'Aliens' Messed With US, Soviet Nukes - US Airmen

RIA Novosti ^ | May 1, 2013

[Fennie]

WASHINGTON - In the midst of the Cold War on several occasions, nuclear missiles at US Air Force bases were mysteriously shut down, according to US servicemen who said they witnessed the failure of the heavily guarded missile systems.

But they don't blame America's Cold War enemy, the Soviet Union; they say aliens from space did it.

"This was something Russia could have developed, but it turns out they didn't develop this and we don't have it either - to be able to shut down nuclear weapons with a beam of light," David Scott, a former sergeant in the US Air Force, told RIA Novosti at a conference in Washington on encounters with extraterrestrials.

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed. And thank you for the book recommendation, dear Kevmo!

[Kevmo]

I can’t shake the suspicion that a UFO sighting is somehow at bottom a psychic phenomenon.

But then two questions arise: What is the cause of this phenomenon, and what purpose does it serve?
***The cause of this phenomenon is a secret weapons project by the western allies after WWII, using relatively straightforward boundary layer control technology in which the germans were far ahead at the end of the war. 2 years later, we saw the result.

The purpose it serves is relatively obvious. Asking the converse question of the ET hypothesis, the purpose for crossing thousands of light years to visit this insignificant rock is all over the speculation map.

Come on: genetics? Anal probing? Abductions? Nuclear fear-mongering? Such an advanced civilization wouldn’t need ANY of this baloney, and they certainly wouldn’t need lights when they fly nor would their aircraft be visible. We ourselves are just around the corner of invisibility. All of the technology demonstrated has been “just around the corner”. Just like the 1890’s sightings where the devices flew supposedly 200MPH. Is 200MPH evidence of alien visitation today? Is 1500MPH?

[MHGinTN]

"Asking the converse question of the ET hypothesis, the purpose for crossing thousands of light years to visit this insignificant rock is all over the speculation map."

Actually, IF other civilizations on other planets are able to sense somehow what is living on this planet, even from afar, the events of 1941 - 1952 would be reason to take a closer look. Humankind were developing a means to go off planet, AND humankind developed and used atomic bombs then started testing much bigger bombs (Hiroshima was ~20,000 tonnes of TNT equivalent, whereas hydrogen bombs are millions of tonnes of TNT equivalent).

we assume, perhaps erroneously, that there is no means to traverse many light years at faster than light speed. There is rather recent math now coming out that such 'speed' may in fact be possible.

[MHGinTN]

Here are a couple of quick Youtube videos dealing with the notion of FTL 'speed' ... it really isn't speed, in the classical sense of the word:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdaMI2wnVBg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwZt1Yh4-1U

[Kevmo]

reason to take a closer look...

faster than light speed. There is rather recent math now coming out that such ‘speed’ may in fact be possible....
***Beings who conquer light speed would have the technology to be visible. They also wouldn’t crash when they got here. But secret weapons — those would crash, and they’d be visible.

Which hypothesis follows Ockham’s Razor more closely?

[MHGinTN]

Kevmo, you presume that you’ve stated the final word syllogism, then try to slit our throats with Occam’s Razor. I think I should leave this alone at this point. Resoning through things doesn’t seem to be any fun for you. Have Nice Day

[Kevmo]

Reasoning is a lot of fun for me. You’re the one presuming here.

That’s what Ockham’s Razor is all about — Reasoning. I can see why it’s no fun for you.

[MHGinTN]

You posed absurdly flawed syllogisms then want to apply Occam’s Razor. ‘Nuff said.

[Kevmo]

You posed absurdly flawed syllogisms
***Then it should be very simple for you to apply reasoning to them and reveal the absurdity. Instead, you prefer to speculate on the magnificence of extraterrestrials and how so very interesting we must be in this cosmic mix. Yet, with all that extraterrestrial activity, none of us see those guys zipping around the cosmos.

Like Fermi said, “Where are they?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

When they’re flying around faster than light cruising the galaxy, they’re invisible, but when the get here they’re suddenly visible?

[Kevmo]

The INFORMation of the galaxy existed before those galaxies ever began to spin. The information is an aspect of creation that is outside of TIME. Some information is independent of time.
***Here is a physics finding in support of that assertion.

Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

It is possible to entangle photons through both space and time.
Entanglement ignores time as a factor in causation. You can entangle a
photon with another even if the second does not yet exist.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.4191v1.pdf

Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the link and the engaging article! Verrry interesting - I’m bookmarking it to read again.

[Kevmo]

Something to keep in mind: When Einstein wrote his theory of relativity, the speed of light being a Constant was Not Proven. It was a supposition. There was a lot of evidence for its validity, but it still was not proven at the time. Since then... no one has really proven that C is a constant. Recent evidence suggests it really isn’t a constant. Perhaps it is a function of something else, like the (information) discussed upthread, where Einstein’s postulation becomes E = m((C(Informaton))^2 rather than simply E=mC^2.

It becomes a more complicated universe with INFORMation (which existed before the creation of the universe) coming into play.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your views, dear Kevmo!

I am not inclined to deny that the speed of light is a constant.

Nor am I prepared to equate information in a physics sense (physical information) to information as it was originally defined in mathematics. Shannon's definition, paraphrased is that information is the reduction of uncertainty in the receiver as it moves from a before state to an after state. Physical information, on the other hand, is roughly equivalent to strong determinism or physical cause/effect if you prefer.

Science has a history of appropriating terms used in mathematics and along with them implied meanings which do not translate accurately to physical systems.

For instance, in mathematics one cannot say something is "random" in a system unless he defines what the system "is." The use of the term in science should not carry with it the same meaning since both the total number and types of dimensions as well as quantum fields/particles are unknown and unknowable. Science cannot deny the existence of a dimension, type of dimension, field or particle if it has no direct or indirect measurable affect.

And yet in common speak, most people I suspect understand "randomness" in science to mean the same thing that it means in mathematics. The mathematics meaning comports with God the Creator theology since only the Creator knows what the system "is."

As another example, a series of numbers extracted from the extension of calculating pi might appear random based on the numbers themselves but we know it is not random at all but highly determined by calculating the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter!

Likewise, the meaning of information as it was originally defined in mathematics (information theory is a discipline of mathematics) requires there be a message, sender, receiver, encoding, decoding, channel and noise. The definition and those elements also comport with God the Creator speaking everything into existence.

But most of these elements do not apply to physical information.

In sum, the original, mathematical, meaning of both words - "information" and "randomness" - correspond extremely well with Scripture. But the actual meaning of the words in science, not so much...

[Kevmo]

Thanks, Alamo Girl.

I am not inclined to deny that the speed of light is a constant.
***Are you inclined to investigate the possibility? If C were not a constant, what would our world look like? Is there some obvious resulting implication we can point to which puts the kibosh on such a supposition? C shows up in a lot of equations in Physics. Perhaps there’s one that is so critically dependent on C being a constant (rather than having a correction factor where it’s dependent upon something like INFORMation) that you couldn’t even have the color blue, or something like that.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your concerns, dear Kevmo!

The reason I am not budging on the speed of light derives from the bright line which separates the hard sciences such as physics and chemistry from the soft sciences such as anthropology and archeology.

Essentially, the more a hard science theory is falsifiable and the more attempts to falsify it that it endures, the more confident we can be that the theory is reliable (Popper). The speed of light as a constant has withstood over a 100 years of attempts to falsify it.

Soft science theories, on the other hand, often form blueprints and incoming discoveries are fit into the blueprint. If it doesn't quite fit, the blueprint may be enhanced to accommodate the new discoveries. But the blueprint is taken as a paradigm, e.g. evolution.

As another example, one might might posit that reality is a figment of our individual imaginations. If someone wants to believe such a thing, fine - but it is irrelevant to any endeavor in science since it can neither be tested nor falsified.

Interestingly, in the Big Bang/Inflationary Theory the very early universe itself expanded faster than the speed of light. However, light (photons) did not form until 300,000 years later as measured from our present space/time coordinates.

Bottom line, when I see a falsifiable theory that the speed of light is a variable and it withstands several serious attempts to falsify it, then I will take it to heart. Until then, the speed of light as a constant has earned its stripes in my book.

[Kevmo]

The speed of light as a constant has withstood over a 100 years of attempts to falsify it. ***Is there a repository of these attempts for me to puruse? I'm seeing hints that the speed of light is not a constant. See the google hits below. When Dr. Feynman came up with his famous theory, he had to throw out a supposition that others had been relying upon but he felt its proof had come up short. I have the same feeling about C. ---------------------------------------------------------- Feynman’s own words. I’ll reprint some of his story here, which I found also posted online at http://www.zag.si/~jank/public/misc/joking_feynman.txt The 7 Percent Solution The problem was to find the right laws of beta decay. There appeared to be two particles, which were called a tau and a theta. They seemed to have almost exactly the same mass, but one disintegrated into two pions, and the other into three pions. Not only did they seem to have the same mass, but they also had the same lifetime, which is a funny coincidence. So everybody was concerned about this. .... At that particular time I was not really quite up to things: I was always a little behind. Everybody seemed to be smart, and I didn’t feel I was keeping up. Anyway, I was sharing a room with a guy named Martin Block, an experimenter. And one evening he said to me, “Why are you guys so insistent on this parity rule? Maybe the tau and theta are the same particle. What would be the consequences if the parity rule were wrong?” .... So I got up and said, “I’m asking this question for Martin Block: What would be the consequences if the parity rule was wrong?” Murray Gell-Mann often teased me about this, saying I didn’t have the nerve to ask the question for myself. But that’s not the reason. I thought it might very well be an important idea. .... Finally they get all this stuff into me, and they say, “The situation is so mixed up that even some of the things they’ve established for years are being questioned — such as the beta decay of the neutron is S and T. It’s so messed up. Murray says it might even be V and A.” I jump up from the stool and say, “Then I understand EVVVVVERYTHING!” They thought I was joking. But the thing that I had trouble with at the Rochester meeting — the neutron and proton disintegration: everything fit but that, and if it was V and A instead of S and T, that would fit too. Therefore I had the whole theory! That night I calculated all kinds of things with this theory. The first thing I calculated was the rate of disintegration of the muon and the neutron. They should be connected together, if this theory was right, by a certain relationship, and it was right to 9 percent. That’s pretty close, 9 percent. It should have been more perfect than that, but it was close enough. .... I was very excited, and kept on calculating, and things that fit kept on tumbling out: they fit automatically, without a strain. I had begun to forget about the 9 percent by now, because everything else was coming out right. .... The next morning when I got to work I went to Wapstra, Boehm, and Jensen, and told them, “I’ve got it all worked out. Everything fits.” Christy, who was there, too, said, “What beta-decay constant did you use?” “The one from So-and-So’s book.” “But that’s been found out to be wrong. Recent measurements have shown it’s off by 7 percent.” Then I remember the 9 percent. .... I went out and found the original article on the experiment that said the neutron-proton coupling is T, and I was shocked by something. I remembered reading that article once before (back in the days when I read every article in the Physical Review — it was small enough). And I remembered, when I saw this article again, looking at that curve and thinking, “That doesn’t prove anything!” You see, it depended on one or two points at the very edge of the range of the data, and there’s a principle that a point on the edge of the range of the data — the last point — isn’t very good, because if it was, they’d have another point further along. And I had realized that the whole idea that neutron-proton coupling is T was based on the last point, which wasn’t very good, and therefore it’s not proved. I remember noticing that! And when I became interested in beta decay, directly, I read all these reports by the “beta-decay experts,” which said it’s T. I never looked at the original data; I only read those reports, like a dope. Had I been a good physicist, when I thought of the original idea back at the Rochester Conference I would have immediately looked up “how strong do we know it’s T?” — that would have been the sensible thing to do. I would have recognized right away that I had already noticed it wasn’t satisfactorily proved. Since then I never pay any attention to anything by “experts.” I calculate everything myself. When people said the quark theory was pretty good, I got two Ph.D.s, Finn Ravndal and Mark Kislinger, to go through the whole works with me, just so I could check that the thing was really giving results that fit fairly well, and that it was a significantly good theory. I’ll never make that mistake again, reading the experts’ opinions. Of course, you only live one life, and you make all your mistakes, and learn what not to do, and that’s the end of you. ---------------------------------------------------------- First few hits on google: Search Results [PDF] Why the Speed of Light is not a Constant. Abstract 1 ... - MIFP www.mifp.eu/members...speed-of-light-is-not-a-constant/download.html‎ Why the Speed of Light is not a Constant. P.Smeulders. Sutton Courtenay,UK. Email: paul.smeulders@btinternet.com. Received 12/03/2012. Abstract. A variable ... Speed of light may not be constant, physicists say (Whoops) www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3013923/posts‎ Apr 29, 2013 – What if the speed of light is not a constant? ***Then many of these items have a better than average chance of being true. SubQuantum Kinetics ... Re: The speed of light is not a constant: Off Topic Forum: Digital ... www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50887472‎ ljfinger wrote: No kidding - that's one of the arguments they put forth. They claim it's a decreasing exponential function over the last few thousand years. The fact ... Why the Speed of Light Is Not a Constant | ResearchGate www.researchgate.net/.../233754960_Why_the_Speed_of_Light_Is_Not_a... Publication » Why the Speed of Light Is Not a Constant. The speed of light is not a constant…Chuck Missler | Samuel ... geodins.wordpress.com/.../the-speed-of-light-is-not-a-constant-chuck-mi...‎ The speed of light is not a constant…Chuck Missler. Posted on February 7, 2013 by Geo. M. Dinsdale. History of the Light-Speed Debate – Part I from the ... Why the Speed of Light Is Not a Constant - Scientific Research Publish www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=18908‎ by P Smeulders - 2012 - Cited by 2 - Related articles A variable Speed of Light is supported by the fact that all direct measurements of that speed are basically flawed, because the “meter per second” is proportional ...

[Kevmo]

Interestingly, in the Big Bang/Inflationary Theory the very early universe itself expanded faster than the speed of light. However, light (photons) did not form until 300,000 years later as measured from our present space/time coordinates.
***Isn’t another postulate that nothing with mass can travel faster than C? How did the early universe travel faster than C? Oh, well, it’s not that important for me to drill down on that aspect.

[Kevmo]

Sorry, the difference between how a post looks in "Your Reply" and actual posting is goosefood.

The speed of light as a constant has withstood over a 100 years of attempts to falsify it.
***Is there a repository of these attempts for me to puruse?



I'm seeing hints that the speed of light is not a constant. See the google hits below.

When Dr. Feynman came up with his famous theory, he had to throw out a supposition that others had been relying upon but he felt its proof had come up short. I have the same feeling about C.

----------------------------------------------------------

Feynman’s own words. I’ll reprint some of his story here, which I found also posted online at

http://www.zag.si/~jank/public/misc/joking_feynman.txt

The 7 Percent Solution

The problem was to find the right laws of beta decay. There appeared to be two particles, which were called a tau and a theta. They seemed to have almost exactly the same mass, but one disintegrated into two pions, and the other into three pions. Not only did they seem to have the same mass, but they also had the same lifetime, which is a funny coincidence. So everybody was concerned about this.
....
At that particular time I was not really quite up to things: I was always a little behind. Everybody seemed to be smart, and I didn’t feel I was keeping up. Anyway, I was sharing a room with a guy named Martin Block, an experimenter. And one evening he said to me, “Why are you guys so insistent on this parity rule? Maybe the tau and theta are the same particle. What would be the consequences if the parity rule were wrong?”
....
So I got up and said, “I’m asking this question for Martin Block: What would be the consequences if the parity rule was wrong?”
Murray Gell-Mann often teased me about this, saying I didn’t have the nerve to ask the question for myself. But that’s not the reason. I thought it might very well be an important idea.
....
Finally they get all this stuff into me, and they say, “The situation is so mixed up that even some of the things they’ve established for years are being questioned — such as the beta decay of the neutron is S and T. It’s so messed up. Murray says it might even be V and A.”
I jump up from the stool and say, “Then I understand EVVVVVERYTHING!”
They thought I was joking. But the thing that I had trouble with at the Rochester meeting — the neutron and proton disintegration: everything fit but that, and if it was V and A instead of S and T, that would fit too. Therefore I had the whole theory!
That night I calculated all kinds of things with this theory. The first thing I calculated was the rate of disintegration of the muon and the neutron. They should be connected together, if this theory was right, by a certain relationship, and it was right to 9 percent. That’s pretty close, 9 percent. It should have been more perfect than that, but it was close enough.
....
I was very excited, and kept on calculating, and things that fit kept on tumbling out: they fit automatically, without a strain. I had begun to forget about the 9 percent by now, because everything else was coming out right.
....
The next morning when I got to work I went to Wapstra, Boehm, and Jensen, and told them, “I’ve got it all worked out. Everything fits.”
Christy, who was there, too, said, “What beta-decay constant did you use?”
“The one from So-and-So’s book.”
“But that’s been found out to be wrong. Recent measurements have shown it’s off by 7 percent.”
Then I remember the 9 percent. ....

I went out and found the original article on the experiment that said the neutron-proton coupling is T, and I was shocked by something. I remembered reading that article once before (back in the days when I read every article in the Physical Review — it was small enough). And I remembered, when I saw this article again, looking at that curve and thinking, “That doesn’t prove anything!”
You see, it depended on one or two points at the very edge of the range of the data, and there’s a principle that a point on the edge of the range of the data — the last point — isn’t very good, because if it was, they’d have another point further along. And I had realized that the whole idea that neutron-proton coupling is T was based on the last point, which wasn’t very good, and therefore it’s not proved. I remember noticing that!
And when I became interested in beta decay, directly, I read all these reports by the “beta-decay experts,” which said it’s T. I never looked at the original data; I only read those reports, like a dope. Had I been a good physicist, when I thought of the original idea back at the Rochester Conference I would have immediately looked up “how strong do we know it’s T?” — that would have been the sensible thing to do. I would have recognized right away that I had already noticed it wasn’t satisfactorily proved.
Since then I never pay any attention to anything by “experts.” I calculate everything myself. When people said the quark theory was pretty good, I got two Ph.D.s, Finn Ravndal and Mark Kislinger, to go through the whole works with me, just so I could check that the thing was really giving results that fit fairly well, and that it was a significantly good theory. I’ll never make that mistake again, reading the experts’ opinions. Of course, you only live one life, and you make all your mistakes, and learn what not to do, and that’s the end of you.
----------------------------------------------------------


First few hits on google:


















Search Results


[PDF]





















Why the Speed of Light is not a Constant. Abstract 1 ... - MIFP


www.mifp.eu/members...speed-of-light-is-not-a-constant/download.html‎



Why the Speed of Light is not a Constant. P.Smeulders. Sutton Courtenay,UK. Email: paul.smeulders@btinternet.com. Received 12/03/2012. Abstract. A variable ...























Speed of light may not be constant, physicists say (Whoops)


www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3013923/posts‎



Apr 29, 2013 – What if the speed of light is not a constant? ***Then many of these items have a better than average chance of being true. SubQuantum Kinetics ...


Re: The speed of light is not a constant: Off Topic Forum: Digital ...



www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50887472‎



ljfinger wrote: No kidding - that's one of the arguments they put forth. They claim it's a decreasing exponential function over the last few thousand years. The fact ...























Why the Speed of Light Is Not a Constant | ResearchGate


www.researchgate.net/.../233754960_Why_the_Speed_of_Light_Is_Not_a...

Publication » Why the Speed of Light Is Not a Constant.























The speed of light is not a constant…Chuck Missler | Samuel ...


geodins.wordpress.com/.../the-speed-of-light-is-not-a-constant-chuck-mi...‎



The speed of light is not a constant…Chuck Missler. Posted on February 7, 2013 by Geo. M. Dinsdale. History of the Light-Speed Debate – Part I from the ...























Why the Speed of Light Is Not a Constant - Scientific Research Publish


www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=18908‎



by P Smeulders - 2012 - Cited by 2 - Related articles
A variable Speed of Light is supported by the fact that all direct measurements of that speed are basically flawed, because the “meter per second” is proportional ...


❑ ❑ ❑

[Kevmo]

Actually, after thinking about this for a couple more minutes, it occurs to me that if the speed of light was a rapidly decaying function (not a constant, but billions of years later it sure would look like a constant), then in the early inflationary period, the mass does not have to be propelling faster than the speed of light AT the TIME. So the postulate that something with mass can’t travel faster than C would still survive.

Using only the parameters we have discussed so far, that would make the anisotropy of light to be the simpler theory. It obeys Ockham’s razor.

[MHGinTN]

Seems logically inconsistent to claim the speed of light is not a constant then claim nothing can go ‘faster’ than the speed of light.