Do UFOs/Aliens exist, is Time Travel possible and more...

[shashank_digitreader]

Do u think UFOs exist? i started thinking of it when i saw this video, its so real.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4ywcyqvRmU

[DeSmOnD dAvId]

Before seeing the video, ask yourself a few questions:
-Why do UFOs be seen only in other parts of the world and not in India?
-How can some intellingent being several lightyears away com to contact us?

[amitava82]

Before seeing the video, ask yourself a few questions:
-Why do UFOs be seen only in other parts of the world and not in India?
-How can some intellingent being several lightyears away com to contact us?

i have a question to ask:
- How many Indians know WHAT IS AN UFO? ask - not yourself, your neighbour.

[ax3]

yes

[kirtan]

nope.if they exsisted they mujhe to koi mil jata.i would have been the next KRRISH.no jaadu waadu dude.

[shashank_digitreader]

but the movie was so real

[Tech Geek]

Yes i believe they exist. May be Their technology is advanced(a lot) than ours:D

[AshishSharma]

Sure they do exist ... Ravan used to ride one .... they called it the Pushpak then ....

Well when we something unexplainable in india we call it Ghost ... when they see it in US they call it Alien ... simple ... :D

[wizrulz]

YUP they exist......but if anyone wants proof then sorry.....as no one can give proof if GOD exists....

[escape7]

Well, i do believe in UFO's. Wether they exist or not, I can't say.

[Third Eye]

Do u think UFOs exist? i started thinking of it when i saw this video, its so real.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4ywcyqvRmU

Fake !

[Kiran_tech_mania]

Existance of UFO's depends upon the existance of the one who created UFO.

There are millions of stars in the Universe. That means there are so that many solar systems in the Universe. And each solar system has got 'n' number of Planets. So you have millions of Planets in our Universe.

Now among those million planets, question arises as to how many are earth like planets. It's not that hard to calculate. Simple proability reveals, out of those million Planets, let's assume that there are 30,000 earth like planets. Earth like planets means which can support life.

Now out of those 30,000 earth like planets,there is always a chance of alteast 6000 planets supporting Life.

That doesn't end there..

Not every Planet of those 6000 will support Intelligent life. Some may be just be simple life forms like Unicellular organisms.

So out of those 6000 planets, there is always a probability of around 3000 planets supporting Intelligent life! Level of Intelligence life may vary abruptly.
Some may be 'Human-like' and some like those shown in our movies!

There is always a proability that any of these Super-intelligent life forms may technology which we just can't imagine!

Humans totally depend on propulsion technology for achieving motion in air. Aliens may have found out a method of creating it own gravitational force along its flying object!! Nothng is impossible. Humans may also do it one day.
Who believed a thing like 'Aircraft' will exist on earth? No one imagined earlier! But now it's the fact.

One can't ignore the mere existence of UFO's. Now it's a matter of time when they visit earth.. or... HOLD ON........................
ARE THEY ALREADY HERE?!? :twisted:

[Third Eye]

There are 20 Billions galaxies and each galaxy has 20 Billions of stars.

[azzu]

i do believe they exist i have heard and seen (in tv :D )about it ill post about it in few min

[Kiran_tech_mania]

i do believe they exist i have heard and seen (in tv :D )about it ill post about it in few min

In US, many people say that they have seen aliens and keep on complaining they are 'abducted'! I wonder what aliens do after abducting? :confused:

[Yamaraj]

There are 20 Billions galaxies and each galaxies have 20 Billions of stars.
A little correction: There are 'billions' of galaxies within a range of 14 billions light-years from us, and there are 'trillions' of stars in any given galaxy.

The Universe is so vast, even the speed of light means nothing.

[cyberscriber]

I agree with kiran.rkk . I too believe that there are lots more intelligent creatures in the universe. But Its impossible to travel this far. Even our nearest star is about 400 light years away. So it would take 400 years even if you travel at the speed of light (which is impossible) to reach earth.

And regarding these UFOs, those are jus advanced aircrafts tested by US military. They keep em secret. Alien thingy is jus to cover up those.

[Apollo]

Why do UFOs be seen only in other parts of the world and not in India?
Perhaps this might interest you: Click (http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/Vimanas.htm)

[sysfilez]

In US, many people say that they have seen aliens and keep on complaining they are 'abducted'! I wonder what aliens do after abducting? :confused:
aliens hushy mushy with them.

[outlaw]

i believe in ufo's

if humans were able to build space crafts then why cant aliens buit one ......

[cyberscriber]

I think you have little knowledge about the universe. There are better technologies SEVERAL LIGHT YEARS away.
Earthlings can go to jupiter or at most pluto. Its our solar system man, there is no life form other than in earth for our solar system.

Earthlings going to jupiter and becoming UFO's to whom? the rocks??

You should travel a minimum 400 light years ( hope you know what a light year is ) to find a life form. Same for aliens to reach us.

Distance matters buddy.
__________
@mediator. Its in your thread, UFO's are just "telepathic hypnosis" or Military operations.
NO ALIENS

[shashank_digitreader]

yaaaak!!
check this out, so scary!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLmhGb4ZdZo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqI6jJ8H2qc

[coolboy_n]

hi dude,
well done..!!
UFO sitings r very common..but unfortunately "not in India " !

Bless ya :)

[hard_rock]

To the believers: If you believe in god, please don't force your views on others

To the non-believers: Learn to respect people's views.


Thats all I want to say.... A similar controversy exists in GHOSTS case too...
Those who want to believe will believe it. Since both side (believers and non-believers) havent SEEN the things through their EYES, I think debating on opposite sides is waste, coz nobody will let their beliefs down. If both people are believers then the fun in sharing facts is different.

Now to the Original Question:
Why do UFOs be seen only in other parts of the world and not in India?

I have observed in many cases, UFOs show up near Calm,quiet areas...far from urban areas.. In America most of the people know about the things called UFO ... But assume a similar condition in India. Suppose such things appear in a remote village, then what do they might think... GOD has come to visit their village...They simply might PRAY TO THE UFO[GOD] on seeing in the sky. Forget about reporting to the media... Even they do not have TVs at their homes. Its my opinion.

[kumarmohit]

I believe in UFOs but I also think that their operators are smart enuf never to be seen or recognized so even though UFOs exist wat we encounter is genrally man made.

[nitish_mythology]

I thk they exist!

[deepak.krishnan]

well even if UFOs dont exist, there have been many superb movies based on UFOs...............

[FatBeing]

Thread closed.

Yamaraj, mediator - grow up.

[Raaabo]

Thread reopened: first person to abuse gets perm ban. This thread was interesting until 2 people took it over in a fight. Ignore them all of you and here's a link you might like :)

http://www.ufoindia.org/sightings.htm

Oh and I've seen UFOs at Bandstand Bandra, along with about 200 other people. You know what? In india i dont think people care for UFOs. They're just some lights in the sky, which go away in a few seconds. Then we're back to our lives. Also, we're not as camera happy as the west. Those of us with cameras seem to be more interested in scandal MMSes than UFOs!

Look at the average westerner, and find the ratio of people with camcorders to those without, and then do the same in India... also, when was the last time you sat on a terrace on a dark night and looked up at the stars looking for signs of life "out there". A lot more people in the west do this than here in india.

Raaabo

[mehulved]

One thing that makes me feel that UFO sitings are a hoax. If they are so smart and intelligent enough to travel through space, by overtaking time, they have to be inqusitive. IMO, intelligence and inquisitiveness go hand in hand.
So, if they're really inquisitive they should be trying to communicate to us. Why do they keep themselves hidden from us?

[Kiran_tech_mania]

Thanks Raabo for opening the thread.

Reason why people are loosing hope on UFO sightings is becoz there are too many sightings reported! Most were classifed as Hoaxes. They do it to get media attention and gain popularity.

[DukeNukem]

we are not alone here

[yashved]

I once saw a show on Discovery Channel. I think it was Mystery Hunters in Discovery Kids, wherein they showed different ways in which people can be fooled to believe the UFO Sightings.

Often it is Illusion that induces one to believe the UFO sightings.... :)

[Apollo]

I once saw a show on Discovery Channel. I think it was Mystery Hunters in Discovery Kids, wherein they showed different ways in which people can be fooled to believe the UFO Sightings.

Often it is Illusion that induces one to believe the UFO sightings.... :)
Ditto on crop circles.

P.S. You're correct about the show! I remember watching it myself.

[blackpearl]

I don't know about UFOs but crop circles are real. I mean, they are not hoaxes or man-made. I don't know who makes them or how but there is certainly something spooky about crop circles. I have read lots of articles on crop circles and seen so many documentaries on crop circle. Man made crop circles are very different from naturally occurring one. No cameras, no motion detectors nothing has ever been able to record a crop circle formation which takes just a few minutes to form complex patterns.

Crop circles are always formed at night and is always accompanied by fog so as to hide the process. Many research teams have tried to record the event but were not successful. All the reports I read had the same story- they wait all night with infrared cameras and motion detectors and what not and nothing happens. Then just a few hours before day break there comes a heavy fog and visibility becomes zero. Within half an hour or so, sometimes just a few minutes, the fog lifts and in place is a magnificent crop circle.

Just mind boggling!!!

[hard_rock]

Crop circles are always formed at night and is always accompanied by fog so as to hide the process. Many research teams have tried to record the event but were not successful. All the reports I read had the same story- they wait all night with infrared cameras and motion detectors and what not and nothing happens. Then just a few hours before day break there comes a heavy fog and visibility becomes zero. Within half an hour or so, sometimes just a few minutes, the fog lifts and in place is a magnificent crop circle.

I once saw a documentary which in detail spread light about all the thing u said. They even showed a man forming a crop circle and how it is different from the ones which are done at night giving technical details from experts. Even they showed a CAM-Video taken in night.. In that video(which was taken from a distance in night), a light came which revolved few times in few minutes.... Then all was looking again normal.. A crop circle was formed. They also showed few cropcircles in different countries and analysed them.. Thanx Raabo for reopening an interesting thread (For those who believe)

[AshishSharma]

^^^ I guess I've seen the same documentary and they actually revealed later that the nice video was handiwork of some guy ...

About the experts who were commenting about the technical details ... a group formed a crop circle with nothing but simple wood log and filmed it ... later the experts analyzed it and confirmed it's not fake and an official crop circle by UFO ... Only to be embarrassed by watching the video later ... :D

[Apollo]

To add more food for thought... The Nazca Lines. There's an interesting little article on wikipedia (Click (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazca_lines)) which throws more light on either supposed alien involvement or ingenious human imagination resulting in the famous designs.

[hard_rock]

About the experts who were commenting about the technical details ... a group formed a crop circle with nothing but simple wood log and filmed it ... later the experts analyzed it and confirmed it's not fake and an official crop circle by UFO ... Only to be embarrassed by watching the video later ... :D

Technical details in the sense about how the crops would be after forming of crop circles. Like the stem of crops would be bent if manually done using wooden logs(which they demonstrated too) and compared it with some suscpicious crop circles. In such crop circles stem were hollow as they have undergone High intensity radiation....
I saw the documentary few years back...So dont remember entire documentary.. Told what I remember.. All I can say is whatever they shown wasnt bogus.. They clearly showed which one are Fake and which one are mysteries..:)

[pirates1323]

I don't know about UFO's........but I believe tht there is another world like earth where life exists ... and ppl r enjoying there more than earth ..lol lolz

[planetcall]

There was a whole series of UFO sightseeing on Discovery channel about an year back. It has been repeated too a number of times. It does show that there are many evidences which have not been proved wrong as yet. I don't know whether the UFO's exist but I am very sure that there is ET. There indeed is life in other planets and there are intelligent life forms. There is a lot of development to be done in the physics to understand and reach to that place.
If there is life in other planets then they might be advanced enough to reach to earth too. It is not impossible. The only thing is that we dont have credible evidence and since many evidences are yet not established so it is yet not accepted logically.

[blackpearl]

^^^ I guess I've seen the same documentary and they actually revealed later that the nice video was handiwork of some guy ...

About the experts who were commenting about the technical details ... a group formed a crop circle with nothing but simple wood log and filmed it ... later the experts analyzed it and confirmed it's not fake and an official crop circle by UFO ... Only to be embarrassed by watching the video later ... :D

You are wrong. Crop circles that are made by humans have broken stems but in real crop circles the stems are not broken but bent. The stem continues to live and grow after being bent, but in the fake crop circles the plant dies after the stem is broken. Scientist believe some kind of heat was used in bending the stem without breaking, just like you heat a glass rod before bending, which otherwise would have broken if tried to bend.

http://earthfiles.com/Images/news/B/BeloitSmoothBend7.jpg
Bent stalk of crop circles



http://www.planetarymysteries.com/hieronimus/images/node.gif
Normal stalk on the Left and bent stalk on the Right.

[hard_rock]

Crop circles that are made by humans have broken stems but in real crop circles the stems are not broken but bent. The stem continues to live and grow after being bent, but in the fake crop circles the plant dies after the stem is broken. Scientist believe some kind of heat was used in bending the stem without breaking, just like you heat a glass rod before bending, which otherwise would have broken if tried to bend.


Thanx for the info with picture. I think I wrote Vice versa (Which is wrong).. That manually done were bent..
Hey is it the high intensity radiation that generated the heat..??

[Raaabo]

Posts in this thread have brought to light a few misconceptions that some of you have, let me address those first:

1.
Star systems that could potentially have life are too far away, it would take 400 years to traverse that distance even when travelling at the speed of light!

Myth Buster:
Physics (and Einstein) have proved that as you approach the speed of light, time begins to slow down. AT the speed of light, time = 0, thus you could travel billions of light years in what (to you) would seem like a second. Thus if UFOs exist, they could be piloted by aliens who (in our relative time) left their home planet (travelling at the speed of light) thousands of years ago, but to them they just left a few minutes ago.

The problems that this brings forth is that perhaps these aliens have no wish to return home, and are just stopping by for some sort of fuel, or to map our planet, send data back to their homeworld and then move on again. They obviously wouldn't want to return home because thousands of years have passed and everyone and everything they knew is dead and gone.

2. If UFOs come here, why aren’t they contacting us? How can a race that is intelligent NOT want to contact us?

Myth Buster:
You see ant hills all the time, when was the last time you wanted to contact one? Why are we so self absorbed that we accept that perhaps we’re just ants (or bacteria) to them. And I don’t mean this in terms of size, I mean this in terms of importance. If UFOs exist, these are aliens with technologies that are ahead of our own research by at least a few thousand (if not million) years. Perhaps they’re just here shooting a documentary on weird dumb animals of space, Discovery style!

3. UFOs = Aliens
Myth Buster:
UFO = Unidentified Flying Object. This could be a secret government project, a freak of nature OR aliens. But aliens aren’t the only possibility!


4. Aliens are visiting us

Myth Buster:
I believe that UFOs exist, I’ve seen a UFO once myself. What’s different about my views is the fact that I am not sure it is Aliens piloting them! No I’m not getting into the whole Uncle Sam (or Uncle Samir for India) is testing secret weapons and aircraft. What I mean is perhaps the UFOs are piloted by humans themselves, just that these humans are from a different time or a different dimension! If, say in a million years, humans figure out a way to travel even faster than the speed of light (which effectively let’sus go BACK in time), perhaps they’d want to come visit THEIR world in the distant past (our present). Of course they would not be allowed to interact with us, so as to conserve the space time continuum, so they come, they watch and they leave! This explains why we see UFOs, why they never contact us, and the theory also explains how they appear in the sky, but satellites and the space station see nothing. Imagine someone in the future could be sitting and waiting for their turn to “come see the old earth”!

Raaabo

[blackpearl]

1.
Star systems that could potentially have life are too far away, it would take 400 years to traverse that distance even when travelling at the speed of light!

Myth Buster:
Physics (and Einstein) have proved that as you approach the speed of light, time begins to slow down. AT the speed of light, time = 0, thus you could travel billions of light years in what (to you) would seem like a second. Thus if UFOs exist, they could be piloted by aliens who (in our relative time) left their home planet (travelling at the speed of light) thousands of years ago, but to them they just left a few minutes ago.

Practically its impossible to approach the speed of light because as you increase your speed your mass increases. The closer you get to the speed of light your mass increases exponentially and at the speed of light it becomes infinite, a physical impossibility. To move a space ship having infinite mass at the speed of light would require infinite amount of energy.

I'm not saying that space travel over large distance is not possible but certainly not by conventional method. If UFOs exist and aliens do visit us, they must have done it by some other method like through a wormhole. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole)


3. UFOs = Aliens
Myth Buster:
UFO = Unidentified Flying Object. This could be a secret government project, a freak of nature OR aliens. But aliens aren’t the only possibility!


But when we are talking about UFOs we mean aliens. A secret government aircraft doesn't become a UFO by defination. Unidentified to the common people but not to the government. A flying bird you can't recognize doesn't become a UFO, does it? These UFO sightings could actually be secret government projects and not aliens, atleast most of them. Consider that most sightings occur at US and near Nevada where the "famous" Area 51 is located.

4. Aliens are visiting us

Myth Buster:
I believe that UFOs exist, I’ve seen a UFO once myself. What’s different about my views is the fact that I am not sure it is Aliens piloting them!

Actually I've seen moving lights in the sky myself and twice but it could be just a satellite.

What I mean is perhaps the UFOs are piloted by humans themselves, just that these humans are from a different time or a different dimension! If, say in a million years, humans figure out a way to travel even faster than the speed of light (which effectively let’sus go BACK in time), perhaps they’d want to come visit THEIR world in the distant past (our present). Of course they would not be allowed to interact with us, so as to conserve the space time continuum, so they come, they watch and they leave! This explains why we see UFOs, why they never contact us, and the theory also explains how they appear in the sky, but satellites and the space station see nothing. Imagine someone in the future could be sitting and waiting for their turn to “come see the old earth”!

Is time travel possible? Thats a burning question inside me too. There is a funny argument regarding time travel. Read the Grandfather paradox. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_Paradox)

Well, I'm not saying that UFOs don't exist but I can't say for sure unless I've seen it myself from a close range. We can't believe too much in other people's reports because there are too many liars out there.

[ambandla]

Does UFO's exist? Yes they do coz I own one and I roam around when I feel bored. :-)

Just kidding.

Yes. I do think they exist. I don't think earth is the only planet with life on it. There should be more. If we can go till moon, there will be someone who have greater tech. and they certainly can come to earth.

[mediator]

Practically its impossible to approach the speed of light because as you increase your speed your mass increases.

Mass doesn't increase, but the "relative mass"!


The closer you get to the speed of light your mass increases exponentially and at the speed of light it becomes infinite, a physical impossibility. To move a space ship having infinite mass at the speed of light would require infinite amount of energy.


1. F=M*a (Force = Rest Mass * acceleration)
2. E=M*(c^2) (Energy = Rest Mass * Speed of light raise to power 2)

These are the fundamental equations. The highlighted part doesn't match any of the 2 equations. I think u got confused with equation 2!

What I can recall is, when a particle moves through the space it experiences a negetive force to the direction of movement. When a rocket moves it experiences friction of the air. So we need to apply greater force to overcome the friction and to maintain the same accelaration. And its the mass of the body that constitutes to that friction.

Equation 1 can also be written as M=(F/a)
So as the force increases, the relative mass increases, But not exponentially. Also the friction can be reduced by designing the shape of the body appropriately so that it can "cut" the space with minimum friction! Birds have natural shapes like that, planes are built with shapes similar to birds so that their face can "cut" the space with minimum damage and friction.

[blackpearl]

No. Its not relative mass but the real mass. The equation is this

http://www.rostra.dk/louis/pics/f13_01.gif

m(v) is the mass at velocity V. m(0) is the mass at rest, the mass that we measure.

Its Einstein's equation dude, not mine :)
__________
What you are taliking about is classical physics. This is quantum physics.

[mediator]

Yea I know of this equation too bro. But it doesn't say mass increases exponentially! And rest mass never increases! :)

Yea its einstein equation and everything about it is "relative"! Hence the concept of "relative velocity" and likewise "relative mass"! Mass is defined as quantity of matter. That quantity is constant according to all physics laws. Hence the universal definition of mass. Based on mass, weight of the body can vary according to gravitation, the energy can vary, momentum can vary, relative mass can be calculated etc. BUT again rest mass or simply called as mass is constant!

[Choto Cheeta]

physical impossibility

well sorry to bat in... but There is no such word a impossible with science... why ?? as to day it sounds impossible to us, but as we saw in past at some point of time to man kind flying seemed impossible... Visiting moon seemed impossible... lesser seemed impossible.. but they are reallity now... :)

its only matter of time when in near future some one like us in a Discussion would point out and say "You see at 2006 people thought Speed of Light is impossible to archive"....

its only matter of time...

[blackpearl]

@mediator:

As the speed approaches the speed of light the energy approaches infinity. Hence is should be impossible to accelerate an object with rest mass to the speed of light and particles with zero rest mass must always go at exactly the speed of light otherwise they would have no energy. This is sometimes called the "light speed barrier" but it is very different from the "sound speed barrier". As an aircraft approaches the speed of sound it starts to feel pressure waves which indicate that it is getting close. With some more thrust it can pass through. As the light speed barrier is approached (in a perfect vacuum) there is no such effect according to relativity. Moving at 0.99999c is just like standing still with everything rushing past you at -0.99999c. Particles are routinely pushed to these speeds in accelerators so the theory is well established. Trying to get to the speed of light in this way is like trying to get to the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

This explains why it is not possible to exceed the speed of light by ordinary mechanical means.....

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html#16

Its already proved in laboratory experiments that mass increases when accelerated, when they measured the mass of a moving electron and found it to be higher than rest mass. I read it somewhere.

I suggest you to read more on this matter.

[mediator]

@blackpearl :
:oops:

I have read all the stuff and thats why I'm discussing it here. First u said, mass increases, then u argued mass increases exponentially.

The above link u quoted is what I'm trying to say itself! Its the energy that increases and it would be better and logical to say that "relative mass" increases by the equation u gave. But the "relative mass" never increases exponentially! Also saying that mass increases, is highly incorrect scientifically and physically . U name any reputed book or scientific site that hasn't mentioned the word "relative". If its not there then its either a typo or a faulty published web page that wasn't reviewed accurately. There are many sites u'll find where it says "mass increases", but einstien didn't name his theory and introduced the word "relative" in it for no reason. The mass increases, but relative to what? So its relative mass. Speed increases, but relative to what? Hence relative velocity. So its more scientific and logical to say "relative mass" increases. When discussing such things u shud be highly specific.

When u quoted @raaabo, u never talked specifically using terms like rest mass or relative mass. U just said mast increases (n then mass increases exponentially which is incorrect). Now who's gonna understand what u said?? Rest mass is constant. The physical thing is constant! But what's increasing??

1. A train A going towards north with velocity 20 KM/h (be specific. 20 kmph wrt to what?? => w.r.t ground ). Another train B goes to south with 20 kmph. But a child in train B calculates the speed of train A and observes that its 40 kmph. But is it actually 40 kmph??
Train A speedometer indicates 20kmph but child in B calculates it as 40 kmph. Which one is correct?? Everything has to be comapred to rest. Neither of them r wrong but logically it wud be speedometer of A which is correct coz if the child says that A was travelling with 40 kmph then it wud mean B was resting! But B was also moving.

2. On earth ur weight is 90 kgs suppose and on another planet it becomes 200 kgs. Will u say ur mass has increased here? Tell me what has increased!


I hope u got my point. These were just some examples to show that ur body mass is constant but there is something called "relative" which ur missing.

So the terms rest mass and relative mass have a meaning. Understand their meaning first and then try to implement them in such discussions. So its just the relative mass that increases.
I tell u read H.C verma for conceptual physics and u'll have no more doubts after that.

[blackpearl]

OK, I get it, its the relative mass. But still the common argument put forward why any particle having mass cannot attain the speed of light is because "its mass increases with velocity" so that at the speed of light it becomes infinite (see the formula), in the sense that infinite amount of energy is reqd to move it.

Also there is a different formula to calculate relative velocity of high moving objects. For eg, suppose there are 2 cars both moving in the opposite direction at velocity 0.6c (i.e. 60% the speed of light). Common sense tells us that the relative velocity between the 2 cars should be 0.6c+0.6c = 1.2c, isn't it? Wrong!! the relative velocity between the 2 cars is 0.88c. Why? because no velocity can be greater than the velocity of light. Defies common sense, isn't? Interestingly, this is also proved in laboratory experiment using 2 high velocity electrons moving in the opposite direction.

Please read this and tell me what they are trying to say.
http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/09.light_relativity/
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/sr.html

[dunno]

i see some of u believed in ufo's on the basis of mere movies and
tapes.
i just want to say that the movies n tapes r all rubbish!
how could anyone rely on such thing!!!
they could be editted n made fake easily.
talking about photographs they to could provide a false picture.
want a example?
one person had actually thrown a freesebee and shot a picture of it.
he made sure the picture was not that clear n claimed it to be an
ufo.the american inteligents only came to know it as fake only after
several yrs...
other many such cases has already proved to be false.
do watch discovery channel n please dont believe that people have
seen it!!!!

and yes i dont mean they cannot exist i just want to say dont rely on
what others say without firm proof!

[mediator]

@blackpearl : Yea thats correct. :)

Thats a nice link (opencourse one), but all thats written there is all what I said in the discussion.

Below is the quotation from the source provided by u!

Newton's Laws of Motion are approximations to Special Relativity that are applicable only at low speeds.

In other words, Special Relativity is a generalization of Newton's Laws of Motion.

In practice, one must be traveling faster than ~0.1c (30,000 Km/s!) to observe these special relativistic effects.

Nevertheless, with sensitive experimental equipment such as atomic clocks, the predictions of Special Relativity have been verified to high precision.


I gave the examples of low speed moving objects only like train ! IS there anything different I said??

[Raaabo]

Mediator is right to insist on the usage of the term "relative" because it's all important when dealing with the speed of light.

Let me first talk about UFOs:

But when we are talking about UFOs we mean aliens. A secret government aircraft doesn't become a UFO by defination. Unidentified to the common people but not to the government. A flying bird you can't recognize doesn't become a UFO, does it? These UFO sightings could actually be secret government projects and not aliens, atleast most of them. Consider that most sightings occur at US and near Nevada where the "famous" Area 51 is located.


It's sad that you equated what I said with a BIRD being identified as a UFO. In a discussion that is talking about intelligent alien life, speed of light and time travel, I'd expect you to read posts a little more carefully and take the trouble to understand them. I prefer the term Unidentifiable Flying Object to the standard Unidentified… Why? Consider this: If you are video shooting, capture something weird looking flying across the sky, take the video tape to the media, they have experts look at it, no one knows what it is (and no I DON’T mean “what species of bird”, or, “what is that pet parakeet’s name”). It’s a UFO!

Is it necessarily Alien? Absolutely not. When the Stealth bombers were being test flown, triangle shaped UFOs were sighted all over the states. Little less than a year later everyone knew they were the stealths. However, for that period of time until the US government admitted that the “triangles” were in fact the stealth bombers, they “were” UFOs!

So until and unless a UFO hovers your house, beams down an alien with 2 fingers and telepathic capabilities, and mind-tells you, “Take me to your leader.”, even the fact that aliens visit us remains to be proved. A statement like “But when we are talking about UFOs we mean aliens.” is unfounded. My point remains the same: UFOs could be:
1. Aliens visiting us
2. Secret government airplanes
3. Time travel machines in which humans / robots from the future come to observe us
4. Optical illusions
5. Figments of our imaginations
6. Well executed fakes


Now to Superluminal possibilities:

Mathematically, superluminal speeds are achievable. They are not observable by us, but possible nonetheless. Einstein’s theories and equations are being pasted in this thread, even his theory of special relativity, but without being understood.

Einstein’s theories hold true for the “observable” universe of us four dimensional beings. However, newer theories in physics suggest that there are many more dimensions to the universe. We, being four dimensional, can only observe and understand the boundaries of what we see. A wormhole, as you pointed out, is an “error” (if I can take the liberty of calling it that) in our 4-dimensional observed universe.

Since you have used the example of a wormhole I am taking that to mean that you believe in their existence, as many others do, and this proves that the universe has at least one more dimension. Why? How else would you explain that particles with mass can enter a wormhole at X point and exit at Y point in the universe which is billions of light years away (or even 1 light year away) almost instantaneously (say 1 second). In a 4 dimensional world, that is like traveling 365 x 24 x 60 x 60 times the speed of light! (considering you travel 1 light year in 1 second)

But since superluminal speeds are impossible, wormholes must not exist! Yet they do… Thus Einstein must have been wrong, or at best right about only what holds true in the 4-dimensional boundary we exist in!

Let’s consider the mathematically proven particle called the Tachyon next. Everything that makes up our universe, as we know it, is made up of particles that we can unofficially call Tardyons. (From the word Tardy, i.e. Slow). Physicists and great mathematicians have spoken about Tachyons, which basically are (5th dimension??) particles that ONLY travel at superluminal velocities. Though it’s probably wrong to say this, you might consider these particles similar to the anti-matter that we’ve heard mentioned in Star Trek!

Just as 4-dimensional physics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity suggest that it would need infinite energy to accelerate even a mere electron to light speed… using the same equations, it would need infinite energy to SLOW down a Tachyon to light speed. In theory, a Tachyon accelerates as it loses energy.

Also, due to our 4-dimensional limitations, if we were to try and observe a tachyon, we would find that it is moving backwards in time. This is because observations are always relative. Discussions about Tachyons and superluminal speeds always seem to run into pages and pages, so I’ll stop here unless someone replies and asks for specific clarifications…

Back to the point:
Practically its impossible to approach the speed of light because as you increase your speed your mass increases. The closer you get to the speed of light your mass increases exponentially and at the speed of light it becomes infinite, a physical impossibility. To move a space ship having infinite mass at the speed of light would require infinite amount of energy.

I'm not saying that space travel over large distance is not possible but certainly not by conventional method. If UFOs exist and aliens do visit us, they must have done it by some other method like through a wormhole. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole)


As I have illustrated already, the very presence of wormholes makes superluminal travel a possibility (all we need to do is figure out how to survive the journey through a wormhole). Since time is relative, as is speed, as is mass, nothing is impossible. And if we accept that travel through space is possible, using wormholes, at superluminal speeds, time travel also must be possible.

Some theories suggest that the grandfather paradox will never occur, simply because time travel to the past isn’t possible. The future sure, the past, no way! This is because that when you approach the speed of light, relative time slows. So if you leave earth traveling at the speed of light, and travel for 10 years (observed from earth)… 5 years moving away and the other 5 spent on returning… you will find yourself back at earth in what was an instant to you, but was a decade to the people on earth…

Now, theory suggests that if you travel through a wormhole, go to a place 5 light years away, 5 to return, you will find yourself 10 years from the time you left. Thus the wormhole somehow accelerated the ship to about 10 x 365 x 24 x 60 x 80 times the speed of light! All we need to do is find what properties of a wormhole can accelerate a ship to such speeds…


Raaabo

[blackpearl]

My point remains the same: UFOs could be:
1. Aliens visiting us
2. Secret government airplanes
3. Time travel machines in which humans / robots from the future come to observe us
4. Optical illusions
5. Figments of our imaginations
6. Well executed fakes


I understand what you are trying to say, that anything that is unidentified or unidentifiable could be labeled as a UFO. Fine.

Now try to understand what I'm trying to say. Most UFO sightings are nothing but mistaken identities. That stealth bomber that so many people thought to be UFOs were infact airplanes, a case of mistaken identity. Strictly speaking, anything that are actually identifiable but were wrongly identified or not identified at all due to lack of knowledge or poor visibilty, whatever, could not be called UFO. Because in reality they are very much identifiable. Unless and until there appears an object in the sky that all men on this earth swear they never made, you can safely say that its unidentified. What can be an object that no man on earth has made unless its some spaceship from a distant star? All other objects from secret airplanes, to cloud formations that could have been called a "UFO" have an identity. You might not like it, but the term UFO has become synonymous with "alien spaceship". Otherwise why would UFOs be so widely discussed and speculated? Because people feel that some of these UFOs, if indeed they are unidentified, in the sense that its not man made, could be alien spacecrafts.


Einstein’s theories hold true for the “observable” universe of us four dimensional beings. However, newer theories in physics suggest that there are many more dimensions to the universe.


Extra dimensions are the most misunderstood. I would like to quote the following from a website.

The notion of any extra dimension to the four known dimensions was conceived by the Polish mathematician Theodor Kaluza in 1919. Kaluza thought that extra spatial dimensions would allow for the integration between general relativity and James Clerk Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory. Suported by Swedish mathematician Oskar Klein in the 1920s, these extra dimensions were actually minute, curled-up dimensions that could not be detected due to their extremely small size. These two mathematicians said that within the common three extended dimensions (that we are familiar with) are additional dimensions in tightly curled structures.

http://library.thinkquest.org/04apr/01330/newphysics/ndimensions.htm

These extra dimensions are curled up and too small to detect as stated in the text and their existence does not imply the existence of a parallel universe.


Now, theory suggests that if you travel through a wormhole, go to a place 5 light years away, 5 to return, you will find yourself 10 years from the time you left. Thus the wormhole somehow accelerated the ship to about 10 x 365 x 24 x 60 x 80 times the speed of light! All we need to do is find what properties of a wormhole can accelerate a ship to such speeds…


Wormholes are shortcuts in space. Its not necessary to travel at speeds in excess of light through a wormhoIe, infact you don't have to!! I have drawn a diagram to illustrate it.

http://i9.tinypic.com/2ij0lfc.jpg

A and B are two points in space at distances several hundred light years. If a large gravitational force is applied its possible to bend space itself!! so that the points A and B comes nearer. Now through the wormhole you can make the journey where the distance is considerably reduced at a speed which is much less than the speed of light and yet arrive at B "faster than light". Travelling through a wormhole doesn't break any laws of physics neither does it make the Theory of Relativity null and void.

Wormhole is just a theory, which exist in mathematical equations in paper. Because the equations that hint at the existence of wormholes is derived from some famous and well founded equations its generally believed that wormhole is a possibility. No one has been able to create a wormhole till now. Regarding tachyons, its just a theory as well. The very defination defines Tachyon as a hypothetical particle whose existence is yet to be proved. Lets leave the question of whether a tachyon or a wormhole exist or not, to the scientist to find out.

A wormhole, as you pointed out, is an “error” (if I can take the liberty of calling it that) in our 4-dimensional observed universe.

Since you have used the example of a wormhole I am taking that to mean that you believe in their existence, as many others do, and this proves that the universe has at least one more dimension.


Frankly speaking, I'm an idiot regarding meta physics and einstein's theory. I say only those which I read. I don't consider myself knowledgable enough to make my own deductions in physics. I would rather ask "Does existence of wormhole suggest there is another dimension?", than bluntly state "wormhole proves there is another dimension".

Anyway, this discussions has been highly interesting, and I would be happy if anybody has any other information to enlighten me furthur.

[Romit.Gadhiya]

Watch this:
(Its serious stuff!)
(though, i dont know if its real or not)

First:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3935426908707141430&q=area+51
Second:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3245046980782832257&q=area+51

Dosent matter if you believe it or not.. but a must see!
(I am confused as well..!)

//EDIT//
1st one is 1hr long... so its better you go for 2nd one first because of buffing issue.

[mehulved]

One thing I can say for sure. This thread surely goes above my head. It's as good as rocket science for me. Too much high fundu science for us common people to understand.

[mediator]

^^ hehe, nuthing's impossible to understand. The topics and fundas are easier to understand when they r in ur interest.

[Kiran_tech_mania]

I remember a program beamed by discovery on UFO’s…..

A research center was going through their daily routine of watching the sky using their telescopes. They saw a bright object in space which was moving in a haphazard manner. At first they ignored it as some kind of meteorite or some stuff in space. But their ignorance turned into revelation when saw it making some unusual maneuvers.

The object started making maneuvers just unimaginable! It was making 90 degrees turn at high speeds! It’s very unusual for space objects like meteorites, Space debris, etc to make such impossible maneuvers. Man-made objects also just can’t do that. Made-made propulsion technology can’t achieve 90 degrees turn at high speeds! Even if one assumes it, it is impossible for the man to survive inside the space craft. High G forces created at such high speeds would crush the man to death. Our unmanned transmitter technology is also far from being considered in this context. At last there is no other choice other than to declare it as an UFO driven by high-intelligence power.

UFO’s exist. Aliens may be preparing for something unimaginable! Time is God here. Let’s see what is in store for us in future!

[blackpearl]

^^^ errr.... I think you did not watch the program completely. It was later showed how a simple deviation of around 5 degrees, in direction can look like a 300 degree turn when looked from a partcular direction. For eg take a thin straight rod and then bend it in the middle by just 10 degrees. Now place the bend rod on a table and look at it from the top, you see the bend exactly at 10 degree. Now bring your eye to the level of the table surface and view the rod from the direction such that one end of the rod points at you. Now what do you see? suddenly the bend looks close to 360 degree, isn't it? Ofcourse you know that isn't 360 degree because we can view in 3D. But what about a camera that takes photo in 2D against a black sky that looks the same in all direction. How can you know whether the object made a 10 degree turn or a 300 degree turn? It could be just a small rock defleted slightly from its path. Ofcourse it could be a spaceship or a UFO as Raaabo puts it. But you can be easily fooled.

[mediator]

Now bring your eye to the level of the table surface and view the rod from the direction such that one end of the rod points at you.

@blackpearl : I wud like to read more on this and how ur theory holds true for distant objects and "how can a 90 deg angle be visualised greater than 180 deg or less than 0 degree".

[Kiran_tech_mania]

^^^ errr.... I think you did not watch the program completely. It was later showed how a simple deviation of around 5 degrees, in direction can look like a 300 degree turn when looked from a partcular direction. For eg take a thin straight rod and then bend it in the middle by just 10 degrees. Now place the bend rod on a table and look at it from the top, you see the ...........

Nope. Not at all! I just don't know how did you relate this theory to my quoted context. You should understand that the particle is in 'motion' in my context. It not just a 2D illusion which you are pointing to. In my context, the particle is in motion. And when I say it is in motion, it is w.r.t real-time. Ok. Anyway just for curiosity, lets play around with this theory to find out if any illusion is possible.

http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/6163/ufory8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Let assume the particle in motion perpendicular to the direction of view. So now you still see the object as stationary from position 'P1' to 'P2'. Now object takes a comfortable 30 deg turn to 'P3' w.r.t vertical and moves again in the direction of view to reach 'P4'. Now it takes another 30 deg turn and reaches 'P5'. Now what did you visualize? A 90 degree illusion! This maneuvers is as simple as possible doesn't require an UFO to do that. Hmmm...BUT, it doesn't end there! Where is the physics main 'time' factor? Since our discussion is in real-time photography, time can't be ignored! Particle in order to reach from position P1 to P2 takes a time 't', but for us that time is masked as time stationary since it's motion is in perpendicular direction! Same is the case when you consider point 'P3' to 'P4' here also the time 't' is a time when the particle is in motion towards view direction, but stand-by time w.r.t our camera context. So in this case maneuver from 'P1 to P5' may tend to look like a amazing 90 degree turn, but there is a delay of time T=t1+t2 during this motion. It's no more a continous motion. So this illusion can't be considered since in that scenario, the object is in full time motion w.r.t time.

[Raaabo]

@ blackpearl: I think you’re not getting my point about UFOs…

What you are trying to say is flawed in the following ways:

Most UFO sightings are nothing but mistaken identities
That’s why they’re called UFOs. A UFO is only a UFO until identified. If you stick to your theory of “UFO === Alien space craft”, then the only way you’d ever see one is if it landed and little green men came out. Actually, then it wouldn’t be a UFO either, because we’d KNOW that it was an alien space craft, and it wouldn’t be a UFO! Get it?

Unless and until there appears an object in the sky that all men on this earth swear they never made, you can safely say that its unidentified.
Do you seriously think the governments of countries will say, “Oh yeah, that’s our super secret project!” A UFO is just something that people see but cannot identify. If it remains unidentified, it remains a UFO, if it is identified, it ceases to be a UFO. That’s just simply the way it is.

You might not like it, but the term UFO has become synonymous with "alien spaceship".
Why wouldn’t I like it? I know that people think they see alien ships when they’re actually looking at secret US airplanes. So what? It doesn’t change the fact that until they’re identified they’re still UFOs!

Extra dimensions are the most misunderstood. I would like to quote the following from a website.
I’ll get to this in a while, but I think you haven’t understood the theories. This excerpt is from one of the many theories of infinite dimensions, and is all too cryptic. There are many theories, even of infinite parallel universes, and even theories that every second is a parallel universe (or even millisecond). Which, if true, makes time travel a possibility! But most of them are theories and hotly contested by other physicists. I prefer to stick to widely accepted theories (widely accepted = the majority of smartest brains in the world agree upon it), understand them and then comment on them and use logic on them, rather than pulling up theories that have as many contesters as supporters.


Wormholes are shortcuts in space. Its not necessary to travel at speeds in excess of light through a wormhoIe, infact you don't have to!! I have drawn a diagram to illustrate it.

To be honest, I’m most amused that you feel the need to give me a dictionary explanation of a wormhole and even took the trouble to draw a diagram.

Like I said, I’m accepting the widely accepted theories of the world’s smartest men (Einstein included). So when I talk about wormholes and Tachyons, it’s after reading all the theories put forward by these men.

Since you were the first one to mention “wormhole”, I figured that you believed in them, and accepted the theories behind them. I’m very surprised to see you say…


Wormhole is just a theory, which exist in mathematical equations in paper. Because the equations that hint at the existence of wormholes is derived from some famous and well founded equations its generally believed that wormhole is a possibility. No one has been able to create a wormhole till now. Regarding tachyons, its just a theory as well. The very defination defines Tachyon as a hypothetical particle whose existence is yet to be proved. Lets leave the question of whether a tachyon or a wormhole exist or not, to the scientist to find out.

Honestly, if this is just time-pass to you guys, and you’re not really interested enough to actually read up on stuff and understand it, maybe this thread really was better left locked! I’d appreciate it if people took the time to verify their opinions with some facts or at least base assumptions intelligently upon theories from world renowned physicists and scientists! None of us here are Einsteins, but let’s not try and spout lines from the greatest scientific works of our time just for fun!

http://i9.tinypic.com/2ij0lfc.jpg
I have just one question. Can you draw the same diagram depicting 3D space instead of a line or a plane?

This is what I mean by people not understanding theories before trying to explain them. For the rest of the readers of this thread…

The diagram above depicts space as a 2D plane, because in order to explain wormholes, we need to involve an additional dimension, which is impossible, because we wouldn’t know how to depict the 5th dimension. 3D is hard enough for us to see. For those of you who are wondering where the 4th dimension went, it’s time. We are fourth dimensional beings because we have volume (3D) and we exist, change and die with time (4th D).

This is why all diagrams of wormholes are stepped down a dimension or two, so that we can add the additional dimension to explain the way it works.

Anyway, back to the diagram: So, if you considered space to be that sheet of paper (stepped down one dimension), the shortest distance between point A and B is a straight line. However, if you add a dimension you get part 2 of the figure, where space can be bent and morphed by, say, a black hole, and the shortest distance between A and B can be reduced, even brought to virtually nothing, so you could get there in no time flat. This involves bending space which means adding another dimension!

This of it this way:
If you discovered a 3D world, where there was only length and breadth and time, no height (every being was infinitesimally short), and you were observing this world, couldn’t you do things that would make the beings of that world think of you as a god? You could pick up one of the flat beings and transport him to another part on the plane that is his universe, and he would be awed. Of course since they themselves are 3D beings, and you are 4D, they would only see your interactions with their world as length and breadth, no height! So if you stuck your finger into this plane, the beings would see a skin coloured line or circle, but not a finger. This is why we, as 4D beings cannot, and will not, picture a 5D universe! So although you can just bend the plane to make 2 points meet, to the beings of this flat world it would be magic! This is why additional dimensions are so hard for most people to understand!

@romit: the second video was already disproved as fake

One thing I can say for sure. This thread surely goes above my head. It's as good as rocket science for me. Too much high fundu science for us common people to understand.
LOL!!!

In order for this thread to make sense and continue, let’s just stick to the rule that if we’re going to be talking about UFOs and physics, people cannot just discount theories by the greatest human minds on a whim, not without a lot of good logical explanations to support such views!

Also, this thread has become much more than “Do you think UFOs exist”, which is in itself a flawed question because of course UFOs exist, any flying object that we cant understand or identify is a UFO! I think this thread should be renamed to “Aliens, UFOs, Time travel, physics and more…”. All in favour say Aye!

Raaabo

PS: Sorry for hijacking this thread! Oh and I stuck it so that I wouldn't have to search for it :) If it dies (stops getting intelligent replies) mods are free to unstick it...

[mehulved]

And I'd say we add a warning too. Geeky talk - Enter at your own risk.

[blackpearl]

Now I'm geniunly afraid to step into this thread. Everybody seems to know better than the other. Lets accept that we are confused as everybody else. I know its difficult to imagine the bending of a 3D space, so the diagram was given for a 2D space because it helps to get the concept. Now when you think of a 3D space, the concept of wormhole gets bizzare to say the least. Unfortunately, scientists have not gone to explain exactly how. They would probably prove it mathematically, but not physically. Thats why I said its just a theory. You can't disagree and you can't agree either.

And yes, the title is confusing. Ofcourse unidentified objects exist, what do you think people have discovered and classified each and every object in this universe? But I understood what he meant. He should have asked "Do you believe in alien spaceship?". So lets not discuss any furthur about the defination of UFO.

@blackpearl : I wud like to read more on this and how ur theory holds true for distant objects and "how can a 90 deg angle be visualised greater than 180 deg or less than 0 degree".

@mediator, kiran: let me think of a way, how I can make it clear. :)

[Kiran_tech_mania]

Coincidently, I had written an article entitled "Aliens and UFO's" and published in our company Intranet Portal. I would like to present to all of you.

DO ALIENS REALLY EXIST? IF YES WHY ARE THEY NOT INTERACTING WITH US?

We have seen many Hollywood movies showing these strange creatures which are so called 'Aliens'. Many still believe that they really exist & are occasionally visiting our Planet.

This statement may really puzzle you! But some incidents which occurred on Earth makes you think twice before ignoring it.

1. One night a man was driving back to home passing through outskirts of the city. As he passed through a hilly zone, he noticed a bright spot of light. Puzzled with the intensity of brightness, he stopped his car & looked at it. All of a sudden he fell unconscious. By the time he woke up, he saw nothing was there. Being confused, he reached home. Days passed…& one day he felt pain in his left arm. He consulted a Doctor. X-Ray of his arm showed a foreign substance twice the size of a groundnut. The Doctor recommended removal of the substance by operation. After operation, they analyzed the foreign substance. The Doctors could not tell what the substance was! They were puzzled! They immediately sent it to specialized lab for analysis of the substance. The scientists analyzed it & could neither draw any conclusion. They just could not tell what the substance is made up of! At last they declared that the material was of NON-EARTH origin! It was an implant made by Aliens during that night on his way back to home.

2. A Camera man of a top news agency never believed in Aliens & UFO’s stuff. He thought that people were becoming too crazy by producing such alien videos. But an incident that happened to him changed his thinking towards this strange thing.

One fine evening he was filming home video of his family people enjoying at a beach. They noticed a big disc shaped object approaching them. At first they ignored it as a Glider. Camera man pointed his handy cam towards this approaching object. He could not believe his eyes! He saw an UFO approaching them! All of them were puzzled! Cameraman kept his camera rolling. But as soon as the UFO approached over head, the camera automatically failed! The UFO passed over their head in a flash! As soon as the UFO went off, the camera started working! He could not believe what went wrong at that moment! Camera was a brand new one. Battery was full. There was no reason for it to fail. But it did! All the data in the camera got erased! Scientists say that the camera came under strong Magnetic field due to which it failed that moment.

There is absolutely no reason for the cameraman to tell another telltale story! He is already a well recognized person & has good reputation in his news agency.

There are hundreds of Home videos & photographs published by common man & also some research labs around the world. All these videos featured a common thing, an Alien or an UFO. All these can be neglected as fake. But the growing numbers doesn’t allow us to dismiss all of them. Some are too good to be genuine and some just can’t be dismissed as fake. Some people might have done it to show their extra-ordinary computer graphics skills & some for getting name & fame, but not all of them. People who produced these videos included journalists, Scientists & some genuine people who don’t play with this kind of issues.

So why are Aliens not interacting with us?

I would like to throw some light on this.

Do they think our technology is not worth it?
Or is it because they can't understand our technology, our interests?
Are they afraid of us?

1. Man is trying very hard to interact with them. Humans are sending loads of varying signal waves into the space and waiting for reply signal from them. But till now there is no response from anywhere.

That doesn't discourage us from doing so. May be the signals transmitted by humans has not yet reached them. Our atmosphere and hence space is filled with all kinds of satellite signals. Satellite programs beamed by T.V stations, Radio stations, etc from the day it started are still progressing deep into the space. Did aliens catch hold of them? Or whether it has not yet reached them? Signals transmitted by T.V stations in earlier 50's are still reaching our neighbouring galaxies. It's the matter of time when they will receive it.

Varying strong ripples of encoded signals (like the one shown in blockbuster 'Koi mil gaya') are also being beamed into space. Why aren't they replying to it? May be they are unable to decode our signals to their understandable form.

2. As as Raabo said, they might find our technology not worth to interact with us. They might be studying us, the way we live, our physical structure..etc. This may be the reason for the rising abduction cases on humans.

3. Or is it because they are afraid of us! They might be watching us, willing to interact with us, but possible that they are afraid of consequences.

So humans are preparing for it. Suppose one fine day (or Bad day!) they interact with us. Then how are we going to understand what they are telling? They might be friendly with us expressing something, but just can't understand it! So humans are also not willing to be underprepared for it. Scientists are trying to understand various signal forms by researching on the animals on earth. It is said that Dolphins language of Ultrasonic sound waves is also a key factor in understanding aliens.

Many believe that Humans are already interacting with Aliens secretly! Most target US military. Especially the Area Sector 51, America's top secret military base on earth is in limelight of UFO spotting. A researcher kept a Camera running 24x7 days. Then he observed the video. He was amazed to see a extremely bright object landing some time in night. Then it vanished after a stay of an hour. None could explain what it was! The brightness was extremely intense, hence unlikely to be human made. He declared it as an UFO.

So the search is ON. Research centres are observing the space closely for any possible signal from extraterrastrials. It's the matter of time when we will get a signal from them. Suppose one day we get a signal from faraway world! HOW SHALL WE REACT? WILL IT BE A EMERGENCY SITUATION, POSING THREAT TO MANKIND? SHALL WE PREPARE FOR THE WAR? OR SHALL WE TAKE IT IN A POSITIVE WAY THINKING IT AS A FRIENDLY SIGNAL!
These questions will remain unanswered till the day ACTUALLY ARRIVES!

[blackpearl]

Stories of UFOs are interesting. Some of them are strange, some of them seems convincing. I don't know what to believe. :(

Anyway, mediator asked how the turning angle may look a lot greater than they actually is. I have taken the trouble to create an animation of it :)).
Before you view it let me clarify something. If you disagree with me don't flame me because:

1. This is not my theory. It was shown in Discovery how its difficult to exactly determine the path of motion. I'm just reproducing it.
2. I'm a bad animator, so the video might not look convincing.
3. Remember, you are seeing a 3D video from a close range. Things are a lot different when you see an object no bigger than a star, 20 miles above against a pitch black sky.

http://rapidshare.com/files/5041743/Movie1.rar.html (560KB)
__________
Satellite programs beamed by T.V stations, Radio stations, etc from the day it started are still progressing deep into the space. Did aliens catch hold of them?

Well, I'm not making fun of you but if the aliens watch "Kyunki saas bhi kabhi bahu thi" on Star plus, they will flee. :) :)

[Kiran_tech_mania]

Well, I'm not making fun of you but if the aliens watch "Kyunki saas bhi kabhi bahu thi" on Star plus, they will flee. :) :)

Lol! :D Forget about "Kyunki saas bhi kabhi bahu thi" , I wonder how do they feel if they see :?: :?: :?: movies! :confused: :rolleyes:

[mediator]

@blackpearl : That is a nice video. But it didn't answer my question! I specifically asked for 90 deg.

@blackpearl : I wud like to read more on this and how ur theory holds true for distant objects and "how can a 90 deg angle be visualised greater than 180 deg or less than 0 degree".


And now I'm interested more on this!

simple deviation of around 5 degrees, in direction can look like a 300 degree turn when looked from a partcular direction.

Again let me remind u we are dealing with distant objects!

I hope u know the difference between 5 deg and 300 deg angle.

Also, the video u showed wasn't very convincing. Part 1 of it, had an angle about 120-140 deg and part 2 also had aprox. the same angle. Yes aproximately the same angle u can verify it! Only the arms of the angle were shortened.

So please enlighten me with some convincing video! :)

[blackpearl]

@mediator: forget about specifics - 90 degree, 300 degree .... nobody took a compass to measure :)

Just look at the video one more time. The first one made a small turn, deviating from its path only slightly. The second one took a U-turn, although both were the same just viewed from different directions.
__________
Part 1 of it, had an angle about 120-140 deg and part 2 also had aprox. the same angle. Yes aproximately the same angle u can verify it! Only the arms of the angle were shortened.



The first one didn't have an angle of 140 degree. The angle is measured between the original direction and the new direction, how much the arm has turned.

new direction
/
/
/
/ ) angle of turn
Original direction ---------------------/------------------

[Kiran_tech_mania]

@blackpearl:
Just viewed the video. I don't see a 90 degree turn in the video. In the second part of the video, you might have noticed the particle moving in a direction perpendicular to the direction of view. At that instance, the object looks stationary. This is what I said. The object should be in full motion while viewing. This is not possible under any circumstances.

[mediator]

@mediator: forget about specifics - 90 degree, 300 degree .... nobody took a compass to measure
Just look at the video one more time. The first one made a small turn, deviating from its path only slightly. The second one took a U-turn, although both were the same just viewed from different directions.

Why forget? U told human mind can be fooled easily and thats why I wanted to discuss it with u.
I didn't understand by what u wantd to say by "how much arm has turned", but scientifically an angle of a moving object is measured by noting its initial position, final postition and maximum deviation between them. So if u adhere to scientific rules, then I request u to take a scale,compass and a D(angle calculator) and again calculate the angle for the 2 parts of the video. Its aprox. the same!! Try it and calculate it.

Neways that wasn't my point. U don't need to do extra work again. I just wanted to show that human mind can't be fooled that easily. Thats why I specifically asked for distant objects, 90 deg and later 5 deg and 300 deg, coz
1. 90 degrees has range 0<90<180 when viewed from different directions
2. 5 degrees cannot be viewed as 300 deg or greater than 180 deg when viewed from below the UFO. IF AO lies on x axis, and OB 5 deg above AO, then 300 deg means reversal of the direction of OB i.e below AO which is possible if we view the UFO from completely different direction i.e if we were viewing from below then we view it from above it, or if we were viewing from left of it then we view from right of it. But distant means viewing it from faraway and in a particular direction.
3. Also @kiran's point is valid here about time!

P.S - I used to be an engineering drawing student and tried to visualise it from all sort of directions so as to verify ur post about "human mind can be fooled very easily"! But I was unsuccessful to verify ur post. U may try more if u think I'm wrong! :)

[blackpearl]

Guys!! try to imagine. I will make one last try.

Suppose a body is moving in a circle. If you view it from the top, i.e. along the axis of the circle you will see it going round and round. Now if you view it along the plane of the circle, what will you see? You will see the body moving forward and backward continuously, i.e. oscillating. I hope its clear till now.

So in reality the body is slowly turning as it moves around in a circle, but from a diffferent view it looks as if the body is constantly changing direction - left to right and then right to left. I think this should be clear enough.
__________

P.S - I used to be an engineering drawing student and tried to visualise it from all sort of directions so as to verify ur post about "human mind can be fooled very easily"! But I was unsuccessful to verify ur post. U may try more if u think I'm wrong! :)

Now, that you mention, I was an engineering student too and familiar with Engineering Drawings. If you remember there is somethinmg called perspective. A railway track seems to radiate from a point if you stand on it and look far along the tracks, but you know that its parallel. An illusion.

Similarly, have you seen pictures of meteor showers. It looks like they are spreading every where like the spokes of a wheel. But in reality they are moving towards you almost parallely in a straight line. Search for such pictures on the net.

[mediator]

Suppose a body is moving in a circle. If you view it from the top, i.e. along the axis of the circle you will see it going round and round. Now if you view it along the plane of the circle, what will you see? You will see the body moving forward and backward continuously, i.e. oscillating. I hope its clear till now.

So in reality the body is slowly turning as it moves around in a circle, but from a diffferent view it looks as if the body is constantly changing direction - left to right and then right to left. I think this should be clear enough.

Thats the simplest 2d visualization and planar representation! But one thing, why do u want to see it from top? We are talking about UFOs, means viewing from faraway and in one particular direction.

Also I missed a point in previous post. Suppose ur viewing the UFO from front i.e X-Y plane and it makes say 45 deg deviation w.r.t X axis. SO when Viewing from front u'll see that size and speed of UFO are constant. Now move urself towards Y-Z plane where X=0. What do u see? That the UFO is moving in a straight line. RIght? But it is obvious as when the moving particle is near us, its size seem to be much larger as compared to when it is at some distant position. Also when an object recedes from us, not only its size seem to diminish but also its speed!

So noting all such factors, I don't think human mind can be fooled that easily. It can detect with some observation whether the object is hovering in a circle, moving towards us or receding from us and during such sightings the human mind's observation goes at its peak due to curiosity.


Now, that you mention, I was an engineering student too and familiar with Engineering Drawings. If you remember there is somethinmg called perspective. A railway track seems to radiate from a point if you stand on it and look far along the tracks, but you know that its parallel. An illusion.

Exactly!! I didn't see this point of urs while making my above point. But both are same! So human mind knows how to distinguish a moving object in 3D space! Perspective! Its illusion, but human mind knows its parallel, its not getting fooled anywhere!

Neways, I'm extremely glad that ur an ED student tooooooo and that makes discussion much simpler and more interesting! ED rox. WHat say? :)

[Raaabo]

Again a pointless argument!

blackpearl, do you seriously think that the scientists who viewed the videos in question did not know about reference frames and angle of viewers? If guys at NASA cannot explain some of the videos of UFOs making sharp turns at high speeds, what makes you so sure that you've hit the nail on the head and thought of something they didn't think of?

Comets travel at incredible speeds, yet you can see them for hours. this is because from a distance, speeds appear much, much slower. The fact that a change in direction is even noted, and that they whiz by at incredible heights = immense speed and great maneuverability. If you saw a plane in the sky, and it did a hard banking turn, you would see it turn slowly.

Also, lets not forget, in the videos (let’s leave the argument over whether they are real or hoaxes for now), the objects are traveling at very comparable speeds before and after the turn, thus hinting at the fact that the reference plane is not at an acute enough angle to the object to really matter or to skew the angle by much.

In your cyclic motion explanation, if viewed along the plane, the object will always appear to be accelerating and decelerating, fastest at the center point on the line and slowest at the ends, but the videos do not show that much of positive or negative acceleration.

Also, there is one way to explain a sharp turn at comparable speeds while viewed from an acute angle: this is only possible if the moving object suddenly, instantaneously accelerates and changes direction at the instant of acceleration. As I said, the fact that you can see the motion (speed) so clearly at such a distance means great speed, and for it to accelerate to thrice that speed in an instant (in order to prove your theory correct), already requires a lot more technology than humans are capable of…

Of course, there have been various other explanations for these objects: one NASA video which showed an object making one such sharp turn was explained as dust on the camera lens. It was explained as others as a UFO making a very sharp turn and speeding away after a missile was fired at it! What’s true and wha isn’t is not of concern right now though, but what is important is that again, your theories, though correct for short distances and MAYA experiments, do not hold true at the planetary scale…

Raaabo

[Kiran_tech_mania]

^^^
Originally Posted by Raabo
Again a pointless argument!
blackpearl, do you seriously think that the scientists who viewed the videos in question did not know about reference frames and angle of viewers? If guys at NASA cannot explain some of the videos of UFOs making sharp turns at high speeds, what makes you so sure that you've hit the nail on the head and thought of something they didn't think of?

Rightly said. But not a pointless arguement though. Infact this was in my mind and was about to tell it to Blackpearl. I didn't want to take a third party reference(NASA) saying that if NASA can't explain illusion, how could he explain. That made me illustrate and clear his doubt regarding this motion. Mediator too justified it good enough that it is not a illusion. Blackpearl's arguement is valid if the object is retarding and accelarating during it's motion as u said. But in this case the object is making such maneveurs at constant speed. Moreover, his concept can't be considered for distant objects.
I will google for availablity of that video if NASA has made it publicly available.

[blackpearl]

blackpearl, do you seriously think that the scientists who viewed the videos in question did not know about reference frames and angle of viewers? If guys at NASA cannot explain some of the videos of UFOs making sharp turns at high speeds, what makes you so sure that you've hit the nail on the head and thought of something they didn't think of?


I have already told that its not my explanation, its the explanation shown in Discovery how that object might not be making a sharp turn at all. NASA did not say it was the only explanation.

This is the same case of Shooting the messenger. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger) :rolleyes:

[Raaabo]

I have already told that its not my explanation, its the explanation shown in Discovery how that object might not be making a sharp turn at all. NASA did not say it was the only explanation.

This is the same case of Shooting the messenger. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger) :rolleyes:

OK! I know this is going to look like I'm targeting you (which I'm not!), but did Discovery ask you to come and post here? Did NASA?

The term "don't shoot the messenger" is used when someone shows anger to the bearer of bad news.

This scenario is different because you have heard/read something and are putting it forward as an explanation that you agree with (thus making it your view), in a debate on a subject that really has no right answers. You're not a messenger, so there's no case of shooting the messenger...

Every arguement about the objects on those tapes has counter arguements. Every plausible explanation has been probed, and every attempt to prove that these aren't UFOs has a counter argument... So let's drop this topic about the videos in question. I much prefer the "Is time travel possible" argument anyway :)

Raaabo

[Kiran_tech_mania]

OK guys. Here it is! The shocking NASA video of an UFO making 90 degree turn! I was refering this Video in my article.
Click here : UFO Makes Shocking Manuevers & 90 Degree Turn! (http://ufo-movies.com/private-footage/ufo-makes-shocking-manuevers-90-degree-turn.html)

[Third Eye]

OK guys. Here it is! The shocking NASA video of an UFO making 90 degree turn!
Click here : UFO Makes Shocking Manuevers & 90 Degree Turn! (http://ufo-movies.com/private-footage/ufo-makes-shocking-manuevers-90-degree-turn.html)

Great video !
But the question comes in mind,if UFOs are exists then why they don't come on earth permanently.......

[s18000rpm]

Maybe the Aliens are already here in Human Disguise. :D

the topic of thread should have been "Do You Think Aliens Exist",

Source of UFO = Existence of Aliens. right?

I do say that Aliens are there, coz there are Billions of Planets in those Billions of Galaxies, so there is possibility of some Planets with similar Climate/Eco-System as our Earth.

We dont even know for sure whether the Big-BANG occured or not. its all asumptions, no hard evidence.

So my conclusion, UFO visited Earth or not, Aliens exist for sure.
Who knows they might look as same as us humans. :D

[Third Eye]

the topic of thread should have been "Do You Think Aliens Exist",
Source of UFO = Existence of Aliens. right?

Yeah !

[shashank_digitreader]

Man! this thread is going nuts and never thought it will come this far!
__________
Great video !
But the question comes in mind,if UFOs are exists then why they don't come on earth permanently.......

nice video! its movin really fast!

[Kiran_tech_mania]

Great video !
But the question comes in mind,if UFOs are exists then why they don't come on earth permanently.......

Yep! It's very hard or rather impossible to imagine any man-made or heavenly object making such maneuvers.

Regarding your question...check out mine and Raabo's earlier posts...It has already been discussed in detail.

[Raaabo]

Whoops! Apparently digitadmin accidently closed this thread, reopened... apologies from the admins..

Raaabo

[Kiran_tech_mania]

Whoops! Apparently digitadmin accidently closed this thread, reopened... apologies from the admins..

Raaabo

No problems Raabo! Accidents do happen, more over mistakes are made by Humans. I am sure Agent 001 is human! ;)

Thanks to Fatbeing for opening the thread.

[capri435]

i wont believe till i see one till then i'll laugh at these stories

[shashank_digitreader]

Lets start abt Time travel, first i wanted open it as a another thread, but as the thread's name is changed im goin on here:

source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/think.html

Think Like Einstein
by Rick Groleau

Ever since Einstein revealed his special theory of relativity, we've known that time travel—at least moving forward through time—is possible. Einstein didn't pull this theory, or even the notion that time travel is possible, out of thin air. Rather, he took the knowledge of the day, saw an inconsistency—a piece of a puzzle that didn't fit, so to speak—and thought about possible explanations.

On the following pages you'll have to think like Einstein. You'll take a look at the same puzzle and see the problem, and you'll have to think about the same things Einstein had to think about to resolve the problem. Maybe you've heard the recent reports about how physically unique Einstein's brain was. Don't panic—you won't need a superhuman brain to grasp the concepts presented. And when you finish, not only will you understand the special theory, you will have reasoned it out for yourself, just as Einstein did.

[webgenius]

Lets start abt Time travel, first i wanted open it as a another thread, but as the thread's name is changed im goin on here:

source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/think.html



WOW!!!! Can't believe this!!! This cant be true...I think we'll get to see something like this in the next 5 to 10 years...
BYE BYE airlines:D:D:D

[Tech Geek]

May be one of us in the Digit Forum is a ALIEN.:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[webgenius]

May be one of us in the Digit Forum is a ALIEN.:D :D :D :D :D :D :D
BINGO!!!! I always thought you are one:p

[SE><IE]

Lets start abt Time travel, first i wanted open it as a another thread, but as the thread's name is changed im goin on here:

source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/think.html

Think Like Einstein
by Rick Groleau

Ever...
...Einstein did.

Great link. Thanks.


Some theories suggest that the grandfather paradox will never occur, simply because time travel to the past isn’t possible

Well atleast Einstein's theory doesn't say so. According to him we can ttravel in past if we can travel faster than light. Ah yes, you said some theories :)
Well, for those who don't know how its possible to travel (according to Einstein) by travelling faste than light:
Lets say a dog dies and you get the news(information) next morning that a dog had died. Consider it as travelling at a speed slower than light.
Now if you were at the same location as the dog then you would have got the information exactly when it died. Information travelling at light's speed.
Now if the information could travel at a speed greater than light then you could know about the death of dog before it died. In other words, you could peep into future that is, you current world would get dragged into past.

I heard about "zero power" on discovery around 3-4 years back. They were talking that you can even ride a bicycle moving at a speed faster than light without 'actually' crossing the speed limit (of light). Does anyone have any relative info. :)

[Vyasram]

Lets start abt Time travel, first i wanted open it as a another thread, but as the thread's name is changed im goin on here:

source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/think.html



Gr8 link , thanks,

learnt what's happenning

[shashank_digitreader]

what if the speed of train is more than that light?

[SE><IE]

you checked your own link right? :) .See, speed of light is constant (as depicted in the image (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/think03.html))
In this case they consider the speed of train to be c/2 (where c= speed of light) , even if you increase the speed to c or more than c even then the relative speed of light in both reference frames( 1)person in train, 2) person standing outside) will be still the same i.e., c
:)

[Raaabo]

you checked your own link right? :) .See, speed of light is constant (as depicted in the image (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/think03.html))
In this case they consider the speed of train to be c/2 (where c= speed of light) , even if you increase the speed to c or more than c even then the relative speed of light in both reference frames( 1)person in train, 2) person standing outside) will be still the same i.e., c
:)

That's not what shashank asked... he asked what if the train was moving faster than the speed of light... and then turned on it's headlight, what would the observer standing on the ground see...

Interesting question...

there's a theory that if you're travelling faster than the speed of light, and turned on your headlights, observers will still see your headlights travel at the speed of light.

What's more interesting is that you will see time move backwards :) so you will see yourself starting to move backwards (away from the observer) instead of forwards (towards him).

The observer will see your headlights (and your train) after you have already passed him, but still, at the speed of light, not faster. This is because C is constant, and we cannot see things moving faster than the speed of light in real-time, we will only see them later (when the light they emit catches up to the point they just passed while moving at a speed faster than light).

Of course, all this is just one theory, because others suggest that in order to attain a speed faster than light, you have to have infinite power to accelerate, and you will become infinite mass.

This is why we currently assume that greater than C speeds are impossible, because if you are travelling at C-1 m/s, time is already almost at a standstill. So in order to accelerate that 1 m/s faster, you have to apply infinite power of acceleration to move any faster.


Raaabo

[shashank_digitreader]

That's not what shashank asked... he asked what if the train was moving faster than the speed of light... and then turned on it's headlight, what would the observer standing on the ground see...

Interesting question...

there's a theory that if you're travelling faster than the speed of light, and turned on your headlights, observers will still see your headlights travel at the speed of light.

What's more interesting is that you will see time move backwards :) so you will see yourself starting to move backwards (away from the observer) instead of forwards (towards him).

The observer will see your headlights (and your train) after you have already passed him, but still, at the speed of light, not faster. This is because C is constant, and we cannot see things moving faster than the speed of light in real-time, we will only see them later (when the light they emit catches up to the point they just passed while moving at a speed faster than light).

Of course, all this is just one theory, because others suggest that in order to attain a speed faster than light, you have to have infinite power to accelerate, and you will become infinite mass.

This is why we currently assume that greater than C speeds are impossible, because if you are travelling at C-1 m/s, time is already almost at a standstill. So in order to accelerate that 1 m/s faster, you have to apply infinite power of acceleration to move any faster.


Raaabo

thanx raaabo

[Kiran_tech_mania]

The scenario which Raaabo explained holds good only if the train is moving in parallel direction w.r.t the person. What if the train is approaching the person with already headlight 'ON'? Now what would the person see?

He would first see only the train passing through and then see the headlight!! Moreover the person will be seeing only the headlight without train even after the train has passed through!!

[SE><IE]

That's not what shashank asked..
Ah! forgot to answer the whole thing, left it in the middle. Anyways thanks Raaabo for :
So in order to accelerate that 1 m/s faster, you have to apply infinite power of acceleration to move any faster.

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light) is something that you may be intersted in :)

[Raaabo]

The scenario which Raaabo explained holds good only if the train is moving in parallel direction w.r.t the person. What if the train is approaching the person with already headlight 'ON'? Now what would the person see?

He would first see only the train passing through and then see the headlight!! Moreover the person will be seeing only the headlight without train even after the train has passed through!!

Sorry, wrong again! Even if the train was moving at you, you would see the train and headlight together, just that you would see the train after it passed, not while it was passing. That is the only difference, you would NOT see a train without a headlight or headlight without the train. Why? because you can only see light, and you will see the light from the train (reflection or headlight). If the train was travelling faster than light speed, you would still only see at light speed, thus you would see events later than they occurred!

The reason why you will never see the headlight without the train is because though the train may travel faster than the speed of light, what you can SEE does not. The speed of light being constant, the light reflection off the train (which causes you to see it) and the headlight, will always both reach you together.

Raaabo

[SE><IE]

This means that human eye is insensible to speeds greater than light. *whew*

[krazyfrog]

After reading all those posts it seems that time travel would indeed be possible. But for someone to travel time, they would require a TIME MACHINE (like the ones shown in movies). So can anyone tell me what does a time machine has to do to send a person back and forth in time. In short could someone please EXPLAIN THE CONSTRUCTION AND WORKING OF TIME MACHINE. And if not a time machine then what will be used to send a person back and forth in time?

[blackpearl]

^^ Raaabo already explained, one basic requirement to travel back in tim is to travel at speeds greater than the velocity of light. So a time machine, I guess, would be a just such a vehicle.

[Kiran_tech_mania]

Sorry, wrong again! Even if the train was moving at you, you would see the train and headlight together, just that you would see the train after it passed, not while it was passing. That is the only difference, you ......................

Raaabo


Nope. Sorry Raaabo, I can't accept this! Let me explain...
Train is approaching at a speed more than speed of light. I said 5 times the light speed, which is very high. Since it is approaching the person, that means distance is reducing w.r.t time. The light released by the headlight is still travelling at the speed of light which is less than the speed of train. So light released at a time 't' during the travel will reach the person much later than the train in itself. Train will be seen earlier becoz the train is approaching him. Of course the headlight is still seen along with train, but what I said is headlight will be seen even after the train passes through. 5 times light speed is specified for this reason. Might be the difference would have been less if the speed is just slightly higher, not 5 times.

[SE><IE]

@Kiran: Looks like you are considering the speed of light and train as conventional objects. so you see the faster one earlier and then the slower one. If this were to happen then the whole purpose of FTL would have been solved by directly moving at more than light's speed. I don't think FTL is possible by conventional methods though :)

@raaabo: The avie really suits you. I can see the HDR effect :lol:

okey, here's how to design a time-machine:

It's all very simple. It requires a bathtub, a microwave oven, magic jelly-beans, a jar of vaseline, duct tape, solder wire, super glue and a co-pilot.

Now, obviously the bathtub will be the main hull of your time machine. (I tried making a compact model but then there was no room for the stereo). Ok, using duct-tape and soldering wire, you're going to prepare the hull. Cut out 16 strips of 4 feet duct tape. Therefore, you should have 16 strips of duct tape, each measuring 4 feet. Or on total, you meed 64 feet of duct tape. It's not easy to make this at home using grey paints and scotch tape - so maybe you should buy it. Paste this on to the bathtub - moving from your left (assuming that thats the faucet side) to your right. Oh - before that, make sure that the bathtub is empty. Good - now we're rocking. OK - so you've pasted the duct tape - therefore, you should have 8 strips on each side. Make sure that the strips are aligned parallel to the nanometer. Not doing so can cause some serious nasal as well as an*l problems.

Next, take the solder wire and using the super glue, paste this on the duct tape. You can choose any pattern, but personally i find flowery and leafy shapes very pretty. Add's a touch of refinement and finesse, you see.

Good. Basically, what you've done now, is you've created the hull, you've got the circuit board and the circuits in place. Now comes the nice shine that every interstellar time travelling device needs!! Thats where your bottle of vaseline comes in. Of course, if your co-pilot happens to be a fag and so do you, then you better save some for later (just in case it gets lonely in the time you're going to). Great, so smear away the vaseline to give your TARDIS that nice young glow that you want!

Now doing this, not only makes your time machine look pretty, but it also protects it from interstellar bugs and dirt as well as other straight guys who might want to steal your craft.

Excellent - now we're coooking with gas!!!

Now, attach the microwave oven to the back of the bathtub (faucet side). You will need to use the faucet to control direction. Put a few magic jelly beans in the microwave. Enter the time you want to go to and hit start. The nuclear energy released from the cooking jelly beans will instantly transport you to that time!!

I'm trying to improve engine efficiency though, and i feel that the replacement of jelly beans with Britney Spears/C Aguilera/Enriqu tapes/cd's/video's etc should work better, since the probability of people liking them is lesser - significanly lesser than that of people liking magic jelly beans.

[Raaabo]

The theory of time travel is weird. As per existing theories, time travel to the future is very possible. Though time travel to the past is not. I'll keep the explanations simple, and am not going to use equations and stuff, so that everyone gets it (I hope)!

Time Travel To The Future
This one is easy! Well, comparatively anyway... Researchers have already proven, using popular experiments that you can Google for, that traveling to the future is easy. All you have to do is travel at speeds comparable to light. The important thing to know here is that light speed is not possible at all right now, but comparable speeds certainly are. What are these speeds? Say, C/2! Or even C/100! Let's stick with C/2 (or half the speed of light) for this example.

Let's say you have this über-cool spaceship that can attain speeds of half the speed of light. We will ignore the time taken to accelerate to that speed, or the time taken to decelerate...

Bodies in motion experience what is known as relative time, i.e., the time that a body experiences is different from rest time. This has been proven by syncing two atomic clocks, placing one on the ground and the other in a really fast moving fighter jet / rocket (I forget which). After hours of zipping about at the vehicles top speed it was found that the clock on the ground was a second faster than the one zipping about in the vehicle. Why? Because if you were to travel at light speed, time = 0 (or time comes to a standstill). You can find all the equations that prove this online. And remember, this was just jet planes / rockets, which travel at just a negligible fraction of the speed of light

Now, imagine that you were traveling at C/2, time would really slow down then. Though not exactly correct, let us assume for the sake of example and ease of calculation that relative time slowed to 1/2 of absolute time at a speed of C/2.

You get on to your über cool rocket, you hit the speed of C/2, and travel for one year in a direction away from Earth. Then you turn around, and take another year to come back. You left in 2008, Earth time, and return at what you think is 2010. You find that it's actually 2012 on Earth, because time was moving at double the speed on Earth! Congratulations, you have just traveled 2 years into the future!

Time Travel To The Past
This is a little more complicated because it involves faster than light travel, which is not even possible in theory right now. Well, according to most theories anyway! Let’s assume that you could now travel at 2C (twice the speed of light), and let’s also assume for simplicity that time at C =0 then time at 2C = -t (or that you end up traveling back into the past the same duration that you travel).

Use the same scenario as the future: you travel at 2C for a year away, and then at 2C for a year back. In your time, you have traveled 2 years, left at 2008 and return at 2010 your time, but you find that on earth, it’s 2006!

Of course many people claim that this is just not possible. Theories claim that you will actually end up 2 years older, but end up back at the time you left ( 2008 ). So relatively, you’re in the past (2 years ago), but from Earth’s timeframe, you just never left!

Another theory is that you an see the events of the past, but never interact with them. Let’s say you have a really powerful telescope that can see distances of light years away. Now you travel at 2C for a year and stop. You are 2 light years away from Earth. You use your telescope to see what’s happening on earth, and instead of seeing what happening on Earth a year ago when you left (since light takes 2 years to travel to where you are, you took only 1 year) you see what is happening 1 year before you left! You have seen the past!

People often ask if time travel to the past were possible, even 10,000 years from now, where are all the time travelers? One theory suggests that in order to avoid a paradoxical situation, time travel is only possible to the past until the time machine existed, not before. But if you make a time machine, and it can’t travel to the past, how do you know it works? How do you test it?

The most plausible possibility to visit the past is superluminal (faster than light) travel. Even then, travelers might only look at the past, not interact with it, because as soon as they reduce speed to less than light speed they start moving forward in time from the reference point they left (our future).

Is this why we see UFOs? Maybe they’re not aliens at all, but just our future human explorers setting off for far away galaxies using faster than light travel. Since they travel faster than light, they appear (to themselves) to be traveling back in time… let’s take an example, in the year 3000, a ship leaves Earth, it ascends through the atmosphere into space, then starts accelerating and hits C very quickly, then it accelerates even further, to say 1000 C for a year. During this time, the pilot sees himself traveling back in time to his rest point, then sees the Earth go backwards in time a thousand years. Now, since he took off at, say Area 51, there is a possibility that when he accelerates to 1000C from C, almost instantaneously, people from 1000 years ago (year 2000) see an image of him, because he can see them. Is this what UFOs are? When he reaches his destination, he will slow down, and as a result disappear from the year 2000. Is this why UFOs suddenly appear and then disappear?

Or maybe it’s none of that, and UFOs are populated by humans from the future, who have been warned not to mess with the space time continuum, and thus cannot land and chat with us. They can see us, but not talk to us. Are the abductions we hear about actually rogue criminals from the future trying to change history to suit themselves?

As you can see, it’s all vague and guesswork when it comes to traveling to the past, the future, however, is fair game.

A sci-fi book I read once (don’t remember the name), told of the first near-light speed travelers. They set off in a ship that attained 0.8 x C, traveled for decades (in their time) to try and get to Andromeda. They reached there, and found that humans had already populated planets in Andromeda. In fact, technology had advanced, and humans attained C and were thriving on planets in Andromeda for centuries. At 0.8 x C, what was a few decades to the travelers was in fact a thousand years to people on Earth. The Captain of the ship finds that his own children were the pioneers of light speed travel, and reached Andromeda at C about 500 years before he did. They were dead and gone, and he met his great-great-great-grandchildren! He was 30 years older, but arrived at Andromeda 1000 years (Earth time) later! Travel to the future!


Nope. Sorry Raaabo, I can't accept this! Let me explain...
Train is approaching at a speed more than speed of light. I said 5 times the light speed, which is very high. Since it is approaching the person, that means distance is reducing w.r.t time. The light released by the headlight is still travelling at the speed of light which is less than the speed of train. So light released at a time 't' during the travel will reach the person much later than the train in itself. Train will be seen earlier becoz the train is approaching him. Of course the headlight is still seen along with train, but what I said is headlight will be seen even after the train passes through. 5 times light speed is specified for this reason. Might be the difference would have been less if the speed is just slightly higher, not 5 times.

I know it’s hard to understand. But you have to accept the theories put across by the greatest minds on Earth, after all these are their theories, not mine. Let me explain how:

First let me explain why the observer standing still will always see the train and the headlight, and never either one.

What you see is light, which travels at C (light speed constant). You are unable to see anything that moves faster than light. Even if the train was traveling at 5C, all you will see is the train (providing you have a camera or eyes with a refresh rate / shutter speed of 1/C or lower) moving at the speed of light, never faster. Yes, you will see the train when it is actually very, very far away, and has gone past much before you saw it, but you will see both the train and it’s headlights. Why? Because you are only seeing at the speed of light. The time the train takes to pass you is negligible, and you will obviously not see the headlights or train once it has gone past. See diagram:

http://raaabo.com/time1.jpg

Now remember, what the observer sees is light that travels at the speed of light. Not faster, not slower. So you see a train that is traveling at the speed of light, as light actually. Similarly, you see the headlight as light. Therefore both will be seen coming together, and both will be seen leaving together. In reality what you will see is just a flash of light switching on and off (coming and going past you).

Let’s look at another example: A train traveling faster than the speed of sound, and blowing its horn… You will see it go past you, then you will hear a sonic boom and hear the train and its horn after it has already passed you. This is what you are thinking is the case with light, which isn’t. Simply because anything that is faster than light is just not observable by us, while we can observe what is faster than sound, simply because we can see light.

Just as we cannot hear faster than sound, we cannot see faster than light. And before you think about asking whether you will feel the rush of air an hour before you see the train traveling past you, think again.

You only feel the rush of air when a train is near you. You can only see a certain distance away. The speed of light negates all of these distances because it is so great. You will always see something before you hear it