Flying Triangles

*Mazulu*

Quote by FlexGunship

Wrong. "Most likely" is an expression of approximated probability.

When you have two puncture wounds on your neck you should probably think of the vampire-hypothesis last. The prevalence of movies and books about vampires does not lend credence to the hypothesis itself. Likewise, the prevalence of movies and books about aliens visiting Earth does not lend credence to that particular hypothesis.

If you buy a lottery ticket, most likely you won't win; yet several people around the country win every week. Anyway, how do you explain all these silvery aluminum looking saucers in the sky? If something that big came off the plane, it would crash.

one silver cigar-shaped object flying slowly and vertically.
one saucer-shaped object leaving a vapor-like trail, disappeared from sight in 3 mn.
one cream-colored disc-shaped object, flying at 1,500 ft (diameter : 20 ft).
a saucer-shaped object followed by the pilot for about 20 miles
a domed-disc
four groups of round metallic silver objects
two large flying discs, with a silver mirror surface, 600-700 ft diameter
a silvery elongated object motionless

It is a fact that, given our present understanding of the universe, alien visitation is probably the least likely hypothesis to explain UFO sightings of any flavor.

How do you know?

Ryan_m_b

Quote by Mazulu

If you buy a lottery ticket, most likely you won't win; yet several people around the country win every week

This is a fallacious comparison. There has never been any evidence that extraterrestrial life exists nor any evidence that extraterrestrial life has ever visited this planet and flown around in our atmosphere. Winning the lottery by comparison can have it's probability easily determined.

When something is has no evidence for it's existence then it cannot be suggested as a hypothesis. People who try to look for alien evidence in UFOs are being illogical; rather you should examine the cases and if you can't attribute it to any current known phenomenon you have to conclude that the cause and nature of the phenomenon remain unknown.

FlexGunship

Quote by Mazulu

If you buy a lottery ticket, most likely you won't win; yet several people around the country win every week. Anyway, how do you explain all these silvery aluminum looking saucers in the sky? If something that big came off the plane, it would crash.

Yes, so "most likely" is a fair assessment of the probability. It is not an opinion. Regardless, that's a silly comparison.
You forgot to provide citations for all of those things you listed.
Fortunately I don't have to explain any of them, but if I had to guess... probably reflections, balloons, lighting anomalies, space debris, and general misidentification.

FlexGunship

Quote by Mazulu

How do you know?

Well:
People make mistakes often. On an almost minute-to-minute basis.
There are already an ungodly number of terrestrial aircraft in the sky.
Balloons! Everywhere!
Pilots are made out of the same human materials as other humans (including brains).
Mass hallucinations are well documented.
The average human hallucinates every day. Vividly!
There are known cases of people misidentifying the MOON as a flying saucer.
There are known cases of people misidentifying the SUN as a flying saucer.

On the other hand:
No extraterrestrial life has even been found.
Despite millions of claims, there's absolutely no evidence that the Earth has been visited by life that didn't originate on this planet.
Given radio telescopes that can detect quasars on the edge of the visible universe, we are unable to detect a single radio signal of interest in the entire universe (granted, so little of it has actually been checked).
There are no known means to traverse interstellar distances.

I mean, the two sides aren't even close when it comes to probability.

*Mazulu*

Quote by Ryan_m_b

This is a fallacious comparison. There has never been any evidence that extraterrestrial life exists nor any evidence that extraterrestrial life has ever visited this planet and flown around in our atmosphere. Winning the lottery by comparison can have it's probability easily determined.

When something is has no evidence for it's existence then it cannot be suggested as a hypothesis. People who try to look for alien evidence in UFOs are being illogical; rather you should examine the cases and if you can't attribute it to any current known phenomenon you have to conclude that the cause and nature of the phenomenon remain unknown.

I don't want to get in trouble for disagreeing with the moderator, but there is evidence. http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/f...lotCatalog.pdf
I've been going down the list for the last several messages. Did you look at the list, even for a few seconds? I found the list while looking at http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2805 There are countless reports of people seeing shiny metallic objects in the sky. Just go to the article and FIND: saucer.
There are plenty of pictures out there. Unfortunately, there are lots of hoaxes, CGI and Photoshop. Flying saucers, disks and cigar shaped objects catch us unprepared for taking measurements. What kind of measurements would you like? What kind of evidence? Should we instruct our US Air Force to shoot them down?

Ryan_m_b

Quote by Mazulu

I don't want to get in trouble for disagreeing with the moderator, but there is evidence.

(You wont get in trouble for disagreeing with a mentor, you will only get in trouble for breaking the rules).

No there is not any evidence that UFOs are aliens. That is the point I am making. The logical fallacy is that there is an unknown phenomenon for which people are providing an un-evidenced explanation. Do you see? It's almost circular logic;

"What are these UFOs?"
"Aliens"
"How do you know that aliens exist?"
"Look at all these UFOs"

To put it another way look at this example;

I take Box A and Box B and plug them together. When this happens we get phenomenon X occurring. We do not currently know how Box A and Box B are causing phenomenon X, the reason is an unknown. Alice says that "we do not currently have an explanation for the phenomenon, we should do more research before concluding". Bob says that "we do not currently have an explanation for the phenomenon, it is likely that aliens are causing it".

Do you see the problem now?

Quote by Mazulu

What kind of measurements would you like? What kind of evidence? Should we instruct our US Air Force to shoot them down?

If I had enough resources and was told to find out what UFOs were I would
A) Hire a group of experts to go through and filter out all the case studies where there is an explanation
B) Get the group to speculate* on possible reasons for the remaining cases and get them to research this
C) Repeat ad infinitum

*Speculation is an important part of the scientific method when making a hypothesis. It does not mean that any explanation goes! A good hypothesis will be based on all the current known science from which a reasonable proposal can be formulated.

FlexGunship

Quote by Mazulu

I don't want to get in trouble for disagreeing with the moderator, but there is evidence.

You don't get in trouble for disagreeing with a moderator. You get in trouble for making unsupported statements, like "but there is evidence."

What you're providing as evidence isn't good enough for two reasons:

When you provide a single piece, it gets picked apart for lacking quality
When your single piece lacks quality, you make an appeal to quantity

You follow this pattern:

Mazulu: What about this case of a flying cigar monkey?
Forum: Doesn't seem to be much evidence... could just be a balloon.
Mazulu: But there are thousands of reports, surely they can't ALL be balloons!
Forum:

FlexGunship

Quote by Ryan_m_b

(You wont get in trouble for disagreeing with a mentor, you will only get in trouble for breaking the rules).

No there is not any evidence that UFOs are aliens. That is the point I am making. The logical fallacy is that there is an unknown phenomenon for which people are providing an un-evidenced explanation. Do you see? It's almost circular logic;

"What are these UFOs?"
"Aliens"
"How do you know that aliens exist?"
"Look at all these UFOs"

To put it another way look at this example;

I take Box A and Box B and plug them together. When this happens we get phenomenon X occurring. We do not currently know how Box A and Box B are causing phenomenon X, the reason is an unknown. Alice says that "we do not currently have an explanation for the phenomenon, we should do more research before concluding". Bob says that "we do not currently have an explanation for the phenomenon, it is likely that aliens are causing it".

Do you see the problem now?

Quote by FlexGunship

You don't get in trouble for disagreeing with a moderator. You get in trouble for making unsupported statements, like "but there is evidence."

What you're providing as evidence isn't good enough for two reasons:

When you provide a single piece, it gets picked apart for lacking quality
When your single piece lacks quality, you make an appeal to quantity

You follow this pattern:

Mazulu: What about this case of a flying cigar monkey?
Forum: Doesn't seem to be much evidence... could just be a balloon.
Mazulu: But there are thousands of reports, surely they can't ALL be balloons!
Forum:

Spooky.

*Mazulu*

Quote by FlexGunship

Well:
People make mistakes often. On an almost minute-to-minute basis.
There are already an ungodly number of terrestrial aircraft in the sky.
Balloons! Everywhere!
Pilots are made out of the same human materials as other humans (including brains).
Mass hallucinations are well documented.
The average human hallucinates every day. Vividly!
There are known cases of people misidentifying the MOON as a flying saucer.
There are known cases of people misidentifying the SUN as a flying saucer.

On the other hand:
No extraterrestrial life has even been found.
Despite millions of claims, there's absolutely no evidence that the Earth has been visited by life that didn't originate on this planet.
Given radio telescopes that can detect quasars on the edge of the visible universe, we are unable to detect a single radio signal of interest in the entire universe (granted, so little of it has actually been checked).
There are no known means to traverse interstellar distances.

I mean, the two sides aren't even close when it comes to probability.

Let's cut out the bull crap. If the physics community really wants to test the hypothesis that aliens are flying around in spaceships, then the scientific experiment team has to have to transmit the invitation into space. It should look like this,
Dear Space Aliens,
We don't know if you exist. But if you do, we would really like to meet you. It would be great if you could RSVP with SETI and let us know that you're coming. You can land at xyz airport. We can meet, share culture, technology and discuss philosophy and mathematics. Look forward to meeting with you.

This is how you test the hypothesis that space aliens exist. If they RSVP, you can have whatever video cams, and test equipment you need. If there is no response, then you can publish a paper entitled: Are We Alone? Or are they ignoring us?

*Mazulu*

Quote by FlexGunship

You don't get in trouble for disagreeing with a moderator. You get in trouble for making unsupported statements, like "but there is evidence."

What you're providing as evidence isn't good enough for two reasons:

When you provide a single piece, it gets picked apart for lacking quality
When your single piece lacks quality, you make an appeal to quantity

You follow this pattern:

Mazulu: What about this case of a flying cigar monkey?
Forum: Doesn't seem to be much evidence... could just be a balloon.
Mazulu: But there are thousands of reports, surely they can't ALL be balloons!
Forum:

Where did I say flying cigar monkey?

Ryan_m_b

Quote by Mazulu

Let's cut out the bull crap. If the physics community really wants to test the hypothesis that aliens are flying around in spaceships, then the scientific experiment team has to have to transmit the invitation into space.

Two points:

1) "Aliens flying around in spaceships" is a bad hypothesis as an explanation for anything.
2) If aliens did exist and did fly around in spaceships then any of them within ~50 lightyears could have detected the radio transmissions we've been leaking into space. The content is irrelevant, they're hardly going to understand any Earth language are they?

Dotini

Quote by Mazulu

I have a bachelors degree in physics. I know what plasma is (a stream of charged particles). Plasma gives off light. But none of my physics professors ever said that plasma could make sharp turns and maneuver around without the aid of an electric field.

three luminous spots followed the plane, the engine of which faltered
a bright "shooting star" streaked downward without exploding then came back
a white ball flying at 3,000 ft high
one bright light split in two, moved towards the plane then disappeared
a blue circular flame passed the plane, turned, then blinked

Does plasma in the atmosphere explain all of the observations? What about,

one light seemed to take off and moved at 300 mph, made a turn. No specific shape.
one blimp-shaped object outdistanced the planes at high speed.
two orange lights rotating about a common center which Maneuvered.
one silver object moved off immediately when pilot made a bank turn to approach it.
one object with several lights moving very slowly followed the plane for 20 miles and turned back.
a red-orange light, hovered one hour, then crossed the sky rapidly

If there was a light (St.Elmos fire?) flashing prime numbers at the pilot, I must have missed it. Are there balls of plasma in the sky that are curious about planes and want to take a better look? Or is the plane sharing an electric field with the atmosphere? In either case, the atmospheric plasma phenomena must be truly dazzling and beautiful. That is, until the plasma gets sucked into the engines and causes the electrical systems to go haywire. I wonder if the flying disks, cylinders and saucers have this problem.

Yes, plasma explains beautifully everything you listed, given the presence of the electric field. I consider the physics of the objects in ALL those cases potentially solved by the plasma hypothesis. Precisely why and how the plasmoids react and behave as they do remains to be explained. But the observed performance and physical characteristics can now be understood. For instance, ball lightning, a form of plasma, has been infrequently seen and videotaped around thunderstorms, tornadoes and volcanoes. It is a primitive type of UAP which nevertheless embodies the most important features of the more exotic UAPs.

What is more difficult for the plasma hypothesis to explain is the Rendlesham Forest case. Here we have the problem of what appears to be a solid metallic craft with some kind of script engraved upon it, which, it is claimed, is touched and photographed by an airman. Can plasma be made to assume a solid shape with writing and porthole features? Our physics doesn't go there. So maybe this case is a hoax cooked up by AFOSI to test the officers and airmen or to manipulate the media and the public. Things like this have been done before.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

*Mazulu*

Quote by Ryan_m_b

[SIZE="1"]
*Speculation is an important part of the scientific method when making a hypothesis. It does not mean that any explanation goes! A good hypothesis will be based on all the current known science from which a reasonable proposal can be formulated.

So you're going to ignore 60 years of reported sightings of aerial metallic objects* because they're not part of established science? So how should these aerial metallic objects become part of established science? Should they show up at a university physics department and ask to be tested?

*http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/f...lotCatalog.pdf

*Mazulu*

Quote by Ryan_m_b

Two points:

1) "Aliens flying around in spaceships" is a bad hypothesis as an explanation for anything.

Astronauts fly around in spaceships. Why not aliens?

2) If aliens did exist and did fly around in spaceships then any of them within ~50 lightyears could have detected the radio transmissions we've been leaking into space. The content is irrelevant, they're hardly going to understand any Earth language are they?

Announce the experiment to the media; maybe they watch CNN.

Ryan_m_b

Quote by Mazulu

So you're going to ignore 60 years of reported sightings of aerial metallic objects* because they're not part of established science? So how should these aerial metallic objects become part of established science? Should they show up at a university physics department and ask to be tested?

*http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/f...lotCatalog.pdf

You are missing the point. I am saying that hypotheses must be made using known science and tested appropriately. Invoking an explanation with no evidence is fallacious and explains nothing.

Quote by Mazulu

Astronauts fly around in spaceships. Why not aliens?

We have evidence of astronauts. Not of aliens.

zoobyshoe

Quote by FlexGunship

The average human hallucinates every day. Vividly!

Eh? You have to be careful how you define "hallucination". The phenomenon of seeing color rather than shades of grey, for example, shouldn't be lumped into the category of "hallucination".

zoobyshoe

Quote by Mazulu

So you're going to ignore 60 years of reported sightings of aerial metallic objects* because they're not part of established science? So how should these aerial metallic objects become part of established science? Should they show up at a university physics department and ask to be tested?

Pretty much. The existence of the giant squid wasn't confirmed by the number of anecdotal sightings and the credibility of the witnesses, by any means.

Similar Threads for: Flying Triangles
Thread	Forum	Replies
Flying Triangles	General Discussion	38
Triangles	Precalculus Mathematics Homework	2
Triangles	Introductory Physics Homework	17
about triangles	Introductory Physics Homework	6
The case of flying triangles	General Discussion	2