UFOs

[reohn2]

No, they don't. You need a model of what they are in order to convert eg visual or radar observations into acceleration. That would include properties such as how big they are and how *far away they are. And for the vast majority of observations those data are not available.

Jonathan

* As with sheep.

Have you seen the 'tictac' sighting that two naval jet fighter pilots encountered in 2004 :- https://youtu.be/ZBtMbBPzqHY

[Jdsk]

No, they don't. You need a model of what they are in order to convert eg visual or radar observations into acceleration. That would include properties such as how big they are and how *far away they are. And for the vast majority of observations those data are not available.

* As with sheep.

Have you seen the 'tictac' sighting that two naval jet fighter pilots encountered in 2004 :- https://youtu.be/ZBtMbBPzqHY

Yes.

They don't know what those are. And I don't know what those are.

I also don't know what type of radar image that is, what sort of artefacts it's vulnerable to, and what sort of information it's using to track. I'm particularly interested in the last of those because of the consistent position of the images on the screen.

And if they're seen frequently in that area, as stated in the interview, do they show up on other detection systems?

Jonathan

[Hellhound]

There is a possibility that all our Science is completely wrong outside our little part of the Universe.

What are you including in "our little part", please?
Thanks
Jonathan

The part we know,or believe we know.
So far we've only been able to put a person on a rock on our doorstep so we actually know very little and everything we know is based on our concepts of time and physics.

[Vorpal]

But given the enormous distances to those planets it is also very unlikely any lifeform will ever be able to get to Earth from one of those planets.

With technology as we currently know it yes.How do we know there isn't a lifeform out there who is much more advanced than us.We've only been around a few thousand years!I think it's rather arrogant of us to think we are the most advanced civilisation in the Galaxy(s)!

To think that travel from a planet outside our own solar system to Earth is possible requires reliance on discoveries in physics that we have not made and which may never be made because they are not there to discover. You might as well say that one day a human will be able to walk through a brick wall as if it isn't there, but we don't know how yet. It doesn't matter how intelligent another lifeform is, it will still have to operate within the laws of physics.

But our understanding of the laws of physics is still under development. Others may have a better developed understanding. Also... just because something is bound by the laws of physics, it doesn't have to be the same way that we are. What if there is intelligent life that isn't planetary? Or bound to any physical objects?

Our system is relatively young as such things go, and we are younger, yet. It is quite likely that older beings in older systems have already explored the stars and beyond in their part of the universe. It will happen someday in ours, if it hasn't already.

[Jdsk]

There is a possibility that all our Science is completely wrong outside our little part of the Universe.

What are you including in "our little part", please?
Thanks
Jonathan

The part we know,or believe we know.
So far we've only been able to put a person on a rock on our doorstep so we actually know very little and everything we know is based on our concepts of time and physics.

We have observations of objects and phenomena way beyond the Moon. Currently something like 10 to 30 billion light years.

And we need those massive distances to test lots of scientific ideas, for example with gravitational waves, gravitational lensing and variation in cosmic background radiation.

Jonathan

[Hellhound]

What are you including in "our little part", please?
Thanks
Jonathan

The part we know,or believe we know.
So far we've only been able to put a person on a rock on our doorstep so we actually know very little and everything we know is based on our concepts of time and physics.

We have observations of objects and phenomena way beyond the Moon. Currently something like 10 to 30 billion light years.

And we need those massive distances to test lots of scientific ideas, for example with gravitational waves, gravitational lensing and variation in cosmic background radiation.
Jonathan

Key word there observations We have observed things.Like much of our Science much of it is guesswork and to us mere mortals we just have to believe what we're told!
6 pages on and this thread is still stuck on what we believe we know
As I predicted, pages ago this thread is still stuck in the same little loop believing we are the most intelligent thing out there and our 'science' is the be all and end all.
I'll leave it another 6 pages to see where it's at there but I predict it will still be stuck in the same loop

[peetee]

I regard the possibility of extra-terrestrial life and the question of UFO’s as two separate subjects.

The first is highly likely. Given the breadth of time life has been present on our own world and the rate at which it developed, intelligent self-aware and resource-manipulative beings arrived rather ‘late in the day’. It’s entirely possible that life was heading that way at some point in the dim and distant past and then some catastrophic event wiped it from existence and the fossil record.
So intelligent life could have evolved much sooner on another planet, passed a glance or a fly-by towards planet earth and was less than impressed with the conversational potential of its inhabitants.

The question of whether UFO’s have anything at all to do with extra-terrestrial life is an interesting one. It was the technological boom of the 1950’s that boosted that particular idea, but such has been the progress since that, to my mind at least, the notion that these craft would have occupants or any sort of external illumination whatsoever is archaic (so little green men and inexplicable lights in the sky are out as far as I’m concerned). The technology we currently apply to aviation means neither are essential and we are still a very long way off exploring other solar systems.
Then again, why explore another planet at all if you have no intention of visiting it? But that is applying human sentiment and curiosity to the equation and our stellar neighbours may not be even close to that in their psychological or emotional make-up.

[reohn2]

Yes.

They don't know what those are. And I don't know what those are.

Exactly!
As well as being highly trained individuals they were a lot closer than we are

I also don't know what type of radar image that is, what sort of artefacts it's vulnerable to, and what sort of information it's using to track. I'm particularly interested in the last of those because of the consistent position of the images on the screen.

And if they're seen frequently in that area, as stated in the interview, do they show up on other detection systems?

Jonathan

I don't know but they're pretty sure it's not a systems glitch.

When all other explanations are illiminated we're left with the unknown.
But it appears they were real physical unexplained entities.
There are many others.

[Jdsk]

The part we know,or believe we know.
So far we've only been able to put a person on a rock on our doorstep so we actually know very little and everything we know is based on our concepts of time and physics.

We have observations of objects and phenomena way beyond the Moon. Currently something like 10 to 30 billion light years.

And we need those massive distances to test lots of scientific ideas, for example with gravitational waves, gravitational lensing and variation in cosmic background radiation.

Key word there observations We have observed things.Like much of our Science much of it is guesswork and to us mere mortals we just have to believe what we're told!
6 pages on and this thread is still stuck on what we believe we know
As I predicted, pages ago this thread is still stuck in the same little loop believing we are the most intelligent thing out there and our 'science' is the be all and end all.
I'll leave it another 6 pages to see where it's at there but I predict it will still be stuck in the same loop

Yes, observations are an essential part of science.

But where has anyone said anything resembling "believing we are the most intelligent thing out there" or "our 'science' is the be all and end all"?

The major part of what I'm trying to contribute is to identify what we don't know and to say it clearly.

Jonathan

[Psamathe]

As others have said, my guess is that there is life elsewhere in this Universe (can't say how much but I doubt we are so unique as to be the only example given the number of galaxies/stars/planets).

But any intelligent life that has the ability to travel the distances to get here (through whatever clever methods they may have discovered) is either going to want to make contact (in which case they'd observe then arrive) or not make contact (in which case they'd be smart enough to stay hidden or far enough away). There are all sorts of reasons you could concoct (e.g. they are experimenting on how we react) but I suspect not.

That said we should certainly be investigating these phenomena and not be excluding possibilities until there is sound justification of such exclusion. Investigating weird phenomena can only help us understand our own planet better.

Ian

[freeflow]

When all possibilities have been exhausted the only thing left is.....



A huge number of questions we didn't know how to ask.

Science is based on observations. From those observations we produce a hypothesis. After testing the hypothesis against further observations to see if the results are routinely the same ( including observations and testing we didn't know we had to make before we formulated the hypothesis ) we can conclude that the hypothesis is reasonable and grant it the status of theory.

More observations and testing follow and theory is revised/retired in the light of new findings.

The problem with UFO sightings is that there is insufficient evidence which leads to tests that have reproducible results.

Based on experiments it is well established that natural events in a reducing atmosphere leads to the production of amino acids and that in the presence of sufficient density of such molecules chains of amino acids form, one of the properties of which, is the ability to facilitate the formation of other chains of amino acids by providing a binding template that holds random molecules in place long enough that adjacent amino acids can join up.

So life outside of our planet seems inevitable. What is not well established is how such self organisation leads to an awareness of self and surroundings, but you can bet your bottom dollar it will be a result of some very basic physicochemical properties/reactions.

Do I now have to start winbling on about the Fermi paradox etc?

[Jdsk]

Science is based on observations. From those observations we produce a hypothesis. After testing the hypothesis against further observations to see if the results are routinely the same ( including observations and testing we didn't know we had to make before we formulated the hypothesis ) we can conclude that the hypothesis is reasonable and grant it the status of theory.

More observations and testing follow and theory is revised/retired in the light of new findings.

The problem with UFO sightings is that there is insufficient evidence which leads to tests that have reproducible results.

Yes.

And in that situation we should say that we don't know. Not get into metaphysics or discard scientific method or knowledge.

Jonathan

PS: Great explanation. Testability/ falsifiability next? : - )

[Mike Sales]

When all possibilities have been exhausted the only thing left is.....



A huge number of questions we didn't know how to ask.

Science is based on observations. From those observations we produce a hypothesis. After testing the hypothesis against further observations to see if the results are routinely the same ( including observations and testing we didn't know we had to make before we formulated the hypothesis ) we can conclude that the hypothesis is reasonable and grant it the status of theory.

More observations and testing follow and theory is revised/retired in the light of new findings.

The problem with UFO sightings is that there is insufficient evidence which leads to tests that have reproducible results.

Based on experiments it is well established that natural events in a reducing atmosphere leads to the production of amino acids and that in the presence of sufficient density of such molecules chains of amino acids form, one of the properties of which, is the ability to facilitate the formation of other chains of amino acids by providing a binding template that holds random molecules in place long enough that adjacent amino acids can join up.

So life outside of our planet seems inevitable. What is not well established is how such self organisation leads to an awareness of self and surroundings, but you can bet your bottom dollar it will be a result of some very basic physicochemical properties/reactions.

Do I now have to start winbling on about the Fermi paradox etc?

I'm no scientist, but I have been led to understand that when a theory is formed, then the next stage is to devise an experiment to test the theory.
I have read that an untestable theory remains just that: a theory.

Does von Daniken have any fans here?

[Jdsk]

I'm no scientist, but I have been led to understand that when a theory is formed, then the next stage is to devise an experiment to test the theory.
I have read that an untestable theory remains just that: a theory.

Testability/ falsifiability is a crucial distinction between scientific and nonscientific ideas, and it is highly relevant to this discussion.

But I wouldn't use it as a gatekeeper between theories, hypothesis and laws.

Jonathan

PS:

Does von Daniken have any fans here?

I read them a few decades ago. Are there still believers? Sales (no pun intended)?

[Mike Sales]

Centuries ago many people of impeccable character saw angels. They were able to describe them in impressive detail.
Even today people have angelic visitations. My impression is that these people are not lying.

https://www.beliefnet.com/inspiration/a ... itors.aspx

Have little green men taken their place for some?