49 minutes ago, Chock said:

The problem with the Fermi Paradox is that it isn't a paradox at all because it fails to take into account other explanations which can fairly easily debunk it. For example, what if it is fairly inevitable that many sufficiently advanced species end up destroying themselves before they make it into space? Through perhaps for example an environmental catastrophe, or warfare or whatever. You only have to look at our own planet to know this is a real possibility.

 

Well yes, that may be why there is no evidence of technological species out there. Your argument is actually favouring the Fermi Paradox. A Paradox is a contradictory statement.  The Drake equation says there should be many, but we see none. Thus its paradoxical that there are none detectable when the Drake equation says there should be. 

What you refer to is known as the great filter. Some cataclysmic event that destroys a civilisation before they invent the technology to travel interstellar distances.  The great filter may indeed be the explanation. Thing is though, given the age of the universe, and the fact that the universe could be be traversed in a few millions years even at our slow velocities, even just a few technological species surviving and avoiding the "great Filter" should have resulted in the galaxy being heavily populated. 

 

 

Quote

 

The following are some of the facts that together serve to highlight the apparent contradiction:

• There are billions of stars in the Milky Way similar to the Sun.^[3][4]
• With high probability, some of these stars have Earth-like planets.^[5]
• Many of these stars, and hence their planets, are much older than the Sun.^[6][7] If the Earth is typical, some may have developed intelligent life long ago.
• Some of these civilizations may have developed interstellar travel, a step humans are investigating now.
• Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the Milky Way galaxy could be completely traversed in a few million years.^[8]
• And since many of the stars similar to the Sun are billions of years older, the Earth should have already been visited by extraterrestrial civilizations, or at least their probes.^[9]
• However, there is no convincing evidence that this has happened.^[8]

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

•  

55 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

 

Such life would need to discover time travel, or some form of life suspending process that could endure 100's or 1000's or more years, or figure out how to keep an Einstein-Rosen bridge (wormhole) from being unstable and collapsing (by definition of the theory of existence of wormholes, any matter entering a wormhole would immediately collapse the wormhole).  To get to this level of technology (wormhole jumping, time travel, suspended animation), they would have long ago discovered how to conceal themselves from our primitive technology.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

 

Yep. Or an Alcubierre wrap drive or similar. Trouble is it would require negative energy and we have no idea if such a thing really exists. Lots of other issue with the Alcubierre drive too. But we cant rule it out as a possibility. propping open a wormhole would require negative energy too.

Although there was some research recently that suggested that rotating wormholes could be stable and allow passage through.  

So what is the phenomenon people have been witnessing for so long? 

1 hour ago, jon b said:

@martin-w

That's fair enough, but reading what I've said I'm not attempting to tell you or anyone else the origin of these objects, simply that they do indeed exist, that much, I know, is fact.

 

 

   

 

 

Well we know they exist, as in UNIDENTIFIED Flying Objects. Its the rest you added on that we can't possibly know definitively at this point in time. 

Its feasible that the claims of physics defying maneuverers are exaggerated, witnesses lying through their back teeth, etc. We know that eye witness reports are notoriously unreliable. I'm not saying that's definitely the case, just that we have no definitive evidence, thus we should be careful when we use the word FACT.  

Below is what we don't know definitively.

 "Performance  characteristics that do not confirm to the known laws of physics. Their Increased performance capabilities are of such an order of magnitude that they cannot realistically be considered to be within even several generations of current technological developments."

Edited January 14, 20215 yr by martin-w

14 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Making claim to a fact, facts can't exist without evidence.  All you are doing is making a claim, you aren't demonstrating a fact.

Rob, I know what you're saying, and you're right

 I am unable present evidence here to substantiate my statement , if that makes people think I'm simply peddling BS then so be it. 

However I hope you can appreciate it's not the sort of claim anyone would just casually make without having good reason.

 

38 minutes ago, LHookins said:

This reminds me of preschoolers arguing about where babies come from.

Kid 1:  "I was in the room when my baby brother was born."

Kid 2:  "That doesn't prove anything!"

It should be obvious where Jon gets his information.  And why he can't talk about it.  Good luck, Jon.

Hook

Thanks Hook

8 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

 

Well we know they exist, as in UNIDENTIFIED Flying Objects. Its the rest you added on that we can't possibly know definitively at this point in time. 

OK, just so I can put this to bed as I already wish I hadn't said anything, what is it that you're thinking I'm adding on and I'll try and clarify?  I think from your statement above we are in agreement that these objects do exist, which is all I'm saying , as I tried to make clear I have not speculated to their origin.

Edited January 14, 20215 yr by jon b

4 hours ago, jon b said:

There ARE craft/ objects flying within the worlds  airspace without the knowledge or permission of the controlling authorities. These objects are under intelligent control and display Performance  characteristics that do not confirm to the known laws of physics. Their Increased performance capabilities are of such an order of magnitude that they cannot realistically be considered to be within even several generations of current technological developments.

Let me see if I can reword this, make it a bit more palatable.

We know such objects have been detected, this much is fact.  Their observed performance capabilities are far beyond any known craft.  Their apparent movements suggest intelligent control.

What are they?  Where are they from?  What are they doing?  I don't care.  Sixty years ago I speculated. These days I simply observe.

Hook

11 minutes ago, jon b said:

OK, just so I can put this to bed as I already wish I hadn't said anything, what is it that you're thinking I'm adding on and I'll try and clarify?  I think from your statement above we are in agreement that these objects do exist, which is all I'm saying , as I tried to make clear I have not speculated to their origin.

 

This...

"Performance  characteristics that do not confirm to the known laws of physics. Their Increased performance capabilities are of such an order of magnitude that they cannot realistically be considered to be within even several generations of current technological developments."

You stated the above as fact. We cant do that at this point in time. Witnesses have claimed the above. But witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. 

Edited January 14, 20215 yr by martin-w

Thanks Hook ...You're hired !! 

9 minutes ago, LHookins said:

 

Their observed performance capabilities are far beyond any known craft.  

 

 

According to "what people say". We need more than that. We need physical evidence. Not even the famous tic tac ATFLIR videos displayed physics defying maneuverers. We have no physical evidence. Before we make DEFINITIVE claims we need better evidence. Physics defying manoeuvres is an extraordinary claim for which we need extraordinary evidence. 

Personally, I believe something unusual is taking place that deserves to be researched and that there APPEARS to be physics defying capabilities on display, but I'm not prepared to claim that as an undeniable fact. 

I made no claims of "physics defying" capabilities.  Only of observed performance beyond any known craft.  As far as I'm concerned, anything that appears to be "physics defying" is likely an optical illusion.  I wasn't all that impressed by the tic tac videos.

Keep in mind that "UFO" does not equal "little green men" or any other kinds of visiting space aliens.  All we know is that something unusual is out there.  It may well be a rare natural phenomenon.

I suggest reading through the entire article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object

Hook

12 minutes ago, LHookins said:

I made no claims of "physics defying" capabilities.  Only of observed performance beyond any known craft.  

 

True... the person you were paraphrasing did. 

But the same applies, performance beyond any known craft should still not be stated definitively. These are claims, claims that may or may not be true.

As for the definition of UFO, I am aware of what the accronym means, which is why I asked the question earlier... as to what the phenomonon is, top secret aircraft, misidentifcation, etc. And why I typed a lengthy piece on the US Navy patents for a vehicle with identical characteristics.

 

Edited January 14, 20215 yr by martin-w

29 minutes ago, martin-w said:

performance beyond any known craft should still not be stated definitively

I didn't say their performance was beyond any known craft, I said their observed performance was beyond any known craft.  Some of these observations were by radar or other means.  It is not impossible for radar to be spoofed although it is a bit more difficult.

The most interesting thing I get out of all this is that the official explanation has gone from categorically "it doesn't exist" to "something is out there."  

Hook

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

Well yes, that may be why there is no evidence of technological species out there. Your argument is actually favouring the Fermi Paradox.

Not really, Fermi was chatting with a few people about this when his titular paradox was coined, among them Edward Teller apparently. Fermi said something along the lines of 'but where are all these aliens?' meaning he thought it unlikely there were any or we'd have some evidence of them; that's what his paradox refers to, but what I wrote refutes the notion of some considerable logic his comment did not take into account. So, far from sup[porting his contention, it does the opposite. The Drake Equation wasn't really much to do with that argument directly, since it only had a rough guesstimate at numbers and was specifically related that to SETI's radio telescope searches alone.

In both cases however, these things, whilst not exactly wild guesses, were more in the nature of being intended to be conversation starters rather than equations of formulas in the truly scientific sense, since they rely on a lot of assumptions and estimates.

16 minutes ago, Chock said:

Not really, Fermi was chatting with a few people about this when his titular paradox was coined, among them Edward Teller apparently. Fermi said something along the lines of 'but where are all these aliens?' meaning he thought it unlikely there were any or we'd have some evidence of them; that's what his paradox refers to,

 

Precisely. The Drake Equation suggests many. The paradox is the equation suggesting many (as well as other estimates) but paradoxically we see none. If you think a "great filter" may have wiped out most species before they gain technology capable of FTL, thus there are few or none, then you agree with the Fermi Paradox and have put forward a reason why. 

 

Quote

but what I wrote refutes the notion of some considerable logic his comment did not take into account.

 

Nope, the great filter may have been the causal factor for few or no species capable of intergalactic travel. Hence, why there appear to be no civilisations, contrary to the Drake Equation. 

 

Quote

The Drake Equation wasn't really much to do with that argument directly, since it only had a rough guesstimate at numbers and was specifically related that to SETI's radio telescope searches alone.

 

It was a lot to do with the argument, it WAS the argument, that the galaxy contained many advanced species.  There are indeed many assumptions made in the Drake Equation. Its not to be taken definitively. Although it has been fine tuned over the years. It was something that Frank Drake came up with for a talk he had been asked to give.

See below...

The Fermi paradox, named after Italian-American physicist Enrico Fermi, is the apparent contradiction between the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial civilizations and various high estimates for their probability (such as some optimistic estimates for the Drake equation).^[1][2]

 

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox}

Edited January 14, 20215 yr by martin-w