A lot or very little depending on whose point of view it is.
“The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.”
― Albert Einstein
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
if you had read the post I was commenting on you would have noticed it said ‘not at all’ which is none. That’s the relevant viewpoint. So the correct answer is ‘a lot’.
We don’t know exactly how gravity works. This is not open to argument. There are only incomplete theories and not a unified theory that explains everything. When we have a unified and complete theory, then we can state unequivocally what is and isn’t possible. Until then conjecture should be not be treated as irrefutable truth. Likelihood and probability are not the same as reality. They may be useful in the absence of certainty, but are not certainty.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
your updated statement that we “don’t know exactly” makes perfect sense to me.
Maybe off topic, but it fascinates me that we also don't exactly know what an electron is. Yet it maybe the particle that we exploit and rely on more than anything else. The more you look at all our knowledge about the electron the more interesting, weird and wonderful physics reveals itself to be.
Science seems like a never ending process of refinement. Is it ‘fractal’ perhaps.
Maybe off topic, but it fascinates me that we also don't exactly know what an electron is. Yet it maybe the particle that we exploit and rely on more than anything else. The more you look at all our knowledge about the electron the more interesting, weird and wonderful physics reveals itself to be.
Science seems like a never ending process of refinement. Is it ‘fractal’ perhaps.
Last edited:
What makes you think a unified theory that explains everything is unequivocal? You think those who accept current theories about matter at the quantum level aren't "believers"? Dark matter/energy, string theory? The things we think we know are being validated by faith in things unseen! 🙄
It has boggled my mind since I was very young and contemplated the universe and struggled to wrap my brain around the concept that not only was the universe not contained in anything, but that not even nothing could exist outside of it because the very concept of nothing is still something. Perhaps I’m wrong; maybe it is simulated universe and these unexplained craft are extra-universal intelligences “hacking the sim.”
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I found the most useful analogy, even if flawed, that of an ant crawling on the surface of a balloon. His universe is the surface, there’s no edge, no ‘outside’.
All knowledge is contextual.
It's not just the knowledge but also the context that is being refined.
It's not just the knowledge but also the context that is being refined.
Expansion implies volume/vacancy/space to expand into. Is the “balloon” not expanding? How can “something” exist and expand within a super nothing?
Edit: this is off topic, my apologies
Edit: this is off topic, my apologies
Last edited:
The nothingness upon "receiving" the infinitely small something has now "changed the state" of the nothingness, it is now 'something', a universe, a space...a volume.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick...
Of course not, Gravity is a fact, that we devise a better or worse model to explain it is something else.
That said, some are trying to make a big fuss about it, as if it "proved" anything about UFOs 😛
I beg your pardon?
We know very well HOW it works, for centuries now we can not only predict local phenomena at the Earth surface, but planet attraction and orbit calculation even for the farthest planets.
Even more, we can calculate the attraction between the Solar System and *all* of the Galaxy, and also how many times our Galaxy has rotated around the center of the Universe.
But some troll will claim "we know nothing" only to "prove" his fantasies about so called UFOs.
Last edited:
Trolling is what you are doing. The point, for the seventh or eighth time now, is that we don’t have a full understanding of how lots of things work including gravity. Gravity is just an example of one of the many things that we can’t fully explain. Or perhaps you can enlighten us? I doubt it though, since actual physicists can’t.
Should someone with cancer put his faith in some fantastic and completely unproven homeopathic cure because doctors don’t have a cure for it? Or should he accept that the doctor has years of training and is therefore most qualified to explain what is happening?
Again, for the seventh or eighth time, your point is irrelevant- and especially so because if you had even a smidgen of knowledge on the subject, you would not make an analogy like that.
Again, for the seventh or eighth time, your point is irrelevant- and especially so because if you had even a smidgen of knowledge on the subject, you would not make an analogy like that.
I'm trying to evaluate your question here, if the doctors who have years of training and are therefore most qualified to explain don't have a cure for it, then basically the sufferer has no option left. At that point, that person would (instinctively) put his faith in some fantastic and completely unproven homeopathic cure, no?Obviously you haven’t had much experience with doctors. I on the other hand have. For example, a long term infection that every doctor consulted said didn’t exist because their test was unable to culture a bacteria. The existence of this infection was confirmed years later with a DNA test. So, insufficient tests based on insufficient information, presented as gospel by actual “experts”. Another example is ulcers that were due to “stress”. They ended up being due to a bacterial infection as well. Thanks for the medical example that proves my point. You obviously don’t get it. Perhaps you need to hear it nine or ten more times? Let me know.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I wish it were true in the case of the family member affected. It was just orthodoxy to take samples and attempt to culture them. Two general practitioners and three specialists were consulted. The long term pain experienced was attributed to a non existent autoimmune condition and, incredibly, psychosis. Nope, just an infection that they didn’t have the ability to test for. The culprit was a bacteria that doesn’t grow in a Petrie dish, and the solution was a long term targeted antibiotic run. In this case, it wasn’t a question of a good or bad doctor. The standard of care was flawed and the testing, which was assumed sufficient, was not adequate. A systemic problem fuelled by orthodoxy and an unwillingness to think outside the box. These doctors assumed the patient had an innate condition, which was not the case, or that they had a psychological problem, which was also not the case. This parallels what happens to people who see UFOs.
Since I’m on the topic, are there any respected physicists that categorically deny the possibility of aliens visiting us on the basis of our current understanding of physics?
Last edited:
For the "seventh or eighth time now", what does that prove about UFOs?
Both are not related or linked in the least.
Insist as many times a s you want, you are just a broken record.
We do NOT have to prove that UFOs do not exist since they aren´t anywhere, you have to prove they do, since there is not an atom of physical evidence showing that.
Please refer to my answer in the other UFO thread, I won´t waste Forum bandwidth copypasting here.
There you go again repeating that Logic Fallacy time and time and time again.
You are doing the extraordinary claim, that UFOs exist, by blindly repeating that "we can´t prove they don´t"
Again, that is a useless tactic which goes nowhere.
I can not prove you did not wake up at 8:30 AM, SO WHAT?
Whatever. Your loop is boring and misses the point entirely. Did I say UFOs exist? If so, show me where I said it. I did say that you can’t prove they don’t exist using our current limited understanding of physics. You are attacking a straw man and it’s tedious.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.