To be fair, they knew exactly where to look and how fast to pan the camera, plus time to prepare. If something moving between 200-1000 MPH (a rogue pig balloon) shows up in your yard and all you've got are your wits and a smartphone, it is not fair to expect such good results.
Most stuff that is accepted in science that can't be proven per se is also more or less self-evident. Like... "are people conscious"? We have very little alternative but to proceed as if they are. "Is the universe expanding"? Can't prove it exactly, but redshift leaves few alternatives. Both are open to dispute if experiment or new evidence contradicts these ideas.
No need to disparage The Muppet Show. It was much more realistic and had far more believable characters. Though, Emily Blunt's performance was fantastic.
I thought the paper Sabine discusses proposes at least a different sort of answer to encounters with UAPs and Aliens, and for that reason it was interesting even though not convincing.
Many agents have worked under the Syndicate for their global interests. Mulder fought a shape-shifting Bounty Hunter. Rather exciting footage.
Like string theory and entropic time? Too many examples of that not being accurate. The idea there must be a particle to explain gravity and neatly fit into the Standard Model of particle physics as expected "self evident" part has gone no place for 100 years or so. There's grades of it too, where there's convergent evidence for it, such as you outline with universal expansion, some others, remain strictly in the maths and or hypothetical, such as multi verse and so forth. I will continue to keep an open mind on such things, and a curiosity all things possible, reality is clearly not as we see/experience per work of people like Hoffman, et al.
Right, but those things you mentioned are considered promising but entirely hypothetical. I don't think it's fair to say they're accepted as science. They're not considered ridiculous because the math can be made to agree with models that actually do fit the evidence, nor are they considered "real" yet.
My hot take is it's easily the best we've got in terms of results... But It's poorly suited to questions of meaning, purpose, or explaining anything subjective, which leads some to (incorrectly IMO) decide it's wrong or somehow run its course.
I don't pretend to have any expertise in the area of string theory, but many in the highest levels of physics are convinced sting theory explains the quantum world, including Leonard Susskind, Edward Witten, Yoichiro Nambu, etc. Many accept string theory, but some don't for obvious reasons, and are still looking for answers elsewhere. As it can't make predictions and be tested and falsified, it has to remain theoretical. So even if it's not testable, it is viewed as "real" by many in the physics community. My sense is it's lost some momentum over the years as it's gone to a dead end. Interestingly: Recent survey of more than 1,600 physicists conducted by researchers in collaboration with the American Physical Society's Physics Magazine. It asked what respondents considered the best candidate for a theory of quantum gravity. The results were:
You're telling me you have not really looked into the topic without telling me that. Again, various people at the top of their respective fields have circled back toward panpsychism like positions due mostly to the fact materialism has failed hard in explaining consciousness and other related topics that falls under a panpsychism umbrella of sorts. It's not a simple topic, not one that can be dismissed by you or anyone else. There's lot of silly wu connected to it as expected, dismissal is a mistake, hence why we have such interest/ficus at such high levels. It's likely not what most think it is, unless they have shallow knowledge and a closed/limited mind. The reality is, science and philsophy intersect, amd have as long as humans have gotten passed "God did it" answers to everything:
" Each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand mediocre minds appointed to guard the past." - Maurice Maeterlinck
I think the results of that same survey (it asked several questions) were discussed in one or two YouTube videos on the SkyDivePhil channel of Phil Halpern, and Sean Carroll was a guest in the discussion. Or the video I watched might have been about a similar survey of physicists.
Kuhn is a treasure, and his CloserToTruth channel is probably my favorite YouTube channel. I came across it during the Covid-19 lockdown, which is when I discovered YT itself. I do not have a clear memory of watching Kuhn during his PBS years. What a parade of stellar guests Kuhn has interviewed over the years! Lots of them he has interviewed multiple times. Interviews with Steven Weinberg, Roger Penrose, Frank Wilczek, Sean Carroll, Ed Witten, Carlo Rovelli, Lee Smolin, Juan Maldacena, David Z Albert, Tim Maudlin and Paul Davies are among the many highlights that I have watched on that channel.
Anyone not watching CloserToTruth is doing life wrong. It's the best YT has to offer and proves it does not have to be a collection idiotic garbage. Kuhn has a PhD in neuroscience from MIT himself, so no slouch in the science arena, obviously well read in other topics too. He travels all over the world to attend various conferences and interview people who are SME in various topics, often very esoteric topics.
