Why all of a sudden all this UFO talk going on all over the web? I don't use the internet as much anymore.......
Welcome to Banzore!
Be part of something great, join today!
What about UFOs
- Thread starter Koshmenk
- Start date
Also thoughts about Bob Lazar?
I think the White House made some disclosures under Trump and then Biden administrations.
It's been theorized that UFOs are brought up as a way to distract the population from other issues, "bread and circuses" if you will. It's also been claimed that various government officials have intentionally leaned into UFO conspiracy theories by feeding false information to amateur UFO enthusiasts (presumably to misdirect from some other activity).
If you think about the economic situation right now, where most countries in the world are undergoing the most significant downturn since '08, it makes sense that people are becoming interested in such distractions. The global macroeconomic downturn also adequately explains the level of social and political division observed today in most of the West. It is not necessarily a surprise that the pandemic would give rise to some growing pains; the upshot is that the period after the Black Plague was one of unprecedented technological and social development. Hopefully we can pull another rabbit out of the hat...
100%. all fake and a distraction
Trump -> Corona -> Ukraine -> Biden corruption -> Aliens -> Trump -> Biden corruption -> Aliens
how can you take anything coming out of conventional information sources seriously at this point
There were some hearings in Congress about it.
To our current understanding FTL travel is impossible. But keep in mind that pretty much fucking everything that people thought was impossible in 1923 is now possible and sometimes even commonplace.
Meaning that someone who isn't content with FTL being impossible might someday find a way to do it. Like in 100 years or maybe even on Tuesday.
And after it's done and after it becomes commonplace you can count on the majority of people to say stupid shit like, "Oh yeah, I knew this all along!"
Because that's what people always do.
Open your mind a bit.
Think of yourself as an 18th Century sailor and you know all the then current knowledge about sailing.
Someone says to you, "What if we could go straight into the wind instead of tacking?"
You'd tell them them it's impossible to take a ship straight into the wind.
And then someone says, "I wish we could make 30 knots on a calm day!"
You'd tell them with all authority that this too is impossible.
But then someone invented steam engines.
Someone else invented propellers.
Yet another someone came up with narrow steel hulls that move better in water than broad wood hulls.
And by 1923 it was commonplace for certain ships to make 30 knots on a calm day or directly into the wind.
So too with FTL. Now maybe the laws of thermodynamics will still apply and someone figures out a way to sidestep them. Or a new understanding of thermodynamics will take place and someone will say, "AH HA!"
It can happen.
So for now we operate with the understandings we have and for the moment we cannot implement FTL.
I'm just saying things change.
Sure, valid point, but you must admit that at least some of our understanding of physics must be correct: modern technological advance has not been a series of happy accidents (which is how I would characterize the process of generating knowledge prior to and in the early modern era). We can formulate and test hypotheses down to dizzying levels of accuracy.
Therefore, if travel at light speed is possible, we either: (1) currently work off incorrect theory and are exceptionally lucky not to observe disconfirmations; or (b) our theories are at least partially correct with the exception of the "periphery" (eg. the theory breaks down in the presence of extremes: for example, theoretical explanations of what occurs on the event horizon of a black hole). I guess (b) could be possible...
Therefore, if travel at light speed is possible, we either: (1) currently work off incorrect theory and are exceptionally lucky not to observe disconfirmations; or (b) our theories are at least partially correct with the exception of the "periphery" (eg. the theory breaks down in the presence of extremes: for example, theoretical explanations of what occurs on the event horizon of a black hole). I guess (b) could be possible...
what does it matter which parts are observably correct? the debate is regarding what is obviously wrong and why
option c: we are in a simulation.
option d: our entire 15 billion years of existence is a fractal of approximately 1 second of a higher dimension in which a guy walking his space dogs is about to accidentally step on an iguana, the atoms of which contain our entire probabilistic universe, because a space bird just took a big shit on him from a tree. the bird clearly knew what it was doing, dont fucking tell me it doesnt see what its shitting on
a bird shit on me today.
You're still constraining yourself to a set of rules which cannot apply if FTL is implemented.
Within our understanding of the universe the speed of light cannot be exceeded. I do not dispute this.
So to exceed the speed of light you either 1) gain a new understanding of the universe or 2) you sidestep the issue altogether by traveling in a way that allows you to avoid currently known restraints.
With a name like Northrop Gunman, oftley suggests that you work for a large aerospace multinational corp trying to sway the generals opinion other wise.
The truth is out there!
*cough Northrop Grumman *cough
For (1):
This new understanding would need to be congruent with what we have observed and theorized correctly about, much of which does directly involve the principles of thermodynamics relevant to FTL travel. This is where I have trouble wrapping my mind around how the new paradigm for physics would simultaneously side-step the issues with FTL travel while preserving our observations of the physical world to date.
For (2): this is like deus ex machina... you're ChEAtInG!!
Actually, if C is true, then wouldn't we expect the host reality to have similar physics to our own? I mean if we're actually an approximate simulation of this host reality, it seems there isn't much to know about that universe - it should operate similarly to our own.
checked, confirmed fed
Pretty much, yes to all of that. In my head what I foresee is a solution similar to the mathematical concept of the square root of -1, or i.
In ordinary mathematical law negative numbers cannot have a square root. Yet this concept allows real world solutions to questions in chemistry, metallurgy, navigation, and etc.
A cheat if you will.
To go one step further, it would not surprise me if we someday realize that FTL was in front of us all the time and we just didn't know what we were looking at.