Do UFOs/Aliens exist, is Time Travel possible and more...
Re: Do u think UFOs exist
Posts in this thread have brought to light a few misconceptions that some of you have, let me address those first:
1.
Star systems that could potentially have life are too far away, it would take 400 years to traverse that distance even when travelling at the speed of light!
Myth Buster:
Physics (and Einstein) have proved that as you approach the speed of light, time begins to slow down. AT the speed of light, time = 0, thus you could travel billions of light years in what (to you) would seem like a second. Thus if UFOs exist, they could be piloted by aliens who (in our relative time) left their home planet (travelling at the speed of light) thousands of years ago, but to them they just left a few minutes ago.
The problems that this brings forth is that perhaps these aliens have no wish to return home, and are just stopping by for some sort of fuel, or to map our planet, send data back to their homeworld and then move on again. They obviously wouldn't want to return home because thousands of years have passed and everyone and everything they knew is dead and gone.
2. If UFOs come here, why aren’t they contacting us? How can a race that is intelligent NOT want to contact us?
Myth Buster:
You see ant hills all the time, when was the last time you wanted to contact one? Why are we so self absorbed that we accept that perhaps we’re just ants (or bacteria) to them. And I don’t mean this in terms of size, I mean this in terms of importance. If UFOs exist, these are aliens with technologies that are ahead of our own research by at least a few thousand (if not million) years. Perhaps they’re just here shooting a documentary on weird dumb animals of space, Discovery style!
3. UFOs = Aliens
Myth Buster:
UFO = Unidentified Flying Object. This could be a secret government project, a freak of nature OR aliens. But aliens aren’t the only possibility!
4. Aliens are visiting us
Myth Buster:
I believe that UFOs exist, I’ve seen a UFO once myself. What’s different about my views is the fact that I am not sure it is Aliens piloting them! No I’m not getting into the whole Uncle Sam (or Uncle Samir for India) is testing secret weapons and aircraft. What I mean is perhaps the UFOs are piloted by humans themselves, just that these humans are from a different time or a different dimension! If, say in a million years, humans figure out a way to travel even faster than the speed of light (which effectively let’sus go BACK in time), perhaps they’d want to come visit THEIR world in the distant past (our present). Of course they would not be allowed to interact with us, so as to conserve the space time continuum, so they come, they watch and they leave! This explains why we see UFOs, why they never contact us, and the theory also explains how they appear in the sky, but satellites and the space station see nothing. Imagine someone in the future could be sitting and waiting for their turn to “come see the old earth”!
Raaabo
Posts in this thread have brought to light a few misconceptions that some of you have, let me address those first:
1.
Star systems that could potentially have life are too far away, it would take 400 years to traverse that distance even when travelling at the speed of light!
Myth Buster:
Physics (and Einstein) have proved that as you approach the speed of light, time begins to slow down. AT the speed of light, time = 0, thus you could travel billions of light years in what (to you) would seem like a second. Thus if UFOs exist, they could be piloted by aliens who (in our relative time) left their home planet (travelling at the speed of light) thousands of years ago, but to them they just left a few minutes ago.
The problems that this brings forth is that perhaps these aliens have no wish to return home, and are just stopping by for some sort of fuel, or to map our planet, send data back to their homeworld and then move on again. They obviously wouldn't want to return home because thousands of years have passed and everyone and everything they knew is dead and gone.
2. If UFOs come here, why aren’t they contacting us? How can a race that is intelligent NOT want to contact us?
Myth Buster:
You see ant hills all the time, when was the last time you wanted to contact one? Why are we so self absorbed that we accept that perhaps we’re just ants (or bacteria) to them. And I don’t mean this in terms of size, I mean this in terms of importance. If UFOs exist, these are aliens with technologies that are ahead of our own research by at least a few thousand (if not million) years. Perhaps they’re just here shooting a documentary on weird dumb animals of space, Discovery style!
3. UFOs = Aliens
Myth Buster:
UFO = Unidentified Flying Object. This could be a secret government project, a freak of nature OR aliens. But aliens aren’t the only possibility!
4. Aliens are visiting us
Myth Buster:
I believe that UFOs exist, I’ve seen a UFO once myself. What’s different about my views is the fact that I am not sure it is Aliens piloting them! No I’m not getting into the whole Uncle Sam (or Uncle Samir for India) is testing secret weapons and aircraft. What I mean is perhaps the UFOs are piloted by humans themselves, just that these humans are from a different time or a different dimension! If, say in a million years, humans figure out a way to travel even faster than the speed of light (which effectively let’sus go BACK in time), perhaps they’d want to come visit THEIR world in the distant past (our present). Of course they would not be allowed to interact with us, so as to conserve the space time continuum, so they come, they watch and they leave! This explains why we see UFOs, why they never contact us, and the theory also explains how they appear in the sky, but satellites and the space station see nothing. Imagine someone in the future could be sitting and waiting for their turn to “come see the old earth”!
Raaabo
blackpearl
The Devil
Re: Do u think UFOs exist
Practically its impossible to approach the speed of light because as you increase your speed your mass increases. The closer you get to the speed of light your mass increases exponentially and at the speed of light it becomes infinite, a physical impossibility. To move a space ship having infinite mass at the speed of light would require infinite amount of energy.
I'm not saying that space travel over large distance is not possible but certainly not by conventional method. If UFOs exist and aliens do visit us, they must have done it by some other method like through a wormhole.
But when we are talking about UFOs we mean aliens. A secret government aircraft doesn't become a UFO by defination. Unidentified to the common people but not to the government. A flying bird you can't recognize doesn't become a UFO, does it? These UFO sightings could actually be secret government projects and not aliens, atleast most of them. Consider that most sightings occur at US and near Nevada where the "famous" Area 51 is located.
Actually I've seen moving lights in the sky myself and twice but it could be just a satellite.
Is time travel possible? Thats a burning question inside me too. There is a funny argument regarding time travel. Read the Grandfather paradox.
Well, I'm not saying that UFOs don't exist but I can't say for sure unless I've seen it myself from a close range. We can't believe too much in other people's reports because there are too many liars out there.
Raaabo said:
Practically its impossible to approach the speed of light because as you increase your speed your mass increases. The closer you get to the speed of light your mass increases exponentially and at the speed of light it becomes infinite, a physical impossibility. To move a space ship having infinite mass at the speed of light would require infinite amount of energy.
I'm not saying that space travel over large distance is not possible but certainly not by conventional method. If UFOs exist and aliens do visit us, they must have done it by some other method like through a wormhole.
Raaabo said:
But when we are talking about UFOs we mean aliens. A secret government aircraft doesn't become a UFO by defination. Unidentified to the common people but not to the government. A flying bird you can't recognize doesn't become a UFO, does it? These UFO sightings could actually be secret government projects and not aliens, atleast most of them. Consider that most sightings occur at US and near Nevada where the "famous" Area 51 is located.
Raaabo said:
Actually I've seen moving lights in the sky myself and twice but it could be just a satellite.
Raaabo said:
Is time travel possible? Thats a burning question inside me too. There is a funny argument regarding time travel. Read the Grandfather paradox.
Well, I'm not saying that UFOs don't exist but I can't say for sure unless I've seen it myself from a close range. We can't believe too much in other people's reports because there are too many liars out there.
Re: Do u think UFOs exist
Does UFO's exist? Yes they do coz I own one and I roam around when I feel bored.
Just kidding.
Yes. I do think they exist. I don't think earth is the only planet with life on it. There should be more. If we can go till moon, there will be someone who have greater tech. and they certainly can come to earth.
Does UFO's exist? Yes they do coz I own one and I roam around when I feel bored.
Just kidding.
Yes. I do think they exist. I don't think earth is the only planet with life on it. There should be more. If we can go till moon, there will be someone who have greater tech. and they certainly can come to earth.
mediator
Technomancer
Re: Do u think UFOs exist
1. F=M*a (Force = Rest Mass * acceleration)
2. E=M*(c^2) (Energy = Rest Mass * Speed of light raise to power 2)
These are the fundamental equations. The highlighted part doesn't match any of the 2 equations. I think u got confused with equation 2!
What I can recall is, when a particle moves through the space it experiences a negetive force to the direction of movement. When a rocket moves it experiences friction of the air. So we need to apply greater force to overcome the friction and to maintain the same accelaration. And its the mass of the body that constitutes to that friction.
Equation 1 can also be written as M=(F/a)
So as the force increases, the relative mass increases, But not exponentially. Also the friction can be reduced by designing the shape of the body appropriately so that it can "cut" the space with minimum friction! Birds have natural shapes like that, planes are built with shapes similar to birds so that their face can "cut" the space with minimum damage and friction.
Mass doesn't increase, but the "relative mass"!blackpearl said:
blackpearl said:
1. F=M*a (Force = Rest Mass * acceleration)
2. E=M*(c^2) (Energy = Rest Mass * Speed of light raise to power 2)
These are the fundamental equations. The highlighted part doesn't match any of the 2 equations. I think u got confused with equation 2!
What I can recall is, when a particle moves through the space it experiences a negetive force to the direction of movement. When a rocket moves it experiences friction of the air. So we need to apply greater force to overcome the friction and to maintain the same accelaration. And its the mass of the body that constitutes to that friction.
Equation 1 can also be written as M=(F/a)
So as the force increases, the relative mass increases, But not exponentially. Also the friction can be reduced by designing the shape of the body appropriately so that it can "cut" the space with minimum friction! Birds have natural shapes like that, planes are built with shapes similar to birds so that their face can "cut" the space with minimum damage and friction.
Last edited:
blackpearl
The Devil
Re: Do u think UFOs exist
No. Its not relative mass but the real mass. The equation is this
*www.rostra.dk/louis/pics/f13_01.gif
m(v) is the mass at velocity V. m(0) is the mass at rest, the mass that we measure.
Its Einstein's equation dude, not mine
__________
What you are taliking about is classical physics. This is quantum physics.
No. Its not relative mass but the real mass. The equation is this
*www.rostra.dk/louis/pics/f13_01.gif
m(v) is the mass at velocity V. m(0) is the mass at rest, the mass that we measure.
Its Einstein's equation dude, not mine
__________
What you are taliking about is classical physics. This is quantum physics.
Last edited:
mediator
Technomancer
Re: Do u think UFOs exist
Yea I know of this equation too bro. But it doesn't say mass increases exponentially! And rest mass never increases!
Yea its einstein equation and everything about it is "relative"! Hence the concept of "relative velocity" and likewise "relative mass"! Mass is defined as quantity of matter. That quantity is constant according to all physics laws. Hence the universal definition of mass. Based on mass, weight of the body can vary according to gravitation, the energy can vary, momentum can vary, relative mass can be calculated etc. BUT again rest mass or simply called as mass is constant!
Yea I know of this equation too bro. But it doesn't say mass increases exponentially! And rest mass never increases!
Yea its einstein equation and everything about it is "relative"! Hence the concept of "relative velocity" and likewise "relative mass"! Mass is defined as quantity of matter. That quantity is constant according to all physics laws. Hence the universal definition of mass. Based on mass, weight of the body can vary according to gravitation, the energy can vary, momentum can vary, relative mass can be calculated etc. BUT again rest mass or simply called as mass is constant!
Choto Cheeta
Rebooting
Re: Do u think UFOs exist
well sorry to bat in... but There is no such word a impossible with science... why ?? as to day it sounds impossible to us, but as we saw in past at some point of time to man kind flying seemed impossible... Visiting moon seemed impossible... lesser seemed impossible.. but they are reallity now...
its only matter of time when in near future some one like us in a Discussion would point out and say "You see at 2006 people thought Speed of Light is impossible to archive"....
its only matter of time...
blackpearl said:
well sorry to bat in... but There is no such word a impossible with science... why ?? as to day it sounds impossible to us, but as we saw in past at some point of time to man kind flying seemed impossible... Visiting moon seemed impossible... lesser seemed impossible.. but they are reallity now...
its only matter of time when in near future some one like us in a Discussion would point out and say "You see at 2006 people thought Speed of Light is impossible to archive"....
its only matter of time...
blackpearl
The Devil
Re: Do u think UFOs exist
@mediator:
*www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html#16
Its already proved in laboratory experiments that mass increases when accelerated, when they measured the mass of a moving electron and found it to be higher than rest mass. I read it somewhere.
I suggest you to read more on this matter.
@mediator:
*www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html#16
Its already proved in laboratory experiments that mass increases when accelerated, when they measured the mass of a moving electron and found it to be higher than rest mass. I read it somewhere.
I suggest you to read more on this matter.
mediator
Technomancer
Re: Do u think UFOs exist
@blackpearl :
I have read all the stuff and thats why I'm discussing it here. First u said, mass increases, then u argued mass increases exponentially.
The above link u quoted is what I'm trying to say itself! Its the energy that increases and it would be better and logical to say that "relative mass" increases by the equation u gave. But the "relative mass" never increases exponentially! Also saying that mass increases, is highly incorrect scientifically and physically . U name any reputed book or scientific site that hasn't mentioned the word "relative". If its not there then its either a typo or a faulty published web page that wasn't reviewed accurately. There are many sites u'll find where it says "mass increases", but einstien didn't name his theory and introduced the word "relative" in it for no reason. The mass increases, but relative to what? So its relative mass. Speed increases, but relative to what? Hence relative velocity. So its more scientific and logical to say "relative mass" increases. When discussing such things u shud be highly specific.
When u quoted @raaabo, u never talked specifically using terms like rest mass or relative mass. U just said mast increases (n then mass increases exponentially which is incorrect). Now who's gonna understand what u said?? Rest mass is constant. The physical thing is constant! But what's increasing??
1. A train A going towards north with velocity 20 KM/h (be specific. 20 kmph wrt to what?? => w.r.t ground ). Another train B goes to south with 20 kmph. But a child in train B calculates the speed of train A and observes that its 40 kmph. But is it actually 40 kmph??
Train A speedometer indicates 20kmph but child in B calculates it as 40 kmph. Which one is correct?? Everything has to be comapred to rest. Neither of them r wrong but logically it wud be speedometer of A which is correct coz if the child says that A was travelling with 40 kmph then it wud mean B was resting! But B was also moving.
2. On earth ur weight is 90 kgs suppose and on another planet it becomes 200 kgs. Will u say ur mass has increased here? Tell me what has increased!
I hope u got my point. These were just some examples to show that ur body mass is constant but there is something called "relative" which ur missing.
So the terms rest mass and relative mass have a meaning. Understand their meaning first and then try to implement them in such discussions. So its just the relative mass that increases.
I tell u read H.C verma for conceptual physics and u'll have no more doubts after that.
@blackpearl :
I have read all the stuff and thats why I'm discussing it here. First u said, mass increases, then u argued mass increases exponentially.
The above link u quoted is what I'm trying to say itself! Its the energy that increases and it would be better and logical to say that "relative mass" increases by the equation u gave. But the "relative mass" never increases exponentially! Also saying that mass increases, is highly incorrect scientifically and physically . U name any reputed book or scientific site that hasn't mentioned the word "relative". If its not there then its either a typo or a faulty published web page that wasn't reviewed accurately. There are many sites u'll find where it says "mass increases", but einstien didn't name his theory and introduced the word "relative" in it for no reason. The mass increases, but relative to what? So its relative mass. Speed increases, but relative to what? Hence relative velocity. So its more scientific and logical to say "relative mass" increases. When discussing such things u shud be highly specific.
When u quoted @raaabo, u never talked specifically using terms like rest mass or relative mass. U just said mast increases (n then mass increases exponentially which is incorrect). Now who's gonna understand what u said?? Rest mass is constant. The physical thing is constant! But what's increasing??
1. A train A going towards north with velocity 20 KM/h (be specific. 20 kmph wrt to what?? => w.r.t ground ). Another train B goes to south with 20 kmph. But a child in train B calculates the speed of train A and observes that its 40 kmph. But is it actually 40 kmph??
Train A speedometer indicates 20kmph but child in B calculates it as 40 kmph. Which one is correct?? Everything has to be comapred to rest. Neither of them r wrong but logically it wud be speedometer of A which is correct coz if the child says that A was travelling with 40 kmph then it wud mean B was resting! But B was also moving.
2. On earth ur weight is 90 kgs suppose and on another planet it becomes 200 kgs. Will u say ur mass has increased here? Tell me what has increased!
I hope u got my point. These were just some examples to show that ur body mass is constant but there is something called "relative" which ur missing.
So the terms rest mass and relative mass have a meaning. Understand their meaning first and then try to implement them in such discussions. So its just the relative mass that increases.
I tell u read H.C verma for conceptual physics and u'll have no more doubts after that.
Last edited:
blackpearl
The Devil
Re: Do u think UFOs exist
OK, I get it, its the relative mass. But still the common argument put forward why any particle having mass cannot attain the speed of light is because "its mass increases with velocity" so that at the speed of light it becomes infinite (see the formula), in the sense that infinite amount of energy is reqd to move it.
Also there is a different formula to calculate relative velocity of high moving objects. For eg, suppose there are 2 cars both moving in the opposite direction at velocity 0.6c (i.e. 60% the speed of light). Common sense tells us that the relative velocity between the 2 cars should be 0.6c+0.6c = 1.2c, isn't it? Wrong!! the relative velocity between the 2 cars is 0.88c. Why? because no velocity can be greater than the velocity of light. Defies common sense, isn't? Interestingly, this is also proved in laboratory experiment using 2 high velocity electrons moving in the opposite direction.
Please read this and tell me what they are trying to say.
*www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/09.light_relativity/
*www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/sr.html
OK, I get it, its the relative mass. But still the common argument put forward why any particle having mass cannot attain the speed of light is because "its mass increases with velocity" so that at the speed of light it becomes infinite (see the formula), in the sense that infinite amount of energy is reqd to move it.
Also there is a different formula to calculate relative velocity of high moving objects. For eg, suppose there are 2 cars both moving in the opposite direction at velocity 0.6c (i.e. 60% the speed of light). Common sense tells us that the relative velocity between the 2 cars should be 0.6c+0.6c = 1.2c, isn't it? Wrong!! the relative velocity between the 2 cars is 0.88c. Why? because no velocity can be greater than the velocity of light. Defies common sense, isn't? Interestingly, this is also proved in laboratory experiment using 2 high velocity electrons moving in the opposite direction.
Please read this and tell me what they are trying to say.
*www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/09.light_relativity/
*www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/sr.html
dunno
Broken In
Re: Do u think UFOs exist
i see some of u believed in ufo's on the basis of mere movies and
tapes.
i just want to say that the movies n tapes r all rubbish!
how could anyone rely on such thing!!!
they could be editted n made fake easily.
talking about photographs they to could provide a false picture.
want a example?
one person had actually thrown a freesebee and shot a picture of it.
he made sure the picture was not that clear n claimed it to be an
ufo.the american inteligents only came to know it as fake only after
several yrs...
other many such cases has already proved to be false.
do watch discovery channel n please dont believe that people have
seen it!!!!
and yes i dont mean they cannot exist i just want to say dont rely on
what others say without firm proof!
i see some of u believed in ufo's on the basis of mere movies and
tapes.
i just want to say that the movies n tapes r all rubbish!
how could anyone rely on such thing!!!
they could be editted n made fake easily.
talking about photographs they to could provide a false picture.
want a example?
one person had actually thrown a freesebee and shot a picture of it.
he made sure the picture was not that clear n claimed it to be an
ufo.the american inteligents only came to know it as fake only after
several yrs...
other many such cases has already proved to be false.
do watch discovery channel n please dont believe that people have
seen it!!!!
and yes i dont mean they cannot exist i just want to say dont rely on
what others say without firm proof!
mediator
Technomancer
Re: Do u think UFOs exist
@blackpearl : Yea thats correct.
Thats a nice link (opencourse one), but all thats written there is all what I said in the discussion.
Below is the quotation from the source provided by u!
I gave the examples of low speed moving objects only like train ! IS there anything different I said??
@blackpearl : Yea thats correct.
Thats a nice link (opencourse one), but all thats written there is all what I said in the discussion.
Below is the quotation from the source provided by u!
I gave the examples of low speed moving objects only like train ! IS there anything different I said??
Re: Do u think UFOs exist
Mediator is right to insist on the usage of the term "relative" because it's all important when dealing with the speed of light.
Let me first talk about UFOs:
It's sad that you equated what I said with a BIRD being identified as a UFO. In a discussion that is talking about intelligent alien life, speed of light and time travel, I'd expect you to read posts a little more carefully and take the trouble to understand them. I prefer the term Unidentifiable Flying Object to the standard Unidentified… Why? Consider this: If you are video shooting, capture something weird looking flying across the sky, take the video tape to the media, they have experts look at it, no one knows what it is (and no I DON’T mean “what species of bird”, or, “what is that pet parakeet’s name”). It’s a UFO!
Is it necessarily Alien? Absolutely not. When the Stealth bombers were being test flown, triangle shaped UFOs were sighted all over the states. Little less than a year later everyone knew they were the stealths. However, for that period of time until the US government admitted that the “triangles” were in fact the stealth bombers, they “were” UFOs!
So until and unless a UFO hovers your house, beams down an alien with 2 fingers and telepathic capabilities, and mind-tells you, “Take me to your leader.”, even the fact that aliens visit us remains to be proved. A statement like “But when we are talking about UFOs we mean aliens.” is unfounded. My point remains the same: UFOs could be:
1. Aliens visiting us
2. Secret government airplanes
3. Time travel machines in which humans / robots from the future come to observe us
4. Optical illusions
5. Figments of our imaginations
6. Well executed fakes
Now to Superluminal possibilities:
Mathematically, superluminal speeds are achievable. They are not observable by us, but possible nonetheless. Einstein’s theories and equations are being pasted in this thread, even his theory of special relativity, but without being understood.
Einstein’s theories hold true for the “observable” universe of us four dimensional beings. However, newer theories in physics suggest that there are many more dimensions to the universe. We, being four dimensional, can only observe and understand the boundaries of what we see. A wormhole, as you pointed out, is an “error” (if I can take the liberty of calling it that) in our 4-dimensional observed universe.
Since you have used the example of a wormhole I am taking that to mean that you believe in their existence, as many others do, and this proves that the universe has at least one more dimension. Why? How else would you explain that particles with mass can enter a wormhole at X point and exit at Y point in the universe which is billions of light years away (or even 1 light year away) almost instantaneously (say 1 second). In a 4 dimensional world, that is like traveling 365 x 24 x 60 x 60 times the speed of light! (considering you travel 1 light year in 1 second)
But since superluminal speeds are impossible, wormholes must not exist! Yet they do… Thus Einstein must have been wrong, or at best right about only what holds true in the 4-dimensional boundary we exist in!
Let’s consider the mathematically proven particle called the Tachyon next. Everything that makes up our universe, as we know it, is made up of particles that we can unofficially call Tardyons. (From the word Tardy, i.e. Slow). Physicists and great mathematicians have spoken about Tachyons, which basically are (5th dimension??) particles that ONLY travel at superluminal velocities. Though it’s probably wrong to say this, you might consider these particles similar to the anti-matter that we’ve heard mentioned in Star Trek!
Just as 4-dimensional physics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity suggest that it would need infinite energy to accelerate even a mere electron to light speed… using the same equations, it would need infinite energy to SLOW down a Tachyon to light speed. In theory, a Tachyon accelerates as it loses energy.
Also, due to our 4-dimensional limitations, if we were to try and observe a tachyon, we would find that it is moving backwards in time. This is because observations are always relative. Discussions about Tachyons and superluminal speeds always seem to run into pages and pages, so I’ll stop here unless someone replies and asks for specific clarifications…
Back to the point:
As I have illustrated already, the very presence of wormholes makes superluminal travel a possibility (all we need to do is figure out how to survive the journey through a wormhole). Since time is relative, as is speed, as is mass, nothing is impossible. And if we accept that travel through space is possible, using wormholes, at superluminal speeds, time travel also must be possible.
Some theories suggest that the grandfather paradox will never occur, simply because time travel to the past isn’t possible. The future sure, the past, no way! This is because that when you approach the speed of light, relative time slows. So if you leave earth traveling at the speed of light, and travel for 10 years (observed from earth)… 5 years moving away and the other 5 spent on returning… you will find yourself back at earth in what was an instant to you, but was a decade to the people on earth…
Now, theory suggests that if you travel through a wormhole, go to a place 5 light years away, 5 to return, you will find yourself 10 years from the time you left. Thus the wormhole somehow accelerated the ship to about 10 x 365 x 24 x 60 x 80 times the speed of light! All we need to do is find what properties of a wormhole can accelerate a ship to such speeds…
Raaabo
Mediator is right to insist on the usage of the term "relative" because it's all important when dealing with the speed of light.
Let me first talk about UFOs:
It's sad that you equated what I said with a BIRD being identified as a UFO. In a discussion that is talking about intelligent alien life, speed of light and time travel, I'd expect you to read posts a little more carefully and take the trouble to understand them. I prefer the term Unidentifiable Flying Object to the standard Unidentified… Why? Consider this: If you are video shooting, capture something weird looking flying across the sky, take the video tape to the media, they have experts look at it, no one knows what it is (and no I DON’T mean “what species of bird”, or, “what is that pet parakeet’s name”). It’s a UFO!
Is it necessarily Alien? Absolutely not. When the Stealth bombers were being test flown, triangle shaped UFOs were sighted all over the states. Little less than a year later everyone knew they were the stealths. However, for that period of time until the US government admitted that the “triangles” were in fact the stealth bombers, they “were” UFOs!
So until and unless a UFO hovers your house, beams down an alien with 2 fingers and telepathic capabilities, and mind-tells you, “Take me to your leader.”, even the fact that aliens visit us remains to be proved. A statement like “But when we are talking about UFOs we mean aliens.” is unfounded. My point remains the same: UFOs could be:
1. Aliens visiting us
2. Secret government airplanes
3. Time travel machines in which humans / robots from the future come to observe us
4. Optical illusions
5. Figments of our imaginations
6. Well executed fakes
Now to Superluminal possibilities:
Mathematically, superluminal speeds are achievable. They are not observable by us, but possible nonetheless. Einstein’s theories and equations are being pasted in this thread, even his theory of special relativity, but without being understood.
Einstein’s theories hold true for the “observable” universe of us four dimensional beings. However, newer theories in physics suggest that there are many more dimensions to the universe. We, being four dimensional, can only observe and understand the boundaries of what we see. A wormhole, as you pointed out, is an “error” (if I can take the liberty of calling it that) in our 4-dimensional observed universe.
Since you have used the example of a wormhole I am taking that to mean that you believe in their existence, as many others do, and this proves that the universe has at least one more dimension. Why? How else would you explain that particles with mass can enter a wormhole at X point and exit at Y point in the universe which is billions of light years away (or even 1 light year away) almost instantaneously (say 1 second). In a 4 dimensional world, that is like traveling 365 x 24 x 60 x 60 times the speed of light! (considering you travel 1 light year in 1 second)
But since superluminal speeds are impossible, wormholes must not exist! Yet they do… Thus Einstein must have been wrong, or at best right about only what holds true in the 4-dimensional boundary we exist in!
Let’s consider the mathematically proven particle called the Tachyon next. Everything that makes up our universe, as we know it, is made up of particles that we can unofficially call Tardyons. (From the word Tardy, i.e. Slow). Physicists and great mathematicians have spoken about Tachyons, which basically are (5th dimension??) particles that ONLY travel at superluminal velocities. Though it’s probably wrong to say this, you might consider these particles similar to the anti-matter that we’ve heard mentioned in Star Trek!
Just as 4-dimensional physics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity suggest that it would need infinite energy to accelerate even a mere electron to light speed… using the same equations, it would need infinite energy to SLOW down a Tachyon to light speed. In theory, a Tachyon accelerates as it loses energy.
Also, due to our 4-dimensional limitations, if we were to try and observe a tachyon, we would find that it is moving backwards in time. This is because observations are always relative. Discussions about Tachyons and superluminal speeds always seem to run into pages and pages, so I’ll stop here unless someone replies and asks for specific clarifications…
Back to the point:
blackpearl said:
As I have illustrated already, the very presence of wormholes makes superluminal travel a possibility (all we need to do is figure out how to survive the journey through a wormhole). Since time is relative, as is speed, as is mass, nothing is impossible. And if we accept that travel through space is possible, using wormholes, at superluminal speeds, time travel also must be possible.
Some theories suggest that the grandfather paradox will never occur, simply because time travel to the past isn’t possible. The future sure, the past, no way! This is because that when you approach the speed of light, relative time slows. So if you leave earth traveling at the speed of light, and travel for 10 years (observed from earth)… 5 years moving away and the other 5 spent on returning… you will find yourself back at earth in what was an instant to you, but was a decade to the people on earth…
Now, theory suggests that if you travel through a wormhole, go to a place 5 light years away, 5 to return, you will find yourself 10 years from the time you left. Thus the wormhole somehow accelerated the ship to about 10 x 365 x 24 x 60 x 80 times the speed of light! All we need to do is find what properties of a wormhole can accelerate a ship to such speeds…
Raaabo
Last edited:
blackpearl
The Devil
Re: Do u think UFOs exist
I understand what you are trying to say, that anything that is unidentified or unidentifiable could be labeled as a UFO. Fine.
Now try to understand what I'm trying to say. Most UFO sightings are nothing but mistaken identities. That stealth bomber that so many people thought to be UFOs were infact airplanes, a case of mistaken identity. Strictly speaking, anything that are actually identifiable but were wrongly identified or not identified at all due to lack of knowledge or poor visibilty, whatever, could not be called UFO. Because in reality they are very much identifiable. Unless and until there appears an object in the sky that all men on this earth swear they never made, you can safely say that its unidentified. What can be an object that no man on earth has made unless its some spaceship from a distant star? All other objects from secret airplanes, to cloud formations that could have been called a "UFO" have an identity. You might not like it, but the term UFO has become synonymous with "alien spaceship". Otherwise why would UFOs be so widely discussed and speculated? Because people feel that some of these UFOs, if indeed they are unidentified, in the sense that its not man made, could be alien spacecrafts.
Extra dimensions are the most misunderstood. I would like to quote the following from a website.
*library.thinkquest.org/04apr/01330/newphysics/ndimensions.htm
These extra dimensions are curled up and too small to detect as stated in the text and their existence does not imply the existence of a parallel universe.
Wormholes are shortcuts in space. Its not necessary to travel at speeds in excess of light through a wormhoIe, infact you don't have to!! I have drawn a diagram to illustrate it.
*i9.tinypic.com/2ij0lfc.jpg
A and B are two points in space at distances several hundred light years. If a large gravitational force is applied its possible to bend space itself!! so that the points A and B comes nearer. Now through the wormhole you can make the journey where the distance is considerably reduced at a speed which is much less than the speed of light and yet arrive at B "faster than light". Travelling through a wormhole doesn't break any laws of physics neither does it make the Theory of Relativity null and void.
Wormhole is just a theory, which exist in mathematical equations in paper. Because the equations that hint at the existence of wormholes is derived from some famous and well founded equations its generally believed that wormhole is a possibility. No one has been able to create a wormhole till now. Regarding tachyons, its just a theory as well. The very defination defines Tachyon as a hypothetical particle whose existence is yet to be proved. Lets leave the question of whether a tachyon or a wormhole exist or not, to the scientist to find out.
Frankly speaking, I'm an idiot regarding meta physics and einstein's theory. I say only those which I read. I don't consider myself knowledgable enough to make my own deductions in physics. I would rather ask "Does existence of wormhole suggest there is another dimension?", than bluntly state "wormhole proves there is another dimension".
Anyway, this discussions has been highly interesting, and I would be happy if anybody has any other information to enlighten me furthur.
Raaabo said:
I understand what you are trying to say, that anything that is unidentified or unidentifiable could be labeled as a UFO. Fine.
Now try to understand what I'm trying to say. Most UFO sightings are nothing but mistaken identities. That stealth bomber that so many people thought to be UFOs were infact airplanes, a case of mistaken identity. Strictly speaking, anything that are actually identifiable but were wrongly identified or not identified at all due to lack of knowledge or poor visibilty, whatever, could not be called UFO. Because in reality they are very much identifiable. Unless and until there appears an object in the sky that all men on this earth swear they never made, you can safely say that its unidentified. What can be an object that no man on earth has made unless its some spaceship from a distant star? All other objects from secret airplanes, to cloud formations that could have been called a "UFO" have an identity. You might not like it, but the term UFO has become synonymous with "alien spaceship". Otherwise why would UFOs be so widely discussed and speculated? Because people feel that some of these UFOs, if indeed they are unidentified, in the sense that its not man made, could be alien spacecrafts.
Raaabo said:
Extra dimensions are the most misunderstood. I would like to quote the following from a website.
*library.thinkquest.org/04apr/01330/newphysics/ndimensions.htm
These extra dimensions are curled up and too small to detect as stated in the text and their existence does not imply the existence of a parallel universe.
Raaabo said:
Wormholes are shortcuts in space. Its not necessary to travel at speeds in excess of light through a wormhoIe, infact you don't have to!! I have drawn a diagram to illustrate it.
*i9.tinypic.com/2ij0lfc.jpg
A and B are two points in space at distances several hundred light years. If a large gravitational force is applied its possible to bend space itself!! so that the points A and B comes nearer. Now through the wormhole you can make the journey where the distance is considerably reduced at a speed which is much less than the speed of light and yet arrive at B "faster than light". Travelling through a wormhole doesn't break any laws of physics neither does it make the Theory of Relativity null and void.
Wormhole is just a theory, which exist in mathematical equations in paper. Because the equations that hint at the existence of wormholes is derived from some famous and well founded equations its generally believed that wormhole is a possibility. No one has been able to create a wormhole till now. Regarding tachyons, its just a theory as well. The very defination defines Tachyon as a hypothetical particle whose existence is yet to be proved. Lets leave the question of whether a tachyon or a wormhole exist or not, to the scientist to find out.
Raaabo said:
Frankly speaking, I'm an idiot regarding meta physics and einstein's theory. I say only those which I read. I don't consider myself knowledgable enough to make my own deductions in physics. I would rather ask "Does existence of wormhole suggest there is another dimension?", than bluntly state "wormhole proves there is another dimension".
Anyway, this discussions has been highly interesting, and I would be happy if anybody has any other information to enlighten me furthur.
Romit.Gadhiya
Right off the assembly line
Re: Do u think UFOs exist
Watch this:
(Its serious stuff!)
(though, i dont know if its real or not)
First:
*video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3935426908707141430&q=area+51
Second:
*video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3245046980782832257&q=area+51
Dosent matter if you believe it or not.. but a must see!
(I am confused as well..!)
//EDIT//
1st one is 1hr long... so its better you go for 2nd one first because of buffing issue.
Watch this:
(Its serious stuff!)
(though, i dont know if its real or not)
First:
*video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3935426908707141430&q=area+51
Second:
*video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3245046980782832257&q=area+51
Dosent matter if you believe it or not.. but a must see!
(I am confused as well..!)
//EDIT//
1st one is 1hr long... so its better you go for 2nd one first because of buffing issue.
Last edited:
Kiran.dks
Technomancer
Re: Do u think UFOs exist
I remember a program beamed by discovery on UFO’s…..
A research center was going through their daily routine of watching the sky using their telescopes. They saw a bright object in space which was moving in a haphazard manner. At first they ignored it as some kind of meteorite or some stuff in space. But their ignorance turned into revelation when saw it making some unusual maneuvers.
The object started making maneuvers just unimaginable! It was making 90 degrees turn at high speeds! It’s very unusual for space objects like meteorites, Space debris, etc to make such impossible maneuvers. Man-made objects also just can’t do that. Made-made propulsion technology can’t achieve 90 degrees turn at high speeds! Even if one assumes it, it is impossible for the man to survive inside the space craft. High G forces created at such high speeds would crush the man to death. Our unmanned transmitter technology is also far from being considered in this context. At last there is no other choice other than to declare it as an UFO driven by high-intelligence power.
UFO’s exist. Aliens may be preparing for something unimaginable! Time is God here. Let’s see what is in store for us in future!
I remember a program beamed by discovery on UFO’s…..
A research center was going through their daily routine of watching the sky using their telescopes. They saw a bright object in space which was moving in a haphazard manner. At first they ignored it as some kind of meteorite or some stuff in space. But their ignorance turned into revelation when saw it making some unusual maneuvers.
The object started making maneuvers just unimaginable! It was making 90 degrees turn at high speeds! It’s very unusual for space objects like meteorites, Space debris, etc to make such impossible maneuvers. Man-made objects also just can’t do that. Made-made propulsion technology can’t achieve 90 degrees turn at high speeds! Even if one assumes it, it is impossible for the man to survive inside the space craft. High G forces created at such high speeds would crush the man to death. Our unmanned transmitter technology is also far from being considered in this context. At last there is no other choice other than to declare it as an UFO driven by high-intelligence power.
UFO’s exist. Aliens may be preparing for something unimaginable! Time is God here. Let’s see what is in store for us in future!
blackpearl
The Devil
Re: Do u think UFOs exist
^^^ errr.... I think you did not watch the program completely. It was later showed how a simple deviation of around 5 degrees, in direction can look like a 300 degree turn when looked from a partcular direction. For eg take a thin straight rod and then bend it in the middle by just 10 degrees. Now place the bend rod on a table and look at it from the top, you see the bend exactly at 10 degree. Now bring your eye to the level of the table surface and view the rod from the direction such that one end of the rod points at you. Now what do you see? suddenly the bend looks close to 360 degree, isn't it? Ofcourse you know that isn't 360 degree because we can view in 3D. But what about a camera that takes photo in 2D against a black sky that looks the same in all direction. How can you know whether the object made a 10 degree turn or a 300 degree turn? It could be just a small rock defleted slightly from its path. Ofcourse it could be a spaceship or a UFO as Raaabo puts it. But you can be easily fooled.
^^^ errr.... I think you did not watch the program completely. It was later showed how a simple deviation of around 5 degrees, in direction can look like a 300 degree turn when looked from a partcular direction. For eg take a thin straight rod and then bend it in the middle by just 10 degrees. Now place the bend rod on a table and look at it from the top, you see the bend exactly at 10 degree. Now bring your eye to the level of the table surface and view the rod from the direction such that one end of the rod points at you. Now what do you see? suddenly the bend looks close to 360 degree, isn't it? Ofcourse you know that isn't 360 degree because we can view in 3D. But what about a camera that takes photo in 2D against a black sky that looks the same in all direction. How can you know whether the object made a 10 degree turn or a 300 degree turn? It could be just a small rock defleted slightly from its path. Ofcourse it could be a spaceship or a UFO as Raaabo puts it. But you can be easily fooled.