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

[SteyrAUG]

Thanks for making my point... you don't have a clue, all you can do is post other peoples opinions as if that somehow makes you look intelligent on the subject.

So I don't need to do my own personal experiments to understand what the speed of light is. But somehow I manage to be able to know what the speed of light is.

Also how the hell do you know who won World War II? It's not like you were even there. You don't have a clue. All you can do is read other peoples work and present it as your own information.

So there ya go kid, your own personal circular stupid argument that does NOTHING to prove or discredit anything.

So cliff notes:

This subject was presented as "amazing new evidence" of aliens.

I looked into the subject objectively and formed an opinion based upon existing data and interpretations.

I expressed my opinion here based upon information I researched.

You objected to my opinion so I directed you to data and interpretations of data.

You attempted to play some Junior High level "gotcha game" debate that was slightly more sophisticated than "I know you are but what am I?"

And now I have to explain that most people with valid opinions form them by investigating a subject and relying upon existing information. This way I don't have to have people drop apples from trees to attempt to explain gravity.

[tn1911]

BTW, I suspect you will really enjoy that video I posted then, and it gets really good about mid way through.

I do plan to watch it, it sounds very interesting!

[tn1911]

So I don't need to do my own personal experiments to understand what the speed of light is. But somehow I manage to be able to know what the speed of light is.

Also how the hell do you know who won World War II? It's not like you were even there. You don't have a clue. All you can do is read other peoples work and present it as your own information.

So there ya go kid, your own personal circular stupid argument that does NOTHING to prove or discredit anything.

So cliff notes:

This subject was presented as "amazing new evidence" of aliens.

I looked into the subject objectively and formed an opinion based upon existing data and interpretations.

I expressed my opinion here based upon information I researched.

You objected to my opinion so I directed you to data and interpretations of data.

You attempted to play some Junior High level "gotcha game" debate that was slightly more sophisticated than "I know you are but what am I?"

And now I have to explain that most people with valid opinions form them by investigating a subject and relying upon existing information. This way I don't have to have people drop apples from trees to attempt to explain gravity.

LOL!!! Only if that were true...

Have a great weekend my friend... tell you what, send me your address and I'll make sure you have front row seats when I graduate would love to buy you a beer...

[TomMcC]

Well, after watching the middle 20 minutes of this video, Hoffman speaking of nested, possibly an infinite number or one infinite conscious agent(s) and that we might be able to put this into a mathematical formula, and that we can begin to use the scientific method to discover all this, all I can say is that he's looking to invent a new religion. A synthesis of religion and science. It's certainly a brave new world isn't it.

[SteyrAUG]

Well, after watching the middle 20 minutes of this video, Hoffman speaking of nested, possibly an infinite number or one infinite conscious agent(s) and that we might be able to put this into a mathematical formula, and that we can begin to use the scientific method to discover all this, all I can say is that he's looking to invent a new religion. A synthesis of religion and science. It's certainly a brave new world isn't it.

I wouldn't get too caught up in that video. While an interesting mental exercise, there are so many unfounded scientific ideas where "the math supports it" I couldn't begin to possibly list them all. If you have any serious mathematical ability you can write a mathematical equation that supports almost anything and the math checks out.

Basically if I can define X, I can make Y be anything I want it to be. This is why string theory requires 26 spatial dimensions for space time alone. And it's not that string theory is right or wrong because the math supports it, it's more of a case of IF string theory is correct it requires 26 spatial dimensions.

Now math is important in things like Newtonian physics where the variables already are defined and the related math tells us something new, like how far away things are based upon the speed of light. But when it comes to theoretical, the math isn't as significant otherwise it wouldn't still be in the theoretical.

All the math is saying is that IF string is correct, then the properties of space time that allow it MUST be this. And quite honestly we've been wrong before about a lot of things. Theoretical is a guide, not a destination. When we arrive at the destination, quite often we find something completely unexpected and then have to figure out where we went wrong with the math. When we are very, very lucky we almost fully understand what we are seeing.

There is another theory where the universe behaves in different ways by simply being observed and that if man didn't exist the universe wouldn't be the same. The implications of such an idea produce probably the most challenging questions we've ever even considered and the real problem is the more sophisticated we become in observations of the universe, the more we see indications of exactly this kind of perception problem. So it isn't as easily dismissed as the "reality doesn't really exist" rabbit hole, it's a "we might have to reconsider everything we know" kind of problem.

The other problem is while we think that is what we are seeing, we aren't even close to being sophisticated enough to begin to rewrite the rule book based upon the new rules because we can't even define what the new rules might be. The other problem is what we think we are seeing might be something completely different that we haven't even considered yet.

This is why I pretty much adhere to "we don't have enough evidence to declare an absolute answer yet" when it comes to a lot of the hard questions.

[Adrenaline_6]

I wouldn't get too caught up in that video. While an interesting mental exercise, there are so many unfounded scientific ideas where "the math supports it" I couldn't begin to possibly list them all. If you have any serious mathematical ability you can write a mathematical equation that supports almost anything and the math checks out.

Basically if I can define X, I can make Y be anything I want it to be. This is why string theory requires 26 spatial dimensions for space time alone. And it's not that string theory is right or wrong because the math supports it, it's more of a case of IF string theory is correct it requires 26 spatial dimensions.

Now math is important in things like Newtonian physics where the variables already are defined and the related math tells us something new, like how far away things are based upon the speed of light. But when it comes to theoretical, the math isn't as significant otherwise it wouldn't still be in the theoretical.

All the math is saying is that IF string is correct, then the properties of space time that allow it MUST be this. And quite honestly we've been wrong before about a lot of things. Theoretical is a guide, not a destination. When we arrive at the destination, quite often we find something completely unexpected and then have to figure out where we went wrong with the math. When we are very, very lucky we almost fully understand what we are seeing.

There is another theory where the universe behaves in different ways by simply being observed and that if man didn't exist the universe wouldn't be the same. The implications of such an idea produce probably the most challenging questions we've ever even considered and the real problem is the more sophisticated we become in observations of the universe, the more we see indications of exactly this kind of perception problem. So it isn't as easily dismissed as the "reality doesn't really exist" rabbit hole, it's a "we might have to reconsider everything we know" kind of problem.

The other problem is while we think that is what we are seeing, we aren't even close to being sophisticated enough to begin to rewrite the rule book based upon the new rules because we can't even define what the new rules might be. The other problem is what we think we are seeing might be something completely different that we haven't even considered yet.

This is why I pretty much adhere to "we don't have enough evidence to declare an absolute answer yet" when it comes to a lot of the hard questions.

I think this fact gets missed by people....a lot.

[WillBrink]

This is why I pretty much adhere to "we don't have enough evidence to declare an absolute answer yet" when it comes to a lot of the hard questions.

Dr Hoffman does not make any claims of absolute answers to anything and makes that very clear, one of the reasons I like his work. His is groundbreaking work. As you're also well aware, contrary to belief by those who don't science, science declares absolutes about surprisingly little.

Right at 1 hour he says "I'll be the first to say I'm probably wrong" so so again, anyone claiming it's some arrogant scientist claiming he's pretending he has the inside scoop to the truth either didn't watch or didn't understand it.

Again, one of the reasons I like his work...

Good scientists that make the big leaps don't adhere to absolutes in all but rare examples. They big thinkers (min 40-50 ish) are apparently even letting go of space-time as both the math and actual experiments suggest it's not the answer and why they have not come up with a unified theory.

[SteyrAUG]

I think this fact gets missed by people....a lot.

Yeah, it's a big one. Even with E=mc2 we were pretty sure on the math, but nobody was positive on the real world results until we actually did it. Einsteins math suggested black holes should exist, but it wasn't for sure until we actually found one.

Dr Hoffman does not make any claims of absolute answers to anything and makes that very clear, one of the reasons I like his work. His is groundbreaking work. As you're also well aware, contrary to belief by those who don't science, science declares absolutes about surprisingly little.

Right at 1 hour he says "I'll be the first to say I'm probably wrong" so so again, anyone claiming it's some arrogant scientist claiming he's pretending he has the inside scoop to the truth either didn't watch or didn't understand it.

Again, one of the reasons I like his work...

Good scientists that make the big leaps don't adhere to absolutes in all but rare examples. They big thinkers (min 40-50 ish) are apparently even letting go of space-time as both the math and actual experiments suggest it's not the answer and why they have not come up with a unified theory.

And I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I actually watched that video last time it was posted and I think people weighed in for several pages.

I was simply addressing these ideas in general.

[WillBrink]

Yeah, it's a big one. Even with E=mc2 we were pretty sure on the math, but nobody was positive on the real world results until we actually did it. Einsteins math suggested black holes should exist, but it wasn't for sure until we actually found one.

Speaking of E=mc2, "the math" said black holes existed, but Einstein himself rejected them actually existing as well as rejecting quantum entanglement.

And I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I actually watched that video last time it was posted and I think people weighed in for several pages.

I was simply addressing these ideas in general.

Roger rgr.

[SteyrAUG]

Speaking of E=mc2, "the math" said black holes existed, but Einstein himself rejected them actually existing as well as rejecting quantum entanglement.

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.