No Longer in Shadows, Pentagon’s U.F.O. Unit Will Make Some Findings Public

[WillBrink]

He predicted that they should exist, but wasn't convinced they actually did. That isn't the same as rejecting the idea that they exist.

Not sure of there's a distinction there or not, but he did not believe black holes could exist in nature, and strongly rejected quantum entanglement and other outcomes in the quantum realm:

https://www.nature.com/news/2005/050.../050328-8.html

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...d-the-quantum/

[SteyrAUG]

Not sure of there's a distinction there or not, but he did not believe black holes could exist in nature, and strongly rejected quantum entanglement and other outcomes in the quantum realm:

https://www.nature.com/news/2005/050.../050328-8.html

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...d-the-quantum/

The distinction is this:

I'm not sure they exist.
They don't exist.

One is an absolute. Regarding quantum, we have to remember Einstein wrote his paper on relativity in 1915, that was cutting edge stuff back then. But Einstein didn't completely reject quantum, he actually wrote “On the Quantum Theory of Radiation” and a few others related to the subject. But at that time, our comprehension of QT wasn't anything close to what it would be even a few decades later. Bohr and Heisenberg laid the real groundwork allowing QT to be accepted as Quantum Physics in 1927.

[WillBrink]

The distinction is this:

I'm not sure they exist.
They don't exist.

One is an absolute. Regarding quantum, we have to remember Einstein wrote his paper on relativity in 1915, that was cutting edge stuff back then. But Einstein didn't completely reject quantum, he actually wrote “On the Quantum Theory of Radiation” and a few others related to the subject. But at that time, our comprehension of QT wasn't anything close to what it would be even a few decades later. Bohr and Heisenberg laid the real groundwork allowing QT to be accepted as Quantum Physics in 1927.

Then you and I have read different things on that one, and or, interpreted what we read differently.

[SteyrAUG]

Then you and I have read different things on that one, and or, interpreted what we read differently.

I think Einstein realized the math was telling him such things "should" exist, but he couldn't conceptualize them in reality so he arrived at "I'm not sure they actually exist" but stop short of saying "they don't actually exist."

We also have to remember in 1915 we understood so little, even Einstein, and our understanding of the universe just took a dramatic redefine that few people could actually even understand. It really wouldn't be until the end of the war, and a dramatic demonstration of matter converted to energy, that everyone finally accepted things that were discovered 30 years prior.

And it was only then that science took a dramatic new focus when the atomic age was declared. You have to think of it a bit like the industrial revolution where everyone else felt late to the game and raced to catch up. Before that most people, and a few scientists, treated all of this like the theoretical.

If you weren't involved in the Manhattan Project, it was a bit like string or membrane theory, really interesting ideas that may or may not be correct but it doesn't matter because we have no way of proving any of it anyway.

You and I were born after the atomic age when so many of these things were absolutes, we have to remember Einstein in context of when he lived, what he said and when. Einstein was a genius, and his greatest ability may have been to imagine a more correct model of the universe and attempt to define what it would look like.

But he didn't get everything correct, I don't even think that would have been possible. Like almost everyone else he assumed a steady state universe and kept having to adjust him findings to make them work with that model. This is his famous cosmological constant.

We also have to remember that while he predicted black holes would be a consequence of relativity, when he stated "but we will never find them" he was talking about direct observation of such an object being impossible in addition to black holes being a rarity should they actually exist. He imagined them as lightless pinholes in the middle of black space, he couldn't imagine how something like that could actually be observed even if we somehow looked right at one in a telescope.

But like most scientists, he was cautious of absolutes where the evidence was still a bit incomplete.

[WillBrink]

I think Einstein realized the math was telling him such things "should" exist, but he couldn't conceptualize them in reality so he arrived at "I'm not sure they actually exist" but stop short of saying "they don't actually exist."


We also have to remember in 1915 we understood so little, even Einstein, and our understanding of the universe just took a dramatic redefine that few people could actually even understand. It really wouldn't be until the end of the war, and a dramatic demonstration of matter converted to energy, that everyone finally accepted things that were discovered 30 years prior.

And it was only then that science took a dramatic new focus when the atomic age was declared. You have to think of it a bit like the industrial revolution where everyone else felt late to the game and raced to catch up. Before that most people, and a few scientists, treated all of this like the theoretical.

If you weren't involved in the Manhattan Project, it was a bit like string or membrane theory, really interesting ideas that may or may not be correct but it doesn't matter because we have no way of proving any of it anyway.

You and I were born after the atomic age when so many of these things were absolutes, we have to remember Einstein in context of when he lived, what he said and when. Einstein was a genius, and his greatest ability may have been to imagine a more correct model of the universe and attempt to define what it would look like.

But he didn't get everything correct, I don't even think that would have been possible. Like almost everyone else he assumed a steady state universe and kept having to adjust him findings to make them work with that model. This is his famous cosmological constant.

We also have to remember that while he predicted black holes would be a consequence of relativity, when he stated "but we will never find them" he was talking about direct observation of such an object being impossible in addition to black holes being a rarity should they actually exist. He imagined them as lightless pinholes in the middle of black space, he couldn't imagine how something like that could actually be observed even if we somehow looked right at one in a telescope.

But like most scientists, he was cautious of absolutes where the evidence was still a bit incomplete.

He argued multiple times they could not form in nature, I take that as "they don't actually exist" personally.

"In 1939 Einstein published a paper in the journal Annals of Mathematics with the daunting title On a Stationary System with Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses. With it, Einstein sought to prove that black holes--celestial objects so dense that their gravity prevents even light from escaping--were impossible."

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...d-the-quantum/

Far as I know, he never changed his mind on that one. Funny thing is, there's now some physicists who have come full circle and think black holes don't exist, at least not as the entities thought.

[SteyrAUG]

He argued multiple times they could not form in nature, I take that as "they don't actually exist" personally.

"In 1939 Einstein published a paper in the journal Annals of Mathematics with the daunting title On a Stationary System with Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses. With it, Einstein sought to prove that black holes--celestial objects so dense that their gravity prevents even light from escaping--were impossible."

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...d-the-quantum/

Far as I know, he never changed his mind on that one. Funny thing is, there's now some physicists who have come full circle and think black holes don't exist, at least not as the entities thought.

I have not read that paper, and while I have read a few things where he questioned if they actually existed and / or could even be detected IF they existed, that is the closest thing to an absolute that I've ever read. He was generally more cautious about such things.

[WillBrink]

I have not read that paper, and while I have read a few things where he questioned if they actually existed and / or could even be detected IF they existed, that is the closest thing to an absolute that I've ever read. He was generally more cautious about such things.

On black holes and quantum entanglement and other quantum topics, he seemed to dig his heels in. They went against his neat and tidy views of spacetime and were perhaps too bizzare or even his imagination. Apparently he and Niels Bohr in particular had and ongoing and running debate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E...nstein_debates

My understanding, not being a brilliant physicist type, is Bohr won the debates but Einstein never capitulated defeat on the matter.

[ScottsBad]

They always want one free miracle. Big Bang, positive mutations, faster than light travel, etc. Never makes any sense.

Not miracles. We just don't understand and/or cannot do it yet.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

The Alcubierre Warp Field



https://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...ve-space-time/

[ScottsBad]

Well, in short its the math. In two decades, researchers have confirmed the existence of more than 4,000 planets in our galaxy, a finding that suggests the cosmos packed with planets. Based on rate of discovery with known values of galaxies at around 2 trillion galaxies, each packed with millions of stars. Estimates place the numbers of planets waiting to be discovered at 100 quintillion. That's a one with 20 zeros...

Scientists think 20 percent of the 250 billion or so stars in the Milky Way harbor rocky worlds temperate enough to allow liquid water. This based on the Goldilocks Zone principal. Thats tens of billions of Goldilocks planets in our neighborhood alone.

SETI has a very logical reason we haven’t found anyone. Space is just too spacious. For all the searching, we haven’t looked much beyond our own neighborhood according to their website.


New study estimates the odds of life and intelligence emerging beyond our planet

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0518162639.htm

I'll just make a couple of comments here:

1. It always makes me chuckle when "scientists" postulate on the number of planets with life based on the type of planet and the time it took for life to evolve on earth. Seems like there is a lot of room for error there LOL. Did they consider that advanced beings may be spreading and nurturing life all over the universe like a garden?

2. SETI is a joke. They are looking for patterns in electro-magnetic radio waves? The approach is so 60's, and assumes that very powerful transmitters are sending data in our direction. This is why SETI has trouble raising money.

3. The question; Why would they come here to our way out planet in the middle of no where?....yada yada. We cannot know their motivations, nor can we understand all of their capabilities. We are using human thinking and human understanding to project why they are here....more human folly.

[ScottsBad]

.......

Galaxywide space and time travel of course are completely different discussions. I think if we ever arrive at a "applicable" understanding of such things we will have discovered we were laughably wrong about most of our previous assumptions.

We have been laughably, ROFL level wrong.