UFO haiti video

[nithyan]

As much as i hate the site for the amount of utter retardation it attracts, http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread296021/pg1 did a good job taking down this particular hoax (eventually, after the endless piles of "ZOMG ALIENZ R REAL" and "IF U DUN THINK ITS AN ALIEN U R WORKING 4 TEH CIA!!!" posts).

[Kaylia]

However, when it come to "space travel", we face a huge gap that we can't cross with the tool at our disposal.

I agree with you here, however I think we just differ on a minor point. You are correct, you could have a thousand hammers but not be able to build a bridge without wood or metal. So assume we live on a planet where our day to day experiences, research, and science has shown that there's no such thing as wood or metal (lol, hoping I'm not stretching it too far here)... that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means an understanding of the universe where wood and metal doesn't exist would work 'for us', but not necessarily be true. That is the idea that I'm going on.

Edit: For the record, I kinda like these philosophical discussions

Your example is correct, the lack of tool/materials in one place doesn't mean the lack of it everywhere else. That's also why I mentioned being wrong in the hypothetical situation where "antigravity" would be discovered, because it change the rule completely. However, do you think it's likely that such thing would be discovered in our universe, when there is not a single hint of its presence? I sincerely doubt so, because none of our model tend to point in that direction

Based on our current model (and most likely, every future model), we know the Universe is similar everywhere. This mean an aliens race would have access to tools similar to our. In other word, if [efficient] space travel is impossible here, it's impossible for them as well for the same reason. We discovered many new particles, and some have unknown property, but in no case, they will destroy our current physics model.

Look at the size of the current laboratory to find and analyze the current particules. Certain particules accelerator are 3 kilometer big (if not more), the neutrino captor are huge underground laboratory (1 kilometer deep under the earth) and capture only a few neutrino every day.... If you want to look another level deeper, the energy cost and size of tools will increase exponentially again. Unless the solution is close, it's easy to imagine it will become virtually impossible to progress. There is a few things in space that are still within our reachy, but it's unlikely any of those will be the key element to accomplish thing we were not able before (ie: black matter, high level magnetism)

I seriously hope I'm wrong on the subject, I don't want to see progress stop, but I don't believe everything is possible within the universe, even if certain aspect of it is infinite. Thinking outside the box is nice, but when our universe is the box, thinking is the only thing we will ever do. Doubt we will ever be able to escape it.

I do like those discusions too, especially when it concern astrophysics and space. That was my favorite topics, and had many classes on the subject. It's probably the 3rd time I have it on this board.


[edit]
6am post always sucks. Probably gonna have to clarify a few points tomorrow if you reply >_>

[Kaylia]

1+1 = 2

You might argue, you can't go from 1 to 2, without adding 1.

I would say, surely you can. Add two, subtract one.

I missed that part earlier. Of course, there is many ways to reach a solution, but no matter what path you take, you can't reach a solution that is impossibe. That's what I meant when I said alien's mathematics would be the same as our.

This equation determine how much energy is required to go at a certain speed (you probably know already, but e=energy, m= mass, c= 300k m/s², v= current speed)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/6...180091d068.png
If you go at light speed, your spaceship will be divided by 0...and you don't want that to happen. If you go faster than light, you just jumped in the imaginary number realm. I know it's not the most accurate equation we have, but it speaks for itself. Every other models we have share similar problem when you are trying to travel in space efficiently using something else than Newton physics.

[Jotaru]

That's a perfect example.

That equation works for everything that we know and use, and whatnot.

But what of relativity?

Before we started thinking on near-light speeds, there was no need for formulas to explain relativistic behavior. They were 'wrong', but they looked 100% right to us, because we didn't know that as you approach the speed of light the formula would change, and the ones we were using became incorrect. Sure, its the same BASIC formula, but it has new constraints, new variables, new constants, what have you, so that it can accurately define space/time in more detail. How do we know that the good ol' fashioned e=mc^2 doesnt have another formula that is perhaps too advanced for us to understand at this present time, or more relevant to situations we don't know exist, such as relativity to scientists 'back in the day'.

In other words, imagine a world where everything was 2D. A paper world, drawn characters. They only need X and Y, they do not need to explain Z, and thus it is left out of every formula they use to explain life and the 'universe' they live in. In fact, it would most likely be infinitely incomprehensible if someone were to go to 2D land and tell them that they should actually use X, Y, AND Z. Perhaps that's how our physics model is now? Perfectly aligned to explain the universe... as we know it.

[dekamii]

To make my post short and simple, I would like to say I disagree with you Kaylia.

like Jotaru has said what if there is something more to the e=mc^2 formula? remember e=mc^2 is part of the consequences from the Special relativity "theory". i remember from reading A Brief History of Time, it was proven that our universe is not governed by a set of deterministic laws. to conclude my post, i say that the norm of our current physic laws is far from being able to determine what we will be able to achieve in the future. i truly believe habitants from other planets have laws that defies our laws of physics, and it might not be time-space traveling. to me, uncertainty is only thing that is certain when it comes to understanding the universe.

[Jotaru]

A simpler way to put all of this that I just kinda thought of... physics aren't the laws of the universe, they are our way of understanding them. By doing something that doesn't fit into our physics doesn't 'break' the universe, it just shows that our understanding was less-than-ideal

[Septimus]

A simpler way to put all of this that I just kinda thought of... physics aren't the laws of the universe, they are our way of understanding them. By doing something that doesn't fit into our physics doesn't 'break' the universe, it just shows that our understanding was less-than-ideal

That's a really good way to put it. Way back when, people used to believe if a human body went faster than 35 miles per hour that it would disintegrate, so there was a lot of terror about train travel. We know a lot more now than we did that, but we still don't know everything, or even close to it. There is no telling what we will discover in 100, 200, 500, or 1,000 years. (Provided that we don't blow our stupid selves up first.)

[Kaylia]

That's a perfect example.

That equation works for everything that we know and use, and whatnot.

But what of relativity?

Before we started thinking on near-light speeds, there was no need for formulas to explain relativistic behavior. They were 'wrong', but they looked 100% right to us, because we didn't know that as you approach the speed of light the formula would change, and the ones we were using became incorrect. Sure, its the same BASIC formula, but it has new constraints, new variables, new constants, what have you, so that it can accurately define space/time in more detail. How do we know that the good ol' fashioned e=mc^2 doesnt have another formula that is perhaps too advanced for us to understand at this present time, or more relevant to situations we don't know exist, such as relativity to scientists 'back in the day'.

In other words, imagine a world where everything was 2D. A paper world, drawn characters. They only need X and Y, they do not need to explain Z, and thus it is left out of every formula they use to explain life and the 'universe' they live in. In fact, it would most likely be infinitely incomprehensible if someone were to go to 2D land and tell them that they should actually use X, Y, AND Z. Perhaps that's how our physics model is now? Perfectly aligned to explain the universe... as we know it.

E= mc²/sqrt(...) is an estimation of the amount of energy needed to accomplish anything before we reach a point where our equation fail (plank level). Even if it's an estimation, you can't find a way to bypass the restriction imposed by those laws on the level we can observe. In this case, every type of matter that travel under the speed of light (300 000km/s²) uses a certain amount of energy, and it won't change no matter what you do. If the rule could be broken, our universe would be quite different...it would probably not even be there.

Why people still uses Newton physics when they build bridge, when they design plane...hell, even when they build space shutle? Because Newton's laws were based on scientifical obversation, and they were correct approximation for the part they cover. Same thing could be said about relativity for everything under 300 000km/s and everything bigger than plank scale (our observation goes up to 0.97c, and we know it's correct up to c for other reason). Our technology at the moment is miles behind our physics model, because those cover thing that are nearly infinite. We have the oportunities to study pulsar, blackhole, the beginning of the universe and many thing like that in space. Saying that mankind will be able to reproduce those kind of thing is pushing it imo, because they are on a much bigger scales. The only way out of this is to find something completely out of the ordinary, that contradict every physics laws made so far. With the immensity of the universe, it's unlikely such element exist, or we would have seen it somewhere (or seen its effect). Again, it's not impossible, but very unlikely there is something within reach that can accomplish such feat.

Btw, the "flat Earth" example mentioned earlier in this thread is not a correct example because, unlike newton's and Eintein's physics, the method they used to come up with such statement didn't provide any correct scientifical evidences or observations.


I also disagree with your "2d to 3d" example. >_> The 3d world we live in still allowed us to find the "4th dimension" (time) and pointed out the direct relation it has with us. String theories added 12(and more) new dimensions, and explains quite well certain hole in relativity and quantum physics. However, none of those discoveries and models change anything to our situation, they just complete the hole in previous theories and explain thing on a bigger level.

That's a really good way to put it. Way back when, people used to believe if a human body went faster than 35 miles per hour that it would disintegrate, so there was a lot of terror about train travel. We know a lot more now than we did that, but we still don't know everything, or even close to it. There is no telling what we will discover in 100, 200, 500, or 1,000 years. (Provided that we don't blow our stupid selves up first.)

I think people in this thread confuse theories based on a scientifical approach and random beliefs. "Human body disintegrating to a speed over 35mph" wasn't based on any observation, it's just a blanket statement made by someone who was paranoid.

There is still a lot of place for progress, but that doesn't mean our technology will be able to accomplish anything on that level. Understanding our universe is one thing, but you can't affect every aspect of it.



[edit]
5am post...sorry if it's unreadable. My shitty english doesn't help either.

[Septimus]

That's a really good way to put it. Way back when, people used to believe if a human body went faster than 35 miles per hour that it would disintegrate, so there was a lot of terror about train travel. We know a lot more now than we did that, but we still don't know everything, or even close to it. There is no telling what we will discover in 100, 200, 500, or 1,000 years. (Provided that we don't blow our stupid selves up first.)

I think people in this thread confuse theories based on a scientifical approach and random beliefs. "Human body disintegrating to a speed over 35mph" wasn't based on any observation, it's just a blanket statement made by someone who was paranoid.

There is still a lot of place for progress, but that doesn't mean our technology will be able to accomplish anything on that level. Understanding our universe is one thing, but you can't affect every aspect of it.

OK, then how about the perihelion precession of Mercury? Until Relativity the only thing that could have accounted for it was the mysterious (and completely imaginary) planet "Vulcan". For nearly 60 years people tried to find this planet since it was the only logical explanation to why Mercury wasn't behaving according to the standard model of Physics until Einstein came up with an expanded model of Physics.

Or the luminiferous aether to explain the simultaneous particle and wave attributes of light? Many credible scientists tried to run experiments to prove its existence, but the concept was fading out even before Einstein came along with Relativity.

Just because we think we know a lot doesn't mean that we know everything. Newtonian Physics explained everything that we knew for quite a while, eventually it was superseded by Relativity for incomprehensibly huge and fast objects and Quantum Mechanics for incomprehensibly small objects. And one day those paradigms will shift and some other theories will come along and explain things that Relativity and Quantum don't explain.

While it is true that our technology may not be able to keep up with our imaginations, I see no reason to try to limit ourselves to what we currently think may be possible. If you tried to explain the concept of a jet plane or a space shuttle to Sir Issac Newton, he would think you went mad. Or explaining an iPod to Thomas Edison. Or cell phones to Alexander Graham Bell. One day in the future, people are going to look back on this time period and remark at how privative our technology and limited our understand were, once more, provided we don't destroy ourselves first...

[Jotaru]

Just because we think we know a lot doesn't mean that we know everything. Newtonian Physics explained everything that we knew for quite a while, eventually it was superseded by Relativity for incomprehensibly huge and fast objects and Quantum Mechanics for incomprehensibly small objects. And one day those paradigms will shift and some other theories will come along and explain things that Relativity and Quantum don't explain.

Exactly what I'm trying to say. You seem to believe that the science we have now is concrete and will not change, and that everything it says is 100% true. Things change, formulas get updated. There are still things we do not know and can not explain in science as is; if it was so perfect, it would explain everything, and leave no questions. That in itself is decent proof that we still have room to progress as far as science and theory goes.

The only way out of this is to find something completely out of the ordinary, that contradict every physics laws made so far. With the immensity of the universe, it's unlikely such element exist, or we would have seen it somewhere (or seen its effect)

Don't take this as an argument, but that comment really kinda contradicts itself. The larger the space, the more likely it is that there are things out there that we can not observe. Hell, there could be giant martian drive-in theaters just out of reach of our current-age telescopes and whatnot, flashing bright neon WE ARE ALIENS signs, and we'd never know.

As far as the flat earth example, it wasn't meant to be an exact analogy, I intended it more as a comparison. Have you ever done something, then came back to it days/weeks/months/years later, and said, wow, eureka, why didn't I think of doing it this way / that way, whatever? Escalate to a larger world-scale, and rather than thinking, its scientific experimentation and whatnot. It is not unlikely they could find a similar formula for e=mc2 that works just the same as our current formula, but allows for other things in spacetime that we do not currently know exist / account for.

The 2d/3d model you also read too far into; I didn't mean we can't find a 4th dimension or 5th dimension or anything, the example was meant to illustrate that it is not 'impossible' for there to be 'things' out there that we can not directly view / see / comprehend. Until you are enlightened, you can not know of the existence of such a thing. Help me out, its been a while since I took Philosophy, but one of the major philosophers covered that very subject; when you have a dream of an imaginary animal, it is not truly imaginary; it is simply a collection / jumbled mess of things you 'know'. They proposed that the human being can not synthesize a thought / picture of something that they have never seen before, or can not draw reference to from another object- the same could be said about science or physics, it is very possible there are solutions to some of these insurmountable problems out there, but we aren't just going to OMGWOW think of them, or know that it's possible- however, evolution in our technology and general intelligence will eventually stumble onto something

[Venture]

I'm not personally worried about the human race being wiped out before we find out more of these things. I'm expecting that irradiating or biologically/chemically contaminating large stretches of land is going to be counter-productive for the next conflict. Which will prolly be whenever our total population depletes our already diminished resources to a critical point.

I'm with Hawkings on this matter: Time to GTFO Earth so we don't end up killing ourselves for table scraps.

[Kaylia]

OK, then how about the perihelion precession of Mercury? Until Relativity the only thing that could have accounted for it was the mysterious (and completely imaginary) planet "Vulcan". For nearly 60 years people tried to find this planet since it was the only logical explanation to why Mercury wasn't behaving according to the standard model of Physics until Einstein came up with an expanded model of Physics.

I don't know the whole story behind Vulcan, but as far as I can remember, whoever "discovered" it proposed it as a new planet without making a complete model that would answer the obversations. It was simply an attempt to fill some hole, but they never suceeded before relativity. A model in construction can't really be compared to to a complete model that has been confirmed to work in many differents situation.

Anyway, it's when we face problem like this we are forced to review our current model, to make them cover more situation and exception that werent included before. It doesn't destroy previously acquired knowledge, just complete them. Vulcan was one limit of newton's physics, just like black hole are the limit for relativity. However, no matter how many times we find news and more accurate formulas, gravity will attract matter, and moving something from point A to point B will require energy. If our model were based on something wrong, we wouldnt have been able to build nuclear reactor, calculate the time slow down at high speed or build particles accelerators. Those are the proof relativity will always be accurate for he domain it covers.


Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell might not understand certain technologies we created, but none of those inventions require absurd amount of energy, or uses an energy source that was never discovered. I've no doubt the human brain is able to create wonderful thingin the next millenium, but they won't bypass the rules imposed by the universe.

]Exactly what I'm trying to say. You seem to believe that the science we have now is concrete and will not change, and that everything it says is 100% true. Things change, formulas get updated. There are still things we do not know and can not explain in science as is; if it was so perfect, it would explain everything, and leave no questions. That in itself is decent proof that we still have room to progress as far as science and theory goes.

Not saying it won't change, I'm saying it wont go backward and come back on what is already established. It wouldn't be science is the base could be destroyed at any time.

Don't take this as an argument, but that comment really kinda contradicts itself. The larger the space, the more likely it is that there are things out there that we can not observe. Hell, there could be giant martian drive-in theaters just out of reach of our current-age telescopes and whatnot, flashing bright neon WE ARE ALIENS signs, and we'd never know.

As far as the flat earth example, it wasn't meant to be an exact analogy, I intended it more as a comparison. Have you ever done something, then came back to it days/weeks/months/years later, and said, wow, eureka, why didn't I think of doing it this way / that way, whatever? Escalate to a larger world-scale, and rather than thinking, its scientific experimentation and whatnot. It is not unlikely they could find a similar formula for e=mc2 that works just the same as our current formula, but allows for other things in spacetime that we do not currently know exist / account for.

The 2d/3d model you also read too far into; I didn't mean we can't find a 4th dimension or 5th dimension or anything, the example was meant to illustrate that it is not 'impossible' for there to be 'things' out there that we can not directly view / see / comprehend. Until you are enlightened, you can not know of the existence of such a thing. Help me out, its been a while since I took Philosophy, but one of the major philosophers covered that very subject; when you have a dream of an imaginary animal, it is not truly imaginary; it is simply a collection / jumbled mess of things you 'know'. They proposed that the human being can not synthesize a thought / picture of something that they have never seen before, or can not draw reference to from another object- the same could be said about science or physics, it is very possible there are solutions to some of these insurmountable problems out there, but we aren't just going to OMGWOW think of them, or know that it's possible- however, evolution in our technology and general intelligence will eventually stumble onto something

There is an infinity of number between 0 and 1, but none of them are bigger than 1. I'm not contradicting myself by saying there is finite aspect to the universe in its infinity.

Human's mind is a powerful tool, and our progress on the theorical level won't stop anytime soon, that's what I meant with my example. Practical uses is a completely different matter, and we face limitation caused by the matter.

[Kuya]

I've no doubt the human brain is able to create wonderful thingin the next millenium, but they won't bypass the rules imposed by the universe.

Thanks, fortune-teller.

[Kaylia]

Thanks, fortune-teller.

Put it like that if you want to dumb down what I said, I've explained why before...

[Kaylia]

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/warpstat.html

The bad news is that the bulk of scientific knowledge that we have accumulated to date concludes that faster than light travel is impossible. This is an artifact of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. Yes, there are some other perspectives; tachyons, wormholes, inflationary universe, spacetime warping, quantum paradoxes...ideas that are in credible scientific literature, but it is still too soon to know if such ideas are viable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light
Faster-than-light (also superluminal or FTL) communications and travel refer to the propagation of information or matter faster than the speed of light. "True" FTL, in which matter exceeds the speed of light beams in their own local region, is considered to be impossible by the physics community because of the special theory of relativity, which prohibits a particle with subluminal velocity to accelerate to, or exceed, the speed of light in a vacuum (special relativity does not forbid the existence of particles that travel faster than light at all times).

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... t/FTL.html
http://www.halplotkin.com/SFGate048.htm
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/482


Why would the majority of physicians, who spend their whole life trying to figure the rules of our universes say it's most likely impossible if they had high hope to ever see it happen? Everyone want space travel to happen, and no one as anything to gain saying it won't happen.

[Jotaru]

The point you KEEP going back to is that we won't 'discover' anything that 'breaks' our physics laws - that's just the thing, it wouldn't BREAK anything! It would go against conventional, old theory, and fit into a new, modernized, more correct theory, and that's all. Like I have said before, Physics aren't the rules of the universe. We don't have gentlemen sit down in a room and write a bunch of equations, then shoot it up on a rocket to the heavens, where the Universe picks it up, gives it a quick once-over, then says "Mm-kay, guys, sounds good by me".. The universe is how it is, we are just trying to understand it. And I refuse to believe that our current understanding, with all that we do NOT know, is the best we will ever get. And yes, new advances in science and technology can (and has before) revolutionize what we think is possible or probable.

Edit: I should post where I stand in a more exact manner on this... I think it is highly improbable on one hand that all these people working on modern-day physics have developed a model that is 'wrong' enough to allow for things they don't honestly see possible... I'm sure some things will change in some way, 100% positive that some things will be altered in the next 1/10/100/1000 years. As far as the more drastic things, as you say, its hard to believe they have physics that 'wrong', yet it still 'works' in day-to-day usage. However, time is endless- all we have is time, if (as Septimus says) we don't destroy ourselves, the general idea is that we would eventually figure out how to do almost everything (and in that regard, and getting back on topic a bit more, as would any alien race- were they old enough as a civilization, they could have almost anything figured out)

[Saga]

http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php

Interesting video on dimensions, don't know if anyone's interested.

[Kaylia]

The point you KEEP going back to is that we won't 'discover' anything that 'breaks' our physics laws - that's just the thing, it wouldn't BREAK anything! It would go against conventional, old theory, and fit into a new, modernized, more correct theory, and that's all. Like I have said before, Physics aren't the rules of the universe. We don't have gentlemen sit down in a room and write a bunch of equations, then shoot it up on a rocket to the heavens, where the Universe picks it up, gives it a quick once-over, then says "Mm-kay, guys, sounds good by me".. The universe is how it is, we are just trying to understand it. And I refuse to believe that our current understanding, with all that we do NOT know, is the best we will ever get. And yes, new advances in science and technology can (and has before) revolutionize what we think is possible or probable.

Edit: I should post where I stand in a more exact manner on this... I think it is highly improbable on one hand that all these people working on modern-day physics have developed a model that is 'wrong' enough to allow for things they don't honestly see possible... I'm sure some things will change in some way, 100% positive that some things will be altered in the next 1/10/100/1000 years. As far as the more drastic things, as you say, its hard to believe they have physics that 'wrong', yet it still 'works' in day-to-day usage. However, time is endless- all we have is time, if (as Septimus says) we don't destroy ourselves, the general idea is that we would eventually figure out how to do almost everything (and in that regard, and getting back on topic a bit more, as would any alien race- were they old enough as a civilization, they could have almost anything figured out)

What are we creating that our universe isn't doing already? I'm asking you this because you seem to think we could create something that is not in the universe already, when it's not the case.

[edit]
And I'm not talking about finished product.

[dekamii]

Wow just WOW...Kaylia you have been repeating the same thing over and over again. I don't know if you have read my post or not earlier. But in case you missed it, if we do NOT know everything about the universe. Therefore, your "What are we creating that our universe isn't doing already?" point fails because we don't even know what we are capable of doing in the universe. (Yes, it's just that simple) Just curious...what are you studying right now or have studied so far and is it in the US or Canada?

[Jefe]

Something tells me Kayla's been playing too much Xenosaga :wink: