[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by questor

Are the aliens made of the same chemical compounds that we are made of, or are there mysterious space elements we have not discovered? Are the UFO's made of elements of which we are unaware?

No to both, this another reason it's silly to expect a piece of an alien space craft to some how be detectable as alien. Unless it has made on Alpha Centari stamped on it we just couldn't be sure, especially if it was really advanced beyond our understanding. Just think what an integrated circuit would have looked like to 19th century science. Just an odd shaped piece of ceramic?

If they are made of compounds we are aware of, do they not have to obey the same physical laws concerning speed, weight, mass, melting point, G-forces and other issues faced by our own space travelers?

You would assume so

If they are made of the same known elements, and subject to the same universal physical laws, wouldn't it be impossible for them to behave in flight like they have been reported to do?

Any sufficiently advanced technology will appear to be magic to a less advanced technology. We cannot assume they cannot get around the things we like to think of as laws. Their flight characteristics are reason to think they are indeed the product of a highly advanced technology. I for one am not willing to say categorically that we know everything about the universe and how it works. At one time it was common knowledge that traveling faster than about 80mph would kill a man. then faster than sound would kill a man, now we know it's acceleration/deceleration not actual speed that kills. Who knows what we will be able to do in 100,000,000 years of advancing technology or even 1000 years. In 1000 years we have gone from donkey rides to SR71 black birds.

[questor]

Here are some facts:
1. The universe exists, we can see it, hear it, feel it, examine it, and this can be done by anyone in the world.
2. Occurences have causes. Things do not occur without cause, therefore
one should conclude the ocurrence of the universe had a cause.
3. If the universe was created by some force, this force could be described as a creator.

The so called UFO's have only been seen by a few people. No one can touch them, feel them, or examine them, or describe them accurately. They only occur in the air where we know many optical illusions occur because of air inversions and atmospheric conditions. Only a few UFO sightings are still mysteries, most have been explained as man made objects or optical illusions.
You prefer to believe something that has little evidence and no proof, than something you see with your own eyes and senses every day. How can this be scientific or even plausible?

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by questor

Here are some facts:
1. The universe exists, we can see it, hear it, feel it, examine it, and this can be done by anyone in the world.
2. Occurences have causes. Things do not occur without cause, therefore
one should conclude the ocurrence of the universe had a cause.
3. If the universe was created by some force, this force could be described as a creator.

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, I would have to say there is much better evidence for UFOs being material objects than there is for a creator.

The so called UFO's have only been seen by a few people. No one can touch them, feel them, or examine them, or describe them accurately. They only occur in the air where we know many optical illusions occur because of air inversions and atmospheric conditions. Only a few UFO sightings are still mysteries, most have been explained as man made objects or optical illusions.

Even one true nuts and bolts alien space craft would be an Earth shattering event. To try and denigrate the entire idea of UFOs by saying only a few are unidentified is disingenuous to say the least.

You prefer to believe something that has little evidence and no proof, than something you see with your own eyes and senses every day. How can this be scientific or even plausible?

As I have told you before I go by data not by what I want to believe, lots of things have no proof but are thought to be real. To say the UFO is not worth studying because there is no proof is not science. Science looks for evidence before proof not after. There are UFO sightings with so much evidence that if it was a murder trial you could be put to death with evidence of this caliber. To say there is no evidence is simply wrong, so far there has been no evidence that can be used as absolute proof. It is always possible the evidence might be pointing to something other than UFOs and we just can't see it but we will never see it these things are not studied. I am skeptical of UFOs but I am willing to see the data for what it is, not what I want it to be. So far I have seen some really good evidence that something very unusual is going on in some cases. When the crew of a B 52 bomber sees a UFO records it on their radar, and the ground radar see it, another airplane sees it, ground observers see it and no explanation can be given to explain it then you have a real mystery. Maybe not a alien space craft but something that should be identified if for no other reason that it shadowed a nuclear armed B 52. There are other sightings with more or less details but the theme is the same. an unidentified aircraft that cannot be one of ours.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by questor

Are the aliens made of the same chemical compounds that we are made of…

Having never examined an alien (unless you believe the “alien autopsy” stories and alleged video films), we can’t know with surety. However, unless the aliens are very unlike Earth organisms, they’re likely to be at least similar in chemical composition, differing only in trace element composition and cell structure and organization. Even small differences in biochemistry, however, can result in dramatic differences in large, complex organisms. Small differences in Earth life, such as the use of copper instead of oxygen as the central atom of the molecular subunit of the major oxygen binding protein, results in dramatic differences in appearance.

We’ve no way of knowing, though, that there are not alien organism that are very different from Earth organisms. The possible variations that might still have the ability to engineer interstellar spacecraft are many, likely beyond our ability to even number.

Originally Posted by questor

… or are there mysterious space elements we have not discovered? Are the UFO's made of elements of which we are unaware?

Almost certainly not.

Compared to molecules, which can be consist of arrangements of thousands of atoms, and therefore exists in nearly innumerable numbers, there are only a few fewer than 100 naturally occurring elements, that number determined by the fundamental laws of physics, where are believed to be invariant throughout the universe. Although an alien organism might have unusual or lack usual amounts of trace elements, they’re likely to have roughly the same abundance of the most common elements.

In short, any large alien organism even slightly like any large Earth organism, is almost certainly to, like all Earth organisms, be mostly CHON.

Last, it’s worth noting that, although reason strongly suggests their existence, we’ve not yet actually observed a large, or, discounting some ambiguous experimental results from Mars probes, even a small, biological organism anywhere but on Earth.

Originally Posted by questor

If they are made of compounds we are aware of, do they not have to obey the same physical laws concerning speed, weight, mass, melting point, G-forces and other issues faced by our own space travelers? If they are made of the same known elements, and subject to the same universal physical laws, wouldn't it be impossible for them to behave in flight like they have been reported to do?

Assuming that alien space travelers - even robotic ones – exist, and that their spacecraft are roughly similar, even if many times more advanced, than ours, then yes – some maneuvers attributed to UFOs, such as nearly instantly reversing direction at supersonic speeds, are impossible.

The most common explanation offered for this is that UFOs, if they exist, and actually perform these alleged maneuvers, are not roughly similar to our. Rather, it is assumed they are based on a technology that can either alter the inertial mass of matter, or generate artificial gravity fields, so that the ship and its occupants experience little or no external force, yet exhibit great acceleration. Our science is barely beginning to explore the underlying physics that might make such a technology possible, so descriptions of such technology are mostly within the domain of science fiction.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, I would have to say there is much better evidence for UFOs being material objects than there is for a creator.




Even one true nuts and bolts alien space craft would be an Earth shattering event. To try and denigrate the entire idea of UFOs by saying only a few are unidentified is disingenuous to say the least.



As I have told you before I go by data not by what I want to believe, lots of things have no proof but are thought to be real. To say the UFO is not worth studying because there is no proof is not science. Science looks for evidence before proof not after. There are UFO sightings with so much evidence that if it was a murder trial you could be put to death with evidence of this caliber. To say there is no evidence is simply wrong, so far there has been no evidence that can be used as absolute proof. It is always possible the evidence might be pointing to something other than UFOs and we just can't see it but we will never see it these things are not studied. I am skeptical of UFOs but I am willing to see the data for what it is, not what I want it to be. So far I have seen some really good evidence that something very unusual is going on in some cases. When the crew of a B 52 bomber sees a UFO records it on their radar, and the ground radar see it, another airplane sees it, ground observers see it and no explanation can be given to explain it then you have a real mystery. Maybe not a alien space craft but something that should be identified if for no other reason that it shadowed a nuclear armed B 52. There are other sightings with more or less details but the theme is the same. an unidentified aircraft that cannot be one of ours.

Moontanman you reeeeally need to replace the term UFO with something else somthing substantial. It just makes no sense what so ever attempting to prove the existence of something that by its very description is "unidentified."

You first need to define what it is you want to prove, to say there is evidence that UFO‘s are real, well.... real what?

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

Moontanman you reeeeally need to replace the term UFO with something else somthing substantial. It just makes no sense what so ever attempting to prove the existence of something that by its very description is "unidentified."

You first need to define what it is you want to prove, to say there is evidence that UFO‘s are real, well.... real what?

T-bird, you could not possibly be more correct! I am very uncomfortable with the term UFO, taken at face value it means almost anything and nothing. When you are taking about possible alien space craft is is taken to mean just that, alien space craft. but it has far too many other possible meanings for the term to be taken seriously. Soooo, I am going to start another thread, What should possible alien space craft be called if not UFOs?