Pilotasso Posted August 20, 2006 Posted August 20, 2006 If it were MiG-25 alien would get cancer from its unsteatlhy radar beams :D you mean THIS? ftp://ftp.sunet.se/pub/tv+movies/spacebattles/alpha5X.zip darned trekies, well served for those life wasters :D .
Ardillita Posted August 21, 2006 Posted August 21, 2006 I know when something is rare when it does not impact everything else arround it. ;) Where are those alien transmitions?:D How many planets in the solar system have complex life? We know 1 has;) , 1 or 2 may have primitive life forms, if that. Of all the hundreds of planets we found outside SOL sytem, either they are bombarded with insane radiation doses, gravitational issues or are gas planets wich radiate more hard stuff than than they recieve from their own star. Many more dont even have atmosphere. Hardly an abundance of lush paradises. Infact, the planets discovered outside our solar system are very few, you can´t count more than 5. The existance of planet are, YES, a very well accepted statement, but really discovered non solar system palnets, very few. not because they are rare, but because the tech restrictions os scopes. They are there, we just don´t have the proper tool to properly see them.
Pilotasso Posted August 21, 2006 Posted August 21, 2006 Infact, the planets discovered outside our solar system are very few, you can´t count more than 5. The existance of planet are, YES, a very well accepted statement, but really discovered non solar system palnets, very few. not because they are rare, but because the tech restrictions os scopes. They are there, we just don´t have the proper tool to properly see them. You are missionformed. They are discovering new planets all the time. And the amount of discoveries has been skyrocketing every year. they found the hundredth 4 years ago, and I think no one knows eaxactly how many they found in total ever since. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/09/0917_020917_planet.html .
HunterBunter Posted August 21, 2006 Posted August 21, 2006 Nice canopy reflexion.:lol: Was that Roger Moore? Oh the fall, the shame..:music_whistling:
suntrace1 Posted August 21, 2006 Posted August 21, 2006 Those planets are usually gas giants, because only they can interfere with start’s gravity to a noticeable percent. That also means that there is a large possibility of existence of Earth like planet beyond the gas giants, since gas giants usually form in the middle of planetary belt and guarding inner planets from space debris. Why there aren’t signals no-one knows exactly, maybe Space is just too large for any practical communication with radio or light signals - even the closest star is what, 4 light years away?! Or maybe we aren't tuned to the right frequency, because as I know, SETI looks just at few interesting frequencies for a few minutes to every star. You say at least 2 examples of life just in our solar system is no indication of lush paradises, well I think you’re wrong. What it means is that life can develop anywhere it can and occurrence of Life is not just a lonely coincident here on Earth. There can also be found complex molecules like amino-acids which are building blocks of Life in comets in outer space, so obviously they can form all by itself. We still haven’t probed the icy surface of Europa, where there is a very large chance of life, since it has liquid water. To say that we know anything about the world we live in is just a very pretentious statement. We still don’t know what matter is, what is the nature of space-time, and still don’t understand what gravity is. We grasped the technological advance only in last 2 centuries, and Space is about 15 billion years old! Space is all about numbers, if you crunch how many stars are in a galaxy and how many galaxies are in Space, and be very pessimistic about it, it boils down that chance of Life being developed somewhere else is Space is 100% (Drake’s equation) If there is intelligent life outhere observing us, and I believe there is, I do believe they don’t communicate with us because of our suicidal nature. We are still on a level of animal predators, sophisticated ones, but never the less, a very dangerous one. They maybe even see us as biohazard to them. On a last note, there ARE official footages of NASA and Russian space agency, showing some strange phenomena. Anyone interested, just video-google ‘’Smoking Gun’’. One thing is for sure - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! But then again, I also believe we never landed on the Moon... :ufo:
hitman Posted August 21, 2006 Posted August 21, 2006 And what makes you think we didnt land on the moon?
sojourner Posted August 21, 2006 Posted August 21, 2006 If that were an F-15 in the video, wouldn't we be seeing the canopy seperation bar? (Or whatever you call it?) Wouldn't this be an F-16? I only got a brief glimpse at the video while I was working but that was my initial thought. As far as life on other planets, definately yes. Even intelligent life. Part of the problem with the whole thing is we have been looking for how long? Say 40-50 years. The universe is how old? 15-20 billion? So we are going to try to grab signals in that time frame? Who knows how many stars are out there that the light hasn't even reached us yet. One of the next satellites to go up will be a series of five telescopes that will have a laser orbit around one another. This is supposed to allow us to actually view a planet and not its lightwave or how it makes the sun wobble. The spitzer telescope has found some amazing things and its only a glimpse of what there is to come. This project will probably get cancelled however to allow for a base on the moon. (/sigh) |_______________________________________________.________________| and thats exaggerating. Did we land on the moon... Yes we did. I had a link to an article going over all of it in detail for you to look at, but that link seems to be down at the moment. You can find all of the documents at NASA's site as well as other government sites (although you could probably disupte these documents claiming they are part of the hoax). The author of the site points out that those who believe it was a conspiracy present you material so that you dont' have look into it yourself. In this way, they are much like car salesmen. Anyone ever get a lemon? You don't question anything they say whatsoever. yet when you take another look at it, their own conspiracy falls apart and they are left with nothing. They need far more concrete evidence than there being no crater under the lander module, (easily explained) no stars in the sky, (easy as well to debunk), the radiation of the Van Alan belt (a good one), or the flag waving on the moon (one of the easiest of all) As soon as the link is back up or I can find an alternate, I will post it. The author of the site was I believe a professor of astrophysics. I can't recall though. He listed his credentials I don't believe we are being visited by aliens. Most of the videos are poor at best and have already been proven fakes. More than likely the travel needed to cross that kind of distance, will not be obtained via a vehicle of normal means. It would most likely be provided by transcending dimensionally or by folding space. Nothing can go the speed of light except light itself E=mc2. As speed increases, so does mass. Even at the speed of light it would still take four years to get from the closest star system (Proxima Centauri) Whoops, this is running long gotta boogy Jeff
hitman Posted August 21, 2006 Posted August 21, 2006 Theory goes that the Earth is 4.6 trillion years old, and its been disproven that E=mc2, because different lightwaves travel faster than others.
Pilotasso Posted August 21, 2006 Posted August 21, 2006 Theory goes that the Earth is 4.6 trillion years old. 4.6 Billion, not trillion. :) Theory goes that the Earth is 4.6 trillion years old, and its been disproven that E=mc2, because different lightwaves travel faster than others. yould you care to elaborate on that? Your not talking about the prism efect are you? .
sojourner Posted August 21, 2006 Posted August 21, 2006 that does not disprove e=mc2. What your refering to is redshift and even einstein I believe knew of that. and by GOD! thats an F-16 in the video
hitman Posted August 21, 2006 Posted August 21, 2006 4.6 Billion, not trillion. :) yould you care to elaborate on that? Your not talking about the prism efect are you? Not necessarily, but in a way yeah. Heres an overview on that. Interaction with transparent materials The refractive index of a material indicates how much slower the speed of light is in that medium than in a vacuum. The slower speed of light in materials can cause refraction, as demonstrated by this prism (in the case of a prism splitting white light into a spectrum of colours, the refraction is known as dispersion).In passing through materials, light is slowed to less than c by the ratio called the refractive index of the material. The speed of light in air is only slightly less than c. Denser media, such as water and glass, can slow light much more, to fractions such as ¾ and ⅔ of c. This reduction in speed is also responsible for bending of light at an interface between two materials with different indices, a phenomenon known as refraction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
Pilotasso Posted August 21, 2006 Posted August 21, 2006 I have been told that prism refraction was because of energy inherent to frequency. The higher the frequency the higher energy and the better the given spectrum can penetrate materials. Light speed is the same for all frequencies and the the energy of each frequency is related to that variable C=300E6m/s but wich is considered constant :) I used to calculate this but I forgot the exact formula. I remenber C was always constant whenever it played. They us gave the wavelength alone to calculate energy, and that was it. Variable values of C is only an davanced theory but its not the way you described it (you must have made some confusion) because some scientists claim that its still constant for all frequencis but C itself wasnt so throughout the universes evolution time frame. After the big bang theory goes C was higher than it is today but it changed rapidely, and it still changes (for all light forms the same) but changes so much slower over time that its practicaly constant for the recent billion years and into the future. Like a convergent function. .
Guest IguanaKing Posted August 22, 2006 Posted August 22, 2006 that does not disprove e=mc2. What your refering to is redshift and even einstein I believe knew of that. and by GOD! thats an F-16 in the video Nope...its not an F-16. Two things that say its not: 1. The color of the seat, F-16 ACES II seats are always grey, F-15 seats are black. 2. Look just to the bottom right corner of the pic. You can see the front windscreen and canopy frames, along with the whisky compass hanging from the windscreen frame. ;)
hitman Posted August 22, 2006 Posted August 22, 2006 Well from what Ive learned (and I am in no way a physicist) the light traveling from a red giant is inheritantly different from the speed of that from a yellow star, and that inherently is different from that of a white dwarf, where not only gravity comes into play but the amount of energy propelling it. The amount, not weight, of the photons in certain light waves also determine that factor. White light doesnt travel in speed, but time, whereas all other forms of light travel in speed.
Pilotasso Posted August 22, 2006 Posted August 22, 2006 ^^^^thats because distant space objects are in increased speed as they are further away and that causes the shift to red thanks to doppler efect (frequency) not light speed. Otherwise you would get wrong readings on your radar screen. :) If you dont know the targets speed you couldnt tell how fast his reflections were either, and you would get an undertemined result on your attack computer as you had 1 or 2 equations but 2 variables, C and Target V. .
hitman Posted August 22, 2006 Posted August 22, 2006 Yes. but still, white light is the standard speed limit of the universe, not red light. Stupid refraction!!!!!!!
hitman Posted August 22, 2006 Posted August 22, 2006 That is an F-15E (not D) pit in the video. Not unless I totally missed the mirror on the canopy. <---been wrong before.
Pilotasso Posted August 22, 2006 Posted August 22, 2006 Actualy white light consists in a mixture of all lights in the same space. If our sun emiits a light burst, all colors of its spectrum will arrive on earth at the same time 8 minutes later.You will feel the IR heat on your face at the same time UV starts pounding on ya skin to give ya a good tan. :D White light apears to be one color but physics says there is no such thing as a primary color white, but the illusion that creates when all colors travel in the same beam. For example when white light hits an object thats green, the object IS NOT green. Its just that it reflects green but absorbs all other lights, and/or tranforms all absorbed light into another frequency (could be also green), example: an UV lamp emmition torwards your boddy wich does not reflect it back in the same frequency, but on the visible spectrum, namely the cute reflections on calcium on your nails and teeth. .
hitman Posted August 22, 2006 Posted August 22, 2006 http://www.alanvanvliet.com/AlanVanVliet/the_subtleties_of_light.pdf#search='speed%20of%20white%20light' That will explain it better than I can.
Guest IguanaKing Posted August 22, 2006 Posted August 22, 2006 Unless you throw a couple of clouds in there. Then the IR gets dramatically attenuated so you no longer feel heat on your skin, while UV (shorter wavelength) still comes through in a large enough amplitude to cause photoionization in your skin cells. This creates no sensation of discomfort until later on, and you don't even realize you're being fried. Wavelength is determined by a constant, the speed of light. Through a vacuum, all light waves travel at the same speed. Its when they encounter a refractive medium that the wavelength makes a difference and slows the different wavelengths down by differing rates.
Pilotasso Posted August 22, 2006 Posted August 22, 2006 http://www.alanvanvliet.com/AlanVanVliet/the_subtleties_of_light.pdf#search='speed%20of%20white%20light' That will explain it better than I can. This says heavy gravitation causes relativistic eftects on light , and that hasnt beem yet formulated to be explained in an advanced theory, but it continues on to say all monochromatic components of while light are still absolutely constant for all colors in open space. Interesting read. I would like to see how this theory evolves. In case your not sensitive to the difference between relativistic theories and classic mechanics is that the first is only felt at extreme conditions of gravity and speed, outside that domain, classic mechanics work. This is why the model of black holes is still not mathematicaly determined. .
Guest IguanaKing Posted August 22, 2006 Posted August 22, 2006 That is an F-15E (not D) pit in the video. Not unless I totally missed the mirror on the canopy. <---been wrong before. I think its the quality of the video, but it must be there...E's have mirrors too. ;)
hitman Posted August 22, 2006 Posted August 22, 2006 Its all high school science Im going off of here, and Ive been out of high school for over 10 years...like I said I aint no physicist.
hitman Posted August 22, 2006 Posted August 22, 2006 I think its the quality of the video, but it must be there...E's have mirrors too. ;) <---been wrong before :ufo:
Pilotasso Posted August 22, 2006 Posted August 22, 2006 Its all high school science Im going off of here, and Ive been out of high school for over 10 years...like I said I aint no physicist. Me too, I still remenber 1 or 2 things though as it was related to aerospace, and it catched my attention when I was not asleep. :D .
Recommended Posts