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.

 

WHY are all UFO's infinitely connected with Aliens?

page: 8
4
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by dilly1
Was wondering Why (and How) UFO's are infinitely connected with Aliens? I have never seen any evidence to confirm this strange marriage. Wouldn't it be best to con-join UFO paraphernalia with "man-made" igenuity????


I don't know.

Why is it that people posting on this web forum are so "infinitely inept" that they can't even create a thread with a title that makes any sense?




posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluestreak53

Originally posted by dilly1
Was wondering Why (and How) UFO's are infinitely connected with Aliens? I have never seen any evidence to confirm this strange marriage. Wouldn't it be best to con-join UFO paraphernalia with "man-made" igenuity????


I don't know.

Why is it that people posting on this web forum are so "infinitely inept" that they can't even create a thread with a title that makes any sense?
Ahhh, did I burst your delusional bubble???? Lol!!!

By all means continue being brainwashed. I need people like you to stay ignorant. Can you imagine how boring this world would be if everyone digested there surroundings with "logic" ?


Is that it? You have nothing else to add? I suggest you read my past posts. You just mite learn something.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by dilly1
 




post by dilly1
There is nothing,not a resemblance of a black in the quantum level.


Wrong .

The evaporation of quantum black holes would leave very distinctive imprints on the detectors and spectrum of such black holes could be obtained. To study the quantum gravity effects on the black hole spectrum, one can take into account the generalized uncertainty principle. In this paper, employing the Bekenstein-Mukhanov approach, the spectrum of a quantum black hole is obtained.
scialert.net...


A quantum black hole can decays during interval of observer time Δl by a sequence of integers [n1, n2, ..., nj] of length j. During Δl, the black hole first jumped down to n1 elementary levels in one ago, then n2 level, etc. In this process, black hole emits a quantum of some species of energy , then a quantum of energy , etc. Each one of j quanta carries the energy . In average, during Δl, the mass of black hole decreases
scialert.net...
ITS A FREAKIN THEORY



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 





ITS A FREAKIN THEORY

You seem to be confusing scientific theory with the sort of theory you or I would have , they are not the same thing .
A scientific theory has been tested repeatedly and is correct for all observed results.
A common theory (as used in everyday language) is just a guess.


A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
chemistry.about.com...

Logical really




posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by gortexYou seem to be confusing scientific theory with the sort of theory you or I would have , they are not the same thing .
A scientific theory has been tested repeatedly and is correct for all observed results.
A common theory (as used in everyday language) is just a guess.

Don't bother, he probably thinks electromagnetic theory, theory of gravitation, special and general theory of relativity, and quantum field theory are all 'JUST THEORIES!11111" and are not scientific fact.

IMO, there's no point in arguing with people like this. It's like trying to prove scientifically to a person who still believes the Earth is flat.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Not worth the time or effort to post on this.
Post deleted.


edit on 20-1-2012 by bluestreak53 because: minor corrections

edit on 20-1-2012 by bluestreak53 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 


I am know aliens are real. However, I totally agree with you. I live about 3 miles away from an air force base almost nightly while I am outside (smoker) I see some definite UFO's they only fly them at night but some of these weird (they look weird to me) ships I know are being flown by humans. With that being said I am sure aliens have their own form of transportation I just think that a good chunk of 'UFO" are military planes (you never really know what the military is doing)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Dilly --- It is always a joy to talk to you over this website, because I like to talk to people that disagree with my views on space alien visitation; here on Earth.

The "WTF, nothing there" comment on my space alien picture, by poopyfaceplumnose, just made me break out in a fit of laughter. I asked myself --- Who is poopyfaceplumnose? LOL

On my UFO encounter.... that night back in 1976 --- My visual observation of the foofighter, forced me to deduce that the foofighter was being guided by an intelligence of the highest order. My feeling occurred after I had seen an approx.
5,000 mph, bluish white light appear on the Eastern horizon above a low thin cloud cover. I instantly to my head to the left, looking towards the Western horizion. Unless I was too slow in turning my head, the object did not fly to the Western horizon, but could have instantly stopped, somewhere above our heads.

Have you ever had a feeling --- That you sense that someone is staring at you behind your back, and then, you instantly turn around, and find that someone was staring at you? That was the same feeling I had, when I turned my eyes to the metal ceiling of the Ford cargo van.

Approx. one minute later ---- A huge fiery ball [approx. 700 to 1,000 feet in diameter,] appeared just below the low-lying cloud cover about 1 mile away in a slow, [approx. 40 mph,] straight vertical descent, while lighting up the whole Eastern horizon and the mountain valley in front of us; and disapeared just beyond the mountain ridge in front of us.

This "Foofighter," sported no fiery tail.... but appeared to be engulfed in a fiery red-orange fusion plasma with multi-current flames licking all around it. If this was a meteorite, it would have made a crater a mile deep if it was traveling at high speed. The Foofighter was easy to look at, and it was the most beautiful lighted object, that I've ever seen in my entire life.

Thus came one of my other deduction's --- That the Foofighter, was being guided by a high intelligence.

Cheers,

Erno86



edit on 20-1-2012 by Erno86 because: spelling



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluestreak53
Not worth the time or effort to post on this.
Post deleted.


edit on 20-1-2012 by bluestreak53 because: minor corrections

edit on 20-1-2012 by bluestreak53 because: (no reason given)


You are not the only one who has been unprepared to debate.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diablos

Originally posted by gortexYou seem to be confusing scientific theory with the sort of theory you or I would have , they are not the same thing .
A scientific theory has been tested repeatedly and is correct for all observed results.
A common theory (as used in everyday language) is just a guess.

Don't bother, he probably thinks electromagnetic theory, theory of gravitation, special and general theory of relativity, and quantum field theory are all 'JUST THEORIES!11111" and are not scientific fact.

IMO, there's no point in arguing with people like this. It's like trying to prove scientifically to a person who still believes the Earth is flat.

I'll kill to girly birds with one post by responding to you and your new boyfriend GIRLTEX.
Everything about Astronomy and Astrophysics in general is THEORETICAL... The Big Bang is theoretical. Black Holes are theoretical. Quasars, Magnetars, Neutron Stars, Gamma Bursts and everything else is theoretical.
The both of you know nothing about hard science and only experts on posting/cut 'n paste internet links. You guys are rookies ,high on hype.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by dilly1I'll kill to girly birds with one post by responding to you and your new boyfriend GIRLTEX.

Haha, getting mad at scientific fact now, are we?


Originally posted by dilly1IEverything about Astronomy and Astrophysics in general is THEORETICAL... The Big Bang is theoretical. Black Holes are theoretical. Quasars, Magnetars, Neutron Stars, Gamma Bursts and everything else is theoretical.

Yup, just like electromagnetic theory, Maxwell's theory of light, general and special theory of relativity, Schroedinger's wave equation, quantum theory, atoms, protons, electrons, neutrons, photons, particles, subatomic particles, etc. all just "theories!"


Originally posted by dilly1The both of you know nothing about hard science and only experts on posting/cut 'n paste internet links. You guys are rookies ,high on hype.


I'm far from being an expert, but I've at least done research under a professor over the summer in particle physics. What about you? I doubt a real expert would dismiss scientifically established facts in physics or have long been dismissed by the greater scientific community as crackpots. Have you even taken an advanced class in physics before? Do you even understand basic Newtonian mechanics? Or, is that just an "unproven theory!!!1111"?

If you're a so-called "expert", then surely you must have at least published one or two research papers in peer reviewed journals at some point in your life? Post them.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diablos

Originally posted by dilly1IEverything about Astronomy and Astrophysics in general is THEORETICAL... The Big Bang is theoretical. Black Holes are theoretical. Quasars, Magnetars, Neutron Stars, Gamma Bursts and everything else is theoretical.

Yup, just like electromagnetic theory, Maxwell's theory of light, general and special theory of relativity, Schroedinger's wave equation, quantum theory, atoms, protons, electrons, neutrons, photons, particles, subatomic particles, etc. all just "theories!"


Actually, that wasn't dilly1's quote, it was mine.

As for all the Einsteinian and Quantum theories you cited, they ARE all theories teetering on the precipice of obsolescence as we speak.

Electromagnetic theory is tragically flawed, for example, as it seems inextricably bound to Gravity — and GRAVITY is one of the most mysterious of all forces in this Universe. Hate to tell you this, but we do not understand the source of Gravity. Moreover, we can't understand why Gravity is such a WEAK force in the Universe compared to Electromagnetism.

If we UNDERSTOOD Electromagnetism and Gravity, if we UNDERSTOOD how these forces are related — and Einstein says they ARE related, he just never figured out HOW — we would be able to turn Gravity on and off as easily as flipping a light switch.

Alas for Einsteinian Physics, the SOURCE of Gravity and its relationship to Electromagnetism is HIDDEN AWAY from us in another dimension (the Fifth Dimension, specifically), if you lend any credence to the theories of Quantum Physics.

Alas for Quantum Physics, they can't locate the source of MASS (an oversized subatomic particle tentatively called the Higgs Boson), which precipitates Gravity in the first place. The Higgs Boson continues to elude Quantum physicists.

So, Einsteinian theories are on shaky ground because of Quantum theories, which are on even SHAKIER ground.

Einsteinian Physics are acknowledged as tragically flawed in many respects... Einstein repeatedly ends many of his equations in Infinity. Which is like giving up in the world of Physics. Modern physicists do not accept the concept of Infinity, okay? They hate it like poison. According to the foremost physicists, there is no such thing as Infinity.

To the foremost physicists, the Universe is entirely Finite... It's the only way we can make our erstwhile "understanding" of the Universe work.

As for Einsteinian General and Special Relativity, those are INCOMPLETE THEORIES. The Unified Field Theory is INCOMPLETE. Einstein never solved it. He was right about bits and pieces, but that's like knowing Beef Stew has potatoes and carrots in it, but not being able to find the Beef, and having no idea what the other ingredients might be.

So, as you see, the OLD physics are wrong, and the NEW physics won't work until we find several missing bits first.

No, you can't say that because PARTS of Einsteinian Physics have been proven, then ALL Einsteinian theories are FACT. They're not. Einstein was WRONG about a LOT of things. Recent results from the CERN LHC are showing, in repeated testing, that Light Speed is not the fastest thing in the Universe; rather, Neutrinos seem to be hella faster than Light.

Neutrinos travel so fast, they pop in and out of our four-dimensional universe like ghostly shadows. So, Einstein was apparently wrong about Light Speed being the Universal speed limit.

We're at a crossroads right now, at which we KNOW Einstein wasn't right, but we can't figure out WHERE we're going wrong in Quantum Physics (String Theory, M Theory, et al).

I mean, that's how close we are to starting over at Square One in modern Physics.

So, NO, theory — especially Scientific theories backed up by repeated testing for decades — ARE NOT more valid than conventional guessing. Scientific theories are NOT "facts," okay, any more than 98% certainty is the same as CERTAINTY. They're two different animals.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Planets, stars, comets, meteors are just "theoretical" now? Just because we haven't been able to replicate a planet in our laboratories, that means there is no evidence they exist?


If black holes have not been proven to exist, then please explain with scientific evidence to back up what is it that the stars in our galaxy orbit and why it has clear visible affects on space-time, is absent of all light or matter within its radius also called the "event horizon", but still has the gravitational field of a star? That is, unless you don't believe stars are real but only theoretical?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Is there anyone out there who wants to debate about the delusional ufo-alien connection?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Diablos
Planets, stars, comets, meteors are just "theoretical" now? Just because we haven't been able to replicate a planet in our laboratories, that means there is no evidence they exist?


Well, quite obviously, we have TOUCHED other planets in our own Solar System, sampled them, we POSSESS actual pieces of at least two planetary bodies — the Moon and Mars. We can sample PIECES of our own Sun as the Solar Wind interacts with Earth's magnetosphere. We POSSESS millions of meteorites that have impacted our world. We have SAMPLED the dust and gas of comets. These are all things that we have actually TOUCHED, okay?

But I'll tell you this... Until we DID touch them, until we actually sampled them, until we sent probes to Venus and Mars and Jupiter and Saturn and Neptune and Uranus, we had NO IDEA of the true nature of those worlds. Planetary researchers will be the first to tell you that practically ALL of our theories about the Solar System were WRONG prior to our going out there and investigating at close range.

That's just a fact.

Now, as regards extrasolar stars and planets, et cetera, I'm telling you that the next closest star to us, Proxima Centauri, could have blown up fifteen minutes ago, and we won't know it for 4 years.

There is NOTHING within our field of view from this Solar System that actually exists in real time. All the stars and "planets" (that we think we've found), and all the "black holes" and "quasars" and "neutron stars" and "magnetars" and "gamma bursters" all that junk are just mathematical interpretations of emanations, ancient echoes that are thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions and billions of years old...

Think about that.

We're studying ancient cosmological history. We're not even studying the present. We have NO IDEA what the Universe is REALLY like.

I mean, it's like forming theories about the PRESENT based on 90-year-old silent movies. Do you realize that HALF or more of the Universe may not even be out there in real time? We just don't know.

Until we go out there and SAMPLE other worlds, SAMPLE the winds of other stars, do an actual fly-by on a neutron star or a black hole, we have NO IDEA of the true nature of those cosmological bodies.

Our theories, everything we THINK we know about the Universe, is based on ANCIENT and obsolete data.



Originally posted by Diablos
If black holes have not been proven to exist, then please explain with scientific evidence to back up what is it that the stars in our galaxy orbit and why it has clear visible affects on space-time, is absent of all light or matter within its radius also called the "event horizon", but still has the gravitational field of a star? That is, unless you don't believe stars are real but only theoretical?


There's no concrete, real-time evidence that a supermassive black hole exists at the center of our galaxy. See, you are assuming that a black hole is drawing in all this matter to create the galaxy over hundreds of millions and billions of years, right?. But your assumption is egregiously in error.

Unfortunately for the supermassive black hole in the center of the galaxy theory, there's a characteristic of virtually ALL spiral galaxies that doesn't quite FIT with the black hole theory... The fact is that those stars on the OUTERMOST RIM of the galaxy are orbiting at the SAME VELOCITY as the stars in the CENTER of the galaxy.

You understand what the problem is, right? WHAT IS THE FORCE that connects the outermost rim of the galaxy to its center, across hundreds of thousands of Light Years? It's not Gravity, because there's not enough MATTER in the observable galaxy to exert that kind of Gravity.

If it was a supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy, then the galactic matter closest to the black hole should be hauling ass toward the Event Horizon, approaching Light Speed, while matter 50,000 Light Years away should be LESS INFLUENCED by the black hole's gravity well.

Right?

Except, in reality, the matter 50,000 Light Years away from the CENTER is orbiting at the SAME VELOCITY as the matter whipping around the CENTER of the galaxy. Get it? The way the center of a hubcap rotates at the same rate as the tread of a tire, right? But that only works if the there is connective mass between the center and the tread.

See, the galaxies are NOT BEHAVING as though there is a black hole in their centers.

This is a profound mystery that astrophysicists attempt to explain with exotic theories such as Dark Matter existing in another dimension (again, the Fifth Dimension), bonding the galactic rim to the galactic center with some kind of super-macro-Gravity.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 




post by dilly1
I'll kill to girly birds with one post by responding to you and your new boyfriend GIRLTEX.

Oh dear .... Calling names now , a sure sign of a lost argument ....Silly Dilly



post by dilly1
Everything about Astronomy and Astrophysics in general is THEORETICAL... The Big Bang is theoretical. Black Holes are theoretical. Quasars, Magnetars, Neutron Stars, Gamma Bursts and everything else is theoretical.

Of course it is ....Except it isn't .


post by dilly1
The both of you know nothing about hard science and only experts on posting/cut 'n paste internet links. You guys are rookies ,high on hype.

That's called providing evidence that what we are saying is correct , something you don't do .....I wonder why that is



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by dilly1
 




post by dilly1
I'll kill to girly birds with one post by responding to you and your new boyfriend GIRLTEX.

Oh dear .... Calling names now , a sure sign of a lost argument ....Silly Dilly



post by dilly1
Everything about Astronomy and Astrophysics in general is THEORETICAL... The Big Bang is theoretical. Black Holes are theoretical. Quasars, Magnetars, Neutron Stars, Gamma Bursts and everything else is theoretical.

Of course it is ....Except it isn't .


post by dilly1
The both of you know nothing about hard science and only experts on posting/cut 'n paste internet links. You guys are rookies ,high on hype.

That's called providing evidence that what we are saying is correct , something you don't do .....I wonder why that is


I'm not surprised YOU blindly believe what you read(your so called evidence). Let's be frank, you undoubtedly believe in alien visitation . Which is the main topic by the way. But with Diablo I am surprised because he was stupid enough to be sucked in ;on a matter that's totally irrelevant. In any case , I will not get in a pissing contest on who can provide as many sources(from the internet) to prove one's point on hard science. the argument is not lost because you haven't given a lick of evidence pertaining to the main topic. If you want to really learn about off-topic issues on hard science; just read and reread all of Zesko's posts. Now be a man and start posting on(about) the main topic. That's if you are one.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by dilly1
 




post by dilly1
I'll kill to girly birds with one post by responding to you and your new boyfriend GIRLTEX.

Oh dear .... Calling names now , a sure sign of a lost argument ....Silly Dilly



post by dilly1
Everything about Astronomy and Astrophysics in general is THEORETICAL... The Big Bang is theoretical. Black Holes are theoretical. Quasars, Magnetars, Neutron Stars, Gamma Bursts and everything else is theoretical.

Of course it is ....Except it isn't .


post by dilly1
The both of you know nothing about hard science and only experts on posting/cut 'n paste internet links. You guys are rookies ,high on hype.

That's called providing evidence that what we are saying is correct , something you don't do .....I wonder why that is


I'm not surprised YOU blindly believe what you read(your so called evidence). Let's be frank, you undoubtedly believe in alien visitation . Which is the main topic by the way. But with Diablo I am surprised because he was stupid enough to be sucked in ;on a matter that's totally irrelevant. In any case , I will not get in a pissing contest on who can provide as many sources(from the internet) to prove one's point on hard science. the argument is not lost because you haven't given a lick of evidence pertaining to the main topic. If you want to really learn about off-topic issues on hard science; just read and reread all of Zesko's posts. Now be a man and start posting on(about) the main topic. That's if you are one.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 



Dilly ---- I do not think that the topic of black holes is irrelevant to this thread ---- since I base the existence of flying saucer's that visit our planet, on my proposed hypothesis of a photon engine that needs the black hole substance that sucks and spews out light photon's to propel the starship.

It should almost be a given... that the only fuel needed for long interstellar voyages, [besides seawater as back-up fuel,] would be light photon's.

Cheers,

Erno86



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeskoWhirligan
 



Zesko ---- The force that connects the outermost rim of our galaxy to the galactic center ---- is space itself, or spacetime; because space is curved as it is affected by gravitational bodies.

Am I right?


edit on 22-1-2012 by Erno86 because: added a few words




top topics



 
4
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join