Discussion
Niponeoff said:
Were at 0.7 on the kardeshev scale. Come back to me when we get to 1.
As with my comment around our stop-start technological evolution, the Kardeshev scale can also be a little misleading. We have the technology to be a lot further along the scale then we are right now, however politics, financing, competing interests, global stranglehold of fossil fuels, the green agenda and lots of other factors have a huge impact on our capacity for energy production and energy technology.Basically if we got our s
t together as a human race, we'd be much more advanced than we are now so it's not actually technology that is holding us back but plain old human nature.Guvernator said:
Niponeoff said:
Were at 0.7 on the kardeshev scale. Come back to me when we get to 1.
As with my comment around our stop-start technological evolution, the Kardeshev scale can also be a little misleading. We have the technology to be a lot further along the scale then we are right now, however politics, financing, competing interests, global stranglehold of fossil fuels, the green agenda and lots of other factors have a huge impact on our capacity for energy production and energy technology.Basically if we got our s
t together as a human race, we'd be much more advanced than we are now so it's not actually technology that is holding us back but plain old human nature.Blackpuddin said:
Guvernator said:
Niponeoff said:
Were at 0.7 on the kardeshev scale. Come back to me when we get to 1.
As with my comment around our stop-start technological evolution, the Kardeshev scale can also be a little misleading. We have the technology to be a lot further along the scale then we are right now, however politics, financing, competing interests, global stranglehold of fossil fuels, the green agenda and lots of other factors have a huge impact on our capacity for energy production and energy technology.Basically if we got our s
t together as a human race, we'd be much more advanced than we are now so it's not actually technology that is holding us back but plain old human nature.Well, judging by how narcissistic he is and his lack of vocabulary.
No, we need "Predictable Idiot Law" to cover people who think they are clever by shouting "Godwin's Law" (or perhaps "Trump's Law") at every opportunity.
There are times when references to the Nazis or Trump or any other despicable and dangerous person of a similar ilk are wholly appropriate.
Can I coin "Braverman's Law"?
There are times when references to the Nazis or Trump or any other despicable and dangerous person of a similar ilk are wholly appropriate.
Can I coin "Braverman's Law"?
Anyone been watching Ski walker ranch and the offshoot?
Aside from the made for TV crap, some of the items are interesting. Such as a 1/4 second time differential on an instrument cluster on a balloon, but they really seem to miss some obvious experiments such as firing foam at the blob and seeing it in a physical format. Wonder why....
Aside from the made for TV crap, some of the items are interesting. Such as a 1/4 second time differential on an instrument cluster on a balloon, but they really seem to miss some obvious experiments such as firing foam at the blob and seeing it in a physical format. Wonder why....
Niponeoff said:
dukeboy749r said:
Blackpuddin said:
Guvernator said:
Niponeoff said:
Were at 0.7 on the kardeshev scale. Come back to me when we get to 1.
As with my comment around our stop-start technological evolution, the Kardeshev scale can also be a little misleading. We have the technology to be a lot further along the scale then we are right now, however politics, financing, competing interests, global stranglehold of fossil fuels, the green agenda and lots of other factors have a huge impact on our capacity for energy production and energy technology.Basically if we got our s
t together as a human race, we'd be much more advanced than we are now so it's not actually technology that is holding us back but plain old human nature.Well, judging by how narcissistic he is and his lack of vocabulary.
Either you recognise light humour, wrapped in some truth or you want to suggest that I’ve derailed a thread (again with some humour) but feel I’ve wrongly maligned an actual genius.
Which one is it?
My view on the whole UFO thing is that since we’ve all had smartphone cameras in our pockets (say 10 years??) has anyone captured a video which is plausible?
Ok going back to the 80’s and 90’s with tales of ‘I saw this or that’ I understand. But surely if something ‘hovered or landed over the back garden’, we’d have some decent footage by now (not something blurry from about a mile away?
Whilst I’m far from believing we’re the only thing out there, I’m a long way from believing they’re anywhere close to visiting us.
Ok going back to the 80’s and 90’s with tales of ‘I saw this or that’ I understand. But surely if something ‘hovered or landed over the back garden’, we’d have some decent footage by now (not something blurry from about a mile away?
Whilst I’m far from believing we’re the only thing out there, I’m a long way from believing they’re anywhere close to visiting us.
While I somewhat agree that the proliferation of smartphones means the majority of people now have camera's, I don't agree that it should automatically mean we get better footage. Smartphone camera's are mostly designed to take selfies or at best, shots of a view or some such, they aren't designed to take pictures of fast moving objects in the sky.
Their night time performance is very poor and even during the day, the digital zoom isn't up to taking very clear pictures of objects that are far away, The amateur smartphone user, also isn't very good at all at capturing moving objects. Try it yourself, see if you can take a good video of an airplane flying overhead.
So the only way to get a clear picture, on a smartphone, of a UFO would be if one landed in your back garden, in the middle of the day.
Their night time performance is very poor and even during the day, the digital zoom isn't up to taking very clear pictures of objects that are far away, The amateur smartphone user, also isn't very good at all at capturing moving objects. Try it yourself, see if you can take a good video of an airplane flying overhead.
So the only way to get a clear picture, on a smartphone, of a UFO would be if one landed in your back garden, in the middle of the day.
Curious if this had been brought up recently? Whilst not UFO specific, UFO technology adjacent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwaC4AXFqRI
Analysis of supposed footage of MH370 that was leaked online showing 3 x orbs circling the aircraft in complex geometrical patterns before 'collapsing its wave function' and essentially teleporting it 'elsewhere'.
Super cool stuff, always remain skeptical over evidence like this, but really struggling to see how it could have been faked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwaC4AXFqRI
Analysis of supposed footage of MH370 that was leaked online showing 3 x orbs circling the aircraft in complex geometrical patterns before 'collapsing its wave function' and essentially teleporting it 'elsewhere'.
Super cool stuff, always remain skeptical over evidence like this, but really struggling to see how it could have been faked.
Fabric said:
RichTT said:
Super cool stuff, always remain skeptical over evidence like this, but really struggling to see how it could have been faked.
Didn’t it vanish from radar in the middle of the night? Looks pretty bright in the first few non IR clips.Fabric said:
Didn’t it vanish from radar in the middle of the night? Looks pretty bright in the first few non IR clips.
The first footage is claimed to be from two satellite images, so it's 3D stereoscopic imagery, and likely false color IR as he explains in the video at about 26:00min. Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff