I give up

  • Thread starter Zantra
  • Start date
732
2
It's obvious to me that most are unwilling to even consider the existence of UFOs as a valid possibility in the face of even hard evidence. People are so trained to believe that UFO's are a hoax, and this is further reinforced by idiots making stuff up and doctoring photos that it's destroyed all credibility this theory may have ever had. Short of the president and government coming forward and ackkowledging that they do exist and full admittance, nothing would convince the general public otherwise.

I consider myself to be an objective person, and consider evidence, and not to make assumptions. However some people are as unwilling to acknowledge even the possiblity of their existence as religious people are unwilling to acknowledge that god may not exist. Real physical proof presented to the public by the government. That's what it would take. Nothing less.
 
221
2
Me 2 before I even tried

EDIT: I cut out the crap, basically I agree but physical evidence from anybody not just goverment would do. Buts that not a reason to stop searching for evidence.
 
Last edited:

russ_watters

Mentor
18,839
5,030
I've seen quite a bit that I would describe as "provocative" but never anything I would consider "compelling."

To me the nail in the coffin though is Einstein's relativity. That makes interstellar travel highly unlikely.

I personally believe the universe is full of life, even intelligent life, and we will never meet any of it face to face.
 

Kerrie

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
818
14
Originally posted by russ_watters
To me the nail in the coffin though is Einstein's relativity. That makes interstellar travel highly unlikely.


i will admit that i do not have a formal education in physics, but i do subscribe to Discover magazine, and learn as much from it as i can...

is einstein's relativity proven within the boundaries of our earth? i was reading a story in this month's Discover (i couldn't find a current link as the Sept issue is not online yet) that questions his theory outside the earth:

"Some physicists argue that at high energies, even the speed of light may vary - posing a serious problem for Einstein's special theory of relativity, which states that the speed of light is constant, always and everywhere. "

the article was speaking about cosmic rays defying the (current) laws of physics...

now, i know this doesn't directly relate to the existence of UFO's, but if there is other life existing, how possible is it that their knowledge of technology is more advanced then ours? is it possible that our current version of science is still in progress for us to learn more?
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Originally posted by Kerrie
is it possible that our current version of science is still in progress for us to learn more?
or even just baby steps; give us another million years or so.... Could any other intelligent species have evolved technology 106 years ago?
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
732
2
I think the human race has become too arrogant about our place in this universe. There's so much we still do not understand, yet we are complacent, and steadfast in our assurances that we are the top of the food chain and the masters of all. This is not the case. We are still young in terms of evolution, and we still have so much to learn.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Originally posted by Zantra
I think the human race has become too arrogant about our place in this universe. There's so much we still do not understand, yet we are complacent, and steadfast in our assurances that we are the top of the food chain and the masters of all. This is not the case. We are still young in terms of evolution, and we still have so much to learn.
One of the great ironies in all of this is that many modern notions of silliness about all of this come from Dr. Hynek - who later became the father of modern Ufology. In spite of his complete recanting of the governments position, which he helped defined, the attitude lives on. For example, Hynek made famous the swamp gas explanation.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,839
5,030
Originally posted by Kerrie
"Some physicists argue that at high energies, even the speed of light may vary - posing a serious problem for Einstein's special theory of relativity, which states that the speed of light is constant, always and everywhere. "
Not sure exactly what is meant by "high energies." Particles or em radiation? We observe both in any case.

Certainly our knowledge of science has a long way to go. But there are some theories that are VERY unlikely to change radically.
 

Kerrie

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
818
14
the article was referring to cosmic rays and how they defy the "known" laws of physics outside the boundaries of earth...

i think it is important to not shut the door on possibilities while now allowing fantasies to come into play...modern science may be our known version of "truth", placing faith that our current science is 100% certain is only slightly better then placing faith in a religious leader...we need to continue questioning...

zantra, to address your post direct, in the eyes of hardcore skeptics and the typical mindset they possess, what do you think the reaction would be if a life form from another world were to present itself? ultimate chaos is what would happen...what do you think the reaction would be if this same life form were to present itself in front of pat robertson? most likely the same reaction...what would you do if a life form were to present itself to you?
 

Phobos

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,927
6
Originally posted by Kerrie
now, i know this doesn't directly relate to the existence of UFO's, but if there is other life existing, how possible is it that their knowledge of technology is more advanced then ours? is it possible that our current version of science is still in progress for us to learn more?
i think it is important to not shut the door on possibilities while now allowing fantasies to come into play...modern science may be our known version of "truth", placing faith that our current science is 100% certain is only slightly better then placing faith in a religious leader...we need to continue questioning...
If there is intelligent life out there, then yes, their technology could be way ahead of ours.

And every good scientist will readily state that we have a lot more to learn. Anyone who says that science has 100% truth is selling you something (and is not being a good scientist). Science offers explanations and method for understanding at a given level of uncertainty...not Absolute Truth.

So, with the scientific possibility of E.T. life, that allows for speculation and hypotheses/experiments (like SETI or NASA's life-seeking missions to Mars). But, as russ said, you need compelling evidence to conclude that not only ET life exists, but that it has visited the Earth. I also have not seen any compelling evidence (of course, I still hope to go through Ivan's Napster topic). And, as russ said, our understanding of physics puts some big obstacles on space travel which should make us examine claims of visitations/abductions more closely.

Scientists acknowledge the possibility of ET life, but note that not so much as a ET microbe has been found (definitively) so far. Rest assured that scientists are not closed minded to the idea of ET life...they are (if I may keep generalizing!) excited by the idea...as evidenced by SETI, Mars missions, the search for extrasolar planets, examination of Martian meteorites, etc. etc.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Originally posted by Phobos
I also have not seen any compelling evidence (of course, I still hope to go through Ivan's Napster topic). And, as russ said, our understanding of physics puts some big obstacles on space travel which should make us examine claims of visitations/abductions more closely.
IMHO however, in order to be fair, the fact that we cannot account for any mode of travel that makes ET possible should not be used as a gauge for the evidence. Also, even though I tend to think that UFOs = ET, I still think some small possibility exist that some other rare meteorological phenomenon could be involved - at this point I really doubt it.

For the record though, I have no idea how ET could be here.

If you haven't studied the Napster then you may not be aware of the bulk of good evidence. No doubt though, Greer has assembled an impressive list of witnesses. This is just the latest in a long line of highly credible people that stretch over 50 years.
 
732
2
How many witnesses must be brought forth before people believe?
How many items of proof must be presented before the government admits the truth?
How many lies will pervade the UFO phenomenon before the truth comes out?

How many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky?
Yes, 'n' how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,839
5,030
Zantra: *ONE*

One CREDIBLE witness.
One CREDIBLE piece of evidence.

And enough lies are out there that should a real piece of evidence ever be found, the crackpots and hoaxsters may drown it out with all their crap.

I know it isn't as sexy as little green men and flying saucers (real science is almost always more mundane than pseudoscience) but there are a good half a dozen places in our own solar system to look for primitive life. Beyond that, within the next 15 years or so we'll be putting into space the sensors needed to detect earth-like planets a hundred light years away. Through the combination of these two, the question will likely be answered to a reasonable degree of certainty within our lifetimes.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Originally posted by russ_watters
Beyond that, within the next 15 years or so we'll be putting into space the sensors needed to detect earth-like planets a hundred light years away. Through the combination of these two, the question will likely be answered to a reasonable degree of certainty within our lifetimes.
This is very interesting. You will find on nearly any skeptics forum the following objection to the alleged presense of ET:

He could never find us. [more or less]

Let me scratch that objection from my list.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Originally posted by russ_watters
Zantra: *ONE*

One CREDIBLE witness.
One CREDIBLE piece of evidence.
What is your criteria for "credible"?
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,839
5,030
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Let me scratch that objection from my list.
You may want to keep it for now. Let me clarify a little:

The outcome of those investigations will likely convince SCIENTISTS to a reasonable degree of certainty, but not necessarily the general public. Regardless of what you find, there are still two highly opinionated camps that will likely not be swayed. On one side you have the religious who short of personally shaking hands with Joe Martian will not believe. On the other are those who already believe with (IMO) no credible scientific evidence and no credible scientific evidence to the contrary will convince them (its hard to prove a negative anyway).

What is your criteria for "credible"?
Something that a large number of respected scientists say is credible. A report by the American Physical Society for example.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Originally posted by russ_watters
You may want to keep it for now. Let me clarify a little:

The outcome of those investigations will likely convince SCIENTISTS to a reasonable degree of certainty, but not necessarily the general public. Regardless of what you find, there are still two highly opinionated camps that will likely not be swayed. On one side you have the religious who short of personally shaking hands with Joe Martian will not believe. On the other are those who already believe with (IMO) no credible scientific evidence and no credible scientific evidence to the contrary will convince them (its hard to prove a negative anyway).

Something that a large number of respected scientists say is credible. A report by the American Physical Society for example.
RADAR data is considered credible. But I was referring to the credible people that you require.

Also, do you mean to imply that if we don't find any earthlike planets, this is evidence that no life exists?
 

FZ+

1,550
2
RADAR data is considered credible. But I was referring to the credible people that you require.
I don't want to sound like an ass, but RADAR data is credible evidence that RADAR saw a blob at t time. Doesn't say whether it really was a reliable radar, or what the blob actually was. It's the interpretation that is the weak point.
 
732
2
Originally posted by russ_watters
You may want to keep it for now. Let me clarify a little:

The outcome of those investigations will likely convince SCIENTISTS to a reasonable degree of certainty, but not necessarily the general public. Regardless of what you find, there are still two highly opinionated camps that will likely not be swayed. On one side you have the religious who short of personally shaking hands with Joe Martian will not believe. On the other are those who already believe with (IMO) no credible scientific evidence and no credible scientific evidence to the contrary will convince them (its hard to prove a negative anyway).
I'll make sure Joe martian stops by your house first:wink:
 
196
0
I don't think UFOs are impossible, just HIGHLY improbable...
 
466
0
Like the nature of all oberservation of course FZ which includes all scientific observation especially with equipment based upon equipment based upon equipment. Lots of trust there. Sooooo in life one can argue or not that about all that is truely known by the true meaning of the word know. The answer comes back? Squat.

What is the difference between any reoccuring event. Statistical analysis. If an event is continued through time who is to say what is the length of an aboration? Could it be that every theory or known fact in this history of this planet could be wrong? It is a possibility. I find most so called scientific observation today to be absolute arrogance and lack of thought. I am ripping the faith of fools in science because you are so caught up you do not know what you are caught up in. I see this in the many of the posts on this forum.

Will the fish ever come out of the tank that does not exist?
 
732
2
Originally posted by TENYEARS
Like the nature of all oberservation of course FZ which includes all scientific observation especially with equipment based upon equipment based upon equipment. Lots of trust there. Sooooo in life one can argue or not that about all that is truely known by the true meaning of the word know. The answer comes back? Squat.

What is the difference between any reoccuring event. Statistical analysis. If an event is continued through time who is to say what is the length of an aboration? Could it be that every theory or known fact in this history of this planet could be wrong? It is a possibility. I find most so called scientific observation today to be absolute arrogance and lack of thought. I am ripping the faith of fools in science because you are so caught up you do not know what you are caught up in. I see this in the many of the posts on this forum.

Will the fish ever come out of the tank that does not exist?
The same could be said of religion.

Will the fish ever realize that the face on the other side of the glass isn't omnipotent, just another life form?
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Originally posted by FZ+
I don't want to sound like an ass, but RADAR data is credible evidence that RADAR saw a blob at t time. Doesn't say whether it really was a reliable radar, or what the blob actually was. It's the interpretation that is the weak point.
Here are some qualities of case profiles: Multiple RADAR contacts coupled with visual confirmation by flight controllers and pilots. Acceleration and velocity profiles that exceed any known technologies. Continuous tracking of these objects along an array of RADAR stations.

Here again is just one good example. About 500 more can be found in the government files linked in the UFO Napster.

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo20.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Integral

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,185
55
Until Joe Alien makes a verified appearance any data gathered, such as radar and eye witness accounts, cannot be proof of existance of an alien life form. I would be just as correct and provable to say god did it. Simply because we cannot explain an obsevation does not make it proof of an assumed solution. It is merely unexplained.

I find it interesting, that when scientists claim to have a certian degree of understanding of the universe, and that understanding imposses the possibility of limitations on what mankind (or any other life form) is cabable of doing. The naysays say that scientists are arragant and speaking beyond their true knowledge. I guess the conclusion would be that these "non aragant" nay sayers are implying that there is NO LIMITATION on what lifeforms may achieve.

Hmm... now who is being arragant and speaking beyond their knowledge?
 

Related Threads for: I give up

  • Posted
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • Posted
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Posted
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • Posted
2 3
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • Posted
Replies
13
Views
2K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top