Loc: the ancient forests of MiddleE...
hehe we could start a whole new thread.. "Does WackyBaccy make you see UFO's?"<br><br>=============================================================<br>| "Behold the Turtle, he maketh no progress ==== until he sticketh out his neck." |<br>=============================================================
#8400 - 05/31/0204:08 AMHooray for science! (long)
Thanks for injecting some healthy scientific principles into the thread. I used to be the one who always chipped in a little primer on Ockam's Razor, falsifiable hypotheses and the perils of ruby slippers.<br><br>That said, I know where Shooshie is coming from. A cursory glance at the history of science sends up a huge warning flare about making absolute statements about reality. To assert that of all the generations who have ever lived on Earth, ours is the one that has finally worked it out - with no more turn-it-all-on-its-head surprises in store - is to fall into the same kind of homocentric trap that convinced people that Earth was the center of the universe, humans were not animals, etc etc.<br><br>I remember when studying my field (geology), I'd have a lecture in the morning about, say, plate tectonics, in which everything would be presented as incontrovertible fact; then, in the afternoon, I'd go to a lecture in the Arts faculty where we studied the history of geology, and learned that a scientific consensus on plate tectonics was only 10 years old!<br><br>Do I 'believe in' plate tectonics? Sure.<br><br>Do I 'believe in' c as the maximum speed anything can travel? Sure.<br><br>Do I think that a few generations hence Relativity and Plate Tectonics will be considered the last word in astrophysics and geology? No way, Jose.<br><br>I am very impressed that no-one in this thread has seriously stood up for an alien explanation for UFOs, and that we all seem to agree that 'Unidentified' doesn't mean 'Supernatural'. <br><br>I have wanted to see a UFO since I was 8 years old, but never have. I have, however, seen two ghosts - which takes me on to the next part of my epic post...<br><br>My preferred explanation for both UFOs and ghosts is pretty simple - they're the noise in our perception systems. Any electronic mechanism will have some noise amongst the signal. In particular, we humans have the most amazing pattern-recognition system - unthinkably more advanced than any algorithm we can dream up - but it's hypersensitivity means that it is subject to false positives: in short, to seeing things that aren't there. Both my ghost 'sightings' (a woman who was there one second and gone the next while I was in the woods one night; and a young girl who sat on the end of my bed early one morning) were incredibly convincing, but I have no problem putting them down to buggy perception. <br><br>This is where science kicks in: the suite of perceptions that accompanied the sightings (strong smell, unexpected emotional response, sudden silence) are compatible with (but not enough to prove) my hypothesis that I was experiencing a momentary sensory hallucination, and there was no evidence to suggest an alternative explanation. The hallucination hypothesis is far simpler and more likely than the proposition that our understanding of such a fundamental thing as death is all wrong, so I'll go with that. If, however, some alternative evidence was to emerge (other sightings of an identical nature; a pattern in time or space to such sightings etc), then it would be appropriate to weigh that evidence and reconsider the hypothesis.<br><br>But could ghosts and UFOs be a manifestation of some kind of Shooshie-a-rific, non-local, non-causal 'susperscience' that we are still centuries away from uncovering? Sure. In fact, in the longer run, I'd say it's likely. But does that mean we should throw up our hands, give up on science, and let the pseudoscientific barbarians through the gates? No way.<br><br>Whew. Finished now. Thanks for getting this far.<br><br>deebee<br><br><br>
Actually, the photon effect that Shooshie refers to has been demonstrated experimentally.<br><br>edit: It's true that quantum effects aren't "observable" other than at the atomic/sub-atomic level. Nonetheless, the major impasse that theoretical physics finds itself in at this point is directly a consequence of the impossibility of reconciling quantum and relativity theories. After all, if there's a theory that explains big things that are made up of small things, but that theory doesn't take into account the way small things behave, there's an obvious conceptual problem. The central problem comes precisely at the point where relativity must come to terms with quantum theory, at the point, in other words, that the universe comes into being in the Big Bang. At such small size and intense density quantum gravity becomes an imponderable, because not theorized, phenomenon. One way of conceiving of that origin is tha the Big Bang is a "random fluctuation in the quantum void"--which implies that, absent quantum mechanics, there would be no gravity because there'd be no spacetime. That formula has grow threadbare over the last quarter century, though, because in being so comprehensive, it doesn't explain anything in particular. I'm reading a very interesting book right now, The Life of the Cosmos, by Lee Smolin, in which a much more interesting way of conceiving of the origin of the universe is presented. It's an Oxford UP book, but whoever edited it ought to be shot because poor Smolin is made guilty of a lot of grammatical and spelling errors that should have been picked up and corrected before printing. Still, if anyone is interested in cosmology, I recommend it highly.<br><br>Great wits are sure to madness near allied.--John Dryden, "Absalom and Achitophel"<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by yoyo52 on 05/31/02 00:29 AM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
Loc: the ancient forests of MiddleE...
an abbreviated and amended quote.. sorry MachOne<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>a bright light appeared to the south and travelled north, at high speed, just above the roofline of the houses that backed on to my home., it took maybe 15 seconds to travel from the point we first saw it until it disappeared from sight in the north, presumably dropping below roofline level, the speed across the sky was(possibly beyond) such that only a high performance jet aircraft would have been capable of such a feat, the altitude was never(appearing to be) any greater than 1000 to 1500 feet. The light source itself was not in keeping with a landing light, which invariably shines in the direction the aircraft is travelling. When the object was directly in front of us, and subsequently moving away, the light shone with an intensity that never seemed to diminish until it was finally lost from view.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Though not attempting to take away from your experience.. I am trying to add to it.<br>I could well imagine that this could well be a meteor(not a meteorite), of the larger type.. <br>These travel very fast in what could only be called a flat trajectory and what you describe fits....with both my experiences and watcher's description of a large meteor/asteroid. <br>Though his(meteor) appears to have arched across the sky, as it should .. his was at night and in a place where he could see the whole hemisphere of night. Yours was a fleeting glimpse by comparison. <br>The big difference between yours and his (UFO); is that yours did not appear to deviate from its course.<br>Your experience sounds much more like his meteor description.. <br>The light "always looking at you" also fits with the description of "looking up the arse end of a jet that follows your eye"...a meteor.<br><br>watcher's eperience is much more of a UFO.. he appears to have seen plenty of meteors and other phenomena. Enough to allow him to know that what he saw, was different.<br><br>steveG's experience could easily be eplained as watcher said, but at the same time it could not.. and I have to reserve the same kind of judgement in all cases since I was not there to see what was actually seen.. Even our own descriptons become vague enough to allow ourselves to believe that what we saw differently.. as time passes. <br><br>So until you agree yours was a meteor.. it shall stay a UFO<br><br>=============================================================<br>| "Behold the Turtle, he maketh no progress ==== until he sticketh out his neck." |<br>=============================================================
I have to say that my description was of my impressions. Your edits are totally resonable. There was no intent to make more of the sighting than actually occured, so I wrote of what I observed then and my subsequent rationalisation.<br><br>You may be correct in your suggestion that a meteor was responsible, rather than a meteorite. Since I claim no expertise in the visual phenomena associated with meteors, I am not about to dismiss the possibility. I'm just curious. Carp's suggestion of a satellite is also a possibility.<br><br>I am certain, in my sceptical way, that there was no alien connection. <br><br><br><br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>and a young girl who sat on the end of my bed early one morning<p><hr></blockquote><p>Snap. Except mine was a man I didn't recognise, and he was standing at the end of my bed. I admit to being quite fearful, thinking it was an intruder. He just stood there watching me. I closed my eyes for a moment, why I don't know, and surprise, I could still see him. Then I sat upright and he was gone. It might be pertinent that I had a strep throat at the time and I was running a fever. What that experience did for me was to give me a frame of reference to deal with the concept of ghosts. Having hallucinated, it's now really easy for me to accept that others' experiences might also the result of hallucination.<br><br>
#8406 - 05/31/0202:12 PMRe: Hooray for science! (long)
Not only did I make it to the end, but I was engrossed. It helps that I completely agree with you. I trust that nobody thinks that I accept our present understanding of things as the "last word". I understand that science is always willing to (eventually) move one when its explanations provably do not work. That said, the general theory of relativity has proven remarkably durable over the last 90 or so years.<br><br>[color:red]John</font color=red>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.