Last edited:
the application of the scientific method to the ufo phenomenon
- Thread starter spookz
- Start date
2inquisitive
could you expand on your original post which was made in response to persol? drasin (2nd post) appears to take a similar tack. dino provides decent rebuttal with the particular examples he selected (i think)
i want to ascertain if the ufo phenomenon is held to unresonably high standards with regard to its evidence while other stuff that is given a free pass due to its more abstract nature. for instance, dark energy will hardly have any sociological implications if verified or not.
your articulation on this will be much appreciated
could you expand on your original post which was made in response to persol? drasin (2nd post) appears to take a similar tack. dino provides decent rebuttal with the particular examples he selected (i think)
i want to ascertain if the ufo phenomenon is held to unresonably high standards with regard to its evidence while other stuff that is given a free pass due to its more abstract nature. for instance, dark energy will hardly have any sociological implications if verified or not.
your articulation on this will be much appreciated
Last edited:
Re: 2inquisitive
UFO theory does not currently have this. By it's nature, you can't experiment with it (unless it is natural and reproducible). Since we can't actually experiment on it, we need to gather ACTUAL data. Not eyewitness reports... spectral analysis, radar tracking, GOOD ground video, video from intercept craft, etc... We don't have this. There is not enough info to make any educated guess.
Lets look at some of the scientific examples to show the difference:
2inquisitive:
Where is the black hole that is evaporating by Hawkin radiation?
Mathematical theory only. It is based on solid science, but nobody assumes that it MUST be true.
Got any of that dark energy sitting on a lab bench anywhere? You know, the stuff that makes up most of the universe and is causing an ever increasing rate of expansion of the universe.
Once again, a theory based on mathmatics... but funny enough one which is being experimented with.
The stuff that was guessed to exist to explain the OBSERVATION of superluminal galaxies. And of course, the quasars aren't "really" superluminal, because that would violate
Special Relativity.
That's funny. He seems to disagree with simple geometry and laws which HAVE been demonstrated on earth.
Created any of that "stretched" vacuum in the lab?
Yes, but 'stretched vacuum' is just a metaphor.
I am not saying any of this is impossible, but like much theory in science, it is based on "educated guesses" formed from observation
and mathmatics, not from created material objects that can be tested.
EXACTLY! Mathmatics and observation.... both which are severly lacking in quality when it comes to UFOs.
Are UFO's any stranger than strings and M-Brane theory with what, 14 dimensions now?
If you understand what 14 dimensions actual mean, then no. Regardless, this is once against based on math and theories which have been demonstrated correct. They also are testable, unlike UFO theories.
Daniel Drasin:
In the same manner, insist on classes of evidence that are impossible to obtain. For example, declare that unidentified aerial phenomena may be considered real only if we can bring them into laboratories to strike them with hammers and analyze their physical properties.
This is just silly. There is a far cry from performing scientific analysis on quality evidence and the things which are currently done. Actually 'having' a UFO (if its something that can be 'had') is not neccessary.
Disregard the accomplishments of the inferential sciences--astronomy, for example, which gets on just fine without bringing actual planets, stars, galaxies and black holes into its labs and striking them with hammers.
Perhaps Mr. Drasin should be reminded that these sciences are based on the laws of physics, which are 'struck with hammers' in labs everyday. There are few things in science which are completely untestable.
Dinosaur's examples work just as well.
No. Scientifict theory goes from A->B->C->to the result. It also provides experiments to gather further information.
UFO theory does not currently have this. By it's nature, you can't experiment with it (unless it is natural and reproducible). Since we can't actually experiment on it, we need to gather ACTUAL data. Not eyewitness reports... spectral analysis, radar tracking, GOOD ground video, video from intercept craft, etc... We don't have this. There is not enough info to make any educated guess.
Lets look at some of the scientific examples to show the difference:
2inquisitive:
Where is the black hole that is evaporating by Hawkin radiation?
Mathematical theory only. It is based on solid science, but nobody assumes that it MUST be true.
Got any of that dark energy sitting on a lab bench anywhere? You know, the stuff that makes up most of the universe and is causing an ever increasing rate of expansion of the universe.
Once again, a theory based on mathmatics... but funny enough one which is being experimented with.
The stuff that was guessed to exist to explain the OBSERVATION of superluminal galaxies. And of course, the quasars aren't "really" superluminal, because that would violate
Special Relativity.
That's funny. He seems to disagree with simple geometry and laws which HAVE been demonstrated on earth.
Created any of that "stretched" vacuum in the lab?
Yes, but 'stretched vacuum' is just a metaphor.
I am not saying any of this is impossible, but like much theory in science, it is based on "educated guesses" formed from observation
and mathmatics, not from created material objects that can be tested.
EXACTLY! Mathmatics and observation.... both which are severly lacking in quality when it comes to UFOs.
Are UFO's any stranger than strings and M-Brane theory with what, 14 dimensions now?
If you understand what 14 dimensions actual mean, then no. Regardless, this is once against based on math and theories which have been demonstrated correct. They also are testable, unlike UFO theories.
Daniel Drasin:
In the same manner, insist on classes of evidence that are impossible to obtain. For example, declare that unidentified aerial phenomena may be considered real only if we can bring them into laboratories to strike them with hammers and analyze their physical properties.
This is just silly. There is a far cry from performing scientific analysis on quality evidence and the things which are currently done. Actually 'having' a UFO (if its something that can be 'had') is not neccessary.
Disregard the accomplishments of the inferential sciences--astronomy, for example, which gets on just fine without bringing actual planets, stars, galaxies and black holes into its labs and striking them with hammers.
Perhaps Mr. Drasin should be reminded that these sciences are based on the laws of physics, which are 'struck with hammers' in labs everyday. There are few things in science which are completely untestable.
Dinosaur's examples work just as well.
by Persol:
No. Scientifict theory goes from A->B->C->to the result. It also provides experiments to gather further information.
=============================================
response:
The discovery was that the universe was expanding at an ever-
increasing rate. A theory (dark energy) was postulated to explain
this RESULT.
=========================================
me:"Where is the black hole that is evaporating by Hawkin radiation?"
persol:Mathematical theory only. It is based on solid science, but nobody assumes that it MUST be true.
============================================
response:
Theory says that the life of the universe cannot be infinite. How to
explain the death of a black hole from which nothing can escape?
Hawkin theorized the evaporation of the black hole by "Hawkin Radiation" to explain this result.
================================================
me:" The stuff that was guessed to exist to explain the OBSERVATION of superluminal galaxies. And of course, the quasars aren't "really" superluminal, because that would violate
Special Relativity."
persol:That's funny. He seems to disagree with simple geometry and laws which HAVE been demonstrated on earth.
============================================
response:
Observation of galaxies beyond the "Hubble Sphere" supposedly
confirms they are receding from earth faster than light. On the surface, that violates Special Relativity. The theory that "space-
time" itself was expanding, and "stretching" the wavelength of
light while in the vacuum was proposed to keep SR from being
violated. Dark energy was the proposed mechanism of expansion.
I haven't said I disagreed with anything in the current theory,
only the sequence in which you said theorys were proposed.
It was not A+B+C=result. The result came first, then fill-in-blanks
to explain it. What geometry and laws do you think I disagree
with?
=============================================
me: "Created any of that "stretched" vacuum in the lab?"
persol:
Yes, but 'stretched vacuum' is just a metaphor.
============================================
response:
I wasn't aware that science had verified that the wavelength
of light could be stretched (redshift altered) in a vacuum, let
alone done it in a lab. Do you have any links?
==========================================
me: "Are UFO's any stranger than strings and M-Brane theory with what, 14 dimensions now?"
persol: If you understand what 14 dimensions actual mean, then no. Regardless, this is once against based on math and theories which have been demonstrated correct. They also are testable, unlike UFO theories.
===============================================
So you are a proponent of string theory. I have no idea which of
the competing theories in the quantum world is the correct one.
I did read the following in New Scientist about possible mini black
holes created by cosmic rays entering our atmosphere. I hope
mini black holes do evaporate, Hawkin radiation or however.
The authors of the article seem to think extra dimensions would
also be verified, but I don't know if that gives only string theory
the boost.
"If they are right, the consequences would be stunning. As well as proving that tiny black holes exist, it would unveil hidden dimensions in our universe.
It would also show that the CERN particle physics laboratory near Geneva will soon be able to churn out black holes to order. Particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider, due to start in 2007, would have enough energy to create thousands of black holes every day.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994446
No. Scientifict theory goes from A->B->C->to the result. It also provides experiments to gather further information.
=============================================
response:
The discovery was that the universe was expanding at an ever-
increasing rate. A theory (dark energy) was postulated to explain
this RESULT.
=========================================
me:"Where is the black hole that is evaporating by Hawkin radiation?"
persol:Mathematical theory only. It is based on solid science, but nobody assumes that it MUST be true.
============================================
response:
Theory says that the life of the universe cannot be infinite. How to
explain the death of a black hole from which nothing can escape?
Hawkin theorized the evaporation of the black hole by "Hawkin Radiation" to explain this result.
================================================
me:" The stuff that was guessed to exist to explain the OBSERVATION of superluminal galaxies. And of course, the quasars aren't "really" superluminal, because that would violate
Special Relativity."
persol:That's funny. He seems to disagree with simple geometry and laws which HAVE been demonstrated on earth.
============================================
response:
Observation of galaxies beyond the "Hubble Sphere" supposedly
confirms they are receding from earth faster than light. On the surface, that violates Special Relativity. The theory that "space-
time" itself was expanding, and "stretching" the wavelength of
light while in the vacuum was proposed to keep SR from being
violated. Dark energy was the proposed mechanism of expansion.
I haven't said I disagreed with anything in the current theory,
only the sequence in which you said theorys were proposed.
It was not A+B+C=result. The result came first, then fill-in-blanks
to explain it. What geometry and laws do you think I disagree
with?
=============================================
me: "Created any of that "stretched" vacuum in the lab?"
persol:
Yes, but 'stretched vacuum' is just a metaphor.
============================================
response:
I wasn't aware that science had verified that the wavelength
of light could be stretched (redshift altered) in a vacuum, let
alone done it in a lab. Do you have any links?
==========================================
me: "Are UFO's any stranger than strings and M-Brane theory with what, 14 dimensions now?"
persol: If you understand what 14 dimensions actual mean, then no. Regardless, this is once against based on math and theories which have been demonstrated correct. They also are testable, unlike UFO theories.
===============================================
So you are a proponent of string theory. I have no idea which of
the competing theories in the quantum world is the correct one.
I did read the following in New Scientist about possible mini black
holes created by cosmic rays entering our atmosphere. I hope
mini black holes do evaporate, Hawkin radiation or however.
The authors of the article seem to think extra dimensions would
also be verified, but I don't know if that gives only string theory
the boost.
"If they are right, the consequences would be stunning. As well as proving that tiny black holes exist, it would unveil hidden dimensions in our universe.
It would also show that the CERN particle physics laboratory near Geneva will soon be able to churn out black holes to order. Particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider, due to start in 2007, would have enough energy to create thousands of black holes every day.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994446
Originally posted by 2inquisitive
The discovery was that the universe was expanding at an ever-
increasing rate. A theory (dark energy) was postulated to explain
this RESULT.
I was refering to the theory as the result of a logical though process. I apologize for not making that clear.
Theory says that the life of the universe cannot be infinite. How to explain the death of a black hole from which nothing can escape?
Classic theory says that because of black holes and heat death. Once again, I was refering to the theory as the result.
Hawkin theorized the evaporation of the black hole by "Hawkin Radiation" to explain this result.
Hawking Radiation is the direct result of quantum theory.
response:
Observation of galaxies beyond the "Hubble Sphere" supposedly confirms they are receding from earth faster than light.
Incorrect. If you want to provide a link do so. Otherwise stop reading posts by MacM and view the explanation we gave him.
It really is a geometry issue.
I wasn't aware that science had verified that the wavelength of light could be stretched (redshift altered) in a vacuum
This has been demonstrated with both other planets/stars. Regardless, I didn't think you were talking about redshifting. I thought you were referring to ZPE type stuff.
So you are a proponent of string theory.
No, I said 14 dimensions in not actually strange, just a mathematical convention. 14 dimensions does not make string theory strange. It is strange for other reasons which I don't fully understand
...following in New Scientist about possible mini black holes created by cosmic rays entering our atmosphere.
"If they are right, the consequences would be stunning. As well as proving that tiny black holes exist, it would unveil hidden dimensions in our universe.
Lol. Articles using quotes like this are almost always misleading. It does not even come close to explaining why extra dimensions would be 'stunning' (i disagree that it would be). I actually don't think the idea is that new... I recall it from a couple years ago.
The discovery was that the universe was expanding at an ever-
increasing rate. A theory (dark energy) was postulated to explain
this RESULT.
I was refering to the theory as the result of a logical though process. I apologize for not making that clear.
Theory says that the life of the universe cannot be infinite. How to explain the death of a black hole from which nothing can escape?
Classic theory says that because of black holes and heat death. Once again, I was refering to the theory as the result.
Hawkin theorized the evaporation of the black hole by "Hawkin Radiation" to explain this result.
Hawking Radiation is the direct result of quantum theory.
response:
Observation of galaxies beyond the "Hubble Sphere" supposedly confirms they are receding from earth faster than light.
Incorrect. If you want to provide a link do so. Otherwise stop reading posts by MacM and view the explanation we gave him.
It really is a geometry issue.I wasn't aware that science had verified that the wavelength of light could be stretched (redshift altered) in a vacuum
This has been demonstrated with both other planets/stars. Regardless, I didn't think you were talking about redshifting. I thought you were referring to ZPE type stuff.
So you are a proponent of string theory.
No, I said 14 dimensions in not actually strange, just a mathematical convention. 14 dimensions does not make string theory strange. It is strange for other reasons which I don't fully understand
...following in New Scientist about possible mini black holes created by cosmic rays entering our atmosphere.
"If they are right, the consequences would be stunning. As well as proving that tiny black holes exist, it would unveil hidden dimensions in our universe.
Lol. Articles using quotes like this are almost always misleading. It does not even come close to explaining why extra dimensions would be 'stunning' (i disagree that it would be). I actually don't think the idea is that new... I recall it from a couple years ago.
Persol, you must not read the astronomy forum here. The Hubble
Sphere is a sphere beyond which everything is receding from us
at a speed greater than light. It is said not to violate STR because
of the increasing rate of expansion of the universe. The speed of
recession is not due only to the actual speed of the galaxies, but
combined with the expansion itself. The wavelength of light is thought
to be stretched while traveling through interstellar space, increasing
its redshift. The current highest redshift observed is z=6.4. That is
about 2.84 times the speed of light. There are over a thousand
objects recorded so far with superluminal recession. As I said, it
is not viewed to violate STR. I can give a link to a cosmological
calculator. For Matter Density (Omega_m) enter .25. For the
Cosmological Constant (Lambda) enter .75. The calculator is already
set up with the Hubble Constant (H) as 70. These are the latest
figures. You can enter any Redshift number you want. The highest
is z=6.4.
http://www.earth.uni.edu/~morgan/ajjar/Cosmology/cosmos.html
Here is a link to where I got the latest Omega_m and Lambda figures.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0309368
Sphere is a sphere beyond which everything is receding from us
at a speed greater than light. It is said not to violate STR because
of the increasing rate of expansion of the universe. The speed of
recession is not due only to the actual speed of the galaxies, but
combined with the expansion itself. The wavelength of light is thought
to be stretched while traveling through interstellar space, increasing
its redshift. The current highest redshift observed is z=6.4. That is
about 2.84 times the speed of light. There are over a thousand
objects recorded so far with superluminal recession. As I said, it
is not viewed to violate STR. I can give a link to a cosmological
calculator. For Matter Density (Omega_m) enter .25. For the
Cosmological Constant (Lambda) enter .75. The calculator is already
set up with the Hubble Constant (H) as 70. These are the latest
figures. You can enter any Redshift number you want. The highest
is z=6.4.
http://www.earth.uni.edu/~morgan/ajjar/Cosmology/cosmos.html
Here is a link to where I got the latest Omega_m and Lambda figures.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0309368
Originally posted by Persol
response:
Observation of galaxies beyond the "Hubble Sphere" supposedly confirms they are receding from earth faster than light.
Incorrect. If you want to provide a link do so. Otherwise stop reading posts by MacM and view the explanation we gave him.
=================================================
I finally found one of the articles addressing this. There are others.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808
We use standard general relativity to illustrate and clarify several common misconceptions about the expansion of the Universe. To show the abundance of these misconceptions we cite numerous misleading, or easily misinterpreted, statements in the literature. In the context of the new standard Lambda-CDM cosmology we point out confusions regarding the particle horizon, the event horizon, the ``observable universe'' and the Hubble sphere (distance at which recession velocity = c). We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light. We explain why this does not violate special relativity and we link these concepts to observational tests. Attempts to restrict recession velocities to less than the speed of light require a special relativistic interpretation of cosmological redshifts. We analyze apparent magnitudes of supernovae and observationally rule out the special relativistic Doppler interpretation of cosmological redshifts at a confidence level of 23 sigma.
We explain why this does not violate special relativity and we link these concepts to observational tests. Attempts to restrict recession velocities to less than the speed of light require a special relativistic interpretation of cosmological redshifts. We analyze apparent magnitudes of supernovae and observationally rule out the special relativistic Doppler interpretation of cosmological redshifts at a confidence level of 23 sigma.
Is where the geometric effects come in.
Is where the geometric effects come in.
Persol, it seems we are speaking of two different issues here to me.
Correct me if I am wrong. Superluminal recession of galaxies had
nothing to do with the thread in which MacM was arguing about
the APPARENT superluminal ejecta of supernovas, in which the faster
than light illusion of the ejecta WAS explained by geometric effects,
namely the angle of the ejecta towards the observer. I haven't looked
the thread up, but am doing this from memory. Is this what you are
referring to? What does superluminal recession have to do with
geometric effects, other than the whole universe can be can be
described in geometric terms.
copy: We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light.
me: This was based on two different measurements, one was the
cosmological redshift, which places the galaxies farther away, in
terms of light years, than the age of the universe (13.7 billion yrs)
The galaxies had to have formed after the birth of the universe, the
big bang or whatever, so they had to have traveled faster than
light to reach these distances, some over 14 billion lyrs. The other
measurement was done by using the `candlestick' the brightness
of the supernova. They were even dimmer than cosmological redshift
indicated they should be, placing them even farther away. The special relativistic interpertation of cosmological redshifts limits
velocities to less than superluminal. This interpertation was ruled
out by observation. I have seen it said since these observations
that special relativity should apply only to the local universe and
that the superluminal recession did not violate SR because the
fabric of space itself was being stretched. The fact is direct observation and measurements indicate superluminal recession.
The challenge is formulating theories to explain that recession
without violating SR.
Correct me if I am wrong. Superluminal recession of galaxies had
nothing to do with the thread in which MacM was arguing about
the APPARENT superluminal ejecta of supernovas, in which the faster
than light illusion of the ejecta WAS explained by geometric effects,
namely the angle of the ejecta towards the observer. I haven't looked
the thread up, but am doing this from memory. Is this what you are
referring to? What does superluminal recession have to do with
geometric effects, other than the whole universe can be can be
described in geometric terms.
copy: We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light.
me: This was based on two different measurements, one was the
cosmological redshift, which places the galaxies farther away, in
terms of light years, than the age of the universe (13.7 billion yrs)
The galaxies had to have formed after the birth of the universe, the
big bang or whatever, so they had to have traveled faster than
light to reach these distances, some over 14 billion lyrs. The other
measurement was done by using the `candlestick' the brightness
of the supernova. They were even dimmer than cosmological redshift
indicated they should be, placing them even farther away. The special relativistic interpertation of cosmological redshifts limits
velocities to less than superluminal. This interpertation was ruled
out by observation. I have seen it said since these observations
that special relativity should apply only to the local universe and
that the superluminal recession did not violate SR because the
fabric of space itself was being stretched. The fact is direct observation and measurements indicate superluminal recession.
The challenge is formulating theories to explain that recession
without violating SR.