The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis : Fact and Fallacy

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

@Trajanus : Did Bill Moore sign a letter in front of a Justice of the Peace declaring his work on MJ12? Like to know who funded accused Bill Moore in the operation if that's the case.

 

[Trajanus]

Like to know who .... accused Bill Moore in the operation if that's the case.

Greenwood and Takanashi quite some time ago.

 

[marduk]

That's like saying heat is what the thermometer says. What I'm getting at is more fundamental. What the clock says is a measure of change. Different clocks use different types of change such as the movement of a gear, the oscillation of a crystal, the decay of an isotope. If those things never changed, the clock's time would never change.

I highly recommend the book “Now: the Physics of Time.”

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

ETH : Puppet Masters and humans can use the environment and remind me of the Quote " The chief of Prussian secret Police dressed up as itinerant pedlar and romed Austria and Bohemia in horse and cart." The ETH could do the same if its technology has advanced beyond our wildest dreams .

 

[Randall]

I highly recommend the book “Now: the Physics of Time.”

I could add that obviously there was time before there were clocks.

 

[marduk]

That's like saying heat is what the thermometer says. What I'm getting at is more fundamental. What the clock says is a measure of change. Different clocks use different types of change such as the movement of a gear, the oscillation of a crystal, the decay of an isotope. If those things never changed, the clock's time would never change.

Well, to be fair almost anything can be a clock.

Decay is a good one, as are crystal harmonics, etc. But you are also a clock, the earth is a clock, the galaxy is a clock. They all keep their own relative time that can be (somewhat) measured.

Interestingly, the speed at which you perceive time may also be a clock as far as consciousness may be concerned.

 

[marduk]

I presume that happened because it was no longer deemed worth keeping under wraps. Whatever is behind the phenomenon does care about maintaining secrecy.

It was actually the people who were experimented on that started coming forward to the press.

 

[Randall]

Well, to be fair almost anything can be a clock. Decay is a good one, as are crystal harmonics, etc. But you are also a clock, the earth is a clock, the galaxy is a clock. They all keep their own relative time that can be (somewhat) measured. Interestingly, the speed at which you perceive time may also be a clock as far as consciousness may be concerned.

In a sense, you're making my point for me there. Regardless of the mechanism, what is being measured is some sort of change. Without it, there is no time, at least not within the frame of reference of the mechanism in question. Whether it's crystal oscillations, isotope decay, moving cogs, heartbeats, it doesn't matter what it is, all the way from the largest macro level, down to the smallest micro level of whatever constitutes the existence of anything. So to actually stop time, you'd have to be able to stop all change that applies to all of that. Otherwise time isn't really stopped because there's still some sort of change taking place. I don't see any way around this. Do you?

BTW: I checked out a review of the book you recommended ( Now: the Physics of Time ) and it looks good. I'll see if the library has it. Thanks for that .

 

[marduk]

In a sense, you're making my point for me there. Regardless of the mechanism, what is being measured is some sort of change. Without it, there is no time, at least not within the frame of reference of the mechanism in question. Whether it's crystal oscillations, isotope decay, moving cogs, heartbeats, it doesn't matter what it is, all the way from the largest macro level, down to the smallest micro level of whatever constitutes the existence of anything. So to actually stop time, you'd have to be able to stop all change that applies to all of that. Otherwise time isn't really stopped because there's still some sort of change taking place. I don't see any way around this. Do you?

BTE: I checked out a review of the book you recommended ( Now: the Physics of Time ) and it looks good. I'll see if the library has it. Thanks for that .

I’m not sure I agree - when you get close to absolute zero, time doesn’t slow down, but motion sure does.

Not a lot of change happens close to that point.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Right. I get all that. But relative changes in localized systems involve different frames of reference. It's not really time travel in the sense we're talking about. It's more a time dilation situation. Let me try to illuminate the perspective I'm coming at this from this way: It may take a few steps, and then we can come back to the rest of the points. This is all very interesting, so maybe we'll both have some sort of epiphany ( or end up equally confused ). To make sure we're on the same page, let's start with what we mean by time in the first place. I'll go first:

Time is change, and all measurements of time depend on being able to detect change. So if change can be detected, time necessarily exists. Are we okay with that or do we need to refine that to some extent?

I've created a new thread called Time, Time Travel, and Closed Timelike Curves where we can continue talking about time in a thread dedicated to those subjects - my response to your post is there now.

I feel like we've veered way off topic in this thread with our time discussions, so let's keep the time stuff in the new thread and we can always bring back relevant time-related ideas pertinent to the ETH once we've drawn meaningful connections between the two ideas.

 

[Randall]

I've created a new thread called Time, Time Travel, and Closed Timelike Curves where we can continue talking about time in a thread dedicated to those subjects - my response to your post is there now.

I feel like we've veered way off topic in this thread with our time discussions, so let's keep the time stuff in the new thread and we can always bring back relevant time-related ideas pertinent to the ETH once we've drawn meaningful connections between the two ideas.

Good plan. I'll leave this thought on the pertinence of time travel to the ETH before carrying on there. The ETH is a catchall term for any location off this world. So interplanetary, interstellar and space nomads, are under the ETH. But assuming time travel is possible, it seems the ETH wouldn't really apply unless the travellers came from some other point on this Earth's timeline. But if branching or fission of the timelines into separate worlds ( and consequently separate universes ) is involved, then it would seem that the other Earth would technically be extraterrestrial in relation to this one.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Good plan. I'll leave this thought on the pertinence of time travel to the ETH before carrying on there. The ETH is a catchall term for any location off this world. So interplanetary, interstellar and space nomads, are under the ETH. But assuming time travel is possible, it seems the ETH wouldn't really apply unless the travellers came from some other point on this Earth's timeline. But if branching or fission of the timelines into separate worlds ( and consequently separate universes ) is involved, then it would seem that the other Earth would technically be extraterrestrial in relation to this one.

One of the reasons I tend to avoid the discussion about time travel in this context, is that so may people find it tempting to explain away all anomalous aerial devices as human technology from the future. And that's kind of an annoying debate to have. Because yes, absolutely - some of these devices could be arriving from our own future. But the exact same technology that makes that possible, also makes hyperfast spaceflight practicable. So if it's equally possible to travel halfway across the galaxy to visit the Earth within a span of five minutes, as it is for our human descendants to arrive from thousands of years into our future, then almost certainly both things are happening. And frankly I'm skeptical that the human race will continue to progress technologically for that long - we seem hellbent on self-annihilation.

The multiverse concept makes for wonderful science fiction stories, but I just don't buy it - the idea that I create a new universe every time I flip a coin strikes me as preposterous. But if our 4D universe is nested within a 6D architecture, as Dr. Ithzak Bars has considered, all kinds of fascinating and bizarre possibilities present themselves that can have features similar to the multiverse idea, but without actually invoking additional universes.

 

[marduk]

One of the reasons I tend to avoid the discussion about time travel in this context, is that so may people find it tempting to explain away all anomalous aerial devices as human technology from the future. And that's kind of an annoying debate to have. Because yes, absolutely - some of these devices could be arriving from our own future. But the exact same technology that makes that possible, also makes hyperfast spaceflight practicable. So if it's equally possible to travel halfway across the galaxy to visit the Earth within a span of five minutes, as it is for our human descendants to arrive from thousands of years into our future, then almost certainly both things are happening. And frankly I'm skeptical that the human race will continue to progress technologically for that long - we seem hellbent on self-annihilation.

The multiverse concept makes for wonderful science fiction stories, but I just don't buy it - the idea that I create a new universe every time I flip a coin strikes me as preposterous. But if our 4D universe is nested within a 6D architecture, as Dr. Ithzak Bars has considered, all kinds of fascinating and bizarre possibilities present themselves that can have features similar to the multiverse idea, but without actually invoking additional universes.

One thing Strieber said (there I go again) was that maybe the visitors encountered us at some random point - maybe even in the future. Then spread out along our timeline forwards and backwards.

Maybe to them it's all just one 'now' and that's part of the reason we see them as so weird.

I'm not saying that I believe Strieber but it is an interesting thought experiment.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

One thing Strieber said (there I go again) was that maybe the visitors encountered us at some random point - maybe even in the future. Then spread out along our timeline forwards and backwards.

Maybe to them it's all just one 'now' and that's part of the reason we see them as so weird.

I'm not saying that I believe Strieber but it is an interesting thought experiment.

I hate to agree with Whitley Strieber, but that seems plausible to me - I think we habitually limit our thinking on this subject to our own immediately foreseeable capabilities, but it seems very clear to me that many/most of these devices are far beyond that realm. Once your civilization masters spacetime engineering - of which warp field propulsion is but one very simple example - thinking about time linearly is reduced to a quaint and primitive concept.

This idea reminds me of arguably the most brilliant Outer Limits episode, called "Demon with a Glass Hand," written by Harlan Ellison, 1964, with a magnificent sobering performance by Robert Culp. I'm kinda shocked that's never been made into a modern sci-fi film - it was way ahead of its time then, but modern audiences would love it and it has that sense of timeless mythical grandeur that makes for a truly classic sci-fi story.

 

[Randall]

... But if our 4D universe is nested within a 6D architecture, as Dr. Ithzak Bars has considered, all kinds of fascinating and bizarre possibilities present themselves that can have features similar to the multiverse idea, but without actually invoking additional universes.

I just don't buy into 4D universes, let alone ones nested within a 6D architecture. To begin with, time isn't a spatial dimension, so treating it as such when converted to a variable is starting from a false premise. It's not 4D. It's d1,d2,d3,and t. Arbitrarily adding more dimensional or time variables to play with the math might be fun for mathematicians, but there's no reason to think it can work in the real world. In fact there's reasons why it can't. But that's a different discussion.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

I just don't buy into 4D universes, let alone ones nested within a 6D architecture. To begin with, time isn't a spatial dimension, so treating it as such when converted to a variable is starting from a false premise. It's not 4D. It's d1,d2,d3,and t. Arbitrarily adding more dimensional or time variables to play with the math might be fun for mathematicians, but there's no reason to think it can work in the real world. In fact there's reasons why it can't. But that's a different discussion.

I've presented a crash course on the logical basis for time as a dimension equivalent to space in the Time, Time Travel, and Closed Timelike Curves thread. Please have a look at that opening post. In my experience, the more thoroughly a person understands relativity, the more they appreciate its conceptual and mathematical elegance and economy, as well as the incredibly accurate predictions that it makes which in some cases have been verified to more than 20 decimal places.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

A NJ state trooper catches a flaming meteorite on his dashcam. Again, another meteorite, but no mile-wide flying saucer or even a point of light making a right angle turn (notice how his camera is pointed forward yet you can still see the entire sky. So the notion of "nobody's cameras are pointed up." is bogus.

https://twitter.com/x/status/939186016593829888

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

A NJ state trooper catches a flaming meteorite on his dashcam. Again, another meteorite, but no mile-wide flying saucer or even a point of light making a right angle turn (notice how his camera is pointed forward yet you can still see the entire sky. So the notion of "nobody's cameras are pointed up." is bogus.

https://twitter.com/x/status/939186016593829888

It is annoying that we haven’t seen any good video from surveillance cams or dash cams, but I think you’re highly overestimating several key factors; A.) the resolution of dash cams and security cams, B.) the focal length of such cameras, C.) the sensitivity of such cameras, D.) the prevalence of dash cams, E.) the breadth of field of both types of cameras, and F.) the prevalence of anomalous aerial devices executing exotic maneuvers in our skies.

That dash cam did a pretty terrible job of capturing that meteor, actually – that meteor was incredibly bright and came down directly ahead of the car, and yet it only shows up as a fuzzy blob of light in the footage. And its coverage is only a tiny slice of the celestial hemisphere, not “the entire sky” - not even close. If a glowing ufo had passed directly in front of that car, all you would see is a little blob of light that people would look at and say “what’s the big deal, that’s just a blob of light.” Without a high-resolution camera with crystal clear telephoto focus on the object (which is virtually impossible without first-rate equipment and an experienced aerial photographer) it would be impossible to tell how far away the light is or how large it is. The only thing that would make such footage interesting is if a glowing proximal ufo zig-zagged directly in front of the car, but they don’t seem to do that very often – it’s hard to tell without a single centralized database to analyze, but these devices may only be seen executing such dramatic maneuvers once every few years, and if that’s true then the odds of catching that behavior on video would be lower than catching video of ball lighting – which we know is real, and yet nobody has ever caught on video. In fact I’ve only seen one good photo of ball lighting, and that photo tipped the scientific consensus in favor of the existence of ball lighting. And how did that happen? The ball lighting was right over the guy’s garage and he managed to snap a pic of it before it dissipated. We’ve had reports of ball lightning for hundreds of years, they tend to hug the ground, and they move very very slowly, and yet we only have one good photo of it. Think about that.

 

[Randall]

A NJ state trooper catches a flaming meteorite on his dashcam. Again, another meteorite, but no mile-wide flying saucer or even a point of light making a right angle turn (notice how his camera is pointed forward yet you can still see the entire sky. So the notion of "nobody's cameras are pointed up." is bogus.

I get: "Media cannot be played." But apart from that. How would you explain the lack of good video captures?

 

[marduk]

I get: "Media cannot be played." But apart from that. How would you explain the lack of good video captures?

Go look at YouTube. Sure, 99% or more are fakes but I’m sure some probably aren’t.

Go look at the 2004 US Navy footage.

There’s lots of stuff captured. Everybody just yawns and moves on because who knows what the hell it’s showing us?

It’s showing us nothing because it’s not a controlled setup like Chris is building or Stanford did with Starlight international.