| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 26 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 54:03:07 |
| Calls: | 632 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
27 files (19,977K bytes) |
| Messages: | 178,944 |
Let's not play any games where people pretend that by UFOs
(UAVs, etc) they DON'T mean "Aliens from another planet."
You do.
Okay, so what is the best evidence FOR and AGAINST the
idea of UFOs buzzing the earth?
AGAINST:
The best evidence against it, for me, is that the narrative
sucks. It's on the level of folklore or even fairytales.
Claims aren't just inconsistent but competing.
WE'RE OVER SATURATED!
We don't just have aliens we have dozens and in some cases
HUNDREDS of alien species, and their various craft, all
buzzing the earth and all evading detection while at the
same time exposing themselves on a constant basis...
Then there's the fact that THE MILITARY is the very source
of UFO folklore.
Modern UFO folklore begins with Kennith Arnold and his
sighting of "Flying Saucers." BUT, and this is uber
important, he was lured to his place of sighting by the
military!-a They had claimed that a plane crashed and
offered a hefty reward to any pilots who overflew the area
and found it. THAT is why Kennith Arnold was even there!
So the UFO narrative sucks out loud. It's an incoherent
mess that is self contradictory even during it's rare
moments of clarity.
In my opinion, interstellar space travel is, now and forever, a technological impossibility.-a No matter how advanced a civilization becomes, F = ma will still be true, and so, getting from one place to another (an interstellar transfer orbit) requires energy, lots of it.
The bigger the rocket, the more energy, the bigger the rocket, ..., if
you get my point here.
This is probably also the reason that human beings will never set foot
on the planet Mars.
On 9/21/25 12:46 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
In my opinion, interstellar space travel is, now and forever, a
technological impossibility.-a No matter how advanced a civilization
becomes, F = ma will still be true, and so, getting from one place to
another (an interstellar transfer orbit) requires energy, lots of it.
The bigger the rocket, the more energy, the bigger the rocket, ..., if
you get my point here.
This is probably also the reason that human beings will never set foot
on the planet Mars.
I'm slightly more optimistic than you. I believe Mars is reachable and
if we limit ourselves to unmanned tech, even Proxima Centauri &
beyond. It's even claimed that if we had maintained the funding on
nuclear propulsion we might already be there!
We = unmanned tech
But there's a temporal divide and not just one of distance.
Let's say aliens send a probe to investigate the life on earth.
Great. Life is BILLIONS of years old. So the odds say that it arrived
a couple of billion years before we evolved.
Homo, humans, are only like 2.5 million years old, starting with Homo habilis...
So if a probe arrives once every million years, there's been two to
three since habilis.
Suddenly our odds of even detecting the debris from an alien probe
become ultra slim.
On 9/21/2025 12:26 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 9/21/25 12:46 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
In my opinion, interstellar space travel is, now and forever, a
technological impossibility.a No matter how advanced a civilization
becomes, F = ma will still be true, and so, getting from one place to
another (an interstellar transfer orbit) requires energy, lots of it.
The bigger the rocket, the more energy, the bigger the rocket, ..., if
you get my point here.
This is probably also the reason that human beings will never set foot
on the planet Mars.
I'm slightly more optimistic than you. I believe Mars is reachable and
if we limit ourselves to unmanned tech, even Proxima Centauri &
beyond. It's even claimed that if we had maintained the funding on
nuclear propulsion we might already be there!
We = unmanned tech
But there's a temporal divide and not just one of distance.
Let's say aliens send a probe to investigate the life on earth.
Great. Life is BILLIONS of years old. So the odds say that it arrived
a couple of billion years before we evolved.
Homo, humans, are only like 2.5 million years old, starting with Homo
habilis...
So if a probe arrives once every million years, there's been two to
three since habilis.
Suddenly our odds of even detecting the debris from an alien probe
become ultra slim.
I would have to take issue even with unmanned space probes, all of which >require some energy to function, even if they are sitting in standby
mode. Even the PCBs in the spacecraft will degrade over time, as it
would take tens of thousands of years for one to travel the distance to
the nearest star (other than our Sun), Proxima Centauri. When (and if)
such a probe arrived, it would be completely dead.
Dawn
I would have to take issue even with unmanned space probes, all of which require some energy to function, even if they are sitting in standby
mode.-a Even the PCBs in the spacecraft will degrade over time, as it
would take tens of thousands of years for one to travel the distance to
the nearest star (other than our Sun), Proxima Centauri.-a When (and if) such a probe arrived, it would be completely dead.
On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 19:25:55 -0500, Dawn Flood
<Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/21/2025 12:26 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 9/21/25 12:46 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
In my opinion, interstellar space travel is, now and forever, a
technological impossibility.-a No matter how advanced a civilization
becomes, F = ma will still be true, and so, getting from one place to
another (an interstellar transfer orbit) requires energy, lots of it.
The bigger the rocket, the more energy, the bigger the rocket, ..., if >>>> you get my point here.
This is probably also the reason that human beings will never set foot >>>> on the planet Mars.
I'm slightly more optimistic than you. I believe Mars is reachable and
if we limit ourselves to unmanned tech, even Proxima Centauri &
beyond. It's even claimed that if we had maintained the funding on
nuclear propulsion we might already be there!
We = unmanned tech
But there's a temporal divide and not just one of distance.
Let's say aliens send a probe to investigate the life on earth.
Great. Life is BILLIONS of years old. So the odds say that it arrived
a couple of billion years before we evolved.
Homo, humans, are only like 2.5 million years old, starting with Homo
habilis...
So if a probe arrives once every million years, there's been two to
three since habilis.
Suddenly our odds of even detecting the debris from an alien probe
become ultra slim.
I would have to take issue even with unmanned space probes, all of which
require some energy to function, even if they are sitting in standby
mode. Even the PCBs in the spacecraft will degrade over time, as it
would take tens of thousands of years for one to travel the distance to
the nearest star (other than our Sun), Proxima Centauri. When (and if)
such a probe arrived, it would be completely dead.
Dawn
Have you taken time dilation into account?
On 9/21/25 8:25 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
I would have to take issue even with unmanned space probes, all of
which require some energy to function, even if they are sitting in
standby mode.-a Even the PCBs in the spacecraft will degrade over time,
as it would take tens of thousands of years for one to travel the
distance to the nearest star (other than our Sun), Proxima Centauri.
When (and if) such a probe arrived, it would be completely dead.
I was always thinking along those same lines, then someone talked about
some freaki SciFi concept where you grow your tech...
It's not far fetched even right now. Though maybe not super hightech.
Biology lasts far longer than technology. Bacteria has survived dormant,
it is believed, long enough to reach other galaxies at velocities we
are capable of even today...
So the idea would be to maybe do a combination of growing and dormancy.
So your biotech can not only survive but be in operation. And you might
even do something funky, like the first generation produce a biproduct
that is going to sustain the second generation, sort of like how the anaerobic bacteria farted oxygen which ended up poisoning them, but
was used by Gen II life forms... something like that.
I remember how, a billion years ago, someone on a documentary (I think)
said that if you asked Leonardo di Vinci to build a tv set he could
never do it, because he'd try to do it mechanically. THAT WAS HIS
WORLD! That's how he approached problems, tried to solve them. We are currently in that phase with our hightech as opposed to biotech.
On 9/21/2025 10:41 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:<snip>
On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 19:25:55 -0500, Dawn Flood
I would have to take issue even with unmanned space probes, all of which >>> require some energy to function, even if they are sitting in standby
mode. Even the PCBs in the spacecraft will degrade over time, as it
would take tens of thousands of years for one to travel the distance to
the nearest star (other than our Sun), Proxima Centauri. When (and if)
such a probe arrived, it would be completely dead.
Dawn
Have you taken time dilation into account?
I think that's irrelevant, because, getting a spacecraft up to 90% (or
more) of the speed of light would require enormous amounts of energy,
and an equal amount of energy to slow the thing down. What would be the >source of this energy, especially, that which is needed for the slow-down?
Dawn
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 13:51:35 -0500, Dawn Flood
<Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/21/2025 10:41 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:<snip>
On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 19:25:55 -0500, Dawn Flood
I would have to take issue even with unmanned space probes, all of which >>>> require some energy to function, even if they are sitting in standby
mode. Even the PCBs in the spacecraft will degrade over time, as it
would take tens of thousands of years for one to travel the distance to >>>> the nearest star (other than our Sun), Proxima Centauri. When (and if) >>>> such a probe arrived, it would be completely dead.
Dawn
Have you taken time dilation into account?
I think that's irrelevant, because, getting a spacecraft up to 90% (or
more) of the speed of light would require enormous amounts of energy,
and an equal amount of energy to slow the thing down. What would be the
source of this energy, especially, that which is needed for the slow-down? >>
Dawn
Right. I was just saying that *if* rockets could reach relativistic
speeds, *then* long life spans for the astronauts would not be a
problem.
On 9/22/2025 5:16 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 13:51:35 -0500, Dawn Flood
<Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/21/2025 10:41 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:<snip>
On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 19:25:55 -0500, Dawn Flood
I would have to take issue even with unmanned space probes, all of
which
require some energy to function, even if they are sitting in standby >>>>> mode.-a Even the PCBs in the spacecraft will degrade over time, as it >>>>> would take tens of thousands of years for one to travel the
distance to
the nearest star (other than our Sun), Proxima Centauri.-a When (and >>>>> if)
such a probe arrived, it would be completely dead.
Dawn
Have you taken time dilation into account?
I think that's irrelevant, because, getting a spacecraft up to 90% (or
more) of the speed of light would require enormous amounts of energy,
and an equal amount of energy to slow the thing down.-a What would be the >>> source of this energy, especially, that which is needed for the
slow-down?
Dawn
Right.-a-a I was just saying that *if* rockets could reach relativistic
speeds, *then* long life spans for the astronauts would not be a
problem.
Agreed.-a Of course, their rocket would, at those speeds, need to avoid colliding with anything!
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/22/2025 5:16 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 13:51:35 -0500, Dawn Flood
<Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/21/2025 10:41 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:<snip>
On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 19:25:55 -0500, Dawn Flood
I would have to take issue even with unmanned space probes,
all of which
require some energy to function, even if they are sitting
in standby
mode.-a Even the PCBs in the spacecraft will degrade over
time, as it
would take tens of thousands of years for one to travel the
distance to
the nearest star (other than our Sun), Proxima Centauri.
When (and if)
such a probe arrived, it would be completely dead.
Dawn
Have you taken time dilation into account?
I think that's irrelevant, because, getting a spacecraft up
to 90% (or
more) of the speed of light would require enormous amounts of
energy,
and an equal amount of energy to slow the thing down.-a What
would be the
source of this energy, especially, that which is needed for
the slow-down?
Dawn
Right.-a-a I was just saying that *if* rockets could reach
relativistic
speeds, *then* long life spans for the astronauts would not be a
problem.
Agreed.-a Of course, their rocket would, at those speeds, need
to avoid colliding with anything!
you just raise your shields
% wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/22/2025 5:16 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 13:51:35 -0500, Dawn Flood
<Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/21/2025 10:41 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:<snip>
On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 19:25:55 -0500, Dawn Flood
I would have to take issue even with unmanned space probes, all >>>>>>> of which
require some energy to function, even if they are sitting in standby >>>>>>> mode.-a Even the PCBs in the spacecraft will degrade over time, as it >>>>>>> would take tens of thousands of years for one to travel the
distance to
the nearest star (other than our Sun), Proxima Centauri. When
(and if)
such a probe arrived, it would be completely dead.
Dawn
Have you taken time dilation into account?
I think that's irrelevant, because, getting a spacecraft up to 90% (or >>>>> more) of the speed of light would require enormous amounts of energy, >>>>> and an equal amount of energy to slow the thing down.-a What would
be the
source of this energy, especially, that which is needed for the
slow-down?
Dawn
Right.-a-a I was just saying that *if* rockets could reach relativistic >>>> speeds, *then* long life spans for the astronauts would not be a
problem.
Agreed.-a Of course, their rocket would, at those speeds, need to
avoid colliding with anything!
you just raise your shields
you create a positron shield to prevent interstellar dust from
accumulating in your spaces.
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 9/22/2025 5:16 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 13:51:35 -0500, Dawn Flood
<Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/21/2025 10:41 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:<snip>
On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 19:25:55 -0500, Dawn Flood
I would have to take issue even with unmanned space probes, all of >>>>>> which
require some energy to function, even if they are sitting in standby >>>>>> mode.-a Even the PCBs in the spacecraft will degrade over time, as it >>>>>> would take tens of thousands of years for one to travel the
distance to
the nearest star (other than our Sun), Proxima Centauri.-a When
(and if)
such a probe arrived, it would be completely dead.
Dawn
Have you taken time dilation into account?
I think that's irrelevant, because, getting a spacecraft up to 90% (or >>>> more) of the speed of light would require enormous amounts of energy,
and an equal amount of energy to slow the thing down.-a What would be >>>> the
source of this energy, especially, that which is needed for the
slow-down?
Dawn
Right.-a-a I was just saying that *if* rockets could reach relativistic
speeds, *then* long life spans for the astronauts would not be a
problem.
Agreed.-a Of course, their rocket would, at those speeds, need to avoid
colliding with anything!
you just raise your shields