Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

ET Visitors: Scientists See High Likelihood

  1. Jan 14, 2005 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://www.space.com/searchforlife/et_betterodds_050114.html
    The link is good but as you can imagine, very slow. A few tries works best if needed.

    For some very striking government reports [NSA, CIA, USAF, etc], see also:https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2805
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 15, 2005 #2
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2005
  4. Jan 17, 2005 #3

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I like the article, I am just put off that Puthoff was a collaborator. Apologies for allowing reputation to cloud opinions.
     
  5. Jan 17, 2005 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm not sure about your reference, [or was that a pun? put off by Puhtoff :biggrin:] but how does one address subjects like this and still maintain a good reputation? :biggrin:
     
  6. Jan 17, 2005 #5

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yeah, it was a bad pun [is there a such thing as a good pun?] It certainly is no easy task to seriously discuss controversial issues like ET without taking some hits. Harold Puthoff, is however, no stranger to controversy. It goes back to the 70's when he and Russell Targ were shamelessly bamboozled by the infamous Uri Geller. And that is not entirely fair. Not being illusionists, you can hardly put all the blame on them for not realizing they'd been had. But, there was plenty to go around and you can't step in doo-doo without getting some on you. Puthoff has also written some pretty fringe stuff on ZPF.
     
  7. Jan 17, 2005 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It sounds to me like everyone should read this very closely, just to check for errors. :biggrin:

    I've talked with Maccabee a bit and he is...unusual. He was also either taken in, or part of a hoax, down in Gulf Breeze Florida [Ed Walters case]. Of course, like any scientist, his words are often twisted by the media and the nutjobs. He then appears to have said more than he did, in fact. Also, by the nature of what they investigate, sooner or later people like this are bound screw up. Since, like anyone else, his papers are subject to peer review, and after watching him a bit, it struck me that [I think] he is a true believer and tired of arguing the point. Somtimes I think this happens to otherwise credible scientists. Obviously they are now suspect with regards to objectivity, but that's why we have peer review. This is really no different than any other biased perspective held by other scientists as it relates to what they do; albeit that the implications are much greater than in most cases.
     
  8. Jan 18, 2005 #7

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Spoken like a true scientist. Anytime a scientist voices an opinion, they are pretty much guaranteed to draw a fringe following. Hard to blame them for saying 'hehe' when asked for their best guess about anything.
     
  9. Jan 21, 2005 #8

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A related paper

    http://www.nidsci.org/pdf/nasa_tm2004.pdf [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  10. Jan 22, 2005 #9

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    From Maccabee
    Uniquely written combination of fiction and fact? Is this the USDA version of truth in advertising? [90% fiction, 10% fact]. Sounds like Arp statistics to me. I doubt Russ, SA or Integral was on that review panel.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2005
  11. Jan 22, 2005 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I doubt that's what he meant. I think he meant good reviews as fiction. Like many scientists, he writes about what he does; mostly claimed as fact but now with some fiction [explicitly, fiction] thrown in.

    http://brumac.8k.com/AbductionInLife/BookPromo.html [Broken]

    No doubt he is a true believer - he certainly believes that ET has been here -but his science can be judged on its own merit. His role has primarily been that of optical analysis - he is an optical physicist working for the Navy...the last time that I checked. For example, not too long ago he wrote one paper RADAR ducting [RADAR mirages] and how and when it applies. Most of this information and his papers are linked in the S&D forum's UFO Napster or at his website. With people like Maccabee, one goes over the edge into belief systems pretty quickly. He makes no bones about his personal opinions. But like most people, his opinions and beliefs are not statements of science.

    I haven't ruled out the possibility that he's a charlatan, but I think "true believer" is more accurate. In either case, physics is physics, and there's no faking that.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  12. Jan 22, 2005 #11

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Ivan,

    One of the authors of this article ,linked above also, is local to us. I have met, and have a lot of respect for, him. He is very intelligent and is very sincere in his beliefs. He has done a lot of research on "UFOs" and is always ready to discuss his ideas.

    It is getting close to 20yrs since I have seen him but doubt that he has changed much. I am certian that he is still in town.
     
  13. Jan 22, 2005 #12

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I noticed the address. In fact I plan to track him down...a pm is coming... :biggrin:

    That is very good to hear. I struggled a bit trying to decide if I should post this here or not. Honestly, Maccabee scares me, but from my point of view as a lowly graduate lacking expertise in optical analysis, his physics appears to be solid, or at least credible.
     
  14. Jan 26, 2005 #13

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Also, I had missed this in the Acknowledgments: We thank P. Sturrock of Stanford University.
    I consider Sturrock to be stellar.
    http://www.stanford.edu/group/Sturrock/Peter/

    Recently, Sturrock announced that one or a few major journals have agreed to publish "well penned" papers on UFOs; finally. One doesn't have to accept ET theories in order to find this subject interesting and baffling.
     
  15. Feb 2, 2005 #14

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    One more comment on Maccabee. I just learned today that apparently the proof of a hoax in the Ed Walters case was hoaxed. The model allegedly used to hoax Maccabee contained a hidden date [edit: on a newspaper used in the model's construction], which proved that the model was made after the UFO photos were taken and published. So perhaps Dr. Maccabee's record is clean. At the least, it appears that it has not been shown otherwise.

    I don't mean to torture our UFO skeptics here but it seemed only fair that I post.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2005
  16. Feb 3, 2005 #15

    saltydog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Hello everyone, well out of respect to the person making the first post I did read the reference. One comment caught my attention:

    "We are in the curious situation today that our best modern physics and astrophysics theories predict that we should be experiencing extraterrestrial visitation"

    I don't think so. Now I don't want to cause trouble but anyone who believes in aliens visiting earth, in my humble opinion, doesn't have a good grasp of what a light-year is and also grossly under-estimates the massively contingent nature of life especially intelligent life. I'm thinking no more than 2 intelligent forms in all the Milky Way at any given time.

    Salty
     
  17. Feb 3, 2005 #16

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You seem to be missing the point of the authors. Modern physics can no longer exclude FTL travel with high certainty. It has also been shown that life could be common in a safe zone of the galaxy. Based on what we know, civilizations a billion years more advanced than us are possible. Can we extrapolate to the science of such potential beings, or can we only make guesses based on a snapshot in the history [and future] of our own technological and scientific development?
     
  18. Feb 3, 2005 #17

    saltydog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Oh goodness. Didn't realize it was you, and that you are a mentor here, and also now I see what your picture is. Don't wish to criticize people kind enough to be Mentors (or anyone else here for that matter). I apologize to you sir.

    Salty
     
  19. Feb 3, 2005 #18

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The points that you made were perfectly reasonable. I am confused as to why you would apologize. No apologies needed. This is not a popular argument but the logic seems to be sound.
     
  20. Feb 3, 2005 #19

    saltydog

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    You know, maybe I'm the one: I mean, someone could easily say that I don't have a good grasp on how many stars are in the galaxy which I don't. I'm actually a very optimistic person and should feel better about intelligence in the Milky Way. I fell there's plenty of life, tons of it. Advanced? Well, there's so many chance events that have to take place for it to "naturally evolve" from scratch and "persist" long enough to evolve to intelligence.

    As far as the apology: It's like me posting the Lorenz Attractor as my picture (which would be very appropriate for me) and then someone telling me recent comments I've made about non-linear dynamics (which I can't prove) "show a lack of grasp".

    Salty
     
  21. Feb 3, 2005 #20

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    All you theories presume that faster than light travel is possible
    please give an explanation, links that show this is true.
     
  22. Feb 3, 2005 #21

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Minor correction to the post above, I meant to say certainty, not high certainty :rolleyes: . I didn't want to edit. :biggrin:


    I did not state that FTL travel is possible. I repeated the argument of the authors of the paper who argue that FTL travel can't safely be ruled out; due to concepts like wormholes, Alcubierre Warp Drive, and the potential for additional dimensions that allow for different upper limits of velocity. See page 2 of 8 of this paper. http://www.ufoskeptic.org/JBIS.pdf

    These technologies are certainly not possible in the foreseeable future, but a million years henceforth is not the foreseeable future. If another race of beings has a 100,000,000 years head start, which modern cosmology says may be possible, possibly even common, you prove to me that we can anticipate what technologies may be possible. :biggrin:
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2005
  23. Feb 4, 2005 #22

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    IVAN
    As you know i am a firm believer in earth bound anomalies, but as
    for ufos and the possibility that some race is a million years in
    advance of us humans can only be philosophical until physical
    evidence is shown.
    In a way i am in the same boat as you as i cannot find my physical
    evidence, so anything i say about my event has to viewed with
    skepticism.
    but science cannot rule anything out, it can only tell us that FLT
    is very improbable, as for wormholes and other mechanisms for
    travelling vast distances who knows, but i doubt that any life form
    will ever be able to traverse space by more than a few LYs.
     
  24. Feb 4, 2005 #23

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think the point here is to recognize that first, we cannot state with certainty what limits for such technologies may exist. This means that any statement is really only a guess based on a fantastically limited perspective. It is also important to realize that Relativity Theory itself lends to one of these solutions. Inflation theory may be linked to another, and String Theory to another. Given this, and considering the so called galactic safe zone, the almost insidious nature of life, and the vast number of planets likely to be found, it is not possible to say how likely interstellar ETs may be. It may be impossible for ET to get here, but it could be inevitable!

    So if you want your evidence, someone is going to have to look. The paper argues that its okay to look. What dreadful heresy!!! :surprised

    Edit:
    Based on what you have told me [much earlier in another thread], I think that you probably experienced a close call with ball lightning or something like it. The existence of Ball Lightning is no longer viewed with skepticism by most experts, so neither should your story beyond that of any other encounter with rare but real phenomena.

    For more information about ball lightning [as you well know :biggrin: ] please see this thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=58374

    Edit part II: Not to derail this completely unpopular UFO discussion, but I wanted to mention that with regard to your exerience, years ago I read a book written by a pioneer in the study of ball lightning - a Japanese Scientist. So as to give you an idea of the energy involved with these things, apparently, and as I recall, there was a house in Japan that was hit by ball lightning back in the late sixties. A good portion of the roof was destroyed! I remember a picture of the roof with a large hole - maybe ten feet in diameter or more. I am also quite sure that this event helped to cinch the debate.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2005
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook