Are UAPs/UFOs finally being taken seriously?

[swansont]

One of the dni documents in the OP talked about reporting bias; an AFB has more instruments and more people in a position to see things (your random person isn’t looking toward the sky most of the time, and these airports are typically away from population centers, so you have relatively dark skies) and, of course, they potentially attract the attention of foreign adversaries. 

[Intoscience]

On 3/29/2023 at 12:37 PM, StringJunky said:

The likelihood is pretty high imo, just not in our neighbourhood

Why not? 

I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just intrigued as to why you don't think they are in our neighbourhood? 

Just trying to understand the logic. If you think the likelihood of aliens is pretty high, then by what factor do you draw the conclusion that they are not close by? 

12 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Yes, I would say we have the sky scoped out pretty well. Plus 15 billion phones being used and 96% of the global population owning one according to Statista

Just playing devils advocate. This premise is based on the assumption that alien tech would pretty much follow our own. 

We can only really use our tech to find known tech of similar capability. 

A simple analogy would be where an island has a group of people who can only communicate by beating drums or using smoke signals. They would be looking for the same or similar methods from other islanders to discern whether they are alone. But if the other islands have discovered radio for communication they will still easily hear and see the drums and smoke, but if they themselves chose to, remain fairly undetected. 

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

Why not? 

I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just intrigued as to why you don't think they are in our neighbourhood? 

Just trying to understand the logic. If you think the likelihood of aliens is pretty high, then by what factor do you draw the conclusion that they are not close by? 

Just playing devils advocate. This premise is based on the assumption that alien tech would pretty much follow our own. 

We can only really use our tech to find known tech of similar capability. 

A simple analogy would be where an island has a group of people who can only communicate by beating drums or using smoke signals. They would be looking for the same or similar methods from other islanders to discern whether they are alone. But if the other islands have discovered radio for communication they will still easily hear and see the drums and smoke, but if they themselves chose to, remain fairly undetected. 

Why not? Because "in space travel the numbers are awful". 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

Why not? 

I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just intrigued as to why you don't think they are in our neighbourhood? 

Just trying to understand the logic. If you think the likelihood of aliens is pretty high, then by what factor do you draw the conclusion that they are not close by? 

Just playing devils advocate. This premise is based on the assumption that alien tech would pretty much follow our own. 

We can only really use our tech to find known tech of similar capability. 

A simple analogy would be where an island has a group of people who can only communicate by beating drums or using smoke signals. They would be looking for the same or similar methods from other islanders to discern whether they are alone. But if the other islands have discovered radio for communication they will still easily hear and see the drums and smoke, but if they themselves chose to, remain fairly undetected. 

The furthest indication of our presence is from when the wireless was invented. Our aliens can't be any more than about 130lyrs from Earth  (1894 wireless invented) otherwise we are undetectable. We now need to think about the probability of there being aliens in that 130lyr radius. I would say our ability to detect objects up to that distance is pretty good. How many 130lyrs spheres can you fit in 100 000 lyr galaxy, like ours? We are in just one of those spheres. Beyond that sphere, evidence of our presence is unavailable by the rules of Relativity.

Edited March 31, 2023 by StringJunky

[Intoscience]

3 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Why not? Because "in space travel the numbers are awful". 

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Can you clarify please, so I don't misinterpret you. 

Thanks

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The furthest indication of our presence is from when the wireless was invented. Our aliens can't be any more than about 130lyrs from Earth  (1894 wireless invented) otherwise we are undetectable. We now need to think about the probability of there being aliens in that 130lyr radius. I would say our ability to detect objects up to that distance is pretty good. How many 130lyrs spheres can you fit in 100 000 lyr galaxy, like ours? We are in just one of those spheres. All the others are acausal as far as our presence is concerned.

Fair enough,

Assuming they are using radio signals to detect us, this is quite logical

Thanks

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Assuming they are using radio signals to detect us, this is quite logical

Thanks

Regardless of the technology c is c. Anything faster is magic at this point.

Edited March 31, 2023 by StringJunky

[Intoscience]

11 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Regardlessof the technology c is c.

Again I agree and not arguing, I would form the same logical conclusion. But playing devils advocate, we are assuming detection within GR frame work.

Ok so my point really is this, we would all agree that if its possible that aliens are capable of visiting us, then they are going to be far more advanced in physics and technology than we are, and possibly could currently imagine. 

At this point I'm not arguing against you, I'm in full agreement with your premise and would and do form the same logical conclusions based on our current known and verified physical models of reality.

But I can't help thinking, we are struggling to consolidate quantum gravity models with GR models, just for one example. Both which we believe to be true based on data, math and experimental observation. So, if we are missing something here and now then what other possibilities are we yet to discover?    

Edited March 31, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, Intoscience said:

 

But I can't help thinking, we are struggling to consolidate quantum gravity models with GR models, just for one example. Both which we believe to be true based on data, math and experimental observation. So, if we are missing something here and now then what other possibilities are we yet to discover?    

We can only make hypotheses based on theories that work for us now. Until we have other reliable theories, we are stuck with GR. We can't say anything meaningful until then. It's great to have imagination, but it has to withstand the rigors of experimental analysis, and agree with prevailing theory and observation.

[exchemist]

19 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Can you clarify please, so I don't misinterpret you. 

Thanks

 

I'm quoting Douglas Adams but the point is a serious one. The distances involved are vast and massive bodies such as spacecraft can only travel at a fraction of c*. Physical travel from one habitable planet to another would take centuries, and centuries more to get back, and to what end?

My own view is that intelligent life from elsewhere would have long ago realised it would be a colossal waste of time and instead would put their efforts into remote sensing - if they were interested in our planet at all. (It fact, it may be just arrogance on our part to imagine we would be that interesting.)    

 

* If it is proposed that alien civilisations may have found out how to travel faster than light, my response is that is unjustified, whimsical, wish-driven speculation rather than science. There is no objective reason so far to distrust Relativity.  

[Intoscience]

8 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

We can only make hypotheses based on theories that work for us now. Until we have other reliable theories, we are stuck with GR. We can't say anything meaningful until then. It's great to have imagination, but it has to withstand the rigors of experimental analysis, and agree with prevailing theory and observation.

Yes, agreed.

3 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I'm quoting Douglas Adams but the point is a serious one. The distances involved are vast and massive bodies such as spacecraft can only travel at a fraction of c*. Physical travel from one habitable planet to another would take centuries, and centuries more to get back, and to what end?

My own view is that intelligent life from elsewhere would have long ago realised it would be a colossal waste of time and instead would put their efforts into remote sensing - if they were interested in our planet at all. (It fact, it may be just arrogance on our part to imagine we would be that interesting.)    

 

* If it is proposed that alien civilisations may have found out how to travel faster than light, my response is that is unjustified, whimsical, wish-driven speculation rather than science. There is no objective reason so far to distrust Relativity.  

I agree, this is all we have to go on that is rigorous. 

There are scientists who are considering hypothesis which sit outside the constraints of Relativity. Was it Eric Weinstein who said something along the lines of "Einstein's jail". 

Ok, we can all let our imaginations run wild and speculate on wormholes and warp drives and so on... this is all sci-fi, pseudo science and/or at best conjecture. So i'm in agreement that we should consider possibilities that fit within our current understanding of physical laws. 

Based on this both you and String Junky have very logical and valid points.  

[StringJunky]

10 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Yes, agreed.

No hypothesis or theory can be be conceived in a vacuum without reference to, and agreement with, what we already know.

A hypothesis is your idea, and a theory is what you use to test it via principles contained within it.

Edited March 31, 2023 by StringJunky

[Moontanman]

16 hours ago, swansont said:

That doesn’t change the fact that we are actively looking at the skies. At the very least we look for objects that might collide with the earth, and if the objects are too small/faint to see, you can’t write it off as being passive - it’s a technical limitation.

My point exactly, we need to step up our game on detecting small faint IR targets. 

16 hours ago, swansont said:

Which should show up in IR viewing, and it doesn’t depend on reflection of sunlight. What does it say that we don’t see anything? Multiple IR telescopes have been in operation since the late 70s.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_telescope#Infrared_telescopes

Are any of them really meant to detect tiny faint objects inside our solar system? 

16 hours ago, swansont said:

 

(and this is the sort of technical discussion that has a basis in science, so kudos to you for engaging in that direction)

 

Not a new direction for me, this is something I've been suggesting for many years off and on. 

6 hours ago, StringJunky said:

The furthest indication of our presence is from when the wireless was invented. Our aliens can't be any more than about 130lyrs from Earth  (1894 wireless invented) otherwise we are undetectable. We now need to think about the probability of there being aliens in that 130lyr radius. I would say our ability to detect objects up to that distance is pretty good. How many 130lyrs spheres can you fit in 100 000 lyr galaxy, like ours? We are in just one of those spheres. Beyond that sphere, evidence of our presence is unavailable by the rules of Relativity.

Are you assuming that Aliens would need to detect "us" to be here? A galaxy wide civilization (not really possible IMHO) might just be slowly colonising the galaxy via artificial space habitats. This could be done in a few million years, planets in general of inhabited planets specifically might be ignored except for individuals or groups having an interest in rising primitives. 

The Earth a been detectable for billions of years via spectrographic studies of our atmosphere via telescopes.  

6 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Regardless of the technology c is c. Anything faster is magic at this point.

Clark Tech. 

[StringJunky]

8 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

The Earth a been detectable for billions of years via spectrographic studies of our atmosphere via telescopes.  

I was referring to detecting evidence of civilisation on Earth. The medium will be electromagnetic and wireless is the earliest consistently emitted signal I can think of.

[Moontanman]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Yes, agreed.

I agree, this is all we have to go on that is rigorous. 

There are scientists who are considering hypothesis which sit outside the constraints of Relativity. Was it Eric Weinstein who said something along the lines of "Einstein's jail". 

Ok, we can all let our imaginations run wild and speculate on wormholes and warp drives and so on... this is all sci-fi, pseudo science and/or at best conjecture. So i'm in agreement that we should consider possibilities that fit within our current understanding of physical laws. 

Based on this both you and String Junky have very logical and valid points.  

The idea of Clark Tech, FTL is chief among them, suggests that we already know enough about how the universe works to be able to limit what aliens can do. I tend to agree with this, the idea of magical tech and or super beings doesn't sit well with me of course not more than a century or so ago we thought a great many things were impossible or simply unknown to us. Known unknowns and unknown unknowns, sometimes referred to as black swan events. 

Looking outside the box shouldn't mean we know enough to flatly know where the box begins and ends or even if there is a box. 

6 hours ago, StringJunky said:

No hypothesis or theory can be be conceived in a vacuum without reference to, and agreement with, what we already know.

A hypothesis is your idea, and a theory is what you use to test it via principles contained within it.

I'm not sure that is justified, sometimes serendipity plays a big part in science. I don't think anyone was expecting photographic plates to result in the finding of radioactivity.   

7 hours ago, StringJunky said:

The furthest indication of our presence is from when the wireless was invented. Our aliens can't be any more than about 130lyrs from Earth  (1894 wireless invented) otherwise we are undetectable. We now need to think about the probability of there being aliens in that 130lyr radius. I would say our ability to detect objects up to that distance is pretty good. How many 130lyrs spheres can you fit in 100 000 lyr galaxy, like ours? We are in just one of those spheres. Beyond that sphere, evidence of our presence is unavailable by the rules of Relativity.

There are ?? stars within 100 light years of Earth, with a google search I seem to be getting a wide array of answers from 76 to 5900, I'm not sure which is accurate. 

6 hours ago, exchemist said:

I'm quoting Douglas Adams but the point is a serious one. The distances involved are vast and massive bodies such as spacecraft can only travel at a fraction of c*. Physical travel from one habitable planet to another would take centuries, and centuries more to get back, and to what end?

My own view is that intelligent life from elsewhere would have long ago realised it would be a colossal waste of time and instead would put their efforts into remote sensing - if they were interested in our planet at all. (It fact, it may be just arrogance on our part to imagine we would be that interesting.)    

 

* If it is proposed that alien civilisations may have found out how to travel faster than light, my response is that is unjustified, whimsical, wish-driven speculation rather than science. There is no objective reason so far to distrust Relativity.  

You are assuming a Star Trek type pattern of exploring/colonising the galaxy. A more rational method would be either sending out intelligent machines to do the job or sending out colonizers who get to a new star system, colonise with artificial habitats and then send out their own colonizers to new star systems. Habitable planets are not required and maybe even ignored completely except for a few specialists looking to study life and or aliens. It might take several million years but that is a blink of the eye in deep time. 

15 hours ago, TheVat said:

I have wondered, re the AFB sightings, what sane ET would approach a planet full of aggressive and xenophobic beings that's bristling with nuclear weapons and say, hey, I know, let's go buzz an Air Force Base!   

 

Good question but it's also possible that to them our weapons are no more dangerous than thrown rocks to one of our own weapons systems. 

[exchemist]

32 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

The idea of Clark Tech, FTL is chief among them, suggests that we already know enough about how the universe works to be able to limit what aliens can do. I tend to agree with this, the idea of magical tech and or super beings doesn't sit well with me of course not more than a century or so ago we thought a great many things were impossible or simply unknown to us. Known unknowns and unknown unknowns, sometimes referred to as black swan events. 

Looking outside the box shouldn't mean we know enough to flatly know where the box begins and ends or even if there is a box. 

I'm not sure that is justified, sometimes serendipity plays a big part in science. I don't think anyone was expecting photographic plates to result in the finding of radioactivity.   

There are ?? stars within 100 light years of Earth, with a google search I seem to be getting a wide array of answers from 76 to 5900, I'm not sure which is accurate. 

You are assuming a Star Trek type pattern of exploring/colonising the galaxy. A more rational method would be either sending out intelligent machines to do the job or sending out colonizers who get to a new star system, colonise with artificial habitats and then send out their own colonizers to new star systems. Habitable planets are not required and maybe even ignored completely except for a few specialists looking to study life and or aliens. It might take several million years but that is a blink of the eye in deep time. 

Good question but it's also possible that to them our weapons are no more dangerous than thrown rocks to one of our own weapons systems. 

For colonisers they don't seem to be doing a very good job. Unless David Icke is right about the Lizard People, I suppose. 

[Alex_Krycek]

They've been taken seriously for a long time, by the right people.

[TheVat]

Oh yes, the Invisible College is quite correct, a race of sinister reptilian humanoids that appear like normal people are indeed controlling mankind.  They're sometimes called "capitalists," or more specific terms like "hedge fund managers," "CEOs," "PAC managers," "oligarchs," etc.  

I let my IC membership lapse last year, and now they keep sending me these renewal notices that offer me a free Invisible College tote bag or coffee mug if I go with the Premium membership.

[Moontanman]

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

For colonisers they don't seem to be doing a very good job. Unless David Icke is right about the Lizard People, I suppose. 

Are you expecting them to colonise planets? There could be thousands of artificial colonies orbiting our sun and we would be unaware of them.  

3 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

They've been taken seriously for a long time, by the right people.

Interesting, I'll have to check that out. I am aware of Jacques Vallee and his work with J. Allen Hynek I wasn't aware of this book. 

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

Oh yes, the Invisible College is quite correct, a race of sinister reptilian humanoids that appear like normal people are indeed controlling mankind.  They're sometimes called "capitalists," or more specific terms like "hedge fund managers," "CEOs," "PAC managers," "oligarchs," etc.  

I let my IC membership lapse last year, and now they keep sending me these renewal notices that offer me a free Invisible College tote bag or coffee mug if I go with the Premium membership.

Really? Denigrating a comment instead of giving some data to suggest it is wrong in some way is how we should be rolling here? 

Edited March 31, 2023 by Moontanman

[TheVat]

32 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 

Really? Denigrating a comment instead of giving some data to suggest it is wrong in some way is how we should be rolling here? 

Sorry, I wasn't trying to derail things.  It was Alex's use of the phrase "the right people," in support of a group that advances the Lizard People theory, that triggered my satirical reflex.  My serious comment is that I don't think the theory of alien reptiles disguised as humans running our nations is a very good one.  And I stand behind my comment on capitalists. 

Generally I am not wild about any position that is claimed as one pushed by "the right people."  Perhaps Krycek was also being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I can't always tell.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

Are you expecting them to colonise planets? There could be thousands of artificial colonies orbiting our sun and we would be unaware of them.  

 

Well yes. When you say "colonise", it implies taking over territory that was not previously theirs. 

[Moontanman]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

Well yes. When you say "colonise", it implies taking over territory that was not previously theirs. 

I think there are many reasons planets would not be in demand and possibly ignored completely except as raw materials. Artificial habitats make much more sense. Millions of times the surface area of the Earth could be created using artificial habitats like O'Neill Cylinders , Stanford Torus , McKendree Cylinders  or just can shaped shaped habitats lighted from the inside rotated for artificial gravity and even have natural esque type habitats on the inner surface of these objects.

These or other artificial habitats could be manipulated to the heart's content of who ever creates them and only have familiar life forms on board.  

"There are fictional habitats that are beyond our capabilities but more advanced. Banks Orbitals , Bishop Ring, or if you really want to step outside reality a Niven Ring. None of these are possible with our own limited science and are probably not possible at all."

Banks Orbital

Bishop Ring

Niven Ring 

Lot of fun to speculate about but real problems would be encountered on real planets.

Planets would have problems ranging from viri to bacteria to fungus but more likely the possibility of environmental poisons like trace elements, too much of some minor gas in the atmosphere or too much environmental toxins like mercury or arsenic or some other poison that would affect them we don't know of. Life is amazingly well evolved to fit its habitat and colonising a strange hut natural world would be fraught by hazards an artificial habitat would not have to worry about.  

Edited March 31, 2023 by Moontanman

[exchemist]

7 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I think there are many reasons planets would not be in demand and possibly ignored completely except as raw materials. Artificial habitats make much more sense. Millions of times the surface area of the Earth could be created using artificial habitats like O'Neill Cylinders , Stanford Torus , McKendree Cylinders  or just can shaped shaped habitats lighted from the inside rotated for artificial gravity and even have natural esque type habitats on the inner surface of these objects.

These or other artificial habitats could be manipulated to the heart's content of who ever creates them and only have familiar life forms on board.  

"There are fictional habitats that are beyond our capabilities but more advanced. Banks Orbitals , Bishop Ring, or if you really want to step outside reality a Niven Ring. None of these are possible with our own limited science and are probably not possible at all."

Banks Orbital

Bishop Ring

Niven Ring 

Lot of fun to speculate about but real problems would be encountered on real planets.

Planets would have problems ranging from viri to bacteria to fungus but more likely the possibility of environmental poisons like trace elements, too much of some minor gas in the atmosphere or too much environmental toxins like mercury or arsenic or some other poison that would affect them we don't know of. Life is amazingly well evolved to fit its habitat and colonising a strange hut natural world would be fraught by hazards an artificial habitat would not have to worry about.  

“Fictional habitats”

[StringJunky]

If one reads about something that has a basically nebulous level of evidence too much, one can end up believing it. The brain has a fantastic capacity for filling in the gaps in ways that may appear plausible, but ultimately don't stand up to scrutiny. Imagination is our great strength, but it is also a vulnerability if it's not checked.

Edited April 1, 2023 by StringJunky

[Genady]

25 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Imagination is our great strength

Our other great strength is ability to distinguish between imagination and reality. It is not a good sign when this ability is compromised.

[dimreepr]

21 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

If one reads about something that has a basically nebulous level of evidence too much, one can end up believing it. The brain has a fantastic capacity for filling in the gaps in ways that may appear plausible, but ultimately don't stand up to scrutiny. Imagination is our great strength, but it is also a vulnerability if it's not checked.

Indeed, Ultimately it's a message in a bottle, if the bottle is properly corked.

For instance, as previously discussed, we've been sending out radio waves for X number of year's, none of which is discernable by Voyager, because the universe is full of noise...