UFO's real or not?

[BulgarianPride]

Look mate. I understand far more than you give me credit, and such, i can tell you your simplistic argument does not hold.

Our biochemistry here governs our "laws of reality". This universe has infinity many possibilities it provides infinitively many variations of life forms. Assuming they are all like us is too simplistic. They are not all like us, they could not even be made out of the same atoms we are. Like I said in my above post, it is assumed silicon can support life just like carbon does on earth. A silicon life form does not have anything in common with us, it's "laws of reality" would be totally different.

Yes it will have gravity to shape it, it will need energy but that is pretty much it.

Again why do you assume i am talking about a different universe? The "laws" of the universe are constant through out, however the possibles are endless.

I am not even addressing the biggest fault in your argument that is there is no such thing as "laws of reality".

Oh. my. god.

You've done it again. You've completely misunderstood. I'm sorry, but you have. I'm not going to reply until you assimilate what I've presented to you.

You are failing to understand me, so i am done. Your posts are based on little knowledge of the "laws" of the universe and the "laws of reality". Your argument simply does not hold. I don't think I've misunderstood, that does not happen every often.


Sorry OP for going off, but it is all about aliens so i guess it ok? :)

 

[zangatangring]

You are failing to understand me, so i am done. Your posts are based on little knowledge of the "laws" of the universe and the "laws of reality". Your argument simply does not hold. I don't think I've misunderstood, that does not happen every often.


Sorry OP for going off, but it is all about aliens so i guess it ok? :)

Looks like the facade has collapsed. I suspected your arrogance as soon as you denounced any opinion different from yours. I won't make a malicious comment regarding yours or my intelligence/knowledge. However, I will say that I used to have the articulation and logical sense that you did, then I turned 14.

Is there anyone who's astute and perceptive that wishes to continue this argument?

 

[ElanJo]

Re: UFOs real or not?

Don't have a problem mate.

I was working in Doncaster, it was early in the morning and it was a bright summers day. Someone said to me have you seen that pointing up to a passenger plane flying over us heading east. It was high up so I presume it was going at cruising speed around 500 MPH. Along side the plane, following it was a shiney silver ball. It was quite clear to see. The plane went over me and I watched it until I couldn't see it anymore, maybe for about 20 mins. So very roughly I presumed the plane and object had done around 150 miles. I was delivering to a drop and went into the building, told the person working there what I had just seen and came out about 20 seconds later, looked up and the object (not the plane) was directly above my head. So No1 a silver ball can fly at the same speed as a commercial jet without any apparent contrail, No2 It is apparently guided in some way as it tracked a plane, No3 It manages to travel around 150 in about 20 seconds and comes to a perfect still hover.... I don't know of anything in this world that could do that....This was in about 2003 and as far as I'm aware our technology still relies on wings and burning fuel for propulsion. The most advanced technology we have is rumored to be the Aurora project which is a scam jet which has wings, huge contrail.....this wasnt that...

I saw what sounds like the exact same thing about 10 years ago. Tho it was at night and there was no stationary hovering.
It was following the plane very closely and wasn't much bigger than the cockpit.
I know literally nothing about planes so for all I know it could have been some kind of refuelling thing

 

[BulgarianPride]

Oh. my. god.

You've done it again. You've completely misunderstood. I'm sorry, but you have. I'm not going to reply until you assimilate what I've presented to you.

You are failing to understand me, so i am done. Your posts are based on little knowledge of the "laws" of the universe and the "laws of reality". Your argument simply does not hold. I don't think I've misunderstood, that does not happen every often.


Sorry OP for going off, but it is all about aliens so i guess it ok? :)

Looks like the facade has collapsed. I suspected your arrogance as soon as you denounced any opinion different from yours. I won't make a malicious comment regarding yours or my intelligence/knowledge. However, I will say that I used to have the articulation and logical sense that you did, then I turned 14.

Knowledge can be learned.

I am definitely not arrogant hopefully I've not presented myself as an arrogant bastard. I suspected you are young and naive and should have stopped. Let me guess you are 16?

 

[zangatangring]

You are failing to understand me, so i am done. Your posts are based on little knowledge of the "laws" of the universe and the "laws of reality". Your argument simply does not hold. I don't think I've misunderstood, that does not happen every often.


Sorry OP for going off, but it is all about aliens so i guess it ok? :)

Looks like the facade has collapsed. I suspected your arrogance as soon as you denounced any opinion different from yours. I won't make a malicious comment regarding yours or my intelligence/knowledge. However, I will say that I used to have the articulation and logical sense that you did, then I turned 14.

Knowledge can be learned.

I am deferentially not arrogant hopefully I've not presented myself as an arrogant bastard. I suspected you are young and naive and should have stopped. Let me guess you are 16?

Knowledge can be learnt but intelligence cannot.

I am not the same age as you. Want to prove me wrong? Prove that you have the intelligence to remain reticent.

 

[ElanJo]

"however life and its evolution is shaped by its environment."

You must've misunderstood my statement, as this proves my point unequivocally.

In a universe (I.E. the 'environment) that adheres to laws such as "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction", the water the universe contains will always take it's shape, because it's a liquid. For Life to exist as we define it (ya know, reproduction, growth sentiency etc...), it has to be in this universe. Therefore, life will always assume the shape of the universe. This shape was sculpted by the same artist. The laws of reality. Life will always mirror the laws of reality and hence, reflect the laws of entropy (I.E. there's an opposite to every extremity).

It's not a coincidence that every single entity humans have encountered adhere to these truths.

The universe is a liquid?

The environment on earth is unique. You will not find another planet with the exact same environment, thus the chances of intelligent beings thinking and acting like us is very slim. War as far we know is a unique trait for beings on this earth.

I don't know why you've assumed i was talking about another universe...

No, although the message in my text is convoluted, it's there and it's valid.

I'm stating that you're notions could only exist in an alternate universe because your notions don't adhere to the rules of this universe.

We're definitely getting somewhere. Planets that are able to harbour life are homogeneous because they have to accommodate for the laws of the universe. So, although a planet that is able to harbour life may not be directly analogous to earth, it will have the intrinsic essential traits that earth has (E.g. a source of nutrition). This is because, by the law of the universe, such must be (I.E. all living things require energy etc...). From here on in, it couldn't be more explicit, since it's known and proven that planets who harbour live must possess these homogeneous traits, it follows that all living things possess homogeneous traits that reflect the planet's life harbouring traits. In essence, the life harbouring traits were shaped by the laws of reality (such as entropy). So it follows that it's implausible for life to form without possessing these traits.

Ask any unbiased and intelligent party to adjudicate this argument and I promise you I'll be proved right. I'm standing on the shoulders of giants with this argument (Isaac Newton especially).

I repeat, It's not a coincidence that every single entity humans have encountered adhere to these truths.

I'm unbiased and can tie my own shoelaces but I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing.

Are you arguing that the laws of the universe make war inevitable for all lifeforms within the universe?

 

[BulgarianPride]

Looks like the facade has collapsed. I suspected your arrogance as soon as you denounced any opinion different from yours. I won't make a malicious comment regarding yours or my intelligence/knowledge. However, I will say that I used to have the articulation and logical sense that you did, then I turned 14.

Knowledge can be learned.

I am deferentially not arrogant hopefully I've not presented myself as an arrogant bastard. I suspected you are young and naive and should have stopped. Let me guess you are 16?

Knowledge can be learnt but intelligence cannot.

I am not the same age as you. Want to prove me wrong? Prove that you have the intelligence to remain reticent.

Look mate this is a discussion forum. If i want to post my opinion i will. Keep on trying to insult my intelligence, i will not bite. I've had good discussions in off topic, and i will continue posting my opinions to encourage the discussion.

 

[zangatangring]

Knowledge can be learned.

I am deferentially not arrogant hopefully I've not presented myself as an arrogant bastard. I suspected you are young and naive and should have stopped. Let me guess you are 16?

Knowledge can be learnt but intelligence cannot.

I am not the same age as you. Want to prove me wrong? Prove that you have the intelligence to remain reticent.

Look mate this is a discussion forum. If i want to post my opinion i will. Keep on trying to insult my intelligence, i will not bite. I've had good discussions in off topic, and i will continue posting my opinions to encourage the discussion.

I never instigate any verbal abuse. I merely retaliate. If anyone comes and observes this discussion, I'm sure they'll corroborate that you were the first to be agitated and vindictive.

I never had the intention of insulting your intelligence and never did. Moreover, I never denounced your right to an opinion. I was merely expressing my opinion about your opinion. You retreated from the argument. Now, can you just stop posting extraneous drivel? It's getting childish now. If you have any unrelated material just pm or post related stuff.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

If I might interject. I can understand what you're both trying to say, but I have to say I think BP is right.

You can't assume we share common universal properties with other life forms when we have such a small sample size to elect from (one Earth). The argument that all beings on Earth share a penchant for war doesn't allow you to make an assumption that all beings in our Universe do so.

In fact there are very few things you can assume on a 'Universal level'. It's not even true that other intelligent life have to follow our laws of physics. They may have become adapted to such a highly intelligent degree that they know of laws that defy what we know to be physical truth. They could pop in and out of other Universes where our laws of entropy don't apply.

We simply don't know enough. We can make some assumptions of what we deem to be 'statistically likely' but we could never for certain state a single property we'd share with beings from elsewhere in the Universe. It's just not possible.

Sometimes the answer is that you don't know everything. Sometimes the answer is that you don't know anything.

 

[zangatangring]

If I might interject. I can understand what you're both trying to say, but I have to say I think BP is right.

You can't assume we share common universal properties with other life forms when we have such a small sample size to elect from (one Earth). The argument that all beings on Earth share a penchant for war doesn't allow you to make an assumption that all beings in our Universe do so.

In fact there are very few things you can assume on a 'Universal level'. It's not even true that other intelligent life have to follow our laws of physics. They may have become adapted to such a highly intelligent degree that they know of laws that defy what we know to be physical truth. They could pop in and out of other Universes where our laws of entropy don't apply.

We simply don't know enough. We can make some assumptions of what we deem to be 'statistically likely' but we could never for certain state a single property we'd share with beings from elsewhere in the Universe. It's just not possible.

Sometimes the answer is that you don't know everything. Sometimes the answer is that you don't know anything.

That, my friend, is a perfectly valid argument. Mine was as well. However, BP's logical deductions are fallacious. His evidence supporting his claims are false. The aspects of BP's argument that I claimed were unequivocally false was not his hypothesis but his logic. It was absolute nonsense and I honestly could've deduced better at 13 years.