Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Look at Flying Saucers?

lareviewofbooks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 71 posts

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#31

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

jordwest wrote: post #24

It’s unfortunate that this topic has such stigma around it that many researchers are afraid to study it for fear it’ll delegitimise them or ruin their career. You may be surprised at how many people you know have had experiences of their own, or know someone close who has, but don’t talk about it for fear of judgement. For all the hundreds of thousands of anecdotal reports that exist, and documented cases involving h…

> As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

After seeing the declassified Navy videos [0] I'm not sure how much more extraordinary evidence we can get.

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/28/pentagon-declassifies-ufo-vi...

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#32

Post by kipchak »

tgflynn wrote: post #14
istorical wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with using Mick West's possible explanation for these videos is that it doesn't address the other tools that were used to track these UAPs. Let's say we believe with confidence that this debunking is correct and that these videos show a bird or balloon or some explainable phenomena. The next step is to look at the eyewitness testimony and reports from the people involved in this case - several Navy fighte…

There's also the point that the DoD has officially stated that it considers the objects in these videos to be unidentified. Unfortunately they haven't provided more information on how they reached that conclusion, but one would tend to assume that they would have had their experts consider possible alternative explanations before making such a statement public.

The Navy's recent antigrav patents add another layer of mystery. tl;dr, that the Navy seems to be claiming that they could maybe build something like the Tic-Tac seen in video, and the Chinese are working on capabilities.[1,2]

It seems to me that all this is an elaborate disinformation campaign of some kind, possibly to encourage near-peers from blowing research money on junk or cover some other program like UFOs did for the B-2 or F-117, or the project is either impractical enough or close enough to practical use to justify lifting the veil of secrecy somewhat. It hides in a quantum state of maybe, much like many of the things Ben Rich, former skunkworks director may or may not have said about how advanced their tech was.

[1]https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31798/the-secretive-in...

[2]https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33859/blasting-the-air...

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#33

Post by InfiniteRand »

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #22
eitland wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add to this: it is way less than 100 years since we learned to use fission and fusion. Until the two first bombs were dropped it was either unknown or, to those who realized the potential: considered impossible with the technology available at the time. I wonder what is just out of reach for us today, or what scientists are secretly working on today. Also, one step ahead, like you I also think what we are capable…

That really isn't a valid comparison. The bombs were built specifically because scientists theorized that it would be possible to generate large bombs with their knowledge of atomic energy. They underestimated the scale of the bombs. Govt's dont pour billions of dollars into impossible technologies.

There was the Stargate Project

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#34

Post by kipchak »

hindsightbias wrote: post #27
istorical wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with using Mick West's possible explanation for these videos is that it doesn't address the other tools that were used to track these UAPs. Let's say we believe with confidence that this debunking is correct and that these videos show a bird or balloon or some explainable phenomena. The next step is to look at the eyewitness testimony and reports from the people involved in this case - several Navy fighte…

> speeds beyond what is possible Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. One of the transcripts was something akin to "you won't believe it, but it's back over there" - there's no claim by the radio operator that they "saw" a track move at speed X, it could just as well be taken as "it was here, and then it was back there". Unless the object was squawking an IFF or transponder code, how would they know i…

>"USAF appear on a Naval Carrier (like teleported or what?)"

The story is they came in by helicopter.

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#35

Post by eloff »

ansible wrote: post #25
felixchan wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And then I better understood the stupendous energy requirements for a two-way trip to even the very closest neighboring solar system. And it is just not practical, even for a civilization at the end of the technology development tree. This is blind arrogance.

Eh, no it isn't arrogance. It is math and physics. Have a look at a few links. So first off, chemical propulsion is right out: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounded/why-chem... You really need something like anti-matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_travel You're still looking at hundreds of years or more for a nearby two-way trip. It is far more practical to send out probes one-way (which…

It's our current understanding of physics. Those limitations might be impassable. Or it might be possible that there is a higher physics where things like the speed of light are bypassed. Like discovering that quantum entanglement is based on some mechanism that can be manipulated to communicate faster than light, or one can skip over distances through higher dimensions, or we decode the source code of the automata that creates the universe and it's immediately replaced by one even more bizarre. There are some theories that this has already happened :)

The point is it's arrogant to say what's impossible for all time, because nearly everything we do today was impossible a short thousand years ago.

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#36

Post by ansible »

felixchan wrote: post #30
ansible wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, no it isn't arrogance. It is math and physics. Have a look at a few links. So first off, chemical propulsion is right out: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounded/why-chem... You really need something like anti-matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_travel You're still looking at hundreds of years or more for a nearby two-way trip. It is far more practical to send out probes one-way (which…

It's arrogance because you think that your current system of science is relevant. Civilization has been around for only 5000 years. How do you know other planets do not have elements that have anti-matter properties?

> It's arrogance because you think that your current system of science is relevant. Civilization has been around for only 5000 years.

So, if magic exists, there also might be aliens. Got it.

> How do you know other planets do not have elements that have anti-matter properties?

Well, we haven't observed anything that gives even a hint that something like that exists.

The matter / antimatter disparity is still quite a mystery. But we don't see any evidence of antimatter out there in any significant quantities. So if aliens want to use it, they have to make it the hard way, just like we do.

Beyond current state-of-the-art technology would make manufacturing and containment of antimatter easier, but even then it is a long way from practical.

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#37

Post by postalrat »

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #31
jordwest wrote: post #24

It’s unfortunate that this topic has such stigma around it that many researchers are afraid to study it for fear it’ll delegitimise them or ruin their career. You may be surprised at how many people you know have had experiences of their own, or know someone close who has, but don’t talk about it for fear of judgement. For all the hundreds of thousands of anecdotal reports that exist, and documented cases involving h…

> As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. After seeing the declassified Navy videos [0] I'm not sure how much more extraordinary evidence we can get. [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/28/pentagon-declassifies-ufo-vi...

I don't think the videos really show much. To me the real evidence is the public testimony of the 4 pilots and others.

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#38

Post by felixchan »

ansible wrote: post #36
felixchan wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's arrogance because you think that your current system of science is relevant. Civilization has been around for only 5000 years. How do you know other planets do not have elements that have anti-matter properties?

> It's arrogance because you think that your current system of science is relevant. Civilization has been around for only 5000 years. So, if magic exists, there also might be aliens. Got it. > How do you know other planets do not have elements that have anti-matter properties? Well, we haven't observed anything that gives even a hint that something like that exists. The matter / antimatter disparity is still quite a…

Sounds like you sure know how aliens make things.

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#39

Post by ansible »

eloff wrote: post #35
ansible wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, no it isn't arrogance. It is math and physics. Have a look at a few links. So first off, chemical propulsion is right out: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounded/why-chem... You really need something like anti-matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_travel You're still looking at hundreds of years or more for a nearby two-way trip. It is far more practical to send out probes one-way (which…

It's our current understanding of physics. Those limitations might be impassable. Or it might be possible that there is a higher physics where things like the speed of light are bypassed. Like discovering that quantum entanglement is based on some mechanism that can be manipulated to communicate faster than light, or one can skip over distances through higher dimensions, or we decode the source code of the automata t…

> The point is it's arrogant to say what's impossible for all time, because nearly everything we do today was impossible a short thousand years ago.

I never said impossible, I said impractical.

If you are content with really long travel times (thousands or tens of thousands of years one-way), then of course you can travel to other stars.

By the time such means are available, I doubt that entities will bother with shipping matter two ways over such distances.

Also, if you're talking about an uploaded or otherwise synthetic consciousness, that entity may be experiencing time a 100x or more faster than a baseline human does now. So a then thousand year trip would seem like a million years. That's a long time to stay away.

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#40

Post by NikolaeVarius »

InfiniteRand wrote: post #33
NikolaeVarius wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That really isn't a valid comparison. The bombs were built specifically because scientists theorized that it would be possible to generate large bombs with their knowledge of atomic energy. They underestimated the scale of the bombs. Govt's dont pour billions of dollars into impossible technologies.

There was the Stargate Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project

I think moonshot research projects are a different scenario.
Post reply on HN