Pentagon releases UFO footage

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 is completely wrong either:
Click to expand...

Scientific methodology isn't about about right and wrong. It's about putting out theory based on experimental evidence. And based on that experimental evidence it is open for anyone, even you, to interpret that data.

Einstein he wasn't right or wrong neither was Bohr nor anyone else.
 
Edinho said:
Scientific methodology isn't about about right and wrong. It's about putting out theory based on experimental evidence. And based on that experimental evidence it is open for anyone, even you, to interpret that data.

Einstein he wasn't right or wrong neither was Bohr nor anyone else.
Click to expand...
That's what I'm saying. There's no absolute truth in Science with regards to predictability. It's called the problem of induction. You can't accurately use science to claim something is absolutely impossible like the way Screech was using it to deny the existence of something being able to defy the "law" of gravity. The most we can say is according to our understanding. There's absolutely no reason why a civilisation with over 500,000 years of technological advancement would not be able to breach the limitations set by our own understanding of things.
 
I couldn't help but notice that on the first 2 videos, both of the aircraft taking the clip were at exactly the same height.

On the last vid, you can see the distance to target coming down. Seemed a bit slow for something supposedly "really moving".
 
ethan said:
That's what I'm saying. There's no absolute truth in Science with regards to predictability. It's called the problem of induction. You can't accurately use science to claim something is absolutely impossible like the way Screech was using it to deny the existence of something being able to defy the "law" of gravity. The most we can say is according to our understanding. There's absolutely no reason why a civilisation with over 500,000 years of technological advancement would not be able to breach the limitations set by our own understanding of things.
Click to expand...

At the risk of being somewhat exomorphic, could there be possibly very few (If any) grounds why any significantly more advanced technological entity civilization would bother interacting with humans? Apart from curiosity or entertainment value due to boredom.

Edit. You may recognise the question as kin to an old theme of the ancients (E.g.. Greeks) - 'The gods care nothing for men'.
 
Last edited:
ethan said:
That's what I'm saying. There's no absolute truth in Science with regards to predictability. It's called the problem of induction. You can't accurately use science to claim something is absolutely impossible like the way Screech was using it to deny the existence of something being able to defy the "law" of gravity. The most we can say is according to our understanding. There's absolutely no reason why a civilisation with over 500,000 years of technological advancement would not be able to breach the limitations set by our own understanding of things.
Click to expand...

I'm not using science to claim something is absolutely impossible.

I am saying, it is impossible to have both anti-gravity, and the theory of general relativity be correct both at the same time - both cannot be right, general relativity doesn't allow for anti-gravity.

If you discover or invent anti-gravity that works, fine. However, in doing so you prove general relativity wrong, which creates the most enormous problem. Such as how the vast majority of what we can see and test in nature, strongly supports the theory, so getting around it is extremely difficult.
 
New findings more often qualify the scope of previous models, theories and laws than demolish them wholesale. Even on practical grounds continuing applied use of Newtons laws to mechanics for most on-earth mechanical problem-solving matters above the quantum scale is accurate enough and more efficient to perform.

Edit. Besides the practice of belief revision and update is normal scientific practice. Over-fixity of belief and the imagined emotional or conceptual inconvenience of any change to it is a luxury only a non-scientist can afford to indulge in. It's more a consumer / 'retail' problem than that of a practicing producer.
 
Last edited:
Science is, hopefully, a process of becoming less wrong over time. Let's say I come up with a theory. I design experiments specifically to disprove it. If I can't, I try again and again until I run out of ways to try and disprove it. Then I share it with my mates/colleagues and they all try and disprove it. Then I might publish it and the wider scientific community tries to disprove it. Etc. Eventually, it may be widely accepted. Until some aliens pop down and disprove it before you can say, "Mork calling Orsen". As RxR says, they are usually small incremental shifts rather than complete rejection/replacement.

In this case, surely we are talking about something that appears to defy gravity. We have helicopters that appear to defy gravity. So all we are really saying is we don't understand the upward force that offsets gravitational acceleration, rather than blowing gravity and Einstein to smithereens.
 
Is it a bird, is it a plane or is it a mk10 jet? That is the real question.

So once we get away from the stigma of the little green men it’s surprising and also interesting the level of dialogue/ideas or theories that can be shared without fear of ridicule.

Keep it up.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
and then he helped Spielberg with Close Encounters Of The Third Kind as an expert.
Click to expand...

"The most dramatic of Hynek’s classifications, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, would, of course, become the title of a Steven Spielberg movie released in 1977. O'Connell reports that Hynek was paid $1,000 for the use of the title, another $1,000 for the rights to use stories from the book and $1,500 for three days of technical consulting—hardly a windfall by Hollywood standards. He also had a brief cameo in the film, playing an awestruck scientist when the alien craft comes into close view."


There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that UFO's do exist and they are not of an earthly origin. Some of them are but some of them are not. Spielberg is in the know of how governments cover this up.
 
One Vision said:
There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that UFO's do exist and they are not of an earthly origin. Some of them are but some of them are not. Spielberg is in the know of how governments cover this up.
Click to expand...

Is it not a little small minded to think our silent bit of rock in space is a hotspot for Alien activity.
 
sityeuropa said:
Is it not a little small minded to think our silent bit of rock in space is a hotspot for Alien activity.
Click to expand...

Why would it be? Particularly since it isn't a "silent bit of rock in space".

Assuming that some hypothetical alien civilisation with magic or technology so advanced that they can travel between star systems in a practical way became aware of us, why wouldn't they investigate? If they have enough curiousity to explore, they'd have enough curiousity to investigate. Whether life as intelligent as humans is rare or common or anywhere in between, we'd still be a unique case and therefore of interest to (at the very least) researchers amongst those other people who work in relevant fields. Biology, geology, whatever.

Even if our knowledge and technology is laughably primitive compared to theirs, it would still be of interest to some of their historians. It would be like human historians today having the chance to observe early hominins inventing the shaping of flint to make tools and weapons or weaving. Or the earliest human writing. Or listening to ancient philosophers deducing and debating how the world around them worked or inventing geometry. People like that would go to a lot more trouble than a quick trip in a comfortable spaceship for a chance like that.
 
Screeeech said:
I'm not using science to claim something is absolutely impossible.

I am saying, it is impossible to have both anti-gravity, and the theory of general relativity be correct both at the same time - both cannot be right, general relativity doesn't allow for anti-gravity.

If you discover or invent anti-gravity that works, fine. However, in doing so you prove general relativity wrong, which creates the most enormous problem. Such as how the vast majority of what we can see and test in nature, strongly supports the theory, so getting around it is extremely difficult.
Click to expand...
General relativity isn't the be all and end all, Google unification.
 
Angilion said:
Assuming that some hypothetical alien civilisation with magic or technology so advanced that they can travel between star systems in a practical way became aware of us, why wouldn't they investigate? If they have enough curiousity to explore, they'd have enough curiousity to investigate. Whether life as intelligent as humans is rare or common or anywhere in between, we'd still be a unique case and therefore of interest to (at the very least) researchers amongst those other people who work in relevant fields. Biology, geology, whatever.
Click to expand...

That is brilliant and says everything I wanted to say.
You've got people like ma & you who believe intelligent life is very rare and more than likely didn't happen in the same period as us (Fermi Paradox) and then you've got others who think we look like the Headquarters scene in Men In Black.
 
LeMson said:
General relativity isn't the be all and end all, Google unification.
Click to expand...

No theory is the 'be all and end all' of anything, general relativity can be proven wrong at any time and replaced by a new understanding, however those are just words - actually doing that is another thing altogether.

SexyGreyFox said:
That is brilliant and says everything I wanted to say.
You've got people like ma & you who believe intelligent life is very rare and more than likely didn't happen in the same period as us (Fermi Paradox) and then you've got others who think we look like the Headquarters scene in Men In Black.
Click to expand...

For me the Fermi Paradox is the one which I find most plausible, I think it's reasonable to believe that the universe probably is packed with life of some sort or another, some of it intelligent and some of it highly-advanced, to the point we might not recognise it as life. However, intelligence would logically denote an element of curiosity - a species can't really become intelligent, or knowledgeable without being curious about it's place in the universe.

It would also make sense, that some of those civilisations would have existed for tens, to hundreds of millions of years - in that time they'd develop technology and infrastructure that we can't even imagine, all the time being fuelled by curiosity and a desire to expand, so where is everybody?

If it's possible to make a physics breakthrough (wormholes, anti-gravity, FTL, teleportation, time-travel, etc) those discoveries would logically be the result of the species in-built curiosity, because you don't just stumble upon those sorts of things by accident.

If it were true, there could be tens or hundreds of millions of civilisations who could posses such technology, and to me it seems that our planet would stand out, and so you'd think it would be reasonable that a species with technology and curiosity would have paid us a visit at some point.

Maybe those physics breakthroughs are literally impossible, maybe (it's a sobering thought) that there are millions of civilisations out there who will all burn out and die before meeting one another.
 
Angilion said:
Why would it be? Particularly since it isn't a "silent bit of rock in space".

Assuming that some hypothetical alien civilisation with magic or technology so advanced that they can travel between star systems in a practical way became aware of us, why wouldn't they investigate? If they have enough curiousity to explore, they'd have enough curiousity to investigate. Whether life as intelligent as humans is rare or common or anywhere in between, we'd still be a unique case and therefore of interest to (at the very least) researchers amongst those other people who work in relevant fields. Biology, geology, whatever.

Even if our knowledge and technology is laughably primitive compared to theirs, it would still be of interest to some of their historians. It would be like human historians today having the chance to observe early hominins inventing the shaping of flint to make tools and weapons or weaving. Or the earliest human writing. Or listening to ancient philosophers deducing and debating how the world around them worked or inventing geometry. People like that would go to a lot more trouble than a quick trip in a comfortable spaceship for a chance like that.
Click to expand...

I don't see what kind of noise we have been making to attract any visitors? Unless they are going to visit every star in the universe? Even for an advanced species that wouldn't be easy.

Did they visit Earth 200,000 years ago or 2 billion years ago. It would be 99.999% probability we missed them and they found nothing of interest.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
That is brilliant and says everything I wanted to say.
You've got people like ma & you who believe intelligent life is very rare and more than likely didn't happen in the same period as us (Fermi Paradox) and then you've got others who think we look like the Headquarters scene in Men In Black.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say I believe either way. In the post you quoted, I wrote "Whether life as intelligent as humans is rare or common or anywhere in between" because how common it is doesn't matter in this context. In general, I just don't know. I think that the size and timescale of the universe makes "like the Headquarters scene in Men In Black" extremely unlikely, but I don't rule it out completely. Maybe some form of practical interstellar travel without time dilation issues does exist somehow. Maybe there are hundreds of species of people making interstellar or intergalactic trips as casually as humans currently make trips between cities in the same country. Also, how rare is very rare? 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 is very rare indeed, but if that's the odds of a star system being the native system of intelligent life then there could be hundreds of species of intelligent life from different star systems just in the part of the universe observable from Earth. Does that still count as very rare even though the odds are 1 in 10^21?

My position is essentially "insufficient data". There's a long chain of unlikely circumstances that led to us, but we don't know how unlikely that combination is and we don't know if only that combination is required for intelligent life and we don't know...well, we don't know enough. Not even close to enough.

I think it's extremely unlikely that reality is like a piece of sci-fi showing hundreds or thousands of species of people from hundreds or thousands of planets casually travelling around the universe and with all of them having almost identical levels of intelligence. But maybe that is how it is. I don't know. Maybe Earth is a well known place and the galactic council has ruled it off limits due to the prime directive (or as a nature reserve open only to small numbers of researchers studying primitive civilisations). Maybe there's an upper limit for intelligence in life in this universe for some reason we don't understand and quite a few species have evolved to it. Maybe practical interstellar travel is impossible. Maybe there are loads of species of people as intelligent as humans but the closest ones are hundreds of light-years apart and none of them are even aware of the existence of any others let alone visit them. There's just too much we don't know. At least at the moment.
 
sityeuropa said:
I don't see what kind of noise we have been making to attract any visitors? Unless they are going to visit every star in the universe? Even for an advanced species that wouldn't be easy.

Did they visit Earth 200,000 years ago or 2 billion years ago. It would be 99.999% probability we missed them and they found nothing of interest.
Click to expand...

All true. But my reply is also true.

As for "what kind of noise we have been making to attract any visitors", that would be radio, TV, etc. I'm not saying that Coronation Street is avidly watched by an audience of thousands of billions of people around the galaxy :) Just that humans have been emitting artificial signals into space for quite a while now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom