I think you'll find that's part of the experimental evidence that Einstein's equations - and in particular the Lorenz-Fitzgerald contractions - are correct.

Bear in mind that 'science' doesn't look to prove things exist; it looks to define a model *as accurate as possible* to describe observed effects. It does this by looking for ways to falsify its own theories, and testing them.

Gimme a flying saucer landing at Heathrow and I'll believe you. Gimme lights in the sky, and much as I'd love to believe, you're on your own.

Speed does equal distance/time - that is the definition of speed. What relativity says is that we won't always agree on the distance or time of an event.

If you're going to confidently post about this sort of thing you really should make an effort to understand it first.




You said that it had been proved that neutrinos travelled faster than light, which isn't the case. That's the distinction I was making, how lightly you consider something proved.

As for YouTube - well you made your hand pretty clear with, I think, the first video you posted in the chemtrails thread. It was a NASA video (I'm not disputing the source) showing, as the nutters would have it, huge jelly-fish like beings floating around Earth. The huge jelly-fish do look a lot like out of focus dust specs, and when the astronaut (who you've already mentioned twice in this thread as being credible, although incredibly badly spelled) is asked what he can see he says he can see debris outside the shuttle.

So there you have a video with a good source, a clear explanation for what it is and a credible testimony from somebody who is there about what it shows, and you still tried to post it as great proof of extra-terrestrial life.

Don't you see how that makes you a nutter?

Gimme a flying saucer doing anything and you should believe. The question is how you would determine to your satisfaction that it is a flying saucer. That's the really significant problem for me: If a flying saucer landed on the Whitehouse lawn and the occupants went for tea with the President, what would it take to convince you (one) that all of this really happened and that the said saucer was from beyond the Earth's biosphere?

I hate to be a party-pooper guys, but Speed = Distance/Time is correct. Call me an irritating pedant (I like it), but that is a definition. It is only in the travelling frame of reference that time dilates.

BTW - I am pleased to see they have found something useful for the royal family to get on with -

Nutter is a bit strong Andrew. Eager to believe maybe, as the evidence is shaky on this kind of thing.

Out of interest hands up for all those who think extraterrestrial life if out there? Not aliens have visited us, but on some arbitrary planet out there. Maybe even doing what we are doing?

Given that we have evolved on a planet with a rich diversity of life and there is still a plethora of universe that we could never hope to explore (even if we could travel at that widely accepted top speed). I can't help but think that if we had some gigantic leap in understanding/technology we would find something. I think that's also the main argument why aliens are not likely to visit us.

I'd think it's almost certain that life has evolved on alien worlds. With the trillions of stars we can see it's almost unimaginable that our little planet would be the only home to life anywhere in the universe.

However, there's a wipe gap between that view and trying to argue that every out of focus snapshot of a weather balloon is an alien craft.

Couldn't agree more. Although I have to say, a big bit of me would like some of the balloons to turn out to be alien craft.

I think Enforcer picked up on a good point; What would constitute proof? Is seeing believing?

All sounds like the philosophical conjecture of Jean Baudrillard to me. The Gulf War Never Happened and all that jazz.

Thanks again Andrew & Brewster for below the belt comments, typical debunker responses.

Another Astronaut Catherine Coleman aboard mission STS 73 Clearly states we have a Ufo alongside us
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1M68C7G-EE

after the live transmision comment nasa shut down the public link and diverted to encripted channel.

Yet more evidence!

So I ask you again Andrew what is this phenomenon?

I don't think its down to Andrew to prove its not a alien space craft, its up to you to prove it is

And thank you for ignoring all of the points that you can't answer, or where you were just plain wrong (e.g. speed doesn't equal distance/time) - a typical nutter response, just keep moving the goal-posts and accusing others of not playing fair.

What's a wipe gap? I don't like the sound of that

The question arises: what is a non-falsifiable evidence for alien life?

My thoughts:

- biological samples using either amino acids which are not used by any terrestrial life, or which uses a chromosome-expressing molecule other than DNA. In the latter case, the specimen had better be visibly alive, i.e. demonstrating entropy-fixing, replicating, eating and excreting.

- materials not makable in a gravity field - e.g. foamed alloys - in sufficiently larger quantities than could be made by known LEO astronauts (they're mostly making samples; the presence of industrial quantities would be a good hint for a zero-g production. Alternately, demonstrably unknown physical mechanisms - anti-gravity, FTL travel (there are ways to fake that if you can be sufficiently stealthy and have more than one ship, so be careful), and so on.

- a walkin' talkin' alien - but note pictures are not enough, given what Hollywood can do these days, hence my earlier request for a UFO at Heathrow.

Any other suggestions?

True Samsite, however clearly there is a phenomenon present here I am only trying to logicaly work out what it is. In the video sts73 the shuttle is moving aprox 18000 kmph the unidentifed object is moving far faster stops dead and changes direction at incredible speed, with catherine feeding back to nasa we have a UFO near by.

I look at that and try to rule out what it isnt, its not space debree, meteor , satelite.
After that it appears to be a conrtolled object, which at present we dont have the capabilty to make a space vechile to perform like that. So where does that leave us?

Its no good having Andrews ' I dont know what it is but its not a alien craft' responses.

At least I am trying to explain the phenomenon which has been world wide since day dot.

Andrew on the other hand will not attempt to explain, what it is but states im am a nutter?

And again years ago when people with andrews outlook presumed the world was flat calling the people who questioned that 'nutters'.

There is also a element of rubbish on the internet ie the 'reptilian shapeshifters' which brewster kindly assumed thats what I am talking about.

I'd want to see its passport for a start.

Don't go playing the philosophy card on me, Jim - it was a serious point.

What exactly would you need in the way of evidence? It isn't that simple.

Jonny, that YouTube clip is, well, not proof. I grant you It's not easily explained.

It's referred to as a UFO because it's unidentified. Not because it's alien (at least not in the sense you mean).

The other slight flaw is when the commentator states that the object defies all laws of physics. My problem there is that I can see it and it moves in a pattern that I would suggest is an orbit of some kind. What that would suggest to me is there is some external force acting on the blurry pixels. Maybe which we can't explain. But it isn't proof by a long stretch.

I agree, Brian, it isn't simple and I'm not sure what you would need beyond Neil's detailed stipulations. However, my point was adjacent to serious: consuming media coverage of an event doesn't mean the event happened, at least not in the way it is portrayed.

I'd expect a bit less, actually. Neil's stipulations might confirm alien origins, but in the normal course of events we operate our beliefs on a more relaxed set of criteria, I'd say.

If a helicopter lands on the lawn, I don't need any science to feel confident about that, but an alien craft - I'd need more but I don't think I'd need the DNA samples.

That's probably included in test 3... I don't need *all* of them.

But a UFO on my doorstep - I'd be very leery of a hoax. Otherwise it's always a question of it proving it is what it claims to be...

As this is at least the third time you've cited this argument, presumably in some catch-all attempt to prove that the minority is always correct, then let's see if your history is any better than your science ... who presumed the world was flat? Who did they laugh at (or call a nutter) for suggesting otherwise?

Go on, have a good Google and then enlighten me.

I think it was Jade Goody, although history has never been my strong point.

Im not claiming the minority is always correct far from it! What I am claiming is there is clearly something going on here, that you cant deny. With that in mind you refuse the challange to establish what it is without logic and simply chose to ignore evidence and laugh at the people trying to come up with an explination.

You chose to ignore evidence given by key people that have worked in projects assosiated with the phenomenon
from miltary personal having 5 nuclear weapons shut down with a metalic disc hovering above the silos with Captain Robert salas usaf giving evidence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTrGF6tSwZM

Bob Lazar worked at Area 51 S4 back engineering alien craft passes lie detector test http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRRceIpedjg

Phil schneider structrual engineer involved in building DUMBS (deep underground miltary bases) after he came forward with the info he was murdered.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8TpzzSJru0

Not to mention Gordon cooper, buzz aldrin and many other famous astronauts talking about ufos in space.




The ' world being flat ' argument, I only use as a principle that the majority are not always right.

I have no interest to enlighten you in any way.

All these guys must be nutters aswell Andrew?

So, in fact, they never called people who said the Earth wasn't flat 'nutters', or anything else - is that what you're saying? Nice to note how graciously you accepted being wrong there.

I can't be bothered to wade through all of your YouTube videos again, but I remember Bob Lazar from last time around - he's the one who has been caught clearly lying about what qualifications he has, and who you really would have to be insane to give any kind of credibility to.

As, IIRC, the Buzz Aldrin story was one he that he recounted somebody else telling him.

If you remember our last discussion on this subject - it doesn't matter how credible somebody is, anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. Certainly not from Bob Lazar.

Exactly you cant be bothered to look so point proved, dont bother commenting untill you have!! All of this evidence could be used in a court of law. Yet in your view its invalid.

As for lazar his file was completed deleted. But after George knapp done a little digging on it found lazar listed a nuclear physist at los alamos directory along with his pay slips and passing the lie detector test.

He now runs united nuclear.

The only insanity is you chosing to ignore evidence.

It is invalid, because it's not scientific evidence.

Lazar's a complete fraud and his story is clearly b'lox of the 1st order ... sure, the black helicopter crew deleted all of his educational records, but Lazar himself couldn't name any of his professors or classmates, or provide any evidence that he attended the schools he claims.

Seriously, by continuing to cite him as a reference you do your cause no favours at all.

Finally, as you seem to have missed it all of the times it was mentioned in last year's thread - Lie detectors DO NOT work!, they are demonstrably no better than lucky guesses. Passing a lie detector test proves nothing at all.

What??

I watch Jeremy Kyle on a regular basis, and all I can say is that you need to check your facts. Just use a bit of common sense, (which you seem to be completely lacking). If lie detectors are useless, that means Jeremy Kyle is complete crap, and I have been wasting my time watching it. Since it obviously isn't a waste of time, it is also obvious that you have got your facts wrong.

Just get a grip, mate. If science depended on people with your closed-minded attitude we'd never even have Jeremy Kyle - and then where would we be?

Watching Ricki Lake?

I like potato salad

You might have been too quick with the 'proved' there ...

Neutrinos now same speed as light