Navy UFO Reports and the Laws of Physics

Buckaroo

Member
What a great and fun thread :)

A lot of interesting comments.

I'll try to add my two cents.

I found this interesting youtube analysis that speculates the observations could be caused by some phenomena in the 4th dimension we are seeing a projection of in the 3rd dimension.



So what we are seeing could possibly not be a complete view of what is going on.

I generally like Fran's videos, but I think she's missed the mark on this one. Before there is a need for such an exotic explanation, we must determine that the observations warrant such an explanation because they can't be explained any other way. I have yet to see any UAP case in which this is true.
 

Todd Feinman

Active Member
I found this interesting youtube analysis that speculates the observations could be caused by some phenomena in the 4th dimension we are seeing a projection of in the 3rd dimension.
I've been suggesting this for literally, years. My signature for years was "Asymmetric contact from hyperdimenional aliens. I think she is right on. And from a scientist!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Empiricist

New Member
The popularity of the simulation hypothesis is a baffling mystery to me. At its core it just feels like ancient superstition was given a more "digital" touch, and now we have now invisible "simulators" hidden in different hierarchies of reality, instead of invisible gods ruling at different levels of hierarchies. Somehow not so different from a tiny teapot spinning cirlces halfway between the moon and earth...

To play devil's advocate, I do find it slightly more worthy of consideration than other similar belief systems, simply for the following reason:

We are now reaching a point where we can simulate/compute an incredible array of things, from molecular dynamics, to deep neural networks, to virtual reality worlds. While we're still a huge distance away from simulating a conscious entity, it seems reasonable to form the argument: "if we could theoretically simulate an entity, how do we know that we aren't also an entity being simulated"? But to make that argument, we had to first develop computational power to the point where such a precondition is plausibly met. There is no simulating a world on an abacus.

But it's more an entertaining thing to discuss late at night with friends (potentially over your intoxicant of choice) rather than something to adopt as part of an actual belief system. And it still depends on the completely speculative idea that consciousness could be simulated.

And there is no evidence from over 60 years of experimental high-energy physics that certain elementary particle reactions can only be explained when energy and mass magically disappear in a 4th dimension.
Indeed. If there is a real phenomenon with the characteristics described, it seems to imply something even more mind-bending than just additional dimensions as we currently conceive of them.
 
Last edited:

Amber Robot

Active Member
What would Galileo say if he saw a nuclear powered submarine? Or what would Einstein think of an iPhone?
Interesting questions indeed, but we are more at the point of asking “what if Einstein were shown a blurry, saturated image of a person holding a rectangle up to their ear?” Would he conclude it was a highly advanced piece of communications technology?
 

SkepticSteve

New Member
Indeed. If there is a real phenomenon with the characteristics described, it seems to imply something even more mind-bending than just additional dimensions as we currently conceive of them.
Honestly, if we rule out ordinary explanations, the warp-drive theory hypothesis might still be the most "compelling" and verifiable one for an unconventional propulsion system. In principle, it still requires a ton of energy and assumptions to make it work, but one should be able to deduce several observables such a drive should produce and which one should be able to measure and replicate and in case falsify. The allegedly observed "lensing" and mirages might even be the simplest one and could potentially be replicated in computer simulations.
 
Last edited:

Mauro

Active Member
What would Galileo say if he saw a nuclear powered submarine? Or what would Einstein think of an iPhone?

They could surely say "I know no laws of physics which forbid the existance of those objects".

Instead, what would Galileo and Einstein think if they were told an object was tracked moving 80kft in 1 sec in air?

Galileo could yet say the same: "I know no laws of physics which forbid the existance of that object" (he didn't know any, in effect).

Einstein instead knew most of the same physics we know today and he probably wouldn't even bother to answer.

The more science advances, the less probable it becomes that something violating estabilished theories will be found. This is so evident that it looks almost like a truism. Thus appealing to past scientific advancements to justify the thesis that new incredible science will be found is not a logical argument, because those very scientific advancements diminish the probability that new violations will be found to estabilished theories, and increase the probability that a newfound deviation will be small and far removed from the practical human point of view.
 
Last edited:

SkepticSteve

New Member
It's a fun hypothesis and mathematical mind game. But I seriously question the reality to of it. Changing our physical models to consider a 4th spatial dimension is many cases as simple as changing a 3 to a 4. The problem however is, that nature then also should take advantage of this degree of freedom. And this means 3d physical models should create predictions which are violated because we have not counted to 4. But they don't. And there is no evidence from over 60 years of experimental high-energy physics that certain elementary particle reactions can only be explained when energy and mass magically disappear in a 4th dimension.

To reinforce my point: Sabine Hossenfelder (Research Scientist at FIAS) actually made a quite excellent video on explaining what 'higher dimensions' are in physics and why we can't travel through them and why "warp drives" are the most 'realistic' means of propulsion in scifi:



Hope this settles the debate.
 
Last edited:

Mike Miker

New Member
Of course I cannot cite a fundamental law of physics being defied: in fact, there are objects which can move through air much faster than 26.67 km/s, but they are elementary particles or atoms nuclei, almost point-like and with negligible massless (for this purpose). And there are objects accelerated at more than 10000g, I guess protons in the LHC routinely experience much higher accelerations (I didn't check the numbers, it just looks probable to me).


But a macroscopic object with a movement like the one described, and which leaves only a radar trace and no other signatures, does indeed violate fundamental laws, as I tried to explain in my post:

- Pauli exclusion principle (how did the object pass through the air column, without leaving any trace but the radar track?)
- conservation of momentum (what 'recoiled' when the object was accelerated and decelerated, without leaving any trace but the radar track?)
- conservation of energy (where did it go when the object decelerated, without leaving any trace but the radar track?)
- 2nd principle of thermodynamics (how could the object gain the energy necessary to accelerate, without any waste heat?)

- how did anything macroscopic and complex survived the acceleration? I agree material science is not as fundamental as conservation of energy or momentum, but unfortunately it needs to be reckoned with too



This is the second time in this thread that I've been told my position represents 'hubris'. I cannot but quote my previous answer:


I'd like to expand a little on this, and I apologize because I'm violating the 'debunking specific claims' Metabunk rule.

I think a root problem here is a fundamental misconception of science: science (unfortunately) does not tell us that we can go beyond the limits (like German engineers did with their liquid-fueled V-2). On the contrary, it teaches us that we (and any other being in the universe) have very serious fundamental limits: we cannot get energy for free, thus we cannot go to the stars in any reasonable amount of time (the light speed limit is the last of our problems in this respect). The Sun will not shine comfortably forever, thus we are doomed not just as single human beings, which alas is bad already, but as a race altogether. This scientific 'sad truth' is very unpleasant, I know, so it's pretty natural to stick to the 'hopeful lie' that alien spaceships visit Earth, because this would demonstrate those limits do not exist and so we can, after all, live forever (as a race, at least).
 

Mike Miker

New Member
They could surely say "I know no laws of physics which forbid the existance of those objects".

Instead, what would Galileo and Einstein think if they were told an object was tracked moving 80kft in 1 sec in air?

Galileo could yet say the same: "I know no laws of physics which forbid the existance of that object" (he didn't know any, in effect).

Einstein instead knew most of the same physics we know today and he probably wouldn't even bother to answer.

The more science advances, the less probable it becomes that something violating estabilished theories will be found. This is so evident that it looks almost like a truism. Thus appealing to past scientific advancements to justify the thesis that new incredible science will be found is not a logical argument, because those very scientific advancements diminish the probability that new violations will be found to estabilished theories, and increase the probability that a newfound deviation will be small and far removed from the practical human point of view.
You might be an expert on the minds of those gentlemen, but permit me quote them on their own thinking;

"Long experience has taught me this about the status of mankind with regard to matters requiring thought: the less people know and understand about them, the more positively they attempt to argue concerning them, while on the other hand to know and understand a multitude of things renders men cautious in passing judgment upon anything new."

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."

And I would challenge you to show your proof of how such a thing cannot exist based on physical principles alone, and making no assumptions about specific technical details of the purported entity that cannot possibly be known.
 
Last edited:

jackfrostvc

Active Member
I did a double major degree in Physics and Computer science.
As I went into Computer Science , I would not call myself a Physicist in any shape or form. So much time has gone by that I have forgotten most things.

That said, one thing has stuck with me.
When I started my Physics classes at Uni, I was all keen to find answers to everything. Instead what I came to realise is that all we have is theories that model observations. And from time to time get upheaved for new theories. Kind of like how Newtons Gravity laws/equations were found to be wrong when Einstein came out with his general relativity theories.

Now we have a situation were scientists have been struggling to merge quantum mechanics with general relativity, which may result in one or both being changed for a new theory.

But what really got me down was a simple realisation. Science is a pursuit for an answer. And every answer raises a question in itself. And so on and so forth, never ending. And there lay it the problem. I realised there never could be an answer that didn't leed to another question.. In the end, all you could hope for was because it is - which is hardly something that sits well with scientific pursuit

Kind of like trying to wrap your head around the absence of time - No start or end, just was, is and will be. Probably the ultimate answer, but impossible to comprehend with my feeble brain
 

Mike Miker

New Member
Of course I cannot cite a fundamental law of physics being defied: in fact, there are objects which can move through air much faster than 26.67 km/s, but they are elementary particles or atoms nuclei, almost point-like and with negligible massless (for this purpose). And there are objects accelerated at more than 10000g, I guess protons in the LHC routinely experience much higher accelerations (I didn't check the numbers, it just looks probable to me).


But a macroscopic object with a movement like the one described, and which leaves only a radar trace and no other signatures, does indeed violate fundamental laws, as I tried to explain in my post:

- Pauli exclusion principle (how did the object pass through the air column, without leaving any trace but the radar track?)
- conservation of momentum (what 'recoiled' when the object was accelerated and decelerated, without leaving any trace but the radar track?)
- conservation of energy (where did it go when the object decelerated, without leaving any trace but the radar track?)
- 2nd principle of thermodynamics (how could the object gain the energy necessary to accelerate, without any waste heat?)

- how did anything macroscopic and complex survived the acceleration? I agree material science is not as fundamental as conservation of energy or momentum, but unfortunately it needs to be reckoned with too



This is the second time in this thread that I've been told my position represents 'hubris'. I cannot but quote my previous answer:


I'd like to expand a little on this, and I apologize because I'm violating the 'debunking specific claims' Metabunk rule.

I think a root problem here is a fundamental misconception of science: science (unfortunately) does not tell us that we can go beyond the limits (like German engineers did with their liquid-fueled V-2). On the contrary, it teaches us that we (and any other being in the universe) have very serious fundamental limits: we cannot get energy for free, thus we cannot go to the stars in any reasonable amount of time (the light speed limit is the last of our problems in this respect). The Sun will not shine comfortably forever, thus we are doomed not just as single human beings, which alas is bad already, but as a race altogether. This scientific 'sad truth' is very unpleasant, I know, so it's pretty natural to stick to the 'hopeful lie' that alien spaceships visit Earth, because this would demonstrate those limits do not exist and so we can, after all, live forever (as a race, at least).

Of course I cannot cite a fundamental law of physics being defied: in fact, there are objects which can move through air much faster than 26.67 km/s, but they are elementary particles or atoms nuclei, almost point-like and with negligible massless (for this purpose). And there are objects accelerated at more than 10000g, I guess protons in the LHC routinely experience much higher accelerations (I didn't check the numbers, it just looks probable to me).



But a macroscopic object with a movement like the one described, and which leaves only a radar trace and no other signatures, does indeed violate fundamental laws, as I tried to explain in my post:

- Pauli exclusion principle (how did the object pass through the air column, without leaving any trace but the radar track?)
Please explain this point a little more I do not see how the Pauli exclusion principle necessarily applies.


- conservation of momentum (what 'recoiled' when the object was accelerated and decelerated, without leaving any trace but the radar track?)



Consider two states of an object at different times. Posit that in the first instance you have the object at some altitude stationary with respect to the Earth. In the second you have the object stationary at the surface of the earth. In sum you have momentum conserved and you have only the energy change represented by the change in potential. If the movement of the object is coupled to a comparatively massive body (maybe the thing is coupling with the ground or is being manipulated by a massive mother craft) then you have no issue. This is only a problem if you assume this works similarly to propulsion systems you already know of that carry the reactive mass aboard or use the nearby surrounding physical medium.



- conservation of energy (where did it go when the object decelerated, without leaving any trace but the radar track?)


See above. And unless you can say how much the thing weighs you can’t say what the energy involved is.



- 2nd principle of thermodynamics (how could the object gain the energy necessary to accelerate, without any waste heat?)


The second law of thermodynamics only says that entropy must increase. It does not say that it must increase by any particular amount. If you can proceed efficiently with any state transformation, then the waste heat can be as close to zero as you like and even the potential energy change could be largely stored to permit you to spring back to your original state with little energy input.


- how did anything macroscopic and complex survived the acceleration? I agree material science is not as fundamental as conservation of energy or momentum, but unfortunately it needs to be reckoned with too


How do you know the thing is complex and macroscopic? What if it is quite simple and robust but controlled and manipulated externally. What if the thing is a hologram of some kind? What if it transitionally incorporates the matter inside into its machinery but when the projection moves the matter stays behind? What if the energy is beamed to it from outside? What if it is constructed from layers of superconducting magnets that mutually brace it against acceleration forces?



This is the second time in this thread that I've been told my position represents 'hubris'. I cannot but quote my previous answer:


I'd like to expand a little on this, and I apologize because I'm violating the 'debunking specific claims' Metabunk rule.

I think a root problem here is a fundamental misconception of science: science (unfortunately) does not tell us that we can go beyond the limits (like German engineers did with their liquid-fueled V-2). On the contrary, it teaches us that we (and any other being in the universe) have very serious fundamental limits: we cannot get energy for free, thus we cannot go to the stars in any reasonable amount of time (the light speed limit is the last of our problems in this respect). The Sun will not shine comfortably forever, thus we are doomed not just as single human beings, which alas is bad already, but as a race altogether. This scientific 'sad truth' is very unpleasant, I know, so it's pretty natural to stick to the 'hopeful lie' that alien spaceships visit Earth, because this would demonstrate those limits do not exist and so we can, after all, live forever (as a race, at least).


Now you have revealed that you have determined the conclusion apriori. With your position there can be no evidence for ET visiting because you have already determined it to be impossible. But that is not a scientific fact, you have not explained why it is, you merely assert it to be so while it is just your gut feeling, that you find confirmation for as meets your requirements. While I would agree that people who assert with certainty that we are being visited are misguided, I suggest with all respect that, while they might be more imaginative than you, their thinking is in some ways no more clear or unbiased.

As for hubris, I submit that anyone who would pontificate on the limitations of the mastery of matter that would bound us over the next billions of years is not short of it.
 

Mike Miker

New Member
You said "evidence" twice in this statement. Imagination is the opposite of evidence. If you are going to hypothesize creatively, i personally think it's fair game for others respond creatively.
I challenged people to prove their fundamental assertions and they failed. I was put rhetorical questions about what is probable and how would this be accomplished as a technical matter and I answered as best I could.

I am biased, I am inclined to disbelief in ghosts. They seem to be vagrant entities with no visible means of support. But what do I know from spooks? It is no use me insisting that they don't exist because I can't understand how they can. They are purported exactly to defy my understanding. Maybe they suck Casimir energy from the vacuum by means that will be revealed when we have a GUT. The thing is I can only look at the evidence and see if it is showing me something unusual. I think it is sufficient to do that and not pretend I know all about these things that I don't and can't. Similarly with UFO's. As far as I can see the recent films do not clearly demonstrate anything unusual. Maybe they are actually images of alien crafts but you can't point to them actually exhibiting clearly unusual motion or form. What I am suggesting is to refrain altogether from presupposition about what is presently unknowable.

So you see you have missed the point entirely that I was making about evidence.
 

Buckaroo

Member
Kind of like how Newtons Gravity laws/equations were found to be wrong when Einstein came out with his general relativity theories.

Now we have a situation were scientists have been struggling to merge quantum mechanics with general relativity, which may result in one or both being changed for a new theory.
This isn't really the case - Newton's laws weren't found to be wrong. They were found to apply only in certain physical regimes. I.e., when relativity was discovered, it turned out that Newton's Laws were special cases of the umbrella theory of relativity.

This is a crucial point that is missed when people assume that older scientific theories have in some way been "overturned." For established, well supported theories, this doesn't happen. The old theories still apply. We just add to them, and determine where it is appropriate to apply them and where it isn't - they are made into special cases of broader, overarching theories within specific physical regimes. There is no "overturning."

If or when a grand unified theory is discovered, relativity and quantum mechanics will be no less true. And they will still be used in scientific calculations. They will simply be part of a larger whole.
 

Mike Miker

New Member
Not to mention that there are many solutions to problems of applied mathematics that are considered "non-physical" because they make no sense in physical reality, and are immediately rejected in favor of the "physical" solutions. Mathematical soundness is no guarantee of physical possibility.
No but neither is it excluding the possibility. The initial point was that these back of envelope high school physics calculations do not amount to debunking. If your reasoning loop goes like;

Is this thing something I can understand how to make?:

Answer yes: conclude it is human made
Answer no: it is infeasible and therefore the observation is faulty

You cannot possibly come to a conclusion that it is an ET artifact. but neither are you engaging in an unbiased skeptical inquiry.
 

Mike Miker

New Member
Mathematical physicists have proposed a *mathematical* model for a physical warp drive.

That's nothing. Mathematicians have proposed a model of a sphere which when cut into 5 pieces and reassembled, forms a sphere twice the size of the original with no gaps.
I asked people to prove their assertions that some observation would perforce breach known physical laws. Physical laws, by the way, that have been developed into models and theories that underpin the modern world that are are manifest in innumerable very practical ways. So how does what you have said, and left hanging in space, amount to an argument of substance, that anything required to account for ET presence is infeasible? I can find this standard of anti-science debunkery on anti-vax and anti climate-change sites.
 

Mike Miker

New Member
That is my point. It is sufficient to look and say there is no clear evidence of anything extraordinary in the videos. Everything else amounts to expressions of belief in a foregone conclusion. Data points that suggest something extraordinary should not be just discarded. What is more to be truly "meta" the data points should not be tossed aside one by one but accumulated. As one accumulates "low probability" items these will sum to an increasing probability that there is something to some of them.
 

Mike Miker

New Member
A
I can show with math that it is not possible to create a sphere with a surface area of 1.0 m^2 and a volume of 100.0 m^3. Some things are not physically possible, and can be mathematically demonstrated to be so.
And how does this relate to the matter at hand specifically? Have you somehow made a point that would not equally apply to known technology also? Have you debunked all of modern science with this line of reasoning? And can you show me your sums only for a hyper-sphere? Or more to the point, apply your reasoning to the specific case to show it is mathematically or physically impossible.
 

Mike Miker

New Member
I hate to seem like I'm actually defending the plausibility of this claim, because I find it incredibly unlikely, but I was thinking about this the last several days wondering if there are any ways to get around these issues without violating physics. At least for these two specific issues, I don't see those being hard limits. A craft which is able to directly convert mass into neutrino-based propulsion avoids both of the quoted issues. And while it might not be plausible, it isn't just total imagination, and a theoretical basis for it exists:




Even this one doesn't seem to be directly violated. We primarily use heat engines of various forms to turn chemical and nuclear energy into electric energy, but unless I've majorly misremembered my physics lessons, there is no rule that heat must be released when converting energy/mass from one form into another. That the entropy must increase, certainly, but not that there must be heat.


I think this is the strongest argument against this claim.

Regardless, Mike Miker, we can never prove without a shadow of doubt that one of our debunking explanations for a given event is 100 percent certain to be true. But when there is a prosaic explanation that doesn't strongly imply either the violation of physics as we know it or Clarkian "magic", that's the explanation that is overwhelmingly more likely to be correct. We could play this game of "maybe it could indeed be [whatever phenomenon] given [incredible unlikely set of circumstances] but that isn't a sound way to reason about things.
So what I advocate is be open minded and humble about what you can't know, and stick to looking at the evidence. In the case of these recent videos, they are not clearly showing anything unusual, and it should be sufficient to say these are not in themselves good evidence of ET or even advanced earthly tech. The alleged radar report might show something interesting, but that is by no means certain. However, as more reports of strange things accumulate, even human reports, the "meta" thing to do would be to consider them in toto and not just snipe them down one at a time citing that each individual claim is "unlikely", as the probabilities necessarily accumulate.
 

Buckaroo

Member
And how does this relate to the matter at hand specifically?
It was direct answer to your question. You made the claim "neither is it excluding the possibility," referring to whether mathematics can rule out physical phenomena. I responded with, effectively, "it depends." You asked me to elaborate, and I did.

Have you somehow made a point that would not equally apply to known technology also? Have you debunked all of modern science with this line of reasoning? And can you show me your sums only for a hyper-sphere?
What the Hell is this word salad all about?

Or more to the point, apply your reasoning to the specific case to show it is mathematically or physically impossible.
I'm not interested in trying to make the point you'd prefer I'd made, rather than the one that I did.
 

Mike Miker

New Member
The popularity of the simulation hypothesis is a baffling mystery to me. At its core it just feels like ancient superstition was given a more "digital" touch, and now we have now invisible "simulators" hidden in different hierarchies of reality, instead of invisible gods ruling at different levels of hierarchies. Somehow not so different from a tiny teapot spinning cirlces halfway between the moon and earth...



It's a fun hypothesis and mathematical mind game. But I seriously question the reality to of it. Changing our physical models to consider a 4th spatial dimension is many cases as simple as changing a 3 to a 4. The problem however is, that nature then also should take advantage of this degree of freedom. And this means 3d physical models should create predictions which are violated because we have not counted to 4. But they don't. And there is no evidence from over 60 years of experimental high-energy physics that certain elementary particle reactions can only be explained when energy and mass magically disappear in a 4th dimension.
So forget speculations and just assume you can't say anything about supernatural phenomena. If you just look at alleged evidence for it then, you need go no further than (say in the case of recent videos) asking does this plainly demonstrate anything unusual and getting the answer: no.
 

Mike Miker

New Member
It was direct answer to your question. You made the claim "neither is it excluding the possibility," referring to whether mathematics can rule out physical phenomena. I responded with, effectively, "it depends." You asked me to elaborate, and I did.


What the Hell is this word salad all about?


I'm not interested in trying to make the point you'd prefer I'd made, rather than the one that I did.
So you have made no point in relation to the point. You have only demonstrated a rhetorical trick whereby, like one of the mathematical impossibilities you allude to, you have disappeared up your own fundament . Bravo.
 

Buckaroo

Member
So you have made no point in relation to the point. You have only demonstrated a rhetorical trick whereby, like one of the mathematical impossibilities you allude to, you have disappeared up your own fundament . Bravo.
I think your reading comprehension needs work if this is your takeaway.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
I think this thread is getting to the point that's it's maybe time to walk away.

No point you two getting stuck into each other and getting heated. I feel like you both have made your points and are probably only going around in circles now anyway
 

Mike Miker

New Member
With the compression of the air as it is pushed out of the way by the vessel, heating is surely unavoidable? (Of the air and the craft itself.)

For me the strongest "it's impossible" argument is the conservation of momentum one - what particles of what mass are being released such that momentum is being conserved (I am prepared to make things easy and pretend that any air magically gets out of the the way symmetrically with no friction, to make it easier for a craft to work - or to imagine a sperical craft in a vacuum, or to imagine an infinitesimally thin craft, chose your abstraction, it matters not for the momentum argument), and what energy must these particles be carrying by virtue of that velocity? No matter what mass you chose of normal matter, they'd be acting in a domain that should be very obvious. Where are the reports of radio/IR/visible/UV/X/gamma rays, the EMPs, or what have you?
What if you had a gadget comprised of a superconducting coil suspended in liquid helium. Could you manipulate the position with an external field with friction being negligible? Then all you have is the potential energy for vertical displacement being changed in the moved item needing to be conserved in shifting vertically. Can you say that it is not possible that the craft has the coefficient of friction of liquid helium? What if the object is coupled to the earth or a distant controlling craft of greater mass? The conservation issue only comes about if you assume it works like machines you are familiar with. By the way what is the mass of one of these things? Make up a number to suit yourself. My point is not that I can explain how to make an alien spaceship. Only that it is foolish to try to debunk phenomena which (if real) by their nature might be beyond present understanding, with reference to contemporary engineering mathematics. I suggest, with respect, that you might not have the imagination and general mental resources even to solve numerous contemporary engineering problems, that will nevertheless be solved in due course. If the evidence is not good in the first place then you need not worry until there is good evidence. If there is evidence that the thing is or does something then you just have to deal with that and not just discount it because you can't figure out how to do it.
 

Mike Miker

New Member
I think this thread is getting to the point that's it's maybe time to walk away.

No point you two getting stuck into each other and getting heated. I feel like you both have made your points and are probably only going around in circles now anyway
I was about to suggest, that to be fairer, they should start coming at me in pairs and threes. But a cooler mind prevails and I will chill, jackfrostVC. Hope, some were stimulated, or at least mildly entertained ;).
 
Last edited:

SkepticSteve

New Member
So forget speculations and just assume you can't say anything about supernatural phenomena. If you just look at alleged evidence for it then, you need go no further than (say in the case of recent videos) asking does this plainly demonstrate anything unusual and getting the answer: no.

My point is: We have good reason to set hard constraints on the kind of supernatural phenomena that are possible. And therefore, we should forget about any explanations which can be considered hard violations of hard constraints which have been proven and verified countless time by highly qualified people who spend much more time thinking about it than anyone here did. Thus, we should focus on the ones which in the best case only pose soft violations of these constraints. Everything else is just really a waste of time.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
Interesting questions indeed, but we are more at the point of asking “what if Einstein were shown a blurry, saturated image of a person holding a rectangle up to their ear?” Would he conclude it was a highly advanced piece of communications technology?
No. He'd assume it was some kind of telephone handset, or (shortly before his death) a transistor radio:
Article:
In July 1954 the Texas Instruments and Industrial Development Engineering Associates (I.D.E.A.) companies embarked on a six month project to produce a pocket-sized radio for the Christmas market. The result was the Regency TR-1, the world’s first pocket transistor radio. Over one hundred thousand, in a range of colours, were sold during its first year of manufacture.
H5580-2-Transistor-radio.jpg


What was your point?
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
But a macroscopic object with a movement like the one described, and which leaves only a radar trace and no other signatures, does indeed violate fundamental laws, as I tried to explain in my post:

- Pauli exclusion principle (how did the object pass through the air column, without leaving any trace but the radar track?)
- conservation of momentum (what 'recoiled' when the object was accelerated and decelerated, without leaving any trace but the radar track?)
- conservation of energy (where did it go when the object decelerated, without leaving any trace but the radar track?)
- 2nd principle of thermodynamics (how could the object gain the energy necessary to accelerate, without any waste heat?)

- how did anything macroscopic and complex survived the acceleration? I agree material science is not as fundamental as conservation of energy or momentum, but unfortunately it needs to be reckoned with too
Time travel is the solution.

- the air you pass through is moved forward in time, from just before the object enters the space to just after it leaves
- momentum is equalized by exchanging the increase in momentum at the start against the loss of momentum at the end of the travel
- the same temporally backwards exchange occurs with the energy, since the net energy gain of the object is zero
- time travel violates the principles of thermodynamics, which assume a steady flow of time

- the acceleration to the outside observer may look differently to someone inside the system, similar to how relativistic effects work, and especially if the passage of time can be affected by technology
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
What would Galileo say if he saw a nuclear powered submarine?
Submarines existed in Galileo's lifetime.
Article:
[Cornelius Drebbel] also built the first navigable submarine in 1620 while working for the English Royal Navy. He manufactured a steerable submarine with a leather-covered wooden frame. Between 1620 and 1624 Drebbel successfully built and tested two more submarines, each one bigger than the last. The final (third) model had 6 oars and could carry 16 passengers. This model was demonstrated to King James I in person and several thousand Londoners. The submarine stayed submerged for three hours and could travel from Westminster to Greenwich and back, cruising at a depth between 12 and 15 feet (4 to 5 metres). Drebbel even took King James in this submarine on a test dive beneath the Thames, making King James I the first monarch to travel underwater. This submarine was tested many times in the Thames, but it couldn't attract enough enthusiasm from the Admiralty and was never used in combat.
Van_Drebbel.jpg


I think Galileo would be floored by the principles of electricity, though.
 

Mauro

Active Member
Time travel is the solution.

- the air you pass through is moved forward in time, from just before the object enters the space to just after it leaves
- momentum is equalized by exchanging the increase in momentum at the start against the loss of momentum at the end of the travel
- the same temporally backwards exchange occurs with the energy, since the net energy gain of the object is zero
- time travel violates the principles of thermodynamics, which assume a steady flow of time

- the acceleration to the outside observer may look differently to someone inside the system, similar to how relativistic effects work, and especially if the passage of time can be affected by technology

Hehe time travel would indeed solve a lot of problems ;) , even the 1st principle of thermodynamics could be overcome (go back in time, extract potential energy, send the energy back to the future, rinse and repeat).
 

Daniel F

Member
I generally like Fran's videos, but I think she's missed the mark on this one. Before there is a need for such an exotic explanation, we must determine that the observations warrant such an explanation because they can't be explained any other way. I have yet to see any UAP case in which this is true.
This is true but it is a solution. Admittedly behind every other solution including the most probable- human fallibility.
When observing something seemingly defying laws of physics, we may not be even asking the correct question in our analysis. Even the question asked is based on our fundamental understanding of, in this instance, how objects travel from A to B.

Straying directly into wooville here but, if the objects were real then it maybe that we are observing something inter-dimensional and no laws are broken ( sound barrier etc ) as the objects aren’t travelling anywhere. Although seemingly ridiculous, it’s just as plausible as something moving without inertia and silently through sound barriers. When supposedly defying physics; they disappear from radar and sight and reappear elsewhere. Even the targets that dropped from 80k to sea level- that is not necessarily a continual observation of actual travel, that is an assumption we would apply based on our interpretation of what we are observing.

Kind of like tribespeople living under certain assumptions - when shown a flat screen tv, for the first time, showing the ‘go fast’ video- their immediate concern would not be whether it’s parallax or the concept of hyper focal; they would be checking either side and around the back trying to understand where the damn thing went ! Their question is not even correct. I’m not saying this is what happened, obviously human fallibility is almost certainly the issue here, but that’s my (somewhat philosophical ) 2 cents. Completely useless in this debate, I know !
 

Domzh

Active Member
The theory proposed to explain this is some kind of space warp. Basically magic.
Not magic at all. It's very well known most alien spacecraft / UAP were manufactured by "Russel's Teapot Inc"

Hence why they all share some extremely advanced capabilities in adapting their appearance, behavior or physics depending on the situation.

how could you not know? magic, pff...
 

SkepticSteve

New Member
Not magic at all. It's very well known most alien spacecraft / UAP were manufactured by "Russel's Teapot Inc"

Hence why they all share some extremely advanced capabilities in adapting their appearance, behavior or physics depending on the situation.

how could you not know? magic, pff...

It's still the most credible fringe explanation as it does not violate any physical laws and is compatible with commonly existing theories. And hypothetically one should be also able to measure the direct effects such a propulsion system has on its surroundings and any matter interacting with it. The only problem from an engineering point of view is just that such a propulsion system is energetically infeasible.
 

Domzh

Active Member
It's still the most credible fringe explanation as it does not violate any physical laws and is compatible with commonly existing theories. And hypothetically one should be also able to measure the direct effects such a propulsion system has on its surroundings and any matter interacting with it. The only problem from an engineering point of view is just that such a propulsion system is energetically infeasible.
Show me a single incident out of all "encounters" that combines eye witness accounts with video footage and sensor data that leads to a reasonable assumption of "space bending propulsion".

This is mandatory to make sure every observed or perceived characteristic is linked to the same object, otherwise there's a probability of wrongfully attributing different observations to a single object.

"They were tracked on radar" proofs nothing on its own.

"I saw Zorg from Uranus" proofs nothing on its own.

"This video clearly shows physics defying movement" - No it does not, on its own.

Dismissing the likelihood of human error due to "Authority or Halo Bias" is a thing.

When a pilot says "it defied our understanding of the law of physics" than this only indicates that this pilot believed that something did something that he assumes isnt possible.

When a radar operator says "They were dropping from 80k feet to sea level within the fraction of a second" than this only indicates he saw something causing his radar to show him something that he assumed did X.

Provide the combined hard and soft evidence, let us challenge it and talk to the eye witnesses and people involved.

I have never seen such a case.

Theres none. Not a single one.

And thats why we should treat single
pieces of evidence as pieces to a greater puzzle and not mush them together and form a finalized puzzle out of it.
 

SkepticSteve

New Member
Show me a single incident out of all "encounters" that combines eye witness accounts with video footage and sensor data that leads to a reasonable assumption of "space bending propulsion".

This is mandatory to make sure every observed or perceived characteristic is linked to the same object, otherwise there's a probability of wrongfully attributing different observations to a single object.

[...]

Provide the combined hard and soft evidence, let us challenge it and talk to the eye witnesses and people involved.

I have never seen such a case.

Theres none. Not a single one.

And thats why we should treat single
pieces of evidence as pieces to a greater puzzle and not mush them together and form a finalized puzzle out of it.

You are citing me out of context. I think we are on the same team. I have not been saying that there is strong evidence for a warp drive propulsion system. My point is that a warp drive propulsion system is the least fringy of all proposed fringe explanations. And also could be easily dismissed or verified through experimental studies.

Any serious research effort about UAPs given sufficient funding, expertise and resources could look for direct evidence of such a propulsion system. Presumably, they are given full access to any created data from UAP sightings or are capable of carrying out UAP observations by themselves. Heck, the least effort attempt could even be just to replicate the presumed gravitational lensing in computer simulations such a propulsion system would create.

I am saying that any serious institution given sufficient resources to investigate UAPs could easily look at whether there is any more credibility for a more exotic explanation or not. And as aside from the warp drive, all other fringe explanations for exotic propulsion systems would require the direct violation of hard physical constraints and laws, this would therefore make them very implausible. Meaning, that at the end of the day only natural causes would remain as the most likely explanation to look into.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Agent K Why all the UFO reports from the Navy, and not the Air Force? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 8
bird_up "Gimbal UFO video rendered in 3D" by Abominati0n UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 5
Mick West The Evolution of Official DoD/Pentagon Statements Regarding The Navy UFO Videos and UAP Investigations UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 6
Mick West Explained: New Navy UFO Videos UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 163
Mick West Are the Navy UFOs "Real," or just in the Low Information Zone? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 31
Mick West Why Michio Kaku is wrong about the UFO Burden of Proof & Navy Videos UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 32
Getoffthisplanet Flir1, Go Fast, Gimbal - Navy Releases New Information: Official Dates UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 9
Getoffthisplanet Navy spokesman Gradisher's definition of UAP UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 12
Mick West Cube in a Sphere UFO's Seen by Navy pilots. Radar Targets? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 17
Mick West NYT: GIMBAL Video of U.S. Navy Jet Encounter with Unknown Object UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 727
Mick West Explained: Chilean Navy "UFO" video - Aerodynamic Contrails, Flight IB6830 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 186
MikeG Claim: Secret Navy Electromagnetic Warfare Training Conspiracy Theories 0
TEEJ Contrails during Russian Navy Cruise Missile Strike in Syria, 2015 Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Debunked: Leaked US Navy Map, New Madrid, Submerged US General Discussion 40
Gary Cook Debunked: 'Gun used in Navy Yard shooting was an assault rifle.' General Discussion 8
Alhazred The Sane Alex Jones & the Navy Yard Shootings Conspiracy Theories 1
Mick West Washington Navy Yard Shootings - False Flag Conspiracy Theories? Conspiracy Theories 73
FreiZeitGeist HAARP-Website offline (Navy renegotiating management contract) HAARP 28
dizzle Boston: Navy Seals Boston Marathon Bombings 28
Cairenn US Navy map of US General Discussion 13
RustamShah PIA pilot Reports Seeing UFO In Pakistan's Airspace General Discussion 6
Jedo How can we interpret witness reports of buckling? 9/11 5
benthamitemetric Other WTC7 Investigations: Aegis Insurance v. 7 World Trade Company Expert Reports 9/11 39
Bruce Lansberg Dutch Safety Board publish reports on MH17 crash, Tuesday Oct 13 Flight MH17 14
deirdre Searchable State Police Report and OFFICIAL reports/press releases Sandy Hook 3
Mick West MH370: Reports of Debris in Malacca Strait by Elka Athina Oil Tanker Flight MH370 15
J Flight MH370: China reports possible debris observed Flight MH370 51
Rroval Reports of UFO Sightings Across California Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 4
Mick West Debunked: CNNs Fake News Broadcasts - Charles Jaco and the Fake Live Gulf War Reports Conspiracy Theories 222
FreiZeitGeist Radio Station New Jersey 101, talks and reports about Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Chew The Tianjin explosion and the scaling laws of nuclear weapons Conspiracy Theories 6
Related Articles































Related Articles

Top