Pentagon releases UFO footage

Screeeech said:
The law of gravitation, does not allow for the existence of anti-gravity machines, period, anomalies aside. They are impossible according to the law of gravitation.
Click to expand...

As much of a can-of-worms this is, saying impossible 'period' (bloody Americans) would assume that our (earth/human race) current known laws of physics are final and constant across the universe, which it isn't - laws have been proven to be incorrect and recent research shows/ suggests that laws are not constant throughout the universe.
Arguably, anything is possible - we just don't know how/why.

Either way, everyone seems to be missing the cryptic replies from @RxR, that almost make him out to be the next John Titor :D
 
visibleman said:
As much of a can-of-worms this is, saying impossible 'period' (bloody Americans) would assume that our (earth/human race) current known laws of physics are final and constant across the universe, which it isn't - laws have been proven to be incorrect and recent research shows/ suggests that laws are not constant throughout the universe.
Arguably, anything is possible - we just don't know how/why.

Either way, everyone seems to be missing the cryptic replies from @RxR, that almost make him out to be the next John Titor :D
Click to expand...

Which is why I'm being very specific - if you abide by the current theory of gravitation, you cannot build an anti-gravity machine, it simply cannot be designed - whichever way you look at it, it is impossible according to the current law.

However, if in future - we might be able to compute a wider range of consequences, which could succeed in overruling the original law, and if nature allowed it - you might be able to design an anti-gravity machine.

The problem is, there's no real theory, data or even a starting point - which stands up to any scrutiny, which you could use in proving the current theory of gravity wrong. That's not to say it won't happen in future, but right now - it can't be done, and as such, anybody wanting to build an anti-gravity machine, has to overcome that problem first.

This is why, anybody who says they've seen something behaving in ways which appear to defy gravity, has the most enormous problem in convincing anybody, because the implication of that discovery, combined with the burden of proof is so exponentially high.
 
Screeeech said:
I completely agree.

At the end of the day, if somebody observes something that behaves
Click to expand...
Screeeech said:
The law of gravitation, does not allow for the existence of anti-gravity machines, period, anomalies aside. They are impossible according to the law of gravitation.
Click to expand...

Who cares. A law is just an explanation applied to what we think is going on with the way things ought to behave in the future according to our current understanding. They don't prohibit anything in the sense that you are using them. They are not a final say on anything.
 
ethan said:
Who cares. A law is just an explanation applied to what we think is going on with the way things ought to behave in the future according to our current understanding. They don't prohibit anything in the sense that you are using them. They are not a final say on anything.
Click to expand...


Yup. Just because its a "law" currently doesn't mean it could change as things move forward.
 
ethan said:
Who cares. A law is just an explanation applied to what we think is going on with the way things ought to behave in the future according to our current understanding. They don't prohibit anything in the sense that you are using them. They are not a final say on anything.
Click to expand...

Well, I suppose it depends - you might not care, but the implications of discovering something which mean we have to change a law might be profound.

In the case of anti-gravity, if it was discovered - would directly and decisively prove the theory of general relativity to be false, which would disprove most of Einstein's work.

The problem with proving general relativity wrong, is that it's been tested to death and it correctly explains a vast chunk of how we view nature, and it agrees with experiment. So altering it or finding out it's wrong at this stage, is going to be very unlikely, not impossible - just very unlikely.
 
ethan said:
Who cares. A law is just an explanation applied to what we think is going on with the way things ought to behave in the future according to our current understanding. They don't prohibit anything in the sense that you are using them. They are not a final say on anything.
Click to expand...

A law isn't an explanation of anything. A law describes what happens. It doesn't explain it. That's what hypotheses and theories are for. It's a relevant distinction because being wrong about how something happens and being wrong about it happening at all are different things.

Nowadays there's a definite shortage of established laws or theories being proved fundamentally wrong. When they are proved wrong it's generally that they're been proved to be incomplete rather than fundamentally wrong. Newton's laws of motion seem to me to serve as an example. They're not strictly speaking laws because they're not absolutely correct, but they're not fundamentally wrong. They just don't account for all factors. In almost all circumstances it doesn't matter.

Screeeech said:
[..] The problem with proving general relativity wrong, is that it's been tested to death and it correctly explains a vast chunk of how we view nature, and it agrees with experiment. So altering it or finding out it's wrong at this stage, is going to be very unlikely, not impossible - just very unlikely.
Click to expand...

But it is incomplete, at least in a sense. It doesn't explain everything at every scale and every speed all the time. So there might be some wiggle room. Although I think you're right in arguing that anti-gravity would require it to be fundamentally wrong and that's very unlikely.
 
I was lax with the language.
Unlikely isn't impossible and it is not impossible for a community of scientists to believe something that is completely wrong either:

The theory that fooled Einstein
Meckel and Hutton’s predictions were based on incorrect arguments. But there are also dramatic examples of misleading evidence based on equations. For example, when Niels Bohr predicted in 1913 the correct frequencies of the specific colours of light absorbed and emitted by ionised helium, Einstein reportedly remarked: “The theory of Bohr must then be right.”

Bohr’s predictions could instantly persuade Einstein (and many others besides) because they were correct to several decimal places. But they came out of what we now know to be a deeply flawed model of the atom, in which electrons literally orbit the atomic nucleus in circles.

Bohr was lucky: despite his model being wrong in fundamental ways, it also contained some kernels of truth, just enough for his predictions about ionised helium to work out.

Electrons as tiny balls
But perhaps the most dramatic example of all concerns Arnold Sommerfeld’s development of Bohr’s model. Sommerfeld updated the model by making the electron orbits elliptical and adjusting them in accordance with Einstein’s theory of relativity. This all seemed more realistic than Bohr’s simple model.

Today we know that electrons don’t really orbit the nucleus at all. But scientists working in the early 20th century thought of electrons as very tiny balls, and assumed their motion would be comparable with the motion of actual balls.

This turned out to be a mistake: modern quantum mechanics tells us that electrons are highly mysterious and their behaviour doesn’t line up even remotely with everyday human concepts. Electrons in atoms don’t even occupy an exact position at an exact time. Such considerations are what lie behind the famous quip: “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don’t.”

So Sommerfeld’s theory had a radical misconception at its very heart. Yet, in 1916, Sommerfeld used his model as the basis for an equation that correctly describes the detailed pattern of colours of light absorbed and emitted by hydrogen. This equation is exactly the same as the one derived by Paul Dirac in 1928 using the modern theory of relativistic quantum mechanics.

This result has long been considered a shocking coincidence within the physics community, and various ongoing attempts have been made to try to understand how it could happen. Needless to say, Sommerfeld’s incredible predictive success persuaded many
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ethan said:
I was lax with the language.
Unlikely isn't impossible and it is not impossible for a community of scientists to believe something that was completely wrong either:
Click to expand...

It's not impossible for a meteorite the size of a grain of rice to fall to Earth exactly where I happen to be at the time and kill me, but it's not something I take into consideration in any way.

When was the last example of an established and widely accepted theory about how the universe works being proven fundamentally wrong?

It should be impossible for a community of scientists to believe anything to do with science. If they're applying belief to science, they're doing it wrong.
 
Screeeech said:
The problem with the pilot, is that if it's true he has such good senses, (eyesight, reaction speed, multi-tasking, decision making, etc) which we can assume is true, because of his very nature as a fighter pilot in the US navy. It does make sense to think that any account he would give would contain a high degree of accuracy.

Which in turn creates a second problem; His account of the object describes something which would clearly be tantamount to impossible.

It would have to be violating Newton's third law, the law of gravitation, the law of thermodynamics and who know's what else, in order to actually exhibit some of the claims the pilot makes, regarding the behaviour of the object.

He was either mistaken by what he saw, and in actual fact saw something completely benign in nature - totally misinterpreted it, or he's telling outright lies.
Click to expand...
This is quite an important factor that gets glossed over due to this perceived notion that people in authority or positions of trust don't lie or can't be mistaken.

What becomes plainly evident when you read the accounts from the other pilots is some glaring inconsistencies - for example, when Fravor sees the tic-tac hovering 50ft above the sea, another pilot claims the object was between 1000-3000 ft.

Interesting article here: http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-2004-uss-nimitz-tic-tac-ufo.html
 
enkoda said:
This is quite an important factor that gets glossed over due to this perceived notion that people in authority or positions of trust don't lie or can't be mistaken.

What becomes plainly evident when you read the accounts from the other pilots is some glaring inconsistencies - for example, when Fravor sees the tic-tac hovering 50ft above the sea, another pilot claims the object was between 1000-3000 ft.

Interesting article here: http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-2004-uss-nimitz-tic-tac-ufo.html
Click to expand...

That's a pretty good article, and it highlights the problems that come out time and time again with these reports, nobody is particularly interested in the actual detail. The moment you actually examine all the details exhaustively, the whole thing is riddled with inconsistencies and general falsehood, what little actual evidence remains - ends up often contradicting the statements.
 
Angilion said:
It's not impossible for a meteorite the size of a grain of rice to fall to Earth exactly where I happen to be at the time and kill me, but it's not something I take into consideration in any way.

When was the last example of an established and widely accepted theory about how the universe works being proven fundamentally wrong?

It should be impossible for a community of scientists to believe anything to do with science. If they're applying belief to science, they're doing it wrong.
Click to expand...

The example of the meteor can and has happened. Whether you take that into consideration is up to you. Take the example of Ann Hodges, the only confirmed person in history to have been hit by a meteorite, 66 years ago ;)

When was the last example of an established and widely accepted theory about how the universe works being proven fundamentally wrong?
Click to expand...
It's yet to be proven right.

It should be impossible for a community of scientists to believe anything to do with science. If they're applying belief to science, they're doing it wrong.
Click to expand...
It depends on what particular version of science the scientist ascribes to.
 
Last edited:
ethan said:
The example of the meteor can and has happened. Whether you take that into consideration is up to you. Take the example of Ann Hodges, the only confirmed person in history to have been hit by a meteorite, 66 years ago ;)
Click to expand...

Damn, there was one :) I vaguely recalled something about it, but didn't check...but she wasn't killed so I'm OK :)

It's yet to be proven right.
Click to expand...

Technically, no theory can ever be proven right. But that's not the same as being proved fundamentally wrong.
 
Rroff said:
Anton made a video just for you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7U7bVw05ds
Click to expand...

Damn, that's unlucky. Not only did they have to happen to be under where what sounds like an unusually large object exploded, they had to be exactly where a fragment of it fell and not be protected by anything substantial. I'm a bit disappointed that the video didn't have any links to a translation of the document.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom