Live data from Hacker News

Why Look at Flying Saucers?

lareviewofbooks.org

51–60 of 71 posts

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#51
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything you have written is terrestrial speculation based on the same mistaken assumption - that human intelligence is as smart as it gets. If aliens exist they will be alien. They will not be a bit weird with our naive ideas of sort-of-better alien tech. They will be something entirely different, and very likely able to do entirely unexpected things. Imagine a species which has roughly the same intelligence advan…

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…

Ah the "you don't know what's possible" argument.

The rationale for the Dyson Swarm future it can be built incrementally, requires tech we basically have and can scale massively. The consequence is that it's not remotely subtle. These things have a distinct signature because the only way to get rid of heat in space is to radiate it away and that has a distinct IR signature.

Given all this we can reasonably conclude that there isn't a massive set of Dyson swarms within a pretty huge light cone.

So the problem of "you don't know what's possible" is that for each new known unknown (eg whether FTL is possible, whether fusion will ever work as a viable power source) and unknown unknown it gets _more_ likely we'll see these things not less.

Let's say there are 5 spacefaring civilizations in the MIlky Way other than us. The odds that 0 of them go this route and choose to remain "hidden" is much more possible than if, say, there were 1000 spacefaring civilizations in the Milk Way. In a universe with FTL those numbers (5 and 1000) now use a much bigger volume as their basis. Perhaps the Local Group. Perhaps the entire Universe.

Here's the other big problem with "You don't know what's possible": if we can't conceive of some super-advanced technology or higher existence, what are the odds that other civilizations can't either? If we're 1 of 5, we may be the sole dumb kid on the block. But out of 1000? I'd be willing to bet there are others sufficiently like us operating under similar constraints with outcomes we can reason about in aggregate.

Let me put this in perspective. Human peak energy usage is estimated at about 10^11 W (Watts). Years ago a Russian physicist postulated the Kardashev scale for energy, which is pretty simple:

- K1 (Kardashev-1) civilizations use the power output of a planet)

- K2 civilizations use the power output of a star

- K3 civilizations use the power output of a galaxy.

Obviously these aren't absolute units (eg stars have different power outputs) but it's a useful framework. Carl Sagan came along later and simplified the scale somewhat to:

- K1 = 10^16W

- K2 = 10^26W

- K3 = 10^36W (which implies ~10B stars in the "galaxy")

So if we were to advance to being a K2 civilization around our own Sun we would have access to a truly mind-boggling amount of energy. To give just one example, we could essentially sterilize the Milky Way in about 100,000 years trivially without any object going further than the orbit of Mars.

So you don't even need to decide if civilizations would on average do this or not. You just have to decide how likely is that _none_ would. 0 out of 5 doesn't defy belief here. 0 out of 1000 gets more incredulous.

So back to our alien UFOs, the odds that no one does this, a civilization advances beyond this point, they discover FTL, they use it to come here and they hide their presence from most of us. they remain basically undetected in an era where everyone basically has a high-definition camera in their pocket (as opposed to the 50s and 60s) and somehow reveal themselves when they have technology we couldn't even imagine... simply defies belief.

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#52
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you sure know how aliens make things.

And it sounds like you are sure the laws of physics don't apply to aliens. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The whole point is that we don't know what the laws of physics are.

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#53
post #15
post #5

To dismiss all evidence of UAP's out of hand as "illogical" is just as unscientific as to accept them as being proof of ET visitation. It may be that all these claimed observations are the product of some sort of collective psychosis, as this article appears to assume, but that's just one hypothesis among many others. Empirical questions require empirical investigation, not ignoring the question.

I did used to entertain the idea of aliens visiting this solar system. 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. We might see one-way probes, but they are as likely to be a part of hegemonizing swarm, looking to convert all usa…

> I did used to entertain the idea of communicating near instantly over great distances.

> And then I better understood the stupendous energy requirements to shout/yell/make noise for a two-way round trip of sound waves from one county to the very closest neighboring county. And it is just not practical, even for a civilization at he end of the technology development tree (as known to us 1k years ago).

If we were to look at communicating via radio waves with the technology of the ancient Greeks, they might wonder how we could possibly shout loud enough to be heard so far away.

And why, if visits from another world were possible, would everyone know? If I found myself in ancient Greece and talked over a walkie talkie, it would be the same as something with crazy advanced travel technology just stopping by on their safari trip through our solar system.

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#55
Seems pretty obvious to me what's going on. These "UFOs" must have been caught on camera by spy satellites. The reason they don't tell us about it is because it's miltech experiments.

Tales about them doing things way beyond the capabilities of human technology are either (1) someone being mistaken because the visibility is poor or they are on drugs or whatever. (2) Exaggerations for a good story. Or (3) disinfo to scare the Russians.

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#56
post #35
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…

I think it's important to break the conversation clearly into two parts: Here's what could be true about aliens if we're largely correct about physics, and here's what could be true ignoring that constraint.

The problem is people want to have really muddled conversations about that. The people having the second kind of conversation yelling at the people having the first kind of conversation is probably the most frustrating element of all, especially when they strike a morally superior pose which is, IMHO, entirely unjustified.

If you want to ignore all current science and astrophysics when you discuss aliens... fine. Be my guest. No sarcasm. I have some beliefs on that front myself. BUT... you need to be aware that you're basically engaging in groundless speculation, and in particular, you have no grounds to be yelling at people about their groundless speculation.

We can have a much more grounded discussion about what aliens could look like if we are largely correct about science. And there's no need to accuse people about being "arrogant" if they choose to have that discussion, because frankly, of the two, it's the more interesting one. The "well, what if we're wrong about everything?" may seem like fun for a moment, but there's no there there, really. What if we're wrong about everything? Well, what if we are? What if we're all just in an ancestor simulation... but the descendants running it are super-advanced honey bees running their ancestors and we just happen to be around? Well... what if? There's nowhere to go, or if you prefer, there's nowhere you can't go, which is actually the exact same thing.

On the other hand, if we stick to biology and cosmology and relativity and science in general, we can have all sorts of interesting discussions. What about that result on Venus? That's a question rich enough to build a concrete career on. What would aliens look like in our real universe? How much more advanced could they be? Would they, in fact, build rather human-sized spaceships that are apparently capable of crossing the interstellar void, but not flying around in our atmosphere without crashing into things? Would they in fact need to keep kidnapping humans over and over for decades on end? Sensible discussions can be had on these matters if we start from a concrete base. The whole "But what if we're, like, wrong about everything and we're, like, actually soap bubbles floating in the wind?" discussion has nowhere interesting to go, because it creates just one big undifferentiated and indistiguishable mismash of what ifs.

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#57

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...

Well... it really depends on how you look [0] at it

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#58
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. Let's assume that there are top secret research programs. What this tells us is that the research had yeilded such results as * Super High Density energy storage mechanism, that when being used actually cools down instead of heating up * An energy source that isn't based around burning fossil fuels for propulsion, that is highly efficient. * A device that could atleast in theory be using some kind of an inertia…

> What this tells us is that the research had yeilded such results as Personally, if I was tasked with making sure everyone respected the American Army I'd make sure to hire a magician and keep that hire very very secret. I'm not saying there aren't any serious technical breakthroughs. But I'd still hire the best reliable magician I could get. After all, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from…

If I'm understanding your hypothetical correctly, this would require the American Army to publicly take credit for the "magic", not publicly announce that the "magic" is unidentified.

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#59
post #44

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…

The thing is, when people talk about UFOs, we always think "aliens", when in fact, it is just as the acronym suggests: unidentified flying objects. They wouldn't be unidentified if we knew they were aliens. Aliens are an extraordinary claim, we need to check out a lot of things before we start considering them. Take the "life on Venus" recent claim. There was a lot of work done to even consider it. They used results…

> They wouldn't be unidentified if we knew they were aliens.

Technically, you can become a UFO if you turn off your transponder. You are flying AND you are not broadcasting your identity.

I'll show myself out.

Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?

#60
post #56
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think it's important to break the conversation clearly into two parts: Here's what could be true about aliens if we're largely correct about physics, and here's what could be true ignoring that constraint. The problem is people want to have really muddled conversations about that. The people having the second kind of conversation yelling at the people having the first kind of conversation is probably the most frust…

You're probably not addressing me specifically, but there is no yelling in my comment.

I do think we have to ground any interesting discussion by what is possible within the limits of science. Otherwise we're just talking fantasy.

For the most part, I do not think we should discuss the limits of engineering, that is what's practical or not, because we're nobody to say what is practical to a type II or type III civilization.

My dad's astronomy professor told the class it's impossible by the laws of physics to create a telescope that can see exoplanets. He went through the equations to show you could never build a telescope mirror to accomplish that. What he didn't think of is we found other ways to create bigger telescopes and we used gravitational lensing to zoom in on a distant star. Nothing in our understanding of physics changed to allow that, merely a change in how we looked at the problem. That's why it's so arrogant. We don't know everything about what is possible or not, and one day we might just see a way around limitations that seem absolute today. Our short history is filled with us doing that again and again.

Post reply on HN