Stanford Professor warns massive UFO disclosure is around the corner.

[PWMDMD]

Robert Lamb on Stenger's Paper:

"...In 1974, astronomer Brandon Carter tackled this quandary by introducing the anthropic principle. Carter hypothesized that anthropic coincidences are part of the universe's very structure and that chance has nothing to do with it. He proposed two variants:

• Weak anthropic principle: This response to anthropic coincidence may sound like a slice of common sense. Simply put, Carter pointed out that if our universe weren't hospitable to life, then we wouldn't be here to wonder about it. As such, there's no sense in asking why.
• Strong anthropic principle: In this version, Carter draws on the notion of the Copernican Principle, which states that there's nothing special or privileged about Earth or humanity. He states that since we live in a universe capable of supporting life, then only life-supporting universes are possible.

Cosmologists have devised more than 30 additional takes on the anthropic principle [source: Stenger]. They include the quantum physics-flavored participatory anthropic principle, which states that no universe can be real until it is observed, and the final anthropic principle, which holds that intelligence is a necessary property of the universe; once created it can never be destroyed."

So we must narrowly define WHICH anthropic principle is being discussed.

@PWMDMD BTW, The Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy that does nothing for your premise's.

​

Any? All? My point is it's difficult to dismiss something when you haven't taken any time to understand it. That is true for every other candidate theories as well. This is a very lazy "discussion" of people making no attempt to understand anything and instead just doubling-down on their original stance.


That's not an appeal to authority...it's an appeal to at least read what other people have written before dismissing it. There's no logical fallacy there and it's akin to saying I don't believe in nuclear fission because I read one sentence about it and then declared it wrong knowing nothing about the specifics of nuclear fission. At some point, and that point is literally knowing nothing about a topic, people's opinions on that topic are just ****.

 

[ZeeOSix]

It's not at all logical to believe that there's some design. To believe it requires evidence. There's no evidence. It basically doesn't require that there be design so while it's hard to believe it's coincidence, it's very possible for it to be coincidence. It could also be design, but there's no data to support that, just some desire that there has to be a logical reason for it, but no evidence.

I said it's more logical. It's not that logical to believe this is all 100% random coincidence. What supports that it's all random "coincidence" besides "no evidence" otherwise. Don't always let the perception of no "real evidence" get in the way of thinking.

Based on the science we know, nothing goes faster than the speed of light, if you somehow do, the formulas say you go back in time. But you can't go back in time. All I'm saying is that maybe the speed of light really is the maximum speed and it would make sense that even if there is intelligent life out there, it takes too long to get here and we've only really been here to advertise our existence since radio and as radio waves fade by the square of the distance, you're pretty much limited to a radius of about a hundred light years and not too many candidates are in the 100 light year radius. Of course they could have come much earlier just on speculation but it's still a pretty long journey.

Again, the bold makes it open ended. "The formulas" ... who has actually proven 100% that the formulas are 100% perfect and there isn't something that can blow them up? Or that there are other unknown facets of science that will open up a whole new viewpoint and new "formulas". You are basing all of your premise on "what we know right now". And you apparently don't think that can ever change - that humans are "all-knowing" in terms of science and technology. I say otherwise because humans haven't been "that smart" for very long ... so just like I've asked many times, do you think science and technology won't progress much 1000 years from now beyond what is known today? I think that would be illogical.

Just exactly what do you know about physics? There are basic things that I think will never change no matter how advanced we get. The value of pi won't change, the speed of light won't change, etc., There's a lot of engineering that's left to be done, in theory we could build a Dyson swarm/sphere at some point. But the basic science on how to do it is already there. Remember, even Scotty couldn't change the laws of physics and what everyone here is trying to tell you is that we know a lot about physics and that isn't really going to change much. Gravity has pretty much been the same for the last 2,000 years, our understanding of it has been refined but we haven't done anything to change it.

Doesn't mean there are not still some unknown science aspects to discovery in there somewhere. You really think humans won't know any more science and technology from new scientific discoveries 1000 years from now? Maybe we are at the pinnacle of it all right now, and it's all just downhill from now into the oblivion of a world of "Idiocracy" (like the movie). The way things have been going, maybe that's the most logical scenario.

 

[MolaKule]

Basically so far all data seems to indicate that we beat some long odds. Data to support design hasn't really been there. Just some deductions that don't really have any facts to back that up.

If all of life and the material universe is just right for us, why did we beat such an improbability?

It seems many UAP and ET believers are basing their being extraterrestrial life on a theory that since life evolved on Earth, life evolved on other planets as well, in other solar systems in other galaxies, which is being promoted as fact without any substantive evidence.

This is an unwarranted extrapolation in my view.

Here is what I believe has happened to date because it seems many UAP and ET believers have been using a self-serving, self-prophetic, and circular reasoning process:

Life evolved on the earth; The universe is an enormous place; Life must have evolved elsewhere; The universe is an enormous place (we cannot be the only ones); Aliens must exist [if they evolved here, why not elsewhere, as the conditions must have been right on one of the many billions of Earth-like planets they presume to exist.] (science fiction can’t be all wrong!); If aliens exist they must have evolved; Therefore, it ‘proves’ that life must have evolved on the earth also.

 

[stormgol]

what do you think create all the elements in the universe? santa claus? the stars. by stellar nucleosynthesis. and the elements that are the building blocks for life on earth also exists everywhere in the cosmos.

 

[MolaKule]

It's not at all logical to believe that there's some design. To believe it requires evidence. There's no evidence. It basically doesn't require that there be design so while it's hard to believe it's coincidence, it's very possible for it to be coincidence. It could also be design, but there's no data to support that, just some desire that there has to be a logical reason for it, but no evidence...

Why is it more logical to believe in coincidence, which has no evidential support, than to believe in an alternative explanation involving design?

It seems that in order to dismiss design, it has to be based on purely philosophical, rather than scientific grounds.

 

[Warstud]

How would you feel knowing that Aliens have transplanted us here from other planets ?

 

[MolaKule]

what do you think create all the elements in the universe? santa claus? the stars. by stellar nucleosynthesis. and the elements that are the building blocks for life on earth also exists everywhere in the cosmos.

If you are addressing someone's statements, then please use the Reply function so we know to whom you are addressing.

If you are addressing me, consider this:

In the standard BB model, some of the hydrogen and helium gas condenses into stars. This could theoretically happen if the gas cloud has sufficient mass and has cooled to the point that its internal outward pressure is less than the inward force of gravity. For all the claims of “star-forming regions,” a person might think that this has been observed. But it has not. No one has seen a star form. No one has seen gas in the process of collapsing into a star.

The sun apparently is fusing hydrogen into helium in the core. This process produces neutrinos, which stream away from the core of the sun. And we have instruments that can observe these neutrinos as they arrive at Earth. These testable, repeatable observations are good science, and seem to confirm the fusion of hydrogen into helium in the solar core. The BB hypothesis claim is not merely that heavy elements can be produced in a supernova. Rather, the claim is that all the heavy elements in the universe were produced this way. This obviously has not been observed, because we cannot scientifically observe the origin of most elements. The origin of most heavy elements has not been observed and cannot be repeated in a laboratory.

In the BB model of planetesimal formation, the heavy elements have collected into dust grains, which continued to grow until they form planets. Is this science? Have astronomers observed planets growing as they accumulate dust grains? We now know of several thousand planets which orbit various stars in our galaxy. But we have not observed any planets in the process of formation. There is some evidence of disks of material orbiting stars. And some astronomers have supposed that planets are forming in such disks. But this has not been observed. It is merely a conjecture.

This is the difference between a mere hypothesis and the totality of following the scientific method.

 

[ZeeOSix]

How would you feel knowing that Aliens have transplanted us here from other planets ?

Or ...

 

[MolaKule]

Any? All? My point is it's difficult to dismiss something when you haven't taken any time to understand it. That is true for every other candidate theories as well. This is a very lazy "discussion" of people making no attempt to understand anything and instead just doubling-down on their original stance.

Where in any of my statements does it show that I do not understand the scientific and philosophical implications of the issues discussed here?

That's not an appeal to authority...it's an appeal to at least read what other people have written before dismissing it.

Again, Where in any of my statements does it show that I do not understand the scientific and philosophical implications of the issues discussed here?

There's no logical fallacy there and it's akin to saying I don't believe in nuclear fission because I read one sentence about it and then declared it wrong knowing nothing about the specifics of nuclear fission. At some point, and that point is literally knowing nothing about a topic, people's opinions on that topic are just ****.

I'm sorry to say your analogy fails as well. The fallacy of false analogy arises when one attempts to prove or disprove a claim using an analogy that is not suitable for the situation; this fallacy consists in assuming that because two things are alike in one or more respects, they are necessarily alike in some other respect.

 

[stormgol]

Imagine the Universe!

This site is intended for students age 14 and up, and for anyone interested in learning about our universe.

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov

Background: Dispersion of Elements

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov

NASA's Cosmicopia - Basics - Composition - Nucleosynthesis

cosmicopia.gsfc.nasa.gov

Chandra :: Resources :: Q&A: General Astronomy and Space Science

chandra.harvard.edu

nasa consider it an extremely serious subject. that is all i need to know.

 

[Slow Car Sport Mode]

...I wish. Would be the most incredible story in human history.

Stanford Professor warns massive UFO disclosure is around the corner

A Stanford Professor has come out during an interview and discussed topics such as the existence of aliens and the government having next-gen technology.

www.tweaktown.com

Congress implies UFOs have non-human origins

Why would Congress establish and task a powerful new office with investigating non-“man-made” UFOs if such objects did not exist?

thehill.com

Dr. Garry Nolan, an immunologist at Stanford that recently became involved in UFOs and their disclosure, has sat down for an interview where he discussed his role in working with the government on analyzing and studying individuals that encountered UFOs.

"When you say that the government has been involved in a coverup, do you think they've been hiding it all this time?" the interviewer asked. "Oh yes. I know it's a fact because I've spoken to important people who are about to come out and whistleblow on it," Nolan replied.

My personal opinion: The craft that experienced Navy Pilots see in the sky and can't explain.. and not just the Navy but just Air Force military Pilots with Decades of experience point being those individuals that should be able to tell just about anything they see in the sky because they are experts on the matter... and that if anyone would know, it would be them.. on the rare instances where they come out and say, " I saw something in the sky at least two football fields in size" or " I saw this thing I've never seen before that appeared to be under intelligent control I was just following me for hours" or some combination and variation thereof.. you would have to think that there is something to that.

On the other hand, the 2021 Tic Tac UFO looks suspiciously like a mosquito on the lens of a camera to me and I'm really not sure why people aren't saying that if you look close you can see it kind of looks like a mosquito that froze on the lens, complete with a rotation era before it just decided to stop moving. Something about that doesn't look right to me...

I think that it is very very likely that the origins of these things are not of this world as would say. Probably about 98% of them are maybe even 99%, the History Channel references MUFON and that to me looks like a place for retirees and people that have time and need to find things to occupy their lives to go and talk to people about what are probably not UFOs but it gives them something to talk about, along with Bigfoots etc. Not going by the shows but. When I think about the topic as a whole...

I don't see any reason why there could be these things that sometimes visit us and maybe sometimes mechanically malfunction Maybe their craft is incompatible with our atmosphere sort of like War of the Worlds when the bacteria kill the craft when nothing else could.. I would think it virtually impossible that every single craft that has ever been seen is man-made. Including the stuff that yes does seemingly seem to defy the laws of physics, my first thought is that light has almost no mass to it and that what you're seeing are objects that are moving as light wood but are somehow intelligently controlled to do things that anything with weight can't really do. That is a 10000% unscientific explanation but.

Why the powers that be seem to want to constantly tease us every now and then it's the bigger mystery to me.

And there are a bunch of them.

Brazilian pilots encounter ‘11,500 mph craft’ during ‘Night of the UFOs’

Five baffled pilots in Brazil testified to seeing 21 objects appear and disappear, while troops on the ground also witnessed them – and air force chiefs admitted, “there is no explanation.”…

www.google.com

 

[MolaKule]

Imagine the Universe!

This site is intended for students age 14 and up, and for anyone interested in learning about our universe.

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov

Background: Dispersion of Elements

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov

NASA's Cosmicopia - Basics - Composition - Nucleosynthesis

cosmicopia.gsfc.nasa.gov

Chandra :: Resources :: Q&A: General Astronomy and Space Science

chandra.harvard.edu

nasa consider it an extremely serious subject. that is all i need to know.

So you don't have a scientific response, in your own words, to post #447?

 

[stormgol]

So you don't have a scientific response, in your own words, to post #447?

i am simply showing you a scientific organisation, probably the most respected on earth, talking about a subject you rejected. simple as that. i know the subject. i simply needed to make a stronger case. the search for extraterrestrial life is a subject that is not going away anytime soon. ufo's sightings at 15pm over new york city during a clear sunny day, this is not the kinda stuff that interest me. but the possibility of life in and outside the solar system. english is far from being my main language. i can debate, but certainly not go toe to toe with a guy nicknamed molakule. no offense. ufo sightings are a distraction. but it's fun and entertaining. makes for awesome movies.

 

[MolaKule]

i am simply showing you a scientific organisation, probably the most respected on earth, talking about a subject you rejected. simple as that. i know the subject...

Did you even read or study my response?

I have never rejected physics or its laws. What I do reject are conjectures and philosophical presuppositions parading as science.

I posted it so you could compare the scientific method to what is being hypothesized in various cosmology (BB) theories because it asks the question: Is it really science or is it wishful thinking?

I found long ago that the devil is in the details; i.e., use the scientific method and the theories of physics and compare it to the hypothesis to see if any of it makes any sense. Most broadminded people seeking scientific truths will do that.

 

[Wolf359]

If you are addressing someone's statements, then please use the Reply function so we know to whom you are addressing.

If you are addressing me, consider this:

In the standard BB model, some of the hydrogen and helium gas condenses into stars. This could theoretically happen if the gas cloud has sufficient mass and has cooled to the point that its internal outward pressure is less than the inward force of gravity. For all the claims of “star-forming regions,” a person might think that this has been observed. But it has not. No one has seen a star form. No one has seen gas in the process of collapsing into a star.

The sun apparently is fusing hydrogen into helium in the core. This process produces neutrinos, which stream away from the core of the sun. And we have instruments that can observe these neutrinos as they arrive at Earth. These testable, repeatable observations are good science, and seem to confirm the fusion of hydrogen into helium in the solar core. The BB hypothesis claim is not merely that heavy elements can be produced in a supernova. Rather, the claim is that all the heavy elements in the universe were produced this way. This obviously has not been observed, because we cannot scientifically observe the origin of most elements. The origin of most heavy elements has not been observed and cannot be repeated in a laboratory.

In the BB model of planetesimal formation, the heavy elements have collected into dust grains, which continued to grow until they form planets. Is this science? Have astronomers observed planets growing as they accumulate dust grains? We now know of several thousand planets which orbit various stars in our galaxy. But we have not observed any planets in the process of formation. There is some evidence of disks of material orbiting stars. And some astronomers have supposed that planets are forming in such disks. But this has not been observed. It is merely a conjecture.

This is the difference between a mere hypothesis and the totality of following the scientific method.

Have you been keeping up with LIGO? I think they still say some heavy metals can come from supernovas but neutron star collisions can also give you the rest of the heavy metals. So we're probably made from neutron star collisions and you have to pass through one to collect enough heavy metals.

How neutron star collisions flooded Earth with gold and other precious metals

It killed some alternate ideas about gravity, too!

www.space.com

As for dust gains turning into planets, yeah, probably don't have the instruments for that yet although who knows what the James Webb will be able to do.

Same with Hawking radiation, have yet to detect it, probably because the heat given off is so low, we can't build a thermometer to actually test for it.

 

[Wolf359]

Why is it more logical to believe in coincidence, which has no evidential support, than to believe in an alternative explanation involving design?

It seems that in order to dismiss design, it has to be based on purely philosophical, rather than scientific grounds.

Good point. In that case, the answer should be neither. Unknown whether it's really coincidence or design. I'm more of the mind that things can happen for no particular reason than that there's a reason for it. The nature of the universe seems to be that it's random and that is backed up by Bell's Inequality. Quantum entanglement appears to be random so the entire universe appears to be random.

 

[MolaKule]

Have you been keeping up with LIGO? I think they still say some heavy metals can come from supernovas but neutron star collisions can also give you the rest of the heavy metals. So we're probably made from neutron star collisions and you have to pass through one to collect enough heavy metals.

I have and it is an interesting gravitational experiment. But again you miss the point: the claim is not merely that heavy elements can be produced in a supernova. Rather, the claim is that all the heavy elements in the universe were produced this way. This obviously has not been observed, because we cannot scientifically observe the origin of most elements. While plausible, it does not qualify as science. The origin of most heavy elements has not been observed and cannot be repeated in a laboratory. It's an interesting hypothesis but in no way can it be proven.

As for dust gains turning into planets, yeah, probably don't have the instruments for that yet although who knows what the James Webb will be able to do.

How can you observe something that is postulated to take millions of years to form according to the standard model of cosmology? Since this has not been observed it is merely a conjecture.

By ‘science’ or the 'scientific method' I am referring to the method of testing claims by observation and experimentation, or the body of knowledge acquired by such a method. Testability by repeatable observation and experimentation against an Hypothesis is the key to the acceptance or the rejection of an Hypothesis. How can one accept a cosmology that does not conform to the scientific method?

 

[Wolf359]

I have and it is an interesting gravitational experiment. But again you miss the point: the claim is not merely that heavy elements can be produced in a supernova. Rather, the claim is that all the heavy elements in the universe were produced this way. This obviously has not been observed, because we cannot scientifically observe the origin of most elements. While plausible, it does not qualify as science. The origin of most heavy elements has not been observed and cannot be repeated in a laboratory. It's an interesting hypothesis but in no way can it be proven.

How can you observe something that is postulated to take millions of years to form according to the standard model of cosmology? Since this has not been observed it is merely a conjecture.

By ‘science’ or the 'scientific method' I am referring to the method of testing claims by observation and experimentation, or the body of knowledge acquired by such a method. Testability by repeatable observation and experimentation against an Hypothesis is the key to the acceptance or the rejection of an Hypothesis. How can one accept a cosmology that does not conform to the scientific method?

I believe that one is considered multi messenger in the sense that not only was the gravitational wave detected, it was also detected by telescopes and x ray observations and they did somewhat quantify the amount of heavy metals produced by the collision through the light signatures. Probably someone needs to update their big bang model, the neutron star collision happened in 2017. And loophole free Bell's inequality was in 2015. So doesn't Bell's inequality point to randomness and coincidence? I'm not a fan of the Everett interpretation, seems to generate more questions than answers.

Neutron star collisions are a “goldmine” of heavy elements, study finds

Most elements lighter than iron are forged in the cores of stars, but scientists have puzzled over what could give rise to gold, platinum, and the rest of the universe’s heavy elements. An MIT study finds that of two long-suspected sources of heavy metals, one of them — a merger between two...

news.mit.edu

Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres - Nature

A Bell experiment that is ‘loophole’ free—leaving no room for explanations based on experimental imperfections—reveals a statistically significant conflict with local realism

www.nature.com

 

[MolaKule]

Good point. In that case, the answer should be neither. Unknown whether it's really coincidence or design. I'm more of the mind that things can happen for no particular reason than that there's a reason for it.

So you deny the most basic metaphysical principle of science--that of cause-and effect? It is a universal Metaphysical principle that things which begin must have a cause. All history and science would collapse if the Law of Cause-and-Effect were to be denied. (Metaphysics: the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space).

The nature of the universe seems to be that it's random and that is backed up by Bell's Inequality. Quantum entanglement appears to be random so the entire universe appears to be random.

Wow, quite a stretch there. Bell's Theorem introduced a deterministic interpretation to quantum mechanics, so I fail to see how that proves the Universe is the occurrence of a random event.

 

[MolaKule]

...the amount of heavy metals produced by the collision through the light signatures...

How do we know the heavy metals were not there before any collisions occurred?

Cosmology is interesting, but
“‘Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science,’ says James Gunn of Princeton University, co-founder of the Sloan survey. ‘A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.’”

Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 317(5846):1848–1850, 2007.