There are possible ways of bending spacetime to arrive quicker.
UAP - Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Also - it would be relatively easy to populate the galaxy using solar sails in a few million years no?
Most animals will in all likelihood not discover knowledge humans have, and they will never know they didn't. There's a difference between humans and other species on earth, but still, it's not inconceivable to imagine there being knowledge out there humans will never discover, and never know they didn't. Considering the size and age of this galaxy, intelligent life having spawned before us, will likely have had ample time to find us if they "wanted". Also, technology a million years down human evolution, let alone alien, would probably look like magic or be unrecognisable to us. If they exist out there, didn't end themselves and or still find exploration interesting, they're probably already here a long time ago, I say.
We don't fully understand spacetime and gravity according to quantum theory. We think the laws of physics are universal and a lot of the constants we can be sure of, but it's not a definitive yes.
That's not a given at all. It might be literally impossible, no matter how powerful you are.
Yep, that's true. This is why the Fermi Paradox is a thing. The galaxy should be absolutely full of life, and yet we've seen exactly zero indication that there's any out there. We've got a lot of fancy techniques to figure out stuff through telescopes, so if anything was near us (in galactic terms) we would expect to have seen some signs by now. Certainly we think we'd be able to detect a Dyson Sphere, for example. And yet there's nothing. It's a bit worrying, really.
Last edited:
With the emphasis on possible. Yes.
But my point, while thinking about the distance and time was to consider that any such venture would need a purpose to justify it.
So what do we think would be such a purpose.
Accepted.
Yeah the fermi paradox is fecked. I'm coming round to the idea that time is a bigger factor than the number of stars. Chances of two intelligences coming about in the same million or so years outweighs the sheer amount of possible birthplaces. Or something to that effect. Think that would tie itself to the great filter idea.
So why is all this even a big deal at this point?
Yeah, I tend to think life might be ridiculously unlikely to happen in the first place, so when it does happen it's probably far away in time and space to others. That'd be the good news for us, since that could mean we're destined to basically colonize the galaxy. If we make it that far.
We don't really even understand gravity that well.
Doesn't the drake equation account for al of that?
A lot of the numbers are just estimates/best guesses aren't they? Aside from number of stars.
If by possible you mean there are conjectured and entirely unproven ways to bend spacetime that require colossal levels of an unknown, purely imaginary type of energy... Then yes.
Last edited:
It is a way of looking at how the probability of each factor would alter how many advanced civilisations there could be in the milky way. As many of the factors can't really be known (due largely to us having a sample size of 1) it isn't a predictive tool and merely helps us think about the Fermi Paradox.
Last edited:
Mick West again sums things up really nicely.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...s-and-i-dont-believe-the-alien-hype-heres-why
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...s-and-i-dont-believe-the-alien-hype-heres-why
So what's the story with this moving along geodesics stuff
Yep, that's very good.
It's a damned shame that more news outlets don't call on him to balance things out a bit.
Mick West's explanation for the Gimbal video is absolutely nuts. The glare of the engines of a jet in front of them.
You can actually see a clear outline of the object and what would appear to be cold air around it.
He might as well have mentioned swamp gas reflecting off of Venus...
You can actually see a clear outline of the object and what would appear to be cold air around it.
He might as well have mentioned swamp gas reflecting off of Venus...
You must have a different video than me, because there's definitely no clear outline in mine. Not sure what you mean by "cold air around it", or how you could even possibly tell that from that video. Do you have a source for that claim, someone explaining the technical details?Mick West's explanation for the Gimbal video is absolutely nuts. The glare of the engines of a jet in front of them.
You can actually see a clear outline of the object and what would appear to be cold air around it.
He might as well have mentioned swamp gas reflecting off of Venus...
Last edited:
If you're referring to the vague black shape as "a clear outline", then that's just how IR cameras work when looking at something like this. If you're talking about something else you'll need to point it out to me, because I'm not seeing it in my video.
Maybe he's talking about how aliens are real and they banged my mum. FACT.
Go ahead and explain that through IR cameras and optical illusions/effects.
Go ahead and explain that through IR cameras and optical illusions/effects.
It's almost like you can see the outline of a plane in that second gif you posted but not in the first
If you're referring to the vague black shape as "a clear outline", then that's just how IR cameras work when looking at something like this. If you're talking about something else you'll need to point it out to me, because I'm not seeing it in my video.
Are you serious? They're not meant to be 100% equivalents, I thought that was obvious. It's a difference of scale, video quality and conditions. But what the gif does show is that what you called "apparent cold air" is an artefact of the camera (as well as the glare shape and the gimbal rotation - hence why the video is called gimbal in the first place and not clear outline of an object and what appears to be cold air around it).It's almost like you can see the outline of a plane in that second gif you posted but not in the first
If you click on the video I linked you'll also see an example where you can't see the outline of the plane in IR, you see the same black shape.
This post is a joke, right?It's almost like you can see the outline of a plane in that second gif you posted but not in the first
He used the laughing smiley, so it must be. You're only allowed to use that one when making a joke.
If you want to be sarcastic, you may use
or 
, while if you're being cheeky you use 
or 
. I'm pretty sure it's in the style guide, or someone has to have a word with Niall.For balance thought I’d respond to a guardian article with a spectator one…never thought I’d be leaning team spectator.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/its-getting-harder-to-laugh-off-the-idea-of-ufos
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/its-getting-harder-to-laugh-off-the-idea-of-ufos
And this is why the evidence is so crap. There’s nothing new here. The evidence is precisely as unreliable as it has ever been. The arguments are as woolly as ever. The credulous get over excited all over again. All that’s different is there’s a new generation of ufologists and journalists to make hay. It’s the same old rubbish about blurry photos and experts who aren’t, and it’s a bit tediously familiar.
Last edited:
I don't know what you mean nick. This time we have. . . let me check my notes . . . eyewitness accounts and blurry videos.
Totally different.
Totally different.
Are you deliberately obtuse? You keep ignoring the radar data.
When I was a kid I was into all this stuff, before I learned critical thinking. I read this book called the Flying Saucerers by Arthur Shuttlewood, a renowned ufologist back in the day. It was the biggest load of bollocks I’ve ever read, absolute castles in the sky stuff based on I can only assume taking too much acid and then looking thru telescopes. It was so ridiculous it killed my interest in ufos for good. I highly recommend it if you want to understand the belief system of these guys, and completely vaccinate yourself against it.
I wonder if only you hadn't picked a book written by the Features Editor of the weekly Warminster Journal (occasional contributor of the Daily Mirror and The Warminster UFO Newsletter), author of such titles as Key to the New Age, that another writer wouldn't have burst the bubble of your burgeoning and enquiring mind.
Well, we lost another one to Shuttlewood.
**(emoji not checked for approval yet).
A N A L Y Z I N GWell, we lost another one to Shuttlewood.
*(emoji not checked for approval yet).
A N A L Y Z I N G
A N A L Y Z I N G
Cheeky sarcasm
The only gimbal in this thread is you ha : )
: a device that permits a body to incline freely in any direction or suspends it so that it will remain level when its support is tipped —usually used in plural
feck it I'll take it.
A gimbal is a pivoted support that permits rotation of an object about an axis.
Does this mean I'm the one who was pivoting all along?