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.

 

Aliens contributing to technology

page: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Cold Metallic Voice,still...going from relativly simple pieces of machinery we had in 1907[cars were a novelty back then] to having advanced machinery and technology is quite a quantum leap...if we really did it alone without any help from extraterrestrials




posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by smokingconspiracy
 


You're forgetting how computers revolutionised technology and the quest for better tools. With computers it became easier to do the calculations necessary for technological advancement.

You're also forgetting the leap in number of humans on this planet. More people equals more brainpower. Even if the percentage of people who actually contributed to technology and science remains a constant, the numbers would rise significantly if the total population grew.

It's impressive, the rate at which technology has improved, but it's also quite logical, if you factor all things together. That includes demographics and level of technology. Ever heard of the term exponential increase?



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeeGee
Well I'm sorry, I'm not with you on that one. If we did all those things in 100 years on our own, Star Wars would be a reality right now.


Who says it isn't?

But why do we need it anyhow? We got a bunch of missile to missile defenses as is, and no more money to by anything more. Trust me, if we weren't billions in debt, we would have star wars right now.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Aliens did contribute to technology in one way... if we think they might have it, we might try to develop it ourselves. Kind of how sci-fi movies influenced a generation of engineers to go hey...why can't we make something like that. As far as actual technological contributions... I don't see it. The government funds and buys technology from private firms and labs. Not the other way around. Why waste billions and billions in research on the private sector if you already have the answer? Keep in mind, it's a global economy. Developments are made from every corner of the world, the government is not supplying everyone with alien technology to work from. Wouldn't explain several breakthroughs coming out of japan and europe. Were not the only ones who invent things. As far as it being a global conspiracy... this is the problem with conspiracy theories, you can't prove them wrong. If you can't prove it 100% wrong then they claim it is true. How do you prove every government in the world doesn't have alien technology? You can't. I guess we can all have opinions, mine is no aliens involved, except in our imagination.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   
smokingconspiracy, there were cars in 1907. There are still cars today. The engines might be more sophisticated, the materials used to construct them are a little different. But the driver still depends on things like a combustible engine, rubber tires and a steering wheel.

The F22 is a plane that uses the same basic principles of flight that the Wright Brothers used.

Where is this great leap in super-sophisticated technology from then to now? Stealth technology? We needed aliens to tell us how to soften a hard edge on a plane? Stealth does not mean "like Wonder Woman's plane." We're trying to deceive radar, which is similar to a crude but effective ability that bats, dolphins and whales have used for a heck of a lot longer than humans.

It is silly to replace an almost endless amount of factual information about the very cogent evolution of technology and science, which is readily and easily found in every corner of every free nation in the world, with the biggest pile of question marks ever conceived.

I don't know if there is intelligent life elsewhere. I think it's probable. But for heaven's sake, I also give humans a little more credit for the world we live in today.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Cold Metallic Voice
 


I know, do they take us for actual apes? we evolved bigger brains for a good reason.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Cold Metallic Voice
 


I know, do they take us for actual apes? we evolved bigger brains for a good reason.


Yes, but most humans only use 20% (I personally believe it is processing power rather than a particular portion) of on average. If humanity culturally and mentally evolved to further develop what is already theirs, a lot of the problems in this world would really be moot. I think of the human brain as a quantum computer that is so grossly underpowered that it is no wonder we suffer as we do. Think of it in terms of ram on a hard drive. The more ram you possess, the faster you think, the more capacity you have to wrap your mind around complex issues and even the day to day ones. If your average person was to say increase his or her brain power to say 30%, then all that extra processing power goes to making your life all the more livable. For instance, are you always forgetting where you put things? Well I see it as a lack of power for the brain to allocate enough thought to better retain the memory of where you exactly put your car keys. Or becoming more aware of all the little details in your environment, such as paying attention to where one is going, or being able to better comprehend a joke.

This is something that most people don't realize is possible NOW. Merely by focusing one's mind on expanding their mind can we all start attaining better and more productive lives, without advanced technology and really the reason that more people don't do this already, is because our society and constructs are built to maintain a basic level of survival (even with all the technological marvels that humanity possesses currently) that just does not foster the advanced capacities of the already evolved human brain. Try it. Oooh, more off topicness for me!



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Nah, that 10% has done alot. (you overestimated, it's 10% average use of brain. WoW, how sad it is we use our minds for)

I still stick with conditions. It takes everything to be perfectly right for things to happen. War virtually stalls tech, except military tech that is. The US was in peace for the most part when she did good on tech. War in the modern age is good for tech growth however, for computers are needed, and new programs = better people. Don't forget, the way we advance is not linear. We do not have to research everything over again for something new. Tech is like stairs. You apply what you've learned to grow onto the next step.

[edit on 24-9-2007 by Gorman91]

[edit on 24-9-2007 by Gorman91]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Whoops! Damn my overestimation of human capacity. I will agree with you on your steps analogy. However, I do think that technological development is more like and interwoven diagonal pattern of stairs that interconnect cultures, nations, and even planets and galaxies. You can go up or down, weave in various directions, and you can also be separated from the rest of the tapestry, at various levels, which kind of leaves you in the position of the 'brick layer' lemming from the video game. This little guy obviously was rather suicidal and just built bridges to nowhere, unless proper planning was utilized, he was the first to fall of the cliff every time.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthman4
I saw a picture of a modern hard drive in 1969. It was found in a fishing net in the North Atlantic. I don't think disc type drives were in use then. Aliens may explain it's existance.


Can you find this image or reference it's general location?

GMM



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroGhost
 



Really? Time traveler to my estimate.

PLEASE get it up!



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by GideonHM
 


Tech is pretty easy to look at. you make this major discovery, then build on it. Tech goes in 10 folds. It just grows and grows and grows. It never keeps at the same rate. I guess to better my stairs explanation, those stairs get smaller and smaller until it's a flat running field. Until something like say... WW3 happens, nothing is going to stop you on the flat surface.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by b309302
DNA was discovered by (just from memory, could be wrong) Crick and Watson using a technique called x-ray defraction.


That was DNA's structure. Johann Friedrich Miescher discovered DNA in 1869.

However, I think you're on the right track when it comes to technological development.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthman4
I saw a picture of a modern hard drive in 1969. It was found in a fishing net in the North Atlantic. I don't think disc type drives were in use then. Aliens may explain it's existance.


I think thats gonna be from the time machine I am going to build next week.

Did you remember the make and model? Cos I will go buy exactly that one then cos it looked like it worked...



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by GideonHM

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Cold Metallic Voice
 


I know, do they take us for actual apes? we evolved bigger brains for a good reason.


Yes, but most humans only use 20% (I personally believe it is processing power rather than a particular portion) of on average.


Sorry not true...we use almost all of it on average.

"In human beings, the brain is made of three main parts: the cerebrum, the cerebellum and the brainstem. A human brain accounts for about 2% of the body's weight, but it uses about 20% of its energy. It has about 50-100 billion nerve cells (also called neurons), along with at least 10 times as many support cells, called glia. The job of neurons is to receive and send information to and from the rest of the body, while glia provide nutrients and guide blood flow to the neurons, allowing them to do their job. Each nerve cell has contact with as many as 10,000 other nerve cells through connections called synapses."

So by your calculation if we used 100% of our brains it would require 100% of our energy and the body would die?

but to correct you based on fact I direct your attention to the following misconception:


# Humans use only 10% or less of their brain: Even though many mysteries of brain function persist, every part of the brain has a known function.[7][8][9]

* This misconception most likely arose from a misunderstanding (or misrepresentation in an advertisement) of neurological research in the late 1800s or early 1900s when researchers either discovered that only about 10% of the neurons in the brain are firing at any given time or announced that they had only mapped the functions of 10% of the brain up to that time (accounts differ on this point).
* Another possible origin of the misconception is that only 10% of the cells in the brain are neurons; the rest are glial cells that, despite being involved in learning, do not function in the same way that neurons do.
* If all of a person's neurons began firing at once, that person would not become smarter, but would instead suffer a seizure. In fact, studies have shown that the brains of more intelligent people are less active than the brains of less intelligent people when working on the same problems.
* Some New Age proponents propagate this belief by asserting that the "unused" ninety percent of the human brain is capable of exhibiting psychic powers and can be trained to perform psychokinesis and extra-sensory perception.



[edit on 30-1-2008 by smans]

[edit on 30-1-2008 by smans]

[edit on 30-1-2008 by smans]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
To actually reply to the point about the transistor however, I dont htink its too hard to invent that in 1947 based on all 3 peoples background in this work.

en.wikipedia.org...

I think you may just be clutching at straws as it cam out in 1947.
Way too soon if it was "appropriated" technology that got released to the public.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   
You must realize HOW a process like this would take place. We're going to use computers for this theory.

Before even vacuum tubes we were using something called a mercury electrode assembly. Very primitive form of electrical computing. Before that we were using mechanical computing machines. After the mercury switch style machine we had the vacuum tube...And then came something completely out of the ordinary. The micro transistor. People look at this technology and say, "Eh whatever a transistor isn't that complicated", when in fact it was the precursor to nano technology, and miniaturization of electronic components. Any alien race sufficiently advanced would give us the basics first. Modeled perhaps after their first generation of computing technology. We already had a form of it, with mercury and vacuum tubes, but this was an all to new and somewhat alien way of computing data. Next, the nanostructure of microchips was introduced. Then we tried our luck with germanium/silicon processing(Sun Microsystems prototype). The fact is, once you provide the foundation to a revolutionary technology, you give the primitives the means by which to build upon it, and things get slowly better.
But there are other things. Like anti-gravity triangle craft. I'm am willing to bet those things are human technology built upon alien tech. Just like our work with meta-materials to make 2d cloaking materials that bend light. Whose to say that stealth wasn't the precursor to this? I know how far back stealth goes, and that's why I think it was only an early precursor to current tech that was introduced to us. Something they had long surpassed, which still allows them the edge.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I would actually like to believe in such a thing as this is, that some of our tecnological advancement came from some advanced species far, far away. I'm truly sorry about quality and amount of knowledge that people have about history of tecnology and how it came to be.

I agree to posters who have (in my opinion) made it logically crystal clear how transition from one tecnology to another occurs in our world. It is all about discovering small, simple things that are then applied to previous tecnology to make it more simple, and thus it makes it easier for humans to expand it further. Obviously some new technology is a lot more complex, but complexity is another thing that can give abstract possibilities to expand a tecnology, as there are more basic perspectives to begin research from.

Anyway, most believers of this happening propably don't bother to read that much material about advancement in tecnology and its history. After all, it does take more than one book or a hundred articles in a newspaper to achieve expert level knowledge. There will always be people who think they are in the elite although they haven't studied enough to achieve it. General geniuses no longer exist, leonardo da vinci was propably the last one. Everything after it required reduction of field of expertice to be an expert.

I want to make one thing clear. I do believe that anybody can become close to expert level in any area, as long as whoever studies enough of some subject. Its not that much about intelligence, but dedication and discipline instead.

These things are very hard to take seriously, as there are lots of people who haven't been hired by any secret section of any goverment. There are thousands of universities and tens of thousands labs within a commercial sector. I don't have to tell what this means, but its enough to say that any company would propably announce a concept of great complexity one thing a t a time to maintain incoming money steadily for a hundred years or so.

That's what capitalism is all about nowadays..



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
does anyone really think the powers would make public any technology they attained via contact with ET's!?

we never see the real advanced technologies whether they are sourced from man or ET's,just the dreggs,the unimportant fragments they can make a profit out of to continue building and researching the juicy stuff.

remember theres a huge gap in black ops and public tech.

each nations black ops would make judgements on any developments and decide when or if it should be made public.i believe the us works under a 50 year rule,that is they release techs devised from black ops 50 years after they are developed,this to me suggest an ET source,reversed egineered or rogue maliscious ET.

also, if ET's are indeed trading tech they would only grant tech slightly ahead of what is currently available to the black ops,as previous people have said.and if the us is reverse engineering i suggest what they are reverse engineering is designed to equate to our level of technology.

lastly,perhaps roswell was some rogue low level ET ,driving in its common model ford for whatever reason,perhaps also it had been traveling for centuries on its own hence the relative lack of advancement.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by b309302
It's always a possiblity we are being spoon fed information, but to make that happen...wow. That means Intel, AMD, IBM, everyone is in on it?

[edit on 19-9-2007 by b309302]


I'm not saying I believe this theory of "techspermia", but it would not require everyone to be in on it.

You would simply have to find a few scientists near the right things and 'suggest' them towards the appropriate discoveries. Plenty of scientists are so eager to claim ideas that they would not even notice or recognize the suggestions. I should know, I've been on both sides of this problem. (In a purely human-to-human interaction kind of way.)

But perhaps "techspermia", such as proposed by Corso, is really just an allegory for the general dissipation of classified technology into the general economy? I guess I could ask Corso's kid if his dad was being allegorical or not.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join