UFO Conjectures

Friday, June 05, 2020

UFO lights and colors

Copyright 2020, InterAmerica, Inc.

In my posting a few days ago where I mentioned the Belgian Triangle Wave, I got a foolish comment that said colors and light are universal; that is both are the same throughout the Universe.

This came about because I’ve taken the view, for some time, that if UFOs are from an alien (extraterrestrial) species, symbols or writ- ing on them would not be like that of Earth and any lighting (and the colors of those lights) would surely differ from Earth’s for a number of reasons.

An alien species would not develop perceptors – eyes and brain – that mimics those of humans, and the spectra of color would likely be different because of various factors of their abode (planet) which would surely be unlike Earth’s.

Thus, for me, the red and white lights on the supposed bona fide Triangle craft photographed during the Belgian wave, because it has red and white lights, tells me the thing was Earth-made – an advanced aircraft – and not an out-of-character flying saucer or UFO, as normally reported or seen.
Here are supporting views, from various sources explaining the structure, appearance, and variety of circumstances that create light and color in planets close by, Mars and Jupiter, and certainly for planets farther away in the galaxy or Universe from which some think ETs derive:


“Visible light constitutes only one of many types of electromagnetic radiation emitted from the sun and other stars. Scientists differentiate the various types of radiant energy from the sun within the electromagnetic spectrum. The electromagnetic spectrum is the range of all possible frequencies of radiation (Figure 2). The difference between wavelengths relates to the amount of energy carried by them.
Each type of electromagnetic radiation travels at a particular wavelength. The longer the wavelength (or the more stretched out it appears in the diagram), the less energy is carried. Short, tight waves carry the most energy. This may seem illogical, but think of it in terms of a piece of moving a heavy rope. It takes little effort by a person to move a rope in long, wide waves. To make a rope move in short, tight waves, a person would need to apply significantly more energy.

Infrared and optical astronomers generally use wavelength. Infrared astronomers use microns (millionths of a meter) for wavelengths, so their part of the EM spectrum falls in the range of 1 to 100 microns. Optical astronomers use both angstroms (0.00000001 cm, or 10-8 cm) and nanometers (0.0000001 cm, or 10-7 cm). Using nanometers, violet, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red light have wavelengths between 400 and 700 nanometers. (This range is just a tiny part of the entire EM spectrum, so the light our eyes can see is just a little fraction of all the EM radiation around us.)

The wavelengths of ultraviolet, X-ray, and gamma-ray regions of the EM spectrum are very small. Instead of using wavelengths, astronomers that study these portions of the EM spectrum usually refer to these photons by their energies, measured in electron volts (eV). Ultraviolet radiation falls in the range from a few electron volts to about 100 eV. X-ray photons have energies in the range 100 eV to 100,000 eV (or 100 keV). Gamma-rays then are all the photons with energies greater than 100 keV.”


“There's no doubt about it, observationally. The sky of Mars is both red and bright, in contrast to what you'd naively expect from, say, an equivalently thinner, sparser version of Earth's atmosphere. This is the subject of a number of conspiracy-minded claims out there, as what we've actually seen from the Martian surface is incredibly different from what we expected before we ever went there.”

“We didn't even need to land on Mars to see this; as NASA's Viking missions approached Mars way back in the early 1970s, it got an up-close glimpse of Mars' atmosphere from space. The red glow of Mars was clearly visible from tens of thousands of miles away, and blocked much more light than if there were no dust on Mars. They've even been able to deduce the mineralogy of Martian dust from the absorptive effects that appear in its atmosphere. To summarize:

Mars' clouds are made of tiny ice particulates, Mars is much dustier than planet Earth, the dust is red in color, preferentially absorbing blue light, but the red is primarily reflected away along the Sun's line-of-sight, causing the sky to be red, the sky near the Sun to be blue, clouds to be blue, distant mountains to appear dim/obscured, and the clouds to be blue.”

Moreover, humans have constructed lighting to mimic what they see as light (and its color). Lamps and creative lighting come from the human view of Earth's nature. UFO ETs would not create lighting or color as that of Earth, if they have light at all (or need it to land their craft as one wag put it in a comment).

An alien species might be blind, or color blind or perceive no color at all, but if they use lights as we do on Earth and for their interplanetary spacecraft, those lights and their coloring would not look the same as those which appear on our airplanes. Not at all.

RR

Evolution off Earth is not evolution

 “Supra-Darwinian” life, [may have] arose by pathways that don’t exist on Earth.

Reproduction with variation is a key component of our definition of life.

For instance, say we find a planet full of aliens who have achieved immortality. The population has been stable for thousands of years, with nobody being born and nobody dying — in other words, there is no self-replication going on. There is no variation. Everything is static. There’s no evolution. Would this alien species be considered living under our current definition? And should it be? Of course, this is a wild theoretical, but as we learn more about the immense universe, this kind of questioning will be important to consider.

Another problem is that even though we have a huge diversity of life on our planet, we might only ever be able to trace life back to a single origin. A single random accumulation of events resulted in that first cell or that first organism. But research has acknowledged that there are many alternative biochemistries and biologies that could have arisen from the conditions on early Earth. The world would probably look a lot different if, for example, silicon were the basis for all organic compounds instead of carbon, a theoretical possibility.

Why do we even assume that all life in the universe is composed of the same matter that we are?

Yet all the tests that we currently use to find life on other planets strictly take our carbon-based system as the norm. For instance, in 1976 when the Viking I first landed on Mars, it was rigged with only a few kinds of tools to probe for life on the red planet. One was a radioactively-labeled carbon species, 14C, that the robot mixed with a small sample of Martian dirt. Researchers speculated that if there was life on Mars, the life would metabolize the radio-labeled species and produce radio-labeled carbon dioxide, the way Earth life forms would. This didn’t work. It probably didn’t work because there isn’t life on Mars. But it also could have been because we were specifically testing for life that metabolized carbon just as life on Earth does.

From: https://massivesci.com/articles/definition-of-life-earth-universe-virus/