I can think of a couple of reasons no astronomer told Patrick Moore that he'd had a UFO sighting. However, according to a survey of members of the American Astronomical Society, several have. Google Jnl. of Scientific Exploration, 8, 2, for results.
@Kokainuser: By that logic I am immortal because I believe I will never die and I am 100% right, unless I die. Yes, I am comparing UFOs today with meteorites in 1840. Besides, a lot of credible people have reported UFO sightings, including about 5% of the members of the American Astronomical Society.
@RMax304823 " a lot of credible people have reported UFO sightings, including about 5% of the members of the American Astronomical Society."
I find that impossible to believe. Patrick Moore said that of all the reports he had of UFOs he had never gotten one from a professional astronomer and they spend more time looking at the sky than most people
I don't want to argue. He was a brilliant guy but a bit too sure of himself. In the case of UFOs, he uses a logic gotten from David Hume. If something can be explained by two miracles, he'll choose the simpler of the two miracles. For Feynman, it leads to a qualified belief that sightings are the result of human error rather than anything else. Karl Popper would have pointed out that all swans are white -- until you see one black swan. Pauling was a Nobelist too, wrong about many things.
He's mostly right. It's a matter of probabilities. But crazies and hoaxes aside, he doesn't seem to realize that it only takes ONE real event to turn the probabilities upside down. And he's never been a witness to such an event although thousands of others have. He's too sure of himself. Someone should ask if he "believes in" meteors, because it wasn't long ago that stones falling from the sky was just as unlikely an event.
@RMax304823 If you think you understand probability better than Feynman did, then drop us a line when you get your Nobel Prize - his was for work on QED, which sort of demands an understanding of probability.
Indeed, it is more likely that the things we see in the air (i never personally saw one), come from our planet, from military experiments for example. It is more likely because we don't know any aliens (as far as I'm concerned...), but we sometimes know what does our military. So before saying it comes from the aliens, we have to prove it doesnt come from the army. Feynman is 100% right.
Richard was having a conversation with "the layman". Richard did not have knowledge of or access to the plethora of Government Documents and UFO files that we now have today.
Feynman was also completely dead wrong on his hypothetical limit of smallness for nanotechnology. Although perhaps correct about the limits of conventional circuitry, he did not have any knowledge of photonic crystals or the technology to use photons instead of electrons.
Feynman was right about a lot, but not everything.
@AlienScientist If your life was at stake on your answer being correct, would you say that aliens have visited Earth or not? Feynman's isn't saying that alien encounters definitely have not happened, but that it most LIKELY has not happened. I know where I would place my bet...
@AlienScientist If a science (so-called) exists only in the realm of speculation and has not been successfully tested by the peers within our scientific communities, it seems foolish to simply presuppose that they exist. It's not unlike saying, "I have found absolutely no evidence or argument that would compel me to accept any of the numerous god-claims humans have made, so I'll go ahead and presuppose that a deity exists."
But the problem is that UFOs don't just exist in the realm of speculation. We have many documented cases that cannot be explained.
The last real scientific investigation into UFOs was over 40 years ago, and it was heavily compromised by the interests of the military and government.
I find it much more likely that Aliens exist, than a God... And there a heck of a lot more evidence that Aliens exist than a God.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I think Feynman was talking out his ass. How does he know what is more or less likely re UFOs when we haven't determined if they come from this solar system. He insulred many expert witnessess saying that. Lot of assumption if you ask me.
Everyone is so hell bent on relativity being completely correct. When in fact scientists have synthesized waves traveling a thousand times(!) the speed of light. Look up Podkletnov if you want to see proof.
I am willing to bet everything I own that the speed of light is not in fact the absolute top universal speed.
Any scientist today that would argue the speed of light is absolute is ignorant.
Instead of countering my point or informing me of a mistake, you question my intelligence. Great science there edgefucker20.
I am fully aware that C is not absolute - all particles travel at all speeds all the time, however at scales above the incredibly small - anything larger than the diameter of a proton - it is an inviolable constant.
Many interesting effects and intricacies of natural law appear to break SR but none of these carry information! On closer inspection, all is well.
Relativity simply says that information & particles cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Waves themselves can indeed travel faster than the speed of light. However, photons absolutely cannot. No information travels faster than light speed. Superluminal waves cannot be used to transmit information in any possible way. Therefore, they are not of much use. If you want to know why particles & information have this limit, read "group waves" on Wikipedia. The animation is very helpful too.
@IsLikeThat No, waves dont travel faster than the speed of light. Phase speed can sometimes be larger than the speed of light, but the only "physical significance of a wave" lies in the wave front of the group of waves.
@IsLikeThat Well, that's complicated lol. Because even group of waves can go faster. Or group speed can even be negative. That's sounds crazy but it's like that.
@edgekrusher20 In experiments where the light goes faster than c its usually a trick where the phase velocity is faster than c. This does not mean that any information can exceed light speed so relativity is still OK. (The wiki links green and red dots are illustrative. Relativity requires the green dots be at c. It does not require the same of the red ones)
@edgekrusher20 Actually, it's not that matter and energy can't travel faster than light. It's that it can only travel at that speed. It is the one allowed speed. All matter and energy travel at that speed, just in different directions. So, slower that light speed is not possible either. Only the direction within 4 dimensional space may change. We can only see 3 dimensions & that gives us the illusion that matter is speeding up or slowing. In reality its velocity is changing direction, not speed.
There are many good understandable explanations on relativity out there, just google a bit. Its worth the effort. Relativity and quantum theory are the 2 most astonishing and fascinating theoriesn out there i believe, since strings so far are not proven, thus fascinating but all too speculative for me so far
Speaking of quantum gravity... Most material I have read on UFO propulsion suggests that they are able to generate artificial gravity fields. Rendering the craft totally void of inertia.
If a ship could technically eliminate it's mass, would it be bound to the constraints of relativity??
Sure. In the RT nothing can go faster than light, no matter if it does have mass or not. Things that does hav emass, cant even reach the speed of light, but can get very close, at very high costs on energy. For instance to go from 99.9 to 99.99 you need 10 times the energy you needed to go to 99.9. To go to 99.999 you need again 10 times the energy and so on (the main reason particle accellarators need so ridiculous much energy)
I knew that the amount of energy required to accelerate a particle grew exponentially at relativistic speeds.. I didn't know, however, the rate at which the energy required grew..thanks for that tid bit :)
But i must admit, that the theory breaks down at other extrem points, so it might be, that there is something wrong here as well. But so far the data from particle accelerators back einstein here up. But i really hope, that cern finds asomething in the LHC, ones they get it working properly. But so far the wildlife tries to sabotage that ^^ Apparently a bird dropped some bread on a wire, thus destroyed one supermagnet through overheating
I think you would love AlienScientist's channel here on YT, he both makes good videos, and is extremely bright, focusing on the physics of theoretical and declassified antigravity research
But i really hope that i am wrong here. The next 20-50 years will show us hopefully, how many planets suitable for lifeforms like ourselves are within say 1k lightyears. Then this question can be answered better. They would also be able to detect pure oxygen in the atmosphere, a clear sign of life. I really look forward to that moment,even if its only bacterial lifeform, i would be totally thrilled. I hope to live and see that day.
Now for an extremly long living creature. That is a chance, but again a very slim one. I am absolutely sure, that we are no the only sapient lifeform in the universe, but i think we are pretty rare. Have you guys heard of the drake equation ? I find it pretty improbalbe that there is another sapient lifeform nearer than 1000 lightyears, so even a lifeform with 10k years lifespan couldnt make 1 way in his life.
Hmmm. Could I conceive of an extraordinarily long lived species? Well, there are certainly examples of ridiculously long lived living things here on our planet. Most of them a bit short of opposable thumbs etc.. We have living things that dry out to leather in baked mudballs and turn back into happy little fishies when you add water after years and years. Do I think that spacefaring Methuselahs might drop in to poke things up our bums? If they look like Daria Werbowy, I sure hope so!
I don't know if I fully agree with Feynman's point of view on this matter..
If one is willing to say that life on Earth isn't a product of some cosmic miracle; implying that life is fairly common in the galaxy-or universe-then us being visited by ET's becomes an inevitability.
Frank Drake himself postulated that there could be over 10,000 intelligient civilizations in our galaxy.
Well, its not unlikely that other sapient lifeforms exist. Its just very unlikely that they come visit us , under the laws of physic as we know it. It just would take them much too long and would be too "expensive".
Herein lies the problem. Scientists today are to close-minded to consider the possibility that an advanced civilization has figured out a way to travel the vast distances associated with interstellar travel in a reasonable amount of time.
If you look at our own history it is riddled with scientists being negativists on certain phenomena they thought impossible only to be proven wrong.
Lord Kelvin.. President of The Royal Society in England made the claim (eight years before the Wright Brothers flew at Kitty Hawk) that Heavier-than-air flight was impossible.
Nobody thought the sound barrier was breakable...
You can go on for a very long time with situations like this, and here we are confronted with the same scenario.
Are we going to fall into the same pattern again? Or are we going to consider our own past and think outside the box???
In both cases they made claims based on their guts, not on the laws of nature. Especially the first claim was pretty stupid, since he should have known about birds ^^. But the theory of relativity is, though incomplete , one of our best proofed theories in physics. I honestly cant see a way for a flight faster than light. If we would find a way around it, then it could be possible. Perhaps the quantum tgheory in gravity will show us a way, who knows ?
Your very right, the Theory of Relativity is one of the great scientific achievements of mankind, and like you say, it's predictions have proven true time over.
To be honest I can't physically comprehend a way of traveling faster than the speed of light either. In order to do so would go against physical laws as we know them... however...
"they have devised of beating or cheating the physical laws of our universe"
If they beat or cheat the laws, they are no longer laws.
People don't seem to understand that physical laws are not something we pull out of our ass, they are OBSERVATIONS, something that is found to be inviolable in the empirical data, whether we understand why or not.
With regards to the speed of light, we first observed that the speed of light was inviolable, then Einstein showed us why.
When I refered to them as laws I did so bearing in mind our current knowledge. Newton's framework held the status of your so called 'laws' for centuries.. but was he totally correct????
Could you possibly be arrogant enough to believe that our current knowledge of physics is as complete as the statements you make would suggest????
"Newton's framework held the status of your so called 'laws' for centuries.. but was he totally correct?"
Yes, he was. Relativity didn't invalidate Newton's laws, it just provided a deeper understanding and explained some corner cases (like the precession of Mercury's orbit). NASA still uses Newton's laws to calculate orbits. We used them to get to the Moon and we'll use them to get to Mars.
"Could you possibly be arrogant enough to believe that our current knowledge of physics is complete"
That wasn't my point. You act as if the laws of physics are fucking arbitrary, easily violated if you just have enough time to think about it. Nowhere in the observable Universe -- dozen of decillion cubic light-years -- do we see anything travel faster than light, and in the 20th century we found out why (the nature of spacetime itself prohibits it). You're arguing for magic.
well, this case is different. The laws of physics as we know them simply forbid that this is possible. So unless we find a major flaw in them its reasonalbe to assume that interstellar travel just for a visit is pretty impossible. I dont say its impossible (neither does feynman) just very improbable
perception is reality and reality is perception...Whom posting here believe that THEY are right in their thinking???? we are ALL right! get it!? It's a debate that will persist until all senses are participatory on a legionary scale, not as a collective but the contrary
Down that path lies "the golden rule" which prevents the sane (a person looking out for his/her self interest) from becoming a sociopath or whatever other stuff you mentioned.
BTW, if, as you say, objectivity is an illusion, how can all actions and reactions be equally valid? I don't understand, since, to me, that is the very definition of objectivity..
What I said was that if you believe that science can be subjective then you might as well believe that morals are subjective too.
The "everyone's opinion is as valid as everyone else's" attitude is a damn sight more dangerous than just saying to some of these nutters... "look - you're wrong "
But.. morals ARE subjective. Based only on consensus and/or scriptures. Why else do you think religious people are so afraid of atheists? Science might also be wrong (thus subjective) but since we have to make sense of our world somehow, with our given limited perceptions, we better assume it is true. Untill we know exactly how it all started we can't be certain about anything.
Given the probability that there is a high chance that there is other lifeforms elsewhere in space, it is likely that they will be wandering the same thing.
The result of terrestrial irrationality... reminds me of governments. In which case they are very unlikely to be alien. Feynman may be trying to tell you something!
Well that's good and all. That doesn't explain the BIG BLACK Triangle i was on april 2 2009 over miami......closes thing i could think of is a B2 Bomber...and i got out of the Air Force 2 yrs ago.....
All is inside our interacting brain hemispheres; right=parallel processor, left=serial. This (and prob the double helix structure of DNA) creates duality thinking and perception, e.g., polarity, matter/antimatter, yin/yang, etc. Right brain is sensitive to external waves, while left interprets them to comport with our senses; hence the illusion of sequentiality (time), for example. Everything "exists" in an eternal, pulsating, spherical wave singularity. Such is likely the physics of Reality.
One of the many incontrovertible truths by science - A body in motion will remain in motion and a body at rest will remain at rest in its referential frame unless acted upon by an external force. But I'm totally convinced of your last two statements.
I'm surprised he didn't give the more "scientifically relevant" response that stars are SO far apart that interstellar trips would take multiple lifetimes.
Interstellar travel seems plausible only if there were some super-light speed available--something that, way back when Feynman made his comments, would have been considered pure fiction (and, of course, the rules related to relativity still haven't changed).
I was abducted by a male and female on earth. The female hid me for about 9 months inside of her. One day some guy grabbed me by the head. I did what I could to express displeasure. Then I said, "Thanks. I 'll take it from here." So the guy slapped me silly.
Amir D. Aczel's book PROBABILITY 1 and the Drake Equation are good starts. I also give a lot of credibility to the eyewitness testimonies of the people involved in the Disclosure Project lead by Steven Greer. Not to mention recording a few unexplained objects in the daytime skies (found at my channel). These objects COULD all be military but if that's the case it points to even more probability of their existence. Do you think we're the only thinking (and chuckling) beings in the universe?
seti is a serious project to get evidence for alien civilization using experimentally relevant data, that is, it is a project which has looked for radi transmissions from space, whereas seta is ufologists who claim to have been abducted. just thought i would point this out as the text which appears for a few frames, although relevant to the etimology, might be misleading
@ 1:30ish he says (as his end all be all way of explaining away UFOs) "from my knowledge of the world that I'm here(?) on...." When he says this, he completly contradicts himself from his "Inconceivable nature of nature" vid where he talks about how there are all kinds of things going on that we can not see (radio waves, gamma rays, x-rays, etc...)...How about UFOs?
If he cant see them it dosent mean that they dont exist...Just listen to his "Inconceivable nature of nature" vid : )
Your right, its not the same thing. Just like its not the same thing that some people have seen a UFO (me), and some have not (you)... but they relate don't they?
Wouldent it make sense that our 5 sense reality cant detect all realities (many of which aliens could exist in). Not to mention all the ones that people in this reality see also. So... it's not the same thing (your right), but they are related, and that was my point. He contradicted himself on two related subjects. : )
I bet part of the issue has to do with US not being a very civilized species. Look how we treat not only other species but our own. They probably don't have much reason to even want to communicate with us unless it's to save us from ourselves. I bet the EBEs got a good chuckle when you said that though.
No, but are the EBEs capable of chuckling? Does their biological structure allow them to perform such an action? I can think of many non-human species which can't chuckle. Why so certain that the EBEs will defienetly be able to do it?
Which ones are you referring to? The ones who are able to chuckle or the ones who aren't? If you start with the preconceived notion that there aren't ebes with the physiological ability to chuckle, then you have to concede they can't. I on the other hand conceive there are ebes with chuckle-conducive physiologies. We can agree to disagree but I'm putting my money on there being ebes with not only a sense of humor but the ability to chuckle.
Alright. You're even capable of putting them into chuckler/non-chuckler categories. Why do you assume that they really exist? That was what I meant with the "too certain" comment.
Yeah, aliens are traveling dozens of light-years so they can paralyze sleeping people and "perform experiments" on them, yet remain hidden to all detection except sleepy people looking up. Or is there a government cover-up?
There is every reason to believe that life exists elsewhere in the universe. But there is every reason to believe that the people claiming to have been abducted (and in some cases impregnated) by ETs are laboring under a delusion. I'm not being mean. I'm just using reason.
Thing is, I can use reasoning to prove that the other possibility, is just as likely to be true. But what you can't do with reasoning, is erase something out of existence. and the radar tapes, the videos, the photos, and the affadavits, all exist. So the problem remains: who is the idiot? The one who uses reasoning to hide their own eyes from real data, or the ones who use their reasoning to ask questions about a complex and shitorical phenomena?
Thing is, I could just as easily use reason to explain why the phenomenon is likley to be real. Is it far fetched to think there are intelligent life forms with technology on other planets, planets we now know to be common? The sheer age of the Universe and our own planet's relative youth would suggest that many of those other life form's culture and technology might been far advanced of our own.
And how would a superior race treat us? With some caution because of our violent nature, but not without an interest of some nature, though we may not be able to appreciate its nature. Would they attack or enslave us? Would a superior race with extremely powerful technology have much need for such base necessities? Likely not, I'd venture to guess. That falls right in line with the scope of current reported interactions that can be verified, i.e., mass sightings.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
He would change his tune and feel rather bad when he sees a UFO with his own two eyes.
Thats pretty much what needs to happen to everyone that has fixed ideologies. Perhaps thats why the UFO sightings are increasing.
Anyways, I've seen two UFOs so far. The last one I saw was the night the U.S. shot down the spy satellite. I'm fairly sure they are alien in origin. If the government has that type of technology hidden, everyone is screwed.
Seeing a light in the sky doesn't mean you're seeing an UFO. In fact, imagine you didn't know about the whole UFO phenomenon, that you never heard about it in your life, what would you have thought then, you would've thought it was an airplane, a star, or some natural phenomenon. It is the fact that you've heard so many garbage about UFOs that your mind plays tricks with you. I repeat, two dots in the sky does not mean you're looking at UFOs. Stop being so delusional.
Hey dude, I KNOW what I saw and what I saw was either alien in origin or the government can already traverse the galaxy. Ever see an arching comet with a tail all of a sudden stop in the sky, then start moving in a direction at a constant speed, then flare up and disappear into thin air? No? I did. That was what I saw thirty minutes before the U.S. shot down the spy satellite. The first UFO I ever saw was about eight years ago and was very different from that mimicing comet one.
These things weren't just dots, you could clearly see them. Lets use a full moon as a size comparison. The oval-sphere I saw eight years ago was about half the size of a full moon. The orb sphere I saw thirty minutes before the satellite was being shot down was about a quarter the size of a full moon.
So what did I see? Know of anything of that size that acts intelligently, moves super fact, illuminates white, and is either shaped like an orb or an oval-sphere? Didn't think so.
I was abducted by a female alien, she looked like Puma Swede, so I figured they where shooting an extraterrestial Porn movie....Actually I think I just had a dream, I must have spent too much time watching Puma Swede, gosh I am obsessed, I have to go and pleasure myself now
There is no such things as aliens or flying saucers. both are just another example of the fantasies and stories we create for ourselves for some reason or another. now there is life one other planets and unidentifed flying objects, but not the way we think.
They go back to recorded history, on cave paintings in Europe and the Americas, religious paintings in abbeys in Europe, and ships of all types, from small 6-foot diameter telemeter-probes, to ships larger than two football-fields, have been seen hovering and cruising the skies worldwide, silently, in great numbers since 1942. The force-field propelled veheicle is simply a better way for advanced societies to get from point A to B in reasonable time and economy.
mailer 666, I have no patience with that attitude anymore, with the preponderance of vehicles out there successfully utilising these forms of propulsion, many I've built and flown since 1987. The question, becomes: who is the freak? mailer666 (how appropriate a name, the anti-Christ) go immediately and fuck yourself, and go fuck your mother. Do not post on YouTube again until you have done those things. That is not a request, that is an ORDER.
Saying "a flying saucer is rare" is a given. That statement does not disprove they exist. By definition if an advanced civilization exists and visits a less advanced one, it is rare - but it is still possible!
what does feynman meant to say is that our Universe is made of probabilities and, as scientist we are, I agree with him.
Do not think about absolute extrema, Possible or Impossible.
Take a look to universe: 10^11 galaxies and 10^11 star per galaxy what's the porobability aliens are visiting one single star, ours! thats what Feynmans thought. Nevertheless we think there's life in other planets.
you can go the other way. considering all those stars, what is the likelyhood of any having planets that can support life. and it may not be our understanding of life. it can be an altogether fundamentaly different mode of life. the Drake Equation is a good first attempt to quantify that, but its real sketchy and only concerns life to the point that it can develop a civilization as we know it, rather than being able to measure likelyhood of even just simple life forms
Feynman's point is just because you cannot disprove something doesn't mean it exist. If you cannot even see how it can be disproved in principle then it's most likely not worth investigating. Plus use Occam's razor. Is it more likely aliens in saucers exist or humans make fallible judgements? I bet on the latter. Another thing for laser brain boy. Theories make predictions and have consequences. Science has practical applications. Quit getting your science from the sci fi channel.
OK 'gunman' What is wrong with Newtons laws of optics? His rules about refraction, for example? Shut your stupid mouth and read something. I'm not talking about a theory of 'everything', you fool. That is the trouble with populist science geeks who never actually study anything. You forget about details.
Newton was wrong about what? Einstein was wrong about what? Newtons laws of gravitation were wrong eh? Forc (measured in newtons) isn't equal to mass multiplied by acceleration anymore huh? All the machines operating by Newtonian mechanics should heed your comments and stop working them I suppose...they obviously haven't heard the news.
Yes, Newton and Einstein are very wrong. Newton is a good approximation on the mid-sized scales in which we operate daily. You can't even use him for approximations on a small or large scale. On a large scale you can use Einstein, despite whatever that other nut believes in with his unpublished, un-peer-reviewed "experiments" with flying saucers that I am sure really exist.
So Newton only works in the 'real' 'daily' world in which real people operate...how does that make him 'very wrong'? Cowboy? Huh? Oh, I get it, you want the ultimate equation of everything....yeah, like in comic books. I see. So you are right and Einstein and Newton are VERY WRONG. Hey you and your pop gun are welcome to a gun fight in the real world anyday.
Stop talking as though you understand physics, son. You don't. You don't even understand the Newtonian mechanics or optics which you pretend to. Einstein's theories about time being relative to speed are something else you don't understand. You don't even understand partial differential equations....you read a popular book or two and think your clever...fuck off prick.
I Rplicated Thomas Townsend Brown's ELECTROKINETIC APPARATUS (USP#2,949-550) with 3-foot flying saucers in the 1990s. I demonstrated them at the 2nd Antigravity conference in year 2000. My work helped kids win science-fairs, get on Television, newspapers and started them on a path of advanced thinking, and knowelge,outside of the"box", which is simply not taught in our schools (except in Japan). What have YOU done?
I repeat: THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY IS JUST A THEORY. Sorry to shout, just trying to wake you out of your MATRIX-like slumber. Everyone thinks Relativity is a law of nature. I have tried to start you on a path of further knowlege, new physics. Science, like any living thing, must grow. Don't be fettered by calcified dogma.
PATENTED Rogers Undersea Transmission System (Used to commmunicate with submarines worldwide) uses the Tesla-Wave. Look at R.P. Feynman (1985) QED THE STRANGE THEORY OF LIGHT AND MATTER, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ(1949), Paul A. La Violette: SUBQUANTUM KINETICS pp 352-357.
Einstein himself is quoted as aying :There are wighty arguments to the Ether Theory, in fact, RELATIVITY WITHOUT ETEHR IS UNTHINKABLE.Look at C Misner K Thorne, J Wheeler,1970 (Gravitation)Ch3 ZERO-POINT ENERGY AND GEOMETRODYNAMICS,MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS AND EINSTEIN-GRAVITY IN THE PLANCK AETHER MODEL OF A UNIFIED FIELD THEORY (Z NATURFORSCH 45a,pp 1102-16.
Read: ETHER TECHNOLOGY, by Rho Sigma (the late Rolf Schaffranke, TOWARDS A NEW TESLA SCALAR ELECTROMAGNETICS, by Thomas Bearden,ORDER OUT OF CHAOS, by Ilya Prigogine, TAPPING THE ZERO-PONT ENERGY, by Moray B. King,ENERGY CONVERSION USING HIGH CHARGE DENSITY (US Patent #5018180),CHARGE CLUSTERS: THE BASIS OF ZERO-POINT ENERGY INVENTIONS(MB King1997),VACUUM ENERGY VORCTICES(Proc Int Symp on New Energy,pp257-259, THE THEORY AND OPERATION OF A PHASE-CONJUGATE VACUUM TRIODE1989(Bearden F Sweet).
Spin is everything. A spinning object is intimately connected to it's surroundings. It's immediate surroundings is the ETHER, or Fermi Sea, Dirac Sea, lumineferous Ether, etc. According to Einstein, Ether theory harmonises with General and Special relativity, but findings and inventions have invalidated General and Special. They assume speed of light to be a constant, and inviolate, but instead is a variable, and breachable.
Now uv started readin dis dunt stop. This is so scary. Send this to 5 ova videos in 143 minutes. When ur done press F6 and ur crushes name will appear on the screen
Newton WAS right! The speed of Gravity is nearly instantaneous. Billions of times the speed of light. So, if you have an aerospacecraft with an electromagnetic rotor-based main drive, it would of ncessity be flat and circular, and this is also the best shape to propagate said field with symmetry, and with asymmetry effect propulsion of the craft without inertia, at many times c.
I often wondered what shape would be most advantageous to navigate earth's natural forces, and circular shape seems most reasonable to me. It's curious that the shapes of reported UFO's vary greatly and they don't seem to be limited in any way by earth's natural forces. I saw a football-field sized UFO that was rectangular in shape and defied every one of earth's natural forces. Perhaps many UFO's are inter-dimensional and able to come and go at their leisure. Perhaps they cloak themselves.
Light pulses were sent at 300 times c in Europe in the lab. It was on the KYW-3 Radio, it was on TV, newspapers. And then was quickly forgotten, like Einstein's Unified Field Theory (1925-27). Speed of light, instead of a constant, has been shown to be a variable decades before this. Latest discoveries.
You see, the reason Einstein's unified field theories of the '20's have been forgotten is that (1) Einstein himself found fatal flaws in them and discarded them and (2) at the time the known forces which Einstein sought to unify were only gravity and electromagnetism. We have since discovered both the weak and strong nuclear forces, which, since Einstein's death, HAVE been unified with electromagnetism, leaving only gravitation separate.
Thus, even if fatal flaws had not been found in Einstein's unification, it could not have been complete, as it considered only half of the fundamental forces now known to exist. Furthermore, your assertion that General and Special relativity have been contradicted is about as factually false as any claim one could possibly make. Every experiment ever performed has unequivocally confirmed both portions of relativity, while ether theory has been unambiguously proven false.
I guess we read different books, the confirmations of Ether theory.Place to start- ZUR EINHEITLICHTEN FELDTHERIE,Unified Field Theory for Gravitation and Electricity,Einstein, Prussian science journals 1925-27, published NY TIMES,on permanent file, Wesleyan University.Lookup Silvertooth-Sagnac, Trouton-Noble,and sending of light at 300 times c in Europe in year 2000,including Tesla's non-Hertzian wave,Rogers Undersea Transmission system, Scalar transcievers have been demonstrated, etc.
If you have not seen any refutations of Relativity, it simply means you don't want to find any, which is the definition of a closed mind. Which is totally unscientific.
No it isn't unscientific to discount your references to refutations of relativity. You see, it is a waste of his time to check a refutation of something which is well known to be true. You are just a nut.
Well that's what's called a Mexican-Standoff. We both believe and have scientific-experiments that support or assertions. I'd rather be a nut. That is how science has advanced, historically. Despite often rabid opposition from all sides. I would check it anyway. Think outside the box; I'm living proof!
This experiment was an example of anomalous dispersion: this does not support the conjecture that information(including gravity) can travel faster than the speed of light. It was not forgotten and can be found all over the internet as an example of anomolous dispersion.
It was on the News radio KWY-3 in summer, 2000, in newspapers, on Television, etc. And then quickly forgotten, like Einstein's unified Field theory. I have seen scalar-wave transmission systems demonstrated. Tesla (after he invented RADIO) was sending his non-Hertzian signals thru the Earth and air at 17-times lightspeed. Lightspeed varies in a Vacuum. Relativity assumes c to be a constant; first nali in coffin of Relativity. You could look this all up too, if you wanted to.
One thing that bugs me about UFO talk is that it starts off on the wrong foot with it's vocabulary. OF COURSE there are UFO's in the most literal sense. If I toss some garbage out of my trash into the air, and my neighbor sees it but knows not exactly what it is, then he has, by definition, witnessed a UFO.
I can think of a couple of reasons no astronomer told Patrick Moore that he'd had a UFO sighting. However, according to a survey of members of the American Astronomical Society, several have. Google Jnl. of Scientific Exploration, 8, 2, for results.
RMax304823 8 months ago
@Kokainuser: By that logic I am immortal because I believe I will never die and I am 100% right, unless I die. Yes, I am comparing UFOs today with meteorites in 1840. Besides, a lot of credible people have reported UFO sightings, including about 5% of the members of the American Astronomical Society.
RMax304823 8 months ago
@RMax304823 " a lot of credible people have reported UFO sightings, including about 5% of the members of the American Astronomical Society."
I find that impossible to believe. Patrick Moore said that of all the reports he had of UFOs he had never gotten one from a professional astronomer and they spend more time looking at the sky than most people
chrisofnottingham 8 months ago
What is the Feynman Days Festival?
I've never heard of such a thing but it sounds like a great idea.
deedubya286 10 months ago
I don't want to argue. He was a brilliant guy but a bit too sure of himself. In the case of UFOs, he uses a logic gotten from David Hume. If something can be explained by two miracles, he'll choose the simpler of the two miracles. For Feynman, it leads to a qualified belief that sightings are the result of human error rather than anything else. Karl Popper would have pointed out that all swans are white -- until you see one black swan. Pauling was a Nobelist too, wrong about many things.
RMax304823 11 months ago
He's mostly right. It's a matter of probabilities. But crazies and hoaxes aside, he doesn't seem to realize that it only takes ONE real event to turn the probabilities upside down. And he's never been a witness to such an event although thousands of others have. He's too sure of himself. Someone should ask if he "believes in" meteors, because it wasn't long ago that stones falling from the sky was just as unlikely an event.
RMax304823 11 months ago
@RMax304823 If you think you understand probability better than Feynman did, then drop us a line when you get your Nobel Prize - his was for work on QED, which sort of demands an understanding of probability.
CastrolJets 11 months ago 3
@RMax304823 YOu are wrong ...
"he doesn't seem to realize that it only takes ONE real event to turn the probabilities upside down"
And until such event takes place, he is 100% right.
And are you really just trying to compare Aliens//UFO´s with Meteor´s.
Kokainuser 8 months ago
@RMax304823
Indeed, it is more likely that the things we see in the air (i never personally saw one), come from our planet, from military experiments for example. It is more likely because we don't know any aliens (as far as I'm concerned...), but we sometimes know what does our military. So before saying it comes from the aliens, we have to prove it doesnt come from the army. Feynman is 100% right.
alpha520mec 8 months ago
Just show the video - I'm not interested in your intro which adds nothing but annoyance.
draoi99 11 months ago
sir. have u ever had a normal life
if not well take those glasses of and that hippy hat and go to a party and have fun
there is no time to think about this shet and when they come they come end of
eRedEagle 1 year ago
earth is the alabama or swat valley of the universe. why would intelligent extra terrestials want to come here?
kingda117 1 year ago
Richard was having a conversation with "the layman". Richard did not have knowledge of or access to the plethora of Government Documents and UFO files that we now have today.
Feynman was also completely dead wrong on his hypothetical limit of smallness for nanotechnology. Although perhaps correct about the limits of conventional circuitry, he did not have any knowledge of photonic crystals or the technology to use photons instead of electrons.
Feynman was right about a lot, but not everything.
AlienScientist 1 year ago
@AlienScientist If your life was at stake on your answer being correct, would you say that aliens have visited Earth or not? Feynman's isn't saying that alien encounters definitely have not happened, but that it most LIKELY has not happened. I know where I would place my bet...
dirac17 1 year ago
@AlienScientist If a science (so-called) exists only in the realm of speculation and has not been successfully tested by the peers within our scientific communities, it seems foolish to simply presuppose that they exist. It's not unlike saying, "I have found absolutely no evidence or argument that would compel me to accept any of the numerous god-claims humans have made, so I'll go ahead and presuppose that a deity exists."
cliffwalkinfool 1 year ago
@cliffwalkinfool,
But the problem is that UFOs don't just exist in the realm of speculation. We have many documented cases that cannot be explained.
The last real scientific investigation into UFOs was over 40 years ago, and it was heavily compromised by the interests of the military and government.
I find it much more likely that Aliens exist, than a God... And there a heck of a lot more evidence that Aliens exist than a God.
AlienScientist 1 year ago
If there were any aliens smart enough to come here they wouldn't be stupid enough to come HERE...
(Jane Lane in "Daria", season 3, episode 311 "The Lawndale File")
neoneoneofu 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neoneoneofu "f there were any aliens smart enough to come here they wouldn't be stupid enough to come HERE..."
Hear, hear!
cliffwalkinfool 1 year ago
love the intro music - aphex twin ftw!
severoon 1 year ago
google Doe's Account, its mindblowing.
Yellowwatts 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I think Feynman was talking out his ass. How does he know what is more or less likely re UFOs when we haven't determined if they come from this solar system. He insulred many expert witnessess saying that. Lot of assumption if you ask me.
deadsnoopy1 1 year ago
Yea, just because he came up with quantum electrodynamics, and later won a Nobel Prize in physics. What does he know.
PraktikoolSinik 1 year ago 16
It's just highly unlikely.
KitchenerAnon 1 year ago
Everyone is so hell bent on relativity being completely correct. When in fact scientists have synthesized waves traveling a thousand times(!) the speed of light. Look up Podkletnov if you want to see proof.
I am willing to bet everything I own that the speed of light is not in fact the absolute top universal speed.
Any scientist today that would argue the speed of light is absolute is ignorant.
edgekrusher20 1 year ago
The waves you mention are cancellation effects and unfortunately do not carry information. Relativity is not broken.
balist0 1 year ago 3
@balist0
You probably have a degree in physics to rt?
What have you read on Quantum Kinetics???
I am willing to bet I already know your response....
edgekrusher20 1 year ago
Instead of countering my point or informing me of a mistake, you question my intelligence. Great science there edgefucker20.
I am fully aware that C is not absolute - all particles travel at all speeds all the time, however at scales above the incredibly small - anything larger than the diameter of a proton - it is an inviolable constant.
Many interesting effects and intricacies of natural law appear to break SR but none of these carry information! On closer inspection, all is well.
balist0 1 year ago
Relativity simply says that information & particles cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Waves themselves can indeed travel faster than the speed of light. However, photons absolutely cannot. No information travels faster than light speed. Superluminal waves cannot be used to transmit information in any possible way. Therefore, they are not of much use. If you want to know why particles & information have this limit, read "group waves" on Wikipedia. The animation is very helpful too.
IsLikeThat 1 year ago
@IsLikeThat No, waves dont travel faster than the speed of light. Phase speed can sometimes be larger than the speed of light, but the only "physical significance of a wave" lies in the wave front of the group of waves.
alpha520mec 8 months ago
@alpha520mec Yeah thats what I meant. So even better, waves as a whole don't travel faster than light.
IsLikeThat 8 months ago
@IsLikeThat Well, that's complicated lol. Because even group of waves can go faster. Or group speed can even be negative. That's sounds crazy but it's like that.
alpha520mec 8 months ago
@alpha520mec Well yeah, but in the more layman speak that I'm trying to say, I'm really just talking information and causality.
IsLikeThat 8 months ago
@IsLikeThat well, then yes. But does the layman care about infomation and causality :P lol ?
alpha520mec 8 months ago
@edgekrusher20 In experiments where the light goes faster than c its usually a trick where the phase velocity is faster than c. This does not mean that any information can exceed light speed so relativity is still OK. (The wiki links green and red dots are illustrative. Relativity requires the green dots be at c. It does not require the same of the red ones)
wikipedia,org/wiki/Phase_velocity
WNxFish 1 year ago
@edgekrusher20 Actually, it's not that matter and energy can't travel faster than light. It's that it can only travel at that speed. It is the one allowed speed. All matter and energy travel at that speed, just in different directions. So, slower that light speed is not possible either. Only the direction within 4 dimensional space may change. We can only see 3 dimensions & that gives us the illusion that matter is speeding up or slowing. In reality its velocity is changing direction, not speed.
IsLikeThat 8 months ago
Actually I think everyone interested in physics, as well as UFOs, should seriously look into AlienScientist's channel - very compelling material !
zapproowsdower 2 years ago
There are many good understandable explanations on relativity out there, just google a bit. Its worth the effort. Relativity and quantum theory are the 2 most astonishing and fascinating theoriesn out there i believe, since strings so far are not proven, thus fascinating but all too speculative for me so far
terryfeynman 2 years ago
Speaking of quantum gravity... Most material I have read on UFO propulsion suggests that they are able to generate artificial gravity fields. Rendering the craft totally void of inertia.
If a ship could technically eliminate it's mass, would it be bound to the constraints of relativity??
edgekrusher20 2 years ago
Sure. In the RT nothing can go faster than light, no matter if it does have mass or not. Things that does hav emass, cant even reach the speed of light, but can get very close, at very high costs on energy. For instance to go from 99.9 to 99.99 you need 10 times the energy you needed to go to 99.9. To go to 99.999 you need again 10 times the energy and so on (the main reason particle accellarators need so ridiculous much energy)
terryfeynman 2 years ago
I knew that the amount of energy required to accelerate a particle grew exponentially at relativistic speeds.. I didn't know, however, the rate at which the energy required grew..thanks for that tid bit :)
edgekrusher20 2 years ago
But i must admit, that the theory breaks down at other extrem points, so it might be, that there is something wrong here as well. But so far the data from particle accelerators back einstein here up. But i really hope, that cern finds asomething in the LHC, ones they get it working properly. But so far the wildlife tries to sabotage that ^^ Apparently a bird dropped some bread on a wire, thus destroyed one supermagnet through overheating
terryfeynman 2 years ago
I think you would love AlienScientist's channel here on YT, he both makes good videos, and is extremely bright, focusing on the physics of theoretical and declassified antigravity research
zapproowsdower 2 years ago
It's funny that you mention AlienScientist, I do watch a lot of his vid's :)
Good call !
edgekrusher20 2 years ago
But i really hope that i am wrong here. The next 20-50 years will show us hopefully, how many planets suitable for lifeforms like ourselves are within say 1k lightyears. Then this question can be answered better. They would also be able to detect pure oxygen in the atmosphere, a clear sign of life. I really look forward to that moment,even if its only bacterial lifeform, i would be totally thrilled. I hope to live and see that day.
terryfeynman 2 years ago
Now for an extremly long living creature. That is a chance, but again a very slim one. I am absolutely sure, that we are no the only sapient lifeform in the universe, but i think we are pretty rare. Have you guys heard of the drake equation ? I find it pretty improbalbe that there is another sapient lifeform nearer than 1000 lightyears, so even a lifeform with 10k years lifespan couldnt make 1 way in his life.
terryfeynman 2 years ago
Hmmm. Could I conceive of an extraordinarily long lived species? Well, there are certainly examples of ridiculously long lived living things here on our planet. Most of them a bit short of opposable thumbs etc.. We have living things that dry out to leather in baked mudballs and turn back into happy little fishies when you add water after years and years. Do I think that spacefaring Methuselahs might drop in to poke things up our bums? If they look like Daria Werbowy, I sure hope so!
schlusselmensch 2 years ago
I don't know if I fully agree with Feynman's point of view on this matter..
If one is willing to say that life on Earth isn't a product of some cosmic miracle; implying that life is fairly common in the galaxy-or universe-then us being visited by ET's becomes an inevitability.
Frank Drake himself postulated that there could be over 10,000 intelligient civilizations in our galaxy.
Occam's Razor need not apply....
edgekrusher20 2 years ago
Well, its not unlikely that other sapient lifeforms exist. Its just very unlikely that they come visit us , under the laws of physic as we know it. It just would take them much too long and would be too "expensive".
terryfeynman 2 years ago
Herein lies the problem. Scientists today are to close-minded to consider the possibility that an advanced civilization has figured out a way to travel the vast distances associated with interstellar travel in a reasonable amount of time.
If you look at our own history it is riddled with scientists being negativists on certain phenomena they thought impossible only to be proven wrong.
edgekrusher20 2 years ago
For a few examples..
Lord Kelvin.. President of The Royal Society in England made the claim (eight years before the Wright Brothers flew at Kitty Hawk) that Heavier-than-air flight was impossible.
Nobody thought the sound barrier was breakable...
You can go on for a very long time with situations like this, and here we are confronted with the same scenario.
Are we going to fall into the same pattern again? Or are we going to consider our own past and think outside the box???
edgekrusher20 2 years ago
In both cases they made claims based on their guts, not on the laws of nature. Especially the first claim was pretty stupid, since he should have known about birds ^^. But the theory of relativity is, though incomplete , one of our best proofed theories in physics. I honestly cant see a way for a flight faster than light. If we would find a way around it, then it could be possible. Perhaps the quantum tgheory in gravity will show us a way, who knows ?
terryfeynman 2 years ago
Your very right, the Theory of Relativity is one of the great scientific achievements of mankind, and like you say, it's predictions have proven true time over.
To be honest I can't physically comprehend a way of traveling faster than the speed of light either. In order to do so would go against physical laws as we know them... however...
edgekrusher20 2 years ago
It has been suggested that it is possible that some civilizations in our galaxy could have been technologically advanced for a billion years.
A billion years!! No human mind could comprehend the technology engineered over the course of that kind of timespan.
One can only fathom as to what ways they have devised of beating or cheating the physical laws of our universe.
I am certainly anxious to see what breakthroughs we have in quantum gravity :)
edgekrusher20 2 years ago
"they have devised of beating or cheating the physical laws of our universe"
If they beat or cheat the laws, they are no longer laws.
People don't seem to understand that physical laws are not something we pull out of our ass, they are OBSERVATIONS, something that is found to be inviolable in the empirical data, whether we understand why or not.
With regards to the speed of light, we first observed that the speed of light was inviolable, then Einstein showed us why.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 1 year ago 2
@ReductioAdAbsurdum
When I refered to them as laws I did so bearing in mind our current knowledge. Newton's framework held the status of your so called 'laws' for centuries.. but was he totally correct????
Could you possibly be arrogant enough to believe that our current knowledge of physics is as complete as the statements you make would suggest????
....Absurd...
edgekrusher20 1 year ago
"Newton's framework held the status of your so called 'laws' for centuries.. but was he totally correct?"
Yes, he was. Relativity didn't invalidate Newton's laws, it just provided a deeper understanding and explained some corner cases (like the precession of Mercury's orbit). NASA still uses Newton's laws to calculate orbits. We used them to get to the Moon and we'll use them to get to Mars.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 1 year ago
"Could you possibly be arrogant enough to believe that our current knowledge of physics is complete"
That wasn't my point. You act as if the laws of physics are fucking arbitrary, easily violated if you just have enough time to think about it. Nowhere in the observable Universe -- dozen of decillion cubic light-years -- do we see anything travel faster than light, and in the 20th century we found out why (the nature of spacetime itself prohibits it). You're arguing for magic.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 1 year ago
well, this case is different. The laws of physics as we know them simply forbid that this is possible. So unless we find a major flaw in them its reasonalbe to assume that interstellar travel just for a visit is pretty impossible. I dont say its impossible (neither does feynman) just very improbable
terryfeynman 2 years ago
A declaration of peaceful relations? xD What the hell? What if they turn out to be flesh-eating Vorlons?
whade62000 2 years ago
Put Aphex for logical thinking
Vaksel 2 years ago
How brilliantly logical and simple he makes life seem.
SpacedTime 2 years ago 5
nice clip, but this guy cant even get SETI right... credibility FAIL
CountDollarz 2 years ago
perception is reality and reality is perception...Whom posting here believe that THEY are right in their thinking???? we are ALL right! get it!? It's a debate that will persist until all senses are participatory on a legionary scale, not as a collective but the contrary
cristopherscott 2 years ago
When given any choice both ARE NOT equal.
Normally one is right - or at least "better" the other is wrong or at least "worse"
You can't subjective rules to science conjecture any more than you can to morals.
If you believe that, then you you may believe that objectivity is an illusion and that all possible actions and reactions are equally valid.
Down that path lies the sociopath, the flying spaghetti monster, and the belief that we are eaten by Norobis every time we sleep.
treevor921 2 years ago
@treevor921
Down that path lies "the golden rule" which prevents the sane (a person looking out for his/her self interest) from becoming a sociopath or whatever other stuff you mentioned.
BTW, if, as you say, objectivity is an illusion, how can all actions and reactions be equally valid? I don't understand, since, to me, that is the very definition of objectivity..
rattaplan 2 years ago
I'm not saying objectivity is illusion. (sorry)
What I said was that if you believe that science can be subjective then you might as well believe that morals are subjective too.
The "everyone's opinion is as valid as everyone else's" attitude is a damn sight more dangerous than just saying to some of these nutters... "look - you're wrong "
treevor921 2 years ago
But.. morals ARE subjective. Based only on consensus and/or scriptures. Why else do you think religious people are so afraid of atheists? Science might also be wrong (thus subjective) but since we have to make sense of our world somehow, with our given limited perceptions, we better assume it is true. Untill we know exactly how it all started we can't be certain about anything.
rattaplan 2 years ago
Given the probability that there is a high chance that there is other lifeforms elsewhere in space, it is likely that they will be wandering the same thing.
The result of terrestrial irrationality... reminds me of governments. In which case they are very unlikely to be alien. Feynman may be trying to tell you something!
soccom8341576 2 years ago
This isn't Richard Feynman, it's some boring fucktard in a hat.
Subutubiata 2 years ago
Relax, there's a clip of Feynman talking in the second half of the video.
veryrice 2 years ago 2
Well that's good and all. That doesn't explain the BIG BLACK Triangle i was on april 2 2009 over miami......closes thing i could think of is a B2 Bomber...and i got out of the Air Force 2 yrs ago.....
SeekerOFShamans 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All is inside our interacting brain hemispheres; right=parallel processor, left=serial. This (and prob the double helix structure of DNA) creates duality thinking and perception, e.g., polarity, matter/antimatter, yin/yang, etc. Right brain is sensitive to external waves, while left interprets them to comport with our senses; hence the illusion of sequentiality (time), for example. Everything "exists" in an eternal, pulsating, spherical wave singularity. Such is likely the physics of Reality.
AbookOfverse 2 years ago
Problem : Scientists can answer only what is more likely, as he mentioned.
But look. Don't they answer as if they were saying what was TRUE?
They are the kings of 'likely' world.
But why do they regard themselves, and why do we regard them as the kings of 'truth' world?
Can you see the arogance here?
THIS IS ALL ROTTEN.
McTheaven 2 years ago
it's likely that gravity will hold you to the floor
it doesn't hold you to the floor if the floor is undergoing downward acceleration
Dishonru 2 years ago 2
HHHMmmm.
What do you suggest we use to define what is most likely then???
I notice you pose a "problem", but no answer to the "problem".
It always raises my suspicion, when someone makes a blanket statement about scientists like this.
It smaks of someone who wants to believe some bullshit that is contarary to what EVIDENCE would suggest.
And they don't like scientists because they keep reminding them of the facts.
I see that you trust science and scientists enough to buy and be using a PC.
martiangrundy 2 years ago
So they say "likely", then contradict themselves by claiming empirical certainty ?
Which one is it ?
If you regard scientists as kings of "truth", that's your choice. They certainly don't.
I've never met a scientist who claims he has discovered incontravertable and "never to be countered" truth.
If they did, they would not - in fact - be a scientist.
Science is a method and mindset...NOT a set of established beliefs.
Science is characterised by the ability to adapt and learn.
treevor921 2 years ago
One of the many incontrovertible truths by science - A body in motion will remain in motion and a body at rest will remain at rest in its referential frame unless acted upon by an external force. But I'm totally convinced of your last two statements.
dirtyharree 2 years ago
Ironically Feynman sorta proved this wrong with his electrodynamics equation. Look it up.
WNxFish 2 years ago
Well I'm not sure what to read, i'd appreciate if you could point me to a web link.....
dirtyharree 2 years ago
I'm surprised he didn't give the more "scientifically relevant" response that stars are SO far apart that interstellar trips would take multiple lifetimes.
Interstellar travel seems plausible only if there were some super-light speed available--something that, way back when Feynman made his comments, would have been considered pure fiction (and, of course, the rules related to relativity still haven't changed).
GetMeThere1 2 years ago
How do you know that God does not exist?
I suspect the same form of answer given here would suffice.
stratvic 3 years ago
u have any proof that god exist?
ehypersonic 3 years ago
No .... that being the point.
stratvic 3 years ago
I was abducted by a male and female on earth. The female hid me for about 9 months inside of her. One day some guy grabbed me by the head. I did what I could to express displeasure. Then I said, "Thanks. I 'll take it from here." So the guy slapped me silly.
Chiangmai007 3 years ago 3
Dude, if that was your experience, I guess I was abducted too!
NorcrossMedia 3 years ago
Sorry to learn that. Did you get your real birth certificate yet? Ask for Cindy at the Freedom of Information Act.
Chiangmai007 3 years ago
fuckin' A^^
HumanStrategy 3 years ago
Amir D. Aczel's book PROBABILITY 1 and the Drake Equation are good starts. I also give a lot of credibility to the eyewitness testimonies of the people involved in the Disclosure Project lead by Steven Greer. Not to mention recording a few unexplained objects in the daytime skies (found at my channel). These objects COULD all be military but if that's the case it points to even more probability of their existence. Do you think we're the only thinking (and chuckling) beings in the universe?
bottleslingguy 3 years ago
Please tell them to use more lube on the probes!
flyingscience 3 years ago 2
seta does not equal seti
seti is a serious project to get evidence for alien civilization using experimentally relevant data, that is, it is a project which has looked for radi transmissions from space, whereas seta is ufologists who claim to have been abducted. just thought i would point this out as the text which appears for a few frames, although relevant to the etimology, might be misleading
marsCubed 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
can you read this? go to my person--al page to see me n-a-k-e-d meetyourfling(.Com)
43740780754
kealey
bean012 3 years ago
brillant answer
ndjarnag 3 years ago
@ 1:30ish he says (as his end all be all way of explaining away UFOs) "from my knowledge of the world that I'm here(?) on...." When he says this, he completly contradicts himself from his "Inconceivable nature of nature" vid where he talks about how there are all kinds of things going on that we can not see (radio waves, gamma rays, x-rays, etc...)...How about UFOs?
If he cant see them it dosent mean that they dont exist...Just listen to his "Inconceivable nature of nature" vid : )
sralmy 3 years ago
But nobody claims to see radio waves, gamma rays, x-rays. People do claim to have seen aliens. It's not the same thing.
I personally won't believe in ETs until they really communicate with us like civilized species. :)
And I think even if there are UFOs, they are more likely to be of terrestial origins, like a disinformation, confusion program by the government.
sadunkal 3 years ago
sadunkal:
Your right, its not the same thing. Just like its not the same thing that some people have seen a UFO (me), and some have not (you)... but they relate don't they?
Wouldent it make sense that our 5 sense reality cant detect all realities (many of which aliens could exist in). Not to mention all the ones that people in this reality see also. So... it's not the same thing (your right), but they are related, and that was my point. He contradicted himself on two related subjects. : )
sralmy 3 years ago
I bet part of the issue has to do with US not being a very civilized species. Look how we treat not only other species but our own. They probably don't have much reason to even want to communicate with us unless it's to save us from ourselves. I bet the EBEs got a good chuckle when you said that though.
bottleslingguy 3 years ago
You're too certain.
sadunkal 3 years ago
I've given it a lot of thought.
bottleslingguy 3 years ago
How do you know that EBEs even chuckle? :)
sadunkal 3 years ago
Do you think a sense of humor is exclusively a human trait?
bottleslingguy 3 years ago
No, but are the EBEs capable of chuckling? Does their biological structure allow them to perform such an action? I can think of many non-human species which can't chuckle. Why so certain that the EBEs will defienetly be able to do it?
sadunkal 3 years ago
Which ones are you referring to? The ones who are able to chuckle or the ones who aren't? If you start with the preconceived notion that there aren't ebes with the physiological ability to chuckle, then you have to concede they can't. I on the other hand conceive there are ebes with chuckle-conducive physiologies. We can agree to disagree but I'm putting my money on there being ebes with not only a sense of humor but the ability to chuckle.
bottleslingguy 3 years ago
Alright. You're even capable of putting them into chuckler/non-chuckler categories. Why do you assume that they really exist? That was what I meant with the "too certain" comment.
sadunkal 3 years ago
Yeah, aliens are traveling dozens of light-years so they can paralyze sleeping people and "perform experiments" on them, yet remain hidden to all detection except sleepy people looking up. Or is there a government cover-up?
There is every reason to believe that life exists elsewhere in the universe. But there is every reason to believe that the people claiming to have been abducted (and in some cases impregnated) by ETs are laboring under a delusion. I'm not being mean. I'm just using reason.
johnclavis 3 years ago 21
Thing is, I can use reasoning to prove that the other possibility, is just as likely to be true. But what you can't do with reasoning, is erase something out of existence. and the radar tapes, the videos, the photos, and the affadavits, all exist. So the problem remains: who is the idiot? The one who uses reasoning to hide their own eyes from real data, or the ones who use their reasoning to ask questions about a complex and shitorical phenomena?
kidcopernicus 3 years ago
Pardon my dyslexia!
kidcopernicus 3 years ago
NICE very fucking nice...
dmacgurn 3 years ago
Thing is, I could just as easily use reason to explain why the phenomenon is likley to be real. Is it far fetched to think there are intelligent life forms with technology on other planets, planets we now know to be common? The sheer age of the Universe and our own planet's relative youth would suggest that many of those other life form's culture and technology might been far advanced of our own.
kidcopernicus 3 years ago
And how would a superior race treat us? With some caution because of our violent nature, but not without an interest of some nature, though we may not be able to appreciate its nature. Would they attack or enslave us? Would a superior race with extremely powerful technology have much need for such base necessities? Likely not, I'd venture to guess. That falls right in line with the scope of current reported interactions that can be verified, i.e., mass sightings.
kidcopernicus 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
He would change his tune and feel rather bad when he sees a UFO with his own two eyes.
Thats pretty much what needs to happen to everyone that has fixed ideologies. Perhaps thats why the UFO sightings are increasing.
Anyways, I've seen two UFOs so far. The last one I saw was the night the U.S. shot down the spy satellite. I'm fairly sure they are alien in origin. If the government has that type of technology hidden, everyone is screwed.
Voidka 3 years ago
Seeing a light in the sky doesn't mean you're seeing an UFO. In fact, imagine you didn't know about the whole UFO phenomenon, that you never heard about it in your life, what would you have thought then, you would've thought it was an airplane, a star, or some natural phenomenon. It is the fact that you've heard so many garbage about UFOs that your mind plays tricks with you. I repeat, two dots in the sky does not mean you're looking at UFOs. Stop being so delusional.
dbauche 3 years ago
Hey dude, I KNOW what I saw and what I saw was either alien in origin or the government can already traverse the galaxy. Ever see an arching comet with a tail all of a sudden stop in the sky, then start moving in a direction at a constant speed, then flare up and disappear into thin air? No? I did. That was what I saw thirty minutes before the U.S. shot down the spy satellite. The first UFO I ever saw was about eight years ago and was very different from that mimicing comet one.
Voidka 3 years ago
These things weren't just dots, you could clearly see them. Lets use a full moon as a size comparison. The oval-sphere I saw eight years ago was about half the size of a full moon. The orb sphere I saw thirty minutes before the satellite was being shot down was about a quarter the size of a full moon.
So what did I see? Know of anything of that size that acts intelligently, moves super fact, illuminates white, and is either shaped like an orb or an oval-sphere? Didn't think so.
Voidka 3 years ago
Ahahahahhahaha
spawnfan101 3 years ago
Feynman rules, obviously.
Some interesting tags you applied to this video.
sleepcity 3 years ago
i think it's pretty obvious the agenda of this video, when they mention abductees and then show a clip of hipies.
what are they implying, all abductees are a bunch of tree hugging hippies right?
go fuck yourself
THEnoaliens 3 years ago
what are they implying, all abductees are a bunch of tree hugging hippies right?
<<
have you been abducted by aliens?
automaticAEV 3 years ago
I was abducted by a female alien, she looked like Puma Swede, so I figured they where shooting an extraterrestial Porn movie....Actually I think I just had a dream, I must have spent too much time watching Puma Swede, gosh I am obsessed, I have to go and pleasure myself now
kubikmaster 3 years ago
lol
raahr 3 years ago
How much do I miss Richard Feynman ?!:(
hillbillycadillac 4 years ago 3
absolutely brilliant response
homeboy48 4 years ago
Awsome joke by Feynman
andwhatfire 4 years ago
There is no such things as aliens or flying saucers. both are just another example of the fantasies and stories we create for ourselves for some reason or another. now there is life one other planets and unidentifed flying objects, but not the way we think.
etheangel2220 4 years ago
I'm afraid you are the one living in a fantasy world, if you think that. I just have to laugh at uninformed comments like these!
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
Oh im sorry...now that i have seen your home-made flying saucer, i am inclined to believe they are real!!
etheangel2220 4 years ago 3
They go back to recorded history, on cave paintings in Europe and the Americas, religious paintings in abbeys in Europe, and ships of all types, from small 6-foot diameter telemeter-probes, to ships larger than two football-fields, have been seen hovering and cruising the skies worldwide, silently, in great numbers since 1942. The force-field propelled veheicle is simply a better way for advanced societies to get from point A to B in reasonable time and economy.
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
"The force-field propelled veheicle is simply a better way for advanced societies to get from point A to B in reasonable time and economy."
nobody even knows this for sure so what kind of kook even says this matter of factly as though they somehow know it as fact?
FREAK!!! EVERYBODY LOOK AT THE THE FREAK!!!
lol....
mailer666 3 years ago
mailer 666, I have no patience with that attitude anymore, with the preponderance of vehicles out there successfully utilising these forms of propulsion, many I've built and flown since 1987. The question, becomes: who is the freak? mailer666 (how appropriate a name, the anti-Christ) go immediately and fuck yourself, and go fuck your mother. Do not post on YouTube again until you have done those things. That is not a request, that is an ORDER.
Beamshipcaptain 3 years ago
Saying "a flying saucer is rare" is a given. That statement does not disprove they exist. By definition if an advanced civilization exists and visits a less advanced one, it is rare - but it is still possible!
dxk2007 4 years ago
what does feynman meant to say is that our Universe is made of probabilities and, as scientist we are, I agree with him.
Do not think about absolute extrema, Possible or Impossible.
Take a look to universe: 10^11 galaxies and 10^11 star per galaxy what's the porobability aliens are visiting one single star, ours! thats what Feynmans thought. Nevertheless we think there's life in other planets.
pacoberetta 4 years ago
you can go the other way. considering all those stars, what is the likelyhood of any having planets that can support life. and it may not be our understanding of life. it can be an altogether fundamentaly different mode of life. the Drake Equation is a good first attempt to quantify that, but its real sketchy and only concerns life to the point that it can develop a civilization as we know it, rather than being able to measure likelyhood of even just simple life forms
etheangel2220 4 years ago
checkout "Disclosure Project" then tell me if you still believe in Aliens/UFO!
freighttrain777 4 years ago
I love this Feynman put down, I can't wait to use it
thingsihaveseen2 4 years ago
According to Einstein, gravitation moves at the speed of light, And I agree with using Occam's principle of parsimony to analyze something like this.
BadPianist 4 years ago
Feynman's point is just because you cannot disprove something doesn't mean it exist. If you cannot even see how it can be disproved in principle then it's most likely not worth investigating. Plus use Occam's razor. Is it more likely aliens in saucers exist or humans make fallible judgements? I bet on the latter. Another thing for laser brain boy. Theories make predictions and have consequences. Science has practical applications. Quit getting your science from the sci fi channel.
nontheistdavid 4 years ago 4
There is no Mexican standoff when only one side shows up with a gun and the other has an invisible, imaginary phasar from Star Trek.
Dgrossberg 4 years ago
OK 'gunman' What is wrong with Newtons laws of optics? His rules about refraction, for example? Shut your stupid mouth and read something. I'm not talking about a theory of 'everything', you fool. That is the trouble with populist science geeks who never actually study anything. You forget about details.
Quietlydoesit 4 years ago
Newton was wrong about what? Einstein was wrong about what? Newtons laws of gravitation were wrong eh? Forc (measured in newtons) isn't equal to mass multiplied by acceleration anymore huh? All the machines operating by Newtonian mechanics should heed your comments and stop working them I suppose...they obviously haven't heard the news.
Quietlydoesit 4 years ago
Yes, Newton and Einstein are very wrong. Newton is a good approximation on the mid-sized scales in which we operate daily. You can't even use him for approximations on a small or large scale. On a large scale you can use Einstein, despite whatever that other nut believes in with his unpublished, un-peer-reviewed "experiments" with flying saucers that I am sure really exist.
Dgrossberg 4 years ago
So Newton only works in the 'real' 'daily' world in which real people operate...how does that make him 'very wrong'? Cowboy? Huh? Oh, I get it, you want the ultimate equation of everything....yeah, like in comic books. I see. So you are right and Einstein and Newton are VERY WRONG. Hey you and your pop gun are welcome to a gun fight in the real world anyday.
Quietlydoesit 4 years ago
Stop talking as though you understand physics, son. You don't. You don't even understand the Newtonian mechanics or optics which you pretend to. Einstein's theories about time being relative to speed are something else you don't understand. You don't even understand partial differential equations....you read a popular book or two and think your clever...fuck off prick.
Quietlydoesit 4 years ago
Sexy dancing women!!
Goal!
andytheweb 4 years ago
Brilliant, I'm going to find out more about this guy.
thingsihaveseen 4 years ago
c raises 1/0 sometimes, somewhere!
actually hard to proof, entropy the key invisible to see...
__/\__Comitee
zioluther 4 years ago
Also lookup: THE PRINCIPLES OF ULTRA-RELATIVITY, by Shinichi Seiki.
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
I Rplicated Thomas Townsend Brown's ELECTROKINETIC APPARATUS (USP#2,949-550) with 3-foot flying saucers in the 1990s. I demonstrated them at the 2nd Antigravity conference in year 2000. My work helped kids win science-fairs, get on Television, newspapers and started them on a path of advanced thinking, and knowelge,outside of the"box", which is simply not taught in our schools (except in Japan). What have YOU done?
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
I repeat: THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY IS JUST A THEORY. Sorry to shout, just trying to wake you out of your MATRIX-like slumber. Everyone thinks Relativity is a law of nature. I have tried to start you on a path of further knowlege, new physics. Science, like any living thing, must grow. Don't be fettered by calcified dogma.
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
PATENTED Rogers Undersea Transmission System (Used to commmunicate with submarines worldwide) uses the Tesla-Wave. Look at R.P. Feynman (1985) QED THE STRANGE THEORY OF LIGHT AND MATTER, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ(1949), Paul A. La Violette: SUBQUANTUM KINETICS pp 352-357.
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
Einstein himself is quoted as aying :There are wighty arguments to the Ether Theory, in fact, RELATIVITY WITHOUT ETEHR IS UNTHINKABLE.Look at C Misner K Thorne, J Wheeler,1970 (Gravitation)Ch3 ZERO-POINT ENERGY AND GEOMETRODYNAMICS,MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS AND EINSTEIN-GRAVITY IN THE PLANCK AETHER MODEL OF A UNIFIED FIELD THEORY (Z NATURFORSCH 45a,pp 1102-16.
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
Read: ETHER TECHNOLOGY, by Rho Sigma (the late Rolf Schaffranke, TOWARDS A NEW TESLA SCALAR ELECTROMAGNETICS, by Thomas Bearden,ORDER OUT OF CHAOS, by Ilya Prigogine, TAPPING THE ZERO-PONT ENERGY, by Moray B. King,ENERGY CONVERSION USING HIGH CHARGE DENSITY (US Patent #5018180),CHARGE CLUSTERS: THE BASIS OF ZERO-POINT ENERGY INVENTIONS(MB King1997),VACUUM ENERGY VORCTICES(Proc Int Symp on New Energy,pp257-259, THE THEORY AND OPERATION OF A PHASE-CONJUGATE VACUUM TRIODE1989(Bearden F Sweet).
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
Spin is everything. A spinning object is intimately connected to it's surroundings. It's immediate surroundings is the ETHER, or Fermi Sea, Dirac Sea, lumineferous Ether, etc. According to Einstein, Ether theory harmonises with General and Special relativity, but findings and inventions have invalidated General and Special. They assume speed of light to be a constant, and inviolate, but instead is a variable, and breachable.
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
He meant to say Seta, not seti. A is for artifacts.
seneca67 4 years ago
Feynman was a graat man. Interesting book on extraterrestrials can be downloaded free on rael dot org
spacelight007 4 years ago
SETI is pronounced "Set-ee" not "Seta".
muchalova 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Now uv started readin dis dunt stop. This is so scary. Send this to 5 ova videos in 143 minutes. When ur done press F6 and ur crushes name will appear on the screen
kvan1917 4 years ago
Got to love Feynman
necronia 4 years ago
Newton WAS right! The speed of Gravity is nearly instantaneous. Billions of times the speed of light. So, if you have an aerospacecraft with an electromagnetic rotor-based main drive, it would of ncessity be flat and circular, and this is also the best shape to propagate said field with symmetry, and with asymmetry effect propulsion of the craft without inertia, at many times c.
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
I often wondered what shape would be most advantageous to navigate earth's natural forces, and circular shape seems most reasonable to me. It's curious that the shapes of reported UFO's vary greatly and they don't seem to be limited in any way by earth's natural forces. I saw a football-field sized UFO that was rectangular in shape and defied every one of earth's natural forces. Perhaps many UFO's are inter-dimensional and able to come and go at their leisure. Perhaps they cloak themselves.
highhorse313 4 years ago
Or perhaps you should lay off the crack.
gamefox 4 years ago
no. nothing is faster than c... where are you getting this info?
noahdassat 4 years ago
Light pulses were sent at 300 times c in Europe in the lab. It was on the KYW-3 Radio, it was on TV, newspapers. And then was quickly forgotten, like Einstein's Unified Field Theory (1925-27). Speed of light, instead of a constant, has been shown to be a variable decades before this. Latest discoveries.
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
You see, the reason Einstein's unified field theories of the '20's have been forgotten is that (1) Einstein himself found fatal flaws in them and discarded them and (2) at the time the known forces which Einstein sought to unify were only gravity and electromagnetism. We have since discovered both the weak and strong nuclear forces, which, since Einstein's death, HAVE been unified with electromagnetism, leaving only gravitation separate.
041595 4 years ago 2
Thus, even if fatal flaws had not been found in Einstein's unification, it could not have been complete, as it considered only half of the fundamental forces now known to exist. Furthermore, your assertion that General and Special relativity have been contradicted is about as factually false as any claim one could possibly make. Every experiment ever performed has unequivocally confirmed both portions of relativity, while ether theory has been unambiguously proven false.
041595 4 years ago 2
I guess we read different books, the confirmations of Ether theory.Place to start- ZUR EINHEITLICHTEN FELDTHERIE,Unified Field Theory for Gravitation and Electricity,Einstein, Prussian science journals 1925-27, published NY TIMES,on permanent file, Wesleyan University.Lookup Silvertooth-Sagnac, Trouton-Noble,and sending of light at 300 times c in Europe in year 2000,including Tesla's non-Hertzian wave,Rogers Undersea Transmission system, Scalar transcievers have been demonstrated, etc.
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
If you have not seen any refutations of Relativity, it simply means you don't want to find any, which is the definition of a closed mind. Which is totally unscientific.
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
No it isn't unscientific to discount your references to refutations of relativity. You see, it is a waste of his time to check a refutation of something which is well known to be true. You are just a nut.
Quietlydoesit 4 years ago
Well that's what's called a Mexican-Standoff. We both believe and have scientific-experiments that support or assertions. I'd rather be a nut. That is how science has advanced, historically. Despite often rabid opposition from all sides. I would check it anyway. Think outside the box; I'm living proof!
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
This experiment was an example of anomalous dispersion: this does not support the conjecture that information(including gravity) can travel faster than the speed of light. It was not forgotten and can be found all over the internet as an example of anomolous dispersion.
MusicianMeTube 4 years ago
It was on the News radio KWY-3 in summer, 2000, in newspapers, on Television, etc. And then quickly forgotten, like Einstein's unified Field theory. I have seen scalar-wave transmission systems demonstrated. Tesla (after he invented RADIO) was sending his non-Hertzian signals thru the Earth and air at 17-times lightspeed. Lightspeed varies in a Vacuum. Relativity assumes c to be a constant; first nali in coffin of Relativity. You could look this all up too, if you wanted to.
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
Dull...added nothing to our understanding, really and that first clown totally bombed out at Carnegie hall as a speaker.
captaionvideo 4 years ago
One thing that bugs me about UFO talk is that it starts off on the wrong foot with it's vocabulary. OF COURSE there are UFO's in the most literal sense. If I toss some garbage out of my trash into the air, and my neighbor sees it but knows not exactly what it is, then he has, by definition, witnessed a UFO.
Snootwaller 5 years ago
according to Marshall Klarfeld author of "Adam, The Missing Link" feynma