4 ms·

The hunt for aliens suddenly cropping up in the nytimes has the feel of a distraction. The video itself felt like one of those old bigfoot vidoes. I want to b

The hunt for aliens suddenly cropping up in the nytimes has the feel of a distraction. The video itself felt like one of those old bigfoot vidoes. I want to believe in aliens as a huge fan of star trek (TNG is best :) ), but I feel skeptical for now.

bitsnbytes 9y ago
I think its more of a gorilla marketing tactic for the new Tom Delonge fringe science company that he is trying to get investors for. He also has a line up of books,movies, films , and documentaries to sell.This smells like a marketing tactic with convenient timing to get some hype and buzz going with the fringe sciences.
imglorp 9y ago
Yep, as much as I want to believe, which is more likely? 1. Our understanding of physics is very wrong and this is the very first time we've seen any phenomena that overwhelmingly demonstrates that; OR 2. Someone shopped up some videos for distraction and/or marketing? Perhaps there's going to be an expensive military-industrial spending activity that needs public support?
- pfisch 9y ago
  "Our understanding of physics is very wrong" - this seems very likely to me. Pretty much all scientists have been proven wrong so far in significant ways. The entire structure of the universe makes no sense without tons of dark matter and dark energy we can't observe, which sounds a lot like the way we used to balance the equations of orbits so the earth was the center of the galaxy. https://youtu.be/Zgk8UdV7GQ0?t=71 https://youtu.be/Zgk8UdV7GQ0?t=71 2. I think this alleges a pretty large conspiracy theory on the order of 9/11 being faked. There is a wide body of evidence from a lot of reputable witnesses of unexplained phenomena. The idea that the military fabricated that video and the pilots who are the witnesses is more ridiculous to me than "Our understanding of physics is very wrong"
  - 24gttghh 9y ago
    >The entire structure of the universe makes no sense without tons of dark matter and dark energy we can't observe It's not directly observable, but it's effects are certainly observable in the surrounding organization of baryonic matter. It could very well be an incorrect assumption, but we would need some evidence to the contrary to change our minds, no? edit: spelling
    - pfisch 9y ago
      I'm not saying it is definitely wrong and no one should believe it because it is the best working theory. Based on the track record of science though it is very unlikely that it is 100% correct.
    - uoaei 9y ago
      > It's not directly observable, but it's [sic] effects are certainly observable You could say the same thing about the ether, the centrifugal force, and the argument about flat earth. My money is on dark matter's effects being due to some as-yet-undetectable acclerative force, maybe due to deformative effects of gravity that are only apparent at massive scales. Some sort of extension of GR that takes into account local clustering of energy that it isn't yet doing. But I'm no cosmologist. Is that what the cosmological constant is all about?
  - valuearb 9y ago
    Our current understanding of physics is extremely accurate at predicting almost everything we know about. Dark/matter/energy are theories to explain one area physics doesn't easily explain right now, the orbital velocity of stars in galaxies. But excess matter/energy would explain it fine. One video that's easily misinterpreted is not enough to overturn any physical law we currently understand.
    - totalZero 9y ago
      With new research, we are finding caveats and inaccuracies in many of our previously understood "laws" of physics and nature. Chemistry is a good example of this. Several 20th century chemists came up with widely accepted theories/models that were only shortly thereafter disproven by further research. It's healthy to recognize the limitations of science. Awareness of the limitations of a tool make sure we don't wast time using it where it really doesn't help. Not to mention that a sense of academic humility is often part of the open-mindedness that precedes counterintuitive, surprising findings.

bitsnbytes 9y ago

I think its more of a gorilla marketing tactic for the new Tom Delonge fringe science company that he is trying to get investors for. He also has a line up of books,movies, films , and documentaries to sell.This smells like a marketing tactic with convenient timing to get some hype and buzz going with the fringe sciences.

imglorp 9y ago

Yep, as much as I want to believe, which is more likely? 1. Our understanding of physics is very wrong and this is the very first time we've seen any phenomena that overwhelmingly demonstrates that; OR 2. Someone shopped up some videos for distraction and/or marketing? Perhaps there's going to be an expensive military-industrial spending activity that needs public support?

pfisch 9y ago
"Our understanding of physics is very wrong" - this seems very likely to me. Pretty much all scientists have been proven wrong so far in significant ways. The entire structure of the universe makes no sense without tons of dark matter and dark energy we can't observe, which sounds a lot like the way we used to balance the equations of orbits so the earth was the center of the galaxy. https://youtu.be/Zgk8UdV7GQ0?t=71 https://youtu.be/Zgk8UdV7GQ0?t=71 2. I think this alleges a pretty large conspiracy theory on the order of 9/11 being faked. There is a wide body of evidence from a lot of reputable witnesses of unexplained phenomena. The idea that the military fabricated that video and the pilots who are the witnesses is more ridiculous to me than "Our understanding of physics is very wrong"
- 24gttghh 9y ago
  >The entire structure of the universe makes no sense without tons of dark matter and dark energy we can't observe It's not directly observable, but it's effects are certainly observable in the surrounding organization of baryonic matter. It could very well be an incorrect assumption, but we would need some evidence to the contrary to change our minds, no? edit: spelling
  - pfisch 9y ago
    I'm not saying it is definitely wrong and no one should believe it because it is the best working theory. Based on the track record of science though it is very unlikely that it is 100% correct.
  - uoaei 9y ago
    > It's not directly observable, but it's [sic] effects are certainly observable You could say the same thing about the ether, the centrifugal force, and the argument about flat earth. My money is on dark matter's effects being due to some as-yet-undetectable acclerative force, maybe due to deformative effects of gravity that are only apparent at massive scales. Some sort of extension of GR that takes into account local clustering of energy that it isn't yet doing. But I'm no cosmologist. Is that what the cosmological constant is all about?
- valuearb 9y ago
  Our current understanding of physics is extremely accurate at predicting almost everything we know about. Dark/matter/energy are theories to explain one area physics doesn't easily explain right now, the orbital velocity of stars in galaxies. But excess matter/energy would explain it fine. One video that's easily misinterpreted is not enough to overturn any physical law we currently understand.
  - totalZero 9y ago
    With new research, we are finding caveats and inaccuracies in many of our previously understood "laws" of physics and nature. Chemistry is a good example of this. Several 20th century chemists came up with widely accepted theories/models that were only shortly thereafter disproven by further research. It's healthy to recognize the limitations of science. Awareness of the limitations of a tool make sure we don't wast time using it where it really doesn't help. Not to mention that a sense of academic humility is often part of the open-mindedness that precedes counterintuitive, surprising findings.