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: 34
8
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

You said:


Yes, I saw the word crop circle posted several times by you and You provided links to crop circles over and over.


This is exactly my point. You didn't care that crop circles had nothing to do with this thread. You saw the word crop circle and because you couldn't debate the evidence you thought you could diminish the evidence by mentioning crop circles.

I have talked about the null and evidence extensively. If you look through the thread, you're the one that mentions crop circles every other post.

Like I said, I'm only pointing this out because it shows how strong the evidence is. When you have to resort to tactics even a high school student wouldn't use:

In my 3 years of high school debate I never once used the crop circle tactic.

That's not good.

Debunkers have no other option. They have to use these tactics to try and diminish the evidence they can't debate. It's the equivalent of a hail mary pass in football.

Out of everyone debating on this thread you're the only one that has tried to use crop circles to try to diminish the evidence. Debunking 101 should have told you that doesn't work.




posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

This is exactly my point. You didn't care that crop circles had nothing to do with this thread. You saw the word crop circle and because you couldn't debate the evidence you thought you could diminish the evidence by mentioning crop circles.

So you want to talk about crop circles? Why? I didn't mention crop circles, you did. That is exactly my point. Crop circles ARE part of what you think is evidence AND you say it has nothing to do with ETH? The first 2 links under "trace evidence" are about, yep, crop circles. So I am "debating" what you think is "evidence" and your lack of definition of what you think is "data". THAT is exactly the problem. You are confused so you don't get the point. If you need me to explain it again, just let me know and I will try to be more patient.


The Null Hypothesis says, No U.F.O.'s are controlled by Extraterrestrials. What's the next step?


Before you get to the next step, the first step is to try and make sense of what "No U.F.O.'s are controlled by Extraterrestrials" means.

There are "things that are IDENTIFIED" and "things that are NOT IDENTIFIED".
"No U.F.O.'s" Is interpreted as "No (things that are NOT IDENTIFIED)" This is clearly a double negative and can just be shortened to "things that are IDENTIFIED" so what you said was in effect "Identified flying objects are controlled by ET".

Obviously you meant "UFOs are not controlled by ET" but that still doesn't make any sense. If they are "UNIDENTIFIED" how can anyone possibly know if they are NOT something? But the something you are saying its not, is not even known to exist. How is it even possible to say that something UNIDENTIFIED is NOT due to something else that is UNIDENTIFIED?

The only way to make sense of this is if you assume ET exists in the first place and are piloting UFOs! Like this:
There are UNIDENTIFIED flying objects and there are IDENTIFIED flying objects controlled by ET.
So: "UNIDENTIFIED flying objects are not controlled by the known ET pilots" but your alternative is "some UFOs are ET"
in this case your null and alternative are identical!

So no matter how you interpret "No U.F.O.'s are controlled by Extraterrestrials", it makes no sense.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian
You can't debate the evidence, therefore the evidence can't be debated because blind debunkers are afraid of the evidence they can't debate and to find the evidence to debate, requires blind debunkers searching for the said evidence to debate, which they are afraid to do and debate, so it can't be debated.

Haven't you gotten it yet ZetaRediculian??? It's clear as day!



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Again, you make no sense.

Show me, where did I say Aliens creating crop circles has anything to do with the ET hypothesis. It doesn't matter what the links say about crop circles. The links could have talked about milk or Honda cars. It doesn't matter.

I never made the claim that aliens creating crop circles has anything to do with the ET hypothesis. Even you said it has nothing to do with it.

To answer your question, these have nothing to do with the ET Hypothesis.

Like I said, show me where I said Aliens creating crop circles supports the ET hypothesis.

Secondly, you said this:


The only way to make sense of this is if you assume ET exists in the first place and are piloting UFOs!


You are all over the place here.

Why must I assume ET exists? The ET hypothesis is not based on the existence of extraterrestrials. It's based on the evidence surrounding U.F.O.'s.

You debunkers are like broken records. You always come back to the same thing. Tell me why do I need to assume the existence of Extraterrestrials when the ET hypothesis is based on evidence surrounding an aerial observed phenomena U.F.O.'s?

Here's another quote:


So: "UNIDENTIFIED flying objects are not controlled by the known ET pilots" but your alternative is "some UFOs are ET"


Who said some U.F.O.'s are ET?

It's very telling that you left out CONTROL because control speaks to the behavior of U.F.O.'s and again you can't debate or refute the evidence.

Where did I say this?

I said some U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials. They could be piloting these U.F.O., they could be probes or some other type of technology.

This is just dripping with statements that were never made.

Who said they were known ET Pilots?

Where did I say these ET's were from? Where did I ever say these pilots were known?

You said:


"No (things that are NOT IDENTIFIED)"


U.F.O.'s are identified as flying objects. The only THING that's unidentified is the origin of these aerial observed phenomena.

Flying objects are a known atmospheric phenomena. There has always been flying objects in are sky.

So they're IDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS AND UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS.

They're both atmospheric phenomena. Just because it's unidentified doesn't mean it isn't a flying object. You guys act like unidentified means non existent.

So it would be No flying objects that are yet to be identified are controlled by extraterrestrials. So no U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials.

The behavior of these flying objects have been observed for over 100 years. This is just a kind estimate and could reach back to ancient times.

Of course you want to turn it into a double negative by saying no things that are NOT IDENTIFIED.

U.F.O.'s are flying objects yet to be identified.

Saying they're things that are not identified implies we don't know that they are an apparent anomaly in our atmosphere.

This is why the null concentrates on CONTROL of U.F.O.'s. How do U.F.O.'s behave in our atmosphere.

So I don't need to assume that extraterrestrials exist. I just need to know that flying objects yet to be identified exists. The evidence surrounding U.F.O.'s and the behavior of these U.F.O.'s supports the ET hypothesis.

I wish you could have an honest debate with a debunker. For the most part, you guys try to debate things that people never said. I understand that you can't debate or refute the evidence but at least stop trying to debate against things that were never said.

The null is denoted by H0. It's assumed to be true. You still don't understand this. You don't have to show no U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials in order to falsify the null. You don't have to test the null for the umpteenth time.

In order to falsify the null, you just have to show there's correlation between U.F.O.'s and radar reports, trace evidence, nuke malfunctions, eyewitness accounts and close encounters. You can also show there's a better explanation for these correlations.

Like I said, if the ET hypothesis were accepted as true tomorrow, U.F.O.'s will become explained because the ET hypothesis correspond to the data surrounding the behavior of U.F.O.'s.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Self-replicating machine systems is a solved problem. Adrian Bowyer and Vik Olliver at Bath University in Britain created the first self-replicating machine in 2005.

Suspended animation is a solved problem. Mark Roth MD at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle Washington has developed a workable system to radically and reversibly change the metabolic rates in mammals that have wide applicability in emergency medical treatment, low-cost long-term incarceration, as well as long-term space travel.

Artificial Intelligence is a solved problem. David Ferruci at the Thomas J. Watson Research Center competed in a game of Jeopardy against Brad Rutter and Ken Jennings beating these world champions in 2011. This is a decisive completion of the Turing Test. Now, IBM who funded the project is working to commercialize downsize and simplify the software to run on next generation laptops and handsets.

Ageing is a solved problem. Elizabeth H. Blackburn, Carol W. Greider and Jack W. Szostak, received a Nobel Prize in medicine in 2009 for their discovery of the biochemistry of ageing and how to reverse it. This is now being commercialized by Genron Corporation of California.

Gaia was launched on 19 December 2013 by Arianespace using a Soyuz ST-B/Fregat-MT rocket flying from Kourou in French Guiana. The spacecraft will be operated in a Lissajous orbit around the Sun–Earth L2 Lagrangian point. Gaia is an unmanned astrometry observatory. The mission will compile a 3D space catalogue of approximately 1 billion astronomical objects (approximately 1% of the Milky Way population) within 3500 light years of Earth. Of these approximately 75 million will be G-type stars similar to the Earth's Sun.

www.skyandtelescope.com...

This is quite exciting.

This is a time to share some big ideas - that require several textbooks to support fully. However, in this post I can only give a brief outline to support the larger vision;

Its time to understand that;

(1) squeezed photons can be made to interact so as to efficiently produce positrons and electrons,

(2) positrons and electrons form a Bose Einstein condensate, a superfluid, that is a new molecule, positronium,

(3) positronium (Ps) may be stored indefinitely in appropriately structured crystals, and manipulated with appropriate nano-scale structures,

(4) the superfluid density can exceed that of iron (8 kg/litre)

(5) the open lattice crystalline structure to control Ps approaches that of aerogel (800 ug/litre)

(6) spintronics is an extension of electronics that manipulates electron spin in addition to bulk properties of current

(7) controlled re-combination of Ps elements via 'polarized' Ps pairs, creates a controlled beam of polarized gamma rays via conservation of momentum,

(8) inverting photon squeezing process expands gamma rays to longer wavelength where they may be further processed

While these steps are done at present only on the laboratory scale, and not very efficiently in some cases, the physics is clear, and also the result;

we can make anti-matter powered photon rockets.

We're at the same stage as Goddard was in 1919 when he did his calculation that showed you could put a ton of flash powder on the moon and observe it with a telescope on Earth.

Goddard was inspired by Constantin Tsiolkovsky's 'rocket equation first published in English in 1909 and worked ceaselessly at building rockets the rest of his life.

Sixty years after Tsiolkovsky published his equation in English, Fifty-three years after Goddard conceived of sending a rocket to the moon, humanity sends payloads to the moon.

Now, Rindler has re-worked the rocket equation for relativistic flight.


a reply to: tanka418



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 12:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: ZetaRediculian
You can't debate the evidence, therefore the evidence can't be debated because blind debunkers are afraid of the evidence they can't debate and to find the evidence to debate, requires blind debunkers searching for the said evidence to debate, which they are afraid to do and debate, so it can't be debated.

Haven't you gotten it yet ZetaRediculian??? It's clear as day!


This is a very good point.

This thread is 663 pages long and there hasn't been a blind debunker yet who has tried to debate the evidence surrounding U.F.O.'s .

Here's a null that you can falsify

No debunker on this thread has debated the evidence surrounding U.F.O.'s.

Now you can falsify the hypothesis by showing me a post from a debunker who tried to debate the evidence surrounding U.F.O.'s.

I would really like to see this because we have had 663 post of blind debunkers trying to avoid talking about the evidence at all cost.

If there's a better explanation for these correlations lets hear it.
edit on 24-4-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 12:59 AM
link   
(continued)

Tsiolkovsky's original equation is

Vf/Ve = LN( m0/m1)

where Vf=final velocity, Ve=exhaust velocity, m0=initial mass, m1=final mass.

Rindler's equation for relativisitic rockets (propelled by Ps driven photon rockets) is;

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

Where Vf = final velocity, c = speed of light, m0 = initial mass, m1 = final mass.

With a 10,000 to 1 mass ratio possible with the aerogel containing Ps system, we have;

Vf/c = TANH( LN( 10,000 ) ) = 0.99999998 = 99.999998% light speed.

A two impulse system, has the square root of this mass ratio to carry out the two impulses so, can travel and stop where we're going.

Vf/c = TANH( LN( 100 ) ) = 0.99980002 = 99.98% light speed.

A four impulse system, takes the fourth root of the original mass ratio, so can travel out and back again.

Vf/c = TANH( LN( 10 ) ) = 0.98019202 = 98% light speed.

Star Ship

Consider a bullet tank with spherical end caps that's 2,653 meters long and 640 meters in diameter. It has a cylindrical area that is 2,012.5 m x 2,012.5 m totalling 4.05 million sq m, or 1,000 acres in area. Studies by Gerard K. O'Neill, NASA and Stanford University in the 1970s and early 1980s before O'Neill's death, indicated that this pressure vessel is on the small side of what was possible. Total weight, of a vessel, that is spun at a rate of once every 36 seconds to reproduce Earth normal acceleration inside, is 7.5 metric tons per square meter of surface area when equipped for long-term human habitation. A total of 40 million tonnes - including end caps.

A spherical tank of crystalline material holding 8 tonnes of Ps per cubic meter and massing 800 ug per cubic meter is now considered.

The tank has a volume of 137.25 million cubic meters. It therefore holds 1.098 billion metric tons of positronium and masses less than 110,000 metric tons. Combined with the habitat just described the system has a mass ratio of 28.45 to 1.

A massive solar pumped laser, not only is built to create the immense amounts of Ps needed for this trip in reasonable amounts of time, but that laser will be capable of also generating a beam to accelerate the ship without using any of its stored Positronium.

The same 640 m diameter emitter that operates at the tail end of the star ship to propel it using Ps, also is made to operate to reflect energy beamed to the ship to produce the propulsive effects as well. Dr. Young Bae formerly with US AFRL and currently founder and President of Bae Aerospace has demonstrated a unique method of using conjugate optics to recycle photons efficiently. This makes what he calls a photonic thruster that permits efficient propulsion at low speeds while more traditional laser light sails proposed by Robert Forward are used at higher speeds. At extreme relativistic speeds Ps is used.

In this instance, the laser energy accelerates the ship at 0.2 gee until it reaches 0.5 c in 30 months. It then uses stored Ps to continue to accelerate until 98% light speed is attained. This takes another 30 months ship time. At speed, every 10 weeks aboard ship is 1 year star time. Spending fifty years aboard ship permits travel to a distance of 250 light years. Five years prior to arriving at one's destination the ship slows at 0.2 gee to arrive at its destination.

Within 250 light years of Earth there are 270,000 stars and 20,000 are G-type stars like the Sun.

By 2020 AD the Gaia Spacecraft will have mapped over 1 billion stars - all stars out to a distance of 3,500 light years. 75 million of these stars will be G-type stars, like the Sun.

Aboard the habitation vessel, a 98% outward gee force combined produced by rotation, along with 20% longitudinal gee force produced during acceleration yields 100.0% gee force tilted at an angle of 11.53 degrees from vertical during boost. During cruise with no boost or on orbit with no boost the outward gee force normal to the cylindrical surface is maintained at 98% Earth normal.

The same technology that makes photonic drives and very powerful lasers possible by stretching gamma rays produced by controlled Ps decay is also used to mimic the spectrum of the sun on the interior of the ship. At peak sunlight on Earth 1,000 W/m2 is present. So too on the interior surface light is produced to mimic Earth conditions at noon on a sunny day. This requires a 4 GW light bulb. This bulb is large by conventional standards, small by the standards of the drive system. A diurnal 24 hour cycle leaves us with 250 W/m2 average output - or 1 GW continuous load requiring 86.4 trillion joules per day to be maintained. This requires less than 1 gram of Ps per day and totals 350 kg per century.

So, only 1 tonne of Ps of the over 1 billion tonnes described is sufficient for most non-propulsive needs for centuries.

Interplanetary navigation - even at high speed constant gee boost - requires less than 0.3% of the stored Ps over the same period.

Dr. Mark Roth has demonstrated suspended animation and that may be considered a solved problem for our purposes. Its use aboard the star ship described here allows rotation of crews and passengers, so that they may spend only a few months or years aboard ship in a conscious state, whilst engaged in a trip lasting decades or centuries.

This seems like a fantastic vision of the future. Perhaps out-of-place in a world that is short of energy and resources. A world that converts less than 4 tonnes per year of matter to energy through a wide range of chemical processes. A billion tons of Ps, even produced with perfect efficiency, would take 250 million years of our current energy output to produce even if we did nothing else.

Of course all this says is that we won't be using current techniques to produce the Ps for this trip.

Star Ship Supply Chain

And that's the point. A US President once said of the moon programme, "We go to the moon and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." By doing these hard things, we develop skills that turn hard problems into easy work with the solutions we create.

IBM has recently in 2011 completed the IBM Jeopardy Challenge, proving that computers can now pass the Turing Test. Vik Olliver and Adrian Bowyer in 2005 built the world's first self-replicating machine system

We use an artificially intelligent self-replicating machine systems that operates on the surface of the Sun to build and fuel our star ships. These machines will extract metals from the solar atmosphere to replicate. They use abundant solar energy to fill crystals made on the Sun with Ps. They will swarm out of the Sun and self-assemble into star ships of the type described above, and other types we can come up with, with the help of our AI.

a reply to: WilliamMook



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 01:04 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

It doesn't matter what the links say about crop circles. The links could have talked about milk or Honda cars. It doesn't matter.

Exactly! I click on a link and it could be anything! That's what makes up your data. Yes, it doesn't much mater because...it isn't data!


I never made the claim that aliens creating crop circles has anything to do with the ET hypothesis. Even you said it has nothing to do with it.

Again an ASTUTE observation. Your data has nothing to do with the ETH. Good point.


You are all over the place here.

No. I laid it out as plain as day. "No U.F.O.'s are controlled by Extraterrestrials" is not a logical statement. Your histrionics doesn't change that.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 01:08 AM
link   
(continued)

Practical Steps and Processes

Solar Panel on the Solar Surface

Let's consider a 1 square meter of solar collector of the type described previously, deposited on the sun. First, would it even be possible for something to survive in material form on the Sun? Well consider a sheet of glass like material that is 91% transparent. Exposed to 63.6 MW each square meter would absorb 5.73 MW and rise to a temperature where it would radiate that energy from two square meters (front and back). Stephan Boltzmann tells us what this temperature is, 2,665 K. Well within the capacity of many materials to withstand. Similarly, if we create a nearly perfectly efficient solar collector, that with nearly perfect efficiency converts the incident energy to Ps and stores it, it need not get too hot. In a similar way, if the Sun's hydrogen and helium are reflected efficiently from the surface, whilst the heavier species of elements are admitted and then cooled, these too can be dealt with in the solar panel.

Since the same technology that makes laser propulsion and photon rockets possible for star travel involves the same processes and the same energies or higher, construction of this type of solar panel is the path toward star travel.

Analysis of the photosphere and above, the energy and materials available at the solar surface, permits a square meter of Ps storing solar panel to self replicate every 9 seconds. Since the solar surface totals 6.08 square exameters (6.08e18 m2) a single square meter grows to cover the entire solar surface in;

t = t0 * LN(6.08e18)/LN(2) = 9 * 62.4 = 561.6 seconds

Of course, moving from the point of impact to the opposite side of the solar disk in this time requires moving at 7,781 km/sec on average. In actual practice, and digital modelling shows this, speeds approach five times that. This requires substantial amounts of energy to achieve. An optimized model would likely take something on the order of 10 hours to complete this task.

So, 10 hours after the arrival of the first well-engineered solar surface panel the Sun turns off! That seems like a side effect we must consider more carefully to avoid.

Controlled Star

One solution, such a collector, equipped with an autosterescopic display on the backside, made of the same array of photonic elements that made photon rockets possible, would also be capable of converting the entire solar disk into a large photonic emitter. A single optical element with a radius of 695,500 km - emitting wavelengths as short as 200 nanometers efficiently. The Rayleigh criterion for such an optical element says a 200 nm laser beam emitted from it would diverge at a rate of 3.32 meters per light year of range! An Airy disk of 640 m diameter could be formed at a distance of 197.2 light years!

An array of emitters on the surface of the sun, operating on the back side of the solar panel array just described, would also reproduce conditions on worlds around the solar system and even nearby stars, so that the Sun would still be visible and appear to be operating as always, even though 99.9999% of the energy the sun now wastes into space, is captured and converted to Ps molecules held stable in a crystalline lattice. Further, the Sun is surrounded by nanomachinery that extracts and converts the metals in its atmosphere to usable forms of machinery, in addition to the Ps energy source.

Since self-replicating machinery is a solved problem back in 2005, we can see that all that must be done to make these sorts of vision a reality is to perfect the steps needed to create a square centimetre of self-replicating positronium storing, solar collector, capable of operating on the solar surface. Such a collector would be capable of operating in a variety of modes, that make construction of the spacecraft and its propulsion system including fuel supply possible.

The sun, properly equipped, produces 4.3 million metric tons of Ps per second along with many millions of tons of material extracted from the Sun, fabricated into anything we describe to the network of panels. Furthermore, the energy in part runs a vast computing and information network which is tapped to solve problems with AI.

Diaspora

The rate of Ps production allows one ship of the type just described to be sent from Sol every 255 seconds. A total of 123,500 ships per year. Of course, using the laser beam trick to accelerate each to 0.5 light speed, and supplying our local needs for energy and materiel, reduces this number by about half to 5,000 ships per month since supporting acceleration of ships with laser beams reduces Ps production and since Ps use on Earth and within the solar system, reduces the amount available for use on star ships.

At 2,500 persons per ship this is 150 million persons leaving the solar system per year. This is 2.1% of the world's 7.12 billion people. This reduces population on Earth despite unconstrained population growth. Due to time dilation and suspended animation, replication in transit doesn't occur efficiently. By 2057 - the 100th anniversary of Sputnik - if we started in 2015 with this programme, we would have only 3.2 billions on Earth, the same number that were on Earth in 1957 when the space age started with the launching of Sputnik.

The 20,000 G-type stars within 250 light years of Earth, will be filled at a rate of 60,000 star ships per year. Licensing travel to the most distant G-type stars in this sphere first, and rolling back 1 light year per year, creates an interesting situation. Namely, one where everyone arrives at their destination at precisely the same time! This means all star colonies will start out at exactly the same time with the same population. The only difference is that later departures will have the advantage of higher technologies developed in the interval between the more distant departures and the one closest in. This creates a sort of natural dispersion of skills and capabilities.

The average number of person's per star is 480,000 to 600,000 arriving in 250 star ships of the type described above, over a 65 year period. Only 65 years because at our current population level, we run out of people to send. Starting today with 7.12 billions of us, and dispatching 150 million explorers per year to G-type stars within 250 light years in this way, reduces the number of people on Earth to 221.6 million by 2080 AD. So, sometime between 2057 AD with 3.2 billions on Earth and 2080 AD with 221.6 million on Earth, we expect the demand for star travel to subside. With that, licensing would be liberalized, allowing free access to all, and any star system thereafter up to population growth numbers, of about 1.14% - or with 221.6 million on Earth, 2.52 million per year. Using the same type star ship just described, population per ship drops from 2,500 to 42 persons per ship, which changes payload and production rate hardly at all. After 2080 there are nearly 7 billion of us, in this scenario, in hibernation, in transit to the stars, for another 195 years. After that, we encase a quarter million more G2 type stars, and begin building large artificial worlds with the material and energy made available with the technology we create today.

With similar advances in ageing research, many of us will be alive then to see it.

If we act now.

www.ted.com...

a reply to: WilliamMook



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Of course it doesn't matter if it has nothing to do with this:


The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and the null hypothesis


This is why you said:

To answer your question, these have nothing to do with the ET Hypothesis.

Well if it has nothing to do with the ET hypothesis and you know it doesn't have anything to do with the ET hypothesis, why are you talking about crop circles. I will let your friend draknoir2 answer that:

In my 3 years of high school debate I never once used the crop circle tactic.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

So it would be No flying objects that are yet to be identified are controlled by extraterrestrials. So no U.F.O.'s are controlled by extraterrestrials.


That doesn't help much.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


Well if it has nothing to do with the ET hypothesis and you know it doesn't have anything to do with the ET hypothesis, why are you talking about crop circles.

because its part of your evidence that cant be refuted? Why are you still talking about crop circles?

Ready. on the count of 3, we both stop talking about crop circles.
1
2
CROP CIRCLES! you win again!



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 01:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
Here's a null that you can falsify

No debunker on this thread has debated the evidence surrounding U.F.O.'s.

Now you can falsify the hypothesis by showing me a post from a debunker who tried to debate the evidence surrounding U.F.O.'s.

I would really like to see this because we have had 663 post of blind debunkers trying to avoid talking about the evidence at all cost.

If there's a better explanation for these correlations lets hear it.

Hmmmmm.....
Here's the beginning of one.

Still waiting on your personal best cases from the categories you keep posting. Oh, that's right, that's not what this thread is about... we have to debate the overall "data" as a whole and not personal cases. Well, that's reasonable.

JAL 1628 = Most likely alien?
Ariel School = Most likely alien?
Rendlesham Forest = Most likely alien?
Travis Walton = Most likely alien?
Roswell = Most likely alien?
Solway Firth = Most likely alien?

Just out of curiosity to see where you personally stand. No comment?



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 01:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: ZetaRediculian
You can't debate the evidence, therefore the evidence can't be debated because blind debunkers are afraid of the evidence they can't debate and to find the evidence to debate, requires blind debunkers searching for the said evidence to debate, which they are afraid to do and debate, so it can't be debated.

Haven't you gotten it yet ZetaRediculian??? It's clear as day!

Well if I do debate the evidence Its because I cant debate the evidence! I am particularly interested in debating the evidence listed under "Trace Evidence". But that's not debatable because it contains crop circles. So the evidence is undebatable



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 01:52 AM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Steady State

Once all stars within reach of humanity are encased in solar panels operating within their atmospheres, the living standard of all is without any limit. Particularly with all the work being done by machinery that is smarter stronger and more capable than people using resources on a scale that for all practical purposes is limitless.

But of course, nothing is limitless. A population that grows at 1.14% per year converts the observable cosmos to human flesh in something like 11,000 years! Of course this doesn't take time dilation and the speed of light into consideration.

So, let's do that now.

After 2080 the number of star ships leaving Earth remains the same, as the positronium production of the sun (and other stars similarly equipped) remains constant over geologic times. We take care to maintain solar conditions on Earth, and even, with the help of our AI, adjust those conditions to make Earth more productive. We can do that on Venus and Mars too! And this is just the beginning!

Edward Bernays in his book 'Crystallizing Public Opinion' outlines that what people want to do, and how people feel about things, is largely manipulable within a wide range of values. It is rather easy, since the urge to explore and live independently is widespread, to arrange for 2% of the people each year to leave the solar system aboard large star ships. Particularly if greater opportunities are afforded those who do than they would have otherwise. This number can be maintained at 150 million per year for a generation, and then fall to 1.14% per year thereafter, the birthrate.

So, even with unlimited life spans, we can see that a stable situation can be maintained around all G-type stars within 250 light years of Earth. At least until the 7 billions that are in transit arrive at their destination. Once they arrive at their destination, which all occur within the same year, they will build massive personal space colonies equipped with a wide range of features, and population will begin to rise at each of these stars.

However, a percentage of these folks will seek to move outward to other stars. Others will seek to return to Earth. Still others will seek to change their original choice and move there. In short, there will be, with careful planning, a means to control the population at each of these stars - and maintain it below 10 million if desired.

Safety

Airlines are one of the safest modes of transport known. Vastly safer than automobiles. Astoundingly safer than motorcycles. Of three billion people who flew last year, only 475 died in accidents.

If our star ships achieve this level of safety, people will likely view them as safe. However, each trip instead of lasting a few hours, will last centuries of star time, and risk scales with star time, hence distance. At near lightspeed, encountering *anything* is supremely dangerous. There are techniques to avoid this, but it is a risk. We can expect 0.125% of star ships to bite the dust every light year they travel, if we achieve the same safety as airliners today. This means that 73.3% of the star ships will make it 250 light years. Half will make it 558 light years. 10% will make it past 1854 light years. 1% make it 3708 light years.

If our star ships achieve levels of safety 10x greater than airliners achieve today, something that requires an astounding improvement in procedures, this only increases the range where 1% make it to 37,083 light years!

This explains the Fermi Paradox. It also suggests that we are far more likely to interact with avatars built by self replicating probes, rather than individual aliens themselves.

By turning the same blind eye toward these deaths that we now turn toward auto accidents (1.24 million road deaths per year world wide) this shouldn't be a problem in getting folks to adopt star travel generally, any more than road deaths cause people to question automobile use.

And this is how human numbers will stabilize despite the control of ageing and a growth of 1.14% per year. Namely, sending 1.14% (or more) on journeys across the cosmos of more than 9.2 light years (if as safe as airliners) or 92 light years (if 10x safer than airliners)

A rapid rate of expansion will cause overall numbers to fall the same way a breeze blows out a candle. A slow rate of expansion will cause overall numbers to rise as shielding a candle from a breeze keeps it lit.

Expanding at the speed of light, and giving individuals free access to the means to travel wherever they like, after circulating information about destinations far removed from them, and giving them all the tools needed to live well at that destination very well, inspires people to move and as a result, human numbers will stabilize in a sphere where numbers per star drop exponentially, halving every 500 light years (if as safe as airliners). With 200 million on Earth, and 100 million per G-type star 500 ly away; 50 million 1,000 ly away; 25 million 1,500 ly away; and so on - as time passes.

Very few will make it out to 30,000 light years and back, to travel through time.

However, signalling through time will be common place - creating a vast community, and promoting travel from one end of the community to the other - just as advertising promotes car trips to Las Vegas.

Yet, the physics of the process will set strict limits on what's possible and the manner in which populations are distributed through the cosmos.

As mentioned, self-replicating machines, that make sufficient daughter probes can erect galaxy wide communications networks. Advanced machinery beyond mere anti-matter rockets may change the safety picture.

In effect, time travel, otherwise known as faster-than-light travel, changes this paradigm. What happens then, is even more surprising in the modelling. Namely, the ability to travel anywhere, anytime, with nearly absolute certainty, causes population levels to decline per star, to nearly nothing!

To see how this works, imagine that at some point in time, we figure out how to reach out and tap into the dark matter, the microscopic minimum mass black holes, that permeate all of space time, and shape them into a new sort of matter. With that new matter we create new sorts of machinery. Machinery that gives us mastery over space and time. So, with this new machinery, we may travel anywhere in the cosmos , instantly at essentially zero cost.

What would happen then?

Well, there are 100 billion stars in a typical galaxy, and 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. This is 10,000 billion billion stars (1e22). There are 7.12 billion people (7.12e9) This is 1.4 trillion (1.4e12) stars per person! Its easy to see that if we had complete knowledge of all the interesting places in the cosmos, and the ability to travel there, people would be lost in the wilderness!

Also, understanding spacetime and the way it works, it gets even wilder!




a reply to: WilliamMook



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 02:26 AM
link   
I wanted to add:
The Drake equation is based on assumptions and possibilities. That's what this entire phenomenon is based on at this point.

The importance of the Drake Equation is not in the solving, but rather in the contemplation. It was written not for purposes of quantification at all, but rather as the agenda for the world's first SETI meeting, in Green Bank WV in 1961.

So, including it to help further support the ETH as a "95-98%" chance of being the answer, is wrong. But, perfectly in line with the OPs boxed in arguments.
Using discovered planets would be factual data in the equation. It could also use Earth as an example to factor in the possibility of intelligent alien life also. It goes beyond an "F sub I - F sub C" assumption to something you can more or less mathematically use since we're living the example. I've said it before...

EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENCE USING EARTH AS OUR CONTROL:

- 4.5 Billion years old.
- 3.5 Billion years to the origin of basic life.
- 10,000,000,000 +/-(est. of course) different life forms that have lived on Earth.
- Only one life form of billions & in billions of years, has developed/evolved to be highly intelligent.
- That = 0.00000001% of life forms that have ever existed on Earth are intelligent enough to think and eventually venture beyond it's own planet.
- Meaning a 99.99999999% chance of life on a given planet will have zero interest or ability to visit other planets.
- As the time frame that intelligent species rises to high and superior intelligence, it increasingly has overcome and survive possible extinction via: Meteor strike, Nuclear destruction by their own hand, Disease, Famine, or other mass catastrophes.

Also, as evident by this example, there is no logical, or biological, reason that a planet will evolve an intelligent species. If that species does develop, it will dominate it's planet possibly using it's resources and killing off other species unrelated to it's own survival. As by example over billions of years and billions of life forms, high intelligence seemingly is eliminated and not an important part in the process of typical evolution. The development of intelligence on a very basic level will be the most likely scenario. We are a fluke and an extremely rare occurrence when you step back and think about it.

However, an intelligent alien species is possibly out there. Existing doesn't mean high or superior leveled intelligence. Existing doesn't mean visiting Earth. Existing doesn't mean an ability to travel light years. Existing doesn't mean being visited in the extremely narrow time frame of 50 years relative to the est.. 13.8 Billion year age of the universe. And on and on. There are many stumbling blocks beyond just the existence of alien life to overcome.

A solid foundational basis has to be built to even build this ETH upon. That first core question is "blindly" ignored and just assumed or taken for granted as factual without the need for evidence or proof that it actually is. *Weird stuff in our atmosphere.. gotta be aliens*... *Stories of anthropomorphic beings abducting people... gotta be aliens* Ridiculous. This first step is ignored and not addressed because the blind believers- can't refute the lack of evidence- I can turn it around to work both ways if I choose. You can't prove aliens exist in the first place because of the lack of evidence beyond Earth's atmosphere. At the same time, that lack of evidence doesn't mean an alien life form isn't out there. There's a possibility it's there... You can't speak in terms of absolutes. That's my issue with this discussion.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 02:54 AM
link   
(continued)

So, there are 1.4 trillion stars in the cosmos for every man woman and child on Earth. Technology is possible that shapes arrays of microscopic primordial black holes into a new sort of molecular form to create a new kind of transport. One that allows us to zip anywhere in the cosmos over an interval of 100 billion years or more.

So, there are 140 billion trillion star system years to choose from with a sufficiently advanced technology.

Now, over the course of human history, there have been around 15 billion people live. With time travel we can pick any of them up (within the limits of Novikov Self-Consistency) and they can participate in the grand human experiment. They can live, grow, fall in love, have kids. Those kids can have kids, and so forth.

Without ageing and death, disease war or privation the average life span - in the modern world - will be around 320 years. Most deaths will occur from auto accidents, sporting accidents, and bar fights. In a world with better cars, and safer sports, and greater self-control, one where everyone engages in star travel - people will live 1150 years - and most deaths will be an accident while in transit aboard a star ship.

Of course, deaths won't be permanent with time travel. As soon as a death occurs, we can travel to the point of spacetime where it occurs, and 'read' that person's quantum state, and 'write' another person elsewhere... perhaps a few moments after the accident, allowing them to continue their journey.

The big issue - for this level of technology - is the extreme dilation the species generally undergoes. There are two states at this point. One is in transit - from place to place - and time to time. The other is stationary. Motile and sessile biologists call it.

Population growth rates basically ceases. The density falls to nearly zero everywhere. If the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics is right, time travel gives access to parallel worlds - and we all disappear into a cosmos of our choosing. Since the number of cosmos' (if that's a word) is larger than the number of stars by a large factor.

This again, at this level of technical development, addresses Fermi's Paradox.

a reply to: WilliamMook



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 03:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Look, I have made it easy for you debunkers. The ET hypothesis isn't about one case. We can go back and forth on case after case and you will never explain the aerial phenomena U.F.O.

The cases you mentioned have been debated ad infinitum and U.F.O. phenomena hasn't changed.

So I'm making it easy for you. Just give me an explanation that fits the data better than the ET hypothesis. Give me a better explanation for the correlation between U.F.O.'s and nukes, radar, trace evidence, close encounters, eyewitness accounts and more.

It's really sad that in over 660 posts the most you can muster up is:


JAL 1628 = Most likely alien?
Ariel School = Most likely alien?
Rendlesham Forest = Most likely alien?
Travis Walton = Most likely alien?
Roswell = Most likely alien?
Solway Firth = Most likely alien?


Blind debunkers are really in a weak position. All this time and you can't give me a better explanation. I'm not asking you to go back and forth for 20 pages on a single case. I'm asking you to do something much simpler. Just give me an explanation that fits the data better than the ET hypothesis.

There's over 100 years of evidence and you would think debunkers would have something besides, Duh, I don't know. Let's use the brain a little.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

So I'm making it easy for you. Just give me an explanation that fits the data better than the ET hypothesis. Give me a better explanation for the correlation between U.F.O.'s and nukes, radar, trace evidence, close encounters, eyewitness accounts and more.

The best explanation is "your imagination". Those things aren't related. The only thing they have in common is being unknown. youre right, that was easy.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join