Aliens or ex-inhabitants..

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: JimTSpock
If for a moment we assume some flying saucer type UFOs are ET craft they appear to have anti-gravity technology which is far more advanced than us. If they can do that they might also have faster than light travel ability. Without this it would only be possible to travel the smallest distances to the nearest stars, and the probability they have intelligent life is low compared to the rest of the universe.

Advanced anti-gravity technology...www.hpcc-space.de...

Not.

Heim achieved some media renown in the 1950s and 1960s, but his ideas have never been well-accepted in the physics community. A significant portion of Heim's work has not been published in rigorously peer reviewed journals. Heim's theory also predicts the existence of two hypothetical neutrinos, which have been shown not to exist by experiments at the Large Electron–Positron Collider

No tech. Just questionable ideas.

Do you have a reference or better yet a link for this?

originally posted by: tanka418

Well, if we widen our scope of data and evidence...perhaps. I know you are aware of what current myth, even ancient myth says about where ET is from...are you aware there may be some reality to it? For instance, if we look at Sirius most just see a bright star. A star that you and I know doesn't support the right kind of life, if at all. But, beyond that is a wee G class star called Nu 2.

Nu 2 Lupi has 3 known planets, all Super Earths orbiting too close to the star to support life. Could there be longer period planets perhaps in it's habitable zone which we have not yet discovered? Sure.

But I want to know: why do you think Nu 2 Lupi is home for ET life?

BTW: There are several stars with Nu2 in the name.

Nu 2 Lupi is the one I that you are referencing but there is also the K-giant Nu2 Canis Majoris.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

Good thread OP star and flag. . . .



They have been here forever, and are always here in the ever present most likely due to time travel capabilities, I would guess they are hanging out in various safe times and other dimentions just out of our view. Meaning they could be right in front of you and you would never see them would probably walk right through them like a ghost.

Again, I must speak against the notion of "time travel"; there is no data, I'm aware of, that suggests such a thing.



These ideas that ET are super advanced, have some technology that allows for FTL are all rather unfounded. The reality is that ET doesn't need any of that...time travel, FTL, super advanced technology to visit. There is a wealth of stars and planets all within traveling distance from Earth; within say 90ly (180 Terrestrial years).



It seems that so many get all "hung up" of the whole "alien" notion, as if it were something real. The reality is that ET, IF he is capable of visiting, is probably so much like Terrestrials that y'all couldn't find the differences without help. Course then you would refuse that help.

They would most likely time travel because opening a wormhole from one point to another would most likely be the most effecient manner of traveling the universe in a reasonable amount of time.

Meaning they would know how to bend both space and time.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

Good thread OP star and flag. . . .



They have been here forever, and are always here in the ever present most likely due to time travel capabilities, I would guess they are hanging out in various safe times and other dimentions just out of our view. Meaning they could be right in front of you and you would never see them would probably walk right through them like a ghost.

Again, I must speak against the notion of "time travel"; there is no data, I'm aware of, that suggests such a thing.



These ideas that ET are super advanced, have some technology that allows for FTL are all rather unfounded. The reality is that ET doesn't need any of that...time travel, FTL, super advanced technology to visit. There is a wealth of stars and planets all within traveling distance from Earth; within say 90ly (180 Terrestrial years).



It seems that so many get all "hung up" of the whole "alien" notion, as if it were something real. The reality is that ET, IF he is capable of visiting, is probably so much like Terrestrials that y'all couldn't find the differences without help. Course then you would refuse that help.

They would most likely time travel because opening a wormhole from one point to another would most likely be the most effecient manner of traveling the universe in a reasonable amount of time.

Meaning they would know how to bend both space and time.

Yes they could IF they were some number of years ahead of Earth...my point is they don't have to. Earth has, today, the technological capability to travel to near by stars. And, there is little evidence to suggest that ET is advanced at all (more than a few hundred years).

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord


Good thread OP star and flag. . . .

They have been here forever, and are always here in the ever present most likely due to time travel capabilities, I would guess they are hanging out in various safe times and other dimentions just out of our view. Meaning they could be right in front of you and you would never see them would probably walk right through them like a ghost.

Again, I must speak against the notion of "time travel"; there is no data, I'm aware of, that suggests such a thing.

These ideas that ET are super advanced, have some technology that allows for FTL are all rather unfounded. The reality is that ET doesn't need any of that...time travel, FTL, super advanced technology to visit. There is a wealth of stars and planets all within traveling distance from Earth; within say 90ly (180 Terrestrial years).

It seems that so many get all "hung up" of the whole "alien" notion, as if it were something real. The reality is that ET, IF he is capable of visiting, is probably so much like Terrestrials that y'all couldn't find the differences without help. Course then you would refuse that help.

They would most likely time travel because opening a wormhole from one point to another would most likely be the most effecient manner of traveling the universe in a reasonable amount of time.

Meaning they would know how to bend both space and time.

Yes they could IF they were some number of years ahead of Earth...my point is they don't have to. Earth has, today, the technological capability to travel to near by stars. And, there is little evidence to suggest that ET is advanced at all (more than a few hundred years).

Interesting point but its flawed, because your judging them from our levels of techology which has been going on for a few hundred years, if aliens have been at it for thousands or millions of years they would most likely be advanced enough to create a universe and alter it at will similar to a matrix or simulation.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Tangerine
I'm glad you've concluded that you're done but disappointed that you were unable to cite any testable evidence proving the existence of extraterrestrials visiting earth and abducting people. Bummer.

And I presume that you are aware that most evidence on such things is primarily subjective. As an experiencer I have found that most will accept the experience at the subjective level and then fool themselves into thinking that it is objective. I personally went through an extended period where I (now) don't think I could effectively tell the difference. It has been through the diligent application of more proper scientific procedure/protocol that has allow me to become something that maybe, has a few "flashes" of true objectivity.

These issues that I have somewhat overcome are shared by the rest of the sentient creatures in the Universe...no One / no thing escapes.

Anyway, I have my "tested" experiences, however, the dataset is not, nor do I believe it can be made, acceptable to you. What has happened to me an many others is something that must be experienced first hand, otherwise it is meaningless.

I have no doubt that people have had experiences nor do I doubt the sincere beliefs they express about the nature of those experiences. I will even go so far as to say that those experiences were "real" but reality is a very slippery word. The nature of reality is nebulous. The ET hypothesis is, of course, possible but I think it is one of the least likely of hypotheses.

What have concluded about the nature of your experiences?

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: tanka418

Well, if we widen our scope of data and evidence...perhaps. I know you are aware of what current myth, even ancient myth says about where ET is from...are you aware there may be some reality to it? For instance, if we look at Sirius most just see a bright star. A star that you and I know doesn't support the right kind of life, if at all. But, beyond that is a wee G class star called Nu 2.

Nu 2 Lupi has 3 known planets, all Super Earths orbiting too close to the star to support life. Could there be longer period planets perhaps in it's habitable zone which we have not yet discovered? Sure.

But I want to know: why do you think Nu 2 Lupi is home for ET life?

BTW: There are several stars with Nu2 in the name.

Nu 2 Lupi is the one I that you are referencing but there is also the K-giant Nu2 Canis Majoris.

Nu 2 Canis Majoris...the only one near Sirius as viewed from Earth. And, not saying there is advanced life there, only a possibility and a possibility for Human misunderstanding.

But to answer the question about why I think a given star is home for ET...just as planets are ubiquitous, so is life.
Its kind of like; "If a star can have planets, it will. If a planet can have/support life, it will.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: tanka418



Well, if we widen our scope of data and evidence...perhaps. I know you are aware of what current myth, even ancient myth says about where ET is from...are you aware there may be some reality to it? For instance, if we look at Sirius most just see a bright star. A star that you and I know doesn't support the right kind of life, if at all. But, beyond that is a wee G class star called Nu 2.

Nu 2 Lupi has 3 known planets, all Super Earths orbiting too close to the star to support life. Could there be longer period planets perhaps in it's habitable zone which we have not yet discovered? Sure.



But I want to know: why do you think Nu 2 Lupi is home for ET life?



BTW: There are several stars with Nu2 in the name.



Nu 2 Lupi is the one I that you are referencing but there is also the K-giant Nu2 Canis Majoris.

Nu 2 Canis Majoris...the only one near Sirius as viewed from Earth. And, not saying there is advanced life there, only a possibility and a possibility for Human misunderstanding.



But to answer the question about why I think a given star is home for ET...just as planets are ubiquitous, so is life.

Its kind of like; "If a star can have planets, it will. If a planet can have/support life, it will.

Hey lets not forget massive astroids being used as bases as well, it would be like texas floating off in space amid a bunch of other country sized rocks, perfect cover and defence if you can move the astroids by magnetism.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Interesting point but its flawed, because your judging them from our levels of techology which has been going on for a few hundred years, if aliens have been at it for thousands or millions of years they would most likely be advanced enough to create a universe and alter it at will similar to a matrix or simulation.

Not quite; I'm judging ET on the merits of his supposedly observed technology. Nothing so far requires hyper-advanced technology. No need for FTL, no need for time travel; just a technology that already exists on Earth, and of course some amount of travel time.

Something to think about. When Earth was visited 8000 years ago, ET flew in what they called "vimanas", which were chemical powered by most accounts (fire, smoke, etc.), then later around the last half of the 1500, ET apparently had air plane shaped craft...probably also chemical powered. That could represent rather poor technological progress and development. Which in turn could indicate that ET isn't very advanced at all.

You might also want to consider that individual species may not live long enough to achive "millions of years" of advancement. Terrestrial science places the "life expectancy" of a species at 5 to 10 million years, then there is the life span of their home world star...ever think about life on earth might be like in a billion years? or even 100 million? how about half a million?

Probability would seem to suggest that advanced sentient beings, like Humans, may not have a life expectancy quite long at the species level. Then there is the old evolution thing...Our ETs would have to remain static and not evolve at all over the next 5000 years to simply be 5000 years ahead of Earth. That's not very likely...they will continue to evolve both physically, and spiritually and in far less time than Humans are capable of comprehending they will evolve to the next stage and have no need or interest in the physical.

So, you see, your super advanced aliens; simply do not exist. They will either destroy themselves, or evolve away from mortal comprehension.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Interesting point but its flawed, because your judging them from our levels of techology which has been going on for a few hundred years, if aliens have been at it for thousands or millions of years they would most likely be advanced enough to create a universe and alter it at will similar to a matrix or simulation.

Not quite; I'm judging ET on the merits of his supposedly observed technology. Nothing so far requires hyper-advanced technology. No need for FTL, no need for time travel; just a technology that already exists on Earth, and of course some amount of travel time.


Something to think about. When Earth was visited 8000 years ago, ET flew in what they called "vimanas", which were chemical powered by most accounts (fire, smoke, etc.), then later around the last half of the 1500, ET apparently had air plane shaped craft...probably also chemical powered. That could represent rather poor technological progress and development. Which in turn could indicate that ET isn't very advanced at all.

You might also want to consider that individual species may not live long enough to achive "millions of years" of advancement. Terrestrial science places the "life expectancy" of a species at 5 to 10 million years, then there is the life span of their home world star...ever think about life on earth might be like in a billion years? or even 100 million? how about half a million?

Probability would seem to suggest that advanced sentient beings, like Humans, may not have a life expectancy quite long at the species level. Then there is the old evolution thing...Our ETs would have to remain static and not evolve at all over the next 5000 years to simply be 5000 years ahead of Earth. That's not very likely...they will continue to evolve both physically, and spiritually and in far less time than Humans are capable of comprehending they will evolve to the next stage and have no need or interest in the physical.

So, you see, your super advanced aliens; simply do not exist. They will either destroy themselves, or evolve away from mortal comprehension.

NO NO & NO again

The whole they would destroy themselves BS doesnt work because that would be stupid and moronic, if they destroyed themselves they wouldnt be advanced now would they. They would be advanced enough to know they are one, and be over the us vs them mentality we seem to be stuck in.
Masters of biotechnology they would have infinate lifespans. . . .
As they are able to have things like expanded minds by merging with technology, they would not die off instead they would thrive unhindered.


As to thier having vimanas 1000s of years ago yes, however they would have used those vimana to leave earths surface only to thier dumbed down short lived human expiriments.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Interesting point but its flawed, because your judging them from our levels of techology which has been going on for a few hundred years, if aliens have been at it for thousands or millions of years they would most likely be advanced enough to create a universe and alter it at will similar to a matrix or simulation.

Not quite; I'm judging ET on the merits of his supposedly observed technology. Nothing so far requires hyper-advanced technology. No need for FTL, no need for time travel; just a technology that already exists on Earth, and of course some amount of travel time.

Something to think about. When Earth was visited 8000 years ago, ET flew in what they called "vimanas", which were chemical powered by most accounts (fire, smoke, etc.), then later around the last half of the 1500, ET apparently had air plane shaped craft...probably also chemical powered. That could represent rather poor technological progress and development. Which in turn could indicate that ET isn't very advanced at all.

You might also want to consider that individual species may not live long enough to achive "millions of years" of advancement. Terrestrial science places the "life expectancy" of a species at 5 to 10 million years, then there is the life span of their home world star...ever think about life on earth might be like in a billion years? or even 100 million? how about half a million?

Probability would seem to suggest that advanced sentient beings, like Humans, may not have a life expectancy quite long at the species level. Then there is the old evolution thing...Our ETs would have to remain static and not evolve at all over the next 5000 years to simply be 5000 years ahead of Earth. That's not very likely...they will continue to evolve both physically, and spiritually and in far less time than Humans are capable of comprehending they will evolve to the next stage and have no need or interest in the physical.

So, you see, your super advanced aliens; simply do not exist. They will either destroy themselves, or evolve away from mortal comprehension.

You're killing my star trek dream, yo. Uncool.

originally posted by: tanka418
So, you see, your super advanced aliens; simply do not exist. They will either destroy themselves, or evolve away from mortal comprehension.

And you know this through your extensive exploration of the universe? The universe is so vast and massive to make assumptions like this is just wild speculation. We can't possibly know that.
There could be billions or even trillions of super advanced alien races in the vastness of the universe and some of them may indeed have faster than light travel capability and haven't destroyed themselves yet. To think you know all possibilities and realities of the entire universe is beyond ridiculous.

originally posted by: JimTSpock

originally posted by: tanka418

So, you see, your super advanced aliens; simply do not exist. They will either destroy themselves, or evolve away from mortal comprehension.

And you know this through your extensive exploration of the universe? The universe is so vast and massive to make assumptions like this is just wild speculation. We can't possibly know that.

There could be billions or even trillions of super advanced alien races in the vastness of the universe and some of them may indeed have faster than light travel capability and haven't destroyed themselves yet. To think you know all possibilities and realities of the entire universe is beyond ridiculous.

Awesome response I couldnt have said it better myself.

Yeah how on earth would anyone know about civilizations millions of years more advanced than ours. . . .

Great clip lol. They were all nuts in the 60s.

I was just watching a show the other day called How Big Is The Universe and based on the latest observations and calculations it appears to be infinite. Our own galaxy The Milky Way is beyond massive and there are billions and billions of other galaxies, it gets difficult to comprehend.

Then there is the possibility of infinite multiple universes or multiverses so our brainpower begins to be overwhelmed. And also theories about other dimensions like 12 of them. Earth could be the only life in the entire universe, which would be very bizarre. Or we could have been visited by multiple alien races from different universes and dimensions as well as this universe and some of them could have technology and capability beyond our comprehension. To say that is all out of the question and impossible is underestimating the scale of the universe, which we are only beginning to comprehend.

originally posted by: JimTSpock
Great clip lol. They were all nuts in the 60s.

I was just watching a show the other day called How Big Is The Universe and based on the latest observations and calculations it appears to be infinite. Our own galaxy The Milky Way is beyond massive and there are billions and billions of other galaxies, it gets difficult to comprehend.

Then there is the possibility of infinite multiple universes or multiverses so our brainpower begins to be overwhelmed. And also theories about other dimensions like 12 of them. Earth could be the only life in the entire universe, which would be very bizarre. Or we could have been visited by multiple alien races from different universes and dimensions as well as this universe and some of them could have technology and capability beyond our comprehension. To say that is all out of the question and impossible is underestimating the scale of the universe, which we are only beginning to comprehend.

Lol the thought that we may be the only advanced life in the universe is not a logical one. I believe the universe is teeming with life and we have yet to go out as a society and meet it. Perhaps our secret governments have managed to but as far as the public we havent reached above and beyond. I would say that aliens are here now and arent ex inhabitants, because they have the ability to not be seen by us meaning operate at a different frequency then our current time space and what we are able to see and touch. Michio Kaku mentioned that there are countless universes overlapping each other, meaning there are dinosaurs in our living rooms on a different frequency.

Michio Kaku speaks on this a little bit.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: JimTSpock
If for a moment we assume some flying saucer type UFOs are ET craft they appear to have anti-gravity technology which is far more advanced than us. If they can do that they might also have faster than light travel ability. Without this it would only be possible to travel the smallest distances to the nearest stars, and the probability they have intelligent life is low compared to the rest of the universe.

Advanced anti-gravity technology...www.hpcc-space.de...

Not.

Heim achieved some media renown in the 1950s and 1960s, but his ideas have never been well-accepted in the physics community. A significant portion of Heim's work has not been published in rigorously peer reviewed journals. Heim's theory also predicts the existence of two hypothetical neutrinos, which have been shown not to exist by experiments at the Large Electron–Positron Collider

No tech. Just questionable ideas.

Do you have a reference or better yet a link for this?

How about researching your own claim?

Anyway...

In short, he was a maverick physicist, working entirely outside the mainstream of physics and publishing entirely outside the peer-reviewed journals. The few physicists who attempted to decipher his densely mathematical papers written in German found it was nearly incomprehensible. This changed in 2002, shortly after Heim's death, when Walter Dröscher, and Jochem Häuser began to publish papers based on Heim's work, claiming that his alternate theory of gravity allowed for the possibility of antigravity and faster than light propulsion. In addition, they claimed that Heim's theory was experimentally verified! To be specific, they claimed that by using the parameters derived by Heim in a computer program, they could derive the mass of all of the major elementary particles, and these theoretical derivations of masses matched the measured mass; in some cases with accuracy up to nine significant figures. It is hard to emphasize how astounding this is. Modern physics does not have a way to derive the mass of elementary particles from first principles. If Heim's theory could be used to do this, it seems like it must have some validity. Heim's theory also made other predictions as well, such as predicting other particles which have not been observed, and predicting excited states of elementary particles. These predictions do not fully correspond to measured values. (Even Heim's defenders admit "So far Heim has not succeeded in finding a criterion which would limit the number of exited states to those actually observed."[Auerbach and von Ludwiger, 1992]). Finally, the theory does not predict any substructure to the elementary baryons-- i.e., the theory does not include quarks, and this prediction is at odds with measurements in experimental high energy physics, in which the behavior of protons and neutrons at high energy can best be described by quantum chromodynamics. This theory has been extraordinarily successful in predicting the behavior of particles at high energy, a viable alternative theory would, most preferably, need to be at least as successful if it is to replace the standard model of high energy physics. In short, other than the predicting the mass of elementary particles, Heim theory does not do well at fitting the existing data, and some of its conclusions, such as the prediction of excited states of existing particles, seem to be false. However, it was the accuracy of the predictions of particle mass, which had been measured, that was astonishing. This was a prediction that no other theories could make.


John Reed has posted to Physforum in 2011 that Heim theory was cooked

Since I posted that I have done a lot of work with Heim Theory. First I tried to come up with the mass of the Tau lepton. Since I had the equations in a state that should give me this mass if I entered the correct quantum numbers for the Tau, I tried that. This experiment failed. The equations blew up. I noticed that the discovery date for the Tau was later than the other particles Heim had masses for. It was discovered in 1975. The latest discovery date for a particle that Heim's equations give a correct mass for is the K meson, discovered in 1947. Of course, there is the well known discrepancy of the neutral electron, and many more new particles not in Heim's results. It's almost as if Heim's theory is like a snapshot of particle data taken before 1975. So, I decided to go back to Heim's books and translate them. This took a long time but I finally got to the end of Volume I, chapter II. Before starting on chapter III I decided to take a look at Heim's gravitation theory which starts in section 4 of chapter II, Gravitational Space Structure and its Extrema. I was hoping to come up with an answer to the problem of "dark energy" since Heim claimed to be able to show that gravitation becomes repulsive as distance becomes greater than a certain distance due to the mass of the gravitational field. When I looked at the equations given in the book, the starting equation for the gravitational potential is given on page 77. This is supposed to be the Laplacian, expressed in spherical coordinates. But this equation is WRONG. I looked in my copy of "Methods of Theoretical Physics" by Morse and Feshbach where the equation is given correctly to confirm this. In order to get his incorrect equation to work, Heim had to assume that the azimuthal angle is fixed. Why should this be necessary when spherical symmetry is involved? Heim should have seen this error and corrected it. Any undergrad physics student has seen this equation and should be able to write it correctly. Heim made two errors but finally came out with the equation he wanted. I did some more research and found the articles by Anton Mueller and Borje Mansson I mentioned in my earlier posting. I think I have some idea of what Heim did now. There is much talk in his book about "empirical data". He took the particle mass data and cooked up his equations to make them correct. It certainly was a lot of work for him, but I don't think it has much to do with physics. I'm sorry to say I wasted a lot of time on this but I hope I can save someone else some work.


And nowhere, ANYWHERE, is there proof of extant "Advanced antigravity technology" or the successful application of Heim's flawed speculations to that end.

a reply to: draknoir2
Can you click on that for me? I'm kind of busy.

a reply to: draknoir2

Nice try...however, if you want to debunk science...it requires science.

I noticed that most of the recent work on this theory is completely missing from what you posted and linked.

That recent work demonstrated the reality of the theory in the laboratory...turned out quite a lot like Zero point energy projects as of late...rather a lot of success...at the nano level. But, then again...they were only attempting to "prove a concept".

So...try as you might; you haven't done anything but waste time and data-space/bandwidth. You are deluding yourself, and using "not quite" articles as our authority. And THAT is what doesn't work!

Much of what I've read about this artificial gravity system has been science students displaying their lack of a complete education. Like you they attach to anything that will make their own incomplete notions seem legitimate, when of course they have left out important data, and their analysis is obviously flawed.

So...do us all a large favor; lay off the unfounded crap, and use real science in the future.

a reply to: tanka418

Ouch!

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: draknoir2

Nice try...however, if you want to debunk science...it requires science.

How does one "debunk science"?


I quoted a physicist who is intimately familiar with Heim's work, who has gone so far as to translate, decipher, and evaluate his theories.


You, however, have just posted a throwaway link that in no way proves your claim. Not so nice a try on your part.