9 hours ago, dmwalker said:

All this talk of aliens visiting Earth assumes that they found a way to bypass the limit of the speed of light but, if there is, in fact, no practical way to do that, aliens will never visit us and we will never visit them.

 

Yep, that was the point I made a few posts back. And its why we have to regard the concept of aliens visiting us as possible but the least likely probability.

Frequently we get new papers written by scientists that render the Alcubierre warp drive more of a possibility. However, its still a concept that at present we have no idea is feasible. It still requires negative energy which is purely hypothetical and still requires 10% of the energy of the Sun so still seems wildly impractical. But who knows, we are still scratching the surface in terms of our understanding of the laws that govern reality, so much we don't know, so maybe there is an advanced species out there that has mastered interstellar travel.

14 hours ago, dave2013 said:

I also have a theory regarding the Phoenix Lights incident back in the 1990s.  The large triangular craft that many reported silently flying overhead could have been a low-profile stealth dirigible using ultra-silent propulsion such as an ionized airflow system or even super-quiet fans.  This thing could stay aloft almost indefinitely and just hang out over enemy airspace undetected.  Using an advanced display technology, the entire underbelly of the craft could be covered with screens that display the sky above the craft, rendering it invisible to observers on the ground during the day.

It is possible that recent UFOs are merely experimental military aircraft.  If you consider that the F117 stealth fighter is 1960-1970s technology, then one can only imagine what we're capable of producing now.

 

Phoenix Lights is an interesting one and seems to involve two elements. The floating lights were clearly military flares. In fact there was a documentary that superimposed the daylight image of the mountains on top of the night time image of the lights. You could clearly see them dropping below the mountains, demonstrating that they were over the military range. Illumination flares on parachutes probably. 

There was also the huge black triangle seen by numerous witnesses, said to be the size of a football field. Your dirigible theory is interesting. I don't think there were any high velocity manoeuvres so who knows. Not sure why it would have lights on it though if it was top secret tech trying to stay hidden. 

 

Edited May 25, 20215 yr by martin-w

Michio says it cant be ruled out!

 

 

 

51 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Michio says it cant be ruled out!

To be honest, him saying that is no different from a nutter in the street saying it cannot be ruled out. He is right, but he is in fact no better placed to assert that than anyone else, so any appeals to his alleged authority on the matter is entirely fallacious.

We also can't rule out the idea that the Universe was farted out by an enormous space badger called Clive, until someone is actually in a position to prove otherwise.

Edited May 25, 20215 yr by Chock

1 hour ago, Chock said:

so any appeals to his alleged authority on the matter is entirely fallacious

 

Not the point though. The point is that traditionally the majority of scientists, and certainly the more prominent ones, have dismissed the concept of UFO's without much of a thought. No real evidence so they aren't interested. Now though, more prominent scientists are open to the idea that what we are witnessing MIGHT be significant. The change in attitude is the point. perhaps significant. 

 

1 hour ago, Chock said:

but he is in fact no better placed to assert that than anyone else

 

Actually, considering he is  trained to use the scientific method, and look at the evidence objectively, and understands the laws that govern reality better than us,  and understands what is real evidence and what is not, he is better placed than Bob the boozer in the street. 

 

1 hour ago, Chock said:

We also can't rule out the idea that the Universe was farted out by an enormous space badger called Clive, until someone is actually in a position to prove otherwise.

 

We cant prove many things aren't the case, but we don't believe them without evidence, but what we can do is consider probability. And the probability that Clive's flatulence did generate the universe is exceedingly low.  

Edited May 25, 20215 yr by martin-w

2 hours ago, martin-w said:

Colonization is not the cosmic norm

I think it must be. Think of how fast our world population is growing and what it could be a thousand years from now.

I don't know why, but I'm not impressed by some strange objects zipping back and forth right in front of us. A weak distant signal, gradually gaining in strength on the other hand, would have my hair standing on end.

2 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

I think it must be. Think of how fast our world population is growing and what it could be a thousand years from now.

 

Then you must explain why we don't see any evidence of that colonisation. You must explain why, given that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, and that it should only take a couple of million years to spread across the entire galaxy, they don't seem to be there. 

18 minutes ago, Antipodeslonghaul said:

I don't know why, but I'm not impressed by some strange objects zipping back and forth right in front of us

 

You mean like the F18's that encountered the tic tac? No visible means of propulsion, no exhaust, no rotors, no wings, but it engaged an F18 in a two circle manoeuvre and then out accelerated it. Two F18's and four people witnessed it. Two in each jet. That would impress the hell out of me! 😁

 

This is one of Fravor's early accounts of what happened. Since then his wing man (wing women) has come out and others. His best explanation in my view. 

 

 

Edited May 25, 20215 yr by martin-w

43 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

You mean like the F18's that encountered the tic tac? No visible means of propulsion, no exhaust, no rotors, no wings, but it engaged an F18 in a two circle manoeuvre and then out accelerated it. Two F18's and four people witnessed it. Two in each jet. That would impress the hell out of me! 😁

Yeah, I can imagine, if I could see it in real, I'm sure I would also be impressed. And those who can fly an F18 are maybe not easily impressed by trivial things to begin with, so I'm not discounting any of this. But I can't help feeling sceptical.

A large daytime sighting over a crowded freeway for example, during a traffic jam, where numerous different people get out of their cars and shoot footage. Maybe with a bit of hysteria thrown in, like when the building in Shenzhen started shaking. Something the average joe can relate to better than isolated cases observed mainly by military personnel. I can't help but wonder why something like that hasn't happened yet.

Still, it's a very interesting topic for me too, and I look forward to following any developments.

Maybe very advanced military drones. Or, I really hope this isn't offensive, the supernatural, angels. I grew up in an atheist household, but I've always had a yearning for the spiritual. I wouldn't entirely discount that either.

I'd consider any possibility, just I'm still not convinced that there's much of anything to consider right now at this point.

Edited May 25, 20215 yr by Antipodeslonghaul

23 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

Then you must explain why we don't see any evidence of that colonisation. You must explain why, given that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, and that it should only take a couple of million years to spread across the entire galaxy, they don't seem to be there. 

Nope, it is actually anyone making the assertion that 'we'd see evidence' who must explain why they are convinced there absolutely would be colonisation in the first place in order to make that argument stick. And here's why that is so:

Just because we as a species colonise things, this doesn't mean an alien race would also do so. They are alien, which means their behaviour would be alien too, so we cannot assume we know their behaviour, at all. But even if we do assume that such an alien race would have the desire to colonise and expand into the universe, a plausible explanation for not seeing them having done so is not hard to come up with: The civilisation destroyed itself before it developed long range space travel. See? Easy. And that's just one possible explanation.

Given the fact that stuff like nuclear or chemical conflict is fairly easy to get to - we managed that long before we made it into space - as is catastrophic environmental damage - which we also managed long before we got into space - you can see that there's no guarantee we'll be around to make such advances. You've potentially got religious nutters taking us out, mad world leaders kicking stuff off, catastrophic meteorites finishing things, nearby supernovas doing it, interplanetary wars destroying not just one culture, but possibly two if they were nearby to one another, or economic difficulties presenting a barrier to progress, shortage of resources; there are all kinds of things which might conspire to beat a civilisations desire to colonise to the draw. Thus it is not hard to find reasons why we don't see colonisation, nor is it a stretch to believe that this could have been the cause of the demise of many other civilisations multiples of times in other parts of the universe.

Given the size of the universe and the presumably nearly infinite number of chances of things occurring, we might even argue that these things were quite likely scenarios. Then after all that, you've got distance and practicality. For all we know there could be a galaxy a long way off where there is all kinds of interaction going on between different planetary races, but we happen to be well outside of the ranges they deem practical to go to, since they too would presumably also have their own observable universe limits just as we have. So the fact that we aren't seeing things doesn't mean they are not occurring. I don't see trees fall down in forests in the Amazon, but it is safe to assume they still occasionally fall down.

2 hours ago, Chock said:

We also can't rule out the idea that the Universe was farted out by an enormous space badger called Clive, until someone is actually in a position to prove otherwise.

Or that the Universe was created by Santa Clause so he could travel to inhabited planets and dole out the toys that were overstocked in his warehouse in a parallel universe next to ours.

Noel 

4 hours ago, martin-w said:

Intelligent life may exist hidden from view

Alien life is already here unacknowledged - UFO's are laine probes or manned craft!

Hi Martin,

Fascinating thread! However, it seems to me that if we are to give any credence to the multitude of apparent sighting events then we need to consider one other possibility: the existence of the Multiverse.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

Yes, I know, I can hear the jeering already, but stop for a moment and let’s ask ourselves whether the existence of a Mutiverse is any less likely than what has been postulated throughout this thread. Theoretical Physics, as is currently understood and accepted, can be regarded as being the main obstacle that often impedes our understanding of what is and what is not possible. Are we so arrogant that we dismiss other possibilities simply because these fly in the face of current knowledge and understanding. Our knowledge is far from being complete and much remains still to be discovered. 

If we can accept the Multiverse concept then it would explain so many things which hitherto have defied conventional logic and understanding. We may never be able to detect or communicate with extra terrestrial civilisations in our galaxy and yet many would have us believe that it may already be happening. How is this possible unless we are rejecting the possibility that these emissaries are using technologies that permit movement between their universe and ours? To me, at least, this seems far more likely (and practicable) than the development of faster than light drives and/or controlled navigation through wormholes. 

Fanciful thinking is something we can all indulge in with no clear objective other than to fulfil otherwise unattainable dreams. Humanity has that gift; sometimes that gift bears fruit but, sadly, more often it does not.

Cheers!

Mike

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

You must explain why, given that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, and that it should only take a couple of million years to spread across the entire galaxy, they don't seem to be there. 

I should have said the desire to colonise out of necessity would be the norm but, assuming there is no practical way to exceed the speed of light, colonisation would be limited to the home planets. A major driving force would be overpopulation, assuming that, for most if not all intelligent species, the desire to reproduce and the desire to live longer would be the norm. In our case, if our population reaches 15 billion or 20 billion and our planet can't support that population size, colonisation of Mars would become essential as the only acceptable choice. In our solar system, when both Earth and Mars reach their population limits, then we'll be out of luck because there will be nowhere else to go.

1 hour ago, Chock said:

Nope, it is actually anyone making the assertion that 'we'd see evidence' who must explain why they are convinced there absolutely would be colonisation in the first place in order to make that argument stick. 

 

That was already covered in the post I made, in regard to answers to the Fermi Paradox. On the previous page Alan. As I say, if we are to claim there must be colonisation then we would need to answer the Fermi Paradox and explain the apparent absence of colonisation. The majority of species may not colonise is one answer, yes. My statement was in order to ask the poster his opinion, which of the answers to the Fermi Paradox he favoured. Although it would have to be no species colonizing, because all it takes is for one species that colonizes to survive and not annihilate itself, and in a mere two million years they would be spread across the galaxy.

 

1 hour ago, Chock said:

Just because we as a species colonise things, this doesn't mean an alien race would also do so. They are alien, which means their behaviour would be alien too, so we cannot assume we know their behaviour, at all. But even if we do assume that such an alien race would have the desire to colonise and expand into the universe, a plausible explanation for not seeing them having done so is not hard to come up with: The civilisation destroyed itself before it developed long range space travel. See? Easy. And that's just one possible explanation.

 

Yep, again Alan, see previous page. The great filter being self annihilation and alien species not colonizing was both mentioned, along with many more possibilities. 

 

Quote

The possible answers to the Fermi Paradox:

 

Extraterrestrial life is rare or non-existent

Periodic extinction by natural events

Intelligent alien species haven't developed advanced technologies

It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself

It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy others

Civilizations only broadcast detectable signals for a brief period of time

Alien life may be too alien

Colonization is not the cosmic norm

Alien species may have only settled part of the galaxy

Alien species may not live on planets

Alien species may isolate themselves from the outside world

Lack of resources needed to physically spread throughout the galaxy

It is cheaper to transfer information than explore physically

We haven't listened properly

We haven't listened for long enough

Intelligent life may be too far away

Intelligent life may exist hidden from view

Everyone is listening but no one is transmitting

Communication is dangerous

Earth is deliberately avoided

Earth is deliberately isolated (planetarium hypothesis)

Alien life is already here unacknowledged - UFO's are laine probes or manned craft!

 

Quote

Given the size of the universe and the presumably nearly infinite number of chances of things occurring, we might even argue that these things were quite likely scenarios. Then after all that, you've got distance and practicality. For all we know there could be a galaxy a long way off where there is all kinds of interaction going on between different planetary races, but we happen to be well outside of the ranges they deem practical to go to, since they too would presumably also have their own observable universe limits just as we have. So the fact that we aren't seeing things doesn't mean they are not occurring.

 

I think the Fermi Paradox is referring to our galaxy primarily, a counter to the Drake Equation that says that our galaxy should have a multitude of technologically advanced species and many more advanced than us. But we see none. If we consider the universe as geometrically flat, thus infinites, which evidence suggest it is, then all things that can happen will happen and there will be multiple copies because atoms can only arrange themselves in a limited number of ways. So yes, for the purposes of considering the Drake Equation and Fermi Paradox its perhaps better to just consider our galaxy. 

Edited May 25, 20215 yr by martin-w