Aliens contributing to technology

Originally posted by Beachcoma

I haven't gone through the rest of the posts here since I last checked it. I have difficulty focusing when there paragraphs aren't used (as do a lot of other people, I'm sure). Please, please, try to use more paragraphs people. It really helps, trust me. It's not difficult -- just split the body every 3-5 sentences.

[edit on 21-9-2007 by Beachcoma]

Thanks for reminding me, my thoughts tend to flow together rather fluidly so I forget that. However paragraphs are best used in relation to separating different topics or thought trains, although 3-5 sentences is a good guide. After 20 sentences one can usually find a way to break it up at least once, depends on what is being said, and remaining coherent is more important than sticking to the 3-5 guideline religiously.

People throw fact and proof around way too much. Because Mr. Meir? said he contacted UFO's does not make it a fact. The only fact is he says he did, it's not a fact he actually did. Proof and fact constitutes something that can be tested and scrutinized. While people have personal experiences... and I do believe that... it is not proof. If you did see a UFO or alien I envy you. I wish I would have an experience like that. Even if I did, I couldn't use that to justify existence of aliens to others. It was a personal experience. I would not expect other people to believe me without some sort of verification. I might know it to be true, but it does take more then me saying it happened to actually constitute "proof". As for proof... yes people tear it apart... it's called scientific process. You think scientists are just going to go along with whatever wild theory without testing and scrutinizing it? A GOOD theory should stand up to constant attacks and barrages. None of these do. God forbid someone actually question my theory, it falls apart... then it's not a theory. That's how science works. You want to be taken seriously, then you have to play by the rules. Your theory is not "special", any and all theories undergo this "tearing apart". I have written several theories on quantum gravity had had them torn apart. I actually feel grateful someone with more knowledge then me in this field took the time to even look it over. You use this to revise and build a stronger theory. Not cry about how someone tore it apart. Any theory that can not stand up to a little questioning, is a poor theory and needs some work. Don't complain about how science is tearing apart theories you come up with. Were making them stronger. If I didn't care, I would say sure sounds good and walk away laughing. Your lucky people take the time to look them over and scrutinize them. As for someone trying to use string theory in their argument, I don't understand what your getting at. Closed loop point particles and internet searches? I'm not arguing with you, I just don't understand where you were going with it. So I'm sorry, the majority of people want proof of something before they will accept it. Because "I said so" is not proof. While I believe extra terestrial life exists, and will argue that point, I would never claim to have proof of it like so many of you do. It boils down to this... you all claim you have proof of this and that... proof should be undeniable. Show me this proof... if it truly is fact... then it shouldn't matter what I say. I shouldn't be able to tear it apart. George bush claimed there were WMD in Iraq... did that make it a fact? Retired colonel so and so said this... doesn't make it a fact. It's all about the facts and proof. It's also trying to make the strongest case possible despite the lack of proof. The strongest case is the one that will hold up to the most questioning. You only get that by trial and error. So don't complain if someone questions your theory or tears it apart. Use that to make it stronger. Its peer input.

[edit on 21-9-2007 by b309302]

Well of course. That's why I talked about string theory, because I know for a fact that no matter how much I talk about Reticulians or Draconians or how many other sources corroborate the information, you most likely will not accept even a rational explanation of how I came to what I know. The string theory is something you can research, pull it apart, go right ahead! Disprove my theory of Burst Computation, try to, I WANT YOU TO. Find a better solution, I never said I didn't want you to, and if you can, then you are better than I. The very nature of ATS renders much of what is discussed as speculative, and as I have been told "Proof is what you make of it".

So, just because I make many claims that cannot be backed up by direct evidence, do not think that I don't value the scientific method, or believe it isn't necessary in order to be presented as a truth. My true intention is to get people thinking on these possibilities, and believe me it would be far easier if I just kept my damn mouth shut. I know exactly what I am saying, and I have to accept my lack of proof, just as I cannot expect people to take it at face value. I know better, and I am willing to lose face and reputation rather than not speaking about my insights. If you don't like it, you are entitled to your opinion, just don't fool yourself into thinking that I am unaware of what I am saying or doing, as that is incredibly far from the truth of the matter.

That is an interesting question indeed.

I have been pondering the gods of genesis or elohim.
Man was advancing nicely, and they come and mix up their language...what was that about? Maybe their test tube humans (whatever) gained consciousness (i.e. our robots of the future) and they said, "lets put a limit on them...dont need no competition."

Then you have the 'dragon' of genesis blamed for the fall of man - could be another alien group who helped? Bad guy wins and calls the good bad? (and why not...not to far fetched)

anyway, thats just playing with ideas from the Bible.

Peace

dAlen

Well I believe that the gods of Genesis were very much involved in the matter, and the bible gets it all mixed up. It is to me a hefty dose of propaganda mixed with misconceptions of reality, along just enough truth to keep it from becoming a completely scrambled mess. To illustrate I pose a question:
What is the difference between a god, and a person with all the powers of one, with a god-complex? Very little, but that difference makes all the difference, so to speak.

I appreciate your honesty, thank you. As for your theory... I am not sure i understand it... let me try and I apologize if I get it wrong. Were going to use infinite point particles of super string to simulate infinite info on the internet right? Since it is near impossible to find a particular particle in an infinte sea of them we need some sort of algorythym to narrow the search. Shotgun approach suggests we use an arbritary number (12) and search 12 particles at once. Of these 12 we find the one that is most similar to what we are looking for, and shotgun again in that direction. We keep doing this until we narrow it down to what we are looking for? Right? This theory relies on similar info/particles being in a group. Big question...how do you get these grouped to begin with? If you want to get technical, superstring theory consists of closed loop point particles. While this group might be close to what you are looking for, the actual group that conatains the answer could be at any random vector from this one. To make it more difficult... you have 11 dimensions not 4. This means that because two similar loops are next to each other on the 3'rd dimensional plane does not mean they are anywhere close on the 7'th, and vice versa. I like your theory, it makes sense, Once again I could be missing this entirely, but to group them, you need to go through all of them and find similar properties and sort them by some system the algorytym can recognize. That seems like alot of work with infinite particles. I'm probably just not getting it, could you explain it better?



[edit on 21-9-2007 by b309302]

reply to post by GideonHM


Interesting theory, this "Shotgun Blast" thing. But I think we don't even know enough about string theory itself. Heck, the last time I checked there were several variations of the theory, the hardest of all for me to wrap my mind around being loop quantum gravity (I'm willing to concede that there are things I just can't understand). That makes it difficult to even conceive an algorithm to make your approach work. Pity.

Your other theory about Reticulians and Draconians also sound fascinating. True or not, I'm sure it'll be a fascinating read. Why don't you open up a thread in Skunkworks to further elaborate? I'm sure there'll be many others who are interested in what your thoughts on it might be. At least in Skunkworks you wouldn't be (so the mods tell me) subject to so much scrutiny by debunkers and what-have-yous. But you say you can't reveal your sources? Maybe you don't have to if you put it all together well enough. There's more than one way to skin a cat, as they say.

PS: Thanks for splitting it up in paragraphs, I appreciate that

Originally posted by b309302
This theory relies on similar info/particles being in a group. Big question...how do you get these grouped to begin with?

I believe that the first 'shot' can be random, however since you are already looking for something, the closed loop acts as an attractive force naturally and freely 'flowing' to the point of least resistance, i.e. your answer.

If you want to get technical, superstring theory consists of closed loop point particles. While this group might be close to what you are looking for, the actual group that conatains the answer could be at any random vector from this one. To make it more difficult... you have 11 dimensions not 4. This means that because two similar loops are next to each other on the 3'rd dimensional plane does not mean they are anywhere close on the 7'th, and vice versa.

That is the beauty of using a superstring algorithm, if you allow for the initial algorithm to work in one dimension, then you can limit it to say one mathematical plane. If you want to go up or down, then you include a Y axis, if you need three dimensions then you add Z, if you need more than that then you just need to add further characters to represent an expanded search field (directionally if the 4th dimension would be say NE on a compass then just create a Zalpha coordinate to represent this possible field, and if you don't actually know where Zalpha should exist, then you just recreate the original algorithm as a subroutine to search for it first, then continue to build the search based on that, as once it finds your Zalpha coordinate, then the master algorithm will naturally search that dimension once it becomes available).

Also I believe that the string loop also allows the algorithm to backtrack if a possible search that originally is closer, but then leads to a dead end (say if a search finds the closest particle in the 1st dimension, but it is really in the 8th dimension, and the closest 1st dimensional path does not have a path to the 8th dimension, then it can backtrack to the closest point to the 8th dimension [or path to other dimensions that lead to that 8th dimensional path, e.g. 1d, backtrack 1d+4dgate,4d+11dgate,11d+8dgate,8d,8danswer]. This backtracking continues until it finds the closest answer then can shift, but only if you include the possibility in your original computation, as if you only need one dimension then increasing the search to 10 could net you better answers, but if you don't care or do not need such a specific answer, then that is time spent on a search that could be put to better use).

That seems like alot of work with infinite particles. I'm probably just not getting it, could you explain it better?

You hit it on the head, and your input allowed me to get you this more expounded answer. Thanks!!

Originally posted by Beachcoma
reply to post by GideonHM

 

Interesting theory, this "Shotgun Blast" thing. But I think we don't even know enough about string theory itself. Heck, the last time I checked there were several variations of the theory, the hardest of all for me to wrap my mind around being loop quantum gravity (I'm willing to concede that there are things I just can't understand). That makes it difficult to even conceive an algorithm to make your approach work. Pity.

Actually, I believe that anyone who understands string theory well enough while trying to improve on my theories will accidentally unlock it. Because of the nature of the infinite loop, even thinking of it creates the ability of discovering it, as since quantum particles are connected regardless of time-space, the question-answer concept are already connected, so following my theory will naturally allow someone, somewhere to stumble over it almost without realizing it! Isn't that crazy?

Your other theory about Reticulians and Draconians also sound fascinating. True or not, I'm sure it'll be a fascinating read. Why don't you open up a thread in Skunkworks to further elaborate? I'm sure there'll be many others who are interested in what your thoughts on it might be. At least in Skunkworks you wouldn't be (so the mods tell me) subject to so much scrutiny by debunkers and what-have-yous. But you say you can't reveal your sources? Maybe you don't have to if you put it all together well enough. There's more than one way to skin a cat, as they say.

I will consider it, but I am all for people trying to debunk my ideas, and I am always up for a good challenge. Also, the reason why I can't reveal my source is just because it is not believable. I can barely believe it myself at times, and as such I just don't want everyone thinking I am ready for the rubber puck, just because I am completely upfront as to my sources. Just as there is plausible deniability, so too is there plausible acceptability, and to give all the information destroys your ability to believe me, without even realizing it. I know the irony in stating that, and it is also oxymoronic, so what can I do?

PS: Thanks for splitting it up in paragraphs, I appreciate that

No problem!

[edit on 21-9-2007 by GideonHM]

Okay first theory made more sense. Explanation is loosing me. Your using an infinite loop. Superstring is not an infinite loop. It's a closed loop point particle that moves in 11 dimensional space. Your algorythym also ignores the Heisenberg principle. Any attempt to measure a particle, changes the properties of that particle, thus rendering any measurment uselss. If you "scanned" a point particle, the scan would disrupt and alter it's location/properties. So if you even could scan one, the act of scanning it changes the properties of it, thus making any scan/search inaccurate. Heisenberg theory: You can't know the exact location of a particle and what it is doing at the same time. Work on getting around that first =) I think you have a great idea, just don't relate it to super string... It falls apart.





[edit on 21-9-2007 by b309302]

I would love to see how you can enable an algorythym to search in 5+ dimensional space. I didn't know it was possible to even concieve of the properties of those dimensions in a 4 dimensional computer program. I get x,y,z and time... but could you explain to me how the computer searches w? axis space when we dont even know what it is? Honestly just curious how that works. Not being sarcastic at all. I think you have several great ideas. Just need a little more revision / explanation.

Originally posted by b309302
Okay first theory made more sense. Explanation is loosing me. Your using an infinite loop. Superstring is not an infinite loop. It's a closed loop point particle that moves in 11 dimensional space. Your algorythym also ignores the Heisenberg principle. Any attempt to measure a particle, changes the properties of that particle, thus rendering any measurment uselss. You can't search infinite point particles like that without disrupting the nature of what they actually are, thus rendering your search useless. Heisenberg theory: You can't know the exact location of a particle and what it is doing at the same time.

Ah ha! Who said that changing the nature of what you are searching for is out of the question? Now please bear with me a moment. The whole point is that you are purposefully changing the particles as the algorithm sees fit to flow along the closed circuit (sorry about the infinite circuit, I sometimes switch words with meanings, a pain in the a** I know), as long as the particle is manipulated properly (which is something I still have to work out, I admit it), the algorithm is actually guiding the particles to the correct outcome. I cannot separate the 'shotgun blast' from the concept of particles, but I can adjust my thinking in relation to them.

It is almost like bending reality, you are adjusting the particles (the ones closest to the solution) in any given burst to allow them to guide you to the next course you need to plot. Just because a particle is changed does not necessarily destroy it (depends on the particle, and its properties). Also, looking at specific particles cements them in that current configuration so the algorithm can either ignore it, or manipulate it to continue the path (by scanning it). Then by looking at all of the particles in the next 'burst' their configuration can flow again (including the former which allows for reverse movement if necessary) until you look at the individuals once more which become static.

As for your dimensional question, that is what the algorithm subroutine does, you never need to know where it is, you merely allow a linked version of the algorithm to itself with the only command to find W for instance, and you would do this for each dimension you need. You are cutting out the middle man, to coin a phrase. Remember the Underpants Gnomes of South Park? Their concept was to Step 1: Steal Underpants, Step 3: Profit! This is the same counterintuitive concept. Like you said, the user cannot look at the points and come up with a solution, that is the algorithm's job and really it is like an AI program that intuitively reacts to the information, and produces results almost 'magically'.

I know, I know, I know. How in the he** can I expect anyone to believe this? However, I also believe that this could be a way to bend space-time safely and effectively. Imagine if you programmed the algorithm to plot the safest course of a hypothetical jump gate that is connected to a system containing the program, from earth to uh, say, the planet nearest to Orion with an atmosphere suitable for humans, you then give it the factors for subroutines to search for each factor that needs to be considered (and being that this would be vastly complex, you just run another algorithm through the Collective Unconscious [a vast 'sea' of information] to get that information [which tapping into would require another set of search parameters separate from the rest]), however each search runs by itself, and upon completion of every step, you basically have a stargate (or possibly a probability gate) that does all the 'work' for you every time, and you don't have to know one bit of how the algorithm actually achieves the results.

Remember this still needs substantiation and peer review before this could be confirmed, I am just glad you listened to what I have to say, and hopefully I can receive more input or actual proof as to what I am saying.

[edit on 21-9-2007 by GideonHM]

I've got to read this over... get back with you.

Okay, still have questions... as I am sure you expected =) I think you have a good start for an idea, your doing what I do, lol, your running in 10 directions at once. It sounds good on the surface, but as I am sure you are aware the actual science needs to be cleaned up alot. Be more then happy to help you, if you want. I can't tell you if it would work or not, not until many points are clarified. You obviously put a lot of thought and work into this. I think I see where you are going with this... were using superstring 11D membrane theory to state all point particles in spacetime are linked, therefore we can plot/group them, right? If it works promise to sell me stock in your company at a discount okay? Allright focus on step 1 with me... forget about any algorythym, dimensional program or anything like that... try to clarify something. The actual info is stored how? The program works like superstring point particles. Is the info "encoded" in the point particles of spacetime itself? Are we taking existing point particles and assigning values to them? If so...big question... how do we actually detect point particles? We can't assign values to them if we can't detect them, they are theoretical. Get past step 1 without magic and you'll have my full attention. =)




[edit on 22-9-2007 by b309302]

[edit on 22-9-2007 by b309302]

It's the snowball effect of modern technologies, simple and plain.. Claims saying otherwise, as you've seen, are hugely unsubstantiated. Look at the evolutionary process of any modern invention and it tells you the story of how pretty much everything else was created.

For instance, the airplane.

No little green guys involved.

Oh, and...

Never underestimate the human species.

Originally posted by b309302
Allright focus on step 1 with me... forget about any algorythym, dimensional program or anything like that... try to clarify something. The actual info is stored how? The program works like superstring point particles. Is the info "encoded" in the point particles of spacetime itself? Are we taking existing point particles and assigning values to them? If so...big question... how do we actually detect point particles? We can't assign values to them if we can't detect them, they are theoretical. Get past step 1 without magic and you'll have my full attention. =)

[edit on 22-9-2007 by b309302]

Ok, well I believe technologically we are not 'quite' to the level that we need to be in order to do it perfectly. Such as Europe's Diamond linear collider once it is complete to detect a quantum particle and its loop so that once we can detect a loop, any loop with a machine, then we can create a 'quantum fishhook' basically allowing one to 'tether' a particle beam which I suppose would be the base program that the algorithm would run through, and the shotgun burst would relate directly to the size of the particle beam, detecting quantum particles with supercharged light particles. Once you can tether the particle beam on to a quantum loop, then that allows you to start the chain reaction(by pulling the quantum loop in the direction you need, effectively bridging the connection to the next particle burst in the next chain) beginning the search by the algorithm, that is run through the computer attached to the linear collider, and as the first step begins then theoretically the chain reaction is self sustaining as long as the algorithm and all its parameters are input properly.

Oh yes! I forgot... ALAKAZAM! *POOF*

I think that IF we have a cache of "alien" technology, it would definitely not be released at once. It is like money laundering: if you find $500,000 in cash, you're not going to be depositing it (unless you want GW to take half) at a bank anytime soon. You'll release it slowly.

reply to post by HatTrick


Most definitely. If any government did so haphazardly or all at once, there would be some serious questioning involved with regards to where they came from, why they have them, and who developed them. Besides, the well being of the people represented by most governments is usually put on the back burner if any good enough reason is given. Money, extra power, the ability to smite their enemies(terrorists included), all these things and more are ample reasons to put aside their first responsibilities to their people (if that ever was their first responsibility), and pursue the new 'freedoms' that occur for the people in their positions that they choose to abuse, and non-earth based technologies falls squarely into this category.

I agree in part with the start of this thread, but my problem is how do we as humans go from horses to say the F-22 in 100 years? No way in hell do I believe the world war idea. The world has seen huge wars in the past and if that were the case the telephone or whatever would be 3000 years old. Something is going on, maybe not aliens but we did not just evolve this fast out of luck.