The Newest Definitive "Are We Alone?" Collective Debate

Share this page

Flagg the Wanderer said:
Alternatively, traversing distances like that could be wildly simple. Ever read Flatland? Science has as a requirement accepting unknown unknowns. Things that are difficult or impossible within the universe perceivable to us could be trivial given other perceptions that we can't imagine. There are cave fish that have no sensors to detect light. Explain lasers, a sunrise, or a rainbow to them.
Click to expand...

Can't agree more Flagg. With the age of the universe (thanks to Webb) now pushed out to something on the order of 26 Billion years, it greatly expands the possibilities of other races/life forms possessing vast technological advances far beyond our current comprehension.

As physicist Eric Weinstein stated in the video in post #398 "Nobody that I know, who's very good at physics or astrophysics or astronomy, knows what the hell is going on"
 
RoadNasty said:
Can't agree more Flagg. With the age of the universe (thanks to Webb) now pushed out to something on the order of 26 Billion years, it greatly expands the possibilities of other races/life forms possessing vast technological advances far beyond our current comprehension.

As physicist Eric Weinstein stated in the video in post #398 "Nobody that I know, who's very good at physics or astrophysics or astronomy, knows what the hell is going on"
Click to expand...

Nobody can answer where the first molecule ever came from so we now and for probably forever, will never know what's going in. What I do know, is the objects that are being seen now, violate physics in a way that nobody can answer at this point in time.
 
Flagg the Wanderer said:
I like the seriousness and holding yourself accountable to defend a stated position. But you're speaking with a lot of authority about a purely hypothetical thing.

Alternatively, traversing distances like that could be wildly simple. Ever read Flatland? Science has as a requirement accepting unknown unknowns. Things that are difficult or impossible within the universe perceivable to us could be trivial given other perceptions that we can't imagine. There are cave fish that have no sensors to detect light. Explain lasers, a sunrise, or a rainbow to them.

As I've repeatedly said, I have no dog in this fight, don't feel strongly pro- or con-, and am much more interested in the question of how governments are behaving, in the case that this stuff is 100% true, totally fabricated, or somewhere in the middle. But stating with authority that it's impossible? Total nonsense.

Whether they want to admit it, anyone who comes down decisively on this issue one way or the other is, unless they have personally seen non-human intelligent/techno-capable life, stating an article of faith.
Click to expand...

There's nothing hypothetical about the relationship between matter, energy, and spacetime. It is measurable, definable, and demonstrable.

First, for the following discussion, let's simplify our universe/dimension to 3 dimensions, rather than the true 4, including time...just for sake of the discussion. So I will refer to our universe as 3 dimensions.

For example, let's take your Flatland analogy. That is a matter of perception.....two dimensional creatures will view a 3 dimensional object very differently. Let's think of Flatland as a piece of paper with little o's running around that are two dimensional people. If an apple passes through that two dimensional realm, they will see a red, irregular blob that appears, changes shape and mass for a little while, then disappears. They will never see the white interior, nor the whole shape representing an apple, they will just see a constantly changing blob.

That is perception, however, and has no effect whatsoever on physics. Two dimensional people will have 2 dimensional physics...whereas 3 dimensional people will have 3 dimensional physics. Right?

Those physics will AGREE!

To take a simplistic analogy.....in the 3 dimensional world, the Pythagorean Theorem (I know, it's geometry, but it keeps the analogy simple) is valid....
{\displaystyle a^{2}+b^{2}=c^{2}.}
That is a two dimensional theorem in a 3 dimensional world. It will be identical in both worlds, yes? Einstein needed Euclidean Geometry for 3 dimensions, but Euclidean 3 dimensional geometry doesn't somehow negate the Pythagorean Theorem, it just adds.

2 dimensional worlds will simply LACK 3 dimensional physics. There is no need for it, and no way to measure things in 3 dimensions. So, your assumption, is that we in the 3 dimensional world will lack physics that exist in 4 dimensions. True.

But, 4 dimensional physics CAN NOT and WILL NOT violate 3 dimensional physics! 3rd dimension physics and 4th dimension physics WILL AGREE 100%. There will just be MORE physics in 4 dimensions to know and measure, but those 4th dimension pjhysics will never, ever violate our 3 dimensional physics!

That means, that the speed of light is the speed of light. That means that the relationship between energy and matter remains constant, whether in 2, 3, or 4 dimensions. E = mc2 in two dimensions, E = mc2 in three dimensions, and E = mc2 in four dimensions.

(EDIT: Incidentally, the "speed of light" is kind of a sloppy shorthand...it's not really true. What we are actually talking about is the "speed of causality", the rate at which information can travel through space without friction, thus the speed at which something in one place can influence, or pass information to, another. Therefore, nothing can exceed it...because "something" is information.)

To demonstrate that, consider the following thought experiment....

In Flatland, Flatlanders could apply enough energy to fold that flat piece of paper and "warp" from one end to the other, without travelling the space in between....they just fold the paper world. The residents cannot see the folded space or the fold, they just know that all of a sudden, the space in between disappears....they are going "faster than light".....but it takes X amount of energy to fold that paper.

Now me, ET Baron...I live in the 3rd dimension.....I can fold that paper world also....and to the Flatlanders, it looks the same....but I can perceive what is really going on, and they can't. This is the crux of your point, and here is the rebuttal......it doesn't matter that my perception and understanding is better than the Flatlanders, what matters is that folding that paper takes a certain amount of energy, and that amount is consistent, whether the Flatlanders are doing it, or whether I am doing it from the 3rd dimension.

The Flatlander paper world's properties are inherent, they are universal, they are consistent. The inherent properties of that world do not change merely because the observer changes perspective.

Does that make sense?

If 4 dimensional physics are different than 3 dimensional physics, then we would observe very different physics in our 3rd dimension when we define 2 dimensions...and we don't. The formulae are the same, only simplified.

EDIT ADD:

To give another example...we ran with Newtonian physics for 300 years....and they worked, and they were valid. Einstein came along and gave us Relativity...but all that did was offer better understanding and precision to Newtonian gravity....it didn't alter, violate, or negate Newtonian gravity in any way whatsoever....it just refined it and filled in some gaps and inconsistencies. Newton's physics STILL WORK, and Newton's physics are still applicable in most situations.

Nothing will ever make Newtonian physics not work.

Nothing will ever make Relativity not work.

One day, we will have our Universal Theory that unites Relativity and Quantum physics....but nothing in that new theory will violate Relativity, just as nothing in Relativity will violate Newtonian physics.

What we know to be true and inviolable in physics, will remain true and inviolable.....because we didn't make them up ad hoc, we arrived at them by observing the universe.....the universe tells us what is true, not the other way around, and the unviverse tells us that C is C, the speed of causality is a core function of the universe, that which makes it work.

..and it's a good thing, because if the speed of light is violable, then we wouldn't exist....but that's another discussion.
 
Last edited:
Can't recall if any of Paul Hellyer's testimony has been posted previously, if so, my apologies.

Hellyer was the Canadian Defense Minister for a number of years, and as you might imagine, worked closely with our military on defense related matters.

In this snippet from a longer video, he gives a recap of his knowledge of the extraterrestrial presence here on earth:


View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1711129967075979564
 
Baron Samedi said:
There's nothing hypothetical about the relationship between matter, energy, and spacetime. It is measurable, definable, and demonstrable.

First, for the following discussion, let's simplify our universe/dimension to 3 dimensions, rather than the true 4, including time...just for sake of the discussion. So I will refer to our universe as 3 dimensions.

For example, let's take your Flatland analogy. That is a matter of perception.....two dimensional creatures will view a 3 dimensional object very differently. Let's think of Flatland as a piece of paper with little o's running around that are two dimensional people. If an apple passes through that two dimensional realm, they will see a red, irregular blob that appears, changes shape and mass for a little while, then disappears. They will never see the white interior, nor the whole shape representing an apple, they will just see a constantly changing blob.

That is perception, however, and has no effect whatsoever on physics. Two dimensional people will have 2 dimensional physics...whereas 3 dimensional people will have 3 dimensional physics. Right?

Those physics will AGREE!

To take a simplistic analogy.....in the 3 dimensional world, the Pythagorean Theorem (I know, it's geometry, but it keeps the analogy simple) is valid....
{\displaystyle a^{2}+b^{2}=c^{2}.}
That is a two dimensional theorem in a 3 dimensional world. It will be identical in both worlds, yes? Einstein needed Euclidean Geometry for 3 dimensions, but Euclidean 3 dimensional geometry doesn't somehow negate the Pythagorean Theorem, it just adds.

2 dimensional worlds will simply LACK 3 dimensional physics. There is no need for it, and no way to measure things in 3 dimensions. So, your assumption, is that we in the 3 dimensional world will lack physics that exist in 4 dimensions. True.

But, 4 dimensional physics CAN NOT and WILL NOT violate 3 dimensional physics! 3rd dimension physics and 4th dimension physics WILL AGREE 100%. There will just be MORE physics in 4 dimensions to know and measure, but those 4th dimension pjhysics will never, ever violate our 3 dimensional physics!

That means, that the speed of light is the speed of light. That means that the relationship between energy and matter remains constant, whether in 2, 3, or 4 dimensions. E = mc2 in two dimensions, E = mc2 in three dimensions, and E = mc2 in four dimensions.

(EDIT: Incidentally, the "speed of light" is kind of a sloppy shorthand...it's not really true. What we are actually talking about is the "speed of causality", the rate at which information can travel through space without friction, thus the speed at which something in one place can influence, or pass information to, another. Therefore, nothing can exceed it...because "something" is information.)

To demonstrate that, consider the following thought experiment....

In Flatland, Flatlanders could apply enough energy to fold that flat piece of paper and "warp" from one end to the other, without travelling the space in between....they just fold the paper world. The residents cannot see the folded space or the fold, they just know that all of a sudden, the space in between disappears....they are going "faster than light".....but it takes X amount of energy to fold that paper.

Now me, ET Baron...I live in the 3rd dimension.....I can fold that paper world also....and to the Flatlanders, it looks the same....but I can perceive what is really going on, and they can't. This is the crux of your point, and here is the rebuttal......it doesn't matter that my perception and understanding is better than the Flatlanders, what matters is that folding that paper takes a certain amount of energy, and that amount is consistent, whether the Flatlanders are doing it, or whether I am doing it from the 3rd dimension.

The Flatlander paper world's properties are inherent, they are universal, they are consistent. The inherent properties of that world do not change merely because the observer changes perspective.

Does that make sense?

If 4 dimensional physics are different than 3 dimensional physics, then we would observe very different physics in our 3rd dimension when we define 2 dimensions...and we don't. The formulae are the same, only simplified.

EDIT ADD:

To give another example...we ran with Newtonian physics for 300 years....and they worked, and they were valid. Einstein came along and gave us Relativity...but all that did was offer better understanding and precision to Newtonian gravity....it didn't alter, violate, or negate Newtonian gravity in any way whatsoever....it just refined it and filled in some gaps and inconsistencies. Newton's physics STILL WORK, and Newton's physics are still applicable in most situations.

Nothing will ever make Newtonian physics not work.

Nothing will ever make Relativity not work.

One day, we will have our Universal Theory that unites Relativity and Quantum physics....but nothing in that new theory will violate Relativity, just as nothing in Relativity will violate Newtonian physics.

What we know to be true and inviolable in physics, will remain true and inviolable.....because we didn't make them up ad hoc, we arrived at them by observing the universe.....the universe tells us what is true, not the other way around, and the unviverse tells us that C is C, the speed of causality is a core function of the universe, that which makes it work.

..and it's a good thing, because if the speed of light is violable, then we wouldn't exist....but that's another discussion.
Click to expand...
Just...wow. Talk about assuming everyone is an idiot except you. News flash: 0% of that was educational. It was condescending, arrogant as hell, and triggering AF for a different reason related to my username change, but guess what: you're not the only person who learned shit.

The "hypothetical" I was talking about was the specific process we discussed, not the science behind it. The Flatland analogy was making the point of not knowing what we don't know, and that there are things are "obviously" true that we can't even imagine asking from our perspective. That we don't know if that's the only way to traverse space, we don't know if "they" don't need to traverse that space because they're already here in some sense that's not observable in our present state. Many things that are barriers (physical or otherwise) in a 2D world are not even worth thinking about as obstacles to overcome in a 3D world. It would be shocking indeed if we were to learn that this relationship was not very similar between 3D and 4D perspectives.

To me, it looks like you made my point in spades by taking the position of "but we do know what we do know what we do know, and that means we can't not know that stuff, so I'm going to blurt out a bunch of stuff to show what I know to take down Mr Strawman here."

But what do I know. After all, I just learned that I'm getting rapidly stupider each day, and will never again work in any of the fields I went to school for 21 years to learn to ensure I could always support my family. So where do I get off telling Your Worshipfulness that perhaps, maybe, I was making a different point? You almost certainly know better than I do "the crux of my point." And certainly you know better than I do that scientists are not at all arrogant about what they know and think they know, and are rarely, if ever, surprised at developments in science that turn what we thought we knew firmly on it's head. Shit like that never happens.
 
Interesting Why Files episode about the Rendlesham UFO incident.

As with all Why Files videos, the first part is the "conventional" story, the second part is an analysis as to how accurate said story is.

Watch to the end.

 
Baron Samedi said:
There's nothing hypothetical about the relationship between matter, energy, and spacetime. It is measurable, definable, and demonstrable.
Click to expand...
Note: Full quote of previous post cut to meet text limits.

Son, your physics/math skills are weak.

First of all, the Pythagorean Theorem is only valid in Euclidian Geometry, that is a flat plane i.e. two dimensional.

The Pythagorean theorem is derived from the axioms of Euclidean geometry, and in fact, were the Pythagorean theorem to fail for some right triangle, then the plane in which this triangle is contained cannot be Euclidean. More precisely, the Pythagorean theorem implies, and is implied by, Euclid's Parallel (Fifth) Postulate.[59][60] Thus, right triangles in a non-Euclidean geometry[61] do not satisfy the Pythagorean theorem. For example, in spherical geometry, all three sides of the right triangle (say a, b, and c) bounding an octant of the unit sphere have length equal to π/2, and all its angles are right angles, which violates the Pythagorean theorem because
{\displaystyle a^{2}+b^{2}=2c^{2}>c^{2}}
.

Second, regarding this.

Incidentally, the "speed of light" is kind of a sloppy shorthand...it's not really true. What we are actually talking about is the "speed of causality", the rate at which information can travel through space without friction, thus the speed at which something in one place can influence, or pass information to, another. Therefore, nothing can exceed it...because "something" is information

Information propagating faster than the speed of light has been conclusively demonstrated with quantum entanglement.

If 4 dimensional physics are different than 3 dimensional physics, then we would observe very different physics in our 3rd dimension when we define 2 dimensions...and we don't. The formulae are the same, only simplified.

Uh, you might want to look at the differences between Euclidian Geometry (i.e. 2 dimensional) and Non-Euclidian (i.e. 3 or more dimensions). The formulae are not the same.

For example the axiom in Euclidian Geometry that the angles of a triangle must sum to 180 degrees, is not correct in Non-Euclidian Geometry.

Regarding Newton vs General Relativity, of course the latter did "alter, violate, and negate Newtonian gravity".

It introduced a completely different mechanism for gravity. Newton's gravity was a "Force" similar in essence to Maxwell's Electromagnetic "force".

General Relativity is geometry. It postulates that objects move following Newton's First Law of Motion.

A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force.

It is the distortion of Space-Time by Mass, that causes an object to move in an apparent curved path. It is till moving in a straight line, it is Space-Time, that is distorted.

Thus there is no "Force" of gravity in General Relativity, merely a distortion of Space-Time that produces the impression of a "Force".

Oh and General Relativity "replacing" Newton and Newton still working in "most situations". That is the cardinal rule of a theory replacing a previously successful one. It must agree with the previous, where the previous was successful, but provide better predictions for those circumstances where the previous theory failed to work.

"Nothing will ever make Newtonian physics not work."

Hmmmm, perhaps you should study the problem with the Perihelion precession of Mercury. Newtonian physics certainly didn't work there.

and it's a good thing, because if the speed of light is violable, then we wouldn't exist....but that's another discussion.

Nonsense.

First of all, Einstein didn't "prove" the speed of light was a constant, he "assumed" it as part of Special Relativity.

Now, various predictions made by said theory, have been demonstrated experimentally, but it is still an assumption.

Oh, and BTW, attached is an idea I came up with back in the '80's. If one assumes the speed of light is not a "constant", but can have a small variation in it's velocity, then one can explicitly derive the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle., which is a hall mark of Quantum Mechanics "uncertainty".

What we know to be true and inviolable in physics, will remain true and inviolable.....because we didn't make them up ad hoc, we arrived at them by observing the universe.....the universe tells us what is true,

No the universe tells us what we observe.

You've no doubt recall me mentioning the "lamppost theorem" that one of my physics professors told me. I've adopted it to other interpretations, but his original meaning was very simple.

Experiments detect those things they are designed to detect. They do not detect those things they are not designed to detect.

Sounds obvious, but has profound implications. Theorist's build their theories based on the experimental evidence available. They try to match a theory to what is observed. They never try to explain things that are not observed.

So if we fail to look at the right things, or are incapable to look at additional things, either due to our technical capability, or due to those things occurring in a higher dimensional space that by definition, we cannot observe, our theories will be incomplete.

Don't believe me?

For how many Millenia did humans think the universe revolved around Earth?

The universe was surely telling us that was true since anyone who looked up at the sky would observe that happening.

Yet it wasn't true, was it?

So how can you be sure that any observation made today, in the past, or whenever, isn't suffering from a similar limitation?

You can't.

Theories are theories. If they make good predictions, they are useful, but don't assume they tell the "truth" about the universe.

Just consider epicycles.

They were quite a good theory, from the standpoint of making predictions, but they clearly weren't "Truth".
 

Attachments

Last edited:
TipRoast said:
Not so. X-rays were discovered during an experiment to see whether cathode rays would penetrate glass.

Also, this: A failed proton decay search accidentally birthed neutrino astronomy
Click to expand...

Regarding X-rays:

Roentgen accidentally made this discovery while conducting an experiment testing whether cathode rays would pass through glass. After covering the glass cathode tubes he was using for his experiment, he noticed a glow coming from a nearby chemically coated screen.

Now what exactly are "cathode rays"? They are essentially an electron beam.

What are X-rays?

Characteristic X-rays are emitted when outer-shell electrons fill a vacancy in the inner shell of an atom, releasing X-rays in a pattern that is "characteristic" to each element.

So X-rays are essentially electromagnetic radiation produced by electrons changing their energy state.

So no, this wasn't the case of an experiment discovering something it wasn't designed to detect for two reasons.

First, the chemically coated screen had nothing to do with the experiment, it was simply in the area.

Second, any experiment designed to measure electron behavior will inherently be related to the generation of X-rays.

Regarding proton decay, from here.

And finally, if we're losing a baryon (something made of three quarks) in the Universe, we'd have to add an antilepton (like a positron or an anti-muon) to compensate for it and keep the Standard Model's conservation rule: that the number of baryons minus the number of leptons must never change. This means a proton can decay into a positron and a neutral meson (like a pion), a muon and a neutral pion, or an antineutrino and a positively charged meson.

Emphasis added.

So the whole theory related to Proton decay required that scientists be able to detect various subatomic particles, immediately after said decay. One of those included the antineutrino. So if one has developed the technology to detect an antineutrino, one can just as easily detect a neutrino.

So that's where that technology comes from.

Oh and it simply reenforces my statement, since a neutrino detector will detect any high energy particle that hits the fluid surrounding the photo detectors. That's why all of them are deep underground, or deep under ice for the one in Antarctica. This shields them from the various cosmic rays that otherwise would flood the data stream.
 
O_P_T said:
Regarding X-rays:

Roentgen accidentally made this discovery while conducting an experiment testing whether cathode rays would pass through glass. After covering the glass cathode tubes he was using for his experiment, he noticed a glow coming from a nearby chemically coated screen.

Now what exactly are "cathode rays"? They are essentially an electron beam.

What are X-rays?

Characteristic X-rays are emitted when outer-shell electrons fill a vacancy in the inner shell of an atom, releasing X-rays in a pattern that is "characteristic" to each element.

So X-rays are essentially electromagnetic radiation produced by electrons changing their energy state.

So no, this wasn't the case of an experiment discovering something it wasn't designed to detect for two reasons.

First, the chemically coated screen had nothing to do with the experiment, it was simply in the area.

Second, any experiment designed to measure electron behavior will inherently be related to the generation of X-rays.

Regarding proton decay, from here.

And finally, if we're losing a baryon (something made of three quarks) in the Universe, we'd have to add an antilepton (like a positron or an anti-muon) to compensate for it and keep the Standard Model's conservation rule: that the number of baryons minus the number of leptons must never change. This means a proton can decay into a positron and a neutral meson (like a pion), a muon and a neutral pion, or an antineutrino and a positively charged meson.

Emphasis added.

So the whole theory related to Proton decay required that scientists be able to detect various subatomic particles, immediately after said decay. One of those included the antineutrino. So if one has developed the technology to detect an antineutrino, one can just as easily detect a neutrino.

So that's where that technology comes from.

Oh and it simply reenforces my statement, since a neutrino detector will detect any high energy particle that hits the fluid surrounding the photo detectors. That's why all of them are deep underground, or deep under ice for the one in Antarctica. This shields them from the various cosmic rays that otherwise would flood the data stream.
Click to expand...

I am not as flexible as you, I can't bend over backwards that far to stretch a point. :biggrin:
 
IMG_6138.jpeg
I found myself a nice used 1955 model. The little green fucker slapped his hand right on the hood of the saucer and said you can’t beat the asking price of $150 million. The asking price was a little high so I had to pass on the deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top