Senior Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by beecee

  1. Can the study of UFOs be scientific?

    Firstly, with regards to the thread title, I would say that at least in the "hay day" of UFO sightings, there certainly was scientific research into the phenomena. Then as people's imaginations were stirred, many started to see so called UFO's in ever increasing numbers. You obviously also agree that 95% or thereabouts have been explained away by unusual weather events and astronomical sightings such as the planet Venus. So can you really blame scientists when their attitude is "here we go again" and the usual when someone reports a supposed sighting? Again as I said in the other thread, started by an obviously very impressionable type of character, why do these Alien characters [if Aliens are involved] keep flittering in and flittering out again, grabbing the odd individual for some anal probing, and generally scaring the daylights out of people, and not make themselves officially known? And then we have the time and distance barriers, while you yourself doubted we could ever achieve any type of warp travel.Thirdly of course is that often confusion by imressionable people of equating "unidentified or unknown with Alien. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: Carl Sagan. And obviously over the many years of these sightings, that extraordinary evidence has never been forthcoming, rather the usual blurry images of objects and second hand accounts. Can we reasonably expect science to keep on wasting manpower and time on supposed sightings by any Tom, Dick or Harry? Here are some photos that could be mistaken for UFO's and many more here..... then we have.... from... and this.... from... and the Queen of mistaken UFO claims! Let me finish off by saying that as an old bastard, my two greatest wishes before I kick the bucket are [1] Manned Mars Landing, and [2] Confirmation [extraordinary evidence or contact] of some form of extra terrestrial life.
  2. I,m an optimist Moontanman...truly! I certainly am of the opinion that avoiding any catastrophic astronomical event, and our own Earthly follies, and given the time, we should be able to achieve most of what is allowed for by the laws of physics and GR. That includes possible warp travel by manipulating spacetime. JPL also has this a a future production means, but they still realize that it is probably a millenium off as yet, if it is at all possible to achieve...Dyson spheres, space elevators, etc are also futuristic human dreams and possibilities. Asteroid mining another, although this maybe just around the corner. All are theoretically possible, but all [other then asteroid mining] still a fair way off as yet.
  3. Thoughts please? Egertonian cosmos

    Here is an interesting article, pertaining to the many "would be's if they could be's" who claim Einstein is wrong..... Why Einstein will never be wrong: One of the benefits of being an astrophysicist is your weekly email from someone who claims to have "proven Einstein wrong". These either contain no mathematical equations and use phrases such as "it is obvious that..", or they are page after page of complex equations with dozens of scientific terms used in non-traditional ways. They all get deleted pretty quickly, not because astrophysicists are too indoctrinated in established theories, but because none of them acknowledge how theories get replaced. Read more at: extract from article...... "To begin with, Einstein's gravity will never be proven wrong by a theory. It will be proven wrong by experimental evidence showing that the predictions of general relativity don't work. Einstein's theory didn't supplant Newton's until we had experimental evidence that agreed with Einstein and didn't agree with Newton. So unless you have experimental evidence that clearly contradicts general relativity, claims of "disproving Einstein" will fall on deaf ears. The other way to trump Einstein would be to develop a theory that clearly shows how Einstein's theory is an approximation of your new theory, or how the experimental tests general relativity has passed are also passed by your theory. Ideally, your new theory will also make new predictions that can be tested in a reasonable way. If you can do that, and can present your ideas clearly, you will be listened to. String theory and entropic gravity are examples of models that try to do just that". Read more at:
  4. Yep, but at this time, we do not have the necessary technology to achieve anything like it. Let me sum up at this time... I'm not debating whether life exists elsewhere....I'm sure it does I'm not debating that individuals and/or groups have witnessed UFO's...I'm sure they have, including myself. I am being critical that some seem to automatically equate unidentified with Alien origin. I am being critical of the fact that some claim Earth has been visited by Aliens: That may well be true, but we do not have the necessary extraordinary evidence to support that supposed visitation. The greatest educator of our time, Carl Sagan was renowned for debunking supposed UFO's and Aliens, but the same man also firmly believed we were/are not alone. It was his idea of the plaques on the Voyager probes.
  5. In time that may well happen, but of course at this time we actually do not have the technology to colonise anything beyond the Moon or Mars, and our maximum speeds that we could ever reach, may well see any Aliens we had evidence for on a distant body, go extinct before we ever reach them. Remember I could send a message to my cousin in M31, and he would not receive it for 2.5 million years. I'm sure if we were being visited, they would be intelligent in advance of us, and I'm sure over time they would realise that due to their advance state we would be no threat to them, and I'm confident that they would also realise that we were far more advanced then say any insect life, and what would they really want? Water? Water is found everywhere....Living space? We have so far discovered over 3000 extra solar planets with a good proportion being terrestrial. And I''m pretty sure that Intelligence far in excess of human intelligence, would see them as not aggressive or dominant. I mean while the human race certainly has a lot to be ashamed of and while certainly still aggressive, we have mellowed somewhat over the years since the middle ages. Any less intelligent Aliens of course could not achieve inter-stellar travel. Like I said...extraordinary evidence..Show me an Alien artifact, some Alien excreta, an Alien body, a discarded Alien syringe after all the Anal probing they are known for, some Alien structural space ship or part there of..anything!
  6. The 5% or so of UFO's that remain as unexplained, certainly do offer points of conjecture and evidence of unusual happenings etc. But also one of mankind's age old questions is "are we alone?", and I believe the answer again is more then likely no, we are not alone...the sheer extent and content of the universe and the stuff of life being everywhere we look, tells us that. Time and distances though are the two barriers between interplanetary contact. In saying all that, and as I'm sure you will agree, as yet we do not have any extraordinary evidence, to confirm this extraordinary claim of whether we are alone or not. My questions to our friend who firmly believes we have been visited, is why over the many many years of sightings, havn't these Aliens made their visitations official? Why do they just keep on flitterring in then flitterring out again? They would have nothing to be afraid of being, obviously advanced beings and certainly would not really want of anything as everything we have on Earth is found throughout the galaxy and beyond.
  7. The only manipulation I see is the manipulation of your own gullibility going on the inane videos you link to.
  8. I always read more then the cover of any book. Now let me reiterate...95% of all UFO sightings are explain by natural phenomena. The remaining 5% remain as unexplained or as the "U" in UFO means, unidentified. Please try an avoid automatically classing something that is unidentified, as being of Alien origin. I would dearly love for confirmation of ETL to be confirmed before I kick the bucket, but you need to accept that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Fuzzy photos, second hand hearsay does not cut it.
  9. Stars nucleosynthesis heavier elements. I'm pretty sure that the denial of creation was more in line with some form of divine creation. The observable universe is around 96 billion L/years in diameter.....the whole of the universe/spacetime, is unknown, but probably "near infinite" in extent, if not infinite. I'm not sure what the c2 means.
  10. While certainly I accept and believe we are not alone for obvious reasons, as yet we have absolutely no evidence of any life beyond Earth. Many cosmologists though are of the opinion that we may have convincing evidence of ETL within a decade. If by chance we were alone, it would raise far many more questions though then the affirmative. UFO's are simply just that...unidentified with a small percentage remaining as unexplained. No, I have not watched your crap videos.
  11. Thoughts please? Egertonian cosmos

    GR has been tested and confirmed time and time and time again. Even if you have anything more then a unsupported hypothesis [in your own words, no mathematical framework as yet] and your idea explains all that the incumbent theory does [GR], the tried and true incumbent theory will always hold pride of place. Your hypothetical idea needs to predict more, explain more, then the incumbent to replace it. Best of luck with that.
  12. Island(s) of stabilty

    He is right you know.
  13. Of the BH's that we know exist, that is those of stellar and supermassive size, it would take the lifetime of the whole universe before they evaporated. In a timeframe of around 100 trillion years, long after all stars have been extinguished, the CMBR will be effectively zero, and BH's will have evaporated. While Hawking radiation is logically consistent, as yet we really have no evidence that it does take place. When two Neutron stars collide, depending on trajectory, I would say a BH would be formed. The "firmament" is actually a long out dated mythical terminology construct from the book of myths [the bible] and is a terminology only used today by creationists and other religious nuts.
  14. incomprehensible

    Thankfully the world is full of people much brighter and smarter then yourself, who are able to accept the scientific evidence and methodology, and reject the interjections of nonsense you chose to inject into various threads. Liar liar pants on fire. Agreed...It does one good to have a hearty laugh on occasions: A shame though that you are the butt of that laughter.
  15. GW170608, Hanford's Chirp

    Not only was the event real, it was real also on five other occasions. Of course if you had anything real or of substance indicating that the scientists involved were wrong or mistaken, you would not be here conducting your fruitless campaign: You would write up a professional paper for proper peer review. But you havn't and you won't. And the "faked Moon landings" and UFO's of Alien origin nonsense.
  16. GW170608, Hanford's Chirp

    Yes I do have a rough idea of how it works with comparison to arXiv, and I don't doubt that on occasion some possibly worth while work may be excluded: Still I believe that censorship is a necessary evil. "We will not prevent anybody from submitting and will only reject articles in extreme cases of abuse, e.g. where the work may be vulgar, libellous, plagiaristic or dangerously misleading. It is inevitable that viXra will therefore contain e-prints that many scientists will consider clearly wrong and unscientific." ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: On the subject matter of the thread though, I certainly believe for many reasons that the scientists involved in the 5 detections of binary BH collisions and 1 Neutron star binary collision, have been fairly diligent and thorough in eliminating and ruling out anomalous and false readings attributed to other sources other then gravitational waves.
  17. GW170608, Hanford's Chirp

    Yeah, that's the first thing that grabbed me. Then I checked out the "content history"
  18. One could say you are a hard, near impossible "task master" as the evidence for the theory of the evolution of life, is probably as near certain as any reasonable logical intelligent person could ever hope for. And if we are speaking of universal abiogenesis, again logically speaking it is in fact the only real scientific answer available, [ignoring mythical supernatural and paranormal propaganda] even though we still lack evidence at this time.
  19. I'm ready to be corrected here, but the ether, as in the stuff Michelson and Morley invalidated, was thought to be a "physical substance"....Spacetime on the other hand, though certainly seen as real, is a non physical entity, in which we locate events and describe them in terms of spatial coordinates and time. The concept of spacetime follows from the observation that the speed of light is constant and invariant, and in which light always follows geodesics. Whereas prior to M+M, most thought light needed this "physical substance"which we called the ether, in which to traverse.
  20. Lost Planet: Study: Diamond from the sky may have come from 'lost planet' April 17, 2018 by Frank Jordans Fragments of a meteorite that fell to Earth about a decade ago provide compelling evidence of a lost planet that once roamed our solar system, according to a study published Tuesday. Researchers from Switzerland, France and Germany examined diamonds found inside the Almahata Sitta meteorite and concluded they were most likely formed by a proto-planet at least 4.55 billion years ago. Read more at: <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: A large planetary body inferred from diamond inclusions in a ureilite meteorite: Abstract Planetary formation models show that terrestrial planets are formed by the accretion of tens of Moon- to Mars-sized planetary embryos through energetic giant impacts. However, relics of these large proto-planets are yet to be found. Ureilites are one of the main families of achondritic meteorites and their parent body is believed to have been catastrophically disrupted by an impact during the first 10 million years of the solar system. Here we studied a section of the Almahata Sitta ureilite using transmission electron microscopy, where large diamonds were formed at high pressure inside the parent body. We discovered chromite, phosphate, and (Fe,Ni)-sulfide inclusions embedded in diamond. The composition and morphology of the inclusions can only be explained if the formation pressure was higher than 20 GPa. Such pressures suggest that the ureilite parent body was a Mercury- to Mars-sized planetary embryo. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: If this is validated, could this have been the planetary size body hypothesised to have collided with a young still partly molten Earth, resulting in the formation of our Moon?
  21. The following video is around 8 minutes long, and gives a nice simplistic picture of the history of Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity and how each describe with varying degrees of accuracies, how gravity operates.
  22. Black holes and dark matter linked?

    While I agree and am fully aware of that situation, could it not be said that the SMBH at the center of most galaxies, does act as a sort of anchor for the rest of the galaxy? I do remember a few years ago, coming across an article detailing the finding of a galaxy much larger [more disperse] then the MW galaxy, but without any SMBH at the core. The disperse nature of the BH [from memory] was attributed to it lacking any SMBH,
  23. Gravity manifests itself when mass/energy curves/warps/twists, or acts in anyway on the geometry of flat spacetime. That's all we can say. More a property of spacetime in the presence of mass/energy.
  24. The current ability to test theories of gravity with black hole shadows: Astrophysicists at Frankfurt, the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy in Bonn, and Nijmegen, collaborating in the project BlackHoleCam, answer this question by computing the first images of feeding non-Einsteinian black holes: it is presently hard to tell them apart from standard black holes. Their findings are published as Advance Online Publication (AOP) on the Nature Astronomy website on 16 April 2018. One of the most fundamental predictions of Einstein's theory of relativity is the existence of black holes. In spite of the recent detection of gravitational waves from binary black holes by LIGO, direct evidence using electromagnetic waves remains elusive and astronomers are looking for it with radio telescopes. Read more at: <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: The current ability to test theories of gravity with black hole shadows: Abstract: Our Galactic Centre, Sagittarius A*, is believed to harbour a supermassive black hole, as suggested by observations tracking individual orbiting stars1,2. Upcoming submillimetre very-long baseline interferometry images of Sagittarius A* carried out by the Event Horizon Telescope collaboration (EHTC)3,4 are expected to provide critical evidence for the existence of this supermassive black hole5,6. We assess our present ability to use EHTC images to determine whether they correspond to a Kerr black hole as predicted by Einstein’s theory of general relativity or to a black hole in alternative theories of gravity. To this end, we perform general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamical simulations and use general-relativistic radiative-transfer calculations to generate synthetic shadow images of a magnetized accretion flow onto a Kerr black hole. In addition, we perform these simulations and calculations for a dilaton black hole, which we take as a representative solution of an alternative theory of gravity. Adopting the very-long baseline interferometry configuration from the 2017 EHTC campaign, we find that it could be extremely difficult to distinguish between black holes from different theories of gravity, thus highlighting that great caution is needed when interpreting black hole images as tests of general relativity.
  25. No probs. Let me say, while science is able to say nothing with supporting evidence about anything prior to t+10-43 seconds, we may in time know more with the advent of any verifiable QGT or quantum gravity theory. In the meantime, all we can do is speculate.....I like the following.....