The Universe: Cosmology, Nature etc.

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Starstruck said:
ray j willings said:
Starstruck said:
ray j willings said:
I believe in UFO's There is just so much evidence, check this case for instance in Belgium. You cannot dispute it.
And there is quite a few more as well.
http://www.ufocasebook.com/Belgium.html
I believe the more abstract we become the more alien we are. Wrap your head around that dude.
Sounds like a quote from Salvador Dali or Geiger
Any thoughts on what infinite density means?
...maybe you should ask....nah, that would definitely get be banninated....carry on...

Cheers
 
Apr 16, 2016
1,291
0
0
blutto said:
Starstruck said:
ray j willings said:
Starstruck said:
ray j willings said:
I believe in UFO's There is just so much evidence, check this case for instance in Belgium. You cannot dispute it.
And there is quite a few more as well.
http://www.ufocasebook.com/Belgium.html
I believe the more abstract we become the more alien we are. Wrap your head around that dude.
Sounds like a quote from Salvador Dali or Geiger
Any thoughts on what infinite density means?
...maybe you should ask....nah, that would definitely get be banninated....carry on...

Cheers
You've inspired my imagination...carry on.
 
On the subject of the relationship between consciousness and quantum particle behavior, here’s a very interesting article proposing that we live in essentially a world of virtual reality. That is, the author believes that reality is mind, and that what we call the material or physical world is a creation of that mind.

http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/ConsciousRealism2.pdf

He begins with the standard view of a physical world experienced by conscious observers, and argues against the idea that what we experience closely matches actual reality. This echoes Kant’s argument that we can never know the thing-in-itself, and by itself is not particularly radical. Many philosophers, though probably not many scientists, would accept this. But this author has a novel and very interesting argument to support this claim that is based on science. He points out that from an evolutionary viewpoint, adaptation to the environment would be facilitated if we don’t experience all the enormous complexity of the real world, but only a relatively small number of indicators that allow us to navigate reliably in this world. The relationship of the material objects that we experience to the underlying reality, he suggests, is rather like that of the icons we see on a computer screen to the actual electronic processes that create these icons. We accomplish things on a computer by manipulating icons, but the icons themselves have no resemblance to the computer hardware or software, and in fact do not even do anything; they’re just indicators of what is going on.

He uses virtual reality to develop this point further. Imagine you're playing tennis in virtual reality. You have a virtual body, on a virtual court, you see a virtual ball, you hit it with a virtual racket, and so on. The reality of this world is not the virtual ball or racket, but the very complex computer program that allows images of the ball and racket and so on to be experienced by you. You don’t have to know anything about this program to play the virtual game, and in fact of course you play much better if you don’t. You would never be able to play the game if you tried to keep up with all the electronic processes that are the reality underlying this game. All you have to do is see the ball and hit it. It's the enormous abstraction process--boiling down all those complex computer processes into a few simple symbols--that allows you to navigate the program.

IOW, by greatly simplifying reality, we are in a much better position to deal with it. In the same way, the author argues, what we call the material world is like the virtual tennis game. Material things like atoms, cells, organisms, and so on are just surface symbols of an underlying reality that we have no experience of. We have evolved, according to this thesis, to be blind to all but very simple indicators of the underlying reality, because that allows us to adapt to this reality much faster and more easily. As long as what we experience provides a fairly accurate representation of what the underlying reality is--mapping the latter onto the perceived reality--we can survive.

At this point, the argument is still for a material world that is separate from conscious observers. We just experience this world in a far more simplified form than it actually is. The material things we see are no more indicative of actual material reality than the icons on a computer screen are indicative of the processes occurring in the CPU.

But even at this point, it’s still a very unusual view. The material world that we do experience is not public. If you have a glass of water, and you hand it to someone else, the conventional view is that the glass is public. You and your companion are seeing and touching the same glass. According to the author's view, that is not the case. There is an underlying world not experienced by either of you, and the glass you actually experience is not the same glass your friend experiences. The glass is not even the same glass when you turn away from it and then look at it again, and the glass that you touch without seeing is not the same glass that you see. To support the obvious objections to this counter-intuitive view, the author draws heavily on the virtual tennis game. If you are playing virtual tennis with someone else, the ball you see and hit is not the same ball that your opponent sees and hits.

But then the author goes a step further, and argues that this underlying reality can consist of nothing but conscious observers. There doesn't have to be an underlying physical reality--computer hardware, so to speak--at all. There can be nothing but mental activity, with different observers interacting with each other and with a world of objects and processes that are created by this mental activity. This seems to be a form of idealism, though the author never actually discusses the relationship of his view with classic forms of idealism, such as Berkeley’s.

This is where quantum physics comes in, as the author points out that the observer-dependent features of quantum phenomena seem quite consistent with his view. But of course it's more complicated than this, as these observer-dependent phenomena do not occur in the macro world. That is, why do we observe that the behavior of quantum particles is dependent on the observer, whereas the behavior of larger objects is not. Quantum physicists have explanations for this, of course, involving collapse of the wave, and in fact, many physicists argue that what causes collapse is not necessarily a conscious observer, but just a measurement process of some kind. In any case, the author does not pursue this issue.

Beyond this, I have several criticisms of this view. I won’t discuss them here, except to say that this theory seems to be a form of intelligent design (though I believe the author would vigorously deny this). In this view, consciousness is fundamental. Every scientific worldview postulates something fundamental; in the conventional view, simple particles and their properties like mass and charge are fundamental. They are givens, that don’t require explanation. The author argues he’s just replacing one concept of what is fundamental with another. The problem is that fundamental consciousness in his theory is not something very simple (as it is, e.g., in panpsychist theories, which argue that everything is conscious), but seems to be quite complex, from the outset. I think he requires a lot more to get things started than is the case in the conventional scientific worldview.
 
Apr 16, 2016
1,291
0
0
I have to wonder how you mesh this with your understanding of genetically modified organisms, beyond the lab to field problems, and the commercial interests - this sort of worldview adds another dimension. How do you know what you think you know? Lab to nature provides the proof of the pudding but that's a long term question.

I can't find this complete discussion anymore (didn't look that hard) but, you know:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtZKB9GXV70
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Alex Simmons/RST said:
ray j willings said:
I believe in UFO's There is just so much evidence, check this case for instance in Belgium. You cannot dispute it.
And there is quite a few more as well.
http://www.ufocasebook.com/Belgium.html
Really?
http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=162

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taGuuHv5Bsc Your article does not account for the many witness's .

check this one again witness's everywhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWCMPyLSlSo
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Starstruck said:
ray j willings said:
Starstruck said:
ray j willings said:
I believe in UFO's There is just so much evidence, check this case for instance in Belgium. You cannot dispute it.
And there is quite a few more as well.
http://www.ufocasebook.com/Belgium.html
I believe the more abstract we become the more alien we are. Wrap your head around that dude.
Sounds like a quote from Salvador Dali or Geiger
Any thoughts on what infinite density means?
Its a huge Head F$$k. I mean there must have been ID before the big bang and then you are talking infinity and mass is not defined by anyone yet in general relativity . Mass, resistance, gravity comes into play in all this. And don't forget special Relativity.
I can't cope . Photons don't have mass because they are always traveling, particles become smaller due to the increased speed so never rest thus not having mass yet they still have mass [ if you get me] . " I need a cup of tea"
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,771
3
0
Merckx index said:
On the subject of the relationship between consciousness and quantum particle behavior, here’s a very interesting article proposing that we live in essentially a world of virtual reality. That is, the author believes that reality is mind, and that what we call the material or physical world is a creation of that mind.

http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/ConsciousRealism2.pdf

He begins with the standard view of a physical world experienced by conscious observers, and argues against the idea that what we experience closely matches actual reality. This echoes Kant’s argument that we can never know the thing-in-itself, and by itself is not particularly radical. Many philosophers, though probably not many scientists, would accept this. But this author has a novel and very interesting argument to support this claim that is based on science. He points out that from an evolutionary viewpoint, adaptation to the environment would be facilitated if we don’t experience all the enormous complexity of the real world, but only a relatively small number of indicators that allow us to navigate reliably in this world. The relationship of the material objects that we experience to the underlying reality, he suggests, is rather like that of the icons we see on a computer screen to the actual electronic processes that create these icons. We accomplish things on a computer by manipulating icons, but the icons themselves have no resemblance to the computer hardware or software, and in fact do not even do anything; they’re just indicators of what is going on.

He uses virtual reality to develop this point further. Imagine you're playing tennis in virtual reality. You have a virtual body, on a virtual court, you see a virtual ball, you hit it with a virtual racket, and so on. The reality of this world is not the virtual ball or racket, but the very complex computer program that allows images of the ball and racket and so on to be experienced by you. You don’t have to know anything about this program to play the virtual game, and in fact of course you play much better if you don’t. You would never be able to play the game if you tried to keep up with all the electronic processes that are the reality underlying this game. All you have to do is see the ball and hit it. It's the enormous abstraction process--boiling down all those complex computer processes into a few simple symbols--that allows you to navigate the program.

IOW, by greatly simplifying reality, we are in a much better position to deal with it. In the same way, the author argues, what we call the material world is like the virtual tennis game. Material things like atoms, cells, organisms, and so on are just surface symbols of an underlying reality that we have no experience of. We have evolved, according to this thesis, to be blind to all but very simple indicators of the underlying reality, because that allows us to adapt to this reality much faster and more easily. As long as what we experience provides a fairly accurate representation of what the underlying reality is--mapping the latter onto the perceived reality--we can survive.

At this point, the argument is still for a material world that is separate from conscious observers. We just experience this world in a far more simplified form than it actually is. The material things we see are no more indicative of actual material reality than the icons on a computer screen are indicative of the processes occurring in the CPU.

But even at this point, it’s still a very unusual view. The material world that we do experience is not public. If you have a glass of water, and you hand it to someone else, the conventional view is that the glass is public. You and your companion are seeing and touching the same glass. According to the author's view, that is not the case. There is an underlying world not experienced by either of you, and the glass you actually experience is not the same glass your friend experiences. The glass is not even the same glass when you turn away from it and then look at it again, and the glass that you touch without seeing is not the same glass that you see. To support the obvious objections to this counter-intuitive view, the author draws heavily on the virtual tennis game. If you are playing virtual tennis with someone else, the ball you see and hit is not the same ball that your opponent sees and hits.

But then the author goes a step further, and argues that this underlying reality can consist of nothing but conscious observers. There doesn't have to be an underlying physical reality--computer hardware, so to speak--at all. There can be nothing but mental activity, with different observers interacting with each other and with a world of objects and processes that are created by this mental activity. This seems to be a form of idealism, though the author never actually discusses the relationship of his view with classic forms of idealism, such as Berkeley’s.

This is where quantum physics comes in, as the author points out that the observer-dependent features of quantum phenomena seem quite consistent with his view. But of course it's more complicated than this, as these observer-dependent phenomena do not occur in the macro world. That is, why do we observe that the behavior of quantum particles is dependent on the observer, whereas the behavior of larger objects is not. Quantum physicists have explanations for this, of course, involving collapse of the wave, and in fact, many physicists argue that what causes collapse is not necessarily a conscious observer, but just a measurement process of some kind. In any case, the author does not pursue this issue.

Beyond this, I have several criticisms of this view. I won’t discuss them here, except to say that this theory seems to be a form of intelligent design (though I believe the author would vigorously deny this). In this view, consciousness is fundamental. Every scientific worldview postulates something fundamental; in the conventional view, simple particles and their properties like mass and charge are fundamental. They are givens, that don’t require explanation. The author argues he’s just replacing one concept of what is fundamental with another. The problem is that fundamental consciousness in his theory is not something very simple (as it is, e.g., in panpsychist theories, which argue that everything is conscious), but seems to be quite complex, from the outset. I think he requires a lot more to get things started than is the case in the conventional scientific worldview.
Ya know you could have just posted the first paragraph with the link.

The author has smoked to much hippy lettuce in my opinion and pretends to think we common folk who might read this garbage are some rubes to play with.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
ray j willings said:
Starstruck said:
ray j willings said:
Starstruck said:
ray j willings said:
I believe in UFO's There is just so much evidence, check this case for instance in Belgium. You cannot dispute it.
And there is quite a few more as well.
http://www.ufocasebook.com/Belgium.html
I believe the more abstract we become the more alien we are. Wrap your head around that dude.
Sounds like a quote from Salvador Dali or Geiger
Any thoughts on what infinite density means?
Its a huge Head F$$k. I mean there must have been ID before the big bang and then you are talking infinity and mass is not defined by anyone yet in general relativity . Mass, resistance, gravity comes into play in all this. And don't forget special Relativity.
I can't cope . Photons don't have mass because they are always traveling, particles become smaller due to the increased speed so never rest thus not having mass yet they still have mass [ if you get me] . " I need a cup of tea"
Actually, it's more along the lines of: photons do not interact with the Higgs Boson so they do not have mass. Without mass they will travel at the speed of light. The stronger that something interacts with the Higgs Boson, the more mass it will have. That coupling constant determines mass of a particle. What's really odd is that inertial mass ends up being the same as gravitational mass. That head-scratcher is what lead to the formulation of General Relativity.

Infinite density isn't really the right way to look at the big bang. The universe itself was a singularity that, as it expanded, began to cool. At first the universe was so hot that it was opaque. It wasn't until it cooled (expanded) sufficiently that photons could propagate. Those photons spread all around the universe and any direction you look, you can see them (kind of). The universe has expanded and cooled enough that those photons are now in the microwave range. This is known as the Cosmic Microwave Background and is fantastic evidence that the big bang occurred the way we think it did.

Some very big, unsolved problems include things like: "Why isn't the Cosmic Microwave Background the same intensity in all directions (i.e., anisotropic)"? http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-DT.html

And why is it that the creation of matter was favoured slightly over anti-matter? They should have been made in equal amounts. This is a consequence of CP-violation but why? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation

Did you know that out of all the stuff the big bang created, only 4% is particles? A huge amount is dark matter, which exists but doesn't seem to interact with anything other than via gravity (so maybe it interacts with the Higgs Boson?). A ton of what's out there is dark energy, which is the energy that causes the expansion of the universe (a negative pressure that is a consequence of the Stress-Energy Tensor from GR). So what is it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

And speaking of energy, the universe may be mostly a vacuum, but that vacuum has an enormous amount of energy. It gives rise to a whole bunch of cool things and in quantum can be used to describe the existence of particles as a fluctuation in that energy (not that I understand it very well). But there's a problem in that in different parts of physics (cosmology vs quantum), the required energy density needs to be very different. By an order of 10^115. This is known as the "vacuum catastrophe". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

Anyways - the universe is really cool and we *totally* don't understand the fine details. Yet. But we "get it" well enough to make GPS work and build computers and stuff.

John Swanson
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
I always like the nothing before the BB argument/debate , when in-fact we don't have one example of nothing. That's a head spinner. There is always something "infinity and beyond " as Buzz says
 
Apr 16, 2016
1,291
0
0
Actually, it's more along the lines of: photons do not interact with the Higgs Boson so they do not have mass. Without mass they will travel at the speed of light. The stronger that something interacts with the Higgs Boson, the more mass it will have. That coupling constant determines mass of a particle. What's really odd is that inertial mass ends up being the same as gravitational mass. That head-scratcher is what lead to the formulation of General Relativity.

Infinite density isn't really the right way to look at the big bang. The universe itself was a singularity that, as it expanded, began to cool. At first the universe was so hot that it was opaque. It wasn't until it cooled (expanded) sufficiently that photons could propagate. Those photons spread all around the universe and any direction you look, you can see them (kind of). The universe has expanded and cooled enough that those photons are now in the microwave range. This is known as the Cosmic Microwave Background and is fantastic evidence that the big bang occurred the way we think it did.

Some very big, unsolved problems include things like: "Why isn't the Cosmic Microwave Background the same intensity in all directions (i.e., anisotropic)"? http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-DT.html

And why is it that the creation of matter was favoured slightly over anti-matter? They should have been made in equal amounts. This is a consequence of CP-violation but why? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation

Did you know that out of all the stuff the big bang created, only 4% is particles? A huge amount is dark matter, which exists but doesn't seem to interact with anything other than via gravity (so maybe it interacts with the Higgs Boson?). A ton of what's out there is dark energy, which is the energy that causes the expansion of the universe (a negative pressure that is a consequence of the Stress-Energy Tensor from GR). So what is it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

And speaking of energy, the universe may be mostly a vacuum, but that vacuum has an enormous amount of energy. It gives rise to a whole bunch of cool things and in quantum can be used to describe the existence of particles as a fluctuation in that energy (not that I understand it very well). But there's a problem in that in different parts of physics (cosmology vs quantum), the required energy density needs to be very different. By an order of 10^115. This is known as the "vacuum catastrophe". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

Anyways - the universe is really cool and we *totally* don't understand the fine details. Yet. But we "get it" well enough to make GPS work and build computers and stuff.

John Swanson
Halton Arp threw a monkey wrench in red shift. Heretic.

Anyway, one of my favourite book reviewers on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/review/R3JCIBNZ49Y3RV?ref_=glimp_1rv_cl

He's reviewed books criticizing the Higgs Boson and I believe the validity of the GPS claims too. Just throwing it out there..
 
Apr 16, 2016
1,291
0
0
Re:

ebandit said:
i'm so lazy i have not worked for many years.........if i was to work again theoretical physicist

seems a good choice....it's not as though ya gotta do anything other than convincing others

that ya know everything..............

Mark L
If you know everything you should fill the rest of us in because we're sleepwalking in the dark (despite our best efforts) towards an immanent extinction.
 
ray j willings said:
Alex Simmons/RST said:
ray j willings said:
I believe in UFO's There is just so much evidence, check this case for instance in Belgium. You cannot dispute it.
And there is quite a few more as well.
http://www.ufocasebook.com/Belgium.html
Really?
http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=162

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taGuuHv5Bsc Your article does not account for the many witness's .

check this one again witness's everywhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWCMPyLSlSo
It does, as do plenty of other sources that debunk this nonsense. I'll let you do some sensible research to critically examine the (in)validity of such claims.

The U in UFO means unexplained although in many "cases" the explanation is normally fairly drab and they are not UFOs. Some are not even "flying" or even "objects". Just because occasionally the answer to whatever phenomenon was observed is not precisely known doesn't however mean that crazy nonsense is the answer. There are typically far more plausible reasons for such things.

If you choose to believe that's OK, I don't plan to waste any more time on off-topic stuff. This is meant to be a thread on cosmology.
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Alex Simmons/RST said:
ray j willings said:
Alex Simmons/RST said:
ray j willings said:
I believe in UFO's There is just so much evidence, check this case for instance in Belgium. You cannot dispute it.
And there is quite a few more as well.
http://www.ufocasebook.com/Belgium.html
Really?
http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=162

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taGuuHv5Bsc Your article does not account for the many witness's .

check this one again witness's everywhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWCMPyLSlSo
It does, as do plenty of other sources that debunk this nonsense. I'll let you do some sensible research to critically examine the (in)validity of such claims.

The U in UFO means unexplained although in many "cases" the explanation is normally fairly drab and they are not UFOs. Some are not even "flying" or even "objects". Just because occasionally the answer to whatever phenomenon was observed is not precisely known doesn't however mean that crazy nonsense is the answer. There are typically far more plausible reasons for such things.

If you choose to believe that's OK, I don't plan to waste any more time on off-topic stuff. This is meant to be a thread on cosmology.
Cosmology would cover this IMO .
Their are hundreds if not thousands of witness's who have seen UFO's. I'm talking about pilots. air force pilots.
Loads of UFO's picked up on radar. Did you see Stephen Greer's disclosure conference where you have generals scientists etc all highly educated and qualified who testify under oath to UFO's etc.
The Evidence for them is there. Cases such as the Phoenix lights etc are indisputable.
 
ray j willings said:
Cosmology would cover this IMO .
Their are hundreds if not thousands of witness's who have seen UFO's. I'm talking about pilots. air force pilots.
Loads of UFO's picked up on radar. Did you see Stephen Greer's disclosure conference where you have generals scientists etc all highly educated and qualified who testify under oath to UFO's etc.
The Evidence for them is there. Cases such as the Phoenix lights etc are indisputable.
Why space aliens? Why not Atlanteans, flying from their underwater fortress at the bottom of the Marianas Trench? Why not future men, time-travelling back to today on holiday from their present/our future?

Why not angels? After all, the Torah/Bible/Quran doesn't offer a description, does it? Maybe they just happen to look like flying saucers.

Why not flying monkeys from Oz? Why does it have to be space aliens?

Or why not any of a million unaccounted naturally-occurring phenomenon?

But that wouldn't be very thrilling, would it? It's much more comforting to explain the unexplainable by invoking the non-existent. Especially since the non-existence of the the non-existent can never be proved.
 
ray j willings said:
Alex Simmons/RST said:
ray j willings said:
Alex Simmons/RST said:
ray j willings said:
I believe in UFO's There is just so much evidence, check this case for instance in Belgium. You cannot dispute it.
And there is quite a few more as well.
http://www.ufocasebook.com/Belgium.html
Really?
http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=162

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taGuuHv5Bsc Your article does not account for the many witness's .

check this one again witness's everywhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWCMPyLSlSo
It does, as do plenty of other sources that debunk this nonsense. I'll let you do some sensible research to critically examine the (in)validity of such claims.

The U in UFO means unexplained although in many "cases" the explanation is normally fairly drab and they are not UFOs. Some are not even "flying" or even "objects". Just because occasionally the answer to whatever phenomenon was observed is not precisely known doesn't however mean that crazy nonsense is the answer. There are typically far more plausible reasons for such things.

If you choose to believe that's OK, I don't plan to waste any more time on off-topic stuff. This is meant to be a thread on cosmology.
Cosmology would cover this IMO .
Their are hundreds if not thousands of witness's who have seen UFO's. I'm talking about pilots. air force pilots.
Loads of UFO's picked up on radar. Did you see Stephen Greer's disclosure conference where you have generals scientists etc all highly educated and qualified who testify under oath to UFO's etc.
The Evidence for them is there. Cases such as the Phoenix lights etc are indisputable.
I've no doubt there are a lot of people who've seen things or believe they've seen things they have been unable to identify.

That however does not mean such things are the result of visits by extraterrestrial aliens. Belief that extraterrestrials is the explanation for such observations (be they real or imagined) is, well, delusional.
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
"That however does not mean such things are the result of visits by extraterrestrial aliens. Belief that extraterrestrials is the explanation for such observations (be they real or imagined) is, well, delusional"

I agree the are perfectly rational explanation for a lot of cases and some of those abduction story's are by lunatics
. But there are a lot of strong claims backed by factual evidence and eye witness account of the highest calibre including top military chefs ,senators, prime ministers. heads of defence. scientists . Air traffic controllers , etc etc .
These case's cannot be explained away. Go and check the disclosure conference and see the witness's and there credibility cannot be denied. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7_tjaBA79w

Out of interest this is very interesting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XjietgsBDY
 
ray j willings said:
"That however does not mean such things are the result of visits by extraterrestrial aliens. Belief that extraterrestrials is the explanation for such observations (be they real or imagined) is, well, delusional"

I agree the are perfectly rational explanation for a lot of cases and some of those abduction story's are by lunatics
. But there are a lot of strong claims backed by factual evidence and eye witness account of the highest calibre including top military chefs ,senators, prime ministers. heads of defence. scientists . Air traffic controllers , etc etc .
These case's cannot be explained away. Go and check the disclosure conference and see the witness's and there credibility cannot be denied. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7_tjaBA79w

Out of interest this is very interesting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XjietgsBDY
And before I even bother, have you done a thorough examination of these claims, or just been suckered into believing stuff? This is founded by Citizens against UFO Secrecy. These are seriously deluded people.

These are people who believe, for example, the Germans landed on the Moon in 1942 and that it has an atmosphere and water that is supporting vegetation and there have been bases there ever since. They also believe there are ~40,000 people living there.

They also believe in free energy devices, that you know, break the first law of thermodynamics.

Oh, and they also believe in time travel. They say they have actually transported people in time and have devices that can do this. They had limitations though. In 1995, they said they couldn't get past the year 2012, but were able to "go around 2012" and that all life on Earth was destroyed by 2013. That worked out well.

It's worse than bad science fiction.
 
Apr 16, 2016
1,291
0
0
We are the aliens on this planet as we view ourselves as apart from nature, not a part of nature and dependent on it. Let's get back to the semantics, mind games and fantasy that we understand the universe.

Please explain mass, energy and time (for a start). You could then graduate to explain gravity and electromagnetism.

Note I said explain, not describe.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY