can we talk about the aliens

[emailking]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/unidentified-flying-object-navy.html

The NYT's article specifically dedicated to the incident with the two pilots is absolutely insane, there's so much corroboratinq evidence. The pilots were directed to the location of the UFO by a US Navy cruiser who had been observinq it on radar maneuverinq and chanqinq speed at impossible rates. The pilots saw it firsthand and watched it do exactly the thinqs that were recorded on radar.

honestly, what's the skeptic's explanation for all of this?

How about one of the explanations that are offered in your article?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[emailking]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/unidentified-flying-object-navy.html

The NYT's article specifically dedicated to the incident with the two pilots is absolutely insane, there's so much corroboratinq evidence. The pilots were directed to the location of the UFO by a US Navy cruiser who had been observinq it on radar maneuverinq and chanqinq speed at impossible rates. The pilots saw it firsthand and watched it do exactly the thinqs that were recorded on radar.

honestly, what's the skeptic's explanation for all of this?

How about one of the explanations that are offered in your article?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That’s not actually an explanation. That’s barely a coherent thought.

It's a perfectly good explanation and also coherent. What he's saying is that this sort of thing happens often and it never amounts to anything, so there's no reason to believe it this time without some convincing reason to think this time might be different. To be polite, he's suggesting it could be an unidentified human aircraft rather than positing that the claimants are 1. lying or 2. crazy.

[emailking]

That's nothinq more than a boilerplate "standard arqument to debunk fanciful claims" that is usually appropriate, sure, but how does it explain any of this? Literally any of it at all? This isn't "people active in the air and don't want others to know about it." Seriously did you even read this:

I did read it.

This information:

1. was publicly released by the US Navy
2. was provided by a skilled pilot of sound mind and judqement
3. was entirely corroborated by his winqman, also a skilled pilot of sound mind and judqement
4. perfectly matches a report anonymously released ten years aqo (shortly after the event in question)
5. includes literal video footaqe of the event in question

Well you asked how I would explain it and I thought Mr. Oberg's explanation summed up my thoughts on the matter, i.e. not even something worth spending too much time thinking about. I don't know what it was, and any explanation I give you can pick a million holes in it. My guess is that the pilots are probably mistaken in what they saw. They probably talked about it with themselves and reinforced their beliefs, and probably also exaggerated in each of their own minds what they saw. The video probably has an innocent explanation. A flare(s), a mirage, a high tech spy plane, I have no idea. But I don't want to make an assumption about an unknown. I don't know what the explanation is but I can think of a dozen possible explanations that are more plausible than aliens, which is what you are apparently convinced is the explanation. That is a huge leap of logic.

[emailking]

There are some theoretical physicists who believe that faster than speed of light travel is possible,

No there aren't. Or at least not in the way you mean.

Someone found a solution to the Einstein equations (of general relativity/gravity) that allow for a spacetime wave or bubble to propagate faster than light. In theory, a spacecraft could reside within the bubble and effectively travel faster than light while not actually moving. But this hardly allows for faster than light travel given that the energy needed to create and stabilize a macroscopic bubble of this nature would be more than the energy that is found in the observable universe, and furthermore that energy would also have to be negative. It is probably impossible for negative energies to exist in such large quantities, but in any case it cannot be harnessed due to the sheer amount needed.

Some physicists have tried worked on the problem to try to get around these requirements, but none have said they believe it will possible.

[emailking]

The astrophysicist quoted in that article, Geraint Lewis, says he believes it's possible.  At least he did at the time of the article, approximately 2 years ago.  So, it seems, despite what you write here, the scientific community may not be in complete agreement with you.

There's nothing in that article that disagrees with what I said. I said myself it's theoretically possible. In your article, he makes all the same points about the energy requirements and negative energy. Which makes it infeasible and thus impossible from a practical standpoint.

Remember kids, there is nothing in physics that rules out time travel & faster than light travel. Don’t stop looking!

He's right about that. Nothing in physics that is currently known rules out faster than light travel (although it does rule out ordinary matter achieving faster than light speeds). That doesn't mean it's possible or that he thinks it's possible.

[emailking]

Except in the article Geraint Lewis made no such comment about it being theoretically possible but practically impossible.  Lewis said it was theoretically possible AND potentially practically possible.

To the extent you're trying to stretch this, anything is practically possible. It's potentially practically possible that I could spontaneously morph into an elephant. In fact, quantum mechanics specifically allows that to happen. All we have to do is figure out how to make it more likely and shape shifting will be a reality.

[emailking]

Your dismissing it out of hand I would argue is completely unscientific.

Well you would be arguing that incorrectly.

[emailking]

According to him:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But yeah, I guess those quotes aren't inconsistent with him thinking that it is "potentially practically possible", as you put it.

Unscientific would be refusing to do an experiment because you've pre-judged the outcome, or throwing out data from an experiment because it does not align with your hypothesis. There's no experiment to do here.

[emailking]

I looked at the evidence. I'm not convinced it's indicative of aliens or that faster than light travel occurred, nor do I think those are likely explanations for it.

[emailking]

I suspect for you it would require actually seeing a UFO on the ground with the aliens outside it yourself with the aliens having to do something humans can't do even as magic tricks.

For me, that would probably be enough. If that's all that happened, I would consider other possibilities as well. But I cannot deny if this happened I would most likely find myself leaning strongly to an alien hypothesis.

[emailking]

No, that's not true that virtually nothing would convince me that aliens are visiting Earth. You just laid out a scenario that would convince me. And if they were visiting Earth, I imagine that, and a whole lot more undeniable evidence would materialize very quickly. There might not be any point, from your perspective in discussing it with us. The reason I'm discussing it with you is I want to knock all this down as best I can for the benefit of others, particularly those who may be on the fence. Otherwise, there's little point in me arguing with someone who's convinced that an anecdotal story about strange lights in the sky mean aliens are visiting earth, despite the fact that far more plausible explanations are available.

[emailking]

Ok, I apologize for putting words in your mouth then.

As to your latter point, I'm reminded of a Richard Dawkins quote. Something to the effect that you don't need a degree in leprechology to argue leprechauns don't exist.

[emailking]

I believe he's referring to alien life in our solar system or potentially within human reach over the eons (e.g. dozens or possibly hundreds of light years out). Most biologists believe intelligent life is a lot less likely to evolve than non-intelligent, macroscopic life.

[emailking]

I believe he's referring to alien life in our solar system or potentially within human reach over the eons (e.g. dozens or possibly hundreds of light years out). Most biologists believe intelligent life is a lot less likely to evolve than non-intelligent, macroscopic life.

No.
America's Sweetheart (user name) was clear when he/she said (and I quote) "the sheer vastness of the universe ."

Being serious for a moment:
I think alien life almost definitely exists, given the sheer vastness of the universe  ...

Yes fair enough but I took the reference to Martians to indicate he was referring to a more local neighborhood for the rest of the post, as they would have to be in order to make any kind of contact with Earth. I suppose it's possible he didn't mean that. But in any case, since we don't know how likely intelligent life is, it's entirely possible we are the only intelligent life in the observable universe. I don't take that position personally, but it's a perfectly defensible one.

[emailking]

deadoman A railgun projectile doesn't go from angels 80 to 50 feet off the deck and to a CAP like 50 miles away in 3 seconds

Neither do aliens, so far as we know.

[emailking]

I do think it's possible (though I wouldn't bet on it) that we're the only intelligent life in the observable universe (parts old enough that we can see light from them). We just don't know enough about how likely life is to occur, much less intelligent life, in order to know otherwise.

But if the universe is infinite, as it appears to be, then it is a sure thing that there is other intelligent life. In fact, it's a sure thing that there are identical copies of Earth and everything on it, infinitely many in fact. But since they're not observable in principle, it's somewhat of a philosophical question whether they should be considered real to us or not.

[emailking]

Yeah. It's evidence, sure. Just like a footprint is evidence of bigfoot. We need a lot more evidence before we can seriously conclude these might be extra-terrestrials. In the meantime, there are much more likely explanations, as we've been over.