Ancient Astronauts
- Thread starter Griffolion
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I find it odd that people are bringing their own personal beliefs into this, and going from there. In a universe where a cat can be both live and dead, black and white don't really cut it.
Or that people claim that it's impossible with our current understanding of physics, without realizing that we do NOT have a good understanding of physics...someone made a mention about the laws of physics not holding true to all aspects of the universe, and I happen to have an article that deals with it bookmarked:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100909004112.htm
Enjoy it...oh and before someone makes the crazed declaration that it violates the Copernicus principle, keep in mind that it is both a human idea (thus not exactly concrete) and it made sense from his hermetic point of view: with the sun (knowledge) at the center of the solar system.
The above article may explain VLS theory, (varying light speed (for those of us that don't like our universe doing strange and unexplainable things - sorry Einstein)) But it may also validate the idea of an Infinite universe. (which modern science already accepts as a proxy to the big bang and inflation...and a multiverse. Compound that with a belief in dark matter and dark energy, and atheist scientists/blind zealots start to look rather foolish. - Not to troll or hurt anyone's feelings of course, but one mustn't be shortsighted whent dealing with infinity in a universe based on probability.)
To go back on topic, I wouldn't put too much faith in it, but it is a possibility. Just as all things are.
Or that people claim that it's impossible with our current understanding of physics, without realizing that we do NOT have a good understanding of physics...someone made a mention about the laws of physics not holding true to all aspects of the universe, and I happen to have an article that deals with it bookmarked:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100909004112.htm
Enjoy it...oh and before someone makes the crazed declaration that it violates the Copernicus principle, keep in mind that it is both a human idea (thus not exactly concrete) and it made sense from his hermetic point of view: with the sun (knowledge) at the center of the solar system.
The above article may explain VLS theory, (varying light speed (for those of us that don't like our universe doing strange and unexplainable things - sorry Einstein)) But it may also validate the idea of an Infinite universe. (which modern science already accepts as a proxy to the big bang and inflation...and a multiverse. Compound that with a belief in dark matter and dark energy, and atheist scientists/blind zealots start to look rather foolish. - Not to troll or hurt anyone's feelings of course, but one mustn't be shortsighted whent dealing with infinity in a universe based on probability.)
To go back on topic, I wouldn't put too much faith in it, but it is a possibility. Just as all things are.
I'm VERY skeptical of this. The fine structure constant doesn't rely on properties intrinsic to areas in space, but to properties of matter. The article doesn't explicit ally state how the team went about determining the fine structure constant ("a" from here on), but I'm pretty sure they used the emission spectrum of hydrogen from the stars in the distant galaxies. This is given by a very simple formula f=R(1/n1^2-1/n2^2); f=frequency of emitted light, R=Rydberg's constant (a product of more fundamental constants), n1,n2 are quantum levels, where n2>n1. The fine structure constant is part of Rydberg's constant in the following way: a^2=2Rh/cm; h=Planck's constant, c=speed of light in vacuum, m=mass of electron. All of these constants are known to 10E-10 or greater precision, so the fine structure constant can be calculated with far greater precision than "1 in 100,000." As it stands, the only variable is the frequency of light measured. Error here is a far more likely explanation that a difference in a fundamental constant in a different part of the universe. If anything, this could be used as an example of space interference in measurements, Doppler effect, and possibly the existence of dark energy at a stretch.Lord Legion said:
Sorry, but I smell a load of bullshit. Also notice how the paper is still under peer-review. None of this stuff is actually a discovery until it passes that.
hahaha, I feel you missed my point, and read my tone as one of attack, rather than slight amusement. Tell me what fully understood theory of modern physics you would have me "parade around" then...I do accept the accidental switching of letters for VSL, but that is entirely semantics, and why write pages to explain when long posts are simply overlooked?BobDobolina said:
I did not say VSL challenged Einstein per se, merely meant that his words are not concrete. I am confused to the, "None of those are in themselves answers to objections based on the limitations imposed by c..." What isn't? The article I posted that suggests that light is not the constant force we thought, or VSL where the higher energies of the early universe pushed light along further?
I simply suggested we don't have such a firm grasp on the mechanations or nature of the universe that most think we do. Given a thousand years our ideas now will be treated the same as we treat the ideas posed by the ancient greeks. Of course I don't have a crystal clear grasp on this stuff either - that's my point, no one does. I fear I struck a nerve elsewhere, though, and I apologize. Do you major in physics, or simply read alot of the books like I do?
Well, keep in mind what peer review did to Galileo. It would be no small wonder at all for every astronomer and his mother to re-analize the data. And yes, I would believe it when it is tested and vetted. As it stands, I posted simply because someone else made a reference towards it. But it sends the mind flying in all sorts of hypotheticals, doesn't it?thethingthatlurks said:
It seems to me that there are two types of people who support the ancient aliens/ancient astronauts idea: people who stand to make money off of it, and people who are ignorant of the subject matter. If someone hasn't studied ancient Egypt, for example, then they might find the existence of the Great Pyramids baffling. How could primitive man have gone from burying their dead with dirt mounds to building such impressive tombs? A person who is so uneducated on the subject might find it easier to believe that aliens built the pyramids instead. A professional archaeologist, meanwhile, would know that there was actually a series of well-documented advances in technology and architecture that lead from small earthen mounds to the first true pyramid. The 'mystery' that the layman seeks to solve by saying "ET did it" actually isn't a mystery at all.
Of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't any genuine mysteries about ancient civilizations--there certainly are. But the odds of us learning the answers are a lot better if we actually work to find them rather than throwing up our hands and saying "aliens did it".
Of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't any genuine mysteries about ancient civilizations--there certainly are. But the odds of us learning the answers are a lot better if we actually work to find them rather than throwing up our hands and saying "aliens did it".
Keep in mind that the people acting as Galileo's peers were degenerate fundamentalist, who were probably as keen on fucking little boys as their modern counterparts.Lord Legion said:
See, something like this doesn't really make me wonder about hypotheticals. We know the value of this constant to amazing precision from constant re-evaluation in two different fields, spectroscopy and quantum electrodynamics. The odds of a shocking new discovery involving an error in this constant is about as likely as finding bacterial fossils in asteroids, or bacteria who thrive on arsenic in a California lake...
If you want to entertain weird thoughts, why not ponder why pi appears in the most fundamental constants of the universe, why the ratio of the mass of a proton to the mass of an electron is 6pi^5 (within experimental error)?
Indeed they probably were, but the article does not claim that we don't know the precision, but that this isn't constant everywhere in the universe. And I do ponder such thoughts all the time...but I will have to look into pi as a fundamental force in the world. Did not know that.thethingthatlurks said:
Also:
"The odds of a shocking new discovery involving an error in this constant is about as likely as finding bacterial fossils in asteroids, or bacteria who thrive on arsenic in a California lake..."
I laughed.
I think its a crock of shit.
Fun to speculate on though, and it makes for great fiction, so I highly approve of the people who keep pumping out theories about it. It just gives us more and more fodder for great story telling.
Fun to speculate on though, and it makes for great fiction, so I highly approve of the people who keep pumping out theories about it. It just gives us more and more fodder for great story telling.
You're basing this on the assumption that intelligent life has to be able to survive and behave exactly like Earth lifeforms do. Just because that's how it works on Earth doesn't mean that's how it works on other planets. We live the way we do because that's how nature on our planet created us. If planets took oxygen and created carbon dioxide, we'd be breathing that instead of oxygen. If there was little to no water, we would have evolved to a point where we didn't need it. If Earth was a gas planet, well, fuck if I know but we would have evolved to survive in that too.trooperpaul said:
We are a product of nature. I'm no scientist but it's common sense just because one lifeform functions one way, that doesn't mean that all lifeforms function the same way. Just look to nature and you'll see how blatantly obvious that is.
Not to mention that until we can actually see or visit those other planets, we'll never know for sure if they harbor any intelligent life.
This is the awesomeest thing anybody has ever said and also I spelled plants planets when talking about oxygen????? derptrooperpaul said:
