UFOs

ecksor

Why exactly are UFOs on-topic here?

"I saw some sort of ... thing in the sky. I don't know what it was. It was flying around, but I can't identify it."

Do you proceed to batter such people on the basis that they didn't see anything, or because they know what it was and they're not telling us?

Or have UFOs become synonymous with alien abduction or something?

The Second

if nobody can identify it.. it is assumed that is isn't from here... alien.

which isn't always (or maybe even sometimes) the case ... people just like to believe that there is more than just this.. more than what we know .. earth.

ecksor

So, nothing against UFOs in and of themselves?

You can't jump to the conclusion that UFO reports will be about extra-terrestrials and then go and chastise them for jumping to conclusions

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by The Second
if nobody can identify it.. it is assumed that is isn't from here... alien.

It's a bit like seeing a new type of bird. Most weeks I see birds that I don't recognise by name.(insert joke here) But that does not make them UFO's - If I told an ornitholigist what I saw, then they might be able to tell me what type of bird I saw. But then again it could have been a blur or inconclusive, so is the bird still a UFO ? Well the chances of me having seen a previously unidentified species of bird are about zip.. Now if I had a clear photo and or some physical evidence the ornithologist might get excited - even if they did not recognise it still doesn't prove that it's not a Bat.

BTW: anyone have a copy of "The observers book of UFO's" ?

[Edit]Be interesting to keep track of US military aircraft using our airspace..

davros

Originally posted by ecksor
Why exactly are UFOs on-topic here?

In the sense that there can be things in the sky that are unidentified by one or more observers, sure - UFOs exist. I meant the assumption that this planet is regularly visited by aliens who observe us, experiment on us and our livestock and occasionally crash and are chopped up for parts by the US military. It's one of those subjects where the evidence often just melts away when you look at it closely.

I haven't seen any UFOs myself but I heard a first-person account from someone once that I don't believe was imagined or a lie. I couldn't explain the observed phenomenon but I'm also very reluctant to conclude that it was, therefore, alien technology.

Myksyk

UFOs have become synonymous with aliens primarily in the minds of 'ufologists'. You're right that the term doesn't actually imply any connection to aliens but the commun usage now assumes this, more or less.

This area has branched out and is connected to other questionable claims about crop circles, alien abduction and alien experimentation, alien abduction therapy, government conspiracies, alien/human interbreeding and anything you're having yourself.

The ufology society of Ireland (may not be it's actual name) recently had a stand at the Astro Expo in DCU.

The claims about aliens visiting earth are of course substantially different than the question of life existing somewhere else in the universe which seems highly likely just from a probability point of view.

Myksyk

Ecksor does bring up an interesting issue about skepticism and that is that one must be specific about what exactly it is we should be skeptical of. Some things such as UFOs, witches, anomalous experiences etc are real - they do exist. But this is not what is questionable. Skepticism about these things is aimed at the claims made about them. i.e. UFOs are really alien spacecraft, witches are capable of casting spells, feelings of a presence in a room indicates the existence of ghosts etc. It is nearly always the extraordinary claims made about such things which are questionable and should be robustly questioned. Another example is the alternative medicine field - yes an effect may occur after a AM consultation - no problem with that. To say that it is because of realignment of unknown, unseen energy systems which have been manipulated by a 'therapist' by massaging the air above a person's body is another question altogether and constitutes an extraordinary claim which deserves healthy skepticism and investigation.

azezil

I laugh at people who believe in such non-sense, alien abductions and anal probing :rolleyes: ... people stop believing in fairys n pixies and they replace them with little green men!! wtf

People imagine / make up stories to explain the unexplainable, when the alien theories are disproved they'll move on to something else, mutants perhaps :P

Hobart

Originally posted by azezil
I laugh at people who believe in such non-sense, alien abductions and anal probing :rolleyes: ... people stop believing in fairys n pixies and they replace them with little green men!! wtf

Is it just the alien abduction and anal probing that you laugh at or is it the fact that people believe in aliens?

People imagine / make up stories to explain the unexplainable, when the alien theories are disproved they'll move on to something else, mutants perhaps :P

How are alien theories disproved? Are you saying that there is no other life out there?

Capt'n Midnight

You can't disprove the Alien theory - (universe is too big) but that does not prove they exist. Ditto for Santa(local not global) / Easter bunny.

You could potentially prove that aliens exist - no one has gotten close to this yet.

Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.

However, if they follow the same rules of physics that we do - plenty of direct evidence that the laws of physics have remained unchanged for the last 2 billion years here to about 10 places of decimal and implied evidence (ie. the universe exists in it's present form) that is also the case for the last 12 odd billion years and from the hubble scope the laws of physics as we understand them work as far as we can see.then the odds of them being undetected by military but detected by the public are exceedingly low - If you say cloaking etc. I refer you to the phrase "the quite hole in the noise" - you (aussie radar) can see a stealth bomber because it reflects less than the background...

And as for a military coverup - it would have leaked properly long ago.
And as for semiconductiors / new alien technology - having read (old books not just internet) the background I can see there were no sudden leaps of technology just little jumps...

Hobart

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
You can't disprove the Alien theory -

That was my point.

You could potentially prove that aliens exist - no one has gotten close to this yet.

Interesting assumption. How would you go about doing that?

However, if they follow the same rules of physics that we do

Too much of an assumption. because you then say

the laws of physics as we understand them

i.e. as we understand them.

then the odds of them being undetected by military but detected by the public are exceedingly low - If you say cloaking etc. I refer you to the phrase "the quite hole in the noise" - you (aussie radar) can see a stealth bomber because it reflects less than the background...

You then assume that "radar" can detect them??? If they can travel from "insert whatever here" to earth without being detected why would you assume that they would be detected here?

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by Hobart
Interesting assumption. How would you go about doing that?

Remeber the word was potentially - You can't until uncontrovertable evidence is found, THEN it could be proved.

Re: laws of physics - only Newton needed to be used to plot the courses of all satellites - einstein not needed and I would ask you to re-read the post - so far we have not seen anything in the geological record of our planet or in the observable universe that would indicate anything other than minor changes in our current understanding of physics.

Too much of an assumption. because you then say i.e. as we understand them. You then assume that "radar" can detect them??? If they can travel from "insert whatever here" to earth without being detected why would you assume that they would be detected here?

Eh no - re read the post, the point being made is that you could detect them by the way they block out other signals or FAIL to reflect radar - if they are transparent on the other hand how could anyone have seen them ????

GuanYin

Erm... you're not overlooking the fact that any species that actually managed intergalactic travel would most likely have a technology way beyond ours and would therefore by unlikely to be subject to the deficiencies in our own technology.


As for proving aliens exist, it is highly improbable that there is no other life in the universe, given the extreme range and variation of life on our own world and the vast space and possible habitats available in the universe. Whetehr any of them can build a spaceship that can achieve intergalactic travel is another matter entirely.

Hobart

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
Remeber the word was potentially - You can't until uncontrovertable evidence is found, THEN it could be proved.

Ok. How would you potentially go about proving that they do exist?

Re: laws of physics - only Newton needed to be used to plot the courses of all satellites - einstein not needed and I would ask you to re-read the post - so far we have not seen anything in the geological record of our planet or in the observable universe that would indicate anything other than minor changes in our current understanding of physics.

I don't need to re-read your post. You keep referencing what WE have seen and what the laws of physics are in relation to us. That does not matter.

Eh no - re read the post, the point being made is that you could detect them by the way they block out other signals or FAIL to reflect radar - if they are transparent on the other hand how could anyone have seen them ????

Again I do not need to re-read the post. You have missed the point. I understand where you are coming from with the " stealth" technology employed by us humans and I do not contraadict it. However you are making the "huge" assumption that Alien craft are of a similiar nature as stealth/non-stealth human craft. What if they had the ability to change the craft into a goose at a certain level and once the craft/goose got below radar detection they could change back into a beautiful silver flying saucer. And then proceed to insert things in human bottoms?

Capt'n Midnight

Ok. How would you potentially go about proving that they do exist?
You can't until uncontrovertable evidence is found, THEN it could be proved.
i.e. you can't prove aliens don't exist because you can't look under every rock in the universe. But not being able to prove something does NOT exist does not mean that it DOES. But if you do find an alien (whether under a rock or not or even an artifact) that can can be proved to be such then there will be a small amount of culture shock.

Laws of physics - either you assume the three laws of therodynamics hold or you are dealing with "magic". And if they apply then even if you cheat a little you have to deal with things like sonic booms, energy used for acceleration etc.

Aliens have internet access
http://www.wales.com.au/information_gp.html
http://www.medisave.co.uk/default.php/cPath/240_251
http://www.ahmed-shafik.org/docs/proctology.htm
Also they could more easily abduct people from third world countries - no radar or social security records.

azezil

Originally posted by Hobart
Is it just the alien abduction and anal probing that you laugh at or is it the fact that people believe in aliens?

I laugh at people who believe in alien abductions, 'the grays', that kinda thing.

How are alien theories disproved? Are you saying that there is no other life out there?

No I believe there may be life out there i just don't believe they've come to visit us. Because its impossible to travel faster than light it would take several life times for any alien race to visit us, i doubt they'd travel so far, for so long to stick something up our asses...

And I didn't say they were disproved, I said when, my point was people make up stories to explain what they can not.

Capt'n Midnight

Anyway UFO's would have to enter the atmosphere. And if the aliens are as busy conducting experiments on people as US surveys suggest then there should be a detectable localised heating effect caused by all the re-enteries

GuanYin

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
Ok. How would you potentially go about proving that they do exist?
You can't until uncontrovertable evidence is found, THEN it could be proved.
[/B]

Look for them.
We can't currently prove or disprove them, but its bad science to draw a definitive conclusion either way.

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
Laws of physics - either you assume the three laws of therodynamics hold or you are dealing with "magic". And if they apply then even if you cheat a little you have to deal with things like sonic booms, energy used for acceleration etc.

"Any significantly advanced technology is indistinguidable from magic"

Hobart

Originally posted by azezil
I laugh at people who believe in alien abductions, 'the grays', that kinda thing.

Is it through a lack of understanding? Or is it that you have some evidence that their stories are not true?

Because its impossible to travel faster than light it would take several life times for any alien race to visit us,

A common assumption. It is actually now believed, in some scientific quarters, that not only is the speed of light attainable, but, that (in theory) it is possible to travel a lot faster than it. The argument surrounding the speed of light, here on earth, is that as you approach it it takes more energy to get closer to the SOL as the material (mostly electrons) grow in mass as they get closer. Therfore a lot more energy is required for very little gain. Now, in some ways, this actually proves the e=mc2 theory, BTW remember it is only a theory. However this is not to say that other "alien races" have not overcome this problem.

I cannot find any links at the moment, but I did read about a number of theories whereby the use of "bending space" and "gravity" drives would allow material/humans/whatever to cover vast distances in minimal time, far eclipsing(sp?) the SOL.

And I didn't say they were disproved, I said when, my point was people make up stories to explain what they can not.

Actually you did say "when the alien theories are disproved". I am asking you how would you go about doing that? It is my contention that you could never disprove it.

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by Hobart
Is it through a lack of understanding? Or is it that you have some evidence that their stories are not true?
A common assumption. It is actually now believed, in some scientific quarters, that not only is the speed of light attainable, but, that (in theory) it is possible to travel a lot faster than it. The argument surrounding the speed of light, here on earth, is that as you approach it it takes more energy to get closer to the SOL as the material (mostly electrons) grow in mass as they get closer. Therfore a lot more energy is required for very little gain. Now, in some ways, this actually proves the e=mc2 theory, BTW remember it is only a theory. However this is not to say that other "alien races" have not overcome this problem.

I cannot find any links at the moment, but I did read about a number of theories whereby the use of "bending space" and "gravity" drives would allow material/humans/whatever to cover vast distances in minimal time, far eclipsing(sp?) the SOL.

Actually you did say "when the alien theories are disproved". I am asking you how would you go about doing that? It is my contention that you could never disprove it.

mostly electrons... eh since most space ships comprise over 50% neutrons, and almost all the rest is protons there be less 1/300 of the total mass for electrons..

e=mc2 is a theory - but it is elegant in that it explains so much is so simple that almost anyone can grasp the basics and has not yet been proved wrong.

RE: wormholes / timetravel - getting anywhere near a black hole results in spagettification and time travel is thermodynamically possible but only in steps of about 10E-43 second each (and you have to squeeze through a hole the size of the Planck distance)

Again the point being if they can do all that stuff - how come laypersons can detect them but military / civil radar / airliners / passengers can't ????

You can't have it both ways - either they are virtually omnipotent or they are not and why would they keep hanging around - even we use robots to explore other worlds / spys in disguise to look at other countries

As for laughing - I belive in mass hysteria. Yokibuzzer's Razer - simpliest explaination that explains all known facts...

Hobart

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
mostly electrons... eh since most space ships comprise over 50% neutrons, and almost all the rest is protons there be less 1/300 of the total mass for electrons..

Your missing the point. In theory any matter (Proton, Neutron, Electron) can be brought close to the speed of light, here on earth, the fact that electrons are used is probably got to do with the size of the particle (about 1/1840 AMU) compared to a neutron of 1 AMU.

As a side note where do you get the figure of 1/300?

e=mc2 is a theory - but it is elegant in that it explains so much is so simple that almost anyone can grasp the basics and has not yet been proved wrong.

I don't deny that. What is your point?

RE: wormholes / timetravel - getting anywhere near a black hole results in spagettification and time travel is thermodynamically possible but only in steps of about 10E-43 second each (and you have to squeeze through a hole the size of the Planck distance)

As we understand it. Try and not be confined by what is theoretical here. You contention of spagettification occuring when approaching a black hole holds true if you cannot withstand the forces of gravity. But what if you could?

Again the point being if they can do all that stuff - how come laypersons can detect them but military / civil radar / airliners / passengers can't ????

Because they are invisable to military / civil radar / airliners / passengers and only reveal themselves at a height of 15ft. Or maybe they have a way of stimulating the necessary parts of our mind(s) that make us believe that we can see them. Allows them to remotely carry out "anal probing" and other such test while actually not leaving their planet at all.

You can't have it both ways - either they are virtually omnipotent or they are not and why would they keep hanging around - even we use robots to explore other worlds / spys in disguise to look at other countries

See answer above and also have a look at this site to see other views on so called "Alien Spying"

As for laughing - I belive in mass hysteria. Yokibuzzer's Razer - simpliest explaination that explains all known facts...

I have no idea what you are referring to.

Myksyk

I presume Cap'n is referring to Occam's razor.

Occam's razor was a common principle in medieval philosophy and was not originated by William, but because of his frequent usage of the principle, his name has become indelibly attached to it.

It goes ... "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "plurality should not be posited without necessity." It is basically the idea that if two explanations of a phenomenon are possible, the simplest is most likely to be correct and is often used by philosophers of science in an effort to establish criteria for choosing from among theories with equal explanatory power.

Occam's razor is also called the principle of parsimony. These days it is usually interpreted to mean something like "the simpler the explanation, the better" or "don't multiply hypotheses unnecessarily."

I got this info from here:

http://skepdic.com/occam.html

Hobart

Originally posted by Myksyk
I presume Cap'n is referring to Occam's razor.
Occam's razor was a common principle in medieval philosophy and was not originated by William, but because of his frequent usage of the principle, his name has become indelibly attached to it.
It goes ... "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "plurality should not be posited without necessity." It is basically the idea that if two explanations of a phenomenon are possible, the simplest is most likely to be correct and is often used by philosophers of science in an effort to establish criteria for choosing from among theories with equal explanatory power.
Occam's razor is also called the principle of parsimony. These days it is usually interpreted to mean something like "the simpler the explanation, the better" or "don't multiply hypotheses unnecessarily."
I got this info from here:
http://skepdic.com/occam.html

I am familiar with Occam's Razor. However I had never heard it reffered to as "Yokibuzzer's Razer ". Then again you learn something new everyday (If there actually is an everyday and we are not just figments of a higher being's imagination that is. )

However that does not answer the main point of my argument. And I await with baited breath to answers to my other points from the obviously very busy Capt'n.


I suspect I may be kept waiting !