All Activity

I see your point.

It isn't reasonable, it's just one extra low-P thing to cross off the list. And I meant more in ongoing investigations. One can't inspect equipment or give post-flight physicals to people in the 1940s. I just meant investigators should strive to rule out even unlikely scenarios so that the investigation data isn't tainted later because someone says oh they didn't eliminate that. E.g. if something caused a short in some industrial equipment, I would think a cat crawling in there was improbable but I'd still check for burned fur or whatever.

But how can you eliminate it by listing it as a reasonable cause?

To clarify, I don't think hypoxia is likely, I was just giving examples of how science eliminates red herrings. It would be like fingerprinting all the friends of a homicide - you may not suspect them at all, you are just eliminating them more decisively. Then one can focus on optical f/x in the atmosphere (or other) with more confidence. Since some tiny fraction of UFO reports did relate to pilot hypoxia, it cleans up your search field to eliminate it.

Agreed on that, there are cases where the witness really didn't want the attention. One would tend to give those witnesses greater credibility. Doesn't mean a mistaken identity wasn't involved etc etc. I tend to have more respect for the cases where it's clear the motivation has nothing to do than generate monetary gain or attention seeking.

I personally don't base my opinion of any physicist by how popular they are in the media etc. Yes they tend to excel at taking complex topics and simplifying for the public which is very useful and beneficial. It generates interest to help generate new students as well as enhances interest for research etc. So that's never a bad thing. However I tend to focus on their research papers etc. Neil DeGrasse papers aren't bad but someone like Sean Carroll has a wider range of recommended literature. However that's just me

I understand that effect, but in many cases the people involved never got any fame or popularity out of it either in fact some of them were sorry they ever reported the sighting due to negative effects the attention gave them. BTW, I am not limited to the internet, YouTube is not reality, I read I've read dozens of books, and scientific papers about this subject way before the internet was a gleam in Al Gores eye 💩 The assumption of anyone who had a sighting that could not be explained had to be a liar was well established back in the 1950's, I rejected it when I encountered it in the 1960's I reject it now.

One thing I learned over the years is monetary gain isn't the only reason for hoaxes or seeking fame. Many cases is simply a means to get attention. It's not just restricted to UFO sightings either but literally every aspect of science when you include all the alternate and wildly exotic articles you find on the internet.

Does it not bother you to assume things like the oxygen flow could make multiple individuals across multiple aircraft see the same hallucinations at the same time? To be honest I think something like Saint Elmo's Fire is the best explanation or none alien explanation but that is just speculation as well. I just threw in Foo Fighters as an obvious example of something that could not have been human technology, there are many sightings that are either hoaxes or alien space craft. Admittedly most have turned out to be hoaxes but that does not mean all of them are or are even more likely to be hoaxes, Each case is separate from each other case unless you can connect them and being unidentified is not a significant connection. Assuming a hoax due to aliens being less probable just doesn't sit well with me, mistake yes but to assume a hoax... maybe I trust too much. Yeah and there are pictures as well in many of these cases. I know a picture can be faked but to what end, most of these people never made a dime or any significant fame from these "Hoaxes" yet the stigma of being labeled a liar remains or anyone foolish enough to make a report. Be skeptical? Yes please do so , but assuming a hoax or a lie out of hand due to something being improbable is simply not the path to knowledge IMHO

Which gets back to the limited value of really old data. My bet would be on some kind of optical anomaly. It's possible the only way to study that would be to recreate WW2 conditions - send flyers up in period aircraft in meteorological conditions which match the original sightings. And make sure the oxygen delivery system onboard has whatever quirks and quality issues there were in WW2. And have whatever land based light sources (including searchlights) there were at that time. So...basically impossible to recreate. We'll never know what the Foo Fighters were. (except Dave Grohl)

It's best to regard spacetime as simply the arena where the SM model of particles/fields reside. It really is simply a volume that uses the Interval (ct) to give time dimensionality of a length. Spacetime curvature under this describes the particle paths and the easiest way to understand this is to use parallel transport. (The equations of the EFE also uses parallel transport) If spacetime is flat two parallel beams of light will remain parallel. If you have positve curvature those beams will converge. If you have negative curvature they will diverge. For gravity use the same manner. Draw two lines at some distance apart and connect them to the CoM. You will notice those lines converge as you approach the centre of mass. Another useful tool to understand why particles follow different paths is to realize that all particle motion obeys the principle of least action. (This includes Feymann integrals as well as spacetime geodesics). Terms such as fabric etc gives false impressions of spacetime being some material or substance. It really is simply a metric that describes a volume and spacetime paths (null geodesics for massless particles such as photons). What affects the paths is all matter and force fields of the SM model. The coupling constants collectively give rise to the mass terms (mass is resistance to inertia change). They also have strange stars that suggest with certain neutron stars all quarks become strange quarks. Some models really stretch the imagination but surprisingly enough do have enough viability to warrant research. As for myself I study some of these as they often include unique ways to mathematically describe fields and states that I find useful for model developments. They also have papers suggesting a dark sector of a wide range of particles such as dark photons etc. Yeah I don't agree with the theory myself I ran across it a few years back.

From what I heard and read from him, I am sure he knows and understands this very well.

You make a good point, secret human tech is more probable than aliens, especially with modern tech being advanced enough to be mistaken for out of this world technology, that being said... in WW2 glowing balls of light were being seen with some regularity by allied pilots, these objects darted among the bombers and were often shot at by gunners. It turned out the Axis powers were seeing the same things and they though they were our and we though they were theirs. Not human tech, and there are many others in that time frame that simply could not have been unknown human tech. This idea of misidentified human tech was dismissed by Project Sign in favor of at least some UFOs being interplanetary space craft, The Chiles-Whitted case this sighting solidified the idea of interplanetary space craft, of course this estimate of the situation was rejected and probably justifiably so due to lack of scientific rigor in the collection of data if nothing else.

Exotic experimental flight technology seems the most plausible hypothesis to me, at this point. Per Ockham, requires the fewest assumptions and indeed fits well with what has been leaked about government disinformation methods. That said, I think it is impossible to assign a probability to an ET hypothesis. Most terms of the Drake equation remain so conjectural as to make it useless, with our current knowledge. It is like the SETI problem, where no one in the SETI community can demonstrate why aliens would stay with radio transmission and use it in such a way as to send a signal. And we have no way to really calculate a probability of a singular event, where a civilization far up the Kardashev scale could saturate the galaxy with probes, seeding devices, whatever. At this point, it just makes more sense to sift evidence for the secret human tech hypothesis.

It's a radio show... 😉

A TV show is not evidence, show me scientific evidence of ghosts.

Free entertainment. Even leaves one with a fuzzy feeling that they learned something.

Uncanny

Quote from your link: "Production Letters found that wealthy individuals produce more greenhouse gases than poor individuals, particularly due to their extensive use of private aircraft and yachts, as well as their massive real estate holdings all over the planet." (aviation and shipping (private aviation, and yachts? they are fractions of overall aviation and shipping) they are at the bottom of statistics of industries which cause majority of problems) In the case of a one-to-one relationship, this is obviously true. The more money you have, the more you buy, and the more you spend, the more waste you produce, and so on. But there are very few happy millionaires+ around the world, so the overall effect is microscopic. If all billionaires stopped using private jets, there would be no difference in the statistics, unlike stopping the aviation of average people (like during 9/11 or COVID-19). Should a millionaire or billionaire use a scheduled airline? Of course. It is good for their mental health and the environment. Although this is demagoguery.

Do you receive an SMS response before sending a message with a question? Do you receive an email response before sending a question? If so, start playing the lottery.. or go to the casino..

Don't bother

See I don't really know how to think about spacetime. Do I perceive to be some kind of material since physicists talk about it in material sounding terms. It has geometry/shape so it's like a sheet and black holes are like bowling balls dragging down the sheet making little pockets in spacetime? I've also heard of something called dark star theory which positted something along the lines that some black holes could through some unknown physical processes convert baryonic matter into dark matter. Not sure what to make of that myself. It's interesting watching and listening to you all discuss this stuff!

Maybe later, I'm watching a film ATM... 😉

The paper calls them 'black stars' and seems to posit a complete lack of event horizon, and that the matter all piles up just outside where the EH would be. This is very similar to Schmelzer's alternative generalization of LET (relativity, but denying both premises of SR). https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0001095 He calls the 'frozen stars' since all the matter piles up outside the nonexistent EH. It's a presentist interpretation of relativity, and it equate absolute time with coordinate time. Just my thoughts. The alternative is that the matter gets 'inside' and is somehow prevented from going 'forward' which is the same as positing that if you put enough force on matter, you can push it into the past where there's more room.

So lets say a stellar mass black hole about 10 times the mass of our sun. Like Gaia-BH1. 3 clocks. One in a safe stable orbit around the black hole, one fixed just before the event horizon, one in freefall. Thank you for those videos btw! They were wild. The first one especially. It looks like falling into a water balloon. Will rewatch those more than a few times! That does make it sound like it would be exponentially increasing time dilation between clocks. If I drop multiple clocks in free fall, an hour after the other, would the clocks seem to catch up to the first dropped clock, relative to the external stable orbit clock?