Are UFO's real?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not moderating this thread.
Also, I think you're in no position to comment on objectivity.

The Zeta-reticulans had to travel interdimensionally to get here, presuming you believe they have visited here.

I don't remember asking for your opinion, but thank you for giving it anyway.

Public forum, m'boy. Open to anyone.

Nobody like you you mean?

That statement, and the events on this thread, are clear enough and require no further explanation.

First of all, I must admit that it has been more than 30 years since we discussed this when I was a grad student in math. So I may have a point or two wrong. But in general, I think my view is quite accurate.

First of all, you have to have a source of entangled particles. For the purpose of our discussion, let's assume the particles are photons. As the photons move apart, they will have opposite spins. Suppose that a light year from the source, you measure the spin of the one photon. You then immediately know the spin of the entangled photon traveling the other direction that is now two light years away. Suppose that another year later (keeping in mind that simultaneity doesn't exist in space-time), someone else measures spin of the other photon -- they will find that it is the opposite spin of the photon you measured.

The act of measuring the spin changes the spin of the photon you measured. It doesn't necessarily reverse the spin. Rather, the spin will be completely random. When the other photon is measured, the measurement of the spin will be the opposite of the spin of your photon at the time you measured the photon -- it will tell him nothing about the spin of your photon because you have already changed it when you modified it.

It is a little more interesting because there are, I think, three different spins you can measure -- one along each axis of rotation. However, you can only measure one of them and the act of measuring one of them results in a randomization of all three spins of your particle.

Keep in mind that you cannot choose the spins of the photons when they are emitted from the source -- the spins are completely random.

If energy is transferred, then how much? Please express your claims in mathematical terms. Don't worry; I am an engineer and I use calculus every day, so show us how well you can express your claims in their purest form. Don't be a poseur, either. I worked for four and a half years in the Physics & Astronomy department at a major university, and poseurs have a natural talent for revealing themselves with their false claims and erroneous data.


This should help raise your understanding of the way the real universe works: "Orbital Mechanics". It is provided by the National Space Studies Center at the Air University of Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery Alabama.

I hope it isn't too complicated for you.


Your claims are fallacious and lacking in data.

My claims are well-established, go back to the time of Galileo, were codified by Kepler, and have been backed up by centuries of observation. Based on data gathered by Tycho Brahe and others, Kepler was able to derive these Three Laws of Orbital Motion:

Kepler’s First Law: If two bodies interact gravitationally, each will describe an orbit that can be represented by a conic section about the common center of mass of the pair. In particular, if the bodies are permanently associated, their orbits will be ellipses. If they are not permanently associated, their orbits will be hyperbolas.

Kepler’s Second Law: If two bodies revolve about each other under the influence of a central force (whether they are in a closed orbit or not), a line joining them sweeps out equal areas in the orbit plane in equal intervals of time.

Kepler’s Third Law: If two bodies revolve mutually about each other, the sum of their masses times the square of their period of mutual revolution is in proportion to the cube of their semi-major axis of the relative orbit of one about the other.

Here is the formula that expresses Kepler's Third Law:

P^2 = k∙a^3

where 'P' is the orbital period, 'a' is the semi-major axis, which is the average orbital distance, and 'k' is a constant that is dependent upon the total mass of all objects involved in the orbital activity.

This means that if one star orbits the center of a galaxy in 10,000 years, another star at twice the distance should take 28,284 years (plus a little over 99 days) to orbit the same galactic center (assuming that k = 1).

Law #3 is universal, and applies to all object in orbit, everywhere. Law #3 is also essential for understanding why your claims are invalid.

Finally, stars are not quantum objects, so any claim of "quantum stellar entanglement" is both fallacious and irrational.

I am depending on the observations of scientists, and centuries of observations at that. Plus, their observations all validate the same set of classical rules - Kepler's Laws of Orbital Motion.


Then you have failed. Without your own research to back up your own claims, those claims are revealed to be no more than fantasy, backed up by arrogance. I have provided ample evidence to back up my claims, and anyone who has studied real science would see my claims as both valid and true.


At the time of the "Big Bang", there were no objects - only energy. Thus, your argument falls apart.


Why do all quack claims rely more on an "open mind" than on verifiable facts? Is it because faith is more important than fact, or is it because those who seek people with "open minds" are just waiting to fill those minds with lies?

All we have done is quote our opinions citing the findings of others.
In the end that is what this topic is, opinions.

But then we have gone way off topic.

Last edited by ripped on 23 Jan 2013, 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

From memory entanglement operates on objects as large a buckballs, and these you can bounce a photon off without materially changing the direction of spin.
"In Quantum entanglement, part of the transfer happens instantaneously. Repeated experiments have verified that this works even when the measurements are performed more quickly than light could travel between the sites of measurement: there's no slower-than-light influence that can pass between the entangled particles."
- Wikipedia

How does the transference of 'information' materially change the direction of a particles' spin?

Forgive me for simplifying things beyond your threshold of tolerance.
Let me back up a bit...
If the stars were all set in motion by the big bang, then we should see smaller stars orbiting larger stars.
We should see loosely orbiting collections of stars drifting outward from the center of the galaxy at a slower and slower rate until gravity overcomes their radial momentum.
We should see star clusters colliding, some traveling at a greater speed than others, and a generally chaotic outward expansion.
But what we see is every star traveling in the same direction around the center in a more or less flat plane essentially like sparkles on a slowly turning vinyl record.
We see a universe which is not only expanding, but expanding at an accelerating rate. This requires a constant input of energy.
Then there is more mass in our cosmos than there is matter.
So there is quite a lot about the motion of the stars in our galaxy and our universe which does not obey the laws of classical mechanics.

What I have revealed to you is my opinion, and the fact that you are wrong.

"stars" were never "set in motion" by the big bang.

MATTER was set in motion by the Big Bang.

Big Difference.

It was later that matter coalesced into galaxies. And latter still that the matter in the galaxies coalesced into stars.

The stars may seem well organized within each galaxy. But that doesnt negate the theory that each whole galaxy is a piece of shrapnel from a big explosion.

The galaxies are way too ordered to have been the product of pure chance.
But this is steering the thread into intelligent design theory, not UFO's.

Sextans-A...

... an "Irregular" Galaxy.

NGC-6822...

... another "Irregular" Galaxy.

NGC-4449...

... another "Irregular" Galaxy.

There are literally billions of "Irregular" galaxies like these in the observable universe. None of them seem to be ordered in any way - no "Pinwheel" forms at all.

The milky way galaxy for one.