View Full Version : Do you believe in UFO?
abductor
04-29-2007, 02:21 PM
Hi
folks,
Yes the military had caught me on my space ship.. someones believe that it's not a space ship but its
just a fly on the lens.. :)
check the video -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZjHw7rV4Co
and If
you have any story about it to tell.. please post here..
Kind regards..
belgareth
04-29-2007, 03:45 PM
That one isn't very
convincing. I think I'd vote for the fly myself.
I do not doubt the existence of life on other planets and
think it highly probable that life form other planets could be far advanced to us. The biggest question I have about
it is why would they be coming to this insignificant dust speck at the fringes of the galaxy that we call earth? At
the same time, there are a lot of strange, unexplained sightings, pictures and so on. Stable, reliable whitnesses
like pilots and even astronauts lends a lot of credibility to the sightings as does massive simultaneos sightings by
independent groups over a large area. Some things just defy conventional explanations. That does qualify them as
Unidentified Flying Objects. It does not prove they are from another planet. Nor does my statement exclude the
possibilty.
The thing that makes me the most sceptical is probably something that makes the claims more
convincing to many. That is the human like appearance. That creature would look anything like us is improbable in
the extreme. Perhaps random selection would give creatures from other worlds sensory organs clustered on the highest
point available, that seems reasonable. But to have two eyes, a nose with two nostrils and a mouth in an almost
identical configuration to us stretches probablity to far. Having two arms and legs similar to ours is stretching it
a lot further.
abductor
07-11-2007, 01:25 PM
What about this one
!..
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XlkV1ybBnHI&mode=related&search=
Well, but may all fake
..
see the true about first moon landing of the apollo 11 mission in 1969!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=02VCpMzHcE8
:)
belgareth
07-11-2007, 01:51 PM
I'd be more inclined to
believe the first one over the second. Either could be faked but I do believe we landed on the moon. With a large
enough telescope you can see the lunar lander. That's kind of hard to fake, as are all the independent tracking
reports.
If the first is a true event, as has been reported in the past, all it demonstrates is that something
was out there. We don't know what.
DrSmellThis
07-12-2007, 11:26 PM
The
thing that makes me the most sceptical is probably something that makes the claims more convincing to many. That is
the human like appearance. That creature would look anything like us is improbable in the extreme. Perhaps random
selection would give creatures from other worlds sensory organs clustered on the highest point available, that seems
reasonable. But to have two eyes, a nose with two nostrils and a mouth in an almost identical configuration to us
stretches probablity to far. Having two arms and legs similar to ours is stretching it a lot further.I find
this a very interesting opinion, really an important point to consider, and therefore more than worthy of a long
reply, not to burden anyone.
I'd certainly agree if I thought the local universe operated mostly according to
randomness, as pseudo neo-Darwinians (more biological types than anyone else) tend to have it. It's kind of the
party line.
But studying the geometry and math inherent to nature (a field sometimes referred to as "sacred
geometry", a bit off putting of a misnomer for scientific types) made me conclude the opposite, almost -- that there
are definitely recurring numeric, mathematical, geometric, and other kinds of patterns everywhere on earth, and
these extend into our solar system. Some ratios of orbits, relative sizes of planets, etc., can be accounted for
more precisely than chance would allow by the same, simplest geomety that accounts for ratios in the human body,
which are identical to numbers in countless other places in nature.
Random, natural selection is a default,
fallback, or "trashcan" law (not putting it down, but comparing it to a "trashcan diagnosis" in medicine). It's
very useful, to be sure, but not the only pattern in nature, to put it mildly.
Anyone who wants an introduction
to the repeating, consistent numbers everywhere in your body and nature need only check out their arm. Notice that
the ratio of the first section of your finger compared to the second is identical to that of the second compared to
the third. This = hand/wrist = forearm/rest of arm = foot to calve to thigh, etc, etc. The same goes for all the
bones in your toes and feet, legs, and spine. The ratio is roughly 5/3.
The same number or ratio is in quite a
few places in your face as well, as in growth patterns of leaves, limbs of trees, and flower petals, which proceed
in exact "Fibonnacci sequences".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number
It's all one
number! There are literally more than thousands of examples everywhere you look.
"So much" for the structure of
the arms, hands, feet, legs, spine, and face. It's the same, simplest, mathematical law.
Many of the known
patterns and numbers in three dimensional nature can be derived from the geometry of a circle, as it turns out. One
might also go on to say that every major system if human knowledge is based on geometry or number, and that both
fields may in turn be derived from the structure of a circle. The above example is about the phi ratio, and the
fibbonacci numbers, which arise in bisecting a circle, for example.
It becomes simple to see once you study it.
This is obviously the same circle that would be the dominant geometry of any planet, star, or galaxy. The ratio of
the size of the earth to the moon, as well as their orbits, all can be derived from the circle in a straightforward
manner. Here's a brief intro to some of that, the first entry that popped up on Google:
http://www.geomancy.org/sacred-geometry/earth-moon/index.html
Again, the most rational conclusion
is that the fundamental, substantive patterns of nature are probably the same everywhere. This stuff should be
taught to kids everywhere, IMHO, it's so basic to understanding nature on a large scale, and simple for kids to
understand.
Obviously you're going to have the geometry of the tube as creatures consume and excrete, and
your'e going to have some sort of leg, at least two for mobile creatures, to be precise, to counteract the pull of
gravity, which is going to be the same. You're going to need, at a precise, efficient minimum; two eyes because of
horizons on every planet, and two ears as well, given the same three dimensions.
I mean, just using common
sense without the huge findings of natural math or geometry would get you pretty far down the road, and we haven't
even scratched the surface of the discussion here.
Obviously, you could have creatures look like earthworms,
but those creatures would do certain things well, whereas once you start talking about maximally sentinent,
industrious, communicative, "dextrous", productive, contemplative, dominant, reproducing creatures; you have
introduced lots of constraints, to borrow an engineering term. The laws of nature start to narrow things down to
certain general possibilities.
What you end up with, I'd predict, is something very close to human, if you're
talking about some creature sharing so many global characteristics with ourselves.
So to me, I'd actually be
shocked if life on other planets similar to ours in habitability differed all that much. It seems most probable that
the "laws of nature", broadly speaking, would apply elsewhere. The elements necessary for life are certainly going
to be the same, as well.
If you get even more fundamental in terms of matter that would be the same everywhere;
you find that the same patterns inherent in the structures of all the fundamental molecules (bonding patterns,
crystal lattices, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, are some places to look. You find regular polygons, which all derive
neatly and elegantly from intersected circles) are also the same patterns found in the rest of nature, including in
humans and other mammals. The number five, as applied to our limbs, head, feet and toes, is also repeated lots of
comparable places.
The circle is the fundamental law of three dimensional nature, as far as we know currently.
Almost everything fits, in a fairly strightforward manner. The law of natural selection undoubtedly interacts with
the patterns of the circle over time. Natural selection is extremely useful in biology, admittedly.
But it is
not compelling to consider natural selection as most fundamental, when nature is seemingly everywhere already shaped
by a unified pattern.
Being somewhat of a statistician, I view randomness as the noise of the universe. The
point is that, like noise, randomness depends on a cognizant being unable to "hear" it sensibly. Much of the
universe, indeed most of it, is incomprehensible noise. Anything you can know is a drop in the bucket.
But even
randomness in statistics, which is as much a science of randomness as anything, is not entirely without pattern (The
most common example here is the "bell curve", which I'd speculate can be derived from the calculus of a bisected
circle, not having read up on it yet. The point here is that even the structure of randomness in nature itself comes
from the circle. The book, On Growth and Form, I believe, addresses this bell curve issue directly:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:UlcYXHGDm78J:www.wisdomportal.com/Books/Books-Geometry.html+sacred+geometry
+%22bell+curve+%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us).
Randomness, chance, error variance, or noise is seen
fundamentally as a problem to be solved or more realistically, reduced over time.
Even the unknown exhibits
some comprehensible patterns. But don't make me go Donald Rumsfeld on everybody's ass and bring up unknown
unknowns! :)
The same can be said, I think, for quantum physics, another area of science where randomness
figures prominently.
One man's noise is another's music. (The mathematical laws of sound, incidentally, also
can be derived from the circle, as can the structure of the ear that hears it.) Alternately, tweak your dial and the
static becomes an NPR program, full of information. (OK, maybe not NPR! ;))
That doesn't mean I "believe" in
UFO's. :blink: I actually think of them as unlikely for various reasons, but no more than "unlikely", and certainly
not an unreasonable possibility. Like most, I'm just highly uncertain about them, and am waiting for much more
proof. They're slippery critters that defy observation pretty well.
If they exist, they might even come from
or through different "dimensions," or might be a different sort of matter. Some heavy stuff to wrap your brain
around. The issues of human psychology are pretty crazy to sort through as well. Should they be proved to exist
tomorrow, however, I wouldn't be shocked.
belgareth
07-13-2007, 06:28 AM
Interesting post, Doc. I disagree with you on several points (There’s news!:cheers: ) but
understand what you are saying. Fractals are a good example of nature repeating itself but they are utterly
irrelevant to the topic. As a statistician you know what a small sample one planet is for making any kind of
sweeping statements about how a creature from another planet might look. Even though our genetics only differ a few
percent from the lobster, the octopus, the cockroach and the sperm whale, all are distinctly different creatures
despite having evolved in very similar environments. It is true enough that all the ones I mentioned have two eyes
but we can find innumerable exceptions to that rule; the same applies to ears or even breathing apparatus. Even with
the two eyes, they are placed differently depending on the needs of the creature. Each is the result of a long list
of genetic accidents that in some way enhanced survivability thus was retained.
Earth and earthlike planets are in no way the majority and even on Earth we have found huge diversity,
even to the point that some creatures obtain energy from volcanic matter ejected from vents miles below the surface
of the ocean and who do not use respiration. It demonstrates the fallacy in the statement ‘Life as we know
it’. Life seems to be rather persistent and many scientists believe that some viruses have fallen to earth
from space. If that happens here you can be certain that it happens in all sorts of other environments. Why
wouldn’t life develop on utterly un-earthlike planets as a result of different chemical processes? The
building blocks of life as we know it certainly are abundant in space, why not for life as we don’t understand
it yet? The universe is a very big place. You can state that something has only a one in ten billion chance of
happening, but in a universe as big is this one truly is, wouldn’t that almost make it a certainty that the
one in ten billion event has happened repeatedly?
Let’s try
creating a new environment as a thought experiment. It will be a larger planet than ours, with double the gravity.
It will be tied to a twin and they orbit around their star and each other. Due to the constant flux created by the
two gravity wells the planets have remained very active volcanically. The atmosphere is full of sulfides and is very
murky, as are the seas and there is only a small amount of free oxygen. Both air and water are extremely acidic.
Their star is a massive blue one emitting huge levels of radiation, much in the x-ray, and microwave ranges reaches
the surface but due to the thick air very little light does. The seas are even darker.
Since the primary energy source is x-ray and microwave, the first organisms developing in the seas
learned to take their energy from that form. Later other, more complex organisms developed that over time created a
long food chain but due to the lack of light they never developed eyes. However, they developed other sensors that
used other forms of energy. They learned to use sound to locate their prey instead of light.
Unlike the earth, in part due to the higher gravity, fewer mountains formed and the
land not regularly inundated by lava remained wet and marshy. What plants grew in these marshes were low and the
prey hid amongst the plants and rocks so our higher life forms developed multiple, long, dexterous tentacles that
enable them to reach around rocks and plants to pursue prey. Pursuit of prey also brought these creatures into
shallower water where they were easier to corner. These creatures looked a lot like a twelve legged octopus but the
high radiation caused it to grow a hard carapace over the brain as they began to spend more time in shallow water
then started venturing onto land. The higher gravity forced it to grow more powerful limbs. The mouth, as it were,
developed in the segment below the four front tentacles with the 'colon' only a few centemeters below
that.
This one higher life form was very successful as a hunter
because it only grew huge muscles on the back eight tentacles. The front four became more subtle, the suckers
developing into fantastic manipulators that grew more and more dexterous as time went by. As this creature became
better at manipulating it’s environment it‘s brain began to grow and it’s ability to manipulate
increased with it. Eventually it even developed a language based on high frequency pulses of sound from a special
organ in its carapace. The entire carapace served as a sound receiver giving it a huge range hearing. The still
murky air had no oxygen to speak of and almost no visible light. The creature learned to see in the microwave
spectrum instead.
As millions of years passed this creature
developed a society on a planet that was fortunate enough to never have a major cataclysm like the asteroid that
wiped out our dinosaurs or the super volcanoes that have erupted here from time to time. It was also fortunate
enough to have a nearby planet that inspired them to develop space travel and interplanetary commerce comparatively
early in its technological development.
Admittedly, this is pure
fantasy and is probably as far from reality as are creatures evolving under circumstances close enough to ours to
strongly resemble us. We could spend years arguing the problems of the world I just created but in the end, we just
do not know. Perhaps life developed in space and used energy directly. Or it evolved swimming in the upper
atmosphere of a gas giant?
DrSmellThis
07-13-2007, 07:08 AM
Thanks for the post, Bel.
I'll study it a bit before trying to reply adequately. In general, I like a lot of your observations, and don't
disagree.
You've given me quite a challenge to integrate all that, and I'd never do such a thing to you!
Part of it I anticipated when talking about earthworms.
About our imagination (thought) experiement: Yes, the
variety of life far exceeds our imagination. That's the seeming randomness you point out so well.
But the
explanatory power of the circle just looks and feels too big to be imagined away. I can't imagine a planet that
supports life that does things comparable and greater than human life -- that wouldn't operate by some of the same
laws. (Here I'm avoiding issues of other dimensions we know nothing about for the sake of discussion) We have all
the natural constraints that make humans human.
Similarly, it also seems most likely that there are some
conditions of physics, chemistry, and planetary geometry (all fields laden with natural geometry at their base) that
are going to have to be at a "critical level" for something comparable to humanity, at least comparable enough to
account for UFO's, to occur.
With lot of room to vary within that, as you correctly point out.
Many of
those conditions we know.
Here the critical levels, as regards plants, humans, chemicals, sound vibrations,
light, and other natural phenomena all turned out in their fine detail to correspond to the simple geometry of the
circle.
An obvious question is, "What are the odds that elsewhere it's shapeless, given that?"
Does that
conflict with anything you think?
I know it's a bit of a stretch to get to the particulars of human beings from
there. But is it really so hard to believe that human function is related in some necessary aspects to human form,
given all that stuff?
I don't find fractals irrelevant at all. Fractal geometry is extremely useful in
depicting nature. Why wouldn't something like it that is so basic to it apply to humans, if it applies to so much
else in nature (plants, for example)? That would be almost like imagining human molecules were not composed of
atoms, in terms of being basic.
So you can draw a perfect circle around a human's maximally outstretched limbs
like DaVinci. You could do it with other animals too, like spiders, but it would look slightly different. In other
animals the circles might be in still different places.
So you can only make a statue look naturally human, as
did the Greeks quite meticulously, by formally incorporating Fibonaccis and other geometry. Might not other
creatures have geometry but in other varieties?
Where I agree with you is about the variety of life.
The
best examples to illustrate your interesting point, I think, without leaving earth, are marine mammals, which are
most like us in characteristics relvant for UFO construction; yet most different from us in form, given that.
But are they really going to build UFOs? If not, why?
Is it not related to their forms (e.g., lack of
opposable thumbs and therefore the specific Fibonacci geometry previously discussed, even though marine mammals have
lots of Fibonacci geometry elsewhere in their "construction"), as different from ours? Is something about it not
irreduceably related to that? Isn't the Fibbonaci sequence that is everywhere in nature basically a fractal? Don't
Fibonacci sequences and fractals both account for the overall structure and shapes of trees, down to a fine level of
detail?
At least it wouldn't shock me to see spaceship constructing life from elsewhere resemble spaceship
constructing life here, since humans are so close to that creature, functionally speaking. They'd have to share an
awful lot that is distinctly human, in terms of function (regardless of percentage of DNA and the like, since there
is no animal here with anwhere near the DNA resemblance to us to do anything near making spacecraft).
If it
weren't for the form inherent in the Fibonacci sequence, hands could not function as they do. The fingers would be
too inefficient to hone in on their detail, as each step going backwards in the Fibonacci sequence allows you to do.
So here function follows form.
I'm not saying it'd be ET scientists in white coats with pocket protectors,
though you gotta love the Gary Larson theory of universal nerddom.
belgareth
07-13-2007, 07:29 AM
Sorry to throw so much at you
at one time. That comes from something I was playing with in college and retained an interest in. So, of course,
many of the arguments and ramifications for those arguments have been thought out and argued many times. (Not that I
enjoy debate for debate's sake, or anything:rofl: ). Add to that the meandering and speculative thoughts of the
so-called exobiologists.
Certainly, all life must live within the constraints of physical laws, there is no
argument there. But I am not even sure life could be confined to biological matter, as we understand it. Much would
be controlled by your definition of life. An example used in the past (By somebody a lot smarter than me. He could
argue this point but I don't have the knowledge) would be a planet covered with certain metal oxide crystals. It
would need to be a remote planet, far from a sun where the crystals could remain cold enough to become
superconductors and electrical potential would flow like water. Could intelligence develop there? Intuitively, I'd
say no. Then my questioning mind would stop me and say "Wait a minute. How do you know that pure random chance
couldn't create patterns that eventually began to think in some manner? After all, biology did it, why not
crystals? Today's computers are no more than a collection of crystals with electrical current running through
them."
I really don't know the constraints, nobody does. The statement "Life as we know it" was brought up
because it has been so badly misused. At one time, life as we know it could not exist at the bottom of the Mariannas
Trench. Later, the bathoscaphe proved otherwise and scientists had to change their meanings. What will happen when
we finally manage to break free of our earthly cradle and visit other worlds? I suspect we will encounter things
more bizarre than we could possibly imagine.
Please take your time replying. Your responses are always worth the
wait. I'll be working most of the day anyway.
DrSmellThis
07-13-2007, 08:44 AM
Ah, well first off, I agree
with you, but had considered something like that to be from another dimension. You know, since the giant planet
crystal minds would have to construct ships somehow.
So no argument about the possibilities there.
But I
sort of assumed beings basically from this dimension that are observed in this dimension interacting with it. Is
it far fetched that creatures that construct spacecraft in this same dimension would be similar?
We don't have
to assme that if you don't want to.
If not, I can't think where we disagree. If we do have to assume that,
then I'd have to ask about some of these "extreme condition creatures" that definitely exist: Could they construct
a space shuttle? Why not?
belgareth
07-13-2007, 09:23 AM
You know, that crystal mind was
purely imaginary. I never considered what universe it would be in. That would have been a fun argument to bring up.
It was always assumed to be in this universe, one of those one in ten billion chances.
My imaginary planet was
designed in a particular way. There's no chance of fire there but plenty of other energy that could be used to
manipulate matter. The heavier gravity would make space travel or even flight more difficult because it would take
far more energy to escape the gravity well. You wouldn't even know about combustion so developing rocket motors
would be impractical to improbable. Would a creature like that jumpover the whole phase and develop nuclear power or
would they be stuck in an evolutionary cul de sac?
Would such a creature be able to develop space craft? I've
no idea whatsoever. Overall, it's a fun excersize with absolutely no value other than a little mental gymnastics
for entertainment. The whole thing is far outside of my education so I am just playing and realize I don't know a
thing.
belgareth
08-16-2007, 03:51 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20070814/sc_space/hotgasinspacemimicslife;_ylt=Ao0q9_ZFJgUmlj3.1Mhy7 vgPLBIF
Ker
Than
SPACE.com staff
SPACE.com
Tue Aug 14, 2007
Electrically charged specks of interstellar dust organize into DNA-like double helixes and display properties
normally attributed to living systems, such as evolving and reproducing, new computer simulations
show.
But scientists are
hesitant to call the dancing dust particles "alive," and instead say they are just another example of how difficult
it is to define life.
Plasma life
The
computer model, detailed in the Aug. 14 issue of the New Journal of Physics, shows what happens to microscopic dust
particles when they are injected into plasma.
Plasma is the fourth state of matter along with solids, liquids and
gases. While unfamiliar to most people, plasma is the most common phase of matter in the universe. It's everywhere:
Stars are luminous balls of plasma, and diffuse plasma pervades the space between stars. Plasma forms when gas
becomes so hot that electrons are stripped from atomic nuclei, leaving behind a soup of charged
particles.
Past studies
on Earth have shown that if enough particles are injected into a low-temperature plasma, they will spontaneously
organize into crystal-like structures.
The new computer simulations suggest that in the gravity-free
environment of space, the plasma particles will bead together to form string-like filaments that then twist into
corkscrew shapes. The helical strands resemble DNA and are themselves electrically charged and attracted to one
another.
The
computer-modeled plasma particles can also divide to form two copies of the original structure and even "evolve"
into more stable structures that are better able to survive in the plasma.
"These complex, self-organized plasma structures
exhibit all the necessary properties to qualify them as candidates for inorganic living matter," said study team
member V.N. Tsytovich of the Russian Academy of Science.
Is it alive?
Nevertheless, Tsytovich's colleague and study team member, Gregor
Morfill of the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany, is hesitant to call the
plasma particles alive.
"Maybe it's a question of upbringing," Morfill said in a telephone interview. "I would hesitate to call it
life. The reason why we published this paper is not because we wanted to suggest this could evolve into life, but
because we wanted to start the discussion ... once more of what exactly do we mean by
life."
Seth Shostak, a
senior astronomer at the SETI Institute in Mountain View, California, also was cautious in calling the particles
alive. "The facts are, we still don't have a good definition of what 'life' is," Shostak told
SPACE.com.
Shostak
points out that while most high-school biology textbooks include as requirements for life the ability to metabolize
and reproduce, it's easy to think of things that break these rules. Fire, for example, reproduces and metabolizes,
but most people would not say it is alive; and mules, which are clearly alive, can't
reproduce.
"We still
stumble on what it means to be alive, and that means that these complex molecules are in a never-never land between
the living and the merely reacting," Shostak added.
If the particles were considered alive though, Shostak said, it would
completely overturn another common assumption about life.
"We've always assumed that life was a planetary phenomenon. Only on
planets would you have the liquids thought necessary for the chemistry of life," he said. "So if you could have life
in the hot gases of a star, or in the hot, interstellar gas that suffuses the space between the stars, well, not
only would that be 'life as we don't know it' but it might be the most common type of
life."
Just thought I'd throw this out
there...
A few years ago I worked on an interview with Glenn Dennis at the UFO museum in Roswell , interesting
and regardless of weather you belive or not you can find out more information on him and his experiences here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Dennis
(he was a junior mortician at the time and claims to have
provided caskets for the crashed aliens , although the story he told us was different from the "official" one)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.