The Extradimensional Ultraterrestrial Hypothesis: Superstition Masquerading as Science

Discussion in 'UFOs & Sightings' started by Thomas R. Morrison, Sep 10, 2018.

  1. Carl Grove

    Carl Grove Adept

    Messages:
    35
    I'm not going to say much about abductions, which I find mostly dubious, except that the topic came up briefly. But there are plenty of UFO sightings that imply the anti physical effects that Vallee refers to -- apparently solid objects blending together into one object, for example, beams of light that behave more like objects, etc.

    Vallee is not a scientist. Well, he must have fooled the University of Chicago for a long time then. And NASA who hired him as a consultant. And IBM who used him as their chief of computing security. And his views on time and our general conception of time and space which, he thinks, is a cultural artefact of our preference for expressing relationships using diagrams on graph paper. Frankly, given that nobody really knows what time is, I think he makes a valid point. As soon as we make a graph of time on one axis and physical dimension on the other, we can't help but think that the two variables are somehow equivalent -- when clearly they are qualitatively totally different.

    As for UFOs not being a psychological problem! Well, I'm sure many sceptics who feel that all witnesses are either lying, crazy or hopeless cases, would disagree with you. As would some of the psychologists who have taken an interest in the phenomenon -- e.g. Jung. I suppose you feel that UFOs are basically solid space craft, behaving according to early 21st century science models only a tad more advanced. Well, early on Vallee actually developed a neat argument that landing reports were consistent with the observation of solid objects by showing that estimates of the size of landed UFOs varied in a way predicted by the psychological law of perceptual constancy. So there is one way that knowledge of psychology can contribute to our understanding of sightings. Can you point to any equivalent contribution from physics?
     
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  2. Dejan Corovic

    Dejan Corovic Honorable

    Messages:
    196
    He himself said that he left astronomy course. Other assignments that you mention could had been in a role of IT professional, which is not science but engineering. And even by simply listening to him speak, he makes more references from literature than from science. That's typical of engineers, because they usually have narrower view of science in line with their specialization, and broader view of culture. I am not saying that to belittle Vallee, I quite like his approach and he always treated subject with seriousness that it deserves.

    That's a very nice one. Things like that is why we should always respect Vallee.

    Yeah, physics has at least 20 times more to offer to science based UFO understanding than any other branch of human knowledge. Here is a very nice list:

    List of Technical Papers Related to UFOs and Electro Magnetism

    Not just that, physics weeds out all other mumbo-jumbo hype and lays out a reality based understanding of aliens and their intentions.

    As I described before, psychology is not a science, because it can't make prediction. Psychology is just a kind of a serious hobby, that represents private opinions of a psychologist, that is wrapped up in a professional lingo to make it sound sciency. It's not even accepted in courts as a evidence. Psychology could have been science if we were to robots. But since we are not ...
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  3. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    10,170
    Would you mind if that list was reposted here on this forum?...I think that other forum may not last much longer and that as well as other data may be lost...

    ...
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. humanoidlord

    humanoidlord ce3 researcher

    Messages:
    3,561
    as they say each human is biased to their own views
    i can see the similarity pretty clear thanks to the research i have done in IDH, you hold more traditional views on paranormal matters
     
  5. humanoidlord

    humanoidlord ce3 researcher

    Messages:
    3,561
    actually i have no idea where it comes from, it could be another reality in the multiverse but it also could be from this very realm
     
  6. humanoidlord

    humanoidlord ce3 researcher

    Messages:
    3,561
    have you ever had a dog or a cat or any other pet?
    if yes, haven't you ever played with it or had fun with it?
    here the same thing is happening but instead of a low level sentient being playing with a non-sentient one, we have a entity playing with a low level sentient biological being
     
  7. humanoidlord

    humanoidlord ce3 researcher

    Messages:
    3,561
    carl grove, an actual researcher with a bunch of published articles about ufology and other fortean phenomena, once again wins the thread
    i have yet seen anyone answer vallee's 5 arguments, i also can add that the number of different reported UFOnauts is too big and would imply that the entire galaxy is visiting earth for some reason
     
  8. humanoidlord

    humanoidlord ce3 researcher

    Messages:
    3,561
    here is an example:
    A recent 'travel'
    compare your experience of visiting what is apparently a extraterrestrial space station via astral travel with the claims from many abductees that they were taken from a small saucer to a huge mothership somewhere in earth's orbit, they are identical
    even your description of the aliens is identical to some reports from the golden age of ufology
     
  9. humanoidlord

    humanoidlord ce3 researcher

    Messages:
    3,561
    the cosmic trickster can and will leave traces of it's presence, either via physical means (marks on the ground and damaged stuff) or technological means (photographs, radar and sonar traces)
    ETs definitely exist somewhere, we would have to be extremelly unlucky to be the only
    but there is no proof (lies from the UFOnauts [see work of john keel] doesn't count) that the UFOs are those ETs
    so you arrived at the same conclusion of john keel except that the ultraterrestrials must be ET? lol, thats called moving the postmarks

    i ain't going to tackle the other ones because its stuff we have discussed so much its not even funny and you will use the "advanced technology" handwave
     
  10. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Downing petulant pilots with logic since 2018

    Messages:
    499
    It’s always frustrating when we have to find a way to make other people’s arguments make sense. I agree: it sounds like people mean “other universes” not “other dimensions.”

    To date there’s no compelling reason to assume that there’s more than one universe, so empirical reasoning dictates that the existence of other universes should be given the same level of credence as the existence of unicorns.

    I think it would be great if there were other universes. I also think it would great if there were mermaids. But at this point speculating about other universes is like speculating about which of the Infinity Stones can save Middle Earth from the army of Sauron.

    One logical problem is this: to our best estimates (via the BOSS Collaboration) our universe is infinite in extent. If that’s true, then there’s no place for another universe to exist. I think that when people talk about other universes, they imagine those other universes to be co-existing somehow with our own like the Upside-Down in Stranger Things. And until somebody can explain how that would work physically, the idea is nothing more than a fancy.

    I also choose to “limit my options” by excluding Santa Clause and Elrond from my inventory of physical reality. I think it’s absurd to chide me for restricting my models of reality to credible data and tenable physical theories.

    It’s fine if others choose to reject the method of empirical reasoning. But in doing so, they choose to reject the foundation of science and the Age of Reason itself. Allowing ourselves to construct belief systems based on nothing more than fancy and wishful thinking is how humankind ended up in the Dark Ages and the Inquisition – it’s not just reckless to allow such thinking to dominate one’s worldview; it’s actually dangerous.

    Holy smokes: you start here by chiding me, and then go on to forward a completely buggered description of gravitational field propulsion. We’ve been discussing this topic for over a year; I thought you’d understand this by now.

    The key reason why the theoretical physics of gravitational field propulsion (which is founded on general relativity, so it’s just as theoretically viable as gravitational waves were a few years ago before they were detected), is this: once the field is established it requires zero expenditure of energy to accelerate the craft. That’s what “a self-accelerating reference frame” means. Gravitational field propulsion completely abolishes the energy-acceleration-distance problems associated with reaction propulsion, i.e., rocketry. In this respect, the physics of applied general relativity are at least as bizarre and counterintuitive as applied quantum field theory.

    Also, you’re conflating the physics of special relativity where speed is limited to the speed of light and an exponential increase in energy is associated with acceleration, with the field propulsion physics of general relativity.

    Gravitational field propulsion sidesteps both of those issues. First, there’s no need for an input of energy as the craft accelerates because the craft gains no net relativistic mass and gains no net momentum. There’s also no time dilation effect with this method of propulsion. This is because the craft is simply falling in freefall along a geodesic – at no time does it feel any force; the craft simply falls in the direction of travel because it’s riding on a distorted spacetime metric. Neither the craft nor any occupants would feel any sense of motion whatsoever.

    And with gravitational field propulsion, there’s no upper limit to speed – not even the speed of light. This is because the magnitude of spacetime deformation is theoretically unlimited (we know from the inflationary era that spacetime can expand at billions of billions of trillions times faster than the speed of light). You could travel to Alpha Centauri and be back here on Earth in time for lunch, if you could produce the requisite level of metric distortion required to do that – and that’s a purely technological problem, not a theoretical one. Evidently, some other folks in our universe (probably within our galaxy) have already figured out how to do this, but we already understand the physics of it

    And then you argue about gravity’s weakness as a force, relative to the other forces. I’ve said this before but apparently I have to say it again: we made the same (false) assumption about magnetism, before we learned how to technologically generate magnetism. In the Dark Ages, lodestone was the only source of magnetism, and lodestone has a very weak magnetic field. So if we had calculated how much lodestone would be required to generate a 1 Tesla magnetic field, we would’ve concluded that we would need to gather a mass of lodestone the size of the Moon, to produce a field that strong. Now we create a field that intense in every MRI machine on the planet. AAVs demonstrate that the same concept will apply to gravitational fields once we learn the trick to synthesizing them technologically, rather by simply accruing together more mass-energy.

    Clearly the AAV phenomenon demonstrates that it’s technologically feasible to produce the same kind of dramatic amplification and polarization of the gravitational field, that we humans first achieved with the magnetic field just two centuries ago. Because these anomalous craft exhibit precisely all of the performance characteristics that we predict for gravitational field propulsion. According to our current physics, it requires a mass the magnitude of the Earth to produce 1 g of gravitational acceleration. Yet these craft are exhibiting accelerations of 5600 g’s or more (this is the minimum acceleration that I found for the anomalous devices seen on Kevin Day’s radar screen in the USS Nimitz CSG case). So evidently, strong gravitational field effects can be produced without huge magnitudes of mass-energy - we just haven't figured that part out yet.

    So Dejan – how did we lose so much of the progress that we’ve made over the last year+ discussing all of this? I thought we were up to speed with this subject but suddenly I feel like we’re back at square one. Hopefully this is just a temporary lapse produced by an excess of eggnog this holiday season ;)

    It sounds like you’re talking about Cohl Furey’s intriguing work with octonions (the next order up from the quaternions). We just published a Physics Frontiers episode about that:

    The Octonions | Free Podcasts | Podomatic"

    She’s not suggesting the existence of additional physical dimensions. She’s exploring a purely numerical model of reality to see if a higher order complex number system can explain all of the physics of the Standard Model. She’s made some exciting progress, and for the first time I’m enamored with the idea that all of physics could be a pure manifestation of number theory. But if she’s on the right track, she still has a long way to go.

    I appreciate Jacques Vallee’s intellect in many respects, but he and Keel have both fallen prey to a logical fallacy known as the conjunction fallacy. Lots of bright people succumb to this one. Basically, we humans like to have one explanation for a wide variety of different things – but logically, the more things you try to explain with one theory, the less likely your theory becomes. Let’s look at a mundane example to clear this up.

    In the Dark Ages, people were mystified by all the things we saw in the skies; lightning, meteors, supernovas, eclipses, maybe even some UFOs from time to time. People wanted a single explanation for all of those different phenomena, and religion and superstitions offered that to them: all of these things were the going’s on of gods/fairies/demons/etc. And they devised all kinds of belief systems around that idea – if your church was struck by lightning, God was angry with you - bilge like that.

    But eventually we learned that all of these phenomena were distinct, seperate phenomena, and each one had a completely different explanation. Our human impulse to seek one explanation for them all was logically fallacious. That’s the conjunction fallacy.

    By trying to place everything under one umbrella ranging from psychic phenomena to UFOs, Vallee and Keel have succumbed to the conjunction fallacy. Logically, it’s far more likely that psychic phenomena and the UFO phenomenon are distinct phenomena which require distinct explanations.

    Also, I see that you mentioned this deeply disappointing paper by Jacques Vallee and Eric Davis:

    Incommensurability, Orthodoxy and the Physics of High Strangeness: A 6-layer Model for Anomalous Phenomena, 2003
    http://www.jacquesvallee.net/bookdocs/Vallee-Davis-model.pdf

    In this paper, they describe “Layer II” phenomena with the atrocious term “anti-physical,” and place these reported observations into that category:

    * sinking into the ground

    * shrinking in size, growing larger, or changing shape on the spot

    * becoming fuzzy and transparent on the spot

    * dividing into two or more craft, several of them merging into one object at slow speed

    * disappearing at one point and appearing elsewhere instantaneously

    * remaining observable visually while not detected by radar

    * producing missing time or time dilatation

    * producing topological inversion or space dilatation (object was estimated to be of small exterior size/volume, but witness(s) saw a huge interior many times the exterior size)

    * appearing as balls of colored, intensely bright light under intelligent control

    This is especially disappointing given my respect for Eric Davis’ wonderful body of work as a theoretical physicist. It boggles my mind that any physicist would permit the term “anti-physical” to be applied to any objectively observable phenomenon – everything observable has a physical explanation. Some things may remain physically unexplained today, but history has time and time again shown us that today’s mysteries yield tomorrow’s clear and rational physical explanations: nothing physically observable is “anti-physical” by nature.

    Anyway, every item on that list can be explained with either current physics and technologies, or foreseeable physics and technologies. Let’s go through them:

    * sinking into the ground

    - Any sufficiently dense object will sink into the ground. There may also be technological means to create macroscopic quantum wavefunction effects such as quantum superposition which would permit a craft to occupy the same space as the matter of the earth – after all, most of the volume of matter is space, and quantum theory already predicts that there’s a nonzero probability that if you run toward a wall, you could tunnel to the other side. If a civilization is sufficiently advanced technologically, it’s reasonable to assume that they could engineer such an effect to pass a device through “solid” matter.

    * shrinking in size, growing larger, or changing shape on the spot

    - We only think of technological devices as constant in shape because to date most of our technology retains more or less the same shape and size. But we’re already working with materials that can change shape and volume via specific mechanisms like piezoelectricity. It’s reasonable to expect that one day we’ll build devices that can change shape and volume quite dramatically, like a balloon under changing pressure.

    * becoming fuzzy and transparent on the spot

    - We’re already achieving digital camouflage effects with simple video and LCD technologies, and physicists are currently exploring invisibility cloaks using metamaterials. Eventually we too will achieve high-quality optical invisibility tech. And anything sufficiently hot will appear to be fuzzy because of the atmospheric distortion effects.

    * dividing into two or more craft, several of them merging into one object at slow speed

    - Every time we launch a heat-seeking missile from an attack interceptor, one craft divides into two independent craft. And every time the shuttle returned to the Enterprise, two craft merged into one object. Today we even have yachts with smaller boats that exit the side. Eventually these processes will look pretty exotic to the contemporary human witness.

    * disappearing at one point and appearing elsewhere instantaneously

    - Without infinitely great temporal resolution, it’s impossible to claim that anything happened “instantaneously.” Consider a bullet leaving a gun and hitting a target: to the human eye, it appears that the bullet disappeared from the barrel and appeared at the target “instantaneously.” Because the threshold of simultaneity for the human eye is surprisingly large, roughly 55 milliseconds. At high accelerations a lot can happen in 55 milliseconds.

    * remaining observable visually while not detected by radar

    - This one’s downright absurd: we already have planes that are radar-invisible, but clearly observable by the eye.

    * producing missing time or time dilatation

    - Gravitational fields alter the rate of time. And these craft clearly appear to employ gravitational field propulsion technology. So it would be stranger to discover that no time effects were reported, than that they are.

    * producing topological inversion or space dilatation (object was estimated to be of small exterior size/volume, but witness(s) saw a huge interior many times the exterior size)

    - This effect has been discussed in the academic literature for decades. With metric engineering a craft could be much larger on the inside than the outside, like Dr. Who’s Tardis. Dr. Davis should know this; it’s common knowledge among relativists.

    * appearing as balls of colored, intensely bright light under intelligent control

    Any sufficiently hot body glows brilliantly where the color depends on the temperature, and we already have drones that are intelligently controlled. Also any sufficiently charged body with become shrouded in a glowing atmospheric plasma, producing a very similar optical effect. And we could build a craft right now that’s covered in sheets of electroluminescent material.

    So with even casual scrutiny, all of these “anti-physical” effects can readily be understood as physical phenomena. To imply otherwise is shitty science, frankly.

    Jacques Vallee is a computer scientist, not a physicist, so I can understand how he would be misled on some of this stuff. But Dr. Davis should’ve jumped in when Vallee categorized this stuff as “anti-physical.” Christ.

    Sorry, but you lost me at "the cosmic trickster."
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2019
    • Awesome Awesome x 3
  11. humanoidlord

    humanoidlord ce3 researcher

    Messages:
    3,561
    once again this is called a handwave, you can claim anything you want about future technology because the future isn't here yet, meanwhile IDH solves this problem in one sentence: they can change from eletromagnetic radiation into atomic matter at will
     
  12. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Downing petulant pilots with logic since 2018

    Messages:
    499
    You're so awful at thinking that it actually hurts my brain.

    It's not a "hand wave" when A.) myriad independent credible reports describe hypersonic speeds with no sonic boom or a streak of blazing plasma trailing these objects, and B.) I've offered a perfectly rational physical explanation which is fully consistent with the general theory of relativity and well-established cosmological observations (the dark energy effect cannot be explained without negative gravitation). We already know that these craft exhibit precisely the unique predicted performance characteristics of gravitational field propulsion, which requires a negative gravitational field as well as a positive one. So it's perfectly reasonable to expect that that these craft use the same field effect to overcome the problem of incident matter upon the craft.

    And when you say:
    ...you really mean "by magic." So your criticism of "hand waving" is not only unfounded, it's also outrageously hypocritical.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

    Messages:
    823
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    10,170
    Yes you are very biased and try to fit everything into your belief of your god Loki and I see there is no amount of evidence which will pry you from your archaic evangelistic belief in your God...It is no different than a Muslim worshipping Allah or Christian worshiping Jehovah so good luck with that I rather stick with scientific truths and understandings than some barbaric belief in a fictional God of tricks...

    ...
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Dejan Corovic

    Dejan Corovic Honorable

    Messages:
    196
    L'Problem is that you are getting so much invested into your own narrative, that you are becoming overly defensive to the smallest hint of constructive criticism. Your idea is in top tree, but it doesn't solve all the problems, so we need to keep our eyes open.

    OK, gravity produced by gravitational super-loadstone (GSR) will create acceleration without additional energy input. But it will not do anything for oncoming Hadron collider beam of interstellar particles. Additionally gravitational super-loadstone (GSR) can not be even imagined with modern physics. Additionally, we would need gigantic amounts of energy to divert the beam of oncoming interstellar particles. GR warp-drive solved one problem, but there are three problems and we still can't cross the interstellar void.

    GSR is currently in a same league as 11-th super string dimension. It's undefinable and unobtainable, although it might be discovered in future.

    I just stumbled on a small, but strong group of academics in physics & maths, like Cohl Furey (many of them from Stanford Uni), that are researching these 2x4D or 8D spaces. I didn't know you had podcast about the same topics.

    As always, there are many versions, some use real + imaginary numbers, but some use real + non-imaginary numbers, some use Clifton algebra, some use octonions and so on (I am not specialist, there might be some repetition here). While addition of imaginary numbers beautifully unites GR and QM (Quantum Gravity that you talked about) and even ESP (that Vallee, Tarig & Puthoff talked about), they create negative kinetic energy. Imaginary numbers are brilliant at explaining non-physical non-local properties of QM wave function and bring in negative time. Negative time is fundamental for both QM and Standard model, it's confirmed by experiments, so it can not be questioned in the slightest. Feynman specifically designed Feynman's diagrams around concept of negative time.

    It seems that this 8D research is very fragmented and that people involved see some solutions, but they don't all see some of the problems. One researcher is stuck with quartenions, and Gibbs & Heavside had demonstrated that Quartenions are incomplete for use in Maxwell's theory, so Heavside invented vectors. Kind off, this field needs some integration, like String theory in early days.

    8D research is still not on the same level as your warp-drive ideas, but it nevertheless scores some solid successes by effortlessly uniting GR & QM without adding extra dimensions on the long way towards Quantum Gravity. Once we crack Quantum Gravity it's a short leap towards crossing inter-stellar voids.

    That might not be in realm of theory, because ball lightnings had been observed to pass right through solid objects, like walls. Ball lightnings are a good candidate for macroscopic quantum object. And they are somewhat accepted by scientific community. So many things are waiting to be discovered.

    Constructive criticism, you forgot: McCarthyism, Ku Klux Klan, Fascism, Gulags and Ethnical Cleansing.

    Well said, but @humanoidlord is one of us and he contributes some good material, from time to time.

    What's that Loki thing?
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2019
  16. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    10,170
    Humanoidlord believes fervently in a cosmic trickster (Loki) who creates all ufo and paranormal occurrences for the sole reason to trick humanity and make fools of us all for his own amusement...

    ...
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Carl Grove

    Carl Grove Adept

    Messages:
    35
    That final point rather spoils what was quite a good post -- psychology is a science, it has nothing to do with private opinions, and applies rigorous experimentation just as any other science does. Moreover, I have yet to see physics assessing experimental results with such careful statistical procedures that are fundamental to any research where there are data influenced by random variation. For example, in one of these extremely expensive studies using massive accelerators to smash particles into each other, it is easy to gather thousands of data sets. Eventually one comes up that shows some kind of new particle, as assessed subjectively from images of particle trails, and the experiment is declared a huge success. If a psychologist did a study employing thousands of replications, and because one comes up in line with his predictions he declares it a success, he would be considered deranged -- if anyone would agree to publish his results!

    By the way, Vallee's consultancy with NASA was in the early Mars mapping project.
     
  18. Dejan Corovic

    Dejan Corovic Honorable

    Messages:
    196
    That's not how Hadron collider experiments work. New particles are confirmed with 6 Sigma, and for 6 Sigma one needs, I don't know how many confirmations, but it is into millions. Definitely not just one.

    Psychology is definitely not a science, even if it is pretending to use scientific method, because it can not make predictions. It's that simple. Additionally it is completely incapable of sorting noise from signal and it just ads to the confusion. Not to mention, that like it's older sister, politics can be used to promote hidden agendas of various social groups.

    I much more prefer the approach of the neuroscientist Robert Sopolsky, whom I've discovered recently. His reasoning almost like a physicist, all his work is backed up with brain-scans, experiments, evolutionary studies etc. What do you think about that kind of psychology?

    He even thinks that there is no 'free will', which is my opinion as well.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. Carl Grove

    Carl Grove Adept

    Messages:
    35
    I don't think that suggesting the existence of other dimensions or universes or realities (not including Santa Claus) is at all incompatible with scientific reasoning. Indeed the Astronomer Royal has suggested that there may even be an infinite number of such universes! Every theory in every science has boundary conditions. Physical sciences in our particular reality operate with the building blocks of our reality and have been hugely successful. But there are many phenomena that clearly lie outside those building blocks -- ESP, psychokinesis, precognition, clairvoyance, time slips, and glitches. Sometimes UFO incidents occur that appear to be associated with such phenomena. For example, Jenny Randles in her Supernatural Pennines makes a good case that all these phenomena may be generated from a common source. When Physics gets around to tackling all such happenings it may develop some useful theories but at the moment it chooses (wisely, I think) to stick with what it is good at, and it is left to people like us to confront them.
    But you have a strange notion that by widening our viewpoint and trying to study phenomena that you personally regard as unacceptable we are going back into the Dark Ages, and will end up burning witches and hunting werewolves or something. We don't have to adopt belief systems at all, just try to think of all possibilities and go on from there.
    Your analysis of Vallee's anti-physical concept is a bit optimistic. Yes, we can launch smaller craft from larger ones and they can -- in a sense -- merge together. But can physics explain how two discoid objects merge into one that remains the same size? And as for Dr Who's Tardis -- if physics can get the inside of anything larger than its outside, I would be very impressed -- please tell us when they do it!
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Carl Grove

    Carl Grove Adept

    Messages:
    35
    I won't say any more after this but your claim that Psychology is "pretending to use scientific method because it can't make predictions" is patently absurd. I am actually quite horrified at your ignorance. "Free will" is not a psychological concept but at best a philosophical notion. In fact the Behaviorist theorists of the 30s explicitly rejected it.
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page