Some publications do carry a very high standard of peer review, which makes an accepted paper more likely to be of acceptable quality than rejected papers. The standard of peer review is what makes the publication respected. But buying cars only from very respected car dealers doesn't mean you have zero percent chance of getting a lemon.

Michael Behe claimed one if his books was peer reviewed, but when that claim was investigated under oath it turned out to be one phone call to a professor who knew his wife, and he said "ok, publish it" after hearing a short description of the contents over the phone. One ID paper was published when an editor with sympathies for ID bypassed the usual peer review for that journal.

Acceptance means it probably adheres to the quality demanded by the publication. Getting published isn't automatic approval or endorsement.

No.. you misunderstood what I meant. If a respected journal rejects it, there are likely issues with the paper. That is a more definitive statement on its quality than having it accepted. The latter means that at least there were no serious issues, no big mistakes that the reviewers caught. But it still might be a bad paper, although a lot less likely. Well, that's what I meant, anyway.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Apologies:
Here is Bostrom and Cirkovic's rebuttal
http://www.anthropic-principle.com/p...s/olum/sia.pdf

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

The problem is, it's not fundamentally ruled in by presently known physical principles, either.

Then again, it may not. Who can tell?

It's kinda hard to take a possibility seriously, when nothing we currently know about the universe, and nothing we currently know about alien civilizations, indicates that it's possible. About the best we can say of the universe is that it's not entirely impossible. And about the best we can say of alien civilizations is.... nothing at all.

Now, if aliens were to land openly on Earth, claim to have recently come from Alpha Centauri, and make a prediction about an event in that star system that was later observed here on Earth (thus suggesting FTL travel capabilities), then we would have to take the possibility of FTL travel seriously.

Meanwhile, it's something for which we have no evidence, for which we cannot currently conceive a viable mechanism, and for which the best that can be said is that it hasn't been conclusively disproven.

Could it not be argued that BBT violates causality?
Of course, this is the cosmological or "first cause" argument and I understand any aversion to it, but wiki's article on "Causality(physics)" puts it thus:

"The empiricists' aversion to metaphysical explanations (like Descartes' vortex theory) lends heavy influence against the supposed importance of causality. Causality has accordingly sometimes been downplayed (e.g. Newton's "Hypotheses non fingo").
...

"In the theory of general relativity, the concept of causality is generalized in the most straightforward way: the effect must belong to the future light cone of its cause, even if the spacetime is curved. New subtleties must be taken into account when we investigate causality in quantum mechanics and relativistic quantum field theory in particular. In quantum field theory, causality is closely related to the principle of locality. A careful analysis of the phenomena is needed, and the exact outcome depends on the interpretation of quantum mechanics chosen: this is especially the case of the experiments involving quantum entanglement that require Bell's Theorem for their implications to be fully understood."

I don't accept we fully understand causality as it relates to quantum mechanics, entanglement, locality.


While I readily admit the ETH is speculative you've failed to convince there are no physics / astrophysics which underlie Haisch's conjectures; Conversely I don't expect to convince you there are.
I'll agree I might've worded my "Reality is ..." statement differently though.
I could've stated "It has been put forth our best physics / astrophysics arguably predict ...."

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Thanks, eburacum.
I actually looked it up and read it after your suggestion.

I note the conclusion:
"Threatened by paradoxes on both sides, whether we accept or reject SIA, it may appear as if we have a crisis. But in fact, what we have is a philosophical opportunity – we have some powerful theory-constraints that can be used to evaluate reasoning about information that has an indexical component. If we develop a theory of observation selection effects that heed these constraints along with many other desiderata and criteria derived from both philosophical and scientific applications of anthropic reasoning, we can hope to get serious theoretical leverage – methodological techniques and results that can turn over boulders of ignorance and reveal something new about the world."

I take it you reject SIA because it appears to refute Olum's paper?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

How is this relevant to the discussion of visiting aliens?

Once again, you have taken two opposing ideas and "treated" them as if they held the same weight...they do not.

How is this any different from what you said before? It sounds the same to me.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

A.DIM - Given the untestable nature of these matters, could not brane theory provide a theoretical causal basis for big bang? The slapping of two branes together idea?

(R.A.F. - I hope I'm not encouraging a line of discussion which is shooting us off topic)

I'm not a wealth of knowledge, but I thought that provided one possible cause. In such a case the big bang isn't energy out of nowhere.

Apologies if this post is misguided with regard to the topic at hand.

__________________
The left hand knows full well what the right hand is doing, but quietly ignores it.

Absolutely; this is what raises the conjecture for ETi visiting Earth from the next dimension, or brane, over.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

I suppose it's an interesting supposition, but it's not something that appears to ever lead to anything other than speculation.

Certainly an interesting/entertaining thought nevertheless.

__________________
The left hand knows full well what the right hand is doing, but quietly ignores it.

Oh I agree; I very much doubt anything which regards ETi will be found out by our efforts. If ETi is visiting Earth we'll only come to know it when they want us to.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Sure, but being that this is the case, it certainly puts any CT which is dependent on this theory on a very weak foundation for any solid argument.

It (could make / has made) for a great piece of fiction.

Unless aliens pop in and sign an affidavit relating to the whole brane concept

__________________
The left hand knows full well what the right hand is doing, but quietly ignores it.

Heh, no doubt.

However, I don't think there was ever a CT put forth in this thread; it is a "thoughts" thread in the wrong place.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

You've said this before, but never explained yourself. Why can't we determine if aliens are visiting or not?

I thought you "supposedly" already "knew it". If what you say were true, then wouldn't all UFO sightings have mundane explanations?

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

I've been following this one, and from the very first post there was the "this isn't a conspiracy theory as such" waiver, but it appeared to be very suggestive of a CT. I'd say it was implied.

Although I'm told I've been wrong before.

__________________
The left hand knows full well what the right hand is doing, but quietly ignores it.

It's a common attempt by CT proponents to get round their obligations under Rule 13. It doesn't work, if you advocate then you are obliged to defend or retract.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

I'm sure.
Do you see where there's a CT here?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Well, it suggests a conspiracy to cover up the "fact" that alien craft are in our skies.

__________________
The left hand knows full well what the right hand is doing, but quietly ignores it.

Is it a "fact?"
Who says so?
Not I.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Then you conceed that you were wrong?

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Exactly. You can dance around the suggestion all you like, but the seed was planted that it was something akin to an alien craft, in particular with the comment regarding the "electromagnetic interference cause by the object".

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, so if you're not suggesting alien craft, then what are you suggesting this object was?

__________________
The left hand knows full well what the right hand is doing, but quietly ignores it.

Yes, you could've. (Well, "put forth that.") You'd still have to explain how, given that it contradicts quite a lot of what our best physics/astrophysics currently holds, but it would have been phrased better, at least.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Unidentified; interesting case.

EM effects on the craft were reported by the pilots involved; all we have to go on are their words.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Which, as I pointed out, are either being reported in an unreliable fashion, or are themselves unreliable; there is some doubt as to who was the pilot in the second plane, for example.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

Hogwash. One person has stated it, and published it in an optionally-reviewed journal well known for its indulgence in speculation. The real-world problems of the proposal are simply swept away with the same sleight of hand that UFO enthusiasts use to promulgate their pet theories.

When those problems are solved by something other than an appeal to magic, then you may say there are physics involved.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

What is your evidence that an alien spacecraft causes electromagnetic effects on aircraft?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I'm interested to the answer here.

Sorry if I missed it, but is there a link to the pilot/s actual words? Or is this quote from a pilot just what someone threw out there to support their own conclusion?

__________________
The left hand knows full well what the right hand is doing, but quietly ignores it.

Yes, curious that Jafari stood in front of a National Press Club conference in 07 saying he was the second pilot, and that he believes these UFOs were alien craft.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

There are four authors on that paper Jay, you're wrong on that one.
I'd say it has been put forth.

I'm disappointed in your easy dismissal of JBIS; it's a longstanding journal of astronautics with an apparently credible reputation, even while it may be "forward thinking."

I'm still unconvinced there are no physics/astrophysics underlying what we know of the universe (age, size, makeup, physical processes), interstellar travel, inflation, string, mbrane theories, but ok I'll not argue any longer they predict ET visitation.

You're right though, sufficiently advanced tech would be indistinguishable from magic and all we have is speculation as to how ETi might get here.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

None; we know of no alien spacecraft.
However, in this case multiple eyewitnesses reported EM effects from a UFO.
I'd agree they may've been mistaken.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

There are four authors on that paper Jay, you're wrong on that one.

Irrelevant. What you tout as "our best physics" is still a minority opinion.

I'm disappointed in your easy dismissal of JBIS; it's a longstanding journal of astronautics with an apparently credible reputation...

The points I raised come from their own website: JBIS characterizes itself as forward-looking, and peer review is optional. I am fairly reporting their own self-characterization.

I'm still unconvinced there are no physics/astrophysics underlying what we know of the universe...

Irrelevant. I told you from the very beginning what I would accept as "physics," and neither you nor your authors are able to provide it. Kindly stop repeating the same claims and either support your argument or concede it.

You're right though, sufficiently advanced tech would be indistinguishable from magic and all we have is speculation as to how ETi might get here.

A subtle twist on my rebuttal. You and your authors simply beg the question that space aliens would have invented whatever anonymous technology would be required to bridge interstellar distances. That is a serious science foul.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base