UAP/UFO thread - Non-Human Intelligences

[halfcenturyup]

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?

With me it's Victorian era chimneys and gas holders. As well as ancient trees, of course. Oh, and filling in canals ....

 

[halfcenturyup]

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.

 

[Coatigan]

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.

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.

 

[halfcenturyup]

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.

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.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

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.

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.

 

[Marklr]

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.

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.

 

[halfcenturyup]

But...nobody believes that we understand everything. Nobody.

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?

 

[Coatigan]

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.

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.

 

[Coatigan]

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.

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

 

[DenisLawBackHeel74]

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?

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