UAP/UFO thread - Non-Human Intelligences

[Blu35partan70]

When you think about it, if we did find an ‘off world‘ craft/vehicle here, it’s likely to have crashed unintentionally.

Secondly, it always makes me laugh that we think a biological creature would need to be driving it.

If they managed to get here, it’s highly unlikely it would be manned.
Surely common sense makes you think a robot or some AI based thing would be controlling it. All Sci Fi tends to have that planets inhabitants in a ship etc but in my view that would never happen.

So, in conclusion, my view is that our first contact would be a crashed vehicle unmanned. We would then have to reverse engineer it and I think that could well be happening now.

But what if this visiting process has been happening for centuries or millions of years and were only just catching it? what if were the seeds of plantation and there just coming to see what there expreiments are? some visits maybe manned and some actualy come to see firsthand? theres a doc made in 21? in about ufo sighting in valginha brasil about captuing of an alien or 2 which sounds dum but is quite interesting when you watch the witnesses speak on it. its called contact, i think.

 

[GX Blue]

But what if this visiting process has been happening for centuries or millions of years and were only just catching it? what if were the seeds of plantation and there just coming to see what there expreiments are? some visits maybe manned and some actualy come to see firsthand? theres a doc made in 21? in about ufo sighting in valginha brasil about captuing of an alien or 2 which sounds dum but is quite interesting when you watch the witnesses speak on it. its called contact, i think.

D’yer know what mate, you could well be right.

Thats the best thing about this subject. So many possibilities, theories, outcomes.

I think if we did find a craft with an actual alien, (not a ’robot’ created by an alien), that would be the jackpot really for us wouldn’t it.

 

[Blu35partan70]

D’yer know what mate, you could well be right.

Thats the best thing about this subject. So many possibilities, theories, outcomes.

I think if we did find a craft with an actual alien, (not a ’robot’ created by an alien), that would be the jackpot really for us wouldn’t it.

had to lookit up agin, but the show is called moment of contact and the trailer is on youtube here
i don't know if you can see that but it was interesting i thought.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

Well I think you’re much better qualified than I am to be right on this or any other specific scientific topic.

However, despite the widely held supposition that scientific knowledge and technical expertise develop in a roughly linear fashion, it’s no secret that the major changes actually come in leaps and bounds without following any regular or incremental pattern, and history proves this to all who care to look.

One amusing example of this was witnessed by millions of us watching the fraud Uri Gellar supposedly bending spoons on TV whilst surrounded by and closely observed by dumbfounded western scientists who were totally baffled by his seemingly unique and unworldly abilities.

The fact of the matter was that, unbeknown to them, he was simply employing cutlery made from metals with properties (that were well developed in the USSR but beyond imagination in the west) whereby combinations of metal alloys and revolutionary annealing techniques allowed the production of metals that changed shape in a predictable fashion when subject to small temperature changes.
Thus, the heat produced by the friction of rubbing a spoon handle with his thumb could induce that spoon to quite quickly revert to a predetermined twisted state.
What he was doing was employing science that was such a step change from what was known at the time that western scientists couldn’t even conceive of the possibility of what he was demonstrating right in front of them.

The world we live in is shaped by out of synch scientific development. In our world of greed, conquest & capitalism it allowed the use of modern weapons against longer existing and more culturally developed societies, as can be seen in the genocides committed against the North and South American native peoples the native peoples of Australia, Africa etc.
Many of the societies almost completely wiped out by the guns and bullets that we developed in only a handful of decades had histories going back so far that we were cave dwellers at a time when they already had rich histories.

And developing and proving a science doesn’t necessarily mean that a step change to use that knowledge in it’s most dramatic fashion happens.
The Chinese had ‘gunpowder‘ and had been using metal lamination to produce blades that were light and flexible without being brittle, while we were still fighting with sticks, but they didn’t take the next small step that could have led quickly to the production of the guns that we used to subjugate the rest of the planet.

I suppose that the point of what I’m saying is that step changes in scientific knowledge are more the norm than the exception.
What seems impossible today can be in common use in very little time and I say this as a bloke who grew up with black & white tv on 2 channels only, and a home telephone on a party line that worked down a string of copper wrapped in waxed cotton, and who’s now sitting in front of an iPad sending information via Wi-Fi and then down a fibre, through a server on the far side of the planet to appear in print on this here forum.

What I’m doing right now was totally impossible to the degree it was inconceivable to all except except some theoretical thinkers until not long ago at all. Indeed, the clunky iPad type devices used in early Star Trek were readily accepted by the viewers as being something that might happen (perhaps) in several hundred years time but it’s with us today.

I await developments with keen anticipation. Y’never know eh? ;-)

I don't at all disagree with the sentiment of what you're saying. Which is the reason why I caveated that we can never be 100% sure. These kinds of leaps do happen.

The only reason I am slightly more bullish here in my assertion is because when we look at the mechanism that ignites fusion it is something for which the science is very well understood - this is a mature field. We know the energies needed here are far in excess of the "every man" and so they need these giant tokamaks to generate the conditions required. It's not something that somebody can stumble across by pottering round in the tool shed - at least not in the way we understand it.

For the leap you're suggesting to happen without these conditions, somebody would need to develop some mechanism for "cold fusion". Fusion that is possible in more 'normal' conditions. This was a very fashionable idea a few decades back but it was soon shown to be mostly quackery and after 50 years+ of searching nobody has ever demonstrated it with any consequence. This is what I'm referring to when I talk about 'finding the philosopher's stone'. Yes, somebody might discover cold fusion, in the same way that somebody might one day successfully turn lead into gold. But until it's proven that it can happen it is every bit as elusive and speculative as Bigfoot or ET ;)

With regards to your point that developments aren't linear - you're absolutely correct. When a field becomes sufficiently mature, things tend to explode in pace of development. Look at your iPad example... Moore's Law for computing has held true for decades, successfully predicting that the density of transistors in our devices would increase exponentially.

You can see a similar thing happening in fusion technology if you look at the 'Triple product' of fusion reactions. The fusion results since 1960 take this curved tajectory. The blue region is the 'break-even' point Q=1 which we beat for the first time last year. The pattern is pretty clear, which is why I can say based on the trend that without some "cold fusion"-esque discovery, we are looking at 40-50 years minimum before commercial reactors.

Like you though, I optimistically hope to be proven wrong!

 

[Blu35partan70]

This stuf sounds cray when you watch or listen to it. are pilots that see this stuff on the grind or what?

 

[FlemishDuck]

I would generally be extremely skeptical of the idea of any current terrestrial power having developed fusion capability. This is a technology which is definitely not just around the corner, it's generations away from being a practical reality. I would personally be surprised if commercial fusion is a thing in my lifetime (I'm 32), though obviously humanity has a habit of surprising people with the speed of its ingenuity so who knows.

Is it possible that some other country has discovered some elaborate mechanism that everybody else is totally unaware of which cracks the ability to create fusion reactions? Sure, it can't be ruled out 100% but it would be like finding the philosopher's stone or something. Very unlikely. And there's all kinds of evidence that suggests this isn't the case. Firstly, you can't hide the kind of high-energy physics facilities you need to develop something like this. It's like trying to hide a nuclear programme. The world knew North Korea was developing nuclear weapons way before they told us.

All major governments are pumping billions into fusion technology and so far the best results we have are from programmes like the NIF where they have achieved Q > 1.5. Meaning that the reaction achieved 50% more heat than it used. Which sounds great but the hard part is sustaining that reaction and then extracting that energy gain. This requires building enormous magnets to generate and sustain superhot plasma and an entire power plant infrastructure which is very energy intensive. Some estimates suggest that the Q-value needs to be closer to 100 to be widely commercially viable (though it might be possible to operate at lower Q-values with new engineering breakthroughs). This is after 70+ years of development knowing fusion is a thing.

As a result, the best we've ever done in the many projects across the globe is to obtain about 1% of the energy out of a fusion reactor that we would need to generate power commercially. That's a slight oversimplification because the way these things scale is not strictly linear and there's all kinds of considerations on technical challenges with sustaining the kind of heat we're talking about.

The biggest indicator that nobody has done it already is the existence of ITER. This is the biggest human collaboration project since the ISS. This reactor will cost over 20Bn and is being funded by the EU, China, Russia, the US, Korea, Japan, India, UK and Switzerland. When built it will go online in 2025 but it won't start high-power interactions until 2035 - over 10 years away. It aims to achieve momentary Q = 10 and sustain Q = 4 for 8 minutes. This means at best by 2035, the most ambitious global fusion project will be somewhere between 10-25% of the way to sustainable fusion. And sustainable fusion is not the same as commercial viability. We are - to be frank without being overly negative - still absolutely miles away.

And we're talking here about taking the above concept and shrinking it down to the size of something that can fit in an aircraft. For a country like Russia to have done this it would be a bit like they'd invented the smartphone before even inventing telegrams. Just not really feasible.

Disclaimer: I speak as somebody with a physics degree who understands the basic concepts at play here, but I am absolutely not a fusion engineer and I'd advise digging deeper to gain your own understanding.

If you humbly speak for what you think to know with intention to inform as you seem then i'm quite willing to take youre word for it. I'm hardly all that informed on evolutions in nuclear science. But i do wonder wether my assertion is right from a different perspective, that is to say that the "flying tic-tac" in all it's weird propperty's regarding how it deals with physics as "seemed to have been observed" don't need to be contingent nessecarily on a "number of unknown advancements" to achieve it rather than 1 key advancement that isn't terrestially known to exist, that being a power plant that allows the vehicle to achieve far greater energy outputs in regards to the mass of its fuel and therefore thrust to weight ratios. If we had the "micro fussion engine" i think we could perhaps design this as a egg shape that has a drill on both ends turning at extreme revolutions and both have similar cutting angles irregardless of that the front drill and back drill turn opposed to eachother to cancel out the movement at it's center engine and control area whereas the drill thread almost connects at both ends so to have it all along the lenght of the vehicle, with that in mind that it needs a little bending axial bending space to be able to do (potential complex) turns. It's like when you push a drill into some material the drill can pull itself into it at a velocity that is greater than that of the user pushing it into it, that pull can be greater according to sheer amount of revolutions, i guess it would only take a certain point of where sheer revolutions would pull it into water even if you shot it at water at high speed, or where it would drill trough air and fly accordingly. I guess the principle could perhaps be tested trough ballistics tests by making a drill like projectile that is launched trough a threaded barrel so that the projectile aquires a high amount of spin, as to test if that increases range or even penetrative potential.

 

[JamesMCFC]

had to lookit up agin, but the show is called moment of contact and the trailer is on youtube here
i don't know if you can see that but it was interesting i thought.

I need to watch that.

It is a mad story. When you hear what happened you think how can so many people lie about the same thing?

It is like that case of the school kids in South Africa who saw the spaceship land. They all had the same story and all drew the same thing

There is no way you could get all those kids to lie

 

[denislawsbackheel]

It’s easy. Go to any Sunday school.

 

[Kirkstall Blue]

To be fair, i think i can explain how it all can work contingent on having 1 specific technology that is within the potential grasp of contemporary humans to get, and it all nicely fits if you think it trough further.

Theory: the key about these flying devices is that they have a propulsion powered by a nuclear fusion power unit.
So lets look at it deeper.

1) Is it possible that some rival to the US has managed a breakthrough in nuclear fusion, but choose to not tell the world about it? Yeah sure, nuclear fusion is often seen as something that is just around the corner for humans to invent, and if Russia would invent nuclear fusion it would have reason to keep it secret given how much their economy floats on the sales of hydrocarbons.

2) could a nuclear fusion power plant explain the form of propulsion and effects associated with this craft. Well yes actually:
-first of all a nuclear fusion power plant would allow the craft to achieve a far greater thrust to weight ratio than typically associated with flying vehicles that are based on burning hydrocarbons, therefore achieving far greater speeds and acceleration. With hydrocarbons you often have this issue that the fuel itself adds mass to the the whole so that there is no linear correlation between between added payload and size/mass of the vehicle, its not because you want to shoot double the payload into space with a rocket that it simply requires a rocket twice as big, no it will be rather something like 4 times as big. So given this potentially far better thrust to power ratio such a fusion power craft would be able to achieve far higher speeds, as it hardly needs to consider the mass of its fuel.
-Second point is that for lack of using hydrocarbons for propulsion the craft indeed would not have a fuel burning jet engine, but rather would make use of electromechanical powered propellers. As such, it could for example propel itself by thrusting out a dense jet of air behind it, but since you're working with the mass of air that is before you another alternative is to proppel the craft by creating a vacuum in front of it.

3) the characteristics of a electromechanical propeller based vacuum drive would be that it can do the things these things seem to do, even in relation to going underwater which a jet engine would not achieve. Propellors will work underwater too, and again a principle of proppeling by creation of vacuum before it would allow to go into the sea splash less as the matter is removed and likely compressed rather than pushed aside. it's somewhat similar to the principle of a jet ski, but reversed by using vacuum before it rather than a jet behind it. There would also be a method to avoid cavitation with this, providing you can just displace the mass before it right behind it once surrounded by water and while youre moving. Picture atleast cavitation as something like an air bubble collapsing on itself trough pressure, inward pressure at that, what you rather might get in this case is that the vehicle ejects pressurised mass behind it that exapnds but in a direction to push the vehicle into the vacuum rather than push directionally against the mass behind it, and thus thereby expanding into the space left behind by the vehicle. So rather than that cavitation would occur behind the vehicle, it might actually occur in front of the vehicle as the vacuum should act as a self imploding bubble in relation to the pressurized mass around it, providing atleast it has the time to do that while the vehicle pulls in mass at a high speed as to maintain the vacuum before it.

4) if you think about what the best shape would be to design such a craft that uses a nuclear fusion power source with electromechanical propellers that needs to be aerodynamic in both air and underwater, you would likely choose .. a tic-tac shape. What is the shape of a rocket that aerodynamically needs to move to space? if it wern't for the jet engines, it would look like a tic tac. What is the typical form of a submarine vessel? Yes, it's a tic tac. No wings needed when one has such a thrust to weight ratio it can perfectly fly around on either vectorial thrust or in fact vacuum creation.

5) You might not be even able to see that the craft is powered by propellors, simply by the rediculous magnitude of revolutions achieved by these with such a power source behind it. These propellors would be a little marvel of science on their own i would immagine, requiring a very high precision with very narrow tolerances. That the craft would apparently be very hot inside though is hardly surprising, fusion might achieve temperatures also produced by the sun, although just aswell friction could heat up such a body however when proppulsion is vacuum based that friction could be avoided, in fact a perfect vacuum has actually a typical temperature of 0°C, so that would explain the coldness on the outside, its as such even a rather clever method to cool the whole thing down albeit that for the temperature to be rather cold on the outside it should have a shell build out of a material that is very low in thermal conductivity like say plexiglass but that can then also explain some sort of "shapelessness". Another things is that a fusion power plant likely would need some water, albeit super compressed even when water is difficult to compress just because you have the power to do it. It would atleast also give potential reason as to why you'd like to take a dive with this thing from time to time, even if h2o could also be filtered out of air.

conclusion: it appears to me thus, that much of the characteristics of those objects could be explained by the simple consideration of it potentially having a nuclear fusion based power source, besides even that if you wanted to design a aerial craft that utilized a nuclear fusion power source that likely it would result in something that akes very much to these tic-tac objects.

disclaimer: i have a basic grasp of fysics, thermo and fluido mechanics aswell, but when coming to such things much is a matter of speculation, i'm just speculating based on what i know, perhaps someone even more knowledgable might correct me on a few things i wouldn't be surprised about it and i'm open to be corrected for function of understanding. ;)

You have more than a basic grasp much more than I have, the only thing I know is the crafts move in a way they
must be unmanned
The theory it’s a US rival or the US we don’t know but it’s possible a phenomena we don’t understand “nuclear fusion“
”anti gravity machine”

 

[Fernster]

But who is to say that there aren't advanced civilisations out there that are millions of years ahead of us? Remember, not much over a century ago we didn't even have powered flight. 200 years ago we were using horses to get around, yet look what we have now in such a short space of time.

I remember years ago my uncle used to laugh at the intercom devices on Star Trek that they used to talk to each other, yet now we have similar sized devices that we not only talk on but can watch images on live from the other side of the world, as sharp and clear as being there, at a price everyone can afford. We have tiny chips which you can store hundreds of movies or thousands of music tracks on, just a few decades after cassette tapes were "the thing".

Things that we think are impossible now might be commonplace in another 100 years. I do wonder sometimes where the vast advances of tech have come from in a relatively very short time.

Yes, we have taken some massive technological leaps over the last 100 years.

In regards to communication with aliens:
We are very narrow minded in the thought process of how they might have evolved.
Their technologies (if any) may be very, very different from our own and may not develop anything that can identify our signals the way we perceive them. They might not understand our process of producing radio waves and therefore do not know how to translate any signals that we have produced.
To think that any advanced aliens have evolved in a similar way to us is very naïve. If they are traversing space in any great distances that would probably mean they are many years ahead possibly thousands or millions.
They may have forgotten how to translate basic data or even searching for any communication in a completely different way.
Our perception of how an alien species evolves is very "human" and a perception of what we can comprehend or have studied here on earth.
Stephen Hawking explained this by comparing how we treat other life forms here on earth.
We dominate ALL other species because we believe we are far superior than anything else.
We do not try to communicate with insects, for example, because they are inferior.
This may be how aliens see us if they ever find our planet.
Just think of the many tribes and nationalities that have been enslaved or wiped out for the sake of the advanced humans moving forward. This may be the way if aliens ever find us.