9 ms·

You mean, extraterrestrial origin is by far the most absurd explanation and shouldn't even be accepted as a hypothesis, right?

gfodor 14y ago
Absurdity of it is subjective, but it being consistent with the evidence is not. It's highly unlikely, but it's certainly more likely than explanations that have zero likelihood. In the past the government has put forth explanations of events that are patently false (read: lied) and never re-examined, so the extraterrestrial hypothesis is more likely than their explanations in those cases. Edit: To be honest, I'm surprised the extraterrestrial hypothesis is considered so absurd by scientifically minded people. Clearly it's absurd to assume that we're the only 'advanced' civilization in the universe, the place where it's a grey area is if a much more advanced civilization would have the means or the interest to visit our planet, and if they did, if the phenomenon of UFOs jives with what we'd expect to see if they did. This is up for debate, obviously, but I am not sure why logic doesn't dictate that the odds are reasonable that such a scenario could exist. Fermi's paradox makes you wonder.
- mkaltenecker 14y ago
  Oy, since when are conspiracy nuts hanging out on HN? You should see a psychologist.
  - gfodor 14y ago
    Since when are ad-hom's acceptable responses on HN? I never said I was sure such things were true, but like most true hackers, I'm curious and want to know more when things seem like they don't make sense. You're not very well read if you think UFOs are an open and shut case for all people who don't "need to see a psychologist."
  - ehsanu1 14y ago
    Since at least 1303 days ago (for gfodor). Not that that's important, but just to dispel the "HN is declining" people. Your ad hominem response/insult is actually the kind of thing that could bring about HN's decline honestly. I found gfodor's comments to be reasonable, though I have no idea if they're backed by real evidence. I wouldn't jump to conclusions myself unless I had more thoroughly looked at it.
    - quesst 14y ago
      Yes, sadly most people who dismiss UFOs, have not viewed or read - let alone examined the mountain of data and evidence that exist. Yes, evidence does exist - often as multiple cross-referenced radar readings, abnormal radiation levels, and even physical traces where UFOs have been observed. The true skeptic would not dismiss this out of hand, without some actual personal investigation into the subject.
      - dinkumthinkum 14y ago
        Where are the aliens? There's apparently so many of them that there's "mountains" of data yet no definitive proof. Why is this the only sort of thing on history for which we have "mountains" of data but no definitive proof? I mean, come on.
  - inoop 14y ago
    Since HN turned into Reddit :)
- Heinleinian 14y ago
  The problem with any hypothesis that involves Earth being visited by extraterrestrials isn't the almost unthinkably large distances involved, it's the timescales involved. For any two given planets in the galaxy that could support intelligent life, in all likelihood the technological progress of those lifeforms will not align, and it won't be close. Imagine one civilization encountering another, except the first is 50,000 years more technologically advanced. Or 500,000 years. Or 5 million years. What would happen? The more advanced civilization wouldn't be playing games to keep from being discovered, that's for sure. They wouldn't care. Even visiting the planet would be a total waste of time since with that level of technology they could certainly observe from afar.
  - quesst 14y ago
    Making hypothetical statments about the motivations of an alien mind that may be millions of years ahead of us, and then using the implausibility of it as an argument to dismiss any contrary evidence, is the weakest argument against this phenomenon. But it is always repeated in every single discussion about this topic by someone!
  - einhverfr 14y ago
    I don't think you can dismiss the possibility of an as-yet-undiscovered end-run around these limits. The problem with a critique of a hypothetically more technologically advanced civilization than our own which is based on modern understandings of physics is problematic at best. There are larger problems with the ET hypothesis, though, and that is why generally, descriptions of beings associated with lights in the sky, although also often associated with knowledge of new technology and with kidnapping, are described in physical details differently by different cultures. Even in somewhere as narrow 10th century Europe, you have at least three different, if you will, species of entity associated with this sort of thing. So this leaves the ET hypothesis with two bad choices, which are either we are more observant than our ancestors which is patently false, or else there is some intersteller convention somewhere which divvies up cultures for observation and follows them as they move around, and stops when the culture changes sufficiently. That starts to sound very implausible.
    - 14y ago
- mbenjaminsmith 14y ago
  An interview with Stephen Hawking was recently posted to HN. In the interview he states that UFOs are only witnessed by crackpots and that the laws of the universe prevent interstellar travel. The "crackpot" statement aside, I think it's incredibly disturbing that a scientist of his stature makes absolute predictions like we'll never travel to another star. I believe he is pretty good at his job, but saying something is impossible -- based on our current understanding of physics -- seems silly. No one in the physics community could say that our understanding of the universe is complete. The most prevalent theme in physics today is still the incompleteness of our understanding. We can't reconcile our understanding of the largest things in the universe with our understanding of the smallest. Although we can measure gravity, predict and observe its effects, we have no consistent explanation for it. I'd say that thousands of years of fiction (speculative or otherwise) remain largely unaffected by hundreds of years of physics. Our understanding of the universe is still in its infancy. We also have a history of having our deepest beliefs overturned by progress. Why would the beliefs of the late 20th century be any different? [Edited for language use] [Edit] He dismissed the idea of time travel in that article, not interstellar travel. My criticism still applies. http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/07/steven-hawking-on-time-travel-m-theory-and-extra-terrestrial-life/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/07/steven-hawking-on-tim...
  - Heinleinian 14y ago
    > that the laws of the universe prevent interstellar travel Not true: Hawking: Humans must colonize other planets http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15970232/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/hawking-humans-must-colonize-other-planets/#.UAUQzitYtvs http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15970232/ns/technology_and_scien... 'by using "matter/antimatter annihilation," velocities just below the speed of light could be reached, making it possible to reach the next star in about six years. "It wouldn't seem so long for those on board," [Hawking] said.'
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - dinkumthinkum 14y ago
    I'm not familiar with Hawking saying we'll never travel to a star (well hopefully not in a star). I doubt he said that. We could build a space ark and travel for about 50,000 years and hit proxima centauri, no big deal. :) but yeah, most are either crackpots or reasonable but naive people.
quesst 14y ago
While it does sound absurd, it should not be ruled out. Absurdity is a frame of reference and relative to our own knowledge and advancement. So a jumbo jet or even an LCD TV would seem absurd to someone living as recently as 200 years ago. So what could a species that is millions of years ahead of us, do is hard to fathom, let alone put limits on. The funny thing is most scientists on the one hand do accept that the universe must be teeming with life. What they just cannot accept is that it maybe be visiting planet earth. Why not? The standard argument is that the speed of light places limits on how far one can travel, the nearest star being 4 light years, it would take thousands or millions of years to travel the distance (the FTL argument). And yet the very same scientists, advance theories of wormholes, 10-dimemsional space-time, alternate universes that may exist right next to us. All of which may be harnessed by a species millions of years ahead of us to permit them to jump across space-time or even dimensions.
- dinkumthinkum 14y ago
  No, your "mind of God" argument just don't work. Intelligence and understanding of intelligible motivation has not changed dramatically. Reading any ancient story, we see all the same motivations, humor etc as today. I don't think Homer or Plato would be unable to understand why we do things today. He may not know how a Mac works but he could guess at why it was built. This is not the case for aliens and EVIDENTALLY POINTLESS visitations. Ok, these crafts contradictory with FTL or 10 dimensional technologies. It doesn't make sense. They travel through 10 dimensions but don't land?? Or maybe you do believe in the MIB universe, where Chinese restaurants are filled with aliens (totally serious)?
  - gfodor 14y ago
    Consider if they're unmanned drones. We're headed in that direction already.

gfodor 14y ago

Absurdity of it is subjective, but it being consistent with the evidence is not. It's highly unlikely, but it's certainly more likely than explanations that have zero likelihood. In the past the government has put forth explanations of events that are patently false (read: lied) and never re-examined, so the extraterrestrial hypothesis is more likely than their explanations in those cases. Edit: To be honest, I'm surprised the extraterrestrial hypothesis is considered so absurd by scientifically minded people. Clearly it's absurd to assume that we're the only 'advanced' civilization in the universe, the place where it's a grey area is if a much more advanced civilization would have the means or the interest to visit our planet, and if they did, if the phenomenon of UFOs jives with what we'd expect to see if they did. This is up for debate, obviously, but I am not sure why logic doesn't dictate that the odds are reasonable that such a scenario could exist. Fermi's paradox makes you wonder.

mkaltenecker 14y ago
Oy, since when are conspiracy nuts hanging out on HN? You should see a psychologist.
- gfodor 14y ago
  Since when are ad-hom's acceptable responses on HN? I never said I was sure such things were true, but like most true hackers, I'm curious and want to know more when things seem like they don't make sense. You're not very well read if you think UFOs are an open and shut case for all people who don't "need to see a psychologist."
- ehsanu1 14y ago
  Since at least 1303 days ago (for gfodor). Not that that's important, but just to dispel the "HN is declining" people. Your ad hominem response/insult is actually the kind of thing that could bring about HN's decline honestly. I found gfodor's comments to be reasonable, though I have no idea if they're backed by real evidence. I wouldn't jump to conclusions myself unless I had more thoroughly looked at it.
  - quesst 14y ago
    Yes, sadly most people who dismiss UFOs, have not viewed or read - let alone examined the mountain of data and evidence that exist. Yes, evidence does exist - often as multiple cross-referenced radar readings, abnormal radiation levels, and even physical traces where UFOs have been observed. The true skeptic would not dismiss this out of hand, without some actual personal investigation into the subject.
    - dinkumthinkum 14y ago
      Where are the aliens? There's apparently so many of them that there's "mountains" of data yet no definitive proof. Why is this the only sort of thing on history for which we have "mountains" of data but no definitive proof? I mean, come on.
- inoop 14y ago
  Since HN turned into Reddit :)
Heinleinian 14y ago
The problem with any hypothesis that involves Earth being visited by extraterrestrials isn't the almost unthinkably large distances involved, it's the timescales involved. For any two given planets in the galaxy that could support intelligent life, in all likelihood the technological progress of those lifeforms will not align, and it won't be close. Imagine one civilization encountering another, except the first is 50,000 years more technologically advanced. Or 500,000 years. Or 5 million years. What would happen? The more advanced civilization wouldn't be playing games to keep from being discovered, that's for sure. They wouldn't care. Even visiting the planet would be a total waste of time since with that level of technology they could certainly observe from afar.
- quesst 14y ago
  Making hypothetical statments about the motivations of an alien mind that may be millions of years ahead of us, and then using the implausibility of it as an argument to dismiss any contrary evidence, is the weakest argument against this phenomenon. But it is always repeated in every single discussion about this topic by someone!
- einhverfr 14y ago
  I don't think you can dismiss the possibility of an as-yet-undiscovered end-run around these limits. The problem with a critique of a hypothetically more technologically advanced civilization than our own which is based on modern understandings of physics is problematic at best. There are larger problems with the ET hypothesis, though, and that is why generally, descriptions of beings associated with lights in the sky, although also often associated with knowledge of new technology and with kidnapping, are described in physical details differently by different cultures. Even in somewhere as narrow 10th century Europe, you have at least three different, if you will, species of entity associated with this sort of thing. So this leaves the ET hypothesis with two bad choices, which are either we are more observant than our ancestors which is patently false, or else there is some intersteller convention somewhere which divvies up cultures for observation and follows them as they move around, and stops when the culture changes sufficiently. That starts to sound very implausible.
  - 14y ago
mbenjaminsmith 14y ago
An interview with Stephen Hawking was recently posted to HN. In the interview he states that UFOs are only witnessed by crackpots and that the laws of the universe prevent interstellar travel. The "crackpot" statement aside, I think it's incredibly disturbing that a scientist of his stature makes absolute predictions like we'll never travel to another star. I believe he is pretty good at his job, but saying something is impossible -- based on our current understanding of physics -- seems silly. No one in the physics community could say that our understanding of the universe is complete. The most prevalent theme in physics today is still the incompleteness of our understanding. We can't reconcile our understanding of the largest things in the universe with our understanding of the smallest. Although we can measure gravity, predict and observe its effects, we have no consistent explanation for it. I'd say that thousands of years of fiction (speculative or otherwise) remain largely unaffected by hundreds of years of physics. Our understanding of the universe is still in its infancy. We also have a history of having our deepest beliefs overturned by progress. Why would the beliefs of the late 20th century be any different? [Edited for language use] [Edit] He dismissed the idea of time travel in that article, not interstellar travel. My criticism still applies. http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/07/steven-hawking-on-time-travel-m-theory-and-extra-terrestrial-life/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/07/steven-hawking-on-tim...
- Heinleinian 14y ago
  > that the laws of the universe prevent interstellar travel Not true: Hawking: Humans must colonize other planets http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15970232/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/hawking-humans-must-colonize-other-planets/#.UAUQzitYtvs http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15970232/ns/technology_and_scien... 'by using "matter/antimatter annihilation," velocities just below the speed of light could be reached, making it possible to reach the next star in about six years. "It wouldn't seem so long for those on board," [Hawking] said.'
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- dinkumthinkum 14y ago
  I'm not familiar with Hawking saying we'll never travel to a star (well hopefully not in a star). I doubt he said that. We could build a space ark and travel for about 50,000 years and hit proxima centauri, no big deal. :) but yeah, most are either crackpots or reasonable but naive people.

quesst 14y ago

While it does sound absurd, it should not be ruled out. Absurdity is a frame of reference and relative to our own knowledge and advancement. So a jumbo jet or even an LCD TV would seem absurd to someone living as recently as 200 years ago. So what could a species that is millions of years ahead of us, do is hard to fathom, let alone put limits on. The funny thing is most scientists on the one hand do accept that the universe must be teeming with life. What they just cannot accept is that it maybe be visiting planet earth. Why not? The standard argument is that the speed of light places limits on how far one can travel, the nearest star being 4 light years, it would take thousands or millions of years to travel the distance (the FTL argument). And yet the very same scientists, advance theories of wormholes, 10-dimemsional space-time, alternate universes that may exist right next to us. All of which may be harnessed by a species millions of years ahead of us to permit them to jump across space-time or even dimensions.

dinkumthinkum 14y ago
No, your "mind of God" argument just don't work. Intelligence and understanding of intelligible motivation has not changed dramatically. Reading any ancient story, we see all the same motivations, humor etc as today. I don't think Homer or Plato would be unable to understand why we do things today. He may not know how a Mac works but he could guess at why it was built. This is not the case for aliens and EVIDENTALLY POINTLESS visitations. Ok, these crafts contradictory with FTL or 10 dimensional technologies. It doesn't make sense. They travel through 10 dimensions but don't land?? Or maybe you do believe in the MIB universe, where Chinese restaurants are filled with aliens (totally serious)?
- gfodor 14y ago
  Consider if they're unmanned drones. We're headed in that direction already.