Posted on 01/02/2005 4:43:04 AM PST by SunkenCiv
The error is the a priori assumption that UFOs cannot exist therefore no evidence to the contrary will be considered, never mind accepted. Few scientists would allow such faulty logic to prevail in their own field of expertise. Yet, in the emotionally laden field of UFOs, scientists let Condon stand uncorrected and disregarding pertinent facts has become the accepted norm... There are over 3000 cases reported by pilots, some of which include interference with flight controls. On numerous occasions air traffic controllers and other radar operators have noted unexplained objects on their scopes. So too have several astronomers and other competent scientists reported their personal observations. Many military officials from several countries have confirmed multi-sensor observations of UFOs. The most senior air defense officers of Russia, Brazil, Belgium and recently a former Chief of Naval Operations in Chile all have stated that UFOs are real. These cases and comments are a miniscule fraction of the total body of evidence... Of course they do not constitute irrefutable proof. However, to state there is no evidence suggestive of intelligent extraterrestrial life simply belies the facts. Decades in duration and global in nature, there are too many hard sensor data-points and millions of eyewitnesses to ignore. We certainly can debate the significance of specific data and question whether or not it establishes a causal relationship between the observations and extraterrestrial life. However, it is only through ignorance or pomposity that one can say no evidence exists.
(Excerpt) Read more at nidsci.org ...
That's OK.
Kevin, I believe in Angels, also. They are, by definition, extraterrestrial. They exist in some where/when that we currently have no access to with our level of Physics understanding (and I believe we are limited in our future development of Physics theory by our current very simplistic definition of dimension Time). But we are accessible to them! ... much the way past events/phenomena are accessible to us, but to experience even one phenomenon in the actual present of that occurrence is beyond our sensory capabilities due to the temporal lag from phenomenon to experiential impact. Star light is a fair example: science can tell a whole lot about the status of the star that 'lost the photon radiation' when it lost it, though we cannot actually know the present status of that star. How is that possible? ... Well, the photon energy traveled across vast spatial expanse carrying energy that 'has a present temporal variable inherent in the photon package', IOW, the photon stream has energy, spatial and temporal variable expression inherent in the package, yet we treat dimension Time as if it is some non-variable background. Relativity hints that such is not the case, yet we haven't constructed a mathematics to include temporal variability such as 'past', 'present', and 'future', we only hold time as non-variable in expression yet integrate it in increments of 'present'. What would happen to our conceptualizations if we considered Space, for instance, as having three variable expressions, linear, planar, and volumetric, and Time as three variable expressions of past, present, and future? We might define photon or other subatomic packages as existing in a 'pregnant' linear/present or linear/past, or planar/present, or volumetric/past, or volumetric/future. These continua would be explorable if we devised a mathematics to express such continua and explore the interaction between these coexistent continua. Aren't string theory and brane theory seeking to do something along those lines, but with an 'antiquated' definition of dimension Time?
Einstein invented the photon, and Goedel proved that by General Relativity there can be no such thing as time. If time travel exists, time does not. If time does not exist, causality is gone also. We'll need to do some more work on meaning and purpose, also.
Carter reported a sighting....and I believe RR did also!
With the 'conventional' notion of dimension Time, someone might 'prove' through relativity that it doesn't fit the conventional conceptualization. However, the theory I'm describing is not the 'conventional' concept of Time because I'm describing it as a dimension having three variable expressions which combine with dimension Space of three variable expressions.
That is a different kind of time. That is a formal kind of time, which might have nothing to do with reality. Make a distinction between formal time and perceptual time; formal time as used in engineering formulas would be illusory while perceptual time might be totally subjective.
Perhaps you could elucidate?
;')
Well, if he had studied elementary logic, he'd have had enough practice doing proofs that he'd know what an assumption is and how it's used in an argument. It is clear he doesn't have a clue. Fermi's "paradox" does not assume that UFOs cannot exist. That is, perhaps, the conclusion, but not the starting point for Fermi.
FormerACLUmember: The paradox can be summed up as follows: The commonly held belief that the universe has many technologically advanced civilizations combined with our observations that suggest otherwise, is paradoxical, suggesting that either our understanding or our observations are flawed or incomplete.Well put. But the observations exist; they existed when Fermi made his famous (or infamous) bon mot. And they are rejected on a priori grounds.
I think you're onto something.
Search For ET To Look Again At 150 Signals
Science Daily | 3-14(15)-03 | Editorial Staff
Posted on 03/14/2003 6:07:27 AM PST by vannrox
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/864643/posts
Home PCS may prove point for Einstein
Columbus Dispatch | Feb 22, 2005 | Mike Laffcerty
Posted on 02/23/2005 6:31:04 PM PST by tang-soo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1349817/posts
Noah Johnson: Folding Proteins at Home
Apple Computer | 3/30/2004 | By Barbara Gibson
Posted on 03/30/2004 2:11:05 AM PST by Swordmaker
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1107763/posts
Stephen Baxter, the engineer/scientist who wrote the Manifold series--that was essentially his idea.
Anyone on the Coast of Maine see the (ufo)?
Posted on 06/01/2005 9:02:31 PM PDT by maineman
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1414870/posts
a couple newish topics, related:
Ten Things You Should Do If You Encounter a UFO
The San Francisco Chronicle | June 26, 2005 | Michael Curta
Posted on 06/26/2005 3:05:58 PM PDT by quidnunc
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1431155/posts
UFO sighting in Exeter - again! - (Retired Navy officer reports his sighting in detail!)
SEACOAST ONLINE.COM | JULY 25, 2005 | Adam Dolge
Posted on 07/28/2005 8:25:37 AM PDT by CHARLITE
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1452398/posts
How the search for ET turned into hard science
Ottawa Citizen | 03/25/06 | Jacob Berkowitz
Posted on 03/25/2006 11:25:38 PM EST by KevinDavis
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1603234/posts
Extraterrestrial UFOs can travel freely violating ... laws of inertia and gravity in the earth
India Daily | 1/15/06 | India Daily Technology Team
Posted on 04/15/2006 8:49:48 PM EDT by NormsRevenge
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1615787/posts
How Lonely is Our Planet?
Tech Central Station | 11/12/2003 | Kenneth Silber
Posted on 11/12/2003 1:27:11 PM EST by farmfriend
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1020220/posts
ET Visitors: Scientists See High Likelihood
Space.com | 14 January 2005 | Leonard David
Posted on 01/14/2005 5:19:11 PM EST by Las Vegas Dave
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1321053/posts
Ben Bova: In science, 'never' is so far from the truth
Naples News | Sunday, March 25, 2007 | Ben Bova
Posted on 03/27/2007 11:15:39 AM EDT by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1807505/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.