Some people are confusing technological advances with seismic changes in our fundamental understanding of the universe.
Yes, we've gone from horse carriages to automated carriages, to awesome cars in a few decades. Yes, flight went from nothing to stealth jets in a few decades. And there are countless other examples of technological advancements in the last few decades, and they are coming at us in a exponentially increasing rate. Such is the way these things work.
However, what has changed much less, over that same time, is our understanding of the universe - physics. Has there been advancements? Of course. Are we learning new things every day, particularly due to the James Webb telescope (and Hubble before it)? Of course. But that doesn't change the fundamental laws of physics. And obviously, we haven't ironed them out entirely yet, and of course, there are things - incredible things - that we are, as yet, entirely unaware of. For instance, I imagine there are probably ways to warp space or time, or somehow travel through the cosmos at a rate which leaves the speed of light in the dust.
So there are quite possibly ways for aliens to come and visit us. But to then imagine that they show up here and are unprepared for a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere... well that's a hot take!
If you're going to make the technological advancement argument, you'll need to come up with something that just came out of nowhere, and has no developmental basis from our own, prior understanding. Something like a new type of engine or propulsion that isn't based on anything we already know.
And even if you do, you are back to the whole cover-up defense. Take fibre-optics for example. You would have to make the argument that everyone involved - thousands of people - are in on the cover-up. Not saying it's impossible, but surely everyone can see that it's monstrously unlikely to pull off successfully.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
Some people are confusing technological advances with seismic changes in our fundamental understanding of the universe.
Yes, we've gone from horse carriages to automated carriages, to awesome cars in a few decades. Yes, flight went from nothing to stealth jets in a few decades. And there are countless other examples of technological advancements in the last few decades, and they are coming at us in a exponentially increasing rate. Such is the way these things work.
However, what has changed much less, over that same time, is our understanding of the universe - physics. Has there been advancements? Of course. Are we learning new things every day, particularly due to the James Webb telescope (and Hubble before it)? Of course. But that doesn't change the fundamental laws of physics. And obviously, we haven't ironed them out entirely yet, and of course, there are things - incredible things - that we are, as yet, entirely unaware of. For instance, I imagine there are probably ways to warp space or time, or somehow travel through the cosmos at a rate which leaves the speed of light in the dust.
So there are quite possibly ways for aliens to come and visit us. But to then imagine that they show up here and are unprepared for a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere... well that's a hot take!
If you're going to make the technological advancement argument, you'll need to come up with something that just came out of nowhere, and has no developmental basis from our own, prior understanding. Something like a new type of engine or propulsion that isn't based on anything we already know.
And even if you do, you are back to the whole cover-up defense. Take fibre-optics for example. You would have to make the argument that everyone involved - thousands of people - are in on the cover-up. Not saying it's impossible, but surely everyone can see that it's monstrously unlikely to pull off successfully.
Jet and ionic propulsion were both entirely new when conceived, and both emerged in the era following supposed crash retrieval programs.
And to poke a hole in your last point, prove it. If the new knowledge is given to a handful of individuals, who then "create" the new tech and subsequently hire teams to further develop the tech based on their "creation" then it still only requires a handful of special chosen individuals to know.
My biggest criticism, for the record, is exactly the point of magnitude of the secret and how many people would have to be involved. But, I think that is recently resolved by testimonies like this (it has now reached critical mass of involved where people are starting to leak).
Jet and ionic propulsion were both entirely new when conceived, and both emerged in the era following supposed crash retrieval programs.
-snip-
Jet engines? Sorry, after which crash retrieval program? I'd recommend a brief read of the history of jet engines, if you don't see it as a gradual evolution(as I have argued), rather than revolution.
It's quiet interesting, but doesn't leave a lot of room for alien influence. Haven't looked into ionic propulsion origins, but I assume it would be similar.
Jet engines can be dated back to the invention of the aeolipile around 150 BC. This device used steam power directed through two nozzles so as to cause a sphere to spin rapidly on its axis.[1] So far as is known, it was not used for supplying mechanical power, and the potential practical applications of this invention were not recognized. It was simply considered a curiosity.
Just because they seem to you like there's no precursor doesn't mean that's the case.
My favorite show as a kid was James Burke's Connections - you should check out some episodes on youtube.
__________________
"Teach a man to reason, and he'll think for a lifetime"
~P^2
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to firebug For This Useful Post:
I’m not even suggesting it’s a bad thing, it’s just a human thing. But that’s what makes picking and choosing what we can/can’t possibly understanding kind of… hilarious. Like hey, we’re capable enough in the areas where our understanding is really emotion based, but our capability is woefully insufficient it’s anything concerning advanced science or mathematics! It sort of defies logic.
When someone says they might view us like we view ants, for example, they aren’t just assuming how aliens view us, they are unintentionally assuming hundreds of different things about the existence of aliens just for it to even be possible for aliens to see us that way.
Looking at the way “believers” (not to be confused with those who are open to the idea or otherwise undecided) layer in heavy human biases into their beliefs of this is almost more fascinating than anything else. Regardless of anything else, the whole topic provides very cool insight into the human mind.
There are numerous possibilities about what aliens could be like, in regards to their biology and motives and all could be true. Even aliens from the same civilization could have groups with different motives, just like with humans, there isn't agreement or consensus.
It's a big if, but if aliens were visiting Earth, they might not even see us significant enough to study, but they might. There is no reason to think one is more likely than the other. One of the common views is that they would be so far advanced, that they may not even see us as intelligent creatures. Then again, they may be so intelligent, that they see intelligence and worthy knowledge in everything. A thousand years ago, humans would have scoffed at thinking birds and marine mammals had complex social structures and communication abilities, but now that we are smarter, we have been able to see complexities that we used to miss. There is also the possibility that aliens aren't as advanced as we think they would need to be.
There is also a scientific basis for assuming the possibility that life follows some of the same rules. A lot of things have evolved on Earth independently under different conditions and pressures, so it seems that biology just does favour somethings. For example, things like flight, peristalsis, the ability to make mucus, certain shapes and symmetries, etc... The same thing goes with how creatures on Earth think. Practically all organisms have some kind of instinct to survive and propagate. In more intelligent species, the instinct to survive has manifested in a will to seek out new resources and a need to search out new things. Humans have evolved to the point that lead to deliberate exploration, but it really isn't that far removed from our basic instinct to secure resources for survival, which based on what we know about life, is a pretty universal thing.
If anything, I think the more humancentric view is to think that we are something unique and special, and that the way we are isn't just a predictable outcome from a few basic biological inputs that could happen very similarly anywhere the same environmental conditions exist.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
So there are quite possibly ways for aliens to come and visit us. But to then imagine that they show up here and are unprepared for a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere... well that's a hot take!
They'd have a pretty accurate idea of our atmospheric composition. Just like we have a pretty decent idea of the atmospheric composition of other planets.
Jet engines can be dated back to the invention of the aeolipile around 150 BC. This device used steam power directed through two nozzles so as to cause a sphere to spin rapidly on its axis.[1] So far as is known, it was not used for supplying mechanical power, and the potential practical applications of this invention were not recognized. It was simply considered a curiosity.
Just because they seem to you like there's no precursor doesn't mean that's the case.
My favorite show as a kid was James Burke's Connections - you should check out some episodes on youtube.
Was going say that the Chinese have been making rocket propelled fireworks for quite a while. Larger jet engines work on the same principles.
There are numerous possibilities about what aliens could be like, in regards to their biology and motives and all could be true. Even aliens from the same civilization could have groups with different motives, just like with humans, there isn't agreement or consensus.
It's a big if, but if aliens were visiting Earth, they might not even see us significant enough to study, but they might. There is no reason to think one is more likely than the other. One of the common views is that they would be so far advanced, that they may not even see us as intelligent creatures. Then again, they may be so intelligent, that they see intelligence and worthy knowledge in everything. A thousand years ago, humans would have scoffed at thinking birds and marine mammals had complex social structures and communication abilities, but now that we are smarter, we have been able to see complexities that we used to miss. There is also the possibility that aliens aren't as advanced as we think they would need to be.
There is also a scientific basis for assuming the possibility that life follows some of the same rules. A lot of things have evolved on Earth independently under different conditions and pressures, so it seems that biology just does favour somethings. For example, things like flight, peristalsis, the ability to make mucus, certain shapes and symmetries, etc... The same thing goes with how creatures on Earth think. Practically all organisms have some kind of instinct to survive and propagate. In more intelligent species, the instinct to survive has manifested in a will to seek out new resources and a need to search out new things. Humans have evolved to the point that lead to deliberate exploration, but it really isn't that far removed from our basic instinct to secure resources for survival, which based on what we know about life, is a pretty universal thing.
If anything, I think the more humancentric view is to think that we are something unique and special, and that the way we are isn't just a predictable outcome from a few basic biological inputs that could happen very similarly anywhere the same environmental conditions exist.
I think if aliens came here and saw a bunch of jabbering and war-like apes tinkering around with thermonuclear devices they'd have concerns. I guess it would depend on what is actually associated with inter-solar system travel. If humans are so far off it won't happen in 10s of thousands of years, they're not a threat. If the secret is a lucky guess away, as an alien I wouldn't be super happy with what I was seeing.
I think if aliens came here and saw a bunch of jabbering and war-like apes tinkering around with thermonuclear devices they'd have concerns. I guess it would depend on what is actually associated with inter-solar system travel. If humans are so far off it won't happen in 10s of thousands of years, they're not a threat. If the secret is a lucky guess away, as an alien I wouldn't be super happy with what I was seeing.
Assuming aliens would have any reason to care about thermonuclear devices at all, have any understanding of our technology and/or the pacing/trajectory of it, or be able to qualify our status as a species as “primitive” in the first place.
So there are quite possibly ways for aliens to come and visit us. But to then imagine that they show up here and are unprepared for a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere... well that's a hot take!
It's not the atmosphere they would be unprepared for, it's the instability of the storms in the atmosphere that would be problematic. Lightning discharge is so random and fast it may be too unpredictable to avoid. The lore of these crashed vehicles is usually around some type of storm or weather system where there is lightning. The theory being that a craft that runs on electromagnetic drive technology may suffer a critical power outage if struck in a storm. So not a hot take, just a possible danger that could lead to a catastrophic failure.
Assuming aliens would have any reason to care about thermonuclear devices at all, have any understanding of our technology and/or the pacing/trajectory of it, or be able to qualify our status as a species as “primitive” in the first place.
Assuming they exist as physical beings the way we do a bunch of apes with thermonuclear devices who are capable of inter-solar system travel is going to be a threat. I guess it's possible they surround everything they are interested in a force field? Our biggest nukes are going to damage any physical environment.
Assuming they exist as physical beings the way we do a bunch of apes with thermonuclear devices who are capable of inter-solar system travel is going to be a threat. I guess it's possible they surround everything they are interested in a force field? Our biggest nukes are going to damage any physical environment.
Which is a huge assumption. You’re also assuming they would understand the distance between us to be the same as we understand the distance between us and apes, that they are interested in anything, that they care about physical environment, or (again) that they are even capable of understanding a thermo-nuclear weapon as a threat in the same terms we understand it as one.
Again, it’s a whole lot of “they’re like us but smarter,” which is a massive leap on about a hundred different fronts to begin with.
We think too often of aliens as “advanced” along a human-centric timeline. It’s probably more likely they exist on an entirely differently development timeline altogether rather than anything we would understand as “advanced,” so there’s also little reason to believe they would think of us as “primitive.”
It's not the atmosphere they would be unprepared for, it's the instability of the storms in the atmosphere that would be problematic. Lightning discharge is so random and fast it may be too unpredictable to avoid. The lore of these crashed vehicles is usually around some type of storm or weather system where there is lightning. The theory being that a craft that runs on electromagnetic drive technology may suffer a critical power outage if struck in a storm. So not a hot take, just a possible danger that could lead to a catastrophic failure.
I am pretty sure advanced beings would understand lightning and electricity.
It's not the atmosphere they would be unprepared for, it's the instability of the storms in the atmosphere that would be problematic. Lightning discharge is so random and fast it may be too unpredictable to avoid. The lore of these crashed vehicles is usually around some type of storm or weather system where there is lightning. The theory being that a craft that runs on electromagnetic drive technology may suffer a critical power outage if struck in a storm. So not a hot take, just a possible danger that could lead to a catastrophic failure.
Several planets in our solar system have electrical storms, many far more violent than on Earth. To imagine in all their exploring they wouldn't have run into them before, or that they would be vulnerable while also being capable of interstellar travel is a bit of a stretch, no?
This #### is way more interesting than small, petty human matters.
That's why the people who try to put a wedge in and shut down the conversation entirely are the absolute worst.
Have a sense of wonder, you walking sheet of cookie cut plywood.
We all live on a blue orb rotating around a ball of gas in the vacuum of infinite nothing-ness.
Absolutely nothing is ordinary.
Oh get over yourself already. There wouldn't be an interesting conversation without some realists around. You'd all be talking about unicorn aliens driving golden chariots between dimensions. Well, you wish you could come up with something that creative, anyway.
Oh get over yourself already. There wouldn't be an interesting conversation without some realists around. You'd all be talking about unicorn aliens driving golden chariots between dimensions. Well, you wish you could come up with something that creative, anyway.
Guy who complains about people putting a “wedge in” and shutting down conversation happens to be the same guy who has told people to leave this thread and stop talking because they aren’t saying something he’s interested in discussing.
Conspiratorial ideation is the tendency of individuals to believe that events and power relations are secretly manipulated by certain clandestine groups and organisations. Many of these ostensibly explanatory conjectures are non-falsifiable, lacking in evidence or demonstrably false, yet public acceptance remains high. Efforts to convince the general public of the validity of medical and scientific findings can be hampered by such narratives, which can create the impression of doubt or disagreement in areas where the science is well established. Conversely, historical examples of exposed conspiracies do exist and it may be difficult for people to differentiate between reasonable and dubious assertions. In this work, we establish a simple mathematical model for conspiracies involving multiple actors with time, which yields failure probability for any given conspiracy. Parameters for the model are estimated from literature examples of known scandals, and the factors influencing conspiracy success and failure are explored. The model is also used to estimate the likelihood of claims from some commonly-held conspiratorial beliefs; these are namely that the moon-landings were faked, climate-change is a hoax, vaccination is dangerous and that a cure for cancer is being suppressed by vested interests. Simulations of these claims predict that intrinsic failure would be imminent even with the most generous estimates for the secret-keeping ability of active participants—the results of this model suggest that large conspiracies (≥1000 agents) quickly become untenable and prone to failure.The theory presented here might be useful in counteracting the potentially deleterious consequences of bogus and anti-science narratives, and examining the hypothetical conditions under which sustainable conspiracy might be possible.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
