5 ms·
Explain why
by zarmin 4y ago
Explain why
- EUROCARE 4y agoIt's the other way around, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. At the very least - name a plausible physical phenomenon that allows FTL?
- dleslie 4y agoAlcubierre drive or an Einstein-Rosen bridge immediately come to mind.
- EUROCARE 4y agoYeah but no. Both require impossible things to happen and thus both are mathematical exercise only. These two are why I said "physical phenomenon".
- dleslie 4y agoThey require things far outside or current technological ability; both are grounded in our understanding of physics. Yes, it's possible they are forever outside our ability, but that makes them improbable but not impossible.
- EUROCARE 4y agoNo, I mean they require things that are absolutely imaginary and exist only in the realm of numbers. There's zero proof of anything like "negative energy", for example. And E-R bridges are impassable - anything that would try would get stuck and/or crushed. This is not about engineering ability - both theories are artifacts of the imperfection of our understanding of physics and math, nothing more.
- dleslie 4y agoTwo centuries ago we argued whether heavier than air objects could fly, or if machines could reach the moon. I think it's hubris to think our current models of the universe are the rules of the universe; and that our technological ability could not be eclipsed by further millennia of study.
- EUROCARE 4y agoSure, but it's much worse to take a math exercise without any connection to reality and claim that it means aliens might be visiting us.
- dleslie 4y agoYou asked about plausible FTL technology, and I provided examples.
- EUROCARE 4y agoI asked about a plausible physical phenomenon - something that can be seen and measured in the real world. You will never measure a passable E-R bridge or Alcubierre drive because it's purely mathematical exercise, it has zero possibility/probability of being engineered into existence as it relies on things that straight-up can never exist. I'm not saying FTL is impossible but it's definitely not going to be either of these - our universe would be totally broken and self-destruct if these were possible.
- dleslie 4y agoWithout technology, you'll never see mechanical engines powered by chemical energy, either. Neither option I gave requires impossible technology, only improbable and unlikely technology. I don't think FTL is such a barrier if you accept that general relativity isn't a perfect model, even by current known standards.
- themitigating 4y agoHe asserts things to be true without evidence
- Dan_Sylveste 4y agoSo did John Snow. Then he stopped cholera.
- krapp 4y agoJohn Snow had evidence, and a hypothesis that could be tested, but no one took it seriously. That's a lot more than UFO believers have.
- Dan_Sylveste 4y ago>That's a lot more than UFO believers have. UFO 'believers' have - since very recently - videos released by the US military in which they say 'detections of this object were confirmed by multiple sensor platforms' and 'we cannot identify this object and have no speculation as to its origin' or whatever the exact wording is. You know what I mean, the 'tic-tac' video. The narrative provided with that video confirms that the object/objects were detected by multiple types of sensor (visual, infrared, radar) and by multiple sensor platforms (aerial radar, aerial infrared, ship-based radar) and that the detections correlated. With those releases the the UFO landscape changed, to wit, the US military is now a 'UFO believer.'
- krapp 4y agoThe thing is, none of that is evidence of alien spacecraft. The tic-tac videos are interesting, but i've seen plenty of rational explanations offered for them[0], and as far as I can tell the whole alien narrative around them was fabricated by sites like thedrive.com, who then later reported that the government (far from being 'ufo believers') found these craft to be purely terrestrial drones, likely from China[1,2]. You're free to ignore all of that and assume it's aliens but doing so is just superstition, not reason. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_UFO_videos#Potential_explanations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_UFO_videos#Potential_... [1]https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/drone-swarms-that-harassed-navy-ships-demystified-in-new-documents https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/drone-swarms-that-hara... [2]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31701319 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31701319
- lisper 4y agoBecause if your Bayesian prior on being "tracked by supernatural entities that caused [your] car and appliances to malfunction" is distinguishable from zero then your mental faculties are open to question unless you can produce evidence for it. And there is no reproducible evidence for any supernatural phenomenon, let alone one as dramatic as this.
- zarmin 4y ago> then your mental faculties are open to question unless you can produce evidence for it Why?
- lisper 4y agoBecause if you believe extraordinary things without evidence then your thinking is not constrained by objective reality. That is the definition of being delusional.
- stevenhuang 4y agoThere is countless experiential evidence. https://www.narcap.de/dokumente/COMETA-Report-englisch.pdf https://www.narcap.de/dokumente/COMETA-Report-englisch.pdf https://www.narcap.org/blog/narcaptr20 https://www.narcap.org/blog/narcaptr20
- lisper 4y agoUFOs are not supernatural. Of course there are UFOs. The only question is whether any of them are extraterrestrial (which would be extraordinary, but still not supernatural). (And BTW, the readiness with which UFO advocates conflate "UFO", "extraterrestrial" and "supernatural", all of which are completely distinct from one another, is indicative of the generally sloppy thinking that goes on in that community.)
- danbruc 4y agoEven more, supernatural stuff does not exist. Period. There might be natural stuff which we did not yet discover or which we do not understand properly, but there is no supernatural stuff.