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.
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.