mooeypoo

Interesting, I'll check it out. Again, I'm not saying it's crap, I'm just saying I wouldnt' completely define it as science just yet. On the other hand, I'm not sure I'd call the anthropic principle science either, so I guess these theories are in a good place

But that's the main problem, Cap'n. These hypotheses are based on so many 'ifs' that they're often unrealistic because of the ifs. Iffff.... a graviton is detected... Ifffff there's a graviphoton.... Iffff there's hyperspace.... Ifffff we can reach it... then sure, hey, we can have teleportation! I'm not saying it's not interesting btw, I love those ideas, but I am not sure I'd call them science just yet. What's the difference between this type of idea and the startrek subspace idea? They're both equally 'logical' on the basis of many 'ifs' that are yet to be determined, but there are so many 'ifs', that the idea starts to look like it's not really realistic at all. ~moo

I do hope you actually know how to properly handle a weapon now. You can be complacent with anything...really.. but a gun. I'm wondering what would happen if your complacentness would've been while aiming the weapon not at your foot, but at someone else's foot. Or at someone else's window. Accidentally. A different kind of "oops", isn't it.

Excellent, please do, so we can actually talk about this properly, cap'n. I'd love to see the science articles about hyperspace and how it may be used for teleportation. Again, the fact that the army is interested in it isn't much of a scientific reassurance. Can you get the AAIAA paper? the full one? I only see the cover page.

Ponderer, this isn't your fantasy-world-forum, this is a science forum. Here, we make claims and we back them up. Also, the fact the government is interested in something isn't really good science support on its own; the government supported lots of things that had no bearing in reality, like ESP experiments in the 60s, for instance. Interest by the army or by the government doesn't mean the science is any good. So, Ponderer, if you have any sort of scientific backing (hell, a coherent explanation would be nice for a start) to this suggestion of yours for a teleportation device, please feel free to share it with us. You will find it very hard to convince anyone in here of anything without some sort of serious scientific discussion, ponderer. ~moo

Ponderer speculative suggestion was moved to speculation: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=51979.

Seeing as neither 'memebox' nor 'youtube' are peer reviewed scientific sources, this belongs in speculations until anyone can actually show otherwise. Please keep speculative subjects in speculations, where they belong. When it comes from a moderator, ponderer, it's not really a request.

Okay, first off, ponderer, it's a polite thing to do to either split the "quote" tags or write [...] when you *trim* people's original posts you reply to, so we all avoid out of context explanations. Second, I'm sure this is a joke, though I can't say I understand what's funny about it. Obviously, I continued to explain why this is implausible, if not outright impossible. Since "hyperspace" is nonscience (and nonsense) I assume the rest of your explanation is just an attempt to be funny. Even though this -- -- is not just not really amusing, it's incomprehensible. What are you saying, exactly, are you joking around, and if not, what manifold are you talking about, which hyperspace, and how is any of this even mildly related to reality? ~moo

The 'fine tuning' that religious texts talk about relates to life of humans. That's not a statement about alien life, it's a statement about us. Genesis speaks of God creating the universe and then *humanity*. The fine-tuning argument is about human life. The universe, in contrast, is far from suitable to life. We need special equipment to go a few kilometers above the surface - let alone outside of the atmosphere. The majority of the planets around us (not just in the solar system) are either too far from their stars (and hence, too cold/no atmosphere) or too close to their stars (and hence too hot, thick atmosphere) to sustain any sort of life as we know it. Could there be life as we don't know it? Perhaps. But that would still be against the biblical account of creation, wouldn't it? It would still show that the universe was created to support other life, rather than *us* in particular, like the bible claims. Yeah, I agree, the Anthropic principle - and its explanations/answers/whatevers is a problem in physics as well as philosophy. Not everyone agrees on the proposed solutions, and I wouldn't use it in a philosophical argument at all. It could be interesting to talk about it in another thread, though. We've had that talk in the SPS club, and the consensus is that there's no consensus Intelligent design speaks *SPECIFICALLY* about human life, though. It doesn't matter if life in general is abundant in space (which is unlikely for several reasons, but still), because intelligent design is referring to God and the bible, and the story of Genesis is about humans - in god's image - not about some life we never saw before or don't fit our usual definition.

I didn't say it doesn't count, I said it's unreliabe as proof. Historical accounts need to be accompanied by proof to be reliable. Just having a story, a painting, or a myth is not enough. You need context and external support. Otherwise, it's not proof. Really, we will all do better if we try to avoid strawmanning each other's claims, eh? ~moo

If it's that simple, sure. profound, maybe, logical? not so much. "Before the universe" makes no sense logically. All good and all knowing *AND* all powerful (as was discussed in the other thread) makes little logical sense too. In other words, you don't care to reason, you just want us to reason for you. ~moo

That's not evidence, though, that's anecdotal situation that can be interpreted in various ways. Those aren't evidence for alien visitations, King. ~moo

What evidence did he ignore, and where is the peer review article that reviews said evidence?

Auto-posting comments with links is known as spam, and is illegal in many countries, and is against the netiquette in all countries. Asking a *forum* that otherwise fights spam on a daily basis to help you formulate spam bots is simply bad taste. Closed.

This is why I was arguing that "UFOs" should stick to the "Unidentified Flying Object" definition. There's absolutely zero questions that those exist. We see them, we know of them. They stop being UFOs when we identify them (obviously). They aren't necessarily alien visitations just because we can't explain them. I think we should do a better job separating alien visitations vs. ufos in this discussion, if we want it to make any sort of sense. If I see something flying in a weird way in the night's sky, it's a UFO. That doesn't make it an alien aircraft. To be convinced that it's an alien aircraft, I need proof that (a) alien aircrafts exist and that (b) in this particular case it was an alien aircraft. You can see, then, how the two (UFOs and Alien Visitations) are said to be different arguments here. ~moo

I'm not a treknophile (nice, swansont.. nice.. it's called "trekkie" or "trekker"... just sayin'.. not.. uh.. not that.. that I'm either.. of those... ) but I do have some books on star trek physics and I like star trek in general. In star trek, the transporter didn't require infinite velocity, it required extremely high amounts of storage and input reading. Here's the "rough" description: A computer scanner reads through the entire body down to the submolecular level, and maps it, then disintegrates the person. Another beam is then sent to the destination, "cleans out" the area (using "force fields" - that's the tubular blue effect, supposedly) and then reassembles the person according to the map, from the subatomic level, atom by atom, molecule by molecule. In star trek "Enterprise" (the quite horrible prequel to the original series) they discussed a few of the problems with such devices; first, they started with a non-biological transporter - the logic was that in a non biologic transporter, you don't have to go to the subatomic level in your readout, you can stick with the molecular level; worse case, the tomato you beamed up/down has tiny variation in taste. Or emerges blue. Still. No big loss. This principle works very similarly to the star trek "replicator" that takes raw matter (whatever it was) from a 'bank' and uses the molecules to create the object. But non-animate objects don't require as much accuracy as living biological stuff, obviously. The main issue here is the storage and readout. The amount of information is *HUGE*. To read each and every atom in the human body - and its EXACT location and interaction with the entire mass -- as well as its charge or other elements requires huge capacity, and huge computational powers. Think of the brain! one tiny variation, and you lost memories? the ability to speak? who knows. As Professor Krauss explains in his video below, one of the main issues here in terms of reading each and every atom is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, where you can know *either* where the atom is *or* what they are doing. Never both. In star trek, btw, they "solve it" by having very handy "Heisenberg compensators". Go science. Also, when a beam of information passes through any medium (be it space for certain distances or, more common in star trek, an alien atmosphere) it degrades - you need to use some sort of error correction. Using error correction on a string that describes the molecules of a tomato is one thing. Using error correction on a strong that describes a person is quite another. Here's a short explanation from Professor Lawrence M. Krauss about the transporters: mD7X9vGMX0k Here are a few references: "The Physics of Star Trek" by Laurence M. Krauss (great book for star trek enthusiasts, and physics aficionados in general) http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Star-Trek-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/0060977108 An explanation about some of the Physics behind star trek technologies (from the NASA site): http://ssdoo.gsfc.nasa.gov/education/just_for_fun/startrek.html. And wikipedia (good place to hunt for more references) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transporter_%28Star_Trek%29

Sure, but when you construct a 'cartoon' of one extreme vs. the other, the skeptics - as in those who are *your* definition of skeptics, rather than the 'denier who hides behind a 'skeptic' definition' - are not one of the extremes. they are in the middle. Thats the point. I never -ever- said that alien visitations do not exist. I never -ever- said that alien visitations are impossible. I am a skeptic of UFO sightings' explanations as alien visitations, because those are claims that require proof - proof I have yet to see. Should I recieve such proof, and the proof is found to be valid according to the scientific method (to avoid scams, tricks, and logical fallacies) I am more than willing to change my mind. I am not the only one. It seems to me, Mootanman, that you tend to group those who share my view with the "deniers" too quickly. I might be wrong, but thats what i get from your tone and explanations. It's not the case, and it leads to strawman fallacies. So the insistence on defining skeptics in the right 'side' (or rather, mid?) of the debate is important here. ~moo

Moontanman , I think your depiction is a bit unfair. In your cartoon, if anything, the two sides should be UFO believers and UFO deniers. In the middle should be the Skeptics. Skeptics mean they're not on either side, their decision swayed by belief. I don't think any skeptic said "impossible" to alien UFOs. We simply said we need evidence - and since the claim is extraordinary, the evidence should fit.

By all means, bring it. Do remember, though, that since extraordinary claims require extraordinary measures. If you want to open a new thread to discuss the evidence for UFOs being alien visitation, feel free, I'll answer those there. ~moo

But there already *ARE* experiments! From the Min Min Lights to Norwegian swirls of light, to many others, people *DO* check these out, and they *DO* provide information and explanation. You're treating this as if science is completely ignoring these sightings. ~moo

Moontanman, popular usage in this case isn't relevant. We're a science forum , and we go by scientific-minded inquiry. For that matter, "popular" definition doesnt matter at all even for weight/mass confusion. In popular usage, many people measure weight in kilograms, even though that's scientifically totally bogus. In this forum, we try to go by relevant rational inquiry. There's no shred of evidence to suggest ANY UFO to be alien visitation. If you want to ask "if aliens visit here, where did they come from" then ask that. If you want to ask UFOs, then prepare to accept answers that challenge the "common" "popular" definition that is, quite simply, baseless. ~moo

This is a good exmaple, btw. If we want to see what the *highest* number the scale records, then "320" is it. If we want to see what the stable force is recorded, then it's 160lb. When you have a ball falling from a distance, though, eventually it will "settle" on the spring (after its motion is damped). But when it settles, it will do so according to the ball's weight regardless of the falling part. If you want to measure the force INCLUDING the impact from the fall, then the "max" readout is probably what you're looking for.

This makes no sense, Moontanman. How do you know what UFOs are if they're things we don't identify!? I don't get it. You're jumping to conclusion when a conclusion isn't warranted. Do you have *any* form of proof to even SUGGEST reaching to this conclusion? That's why this discussion is so difficult. You're assuming UFOs are alien entities. We're assuming nothing. I never said UFOs *can't* be aliens. But there are about a 1000 different options of what they can be other than aliens, options that are more supported by evidence, and require less conjuncture to the extraordinary. UFOs can be flying unicorns from another dimension, too, but the reason we're not quite considering this option here is because stating so is so "out there" that it will require extraordinary evidence to even suggest this is relevant option. My problem with the entire "UFO might be alien" bit is that we tend to forget that this is *ANOTHER* assumption that requires extraordinary evidence. Occam's razor. What's more plausible - that the unidentified objects are likely natural or man-made things we misinterpret because they look weird, or that they are objects from another world, belong to an alien species that is otherwise wonderfully talented in hiding, but then flops, occasionally, with events like these. It's so out there, honestly, that the 'other' option must exist, or the entire argument is moot. And this, with all honesty, is an unfair claim. Scientists *ARE* looking at those objects, that's how some of them are explained. They just come up with explanations that don't involve aliens. The fact the answer doesn't fit your desired outcome doesn't mean science is scared of the subject, ignores it, or is involved in some conspiracy. Many of those events ARE investigated. Most that are eventually investigated *DO* have answers, and those answers don't involve alien aircrafts. ~moo

Noble attempt, but I don't think it worked This isn't a "simple" question. It's a combination of forces (one depends on time) *or* a question of preservation of energies. Either way, those are usually things that are a bit different than the basic highschool physics. They're far from being hard, though, they're just not immediately intuitive. ~moo

Density (rho) can be a function of volume, too, not necessarily scalar. For that matter, if the object is denser in the center and gets less dense as it moves away from the center, then the rho is not scalar, it's a function of space (x,y,z).