Famous astronaut: - Aliens are visiting us?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kasse
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Aliens Astronaut
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around claims made by astronaut Edgar Mitchell regarding the existence of aliens visiting Earth, which some participants dismiss as unfounded conspiracy theories. While some argue that anecdotal evidence and personal testimonies about UFOs exist, they emphasize that this does not constitute scientific proof of extraterrestrial life. Skeptics maintain that without concrete evidence, such claims should be treated with caution, comparing beliefs in aliens to other unproven phenomena like ghosts. Others suggest that while the existence of UFOs is documented, it does not necessarily imply alien visitation. Ultimately, the conversation reflects a broader debate on the nature of evidence and belief in the context of unexplained phenomena.
  • #51
This was in my morning paper. I'll just drop it off here.

LONDON — An American fighter pilot flying from an English air base at the height of the Cold War was ordered to open fire on a massive UFO that lit up his radar, according to an account published by Britain's National Archives on Monday.

He didn't just claim to see it. He was scrambled to intercept it.

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/263382

They gave the source as:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
edward said:
This was in my morning paper. I'll just drop it off here.



He didn't just claim to see it. He was scrambled to intercept it.

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/263382

They gave the source as:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

so it was some electromagnetic phenomenon, but no one actually saw an aircraft with their own eyes?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
my_wan said:
Do I need peer review to determine that my faucet leaks?
If your faucet leaks, this is a fact. If an apple falls from a tree this is a fact.
If you offer an explanation for why the faucet leaks, this is a hypothesis. If you make successful experiments to test your hypothesis and your work is peer reviewed, you have a scientific theory.
Newton and Einstein developed two scientific theories to explain the fall of the apple: the Theory of Universal Gravitation and the Theory of Relativity.
 
  • #54
the only "facts" in science are the axioms. everything else is data.
 
  • #55
Proton Soup said:
the only "facts" in science are the axioms. everything else is data.

Axioms are assumptions that are considered to be self-evident.
 
  • #56
Ivan Seeking said:
Axioms are assumptions that are considered to be self-evident.

and facts are data that can be replicated with a probability approaching 1.
 
  • #57
Proton Soup said:
so it was some electromagnetic phenomenon, but no one actually saw an aircraft with their own eyes?

Are electromagnetic phennomenon pick ed up on radar? Seriously I really dont't know.

The information was declassified and put in the UK national archives this month. That is all I do know.

Others incidents were also new entries in the archives.

http://ufos.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

There are some lage PDF files
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #58
edward said:
Are electromagnetic phennomenon pick ed up on radar? Seriously I really dont't know.

Of course, they are. Radar is a device that uses electromagnetic energy to detect targets, so electromagnetic phenomena are picked up by the sensor.
 
  • #59
Proton Soup said:
the only "facts" in science are the axioms. everything else is data.
You are confusing mathematics, whose foundations are axioms, with empirical sciences, like physics, biology, archaeology...
Axioms are not necessarily evident. If you postulate that there is only one parallel to a line through a point, this is evident and you can develop a consistent theory, like Euclid did.
If you postulate that there are two parallels to the line through the point, you have a non-evident axiom and you can develop a consistent non-Euclidean theory.
Empyrical sciences are based in observations, not in axioms.
A fact is an event whose truth can be assessed by observation, like the fall of an apple.
Data are measurements of the fact. You can measure the velocity of the fall. Based on the data you can propose an hypothesis, and if further observations confirm your hypothesis, you have a scientific theory.
 
  • #60
CEL said:
You are confusing mathematics, whose foundations are axioms, with empirical sciences, like physics, biology, archaeology...
Axioms are not necessarily evident. If you postulate that there is only one parallel to a line through a point, this is evident and you can develop a consistent theory, like Euclid did.
If you postulate that there are two parallels to the line through the point, you have a non-evident axiom and you can develop a consistent non-Euclidean theory.
Empyrical sciences are based in observations, not in axioms.
A fact is an event whose truth can be assessed by observation, like the fall of an apple.
Data are measurements of the fact. You can measure the velocity of the fall. Based on the data you can propose an hypothesis, and if further observations confirm your hypothesis, you have a scientific theory.

i'm not confusing a thing. i didn't say axioms were data, i said data were things that are not axioms, that is, "everything else".

now, any time you make an observation, you're relying on your senses. even the things we can't sense directly are sensed indirectly with tools that were forged by humans all the way up the chain. everything we "know" about the universe is fundamentally based on how our bodies interact with it. in the end, all those facts are perceptions. we can all agree that most of us perceive the same thing most of the time, but that's as good as it will ever be.
 
  • #61
Proton Soup said:
i'm not confusing a thing. i didn't say axioms were data, i said data were things that are not axioms, that is, "everything else".

now, any time you make an observation, you're relying on your senses. even the things we can't sense directly are sensed indirectly with tools that were forged by humans all the way up the chain. everything we "know" about the universe is fundamentally based on how our bodies interact with it. in the end, all those facts are perceptions. we can all agree that most of us perceive the same thing most of the time, but that's as good as it will ever be.

Again, empirical sciences don't have axioms. Data are quantifications of observations. A leaking faucet is not an axiom and is not a datum, it is a fact. If you measure the rate of flow of the faucet, this is a datum.
 
  • #62
CEL said:
Again, empirical sciences don't have axioms. Data are quantifications of observations. A leaking faucet is not an axiom and is not a datum, it is a fact. If you measure the rate of flow of the faucet, this is a datum.

all faucets leak.
 
  • #63
Proton Soup said:
all faucets leak.

If this is true, it is a fact, not an axiom.
 
  • #64
CEL said:
If this is true, it is a fact, not an axiom.

well, that's not really what i was getting at, but simply to point out that we are not seeing the problem the same way. i think it's unlikely that any faucets don't leak, but rather it's a matter of how fast they leak. faucets that leak at extremely slow rates simply do not appear to leak because of evaporation.

and this is part of why axioms and mathematics matter here. the way you and i view things depends on the logic we use. that reasoning is mathematics. and that mathematics is based on our assumptions, or axioms. now, if you wish to say something is a fact, that is a value that you've placed on a piece of data, a conclusion you've come to. you're applying logic to data. your facts are based on your assumptions, and no one else's.
 
  • #65
Something may be a fact, but if it can't be peer reviewed, it is only a fact to you. This is the same problem had by people who honestly report UFOs, or ghosts, or anything that they don't understand and that can't be replicated on demand. We know that people could come from all over the world and confirm that you have a leaky pipe. But if all that I have is your word, then it is just another leaky pipe story. How do I know if it's a fact or not?
 
  • #66
When I read a report on an UFO siting, I like to read it as reported. It may be a load of old rubbish, or delusion, but it may also be true. At that time, I do not need to apply scientific proofing.

Let's take an established science, one that has passed all of the tests, and is an undisputed science. Meteorology.

So what is the weather going to be like tomorrow? Nobody really knows if it is going to rain. One TV channel tells us that it will be 'sunny with perhaps the occasional shower' while the other side tells us it will be 'intermittent showers with the occasional bright spell.' I am surprised that there are enough English words to juggle around so that whatever happens, they can say, 'We were right.'

Despite the fact that almost all of the weather reporting and forecasting comes from Bracknell, with their 200 million pounds computing equipment, all the meteorologists can tell us is (a) what the weather is right now, and (b) what will probably happen tomorrow - but no guarantees.

One of the purposes of this science called meteorology is to forecast - and it cannot do it with any degree of accuracy. ...so, is meteorology a science at all?
 

Similar threads

A review of dowsing: Evidence for and against
Replies
11
Views
27K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top