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.

 

UFOs are Machine Intelligence

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by wemadetheworld
Not to argue over unknown physics, but the higher dimensions postulated by superstring theory are small and curled up with no more extent than the Planck length


Not to quibble, but string theory acknowledges that our Universe extends into many other dimensions, and that the BULK of the matter seemingly missing from this Universe exists in higher dimensions — the great mystery of Quantum Physics is WHERE is the source of gravity in this Universe, and why is gravity SO WEAK as a force in this Universe?

I mean, something like 99% of the matter in this Universe isn't visible, doesn't apparently exist in the 4 known dimensions.

The notion that the higher dimensions are minute little pipsqueak dimensions is just a convenient theory, because modern physicists hate dealing with INFINITY. It's entirely possible that the higher dimensions DWARF our 4 known dimensions into insignificance, that it's actually OUR reality that is minute and insignificant.



edit on 3-1-2012 by ZeskoWhirligan because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeskoWhirligan
No, I don't think UFOs are "machine intelligence," inasmuch as there is absolutely no evidence that they are machines in the first place. No, the anecdotal tales of Roswell and Area 51 and Wright-Patterson AFB do not constitute "evidence" for the existence of "extraterrestrials" or even the assertion that UFOs are machines.

"Real evidence" is visual sighting or photography or videography by witnesses of good repute (such as military or police personnel or commercial pilots) coupled with radar spikes that indicate actual objects recorded by our best equipment.

What we know about "real" UFOs observed by witnesses of good repute coupled with radar technology is that even the most gigantic UFOs can seemingly switch their visibility on and off at will, making themselves invisible even to radar.

Additionally, they've been observed moving so fast as to defy belief, and they do so WITHOUT creating atmospheric disturbances such as "sonic booms"... As if they are nothing more than visual projections of objects that aren't actually there.

Beyond that, no UFO has ever been seen outside of the Earth-Moon system... According to our best evidence, UFOs are entirely localized to Earth. Therefore, there's no reason to assume that they are "extraterrestrial" in origin.

My contention for the last 20 years has been that UFOs originate on Earth. There's no real evidence to suggest otherwise.

As for their phantom-like ability to appear and disappear without causing even a ripple, this suggests that they're not operating entirely within our 4 known dimensions. That's why I think UFOs are interdimensional objects, perhaps operating in the 5th or higher dimensions, and only barely entering our 4-dimensional reality.

That still doesn't mean they're "extraterrestrial"... Indeed, the anecdotal descriptions of Grays and Reptilians and Nords and all the others sound like familiar terrestrial creatures, entities that probably evolved like us right here on Earth.



edit on 3-1-2012 by ZeskoWhirligan because: (no reason given)



oh, really.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Deus ex machina?
Surely some are probes.......



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeskoWhirligan

Originally posted by wemadetheworld
Not to argue over unknown physics, but the higher dimensions postulated by superstring theory are small and curled up with no more extent than the Planck length


Not to quibble, but string theory acknowledges that our Universe extends into many other dimensions, and that the BULK of the matter seemingly missing from this Universe exists in higher dimensions — the great mystery of Quantum Physics is WHERE is the source of gravity in this Universe, and why is gravity SO WEAK as a force in this Universe?

I mean, something like 99% of the matter in this Universe isn't visible, doesn't apparently exist in the 4 known dimensions.

The notion that the higher dimensions are minute little pipsqueak dimensions is just a convenient theory, because modern physicists hate dealing with INFINITY. It's entirely possible that the higher dimensions DWARF our 4 known dimensions into insignificance, that it's actually OUR reality that is minute and insignificant.



edit on 3-1-2012 by ZeskoWhirligan because: (no reason given)



he,he,he,he
and still magnatism on the refrigerator, he,he,he,he



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I am waiting for the ones who think the world is flat.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
commeth to me my child. do not follow me, listen and you decide.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeskoWhirligan

Originally posted by wemadetheworld
Not to argue over unknown physics, but the higher dimensions postulated by superstring theory are small and curled up with no more extent than the Planck length


Not to quibble, but string theory acknowledges that our Universe extends into many other dimensions, and that the BULK of the matter seemingly missing from this Universe exists in higher dimensions — the great mystery of Quantum Physics is WHERE is the source of gravity in this Universe, and why is gravity SO WEAK as a force in this Universe?

I mean, something like 99% of the matter in this Universe isn't visible, doesn't apparently exist in the 4 known dimensions.

The notion that the higher dimensions are minute little pipsqueak dimensions is just a convenient theory, because modern physicists hate dealing with INFINITY. It's entirely possible that the higher dimensions DWARF our 4 known dimensions into insignificance, that it's actually OUR reality that is minute and insignificant.



edit on 3-1-2012 by ZeskoWhirligan because: (no reason given)


I would have to review my textbooks to debate this one fully however I seem to recall that the missing mass problem arises because stars move at the same velocity regardless of the distance from their galactic centre

Hence 'dark matter' was invented as a potential explanation and then 'dark energy' invented to explain the accelerating rate of cosmic expansion

We're definitely on the cutting edge with the UFO debate, which for me makes it one of the most interesting subjects



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Yes, good thread. I've always felt that the entire concept of VonNeumann (self-replicating AI) probes completely de-legitimizes the "it's too far" anti-UFO argument. And that distance argument is, of course, what most skeptics base that skepticism on. (Even if sometimes not consciously.) But we're now seeing that those distance assumptions are quickly becoming outdated. Borderline unacceptable. Because look at what's happening even in mainstream science right now: papers very publicly and very convincingly saying "yep, they could be here by now"... even while endorsing the speed-of-light barrier. (Small groups of scientists have always acknowledged and discussed this issue, of course, but in today's small world, this kind of legit science is much more significant.)

Heck, the Fermi paradox itself even acknowledges this truth (that distance isn't a barrier), and does so mathematically. Fermi ran the numbers, and even with the light-speed limit and very slow expansion rates, he still concluded: "yep, they SHOULD be here...." It's very odd to see skeptics citing the Fermi paradox as if it supports their skepticism. It actually undermines much of it. (Because who says they're coming 1,000 light years every trip?)

For three very recent (and relatively publicized) mainstream science papers which acknowledge these shifting assumptions about where ET life could reasonably be (in that "socially acceptable" sense), see:
- Paul Davies' paper from just a week or two ago, "Searching for Alien Artifacts on the Moon,"
- Loeb and Turner's "Detection Technique for Artificially-Illuminated Objects in the Outer Solar System," and
- "On the Likelihood of Non-terrestrial Artifacts in the Solar System" by Jacob Haqq-Misraa and Ravi Kumar Kopparapuc.

Read them, please! Because if you're a 'skeptic' and your skepticism is based on "they can't come this far"... well, I think you'll see that you're simply not being rational. Really. And this is from an ex-skeptic who thought HE was being just so darn rational himself... yet now sees how utterly ridiculous things like much of what's on the "badufos" blog are... or how intellectually dishonest Michael Shermer's comments on the topic are. (It's actually embarrassing.)

I realize that the circus elements of UFOlgy make it a VERY easy target for ridicule, but don't forget what the real question is here. It's not about Roswell, abductions, mutilated cattle, or the daily youtube "UFO video" offerings. The core question is really just: are there even a small number of genuinely compelling sightings over the last 65 years which, though not 'proof,' are at least highly SUGGESTIVE OF non-terrestrial technology & intelligence?

And the only reasonable answer to that question is "yes." To say otherwise is to assume, necessarily, that every case has been or successfully could be debunked. And anyone who thinks that all strong (high-strangeness / high-reliability) cases have been debunked, as I once did, simply has not yet read the right material. Luckily, one need not go much farther than the official reports themselves -- Condon, and Bluebook Special Report 14 -- to begin the journey towards a rather inescapable conclusion. (Seriously, how many skeptibunkers here have truly read those documents, carefully and critically? Please do! Ask... do the conclusions fit the data? That IS the core question with any science, right?)

From experience I can say that, once a skeptic gets over this perceived distance barrier, then even the less compelling evidence from lesser known cases can very fairly be seen in quite a different light. Impossible means impossible, absolutely and always, and to that the skeptibunker must cling. But, with 2 thousand million stars in this galaxy alone, if a person acknowledges that "maybe" they've been here once, well... then why not twice? Out of 200 billion? Perhaps. 10 out of 100,000? Who knows?! So even a conservative "maybe" with respect to a UFO case's legitimacy opens a door that some 'skeptics' just cannot deal with. (Apparently for psycho-social reasons?) Which is why some debunkers fight so hard against every single SHRED of evidence, no matter how trivial or obviously valid: any "maybe," **if sincerely and earnestly acknowledged**, is basically infinitely far away from "impossible."

(And make no mistake, many really do think it *impossible*, even as their lips or fingers say "no, I don't think it's impossible, just very, very unlikely...." But (again, from experience!) I see now that such talk is usually just code for 'I DO think it's pretty much impossible, but I'd prefer to not acknowledge the weakness inherent in such an absolute position." Not always. But often....)

The bottom line is that, from what I'm seeing even in 'legit' science, "impossible" no longer has legs to stand on, in any of its various forms. Self-replicating AI is a big part of the reason.

Excellent topic!



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by cloaked4u
he,he,he,he
and still magnatism on the refrigerator, he,he,he,he


I don't know why you're giggling like a girlscout... Yes, Electromagnetism is a GREATER FORCE in this Universe than is Gravity, which doesn't make much sense from the perspective of Physical Science.

You could jump off of a building and fall 50 stories and splatter like a bug on the windshield when you reached the street... But it wasn't Gravity that killed you. It was Electromagnetism. The Electromagnetism between ATOMS and MOLECULES of the street surface created a stronger force than the Gravity that was pulling you down, right.

A refrigerator magnet, as you point out, can lift a paperclip in DEFIANCE of Gravity. That's a good physical demonstration of Electromagnetism's superior force over Gravity.

So, WHERE is the GRAVITY in this Universe? According to modern Physics, Gravity should be a MUCH stronger force than Electromagnetism. So, WHERE'S the Gravity?



edit on 3-1-2012 by ZeskoWhirligan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Supposedly in 1946 a portal was opened by Jack Parsons and the Help of some others called: "The Babylon Working" and it seems after this Many UFO sightings came about. Maybe a connection Maybe not. Just some thought.

www.google.com... i=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=


www.google.com... h=475



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeskoWhirligan
 

Zesko, I just dont think that cloaked4u appreciates the "gravity" of the situation.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
Zesko, I just dont think that cloaked4u appreciates the "gravity" of the situation.


He doesn't comprehend. That is why he FAILS.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by wemadetheworld
 


This makes more sense than ANY other theory.
But....For all we know, it could be Ant People from the year 4223 A.D...A (the "...A" meaning "...Again")



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeskoWhirligan

Originally posted by cloaked4u
he,he,he,he
and still magnatism on the refrigerator, he,he,he,he


I don't know why you're giggling like a girlscout... Yes, Electromagnetism is a GREATER FORCE in this Universe than is Gravity, which doesn't make much sense from the perspective of Physical Science.

You could jump off of a building and fall 50 stories and splatter like a bug on the windshield when you reached the street... But it wasn't Gravity that killed you. It was Electromagnetism. The Electromagnetism between ATOMS and MOLECULES of the street surface created a stronger force than the Gravity that was pulling you down, right.

A refrigerator magnet, as you point out, can lift a paperclip in DEFIANCE of Gravity. That's a good physical demonstration of Electromagnetism's superior force over Gravity.

So, WHERE is the GRAVITY in this Universe? According to modern Physics, Gravity should be a MUCH stronger force than Electromagnetism. So, WHERE'S the Gravity?



edit on 3-1-2012 by ZeskoWhirligan because: (no reason given)



I like guys like you, the ones who want answers. decievers. We the ones who have insight, you will NEVER have. The ones of, the ones of knowedge. good luck , my friend.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by cloaked4u

Originally posted by ZeskoWhirligan

Originally posted by cloaked4u
he,he,he,he
and still magnatism on the refrigerator, he,he,he,he


I don't know why you're giggling like a girlscout... Yes, Electromagnetism is a GREATER FORCE in this Universe than is Gravity, which doesn't make much sense from the perspective of Physical Science.

You could jump off of a building and fall 50 stories and splatter like a bug on the windshield when you reached the street... But it wasn't Gravity that killed you. It was Electromagnetism. The Electromagnetism between ATOMS and MOLECULES of the street surface created a stronger force than the Gravity that was pulling you down, right.

A refrigerator magnet, as you point out, can lift a paperclip in DEFIANCE of Gravity. That's a good physical demonstration of Electromagnetism's superior force over Gravity.

So, WHERE is the GRAVITY in this Universe? According to modern Physics, Gravity should be a MUCH stronger force than Electromagnetism. So, WHERE'S the Gravity?



edit on 3-1-2012 by ZeskoWhirligan because: (no reason given)



I like guys like you, the ones who want answers. decievers. We the ones who have insight, you will NEVER have. The ones of, the ones of knowedge. good luck , my friend.



for you, split a peice of wood and there i am.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by wemadetheworld
I seem to recall that the missing mass problem arises because stars move at the same velocity regardless of the distance from their galactic centre

Hence 'dark matter' was invented as a potential explanation and then 'dark energy' invented to explain the accelerating rate of cosmic expansion

We're definitely on the cutting edge with the UFO debate, which for me makes it one of the most interesting subjects


Yeah, going back about three decades, the galactic rotation enigma has puzzled the fudge out of astrophysicists. If, let's say, a super black hole exists at the center of every galaxy, this suggests that the black holes existed BEFORE the accretion disk of the galaxies, right? Because we see this signature spiral effect of matter being sucked into a black hole — or, at least, toward this increasingly dense galactic center.

But there's a problem with this assumption.

If the dense galactic center existed FIRST, then the matter CLOSEST to the galactic center should be moving FASTER than the matter way out on the EDGE of the galaxy. See, the matter way out on the edge of the galaxy was attracted LATER, was it not? This is the way physics SHOULD work, if Gravity (and the Speed Of Light maximum) is a constant.

But the fact is that the matter of the INNERMOST galactic accretion disk moves at the SAME SPEED as the matter way out on the galactic rim.

Which suggests:

A) that Light Speed is NOT the Universal speed limit, and that the Gravity effect influences matter INSTANTANEOUSLY over hundreds of thousands of LIGHT YEARS, or...

B) that Light Speed really IS the speed limit of the Universe, and that there is some sort of INVISIBLE and UNDETECTABLE mass of matter connecting the galactic centers and the galactic rims, okay?

Because physicists really HATE peeing on Einstein, they will NEVER admit that Light Speed is not the Universal speed limit. Therefore, they prefer a THEORY in which 99% of the matter of this Universe is invisible, or that it exists in a higher dimension that we can't detect.

That's the LAYMAN'S version of the conundrum.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by cloaked4u
I like guys like you, the ones who want answers. decievers. We the ones who have insight, you will NEVER have. The ones of, the ones of knowedge. good luck , my friend.


Heh... Ah, the ENLIGHTENED ONES. Those who possess the GREAT knowledge, yet they can't hold down a job. Enlighten me when it's convenient for you.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
Yes, good thread. I've always felt that the entire concept of VonNeumann (self-replicating AI) probes completely de-legitimizes the "it's too far" anti-UFO argument.


Probes which are programmed to travel a few light years and find resources to self-replicate, perhaps with inheritance and mutation based on accumulated data, then send the resultant children off in different directions which follow the same programming to infinite regress

Never mind machine intelligence, these UFOs may be Artificial Lifeforms



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by wemadetheworld
Probes which are programmed to travel a few light years and find resources to self-replicate, perhaps with inheritance and mutation based on accumulated data, then send the resultant children off in different directions which follow the same programming to infinite regress

Never mind machine intelligence, these UFOs may be Artificial Lifeforms


Face it, Pan Spermia is the most advanced theory — that Life seeds raw planets at random, and that it evolves to the point that it can ESCAPE to seed other worlds. That explains EVERYTHING, including Mankind's own inexplicable drive to escape Earth and colonize other planets.

This is what Life DOES.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
From the Wikipedia page on Self-replicating spacecraft:

It has been theorized that a self-replicating starship utilizing relatively conventional theoretical methods of interstellar travel; no exotic faster-than-light propulsion such as "warp drive", and speeds limited to an "average cruising speed" of 0.1c, could spread throughout a galaxy the size of the Milky Way in as little as half a million years

en.wikipedia.org...




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join