3FEL9
Islander
or a sign of possibly un-healthy knowledge about the ufo phenomena (at least when talking about my posts)
If you know its unhealthy, why do you pursue it ?
or a sign of possibly un-healthy knowledge about the ufo phenomena (at least when talking about my posts)
annndddd nobody got my jokeIf you know its unhealthy, why do you pursue it ?
why the double posting?! also it was a jokeIf you know its unhealthy, why do you pursue it ?
why the double posting?! also it was a joke
nope just me trying to be funny and failling at itWhat double post
Whsts the joke ? That you are serious ¿
nope just me trying to be funny and failling at it
or a sign of possibly un-healthy knowledge about the ufo phenomena (at least when talking about my posts)
I absolutely agree, all this fantasy talk of everything being interdimensional is unhealthy talk and not constructive to understanding any phenomenon but in its stead discourages actual investigation and research...It's akin to telling all scientists not to do anymore research, it's all God and that's all we need to know, well, we don't need a new dark ages...
thats not what i was trying to say
the interdimensional theory solves all the problems with ETH
here we have to ignore the idea of plausibility and instead answer a simple question: does this model explains all the bizzare high strangeness anomalies reported over the years? if the answer is no or maybe then we need to make another hypothesys
No, you’re mistaking “peer-reviewed theoretical physics based on the foundational tenets of well-established physics," with “speculation.” They’re not the same thing. I could speculate that gremlins crawl of my closet at night to steal my socks. But the concept of gravitational field propulsion is as viable as gravitational time dilation, because they’re both equally valid within the theoretical edifice of general relativity. It’s not an issue of if it could work, but rather, how it be achieved technologically. And in my view, the AAV phenomenon is proof that it can be and in fact has been achieved.currently it all speculation
Am I debating with Jason/marduk here? I’ve had this debate before and he had the exact same position. Anyway, skepticism is good, but it requires an intimate familiarity with the scientific body of evidence available. Skepticism is work. And until you’ve done that work, then all you can claim is having a personal/subjective doubt. Read the papers, study the physics, and then let’s have a more symmetrical debate about this subject.so unless somebody reproduces that effect in a laboratory i am still a skeptic
and there is another problem: why is there so much variety in Ce3 reports? greys are only the tip of the iceberg, we have from the "common ones" reptilians and blondes to everthing from robots to goblins to literal clowns to things that look like the michellin man!
How is an exchange of pancakes for water incompatible with the ETH? I don’t see your reasoning there.this along with the bizzare behaviour of ufonauts in some reports (the infamous space pancakes along with the jean himgley ufo fairy experiences fall in this category) seems to not make sense in the ETH model
The “interdimensional theory” is certainly not a theory. In fact it doesn’t even qualify as a legitimate scientific hypothesis – to qualify as a reasonable hypothesis, it falls upon the advocates to demonstrate a viable physical model for how such a thing could be possible, without violating or somehow circumnavigating the known canon of physics. And that hasn’t happened. So until somebody can do that, it’s merely wild speculation like those gremlins coming after my socks at night. It could be happening, but I see zero empirical reason to believe that it actually is happening, therefore it’s worthless to me as a scientific hypothesis.thats not what i was trying to say is
the interdimensional theory solves all the problems with ETH
here we have to ignore the idea of plausibility and instead answer a simple question: does this model explains all the bizzare high strangeness anomalies reported over the years? if the answer is no or maybe then we need to make another hypothesys
Actually it's been a well-known feature of general relativity since Hermann Bondi's peer-reviewed article for Reviews of Modern Physics in 1957, and was subsequently developed by Robert L. Forward from the 1960s to the early 1990s, then it was fully theoretically elucidated by Alcubierre in 1994, and has been an on-going topic in the academic literature ever since. Nobody argues that the metric performs as described, and until 2013 critics employed the positive energy theorem as an argument against the concept, but at that point Paranjape proved that argument invalid in our accelerating universe. So right now there's no viable theoretical argument against the idea at all. What remains unresolved is A.) what's the maximum possible velocity for such a system?, and B.) how do we approach a technological manifestation of it?Claiming that you can interact with those tensor fields to change their effects or provide propulsion/displacement isn't too much of a stretch.
. You can’t judge a man by the sophistication of his toys - some of the dumbest people I know have private jets and all of the latest technology at their fingertips; and the same could easily apply to alien beings visiting our planet. Look at how far our technology has come in the last century, and look how far we haven’t come as a species in that same interval: the two simply aren’t correlated.
Actually it's been a well-known feature of general relativity since Hermann Bondi's peer-reviewed article for Reviews of Modern Physics in 1957, and was subsequently developed by Robert L. Forward from the 1960s to the early 1990s, then it was fully theoretically elucidated by Alcubierre in 1994, and has been an on-going topic in the academic literature ever since. Nobody argues that the metric performs as described, and until 2013 critics employed the positive energy theorem as an argument against the concept, but at that point Paranjape proved that argument invalid in our accelerating universe. So right now there's no viable theoretical argument against the idea at all. What remains unresolved is A.) what's the maximum possible velocity for such a system?, and B.) how do we approach a technological manifestation of it?
Nobody disputes the validity of the concept anymore, because the positive energy theorem was the last theoretical objection to it, and that's been defeated.
Until we find another habitable planet it is hard to say there is a lot of aliens out there.
what is better: claiming that we have no idea what UFOs are or understand what they are or use a theory (ETH) wich has basically no proof only speculation?It doesn't solve anything but merely pushes everything into some unreachable bucket because we are not intelligent enough to figure it out logically, rationally, and reasonably...You forget words of the wise ones, everything can be measured and understood, the laws of reality as above so below...
The interdimensional/paranormal theories puts everything in some unreachable unknown spooky wooky wibbly wobbly timey wimey realm to which we cannot fathom nor ever understand or in some God's hands unreachable by us...There very well may be other dimensions and certainly the paranormal incident do not need to be mixed in with alien contact reports, two totally different things from different sources...Alien crafts are not paranormal, in my opinion, they are misunderstood technology...
...
paranormal phenomena all have three things in common:This is a logical fallacy known as the conjunction fallacy. In this context, what this means is that the more types of anomalous phenomena that one tries to explain with a single postulate, the less likely that hypothesis is to be true.
For example, 500 years ago everything from lightning to meteors to tornadoes, belonged in the category “unexplained aerial phenomena.” And certainly some people tried to explain all such phenomena with a single explanation, such as “they are all manifestations of divine agency like God and his angels.” I’m sure that many people found that explanation satisfyingly inclusive and compelling. But we now know that they were wrong: they are three completely unrelated phenomena with three completely unrelated explanations.
So the people who seek a single explanation for a variety of disparate phenomena, such as ufos and ghosts or whatnot, are operating under faulty logic. The more phenomena that an explanation professes to explain, the less likely it is to be true, not the other way around.
again i am the kind of man that wont believe in it until someone reproduces it in laboratory, it may not be speculation but to a poor and useless civilian like me it has the same valueNo, you’re mistaking “peer-reviewed theoretical physics based on the foundational tenets of well-established physics," with “speculation.” They’re not the same thing. I could speculate that gremlins crawl of my closet at night to steal my socks. But the concept of gravitational field propulsion is as viable as gravitational time dilation, because they’re both equally valid within the theoretical edifice of general relativity. It’s not an issue of if it could work, but rather, how it be achieved technologically. And in my view, the AAV phenomenon is proof that it can be and in fact has been achieved.
no idea who he is, is he some guy from paracast?Am I debating with Jason/marduk here?
that is impossible, i am just a random idiot in the internet, you are a bonafide scientistAnyway, skepticism is good, but it requires an intimate familiarity with the scientific body of evidence available. Skepticism is work. And until you’ve done that work, then all you can claim is having a personal/subjective doubt. Read the papers, study the physics, and then let’s have a more symmetrical debate about this subject.
well lets see:How is an exchange of pancakes for water incompatible with the ETH? I don’t see your reasoning there.
and there you have failed , CE3 is the bread and butter of the UFO phenomena, the most interesting and scientifically important experiences lie in the CE3+ sphereHonestly I don’t pay much attention to CE3 or abduction reports or fairies and whatnot
but those dont answer the ultimate question: what is at the "helm" of these AAV's?We do however have supporting empirical evidence for AAVs operating in our airspace, such as multiple independent witness sightings, radar-visual sightings, trace evidence cases, etc. – so that points to physical craft that radically outperform our top fighter jets. Understanding how that technology operates is the primary focus of my interest. Like I’ve said before: who’s manufacturing these devices is an interesting question, but ultimately irrelevant to the issues of the physics and that technology that interest me.
i believe thats why nobody takes it seriously, it's too weird and alien to them and isnt relatable to anything they have seen in sci-fiThe “interdimensional theory” is certainly not a theory. In fact it doesn’t even qualify as a legitimate scientific hypothesis – to qualify as a reasonable hypothesis, it falls upon the advocates to demonstrate a viable physical model for how such a thing could be possible, without violating or somehow circumnavigating the known canon of physics. And that hasn’t happened. So until somebody can do that, it’s merely wild speculation like those gremlins coming after my socks at night. It could be happening, but I see zero empirical reason to believe that it actually is happening, therefore it’s worthless to me as a scientific hypothesis.
its much more complex than that, i believe we are dealing with a very powerfull entity that probally dont comes in plurals, just appears to be soAnd frankly I don’t see how “aliens coming from other as-yet-undiscovered realities” could be considered to be a more plausible explanation than “aliens from some of the billions of potentially habitable worlds have learned how to traverse interstellar distances, and they’re dropping by from time to time to look around or whatever.”
But.. if we are visited, how did they get here.gene and his gang believes in the co-creation model, in wich the entity needs us humans to exist, i believe in the theater model where we are just observers of a incomprehemsible circus
time will tell....I'm still chewing on TRM's posts.
However space is apparently composed of layers of tensor fields.
Claiming that you can interact with those tensor fields to change their effects or provide propulsion/displacement isn't too much of a stretch.