Arguments Against ETH

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
It is a little known fact of science that if one maintained constant acceleration one can circumnavigate whole universe in under 50 years. That strongly supports ETH:



Just replace reactive rocket engines with gravitational propulsion.

Metaphorically speaking, you can leave after breakfast to be at nearest star Proxima Century for lunch and only to be back home just in time for dinner. All that without time dilation. And hop anywhere inside Milky Way in 3-6 months. Approximately same time scales that aliens talk about.
 
Last edited:

nivek

As Above So Below
Out of the off world explanations ETH is the most logical and parsimonious IMO. If its not made by us, it comes from some other planet, theres no need to go further. Of course to get there all the mundane and known explanations must be eliminated first.

There are other various explanations explored of course, but i think theyre starting to go too far into the realms of fantasy the more i see them. Ive heard them all, parallel world visitors, underground civilizations and atlanteans, demons masquerading as aliens for end time deception, Loki like trickster entity, time travellers messing with us, programmers of the matrix etc... You can see how far into ridiculous realms these start to go. All the weird aspects of the phenomenon could be explained by a highly advanced yet largely deceptive alien presence. There's no need to invoke demons, gods, parallel dimensions or other unseen, unverified concepts.

Well said, I think most if not all alien visitors originate in our universe and our galaxy in particular...They would have highly advanced technology and if some species are millions of years old how can we hope to understand such technology, it would appear mystical and magical to us in some cases...

...
 

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
Sabine Hossenfelder feels the same way - that a negative gravitational field is required to explain the cosmological constant problem, but that Dr. Farnes' theory isn't the correct solution:

"I would totally be in favor of that, as I have written a paper about repulsive gravity myself (it’s quoted in Farnes’ paper). I believe that negative gravitational masses are the only known solution to the (real) cosmological constant problem."
Source: Backreaction: No, negative masses have not revolutionized cosmology

Yeah, I watched few panels and followed discussion on Sabine's blog, where physicists debated each other's theories and they quarrel as much as we do in this forum, only on the higher level. Physicists rarely read papers they criticise and in long winded way critique reflects their own theories they are secretly promoting.

At least currently, supporting a new gravity theory is more or less emotionally based, same as supporting a football club.

The main thing is that everybody is proactively hiding known discrepancies within own theory. Sabine did a nice job of busting dark matter theories by exposing rarely mentioned contradictions:



Of course that is because she has her own theory without dark matter.

Luckily observational scientists are making progress with some real world data, namely a dark matter distribution during a whole bunch of galactic collisions:

What Is Dark Matter? Colliding Galaxy Clusters May Help Find Answer


N.B.
I am slow writer. It takes me at least half an hour to write a post. Please wait half an hour before reading.
 
Last edited:

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
Question,

Within the reality of physics would it be possible to turn an object into energy and propel that energy at the speed of light?

What if the Higgs boson is the key to light speed or limitless speed? Everything is energy anyway, Even physical matter right? So it makes sense to me that some kind of technological process could convert matter to energy and back again, I mean, Why not a living object? Would it be so impossible?

I believe the key to light speed travel is as simple as converting our mass to energy in such a way that when we convert back to our original form. This process may sound sci-fi , Or even exactly like teleportation, The thing is, Even at light speed, We have light years. So even as energy, it would take us 13 billion lightyears to reach the other side of the cosmos and by the time we got there, it would be vaster still.

Space is really Big and expanding.
 

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
Question,

Within the reality of physics would it be possible to turn an object into energy and propel that energy at the speed of light?

What if the Higgs boson is the key to light speed or limitless speed? Everything is energy anyway, Even physical matter right? So it makes sense to me that some kind of technological process could convert matter to energy and back again, I mean, Why not a living object? Would it be so impossible?

I believe the key to light speed travel is as simple as converting our mass to energy in such a way that when we convert back to our original form. This process may sound sci-fi , Or even exactly like teleportation, The thing is, Even at light speed, We have light years. So even as energy, it would take us 13 billion lightyears to reach the other side of the cosmos and by the time we got there, it would be vaster still.

Space is really Big and expanding.

Not that I know, but a nuclear bomb comes to the mind.
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
Not that I know, but a nuclear bomb comes to the mind.
Yeah, It is a lot like Nuclear physics isn't it.. Possibly why the Speculation that Ufo's seem to have issues with our nuclear missiles?

But yeah, That is fission and fusion. Basically
 
Yeah, I watched few panels and followed discussion on Sabine's blog, where physicists debated each other's theories and they quarrel as much as we do in this forum, only on the higher level. Physicists rarely read papers they criticise and in long winded way critique reflects their own theories they are secretly promoting.
Only the worst physicists criticize papers they haven't read. Sadly, those are usually the ones that appears in the media. The physicists I know always read a paper with great care before commenting about it.

At least currently, supporting a new gravity theory is more or less emotionally based, same as supporting a football club.
Dr. Farnes didn't present a new theory of gravity. He simply took the findings from the existing theory, GR, and postulated the existence of negative mass particles.

But he also had to postulate that they're being produced spontaneously throughout the universe, to make this model fit the observations - this is the key problem with his idea, for a variety of reasons. Such as: what's the mechanism for this negative mass particle production? He doesn't say, he just postulates that it's happening - but if true, this would violate the conservation of mass-energy. He also doesn't explain why this process doesn't run away and quickly destabilize the universe. These kinds of concerns are very serious, theoretically, and until he can answer these questions, his idea seems very fanciful and closer to wishful thinking than reality.

The main thing is that everybody is proactively hiding known discrepancies within own theory. Sabine did a nice job of busting dark matter theories by exposing rarely mentioned contradictions:



Of course that is because she has her own theory without dark matter.

Sure but her idea doesn't include basic theoretical violations like contradicting the conservation of mass-energy, so naturally she would favor her idea over his.

Question,

Within the reality of physics would it be possible to turn an object into energy and propel that energy at the speed of light?

What if the Higgs boson is the key to light speed or limitless speed? Everything is energy anyway, Even physical matter right? So it makes sense to me that some kind of technological process could convert matter to energy and back again, I mean, Why not a living object? Would it be so impossible?

I believe the key to light speed travel is as simple as converting our mass to energy in such a way that when we convert back to our original form. This process may sound sci-fi , Or even exactly like teleportation, The thing is, Even at light speed, We have light years. So even as energy, it would take us 13 billion lightyears to reach the other side of the cosmos and by the time we got there, it would be vaster still.

Space is really Big and expanding.
The speed of light is actually very slow on cosmological or even interstellar scales. Gravitational field propulsion offers a method for superluminal spaceflight (no upper limit on transit speeds) with no time dilation. Alcubierre worked out the basic concept within the framework of GR 25 years ago.

So rather than trying to convert matter into energy and back again to achieve the modest velocity of c, the best method of interstellar transit is by distorting the spacetime geometry around the device so you can travel at thousands or billions+ of times faster than light.
 

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
But he also had to postulate that they're being produced spontaneously throughout the universe, to make this model fit the observations - this is the key problem with his idea, for a variety of reasons. Such as: what's the mechanism for this negative mass particle production?

That is the main objection of Dr Eric Virlande, author of a entropic gravity, that Dr Farness had many parameters to fiddle with on his computer until he matched his simulation to observations.

On other hand, Dr Virlande's theory of gravity has no free parameters and it matched galactic rotation curves immediately without any adjustment.

Only problem with Virlande's entropic gravity is that it wouldn't help us with UFO gravity propulsion. His negative gravity is produced by dark energy, which is in turn produced by wast amounts of empty space. How are we going to fit all that empty space under UFO's bonnet?

Luckily observational scientists are making progress with some real world data, namely a dark matter distribution during a whole bunch of galactic collisions:

What Is Dark Matter? Colliding Galaxy Clusters May Help Find Answer

If this was horse race it seems that Dr Virlande is pulling ahead since so far he only derived static version of theory. When dynamic version is completed it might solve his theory's problem with Bullet cluster and other clusters collisions.
 
Last edited:

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
Out of the off world explanations ETH is the most logical and parsimonious IMO. If its not made by us, it comes from some other planet, theres no need to go further. Of course to get there all the mundane and known explanations must be eliminated first.

There are other various explanations explored of course, but i think theyre starting to go too far into the realms of fantasy the more i see them. Ive heard them all, parallel world visitors, underground civilizations and atlanteans, demons masquerading as aliens for end time deception, Loki like trickster entity, time travellers messing with us, programmers of the matrix etc... You can see how far into ridiculous realms these start to go. All the weird aspects of the phenomenon could be explained by a highly advanced yet largely deceptive alien presence. There's no need to invoke demons, gods, parallel dimensions or other unseen, unverified concepts.
the more you dig into the UFO phenomena the less sense it makes, if there is something that is certain about the UFO phenomena is that we aren't dealing with ET civilizations and that this idea is as primitive as calling them demons and fairies and just another fad that is gonna end when humanity enter another cycle
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
the more you dig into the UFO phenomena the less sense it makes, if there is something that is certain about the UFO phenomena is that we aren't dealing with ET civilizations and that this idea is as primitive as calling them demons and fairies and just another fad that is gonna end when humanity enter another cycle
Your thoughts on this are pragmatic, I like that, There really is something unexplained that has taken on many different definitions and names over the generations. years ago, It was Grey aliens, Now there is a newer generation of people. Maybe it's all the same unexplained phenomenon just under a different banner?
 
That is the main objection of Dr Eric Virlande, author of a entropic gravity, that Dr Farness had many parameters to fiddle with on his computer until he matched his simulation to observations.

On other hand, Dr Virlande's theory of gravity has no free parameters and it matched galactic rotation curves immediately without any adjustment.

Only problem with Virlande's entropic gravity is that it wouldn't help us with UFO gravity propulsion. His negative gravity is produced by dark energy, which is in turn produced by wast amounts of empty space. How are we going to fit all that empty space under UFO's bonnet?
There's a good reason they call it the "vacuum catastrophe" - trying to explain the dark energy effect by assigning a positive number to the energy of the vacuum fluctuations in QFT yields the most dramatically inaccurate prediction in the history of science. And that glaring problem remains unsolved. So no, I'm not ready to believe the party line that dark energy is a property of empty space. In fact even typing that out makes me feel embarrassed for the astrophysics community - how is assigning an energy to empty space an improvement on the aether theories of the 19th century? It's not. We don't understand the nature of the dark energy effect yet. The least likely explanation is the cosmological constant explanation, imo.

Fortunately, that's not the only theoretical approach to produce negative gravitation. In my view, dark energy is only useful at this point to discredit the shitty "positive energy theorem" which appears to have been invented for the express purpose of eliminating the negative gravitation solutions in GR ("if you don't like a prediction of the prevailing theory, just make up a rule that bans those solutions - easy peasy!").

I've seen methods for producing negative gravitation via tension in Paranjape's recent papers, and in the Helmholtz stress-energy tensor for photonic metamaterials. I'm sure we'll find additional methods, and eventually learn how to produce significant field intensities of negative gravitation. Perhaps once we actually understand dark energy, that will prove to be the clue we need to technologically manipulate that effect. How we'll get there remains an open question.

I'm no longer convinced that the positive-negative gravitational field interaction that produces warp field propulsion is the only path forward to gravitational field propulsion; I'm looking at a new idea that doesn't require any negative mass-energy.

All I know for certain is that gravitational field propulsion is technologically achievable even with quite small devices, because people are seeing the damn things all over the world - so somebody out there has figured it out, and we will too, sooner or later.
 
Your thoughts on this are pragmatic, I like that, There really is something unexplained that has taken on many different definitions and names over the generations. years ago, It was Grey aliens, Now there is a newer generation of people. Maybe it's all the same unexplained phenomenon just under a different banner?
I wouldn't be at all surprised if our scientifically illiterate ancestors saw bright lights and objects zipping around the sky and called them "fairies" and "angels" or whatever, because the notion of a device flying through the sky was incomprehensible to them since that hadn't been invented yet.

In fact we see the exact same thing happening today: we haven't learned how to build a gravitational field propulsion device yet, so many of us "modern primitives" refuse to believe that it's possible, and so they resort to dumb ideas like the "cosmic trickster hypothesis" and/or "something about consciousness yadda yadda" hypotheses.

The magnitude of the human ego - refusing to believe that something is possible even when we have a very credible theoretical understanding of how it could work...simply because we silly little primates haven't built one yet, honestly blows my mind. Just think of all the things we've built in the last century that seemed impossible before we actually did it - a person has to forget about all of that stuff in order to conclude that something is impossible just because we haven't done it yet. It's like the notion of progress is somehow still totally alien to such primitive minds.
 
Last edited:

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
Your thoughts on this are pragmatic, I like that, There really is something unexplained that has taken on many different definitions and names over the generations. years ago, It was Grey aliens, Now there is a newer generation of people. Maybe it's all the same unexplained phenomenon just under a different banner?
pretty much, and once again we are giving it a primitive explanation based on our current technology
 

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
I wouldn't be at all surprised if our scientifically illiterate ancestors saw bright lights and objects zipping around the sky and called them "fairies" and "angels" or whatever, because the notion of a device flying through the sky was incomprehensible to them since that hadn't been invented yet.
not only that, the phenomena also spawned artificial faeries either trough artificial hallucinations, holograms or atomic materializations, so they could build the myth
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
pretty much, and once again we are giving it a primitive explanation based on our current technology


I wouldn't be at all surprised if our scientifically illiterate ancestors saw bright lights and objects zipping around the sky and called them "fairies" and "angels" or whatever, because the notion of a device flying through the sky was incomprehensible to them since that hadn't been invented yet.


You guys are right, in both cases, As Time has progressed our languages and communication skills progress as well, What would we call something flying through the sky that didn't look like a bird in ancient times?

It begs me to ask, How do we know our modern descriptions are any more accurate than those from a thousand years ago?
 
not only that, the phenomena also spawned artificial faeries either trough artificial hallucinations, holograms or atomic materializations, so they could build the myth
No - you're missing the point.

When we read accounts from our primitive ancestors, and they say "I saw a fairie over yonder hill while milking the goats this day," we envision a "fairie" is the sense of Tinkerbell because that's what we think of when we read that word, for purely subjective cultural reasons.

But they probably simply saw a bright object zig-zagging through the sky, and called it a "fairy" because they didn't have the idea of "a gravitational field propulsion device of unknown origin."
 

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
No - you're missing the point.

When we read accounts from our primitive ancestors, and they say "I saw a fairie over yonder hill while milking the goats this day," we envision a "fairie" is the sense of Tinkerbell because that's what we think of when we read that word, for purely subjective cultural reasons.

But they probably simply saw a bright object zig-zagging through the sky, and called it a "fairy" because they didn't have the idea of "a gravitational field propulsion device of unknown origin."
wrong, fairies looked like normal or small sized humans that could disappear at will, so they looked and behaved like normal UFOnauts
fairies =/= UFOs
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
I see it from this perspective guys, We have something In our brains a natural program called pareidolia when we don't know what we see, The brain tries to give us something to process. I don't believe every case was pareidolia, but I'm also saying that just because a person was certain they saw a Fairy, Doesn't mean they didn't see anything.

But I think that's where we all are on this issue anyhow...
 
Top