5 ms·
There's no doubt there's a kind of aura of ridicule around the subject of UFOs and I'm sure credible people don't want to be associated with it. That being sai
by remir 9y ago
There's no doubt there's a kind of aura of ridicule around the subject of UFOs and I'm sure credible people don't want to be associated with it.
That being said, I think it's something worthy of exploration. My interest in the subject really began when I listen to people around me who saw and experienced things. It's one thing to read books or watch documentaries about UFOs, but it's another when normal "everyday people" who aren't interested in this kind of thing tell you their stories.
- valuearb 9y agoWhat’s worth exploring is space. Better telescopes, more monitoring, etc will actually tell us something about tye possibilities or existence of alien life. Chasing down misidentified flying objects and hoaxes will not. The idea that numerous spaceships, each with more potential kinetic energy than mankind has created in its entire history, are just flying around our atmosphere without leaving massive and easily recordable emissions is ludicrous.
- madaxe_again 9y agoIt’s ludicrous if you assume they’re using diesel engines and air screws or something. If they can snap accelerate with essentially infinite jerk, as observations seem to suggest, then they’re not playing by the same rule book as us, and have fancy inertialess tech that’s beyond our ken. I’m not some true believer in little green men, just a scientist who won’t rule out what seems impossible just because it seems so. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, and all that.
- valuearb 9y agoClarkes law isn’t a scientific principle. The only way that UFOs can be alien technology is if it violates all known laws of physics. Which makes them just as likely to be caused by Jesus Christ as aliens. Yet somehow i never see believers rushing to church. Otherwise you can only examine through the lens of the known physics, which makes them being alien spaceships impossible.
- haZard_OS 9y agoAs a scientist myself, I don't care nearly as much about possibility as I do about probability. At present and without extraordinary evidence to the contrary, I see human error as vastly more probably than "inertialess technology".
- gfodor 9y agoFor which case(s), specifically, and how does human error resolve the issue? Or do you not know any specific credible cases of unexplained UFOs, and just dismiss the entire phenomenon because of its "low probability." (I'm being facetious because many or all of the interesting cases easily rule out human error as the source of the phenomenon. Simultaneous human (and radar!) hallucination maybe, but not error.)
- goombastic 9y ago>Chasing down misidentified flying objects and hoaxes will not. The idea that numerous spaceships, each with more potential kinetic energy than mankind has created in its entire history, are just flying around our atmosphere without leaving massive and easily recordable emissions is ludicrous. Identifying, understanding and explaining/eliminating exceptions is how science progresses. I know it causes discomfort to see something that defies expectations right in front of you. That does not mean we do not examine it. We should.
- valuearb 9y agoExamine what? There is no evidence that any UFO is an enormously powerful alien spacecraft, in fact all evidence suggests the opposite. Enormous amounts of power can be clearly detected through emissions and effects on surrounding matter.
- remir 9y agoUFO doesn't mean alien spacecraft. It means unidentified flying object. Bigelow might be convinced we're being visited by intelligent beings from elsewhere in the cosmos, but that's just a belief. UFOs have been filmed and recorded by radars everywhere on earth. Something is going on. That doesn't mean it's ETs visiting us. On the other hand, it's a possibility. We don't know. Now, does it mean we have to stop everything we're doing to investigate UFOs? Nope. All I'm saying is it's an interesting subject to explore.