Pentagon study finds no sign of alien life

[Axxman300]

Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz is one of the Congressional UAP/UFO "Truthers", in case you need a clear picture of the brain-power pushing for more funding on this topic. And it's a great indication this whole thing is a scam.

 

[Pixel42]

The implicit assumption of such claims is that the actual laws of physics are different from the laws of physics as we understand them, and the the aliens use their better understanding/technology to do things that comport with the actual laws of physics but are impossible according to our (flawed) understanding.

It's hard to see how our understanding of the law of conservation of momentum could be flawed.

 

[arthwollipot]

The implicit assumption of such claims is that the actual laws of physics are different from the laws of physics as we understand them, and the the aliens use their better understanding/technology to do things that comport with the actual laws of physics but are impossible according to our (flawed) understanding.

It's hard to see how our understanding of the law of conservation of momentum could be flawed.

Or our understanding of the speed of light, or gravity.

For the claimed "objects" to be behaving in the ways claimed, our understanding would not merely need to be incomplete, it would need to be wrong. And we know it isn't wrong because our understanding has been shown to be extremely reliable when tested against the real universe.

 

[Roboramma]

It's hard to see how our understanding of the law of conservation of momentum could be flawed.

In the sense that there's no possible model of the universe where momentum isn't conserved? I don't think that's quite right. But I do agree that it's incredibly unlikely.

I'm extremely confident that we have the basics of the laws of physics correct when it comes to thermodynamics especially, but also things like the speed of light and most of our conservation laws. Beyond that I'm even more confident that even if there is some exotic way in which those laws are only approximations, there's no actual possible technology that could both fit into a small craft and take advantage of any sort of exotic physics in the way that would be necessary. So we probably agree about the physics here.

My post was mainly just a point on the logic of the claim, what exactly are people who claim something "breaks the laws of physics" are claiming? Their claim is that the actual laws are different from our understanding. As you say that claim is pretty implausible and I'd need very strong evidence to actually believe it. Much stronger that someone seeing some lights in the sky. Even some new published results from the LHC that claimed something like that would just make me think "they probably made is a mistake somewhere". But the fact that there's some level of evidence that I would accept demonstrates that while my prior is very low it's not actually zero.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The law of Physics that often worries me about objects rush through the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds is that of friction and the "sound barrier". If we assume some sort of magical cloaking technology, given the occasional reported failures of alien technology, if it gets accidently switched off we should expect one hell-of-a-bang. What we actually get is "three lights forming a triangle". (If they were to form something else, I would instantly become a believer.)

 

[arthwollipot]

The law of Physics that often worries me about objects rush through the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds is that of friction and the "sound barrier". If we assume some sort of magical cloaking technology, given the occasional reported failures of alien technology, if it gets accidently switched off we should expect one hell-of-a-bang. What we actually get is "three lights forming a triangle". (If they were to form something else, I would instantly become a believer.)

What other thing could three points form? A straight line, I guess.

 

[Puppycow]

It's hard to see how our understanding of the law of conservation of momentum could be flawed.

Yes, but these things do get glossed over in science fiction all the time.

The Millennium Falcon "jumps to light speed." What would happen to actual human bodies (or the ship itself) if subjected to such immense acceleration?

People see physical laws like these broken in movies all the time, so maybe they develop a flawed understanding of what's actually possible.

 

[arthwollipot]

Yes, but these things do get glossed over in science fiction all the time.

The Millennium Falcon "jumps to light speed." What would happen to actual human bodies (or the ship itself) if subjected to such immense acceleration?

People see physical laws like these broken in movies all the time, so maybe they develop a flawed understanding of what's actually possible.

I said recently that physics is the first casualty of science fiction. I'm sure people have a poor understanding of physics based on the movies they've seen. Also any other technical subject that movies frequently get wrong - for more information see the many threads on that topic .

 

[Darat]

Yes, but these things do get glossed over in science fiction all the time.

The Millennium Falcon "jumps to light speed." What would happen to actual human bodies (or the ship itself) if subjected to such immense acceleration?

People see physical laws like these broken in movies all the time, so maybe they develop a flawed understanding of what's actually possible.

I agree.

Also things like the speed of light in a vacuum being absolute is counter intuitive, we know "in the real world" if you want to go faster you just apply more power, usually more engines or more efficient engines.

I know lots of intelligent people who don't realise for example that most ideas of ghosts require the world to work in a totally different way than we have discovered it works for everything else. Often people don't think that much about these types of things, only those interested in them will have given them any kind of serious thoughts.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

I feel loopholes are still possible. Maybe our perception of physics-breaking maneuvers are just artifacts of our brain being exposed to something it's never seen before and doesn't know how to interpret.

Not saying that's likely, just a possibility.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I feel loopholes are still possible. Maybe our perception of physics-breaking maneuvers are just artifacts of our brain being exposed to something it's never seen before and doesn't know how to interpret.

Not saying that's likely, just a possibility.

And our cameras, radars and infra-red thingies?

 

[Axxman300]

And our cameras, radars and infra-red thingies?

My brother flew AWACS for the Saudis while he was in the USAF. He talked about how powerful the radar is on that plane, and how the crew manning the radar screens have to keep their crap together all the time. The radar could see the off-shore oil platforms, and the operators (my brother, etc) would mark each one, and label it on the screen, and then the computer would keep track of it to free the operators up to look for airborne traffic (Iraqi and Iranian fighters). The problem with the AWACS is the computer would re-boot every few hours, wiping the screens of all their ID tags clean. The operators would have to remark all of their radar tracks when this happened (this is how an AWACS targeted a US Army MH-60 in Northern Iraq in 1991 to be shot down).

One mission they had an new Captain, and when the computer rebooted he flipped out because he didn't know this was a thing, and thought a squadron of Iranian jets were converging on the plane. They calmed him down, and showed him the radar contacts weren't moving because they were oil rigs. Point being that under similar circumstances, said Captain would now believe in UFOs simply because he wasn't aware of the rebooting process of the AWACs. Anyone who has served in the military will cite the 10% Rule: No matter how well trained or experienced your force is, 10% will suck. My guess is that 10% are the clowns behind this UAP crap today.

 

[lobosrul5]

I feel loopholes are still possible. Maybe our perception of physics-breaking maneuvers are just artifacts of our brain being exposed to something it's never seen before and doesn't know how to interpret.

Not saying that's likely, just a possibility.

Its not just a possibility its a certainty.

I recall an incident years ago of a UFO that did physically impossible things per any known aircraft. Because peoples brains were interpreting as one big craft. When in reality it was a whole bunch of flares on parachutes in the night sky.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Its not just a possibility its a certainty.

I recall an incident years ago of a UFO that did physically impossible things per any known aircraft. Because peoples brains were interpreting as one big craft. When in reality it was a whole bunch of flares on parachutes in the night sky.

There are thousands of such reports. Try searching this Forum for UFO and Flying Saucer threads. The specific incident you are probably recalling is the "Phoenix Lights".

 

[lobosrul5]

There are thousands of such reports. Try searching this Forum for UFO and Flying Saucer threads. The specific incident you are probably recalling is the "Phoenix Lights".

Precisely so.

 

[theprestige]

I feel loopholes are still possible. Maybe our perception of physics-breaking maneuvers are just artifacts of our brain being exposed to something it's never seen before and doesn't know how to interpret.

That might explain someone seeing a helicopter for the first time, at a distance, without knowing helicopters were a thing, and perceiving its hovering, lateral, and vertical movements as being indistinguishable from magic.

But once you show him that helicopters are real, and physically sound in their operation, he has no excuse for continuing to believe they're alien craft exploiting gaps in our understanding of reality.

The "loophole" in the case of helicopters is simply the knack of manufacturing a rotary wing that uses well-understood aerodynamic principles in a previously undeveloped way.

The problem with physics-breaking UFO interpretation is that they depend on no known physics and do not map to any flying craft already known to exist. It's entirely a physics of the gaps/aliens of the gaps interpretation.

"I saw something that can't be explained by our understanding of reality, therefore it must be aliens."

Yeah, but our understanding of reality includes our knowledge of pareidolia, our knowledge of the limits of human perception, and our knowledge of the failure modes of human perception. Among other related knowledges.

So you end up having to posit an alien spacecraft that just so happens to have exactly the unexaminable, unproven properties necessary to reproduce the effects of the well-known failure modes of human perception. There may well be "loopholes" in our understanding of physical limits, but UFO sightings and interpretations aren't the place to look.

---

Lately I've been thinking about Alcubierre drives, which on paper seem like a plausible loophole around the light speed limit. But then I think about the way the energy requirement goes to infinity as you push a massive particle towards c. So it seems to me that generating a forcefield that surfs your ship past lightspeed on spacetime wave would probably require similarly prohibitive amounts of energy.

And even if you could do it, what effect would that have on the solar system? An alien spacecraft that could traverse the inner system faster than light would probably rip the entire solar system apart with the consequences of such a localized spike in "dark energy".

Any UFO that really does traverse long endo-atmospheric distances at extraordinary speeds should be accompanied by shockwaves, heat signatures, and all the other panoply of stupendous energy expenditure. It wouldn't just be a blip on the radar here, and then another blip on the radar over there a moment later.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

And our cameras, radars and infra-red thingies?

Right, the "loophole" would only apply to personal observation.

Its not just a possibility its a certainty.

I recall an incident years ago of a UFO that did physically impossible things per any known aircraft. Because peoples brains were interpreting as one big craft. When in reality it was a whole bunch of flares on parachutes in the night sky.

That's a great example of a faulty interpretation of a prosaic observation, but see my clarification below...

That might explain someone seeing a helicopter for the first time, at a distance, without knowing helicopters were a thing, and perceiving its hovering, lateral, and vertical movements as being indistinguishable from magic.

But once you show him that helicopters are real, and physically sound in their operation, he has no excuse for continuing to believe they're alien craft exploiting gaps in our understanding of reality.

The "loophole" in the case of helicopters is simply the knack of manufacturing a rotary wing that uses well-understood aerodynamic principles in a previously undeveloped way.

The problem with physics-breaking UFO interpretation is that they depend on no known physics and do not map to any flying craft already known to exist. It's entirely a physics of the gaps/aliens of the gaps interpretation.

"I saw something that can't be explained by our understanding of reality, therefore it must be aliens."

Yeah, but our understanding of reality includes our knowledge of pareidolia, our knowledge of the limits of human perception, and our knowledge of the failure modes of human perception. Among other related knowledges.

So you end up having to posit an alien spacecraft that just so happens to have exactly the unexaminable, unproven properties necessary to reproduce the effects of the well-known failure modes of human perception. There may well be "loopholes" in our understanding of physical limits, but UFO sightings and interpretations aren't the place to look.

That's true, my loophole is something of an "alien of the gaps."

----------------------

Just to belabor my point, and be a little clearer. I'm picturing an observer seeing a craft do impossible maneuvers and concluding aliens. We tell them, "That's physically impossible, it can't happen." The observer's loophole is, "Then my brain was filling in gaps for something it's never seen before and couldn't interpret, therefore aliens."

It's a weak argument, but like Asimov(?) said, any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic. That's the straw the observer might (just) plausibly cling to here.

 

[arthwollipot]

That was Clarke said that.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

That was Clarke said that.

Ah, thank you

 

[lobosrul5]

Right, the "loophole" would only apply to personal observation.



That's a great example of a faulty interpretation of a prosaic observation, but see my clarification below...



That's true, my loophole is something of an "alien of the gaps."

----------------------

Just to belabor my point, and be a little clearer. I'm picturing an observer seeing a craft do impossible maneuvers and concluding aliens. We tell them, "That's physically impossible, it can't happen." The observer's loophole is, "Then my brain was filling in gaps for something it's never seen before and couldn't interpret, therefore aliens."

It's a weak argument, but like Asimov(?) said, any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic. That's the straw the observer might (just) plausibly cling to here.

To add, has the thought occurred to you that an advanced alien species who has developed ftl tech to visit and observe earth, could probably do so without anyone seeing them? Or, if they wanted it known they were here, they'd have the tech to let us know through incontrivertible means.