddenly becomes a likely possibility. That said, teleportation is possible according to quantum physics, and would consume much, much less energy and time than FSOL travel (besides being much safer).

If there is any living civilization in the universe that's much older than ours, they may have the means to use teleportation in a feasible way. So that means intergalactic travel might not be impossible after all.

I don't have the time, or the working knowledge of the math, to explain the shape of the universe here, but a simple Google search for the 'shape of the universe' will get you started. Timothy Farris has written a good book, The Whole Shebang, which is a great explanation of the Standard Model and in it he discusses the shape of the universe.

The Big Bang was not an explosion. An explosion takes place in some preexisting space. The Big Bang was the origination event of space and of time. Farris' book is also a great introduction to that as well. Both matter and anti-matter were created after the Big Bang occured, as the newborn universe started to cool. This happened somewhere around one second after the event.

Again, any talk of other Big Bangs, or other universes, is only speculation and has nothing to do with what happens in this universe.

I'm glad we can take the plethora of dimensions off the table. That talk makes my head hurt. Your definition of universe is flawed. It implies the existance of some boundary enclosing our universe from some larger area of space. That is not the case. All space exists within our universe, by definition. We know our universe is expanding, but that is an expansion of space itself, not into space.

Touche. I stand defeated.

You can assume it has occured before, you cannot assure it without empirical evidence.

True. If time and space are not infinite, as I thought it was, then causality is not violated.

I'm just starting to learn something about quantum mechanics and by no means do I have the guns to take shots at what you say about teleportation through quantum indeterminacy. Although I do have suspicions that those strange quantum effects may only manifest themselves at quantum scales. Just as the rules which govern Newtonian/Einsteinian gravity break down at sub-atomic scales, it may be that quantum actions are not possible at super-atomic scales. That seems to make sense to me.

I believe in a lot of things outside human understanding. Aliens and their ability to travel the cosmos is one of them. It's a both fascinating and almost romanitic idea to surf the heavens, one that has captivated both science and imagination alike. To believe that such possibilities, that there is indeed life outside our little blue world is hogs wash, be it microscopic or primitive to even super intelligent, is pure folly. The universe, in its infinite scope, has to harbour life other than our own. It's depicted in ancient stone tablets, writing and even video evidence (not all true) that we are often visited by beings outside our understanding.

This is my understanding anyway. I'm not a keen student of science and all of that jazz. I might be right. I might be wrong. I only hope that one day, in my lifetime, that we'll know for sure. Of course I might be biting those words when I'm sent to mine in some alien land against my will, seperated from those I love.

Originally Posted by Terry D

I'm just starting to learn something about quantum mechanics and by no means do I have the guns to take shots at what you say about teleportation through quantum indeterminacy. Although I do have suspicions that those strange quantum effects may only manifest themselves at quantum scales. Just as the rules which govern Newtonian/Einsteinian gravity break down at sub-atomic scales, it may be that quantum actions are not possible at super-atomic scales. That seems to make sense to me.

It is possible to teleport electrons, iirc. There is also the possibility that object itself is not teleported, but deconstructed, and then electrons are teleported to a remote machine that interprets them and restores the object with spare matter (the teleported electrons could be used as a way to transmit millions of terabytes in a single instant). We could, possibly, send relatively small objects this way, but I'm not sure about entire spaceships (a human is already pushing it I think), but electron teleportation could be, in the near future, thousands of times faster than optic fiber over short distances.

I believe it's technologically possible to traverse vast distances through space. We may not yet have any technology that comes close to solving this riddle, but "others" may.

I find it humorous that some people think it's impossible, considering we've had modern technology for what, less than one hundred years? And we've already travelled to the moon and sent out remote vehicles to mars in that short time.

That's in less than one hundred years. The first working internal combustion engine was designed and used in the mid 1800's. That means in 200 years we've gone from steam-powered vehicles to Space Stations and remote control vehicles on Mars. 200 years is a very short amount of time. Given today's medicine, that's just two of your lifetimes.

Imagine what a civilization could do 1,000 years after inventing their own combustion engine. Or 10,000 years. Or 100,000 years.

Don't you think said civilization would explore outer space, and other planets, just as we already are doing?

I certainly do. And I'm sure with enough advancements, there would be other means of travel discovered, explored, and mastered besides mere propulsion.

There ARE alien visitors! Next time I go by The Home Depot, I'm taking pictures to prove it!

They're mostly short in stature and wear denim and flannel. If you give the ten to twenty bucks they'll come back to your place and do manual labour for you. I think that's just a ruse so they can get good recon data prior to the invasion.

Originally Posted by Winston

There ARE alien visitors! Next time I go by The Home Depot, I'm taking pictures to prove it!

They're mostly short in stature and wear denim and flannel. If you give the ten to twenty bucks they'll come back to your place and do manual labour for you. I think that's just a ruse so they can get good recon data prior to the invasion.

Low blow.

Originally Posted by KyleColorado

I believe it's technologically possible to traverse vast distances through space. We may not yet have any technology that comes close to solving this riddle, but "others" may.

I find it humorous that some people think it's impossible, considering we've had modern technology for what, less than one hundred years? And we've already travelled to the moon and sent out remote vehicles to mars in that short time.

That's in less than one hundred years. The first working internal combustion engine was designed and used in the mid 1800's. That means in 200 years we've gone from steam-powered vehicles to Space Stations and remote control vehicles on Mars. 200 years is a very short amount of time. Given today's medicine, that's just two of your lifetimes.

Imagine what a civilization could do 1,000 years after inventing their own combustion engine. Or 10,000 years. Or 100,000 years.

Don't you think said civilization would explore outer space, and other planets, just as we already are doing?

I certainly do. And I'm sure with enough advancements, there would be other means of travel discovered, explored, and mastered besides mere propulsion.

It's not all about technology. Technology allows us to make better use of the physical laws which govern the universe. Technology does not allow us to break those laws. Sure, technology may one day allow us to build a spacecraft which can travel from the Earth to a planet orbiting a star on the other side of the Milky Way, but the trip will still take more than 100,000 years. The speed of light is a barrier which no amount of technology will break down.

Here is the conundrum about lightspeed: It takes energy to accelerate a mass (an object). There's no way around that, if you want to move something you have to expend energy to do it. As the speed increases the total energy required does also. Calculating the energy required to move an object at any gived speed is a very straightforward calculation. A problem arises when you push this calculation to the speed of light, the energy required (for any size of object) becomes infinity. In other words it takes an infinite amount of energy to move any mass at the speed of light. Of course that cannot be done. No machine, or computer program is going to change that.

None of our technological advancements over the 1,000 years we've employed technology, have violated, or circumvented the laws of physics. There are limits within the universe, and we have no control over them.

Originally Posted by Terry D

It's not all about technology. Technology allows us to make better use of the physical laws which govern the universe. Technology does not allow us to break those laws. Sure, technology may one day allow us to build a spacecraft which can travel from the Earth to a planet orbiting a star on the other side of the Milky Way, but the trip will still take more than 100,000 years. The speed of light is a barrier which no amount of technology will break down.

Here is the conundrum about lightspeed: It takes energy to accelerate a mass (an object). There's no way around that, if you want to move something you have to expend energy to do it. As the speed increases the total energy required does also. Calculating the energy required to move an object at any gived speed is a very straightforward calculation. A problem arises when you push this calculation to the speed of light, the energy required (for any size of object) becomes infinity. In other words it takes an infinite amount of energy to move any mass at the speed of light. Of course that cannot be done. No machine, or computer program is going to change that.

None of our technological advancements over the 1,000 years we've employed technology, have violated, or circumvented the laws of physics. There are limits within the universe, and we have no control over them.

I think that if there is any hope for space travel it will be one where we can have humans able to somehow get there in one piece, regardless of speed of travel. Things like conserving human bodies for thousands of years without decay or machines that will artificially create humans once they get there. That stuff is possible and is a lot more realistic than light speed traveling or teleportation. That said, it would mean that life on earth could end before one of these "spaceships" arrive, but it would at least warrant the survival of humanity and our knowledge.

Rupert Sheldrake, a professor of biology and author, he has publicised his scientific finds of the telepathic but science and the industry controlled establishment doesnt want to hear from him, they want to shut him out and call him a fringe scientist.

Darwin was a deeply religious person before his young daughter died, then he deserted his religious beliefs because he could not believe in a God that would allow his 5 year old daughter to die. But it was actually his own fault why she died, and his families fault, they had many genetic defects due to inbreeding. He actually stated that humans fit his theories least of all mammals but atheists adopted his beliefs and most haven't even read 'Origin of the Species.'

There has never been seen one species transform into another, it has never once been viewed, so if evolution is true why has it stopped? And there is no fossil record for 1% of mammals evolving from a different species, and there is no fossil record of any dinosaur species evolving from different species. Life slightly adapts around environment, or moves to environment best suited to itself. The fossil record showing Humans evolving from apes is blind faith, they are similar species we probably wiped out, they arent our ancestors. Science has proven Neanderthals are not related to Human Beings.

There are just as many arguements against scepticism and evolution as there are for it, and there is a lot of evidence of UFOs, but govts want them technologies to be used within secret military operations so classify UFO activity as serious breaches of airspace laws, so that in the event of a UFO crashing they can hold that craft in official secrets acts and never have to give any explanation to the taxpayers and science.