Correction: You know that it's commonly claimed that alleged aliens are interested in abducting humans. I don't buy such claims, nor the idea that UFOs are actually alien craft. Those that are genuinely some kind of unidentified flying object are undoubtedly terrestrial in origin, no matter how extraordinary their shape or movement may seem. As for seeing things near military and nuclear installations, these are obviously good places to see unidentified aircraft.
The belief is outrageous, it's not an emotional response. As far as specifics go: the physical evidence of an actual alien, who's DNA is not earth based. The possession of an actual craft or equipment that can do something that's not repeatable by earth technology and cannot be replicated by earth technology. An actual First Contact event.
I think you came to the correct conclusion from a question I asked on a totally different facet of the conversation. The question I asked, "...WHY DO YOU THINK "this idea too greatly upsets their beliefs & conceptions for them to accept it without a great struggle?" The question was about worldview, and your view that I just couldn't accept the concept of aliens, regardless of evidence, when in fact the right answer you concluded with was...the evidence. It was right there all along. What I consider evidence is listed in post #177.
This claim has already been refuted: You can create the same shape with a traditional aircraft. It is flying away, and because the earth is round it appears to be sinking below the water as it moves into the distance.
LOL! That is total horsesht. It has nothing to do with the Navy videos. Debunkers have to answer to the actual evidence. This explanation is known as pelicanism - the imaginary world where any claim can be explained as a flock of pelicans.
Oh my, you are upset again. Who said anything about belief, but you? Yours is a belief. I argue for the facts at hand and refute pedestrian claims by people who have no knowledge of the subject, but plenty of opinions, And you would immediately claim it could have been faked. So a video would prove it to you? How about something on the main stream media? How about a public exhibit? How would you know it's real? What evidence could not be faked? Anything you see would be on TV or the internet. The cases that most interest serious people like me, and actual scientists, like me, are those with high value evidence AND characteristics that defy the limits of human technology. That is UFO 101, day 1.
Another fallacy is the assertion that any alien probe would have an alien pilot. In fact just the opposite is likely true. Hard to get alien DNA from a machine. ET crafts could be here with or without ET.
I'm a physicist. I'm not conflating anything. And that explanation is not the same situation. They are not in zero G. They are simply falling towards the earth as fast as the earth moves away from the space station. When the astronauts went to the moon, they left orbit. I would even question that conclusion in earth orbit. In fact, when we tested Relativity using atomic clocks on jets, the change in gravity dominated the result, not the velocity. The clocks ran faster; by just as much as they were supposed to. The time gained due to reduced gravity and the time dilation effect of speed added to just the right amount of net change. Clocks run slower in gravity fields. And we can even measure that atomic clocks on top of mountains run faster than atomic clocks at sea level.
Of course, if you were to fall into a black hole, we would see your clocks run slower and slower and slower as you approached the event horizon. And just when you reach the edge, the moment before you go past the point of no return, just as your body is being segments and squeezed, just before you bursts through your rear end like toothpaste bursting out of a tube, we would see you frozen in time in an eternal scream. Cool huh.
If you could somehow survive traversing the event horizon and you hit your thrusters, you would find that time and space have reversed roles. You can now change your position in time but not space.
I'm not sure about earth orbit. I would have to do the calculations and I'm not up to doing GR problems anymore. In the classic twin paradox, the one twin travels at near the speed of light. But in the case of earth orbit, the velocity is so low that the effect is negligible. That is easy to calculate The multiplier goes as , where v is about 4.8 miles per seconds, and c is 186,000 miles per second. Do the math and that works out to about a billionth of a second difference per second. So after 15 years in orbit the clocks would differ by about one second due to velocity. I would imagine the increase in clock speeds due to reduced gravity is slightly larger. So I would guess [based on the testing done with atomic clocks on jets] that the twin in space actually got slightly older than the twin on earth.
I'm glad to see that my evidence inquiries invoked a little bit of skepticism in you. There may be hope for you yet.
Essentially, you are ignoring what the article stated in favor or your personal speculation and basic guess work. Not knocking your credentials, just pointing out the obvious.
They ignore GR entirely. Sorry but that is a pedestrian mistake. Whoever wrote the page is wrong. Do you even know what GR is?
GR is short for General Relativity. That is Einstein's complete theory of time and space. Time dilation strictly due to speed is Special Relativity, which specifically states that the theory is only valid where there is no gravity. If there is gravity you need General Relativity. The twin paradox is purely a Special Relativity problem... sort of... That actually gets more complicated than it appears because you have to turn around. So it isn't actually just a Special Relativity problem.
Remember kids: UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object. And that's all it means. We don't know what it was.... which isn't very informative. If you hear something whiz past your head, that's a UFO, until you figure out it was a mosquito. That's right all mosquitos are UFOs until you recognize them as mosquitos.
And remember kids, when it disables the weapons systems on your fighter jet, or shuts down ground-based nuclear missiles, it isn't a mosquito.
