UFO Found on Ocean Floor?

[Bad Things]

5 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

We're just in two different places right now and I can't give you the attention you deserve. It's not you, it's me.

 

No it's not.  It's him!

 

(And you don't need any kind of Math to understand this.)

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

We're looking for aliens - - what if (assuming they exist, which is highly doubtful), they're looking too?

 

Interesting perspective on what they could see if they had technology similar to current earth technology:

 

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20231024-how-aliens-might-detect-our-existence-on-earth

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

If you're convinced that astronomers would certainly be able to see a dangerous asteroid long before it could hit earth, you might want to read this:

 

https://www.popsci.com/science/asteroid-nt1-earth-planetary-defense/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us

 

An excerpt:

 

"In the summer, astronomers spotted an airplane-sized asteroid—large enough to potentially destroy a city—on an almost-collision course with Earth. But no one saw the space rock until two days after it had zoomed past our planet.  This asteroid, named 2023 NT1, passed by us at only one-fourth of the distance from Earth to the moon."

                                                                             * * *

It turns out that Earth has what Brin Bailey, UC Santa Barbara astronomer and lead author on the paper, calls a “blindspot.” Any asteroid coming from the direction of the sun gets lost in the glare of our nearest star.”

[4merper4mer]

Any updates on this?

 

Von Neumann?  Anybody?

[4merper4mer]

Too much math?

 

 

[Augie]

6 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

Too much math?

 

 

 

I have some other things to accomplish in life before I spend 16 minutes on this. I don’t want to watch one side without rebuttal from the other.  That would honestly be fascinating, to have the greatest minds in the field in a round table discussion. Plenty of smart people with different ideas and varying opinions. 

[4merper4mer]

9 hours ago, Augie said:

 

I have some other things to accomplish in life before I spend 16 minutes on this. I don’t want to watch one side without rebuttal from the other.  That would honestly be fascinating, to have the greatest minds in the field in a round table discussion. Plenty of smart people with different ideas and varying opinions. 

She’s an astrophysicist who makes no conclusions.  It’s literally a review of a scientific study.  There are no “sides” but if you must, here’s a rebuttal:

 

 

[Augie]

2 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

She’s an astrophysicist who makes no conclusions.  It’s literally a review of a scientific study.  There are no “sides” but if you must, here’s a rebuttal:

 

 

 

Color me skeptical with “you can probably guess what they found” right in the title. 

 

Few if any are saying there IS life out there, just that it is possible. To so firmly believe you can be sure something does not exist in the vastness of this universe seems like pure folly to me. 

[LeGOATski]

On 12/16/2023 at 7:18 AM, Augie said:

 

Color me skeptical with “you can probably guess what they found” right in the title. 

 

Few if any are saying there IS life out there, just that it is possible. To so firmly believe you can be sure something does not exist in the vastness of this universe seems like pure folly to me. 

The folly of man

[LeGOATski]

@Augie in the video she DOES say it's possible for intelligent life to be out there.

 

1. We have a huge blind spot in our own galaxy

 

2. This study could only detect a signal from a Type 2 civilization or higher....not even a Type 1 or anything lesser, like Earth.

 

[4merper4mer]

3 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

@Augie in the video she DOES say it's possible for intelligent life to be out there.

 

1. We have a huge blind spot in our own galaxy

 

2. This study could only detect a signal from a Type 2 civilization or higher....not even a Type 1 or anything lesser, like Earth.

 

Why use only the data points which point toward your desired conclusion?  Why not use all the data points, regardless of the direction they point?

[LeGOATski]

23 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

Why use only the data points which point toward your desired conclusion?  Why not use all the data points, regardless of the direction they point?

Exactly. This video does a nice job of showing how limited our data is.

[Augie]

On 12/18/2023 at 11:29 PM, 4merper4mer said:

Why use only the data points which point toward your desired conclusion?  Why not use all the data points, regardless of the direction they point?

 

That’s funny, because that is exactly what you are doing. Does she say we have blind spots and limitations? So we can’t really know. Why can’t you concede that?  

[4merper4mer]

1 hour ago, Augie said:

 

That’s funny, because that is exactly what you are doing. Does she say we have blind spots and limitations? So we can’t really know. Why can’t you concede that?  

Most of her videos have nothing to do with alien stuff.  I’d recommend checking some out.  Very interesting stuff usually.

 

As for the above, if your standard is set at examining every corner of the universe before coming to any logical conclusion about anything, I don’t know what to tell you.  It’d be like Newton needing to watch every apple that ever fell off of any tree before beginning to draw any conclusions/theories about gravity.

[Augie]

13 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Most of her videos have nothing to do with alien stuff.  I’d recommend checking some out.  Very interesting stuff usually.

 

As for the above, if your standard is set at examining every corner of the universe before coming to any logical conclusion about anything, I don’t know what to tell you.  It’d be like Newton needing to watch every apple that ever fell off of any tree before beginning to draw any conclusions/theories about gravity.

 

I think we have barely peeked into the hall closet. I say we get smarter, keep looking and see what happens. 

 

We are NOT as smart as you think we are, I’m afraid. 

 

 

.

Edited December 20, 2023 by Augie

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

1 hour ago, Augie said:

 

I think we have barely peeked into the hall closet. I say we get smarter, keep looking and see what happens. 

 

We are NOT as smart as you think we are, I’m afraid. 

 

 

.

As George Carlin famously said:

 

"Think about how stupid the average person is.  Half of us are even dumber than that."

 

Technically he should have mentioned the "mean" rather than the "average," but that wouldn't be as funny.

[Augie]

13 minutes ago, ICanSleepWhenI'mDead said:

As George Carlin famously said:

 

"Think about how stupid the average person is.  Half of us are even dumber than that."

 

Technically he should have mentioned the "mean" rather than the "average," but that wouldn't be as funny.

 

No, do not mess with Carlin, lest you run the risk of having to explain the joke. That’s never good. The “average person” would get stuck on “the mean”, and not know enough to laugh.   😂 

[4merper4mer]

2 hours ago, Augie said:

 

I think we have barely peeked into the hall closet. I say we get smarter, keep looking and see what happens. 

 

We are NOT as smart as you think we are, I’m afraid. 

 

 

.

Oh you left out a bunch of stuff.

 

[Warcodered]

On 12/20/2023 at 3:13 PM, 4merper4mer said:

Most of her videos have nothing to do with alien stuff.  I’d recommend checking some out.  Very interesting stuff usually.

 

As for the above, if your standard is set at examining every corner of the universe before coming to any logical conclusion about anything, I don’t know what to tell you.  It’d be like Newton needing to watch every apple that ever fell off of any tree before beginning to draw any conclusions/theories about gravity.

That's such a terrible example just completely dumbfoundingly awful, 1. He just observed the damn thing so there's that. 2. It's the theory of gravity he damn well better go out and observe it occurring everywhere else, he'd be an awful scientist if he didn't.

 

To apply the logic you're using here in reverse you're basically saying if I observe there are no deer in my living room I should just conclude they don't exist, why would I waste my time looking for them in the woods I've already done something somewhere and had a result.

[4merper4mer]

6 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

That's such a terrible example just completely dumbfoundingly awful, 1. He just observed the damn thing so there's that. 2. It's the theory of gravity he damn well better go out and observe it occurring everywhere else, he'd be an awful scientist if he didn't.

 

To apply the logic you're using here in reverse you're basically saying if I observe there are no deer in my living room I should just conclude they don't exist, why would I waste my time looking for them in the woods I've already done something somewhere and had a result.

Whoa dude you are in serious need of critical thinking in place of your current wishful variety.

 

Are you actually saying that Newton observed gravity “occurring everywhere”?  Really?  How did he do that?  He lived from 1643 until 1727 on a planet called Earth.  That’s a reeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaalllllllly small sample size of observations, no?  Are you suggesting his theory is invalid or useless?  How about all other theories that ever existed?  Their dumb too because you’re hoping there are aliens out there?

 

Your living room analogy is pretty bad too.  I’ve heard it spun a different way featuring a glass of water from the ocean.  There aren’t any whales in typical glasses of water from oceans so……..  The problem is, in that any glass of water from any ocean you can find mountains upon mountains of evidence for all sorts of life.  Still, a whale won’t fit so I suppose we’re doomed to ridiculous things being said.

 

The difference in analogies is that you’re trying to say the sample size is too small but your ignoring the actual sample size that has been taken.  The corner you’re in has forced you to call Isaac Newton a big dummy.  Doesn’t that sound a little off?