Are UFO's real?

Post Reply New Topic

How many galaxies are irregular and how many are nice photogenic spiral galaxies doesnt matter in the slightest.

Saying that even spiral galaxies are "too well organized to have formed by chance" is nonsense.

On Earth hurricanes are also well "organized" to the same degree, and into much the same physical pattern, as are the well formed spiral galaxies.

And no one doubts that hurricanes form pretty much "by chance".

So why cant galaxies form 'by chance'?

When you get a warping of air pressure you get a whirlpool pattern in the atmosphere. And if you get a warping of the time-space ( or a warping of gravitational pull-if you prefer Newtonian terms) you get matter confroming the patterns of gravity- (or warped space) into a whirlpool pattern much like a hurricane. Just as one would expect.

Thankyou for your post.
I do owe something of an explanation. I made a sweeping statement about 'all of the galaxies' an now it is proper for me to clarify it.
I can only comment on the physics of the milky way galaxy with any confidence.
If you wish to re post narrowing the frame of reference to the milky way, I will reply again.
Regards, Ripped

A UFO is nothing more than an unidentified flying object – that is, it is an object that is seen flying in the sky, and which the observer has not or can not identify.

No UFO has ever been positively identified as an extra-terrestrial spacecraft in a way required by common sense and science - that is, there has been no recurring identical UFO experience and there has been no valid physical evidence in support of either a flyby or landing of a vehicle of extra-terrestrial origin.

Alleged physical evidence, such as alleged debris from alleged alien crashes, alleged burn marks on the ground from alleged alien landings, or alleged implants in noses or brains of alleged alien abductees, have turned out to be quite mundane and terrestrial, including forgeries.

There are as many photographs of UFOs as there are of the Loch Ness Monster, and they are of equal quality: blurs, shadows, and outright forgeries.

The advent of inexpensive digital cameras has corresponded to an actual decrease in UFO sightings. Even Steven Spielberg has noticed this trend: Spielberg says, "There are millions of video cameras out there and they're picking up less videos of UFOs, alleged UFOs, than we picked up in the 1970s and 1980s. There's 150 per cent more cameras, so why are we getting less from up there?" Steve has a point; the electronic CCDs in digital cameras can produce clearer and sharper images than old-fashioned film-based cameras, yet UFO fanatics are still relying on decades-old film-based pictures that show images that are smeared, out of focus, or otherwise indistinct.

(Maybe because Adobe Photoshop is too complicated for them? )

Nothing has come from the study of UFOs that has added to human knowledge, therefore, any conclusions drawn from such studies are irrelevant to the advancement of human knowledge and understanding, and any claims of extra-terrestrial involvement in UFO sightings are just plain stupid.

The so-called "evidence" supplied by those who believe that UFOs are extra-terrestrial in origin consists solely of:

1. The testimony of people who claim to have seen aliens and/or alien spacecraft. Such "testimony" often glosses over the witnesses’ fatigue during the alleged sighting, alcohol or drug use, mental or cognitive disabilities, limited education, or their personal history of public mischief.

2. Irrelevant facts about the type of people who give the testimony. Such facts are used to bolster the credibility of the "witnesses"; usually their profession (religious leader, physician, lawyer, et cetera). This is called "Appeal to False Authority", since none of the professionals cited have any expertise in aerospace technology.

3. The lack of contrary testimony or physical evidence that would either explain the sighting by conventional means or discredit the reliability of the eyewitness. That is, the believers will claim that since they can’t be proven wrong, they must be right. This is called an "Argument from Ignorance", and does nothing to prove any claims for the extra-terrestrial origins of UFOs.

4. Alleged weaknesses in the arguments of skeptics against those who believe in the extra-terrestrial origins of UFOs. These weaknesses (if they exist) are irrelevant to the issue, yet they play a disproportionately large role in UFO fandom. Claims of alleged weakness in skeptical claims is usually the result of the general ignorance of scientific principles on the part of the UFO fanatics.

5. An alleged conspiracy to suppress and conceal evidence that would support their claims of the extra-terrestrial origins of UFOs. Since there is no evidence, they can not claim that it exists.

6. Statements of disbelief that UFOs could have mundane terrestrial origins. This is called "Argument from Incredulity", and is solely faith-based without a shred of material evidence.

7. Word salads consisting of nonsensical pseudo-scientific doubletalk and convoluted rhetorical arguments that are based solely on assumptions and conjecture, and that often have poor spelling, child-like grammar, and improper use of punctuation.

8. Attacks against the credibility and "closed-mindedness" of people who post articles like this, who would gladly accept the claim that UFOs have extra-terrestrial origins, if only those claims were presented with something other than apocryphal accounts, irrelevant facts, lack of valid material evidence, conspiracy theories, personal beliefs, and seemingly endless nonsensical blather.

A UFO is nothing more than an unidentified flying object – that is, it is an object that is seen flying in the sky, and which the observer has not or can not identify.

QED

References

Condon, Dr. Edward U. "Final Report of the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects Conducted by the University of Colorado under Contract to the United States Air Force (New York": E.P. Dutton, 1969). Online version.

Dudley, William, ed. "UFOs" (At Issue - Opposing Viewpoint Series) (San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1999).

Klass, Philip J. "UFOs Explained" (Vintage Books, 1976).

Klass, Philip J. "UFOs: the Public Deceived" (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1983).

Kurtz, Paul. "The Transcendental Temptation: a Critique of Religion and the Paranormal" (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1986).

Randi, James. "Flim-Flam!" (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books,1982).

Russo, Chris and Joe Rudy. 2009. "How We Staged the Morristown UFO Hoax." ("On January 5, 2009, we set out into the woods on the border of Morris Plains and Hanover, NJ, carrying one helium tank, five balloons, five flares, fishing line, duct tape, and a video camera... .We followed up our light show with four more performances, gaining media attention every time. Every conspiracy website and radio show was mentioning it... .[A]re UFO investigators simply charlatans looking to make a quick buck off human gullibility, or are they alarmists using bad science to back up their biased opinions that extraterrestrial life is routinely visiting our planet?")

Sagan, Carl and Thornton Page. editors. "UFO's: A Scientific Debate", (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press 1972).

Sagan, Carl. "Broca's Brain" (New York: Random House, 1979), ch 5. "NightWalkers and Mystery Mongers: Sense and Nonsense at the Edge of Science".

Sagan, Carl. "The Demon-Haunted World - Science as a Candle in the Dark", ch. 4, (New York: Random House, 1995).

Scheaffer, Robert. 2011. "A Human Head on a Cow". Skeptical Inquirer. Vo. 35 issue 1. January/February 2011.

For someone who doesn't believe in something, you certainly are willing to put a lot of effort into it.

You have just committed a variant of the tu quoque fallacy. If you don't believe in X why do you spend so much time arguing about X?

ruveyn

That makes nine. Thanks, Ruve!

I question the validity of the 'tu quoque fallacy'.
Every communication on a topic is an investment in that topic.
I only query fnords considerable investment in something, which according to his own argument does not exist.

Last edited by ripped on 26 Jan 2013, 2:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

why do the air force/norad refer to UFOs as "fast walkers"?

Because they (1) resemble a string of footprints across the radar screen, and (2) sometimes move faster across their radar screens than it takes the supervisor to walk across the room and confirm it. Such "Bunny Tracks" are eliminated by tuning the radar set away from the frequency of another nearby radar set.

Bravo for so noting. And if Guths expansionist version of the big bang is right that energy spread far wide and fast (much faster than light) in the first few gazillionths of a second before settling down and symmetry breaking occurred between gravitation and the other forces. It was only after slowing and cooling that there were any particles to become entangled.

ruveyn

The trouble with quantum entanglement is that when one of a pair of entangled particles comes into direct contact with a third particle, the entanglement between the first two particles is broken, and they are no longer entangled.

So, with all of those particles bouncing around after energy finally condensed to matter, any entanglement they may have had from the Big Bang is now completely lost.

I like learning. It beats all Hell out of making things up.

You argue on the basis of theory established under an unperfected science.
In the absence of facts, this statement sounds like it came someone who prefers the intellectual posture of an ostrich with its head in the sand.

Even if Guth's expansionist version of the big bang is correct, it still does not relegate every potential quantum field and entangled state in the universe to nonexistence.

Last edited by ripped on 27 Jan 2013, 2:04 am, edited 3 times in total.

Just because one entangled pair of particles is the only example of entanglement that we have in no way removes the potential of multifold other occurrences of this phenomena.

You confuse theory with fact and pronounce your guesswork as 'the one and only truth'.

I confused nothing. This is what my physics professors taught me at uni.

What do your physics professors teach you?

By the time energy cooled enough to make particles they were far enough apart that few if any interacted and entwined. The the few particles in the neighborhood got together with gravitation.

ruveyn

Your physics professors taught you theory, which what it remains.
And yet you pronounce it as law, which it is not.