Moontanman

Does anyone have a personal Oxford Academic account? If you do you can access this paper on the antiphone disaster paradox. https://academic.oup.com/book/36741/chapter-abstract/321838499?redirectedFrom=fulltext

I disagree... I know big surprise... but for UFOs/UAPs or really anything that is intermittent and unpredictable do we simply not bother or do we try to think of ways to gather data? If it was anything but "aliens" I think we would be giving a lot more effort to trying to gather more data or even figuring out ways to gather data. Because it is "aliens" suddenly there seems to be no reason to even try in fact not trying seems to be the go to methodology. In any other phenomena would throwing up our hands and essentially saying I give up be the immediate go to? If we noticed a weird intermittent reading in radioactive decay would we just throw up our hands and say nothing to see here move along? I admit there was a time when I thought aliens were here and obviously so. Then I realized that human nature often resulted in lies for no reason other than wanting to be part of the group. I actually do test this somewhat regularly via the being out on the fishing pier and pointing and saying did you see that? A huge fish just jumped right there, people will look their asses off for a few minutes and then lose interest but another shout of look there did you see it will almost always result in some of the people present claiming to have seen "it" It's weird but true but the same thing will happen even if the first shout out is true. Fish do jump, weird things do happen and just because some people will intentionally lie doesn't mean others are not telling the truth. Sometimes it's not a fish, sometimes it's a whale, sometimes it's a bird, and sometimes a false shoutout will result in a second real sighting. Unless you look you will not see and UFO/UAP sightings occur often enough to make you wonder what is going on, fish, whale, bird, occasionally something unidentifiable breaks the surface of reality. I think we should be on the lookout instead of turning away sure that it cannot happen because it hasn't been confirmed yet. There be whales here! We might find aliens or we might find out nothing or we might even find out why humans lie about stuff that makes no real sense to lie about. New information is always new and can be important at some point. So I say look, and try to figure out how to look better instead of trying to discourage looking because we don't like what we might see. When you figure radar traces and multiple independent witnesses, physical effects, and simple wonder I think it might be more important to look than we think. Do our best to be prepared better next time by studying what happened last time. Even bullshit can be used as fertilizer.

In UFO studies by civilians it is often suggested that sightings that are easier to debunk are more likely to be debated than sightings that are not easily debunked... nah, can't be true... can it?

I can't argue with the point of causality being violated but how is it any different than someone detecting the asteroid in advance with a telescope and getting the area evacuated before impact? In both cases the deaths are prevented, in both cases the terrorists survive that wouldn't have. In one case the antiphone is used and the other a telescope is used. Methods are different, results are the same.

There exists a time phone, it was created in 2020. In 2025 an asteroid hits in the atlantic ocean off the eastern seaboard of north america, millions die, Trillions of dollars in property damage occur. After the strike the phones is used to call 2024 and the extent of the damage is conveyed to the people of 2024, they evacuate the east coast and millions of lives are saved. The property damage still occurs but the lives are saved when the asteroid strikes. The phone call still occurs so the people can be saved from the threat that still happens. The Phone can only be used to call the time period that it exists in, no phone calls to before the phone exists.

Thank you, that was what I was looking for, I've been told that the scenario I proposed wouldn't break causality and therefore might be possible under some conditions as though breaking causality was the key that prevented communication through time not that the act itself was the problem and that breaking causality was the result not the problem. And rightly so. How so?

Which sighting are we discussing? The Minot air base sighting did have radar data and the crews were of air force B-52 bomber. Not just a light in the sky.

The scenario I proposed wouldn't or at least shouldn't cause a time loop. Thank you but I do understand that, what I am asking is would such a possibility require the retooling of all our science or would it just require a slight rethinking of certain concepts? I remember when neutrinos had supposedly been found to be traveling FTL. The uproar was from a mild, things might need to be changed to running in circles like their hair was on fire, of course it turned out to be a mistake but it still left the question of what needed to be different for it to have been real unanswered.

If I understand correctly you are saying that the only consequence is breaking a law. Does this mean all of physics is wrong or that just a small subset of physics is wrong? I am not trolling, I am looking for physical consequences apart from just some subset of physics being wrong. Would a time "phone" just be something to be explained or would all of physics be wrong... I often get the impression that if just one thing was discovered that broke a law of physics then all of physics would be wiped clean instead of just needing to amend one thing.

I understand that, the lit is actually the speed of causality (as we know it) what I am asking is how would that cause problems in the real universe. The scenario I set up would not seem to bring about any paradoxes or cause any harm to the universe.

A signal from the future is not a physical cause? Even if this is true how does it do any harm? Even if the signal to the past have no apparent physical cause how does this break physics any more than a an electron traveling FTL through water causing a glow that a man can see but not understand a break in physics?

Thank you for making the use of this forum safer and easier for us all!

Why is causality violation such a deal breaker? Let's set up a real world example: Assume we have a "phone" that allows for communication with the past but only between the point in time that the "phone" is created and the present. An asteroid strikes the ocean off the east coast of North America resulting in a wave that wipes out much of the east coast from the Appalachian Mountains to the sea coast. Millions of lives are lost and property destruction is off the charts in cost. A simple "phone" call allows for the evacuation of the affected area and no lives are lost. Does this break causality? Does the universe "break"? Or is this no different than from warning people of an approaching hurricane and taking measures to avoid loss of human lives?

Groan!!! But still witty!

I know what you mean, I watched it a couple times and I couldn't quite figure out what she was saying, I looked for a link but no joy. As far as I could tell no, the only thing I didn't quite get was something she called the "co-moving frame" or something similar, it was about the average rest state of the local universe. To be honest I thought I did accompany the video with enough text to set the tone for discussion. If it has been any source other than Sabine I would not have posted their video. She is one of a handful of youtubers that meet the criteria of real science done right. In other words she really is the scientist she claims to be. (she sings as well) She says something about this being connected to quantum gravity. The disconnect I am having a problem with starts at 16:00 and ends at 21:54. BTW does this rule also apply to written reports that do not rely on videos or pictures?

I thought I had a pretty good grip on why FTL was impossible. I was knowledgeable enough to at least think I understood why FTL was impossible even in the face of things like warp drive and worm holes. I was pretty confident that the time travel aspects would prohibit FTL even if the infinite energy requirements didn't. Now I see one of my most respected scientific sources seemingly asserting that all I've been taught was solid as a rock is in fact on shaky ground at best, Sabine Hossenfelder has blown my mind by suggesting all I know might not be as solid as I was led to believe. Is anyone willing to watch this video and assure me that Sabine has slipped a cog so I can let go of the nearest pine tree and return to the idea of solid ground being solid ground?

Is there any chance we can discuss this report from Minot air base? This is not a video and The paper lists the many ways the sighting was documented and is very interesting to say the least. I am thinking of you @swansonT, your input would be greatly appreciated.

Why would outer space be a better place to preserve/store body parts?

Is the Vaquita doomed? With their small size (about one meter) and an economic incentive to continue fishing methods that kill them as by catch can we save them? It is thought that only 10 individuals remain of the population. This short video goes into detail about them.

If the paper doesn't tell it I have no idea.

That is true, but it indicates that a magnetic field can be used in ways that allow for a better coverage from several small magnets rather than one huge one. I think the devil will be in the engineering with this one. Even planetary size mag fields have been proposed.

There seems to be some effort on that front. https://phys.org/news/2022-05-magnetic-astronauts-dangerous-space.html

You assume the radiators would have to be near or in contact with the ice? Ok, lets use silicate debris in stead. Even Kuiper belt objects wouldn't be made of exclusively ice nor would all asteroids be made exclusively of silicates. I am sure there are or will be engineering work arounds for these heat radiation problems. This does direct back to my original premise of detecting aliens via their heat signatures or do we assume they have Clark tech that negates the issue? Heat radiation is a well known problem for space craft and many designs of nuclear powered craft do indeed take this into account.