Universities, scientific funding bodies, goverments, and the like. The usual types that fund pure science research. You honestly think that pure research is a waste of money?:\
We'd all like to not have to worry about money, but this is unfortunately the real world.
If you're not happy with this account then there's no way you'd be happy with any.
A fair assessment. Significant deviations in description (cylinder the size of a bus, saucer with hemispherical dome on top) are to be expected, even if these seem excessive. There are many sightings listed without references, (egyptian pilot, klm flight), but its only wikipedia. The description of 'waves of elecromagnetism' was cringeworthy, but that wasn't a physicist talking, so I can't complain too much. The reports of it overflying the control tower would appear to have only emerged years after the rest of the reports, which would seem remarkably odd, and lastly, the loud noise heard by the occupants of the 'nearby house' would likely be the sound of the F4 overflying.
I've never heard of this incident before, but on the assumption that the wikipedia summary is largely accurate, we can agree that something really weird happened. Multiple equipment failure certainly seems unlikely, particularly in seperate aircraft. Crazy physcological effects, combined with incompetance, also seem unlikely. Alien spaceship? Very unlikely. In fact, every single explanation seems very unlikely. Except perhaps deliberate fabrication, which is only somewhat unlikely. But it's still unlikely.
Some combination of the above? Possible, I guess. Proof of aliens? No. Proof of aliens would be "look, this is an alien!"
And don't even get me started on what possible motivation any intelligent species could have for expending vastly more energy than every human extra-terrestrial endeavour combined, just to come and annoy a couple of planes.
That's not really my point. I more mean that scientists have jobs, and work for money, just like everyone else. If you want a high profile inter-disciplinary scientific investigation of UFOs, you've got to cough up some serious cash.
most seem to have a ionisation glow, if that can be any indication of what it does.
Lol. Cos all glows are due to ionisation, ofc. Want to investigate? Take a spectrograph next time you go party with one of these things, and tell us exactly what is ionising.
You just don't seem to get what everyone else is saying to you. The most likely explanation is still perceptual and sensory glitches. In radar hardware, and in the mind. Seriously, its very easy to screw up your mind and see stuff wrong, or stuff that isn't there.
Now I've heard stories too, of bright lights swiftly changing directions and all the rest of it, yadda yadda. That doesn't mean they have to be alien craft. Frankly, if i were a pilot, with so damn little to do these days due to automation, I reckon making up a UFO story would be almost as fun as announcing "ladies and gentlemen, the wings fell off... only joking" - but much less likely to get me fired.
If most such phenomena are easily explained, then it does follow that it is a possibility that all can be explained.
Evidence is still what's missing. Belief != evidence.
When you can't tell what something is, you should look for an explanation for it
Indeed. With an open mind and open eyes. If you go into such an investigation convinced of what you will find (UFOs [i]must be[/i] alien craft), thats probably what you'll conclude. But no one will believe you, and not because of a conspiricy, but because you [i]are not honestly investigating[/i].
I will believe UFOs are alien craft the day i see some evidence of such. Some evidence that isn't a crappy low-budget Channel 5 [UK] documentary in the same vein as the "lunar landings were hoaxed" crap. Now we understand that you can't be bothered with evidence because [i]you know[/i] its true, but frankly if you think thats good enough, you're deluded.
Want me to believe in alien craft? Ok, show me. Made up website narratives don't count. Don't give me crappy contradictory narrative accounts, cos the human mind is capable of making up all sorts of crap. Isn't it interesting how when people see these things, the photos never seem to come out right? Extaordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To my knowledge, no one has ever seen any.
I'm sorry for getting on the hate wagon, but what 'good' is there in a church in the middle of the poorest neighborhoods looking like the playboy mansion? It's obscene how much money the church collects. If they were good organizations, they would put that money to good purpose like the neighborhoods they take from.
As a Christian, I completely agree. Its the responsibility of a church in a poor neighbourhood to care for and help the community.
Unfortunately, Christians aren't perfect, no matter how much they or others expect them to be.
Not really, no. Such distortion effects account for the Axis, but that's about it. We're not suddenly gonna realise that the universe is actually contracting, or that the galaxy is spinning backwards, or anything like that. Its a very small thing, and a lot less upsetting for cosmologists than the Axis.
Well yeah, there was the 'silly political reference' - but most importantly, the pattern implies that the universe, which should be anisotropic, has a shape. In fact, according to measurements of the Axis, the entire universe is pointing in a particular direction (the 'axis' part). And that goes against a helluva lot of cosmological theory, hence the 'evil' part.
It is left as an exercise for the user to determine why the word 'of' was included in the name.
Not really. If hubble taught us anything, its that space telescopes can compensate for weird lens effects. Of course, getting to L2 to run a service mission is out of the question, so lets hope Planck's physical lenses are up to the job!
Actually, I find your attitude far more terrifying...
I find your attitude particularly alarming. Firstly, you seem to be arguing that the rules for everyone should be based around allowing you to do whatever gives you a thrill. Your argue that speed limits should be based on the limits of what is safe for a peak performing driver in a perfectly-maintained vehicle, and so presumably are asserting that the speed limit should be deliberately unsafe for the majority of drivers. I simply cannot think of any way that this makes sense, unless the sole consideration is allowing you to do exactly what you want, regardless of the effects such rules would have on others.
... especially given your last sentence that speaks volume as to your level of respect for other people. YOU aren't any more a representative of the "society" you mention than I.
Secondly, judging from the above comment you seem unable or unwilling to accept that the rules and acceptable limits for a society do not have to be based solely on the attributes of any one individual, but actually tend to be a collective thing. And one nitpicking point: assuming that you're american, and that JonathanBoyd is British, then he by definition is more representative of UK society than you. On account of being part of it. If either assumed nationality there is wrong, my apologies to the parties concerned.
You wouldn't possibly be implying that someone was grossly exaggerating the figures to hype up their own pet cause, would you? In this day and age, that would be simply unimaginable.
'excessive speed is one of the primary ways that people are killed while driving'
Here was me thinking it was crashing into things that killed people, rather than simply travelling fast. Remind me never to fly again. Or take the train!
The laws were obviously intended to be a one-way system. On the other hand, I recall one short story where teh president of the USA was suspected to be a robot, and it was postulated that attempting to prove this by showing him to be constrained by the 3 laws would fail, as a particularly moral human individual may well tend to follow the following:
0. A human may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
1. A human may not injure another human or, through inaction, allow a human to come to harm.
2. A human must obey orders given to it by other humans, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A human must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Slashdot Mirror
Universities, scientific funding bodies, goverments, and the like. The usual types that fund pure science research. You honestly think that pure research is a waste of money? :\
We'd all like to not have to worry about money, but this is unfortunately the real world.
Although I'd like to point out that we ourselves go at great expenses to "annoy a couple of Martian pebbles" ;-).
Lol. Ok, thats actually embarassingly funny.
If you're not happy with this account then there's no way you'd be happy with any.
A fair assessment. Significant deviations in description (cylinder the size of a bus, saucer with hemispherical dome on top) are to be expected, even if these seem excessive. There are many sightings listed without references, (egyptian pilot, klm flight), but its only wikipedia. The description of 'waves of elecromagnetism' was cringeworthy, but that wasn't a physicist talking, so I can't complain too much. The reports of it overflying the control tower would appear to have only emerged years after the rest of the reports, which would seem remarkably odd, and lastly, the loud noise heard by the occupants of the 'nearby house' would likely be the sound of the F4 overflying.
I've never heard of this incident before, but on the assumption that the wikipedia summary is largely accurate, we can agree that something really weird happened. Multiple equipment failure certainly seems unlikely, particularly in seperate aircraft. Crazy physcological effects, combined with incompetance, also seem unlikely. Alien spaceship? Very unlikely. In fact, every single explanation seems very unlikely. Except perhaps deliberate fabrication, which is only somewhat unlikely. But it's still unlikely.
Some combination of the above? Possible, I guess. Proof of aliens? No. Proof of aliens would be "look, this is an alien!"
And don't even get me started on what possible motivation any intelligent species could have for expending vastly more energy than every human extra-terrestrial endeavour combined, just to come and annoy a couple of planes.
That's not really my point. I more mean that scientists have jobs, and work for money, just like everyone else. If you want a high profile inter-disciplinary scientific investigation of UFOs, you've got to cough up some serious cash.
most seem to have a ionisation glow, if that can be any indication of what it does.
Lol. Cos all glows are due to ionisation, ofc. Want to investigate? Take a spectrograph next time you go party with one of these things, and tell us exactly what is ionising.
You just don't seem to get what everyone else is saying to you. The most likely explanation is still perceptual and sensory glitches. In radar hardware, and in the mind. Seriously, its very easy to screw up your mind and see stuff wrong, or stuff that isn't there.
Now I've heard stories too, of bright lights swiftly changing directions and all the rest of it, yadda yadda. That doesn't mean they have to be alien craft. Frankly, if i were a pilot, with so damn little to do these days due to automation, I reckon making up a UFO story would be almost as fun as announcing "ladies and gentlemen, the wings fell off... only joking" - but much less likely to get me fired.
If most such phenomena are easily explained, then it does follow that it is a possibility that all can be explained.
Evidence is still what's missing. Belief != evidence.
Dammit, all "scientists" should abandon their careers and investigate UFOs for me!
Fixed that for you. You know 'scientist' is not the same thing as 'no-fee private investigator' ...
When you can't tell what something is, you should look for an explanation for it
Indeed. With an open mind and open eyes. If you go into such an investigation convinced of what you will find (UFOs [i]must be[/i] alien craft), thats probably what you'll conclude. But no one will believe you, and not because of a conspiricy, but because you [i]are not honestly investigating[/i].
I will believe UFOs are alien craft the day i see some evidence of such. Some evidence that isn't a crappy low-budget Channel 5 [UK] documentary in the same vein as the "lunar landings were hoaxed" crap. Now we understand that you can't be bothered with evidence because [i]you know[/i] its true, but frankly if you think thats good enough, you're deluded.
Want me to believe in alien craft? Ok, show me. Made up website narratives don't count. Don't give me crappy contradictory narrative accounts, cos the human mind is capable of making up all sorts of crap. Isn't it interesting how when people see these things, the photos never seem to come out right? Extaordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To my knowledge, no one has ever seen any.
Yes, that was always the plan. Because its colder then, electricity costs for all that supercooling are higher. Oh.
Ah crap, I fail. 2 hydros and 1 oxy, ofc.
Water as we know it contains Oxygen.
Hate to break it to you, but if it didn't contain 1 hydrogen atom and 2 oxgen atoms per molecule, it wouldn't be water.
Locally, and temporarily.
I'm sorry for getting on the hate wagon, but what 'good' is there in a church in the middle of the poorest neighborhoods looking like the playboy mansion? It's obscene how much money the church collects. If they were good organizations, they would put that money to good purpose like the neighborhoods they take from.
As a Christian, I completely agree. Its the responsibility of a church in a poor neighbourhood to care for and help the community.
Unfortunately, Christians aren't perfect, no matter how much they or others expect them to be.
It would be interesting to know whether the apparent red/blue shifts from galaxy observations could be accounted
Minutely.
it could call for a revision of many theories regarding the topology of the Universe, and its ultimate fate.
Possible, but at nothing like the scale which the confirmed existance of the Axis of Evil would have.
Come on guys, its Vger, not Vyger. Get your pointy ears on the right way around!
Yeah, and it doesn't even have bluetooth!
Not really, no. Such distortion effects account for the Axis, but that's about it. We're not suddenly gonna realise that the universe is actually contracting, or that the galaxy is spinning backwards, or anything like that. Its a very small thing, and a lot less upsetting for cosmologists than the Axis.
Well yeah, there was the 'silly political reference' - but most importantly, the pattern implies that the universe, which should be anisotropic, has a shape. In fact, according to measurements of the Axis, the entire universe is pointing in a particular direction (the 'axis' part). And that goes against a helluva lot of cosmological theory, hence the 'evil' part.
It is left as an exercise for the user to determine why the word 'of' was included in the name.
Only with regards to minute errors in direction.
Not really. If hubble taught us anything, its that space telescopes can compensate for weird lens effects. Of course, getting to L2 to run a service mission is out of the question, so lets hope Planck's physical lenses are up to the job!
and they never had filler episodes
While I agree with everything else you say, you clearly aren't remembering that funeral episode.
Actually, I find your attitude far more terrifying ...
I find your attitude particularly alarming. Firstly, you seem to be arguing that the rules for everyone should be based around allowing you to do whatever gives you a thrill. Your argue that speed limits should be based on the limits of what is safe for a peak performing driver in a perfectly-maintained vehicle, and so presumably are asserting that the speed limit should be deliberately unsafe for the majority of drivers. I simply cannot think of any way that this makes sense, unless the sole consideration is allowing you to do exactly what you want, regardless of the effects such rules would have on others.
... especially given your last sentence that speaks volume as to your level of respect for other people. YOU aren't any more a representative of the "society" you mention than I.
Secondly, judging from the above comment you seem unable or unwilling to accept that the rules and acceptable limits for a society do not have to be based solely on the attributes of any one individual, but actually tend to be a collective thing. And one nitpicking point: assuming that you're american, and that JonathanBoyd is British, then he by definition is more representative of UK society than you. On account of being part of it. If either assumed nationality there is wrong, my apologies to the parties concerned.
You wouldn't possibly be implying that someone was grossly exaggerating the figures to hype up their own pet cause, would you? In this day and age, that would be simply unimaginable.
'excessive speed is one of the primary ways that people are killed while driving'
Here was me thinking it was crashing into things that killed people, rather than simply travelling fast. Remind me never to fly again. Or take the train!
The laws were obviously intended to be a one-way system. On the other hand, I recall one short story where teh president of the USA was suspected to be a robot, and it was postulated that attempting to prove this by showing him to be constrained by the 3 laws would fail, as a particularly moral human individual may well tend to follow the following:
0. A human may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
1. A human may not injure another human or, through inaction, allow a human to come to harm.
2. A human must obey orders given to it by other humans, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A human must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
He named it thus to (presumably) reflect the naming convention that gave us the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics