Most Persuasive Theory on the UFO occurence.

[Aaron LeClair]

Who's the brains then - big man - CapnG??

Me, hiccup. Don't vote, egg the white house.

 

[CapnG]

Who's the brains then - big man - CapnG??
The spadeworkers of nuclear physics - and of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Wow pal, Genius hey???!!

Check out the hall of fame at ufowatchdog.com

Science is a philosophy - it is not something that is taught

Bull-to-the-shit. Science is method, it's purely a yes/no excercise. You can't wax philosophical about the freezing point of water or terminal velocity. Philosophy indeed...

And what the hell does my post count have to do with anything?

 

[Drew UK]

Check out the hall of fame at ufowatchdog.com
Bull-to-the-shit. Science is method, it's purely a yes/no excercise. You can't wax philosophical about the freezing point of water or terminal velocity. Philosophy indeed...
And what the hell does my post count have to do with anything?

Well it's going to be a long night - Firstly UFOWATCHDOG.COM can get tae Fuck!!¬ - I am not even going to go there!

Science is method - It's purely a yes/no excersise -

Yes I can wax philosophical about the freezing point of water - is that water does not freeze at exactly a yes/no amount.

You see in chemistry we have a pecularity regarding water, in particular the hydrogen bonds or wan der waals forces which create surface tension - alter the dynamics of the liquid in question.
Consequently - Water on the surface freezes at a different temperature than the water under the surface.

Similarly - when you put your clothes out to dry - it does not have to be the boiling point of water to remove moisture - most people put there clothes out to dry - on a warm summers day - say - 13-30C. Far lower than the boiling point of water - the same phenomenon is going here - we call it in science or our philosophy - "The Latent heat of evaporation".

Although we now know what causes these irregularities (NON YES/NO EXERCISES) at the molecular level - science will always try to answer in a philosophical context:

Karl Popper says the mark of a Scientific theory is whether it makes predictions which could in principle serve to falsify it. The more predictions a theory makes "the better it is".
No number of observed cases of some A having property B licenses the conclusion that all A's have that property. One simply never observes A's to justify this conclusion.

When you get a handle on this elementary "bullshit" - I will take you further.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Well it's going to be a long night - Firstly UFOWATCHDOG.COM can get tae Fuck!!¬ - I am not even going to go there!

Why?

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

[CapnG]

Well it's going to be a long night - Firstly UFOWATCHDOG.COM can get tae Fuck!!¬ - I am not even going to go there!

Suit yourself. You asked me a question, I answered it.

Yes I can wax philosophical about the freezing point of water - is that water does not freeze at exactly a yes/no amount.

Uh yeah actually it does, zero celcius. If you're above that it's water, below it's ice. The further below the faster the change and the greater the quantity changed. Water is never going to not begin to freeze at that point except perhaps under some highly unrealistic, in-lab only circumstances. It's yes/no, not sorta/kinda.

And I don't know who Karl Pooper is but he can suck it. A theory that makes multiple predictions isn't a theory, it's a dartboard. Science is binary. If A had B properties every day last week and B properties today, then it's gonna have B properties tomorrow unless somebody fucked something up.

Oh and incidently, the ends almost never justify the means.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Watchdog was just a source to look at that has a list of people. It's the list of people who's relevant to Capn's response, not Royce.

 

[Drew UK]

Uh yeah actually it does, zero celcius. If you're above that it's water, below it's ice. The further below the faster the change and the greater the quantity changed. Water is never going to not begin to freeze at that point except perhaps under some highly unrealistic, in-lab only circumstances. It's yes/no, not sorta/kinda.

Lets examine what you are saying - and what I am saying.

Firstly - I think you picked this Freezing point of Water at standard conditions (1 Atm pressure) is 0'C, 32F or 273.15K.
And asked the multiple choice Yes/No question at most colleges and schools - you would be right - Well done!!

OK, then you leave school and realise that the world isn't as straightforward as they might have let you percieve - We introduce an element of doubt - a sorta/kinda.

Right lets go back to school and determine what Freezing point is:

"For any given liquid - the freezing point is determined by the temperature at which the liquid changes from solid to liquid - The temperature remains at this point until all the liquid has solidified"

With me so far?

OK, we go a little further on from school and into college -

"We discover the melting point of liquid water - guess what it's 0'C/32F/ 273.15"
So here is a little contradiction - At 0'C water freezes - goes from liquid (Water) to Solid (Ice) - And also melts - goes from solid (Ice) to liquid (Water)? Are you still feeling YES/NO confident.

So we then come up with a different definition of freezing -
i.e. The Freezing point is the temperature which solid and liquid are in equilibrium.

I brought in the argument that water does not freeze uniformally - since I thought your counter -argument was based on Water Freezing and not the freezing point of water. - this is still true - we know this water has a high heat capacity - as well as a high heat of vaporisation which is due to the presence of H-bonding at the molecular level- the H bonding allows the water molecules to compact closer at the surface and becomes more dense allowing the freezing to occur at more higher than zero temps - I think its 5C. Also as it freezes the molecule stretches - becoming less dense in water - allowing ice to float.

OK, Back to Freezing point - We are going for the docturate now.

When we examine freezing - water like most other liquids or molten solids (plastics) do so by crystallisation.
A process called nucleation begins - where water starts to gather into clusters - then crystallises out (sometimes Spherulites may be used here - particular in polymer chemistry).

For nucleation to begin - around the freezing point of water - minute particles must be present to propagate this process. The level of particulates is important here - to few or non - i.e. Pure Water - and the freezing point does not occur - we define this as a supercooled liquid.
Too many particulates and we can elevate the freezing point of water - this can be achieved by addition of nucleating agent.

So I therefore propose that the Freezing point of Water is 0'C - Sorta/Kinda.

If you didn't like Karl Popper how about some Paul Fayerabend -

'There is not a single rule, however plausable..that is not violated at some time or other...there are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to ignore the rule, but to adopt its opposite.'

Since there are no set of rules, it follows that science is anarchic in nature.

Feyerband goes on, 'There is only one principle that can be defended under all circumstances and in all stages of human development. It is the principle:anything goes'

 

[CapnG]

You get many nose bleeds way up there on your high-horse, Drew?

Shocking as it may seem, I already knew the majority of what you just posted and I don't have a degree in jack. My point is the laws of physics aren't going to suddenly jump and give you boiling water at 10C or chunks of ice at 35C. Below zero-frozen, above-water. The wobble around particulates and purity and whatever else you want to pull out DOESN'T MATTER, those two conditions are going to apply in 99.9999999% of circumstances.

But nevermind because you've proven my points for me. Clearly science IS method and DOES need to be taught because you felt the need to rub my nose in it by attempting to teach me the method by which one can prove zero is not the absolute freezing point of water.

Science not only has rules, it IS rules. Those rules need to be flexible to a certain point, yes but that doesn't translate to anarchy. The unknown- that's anarchy, something pointless speculation in the UFO field aptly demonstrates with alarming ease.

 

[ondafritz]

I have chosen "None of the above" only because I really don't know. I have never seen anything strange in the paranormal sense although there was these two guys I used to party with that used to raise some questions for me..... hummmmmmm?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Anyway I do believe there is "something" going on but I really don't have a clue.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I have chosen "None of the above" only because I really don't know. I have never seen anything strange in the paranormal sense although there was these two guys I used to party with that used to raise some questions for me..... hummmmmmm?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Anyway I do believe there is "something" going on but I really don't have a clue.

Don't sell yourself short. You know pickles in a jar aint behind it. Some deduction can be done.

 

[Drew UK]

Shocking as it may seem, I already knew the majority of what you just posted and I don't have a degree in jack. My point is the laws of physics aren't going to suddenly jump and give you boiling water at 10C or chunks of ice at 35C. Below zero-frozen, above-water. The wobble around particulates and purity and whatever else you want to pull out DOESN'T MATTER, those two conditions are going to apply in 99.9999999% of circumstances.

Alas, I think we agree - we understand that there is always less than 100% certainty in proof of a subject - so always we are dealing with Sorta/Kinda and not Yes/No argument.

I always think this is important to bear in mind - epecially in other more advanced fields of science - however, I believe you think and that I think that Science is the only theory and philosophy that can take us further.

I will bring forward W.V.O Quine - "Only science can tell us about the world: it is the final arbiter of the truth".

"But nevermind because you've proven my points for me. Clearly science IS method and DOES need to be taught because you felt the need to rub my nose in it by attempting to teach me the method by which one can prove zero is not the absolute freezing point of water."

I wanted to rub your nose in it? - Nae way - I wanted to defend an argument -I shall never sit on a pedestal with all the answers and indoctrinate the masses - this was the whole point - to encourage people to get away from the comfort of experts and the dictators of science - hence, why the UFO hall of fame should get to shit!!
People should have the chance to interpret for themselves - without influence (or teaching)!!

'I have given up the ambition even to get to university' A. Einstein.

Science not only has rules, it IS rules. Those rules need to be flexible to a certain point, yes but that doesn't translate to anarchy. The unknown- that's anarchy, something pointless speculation in the UFO field aptly demonstrates with alarming ease.

Sound's good to me.

 

[ondafritz]

Don't sell yourself short. You know pickles in a jar aint behind it. Some deduction can be done.

Yes Aaron, I know your right. But the more I look into this subject the more I realize that I really don't know what to think anymore. I have come to the conclusion that it is not quite as simple as little green men from Mars thinking. You know what I mean on that. And with all of the frauds out there that muddy the waters make it even more frustrating.

As I said, I know that something is going on. I am just not sure of the "what" or the "how" or the "who".

If I had to find a safe zone it would be with Stan Friedman. But everyone has a pretty good clue that, at least, some aspects of this go beyond his site ratio.

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

RE cryptoterrestrials, why do they seem to have given up all of the prime real-estate?

 

[Aaron LeClair]

RE cryptoterrestrials, why do they seem to have given up all of the prime real-estate?

Bail out effects them too I guess.

 

[fitzbew88]

RE cryptoterrestrials, why do they seem to have given up all of the prime real-estate?

I wonder...maybe what's "prime" to us is not-so-prime to them?

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I wonder...maybe what's "prime" to us is not-so-prime to them?

Prime Ribs are universal. Mmmm. Ok, I'm tired. No more corny jokes, for at least a handful of hours. Depends on how long I sleep.

 

[fitzbew88]

Prime Ribs are universal.

Hmmm. Let me chew on that idea for a while.

 

[Drew UK]

OK - I think I have gathered up as much as I can on this one - the poll still puts alot on emphasis on "other explanation" - and I would like to know what these are -

Currently I have on my list -

• Interstellar/gallactic - from regions of space that require great distances
• Interplanatary/Cryptozoological - from regions of space requiring less distance
• Interdimensional/spiritual - from a quasi-existential plane bearing no interaction with current reality (I choose to put religious/theocratic principles and God theories into this since the spiritual plane could if verified be called another dimension - please feel free to complain.)
• Psychological - From an emmission of our own minds.
• Synthetic and Human organisation - from our own people in certain communities and organisations.
• Time travellers - From the future or past.
• Non Genuine - Human hoaxes and deceptiveness.

Is there anything that I have missed? - please feel free to make an addition -

 

[Kieran]

I Like the idea of "time travellers" it would explain alot.... for example.
The ufo occupants dont seem interested in revealing themselves to the world in any large scale, and another reason why i think they might be" time travellers" there interest in humanity eg they seem to be interested in certain individuals, it almost like they have a prior knowledge, if that makes any sense?

 

[skunkape]

Maybe it's all in your mind...and so are you. The more this is comprehended, the more you are all things. The physical world seems like the skin of a bubble to me sometimes. Possibly a bubble blown by a child.