UFO Videos Officially Confirmed by US Government

[Valrifell]

People who thought the Earth was the center of the universe lacked conflicting evidence to the contrary, and it seemed quite obvious given how rotations work. But actually, even 1500 years ago people were challenging the idea of the central Earth because there were things that didn't make sense, like "orbits" that appeared to go backwards across the sky.

500 years ago nobody actually thought the Earth was flat, that's a myth perpetuated for some reason. Eratosthenes famously calculated (with a high degree of precision) the circumference of the Earth with some shadows in Egypt, this was 2,000 years ago, because of conflicting evidence to the idea of the central Earth.

Wait... are you... quoting a movie at me.

There's significant experimental data to corroborate Einstein and Maxwell's ideas and none to challenge it on large scales. Gravitational lensing is a direct byproduct of the universe's insistence that the speed of light be constant everywhere for everyone.

No one is saying the speed of light isnt constant. But what's to say alien races haven't figured out how to travel faster?

Because the invariance of the speed of light is why you can't travel faster than it.

If you're moving .8c and shine a flashlight, the light will still appear to be moving at c from your frame, but it will also be moving at c for a stationary observer. Things like length contraction and time dilation (which, again, experimentally confirmed) also point towards the idea of the speed of light being ubeatable.

[Valrifell]

No one is saying the speed of light isnt constant. But what's to say alien races haven't figured out how to travel faster?

There is, in fact, the very slight problem of accelerating using, and then dissipating, infinite energy.

A minor detail.

[San Lumen]

No one is saying the speed of light isnt constant. But what's to say alien races haven't figured out how to travel faster?

Because the invariance of the speed of light is why you can't travel faster than it.

If you're moving .8c and shine a flashlight, the light will still appear to be moving at c from your frame, but it will also be moving at c for a stationary observer. Things like length contraction and time dilation (which, again, experimentally confirmed) also point towards the idea of the speed of light being ubeatable.

so we say that we can't travel faster. Even some physicists have said warp drive is possible

[Valrifell]

Because the invariance of the speed of light is why you can't travel faster than it.

If you're moving .8c and shine a flashlight, the light will still appear to be moving at c from your frame, but it will also be moving at c for a stationary observer. Things like length contraction and time dilation (which, again, experimentally confirmed) also point towards the idea of the speed of light being ubeatable.

so we say that we can't travel faster. Even some physicists have said warp drive is possible

All warp drives exist exclusively in the realm of theory, which I guess is valid now for some reason, and take advantage of some technicality so something with mass is not technically moving faster than c.

Most warp drive plans I've seen require exorbitant amounts of energy or some kind of very exotic (IE hitherto unknown) matter, which is impractical and non-scientific respectively.

[Galloism]

There is, in fact, the very slight problem of accelerating using, and then dissipating, infinite energy.

A minor detail.

Someday, I would like to have a conversation about light bending around objects and what that means for the speed of light today, as you might be able to cut a shorter distance than the light you're looking at took, and effectively get there first - beating the speed of light in the relative sense.

IE, imagine a very dense object, like a black hole or such. So massive that it can make the light that approaches it at certain angle offset an appropriate distance execute a 90 degree left turn around the object and keep going.

Meanwhile, in a spacecraft, you "cut the corner" (while also avoiding the huge dense object) at 0.95c (which is improbable to attain, but not against the rules). Conceivably, it seems like you could get to the second point before the light got there, by taking a short route.

[San Lumen]

so we say that we can't travel faster. Even some physicists have said warp drive is possible

All warp drives exist exclusively in the realm of theory, which I guess is valid now for some reason, and take advantage of some technicality so something with mass is not technically moving faster than c.

Most warp drive plans I've seen require exorbitant amounts of energy or some kind of very exotic (IE hitherto unknown) matter, which is impractical and non-scientific respectively.

and what's to say an alien race hasn't figured out how to do so and comes here with spacecraft we cannot detect due to our limited technology

[Valrifell]

A minor detail.

Someday, I would like to have a conversation about light bending around objects and what that means for the speed of light today, as you might be able to cut a shorter distance than the light you're looking at took, and effectively get there first - beating the speed of light in the relative sense.

IE, imagine a very dense object, like a black hole or such. So massive that it can make the light that approaches it at certain angle offset an appropriate distance execute a 90 degree left turn around the object and keep going.

Meanwhile, in a spacecraft, you "cut the corner" (while also avoiding the huge dense object) at 0.95c (which is improbable to attain, but not against the rules). Conceivably, it seems like you could get to the second point before the light got there, by taking a short route.

I'm inclined to say no since light tends to want to take the path that minimizes travel time, and putting it in an intense gravity well would mean that sharp angles don't happen. It helps to think of a photon as a very light ball on a rubber sheet (or a sheet of taught cloth, as is the model that I work with), and a black hole as a very large metallic ball in the center of that sheet. The ball will skate around the edges in a smooth curve, sharp angles aren't possible.

To achieve the same path our small ball took, we'd have to give more energy to a ball with mass, which isn't possible. Similarly to achieve a tighter path closer to the black hole, you'd have to have more speed than the photon we originally considered, which isn't allowed.

You can, however, beat the speed of light in water and other refractive media. This is most well documented in nuclear cooling tanks since the baryons emitted by radioactive decay travel hella quick no matter what. You get a cool blue glow effect called Cerenkov radiation.

[Valrifell]

All warp drives exist exclusively in the realm of theory, which I guess is valid now for some reason, and take advantage of some technicality so something with mass is not technically moving faster than c.

Most warp drive plans I've seen require exorbitant amounts of energy or some kind of very exotic (IE hitherto unknown) matter, which is impractical and non-scientific respectively.

and what's to say an alien race hasn't figured out how to do so and comes here with spacecraft we cannot detect due to our limited technology

At some point in your thought process you've stopped thinking about organisms that could conceivably exist and have just started heaping qualities they would need to exist and get here, no matter how unrealistic.

From my perspective it's like arguing a literalist interpretation to the Bible.

[Galloism]

Someday, I would like to have a conversation about light bending around objects and what that means for the speed of light today, as you might be able to cut a shorter distance than the light you're looking at took, and effectively get there first - beating the speed of light in the relative sense.

IE, imagine a very dense object, like a black hole or such. So massive that it can make the light that approaches it at certain angle offset an appropriate distance execute a 90 degree left turn around the object and keep going.

Meanwhile, in a spacecraft, you "cut the corner" (while also avoiding the huge dense object) at 0.95c (which is improbable to attain, but not against the rules). Conceivably, it seems like you could get to the second point before the light got there, by taking a short route.

I'm inclined to say no since light tends to want to take the path that minimizes travel time, and putting it in an intense gravity well would mean that sharp angles don't happen. It helps to think of a photon as a very light ball on a rubber sheet (or a sheet of taught cloth, as is the model that I work with), and a black hole as a very large metallic ball in the center of that sheet. The ball will skate around the edges in a smooth curve, sharp angles aren't possible.

To achieve the same path our small ball took, we'd have to give more energy to a ball with mass.

You can, however, beat the speed of light in water and other refractive media. This is most well documented in nuclear cooling tanks since the baryons emitted by radioactive decay travel hella quick no matter what. You get a cool blue glow effect called Cerenkov radiation.

If an object can capture light, it should also be able to turn light at 90 degrees (it wouldn't be a 90 degree corner, that's not what i meant) but progressively as the light light lines pass further away from the object it would go from being pulled into the object to being barely affected at all.

Somewhere between those two extremes there should be enough gravity to make the light bend 90 degrees, but not suck it in to the black hole. If you divide the light into a bunch of lines (which, i know, isn't strictly speaking correct, but works as a model) each line would bend more the closer it passed by the object. The closest lines would be sucked into the black hole, while the furthest lines would be barely affected.

Somewhere in the middle, there should be lines that actually will bend around a corner at various amounts - some that will actually bend even more than 180 degrees, and turn around and fall back into the black hole, and some that will curve around the object and escape at a 90 degree angle from the original direction of travel.

[San Lumen]

and what's to say an alien race hasn't figured out how to do so and comes here with spacecraft we cannot detect due to our limited technology

At some point in your thought process you've stopped thinking about organisms that could conceivably exist and have just started heaping qualities they would need to exist and get here, no matter how unrealistic.

From my perspective it's like arguing a literalist interpretation to the Bible.

And again your going back to OUR understanding of physics and life. if intelligent life developed on a another planet far away from us whats to say they haven't figured out faster than light travel and created ships our radar can't detect.

You seem stuck in this notion that only our way is correct. From what your saying I take it you think there is no other intelligent life in the universe and the things like hyperdrive and warp drive our flat out impossible and interstellar travel is merely a dream?

[Valrifell]

At some point in your thought process you've stopped thinking about organisms that could conceivably exist and have just started heaping qualities they would need to exist and get here, no matter how unrealistic.

From my perspective it's like arguing a literalist interpretation to the Bible.

And again your going back to OUR understanding of physics and life. if intelligent life developed on a another planet far away from us whats to say they haven't figured out faster than light travel and created ships our radar can't detect.

You seem stuck in this notion that only our way is correct. From what your saying I take it you think there is no other intelligent life in the universe and the things like hyperdrive and warp drive our flat out impossible and interstellar travel is merely a dream?

That's not what I'm saying but, by the way, yes. Those things seem incredibly unlikely to me from where I'm sitting.

[Kubra]

Everyone on May 1st when they see an entire fleet of UFOs flying overhead to invade the planet

(Image)

>May 1st
POSADAS WAS RIGHT, SOCIALIST ALIENS ARE IMPORTING THE REVOLUTION

[Ethel mermania]

Why not?

Atmospheric friction.

That's when it gets close to the planet. A civilization that has ships that dont explode at near light speed when hitting space dust probably can cloak their approach to this planet.

[Valrifell]

Atmospheric friction.

That's when it gets close to the planet. A civilization that has ships that dont explode at near light speed when hitting space dust probably can cloak their approach to this planet.

It also probably doesn't exist, so.

[Albrenia]

Our understanding of things at the moment makes travel faster than light impossible, for the most part, but it's quite possible there's ways to circumvent such issues with the right technology and techniques.

[Ethel mermania]

That's when it gets close to the planet. A civilization that has ships that dont explode at near light speed when hitting space dust probably can cloak their approach to this planet.

It also probably doesn't exist, so.

Why not? There are billions and billions of planets out there, many of them much older than this one. Contrary to what we thought there is water freaking everywhere in the galaxy in places we never expected it to help create carbon based life. It would be surprising if there weren't life all over the universe.

Whether they can get here or not, or care to get here is a different story all together.

[Valrifell]

It also probably doesn't exist, so.

Why not? There are billions and billions of planets out there, many of them much older than this one. Contrary to what we thought there is water freaking everywhere in the galaxy in places we never expected it to help create carbon based life. It would be surprising if there weren't life all over the universe.

Whether they can get here or not, or care to get here is a different story all together.

Life and intelligent life are two different things, and like I said the factors that lead to selecting for intelligent life seem to not be common. Nevertheless, supposing that there exist intelligent lifeforms that are common as you imply, you still can't develop past the laws of physics.

[Senkaku]

At some point in your thought process you've stopped thinking about organisms that could conceivably exist and have just started heaping qualities they would need to exist and get here, no matter how unrealistic.

From my perspective it's like arguing a literalist interpretation to the Bible.

And again your going back to OUR understanding of physics and life. if intelligent life developed on a another planet far away from us whats to say they haven't figured out faster than light travel and created ships our radar can't detect.

You seem stuck in this notion that only our way is correct. From what your saying I take it you think there is no other intelligent life in the universe and the things like hyperdrive and warp drive our flat out impossible and interstellar travel is merely a dream?

Which is more likely:

1 - that there are earthly explanations for these things
2 - extraterrestrial beings with basically magical abilities exist and have decided to use those abilities to come all the way across interstellar space to our planet for the purpose of freaking out some human pilots

[Auze]

2 - extraterrestrial beings with basically magical abilities exist and have decided to use those abilities to come all the way across interstellar space to our planet for the purpose of freaking out some human pilots

Well, that's what I would do if I could. Plus, maybe they're mad about us polluting space with our radio waves.

[Ethel mermania]

Why not? There are billions and billions of planets out there, many of them much older than this one. Contrary to what we thought there is water freaking everywhere in the galaxy in places we never expected it to help create carbon based life. It would be surprising if there weren't life all over the universe.

Whether they can get here or not, or care to get here is a different story all together.

Life and intelligent life are two different things, and like I said the factors that lead to selecting for intelligent life seem to not be common. Nevertheless, supposing that there exist intelligent lifeforms that are common as you imply, you still can't develop past the laws of physics.

Our understanding of the universe is infantile, In 1977 if you said moons could be hot, you would have been laughed out of any astronomical society, then in1978 we got a look at Io and so much for the only cold moon theory.

Also while biological creatures may not make the crossing here because of the length of time to get somewhere, what's to say silicon based AI cant?

[San Lumen]

Why not? There are billions and billions of planets out there, many of them much older than this one. Contrary to what we thought there is water freaking everywhere in the galaxy in places we never expected it to help create carbon based life. It would be surprising if there weren't life all over the universe.

Whether they can get here or not, or care to get here is a different story all together.

Life and intelligent life are two different things, and like I said the factors that lead to selecting for intelligent life seem to not be common. Nevertheless, supposing that there exist intelligent lifeforms that are common as you imply, you still can't develop past the laws of physics.

an alien race could know far more about physics then we do. Why do you keep assuming that our current understanding of physics is all there is to know?

[Ethel mermania]

And again your going back to OUR understanding of physics and life. if intelligent life developed on a another planet far away from us whats to say they haven't figured out faster than light travel and created ships our radar can't detect.

You seem stuck in this notion that only our way is correct. From what your saying I take it you think there is no other intelligent life in the universe and the things like hyperdrive and warp drive our flat out impossible and interstellar travel is merely a dream?

Which is more likely:

1 - that there are earthly explanations for these things
2 - extraterrestrial beings with basically magical abilities exist and have decided to use those abilities to come all the way across interstellar space to our planet for the purpose of freaking out some human pilots

Dolphins and sea lions surf, the only logical explanation is the do it for fun. Orcas fuck with other creatures just because they can. If evolution proceeds on other planets the way it does on earth, why not?

[Valrifell]

Life and intelligent life are two different things, and like I said the factors that lead to selecting for intelligent life seem to not be common. Nevertheless, supposing that there exist intelligent lifeforms that are common as you imply, you still can't develop past the laws of physics.

Our understanding of the universe is infantile, In 1977 if you said moons could be hot, you would have been laughed out of any astronomical society, then in1978 we got a look at Io and so much for the only cold moon theory.

Also while biological creatures may not make the crossing here because of the length of time to get somewhere, what's to say silicon based AI cant?

See, the thing is it wouldn't be overturning something like "exoplanets exist", FTL travel would be overturning some of the most fundamental assumptions and models about our physical universe and would open up very strange possibilities, like infinite energy. It would be such a massive paradigm shift as to be unprecedented, considering not even Newtonian mechanics would've made such a wrong prediction.

Oh sure, silicon-based life (or an AI) might have increased durability to make such a long trek viable, or they could have figured out totally good and valid generation ships. Of course, they would be very noticeable.

[Valrifell]

Life and intelligent life are two different things, and like I said the factors that lead to selecting for intelligent life seem to not be common. Nevertheless, supposing that there exist intelligent lifeforms that are common as you imply, you still can't develop past the laws of physics.

an alien race could know far more about physics then we do. Why do you keep assuming that our current understanding of physics is all there is to know?

Again, our fundamental models of physics are unlikely to be wrong, but incomplete. This is a very fundamental difference. There is nothing that Einstein has predicted that turned out to be false or unobserved, so it's likely he is correct, but that doesn't mean physics is "solved". At the breaking point of models, new physics exists, but new physics doesn't replace old physics, it builds on top of it.

It's unlikely that you can accelerate something FTL without infinite energy, I say with 99.99% certainty.

[The Chuck]

All warp drives exist exclusively in the realm of theory, which I guess is valid now for some reason, and take advantage of some technicality so something with mass is not technically moving faster than c.

Most warp drive plans I've seen require exorbitant amounts of energy or some kind of very exotic (IE hitherto unknown) matter, which is impractical and non-scientific respectively.

and what's to say an alien race hasn't figured out how to do so and comes here with spacecraft we cannot detect due to our limited technology

This Saturday you get to hear my thoughts on citizens owning anti-satellite missiles now San Lumen