Nico🦊 on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

July pfp

A few things I found fascinating reading through the UAP hearing doc (I skimmed Gold and Shellenberger’s hearing docs ~400 pages) - UAPs are a real unexplained phenomena, we can say this w/o knowing what they are - first step is acknowledging this - vehicles have mass: they show up on visual spectrum, radar and infrared (they have a pretty big Radar Cross Section, they aren’t stealth) - vehicles are transmedium: seamlessly move through different mediums like water, air, space etc - show no signs of causing friction - vehicle has autonomous control: they react to the planes or other vehicles around it; they react based on what’s going on around them, that means they have sensors, a control system, path planning etc - vehicles have non combustion engine propulsion: field propulsion of some sort, manipulating gravity etc are properties that this vehicle has shown to exhibit - vehicles move in super high G maneuvers https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/unidentified-anomalous-phenomena-exposing-the-truth/

8 replies

9 recasts

70 reactions

Thomas pfp

@aviationdoctor.eth

The whole thing doesn’t sit well with me. If we accept the premise (that there are incontrovertible observational data of physical objects with mass performing intentional maneuvers that defy our understanding of gravity), then it necessarily makes the agnostic position (“we can say this w/o knowing who they are”) rather untenable. Because again, if we accept that premise, then they’re either alien craft or breakthrough human mil craft; there really isn’t any other physical phenomena that fit the data (such as meteorological events, weather balloons, sightings of Venus, etc). The alternative is to reject the premise, and question the data as either fabricated (e.g., psyop), erroneous (e.g., sensor artefacts), or misinterpreted (e.g., human error). So I think it boils down to: have we reached such a critical mass of independently-collected data that consistently cross-validate each other, and whose chain of custody is undisputable, that we must accept the premise? 1/n

1 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

Thomas pfp

@aviationdoctor.eth

I haven’t read the 400 pages yet, so I’m happy to entertain that position for now (if anything, for the sake of the gedanken). But then we have to accept either the “advanced alien” or “advanced mil” hypothesis. I can’t really think of any other explanation. If it’s alien, what doesn’t sit well with me is this: let’s assume a highly advanced civilization has mastered interstellar space travel and visits us. They have a choice: reveal themselves to us, or not. They haven’t formally chosen the former, but they also somehow seem to fail at doing the latter. It seems sensible that they would have the tech to remain completely unseen if they chose to (even we possess materials that are practically invisible to radar). It sounds unlikely that they would get unwillingly picked up by our primitive tech… unless they didn’t care either way, of course, like we don’t care if chimps witness our planes flying above their heads. 2/n

1 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

Thomas pfp

@aviationdoctor.eth

Also, if it’s alien, I would expect the US government and many others to take this way more seriously and prioritize figuring it out — because there’s a very real chance that it’s either life-ending or life-saving for humanity (hardly any in-between). Any vastly superior alien species coming to our planet is either strip mining us to make paperclips or helping us cure cancer and halve our atmospheric CO2. It’s hard to think they’d travel light years just to mess with our heads through grainy photos and sensor data, and then just pack up and leave. 3/n

1 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

Thomas pfp

@aviationdoctor.eth

If it’s mil instead, then somebody (either the US, or China, but really I can’t think of anyone else on this list of suspects) possesses breakthrough tech and is testing it. Possible? Yes. Far-fetched? Yes, too, because we’re not merely taking about a faster jet engine here — we’re talking about gravity-defying, physics-standard-model-breaking scientific leapfrogging. That such tech would have evolved over decades into working prototypes without as much as a Snowden-type leak or some other application outside of mil space is an assumption that makes William of Ockham sad. Fascinating stuff either way. I look forward to more discussions and counter-arguments, and to hopefully figuring things out over the next few years now that there is public attention on the matter. 4/n

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Nico🦊 pfp

I really have fun in this kind of discussion, so let me jump in with this: I have another option for you (and I'm just half joking): these are console.log(). Let me explain. Some serious theories explored the idea of us living in a simulation. Let's take it for granted we are in a simulation, just for the sake of the thought experiment. 1/n

2 replies

0 recast

1 reaction

Nico🦊 pfp

If you run a simulation, what's it for? It's either a game or a science or social experiment. When you do an experiment, you need data from the experiment. Let's say someone or something built this experiment in a way that it's autonomous enough that nothing leads to the underlying system when you are inside it, but also you don't really have access to what happens in it from the outside. Because observing is always modifying the experiment results. 2/n

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Nico🦊 pfp

And they decided not to watch but have the ability to send some sort of probes to check what's happening. They would be able to have some sort of entry point in the simulation to debug. that's what i would do at least, make sure the simulation is fully autonomous and unbiased, but have the ability to look into it from time to time to understand how it evolved especially when unusual events happen. The probing would have to be done in a way that interfere the less possible with the simulation. 3/n

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction