• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

UFO's

fyl2u said:
"Significant correlations with nuclear tests"?

Almost like creating the biggest and most powerful explosions humanity has ever seen might throw debris up into the atmosphere and create "fleeting flashes"?
Click to expand...

It's possible. They do cover it in the study but what contradicts that is the same objects/flashes were detected when there hadn't been any nuclear tests at all.
 

skullmeister said:
In case this is of any interest to anyone.

There has been a recent scientific study published which is creating quite a stir.

Thousands of photos of the sky which were taken by the Palomar Sky Survey, a project that mapped the northern sky between 1949 and 1958, have been retrospectively analysed.

Researchers have analysed over 100,000 fleeting flashes and found significant correlations of these both with atomic tests and reports of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP).

The photos were captured before any man-made satellites or other crafts were orbiting the Earth.

Data and further information can be found on the link below. I'd heard about this but haven't read the full report as yet. It's interesting that something was observed in space before humans on earth got there.

I think if anyone had beaten Sputkink they would have mentioned it.

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...

Hmm, on reading the article, it doesn't give any firm conclusions. The "significant correlation" between UAP reports and nuclear testing is very minor (average 3.77 UAP reports per day within a window after a test instead of 3.68 per day the rest of the time). While statisticians might call that "significant", I think most rational people would call that "noise" on a dataset like this (nuclear tests on 124 days of the 2718 days studied).
 
Just reading today about the James Webb telescope ' deep field' analysis ....which was done a couple of years back .

It basically pointed to telescope at tiny speck of space ( size of a grain of salt held at arms length) ... and spent days accumulating visible & infra red light from that tiny point in space - previously assumed to be fairly empty.

The result was that we now know that space is far more cluttered with galaxies than we ever imagined .... as " several thousand " galaxies were identified in just this 1 speck of space .

It's now estimated that there are 20 trillion galaxies in the 'observable' universe .

If you extrapolate that out to the entire universe (including the ' unobservable ' universe , its estimated that there are 30 qunintillion galaxies.

Thats 30 million trillion galaxies .

Then consider that there hundreds of billions of stars / planets in each galaxy -

...... and you get the picture ..... a vast number of livable planets beyond human comprehension.

So probably billions of billions of species out there.

Many intelligent no doubt .

Will we ever get to meet even 1 of them?

Probably never .....

... because we are oh so far apart
 
Last edited:
T
Slim999 said:
Just reading today about the James Webb telescope ' deep field' analysis ....which was done a couple of years back .

It basically pointed to telescope at tiny speck of space ( size of a grain of salt held at arms length) ... and spent days accumulating visible & infra red light from that tiny point in space - previously assumed to be fairly empty.

The result was that we now know that space is far more cluttered with galaxies than we ever imagined .... as " several thousand " galaxies were identified in just this 1 speck of space .

It's now estimated that there are 20 trillion galaxies in the 'observable' universe .

If you extrapolate that out to the entire universe (including the ' unobservable ' universe , its estimated that there are 30 qunintillion galaxies.

Thats 30 million trillion galaxies .

Then consider that there hundreds of billions of stars / planets in each galaxy -

...... and you get the picture ..... a vast number of livable planets beyond human comprehension.

So probably billions of billions of species out there.

Many intelligent no doubt .

Will we ever get to meet even 1 of them?

Probably never .....

... because we are oh so far apart
Click to expand...
That's approximately 3 billion galaxies each!
 
Slim999 said:
... because we are oh so far apart
Click to expand...
Perhaps being picky, but distance isn’t the issue imo. It’s the time it takes to traverse the distance. It used to take 4 months to get to Oz, but now…

Once we figure out how the little green bastards get round the ol’ e=mc2 issue we’ll have it solved*

(*= probably run into a totally different problem)
 
MunkyHeed said:
Perhaps being picky, but distance isn’t the issue imo. It’s the time it takes to traverse the distance. It used to take 4 months to get to Oz, but now…

Once we figure out how the little green bastards get round the ol’ e=mc2 issue we’ll have it solved*

(*= probably run into a totally different problem)
Click to expand...
Yeah, I watched a Brian Cox interview on that where he expounded on the Carl Sagan idea of a nuclear propulsion.

He said something like ....( im paraphrasing)

.. " even if you could get to say, 40% of light speed ( unlikely) it would still take several hundred years to travel to our nearest star ( Proxima Centauri which is 4.5 light years away ) - because the force due to rapid acceleration would kill a human being .

You'd need to accelerate gradually and in phases / bursts- as the human body could not cope with excessive G force over a long period . Then of course , halfway there you'd need to gradually deaccelerate for the same reason.

By the time you'd reached your destination, you'd likely be forgotten ... as most civilisations on earth dissappear after a couple of centuries."

So I geuss, unless you find the Contact Wormhole....this is where replicants step in as spaceman- ( as in Blade Runner / Electric Sheep)

Then, instead of dying on the journey , you die when the prodigal son comes back from his travels to " meet his maker "
 
Last edited:
Slim999 said:
Yeah, I watched a Brian Cox interview on that where he expounded on the Carl Sagan idea of a nuclear propulsion.

He said something like ....( im paraphrasing)

.. " even if you could get to say, 40% of light speed ( unlikely) it would still take several hundred years to travel to our nearest star ( Proxima Centauri which is 4.5 light years away ) - because the force due to rapid acceleration would kill a human being .

You'd need to accelerate gradually and in phases / bursts- as the human body could not cope with excessive G force over a long period . Then of course , halfway there you'd need to gradually deaccelerate for the same reason.

By the time you'd reached your destination, you'd likely be forgotten ... as most civilisations on earth dissappear after a couple of centuries."

So I geuss, unless you find the Contact Wormhole....this is where replicants step in as spaceman- ( as in Blade Runner / Electric Sheep)

Then, instead of dying on the journey , you die when the prodigal son comes back from his travels to " meet his maker "
Click to expand...
This is wrong, 40% of light speed could be reached in 5 months at 1g acceleration, this would allow a round journey in approximately 20 years
 
qixman said:
This is wrong, 40% of light speed could be reached in 5 months at 1g acceleration, this would allow a round journey in approximately 20 years
Click to expand...
My number was indeed not correct...

.... but neither is yours

It would take 20 years round trip only if you travelled flat out at 40% c in both directions.

As you're accelerating gradually at 1G your average speed on the 1st leg will be far lower ( say 0.2 c )

- and then to arrive at reasonable speed at your star destination ( and maintain 1G) you will need to start reverse thrusting/ slowing down half way there.

So it will likely take you more than 25 years to get there.... and 25 years to return again.

On the plus side, although I'd have been gone 50 years ( from an Earth perspective) - assuming I'd averaged 20% c , I'd only have aged 49 years ... due to time dilation

Ie , id probably be dead
 
Last edited:
Slim999 said:
My number was indeed not correct...

.... but neither is yours

It would take 20 years round trip only if you travelled flat out at 40% c in both directions.

As you're accelerating gradually at 1G your average speed on the 1st leg will be far lower ( say 0.2 c )

- and then to arrive at reasonable speed at your star destination ( and maintain 1G) you will need to start reverse thrusting/ slowing down half way there.

So it will likely take you more than 25 years to get there.... and 25 years to return again.

On the plus side, although I'd have been gone 50 years ( from an Earth perspective) - assuming I'd averaged 20% c , I'd only have aged 49 years ... due to time dilation

Ie , id probably be dead
Click to expand...
I took into account acceleration. Acceleration to 0.4c takes only 5 months, covering 0.088 light years. The vast majority of the journey would be done at 0.4c which would mean a cruise speed covering approximately 4 ly. This is 10 years in earth time. So total time there is 10 years + 5 months accelerating + 5 months braking. Total time 10 years 10 months 1 way. Round trip would be 21 years 8 months. These are observer times from Earth, allowing for time dilation it would be a little under 20 years for the ship.
 
Slim999 said:
Just reading today about the James Webb telescope ' deep field' analysis ....which was done a couple of years back .

It basically pointed to telescope at tiny speck of space ( size of a grain of salt held at arms length) ... and spent days accumulating visible & infra red light from that tiny point in space - previously assumed to be fairly empty.

The result was that we now know that space is far more cluttered with galaxies than we ever imagined .... as " several thousand " galaxies were identified in just this 1 speck of space .

It's now estimated that there are 20 trillion galaxies in the 'observable' universe .

If you extrapolate that out to the entire universe (including the ' unobservable ' universe , its estimated that there are 30 qunintillion galaxies.

Thats 30 million trillion galaxies .

Then consider that there hundreds of billions of stars / planets in each galaxy -

...... and you get the picture ..... a vast number of livable planets beyond human comprehension.

So probably billions of billions of species out there.

Many intelligent no doubt .

Will we ever get to meet even 1 of them?

Probably never .....

... because we are oh so far apart
Click to expand...
Gives me an headache just thinking about it.
 
MunkyHeed said:
Perhaps being picky, but distance isn’t the issue imo. It’s the time it takes to traverse the distance. It used to take 4 months to get to Oz, but now…

Once we figure out how the little green bastards get round the ol’ e=mc2 issue we’ll have it solved*

(*= probably run into a totally different problem)
Click to expand...
Rubber dinghies in warp 7 Mr.Sulu ! :rolleyes: 👍
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top