back to article Astroboffins say our Solar System could have – wait, stop, what... the US govt found UFOs?

Our Solar System may have been born from bubbles of material hurled from a colossal Wolf-Rayet-type star, according to a theory published Friday. Scientists studying the origin of our system generally believe – no, wait, sorry. Stop. You know 2017 has been a bonkers year when the New York Times reveals a classified $22m US …

Page:

        1. Hollerithevo Silver badge

          Re: "So if the aliens want to have a go at running things, let 'em. "

          @B. Bob, on another note, how do you know that the brightest and the best are held down? Can you give some examples?

          1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken
            Coat

            Re: examples of the best and brightest being held down

            Why, for starters it would be all the mean downvotes poor bob receives for his exceptional posts.

            (Mine's the one with the extra large box of Kleenex in the pocket.)

  1. jonfr

    Aliens don't come to Earth

    Aliens don't come to Earth as humans are primitive and not as smart they think they are (some automatic robots might go by every few decades on average). There is plenty of aliens out there, but none of them are going to talk to the human race until we at least get sub-light able engine. There is no way to cross light-speed so other methods are used to travel long distances in deep space (it involves large worm holes and gates connected to them).

    People (humans) act like they are the centre of the universe. This can be seen in science fiction (mainstream at least) and in other works of writing. That has spread into the culture. I do suspect that the universe does not agree with the human race self assessment.

    The most likely outcome of the human race in the future is to go extinct and nearby civilization won't even notice (at all).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Aliens don't come to Earth

      "The most likely outcome of the human race in the future is to go extinct and nearby civilization won't even notice (at all)."

      It woulds explain the Fermi paradox if almost all planets have only enough readily available energy to get to our present level, and then the energy required for serious spaceflight is simply not available.

      From a cosmic point of view we may be like a fungus on a decaying bit of wood. We're going to run out of food before we get to the next decaying bit of wood because, unlike a dead tree stump, the bits of wood are lightyears apart.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Aliens don't come to Earth

      It's like us building a time machine and going back in time, all you are going to learn is that we will throw shit at ourselves. The aliens know this and don't want shit thrown at them so they are waiting for us to evolve past shit throwing. I give us a good 400 years before this happens and the shit is no longer thrown.

      World history and evolution can be traced by the levels of thrown shit.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Aliens don't come to Earth

        --->It's like us building a time machine and going back in time, all you are going to learn is that we will throw shit at ourselves. The aliens know this and don't want shit thrown at them so they are waiting for us to evolve past shit throwing. I give us a good 400 years before this happens and the shit is no longer thrown.

        World history and evolution can be traced by the levels of thrown shit.

        and here's the film to prove your theory..

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtYU87QNjPw

    3. Terry 6 Silver badge

      Re: Aliens don't come to Earth

      jonfr

      Tut tut. The aliens must have been on Earth. How else could they all have learnt to speak English?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    You have no right to know..

    Let us just suppose someone told you "Hey human, you are not alone, you never have been!" What are you going to do with that information? What if 'they' told you some of your favourite bits of religious text were actually down to them?..and showed you proof? What would happen to humans urge for innovation and discovery if someone suddenly gave them a copy of Encyclopedia Galatica?

    Are 'they' going to want to talk to you, help you ..or just observe? Do you think you will get nice new technology when you clearly cannot manage the technology you have now?

    Can you explain all of the underlying science that enables your TV receiver to display sound and pictures? Okay, now explain that to your dog. Now imagine you are the dog.

    Don't you have a mortgage to pay, a president to impeach, oceans to clean? Move along now, nothing to see; it was a weather balloon.

  3. MachDiamond Silver badge

    Nothing to see here, move along.

    The military is the perfect outfit to have a UFO team. They are testing new types of aircraft, spacecraft and other technologies where they will want to know if anybody detects them and they'd also like to have reports of anything that somebody else might be testing. It also puts them in the best position to create plausible cover stories. Knowing the truth makes it easier to come up with a good lie.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re. alien metals

    Intriguingly, the original "alien metal" was BiMgZn aka "Arts Parts".

    A lot of people tried to duplicate it but either the metals turned out to be incompatible or whatever process generated those incredibly thin layers (ion beam epitaxy?) was not feasible for such large pieces.

    I tried to make some using a microwave oven and silicon carbide susceptor but all that happened is it made a small piece of very brittle "ceramic" metalloid which showed no anomalous properties whatsoever.

    Later research showed that sodium bismuthate is a very good conductor comparable to graphene but alas not a superconductor.

    Or at least not in its current form, ceramic superconductors generally have poor conductivity outside a very limited range of Tc and Jc and metallic ones have Tc less than 12K due to the Fermi levels being very sensitive to temperature.

    Someone should try substituting K in place of Na just to see what happens.

  5. StuntMisanthrope Bronze badge

    A Fardel of Presents

    He's not off to button moon. He's a very naughty boy. :-) X

  6. Adair

    Depending on your understanding of 'God' that particular viewpoint may indicate a complete misunderstanding of the nature of 'God'. OTOH, it may also indicate how wilfully blind human beings can be even, or especially, when 'evidence' is staring them in the face, it just happens to not be the 'evidence' they want to see.

    Lets add to the mix by asking, assuming there was 'evidence' that satisfied you as to the presence fo 'God', what would that actually mean to you. Two possibilities come to mind (no doubt there are others): one is a loss of agency and freedom that could be psychologically crushing, the other is 'well fuck you God', I'm going to carry on as though you aren't there because my life belongs to me, and no one, not even 'God' is going to change that.

    So, maybe there is a very good reason why God's presence is not 'provable' in any meaningful empirical sense -- true love set the beloved free, it does not compel.

    We are also free to decide that God is not. Either way we get to be responsible for our choices and the consequences that flow from them -- no scapegoating or whiny excuses for why we live the way we choose to.

    1. Hollerithevo Silver badge

      The no true Scotsman argument

      @Adair, 'complete misunderstanding of the nature of God' -- well, we have all sorts of ideas of God, but if God keeps handily being unable to be explained or proven to exist by humans, then what does it matter if he exists or not? I thought the whole point of God, any god (or gods) was that they interacted with humans. Indeed, were vitally necessary for humans. It also seems, humans were necessary, or gave motive, to God (if only as sources of praise).

      If God is like a 'brane that never touches our own 'brane, then He could exist or not exist, but what would it matter. If He does not exist for us, if we can never interact, our beliefs about God remain our own fanciful inventions.

      1. Kiwi Silver badge
        Angel

        Re: The no true Scotsman argument

        @Adair, 'complete misunderstanding of the nature of God' -- well, we have all sorts of ideas of God, but if God keeps handily being unable to be explained or proven to exist by humans, then what does it matter if he exists or not?

        I had a neighbour I once accidentally offended. They went out of their way to effectively deny my existance. When I would give them a cheery greeting I'd be ignored. Try to help them, I'd be told (very impolitely) where to go. They made up some nasty false rumours about me.

        In the end, I gave them what they wanted and made no more attempts to be nice to them.

        It is much the same for those who refuse to acknowledge the abundant proof of God around them. He has given you many opportunities to see what is real, but you do not wish to do that. So for a time you will get your wish.

        But He is patient and loving, and when you're ready, you will meet with Him, and He will be there for you!

        (will this be my most downvoted post yet? Come on guys, trying to crack 1,000 downvotes here! :) )

      2. Adair

        Re: The no true Scotsman argument

        Hollerithevo, interestingly you have omitted to engage with any of the points on my actual post, i.e. the impact of a verifiable 'proof' of 'God' (even though many would argue very persuasive evidence already exists, for those who wish to interpret it that way); and the trruth about real 'Love' as an indicator of why things are the way they are. But, you are certainly free to make your own choice, and to live with the consequences, as we all do.

  7. unwarranted triumphalism

    I didn't know the Register was now doing science fiction.

    Less of the idle speculation if you don't mind.

  8. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    The most likely outcome..is to go extinct and nearby civilization won't even notice (at all).

    That's just not true.

    They'll notice the disappearance of broadcast TV signals.

    And conclude (correctly) that another planetary civilization nearly made it but didn't.

    So not worth visiting after all.

    1. Alistair Silver badge
      Windows

      Re: The most likely outcome..is to go extinct and nearby civilization won't even notice (at all).

      "And conclude (correctly) that another planetary civilization nearly made it but didn't.

      So not worth visiting after all."

      Very likely that they will fire up the pickup trucks and come collect all the scrap metal .....

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So our Sun, is actually Son of Sun?

    If the Kardashians announced they'd found alien items how many people would panic then?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So our Sun, is actually Son of Sun?

      "If the Kardashians announced they'd found alien items how many people would panic then?"

      I thought the Kardashians were alien items?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: So our Sun, is actually Son of Sun?

        "I thought the Kardashians were alien items?"

        I thought they were mostly items with aliens!

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Modern rocketry is amazing

    TOP LEL: SpaceX launch stirs alien UFO fears in California, Arizona (VIDEOS)

    Also, directly from Adam Curtis' "Hypernormalizaton": The Truth is Out There

    Happy Nikki Haley, err, Nikki Alien, err I mean Happy X-Mas!

  11. questanota

    ET Policy

    Extraterrestrial beings visit earth periodically to see how we mere low carbon life forms are faring.

    Recent events over the past century have them disturbed, and concerned about the viability of the homo sapiens sample.

    Each newly elected President is ushered into a room to receive the current message from the ET minders.

    Earth policies are being pushed by them toward being nicer to one another before it is too late and we destroy the ability to sustain life, whether through genocide, climateicide or variations on a theme. Why else would nations give away their patrimony like the US has to China, or various EU states have by inviting in hordes of refugees that overwhelm and destroy the fabric of civilization?

  12. VicMortimer
    Mushroom

    Seriously, the god stuff?

    Ok, so here's the deal. Can you disprove the existence of a god, of any kind, of any description, with 100% certainty? No, not yet.

    Can you disprove the existence of the christian/jewish/islamic god with 100% certainty? Yes, of course, it's already been done hundreds of thousands, if not millions of times. That god isn't real. it utterly fails every test. it does not exist.

    And that has exactly zero to do with the existence of life in other places than earth. The chances that life exists somewhere else are incredibly large, approaching 100%. The chances that that life has ever been to earth or will ever come to earth are infinitesimally small, approaching 0%.

    The universe is a big place, with big being an understatement that the vast majority of humans cannot even begin to comprehend the magnitude of. Unless we figure out how to warp space, we're not going to get very far off this planet before the sun goes supernova. And to the universe, that's not even slightly relevant.

    But hey, somebody wins the lottery, so maybe, just maybe, somebody will come visit us and not annihilate us to make way for a hyperspace bypass. But probably not.

    And particles will keep coming, from other places, because that's what they do.

    1. Kiwi Silver badge
      Pint

      Re: Seriously, the god stuff?

      Can you disprove the existence of the christian/jewish/islamic god with 100% certainty? Yes, of course, it's already been done hundreds of thousands, if not millions of times. That god isn't real. it utterly fails every test. it does not exist.

      Really? Then this should be a very simple challenge for you.

      Name one bit of scientific proof that the God I follow does not exist. Just one, but it does have to be able to prove that He does not exist, as you yourself used the word "prove" in your statement.

      Just one. Not much to ask if there are "hundreds of thousands" of examples out there for you to pick from.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Seriously, the god stuff?

        "Name one bit of scientific proof that the God I follow does not exist"

        The utterly overwhelming observable evidence for evolution over creationism for a start.

        1. Kiwi Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: Seriously, the god stuff?

          "Name one bit of scientific proof that the God I follow does not exist"

          The utterly overwhelming observable evidence for evolution over creationism for a start.

          And yet there's a great many respected scientists who'll tell you that creationism fits the evidence far better than this evolution nonsense.

          How could life have started accidentally in a random pool of chemicls when even under controlled laboratory conditions our best minds cannot get the right mix of chemicals necessary to life? They can create a few amino acids but not in a form that supports life.

          How could the chemicals form in the right order to make even the most basic chain of DNA that could allow for a simple organism that could reproduce? What about all the "machinery" needed to interpret DNA and make proteins etc after that? Remember, all this has to work right first time. Microbes that cannot reproduce cannot be a starting point, they have to be able to survive long enough to reach a reproductive stage even if it is "simple" splitting. And even that has proved to be far more complex than Darwin imagined in his worst nightmares.

          Maybe you're one of those ones who believe life couldn't have evolved on earth, and the earth was seeded by aliens? How did they get their start? The same problem, just a different planet.

          As yet there is not one observable proof of evolution. The "evidence" you claim is also used by Creationists to show that evolution is NOT something realistic.

          So you've failed. I asked for something that is scientific proof, and you toss in something that has failed time and again? Surely with all those quoted "hundreds of thousands" of bits of proof you can come up with something much much better? No?

          1. Richard Plinston Silver badge

            Re: Seriously, the god stuff?

            > And yet there's a great many respected scientists who'll tell you that creationism fits the evidence far better than this evolution nonsense.

            Except a) they are not 'scientists', they don't practice 'science*' and b) they are not 'respected', not by the actual scientific community.

            * Science is a process that examines the evidence and comes up with a model that matches the evidence. That model is then tested by making predictions and then evaluating against actual results. 'Creationism' has no mechanism that can be tested, thus it is not, and cannot be, science.

            1. Kiwi Silver badge
              WTF?

              Re: Seriously, the god stuff?

              > And yet there's a great many respected scientists who'll tell you that creationism fits the evidence far better than this evolution nonsense.

              Except a) they are not 'scientists',

              Really? Biologists are not scientists? Physists are not scientists? I guess that explains a lot about your posts.

              I'd forgotten the likes of Einstein, Newton, Kepler, Faraday to name a very small few were not scientists and did not have the respect of the scientific community. There's that guy Francis Collins as well, but he's some unknown wannabe who has no standing or respect whatsoever in the scientific community. There's that guy Kelvin as well, but then he was forgotten - not like he had a temperature scale named after him or anything. Max Planck was, of course, as thick as 2 planks when it comes to quantum theory. Nope, you're right, not one of these people were scientists or in any way respected.

              Oh, and tell me how you can test evolution? Can you present me with a copy of the dinosaur DNA that birds evolved from? It should be easy if it can be tested like you claim? Can you present one proven example of changes necessary for microbe-man evolution? Just one? there's supposed to have been millions of them, so just one verifiable change shouldn't be much to ask?

              Just one? One teency tiny wee proven change?

              No? Guess that means evolution is un-testable then.

              1. Richard Plinston Silver badge

                Re: Seriously, the god stuff?

                > Can you present one proven example of changes necessary for microbe-man evolution? Just one?

                Yes. The change from our common ancestor with chimpanzees to humans required that the number of chromosomes change from 48 to 46, that 24 pairs to 23 pairs. They went looking for a telomere in the middle of a chromosome and eventually found it in chromosome 2. This showed that 2 chromosomes had fused together giving humans 23 pairs.

                Can you show your so called god's signature, or indeed any of the thousands of gods'. on anything he 'designed' ?

              2. Richard Plinston Silver badge

                Re: Seriously, the god stuff?

                > Really? Biologists are not scientists?

                Name one _respected_ biologist that says that evolution is nonsense.

                1. Kiwi Silver badge
                  Boffin

                  Re: Seriously, the god stuff?

                  Really? Biologists are not scientists?

                  Name one _respected_ biologist that says that evolution is nonsense.

                  I'll get to your other stuff later, just dropping this one here for now.

                  Would Raymond Damadian do for a start?

                  Of course, I also mentioned Francis Collins in the post you were replying to, or do geneticists not count in your books?

                  There's a couple. Or do you believe that the man credited with inventing the MRI and one of the leading physicians in the USA aren't exactly "respected scientists" - or despite their work being within the field of biology will you claim they're not biologists?

                  And I'm pretty sure I did not say that any of them claimed evolution was nonsense (they may have done but I am not currently aware of such claims). I was the one making that statement.

                  1. Richard Plinston Silver badge

                    Re: Seriously, the god stuff?

                    > Would Raymond Damadian do for a start?

                    He is not a biologist. He is a "physician, medical practitioner", that is not a biologist.

                    > I also mentioned Francis Collins

                    Accordig to Wikipedia, he "advocates the perspective that belief in Christianity can be reconciled with acceptance of evolution and science". So he certainly does not think that evolution is nonsense.

                    That is 2 failures.

                    > And I'm pretty sure I did not say that any of them claimed evolution was nonsense

                    >>> who'll tell you that creationism fits the evidence far better than this evolution nonsense.

                    Your message had it that they would tell me it is nonsense.

                  2. Richard Plinston Silver badge

                    Re: Seriously, the god stuff?

                    > evolution was nonsense ... . I was the one making that statement.

                    That you cannot make sense of evolution tells me more about you than it does of evolution.

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Seriously, the god stuff?

      "The universe is a big place, with big being an understatement that the vast majority of humans cannot even begin to comprehend the magnitude of."

      Oh yes! We thought the universe was am incomprehensibly big place and then we got the Hubble deep field images to blow our minds even more.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Sorry we missed you

    We called by, in what was your time 10,000,000 BCE, but you hadn't evolved sufficiently.

    Hope to catch you on the return leg in 54,003 CE.

    PS: Brexit may not be a great idea.

    Crew of HKLUTVC - Zork Minor

  14. Shaha Alam

    first contact

    normal human sensory range is pretty piss poor when even compared to other species on earth. imagine what differences there're likely to be with alien creatures. they could be communicating with us right now but we just wouldnt know it because our senses aren't tuned in to it. what if they could only 'see' in the extreme ultra-violet? what if they could only hear dog whistles?

  15. Kleykenb

    ET's back?!

    I thought E.T. went home in the '80s?!?

  16. Hans 1 Silver badge

    Alloys in Vegas

    If they have physical evidence, then they should have a bunch of physicists analyze it, video IS NOT evidence, eye-witness testimony IS NOT evidence, a waste of time.

  17. wayne 8

    iron-56?

    What did iron-56 have to do with the research?

  18. wayne 8

    Small Change

    22 million USD is small change to the US DOD. They easily lose track of 6.5 Trillion USD.

    There are currently 40,000 troops that have "Unknown" as their location in the DOD system.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Small Change

      "There are currently 40,000 troops that have "Unknown" as their location in the DOD system."

      That's code for "deployed to Moonbase Freedom-1"

  19. snovotny
    Linux

    Aluminum and Iron creation hypothesis

    In nuclear fusion if you take two(2) Aluminum 26 atoms and fuse em together you almost get Iron 59. Seven(7) protons short and a whole bunch of energy. Explains why the Fe shortage. Alternatively, fission (eg. split) an Iron 59 and you can get two(2) Aluminum 26 atoms plus a few protons neutrons photons, gluons, quarks and electrons and double aluminum flying around making pretty lights and fireworks for alien astronomers (us) in the form of interstellar gas and auroras. No thanks needed for the remedial nuclear physics. note: no need to control nuclear reactions. If you want creation energy, forget about control rods and moderators and let er rip. Caveat : Do not try to create nuclear fusion at home. Your neighbors will notice the crater where your house used to be.

  20. Kiwi Silver badge

    That no one was involved in a crash proves that it was done safely .

    No it does not 'prove' that it was done safely at all.

    Really? Everyone came out ok; no accidents, near-misses, surprises or anything like that, but it wasn't safe? No "pucker moments", no evasive braking or steering, nothing. Not safe?

    I know of people who have driven in residential areas legally at speeds over 200km/hr without driving police cars. Remember when we used to have the Mobil 1 (IIRC was a long time ago!) in Wellington? The Hamilton V8 street racing? (and no I am not claiming I was involved in any of these)

    That was in very controlled conditions and only by drivers that were rated for those conditions. That is a very different thing than driving fast where other drivers of variable skill may appear. For those races the road was aligned and resurfaced with a special mix that was rated for the speeds of those cars and it was levelled to ensure safety. No other roads in NZ are made to those standards.

    Seriously? WOW! I didn't know they could do that! Re-align several Wellington streets, re-surface them with a "special mix", re-level them (taking out the camber which on many corners actually helps drivers), then put in some replica road markings and even fire-hydrants (see the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIGREJAw8kU, at around the 10-minute mark (that yellow thing in the middle of the road is a NZ fire hydrant) (video is just the Nissan Mobil 500 so they probably don't reach the 200k mark in that "clip") - they do all that re-aligning and surfacing and changing the road markings etc etc, all in a day or so as not to upset the locals (especially the port, businesses etc etc for cargo handling and commerce), and then they undo it all to take the roads back to exactly as they were before suffice for a few replica skid marks?

    (For something more recent, there's a clip of the Hamilton (NZ) V8 races at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP8HikAT_wI in which you can clearly see the replica road markings they must put down (if what you say about resurfacing with "special mix" etc is true).

    This is done all over the world; Isle of Man, Monaco, IIRC some of the V8 stuff in Oz (etc etc where they have street racing).

    As to "driver ratings" - what of the many "open" races, including the many rallies on some of our wonderful gravel roads? We have races here on a variety of roads, often with drivers who've barely learnt how to use "big boy pants" let alone how to handle a car.

    Ah, you must be one of those who have downvoted me

    Actually, no, I have never downvoted _anyone_, nor upvoted.

    My apologies then.

    Are you one of those people who thinks that "nothing bad will happen ...

    > One of those people perhaps who believes ...

    No. No.

    Thank God for that! Those people scare the hell out of me!

    Oh. Because I know that our speed limit is arbitrary (that's why the government has just voted to raise it in certain areas!)

    The speed limit is set based on the state of the road, its surface, its camber, curves, sight lines and many other issues. NO road is New Zealand is safe to be driven on at 180kph, not even by emergency services.

    And yet, again, we have street races that top those speeds. We've had that done by emergency services as well. Admittedly this is for stretches rather than the whole road, but yes. The Auckland motorway with all onramps closed? Not a problem. In fact you could do over 300k on most stretches of that without issue (and no, I've not experienced those speeds in a stock road vehicle). The waikato expressway is able to support those speeds, and even the Kapiti expressway and SH1 through the Wellington motorway would easily be above 200 (for stretches under controlled conditions). SH2 via the Hutt Valley not so much, but there are stretches that'd be OK.

    But explain the Ngarunga gorge road - a 6-lane motorway with a legal limit of 80Kph down most of it. However, before the corner at the bottom with a 75Kph advisory speed, it becomes 100Kph. Near the speed camera (the most profitable in NZ, which BTW cannot get photos of people speeding in the fast lane on the uphill side (where the most crashes occur) giving the lie to the "protecting people" vs revenue gathering line!). The only reason for the 80k limit is the camera, and when you're around the curve out of sight of the camera it becomes 100k. However, we have many tight, winding gravel roads that have a posted limit of 100k. Set on the condition of the road? Try driving on NZ roads and see if you can honestly say that!

    You would be hard pressed to find tires that are rated to do 180kph, especially on the road surfaces found in NZ.

    You are kidding, right? My bike has ultra-cheap ultra-crap ultra-nasty hard-rubber tyres. I don't drive in a way that needs higher grip tyres, I'm not really interested in pushing the bike hard (and I like gravel roads so soft-compound tyres aren't an advantage). Same for my car's tyres (both vehicles are "H" - rated for 210K).

    I've checked a couple of friend's cars, both V rated, as in 240Km/hr.

    H-rating is very common for bikes. Many bikes I know have V and W ratings, and one has a Z rating (but the tyre itself only lasts a few hundred K, that guy has way more dollars than cents!). These are not special order tyres but over-the-counter stuff. I'd love to show you sites that cover it but as always NZ businesses don't like to have their products readily listed on their websites. You can see the ratings if you visit https://www.franksmc.co.nz/Tyres-Oils#ROADTYRES and hover over the pictures of tyres - no one else locally lists ratings.

    Or you can go in/phone any motorbike store and ask any about them if you want. For my car's tyres (170x70R13) I can only find H(210K) or T(190K) rated tyres locally - ie the only options for my car are over 180, so I'm "hard pressed to find" a tyre LOWER rated.

    The road surface can be another issue, but safe driving takes that into account anyway. Many roads can handle the speed fine on straights and gentle curves, but the volcanic chip can be interesting if you push things. Fastest I've been on gravel on a bike IIRC is only about 130K, but that was on a private track, with the right tools for the job.

    https://www.webbikeworld.com/motorcycle-tire-information/, http://www.weeksmotorcycle.com/tire-speed-rating.html and https://www.blackcircles.com/general/speedrating are some options for checking speed ratings.

    Two roads have upped the limit to 110kph because they are new roads specifically engineered for faster speeds than has been the practice in the past.

    7 by my count (though after much hunting (not much in the way of reliable sources) only 2 may currently have that limit), them being :

    • Waikato Expressway: Longswamp, Rangiriri, Huntly, Hamilton, Cambridge, Ohinewai, Ngaruawahia, Te Rapa, Pokeno to Hampton Downs.

    • Tauranga Eastern Link

    • Upper Harbour Motorway

    • Northern Motorway (Johnstones Hill tunnels to Lonely Track Rd)

    • Southern Motorway (Bombay to Takanini)

    • Kapiti Expressway (Mackays to Peka Peka)

    (NZTA source)

    However not all may be at that limit yet (I thought it was to be by the end of the year, which is yesterday, but ICBW). The southern motorway certainly is not new. Not unless you count 1970s as "new" (by which definition I am quite young despite well past the wrong side of 40 :( ) - see this wikipedia article for more info, maybe. (I was only doing a quick check there because I'm pretty sure the southern motorway fails any definition of "new").

    What you have failed to notice is that I have not said half of what you imagine.

    What you failed to notice is that I haven't imagined anything, I have only responded to exactly what you _said_. It is you that imagines things, such as me down voting, what you think I believe, or you being safe.

    I've been an advanced safety instructor in the past. I've had training above most road users and keep my hand in. I have a much better idea of what is safe than most people, and I know my vehicles limits better than most people. You somehow think I have travelled at over 180k in unsafe and uncontrolled conditions. I've not opted to tell you what the conditions were but have given you many possibilities (some or all of which may or may not be what I experienced). You've written 'interesting' stuff about re-surfacing roads with "special mixes" for street races, and the speed rating of tyres, yet claim I don't know my stuff.

    I made an assumption about your voting record which I got wrong, you have made assumptions about my driving experience and history which you got wrong. But you also went on to make up stuff (if not out of your own head where did you get the garbage about "special mix" and re-alignments etc being used on the Wellington and Hamilton roads?) to support your arguments.

    I'm sure you can do better. If you try. Meanwhile, please tweet if you're ever driving on NZ roads because I'm concerned you may be putting to much of your mental resources into fabricating tales of miraculous road transformations being done in a few hours and not enough resources on the road around you.

    1. Richard Plinston Silver badge

      > Really? Everyone came out ok; no accidents, near-misses, surprises or anything like that, but it wasn't safe? No "pucker moments", no evasive braking or steering, nothing. Not safe?

      That you survived is not proof that it was 'safe'.

      > And yet, again, we have street races that top those speeds.

      And the crashes indicate that these are not 'safe'.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXAqCBYgAbM

      https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/news/85423069/it-got-away-on-me--driver-tells-of-surviving-167kmh-crash-during-targa-rally

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doLRUWNvJZs

      https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=targa+rally+crash&client=firefox-b&dcr=0&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZ25vr6LXYAhXEjZQKHbA-DmUQsAQIQw&biw=1147&bih=632

      > You somehow think I have travelled at over 180k in unsafe and uncontrolled conditions.

      I have not speculated on what conditions you have travelled in, I stated that 180kph is unsafe on NZ roads.

      > However, we have many tight, winding gravel roads that have a posted limit of 100k.

      No they do not have "posted limit of 100kph". That would be done with a disk with 100 in in. What they may have is a white disk with a diagonal black stripe which is the end of the current posted speed limit, the so called 'open road limit'. It is true that the maximum speed that can be driven is 100kph, but just because there is no 'posted limit' does not mean it is rated for 100kph.

      http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/roadcode/about-limits/speed-limits/

      > Set on the condition of the road? Try driving on NZ roads and see if you can honestly say that!

      Does the last 50 years count?

      > Re-align several Wellington streets, re-surface them

      Actually that was in reference to the Hamilton race. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXAqCBYgAbM at the one minute mark, do you think that striped line is a normal road marking? Are the barriers usually there ?

      > 7 by my count (though after much hunting (not much in the way of reliable sources) only 2 may currently have that limit), them being :

      You are imagining things again. There are _2_ with that new limit only just come into force. There are several other areas being _considered_, but none announced. Most of these are new sections, some not yet completed, some only planned.

      > Southern Motorway (Bombay to Takanini) > Not unless you count 1970s as "new"

      The section under consideration for 110kph will be available after around 2020.

      "2018–2019 – Planning and design work to enable construction"

      http://www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/sh1-papakura-to-bombay

      You didn't search very hard.

      > you have made assumptions about my driving experience and history which you got wrong.

      You are imagining things again. Show me _anywhere_ that I made an assumption about your driving experience.

    2. Richard Plinston Silver badge

      > they do all that re-aligning and surfacing and changing the road markings etc etc, all in a day or so

      I am not sure why you think it had to be done in a day*. They had months to prepare the course a section at a time, just like they do for normal road maintenance. The could remove traffic islands, realign curbs, resurface, design and build the required barriers (which also realign the road) and pits. Of course they needed to repaint the road markings - they were still being used as roads before the race day. The day before they only needed to install the pre-built barriers.

      * Perhaps it is because of your belief in late bronze age myths.

    3. Richard Plinston Silver badge

      > and then they undo it all to take the roads back to exactly as they were before

      Did they do that? No, I think they left it pretty much alone except they did remove the barriers and the pits. Certainly they took away the chicane and the racing curbs. Maybe they put the traffic islands back at some point later. After all they may have wanted another race the next year.

  21. Delbert Grady

    declining scale related to $$

    I'd rather they 'wasted' their (our) money on chasing UFOs rather than designing ever easier ways to kill and hurt other humans..

    Then again.. i'd rather they spent their (our) money on health and education..

    and yet again .. i'd rather they gave a infinitesimal fraction and let me move to Nevada, lovely place, and i promise to buy a really big pair of binoculars & report any strange goings-on to the relevant authorities (obviously)

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So when we have proof that Aliens have been here......

    .......does that mean that current understanding of the limitations of the Speed of Light have to change?

    1. illiad

      Re: So when we have proof that Aliens have been here...... FTL

      Note it is not 'speed of light' , it is 'how do we Curve space (or make a 'stargate') easily, with a realistic amount of energy needed, and with the advanced navigation needed...' :)

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019