Resend my activation email : Register : Log in 
BCF: Bike Chat Forums


We are not alone...

Reply to topic
Bike Chat Forums Index -> Random Banter Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 13, 14, 15  Next
View previous topic : View next topic  
Author Message

Islander
World Chat Champion



Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 13:49 - 06 May 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

chickenstrip wrote:
Islander wrote:

TWO HOURS worth of video? Is there a TL: DL somewhere?


You could watch maybe just the first 40mins or so. After that, much of it goes to speculative and wider discussion.


We have a winner Mr. Green

I'll watch it this afternoon. Thumbs Up
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

chickenstrip
Super Spammer



Joined: 06 Dec 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 13:52 - 06 May 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, but if you were interested in it, you'd probably watch it all. If you're not interested in it, wtf are you doing in this thread? Laughing
____________________
Chickenystripgeezer's Biking Life (Latest update 19/10/18) Belgium, France, Italy, Austria tour 2016 Picos de Europa, Pyrenees and French Alps tour 2017 Scotland Trip 1, now with BONUS FEATURE edit, 5/10/19, on page 2 Scotland Trip 2 Luxembourg, Black Forest, Switzerland, Vosges Trip 2017
THERE'S MILLIONS OF CHICKENSTRIPS OUT THERE!
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Islander
World Chat Champion



Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:16 - 06 May 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh dear...

18 minutes in and they're mentioning Bob Lazar the uberfraud... Laughing

Does not bode well. David Fravor is an engaging character right enough though.

Back to it...
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Islander
World Chat Champion



Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:37 - 06 May 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

35 minutes in and he just said force field. This isn't really the objectivity I'd expect of a professional pilot. Laughing

Sorry but I'm really not finding it credible, it is entertaining though and he's obviously carving himself a nice little retirement career so good luck to him. Thumbs Up
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

chickenstrip
Super Spammer



Joined: 06 Dec 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 17:08 - 06 May 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Karma for at least taking the time to check it out. That's more than most with your viewpoint would do. I hope you at least found it entertaining.

Yeah, Mr. Lazar...you really don't wanna go there Laughing

I'm still pretty open minded about this particular account. Of course it's incredible - think what the connotations might be if it were true and accurate, and never mind aliens. But I can't say he's reporting facts, and you can't say he isn't (force fields aside Laughing ). So we're really no further forward, except it killed a bit of time for us. And we wouldn't have bothered engaging in it all if we had better things to do Laughing
____________________
Chickenystripgeezer's Biking Life (Latest update 19/10/18) Belgium, France, Italy, Austria tour 2016 Picos de Europa, Pyrenees and French Alps tour 2017 Scotland Trip 1, now with BONUS FEATURE edit, 5/10/19, on page 2 Scotland Trip 2 Luxembourg, Black Forest, Switzerland, Vosges Trip 2017
THERE'S MILLIONS OF CHICKENSTRIPS OUT THERE!
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

bhinso
World Chat Champion



Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Karma :

PostPosted: 17:27 - 06 May 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does the force field have the little noise that goes vvvrumm when you get to close to it, like the light saber noise.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts
Rebel This post is not being displayed because the poster is banned. Unhide this post / all posts.

Islander
World Chat Champion



Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:57 - 06 May 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rebel wrote:
Islander wrote:
35 minutes in and he just said force field. This isn't really the objectivity I'd expect of a professional pilot. Laughing


Well we exist within a giant force field of sorts, and I don't think it will be long before we see portable types, neither do the actual scientists it seems, the concept is certainly being worked on. Of course this all may seem like magic to cargo cult primitives.

https://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8981261.PN.&OS=PN/8981261&RS=PN/8981261


Pray tell, what force field do we exist in?
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

chickenstrip
Super Spammer



Joined: 06 Dec 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:05 - 06 May 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Better still, how about a definition of "force field"? Otherwise, I can see an argument coming where people won't even be talking about the same thing.
____________________
Chickenystripgeezer's Biking Life (Latest update 19/10/18) Belgium, France, Italy, Austria tour 2016 Picos de Europa, Pyrenees and French Alps tour 2017 Scotland Trip 1, now with BONUS FEATURE edit, 5/10/19, on page 2 Scotland Trip 2 Luxembourg, Black Forest, Switzerland, Vosges Trip 2017
THERE'S MILLIONS OF CHICKENSTRIPS OUT THERE!
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts
Rebel This post is not being displayed because the poster is banned. Unhide this post / all posts.

bhinso
World Chat Champion



Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:19 - 06 May 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah but it doesn't reflect us.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Islander
World Chat Champion



Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:36 - 06 May 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rebel wrote:
Doesn't the ionosphere reflect radio waves?


Yes it can, depending on the wavelength. It's not a force field though.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Nobby the Bastard
Harley Gaydar



Joined: 16 Aug 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:01 - 06 May 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rebel wrote:
Doesn't the ionosphere reflect radio waves?


Only some wavelengths, in certain weather conditions and at certain angles of attack.

A notable wavelength is uk cb radios. You used to find that on hot summer days you couldnt talk to a mate who was 30 miles away but suddenly you were speaking g to someone 150 miles away.

Definately not a force field, a bit like playing ducks and drakes.
____________________
trevor saxe-coburg-gotha:"Remember this simple rule - scooters are for men who like to feel the breeze on their huge, flapping cunt lips."
Sprint ST 1050
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Hetzer
Super Spammer



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 11:49 - 09 May 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

MarJay wrote:
chickenstrip wrote:

But what do we know? The universe consistently demonstrates that it is stranger and more complex than we imagined. And given that, it seems sensible to me to keep an open mind. The current backlash against 'experts' stems from the smugness of some in their ideas and theories, many of which aren't proven.


I'd love to believe that was true, but rationally it doesn't bear out.

Unproven theories. This is a doozy. So Gravity is a theory but nobody is leaping to try to disprove it. Same with Relativity, thermodynamics, atomic theory etc etc. The results you get are self evident, it's just that further down the line we might refine that theory to allow us to understand it better. Rarely are theories like this completely disproven. Normally just a level of detail is added.

I don't see many smug scientists. In fact, science is the one arena where people need to be contradicted, they need to have more evidence. The most smug people I see on TV tend to be economists or political experts with books that have just been released, and that's because they want to sell books.

Also, the Universe complexity thing... The universe can be explained by two or three relatively simple mathematical equations, and theoretical physicists have been working for years on unifying those. If the Universe could be explained by one mathematical model how does that make it more complex than we realised? It's not more or less complex than we realise, it's just our understanding that is limited. However, there are basic physical laws that physicists don't disagree on, and that minimal understanding can tell us quite a lot, and can inform as to what is probably not true as well as what is true.

One thing that those theories tell us is that interstellar travel is basically impossible. We might be wrong about that, but as explained in a Kids TV show I watched years ago "we've nearly got it right". It's not an aspect of science that is likely to be disproven. There might be some further refinement of those physical ideas and laws but I don't think aliens popping up from Zeta Reticuli is suddenly going to become a reality. Which is more realistic? Aliens travelling vast distances using unimaginable amounts of energy just to show themselves to tired pilots? Or humans with all their fallibility and bias believing they are seeing one thing when actually they are seeing something else?

There is an open mind, but then there is filling that gap with imagination rather than logic. That's what conspiracy theorists do, that's what anti vaxxers do, that's what climate change deniers do. There's no reason to believe that these things are even flying machines let alone flying machines of alien origin. Sure, it would probably be *nice* to believe that, but rationally? I really don't think so.

It's a bit like a lot of things in our recent history. There are things where it would be nice if they were true but the reality is otherwise. Such as climate change denial and certain other popular political ideas. It's human nature to believe what is comfortable to believe. Religion even explicitly states this with the idea of 'Faith'. You choose to believe there is a deity as there isn't any evidence for it, and rationally the universe is just a huge mathematical system which is indifferent to life. We're just here by chance, and there is no evidence that was even jump started by some conscious being, let alone our lives are being controlled.

Conspiracy theorists latch on to things because they want to have knowledge that others don't have. So in their case it's easier and nicer for them to believe crazy out there theories with no evidence than it is to accept what is most likely the truth. It's exhilarating, but it's brain chemistry, not rationality.


This kind of level of complacent ignorance is as amusing as it's breath-taking. It's akin to saying "I know how a watch works because I can see the hands moving over time" while being oblivious to the cogs inside the case.

Scientists remain unable to explain the double-slit experiment yet you believe they have physics nailed to the point of precluding interstellar travel 'because light-speed'? Laughing
____________________
"There's the horizon! Ride hard, ride fast and cut down all who stand in your way!"
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

MarJay
But it's British!



Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:03 - 09 May 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hetzer wrote:

Scientists remain unable to explain the double-slit experiment yet you believe they have physics nailed to the point of precluding interstellar travel 'because light-speed'? Laughing


The double slit experiment is irrelevant because that's a quantum effect, and the primary evidence we have for the near impossibility of faster than light travel is primarily relativistic.

Both ARE governed by mathematics though, and phones, GPS, various other things wouldn't work unless the maths worked.

Let's assume for a moment that faster than light travel IS possible. The energy required would be so large, that you think a civilization would expend that energy just to buzz us and find out what's inside our anal cavity? Laughing
____________________
British beauty: Triumph Street Triple R; Loony stroker: KR1S; Track fun: GSXR750 L1; Commuter Missile: GSX-S1000F
Remember kids, bikes aren't like lego. You can't easily take a part from one bike and then fit it to another.


Last edited by MarJay on 12:50 - 09 May 2020; edited 1 time in total
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

chickenstrip
Super Spammer



Joined: 06 Dec 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:28 - 09 May 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just dislike the term 'governed' in this instance. I still prefer 'described'.

My approach is, at present we think that faster than light travel is impossible. It works for us, with our description of the universe. So we know we have at least part of it right. But our description of the universe is incomplete. Otherwise, all the scientists and mathematicians could quit their careers now and say "that's it, we're done, nothing more to figure out" (then it might indeed be just a case of "shut up and calculate"). Same as Newtonian physics worked for us...up to a point. Then we discovered relativity, and we had to change some assumptions. It was more a matter of scale in certain applications, and we still use the Newtonian system effectively where appropriate. But in some applications, it doesn't work, at least not with accuracy. It is one description of how things behave. But it isn't the only one.

For science, we work with what we have. But we must keep an open mind and not assume we know everything. Otherwise, we make no progress. An example of this is continental drift. Look at the ridicule that those who first put forward the idea were faced with.
Look at the time and expense currently going into the idea of string theory. Yet scientists are running into many problems with it. Other scientists are looking at loop quantum gravity and they too are currently stymied. But either one of those theories could make vast changes in the way we look at the universe if proved correct. Even small changes in them could vastly alter how we understand things to work. The universe works. The maths works in describing it...thus far.

We try to manipulate the maths to fit what we observe. We don't change what we observe to fit the maths.
____________________
Chickenystripgeezer's Biking Life (Latest update 19/10/18) Belgium, France, Italy, Austria tour 2016 Picos de Europa, Pyrenees and French Alps tour 2017 Scotland Trip 1, now with BONUS FEATURE edit, 5/10/19, on page 2 Scotland Trip 2 Luxembourg, Black Forest, Switzerland, Vosges Trip 2017
THERE'S MILLIONS OF CHICKENSTRIPS OUT THERE!
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

bhinso
World Chat Champion



Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:57 - 09 May 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is true, we didn't really discover relativity, rather we had to adapt it to fix problems.

After Newton, everything seemed perfect, clockwork universe. If you are on a train traveling at 100mph, someone on a train traveling at 100mph towards you would from your point of view be coming at you at 200mph. Perfect.

The problem was, what if that person puts a light on. According to Newton, the light would come towards you at c + 100mph.

This was OK until the mid 19th century, when the likes of Maxwell proved that the speed of light had to be an invariant constant. c + 100mph was impossible.

They tried to explain it by the idea of some superluminal aether, but Mickleson and Morley proved this did not exist. In the end it was time that had to give way, which was the basis of relativity.

Light on a train at 100mph does not come towards you at c + 100, it's still c.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Islander
World Chat Champion



Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 22:12 - 09 May 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

bhinso wrote:
This is true, we didn't really discover relativity, rather we had to adapt it to fix problems.

After Newton, everything seemed perfect, clockwork universe. If you are on a train traveling at 100mph, someone on a train traveling at 100mph towards you would from your point of view be coming at you at 200mph. Perfect.

The problem was, what if that person puts a light on. According to Newton, the light would come towards you at c + 100mph.

This was OK until the mid 19th century, when the likes of Maxwell proved that the speed of light had to be an invariant constant. c + 100mph was impossible.

They tried to explain it by the idea of some superluminal aether, but Mickleson and Morley proved this did not exist. In the end it was time that had to give way, which was the basis of relativity.

Light on a train at 100mph does not come towards you at c + 100, it's still c.


It's all down to frames of reference and quite hard to get your head around at first especially when you realise that everything apart from c is variable at relativistic speeds (time, distance, mass...) Smile

We can never reach lightspeed anyway or even a significant portion of it as the mass of the moving object increases as lightspeed is approached, in turn increasing the energy requirement to further increase speed - it's unachievable for any object with mass.

The only thing in the universe that can exceed lightspeed is the universe itself. Mr. Green

And yes, I have an open mind on this but the evidence is very strong that c is the ultimate limit. (I'm looking at you chickenstrip Laughing )
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

chickenstrip
Super Spammer



Joined: 06 Dec 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 23:34 - 09 May 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Islander wrote:

And yes, I have an open mind on this but the current evidence is very strong that c is the ultimate limit. (I'm looking at you chickenstrip Laughing )


FTFY Laughing
____________________
Chickenystripgeezer's Biking Life (Latest update 19/10/18) Belgium, France, Italy, Austria tour 2016 Picos de Europa, Pyrenees and French Alps tour 2017 Scotland Trip 1, now with BONUS FEATURE edit, 5/10/19, on page 2 Scotland Trip 2 Luxembourg, Black Forest, Switzerland, Vosges Trip 2017
THERE'S MILLIONS OF CHICKENSTRIPS OUT THERE!
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

pepperami
Super Spammer



Joined: 17 Jan 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 09:43 - 10 May 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

bhinso wrote:


Light on a train at 100mph does not come towards you at c + 100, it's still c.


Agreed.^

If you’re on a 100mph train and fire a projectile, you will get a) projectile velocity + 100mph.
Then loss of energy, air friction, gravity will slow the projectile down until it stops (hitting something).

So as we know c is a constant.
Why can’t c be c+100mph from a speeding train?
What slows down c ?
What is it in the make up of c that means it cannot exceed c?

Numbers are infinite, distance is infinite as far as we know, why not c?
____________________
I am the sum total of my own existence, what went before makes me who I am now!
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Lord Percy
World Chat Champion



Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 10:37 - 10 May 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

pepperami wrote:

So as we know c is a constant.
Why can’t c be c+100mph from a speeding train?
What slows down c ?
What is it in the make up of c that means it cannot exceed c?

Numbers are infinite, distance is infinite as far as we know, why not c?


My take on it is that c is simply the rate at which everything in physics happens at its most fundamental level. If it were to be labelled as anything in particular, I'd call it the rate of fundamental information transfer, or energy transfer. It's the universal speed limit.

If there were no speed limit on how fast stuff can get done, you would have to allow for infinite values, which breaks physics entirely in so many areas and puts us into firm science fiction territory.

So instead of asking "why can't we go faster than c", it's better to be happy that we've found the limit and now investigate around the fact of its existence.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

kolu
Nova Slayer



Joined: 29 Sep 2019
Karma :

PostPosted: 11:27 - 10 May 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

pepperami wrote:
bhinso wrote:

Light on a train at 100mph does not come towards you at c + 100, it's still c.


Agreed.^

If you’re on a 100mph train and fire a projectile, you will get a) projectile velocity + 100mph.
Then loss of energy, air friction, gravity will slow the projectile down until it stops (hitting something).

So as we know c is a constant.
Why can’t c be c+100mph from a speeding train?
What slows down c ?
What is it in the make up of c that means it cannot exceed c?


maybe think of it as:

1) the light propagates at the velocity of c.

you ride in train, light you torch in the direction of the train travel, but still, 1) applies and the light propagates from your source at the velocity of c. anyway - it's in the domain of electromagnetic radiation, your mechanical movement doesn't "push" the field faster, you just stack the waves bit tighter together as you speed up. well, we call that blue shift (the opposite to red shift common in the space) - it's the same as Doppler effect with sound. Also mind the sound propagates at a set velocity irrespective of the velocity of the source.

This might be the simple explanation. I'm too tired to try to come up with more sophisticated one. Let Lord Percy and Islander do that Smile
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts
Rebel This post is not being displayed because the poster is banned. Unhide this post / all posts.

Hetzer
Super Spammer



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 14:47 - 10 May 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

MarJay wrote:
Hetzer wrote:

Scientists remain unable to explain the double-slit experiment yet you believe they have physics nailed to the point of precluding interstellar travel 'because light-speed'? Laughing


The double slit experiment is irrelevant because that's a quantum effect, and the primary evidence we have for the near impossibility of faster than light travel is primarily relativistic.

Both ARE governed by mathematics though, and phones, GPS, various other things wouldn't work unless the maths worked.

Let's assume for a moment that faster than light travel IS possible. The energy required would be so large, that you think a civilization would expend that energy just to buzz us and find out what's inside our anal cavity? Laughing


Why do you assume that the speed of light is the measure of all things and that quantum and relativistic are mutually exclusive or exclusive at all? You have no more idea than anyone else what's undiscovered and yet to be discovered. Physicists are only now beginning to ponder the involvement of consciousness in the nature of material reality, something that was laughed at just a decade ago and destroyed the careers of anyone brave enough to think outside of that box.

Hint: Who says other intelligences have to visit here in the corporeal body?
____________________
"There's the horizon! Ride hard, ride fast and cut down all who stand in your way!"
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

bhinso
World Chat Champion



Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:55 - 11 May 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

pepperami wrote:
So as we know c is a constant.
Why can’t c be c+100mph from a speeding train?
What slows down c ?
What is it in the make up of c that means it cannot exceed c?


This is the key thing. The 19th century findings showed that c had to be constant, and you could not have c + 100mph, nor c - 100mph. This got a lot of people confused.

Einstein based his theory of relativity on two postulates (not laws), just as a way to try and explain things.

1) The laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames

2) The speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames

1) Is fairly straight forward, it just means that a ball for example would act the same regardless of if it was in a frame at rest, or in a frame at constant velocity

2) Is the upsetting thing. Since speed = distance / time, it means that distance (lorentz contraction) or time (time dilation) have to give. This is the consequence in having a constant speed of light. Events that happen at the same time in a FOR at rest, might not happen at the same time if you're moving on a train for example.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts
Old Thread Alert!

The last post was made 3 years, 321 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful?
  Display posts from previous:   
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bike Chat Forums Index -> Random Banter All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 13, 14, 15  Next
Page 6 of 15

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
 

Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.15 Sec - Server Load: 0.31 - MySQL Queries: 17 - Page Size: 156.9 Kb