• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Naysayers and earthbound science

Free episodes:

TheDeeMan

Paranormal Novice
Why is it that folks who don't believe in life on other planets always use as their excuse to why they aren't visiting us and that ufos don't exist the notion of possible lifebearing planets being too far away for them to reach us.

Says who?

They use Einsteins theories as the basis for their too many light years away to make it here using any scientific/technological means. But despite the fact that there are countless branches of science based on Einsteins theories they remain just that--Theories.

I don't remember anyone being able to fire up the Milleniuum Falcon and being able to test Einsteins theories on the speed of light.

And wouldn't civilizations millions of years more advenced then our own have science and technology millions of years more advanced then our own that we wouldn't comprehend and render our science to the level of sacrificing a goat to the gods in order to et a good crop?

Dee
 
Why is it that folks who don't believe in life on other planets always use as their excuse to why they aren't visiting us and that ufos don't exist the notion of possible lifebearing planets being too far away for them to reach us.

Says who?

They use Einsteins theories as the basis for their too many light years away to make it here using any scientific/technological means. But despite the fact that there are countless branches of science based on Einsteins theories they remain just that--Theories.

I don't remember anyone being able to fire up the Milleniuum Falcon and being able to test Einsteins theories on the speed of light.

And wouldn't civilizations millions of years more advenced then our own have science and technology millions of years more advanced then our own that we wouldn't comprehend and render our science to the level of sacrificing a goat to the gods in order to et a good crop?

Dee

There is a difference between a theory that has been tested by years of careful experiment and idle speculation (I know, because as people who've waded through my ramblings can attest I indulge in a lot of idle speculation). And the nature of science is such that while some theories are proven to be flatly wrong, in many cases a theory is only incomplete. We can't simply brush Einstein under the carpet because his conclusions are inconvenient.
It is true that a civilisation that has had more time than us to improve its science and technology should have discovered many things we can't conceive of...but they will still be subject to the same laws of physics we are. There is no get-out-of-jail-free card there.
Additionally, and a point of view in which I am admittedly in the minority here, there is no reason to assume that individual members of such a species will necessarily be wiser or more intelligent than ourselves. Everybody starts from scratch, whatever their civilisation has learned, and we don't know how evolutionary pressures do or don't affect intelligence once a species has achieved an advanced technological civilisation (they might even become less intelligent - after all, it takes a lot of energy and time to feed and develop those big brains, which might be unnecessary if machines take care of everything...we might be dealing with a civilisation of highly advanced simpletons eternally nannied by robots).
 
You miss my point. Applying the limits of your knowledge or ability to someone else and saying they must also be so limited makes no sense.

Just because i can't sing doesn't mean you can't so why should I assume you can't sing because I can't? Saying that we are bound by Einsteins theories because we can't think beyond them so other more advanced civilizations must also be bound by our limitations is also backward thinking.

100 years from now we may laugh at ourselves because of some of the ideas we hold today scientifically, just like other more advanced civilizations may be laughing at us now.

Dee
 
"We can't simply brush Einstein under the carpet because his conclusions are inconvenient."

True. Nor should he be deified., anymore than Newton or Copernicus.
There are far, too many question.
 
Well, the short comings of the scientific method is we can't test things we don't know about. You have to have some theory to test. You have to have an inkling of what you are looking for, and how you might detect it.

Modern science is all about what we can test and measure. But some science is only about what we can observe from a great distance, like astronomy. If you look at how many things were discovered by accident, you can see why. No one expected something like radio waves, until they heard sparks making a click in an audio amp. And you wouldn't have the audio amp if Edison didn't discover the diode while working on the incandescent lamp. Or take something like x-rays, or radioactivity. We stumbled upon all of those, because you can't see them, and how would you test for something previously unknown?

Science eventually discarded various ideas because of un-testability, like the aether theories. How can you test something you can't detect?

The thing is, we aren't even sure that UFOs are craft from some other world. Sure, it seems that way, but before we saw aliens we saw angels and demons and fairies, and even airships with humans in overalls.

The other problem is if they are visitors from another planet, they most likely didn't get here by traveling in a linear fashion. It's just too far. Even if they have very long life spans, it's probably not worth it. No matter how advanced a civilization is, you need certain resources to do a mission like that.

Plus we have the fact that they are seen or land on Earth every single day. There was an equation once that was like the Drake equation that showed the probability of how many landings there are every day. I seem to remember it was in the hundreds. That doesn't make any sense at all. How many times did we go to the moon? It sure wasn't every day! And the moon is very close. Some probes have gotten there in like 24 hours!

Therefore we can speculate that if they are traveling from somewhere else, the time it takes to get here is not a factor. Time isn't involved. So they must be doing something we don't understand, i.e., altering space-time or moving between dimensions. This might explain why they can just appear and disappear, and even move at very high speeds with no air friction effects, like sonic booms or heating of the craft. Maybe they can eliminate their own mass (and gravity's influence) while traveling? Or minimize their "reality". That might also allow them to travel at light speeds, but I don't think they are doing that either. That's too simplistic. They might not even need to "move" to get where they are going. All our vehicle technology is still mostly based on fire and explosions! But we can't expect theirs is.

And we don't understand time. It's been discovered that since it takes a finite amount of time for the signal from our eyes to get to out brain, and register an image, that we see things in the future by that same small amount! That way everything is in synch with our vision. How is that possible? We also don't understand gravity, and can't get it to fit into our models of the laws of physics.

Or very possibly they are right here, but we just can't perceive them. Not as in they are "cloaking" themselves, more like we just can't see them the same way we can't see radio waves, or even sound waves. The vibrations are not in our visible light spectrum. Our senses are not designed to perceive that stuff, as it has no use to our everyday survival. So maybe we occupy the same space, but are not in the same "realm."

When Dr. Rick Strassman gave patients the psychedelic drug DMT, a large number of them had encounters with the gray aliens, and some had typical abduction experiences. But none of them left the hospital bed, as far as anyone can tell. Perhaps the drug unlocked something in the brain that allowed perception of that other dimension. And we might as well think that seeing it is as good as being there, hence the two way interaction.

And that takes us to the fact that UFO experiences often are accompanied by other paranormal phenomena. It could be all parts of the same mechanism, once again, something we don't understand.

My favorite reports are always the ones with the high strangeness factor. Like the classic one with the farmer that was given a couple of pancakes in exchange for filling a jug with water. Or the guy that came face to face with some non human entity that then asked him what time it was, and then when he told it the time, it said he was lying! Or the old airship stories where when asked where they were from they said that didn't matter, but they would be in Greece in the morning. Another good one is a man who was walking down a familiar street, and was startled when there was something that looked like a metal shed where it shouldn't be, and wasn't there earlier. That's what the guy thought he saw, because he couldn't understand what he was seeing.

So before we can understand UFOs, we need to understand a lot of other paranormal phenomena, and that's going to be hard to do with our present understanding of reality. Plus what funding are scientist going to get to study these things? An some have their minds made up already, based on what we know so far, thusly closing the door to learn more.

I've been studying this whole thing since I was a kid. Like 40 something years now. I stopped thinking of them as craft from other planets about 25 years ago. They could be that, but that's too simplistic. It's like saying God is a human in a white robe sitting up in the clouds somewhere. That's silly. Would gorillas think God is a gorilla? And why wouldn't it be? That's another thing we can't understand. It's not that we don't understand it, we can't understand it. Probably even if it were explained to us. In an abduction experience once, someone asked a "gray" what their idea of God was. The "gray" told them "the same as yours".

Well that explains everything.... ;)

That's my thinking on the subject anyway.
 
My point was this. Naysayers use OUR science to explain why other civilizations CAN'T be visiting us from wherever it is they are in the universe because the science behind the science it would take to have developed crafts that can travel from wherever to here and back again is beyond the reach of their scienctific grasp. So they limit OTHER civiizations possibly even probablymore advanced then our own to we WE know to be true scientifically because they can't imagnie what it s they know scientifically.

We as a species are a couple of 100,000 years old. Scientifically our world is flat. How can you impose the limits of a flat world scientifically on a civilization who's world may be scientifically more advanced and therefore more rounded then our own simply because we can't or haven't yet reached as far.

Was my point.

Dee
 
You miss my point.

My point was this.

Was my point.

Dee,

Back off. You just got here. You've been warmly welcomed here. It's probably not a good idea to start off claiming people don't understand you. Nobody is 'missing your point,' which is somewhat simplistic. Believe it or not, there are people posting here who have decades of experience in the field, more years than you have been alive. Some have written well-received books on these subjects. There are a wide variety of issues here that have all been discussed before along with some pretty crreative and amazing possibilities as answers.

My suggestion is to sit back a bit, pore over some of the threads that are here already to give yourself an overview of the site, and avail yourself of the vast amount of knowledge and opinions which are already here. If you contribute meaningfully, you will become well-regarded.
 
Additionally, and a point of view in which I am admittedly in the minority here, there is no reason to assume that individual members of such a species will necessarily be wiser or more intelligent than ourselves.

You can consider me a part of that minority. Their form of intelligence, wisdom, technology, as it were may simply be "different". They are alien right? This also strikes the crux of what I think TheDeeMan was trying to illustrate with his question. All too easily do we fall into a perpetual anthropomorphism, to the point of defending the impossibility of certain achievements an alien civilization may be capable of. I think this thread thus far has affirmed that.

To expound upon what I meant by "different", my train of thought regarding that is pretty much in accordance with what Kevin mentioned. When we think of something more advanced, we tend to attribute it to being a higher next logical step, in most cases. I think that is flawed thinking, though for the most part unavoidable, and understandable. To really glean what might be out there, I think it's necessary to adopt a "the glass is empty" type of thinking.

Good thread and great discussion.

Edit: Though we have all heard it, and only because it's highly relevant: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -Arthur C. Clarke
 
maybe our biggest problem in all this is we have no frame of reference other than 'human' to use when we try to understand or attribute motive to these beings.
 
Dee,

Back off. You just got here. You've been warmly welcomed here. It's probably not a good idea to start off claiming people don't understand you. Nobody is 'missing your point,' which is somewhat simplistic.

I'm sorry. Back off? From what I too thought was a rather pleasant and interest conversation? But apparently you don't. Or don't think I did. Or are reading things into my comments. Or whatever.

Everyone SEEMED to be getting along fine.

Makes me wonder why YOU are coming off rather testy and demanding I "back off" for what seems to be NO REASON what so ever--And you just joined the conversation.

AND I really don't think you needed to jump into a conversation and the first thing you do is call someone elses ideas or opinions "simplistic". That's just plain rude.


Dee
 
You can consider me a part of that minority. Their form of intelligence, wisdom, technology, as it were may simply be "different". They are alien right? This also strikes the crux of what I think TheDeeMan was trying to illustrate with his question. All too easily do we fall into a perpetual anthropomorphism, to the point of defending the impossibility of certain achievements an alien civilization may be capable of. I think this thread thus far has affirmed that.

To expound upon what I meant by "different", my train of thought regarding that is pretty much in accordance with what Kevin mentioned. When we think of something more advanced, we tend to attribute it to being a higher next logical step, in most cases. I think that is flawed thinking, though for the most part unavoidable, and understandable. To really glean what might be out there, I think it's necessary to adopt a "the glass is empty" type of thinking.

Good thread and great discussion.

Edit: Though we have all heard it, and only because it's highly relevant: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -Arthur C. Clarke

What a great quote. Leave it to Arthur C. Clarke to get to the heart of the matter. All too often people will adopt a "if we can't do it, or conceive of it, how can they" attitude to things they don't understand. Think of how much has happened in the last 50-60 years that was once only found in science fiction like space travel itself. Who knows. 50-60 years from now we could be saying "Oh, so THAT'S how they were doing it all this time". LOL.

Dee
 
Well, Dee, I'll tell ya. I think it's rude for you to show up here and act as if you've got a handle on the entire issue and continue to tell people they 'miss your point.' with nearly every post. THAT is rude to me. If people are having a hard time 'getting your point' then perhaps that's YOUR problem, not theirs. I'm guessing you haven't studied the subject much. Read any books on the subject, or are you just jumping into the fray?

I believe an argument to the effect that ‘Aliens may be smarter/more advanced than us’ is pedantic and unhelpful. Every couple of months we go over these same points again. It is a well-trodden path, perhaps even paved with asphalt. We’ve been there, done that; and now we have to do it all over again. The basic ‘eye-opening insight’ is that we are being anthropomorphic and/or ethnocentric when we imagine that ‘aliens’ might be subject to the same laws of physics as we are, or that they have similar motivations, similar morals, or actually have an interest in what we do. Our science is backwards. We are amoebas compared to them, ants. We are insignificant. We are stupid. How dare we make assumptions!

That’s kind of the gist of it: Anthropology 101. You take it as a Freshman or Sophomore. Don’t be anthropomorphic! Check. Don’t be ethnocentric! Check. Don’t make assumptions! Check. ‘Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic!’ Heard it: One of the most famous and oft-cited quotes of the modern era, first given expression in 1973. So far, so good, but then comes the ‘Big Leap’ On the basis of these insightful aphorisms we then seek to dismiss any objections by critics with the charge that they are using ‘earthbound science’ and therefore have placed artificial and perhaps nonsensical constraints on the issues.

The problem with this preamble is that it gives license for abject speculation based on pure fantasy. It’s not even science fiction because there is, umm, ‘science’ in science fiction. Also, after admonishing people to not assume, it is itself full of assumptions. For example, WHAT aliens? What are you talking about? WHY do you assume they come from other star systems? Where’s your evidence? HOW do they manage to skip the laws of physics? And why does any of this nullify what we have found out about the world so far?

In analyzing and discussing what is going on I think we have to go with what we’ve got, with what we have learned about the universe and how it works. That does not by any stretch of the imagination mean I or we think we’ve got it down, that we have a full understanding of the workings of the universe at any level. Surely no one except a ‘wise fool’ (a sophomore) would make such a claim. But our current understanding must be accommodated just as Newtonian Mechanics is accommodated by Quantum Mechanics and Relativity.

In this case the ‘naysayers’ have a point that must be addressed. The distances between stars is vast. The time needed to travel between them is, well, ‘astronomical.’ You can’t just say, ‘Well, the alien guys are really smart and ahead of us and they must have figured it out.” and expect that to be an acceptable answer. You’re going to have to buckle down and address the issue in a way that can accommodate the objection. If you are unwilling to do that, then you are not providing anything to the conversation. You’ve skipped a step, and in this business, you must show your work.

One thing I think you will find on the Paracast forums is that the ETH is not at the top of the list of paradigms that accommodate the observations. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to study these other possibilities.
 
What a great quote. Leave it to Arthur C. Clarke to get to the heart of the matter. All too often people will adopt a "if we can't do it, or conceive of it, how can they" attitude to things they don't understand.

I was a big Arthur C. Clarke fan growing up, but then he did that silly show where he did a really bad job debunking everything at the end. Like ghosts are only the brain projecting images on the retina. Yeah, and the retina throws things around the room too! Buzzzz, wrong! That's when I realized that sci-fi people don't have open minds.

But it is a good quote.

Scientists only say we can't do something based on our present knowledge of physics, and they don't believe in magic. ;)
 
Great thread...



I agree with the thought that we easily fall into a perpetual anthropomorphism, it reminds me of the Disney movie ‘The Cat from Outer Space’. Our visitors brought different rules and equipment to the game and applying our rules and perspective to this issue doesn’t present a very adequate or reasonable resolution to what is being observed.
<o></o>
I’m not saying that our scientific community doesn’t think outside the ‘box’, they do, it’s just that it’s outside our ‘box’ and not theirs, I believe we are compounding the problem by only applying our point of view, be it personal or scientific.
<o></o>
I think a good deal of ‘folk’ are comfortable having their reality handed to them and to think of other possibilities is not what the teacher taught them, and to wander away from what one was taught by our society is not acceptable so, life outside of Earth is a difficult point of view to ponder.
<o></o>
I want to interject something into this current thought… Is the visiting ‘team’ interfering with the ‘game’ in some way? What if they are interfering with our understanding of them? They have already proven that they can be anywhere; they arrive without sound, uncloak, flash a little smile for the cameras and leave the same way they got there. Their actions suggest that they prefer that we remain in the dark.
<o></o>
The sheer number of sightings does suggests that they live here or near here in some way, maybe out of our visible light spectrum that was suggested by DavidRavenMoon. Their action also suggests that they are very comfortable being here and that they intend to stay. So I put forth that they are interfering with our quest to learn more, for is it in their best interest that they do nothing but watch?
<o></o>
Can this be considered assumption on my part? Why yes it can, for rehashing the current line of thought over and over just hasn’t been working out has it?
 
Well, Dee, I'll tell ya. I think it's rude for you to show up here and act as if you've got a handle on the entire issue and continue to tell people they 'miss your point.' with nearly every post. THAT is rude to me. If people are having a hard time 'getting your point' then perhaps that's YOUR problem, not theirs. I'm guessing you haven't studied the subject much. Read any books on the subject, or are you just jumping into the fray?

I believe an argument to the effect that ‘Aliens may be smarter/more advanced than us’ is pedantic and unhelpful. Every couple of months we go over these same points again. It is a well-trodden path, perhaps even paved with asphalt. We’ve been there, done that; and now we have to do it all over again. The basic ‘eye-opening insight’ is that we are being anthropomorphic and/or ethnocentric when we imagine that ‘aliens’ might be subject to the same laws of physics as we are, or that they have similar motivations, similar morals, or actually have an interest in what we do. Our science is backwards. We are amoebas compared to them, ants. We are insignificant. We are stupid. How dare we make assumptions!

That’s kind of the gist of it: Anthropology 101. You take it as a Freshman or Sophomore. Don’t be anthropomorphic! Check. Don’t be ethnocentric! Check. Don’t make assumptions! Check. ‘Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic!’ Heard it: One of the most famous and oft-cited quotes of the modern era, first given expression in 1973. So far, so good, but then comes the ‘Big Leap’ On the basis of these insightful aphorisms we then seek to dismiss any objections by critics with the charge that they are using ‘earthbound science’ and therefore have placed artificial and perhaps nonsensical constraints on the issues.

The problem with this preamble is that it gives license for abject speculation based on pure fantasy. It’s not even science fiction because there is, umm, ‘science’ in science fiction. Also, after admonishing people to not assume, it is itself full of assumptions. For example, WHAT aliens? What are you talking about? WHY do you assume they come from other star systems? Where’s your evidence? HOW do they manage to skip the laws of physics? And why does any of this nullify what we have found out about the world so far?

In analyzing and discussing what is going on I think we have to go with what we’ve got, with what we have learned about the universe and how it works. That does not by any stretch of the imagination mean I or we think we’ve got it down, that we have a full understanding of the workings of the universe at any level. Surely no one except a ‘wise fool’ (a sophomore) would make such a claim. But our current understanding must be accommodated just as Newtonian Mechanics is accommodated by Quantum Mechanics and Relativity.

In this case the ‘naysayers’ have a point that must be addressed. The distances between stars is vast. The time needed to travel between them is, well, ‘astronomical.’ You can’t just say, ‘Well, the alien guys are really smart and ahead of us and they must have figured it out.” and expect that to be an acceptable answer. You’re going to have to buckle down and address the issue in a way that can accommodate the objection. If you are unwilling to do that, then you are not providing anything to the conversation. You’ve skipped a step, and in this business, you must show your work.

One thing I think you will find on the Paracast forums is that the ETH is not at the top of the list of paradigms that accommodate the observations. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to study these other possibilities.

Good stuff as usual Schuyler, I would only add that the study of physics is a complex one. People throw around the "That violates the laws of physics" proclamation without being able to tell you exactly what law or laws it violates.

Anyway, not to beat a dead horse, but I feel arguing origin is about as dividing and worthless an endeavor as is possible to engage in.

I agree with your assessment of his knowledge/experience in the subject matter. I also agree that the underlying tone was "You people are stupid and cant grasp my epiphany. Here, let me try and dumb it down for you." We all know how well that usually works here.
 
There is a difference between a theory that has been tested by years of careful experiment and idle speculation (I know, because as people who've waded through my ramblings can attest I indulge in a lot of idle speculation). And the nature of science is such that while some theories are proven to be flatly wrong, in many cases a theory is only incomplete. We can't simply brush Einstein under the carpet because his conclusions are inconvenient.

Fair enough. However, there are certain facts when it comes to the behavior of UFOs that "science' is really at a loss to explain. The challenge here would be in essence, show me a well documented, peer reviewed study of the observed phenomena of infinite acceleration, "fastwalkers" if you will. We have visual witnesses and we have radar reports, which indicate a physicality and a reality. This for me is the argument against the notion put forth that "they can't get here from there" and to some extent, against the inter-dimensional hypothesis, which is much more speculative IMO, than the ETH.

Let's put it this way. They can't "walk fast' either according to our science, but they do.

As far as the University study goes, it's a rhetorical question. It can't be done. Why? Because it can't be repeated by us. We can't make it happen to observe, measure or quantify it. And yet, we know it happens. All that leaves us with is speculation, for better or worse. Science doesn't like that. It's too "inconvenient" (and hard to get funding for when you mention UFOs). So this may explain why some chaff at the argument put forth that they aren't here because "Einstein blah blah blah". If it wasn't for -his- speculation, you'd never even know the dudes name. He's lucky there wasn't an "Einstein" (metaphorical speaking) around for people to club him over the head with. Then again, maybe it's because he pretty much kept to himself...something I hope doesn't happen here, when it comes to new posters (like myself) who may just need time to get the hang of it...especially when speculating.

Thank god I'm on topic.
 
Back
Top