It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and the null hypothesis

page: 32
8
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 02:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Nixnada

But then why not make the bold claim that [every non-resolved ufocase is in fact ET]?

because they are unidentified and ET is not known to exist.

What you want to do is put the burden of proof on the ill 'debunker'. The default is UNIDENTIFIED. The burden of proof is on ANYONE that wants to show otherwise.

edit on 21-4-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian


Thank You for responding. This is an interesting subject.



Saying 'No ufo cases are of ET source' already implies ET exists

Yes i agree, that 'ET exists' is 'a priori' or the assumption. It is a big leap of faith. However it seems we as species hold no special place in the universe as have been observed many times over in history.



The argument is circular since they have already determined ET exists and UFOs are INDENTIFIED as ET. This is implied in the null and quite clearly stated in this thread.

Yes but not an issue if we assume 'ET exists'.




I believe the actual null hypothesis would be "there are UFOs" as in there are UNIDENTIFIED things. What they are NOT due to is as UNKNOWN as what they ARE due to.

This really doesnt say much, or i dont understand what you mean.



The other thing that is implied is that UFOs represent some kind of controlled craft.

Some evidence does seem to indicate that, yes.




Before you get to ET, that has to be shown.

I believe the OP have been keen to do just that



The next issue is defining ET. Apparently ET can do just about anything except make crop circles as good as humans.


I would define ET as something or someone not originating from this planet ie being extra terrestrial. How would you define it?


So essentially, anything that cant be identified or explained can be attributed to being ET.

In a sense yes if we believe in the ETH hypothesis.



Other rational explanations may exist for each case individually but since they cant be proven, ETworks better because it encompasses all cases and any odd behavior.

Some ufocases as you know, have been resolved to being just stars, planets etc, and some have not. We have to look at the evidence in each case.


ETworks better because it encompasses all cases and any odd behavior.

Yes but if it works why not? No offense, but would it be more rational to say they were black magic or fairies?



There is nothing wrong with the ETH in general and I think it is a legitimate competing hypothesis to explain an unknown.


Ok that is what i think was the OP goal in some sense anyways.


As it has been presented here, its not workable by any stretch.

Why not if you agree that it is a legitimate hypothesis and there is evidence to support it (or the null)


What you want to do is put the burden of proof on the ill 'debunker'. The default is UNIDENTIFIED. The burden of proof is on ANYONE that wants to show otherwise.

I am not sure if that was my in intention, but yes the debunker is an important part in testing the hypothesis.



The default is UNIDENTIFIED

We agree on that. But as a species we are interested in understanding the world around us, we would like to explain things that are unidentified or whatnot hence the ETH hypothesis.


The burden of proof is on ANYONE that wants to show otherwise.

If something is unidentified, i think You would agree that anyone is allowed to speculate and make hypotheses. Of course the evidence says something of the validity of the hypothesis but there is a long way to saying something is proven without a doubt. Could you even give an example of that?



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculianSaying 'No ufo cases are of ET source' already implies ET exists as neo and empass clearly insist is the case. The argument is circular since they have already determined ET exists and UFOs are INDENTIFIED as ET. This is implied in the null and quite clearly stated in this thread.


This is simply untrue. The hypothesis states that ET exists because the evidence says so. There is no need to make assumptions about the existence of ET to justify the hypothesis. It is not a question of saying 'ET exists. Let's find some evidence.' It is a question of looking at the evidence and coming to the conclusion that ET exists.
edit on 21-4-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Nixnada

Good points but you said something that's been misrepresented here by debunkers over and over again:


Yes i have also come to the conclusion that the OP ETH hypothesis might actually be too 'weak' formulated in order to be falsified. Because you would never be able to show that NO Ufo's never has been nor ever will be of ET origin.


People like Zeta and Phage don't know what the null hypothesis is. They have said things like test the null and prove the null and this is because they can't debate or refute the evidence. They want to debate the existence of extraterrestrials.

If you noticed, the debunkers run away from the evidence like it's the plague and they want to debate the the existence of Aliens and not the data surrounding U.F.O.'s The data surrounding U.F.O.'s supports the ET hypothesis.

The Null is assumed to be true. This is why it's denoted as H0. It's the ground zero of hypothesis. So you don't need to show no U.F.O.'s never have been nor never will be of ET origin. This is assumed to be true.

It's the data surrounding U.F.O.'s that has to support the alternative hypotheses in order to falsify the null. So the data refutes the null. Like the data used in the studies from 1954, 1979 and 2004:


In all six studied sighting characteristics, the unknowns were different from the knowns at a highly statistically significant level: in five of the six measures the odds of knowns differing from unknowns by chance was only 1% or less. When all six characteristics were considered together, the probability of a match between knowns and unknowns was less than 1 in a billion.

When the Air Force finally made Special Report #14 public in October 1955, it was claimed that the report scientifically proved that UFOs did not exist. Critics of this claim note that the report actually proved that the "unknowns" were distinctly different from the "knowns" at a very high statistical significance level. The Air Force also incorrectly claimed that only 3% of the cases studied were unknowns, instead of the actual 22%. They further claimed that the residual 3% would probably disappear if more complete data were available. Critics counter that this ignored the fact that the analysts had already thrown such cases into the category of "insufficient information", whereas both "knowns" and "unknowns" were deemed to have sufficient information to make a determination. Also the "unknowns" tended to represent the higher quality cases, q.e. reports that already had better information and witnesses.

The result of the monumental BMI study were echoed by a 1979 French GEPAN report which stated that about a quarter of over 1,600 closely studied UFO cases defied explanation, stating, in part, "These cases … pose a real question."[25] When GEPAN's successor SEPRA closed in 2004, 5800 cases had been analyzed, and the percentage of inexplicable unknowns had dropped to about 14%. The head of SEPRA, Dr. Jean-Jacques Velasco, found the evidence of extraterrestrial origins so convincing in these remaining unknowns, that he wrote a book about it in 2005.[26]


Again, this is data and in science and you have people like Zeta talking about crop circles when it has nothing to do with the data surrounding U.F.O.'s. He even said it had nothing to do with the ET hypothesis, yet his next post will probably be about crop circles because Zeta, Phage and every debunker on this thread doesn't want to debate the data surrounding U.F.O.'s they want to debate the existence of aliens. The ET hypothesis isn't dependent on the existence of extraterrestrials. It's dependent on the correlations and data surrounding the observed aerial phenomena U.F.O.'s.

In science there's the corroboration of the hypothesis. We just didn't start talking about this now, we have been talking about U.F.O.'s and extraterrestrials for years. The Aurora Texas UFO case occurred in 1897. All of these years, the observed aerial phenomena has been connected to extraterrestrials and still today with modern technology we haven't caught a U.F.O. and U.F.O.'s do things that still defy explanation unless the ET hypothesis is accepted.

If the ET hypothesis were accepted as true tomorrow, the data surrounding U.F.O.'s would be explained. The ET hypothesis is the only explanation that fits the data and this is why extraterrestrials have been associated with the aerial observed phenomena even back in 1897.

Back to corroboration:


In the philosophy of science of Popper there is no definable measure of the extent to which evidence confirms a hypothesis (see confirmation theory). Instead, hypotheses face the tribunal of experience by surviving efforts to falsify them. The degree of corroboration of a hypothesis by evidence is then a function of the stringency of the test the evidence provides, and hence a measure of the success of the hypothesis in surviving it. Critics have complained that corroboration in this sense is an empty notion, since it provides no reason to trust the hypothesis on any future occasion. See falsifiability, verisimilitude.


Now this is a current debate in science with people like Leonard Susskind arguing against Popper. This is because Popper essentially says no theory is truly falsified. They could be falsified to a degree and highly corroborated but they still have to face testing.

This is the ET hypothesis. It has been highly corroborated by the data. There isn't any better explanation for the data and the correlations. If there was then there wouldn't be U.F.O.'s connected to extraterrestrials all of these years. The ET hypothesis is a highly corroborated hypothesis that would be even more highly corroborated in my opinion if blind debunkers and pseudoskeptics weren't the ones blindly screaming the loudest while avoiding the evidence.

So look at the speed of light. Popper is saying the speed of light would be corroborated but it's still only as good as the last time it was tested. Those on the other side say we have to be able to say that the speed of light gives us a true picture of reality in order to build other hypothesis and theories around it. I agree with both. I think Popper was trying to avoid confirmation theories but you can't escape things like logic and probabilities in science so he back doored it through corroboration. This is why I like Bayesian Confirmation theory or a Bayesian inference.

So the speed of light can be used when building new theories but it can change. Next year, the LHC could find a particle that goes faster than light. So at this point you can say they probably won't based on the fact that the data supports the speed of light. So the most you can say is the speed of light is corroborated by the data but you can infer based on this corroboration that the probability that they will find a particle that goes faster than light is low.

So back to U.F.O.'s and ET. I don't have to show that there has never been or never will be a U.F.O. controlled by ET in order to falsify the null. Again, the null is H0 and assumed to be true. Just like in order for Science to accept the speed of light doesn't mean they have to show that there will never be a particle that travels faster than light. This is why I keep talking about the available evidence and weighing what's most likely and less likely.

When it comes to U.F.O's the debunkers just throw out basic common sense. They can't weigh the evidence.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Nixnada

Yes, it is interesting and challenging problem.

"I believe the actual null hypothesis would be "there are UFOs" as in there are UNIDENTIFIED things. What they are NOT due to is as UNKNOWN as what they ARE due to. "


This really doesnt say much, or i dont understand what you mean.

yeah, my thought wasn't expressed well but let me try to clarify. Lets say we have a set of observations and we want identify them. The way to do that would be to compare the observations to a list of known things each known thing would be a category. The remaining ones are categorized as "unknown". There really can't be a category called "Not Something" because we don't what it is not. Because its unknown, it still could represent something known and it could equally represent something unknown or not discovered yet.

If you want to look at the effect of a known drug, the null is "no effect". In this case the equivalent would be; you want to test the effects of an unknown theoretical drugX and your null would be "no non-effect is due to drugX". I believe this is the logical equivalent to "no unidentified things are due to theoretical aliens".

in order to test drugX, drugX has to be made if its even possible. To say that the assumption should be that drugX works until debunkers show it doesn't....

the only reasonable way to express this is unidentified things are unidentified until they are identified. This includes yet to be discovered aliens as well as yet to be discovered psych phenomenon and yet to be known terrestrial craft.
and
drugs have no effect until they are shown to be effective. This includes known drugs and ones that haven't been invented yet.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant


The hypothesis states that ET exists because the evidence says so.

thats not a hypothesis, thats an assertion.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic
I am not following your logic. Can you express this using reality?



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant


The hypothesis states that ET exists because the evidence says so.

thats not a hypothesis, thats an assertion.


If the evidence suggests that a pulsar exists then the pulsar is an assertion? You are ridiculing half of science with this kind of talk.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant


If the evidence suggests that a pulsar exists then the pulsar is an assertion? You are ridiculing half of science with this kind of talk.

If I go through the literature and look at how pulsars were identified and compare that to what you are presenting, there would be a huge gap in pretty much everything you are talking about.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Introduction

I attended the Ohio State University in the aerospace engineering department in the 1970s and later went to graduate school there in the 1980s. While there I worked with Bob Dixon and John Kraus at OSU's Radio Observatory. I also worked with fast fourier transform digital signal processors to implement an early SETI survey. I worked with Walter Mitchell, the solar astronomer who published the Zeta Reticuli article in Astronomy magazine. I was the graduate student who took the Gliese Catalog punched it into 80 column cards, and made star charts. This gave a patina of science I suppose to Marjorie Fish's analysis of Betty Hill's star chart.

I have thought a lot about UFO and ETI over the years. I welcome an useful feedback.

Thanks in advance for your time and attention.

Cheers
William Mook

* * *

Where Humanity Stands

The Trinity bomb test in 1945 released 20 kT (84 TJ) of energy in 1/100,000,000th (1e-8) seconds produces a power level of 8.4 sextillion watts (8.4e21 W).

This is a Kardshev value of 1.592 - well above 1!!

Tsar Bomba in 1961 released 58 MT (240 PJ) in 1/100,000,000th (1e-8) seconds producing a power level of 24 septillion watts (2.4e25 W).

This is a Kardashev value of 1.938 - nearly 2!!

This is a growth in power output of 2,857x in 16 years. An annualized compound rate of growth averaging 64.4% per year!

We are already a Kardashev 2 society! We know how to produce and handle energy output on the scale of stars with 'gadgets' we can build on the human scale.

What we do with this technology is a reflection of the kinds of beings we are. We choose to live in artificial scarcity for political reasons. This does not change the bald fact we already know how to match the output of stars.

This cannot fail to be of interest to any K2 civilization.

Drake meet Kardashev

The Kardashev Scale

First proposed in 1964 by the Soviet astronomer Nikolai Kardashev is the Kardashev scale.

The Kardashev scale measures a civilization's level of technological advancement, based on the amount of energy it uses.

The scale has three designated categories called Type I, II, and III.

A Type I civilization uses all available resources impinging on its home planet.

Type II harnesses all the energy of its star.

A Type III of its galaxy.

Various extensions of the scale have been proposed adding types 0, IV and V.

Others have proposed different measures other than power.

Michio Kaku suggested that humans may attain Type I status in 100-200 years, Type II status in a few thousand years, and Type III status in 100,000 to a million years.

A type III civilization would be indistinguishable from God, and as Arthur Clarke pointed out, possess technology indistinguishable from magic. Its one of his three laws;

Clarke's Three Laws are three laws of prediction. They are:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.


Carl Sagan suggested defining intermediate values by interpolating and extrapolating the values given above for types and noting;

I (1e16 W),
II (1e26 W) and
III (1e36 W),

which produces the formula

K = ((log(P) / log(10))-6)/10

Check

K = ((log(1e16)/log(10))-6)/10
= (16-6)/10 = 1


where value K is a civilization's Kardashev rating and P is the power it uses, in watts. Using this extrapolation, a "Type 0" civilization, not defined by Kardashev, would control about 1 MW of power, and humanity's civilization type as of 1973 was about 0.7 (apparently using 10 terawatt (TW) as the value for 1970s humanity).

In 2008, total world energy consumption was 518.76 exajoules a 16.41 TW rate. This makes us K=0.7215

Drake Equation

The Drake Equation was first written by Radio Astronomer Frank Drake in 1961.

N = R* x fp x fl x fi x fc x L

This equation estimates the number of extraterrestrial civilizations by knowing how fast the universe is making civilizations and how long those civilizations live. We do the same sort of thing estimating the number of red light bulbs in the world from a factory knowing the rate of light bulb production the fraction of bulbs that are red and how long the red bulbs last on average. In the case of Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (ETI) was have a rate of star formation, a number of fractions that are easy to estimate the lead to technical civilizations, and the life span of those technical civilizations on average.

where:

N = the number of technical civilizations in our galaxy;

and

R* = the average rate of star formation = 7

fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets = 1.0

ne = the average number of planets that support life = 0.4

fl = the fraction of planets that actually develop life = 0.15

fi = the fraction of living planets develop civilizations = 1.0

fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology = 1.0

L = the length of time for which such civilizations exist = 420 years


Michael Shermer has estimated 420 years after examining 28 previous civilizations on Earth with a standard deviation of 200 years.

So, inserting that, and the best available numbers we obtain;

n = 7*1*4*0.15*1*1*1000 = 4,200

in the Milky Way.

Lifetime

Now the life time of a technical civilization is an average with a standard deviation, just as the life time of a light bulb is an average around a standard deviation.

Combining the findings of Kardashev with the findings of Drake and applying a distribution around our average life span, then combining that with an average rate of energy growth we estimate the distribution of civilizations in the Galaxy.

Applying this distribution to the 4200 technical civilizations in the galaxy we conclude

K0-K1 - Planetary - 1266 civilizations
K1-K2 - Interplanetary - 2906 civilizations
K2-K3 - Interstellar - 28 civilizations
K3-K4 - Intergalactic - 1 in 47 million galaxies (10,000 in cosmos)
K4+ Cosmic - (none)

So, using the best available numbers today, we can see that most civilizations are interplanetary, and most of the rest are planetary. There are a handful of civilizations within each galaxy that roam that galaxy, and there is likely to be no more than one intergalactic civilization with these numbers. Also, with these numbers, there are no cosmic civilizations.

There are likely 28 species that roam the galaxy. All will likely have representative technology here capable of self-replication and making contact when triggered to do so.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Space Travel

Rockets

Konstantin Tsiolkovsky - a mathematician - first solved the 'rocket equation' in 1896. It showed how the speed of rockets scale;

Vf = Ve * LN( m0/ m1 )

Vf = final velocity, (how fast the rocket goes)
Ve = exhaust velocity (how fast stuff comes out of the back of the rocket)
LN( ... ) = natural logarithm function
m0 = starting mass
m1 = final mass

This means that a rocket that's filled up with propellant 2.72x as heavy when full than when its empty, will travel at exactly its exhaust speed. A rocket that's 7.39x as heavy when its full than when its empty, will travel at twice its exhaust speed. A rocket that is 20.09x as heavy when its full than when its empty, will travel at three time its exhaust speed.

Chemical Rockets

Hydrogen and oxygen can produce a rocket exhaust that travels at 10,000 mph. Orbital speed is 17,670 mph. To get to orbit you have to lift your rocket above the air and fight air drag every step of the way. This means if you're launching from Florida, you have to have a rocket that goes 20,570 mph to reach the same orbits as the Space Shuttle. So, if you want to do things in a single stage, you've got to have a very lightweight and fragile system. You can do things in stages, but that just makes things bigger and more complex.

Atomic Rockets

Atomic power changes things. There are types of atomic reactions called aneutronic reactions. One that has been known about for a long time is Lithium-6 and Deuterium. A neutron falls into the Lithium-6 making Tritium and Helium and releasing a lot of energy (4.3 MeV). This means the tritium and helium are hot. The tritium is hot enough to react almost immediately with the deuterium in a deuterium plus tritium reaction. This creates another Helium nucleus and the neutron again along with a lot more energy (17.6 MeV). The cycle of reactions, called the Jetter Cycle, turns Lithium-6 Deuteride - which is a powder about 8/10ths the density of water - into energetic alpha particles (helium nuclei) releasing a lot of energy. One ounce of this powder will release the same amount of energy as burning 1.25 million barrels of oil. Humanity currently produces 3300 tons of Lithium-6 today, and could easily produce the 825 tons of deuterium from sea water needed to produce 5x the energy we use today burning fossil fuels. The cool part is, there are no long lasting byproducts, no dangerous radiations, nada. We've know about this since 1950!

Now, the cool thing for rocket science types is that the exhaust products, alpha particles, are easily deflected and focused with magnetic fields. They also travel at 51,428,000 mph!!! That's 7.6% light speed!

With this kind of rocket, we can leave the planet. We can boost between worlds at one gravity, and travel anywhere we like in the solar system and back, and carry less fuel on board than we carry in our cars today in terms of total mass of fuel vs. car mass.

Still, its difficult to travel to the stars.

Anti Matter - Photon Rockets

Anti-matter can be efficiently made by 'squeezing' photons and causing them to interact to create positrons and electrons. Recently, scientists have discovered that positrons and electrons can be formed into a sort of molecule, they call positronium, also known as a Bose Einstein condensate. This is a superfluid. No viscosity or resistance to motion. Inside an appropriately structured crystalline lattice, positronium can achieve long life time and high density. Some feel 8 ounces per cubic inch are possible. The crystalline lattice is like an aerogel - very lightweight - only 8 ounces per cubic yard! A mass ratio of 10,000 to 1. The exhaust speed is the speed of light.

Now, when we travel at high rates of speed, we run into spacetime dilation predicted by Einstein. We see it in every subatomic particle we accelerate in particle accelerators. There's no reason to believe we won't see it in spacecraft and ourselves, since our spacecraft and ourselves are made of the same subatomic particles.

This means that we have to adjust our rocket equation from Tsiolkovky's form, to account for this time dilation. For positronium the equation becomes;

Vf = c * TANH( LN( m0/m1 ))

Vf = final velocity,
c = speed of light
TANH( = hyperbolic tangent
LN( = natural logarithm
m0 = initial mass of spacecraft
m1 = final mass of spacecraft

With a 10,000 to 1 mass ratio possible with a positronium / crystalline lattice combination we should be able to make a rocket capable of going at 0.99999998c or 99.999998% light speed. That's 670,807,000 mph!! Of course if we want to stop, we use burn 9,900 giving 100 to 1 to speed up, and then burn 99 to get 100 to 1 again to slow down. This gives a speed of movement of 99.98% light speed. That's 670,673,000 mph.

Now, at these speeds time dilation is a serious factor. That's a good thing! At 99.98% light speed time is dilated by

t' = t0 / SQRT( 1 - (Vf/c)^2 )

50 to 1. That is one week of travel aboard the high speed ship, is nearly a year back on Earth, and around all the other stars. So, a trip 100 light years from Earth takes only 2 years on the ship. In this space there are thousands of stars like the Sun, with tens of thousands of planets.

Where do we get the antimatter?

Well, NASA has recently discovered that certain solar flares on the Sun produce positrons and electrons. By capturing these, thousands perhaps millions of tons of anti-matter may be harvested in this way from any star. Once we do it here, we can do it around any star. So, we can refuel in our interstellar travels.

Time Travel

In 1932 mathematician Kurt Goedel reviewed Einstein's field equations and determined that if the cosmos rotated, it should at some point come back to the time it began and time travel would then be possible by just waiting long enough.

In 1975 physicist Frank Tipler published an article in Nature magazine that showed how it was possible to shape a strong gravity field to make a time machine. You could travel to any point in time back to when the machine was switched on and any time in the future, until the machine was switched off.

In 1975 as well Bruce Blalock and Robert Brown discovered a supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy - Sagittarius A* - its the size of the orbit the planet Mercury, masses 4 million times the mass of the sun, and spins at over 1/2 the speed of light. It has a sizeable time violating region similar to Tipler's machine - and has been around for about a billion years and will be around a trillion more.

It should be possible to send signals, or objects, or people through Sag A*'s ergosphere in such a way as to control WHEN we come out. Either in the future or in the past. If we come out in the past we can then continue to travel to any point in space arriving at any time we choose.

By sending a radio telescope beyond 55.8 billion miles from the Sun, we can use the sun's gravity to focus our signal. This lets us send powerful messages precisely very long distances. We can send signals to Sag A*, and listen for the echo - THROUGH TIME - this will give us a clear idea of Sag A* ergosphere and insight into physics of space time. It will also have the practical effect of letting us send signals through time.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: WilliamMook

You are in the wrong thread with this. You need to start a new thread on this subject.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Time Travel (continued)

So, we can travel through time by passing around the ergosphere of Sag A* the right way. We can send signals through time, and travel in time ourselves.

Imagine walking into a restaurant and placing an order. Your order gets taken to a computer and entered. There it goes through the internet to a radio telescope at the edge of the solar system. From there it is beamed 30,000 light years to Sag A*. 30,000 years in the future, it enters the ergosphere around Sag A*, and circulates along a carefully calculated path, so that it leaves Sag A* a little longer than 60,000 years before it arrives - pointed back to where it came from. There, the radio telescope that sent it, receives it, a few hours before it was sent, it then goes back to the internet on Earth, and is delivered back into the computer system at the restaurant. The order is printed out in the kitchen a few minutes before you arrive. So, when you sit down at your table, your order arrives immediately. This improves turnover in the restaurant, and level of service for the customers. Warehousing would be a thing of the past with this system. You'd walk into a car dealership and order a custom vehicle, and the dealer would just be pulling it off the trailer as you arrived. A new meaning to Just in Time Inventory.

The upshot is, we can communicate instantly across space with this technology. We can also travel instantly to any point in space time with this technology.

Micro-Black Holes

In 1975 Sara Ruben looked very carefully at how galaxies spin. She discovered that all the galaxies in the cosmos were spinning far too rapidly. She found that 4/5th of the cosmos must be made of 'dark matter' that cannot be seen. What is dark matter? Its just another name for microscopic black holes that were formed at the time of the big bang, and evaporated down to the point they are too small to radiate away the energy they contain. These are called minimum mass black holes. Space is filled with them! Just as the cosmos is filled with photons from the big bang, giving us our 3K background radiation, so too is the cosmos filled with micro-minimum-mass black holes. Except here, they're invisible. They're too small to interact with matter or each other. They're only apparent through their gravity. However, by tapping them, we have a tremendous resource! But how to tap them?

Well, they're flying all around us, and if we could interact with them somehow, they would produce a reaction force, like a sail in a breeze. That's one way. Extracting momentum from a black hole stream passing through space would provide free energy and even anti gravity.

Another is if we could charge them up and control them through magnetic fields, we might cause them to collide with one another, form a larger black hole, and begin radiating again! This would be another form of free energy, far more powerful than the first. Using neutrinos instead of photons in a rocket, would produce a rocket action without a sensible exhaust. This is another form of anti gravity.

Another is, if we could create what is known as a Klemperer Rosette, we could create a ring-like system that had a strong gravity field that objects would fall toward. If the ring accelerated as we fell toward it, we would feel no gee forces. So, we could accelerate very quickly reaching light speed in a few hours at 1,000 gees - yet feeling no reaction force since we're being pulled along by the gravity of the ring of micro-black holes that we've engineered. This 'craft' would have a disk like shape and would be powered by the 4/5th of the cosmos that is 'dark'. This energy converted to material could even be used to create material objects - think of the Star Trek type replicator that takes the black hole stream and converts it to matter and makes any material object you like - sort of like a black hole powered 3D printer.

Another is, if we pass through an ergosphere of a supermassive black hole, we can use what is known as the Penrose Process to extract massenergy from the blackhole and 'recharge' the micro-black-holes within our spacecraft.

Another is to use the event horizon around black holes as a computing machine. In 1973 Jacob Bekenstein worked out the details of how to use black hole event horizons to process information. Arrays of black holes should form the basis of building very powerful computing platforms. With the ability to send signals through time, even short periods of time, a new sort of computing is possible. A sort of consciousness that sends information through time to achieve optimal results.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant

Sorry you don't like it. Though, I thought some might be interested in what I am saying here. This thread is the closest thread in the pantheon. I am not yet allowed to start a new thread of my own, and I don't know when I'll be back again. Basically what I'm saying is;

The best available science says

(1) we should expect to see 20 to 30 species here now;
(2) we know how travel to the planets and end energy shortages;
(3) we know how to signal through time, and do cool things;
(4) we could know how to tap into the 'dark matter' that permeates the cosmos and do more in time;



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: WilliamMook
a reply to: EnPassant
(1) we should expect to see 20 to 30 species here now;


Oh NOW you are in the right thread!


here is a good thread (if you're looking for intelligent replies)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Look for other threads by jadestar
edit on 22-4-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: WilliamMook

Thanks for your contribution, very interesting stuff in your post. I like your estimates and especially the use of energy consumption to evaluate stages of different civilizations. I especially like this:


I (1e16 W),
II (1e26 W) and
III (1e36 W),

which produces the formula

K = ((log(P) / log(10))-6)/10

Check

K = ((log(1e16)/log(10))-6)/10
= (16-6)/10 = 1


where value K is a civilization's Kardashev rating and P is the power it uses, in watts. Using this extrapolation, a "Type 0" civilization, not defined by Kardashev, would control about 1 MW of power, and humanity's civilization type as of 1973 was about 0.7 (apparently using 10 terawatt (TW) as the value for 1970s humanity).

In 2008, total world energy consumption was 518.76 exajoules a 16.41 TW rate. This makes us K=0.7215


I think this is a good way to look at it and I liked this:


K0-K1 - Planetary - 1266 civilizations
K1-K2 - Interplanetary - 2906 civilizations
K2-K3 - Interstellar - 28 civilizations
K3-K4 - Intergalactic - 1 in 47 million galaxies (10,000 in cosmos)
K4+ Cosmic - (none)

So, using the best available numbers today, we can see that most civilizations are interplanetary, and most of the rest are planetary. There are a handful of civilizations within each galaxy that roam that galaxy, and there is likely to be no more than one intergalactic civilization with these numbers. Also, with these numbers, there are no cosmic civilizations.

There are likely 28 species that roam the galaxy. All will likely have representative technology here capable of self-replication and making contact when triggered to do so.


Thanks for the post. I'm looking over your post on rocket propulsion and time travel now.

edit on 22-4-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: WilliamMook

I do like it but it deserves a new thread of its own. You need 20 posts first and I'm looking forward to seeing it as a new topic.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant

Well, I'm glad you folks like it. I started out with 20 karma points and they went down to 4 - so, I figure I must be doing something wrong. lol. I can't send e-mails or post new threads yet. So, we'll see how things progress.

The energy idea wasn't mine, it was developed in 1964 by Nikolai Kardashev and normalized into that formula by Carl Sagan. I worked on the SETI programme at OSU's Big Ear radio observatory, with Dr. Kraus and Dr. Sagan, also worked with Dr. Mitchell regarding Marjorie Fish's analysis of the Betty Hill star map.

Since improved techniques by Mayor and Queloz in 1995, over 1700 planets have been found outside the solar system - which gives lot more precise figures for Drake's equation. The new Gaia satellite will go a step further and soon we'll have millions of star systems around G-type stars all mapped out within 3,500 light years of Earth. Which is awesome!

exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu...



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: WilliamMook

You are in the wrong thread with this. You need to start a new thread on this subject.


I disagree.

While he may have gone a bit "overboard" with his info...much of belongs right here!



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 07:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: WilliamMook
a reply to: EnPassant

The best available science says

(1) we should expect to see 20 to 30 species here now;



20 to 30 eh? My computations showed some 10.5, but, shortly after arriving at that number, new discoveries in space made me think it was way too conservative.

I also place a "distance limit" on visiting extraterrestrials; for the most part I feel that visiting ET's are all from within...say 50 - 75 light years. Which is going to present a problem, in that there are not enough K, G, and F class stars within that distance that are old enough to support a civilization sufficiently developed.

In any case...more! You are giving us the kind of data we actually need, to make an intelligent determination.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join