Why does the U.F.O. skeptic treat all all evidence as equally not evidence?

a reply to: neoholographic

Also, exoplanets prove my point. If it was so easy, why weren't we discovering exoplanets 100 years ago? Why didn't we start discovering exoplanets when Scientist first hypothesized that there were other planets outside of our solar system?

You are the theoretical physicist, you tell us.

You of all people would be able to tell us why we didn't find exoplanets 100 years ago-it's because we are now able to spot exoplanets using gravitational lensing. Yet you say:

Why should I give more weight to it could be anything over the explanation of extraterrestrial visitation when extraterrestrial visitation is the most likely explanation?

Because E.T visitation is not the most likely cause. Have you ever seen the Darkstar drone?

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: neoholographic

That's kind of my point...we have ore than enough viable, high confidence data to begin to form hypothesis, and begin testing those hypothesis. Yet, most simply wish to stand around and deny reality.

You are correct, we are at the hypothesis stage...Doesn't make it real or a fact just yet...

The chance for a civilizations in our galaxy to exist that is similar to us never mind capable of interstellar travel and that it found earth is so minuscule you can discount any such "evidence" on the subject. It is far more likely that our ancestors are from offworld and that knowledge was lost than it is for an species in our galaxy to develop independently achieve ftl travel and find us.

I think we can safely discount both possibilities at this point. I wonder if in 5000 years a copy of star wars will be used as evidence for ancient astronaut theory.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: neoholographic

The U in UFO stands for 'Unidentified' and some people forget that.

If we knew the origins of these 'craft' then we would calling them APFO's (Advanced project flying objects) or ETFO's (extraterrestrial flying objects) or even DDFO's (Domestic Drones Flying Overhead)

Just because a light in the sky is Unidentified doesn't mean it is alien in origin.

Unidentified refers more to an aircraft as a boogie rather than being extraterrestial. In the cold war years the government would take in and track reports of UFO sightings on the possibility that regular sightings might indicate incursions from the soviets that slipped radar or confirm radar. That is the only reason agencies track UFO sightings.

a reply to: Xtrozero

What?

These points are just faulty. You said:

3. Advance life is most likely not so common. When you look at all the factors that that go into how advance life can evolve on earth it is truly amazing. Add high intelligence to the mix and it seems earth did it once in 4.5 billion years, and we will not even talk about opposable thumbs too...hehe
4. There is no set pattern for life, so on another planet the chances of a humanoid life form is most likely astronomical, but it seems all aliens are humanoid like..Hmmm If earth didn't reset advance life 650 million years ago we would most likely see much more diversity here too.

Why isn't advance life common? How do you know this? There's growing EVIDENCE that supports Panspermia. Like finding the building blocks of life on Comets, Meteors and space dust.

So it's not truly amazing. The universe is fine tuned to produce life just like it's fine tuned to produce planets, stars and comets. Whether that fine tuning comes from a Creator or it's just one outcome in a multiverse, it's fine tuned to produce life.

Look at the Cosmological Constant and the Vacuum Catastrophe.

In cosmology, the vacuum catastrophe is the disagreement of over 100 orders of magnitude between measured values of the vacuum energy density and the theoretical zero-point energy suggested by quantum field theory. This discrepancy has been described as "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics."[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

So when you say there's no set pattern for life, it's like saying there's no set pattern for stars or moons. These things exist because a pattern was set by the fundamental constants of nature.

“Vacuum Catastrophe” Should Be Called the Vacuum Miracle

Quantum field theory allows us to calculate how much energy there should be in the vacuum of space because of these virtual particles. The problem is that when scientists do the calculations, they get a number that is ridiculously wrong. According to this page of a UCLA astronomer, quantum field theory gives a prediction that every cubic centimeter of the vacuum should have an energy density of 1091 grams. This number is 10 followed by 90 zeroes. That is an amount trillions of times greater than the mass of the entire observable universe, which is estimated to be only about 1056 grams.

This means that according to quantum field theory every cubic centimeter of empty space should have more mass-energy than all the mass-energy in the entire observable universe.

How far off is this calculation? It varies on how you do the calculations. According to one type of calculation, the predictions of quantum field theory is wrong by a factor of 1060, which is a factor of a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times. According to a different way of estimating it, the predictions of quantum field theory is wrong by a factor of 10120, which is a factor of a million billion quadrillion quintillion sextillion septillion octillion times.

futureandcosmos.blogspot.com...

The point is, life is probably common based on the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE and not you're assumptions WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. Microbial life will be more abundant than intelligent life. So the chances of another planet forming humanoid life isn't astronomical because it isn't guided by CHANCE.

There isn't the evidence to support your assumption that the universe had a chance to form in any way other than it did based on the constants of nature. Life isn't an astronomical occurrence but something that has to occur based on things like the cosmological constant that is greater than zero if you want to go into this even further.

a reply to: tanka418

No, I was asking for specific examples.

Don't have any do you? Thought not.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: neoholographic

That's kind of my point...we have ore than enough viable, high confidence data to begin to form hypothesis, and begin testing those hypothesis. Yet, most simply wish to stand around and deny reality.

You are correct, we are at the hypothesis stage...Doesn't make it real or a fact just yet...

No...NOT at the hypothesis stage!

Most people, as is evidenced here at ATS, are to afraid to accept enough of the existing data to form any sort of serious working hypothesis.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: tanka418

No, I was asking for specific examples.

Don't have any do you? Thought not.

You let me know when you decide to actually get specific, okay?

But, then I will probably just say the very same thing...USE SCIENCE

I kind of like Data Science, how about you?

originally posted by: Merinda
The chance for a civilizations in our galaxy to exist that is similar to us never mind capable of interstellar travel and that it found earth is so minuscule you can discount any such "evidence" on the subject. It is far more likely that our ancestors are from offworld and that knowledge was lost than it is for an species in our galaxy to develop independently achieve ftl travel and find us.

I think we can safely discount both possibilities at this point. I wonder if in 5000 years a copy of star wars will be used as evidence for ancient astronaut theory.

I agree... Either they have always been a part of us or most likely never will.

Even when we talk advance life we see with Mars and Venus what happens if things are not just perfect. This doesn't mean that there isn't life on either planet, just not advance life. When we say there are billions of exoplanets, what does this mean?

To suggest earth like that really starts to reduce the number because earth like means.

1. Liquid core
2. Small range for gravity
3. Needs a big moon to stabilize temperature extremes. Without it Earth's tilt would shift by as much as about 85 degrees every 100,000 years or so, alternatively freezing and baking the planet's poles, so no chance for the slow process of evolution.
3. Needs a stable orbit around the sun...binary stars are much more common than single ones.
4. Need a G-type main-sequence star.
5. Need large vacuums cleaners like Jupiter and Saturn to reduce evolution resets, for us it is 70 million years.
6. Need water, most like a water planet...
7. Even with all this it seems advance intelligence is still not a common trait even after billions of species across 4 billion years we got one so far....

I think people assume too much when we talk about life in general and what that means if we also suggest intelligent space fairing life.

a reply to: tanka418

You don't have to keep saying 'I don't know' so many different ways. Once will do.

Still, I understand the need to express a little frustration when one finds that the cupboard is bare.

a reply to: Greathouse

How can you prove that every video is CGI? By this logic, you could argue that a video of cops beating up people is CGI, and then if eyewitnesses say otherwise, you could argue, how can you be sure they're telling the truth. Then you ask them if they're willing to take lie detector tests, then someone will argue, well, lie detector tests can be faked.
That's literally what's happened in the UFO phenomenon. You have eyewitnesses, you have people willing to testify under oath before Congress, you have people willing to take scan of their brains to show that there's something in there(though to see the device, you have to have surgery and examine the tumor), you have people willing and took lie detector tests, passed, and people still accuse them of making things up, even though there's no motive for them for doing so.

a reply to: neoholographic

Because eyewitness testimony is whats called here say, not admissible in a court of law unless there is a preponderance of different eyewitnesses that all same the same thing in conjunction with forensic evidence that also corroborates the testimony.

Then theres cross examination , expert testimony, a jury and judge to bring it to some kind of verdict.

In case of UFO's there isn't enough evidence to reach a verdict.

Unless you see one… then you know.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Why isn't advance life common? How do you know this? There's growing EVIDENCE that supports Panspermia. Like finding the building blocks of life on Comets, Meteors and space dust.

Life is common, advance life is mostly not common. The simple reason is when you look at earth and see what all is needed to align to make ADVANCE life to happen adds a lot of complexity to the issue. Anytime you add discriminators it lowers the likelihood. As example: we can say life in general and the chances are great... we can also say a purple flying hippo that weighs 800 pounds with 2 heads and 5 eyes and a fluffy tail. As we add discriminators it really increase the odds for that to happen. So when we say advance, intelligent, space fairing, physical able to build race of humanoid aliens it is not much different than my purple flying hippo.

The point is, life is probably common based on the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE and not you're assumptions WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. Microbial life will be more abundant than intelligent life. So the chances of another planet forming humanoid life isn't astronomical because it isn't guided by CHANCE.

Why did it take 4 billion years after life started on earth for humanoid life to start? Your assumption is an environment for life also means environment for advance life. We will most like find life on Mars and a couple of Jupiter moons, but that is a long way from the ability for evolution to have a stable platform for at least 100s of millions of years.

There is a big difference between life and species. Species come and go all the time, we are not proof of anything and will come and go too. Just the basic nature of species and evolution limits any one type of life to last very long.

a reply to: Xtrozero

We are not in the hypothesis phase. If the UFO phenomenon is a hypothesis, then all scientific theories are really just hoaxes, let's take evolution for example, if we are to ignore any sort of "reasonableness," then can you prove that someone didn't plant the fossils? Can you prove that the scientists themselves didn't make up the fossils, or are lying themselves? No.

Anyway, to me, it's remarkable that if we are so unique, then the universe would give us a way to destroy ourselves so easily. In reality, E= MC^2 shouldn't really exist, but it does.

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: Greathouse

How can you prove that every video is CGI? By this logic, you could argue that a video of cops beating up people is CGI, and then if eyewitnesses say otherwise, you could argue, how can you be sure they're telling the truth. Then you ask them if they're willing to take lie detector tests, then someone will argue, well, lie detector tests can be faked.

The difference is we do have physical proof that cops do exist, we do have physical proof that people exist and so the only debate would be if the beating by the cops was real or CGI. When we see a picture of a UFO or an eyewitness sees a UFO where is that physical proof that it is aliens?

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: Xtrozero

We are not in the hypothesis phase. If the UFO phenomenon is a hypothesis, then all scientific theories are really just hoaxes, let's take evolution for example, if we are to ignore any sort of "reasonableness," then can you prove that someone didn't plant the fossils? Can you prove that the scientists themselves didn't make up the fossils, or are lying themselves? No.

But the fossils came from somewhere in any case. I can also dig my own fossils too. I can go in so many directions other than eyewitness reports. Lets say we have no dino fossils at all and a non-mainstream group says there are dinos in our past and show some fuzzy pictures of something and say they seen dino fossils, but can never actually produce one, would dino fossils really be considered real? I think Big Foot is the perfect example of this too. Big Foot is as real as Aliens, and most likely a much better chance.

Anyway, to me, it's remarkable that if we are so unique, then the universe would give us a way to destroy ourselves so easily. In reality, E= MC^2 shouldn't really exist, but it does.

Hint...EVERY life form is unique...we are not special.

There's a reason that this subject is entrenched in a type of paradox, and I believe it to be of spiritual/consciousness in nature. I believe that every poster in this thread is correct, because the universe/multiverse offers infinite possibilities. I believe we collectively share an overarching sense of reality, but within our personal realities your truth is true for you. It's the nature of free will. There is no such thing as true or not true, only potentiated or un potentiated.

Ufo's are a signpost, you put your own meaning to them, either way you are right.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Even when we talk advance life we see with Mars and Venus what happens if things are not just perfect. This doesn't mean that there isn't life on either planet, just not advance life. When we say there are billions of exoplanets, what does this mean?

Did you know, that on Earth "complex" life is only 500 million years old? And that before 2.5 Billion years ago, Earth didn't even have an oxygen atmosphere? Not too sure what you mean by "advanced" life...though perhaps you mean advanced sentient life...like Humans.

Humans are something that could evolve in as short as 3 billion years...folk just like you. Or it might take longer...as it did here.


When it is said that there are billions of exoplanets it means just that...billions of exoplanets.

To suggest earth like that really starts to reduce the number because earth like means.

1. Liquid core

The core of Earth is a solid...about 750 miles in radius. made of an iron-nickel alloy, and, about the same temperature as the Sun.

See here

2. Small range for gravity

"Earth like" is considered for rocky planets up to twice the mass ofEarth...so planet mass range is reasonable wide.

3. Needs a big moon to stabilize temperature extremes. Without it Earth's tilt would shift by as much as about 85 degrees every 100,000 years or so, alternatively freezing and baking the planet's poles, so no chance for the slow process of evolution.

Actually this "moon" requirement is more of a myth. While it does lend a possible degree of stability...this is hardly a "proven" thing. Further, the instability you suggest is little more than an inconvenience for "life"

3. Needs a stable orbit around the sun...binary stars are much more common than single ones.

This is true, but it is also though that stable orbits around multi-star systems is common. And, it also depends on the nature of the binary star. Sirius for instance, has a white dwarf as a companion. It comes rather close, rather frequently...without actually looking it up, I'm thinking as close as perhaps Saturn, and every 50 - 60 years...this will NOT be a fun place to grow up...

Zeta Reticuli on the other hand; the two stars are separated by at least several hundred AU, and they never get close; thus it is entirely probable that both stars have vibrant solar systems, complete with advanced sentient probably space faring life.

4. Need a G-type main-sequence star.

Did I mention that both Zetas Reticuli are class G?

However this is not a hard requirement for advanced sentient life...The median is "G5" the upper limit is mid "F" (say F5) and the lower limit is mid "K" (K5)...there is nothing preventing a hot "M' or a cold "A" from evolving the very same kinds of life.

5. Need large vacuums cleaners like Jupiter and Saturn to reduce evolution resets, for us it is 70 million years.

While I'm not sure Jupiter or Saturn have really done the Earth any favors...large planets are fairly common...so common in fact, that the mass of exoplanets is "rated" in "Jupiter masses"

6. Need water, most like a water planet...

Not sure a "water planet" is really what you want, but it is true; gonna need that water.

The planet NU(2)C.M. B is classed as a "jovian water vapor"...meaning the planet is a big ball of water vapor. But, as it is in the habitable zone f it's star, there is probably a large range f "wather"...vapor in the atmosphere, liquid on it's surface, and solid at the core...

7. Even with all this it seems advance intelligence is still not a common trait even after billions of species across 4 billion years we got one so far....

Well, not actually across 4 billion years...as it turns out, with all the resets and all...only about 500 million...but if you consider the ascent of Man; that becomes more like 250,000 years...

And in any case, there are plenty, literally billions, of planets out there ripe to have the very same as Earth has now...statistically many must already.

I think people assume too much when we talk about life in general and what that means if we also suggest intelligent space fairing life.

I wonder "who" is assuming too much. For instance, it has been shown that evolution is not a random process, and that there are some solutions that are preferred by evolution...the humanoid form is one of those. The bit about intelligence...intelligence is something that all creatures develop as a survival mechanism...with predators taking the lead.

a reply to: neoholographic

I've gotta ask-Are you really a theoretical physicist?

a reply to: Xtrozero

You said:

Life is common, advance life is mostly not common.

This makes no sense and doesn't have any Scientific basis. I would like to see the evidence that supports this conclusion.

You base everyone on assumptions that chance plays this huge role on how life is formed and somehow this will be hard for the universe to replicate.

WHERE'S THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?

I want to see the published papers that support your assumptions.

In the end, it isn't hard for the universe to produce life because it's fine tuned for life.







In order for your assumptions to be true, that would mean the universe has to depend on chance in order for life to occur and that's just nonsense based on current scientific understanding.

How do you know the earth isn't special based on things like the Axis of Evil in Cosmology?

Planck Satellite Confirms WMAP Findings: Universe is not Copernican

Most cosmologists will not admit it publicly, but perhaps over a beer they would tell you what is happening. Observations over the last 50 years, culminating with the Planck satellite results set modern science on a counter revolution leading closer to ideas formed 500 years ago. Today’s cosmology is based on two broad principles: The Copernican Principle (we are not in a special place in the universe) and the Cosmological Principle (The Copernican Principle, plus isotropy- the view from anywhere in the universe looks about the same). Starting with early studies of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), and in recent years culminating with results from the COBE then the WMAP satellites, scientists were faced with a signal at the largest scales of the universe- a signal that pointed right back at us, indicating that we are in a special place in the universe.

Without getting overly technical, the Copernican and cosmological principles require that any variation in the radiation from the CMB be more or less randomly distributed throughout the universe, especially on large scales. Results from the WMAP satellite (early 2000s) indicated that when looking at large scales of the universe, the noise could be partitioned into “hot” and “cold” sections, and this partitioning is aligned with our ecliptic plane and equinoxes. This partitioning and alignment resulted in an axis through the universe, which scientists dubbed “the axis of evil”, because of the damage it does to their theories. This axis passes right through our tiny portion of the universe. Laurence Krauss commented in 2005:

“ But when you look at [the cosmic microwave background] map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.”

Most scientists brushed the observation off as a fluke of some type, and many theories were created to explain it away. Many awaited the Planck mission. The Planck satellite was looked upon as a referee for these unexpected (and unwelcome) results. The Planck satellite used different sensor technology, and an improved scanning pattern to map the CMB. In March 2013, Planck reported back, and in fact verified the presence of the signal in even higher definition than before!

Article

My points is, you're making assertions and assumptions that have nothing to do with current Scientific understanding.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: tanka418

You don't have to keep saying 'I don't know' so many different ways. Once will do.

Still, I understand the need to express a little frustration when one finds that the cupboard is bare.

Yes, well you see, that's the thing...I do know while you are attempting couch your expression such that it makes you look better, when in fact...the reality is. You will not accept any data so ever, and will continue to deny reality, and embrace willful ignorance at every possible turn...

If I told you there are 2015 confirmed exoplanets, what would you think; that I'm wrong? Would you go a "see"? Or perhaps simply reject the whole out of hand (which is what you usually do)?