UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

The physics indicates it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate even a single massive particle to the speed of light, and that's why only massless particles can travel at that speed. So lightspeed travel is out of the question, according to the science.

Acceleration is the rate of increase in an object's velocity. That depends on its linear momentum (its mass multiplied by its velocity), the amount of force applied to increase that momentum, and the amount of time that the given amount of force would require to increase that momentum by a given amount.

Without getting into the specific math, Newtonian physics also proves that the faster an object is already traveling, the more force and/or time it requires to accelerate it even faster; as it accelerates, a constant amount of force will have diminishing returns toward accelerating it faster over time, and constant acceleration requires an increase in force over time. Then you've got to factor in relativistic physics, which indicates that the object's mass actually increases as it approaches c (at which point it would theoretically have infinite mass). I haven't actually crunched the numbers, but suffice to say that accelerating a macro-scale object like a spacecraft up to near the speed of light ends up being a balance somewhere in the middle between astronomical energy levels and cosmic time frames.

Then you've got to factor in the g forces of acceleration and those effects on the structure of the craft and its passengers.

And don't forget, once you've accelerated to that near-light speed, then you've got to be able to decelerate as you approach your destination, which in a vacuum would require just as much energy as it did to accelerate in the first place.

Sure, with what we know now, lightspeed travel is not possible. However the flaw in this argument with respect to interstellar travel is that it assumes we need lightspeed travel to accomplish the task. Really, all we need is enough time and a decent ship.

The other thing is that we can safely assume that even though we don't have adequate technology now, providing our species and its technology continues to survive and evolve, we will have sufficient technology in the future, and given the rate our technology is currently evolving, a century or two should be about all that it takes. By then our own science will likely have solved both energy and aging problems, if not many more.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Assumptions of what we may have in the future does not make a viable hypothosis.

There is no forseeable way of increasing human lifespan to the thousands of years needed for lightspeed travel, or more alarming the millions of years for not needing lightspeed. Physics does not allow for the amounts of energy you require. There is finite energy in the universe, so the near infinite amount required is not plausible for speeds that will make the travel even close to viable.

People making predictions of where humanity should be in X years time are doomed to fail. People with far better idea of what might be possible got it wrong. Technological advance is not on a linear scale. Everwatch thunderbirds? They predicted space travel, but had guys plot a course with a map and pair of compasses. They predicted jet packs, but not mobile phones or computers. Even arthur c clarke got it wrong in many respects.

You are pretending fantasy is science. It isnt. It does not validate your claims.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

The other thing is that we can safely assume that even though we don't have adequate technology now, providing our species and its technology continues to survive and evolve, we will have sufficient technology in the future

<snip>

We cannot safely assume any such thing.

 

[GeeMack]

Sure, with what we know now, lightspeed travel is not possible. However the flaw in this argument with respect to interstellar travel is that it assumes we need lightspeed travel to accomplish the task. Really, all we need is enough time and a decent ship.

The other thing is that we can safely assume that even though we don't have adequate technology now, providing our species and its technology continues to survive and evolve, we will have sufficient technology in the future, and given the rate our technology is currently evolving, a century or two should be about all that it takes. By then our own science will likely have solved both energy and aging problems, if not many more.

We can "assume" pretty much anything when the argument comes from a desperate desire for a fantasy to be reality in a world where...

Truth and reality are two seaparate issues

And where...

[...] truth itself doesn't correspond to objective reality or any other reality.

But things are quite different here, on Earth, in this genuine, authentic reality, the one that doesn't rely on fantasy, fiction, and outright lies to make it all work.

 

[Tomtomkent]

We cannot safely assume any such thing.

And why would we? Unless of course we wanted to support an unfounded belief in something we have no reason to think exists or have evidence to base hypothosis upon...

Technology does not follow predictions, it follows necessity, and at the moment there is no movement towards the technology for interstellar travel. If it does happen it will spin out of something else entirely (and probably military in nature).

 

[Akhenaten]

And why would we? Unless of course we wanted to support an unfounded belief in something we have no reason to think exists or have evidence to base hypothosis upon...

That sounds very familiar. Now let me think . . . I'm sure that reminds me of someone . . .

 

[23_Tauri]

The other thing is that we can safely assume that even though we don't have adequate technology now, providing our species and its technology continues to survive and evolve, we will have sufficient technology in the future, and given the rate our technology is currently evolving, a century or two should be about all that it takes. By then our own science will likely have solved both energy and aging problems, if not many more.

Your theory is nothing but pure fantasy.

To labour the point, because you don't seem to have understood it yet, witchcraft has been around for thousands of years. Is it not possible that in timespan, with the rate of accumulation of knowledge within covens of witches around the world, that they would not have sufficient technological skill to build luminous flying machines, with powers of acceleration and maneuverability unknown in man-made machines or the natural world?

A century or two should be about all it takes......

 

[Resume]

The other thing is that we can safely assume

That's you problem, you assume too many things. You can't just fill in the gaps with whatever suits your fantasy, whether it be WTFAliens! or interstellar travel. Or assume anyone buys the fake science you call Ufology.

 

[23_Tauri]

Technology does not follow predictions, it follows necessity, and at the moment there is no movement towards the technology for interstellar travel. If it does happen it will spin out of something else entirely (and probably military in nature).

I fear you may have played right into Floggy's hands there, Tomtomkent. Were you not aware that the edict had gone out from Galactic High Command following the discovery that Earthlings had developed nuclear bombs, and that every alien race, yes, that's right, all 57 varieties, must work towards building space ships capable of interstellar travel. A mission would then be sent to Earthling World in order to switch off said nuclear missiles, so that peace and harmony would once again prevail throughout the Empire.

 

[ufology]

Your theory is nothing but pure fantasy.

To labour the point, because you don't seem to have understood it yet, witchcraft has been around for thousands of years. Is it not possible that in timespan, with the rate of accumulation of knowledge within covens of witches around the world, that they would not have sufficient technological skill to build luminous flying machines, with powers of acceleration and maneuverability unknown in man-made machines or the natural world?

A century or two should be about all it takes......

Well actually ... if you look at the history of it, some of the brightest minds were once considered heretics ... Giordano Bruno for example. Leonardo, Galileo ... and the list goes on. So yes ... all it has taken is time for those "witch types" to solve problems once deemed the devil's work or impossible.

Now we have airplanes, space ships and all kinds of cool things that would have been considered "witchcraft" a few centuries ago. And our rate of advancement since then has not been linear, but logarithmic. Flying machines were conceived of in te 1500s, and it took 400 years before the Wright Brother's made their historic flight. After that it took less than one century to put a man on the Moon.

Yet today there are still people who say things like "if man wrre meant to fly God would have given him wings" ... or that exploring genetics is "playing God". So what? The lesson from history is that you aren't going to stop the progress of science by comparing it to witchcraft. Given time and persistence, I believe science can and will solve the problems associated with space travel.

 

[TjW]

Well actually ... if you look at the history of it, some of the brightest minds were once considered heretics ... Giordano Bruno for example. Leonardo, Galileo ... and the list goes on. So yes ... all it has taken is time for those "witch types" to solve problems once deemed the devil's work or impossible.

Now we have airplanes, space ships and all kinds of cool things that would have been considered "witchcraft" a few centuries ago. And our rate of advancement since then has not been linear, but logarithmic. Flying machines were conceived of in te 1500s, and it took 400 years before the Wright Brother's made their historic flight. After that it took less than one century to put a man on the Moon.

Yet today there are still people who say things like "if man wrre meant to fly God would have given him wings" ... or that exploring genetics is "playing God". So what? The lesson from history is that you aren't going to stop the progress of science by comparing it to witchcraft. Given time and persistence, I believe science can and will solve the problems associated with space travel.

They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

 

[ufology]

Well, no. It's quite a loaded question, though. Even pretending aliens do exist as claimed in the crazy stories, what can we gain?

What gap is there to bridge? Supposedly the aliens break the laws of physics to fly their ships. That's impossible by definition, and so it's completely useless.

And how can we learn anything from something we've never interacted with? That we're incapable of interacting with? That only "exists" because we pretend it does?

Breaking the laws of physics either requires magic, or requires technology so advanced as to be indistinguishable from magic. What can we gain by pretending magic exists?

Q. What gap is there to bridge?
A. In the context of the issue, the gap is that one side ( the experiencer ) has evidence from firsthand experience, while the other side ( the critic ) has none. So the paradox is that although it is the critic who claims the experiencer has no evidence, it is in fact only the critic who has no evidence, and because there is no way for the experiencer to impart his or her firsthand observations other than by language or illustration, many critics do not accept it as true ... and given the circumstances, a good case can be made for being so reserved.

The above situation has given rise to two significantly different world views and caused a lot of controversy, yet neither side is to blame. The experiencer can't help being caught in circumstances beyond his or her control, and the skeptic has reasonable grounds for doubting the circumstances. So how do we bridge that gap? How do we learn to cooperate in a manner that can help both sides establish a common and truthful understanding? Must we be content only with waiting for material evidence, or are their some other ways of looking at the problem that might advance both sides toward a common understanding?

Perhaps we could revisit the statistical approach taken by past researchers. At least one such study indicates a very high probability that some UFO reports represent unknown craft. For all intents and purposes the word "unknown" is synonymous with "alien", and I do not use the word "alien" here to denote only extraterrestrial. It may also mean outside our knowledge, strange and inconsistent with what we know. Therefore alien craft might not be ET, but they are alien enough that we know we didn't make them.

If we take the above approach, the skeptic can still claim that probabilities to not equate to proof, and they would be correct. However we can also ask if betting against probabilities is a reasonable way of looking at things? Should we bet our life savings on the lottery even though we know the probability we will win is very small? No we shouldn't. Do we accept the statistical probability that we will probably not win? Yes we should. Does this mean we should never play? No.

So the UFO question doesn't have to be a definitive pro or con at every point in our discussion. Given the past studies it should be reasonable for those without firsthand knowledge to retain some doubt while at the same time recognizing there is a high probability that UFOs are real. By the same token, experiencers should also recognize that more evidence still needs to be gathered in order to satisfy the scientific skeptic and that it's OK and reasonable to be doubted by them. Ultimately we are both still after the same thing ( or at least we should be ).

 

[RoboTimbo]

Q. What gap is there to bridge?
A. In the context of the issue, the gap is that one side ( the experiencer the claimant ) has evidence from firsthand experience a claim, while the other side ( the critic rational thinker ) has none a brain.

ftfy

For all intents and purposes the word "unknown" is synonymous with "alien", and I do not use the word "alien" here to denote only extraterrestrial.

The above is a lie made up to support an indefensible fantasy.

 

[GeeMack]

Perhaps we could revisit the statistical approach taken by past researchers.

Perhaps we could. Of every unidentified flying object ever seen, and of everything that appeared to be an object and appeared to be flying, of all those things which were initially unidentified yet were eventually identified to be some particular thing, exactly zero of them turned out to be alien craft. Exactly zero out of all of them. Perhaps we could revisit the statistical approach taken by past researchers... unless the number zero is very uncomfortable when trying to support a fantasy.

 

[ufology]

I think that my point was obvious to most of the other posters on this thread, I was hoping that you might learn a thing or two from that video, but you seem to be a bit close-minded WRT the point of the video.

So you ask me to watch a video outlining the faults of those believers in supernatural phenomena who accuse critical thinkers of being closed minded, and when I deal with each issue the video makes, you say that you never personally accused me of being that way and that I'm being closed minded ... hmm ... interesting.

Allow me to clarify. I was responding to the points in the video, not to you personally. So I'll try this again. I agree with the essential point of the video, that being that it isn't a fair or accurate to call someone closed minded because they make decisions about what to believe based on scientific reasoning.

Now if you want to discuss my own beliefs about my own experiences, that is another matter. I realize that I can't prove them to anyone else and I have no definitive explanation for any of them except my UFO experience. But even for that, if some other better explanation comes along then fine, I'll go with that. But that hasn't happened yet. If you choose to disagree then go ahead, brand it in whatever way makes you feel better about it ... whatever way makes you think you are right and that I who experienced it am wrong.

Just remember that you have to believe I am so seriously wrong that I've either fabricated or evolved some fictional story rather than actually experienced anything even close to what I maintain I saw. How many times can you do that to witnesses before you finally see something must be going on? Ten? Twenty? A hundred? A thousand? Several thousand? Because that is what you are facing. I'm not the only one who has had a UFO experience nor the best of witnesses. Are you really sure we're all mistaken or frauds or suffering from some psychosis? Are you positive?

 

[23_Tauri]

Well actually ... if you look at the history of it, some of the brightest minds were once considered heretics ... Giordano Bruno for example. Leonardo, Galileo ... and the list goes on. So yes ... all it has taken is time for those "witch types" to solve problems once deemed the devil's work or impossible.

Bruno and Galileo were scientists. They adhered strictly to the scientific principles of observation, careful recording of accurate measurements, repeating their observations in order to verify them, and doing this over and over until they came up with a theory. This is precisely what ufologists do not do when they come up with the (quote) "ETI hypothesis".

The pseudoscience of ufology takes a great big bundle of anecdotes about a diverse range of different phenomena, which are only associated with each other because they are
a) Unidentified;
b) Flying; and
c) Objects (although they are sometimes identified and found to not be objects)

and then speculate on what those UFOs might be, whilst ignoring the known laws of physics.

Giordano Bruno would be rolling in his grave.

Now we have airplanes, space ships and all kinds of cool things that would have been considered "witchcraft" a few centuries ago. And our rate of advancement since then has not been linear, but logarithmic. Flying machines were conceived of in te 1500s, and it took 400 years before the Wright Brother's made their historic flight. After that it took less than one century to put a man on the Moon.

I think you miss the point of the witch analogy. Witches on broomsticks defy the laws of physics. Aliens travelling light years across the cosmos in saucers defy the laws of physics. Even when da Vinci invented his first mechanical flying machine in the 1480s he did so using known principles. He may have even built small models, to demonstrate that his design worked.

Yet today there are still people who say things like "if man wrre meant to fly God would have given him wings" ... or that exploring genetics is "playing God". So what? The lesson from history is that you aren't going to stop the progress of science by comparing it to witchcraft. Given time and persistence, I believe science can and will solve the problems associated with space travel.

Then the pseudoscience of ufology would do well to take a look at how science is done, if it wants to be part of the advancement of civilisation, instead of indulging in superstitious beliefs about aliens in saucers.

 

[ufology]

Perhaps we could. Of every unidentified flying object ever seen, and of everything that appeared to be an object and appeared to be flying, of all those things which were initially unidentified yet were eventually identified to be some particular thing, exactly zero of them turned out to be alien craft. Exactly zero out of all of them. Perhaps we could revisit the statistical approach taken by past researchers... unless the number zero is very uncomfortable when trying to support a fantasy.

So again you willfully ignore Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14, a massive statistical study the Battelle Memorial Institute did for the USAF of 3,200 UFO cases between 1952 and 1954. Of these, 22% remained and were classified as unidentified ( “true UFOs” ). Another 69% were deemed identified (IFOs). There was insufficient information to make a determination in the remaining 9%.

So now you're going to say "unidentified" does not equate to "alien" and I'll respond by saying that for all intents and purposes, when considered against the criteria used to determine whether the object was "unknown" the word becomes synonymous with "alien" ... as in inconsistent with our knowledge and ability, or outside our known civilization, or strange beyond conventional explanation. These are what I mean by alien, not limited to but including the possibility of an ET intelligence.

 

[RoboTimbo]

So now you're going to say "unidentified" does not equate to "alien" and I'll respond by saying that for all intents and purposes, when considered against the criteria used to determine whether the object was "unknown" the word becomes synonymous with "alien" ... as in inconsistent with our knowledge and ability, or outside our known civilization, or strange beyond conventional explanation. These are what I mean by alien, not limited to but including the possibility of an ET intelligence.

The above is an outright lie again. The above poster is again dishonest is attempting to redefine words to support his fantasy and delusions.

 

[ufology]

I think you miss the point of the witch analogy. Witches on broomsticks defy the laws of physics. Aliens travelling light years across the cosmos in saucers defy the laws of physics. Even when da Vinci invented his first mechanical flying machine in the 1480s he did so using known principles. He may have even built small models, to demonstrate that his design worked.

There is nothing that defies known principles of physics in interstellar travel. Fusion is a known principle of physics and combined with a sizeable ship and a long time span, it could be done at speeds well below C. For example the nearest star is only 4.2 light years which at one tenth C could still be reached well within the useful life of an automated craft.

 

[ufology]

The above is an outright lie again. The above poster is again dishonest is attempting to redefine words to support his fantasy and delusions.

Robo,

Instead of attacking me why not respond to the issue. If you need to look up the definition of alien ... go ahead ... it is not limited to extraterrestrial and I made it clear what I intended it to mean among the various possibilities.