All About UFO's

[Audiofire]

Some people just want to believe none of this, and they will nitpick in an amusing way. Knowledgeable people can feel like they know little, and smart people can feel like they are stupid. Now, the problem is that the inverse is true. One solution is to be open-minded and not too cynical, but I know that is difficult.

 

[WillBrink]

Some people just want to believe none of this, and they will nitpick in an amusing way. Knowledgeable people can feel like they know little, and smart people can feel like they are stupid. Now, the problem is that the inverse is true. One solution is to be open-minded and not too cynical, but I know that is difficult.

"...each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand men appointed to guard the past." - Maurice Maeterlinck

 

[Petrushka]

So this is a thread about belief rather than evidence. That explains a lot...

Always has been.

Belief is a spectrum. There’s another thread on AI. Statements about AI are on this spectrum.

I have reason to believe that there are cars that are self driving. I have never seen one, and my evidence consists entirely of internet posts. There are people who deny this claim.

Regarding alien visitors, I have zero belief that anyone has had direct contact with aliens. I have a moderate to high belief that nature does not allow FTL travel. I think in terms of probabilities.

 

[Mart68]

Always has been.

Belief is a spectrum. There’s another thread on AI. Statements about AI are on this spectrum.

I have reason to believe that there are cars that are self driving. I have never seen one, and my evidence consists entirely of internet posts. There are people who deny this claim.

Regarding alien visitors, I have zero belief that anyone has had direct contact with aliens. I have a moderate to high belief that nature does not allow FTL travel. I think in terms of probabilities.

These are not technically 'beleifs'. Rather they are positions adopted based on the available evidence and the balance of probabilities.

Not the same thing.

 

[PierreV]

Maybe he isn't aware that the already mentioned NASA Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) is, well, an orbiter and it has extensively mapped the dark side of the Moon?

And that the Chinese used that data, and their own, to plan a successful landing on said dark side? And that they returned samples? And that they will (have already) shared samples with other nations?

https://www.science.org/content/article/china-retrieves-first-ever-samples-moon-s-far-side

 

[kemmler3D]

I have reason to believe that there are cars that are self driving. I have never seen one, and my evidence consists entirely of internet posts. There are people who deny this claim.

I've taken at least 6 or 7 rides in self-driving cars and used to watch them drive by my window multiple times per hour... can even provide video if you like.

Uh, and there's an app where you can hail a self-driving car, you can download it yourself.

We have slightly stronger evidence for self-driving cars than we do for aliens, I will say that.

I have a moderate to high belief that nature does not allow FTL travel. I think in terms of probabilities.

Well, we have never seen anything travel FTL and our current understanding of spacetime forbids it. I'd say you're on the safer ground with this one.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

l

One solution is to be open-minded and not too cynical, but I know that is difficult

Like with quantum dots, right?

 

[PierreV]

Nah, I do have some cynicism. Although you appear to be the leader of that camp in the thread.

Yes, @Axo1989 is our leader. It is common knowledge in the galaxy though. I have proof.

 

[Audiofire]

That is good to know, but cynicism is quite in order for the audio con men.

 

[mhardy6647]

Well, we have never seen anything travel FTL

Seems to me it would be either very hard to observe or we'd observe it before it happened, which would cause all sorts of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Audiofire]

No worries. Aliens can do interdimensional stuff. Maybe the Axo camp won't divulge that secret though.

 

[kemmler3D]

Seems to me it would be either very hard to observe or we'd observe it before it happened, which would cause all sorts of cognitive dissonance.

Hmmm... what would an FTL-traveling object look like through a telescope?

If it emitted any waves (EM, gravitational) while it moved, I guess we'd see something appear and then a trail of waves approaching that location for (presumably) a very long time after that.

Or we'd see fast-moving lensing from a warp bubble.

Or, maybe things would simply seem to appear and disappear.

No natural phenomena we know of work this way, but I guess you're right that an FTL space ship would be pretty hard to spot even relatively close by. Even a whole planet moving FTL wouldn't be easy to spot.

On the other hand, based on what we know about physics, if an FTL craft started moving FTL anywhere near earth, the release of energy would have to be tremendous and impossible to miss. So I think we can at least rule out any FTL aliens visiting earth with means of propulsion that are compatible with GR.

 

[WillBrink]

Hmmm... what would an FTL-traveling object look like through a telescope?

If it emitted any waves (EM, gravitational) while it moved, I guess we'd see something appear and then a trail of waves approaching that location for (presumably) a very long time after that.

Or we'd see fast-moving lensing from a warp bubble.

Or, maybe things would simply seem to appear and disappear.

No natural phenomena we know of work this way, but I guess you're right that an FTL space ship would be pretty hard to spot even relatively close by. Even a whole planet moving FTL wouldn't be easy to spot.

On the other hand, based on what we know about physics, if an FTL craft started moving FTL anywhere near earth, the release of energy would have to be tremendous and impossible to miss. So I think we can at least rule out any FTL aliens visiting earth with means of propulsion that are compatible with GR.

Being examined: "Scientists say they can detect the presence of advanced propulsion systems through gravitational waves."

• If humanity ever wants to escape the solar system, we’re going to need a faster-than-light engine. Enter: the warp drive.
• While such a drive pushes the limits of known physics, a new study ponders whether we could detect gravitational waves produced from collapsing warp drives using laser-based detectors, such as LIGO or even the upcoming LISA.
• While purely speculation, this study doesn’t continue the conversation about whether gravitational waves could be another tool for our never-ending search for intelligent life beyond Earth.

A Study Says Warp Drives Might Be Real—and We'll Find Them With Lasers

Scientists say they can detect the presence of advanced propulsion systems through gravitational waves.

www.popularmechanics.com

 

[Petrushka]

I’m thinking that widespread FTL usage would produce observable phenomena.

 

[Axo1989]

Yes, @Axo1989 is our leader. It is common knowledge in the galaxy though. I have proof.

View attachment 465068

That’s a worry, I know how Mars Attacks! turned out. I’m going to need a wind-up turntable and some country music.

Spoiler: citation

 

[Axo1989]

Nice effort. I read the Oberg attempt at debunking. Although she said there were multiple pine trees, which could have covered a suitable area. I still like the motivated debunking effort, but it is not necessarily conclusive.

Again, no. I've used (and been frustrated by) remote sensing imagery that lacks sufficient resolution. You can certainly see larger areas of forest, but in those cases you won't resolve shadows to judge height, a key part of her story.

That's why it's confabulation (fabricating imaginary experiences to compensate for loss of memory). The story is embellished as it's re-told over time. It's a normal process and doesn't require bad faith. But if our memory is grounded in a salient fact (like technical understanding of the resolution of historical images) we'll likely retain that element of the story. Otherwise, we may not.

I've certainly gone back to images I thought I remembered in toto, only to discover I mis-remembered certain elements (things I thought were there, weren't, and vice versa). Note that I didn't 'insinuate' confabulation, I stated it plainly.

 

[kemmler3D]

I’m thinking that widespread FTL usage would produce observable phenomena.

Yes, I think so, via the kind of observation in @WillBrink s link, but I think our current gravitational wave detectors are nowhere near sensitive enough. Right now we can barely see two black holes smashing together and we'd like to see the Enterprise dropping out of warp, which I assume disturbs space-time quite a bit less.

 

[antcollinet]

Sweet jebus.

There is so much totally evidence free evidence being touted in this thread it is unreal.

It is embarrassing for a site with the word "science" in its name.

 

[Mart68]

Sweet jebus.

There is so much totally evidence free evidence being touted in this thread it is unreal.

It is embarrassing for a site with the word "science" in its name.

Something is either evidence or it isn't.

For example, an eye witness account is evidence, and hearsay is not evidence.

How much weight we put on the evidence given is what matters.

This isn't like measuring speakers on a Klippel where the result is incontrovertible factual data.

Photo and video can be faked or misinterpreted, eye witness accounts can be lies or mistaken. Official statements can be disregarded as disinformation. All these things are still 'evidence' by the definition of the word.

This is more like a trial where various versions of events are given and it is up to a judge or jury to weigh evidence and decide the 'truth' or otherwise based on the balance of probabilities. It isn't something where the scientific method can be applied - although that can be applied to assess the validity of certain types of evidence with a view to seeing if they are admissible or not.

 

[Axo1989]

Uh uh don’t forget, this is not about evidence it’s about belief. Nice try though

The 'belief' aspect is interesting.

Something is either evidence or it isn't.

For example, an eye witness account is evidence, and hearsay is not evidence.

How much weight we put on the evidence given is what matters.

This isn't like measuring speakers on a Klippel where the result is incontrovertible factual data.

Photo and video can be faked or misinterpreted, eye witness accounts can be lies or mistaken. Official statements can be disregarded as disinformation. All these things are still 'evidence' by the definition of the word.

This is more like a trial where various versions of events are given and it is up to a judge or jury to weigh evidence and decide the 'truth' or otherwise based on the balance of probabilities. It isn't something where the scientific method can be applied - although that can be applied to assess the validity of certain types of evidence with a view to seeing if they are admissible or not.soc

Something that is essentially a behavioural or social phenomena should be examined as such. The patterns of historical and current mythologies, beliefs, or patterns of infotainment generation, propagation and consumption fall into this domain.

Should this field of phenomena cross over into science (hypothetically speaking, it really hasn't yet) then scientific method can be applied.

Interesting that you introduce the legal analogy. Conflation of legal and scientific methods and norms means people are often talking at crossed purposes about 'evidence' etc. That word has several definitions and different applications.

Jurisprudence has different context and goals, and deals with matters of law (which are societal constructs). It doesn't address scientific questions of the nature of things, or existence, or even phenomenology.