I wouldn't say everyone is guilty of it. If you analyze something, make it fit into our known understanding of science, and then conceive of a "reasonable" way to test an extension of that known understanding then that is not hype; that's good science, regardless of how the results might seem strange.
It starts with asking good questions. It's really upsetting how famous physicists of today will start with poorly posed questions. Its all about "what if" questions that are NOT extended from known physics. It's all about showmanship and trying to intrigue the public. Here's an example:
The Simulation Hypothesis & Free Will Explained by Brian Greene - YouTube
Speaking of youtube, here's a really good site:
Kathy Loves Physics & History - YouTube
It's amazing how she builds up a coherent chronological history of physics in nice bite size chunks. She explains things beautifully. She's my new hero (heroine?) There's even some history of the vacuum tube and early FM radio in there. So that's also something that tugged at my heartstrings. But the biggest thing she provides is an antidote for all the naval gazing speculative nonsense practiced by many high profile physicists.
Kathy Loves Physics & History - YouTube
It's amazing how she builds up a coherent chronological history of physics in nice bite size chunks. She explains things beautifully. She's my new hero (heroine?) There's even some history of the vacuum tube and early FM radio in there. So that's also something that tugged at my heartstrings. But the biggest thing she provides is an antidote for all the naval gazing speculative nonsense practiced by many high profile physicists.
When the metaphysical premise rests on movies and video games it's difficult for me to take it seriously.
Don't forget pulp fiction/comics. Most of the UFO related programs are wrong, humanoid and bug eyed aliens appeared as early as 1941 Roswell had nothing to do with it.
I think the problem in making errors is not limited to UFO lore. It can happen with anything of a sufficiently complex nature. People just get things wrong either by misunderstanding evidence or inserting their own evidence which doesn't actually exist. If you really want to get your geeky friends and family wound up have them watch this video:
Tesla Fact vs. Fiction: Why the Public Perception is Wrong - YouTube
Widely accepted perceptions can be just plain wrong and it can go on for far longer than you would expect. In the case of UFOs I think the misperception has been that most people who have observed them are unstable or deficient in some way. The other misperception is that UFOs disobey physics. I doubt that that's true.
I would say that we are in the same historical position as when Newtonian physics was all that was known. General Relativity was just an extension of Newtonian physics for matter traveling near the speed of light. I think we are in the same position today. At some point in the very near future we will have achieved what UFOs can achieve and will see that it was just a special case that extends Einsteinian physics. People are just too quick to give up on trusting the understanding that science has already achieved and assume something new is impossible or that its magically unrelated to the science that is already known and proven.
Tesla Fact vs. Fiction: Why the Public Perception is Wrong - YouTube
Widely accepted perceptions can be just plain wrong and it can go on for far longer than you would expect. In the case of UFOs I think the misperception has been that most people who have observed them are unstable or deficient in some way. The other misperception is that UFOs disobey physics. I doubt that that's true.
I would say that we are in the same historical position as when Newtonian physics was all that was known. General Relativity was just an extension of Newtonian physics for matter traveling near the speed of light. I think we are in the same position today. At some point in the very near future we will have achieved what UFOs can achieve and will see that it was just a special case that extends Einsteinian physics. People are just too quick to give up on trusting the understanding that science has already achieved and assume something new is impossible or that its magically unrelated to the science that is already known and proven.
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
This is an interesting approach to explain the property of “inertial mass” as an emergent property of matter rather than an intrinsic property. It’s all based on ‘accepted’ current physics too.
The True Nature of Matter and Mass | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios - YouTube
exeric, you may find it interesting to consider how a magnetic field aligning spins applies in the case of quarks inside a proton and if a strong field could produce the effects you claim possible? Hint: anisotropic motion of plasma in a magnetic field might appear similar to anisotropic inertial mass. I think your theory is crazy but maybe you can find a mechanism here to further your ideas.
The True Nature of Matter and Mass | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios - YouTube
exeric, you may find it interesting to consider how a magnetic field aligning spins applies in the case of quarks inside a proton and if a strong field could produce the effects you claim possible? Hint: anisotropic motion of plasma in a magnetic field might appear similar to anisotropic inertial mass. I think your theory is crazy but maybe you can find a mechanism here to further your ideas.
Last edited:
I can't recall much mention of Tesla in any text or class ('68-'72) in fact many fellow students focused on his more eccentric work with general ridicule. The "power beam stations" seemed especially impractical (immersing everyone in a high voltage RF field). In fact I see the rise in interest being due to the easy access to a web audience by some true believer zealots.
I watched that video. He made some interesting points about photons in a mirrored box. It definitely made me think. I thing what he described in that thought experiment was correct as far as the limited case he was describing. But I don't think it is right to describe photons as having mass based on that. It seems like playing fast and loose with semantics. He's missing something.
You could say that photons have inertia based on the fact that you have to heat up a thermionic filament to make it emit photons. But that doesn't mean a photon has mass. It just means the filament has to be excited in some way to emit them in the form of photons.
The basic point is that all mass is made up of energy and can be made to go back to that form (as in matter and anti-matter combining). But not all energy is in the form of mass. That's the point he is missing. Photons have energy that can be made to create work against mass but that is an insufficient condition to say photons possess mass. There's lots of other things that differentiate photons from particles with mass. Photons cannot be deflected by electric or magnetic fields and possess no magnetic moment. That's a pretty big thing. Even in a neutron there are individual quarks that have charge and a magnetic moment and are susceptible to a electromagnetic field.
Last edited:
He missed option #4. Highly intelligent aliens may deliberately be hiding from us ala The Prime Directive.
Also pasta and anti-pasta. They should never be combined if you don't want a big explosion.
A small correction - An electromagnetic field can change the polarization of photons but will not alter or deflect the path of photons. I used to know this but forgot. Here's a video explaining it.
What is Light? How Faraday Dreamed of Electromagnetic Waves! - YouTube
" . . . I can't tell you how many times I've rolled my eyes at rank speculation by many of them. That includes Professor Greene talking about string theory."
I watched a few of his videos. The guy comes across more as a salesman than an academic.
Sabine Hossenfelder has pointed out on more than one occasion that there are 'thousands' of hypothesis in theoretical physics sold as theories. Seems you can write an equation for any wild speculation but that doesn't necessarily make it correct.
🙂
I watched a few of his videos. The guy comes across more as a salesman than an academic.
Sabine Hossenfelder has pointed out on more than one occasion that there are 'thousands' of hypothesis in theoretical physics sold as theories. Seems you can write an equation for any wild speculation but that doesn't necessarily make it correct.
🙂
Last edited:
Until we show signs of worthiness maybe?
Maybe. Not sure we're ever going to show signs of that though lol.
It's hard to believe that a spaceship from an alien race would not be spotted by many earth based telescopes or the multitudes of satellites we have up there. In order to go from one solar system to another, many light years away, I would think you need some serious spaceship - not some tiny little flying saucer.