ET UFO's

[Swift]

By saying you would be convinced by your own eye witness experience you automatically join the not to be believed club.

This is probably approaching the beating-a-dead-horse stage, but I'm continuing the beating.

No, I did not say I would be convinced by my own eye witness experience; I said it was possible. But I also said it was highly unlikely - highly unlikely that I will experience such an event, and that it would convince me.

But I've also learned that making absolute claims about one's future behavior ("Oh, I'd never fall for that!"), tends to get one in trouble. I don't think people really know how they will react to a completely unknown situation till they experience it. I also felt that by making an absolute claim about my possible reaction to such a thing, that my own eyewitnessing wouldn't convince me, I was unfairly invalidating Copernicus' experience.

[Copernicus]

This is probably approaching the beating-a-dead-horse stage, but I'm continuing the beating.

No, I did not say I would be convinced by my own eye witness experience; I said it was possible. But I also said it was highly unlikely - highly unlikely that I will experience such an event, and that it would convince me.

But I've also learned that making absolute claims about one's future behavior ("Oh, I'd never fall for that!"), tends to get one in trouble. I don't think people really know how they will react to a completely unknown situation till they experience it. I also felt that by making an absolute claim about my possible reaction to such a thing, that my own eyewitnessing wouldn't convince me, I was unfairly invalidating Copernicus' experience.

I don't believe in beings from other planets being here either. I just think the distance is way too far from other solar systems for other intelligent life to make it here and unlikely that intelligent life on other solar systems, would match up in time periods with our intelligent life. I just think it was some special military object.

[grant hutchison]

I also have never seen tornado in person. But they are extremely well documented, there is plenty of physical evidence for them, and they are well explained by science. There is nothing extraordinary about believing in tornadoes. Actually, I don't "believe" in them, it is not a question of belief; I clearly understand that they exist.

A believer in the UFO Extraterrestrial Hypothesis once asked me why I believe in Antarctica, given that I had never seen it.
I pointed out that I had actually seen it, but would believe in it even if I hadn't because the "Antarctica Hypothesis" has great explanatory power - its consistent application explained many reports and images that would otherwise be inexplicable, and it makes useful and checkable predictions about what people will experience and observe if they travel to high southern latitudes. The problem with the ETH is that there is no unitary version with explanatory power - it's in a constant state of modification, complication and obfuscation, as its proponents attempt to bend it into some useful form.

Grant Hutchison

[Abaddon]

This is probably approaching the beating-a-dead-horse stage, but I'm continuing the beating.

No, I did not say I would be convinced by my own eye witness experience; I said it was possible. But I also said it was highly unlikely - highly unlikely that I will experience such an event, and that it would convince me.

But I've also learned that making absolute claims about one's future behavior ("Oh, I'd never fall for that!"), tends to get one in trouble. I don't think people really know how they will react to a completely unknown situation till they experience it. I also felt that by making an absolute claim about my possible reaction to such a thing, that my own eyewitnessing wouldn't convince me, I was unfairly invalidating Copernicus' experience.

I at least understand your point. I have seen many UFO's in the past. Few of years ago, I saw a brilliant orb in the sky. It was night, it was bright it was clearly distant not close. It moved in unexpected ways and was completely silent and then it vanished without trace. This is an archetype for UFO sightings. Immediately, I reported it to MUFON.

The hell I did. The first actions I took were to crank up my radios, wheel out my binos and PAY ATTENTION. Turns out it was a copper chopper chasing some perp something like 25 miles away.

I can totally see how the gullible would have classed that as a "UFO" incident. It was silent, That couldn't possibly a chopper. Baloney. Jets 5 miles up are inaudible, chopper 25 miles away is going to be. And I have a side hobby of photographing aircraft anyway, often in motion, so I have a tad more experience, and I have had a copper chopper directly over my home so I know how bright that thing is (they were apparently chasing some crim, I don't know details, but there were a row of three cops perched on my back wall, 1 chopper and five vehicles. Perp did the garden hurdle, I got unlucky. In out and gone sprinting)

[bknight]

I at least understand your point. I have seen many UFO's in the past. Few of years ago, I saw a brilliant orb in the sky. It was night, it was bright it was clearly distant not close. It moved in unexpected ways and was completely silent and then it vanished without trace. This is an archetype for UFO sightings. Immediately, I reported it to MUFON.

The hell I did. The first actions I took were to crank up my radios, wheel out my binos and PAY ATTENTION. Turns out it was a copper chopper chasing some perp something like 25 miles away.

I can totally see how the gullible would have classed that as a "UFO" incident. It was silent, That couldn't possibly a chopper. Baloney. Jets 5 miles up are inaudible, chopper 25 miles away is going to be. And I have a side hobby of photographing aircraft anyway, often in motion, so I have a tad more experience, and I have had a copper chopper directly over my home so I know how bright that thing is (they were apparently chasing some crim, I don't know details, but there were a row of three cops perched on my back wall, 1 chopper and five vehicles. Perp did the garden hurdle, I got unlucky. In out and gone sprinting)

Uum what is a "copper"chpeer?

[Shaula]

Uum what is a "copper"chpeer?

A police (copper) helicopter (chopper).

British slang.

[Grey]

Unless the eyewitness is me, eyewitness testimony by itself will never convince me of ETIs.

And honestly, even if the eyewitness were me, it would have to be a remarkable encounter for me to persuaded. I know how easy it is to misinterpret something seen in the sky, even if I'm the one seeing it. Even if I weren't able to explain it, I'd assume that whatever I saw more likely had some mundane explanation than an extraterrestrial visit. Lights wouldn't do it; it would have to be close enough for me to see a spacecraft, and even then, I'd be more likely to assume an experimental human craft of some kind, unless I actually saw aliens or something else incontrovertible.

[bknight]

A police (copper) helicopter (chopper).

British slang.

Duh, of course I was thinking of the color for the chopper.
Thanks

[ZappBrannigan]

Duh, of course I was thinking of the color for the chopper.
Thanks

Those do exist in the UFO world. You have to fly in a copper chopper for at least five years before you get to be in a black helicopter.

[Grant Hatch]

I don't believe in beings from other planets being here either. I just think the distance is way too far from other solar systems for other intelligent life to make it here and unlikely that intelligent life on other solar systems, would match up in time periods with our intelligent life. I just think it was some special military object.

Really!? We were riding around in horse drawn carriages 150 years ago and you think we are so well versed in science and physics now as to be able to make such a definitive statement! Talk about arrogance..... Additionally, the same conditions that led to intelligent life arising here were more than likely present throughout the universe for many Billions of years before we came along.... Why do you assume that all intelligent life will be short lived? Just because We seem to be on that path? Have more faith, we may survive our birthing pains yet (:

[Swift]

Talk about arrogance.....

Watch it. Debate the topic, but don't insult those who disagree with you.

[Dave241]

Well we know there are no Type III or even Type II civilizations in our galaxy since there are no Dyson Swarms being built around half the stars in our galaxy. And for a Type I or Type 0 civilization, interstellar distances really are way too far. Though I do agree with you that there is no reason to assume that a technological civilization is doomed to extinction.

[Jens]

Really!? We were riding around in horse drawn carriages 150 years ago and you think we are so well versed in science and physics now as to be able to make such a definitive statement!

It may be true that we generally used horse-drawn carriages before the development of the steam engine, but the principle used for our fastest engines was developed in ancient China to make fast-moving projectiles. Every form of locomotion we have developed is subject to the third law of motion, and I think it’s very unlikely that we will ever find a way to overcome that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Grant Hatch]

It may be true that we generally used horse-drawn carriages before the development of the steam engine, but the principle used for our fastest engines was developed in ancient China to make fast-moving projectiles. Every form of locomotion we have developed is subject to the third law of motion, and I think it’s very unlikely that we will ever find a way to overcome that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Newtonian physics has been proven inadequate in describing "reality" compared to Einsteinian physics. Gravitational propagation for instance; instantaneous vs speed of light. Einsteinian physics has problems with quantum mechanics and vice versa. Cosmological observations have a history of calling into question formerly accepted views..... recently, the accelerating expansion of the universe; a gravitational problem. We don't seem to have a full understanding of gravity; the invention of "dark" matter may or may not "solve" the problem. Since control of gravity and inertia seems to lie at the heart of theories regarding UFO propulsion perhaps we should entertain the possibility that we still have things to learn.... Mans understanding of our surroundings and physical laws is constantly evolving. We are still learning.... It doesn't seem to me that we can categorically dismiss the possibility that we will find a way to travel to the stars in a timely manner that doesn't violate these "laws". To dismiss this possibility would seem to fly in the face of logic, our ever evolving grasp of these "laws" and our ability to manipulate them to our advantage.

[Jens]

Newtonian physics has been proven inadequate in describing "reality" compared to Einsteinian physics. Gravitational propagation for instance; instantaneous vs speed of light. Einsteinian physics has problems with quantum mechanics and vice versa. Cosmological observations have a history of calling into question formerly accepted views..... recently, the accelerating expansion of the universe; a gravitational problem. We don't seem to have a full understanding of gravity; the invention of "dark" matter may or may not "solve" the problem. Since control of gravity and inertia seems to lie at the heart of theories regarding UFO propulsion perhaps we should entertain the possibility that we still have things to learn.... Mans understanding of our surroundings and physical laws is constantly evolving. We are still learning....

Of course our knowledge is always evolving, but it doesn't mean that we will necessarily discovery things that make the universe the way we hope it to be. It's true that Newton's science was incomplete without what Einstein did, but that does not mean that the third law of motion is wrong. Even with the addition of Einstein you get an equal and opposite reaction, it's just that it might look different to different observers.

It doesn't seem to me that we can categorically dismiss the possibility that we will find a way to travel to the stars in a timely manner that doesn't violate these "laws". To dismiss this possibility would seem to fly in the face of logic, our ever evolving grasp of these "laws" and our ability to manipulate them to our advantage.

"I think it's highly unlikely" is not the same as dismissing. Never did I say it was impossible.

[eburacum45]

Newtonian physics has been proven inadequate in describing "reality" compared to Einsteinian physics. Gravitational propagation for instance; instantaneous vs speed of light.

I should point out that Einsteinian physics is more restrictive, and more problematic, for anyone trying to travel between the stars than Newtonian physics. In Newton's universe, the speed of light is no barrier- if you want to travel at ten, or a hundred times c, that is only an engineering problem. In Einstein's world, anything faster than c is forbidden. There is no guarantee that advances in physics and cosmology will make space travel easier- in fact the opposite seems to be true.

[gzhpcu]

I should point out that Einsteinian physics is more restrictive, and more problematic, for anyone trying to travel between the stars than Newtonian physics. In Newton's universe, the speed of light is no barrier- if you want to travel at ten, or a hundred times c, that is only an engineering problem. In Einstein's world, anything faster than c is forbidden. There is no guarantee that advances in physics and cosmology will make space travel easier- in fact the opposite seems to be true.

I know we are far away from it, and maybe it is not possible, but how about warp drive?

[SkepticJ]

If you travel substantial fractions of c, time passes substantially slower for you. The end effect is that although you can't travel faster than light, you can travel many light years without a single local-year passing for you. Who needs warp drive?

[Jens]

I know we are far away from it, and maybe it is not possible, but how about warp drive?

As far as we know it isn't. We don't see things going faster than the speed of light.

[DaveC426913]

If you travel substantial fractions of c, time passes substantially slower for you. The end effect is that although you can't travel faster than light, you can travel many light years without a single local-year passing for you. Who needs warp drive?

Well, only those who don't want it to be a one-way trip...

[Jens]

Well, only those who don't want it to be a one-way trip...

It can be a two-way trip, it's just that you won't know anybody when you get back home.

[A.DIM]

What I witnessed, with 16 others (adults and children), was the classic glowing orb and I have no explanation. I've been skywatching for years; astronomy by night, aircraft by day. I live under flight paths between Ft. Knox and Ft. Campbell and know many man-made craft, including satellites. I've seen countless meteor showers, shooting stars, planets, comets, etc. but only once have I seen an "unexplained." I don't necessarily assume ETi but I'm always reminded that any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic.

[Eclogite]

I'm always reminded that any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic.

And, if its truly advanced, it will only be distinguishable if its operators choose for it to be so.

[Grant Hatch]

Watch it. Debate the topic, but don't insult those who disagree with you.

Sorry, I could have phrased that better. It was meant more as a general statement about the scientific discipline than specific to one person. Many "scientific conclusions" have been proven false in the past and I suspect will continue to be so as our understanding of reality continues to evolve.

[Grant Hatch]

As far as we know it isn't. We don't see things going faster than the speed of light.

Perhaps that "conclusion" is evolving as well. Found this....

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.2804v7.pdf

Paper accepted for publication in Astroparticle Physics
Six observations consistent with the electron neutrino being a tachyon with mass: m2 νe = −0.11 ± 0.016eV 2
Robert Ehrlich
George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA∗
(Dated: August 20, 2018)
Abstract
"Six observations based on data and fits to data from a variety of areas are consistent with the
hypothesis that the electron neutrino is a m2 νe = −0.11±0.016eV 2 tachyon. The data are from areas
including CMB fluctuations, gravitational lensing, cosmic ray spectra, neutrino oscillations, and 0ν
double beta decay. For each of the six observations it is possible under explicitly stated assumptions
to compute a value for m2 νe, and it is found that the six values are remarkably consistent with the above cited νe mass (χ2 = 2.73). There are no known observations in clear conflict with the claimed result."

[R.A.F.]

What I witnessed, with 16 others (adults and children), was the classic glowing orb and I have no explanation.

"Having no explanation" is not evidence except that you personally couldn't explain it...so what.

I've been skywatching for years; astronomy by night, aircraft by day. I live under flight paths between Ft. Knox and Ft. Campbell and know many man-made craft, including satellites. I've seen countless meteor showers, shooting stars, planets, comets, etc.

In other words, we should take your claims seriously, because you are an authority??

...but only once have I seen an "unexplained."

If your only evidence for this is remembered observations, then it will always be unexplained.

[Jens]

Perhaps that "conclusion" is evolving as well. Found this....

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.2804v7.pdf

Paper accepted for publication in Astroparticle Physics
Six observations consistent with the electron neutrino being a tachyon with mass: m2 νe = −0.11 ± 0.016eV 2
Robert Ehrlich
George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA∗
(Dated: August 20, 2018)
Abstract
"Six observations based on data and fits to data from a variety of areas are consistent with the
hypothesis that the electron neutrino is a m2 νe = −0.11±0.016eV 2 tachyon. The data are from areas
including CMB fluctuations, gravitational lensing, cosmic ray spectra, neutrino oscillations, and 0ν
double beta decay. For each of the six observations it is possible under explicitly stated assumptions
to compute a value for m2 νe, and it is found that the six values are remarkably consistent with the above cited νe mass (χ2 = 2.73). There are no known observations in clear conflict with the claimed result."

A couple of things to note. First, the title says "consistent with", which means not that they are, but that given certain assumptions they could be interpreted as having negative mass. Also, you might note that the paper was put into arxiv in 2014, and there was some attention, but it was generally seen as an interesting interpretation but probably wrong, considering the evidence we have in general that neutrinos do not go faster than c. So as a result, the paper has not been given a lot of attention in the four years since it was uploaded.

[Shaula]

A couple of things to note. First, the title says "consistent with", which means not that they are, but that given certain assumptions they could be interpreted as having negative mass. Also, you might note that the paper was put into arxiv in 2014, and there was some attention, but it was generally seen as an interesting interpretation but probably wrong, considering the evidence we have in general that neutrinos do not go faster than c. So as a result, the paper has not been given a lot of attention in the four years since it was uploaded.

The number given for CMB/lensing is based on the assumption that the magnitudes of the masses of the neutrinos is about equal so doesn't really support this number uniquely.
The VSM model requires a sterile neutrino, the CMB/lensing result requires there not be one so the pieces of evidence seem to be incompatible. The fix to this is apparently to create three sets of sterile neutrinos, two of which are tachyons and one of which is not. But this tension means that there are not 6 observations, there are 5 at most because two appear to be incompatible.
The stuff about the knee requires that protons decay above a few PeV. This seems problematic as it gives you access to an absolute speed measure unless you posit that it is a CMB interaction, and if it is then there is another explanation that is based on known physics for the knee.

I guess the short version is that none of these observations, nor the combination of them, are really a smoking gun. They might be worth looking into but they are not evidence for tachyons. And, as you say, there are other bits of evidence that appear to refute the idea of tachyonic electron neutrinos.

[Grant Hatch]

Inertial and gravitational anomalies addressed by single theory. The EM drive AND galaxy rotation.

Since manipulation of inertia and gravity would also seem to be part of UFO's capabilities I searched and found this... While only a hypothesis, it may become more than that with further study. Even though it may have nothing to do with UFO's apparent abilities I'm just pointing out that there are anomalous observations outside our current understanding of physics, gravity and inertia. I love mysteries and anomalies.... they are indicative of areas needing further exploration. Interestingly, it also explains anomalous galaxy rotation. Wow. Inertial AND gravitational anomalies addressed by a single theory.....

From papers abstract:

"Standard physics has no explanation for this and an error has not yet been found. It is shown here that this effect can be predicted by assuming that the inertial mass of the photons in the cavity is caused by Unruh radiation, whose wavelengths must fit exactly within the cavity, using a theory already applied successfully to astrophysical anomalies such as galaxy rotation where the Unruh waves have to fit within the Hubble scale."

"A new theory of inertia could explain the EM Drive’s anomalous thrust
By Graham Templeton on April 25, 2016 at 2:30 pm

"The EM Drive is the most important advance in space propulsion since rocket fuel itself — just so long as it isn’t a big, fat mistake.
It’s being hailed as a next-generation electric space thruster that requires no fuel, but its apparent ability to generate thrust has defied scientific explanation. The question of whether the EM Drive is a huge step forward for science, or simply a refresher course in the importance of taking careful measurements, has vexed NASA engineers. Last year they announced thrust readings that could not be falsified by any means they devised, but in their own paper they went on to actively disown the results. Now, a physicist from Plymouth University may have figured out an explanation for the EM Drive’s stubborn refusal to sit still: with a whole new theory of inertia, we could explain both the EM Drive’s anomalous thrust and a long-standing mystery in physics."

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...omalous-thrust

Here is a link to the paper.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03449

"Testing quantised inertia on the emdrive
M.E. McCulloch
(Submitted on 6 Apr 2016)
It has been shown that truncated cone-shaped cavities with microwaves resonating within them move slightly towards their narrow ends (the emdrive). Standard physics has no explanation for this and an error has not yet been found. It is shown here that this effect can be predicted by assuming that the inertial mass of the photons in the cavity is caused by Unruh radiation, whose wavelengths must fit exactly within the cavity, using a theory already applied successfully to astrophysical anomalies such as galaxy rotation where the Unruh waves have to fit within the Hubble scale. In the emdrive this means that more Unruh waves are allowed at the wide end, leading to a greater inertial mass for the photons there, and to conserve momentum the cavity must move towards its narrow end, as observed. The model predicts thrusts of: 3.8, 149, 7.3, 0.23, 0.57, 0.11, 0.64 and 0.02 mN compared with the observed thrusts of: 16, 147, 9, 0.09, 0.05, 0.06, 0.03, and 0.02 mN and predicts that if the axial length is equal to the diameter of the small end of the cavity, the thrust should be reversed."
Comments:
9 pages, 1 figure
Subjects:
General Physics (physics.gen-ph)
Journal reference:
EPL, 111, 60005, 2015
DOI:
10.1209/0295-5075/111/60005
Cite as:
arXiv:1604.03449 [physics.gen-ph]

(or arXiv:1604.03449v1 [physics.gen-ph] for this version)

[Swift]

This thread is closed.

First, it is being used to advocate non-mainstream physics, which should not be done in this thread or this sub-forum. If you wish to argue such things, take it to ATM.

Second, it has morphed from being about some personal observations of UFOs to a catch-all thread about anything and everything about UFOs and ETIs. And then the problem is there is no specific advocate and we get a random discussion with no one responsible for answering questions.

If someone thinks this thread should be reopened, Report this post, but I'll tell you now it will be hard to convince us.

If there are specific ETI and UFO topics you wish to discuss, start your own threads.