Jump to content
tgreg99

UFO Found on Ocean Floor?

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

I was really more going for alliteration than insult.  I admit it has been frustrating to see you write things implying I claim to know everything about the universe.  I claim no such knowledge and never have.  Your implication that I've made this claim is also an insult of sorts so glass houses dude.

 

Have you once bothered to objectively look at the sitcom math equation in an effort to understand what I'm saying?  Be honest.  I doubt you have because if you had you'd have come back at me with something specific either agreeing or attempting to refute.

 

Having a general conversation is fine and fun but it is ok to get specific too.  That's why they call it a conversation.  I said something you didn't want to hear and pointed to objective mathematical demonstrations of that.  You didn't even bother to look and told me I don't know anything.  I'm not insulted by that but some thinner skinned people might be.  I do view it as short sighted on your part to not even bother to look.  Pinhead was probably out of line but "pinheaded partner" sounded better than "shortsighted partner".  Maybe "shortsighted sidekick" is a compromise.

No, once again it's the other way. People have picked through your  "know it all" post and you just don't like it.We think YOU are the one that's as you say "short sighted".

 

In any event, lets just say we disagree and will ALWAYS disagree, until there is actually HARD PROOF in one way other.  So how bout lets just leave it at that and no more of your snarky, insulting post and I will stop my "smartass snarky" post as well.

 

Agreed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Patrick_Duffy said:

No, once again it's the other way. People have picked through your  "know it all" post and you just don't like it.We think YOU are the one that's as you say "short sighted".

 

In any event, lets just say we disagree and will ALWAYS disagree, until there is actually HARD PROOF in one way other.  So how bout lets just leave it at that and no more of your snarky, insulting post and I will stop my "smartass snarky" post as well.

 

Agreed?

You don't need to lie.  No one has "picked through" my calculation that the sitcom math equation ends in =0 with anything but emotion.  There has been nary a number used to refute that.  There have been a lot of words and bluster and emotion as people hold on to their wishes....but no numbers.

 

There is every opportunity to pick through my evaluation and show that it is wrong.  Why do you think that hasn't been done?  Why haven't you done it?  I suspect, but don't know, that people have looked at it and given up.  Have you?

 

I agree that insults of posters aren't necessary.  Insulting a post is different as sometimes it can help get the point across.  Sometimes the line between the two is blurry and can get crossed.  It's not my intent to cross it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said:

You don't need to lie.  No one has "picked through" my calculation that the sitcom math equation ends in =0 with anything but emotion.  There has been nary a number used to refute that.  There have been a lot of words and bluster and emotion as people hold on to their wishes....but no numbers.

 

There is every opportunity to pick through my evaluation and show that it is wrong.  Why do you think that hasn't been done?  Why haven't you done it?  I suspect, but don't know, that people have looked at it and given up.  Have you?

 

I agree that insults of posters aren't necessary.  Insulting a post is different as sometimes it can help get the point across.  Sometimes the line between the two is blurry and can get crossed.  It's not my intent to cross it.

 

Again,itmeans absolutely nothing as far as proof. The calculations are limited(which I have already shown in another post) which you continue to ignore. You can keep believing that in your world. That's fine. Means nothing from a scientific standpoint, and proves nothing. Key word "proves".

 

So once again, we will disagree. So leave it at that.

 

Edited by Patrick_Duffy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Patrick_Duffy said:

 

Again,itmeans absolutely nothing as far as proof. The calculations are limited(which I have already shown in another post) which you continue to ignore. You can keep believing that in your world. That's fine. Means nothing from a scientific standpoint, and proves nothing. Key word "proves".

 

So once again, we will disagree. So leave it at that.

 

That was less than specific.  I don't recall you showing anything about the calculations in any post.  Did you use numbers or feelings?  Can you link it?

 

The equation is meant to produce a very high number at the end.  The equation itself flows very well logically.  It should help your case.  Try filling in some numbers to see what you get.

 

Unfortunately a billion times a billion times a billion times a billion times zero is......zero.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

Sitcom math is the only necessary formula.  It is a relatively simple equation as well.  If undertaken with objectivity and with a little thought about each component it is inevitable that the solution to it is zero.

 

It is clear that you and your pinheaded partner either have issues with objectivity, math or both.  Objectivity seems to be the most likely culprit.

 

Note that sitcom math applies only to our universe, not to other dimensions or possible parallel universes.  It is clear from the formula that our universe is extremely unlikely to harbor other intelligent life.  Divert to the parallel if you'd like but be aware that it makes you look foolish.

 

 

i am aware of Drake's Equation. are you aware that the original equation was revised, downward to more closely align with your preconceived notions?

 

i like to think i am pretty objective and i have always been quite good with math. in fact if it weren't for an incident out of my control, i might have had a very different life that focused on math but that is another matter entirely.

 

Definitions ofobjectivity
1

njudgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

 

using the above definition, it is my opinion that you seem to be the one lacking any semblance of subjectivity here. you are married to your sitcom maths and any argument to the contrary, no matter the context, you reject it out of hand.

 

lets try to break it down a little so perhaps you can gain a better understanding of my position.

 

there is one constant in any equation, it requires that each and every variable be true in order for the arrived upon solution to be correct and unimpeachable. would you agree with this? of course you would, you have to if you understand any maths at all. here is where my perceived problem stems from. i believe that, at a minimum, one or more of the variables in Drakes Equation are wrong. to illustrate this, and what i have been trying to get through to you is, the Time magazine article just upends the whole equation by Drake, all by itself.

 

if you care to stop being disingenuous and have a conversation about the implications here, we can do so. otherwise... well, i don't know what to say other than to have a nice day and i will bid you adieu.

Edited by Foxx
  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

That was less than specific.  I don't recall you showing anything about the calculations in any post.  Did you use numbers or feelings?  Can you link it?

 

The equation is meant to produce a very high number at the end.  The equation itself flows very well logically.  It should help your case.  Try filling in some numbers to see what you get.

 

Unfortunately a billion times a billion times a billion times a billion times zero is......zero.

 

 

yeah, have looked at it. Have seen the equation and it means nothing as far as proof of anything. And yeah, I posted it a a page or so back. When I told you to read the observable space paragraph. So I guess go back and read it again. Either way it doesn't matter. You will think what you want and I will think what I want.

 

 There's no proof no matter what you say. It's unknown, at least as far as we know.

 

So yeah, means nothing

Edited by Patrick_Duffy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Patrick_Duffy said:

yeah, have looked at it. Have seen the equation and it means nothing as far as proof of anything. And yeah, I posted it a a page or so back. When I told you to read the observable space paragraph. So I guess go back and read it again. Either way it doesn't matter. You will think what you want and I will think what I want.

 

 There's no proof no matter what you say. It's unknown, at least as far as we know.

 

So yeah, means nothing

Your contention is that the size of the observable universe is too small a sample size to detect trends?  That's a unique perspective.

35 minutes ago, Foxx said:

i am aware of Drake's Equation. are you aware that the original equation was revised, downward to more closely align with your preconceived notions?

 

i like to think i am pretty objective and i have always been quite good with math. in fact if it weren't for an incident out of my control, i might have had a very different life that focused on math but that is another matter entirely.

 

Definitions ofobjectivity
1

njudgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

 

using the above definition, it is my opinion that you seem to be the one lacking any semblance of subjectivity here. you are married to your sitcom maths and any argument to the contrary, no matter the context, you reject it out of hand.

 

lets try to break it down a little so perhaps you can gain a better understanding of my position.

 

there is one constant in any equation, it requires that each and every variable be true in order for the arrived upon solution to be correct and unimpeachable. would you agree with this? of course you would, you have to if you understand any maths at all. here is where my perceived problem stems from. i believe that, at a minimum, one or more of the variables in Drakes Equation are wrong. to illustrate this, and what i have been trying to get through to you is, the Time magazine article just upends the whole equation by Drake, all by itself.

 

if you care to stop being disingenuous and have a conversation about the implications here, we can do so. otherwise... well, i don't know what to say other than to have a nice day and i will bid you adieu.

Which variable in Drake do you believe to be wrong?  I'm not asking you to assign values to any of the variables, just point out which ones don't belong and/or what other variables need to be added.

Edited by 4merper4mer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Your contention is that the size of the observable universe is too small a sample size to detect trends?  That's a unique perspective.

Which variable in Drake do you believe to be wrong?  I'm not asking you to assign values to any of the variables, just point out which ones don't belong and/or what other variables need to be added.

 

FFS, you're harping on about Drake's equation again?

 

IT DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING!

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

whats that crazy teleprompter reading old fool saying? 

 

An Alliance with whom

Our robot overlords

  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Bad Things said:

 

FFS, you're harping on about Drake's equation again?

 

IT DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING!

 

It indeed doesn't prove anything.  It demonstrates something.  Its product is zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

Your contention is that the size of the observable universe is too small a sample size to detect trends?  That's a unique perspective.

Which variable in Drake do you believe to be wrong?  I'm not asking you to assign values to any of the variables, just point out which ones don't belong and/or what other variables need to be added.

 No, not a unique perspective. A scientific perspective. Simply saying, and have been saying there is more in space that hopefully one day will be able to be researched and there's no telling what can/may be found.

Beyond the Observable Universe

Of course, these calculations are limited. It only accounts for the universe which we can observe. The calculations for the dimension of the universe go back only as far as light can reach. The rest of the universe beyond light may well be much bigger. Some make a distinction between the observable universe and the actual physical universe. The observable universe is the “edge”, the farthest light can travel. Beyond that is the rest of space.

 

Edited by Patrick_Duffy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Patrick_Duffy said:

 No, not a unique perspective. A scientific perspective. Simply saying, and have been saying there is more in space that hopefully one day will be able to be researched and there's no telling what can/may be found.

Beyond the Observable Universe

Of course, these calculations are limited. It only accounts for the universe which we can observe. The calculations for the dimension of the universe go back only as far as light can reach. The rest of the universe beyond light may well be much bigger. Some make a distinction between the observable universe and the actual physical universe. The observable universe is the “edge”, the farthest light can travel. Beyond that is the rest of space.

 

 

So we may have just failed to communicate and we actually agree on 2.things:

 

1. There are no intelligent alien societies, nor have there ever been, in a the observable universe.

 

2.  There is a part of the universe that is unobservable.  Although the there is no evidence that it would be anything other than an extension of the known, it is impossible to know for sure and will likely remain that way.

Edited by 4merper4mer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

 

So we may have just failed to communicate and we actually agree on 2.things:

 

1. There are no intelligent alien societies, nor have there ever been, in a the observable universe.

 

2.  There is a part of the universe that is unobservable.  Although the there is no evidence that it would be anything other than an extension of the known, it is impossible to know for sure and will likely remain that way.

For the most part, yes...... going to respond to your number 1 and 2 statements and then I will be done with this....

 

1. Yes, it seems to most likely be the case. I don't know about there has never been. No telling what may have been around the universe over billions and billions of years ago. Unless the government knows something we don't about another intelligent species. Which I also think "could" be possible.

 

2.Yes again. There is no "known" evidence, and as of right now with the current technology as far as we know, yes there is no way to find out for sure as far as we know. Lastly, yes, it is impossible to know for sure as it seems with current technology. Whether it will likely "remain" that way, well I don't know. We don't know what the future holds 50-200 years or more away. By that time (if humans still exist) IMO I think it's possible that they may find something that they never thought they would find.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Patrick_Duffy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patrick_Duffy said:

For the most part, yes...... going to respond to your number 1 and 2 statements and then I will be done with this....

 

1. Yes, it seems to most likely be the case. I don't know about there has never been. No telling what may have been around the universe over billions and billions of years ago. Unless the government knows something we don't about another intelligent species. Which I also think "could" be possible.

 

2.Yes again. There is no "known" evidence, and as of right now with the current technology as far as we know, yes there is no way to find out for sure as far as we know. Lastly, yes, it is impossible to know for sure as it seems with current technology. Whether it will likely "remain" that way, well I don't know. We don't know what the future holds 50-200 years or more away. By that time (if humans still exist) IMO I think it's possible that they may find something that they never thought they would find.

 

 

 

 

Ok cool.  So we're clear I never contended that sitcom math applied to the unobservable universe although my gut tells me it does.  I do not think it applies to other dimensions or to parallel universes.  

 

I do do think it very much applies to the past which is why I say no societies ever existed in the observable universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2019 at 4:41 PM, 4merper4mer said:

Your contention is that the size of the observable universe is too small a sample size to detect trends?  That's a unique perspective.

Which variable in Drake do you believe to be wrong?  I'm not asking you to assign values to any of the variables, just point out which ones don't belong and/or what other variables need to be added.

4mer, just wanted to let you know i have not abandoned you here. real busy meatspace this past week. will try to get you a response this weekend.

 

:beer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Foxx said:

4mer, just wanted to let you know i have not abandoned you here. real busy meatspace this past week. will try to get you a response this weekend.

 

:beer:

Sounds good.  No rush.  There won't be any signals coming in by then or by the twelfth.

  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

 

On 7/17/2019 at 4:41 PM, 4merper4mer said:

Your contention is that the size of the observable universe is too small a sample size to detect trends?  That's a unique perspective.

Which variable in Drake do you believe to be wrong?  I'm not asking you to assign values to any of the variables, just point out which ones don't belong and/or what other variables need to be added.

4mer,

 

Drakes Equation is thus:

5b3a6c014447272a008b46a1-1334-623.png

 

i guess, for me, it is a belief that the equation is just plain wrong. it may have some or most of the variables correct but the one omission i would say it is lacking is probably the most important one, our ability to detect signals emitted. 

 

as i have alluded to with the Time article, the quantum entanglement nature of communications  all but rules out someone being able to detect a signal. any observance of the state of a particle collapses the entanglement. at most, all one would be able to detect might be a short burst before it collapsed. there are many of these so called bursts that disappear. 

 

we don't know what we don't know.

Edited by Foxx
  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Foxx said:

 

 

4mer,

 

Drakes Equation is thus:

5b3a6c014447272a008b46a1-1334-623.png

 

i guess, for me, it is a belief that the equation is just plain wrong. it may have some or most of the variables correct but the one omission i would say it is lacking is probably the most important one, our ability to detect signals emitted. 

 

as i have alluded to with the Time article, the quantum entanglement nature of communications  all but rules out someone being able to detect a signal. any observance of the state of a particle collapses the entanglement. at most, all one would be able to detect might be a short burst before it collapsed. there are many of these so called bursts that disappear. 

 

we don't know what we don't know.

Is that why all the radios are Earth have never worked and why we can't send signals to a machine on Mars?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, Foxx said:

 

 

4mer,

 

Drakes Equation is thus:

5b3a6c014447272a008b46a1-1334-623.png

 

i guess, for me, it is a belief that the equation is just plain wrong. it may have some or most of the variables correct but the one omission i would say it is lacking is probably the most important one, our ability to detect signals emitted. 

 

as i have alluded to with the Time article, the quantum entanglement nature of communications  all but rules out someone being able to detect a signal. any observance of the state of a particle collapses the entanglement. at most, all one would be able to detect might be a short burst before it collapsed. there are many of these so called bursts that disappear. 

 

we don't know what we don't know.

While I appreciate Drake’s contribution towards giving us a way to wrap our thoughts around the sheer magnitude of the question, the purist in me simply cannot label this as an “equation.” Just too many assumptions.

 

Like you said, we simply don’t know what we don’t know.

Edited by K-9
  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Is that why all the radios are Earth have never worked and why we can't send signals to a machine on Mars?

stop being disingenuous, freezie pops. here i thought you wanted to have an honest discussion.

 

to answer your sarcasm,... if you are observing, they surely won't on a quantum level.

Edited by Foxx
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

Any updates on this?

i guess not, Freezie Pops hasn't responded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Foxx said:

i guess not, Freezie Pops hasn't responded.

Responded to what?  Your nonsensical theory that all signals are undetectable?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know... this thread topic used to be a fun place to share goofy stories.

 

Now?

Not so much.

 

 

 

 

Thanks 4mer.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...