Discussion in 'Alien Hub' started by humanoidlord, Apr 25, 2018.
i am betting on this one, seems quite plausible knowing what we know about the universe
wait a minute... did i hear what i think i just heard? are you saying that UFOs are 100% a extraterrestrial civilization? that there is no alternative? even if that alternative is on the grand scale of things only 1%? and then you are blaming the scientists for not seeing such a obvious thing?
hmmm... thats has only a to the stars watermark, wich means it's delongue's media company and not the to the stars academy
and those cases, usually point to farther more exotic possibilities than ETH....
many but there are very very few cases i know of where someone got hit by a lethal weapon and not a tazer like one
thats a problem... in many accounts the UFOnauts wear breathing apparatuses but sometimes they don't wear space helmets, so apparently they have no problem with your planet pressure, only the air, in others they wear nothing at all and in yet others they wear full on astronaut suits! how do we explain this insanity?
Maybe they are from different places?
What's insane about it, it tells me visitors are coming from planets with very different ecosystems, some may be compatible with ours whilst others are not...
that presents another problem: why is so much people coming to earth? what is so interesting about us?
see the answer i gave to @wwkirk
It may be a common thing to do for technologically advanced species...
but there are so much planets, why us?
Probably they are visiting all those other planets too, not just ours...
now take a look at the logistics: how many inhabitated planets like ours are out there?
you will end with a ridiculous number of civilizations, all swarming random planets for no reason
The rapidly evolving exosolar planetary science is starting to give us answers about these kinds of questions, and what they're finding is very logical and exciting.
For example, the recent Harvard-Smithsonian study of Earth-like planetary cores has found that rocky planets of Earth size, in the Habitable Zone (HZ), will have very similar iron-nickel core compositions with the same layered structure that we have. And they predict that such planets will have similar magnetic fields as well.
And planets with similar gravitational fields and temperatures – in other words, Earth-like worlds in the HZ of their star systems, will have similar atmospheric compositions in the nitrogen-oxygen range.
So we should expect that in many cases our atmosphere will be within the tolerance limits of life forms that evolved on worlds similar to ours, much as we can survive for reasonable amounts of time at the top of high mountains, and breathing the compressed air of ocean submersibles. Since sentient interstellar beings will tend to favor the exploration of worlds similar to their own, we should expect a higher percentage of such beings to visit our planet - just as we will favor the exploration of other Earth-like worlds and actively seek them out as we're doing right now.
But this won’t always be the case, of course – there will be large enough discrepancies between the Earth and some other living worlds that they’ll require a breathing apparatus to survive in our atmosphere…especially for visiting life forms that evolved on planets with different gravitational fields and temperatures. And of course some life forms will require significant suits to survive on our planet: beings that evolved on much larger planets with much denser atmospheres, for example. And I would think that a species that evolved in radically different conditions than we have here, wouldn’t attempt to land and exit their craft at all: perhaps they’d send drones instead.
All of which is to say: if any of these landing cases are to be believed, then it seems that witnesses are reporting the kind of variety of encounters that we should reasonably expect: a broad spectrum of suitabilities to our ecosystem ranging from highly suitable to extremely unsuitable.
As we've discussed previously, at 1 g of acceleration you can circumnavigate the visible universe within your own lifetime due to relativistic time dilation.
But my point is simple: interstellar travelers aren't doing that. We know this because they're not using reaction propulsion. People don't see strange rockets blazing around the sky - they're seeing gravitational field propulsion spacecraft. And with that type of system, you can travel across the galaxy and be back in time for lunch, with no time dilation effects, so you can tell your friends and family about your journey upon your return.
I don't think we should even be wasting any time talking about reaction propulsion techniques to travel to the stars: we should be focusing all of our efforts on figuring out the technology of gravitational field propulsion - clearly the preferred method of extraterrestrial civilizations that engage in interstellar travel. UFO sightings prove that it's physically attainable - and if they can do it, so can we.
Negative mass is very important for UFO propulsion. Dr Jamie Farness came up with these beautiful simulations that show how dark matter/energy compress galaxies and make them spin faster and made a theoretical case for existence of both.
Now a possible experimental proof is found that Dr Farness is right, in a form of faint galaxies that have no dark matter.
This begs a question, in Dr Farness model what is the radial distribution of dark matter. From center to periphery. That's because accelerations between two negative masses will be pushing them apart, so there would be less of them in the galaxy center.
As far as I understand Earth is about 1/3 of galactic radius from Milky Way's centre. If dark matter/energy is pressing from outside maybe there is more dark matter closer to periphery, and less of it closer to the center. Possibly that is why we on Earth can't easily find any dark stuff in particle accelerators. As well that could maybe mean that civilisations closer to the periphery can actually somehow harvest negative matter locally, while maybe we can't. That would mean it's much easier for them to discover dark matter and later use it for UFO propulsion.
That's an interesting speculation. But after encountering some very reasonable critiques of Dr. Farnes' paper, the bloom has left the rose for me. It seems to me now that he has presented a mechanism which reflects some key aspects of the real cosmological situation, but which is itself a deeply flawed model.
Sabine Hossenfelder feels the same way - that a negative gravitational field is required to explain the cosmological constant problem, but that Dr. Farnes' theory isn't the correct solution:
"I would totally be in favor of that, as I have written a paper about repulsive gravity myself (it’s quoted in Farnes’ paper). I believe that negative gravitational masses are the only known solution to the (real) cosmological constant problem."
Source: Backreaction: No, negative masses have not revolutionized cosmology
My thinking at this point continues to favor a view that the gravitational field of galaxy clusters drops to zero at a given distance, and beyond that distance, becomes increasingly negative - so the cosmological constant is an effect produced by matter, rather than an effect produced by the vacuum itself (as is commonly held today). Or perhaps Dragan Hajdukovic has the right idea and matter gravitationally polarizes virtual particle pairs in the quantum vacuum, so the matter is only indirectly producing the cosmological constant effect - but is still vital to the dynamics at play.
I'm eager to see more results from the Dark Energy Survey - will they find anisotropies in the dark energy field? I hope so - because the notion that the vacuum itself is the source of a force field, is deeply intellectually repugnant to me and runs contrary to all sensible logic for physical theory. It also fails to explain cosmic inflation, which strikes me as a manifestation of the exact same kind of negative gravitational field...but under conditions which are totally unsuitable for a cosmological constant explanation.
There must be a mechanism behind this antigravitational force field - one that we haven't understood properly yet, but which will very likely be technologically exploitable once we do.
Another article about gravity from Sabine Hossenfelder. Talks about entropic gravity that for some unexplainable reason sits well with my intuition. Since its formulation thermodynamics became the unfashionable underdog of physics, but now it's turning out to be front gate to grand unifying theory (as it always would had been).
Recent Claims Invalid: Emergent Gravity Might Deliver A Universe Without Dark Matter
Out of the off world explanations ETH is the most logical and parsimonious IMO. If its not made by us, it comes from some other planet, theres no need to go further. Of course to get there all the mundane and known explanations must be eliminated first.
There are other various explanations explored of course, but i think theyre starting to go too far into the realms of fantasy the more i see them. Ive heard them all, parallel world visitors, underground civilizations and atlanteans, demons masquerading as aliens for end time deception, Loki like trickster entity, time travellers messing with us, programmers of the matrix etc... You can see how far into ridiculous realms these start to go. All the weird aspects of the phenomenon could be explained by a highly advanced yet largely deceptive alien presence. There's no need to invoke demons, gods, parallel dimensions or other unseen, unverified concepts.
Separate names with a comma.