The 'Phoenix Lights' March 1997

[chasteh 0]

Oh, the horror! Defeat at its best!

Edit:

Oh yea.. so much for logic, mister "Military airspace exists over south mountain!"

Hah!

[chasteh 0]

>Perhaps you might be the one that needs to learn the English language.

Perhaps. Fucking brilliant.

>Just because you are not able to comprehend that time is relative, doesn't make it not so.

There is a MAJOR difference between saying that a person moves forward or backward in time in actuality and saying that their clock appears different due to the motion and distance traveled. Where did I say that time is not relative, anyways? Time is merely a method of measurement - a human creation. Their concept of time is relative to, say: The period the planet Earth takes to revolve around the sun, the period the planet Earth takes to rotate once, and so on.

What I am saying is that this theory of time traveling as a result of moving through space is nonsense.

[chasteh 0]

>So if you "believe" in GPS, you also believe in time dilation by extension

Not necessarily. In satellites I see hundreds of satellites still existing in a "now" just as they tick along, moving around a giant ball of dirt. If you freeze all motion, you will see them in one spot, and if you advance all motion by one second, you will see that motion change by one second.

> If they didn't constantly correct for this their clocks would get further and further off relative to ours, making them useless.

So why not just assume that they are moving forward in time? We are getting positional data from the future! Please.

>But if one leaves on a relativistic trip and returns to earth, the twin on the trip will be many years younger than her sibling when she returns.

So they and their synchronized clocks would still be on the same time. One would be "years younger" because they travelled somewhere? What?

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

I know someone who lived up in Scotland and saw the same shooting star for almost two weeks in a row, at exactly the same time each night.]

Those dang geosynchronous satellites, They'll get ya every time!
Take care,
space

Actually they weren't, they were moving across the sky far too fast.

He figured it was a USAF reconnaissance aircraft.

But what would he know, he was a retired pilot.

[billvon 2,991]

>There is a MAJOR difference between saying that a person moves forward
>or backward in time in actuality . . .

No one is claiming that anyone "moves backwards" in time. They just move forward at different rates based on their relative speed.

> In satellites I see hundreds of satellites still existing in a "now" just as they
>tick along, moving around a giant ball of dirt. If you freeze all motion, you will
>see them in one spot, and if you advance all motion by one second, you will see
>that motion change by one second.

Precisely. But (and this is the biggie) they will not see that motion happen in the same second. Their reference frame is different, so time passes at a different rate for them.

>So why not just assume that they are moving forward in time?

They are moving forward in time, just at different rates.

>So they and their synchronized clocks would still be on the same time.

No. The traveling twin's clock would show that several fewer years had elapsed. In other words, her clock would show January 1, 2020, and her stationary twin's clock would show January 1, 2018 (for example.)

>One would be "years younger" because they travelled somewhere? What?

Yes.

[billvon 2,991]

>I know someone who lived up in Scotland and saw the same shooting star for
>almost two weeks in a row, at exactly the same time each night.

>Must have been Santa Claus

More likely a LEO satellite. They can be _really_ bright, and depending on their orbit, can be seen in the same place night after night.

[redlegphi 0]

Quote

>One would be "years younger" because they travelled somewhere? What?

Yes.

My understanding of this is shite compared to bill, but I don't think they even have to travel anywhere. They just have to be moving at speeds approaching the speed of light. So they could be doing tiny circles around you at near light speed. Not really going anywhere, but still moving through time and space at a different rate than you. Or such is my understanding.

[chasteh 0]

>No one is claiming that anyone "moves backwards" in time. They just move forward at different rates based on their relative speed.

Fantastic. This is FAR different from the two individuals actually moving through time at different rates. Someone's "getting smaller" because they move further away from us is also FAR different from them actually getting smaller.

>Their reference frame is different, so time passes at a different rate for them.

Well... you would definitely see everything near you move before the objects further away move, because the light emitted from those further objects has a greater distance to travel to you. Does that mean that the objects actually moved at a different time? No.

>They are moving forward in time, just at different rates.

In optical illusion land they do.

[rivetgeek 0]

Quote

>Perhaps you might be the one that needs to learn the English language.

Perhaps. Fucking brilliant.

>Just because you are not able to comprehend that time is relative, doesn't make it not so.

There is a MAJOR difference between saying that a person moves forward or backward in time in actuality and saying that their clock appears different due to the motion and distance traveled. Where did I say that time is not relative, anyways? Time is merely a method of measurement - a human creation. Their concept of time is relative to, say: The period the planet Earth takes to revolve around the sun, the period the planet Earth takes to rotate once, and so on.

What I am saying is that this theory of time traveling as a result of moving through space is nonsense.

"It is better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. "

~Bones Knit, blood clots, glory is forever, and chicks dig scars.~

[warpedskydiver 0]

He said it was moving far too fast for that.


So it had to be lower and slower or high and far too fast.

Lower and slower was the logical solution.

This was in the early 90's

There was something still flying back then that could fit that description.

In northern Scotland summer nights are not very dark.

There was a plane that was known for refueling over Greenland and then dashing southeasterly on it's journey.

Mind you this object was not all that bright, was more of a glow than a shiny space object would be.

Probably contrails and or heat trails?

[billvon 2,991]

> but I don't think they even have to travel anywhere. They just have to
>be moving at speeds approaching the speed of light.

Or be in a different gravitational reference frame.

This effect can be seen in astronauts who spend time on the space station. After six months they are .007 seconds younger than they would have been if they had stayed on earth. The difference is tiny because their speeds are so slow compared to the speed of light.

[billvon 2,991]

>He said it was moving far too fast for that.

LEO satellites move at 18,000 miles per hour.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Yes but they are commonly seen, this was apparently faster than that.

Not as bright and leaving a streak.

Right now if we were in the Boundary Waters area at night you can easily see the International Space Station

[warpedskydiver 0]

iirc if something is at 100k AGL and moving at Mach 3+ it would appear to be faster than a LEO satellite.

[warpedskydiver 0]

FWIW it was very similar to what he had seen over Iceland in the 1970's

Probably HABU

[chasteh 0]

>"It is better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

How cute. That works really well in social situations. Be well reserved, and people will never be able to judge your intelligence.

Now for reality.

This is an online forum. My podium is FAR smaller than even the least known television or radio personality - and it is anonymous.

Having said that, there have been far too many replies to my posts to say that they are all simply idiotic and not worth your time. Clearly these issues are still up for debate, as will be science's findings for the rest of time.

Have a nice day, ass.

[billvon 2,991]

Your one warning.

[vortexring 0]

Quote

There was a plane that was known for refueling over Greenland and then dashing southeasterly on it's journey.

To Machrihanish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Machrihanish

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[warpedskydiver 0]

Seems like that runway was long enough.

However he said the flight continued to the horizon.

Wherever that plane was going nobody was going to be telling anyone.

All i know was Okinawa was one place it stopped, another was Scotland at times.

Wherever it landed was always pretty much out of sight and during darkness.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Oh, the horror! Defeat at its best!

Edit:

Oh yea.. so much for logic, mister "Military airspace exists over south mountain!"

Hah!

Here's an attached picture of the MOA's.

So far you've been wrong about:
LUU-2's
self-protection flares
the use of illumination flares
The ranges
Air-to-ground radar
the lightning pod
night vision goggles
the hud
the MOA over south mntn.

Explain again how you've proven or disproven anything.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[chasteh 0]

Exhausting.

>Explain again how you've proven or disproven anything

>Here's an attached picture of the MOA's

You are cute, dude. You see one giant MOA west of tuscon and beginning 30 miles south of South Mountain. (That picture shows what is onthe official FAA chart on skyvector.com.) It is west of Tucson, and well south of the Gila Bend VOR. That isn't very close to South mountain, dude. Oh yea... and logic shows us that it can't be true that the MOA is both over South mountain and 30 miles south of it. Also, if they really were illumination flares, for the purposes of lighting a target area, why would they be visible over South Mountain? Hmm?

Oh yea... and just a factoid: MOA's don't contain firing of ANY SORT. Restricted areas do. The restricted area you think you are referring to, but don't even know about yet - is Restricted Area R-2304 and R-2305, which are BOTH BLOCKED OFF BY 4000+ FOOT MOUNTAINS. How is it that you could see flares in this area and at the same time have mountains blocking your view? Uh oh.

Nice attempt with the google'd picture of Sell's MOA, though. Have you even looked at the chart? Arizona, New Mexico, and so on are littered with military activity. However, South Mountain is not.

Hint: The Sauceda mountains are not "South Mountain." South Mountain is closest to Sierra Estrella, which is halfway between R2305 and South mountain, which is in the middle of town.

>So far you've been wrong about:
>LUU-2's
What am I wrong about? The time they burn for? THeir deployment altitudes? Their purpose? Please.

>self-protection flares

Self-protection flares. Ohhhh - you mean Evasive Countermeasures. Gotcha. What am I wrong about?

>the use of illumination flares

Maybe. You still haven't demonstrated that they were, in fact, illumination flares or that they were dployed by a military aircraft. Are you done yet?

>The ranges
Dude! I grew up in the South West, and much of my time was spent in Phoenix. I know what I am looking at on the chart. Do you?

>Air-to-ground radar

What? You mean because the A-10 didn't have Radar-pod capability until year X? Way to be specific, dude.

>the lightning pod

They have lightning pods? That must be cool. The military sounds alot more like Quake III Arena now. I might just join on up.

>night vision goggles

Yea right. Explain how much light you actually need with NVGs, and then explain how those conditions and technology weren't available.

>the hud

Grab a book. Ex-haus-ting.

>the MOA over south mntn.

See above. Or a book.

edit:

Oh yea.. and if that activity was in the area yo specified, where is the footage/report/evidence from anyone from:

1)Gila Bend
2) Ajo
3) Casa Granda
4) Eloy (for fun)
5) Tucson
6) Arizona City
7) Stells

??

Oh yea... and in case you do find that, where, from each one of those positions, were the lights found? Anywhere near that Restricted Area?

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

-You are cute, dude.
-Oh yea... and logic shows us that it can't be true that the MOA is both over South mountain and 30 miles south of it.
-Oh yea... and just a factoid: MOA's don't contain firing of ANY SORT. Restricted areas do.
-Arizona, New Mexico, and so on are littered with military activity. However, South Mountain is not.
-Are you done yet?
-You mean because the A-10 didn't have Radar-pod capability until year X?
-They have lightning pods? That must be cool. The military sounds alot more like Quake III Arena now.

And comments like these are exactly why the conversation is over. Keep believing it's a government cover up. No skin off my back.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[chasteh 0]

>And comments like these are exactly why the conversation is over. Keep believing it's a government cover up. No skin off my back.

Statement:

Chasteh believes it is a government cover-up.

Truth-value: False.

Statement:

FallingOsh:
The military shot flares over south mountain, and that is what the lights over phoenix in 1997 were.

Truth-value:
Truth-functionally indeterminate

[billvon 2,991]

> MOA's don't contain firing of ANY SORT.

The Air Force uses MOA's for flare and chaff training.

[chasteh 0]

MOA's are considered to be areas where there are no arial hazards other than intense pilot training and/or military aircraft maneuvers. The presence of all firing or other arial hazards including the launching of missiles, unguided projectiles, and other hazards are carried out with FAA notification in designated areas, including Restricted and Controlled Firing Areas. Moa's are not included.