IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

16 Pages V  « < 8 9 10 11 12 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
9/11: John Lear - Disinformation? Cia Operative?

johnlear
post May 30 2010, 04:42 PM
Post #181





Group: Core Member
Posts: 58
Joined: 9-March 07
From: Las Vegas, NV
Member No.: 744



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ May 27 2010, 10:34 PM) *
Hi Mr. Lear!

Thanks for your response, from which I see we have a lot of common interests, newly among them quantum physics for the small stuff and relativity for the big stuff. My interest is purely a popular or lay interest. I can't do the math and don't like it anyway but as a lawyer I ran reason it through. That's why I am probably partial to Einstein and his thought experiments because I can follow him and reason it through without math. The amazing thing is his paper on Special Relativity was all thought experiment and no math at all! But that only involved constant motion, so when he turned to accelerating motion (uh oh!! Trajectories! Calculus!) he subbed the math for General Relativity, one whom came up with the Ricci Tensor that balanced Einstein's equations.




None of Einstein's work involved quantum mechanics. That body of science was developed in the 1920's after Einstein's Relativity work was done.. And you are right that Einstein didn't agree with a lot of it and fell behind the curve of developing knowledge. But just about all physicists agree that the Relativities are holding up rather well in the realm of the very large, which is where our UFO talk belongs, because all UFO reports are reports of big enough to see flying objects that presumably got here across the interstellar distances..

But the only thing that by consensus opinion contradicts the Relativities in the realm of the very small is the instantaneous transfer of effects from one particle to another which appears to happen even across across interstellar distances. Einstein called this "spooky action at a distance" and did not agree. But the quantum guys still don't say that Einstein is easily proven wrong, in fact, they say his stuff holds up in the realm of the large, but breaks down in this respect in the quantum realm of the small. Only a small minority argues for trashing the Relativities all together.




These are all small, essentially mass less quantum particles. They all fit within the above discussion about instantaneous transmission of quantum effects across interstellar distances and are just three more of the many types of quantum particles about which that is true. But the UFO reports are all of objects which are large enough to contain humans and what we understand as propulsion systems, aerodynamic features and life support systems. That means that they are composed of a whole lot of quantum particles (just say zillions) joined together into structural substances, have great mass in quantum terms, and by definition have crossed the interstellar void. That means they are, by virtual consensus, subject to the Relativity world and cannot fit into the exceptions for single quantum particles such as the ones you list.

All the reports of UFOs fall into this trap by saying that they actually saw objects flying with large masses.

If the objects were flying at a thousandth of light speed, let alone at or over it, they would not see them at all! and there would be nothing to report. You can say they fly slower to make observations or something but (1) why do that and reveal yourself when you don't have to; and (2) if they are indeed so advanced to do the faster than light travel surely they have instruments that can make observations at that speed as well. EDIT TO ADD (3) If that speed is normal and state of the art to them, why would they even want to slow down to a visible speed, let alone waste effort on adding obsolete technology just to have a dual speed craft? It would be like building a car with horse harness up front because surely you will want to do forsake the engine and have a horse pull you instead. 2d EDIT TO ADD: And then conveniently, switching from extra light speed power to horse power has the effect of (1) making their craft behave in a way that our science tells us flying objects behave; (2) enabling us to see them; and (3) report their behavior consistently with our science,.

And of course the objects have to have large mass to accommodate creatures like us and fly in accordance with our science. Just another example of the Anthropic Principal in action.


tnemelckram,

You are debating from the point of view of mainstream physics. If you want to catch up you need to read Pari Spolter's book "Gravitational Force of the Sun" where she debunks Einsteins theories both general and special and Newtons second law.

About the 'horse collar' thing I am not sure what it is you are trying to say.

As to your comment "in accordance to our science" you are assuming that 'our science is correct'. As I mentioned before mainstream science believes that gravitational force is due to and proportional to the quantity and density of matter. Pari proves mathematically and scientifically that this is wrong.

Let's continue this debate after you have read Pari Spolter's book. That way you can say "Pari is wrong about this or that and this is why". This will level the playing field. If you don't want to read the book then the scienceforum.com might be a better place for your comments. They do not question mainstream physics and I think they are the forum that still believes that the Apollo Missions went to the moon. Anybody who still believes that fairy tale is simply not conversant with the known facts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post May 30 2010, 08:58 PM
Post #182





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Mr. l:ear!

You are right that I am basing what I say on conventional physics. But I will look up Pari Spotler and try to get a grip on what he/she says, even though I probably won't go as far as to buy the book and read it. But i do want to respond to one thing.

QUOTE
As to your comment "in accordance to our science" you are assuming that 'our science is correct'.


I am not assuming our science is correct. All I am saying is that all of the reports of the observations of UFOs have them behaving "in accordance with or science". Whereas you say it is correct to assume that they would not behave in accordance with our science because as you say it may be erroneous to assume our science is correct. But why do the observers then report in their actual observations, which would be the strongest evidence that UFOs built and piloted by intelligent aliens exist, that the UFO's behaved "in accordance with our science" as they observed them?

I say that if our science is incorrect and the UFOs are using some different science, then their craft would not appear to behave in accordance with human science to human observers. What they report is consistent with the Anthropic Principle, which assumes that any phenomenon must have attributes consistent with the rules of science that we believe are required for us to exist. But if the aliens use and exist under different rules of science, that would not be the case.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: May 30 2010, 09:13 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post May 30 2010, 09:41 PM
Post #183





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



Tnemelckram,

You are a very lucky person.

I agree with both John Lear and Pari Spotler (who just happens to be a woman) and I have ordered her book that I will read.

Mainstream wisdom is “Out to Lunch”. In fact, mainstream education is “Out to Lunch”.

John had once stated that most (if not all) UFO’s are man made and real Aliens are in plain sight.

Now where you are lucky is in respect that John will answer your apparent questions, yet avoid mine!

Seems odd to me!

Nan nu… nan new…Amigo.

elreb
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post May 31 2010, 10:05 AM
Post #184



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Hi again John,
i've been looking into, what gravity is, for a little while now.

It seems, from my own research, that gravity is gradation of time.
as one descends into gravity, the duration of time is relaxed.
Satellites in orbit have to recalibrate their clocks to the ones on Earth,
as the passage of time is different, at different elevations.
This phenomenon also causes an increase in the density of material by a factor of 4,
going toward a center of gravity.

This would mean that the moon is much closer to the Earth's weight,
than as it is presently measured.

Does this fit at all, with your knowledge and experiences of altitude and gravity?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
johnlear
post May 31 2010, 03:14 PM
Post #185





Group: Core Member
Posts: 58
Joined: 9-March 07
From: Las Vegas, NV
Member No.: 744



QUOTE (lunk @ May 29 2010, 12:05 PM) *
Hi again John,
i've been looking into, what gravity is, for a little while now.

It seems, from my own research, that gravity is gradation of time.
as one descends into gravity, the duration of time is relaxed.
Satellites in orbit have to recalibrate their clocks to the ones on Earth,
as the passage of time is different, at different elevations.
This phenomenon also causes an increase in the density of material by a factor of 4,
going toward a center of gravity.

This would mean that the moon is much closer to the Earth's weight,
than as it is presently measured.

Does this fit at all, with your knowledge and experiences of altitude and gravity?



Lunk,

Yes that experiment with the clock in space is correct.

We know that gravity is not proportional to the quantity or density of matter. So you
need to forget about size and density as any relation to gravity.

Current I use the Bullialdus/Newton equation for the law of inverse square for which you
need the size of an object in orbit, its distance and neutral point between the 2 objects.
Using this formula the gravity of the moon works out to be 70% of earths gravity.

Mainstream science, when asked about using the Law of Inverse square to determine the
gravity of the moon say "Oh, that's a 3 body problem (including the sun) so its far to complicated
to work out. However, Pari, a mathematical genius took on the problem and determined that
including the sun into the equation that the moons gravity works out to be 70% of earths; the same
as working the problem with the Law of Inverse Square.

If we had the the exact figures of an object orbiting the moon we could use Pari's formula which
she states in her book we could further refine the gravity of the moon but anything from NASA is suspect. And the gravity figures from Apollo 15 are bogus simply because no Apollo spacecraft ever went to or orbited the moon.

Its NASA's job to convince us that the gravity of the moon is one sixth that of earth and therefore could not hold onto an atmosphere. The facts are that the moon does have an atmosphere although slightly less than earth's. Standing on the moon is like standing at 18,000 feet here on earth.

So what causes gravity? I don't know. Neither does Pari.

Kepler thought it was magnetism.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post May 31 2010, 11:19 PM
Post #186





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



nonono.gif As the Sharks swims into the trap!

Quantum reality

The following does not represent "elreb" view but it’s a good start. (I will spin it later)

In Quantum Reality modern people do not have a single picture of "the way the world really is;" instead there are eight ideas of "quantum reality."

These eight views of reality are quite different; yet all are considered by leading scientists to be valid, or a least successful in terms of explaining
experiments.

Worldviews of “Folks”:

There is no deep reality.

Reality is created by observation.

Reality is an undivided wholeness.

Reality consists of a steadily increasing number of parallel universes.

The world obeys a non-human kind of reasoning.

The world is made of ordinary objects.

Consciousness creates reality.

The world is twofold, consisting of potentials and actualities.

Scientists will admit that quantum theories do not correspond to "common sense"---meaning, the law of cause and effect. The principal features of quantum theory contradict "cause and effect" relationships by assuming that random, spontaneous events can and do occur within a quantified limit (specified by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle).


The majority of leading modern physicists seriously believe the first view; "There is no deep reality" and claim that there is no objective reality. For them, "physics is not physical, but metaphysical."

Stay tuned, Next the Spinning Charged Ring…
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jun 1 2010, 10:06 AM
Post #187



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (johnlear @ May 31 2010, 12:14 PM) *
Lunk,



So what causes gravity? I don't know. Neither does Pari.

Kepler thought it was magnetism.


http://www.cr-theory.org/default.aspx#intro

A very interesting and intuitive,
theory,
and very plausible, explanation of gravity.

...i think Jerry Reynard is on to sum things.

He realized his theory was so contrary to modern science,
he called it the comedy-recycling theory.
(and that is very clever!)

i don't think many know of it, yet.

(edit) spellin'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Jun 1 2010, 03:54 PM
Post #188





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



johnlear:
"So what causes gravity? I don't know. Neither does Pari.

Kepler thought it was magnetism."


'gravity' is inescapably connected to the laws of mutual attraction
cohesion and adhesion, together with the laws applying to the
centrifugal and centripetal forces.

The mutual balance between the forces of cohesion and adhesion
always stay at zero, and the same applies to the mutual balance
between the centrifugal and the centripetal forces that likewise
stay at zero.
But not only that: the mutual balance between these two pairs
also must stay at zero - for 'gravity' to come into effect.

Sadly, 'science' is not mature enough to take these forces into
consideration when 'dealing' with the problem of gravity, but that
should certainly not prevent us from doing so ....... should it!!

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Jun 1 2010, 08:20 PM
Post #189





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



tnemelckram…I have several questions for you.

1. You said, “Why would they even want to slow down to a visible speed”?

Question: I thought that the “Speed of Light” APPLIED TO ALL “electromagnetic radiation” NOT just visible light. I understand that Gamma, X-ray and Ultra Violet radiation arrive first only because of their short wave lengths but do they actually travel faster? Eagles can see things we cannot see and dog hear sounds we cannot hear. I would not think the speed changed only the ability to detect things.

2. But we all got off from the same standing start (Big Bang or whatever).

Question: You actually believe that “we all” got off from the same start because I sure do not.

3. There are very few stars within 100 light years of us.

Question: Why 100 light years when the effective range only need to be 12 ly and the Dog Star solar system has proven it self to have everything you need for life and they are only 8.6 ly away.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jun 2 2010, 09:45 AM
Post #190



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



The speed of anything is completely dependent on time.
As time has been shown to vary,
a light year distance, may not be that far,
...if we could control gravity,
which may be the same thing,
as controlling time.

i think, to do this, we need to make an electro-gravitational singularity,
a, sort of, contained black-hole, that can be switched on or off.
This maybe achieved by magnetically compressing an electrically charged plasma down to a mathematical point.

perhaps the title of this thread
should be changed to
a conversation with John Lear.

John?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Jun 2 2010, 06:33 PM
Post #191





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



Anyone ever heard this story? JOHN?

In December of 1984 the FAA and NASA flew a four engine Boeing 720/707 at the Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, California. In their “CID” testing this 225,000 pound commercial aircraft was flown solely by remote control by retired Air Force pilot Lt. Colonel Fritz Fulton Jr.

One of the three state of the art “Flight Data Recorders” on this craft was a solid state memory FDR provided by Lear Siegler.

Lear Siegler Inc was created as a result of a merger between the Siegler Corporation (Los Angeles) and Lear Avionics Inc. (Santa Monica) that was concluded in 1961.

John G. Brooks was the founder; President and Chairman of Siegler and “William Lear” was the founder; President and Chairman at Lear. The merger was based on Brooks' goal of growing Siegler into one of the first conglomerates (with a focus on aerospace markets) and Lear’s goal of divesting his ownership interest in Lear to pursue development of his Learjet corporate aircraft (the first pure jet private aircraft).

In its expansion Lear Siegler had acquired Bangor Punta, which was an early conglomerate manufacturing Piper Aircraft, multiple brands of sailboats, Smith and Wesson firearms and other well known brands.

From 1999 until 2001 EG&G was wholly-owned by The Carlyle Group. In March 2002, Lear Siegler was acquired by EG&G Defense Materials Inc. In August 2002, EG&G was acquired by URS Corp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EG&G

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lear_Siegler
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Jun 2 2010, 07:31 PM
Post #192


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: dc
Member No.: 96



pardon the interruption/detour... most of the stuff you guys are discussing is way over my head, but it does remind me of a fairly entertaining vandamme movie:






cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
johnlear
post Jun 3 2010, 01:53 PM
Post #193





Group: Core Member
Posts: 58
Joined: 9-March 07
From: Las Vegas, NV
Member No.: 744



QUOTE
name='lunk' date='May 31 2010, 12:45 PM' post='10786267']
The speed of anything is completely dependent on time.


Huh?

QUOTE
As time has been shown to vary,


Huh?

QUOTE
a light year distance, may not be that far,


Huh? As far as what?

QUOTE
...if we could control gravity,
which may be the same thing,
as controlling time.


The same thing as what?

QUOTE
i think, to do this, we need to make an electro-gravitational singularity,
a, sort of, contained black-hole, that can be switched on or off.
This maybe achieved by magnetically compressing an electrically charged plasma down to a mathematical point.


Gobeldegock. Pure and Simple.

QUOTE
perhaps the title of this thread
should be changed to
a conversation with John Lear.

John?


Whatever.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jun 3 2010, 03:45 PM
Post #194



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



thanks for your answers,
and for, setting me straight...

i think it has been shown though,
that the passage of time
can be different, in different places, in space.

very accurate atomic clocks,
have to be re-calibrated about once a year,
to make up for this small difference of the rate of time
between the Earths surface and satellites, above.

Do you agree that the speed of light is a constant,
in the vacuum of space, throughout the universe?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Jun 3 2010, 07:29 PM
Post #195





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



A Star is born

To be realistic we should consider most of this to be theory.

Baby stars are said to originate from compressed hydrogen, which like the Hindenburg is large and flammable yet light in weight. Baby Star material is gathered & compressed due to being a member of a system already in motion.

Go away fake “Big Bang”.

Moving forward, just being large does not necessarily make you heavy.

Time is relative (to the extent) that one or two objects in empty space cannot be timed. The nature of objects is that they must be in motion and require the existence of a third object to time the other two.

Most “Objects” in occupied space do not understand time because their path of origin has been changed or warped. A propelled object will travel forever until affected by some other force or object.

Our effective Universe is timeless and is the result of a “Constant State of Change”. People live and people die…so do stars.

Stars turn into Planets…it is really that simple.

Particles like Protons & Electrons not only spin but they also orbit. When released they spin & orbit like an un-sprung spring. Their electromagnetic energy is what gives them gravity…not time and not mass.

But…but gravity can be both positive gravity and it can also be negative gravity. Forces flee & fall due to certain rules.

Objects in space emit light, reflect light or absorb light…it is really that simple.

For the record, the word “light” is inclusive of all electro-magnetic forces

Their “Speed” is relative...also.

Black Planets, mis-titled as “Holes” can act as absorbers.

When an object in space changes its form, it also changes its abilities.

Pari’s book will arrive this week. Nan Nu…Nan…New

Ask, ELreb who answers questions...even goblygook
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jun 4 2010, 10:34 AM
Post #196



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



John,
what do you think about the "the Hutchison effect"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hutchison
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Jun 4 2010, 05:27 PM
Post #197





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



Nikola Tesla is another little recognized example of the “Strange Genius Syndrome” & “Creative Genius Syndrome”.

As a “strange Genius” he had an incredible ability to understand complex issues and problems, a profound creativity and imagination, and the ability to channel such skills into productive outlets.

Such as:

Tesla coil
Tesla turbine
Teleforce
Tesla's oscillator
Tesla electric car
Tesla principle
Tesla's Egg of Columbus
Alternating current
Induction motor
Rotating magnetic field
Wireless technology
Particle beam weapon
Death ray
Terrestrial stationary waves
Bifilar coil
Telegeodynamics
Electrogravitics
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jun 4 2010, 09:35 PM
Post #198



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (elreb @ Jun 4 2010, 02:27 PM) *
Nikola Tesla is another little recognized example of the “Strange Genius Syndrome” & “Creative Genius Syndrome”.

As a “strange Genius” he had an incredible ability to understand complex issues and problems, a profound creativity and imagination, and the ability to channel such skills into productive outlets.

Such as:

Tesla coil
Tesla turbine
Teleforce
Tesla's oscillator
Tesla electric car
Tesla principle
Tesla's Egg of Columbus
Alternating current
Induction motor
Rotating magnetic field
Wireless technology
Particle beam weapon
Death ray
Terrestrial stationary waves
Bifilar coil
Telegeodynamics
Electrogravitics


Yes, but Tesla invented real stuff, that works without him.

The Hutchison effect, seems to only work when Hutchison's around.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Jun 4 2010, 09:47 PM
Post #199





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



Good point Lurk,

Sorry to say it but our friend John has phased out.

He does not appear to like agreement.

But at your pleasure I would love to banter the subject.

Elreb
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jun 4 2010, 10:09 PM
Post #200





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi El Reb!

QUOTE
tnemelckram…I have several questions for you.


Here's the best answers I can give within my limitations, which (sadly) are many . . . . .

QUOTE
1. You said, “Why would they even want to slow down to a visible speed”?
Question: I thought that the “Speed of Light” APPLIED TO ALL “electromagnetic radiation” NOT just visible light. I understand that Gamma, X-ray and Ultra Violet radiation arrive first only because of their short wave lengths but do they actually travel faster? Eagles can see things we cannot see and dog hear sounds we cannot hear. I would not think the speed changed only the ability to detect things.

What is relevant here is not what other creatures can detect that we cannot, but rather what humans can detect. After all, it's humans that have detected by seeing the UFO's, and thus reported them. We know that there are limits to the speed at which humans can see things, and that limit is many thousandths less than the speed of light.

Agreed that all of the things that you list must by definition travel at the speed of light. Current thought in quantum physics is that the individual particles that constitute that radiation can produce instantaneous effects on other particles that appear to be not just faster than light, but to totally disregard the speed of light as a limit. But that only applies to individual particles, not to agglomerations of such particles having structural mass with defined shapes such as the types of UFOs that have been reported..


QUOTE
2. ( I said) But we all got off from the same standing start (Big Bang or whatever).
Question: You actually believe that “we all” got off from the same start because I sure do not.

I admit to basing what I say about the "standing start" on the Big Bang because it seems to be the majority opinion among astronomers, physicists and cosmologists, based on at least some evidence from their observations. Of course, I agree that their opinions are shaky and could be wrong, mostly because they themselves all make that disclaimer. But it still appears to be the best we have to go on.

A respectable minority have theories that tend to belie my "standing start", such as Steady State. But even under those conditions there is no reason to believe that we have been any more or less advantaged than, or are more or less advanced than, any of the other intelligent life that I agree currently must exist somewhere else. Then to say that they are so much further ahead that they can do interstellar travel is another leap, and not just a small one, but a quantum leap. It implies either:
( a ) They use our science but are unimaginably further ahead. In this case it doesn't matter whether Einstein or Dr. Spolter are correct, or Big Bangers or Steady Staters are correct, because their theories are all still just variations of "our science" that alien UFOs are also using to fly, or that also enables them to exist in the first place.
or

( b ) They don't use our science at all. In this case, proving our current science wrong and replacing it with something else that is still based on our science would not prove anything because alien UFO's still would not be using, or have their existence based on, any version of our science in the first place.

I guess I have some questions for you.
(1) What theory do you subscribe to instead of Big Bang?
(2) What is the basis for the belief that there must be at least some other intelligent life that is sufficiently advanced to do interstellar flight
(3) Do they, or do they not, use our science to do that?
(4) If they don't use our science, what science do they use?


QUOTE
3. I said) There are very few stars within 100 light years of us.
Question: Why 100 light years when the effective range only need to be 12 ly and the Dog Star solar system has proven it self to have everything you need for life and they are only 8.6 ly away.

My point is that the Drake Equation starts with the vast (infinite?) number of star systems in the universe and reduces it down to many millions that must have planets with conditions capable of generating and sustaining intelligent life, either more or less advanced than us. I agree with that because it uses, for lack of a better term, a "Big Pool" to start, which it narrows down into a "Good Sized Pool" of many millions that could have intelligent life. A Big Pool is necessary at the start so you can increase the odds that there is at least one among the many millions left with intelligent life that is so much further advanced than us that it can do interstellar travel.

My 100 LY limit reduces the Pretty Big Pool from many millions to say 200 star systems, your 12 LYs reduce it to perhaps 2 or 3, while the Dog Star system reduces it to 1. Both of our reductions dramatically (to say the least) reduce the odds on which the Drake Equation is based. Thus they have similar effect on the odds that any intelligent life at all will be found among the reduced number, let alone the quantum leap of life so advanced that it has been able to develop interstellar travel technology.


4. Important Note - Although we debate this esoteric stuff, what's important is that you, Mr. Lear, me and everybody else here agree on one thing - we smell a Big Fat 911 Rat. Even if UFO's are manned by alien intelligence, they have not done anything to harm us or that even suggests harmful intent (at least, not yet). But 911 is clearly real, and putting it mildly, its Perps actually have done quite a lot of harm to us. We are all brothers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

16 Pages V  « < 8 9 10 11 12 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
3 User(s) are reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th October 2019 - 04:52 PM