Mystery Noise is Not UFO

[grayman]

There were some that said the mystery noise (http://www.utu.org/worksite/detail_news.cfm?ArticleID=31724)sounded like "a UFO landing". :rolleyes:

[Gord_in_Toronto]

??

And others did not?
:confused:

[I less than three logic]

There were some that said the mystery noise (http://www.utu.org/worksite/detail_news.cfm?ArticleID=31724)sounded like "a UFO landing". :rolleyes:
Well, I wasn’t one of them. I thought it sounded like swamp gas. ;)

[TV's Frank]

I would have to compare it to the sound of an actual UFO landing to be sure.

[Hellbound]

There were some that said the mystery noise (http://www.utu.org/worksite/detail_news.cfm?ArticleID=31724)sounded like "a UFO landing". :rolleyes:

How many UFO's have they heard landing before this?

:D

Dam you Frank, you bastige! :)

[Big Al]

It makes a noise: it's a UFO.
It's silent: it's a UFO.
It leaves no radar trace: it's a UFO.
It leaves a radar trace: it's a UFO.

Anyone see a pattern here?

Anyway, if they don't want to be seen, why do the aliens light up their ships like Christmas trees? I don't think the F117 Nighthawk would have been quite so effective over Baghdad if it had blazed with light - a machine made by mere Earthlings!

[Yeah_Right]

Anyway, if they don't want to be seen, why do the aliens light up their ships like Christmas trees? I don't think the F117 Nighthawk would have been quite so effective over Baghdad if it had blazed with light - a machine made by mere Earthlings!

And what's ironic is that some people like the late Phillp Corso, thought that stealth technology was back-engineered from those overly illuminated alien craft.

[Big Al]

On the back-engineering front, consider this:

Charles Babbage, the first man to design a general-purpose calculating machine and to conceive of a true computer in the modern sense, receives via time machine a fully-working modern PC in the 1840s.

This guy is no moron: he was a brilliant mathematician and inventor, and he just loved machines. Let's assume he has a blinding insight that the machine is a general-purpose computer with a graphic display and keyboard data entry.

But how does he turn it on? AC won't even exist until Tesla's work in the 1880s. What would 230VAC, 50Hz mean to him? The SI system won't exist for another 120 years. If he guesses the machine needs this new-fangled electricity and shoves DC into it, not much will happen, and he may blow it up.

But let's assume Babbage is bright enough to guess that the computer needs AC, and he invents an AC generator. He quickly learns the marvellous machine's capabilities and sets about to reverse engineer it.

There are no plastics, but he can reproduce the keyboard in wood. Let's also generously assume he can reproduce the PCBs in wood, too, with discrete wires for tracks. He just about recognises the transformer.

So, we're well on the way to our reverse-engineered PC. However, now we start to run into snags.

How does he determine the 5V logic levels? There are no voltmeters at this time, so he'd have to invent one.

What are these funny black rectangles (chips)? You'd need a mass spectrometer, perhaps an EDAX (energy dispersive X-ray analyser) and a scanning electron microscope to make sense of them.

How does he work out what the hard drive does, let alone how to reproduce it?

Semiconductor RAM? Microprocessors? Bus widths? LCDs? Optical drives? (Good time to invent the laser, then!)

My point is that a modern PC would be absolutely useless to even a brilliant man like Babbage, a mere 160 years ago.

Why should we fare any better with alien technology that would have to be as far or further in advance of ours than the PC is to Victorian technology?

[Big Al]

And what's ironic is that some people like the late Phillp Corso, thought that stealth technology was back-engineered from those overly illuminated alien craft.

That one always makes me laugh. The Nighthawk is already seen as obsolete - it's not marvellously manouevrable, and it's subsonic. The Joint Strike Fighter (another Lockheed plane) is intended to replace it - supersonic in cruise, VSTOL and incredibly agile.

If Lockheed had been gifted with the secrets of the aliens, why didn't they go straight to the JSF?

[Squishua]

On the back-engineering front, consider this:

Charles Babbage, the first man to design a general-purpose calculating machine and to conceive of a true computer in the modern sense, receives via time machine a fully-working modern PC in the 1840s.

This guy is no moron: he was a brilliant mathematician and inventor, and he just loved machines. Let's assume he has a blinding insight that the machine is a general-purpose computer with a graphic display and keyboard data entry.

But how does he turn it on? AC won't even exist until Tesla's work in the 1880s. What would 230VAC, 50Hz mean to him? The SI system won't exist for another 120 years. If he guesses the machine needs this new-fangled electricity and shoves DC into it, not much will happen, and he may blow it up.

But let's assume Babbage is bright enough to guess that the computer needs AC, and he invents an AC generator. He quickly learns the marvellous machine's capabilities and sets about to reverse engineer it.

There are no plastics, but he can reproduce the keyboard in wood. Let's also generously assume he can reproduce the PCBs in wood, too, with discrete wires for tracks. He just about recognises the transformer.

So, we're well on the way to our reverse-engineered PC. However, now we start to run into snags.

How does he determine the 5V logic levels? There are no voltmeters at this time, so he'd have to invent one.

What are these funny black rectangles (chips)? You'd need a mass spectrometer, perhaps an EDAX (energy dispersive X-ray analyser) and a scanning electron microscope to make sense of them.

How does he work out what the hard drive does, let alone how to reproduce it?

Semiconductor RAM? Microprocessors? Bus widths? LCDs? Optical drives? (Good time to invent the laser, then!)

My point is that a modern PC would be absolutely useless to even a brilliant man like Babbage, a mere 160 years ago.

Why should we fare any better with alien technology that would have to be as far or further in advance of ours than the PC is to Victorian technology?

Well, we do have the requisite technology (GCMS, electron microscopes, voltometers, etc) now, and have had for some time. If it's made of matter and we can see, touch, and experiment on it, scientists will eventually figure out how it works.

-Squish

[Big Al]

Well, we do have the requisite technology (GCMS, electron microscopes, voltometers, etc) now, and have had for some time. If it's made of matter and we can see, touch, and experiment on it, scientists will eventually figure out how it works.

-Squish

Pretty arrogant, Squishua. So we now have all the equipment we'll ever need to work out how alien technology works, eh? When did that slot into place? What facet of the universe was the last to surrender? What was the last machine we needed to prise apart unknown alien technology?

Say an alien ship ran on antimatter. We could recognise that. We know that matter/antimatter mutual elimination could give the highest possible impulse. However, we have absolutely no idea how to make antimatter in quantities much greater than a few atoms.

Process is a vitally important consideration. My Babbage post was an example of how utterly alien technology is utterly outside ken. If not materials, then process.

[Squishua]

Pretty arrogant, Squishua. So we now have all the equipment we'll ever need to work out how alien technology works, eh? When did that slot into place? What facet of the universe was the last to surrender? What was the last machine we needed to prise apart unknown alien technology?
Ahem.

"If it's made of matter and we can see, touch, and experiment on it, scientists will eventually figure out how it works."

We do possess the technology to figure out what elements a thing is made of, it's properties, and the physics behind its functionality. Particularly if it is something local that we can see, touch, and experiment on.

I make no assumtion that we will ever encounter alien (extraterrestrial) technology, BTW. Do you?
Say an alien ship ran on antimatter. We could recognise that. We know that matter/antimatter mutual elimination could give the highest possible impulse. However, we have absolutely no idea how to make antimatter in quantities much greater than a few atoms.

I said scientists could figure out how it works, not that they could replicate it.

-Squish

[Big Al]

the physics behind its functionality.

Really, if it ran on rectified Higg's-boson superstring remodulation, we'd suss that out straight away? No: we can recognise physics we currently know, but how can we bet on technologies we don't?

I make no assumtion that we will ever encounter alien (extraterrestrial) technology, BTW. Do you?

No, I don't. That's nothing to do with what I'm saying. This is about the Philip Corso idea that a lot of our clever stuff is reverse-engineered from alien technology captured at Roswell. I say that even if we had it, we wouldn't be able to do much with it.

I said scientists could figure out how it works, not that they could replicate it.

See above. As I said, pretty sweeping and arrogant. Science and technology do NOT know how every conceivable and unconceivable technology in the universe works, although they're working on it! As I said, it's not just materials, it's process. I was arguing that we wouldn't be able to replicate it.

Note that this isn't a "Science doesn't know everything" jibe to indicate that some woo thing must be real. :)

My position is that alien spacecraft probably do not visit us, but if they did, their technology must be unimaginably in advance of ours, and their equipment would be useless to us.

[Squishua]

Really, if it ran on rectified Higg's-boson superstring remodulation, we'd suss that out straight away?
And maybe it ran on little Gillette cans of quantum foam.

As long as we're playing what-ifs, what if it ran on prayer?

Imagine! A race of aliens that discovered how to harness the power of the Holy Spirit (perhaps it is a magic word...) for interstellar travel! No more absurd than the Nazis using the "lost ark" as a super weapon in Spielberg's film.

But that's neither here nor there.
No: we can recognise physics we currently know, but how can we bet on technologies we don't?
Of course it wouldn't be immediately recognizable. Discovery is a process.

You're a Trekkie, aren't you. ;)
This is about the Philip Corso idea that a lot of our clever stuff is reverse-engineered from alien technology captured at Roswell. I say that even if we had it, we wouldn't be able to do much with it.
The Corso idea is crap. It seems he regards stealth technology and the like as unimaginably advanced and beyond the ability of humans to conceptualize, design and build.

You seem to take a similar stance in that you don't even think we could figure out how an undiscovered technology worked - even if someone else designed it and gave it to us to study.

Have we learned nothing from the nuclear race?
My position is that alien spacecraft probably do not visit us, but if they did, their technology must be unimaginably in advance of ours, and their equipment would be useless to us.
It might be useless to "us" (you and me and the rest of the people on this forum), but trust me, there are some severely smart and clever people with the requisite equipment in the physical sciences who could learn a great deal from being able to probe such an artifact.

If only it existed.

-Squish

[Big Al]

And maybe it ran on little Gillette cans of quantum foam.

As long as we're playing what-ifs, what if it ran on prayer?

Imagine! A race of aliens that discovered how to harness the power of the Holy Spirit (perhaps it is a magic word...) for interstellar travel! No more absurd than the Nazis using the "lost ark" as a super weapon in Spielberg's film.

Straw man argument, Squisha. You imply that I'm claiming alien technology really exists, which I'm certainly not. You imply that any technology we can't understand must be woo.

You're a Trekkie, aren't you. ;)

No, I'm not.

The Corso idea is crap. It seems he regards stealth technology and the like as unimaginably advanced and beyond the ability of humans to conceptualize, design and build.

You seem to take a similar stance in that you don't even think we could figure out how an undiscovered technology worked - even if someone else designed it and gave it to us to study.

What on Earth gives you the idea that I support Corso? The guy's talking out of his arse.

Have we learned nothing from the nuclear race?

I beg your pardon? What's that got to do with anything?

It might be useless to "us" (you and me and the rest of the people on this forum), but trust me, there are some severely smart and clever people with the requisite equipment in the physical sciences who could learn a great deal from being able to probe such an artifact.

That's an awful long way from "We could find out how it works", let alone "We could replicate it."

I mentioned Higgs' bosons and superstrings for a reason; many scientists are convinced they exists, but they have no idea how to detect them. If a hypothetical machine ran on them, we'd be stumped.

If only it existed.

I don't claim or believe it does. Just that, if we were given truly alien technology way in advance of our own, we might well not be able to understand it, regardless of what Messrs Corso and Lazar might claim.

Otherwise, if you're sticking by your claim that, with our advanced equipment, we'd be able to divine how ANY such technology worked, it begs the question of when we reached this exalted status: 1950? 1966? 1974? 2006? When did we become omniscient?

I gave you the example of Charles Babbage, who wouldn't be able to work out how a PC works. There might not have been mass spectrometers and scanning electron microscopes then, but there were scientific instruments. Go on towards the Manhattan Project, when there were lots more. THEY wouldn't have been able to work out how a modern computer works, even though, unlike Mr. Babbage, they'd have been able to turn it on.

I contend that there is a limit to what we can comprehend with our current equipment - however, I am NOT using this to imply that any such advanced technology exists, or that any CLAIMS of such technology must therefore be justified.

And, for your information, I'm an ex-electronic components engineer from the space industry with a keen interest in the history of scientific development.

I know the battery of equipment I used to assay integrated circuits: Scanning Electron Microscopes, Electron Beam Induced Current detectors, Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis, Storage Curve Tracers, Atomic Absorption Analysers, Mass Spectrometers, Scanning Tunnelling Microscopes...

The list is huge, and I know when most of these necessary tools were invented. In, say, 1945, a the functions of a simple CMOS NAND gate would have been beyond all the world's technology to divine. They could have told what elements were present, but that would be no help in divining the purpose or function of the chip.

[Squishua]

Straw man argument, Squisha. You imply that I'm claiming alien technology really exists, which I'm certainly not.
My apologies. I did not mean to imply such a thing - I am well aware that you are not a UFO believer.
You imply that any technology we can't understand must be woo.
Woo. A word I've found is unique to these forums.

Actually, I'm implying that musings on a completely hypothetical mechanism for a non-existent technology aren't particularly convincing.
You're a Trekkie, aren't you.
No, I'm not.
My mistake.
The Corso idea is crap. It seems he regards stealth technology and the like as unimaginably advanced and beyond the ability of humans to conceptualize, design and build.

You seem to take a similar stance in that you don't even think we could figure out how an undiscovered technology worked - even if someone else designed it and gave it to us to study.
What on Earth gives you the idea that I support Corso?
I do not think at all that you support Corso. I was just pointing out what I veiw as a (weak) similarity between your attitudes.

A functioning prototype is a hell of a thing to be able to study. Far from being scientifically worthless.
Have we learned nothing from the nuclear race?
I beg your pardon? What's that got to do with anything?
It is an example of a new technology that was quickly ferreted out by people (other nations) beyond those who discovered it.
It might be useless to "us" (you and me and the rest of the people on this forum), but trust me, there are some severely smart and clever people with the requisite equipment in the physical sciences who could learn a great deal from being able to probe such an artifact.
That's an awful long way from "We could find out how it works", let alone "We could replicate it."
It's also a long way from "it would be useless to us." And I never said we should be able to replicate it.

(apparently you missed the title of my initial reply: "Just to play devil's advocate")
Just that, if we were given truly alien technology way in advance of our own, we might well not be able to understand it
Well that's better!

-Squish

[Big Al]

Squish, the Manhattan project built on work by Einstein, Fermi, Peierls, Bohr and countless others. It didn't just spring out of nowhere in one fell swoop, so it wasn't just a leap into the total unknown.

You have changed your view from

Well, we do have the requisite technology (GCMS, electron microscopes, voltometers, etc) now, and have had for some time. If it's made of matter and we can see, touch, and experiment on it, scientists will eventually figure out how it works.

to, essentially, "we'll learn something about it."

It's the former view I don't necessarily agree with.

[Squishua]

You have changed your view from
Well, we do have the requisite technology (GCMS, electron microscopes, voltometers, etc) now, and have had for some time. If it's made of matter and we can see, touch, and experiment on it, scientists will eventually figure out how it works.

to, essentially, "we'll learn something about it."
No, I have not changed my view.

I fail to see what is it about "scientists will eventually figure out how it works" that seems so arrogant.

And as I'm not particularly interested in this argument, I take my leave of you now sir.

-Squish