UFOs cannot be extrarerrestrial - SET is a waste of money

rhw007 wrote:

:Same with Faster Than
:Light travel. Neutrinos are a 'mainstream' FTL phenomenon.

Wrong.

:Who is to
:say that there is not SOME ETI civilization out there that has figured
ut a way to duplicate that phenomenon with matter?

Einstein.

:Worm hole travel
:is also proposed by Stephen Hawking and other prominent physicists.

Wrong.

:Just because we CURRENTLY cannot fathom even HOW such could be done
:does not mean that it is impossible.

But the fact that we understand why it's impossible is.

:A little more than a hundred
:years ago it would have been 'impossible' for humans to even fly in
:Earth's air.

Don't be silly.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

On 25 May, 03:45, Fred J. McCall wrote:
rhw007 wrote:

:Same with Faster Than
:Light travel. Neutrinos are a 'mainstream' FTL phenomenon.

Neutinos were once thought to travel at c. They are now known to have
a small but definite mass and travel c. They have NEVER been
envisaged to travel c

The particles you may be thinking of are tachyons proposed in some
versions of M theory. The orthodox view is that as soon as they strike
matter they are reemitted and (in effect) pass straight through. A
less othodox view (equally non causality violating) would be that they
have an (infinite) Feynmann diagram and are in the ground state or
close to it.
Wrong.

:Who is to
:say that there is not SOME ETI civilization out there that has figured
ut a way to duplicate that phenomenon with matter?

Einstein.

Someone has commented that the military themselves have produced a
flying saucer. In fact it did not fly very well and the military would
have been far better employed getting a good understanding of chaos
theory which underpins aerodynamic drag and vortex stability.

Could this by any chance by part of the famous disinformation machine
I have talked about. Is ET the cover for black flight?

:Worm hole travel
:is also proposed by Stephen Hawking and other prominent physicists.

Wrong.

Worm holes are a theoretical construct involving negative mass. As I
explained warp + wormholes is very similar to inflation. Causality
violations are the result of any FTL. It is not obvious to me that a
wormhole would not set uf feedback lops and become inflationary

:Just because we CURRENTLY cannot fathom even HOW such could be done
:does not mean that it is impossible.

But the fact that we understand why it's impossible is.

:A little more than a hundred
:years ago it would have been 'impossible' for humans to even fly in
:Earth's air.

Don't be silly.

Wrong. Sir George Cayley (or rather his coachman who resigned
afterwards) flew across a Yorkshire valley in 1853. This was 50 years
before the Wrights. The Wrights were of course the first to lift off
with a engine. Nobody in the 19th century thought that aviation was
impossible. FTL impossibility is based on causation violation.

Could I make yet another dig on secrecy. During the Spanish American
war of 1898 a secret weapon was proposed. An aeroplane. The people who
worked on it, (in great secrecy) were inferior not only to the Wrights
(success Nov 1903) but were also behind Sir George Cayley.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...740990f664ebaa

This gives a summarty of the arguments. FTL involves violations of
causality. This is clear if you understood anything about relativity.

Also whether travel was c/2 or c (I maintain c to be impossible) the
arguments on the method of investigation + Radio Reloj stand.


- Ian Parker

One important question is:

Do you think aliens would even WANT to come to Earth?

Or maybe: If they came and took a look at Earth, would they actually
want to come down, or just fly off to some better place?

I think that any aliens who are smart enough to fly around the
Universe, would soon get sick of humanity after observing them for
long enough, and not want to be here, unless they absolutely had to.
Perhaps if it was a dying civlisation being attacked and they wanted
some planet to escape to. But I can't imagine any aliens coming here
for a holiday. This planet really sucks.

Actually, there was a budwiser advert suggesting the very same
thing Oh wait, maybe it was a different beer...

Aha. This is the commercial

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/179891/out_of_this_world/

This explains why there are so many "alien ship sightings", but no
aliens

"Ian Parker" wrote in message
oups.com...
....
:A little more than a hundred
:years ago it would have been 'impossible' for humans to even fly in
:Earth's air.

Don't be silly.

Wrong. Sir George Cayley (or rather his coachman who resigned
afterwards) flew across a Yorkshire valley in 1853. This was 50 years
before the Wrights. The Wrights were of course the first to lift off
with a engine. ..

I think you'll find the coachman used a glider. It is only
recently that humans have been able to "fly in Earth's air"
using vertical wind tunnels:

http://www.bodyflight.net/wind_tunne...the_week3.html

George

On 25 May, 15:04, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Ian Parker" wrote in message

oups.com...
...

:A little more than a hundred
:years ago it would have been 'impossible' for humans to even fly in
:Earth's air.

Don't be silly.

Wrong. Sir George Cayley (or rather his coachman who resigned
afterwards) flew across a Yorkshire valley in 1853. This was 50 years
before the Wrights. The Wrights were of course the first to lift off
with a engine. ..

I think you'll find the coachman used a glider. It is only
recently that humans have been able to "fly in Earth's air"
using vertical wind tunnels:

http://www.bodyflight.net/wind_tunne...the_week3.html

George

I did not say powered. There are 3 basic areas that had to be solved
for aviation to take place. Cayley solved two iof them. They are
control, airframe (lift/drag) and power.

To glide across a valley you need reasonable lift/drag and control.
The coachman was clearly scared but he did control the glider, he was
not killed. That means Cayley got 2/3 for aviation.

The Wrights followed in Cayley's footsteps, they used a wind tunnel to
optimize lift/drag. In control they put a rudder onto their aircraft
that was linked to the aelerons (they warped the wing) they did not
have aelerons as separate elements. After Cayley's flight aviation had
a convincing feasibility demonstration. The fact that there was no
power source then available for a horizontal lift did not affect the
criteria of feasibility. In fact Cayley could have gone just a little
bit further by having layers of blotting paper and acid. An electric
motor could have lifted him. He certainly did go as far as was
reasonably practical at the time.

- Ian Parker

Hey I don't know why you are talking about aviation in the FTL
context. You seem to think AI and Von Neumann machines are impossible.
Is it possible to tell the difference between "mamanthal", "primavera"
or "resorte"? C'mon are you an optimist or pessimist technologically?
I cannot figure you out.

There is NO causality violation in AI.

- Ian Parker

"Ian Parker" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 25 May, 15:04, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Ian Parker" wrote in message

oups.com...
...

:A little more than a hundred
:years ago it would have been 'impossible' for humans to even fly in
:Earth's air.

Don't be silly.

Wrong. Sir George Cayley (or rather his coachman who resigned
afterwards) flew across a Yorkshire valley in 1853. This was 50 years
before the Wrights. The Wrights were of course the first to lift off
with a engine. ..

I think you'll find the coachman used a glider. It is only
recently that humans have been able to "fly in Earth's air"
using vertical wind tunnels:

http://www.bodyflight.net/wind_tunne...the_week3.html

George

I did not say powered.

Neither did I, the previous poster said it "would have
been 'impossible' for humans to even fly", he didn't say
it would have been 'impossible' for aircraft.

There are 3 basic areas that had to be solved
for aviation to take place. Cayley solved two iof them. They are
control, airframe (lift/drag) and power.

To glide across a valley you need reasonable lift/drag and control.

And that meant using a glider, it wasn't the human who
"flew in Earth's air"!

George
;-)

The argument produced by the previous poser was that just a few years
before the Wrights people were saying that an AEROPLANE was
impossible. It is patently obvious that humans can not fly unaided.
That was at any rate how I read it.

As I have also pointed out the previous poster is inconsistent. viz AI

- Ian Parker

"Ian Parker" wrote in message
ups.com...
The argument produced by the previous poser was that just a few years
before the Wrights people were saying that an AEROPLANE was
impossible.

Let's look at the quote again:

:A little more than a hundred
:years ago it would have been 'impossible' for humans to even fly in
:Earth's air.

Seems clear to me, no mention of an "AEROPLANE".

It is patently obvious that humans can not fly unaided.

Yes, but you replied:

Don't be silly.

So it appears the O.P. was right (if taken
literally), still ...

That was at any rate how I read it.

As would anyone being sensible. Perhaps I should
have added a wink ;-)

George