UFO Thread

[IAmTheWalrus]

Kebab joins other weird objects that have been launched into space

https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2022/04/14/keb...


From 'junk food' to 'space junk' lol

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/9446848/famous-artwo...

[tight fart]

I saw this and thought it was a fake Sky news post, but it’s on their website.
https://news.sky.com/story/nasa-picture-of-mars-ap...

[dukeboy749r]

The 'face' on Mars, structures on the Moon.

I do think the lighting and some natural shapes that look 'man made' lend themselves to being (suddenly) proof of alien habitats - for the best of reasons. Nevertheless, sadly, for now, I think they remain nice coincidences

[PRTVR]

An interesting video of three different shots of a similar object, Unidentifiable but I suspect man made, typical the drone shot is quite clear and I automatically suspect CGI .
https://youtu.be/lapTVhEGv6Q
Videos start at @ 1.32

[Pastor Of Muppets]

The thing that always gets me with the UFO question is if they have come such a colossal distance to get here, why do they just bugger off again
without dropping in to say hello?

[McAndy]

Pastor Of Muppets said:

The thing that always gets me with the UFO question is if they have come such a colossal distance to get here, why do they just bugger off again
without dropping in to say hello?

They looked at our leaders and realised we are neither a threat nor a source of new knowledge.

[Pastor Of Muppets]

McAndy said:

They looked at our leaders and realised they are neither competent nor a source of new knowledge.

FTFY

So that's what was hovering over Sturgeons place last week.

[Scabutz]

Pastor Of Muppets said:

The thing that always gets me with the UFO question is if they have come such a colossal distance to get here, why do they just bugger off again
without dropping in to say hello?

Because they land in East Bunblefk USA and the first thing they meet is a 13 toed, cousin-marrying banjo player and think, nope nothing we want to be dealing with here

[eldar]

Scabutz said:

Pastor Of Muppets said:

The thing that always gets me with the UFO question is if they have come such a colossal distance to get here, why do they just bugger off again
without dropping in to say hello?

Because they land in East Bunblefk USA and the first thing they meet is a 13 toed, cousin-marrying banjo player and think, nope nothing we want to be dealing with here

After 2 billion years travelling with limited sex partners the aliens would fit in there just fine, banjo an'all. And just stay quietly eating grits and swapping cousins.

[nute]

I haven't read the whole thread but has the Fermi Paradox been raised yet and also the Drake equation?

Both make interesting reading if you are wondering if we are along/not alone in the universe.

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

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

The interesting factor in the second is how long an intelligent species would last, on average, before destroying itself.

[Scabutz]

Tim Peake commented the tic tac and other Navy videos the thing could be time travellers.

Not sure what more outlandish vast interstellar travel, or time travel.

[take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey]

Scabutz said:

Tim Peake commented the tic tac and other Navy videos the thing could be time travellers.

Not sure what more outlandish vast interstellar travel, or time travel.

IF... and it's an IF that's the size of the Empire state... They're not man made and now. The most credible physics at the moment zupports trans / extra-dimensional.

[Don1]

Time travel is also about interstellar navigation - for the earth a year ago is no-where near where it was a year ago....

The Americans have been talking about dimension travel since the supposed Philadelphia Experiment of 1943.

Anti - gravity drives make more sense to this pea brain.

[annodomini2]

Don1 said:

Time travel is also about interstellar navigation - for the earth a year ago is no-where near where it was a year ago....

The Americans have been talking about dimension travel since the supposed Philadelphia Experiment of 1943.

Anti - gravity drives make more sense to this pea brain.

Both would require changes in our current understanding of physics, ergo they are currently both as plausible.

[skeeterm5]

take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:

The most credible physics at the moment zupports trans / extra-dimensional.

Can you point me at the physics you refer to please.

[Stan the Bat]

skeeterm5 said:

take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:

The most credible physics at the moment zupports trans / extra-dimensional.

Can you point me at the physics you refer to please.

[take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey]

Stan the Bat said:

skeeterm5 said:

take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:

The most credible physics at the moment zupports trans / extra-dimensional.

Can you point me at the physics you refer to please.

I mean nothing more than whereas FTL with anything of mass is generally agreed to be impossible... Same for TT into the past, String (x dimensions) and 'many worlds' theories have not.

Given the understanding in this field is at best immature this leaves the door open... Which is still probabilisticly miniscule but still better than 0.

[deckster]

take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:

I mean nothing more than whereas FTL with anything of mass is generally agreed to be impossible... Same for TT into the past, String (x dimensions) and 'many worlds' theories have not.

Given the understanding in this field is at best immature this leaves the door open... Which is still probabilisticly miniscule but still better than 0.

Calling General Relativity "at best immature" is misrepresenting things somewhat. After 100 years of ever-more accurate observations, we have found nothing to disprove the fundamentals. We're pretty certain it's right, for a certain value of right. Does it answer everything? Clearly not. Do we have any reason to suspect that the basics are wrong? Quite the opposite.

And whilst it's true that if you want FTL travel, you need something outside of our current understanding, that doesn't for a second mean that our current physics "supports", in any way, trans-dimensional travel, wormholes, or anything like that. It just means that we currently believe FTL travel to be impossible.

[annodomini2]

deckster said:

take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:

I mean nothing more than whereas FTL with anything of mass is generally agreed to be impossible... Same for TT into the past, String (x dimensions) and 'many worlds' theories have not.

Given the understanding in this field is at best immature this leaves the door open... Which is still probabilisticly miniscule but still better than 0.

Calling General Relativity "at best immature" is misrepresenting things somewhat. After 100 years of ever-more accurate observations, we have found nothing to disprove the fundamentals. We're pretty certain it's right, for a certain value of right. Does it answer everything? Clearly not. Do we have any reason to suspect that the basics are wrong? Quite the opposite.

And whilst it's true that if you want FTL travel, you need something outside of our current understanding, that doesn't for a second mean that our current physics "supports", in any way, trans-dimensional travel, wormholes, or anything like that. It just means that we currently believe FTL travel to be impossible.

The key weakness of GR is that there are fudge factors in the calculations, part of this is due to scaling units, others are gaps in our understanding, so while it works at all macro scale measurements thus far, there are holes in the calculations, so at worst we can say it is incomplete, based on current observations.

And obviously QM and GR don't align on certain factors, so this also indicates further gaps in our models of understanding of how the universe actually works.

This is the key thing, GR and QM are models, they are mathematical descriptions of how we perceive the universe to work, but they are not the universe and may be correct, incomplete or just plain wrong. Newtons laws which were accepted for centuries, work on the observations of the time and superseded by GR, so for now it's the best we have.

Based on our current understanding, Warp drive without negative energy is theoretically feasible, we don't have the technology (or the mass) to make it feasible, but it is not impossible.

[105.4]

QM = Quantum Mechanics

But what does GR stand for?