|
Raenir Salazar posted:That was annoying and frustrating and this thread would be better all around if we were open minded and forgiving and actually try to know what people want to talk about and give it a chance. This is D&D, goon sir!!
|
#
?
May 25, 2021 23:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:36 |
|
|
DrSunshine posted:This is D&D, goon sir!! Throws down dice Roll me your INITIATIVE right now SIR and we shall battle for our HONOUR.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2021 23:38
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:I don't think it does. I just don't know why the guy who programmed the Tony Hawk games is considered a powerful voice in the community, and so his word shuts down the conversation. I've even said I agree with the math, if that interpretation is correct. But the people that work with the instruments don't seem to think it is, so I'm left confused. See this ties in with what I was saying earlier. I think Mick West and Metabunks explanations for these videos are very convincing, I've certainly not seen any of his naysayers come up with a convincing alternative that fits what the videos show so well. It's not like Metabunk has a paywall, the Pentagon et al have seen these explanations and yet they're still allowing their name to be used in all the media talk about UAPs and whatnot. That's the interesting part to me. Someone just said it could be cover for their own advanced drone program....but why? If we all seem to agree that none of the videos show an actual UAP and it is fairly easy to show that, then there is no actual footage of their advanced drones hanging around to be covered up. Drawing attention to it seems like an odd thing to do if no one has actually seen your drones doing anything. Other than your own military that is. I dunno...t'is interesting though. Also, if it is advanced drones that are capable of this kind of flight behaviour, then surely it would have huge implications for space travel/getting to space. A drone that displays the kind of acceleration and speed being talked about must be a better way of getting payloads into space than Musk's giant steel rocket penis's.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 00:54
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:The testimony about the drones swarm, may or may not be related specifically to this video leaked to Corbel, the object moves and flashes like plane. The triangle aperture bokeh effect is pretty much proven given star Jupiter and stars line up exactly and have the same effect. Probably but the only visual description actually given is of flying lights. They navy destroyers are 100s of miles off the coast with a half dozen unidentified lights buzzing them at night for hours. Advanced unidentified drones also aren't "a plane". quote:Can I ask if you think that the triangle video without the testimony, shows anything that is unusual or or unexplainable? It's a flashing light moving past a ship as far as we can see so no. Another reason to doubt that it's a plane though is that would be obvious to both the snoopie team taking the video and the radar guys on-ship. "A plane flew past at one point and we took a video of it" does not show up in the logs describing all the drone activity. quote:Graves was not the WSO for Gimbal, again this is just testimony, does the actual video show anything unusual or not? Why do you think the Navy called it GIMBAL? There's disagreement about whether the rotation is due to the camera but I'll side with experts like Graves that it's the actual object rotating. He was out there and is an expert on the tech they were using. The audio obviously adds the fact that they're picking up a formation of smaller craft on their radar, interacting with the Gimbal. Similar to Flir a plane would have shown up as such on radar and there's further testimony of the frequent unusual radar contacts they were making at the time. quote:What are your thoughts on Go Fast? It's been demonstrated that the apparent movement is due to parallax. It's moving slow enough that it could be explained by a balloon(complicated somewhat by the reaction on the audio, does the US navy not know about weather balloons?), without more information the only notable thing about it is the fact that it's taken within a day of Gimbal. quote:Lets talk about some of the evidence here? Does it show anything unusual, or is the testimony doing all the work? The videos are showing us that there are real objects associated with the testimony. Ratios and Tendency fucked around with this message at 01:17 on May 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 01:03
|
|
|
Bug Squash posted:Maybe I'm just getting old, but this is my third UFO mania. It's also playing out exactly like all the others I've lived through, and all the ones from history too. It's just hard to take it seriously when it's falling into a historical cycle like that. Pretty much, but the difference now is that they are officially saying these things are real, we don't know what they are and they could be aliens. Instead of they don't exist or its swamp gas which was the line up until now. But i'm certainly not expecting some big reveal. It's also funny that the idea of a US government conspiracy to convince people that aliens are here is now considered to be a rational skeptical viewpoint. It is literally straight out of the conspiracy theory world from decades ago - aliens (probably fake) get revealed and presented as a threat to justify military expansion and control of the world.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 01:07
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:See this ties in with what I was saying earlier. I think Mick West and Metabunks explanations for these videos are very convincing, I've certainly not seen any of his naysayers come up with a convincing alternative that fits what the videos show so well. It's not like Metabunk has a paywall, the Pentagon et al have seen these explanations and yet they're still allowing their name to be used in all the media talk about UAPs and whatnot. That's the interesting part to me. That’s what I was saying (badly apparently)! I also didn’t know about metabunk and so I spent part of the evening reading over it. It’s convincing in a lot of ways, but it continues to leave the question of why these intelligent, skilled, and educated operators don’t come to the same conclusions unanswered.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 02:24
|
|
|
The Chad Jihad posted:I like the idea that basically everyone cranks out VN probes as soon as they can. So most every solar system has hundreds of drones buzzing around from dozens of species just observing things and sending back updates that get read thousands of years later. That would be cool, but also scary because if there are that many VN probes buzzing around and replicating it's basically robotic life, and god help us if something more aggressive evolves.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 03:29
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:That’s what I was saying (badly apparently)! I also didn’t know about metabunk and so I spent part of the evening reading over it. It’s convincing in a lot of ways, but it continues to leave the question of why these intelligent, skilled, and educated operators don’t come to the same conclusions unanswered. For the same reason otherwise intelligent, skilled, and educated people can have conferences (and indeed journals) devoted to creation science. Or Homeopathy. Or String Theory. It's really easy - and particularly human - to fall into bullshit and speculation, especially when you have a support group encouraging you and something or a few particularly vague things to point to as evidence. No one is singularly smart enough to avoid falling down this trap in every case. You have to constantly be mindful of yourself and constantly questioning your own conclusions, and god drat if that isn't a hassle that for most of us, most of the time, is extraneous effort that strains our capabilities. And none of us (myself included, of course) like to be told that we're wrong. And the first instinct we tend to have, whether it is cultural or biological, is to fight about it, one way or another.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 06:47
|
|
|
I kinda suspect that the level of hubris where you're equivocating string theory with homeopathy is the kind that will bite you in the rear end one day. 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 07:32
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:Probably but the only visual description actually given is of flying lights. They navy destroyers are 100s of miles off the coast with a half dozen unidentified lights buzzing them at night for hours. Advanced unidentified drones also aren't "a plane". The intermittent flashing is consistent with a planes strobe's / navigation light, the bokeh effect is proven, there were planes overhead due to them being under LAX flight path the angular speed is now shown to be consistent with a plane. There was a drone event as per the reports, all the Pentagon have verified is that they took this video and it was initially unidentified, they don't comment on investigations, perhaps they now know it's a plane taken during the midst of whatever the event was and then submitted perhaps one of many videos etc that were submitted. That this video shows anything unusual is all in the minds of Corbell etc Graves was not up there, he was not WSO for that flight with GIMBAL so he was not out there in that sense, the file was called GIMBAL by the Navy, and the rotation has been shown to occur as the ATFLIR GIMBAL performs an adjustment, why do you think the Navy called the file GIMBAL? If they all know now that Go Fast is high affected by parallax and doesn't show anything low or fast why do they keep appearing on TV with that video playing as part of reel? Why has no-one gone, you know we were wrong on that one at least with what we said about the object's speed/height? Why does Lt Col Chris Cook (ret) expert pilot say on the Discovery channel it's "hauling rear end", surely he looked at the video and instantly with his expert piloting skills and knowledge, went wait a minute 4.2 NM at 28 degrees means it's probably around half the height of the jet and any fast movement is an illusion caused by parallax?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 09:19
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:The intermittent flashing is consistent with a planes strobe's / navigation light, the bokeh effect is proven, there were planes overhead due to them being under LAX flight path the angular speed is now shown to be consistent with a plane. I already agreed that the bokeh video isn't interesting isolated from the unidentified drone sightings that go with it. quote:Graves was not up there, he was not WSO for that flight with GIMBAL so he was not out there in that sense, the file was called GIMBAL by the Navy, and the rotation has been shown to occur as the ATFLIR GIMBAL performs an adjustment, why do you think the Navy called the file GIMBAL? Graves was in the same squadron, knew the guys and flew the same type of jet and he says the object is rotating. Here's a professional Flir technician demonstrating that the object is rotating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzmdSsszf5g Even if the object isn't rotating we have audio associating it with an unidentified formation of smaller vehicles and further testimony describing unusual behaviour. There's also no transponder signal which a jet would have. quote:If they all know now that Go Fast is high affected by parallax and doesn't show anything low or fast why do they keep appearing on TV with that video playing as part of reel? Why has no-one gone, you know we were wrong on that one at least with what we said about the object's speed/height? Why does Lt Col Chris Cook (ret) expert pilot say on the Discovery channel it's "hauling rear end", surely he looked at the video and instantly with his expert piloting skills and knowledge, went wait a minute 4.2 NM at 28 degrees means it's probably around half the height of the jet and any fast movement is an illusion caused by parallax? You'd have to ask him.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 10:55
|
|
|
ashpanash posted:For the same reason otherwise intelligent, skilled, and educated people can have conferences (and indeed journals) devoted to creation science. Or Homeopathy. Or String Theory. Raenir Salazar posted:I kinda suspect that the level of hubris where you're equivocating string theory with homeopathy is the kind that will bite you in the rear end one day. Basically. People wonder why it’s hard to take the loud Hard Science Only contingent in this thread very seriously sometimes, when they post stuff like this. Especially followed by a paragraph that tries to smugly call out the hubris of the expert to dump on them (with only the barest nod toward humility included, of course). They’re as hidebound as the conspiracy theory crowd sometimes.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 11:35
|
|
|
ashpanash posted:For the same reason otherwise intelligent, skilled, and educated people can have conferences (and indeed journals) devoted to creation science. Or Homeopathy. Or String Theory. I would put string theory in a different category it doesn’t make testable predictions which makes it not a scientific theory or hypothesis. While homeopathy and flat earth does (and testing them invalidates their predictions), at least making them a hypothesis.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 11:41
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I would put string theory in a different category it doesn’t make testable predictions which makes it not a scientific theory or hypothesis. While homeopathy and flat earth does (and testing them invalidates their predictions), at least making them a hypothesis. It's always bothered me when people say that string theory doesn't make predictions. It does, but they are just generally the same as relativity and QM. If we had somehow formulated string theory first, then we'd be saying relativity and QM don't make predictions. And at the end of the day, if string theory pans out we'll have a choice of one complete theory, and two incomplete theories that we swap between. There might not be a scientific way to pick between that, but philosophically it's pretty clear that the single complete theory should be favoured.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 12:10
|
|
|
Bug Squash posted:It's always bothered me when people say that string theory doesn't make predictions. It does, but they are just generally the same as relativity and QM. If we had somehow formulated string theory first, then we'd be saying relativity and QM don't make predictions. Why? Just because its neater?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 12:28
|
|
|
I saw an interesting video mockup of the Fravor's tic-tac encounter on reddit. According to the video; if you assume the tic-tac is much smaller and closer to Fravor's jet than he realizes you need very little movement from it for the movement of the jet and the illusion of distance to generate a reasonable approximation of Fravor's experience of it mirroring his descent and then flying over top of him seemingly very fast as he cuts the circle. This isn't a flawless victory, we have the initial "bouncing", Dietrich confirming Fravor's account from a different perspective and the object seemingly disappearing, but it's a super interesting point, and, it also highlights that Fravor and Dietrich are the only actual hard sources in the various Navy sightings for super advanced tech. If we ignore them everything else can be potentially explained by state-of-the-art radar spoofing and drone tech.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 12:38
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:Why? Just because its neater? Is this a joke?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor Never mind that relativity is definitely "wrong" in the sense that there exist conditions where it just breaks down.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 12:39
|
|
|
Bug Squash posted:Is this a joke? No I just didn't know if there was some other pressing reason to pick between two (in this scenario) equally scientifically valid worldviews besides Occam's razor.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 12:46
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:No I just didn't know if there was some other pressing reason to pick between two (in this scenario) equally scientifically valid worldviews besides Occam's razor. You don't consider "well which description of the fundamental nature of reality is actually true" an interesting question worth talking about, but do consider a bunch a blurry videos a deathly serious subject?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 13:00
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:Why? Just because its neater? Because things in the universe all need to play by the same rules. Quantum particles are made of stuff -- they are stuff -- and stuff that has mass needs to exert and be affected by gravity. You can't have one set of rules for big things and another set of rules for small things, because the big things are made of the small things. If we're going to have physics, we need to make sure that everything in the universe follows it and it all comes from the same source, it wouldn't make sense otherwise.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 14:21
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:Why? Just because its neater? Did you miss the multipage analysis about how the best scientific theories are in fact fairly simple and have an elegance to them earlier in the thread?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 14:22
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Did you miss the multipage analysis about how the best scientific theories are in fact fairly simple and have an elegance to them earlier in the thread? yeah like "its aliens"
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 14:42
|
|
|
These loving things are just jpeg artifacts of an expanding yet compressing universe
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 14:47
|
|
|
endocriminologist posted:These loving things are just jpeg artifacts of an expanding yet compressing universe The universe owes a shitton of licensing fees then.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 15:02
|
|
|
Bug Squash posted:You don't consider "well which description of the fundamental nature of reality is actually true" an interesting question worth talking about, but do consider a bunch a blurry videos a deathly serious subject? No? I didn’t know if there was some other factor about string theory that I was unaware of so I asked a clarifying question. It was non-adversarial and asked in good faith. I’m also interested in reading about those topics. DrSunshine posted:Because things in the universe all need to play by the same rules. Quantum particles are made of stuff -- they are stuff -- and stuff that has mass needs to exert and be affected by gravity. You can't have one set of rules for big things and another set of rules for small things, because the big things are made of the small things. If we're going to have physics, we need to make sure that everything in the universe follows it and it all comes from the same source, it wouldn't make sense otherwise. That makes sense for sure, I just didn’t know if there was some special property of String Theory that made it more elegant or better at being descriptive, save that it obviously doesn’t require switching between two different theories. Yngwie Mangosteen fucked around with this message at 15:12 on May 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 15:10
|
|
|
Like, even with a Grand Unified Theory (stringy or otherwise) you'd still use QM and relativity to calculate stuff, the same way you still use Newtonian physics. They would just represent a portion of the Grand Unified Theory that holds true only under certain special circumstances. But it's real obvious that they aren't "correct" in the same sense that Newtonian physics isn't "correct".
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 15:20
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:No? I didn’t know if there was some other factor about string theory that I was unaware of so I asked a clarifying question. It was non-adversarial and asked in good faith. I’m also interested in reading about those topics. It’s not just about switching theories. It’s that our two theories of the understanding of the world, general relativity and quantum mechanics, are incompatible with each other. We know for a fact that gravity as described by general relativity is real. We know for a fact that quantum effects as described by quantum mechanics is real. But so far we have no idea how gravity and the other forces work together because GR doesn’t describe the strong, weak, or electromagnetic forces and QM doesn’t describe gravity. They are just not compatible, yet both GR and QM are undeniable facts that we can observe. String theory is hypothesized to describe all four of those forces but as of now has been untested.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 15:22
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:It’s not just about switching theories. It’s that our two theories of the understanding of the world, general relativity and quantum mechanics, are incompatible with each other. We know for a fact that gravity as described by general relativity is real. We know for a fact that quantum effects as described by quantum mechanics is real. But so far we have no idea how gravity and the other forces work together because GR doesn’t describe the strong, weak, or electromagnetic forces and QM doesn’t describe gravity. They are just not compatible, yet both GR and QM are undeniable facts that we can observe. String theory is hypothesized to describe all four of those forces but as of now has been untested. Very cool, thank you for explaining. I knew that GR explained gravity and QM explained the two nuclears and electromagnetic, and that String claims to be able to reconcile all of it, but I also thought the LHC had failed to find any evidence for the idea of supersymmetry and (greatly?) weakened the argument for String. I'm definitely not a physicist though, I'm just talking about my (poor) understanding of science journalism articles.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 15:30
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:Basically. Ashpanash is probably one of the best posters in the thread as far as understanding of actual science. You just have theories maaaaan It's really loving tiring and frankly the way you operate ruins the ability for many to actually have a discussion about real science. All you want to do is whine about how the people that know things are just as dogmatic as the real conspiracy theory people, which you of course are not. No you are just asking questions. Deep, hard questions, like maybe this blurry radar blob is aliens maaaaan. Anyone that tries to disavow you of your lack of understanding is met with a wall of ignorance and defensiveness where you end up calling someone names until they stop responding. It's not aliens. It won't be aliens until you can show actual proof, and speculation beyond that point is just mental masturbation. I'd really like the science and space thread to be about science and space, not quackery. Please make a new thread for your fantasy woo.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 15:43
|
|
|
Exobiology, biosignatures, exoplanets, technosignature detection, and the Drake Equation are all super cool to discuss, though. 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 15:54
|
|
|
Loam, buddy, I clicked on your post to give you the benefit of the doubt, and hoo boy I won't make that mistake again. We're literally discussing different theories right now. Try to contribute something aside from vitriol. Or keep shouting into the void, it won't matter to me.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 15:55
|
|
|
It's not impossible to imagine a universe in which two seperate theories were required. Perhaps space-time and all it's associated nonsense turns out to be fundamentally seperate from whatever governs the existence of the particles and their behaviours apart from gravity. You would need to find a new theory of relativity that explains how gravity works at the very small scale of course. The universe is ultimately under no obligation to be elegant. But it's just that the history of physics has been time and time again been us discovering that two things are actually one thing, and it feels really really odd that at this last juncture we would find that there this fundamental clumsyness to how it's all put together.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 16:01
|
|
|
I think UFO abduction and other reported types of contact with aliens are interesting sociological phenomena and I like that stuff from a storytelling or folklore point of view, but I agree that a separate thread would be best. I'm interested in the explanations offered for stuff like that, but they tend to be sociological or cultural-historical as well, not really science in the sense of physics or space exploration.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 17:58
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:I think UFO abduction and other reported types of contact with aliens are interesting sociological phenomena and I like that stuff from a storytelling or folklore point of view, but I agree that a separate thread would be best. I'm interested in the explanations offered for stuff like that, but they tend to be sociological or cultural-historical as well, not really science in the sense of physics or space exploration. Absolutely. Betty and Barney Hill were probably abducted by the CIA and dosed with LSD, not aliens. The thing that crashed at Roswell wasn't a weather balloon but it was a balloon designed to look for Soviet nuclear tests, poo poo like that is super interesting even when it turns out to not be aliens but it doesn't belong in this thread. This thread is for phosphene pals and "hey do you think there is anything underneath all that ice?!"
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 18:07
|
|
|
We should probably get a mod to change the thread title, because it's awful misleading. How about : Space Science Thread: In Space No One Can See You Post
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 18:28
|
|
|
Alien chat is just fine, but I do like that new title! I'm in favour of jerrymandering UFOs into a seperate thread. It is a genuinely interesting topic, and 99.99% does happen in the atmosphere rather than space. 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 18:39
|
|
|
At the same time, I don't want to risk becoming the "Watch rocket go up" thread like it is in SAL, where anything that's not aerospace industry chat is booed out. We should have a space to honestly speculate about cosmology, exobiology, cosmic questions like the Fermi Paradox, the Drake Equation, SETI, and so on.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 18:41
|
|
|
Tighclops posted:Betty and Barney Hill were probably abducted by the CIA and dosed with LSD, not aliens. Is there a book or anything on this? My understanding of the case is that they invented the whole thing under hypnosis when they went to a therapist who had no idea what he was doing. Obviously the larger phenomenon of space creatures kidnapping people was already in the culture from decades of science fiction, and the sex stuff is just because people are obsessed with sex and fear rape.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 18:42
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:We should probably get a mod to change the thread title, because it's awful misleading. How about : Space Science Thread: In Space No One Can See You Post Nah. Title needs to be less serious. The worst posts in this thread are the people getting too serious and we don’t need to encourage that. Zesty fucked around with this message at 18:48 on May 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:36 |
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I kinda suspect that the level of hubris where you're equivocating string theory with homeopathy is the kind that will bite you in the rear end one day. That was kind of the point. To show that it 'infects' people at all levels, even those who are accomplished and well-regarded among their peers, and to show that on very, very, VERY rare occasions, this sort of bandwagoning effect can actually have legitimate results. That said, still waiting on those String Theory results. Any day now...
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2021 18:50
|
|