The laws of physics as we understood them in 1896 were not the same as we understand them to be now. I imagine that in 2896 they'll be different to how we understand them to be now.
Believing that our current understanding of physical laws is correct and immutable is anti-materalistic. There are still many physical forces and phenomena that we don't understand, or are barely even aware of.
Inertia defying tic tacs sounds like bullshit space magic to us now, but if you showed streaming a video over wifi to a scientist from the 1800s they'd probably think it was bullshit aether magic too.
Edit: Just to be clear though, I don't necessarily think that UFOs have visited Earth, I just think that denying the possibility based on our understanding of science is wonky reasoning.
Ok? Defying inertia is nowhere near the same thing as streaming. The internet doesn't violate one of the most basic laws of physics. You could defend perpetual motion machines using the same logic.
It's not out of context, it fits perfectly. It's basically impossible to prove you wrong since you can always respond if "what if science is wrong tho".
"Science has been wrong before" is a thoroughly debunked line of reasoning, usually trotted out to defend homeopathy and the like. But maybe, just maybe, we'll find an apple that falls upwards onto the tree rather than the other way around, because geocentrism was a thing once.
My argument is not that science is wrong, it's that science scientific understanding from time to time is imperfect. That's why science keeps doing things that were previously thought impossible.
"Science has been wrong before" as used to disprove science is, of course, bullshit. However, the idea that any of our current understandings of science is absolutely true and immutable is also equally anti-scientific bullshit.
The theoretical physicists working on things like tachyons would like nothing more than to be the next people to rewrite the laws of physics. Equating them to homeopaths and luddites is laughable.
inertia is a weird one. mostly it just means the state something is in when there are no forces acting on it. but general relatively theorized that an object in a gravitational field with no other forces acting on it is also in an inertial frame. it implies gravity isn't a force in the same way as electromagnetism - gravity bends space and time such that you're moving on a straight (inertial) line in free-fall even though you, for example, appear to be in a circular orbit.
so there's definitely room for our understanding of inertia to evolve, especially as we work out how to put gravity in the same framework as the other fundamental forces. I don't think it'll lead to faster than light travel but I'm speculating now on work thousands of brilliant people have failed to crack. just pointing out that there's a giant gap in our knowledge here where we have two very well verified theories that straight up disagree.
Is it also anti-scientific to say perpetual motion is impossible because we might be wrong about thermodynamics?
It is not anti-scientific to say that perpetual motion or faster than light travel or inertialess propulsion are impossible given our current understanding of physical laws. It is anti-scientific to say that our understanding of physical laws is perfect and not subject to change.
Nothing can ever be disproven. You could use this argument to claim anything and everything on the basis that the counter-evidence might be wrong.
My argument is not that inertialess propulsion exists and that we have observed it. I am not trying to prove that UFOs exist.
The only thing I am asserting is that scientific understanding is always imperfect and prone to to being expanded upon and corrected. Unless you really disagree with this statement, we really are just arguing around in circles.
I don't believe that scientific understanding is immutable, I just strongly believe that our conception of inertia, with its metric ton of evidence is correct, therefore discrediting the idea that this was an alien spacecraft capable of defying our conception of Inertia.
This does not rule out the possibility of UFOs with aliens in them, it just means that popular descriptions of what this particular event was are almost certainly wrong.
I understand that geocentrism was once the scientific consensus. This was obviously wrong. Arguments for geocentrism mainly centered on the lack of evidence of parallex, which wasn't found until the 1800s. But the main arguments weren't that it was physically impossible for a heliocentric system to exist, just that our world wasn't that way.
Sorry for any hostility. I probably need to log off.
This does not rule out the possibility of UFOs with aliens in them, it just means that popular descriptions of what this particular event was are almost certainly wrong.
Oh I agree. Plus, even if the descriptions were right, there are a lot of other more plausible phenomena that one could point to before going to inertialess drive.
Even if one wants to think it was aliens, then a decoy system using a stealth coating and light projection is a million percent more plausible, and I just pulled that out of my ass.
Sorry for any hostility. I probably need to log off.
Nah all good comrade. Sometimes it's fun to debate nerd out.
The laws of physics as we understood them in 1896 were not the same as we understand them to be now. I imagine that in 2896 they'll be different to how we understand them to be now.
Believing that our current understanding of physical laws is correct and immutable is anti-materalistic. There are still many physical forces and phenomena that we don't understand, or are barely even aware of.
Inertia defying tic tacs sounds like bullshit space magic to us now, but if you showed streaming a video over wifi to a scientist from the 1800s they'd probably think it was bullshit aether magic too.
Edit: Just to be clear though, I don't necessarily think that UFOs have visited Earth, I just think that denying the possibility based on our understanding of science is wonky reasoning.
Ok? Defying inertia is nowhere near the same thing as streaming. The internet doesn't violate one of the most basic laws of physics. You could defend perpetual motion machines using the same logic.
Comrade, there's debate nerd shit and then there's ignoring the thesis and argument to pick at an example out of context.
It's not out of context, it fits perfectly. It's basically impossible to prove you wrong since you can always respond if "what if science is wrong tho".
"Science has been wrong before" is a thoroughly debunked line of reasoning, usually trotted out to defend homeopathy and the like. But maybe, just maybe, we'll find an apple that falls upwards onto the tree rather than the other way around, because geocentrism was a thing once.
My argument is not that science is wrong, it's that science scientific understanding from time to time is imperfect. That's why science keeps doing things that were previously thought impossible.
"Science has been wrong before" as used to disprove science is, of course, bullshit. However, the idea that any of our current understandings of science is absolutely true and immutable is also equally anti-scientific bullshit.
The theoretical physicists working on things like tachyons would like nothing more than to be the next people to rewrite the laws of physics. Equating them to homeopaths and luddites is laughable.
Equating physicists working on tachyons to denying inertia is laughable too.
Is it also anti-scientific to say perpetual motion is impossible because we might be wrong about thermodynamics?
Nothing can ever be disproven. You could use this argument to claim anything and everything on the basis that the counter-evidence might be wrong.
inertia is a weird one. mostly it just means the state something is in when there are no forces acting on it. but general relatively theorized that an object in a gravitational field with no other forces acting on it is also in an inertial frame. it implies gravity isn't a force in the same way as electromagnetism - gravity bends space and time such that you're moving on a straight (inertial) line in free-fall even though you, for example, appear to be in a circular orbit.
so there's definitely room for our understanding of inertia to evolve, especially as we work out how to put gravity in the same framework as the other fundamental forces. I don't think it'll lead to faster than light travel but I'm speculating now on work thousands of brilliant people have failed to crack. just pointing out that there's a giant gap in our knowledge here where we have two very well verified theories that straight up disagree.
It is not anti-scientific to say that perpetual motion or faster than light travel or inertialess propulsion are impossible given our current understanding of physical laws. It is anti-scientific to say that our understanding of physical laws is perfect and not subject to change.
My argument is not that inertialess propulsion exists and that we have observed it. I am not trying to prove that UFOs exist.
The only thing I am asserting is that scientific understanding is always imperfect and prone to to being expanded upon and corrected. Unless you really disagree with this statement, we really are just arguing around in circles.
I don't believe that scientific understanding is immutable, I just strongly believe that our conception of inertia, with its metric ton of evidence is correct, therefore discrediting the idea that this was an alien spacecraft capable of defying our conception of Inertia.
This does not rule out the possibility of UFOs with aliens in them, it just means that popular descriptions of what this particular event was are almost certainly wrong.
I understand that geocentrism was once the scientific consensus. This was obviously wrong. Arguments for geocentrism mainly centered on the lack of evidence of parallex, which wasn't found until the 1800s. But the main arguments weren't that it was physically impossible for a heliocentric system to exist, just that our world wasn't that way.
Sorry for any hostility. I probably need to log off.
Oh I agree. Plus, even if the descriptions were right, there are a lot of other more plausible phenomena that one could point to before going to inertialess drive.
Even if one wants to think it was aliens, then a decoy system using a stealth coating and light projection is a million percent more plausible, and I just pulled that out of my ass.
Nah all good comrade. Sometimes it's fun to debate nerd out.