 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws6AAhTw7RA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyOtIsnG71U
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Awesome. That explains why when you travel through time, you don't come out
six months later with the earth on the wrong side of the sun, right? ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In the History Channel 'UFO Files' at the end of one of the episodes a
young man levitates a triangle induced with 50,000 volts, he said at the
moment science can't explain it yet. On that series, a few people
researched how to levitate wood chair and other non-magnetic stuff in in
the passed century (1960 or later I think, I don't recall well), they
were supposedly hired by USA military, in the episodes they show
original footage made by the levitators.
I wonder why we don't have levitating commercial "planes", I think they
could be safer since you don't need to fly at high altitudes since it's
soundless, I guess carbohydrate fuel wins again, no electric cars neither.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Even when both are clean energy.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscape net> wrote:
> In the History Channel 'UFO Files' at the end of one of the episodes a
> young man levitates a triangle induced with 50,000 volts, he said at the
> moment science can't explain it yet. On that series, a few people
> researched how to levitate wood chair and other non-magnetic stuff in in
> the passed century (1960 or later I think, I don't recall well), they
> were supposedly hired by USA military, in the episodes they show
> original footage made by the levitators.
I wouldn't put too much trust in a TV show named like that.
TV shows are made for entertainment. They lie if they have to. Everybody
knows that, yet people still fall for it.
Now, if you give me actual references to peer-reviewed publications,
that's a different story. (And I'm not talking about the triangle levitating
thanks to the 50 kilovolts.)
> I wonder why we don't have levitating commercial "planes", I think they
> could be safer since you don't need to fly at high altitudes since it's
> soundless, I guess carbohydrate fuel wins again, no electric cars neither.
There's no known physics to make a plane levitate.
A superconductor levitates over a magnet because of the Meissner effect.
It requires a very specific set of circumstances which are quite hard, if
not impossible, to replicate for an airplane in normal outdoords conditions.
(Namely, the plane would have to be superconductive and floating above a
gigantic superpowerful magnet.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/10/2011 10:38 PM, Warp wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws6AAhTw7RA
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyOtIsnG71U
That's just cool.
There are two things I can't figure out:
1. If it creates forces which hold the object in space, how come you can
still move it?
2. Why does the condensation rise upwards instead of downwards? That
makes no sense.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/19/2011 8:26, Invisible wrote:
> 1. If it creates forces which hold the object in space, how come you can
> still move it?
It holds it at the same angle relative to the magnetic field. Those lines in
the video that get pinched going thru the superconductor are actually
infinite in number (i.e., it's a drawing of a field, not actual lines), so
as long as you don't try to move the pinches with respect to the field, the
thing can move thru the field. (See, for example, the speed bump part of the
video.)
> 2. Why does the condensation rise upwards instead of downwards? That makes
> no sense.
I thought it was the liquid nitrogen that was trapped inside the plastic
wrap boiling off. I assumed the plastic wrap was open on the top side of the
chip.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/18/2011 10:39 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> In the History Channel 'UFO Files' at the end of one of the episodes a
> young man levitates a triangle induced with 50,000 volts, he said at the
> moment science can't explain it yet.
If the levitating triangle was this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft then the guy was delusional or
flat out lying when he said that science can't explain it. The upshot
is that the voltage induces a slight air current through the triangle,
and since the triangle is very lightweight this is sufficient to lift
it. I believe it's not currently practical for "real-life" use because
the voltage source would weigh significantly more than the lift it
generates (which is why the demos you see are powered by an external
voltage source).
As an aside, I believe the Mythbusters covered the ionocraft in an
episode on levitation techniques. If I remember correctly the craft
worked, but took a large voltage supply to operate and, as you would
expect, didn't operate in a vacuum.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/19/2011 9:29 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Those
> lines in the video that get pinched going thru the superconductor are
> actually infinite in number
I know jack-all about superconductors, so take this with a positively
enormous grain of salt, but I think this isn't accurate. The particular
sort of levitation that you see in the video is an example of flux
pinning, and is only possible with a particular type of superconductor
(a type II superconductor) with defects in its crystal structure. These
material defects are what traps the "lines" of magnetic flux relative to
the superconductor. Since there would only be a finite number of such
defects, there would be a finite number of "lines" where the field is
trapped as illustrated in the video.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/19/2011 10:13, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> there would be a finite number of "lines" where the field is trapped as
> illustrated in the video.
Yes, but there are an infinite number of *possible* lines, so to speak.
There isn't a flux line every millimeter, with no ability for the device to
jump from one flux line to the next that's a millimeter away, in other words.
As long as the finite number of discrete flaws don't move to a different
strength of field, the device can move freely.
I.e., the confusion seems to be that someone thinks the flux lines are like
the lines you get sprinkling iron filings around a bar magnet and thinking
there's no magnetism between the filings.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Saul Luizaga<sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>> In the History Channel 'UFO Files' at the end of one of the episodes a
>> young man levitates a triangle induced with 50,000 volts, he said at the
>> moment science can't explain it yet. On that series, a few people
>> researched how to levitate wood chair and other non-magnetic stuff in in
>> the passed century (1960 or later I think, I don't recall well), they
>> were supposedly hired by USA military, in the episodes they show
>> original footage made by the levitators.
>
> I wouldn't put too much trust in a TV show named like that.
>
> TV shows are made for entertainment. They lie if they have to. Everybody
> knows that, yet people still fall for it.
>
> Now, if you give me actual references to peer-reviewed publications,
> that's a different story. (And I'm not talking about the triangle levitating
> thanks to the 50 kilovolts.)
Well I have tried to research how true are some the things showed and
some are lies and others are true, but why would military will hide the
research of people that levitated wood? that's anti-gravity and of
course powerful technology if you can make a fighter with it which is
probably what some paranoid military people thought when they took that
away as soon it was known.
You'll never get proof from things like this, is always a little shady
but they have reasonable believable capability if you dig enough.
Another case was the Roswell UFO fragment that was recorded in a
cassette long ago in a unique interview in the '90s when the secretary
that was shown the material took it in his hands and when she deformed
it, it returned to its original shape and was told it was a space craft
piece, she had a agreement to never talk about it, she said something
like: "What are they gonna do to me, through me in jail or kill me? I
think I can handle either one", she was at the time very old 70+ years,
I think that was real adn I'm absolutely sure the 'Area 51' is
developing secret military devices and hiding extraterrestrial UFO info
all evidence points to that, just like the Big Bang Theory. 'Area 51'
was admitted to exist by USA Gov. by a trail that it was won by skillful
lawyer that defensed really sick, even terminal people that worked in a
"non-existent Military facility", most of those people must have died by
now and THAT is not fiction at all, they worked like 20-30+ years ago,
there and got poisoned by radioactive and toxic waste they were in
charge of disposal and the Gov. fired some of them for being sick, and
didn't want to recognize they did it, nice huh? another powerful reason
to not believe Governments of any Country, you have to be watchful always.
Is a interesting series that recollects from respected Ufologists and
testimonials from people that had first contact, The Pacific Triangle,
UFO in other Countries, like England ("England Roswell"), Brazil
military documented people killed by UFOs, UFO today scientific analysis
of a possible UFO craft with Michio Kaku helping describing some
phenomena and other scientist, etc, I suggest you buy it or torrent it.
If you're only paying attention to things that you can prove
scientifically or is scientifically accepted you're missing a great deal
that science can't explain and is part of nature: Extraterrestrial life,
alien spacecrafts & ghosts, etc. You don't believe them? fine, but there
are indications of it all over the world and people doing scams don't
mean is all false. Take the crop circles, the simpler ones are true UFO
making because of the impossible way they're made of; impossible as in
no human could bend & leave a little radiation that way; proof no,
reasonable doubt, oh yes.
>> I wonder why we don't have levitating commercial "planes", I think they
>> could be safer since you don't need to fly at high altitudes since it's
>> soundless, I guess carbohydrate fuel wins again, no electric cars neither.
>
> There's no known physics to make a plane levitate.
>
> A superconductor levitates over a magnet because of the Meissner effect.
> It requires a very specific set of circumstances which are quite hard, if
> not impossible, to replicate for an airplane in normal outdoords conditions.
> (Namely, the plane would have to be superconductive and floating above a
> gigantic superpowerful magnet.)
Anti-gravity is something that I've seen all over the Internet some
people have made it and that most if not all cases have been hidden by
Gov. or Military specially in USA, the concept and experiments are not
new, at least 50 years at the seems, but of course everyone that makes
"UFO science" is discouraged with a "bullets are so cheap" or you dying
of a mysterious or "natural" "heart attack" as probably happened to the
lead actor of the series ____ that according to people was the closest
to the truth someone ever made it a TV series.
This anti-gravity maybe could be fused or have a base on this magnetic
locking or other super-conductivity experiments/theories, but as I wrote
before, some technologies would kill current technologies eventually and
trillions would be lost in current investments, maybe massive layoffs,
huge economic quakes and desperation to get into the new developed tech
could lead to a hard to handle chaotic society worldwide, if done the
wrong way in this monetary system, which is something politician will
do, part due to their natural incompetence of most of them and part
because they will seen as the "saviors" of society, being the best a
politicians would want for themselves, which in turn is power and power
is money, this being their goal.
I honestly think that until we find a way to share resources in a better
way, giving to the poor but not spoiling them and taking from the rich
in a proportionate, efficient and fair for all ways, economic interests,
hence money, is reason for doing or not things in this world. But
monetary systems are long term self destructive systems as I have
learned and will progress i the line of economic ways until that system
collapses and maybe we can implement another that allows better
implementation of a science-based economy/society I think then will make
true progress in technology.
You made a post a few months ago about this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY and I did already see the
video by the time I saw your post but the server won't let reply because
it said it was too old, nobody replied it, yes nobody wants to see the
drama of some realities in life. This video and other about Resource
Based Economy tell how the economic system work and how it doesn't, so I
know a little this is the root of many problems today.
This method alone would be of course stupid to try to make it work as a
car-size vehicle to transport anything but it look promising, I hope
someday scientists can make a practical use of it and Gov./Mil wont take
it away.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes that's the one. I forgot to tell that the guy was really young and
that he told that it was believed that the electric field caused ionized
the air around and made it lighter so it was pushed down generating
lift. I can't believe there is no way till now to by any scientist to
make a use of this and make a damn car, maybe it would generate more
problems that solutions, people bumping on each other's cars... Imagine
a 8 line highway car accident!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/19/2011 18:16, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Anti-gravity is something that I've seen all over the Internet some people
> have made it and that most if not all cases have been hidden by Gov. or
> Military specially in USA,
Given that an explanation for how and why gravity does what it does is going
on at the LHC, I would think anyone with an actual working anti-gravity
device would be way, way too famous to be covered up.
> This anti-gravity maybe could be fused or have a base on this magnetic
> locking or other super-conductivity experiments/theories,
Uh, no. There's no gravity involved in what you saw here, any more than it's
ghosts holding the fridge magnet to the fridge.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes I know is only magnetic force passing through a superconductor and
getting stuck on its way through but since I don't know much about
Quantum Physics I thought some how the 2 forces could somehow me mixed
or interact, to achieve lift at quantum level or something like that. I
wonder why I don't read scientists trying to make practical use of
anti-gravity. I was told that they have found a way to tele+transport a
monochrome laser light 1 meter using Quantum Physics, where are those
experiments, we could use that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Well I have tried to research how true are some the things showed and
> some are lies and others are true, but why would military will hide the
> research of people that levitated wood?
Why are you assuming that the "military" is hiding that? Just because
someone claims that they are hiding it doesn't make it true.
Ufologists and conspiracy theorists are very keen to argue from ignorance,
especially if the government or the mitilary is involved. For example,
sometimes the government will publish some secred documents with large
pieces of text blacked out. The ufologists and conspiracy theorists will
immediately jump to the argument from ignorance: What are they hiding?
Is it UFOs? A world domination conspiracy?
Yet the explanation is probably much more mundane. You see, governments
and the military do perform clandestine spying and other similar operations
from time to time, and publishing the details of these operations may
either compromise existing operations or cause political turmoil. They
may use spy planes (which sometimes can get confused with UFOs) or agents
in the field. However, there isn't necessarily anything in this related to
hiding UFO or other similar technology. It's more probably Tom Clancy type
stuff than UFO type stuff.
> I think that was real adn I'm absolutely sure the 'Area 51' is
> developing secret military devices
It's not a secret that "Area 51" is a development and testing site for
new military technology, most often aircraft. Many of the most famous
military aircraft have been tested there.
> and hiding extraterrestrial UFO info
> all evidence points to that
Argument from ignorance.
> Is a interesting series that recollects from respected Ufologists and
> testimonials from people that had first contact, The Pacific Triangle,
> UFO in other Countries, like England ("England Roswell"), Brazil
> military documented people killed by UFOs, UFO today scientific analysis
> of a possible UFO craft with Michio Kaku helping describing some
> phenomena and other scientist, etc, I suggest you buy it or torrent it.
I have seen quite some videos and documentaries about ufology, including
videos that claim to be the most convincing evidence of UFOs. They weren't
very convincing.
Eyewitness testimony is completely unreliable. People interpret what
they see in all kind of wrong ways because they don't know what they are
seeing. Mouth-to-mouth word spreads these stories, and people invent new
details to them, even without realizing (that's because people do not
repeat the words they hear; instead they repeat the mental image they
got when they were told the story). Some people repeat as personal
experience something that they heard from a good friend (this is very
well documented in multitude of cases, including the infamous Roswell
"UFO" case). Some people lie.
Eyewitness testimony can be discarded as evidence outrigh. At most it
can be used as a starting point for further investigation, but not as
evidence of any kind. Believing in something because of eyewitness
testimony is simply foolishness. I wouldn't believe even my best and
most trusted friend if he claimed to have seen something extraordinary.
(With that I don't mean he's lying. I mean that unless I get more concrete
evidence, the veracity of the claim is an open question. It's most probable
that he was simply mistaken.)
Ufologists can compile tons and tons of "evidence", several-hours-long
"documentaries", entire libraries of books, but it all amounts to the
exact same thing as conspiracy theories. With enough cherry-picking and
selective interpretation (and more often than not complete lack of any
actual investigation) you can make anything sound plausible.
> If you're only paying attention to things that you can prove
> scientifically or is scientifically accepted you're missing a great deal
> that science can't explain and is part of nature: Extraterrestrial life,
> alien spacecrafts & ghosts, etc.
Again, that's just an argument from ignorance. "Science can't explain
this, hence it must be an UFO/ghost/whatever." No, it doesn't. Don't argue
from ignorance. If science cannot explain it (and in most cases it actually
can; it's just that believers dismiss the explanation), then it's just
something unexplained. "It's an UFO" is not an explanation.
Why should I believe in something there's no actual evidence for? I would
most probably be believing in falsities, and what good would that do to me?
> You don't believe them? fine, but there
> are indications of it all over the world and people doing scams don't
> mean is all false.
Please don't argue from ignorance. Lack of explanation does not imply
anything. (And that's assuming there's no explanation. There actually is
a very simple explanation far more often than ufologists want to believe.)
> Take the crop circles, the simpler ones are true UFO
> making because of the impossible way they're made of; impossible as in
> no human could bend & leave a little radiation that way; proof no,
> reasonable doubt, oh yes.
Actually all crop circles are quite easy for humans to make, and this
has been demonstrated countless times.
And anyways, even if some crop circles cannot been explained, what does
that prove? Nothing. It's unexplained. Deducing an explanation from the
unexplained is just an argument from ignorance.
> Anti-gravity is something that I've seen all over the Internet some
> people have made it and that most if not all cases have been hidden by
> Gov. or Military specially in USA
That sentence is contradictory. How can they be "all over the internet"
if they have been hidden?
If someone invented an antigravity device, it would probably be an
automatic Nobel prize for him.
>, the concept and experiments are not
> new, at least 50 years at the seems, but of course everyone that makes
> "UFO science" is discouraged with a "bullets are so cheap" or you dying
> of a mysterious or "natural" "heart attack" as probably happened to the
> lead actor of the series ____ that according to people was the closest
> to the truth someone ever made it a TV series.
Ok, this is going so far into the tinfoil-hat territory that I'm going
to stop.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote:
> If the levitating triangle was this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft then the guy was delusional or
> flat out lying when he said that science can't explain it. The upshot
> is that the voltage induces a slight air current through the triangle,
> and since the triangle is very lightweight this is sufficient to lift
> it. I believe it's not currently practical for "real-life" use because
> the voltage source would weigh significantly more than the lift it
> generates (which is why the demos you see are powered by an external
> voltage source).
Btw, one common feature to all (actual) physical phenomena that seem
to levitate objects is that they actually don't. Ok, it depends on how
you define "levitation", but usually it means something that somehow
nullifies gravity. (If "levitation" meant simply "does not touch the
ground for a long period of time", then planes, helicopters and hot
air balloons all "levitate" without problems.)
Gravity is not being affected in any way in any of these phenomena.
The "levitating" object is still being pulled down by gravity, and hence
it's applying a force to the ground. The only difference between these
phenomena and just an object that is in direct contact with the ground is
that there's an invisible force mediating between the object and the ground
(usually a magnetic field or a flow of air).
I don't really understand why some people get so excited about these
"levitation" experiments. They are no different from airplanes and
helicopters. All of them hover in the air without toucing the ground.
The mechanism is just a bit different depending on the phenomenon.
What makes the "levitation" of a superconductor over a magnet (or the
other way around) so cool is that it's not something you experience in
everyday life (for obvious reasons). You could try to levitate a magnet
over another magnet, but it will just quickly fall off. The Meissner
effect makes the superconductor stay in place, which is unintuitive and
not common-day experience.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/19/2011 23:17, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I thought some how the 2 forces could somehow me mixed or interact,
Technically, gravity is a completely different thing from quantum forces.
Indeed, the separation of gravity from the other three forces is the current
biggest confusion and mystery to be solved, and the source of funding for
the LHC.
> to achieve lift at quantum level or something like that.
"Lift" is not "anti-gravity", any more than Boeing is ant-gravity.
> don't read scientists trying to make practical use of anti-gravity.
Because they don't know how to create anti-gravity, and indeed it's not at
all obvious that such a thing would even be theoretically possible. Gravity
is caused by, basically, the existence of real non-euclidean geometry. It's
not quite obvious how you "anti" that.
> told that they have found a way to tele+transport a monochrome laser light 1
> meter using Quantum Physics, where are those experiments, we could use that.
That's not hard. I have a flashlight that will transport all kinds of colors
all the way across the room. Without actually an understanding of what's
under discussion, reading that sort of stuff just rots your brains.
It's like asking "if my friend can have an email conversation with me over
the computer, why can't my computer have an email conversation with me?"
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 10/19/2011 23:17, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> > I thought some how the 2 forces could somehow me mixed or interact,
> Technically, gravity is a completely different thing from quantum forces.
> Indeed, the separation of gravity from the other three forces is the current
> biggest confusion and mystery to be solved, and the source of funding for
> the LHC.
In fact, it may well be that gravity isn't a force at all, just a
side-effect of the geometry of spacetime (as postulated by the theory
of GR).
This would mean that modifying gravity requires modifying the geometry
of spacetime.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I don't really understand why some people get so excited about these
> "levitation" experiments.
Answer >---|
|
v
> What makes the "levitation" of a superconductor over a magnet (or the
> other way around) so cool is that it's not something you experience in
> everyday life (for obvious reasons).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/19/2011 6:16 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Saul Luizaga<sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>>> In the History Channel 'UFO Files' at the end of one of the episodes a
>>> young man levitates a triangle induced with 50,000 volts, he said at the
>>> moment science can't explain it yet. On that series, a few people
>>> researched how to levitate wood chair and other non-magnetic stuff in in
>>> the passed century (1960 or later I think, I don't recall well), they
>>> were supposedly hired by USA military, in the episodes they show
>>> original footage made by the levitators.
>>
>> I wouldn't put too much trust in a TV show named like that.
>>
>> TV shows are made for entertainment. They lie if they have to. Everybody
>> knows that, yet people still fall for it.
>>
>> Now, if you give me actual references to peer-reviewed publications,
>> that's a different story. (And I'm not talking about the triangle
>> levitating
>> thanks to the 50 kilovolts.)
>
> Well I have tried to research how true are some the things showed and
> some are lies and others are true, but why would military will hide the
> research of people that levitated wood? that's anti-gravity and of
> course powerful technology if you can make a fighter with it which is
> probably what some paranoid military people thought when they took that
> away as soon it was known.
>
> You'll never get proof from things like this, is always a little shady
> but they have reasonable believable capability if you dig enough.
> Another case was the Roswell UFO fragment that was recorded in a
> cassette long ago in a unique interview in the '90s when the secretary
> that was shown the material took it in his hands and when she deformed
> it, it returned to its original shape and was told it was a space craft
> piece, she had a agreement to never talk about it, she said something
> like: "What are they gonna do to me, through me in jail or kill me? I
> think I can handle either one", she was at the time very old 70+ years,
> I think that was real adn I'm absolutely sure the 'Area 51' is
> developing secret military devices and hiding extraterrestrial UFO info
> all evidence points to that, just like the Big Bang Theory. 'Area 51'
> was admitted to exist by USA Gov. by a trail that it was won by skillful
> lawyer that defensed really sick, even terminal people that worked in a
> "non-existent Military facility", most of those people must have died by
> now and THAT is not fiction at all, they worked like 20-30+ years ago,
> there and got poisoned by radioactive and toxic waste they were in
> charge of disposal and the Gov. fired some of them for being sick, and
> didn't want to recognize they did it, nice huh? another powerful reason
> to not believe Governments of any Country, you have to be watchful always.
>
>
Think my eyes just crossed... Seriously though, much like various other
things of the sort, there is a lot "made up" at the time, which later
you run into problems, like it being pretty much impossible to, say,
completely erase *any* evidence of certain people involved, yet there
isn't even evidence that certain people that supposedly where there ever
existed **at all**. Those things have been rehashed a lot, and nothing
new has come out of them, other than further questions about if any of
it happened, could have, or what statements really where made, by who,
etc. I find it amazing that the most likely result of Roswell, that some
goofball that believed in UFOs may have misidentified something man
made, initially, because he *personally* had no direct knowledge of the
project it came from, during a time of massive military experiment and
research, is just not possible, but that a real UFO crashed, and was
covered up by a government that can't seem to bloody hide shit
otherwise, including the location of their secret, "it doesn't exist",
military bases, successfully prevented any but a few random people, from
ever telling the truth about a crashed alien space craft... What? And,
most of the stuff since is even more insane, complete with some of the
"top" UFO people, that claim its all true, also claiming that their
entire existence was erased, complete with university records, job
records, even place of birth, and replaced with completely different
information, including that the closest they ever got to a base was as a
janitor.
Guess who is the #1 top nut talking about invisibility, levitation, etc.
Yep, the janitor...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/19/2011 11:17 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Yes I know is only magnetic force passing through a superconductor and
> getting stuck on its way through but since I don't know much about
> Quantum Physics I thought some how the 2 forces could somehow me mixed
> or interact, to achieve lift at quantum level or something like that. I
> wonder why I don't read scientists trying to make practical use of
> anti-gravity.
Because, anti-gravity isn't possible until you understand "gravity". The
magnetic stuff isn't anti-gravity, and it requires superconductors,
which do not work at sane temperatures (as in any range of such that are
practical, at all, or would provide enough lifting for more than a small
disc, over a magnet).
> I was told that they have found a way to tele+transport a
> monochrome laser light 1 meter using Quantum Physics, where are those
> experiments, we could use that.
For what? Just because you can monkey with like 1:10,000 photons
produced by such a laser, in a way that results in that one photon being
"teleported" a meter or so, doesn't mean that you can do shit all useful
with it. Seriously, if it was that easy to produce quantum effects, or
entangled pairs, we would already have light sabers (basically, you
split the pair, send on out the business end, and send the other down
the tube, to be "bounced" back, or absorbed, so that the other half of
the pair "stops" at the length you want. Problem is, the blade could be
only as long as the "hilt", or more precisely the absorption/reflection
chamber. Second problem - even if you had part of each pair bouncing
around inside a reflection chamber, it would take you a week to form a
blade, and it would dissipate in seconds, the moment it hit something,
since you can't "consistently" produce entangled pairs at anything near
the scale, and rate, needed to do it.
Same problem with trying to "teleport" lasers. It only works,
consistently, with single photons, and then only with some X number, out
of Y produced. What do you want next, make them bend around corners, or
produce Star Trek holodecks?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/20/2011 9:24 AM, Warp wrote:
>> Is a interesting series that recollects from respected Ufologists and
>> testimonials from people that had first contact, The Pacific Triangle,
>> UFO in other Countries, like England ("England Roswell"), Brazil
>> military documented people killed by UFOs, UFO today scientific analysis
>> of a possible UFO craft with Michio Kaku helping describing some
>> phenomena and other scientist, etc, I suggest you buy it or torrent it.
>
> I have seen quite some videos and documentaries about ufology, including
> videos that claim to be the most convincing evidence of UFOs. They weren't
> very convincing.
>
> Eyewitness testimony is completely unreliable. People interpret what
> they see in all kind of wrong ways because they don't know what they are
> seeing. Mouth-to-mouth word spreads these stories, and people invent new
> details to them, even without realizing (that's because people do not
> repeat the words they hear; instead they repeat the mental image they
> got when they were told the story). Some people repeat as personal
> experience something that they heard from a good friend (this is very
> well documented in multitude of cases, including the infamous Roswell
> "UFO" case). Some people lie.
>
Eye witness testimony is "so" unreliable that, in one of the shows on TV
recently, 10 people couldn't pin down, in a staged crime:
1. The number involved (correct number was 4, the average number given
was 2, with 3 being the next closest. None of them got 4).
2. The person that took the item (they claimed everything from the woman
arguing, to one of the other people in the crowd with them, had, when it
was actually taken by one, then handed off to another.)
3. How any of the people involved where dressed (Not even going to go
into that, see later.)
4. What, and from where, it was stolen (wallet, from the guys back pocket).
5. Couldn't avoid "false" memories, resulting from two plants, whose
only job was to get 50% of it right, but introduce three wrong details.
The end result was the only verified "suspect" that wasn't even involved
at all, the woman who was either in a hat, or not, wearing red, white,
or dark clothes, her and the man she was arguing with, or her and two
men, one of which stole a camera, out of a camera bag (no bag, and it
was a wallet, out of his pocket). It only got worse, when they put them
in a room, asked them questions together, so they fed off each other,
and the two plants dropped the "camera", and "she had a hat, and a white
coat on", BS into the mix.
The farther you get from the event, the more useless the information
gets. The more people have time to talk to each other, the more useless
the information gets. And, unless you are very careful to pick the guy
that doesn't embellish, and it *very* precise in their details, without
adding in feelings, and side thoughts, etc., even the stuff you get out
of a witness "within minutes" of it happening, is often complete gibberish.
Now, the "witnesses" in UFO cases are rarely clinical, they add details,
as they go, they tend to talk about what they felt, rather than only
what they saw, i.e., even from the standpoint of talking to them,
"within minutes" of the event, their testimony would be thrown out as
unlikely to be reliable, without additional information, right from the
start. Yet, we are supposed to presume that, having had years to
rethink, reexamine, talk to other people, listen to, or read, other
stories like their own, etc., there testimony of what happened got "more
reliable" with time?
Yep, as you said Warp, the whole idea that this is sensible, or that you
can trust any of it, at all, without *clear* evidence, like the missing
"crashed ship" or other verifiable facts, is pure absurdity.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/19/2011 7:03 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I can't believe there is no way till now to by any scientist to
> make a use of this and make a damn car, maybe it would generate more
> problems that solutions, people bumping on each other's cars... Imagine
> a 8 line highway car accident!
I remember watching a TV show when I was a kid about flying cars that
made them sound like they'd be a reality really soon. That was a long
time ago and I'm still waiting!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/10/2011 05:32 PM, Warp wrote:
> I don't really understand why some people get so excited about these
> "levitation" experiments. They are no different from airplanes and
> helicopters. All of them hover in the air without toucing the ground.
> The mechanism is just a bit different depending on the phenomenon.
Helicopters hover by expending vast amounts of energy per second. This
levitating magnet appears to expend no energy at all.
> What makes the "levitation" of a superconductor over a magnet (or the
> other way around) so cool is that it's not something you experience in
> everyday life (for obvious reasons).
WRONG! The thing that makes it so cool is the liquid nitrogen. :-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Now, the "witnesses" in UFO cases are rarely clinical, they add details,
> as they go, they tend to talk about what they felt, rather than only
> what they saw, i.e., even from the standpoint of talking to them,
> "within minutes" of the event, their testimony would be thrown out as
> unlikely to be reliable, without additional information, right from the
> start. Yet, we are supposed to presume that, having had years to
> rethink, reexamine, talk to other people, listen to, or read, other
> stories like their own, etc., there testimony of what happened got "more
> reliable" with time?
Another less known fact (which I already mentioned in my earlier post)
is that it's surprisingly common for people to have witnessed something
personally when in fact they didn't, and instead they were just told about
it.
One reason for this happening is that people misremember things. When a
person is told a story, he forms a mental image of that story in his head.
In other words, he uses his imagination to envision what is being told.
Much later this person may well misremember this event and mistakenly think
that he himself witnessed those events he only imagined back then. In other
words, he forgets that it was his own imagination of the story he was being
told, not an actual direct witnessing.
It has happened many times that when these "first-hand" eyewitnesses are
scrutinized in more detail, it turns out that they didn't actually witness
the event themselves. For example the Roswell UFO event was rife with this
type of eyewitnesses.
Another problem is that, as I said, people do not repeat the words they
hear. They repeat the mental image they got from those words. Naturally
it's impossible for the mental image to be the same as the real event.
People "fill in the blanks", form concrete mental images from vague
descriptions, and so on. When they later describe these mental images they
got, they may be wildly different from the original events. (And when this
retelling is further retold by others, it changes even more, and so on.)
Eyewitness testimony is just worthless. Ufologists and ufo believers
should stop putting so much weight on them.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Helicopters hover by expending vast amounts of energy per second. This
> levitating magnet appears to expend no energy at all.
In the same way as an object on a table seems to be "expending no energy
at all" to stop it from falling through the table, or a boat on water seems
to likewise be "expending no energy at all" to stop it from sinking to the
bottom.
The four fundamental interactions work like that.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/10/2011 01:56 PM, Warp wrote:
> Another less known fact (which I already mentioned in my earlier post)
> is that it's surprisingly common for people to have witnessed something
> personally when in fact they didn't, and instead they were just told about
> it.
I read about an experiment which culminated in the researchers asking a
group of people if they'd seen the Bugs Bunnie poster last time they
were at Disney World. (They didn't just ask; they did things like show
people a poster next to a Mickey Mouse poster and so on and so forth.) A
significant number of people claimed they *had* in fact seen this poster.
(Those of you paying attention will notice that Bugs Bunnie is *not* a
Disney character, and wouldn't be seen dead at Disney World...)
> Another problem is that, as I said, people do not repeat the words they
> hear. They repeat the mental image they got from those words.
There's a famous demonstration which involves telling a person that
you're going to read them a description and then quiz them on it, so
they need to remember as many details as possible. You give them a long
drawn-out description of a house by a road, with a garden and a car and
so on and so forth. At the end, you ask what colour the car was.
Everybody is sure they heard you say a colour, but in fact the story
does not specify the car's actual colour. False recall, right there.
Pretty easy to demonstrate [provided you can find somebody who doesn't
already know it's a trick].
> Eyewitness testimony is just worthless. Ufologists and ufo believers
> should stop putting so much weight on them.
And courtrooms.
Oh, wait...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/21/2011 6:17, Invisible wrote:
> (Those of you paying attention will notice that Bugs Bunnie is *not* a
> Disney character, and wouldn't be seen dead at Disney World...)
Hmm. I should try dressing up as Bugs Bunny for halloween and see if they'll
let me into disney land.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, all the tricks: Transporters, holodecks, replicators & a lot of
useful things for space exploration and every day use, why not?
Lightsabers no, maybe in a 1,000 years more when we learn to be more
civil. If it's useful and moral I think is good for Humanity.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/22/2011 17:38, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Yes, all the tricks: Transporters, holodecks, replicators & a lot of useful
> things for space exploration and every day use, why not?
Why not *what*? Why not just invent these fictional devices without any
idea of how to go about doing so?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/22/2011 7:32 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/22/2011 17:38, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Yes, all the tricks: Transporters, holodecks, replicators & a lot of
>> useful
>> things for space exploration and every day use, why not?
>
> Why not *what*? Why not just invent these fictional devices without any
> idea of how to go about doing so?
>
Yeah, about as absurd as assuming that you can do something like a
holodeck (fields and positional light), or replicator (using fields, of
some sort, to directly organize material into structures), without some
idiot inventing a lightsaber with it. The sad thing is, the replicator,
to a limited extent (might) be feasible, for some range of things. You
don't need absolute precision, if you are making something with a simple
chemical structure, which isn't prone to producing toxic byproducts, if
you get it wrong. You just need a way to, layer by layer, apply the
materials, something we already do, with printers, for some things now,
including simple circuits.
But, it doesn't require quantum anything to do it, or precise field
manipulations, or anti-grav, or the whole host of other shit that either
seems improbable at all, or requires shit that quantum mechanics
experiments haven't even come bloody close to providing us any sort of
clue for.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Yes, all the tricks: Transporters, holodecks, replicators & a lot of
> useful things for space exploration and every day use, why not?
> Lightsabers no, maybe in a 1,000 years more when we learn to be more
> civil. If it's useful and moral I think is good for Humanity.
Since you seem to believe seriously in all those things you have been
writing about in this thread and apparently are not just joking, can I give
you some friendly advise?
Spend some time studying how science works in general, and physics in
particular. Read some books about science and the scientific method, as
well as some introductory books on subjects like general physics and, if
you like, more specific subjects such as astrophysics. Take some course
on these subjects. Enroll into a university or similar school.
Also, study a bit about human behavior and psychology, about how the
brain works and how people interpret what they see. Get acquainted with
common misconceptions, argumentative fallacies and urban legends.
When you encounter an extraordinary claim, investigate. And when
investigating, avoid bias. Do not "investigate" only material that
supports the claim. Also investigate serious material that discredits
the claim. Search for debunking websites and consider what they are
saying and why.
As the adage goes, a brain is a terrible thing to waste.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/23/2011 1:08 AM, Warp wrote:
> When you encounter an extraordinary claim, investigate. And when
> investigating, avoid bias. Do not "investigate" only material that
> supports the claim. Also investigate serious material that discredits
> the claim. Search for debunking websites and consider what they are
> saying and why.
>
I will go one step beyond this and say, "If something seems to support
the claim, but there is no link, article/page numbers, or other
information that can be used to find the original source, which they
claim supports them, find it anyway." Odds are, all too often, the
original source either doesn't say what they claim, says something
similar, but which does not come even close to supporting their
contentions, or even completely, flat out, contradicts them. People who
badly want something to be true, will grasp at any straw they can, and
you can usually tell they are grasping straws, or either intentionally,
or unintentionally, misrepresenting something, by, not merely failing
to, refusing to link to the original source.
Then, of course, there are the delusional, who link to the source, fully
certain that either you won't bother checking it, or that, when you do,
you will agree with them (even when the article in question directly
addresses claims like their own, and refutes them). In any case, never
take the word of someone claiming things that don't fit the common view
at face value. They might have a great idea, but they might also be a
long standing nutcase, who mangles every paper they get their hands on,
in an attempt to use even the words of people that undermine every claim
they are making, in the very article being referenced. You can't be
sure, unless you compare what is claimed *about* the article, with what
it *actually* says. At least, not with any level of trust, especially
when the claim is something that falls in the "fringe" zone, of theory,
and gives skeptics a case of hives. lol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/23/2011 14:30, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> or even completely, flat out, contradicts them.
Like the people who quote the judge in the court case that said "the 16th
amendment granted no new ability for the federal government to impose
taxes." And then they dance all around saying "See? You don't need to pay
taxes!"
The judge finished the sentence with "because the federal government already
had and has always had the ability to impose income taxes. This amendment
just (paraphrasing) adjusted how the accounting works."
People do the same thing with patents. "Look, a patent on peanut butter
sandwiches! How stupid!"
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> On 10/22/2011 17:38, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Yes, all the tricks: Transporters, holodecks, replicators & a lot of
>> useful
>> things for space exploration and every day use, why not?
>
> Why not *what*? Why not just invent these fictional devices without any
> idea of how to go about doing so?
>
You missed the point.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Are you sure is me who is arguing out of ignorance? are you sure you
have the last word on the subject because you know absolutely everything
there is to know about it? Are you sure the life threatening experienced
are not memorized efficiently for decades of some UFO interactions? Are
you sure I'm a complete illiterate?
You should ask this questions before assuming, hence writing out of
ignorance, about someone. take this also a s friendly advice.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Are you sure is me who is arguing out of ignorance? are you sure you
> have the last word on the subject because you know absolutely everything
> there is to know about it? Are you sure the life threatening experienced
> are not memorized efficiently for decades of some UFO interactions? Are
> you sure I'm a complete illiterate?
> You should ask this questions before assuming, hence writing out of
> ignorance, about someone. take this also a s friendly advice.
You clearly don't understand what "argument from ignorance" means.
It does not mean "you are an ignorant person, your argument is bollocks".
"Argument from ignorance" is a form of argumentation where a positive
claim is drawn from something not having an explanation. For example,
a classic form of argument from ignorance is: "Science can't explain where
the universe came from. Thus it must have been created by God." In other
words, if something cannot be explained (by science in general or by the
person you are talking with in particular), that's taken as evidence for
the claim.
You see this all the time in all kinds of situations, especially ufology.
Every "unexplained" phenomenon is taken as evidence of UFOs, the main
argument being that it's unexplained. Hence argument from ignorance.
Of course this is a completely flawed argument. If something is unexplained,
then it is unexplained. Taking it as evidence of an explanation is flawed
argumentation. In fact, it's self-contradictory. It's basically saying
"this cannot be explained, thus it can be explained".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well such a basic assumption is old and of course every one tries to
avoid it and yes you don't know nor can't explain everything through
science now, as are many thing in nature, nor you haven't seen how and
what those cases are all about you're generalizing out of ignorance
because you saw a few cases and wrongly assume situations will repeat
the same for the most part. And because something can't be explained it
doesn't mean is not indication something is going on, you need to open
your mind to toher possibilities and stop that attitude "Give me facts
or give me death!", you're like the ignorant which hunters, only seeing
what you want to see, science and nothings else.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Forgot to say, check the series 'UFO Files' and again, not everything is
false not everyone/everything is true but some things are. Bob Lazard is
a attention whore fake witness for example that does appear in the
series but there are others that do offer truthful and objective
indication of ET presence, I suggest you to re-read my post:
news://news.povray.org:119/4e9f7644@news.povray.org you're assuming many
wrongful things about my posts & myself when I explained how and why
precisely to avoid people assuming things but you looks like you
over-read it and did it anyway.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/25/2011 4:43 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Well such a basic assumption is old and of course every one tries to
> avoid it and yes you don't know nor can't explain everything through
> science now, as are many thing in nature, nor you haven't seen how and
> what those cases are all about you're generalizing out of ignorance
> because you saw a few cases and wrongly assume situations will repeat
> the same for the most part. And because something can't be explained it
> doesn't mean is not indication something is going on, you need to open
> your mind to toher possibilities and stop that attitude "Give me facts
> or give me death!", you're like the ignorant which hunters, only seeing
> what you want to see, science and nothings else.
Ugh.. Its the, "Different ways of knowing", argument, combined with what
can best be called the, "If we keep doing it, maybe next time it will
happen a different way!", argument, which most people would define as a
sign of, if not potentially insanity, then at least extreme wishful
thinking.
Here is a hint, every other "way of knowing" has been a dismal failure
at providing explanations, facts, evidence, or anything that might
otherwise result in progress towards doing anything useful with the
"knowledge" thus produced. When someone can show *any* example to the
contrary, which doesn't, at some point, rely on scientific experiment,
repeatability, and elimination of other possible explanations *before*
reaching something *usable*... well, then we will open our minds to the
above "possibilities".
Now, I need to go and see if, this time, the pot I put on the stove
freezes, instead of boiling. Apparently, I need to open my mind, and a
few repeated cases of it boiling isn't sufficient reason to imagine that
I know what will happen the next time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/25/2011 4:53 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Forgot to say, check the series 'UFO Files' and again, not everything is
> false not everyone/everything is true but some things are. Bob Lazard is
> a attention whore fake witness for example that does appear in the
> series but there are others that do offer truthful and objective
> indication of ET presence, I suggest you to re-read my post:
> news://news.povray.org:119/4e9f7644@news.povray.org you're assuming many
> wrongful things about my posts & myself when I explained how and why
> precisely to avoid people assuming things but you looks like you
> over-read it and did it anyway.
Funny, given that Lazard is one of the few people that can even be
proven, based on the evidence, to even exist, instead of having been
made up, by among others, Lazard, in some cases, its hardly helping the
argument to claim that he is less credible than people that there are no
records of, outside of the claims made that they where in fact "at"
various places, like Roswell.
The ones you can verify, you get so much contradictory details, that its
hardly clear at all what they did see, report, etc., at the time, never
mind years later, after they had plenty of time to embellish. And
***everyone*** embellishes. There is no person on earth, with the
possible exception of some people with near perfect photographic
memories, who doesn't construct every detail of what happened to them
10. 20, etc. years prior, out of fragments, complete with modifications,
distortions, and misremembered details. At best, some of us have
friends, neighbors, and relatives that are also there, and *they* offer
versions that mostly coincide, to the result is "close" to the original.
Divorce someone of anyone they can talk to about it, then leave them
decades to only construct their own narrative of events, from their own
faulty recollections, and I would be surprised if they remembered
"anything" accurately, which they didn't have clear reason to recall.
We know that even the act of recalling an event both "strengthens" that
memory, but alters it at the same time. If you haven't had a reason to
recall it at all, for decades, what does that do to it, when you try to
recover it? It certainly can't be trustworthy. And that isn't just
opinion, its an entire field, called neuroscience.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
No is not like that at all, you think you know everything about it and
you don't, also who said I was trying to be "useful" with this info?
Being cynical and speaking out of ignorance won't help you either.
The point being: there are indications of some things out there that are
suspicious, and can't be explained but the logical conclusions are this
and that... etc.
People are so cynical because they like to be in their comfort zone, so
be it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> And that isn't just
> opinion, its an entire field, called neuroscience.
In which you're an expert? I doubt it. I also doubt you have watched the
series and verified the facts, I haven't verified all of them but the
some main characters. Lazard worked at a secret facility but that's it,
serious UFOlogists reject him as they have tried to verify his claims
with him, he just wants the attention; his car has a plate MJ-1, if your
life is in danger from Gov threats you're going to be announcing you
worked at Majestic? lol what a joke. He even breaks the law selling
illegal radioactive isotopes from time to time when he should be hiding.
You don't know everyone on Earth and what they do or not to affirm they
ALL embellish, if a memory is strong enough you don't need to is always
fresh for some reason even 40+ years I know this because I have met
people that over time have said the same stories WITHOUT embellishment.
Check the series and then make conclusions, you'll see now you're
assuming too much.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> And because something can't be explained it
> doesn't mean is not indication something is going on, you need to open
> your mind to toher possibilities and stop that attitude "Give me facts
> or give me death!", you're like the ignorant which hunters, only seeing
> what you want to see, science and nothings else.
Being open minded to alternatives does not mean automatically *accepting*
those alternatives. One should accept explanations only if there's sufficient
evidence for them, not just because someone came up with them.
Believing something just because somebody tells you so is not
open-mindedness. It's gullibility.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Saul Luizaga<sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>> And because something can't be explained it
>> doesn't mean is not indication something is going on, you need to open
>> your mind to toher possibilities and stop that attitude "Give me facts
>> or give me death!", you're like the ignorant which hunters, only seeing
>> what you want to see, science and nothings else.
>
> Being open minded to alternatives does not mean automatically *accepting*
> those alternatives. One should accept explanations only if there's sufficient
> evidence for them, not just because someone came up with them.
>
> Believing something just because somebody tells you so is not
> open-mindedness. It's gullibility.
>
Why you misinterpret what I say? I'm not saying you must accept what I'm
saying, I'm saying is logical to see that there are indications that
there are things that seem to go beyond our everyday world, that
probably will be explained in a future when we develop more technology.
Is not about is true or false, you should stop seeing things that way
because this is not science, is a big gray area for now, but logic on
the indications presented may be the most probable cause, that's it.
If you could see the series you'd see that respected physicists that do
teach in universities talk about it, if fun to imagine the
possibilities, and to be part of what others have lived as a
extraordinary experience that marked their lives, risking and sometimes
being ridiculed, but what choice they have? it was their experience and
nothing can change that; if you see the series you'd understand better
what I'm trying to say, because I don't believe everything either but
some parts yes, others I doubt them and a few are not likely to me
specially since I learned that some are complete hoaxes like Lazard.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26/10/2011 5:06 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Why you misinterpret what I say? I'm not saying you must accept what I'm
> saying, I'm saying is logical to see that there are indications that
> there are things that seem to go beyond our everyday world, that
> probably will be explained in a future when we develop more technology.
Or
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159–167
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Why you misinterpret what I say? I'm not saying you must accept what I'm
> saying
When you say "you're like the ignorant which hunters, only seeing what
you want to see, science and nothings else", it certainly sounds like you
adamantly want me to accept what you believe.
> I'm saying is logical to see that there are indications that
> there are things that seem to go beyond our everyday world, that
> probably will be explained in a future when we develop more technology.
There certainly are things that go beyond our everyday world. However,
those are not the things you are talking about (in other words, you are
not talking about things like quantum mechanics, black holes, dark matter
and so on). What you are talking about is superstition and spurious
explanations of allegedly unexplained phenomena.
The major problem with ufologists and new age hippies is that they *want*
to believe their superstitions and unjustified hypotheses even if that means
discarding completely plausible (and even fully demonstrable) natural earthly
explanations.
The fact is that the vast majority of "sightings" can be easily explained
by uncommon (and sometimes even not that uncommon) weather phenomena,
misinterpretations of what is being seen, and other such psychological
things (this disregarding the cases of outright hoaxes and hallucinations).
Not only can they be explained, thay can actually be *demonstrated* in
practice (in other words, the exact same settings can be repeated under
controlled conditions). The psychology of the human mind with regard to
describing eyewitness accounts, and how much it can change over time and
from person to person, can also be (and has been repeatedly) demonstrated
in practice. Also all kinds of other affect behavioral factors (such as
confirmation bias, cherry-picking and so on) can be easily demonstrated.
The problem with ufologists and new age hippies is that they outright
reject the naturalistic mundane explanations because they are not exciting.
It's much more exciting to think about UFOs, ghosts and whatnot.
For example, if a NASA video taken in space shows small white moving
dots outside the shuttle's window, the ufologists will immediately claim
that they are UFOs. They will reject the explanation that they are actually
ice particles floating close to the shuttle (a phenomenon which is very
well understood) which may get expanded by bokeh effects (which is also
very well understood and easy to demonstrate, and it has been demonstrated
in practice). They will point out how some of the dots suddenly change
direction which, according to them, is impossible, and completely dismiss
the mundane explanation that the short bursts of the thrusters of the
shuttle cause them to change direction.
Ice particles are boring, UFOs are exciting. That's why they want to
believe in the latter.
Of course believing that the dots are UFOs is ridiculous. The astronauts
don't comment in any way about the swarm of UFOs all around them and NASA
doesn't seem to have any problem in publishing such videos. (Of course the
real explanation for both is that both the astronauts and the people at
NASA know that they are just ice particles and there's nothing odd about it.)
Why believe in such nonsense? There are tons of really interesting and
exciting things in demonstrable science already. Why waste time in
superstition and old-wives tales? Personally I find astrophysics a much
more interesting topic than ufology.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:00:36 -0400, Warp wrote:
> The major problem with ufologists and new age hippies is that they
> *want*
> to believe their superstitions and unjustified hypotheses even if that
> means discarding completely plausible (and even fully demonstrable)
> natural earthly explanations.
It's even more involved than that - humans by their very nature are
cognitively predisposed to accept as fact things that reinforce their
beliefs, and to reject as being false things that challenge their beliefs.
It's not just ufologists and 'new age hippies' - it's pretty much anyone
who believes something. It's people who "believe" in climate change.
It's people who "believe" the world is 6,000 years old. It's people who
believe the see ghosts, can contact spirits, or can communicate with the
dead.
It's people who believe they have an eternal soul.
Those cognitive biases can be challenged, but only if the person having
them is willing to do so.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> It's not just ufologists and 'new age hippies' - it's pretty much anyone
> who believes something. It's people who "believe" in climate change.
I really hope that wasn't meant to imply that you oppose the concept of
climate change.
(I agree that you shouldn't believe scientific claims just because they
say so, but instead you should understand where those claims are coming
from and what their justification is, as well as understand how the
scientific method works and why it's different from superstition and
conspiracy theories. It's just that I'm not sure what you meant by the
above quote.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/25/2011 10:09, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> On 10/22/2011 17:38, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>> Yes, all the tricks: Transporters, holodecks, replicators & a lot of
>>> useful
>>> things for space exploration and every day use, why not?
>>
>> Why not *what*? Why not just invent these fictional devices without any
>> idea of how to go about doing so?
>>
>
> You missed the point.
Well, that would be why I'm asking. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
