UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Astrophotographer said:
You then go on with some of the most ridiculous arguments in order to make your case. If you go to my website, like I previously pointed you towards, you will discover all the sources are there for you to read. I guess, informing oneself of the pertinent information is just not becoming of a real scientist.
Click to expand...
I was going to say…

I think Rramjet’s counting on the audience he’s playing to in his mind to be dumb enough to only follow the links he posts… if I were a “true believer” I might take that as an insult to my intelligence.

Gee, I sure hope Rramjet doesn’t think he’s doing anyone any favors by constantly humping your leg…

At the rate he’s going, by the time he’s done here, there will be nothing left for them to believe in.
 
wollery said:
And still no evidence that Rramjet knows how to calculate the energy requirements for interstellar travel, ...
Click to expand...


I'll take the challenge.

What's the estimate energy requirements for a one way trip from Solar System to Alpha Centauri of a 100 kg mass at 1g acceleration?,... and how does it compare to human energy consumption on Earth?.

Here's a try:
(please someone check for factual and/or conceptual errors, my college years are long, long gone)


solarsystemalphacentaur.jpg


Now, how does this number compare to human energy consumption on Earth?

Let's take the crude oil consumption.

World crude oil consumption year 2006:
85,000 barrels per day = 31,025,000 barrels per year Source

Energy content of 1 barrel of crude oil: 6.1 x 109 Joule Source

With these numbers, the said trip to Alpha Centauri would need the energy of 6,639,344,262 barrels of crude oil, that is, the consumption of the whole Earth for 214 years at the 2006 rate.

And this is only one trip to the nearest star.
 
Patricio Elicer said:
I'll take the challenge.

What's the estimate energy requirements for a one way trip from Solar System to Alpha Centauri of a 100 kg mass at 1g acceleration?,... and how does it compare to human energy consumption on Earth?.

Here's a try:
(please someone check for factual and/or conceptual errors, my college years are long, long gone)


[qimg]http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/433/solarsystemalphacentaur.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
Not bad, but the question was to accelerate at 1g for 1 year. That's the figure Freidman gave as being reasonable when he poo-pooed the SETI people for claiming the energy requirements were too large.

Now, how does this number compare to human energy consumption on Earth?

Let's take the crude oil consumption.

World crude oil consumption year 2006:
85,000 barrels per day = 31,025,000 barrels per year Source

Energy content of 1 barrel of crude oil: 6.1 x 109 Joule Source

With these numbers, the said trip to Alpha Centauri would need the energy of 6,639,344,262 barrels of crude oil, that is, the consumption of the whole Earth for 214 years at the 2006 rate.

And this is only one trip to the nearest star.
Click to expand...
I personally worked it out in terms of Hydrogen mass required for a PP chain fusion reactor, or Uranium mass required for standard fission reactor. But that works too.
 
wollery said:
I personally worked it out in terms of Hydrogen mass required for a PP chain fusion reactor, or Uranium mass required for standard fission reactor. But that works too.
Click to expand...


Well, yes, I suppose the ET will not use gasoline as a propellant :). I just pulled the crude oil example to illustrate the huge (impossible?) effort that such an enterprise would pose to us with all our advanced technology.
 
Access Denied said:
Conceptually the only problem I see is at 1g acceleration you hit light speed after 1 year… at which point you’re done accelerating. :)
Click to expand...
Only if you ignore relativity (which would mean you'd never achieve light speed) in which case it seems a wee tad silly to apply the light speed limit.



eta Of course, now we'll never know whether or not Rramjet had any idea how to work it out, which is what I was really interested in.
 
Last edited:
Personally I have always considered the E=m*c2 and how that relates to carrying enough energy on a spaceship to accelerate it to near light speed.

I have concluded that physicist better come up with a warp drive. :)
 
Akhenaten said:
Au contraire! Localised Black Holes may explain how the aliens manage to travel in blimps between Rogue River and Teheran.
Click to expand...
Either you missed something or I did, and I'm pretty sure it was you.



eta, check your spelling.
 

Attachments

  • 14296069.jpg
    14296069.jpg
    54.5 KB · Views: 5
  • 51036138.jpg
    51036138.jpg
    46.9 KB · Views: 4
wollery said:
Only if you ignore relativity (which would mean you'd never achieve light speed) in which case it seems a wee tad silly to apply the light speed limit.
Click to expand...
Well yes, given a near infinite amount of energy achieving near light speed should be no problem…

wollery said:
eta Of course, now we'll never know whether or not Rramjet had any idea how to work it out, which is what I was really interested in.
Click to expand...
That’s what I was thinking… now hush :)


ETA: ref. #4929
 
Last edited:
Astrophotographer said:
That came from the same negatives. Exactly why is that an issue? Are you stating that each print made by Barauna is "different" than the negative? Some of them were printed different and cropped different but they all are traced back to Barauna making the prints. The reason he used the different prints (which came from the same negative) is because the one print was much more clear than the other (the Olmos P1 print was faded/overexposed in the process and the Covo P4 print showed less sky - DUH...). When you perform a simple curve function (photoshop), you will see that there is no difference in the photographs (Mori essentially did this in the photo I posted above). As for the "filters" issue, feel free to elaborate.
Click to expand...
I am stating that each print made from the same negative IS different, each from the other. You only have to compare both the P1s – (Covo with Olmos) to see that…

Not only are the pictures different between sources, but they are different within sources as well.

Not only THAT, if you compare like with like, then between P1 and P4 you will see precisely the SAME cloud pattern, but shifted to the left of the frame. In P1 (any batch) you can see (from the clouds mid-frame) that the wind is pretty strong and blowing from right to left of frame.

Anyone with any sort of picture manager (that can manipulate brightness, contrast and midtones) can play with the various pictures (see source links below)to get P1 and P4 to MATCH on cloud patterns! If I (playing with the various pictures) can variously get a cloud match merely using Microsoft Picture Manager AND I can variously get a cloud mismatch using the same program, then Mori can do the same. That Mori presented ONLY one filtering “solution” (and that between batches) and then claimed a “mismatch” in cloud pattern borders on outright fraud.

The pictures:
Covo: (http://www.ceticismoaberto.com/research/trindade/scans/index.html)
Olmos: (http://www.ceticismoaberto.com/research/trindade/ref/scansolmos.html)
It is also extremely instructive to view the pictures here as WELL: (http://www.nicap.org/reports/trinchart.htm)

I encourage ANYONE to download the pictures (from all THREE sources!) and play with them and see what happens. You will immediately note that Mori’s solution is a “manipulated” solution and NOT the only solution!

Astrophotographer said:
I suggest you read Olavo Fontes article http://www.cohenufo.org/Trindade_Fontes.htm if you want to read about Barauna describing his time trials. Why must I do your homework for you? Why don't you inform yourself of all the pertinent information before drawing a conclusion? Sounds like really poor scientific training if you ask me.
Click to expand...
Yeah, like you have done with the photos (LOL) and like I am supposed to read every bit of literature on the web chasing down an obscure reference from you when you could just a easily post the link and have done with it. That you do not post your links when citing what other researchers have stated is simply being obstructionist and certainly not in the spirit of a truly open and scientific debate. It is therefore not I that is being “unscientific” Astrophotographer… it is demonstrably YOU who lays claim to that particular crown.
 
wollery said:
Not bad, but the question was to accelerate at 1g for 1 year. That's the figure Freidman gave as being reasonable when he poo-pooed the SETI people for claiming the energy requirements were too large.

I personally worked it out in terms of Hydrogen mass required for a PP chain fusion reactor, or Uranium mass required for standard fission reactor. But that works too.
Click to expand...


Long ago I worked it out as the best method of energy storage (note : NOT energy
production) that I think we can imagine : matter anti matter anihilation. That came out at a few hundred kilogram of anti matter + matter, to propulse a hundred kilogram of material.
 
Aepervius said:
Long ago I worked it out as the best method of energy storage (note : NOT energy
production) that I think we can imagine : matter anti matter anihilation. That came out at a few hundred kilogram of anti matter + matter, to propulse a hundred kilogram of material.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but you need to produce the antimatter first and then you have to store it safely! :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom