UFO smoking gun?

[mistermack]

So how long do you think it would take to move your habitat a distance of five light years?

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

There is evidence, the quality of this evidence can be debated but not the fact it exists. The idea of civilizations colonising the galaxy in the way a propose in an answer to the rebuttal of aliens visiting us is so unlikely due to the distances and speeds involved.

There is not enough evidence to draw any conclusions from. 

How likely or unlikely something is to happen doesn't prove it has happened. It just means that it is possible and no one here is agruing that alien life isn't possible. 

[Moontanman]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

There is not enough evidence to draw any conclusions from. 

How likely or unlikely something is to happen doesn't prove it has happened. It just means that it is possible and no one here is agruing that alien life isn't possible. 

 I am not drawing any conclusions I am suggesting a path to investigate something that has been claimed to be impossible to investigate... 

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

So how long do you think it would take to move your habitat a distance of five light years?

Probably hundreds if not thousands of years but how much do people who are riding around in an RV worry about travel times? You would be taking your entire world with you, travel time would be meaningless like worrying about how long it will take the Earth to complete an orbit around the galactic core. 

[mistermack]

16 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Probably hundreds if not thousands of years but ............

With the best of modern technology, and a tiny craft, you could do it in a hundred thousand years. But not if you wanted to carry enough energy and material to slow down when you got there. 

For a craft the size that you are proposing, it would take millions of years to travel five light years, and a vast amount of energy at both ends, to accelerate and slow down. You might try a gravity assist from the Sun, but the mass of the shielding needed would be self defeating. 

Five light years is approximately the nearest star distance, ( Proxima Centauri, 4.2ly) so you can imagine the time scales needed for what you are actually proposing, spreading across a galaxy that's about a hundred and fifty thousand light years across. 

A crude figure, probably way too conservative, would be 20,000 alpha centauri in a straight line without stops, taking about 200 billion years. 

That's not counting the stops at each replication stage. 

[Moontanman]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

With the best of modern technology, and a tiny craft, you could do it in a hundred thousand years. But not if you wanted to carry enough energy and material to slow down when you got there.

You seem to be stuck with the idea that the colony craft will be going some place specific

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

For a craft the size that you are proposing, it would take millions of years to travel five light years, and a vast amount of energy at both ends, to accelerate and slow down. You might try a gravity assist from the Sun, but the mass of the shielding needed would be self defeating. 

No individual craft has to travel at high speeds, it's the average speed that matters. One space craft would reproduce into millions colonising the entire Oort cloud or much of it and the Oort cloud of one star is thought to come very close to the oort cloud of the next. Since these colonies have no destination but simply move very slowly from one source of materials to another, reproduce and move on eventually you will have billions of colonies all moving toward billions of goals.

http://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/science/physics-and-astronomy/how-long-would-it-take-colonise-the-galaxy

This link assumes we colonise planets but if we have no need of planets then every star can be colonised, even sceptical estimates assert the entire galaxy could be colonised in less than one galactic revolution ~ 250,000,000 years. This is an eye blink in cosmic time. 

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

Five light years is approximately the nearest star distance, ( Proxima Centauri, 4.2ly) so you can imagine the time scales needed for what you are actually proposing, spreading across a galaxy that's about a hundred and fifty thousand light years across. 

Since the Oort cloud of the nearest star comes very close to the oort cloud of Sol and reproducing colonies could make the jump in a few thousand years without even knowing it. There is goal destination only expansion and as the expanding cloud of habitats gets bigger it's average speed gets ever higher. 

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

A crude figure, probably way too conservative, would be 20,000 alpha centauri in a straight line without stops, taking about 200 billion years.

Since we will not be going in a straight line and our goal is to expand in any or all directions the straight line speed is meaningless... 

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

That's not counting the stops at each replication stage. 

Again you are thinking of this as though we are colonising planets, nothing could be further from the truth, stars with no planets would be as desirable or even more so than stars with planets. All stars and even dust clouds would supply the necessary resources.  

http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/2012/01/new-mathematical-study-reveals-that-our.html

Guys, I am really not feeling well, I will continue this in a day or two when I can think clearly. I know the info i am looking for is out there and .1% of the speed of light is the most often used speed but for some reason i can't find anything significant on colonizing the galaxy with artificial habitats. I know it's there, I have sourced it before but I am missing it for some reason. A migraine is throwing me off since this is one of my main areas of interest I know the info exists. I will get back to you guys in a day or so.. 

[mistermack]

The link that you gave made very fanciful estimates, seemingly taken out of thin air, that a craft could cross the distance of ten light years in ninety years. That's about a tenth of the speed of light, and yet you are claiming that no individual craft would have to travel fast.

It's full of gigantic holes. How could a bulky mobile environment be made to AVERAGE one tenth of the speed of light, including acceleration and deceleration phases? My own estimate, of about 20 million years for that sort of distance, is probably wildly optimistic.

Your notion that spreading out, rather than travelling from a to b, is somehow quicker, is simply wrong. The SHORTEST distance from a to b is a straight line. Any other process, like the one you described, is much slower.

An ant can travel from one colony to another in minutes. The colony would take months or years to grow the same distance.

If you actually look at the distances involved, and do the simplest of maths,. the fermi-paradox is no mystery at all.

There are probably thousands of intelligent communities in the Milky Way. They are just too far away to have  made contact. There is no physical way to get material to travel fast enough, and no signalling method that can be detectable over such distances.

[Moontanman]

10 hours ago, mistermack said:

The link that you gave made very fanciful estimates, seemingly taken out of thin air, that a craft could cross the distance of ten light years in ninety years. That's about a tenth of the speed of light, and yet you are claiming that no individual craft would have to travel fast.

It's full of gigantic holes. How could a bulky mobile environment be made to AVERAGE one tenth of the speed of light, including acceleration and deceleration phases? My own estimate, of about 20 million years for that sort of distance, is probably wildly optimistic.

Your notion that spreading out, rather than travelling from a to b, is somehow quicker, is simply wrong. The SHORTEST distance from a to b is a straight line. Any other process, like the one you described, is much slower.

An ant can travel from one colony to another in minutes. The colony would take months or years to grow the same distance.

If you actually look at the distances involved, and do the simplest of maths,. the fermi-paradox is no mystery at all.

There are probably thousands of intelligent communities in the Milky Way. They are just too far away to have  made contact. There is no physical way to get material to travel fast enough, and no signalling method that can be detectable over such distances.

Ok, I'm doing a little better, migraines are a bitch!

You seem to be stuck on the idea of one ship traveling to another star to set up camp. This is not what is happening, One artificial world traveling at 0.1% c travels at an average speed of 0.1% c if they become two habitats traveling at 0.1%c then between them they are traveling at 0.2%c. The individuals are still traveling at 0.1%c but the two are traveling at the equivalent of 0.2%c. 1000 such habitats are traveling at the equivalent of 0.1%c times 1000. Not in a straight line but they would be encompassing a volume of space equal to a much much faster speed. 

These colonies have no destination, no trip time to a destination, just expanding as they encounter natural resources. The habitats are the equivalent of generational starships except they are not traveling to any specific place. The best analogy i can think of is releasing a pair of mice on NA in NYC, no individual mouse could make it across NA but by the time mice appeared in LA there would be billions of them and their forward progress in all directions would be equivalent to many times the speed of an individual mouse capable of colonising hundreds of square miles a day. Each mouse would never travel faster than a mouse normally can but the ever expanding front of mice would travel at outrageous combined speeds and cover many square miles a day.  

In my scenario the galaxy could be colonised in less time than it takes the galaxy to make one revolution even at very reasonable speeds.  

BTW, the Fermi paradox is quite easily explained by technological life being rare. If there were one million technological civilizations in the Milky Way they would average being one in every eight million cubic light years (my math may be way off here) if I am close to being right then none of them would be close enough to be aware of us at this stage. On top of that there is the fact that anything but intentional signals fade out due to interference from dust, ions, and radio emissions well before 2 light years. Looking at it like that we would be aware of a civilization equal to our on a planet orbiting the nearest star...  

[mistermack]

Hi, Moontanman,

I get migraines too, so I know what it's like. Mine are as bad as anyone's I know, including unpleasant vertigo and visual disturbances. So if you ever find a cure, get in touch.

I get what you're saying about the number of units being able to expand exponentially. That's what the human population of the Earth has done over the last few hundred years.

The problem of the scale of the galaxy isn't really affected by this process though. The FRONT of the expansion, if you picture it as a sphere expanding, can only progress at the speed of an individual ship, and the numbers of ships have no effect at all on the maximum speeds possible for the pioneers. So the expansion from the centre can only progress at the top speed of a single ship. Yes, the VOLUME occupied can accelerate, but the DISTANCE from the origin can only increase at the original steady speed.

The only way for that to improve, is new methods for increasing the top speed of the individual ship.

Say the Earth is the origin of the process. Using today's rocket technology, Voyager 1 is the fastest probe humans have launched, and it would take about 100,000 years to reach the nearest star. It weighs less than a ton so it's not in the same size and weight league as what you are proposing. 

The distance from us to the other edge of the galaxy is about 25,000 times the distance to the nearest star. So craft like you propose, travelling at voyager 1 speeds, would finish colonising the most distant part of the galaxy after 25,000 X 100,000 years. Which is  2.5 billion years. 

If you scaled up the size to mobile environment size, as you propose, you would need unheard of quantities of energy to achieve that sort of speed. How many tons would a self sufficient environment comprise? For each additional ton, you would need the energy of one voyager 1 vessel. And as I said earlier, to be able to slow at a destination, you would need the same energy again.

So to sum up, yes, of course the volume colonised could grow faster and faster as you described. But the distance from the centre would not accelerate, it could only move out at the rate of a single ship.

 

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Hi, Moontanman,

I get migraines too, so I know what it's like. Mine are as bad as anyone's I know, including unpleasant vertigo and visual disturbances. So if you ever find a cure, get in touch.

I get what you're saying about the number of units being able to expand exponentially. That's what the human population of the Earth has done over the last few hundred years.

The problem of the scale of the galaxy isn't really affected by this process though. The FRONT of the expansion, if you picture it as a sphere expanding, can only progress at the speed of an individual ship, and the numbers of ships have no effect at all on the maximum speeds possible for the pioneers. So the expansion from the centre can only progress at the top speed of a single ship. Yes, the VOLUME occupied can accelerate, but the DISTANCE from the origin can only increase at the original steady speed.

The only way for that to improve, is new methods for increasing the top speed of the individual ship.

Say the Earth is the origin of the process. Using today's rocket technology, Voyager 1 is the fastest probe humans have launched, and it would take about 100,000 years to reach the nearest star. It weighs less than a ton so it's not in the same size and weight league as what you are proposing. 

The distance from us to the other edge of the galaxy is about 25,000 times the distance to the nearest star. So craft like you propose, travelling at voyager 1 speeds, would finish colonising the most distant part of the galaxy after 25,000 X 100,000 years. Which is  2.5 billion years. 

If you scaled up the size to mobile environment size, as you propose, you would need unheard of quantities of energy to achieve that sort of speed. How many tons would a self sufficient environment comprise? For each additional ton, you would need the energy of one voyager 1 vessel. And as I said earlier, to be able to slow at a destination, you would need the same energy again.

So to sum up, yes, of course the volume colonised could grow faster and faster as you described. But the distance from the centre would not accelerate, it could only move out at the rate of a single ship.

 

 My Migraine is still giving me a fit, I can't at this time find a link to the site that shows how the galaxy could be occupied in less than 250,000 years with the speed of each ship being limited to 0.1% of c. I understand that the top speed is quite slow but the volume enclosed goes up quite fast and that is the point and this happens much faster when you ignore planets and just use things like intra galactic materials. It works quite a bit like the dyson swarm but controlled fusion busts the limit of just using Solar power. I'll try to continue this when i feel better, thinking straight is difficult now, for some reason all I get is repeats of Fermi's paradox and what i am talking about doesn't depend on fermi's paradox although it could affect the idea. 

[Janus]

5 hours ago, Moontanman said:

These colonies have no destination, no trip time to a destination, just expanding as they encounter natural resources. The habitats are the equivalent of generational starships except they are not traveling to any specific place. The best analogy i can think of is releasing a pair of mice on NA in NYC, no individual mouse could make it across NA but by the time mice appeared in LA there would be billions of them and their forward progress in all directions would be equivalent to many times the speed of an individual mouse capable of colonising hundreds of square miles a day. Each mouse would never travel faster than a mouse normally can but the ever expanding front of mice would travel at outrageous combined speeds and cover many square miles a day. 

But the radius of the of the area occupied by the mice cannot increase faster than an individual mouse can walk.   Your first pair of mice produce a generation, it walks outward from the origin.  At some point  it produce a second generation. But if they start spreading out in all directions, a good portion of them would be traveling into the same region already explored by the first generation of mice.  They can only expand their territory by moving out away from the origin.  This means that the area of territory available for them to expand into is less than that for the first generation.   Not only that, but some of the territory that could be covered by the offspring of one first generation pair will overlap that of the offspring of another first generation pair, further restricting the amount of new territory available to them. 

[Endercreeper01]

The question is really about whether everything in reality must have a scientific explanation behind it. After all, science can only know about what can be directly verified and studied, as such some things may simply be outside the reach of scientific inquiry.

Edited June 3, 2018 by Endercreeper01

[Moontanman]

17 hours ago, mistermack said:

Hi, Moontanman,

I get migraines too, so I know what it's like. Mine are as bad as anyone's I know, including unpleasant vertigo and visual disturbances. So if you ever find a cure, get in touch.

I get what you're saying about the number of units being able to expand exponentially. That's what the human population of the Earth has done over the last few hundred years.

The problem of the scale of the galaxy isn't really affected by this process though. The FRONT of the expansion, if you picture it as a sphere expanding, can only progress at the speed of an individual ship, and the numbers of ships have no effect at all on the maximum speeds possible for the pioneers. So the expansion from the centre can only progress at the top speed of a single ship. Yes, the VOLUME occupied can accelerate, but the DISTANCE from the origin can only increase at the original steady speed.

The only way for that to improve, is new methods for increasing the top speed of the individual ship.

Say the Earth is the origin of the process. Using today's rocket technology, Voyager 1 is the fastest probe humans have launched, and it would take about 100,000 years to reach the nearest star. It weighs less than a ton so it's not in the same size and weight league as what you are proposing. 

The distance from us to the other edge of the galaxy is about 25,000 times the distance to the nearest star. So craft like you propose, travelling at voyager 1 speeds, would finish colonising the most distant part of the galaxy after 25,000 X 100,000 years. Which is  2.5 billion years. 

If you scaled up the size to mobile environment size, as you propose, you would need unheard of quantities of energy to achieve that sort of speed. How many tons would a self sufficient environment comprise? For each additional ton, you would need the energy of one voyager 1 vessel. And as I said earlier, to be able to slow at a destination, you would need the same energy again.

So to sum up, yes, of course the volume colonised could grow faster and faster as you described. But the distance from the centre would not accelerate, it could only move out at the rate of a single ship.

 

 

13 hours ago, Janus said:

But the radius of the of the area occupied by the mice cannot increase faster than an individual mouse can walk.   Your first pair of mice produce a generation, it walks outward from the origin.  At some point  it produce a second generation. But if they start spreading out in all directions, a good portion of them would be traveling into the same region already explored by the first generation of mice.  They can only expand their territory by moving out away from the origin.  This means that the area of territory available for them to expand into is less than that for the first generation.   Not only that, but some of the territory that could be covered by the offspring of one first generation pair will overlap that of the offspring of another first generation pair, further restricting the amount of new territory available to them. 

 

8 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

The question is really about whether everything in reality must have a scientific explanation behind it. After all, science can only know about what can be directly verified and studied, as such some things may simply be outside the reach of scientific inquiry.

 I am going to have to concede the idea of colonization of the galaxy being fast. I can't find the info which is as good as it not being there. It came up quite some time ago as a rebuttal to the fermi paradox concerning the idea that if aliens ever existed they would have quickly colonised the entire galaxy so fast no one else would have had the time to do so. 

This is really not part of my argument to begin with so I think I can concede and still continue. 

Yes Ender, you are correct and my argument is that we can directly verify the premise of aliens occupying places like the oort cloud via their waste heat.

My original premise has to do with whether or not some UFO sightings are evidence of non human technology. I think they are and I gave the 1952 washington dc sighting as an example. 

This is an old thread and contains things not relevant to what we are discussing now. I have to go and mow grass, I'll give it some thought. This subject is so willy nilly I think we need specific guidelines to try and separate the wheat from the chaff on both sides.. 

[beecee]

15 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

The question is really about whether everything in reality must have a scientific explanation behind it. After all, science can only know about what can be directly verified and studied, as such some things may simply be outside the reach of scientific inquiry.

 

6 hours ago, Moontanman said:

My original premise has to do with whether or not some UFO sightings are evidence of non human technology. I think they are and I gave the 1952 washington dc sighting as an example. . 

Most scientists I believe, would say we certainly are not alone. The sheer size of the universe, the near infinite numbers of stars and planets, the stuff of life being everywhere we look, make that belief pretty tenable in my opinion. But the fact remains that as yet we have no definitive evidence of any life existing off the earth, and certainly no extraordinary evidence of ETL having visited Earth.  What do I believe to be extraordinary evidence? Alien excreta, alien artifacts, needles, [considering all the anal probing and other medical procedures reported]       As a great man once said, ëxtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence There is nothing more desirable for your's truly to wish for before I kick the bucket, that evidence that we are not alone and an ever increasing number of scientists believe we are getting close to verifying some sort of life from off this planet.

The incident that Moontanman suggests is certainly closer to the positive position of possible non human technology, but extraordinary evidence? There are many weird types of atmospheric and weather phenomena that maybe taken for controlled Alien craft. Some probably yet to be recorded, eg: St Elmo's Fire, balled lightening, cloud shapes etc etc....Radar blips can be caused by temperature inversions layers. We have all seen how big a full Moon appears on the horizon. Simply an example of a convincing illusion created by a perception in relation to surrounding horizon objects. 

Let me say I actually admire the scientific way that Moontanman has approached UFO sightings, and I will agree that although 95% of them are readily explained away by more conventional scenarios, the 5% or so that remain as "Unidentified" should be further investigated by an impartial panel. As someone who has been witnessed to a UFO [emphasis on the U] I would dearly love some convincing confirmation on its origin.

Is it possible that Earth has been visited by some ETI in the past? Of course! but again, we have no extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claim or confirmation. Arguments against that possibility are that time and distances are great barriers for inter-planetary contact. Moontanman's solution though re "expanding  exponentially"with regards to the human race, does have some logic supporting it. 

The whole rotten shame about the question of ETL and UFO sightings is the number of ratbag claims, devious trickery and charlatans out there, that most certainly take the gloss off such a scientifically interested discipline. Wouldn't it be great if governments around the world, could unite and cease the trillions and trillions of dollars spent on militaristic endeavours, and dierct it towards NASA ESA and other space agencies to facilitate further space endeavours and experiments, like a outpost on the Moon, manned Mars missions and even beyond! Dreaming? Please allow an old bastard such as myself that luxury! 

[Endercreeper01]

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

 

Most scientists I believe, would say we certainly are not alone. The sheer size of the universe, the near infinite numbers of stars and planets, the stuff of life being everywhere we look, make that belief pretty tenable in my opinion. But the fact remains that as yet we have no definitive evidence of any life existing off the earth, and certainly no extraordinary evidence of ETL having visited Earth.  What do I believe to be extraordinary evidence? Alien excreta, alien artifacts, needles, [considering all the anal probing and other medical procedures reported]       As a great man once said, ëxtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence There is nothing more desirable for your's truly to wish for before I kick the bucket, that evidence that we are not alone and an ever increasing number of scientists believe we are getting close to verifying some sort of life from off this planet.

The incident that Moontanman suggests is certainly closer to the positive position of possible non human technology, but extraordinary evidence? There are many weird types of atmospheric and weather phenomena that maybe taken for controlled Alien craft. Some probably yet to be recorded, eg: St Elmo's Fire, balled lightening, cloud shapes etc etc....Radar blips can be caused by temperature inversions layers. We have all seen how big a full Moon appears on the horizon. Simply an example of a convincing illusion created by a perception in relation to surrounding horizon objects. 

Let me say I actually admire the scientific way that Moontanman has approached UFO sightings, and I will agree that although 95% of them are readily explained away by more conventional scenarios, the 5% or so that remain as "Unidentified" should be further investigated by an impartial panel. As someone who has been witnessed to a UFO [emphasis on the U] I would dearly love some convincing confirmation on its origin.

Is it possible that Earth has been visited by some ETI in the past? Of course! but again, we have no extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claim or confirmation. Arguments against that possibility are that time and distances are great barriers for inter-planetary contact. Moontanman's solution though re "expanding  exponentially"with regards to the human race, does have some logic supporting it. 

The whole rotten shame about the question of ETL and UFO sightings is the number of ratbag claims, devious trickery and charlatans out there, that most certainly take the gloss off such a scientifically interested discipline. Wouldn't it be great if governments around the world, could unite and cease the trillions and trillions of dollars spent on militaristic endeavours, and dierct it towards NASA ESA and other space agencies to facilitate further space endeavours and experiments, like a outpost on the Moon, manned Mars missions and even beyond! Dreaming? Please allow an old bastard such as myself that luxury! 

It's not that they have to be extraterrestrial in nature. They could have any number of possible explanations, but what I mean is about phenomena outside of the reach of science. UFOs might not be extraterrestrial or even may be non-physical phenomenon, but either way fall outside of the reach of scientific inquiry. If UFOs are of a non physical explanation in any way they would definitely be outside of scientific knowledge.

While extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, that is really only when discussing scientific knowledge. If something is outside of scientific thought, it can still be discussed outside of the context of scientific thought, although not being thought of as strictly true or untrue.

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

It's not that they have to be extraterrestrial in nature. They could have any number of possible explanations, but what I mean is about phenomena outside of the reach of science. UFOs might not be extraterrestrial or even may be non-physical phenomenon, but either way fall outside of the reach of scientific inquiry. If UFOs are of a non physical explanation in any way they would definitely be outside of scientific knowledge.

As I said, most are explained by more mundane explanations. Those that are not readily explained are simply "unidentified" not necessarilly outside the reach of science per se.

If they are Alien controlled space craft from somewhere else, then they are also able to be explained by science as that.

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

 

Most scientists I believe, would say we certainly are not alone. The sheer size of the universe, the near infinite numbers of stars and planets, the stuff of life being everywhere we look, make that belief pretty tenable in my opinion. But the fact remains that as yet we have no definitive evidence of any life existing off the earth, and certainly no extraordinary evidence of ETL having visited Earth.  What do I believe to be extraordinary evidence? Alien excreta, alien artifacts, needles, [considering all the anal probing and other medical procedures reported]       As a great man once said, ëxtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence There is nothing more desirable for your's truly to wish for before I kick the bucket, that evidence that we are not alone and an ever increasing number of scientists believe we are getting close to verifying some sort of life from off this planet.

I think that the evidence you suggest is not a reasonable expectation, we humans take such extraordinary efforts to not contaminate places like Mars it seems unlikely that aliens would want to contaminate the Earth with refuse. 

Quote

The incident that Moontanman suggests is certainly closer to the positive position of possible non human technology, but extraordinary evidence? There are many weird types of atmospheric and weather phenomena that maybe taken for controlled Alien craft. Some probably yet to be recorded, eg: St Elmo's Fire, balled lightening, cloud shapes etc etc....Radar blips can be caused by temperature inversions layers. We have all seen how big a full Moon appears on the horizon. Simply an example of a convincing illusion created by a perception in relation to surrounding horizon objects.

There are lots of odd atmospheric phenomena, some like ball lightning are still mysteries themselves and cannot really be invoked to explain another mystery.  A light in the sky or a mystery blip on a radar screen are really meaningless. Singular events are evidence of nothing but an unexplained singular event. 

 

Quote

Let me say I actually admire the scientific way that Moontanman has approached UFO sightings, and I will agree that although 95% of them are readily explained away by more conventional scenarios, the 5% or so that remain as "Unidentified" should be further investigated by an impartial panel. As someone who has been witnessed to a UFO [emphasis on the U] I would dearly love some convincing confirmation on its origin.

I appreciate that.

Quote

Is it possible that Earth has been visited by some ETI in the past? Of course! but again, we have no extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claim or confirmation. Arguments against that possibility are that time and distances are great barriers for inter-planetary contact. Moontanman's solution though re "expanding  exponentially"with regards to the human race, does have some logic supporting it. 

I start out assuming that ET must follow the same laws of physics we do and the expanding exponentially idea isn't really necessary for this to work. It just shows that individual planets are not necessary and may indeed be avoided for various reasons.   

Quote

The whole rotten shame about the question of ETL and UFO sightings is the number of ratbag claims, devious trickery and charlatans out there, that most certainly take the gloss off such a scientifically interested discipline. Wouldn't it be great if governments around the world, could unite and cease the trillions and trillions of dollars spent on militaristic endeavours, and dierct it towards NASA ESA and other space agencies to facilitate further space endeavours and experiments, like a outpost on the Moon, manned Mars missions and even beyond! Dreaming? Please allow an old bastard such as myself that luxury! 

It's interesting that we seem to think that the US Air Force is the end all of this. other countries do investegate and have a somewhat different take on the issue. 

It's easy to dismiss sightings if they are not seen as a whole, various small snippets can be explained but this does not suggest the entire sighting is bogus. 

The Washington, DC sighting has a huge number of red flags that should be acknowledged by debunkers but are ignored because they make the sighting more difficult to dismiss.

Weather inversion? At least two independent radars tracked the same objects none of these experienced operators agreed with this explanation. Experienced operators said the objects did not resemble weather inversions.  People with little to no experience in this area are the ones who insisted it was weather inversions. 

The UFOs themselves were seen at both close range and distant ranges by many people who were not just independent observers but were pilots and ground crew. many civilians called in to report the objects even though the objects hadn't been reported at this point on any news services. One jet was surrounded by the objects and the pilot asked what do i do, no one had any thing to tell him. ( I think this may be exaggerated somewhat)The objects interacted with civilian aircraft and military aircraft and the sighting occurred over two weekends and persisted for many hours. 

One interesting tidbit was that these sightings had been predicted by other observers due to similar sightings being seen in the days before up the coast and each night the sightings drew closer to DC.  These were dismissed or ignored by the powers that be but others wondered openly what was going to happen when they appeared over the Capital.

The objects did appear to have some intelligent control, our own current use of drones which wasn't thought of at the time seems to shine new light on the sighting. 

I doubt that UFOs are piloted, I have always considered the idea that they would be piloted to be a artifact of the times and human thought. As we have discussed the vast majority of sightings can be explained and many of them are straight up hoaxes or hallucinations. Any sighting that describes "humanoid" aliens is in my book highly suspect. There is no reason to assume that evolution would work out to the same body plans or shapes for them as it has for us.  

There so many clear and obvious pictures from the early years I could fill pages with them. They are either proof positive or hoaxes no other possibility works. 

It is sad that the subject of UFOs has become an international game of who can hoax them best, the signal to noise ratio is ridiculous... 

Edited June 3, 2018 by Moontanman

[beecee]

36 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I think that the evidence you suggest is not a reasonable expectation, we humans take such extraordinary efforts to not contaminate places like Mars it seems unlikely that aliens would want to contaminate the Earth with refuse. 

Yes, but to the very best of our knowledge Mars is probably devoid of life, but still that very slight chance that so far we have missed it, requires that we try not to contaminate the place...The usual conspiracy nuts and hoaxers would have a field day if we didn't. Unlike Aliens visiting Earth, where life is obvious and plentiful and the claims made by some that they have been kidnapped, probed and returned from whence they came.

Quote

There are lots of odd atmospheric phenomena, some like ball lightning are still mysteries themselves and cannot really be invoked to explain another mystery.  A light in the sky or a mystery blip on a radar screen are really meaningless. Singular events are evidence of nothing but an unexplained singular event. 

Not sure about why some mystery cannot be invoked to explain another "unknown" event. But unexplained they certainly are...or in this case unidentified...as in my own sighting many years ago.

Quote

I appreciate that.

I once participated in a forum where any type of sighting, no matter how questionable, was inferred as Alien origin, and all other possible suggestions as to what it may have been, were met with fingers in the ears and nah nah na nah na! 

Quote

I start out assuming that ET must follow the same laws of physics we do and the expanding exponentially idea isn't really necessary for this to work. It just shows that individual planets are not necessary and may indeed be avoided for various reasons.   

Agreed. And also in other ways I suggest. For example, after thousands of claimed visitations and even some contact, and the obvious that they would necessarilly be far in advance of us and have really nothing to fear and not really want of anything, why they don't make themselves known officially. You know, landing at the Kremlin, or the White House, or the lawns of the Parliament in Australia or anywhere else.

 

Quote

It's easy to dismiss sightings if they are not seen as a whole, various small snippets can be explained but this does not suggest the entire sighting is bogus. 

Obviously in many cases it is not bogus and certainly something out of the ordinary was seen. You mentioned drones...yes a possibility. But again I don't see that as extraordinary evidence that a extraordinary claim of this nature would and should require. In essence some extraordinary evidence and verification, would positively answer mankinds greatest age old question of are we alone. Again my opinion, certainly not, but just as certainly, that is my belief...one that I would literally give my right arm for to actually have verified.

Quote

The Washington, DC sighting has a huge number of red flags that should be acknowledged by debunkers but are ignored because they make the sighting more difficult to dismiss.

Hmmm, other possibilities still remain. I don't yet see it as extraordinary evidence where we can say positively,  hey, we have been visited by little green men!

Quote

It is sad that the subject of UFOs has become an international game of who can hoax them best, the signal to noise ratio is ridiculous... 

Agreed. Obviously I have not delved into this as far as you have, and again, I certainly support your suggestion of further examination and investigation. The problem even then is that these things, these UFOs, seem to just flitter in and flitter out again, without giving us time for proper investigation.  

[Moontanman]

31 minutes ago, beecee said:

Yes, but to the very best of our knowledge Mars is probably devoid of life, but still that very slight chance that so far we have missed it, requires that we try not to contaminate the place...The usual conspiracy nuts and hoaxers would have a field day if we didn't. Unlike Aliens visiting Earth, where life is obvious and plentiful and the claims made by some that they have been kidnapped, probed and returned from whence they came.

If a planet has life this becomes even more important, in fact it is at the heart of why I don't think colonising planets is an option that would be used. Life is not necessarily the same thing every place. In fact there is no reason to think that life on another planet would be compatible with Earth life. Various chemicals we use have possible replacements and could very well have just been what we started with. other planets could start with similar but different chemicals. On the other hand life on another planet that is identical to our could be the most dangerous to expose yourself to.    

31 minutes ago, beecee said:

Not sure about why some mystery cannot be invoked to explain another "unknown" event. But unexplained they certainly are...or in this case unidentified...as in my own sighting many years ago.

If I say something is the result of something else we don't have an explanation for the comparison becomes meaningless in explanatory power.   

31 minutes ago, beecee said:

I once participated in a forum where any type of sighting, no matter how questionable, was inferred as Alien origin, and all other possible suggestions as to what it may have been, were met with fingers in the ears and nah nah na nah na!

Sadly this is the rule rather than the exception... 

31 minutes ago, beecee said:

Agreed. And also in other ways I suggest. For example, after thousands of claimed visitations and even some contact, and the obvious that they would necessarilly be far in advance of us and have really nothing to fear and not really want of anything, why they don't make themselves known officially. You know, landing at the Kremlin, or the White House, or the lawns of the Parliament in Australia or anywhere else.

Trying to judge the motivations of aliens is not constructive. 

31 minutes ago, beecee said:

Obviously in many cases it is not bogus and certainly something out of the ordinary was seen. You mentioned drones...yes a possibility. But again I don't see that as extraordinary evidence that a extraordinary claim of this nature would and should require. In essence some extraordinary evidence and verification, would positively answer mankinds greatest age old question of are we alone. Again my opinion, certainly not, but just as certainly, that is my belief...one that I would literally give my right arm for to actually have verified.

You are correct, it is not extraordinary but I think it is enough to justify real scientific interest. 

31 minutes ago, beecee said:

Hmmm, other possibilities still remain. I don't yet see it as extraordinary evidence where we can say positively,  hey, we have been visited by little green men!

I doubt we can get that level of evidence without them actually landing on the white house lawn. Can you suggest how such evidence could be found? 

31 minutes ago, beecee said:

Agreed. Obviously I have not delved into this as far as you have, and again, I certainly support your suggestion of further examination and investigation. The problem even then is that these things, these UFOs, seem to just flitter in and flitter out again, without giving us time for proper investigation.  

Again, aliens are under no compulsion to make sense to us... 

Another really odd thing about the early debunkers of UFOs was their propensity for using excuses that really made no sense. a couple i really liked were "slow moving comets" or "slow moving meteors"  Philip Klaus who was one of the more famous debunkers used these as explanations for UFO sightings, neither make any sense yet they were touted as valid by Project Blue Book... 

[zapatos]

On 5/31/2018 at 12:28 PM, mistermack said:

Evolution works, we know that. But it rarely goes further than the minimum needed for survival. If you look at Chimps, or Bonobos, or Dolphins, or Orangutans, they seem to have hit a brick wall in the intelligence stakes.

 

And yet evolution didn't stop at bacteria.

[mistermack]

5 hours ago, zapatos said:

And yet evolution didn't stop at bacteria.

Yes, that's a fair point. I'm still not convinced though, that constantly increasing intelligence is an inevitable line for evolution to take. It is one successful line though, there's no doubt about that, if you stand back and look at the whole four billion years. 

I tend to look at our own species of modern humans as a freak of nature though, that might be a one-in-a billion occurrence that is unlikely to be replicated on other planets. Human evolution is my favourite science, and the expansion of the human brain hasn't been explained in any satisfactory way, and is really a complete mystery, with just guesses at possible mechanisms.

I used to wonder why other species DIDN'T evolve higher intelligence. From our point of view, you would think that bison could easily defeat wolves, with a bit more intelligence, (and vice versa) but there doesn't seem to be any sign of a trend there.

If you go along with that line of thinking, and look at the rest of the animal kingdom without humans, there is really no sign that any species  could get anywhere near any form of technology for millions of years at least. 

All of our ape cousins are roughly no more intelligent than the last common ancestor, seven or eight million years ago. I'm just proposing it as a possibility, that there is a natural intelligence ceiling that might apply in most worlds, and that our own species breaking through it is a weird and freakish event, not likely to be replicated elsewhere.

 

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

 I'm still not convinced though, that constantly increasing intelligence is an inevitable line for evolution to take.

As well you shouldn't. No particular outcome is inevitable with evolution.

Quote

I tend to look at our own species of modern humans as a freak of nature though, that might be a one-in-a billion occurrence that is unlikely to be replicated on other planets.
 

Agreed, it might be one in a billion. Or one in a million. Or one in a thousand. Or...

Quote

I used to wonder why other species DIDN'T evolve higher intelligence. From our point of view, you would think that bison could easily defeat wolves, with a bit more intelligence, (and vice versa) but there doesn't seem to be any sign of a trend there.

I would suggest the trend IS there. A bison can smell a predator up to three kilometers away. They know how to find and use their horns. Taking on a bison is a very risky proposition for a wolf. Without intelligence a bison would look like a giant hamburger to a wolf.

On the other hand you don't seem to give any credit to the wolf for increasing intelligence even though wolves can work collectively and figure out how to take down a 2000 pound battering ram that can run 40mph, has sharp horns, and can kill a wolf with a kick. The interaction between the wolf and the bison is exactly the kind of thing that fuels evolution and makes increasing intelligence more likely.

It seems to me that you are looking at the development of intelligence on too short a time frame. Over a short period of time the growth looks flat, but over the long term there has been an upward trend.

Quote

All of our ape cousins are roughly no more intelligent than the last common ancestor, seven or eight million years ago.

Citation?

Quote

I'm just proposing it as a possibility, that there is a natural intelligence ceiling that might apply in most worlds, and that our own species breaking through it is a weird and freakish event, not likely to be replicated elsewhere.

Many things are possible. Without evidence though there is no reason to think an "intelligence ceiling" exists.

[mistermack]

You may be right about me not looking at intelligence over a long enough timeframe. I'm comparing the wolf or the bison to humans, and the difference is phenomenal. The ancestor of the wolf is thought to be a fox like animal dating back 34 million years, and there's not much obvious sign of an intelligence increase. 

Humans started a dramatic process of brain-size increase about five million years ago, while our closest cousins like chimps and bonobos underwent no noticeable change. You would have to do your own research to get an idea of the brain size of the ancestors dating from that period. They are all generally described as similar in brains to the modern chimpanzee, and the first human differences were bipedal walking and dental changes, rather than brain expansion.

In any case, it's not clearly known which species were direct human ancestors, and which were side branches.

Ardipithecus Ramidus is a good candidate for the first ancestor after the split, it's older than the famous "Lucy". 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus   Brain size is very chimp-like.  It's dated at about 4.4 million years.

 

[zapatos]

21 minutes ago, mistermack said:

 The ancestor of the wolf is thought to be a fox like animal dating back 34 million years, and there's not much obvious sign of an intelligence increase. 

 

Before we go any further, can you please provide a citation that discusses the intelligence of a fox like animal that lived 34 million years ago?

[Moontanman]

12 hours ago, zapatos said:

And yet evolution didn't stop at bacteria.

Arguably bacteria are the most successful life forms on the planet and everything else is just playing catch up... 

6 hours ago, mistermack said:

Yes, that's a fair point. I'm still not convinced though, that constantly increasing intelligence is an inevitable line for evolution to take. It is one successful line though, there's no doubt about that, if you stand back and look at the whole four billion years. 

Intelligence, our particular type of intelligence, could actually be a dead end. There are some indications that we are responsible for a mass extinction that is going on all around us and if it continues looks to take us out as well. Intelligence might be an evolutionary dead end...  

6 hours ago, mistermack said:

I tend to look at our own species of modern humans as a freak of nature though, that might be a one-in-a billion occurrence that is unlikely to be replicated on other planets.

One in a billion you say? that would indicate at least 300 technologically advanced civilizations just in our galaxy...  

6 hours ago, mistermack said:

Human evolution is my favourite science, and the expansion of the human brain hasn't been explained in any satisfactory way, and is really a complete mystery, with just guesses at possible mechanisms.

I am really not sure what you are saying here, complete mystery seems like something you should be able to give a citation for. Mechanisms is also a bit less than helpful in this context, it seems clear that our complex behaviors and tool making and using ability either drives our brains size and complexity or the brains size and complexity drives those behaviors. Both of these would be called mechanisms.  

6 hours ago, mistermack said:

I used to wonder why other species DIDN'T evolve higher intelligence. From our point of view, you would think that bison could easily defeat wolves, with a bit more intelligence, (and vice versa) but there doesn't seem to be any sign of a trend there.

I think we need a definition of higher intelligence before we can constructively discuss this.  

6 hours ago, mistermack said:

If you go along with that line of thinking, and look at the rest of the animal kingdom without humans, there is really no sign that any species  could get anywhere near any form of technology for millions of years at least. 

Other species already use technology, I'm not sure what you are saying here. Yes we take technology to an extreme no other animal does but even molluscs use technology.  

6 hours ago, mistermack said:

All of our ape cousins are roughly no more intelligent than the last common ancestor, seven or eight million years ago. I'm just proposing it as a possibility, that there is a natural intelligence ceiling that might apply in most worlds, and that our own species breaking through it is a weird and freakish event, not likely to be replicated elsewhere.

Citation please, I can't see how we can say how intelligent an extinct animal was. 

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

As well you shouldn't. No particular outcome is inevitable with evolution.

Agreed, it might be one in a billion. Or one in a million. Or one in a thousand. Or...

I would suggest the trend IS there. A bison can smell a predator up to three kilometers away. They know how to find and use their horns. Taking on a bison is a very risky proposition for a wolf. Without intelligence a bison would look like a giant hamburger to a wolf.

On the other hand you don't seem to give any credit to the wolf for increasing intelligence even though wolves can work collectively and figure out how to take down a 2000 pound battering ram that can run 40mph, has sharp horns, and can kill a wolf with a kick. The interaction between the wolf and the bison is exactly the kind of thing that fuels evolution and makes increasing intelligence more likely.

It seems to me that you are looking at the development of intelligence on too short a time frame. Over a short period of time the growth looks flat, but over the long term there has been an upward trend.

Citation?

Many things are possible. Without evidence though there is no reason to think an "intelligence ceiling" exists.

All very good points, evolution can be likened to an arms race, each side ratchets up to counter the other. Just enough, the goal, if it can be said to exist at all, to allow reproduction of the species.  

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

You may be right about me not looking at intelligence over a long enough timeframe. I'm comparing the wolf or the bison to humans, and the difference is phenomenal. The ancestor of the wolf is thought to be a fox like animal dating back 34 million years, and there's not much obvious sign of an intelligence increase. 

The difference is also driven by body plans, a bison with 10 times the intelligence of a human could still not use a spear much make a spear to ward off a lizard much less a wolf. What would be an obvious sign of intelligence increase? 

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

Humans started a dramatic process of brain-size increase about five million years ago, while our closest cousins like chimps and bonobos underwent no noticeable change. You would have to do your own research to get an idea of the brain size of the ancestors dating from that period. They are all generally described as similar in brains to the modern chimpanzee, and the first human differences were bipedal walking and dental changes, rather than brain expansion.

Brain size is not the only indicator of intelligence, the Flores Island "hobbits" had small brains yet they made and used tools. 

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

In any case, it's not clearly known which species were direct human ancestors, and which were side branches.

Ardipithecus Ramidus is a good candidate for the first ancestor after the split, it's older than the famous "Lucy". 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus   Brain size is very chimp-like.  It's dated at about 4.4 million years.

While brain size is no doubt important brain complexity is important as well and a genius brain is not very useful unless the body plan allows intelligence to be used.  

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Before we go any further, can you please provide a citation that discusses the intelligence of a fox like animal that lived 34 million years ago?

I'd like to see that as well... 

[mistermack]

From wikipedia " There is general agreement on the most ancient record, which shows that feliforms and caniforms emerged within the super-family Carnivoramorpha 43 million years before present(YBP).^[3] The caniforms included the fox-like genus Leptocyon whose various species existed from 34 million YBP before branching 11.9 million YBP into Vulpes (foxes) and Canini(canines). "   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_wolf