From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman.nul> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:50:42 -0800 Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:55:47 -0500 Subject: Re: Great Debate About Frequency Of ET Life - >From: Gildas Bourdais <bourdais.gildas.nul> >To: ufoupdates.nul >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:30:27 +0100 >Subject: Re: Great Debate About Frequency Of ET Life >>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman.nul> >>To: <ufoupdates.nul> >>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:44:55 -0800 >>Subject: Re: Great Debate About Frequency Of ET Life >>>From: Gildas Bourdais <bourdais.gildas.nul> >>>To: ufoupdates.nul >>>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:33:37 +0100 >>>Subject: Re: Great Debate About Frequency Of ET Life ><snip> >>>Ed, >>>Toward the end of 19th Century, the great British physicist >>>Lord Kelvin calculated the age of the Sun : about 2 or 3 >>>millions years at the most, but he supposed that the Sun >>>burned coal. It was a few years before the theory of >>>relativity! >>Gildas, >>So? Is this supposed to mean that I don't understand the subtly >>of science and that the next big discovery is just over the >>rainbow? I don't need a fifth grade science lecture on what may >>be. >Ed, >Well, it looks like you need one, though. And, yes, we can >expect new big discoveries in physics. Hi Gildas, Yes there will be progress in Physics as in other sciences, but I don't see anything that will lead to faster than light travel, or star travel by humans, not robots. >>>Today, there are different theories of advanced physics in >>>development, trying unify physics, which seem to open new roads >>>toward interstellar travel. >>Name and describe one. Just one! Include footnotes, please. >I suggest that you read my article in IUR, as a little >beginning. And then a couple of good books. For instance those >of Brian Greene and Michio Kaku. I read Kaku's " Hyperspace". >Another interesting physicist seems to be Lisa Randall, of >Princeton University. I am very familiar with the ideas of Kaku and Randall but they are only speculating and String Theory has taken several major hits during the last few months. >But I admit I cannot go much farther to help. >>>So, the question seems to be very open. >>It's only open to dreamers who can't accept the universe as a >>lonely pasture. I think it's kind of exciting to think that we >>share a family connection to the UFO, rather than being fodder >>for the galactic club. The UFO discussion could benefit by >>bringing everything down to earth. >>>BTW, I proposed a little summary of that discussion in my >>>paper on the book "Hunt for the Skinwalker", which has been >>>published in the last issue of IUR (Vol. 31 Number 1). And now >>>it is also on the blog of Frank Warren. >>Sorry, I don't think you see the big picture. >Well, I am afraid your remark applies to you, Ed. Your "Skinwalker" article was too mystical for me. The UFO question is nuts and bolts and skin and blood and not confused and groundless speculation or superstitious self-delusion. It's a question of real hominids, in real time, driving real crafts around our real world. UFO do not operate in a spirit world or another dimension, but a knowable, and touchable reality of which you and I are a part. That's what I call the big picture.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp