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

a reply to: neoholographic

You don't have to have scientifically verifiable evidence in order to have evidence that supports the underlying hypothesis or theory.

if its not verifiable, then its not scientifically valid. are we trying to establish a theory and skirt the integrity of scientific investigation simultaneously? thats no good, and shame on anyone who tries it.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: neoholographic

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

Asked and answered but I will kindly debate this with you if you answer my question.

What is the difference between conformal field theories and quantum field theories that make it symmetric and mathematically give rise to a thermodynamic critical point and how is this derived?

a reply to: neoholographic

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

And I want to see your published papers, since you are an accomplished Theoretical Physicist.

You have also conveniently ignored my questions. Care to explain?

originally posted by: neoholographic
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.

That's kind of funny...It has been demonstrated that chance is not a significant contributing factor in evolution. If chance was the controlling factor; then statistically, Humans could not exist for several billion more years...yet here y'all are...

Further it is thought that evolution has several "short cuts" that are employed to speed things p significantly...

If interested y'all should search for "probability and evolution"...some interesting stuff.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

I answered your question and it's an obvious attempt to try to change the subject because you can't debate the issue. Now if you want to debate Theoretical Physics answer my question and let's debate. We can go to the sciene forum and start a thread debating some of the key issues facing theoretical physics today but I don't want to waste my time if you can't answer this simple question.

What is the difference between conformal field theories and quantum field theories that make it symmetric and mathematically give rise to a thermodynamic critical point and how is this derived?

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: HomeBrew

This is exactly my point and yes it's less than common sense.

I can refute something without acting like all of the eyewitness accounts are equally unreliable and equally not evidence.

For instance, I'm skeptical when it comes to Bigfoot. I would never say that all eyewitness accounts in this area isn't evidence to support the existence of Bigfoot. What I say is there isn't enough evidence for me to reach the conclusion that Bigfoot exists.

With U.F.O.'s many skeptics act like there's no evidence and all eyewitness accounts are equally unreliable. This just lacks basic common sense. The reason is because of belief. They want extraordinary evidence and that's just subjective and they can just move the bar further everytime any evidence is presented. With ufology there's a ton of evidence from eyewitness accounts to trace evidence.

Common sense tells you that you can't just dismiss all eyewitness accounts as equally unreliable and equally not evidence.

well, my response to this mirrors your thread: all theories are not equal.

and concluding that there is evidence for (insert theory/hypothesis here) does not make it as probable or valid a theory as the next one for which there is evidence.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: neoholographic
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.

That's kind of funny...It has been demonstrated that chance is not a significant contributing factor in evolution. If chance was the controlling factor; then statistically, Humans could not exist for several billion more years...yet here y'all are...

Further it is thought that evolution has several "short cuts" that are employed to speed things p significantly...

If interested y'all should search for "probability and evolution"...some interesting stuff.

EXACTLY!!

Great points. The universe is fined tuned to produce life just like stars, galaxies and comets. So the whole argument that intelligent life while have a hard time occurring because of chance makes no sense.

a reply to: neoholographic

Great points. The universe is fined tuned to produce life just like stars, galaxies and comets. So the whole argument that intelligent life while have a hard time occurring because of chance makes no sense.

which is why our entire galaxy, so far as we have been able to determine, is devoid of actual life - with our planet as the only exception.

and stars are not lifeforms. not sure if you were implying that, just thought i would clarify.

a reply to: neoholographic

I gave you a star for your effort. I'd give you an extra star if you didn't hit Ctrl-C.

You copy and pasted. If you can prove to me why you believe that faster than light or interdimensional travel is possible then I will eat my shoe. No disrespect.

By the way I also know how to use ctrl-B

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: neoholographic

I gave you a star for your effort. I'd give you an extra star if you didn't hit Ctrl-C.

You copy and pasted. If you can prove to me why you believe that faster than light or interdimensional travel is possible then I will eat my shoe. No disrespect.

you can only give one star per post.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I'm well aware of that.

originally posted by: tanka418

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.

Yes it took 650 million years for humans to get on this planet after snowball earth. Life started about 4 billion years ago though. I'm saying advance life as life capable to continually advance past the microbe stage into plant/sea life and then further into animal/reptile/fish type life. I'm not suggesting sentient life at all as a stage.

Not sure your point though

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

Then people assume that also means billions of chances for aliens....

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.

Yes and outer core is liquid, and if we didn't have that then earth would be like Mars, so not sure your point here either...

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

True but does add a discriminator to the equation of advance life, unless you suggest that 80% or better of all exoplanets are within this range? If lets say 30% are within this range that kind of removes a large number that would not likely be able to evolve advance lifeforms.

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"

Not for advance life it is not... I do not think there would be much here evolutionary wise past plants in advancement on earth without the moon. It is all about stability when we talk species and allowing evolution to take its very slow course.

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.

How do you go all the way to suggest "complete with advanced sentient probably space faring life." that is a rather big jump don't you think? Evolution has a lot of dead ends due to bad traits and we still haven't even proved if too much intelligence is a bad trait or not.

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.

In any case we need about 5000 to 6000 degrees and some longevity to the star.

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

Life seems to start there so we need enough to allow for a very wide range of evolution to happen, most likely need an ocean.

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...

Well even 50 million years from start to finish it sill happened just once is my point. Before snowball earth and after, earth had a lot of chances...Why isn't half the earth species all at the human brain level or better if intelligence is really a highly needed evolutionary trait. The fact is that it is not needed for evolution....

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.

As predators go humans are kind of slow and weak, can't say evolution got that part right. We almost went extinct as all other genus homos did.

My point in all this is if you remove any one of my requirements the chance for evolution to have time to take simple life into complex life is greatly reduced.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

What this means is that you have no answer to the question.

Secondly, who said faster than light "travel" is possible?

You can't travel faster than light but in order to go from point A to point B you wouldn't have to travel anywhere. This is why Physicist are looking at ways to warp space-time and then there's no need to "travel" faster than light. You will be warping space and connecting two points in space and the warped passage will carry you from point A to point B faster than light or close to the speed of light.

Warp Drive May Be More Feasible Than Thought, Scientists Say

www.space.com...

Meet the NASA scientist devising a starship warp drive

www.newscientist.com...

a reply to: neoholographic

I see where you are coming from. Skeptics will always be skeptics until they see a "craft" or "alien" . I have seen two odd craft, but I would not jump to the conclusion that they were from out of this world. I do believe we are being observed. Do I have proof, no. I think you need to have an open mind about both sides. The "evidence" has been watered down by so many stories by people who either want fame, or are mentally unbalanced, that its hard to believe much of anything anymore. People who believe see alien activity everywhere. People who believe in bigfoot see bigfoot activity everywhere. They give skeptics fuel to say its all bunk. There is evidence beyond just stories. Radar, photographs, landing traces. Skepics can find any reason to dismiss the evidence. I think the world would be better served by those with open minds, on both sides.

originally posted by: FlyingWhale
a reply to: neoholographic

I see where you are coming from. Skeptics will always be skeptics until they see a "craft" or "alien" . I have seen two odd craft, but I would not jump to the conclusion that they were from out of this world. I do believe we are being observed. Do I have proof, no. I think you need to have an open mind about both sides. The "evidence" has been watered down by so many stories by people who either want fame, or are mentally unbalanced, that its hard to believe much of anything anymore. People who believe see alien activity everywhere. People who believe in bigfoot see bigfoot activity everywhere. They give skeptics fuel to say its all bunk. There is evidence beyond just stories. Radar, photographs, landing traces. Skepics can find any reason to dismiss the evidence. I think the world would be better served by those with open minds, on both sides.

Good points and this is what I'm saying.

There's no balance from many people who claim to be skeptics when it comes to the evidence in Ufology. All of it is equally bad and unreliable and that's just devoid of any common sense.

originally posted by: neoholographic

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

It comes down to what do you need for life in general and what do you need to provide that life 100s of millions of years of a stable platform to evolve. Do you think life can be on Mars, Venus, some moons of Jupiter and Saturn? Do you think there is advance life on these too? If not why?

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

You are debating that it is a Star Trek universe and I suggest that it is not.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

What this means is that you have no answer to the question.

Secondly, who said faster than light "travel" is possible?

You can't travel faster than light but in order to go from point A to point B you wouldn't have to travel anywhere. This is why Physicist are looking at ways to warp space-time and then there's no need to "travel" faster than light. You will be warping space and connecting two points in space and the warped passage will carry you from point A to point B faster than light or close to the speed of light.

Warp Drive May Be More Feasible Than Thought, Scientists Say

www.space.com...

Meet the NASA scientist devising a starship warp drive

www.newscientist.com...

naughty neoholographic, leaving out key details.

How close are you to making this a reality?
We are very much in the science rather than the technology phase. We have got some very specific and controlled steps to take to create a proof of concept, to show we have properly understood and applied the math and physics. To that end we will try to generate a microscopic instance of a warp bubble in the lab and measure it.

thats from the bottom link. and according to the other article, they are basically at the same stage of the process.

so its all hot air at the moment, and if we actually read the articles, we realize that.

a reply to: neoholographic
Part of the problem with sceptics and debunkers is that they take a view of ufology as a whole, in the same way they would view a single case; it's anecdotal.

But there is a qualitative difference between a single case - no matter how strong - and the entire phenomena that has emerged. The phenomena, as a whole, affords a different approach than would be taken with a single case.

For example, there are themes that have emerged from different sources. Themes such as the description of the greys, stalling car engines, the strange staring procedure the greys do with people, and so on. It is on this level that the phenomena should be addressed; how the picture builds up in terms of similarities, themes, and patterns.

Also, an important question sceptics should ask is If it is not aliens/interdimensional beings, then what is it? I have looked at this question and I am convinced that there is no alternative hypothesis. The alternative explanations simply don't hold together.

There are craft in the sky and they are associated with intelligent beings. Whether these beings are alien is harder to prove or argue for but there is certainly an intelligence here.

a reply to: TzarChasm

What???

Of course they're very much in the science phase, who claimed we will be on ships going at warp drive tomorrow?? That makes ZERO SENSE.

It's not hot air it's SCIENCE.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: FlyingWhale
a reply to: neoholographic

I see where you are coming from. Skeptics will always be skeptics until they see a "craft" or "alien" . I have seen two odd craft, but I would not jump to the conclusion that they were from out of this world. I do believe we are being observed. Do I have proof, no. I think you need to have an open mind about both sides. The "evidence" has been watered down by so many stories by people who either want fame, or are mentally unbalanced, that its hard to believe much of anything anymore. People who believe see alien activity everywhere. People who believe in bigfoot see bigfoot activity everywhere. They give skeptics fuel to say its all bunk. There is evidence beyond just stories. Radar, photographs, landing traces. Skepics can find any reason to dismiss the evidence. I think the world would be better served by those with open minds, on both sides.

Good points and this is what I'm saying.

There's no balance from many people who claim to be skeptics when it comes to the evidence in Ufology. All of it is equally bad and unreliable and that's just devoid of any common sense.

can we give examples here and not just generalize without specific instances to look at and compare? because i feel like you are taking advantage of that absence to just pass whatever opinion you happen to have.