Arguments Against ETH

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
As I said:

You don't know how many civilizations are out there and what levels of social or economic development they are in nor do you know their technological development...No human on earth knows this information...
of course we dont, i am just taking the most plausible explanation
 

nivek

As Above So Below
I don’t know why you tagged me in this thread – we’ve debated this subject ad nauseum and you just ignore all of my points.

but still should we ignore the interdimensional theory yet?
it explains way better the higher strangeness encounters than the extraterrestrial theory does
Point 1: we know that there aren’t any macroscopic higher dimensions than the 4D spacetime that we observe, otherwise, a three-legged table would fall over. Since that doesn’t happen, there are no macroscopic higher dimensions.

Point 2: Analyses of the Kepler mission findings have revealed that the average age of habitable Earth-like worlds in our galaxy (and most others, we can presume) is 1-3 billion years older than the Earth. So if you think that an encounter with an alien civilization that’s 1-3 billion years ahead of our civilization wouldn’t be “highly strange,” then I think you’re demonstrating a dearth of understanding. Imagine if we could go back in time and make contact with a human being 10,000 years in our own past. Then that human goes back and describes the experience to the tribe. They’d certainly find the whole tale “highly strange.” Now multiply that strangeness by 100,000. That’s the level of strange that we’re dealing with, if we’re dealing with civilizations that are 1,000,000,000 years ahead of us.

and what do we make of the people that saw bigfoot exiting an ufo? similar species?! what do we make of mothman sightings that were proceded by ufo sightings? an coincidence?! what do we make of the skinwalker ranch? an hoax?! what do we make of the sightings of ufos making stuff that is just impossible? advanced tech?! what do we make of the joe simongton sighting were aliens litteraly cooked pancakes for him? an dumb hoax?!
The ETH doesn’t claim to explain all paranormal events. It would be crazy to think that any one answer could possibly explain all of the weird things that happen to people on rare occasion. And there’s no way to know which of these stories actually happened in objective physical reality – some may be hoaxes, some may be delusions, and some may have actually happened. So to assume that they’re all real, as you seem to do, is silly. It’s impossible to draw anything resembling rational conclusions from a totally dubious and noisy data set, i.e., “stories that people have told without any supporting evidence whatsoever.” You could drive yourself crazy trying to make sense of a data set like that.

and now for the smoking gun:

you can say whatever you want but: UFOS LOOK NOTHING LIKE REAL SPACESHIPS!dont believe me? well take a look at this amazingly well researched article:

Basic Design - Atomic Rockets

do ufos have heat radiators? no! do they have engines,hell even bizzare exotic ones like the orion drive? no! if we are to believe abductee and contactee reports they instead have an bizzare glowing thingy in the center of the ufo that somehow keeps it afloat! do they have an habitation module? no, the entire ufo is pressurized! do they have an airlock?
This is what happens when people don’t understand physics. The rocket principle is grossly inadequate for interstellar spaceflight. This is an empirical fact. So expecting UFOs to look like rocket ships betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the physics of interstellar spaceflight.

In fact, the characteristics that we do observe for these craft – with astonishing regularity – such as silent hovering and dramatic accelerations, point decisively to a form of gravitational field propulsion that we only understand in theory, but can’t yet produce technologically.

That actually points to an ETH explanation. These craft were exhibiting these flight characteristics long before we even had a theoretical understanding of gravitational field propulsion. And actually, until about 20 years ago, the consensus was that such a thing would be impossible. But eventually theoretical physics advanced, and we now have a basic understanding of how it works. So this represents a valid scientific prediction of the ETH which was subsequently confirmed. So in my view the extraterrestrial hypothesis should be elevated from a hypothesis to a viable scientific theory, because it is.

The interdimensional hypothesis, by comparison:

- violates the known laws of physics
- provides no insight into the origin or the nature of the phenomenon, and
- simply substitutes one unknown (UFO sightings) for an even more bizarre unknown (interdimensional beings)

It's also fairly easily falsifiable: once we scientifically analyze a single sample recovered from an alien device, which exhibits a manufacturing capability and/or physical properties beyond our current technology, the interdimensional hypothesis will be dumped into the waste bin of bad ideas, where it belongs.
 
Last edited:

Ron67

Ignorance isn’t bliss!
I don’t know why you tagged me in this thread – we’ve debated this subject ad nauseum and you just ignore all of my points.


Point 1: we know that aren’t any macroscopic higher dimensions than the 4D spacetime that we observe, otherwise, a three-legged table would fall over. Since that doesn’t happen, there are no macroscopic higher dimensions.

Point 2: Analyses of the Kepler mission findings have revealed that the average age of habitable Earth-like worlds in our galaxy (and most others, we can presume) is 1-3 billion years older than the Earth. So if you think that an encounter with an alien civilization that’s 1-3 billion years ahead of our civilization wouldn’t be “highly strange,” then I think you’re demonstrating a dearth of understanding. Imagine if we could go back in time and make contact with a human being 10,000 years in our own past. Then that human goes back and describes the experience to the tribe. They’d certainly find the whole tale “highly strange.” Now multiply that strangeness by 100,000. That’s the level of strange that we’re dealing with, if we’re dealing with civilizations that are 1,000,000,000 years ahead of us.


The ETH doesn’t claim to explain all paranormal events. It would be crazy to think that any one answer could possibly explain all of the weird things that happen to people on rare occasion. And there’s no way to know which of these stories actually happened in objective physical reality – some may be hoaxes, some may be delusions, and some may have actually happened. So to assume that they’re all real, as you seem to do, is silly. It’s impossible to draw anything resembling rational conclusions from a totally dubious and noisy data set, i.e., “stories that people have told without any supporting evidence whatsoever.” You could drive yourself crazy trying to make sense of a data set like that.


This is what happens when people don’t understand physics. The rocket principle is grossly inadequate for interstellar spaceflight. This is an empirical fact. So expecting UFOs to look like rocket ships betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the physics of interstellar spaceflight.

In fact, the characteristics that we do observe for these craft – with astonishing regularity – such as silent hovering and dramatic accelerations, point decisively to a form of gravitational field propulsion that we only understand in theory, but can’t yet produce technologically.

That actually points to an ETH explanation. These craft were exhibiting these flight characteristics long before we even had a theoretical understanding of gravitational field propulsion. And actually, until about 20 years ago, the consensus was that such a thing would be impossible. But eventually theoretical physics advanced, and we now have a basic understanding of how it works. So this represents a valid scientific prediction of the ETH which was subsequently confirmed. So in my view the extraterrestrial hypothesis should be elevated from a hypothesis to a viable scientific theory, because it is.

The interdimensional hypothesis, by comparison:

- violates the known laws of physics
- provides no insight into the origin or the nature of the phenomenon, and
- simply substitutes one unknown (UFO sightings) for an even more bizarre unknown (interdimensional beings)

It's also fairly easily falsifiable: once we scientifically analyze a single sample recovered from an alien device, which exhibits a manufacturing capability and/or physical properties beyond our current technology, the interdimensional hypothesis will be dumped into the waste bin of bad ideas, where it belongs.
People want instant gratification now.Fast food,same day delivery split second internet connections.So because we haven’t definitively explained this phenomena as ET civilisations ,we start grasping for other answers.Considering it’s only been studied seriously since the 40’s our investigations into it are in its infancy in real terms.
We need to be patient,jumping for miraculous,illogical answers will get us nowhere.
 
People want instant gratification now.Fast food,same day delivery split second internet connections.So because we haven’t definitively explained this phenomena as ET civilisations ,we start grasping for other answers.Considering it’s only been studied seriously since the 40’s our investigations into it are in its infancy in real terms.
We need to be patient,jumping for miraculous,illogical answers will get us nowhere.
Yeah I tried to have this debate with Gene Steinberg on his forums, but he refused; “let’s move on,” his usual blanket dismissal.

You’re spot on about the mentality that results in crazy paranormal/nonsensical/alternative explanations of the AAV phenomenon. They think that it must be wrong because we don’t have incontrovertible proof of the ETH after 70 years. But then they dismiss the real reasons why we don’t have proof after 70 years, which break down into two basic categories:

1.) There’s never been a proper scientific investigation of this phenomenon, in the public sector. Project Blue Book and the awful Condon Report, were whitewashes, not scientific investigations.

2.) The cover-up. The government, and specifically the military, has all of the evidence, and until very recently, they haven’t shared any of it. They have the photos, the radar tracking data, film and video footage, probably a slew of scientific readings from the special jets they had outfitted to collect data on these things. And apparently, they have downed craft. Obviously with the military hoarding all of the proof, the public can’t form a rational consensus on the subject.

So it’s actually crystal clear why we haven’t made progress on this subject. It’s impossible to make any significant progress in any area of interest when there’s no actual scientific study going on, and when your own government engages in a massive cover-up of all the credible data they have.
 
Last edited:

The shadow

The shadow knows!
one of the greatest arguments I have on the ETH theory is what is called cultural Tracking. The ability for UFO's to look like the culture and times expect them to look like.
for example this from 1906
ufo california airship.png
UFOs Used to be odd flying machines. with propellers and undercarriages. there were reports of top hat wearing men peering out and waving!
aliens as well have undergone a change.
02.jpg
The flatwoods monster. this alien looked out of a Sci fi movie! But after "Communion" we get the grey! My wife has a view they a spiritual beings. And will post on her view when she returns from work.
 
one of the greatest arguments I have on the ETH theory is what is called cultural Tracking. The ability for UFO's to look like the culture and times expect them to look like.
for example this from 1906
View attachment 3455
UFOs Used to be odd flying machines. with propellers and undercarriages. there were reports of top hat wearing men peering out and waving!
I have problems with the many assumptions built into this argument, starting with: why do you think that these airship reports have any relation to the AAV phenomenon? Let's say for the sake of argument, that they actually happened and weren't hoaxes. We had the technological capability to actually build airships at that time, so maybe somebody did. They could've been military projects, or the work some imaginative inventor with a wealthy patron who may have thought that airship travel would be a profitable business to get into.

Gene Steinberg often cites the airships as evidence that "UFOs appear as we expect them to appear, and always seem to represent a form of technology a few years ahead of our own."

But I see no rational reason to connect the two phenomena. If the airships were real, they certainly didn't defy the known laws of physics at the time - in fact hot air lift was well-known and proven at the time. AAVs on the other hand completely defied our understanding of physics. For the first 50 years, the scientific consensus was that the kinds of maneuvers being reported were physically impossible, and that antigravity was a laughable concept. Only in the last 20 years has that begun to change, slightly. But even now, most physicists think that it will take many millennia before humans will be able to actually build such a device - if it's possible at all. So whereas airship technology was viable and well-known at the time (which points to a human source, imo), AAVs are clearly far beyond even our present theoretical understanding - nobody can sit down and design such a thing because the gulf between the theory and any actual implementation is far beyond our understanding.

But what we do know is that the type of performance exhibited by these devices conforms perfectly to the basic characteristics of gravitational field propulsion, which is the one theoretically viable approach to superluminal spaceflight. Which means that these devices could be arriving here from interstellar sources in an arbitrarily short transit time.

And furthermore, the variety of craft that have been reported span a dizzying range of shapes and sizes and capabilities. Beyond our imagining, I would argue. Craft like we've heard about in the Rendlesham case, for example, that can apparently morph between a glowing plasma that can break up into several independent flying parts and then converge to form a solid conical metal shape with landing gear - who ordered that? Some are long cylinders without any rocket exhaust, others are flat circular discs, some are domed discs, still others are sleek black triangles, and some are egg-shaped or orbs with prismatic shifting colors. And the recent Tic-Tac ufo case is yet another new one on me. I certainly wouldn't have expected this dizzying variety of configurations, and I'm a very imaginative guy. So whose expectations are these things conforming to? Because they're not conforming to my expectations.

Other examples cited in favor of the cultural tracking hypothesis are ancient sighting reports from Medieval and ancient times - "chariots in the sky" kind of sightings. But do people seriously believe that witnesses were reporting horse-drawn chariots flying through the sky? It seems clear to me that the language used to describe exotic objects in the sky, simply reflects the limited knowledge of that cultural context. So if some ancient Greek fisherman saw a glowing object darting around the sky, the only words that he has to describe what he saw would be familiar terms. So "a glowing metallic disc exhibiting gravitational field performance characteristics at Mach 10" in modern parlance, would be "a strange chariot that glowed like the Sun as it crossed the heavens" in the parlance of an ancient Greek.

aliens as well have undergone a change.
View attachment 3457
The flatwoods monster. this alien looked out of a Sci fi movie! But after "Communion" we get the grey!
I'm unconvinced by these arguments as well. All manner of humanoid alien beings have been described by various witnesses, and that continues today: Nordics, Reptilians, Greys, Mantis creatures, and dozens of others. In an infinite universe where the average habitable planet is 1-3 billion years ahead of the Earth, that kind of variety makes a lot of sense. The Greys do seem to be commonly reported, but they also seem to be associated with a large and on-going medical and/or psychological program of some type. And people were reporting them long before Streiber's book came out; I've heard a number of people say that they were shocked by the cover of Communion because it looked so much like the creatures they'd been encountering their whole lives.

And btw, the Flatwoods Monster appeared to the witnesses as a creature within some kind of device, operating it. And the illustration says more about the artist than the device itself - I certainly don't recall the witnesses describing beams shooting out of the operator's eyes, or a weird smiley-face head like that.

My wife has a view they a spiritual beings.
Aren't we all?
 

The shadow

The shadow knows!
Thomas:
you raise good points.
I was working on a faulty premise.
that UFO's change with the times.
In Egypt in the 6th dynasty comes the report of a flying shield.
now did they see a flying shield? or did they see something they could not relate to? An objet they only could describe as a flying shield?
I may have bought into The argument of they appear as we expect them to.
And you are correct the flatwoods monster is possibly A ETH I own a book called "shoot them down " that details the events
 
Thomas:
you raise good points.
I was working on a faulty premise.
that UFO's change with the times.
In Egypt in the 6th dynasty comes the report of a flying shield.
now did they see a flying shield? or did they see something they could not relate to? An objet they only could describe as a flying shield?
I may have bought into The argument of they appear as we expect them to.
And you are correct the flatwoods monster is possibly A ETH I own a book called "shoot them down " that details the events
That's fascinating - I hadn't heard about the "flying shield" description from Egyptian antiquity. That sure sounds equivalent to a "flyer saucer" to me. Do you have a credible link about that? It would be amazing if that's actually in the historical records. I've heard about the Vimana's of ancient India, but I haven't dug deep enough to know if the description actually refers to a flying vehicle.

I heard a fascinating interview about the Flatwoods Monster last year; I think somebody wrote a new book about it recently.

I don't think that the ETH explains all highly anomalous phenomena, but it seems to explain most of them very well. And the competing ideas like the "interdimensional ultraterrestrial" notion, fly in the face of physics and logic - certainly very appealing to science fiction writers like Gene Steinberg. But as an explanatory mechanism, such ideas seem worse than worthless.
 

The shadow

The shadow knows!


I was wrong its a fiery disk. This is a unusual case possible hoax. But without the original or the copy we will never know.

The Tulli Papyrus
As it states with it being missing this case may be a bust. The story floats around UFO lore. And as such many catch wind of it and pass it along. This case may be a hoax.
There is one case however that an unusual object is seen and described in detail. and that comes from a creditable source.
 

The shadow

The shadow knows!
As the vid shows the object is described well but has many possible identity's This subject of UFO's in history Is a fascinating study. one that deserves it's own topic. As such I will open one in the AM and Invite Thomas and any here to discuss the possibility that UFO's were seen in history!
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
Well, There is a lot that I think about other dimensions, But in the end, there is no proof, I strongly suspect that When I leave this thread, I will have proven nothing of other dimensions,

But if it pleases the Table, I will throw down some of the better theories and speculation, And possible evidence of alternate realities.

Alright, let's just snap into this, It's been said even here that math can only prove so much and eventually even on the mathematical plane, you completely abandon an empirical reality and begin measuring fantasy. A Thing Remains unproven until it's proven. No physicist worth his salt will deny that I suppose.

Let's talk about the dimensions, The dimensions, As we understand them from their very base concept is tangled in mathematics, Height, width, Depth, Time, And yet for all who would say time is intangible, It's an appropriately observable dimension which can be measured, In its own right, Time is a mathematical dimension just like the rest.

But, let us speak about philosophy and margins, walls, So we have four dimensions we can all mostly agree upon, But, Wouldn't those dimensions with their borders play their effects on both sides of the wall? Wouldn't time have it Margins, Even if you were on the other side of its border? even from the outside, you could perceive time. I assert for a wall to exist, For a border to be a boarder, then there must be something on the other side of that border, Something it separates from, distinguishes from If there isn't then why is that border even there?

Logically, Walls and borders are simple things. They separate, They say when one thing ends because that is the end of that thing, something else begins.

There simply must be other Dimensions we are unable to conceive, I submit, I only have my own reasoning to go by here, But if a dimension did not exist within other dimensions, Then it would be infinite without measure and without end. Therefore, Since we have a basic concept of time, What time is and what time is not, Then Time itself fits into the model that dimensions curl, How can one imagine curled up dimensions? <(Yes String theory, So take that as one would) Time must exist within a higher dimension itself. Can I prove that? No, But, In this same instance, Why should we assume everything stops at time? Just because No one has any better ideas at the moment? I conceive there are Forces we don't yet understand. Mathematical concepts that haven't been thought of yet. It would Both Shock and depress me deeply If we Saw empirical data from a thousand years in the future and we hadn't resolved the 5th dimension.


Here is a Quick Video about how another universe may have bumped into our own. And some Iffy Evidence of that claim.


While another universe wouldn't be another dimension, I tend to lump them together because those speculated other realities would have their own possible unique dimensions :)

Fun to think about I know, But lets move on.

I am All but forced to Agree, We don't have undeniable proof of other dimensions and other realities, But many of the worlds most brilliant minds are open to the Idea. Foremost From the top of my brain, Stephen Hawking was a well-known supporter of brane theory.


That's what depresses me about this whole thing. I'm all but certain there are other dimensions, But I have no proof, And those who Cling to empirical Data insist there is no proof, And Maddeningly, There isn't. :/
 
I am All but forced to Agree, We don't have undeniable proof of other dimensions and other realities, But many of the worlds most brilliant minds are open to the Idea. Foremost From the top of my brain, Stephen Hawking was a well-known supporter of brane theory.

That's what depresses me about this whole thing. I'm all but certain there are other dimensions, But I have no proof, And those who Cling to empirical Data insist there is no proof, And Maddeningly, There isn't. :/
"Proof" is a strong word; let's talk about "evidence" instead. There's still zero evidence for the existence of additional dimensions. On the other hand, if our reality had more than 3 macroscopic dimensions, a three-legged table would fall over. So that's a compelling disproof of macroscopic higher dimensions - which is what you'd need if you wanted to advance an interdimensional hypothesis of AAV origin.

Brane theory can't be ruled out, as far as I know, so that's still in play. As are supermicroscopic dimensions tied up into little knots as superstring theory posits. But there's no empirical reason whatsoever to believe that either of those kinds of dimensions are physically real. Which is a bummer - it would be cool if it were true.

Lately I've been intrigued with the idea of creating new dimensions technologically though. Once we understand the structure of 4D spacetime, perhaps we'll be able to generate localized regions of higher dimensions, to produce new effects. That's a much different issue than naturally occurring higher dimensions though - synthetic dimensions would only exist while they were maintained through technologically induced conditions. It's fun to speculate about it.
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
"Proof" is a strong word; let's talk about "evidence" instead. There's still zero evidence for the existence of additional dimensions. On the other hand, if our reality had more than 3 macroscopic dimensions, a three-legged table would fall over. So that's a compelling disproof of macroscopic higher dimensions - which is what you'd need if you wanted to advance an interdimensional hypothesis of AAV origin.

Brane theory can't be ruled out, as far as I know, so that's still in play. As are supermicroscopic dimensions tied up into little knots as superstring theory posits. But there's no empirical reason whatsoever to believe that either of those kinds of dimensions are physically real. Which is a bummer - it would be cool if it were true.

Lately I've been intrigued with the idea of creating new dimensions technologically though. Once we understand the structure of 4D spacetime, perhaps we'll be able to generate localized regions of higher dimensions, to produce new effects. That's a much different issue than naturally occurring higher dimensions though - synthetic dimensions would only exist while they were maintained through technologically induced conditions. It's fun to speculate about it.


This all leads me to ask, With all my study I still cannot properly conceive what happens in totality within a black hole. Why are some black holes Hot? Why are others cold, Why do some have electrical properties, Why aren't they all the same? And if they are so varied, Then does this change the very nature of their properties so much that inside they act differently from on another?

Some physicist, I can't remember who Postulated this, supposed that because of our relative mass, A human being could actually swim on the surface of a supermassive BH. crossing it's event horizon back and forth because our relative mass wouldn't allow us to get stuck at the event horizon. I can't remember his name it may have been Kerr I'm not sure.

Could it be possible, I know the likelihood, But could it be possible that within a black hole, A stable environment or pocket could form? And While unlikely, If something like this ever took place, Could that space be called another dimension? could it support life?
 
Last edited:
This all leads me to ask, With all my study I still cannot properly conceive what happens in totality within a black hole. Why are some black holes Hot? Why are others cold, Why do some have electrical properties, Why aren't they all the same? And if they are so varied, Then does this change the very nature of their properties so much that inside they act differently from on another?

Some physicist, I can't remember who Postulated this, supposed that because of our relative mass, A human being could actually swim on the surface of a supermassive BH. crossing it's event horizon back and forth because our relative mass wouldn't allow us to get stuck at the event horizon. I can't remember his name it may have been Kerr I'm not sure.

Could it be possible, I know the likelihood, But could it be possible that within a black hole, A stable environment or pocket could form? And While unlikely, If something like this ever took place, Could that space be called another dimension? could it support life?
Uhm, this is totally off-topic too. And this is a huge subject, black holes. We should start a new thread if you want to talk about all this stuff.
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
Uhm, this is totally off-topic too. And this is a huge subject, black holes. We should start a new thread if you want to talk about all this stuff.
At some point today, I will start a thread about Black holes, I'm still waking up :p But Yeah, I want to have this discussion, So it will pop up at some point today :)
 

CasualBystander

Celestial
I don’t know why you tagged me in this thread – we’ve debated this subject ad nauseum and you just ignore all of my points.


Point 1: we know that there aren’t any macroscopic higher dimensions than the 4D spacetime that we observe, otherwise, a three-legged table would fall over. Since that doesn’t happen, there are no macroscopic higher dimensions.

Point 2: Analyses of the Kepler mission findings have revealed that the average age of habitable Earth-like worlds in our galaxy (and most others, we can presume) is 1-3 billion years older than the Earth. So if you think that an encounter with an alien civilization that’s 1-3 billion years ahead of our civilization wouldn’t be “highly strange,” then I think you’re demonstrating a dearth of understanding. Imagine if we could go back in time and make contact with a human being 10,000 years in our own past. Then that human goes back and describes the experience to the tribe. They’d certainly find the whole tale “highly strange.” Now multiply that strangeness by 100,000. That’s the level of strange that we’re dealing with, if we’re dealing with civilizations that are 1,000,000,000 years ahead of us.


The ETH doesn’t claim to explain all paranormal events. It would be crazy to think that any one answer could possibly explain all of the weird things that happen to people on rare occasion. And there’s no way to know which of these stories actually happened in objective physical reality – some may be hoaxes, some may be delusions, and some may have actually happened. So to assume that they’re all real, as you seem to do, is silly. It’s impossible to draw anything resembling rational conclusions from a totally dubious and noisy data set, i.e., “stories that people have told without any supporting evidence whatsoever.” You could drive yourself crazy trying to make sense of a data set like that.


This is what happens when people don’t understand physics. The rocket principle is grossly inadequate for interstellar spaceflight. This is an empirical fact. So expecting UFOs to look like rocket ships betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the physics of interstellar spaceflight.

In fact, the characteristics that we do observe for these craft – with astonishing regularity – such as silent hovering and dramatic accelerations, point decisively to a form of gravitational field propulsion that we only understand in theory, but can’t yet produce technologically.

That actually points to an ETH explanation. These craft were exhibiting these flight characteristics long before we even had a theoretical understanding of gravitational field propulsion. And actually, until about 20 years ago, the consensus was that such a thing would be impossible. But eventually theoretical physics advanced, and we now have a basic understanding of how it works. So this represents a valid scientific prediction of the ETH which was subsequently confirmed. So in my view the extraterrestrial hypothesis should be elevated from a hypothesis to a viable scientific theory, because it is.

The interdimensional hypothesis, by comparison:

- violates the known laws of physics
- provides no insight into the origin or the nature of the phenomenon, and
- simply substitutes one unknown (UFO sightings) for an even more bizarre unknown (interdimensional beings)

It's also fairly easily falsifiable: once we scientifically analyze a single sample recovered from an alien device, which exhibits a manufacturing capability and/or physical properties beyond our current technology, the interdimensional hypothesis will be dumped into the waste bin of bad ideas, where it belongs.

Well... Yeah.

95% of a Falcon 9 rocket is propellant and most of the remainder is the engines at the bottom end and the structure to transfer forces and and contain fuel.

The Atlas series of rockets had walls so thin they would collapse like a balloon if they weren't kept pressurized.

If 90-95 % of your spacecraft (fuel) is unnecessary and the forces are centralized or distributed evenly the craft would look a lot different.

Not sure how UFOs avoid atmospheric friction. At the reported speeds they should leave a glowing trail - like reentry in reverse.
 
Well... Yeah.

95% of a Falcon 9 rocket is propellant and most of the remainder is the engines at the bottom end and the structure to transfer forces and and contain fuel.

The Atlas series of rockets had walls so thin they would collapse like a balloon if they weren't kept pressurized.

If 90-95 % of your spacecraft (fuel) is unnecessary and the forces are centralized or distributed evenly the craft would look a lot different.
Yeah the design of a field propulsion device is naturally going to be a radical departure from a rocket or aerodynamic type of device, and that's what we seem to be seeing with nearly all of the reports. It's weird when engineers try to analyze these craft in terms of human technology; I always imagine it like some Medieval feudal serf trying to understand a Ferrari - "it makes no sense....a carriage with no horses or reigns...it must be the Devil's work!"

There's a good summary of the problems inherent with interstellar rocketry in this article about a conference of scientists from NASA and the USAF and academia who looked at all of the known methods:
Rocket Scientists Say We'll Never Reach the Stars

They found that even the most efficient method using matter/antimatter annihilation, so only half of the mass of the craft would be devoted to fuel, would take 40 million metric tons of antimatter and an equal magnitude of matter to reach Alpha Centauri in 40 years. I would imagine that a containment failure of that much antimatter on the Earth, if we could even create that much of it in the first place, would probably put an abrupt end to global civilization.

Not sure how UFOs avoid atmospheric friction. At the reported speeds they should leave a glowing trail - like reentry in reverse.
Yeah that's an interesting question. They don't create a sonic boom when they leap from a dead hover to hypersonic velocity either.

I think what's happening is that the metric distortion field that propels the craft, also displaces the matter within that warped spacetime. So the matter just gets displaced around the craft as it moves, without imparting any momentum to it. Sorta like a buoy on the surface of the ocean - after a wave passes it's back to its original condition floating unperturbed.
 
Top