4 ms·
You don't need FTL travel to reach Earth from somewhere else in the Milky Way, if you don't mind waiting a long time to arrive. Which unmanned probes would not.
by gfodor 4y ago
You don't need FTL travel to reach Earth from somewhere else in the Milky Way, if you don't mind waiting a long time to arrive. Which unmanned probes would not. Your confidence in your assertions just demonstrates you haven't thought about explanations that are less likely but still coherent with non-human technology being present in Earth's atmosphere.
- scotty79 4y agoSo those aliens traveled for thousands of years (probably in multigenerational spaceship or deep anabiosis) from a place that close relatively speaking but somehow still undetectable for us despite thousands of years of interstellar technology development there just to be blips on our radars and visual smudge here and there. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and "we don't know what's that" is not an extraordinary evidence.
- gfodor 4y agoWhy do you assume the UAPs have aliens in them, and why would you anthropomorphize aliens in any case to be anything like humans? Why do you assume the origin of such objects would be detectable? You're jumping to a lot of conclusions here, when the only core question being explored is the plausibility of physical objects in Earth's atmostphere demonstrating superhuman technology not created by humans. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is just a meaningless phrase by the way mostly used in discussions like these to try to signal that the person is somehow more "scientifically minded" than their interlocutor. There's no such thing as "extraordinary evidence", there's just evidence and the explanations which best explain that evidence.
- scotty79 4y agoWhy do you assume aliens are here (or their tech) ? The evidence against aliens here is just the entirety of physics and history. I consider it to be extraordinary.
- nprateem 4y agoWe've only known about quantum mechanics for around 100 years. Why do you think we've discovered everything there is to know about physics? That's just hubris. The 'entirety of history' is meaningless since we don't really know what happened in the past.
- scotty79 4y agoYou take the word of few random soldiers and some output of some devices over accumulated effort of generations of scientists who brought us all of technology and you accuse others of hubris? It's quite a hubris to say that something is evidence of violation of known laws of physics on the basis of personal direct observation and output of devices that you find trustworthy only because known laws of physics do work as formulated. As for history we know for sure that aliens didn't made their presence know in any undoubtable manner in at least few thousands of years. Every observation that we ever managed to explain was explained by something else than magic or aliens.
- nprateem 4y agoEvery new discovery, by definition, begins with new observations. The word you're clinging to is "known". We've been spectacularly wrong in the past (the sun orbited the earth, which was flat, etc.). As for history, there's no reason to suspect they would have made their presence known in any undoubtable manner. They may have been here just to observe. > Every observation that we ever managed to explain was explained by something else than magic or aliens. “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Clarke
- scotty79 4y ago> They may have been here just to observe. Ah, so now we don't just assume alien tech on Earth. Now we need to also assume aliens intent? Are you sure you are not adding epicycles to your model of reality? > “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Clarke And yet no technology we ever seen actually IS magic or of alien origin. I'm not sure what's your point is? That alien tech might look like magic? Sure. But we have never observed any magic either in our world. So they both belong squarely in the world of dreams not reality.