Jump to content

Welcome to the Freedomain Radio Message Board


Sign In 

Create Account
If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.

If you have supported Freedomain Radio financially and would like immediate access to the message board - or - your donation status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with your Paypal email/Bitcoin address/etc as well as your board account name and the situation will be addressed ASAP.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

DONATOR ONLY PREMIUM CONTENT - For more information on donator levels click here

67 Philosopher King files - 72 Gold files - 48 Silver files - 51 Bronze files

If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information.


Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom


Photo

[Podcast] FDR3417 The Great UFO Debate! Yes, Really - Call In Show - September 14th, 2016


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1
MMD

MMD

  • 2922 posts


Question 1: [2:51] - “Do the extraterrestrials that are currently visiting the Earth bother you or excite your curiosity? Have you studied this topic?”

Question 2: [1:00:28] - “One of your themes is that progressivism is in conflict with human nature, biology and history. However, has technology fundamentally altered the equation, enabling social transformation to continue indefinitely? There need not be a return to any historical baseline if technology continues to provide an economic surplus and the means of controlling populations.”

Question 3: [1:32:40] - “The recent events regarding the early release of Brock Turner have caused quite a reaction in the mainstream and social media. I have observed many people resorting to public shaming as a way to obtain a level of justice above that which the court systems have provided them. One person on my friend's list even asked the question ‘if we are going to publicly shame someone for sexual assault, why don't we publicly shame people for getting multiple DUI/DWIs?’”

“I argued that public shaming is rarely a good thing, and that it often leads to punishment that exceeds the original crime. Going along the theme of justice from one of your previous interviews, do you think that public shaming is an acceptable form of justice when the public feels the convicted person got a lenient sentence?”

Question 4: [1:47:50] – “Catholics appear to have consistently lower divorce rates in North America compared to most other groups including protestants. For Catholic couples who attend mass, pray regularly and practice Natural Family Planning, rates have been documented below 1%. If we can accept that number as being even remotely accurate, what can our society in general learn from it?”

Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
  • 0

#2
LancierDombre

LancierDombre
  • 69 posts

I was very interested in UFOs when I was a kid.  I don't spend much time thinking about it these days, but I still think it would be cool if some of this stuff turned out to be real and I do check up on it from time to time.  This is mostly because it would mean that it's at least possible travel faster than light, which would mean that someday our descendants might be able to do it.  It's something to work towards.

 

I can think of something that could potentially explain how an alien spacecraft could appear to accelerate at the rate described by the caller.  Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku discussed some possible ways in which "faster than light" travel might be achieved in his book "Physics of the Impossible".  One of the methods discussed in the book is the warping of space-time around the ship.  It has been a while since I read the book but I do remember it saying that it's at least theoretically possible in our current understanding of physics.  You'd need to figure out a way to harness negative energy though... which itself is theoretical.  Anyway, if you could somehow warp space-time around your ship in a controlled way you could move it from point A to point B very quickly and without the limitations that friction and relativity impose on simple acceleration.  I don't think I ever saw the video the caller described though, so I have no idea if it would work in this case.

 

In another chapter of that book, which I think might have some relevance to the conversation of extraterrestrials and UFOs, Dr Kaku made the point that space exploration would be much more efficient and much safer if left to computer controlled probes that could just transmit results back to us.  Even assuming that there are in fact extraterrestrial crafts visiting Earth, there would be no good reason to assume that the extraterrestrials who built them made the trip themselves.  They could just be automated systems.

 

That aside I was surprised by the position that Stef took at the end of the conversation, that if aliens are hanging around and aren't helping us by curing our diseases and interfering in our internal affairs they're assholes.  We know that foreign aid to backwards countries prop up authoritarian regimes, and our attempts to push other countries into adopting the West's relatively superior forms of social organization don't always turn out well.

 

Also, suppose you were a being from an extraterrestrial species that lived in an anarcho-capitalist society, and that you had some curiosity about a backwards species on an alien world.  No one in your society could rightfully say that they own that world because the native inhabitants clearly own it.  There really wouldn't be any good reason to trade with the natives because the only things they could possibly offer would be natural resources, most of which could be more humanely collected from dead planets anyway.  You wouldn't want to start giving the inhabitants of the planet advance technologies which would make them more efficient workers because they still have states.  Thus I can't see a DRO spending much effort enforcing best practices on how to interact with the inhabitant except in so far as the safety of its own clients are concerned.  I could see a lot of inconsistency in the way such beings would interact with the backwards world.  Some might be scrupulous enough to avoid detection, others might just not care because the primitive weapons of the natives wouldn't be a real threat.  You might also expect some random acts of kindness too, and for what it's worth I remember there being a few cases of "UFO healings" of incurable diseases presented on an episode of Unsolved Mysteries years ago.

 

Of course I wouldn't present any of this a proof, but it's food for thought.  Mostly I thought the caller just missed some points he could have made to help his case.


  • 0

#3
thebeardslastcall

thebeardslastcall
  • 490 posts

PHD theoretical physicists are sadly deficient in philosophy. They offer a lot of impossible notions of physics to keep themselves relevant and interesting sounding while they entertain the impossible, because they have no bounds for the possible. This deficiency is apparent when you see them talking about various multi-world theories with "alternate" physics, because they don't understand the groundings of the physics they have they entertain any physics as possible, which then leads to anything basically being possible by their reasoning. I find Dr Kaku hard to listen to for that reason, as he is one of the primary voices for entertaining the impossible while not offering much of interest.


  • 0

#4
LancierDombre

LancierDombre
  • 69 posts

PHD theoretical physicists are sadly deficient in philosophy. They offer a lot of impossible notions of physics to keep themselves relevant and interesting sounding while they entertain the impossible, because they have no bounds for the possible. This deficiency is apparent when you see them talking about various multi-world theories with "alternate" physics, because they don't understand the groundings of the physics they have they entertain any physics as possible, which then leads to anything basically being possible by their reasoning. I find Dr Kaku hard to listen to for that reason, as he is one of the primary voices for entertaining the impossible while not offering much of interest.

 

  1. Claims that relativity prevents travel between solar systems in a reasonable amount of time.
  2. Hears that according to theoretical physicists who presumably spent years studying the equations that form the framework for relativity that there are some loopholes in the theory that might one day form the basis of interstellar travel.
  3. Claims that theoretical physicists don't understand the groundings of physics.

  • 0

#5
thebeardslastcall

thebeardslastcall
  • 490 posts

 

  1. Claims that relativity prevents travel between solar systems in a reasonable amount of time.
  2. Hears that according to theoretical physicists who presumably spent years studying the equations that form the framework for relativity that there are some loopholes in the theory that might one day form the basis of interstellar travel.
  3. Claims that theoretical physicists don't understand the groundings of physics.

 

Not sure if you're talking about the caller or Stefan or my post, or all three, as the third point may apply to me, but the other two don't and I haven't listened to the call.


  • 0

#6
LancierDombre

LancierDombre
  • 69 posts

Not sure if you're talking about the caller or Stefan or my post, or all three, as the third point may apply to me, but the other two don't and I haven't listened to the call.

 

You're right to point out that I made an assumption about point 1.  Stef brought up that the theory of relativity implies that interstellar travel would take far too long to be practical.  And it is true that relativity shows that you can't travel faster than light with a propolsion system.  Stef was critical of the caller for essentially explaining this away with magical thinking - and I agree the caller made a poor case.

 

However, I thought it would be worth mentioning that according to theoretical physicists there actually might be some ways around those limitations within the theory or relativity itself.  Of course, if it is possible there are A LOT of other problems that would need to be worked out first


  • 0

#7
thebeardslastcall

thebeardslastcall
  • 490 posts

How would warping space cover fast acceleration of an object moving visibly in a straight line (visible the entire time)? Also of note, warping space isn't traveling faster than light speed in theory, as it's imagined to be a shortening of the distance basically, like a portal, where you travel normal speed but "skip" space.

That UFO guy wouldn't give an itch... reminds me of the last time I listened to Stefan debate a person who would just keep going from point to point without letting any of the challenges slow him down or accepting any challenge as legitimate. Guy didn't want to give an itch on anything or acknowledge any of the craziness of what he was saying. Would pretend to acknowledge the challenge, but then wouldn't acknowledge the contradiction the challenge produced, leaving himself holding two contradictory positions simultaneously to avoid all challenges. Interesting observing those gymnastics.


What I meant by lacked grounded I could summarize as something like this, they have no theoretical baseline for the limits of reality or for how and why reality is the way it is or could be (theoretically, based on logical and meaningful assumptions). Which is why they are left entertaining multi-verses with alternate physics and I'm not sure what constraints if any they place on those possibilities, but some of them don't place any limits from what I've heard. I have a chapter in my book, where lay out some unique ideas and theories of physics, which may offer some of the grounding I said was lacking. Pretty excited to find out what others, physicists in particular, think of that chapter as it evolved greatly once I had some new insights, which is why I'm eager to finish my book so I can release it all and then people can call me the idiot where I went astray. Will be nice, and more fair for my points, once my words are out there and I'm open to the criticisms of others, as I've criticized them and others (Stefan included), before having shared my ideas.


  • 0

#8
LancierDombre

LancierDombre
  • 69 posts

How would warping space cover fast acceleration of an object moving visibly in a straight line (visible the entire time)? Also of note, warping space isn't traveling faster than light speed in theory, as it's imagined to be a shortening of the distance basically, like a portal, where you travel normal speed but "skip" space.


I didn't see the video but my understanding is essentially what you described.  Warping space would allow you to shorten the distance between yourself and where you would want to end up.  I can't say what that would look like from the outside but I would imagine whatever vessel was doing that would look distorted from the outside.  I also suspect it would appear to move extremely quickly from the outside.
 
 

What I meant by lacked grounded I could summarize as something like this, they have no theoretical baseline for the limits of reality or for how and why reality is the way it is or could be (theoretically, based on logical and meaningful assumptions). Which is why they are left entertaining multi-verses with alternate physics and I'm not sure what constraints if any they place on those possibilities, but some of them don't place any limits from what I've heard. I have a chapter in my book, where lay out some unique ideas and theories of physics, which may offer some of the grounding I said was lacking. Pretty excited to find out what others, physicists in particular, think of that chapter as it evolved greatly once I had some new insights, which is why I'm eager to finish my book so I can release it all and then people can call me the idiot where I went astray. Will be nice, and more fair for my points, once my words are out there and I'm open to the criticisms of others, as I've criticized them and others (Stefan included), before having shared my ideas.

 

Not being a theoretical physicist I can't speak to what constraints they generally place on their speculation other than they can't contradict the physics we already know and use.  From what I understand, a lot of them are working on finding that elusive "Theory of Everything" which unites both quantum physics and relativity, like the way Maxwell's equations united electricity and magnetism.  I could see how that could lead to a lot of conceptual experimentation.  What ultimately matters though is whether these theories are logically consistent and make novel predictions that can be tested.

 

For example, general relativity mad the novel prediction that light will bend around a massive object like the sun because it warps the fabric of space-time - which is why we have gravity.  Astronomer's tested this during a full solar eclipse by looking for stars that were technically behind the sun but which the maths predicted would be visible and found them.  Other unusual predictions of relativity have continued to hold up over the last century as our methods of testing have improved.

 

If a theory were to require a multiverse but was logically consistent and made novel predictions that could be tested, it's a good theory.  It might turn out to be wrong but the fact that it's falsifiable and has explanatory power makes it worth consideration.


  • 0

#9
A4E

A4E
  • 594 posts

Michio Kaku is good at being on camera and presenting the theories. And that is why I also admired him many years ago, but he seems resentful to anything outside of the conformist views, most notably for me is that he refuses to give up the goldilocks argument about habitable planets. I would demand of an intelligent person to realize that there is no evidence that all life in the universe requires H2O in liquid form. Also he believes humans were on our moon around 1970.

 

For anyone wanting to find out what the universe is, I would strongly advice against taking people like that too seriously. They are holding you back more than you realize. Step out of the box and do some thinking yourself, and experiment with ideas yourself. Also getting the perspective of other people who are not trapped in popular theories is rewarding.

 

I would be very very surprised if we somehow was able to determine that there are no kinds of what we would call life, on Jupiter. That means I am overwhelmingly positive that Jupiter has some kind of life. And it does not have to be gene based.


  • 0

#10
Tyler H

Tyler H
  • 507 posts

Michio Kaku is good at being on camera and presenting the theories. And that is why I also admired him many years ago, but he seems resentful to anything outside of the conformist views, most notably for me is that he refuses to give up the goldilocks argument about habitable planets. I would demand of an intelligent person to realize that there is no evidence that all life in the universe requires H2O in liquid form. Also he believes humans were on our moon around 1970.

 

For anyone wanting to find out what the universe is, I would strongly advice against taking people like that too seriously. They are holding you back more than you realize. Step out of the box and do some thinking yourself, and experiment with ideas yourself. Also getting the perspective of other people who are not trapped in popular theories is rewarding.

 

I would be very very surprised if we somehow was able to determine that there are no kinds of what we would call life, on Jupiter. That means I am overwhelmingly positive that Jupiter has some kind of life. And it does not have to be gene based.

Why do you think that? I heard recently one of the moons may be habitable but from what I understand (which is very little, I'm commenting because I am genuinely curious) Jupiter itself is extremely hostile to life.


  • 0

#11
A4E

A4E
  • 594 posts

Why do you think that? I heard recently one of the moons may be habitable but from what I understand (which is very little, I'm commenting because I am genuinely curious) Jupiter itself is extremely hostile to life.

Removing liquid water out of the equation means that a giant planet like Jupiter can have a huge potential for chemical reactions that could lead to what we call life.

 

People tend to disagree with me when I say that what we call life is merely highly advanced chemical reactions. Once I accepted such a point of view it is easy to imagine that there can be sophisticated advanced chemical reactions on such a gigantic planet. Whether the planet is hostile or not depends on what chemicals are involved in the lifeforms. For example there are lifeforms on our planet that eats Arsenic. A human will of course die on Jupiter, just as any Jupiterian would die on earth. Because the lifeforms originated and was molded into whatever works in their respective environments.


  • 0

#12
MichaelHorn

MichaelHorn
  • 1 posts

I found Stefan's comments and responses to this topic staggeringly uninformed. I offered to help upgrade his awareness about the only scientifically proven UFO case, the still ongoing Billy Meier contacts in Switzerland, now spanning...75 years. However,his producer evaporated from the conversation rapidly.

 

Considering that this same man has consistently published specific, prophetically accurate geo-political and scientific information, one would think that Stefan would want to discuss and share the information with his audience.

 

The very fact that none of...YOU know a thing about the Meier case, or have only heard that it's a "hoax", should be thought-provoking.

 

The overall UFO topic is often rightly marginalized because the field is filled with fraud and charlatans who willingly spread utter nonsense and disinformation, largely created by the intelligence community. 

 

I happen to be the world's leading expert on the UFO topic, doing multi-media presentations and interviews internationally, I've recently had two historic presentations in an American university (I did four in Canadian universities) and I'd be more than glad to discuss - or debate - the Meier case.

 

BTW, since someone here was discussing Jupiter, Billy Meier verifiably published the information that NASA/JPL announced as the "most important discovery" of the Voyager mission, pertaining to Jupiter and its moons Io and Europa...five months before "official discovery". Professional skeptics who attempted to "debunk" Meier, ended up corroborating him instead.

 

I can easily substantiate all claims regarding this case, its evidence and information and I'll post this comment, including my repeated offer to Stefan, on my widely read blog as well.

 

Of course, based on the previous retreat by the producer, I don't know if this post will see the light of day...here.

 

 


  • 0