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.

 

A few questions for those who believe that UFO's are manned by interstellar fairing aliens.

page: 14
7
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erno86
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
 


Welcome AnthraAndromda --- Could you please give me an English translation of "Etharzi od Oma"--- Also the phrase in your last post.


Etharzi od Oma -- Enochian language; Peace and Understanding.

ETA - almst frgt .. srry. I resume you mean this one: "Caosj molap Oma-ge" --- Earth man understands not.



Are you not from this Earth? What race do you belong too? Are you male or female? Are you familar with the three fingered/ three toed dinosauroid humanoid's? What starsystem do the dinosauroid humanoid's come from? Do the dinosauroid humanoids that occasionally visit our Earth, consider themselves as Gaod's?

Thanks,

Erno86


No, not of the Earth. I am an "Andromd" male child from but one of the many humanoid species native to the Andromeda galaxy.

Not sure which e you are referring to; there two species Alpha Draconions, and, Beta Draconions, or i lcal stellar ters, greater and lesser Draconions. They are actually different species, though, like many of the non-terrestrial humans, their DNA is remarkably similar.

Yes, they do visit, though it is not frequent as they prefer to send one of the Greys instead. Do they think of themselves as gods? I don't know, let us hope they are not quite that arrogent ... the Uiverse is too small and life too short for that kind of garbage.

Etharzi od Oma.

edit on 15-1-2012 by AnthraAndromda because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2012 by AnthraAndromda because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
 


I have never in any of my many and varied studies found anything close to proof positive either, the closest I have seen has only been early theoretical work. Although I must admit the consept intrigues me to no end. I can't help but think that the increasing expansion of space time would and should have a definite effect on the laws of physics as their medium is stretched thinner and thinner, or that new space would be created to keep space time from being stretched eventually to the breaking point. As evidence of one of these options or the other seeming at least to me to be probable as seen around the event horizon of a quantum sngulrity where space time is stretched to outragiou preportions and the laws of physics themselves become warped. As stated by kyp thorn that an objedt would fall out of time once inside the singularity. An object would fall in at ever increasing velocity, but at the same time would never hit the bottom, howeverwould also instantly hit the bottom. This duality of thinking has taken many an afternoon of leisure timefrom me trying to wrap my head around it.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

A few questions for those who believe that UFO's are manned by interstellar fairing aliens.,


Question to you:

Have you witnessed a craft that defy s current human media projected advanced technology ?



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
 


Wait do you think you're some kind of alien? Can I come on your spaceship? I want to drive it!



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tesclo
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
 


Wait do you think you're some kind of alien? Can I come on your spaceship? I want to drive it!


Its fly not drive...or is it drive instead of fly. But i think your right, it must drive as the spaceship doesn't fly since it doesn't require frictional forces.... oh okay now that hurt my peanut sized brain.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist
 


Remember, they are ADVANCED civilizations.
Just because some scientists on earth claimed that certain speeds of acceleration at different angles can kill any living being, doesn't mean that ADVANCED RACES haven't come up with tactics to avoid said issues. Maybe something like departiclization? They're advanced, so their possibilities may be much more various than ours.

Travel must be more efficient for them as well, don't you think?
Using black holes, or possibly even creating them.
Who is to say that they can't just teleport to wherever they'd like?

And for the last question: there are infinite reasons as to why that may be.
There have been reportings of nano-UFOs, as well as mile-wide UFOs.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
 


Hey, your "source" is a man from talkorigins.org. If you're unaware, they are an anti-Christian/Theist website. But anyways, that author made a fatal mistake in just the 2nd paragraph of his critique:


I raised a number of questions about their methodology and goals, in particular, why anyone would believe the speed of light was decaying when extremely precise measurements over the past twenty years show that it is not.



The "extremely precise measurements" he speaks of includes the use of atomic clocks to record any measurements of time by the physicists in the "past twenty years". The author's fatal mistake is not understanding that if the speed of light is declining and if using an ATOMIC clock to measure time, that any conclusions based upon measurements taken by use of an atomic clock, would appear that the speed of light is a constant.

Do you know why this is???



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




The "extremely precise measurements" he speaks of includes the use of atomic clocks to record any measurements of time by the physicists in the "past twenty years". The author's fatal mistake is not understanding that if the speed of light is declining and if using an ATOMIC clock to measure time, that any conclusions based upon measurements taken by use of an atomic clock, would appear that the speed of light is a constant.


I simply have to ask; "Do you know how an "atomic" clock works?"

Firstly, to the best of my knowledge, the speed 0f light hasn't changed in my lifetime, and that is something more than 20 years.

Now than, It seems as though you are going to tell us that the color spectrum has shifted as well, Red is no longer Red, Blue is now ... what Green?

InfraRed is now a viable RF frequency? If this were true, old radios would stop working properly, and I haven't seen that happen .

So, why don't you tell us all what is wrong with the use of a Cessium beam laser as a frequency standard.

Etharzi od Oma.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnthraAndromda
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




The "extremely precise measurements" he speaks of includes the use of atomic clocks to record any measurements of time by the physicists in the "past twenty years". The author's fatal mistake is not understanding that if the speed of light is declining and if using an ATOMIC clock to measure time, that any conclusions based upon measurements taken by use of an atomic clock, would appear that the speed of light is a constant.


I simply have to ask; "Do you know how an "atomic" clock works?"

Firstly, to the best of my knowledge, the speed 0f light hasn't changed in my lifetime, and that is something more than 20 years.

Now than, It seems as though you are going to tell us that the color spectrum has shifted as well, Red is no longer Red, Blue is now ... what Green?

InfraRed is now a viable RF frequency? If this were true, old radios would stop working properly, and I haven't seen that happen .

So, why don't you tell us all what is wrong with the use of a Cessium beam laser as a frequency standard.

Etharzi od Oma.





You ask specifically how gravity can slow the rate of ticking of atomic clocks. You mention different velocities for clocks in Greenwich and Colorado as being a possible cause for the time difference. Actually, the velocity differences are small enough as to have no major effect on the run rate of the two clocks. The main effect is that they are at different levels in the gravitational field of the earth. This is the problem. Now I am going to come at this from a slightly different angle from that of Einstein, since I have under review for a journal an article which shows how all Einstein’s predictions from relativity can be reproduced exactly by a consideration of the ZPE. In other words, the ZPE allows a unification of a number of different effects, including gravity, all in one basic cause. Do not let this terrify you -- it actually simplifies things! I will now see if I can get a couple of important concepts across before I explain myself more fully.....

Finally, an explanation is needed as to why atomic clocks slow when the strength of the ZPE is greater. As mentioned above, radio-decay processes are one form of atomic clock. In each radioactive decay equation there is either a term for the speed of light, c, or Planck’s constant, h. Planck’s constant was defined by Planck in 1911 as being a measure of the strength of the ZPE. We have found that hc is invariant, meaning that h will always be proportional to 1/c and c will always be proportional to 1/h. Therefore, when the ZPE is stronger, the value of c is smaller and h is greater. But c always appears on the numerator of these equations while Planck’s constant, h, appears on the denominator. Therefore, whichever term is used, the factor related to the strength of the ZPE effectively appears in the denominator of each decay equation so that as the strength of the ZPE increases, the decay rate slows down. In a similar way all other atomic clock rates can be shown to be ZPE dependent.

I hope that clarifies your thinking.


Setterfield, again.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   
When men of Dr James E MacDonald"s credibility and scientific know how come out with their viwes and scientific findings that SOME UFOs or unknown l objects then it is time to start listening i feel;He spent a lot of his personal time researching hundreds of USAF UFO reports and his expertise in Atmospheric Physics and Meteorology cannot be over looked or dismissed regarding origins of some UFOs;The question here is was he identifying some new natural atmospheric reality or was he identifying genuine ET technology in some of the cases he studied at length;

The other question is since this argument is based on scientific facts by the OP in his/hers grievances with the possibility of no ET origin for some UFOs then Dr James E MacDonalds findings have to be respected and included in any debate on the rejection of any UFOs having an advanced ET origin; Scientific facts and arguments need respect from both sides of the origins of some UFOs, scientific facts and arguments cannot be one sided all the time as Dr James E MacDonalds findings have shown; Now who to believe and who to listen to, those of MacDonlads credibility and scientific mind set or those set out to ridicule and reject based only on their view point be that political or religious or scientific mind sets;


James Edward McDonald (May 7, 1920 – June 13, 1971) was an American physicist. He is best known for his research regarding UFOs. McDonald was senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and professor in the Department of Meteorology, University of Arizona, Tucson. McDonald campaigned vigorously in support of expanding UFO studies during the mid and late 1960s, arguing that UFOs represented an intriguing, pressing and unsolved mystery which had not been adequately studied by science.

He was one of the more prominent figures of his time who argued in favor of the extraterrestrial hypothesis as a plausible, but not completely proved, model of UFO phenomena. A dedicated and tireless UFO researcher and scholar, McDonald interviewed over 500 UFO witnesses, uncovered many important government UFO documents, and gave important presentations of UFO evidence. He testified before Congress during the UFO hearings of 1968[1]. McDonald also gave a famous talk called "Science in Default" to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). It was a summary of the current UFO evidence and a critique of the 1969 Condon Report UFO study[2].


link;

www.google.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Todays Cessium beam time standards DO NOT rely on atomic decay! And haven'f for quite some time ... probably most to all of your life, and a significat fraction of mine.

Modern time and frequency standards use Cessium-133. It is a stable isotope of Cessium ...it does not decay. As they say "observatioally stable",

The effects of gravity differentials due to location are so small that they have little to no descernable effect on the speed of orbiting electrons, or their energy states. Do you understand, that, IF these effects were as noticable as your author wants us to beleive, semiconductors wouldn't work at all in some locations (such an anomalous gravity locations, or in space).

I'm not comfortable addressing the "general Physics" in these kinds of cases, but, I am quite cmfrtable addressing the issues, poperties, and conventional knowledge of Semiconductr Physics, and, the operation of semiconductors, and their physics is not effected by gravity. If it were, every single spacecraft your species has send into space (especially deep space) quite simply, would stop working as they were designed. The systems that I worked on, that were sent into space (some JPL work in the 70's), worked exactly as designed. The micro-computers ALL worked as designed, and continue to this day..Your everyday use of such technologies as GPS, Cell Phones, the Internet are nearly all the evidence I need t show that the effects of gravity on these devices is negligible. Thus, it is safe to presume that such gravitional effects negligible across the board.

If you have some REAL science that shows this to be otherwise, PLEASE point us i the right direction...I for one would like to see it.

Etharzi od Oma



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
 


You read nothing in the link. The "...." implied there was paragraphs missing from the first and last one I quoted.




posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I believe that some ufos are of alien origin probably about 5% of all ufo sightings are unexplainable which means a portion of those would be from so called black projects but I'm convinced that atleas 3% maybe more are intelligently controlled alien craft some of those would be probes and a lesser number would be manned by alien beings.

There are too many sightings from pilots and military people let alone the average joe, however 95% of it is explainable especially in the UK where we get lots of chineese lanterns now days.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Actually, you are wrong, I did indeed read his material ... In my professional, his arguments are virtually without foundation. He seem to completey miss several critical points. Not the least of which is his "estimation" of the nature of "atomic" clocks.

Decades ago, when the most accurate clocks might have been associated with atomic decay, his point may have had merit, however, for at least the past 40 years, time and frequency standards have been based on Cessium-133 which exibits NO atomic decay. You are going to have to do much better than that feeble attempt at confusing the truth/reality.

Again, his conclusions are based on FAULTY DATA ANALYSIS! The complete data set is available on-line, and that data DOES NOT support what he is saying.

This argument is over unless you can provide corrobative data.

edit on 16-1-2012 by AnthraAndromda because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicist


I'll answer in the theoretical (because I don't know whether "UFOs" are 'manned' by aliens, future humans, are actually U.S.military craft, or simply a figment of imagination). Anyhow...I won't repost your questions, but I'll number my responses to correspond to the original questions:

1. Time slows down within high-energy electrical fields. If enough electrical output could be created within a craft, the surrounding high-energy field would slow down time within the craft, and what would look to someone outside that field like a hairpin, 2000mph maneuver, could actually be a slow, stationary turn, taking several seconds to perform, followed by an easy-going 30 mph run the other direction to those within the craft (and the craft itself.) The energy field / time physics are known, proven science (actually building a craft to hold the power source, on the other hand, is not.)

2. This question simply contains a mistake in logic, in assuming that a ship travelling interstellar distances into Earth's atmosphere would utilize 21st century Earth technology. Further, it assumes that such current-day technology could actually achieve the speeds necessary to make interstellar travel possible. Considering the space shuttle is (was) our fastest aerial vehicle at 1/38,320th the speed of light, today's technology would *probably* not be used to cover the time and space for interstellar travel. One has to believe a technology beyond today's physics of time and space would likely be used to shorten the trip to the nearest start to somewhere less than 162,480 years.

3. Question 3 assumes the only purpose for aliens to come to Earth would be to spy on humans. As far as cloaking...do you camoflage yourself in order to sneak up on ants to step on them?



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Just another consideration (sorry if repetitive, I've only read through 4 of the pages so far), but what if those UFOs *are* "alien", but are coming from under the sea, for example? Its a possibility, whether true or not, I've no idea.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnthraAndromda
I am an "Andromd" male child from but one of the many humanoid species native to the Andromeda galaxy.


In that case what is the mass of the Higgs boson, will we find the sparticles, and how do we fix the Euro ?



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical[/mods please remove this post
edit on 16-1-2012 by reddwhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by wemadetheworld
 


Lol,
1 the higgs is real but has no mass of its own, it aready lent it all to the matter I. The universe.
2 I have no idea
3 the euro will be fixed, in the same manner a horse with a lame leg gets fixed.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicist
1. Many people have claimed that UFO's can accelerate 90 degrees relative to their position and other maneuvers that contradict the underlying physical principles of current propulsion technology. What many scientists have concluded is that such aerial maneuvering can create gravitational forces so great (hundreds of times that of Earth) and would flatten any living creature like a pancake. Your take on this?
2. To cross the vast distances of the stars, it is known without a doubt that any engine that is used would need to be extremely vast and thus requires a huge star ship. Most UFO reportings are of objects from as small as 3 m across to a one mile. Such machinery is not capable of achieving the high speeds required to cover the astronomical distances in a feasibly short time, and any advanced civilization capable of travelling to the stars would not waste such high amounts of energy or a long time to just spy on humans. Your take on this?
3. An alien civilization capable of travelling to the stars has most likely mastered the physics of optics, and have cloaking technology at their disposal. Not only that, but they have also most likely mastered nanotechnology and the many other scientific areas that we have yet to even begin to slightly understand. In practice, would it not be feasible to have unmanned, cloaked aircraft that are very small but sufficient enough to serve the purpose of spying on humans?

I'll come up with more questions as the thread progresses.



the ufos we see could just be little ships that have left the mothership, the mothership could be the size of a city and cloaked



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join