UFO Found on Ocean Floor?

[4merper4mer]

17 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

You're getting it.

 

Especially in cheesy movies.

1 hour ago, Augie said:

 

We don’t know what we don’t know….though some of us seem to think they know. A thousand years ago it was “impossible” for man to walk on the moon or drive remote control science labs around on Mars. Yet here we are. What might we be capable of in, say, a million years? I’m not pompous enough to have any opinion on that. 

 

The exponential trajectory of our knowledge almost takes my breathe away. 

Which provides a clue displaying that life does not exist elsewhere.

[Augie]

3 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

 

Which provides a clue displaying that life does not exist elsewhere.

 

How silly! 😋

 

Does an ant on a hill in South America know we are going back and forth here? I bet I could even sneak up on that ant. Can’t you cover them in chocolate and eat them?  Who was the first person to think that was a good idea???

 

And on that, I rest my case. 

[Warcodered]

8 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

But, but but….there are more stars than grains of sand.

There's apparently 10,000 stars per grain of sand on Earth, to put it in simpler terms, that's a lot of ***** stars. That's just in the observable universe so you know do with that what you will.

[4merper4mer]

14 hours ago, Warcodered said:

There's apparently 10,000 stars per grain of sand on Earth, to put it in simpler terms, that's a lot of ***** stars. That's just in the observable universe so you know do with that what you will.

Unless something drastically changes in either physics or our ability to control it, I think it is reasonable to limit discussion/speculation to the observable universe.  Agree?

[Warcodered]

4 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Unless something drastically changes in either physics or our ability to control it, I think it is reasonable to limit discussion/speculation to the observable universe.  Agree?

I mean we wouldn't want to leave things open to things we don't fully understand, that's just crazy talk.

[4merper4mer]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

I mean we wouldn't want to leave things open to things we don't fully understand, that's just crazy talk.

Do you understand WHY the observable universe is the observable universe?

[Augie]

2 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Do you understand WHY the observable universe is the observable universe?

 

Because we don’t see very well? 

[Warcodered]

1 minute ago, 4merper4mer said:

Do you understand WHY the observable universe is the observable universe?

Do you understand the inherit ridiculousness to limiting things to our present understanding when we are little over a century from having achieved powered flight?

[4merper4mer]

6 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

Because we don’t see very well? 

That was true, but we put on some glasses and we see better now.  Unfortunately, the speed of light is still a thing so I blame the photons.

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

Do you understand the inherit ridiculousness to limiting things to our present understanding when we are little over a century from having achieved powered flight?

Dude, if you don’t understand why the observable universe is the observable universe, then we are at a standstill.  It’s called the observable universe for a very good reason.  It isn’t called the permanently observable universe, but it would be difficult to find a scientist that thinks the condition is temporary.

 

On a side note, I’m wondering if I should interpret your fixation on the unobservable universe as a capitulation that math has indeed shown the observable universe to be devoid of intelligent life outside of Earth.  Please do get back to me on that.

[Augie]

58 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

That was true, but we put on some glasses and we see better now.  Unfortunately, the speed of light is still a thing so I blame the photons.

Dude, if you don’t understand why the observable universe is the observable universe, then we are at a standstill.  It’s called the observable universe for a very good reason.  It isn’t called the permanently observable universe, but it would be difficult to find a scientist that thinks the condition is temporary.

 

On a side note, I’m wondering if I should interpret your fixation on the unobservable universe as a capitulation that math has indeed shown the observable universe to be devoid of intelligent life outside of Earth.  Please do get back to me on that.

 

You sound a little like we already know all there is to be known. I happen to think we barely know more than we did a thousand years ago. What more could we learn in 10,000 years, or a million. We think we understand the laws of physics, but I think we’ve just scratched the surface, and much of what we “know” is subject to question. Remember when the sun and everything else revolved around earth?  That was not that long ago. 

 

I’m not saying I know what is out there, because I have no way of knowing. Just like you cannot possibly know what is NOT out there. Don’t give me your “math nonsense”, because it is just that: nonsense. I’ve seen other people’s math that says the universe it loaded with life. I can’t say what is true and accurate. Nobody on this planet today can “know”. 

[4merper4mer]

1 hour ago, Augie said:

 

You sound a little like we already know all there is to be known. I happen to think we barely know more than we did a thousand years ago. What more could we learn in 10,000 years, or a million. We think we understand the laws of physics, but I think we’ve just scratched the surface, and much of what we “know” is subject to question. Remember when the sun and everything else revolved around earth?  That was not that long ago. 

 

I’m not saying I know what is out there, because I have no way of knowing. Just like you cannot possibly know what is NOT out there. Don’t give me your “math nonsense”, because it is just that: nonsense. I’ve seen other people’s math that says the universe it loaded with life. I can’t say what is true and accurate. Nobody on this planet today can “know”. 

Actual math > Sitcom math

[Augie]

4 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Actual math > Sitcom math

 

Do you realize that just makes you look silly. It depends on whose math you decide to listen to. I say I can’t possibly know for sure, but somehow you can. 

[4merper4mer]

27 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

Do you realize that just makes you look silly. It depends on whose math you decide to listen to. I say I can’t possibly know for sure, but somehow you can. 

If one side of a discussion takes hundreds of factors into account and another takes 6 or 7 and purposely ignores contradicting info, one is superior.  Superior does not mean perfect…but still superior.

[LeGOATski]

https://gizmodo.com/spy-balloon-china-pentagon-high-altitude-object-ufo-1850100688

 

The US just shot another object down and won't say what it was. In other words....

 

[Bad Things]

Why do you all continue to entertain this douche-bag?

 

STOP FEEDING THE TROLL!

 

 

[4merper4mer]

1 hour ago, Bad Things said:

Why do you all continue to entertain this douche-bag?

 

STOP FEEDING THE TROLL!

 

 

Uncalled for name calling.  I disagree with people here but it is not personal.

[Not at the table Karlos]

On 2/10/2023 at 1:32 PM, Augie said:

 

Do you realize that just makes you look silly. It depends on whose math you decide to listen to. I say I can’t possibly know for sure, but somehow you can. 

Did he/she ever provide what math they're using and where they got the numbers to enter in to figure out whatever it is they're talking about. I've asked a few times but they never provide anything but "math". Not gonna dig through 100s of pages either.  They just seem unhinged and obsessed with yelling "math" with no understanding of what they're talking about. You question them and oh the math. 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/mach/amp/ncna841371

 

Edited February 12, 2023 by Not at the table Karlos

[Augie]

2 hours ago, Not at the table Karlos said:

Did he/she ever provide what math they're using and where they got the numbers to enter in to figure out whatever it is they're talking about. I've asked a few times but they never provide anything but "math". Not gonna dig through 100s of pages either.  They just seem unhinged and obsessed with yelling "math" with no understanding of what they're talking about. You question them and oh the math. 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/mach/amp/ncna841371

 

 

WAIT! Your actual math doesn’t seem to say the same thing as “generic, undisclosed math”. How could that be??? 

 

Did that say the Drake formulas dates back to 1961? That’s over 60 years ago, which is enough time to allow for all kinds of new info. New starting points. The recent and frequent discovery of habitable planets in the Goldilocks strike zone has astonished scientists. What will the next generation of telescopes uncover?

 

The one thing I know for sure is how little we know. Unlike some small minded people who think we already have all the knowledge we will ever have. Wait until we figure out if wormholes are real, and if they could be used by a far more advanced civilization. I’d guess that there is all kinds of mind blowing stuff we can’t even imagine, much less explain!   

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

4 hours ago, Augie said:

 

WAIT! Your actual math doesn’t seem to say the same thing as “generic, undisclosed math”. How could that be??? 

 

Did that say the Drake formulas dates back to 1961? That’s over 60 years ago, which is enough time to allow for all kinds of new info. New starting points. The recent and frequent discovery of habitable planets in the Goldilocks strike zone has astonished scientists. What will the next generation of telescopes uncover?

 

The one thing I know for sure is how little we know. Unlike some small minded people who think we already have all the knowledge we will ever have. Wait until we figure out if wormholes are real, and if they could be used by a far more advanced civilization. I’d guess that there is all kinds of mind blowing stuff we can’t even imagine, much less explain!   

 

The folks at SETI think that, just like in 1961, we only know the value of one of the 7 factors that have made up the Drake equation since it was first postulated in 1961.  Here's the proof:

 

Excerpted from https://www.seti.org/drake-equation-index (for more complete details read the full link):

___________

"The Drake Equation was cooked up by astronomer Frank Drake in 1961 to serve as the agenda for the first meeting on the topic of SETI.  . . . At the time of the meeting, essentially none of the seven factors in the equation was known excepting the first, the production rate of stars.  . . . It has been sixty years since the Drake Equation was conceived.  Have we nailed down more of the terms than the single one known in 1961? Sadly, no.  . . ."

__________

 

Like any formula or mathematical model, the adage "Garbage in, garbage out" applies.  The fact that most people in this thread disagree with 4merper4mer's conclusions doesn't make him a troll.  When you make what the SETI folks readily concede are just "guesses" about the value of 6 of the 7 factors, everybody is just speculating.  Although 4merper4mer doesn't explain his analysis particularly well, if any of the 6 unknown factors have a true value of ZERO, then we are alone in the universe.  That is true whether or not that math dashes the hopes and dreams of the scientists and ordinary people who would like, and in some cases fervently hope, that we are not alone.

 

SETI says that the fraction of suitable planets on which life actually appears is unknown.  If your own "guess" is that life actually appears on some planet anywhere in the universe other than earth, you have to explain the Fermi paradox to justify your "guess."

 

I have yet to hear an explanation for the Fermi paradox that makes me think that 4merper4mer's conclusion is wrong.  I find the topic interesting enough that I am willing to entertain new explanations for the Fermi paradox from people with some basis for attempting an explanation.

 

With most human knowledge available on the internet, anybody can do google searches to look for a rational explanation for the Fermi paradox provided by someone with the appropriate education or training to enlighten the rest of us.  If you ever find such an explanation, please post a link.  I'll read it.

 

[Augie]

10 minutes ago, ICanSleepWhenI'mDead said:

 

The folks at SETI think that, just like in 1961, we only know the value of one of the 7 factors that have made up the Drake equation since it was first postulated in 1961.  Here's the proof:

 

Excerpted from https://www.seti.org/drake-equation-index (for more complete details read the full link):

___________

"The Drake Equation was cooked up by astronomer Frank Drake in 1961 to serve as the agenda for the first meeting on the topic of SETI.  . . . At the time of the meeting, essentially none of the seven factors in the equation was known excepting the first, the production rate of stars.  . . . It has been sixty years since the Drake Equation was conceived.  Have we nailed down more of the terms than the single one known in 1961? Sadly, no.  . . ."

__________

 

Like any formula or mathematical model, the adage "Garbage in, garbage out" applies.  The fact that most people in this thread disagree with 4merper4mer's conclusions doesn't make him a troll.  When you make what the SETI folks readily concede are just "guesses" about the value of 6 of the 7 factors, everybody is just speculating.  Although 4merper4mer doesn't explain his analysis particularly well, if any of the 6 unknown factors have a true value of ZERO, then we are alone in the universe.  That is true whether or not that math dashes the hopes and dreams of the scientists and ordinary people who would like, and in some cases fervently hope, that we are not alone.

 

SETI says that the fraction of suitable planets on which life actually appears is unknown.  If your own "guess" is that life actually appears on some planet anywhere in the universe other than earth, you have to explain the Fermi paradox to justify your "guess."

 

I have yet to hear an explanation for the Fermi paradox that makes me think that 4merper4mer's conclusion is wrong.  I find the topic interesting enough that I am willing to entertain new explanations for the Fermi paradox from people with some basis for attempting an explanation.

 

With most human knowledge available on the internet, anybody can do google searches to look for a rational explanation for the Fermi paradox provided by someone with the appropriate education or training to enlighten the rest of us.  If you ever find such an explanation, please post a link.  I'll read it.

 

 

Fermi Paradox aside (I’m not going down that rabbit hole), nobody can KNOW for sure one way or the other. THAT is my main point. To say you are certain, due to your own version of “the math” or anything else is just indefensible posturing. It is nothing more than one more opinion.