Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?
Film, Media & TV3 mins ago
Area 51 And Flying Saucers
146 Answers
Not sure if this is the right section of answerbank but I watched this really captivating show on Netflix today called “Bob Lazar – Area 51 and The Flying Saucers”.
Would defo recommend if you are into alien conspiracy stuff. I’ve heard an interview with Bob Lazar before on the Joe Rogan podcast and was fascinated by the dude.
I’ll give a brief background. Bob was a physicist who claims to have worked on alien tech at Area 51 during the 80’s. He was a whisleblower and has basically had his life ruined since going public – so has almost everyone associated with him. During the documentary the FBI show up at his home and start going through his stuff. I found some of his claims compelling, although his whole past including education records have been deleted.
Does anyone have any thoughts about Area 51 or governments concealing information about alien contact?
Tim
XXX
Would defo recommend if you are into alien conspiracy stuff. I’ve heard an interview with Bob Lazar before on the Joe Rogan podcast and was fascinated by the dude.
I’ll give a brief background. Bob was a physicist who claims to have worked on alien tech at Area 51 during the 80’s. He was a whisleblower and has basically had his life ruined since going public – so has almost everyone associated with him. During the documentary the FBI show up at his home and start going through his stuff. I found some of his claims compelling, although his whole past including education records have been deleted.
Does anyone have any thoughts about Area 51 or governments concealing information about alien contact?
Tim
XXX
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by GymLadTim. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
I did glance through the entire thread before I posted.
It makes perfect sense to argue that what's achievable here matters: any alien that wants to travel to Earth has at some point to actually arrive here. At that point, they'd need to pay heed to our local laws of physics. Indeed, now that I think about it, if anything, that the laws of physics might vary would arguably count against the possibility of alien life visiting here (because they'd be obliged first and foremost to design spaceships compatible with their local laws, and why would they therefore bother trying to design stuff to cope with any other region of space?). I don't intend to waste much time on that argument because, as I say, I don't see a point in taking seriously the idea that the laws of physics *do* vary across the Universe.
Speaking of, I did see your post at whenever-it-was about the 2010 paper. I looked into it and, put briefly, it's an anomalous result that hardly undermines my point. It doesn't constitute hard evidence, there are question marks about the interpretation and legitimacy of those results, and certainly it's only *that* group that has made those claims, so there's no independent verification yet. That's not to say that it won't turn out to be true, of course, but signs are against it.
Still, it's a good thing to search for, and my understanding is that the assumption "the laws of physics are the same throughout the Universe" is constantly being tested. So far, as far as I'm aware, that assumption has survived such tests, and I'd be surprised if I'd missed such a huge milestone in our understanding of theoretical physics (I don't mean just an odd niche paper either: see, for example, the faster-than-light neutrinos paper(s) of 2011/12.)
I should have thought that the "Billions of light years away" figure was obviously not meant to be taken literally. I didn't see a need to specify our distance from every object in our galaxy and the Universe beyond, and I'm also aware that not everything is billions of light years away from us, but thanks all the same.
Granted that the chances of life emerging in the first place are a separate issue, but hardly unrelated. The logic would be roughly this: the smaller the chances of complex life emerging, then the greater the expected distance between us and our nearest alien neighbours, which in turn raises the difficulty of travel from them to us. Conversely, if intelligent life were more or less certain to emerge on any habitable planet, then obviously our nearest neighbours would be that much nearer. At present, I'd say that our understanding points far more towards the first case (ie, average distance between two planets holding intelligent life probably running into at least the thousands of light years) than the second, and while that picture may change, at the very least it has to be acknowledged as the picture *now*.
It makes perfect sense to argue that what's achievable here matters: any alien that wants to travel to Earth has at some point to actually arrive here. At that point, they'd need to pay heed to our local laws of physics. Indeed, now that I think about it, if anything, that the laws of physics might vary would arguably count against the possibility of alien life visiting here (because they'd be obliged first and foremost to design spaceships compatible with their local laws, and why would they therefore bother trying to design stuff to cope with any other region of space?). I don't intend to waste much time on that argument because, as I say, I don't see a point in taking seriously the idea that the laws of physics *do* vary across the Universe.
Speaking of, I did see your post at whenever-it-was about the 2010 paper. I looked into it and, put briefly, it's an anomalous result that hardly undermines my point. It doesn't constitute hard evidence, there are question marks about the interpretation and legitimacy of those results, and certainly it's only *that* group that has made those claims, so there's no independent verification yet. That's not to say that it won't turn out to be true, of course, but signs are against it.
Still, it's a good thing to search for, and my understanding is that the assumption "the laws of physics are the same throughout the Universe" is constantly being tested. So far, as far as I'm aware, that assumption has survived such tests, and I'd be surprised if I'd missed such a huge milestone in our understanding of theoretical physics (I don't mean just an odd niche paper either: see, for example, the faster-than-light neutrinos paper(s) of 2011/12.)
I should have thought that the "Billions of light years away" figure was obviously not meant to be taken literally. I didn't see a need to specify our distance from every object in our galaxy and the Universe beyond, and I'm also aware that not everything is billions of light years away from us, but thanks all the same.
Granted that the chances of life emerging in the first place are a separate issue, but hardly unrelated. The logic would be roughly this: the smaller the chances of complex life emerging, then the greater the expected distance between us and our nearest alien neighbours, which in turn raises the difficulty of travel from them to us. Conversely, if intelligent life were more or less certain to emerge on any habitable planet, then obviously our nearest neighbours would be that much nearer. At present, I'd say that our understanding points far more towards the first case (ie, average distance between two planets holding intelligent life probably running into at least the thousands of light years) than the second, and while that picture may change, at the very least it has to be acknowledged as the picture *now*.
Jim //I don't see a point in taking seriously the idea that the laws of physics *do* vary across the Universe.//
No one said they ‘do’.
//now that I think about it, if anything, that the laws of physics might vary would arguably count against the possibility of alien life visiting here//
In that case, the current evidence that you embrace would confirm that advanced civilisations would encounter no such difficulties in travelling to our planet. Evidence the other way would have worked rather more in your favour in this argument, Jim.
//I should have thought that the "Billions of light years away" figure was obviously not meant to be taken literally.//
Maybe … but it gives a false impression so - as always - exaggeration is best addressed.
I say again, the probability or otherwise of life emerging elsewhere is not the issue.
No one said they ‘do’.
//now that I think about it, if anything, that the laws of physics might vary would arguably count against the possibility of alien life visiting here//
In that case, the current evidence that you embrace would confirm that advanced civilisations would encounter no such difficulties in travelling to our planet. Evidence the other way would have worked rather more in your favour in this argument, Jim.
//I should have thought that the "Billions of light years away" figure was obviously not meant to be taken literally.//
Maybe … but it gives a false impression so - as always - exaggeration is best addressed.
I say again, the probability or otherwise of life emerging elsewhere is not the issue.
// In that case, the current evidence that you embrace would confirm that advanced civilisations would encounter no such difficulties in travelling to our planet.//
How does that figure? They'd still have to cross vast distances at high speeds short times, requiring tremendous and probably inaccessible amounts of energy. That is the present status of your physical laws.
Incidentally, I don't see why the billions of light years figure is misleading either. When you posted that article suggesting that the "laws of physics vary throughout the Universe" -- well, firstly, that is even more misleading, because what they actually found was hints of a tiny variation in one physical constant in only one direction, and in a manner that isn't really close enough to statistically significant. A mere "hint", you might say. Secondly, the data gathered was based on quasars, which are extremely distant objects anyway. The nearest quasar to us ever observed is 600 million light years away; it seems that this study was based on quasars further away still. So actually the "billion light years" estimate suddenly looks not that unreasonable and isn't an exaggeration based on your source. I will concede that I checked this only on a more detailed reading of the paper since my last post -- but, all the same, it's simply not reasonable for you to keep banging on about our nearest star as if that is the expected distance between us and our nearest alien neighbours. It is not.
How does that figure? They'd still have to cross vast distances at high speeds short times, requiring tremendous and probably inaccessible amounts of energy. That is the present status of your physical laws.
Incidentally, I don't see why the billions of light years figure is misleading either. When you posted that article suggesting that the "laws of physics vary throughout the Universe" -- well, firstly, that is even more misleading, because what they actually found was hints of a tiny variation in one physical constant in only one direction, and in a manner that isn't really close enough to statistically significant. A mere "hint", you might say. Secondly, the data gathered was based on quasars, which are extremely distant objects anyway. The nearest quasar to us ever observed is 600 million light years away; it seems that this study was based on quasars further away still. So actually the "billion light years" estimate suddenly looks not that unreasonable and isn't an exaggeration based on your source. I will concede that I checked this only on a more detailed reading of the paper since my last post -- but, all the same, it's simply not reasonable for you to keep banging on about our nearest star as if that is the expected distance between us and our nearest alien neighbours. It is not.
Arguing from theories based on current understanding of physics is all very well, but it was confidently stated that heavier than air flight was impossible, and that turned out to be wrong. It is important also to take into account observation; the mass of testimony and photographic, radar and physical traces suggests that unusual things have happened and continue to do so, all over the planet. Much evidence comes from military sources and also from mass sightings such as happened in south America and Phoenix Arizona.
"... it was confidently stated that heavier than air flight was impossible ... "
By whom?
I think you mean "by Lord Kelvin", but it's worth pointing out that (a) Whoever was talking was clearly wrong even at the time (citation: birds), (b) just because one person said so doesn't mean that every other scientist agreed with him (and, of course, they manifestly did not), and (c) I'm fairly sure that he never actually said it, and the closest thing he did say was something along the lines of "I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning... So you will understand that I would not care to be a member of the Aeronautical Society.", which is rather closer to "I'm just not that interested" than "it's impossible".
A fairly misleading misquote, then, you might say.
By whom?
I think you mean "by Lord Kelvin", but it's worth pointing out that (a) Whoever was talking was clearly wrong even at the time (citation: birds), (b) just because one person said so doesn't mean that every other scientist agreed with him (and, of course, they manifestly did not), and (c) I'm fairly sure that he never actually said it, and the closest thing he did say was something along the lines of "I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning... So you will understand that I would not care to be a member of the Aeronautical Society.", which is rather closer to "I'm just not that interested" than "it's impossible".
A fairly misleading misquote, then, you might say.
Jim, perhaps it was not a good quote, but my point is not simply that established scientists are sometimes wrong, although I do feel that they may well underestimate the science/technology of the future. I do believe however that observation should be the basis for investigation, not dismissal on the grounds that it "cannot be true".
There's a difference between healthy and well-grounded scepticism and dismissal. I do my best to keep to the "sceptical" side (although inevitably I'll fail from time to time). It's more likely that UFO sightings can be attributed to local phenomena than some extraterrestrial visitors, and in any case eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable for a whole host of reasons that are well-established. This isn't to rule it out entirely but, at the very least, aliens visiting Earth can only be regarded as an unlikely explanation for such accounts.
Area 51 is ONLY a USAF Base ! Its real name is 'Grant Field USAF' !
But it is where new and so secret aircraft are test flown . It also has captured and 'aquired' Russian and Chinese aircraft ! These are flown in simulated combat by US Airforce pilots to find the strong and weak points ,in case they are ever met 'In actual Combat' ! It is used for this because it is more than 60 miles from the nearest public road ! About as remote as you can get !
But it is where new and so secret aircraft are test flown . It also has captured and 'aquired' Russian and Chinese aircraft ! These are flown in simulated combat by US Airforce pilots to find the strong and weak points ,in case they are ever met 'In actual Combat' ! It is used for this because it is more than 60 miles from the nearest public road ! About as remote as you can get !
Thanks, but as far as I can see there's no actual source for that quote (and this isn't the first time I've checked either). It's been attributed to Lord Kelvin in 1895 by many sources but I don't think anyone can actually point to the exact source. And, as I say, he needed only to look outside his window and watch birds to realise how stupid a quote it would have been.
Jim; I too feel that the idea of actual living creatures travelling here is very far-fetched, but they might if travel was very easy. It might be more probable that non-biological entities would be used. All such ideas are far-fetched, but there is, it seems to me, to be a wealth of evidence that warrants study and speculation. I suspect that such study and speculation may be carried out by different government agents around the world. The Bentwaters and Belgium triangle incidents are especially intriguing, and both attracted military interest.
The one thing that Kelvin's "quote" *does* reveal is how important it is to try and avoid hubris, and to try not to write anything off as impossible to the point that it's not worth trying. I don't think it hurts to be realistic about the chances of success, either. Assuming that a problem is trivial is as bad as assuming that it's impossible: you have to be realistic about the scale of the technical challenges to overcome in order to overcome them.
So in that sense I agree with others that TTT is mistaken in dismissing all this as (literally) impossible.
So in that sense I agree with others that TTT is mistaken in dismissing all this as (literally) impossible.
I saw some ‘aircraft’ in 1976 over Britain which looked like the most advance fighter jets we’re now seeing come into service. The strange thing about them was they were silent and looked to be finished in chrome as they reflected the orange street lights as they passed, quite slowly, overhead.
I firmly believe they were terrestrial but what the heck were they doing over Yorkshire on a summers evening in 1976?
I firmly believe they were terrestrial but what the heck were they doing over Yorkshire on a summers evening in 1976?
Atheist at 21:47 Tue. I completely agree. Mainstream science, as well as many historians and all archaeologists, tends to compartmentalise information, to tuck it away in what they think is the appropriate standard file, often regardless of how well it fits - but it's the lack of curiosity that astonishes me the most. Thank goodness for those who are, and have been, curious enough to question and investigate the commonly assumed ‘impossible’. The world would be a poorer place without them.
At what point does healthy curiosity become merely wasting of time -- both of yours and of anyone else who you try to tell?
Whether or not anything in this thread falls into that category is, I suppose, a matter of judgement. But the number of times when scientists -- the community as a whole, rather than one or two people within it -- have been wrong to dismiss something later understood to be correct is vastly outweighed by the number of times they've been right to give it no more than one look.
The point isn't to stop being curious at all. It's a complete nonsense to even hint at the idea that scientists suffer from some lack of curiosity, when -- almost by definition -- the opposite is the case. But there's nothing wrong with tempering that curiosity based on experience and further learning.
Whether or not anything in this thread falls into that category is, I suppose, a matter of judgement. But the number of times when scientists -- the community as a whole, rather than one or two people within it -- have been wrong to dismiss something later understood to be correct is vastly outweighed by the number of times they've been right to give it no more than one look.
The point isn't to stop being curious at all. It's a complete nonsense to even hint at the idea that scientists suffer from some lack of curiosity, when -- almost by definition -- the opposite is the case. But there's nothing wrong with tempering that curiosity based on experience and further learning.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Film, Media & TV15 mins ago
ChatterBank18 mins ago
News23 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.