|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 09/08/2007 : 08:22:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by filthy
Based on the Laws of Physics, they've never come here and never will. Too bad, really. I'd like to share some suds, smoke and scuttlebutt with one or a couple of them as well. Can you imagine the sea stories they'd have?
|
The Laws of Physics as we currently understand them constrain your thoughts. You know that man; within science, makes up solutions for unexplained phenomenon. This is the part of the scientific process referred to as hypothesis. Two current examples would be string theory, and dark matter.
|
Uh-huh. And how exactly might string theoy demonstrate that the speed of light be exceeded?
As for dark matter, we don't even know what the hell it is.
All of this is hypothetical anyway; the speed of light is not.
|
The point of these two examples was not explanation of how aliens would break the speed of light. The point is we do not fully understand how the universe works and we have theories which we can not really experiment on or truly explain. Another point I was trying to make is the with our limited understanding of the physical universe there is no way to discount the ability to by-pass the need of speed to travel a great distance.
Here is a thought: Think of the universe as a flexible plane. Imagine folding that plane an you find than moving vast distances would not require speed.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2007 : 08:57:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
I think you are correct in your comparison of WOTW and BOLA. But do you think this was a UFO/UAP situation , or a Japanese reconnaisance mission, or a faked attack, or what; in view of the enormous amount of ordnance involved? |
It's easy to speculate that someone saw something that they didn't actually identify but called it an airplane, anyway. (Brains make such leaps all the time, it's a survival skill.) Adrenaline and explosions did the rest, and in the aftermath, a very few people would be willing to admit that their identification of the planes (note the plural) was haphazard or even incorrect. I also can't discount the possibility of an actual plane simply being innocently lost and so flying into the wrong place at the wrong time, starting the whole mess (a scenario one can easily come up with independent of seeing a certain movie).| To what do you refer as a "historical science"? Is the scientific method employed in these sorts of investigations? I am truly drawing a blank here. Please elucidate. |
Historical sciences are simply those which examine the past. Experimentation is largely impractical or impossible (lacking time machines), and so theories become explanations and predictions of what we would find, were we to have "been there." The scientific method is still adhered to, but due to the constraints placed upon us by time and memory, "we don't know" will necessarily be heard much more often than in experimental sciences like physics or chemistry. Archeology, geology, cosmology and much of modern criminal forensics are examples of historical sciences. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 09/08/2007 : 09:32:50 [Permalink]
|
1941 trailer
1941 teaser
This movies looks as if was taken from the headlines about the BoLA!
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2007 : 10:51:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
This movies looks as if was taken from the headlines about the BoLA! |
Part of it was, according to the people who made the film. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2007 : 11:40:12 [Permalink]
|
Dave W......
Thank you for the excellent definition of "historical sciences" It is very useful to my project. May I quote?
Three questions:
1. Did you read the entire Wikipedia article, and/or Jerome's links referring to BoLA?
2. Are you aware of any documented case anywhere, anytime, where the scientific method has been properly utilized to investigate UAP?
3. If you were comissioned, paid whatever you asked, and funded extravagantly to do an exhaustive, definitive, and conclusive investigation of UAP, how would you go about it? |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2007 : 12:08:14 [Permalink]
|
Jerome Da Gnome.....
Hang in there, Jerry. By the time we finish this business, Dave is going to adopt you!
I sure wish more folks were interested in the topic, however. I personally believe that after a lot of intensive focus on the subject, intelligent people become so frustrated that they dismiss it out of hand just to be rid of the nuisance. Also the fact that today it's not cool for an intellectual to have a UAP theory other than UFO=UFO. It's so grandpa's (that would be me) preoccupation.
Current "critical thought" strictures prohibit much exercise of the imagination. And this is a good thing once a hypothesis has been established and cries out for testing. But no profound new insights in any of the sciences are going to be discovered by the use of Aristotelian, Boolean, symbolic, or even fuzzy logic alone. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 09/08/2007 : 13:03:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by filthy
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by filthy
Based on the Laws of Physics, they've never come here and never will. Too bad, really. I'd like to share some suds, smoke and scuttlebutt with one or a couple of them as well. Can you imagine the sea stories they'd have?
|
The Laws of Physics as we currently understand them constrain your thoughts. You know that man; within science, makes up solutions for unexplained phenomenon. This is the part of the scientific process referred to as hypothesis. Two current examples would be string theory, and dark matter.
|
Uh-huh. And how exactly might string theoy demonstrate that the speed of light be exceeded?
As for dark matter, we don't even know what the hell it is.
All of this is hypothetical anyway; the speed of light is not.
|
The point of these two examples was not explanation of how aliens would break the speed of light. The point is we do not fully understand how the universe works and we have theories which we can not really experiment on or truly explain. Another point I was trying to make is the with our limited understanding of the physical universe there is no way to discount the ability to by-pass the need of speed to travel a great distance.
Here is a thought: Think of the universe as a flexible plane. Imagine folding that plane an you find than moving vast distances would not require speed.
|
But Jerome, now we have decended from hypothese into conjecture & speculation. Nothing wrong with that, of course; most scientific discoveries were concieved in exactly that way, but unless and until that conjecture/speculation finds some evidentual support, it is worthless.
I've no doubt that this is being looked at, but thus far it all remains mere conjecture.
Sorry bro, but while I like a little SF, and indeed, fantasy, as much as the next, I don't give it much credence. I prefer the science to have some direction beyond stumblng around in the dark.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2007 : 15:29:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
I sure wish more folks were interested in the topic, however. I personally believe that after a lot of intensive focus on the subject, intelligent people become so frustrated that they dismiss it out of hand just to be rid of the nuisance. Also the fact that today it's not cool for an intellectual to have a UAP theory other than UFO=UFO. It's so grandpa's (that would be me) preoccupation.
Current "critical thought" strictures prohibit much exercise of the imagination. And this is a good thing once a hypothesis has been established and cries out for testing. But no profound new insights in any of the sciences are going to be discovered by the use of Aristotelian, Boolean, symbolic, or even fuzzy logic alone.
|
But golly, where do we take an incident like a UFO sighting once it has been investigated and still can't be positively identified and verified as something specific that can be explained?
We can do a lot of speculating, Jerome style, by stealing bits of scientific conjecture or plots from science fiction books and movies and run with those ideas straight to crackpot land. (Many have.) We can write a sci-fi of our own, and if it's a good one, we might turn our speculation into art.
But the thing is, we're dealing with not one but many different kinds of sightings which further complicates matters, while we muse over the problem. The whole subject of UFO's that are still UFO's is so nebulous, ( ) where would we begin a serious investigation and with what tools and with what ideas beyond what is already being done? How would we recognize which kind of incident is better to focus on and more worthy of our scientific dollars then another?
Also, I doubt that it is a lack of imagination that has kept us from pursuing these sightings further then we have. I think it's because of a lack of results, by way of some evidence other then anecdotal, or an anomaly that can't be reproduced, that has forced us to draw some tentative conclusions about the value of such a pursuit. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2007 : 19:53:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Thank you for the excellent definition of "historical sciences" It is very useful to my project. May I quote? |
There are much better sources than I. It's not online for free, but Massimo Pigliucci's "Are the historical sciences sciences?" is a great article which goes into much more depth than my few comments.Three questions:
1. Did you read the entire Wikipedia article, and/or Jerome's links referring to BoLA? |
Yes.| 2. Are you aware of any documented case anywhere, anytime, where the scientific method has been properly utilized to investigate UAP? |
Beats me.| 3. If you were comissioned, paid whatever you asked, and funded extravagantly to do an exhaustive, definitive, and conclusive investigation of UAP, how would you go about it? |
I'd hand back the big bag of cash and say, "sorry, there's no possible way for me to guarantee anything definitive or conclusive."
Let's say that all we wanted to do was investigate the Ocala incident from '78, and that all we have to start with is the description on Dr. Haisch's website. It certainly isnt conclusive, so we formulate the hypothesis that the government has important details. We send in a bunch of FOIA requests and wait. We get back all sorts of redacted papers, and can draw no conclusions from them, either. We formulate the hypothesis that perhaps one or more of the people whose names we've got has more information than the government. So we start testing by emails, phone calls, and in-person visits. The results we get are that (A) some people refuse to talk to us, (B) some don't have any info we don't already know and (C) some are dead. Seems to me that there aren't any more testable hypotheses after that, and so we're stuck with nothing definitive or conclusive.
Sure, many cases may turn up interesting tidbits, but there's no reason to deviate from the scientific method:1) Make an observation - in these cases, that will tend to be reading about cases, or watching video, or interviews, etc.
2) Formulate a testable hypothesis based upon those observations - at first, hypotheses about where to gather more data will be fine, and only later in an investigation will more "conclusive" hypotheses be available.
3) Test the hypothesis - many times, if need be.
4) Add the results of the testing to our collection of observations.
5) Go back to step 2 and repeat. Many of the current believers in ET visitations, for example, seem to ignore the adjective "testable," and formulate hypotheses that are completely untestable, or depend upon sheer luck. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2007 : 20:38:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dude
JDG said:
Why would you eliminate alien visitations? Based on mathematical probabilities there are aliens and they are more technologically advanced than us.
|
As has been said already... all those "probabilities" are based (currently) on guesses, and they say nothing about the ability to travel faster than light.
Most people here would tentatively agree that there is a good chance of life existing elswhere in the universe, based on our current observations. But we'll need some compelling evidence that any life not of terrestrial origin has come to visit.
|
Does this mean that you are guessing that "we" hold the correct and complete knowledge that precludes extraterrestrial life that possesses technology which we do not that can preform this feat?
|
WTF?
I was trying to have a conversation.
I asked for clarification of his statement.
He stated that it was a "guess" that ET could come here. I asked if it was also a "guess" that they could not.
WTF?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2007 : 20:59:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I asked if it was also a "guess" that they could not. |
No, you asked Dude if he was guessing that they could not. Perhaps you didn't intend to give your question such a personal touch, but it looks exactly like what got you banned. We can't read your mind.
Follow-up on this, if you desire, should be via PM or email. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2007 : 21:22:44 [Permalink]
|
Kil.....
Filthy stated:
First of all, nobody is suggesting that unidentified objects should not be investigated scientifically. In fact, most here think scientific investigation is the only way to look into these phenomena. (italics mine)
Dude suggested:
Second, you have to start with the basics. Observation. You have to generate some data by simply going out and recording observations. You could do this in any variety of ways. Get some high res/high definition telescopic video cameras and set them to look at the skies. Build a radar site dedicated to the task, which eliminates the pesky real job that other radar sites have to do.
But Kil objects:
But the thing is, we're dealing with not one but many different kinds of sightings which further complicates matters, while we muse over the problem. The whole subject of UFO's that are still UFO's is so nebulous, () where would we begin a serious investigation and with what tools and with what ideas beyond what is already being done? How would we recognize which kind of incident is better to focus on and more worthy of our scientific dollars then another?
This is the area in which I asked my hypothetical question to all - what would you do if you had virtually unlimited resources, were well paid for your efforts and had a mission to; by God, Zeus, and Harris's Buddha, investigate this UFO/UAP thing?
I gather that Kil feels that he could, or would, not undertake such a formidable task.
If Filty is right, and most here think that scientific investigation is the only way to look into this phenomenon, then:
HOW DO YOU APPLY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD to UAP?
Dave, how about leaving SFN and starting The Institute for the Scientific Study of UAP (with initial funding of 100M and a Director's salary of 500K per year, with a five year contract?
Cune, would you take the job?
Jerome, I know you would accept the offer, but specifically how would you structure your organization and what would be your initial steps in undertaking the task?
This would be the next question to Dave and Cune, should they choose to accept the Mission Impossible.
Anybody else out there in the Forum?
Come on guys, lighten up. Turn your imaginations loose on a dream project that has nothing to do with assumptions of aliens or woo-woo hypotheses. Take a vacation for a few hours from the stringent requirements of critical analysis of other's claims. Perhaps there IS an onus (definition 1d.) that clouds any endeavor associated with UAP. My experience is that enough money can erase any onus. Or anus. Check your daily newspaper.
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2007 : 21:30:37 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
Thank you for your reply. I was posting simutaneously with you, it appears. I accept your statement to be conclusive as to your response.
Others.....
I hope to hear expressions of your imaginations at work |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2007 : 21:43:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
HOW DO YOU APPLY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD to UAP? |
Without malice, I ask: Didn't I just lay out how?| Dave, how about leaving SFN and starting The Institute for the Scientific Study of UAP (with initial funding of 100M and a Director's salary of 500K per year, with a five year contract? |
I'd jump at it so long as the contract explicitly stated that the ISSUAP need produce no "definitive" or "conclusive" results. But why would I need to leave the SFN?| Come on guys, lighten up. Turn your imaginations loose on a dream project that has nothing to do with assumptions of aliens or woo-woo hypotheses. |
I thought I had done so, already. Unfortunately, even ignoring aliens and woo, the reality is that relatively few full sighting investigations are going to result in definitive reports like "it was a blimp." The best-case ("dream") scenario, really, is that the ISSUAP hires an army of psychologists, sociologists and behaviorists and we churn out articles and books and press releases describing numerous double-blind, randomized trials (non-historical science) about why people choose to believe in fantasy explanations for mundane occurrences. But then the goal there wouldn't be the study of UAP so much as it would be the study of certain human attitudes. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Brights' opinions of select UFO sightings P.S.
Official Warning