Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The UFO Phenomenon
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedThe UFO Phenomenon

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 26>
Author
Message
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 23 2013 at 10:46
Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

Originally posted by Jim Garten Jim Garten wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

The existence of books on a subject proves nothing


You mean all that time I spent reading The Bible, The Q'ran & The Talmud was wasted?
 
Dean would certainly say so....
 
Wink
Why? Reading fiction is always a pleasure and never a waste. Tongue
What?
Back to Top
dr wu23 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20642
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 23 2013 at 10:53
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

 
I'd like to believe that people are open minded enough to consider possibilities but obviously many are not.
That's not answered my question - do you want to believe?
Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

Currently you are right in no one knows for certain what the ufo phenom represents. Aliens, unknown beings, a mental aberration in humans or something else.
I would like to see some serious comments on 'alien' motivation and the ufo phenom in general rather than just glib remarks of disbelief or belief. 
If we (okay I) am of the conviction that none of the evidence presented thus far gives any indication that aliens exist or that they are present amid us then the question of their motivation is simply not valid. This would be like giving an opinion on the motivation of the Tooth Fairy.
Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

And your comment about physics imo is simply a lack of understanding on your part. We discover new processes and techniques every day in case you haven't noticed. 
I suggest you carefully explain to me in very simple terms what this lack of understanding on my part constitutes then.
 
The laws of physics explain how things do work based upon all the known data, coming up with new laws of physics will not affect how things work. Gravity is still the same gravity of Aristotle, Newton and Einstien even though each of them had a new take on what the law of gravity actualy was - changing the laws of physics concerning gravity did not change how gravity acts - trip over and you will still fall to the ground. New processes and techniques of how to do things do not affect the existing laws of physics that explain how things work, how things worked in the past and how they will work in the future.
 
No...I don't 'want to believe', but I'd like to know the truth if there is some to find here.'...what's your agenda Dean..? Do you want to 'not believe'..?
Speculating about alien motivation is certainly valid if we are discussing possible aliens on earth, and since the vast majority of scientists do believe in the very strong likelyhood of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy  it's once again a valid topic.
What makes you think that we know all there is to know about physics and the various aspects and 'laws' involved. Just a few hunderd years ago we thought rocks could not fall from the sky and the earth was flat. We may learn that our understanding of thsoe 'laws' is incomplete.The point is that we will certainly discover new scientific techniques and principles that allow space travel in the future unless you think we are forever doomed to remain on earth. Ergo a race many centuries beyond us may have discovered means of interstellar travel.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin
Back to Top
dr wu23 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20642
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 23 2013 at 10:54
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

Originally posted by Jim Garten Jim Garten wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

The existence of books on a subject proves nothing


You mean all that time I spent reading The Bible, The Q'ran & The Talmud was wasted?
 
Dean would certainly say so....
 
Wink
Why? Reading fiction is always a pleasure and never a waste. Tongue
 
You....read fiction...?  Never.....simply doesn't fit your profile.
 
Wink
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 23 2013 at 11:07
Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

 
I'd like to believe that people are open minded enough to consider possibilities but obviously many are not.
That's not answered my question - do you want to believe?
Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

Currently you are right in no one knows for certain what the ufo phenom represents. Aliens, unknown beings, a mental aberration in humans or something else.
I would like to see some serious comments on 'alien' motivation and the ufo phenom in general rather than just glib remarks of disbelief or belief. 
If we (okay I) am of the conviction that none of the evidence presented thus far gives any indication that aliens exist or that they are present amid us then the question of their motivation is simply not valid. This would be like giving an opinion on the motivation of the Tooth Fairy.
Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

And your comment about physics imo is simply a lack of understanding on your part. We discover new processes and techniques every day in case you haven't noticed. 
I suggest you carefully explain to me in very simple terms what this lack of understanding on my part constitutes then.
 
The laws of physics explain how things do work based upon all the known data, coming up with new laws of physics will not affect how things work. Gravity is still the same gravity of Aristotle, Newton and Einstien even though each of them had a new take on what the law of gravity actualy was - changing the laws of physics concerning gravity did not change how gravity acts - trip over and you will still fall to the ground. New processes and techniques of how to do things do not affect the existing laws of physics that explain how things work, how things worked in the past and how they will work in the future.
 
No...I don't 'want to believe', but I'd like to know the truth if there is some to find here.'...what's your agenda Dean..? Do you want to 'not believe'..?
Nope. I seek plausibility and rationality - if aliens exist (and I am open to the possibility that they do based purely on the scale of numbers alone) I accept that the distances involved prohibit us ever knowing. If they are here then I want to know how and why they are here and how and why they got here and how and why they knew to come here. Nothing has provided even the merest glimpse of an answer to any of those fundamental questions or any incontrovertible evidence that such an event has ever happened.
Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

Speculating about alien motivation is certainly valid if we are discussing possible aliens on earth, and since the vast majority of scientists do believe in the very strong likelyhood of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy  it's once again a valid topic.
Believing there is a strong likelihood of life elsewhere in the universe is not quite the same as believing in the very strong likelihood of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy. The magnitudes of probability difference in those two statements is huge (astronomical even). Neither of these two statements have any bearing on speculating about alien presence on Earth and their motivations.
Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

What makes you think that we know all there is to know about physics and the various aspects and 'laws' involved. Just a few hunderd years ago we thought rocks could not fall from the sky and the earth was flat. We may learn that our understanding of thsoe 'laws' is incomplete.The point is that we will certainly discover new scientific techniques and principles that allow space travel in the future unless you think we are forever doomed to remain on earth. Ergo a race many centuries beyond us may have discovered means of interstellar travel.
We have known the earth is roughly spherical for millennia and we have known about rocks falling from the sky for equally as long - you need to un-bookmark where you get this stuff from. Neither of those "myths" changed physics or altered how we do stuff. New scientific techniques are not new laws of physics. I do not doubt that interstellar travel will one day be possible, I do however, have doubts about whether this will live up to the expectations of Science Fiction and FTL travel regardless of how better our understanding of physics becomes. Wishful thinking is not wish fulfilment.


Edited by Dean - April 23 2013 at 11:08
What?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 23 2013 at 11:09
Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

 
You....read fiction...?  Never.....simply doesn't fit your profile.
 
Wink
Shows how little you know fo me then Tongue
What?
Back to Top
Jim Garten View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin & Razor Guru

Joined: February 02 2004
Location: South England
Status: Offline
Points: 14693
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 23 2013 at 11:24
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by ArturdeLara ArturdeLara wrote:

Furthermore our presence in this planet would be easily detectable for a sufficiently advanced civilization (without mentioning the direct panspermia hypothesis Wink).
if you can give a valid explanation of the panspermia hypothesis that would lead to UFO sightings and aledged alien abductions then fire away




I'd be happy if someone could just tell me how to pronounce "panspermia hypothesis" - everytime I try, it sounds like the Hungarian for "my spacecraft is full of eels"

Jon Lord 1941 - 2012
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 23 2013 at 12:16
God bless you Dean.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
ArturdeLara View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 06 2012
Location: Faro, Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 124
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 23 2013 at 13:31
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

God bless you Dean.

Oh the irony LOL
"Those who are not shocked when they first come across Prog theory cannot possibly have understood it." - Niels Bohr

"If you think you understand Prog, you don't understand Prog." - Richard Feynman
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 23 2013 at 14:44

Originally posted by ArturdeLara ArturdeLara wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

God bless you Dean.

Oh the irony LOL
It appears you know Pat as well as you know me LOL



(Thanks Pat... Right back at ya)
What?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 23 2013 at 16:57
You would think that given all the sources of radio transmission we have (radio, TV, radar, cell-phones, wifi, bluetooth, garage door openers, microwave ovens, remote control, remote monitoring, emergency bands, GPS, ship to shore, air traffic control, walkie-talkies, cb-radio, ham radio, military comms, etc) that our technology fingerprint would be huge and would be broadcasting our presence into space like a huge flashing beacon announcing "HERE WE ARE" with such emphatic disregard for the peace and quiet of our interstellar neighbours it is little wonder we've not had a visit from the intergalactic police requesting us (very politely of course) to turn the bloody noise down.
 
The problems of detecting our technological finger-print from the vast distances of space is more than just a problem of distance. As has already been commented, the electromagnetic radiation we produce are very weak. Just how weak these are cannot be overstated - we know that we are producing a lot of EM radiation here on Earth, we just have to buy a radio receiver to detect it. When you consider that each of the 44,000 FM radio station in the world broadcasts with a typical power of 100kW (giving a total of 4.4 billion watts), each of the 6 billion cell phones that exist in the world are transmitting with a typical power of ½W each (giving a total of 3 billion watts) then the gross amount of EM radiation we are producing when you factor in the really powerful stuff like communication satellite up-links and general satellite broadcasts such as TV and GPS and the cell-phone networks, it easily runs to numbers that can be measured in terawatts. Surely this is easy to detect from space?
 
The problem for the extraterrestrial listener is that much of this EM radiation does not leave the local confines of the Earth. How much is determined by the kinds of antenna used by the various transmitters we have and how powerful those transmitters are.
 
An ideal point-source transmitter radiates radio waves equally in all directions (x, y and z) and are called "isotropic" and are barely more than theoretical - the closest we have to the theoretical isotropic radiator are the spark-gap transmitters of the 19th century experiments into radio broadcasting - and they are an extremely inefficient use of power when what you are trying to do is communicate between two points on the surface of the Earth, plus any signals transmitted up into the sky (the z-axis) are a waste of power. These transmitters are not only inefficient, they are also very low powered, permitting communication of a few hundred metres at best. Even though these antenna are isotropic and therefore radiate upwards, the radio waves produced would not be powerful enough to be detected from beyond our atmosphere.
 
The next kind of antenna is a dipole, this aerial only transmits in the x and y axis in a doughnut shape giving a more efficient use of transmitter power - most radio uses this method (broadcast AM & FM radio, non-satellite TV, cell-phones, home wifi hubs, bluetooth devices, military and aircraft comms etc) - we call these "omnidirectional" but in reality they only transmit horizontally (x and y) and not into space.
 
The third kind of antenna has reflectors and directors to focus the beam of radio waves into a cone shape (often cardioid due to the inefficiencies of the reflectors), these are sometimes called "beam" or "directional" and only transmit in the x-axis. Variants on these are parabolic dishes and the like that we use in radar and to communicate with satellites. When it comes to satellite communications the only source we need consider is up-link, since any down-link (TV and GPS) is obviously pointing to the Earth and not out into space.
 
Next thing to consider is transmitter power itself - a ½W cell-phone is not going to reach more than 30km at best (and those of us who live in rural areas find even that to be optimistic), most FM radio stations have a range of less than 100 miles - and since the antenna used in both those transmitters does not radiate upwards we can discount them as a source for our alien to detect, along with wi-fi, bluetooth, microwave ovens, aircraft comms, emergency band and many other low power terrestrial point-to-point radio communication routes.
 
Since radio waves travel in straight lines one would assume that the Earth-based omnidirectional and directional antenna would beam their signals towards the horizon and keep going through the atmosphere and out into space allowing our distant alien to eventually detect them. Unfortunately it's not as simple as that.
 
One of the layers of the atmosphere of interest to radio specialists is the Heaviside layer, this is a layer of ionised gases some 90-150 km above the surface of the Earth - lower to medium frequency radio waves have a tendency to bounce off this layer back down to Earth, this is why we can receive radio transmissions from beyond the horizon, and it is also why little of these transmissions will leave the Earth and radiate into space.
 
Another problem with radio waves is they are easily attenuated by anything that gets in their way - we all know that anything conductive can shield radio waves, this goes for anything with a high water content such as clouds, and we know that for higher frequencies any solid object can block the wave (X-Rays) and others objects can bounce or reflect them (radar).
 
Atmospheric events can also disrupt radio transmission, solar flares, aurora, electrical storms, rain... all affecting how any stray signals can leak out into space. Another barrier has to contend with for any signals that manage to escape the Earth's atmosphere is the Van Allen radiation belt, which can also attenuate or generally affect the signals, and as I said in a previous post, we really don't know what effect the Oort cloud will have on these EM waves.
 
Therefore while we are indeed creating terawatts of EM radiation here on Earth, not very much of that gets out into space and what little that does has to contend with the inverse-square law when traversing the large distances between stars. As Pat and I have said, our radio signals are very weak and space is very big.
 
So, what if our alien civilisation is very advanced had has some really sensitive receivers? In the old days of terrestrial broadcast television I could easily demonstrate the next problem the alien has to negotiate, and that is static. De-tune an analogue TV set and you can see and hear the static being received - a lot of that static is thermal noise and about one-third of it is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation of the big-bang, once the signal you are looking for disappears below that it is lost. As we know from Earth-based radio and TV reception, the only way to improve reception (and therefore range) is to increase transmitter power, not receiver sensitivity.


Edited by Dean - April 23 2013 at 18:05
What?
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 23 2013 at 17:02
^WHOA! That's a whole lotta words.  Ermm
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 23 2013 at 17:54
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

^WHOA! That's a whole lotta words.  Ermm
It gets worse.
 
I've just calculated¹ the transmitter power needed to send a signal to our nearest stellar neighbour (Proxima Centauri ) 4.2 light-years away that will arrive there with the same energy density as the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation... and it's 240 zettawatts (240,000,000,000,000,000,000KW). Shocked
 
 
...and our Sun is only 1,680 times more powerful than that.
 
So based upon that we are essentially invisible to any alien civilisation no matter where they are.
 
 
 
¹ I have to admit the number surprises even me, I may have made a silly error, so anyone who can confirm or deny my calculations is welcome to have a go.
What?
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 23 2013 at 18:41
That number seems high.  Please show your work.  Wink
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 23 2013 at 18:48
P = I(ave)*4*PI()*r^2 ... where r is 4.2 lightyears in metres and I(ave) is the CMBR average power intensity
What?
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 23 2013 at 18:50
What is I(ave)?  Treating it as a noise and assuming a temperature of 2.725 K, I get around -224 dBW/Hz.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 23 2013 at 18:57
I(ave) is the average energy density (40 femtoJ/m³) times the speed of light
 
 
 
 


Edited by Dean - April 23 2013 at 19:35
What?
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 23 2013 at 19:07
Don't know enough about CMBR so I need to google for a bit.

If I just use thermal noise at ~ 300K I get something on the order of 50 TW, still an insane amount of power.

Don't forget that antenna gains can mitigate some of this requirement.


Edited by Padraic - April 23 2013 at 19:19
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 23 2013 at 19:17
...for it to produce pocket-size tranmitter powers I(ave) would have to be really really small given that r^2 is really really big.
 
4.2 light years = 39.73E+15 metres, so r^2 would be 1.6E+33 ... and that's a mahoosive number.
What?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 23 2013 at 19:44
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Don't know enough about CMBR so I need to google for a bit.

If I just use thermal noise at ~ 300K I get something on the order of 50 TW, still an insane amount of power.

Don't forget that antenna gains can mitigate some of this requirement.
Sure - I'm assuming that the Earth would be an isotropic radiator so a decent radio telescope antenna pointed directly at Centauri would give a 50dB improvement just for starters.
What?
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 23 2013 at 20:26
Even if we could do it, it would be too annoying for me to have to wait 8.4 years for a response after saying "Hi".  Wink

Edited by Padraic - April 23 2013 at 20:26
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 26>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.168 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.