I use an analagous argument for saying god" doesn;t exist. He probably wanted to, but it would have made him very impopular. UFO conspiracists arent causing the country problems, its the fucking christians who campaing against gay rights, woment right to abort and stem cell research, and teaching "the controversies" of evolution to children. Fucking idiots.
@Lan5in6 People who believe stuff because they want to despite the evidence are causing problems. It's easy to single out a certain group of religious people but they aren't the only ones.
There are people out there who believe they can drive ok after a few beers. People who think vaccines cause autism. Smoking isn't that bad. Global warming is a hoax _because_ fighting it would hurt the economy. The list goes on.
Actually, people who always stick to the evidence are a tiny minority.
If someone doesn't value evidence then what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it. If someone doesn't value logic what logical argument can you provide to show the importance of logic. All we can do is appeal to scientific values.
"I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the result of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence, rather than the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence."
Feyman was a heckuva fun guy...but he demonstrated his limitations with this sort of stuff. The same people who tell you that the evidence is overwhelming that there are a myriad civilizations out there, and who reflect upon the continual enormous leaps forward in the progress of technology, will also scoff at the notion that anybody else is out there tooling around the galaxy. Truthfully, the only surprise is not that there might be alien spacecraft but that they'd be at all interested in us.
@tonydalcon Who says that the evidence is overwhelming that there are a myriad of civilizations out there? Do you mean the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of such a thing?
I have to add, it's also arrogant of us to figure out why "they" would visit us, when the question is still "what are UFOs?" Their existence is beyond dispute but there may be no aliens involved. They might be thoughts in the mind of God for all we know about them.
@lazurm All things being equal, that would most certainly be the case. But, there are, for example, over 4,000 documented physical trace cases. It is NOT more likely that such cases are simply "thoughts in the mind of people." You might argue for hoaxes, misidentification, etc., but that would be a different argument. And, I think, that's where Feynmen's statement comes up short - it presupposes a total lack of anything beyond anecdote.
@BloatedSensations The physical evidence you allude to is anything but solid. In all such cases not one describes evidence that proves extraterrestrial origin, a glaring weakness. When I stated "thoughts in the mind" I was referring to conclusions that lack credibility. The conclusions are the thoughts. As such Feynman's arguments are still sound.
Mr. Supify, here's the key phrase in your comment. "+ from what we understand its impossible to travel at the speed of light or nearly as fast." It's accurate. "From what we understand . . . ."
But it's theory dependent too. From what we understand it's impossible to travel at or near the speed of light. But why assume, like every generation before us, that we understand everything? 500 years ago, psychosis was possession. Feynman, with all his charisma, is making a colossal error.
@RMax304823 "Theory dependent" is the basis of all science. Everything else is hypothesis dependent and that means a lot less. As for light, we've never observed anything traveling through our universe to travel faster than light, so you're hypothesis that anything is possible isn't a very useful thought until you can demonstrate what, exactly, is currently thought as impossible, is actually possible. By "demonstrate",I don't mean by imagination, I mean by, at the minimum, mathematically cogent.
@lazurm This is one of the problems with what is called "science." You have taken what is actually a built-in limitation in it (which is agreed upon by its participants) and elevated that to a sort of faith.
@tonydalcon I'll agree that belief that science can describe the natural world takes a certain amount of faith but, when you look at the body of its accomplishment and compare it to other forms of natural description, science has an overwhelmingly successful track record. And, even if there is a built in limitiation, well, that is always the case for any belief system. Even totally broad minded supernatural beliefs are limited by our imaginations.
I agree with Feynman. Its not impossible but unlikely. It is very unlikely that we are the only life forms in the universe, the true question is whether or not we've been visited by intelligent alien life forms.
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 People believe in aliens rather easy because of science fiction films and such and this shapes imagination. And it is our imagination that gives meaning to our senses so saying you have seen a flying saucer even if you are very sure you saw 1 were going to assume you dint and you made a interpretation of something you dint know. + from what we understand its impossible to travel at the speed of light or nearly as fast so we are rather skeptical of how they got here
@jabjabmove Penny Arcade actually named this phenomenon. John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theorem: normal person + anonymity + audience = complete fuckwad.
I underestimated youtube, since here you can find answers and theories that even the today's top scientists are not aware of, like for example the explanation of consciousness by jakeZaks. Unbelievable theory with such strong implications that you can only say bravo!
Feynman simply rocks (for others that use consciousness rationally and as a highly likely very complex consequence of moving atoms).
Feynman was a greatly misunderstood Genius. Such people are not born very often. Pity on people who couldn't understand the rationality this genius brought to the world. Bless you Mr. Feynman.
@jabjabmove, notice how corporations call their employees "human resources" - how many atheists want to be treated like an exploitable natural resource by a corporation? Atheists should be careful what they wish for!
A few studying consciousness talk about the brain making "self-inquiries" & "self-reflecting" & this "explains" the sense of self. it's good rhetoric, but the fact remains, the brain is just matter, there's no entity doing any inquiring or reflecting. It doesn't explain a thing!
@jabjabmove, thanks! I get so many negative responses, I'm giving up reading replies.
What many people don't know is scientists weren't so religious over the cause of consciousness in Einstein's day.
Sadly, the atheists are destroying all debate on this subject. I'm not saying turn to religion; I just want an honest discussion. Even if no conclusion can be reached - almost certain! - discussing consciousness is fascinating, and it's far more complex than most people imagine.
The mis-informartion has been circling ever since.
But i know one things for certain, Mankind today is not as blatently stupid as the gentlemen giving this "speech" and the sheeple who are laughing with him.
The proof is in the pudding...
"his preferred explanation" is exactly right...its HIS and not everyone elses..
BAHHHHH eat, poop, wader around with gone out look on your wooly face
vvv Two people having an intelligent, passionate debate about something without making attacks on one another's character or using racial slurs? On MY Youtube?
Richard Feynman must bring out the best in people.
0:44 - I disagree with Feynman's approach up until this statement. Feynman's knowledge did not consist of the enormous databases of information available to us today, especially through the internet. We have Britain now releasing their UFO files to the public. It's no longer an issue of whether flying saucers or UFO's are real or not. The question now is: who do they belong to?
I find it much more likely that they are terrestrial advanced propulsion craft rather than alien...
Feynman makes a key mistake when he says "I'm scientific, so therefor I know ALL about flying saucers." This is the fallacy of appeal to authority or appeal to academia or what have you... It's a fallacy.
Feynman doesn't know nearly as much as you do about flying saucers since he never studied them in the detail and depth we can today with the release of many UFO reports and technology disclosures from Government black projects more secret than Feynman worked on...
Feynman was making a point, that the person assumed he knew about 'flying saucers', just because he was a scientist. He dismisses the assertion by the way he gestured.
He *wasn't* saying that he knew all about them.
Plus, how can you study something that has no solid evidence that it even exists?
@NanoThermite911, Feynman didn't say that at all; he said that this is what his interlocutor thought of him, that Feynman was scientific, so he should know all about flying saucers - note the shaking of his head at the end of his sentence.
I disagree with Feynman on one thing only: consciousness! How he could ever have believed that particles moving about can create what doesn't exist in the matter universe - conscious experience! - is beyond me.
@jakeZaks2012 I don´t understand your point : you and me are made of atoms moving about. For a certain amount of time they exist in a certain amount of space and form us, and once we´re no more they cease to be "us" and go form something else. The way they interact to form one´s conscience, to form one´s being, is truly a mistery BUT why consider consciousness as being something not inate to the very thing that constitute us and rather to something "outside"?
@musicologo123, are you conscious? If humans didn't talk, scientists would have denied consciousness in us, just as they originally denied it in animals.
Atoms moving about CANNOT create the color I see, the flavors I taste, the sounds I hear, or the pain I feel.
Neuroscientists researching consciousness HAVE to explain these QUALIA, as they are called.
Conscious experience is either real or it isn't. If we're just atoms, consciousness should NOT exist - yet it DOES! Don't play dumb!
@musicologo123, you were dead before you were born. You were particles in space. You were DEAD! But you woke up. So, this assertion that death is the end doesn't make any sense - it only makes sense if you DENY the existence of consciousness.
You are telling me what you believe. I don't want religion, I want science. Science MUST explain conscious experience in terms of atoms moving about. If it can't do that, then it has a HUGE problem that it MUST acknowledge instead of running away from.
@jakeZaks2012 Yet again I don´t understand your point : I gave a purely physical analisys, there´s no religion in my previous post, in fact one could say that I've ruled religion out of the equation. The thing is that you are failling to acknowlodge that you are mixing three distinct definitions for what counciousness is.From an stricly philosofical aproach, you are incorrect to state that we are conscious sorely due to our feelings and hability to talk (continues)
@jakeZaks2012 since our consciousness iis defined by knowing that in fact we´re conscious, acknowlodging the being we constitute. However, from an physical aproach, one could say that what we feel for instance is a sub-product of the way matter beheaves when arranged in forms like ours. Colors, tastes, smell etc are no more than eletrical currents in your brain and bio-chemical reactions, in fact, they ARE produced by atoms "flowing about". (continues)
@musicologo123, neuroscientists HAVE NOT shown how matter causes consciousness. They have FAILED utterly. I'll give you $1,000 if you can refer me to the research paper explaining how atoms (or neurons) create conscious experience.
The color I see is a phenomenon that cannot be explained in terms of atoms. Heat can, but not the conscious experience of heat.
ATOMS MOVING ABOUT ARE JUST ATOMS MOVING ABOUT. They can't create what doesn't exist in the matter universe: conscious experience.
@jakeZaks2012 Isn't consciousness our brain?Our brain is wired for us to understand language and concepts by connecting one thing with another?I cant explain how the brain works by pinpointing every electron and its role,but I feel that "consciousness" is hyped,in the sense that it is a mere tool for us to live (safely) and reproduce in this world. Heat is hot and too much of it is dangerous for our body,therefore brain develops the conscious experience of getting burnt,brain = consciousness imo
@jakeZaks2012 Also, the definition that I was dead before I was born is logically erroneous, since being alive right now does not imply on a negative state prior to that. I simply WASN´T. When matter started to form what I am now, I sprung into counsciousness.
@musicologo123, no it is NOT logically erroneous. That's like saying it's logical erroneous to say that the electron can orbit an atom without spiraling inwards - well, it does! ACCEPT IT! Scientists were forced to accept the impossible.
Matter is just matter. It's not conscious, it doesn't see, feel, or experience, and regardless of how you arrange those atoms, they cannot create what doesn't exist in the matter universe.
If I'm just atoms, I don't exist. I'm just a lump of DEAD matter!
@musicologo123 Dude, I am just trying to point you a thing or two. If you would get out of you head for a while you could see that some, not all, but some of what you´re saying is scientific mumbo-jumbo. Logic is a mathematical science that may or may not inferr with the natural reality of the world as we perceive it. s not like what you said "nature uses probability", probability calculus is inate to what the reality IS. It´s a means to translate to our language how nature behaves.
@musicologo123, how can nature use probability? Is it a damn calculator? The point is, mathematics is meant to explain how nature works, it is NOT meant to BE nature. At the fundamental level there is meant to be some sort of "mechanism", but the more scientists look, the more they find nothing but maths.
In other words, they know NOTHING about reality, about how nature actually works, or what reality is.
@musicologo123, given scientists are so IGNORANT of what nature is, of what reality is, don't tell me conscious experience MUST BE atoms moving about, but that's just plain nonsense - at least to anyone who's actually conscious.
@musicologo123, Feynman understood almost nothing about nature.
How does light propagate through space? QED treats light as a particle, but THEN its behavior is so bizarre, it's impossible to explain. If u treat it as a wave, a wave of what? There's no "ether".
The more scientists look, the more there seems to be nothing there. Feynman mentions this when he says that the closer they get to the fundamental behavior of matter, the more mathematical nature gets - nature uses probability, etc. y?
@jakeZaks2012 That´s just a mathematical model to describe the reality of photo-eletric particles moving through space. We don´t know for sure! There´s no way to know for sure, except by correlating the theory with data gathared from empirical analisys. THAT´S how science is made. Wave, or particles, are behaviours.
@musicologo123, no scientific theory predicts the existence of consciousness, and one never will. Hawkins talks about "the theory of everything" - of everything that's made of matter, but this theory does not explain conscious experience, NOR does it predict its existence.
The ONLY reason we know consciousness exists is because we humans can speak and have told scientists we are conscious.
Consciousness should NOT exist. Fact! Science has a very big problem, but doesn't care.
@musicologo123, the more scientists look, the more they are finding that there's nothing there! The reality is that there is no reality, there is nothing solid at the fundamental level, nothing real.
Science KNOWS NOTHING about how nature does what she does. Light is a particle - u never detect a wave. But if it's a particle, its behavior cannot be understood, although you can predict what will happen, you just can't say what is actually going on, or even if there is an actual particle there.
I have 99.9% certainty of there being other intelligent life out there, seeing how inconceivably vast our universe is. I share the same certainty of their not being any of it here, on our planet, or flying around our planet, right now. In short, its one thing to believe we're not alone in the universe, but drastically different to believe we're not alone ON EARTH. (we are, mind you.)
If you take a deeper look to Feynmans thoughts you will find that he left a space for conclusion that we really dont know what universe really is, and what is our purpose. Best part is his thoughts on doubt, uncertainty and religion. By the way, he seems like becoming almost zen by discovering some of the secrets of our world. Maybe the search for the truth is closer to our purpose then just masturbating our ego by spitting on everything.
I find that people who claim the Earth has been visited by aliens are just plain arrogant and ignorant.
Theres billions of planets, why would an alien race come to us? The human race had not evolved yet for millions of years so cant have been the reason. Aliens would randomly go to Earth and by chance humans evolved in the meantime?
What is so special about the Earth anyway?
And if they came AT ALL why in such small numbers that only a few times spread over long periods of time did we see them?
If humans found a planet x lightyears away with animals on it, would we go there right away just because its life somewhere else? We are not even close to light-speed so any crew to go to the planet would have long died of age before getting there. Even the closest planets are tens of lightyears away. There would be no point in going there if we could go at light speed. Even if aliens could go lightspeed, why should they bother? It would still take decades and thats assuming best case scenarios.
Besides, aliens with lightspeed technology would have no benefit in going to Earth in the first place. Clearly much more technologically advanced, they must think of our intelligence like we think of the intelligence of a goldfish. Not to mention the fact that the top technological breakthroughs of mankind were made in the last 60 years or so, which would put aliens within 60 LY distance to even OBSERVE the existance of it, let alone already having traveled here. Mankind has too little to offer.
The logical flaw is just plain and simple, if aliens were advanced enough to come here, we would have nothing of value to them.
If humans were of enough interest of aliens to be worth traveling to, the aliens themselves would have no technology to do it.
The notion of connecting with alien life is very appealing but even more unlikely. It is best left to science fiction at least for any of our lifetimes. That is unless I missed a reason so blatanly obvious that you didnt even point it out?
@treehaus14 That is because there is nothing else on earth that isn't reado;y available on much easier to reach locations. If it wasn't for the humans, Earth would just be another planet like the billion others.
@Izerion Ahh, you think they want to come and chill with us. That is a rosy picture. I hope your right, if this scenario is ever played out, but most likely the impetus for their invading another planet would be to acquire resources they ran out of on their own, which would rule out the fruits of human intelligence. This is a ridiculous conversation.
@treehaus14 I would not count on Earth having any resources that are not much easy to acquire, basically everywhere. I'd be very surprised if extraterrestials would come all the way over here just to get some random resource, considering there will likely be hundreds of thousands of planets in between them and us which have the same or more resources.
Humans advance because of our scientific curiosity. We can assume the same of aliens who are more advanced than we.
If we learned about ANY planet with ANY life, we'd want to go study it.
The likelihood of their being able to travel the necessary distance is near zero. You're right that the likelihood of them having that capability during our tenure on earth is so close to zero it's practically negative.
But I don't think there's reason to doubt an alien desire to study us.
Fair enough, I suppose I was a bit hasty in drawing that conclusion. Though in practical terms it makes little difference as desire alone does not make the distance any smaller.
Also what needs to be considered, is the possibility of any other life being closer to the aliens than us. The desire to study life coupled with the practical distance would still put humans on a backseat, but this is purely speculation of course. Working with probabilities of nearby alien life is almost meaningless.
@Izerion@Izerion Yes, that's exactly right, practically speaking, it's a moot point. It's just that, there is so little about the human race that I find inspiring and exhilarating. One of those few things is that there is nothing we are above studying. Just everything fascinates us. You want your socks blown off? Go to TED and search for Paul Stamets' research on the mycelium fungus. He got a standing ovation. You'll understand. You'll be like, "Fungus! HELL YEAH!!"
does science care about any of this? Nope. These are at worst pure metaphysical claims, and at best symbolic. Do all Buddhists believe in this as stated? Perhaps. Perhaps some are more refined? I dont know, I am not a buddhist. Nothing wrong with being holy, since you can be that for several reasons. Reincarnated? Perhaps they mean a spiritual reincarnation, same ways with 3. 4. Being more an interesting story? This is R. Feynman, and everybody should see this, regardless of their faith.
Claims made by buddhism provide no better evidence than the reports of the existence of flying saucers.
Putting it through the same apologetics spin cycle that christians or other theists use to defend their woo woo does not change that fact. E.g. oh, but they don't all believe it; oh, but it's metaphysical (that makes it true?); oh, but it's symbolic; oh, but it's spiritual reincarnation (that makes it real?).
This should be seen because it's spot on, regardless whether it's R. Feynman.
No, but that doesnt mean that flying saucers doesnt exist, does it? There is no evidence for extraterritorial life either, but most scientists seems to trust the possibilty. Apologetic spin? I am proving another explaination. And facts? Do you have the facts of how all buddhists believe what you wrote? What is real? Do have any proof for this "reality" of being real? How can you ever know that this is not just a matrix or a dream?
@edgekrusher20 So you're telling me that special relativity, something with significant amounts of proof in atom smashers, and I mean proof, is incorrect? Also, the speed of light IS the absolute speed limit of the universe. The reason is that light is electromagnetic energy. Gravity also works at the same speed. So I ask, how is something with mass(Something at which energy is transferred at lightspeed) able to go faster than the energy propagating it forward?
richard feynman a man millions of years ahead of our time... He is the best living thing that nature created, feynman is forever within us! feynman is god!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I believe this video was made in 1959, a full ten years before the first moon landing, and Richard Feynman was only stating what was popular in the science of his day.
He was also a patriot and had done much top secret work for the government - it would be doubtful that he would have been a UFO whistle blower.
If Feynman were alive today I'm sure he would have much different things to say about the subject of flying saucers.
OK, but still 5 years from the moon, 25 years from cell phones, and 35 years from a computer in every home. Thinking has changed a LOT since his time as well as our understanding of physics. We have just started to realize just how little we really know about the universe and what's really possible with space travel by an advanced civilization. Feynman's opinions were based on the science of his day and things have changed dramatically since then.
If you consider the probability of meeting extra terrestrial life forms similar to us; its just about zero! Carl Sagan came to this conclusion and the establishment didnt like hearing it. I believe that we exist due to an almost impossible and unimaginable set of coincidences that came about after billions and billions of years. On this basis our nearest neighbours will be a too far away in time and space to ever be able to visit, let alone find us!
@CaneFu ok, you're off a bit on your numbers, we have only found a hunded or so planets, there are billions of stars not trillions and the universe is 13.7 billion years old- the rest of ur comment could very well be true
Sorry, but it is you that are way off on your numbers. You are obviously quoting outdated science....
The Hubble telescope has recently observed 3,000 galaxies that are 78 billion light years away. Our Milky Way galaxy alone has an estimated 200-400 billion stars which means even more planets - and that means billions of other planets just in our galaxy alone and trillions throughout the universe..
Science is ever-changing and you need a refresher course.
I realise science is ever changing, but as of 2010 we have found @500 planets, I get your point that due to the enormous amount of stars, there is probably billions of planets but they have yet to be found! And where do u get 78 billion LY? do u know what a LY is? the universe is only 13.7 billion yrs old--78Billion WTF never mind a refresher course go get a basic astronomy course
It is clearly YOU who does not understand what a lightyear is. A LY is not a measurement of time but of distance (namely, the distance that light travels in 1 year). General Relativity says that the Universe CAN expand faster than the speed of light, which means that there is no limitation on the amount of LY in diameter of the universe and it's age. Claiming the universe is limited to be 13.7bilion LY because it's only 13.7 bilion years old is nonsense.
According to NASA's website, the universe is 13.5-14 billion or so years old. However you are correct is that we've seen objects further than that in light years, the UCLA explains this by stating that the observable universe is larger than it "should be" due to the universe having expanded.
I suggest you do more research into this since it's clear that there are credible scientists and organizations that do not agree with you on the age of the universe.
Google "Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe".
That paper explain this whole thing. In short, space expands at great speeds and that creates huge distances which wouldn't have happened if space didn't expand.
We see stars from the vantage point of where their light was when it left those stars. Stars that were 13 billion light years away from us 13 billion years ago are much further away from us than that, today. Subsequently, we don't see a single star in the sky in the position that it actually resides in right now. We can only see where it was when its light left it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I like Feynman alot, but I feel this is bold statement. Granted their knowledge of space and its vastness was much less than we know now, and also the idea of technology that can travel faster than the speed of light etc... were all seen as impossible. Too bad he passed away, I feel he probably would have something else to say about that.
Believing there exist other planets inhabited with intelligent life is not the same as believing they managed to cross vast cosmic distances in flying saucer-shaped craft and visit us. He makes no claims regarding the first point, only the second one and I think he'd still be of the same opinion today.
Or, as one who studied the subject put it, "None of the UFOs which have been identified have turned out to be of alien origins, so why not the unidentified ones, too?"
Klass said, "Land or turn out the landing lights!", i.e. if the UFOs are of alien origin, why do they insist on playing hide-and-seek for decades on end?
Never before have I heard such a concise, good, down to Earth explanation of what science is and what it means to critically reason about the world we live in. Thank you for sharing this.
lemme pipe in here averagejoe. you make a great point. but you are also assuming that there understanding of the cosmos and their technology is only a little more advanced than ours. beings that are thousands or millions of years a head of us would likely be able to bend space time or create something we have no understanding of, making E=MC2 and calculations of light and time over distance completely and laughably irrelevant.
E=MC2 find out what it means work out the calculations for light to travel, which is an object without mass. then calculate in the distance involved, then calculate in the likelyhood of our time of existence the likelyhood of another race with their time of existence and distance they would need to travel and then the chances of life within that period. then come back to me. stop reading fantasy
thanks for the discussion. I will reply if you have more to say however unfortunately it will not be tonight as I have other things to do. so I have to push this onto the backburner although I would rather have this discussion than what I now need to do. Anyway I do value conversing with you and I do respect your views even though we have different beliefs.
Imagine now this is a atheist and a religious person arguing over god. I say there is no evidence and you say but this person believes this or this person believes that. You still have not provided any evidence or proof that it might be possible just assumptions by people who think things might be this way.
Well I dont see myself as a beliver, no more than you do, I state my opinions on facts and many theories. But I do look into subjects not into the mainstream yet. The problem I think is that many has completely missunderstod what science is all about.
The ideal is ofcourse, we can test the subject over and over again in a lab or what have you. But thats not all science. Many think it is, but thats is simply wrong.
What you are stating in this discussion is mainly quite old theories while Im talking about science on the forefront of our understanding.
What we are seeing in the skies many times defie our understanding of physics.
actually when you state time is a fabric this is yet again a theory. Which comes from Einstein and it is misquoted and misunderstood. This assumption is wrong. And yes all the things you state we didnt know about a 100 years ago however all of them followed the laws of physics. what you claim does not.
Mainstream science says that there aught to be civilisations, many of them. Many much younger then us and many much older then us. One must consider the fact that quite a few of them have discovered the secrets of space and time travel.
ok firstly my views on alien life come from the fact I attended lectures by a team leader from NASA on the search for alien life and yes there is a possibility of alien life in bacterial form. They think the chances of finding any intelligent life are next to nothing. Incidentally we have existed for about 0.3% of the earth history. For intelligent life to visit us and due to the distances in space. They would then have to travel from where ever they are to us. Before they knew we existed.
Well actually I dont belive a word of what NASA officially comes out with. For some reason, one is that there are testimoials who says NASA airbrush buildings on the Moon and Mars, credible witnesses former working on projects for NASA. Two it doesent at all follow the logic train, the official NASA are using old techonoly, whiles ex millitary people say we have much more advanced space crafts out there.
You do realize that NASA has recomendations from "The Brookings Report" that not go public with evidence with alien life or artifacts?
Well thats where the new science go much further and that is the future. Im sure this will be more and more common knowledge, I just listen to Michio Kaku talking about time travel, very interresting.
UFOs are more likely to be government experiments or miss seen objects than anything else. Remember just over 150 years ago people believed in fairies, pixies and elves. The UFO is just a modern version of that.
The problem with that is what we have seen these objects for a long time. Ofcourse there is black projects of highly advanced flying vehicles, man made. But that sure doesent rule out the ET-vehicle explanation.
Why asume that we must understand technology perhaps 1000, 100 000, 100 000 000 years older then we have?
Not long ago we wouldnt have understand what a helicopter was. And by the way, Sprites and Elves are actually a scientific name for new light phenomena.
creating answers for unknown object is not exactly science is it. What I stated is based on the knowledge we have at present. I could easily say that actually all ufo's might be aliens that are made out of candy, live in shoes and can only communicate by a series of hopping on one foot signals. fantasy is not science. "What if" can be applied to anything. And the aliens I mention have just enough chance as your idea of being true.
Actually it is created for this reason, UFO was created to study this phenomena in a scientific way, now the term UFO is almost useless because people bring in alot of other bs in this term. So they have created the term UAP to "try" to get rid of the worst pseudoskeptics and bullshiters so we finally can start to do more science in this matter.
Well you could, but that would be a lie, because no one with credibility claims this, no science what so ever even point to the fact that an UAP should be made of candy. And you know the answer to rest aswell.
Well it very simple actually, if you follow the evidence and logic train, and... New mainstream science you can only come to the conclusion that UAPs are real.
ok firstly, this video states the same view as I gave. You have already stated that pixies, fairies etc turned out to be instances of light. So isn't that more likely as that is proven than time travel and aliens which has not been. There has been not one shred of evidence time travel is possible
Yes and videos like this have form the pseuskeptics, as much that other bs movies have formed religious UFO fanatics.
I propose a middle ground with more science, more logical thinking and most of all, get rid of all this ridicule bullshit that just swamp the Internet.
I dont see it more logic actually, we just feel it would be more logic because our society havent accepted the posibillity of us being visited.
Well actually scientist are thinking more and more of the fact that time travel is a reality. They do know that time is a farbric that one can manipulate.
Think of it, 150 years ago we had no planes, no helicopters, no computers, no cars, we have gone very fast forward in our technology.
You can see Buddy Holly at 1:02.
guyonthebenchful 1 week ago
It's so bad that he's not alive to debate with Bill O'Reilly. It would be so funny to see Billo the Fool cry and pee himself at the same time.
caliaa 1 week ago
der alcohol is good ja
bobodd5 3 months ago
I use an analagous argument for saying god" doesn;t exist. He probably wanted to, but it would have made him very impopular. UFO conspiracists arent causing the country problems, its the fucking christians who campaing against gay rights, woment right to abort and stem cell research, and teaching "the controversies" of evolution to children. Fucking idiots.
Lan5in6 3 months ago
@Lan5in6 People who believe stuff because they want to despite the evidence are causing problems. It's easy to single out a certain group of religious people but they aren't the only ones.
There are people out there who believe they can drive ok after a few beers. People who think vaccines cause autism. Smoking isn't that bad. Global warming is a hoax _because_ fighting it would hurt the economy. The list goes on.
Actually, people who always stick to the evidence are a tiny minority.
effortless35 1 month ago
Any clever man has already considered that avenue and still there's a small pourcentage of ufo that remain unexplainable. shove it up your ass
b0utch 3 months ago
We love you Dick
Albertolo1928 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Likelihood of Feynman Chaser taking it up the ass?
messiiironaldo 4 months ago
That is robust logic , cant go against it... Congratulations for the statement.
thomasey2 4 months ago
This one and the hungry philosopher one are both priceless.
aradioactivedonut 5 months ago
If someone doesn't value evidence then what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it. If someone doesn't value logic what logical argument can you provide to show the importance of logic. All we can do is appeal to scientific values.
nigelsenchez 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the result of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence, rather than the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence."
YW
SpallettaAC1041 6 months ago
Comment removed
SpallettaAC1041 6 months ago
One guy I would have loved to have met.
bigboy45454545 6 months ago
Feyman was a heckuva fun guy...but he demonstrated his limitations with this sort of stuff. The same people who tell you that the evidence is overwhelming that there are a myriad civilizations out there, and who reflect upon the continual enormous leaps forward in the progress of technology, will also scoff at the notion that anybody else is out there tooling around the galaxy. Truthfully, the only surprise is not that there might be alien spacecraft but that they'd be at all interested in us.
tonydalcon 7 months ago
@tonydalcon Who says that the evidence is overwhelming that there are a myriad of civilizations out there? Do you mean the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of such a thing?
dsbnh 6 months ago
Art Carney aka Ed Norton @:15
ChessNetwork 7 months ago in playlist Richard Feynman
every member of the audience is wearing glasses... i found this easy to masturbate to.
4stie 8 months ago 23
Everybody in the audience had the SAME glasses
nhmllr725 8 months ago
I have to add, it's also arrogant of us to figure out why "they" would visit us, when the question is still "what are UFOs?" Their existence is beyond dispute but there may be no aliens involved. They might be thoughts in the mind of God for all we know about them.
RMax304823 9 months ago
@RMax304823 But, it's much more likely that flying saucers are thoughts in the mind of people who know little about them.
lazurm 8 months ago
@lazurm All things being equal, that would most certainly be the case. But, there are, for example, over 4,000 documented physical trace cases. It is NOT more likely that such cases are simply "thoughts in the mind of people." You might argue for hoaxes, misidentification, etc., but that would be a different argument. And, I think, that's where Feynmen's statement comes up short - it presupposes a total lack of anything beyond anecdote.
BloatedSensations 7 months ago
@BloatedSensations The physical evidence you allude to is anything but solid. In all such cases not one describes evidence that proves extraterrestrial origin, a glaring weakness. When I stated "thoughts in the mind" I was referring to conclusions that lack credibility. The conclusions are the thoughts. As such Feynman's arguments are still sound.
lazurm 7 months ago
Mr. Supify, here's the key phrase in your comment. "+ from what we understand its impossible to travel at the speed of light or nearly as fast." It's accurate. "From what we understand . . . ."
But it's theory dependent too. From what we understand it's impossible to travel at or near the speed of light. But why assume, like every generation before us, that we understand everything? 500 years ago, psychosis was possession. Feynman, with all his charisma, is making a colossal error.
RMax304823 9 months ago
@RMax304823 "Theory dependent" is the basis of all science. Everything else is hypothesis dependent and that means a lot less. As for light, we've never observed anything traveling through our universe to travel faster than light, so you're hypothesis that anything is possible isn't a very useful thought until you can demonstrate what, exactly, is currently thought as impossible, is actually possible. By "demonstrate",I don't mean by imagination, I mean by, at the minimum, mathematically cogent.
lazurm 8 months ago
@lazurm This is one of the problems with what is called "science." You have taken what is actually a built-in limitation in it (which is agreed upon by its participants) and elevated that to a sort of faith.
tonydalcon 7 months ago
@tonydalcon I'll agree that belief that science can describe the natural world takes a certain amount of faith but, when you look at the body of its accomplishment and compare it to other forms of natural description, science has an overwhelmingly successful track record. And, even if there is a built in limitiation, well, that is always the case for any belief system. Even totally broad minded supernatural beliefs are limited by our imaginations.
lazurm 7 months ago
I agree with Feynman. Its not impossible but unlikely. It is very unlikely that we are the only life forms in the universe, the true question is whether or not we've been visited by intelligent alien life forms.
Harminoff2000 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We hit it off so well after another visit busizz4me.info
geratmathew 11 months ago
What is a burning chariot in the sky?
infamousgorn 11 months ago
@infamousgorn Sun
aizik2005 11 months ago
Everyone laughed at the thought that that this man is within the shell of the "norm". What is unfortunate is that there is somethig beyond that.
IrishLincoln 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 People believe in aliens rather easy because of science fiction films and such and this shapes imagination. And it is our imagination that gives meaning to our senses so saying you have seen a flying saucer even if you are very sure you saw 1 were going to assume you dint and you made a interpretation of something you dint know. + from what we understand its impossible to travel at the speed of light or nearly as fast so we are rather skeptical of how they got here
MrSupify 9 months ago
@jabjabmove Penny Arcade actually named this phenomenon. John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theorem: normal person + anonymity + audience = complete fuckwad.
MrClickity 11 months ago
take that, shockofgod
aj19bcx 1 year ago
but he forgot to think about the unknown unknowns... guess he's not as smart as rummy!
jmleblan 1 year ago 3
Same could be applied to god.
Sconz32 1 year ago
Protip: By "extraterrestrial" he means your false judeo-christian god.
Garuda1337 1 year ago
And this is one of the reasons why people still love Feynman.
quillendaniel 1 year ago 3
@jabjabmove
Hats off to you both for having a legitimate, polite discussion. A refreshing sight anywhere on the internet!
jman7759 1 year ago
I like how he said "laymen"
FractalBolt 1 year ago
so many people wearing glasses in that crowd. whats up with that?
jimi3k 1 year ago
@jimi3k eye contacts and lasik weren't invented yet.
beenn15 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jimi3k, "so many people wearing glasses in that crowd. whats up with that?"
Maybe they put all the nearsighted ones up front.
loqiloqi 1 year ago
I underestimated youtube, since here you can find answers and theories that even the today's top scientists are not aware of, like for example the explanation of consciousness by jakeZaks. Unbelievable theory with such strong implications that you can only say bravo!
Feynman simply rocks (for others that use consciousness rationally and as a highly likely very complex consequence of moving atoms).
hamtuber 1 year ago
Feynman was a greatly misunderstood Genius. Such people are not born very often. Pity on people who couldn't understand the rationality this genius brought to the world. Bless you Mr. Feynman.
ahujasiddharth 1 year ago
@jabjabmove, notice how corporations call their employees "human resources" - how many atheists want to be treated like an exploitable natural resource by a corporation? Atheists should be careful what they wish for!
A few studying consciousness talk about the brain making "self-inquiries" & "self-reflecting" & this "explains" the sense of self. it's good rhetoric, but the fact remains, the brain is just matter, there's no entity doing any inquiring or reflecting. It doesn't explain a thing!
jakeZaks2012 1 year ago
@jabjabmove, thanks! I get so many negative responses, I'm giving up reading replies.
What many people don't know is scientists weren't so religious over the cause of consciousness in Einstein's day.
Sadly, the atheists are destroying all debate on this subject. I'm not saying turn to religion; I just want an honest discussion. Even if no conclusion can be reached - almost certain! - discussing consciousness is fascinating, and it's far more complex than most people imagine.
jakeZaks2012 1 year ago
The Art Carney of Science. Bang Zoom! What a guy.
Jakelakeable 1 year ago
and so...
The mis-informartion has been circling ever since.
But i know one things for certain, Mankind today is not as blatently stupid as the gentlemen giving this "speech" and the sheeple who are laughing with him.
The proof is in the pudding...
"his preferred explanation" is exactly right...its HIS and not everyone elses..
BAHHHHH eat, poop, wader around with gone out look on your wooly face
BAHHHHH BAHHHHHH BLEET BAHHHH
MaffyMoose 1 year ago
vvv Two people having an intelligent, passionate debate about something without making attacks on one another's character or using racial slurs? On MY Youtube?
Richard Feynman must bring out the best in people.
westernfallout 1 year ago 52
That's so brilliant.
He has a way with words.
heavyboxes 1 year ago
Dick quoting politics of the moment ONLY.
69erthx1138 1 year ago
ohhh look at you all idiots justifying your stupidity, isn`t that sweet! :-)
kontekzt 1 year ago
Disclosure Project -- May 2001 Google the video.
MartinTruther 1 year ago
DISCOVERED in the 21st century: The Underlying Law of Nature (i.e., the world's most useful knowledge).
You decide.
The straightforward, empirical process for identifying the underlying law of nature first hand–i.e., for oneself, was discovered in 2008.
The top 3 General Characteristics of the underlying law of nature:
#1. The Way of All Things
#2. The Basis of All Laws and Principles
#3. The Basis of All Health, Growth, Efficacy and Efficiency
Google it, as a start, if interested.
TedDGPoulos 1 year ago
notice how everyone in the crowd is wearing glasses?
tehgame100 1 year ago
0:44 - I disagree with Feynman's approach up until this statement. Feynman's knowledge did not consist of the enormous databases of information available to us today, especially through the internet. We have Britain now releasing their UFO files to the public. It's no longer an issue of whether flying saucers or UFO's are real or not. The question now is: who do they belong to?
I find it much more likely that they are terrestrial advanced propulsion craft rather than alien...
AlienScientist 1 year ago
@AlienScientist,
Feynman makes a key mistake when he says "I'm scientific, so therefor I know ALL about flying saucers." This is the fallacy of appeal to authority or appeal to academia or what have you... It's a fallacy.
Feynman doesn't know nearly as much as you do about flying saucers since he never studied them in the detail and depth we can today with the release of many UFO reports and technology disclosures from Government black projects more secret than Feynman worked on...
NanoThermite911 1 year ago
@NanoThermite911
Feynman was making a point, that the person assumed he knew about 'flying saucers', just because he was a scientist. He dismisses the assertion by the way he gestured.
He *wasn't* saying that he knew all about them.
Plus, how can you study something that has no solid evidence that it even exists?
Cranberryshortbread 1 year ago
@NanoThermite911, Feynman didn't say that at all; he said that this is what his interlocutor thought of him, that Feynman was scientific, so he should know all about flying saucers - note the shaking of his head at the end of his sentence.
I disagree with Feynman on one thing only: consciousness! How he could ever have believed that particles moving about can create what doesn't exist in the matter universe - conscious experience! - is beyond me.
Atoms moving about r just atoms moving about.
jakeZaks2012 1 year ago
@jakeZaks2012 I don´t understand your point : you and me are made of atoms moving about. For a certain amount of time they exist in a certain amount of space and form us, and once we´re no more they cease to be "us" and go form something else. The way they interact to form one´s conscience, to form one´s being, is truly a mistery BUT why consider consciousness as being something not inate to the very thing that constitute us and rather to something "outside"?
musicologo123 1 year ago
@musicologo123, are you conscious? If humans didn't talk, scientists would have denied consciousness in us, just as they originally denied it in animals.
Atoms moving about CANNOT create the color I see, the flavors I taste, the sounds I hear, or the pain I feel.
Neuroscientists researching consciousness HAVE to explain these QUALIA, as they are called.
Conscious experience is either real or it isn't. If we're just atoms, consciousness should NOT exist - yet it DOES! Don't play dumb!
jakeZaks2012 1 year ago
@musicologo123, you were dead before you were born. You were particles in space. You were DEAD! But you woke up. So, this assertion that death is the end doesn't make any sense - it only makes sense if you DENY the existence of consciousness.
You are telling me what you believe. I don't want religion, I want science. Science MUST explain conscious experience in terms of atoms moving about. If it can't do that, then it has a HUGE problem that it MUST acknowledge instead of running away from.
jakeZaks2012 1 year ago
@jakeZaks2012 Yet again I don´t understand your point : I gave a purely physical analisys, there´s no religion in my previous post, in fact one could say that I've ruled religion out of the equation. The thing is that you are failling to acknowlodge that you are mixing three distinct definitions for what counciousness is.From an stricly philosofical aproach, you are incorrect to state that we are conscious sorely due to our feelings and hability to talk (continues)
musicologo123 1 year ago
@jakeZaks2012 since our consciousness iis defined by knowing that in fact we´re conscious, acknowlodging the being we constitute. However, from an physical aproach, one could say that what we feel for instance is a sub-product of the way matter beheaves when arranged in forms like ours. Colors, tastes, smell etc are no more than eletrical currents in your brain and bio-chemical reactions, in fact, they ARE produced by atoms "flowing about". (continues)
musicologo123 1 year ago
@musicologo123, neuroscientists HAVE NOT shown how matter causes consciousness. They have FAILED utterly. I'll give you $1,000 if you can refer me to the research paper explaining how atoms (or neurons) create conscious experience.
The color I see is a phenomenon that cannot be explained in terms of atoms. Heat can, but not the conscious experience of heat.
ATOMS MOVING ABOUT ARE JUST ATOMS MOVING ABOUT. They can't create what doesn't exist in the matter universe: conscious experience.
jakeZaks2012 1 year ago
@jakeZaks2012 Isn't consciousness our brain?Our brain is wired for us to understand language and concepts by connecting one thing with another?I cant explain how the brain works by pinpointing every electron and its role,but I feel that "consciousness" is hyped,in the sense that it is a mere tool for us to live (safely) and reproduce in this world. Heat is hot and too much of it is dangerous for our body,therefore brain develops the conscious experience of getting burnt,brain = consciousness imo
maniacguitar 1 year ago
@jakeZaks2012 Also, the definition that I was dead before I was born is logically erroneous, since being alive right now does not imply on a negative state prior to that. I simply WASN´T. When matter started to form what I am now, I sprung into counsciousness.
musicologo123 1 year ago
@musicologo123, no it is NOT logically erroneous. That's like saying it's logical erroneous to say that the electron can orbit an atom without spiraling inwards - well, it does! ACCEPT IT! Scientists were forced to accept the impossible.
Matter is just matter. It's not conscious, it doesn't see, feel, or experience, and regardless of how you arrange those atoms, they cannot create what doesn't exist in the matter universe.
If I'm just atoms, I don't exist. I'm just a lump of DEAD matter!
jakeZaks2012 1 year ago
@musicologo123 Dude, I am just trying to point you a thing or two. If you would get out of you head for a while you could see that some, not all, but some of what you´re saying is scientific mumbo-jumbo. Logic is a mathematical science that may or may not inferr with the natural reality of the world as we perceive it. s not like what you said "nature uses probability", probability calculus is inate to what the reality IS. It´s a means to translate to our language how nature behaves.
musicologo123 1 year ago
@musicologo123, what mumbo-jumbo? I'M JUST ATOMS. YOU'RE JUST ATOMS. AND CONSCIOUSNESS ISN'T REAL, IT'S JUST ATOMS MOVING ABOUT.
Then rape, torture, murder is 100% ACCEPTABLE! It's just an interaction of matter.
What you are saying is religious dogma.
Einstein said science will NEVER explain conscious experience. Was he also spouting scientific mumbo-jumbo?
jakeZaks2012 1 year ago
@musicologo123, how can nature use probability? Is it a damn calculator? The point is, mathematics is meant to explain how nature works, it is NOT meant to BE nature. At the fundamental level there is meant to be some sort of "mechanism", but the more scientists look, the more they find nothing but maths.
In other words, they know NOTHING about reality, about how nature actually works, or what reality is.
jakeZaks2012 1 year ago
@musicologo123, given scientists are so IGNORANT of what nature is, of what reality is, don't tell me conscious experience MUST BE atoms moving about, but that's just plain nonsense - at least to anyone who's actually conscious.
jakeZaks2012 1 year ago
@musicologo123, Feynman understood almost nothing about nature.
How does light propagate through space? QED treats light as a particle, but THEN its behavior is so bizarre, it's impossible to explain. If u treat it as a wave, a wave of what? There's no "ether".
The more scientists look, the more there seems to be nothing there. Feynman mentions this when he says that the closer they get to the fundamental behavior of matter, the more mathematical nature gets - nature uses probability, etc. y?
jakeZaks2012 1 year ago
@jakeZaks2012 That´s just a mathematical model to describe the reality of photo-eletric particles moving through space. We don´t know for sure! There´s no way to know for sure, except by correlating the theory with data gathared from empirical analisys. THAT´S how science is made. Wave, or particles, are behaviours.
musicologo123 1 year ago
@musicologo123, no scientific theory predicts the existence of consciousness, and one never will. Hawkins talks about "the theory of everything" - of everything that's made of matter, but this theory does not explain conscious experience, NOR does it predict its existence.
The ONLY reason we know consciousness exists is because we humans can speak and have told scientists we are conscious.
Consciousness should NOT exist. Fact! Science has a very big problem, but doesn't care.
jakeZaks2012 1 year ago
@musicologo123, the more scientists look, the more they are finding that there's nothing there! The reality is that there is no reality, there is nothing solid at the fundamental level, nothing real.
Science KNOWS NOTHING about how nature does what she does. Light is a particle - u never detect a wave. But if it's a particle, its behavior cannot be understood, although you can predict what will happen, you just can't say what is actually going on, or even if there is an actual particle there.
jakeZaks2012 1 year ago
I disagree.
sypha0x 1 year ago
The man was just a genius, always fun to listen too.
beastlt12 1 year ago
this must be feynman's adaptation on occam's razor. i always this when i argue with my friends. thank you mr. feynman.
zapopaul 1 year ago
I have 99.9% certainty of there being other intelligent life out there, seeing how inconceivably vast our universe is. I share the same certainty of their not being any of it here, on our planet, or flying around our planet, right now. In short, its one thing to believe we're not alone in the universe, but drastically different to believe we're not alone ON EARTH. (we are, mind you.)
xRawlins 1 year ago
If you take a deeper look to Feynmans thoughts you will find that he left a space for conclusion that we really dont know what universe really is, and what is our purpose. Best part is his thoughts on doubt, uncertainty and religion. By the way, he seems like becoming almost zen by discovering some of the secrets of our world. Maybe the search for the truth is closer to our purpose then just masturbating our ego by spitting on everything.
ufologist82 1 year ago
This argument courtesy of David Hume...
Itsnattatooma 1 year ago
He really does look like tom hanks
Chill197 1 year ago
A brilliant mind and a great inspiration ;)
Swamoez0rs 1 year ago
Yes, Feynman is teh right.
TensorKhan 1 year ago
Aliens are a red herring
Zoidborg1 1 year ago
seems like Faynman is ignorant as to the existence of US build top secret VTOL Coanda-effect stealth aircraft (Flying Saucers)
Most sightings are just the imagination or fraud of the observer
But a few are credible and can not be dismissed
Flying Saucers are real ever since the late 1940's but still Top Secret
Zoidborg1 1 year ago
I find that people who claim the Earth has been visited by aliens are just plain arrogant and ignorant.
Theres billions of planets, why would an alien race come to us? The human race had not evolved yet for millions of years so cant have been the reason. Aliens would randomly go to Earth and by chance humans evolved in the meantime?
What is so special about the Earth anyway?
And if they came AT ALL why in such small numbers that only a few times spread over long periods of time did we see them?
Izerion 1 year ago
@Izerion
HAHAHAHAHAHA you talk about ignorance yet you fail to see the blatantly obvious reasons as to why an alien race would visit us???????
Really????
Jesus dude....
I read a lot of moronic youtube comments... yours has to be one of the stupidest....
edgekrusher20 1 year ago
If humans found a planet x lightyears away with animals on it, would we go there right away just because its life somewhere else? We are not even close to light-speed so any crew to go to the planet would have long died of age before getting there. Even the closest planets are tens of lightyears away. There would be no point in going there if we could go at light speed. Even if aliens could go lightspeed, why should they bother? It would still take decades and thats assuming best case scenarios.
Izerion 1 year ago
Besides, aliens with lightspeed technology would have no benefit in going to Earth in the first place. Clearly much more technologically advanced, they must think of our intelligence like we think of the intelligence of a goldfish. Not to mention the fact that the top technological breakthroughs of mankind were made in the last 60 years or so, which would put aliens within 60 LY distance to even OBSERVE the existance of it, let alone already having traveled here. Mankind has too little to offer.
Izerion 1 year ago
The logical flaw is just plain and simple, if aliens were advanced enough to come here, we would have nothing of value to them.
If humans were of enough interest of aliens to be worth traveling to, the aliens themselves would have no technology to do it.
The notion of connecting with alien life is very appealing but even more unlikely. It is best left to science fiction at least for any of our lifetimes. That is unless I missed a reason so blatanly obvious that you didnt even point it out?
Izerion 1 year ago
@Izerion What is the assumption that extraterrestrials would visit earth for the humans based on?
treehaus14 1 year ago
@treehaus14 That is because there is nothing else on earth that isn't reado;y available on much easier to reach locations. If it wasn't for the humans, Earth would just be another planet like the billion others.
Izerion 1 year ago
@Izerion Ahh, you think they want to come and chill with us. That is a rosy picture. I hope your right, if this scenario is ever played out, but most likely the impetus for their invading another planet would be to acquire resources they ran out of on their own, which would rule out the fruits of human intelligence. This is a ridiculous conversation.
treehaus14 1 year ago
@treehaus14 I would not count on Earth having any resources that are not much easy to acquire, basically everywhere. I'd be very surprised if extraterrestials would come all the way over here just to get some random resource, considering there will likely be hundreds of thousands of planets in between them and us which have the same or more resources.
Izerion 1 year ago
Izerion,
Humans advance because of our scientific curiosity. We can assume the same of aliens who are more advanced than we.
If we learned about ANY planet with ANY life, we'd want to go study it.
The likelihood of their being able to travel the necessary distance is near zero. You're right that the likelihood of them having that capability during our tenure on earth is so close to zero it's practically negative.
But I don't think there's reason to doubt an alien desire to study us.
YodanboogerLives 1 year ago
Fair enough, I suppose I was a bit hasty in drawing that conclusion. Though in practical terms it makes little difference as desire alone does not make the distance any smaller.
Also what needs to be considered, is the possibility of any other life being closer to the aliens than us. The desire to study life coupled with the practical distance would still put humans on a backseat, but this is purely speculation of course. Working with probabilities of nearby alien life is almost meaningless.
Izerion 1 year ago
@Izerion @Izerion Yes, that's exactly right, practically speaking, it's a moot point. It's just that, there is so little about the human race that I find inspiring and exhilarating. One of those few things is that there is nothing we are above studying. Just everything fascinates us. You want your socks blown off? Go to TED and search for Paul Stamets' research on the mycelium fungus. He got a standing ovation. You'll understand. You'll be like, "Fungus! HELL YEAH!!"
YodanboogerLives 1 year ago
All religious people need to see this video, not for the UFOs,but for their mystical claims.
NWOSupporter2012 1 year ago 3
Buddhists as well?
Ko252 1 year ago
@Ko252
His """"Holiness"""" The Dalai Lama®, or at least the tradition through which he attained his position, believes he is:
1.holy
2.reincarnated
3.descended from, and the earthly manifestation of, a deity who sired the original Tibetans.
4.found with help of visions from a sacred lake guarded by a female spirit.
Do buddhists need to see this video? You be the judge.
fctchk 1 year ago 3
does science care about any of this? Nope. These are at worst pure metaphysical claims, and at best symbolic. Do all Buddhists believe in this as stated? Perhaps. Perhaps some are more refined? I dont know, I am not a buddhist. Nothing wrong with being holy, since you can be that for several reasons. Reincarnated? Perhaps they mean a spiritual reincarnation, same ways with 3. 4. Being more an interesting story? This is R. Feynman, and everybody should see this, regardless of their faith.
Ko252 1 year ago
Claims made by buddhism provide no better evidence than the reports of the existence of flying saucers.
Putting it through the same apologetics spin cycle that christians or other theists use to defend their woo woo does not change that fact. E.g. oh, but they don't all believe it; oh, but it's metaphysical (that makes it true?); oh, but it's symbolic; oh, but it's spiritual reincarnation (that makes it real?).
This should be seen because it's spot on, regardless whether it's R. Feynman.
fctchk 1 year ago 3
No, but that doesnt mean that flying saucers doesnt exist, does it? There is no evidence for extraterritorial life either, but most scientists seems to trust the possibilty. Apologetic spin? I am proving another explaination. And facts? Do you have the facts of how all buddhists believe what you wrote? What is real? Do have any proof for this "reality" of being real? How can you ever know that this is not just a matrix or a dream?
Ko252 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The speed of light is subject to being bound by a frame of reference.
What frame of reference does the universe have?? It is a frame of reference in itself.
That being said I highly despise the close-mindedness of scientists today.
The speed of light is not the absolute speed limit of the universe.....
Feynman should have researched UFOlogy a bit more before opening his mouth...
edgekrusher20 1 year ago
@edgekrusher20
hahahahahahah!!! Keep up the investigation, Einstein.
savemyplaylist 1 year ago 11
Spare me.. You are far to confident in the incomplete views of physics today.
Look up Podkletnov, or Paul LaViolette. When you have rid yourself of your own ignorance feel free to come back.
edgekrusher20 1 year ago
UFOlogy should reserch science befor claiming anything
Chill197 1 year ago
@edgekrusher20 So you're telling me that special relativity, something with significant amounts of proof in atom smashers, and I mean proof, is incorrect? Also, the speed of light IS the absolute speed limit of the universe. The reason is that light is electromagnetic energy. Gravity also works at the same speed. So I ask, how is something with mass(Something at which energy is transferred at lightspeed) able to go faster than the energy propagating it forward?
wotchadave 1 year ago
God bless him..oh shit I forgot he was atheist
CamiloSanchez1979 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
0:32 "It is scientific to say what is more likely or less likely, and not to be 'proving' all the time, possible and impossible."
RustyCyler 2 years ago
Comment removed
RustyCyler 2 years ago
richard feynman a man millions of years ahead of our time... He is the best living thing that nature created, feynman is forever within us! feynman is god!
Trajedya84 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
he was a famous asshole
hobgoblinlkjfdsa 2 years ago
fukk u, u fukking bytch!!! u lil fag!!!
Trajedya84 2 years ago
typical feynman worshiper
hobgoblinlkjfdsa 2 years ago
look sharp all
aliens are looking for any sign of intelligent life
marktimmer2212 2 years ago 3
So are we. ;)
JamesMorlan 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I believe this video was made in 1959, a full ten years before the first moon landing, and Richard Feynman was only stating what was popular in the science of his day.
He was also a patriot and had done much top secret work for the government - it would be doubtful that he would have been a UFO whistle blower.
If Feynman were alive today I'm sure he would have much different things to say about the subject of flying saucers.
Neil6000 2 years ago
no. He wouldn't. Because there is no proof of them and there never will be.
DLPBurke 2 years ago 7
@DLPBurke As of today there is no evidence, but one day one might just show up
mikekoz68 2 years ago
Thirteen seconds into the video, it states that he is at Cornell University in 1964.
We were already in a space race with the Soviets by that time.
If fact, in April of 1961, Yuri Gagarin was the first human in outer space and the first to orbit the Earth.
Diasanti 2 years ago
Diasanti
"he is at Cornell University in 1964"
OK, but still 5 years from the moon, 25 years from cell phones, and 35 years from a computer in every home. Thinking has changed a LOT since his time as well as our understanding of physics. We have just started to realize just how little we really know about the universe and what's really possible with space travel by an advanced civilization. Feynman's opinions were based on the science of his day and things have changed dramatically since then.
Neil6000 2 years ago
why
mugwamp4 2 years ago
If you consider the probability of meeting extra terrestrial life forms similar to us; its just about zero! Carl Sagan came to this conclusion and the establishment didnt like hearing it. I believe that we exist due to an almost impossible and unimaginable set of coincidences that came about after billions and billions of years. On this basis our nearest neighbours will be a too far away in time and space to ever be able to visit, let alone find us!
Maltesevideos 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
CaneFu 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
CaneFu 2 years ago
@CaneFu ok, you're off a bit on your numbers, we have only found a hunded or so planets, there are billions of stars not trillions and the universe is 13.7 billion years old- the rest of ur comment could very well be true
mikekoz68 2 years ago
mikekoz68
Sorry, but it is you that are way off on your numbers. You are obviously quoting outdated science....
The Hubble telescope has recently observed 3,000 galaxies that are 78 billion light years away. Our Milky Way galaxy alone has an estimated 200-400 billion stars which means even more planets - and that means billions of other planets just in our galaxy alone and trillions throughout the universe..
Science is ever-changing and you need a refresher course.
CaneFu 2 years ago
I realise science is ever changing, but as of 2010 we have found @500 planets, I get your point that due to the enormous amount of stars, there is probably billions of planets but they have yet to be found! And where do u get 78 billion LY? do u know what a LY is? the universe is only 13.7 billion yrs old--78Billion WTF never mind a refresher course go get a basic astronomy course
mikekoz68 1 year ago
@mikekoz68
It is clearly YOU who does not understand what a lightyear is. A LY is not a measurement of time but of distance (namely, the distance that light travels in 1 year). General Relativity says that the Universe CAN expand faster than the speed of light, which means that there is no limitation on the amount of LY in diameter of the universe and it's age. Claiming the universe is limited to be 13.7bilion LY because it's only 13.7 bilion years old is nonsense.
Izerion 1 year ago
78 billion years? Where did you get that figure?
Slug99 2 years ago
Comment removed
CaneFu 2 years ago
According to NASA's website, the universe is 13.5-14 billion or so years old. However you are correct is that we've seen objects further than that in light years, the UCLA explains this by stating that the observable universe is larger than it "should be" due to the universe having expanded.
I suggest you do more research into this since it's clear that there are credible scientists and organizations that do not agree with you on the age of the universe.
Slug99 2 years ago
Comment removed
CaneFu 2 years ago
Google "Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe".
That paper explain this whole thing. In short, space expands at great speeds and that creates huge distances which wouldn't have happened if space didn't expand.
Slug99 2 years ago
@Slug99
We see stars from the vantage point of where their light was when it left those stars. Stars that were 13 billion light years away from us 13 billion years ago are much further away from us than that, today. Subsequently, we don't see a single star in the sky in the position that it actually resides in right now. We can only see where it was when its light left it.
JamesMorlan 1 year ago
@Maltesevideos
That's why Jesus hasn't come back, yet. He forgot where we are. ;)
JamesMorlan 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I like Feynman alot, but I feel this is bold statement. Granted their knowledge of space and its vastness was much less than we know now, and also the idea of technology that can travel faster than the speed of light etc... were all seen as impossible. Too bad he passed away, I feel he probably would have something else to say about that.
chon4186 2 years ago
Believing there exist other planets inhabited with intelligent life is not the same as believing they managed to cross vast cosmic distances in flying saucer-shaped craft and visit us. He makes no claims regarding the first point, only the second one and I think he'd still be of the same opinion today.
ugowar 2 years ago 32
Or, as one who studied the subject put it, "None of the UFOs which have been identified have turned out to be of alien origins, so why not the unidentified ones, too?"
Klass said, "Land or turn out the landing lights!", i.e. if the UFOs are of alien origin, why do they insist on playing hide-and-seek for decades on end?
gwgoldb 2 years ago 4
Never before have I heard such a concise, good, down to Earth explanation of what science is and what it means to critically reason about the world we live in. Thank you for sharing this.
v2keener 2 years ago 25
lemme pipe in here averagejoe. you make a great point. but you are also assuming that there understanding of the cosmos and their technology is only a little more advanced than ours. beings that are thousands or millions of years a head of us would likely be able to bend space time or create something we have no understanding of, making E=MC2 and calculations of light and time over distance completely and laughably irrelevant.
tslipsitin 2 years ago 2
and yes I am busy but still stop reading popular science and read science. you will see the diffrence.
Justavaragejoe 2 years ago 2
E=MC2 find out what it means work out the calculations for light to travel, which is an object without mass. then calculate in the distance involved, then calculate in the likelyhood of our time of existence the likelyhood of another race with their time of existence and distance they would need to travel and then the chances of life within that period. then come back to me. stop reading fantasy
Justavaragejoe 2 years ago 2
thanks for the discussion. I will reply if you have more to say however unfortunately it will not be tonight as I have other things to do. so I have to push this onto the backburner although I would rather have this discussion than what I now need to do. Anyway I do value conversing with you and I do respect your views even though we have different beliefs.
Justavaragejoe 2 years ago
Its okey, repley when you have the time. I do like a discussion without bs ridicule.
Take care.
TrueSkeptic77 2 years ago
Imagine now this is a atheist and a religious person arguing over god. I say there is no evidence and you say but this person believes this or this person believes that. You still have not provided any evidence or proof that it might be possible just assumptions by people who think things might be this way.
Justavaragejoe 2 years ago
Well I dont see myself as a beliver, no more than you do, I state my opinions on facts and many theories. But I do look into subjects not into the mainstream yet. The problem I think is that many has completely missunderstod what science is all about.
TrueSkeptic77 2 years ago
The ideal is ofcourse, we can test the subject over and over again in a lab or what have you. But thats not all science. Many think it is, but thats is simply wrong.
What you are stating in this discussion is mainly quite old theories while Im talking about science on the forefront of our understanding.
What we are seeing in the skies many times defie our understanding of physics.
TrueSkeptic77 2 years ago
actually when you state time is a fabric this is yet again a theory. Which comes from Einstein and it is misquoted and misunderstood. This assumption is wrong. And yes all the things you state we didnt know about a 100 years ago however all of them followed the laws of physics. what you claim does not.
Justavaragejoe 2 years ago
Mainstream science says that there aught to be civilisations, many of them. Many much younger then us and many much older then us. One must consider the fact that quite a few of them have discovered the secrets of space and time travel.
TrueSkeptic77 2 years ago
ok firstly my views on alien life come from the fact I attended lectures by a team leader from NASA on the search for alien life and yes there is a possibility of alien life in bacterial form. They think the chances of finding any intelligent life are next to nothing. Incidentally we have existed for about 0.3% of the earth history. For intelligent life to visit us and due to the distances in space. They would then have to travel from where ever they are to us. Before they knew we existed.
Justavaragejoe 2 years ago 2
Well actually I dont belive a word of what NASA officially comes out with. For some reason, one is that there are testimoials who says NASA airbrush buildings on the Moon and Mars, credible witnesses former working on projects for NASA. Two it doesent at all follow the logic train, the official NASA are using old techonoly, whiles ex millitary people say we have much more advanced space crafts out there.
TrueSkeptic77 2 years ago
You do realize that NASA has recomendations from "The Brookings Report" that not go public with evidence with alien life or artifacts?
Well thats where the new science go much further and that is the future. Im sure this will be more and more common knowledge, I just listen to Michio Kaku talking about time travel, very interresting.
TrueSkeptic77 2 years ago
try to imagine the energy required for this. it would be an atomic blast for every atom. not inch, or centimetre but every atom.
No what you have is what is called faith. its belief that something will or could happen even though no evidence supports it.
you have a right to your faith as I have a right to my belief in science.
Justavaragejoe 2 years ago
1:02 good god, that's a lot of white people!
t0kt0k 2 years ago
And so what ?
archedmandible 2 years ago
UFOs are more likely to be government experiments or miss seen objects than anything else. Remember just over 150 years ago people believed in fairies, pixies and elves. The UFO is just a modern version of that.
Justavaragejoe 2 years ago 2
The problem with that is what we have seen these objects for a long time. Ofcourse there is black projects of highly advanced flying vehicles, man made. But that sure doesent rule out the ET-vehicle explanation.
Why asume that we must understand technology perhaps 1000, 100 000, 100 000 000 years older then we have?
Not long ago we wouldnt have understand what a helicopter was. And by the way, Sprites and Elves are actually a scientific name for new light phenomena.
TrueSkeptic77 2 years ago
creating answers for unknown object is not exactly science is it. What I stated is based on the knowledge we have at present. I could easily say that actually all ufo's might be aliens that are made out of candy, live in shoes and can only communicate by a series of hopping on one foot signals. fantasy is not science. "What if" can be applied to anything. And the aliens I mention have just enough chance as your idea of being true.
Justavaragejoe 2 years ago 2
Actually it is created for this reason, UFO was created to study this phenomena in a scientific way, now the term UFO is almost useless because people bring in alot of other bs in this term. So they have created the term UAP to "try" to get rid of the worst pseudoskeptics and bullshiters so we finally can start to do more science in this matter.
TrueSkeptic77 2 years ago
Well you could, but that would be a lie, because no one with credibility claims this, no science what so ever even point to the fact that an UAP should be made of candy. And you know the answer to rest aswell.
Well it very simple actually, if you follow the evidence and logic train, and... New mainstream science you can only come to the conclusion that UAPs are real.
TrueSkeptic77 2 years ago
ok firstly, this video states the same view as I gave. You have already stated that pixies, fairies etc turned out to be instances of light. So isn't that more likely as that is proven than time travel and aliens which has not been. There has been not one shred of evidence time travel is possible
Justavaragejoe 2 years ago 2
Yes and videos like this have form the pseuskeptics, as much that other bs movies have formed religious UFO fanatics.
I propose a middle ground with more science, more logical thinking and most of all, get rid of all this ridicule bullshit that just swamp the Internet.
TrueSkeptic77 2 years ago
I dont see it more logic actually, we just feel it would be more logic because our society havent accepted the posibillity of us being visited.
Well actually scientist are thinking more and more of the fact that time travel is a reality. They do know that time is a farbric that one can manipulate.
Think of it, 150 years ago we had no planes, no helicopters, no computers, no cars, we have gone very fast forward in our technology.
TrueSkeptic77 2 years ago