Weird Stuff (tinfoil hat wearing goons only, please) - The Bear and Badger

Dinostar77

I enjoyed Michael Talbot's book the Holographic Universe.

"It highlights parallels between ancient mysticism and quantum mechanics, and espousing a theoretical model of reality that suggests the physical universe is akin to a hologram based on the research and conclusions of David Bohm and Karl H. Pribram."

Of course as its me, theres other stuff in that book i enjoyed.

"According to Talbot ESP, telepathy, and other paranormal phenomena are a product of this holographic model of reality."

Quotes from the wikipedia page.

Dinostar77

Damn page turn was following on from davyk post.

Minkymu

GurtTractor wrote:

This is why we should be focussing on a thorough survey of our solar system, to at least give us a baseline for understanding how widespread life might be.

We haven’t even searched all the oceans yet

Wookienopants

Minkymu wrote:

GurtTractor wrote:

This is why we should be focussing on a thorough survey of our solar system, to at least give us a baseline for understanding how widespread life might be.

We haven’t even searched all the oceans yet

There's also a small alley on the way to the station, I've not been down there yet

Minkymu

Exactly Wookie

poprock

Yeah I’m only at about 80% completion for discovering roads in Forza Horizon 4.

GurtTractor

superflyninja

Roujin wrote:

At least the New Yorker article actually references the wider opinions of other scientists, unlike almost every other article out there atm that's just letting Loeb chat absolute shit for free, without even mentioning that the rest of the scientific community have basically already debunked his theories. What's your take on Oumuamua then? Tell us please what are the credible theories that haven't been explained? Or do you need to wait and buy Avi Loeb's fucking book first? I know it sucks getting excited for aliens in late 2020/early 2021 because a Harvard professor said we should have an open mind about things and then finding out that his theories already had gotten btfo in 2019, but ask yourself this: If Avi Loeb's counter arguments to the rebuttal of his theories are so good, why is he putting them in a book that you have to buy instead of just publishing them normally, and then hoovering up the insane plaudits and awards for being the first scientist to offer credible proof that an object of alien origin had visited the solar system?

First off why did he write a book? I suspect because there isnt enough evidence( either way) to write a paper.

I read that paper you linked before, its not the slam dunk you think it is. Much is still and will remain unknown. I think its pretty clear that what Oumuamua is, is inconlusive. In my opinion though it has a natural explanation.

Lastly, look at the level of vitriol you are posting with. You clearly arent interested in any kind of reasonable debate or discussion.

monkey wrote:

A barely observable, never before seen, interstellar object, that’s gone for good. We’ll never know what it was. It could easily be a ship disguised to look like a natural object to primitive observers. Or it could well be just a weirdo natural object that the universe might be full of. The fact is, the scientific explanation is conjecture too. There’s not much that could be observed in the short-time it was here. So they’ve taken scant data and tried to fit it into current understanding.

I agree with this.

nick_md wrote:

I'm always confused when people talk about planets that may have environment for life or whatever, like who are we to say there isn't a 5D lifeform that breathes spectrums that we don't know about with 7 ears and multiple genders. I get that we can only base our research on our knowledge and that makes sense, but surely we need to account for the unknown unknowns? Whenever I hear 'not suitable for life' or similar I just think yeah m8, not suitable for life as we know it.

That annoys me too, but I guess if scientists dont scan for life like what we have on this planet what do they scan for?

Roujin

Look, I may just be me, a simple man. But when I read a paper from the International Space Science Institute that says there is no credible evidence that Oumuamua is of alien origin and is explainable by natural means and here are results and links to the studies that show these things. I'm inclined to believe them when they are directly addressing the 3 papers Loeb was involved in that suggest it could have been an object of alien origin and make claims about the object which aren't true, like it being ten times brighter than any observed natural object.

If you can't understand why I am angry a Harvard Professor is sticking to his original theories that have already been reviewed and found to have no substance behind them, so he can take advantage and sell a book to rubes for his own personal gain, then that's on you.

As chboi Carl Sagan once said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

I'm well up for a debate on loads of weird stuff, but I don't think airtime should be given to people who are using their position in academia to get them onto podcasts so they can shill their book that is based on a theory that has already been dealt with by his peers. If there were genuinely unexplainable things about Oumuamua that we had no explanation for, then Loeb might have a point, but there is nothing that is truly unexplainable about this asteroid in this instance.

superflyninja

Ok so I listened to a bit on the Sean Carrol podcast linked above. Im not finished it, he seems much more....pessimistic which is cool. And so Avi mentions a 2019 paper that states:

[font=Merriweather, serif]Our best-fitting models are a thin disc (aspect ratio 1:6) and a thin cigar (aspect ratio 1:

that are very close to being axially symmetric. Both models are tumbling and require some torque that has the same amplitude in relation to ‘Oumuamua’s linear non-gravitational acceleration as in Solar system comets whose dynamics is affected by outgassing. Assuming random orientation of the angular momentum vector, we compute probabilities for our best-fitting models. We show that cigar-shaped models suffer from a fine-tuning problem and have only 16 per cent probability to produce light-curve minima as deep as the ones present in ‘Oumuamua’s light curve. Disc-shaped models, on the other hand, are very likely (at 91 per cent) to produce minima of the required depth. [/font]

Going by this paper Avi is most likely correct in his assertions about the shape. I dont have access to the full paper but I got that text from this place and is the paper that Avi quoted on the podcast. That paper postdates the paper you showed earlier. Looking at the wiki page of Oumouamoua it also states the hydrogen outgassing theory has been put to bed. Yes its wiki but I dont have the time to go chasing down papers to back it up (even though Im sure they are linked in the wiki).

Here we are playing scientific paper top trumps. Seems fairly clear to me that we dont have a widely accepted hypothesis, just that its REALLY unlikely to be aliens. Maybe the paper Avi quotes has now been debunked too by some other paper. Maybe the guy who wrote this paper is Avi's son in law. I simply dont know enough to make a decision on who is right and wrong and neither do you IMO. Seems like its almost all down to probabilities here.

So unless Im missing something here, and I may well be as I am not a scientist, but Oumouamoua has not been dealt with, nor is it likely to be. The guy wants to sell a book based off a miniscule possibility that the first detected interstellar object was alien? Fine by me, long as he presents his scientific argument. Like I said, if that book gets some kids into astrophysics then fucking great. Id rather the paper be used on this than some Ed Sheeran biography.

GurtTractor

My issue with what Avi Loeb is saying is that he's a wee bit bullish about his a priori extrapolations from a very limited set of data. He does seem to be cognisant that he doesn't have much to back up his reckons with however -

Avi Loeb (00:26:31):
I should say, this is not a proposal for a thesis. This is a working assumption that allows me to go out without prejudice into the world and examine the evidence. What I’m just asking is not to block the pursuit of evidence.

And that's fair and fine, and from what I've heard from other quite different outspoken scientists there are some issues within the scientific community with groupthink and 'stuffiness', which he is understandably at odds with. I just would prefer to hear a little more considered honesty from him when he's communicating these ideas.

So I would just take his ideas with scepticism and not put too much weight on them having a basis in reality, instead using them as a launchpad for fun exploratory imaginitive thinking about what could be out there.

superflyninja

GurtTractor wrote:

My issue with what Avi Loeb is saying is that he's a wee bit bullish about his a priori extrapolations from a very limited set of data. He does seem to be cognisant that he doesn't have much to back up his reckons with however -

Avi Loeb (00:26:31): I should say, this is not a proposal for a thesis. This is a working assumption that allows me to go out without prejudice into the world and examine the evidence. What I’m just asking is not to block the pursuit of evidence.

And that's fair and fine, and from what I've heard from other quite different outspoken scientists there are some issues within the scientific community with groupthink and 'stuffiness', which he is understandably at odds with. I just would prefer to hear a little more considered honesty from him when he's communicating these ideas. So I would just take his ideas with scepticism and not put too much weight on them having a basis in reality, instead using them as a launchpad for fun exploratory imaginitive thinking about what could be out there.

I agree with this, I dont think many people would believe his theory has a strong basis in reality.
There simply isnt enough evidence. Also, I do think he was being pretty clear that his major issue is with the stuffiness rather than him advocating really strongly for the alien solar sail.

Btw I want to be really clear, Im not arguing that what Loeb is saying is real, Im arguing against his total dismissal. Its like cancel culture but for science.

GurtTractor

Regarding scientists selling books:

I think this is fine generally, these people spend a massive amount of time and effort gathering and analysing data to build some kind of theory, often involving a much wider network of collaborators. The work it takes to convert your complex ideas into something that the public can easily digest means you have to really go over everything and condense it into something general and powerful. So I think it's quite reasonable to try and get a little recompense for your efforts while also providing education to the public.

In the case of Loeb he's not really built a proper theory yet, I assume it's a collection of possibilities based on the limited data and his imagination. So I wouldn't place it amongst other really scientific works, but probably treat it as a bit of sci fi, which is absolutely fine really but I just wouldn't mistake it as real evidence that we've been visited by a UFO.

GurtTractor

Yeah I would agree that we shouldn't totally dismiss people like Loeb, but I think we just need to consider what they are saying and how they are saying it. If you are communicating a wild idea then an earnest honesty and humility are very important.

Diluted Dante

It feels very much like this book will sit alongside Graham Hancocks works.

Lord_Griff

Yup, my scientific background is pre group-think.

stonechalice

Graham Hancock is a bellend.

superflyninja

GurtTractor wrote:

Yeah I would agree that we shouldn't totally dismiss people like Loeb, but I think we just need to consider what they are saying and how they are saying it. If you are communicating a wild idea then an earnest honesty and humility are very important.

Im all for discussion, its just I was taken aback at the force of the opposition. Anyway Im not buying his book, Ive got to catch up on my Viz issues

djchump

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/01/28/the-uncensored-guide-to-oumuamua-aliens-and-that-harvard-astronomer/?sh=878c4a66abec

Roujin

Look, that's just their opinion, @djchump they don't know everything, stop shutting down the debate!

superflyninja

In a link from that article that you linked chump it says this:

In the case of interstellar interloper ʻOumuamua, we should be looking at the natural explanations first and foremost, not speculating about something for which the only evidence is our own wishful thinking. After all, what can be asserted without evidence can — and should — be dismissed without evidence.

This is very telling. First Ill say that I finished Sean Carrol's interview and Avi Loeb himself states at one point the alien hypothesis is conjecture. I dont recall him saying on any podcast that this thing IS of alien origin. My understanding of what Loeb is saying is that for a scientist to even speculate about an extraterrestrial origin is taboo. Its forbidden, you talk about it and we brand you a kook.
Which ties in with the quote from the article above. I think one of the articles also states there is no evidence to show the object isnt alien.

I think his book is a big fuck you to that kind of thinking.
I mean look at the last line of that quote. Thats the question of religion well and truly dealt with isnt it?

I find these curious cases to be quite educational. Look at Tabby's star for example. It brought up the question of megastructures. I followed the info on the investigations knowing it was massively unlikely to be aliens but it was interesting to see how the theories developed as investigations continued. I think I learned a lot from it. Which I never would have had I not seen an article about POSSIBLE ALIEN MEGASTRUCTURE FOUND!!!!

djchump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

monkey

Just a couple of points. The science isn’t set here. The shape is a mystery - there’s theories about it but that’s all. And there’s no clarity about why it’s rotating in that strange way. These are under the ‘Open questions’ section in Rouj’s linked paper.

Forget about aliens for a second. Have scientists seen enough of this thing, and things like it, to know what it is, where it likely came from, why it behaves this way? That’s a no. It’s an object beyond the bounds of present knowledge.

Now that we’re looking out for these freaky things, given the expected number of interstellar objects floating around, and how weird and wonderful some of them might be, we’ll probably clear up some of these mysteries within our lifetimes.

Is it aliens? No. It’s a weirdo unexplained rock in space.
Is Loeb cashing in? Probably.
Is it interesting to imagine it’s aliens? Yes.
Is this the science thread? No it’s the weirdo thread for idiots.

dynamiteReady

To be fair to Loeb, and I'm definitely oversimplifying this here, his basic challenge to the commonly accepted theory, to a layman, doesn't sound too far fetched. If you pare it right down, consensus suspects:

- That Oumuamua is a hydrogren icecube which came from a few galaxies away. When it got to the solar system, the sun melted it's surface, and the melted hydrogen somehow combusted, providing enough acceleration to fly out of the solar system, in an event that has never been witnessed before.

On the other hand, Loeb (at the root of this) suggests:

- The consensus view is flawed, because you'd expect a hydrogen icecube to melt on a 40mil year journey. There are interstellar bodies of energy out there far hotter than the sun, so the chance that the object would have melted before having ever got here are extremely high. There has to be another explanation. Not necessarily aliens, but I be fucked if this frath isn't about as detailed and plausible as the commonly accepted theory. I'm from fucking Harvard, yadda, yadda.

That's my basic reading of it.

I suppose the dude definitely deserves some derision for using his credentials to play the media by trying to sell a bullshit yarn as a scientific theory. But I feel that some of you are throwing the baby out with the bath water, and perhaps this is a highly regarded academician's way at laughing at the same impasse we're recreating here.

edit - Plenty of spelling mistakes, and added bullshit.

Yossarian

superflyninja wrote:

My understanding of what Loeb is saying is that for a scientist to even speculate about an extraterrestrial origin is taboo. Its forbidden, you talk about it and we brand you a kook.

This clearly isn’t true though. Scientists regularly speculate about the possibility of aliens being responsible for observed phenomenon.

You’re a kook if you continue to assert it in the face of evidence to the contrary, not for suggesting it in the first place.

superflyninja

monkey wrote:

Just a couple of points. The science isn’t set here. The shape is a mystery - there’s theories about it but that’s all. And there’s no clarity about why it’s rotating in that strange way. These are under the ‘Open questions’ section in Rouj’s linked paper. Forget about aliens for a second. Have scientists seen enough of this thing, and things like it, to know what it is, where it likely came from, why it behaves this way? That’s a no. It’s an object beyond the bounds of present knowledge. Now that we’re looking out for these freaky things, given the expected number of interstellar objects floating around, and how weird and wonderful some of them might be, we’ll probably clear up some of these mysteries within our lifetimes. Is it aliens? No. It’s a weirdo unexplained rock in space. Is Loeb cashing in? Probably. Is it interesting to imagine it’s aliens? Yes. Is this the science thread? No it’s the weirdo thread for idiots.

Concerning your last point even if this were raised in the science thread surely there would be some debate on the few points of data that we have? And the the conclusion would be that its highly likely to be a weirdo space rock. Loeb is cashing in which may leave a bad taste in some peoples mouths and we all move on.
But again Id like to say, Ive not seen Loeb anywhere insist that the correct explanation is aliens. Im quite convinced that this book is a response to the likes of the quote I shared above. Do not consider anything with aliens. Ever. Its never aliens. Dont mention the word or we will fuck you up son. I can see why that would get his back up. I dont believe that he believes its aliens. As he keeps saying follow the evidence. Which is inconclusive here natch.

Personally Im pissed off at certain attitudes in here. This is the weirdo thread. Its a place to post strange news stories and consider the wilder theories out there. And just because I post a link about Oumouamoua doesnt mean I believe it hook, line and sinker. Its there to discuss not for bully boy tactics to be thrown at me. Im blue in the face couching what I write with clarifications that I dont think its aliens etc. Fucking pointless, its falling on deaf ears.

@Yossarian
But what evidence to the contrary? Can you pop some links? Im not having a go, in the course of me looking into this what I can see is we lack enough facts on the object to form a clear understanding. If there is something Ive missed please link it.

GooberTheHat

No one is claiming you do ninja, they are annoyed at Loeb

monkey

It's like people have seen something weird at night.
Is it a ghost? No it's not a fucking ghost.
But can you properly explain it? Well not exactly, but look it's not a fucking ghost alright.

Roujin

It might be a ghost once we've rule out all credible alternatives though.

Edit: No sarcasm, I'm just on the Russel Teapot and Carl Sagan train. I WANT to believe there is life outside our solar system and I can imagine ghosts and stuff if there's some weird multi dimensional time not being linear thing going on or something, but I won't jump to those being likely unless the other options have already been exhausted.

Dinostar77

dynamiteReady wrote:

To be fair to Loeb, and I'm definitely oversimplifying this here, his basic challenge to the commonly accepted theory, to a layman, doesn't sound too far fetched. If you pare it right down, consensus suspects:

- That Oumuamua is a hydrogren icecube which came from a few galaxies away. When it got to the solar system, the sun melted it's surface, and the melted hydrogen somehow combusted, providing enough acceleration to fly out of the solar system, in an event that has never been witnessed before.

Been staying out of this conversation but im intrigued by what dynamite said. Thst Oumuamua has travelled from a few galaxies away? That cant be right. Firstly how could you provide that? Has an authoritative source actual confirmed that or is that just a hypothesis. Cause i am genuinely intrigued. That would make it the first object i ever heard of coming from another galaxy.

Dynamite, did you mean another solar system in the milky way? Sounds more plausible.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories