UAP Pentagon Report (UFOs, Foo Fighters, Commie Drones)

[Dahobbs 18324]

12 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

We had fighters in the air, probably a Hawkeye in the sky, and of course the carrier they all were based on. All of those have their own radar to track things. Also, for anything within the line of sight, the ATFLIR has thermography cameras, visible spectrum cameras, laser rangefinders, and laser tracking. So it would have to fool every single one of those technologies as well as the actual pilots who were watching it from every angle it was detected from and do it in the same way so that all the data matches. It would probably have to be alien technology to do that.

Again, what incident are you referring to where each of these sensors identified the same thing? 

[ConferenceRoom 6214]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Again, what incident are you referring to where each of these sensors identified the same thing? 

The “aliens” incident, you hack. 

[Homercles 10206]

[ABSR 5370]

16 hours ago, axiom of foundation said:

Not being able to accurately model what happens near black holes is a different thing than what I'm asking.  Do you think the laws of physics depend on our location?  i.e, are the laws the same or do they change at different locations in space?

I’m not an expert but we have been altering and expanding our understanding of science so that we have to update and sometimes change assumptions.   I am old enough to remember when we taught that the three smallest elements were Neutron’s, Electron’s and Proton’s.   They were basic and smallest building blocks.   Until we discovered they weren’t.

Additionally, conflicts or inconsistencies between normal Newtonian Physics and Quantum Mechanics are still being debated.

I would say that the vast majority of the unexplained can likely be explained.   But to say that because our knowledge today does not support something and that today’s understanding of Physics and the possible will never change does not seem a correct assumption.   With or without intelligent Alien life.

Not saying below is correct, but it does call out where we have questions or don’t agree.  See below.  https://www.studymode.com/essays/The-Three-Major-Conflicts-In-Modern-42969541.html

The Three Major Conflicts
1.

Conflict between Newton’s law of motion and Maxwell’s law of electromagnetism: • Newton’s laws---run fast enough, you can catch up a beam of light.
• Maxwell’s electromagnetism---no matter how hard you chase after a light beam, it still retreats from you at light speed.
• This conflict gave birth to special theory of relativity
• According to special relativity, space and time depend on one’s state of motion.

1

2.

Conflict between Einstein’s special relativity and Newton’s law of universal gravitation.
• Special relativity---no influence or disturbance of any sort can travel faster than the speed of light. • Law of Universal gravitation---involves influences that are transmitted instantaneously over vast distances of space simultaneously. • This conflict gave birth to general relativity.
• According to general relativity--space and time can warp and curve in response to the presence of matter or energy--such distortions to the fabric of space and time transmit the force of gravity from one place to another at exactly the speed of light.
2

3.

Conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics:
• The gently curving geometrical form of space and time incompatible with the microscopic behavior implied by quantum mechanics. • What really happens to space, time and matter when crushed together at the moment of the big bang or at the central point of a black hole?
• The central problem of modern physics. 3

Special Relativity:
What happens if we chase after a beam of light, at light speed?
• According to Newton---we will catch up the light waves and they will appear stationary. • According to Maxwell---there is no such thing as stationary light.
Space and time as measured by distances and durations are not experienced identically by every one.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, ABSR said:

I’m not an expert but we have been altering and expanding our understanding of science so that we have to update and sometimes change assumptions.   I am old enough to remember when we taught that the three smallest elements were Neutron’s, Electron’s and Proton’s.   They were basic and smallest building blocks.   Until we discovered they weren’t.

Additionally, conflicts or inconsistencies between normal Newtonian Physics and Quantum Mechanics are still being debated.

I would say that the vast majority of the unexplained can likely be explained.   But to say that because our knowledge today does not support something and that today’s understanding of Physics and the possible will never change does not seem a correct assumption.   With or without intelligent Alien life.

Not saying below is correct, but it does call out where we have questions or don’t agree.  See below.  https://www.studymode.com/essays/The-Three-Major-Conflicts-In-Modern-42969541.html

The Three Major Conflicts
1.

Conflict between Newton’s law of motion and Maxwell’s law of electromagnetism: • Newton’s laws---run fast enough, you can catch up a beam of light.
• Maxwell’s electromagnetism---no matter how hard you chase after a light beam, it still retreats from you at light speed.
• This conflict gave birth to special theory of relativity
• According to special relativity, space and time depend on one’s state of motion.

1

2.

Conflict between Einstein’s special relativity and Newton’s law of universal gravitation.
• Special relativity---no influence or disturbance of any sort can travel faster than the speed of light. • Law of Universal gravitation---involves influences that are transmitted instantaneously over vast distances of space simultaneously. • This conflict gave birth to general relativity.
• According to general relativity--space and time can warp and curve in response to the presence of matter or energy--such distortions to the fabric of space and time transmit the force of gravity from one place to another at exactly the speed of light.
2

3.

Conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics:
• The gently curving geometrical form of space and time incompatible with the microscopic behavior implied by quantum mechanics. • What really happens to space, time and matter when crushed together at the moment of the big bang or at the central point of a black hole?
• The central problem of modern physics. 3

Special Relativity:
What happens if we chase after a beam of light, at light speed?
• According to Newton---we will catch up the light waves and they will appear stationary. • According to Maxwell---there is no such thing as stationary light.
Space and time as measured by distances and durations are not experienced identically by every one.

I’m not arguing that we know everything there is to know about the laws of nature.  My argument is that we do know some things with a very high degree of certainty.  For example, we know that we can’t create or destroy energy and we can’t build a perpetual motion machine.  There is no reason to believe we will ever break this fundamental law of nature and we no longer bother to try. 
 

A comparison can be made with mathematics.  We can never know everything about math because it is endless.  However, we can know some facts with certainty.  Suppose I were to say that the number 7 is prime and will always and forever be prime.  Would a good counter argument be “well we don’t know some things about math; we can’t prove if the Riemann hypothesis is true or not.  Maybe one day we learn things about math that we don’t know now.  Therefore, we can’t say with certainty that 7 is prime or not.”   Is this a good counter argument?

 

 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4999]

10 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Again, what incident are you referring to where each of these sensors identified the same thing? 

Which one didn't? The Navy confirmed that whatever it was in those videos was real and they had no idea what it was. Is your contention that we regularly send pilots into scenarios with unknown hostile objects half blind? I bet you're mighty proud of your sixth grade education.

[CHIEF 5228]

4 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Which one didn't? The Navy confirmed that whatever it was in those videos was real and they had no idea what it was. Is your contention that we regularly send pilots into scenarios with unknown hostile objects half blind? I bet you're mighty proud of your sixth grade education.

If they were hostile, I think we would have FAFO'ed. It seems as though each side has been as cool as the other side of the pillow. The objects entering restricted airspace does not necessarily constitute a hostile act. Maybe they are ESL.

CHIEF

[Dahobbs 18324]

30 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Which one didn't? The Navy confirmed that whatever it was in those videos was real and they had no idea what it was. Is your contention that we regularly send pilots into scenarios with unknown hostile objects half blind? I bet you're mighty proud of your sixth grade education.

Again, what incidents are you referring to? Most of these encounters are random, and there is no reason to think a host of different sensors picked up something, much less all picked up the same thing. Some reports have an asset picking up something, and sending a plane to check it out. That plane then sees something, but the vast vast majority of those don't involve any physics breaking stuff. And it usually isn't clear that the original sensor and the plane are actually picking up the same thing. 

You've asserted there was some situation where multiple platforms all picked up the same object and all saw the same physics breaking movement. It isn't clear to me that any event like that happened. If it has, point me to it and where that it is acknowledged.

I don't think there is any doubt that we have encounters with UAPs that we can't explain. But that is largely just because we don't have sufficient information to identify the object. Name a specific event and we can discuss it. 

edit: also I have no idea where you get hostile from. I'm not aware of any evidence of that.

Edited August 7, 2023 by Dahobbs

[956 Worldwide 35594]

I think it’s important to remember that according to the “bombshell” testimony, arguing over the tic tac stuff is just ticky-tacky quibbling. Because allegedly the government has some dead ETs and a few dozen spaceships (one of them taken off Benito Mussolini) and they sometimes take the spaceships out for a spin in Europe. 

[956 Worldwide 35594]

3 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Which one didn't? The Navy confirmed that whatever it was in those videos was real and they had no idea what it was. Is your contention that we regularly send pilots into scenarios with unknown hostile objects half blind? I bet you're mighty proud of your sixth grade education.

I’ve seen no indication that it was hostile, but we sure as shit do send up fighters to have a look at shit that’s flying within radar range of a carrier group.  That’s kind of their whole job at sea. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4999]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I’ve seen no indication that it was hostile, but we sure as shit do send up fighters to have a look at shit that’s flying within radar range of a carrier group.  That’s kind of their whole job at sea. 

[Hermanator 7674]

On 8/5/2023 at 10:46 PM, SpiralOut said:

 

For aliens to be here they:

1. Have to have broken the fundamental laws of the Universe.  No alien is getting here by slow-boating in a ship at some fraction of the speed of light.  .  

That's actually not true. There are different theoretical ways in which a civilization that existed previously could have developed artificial non biological tech that's programmed to spread across the galaxy and self replicate using resources it comes across in star systems. Even at just our chemical rocket speeds a system like this could traverse the Milky Way in a few hundred million years. Which to universe time scales is pretty small. 

Now we would expect if this were the case there would be remnants of these probes all across the galaxy and potentially in every star system so why haven't we seen them? Well, if they were designed to not emit radiation or be shielded then they would be dark and we'd have no way to see them even if there were a ton in our own solar system. We can't tell if there is a "planet 9" or not in the Kuiper Belt because it's too dark for us to see. We can just theorize it's there because we can detect the gravitational pull of something large on solar system objects we can see. Same with the Oort Cloud, we can theorize it exists but have no direct physical evidence of it yet. There could be large space craft just chilling out in these outer areas of the solar system and unless they were emitting bright radiation/light we'd have no way to reasonably detect them with our current technology. Things like asteroids have to get pretty close to us before our survey telescopes can detect them. 

Edited August 7, 2023 by Hermanator

[SpiralOut 1965]

12 hours ago, Hermanator said:

That's actually not true. There are different theoretical ways in which a civilization that existed previously could have developed artificial non biological tech that's programmed to spread across the galaxy and self replicate using resources it comes across in star systems. Even at just our chemical rocket speeds a system like this could traverse the Milky Way in a few hundred million years. Which to universe time scales is pretty small. 

Now we would expect if this were the case there would be remnants of these probes all across the galaxy and potentially in every star system so why haven't we seen them? Well, if they were designed to not emit radiation or be shielded then they would be dark and we'd have no way to see them even if there were a ton in our own solar system. We can't tell if there is a "planet 9" or not in the Kuiper Belt because it's too dark for us to see. We can just theorize it's there because we can detect the gravitational pull of something large on solar system objects we can see. Same with the Oort Cloud, we can theorize it exists but have no direct physical evidence of it yet. There could be large space craft just chilling out in these outer areas of the solar system and unless they were emitting bright radiation/light we'd have no way to reasonably detect them with our current technology. Things like asteroids have to get pretty close to us before our survey telescopes can detect them. 

You're absolutely right.  

Of course, every UFO nut and especially this idiot that has been testifying in front of Congress recently, goes on and on about actual aliens and "biologics" and shit.

One thing I've never understood though is why you would bother with drones/whatever.  How does sending them out into the Universe benefit you and your civilization?  If they could terraform planets, report back to you somehow about what they've found, or do basically anything beneficial to you it might make sense.  Again, you and yours are stuck due to the laws of physics.  So the robots can take over the Universe, but you can't.  Unless they're hauling along some way to replicate your species, I suppose?

In regards to the recent shenanigans in regards to UFOs, I'm all for it.  Not because there actually are aliens or any such nonsense.  But because it would be dope if the DoD and the Pentagon had to actually pass an audit and open up the books on where all the money is going.  

[Guest]

An interesting theme that often underlies these discussions is teleology and the purpose of life & the universe itself.  An often unstated assumption of the anti-laws of physics/pro-sci fi crowd is that the purpose of life is to travel the stars and the inevitable next stage for the universe is to have sapient intergalactic travelers.  It's implied that the universe of star trek is the ultimate destination for our universe and the laws of physics are simply minor obstacles for us lowly hairless apes, but are no match for the powers of alien imagination.  For the sci fi crowd not only is it a certainty that extraterrestrial sapient life exists, but they also have god-like powers over the laws of nature.  And given enough time we will also ascend to alien god levels of mastery over the universe, and we will live within computers on space ships and not within meat suits on planets.

The problem with the above is that there is no reason to believe the universe itself has any inherent purpose or destination for life and it isn't driving towards anything except an ever increasing rise in entropy.  The universe is not a video game like SimEarth that we are destined to beat.  If we are going to personify the universe and imbue it with purpose, the only thing it seems to care about is following its rules.     

 

[Homercles 10206]

[Texasborn91 1102]

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/peru-alien-sighting/

 

[Serak The Preparer 3484]

On 8/10/2023 at 8:02 AM, axiom of foundation said:

An interesting theme that often underlies these discussions is teleology and the purpose of life & the universe itself.  An often unstated assumption of the anti-laws of physics/pro-sci fi crowd is that the purpose of life is to travel the stars and the inevitable next stage for the universe is to have sapient intergalactic travelers.  It's implied that the universe of star trek is the ultimate destination for our universe and the laws of physics are simply minor obstacles for us lowly hairless apes, but are no match for the powers of alien imagination.  For the sci fi crowd not only is it a certainty that extraterrestrial sapient life exists, but they also have god-like powers over the laws of nature.  And given enough time we will also ascend to alien god levels of mastery over the universe, and we will live within computers on space ships and not within meat suits on planets.

The problem with the above is that there is no reason to believe the universe itself has any inherent purpose or destination for life and it isn't driving towards anything except an ever increasing rise in entropy.  The universe is not a video game like SimEarth that we are destined to beat.  If we are going to personify the universe and imbue it with purpose, the only thing it seems to care about is following its rules.     

 

I think you're making some pretty broad assumptions about the "pro-sci fi crowd" and their beliefs. I ready a lot of sci-fi, some "hard" (which at least try to pay lip service to the laws of physics) and some soft (space opera). Part of our family time after dinner is watching Star Trek with the kids while working on puzzles. I exchange Star Trek memes with friends. I don't watch / read sci-fi because I think that is the ultimate destination, I read sci fi because good sci-fi is a commentary on current society with room to explore flexible solutions. 

I (and others I've talked to) don't believe there is some grand purpose of life. Some believe in the likelihood of extra-terrestrial life, some are agnostic. As I think we both agree, the belief that ET life is likely is not founded in any logical or scientific principle but rather because people want it to be true. But I'm not sure that this is any more or less prevalent than non-sci-fi people. Don't mistake what people like to imagine as a relatively optimistic future with the actual prediction of a future.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Serak The Preparer said:

I think you're making some pretty broad assumptions about the "pro-sci fi crowd" and their beliefs. I ready a lot of sci-fi, some "hard" (which at least try to pay lip service to the laws of physics) and some soft (space opera). Part of our family time after dinner is watching Star Trek with the kids while working on puzzles. I exchange Star Trek memes with friends. I don't watch / read sci-fi because I think that is the ultimate destination, I read sci fi because good sci-fi is a commentary on current society with room to explore flexible solutions. 

I (and others I've talked to) don't believe there is some grand purpose of life. Some believe in the likelihood of extra-terrestrial life, some are agnostic. As I think we both agree, the belief that ET life is likely is not founded in any logical or scientific principle but rather because people want it to be true. But I'm not sure that this is any more or less prevalent than non-sci-fi people. Don't mistake what people like to imagine as a relatively optimistic future with the actual prediction of a future.

I didn't mean to imply that anyone who likes science fiction believes these things.  I'm guessing the vast majority of people watch or read at least some sci fi and enjoy it.  But there is a group of folks whose perception of nature seems to be influenced by space movies.  For example, few people will argue that perpetual motion machines are possible, but many people will argue or imply that reactionless drives are possible.  Both are equally unachievable according to the known laws of nature, but one is often depicted in sci fi movies.

[Serak The Preparer 3484]

19 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

I didn't mean to imply that anyone who likes science fiction believes these things.  I'm guessing the vast majority of people watch or read at least some sci fi and enjoy it.  But there is a group of folks whose perception of nature seems to be influenced by space movies.  For example, few people will argue that perpetual motion machines are possible, but many people will argue or imply that reactionless drives are possible.  Both are equally unachievable according to the known laws of nature, but one is often depicted in sci fi movies.

I could be reading too much into your words but to me it still seems that you are equating watching what is essentially space magic with belief in space magic. I definitely agree that there is a veneer of unearned plausibility with the large majority of science fiction (especially TV / Movies, because it's hard enough reading pages of semi-realistic space physics, let along showing it), but I'm not sure that equates to belief in reactionless mass.

If your point is that space magic is more accepted than fantasy magic I would agree but I think it's at such a superficial level that it's a distinction without a difference. In other words,  is a passive unexamined view that warp drive (just to pick an example) is real actually very common? Even if so, would it tie in to a belief in the purpose of life / desire for the future? Maybe so, something to think about while I try to avoid work on a Friday morning.

[956 Worldwide 35594]

I don’t know about “fantasy magic” but I do think there’s a lot of overlap between belief in alien visitors and religious belief and belief in paranormal. It’s striking. 
 

“Aliens could have developed tech that violates our understanding of physics” is not really different than “God doesn’t have to obey the rules of nature.” In terms of evidence, it’s almost all testimonial. We find these guys at the hearing more credible than any number of apostles, prophets, and saints ONLY because they are closer to use in space and time and culture. And, ironically, because they share our basic scientific view of the universe we want to claim doesn’t apply to ET. But many people in the world today would find a religious or paranormal explanation more credible, let alone for most of human history. 
 

“They are educated and had no reason to lie “ is an instantly familiar argument to any student of apologetics for any religion. For that matter, it’s the same argument used for sea captains that encountered ghost ships or saw sea serpents. 
 

The single thing we have that is different is a few physical artifacts (video, photo, maybe some recorded sensor data) that shows something in the sky not readily explainable in a small number of cases. And of course, most of our eyewitnesses of angels and demons and ghost ships never had access to that technology, it’s only us. “It has to be ET visitors” is a giant leap of logic that has exactly as much hard evidence as “it was Allah/Gabriel/djinns/an evil omen. It seems more plausible to a certain set of Western eyes (many cultures will still chalk it up to something spooky or heavenly), and that’s borne out in worldwide reports of alien encounters and where they are clustered. 
 

As I’ve said before— in the vastness and oldness of the universe, it’s likely that somewhere, sometime, intelligent life evolved. But because of how space and distance and energy work, for all practical purposes we are alone. 
 

 

[Boss Hogg 808]

wtf

[Captainant 28539]

6 minutes ago, Boss Hogg said:

wtf

So you're saying aliens built the pyramids?

[Brian Fantana 6866]

Oh cool the Nazca mummy shit is back again, so another generation of media illiterate dipshits will be immediately fooled and shit up our timelines.

[Hermanator 7674]

Well this is out of left field

Turn over samples for DNA analysis and testing. 

[atomheartbevo 90650]

 

[bernorange 8385]

Quote

Mexican politicians were shown two mummified corpses this week that a UFO expert claimed are “a clear demonstration” of “non-human” aliens.

The two bodies — with only three fingers on each hand and elongated ET-style heads — were displayed in windowed boxes Tuesday for a public congressional hearing on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAPs).

The corpses are between 700 and 1,800 years old — with X-rays showing one has mysterious “eggs” inside, ufologist Jaime Maussan told the hearing.

“These specimens are not part of our terrestrial evolution,” Maussan said of supposed DNA testing on the small figures, according to Marca.

“These aren’t beings that were found after a UFO wreckage. They were found in diatom (algae) mines, and were later fossilized”, he said.

“This is the first time it (extraterrestrial life) is presented in such a form and I think there is a clear demonstration that we are dealing with non-human specimens that are not related to any other species in our world.”

The ancient specimens, which were retrieved from Cusco, Peru, in 2017, are believed to be between 700 and 1,800 years old, the hearing was told.

Scientists recently studying the UFO specimens at the Autonomous National University of Mexico (UNAM) were able to extract DNA evidence from the specimens using radiocarbon dating, Maussan explained.

The mysterious findings were presented alongside a slew of other videos of UFOs and unidentified anomalous phenomena.

The hearing aimed to rule on the phenomenon in the Aerial Space Protection Law, which would turn Mexico into the first country in the world to acknowledge the presence of aliens on the planet, local media reported.
...

 

https://nypost.com/2023/09/13/supposed-non-human-alien-corpses-shown-in-mexico-congress/

[CHIEF 5228]

21 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

CHIEF

[CastHorn 902]

3 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

Oh cool the Nazca mummy shit is back again, so another generation of media illiterate dipshits will be immediately fooled and shit up our timelines.

Can you elaborate on this? I read a bunch academic articles attempting to debunk the mummies back in like 2019, but it appears none of them actually physically examined them or did their own DNA Analysis. The appearance of the mummies look remarkably human, but the X-Ray anatomy resembles reptiles and birds. 

Edited September 13, 2023 by CastHorn

[Dbeasy 15596]

On 8/6/2023 at 12:44 PM, axiom of foundation said:

I’m not arguing that we know everything there is to know about the laws of nature.  My argument is that we do know some things with a very high degree of certainty.  For example, we know that we can’t create or destroy energy and we can’t build a perpetual motion machine.  There is no reason to believe we will ever break this fundamental law of nature and we no longer bother to try. 
 

A comparison can be made with mathematics.  We can never know everything about math because it is endless.  However, we can know some facts with certainty.  Suppose I were to say that the number 7 is prime and will always and forever be prime.  Would a good counter argument be “well we don’t know some things about math; we can’t prove if the Riemann hypothesis is true or not.  Maybe one day we learn things about math that we don’t know now.  Therefore, we can’t say with certainty that 7 is prime or not.”   Is this a good counter argument?

 

 

I would say two things to this. First, if you can’t create or destroy energy as current physics knowledge indicates, I would argue that the physics of constant energy could go beyond our understanding. For example, how does time travel resolve constant energy.  

Second, while mankind may have a high degree of certainty about energy not being created or destroyed, it could be untrue. Just because we haven’t figured it out yet doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. 

I’m sure those of you that clutch to the laws of physics and science get frustrated by such a flippant response to your arguments. But that’s the point. For any argument you have based on science, it could be rebutted by the unknowns of the Universe, including theological viewpoints. 

[Dahobbs 18324]

2 hours ago, bernorange said:

 

https://nypost.com/2023/09/13/supposed-non-human-alien-corpses-shown-in-mexico-congress/

 

Quote

Scientists recently studying the UFO specimens at the Autonomous National University of Mexico (UNAM) were able to extract DNA evidence from the specimens using radiocarbon dating, Maussan explained.

What? I'm no expert, but I don't think this sentence makes sense. 

[bernorange 8385]

23 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

... I'm no expert, but I don't think this sentence makes sense. 

[MillerEP 30907]

My father is really into this stuff, and sent me the entire press conference with live translations. You can skip to 3:35:40 minutes for the CAT scans, the autopsy results, and DNA analysis done. Not sure what to think, but my father is sold:

 

[Hermanator 7674]

Just like everything else in science it needs to be peer reviewed. And that means studied intensely by specialists from across the globe. If it's not up for peer review it's not science and if they aren't willing to have it fully scrutinized then that should tell you everything you need to know about their biases. 

[Brisketexan 106899]

6 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

if they aren't willing to have it fully scrutinized then that should tell you everything you need to know about their biases. 

Bingo.

And we all already know the answer to "will you let other scientists examine the artifacts?"

[CHAD BRISCOE 372]

On 8/6/2023 at 12:32 PM, ABSR said:

I’m not an expert but we have been altering and expanding our understanding of science so that we have to update and sometimes change assumptions.   I am old enough to remember when we taught that the three smallest elements were Neutron’s, Electron’s and Proton’s.   They were basic and smallest building blocks.   Until we discovered they weren’t.

Additionally, conflicts or inconsistencies between normal Newtonian Physics and Quantum Mechanics are still being debated.

I would say that the vast majority of the unexplained can likely be explained.   But to say that because our knowledge today does not support something and that today’s understanding of Physics and the possible will never change does not seem a correct assumption.   With or without intelligent Alien life.

Not saying below is correct, but it does call out where we have questions or don’t agree.  See below.  https://www.studymode.com/essays/The-Three-Major-Conflicts-In-Modern-42969541.html

The Three Major Conflicts
1.

Conflict between Newton’s law of motion and Maxwell’s law of electromagnetism: • Newton’s laws---run fast enough, you can catch up a beam of light.
• Maxwell’s electromagnetism---no matter how hard you chase after a light beam, it still retreats from you at light speed.
• This conflict gave birth to special theory of relativity
• According to special relativity, space and time depend on one’s state of motion.

1

2.

Conflict between Einstein’s special relativity and Newton’s law of universal gravitation.
• Special relativity---no influence or disturbance of any sort can travel faster than the speed of light. • Law of Universal gravitation---involves influences that are transmitted instantaneously over vast distances of space simultaneously. • This conflict gave birth to general relativity.
• According to general relativity--space and time can warp and curve in response to the presence of matter or energy--such distortions to the fabric of space and time transmit the force of gravity from one place to another at exactly the speed of light.
2

3.

Conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics:
• The gently curving geometrical form of space and time incompatible with the microscopic behavior implied by quantum mechanics. • What really happens to space, time and matter when crushed together at the moment of the big bang or at the central point of a black hole?
• The central problem of modern physics. 3

Special Relativity:
What happens if we chase after a beam of light, at light speed?
• According to Newton---we will catch up the light waves and they will appear stationary. • According to Maxwell---there is no such thing as stationary light.
Space and time as measured by distances and durations are not experienced identically by every one.

Electron's are'nt Element's dumb shit . 

[CHAD BRISCOE 372]

is one of them Mexican Dog'ssss  s

sorry my Finger got stilucj 

[CHAD BRISCOE 372]

for real u think there's alien's and the Mexican's are going a show him first Bullshit

[BrickHorn 18447]

6 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

Big deal. I paid 75 cents to see one of those at a gas station off I-10 in the middle of Arizona.
 

(And no, I’m not talking about a trucker’s penis.)

[DougHdTx1968 37]

2 hours ago, MillerEP said:

My father is really into this stuff, and sent me the entire press conference with live translations. You can skip to 3:35:40 minutes for the CAT scans, the autopsy results, and DNA analysis done. Not sure what to think, but my father is sold:

 

Probably a rusted out one of these

[Brisketexan 106899]

1 minute ago, BrickHorn said:

Big deal. I paid 75 cents to see one of those at a gas station off I-10 in the middle of Arizona.
 

(And no, I’m not talking about a trucker’s penis.)

But you're also not NOT talking about a trucker's penis.

[DougHdTx1968 37]

they sell them across from Mi Tierra

[DougHdTx1968 37]

Authentic pieces from native artisans showcasing their culture

[BrickHorn 18447]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

But you're also not NOT talking about a trucker's penis.

Objection, irrelevant.

[Brisketexan 106899]

28 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Objection, irrelevant.

When it comes to trucker penis, you should STRENUOUSLY object.  Or strenuously something.

[CHIEF 5228]

Its mummified monkey corpses. Prelude to the mummified baby Alpaca corpses used by Equadorian shamans for good luck. I just don't have an idea why mummified baby alpaca corpses are used for "good luck" rituals. I only have one belief, that is, I will have another drink of bourbon.

CHIEF

[Brisketexan 106899]

2 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

Its mummified monkey corpses. Prelude to the mummified baby Alpaca corpses used by Equadorian shamans for good luck. I just don't have an idea why mummified baby alpaca corpses are used for "good luck" rituals. I only have one belief, that is, I will have another drink of bourbon.

CHIEF

I saw Mummified Baby Alpaca Corpses at Emo's back in the day.  Man....they were creative with the pan flute.  I was just there for the chicks.

[BamaATL 16593]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I saw Mummified Baby Alpaca Corpses at Emo's back in the day.  Man....they were creative with the pan flute.  I was just there for the chicks.

So bigger question here, when can we launch alien insurance, to go along with your MS-13 insurance?  I need a prospectus pronto.  

[F250 29201]

5 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

I'm sure those of you that clutch to the laws of physics and science get frustrated by such a flippant response to your arguments. But that’s the point. For any argument you have based on science, it could be rebutted by the unknowns of the Universe, including theological viewpoints. 

 

[956 Worldwide 35594]

5 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

I would say two things to this. First, if you can’t create or destroy energy as current physics knowledge indicates, I would argue that the physics of constant energy could go beyond our understanding. For example, how does time travel resolve constant energy.  

Second, while mankind may have a high degree of certainty about energy not being created or destroyed, it could be untrue. Just because we haven’t figured it out yet doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. 

I’m sure those of you that clutch to the laws of physics and science get frustrated by such a flippant response to your arguments. But that’s the point. For any argument you have based on science, it could be rebutted by the unknowns of the Universe, including theological viewpoints. 

 

[BrickHorn 18447]

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I saw Mummified Baby Alpaca Corpses at Emo's back in the day.

They opened for Trucker Penis.