Dr. Rudolf Schild (astrophysicist) is impressed with Bob Lazar's science on the reactionless drive

I read that full report.

Spam is anything posted repeatedly, especially without additional views or logic.

He showed how there is a prosaic description that is based on concrete math.

For someone to claim that "go fast" supports the idea of aliens coming here from far, far away is ridiculous. Rock solid evidence is needed for a claim that magical.

Yes.

Yes, I accept rock solid math and physics over the impressions of a pilot who got fooled by parallax.

Once again, I don't agree that there is "compelling testimony" of aliens.

If it's something else, then these events just fall into the realm of the daily duties of our military.

I can't explain Avi Loeb. His original paper stepped over the line on what a paper gets to state. I thought he was just trying to be outrageous, and was choosing to wake people up to what science can and can not prove, etc.

But, he seems to have attached himself to the "its aliens" idea far beyond any rational limit.

Your accusation that I haven't looked is really cheap.

I don't agree that "Are we alone?" is an answerable question today or ever. If some sort of life showed up here in a way that can be proven not to be related to Earth life, that would possibly form a "no" answer. However, to be answerable one has to consider what it would take to find that the answer is "yes".

Please remember that we have had great difficulty in determining whether there is or ever has been life of any kind on the two planets closest to Earth.

 

No, it's not.

Wiki:
Forum spam consists of posts on Internet forums that contains related or unrelated advertisements, links to malicious websites, trolling and abusive or otherwise unwanted information.

It was directly relevant, not only that, you asked me to provide anything to counter West.
Which I did with, 1. The Forensic Report. 2. the Themely analysis. 3. Chad Underwood's testimony.
The forensic report of which you ignored, causing me to repost hoping you would read or acknowledge in some way..
At which point you accused me of spam, which it is not.

I repeat, I said 'how can I accept West's testimony as the final word on the subject when there is testimony by pilots describing events beyond which is recorded in the videos which describe extraordinary maneuvers? which is what I mean when I said 'given the above'.

now, why don't you give a direct answer to that, this time, instead of glossing over it and repeating West?

I am not saying they are aliens.
IF underwood is referring to go fast, his testimony is more credible than West's claim the darting was an artifact, given that fact that West is not familiar enough with the nuance of the system, not in possession of the camera, to assess, with 100% certainty, that it was an artifact.

What is your argument which is more compelling than the above? What, West is God? What?

You're making an assumption. West, nor you, know that for a fact. Underwood's testimony is not 'impressions'.
These are highly trained pilots whose lives depend on making snap judgements of things that cross their path in flight.
Can they make mistakes? Sure, can debunkers be wrong? You betcha.
Your trivialization of naval pilots powers of observation is offensive

he explained how he arrived at his conclusion, but he didn't say it was, it said it was possible, and the distinction is important.

It's a perfectly reasonable conclusion, given your statement:

Well, there are decades of hubcap pics and vids. So, there is no denying this.

That distinctly gives me the impression you believe the vast number of photos are hubcap picks and vids, which is false.
From that, the only logical conclusion I can assess is that you haven't looked much.
Why?
Because your statement was cheap shot.
And you accuse me of making cheap accusation?
How is it possible that you, someone who purports to be an engineer, a man of science, can be so sloppy --- trafficking in clichés and stereotypes?

And what fact do you base this on?

If you are saying what I think you are saying, something to do with interstellar travel being impossible on a practical scale, then you have made a grandiose assumption of what is possible or not possible. It's reasonable to believe it's impossible, given what we do know, but to declare it that it IS impossible is the zenith of man's arrogance, given that man is a babe in the cosmic woods.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not we are being visited by aliens.

Scientists are barking up the wrong tree, if all they can do is look for interstellar RF transmissions and life on mars, etc.

Hell, humans are still driving in vehicles whose motors were invented in the 19th century, and flying in spacecraft whose engines were invented centuries ago and when we land we have got to use parachutes to stop.

I'd say our opinion of what is possible doesn't deserve much credit.

 

No, to show we are alone, think of what we would have to do! Yet, we can't even be sure about the closest planets - ones that humans have been driving remote control vehicles around.

We've landed on Mars, the most likely to have life anything like our own. We've brought back samples.

And, yes. We have incredibly limited ability to check out anything beyond our solar system.

That supports my point more than yours. Rockets got invented in China in the 1200s, and that's what we use today, though stupendously more sophisticated.

That isn't an indication that there are better ways to do it.

As for parachutes, that is NOT the only way we do landings. In fact, some places we land don't have enough atmosphere to allow parachutes to work.

You have NO justification to berate our physics. "Gee, there should be a better way" is NOT an argument.

 

You misunderstand me.

I have nothing but high regard for science, for I take medicine that keeps me alive and I love my late model Prius and though I'd love nothing more than to go back to the 60s, I would hate like hell to give up my cell phone.

Now then, no doubt the space shuttles are very sophisticated machines of engineering.

What you interpret as 'berate' isn't an indictment of the entire body of physics or even lesser parts, that sentiment, which you have wrongfully extrapolated to a much larger scale than I intended it for, goes ONLY to the idea that if someone tells me that interstellar space travel is impossible, then, and only then, do out pull out the 'cosmic babe in the woods' card, which, in my opinion, is the correct rebuttal.

Capiche? In other words, don't read more into than that. I would appreciate it. You tend to overreact, if I don't mind my saying so. (and don't trump out the 'ad hom' card, it's not like I'm calling you a boor or jerk, i mean, I thnk we can loosen our ties, let our hair down, just a tad, eh?)

Moreover, you wrote:

And, yes. We have incredibly limited ability to check out anything beyond our solar system.

And yes, that is because we are cosmic babes. We are new to the game. We haven't poked our heads, physically, outside our solar system and within the solar system we are slow as hell. The farthest man has traveled was to the moon, a few times.

I think the consensus is that there is intelligent life in the universe, and among that intelligent life, I don't know about others, but believe there are superior beings who have conquered space/time such that there may be a galactic federation out there, who are standing by, waiting for us to shuck our training wheels.

And, fyi, I have more than a wild notion to believe that is true. No, it's not the best evidence in the world, but it's interesting, compelling in ways, once you remove the chaff from the wheat. And contrary to your contention, there is wheat in the chaff, there most certainly is. However, for you to see it you'd have to expand your approach to the subject beyond wanting someone to hand you a close up photo of a alien handing Neil deGrasse Tyson a certificate of alien authenticity. Forgive me, Willreadmore, I don't mean to mock you, but, you do realize you've mocked me, here and there, and I'm not complaining, but Life's a two way street, eh? As for knowledge, what do you recommend I read? What magazines? Books?

There's always a better way, that way is the way away from reactionary propulsion, away from the constraints of Newton's third law of motion, because we're not going to conquer space anytime soon with that tin lizzy method of getting beyond the earth's gravitational pull.

Even if there isn't a better way, it's a good attitude to have.

I realize that I am a layperson, and as a layperson, you resent someone like me accusing the current method of propulsion as 'tin lizzy'. I'm sorry about that, but, that aside, I think it is a true statement that we are not going to get out of the solar system any time soon with propulsion that is constrained by pushing hot air, or even ions, into space in a action/reaction scenario.. Oh, and yes, I do realize that something like a warp drive would require an enormous amount of power we have no technology whatsoever to contain within the confines of a machine ( what about electromagnetic fields? ). Yes, i'ts possible that such technology is a few hundred years beyond us. I don't know.

Now don't go off on me that getting past Newton's third law in terms of space travel equals rejecting physics.

That simply isn't true, I'm saying, we need to bark up a new tree. This one's not getting us anywhere quickly. That's all I'm saying. Yes, I know, it's easy for someone like me to say that, i do get it, yes, "I have no idea of the sweat that physicists and endured to create the machines we now have" right? ISn't that what you are thinking?

I get it, we've come a long ways, baby. But, we're still babies.


Right? Is this not a true statement?

You want me to be more mindful of the breadth of man's accomplishments, put in a few good words, and I admit I haven't and I should have, and I want you to not be smug, because you have been smug, and you shouldn't have.

I wish I were a Scientist, so I could rattle off equations to keep you from berating me, but I made my life in the arts (well artistic craft, I was a wedding photographer for many years),

And 70, I'm a candidate for prevagen ( if that crap actually works).

Do you know the story ( from Snopes 'true' )

One day in 1939, George Bernard Dantzig, a doctoral candidate at the University of California, Berkeley, arrived late for a graduate-level statistics class and found two problems written on the board. Not knowing they were examples of “unsolved” statistics problems, he mistook them for part of a homework assignment, jotted them down, and solved them. (The equations Dantzig tackled are more accurately described not as unsolvable problems, but rather as unproven statistical theorems for which he worked out proofs.)

Six weeks later, Dantzig’s statistics professor notified him that he had prepared one of his two “homework” proofs for publication, and Dantzig was given co-author credit on a second paper several years later when another mathematician independently worked out the same solution to the second problem.

The point is that he solved it because he didn't know that no scientists and mathematicians were able solve it, no one told him.

There's a moral there, somewhere, which is that, if someone had told him, the intimidation of the fact might have put a damper on his imagination and creativity as solving difficult, well nigh impossible, problems, whereby he might not have been able to solve it, --- which has a lot to do with my viewpoint about those who declare 'interstellar travel is impossible' which means 'alien visitation is impossible' and saying otherwise does not equal 'denying physics'.

 

Isn't that the same as telling our physicists that they don't know their asses from a hole in the ground?

That's not based on anything that is actually known about this universe. It's free of evidence. We like scifi.

The catch with that is that Newton was right about that.

All the drives we imagine involve blowing mass out the rear in order to move other mass toward our objective. We do it with gasses, ions, etc. But, it IS Newton. And, it IS a law.

I'm not so sure. We DO need to continue working out how this universe works. But, engineers will continue to use everything we learn in order to provide us with cool features we'll pay for - like your cell phone. In that case, it took engineers a lot o time to package the necessary power and the gazillion transistors, the several radios, and the display technology all inside something you can carry. That was an engineering accomplishment.

Calling the laws of physics "tin lizzy" doesn't reflect on physicists - if you get my drift.

No, I'm thinking that I failed to make the difference between physics and engineering clear. The basis of our space flight today is Newton (for the physics) + an amazing amount of materials science.

Humans don't know everything. Absolutely true. But, that is not an excuse for ignoring the fundamental model that physicists have built through many many decades of study.

I have no idea what you think this actually means. I certainly do not believe it is some sort support for the idea that if we only ignored how hard certain problems are those problems would evaporate.

Laws such as the cosmic speed limit can not be considered "hard problems" that someone should have solved, if only they didn't know it was hard, for crying out loud.

I've cited youtubes by Dr. Sean Carroll, as he makes every effort to describe physics to laypersons.

 

No, because I wouldn't fault a baby for not being able to run, my stating why is an attempt to empathize why the baby can't run
I think the mature scientists who do not have fragile egos would take my statement for precisely at face value, that yes, the reason we haven't conquered the vast expanse of space is not because it is impossible, for that would be arrogant to presume such, but, indeed, we are, in point of fact, compared what is potentially out there in terms of advanced races beyond ours, despite our accomplishments which, for as new as we are, are great, that we are, indeed, babes in the cosmic woods. Basically, it's an awakening that we need to, perhaps, rethink our propulsion strategies ( if it is possible, remember, I'm a lay person).

I'd say my statement was being diplomatic, and understanding.

yes, that goes without saying, noting that, today's sci fi is tomorrow's reality.

But, asserting that a non reactionary drive is possible doesn't equal violating Newton's third law.
Newton also said that 'what goes up, must come down'. Well, that isn't necessarily true, not anymore, and to go up and not come down doesn't violate Newton's third law.

I think it is a good attitude to have. Not to have it, in my view, is to be smug, and that's not good for innovation, imagination and creativity in the arena of solving problems.

True.

I wasn't calling the 'laws of physics' tin lizzy, I was referring to space travel constrained by Newton's third law. (Note, I am asserting there are at least another paradigm where the law would not factor in in terms of propulsion --- noting that for such movement by craft to occur, 'propulsion' might be technically the wrong term )

I was looking at it from the perspective of an advanced alien, whose race has conquered the distance of space, that, from his vantage point, we are using antique propulsion. Yes, from our perspective it's sci fi', but not from their perspective.

But, is it really a stretch to believe that there are, indeed, advanced alien races with technology vastly superior to ours?
Out of the gazillion planets, are you saying not one of them will have advanced technology superior to ours? Are you saying the concept is preposterous? Or probable? Or possible? I realize you start with the assumption that they don't exist. But, is that realistic?

I think I understand the difference. But, this method will not get us very far into space.

Looking deeper into physics, looking beyond what is currently known and understood, to new vistas and horizons (metaphorically speaking), doesn't equal 'ignoring fundamental models built through many decades of study'.

The point is not to assume limits, not to let what seems impossible be absolute, not to let such things limit creativity, imagination, innovation, in the search for more advances in science.

I'll check him out.

 

That was a casual statement that should not be taken out of context like you are doing.

You want to postulate sci fi creatures so "advanced" that they don't have to worry about things like the laws of physics. And then you don't like it when I point out that there is absolutely NO evidence for such creatures existing outside of our planet.

It's a pity, because your sci fi dreams sound quite fun.

Suggesting physicists are failing, because they haven't figured out how to make the universe work the way YOU want is really pretty ridiculous, don't you think? I really don't know where you get off with this.

How about this: Maybe physicists HAVE learned something!!!

What's your evidence that they are all children playing in a sandbox, permanently incapacitated by their lack of creativity and the assumptions of their forefathers?

Great!

 

So, I'll find another example that makes the same point. See? You're pettifogging the point I was making with an aspect of the example on which my point does not rely.

Hold it right there, Willreadmore.

Do you believe there are advanced races in the universe? Yes or no?

By the way, it's okay to a hunch, a belief.

IF you choose not to believe in the concept, that begs the next question:

Do you think it is unreasonable for someone to believe in the concept of advanced races in the universe?

Do you think it is appropriate for a scientist to have a hunch that there probably, is, indeed, an advanced race or races out there?


You keep saying interstellar travel on a practical scale is impossible. That is the correct inference from your statement.

That is a false statement,.

A truer statement would be:

Practical interstellar travel is not possible now given our current understanding of physics, and despite the fact that
any discovery, however remote, which might solve the problem of practical interstellar travel is not on the immediately horizon, that doesn't mean it is impossible.

And, with the above, that should quell the point you made about 'worrying about the laws of physics'.

The point is moot.

No, what I actually don't like is that you are forever pettifogging the debate. It was a hypothetical reference, and, as such, that there is no evidence is an unimportant fact not needed for the point.

Then the next trick you use is to trivialize the hypothetical example as 'sci fi'. Oh, I'm sure you'll wiggle out of that one by claiming that technically, it was a fiction of science, and therefore appropriate to call it Sci Fi. But, that trick is as appropriate, when mentioning Barack Obama, the weasels on the right would make sure everyone knew that his middle name was Hussein. "Technically" they were correct, too. See? ANd you are doing the same thing by calling my hypothetical 'sci fi' in the hopes that some of that sci fi fairy tale credibility will rub off on my argument.

Right? Of course I'm right.

No, Willreadmore, your trick falls under the heading of 'posturing'.

FYI, posturing is a non argument, and to harp on a non argument is to pettifog the debate.

In other words, the context you use the term was your attempt to trivialize my point, and by that measure, attempt to diminish the credibility of the point.

Now that I've got that bone to pick with you out of the way, despite the posturing in your statement, I'll answer it with the following:

All things that science hasn't discovered is could be called science fiction.

Warp drives / non reactionary drives, are science fiction.

So what? So what, Willreadmore? What is your point?

Does that mean we don't try? Does that me we don't try and think outside the box?

What's the matter Willreadmore, am I pushing you outside your comfort zone?

Are you afraid that, by talking a lot about UFOs, someone might call you a UFO nut?

Is that why you are given to posturing? you think it's beneath you?

YOu don't like the subject because of the baggage that comes with it. Right?

But, that is your baggage to discard.

I find it easy to discard simply because it would be the most important discovery of mankind. Period.

That fact should easily clear all the baggage for anyone who is fascinated and curious.

Or shall we stay within your comfortable Newtonian box which you believe is unsurpassable without violating it?

And you think these little debate tricks are not going to be noticed by me?

"it's a pity'.. .

Oh .... listen to you.

There you go, again ( Sorry, Reagan, I couldn't resist).

Allow me to repeat the simple and glaring fact that, once again, posturing is a non argument, and by that fact, you are merely pettifogging the debate. It's a pseudo debate trick, and if I might add, unbecoming of any proper attitude towards science.

In my humble opinion.

And what way is "my way" that I want them to make the universe work?
Your assertion that it would be ridiculous only has weight if you can state what my way was that I wanted them to make the universe work, and, I don't recall ever saying that I had a way such that I would place demands on physicists.

So, tell me what 'my way' was. I am curious.

Hmmmm?

I hope so.

Question has an assumed premise (arising from a misunderstanding of my point)

That's a total mischaracterization of what I expressed.

My metaphor, 'we are cosmic babes in the woods' encompasses the entire race of mankind.

It's an innocent metaphor, and accurate.

I was speaking for the species, mankind. Not referring to scientists as 'children playing in a sand box'.

You, by creating the strawman that I was referring to scientists as children, you are conflating my innocent metaphor of mankind with one that is measurably more derogatory by applying it directly to scientists by referring to them as children in a sandbox, as if I were the one who said it. No, I didn't, check again. .

Now then, with that bone to pick with you aside, I will answer your question.

No one is permanently incapacitated. There is nothing I wrote where you can draw such an inference. So, the question has a false premise derived form your misunderstanding of something I wrote. .

 

You wanted to find something that you thought was since refuted. And, you took a casual comment out of context in order to satisfy your ends.

There are HUGE numbers of cases where humans have learned more, thus requiring updates to what humans previously thought they knew.

I do not have a belief on that topic.

There are a stupendous number of locations in this universe that appear similar to Earth. But, almost all of which we can not observe. Plus, we DO NOT KNOW for sure how life arose here. We haven't been able to determine if life exists in our own solar system, except on Earth!!

So, the very idea that someone would have a "belief" about this hits me as nutty, or religious, or ??.

No, the problem here is that there are almost no cases in science where an absolute 0 or "no" is a legitimate answer.

One can ALWAYS say that there is a possibility that we don't know something, because maybe all our physics are a tiny subset of reality, or whatever.

But, then one has to consider what the odds of that actually are. And, basing any answer on the possibility that everything we know is false is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

It's like suggesting that if you jump off a building, you MIGHT not go "down", because an anti gravity anomaly might show up. And, there is no way to prove that wrong.

You should not be so ready to jump off the building.

You are still begging for people to jump off that building with you. Defending yourself by claiming that everything known today is probably false is not acceptable.

You are failing to give any credence to what we've learned so far.

And, you're making up various sci fi features that you want to be the objective of physics, when the actual objective is to learn more about how our universe works.

When the universe is found to work in ways that don't match what you want, you decide that physics must be wrong!!!

Beyond that, I think you really have no concept of how well physicists have tested our standard model, and are entranced by this idea that the fact that theories can't be proven true means that no credence is warranted. But, it definitely does NOT mean that.

Physics is not a "debate trick".

 

The quote didn't even have to be introduced to make my point. That's what 'pettifogging' means, harping on an unimportant aspect of the point. Just remove the quote, and you have no reply. If you want to say 'why did you introduce it?', you got me, score one for Willreadmore. But, that doesn't change the fact that you ignored the more salient point.

Here is the salient point, which you ignored

....asserting that a non reactionary drive is possible doesn't necessarily equal violating Newton's third law.

Willreadmore, these are reasonable questions, and where oh where to you get the idea they are 'nutty'?

What is nutty is your characterization.

Do you think it is unreasonable for someone to believe in the concept of advanced races in the universe?

Do you think it is appropriate for a scientist to have a hunch that there probably, is, indeed, an advanced race or races out there?

Noting that there are scientists who do have hunches regarding the above. Are they nutty?

You do not make sense.

Please provide evidence that I stated 'everything we know is false'.

You make the same error of logic, over, and over, and over, again.

It's not about odds, it's ONLY about whether or not the following statement is true, or false.

'interstellar travel is impossible'. True or false?

'interstellar travel is possible'. True or false?

Try avoiding strawman arguments and pettifogging the point this time, okay?

Where do you get all these strawman arguments?

Saying that interstellar travel is possible doesn't equal 'it might be possible to jump off a building and not go down". WTF? Talk about non sequitur.

And yes, if you jump off of a building with one of these, underfoot, you won't go down. So, what might have been thought to be impossible 40 years ago, is now possible.




How can you possibly say 'interstellar travel is impossible'?

What is the scientific basis for making such an absolute statement as that?

yes, I now this bothers you, and I addressed this point in a previous comment, did you not read it?
Now I know you don't read my posts. YOu make lots of assumptions.

Now then, whether or not I failed to give credence to what we've learned thus far has NOTHING TO DO with my point.

It is irrelevant.

What kind of nonsensical attitude is that?

Did Orville and Wright toss aside there goal of flight and focus on learning 'more about the universe'?

Did Henry Ford toss aside his goal of making affordable cars to 'learn more about the universe' ?

Did Benjamin Franklin toss aside his goal of finding the perfect filament for his light bulb to focus on 'learning more about the universe?

Did Guglielmo Marconi give up on you desire to make a wireless long distance telegraph to focus on learning more about the universe?

What the hell are you talking about? YOu make absolutely no sense, whatsoever.

Hey, Willreadmore, it's okay to have a goal, to want to invent something, to solve a problem, maybe even make a few bucks doing it..

What, are you saying I am the only one on this earth who dreams about interstellar travel?

Are you saying that that is not a goal of mankind, anywhere on earth, I'm the only one?

Why are you cheapening such a grand vision as interstellar travel, trivializing it to sci fi that ONLY I WANT TO DO?

Did I not clear up that point in my previous comment? Did you not read it?

Please provide the quote where I stated physics is a 'debate trick'

You are refuting a point I did not make

There's another phase for that, it's called 'making stuff up'.

 

I wanted to add this point to the previous rebuttal, but I got timed out.


I dream of interstellar travel, and yes, but what we must discover first, which is DOABLE, is 'non reactionary non aero dymanic lift'.

An anti-gravity ( or the appearance thereof while avoiding thrust propulsion ) machine.

That's doable. All we got to do is focus on it, pool are resources and energies towards that end

And that doesn't equal 'what only I want to do'.

I imagine there are scientists out there right now working on it.

Whoever gets antigravity licked will be the next billionaire.

 

Yes. In my opinion, any answer to questions about aliens living somewhere else in the universe is nutty in that it isn't based on any kind of evidence.

I know many people have "answers" for questions where there really isn't an answer, and it's not a big deal, as everyone knows there aren't real answers. It can even be fun.

Interstellar travel is very clearly possible. We're doing it RIGHT NOW. We have two satellites that have left our solar system at a velocity that means that Earth's gravity can't stop them. They will keep flying through this galaxy until they hit something.

The question is how fast we might possibly be able to travel.

So far, we have the universal speed limit at which light travels, and we have no way of getting close to that speed.

You missed the point. The point is that there are statements that can not be proven false, but where one of the alternatives is so monumentally unlikely that even just considering it is ridiculous.

These people were engineers. They worked on providing solutions based on the known physics of the day.

We do the same thing today. Engineers build things they believe the public will be interested in.

Physicists have the goal of improving our knowledge of how this universe works.

 

What makes you think that is "doable"?

What's your proposal?

 

There is evidence, you haven't surveyed the entire field. Evidence comes in degrees. For hard evidence, we need only one.
for other types of evidence, not hard, but evidence when weighed as a whole, we need tons. That we have. The lesser evidence of which is considerable, isn't absolute proof, but it's enough to warrant an opinion that's more than just pure conjecture. so, when you say 'your are making conjecture' you would be making a false statement, especially when I"m not asserting it as fact..

but, let's say there isn't any kind of evidence, okay, so to hold a 'hunch' or even a 'belief', it doesn't have to be based on evidence, it can be based on the probability of odds, in terms greater or lesser probabilities given the math from which we can base opinions, one way or the other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstellar_habitable_zone
On November 4, 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs in the Milky Way. About 11 billion of these may be orbiting Sun-like stars.

That's just one galaxy. ONE!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy
Each light speck is a galaxy, some of which are as old as 13.2 billion years – the observable universe is estimated to contain 200 billion to two trillion galaxies.

Do the math. We know intelligent life is possible, we are it.

Multiply 200 billion galaxies times 40 billion goldilock zone earth size planets ( assuming your average galaxy is about our size, they maybe more, or less, but even if half, it's still an astronomical number) and is it not reasonable to presume the existence of at least a few super intelligent races of beings?

In the universe, there isn't one of anything. Not one cat, not one dog, not one animal, not one amoeba, not one grain of sand, and it is therefore likely, given the astronomical numbers of habitable planets, there isn't one planet with intelligent life on it, and I don't think it is unreasonable to assume there are some races of technologically advanced races.

Now then, here's the question: Is the above logical, or illogical?

And you are calling me the 'nut' for saying the odds are that there is intelligent life somewhere in the universe beyond are own?

I don't understand you.

No one is claiming to have answers for which there isn't known facts.

it isn't about having an answer for which we do not have an answer, currently, it's about having an opinion based on what is known.

Why do you refuse to have an opinion about it? I think most folks do have an opinion about it, do they not?

Yes, that is the question, but, in order to conquer the great distance,
is it not true that we should stop thinking in terms of linear travel, and start
thinking in terms of non linear travel, and proceed from that vantage point?

When I say 'interstellar travel', assume I mean practical interstellar travel for humans, okay?

We shouldn't say it's impossible, because if we do that, we will never discover it.

Would the public be interested in practical interstellar travel?

Would the public be interested in a non reactionary propulsion vehicle?

You are shifting goal posts all over the place, and you are ignoring my responses to some of your misguided statements.

Which, I will repeat, but only a few of the salient ones.


You asserted 'physics is not a debate trick'. That implies I stated physics is a debate trick.

You ignored my request for proof that I wrote that physics was a debate trick.

If you are going to accuse me of something, it is fair that I ask you to prove it

You wrote:
You want to postulate sci fi creatures so "advanced" that they don't have to worry about things like the laws of physics.

Your statement has an assumed premise.

Given that there are 40 billion habitable planets in our galaxy, and at least 200 billion galaxies, it is not an unreasonable statement that the odds are that there are at least of few advanced races who have mastered the problem of practical interstellar travel. It should be acceptable, therefore, to hold such an opinion, as long as we do not claim it as fact.

But, what you are doing is portraying me as 'postulating sci fi creatures', which is derogatory in order to puff yourself up, it's a 'pseudo debate trick' called posturing. You have done a few times.

NO, that doesn't equal 'physics is a pseudo debate trick', no, it your UNJUST DIMINUTIVE CHARACTERIZATION which is, in point of fact, the pseudo debate trick.

And, if there are advanced alien races, would they 'worry about violating the laws of physics".

That question presumes that practical interstellar travel violates the laws of physics, which you cannot possibly know given that mankind's understanding of the universe is limited.

If you can't possibly know this for a fact, then you can't presume it.

And, when I say 'mankind's knowledge of the universe is limited' is that a fair statement?

Given that only 120 years ago, or so, which is nothing in galactic terms, we were riding horses or sailing in boats to get from point A to point B, I'd say that is a perfectly fair assessment.

And don't give me crap about 'belittling science'. Even if I were Einstein, I would agree. Why? Because it's true.

Being humble is a good thing for a scientist. Being smug is not.

Either the statement is true or it isn't. Don't read more into it that is written.

 

We don't know how life began on Earth. We don't know how likely or unlikely the circumstances are where life began. We don't know what elements were critical, or how unlikely they are.

Have you seen the "Drake Equation". He tried to figure that out by assigning odds to the various components he thought were required. But, he didn't know what is required. He also doesn't know the odds of the things he thinks are required.

Since we have a sample size of ZERO, I would suggest this is no more than a fun exercise.

Science doesn't like cases where the sample size is zero. Science.

Lot's of people speculate about this, and it is fun to talk about.

I'm excited about Star Trek, too.

I'm not sure I see the connection you want to make, is all.

Our physics applies to wherever they are. We don't know everything, but that doesn't mean that the physics we know somehow doesn't apply somewhere else.

This gets back to your willingness to see "don't know everything" as essentially equivalent to "don't know anything".

You need to give some credence to what we know. It doesn't make sense to suggest physicists don't know everything, therefore you are free to postulate faster than light travel.

Those improvements in transportation came due to advances in engineering, not physics.

Again, the fact that science has no method of proving an hypothesis to be true is not permission to ignore everything we know about this universe.

 

First task is to assess whether or not anti-gravity (or some semblance thereof which 'appears to violate', which may not necessarily nor actually violate, Newton's third law) is possible, or, at the minimum, a worthwhile objective.

Read this report, the Executive Summary of the "Tic Tac" AAV(UAP/UFO) put out by the US DOD

Basically, I just read the first page, that is all that is needed for my point, which is, based on the reportage,
there is compelling evidence for extraordinary physics, according to this report. See what you think.

https://media.lasvegasnow.com/nxsglobal/lasvegasnow/document_dev/2018/05/18/TIC TAC UFO EXECUTIVE REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0.pdf

The above document, not quite as visible, in the source below confirms that it is an DOD document prepared by AATIP (Advanced Aerial Threat Identification Program) --scroll down to the 'licensing' section:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...TIVE_REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0.pdf

So, the question is, could this document be forged? the source of the Document is a Las Vegas News8 TV show

https://www.8newsnow.com/news/i-team-exclusive-confidential-report-analyzes-tic-tac-ufo-incidents/

Per 8news:

Elizondo is not authorized to release such information, but the I-Team obtained some of it anyway. Earlier this year, we made a whirlwind trip to Washington for a debriefing arranged by former Senator Harry Reid. While in D.C., the I-Team obtained copies of unclassified documents related to the UFO encounters, including the Tic Tac. The analysis was compiled in 2009 with input from multiple agencies. It confirms the Nimitz group had several interactions with AAV’s, Anomalous Aerial Vehicles.

 

Hey, controllable anti-gravity would be huge.

I don't know what makes you think that about Newton's third law.

Your assessment of the possibility of anti-gravity is to claim that aliens are doing it?

Seriously???

 

Congratulations, you continue to:

1. Miss points raised
2. Fail to answer questions asked
3. Pettifog on unimportant details.
4. Put words into my mouth.
5. Refute claims I did not make.
6. Sidestep points raised ( related to #1)
7. Engage in posturing, a pseudo debate technique.

For someone who reports to be an engineer, I find that rather strange.

 

Did you read the first page?

Please read. No one mentioned aliens.

At least read the 'key assessments' on page one.

This is a report prepared by AATIP.

Controlled anti-gravity would be non reactionary propulsion, which would
appear to get around Newton's third law, would it not?

More commentary by "Professor Simon".

 

Yes, anyone thinking "tic tac" is an alien has some serious questions to answer.

 

I'm not going to try to respond to each item you raise. These posts are already ridiculously long. And, clearly my more general statements aren't satisfying to you.

If you have a question you would like to pose, I'll try to answer that question.

 

Would you care to comment on the first page of the Exec Summary?

 

One, or two, maybe?
And, if you could do one or two, perhaps you could discontinue to,,,

1. Miss points raised
2. Fail to answer questions asked
3. Pettifog on unimportant details.
4. Put words into my mouth.
5. Refute claims I did not make.
6. Sidestep points raised ( related to #1)
7. Engage in posturing, a pseudo debate technique.

I'm well within the 16k character limit. What, in science, length is a problem to you?

I gave seven specific examples of what your reply was to me, more specific than unsat.

I'm sorry if I'm being a PITA, but what goes around......

 

The difficulty I have is that you tend to ask significant numbers of questions in the same post, with the questions reasserting points early in the post, etc.

The result is that any response would tend to be long and would include the difficulties of attempting to identify which of your paragraphs they are referencing.

I've included more abrasiveness than I like, and appreciate the amount of tolerance you have shown me.

 

That's about what the report was for "go fast", and that one turned out to be nothing like what was described in the associated text and audio.

The difference between the text description of the object and ANY available photography is extreme. The text description is highly precise - shiny exterior, no ncelles, 46', not 45', etc., etc., when the photography is all the standard blur from which that kind of detail is not possible.

If this is an important sighting, the military has FULL capability and budget to perform all the analysis due, unhampered by security clearances that block full analysis in the private sector today. In fact, the Navy says they have more material which they are not willing to release. There is no reason to doubt that, as what we can detect is covered by serious national security.

Private analysts, such as West, have shown Earthly explanations for many if not all the visual anomalies in the "tic tac" tape. In fact, one of the videos you posted yesterday shows a brief glimpse that appears to be West demonstrating an anomaly with one of the detector pods on a military jet.

These tapes do not sway my view that we do not have evidence of aliens flying around Earth. The difference in likelihood of that explanation and the explanations that involve the numerous anomalies of detections such as this is extreme. Plus, there are the various political aspects related to national defense and related to those who otherwise view aliens as likely.