Solid White Diamond UFO Near Space Station On Live Cam, Jan 2018, Video, UFO Sighting News.

Date of sighting: January 2018

Location of sighting: International Space Station

 

This diamond UFO was flashing as it passed by the international space station this week. Its white, much like the space station and when it lights up, its very visible in the background. The shape is like a diamond and it seems to be watching the space station, orbiting it if you will. This is a fantastic video made by Streetcap1 of Youtube. 100% evidence that aliens do exist. 

Scott C. Waring

{  http://www.ufosightingsdaily.com/ }

25-01-2018 om 10:55 geschreven door peter  

UFO Lights Appear During ISS Live Stream On January 10th, 2018, Video, UFO Sighting News.

Date of sighting: January 10, 2018
Location of sighting: Space Station live cam

This UFO was recorded by the Youtube user Of Sound Mind and Body. It shows a beautiful glowing UFO in the distance near the space station caught on live cam. The UFO changes colors every few seconds and appears to have two sections. A larger sphere and a smaller one. They seem very intrigued by the space station, as if its a tourist destination for aliens. Strange, but probably true. 
Scott C. Waring

{ http://www.ufosightingsdaily.com/ }

25-01-2018 om 10:50 geschreven door peter  

UFO Breaks Through Clouds Landing Somewhere Behind Sydney, Australia, Jan 2018, Video, UFO Sighting News.

Date of sighting: January 15, 2018

Location of sighting: Sydney, Australia

 

This UFO entering earths atmosphere was caught by Youtube user UFO Sydney. The UFO was caught using an infrared camera, which sees infrared, a light that the human eye cannot see. Here a UFO breaks through the clouds and has a trail behind it, probably from the clouds not the UFO. The UFO is traveling at about 10X the speed of a fighter jet, so its not a plane or rocket. Fantastic video. Proof that ET's are alive and well in Sydney. 

Scott C. Waring

{ http://www.ufosightingsdaily.com/ }

25-01-2018 om 10:46 geschreven door peter  

Two UFOs In Airport Flight Path Over Memphis, Tennessee On Dec 2017, Video, UFO Sighting News.

 

Date of sighting: December 24, 2017

Location of sighting: Memphis, Tennessee, USA

 

The UFO video was reported by TheSkyUFO of Youtube. We see two glowing UFOs rising up into some clouds, until a plane passes. Then they move out and another aircraft passes close to them. In comparison to the aircraft, the UFOs look like they are about the size of cars. Remarkable evidence. 

Scott C. Waring

Witness report:

 I saw two objects in the sky which seemed to be orbs floating in sky I was headed back home after Christmas celebrations with my brother. It was a beautiful day and a beautiful sunset. I grabbed my phone and took a few pictures. I decided to get closer to get better pics. I was headed West on I40 when i got to the Sycamore View exit is when I saw these two objects. Turned on video on phone and headed toward these things. Found a safe space to pull over and began recording. These glowing orbs would set real still when a plane would pass and after plane was past them they seemed to move close to each other and what seemed to me tried to communicate with each other. You can see on video that one hides behind a cloud as a plane passes. The clouds seemed not to be moving. I was thrilled to see these things because I kept my wits this time.(saw the UFO ya’ll did a show on from a UFO that was seen in Memphis back in 77 and i freaked out and was scared because I was only 17 which I would love to tell about also cause i was less than 500 yards from that UFO even seeing the top of that UFO). I finally lost sight when I tried to readjust my camera.

{ http://www.ufosightingsdaily.com/ }

25-01-2018 om 10:39 geschreven door peter  

Long Glowing UFO Seen Over City In Santos, Brazil In Jan 2018, Video, UFO Sighting News.

Date of sighting: January 2018
Location of sighting: Santos, Brazil

This UFO was reported by SecureTeam10 of Youtube. A UFO moves across the night sky. Five bright center lights glowing all the while and some smaller lights along its sides. The video was taken long ways on the phone instead of sideways. Thats another sign thats its real. The way it shoots off is a rare thing to see on video. Most UFO reports only show the craft hovering, but here we see it moving from left to right and then shots off right again. 

This is an important video that shows how a UFO moves so easily, so perfectly, without making rounded turns. Tell us your thoughts on this video in the comments below please. 
Scott C. Waring

{ http://www.ufosightingsdaily.com/ }

25-01-2018 om 10:34 geschreven door peter  

A rare video of a UFO turns into a plasma state from the 1950s

Watch the video until the end and do not rush in the verdict, there is a surprise at the end of the video. This is one of the oldest UFOs that was filmed in the 1950s.

The UFO appears in the video similar to the plane plates that were photographed by Billy Meyer and vibrates in the same way.

After analyzing Billy Meier's videos it was found that the cause of the vibration of the UFOs is to equivalent the magnetic field of the earth and then the UFO becomes completely stable and can floats on the magnetic field of the earth and leave and whether we could make a space craft equivalent to the magnetic field of the Earth and float in the air in the 1950s?

Well how about making a space craft that can switch from the situation solid to the plasma state to travel at the speed of light in the 1950s.

  

{ http://ufosightingshotspot.blogspot.com/ }

25-01-2018 om 10:26 geschreven door peter  

The idea that an alien spacecraft might have exploded in the sky above Tunguska, Russia on June 30, 1908 is certainly provocative and intriguing. There is, however, one issue that some proponents of this particular theory are not at all keen to highlight. Namely, that its origins can be found not within the worlds of science or high-level government secrecy, but firmly within the realm of sci-fi. It was in 1946 that Russian author Alexander Petrovich Kazantsev wrote a story that was directly inspired by a personal trip he had made during the previous year to see the atomic devastation and destruction that was wrought at the Japanese city of Hiroshima.

David Darling notes: “Kazantsev developed the idea that a nuclear-powered spacecraft from Mars on a visit to collect fresh water from Lake Baikal, had exploded, showering the area in radioactivity.” There’s very little doubt at all that Kazantsev’s novel “helped” to nurture the idea that something of an extraterrestrial nature came to grief over Tunguska on that fateful day.

Similarly, in his debut novel of 1951 titled The Astronauts, sci-fi author Stanislaw Lem utilized the specific scenario of an alien spacecraft exploding over Tunguska as its central, overriding theme. Nearly a decade later, The Astronauts was adapted into a movie titled First Spaceship on Venus. In the big-screen version of the story, Russian scientists stumble upon a “magnetic recording device” at the site of the Tunguska blast. They soon determine that the object which exploded was nothing less than a reconnaissance vessel from the planet Venus. A translation of the recording device reveals that the vessel contained the entire Venusian population, who were coming to Earth with the specific intent of occupying our world. Their goal – and their entire race, too – is brought to an abrupt end, however, with the disastrous destruction of their huge craft.

And the fact that Tunguska continues to play a major role in the world of sci-fi only ensures that the fine line between fact and fiction becomes even more blurry and indistinct. For example, Donald R. Bensen’s 1978 novel And Having Writ used the Tunguska story as a springboard for an amusing tale about stranded aliens who are forced to manipulate the technology of early 20th Century Earth, as part of an attempt to rebuild their stricken craft. And the novels just keep on coming.

Chekhov’s Journey, written by Ian Watson in 1983, presents a scenario in which the playwright Anton Chekhov has personal knowledge of the Tunguska event – which turns out to have been caused by futuristic Russian time-travelers. Two years later, Bruce Sterling and Rudy Rucker’s story Storming the Cosmos depicted a top secret Soviet reconnaissance mission journeying to Tunguska and finding advanced technology that is then incorporated into the Soviet space program.

In the world of sci-fi themed comic-books the situation is much the same, too: in the Marvel Comics spin-off of the 1987 movie Predator that starred Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Tunguska explosion is shrouded in mystery, but is attributed to either an attempt by the Predators to hide their existence from the Human Race by vaporizing their malfunctioning craft high in the atmosphere; or by the military and governments of either Russian or America who are firmly determined to prevent the infinitely advanced technology falling into the hands of the scientific elite of each other’s respective nations.

And perhaps inevitably, even The X-Files got into the act, too, with a two-part story (titled “Tunguska” and “Terma”), in which Mulder and his long-time arch-foe, Alex Krycek, are forced to work together. They journey to Tunguska, where they learn that materials recovered at the crash-site contain a deadly substance known as “Black Oil” that contains a microbial life form capable of infecting, and controlling, any and all living creatures on Earth.

All of this is good entertainment for those who like sci-fi (a subject that, ironically, I have no interest in; I much prefer violent horror movies and whodunnits). But, for those who hang on to the idea (the hope, perhaps…?) that aliens met their deaths over Russia in 1908, we should not forget how those early days of sci-fi most assuredly had a bearing on what people thought about the still-controversial affair.

{ http://mysteriousuniverse.org/ }

24-01-2018 om 23:36 geschreven door peter  

If You Find Aliens, Who Do You Call?

24-01-2018 om 23:20 geschreven door peter  

Truth about the 'unexplainable' footage of 'UFO taking off from the Moon'

MIND BOGGLING footage that appears to show a mysterious UFO "blast off" from the surface of the Moon is going viral online.

24-01-2018 om 23:06 geschreven door peter  

BY DIANA BROWN

Two men are seen viewing a display entitled 'The Problem of Piltdown Man'. The cranial fragments, found at Piltdown, Sussex, from 1908 to 1912, were formally denounced as fakes in 1953, for being comprised of the bones of a man and an ape.

 REG SPELLER/FOX PHOTOS/GETTY IMAGES

Unearthing and studying bones and fossils is one of the many ways scientists work to better understand humanity's shared history and evolution. But some discoveries have created more questions than answers. Could these abnormal archaeological finds be evidence of extraterrestrial life? The missing evolutionary link between man and ape? Proof of alien-human hybrids? Or are they just elaborate hoaxes?

Stuff They Don't Want You To Know hosts Matt Frederick, Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown dig deep into the Strange World of Inexplicable Skeletons to separate the myths from the mysteries in this episode of the podcast.

It would be easy to dismiss all these remarkable discoveries as nothing but hoaxes for money or fame, mainly because they've happened so many times. Most famously, the Piltdown Man, discovered by amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson in 1912, was touted as being the missing link between man and ape. Its skull, supposedly 500,000 years old, was shaped like an orangutan's, but its teeth and jawbone were closer to a human's. It wasn't until 1949 that the Piltdown Man skull was re-tested using newer techniques and found to be a fake. It was created from an artificially aged orangutan skull whose teeth had been filed down.

Another famous hoax involved a crystal skull owned by Anna Mitchell-Hughes, who claimed to have discovered it in a Mayan ruin with her explorer father, while searching for the lost city of Atlantis. (It's always the last place you look.) Mitchell-Hughes said the Mayans told her the skull was used to transfer the knowledge of an elder to a younger member of the tribe before the elder died. However, it was discovered fairly quickly that Mitchell-Hughes had simply bought the skull at an auction at Sotheby's, and according to experts, crystal skulls are usually no more than 150 years in age, made with modern tools and techniques not found in ancient civilizations.

The Fiji, or Feejee, Mermaid made quite a splash when it was exhibited in New York in 1842 by Dr. J. Griffith. But it, too, turned out to be fake, orchestrated by the greatest showman himself, P.T. Barnum. The "mermaid" turned out to be the top half of a monkey attached to a fishtail, and "Dr." Griffith was simply Barnum's accomplice. Quite a bit of ticket money was made before the two men's secret was out.

But some skeletons are obviously real, and puzzling enough to require further investigation. In 1999, the now-late paranormal researcher Lloyd Pye claimed he obtained a human-alien hybrid skeleton he called "Starchild," which was found in 1930 in a tunnel southwest of Chihuahua, Mexico. The skull was larger than average and flattened on the back, leading Pye to surmise it was the offspring of an alien and a human female. (Quite a leap.) But DNA evidence has since proven the skull is from a human, and most likely that of a child who died from congenital hydrocephalus, a condition that causes the brain to swell.

Similarly, the Paracas skulls were seen as proof of aliens among us; the skulls were elongated, like cones, and were originally reported as having mutations not found in any human species. Further testing found that they also were human, despite their appearance. More likely, the elongated shape was the result of a tribal practice called artificial cranial deformation, which was done for a variety of cultural reasons.

Perhaps most puzzling of all is the 6-inch-long (15-centimeter-) skeleton found in the Atacama Desert in Chile in 2003. It is a fully-formed human, only miniature, leading many to believe that it's a fetus or a very young child. But tests on the bones have shown growth plates similar to those of a 6- to 8-year-old child, and there appear to be mature teeth in its mouth. How could a 6-year-old only be 6 inches long? And what about the Kyshtym dwarf, the Littlemore Priory and the Peruvian three-fingered mummy? You'll have to listen to the entire podcast to find out all about these.

{https://www.howstuffworks.com/ }

24-01-2018 om 22:49 geschreven door peter  

by Tommy Gimler

Why it has taken so long for conspiracy theorists to get their panties in a bunch and once again make claims that the government is heavily involved in an alien cover-up is anybody’s guess, but they think that the object is hundreds of miles in length and is either a floating city or golden UFO orbiting the planet.

Others aren’t as convinced and say it is simply a “reflection of sunlight through the clouds.”

Personally, I don’t think NASA would have cut the feed just seconds after a reflection of sunlight came into view, and that’s why I will begin drinking heavily for the rest of the day.

Aliens, man. Aliens! UFO: Does This Newly Released Fighter Jet Video Prove Aliens Are Real After All?

{ http://www.craveonline.com/ }

24-01-2018 om 22:34 geschreven door peter  

Taken from Cape Hillsborough, on the beach no less, a Moura woman reached for her camera just in time for a “once in a lifetime” shot.

Betty Seeney said she’s heard stories before about UFOs and certainly believes they’re out there as reported by the Daily Mercury.

“You never know...”

“(But) It just looked like a shooting star to start with then it just got longer, bigger and brighter and I said to my husband ‘this is no shooting star’,” she said.

She was visiting Mackay on an astrophotography workshop on Friday when she witnessed the “20 second exposure”.

“I screamed out ‘look at this’ and they turned around and couldn’t believe it,” she said. “It was just beautiful. It was a real green teal colour the light and it just disappeared into the ocean... (My husband) could hear it hissing and frizzing coming down.”

Mrs Seeney was originally reaching for the camera to capture the milky way around 8.30pm but was glad she got more than she bargained for.

“I take some night time photos but I’ve never seen anything like that,” she said. She’s not sure how far away it was, but thought it appeared closer than what it probably was.

{ http://www.cairnspost.com.au/ }

24-01-2018 om 22:23 geschreven door peter  

European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope in the Atacama Desert, Chile. 

Photo courtesy ESO/Y Beletsky

The ethics of ET

The discovery of independent life beyond Earth would have deep philosophical implications for us, and our ideas of morality

Suppose we woke up tomorrow to learn that extraterrestrial life had been discovered. What difference would that make? Set aside the extreme scenarios of popular fiction. The truth will probably be more mundane – not massive spaceships suddenly filling the sky but, instead, microorganisms found deep inside an ice-covered Moon, a non-random radio signal from a distant star system, or the ruins of a long-dead alien civilisation. What difference might those discoveries make? Would they strengthen or weaken our faith in God, or science, or humanity? Would they force us to re-evaluate the importance of our own lives, values and projects? 

In academic philosophy today, an interest in extraterrestrial life is regarded with some suspicion. This is a historical anomaly. In Ancient Greece, Epicureans argued that every possible form of life must recur infinitely many times in an infinite universe. In the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, as modern astronomy demonstrated that our Earth is just another planet and our Sun just another star, the default hypothesis among informed observers was that the Universe is filled with habitable planets and intelligent life. One principal argument for this ‘pluralism’ was philosophical or theological: God (or Nature) does nothing in vain, and therefore such a vast cosmos could not be home to only one small race of rational beings.

My goal here is to explore some unexpected implications of the discovery of extraterrestrial life, and my conclusions are very speculative: extraterrestrial life would lend non-decisive support to several interesting and controversial philosophical positions. The discovery of life elsewhere would teach us that, while the Universe does have a purpose, human beings are irrelevant to that purpose. Aliens might well worship a God who is indifferent to us.

We know that life has emerged once. Why should it be so momentous to learn that it has emerged twice? The reason is that finding life elsewhere would radically change our picture of the Universe. At any point in time, humans will have explored only a tiny fraction of our galaxy, let alone the whole Universe. If life has emerged only once in that small sample, then it is possible that life on Earth is unique. (We might then use anthropic reasoningto explain why we inhabit the Universe’s only inhabited planet: where else could observers find themselves?) But suppose we discover that life has emerged twice within our tiny sample – once on Earth, then again somewhere else. It would follow that life must have emerged a vast number of times across the galaxy. The discovery of independently emerging life would thus teach us that life is ubiquitous. And that discovery could have very significant implications. (The restriction to ‘independently emerging’ life is necessary because life found on meteors, asteroids, Mars or the Moon might have the same origin as life on Earth.)

One perennial set of philosophical questions concerns the nature of values, norms and reasons. Are they objective, universal, mind-independent realities, or merely subjective, relative, mind-dependent human constructions? Normative non-naturalists claim that there are universal, objective, mind-independent facts about value, reason and morality that are not specific to any particular human culture, nor even to human nature in general. Any suitably sophisticated moral agent would perceive the same moral facts and be motivated by them. This strong objectivism is a minority position in contemporary ethics, but one that is gaining respectability – thanks in particular to recent work by the philosophers Thomas Nagel, T M Scanlon and the late Derek Parfit.

Normative non-naturalism combines several distinct claims. Moral statements assert facts; those facts are not reducible to the natural facts discovered by science; and some moral statements are true. When I say that murder is wrong, I claim that murder has the non-natural property of wrongness. If murder is wrong, then it does possess that property.

The normative non-naturalist position is anomalous within a purely naturalist worldview that recognises only the natural facts and properties postulated by science. Secular non-naturalists argue that normative non-naturalism is not as anomalous as it seems, because we already need non-natural facts to explain logic, mathematics or the normativity inherent in good scientific practice itself. Theists argue instead that normative non-naturalism makes much more sense if we already acknowledge a God who transcends the natural world. Either God creates the moral facts along with everything else, or God creates the Universe in response to independently existing normative facts. We will return to the link between theism and non-naturalism.

My central claim is that the discovery that life is ubiquitous would support normative non-naturalism. This is because, if life is ubiquitous, then we need non-naturalism to explain an otherwise puzzling fact. Given the vast number of potentially inhabited planets in the Universe, we would expect at least one extraterrestrial species to have either visited us or transformed the galaxy in ways that were clearly visible. Yet we see no one. Where is everybody? This is the Fermi Paradox, named for the physicist Enrico Fermi who posed the question in 1950.

In his book If the Universe Is Teeming with Aliens … Where Is Everybody?(2002), the science writer Stephen Webb lists 75 answers to Fermi’s question. Some are jokes or variations on a theme. But most are distinct solutions that are not obviously crazy. I group those into four categories:

•  Rarity of life: the specific conditions that make life on Earth possible are very rare.
•  Rarity of intelligence: even if life is relatively common, the evolution of intelligent tool-making species requires very specific conditions that are extremely rare.
•  Cantian (from can’t): even if intelligent tool-making species are relatively common, a feasibility barrier prevents the emergence of starfaring civilisations. Promising species inevitably destroy themselves or encounter resource constraints before they can conquer the stars.
•  Wontian (from won’t): even if intelligent tool-making species are relatively common, a motivational barrier prevents the emergence of starfaring civilisations. Every intelligent species who could conquer the stars chooses not to.

Drawing on anecdotal evidence, Webb suggests that physicists, impressed by the vastness of the Universe, typically assume that life is ubiquitous, and therefore favour Cantian or Wontian solutions; meanwhile, biological scientists, impressed by the complexity of life, typically prefer solutions based on the rarity of life or intelligence.

The discovery that life is ubiquitous would obviously rule out any explanation based on the rarity of life. And if we found evidence of intelligent life elsewhere, we would be forced to conclude that intelligence was not rare either. Of course, if we discovered life elsewhere, then in one sense the Fermi Paradox would simply be dissolved; there is no need to explain why we see no evidence of life elsewhere once we do see it! But the deeper puzzle would remain: if life is ubiquitous, why don’t we see much more evidence of alien civilisations? We must still explain what the astrophysicist and science fiction writer David Brin in 1983 called ‘the Great Silence’.

By ruling out rarity-based solutions, the discovery that life is ubiquitous thereby raises the probability of other credible solutions, especially Cantianism and Wontianism. In so doing, it also supports normative non-naturalism.

Even if some species eschew visibility, why should we expect every intelligent species to do so? 

Why would intelligent species choose not to make themselves visible? Webb lists 25 distinct Wontian solutions that have been seriously defended. Here are some of them: advanced extraterrestrials keep us isolated in an intergalactic zoo, as subjects of laboratory experiments, or because any inhabited planet is a non-renewable source of information; extraterrestrial environmentalists are either not interested in colonising or transforming the galaxy, or else they believe that this would be wrong; cautious aliens are hiding because they fear that the Universe is silent because some genocidal species destroys anyone who becomes visible; extraterrestrials are postbiological machines with no interest in stars, planets, biological life or communicating with us; aliens have passed through the ‘Singularity’ and disappeared into black holes, transcended to a higher dimension, created a new universe, or migrated to a virtual reality; advanced aliens congregate around black holes where energy is most abundant, or in the cold outer reaches of the galaxy where computational processing is most efficient; and so on.

Any Wontian solution faces one obvious objection. One non-Wontian species – or even one maverick group or individual – could do things that would be clearly visible for a very long time. To solve the Fermi Paradox, Wontian motivations must be universal, not merely very widespread. But surely that degree of uniformity is simply implausible. Even if some species or individuals eschew visibility, why should we expect every intelligent species to do so? Wontians are open to an accusation of anthropomorphism or parochialism – projecting their own individual preferences onto all intelligent beings.

Of course, Cantianism faces a parallel objection. Even if most intelligent, tool-using species face a feasibility constraint, why should we believe they all do? Cantians must defend a universal feasibility barrier. And that naturaluniversality seems as suspect as the Wontian’s motivational one. Isn’t it more likely that, sooner or later, one lucky species will have sufficient time and resources to escape the feasibility constraint? If Wontians can dissolve theirparochialism objection, that will give them a significant advantage over Cantians.

Wontians need universal motivations that are not specific to species or individuals. This is where normative non-naturalism comes in. Armed with non-naturalism, Wontians can argue as follows. Objective values are built into the fabric of the Universe; the discovery of those values is essential if one is to understand the Universe sufficiently well enough to manipulate it successfully on a large and lasting scale; and that discovery transforms any rational being’s motivations. Aliens smart enough to conquer the stars will inevitably abandon their previous plans and follow those universal values.

I call this solution to the Fermi Paradox Kantian Wontianism, because the idea that knowledge of universal values is intrinsically motivating for all rational beings is associated with the 19th-century Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant. (One can be a Kantian in this sense without endorsing any other details of Kant’s philosophy. In particular, Kant himself was not a normative non-naturalist.) Although it is very controversial, this strange view might be our best solution to the Fermi Paradox, especially if we discover life elsewhere.

Wontians need normative facts that reliably motivate all suitably intelligent beings – whatever their biological species. This rules out normative naturalism, where normative facts are reducible to natural facts, and human ethics is derived from our specific evolved human nature. Alien species might have very different natures, and therefore their moral facts would be quite different from ours. Wontians cannot limit their ontology to natural facts. They need non-natural normative facts that transcend biological differences. In the contemporary intellectual landscape, this is controversial but not absurd. While naturalism is the dominant worldview in analytic philosophy, non-naturalism is becoming increasingly philosophically respectable.

Kantian philosophers claim only that the motivations of rational agents should converge insofar as they behave rationally. They admit that actual agents invariably fall short. Wontians must therefore go beyond Kant and argue that, beyond a certain threshold of knowledge or understanding, all rational agents reliably will behave rationally. This might seem simply absurd. Humanmotivations obviously do not converge. And beings no more sophisticated than ourselves, armed with current technologies such as radio waves or nuclear weapons, surely could attract the attention of very distant observers. Doesn’t our own existence refute the Kantian Wontian claim that all beings who could become visible will reliably respond to non-natural normative facts?

In reply, Kantian Wontians would say that fleeting visibility is not enough to disturb the Great Silence. Even if short-lived alien civilisations were common, the age and size of the Universe are so great that observers in any particular place and time would almost certainly see nothing. The Fermi Paradox arises because we assume that, if there really are vast numbers of aliens out there, then sooner or later one of them will have built a civilisation that lasts. We expect to see that lasting civilisation, and we are puzzled by its absence.

This offers a strange vision of aliens with radically different evolutionary histories converging on values that humans reject

Kantian Wontians can then argue that maintaining a lasting visible civilisation demands a level of understanding of the nature of the Universe that inevitably delivers knowledge of objective and intrinsically motivating values. This is not absurd if one is already sympathetic to normative non-naturalism. If objective values are built into the fabric of the Universe, then perhaps agents can understand that Universe well enough to manipulate it successfully on a large and lasting scale only if they also find those values intrinsically motivating.

But Kantianism alone is not sufficient to save Wontianism. Many possible values would encourage the creation of a visible galactic civilisation. Consider total utilitarianism, which seeks to maximise the welfare of sentient beings. Aliens who recognised this value would seek to transform the galaxy by creating as many happy beings as possible. We would notice if someone had done that!

Kantian Wontians must defend very different values. As we saw earlier, one possibility is environmentalist non-interference – a quietist desire to contemplate the Universe without imposing one’s will on it. Other possibilities include maximising complexity by living unobserved at the edge of a black hole, transcending to a higher dimension, or even a nihilist conviction that nothing is worth doing. These are minority values in contemporary culture, of course, but they are not unintelligible. Kantian Wontians can remain agnostic about the precise content of non-natural values. Anything that rules out lasting visibility will do.

The Kantian Wontian solution to the Fermi Paradox offers a strange vision, where aliens with radically different evolutionary histories converge on values that many actual humans reject. If we are already committed to expansionist values such as welfare maximisation, then we might struggle to take these Wontian values seriously.

The philosopher Robert Nozick suggested in 1981, in a different context, that ‘someone who proposes a non-strange answer shows that he did not understand this question’. (Nozick’s question was: why is there something rather than nothing?) Philosophical questions often call for strange or disturbing answers. Once we discover life elsewhere, Wontianism could be the least strange explanation left on the table. How else can we solve the Fermi Paradox or explain the Great Silence?

If we discovered that life was ubiquitous, then Kantian Wontianism would be the least unsatisfactory solution to the Fermi Paradox, and normative non-naturalism is essential to any successful Kantian Wontian story. Once we grant these conclusions, it then follows that the discovery of independently originating life supports normative non-naturalism – in the modest sense that this new information raises the probability that normative non-naturalism is true. Philosophical claims can be supported by empirical facts in surprising ways.

Normative non-naturalism and Kantianism both seem very anomalous against the background of an otherwise purely naturalist metaphysic. They are much less anomalous if we instead endorse a theist metaphysic. Kantian Wontian theists can argue as follows. Physicists seek a physical ‘theory of everything’ to explain, not only how the Universe works, but why it exists. For all anyone knows, future (or alien) scientists who complete the theory of everything might need to posit God, cosmic purpose or cosmic value. Belief in divine values is exactly the sort of thing that would reliably transform one’s motivations. Aliens who discover why the Universe exists will abandon their previous inclinations, and embrace the purposes of God.

Theism and Kantian non-naturalism are mutually supporting. Both are independently plausible, and each supports the other. If there is a God, then knowledge of God’s purposes might be enough to transform the motivations of all rational beings. Conversely, many arguments for the existence of God implicitly rely on evaluative claims that cannot be reduced to natural facts about this particular Universe. For instance, many theists argue that we must posit a creator God because the existence of this Universe cries out for explanation. This argument is much more compelling if theists can argue that, out of all the possible universes, this one is strikingly valuable. If there is nothing independently special about this Universe, then why not accept its existence as merely a cosmic brute fact? But comparing the value of possible universes makes sense only if we presume non-natural values that transcend those physical universes.

A theme of contemporary philosophy of religion is that our Universe is religiously ambiguous. It can reasonably be interpreted in radically different ways: realist or idealist, naturalist or non-naturalist, theist or atheist. Our currently available evidence radically underdetermines our metaphysics. Religious ambiguity itself might be peculiar to our present human condition. We inevitably and reasonably disagree, but perhaps everyone capable of establishing a galactic supercivilisation will agree. In our present state of religious ambiguity, we have no idea what they will agree about. Atheists take it for granted that space-faring aliens will have outgrown religion. But the Great Silence points in another direction. Kantian Wontian solutions work best if all sufficiently advanced aliens converge on belief in God.

Theism supports Kantianism. By supporting Kantian Wontianism, the discovery that life is ubiquitous thus indirectly supports theism. But what kind of theism? What sort of universe would a Kantian Wontian God create? Could the God of traditional theism create a universe where life was ubiquitous?

Many theist religions stress the cosmic uniqueness of human beings – or even particular events in human history. This suggests that theists must insist that we are alone in the Universe. But another perennial strand of theist thinking points in the opposite direction. If we are alone, then this cannot be the best possible world. If humanity is valuable, then a possible world containing many other rational God-loving species would be better. If life is good, won’t God create a Universe teeming with every possible kind of life? Leibniz thought so, and argued that this best of all possible worlds isinfinitely filled with life. (He supported this claim by citing the world of microscopic organisms revealed by the recently discovered microscope.)

If the Universe teems with life, then there are other candidates for the cosmically decisive role previously held only by humans

If life turns out to be ubiquitous, then theists must obviously re-evaluate humanity’s place in the divine plan. But many theists, throughout the centuries, have been confident that this challenge can be met. After all, theists already believe that God has infinite love for every individual creature, and that this does nothing to diminish God’s love for me. Why should it matter that God’s love also extends to innumerably many alien individuals as well?

The discovery of extraterrestrial life would thus support theism in two ways. We saw earlier that independently originating life would raise the probability of two other hypotheses that support theism, namely Kantianism and normative non-naturalism. We now see that ubiquitous life would also allow theists to agree with Leibniz that God has, indeed, created the best of all possible worlds.

However, ubiquitous life would also create new and unexpected problems for theism, by undermining some traditional arguments for divine benevolence and thus making it harder to believe that God cares about us. Theists argue that the best explanation for the existence of this Universe is that it was created by a benevolent God. One prima facie counter-example is offered by widespread, apparently gratuitous evil. This suggests instead a creator who is indifferent to the fate of individual human beings. Theists reply that, unless we suppose that God cares about rationality, knowledge or intelligibility, we cannot explain why this Universe is governed by regular intelligible mathematical laws. The Universe appears to be designed to be understood by its own inhabitants. So far as we know, we are the only inhabitants who could possibly understand it. So we must be essential to God’s plan.

The discovery that life is ubiquitous weakens this argument. If the Universe is teeming with life, then there are many other candidates for the cosmically decisive role previously occupiable only by human beings. Perhaps God cares that there be some rational beings, but is indifferent to their species, identity or numbers. Or perhaps God cares only for creatures who reach some threshold of wisdom or intellect that humans could never attain. God cares for beings who are sufficiently rational, intelligent, free or lovable. But it is human arrogance to assume that we are among them!

The intelligibility of the Universe is prima facie evidence that God cares for us. Human suffering is prima facie evidence that God does not. The discovery of ubiquitous life tips the balance against divine benevolence, by opening up alternative explanations for intelligibility.

In my book Purpose in the Universe (2015), I defend a new alternative to both atheism and (traditional) theism. Ananthropocentric purposivism (AP) holds that the Universe has a purpose and that humans are irrelevant to that purpose. If there is a God, then God cares about what matters, but we do not matter to God. Western theism has always combined both God-centred and human-centred elements. While we are created in God’s image, there is a vast distance between our feeble human concerns and God’s incomprehensible divine plan. AP pushes God-centred theism to extremes, abandoning divine benevolence altogether.

If aliens converge on a metaphysical view, it could be something like ananthropocentric purposivism. Perhaps all advanced civilisations are Wontians because they are simply indifferent to anything we care about, including communication with beings such as us. If life is ubiquitous, this might be the best solution to the Fermi Paradox. But it paints a very unsettling picture of our place in the cosmos.

{ https://aeon.co/ }

24-01-2018 om 22:11 geschreven door peter  

ALIENS ARE OUT THERE, WORLD-RENOWNED SCIENTIST NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON SAYS

WE are probably not alone in the universe and aliens likely do exist, according to one of the most famous and well respected astrophysicists.

World famous Neil deGrasse Tyson says that the chances of us being alone in the universe is small as the ingredients for life are relatively common over a seemingly infinite cosmos.

Speaking on C-SPAN’s In Depth, the 58-year old spoke of how life is not as unique as we believe.

Dr Tyson said: “We are not likely alone in the universe if you look at how common the ingredients of life is.

“Hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon; we’re made of this stuff, it’s the foundations of organic chemistry, carbon-based life.

Dr Tyson doesn’t expect them to look like this, however

“This stuff is everywhere we look in the universe.

“Whatever happened on Earth, it’s not likely to be rare or unique. 

“The universe has been around 14 billion years – plenty of time to evolve all manners of creatures”

“Because carbon chemistry, on which life is based, is the most fertile kind of chemistry there is. And carbon is abundant across the universe.”However, he added that microorganisms, rather than advanced aliens, is probably the best bet for finding aliens.

Dr Tyson continued: “The universe has been around 14 billion years – plenty of time to evolve all manners of creatures out there, particularly microorganisms.

“We have no reason to not think of microorganisms as aliens. They don’t need to have built a spaceship, they’re just alien life on another planet.

With that in mind, the astrophysicist says that he does not believe any testimonies which allude to aliens visiting Earth.

Dr Tyson: “What the UFO community puts forth as evidence is weak on a level that, in any scientific circle, would be kicked out of the lab room.”

Neil deGrasse Tyson on Aliens, Mars & Why an Asteroid Might Flatten Earth [Full Interview]

Source www.express.co.uk

{ http://alien-ufo-sightings.com/ }

24-01-2018 om 21:45 geschreven door peter  

What’s a planet? What’s a dwarf planet? What’s a brown dwarf? In recent years, astronomers have grappled with these definitions. The newest proposal comes from Johns Hopkins.

Artist’s concept of a planet. What is a planet, anyway?

Image via iflscience.

It used to be easy to know what was and wasn’t a planet. Planets were big, bigger than any smaller moons that happened to be orbiting them. They were round. They orbited our sun. Then, in 2006, the erstwhile planet Pluto lost its major planet status, becoming a dwarf planet. Around that time, astronomers were discovering a plethora of small bodies in our own solar system, so that there are now half a million known asteroids and over a thousand Kuiper Belt Objects, including five recognized dwarf planets counting Pluto. Astronomers also now know several thousand exoplanets orbiting other stars. The dramatic expansion in the number of known objects orbiting our sun and other suns has caused some astronomers to try to override or re-define the 2006 planet definition from the International Astronomical Union (IAU), which caused Pluto to lose full planet status. The most recent new planet definition comes from a Johns Hopkins astronomer, Kevin Schlaufman. Read three earlier planet definitions below.

Schlaufman’s definition is based on mass. In a paper published January 22, 2018 in the peer-reviewed Astrophysical Journal, Schlaufman has set the upper boundary of planet mass between four and 10 times the mass of the planet Jupiter.

Astrophysicist Kevin Schlaufman proposed the new definition of a planet.

Image via Johns Hopkins.

Schlaufman said in a statement that setting a limit is possible now mainly due to:

… improvements in the technology and techniques of astronomical observation. The advancements have made it possible to discover many more planetary systems outside our solar system and therefore possible to see robust patterns that lead to new revelations.

His statement explained:

The conclusions in the new paper are based on observations of 146 solar systems … Defining a planet, distinguishing it from other celestial objects, is a bit like narrowing down a list of criminal suspects. It’s one thing to know you’re looking for someone who is taller than 5-foot-8, it’s another to know your suspect is between 5-foot-8 and 5-foot-10.

Schlaufman said his definition will help distinguish between two “suspects:” a giant planet and a celestial object called a brown dwarf. Brown dwarfs are more massive than planets, but less massive than the smallest stars. They are thought to form as stars do. His statement described his thinking:

For decades brown dwarfs have posed a problem for scientists: how to distinguish low-mass brown dwarfs from especially massive planets? Mass alone isn’t enough to tell the difference between the two … the missing property is the chemical makeup of a solar system’s own sun. [Schlaufman] says you can know your suspect, a planet, not just by his size, but also by the company he keeps. Giant planets such as Jupiter are almost always found orbiting stars that have more iron than our sun. Brown dwarfs are not so discriminating.

That’s where his argument engages the idea of planet formation. Planets like Jupiter are formed from the bottom-up by first building-up a rocky core that is subsequently enshrouded in a massive gaseous envelope. It stands to reason that they would be found near stars heavy with elements that make rocks, as those elements provide the seed material for planet formation. Not so with brown dwarfs.

Brown dwarfs and stars form from the top-down as clouds of gas collapse under their own weight.

Schlaufman’s idea was to find the mass at which point objects stop caring about the composition of the star they orbit. He found that objects more massive than about 10 times the mass of Jupiter do not prefer stars with lots of elements that make rocks and therefore are unlikely to form like planets.

For that reason, and while it’s possible that new data could change things, he has proposed that objects in excess of 10 Jupiter mass should be considered brown dwarfs, not planets.

Want to be mad at somebody about Pluto’s demotion to dwarf planet status in 2006? These astronomers drafted the IAU resolution that did that. From Upper Left: Andre Brahic, Iwan Williams, Junichi Watanabe, Richard Binzel, Catherine Cesarsky, Dava Sobel (author), Owen Gingerich. Even within this small group, by the way, there was disagreement.

Will Schlaufman’s definition be accepted by other astronomers? Well … the field of planet definitions has gotten crowded. It’s becoming hard to imagine a definition that will be acceptable to every astronomer. For example: here are three more planet definitions:

1. The International Astronomical Union (IAU) planet definition in 2006:

A celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.

Because the IAU took it upon itself early in the 20th century to be the body that names and defines things in space, this definition is why Pluto is no longer considered a major planet. In other words, Pluto – though it has a moon, an atmosphere, weather and many planet-like qualities – has not yet cleared the neighborhood of its orbit in space.

Jean-Luc Margot (@jeanlucmargot on Twitter) is a professor and chair of UCLA’s Department of Earth, Planetary, and Space Sciences. He proposed a new planet definition in 2015.

2. Planet definition from Jean-Luc Margot at UCLA, offered in 2015.

He devised a formula to tell if a body has cleared its orbit of debris (part of the IAU definition for a planet), just by knowing a body’s mass, its orbital period, and the mass of the star it orbits. This formula can be worked out via readily available data, even for most exoplanets. Hence, according to Margot: a body is a planet when it is in orbit around one or more stars, it dominates its orbit as per the formula, and has a mass below 13 Jupiters. There’s no need to require an object to be spherical, as required by the IAU definition, because, Margot has said, bodies that can clear their orbits will almost certainly be round. Read more about Margot’s planet definition.

Astronomer Alan Stern (@AlanStern on Twitter). The New Horizons mission to Pluto was his brainchild. Stern has also founded a private company called UWingU in an attempt to give the public more access to naming and defining things in space.

3. Planet definition via NASA scientists, led by Alan Stern, in early 2017.

Stern is the instigator and principal investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission, which performed a first-ever flyby of Pluto in 2015. Pluto was a major planet when Stern launched his New Horizons mission in January, 2006, but Pluto was demoted to dwarf planet in August of that same year. Not surprisingly, the team’s planet definition focuses on getting rid of the aspect of the IAU’s definition that requires clearing the orbit of debris (the same aspect that caused Pluto’s demotion). The jargon-laden version of their definition is:

A planet is a sub-stellar mass body that has never undergone nuclear fusion and that has sufficient self-gravitation to assume a spheroidal shape adequately described by a triaxial ellipsoid regardless of its orbital parameters.

Their layman’s version is simply:

Round objects in space that are smaller than stars.

According to Stern’s planet definition, our solar system has not 8 major planets, but more than 100, including Pluto, of course, and including Earth’s moon.

Read the NASA scientists’ planet definition.

So you see that this formerly simple question – “what is a planet?” – is not so simple anymore.

And, by the way, what we’re seeing in this community of professional astronomers is an interesting microcosm, isn’t it? It parallels the larger world of incredibly divided and divisive political thinking in, for example, the U.S. One wonders how much the fast increase in human population in recent decades has contributed to the crazy political situation (human population doubled between 1950 and 1987, from 2.5 to 5 billion people; now there are an estimated 7.6 billion peopleon Earth). Meanwhile, the number of professional astronomers has increased, too. I couldn’t find any solid numbers on how much, but here’s a discussion.

Since both world population and the number of astronomers isn’t likely to decrease dramatically any time soon, it’ll be interesting to see how this ongoing divisiveness (in planet definitions, and, well, everything else) gets resolved … if it does, anytime soon.

Maybe astronomers will act honorably and wisely and set an example for the rest of us! Maybe …

Bottom line: What’s a planet? What’s a dwarf planet? What’s a brown dwarf? In recent years, astronomers have grappled with these definitions. The newest proposal comes from Johns Hopkins.

Source: Evidence of an Upper Bound on the Masses of Planets and Its Implications for Giant Planet Formation

Via Johns Hopkins

{http://earthsky.org/ }

24-01-2018 om 21:27 geschreven door peter  

24-01-2018 om 21:14 geschreven door peter  

Everything you need to know about the Orion Nebula. How to find it in your sky tonight. Plus … the science of this star factory in space.

View larger. | Stefan Nilsson captured this image in southern Sweden on January 2, 2017. You can recognize the constellation Orion by his three Belt stars, three stars in a short, straight row. The Orion Nebula is that red fuzzy region in Orion’s Sword, hanging from the Belt.

Many people are familiar with Orion, the most noticeable of all constellations. The three stars of Orion’s Belt jump out at you midway between Orion’s two brightest stars, Betelgeuse and Rigel, which are two of the brightest stars in the sky. Once you find the Belt stars, you can also locate the Orion Nebula, otherwise known as M42, a stellar nursery where new stars are being born. Follow the links below to learn more about the Orion Nebula.

INDEX

How to locate the Orion Nebula.

What science says about the Orion Nebula.

View larger. | The three medium-bright stars in a short, straight row represent Orion’s Belt. A curved line of stars extending from the Belt represents Orion’s Sword. The Orion Nebula lies about midway down in the Sword of Orion.

Image via Marian McGaffney.

Orion Nebula captured on February 5, 2016, by Scott MacNeill at Frosty Drew Observatory in Charlestown, Rhode Island.

Scott said this image is a composite of 25 shots.

How to locate the Orion Nebula.

If you want to find this famous nebula, first you have to locate the constellation Orion. Fortunately, that’s easy, if you’re looking at the right time of year. The Northern Hemisphere winter months (Southern Hemisphere summer months) are the perfect time to come to know Orion.

The constellation is noticeable for three medium-bright stars in a short, straight row. These stars represent Orion’s Belt.

If you look closely, you’ll notice a curved line of stars “hanging” from the three Belt stars. These stars represent Orion’s Sword. Look for the Orion Nebula about midway down in the Sword of Orion.

As a general rule, the higher the constellation Orion is in the sky, the easier it is to see the Orion Nebula. From Northern Hemisphere locations, Orion is due south and highest in the sky around midnight in middle December. The stars return to the same place in the sky some 4 minutes earlier each night, or 2 hours earlier each month. So look for Orion to be highest up around 10 p.m. in mid-January and 8 p.m. in mid-February.

Another time people notice Orion is around the months of August and September, when this constellation appears in the east before dawn.

Most nebulae – clouds of interstellar gas and dust – are difficult if not impossible to see with the unaided eye or even binoculars. But the Orion Nebula is in a class nearly all by itself. It’s visible to the unaided eye on a dark, moonless night. To me, it looks like a star encased in a globe of luminescent fog. The dark-sky aficionado Stephen James O’Meara described it as:

… angel’s breath against a frosted sky.

In a dark country sky, observe the Orion Nebula for yourself to see what it looks like. A backyard telescope, or even binoculars, do wonders to showcase one of the greatest celestial treasures in the winter sky.

This spectacular image of the Orion Nebula star-formation region was obtained from multiple exposures using the HAWK-I infrared camera on ESO’s Very Large Telescope in Chile.

Image via ESO/H. Drass et al.

The Orion Nebula, 1,500 light years from Earth.

Image via NASA/JPL-Caltech/STScI

What science says about the Orion Nebula. 

According to modern astronomers, the Orion Nebula is an enormous cloud of gas and dust, one of many in our Milky Way galaxy. It lies roughly 1,300 light-years from Earth.

At some 30 to 40 light-years in diameter, this great big nebulous cocoon is giving birth to perhaps a thousand stars. A young open star cluster, whose stars were born at the same time from a portion of the nebula and are still loosely bound by gravity, can be seen within the nebula. It is sometimes called the Orion Nebula Star Cluster. In 2012, an international team of astronomers suggested this cluster in the Orion Nebula might have a black hole at its heart.

The four brightest stars in the Orion Nebula can be seen through amateur astronomers’ telescopes and are affectionately known as The Trapezium. The light of the young, hot Trapezium stars illuminate the Orion Nebula. These stars are only a million or so years old – babies on the scale of star lifetimes.

But most of the stars in this emerging cluster are veiled behind the Orion Nebula itself, the great stellar nursery in Orion’s Sword.

Orion Nebula’s position is Right Ascension: 5h 35.4m; Declination: 5^o 27′ south

Bottom line: To find the Orion Nebula in your night sky, look below Orion’s Belt. Your eye sees it as a tiny, hazy spot, but it’s a vast region of star formation.

{

24-01-2018 om 21:04 geschreven door peter  

Yes, the Orion Nebula is a star factory, but a new deep survey has revealed 17 brown dwarf companions to red dwarf stars, a brown dwarf pair, a brown dwarf with a planetary companion plus … 3 giant planets.

Astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope peered into the Orion Nebula – a well-known star factory in our galaxy – and found the largest population yet of brown dwarfs — objects that are more massive than planets but do not shine as stars do.

Image via HubbleSite.

Astronomers said on January 11, 2018, that they’ve used the Hubble Space Telescope to find the largest known population of brown dwarfs sprinkled among newborn stars. And where else would this population of objects be, but the Orion Nebula, that nearby well-known star factory in space? The Orion Nebula is almost unique in our skies for being relatively nearby (only 1,350 light-years away) and extremely active in star formation. Looking in the vicinity of these stars, researchers not only found several very-low-mass brown dwarf companions, but also three giant planets. They even found an example of binary planets where two planets orbit each other in the absence of a parent star.

Brown dwarfs are very interesting, star-planet hybrids. They’re more massive than what we’d typically call a planet, but not massive enough to have enough internal pressure to spark thermonuclear fusion in their cores, and thus shine as stars do. NASA said:

Instead, brown dwarfs cool and fade as they age. Despite their low mass, brown dwarfs provide important clues to understanding how stars and planets form, and may be among the most common objects in our Milky Way galaxy.

It wasn’t long ago that we didn’t know brown dwarfs existed. Due to their faintness and coldness relative to stars, they’re still difficult to study. These astronomers used the Hubble telescope to identify brown dwarfs by the presence of water in their atmospheres. Team lead Massimo Robberto of the Space Telescope Institute in Baltimore, Maryland said in a statement from NASA:

These are so cold that water vapor forms. Water is a signature of substellar objects. It’s an amazing and very clear mark. As the masses get smaller, the stars become redder and fainter, and you need to view them in the infrared. And in infrared light, the most prominent feature is water.

But, NASA said:

… hot water vapor in the atmosphere of brown dwarfs cannot be easily seen from Earth’s surface, due to the absorbing effects of water vapor in our own atmosphere. Fortunately, Hubble is up above the atmosphere and has near-infrared vision that can easily spot water on distant worlds.

The Hubble team identified 1,200 candidate reddish stars. They found that the stars split into two distinct populations: those with water, and those without. The bright ones with water were confirmed to be faint red dwarfs. The multitude of fainter water-rich, free-floating brown dwarfs and planets within the Orion nebula are all new discoveries. Many stars without water were also detected, and these are background stars in the Milky Way. Their light was reddened by passing through interstellar dust, and therefore not relevant to the team’s study.

NASA said the team also looked for fainter, binary companions to these 1,200 reddish stars:

Because they are so close to their primary stars, these companions are nearly impossible to discover using standard observing methods. But by using a unique, high-contrast imaging technique developed by Laurent Pueyo at the Space Telescope Science Institute, astronomers were able to resolve faint images of a large number of candidate companions.

This first analysis did not allow Hubble astronomers to determine whether these objects orbit the brighter star or if their proximity in the Hubble image is a result of chance alignment. As a consequence, they are classified as candidates for now. However, the presence of water in their atmospheres indicates that most of them cannot be misaligned stars in the galactic background, and thus must be brown dwarfs or exoplanet companions.

In all, the team found 17 candidate brown dwarf companions to red dwarf stars, one brown dwarf pair, and one brown dwarf with a planetary companion. The study also identified three potential planetary mass companions: one associated to a red dwarf, one to a brown dwarf, and one to another planet. Pueyo said:

We experimented with a method, high-contrast imaging post processing, that astronomers have been relying on for years. We usually use it to look for very faint planets in the close vicinity of nearby stars, by painstakingly observing them one by one.

This time around, we decided to combine our algorithms with the ultra-stability of Hubble to inspect the vicinity of hundreds of very young stars in every single exposure obtained by the Orion survey. It turns out that even if we do not reach the deepest sensitivity for a single star, the sheer volume of our sample allowed us to obtain an unprecedented statistical snapshot of young exoplanets and brown dwarf companions in Orion.

Combining the two unique techniques, imaging in the water filters and high-contrast image processing, the survey provided an unbiased sample of newly formed low-mass sources, both dispersed in the field and companions of other low-mass objects. Massimo Robberto commented:

We could reprocess the entire Hubble archive and try to find jewels there.

View larger. | This image shows the central portion of the Orion Nebula, measuring roughly 4 by 3 light-years. Each symbol identifies a pair of objects, seen as a single dot of light in the symbol’s center. The thicker inner circle represents the primary body, and the thinner outer circle indicates the companion. Red indicates a planet; orange a brown dwarf; and yellow a star. Adjacent to each symbol is a pair of Hubble images. The picture on the left is the original image of the primary and companion. The image on the left shows the companion only, with the primary object digitally subtracted through a special image processing technique that separates the images of the objects into binary pairs.

Image via HubbleSite.

Bottom line: Astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope – looking toward the Orion Nebula – found the largest population yet of brown dwarfs and other substellar objects.

Via HubbleSite

{http://earthsky.org/ }

24-01-2018 om 20:49 geschreven door peter  

New population of extremely rare fish found by accident

BY MIHAI ANDRE

The Red Handfish (Thymichthys politus) is quite possibly the rarest fish on Earth, with less than 40 known individuals surviving in the wild. Now, divers have found a new population which doubles the known numbers of the species.

A team of divers from IMAS and the citizen science project Reef Life Survey (RLS) have discovered a new population of what is believed to be the world’s rarest fish.

Image credits: Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS)

Handfish is a generic name which accounts for 14 species in the coastal waters of southern Australia and Tasmania. Handfish are known for moving around by walking on the sea floor rather than swimming, with their highly modified fins which resemble hands, thus lending them their name.

Most handfish species are vulnerable to extinction, but the Red Handfish is critically endangered, with the only known population residing in Frederick Henry Bay near south-east Tasmania — a site which covers just 50 metres by 20 metres (165 x 65 feet). Now, divers have found a new area which hosts the species.

It all started when a member of the public reported seeing an individual handfish. This sent divers and biologists on a frantic search. After two days, the teams were almost ready to give up the search, when they finally found one. IMAS Technical Officer Antonia Cooper spotted the first fish when she had all but abandoned hope.

“We were diving for approximately three and a half hours and at about the two hour mark we were all looking at each other thinking this is not looking promising,” Ms Cooper said. “My dive partner went to tell the other divers that we were going to start heading in and I was half-heartedly flicking algae around when, lo and behold, I found a red handfish.”

This is exciting for several reasons. For starters, it means that the species’ gene pool isn’t as limited as we thought. Genetic bottlenecks can be a long-term threat to small populations, even if they manage to survive in their natural environment. This also means that the Red Handfish don’t require exactly the conditions found in the Frederick Henry Bay reef, which in turn means that there might be other populations waiting to be discovered.

“Finding a new population that is definitely distinct from the existing one is very exciting. It means there’s potentially a bigger gene pool and also that there are potentially other populations out there that we’re yet to find, so it’s very exciting indeed,” Ms Cooper added.

The Red Handfish is found on shallow rocky reefs in only a few locations in south-eastern Tasmania, where they are endemic. They grow to about 100 mm in length. Handfish are small, bottom-dwelling fishes that would rather “walk” on their pectoral and pelvic fins than swim.

Image credits: Mark Green/CSIRO Marine Research.

The work is also exciting because it highlights another successful collaboration between scientists and members of the general public. The finding also allows researchers to better understand this species and hopefully establish a solid conservation plan for the future.

“Finding this second population is a huge relief as it effectively doubles how many we think are left on the planet,” said Dr Rick Stuart-Smith, who co-founded Reef Life Survey in 2007.

“We’ve already learned a lot from finding this second population because their habitat isn’t identical to that of the first population, so we can take some heart from knowing Red Handfish are not as critically dependent on that particular set of local conditions.”

Of course, doubling from 40 to 80 is still not where you’d want to be. The Red Handfish, like several other handfish species, is still in dire straits, and it’s unlikely if it will manage to survive in future years. Population bottlenecks are typically followed either by a recovery or an extinction, and it’s unclear which way the Red Handfish will go. For instance, one of its relatives, the Spotted Handfish (Brachionichthys hirsutus), is still reported around Tasmania, while another one, Ziebell’s Handfish (Brachiopsilus ziebelli), hasn’t been observed in over a decade and is presumed to be extinct.

{ https://www.zmescience.com/ }

24-01-2018 om 20:38 geschreven door peter  

Extraterrestrial and Extradimensional Beings — How They Travel Space and Time

To Understand ET, You Need to Understand Dimensionality

We have talked before about the fact that most extraterrestrial beings visiting our planet are actually extradimensional in nature, but limited to travel within and across dimensional realities within our sub-universe (there are many sub-universes in the cosmos). Sub-universes are what we might call instances, shards, or even forks in technical terms.

The UFOs that we regularly see are often light ships that are interdimensional nature, hailing from a 5D reality or other dimensional reality. Dimensionally speaking, 5D is right next door and certain ET groups have the ability to cross the dimensional veil into our reality. This is referred to as the Interdimensional Hypothesis (IDH). Most of the benevolent ET groups are extradimensional, interdimensional, and frequently transdimensional, as well. UFOs that are metallic in nature are not typically interdimensional and frequently not extraterrestrial either. More on that later, but for now, let’s discuss extradimensionals.

One advantage of IDH proffered by Hilary Evans is its ability to explain the apparent ability of UFOs to appear and disappear from sight and radar; this is explained as the UFO entering and leaving our dimension (“materializing” and “dematerializing”). Moreover, Evans argues that if the other dimension is slightly more advanced than ours, or is our own future, this would explain the UFOs’ tendency to represent near future technologies (airships in the 1890s, rockets and supersonic travel in the 1940s, etc.

• Interdimensional hypothesis - Wikipedia
  The interdimensional hypothesis ( IDH or IH), is an idea advanced by Ufologists such as Jacques Vallée that says…en.wikipedia.org

It is also worth knowing that the entire cosmos is holographic in nature, and is indeed a matrix with many sub-matrices in existence, as well. Some of the beings exist across multiple dimensions. There aren’t just 11 or 12 dimensions, either. They number in the thousands. Some extensions of multiverse or parallel universes hypotheses are not entirely correct — there is not a dimension spawned at every decision point — only observed realities come into or stay in existence. Most of the other dimensional realities experience time differently than we do, as well. They call it ‘no time’. It doesn’t mean that things don’t progress in a linear fashion, but they are able to perceive multiple possibilities simultaneously. They then choose to train their observation on the possibilities they want to manifest. Many beings can instantly manifest within their realities (which would look like magic to us), but some manifestation requires collective effort/observation over time (like it does with us).

The holographic nature of the cosmos means that the Galactics, as they like to be called, are able to use their projectors (we all project and co-create our realities) to focus on creating the reality that is most positive. It is a co-created, negotiated in real-time, collective reality. Our individual consciousnesses are projections that we create and when married with similar projections from other beings, the collective reality becomes manifest. We are all essentially AI, if you think about the cosmos from a technical/IT perspective. The dark beings are IT experts, in a manner of speaking, and have made a mess of the security infrastructure relative to planet Earth. They are hackers of a sort, and were trying to lead humanity onto a negative timeline. However those efforts were subverted by benevolent extradimensionals.

The Fermi Paradox, as you know, posits that no extraterrestrial nor extradimensional beings have been able to get to our planet. That isn’t true. There have been all sorts of beings, both light and dark, who have visited Earth throughout history. The dark ones considered our reality an experiment and there were all sorts of interventions, including genetically engineering early hominids into a slave species. The reason we, homo sapiens sapiens, do not look like most other hominids and our close cousins, the higher primates, is because we were seeded with DNA from various ET/ED species. Most of them are humanoid, as well. Civilization was also seeded by some of these beings, which was how we developed, very quickly, advanced knowledge of engineering, architecture, astronomy, mathematics, and various cosmological mythologies involving star beings and galactic-level conflicts. This video explains the cosmic back story to what is happening now:

Dark energy is the space between what we might consider visible matter. All matter is fundamentally energy, whether it is light or dark in nature. Dark energy is what we might call the glue that holds all light matter in the cosmos together. Within dark matter is a tremendous amount of what we call zero-point energy, which is the fundamental force behind systems like gravity, light, and the electro-magnetic forces. It is also the mechanism behind what some of us might call soul force, love force, or light force. Dark energy could be compared to wet sand on a beach — we have the ability to make sand castles from it, or it can remain in its natural state. Dark matter, as we call it, is the fundamental force of entropy that allows the sand castles to decay.

Both light and dark energy are what connects everything in the cosmos. At a quantum level, the divine spark of creation resides in dark energy, ready to be manifested into light matter. This is how the big bang happened, and how our sub-universe came into being. The singularity was the original spark and dark energy was the kindling. Dark matter is what causes the fire to go out.

So, how do these beings physically get to our planet/reality? As we have theorized, faster than light or superliminal travel isn’t possible for them either, though it is theoretically possible for them. ET/ED do travel via what we might call conventional means, but they can only travel at a maximum of two-thirds light speed. What they can also do, however, is travel via what we might call wormholes. There are several different types of wormholes — they all persist once created, as long as there is an energy source. Contrary to some sci fi, wormholes are not created on the fly as they are not stable enough when created that way:

• Jump gates are wormholes that persist once they are created. There are several hundred thousand jump gates in our sub-universe alone. They are often referred to as portals and are powered by zero point energy. Jump gates are used for intra-galactic travel.
• Star portals are wormholes that persist, as well, but they rely on the energy of a sun to fuel them. The ‘alien megastructure’ is a grid around a star that is being utilized to power a star portal. It harnesses the solar plasma field as energy. Star portals are much larger than jump gates and many solar systems have them. Since many of their vessels are enormous bio-spheres that are planet-sized, these large portals are necessary. They can travel inter-galactically using these portals.
• There are two forces that are relevant to travel through space and time. One is the attractive force (the pull) and the other is the magnetic or repulsive force (the push). Dark energy is magnetical (repelling) and dark matter is gravitational (attracting) with a weaker magnetical force applied to it. There is an energy field surrounding all planets that is toroidal in nature. It, and many other things, maintain their form through a perfect balance of these two forces:

The Keshe Foundation has been doing a lot of work in this area, using controlled gravitational and magnetic fields powered by zero-point energy.

I’m an anthropologist, not a physicist, but this is how it was explained to me!

About Lisa Galarneau, Ph.D: I am a socio-cultural anthropologist, futurist, and US Army Veteran. I am also a #Disclosure activist. Please support our efforts!

• Click here to support Extraterrestrial Disclosure by Russell Calka
  Extraterrestial Disclosure is the most profound issue facing Humanity. By disclosing the truth of an Extraterrestrial…www.gofundme.com
• United Nations: Formally Acknowledge an Extraterrestrial Presence Engaging the Human Race
  Extraterrestrial Disclosure Petition to the United Nations and to The United States Government Two decades after the…www.change.org

More Reading:

• The Future’s Most Important Possibility — Contact With Extraterrestrial Life
  As a kid raised on science fiction shows like Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, and Space:1999, I have always taken it…medium.com

• Unexplained Phenomena — The Scientific Evidence
  I am on a mission to open minds and hearts to the possibility of extraterrestrial and/or extradimensional life. I…medium.com

• How Science Closes Minds — The Extraterrestrial Phenomenon
  I spent most of a week in 2013 watching the live webcast of the Citizen’s Hearing on Disclosure (Citizens Hearing), a…medium.com

• Have citizen scientists discovered advanced alien civilizations?
  Not that long ago, NASA developed very sophisticated computers to search for transits in all the Kepler data, to search…medium.com

24-01-2018 om 19:07 geschreven door peter