What's new
By:

An Alleged 1953 UFO Crash and Burial Near Garrison, Utah

Archie Moses said:
Speaking of Einstein theory of general relativity, it mathematically predicts the existence of wormholes.

What's your take on Wormhole Theory?
Click to expand...

General relativity doesn't really predict the EXISTENCE of wormholes; a better way might be to say, it predicts the POSSIBILITY of wormholes. It predicts they COULD exist, but doesn't say they MUST exist.

My take is that unless/until we see some experimental evidence for them--and right now I think there is none at all--I'm doubtful. As I mentioned above, if they do exist then causality is gone and that would be a hard pill to swallow. Perhaps no harder than the oddness of space contract/time dilation that came from relativity in the first place, and perhaps no harder than the craziness that is quantum mechanics... but a hard pill, nonetheless.
 
Archie Moses said:
Speaking of Einstein theory of general relativity, it mathematically predicts the existence of wormholes.

What's your take on Wormhole Theory?
Click to expand...
That was the same question I asked. That is essentially an Einstein-Rosen bridge.
 
I've NEVER been a physics professor, and I refuse to feel old. odd, OK.

Mathematics is one thing, so far as Einstein et al goes. About all I remember about my quantum mechanics course is that after working out the math and proving a certain hydrogen transition is forbidden/impossible, the guys with the telescopes and spectrometers found the radiation the forbidden transition emits when it happens.....

I appreciate Colton's skepticism on issues that are so speculative we haven't observed them yet. I don't wish to believe in time travel..... or Time Lords....

I might be genetically British, and as blue blooded as Bluebeard himself, or King Arthur for all that matters, but I insist on resisting sheer credulity.... on some points at least.
 
babe said:
I hardly take Bill Nye "The Science Guy" as authoritative on anything. He's a propaganda tool/fool.

Imagination is wonderful. Statist attempts to discredit it or talk us out of it are despicable. That's the worst thing about "socialist" literature or science.

Most people don't seriously believe much without some kind of reason, but then we do have "Coast to Coast" the Art Bell/etc. program where there is such an overwhelming nightly assault on reason, I don't think I really have to fear that human credulity is a lost art.

Still, I think it's reasonable that most of our tales of the unknown, particularly UFO phenomena, have human explanations and would be accepted as our own doing if we as a public had access to the facts.
Click to expand...

One doesn't have to be an authority on anything, per se, to render sound advice. Still, if I HAD to judge who between Bill Nye and you to trust on the basis on acquired knowledge and insightfulness, it wouldn't be you. The advice that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is good advice even if, well, you said it.

"Most people don't seriously believe much without some kind of reason." This is a tautology. Of course they have a 'reason' (perhaps not explicit or of which they are conscious), too often, however, the reasons are irrational and, not to put too fine a point on it, dumb.

"Still, I think it's reasonable that most of our tales of the unknown, particularly UFO phenomena, have human explanations and would be accepted as our own doing if we as a public had access to the facts."

I'd change that to 'natural' explanations.

There may be a 'supernatural,' but if you're going to convince me of it, both overall and in specific cases, you better be ready to present strong, objectively verifiable evidence.
 
The popular observation that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" has been referred to as the "Sagan standard", as Carl Sagan popularized it as much as anyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard

It's a bit misleading, since extraordinary claims simply require evidence sufficient to prove those claims. The evidence need not be extraordinary, and labeling a claim itself as extraordinary is a subjective excercise to some degree:

"The aphorism has been criticized both for its apparent support of "orthodoxy" by raising the evidential standard for claims which are outside current social consensus, and for introducing subjectivity and ambiguity in determining what merits an "extraordinary claim". David Deming writes: "science does not contemplate two types of evidence. The misuse of ECREE ["extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"] to suppress innovation and maintain orthodoxy should be avoided as it must inevitably retard the scientific goal of establishing reliable knowledge."[2]

Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence. They simply require evidence that is sufficient to demonstrate the claim is correct.

Further, what is extraordinary in the eyes of consensus scientific opinion at one time, is not always seen as such at a later time. In our own lifetime, the "Clovis First" paradigm of American prehistory has finally fallen by the wayside, but that paradigm ruled American prehistory for generations. Claims of pre-Clovis prehistoric sites could lead to being ostracized. Best have tenure before one rocks the orthodox vessel. The evidence for pre-Clovis dates for the Monte Verde, Chile site was solid right from the start. But those dates were rejected, not because the claim lacked "extraordinary" evidence, but because it went against the orthodoxy of the time. In other words, the rejection of the claims was itself unscientific. Thomas Kuhn's seminal work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, explained how science can advance grudgingly, so to speak. The old guard protects its cherished paradigms, and, as has been said, sometimes "science advances one funeral at a time."

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61539.The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
 
Last edited:
jimmy eat jazz said:
I'd change that to 'natural' explanations.

There may be a 'supernatural,' but if you're going to convince me of it, both overall and in specific cases, you better be ready to present strong, objectively verifiable evidence.
Click to expand...

If aliens/UFOs exist, their existence would be just as "natural" as our own. So yes, all UFOs have natural explanations.

Their space travel would be just as natural and science based as our own, just more advanced. It wouldn't be anything attributed to force beyond scientific explanation.
 
Red said:
The popular observation that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" has been referred to as the "Sagan standard", as Carl Sagan popularized it as much as anyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard

It's a bit misleading, since extraordinary claims simply require evidence sufficient to prove those claims. The evidence need not be extraordinary, and labeling a claim itself as extraordinary is a subjective excercise to some degree:

"The aphorism has been criticized both for its apparent support of "orthodoxy" by raising the evidential standard for claims which are outside current social consensus, and for introducing subjectivity and ambiguity in determining what merits an "extraordinary claim". David Deming writes: "science does not contemplate two types of evidence. The misuse of ECREE ["extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"] to suppress innovation and maintain orthodoxy should be avoided as it must inevitably retard the scientific goal of establishing reliable knowledge."[2]

Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence. They simply require evidence that is sufficient to demonstrate the claim is correct.

Further, what is extraordinary in the eyes of consensus scientific opinion at one time, is not always seen as such at a later time. In our own lifetime, the "Clovis First" paradigm of American prehistory has finally fallen by the wayside, but that paradigm ruled American prehistory for generations. Claims of pre-Clovis prehistoric sites could lead to being ostracized. Best have tenure before one rocks the orthodox vessel. The evidence for pre-Clovis dates for the Monte Verde, Chile site was solid right from the start. But those dates were rejected, not because the claim lacked "extraordinary" evidence, but because it went against the orthodoxy of the time. In other words, the rejection of the claims was itself unscientific. Thomas Kuhn's seminal work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, explained how science can advance grudgingly, so to speak. The old guard protects its cherished paradigms, and, as has been said, sometimes "science advances one funeral at a time."

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61539.The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
Click to expand...
Kind of like no scientist in the current scientific climate will ever publish anything against anthropomorphic climate change or decrying the speculative climate Doomsday scenarios. Those cherished paradigms must be protected.
 
One Brow said:
https://skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php

It's not that climate change deniers can't get published, it's that they don't bring a lot of evidence.
Click to expand...
But in the climate that @Red was discussing it would lead respected scientists who even had evidence to not attempt to publish for fear of having their reputations ruined by the establishment. Only those who don't care about that would attempt to publish, and likely would be scientists with less to lose and possibly less resources as a result. How can we see they aspect, those who stay silent because of worry about damage to their reputations by the establishment. Or even perhaps professional suppression within their circles preempting any attempts at publication?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top