That is the theory. But I do believe we are constantly visited by space travelers. The evidence is overwhelming. And they must have found the solution to those problems.
I'm not sure what you are referring to as theory here. I'm assuming you mean theoretical physics, which is separate in that such theories can not be tested. I don't know what evidence you are pointing to. I know of no serious theoretical physicists who believes that solutions to the problems identified in that wiki link have been solved such that we could better approach or exceed light speed. Note that I'm saying what I have found. If you have actual cites on physics theories, evidence and especially theories that have a chance of being tested, I'd be very interested.
Well, you referred to some problems associated with traveling at near the speed of light, and since no one has done that the problems you mentioned are theories. And like most theories they have solid scientific support. Well, here’s one video of the National Press Club and guests talking about their experiences with UFOs. And here’s a link to additional reports. I thought in my isolated little life and mind that everyone knew about this newly-released evidence. Ok.
I would claim that those theories used to postulate greater than light speed are not within experimental science and they also do not have significant support from theoretical physicists. They postulate negative mass, negative energy, and other such ideas that are certainly not accepted. A tweet by Sean Carroll, a well known theoretical physicist states: "A new paper suggests that negative-mass particles might explain away dark matter and dark energy. Let me quickly mention just one reason why ideas like this aren't very popular." You can find it by searching for his name and "negative mass". What this shows is that the field of theoretical physics is very open to ideas (good), even ideas like negative mass. So, you can even find papers on topics such as this. However, this is NOT an indication that such ideas are widely accepted. They are not. Science depends on people working on ideas that are NOT accepted, in fact are even likely to be false. We have seriously respected theoretical physicists who chose to work on branches of string theory where the majority believe it is a dead end. But, it is of value to know whether it really IS a dead end. Especially in theoretical physics, you have to watch out! There is a tendency today for individuals to do their own "research" - reading some collection of papers and coming to their own conclusions. In my view, this is 100% crap. These people are PRETENDING that an ordinary smart college graduate has the chops to do their "own research" in fields that are furthered by a world full of phds who have extensive experience on the topic and who communicate with each other constantly. As Hayes on this board and others have pointed out, the review process for published paper is not good enough to address whether a scientific direction is valid. It really only targets finding cases of experimental flaws or malfeasance. Plus, papers are reviewed by publications that are considering whether to publish the paper - and publications can not publish more than a tiny percent of the total papers found in the giant and growing archives that scientists use. As for UFOs, you have found cites that make claims. I fully believe that these pilots and others with serious credibility have reported what they detected to the very best of human capability. But, it looks like you have not found sources that show why the phenomena witnessed are not extraordinary. You have to find BOTH sides. And, that is common. People strongly hold onto the magical qualities of what they have seen, even when there are clear cut explanations. When in comes to UFOs, the press is wildly thrilled by new claims of the supernatural and TOTALLY uninterested in finding out whether there are mundane explanations. There are reasons to doubt UFO claims that go beyond the debunking of these individual claims of sightings.
Discussing issues of how best to consume information is of critical importance today. And, I haven't seen you opposed to considering how best to do that, or even being critical of anything I've said about that. I don't see us being in disagreement.
What I want to know is, why don't these space travelers appear Infront of a crowd with the best TV cameras, but they always just seem to get caught by one individual that picked up the worst camera on a Nokia phone.
lol - that absolutely IS a constant!! It's like aliens fly in blurry hubcaps and decorative frisbees.
There are those who theorize that aliens don’t want to go public yet. They’re observing and examining us but believe that if they were to go public, a sufficient number of humans would panic and want to attack them to eliminate them, and they prefer a peaceful meeting. There is also strong evidence that Eisenhower met with extraterrestrials who wanted him to eliminate nuclear weapons. But the evidence that they regularly visit earth is much stronger.
So that means we assume aliens know about cameras, what going public means etc.. Say there's a planet out there with alien life, so how similar or different is their society, culture, technology etc.. compared to us. They may not have cameras, Ring door bells, mobile phones etc..
Their observations probably wouldn’t involve cameras. And I used the expression “go public” out of convenience. You can substitute other wording as you may prefer. It looks like you’re ridiculing the idea. Do you believe it’s all nonsense with no reality to it?
Yes, I don't see any reality to it. I'd also point out that science is WILDLY excited about finding extraterrestrial life. And, science doesn't see the blurry frisbees, debunked Navy videos, etc., as being evidence. It's certainly true that if an alien (probably a robot) decided to go public it would be trivial to do so. It could request clearance to land at Kennedy airport and then ask to talk to the UN.
I was reading this article about rocket science and they measured the thrust of each rocket in a space shuttle in horsepower. I was like how could that be??? I know the equation for horsepower is torque x RPM / 5252. But where is the torque and RPM in a rocket??? It turns out you can convert between all these forms of energy. Joules, Watts, PSI, BTU'S, Calories and horsepower. So, I had this box of fruity pebbles that showed how many calories are in a bowl of fruity pebbles. So, I converted the thrust in each rocket measured in horsepower to calories and it turns out it would take 22,806 bowls of fruity pebbles to power the rockets in a space shuttle for 1 second!!!
I'm not ridiculing, it just suddenly threw up the thought on how an alien race conducts their lives, but we base their activities and conduct based on our traits etc..
Currently, the only way to propel yourself in space is to expel mass. In space, it's just a vacuum, nothing to push against so you react against yourself by pushing out burnt fuel. Throwing out ions not meaningful to get up to any kind of speed in any kind of time frame. So somehow, we need to develop a method to go beyond this.
Quite a while ago, I remember watching a programme where a guy had a gas, that I can't remember what it was, in a jar. When he shone sodium light on it, it exploded. I always thought, could that be a propellent idea in space, or, something similar to that idea.
Yes. It took 9 years for New Horizons to reach Pluto. That was based on chemical rockets and planet fly-bys. We can improve that, but by how much? It took years to create this payload and get it to launch and then wait 9 years for results - it's a discouraging picture. Plus, we're really focused on astronauts these days, and that does limit space exploration. Astronauts are fabulously expensive due to the difficulty in keeping them alive. And, can't go far. In fact, they can't even go to the moon right now. I wish we were more focused on scientific exploration of our solar system and beyond.
Yes, there are ideas of using small nuclear explosions, too. But, one down side of explosions is that the spaceship needs protection from the blast - which usually means more mass.
Are you aware of multiple occasions on which nuclear engineers, military nuclear experts, and scientists have testified that as they tested or “fired up” the launch routine for one reason or another for the missiles they were responsible for, that unidentified objects were observed above the missile site, hovering, made no sound as the remained in formation, and the launch sequences and the missiles they were readying for launch condition testing one by one suddenly shut down, went dead, and could not be restored. The unidentified object eventually left suddenly in an instantaneous acceleration to an estimated several times the speed of sound (an event no earthly plane or vehicle is capable of and would kill a human) at which time all the missiles came back online and showed no evidence of malfunction? Do you know about this? I suppose you don’t recognize any of the people at that conference.
Our knowledge of propulsion is in its infancy. There is work going on to figure out how to collapse space-time in front of a space vehicle and move it behind it, thus moving space around the vehicle and causing it to move forward without propulsion at all. All it would require is for a thin envelope of space around the vehicle to be manipulated and then keep doing it rapidly. Then there are the experiments with the graviton and with the manipulation of mass.
Yes. However, I probably don't know all of them, that's for sure. I've seen that vid. As we've seen with the Navy tapes, there is constant reporting on what the pilots claim. And, I don't doubt their descriptions. BUT, the process MUST be that the tapes are carefully analyzed BEFORE supernatural claims are made. And, when the issue gets brought up, it has to INCLUDE the analysis that shows that there is nothing supernatural going on. Instead, we see these same old cases brought up over and over and over again, even though they have been solidly debunked. What this means is that those touting aliens really have NO interest in the truth.
These ideas invariably depend on totally hypothetical stuff like "negative mass", "negative gravity", etc., for which there is no real world justification. By major contrast, the universal speed limit is very real, confirmed by solid physics, using multiple approaches giving the same result. In reading about the Alcubierre drive (the kind of drive you talk about) in sources that give readable reviews of the difficulties (like wiki) you need to read the problems faced. For example, the energy equivalent of −10^64 kg might be required to transport a small spaceship across the Milky Way—an amount orders of magnitude greater than the estimated mass of the observable universe. Counterarguments to these apparent problems have also been offered, although the energy requirements still generally require a Type III civilization on the Kardashev scale. A Type III civilization is one that harvests and stores the total energy radiated by a galaxy. A Type II civilization is one that harvests and stores the total energy output of its star. What WE can do is a fraction of solar radiation that happens to come our way!! Also, remember that aggregations of mass and energy of this magnitude are likely to become a black hole - which is very much NOT a method of travel. It's great for serious physicists to play around with this as they can find limiting factors that aren't specific to travel. But, this IS a field of physics, and physics shows NO signs of being changeable.
You don’t seem to be familiar with this stuff. No supernatural” claims have been made. They’ve identified over 100 of their recorded encounters as “unexplained”. Many involved 1. multiple witnesses, one of whom was a high-ranking military officer who witnessed the event, 2. radar or other military detection of the object’s presence and movement, confirming the witness’ comments and proving it was a solid object, 3. the object displayed unusual movement confirmed by both witness and detection, and 4. when a landing was reported the place where it was reported to have landed showed significantly elevated radiation readings in addition to imprints from what may have been landing gear on the soil. And I’ve never heard anyone say “it was an extraterrestrial alien from another world”. The military witnesses have only reported the facts and occasionally a comment that as a military person with the highest level clearances they (one or two) said that they are very certain that neither we nor any other country posseses the ability to produce an aircraft that can do what was observed.
I've read the Navy tape stuff in detail. I've read the refutations of the claims that what was witnessed was impossible. If you want to claim there are aliens, you have to do better than that. Remember that with Earthshaking claims, there is a responsibility to report serious investigation and NOT simply reiterate claims. This is carefully managed throughout science.
