PDA

View Full Version : SETI


ORAC
31st Aug 2016, 14:59
Might be another pulsar dead end, but fingers crossed...

Most Important News of Your Day/Lifetime? - Marginal REVOLUTION (http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/08/most-important-news-of-your-daylifetime.html)

An international team of scientists from the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) is investigating mysterious signal spikes emitting from a 6.3-billion-year-old star in the constellation Hercules—95 light years away from Earth. The implications are extraordinary and point to the possibility of a civilization far more advanced than our own..........

Sallyann1234
31st Aug 2016, 15:04
Great! We can send them a message, and get a reply in just 190 years :ok:

ORAC
31st Aug 2016, 15:23
Assuming they haven't already been listening to us for the past 100 years....

Cazalet33
31st Aug 2016, 15:26
Eric Korpela of Seti has written very sensibly about this:

I'm sure that many of you have seen the news reports of a "SETI signal" detected from the star HD 164595

I was one of the many people who received the the email with the subject "Candidate SETI SIGNAL DETECTED by Russians from star HD 164595 by virtue of RATAN-600 radio telescope." Since the email did come from known SETI researchers, I looked over the presentation. I was unimpressed. In one out of 39 scans that passed over star showed a signal at about 4.5 times the mean noise power with a profile somewhat like the beam profile. Of course [email protected] has seen millions of potential signals with similar characteristics, but it takes more than that to make a good candidate. Multiple detections are a minimum criterion.

Because the receivers used were making broad band measurements, there's really nothing about this "signal" that would distinguish it from a natural radio transient (stellar flare, active galactic nucleus, microlensing of a background source, etc.) There's also nothing that could distinguish it from a satellite passing through the telescope field of view. All in all, it's relatively uninteresting from a SETI standpoint.

But, of course, it's been announced to the media. Reporters won't have the background to know it's not interesting. Because the media has it, and since this business runs on media, everyone will look at it. ATA is looking at it. I assume Breakthrough will look at it. Someone will look at it with Arecibo, and we'll be along for the ride. And I'll check the [email protected] database around that position. And we'll all find nothing. It's not our first time at this rodeo, so we know how it works.

We believe a signal when

It is persistent. It appears at the same spot in the sky in multiple observations.
It only comes from one spot in the sky.
If we reobserve the target, the signal is still there.

Things that add to believability

Its frequency/period/delay does not correspond to known interference.
Its Doppler Drift rate indicates that it is exactly frequency stable in the frame of the center of mass of the solar system
Its properties (bandwidth, chirp rate, encoding) indicate intelligent origin.

Unfortunately the observing method used by the Russian team does not permit many of these things to be determined.

1. The signal was not persistent.
2. The signal was gone when the target was reobserved.
3. The signal frequency/period/delay cannot be determined.
4. The signal Doppler drift rate is unknown. 5. Many sources of interference, including satellites, are present in the observing band.

oldchina
31st Aug 2016, 15:53
Stephen Hawking among other great brains thinks we should stop this activity.
There is no precedent for a less developed civilisation coming out winners from such contact.
The fate of the native Americans is less terrible than the whole of humanity coming face to face with starving aliens.

PDR1
31st Aug 2016, 16:02
Stephen Hawking among other great brains thinks we should stop this activity.
There is no precedent for a less developed civilisation coming out winners from such contact.

Well yes, of course. That's why the UK had to pull out of Europe, before the damage to Europe became terminal.

PDR

UniFoxOs
31st Aug 2016, 16:32
Is there no thread that can't be turned by a remainer?

PDR1
31st Aug 2016, 16:35
Apols - couldn't resist the opportunity.

But the referendum also provided inconclusive results in the Search for INTRA-Terrestrial Intelligence...

:)

PDR

Sallyann1234
31st Aug 2016, 16:38
Assuming they haven't already been listening to us for the past 100 years.... But they cannot have been doing so. Our first early transmissions will only just be reaching them so they won't know anything about our development since.

Unless of course they have an observation site in close proximity <looks around cautiously>

419
31st Aug 2016, 17:20
But they cannot have been doing so. Our first early transmissions will only just be reaching them so they won't know anything about our development since.
Unless our early transmissions went through a wormhole/stargate/space warp in which case, those transmissions may have reached ET shortly after they were made!

Sallyann1234
31st Aug 2016, 17:26
SETI Institute damps down 'wow!' signal report from Russia ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/30/seti_institute_damps_down_wow_signal_report_from_russia/)

wiggy
31st Aug 2016, 17:33
As ORAC rightly pointed out in the OP there are parallels with the discovery of pulsars ( and that in itself is a story and a half...including the sub plot about who got the credit......)

And yes, many an eminent scientist from way before Hawking has been of the opinion that if the phone rings we shouldn't pick it up...:eek:

LookingForAJob
31st Aug 2016, 19:57
Unless our early transmissions went through a wormhole/stargate/space warp in which case, those transmissions may have reached ET shortly after they were made!Or shortly before!

vapilot2004
31st Aug 2016, 22:00
I read the amount of power that would be required to send such a signal over that distance is greater than the amount of energy that falls upon the earth from our sun.

wiggy
1st Sep 2016, 08:11
I'd be very interested to see the numbers behind that claim - do you have a source?

ORAC
1st Sep 2016, 08:21
Still only a Class 1 civilisation on the Kardashev scale.....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

Stanwell
1st Sep 2016, 08:42
Fascinating. Thanks for that link, ORAC.

vapilot2004
1st Sep 2016, 09:44
I'd be very interested to see the numbers behind that claim - do you have a source?

Not specific numbers, Wiggy, but I can link the source and provide the excerpt from where I got the information:

Based on the received signal's characteristics, aliens would have to generate about 100 billion billion watts of energy to blast it out in all directions. And they'd still have to produce more than 1 trillion watts if they beamed it only to Earth for some reason, Shostak said.

"The first number is hundreds of times more than all the sunlight falling on Earth," he said. "That's a very big energy bill."

Mysterious Star Signal Stokes SETI Hopes, but Could Be Earthly (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mysterious-star-signal-stokes-seti-hopes-but-could-be-earthly/)

wiggy
1st Sep 2016, 09:49
vapilot

Many thanks.

vapilot2004
1st Sep 2016, 10:40
No worries, Wiggy.

Sallyann1234
1st Sep 2016, 10:41
Based on the received signal's characteristics, aliens would have to generate about 100 billion billion watts of energy to blast it out in all directions.
Which would be pointless. You aim the energy where you want it to go.

And they'd still have to produce more than 1 trillion watts if they beamed it only to Earth for some reason, Shostak said.
That depends entirely on the beamwidth of their antenna system. This advanced civilisation will have developed ways of focusing the energy very closely on likely planetary systems such as ours.
Also a huge efficiency is gained by pulsing the signal rather than using a constant carrier, as we do now with radar.

A civilisation more advanced than ours could do this if they really wanted without breaking any laws of physics. But would they want to?

ORAC
1st Sep 2016, 10:58
Indeed, much more fun to break the laws of physics - if you can..... :}:}

PDR1
1st Sep 2016, 11:13
Which would be pointless. You aim the energy where you want it to go.


That pre-supposes that what was seen was a specific attempt to communicate with *us*, rather than just detection of the Herculean TV Company broadcasting repeats of Top Gear.

PDR

le Pingouin
1st Sep 2016, 14:08
oldchina, you do realise all that SETI is doing is listening? It's the TV and radio stations doing the transmitting that would reveal our presence. Since when is sticking our collective fingers in our ears a realistic survival mechanism?

Martin the Martian
1st Sep 2016, 14:15
Pathetic earthlings. Hurling your bodies out into the void, without the slightest inkling of who or what is out here. If you had known anything about the true nature of the universe, anything at all, you would've hidden from it in terror.

-Ming the Merciless

You do wonder if he has a point.

Cazalet33
1st Sep 2016, 15:15
oldchina, you do realise all that SETI is doing is listening? It's the TV and radio stations doing the transmitting that would reveal our presence. Since when is sticking our collective fingers in our ears a realistic survival mechanism?

I would think that the nuke detonation EMPs would be a far more powerful signal than any tv transmitter could possibly muster.

I would think such a signal would tell any intelligent lifeforms out there: "Stay clear of the blue planet with the wee grey moon. They're crazy muhvuggers!".

Of course, a reading of the tv signals would say much the same thing.

vapilot2004
1st Sep 2016, 19:10
You do wonder if he has a point.

Is there something you know that the rest of us do not, M. Martian?

PDR1
1st Sep 2016, 19:29
I would think that the nuke detonation EMPs would be a far more powerful signal than any tv transmitter could possibly muster.


Not sure it would, actually - a single short burst of high-energy photons (which is what it would be by the time it left the atmosphere), of possibly a double/treble pulse if they happen to be seeing a fusion detonation. I don't think the longer wavelength stuff would be that significant a trace even if it got out there. They'd have to be looking in precisely the right direction at precisely the right time to see it, and the probability of that is pretty low. The TV/Radio emissions (OTOH) are essentially constant, and so far more likely to be detected.

€0.03 supplied,

PDR

ORAC
1st Sep 2016, 19:50
You think a few EM pulses from the earth would be noticeable against the big fusion ball of the sun with its flares?

It's the patterned coherent information rich nature of communications which can be seen and dragged out of the background noise.

Cazalet33
1st Sep 2016, 20:31
You think a few EM pulses from the earth would be noticeable against the big fusion ball of the sun with its flares?

Yes. The pulse-length is completely different. The double pulse of an H-bomb is very recognisable too.

To an intelligent society, it would say: stay away from irrational children who have guns and big bombs.

G-CPTN
1st Sep 2016, 20:35
The media have suggested 'intelligent signals' from a star.

I'm willing to bet that there is no intelligent life on a star.

Such aliens would be truly weird.

KenV
2nd Sep 2016, 04:26
What amazes me most is that this whole SETI thing is based entirely on faith. There is not even a scintilla of evidence that even remotely suggests intelligent extraterrestrial life. In other words, it's yet another form of religion, masquerading as science.

Krystal n chips
2nd Sep 2016, 06:43
" There is not even a scintilla of evidence that even remotely suggests intelligent extraterrestrial life. In other words, it's yet another form of religion, masquerading as science

That will probably be the reaction of any aliens unfortunate enough to receive a Faux News broadcast....or the Steve Wright show.

However, only a closed mind would attempt to negate the possible existence of other life forms.

ORAC
2nd Sep 2016, 06:46
Not faith, probability, and considered a safe bet.

Though a few people do put more into the bookies than the church collection plate......

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

tartare
2nd Sep 2016, 07:03
Not quite sure about that Ken V.
The Drake equation seems based on sensible principles to me.
As do the Fermi paradox and other theories.
Personally - have no doubt they're out there.
But space is so incomprehensibly vast - we may never see or hear them.
...there you go, ORAC's beaten me to it.

Dont Hang Up
2nd Sep 2016, 12:55
The Drake equation seems based on sensible principles to me.

The Drake equation is often quoted as though it is in some sort of scientific theory. In fact it is not. It is an attempt to extrapolate a trend from a single point which is an absolute, logical no-no.

While we now are getting a handle on one of the variables - namely how many stars have planets, most of the others remain pure guesswork. And only one of them needs to be "nearly zero" for the Universe to be a very lonely place indeed.

However, when taken as a simple conjecture, the Drake equation is absolutely fine - and considering that SETI is certainly not one of the most expensive research programmes in the World it is not an unreasonable quest.

Martin the Martian
2nd Sep 2016, 13:33
Is there something you know that the rest of us do not, M. Martian?

Just wait until the mothership gets here. You'll all be sorry then.

ORAC
2nd Sep 2016, 16:25
When it does, tell them not to let anyone plug in a MacBook......

John Marsh
2nd Sep 2016, 16:42
Martin the Martian:
Just wait until the mothership gets here. You'll all be sorry then.I know the above is in jest, but there's food for thought here.:ok:

And here:
The very thought of extra-terrestrials always involves those who come and conquer you or hurt you. This is your bias and is a reflection of your own Human consciousness and what your brief history has been. You do it, so you expect all life forms to do it.Caution: Moonbat Territory:
Kryon (http://www.kryon.com/CHAN2016/k_channel16_arkansas.html)

It's largely true though. Murderous, destructive aliens have paraded across the silver screen and TV. I wonder how many peaceful and civilised alien races we have thus far offended with our preconceptions?!

Lonewolf_50
2nd Sep 2016, 16:48
I wonder how many peaceful and civilised alien races we have thus far offended with our preconceptions?!

Zero. Part of civilization actually advancing is in learning how to not be offended by every damned little thing and taboo. Why do you assume alien races are peaceful?
Reminder of the classics: nature, red in tooth and claw. To form a civilization, your semi cohesive group has to first survive.

KenV
2nd Sep 2016, 16:48
However, only a closed mind would attempt to negate the possible existence of other life forms. Hmmmm. Isn't god an "other life form"? So by your reasoning, attempting to negate his existence (as so many many do) would be proof of a closed mind! Fascinating hypothesis. Interestingly, many who negate the existence of god proudly proclaim themselves to be "free thinkers". Clearly very contradictory. And even more interestingly, it would appear that god has more evidence supporting his existence than the ETs SETI is so diligently searching for.

KenV
2nd Sep 2016, 16:54
Not faith, probability, and considered a safe bet. A few comments:

1. Probability is not evidence.
2. Probability favors the existence of god as much (likely more) than the existence of ETs.
3. Expending huge resources and investing personal energy on a low probability event with zero supporting evidence is the very definition of an act of faith.

Dont Hang Up
2nd Sep 2016, 17:21
Notwithstanding any guesswork based on Drake's equation, the fact that life has occurred here establishes a logical probability that it also occurred somewhere else.

Probabilistic arguments for the existence of God have to be on a totally different basis. They are often based on the logical falasy "we cannot explain X so X shows that God exists".

Hence God's endless retreat.

radeng
2nd Sep 2016, 17:43
This sounds rather like the trilogy of Oolon Coluphid...............

Krystal n chips
2nd Sep 2016, 18:09
" Hmmmm. Isn't god an "other life form"? So by your reasoning, attempting to negate his existence (as so many many do) would be proof of a closed mind! Fascinating hypothesis. Interestingly, many who negate the existence of god proudly proclaim themselves to be "free thinkers". Clearly very contradictory. And even more interestingly, it would appear that god has more evidence supporting his existence than the ETs SETI is so diligently searching for

Ah, " Theology for Dummies" then.

I don't recall making any correlation about closed minds, and faiths / God...or negating the existence of such, but clearly you seem to think this is the case. No doubt your favourite tactic of accusing me, and others who dare to contradict your views, of "mischaracterising" your comments will duly emerge. And yes, I do believe in an afterlife once we die.

To keep it simple therefore, whilst the existence of life from other planets / solar systems and indeed anywhere in the Universe as we currently know it has not yet been proven, only a truly riveted shut mind would deny the probability that it can, and does.

Unless, of course, you have incontrovertible evidence to the contrary ?

John Marsh
2nd Sep 2016, 20:31
Lonewolf 50:

Originally Posted by John Marsh
I wonder how many peaceful and civilised alien races we have thus far offended with our preconceptions?!Zero. Part of civilization actually advancing is in learning how to not be offended by every damned little thing and taboo. Why do you assume alien races are peaceful?
Reminder of the classics: nature, red in tooth and claw. To form a civilization, your semi cohesive group has to first survive.
Good point. I look forward to open contact with other civilizations.

I do not rule out the possibility that contact has already been made.:eek:

I would say that the most beneficial form of open contact would be made from a standpoint of seeing the aliens as friends, advisors, perhaps even extended family... Not as conquerors, farmers, or bugs to be eradicated.

obgraham
2nd Sep 2016, 22:23
I understand the Russians are now admitting that this odd signal was just some racket from the next room.
Odd how it seemed coincide with Ivan finding that new porn site on his desktop.

Ascend Charlie
2nd Sep 2016, 23:31
Earth is just one of countless Petrie-dish experiments set up by ET to amuse itself. Start with 2 bacteria, call them Adam and Eve, let them reproduce incestuously until the population is big enough to allow random things to happen.
Step in occasionally to remove some strains - leave just Noah's strain to again repopulate incestuously (but why kill off all the animals too? They had no concept of "Sin")
Toss in some fertiliser to see if new strains develop (JC, Mohammed, Buddha, Thor, Donald Trump) and watch the ensuing chaos and hatred and wars between strains.
At some stage, call off the experiment, send in the Horsemen of the Apocalypse, and see who makes the cut, so to speak.

Then flame the dish (another supernova) and start another experiment somewhere else. Ahh, the woes of amusing oneself for Eternity...

KenV
3rd Sep 2016, 04:42
I don't recall making any correlation about closed minds, and faiths / God...or negating the existence of such, but clearly you seem to think this is the case.I never remotely suggested such a thing. I just included god as another life form and stated that if your hypothesis is correct, then negating god is the act of a closed mind. I stated there are many who negate god, but never remotely suggested you were one of them.

No doubt your favourite tactic of accusing me, and others who dare to contradict your views,Favorite tactic? Dare to contradict you views. Where? When? For the record, my view on this subject appears to be quite similar to yours and is anything but contradictory.

To keep it simple therefore, whilst the existence of life from other planets / solar systems and indeed anywhere in the Universe as we currently know it has not yet been proven, only a truly riveted shut mind would deny the probability that it can, and does.
And I agree. My point simply is that "denying the probability that (the life form often called god) can, and does, exist" is equally the mark of a "truly riveted shut mind."

Unless, of course, you have incontrovertible evidence to the contrary ? Not me. But as for my personal beliefs, I believe that there are literally countless worlds currently and formerly inhabited by intelligent life not so much different from ours. And I believe "god" (however one chooses to define him) had a hand in their existence.

Arm out the window
3rd Sep 2016, 08:26
Fair points, Ken V. The whole god or no god argument always boils down to personal belief, doesn't it?

My money is on 'no god', because I don't see any particular reason to favour the god hypothesis over any other and I have a strong skepticism regarding the motives of people who promote certain belief systems.

I lean towards the probability of life out there in the presumably infinite reaches of space because if we're here (and I'm pretty sure we are, cogito ergo sum), then it seems very logical to me that conditions elsewhere are probably just as conducive to something along the lines of us, or any other possible arrangement of atoms that hits on the combination required to end up as a life form.

There might be some 'higher' being who caused us to be here, but random chance over unimaginable time periods seems the more likely scenario to me. Good luck to the god botherers, though.

Fareastdriver
3rd Sep 2016, 12:24
I do believe in an afterlife once we die.

Please God, don't let me die. I'll have to put up with Knc again.

Martin the Martian
3rd Sep 2016, 12:59
With regard to how we perceive aliens and their motives, Arthur C. Clarke wrote a short story whereby a film studio produce a smash movie in which aliens invade and the usual story plays out. The movie is a huge hit worldwide, and at the peak of its popularity a real alien spacecraft arrives in earth orbit. The occupants, who were sent to invite mankind to join some kind of intergalactic commonwealth, see the mass reaction to the movie, decide that mankind is a barbaric, xenophobic race and promptly nuke the entire planet instead.

Fareastdriver
3rd Sep 2016, 13:42
Should they come I hope the human race reacts better than they were supposed to have done in 1938 when they broadcast a show called 'War of the Worlds.'

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/WOTW-Cartoon-Callan.jpg

Windy Militant
3rd Sep 2016, 13:56
Should they come I hope the human race reacts better than they were supposed to have done in 1938 when they broadcast a show called 'War of the Worlds.'
or even worse
Feature on The War of the Worlds Quito Ecuador radio broadcast (1949). War of the Worlds Invasion website. (http://www.war-ofthe-worlds.co.uk/war_worlds_quito.htm)
I suspect that the Twilight zone episode "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street" is probably close to what would happen.

Was it Arthur C Clarke who said the best indicator of intelligent life beyond Earth was that they hadn't visited, as he said why would they bother!

As for the God thing consider Sir Arthurs Childhood's End.

uffington sb
3rd Sep 2016, 14:02
Martin,

Is this your mother ship???

Enormous UFO captured on film in remote Malaysian village | Weird | News | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/706870/Enormous-UFO-captured-on-film-in-remote-Malaysian-village?utm_source=traffic.outbrain&utm_medium=traffic.outbrain&utm_term=traffic.outbrain&utm_content=traffic.outbrain&utm_campaign=traffic.outbrain)

TURIN
4th Sep 2016, 12:54
There is no ET. The universe isn't big enough for all the random events that produce intelligent life to occur more than once.
There is no God. See above.

Fareastdriver
4th Sep 2016, 15:41
As billions of stars and their associated planets have a finite life time over the billions of years that the Universe has been in existence so the chance of two civilisations being at a similar stage as each other at the same time and being able to enable any form of contact with each other is so remote as to be mathematically incalculable.

obgraham
4th Sep 2016, 16:42
What I've never understood is why people who think there is "someone out there" just waiting to communicate with us, seem to think that any extraterrestrial life form has to be recognizable to us.

It might just as well be some massive green slime with a huge neuronal network, far advanced beyond us.. Not necessarily animal or vegetal in our sense.

Stanwell
4th Sep 2016, 16:50
"Beware of the Blob" ?

Ascend Charlie
4th Sep 2016, 22:50
To the Great ET, we are just sub-atomic particles, living on an electron, orbiting the nucleus (sun) of an atom of Neon (has 9 little electrons/planets orbiting it.)

Hence the scale of things around us - if we are on one atom, there are a lot of other atoms and molecules making up whatever lump of slime we are in the middle of (Milky Way) with their ET scientists looking at us through microscopes.

At the other end of the scale, there is an infinite number of civilisations living on the atoms of your piece of toast, other than the mould and bacteria.
Little fleas have bigger fleas upon their backs to bite'em, bigger fleas have bigger fleas, and so ad infinitum.

Loose rivets
4th Sep 2016, 23:38
wiggy said: As ORAC rightly pointed out in the OP there are parallels with the discovery of pulsars ( and that in itself is a story and a half...including the sub plot about who got the credit......)

I seem to be one of the few people that can spell Jocelyn without asking.

This is where you say, That rings a bell.

Arm out the window
5th Sep 2016, 00:38
There is no ET. The universe isn't big enough for all the random events that produce intelligent life to occur more than once.

Errr ... the universe is rumoured to be infinite, isn't it? If not, what's outside it? (This will be when some smarty pants chips in with how it folds back on itself and therefore there is no outside, or we are reflections of some kind of random noise rippling through the fabric of space-time ...) :)

Loose rivets
5th Sep 2016, 01:28
When I wrote The Perfect Code I needed a way to communicate instantly. There was no other way to make the fantasy work so I had to invent a fifth force. It became so entwined in the yarn that for a while the book was almost called, The Fifth Force, or even '5th'. The point of all this is that I'm not sure 'we' have searched hard enough for another means of signalling across the Universe, or even from mind to mind.

Such communication can not be restricted by the rules of General Relativity, inasmuch as it must reach its target instantaneously to be of any use. Too far fetched? Well I can't really interpret the science behind Ghostly Action at a Distance, and I'm not even sure I believe our best scientists can do more than construct a zero-sigma model of the mechanism, but the theory is all too tantalizing.

Without a new means of reaching out we're time prisoners, with not a chance of escaping from our tiny speck of matter. Only messages and not our physical bodies? Sadly, it does seem that way, but to be able to link our thoughts with distant minds would be a fabulous leap for our fettered intellect, especially if the communication was with newly discovered sentient and hopefully sapient minds. We might even learn from them how we can form and occupy another physical being while we're away - a guest in one of their forms.

Just think how that landed gentleman reacted when a spark-generated wave was demonstrated in his grounds. He stomped off, protesting that the electricity must have gone through the earth. Sadly, for a while, he had the ear and the company of a lot of men of science.
It was a while before most of them would accept even that solid demonstration.

Are there tiny traces of this ghostly action evident in every day life? Premonition. An odd feeling here and there. I don't believe in the possibility, but I'd hate to think we were shutting our minds as determinedly as his Lordship..

wiggy
5th Sep 2016, 09:00
TURIN

The universe isn't big enough for all the random events that produce intelligent life to occur more than once.

Errr..........I hope/guess I'm missing a smiley..

ORAC
5th Sep 2016, 09:07
That'll be yer ansible then, Rivets?

B Fraser
5th Sep 2016, 09:22
There is no ET.


That's quite a claim. Which part of the famous Drake equation do you disagree with ? The rate of detection of exoplanets suggests that the equation may be on the conservative side.


It was Arthur C Clarke who said that the universe may either be teeming with life or planet Earth may be the only place where life exists. Both concepts are equally terrifying.


The only thing we can say with any certainty is that ET has not visited planet earth.

Stan Woolley
5th Sep 2016, 09:39
The only thing we can say with any certainty is that ET has not visited planet earth.

How can you say that with any certainty?

We can't say very much AT ALL with any certainty.

419
5th Sep 2016, 09:45
KenV
Hmmmm. Isn't god an "other life form"? So by your reasoning, attempting to negate his existence (as so many many do) would be proof of a closed mind!

IMO, there is one very big difference between a god and other possible extra-terrestrial life forms.
These other life forms (if they exist) are in all probability many hundreds/thousands/millions of light years away so even in the unlikely possibility that they were aware of our presence, the chances of actually receiving any contact from them is extremely remote.

The people who believe that a god created us however, generally believe that he/she/it is all seeing and all powerful and so could easily make contact with us any time they wished to do so and even if they didn't want to make direct contact, they could provide definitive proof of their existence.

B Fraser
5th Sep 2016, 09:56
How can you say that with any certainty ?


Good try but I'm not going to bite.

419
5th Sep 2016, 09:58
Good try but I'm not going to bite.
Why is someone asking you how you came to a concussion about something trying to get you to bite?

Stan Woolley
5th Sep 2016, 10:11
Good try but I'm not going to bite.

You mean your not going to defend your absurd assertion.

Fair enough.

Btw as 419 implies, not everyone is trying to get others to 'bite'.:ugh:

Peter-RB
5th Sep 2016, 10:15
I am certain that ET's do exist and they have been here(to Earth) and left things to help and or equally hinder our progression....

How else would my wife be able to tell me what I am thinking about ....before I actually ask her..!!........and say NO before the words leave my mouth..!

"Live Long and Prosper" whenever I hear or say that my fingers separate..;)

SilsoeSid
5th Sep 2016, 10:16
Did anyone go to Huffington sb's link? (http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/706870/Enormous-UFO-captured-on-film-in-remote-Malaysian-village?utm_source=traffic.outbrain&utm_medium=traffic.outbrain&utm_term=traffic.outbrain&utm_content=traffic.outbrain&utm_campaign=traffic.outbrain)

If you look closely at the map, just to the east of the area .....

http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/80/590x/secondary/Map-642735.jpg

SETIU - SETI University :8:eek:

ORAC
5th Sep 2016, 10:26
Attempting to tie together the disparate elements running on this thread........

https://www.uni.edu/morgans/astro/course/TheStar.pdf

Fareastdriver
5th Sep 2016, 11:05
This will be when some smarty pants chips in with how it folds back on itself

Fairly logical. After the big bang gravitational effect from all of the matter will eventually overcome the expansion of our Universe. It will then contract at an ever increasing rate until it forms a massive black hole. At it's extremities it could well pickup the extremities of other universes which are doing the same thing.

Bang, expand, contract and bang again. An infinite number of them.

TURIN
5th Sep 2016, 12:26
Quote:
"There is no ET."

That's quite a claim. Which part of the famous Drake equation do you disagree with ? The rate of detection of exoplanets suggests that the equation may be on the conservative side.

Funny you should mention that.
I was watching a program on BBC4 last night where the infamous Mr Drake was asked to explain his equation and fill in the blanks, as it were, with what we 'know'.
I was astonished that anyone actually took him seriously. At least three of the main elements are guesses. Big guesses.



My argument is this: Given that we, and all life, are products of a random universe with no intelligent guidance, the number of random events required to get to the stage where we can actually sit and discuss the issue are so huge that they are indistinguishable from infinity.

We know very little about the very early stages of the big bang (assuming we can agree that as a starting point) so who knows how many times that happened before it sustained to produce the correct molecular and atomic structure to propagate and produce 'star dust'. Add to that a multitude of random gravitational requirements to produce stars that work in the way they do to produce all the elements we see today. Solid bodies need to coalesce at just the right orbits to ensure a stable platform that will allow life to randomly occur. The RNA/DNA requirements are mind boggling. Replicating life that will survive and randomly evolve in to complex organisms takes billions of years.
Our moon has to be just the right size at the correct distance to bring tidal fluctuations. The planet has to be inclined on its axis just enough and to spin at just the right speed to produce variable but not too extreme climate changes.
Then to top all that, we have to develop big enough brains and learn how to use them with out destroying each other in the process....AND avoid being hit by a comet or asteroid and get wiped out!

And people say that all that can happen more than once, in a time frame that will encroach on ours, close enough for us to communicate.

Drake needs to have a re think. :ok:

PDR1
5th Sep 2016, 12:36
The only thing we can say with any certainty is that ET has not visited planet earth.

Pah - if you believe that how do you explain John Redwood?

PDR

B Fraser
5th Sep 2016, 12:51
I think it would be far more entertaining for us all if Mr Woolley were to explain why he thinks it is probable that aliens have visited planet Earth.


Mr Turin, I agree with all that you say, the Drake equation could do with being re-worked. That's the clincher when it comes to science in that it is only as good as the knowledge we have at that time. Theories are there to be refined or replaced.


When you consider that there are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on planet earth then even a small % probability times a very big number results in a significant number. That significant number will be spread very thinly across the universe hence my view that claims we have been visited are at best, a side show.

Stan Woolley
5th Sep 2016, 13:06
think it would be far more entertaining for us all if Mr Woolley were to explain why he thinks it is probable that aliens have visited planet Earth.


Good try but I'm not going to bite.

Actually it's not even a fair try, you've a creative mind though, I'll give you that Mr Fraser.:D

andytug
5th Sep 2016, 13:09
What I'd like to know is why all the ET's that have visited have landed in the middle of nowhere and spoken to borderline lunatics, and also why now a large percentage of the world's population has a smartphone there's still no pictures of any of them!

B Fraser
5th Sep 2016, 14:25
You mean your not going to defend your absurd assertion.


I did, now it's your turn. ;)


It is rather strange how the abductees all appear to me a few sandwiches short of a picnic. If an intelligent species have mastered travel at above the speed of light, why have they not invented the CAT scanner ? The idiots who claim to have been taken aboard the spaceship often say that the little green men shoved probes up their backsides. Well, whatever floats their boat I suppose.

Stan Woolley
5th Sep 2016, 15:19
I've made loads of absurd assertions in my time, but I don't think I've made any on this thread.
Let's remind ourselves what was said:

I questioned your statement that "the only thing we can say with any certainty is that ET has not visited planet earth."

I certainly didn't say that "it is probable that aliens have visited planet earth."

You made that bit up.

BUT I think you may have psychic powers, because in fact I am open to the possibility that they have. What I was trying to get at was that there is in fact very little that we can say 'with any certainty' about this life. What can you say with absolute certainty? :)

B Fraser
5th Sep 2016, 15:44
I didn't make anything up. Please explain why you think the probability that alien life forms have visited planet earth is greater than zero.


What can I say with absolute certainty ? Well there are lots of things such as


The law of entropy is absolute, it always increases by time.
To travel at speeds greater than light (in a vacuum) is impossible.
Some people will believe anything.

le Pingouin
5th Sep 2016, 15:57
TURIN, life on Earth has survived some fairly significant impacts and is fairly tenacious.

There are 100s of billions of stars in each of 100s of billions of galaxies in the Universe, with billions of years worth of chemical reactions occurring at countless billions of locations on countless billions of planets. That's an awfully large number of zeros. Makes it hard to argue that life on Earth is unique.

Stan Woolley
5th Sep 2016, 16:16
Ok forget the I said you said stuff. I've made my point.

What can I say with absolute certainty ? Well there are lots of things such as

No, I don't think you can say any of those are true. Unless you have personally experienced things, you can't say that they are absolutely true. At best we can only think that they are highly probable.

Most of the facts in our head are beliefs taken on trust, not anything we can say is true.

wiggy
5th Sep 2016, 16:36
My argument is this: Given that we, and all life, are products of a random universe with no intelligent guidance, the number of random events required to get to the stage where we can actually sit and discuss the issue are so huge that they are indistinguishable from infinity.

That doesn't mean it can't have happened almost an infinite number of times..or just the once.

B Fraser
5th Sep 2016, 17:26
No, I don't think you can say any of those are true. Unless you have personally experienced things, you can't say that they are absolutely true.

We all can.



The 2nd law of thermodynamics. We all experience it every day and it has remained unchanged since first described in 1854. Heat does not flow from a colder body to a warmer body.
There is a mathematical proof for this (which we can all experience) in that the mass of a body increases as a function of its speed. As the speed of light is approached, the mass of the body approaches infinity. Nothing can travel faster than "c" as infinite mass has been achieved. Photons can travel at the speed of light but they have no mass.
I have read enough posts on JB to be absolutely convinced of that point.
Anyway, please explain why you believe the odds of little green men travelling for years at near the speed of light just to visit our tiny pale blue dot are greater than zero. I'll pull up a chair, open a beer and bide my time.

Stan Woolley
5th Sep 2016, 17:50
Anyway, please explain why you believe the odds of little green men travelling for years at near the speed of light just to visit our tiny pale blue dot are greater than zero. I'll pull up a chair, open a beer and bide my time.

Okay, if you think you can handle it, I'll give you a clue to how I think they might do it. Forget all that speed of light stuff!

PSI

By the way there is something that can definitely travel faster than light but I'm not sure what it is. Information? Spooky action at a distance.

Stan Woolley
5th Sep 2016, 18:07
These guys are far better informed than I am about this stuff. A retired Army colonel and a psychologist, both of them PhD's with decades of experience.
It's a complicated subject, but I think there is enough evidence if you have an open mind. If your mind is already made up, then you know it all already. :ok:

https://youtu.be/0139GXad3vI

B Fraser
5th Sep 2016, 18:17
I think you are referring to the neutrino experiment in 2012 where the speed of light was said to have been beaten by 60 nanoseconds.


It turned out to be a duff cable in the lab.


:ugh:

John Marsh
5th Sep 2016, 18:20
andytug:
What I'd like to know is why all the ET's that have visited have landed in the middle of nowhere and spoken to borderline lunatics, and also why now a large percentage of the world's population has a smartphone there's still no pictures of any of them!Many folks would likely testify to the presence of borderline lunatics in Washington DC! Hence:

It was Saturday night, July 19, 1952 -- 50 years ago this weekend -- one of the most famous dates in the bizarre history of UFOs. Before the night was over, a pilot reported seeing unexplained objects, radar at two local Air Force bases -- Andrews and Bolling -- picked up the UFOs, and two Air Force F-94 jets streaked over Washington, searching for flying saucers.

Then, a week later, it happened all over again -- more UFOs on the radar screen, more jets scrambled over Washington. Across America, the story of jets chasing UFOs over the White House knocked the Korean War and the presidential campaign off the front pages of newspapers.UFO Evidence (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc823.htm)

Britain has its very own 'Roswell Incident'! Much commotion occurred in Rendlesham Forest, East Anglia, in 1980.

Lord Hill-Norton was a retired 5-Star Admiral who was a former Chief of the Defense Staff (CDS) and a former Chairman of NATO’s Military Committee. CDS is a UK post equivalent to the US post of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Commenting on the MoD’s “no defense significance” line on the Rendlesham Forest incident Lord Hill-Norton said this:

“My position both privately and publicly expressed over the last dozen years or more, is that there are only two possibilities, either:

a. An intrusion into our Air Space and a landing by unidentified craft took place at Rendlesham, as described.

or,

b. The Deputy Commander of an operational, nuclear armed, US Air Force Base in England, and a large number of his enlisted men, were either hallucinating or lying.

Either of these simply must be 'of interest to the Ministry of Defense', which has been repeatedly denied, in precisely those terms.”

It is difficult to disagree with Lord Hill-Norton’s assessment.
Source. (http://www.nickpope.net/rendlesham-forest.htm)

Unusual traffic at KORD:

At approximately 16:15 CST on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, federal authorities at Chicago O'Hare International Airport received a report that a group of twelve airport employees were witnessing a metallic, saucer-shaped craft hovering over Gate C-17.

The object was first spotted by a ramp employee who was pushing back United Airlines Flight 446, which was departing Chicago for Charlotte, North Carolina. The employee apprised Flight 446's crew of the object above their aircraft. It is believed that both the pilot and co-pilot also witnessed the object.

Several independent witnesses outside of the airport also saw the object. One described a "blatant" disc-shaped craft hovering over the airport which was "obviously not clouds." According to this witness, nearby observers gasped as the object shot through the clouds at high velocity, leaving a clear blue hole in the cloud layer.[1] The hole reportedly seemed to close itself shortly afterward.Source. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_O%27Hare_International_Airport_UFO_sighting)

WRT pictures: t'Interweb seems awash with them, at the more 'restrained' UFO sites and at the more flamboyant ones alike. I would be hard-pressed to differentiate between a genuine image and a CGI offering.

Stan Woolley
5th Sep 2016, 18:57
think you are referring to the neutrino experiment in 2012 where the speed of light was said to have been beaten by 60 nanoseconds.


No. I'm talking about the strange properties that connect two things instantaneously over infinite(?) distances.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Just another day in the strange place we call the universe. :ooh:

B Fraser
5th Sep 2016, 19:11
Thanks for that, it's an interesting paper which at first glance is partly based on the classical model of entropy being correct. See my first point on thermodynamics which you stated could not be an absolute certainty.


I'm beginning to annoy myself for being a smartass. Sorry everyone !

Stan Woolley
5th Sep 2016, 19:23
Sorry everyone !

You've nothing to be sorry about imo. (I know your not apologising to me, rather to the regulars)

What do you think about my posts about psychic phenomena and the YouTube offering? Come on, I've done my bit! :rolleyes: :p

PM if you like?

B Fraser
5th Sep 2016, 20:43
I have watched the video and to be honest, I half expected David Icke to put in an appearance.

As for psychic phenomena, I'm a fan of the late James Randi. I hope you find this clip as entertaining as I did. I think he put up a sizeable prize for anyone who could prove the supernatural, we have been visited by ET etc. etc. etc. He never had to pay out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcPuRaSEq1I

Stan Woolley
5th Sep 2016, 20:56
I have watched the video and to be honest, I half expected David Icke to put in an appearance.

As for psychic phenomena, I'm a fan of the late James Randi. I hope you find this clip as entertaining as I did. I think he put up a sizeable prize for anyone who could prove the supernatural, we have been visited by ET etc. etc. etc. He never had to pay out.

Oh well, back to my cave. I should have known better. Cheers :D

Arm out the window
5th Sep 2016, 22:03
Fairly logical. After the big bang gravitational effect from all of the matter will eventually overcome the expansion of our Universe.

No, I didn't mean 'folding back in on itself' as in expanding as far as it can and then contracting again, I was talking about those mind-bending explanations that say something like - if you keep going in a straight line you'll never reach an edge but somehow follow some kind of curve in space-time and end back up where you started, mobius strip style.

Loose rivets
6th Sep 2016, 01:00
I posted this back in 2007. To me, this is the big one. To this day it has me wondering.

Just bits of the main article.





"The Centaurus Incident"

June 29 1954 Labrador Capt James Howard and it says a BOAC Centaurus Boeing Stratocruiser – though i could have sworn that the Beeb interview said Imperial Airways — but it was years ago. Idlewild to London 9:05 pm F/O Lee Boyd

One big lighted object - with six smaller ones in attendance. 8 crew and 14 pax saw object change shape — size of an ocean liner

Navigator George Allen watched closely the whole time said " it looked as though they went inside the big one"



There are more reports with less 'enthusiast' kind of presentation. I have in fact seen the Pathe (I think) footage of the interview.

As I said above, this leaves me wondering, and is perhaps the only such report that has ever done so. 14 of the pax and all 8 crew members were able to see it over a lengthy period. If it had been a hoax, one of them would have told the world before long. Also, being an Imperial Airways captain in those days was not a job you'd want to lose. Same for the rest of the crew. They just wouldn't play the fool with a career like that.

UFO-Aircraft Encounters: The BOAC Stratocruiser Incident and The ?B-29 Gulf of Mexico Incident? (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/46jkrog08/02files/BOAC_Stratocruiser_Incident.html#2)

Stan Woolley
6th Sep 2016, 07:31
There are many interesting UFO sightings by people that didn't want or need the hassle that it often brings. The video below is one from Zimbabwe where 62school children saw something strange. They haven't changed their stories over the years.

I know of 2 ex Britannia colleagues that saw UFOs, one was in a victor tanker and he said the whole crew saw it. I think they were heavily debriefed to the point that he said he'd never confess to seeing another one!

https://youtu.be/_pKC11SDnog

B Fraser
6th Sep 2016, 09:33
Sorry to pour water on what people wish to believe however all that happened was something was seen that was not understood. A good mate who was a regular flying instructor posts on this forum. He is a skipper for a large UK airline and saw something he did not understand. He was flying out over the channel at altitude after sunset. Both he and the FO looked up and were astonished to see they were being overtaken by an object travelling roughly north to south that was trailing a plume of some description. They discussed it and considered saying nothing. Upon arrival, they told their story to the company Ops department with more than a little trepidation for their careers. Ops suggested it was a Chinese rocket launch which was timed to happen less than an hour before their event.


All of this was told to me one evening over a beer and curry. We headed back to my friend's place and I googled the launch date, site and angle. With a globe and a piece of string, we traced a great circle route and the rocket would have passed to the west of the aircraft position. Adjusting the track by 10 degrees east to account for the rotation of the earth after 40 minutes and it was as near a perfect fit as you could ask for.

wiggy
6th Sep 2016, 10:03
B Fraser

As you say there's a lot goes on "up there" that gets tagged as a out of this world when what was witnessed was something unusual that was not understood. FWIW I was fortunate enough to see something similar to what you described over Kazakstan years back on a night flight ...one of the many oil "flares" on the ground be came very bright and started to move upwards and almost over the top of us trailing a plume, eventually staging happened and what was left disappeared off to the east.

As you say to many people it would have been a UFO, indeed a another crew from our company had seen similar a year or two before, reported it, and were eventually debriefed by somebody from government officialdom. To us the big give away as to what we were seeing was where we were - of course all we saw was fairly standard S7 launch ( confirmed on the web next day)...and BTW no warning from ATC.

Stan Woolley
6th Sep 2016, 11:10
Of course there are thousands of explainable sightings, but not all of them are so easily explained. My friend who was a Jaguar pilot that claims he saw a UFO is a very credible witness. He has a degree and has looked at aircraft since he was a young boy, (as have I), he knows what he saw was unusual. I'm not saying that he did see one, but I'm saying that when he says he did, I'm open to the possibility.

Some of us are convinced that everything that others see is explainable according to mainstream beliefs. What I find amazing is that they too are religiously dogmatic about their beliefs. James Randi simply couldn't allow it to be any other way. He was so heavily committed to his viewpoint that it would have been unthinkable to allow any other view to even be considered. It is a very dangerous place to be, I think science is and has been in that trap for some decades.

Maybe the latest consciousness research, where physicists and others are starting to accept that conventional methods are not enough. Panpsychism is trickling it's way into being accepted by a significant number of respected scientists. (I'm more into idealism)

Don't close your mind. We haven't begun to learn how things work. Slowly, slowly catchee monkey.

wiggy
6th Sep 2016, 14:18
Stan

. My friend who was a Jaguar pilot that claims he saw a UFO is a very credible witness. He has a degree and has looked at aircraft since he was a young boy

Not questioning what your friend saw but one problem with our line of work is that because we aviate we think or are assumed by others to be experts on what we see in the sky and everything that is up there. I'm afraid that's not the case.

FWIW a couple of my colleagues, similarly qualified to your friend, when night flying, spent a fruitless few minutes one evening chasing a bright scintillating object that they had spotted visually just above the horizon to the west that wasn't painting on either their radar or the longer range radar of the fighter controllers on the ground........

Back on the ground there was much discussion about reporting this until eventually the junior pilot/astronomical ****arse :oh: in the crewroom plucked up the nerve to ask if they might, just possibly, have been chasing Venus....(they had.......)

B Fraser
6th Sep 2016, 15:17
James Randi put up a sizeable cash prize of $1M USD for anyone who could prove the paranormal. It went uncollected. Given that he spent a lifetime debunking the long list of snake oil salesmen, you have to ask why nobody was successful. After all, here was a man who was ruining their less than honest livelihoods. Not only could they silence him but they would be richer too.


As for acceptance by the mainstream, well there's homeopathy which falls into that category. Our future king swears by it and he has a degree so on paper, he can't be totally thick. How water that has no remaining molecules of the active ingredient can have any effect is beyond me. The stock answer is that the water "remembers" the active ingredient. Logic suggests that if the water can remember what used to be in it then it must also remember being seawater, dinosaur wee, fog etc. etc. Those water molecules are probably billions of years old so there's a lot to remember.


Similarly, how many supposedly intelligent people have consulted astrology ? Napoleon, the Austrian Corporal, Ronald Reagan etc. etc. It's total [email protected]

ORAC
6th Sep 2016, 16:28
The question was asked, when the budget for homeopathy was cut in the NHS budget, why the practitioners were complaining? Surely the more thinly the money was spread, the more effective it would be?

Stan Woolley
6th Sep 2016, 16:35
wiggy

Ive flashed my lights and kept a close eye on planets in my time, having my suspicions that it just may be a Tupolev of some kind. On clear nights landing lights can be seen many miles away. I take your point, but pilots are about as reliable as observers come I would suggest.

B.Fraser

Paranormal stuff is notoriously hard to pin down, making the criteria almost impossible to achieve in the case of Randi's million dollar prize. He was a charlatan in any event, and had no intention of paying out.

What excuse do you have for the Zimbabwe UFO school sighting? You surely have plenty. :rolleyes:

B Fraser
6th Sep 2016, 17:21
If you would share the direct evidence then there are plenty of rational people here who would give an opinion. By "direct", I mean high quality Youtube footage or a decent set of photos would do. Somebody must have had a camera if it really happened and was visible to large numbers of people.

wiggy
6th Sep 2016, 17:46
What excuse do you have for the Zimbabwe UFO school sighting? You surely have plenty.

Well as I read it no adult witnesses, some children in the class claim to have seen something, tell the rest of their mates. Before long everybody in the class claims to be a witness and then over the following weeks/months/years the various accounts they give and the descriptions/drawings slowly converge...in the meantime story gets into the press, UFO "hunters" arrive...., articles, books get written....

The thread at metabunk goes off at tangents, but I suspect post # 14 might be worth considering as offering as good an explanation as any.

https://www.metabunk.org/the-ariel-school-zimbabwe-ufo-sighting-has-it-ever-been-debunked.t5389/

B Fraser
6th Sep 2016, 18:21
pilots are about as reliable as observers come I would suggest


The definition of a (ATPL) pilot is someone who thought running up debts of £70k which gave them a poor chance of landing a £24k job, was a good idea. Joking aside, the pilots I know are quite normal in every sense and none of them would say that they are any more reliable than your average intelligent man in the street. Let's ask some pilots - are there any pilots here who would say otherwise ?


There is a thread running elsewhere about a pilot who flew half way around the world staring at the back of someone's head. The pilot claimed to have been solo and has often used the word "alone" to describe their flight. What does that tell us ? Many other pilots including former RAF officers were taken in while the publicity photos clearly show evidence to the contrary.


Pilots are fallible humans, just like most people.

Stan Woolley
6th Sep 2016, 18:27
The thread at metabunk goes off at tangents, but I suspect post # 14 might be worth considering as offering as good an explanation as any.

The psychologist asking the questions is called Dr John Mack, a famous researcher who worked at Harvard.

Seems to me that more than a few saw something, and their stories haven't changed over many years. The reaction of the teachers is telling. As a youngster I went to schools in Southern Africa, they are definitely not street wise children. Much more likely to be honest kids who saw something inexplicable.

Stan Woolley
6th Sep 2016, 19:57
B Fraser

Joking aside, the pilots I know are quite normal in every sense and none of them would say that they are any more reliable than your average intelligent man in the street.

I would disagree where 'things in the sky' are concerned.

I suppose the pilot in this video starting at around 5:50 is lying/drunk/mistaken etc. ;)

https://youtu.be/IpdO1RneWKA

B Fraser
6th Sep 2016, 20:49
I watched the programme about ghoullies and ghosties. "Captain Bob" and I may know the same people. I'll ping an email to a friend and ask their view. I wonder why he thought it important not to reveal his surname while appearing on camera and describing his employment history.

funfly
6th Sep 2016, 20:51
The definition of 'life' which applies to all of us, is "An organism capable of reproducing and with the specific and overriding desire to expand the numbers of its own species if necessary at the expense of any and all other species".
Logic indicates that there must be 'something' out there but to call it 'life' as we understand it it would have to have the above attribute.
Therefore if it is 'life' as we know it, it would have the motivation to exist at the cost to us.
Would obviously be foolish to make any contact.

Stan Woolley
6th Sep 2016, 21:09
I watched the programme about ghoullies and ghosties. "Captain Bob" and I may know the same people. I'll ping an email to a friend and ask their view. I wonder why he thought it important not to reveal his surname while appearing on camera and describing his employment history.

I flew with Loganair as a pilots assistant on the twin otters in the mid eighties while converting my SA licence to a UK one. He flew Islanders I think and I've lost contact with anyone I knew then, with one exception, but he didn't know 'Bob'. It would be interesting to hear his thoughts if you could connect with him.

Loose rivets
6th Sep 2016, 23:05
Apart from the very Boy's Own picture, the rest is much how I remember it. Bear in mind they interviewed the skipper at his home, and probably the entire crew.

It was taken seriously enough at the time for him to be 'interviewed' by the military.

As before, I'm mindful of the professional status of this crew in this era. And look at his wartime plus civil hours. Also the number of Atlantic crossings. This was no attention-seeker, surely.


PROJECT 1947 - BOAC's FLYING JELLYFISH - FATE MAGAZINE, NOVEMBER, 1954 (http://www.project1947.com/fig/fate_11_54.htm)

wiggy
7th Sep 2016, 08:32
Stan W

Having had our school "comedian" get himself and a gang of his mates into the local and then county newspaper in the early 70s by inventing a UFO story I remain sceptical ..... FWIW the lad was then contacted by local UFO hunters/believers whose line of enquiry/questioning was apparently along the lines "did you see something like this..etc, " ( whilst waving pictures of their versions of aliens) rather than asking "what did you see" .

My scepticism of the whole UFO industry wasn't helped by the fact I was briefly at RAF Brawdy in south west Wales in 1980 ..I thought we were learning to shoot/drop things from aircraft, but oh no, according to some we were supposedly doing top secret work monitoring goings on with UFOs apparently emerging from Stack Rocks and other parts of the local landscape on a regular basis. Some individuals made good money by keeping the story going - there was at least one book published, "The Welsh Triangle"..(suprisingly still available) and the UFO mystery is still being used in advertising for holiday lettings.

//http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/ufo-sightings-30-years-ago-2340895 (http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/ufo-sightings-30-years-ago-2340895)

IMHO the problem is issue with the whole UFO industry is there is money to be made by some, and far to many people simply wanting to believe, for whatever reason, and not being anything like sceptical enough.

Do I think there's life elsewhere in the universe? Probably
Do I think there's any chance we've been "visited" - don't know.
Do I think we are being frequently visited by bipeds of vaguely human size arriving in fairly conventional looking vehicles....(sometimes apparently displaying coloured lights.....) ? Probably not.

TURIN
7th Sep 2016, 08:49
I'll repeat this from another discussion.

This line represents all of time from the Big Bang to now.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Our entire existence isn't even one pixel of that line. The chances of other life developing at the same point in time, within spitting distance?
Forget it.

Stan Woolley
7th Sep 2016, 09:09
IMHO the problem is issue with the whole UFO industry is there is money to be made by some, and far to many people simply wanting to believe, for whatever reason, and not being anything like sceptical enough.

Do I think there's life elsewhere in the universe? Probably
Do I think there's any chance we've been "visited" - don't know.
Do I think we are being frequently visited by bipeds of vaguely human size arriving in fairly conventional looking vehicles....(sometimes apparently displaying coloured lights.....) ? Probably not.

I agree with all that with the exception that I'd leave it at the first two 'Do I think(s)...'

My interest in UFOs is not that great, largely because it has become riddled with disinformation and people that follow David Icke's every word. :rolleyes: That having been said I would say that any beings capable of the sort of technology 'they' seem to have, would be far in advance of what we can possibly even conceive. So it's not surprising that if they wanted to, they make it very difficult for us to detect them.

KenV
7th Sep 2016, 16:17
MO, there is one very big difference between a god and other possible extra-terrestrial life forms.
These other life forms (if they exist) are in all probability many hundreds/thousands/millions of light years away so even in the unlikely possibility that they were aware of our presence, the chances of actually receiving any contact from them is extremely remote.I guess it depends on one's definition of "god". For example, humanity today exceeds the capabilities of the Greek and other ancient gods. On the Kardachev scale, a level 3 or 4 civilization, on the Barrow scale Type VI and Omega civilizations and on the Sagan scale Level Q and up civilizations would be "gods" by today's human standards.

KenV
7th Sep 2016, 16:29
To the Great ET, we are just sub-atomic particles, living on an electron, orbiting the nucleus (sun) of an atom of Neon (has 9 little electrons/planets orbiting it.)Sorry. That was downgraded to 8 "little electrons/planets orbiting" in August of 2006. So Oxygen rather than Neon? (BTW, Neon has atomic number 10. Flourine has atomic number 9.)

KenV
7th Sep 2016, 16:34
Errr ... the universe is rumoured to be infinite, isn't it? Ummm, no, not by current theory. The Big Bang theory makes an infinite universe impossible.

Current estimates are approximately 93 billion light years in diameter.

KenV
7th Sep 2016, 16:39
After the big bang gravitational effect from all of the matter will eventually overcome the expansion of our Universe.The ultimate fate of our universe has been studied for quite some time. Is there enough mass for it to overcome its initial expansion, begin to contract and end in a Big Crunch? Or is there insufficient mass and will it continue to expand till it diffuses into nothing? The most recent data indicates the universe's expansion is accelerating so a Big Crunch is definitely out. This has further led to the "discovery" (well, hypothesis) of dark matter and dark energy. Baryonic ("ordinary") matter makes up only about 5% of the total matter of the universe. In other words, we currently have no means to detect, observe, measure, nor interact with 95% of what makes up our universe. And even though the addition of dark matter makes the universe about 6 times more massive than was thought, the fact that its expansion is accelerating means that the 15% of dark energy includes a force that repels much more strongly than gravity attracts. Weird stuff.

MarcK
7th Sep 2016, 17:02
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Cazalet33
7th Sep 2016, 17:11
Not to a scientist, it isn't!

KenV
7th Sep 2016, 17:33
Not to a scientist, it isn't!
A few comments:

1. Can ANY scientist ANYwhere explain faster than light travel? Nope. So any form of faster than light travel is by definition magic.

2. Stuff we have today (like a small hand held device that can instantly connect any human with essentially any other human and connect essentially any human with nearly all of mankind's stored data) was impossible for any scientist anywhere to explain just a few decades ago and would have been, by definition, magic.

Cazalet33
7th Sep 2016, 17:55
any form of faster than light travel is by definition magic.

If you don't understand Celerity and quantum physics, then it's all magic in your mind, Ken.

a small hand held device that can instantly connect any human with essentially any other human and connect essentially any human with nearly all of mankind's stored data was impossible for any scientist anywhere to explain just a few decades ago and would have been, by definition, magic.

It's only magic in your mind, Ken. Not in that of a scientist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiGfddz_9_g

KenV
7th Sep 2016, 18:31
If you don't understand Celerity and quantum physics, then it's all magic in your mind, Ken.Oh my. Do you really believe "Celerity and quantum physics" can explain faster than light travel?!!

It's only magic in your mind, Ken. Not in that of a scientist.Getting personal again, eh?

Let's try a different approach. Name any scientist or group of scientists anywhere who could explain a smartphone..............in 1950. In 1650 a smartphone would have been black magic.

BadgerGrowler
7th Sep 2016, 18:32
I'd be interested in peoples opinions on this UFO incident.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westall_UFO

Westall UFO incident 50 year anniversary (http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/space/the-westall-ufo-incident-still-remains-a-mystery-50-years-after-it-occurred/news-story/f002a9da51358af2e9aca4b3d5cd81de)

MG23
7th Sep 2016, 18:42
So it's not surprising that if they wanted to, they make it very difficult for us to detect them.That's precisely why the whole 'UFO' thing is a bunch of nonsense. If advanced aliens were here watching us, we'd never even see them. As one SF writer (I forget which) put it years ago: 'How many advanced aliens are in this room watching us right now? As many as want to.'

The greatest success of the UFO industry was convincing masses of people that 'UFO' meant 'alien spaceship'. The greatest flaw was basing their stories on the SF of the time, so they seem so dated a few decades later.

KenV
7th Sep 2016, 18:45
The cited wiki article provides this explanation:

Broadsheet newspaper, The Age ran a very small article about the Westall incident on 7 April 1966, on page 6:
"Object Perhaps Balloon - An unidentified flying object seen over the Clayton-Moorabbin area yesterday morning might have been a weather balloon. Hundreds of children and a number of teachers at Westall School, Clayton, watched the object during morning break."

Interestingly, the 1966 account is quite different from the account of the same event 50 years later, which seems to have added some rather sinister embellishments.

And on the subject of UFOs generally, is it not interesting that the accounts of UFO sighting have seemingly suddenly dwindled in the age of the ubiquitous phone camera?

Stan Woolley
7th Sep 2016, 19:31
That's precisely why the whole 'UFO' thing is a bunch of nonsense.
That doesn't follow does it? They may want us to see them at times or if they're any way like us, they screw up.
Paul Hellyer doesn't appear too daft?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Hellyer

Arm out the window
7th Sep 2016, 22:14
Current estimates are approximately 93 billion light years in diameter.

So what's outside that then, or is this a 'where space time ceases to exist' kind of thing?

Loose rivets
7th Sep 2016, 23:38
I had quite a shock yesterday.

Many of you will recall my unscientific search for a mechanism that allows the inflow of spacetime to explain gravity. I've been tantalised by this notion for over half my life. A few years ago I was pointed towards a review of a not-quite paper which showed this very model being put forward. Recently, I found even Isaac Newton suggested the idea but could not see where the spacetime was going. Nor could the reviewer of the paper.

There were a lot of difference, but essentially, there was a quantum foam and it was inflowing.

In the meantime I'd wondered if this inflow might explain dark matter. In fact, I wondered if it might make dark matter quite unnecessary. (the perceived mass is spacetime itself, bunching if you like, at the periphery of the galaxy. The idea being that where great masses were gathered, the fabric of spacetime becomes 'ponderable' for the first time. (Sorry about that Mr Einstein.) Prior to that, we can deem our Universe to have little but a given number of particles per cubic metre in the areas we deem a vacuum. They're enough to abrade a vessel but it seems, not that quickly, which is a good job if we're ever going to go anywhere. Anyway, I digress.

Last night I had another look at the inflow paper and noticed one of his other ideas was pretty well my notion of the dark matter problem. He is a scientist, I am not. But the idea is basically the same.

Off to read his paper.

https://www.academia.edu/23783403/Dark_Matter_as_a_Quantum_Foam_In-Flow_Effect


. . . as no other phenomenon was until now known which could account
for the strong gravitational effects observed at the centres of these systems.
These attractors are self-sustaining quantum foam in-flows, and their behaviour is
determined solely by the fine structure constant: they are quantum foam in-flow
singularities where the quantum-foam is destroyed, together with any matter that
happnes to in-fall. So to that extent they are classical manifestations of quantum
gravity. These attractors have an event horizon where the in-flow speed reaches
the speed of light, and within this horizon the speed increases without limit to an
infinite speed at a singular point. In-falling matter can produce radiation from the
heating effects associated with this in-fall.
However the existence of these in-flow singularities does not require that they be
formed by the collapse of matter, and they need not have matter at their centres,
so in many respects they differ from the ‘black holes’ of general relativity . . .

This was the big issue. Where is all this spacetime going? I put forward the answer: Not if the Universe is changing scale.



.
.
.
.

MG23
8th Sep 2016, 05:11
They may want us to see them at times or if they're any way like us, they screw up.Anything is possible, but the more your theory requires them to behave in an irrational manner, the less likely it becomes. Aliens not much more advanced than us could plaster the planet with nanoscale sensors that would allow them to monitor anything, anywhere at any time. They have no need to land in front of backward rednecks and stick probes up their butts (though maybe that's what aliens consider a fun evening out).

And I'd note that the number of 'alien spaceships' has dropped dramatically at the same time that pretty much everyone got a cellphone with a camera that they carry everywhere. Either the aliens are hiding all of a sudden, or they never existed.

KenV
8th Sep 2016, 14:58
So what's outside that then, or is this a 'where space time ceases to exist' kind of thing? Yes, that is correct.

Fareastdriver
8th Sep 2016, 21:16
Yes, that is correct.

Nobody ruddy knows. Our observations of the Universe have been over a minuscule period of it's life (lives) and so called scientific astronomical experts are merely guessing. It's like trying to summarise the day's weather by taking a reading at 12.00.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 hrs.

B Fraser
8th Sep 2016, 21:30
True but that would give you a reasonable appraisal. A forecast of temperature within 30 Kelvin, windspeed within 20 kts etc. The same is true of the universe.

tartare
9th Sep 2016, 00:17
KenV - correct me if I;m wrong by all means, but surely 93bn light year diameter of the observable universe refers to what we can actually `see' via radio astronomy etc?
So the true size of the Universe could be much larger - i.e. outside the sphere shown in this diagram? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe)

No evidence exists to suggest that the boundary of the observable universe constitutes a boundary on the Universe as a whole, nor do any of the mainstream cosmological models propose that the Universe has any physical boundary in the first place, though some models propose it could be finite but unbounded, like a higher-dimensional analogue of the 2D surface of a sphere that is finite in area but has no edge. It is plausible that the galaxies within our observable universe represent only a minuscule fraction of the galaxies in the Universe. According to the theory of cosmic inflation and its founder, Alan Guth, if it is assumed that inflation began about 10−37 seconds after the Big Bang, then with the plausible assumption that the size of the Universe before the inflation occurred was approximately equal to the speed of light times its age, that would suggest that at present the entire universe's size is at least 3x1023 times larger than the size of the observable universe.[18] There are also lower estimates claiming that the entire universe is in excess of 250 times larger than the observable universe[19] and also higher estimates implying that the universe is at least 101010122 times larger than the observable universe[20]

ORAC
9th Sep 2016, 06:59
KenV - correct me if I;m wrong by all means, but surely 93bn light year diameter of the observable universe refers to what we can actually `see' via radio astronomy etc?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

Spacetime (http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime/)

B Fraser
9th Sep 2016, 09:22
the plausible assumption that the size of the Universe before the inflation occurred was approximately equal to the speed of light times its age


Matter (with mass) travelling at the speed of light is not plausible. It has also been shown by the original Mr Hubble that the rate of expansion is increasing. Ergo, the universe has never expanded at the speed of light.

KenV
9th Sep 2016, 17:57
And BTW,According to the theory of cosmic inflation and its founder, Alan Guth, if it is assumed that inflation began about 10−37 seconds after the Big Bang, then with the plausible assumption that the size of the Universe before the inflation occurred was approximately equal to the speed of light times its age,Assuming the initial big bang was limited to the speed of light as stated above, then its size at 10-37 seconds would be 20-74 light seconds in diameter, or much less than one astronomical unit (499 light seconds) which is the mean distance of the Earth from the sun. Assuming the universe continued to expand at the speed of light, with an age of 13.8 billion years, it would only be 27.6 billion light years in diameter. But it is MUCH bigger than that and has been expanding at a rate FAR below the speed of light for most of its age. So how is this possible? The expansion of the universe during the inflation epoch was many many orders of magnitude GREATER than the speed of light and expansion continued at well above the speed of light for many more thousands of years.

And BTW, the inflation epoch did NOT occur "10-37 seconds after the Big Bang." It occurred from 1e-36 to 1e-32 seconds after the Planck Time (the hypothetical beginning of the Big Bang), which means the universe expanded at around 10e25 times the speed of light. Yeah, that's a 1 with 25 zeros after it, or 10 quadrillion times the speed of light!

Haraka
9th Sep 2016, 19:23
My brain hurts......

ORAC
9th Sep 2016, 19:34
The speed of light is a constant inside the universe, it doesn't constrain the expansion of the universe itself. What is it then that is expanding? This is where Rivets steps in with his and other theories.....

G-CPTN
9th Sep 2016, 21:53
The speed of light is a constant inside the universe, it doesn't constrain the expansion of the universe itself. What is it then that is expanding? This is where Rivets steps in with his and other theories.....
But . . . if mass increases towards infinity as speed (velocity?) increases, there must have been infinite force?

I think that there are some things that mere humans will never understand.

KenV
9th Sep 2016, 22:00
But . . . if mass increases towards infinity as speed (velocity?) increases, there must have been infinite force?This is an effect of general relativity. Relativity does not apply in the circumstances of an expanding universe. Basically, such expansion literally lies outside of the laws that govern our universe.

Loose rivets
10th Sep 2016, 01:47
I wish I knew. One thing I'm certain of, I am no more sure about the Universe than I am about the existence of God. One can intuitively feel things based on some mental programming we're seemingly not allowed to access. But . . .

Higgs' Field.

Quantum Foam

Spacetime described by one astrophysicist as squishy.

Michio Kaku saying gravity does not suck [my words] but that something is flowing/pressing down - he then patted the top of his head.

Gravitational waves.

Oh, and virtual particles popping in and out of existence. And no doubt a lot of other clues than space is made of something.




Infinite energy? Well, there is the fact that the Inflationary Period came to a rather quick end, though to me that sounds like more evidence that something made it just the right period of time. There are so many things that have to be just right for us to exist. Can't all be anthropic, surely.

ORAC
10th Sep 2016, 08:38
But . . . if mass increases towards infinity as speed (velocity?) increases, there must have been infinite force?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

419
10th Sep 2016, 09:47
One thing (of many) that I've never been able to get my head around is time dilation.
Get on an aircraft and have that aircraft fly as fast as possible for a while and when it lands, you will have aged a fraction less than the people on the ground???

SpringHeeledJack
10th Sep 2016, 11:25
Is that why pilots look so young and handsome ?

What is the ether made out of and what made it ? My mind is too restricted to fathom a reasonable answer.

G-CPTN
10th Sep 2016, 12:10
Humans are want to think that the Earth was created for us to inhabit.
If you consider the undoubted majority of uninhabited (and uninhabitable) planets, one has to question what is the purpose of the Universe.
Without humans to ponder this, there would be no consideration of this conundrum - unless, of course, creatures such as ants (and dolphins) ponder, too.

Loose rivets
10th Sep 2016, 13:23
I know my book is just a yarn, but please indulge me for a moment. Throughout, I tried to make the science plausible. Well, I needed a 5th force. Just couldn't do without it.

I had the Universe triggered maliciously before 'they' were ready and 176 brothers were drawn in and thought lost - as was the single core of evil.

Somehow their code was carried on this force, immune from the ultimate energy in the Big Bang. Much later 'Little beacons of sentience' were sensed, and the hunt for the brothers was on. They found Earth, and an almost limitless number of species, and they soon realised they were all based on 'the perfect code' designed for them to spend time in a solid reality. Sadly, while humans were still evolving, they were but a subset of the original design.


I'm not confused. I don't believe in anything. Perhaps, to quote some Liverpool kids, Nothing is real, or maybe it's very real and atoms are programmed to stay put in a rock for billions of years without deciding to wander off. Anyway, having made up a model of our existence, I did start to think it was just as feasible as our existence caused by the stories we're taught now.

Just think about the new findings about the retina. The material in front of the rods and cones that was once thought to be counter-productive, is now known to process vitally important functions. In fact, reading about it blew me away. Just jaw-dropping. Darwin agonised over the eye, and if he'd known what we know now, he may have burnt his work outside his church and gone in to pray.

I don't know if you know what a matching transformer is, but it was used a lot in older electronics. I'm now told the three bones that carry the energy from our eardrums to the oval window in the cochlea, is a mechanical equivalent - carrying out those vital changes needed to 'match' the input energy.

Then consider being able to hear an entire orchestra with sound that's transmitted by some bits of bone. Impossible. It has to be like our sight, updated very efficiently, but mostly modelled in our brains. We are expected to believe these processes are all designed by evolving.

Fred Hoyle went down an unfortunate route with his model of our universe, but never think he was anything but a very fine scientist. His calculations shout the impossibility of life as we know it - evolving on the time-scale of our planet. His design code travels the universe on bits of rock.

Now, here's a thing. Folk get so confused about this 4.68 billion years for Earth, and 13.8 billion years for the Universe. It seems there are photons flowing by us that have travelled 41 billion light-years, though it's still hard to make any useful model of the size, or overall expansion energy, but there it is. A universe that may not be much bigger than the visible sphere, right through to infinite. (Recent comments on a finite universe from several popular PhD broadcasters.) I'm disturbed by this. I don't like infinities. I hope it's just big, along the lines of Douglas Adams' Hitchiker's Guide.


Given the link ORAC posted, I assume it means there's no limit to the size. In my story, it just became, 'inconveniently large'. However, it's creators could stand back and view the whole thing, or go close to the out-rushing boundary, but what they didn't like doing was entering their misbehaving creation. Apart that is, from a few brave souls that visit us over the millennia and among other things, are willing to find out what suffering is, just to persuade the Ultimate Mind that it's vital to keep it, and us, going. You'll see where that's going.

ORAC
10th Sep 2016, 14:20
What is the ether made out of and what made it ? My mind is too restricted to fathom a reasonable answer. in which case have an unreasonable one.....

Aether........

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(classical_element)

ORAC
10th Sep 2016, 14:25
Neil deGrasse Tyson says it?s ?very likely? the universe is a simulation | ExtremeTech (http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/227126-neil-degrasse-tyson-says-its-very-likely-the-universe-is-a-simulation)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

Loose rivets
10th Sep 2016, 17:01
Please spell æther correctly.:p




There was a play on the radio 20 or 30 years ago. A company sold time travel experiences and one of them was the trial of Christ that lead to the crucifixion. That was the trip he chose.

The man, dressed in the right sackcloth, joined the crowds. It was not long before he started joining in. Not that he felt any animosity, but he'd been warned it might be dangerous to stand out from the crowd.

After much hollering and many thumbs down, things all went a bit quiet and our man made his way back to the transit point which was hidden behind a rise. He was quickly joined by most of the others.

Slowly it dawned on each and every one of them, that without time travel the crucifixion would probably never have taken place.

KenV
26th Sep 2016, 19:57
One thing (of many) that I've never been able to get my head around is time dilation.
Get on an aircraft and have that aircraft fly as fast as possible for a while and when it lands, you will have aged a fraction less than the people on the ground??? The atomic clocks in GPS satellites are so precise, that the very tiny time dilation caused by their orbital velocity is measurable and is factored into the algorithms used to generate a position.

Loose rivets
27th Sep 2016, 00:40
Fizeau influenced Einstein greatly, despite there being no mention in his 1905 publication. He, Einstein, at that time seemed to be unaware of the Michaelson Morley experiment however hard that is to believe. More like profess to be indifferent to them.

Fizeau endeavored to decide among the different theories. All these hypotheses could be reduced to three, having reference to the state in which the ether "ought to be considered as existing in the interior of a transparent body":

1) "The ether [..,] is fixed to the molecules of the body, and consequently shares all the motions of the body".

Einstein. Leiden 1920

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

Arm out the window
27th Sep 2016, 10:23
The atomic clocks in GPS satellites are so precise, that the very tiny time dilation caused by their orbital velocity is measurable and is factored into the algorithms used to generate a position.

Whatever the theories are, I'm in awe of engineers who can measure this kind of thing, factor it in and make a machine that works so incredibly well ... hats off to you wonderful people!