"How is it plausible that beings that can circumvent the laws of known physics such that they can manage interstellar/interdimensional travel manage to still crash some of their ships?"
Similar questions:
Why no crashes in heavily populated areas, where they could be witnessed by hundreds if not thousands?
Why are the remains of such crashes not recovered by these beings, if they value their secrecy?
If bodies are found, what is their biology?
Were microbes found in the debris?
If the ships carried microbes how did they not create local colonies growing in the terrestrial landscape?
Why do amateur astronomers (like me), who spend the most time under the night sky, make comparatively few UFO reports? (I've never seen anything I could not identify)
Why do the objects in the fighter jet videos remain centered in the cameras, when serious evasive maneuvers would result in the objects at least bouncing and darting all over the image?
I believe Tom DeLonge, or some other "insider" has claimed that the crashes are planned and deliberate. The bodies are of "biots", Arthur C Clark's term for manufactured biological beings, "meat robots" if you will. "The Others", as the designers of UAPs are often called, have crashed vehicles all over the world to give different nations the opportunity to examine and learn from them.
Very interesting time indeed. But I'm not getting my hopes up for anything too revealing, I feel like we have been duped our whole lives whether it's religion, politics, or media. These things only seem to amount to more questions, more conspiracies, and then endless documentaries to be made, but ultimately no answers. Just once, I want to have evidence for something, just once...
I think the Fermi paradox is airtight. The problem is that technology is culturally dependent until that culture meets another. If some alien species is only slightly more advanced than us (no hyperdrive yet), and they are also treated as part of the zoo, then their asteroid-sized robots would be here already, eating the asteroid belt. That hasn't happened. So I conclude that no one is out there, or else the threshold to be invited out of the zoo is fairly low and might be imminent for us.
I also think the Rare Earth Hypothesis and Evolutionary theory regarding the human brain (if needed for survival, it should have appeared long before it did) are correct; both state the odds of intelligent aliens is very low.
I will tell you, I used to have some fun in my public lectures. I would cite the lack of UFO reports by astronomers and say "So either there are no aliens, or else we astronomers are working for them!" Once I got a funny look from a spectator, and I prayed that I hadn't created a stalker. Never saw him again, so I guess that prayer worked.
As you probably know, the earth-moon system got here by a chance random collision, and the moon's tidal effects - much larger 5 billion years ago than today - are very likely a major part of the origin of life here. The odds of it being repeated in any large numbers in the Milky Way is very very low, even considering the vastness. The fact that none of the thousands of solar systems we have found look anything like ours seems to bear this out.
And outside the Milky Way, if a galaxy goes elliptical too early, there will be no life in that galaxy. Lose your spiral arms too early, and you lose the ability to recycle the heavier elements necessary for life into new solar systems. It is no accident that we live in a spiral galaxy.
But it is the evolutionary argument that is the really tough nut. The history of life here on earth shows that when an organ or function is necessary for survival it evolves fairly quickly. For example, crude vision evolved about 40 times, and 5 times independently to photographic quality. No one developed a technological civilization here before us, of that we are certain. We arrived very late on the scene. So, we have to conclude that our intelligence is not needed for survival, and that in evolutionary terms it is an accident. In effect the 200 million years before us and without us needs to be factored into the appropriate Drake Equation parameter, and doing so makes the odds against alien intelligence even longer.
The problem is what is called the Copernican Principle. It is the basis of the belief that there ARE intelligent aliens: the same phenomenon we observe in our solar system must be consistent throughout the universe. It's a basic postulate of science, and it has been falsified only once: Olber's paradox and the Big Bang. It states the aliens MUST play by reality's phenomenon (I hate to say "laws", to me science is only observation and theory, there is no 'law' that cannot be overturned), and if they play by something else that is merely something accessible to us but as yet undiscovered.
I don't follow your argument re REH. REH is only a few decades old and is based on very good science, it has nothing to do with previous scientific attempts. Objections to it based on our present level of ignorance are more speculative than REH itself is.
Imagination has its limits based on science, sorry. For example, I cannot imagine holding a pound of antimatter in my hand for ten minutes.
Re the DE is a tool for estimation, i.e. educated guessing. Which is what I and others have been doing.
"How is it plausible that beings that can circumvent the laws of known physics such that they can manage interstellar/interdimensional travel manage to still crash some of their ships?"
Similar questions:
Why no crashes in heavily populated areas, where they could be witnessed by hundreds if not thousands?
Why are the remains of such crashes not recovered by these beings, if they value their secrecy?
If bodies are found, what is their biology?
Were microbes found in the debris?
If the ships carried microbes how did they not create local colonies growing in the terrestrial landscape?
Why do amateur astronomers (like me), who spend the most time under the night sky, make comparatively few UFO reports? (I've never seen anything I could not identify)
Why do the objects in the fighter jet videos remain centered in the cameras, when serious evasive maneuvers would result in the objects at least bouncing and darting all over the image?
Good article, thanks!
I believe Tom DeLonge, or some other "insider" has claimed that the crashes are planned and deliberate. The bodies are of "biots", Arthur C Clark's term for manufactured biological beings, "meat robots" if you will. "The Others", as the designers of UAPs are often called, have crashed vehicles all over the world to give different nations the opportunity to examine and learn from them.
Good to hear from you again Steve!
Very interesting time indeed. But I'm not getting my hopes up for anything too revealing, I feel like we have been duped our whole lives whether it's religion, politics, or media. These things only seem to amount to more questions, more conspiracies, and then endless documentaries to be made, but ultimately no answers. Just once, I want to have evidence for something, just once...
Yeah, I don't see any good reason to believe the aliens, if they exist, are benevolent. At most, they're benign, studying us from the shadows.
As for the acronyms, government's gonna government. Especially the DoD.
I think the Fermi paradox is airtight. The problem is that technology is culturally dependent until that culture meets another. If some alien species is only slightly more advanced than us (no hyperdrive yet), and they are also treated as part of the zoo, then their asteroid-sized robots would be here already, eating the asteroid belt. That hasn't happened. So I conclude that no one is out there, or else the threshold to be invited out of the zoo is fairly low and might be imminent for us.
I also think the Rare Earth Hypothesis and Evolutionary theory regarding the human brain (if needed for survival, it should have appeared long before it did) are correct; both state the odds of intelligent aliens is very low.
I will tell you, I used to have some fun in my public lectures. I would cite the lack of UFO reports by astronomers and say "So either there are no aliens, or else we astronomers are working for them!" Once I got a funny look from a spectator, and I prayed that I hadn't created a stalker. Never saw him again, so I guess that prayer worked.
As you probably know, the earth-moon system got here by a chance random collision, and the moon's tidal effects - much larger 5 billion years ago than today - are very likely a major part of the origin of life here. The odds of it being repeated in any large numbers in the Milky Way is very very low, even considering the vastness. The fact that none of the thousands of solar systems we have found look anything like ours seems to bear this out.
And outside the Milky Way, if a galaxy goes elliptical too early, there will be no life in that galaxy. Lose your spiral arms too early, and you lose the ability to recycle the heavier elements necessary for life into new solar systems. It is no accident that we live in a spiral galaxy.
But it is the evolutionary argument that is the really tough nut. The history of life here on earth shows that when an organ or function is necessary for survival it evolves fairly quickly. For example, crude vision evolved about 40 times, and 5 times independently to photographic quality. No one developed a technological civilization here before us, of that we are certain. We arrived very late on the scene. So, we have to conclude that our intelligence is not needed for survival, and that in evolutionary terms it is an accident. In effect the 200 million years before us and without us needs to be factored into the appropriate Drake Equation parameter, and doing so makes the odds against alien intelligence even longer.
The problem is what is called the Copernican Principle. It is the basis of the belief that there ARE intelligent aliens: the same phenomenon we observe in our solar system must be consistent throughout the universe. It's a basic postulate of science, and it has been falsified only once: Olber's paradox and the Big Bang. It states the aliens MUST play by reality's phenomenon (I hate to say "laws", to me science is only observation and theory, there is no 'law' that cannot be overturned), and if they play by something else that is merely something accessible to us but as yet undiscovered.
I don't follow your argument re REH. REH is only a few decades old and is based on very good science, it has nothing to do with previous scientific attempts. Objections to it based on our present level of ignorance are more speculative than REH itself is.
Imagination has its limits based on science, sorry. For example, I cannot imagine holding a pound of antimatter in my hand for ten minutes.
Re the DE is a tool for estimation, i.e. educated guessing. Which is what I and others have been doing.