q says: "ET visiting Earth ideas are contradicted by physics."
- Thread starter spookz
- Start date
Hi spookz.
Since I'm not a scientist, I'm not qualified to comment on what is possible and what is not. Since I'm not convinced of the validity of the ETH as an explanation for UFOs, the ability to traverse the distances between the stars is a tangental issue.
For some reason, the debunkers continually try to derail UFO discussions by re-directing it to this issue. It is a fairly effective move; certainly I have fallen for it and become involved in useless, circular arguments with debunkers.
Good debunking can be a pleasure. We are discussing a subject in which reasonable minds can differ. To me, there is evidence supporting the proposition that something unknown, and of intelligence, is behind some incidents in the phenomenon. Since the debunkers continually re-direct the conversation towards the question of physics, it appears they feel that this gives them some kind of advantage in the debate. To me, this is putting the horse before the cart; we really should be looking at what the available data is about UFOs rather than forming a hypothesis (the ETH) which cannot be tested or proven proven absent some kind of extraordinary event.
Now, when UFO proponents suggest this, we see that the debunkers, in a panic, insist that we really are pushing the ETH, but must mask this belief to make our position acceptable. This is just another way to keep the argument framed on their own terms. It is a comical cycle:
Proponent: UFOs appear to be a genuine phenomenon suggestive of intelligence.
Debunker: There's nothing suggestive of ET in the phemonenon.
Proponent: - - Okaaaay, but I didn't say anything about ET. I said the phemonenon was suggestive of intelligence.
Debunker: The physics involved make it impossible for ET to travel between the stars.
Proponent: Welll, maybe, maybe not. Hynek called this faith in the current understanding of science "temporal provincialism". But anyway, there are many, many incidents by credible observers that suggest that something is happening, particularly in the atmosphere, that seems intelligently reactive to a human presence, and to our senses appears artificial.
Debunker: That's a closet argument for ET. Your masking your true agenda. ET visiting the Earth is a fiction.
Proponent: I see no reason why we should ignore this kind of repeated event in the atmosphere. All we are asking is that the phenomenon be investigated publicly.
Debunker: You won't discuss the physics of interstellar flight? You're a coward who can't think. Nothing will be gained from the study of UFOs. No public money should be directed towards it. You're a fool patroning nutters who are writing UFO books only for the money.
Of course, this argument could be made against any author, including debunkers. And I've always wondered what is so damn un-American by someone with some expertise writing a book and making some money from it. When did that become a sin? This just shows how shallow the debunkers arguments are. Only on their terms, and every one who disagrees with them is weak minded or a charlatan.
Such conversations produce nothing and many of us, eager for actual conversation, turn and walk away at this point, while the debunker sneers "coward" at our backs. Well, whatever. Fortunately, I don't much care what many debunkers think. Their approach is anti-scientific and anti-empirical, which is indefensible on its face.
Since I'm not a scientist, I'm not qualified to comment on what is possible and what is not. Since I'm not convinced of the validity of the ETH as an explanation for UFOs, the ability to traverse the distances between the stars is a tangental issue.
For some reason, the debunkers continually try to derail UFO discussions by re-directing it to this issue. It is a fairly effective move; certainly I have fallen for it and become involved in useless, circular arguments with debunkers.
Good debunking can be a pleasure. We are discussing a subject in which reasonable minds can differ. To me, there is evidence supporting the proposition that something unknown, and of intelligence, is behind some incidents in the phenomenon. Since the debunkers continually re-direct the conversation towards the question of physics, it appears they feel that this gives them some kind of advantage in the debate. To me, this is putting the horse before the cart; we really should be looking at what the available data is about UFOs rather than forming a hypothesis (the ETH) which cannot be tested or proven proven absent some kind of extraordinary event.
Now, when UFO proponents suggest this, we see that the debunkers, in a panic, insist that we really are pushing the ETH, but must mask this belief to make our position acceptable. This is just another way to keep the argument framed on their own terms. It is a comical cycle:
Proponent: UFOs appear to be a genuine phenomenon suggestive of intelligence.
Debunker: There's nothing suggestive of ET in the phemonenon.
Proponent: - - Okaaaay, but I didn't say anything about ET. I said the phemonenon was suggestive of intelligence.
Debunker: The physics involved make it impossible for ET to travel between the stars.
Proponent: Welll, maybe, maybe not. Hynek called this faith in the current understanding of science "temporal provincialism". But anyway, there are many, many incidents by credible observers that suggest that something is happening, particularly in the atmosphere, that seems intelligently reactive to a human presence, and to our senses appears artificial.
Debunker: That's a closet argument for ET. Your masking your true agenda. ET visiting the Earth is a fiction.
Proponent: I see no reason why we should ignore this kind of repeated event in the atmosphere. All we are asking is that the phenomenon be investigated publicly.
Debunker: You won't discuss the physics of interstellar flight? You're a coward who can't think. Nothing will be gained from the study of UFOs. No public money should be directed towards it. You're a fool patroning nutters who are writing UFO books only for the money.
Of course, this argument could be made against any author, including debunkers. And I've always wondered what is so damn un-American by someone with some expertise writing a book and making some money from it. When did that become a sin? This just shows how shallow the debunkers arguments are. Only on their terms, and every one who disagrees with them is weak minded or a charlatan.
Such conversations produce nothing and many of us, eager for actual conversation, turn and walk away at this point, while the debunker sneers "coward" at our backs. Well, whatever. Fortunately, I don't much care what many debunkers think. Their approach is anti-scientific and anti-empirical, which is indefensible on its face.
Since the debunkers continually re-direct the conversation towards the question of physics, it appears they feel that this gives them some kind of advantage in the debate. To me, this is putting the horse before the cart
The horse does come before the cart.
How can one be convinced ET is visiting Earth without thinking about how they got here? Isn’t that putting the cart before the horse?
The horse does come before the cart.
How can one be convinced ET is visiting Earth without thinking about how they got here? Isn’t that putting the cart before the horse?
Last edited:
i do not understand. the theories are there. research is being done. there is a strong possibilty that something might come out of this. i think it is just a matter of time. lemme check out what current research/theories are out there, post em and the skeptics can knock em down
unless of course q simplifies matters and lays down the objections over the feasibiilty of interstellar travel
It is a fairly effective move; certainly I have fallen for it and become involved in useless, circular arguments with debunkers. (ives)
*you guys are real veterans at this game aint ya'll
unless of course q simplifies matters and lays down the objections over the feasibiilty of interstellar travel
It is a fairly effective move; certainly I have fallen for it and become involved in useless, circular arguments with debunkers. (ives)
*you guys are real veterans at this game aint ya'll
Questions for Believers
Amongst all the billions of star systems in our galaxy, how did ET manage to find Earth?
How many species of ET do you think are visiting Earth?
How do you think ET manages to travel throughout our galaxy?
What do you think ET purpose for visiting Earth?
Why do you think ET has not shown themselves to us all?
Amongst all the billions of star systems in our galaxy, how did ET manage to find Earth?
How many species of ET do you think are visiting Earth?
How do you think ET manages to travel throughout our galaxy?
What do you think ET purpose for visiting Earth?
Why do you think ET has not shown themselves to us all?
stupid questions>stupid answers
Amongst all the billions of star systems in our galaxy, how did ET manage to find Earth?
well kjppo was playing truant with his buds and got lost. they came across earth. this is their new hangout...smoke weed/anal probes/blah. honestly !kids these days!
How many species of ET do you think are visiting Earth?
2! no wait...3! no wait...99!
What do you think ET purpose for visiting Earth?
to fuck the bitches
Why do you think ET has not shown themselves to us all?
bad plastic surgery
*if you do not understand why these questions are irrelevant just ask. i dont mind repeating shit
Amongst all the billions of star systems in our galaxy, how did ET manage to find Earth?
well kjppo was playing truant with his buds and got lost. they came across earth. this is their new hangout...smoke weed/anal probes/blah. honestly !kids these days!
How many species of ET do you think are visiting Earth?
2! no wait...3! no wait...99!
What do you think ET purpose for visiting Earth?
to fuck the bitches
Why do you think ET has not shown themselves to us all?
bad plastic surgery
*if you do not understand why these questions are irrelevant just ask. i dont mind repeating shit
I think Qs point is, assuming it is ET is jumping to conclusions. There are other as unlikely or more liekly options that people disregard. Note that people saying they see aliens does not mean they exist. People also see Elvis, angels, the devil, and pink elephants. Without some kind of proof of what UFOs are, you can't just say that they are aliens.
How do you think ET manages to travel throughout our galaxy?
the guys could have developed a propulsion system that we havent even imagined possible.
other than that, i'll take the liberty of assuming the same epistemological principles that we use is applicable to the aliens (hardly a revolutionary concept given that they are assumed to inhabit the same spacetime as we do)
the simplest way to go about this is figuring out how we would attempt interstellar travel
Ideas Based On What We Know
Ideas Based On What We’d Like To Achieve
Some Emerging Possibilities
now you science types refine/modify/denounce/debunk this crackpottery.
i demand citations to all your assertions. (in a language i can understand)
mindless naysaying will be dealt with in an appropiate manner
the guys could have developed a propulsion system that we havent even imagined possible.
other than that, i'll take the liberty of assuming the same epistemological principles that we use is applicable to the aliens (hardly a revolutionary concept given that they are assumed to inhabit the same spacetime as we do)
the simplest way to go about this is figuring out how we would attempt interstellar travel
Ideas Based On What We Know
Ideas Based On What We’d Like To Achieve
Worm Hole transportation
Alcubierre’s "Warp Drive"
Negative mass propulsion
Millis’s hypothetical "Space Drives"
Some Emerging Possibilities
Lists of Some Intriguing Emerging Physics
Lists of some preparatory propulsion research
General Relativity
Vacuum Fluctuations of Quantum Physics
1994 Workshop on Faster-Than-Light Travel
now you science types refine/modify/denounce/debunk this crackpottery.
i demand citations to all your assertions. (in a language i can understand)
mindless naysaying will be dealt with in an appropiate manner
you are welcome to define the topic post as you see fit cos i kinda dig ya rap and shit
i however will stick to it if you dont mind
lemme break it down
ET visiting Earth ideas are contradicted by physics."
*physical laws do not allow for space travel
*physical laws do not allow for space travel due to a lack of efficient propulsive systems
*physical laws do not allow for space travel at "vast distances"
*physical laws do not allow for space travel due to constraints of time
*et is incapable of motion
*physical laws do not allow for space travel due to frail biological systems (life span-not really physics)
Originally posted by Persol
Ok, if you're only trying to show that it's possible I've got no issues here. I'll move along
no dont
next up... habitable planets....followed by....sentient life.....followed by...... advanced civ
i still wait on q
you will not be allowed to backtrack
Hmm... curious
I say, credible people have seen metal discs in the sky. There are pictures and movies that have them. But with computers as they are, it is easy to say that a movie is a fake, therefore I have concluded that seeing is believing, I have seen and I know. However to the best of my knowledge I have never ever seen an ET in my entire life. Therefore I think it would be illogical to jump to the conclusion that these metal discs are alien-made. Since nature is not capable of making floating metal discs that move sometimes at speeds of 9,000 mph I am left to one alternative. Some of these UFO's are man made, such as odd planes, and others have no wings and fly by an odd means of propulsion while being silent for the most part, it is the fast metal type that I believe are man made.
I say, credible people have seen metal discs in the sky. There are pictures and movies that have them. But with computers as they are, it is easy to say that a movie is a fake, therefore I have concluded that seeing is believing, I have seen and I know. However to the best of my knowledge I have never ever seen an ET in my entire life. Therefore I think it would be illogical to jump to the conclusion that these metal discs are alien-made. Since nature is not capable of making floating metal discs that move sometimes at speeds of 9,000 mph I am left to one alternative. Some of these UFO's are man made, such as odd planes, and others have no wings and fly by an odd means of propulsion while being silent for the most part, it is the fast metal type that I believe are man made.