4 ms·
It’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 observati
by madaxe_again 9y ago
It’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.)