Yet another thing we'll never know the truth about. sigh
Leading us on non-stop with "it's much much darker than anyone realizes".
US UFO Disclosure Day
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
Leading us on non-stop with "it's much much darker than anyone realizes".
That’s really the sticking point for me, the claim that “we don’t understand“ comes from people who, not to be unkind, don’t actually understand.
Those folks, who aren’t used to scientific debate, and aren’t intimately familiar with the principles and concepts, being discussed, take that debate to mean that the science is in flux, but at its core, it really isn’t.
The basic principles aren’t changing, we’re tweaking understanding in ways that seem fundamental, but don’t affect the basic physical problem of travel between the stars.
Gravitational lensing, is a great example, Einstein first proposed that matter bends the curvature of space as a consequence of Relativity. But we didn’t have any physical evidence of that aspect of relativity until the 1950s when the occultation of Mercury was first observed.
That proof was extrapolated into light being bent by galaxies, something that we observed over 50 years ago.
So yeah, we’re nibbling around at the fringes of that understanding, not rewriting the fundamentals. Dark matter. Dark energy. Two concepts that were developed to explain why the expansion of the universe doesn’t match our mathematical prediction from the observable matter.
Dark matter as an initial concept was simply normal matter that could not be observed because it wasn’t luminous. You look at our solar system for example, the sun is luminous, none of the planets really are. Neither is interstellar dust. Or gas
clouds. But those all have mass, so how much matter exists in non-observable forms?
Estimates of those ratios between observable, and non-observable, led to a construct, a mathematical construct, that postulated the existence of some form of “exotic“ matter that was neither normal matter nor luminous.
OK, we’re still working that out, but, it doesn’t change the fact of the distance between stars, the velocity needed to get there, the efficiency of propulsion, relativistic effects, or any of the limitations that preclude travel between the stars.
Wormholes may exist. Certainly, singularities exist.
But if the math is right, and it usually is, the amount of energy necessary to create a singularity is similar to the output of an entire star. It’s not something where we can fire up the Generac, and make enough electricity to open up a hole in space-time to enable travel.
Alcubierre drive is great for sci-fi - but the energy necessary to bend space that degree, simply can’t be harnessed, even with a Dyson sphere.
As I said in an earlier post, this isn’t really an engineering issue, this is a physics problem. And physics hasn’t really changed.
Last edited:
I don't think "trying harder" to understand or know will make UFOs real
In your head it will. Isn’t that what’s most important? With all this relativistic talk, that seems to be the norm these days.
I think humans want answers to certain questions and they're seeking, often overreaching. Nevertheless, curiosity is part of human nature. Can't turn that off and why would you?
People simply want to know why we are here and whether we are the only known life form in the Universe. Perfectly normal to think that. And perfectly normal to keep studying it.
Imagine if humans said "why explore the ocean, there isn't anything out there. I can see the horizon."
Imagine living in a time where you thought the Earth was the center of the Universe.
"Everything that can be invented has been invented" is widely—but erroneously—attributed to Charles H. Duell, the U.S. Commissioner of Patents in 1899
People simply want to know why we are here and whether we are the only known life form in the Universe. Perfectly normal to think that. And perfectly normal to keep studying it.
Imagine if humans said "why explore the ocean, there isn't anything out there. I can see the horizon."
Imagine living in a time where you thought the Earth was the center of the Universe.
"Everything that can be invented has been invented" is widely—but erroneously—attributed to Charles H. Duell, the U.S. Commissioner of Patents in 1899
Last edited:
1 and 2 are good as well
- When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
- The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible
Which is cute, even interesting, philosophically, but not applicable, practically, and not germane to this discussion.
There is no “science” that we can go beyond. It isn’t like breaking the “sound barrier” - as I explained earlier - that’s a horrible analogy. What “science” would you have us go beyond? Relativity? Distance? The rocket equation? Speed of light?
Quantum mechanics, as an example, predicts all sorts of odd things, but while electrons can tunnel through potential, or your iPhone wouldn’t work, you aren’t going to drive your car through a concrete barrier in a successful demonstration of tunneling and probability waves.
The “limits of the possible” are typically a matter of technology, not science, and so, it’s not the scientist that is defining those limits, it is the engineer, or politician. We can do lots of things, like land on the moon, given sufficient resources.
So, I don’t know the source of your two statements, but they’re hopelessly out of touch in this discussion.
Last edited:
I think that we can all agree that ET cannot have visited simply based upon the distances that would be involved and the lack of sufficiently fast practical methods of propulsion. Neither the physics nor the chemistry differ anywhere in our universe.
I think we can also all agree that there is probably other intelligent life in our galaxy simply based upon the numbers but it is so far away from us that we cannot observe any evidence of it nor can it of us. This is despite decades of effort by SETI to detect non-random radio signals.
If the first is true then there can be no extraterrestrial craft to observe here and what the government is releasing merely documents sightings that have not been explained.
If the second is true then it is tempting to imagine where these other intelligent beings might be found and how distant from us that might be
The files that are being released have nothing to do with alien visitors and everything to do with bizare sightings not sufficiently investigated to be explained.
So, while they are probably out there we are unlikely ever to see even a trace of them.
I think we can also all agree that there is probably other intelligent life in our galaxy simply based upon the numbers but it is so far away from us that we cannot observe any evidence of it nor can it of us. This is despite decades of effort by SETI to detect non-random radio signals.
If the first is true then there can be no extraterrestrial craft to observe here and what the government is releasing merely documents sightings that have not been explained.
If the second is true then it is tempting to imagine where these other intelligent beings might be found and how distant from us that might be
The files that are being released have nothing to do with alien visitors and everything to do with bizare sightings not sufficiently investigated to be explained.
So, while they are probably out there we are unlikely ever to see even a trace of them.
Was it not you who quoted #3 from Arthur C. Clarke
Or is there another @Astro14 ?
And both are relative to the discussion, especially #2 in sense of this thread merging faith and science.
Perhaps #1 and #2 are not really from Clarke and I am incorrect??
I did quote Arthur C. Clarke - I read all of his books when I was a kid. So, forgive me for not recognizing those two quotes, but they are exactly the kind of “we don’t know anything” misconception that I argued against this morning.
And if those are his quotes - then, again, I ask - what science limit are we going to go “a little bit beyond”?
Go a bit faster than the speed of light? Remove gravity as a force? Bend Space-Time?
What science, not technology, limit, are you suggesting that we can go “beyond”?
If you’re arguing, as I think he did, that we can go a bit beyond the current limits of engineering, of technology, then, sure, we do that all the time.
One only need look at how rapidly Apollo expanded the art of the possible (at great expense) but it’s not technology that’s limiting interstellar travel. It’s science - so, tell me how we venture into the “impossible” in that realm?
Edit: I don’t mean to be argumentative - and my quote was to say that advance tech, from here on Earth, might look fantastic - which literally means that you have trouble believing it - because of its advancement, but I don’t mean to say that limits on physics are something we can “go beyond”.
Which is why I objected to those two quotes. It just ain’t that simple as the “the learned scientist is wrong”. That’s what my previous post was about - misinterpretation of scientific advancement and debate.
Last edited:
Yes I think that is likely all correct.
The only other thing I can think of which no one would take seriously and no one does are there being Ultra-terrestrials. Or someone figured out something with the Eistein-Rosen bridge (wormhole) which Ashton Forbes claims they have achieved (MH370) video.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2023
- Messages
- 329
Dark is like cold: it doesn't exist. Absence of light and absence of heat.
There was an interview conducted by Jesse Michels with Eric Weinstein and Hal Puthoff. Weinstein brought up a great point in regard to this topic. He was saying where are all the scientists associated with this stuff? He said he can't see how this is true unless the private aerospace companies are hiding a breakthrough in physics from Academia. Hal said, while that is true, that's not the case, implying they did and that's what the secrecy ultimatley is about. It's not about aliens, it's about a breakthrough. Do I believe that? No, I don't.
There simply hasn't been a smoking gun and there may never be.
There simply hasn't been a smoking gun and there may never be.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2023
- Messages
- 329
Let's imagine for awhile: time travel is found to be possible? Quantum teleportation (beam me up, Scotty) has been accomplished. Or more things that have been portrayed by science fiction books or movies.
Not taking a side or arguing at all. Most people only know #3, not #1 and #2.
Honestly I've been agreeing with your statements in this thread.
I just poke a little fun at @buster 's enthusiasm for the subject matter! He's after it if you follow. I am starting to depend on him for hourly updates.
I just want to see, but I am too busy to chase! (no pun intended)
Well, in that case, I apologize for coming off too strong. I am enthusiastic as well, but in a slightly different way.
All good.
Mea culpa.
MolaKule
Staff member
Since we are discussing antigravity/modified gravity here is a discussion:
Why Does Mass Create Gravity? by Leonard Susskind.
GR, the Equivalence Principle, Quantum Mechanical Effects
Why Does Mass Create Gravity? by Leonard Susskind.
GR, the Equivalence Principle, Quantum Mechanical Effects