Disclosure Project by Steven M. Greer: Reliability?

[JaredJames]

i have stated over and over again that there is a huge difference between one event being witnessed by 100,000 somewhat primitive people, versus several hundred DIFFERENT events being witnessed by top level military people.

Primitive? Do you realize who was there? If anything I'd give them more credit than some jumped up army guy. What makes an army official less prone to illusion / hoax / mind tricks than anyone else?

to pass that off as them all seeing illusions gets almost to the point of being ridiculous. as i said to flex, the probability is not 0, but pretty darn close.

Are you truly entertaining the fact that the sun collided with the earth? It is impossible. There's no argument. Which means all 100,000 people where wrong.

i think there is a much better chance that they are all lying, and working on some sort of agenda, than that everything that they have claimed to have seen WERE ALL ILLUSIONS.

Correct, their agenda was to want to believe in what this guy was saying (the followers anyhow). You then include group thinking into it and you end up with a situation where 100,000 people including both believers and non-believers thinking they saw something.

 

[FlexGunship]

i give up on you guys.

It's unfortunate that you've given up. This site is an excellent resource for intelligent discussion. You don't have to agree with the people you talk to, but you must provide more substantial arguments or you will continue to get walked all over.

If you don't have more substantial arguments, then you need to reevaluate your position. This is a clear indication that you might be wrong.

Not all viewpoints are equally right or respectable; regardless of what they told you were a kindergärtner.

 

[JaredJames]

I think he's thinking along the lines of Star Trek and its sensors that can detect 'bio signs' over a few light years. Movie physics at its best!

 

[JaredJames]

Well put flex.

He came looking for answers, he didn't find what he wanted and so left (presumably to go elsewhere to find the 'right' answers).

I didn't want to joke about it either, I find it rather distressing that people are so closed minded like this. But if I don't use humour, I end up venting some anger at their ignorance. That doesn't end well.

 

[Physics-Learner]

Since science was invented at the time of Newton (essentially by him and Galileo), you can't extrapolate back further than him. The learning curve is a good analogy that you didn't develop: the cup analogy is an improper view of science that will not serve you well in your quest for knowledge. Scientific knowledge is not gathered in equal-sized grains over time, along a linear path.

The learning curve is a way of saying that knowledge follows a curve with, for example, 90% of knowledge being gained in the first 10% of the time, 99% of knowledge in 11% of the time, etc.

The fact that knowledge advancement is curved and not linear is easy enough to see in the level of accuracy with which we can model/predict natrual phenomena (though that is a little tough beyond the last 100 years, as education wasn't very formalized and the scientific process not very mature). Early in the development of an area of investigation, you quickly hone-in on the true value of a measurement and then you can spend decades digging into that last few percent. For example, here are some of the Michelson Morley experiments done in the first 50 years after it was devised. The accuracy difference between the first and one done in 1927, 46 years later was 99%. The accuracy difference between the first and one done in 1958, 77 years after the first was 99.97%. So after almost twice as much time, the deviation from the expected result only decreased by 0.97%. So that's an even steeper curve than I pointed to above: 99% of the way to the expected result in 40% of the time elapsed between the three data points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment#Most_famous_.22failed.22_experiment

hi russ,

here is a bit of a devil's advocate for your consideration. we have no idea where we are on the knowledge scale. obviously, you think we are further ahead than i do.

your example is about a specific "discovery". and i can buy that. but that doesn't negate my analogy of the cup at all. what it is equivalent to stating is that once we toss one grain of sand into the cup, most often another 100 grains of sand fall into the cup soon after.

but it still gives no limit to the number of grains of sand that the cup can hold. the fact that we are pretty good at a specific topic, once we are aware of said topic, lends no credence to how fast we are at learning about some other topic.

let's consider evolution. there are 2 accepted forms of it, that do not contradict one another. most people are well aware of darwinian evolution. if i recall, one of the first realizations involved birds or bugs on trees. as pollution started making the bark darker, all of a sudden the darker animals had better camouflage, and started thriving. basically the survival of the fittest. this is what is called short-scale evolution.

then there is long-scale evolution, such as the asteroids killing off the dinosaurs and many other forms of life.

the history of learning is so short when compared to evolutionary study, that i would simply caution all of us as to placing too much confidence in "what we know to be true".

i am old enough that i have been humbled enough to appreciate this. i still recall when schooling was my only source of learning. i still recall when everything i learned at school was all correct.

i most certainly still am a big advocate of science. but what i now appreciate is that science has and will continue to evolve. we had at least a mini-big-bang when copernicus, kepler and galileo re-ignited the scientific method, and got us back on the right track.

but we may have many more mini-big-bangs as well a big-bang sometime in the future millions of years, that will once again rock science as we had come to know it.

scientists do not like to admit this, because it rocks their comfort level.

unfortunately, i find many similarities between both followers of science and followers of religion - both respond very defensively if you rock their respective boats.

for me, it is simply a search for the truth - the source is not important, only the resultant truth, whatever it may be.

 

[jreelawg]

I believe it is gravity and acceleration, not velocity, which cause time dilation.

Now this isn't totally serious, and just a hypothetical, but if anti-gravity were possible, and UFO's were able to achieve it fully, then you would not experience gravity or G-forces.

Under such circumstances, would time really slow down relative to earth, or would it speed up?

If a spaceship which could block gravity, and inertia, would experience time dilation explain.

 

[JaredJames]

jreelawg, are you trying to say that a ship traveling constantly at 99% light speed would not experience time dilation?

The SR-71 cruising at high altitude/speed experiences it, just not to a great extent. I believe they did an experiment to show it with atomic clocks.

This of course is along with the ISS, GPS satellites (or just satellites) etc. All traveling at virtually constant velocity (unless we're bringing centripetal acceleration into this).

 

[jreelawg]

jreelawg, are you trying to say that a ship traveling constantly at 99% light speed would not experience time dilation?

The SR-71 cruising at high altitude/speed experiences it, just not to a great extent. I believe they did an experiment to show it with atomic clocks.

This of course is along with the ISS, GPS satellites (or just satellites) etc.

It is pretty clear what I'm asking. If you think time would slow down in a theoretical anti-gravity space ship, then explain how.

 

[Physics-Learner]

it isn't clear to me, either. you did state that one does not experience time dilation because of velocity. time dilation is a result of special relativity, which is only about constant velocity.

 

[JaredJames]

I don't see what anti-gravity has to do with time dilation? Strictly speaking, enough anti-gravity should have the opposite effect of massive gravity. Whether you have no gravity or 'earth' gravity, whilst traveling near the speed of light, there is time dilation.

Gravity induced time dilation is not the same as velocity induced time dilation. You can either have them both together, or on their own. You do not need velocity whilst under immense gravity to cause time dilation, and netheir do you need gravity whilst traveling at high velocity.

 

[jreelawg]

it isn't clear to me, either. you did state that one does not experience time dilation because of velocity. time dilation is a result of special relativity, which is only about constant velocity.

Velocity is relative. As far as space time is concerned, a non accelerating object is not moving. It is a common misunderstanding that velocity causes time dilation. Time dilation is caused by acceleration, as well as gravity. Acceleration is a different thing than velocity.

There are stars out there which are moving faster than C relative to earth, this doesn't violate relativity.

 

[JaredJames]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Focus on: Relative velocity time dilation (or any part really, it's all good).

 

[Physics-Learner]

einstein was basically interested in light, regarding special relativity. and gravity regarding general relativity.

but put more exactly, special relativity is based upon non-accelerated frames of motion, whereas general relativity is based on accelerated frames of motion.

i am not familiar with gravity-based time dilation, but time dilation first came into being based upon light, the special theory of relativity, and of course constant velocity.

 

[jreelawg]

Sorry for the confusion. I admit, I am very confused. In the case of stars which are moving faster than C relative to us, does anyone know how time dilation factors into the equation? I believe it was an explanation from a PF mentor about how this does not violate relativity, which got me confused, as it is a hard one to explain, and intuitively makes no sense at all. I guess the important thing is that the equations work.

Anyways, who's clock, ours, or theirs, moves faster? According to us, they are moving faster than C, according to them we are. So according to us, time for them has stopped completely? According to them, time for us has stopped completely?

The way it was explained to me, is that objects can travel relative to others at speeds greater than C, but can never accelerate to C relative to our own reference frame. I understand why inertia prevents accelerating to C instantly like light does, but fail to understand why some far out star can move faster than C relative to us, and we can't achieve C relative to a prior self reference frame, even under mild acceleration over the coarse of many many years.

 

[JaredJames]

Think of it like this:

If you have two space ships heading towards each other at 0.6c, it is the same as having one spaceship traveling at 1.2c towards a stationary object. But in the case of two space ships, their relative speed is 1.2c, but neither one actually travels faster than c.

 

[jreelawg]

Think of it like this:

If you have two space ships heading towards each other at 0.6c, it is the same as having one spaceship traveling at 1.2c towards a stationary object. But in the case of two space ships, their relative speed is 1.2c, but neither one actually travels faster than c.

So your saying that the maximum relative velocity between two bodies is just under 2C?

 

[FlexGunship]

jreelawg, are you trying to say that a ship traveling constantly at 99% light speed would not experience time dilation?

The SR-71 cruising at high altitude/speed experiences it, just not to a great extent. I believe they did an experiment to show it with atomic clocks.

This of course is along with the ISS, GPS satellites (or just satellites) etc. All traveling at virtually constant velocity (unless we're bringing centripetal acceleration into this).

Well, jreelawg has a point. Time dilation occurs both at different relative velocities and at different relative accelerations (i.e. gravitational acceleration). Both effects cause differences in "clocks." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation)

So, his question was," if you remove the acceleration component does time dilation still occur?"

The answer is, "yes." Regardless of how someone gets to the speed, if their movement relative to another observer is non-zero, time dilation will occur. The "photon-clock" is the best example I know of this.

Imagine a photon bouncing between two idealized parallel mirrors. Based on the rate of impact, you can tell the passage of time. Since the speed of light is a constant (regardless of motion) if you put the photon-clock on a train, the net distance between the mirrors becomes a hypotenuse (based on the trains movement forward, and the photons movement up/down). Since the photon must still hit the mirrors at the same rate (can's slow down c) the time inside the train appears constant no matter what speed (as the observer maintains a zero relative velocity with the clock). However, an outside observer sees the photon traveling a diagonal distance farther, and therefore a longer time between the hits on the clock.

The end result, time appears to pass more slowly on the train to the outside observer.

(Credit to Brian Greene for the thought experiment.)

 

[FlexGunship]

Think of it like this:

If you have two space ships heading towards each other at 0.6c, it is the same as having one spaceship traveling at 1.2c towards a stationary object. But in the case of two space ships, their relative speed is 1.2c, but neither one actually travels faster than c.

Um... mistaken?

The relative speed to either observer is no more than 1c - iota.

v = (w-u)/(1 - wu/c^2)

Solving for v you get 0.88c for their relative velocity.

 

[JaredJames]

Well, jreelawg has a point. Time dilation occurs both at different relative velocities and at different relative accelerations (i.e. gravitational acceleration). Both effects cause differences in "clocks." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation)

I gave that link above, and I have never argued against acceleration due to gravity. However, jreelawg was claiming that relative velocity time dilation didn't exist. So yes, if you were under a high g field and applied ag you would cancel out the time dilation, but he was claiming a spaceship traveling through space wouldn't feel it because of ag, confusing gravitational time dilation with velocity time dilation.

 

[FlexGunship]

Sorry for the confusion. I admit, I am very confused. In the case of stars which are moving faster than C relative to us, does anyone know how time dilation factors into the equation?

First, you must adjust your thinking. They are not moving through space faster than c. This is a fact. Add it to your knowledge. They are moving less than c through space.

However, space is expanding. The farther away from the Earth you go, the faster it expands. Where the expansion rate exceeds c, there is a "visible horizon." The space is expanding faster than light can travel through it.

The stars are certainly still traveling much slower than c.

 

[JaredJames]

Um... wrong?

The relative speed to either observer is no more than 1c - iota.

v = (w-u)/(1 - wu/c^2)

Solving for v you get 0.88c for their relative velocity.

Did not know that.

So when two cars travel at each other at 30mph and collide it isn't the same as a car doing 60mph hitting a stationary one? Or is it special for things in space? Or have I just missed the point completely?

 

[FlexGunship]

Did not know that.

So when two cars travel at each other at 30mph and collide it isn't the same as a car doing 60mph hitting a stationary one? Or is it special for things in space? Or have I just missed the point completely?

I'm afraid you've missed it entirely. It has no direct bearing on energy in the system (i.e. collision). And it has nothing to do with "things in space."

Solve it for a 30mph head-on collision.

w = 30mph
u= -30mph

Numerator: (w-u) = 60mph

Denominator Step 1: x = (wu/c^2) = (-900/4.49726663 × 10^17) = -2.00121557 × 10^-15

Denominator Step 2: (1 - x) = (1 + (2.00121557 × 10^-15)) = 1.000000000000002

Total: v = (num/den) --> v = 60mph/1.000000000000002 = ~60mph

The effects are only obvious at relativistic speeds (i.e. in particle colliders).

EDIT: Closing thought: Any observer at constant velocity can claim he is at rest and declare himself as the frame of reference. If he were traveling at 0.99c and he claimed to be at rest, he would never see anything approach him faster than c.

 

[JaredJames]

I'm afraid you've missed it entirely. It has no direct bearing on energy in the system (i.e. collision). And it has nothing to do with "things in space."

Actually I was referring to the speed at the 'contact' point, didn't mean as in a physical collision.

I see what you mean now. Did not know that, rather interesting.

There's my 'something new' for the day.

 

[mugaliens]

The SR-71 cruising at high altitude/speed experiences it, just not to a great extent. I believe they did an experiment to show it with atomic clocks.

As do I, sitting in my office chair as I spin anchored to the Earth below me at roughly 800 mph. And that's just from velocity. There's also the dilation associated with being in Earth's gravity well.

The GPS system must account for both of these, not to mention their own time dilations associated with the satellites' velocities and different position within the gravity field.

 

[ecsspace]

A persons credibility is risk-proportionate to what levels of fiscal and/or emotional stress they might not endure so well as they age.
But also don't ever discount a pilot's sense of humor or daring and ever the twain where those two qualities meet.
Piloting an airplane allows mostly lots of boredom and plenty of free time to willfully cultivate the imagination of an extremely disciplined mind.
I am convinced that everything Gordo Cooper said was all just for his own sense of fun, to see how
many people he could get to believe it and still keep an absolutely straight face. But on the other hand, it may be likely that Ed Mitchell got a little closer to some cosmic ray damage than other astronauts.
I know a few pilots that if you said to them 'do you want to go on some tour and on Larry King to talk a lot of hooey about how you really saw flying saucers?" they would do it for free and pay for all their own
expenses. Remember folks - retirement can get mighty dull.

 

[JaredJames]

I've forgotten what this thread was about. I don't know whether what you've said is relevant or not.

 

[ecsspace]

I've forgotten what this thread was about. I don't know whether what you've said is relevant or not.

Ex-military guys going around talking about interesting encounters as part of the push for disclosure of documented evidence of otherworldly being's existence and visitation to Earth?

http://www.disclosureproject.com/

 

[JaredJames]

Ah, righto. Good stuff.

 

[jreelawg]

I just watched an episode of "Ancient Aliens", in which Sgt Jim Penniston makes a new claim that he had seen a vision of binary code when he touched the UFO at Rendelsham Forrest in 1980. He claims the vision had haunted him for years, and he wrote down the code in a notebook. Now something like 30 years later, he had the code deciphered by an expert, and the code says something like, "exploration of humanity for planetary advancement".

I thought it is kind of odd he would save this story for 2010. He has never mentioned seeing this vision when touching the UFO until now. Here is part of an older interview he did.

WHEN YOU TOUCHED THESE SYMBOLS WITH YOUR HAND, DID YOU GET ANY
IMAGES IN YOUR MIND?

No. But I did have a sensation. The fabric of the craft was
warmer than the air temperature. The air temperature that night
was around 31 or 32 Fahrenheit. The craft was quite a bit
warmer.

http://www.hyper.net/ufo/vs/m18-020.html

I have to say, there is something fishy about this, and it makes all Rendelsham Forrest UFO claims highly suspect. Whatever happened at Rendelsham Forrest in 1980, I think this guy is full of B.S.

 

[ecsspace]

I have to say, there is something fishy about this, and it makes all Rendelsham Forrest UFO claims highly suspect. Whatever happened at Rendelsham Forrest in 1980, I think this guy is full of B.S.

It does sound like he's joking: "it was warmer than the (32 degree) air"