An Alleged 1953 UFO Crash and Burial Near Garrison, Utah

[colton]

Arch. I am religious. And as I said earlier, I believe things that aren't logical or provable with physical evidence. I'm just honest about it.

Now, I'm not the smartest science person around, but if something was going 8x the speed of light, I don't think a human eye would be able to see it, let alone get a picture of it. @colton would probably know that one, I think.

I haven't checked this thread for several days, but because you called... There are two significant issues with objects going faster than light.* (a) It would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate the object to that speed. (b) In some frames of reference causality would be violated--the object would arrive at its destination before it leaves its origin. I.e. it would be moving backwards in time.

That's only for some frames of reference, though. In others it would just look like it's going REALLY FAST. Seeing the object/getting a picture of the object wouldn't be a problem though... you'd be seeing/getting a picture of photons bouncing off of the object, and those photons would just be regular photons traveling at the speed of light.

*This is according to Einstein's theory of special relativity. Now you might say that that theory could be wrong/incomplete. However, it's been tested a tremendous amount of times and has held up completely accurately to the tests, so even if it's wrong/incomplete, the correct/complete version of the theory would almost certainly still have these two issues.

 

[framer]

All I know, if aliens are real, they are more likely to sign with the Jazz as free agents because they love themselves some rural Intermountain West.

 

[Red]

moving 8×s faster than the speed of sound

if something was going 8x the speed of light, I don't think a human eye would be able to see it,

There are two significant issues with objects going faster than light.*

I wanted to point out, the original statement was 8x the speed of sound, not 8x the speed of light.

 

[LogGrad98]

I haven't checked this thread for several days, but because you called... There are two significant issues with objects going faster than light.* (a) It would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate the object to that speed. (b) In some frames of reference causality would be violated--the object would arrive at its destination before it leaves its origin. I.e. it would be moving backwards in time.

That's only for some frames of reference, though. In others it would just look like it's going REALLY FAST. Seeing the object/getting a picture of the object wouldn't be a problem though... you'd be seeing/getting a picture of photons bouncing off of the object, and those photons would just be regular photons traveling at the speed of light.

*This is according to Einstein's theory of special relativity. Now you might say that that theory could be wrong/incomplete. However, it's been tested a tremendous amount of times and has held up completely accurately to the tests, so even if it's wrong/incomplete, the correct/complete version of the theory would almost certainly still have these two issues.

What about an Einstein-Rosen bridge? If they are thousands and maybe even millions of years ahead of us that could theoretically be within their reach, right?

 

[colton]

I wanted to point out, the original statement was 8x the speed of sound, not 8x the speed of light.

Well, then no problems at all. That's what I get for not reading the thread, just the post that asked me the question.

 

[colton]

What about an Einstein-Rosen bridge? If they are thousands and maybe even millions of years ahead of us that could theoretically be within their reach, right?

For now Einstein-Rosen bridges/other types of wormholes are very much in the science fiction realm. That is to say, they have never been observed. Which is not to say that they COULDN'T exist... but if they do, they will have the exact same problem with causality that FTL travel has in general. In other words, there will be frames of reference in which the object emerges from the wormhole before it enters the wormhole. Could that be something that really happens? I don't know, but sort of doubt it. Most people believe in causality, i.e., that causes must precede effects. If it were to be discovered that sometimes the effects can precede the causes, that would certainly have a lot of philosophical and possibly religious implications in addition to the scientific ones.

 

[Archie Moses]

I wanted to point out, the original statement was 8x the speed of sound, not 8x the speed of light.

He misinterpreted and exaggerated pretty much everything else I said, so it's not surprising.

That said, I threw 8×s out there. I couldn't remember what it was, but it was actually must faster. It was 30xs the speed of sound.

2) Sudden and instantaneous acceleration. The objects may accelerate or change direction so quickly that no human pilot could survive the g-forces—they would be crushed. In the Nimitz incident, radar operators say they tracked one of the UFOs as it dropped from the sky at more than 30 times the speed of sound.

This is from the USS Nimitz report too. But we know @RandyForRubio is automatically going to dismiss that and say it never happened.

 

[Archie Moses]

For now Einstein-Rosen bridges/other types of wormholes are very much in the science fiction realm. That is to say, they have never been observed. Which is not to say that they COULDN'T exist... but if they do, they will have the exact same problem with causality that FTL travel has in general. In other words, there will be frames of reference in which the object emerges from the wormhole before it enters the wormhole. Could that be something that really happens? I don't know, but sort of doubt it. Most people believe in causality, i.e., that causes must precede effects. If it were to be discovered that sometimes the effects can precede the causes, that would certainly have a lot of philosophical and possibly religious implications in addition to the scientific ones.

What about 30xs the speed of SOUND and clocked on radar?

 

[Archie Moses]

 

[Archie Moses]

*This is according to Einstein's theory of special relativity. Now you might say that that theory could be wrong/incomplete. However, it's been tested a tremendous amount of times and has held up completely accurately to the tests, so even if it's wrong/incomplete, the correct/complete version of the theory would almost certainly still have these two issues.

Speaking of Einstein theory of general relativity, it mathematically predicts the existence of wormholes.

What's your take on Wormhole Theory?

 

[RandyForRubio]

He misinterpreted and exaggerated pretty much everything else I said, so it's not surprising.

That said, I threw 8×s out there. I couldn't remember what it was, but it was actually must faster. It was 30xs the speed of sound.



This is from the USS Nimitz report too. But we know @RandyForRubio is automatically going to dismiss that and say it never happened.

Bruh.

I read it pretty quickly and got sos and sol mixed up. My bad.

Now chill.

 

[Red]

Some of the information posted to this thread has involved observations by US Navy pilots, and the recent New York Times article mentioned the pilots they interviewed would feature in an upcoming History Network 6 part series. It's always good to know who is behind what, regardless of whatever subject matter is at hand. And since the pilots mentioned in this thread are about to be featured, one needs to know who is behind all this.

This is the group behind the 6 part History Network series, which begins tonight at 10pm Eastern:

https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/

And these are the individuals who comprise the To the Stars Academy of Arts and Sciences:

https://dpo.tothestarsacademy.com/#offering-circular

It's at least possible to be impressed by the resumes of some of these individuals. For instance, Steve Justice is the retired Program Director for Advanced Systems at Lockheed Martin Advanced Development Programs, i.e., the "Skunkworks".

The fruit of their "entertainment division" is apparently the History Network program, but there have apparently been other television programs that have resulted from the involvement of this "public benefit corporation". This group was the brainchild of Tom DeLonge, who is recognized as the leader of a couple of rock bands, neither of which I am familiar with:

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

Some of the most penetrating criticism of To the Stars have originated from within the UFO community. I certainly would expect anyone to take a closer look at To the Stars Academy, to dig deep. Here is one of the deepest critical looks at To the Stars that has so far been posted online. This guy just doesn't fool around:

https://www.theblackvault.com/casef...onge-and-the-secret-dod-ufo-research-program/

In addition to some of the individuals connected to To the Stars, I respect the pilots and their observations. That said, I'm always suspicious of the History Network's offerings, but whatever, we'll see.

Another thing I've noticed is that no network has been more serious about the topic, since the pilot videos appeared, or conducted more interviews, then Fox. Do they own the History Network? In another context, I could make jokes about Fox, but again, whatever. Here's an interview of Christopher Mellon, and a promo for the show.