UAP/UFO thread - Non-Human Intelligences

I’m not building myself up for the great reveal there is every chance the life they find will be “microbes“
I want an alien that looks like us, but DrTravis Taylor physics and rocket engineer worked in the Pentagon and he stated it’s all new technology being tested by the US China etc
 
somapop said:
That's syc(amore) mate.
Click to expand...
Actually felt emotional about that, mate.

I’ve pictures of favourite trees in the local park.
There’s one that was epic, but came down in a storm last year after I don’t know how many hundred year. My disappointment was something I can’t describe.
I mean why should I be upset about a tree?
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
Actually felt emotional about that, mate.

I’ve pictures of favourite trees in the local park.
There’s one that was epic, but came down in a storm last year after I don’t know how many hundred year. My disappointment was something I can’t describe.
I mean why should I be upset about a tree?
Click to expand...
As the old song goes:

"I talk to the trees
And that's why they put me away"!
;-)
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
Actually felt emotional about that, mate.

I’ve pictures of favourite trees in the local park.
There’s one that was epic, but came down in a storm last year after I don’t know how many hundred year. My disappointment was something I can’t describe.
I mean why should I be upset about a tree?
Click to expand...

With me it's Victorian era chimneys and gas holders. As well as ancient trees, of course. Oh, and filling in canals ....
 
This idea that we understand everything about the laws of physics at our ridiculously immature stage of development and having experienced the universe to the equivalent extent of a single grain of sand on a single beach in a universe of infinite beaches, is just staggering.

Yes, the laws of physics are the laws of physics. Period. But to assume we now understand them fully is laughable. As is the argument that there is no evidence that our understanding of them is incomplete. Of course there isn't, otherwise we would understand more.

Ask scientists about the laws of physics 300, 200, 100 years ago and you will see a progression in knowledge and understanding. Ask them again in another 100, 200, 300 years and you will see the same progression in knowledge and understanding. As long as we survive as a species until then.

Do I think there is alien life out there? Very probably, almost guaranteed. Advanced? Probably somewhere. Will they make contact? Probably not, why would they? Have they visited the earth and left technology with the Americans? No chance.

All imho, of course.
 
halfcenturyup said:
This idea that we understand everything about the laws of physics at our ridiculously immature stage of development and having experienced the universe to the equivalent extent of a single grain of sand on a single beach in a universe of infinite beaches, is just staggering.

Yes, the laws of physics are the laws of physics. Period. But to assume we now understand them fully is laughable. As is the argument that there is no evidence that our understanding of them is incomplete. Of course there isn't, otherwise we would understand more.

Ask scientists about the laws of physics 300, 200, 100 years ago and you will see a progression in knowledge and understanding. Ask them again in another 100, 200, 300 years and you will see the same progression in knowledge and understanding. As long as we survive as a species until then.

Do I think there is alien life out there? Very probably, almost guaranteed. Advanced? Probably somewhere. Will they make contact? Probably not, why would they? Have they visited the earth and left technology with the Americans? No chance.

All imho, of course.
Click to expand...

If ever there was a thread for just a little bit of open-mindedness and a touch of broader thinking, this would be it, given just how wide-spanning the parameters really are.

But Noooo, we have to have obtuse fuds shouting down to basic absolutes and digging narrow holes in the sand to stick heads in.

It's a bit like this on here.
 
Coatigan said:
If ever there was a thread for just a little bit of open-mindedness and a touch of broader thinking, this would be it, given just how wide-spanning the parameters really are.

But Noooo, we have to have obtuse fuds shouting down to basic absolutes and igging narrow holes in the sand to stick heads in.

It's a bit like this on here.
Click to expand...


My view on science was shaped by Bronowski in the 70s and The Ascent Of Man, especially episode 11 where he describes why there can never be any certainty in science and how destructive dogma and absolute certainty can be to science and to society. So never say never. To anything. Except United winning the PL again, of course.
 
halfcenturyup said:
This idea that we understand everything about the laws of physics at our ridiculously immature stage of development and having experienced the universe to the equivalent extent of a single grain of sand on a single beach in a universe of infinite beaches, is just staggering.

Yes, the laws of physics are the laws of physics. Period. But to assume we now understand them fully is laughable. As is the argument that there is no evidence that our understanding of them is incomplete. Of course there isn't, otherwise we would understand more.

Ask scientists about the laws of physics 300, 200, 100 years ago and you will see a progression in knowledge and understanding. Ask them again in another 100, 200, 300 years and you will see the same progression in knowledge and understanding. As long as we survive as a species until then.

Do I think there is alien life out there? Very probably, almost guaranteed. Advanced? Probably somewhere. Will they make contact? Probably not, why would they? Have they visited the earth and left technology with the Americans? No chance.

All imho, of course.
Click to expand...

I don’t think I’ve seen anybody make the argument that we have perfect knowledge and we will not gain new understanding as we develop (or at least I’m certainly not, I don’t proclaim to speak for others).

I think people are just highlighting that there is an important distinction to be made between limitations of technology (for example, us not yet having viable nuclear fusion reactors or being able to put a man on Mars), and limitations imposed by laws of nature. Again I will stress that a ‘law’ is just a common observation so it literally cannot be broken by its very definition or it wouldn’t be a law. The reason “you can’t travel faster than light” is a law is because the maths dictates that this is a necessary condition of special relativity.

If somebody finds an exception to special relativity then, great, that would no longer be a law in certain edge cases. This is exactly how it worked with Einstein building on classical relativity, he uncovered that in certain circumstances classical mechanics breaks down (e.g. when you’re travelling very fast) and you need a new treatment.

The challenge is that the obscurity of those edge cases makes them hard to find and even harder to take advantage of technologically. Nobody is saying anything is impossible, but there are degrees of difficulty here similar to running 100m in 9.5 seconds versus running it in 6 seconds.
 
halfcenturyup said:
This idea that we understand everything about the laws of physics at our ridiculously immature stage of development and having experienced the universe to the equivalent extent of a single grain of sand on a single beach in a universe of infinite beaches, is just staggering.

Yes, the laws of physics are the laws of physics. Period. But to assume we now understand them fully is laughable. As is the argument that there is no evidence that our understanding of them is incomplete. Of course there isn't, otherwise we would understand more.

Ask scientists about the laws of physics 300, 200, 100 years ago and you will see a progression in knowledge and understanding. Ask them again in another 100, 200, 300 years and you will see the same progression in knowledge and understanding. As long as we survive as a species until then.

Do I think there is alien life out there? Very probably, almost guaranteed. Advanced? Probably somewhere. Will they make contact? Probably not, why would they? Have they visited the earth and left technology with the Americans? No chance.

All imho, of course.
Click to expand...
But...nobody believes that we understand everything. Nobody.
The time t0 start believing in things is when we have the evidence. We have zero evidence of life beyond our planet.
 
Marklr said:
But...nobody believes that we understand everything. Nobody.
Click to expand...

Do you believe with absolute certainty that nothing we will encounter anywhere in the universe in the future will be able to travel faster than the speed of light? Without even a scintilla of doubt?
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
I don’t think I’ve seen anybody make the argument that we have perfect knowledge and we will not gain new understanding as we develop (or at least I’m certainly not, I don’t proclaim to speak for others).

I think people are just highlighting that there is an important distinction to be made between limitations of technology (for example, us not yet having viable nuclear fusion reactors or being able to put a man on Mars), and limitations imposed by laws of nature. Again I will stress that a ‘law’ is just a common observation so it literally cannot be broken by its very definition or it wouldn’t be a law. The reason “you can’t travel faster than light” is a law is because the maths dictates that this is a necessary condition of special relativity.

If somebody finds an exception to special relativity then, great, that would no longer be a law in certain edge cases. This is exactly how it worked with Einstein building on classical relativity, he uncovered that in certain circumstances classical mechanics breaks down (e.g. when you’re travelling very fast) and you need a new treatment.

The challenge is that the obscurity of those edge cases makes them hard to find and even harder to take advantage of technologically. Nobody is saying anything is impossible, but there are degrees of difficulty here similar to running 100m in 9.5 seconds versus running it in 6 seconds.
Click to expand...

There seems to be a bit of snowballed misunderstanding of that whole chain of chat, which has now led to people vehemently arguing specific runaway details that were never really claimed.

It wasn't 'faster than the speed of light' for example, it was 'close to the speed of light', if you go back to the first post.

The principle of consistently evolving, both in technology and in understanding though, just can not be argued. I've seen people claim 'what you are arguing is theoretically impossible'. A, that is not what I am arguing, B, see the thing about theory is... the clue is in the word.

But as I keep saying, people are arguing detail of their choice, because they won't discuss a principle they disagree with, and it is just being obtuse.

The reality is, the period we are talking about is but a second is the grand scheme of things. What we don't know now, we can't claim humanity won't ever know, we can't do, we can't determine we will never do. That has always been the case, and always will be. Or also, that another life form, if it might exist in the vastness of it all, won't do it before we do.
 
Marklr said:
But...nobody believes that we understand everything. Nobody.
The time t0 start believing in things is when we have the evidence. We have zero evidence of life beyond our planet.
Click to expand...

If we only believed what we saw evidence of, we would have never evolved as a species. Both in science and society. Many laws and facts we know today had no evidence, until they did. They still existed and were considered in some way or another, before they could be understood, never mind proven.

Just for clarity that does not mean I think the Americans are keeping alien visitors or technology secret from us all or anything like that btw
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
Do you believe with absolute certainty that nothing we will encounter anywhere in the universe in the future will be able to travel faster than the speed of light? Without even a scintilla of doubt?
Click to expand...
Depends what you mean by travel I suppose.

If you mean moving from one place to another then I would say there could well be discoveries that would enable that to occur through non conventional means and therefore not requiring the speed of light to be broken…

Unified field theory has attempted to explain everything but hasn’t yet managed to do so since there are still many aspects of our universe that defy explanation…….which must mean there are pieces to the puzzle we don’t have or don’t understand…..it would be difficult for anyone to say very much with a degree of certainty. Without adding a caveat regarding the state of current scientific knowledge
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top