Anyone into the WOO here? UFOs etc?

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

SpookyZoo

@tja said:

I will of course not be silenced but reply to any comment to my text.

👍

As it should be. I believe our communication has been respectful.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Svetlovska

Angels. Head of a pin. Dancing.

There should always be dancing.

cyberheater

@tja said:
I will of course not be silenced but reply to any comment to my text.

Which is fair enough but if you are a devout skeptic, what is your purpose in this thread?

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

cyberheater

@tja said:

@cyberheater said:

@tja said:
I will of course not be silenced but reply to any comment to my text.

Which is fair enough but if you are a devout skeptic, what is your purpose in this thread?

As I already wrote, just replying to the question "Anyone into the WOO here? UFOs etc?" with my stance to this.

Nothing informed me that only agreement was allowed 😉

Does this mean we may have a controversial topic here, in this case?
I would need to close it then 😅

Sorry. I get in keyboard warrior mode sometimes and forget what's the most important thing. The community. I hope I haven't put you off.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

wim

@tja - we need you over in the "Is it possible we are living in a simulation?" thread. It's gotten pretty boring over there. We need someone to stir the pot. 😉

cyberheater

@wim said:
@tja - we need you over in the "Is it possible we are living in a simulation?" thread. It's gotten pretty boring over there. We need someone to stir the pot. 😉

LOL. Actually laughed out loud when I read that.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

[Deleted User]

@tja said:

@cyberheater said:

@tja said:
Sure not.
I'm surprised that some people really believe or hope or imagine such things.
Unexpected.

But why are you in this thread then. It's pretty obvious you are a hard skeptic and nothing that we say it's going to change your mind. It's pointless you being in this thread.

I just was answering the question of the OP if anybody was into UFOs.

And I just posted this:

@tja said:
Hmmm.
Mhhh.

There are of course UFOs, U.F.O.s, Unidentified Flying Objects.

But those are NOT crafts of living beings from other planets, galaxies, universes or dimensions.

My point of view 🤗

Unidentified Flying Objects. The clue, is in the name. Unless you can categorically prove there are no ‘living beings from other planets, galaxies, universes or dimensions’ in existence in the entire universe (or multiverse), then they’re as viable an explanation for what has been reported as ‘secret military tech’ that still hasn’t been used 40+ years later.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Simon

@monz0id said:
Unless you can categorically prove there are no ‘living beings from other planets, galaxies, universes or dimensions’ in existence in the entire universe (or multiverse), then they’re as viable an explanation for what has been reported as ‘secret military tech’ that still hasn’t been used 40+ years later.

What about the Tooth Fairy...?

You can't categorically disprove The Tooth Fairy so she could be in the frame too.

Simon

@monz0id said:
It’s got absolutely nothing to do with accepting your reasoning Simon, you’re arguing against a dictionary definition. If it really bothers you that much, take it up with Merriam-Webster.

“ it is probably some man-made "UFO" device, not from outer space. Probably military.”

If that’s the most likely explanation, you’d need at least some evidence as proof. But the military observers on the military base haven’t found any, and neither have any of the other investigators, so it is by any definition ‘unexplained’.

Following your suggestion I had a look at Merriam-Webster. They made no mention of needing "proof" when using the word "probably". That is something you have made up.

They said:

-insofar as seems reasonably true, factual, or to be expected : without much doubt
-is probably happy
-it will probably rain

No mention of "proof".

If one says that something is "definitely true", then you would need proof...probably.

SNystrom

@Simon said:

@monz0id said:
It’s got absolutely nothing to do with accepting your reasoning Simon, you’re arguing against a dictionary definition. If it really bothers you that much, take it up with Merriam-Webster.

“ it is probably some man-made "UFO" device, not from outer space. Probably military.”

If that’s the most likely explanation, you’d need at least some evidence as proof. But the military observers on the military base haven’t found any, and neither have any of the other investigators, so it is by any definition ‘unexplained’.

Following your suggestion I had a look at Merriam-Webster. They made no mention of needing "proof" when using the word "probably". That is something you have made up.

They said:

-insofar as seems reasonably true, factual, or to be expected : without much doubt
-is probably happy
-it will probably rain

No mention of "proof".

If one says that something is "definitely true", then you would need proof...probably.

Funny you should mention Merriam-Webster.

Troll: to harass, criticize, or antagonize (someone) especially by provocatively disparaging or mocking public statements, postings, or acts.

Not saying you meet all the criteria, but you obviously have serious disagreements with the purpose of this thread and have consistently (to the point of fatigue) repeatedly made the same argument ad nauseam (referring to something that has been done or repeated so often that it has become annoying or tiresome).

Your point is on the public record and has been duly noted. Consider yourself successful at attaining your goal and now please move on.

Thank you. 😊

knewspeak

@db909 said:
Never forget that people alive hundreds of years ago, hell even thousands, probably thought they knew everything too

Very true and often science and philosophy has had to adjust to integrate newly discovered knowledge against the prevailing mindset of the day.

@SpookyZoo said:

@tja said:

@SpookyZoo said:
Our “Understanding of Physics” is likely due a rude awakening in the not so distance future.

Why would that be?

The argument that another intelligent lifeform would be unable to traverse the vast distances of space to reach us, based on our own 'understanding of physics' and our methods of propulsion is, in my opinion, greatly naive.

This is also true as well as naive I would argue it can be even detrimentally arrogant but hopefully a small number of scientists are actually realising this too.

knewspeak

@tja said:

@SpookyZoo said:

@tja said:

@SpookyZoo said:

@tja said:

@SpookyZoo said:

@tja said:

@cyberheater said:
If you can bend space then you can effectively travel fast then the speed of light. Much much faster.

Or, if you could create your destination right in front of you.
Just will not happen 🤗

Naive dreams, in my opinion.
Based on science fiction literature.

Whereas your opinion is naively based on a relatively minuscule amount of years of human endeavour in the sciences.

But that's ok.

It's a fascinating topic and debate is healthy.

Each as he want to see reality.
I don't expect to see any change.

Minds can either be open or closed.

I'm always amazed by those that choose the latter. Especially considering how much our understanding of the world and universe has changed so often and consistently through just the last few hundred years with each new discovery.

So is there nothing new to learn in Physics?

For me, that's the outlandish stance to take.

Really.
Is this a new kind of religion?

Feel free to believe or hope whatever you want or need.
But be prepared that others have a different stance to this topic.

🧐

Having confidence that science will make new discoveries is now a religion?

...ok.

It seems so.
Sciences that defies physical laws is unlikely 😅

This assumes we have full knowledge of the laws of the universe, we only stand at the height of our knowledge, not the summit.

HotStrange

@knewspeak said:

@tja said:

@SpookyZoo said:

@tja said:

@SpookyZoo said:

@tja said:

@SpookyZoo said:

@tja said:

@cyberheater said:
If you can bend space then you can effectively travel fast then the speed of light. Much much faster.

Or, if you could create your destination right in front of you.
Just will not happen 🤗

Naive dreams, in my opinion.
Based on science fiction literature.

Whereas your opinion is naively based on a relatively minuscule amount of years of human endeavour in the sciences.

But that's ok.

It's a fascinating topic and debate is healthy.

Each as he want to see reality.
I don't expect to see any change.

Minds can either be open or closed.

I'm always amazed by those that choose the latter. Especially considering how much our understanding of the world and universe has changed so often and consistently through just the last few hundred years with each new discovery.

So is there nothing new to learn in Physics?

For me, that's the outlandish stance to take.

Really.
Is this a new kind of religion?

Feel free to believe or hope whatever you want or need.
But be prepared that others have a different stance to this topic.

🧐

Having confidence that science will make new discoveries is now a religion?

...ok.

It seems so.
Sciences that defies physical laws is unlikely 😅

This assumes we have full knowledge of the laws of the universe, we only stand at the height of our knowledge, not the summit.

This is a great point.

HotStrange

Haven’t read the full thread, but I personally fully believe in other life forms somewhere in the universe. It’s way way way too big and unless they somehow visit us, we’ll likely never know in our lifetime.

One of my biggest hopes is that sometime before I shake off my mortal coil there will be proof of aliens existing.

knewspeak

@tja said:

@monz0id said:

@tja said:

@cyberheater said:

@tja said:
Sure not.
I'm surprised that some people really believe or hope or imagine such things.
Unexpected.

But why are you in this thread then. It's pretty obvious you are a hard skeptic and nothing that we say it's going to change your mind. It's pointless you being in this thread.

I just was answering the question of the OP if anybody was into UFOs.

And I just posted this:

@tja said:
Hmmm.
Mhhh.

There are of course UFOs, U.F.O.s, Unidentified Flying Objects.

But those are NOT crafts of living beings from other planets, galaxies, universes or dimensions.

My point of view 🤗

Unidentified Flying Objects. The clue, is in the name. Unless you can categorically prove there are no ‘living beings from other planets, galaxies, universes or dimensions’ in existence in the entire universe (or multiverse), then they’re as viable an explanation for what has been reported as ‘secret military tech’ that still hasn’t been used 40+ years later.

Now, that exactly I tried to answer:

For me, other living beings and civilizations are very likely in our galaxy and universe!
But it is utterly impossible for them to reach us.

This is, what I think about this topic.
You don't need to agree 😉

I understand and in part agree that we can’t ‘usefully’ travel to distant stars, but to assume another possible civilisation has our technological and intellectual understanding is being overly presumptuous, even by a reasonably accepted ‘theorem’ the Kardashev scale, we are fairly low on it’s civilisational scale of development. So as to future possibilities of traversing the universe would be very difficult to gauge.

knewspeak

@HotStrange said:
Haven’t read the full thread, but I personally fully believe in other life forms somewhere in the universe. It’s way way way too big and unless they somehow visit us, we’ll likely never know in our lifetime.

One of my biggest hopes is that sometime before I shake off my mortal coil there will be proof of aliens existing.

I do believe that science could prove the existence of life in our solar system very shortly as to intelligent beings that could take a little while longer, unless they are visiting and officially say hello. Then we’d have to question as to whether we are an intelligent life form.

HotStrange

@knewspeak said:

@HotStrange said:
Haven’t read the full thread, but I personally fully believe in other life forms somewhere in the universe. It’s way way way too big and unless they somehow visit us, we’ll likely never know in our lifetime.

One of my biggest hopes is that sometime before I shake off my mortal coil there will be proof of aliens existing.

I do believe that science could prove the existence of life in our solar system very shortly as to intelligent beings that could take a little while longer, unless they are visiting and officially say hello. Then we’d have to question as to whether we are an intelligent life form.

Exactly, I more so meant the second option, though either would be exciting!!

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

knewspeak

@tja said:

@knewspeak said:

@tja said:

@monz0id said:

@tja said:

@cyberheater said:

@tja said:
Sure not.
I'm surprised that some people really believe or hope or imagine such things.
Unexpected.

But why are you in this thread then. It's pretty obvious you are a hard skeptic and nothing that we say it's going to change your mind. It's pointless you being in this thread.

I just was answering the question of the OP if anybody was into UFOs.

And I just posted this:

@tja said:
Hmmm.
Mhhh.

There are of course UFOs, U.F.O.s, Unidentified Flying Objects.

But those are NOT crafts of living beings from other planets, galaxies, universes or dimensions.

My point of view 🤗

Unidentified Flying Objects. The clue, is in the name. Unless you can categorically prove there are no ‘living beings from other planets, galaxies, universes or dimensions’ in existence in the entire universe (or multiverse), then they’re as viable an explanation for what has been reported as ‘secret military tech’ that still hasn’t been used 40+ years later.

Now, that exactly I tried to answer:

For me, other living beings and civilizations are very likely in our galaxy and universe!
But it is utterly impossible for them to reach us.

This is, what I think about this topic.
You don't need to agree 😉

I understand and in part agree that we can’t ‘usefully’ travel to distant stars, but to assume another possible civilisation has our technological and intellectual understanding is being overly presumptuous, even by a reasonably accepted ‘theorem’ the Kardashev scale, we are fairly low on it’s civilisational scale of development. So as to future possibilities of traversing the universe would be very difficult to gauge.

As I wrote, I strongly believe light speed to be a hard barrier for everything in our universe.
And per GTR and STR from Einstein, it is a hard barrier for matter already far below light speed.
Our universe just has cosmic constants that restrict speed.

Of course this does limit us now but warping time space is possible in theory, it just requires to us incomprehensible amounts of energy, that is out of our bounds currently.

And for me, believing or hoping that other civilization should bend this, nearly seems like something religious.
You are free to feel like this, of course!

If anyone from a few centuries ago were to witness our technology they would form a very similar viewpoint I’m fairly sure, magical as few famous scientists have said before.

But our most limiting factor may very well be our social evolution, if ‘others’ already traverse space time they may be slightly apprehensive about letting our crazy species run totally wild, just yet.

I do respect your views, which is possibly the prevailing one, but I do see that slowly changing of late.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Simon

@SNystrom said:
Funny you should mention Merriam-Webster.

Troll: to harass, criticize, or antagonize (someone) especially by provocatively disparaging or mocking public statements, postings, or acts.

Not saying you meet all the criteria, but you obviously have serious disagreements with the purpose of this thread and have consistently (to the point of fatigue) repeatedly made the same argument ad nauseam (referring to something that has been done or repeated so often that it has become annoying or tiresome).

Your point is on the public record and has been duly noted. Consider yourself successful at attaining your goal and now please move on.

Are you a Forum moderator?

[Deleted User]

@Simon said:

@monz0id said:
It’s got absolutely nothing to do with accepting your reasoning Simon, you’re arguing against a dictionary definition. If it really bothers you that much, take it up with Merriam-Webster.

“ it is probably some man-made "UFO" device, not from outer space. Probably military.”

If that’s the most likely explanation, you’d need at least some evidence as proof. But the military observers on the military base haven’t found any, and neither have any of the other investigators, so it is by any definition ‘unexplained’.

Following your suggestion I had a look at Merriam-Webster. They made no mention of needing "proof" when using the word "probably". That is something you have made up.

They said:

-insofar as seems reasonably true, factual, or to be expected : without much doubt
-is probably happy
-it will probably rain

No mention of "proof".

If one says that something is "definitely true", then you would need proof...probably.

When the definition of probably is “ seems reasonably true, factual, or to be expected : without much doubt”, your claim that “it is probably some man-made "UFO" device, not from outer space. Probably military” is going to require some kind of proof to back up that statement.

Otherwise it’s invalid.

@Simon said:

@monz0id said:
Unless you can categorically prove there are no ‘living beings from other planets, galaxies, universes or dimensions’ in existence in the entire universe (or multiverse), then they’re as viable an explanation for what has been reported as ‘secret military tech’ that still hasn’t been used 40+ years later.

What about the Tooth Fairy...?

You can't categorically disprove The Tooth Fairy so she could be in the frame too.

I’m just wasting my time here, aren’t I.

Simon

@monz0id said:

@Simon said:

@monz0id said:
It’s got absolutely nothing to do with accepting your reasoning Simon, you’re arguing against a dictionary definition. If it really bothers you that much, take it up with Merriam-Webster.

“ it is probably some man-made "UFO" device, not from outer space. Probably military.”

If that’s the most likely explanation, you’d need at least some evidence as proof. But the military observers on the military base haven’t found any, and neither have any of the other investigators, so it is by any definition ‘unexplained’.

Following your suggestion I had a look at Merriam-Webster. They made no mention of needing "proof" when using the word "probably". That is something you have made up.

They said:

-insofar as seems reasonably true, factual, or to be expected : without much doubt
-is probably happy
-it will probably rain

No mention of "proof".

If one says that something is "definitely true", then you would need proof...probably.

When the definition of probably is “ seems reasonably true, factual, or to be expected : without much doubt”, your claim that “it is probably some man-made "UFO" device, not from outer space. Probably military” is going to require some kind of proof to back up that statement.

Otherwise it’s invalid.

@Simon said:

@monz0id said:
Unless you can categorically prove there are no ‘living beings from other planets, galaxies, universes or dimensions’ in existence in the entire universe (or multiverse), then they’re as viable an explanation for what has been reported as ‘secret military tech’ that still hasn’t been used 40+ years later.

What about the Tooth Fairy...?

You can't categorically disprove The Tooth Fairy so she could be in the frame too.

I’m just wasting my time here, aren’t I.

I'd love to continue our friendly and pedantic discussion but if I do reply I fear I will be branded "a troll".

cyberheater

What has happened to this thread?