Why are we assuming aliens use money Seth? They may share resources and have some type of techno communism that allowed them to travel space. A senior astronomer? He’s an administrative government spokesman who probably hasn’t scienced in years.
Why are we assuming they use rockets, when no UAP ever has functioned even remotely like a rocket?
At some point these interviews sound intentionally stupid
They are intentionally stupid. It’s just not a conscious intention.
People suppress the recognition of the obvious, because the implications are deeply disturbing.
in this context, "money" is just a placeholder for concentrated, organized effort. its fine to speculate on what an advanced society is capable of, but extraordinary claims still require extaordinary evidence and we have none. as far as we know, even hypothetical aliens still have to obey the known laws of physics.
I understand what you mean, I thing the Kardashev scale is useful to put it in a perspective beyond dollars or even workhours.
extaordinary evidence and we have none.
None that we, the public, are aware of. Whether or not one consider a cover-up plausible is a bigger discussion. According to the latest
whispersshouts in Washington, there's quite a lot more. What's your impression of Grusch, the UFO whistleblower?aliens still have to obey the known laws of physics.
I absolutely agree. But maybe we have a differing point of view on our knowledge... Would you say that we understand the universe to the point where we can exclude any significant further discoveries that would transform our understanding of physics?
I personally believe that IF UAPs indeed represent extraterrestrial life, they are likely so advanced that energy probably holds no monetary value for them at this stage. There is so much energy in the universe; perhaps they've reached a point where they can harness any amount of energy whenever they wish.
techno communism
Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism
I don't understand his reasoning.
Once a civilization is thriving in space, materials are practically infinite, and self building factories mean that the only budget is time.
Personally I think that the great filter is surviving the pollution and climate destruction from a civilization's industrial revolution. And that very few civs make it past that to thrive in space. So we may get a big space faring civ every 10 million years or so, and we don't know whether a civ would stay as a space farer forever.
Unless there really is a whole field of physics that we haven't touched yet. If that's the case, all bets are off.
I personally believe there might be many "great filters" and we are simply at the filter between terrestrial and local space life. I feel like there would be another great filter between local space and interstellar space. There could even be another filter to access higher dimensions. This is purely speculation, but it's something I enjoy pondering.
Unless there really is a whole field of physics that we haven’t touched yet. If that’s the case, all bets are off.
I'm not a physicist, but it seems like we have the basic building blocks. It's clear we're missing a significant piece of the puzzle given that we're still unable to reconcile the physics of the very large (general relativity) with the physics of the very small (quantum mechanics). If I were a betting man, I'd place my chips on the notion that we only understand a small fraction of the nature of our reality and the rules that govern it.
An unbelievably fast rocket? Seriously? We don't really know how we're going to get to other stars but one thing is for sure: it will not be with rockets.
We don't have any other workable idea, and there doesn't appear to be enough physics we don't know to allow for anything else
We have plenty of workable ideas. Ion drives, fusion drives, nuclear drives to name just the most common ones. These probably won't take us to the stars, but at least to the solar system and they're not rockets.
there doesn't appear to be enough physics we don't know to allow for anything else
until we do! (my admission that we hopefully have so much more to discover).
however, the issue at hand is the here and now. we have theroms that describe what we know to be theoretically possible - but those are far and away from what we think is possible now, e.g. LK-99... AFAIK, there is nothing that says we cant have RT/AP superconductivity, but did we really just make a breakthrough?! (hopeful, fawning sounds)
we do still have to deal in what we currently think of as "reality" and things like FTL and the tech required for alien visitation are way outside of our current understanding - to the point of being magic. surely no one should accept "magic" as an answer to a serious question on possible alien visitation.
I always hate when scientists don't have an open mind to the fact that we don't know all the truths to the universe. Everything in his statement is biased to human culture and grasp of science. I think an important part of researching phenomenon like this is to think outside standard conventions.
That's also my concern. I question the basis of his reasoning, especially his use of terms like "rockets" and "money". He's viewing the situation through a very human lens, which is understandable. However, this results in a very "this is unlikely because I haven't seen it before" approach to reasoning.
Scientists do have an open mind. However it is only open to things that don't contradict existing experimental results. Relativity stands up well to experiments, so anything that replaces it will still be very similar.
And how does a “really powerful rocket” counteract experimental results?
All you need for interstellar travel without breakthroughs in physics is the ability to sustain a self contained ecosystem in your craft.
Humanity already has plans to send probes to Alpha Centauri, and the only technological price of that puzzle that’s missing is thinner solar sail material.
He does casually brush it off, and money isn't a scientific reason to dismiss anything. I'm skeptical too, but this was a terrible approach.
Money represents effort and resources, so while it is worded flippant it is a valid point that we shouldn't assume interplanetary flight is just a weekend away for aliens.
Here's a thought experiment. Let's operate under the assumption that UAPs represent extraterrestrial beings. I would assume they aren't using traditional rockets or methods we currently understand to get here. We know the speed of light is constant, but what if they aren't traversing spacetime as we understand it, from point A to point B? Perhaps there are other methods of travel we can't even comprehend.
What do you all think?
Idk, seems kinda sus. Everyone knows that computers never evolved past punch cards and vacuum tubes.
I know I don’t think they worry about money. Seth’s seen too much DS9 and Quark.
There are other methods of travel, which we do comprehend.
The Alcubierre warp drive is a theoretical machine that with about a baskeball sized chunk of antimatter, could accelerate a region of space.
Incidentally, an Alcubierre warp-enabled ship could probably destroy a planet with interstellar dust picked up on the journey.
The Alcubierre warp drive is a good example. Thanks for bringing that up.
I think gravity based propulsion could be a part of it. Is the speed of light constant if someone can mess with the M in E=MC²? Would a piloted craft be unbound by inertia and make impossible maneuvers, accelerate from 0-1000 mph. with no problems if it had no mass?
Gravity based propulsion would explain a few of the unexplainable things. And recent scientific discoveries surrounding gravity does more to support the possibility than disprove it.
Energy are rumored to come from zero-point energy, tech close indistinguishable it or stabilized Moscovium. Whatever it is, based on what we publicly know it's not using any propulsion system we're familiar with - So that rules out chemical rocketry from the start.
I think gravity based propulsion could be a part of it. Is the speed of light constant if someone can mess with the M in E=MC²? Would a piloted craft be unbound by inertia and make impossible maneuvers, accelerate from 0-1000 mph. with no problems if it had no mass?
I'm no physicist so your guess is as good as mine.
Gravity based propulsion would explain a few of the unexplainable things. And recent scientific discoveries surrounding gravity does more to support the possibility than disprove it.
Dr. Hal Puthoff and Dr. Eric Davis have written several papers detailing this exact concept. Essentially, they posit that all the phenomena observed can be explained through gravity-based propulsion. I'd have to find them, but they are published scientific papers.
Energy are rumored to come from zero-point energy, tech close indistinguishable it or stabilized Moscovium. Whatever it is, based on what we publicly know it’s not using any propulsion system we’re familiar with - So that rules out chemical rocketry from the start.
I agree that it seems impossible that any chemical reaction could generate the amount of energy required to warp spacetime.
Capitalist says dumb thing. News at 11.
Person who doesn't know who Seth Shostak is comments on the internet.
I'm not sure which part of studying physics or teaching or working at a non-profit makes him a big scary capitalist but I'm willing to listen to an honest critique if you have one.
"I want to believe" as much as the next guy but shoehorning the most recent thing we're mad about into every conversation doesn't really contribute.
“Your Majesty crossing the Ocean would require a massive Horse the size of ten or even an hundred Elephants”
Ignoring the absurdity in his reply, I honestly think he's probably just butthurt that if aliens are here, they haven't reached out to him yet.
