SamBridge

Yep, go back and read it if you like. It's somewhat of a fair point, but we and Earth itself have been playing around with chemicals for a very long time, and so far, no evidence of other types of life have been found. We have a data base of thousands of chemicals and testing of millions of people all over the world, I bet there are even people who try to re-create life and so far have failed. It is definitely evidence that life spontaneously forming is rare. But we can know a bit about the composition of the atmosphere, as well as how hot or cold it is. If it's too hot, many complex chemicals can't form and their bounds would break from the heat. If it's too cold, complex chemicals can't form because they need energy to create stable bonds. If it's just right, it needs diverse resources to even have a chance. So your telling me that after you stated we don't know what forms life could take or what it's created from, that we are only talking about a single circumstance? That would mean you support the notion that you think life can only be "protein based" in water, which even so is not what I said, because I stated the base element and base pairs. You can hypothetically have some of the same proteins in a different element based organism, or an organism with a different number of base pairs, or possibly an organism without proteins, so long as the cells are self organizing. The problem is, there's many chemicals that we know of which do not support self organizing and mess up chemical processes by interacting and forming a compound that needs way too much energy to break the bonds of, or releases to much energy and would sure ionize surrounding stable chemicals.

Nope, it's still very unlikely. Let's run through a scenario A kid says "I am very interested in investigating biology and want to become a doctor, but I am equally interested in becoming a UFO hunter because I like exploring for aliens, what should I do?". Would you tell him to dedicate his professional career to becoming a doctor? Or would you tell him to dedicate his professional career to being a UFO hunter or paranormal investigator? Again, it is evidence that we have no confirmation that aliens were ever involved. Oh sure, just like the lochness monster. There's no possible way someone could throw a metallic disk in the air while I take a photograph. Or, more valid points that alien life is so rare it shouldn't be considered in much the same way that ball lightning is so rare I shouldn't use it to explain every UFO phenomena. That really makes it look bad because some of them are very vague and actually do look like they could be air planes, and some of them are so modestly detailed they looked like they were photoshoped. I bet I could do something like some of those myself. http://mashable.com/2010/06/22/best-ufo-videos/ Some UFOs are currently explainable to a degree that people can't agree on, but I'm not going to assume it was aliens.

You contracted yourself plain in simple. You called it BS, then you said no one called it BS, it's plain and easy to see by anyone, you just don't want to admit it. I will admit that the scientific community has not agreed to that necessarily however we have no evidence that the same conditions have formed again, because we don't know what those circumstances were. Seeing has how we've tested literally hundreds of thousands of chemical reactions in various ways and have not created life, we can safely say that it is rare or highly unlikely for random chemicals we know of to spontaneously form life, and most planets contain chemicals we can identity. There's even some chemical responsible for raspberry flavoring found in gas clouds of Sagittarius A. It is evidence that life can easily be killed off just from mere sunlight. Life was only able to form on land after the ozone was built up, since UV rays kill algae exposed to enough, and the ozone blocks UV rays, we can say the ozone blocked the UV rays that prohibited life from developing on land. Evidence other than not finding any other element based life or base pair life on our planet, any planet in our solar system, and the lack of results from multiple observatories tracking radio signals and telescopes seeking out planets and finding many of them too extreme in temperature or atmosphere or too lacking of resources? But life developed because only certain chemicals can react in such a way to support complex or self-organizing life forms. Many chemicals cannot do this, many chemicals have very finite boundaries within terrestrial circumstances and even extra-terrestrial circumstances. You very likely cannot get life from some copper and iron and chromium, or even combined with fluorine and nitrogen and oxygen, we have scientific experiments involving these chemicals, it takes very many very complex chemicals working together, and in certain conditions very complex chemicals just cannot possibly form or be sustained long enough to create a self-organizing system, and many complex chemicals cannot be formed in conditions of extreme heat or extreme cold. And I'll use that as an example of "trolling".

There's no particles between higgs particles, it's just that mathematically you treat higgs particles as bosons with wave-like trajectories, but somehow that allows them to be treated as one field throughout space.

I specifically stated the possibility cannot be ruled out. Do you want me to go through every single time where I said that? Or will you accept that my assertion has meaning because it is labeling aliens as being unlikely, and not impossible? Yep, there's tons of pictures of lenticular clouds saying that look like UFOs, yet there's very few UFO pictures that are actually inexplicable with our current public knowledge. If you want to try an investigate it you'll have to hack into military data-bases. Otherwise, we have no reason to suggest it is even worth investigating in terms of the explanation being aliens. The only thing I would think is the US government should have reconciled the family in the pinewood incident if it was an experimental craft, but then again they did not reconcile for every innocent killed by a drone, or even my lai. You avoided my point that you contradict your own link. If life isn't rare, then go create some or find historic records of life with more than four base pairs of DNA. Even if life can form, the 3.8 billion years of time that has passed on our planet would still suggest that it can be killed off very easily in it's early stages.

You sir, have just contradicted yourself. http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc/timeline/timeline.html At the late end of the Proterozoic eon, oxygen builds up and Earth's ozone increases, shortly after, algae diversifies. Not coincidentally, http://www.gardenstew.com/about13527.html intense UV light is used to purify ponds. Of course the correlation between UV light and the diversification of animals wasn't drawn by me, water protects against UV light to some extent, before ozone layers were at a high enough level, algae would die if exposed to the atmosphere due to the UV light. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life "The accumulation of atmospheric oxygen allows the formation of an ozone layer.[35] This blocks ultraviolet radiation, permitting the colonisation of the land.[35]". I also happen to have a history book suggesting the same. Now, can you please provide me with any source that says life is common in the universe? I don't think so. Plants? Citation? Or you could just learn the definition so you learn when it makes sense to bring them up.

We have had more cases where we eliminated aliens than confirmed aliens. When it's "not always", then it's usually another natural or man-made phenomena, or the said government is withholding information, such as with the stealth blimp. They didn't release that information right away. I have gone out of my way to show it is ridiculous to think that there is any high or moderate likelihood of aliens visiting Earth. I can't believe I've done all this and you haven't actually been reading my posts, I cited it at least two times, how about you actually go and read my posts. It said in the link you posted that helicopters attempted to encircle the UFO, there were also witnesses who reported not seeing it. I'm pretty sure I've backed it up more than once. Life forming on a given planet obviously isn't that common if after .8 billion years, no new life has spontaneously formed, and on top of that we have tested numerous chemical reactions of EVERY naturally occurring element in the entire universe with the exception of technetium which only exists in stars or short times in labs, and no life.

A rock isn't a living thin. We know that based on our definitions of life, if it is living, it must be able to in some way respond to stimuli, communicate at at least a cellular level, undergo the process of evolution and grow, as well as a couple other limitations. With our data, life cannot form to meet these circumstances if it is say...xenon based, or uranium based. Only certain elements and materials will have the chemical properties unnecessary to create self-organizing systems capable of sustaining and growing in certain environments. A large amount chromium and iron and copper isn't going to do it, those chemicals have very limited bonding capabilities, so if we find a heavily metallic planet with little non-metal resources and not much heat, chances are it will not be able to form any type of life that can fit our definitions of life. The oldest living life form we know of is some type of algae, green algae related to it that resides in the oceans still today. We have analyzed all the chemicals in that algae, and many they need water and energy to form on their own. To form in large enough quantities at the right rations so that the quantities are not thrown off due to dynamics shifts in the equilibrium of reversible reactions, there needed to be an environment of some of the chemicals with an extreme amount of heat. It is possible that due to the lack of ozone at the time that intense UV light could have triggered some reaction, but we have not found any experiment in which life is created from intense UV light, as often UV light destroys the chemicals that comprise organic life. And if that change happened there would likely be no life on this planet. Not every chemical can successfully deliver energy required to sustain self-organization reactions. We know of definite limitations to the chemical reactions of elements and molecules in certain various environments. We know that some are always exothermic, or always endothermic, or reversible with how their equilibrium shifts, we know that some are molecular, we know that some are ionic, and we know the patterns for elements to form these various things, and we have determined after much observation that many combinations of these chemicals and elements cannot spontaneously form life. You need to seriously look up the definition of a straw-man.

No one can possibly use deductive reason to deduce the result must be an alien as there are other possibilities even if they seem unlikely, they are certainly less strange than the incomprehensibly small chance of life forming on another planet, then evolving to form complex life, then discovering space technology, then finding Earth. Experimental military technology. Then you'll have to be more specific next time. Including me, in fact I think I can find myself stating that. If even you do not think it was an alien space craft having experience being a UFO fanatic or hunter or w/e, then why use it as a point to support the likelihood of aliens? Otherwise why bring it up at all? You mean like the "stealth blimp" that was shown to be a military experiment? How could no one else have any recorded visual data on it when helicopters were supposedly chasing it? There was at least radio recordings of that pilot who's plane became disabled after transmitting he saw a large UFO above him. Any ridicule is extrapolations you made or that you brought. Within the limit of the boundaries of our observable universe, we have observed there is a very small chance life can form. The conditions for life to form are obviously slim since we have no data of the conditions for life to spontaneously form after it had already happened once.

Yeah we can. We have no data that life can form without the definitions we have for it, which forms somewhat predictable limitation when considering how life might exist. Which scientifically we expect was something lie lightning strikes a pool of water containing complex chemicals. Those possible circumstances still exist on Earth. There's still the same chemicals in the oldest life form now, there's still lighting, life had 3.8 billion more years to spontaneously form on Earth again, and out of all that time it didn't. If you looked at data gathered by various telescopes, you would discover that obviously this planet is the most suitable for life as we know it. There are plenty of planets with chemicals toxic to us, but they are not diverse in their minerals or have too much or too little heat for complex chemicals to not be broken down to to form. We have no evidence to support that life can be made out of only the materials of a single type of rock, or plasma, or space dust. We can say that based on our knowledge there can possibly be silicon based life if not carbon based. There can't be uranium based life with the data we have. There's nothing to prove, it's called set theory, it's a set that is indefinitely or infinitely large, therefore no matter how small the chance is, as long as it is above 0 or does not definitely approach 0, there must be some event that happens out of an indefinite number of elements in a set, which we can see clearly on Earth as we do not observe every planet having life. Cosmologists have not discovered an observable boundary to the universe nor have they discovered consistent global curvature, therefore they consider space to extend indefinitely, which means the number of planets in the universe or stars in the universe are contained in a set that is indefinitely large. If I throw a dart at a dart board, even though there's an infinite number of infinitely small squares it can be broken down into, it has to hit at some location.

But higg's fields don't act quite like that, because objects have varying mass, it makes more sense mathematically that more massive objects couple with a greater amount of individual higgs.

Life as we know it is likely rare for any given field of view, this planet is really good for life, yet in the 3.8 billion years life started, we have not seen any new type of base-pair life, that's how unlikely it is. Even on a perfect planet we have not seen any new life spontaneously develop after 3.8 billion years, but given that the universe is so large there must be life in at least one other planet. Given that it is indefinitely large, there could be an indefinite amount of life, but looking at probability it would still have to be spread out pretty far.

It would take actual aliens, or a large craft that was confirmed by every developed government to not be of their origin, which would require access to their records. I'm not, I'm saying based on all of our data, it is more likely they are not alien crafts. Then you have no reason to be debating with me if you do not think any UFO has a high chance of being an alien space craft. If the UFOs were really that large and common, don't you think at least one professional photographer would get at least 1 really good shot? I would have to imagine at least one UFO hunter knows how to use a cannon camera. Yet it's always a cloud, or weather balloon, or something kind of blurry from the distance, or some account with no photographs, which reminds me of the lochness monster. How is it that in the 1980s, that in the pine wood incident that no one had picture or video when there was supposedly multiple helicopters chasing after the craft? Even cop cars have dashboard cameras. If the incident was so large that the military was involved, surely there would also be police reports too, and all the commotion would attract people, especially if it was only 35 miles from an air port which would definitely be concerned about UFOs in the airways. Except I did not assert that the craft in the pine-wood incident was ball lightning and I did not state any inexplicable UFO incident as confirmed to be any particular thing, I merely said it is highly unlikely that it is aliens.

By my definitions we have numerous confirmations that UFOs are natural or man-made objects and 0, I repeat, 0 confirmations they are alien made objects. Could have been an over exaggerated story of a meteor or experimental craft carrying toxic waste, it sounds like the testing to see if toxic waste could be used as a weapon instead of just storing it in some ground. Either way, given our previous accounts with debunking things like this I'm not going to assume it was aliens. I do photography as a hobby and I know many other photographers, none of us have had any picture that could legitimately be called a "UFO". Go take a survey, you will find most photographers do not have pictures of things that could be an alien space-craft. You're still straw-manning that I said ball lightning cal explain all UFO cases, there is no logical reason to attack the notion that ball lightning can and has been documented as being mistaken for an alien made object unless you are failing at straw-manning, which means you're done.

Just what the title says, and this goes for any boson to. Thy are individual particles with imaginary mass prior to coupling or interaction, so how to they all combine to form a single field?

This is why I think the answer is appropriately called "undefined". You can literally put "0" into something any amount of times you want, the derivative of the vertex of absolute value(x) could literally be anything within the parameters of 360 inus the interior angle , literally any number times 0 could equal 0. It seems to make sense that it is "undefined" because there is nothing in mathematics forcing the result to be any particular number.

Except my arms actually got a hold of proof that what I said can happen. There are numerous confirmations that UFOs turn out to be man-made or natural objects, and 0 confirmations they turn out to be alien made objects. Given that set of data, you'd have to be in denial not to think that data shows that it is more likely a UFO is not alien made. It doesn't matter, there is no logical reason to assume they have to be connected. The fact that it was only those two and no one else seems rather strange for it to have been the UFO. By your logical I could argue that god caused someone to commit murder because the victim went to church. You need more than coincidental circumstances. The people were wearing cloths when the UFO was around. Does that mean we should assume UFOs had some kind of clothing ray? Multiple reportings the same description of an object doesn't seem coincidental, but a health problem shouldn't automatically be associated with aliens, or even any UFO. If we knew the material was highly radioactive enough to cause deadly radiation poisoning in a short amount of time, I'll give you that, but even then, it still doesn't mean it was aliens, there's radioactive waste to consider that was being transported if the material was radioactive as well. You're purposely avoiding my point because the answer is "no", you wouldn't say global warming is a hoax, and that would make your point look bad if you said "no". The people who claim to have "proof" of UFOs are not the typical photographer, most photographers don't capture good evidence of a UFO that is unexplainable. They don't all have to be crazy, but we don't have to think they know what they are talking about either, if they simply state "it was a UFO", that's fine, but if anyone states "aliens were involved", they have no proof of that whatsoever. A few people saying they claim to have seen alien-made crafts doesn't mean they were alien-made crafts. There are in fact reports which you've probably seen that people see moving glowing balls. Turned out to be a natural phenomena. You have no reason to attack it as I did not say ball lightning could explain all UFO sightings.

But it doesn't make it worthwhile to bet on it. Experimentations with military aircraft have been done almost since planes were invented, it in no way falsifies my assertions if occasionally a military official illegally leaks information or that a higher ranking government official tells whatever military base to address something that seems to be causing a lot of concern in a public area or that some media outlet keeps pressuring them about something they no longer consider to be a possible threat to the their country. The fact that it takes time should tell you that's what could be happening easily right now. Which can more easily have nothing to do with the UFO. They use to paint plates with radioactive materials even. If your talking about something with a 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance of occurring, probably not. The only part that's true is that they observed something which to them was most likely in the sky (cause there's lens tricks). That same logic can be used to say that global warming is a hoax. You don't think global warming is a hoax do you? Just because a few climatologists "came forward" and said it is?

Yeah I wouldn't go after it because I wouldn't buy one in the first place. I probably throw it away because I realized it was a waste of money and that it was worthless, that's how people behind lottery people make so much money, and why people who win the lottery end up blowing all their winnings on thousands of lottery tickets only to lose it all. I suppose if I felt like it I could keep it just for the fun of it, but after playing so many hands of poker and expecting my finale to be pulled off on the river and failing, I just have to accept it's unlikely. Localized militaries admit they don't know everything OR they do not want the public to know about their information because it would be treason. There is definitely experimental technology that china has which we don't know about, and there is definitely experimental technology we have that China doesn't know about, and there are definitely leaks that could get someone accused of treason. Don't know, but I'm definitely not going to assume it's aliens, I'll say it's more likely it was an experimental craft above the pay-grade of the pilot, which easily happens. I talked to a military official the other day about their research and patenting mine in relation to it, they said it was classified and they did not have access to it. The technology was above the pay grade of the pilot, but the higher ranking officials still wanted to test it quickly, so they did it on a run of one of their own pilots, though I hope they did not expect the pilot to die. You really shouldn't expect your government to tell you all it's secrets, or even most of them.

That sounds like not-science.

It's possible for entropy to increase in various systems, but otherwise time going forward is based on out definition of the mathematics to describe it. We say time is going forward if the difference between the last time increment and the this time increment is positive. If time goes from 1 to 2, 2-1 = 1, which is positive, so it was an increase, and we are continually measuring time going from one number to a larger number which always makes the difference positive.

What makes you think there are laws that must encompass all logic?

All of physics is meaningless is we live in a giant computer too. Doesn't mean we should assume that's what's happening or that that's very likely, we have no proof of it and hardly any evidence. Rockets launched into space exceed 11,000 miles per hour , and the relative view of objects. If an object heads directly towards you from a very large distance, it appears still, so when it makes a gradual turn it looks as though it was still then suddenly made a 90 degree motion. The US by far has the most "legitimate" recordings of UFOs, and not coincidentally it has the most powerful and creative military in the world with some of the most modern technology and mass media. It seems like you completely ignored my point that the "stealth blimp" exactly matched descriptions of acclaimed UFO sightings. The most reasonable explanation is certainly not something related to a life form that had a 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance of originally forming, then a 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance of evolving enough to create space technology, then a 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance of finding Earth. The most reasonable explanation for very advanced air crafts is that the armed forces of the world became more creative and experimented with a variety of aerial technology which was fueled by paranoia of the Soviet Union and nuclear war, and for other countries it was similar. Here's what we know, Proof that UFOs turn out to be natural or man-made objects: x>4 Proof that UFOs turn out to be aliens: 0 Given this data, we can say with certainty that in the event of a UFO is seen, that it is more likely a natural or man made object than an alien even without considering the odds I mentioned above.

I think it's more reasonable to suggest experimental military technology which at the time would have gotten someone thrown in prison for 20 years or more or executed if they told anyone about it because of all the paranoia going on with other countries being able to bomb the US with new technology, also wasn't it a plane, not a helicopter? The military really really is looking into a wide variety of creative technology and so are universalities, they have self healing gasoline transporters, rail-guns and plasma weapons and drones and stealth bombers and probably some experimental technology that is highly maneuverable, what air force wouldn't want that? Even the Germans tried making some hovering mercury balls. Also, why does most of this stuff take place in the US? How come I don't hear of rural UFO sightings in rural Africa or Israel or China or India which are very densely populated, even though there are people there and people who get media attention and even write books? I think mass media in the US has something to do with over exaggerating some aspects of the whole UFO case as well, leading some people to even try and fake it for attention. It does not seem to be a coincidence that it seems to happen the most in the US compared to every other country when we have all sorts of mass media in the US and one of the most powerful militaries in the world that experiments with all sorts of technology.

They are not explicable with publicly accessible knowledge. We gradually rule out that things were alien made objects using new scientific data or leaks of experimental military technology, there's plenty of room for experimental military technology, and it often takes time for a scientific patent to be made, reviewed, then brought to the attention of the public if the media wants to do that, like ball lightning which was not brought up much in the scientific world until the 20th and 21st century. If it's explainable, it doesn't mean we have to assume it's any particular thing, but looking at the chances of life forming and then seeing that we ourselves don't have that technology after all this time, means it isn't very likely we are going to encounter alien life.