1669 replies to this topic

[badeskov]

Quote

They might call it something els, but the laws of physics are the same.

Yes, no matter where they come from they still have to obey the same basic laws of physics as we do. And the claim that "who knows what an Alien civilization millions year ahead of us can do?" doesn't really cut it. We don't know what they can do, for sure, but we do know one thing they cannot do, and that is to break the laws of physics, which in turn also means that they have all the same barriers as we do.

I will concede that maybe they can generate a worm hole, despite the fact it would take all the energy generated by a large sun to open and maintain for any reasonable amount of time. I find it very, very doubtful, but it has not been proven to be impossible, so to option is there. And maybe there are others. But in general the theories we currently have in place describes the observable universe very well and they don't leave very many loop holes.    

Quote

And Skyeagle were are you when some of your believer buddies scream - Government cover up!?

If all this, as you claim, "evidence" that was released by the government many years ago is so easy to understand and come to ONE CONCLUSION ONLY, aliens on Earth,  how come that very few academics are writing papers for refereed journals about alien craft or their occupants. How come this is not thought in schools world wide!??  For after all, there could hardly be any discovery more dramatic or important than visitors from other worlds.
Confronted with this, the UFO experts usually take refuge in two possible explanations:

(1) The material that would be convincing proof has been collected and secreted away by the U.S. government. While endlessly appealing, this is an argument from ignorance (tantamount to saying “we cant show you good evidence because we havent got it), and perforce implies that every government in the world has efficiently squirreled away all alien artifacts. Unless, of course, the extraterrestrials only visit the U.S., where retrieval of material that falls to Earth is supposedly a perfected art form.

(2) Scientists have simply refused to look carefully at this phenomenon. In other words, the scientists should blame themselves for the fact that the visitation hypothesis has failed to sway them.

Which one do you prefer, or is there a third one..?  

And if I may just add a quick observation. From a scientific point of view, any evidence in existence that cannot be provided for independent scrutiny is non-existent and cannot be included! And no matter how many eye witness reports are shown, they are not evidence either.

Best,
Badeskov

[contactismade]

I would have to agree with your wormhole comment, badeskov.  I think with the study going on into zero point energy right now that a solution to the problem of power might actually get solved.  Maybe not in our lifetime but it probably will happen none the less.  sixty years ago scientists for the most part agreed that in a combustion reaction you couldn't generate enought thrust to lift a decent size module into space.  We all know how that ended, so its not to far out there to suggest that our best minds will come up with an answer.

[Mind_Freak]

Quote

Yes, no matter where they come from they still have to obey the same basic laws of physics as we do. And the claim that "who knows what an Alien civilization millions year ahead of us can do?" doesn't really cut it. We don't know what they can do, for sure, but we do know one thing they cannot do, and that is to break the laws of physics, which in turn also means that they have all the same barriers as we do.

I'd have to agree -- but still, there's this side of me that is wondering if civilizations that are millions of years (if not more) more technologically advanced than us could develope certain methods of "hacking" the universe... Say, in the same way people hack video games.... Just a thought.

[chaoszerg]

Quote

I'd have to agree -- but still, there's this side of me that is wondering if civilizations that are millions of years (if not more) more technologically advanced than us could develope certain methods of "hacking" the universe... Say, in the same way people hack video games.... Just a thought.

I'm not sure myself but since you cant break the law's of physics maybe you can bend them.

[Unlimited]

Quote

I'm not sure myself but since you cant break the law's of physics maybe you can bend them.

maybe you can bend them; or maybe we dont fully understand universal physics completely?...

[dmurdock36]

you cant break the laws of physics, whatever these laws were thought up by man and not to hurt anybody's feelings but we arent the brightest bunch of people everything we know about physics could and probably is wrong.

[unkletae]

Quote

Yes, no matter where they come from they still have to obey the same basic laws of physics as we do. And the claim that "who knows what an Alien civilization millions year ahead of us can do?" doesn't really cut it. We don't know what they can do, for sure, but we do know one thing they cannot do, and that is to break the laws of physics, which in turn also means that they have all the same barriers as we do.

I will concede that maybe they can generate a worm hole, despite the fact it would take all the energy generated by a large sun to open and maintain for any reasonable amount of time. I find it very, very doubtful, but it has not been proven to be impossible, so to option is there. And maybe there are others. But in general the theories we currently have in place describes the observable universe very well and they don't leave very many loop holes.    
And if I may just add a quick observation. From a scientific point of view, any evidence in existence that cannot be provided for independent scrutiny is non-existent and cannot be included! And no matter how many eye witness reports are shown, they are not evidence either.

Best,
Badeskov

You laid out a law that cannot be broken, but yet in your very next paragraph you concede to an "idea" that would be consider fantasy.

I understand what you're saying, but my point was how can we even try to understand what they can do by science when we have barely left the atmosphere by the same science???(people not probe)

And if them being more advanced then us because their civilization being older is not a good argument, then is that mean we are never going to progress any further in science with more time??? Some  Breakthroughs happen by mistakes and precise science had nothing to do with it. Also, within our known science there have been anomlies that defied logic. (living organisms in thermal vents, artifacts found that dates to a time that would be considerd impossible, and viruses, and alledged wormholes)

[skyeagle409]

Quote

name='chaoszerg' date='Nov 15 2006, 10:04 PM' post='1428350']
I'm not sure myself but since you cant break the law's of physics maybe you can bend them.

I agree and I demonstrated such a case with an experiment. Take a piece of plywood about 4 inches square and slam a nail on one corner as close to the edge as possible. Now, tell someone that you can balance that plywood on the nail that is installed in that corner. If someone tells you it is impossible, simply tell them that it can be done by installing a weight at the opposite corner from the nail. No doubt they will really scoff at you now but you can do so without bending the laws of physics, you just use the laws of physics to your advantage.

Anyway, it was just a matter of knowing exactly where and how to place the counter-weight and in doing so, the wood will balance itself on that nail and not tip over. I've used that technique in building small model sailboats that balance themselves on their rudders and needless to say, they get a lot of attention. My next project will involve biplanes that balance themselves on their tailwheels.

With that in mind, it is just a matter of the aliens using the laws of physics for their own benefit  in the same manner and I am sorry to say that mankind is no where near the point of advanced technology of  exterrestrial civilizations that are millions of years or more advanced than mankind and the proof lies in the fact that mankind still depends on jet propulsion and chemical rockets.

[badeskov]

Quote

You laid out a law that cannot be broken, but yet in your very next paragraph you concede to an "idea" that would be consider fantasy.

A wormhole is currently a fantasy, but from a physics point of view possible and to the best of our knowledge would not break any laws of physics. I am not trying to denounce faster-than-light travel or other exotic theories, no matter how implausible I might find them. The point I was trying to get across was that you cannot just say "but they are so advanced, who knows what they can do?" when the science of some claims are countered as not possible, because of the laws of physics.

Quote

I understand what you're saying, but my point was how can we even try to understand what they can do by science when we have barely left the atmosphere by the same science???(people not probe)

While I would say that we cannot even try to understand how far they have progressed, in the same breath I would also say they we know the bounderies within which they have to have progressed, i.e. the laws of physics.

Quote

And if them being more advanced then us because their civilization being older is not a good argument, then is that mean we are never going to progress any further in science with more time??? Some  Breakthroughs happen by mistakes and precise science had nothing to do with it. Also, within our known science there have been anomlies that defied logic. (living organisms in thermal vents, artifacts found that dates to a time that would be considerd impossible, and viruses, and alledged wormholes)

I certainly didn't mean to imply that a older civilization wouldn't be more advanced. There could be a slim chance that they stagnated, but in my opinion chances are that they are more advanced.

Best,
Badeskov

Edited by badeskov, 15 November 2006 - 11:54 PM.

[rapid7]

I can't think of any viable way how the aliens found us. Funny that..

Yep, Scientists take the laws of science very seriously indeed- for example Stephen Hawkings latest theory on black holes violated the Law of conservation of matter-

The amount of matter before and after the reaction in question remains the same, no matter what, according to this law of science.

To solve this problem- he proposed there may be many different versions of the universe and the only real one, is the one without any black holes.   

To be fair I think he has now retracted this, but still…c'mon

Edited by rapid7, 16 November 2006 - 12:06 AM.

[unkletae]

Quote

A wormhole is currently a fantasy, but from a physics point of view possible and to the best of our knowledge would not break any laws of physics. I am not trying to denounce faster-than-light travel or other exotic theories, no matter how implausible I might find them. The point I was trying to get across was that you cannot just say "but they are so advanced, who knows what they can do?" when the science of some claims are countered as not possible, because of the laws of physics.
While I would say that we cannot even try to understand how far they have progressed, in the same breath I would also say they we know the bounderies within which they have to have progressed, i.e. the laws of physics.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that a older civilization wouldn't be more advanced. There could be a slim chance that they stagnated, but in my opinion chances are that they are more advanced.

Best,
Badeskov

Thanks for explaining your side. If any of the questions were stupid, I would like to thank you for not making me into the village idiot.

[badeskov]

Quote

Thanks for explaining your side. If any of the questions were stupid, I would like to thank you for not making me into the village idiot.

My pleasure indeed, your questions were not stupid at all - I guess it was my comments that weren't clear enough to start with And we are not here to mock each other; at least where I come from it isn't really productive in the long run.  

Best,
Badeskov

[badeskov]

Quote

I can't think of any viable way how the aliens found us. Funny that..

That's a tough one indeed and I guess we will never know. I think Hazzard put it very well:

Quote

Excellent observations UNKNOWN DEAD! So, in the end, where does this leave us? As I was thinking about SETI and our "radio signature bubble" reaching out in to space, I can only think of these few possibilities.  

- Either the aliens has already found us and has answered back (the message is on its way?)

- They are ignoring us for some reason.

- They are less technologically advanced than we are (hasnt looked yet).

- ET simply doesnt exist... Not very satisfying I know, and there is no way to really know which choice is more likely correct!

Unless ET decide to tell us how he tracked us down (if he did), well, then any guess is equally good.

Quote

Yep, Scientists take the laws of science very seriously indeed- for example Stephen Hawkings latest theory on black holes violated the Law of conservation of matter-

The amount of matter before and after the reaction in question remains the same, no matter what, according to this law of science.

To solve this problem- he proposed there may be many different versions of the universe and the only real one, is the one without any black holes.   

To be fair I think he has now retracted this, but still…c'mon

Yes, after 30 years he retracted. The problem was that most scientists believed that he was wrong, but nobody could track down the flaw in his math. But despite it's flaws, that is how we progress.

Please allow me to take a couple of snippets from here http://www.serve.com/mahood/lazar/critiq.htm

It is a critical view of Robert Lazar's credentials and claims. While that is not the essence of the present discussion, Dr. David L. Morgan describes the way science works very well indeed.

Quote

I want to take some time here to talk about scientific progress, because there is one common objection to my critique of Lazar’s scenario. People will often say “Modern science could be wrong. Newton was wrong! Lazar could be right!” Yes. That is correct. In fact, modern science almost certainly IS “wrong.” But the only real test of a theory in science is that it works. Newton’s Laws worked. They still do in most situations. Einstein’s theories are better – they are more accurate and they work in more situations. New theories will continue to come along that are more precise and more generally applicable than the older theories, and these new theories will be tested by experiments until they supplant the old ones. That is how science has progressed for the past 400 years.

So it is not enough to SAY  that modern science is wrong. You have to demonstrate that you have something that is better. And that “better” theory needs to do everything that the old theory does, and then do more. And chances are that it won’t completely turn the old theory on it’s head – because we already know that the old theories work too well. It is not possible to create a new theory until you understand the old one well enough to present a coherent alternative. Calling current science “total nonsense” is nice rhetoric, and no doubt convincing to many non-scientists who feel alienated from science and look on scientists as a kind of modern priesthood of arcane knowledge. But science is a process – not a body of knowledge.

From his statement above he really has 3 points to bring across, which are interconnected:

1) But science is a process – not a body of knowledge. Meaning that science is not to fanatically maintain status quo and the knowledge we currently have, but rather to poke as many holes in what we have now to be able to progress.

2) Coming from 1), it is certain we know a lot about the physics of the world we live in, but it is also certain the we don't know enough - even by a long shot. That doesn't mean that a new theory will complete revolutionize and overthrow what we have now, it would rather add to it and be able to explain more of what we currently cannot explain.

3) How do you add to what have now? You formulate a new theory and ask others to "shoot it down".

The latter is happening every single hour of every single day in science, albeit not on the scale that Hawking managed. But he put something forth that blatantly was mocking what we knew and believed in, but nobody could tell where he was wrong. In the end, he discovered that himself. But the fact that nobody could poke a hole in his theory made sure a lot of people kept looking at it, and that is the very foundation of scientific progression.  

Finally, scientists treasure the laws of science, as that is the only way to "keep a score board". If scientists didn't follow very few, albeit very strict rules on how to take results and how to report said results, it would be impossible to compare methodologies and results across groups, not to mention countries and continents.  

Duh, this post became a bit longer than expected - sorry about that

Best,
Badeskov

Edited by badeskov, 16 November 2006 - 04:50 AM.

[skyeagle409]

Quote

name='badeskov' date='Nov 15 2006, 08:34 PM' post='1428235']
And if I may just add a quick observation. From a scientific point of view, any evidence in existence that cannot be provided for independent scrutiny is non-existent and cannot be included! And no matter how many eye witness reports are shown, they are not evidence either.
Best,
Badeskov

Actually, radar data that corroborates eyewitness accounts is considered evidence in the same manner as information from an aircraft's Black Box is considered corroborating evidence in the world of aviation during the course of an investigation. An incident that involved the crash of a B-737, which was on final approach to LAX, was a prime example where Black Box evidence was used to corroborate eyewitness accounts.


*   Physical Evidence: If UFOs are real, shouldn't they produce some real physical effects?
James McDonald, Statement on UFOs to U.S. House Committee on Science and Aeronatics, 1968 Symposium on UFOs:

"The answer is that they do. There are rather well-authenticated cases spanning a wide variety of "physical effects."


*   Sturrock Report -Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports
Peter A. Sturrock, Stanford University, in Journal for Scientific Exploration

"The purpose of this four-day workshop was to review purported physical evidence associated with UFO reports, with a view to assessing whether the further acquisition and investigation of such evidence is likely to help solve the UFO problem, namely the determination of the cause or causes of these reports."

*   The Condon Report: Direct Physical Evidence
Roy Craig, The Condon Report

"Several types of physical effects have been presented as evidence that an object of unusual nature had been present at a given location. Such effects consist of: markings on ground, vegetation, or objects with which an UFO, as something from an UFO, reportedly made direct or indirect physical contact; material residue allegedly deposited from or by an UPO; articles or portions of articles manufactured by intelligent beings, but reportedly not produced by known cultures."

*   Physical Analyses in Ten Cases of Unexplained Aerial Objects with Material Samples
Jacques F. Vallee, Journal of Scientific Exploration

"A survey of ten cases of unexplained aerial phenomena accompanied by material residues shows a broad distribution of natural elements, many of which are metallic in nature. They can be roughly described as belonging in two categories: "light materials" of high conductivity such as aluminum, and "slag-like materials" reminiscent of industrial byproducts. Most of those cases under consideration strive to meet four criteria: 1) the literature gives sufficient ground to support the fact that an unusual aerial phenomenon occurred, 2) the circumstances of the actual recovery of the specimen are reported, 3) there is data to suggest that the specimen is in fact linked to the observed aerial object, and 4) physical analysis has been performed by a competent laboratory of known reliability. In several instances the sample is available for continuing study by independent scientists."

*    Scientific Ufology: How the Application of Scientific Methodology Can Analyze, Illuminate and Prove the Reality of UFO's

Kevin Randle

"Noted author Kevin D. Randle examines the physical evidence of these visitors from beyond our solar system. Bringing methods of scientific methodology to his research, the author scrutinizes eyewitness reports, photographs, video footage, radar images, landing traces, and unidentifiable crashed vehicles."

Edited by skyeagle409, 16 November 2006 - 09:16 AM.

[rapid7]

Quote

That's a tough one indeed and I guess we will never know. I think Hazzard put it very well:
Unless ET decide to tell us how he tracked us down (if he did), well, then any guess is equally good.

Yeah true,

Quote

Yes, after 30 years he retracted. The problem was that most scientists believed that he was wrong, but nobody could track down the flaw in his math. But despite it's flaws, that is how we progress..

Absolutely- in science it's no big deal to concede or retract. well, I suppose it depends how big your ego is.. I followed this debate and the mathematics involved were truly mind boggling. I just wanted to use it as example how far scientists will go in order not to violate any of the fundamental laws.

Quote

Please allow me to take a couple of snippets from here http://www.serve.com/mahood/lazar/critiq.htm

It is a critical view of Robert Lazar's credentials and claims. While that is not the essence of the present discussion, Dr. David L. Morgan describes the way science works very well indeed..

Yep good work from Dr David L Morgan- whatever Bob Lazar might be- he certainly wasn't/isn't a scientist. This might interest you -Stanton T Friedman http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/sflazar.html

If one adopts the scientific method as a subjective thought process - as Lilly pointed out on another thread-it merely becomes a philosophy- very strong in some aspects- weak in others. Ie ignore all eyewitness testimony no matter how creditable. Ignore radar etc, ignore classified documents.
One side’s saying look at this-something’s going on- and the other side’s saying I can’t accept it-it’s not scientific evidence.
I’m sure we can find a middle way in the UM forum.