Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2024 10:26:06 GMT
On the subject of UFOs and some of the bizarre behaviours reported, eg sighting them visually and tracking them on radar only for them to suddenly vanish, is difficult to explain as a vehicle moving through space.
Yet if it was not only a vehicle moving through space but one moving through time, suddenly disappearing as it left our time would be exactly what we might expect to happen.
We also have the fact that most reported sightings of UFO occupants describe creatures a little different yet also remarkably similar to us. They are often described as smaller in stature, with bigger heads and larger eyes and no hair. Yet they are clearly humanoid in the sense of having two arms, two legs, one head, a mouth, and eyes roughly where ours are. What are the chances of such a creature evolving in a totally different ecosystem to have such a similar design and shape to us?
And yet if we assume that instead of being aliens they are actually our descendants from a distant future, looking so similar yet also different makes total sense. It is totally rational to suppose that we ourselves - given enough time - could evolve into such a species.
The jury is still out for me because I am not yet entirely convinced either way. But it does seem possible, and some of the circumstantial evidence supports such a hypothesis, that UFOs, rather than being alien visitors from a far away planet, could simply be time travellers from our own distant future.
Their oft reported habit of appearing and supposedly abducting people from remote areas also makes much more sense if they are time travellers who wish to satisfy their curiosity in a way that has minimal impact on their past. Otherwise why not simply land on the Whitehouse lawn and ask to be taken to our leader?
|
|
Saint
Observer
Posts: 1,111
Member is Online
|
Post by Saint on Mar 23, 2024 23:10:40 GMT
We also have the fact that most reported sightings of UFO occupants describe creatures a little different yet also remarkably similar to us. They are often described as smaller in stature, with bigger heads and larger eyes and no hair. Yet they are clearly humanoid in the sense of having two arms, two legs, one head, a mouth, and eyes roughly where ours are. What are the chances of such a creature evolving in a totally different ecosystem to have such a similar design and shape to us?
The chances of there being creatures somewhere in the universe that look like us are quite high, I should think. I mean, there are likely billions of different species spread throughout the universe. The odds are that at least some of them will look like us. But it would be quite a coincidence if, out of the billions of different species throughout the universe, most of which are unlikely to look anything like us, the ones that showed up here had human features. But I think that's your point, right? |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Mar 23, 2024 23:48:06 GMT
4 legs good, two legs better.
|
|
RedRum
Full Member
"Smaller in number are we, but larger in mind.”
Posts: 245
|
Post by RedRum on Mar 25, 2024 18:50:19 GMT
Time is a funny old thing given that it appears to move faster when leaving the Earth's gravity, the change is miniscule, as proven by identical atomic clock experiments but it is there.
There is a theory that ghosts are just visions of past events trapped by an electromagnetic force that we know very little about.
We constantly 'see' into the past but as far as I know never into the future but it would not exclude some future generation seeing us in the past, That's it my head just exploded.
|
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Mar 25, 2024 19:15:00 GMT
Time is a funny old thing given that it appears to move faster when leaving the Earth's gravity, the change is miniscule, as proven by identical atomic clock experiments but it is there. There is a theory that ghosts are just visions of past events trapped by an electromagnetic force that we know very little about. We constantly 'see' into the past but as far as I know never into the future but it would not exclude some future generation seeing us in the past, That's it my head just exploded. Is it leaving Earth's gravity or travelling at a different speed through space? |
|
RedRum
Full Member
"Smaller in number are we, but larger in mind.”
Posts: 245
|
Post by RedRum on Mar 26, 2024 7:01:07 GMT
Time is a funny old thing given that it appears to move faster when leaving the Earth's gravity, the change is miniscule, as proven by identical atomic clock experiments but it is there. There is a theory that ghosts are just visions of past events trapped by an electromagnetic force that we know very little about. We constantly 'see' into the past but as far as I know never into the future but it would not exclude some future generation seeing us in the past, That's it my head just exploded. Is it leaving Earth's gravity or travelling at a different speed through space? Travelling at a different speed I believe. If you were an alien, today, living on an alien world, say 70 million light years away and you could 'instantly' transport to Earth, you would be met by dinosaurs. My head really hurts. |
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Mar 26, 2024 8:25:26 GMT
Mind you - getting to meet Raquel Welch in her prime would've made it all worthwhile.
|
|
RedRum
Full Member
"Smaller in number are we, but larger in mind.”
Posts: 245
|
Post by RedRum on Mar 26, 2024 8:57:48 GMT
Mind you - getting to meet Raquel Welch in her prime would've made it all worthwhile. Good point. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 26, 2024 9:00:59 GMT
Mind you - getting to meet Raquel Welch in her prime would've made it all worthwhile. That's a common popular science misunderstanding, The disappointing truth is that, when Raquel Welch walked the Earth, there were no dinosaurs. There would be no upsides at all. |
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Mar 26, 2024 9:13:36 GMT
I'd have to make do with Julie Ege, Darryl Hannah, or Dawn Rae Chong, then. No biggie.
(Obscure prehistoric movie reference. Apologies. Can't help myself.)
|
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Mar 26, 2024 12:06:10 GMT
Time travels slower at sea level than it does on top of Mount Everest.
It's why I choose to live in Suffolk, I'll live longer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 26, 2024 12:16:23 GMT
I'd have to make do with Julie Ege, Darryl Hannah, or Dawn Rae Chong, then. No biggie. (Obscure prehistoric movie reference. Apologies. Can't help myself.) Keep an eye out for Wilma Flintstone |
|
|
|
Post by delphicoracle on Mar 29, 2024 9:18:54 GMT
I'd have to make do with Julie Ege, Darryl Hannah, or Dawn Rae Chong, then. No biggie. (Obscure prehistoric movie reference. Apologies. Can't help myself.) You have a thing for female reptiles with long tails?? 🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by delphicoracle on Mar 29, 2024 9:38:24 GMT
As I understand it, the Big Bang included the force we call time, which also includes entropy, the idea that the universe eventually uses up all its energy and becomes completely stabelised at a point of zero.
When the BB occurred, it included " the arrow of time" so that you can only experience now which moves into yhe future, never the past. Because that would counteract entropy.
The second reason you cant time travel is because the faster you go, the more time slows down. Einstein. So the reaching the speed of light means you stop in time.
To go backwards in time you would theoretically have to go faster than light, which is impossible.
So unfortunately i cannot have a conversation with my grandparents, now both dead. Or meet Shakespeare.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 29, 2024 9:52:55 GMT
You could theoretically 'SEE' the conversation with you grandparents because information about every detail of that conversation is coded (interspersed) into the universe now. However, you cannot talk back and give them information from their future.
I am using an extraordinarily strong version of the word 'theoretically' here - the information is there, but it would more or less be a technical impossibility to get it.
|
|
