Discussion
Stan the Bat said:
Of course we do, we're in their simulation. 
Maybe we are, but we're not currently smart enough to know.Another way to look at it is using the Kardashev scale. This is a measure of energy consumption, but that is a good comparison as the more technologically advanced we get the more energy we will be able to produce and consume. We are currently estimated to be just above 0.7 on the scale, but are still likely a few hundred years from reaching type 1, which is the lowest level on the scale.
QJumper said:
Skeptisk said:
Rather that just write that, could you provide some justification for your statement?
The justification being that traditionally scientific advancement has been exponential. It's therefore reasonable to assume that our scientific understanding will have grown substantially in a couple of hundred years, and even more so in a couple of thousand.If one make the assumption that human civilisation will last at least a few thousand year or more, then it's therefore not unreasoable to posit that scientific understanding is in its infancy.
Doesn't make it fact to say so, but it's not an unreasonable suggestion.
As far as I know the improvements are not because of any fundamental changes in our understanding of the universe.
The difference matters because it means that nothing we have made via better technology has allowed us to do things that contradict our understanding of nature or limits imposed. Look at rocket technology. It is still very difficult to send something to the moon, even though the computers used today are so much better. It doesn’t change the basic fact that you need an enormous amount of energy to put something into orbit.
Skeptisk said:
I think people confuse science with technology. Your current smartphone is much more powerful than one built twenty years ago but that is because there is constant, small improvements in how we make them, what we make them from and how we program them.
As far as I know the improvements are not because of any fundamental changes in our understanding of the universe.
The difference matters because it means that nothing we have made via better technology has allowed us to do things that contradict our understanding of nature or limits imposed. Look at rocket technology. It is still very difficult to send something to the moon, even though the computers used today are so much better. It doesn’t change the basic fact that you need an enormous amount of energy to put something into orbit.
The problem is people are seeing things that defies our understanding, these are military people along with scientists, As far as I know the improvements are not because of any fundamental changes in our understanding of the universe.
The difference matters because it means that nothing we have made via better technology has allowed us to do things that contradict our understanding of nature or limits imposed. Look at rocket technology. It is still very difficult to send something to the moon, even though the computers used today are so much better. It doesn’t change the basic fact that you need an enormous amount of energy to put something into orbit.
There may come a time when ani gravity is possible, is it not better to have an open mind and examine what is happening?
Skeptisk said:
I think people confuse science with technology. Your current smartphone is much more powerful than one built twenty years ago but that is because there is constant, small improvements in how we make them, what we make them from and how we program them.
I'd actually suggest the opposite, quite often the emergence of new science or at least expansion of detail to understand new implications of existing science is usually driven by the requirement rather than the technology appearing as a result.That's not to say that anything and everything is possible, just that we as a species have a strong track record of believing that our current state of knowledge is as far as we're ever going to get and then being surprised when we end up in a situation 50-100 years down the road where impossible dreams have suddenly become a reality through incremental development.
In 1880 personal horseless carriages were an impossible dream despite the contemporary science permitting it. In 1920 cars were becoming accessible but if you suggested to even the most qualified automotive engineer in the world that by 1980 cars would be cheap enough that virtually anyone could afford them, that even the cheapest cars could do 100mph and seat 4 in more space and comfort than even a contemporary Rolls Royce could offer, would require minimal maintenance every 10,000 miles and consume only a few gallons of fuel to cover hundreds of miles they would have thought you insane. They would have been correct to think that too as the technology would have been impossible back then with the contemporary understanding of science and engineering.
Better understanding of the consequences of quantum physics is only now starting to have an impact on technology now we've started running out of ideas using what we already have. The incremental improvement of technology in portable phones has gone from a minority of people who need them despite their inconvenience and expense, to them being spectacularly powerful and everyone needing them in their day to day lives, a transformation which has at least partly relied on the incrementally developed understanding of quantum physics.
Rockets still need to explode a lot of chemicals to get into orbit but the incremental development of that technology is pushing it into a space (no pun intended) where it is not just commercially viable but will likely become publicly accessible (albeit perhaps only for the wealthy) in our lifetimes. Who knows what technological requirements that societal change will manifest.
I daresay even if we discovered some new hypothetical physics tomorrow that unified quantum and classical, but as a consequence explained some of the scientific challenges around fusion power, but also allowed for the possibility of reactionless propulsion or FTL travel in the detail. I'd suggest that we would be more likely to spend the following decades using our better understanding to build fusion plants to solve our immediate fossil fuel problem and fusion rockets to explore the solar system (and frankly exploit its resources so we can stop harming our own planet).
Research would begin but it would likely be decades before scientists unravelled the science to actually create the FTL technology, and even then it would probably be driven by the needs of the hypothetical spacefaring society that's resulted from widely accessible fusion rocket power and represent an incremental step to that technology.
Who knows we might be in that position right now? Glimpses of simultaneous action at a distance, Alcubierre based theories that suggest that FTL is probably impossible but just might not quite be completetely impossible. Only time will tell whether the dream really is impossible or not, but there are too many unanswered questions with our existing knowledge science to dismiss it out of hand IMHO.
I think all of us wish that science will come up with some magic bullet to allow us to reach the stars in our lifetimes, but the fact is that it's never worked like that. We've always chipped away at problems, learnt something new and moved onto the next problem, not the other way round.
Skeptisk said:
I think people confuse science with technology. Your current smartphone is much more powerful than one built twenty years ago but that is because there is constant, small improvements in how we make them, what we make them from and how we program them.
As far as I know the improvements are not because of any fundamental changes in our understanding of the universe.
The difference matters because it means that nothing we have made via better technology has allowed us to do things that contradict our understanding of nature or limits imposed. Look at rocket technology. It is still very difficult to send something to the moon, even though the computers used today are so much better. It doesn’t change the basic fact that you need an enormous amount of energy to put something into orbit.
Perhaps, but our scientific knowledge continues to fill gaps too. Science also covers things like health/medicine as well as technology, and those areas develop, such as in genetic research. Even our fuindamenal understanding has gaps, ae we don't fully understand things like gravity, only it's effects.As far as I know the improvements are not because of any fundamental changes in our understanding of the universe.
The difference matters because it means that nothing we have made via better technology has allowed us to do things that contradict our understanding of nature or limits imposed. Look at rocket technology. It is still very difficult to send something to the moon, even though the computers used today are so much better. It doesn’t change the basic fact that you need an enormous amount of energy to put something into orbit.
Like I said though, I'm not insisting that it's in in its infancy, merely that history suggests it's not an unreasonable assumption.
thegreenhell said:
Stan the Bat said:
Of course we do, we're in their simulation.
Maybe we are, but we're not currently smart enough to know.Another way to look at it is using the Kardashev scale. This is a measure of energy consumption, but that is a good comparison as the more technologically advanced we get the more energy we will be able to produce and consume. We are currently estimated to be just above 0.7 on the scale, but are still likely a few hundred years from reaching type 1, which is the lowest level on the scale.
AceRockatansky said:
SOL foundation disclosure plan seems pretty comprehensive. I need to watch a bit more to fully understand it, but send like they're pretty committed to it.
Just watched 5 minutes of it before I turned it off. It's yet more waffle with very little substance and timescales for disclosure have been moved back to 2030, whatever that means,I'm not a sceptic, I really want to believe we have irrefutable proof that we've been visited by advanced alien species, but I'm also a rational person and won't go on flights of fancy based on half-truths and uncorroborated 3rd party accounts. So far nothing I've watched or read has convinced me in the slightest that what these people are selling is true.
Guvernator said:
AceRockatansky said:
SOL foundation disclosure plan seems pretty comprehensive. I need to watch a bit more to fully understand it, but send like they're pretty committed to it.
Just watched 5 minutes of it before I turned it off. It's yet more waffle with very little substance and timescales for disclosure have been moved back to 2030, whatever that means,I'm not a sceptic, I really want to believe we have irrefutable proof that we've been visited by advanced alien species, but I'm also a rational person and won't go on flights of fancy based on half-truths and uncorroborated 3rd party accounts. So far nothing I've watched or read has convinced me in the slightest that what these people are selling is true.
So they now have a benchmark process that proceeds any previous disclosure legislation, so if a document is postponed, there has to be a declassification plan for each item, this requires a committee to classify the disclosure timeline with a maximum of 25 years. The main difference is that a reason has to be applied why not to declassify, otherwise it is presumed to be declassified.
They also have specific descriptions of particular items which fall under this legislation, so observations cannot be swept under the carpet. The observation needs to be disclosed under the schumer amendment legislation and eminent domain is exercised.
The objective being to conduct research and careful scientific analysis of these instances and any potential discoveries/objects. They will also exist for policy making and advising congress.
Generally speaking.
AceRockatansky said:
Guvernator said:
AceRockatansky said:
SOL foundation disclosure plan seems pretty comprehensive. I need to watch a bit more to fully understand it, but send like they're pretty committed to it.
Just watched 5 minutes of it before I turned it off. It's yet more waffle with very little substance and timescales for disclosure have been moved back to 2030, whatever that means,I'm not a sceptic, I really want to believe we have irrefutable proof that we've been visited by advanced alien species, but I'm also a rational person and won't go on flights of fancy based on half-truths and uncorroborated 3rd party accounts. So far nothing I've watched or read has convinced me in the slightest that what these people are selling is true.
So they now have a benchmark process that proceeds any previous disclosure legislation, so if a document is postponed, there has to be a declassification plan for each item, this requires a committee to classify the disclosure timeline with a maximum of 25 years. The main difference is that a reason has to be applied why not to declassify, otherwise it is presumed to be declassified.
They also have specific descriptions of particular items which fall under this legislation, so observations cannot be swept under the carpet. The observation needs to be disclosed under the schumer amendment legislation and eminent domain is exercised.
The objective being to conduct research and careful scientific analysis of these instances and any potential discoveries/objects. They will also exist for policy making and advising congress.
Generally speaking.
Interestingly it was scuppered by a group lead by Mike Turner, apparently one of the most corrupt politicians in the US and a guy who is deep in the pockets of defence companies and represents Dayton, Ohio.....the location of Wright-Patterson AFB.....if you believe those rumours.
Ash_ said:
AceRockatansky said:
Guvernator said:
AceRockatansky said:
SOL foundation disclosure plan seems pretty comprehensive. I need to watch a bit more to fully understand it, but send like they're pretty committed to it.
Just watched 5 minutes of it before I turned it off. It's yet more waffle with very little substance and timescales for disclosure have been moved back to 2030, whatever that means,I'm not a sceptic, I really want to believe we have irrefutable proof that we've been visited by advanced alien species, but I'm also a rational person and won't go on flights of fancy based on half-truths and uncorroborated 3rd party accounts. So far nothing I've watched or read has convinced me in the slightest that what these people are selling is true.
So they now have a benchmark process that proceeds any previous disclosure legislation, so if a document is postponed, there has to be a declassification plan for each item, this requires a committee to classify the disclosure timeline with a maximum of 25 years. The main difference is that a reason has to be applied why not to declassify, otherwise it is presumed to be declassified.
They also have specific descriptions of particular items which fall under this legislation, so observations cannot be swept under the carpet. The observation needs to be disclosed under the schumer amendment legislation and eminent domain is exercised.
The objective being to conduct research and careful scientific analysis of these instances and any potential discoveries/objects. They will also exist for policy making and advising congress.
Generally speaking.
Interestingly it was scuppered by a group lead by Mike Turner, apparently one of the most corrupt politicians in the US and a guy who is deep in the pockets of defence companies and represents Dayton, Ohio.....the location of Wright-Patterson AFB.....if you believe those rumours.
The newly enacted law that got through refers to documentation, so all government wide UAP records have to be transferred to the collection and reviewed for disclosure or not.
Here's a summary
https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.com/2024/01/...
Edited by AceRockatansky on Thursday 15th February 10:07
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68515515
Well that puts that to bed then,Project Blue Book AARO has spoken.
Well that puts that to bed then,
ks: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/08/pent...
So comprehensive study shows no evidence of aliens, alien technology, alien landings or UFOs being aliens. What a surprise.
It won’t have any impact on the conspiracy theorist nuts who want to believe.
So comprehensive study shows no evidence of aliens, alien technology, alien landings or UFOs being aliens. What a surprise.
It won’t have any impact on the conspiracy theorist nuts who want to believe.
And this calling-out of a “self-licking ice cream cone” around this issue is interesting: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/27/sean...
Supernova190188 said:
Brother D said:
This morning multiple reports of high altitude lights...
Very interesting listening to that, considering there are multiple pilots involved who will be very experienced at seeing lights in the sky. Strange but interesting. Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff