That isn't comparable though. We already know what the space telescopes (and indeed large ground telescopes) are going to be used to observe and how that is going to be done. Stars, planets, super-nova's and the like don't rarely appear at random, they're always out there and a single telescope can be used to gather a vast amount of data from a wide range of objects and places. You're talking about using a specific piece of equipment to observe a specific phenomena that occur rarely at apparently random times and places. It wouldn't have anything like the same scientific scope and I still don't see how you could actually achieve it even if you wanted to. Exactly what kind of procedure and infrastructure are you actually suggesting with this? Again, you've still not clarified whether you're interested in identifying causes for UFO sightings or discovering evidence of intelligent life. I thought your reference to UFOs being extra-terrestrial alien craft was just one random hypothesis. I'm all for practical approaches to better understanding UFO sightings (regardless of their causes) and I'm also all for practical approaches to understanding more about the universe (including, though far from exclusively, the existence of any extra-terrestrial life). As I said though, those are two distinct fields and you've not actually suggested any novel approach to either in any kind of practical detail.
WHY else would one even LOOK at this data WITHOUT wanting answers to BOTH of those questions? Scientific studies RARELY only examine ONLY a SINGLE aspect to any area of research. If you want EASY answers you should try a DIFFERENT area of research.
They're not both questions, that's my point. "What causes a UFO sighting?" is a question, "The existence of extra-terrestrial life" is an answer. Starting with a question and following the scientific process to try to answer it is legitimate. Starting with an answer and only trying to find evidence that fits that answer is not. There is no valid reason to consider any specific hypothesis about UFOs (certainly not in general terms) involving extra-terrestrial aliens. Future evidence might support development of such a hypothesis but nothing has presented yet. So why are you still only talking about the extra-terrestrial aliens aspect of the field of UFOs then? No area of research has easy answers. If they were easy, we'd already know them. The simple fact is that, for a lot of things, we simply don't know (at least not in entirety or definitively), and have no realistic prospect of knowing in the foreseeable future. I'm not asking you for easy answers (I'm not asking you for any answers at all). I'm just asking how you believe the novel approaches to research in this field you're proposing could actually be achieved in practice. And given the scale and scope of interest in UFOs, why has nobody used them already?
You didn't answer the first question. You spoke in very general terms about pointing a spectrometer at UFOs but haven't even tried to explain how that could be achieved. Since we have pretty much no idea where or when the next relevant sighting might happen, how could you get your spectrometer in place? Just dismissing that as "difficulties" doesn't cover it, I'd suggest it would be essentially impossible, regardless of funding or determination. The point of the second question is to support the idea that it is impossible, because if it were possible, somebody would have tried it already. If it was possible to proactively study UFO sightings at all, lots of people would have tried to do so already, using all sorts of equipment and methods (from as simple as direct observation and basic high-quality video). The reality is that we can only reactively study them, which is the main reason the available evidence is so limited.
"We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." President John F Kennedy September 12, 1962
The Moon has nothing to do with UFOs (other than occasionally being misidentified as one). Why are you repeatedly evading the simple question of what practical infrastructure or processes you'd suggest could be used to apply spectrometry to any UFO sightings?
I am NOT your student and I am NOT obligated to provide you with a term paper either. The PURPOSE of this Science forum is to "Discuss physics, chemistry, astronomy, oceanography, medical advances, etc." The OP topic is a DISCUSSION of the potential scientific use of UFO data to determine the possibility of alien intelligence attempting to COMMUNICATE with us. If YOU want a discussion on EXACTLY HOW to go about making that happen, or not happen, then start your own thread.
I'm not sure why you're getting so defensive about this. I have engaged in your discussion; I suggested that people are already making as much use of the data available to try to understand whatever the causes of UFOs might be. The fact is that the very nature of UFOs mean they're difficult to consistently observe so the evidence is extremely limited (probably a major reason why there is still so much mystery and interest surrounding them compared to similar phenomena). You picked up on someone else's comment about spectrometry as something new that could be used but while that makes conceptual sense, I don't see how it could be actually done given how the occurrence of UFO sightings are so varied, unpredictable and brief. I'm not asking for any kind of exact detail, just a very high level idea of how you see this being done. For example, if we were talking about sending people to the Moon, it could be something like "Using detachable solid-fuel rockets to send a pressurised capsule in to orbit, with smaller rockets to fly to and land on the Moon.".
All you have provided is NAYSAYING. Spectrometers can be small enough to be handheld but I am going to assume that something larger would be needed in a plane. Either way it is just a piece of equipment to be used in conjunction with radar so if a Navy pilot does see a UFO we NOW have additional data to work with. Radar operates in planes all day and every day and readings are automatically recorded. The addition of another piece of equipment is NOT a matter of rocket science. WHY you imagine this is totally IMPRACTICAL and/or IMPOSSIBLE you have FAILED to substantiate. So post your next dismissal because that appears to be ALL you have to contribute. Now other ideas, no constructive criticism, just naysaying. Got it!
So you're suggesting every military aircraft is fitted with an additional piece of equipment, configured and maintained for this use alone, and all the pilots trained in it's use, on the off-chance that on of them encounters a UFO in a situation where that equipment could be used? I'm not sure that would be considered a good use of public money. I'm not sure what else I'm meant to do if I happen to disagree with your suggestions. I'd also suggest supporting the concept of accepting that there are some things we simply don't know (and possibly never will) is constructive.
Well correct it then. If you keep making me guess what you're proposing, I'm bound to get it wrong. I hope you don't consider it a strawman to say you're suggesting that it would be beneficial to get spectrometers recording data from UFOs (I don't even disagree with that in principle). The key question you're refusing to address is how (and if) that aim could actually be achieved.
Sure, but what will you engage with? You can only have a discussion if you're open to actually discussing something (which naturally includes people disagreeing with you and asking for more detail or clarification of your position).
It wasn't intended as a strawman though, it was an honest attempt to understand what you're suggesting should be done differently. The reason there is nothing to discuss is because you're still refusing to explain that. You apparently think there are things that should (and, significantly, could) be done to better study and understand UFOs yet you seem unwilling or unable to even hint as what those things could be. That's why you haven't changed my opinion that there unfortunately isn't much more we could realistically do and, like many other things, some UFO sightings are going to remain unexplained for the foreseeable future.
Hard to believe that someone who has been a member since 2010 does NOT know what a strawman is. Combine the disingenuous strawman with unsubstantiated naysaying and not a single merit worthy contribution to the topic establishes a pattern of intent. Have a nice day!
Statistically there should be intelligent life many places in our galaxy let alone the universe. The problem is distances. They are so great that travel and even communication between two intelligent species can take millions of years. So common sense and the laws of physics as we understand them say that there is almost certainly intelligent life elsewhere but those intelligent groups remain isolated from one another.
We agree upon the basics of what you have written. Are you aware of the concept of Quantum entanglement? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement Hypothetically speaking a Quantum computer with qbits entangled with another Quantum computer do NOT need to be "connected" by any of our current means of communication. If the qbit values in the first are set in one manner the other will automatically have their entangled qbit value set to the opposite value. Yes, this is an over-simplification but it gets the point across that long distance communication obstacles can be mitigated. We will still be limited by the speed of light but the concept of communication across those distances is theoretically possible using Quantum Entanglement. Granted communication speed is IMPORTANT for matters that are URGENT but sharing knowledge does not require that urgency. Theoretically a Quantum computer could "read" entangled qbits from another solar system. The subsequent interpretation of those qbits into knowledge would be a different challenge but the ability to communicate could be established. We are looking at what appears to be impossible given the laws of physics as we understand them but we have barely scraped the surface of what is POSSIBLE when we allow ourselves to engage in out of the box options. Scientific advances occur when we look at problems from different directions. That is what Einstein did, he looked at the established science and then examining it from a RELATIVELY different perspective. Not saying that any of above is technically the ANSWER, just that we should be willing to address EVERYTHING with an OPEN mind and not be afraid to QUESTION current "knowledge" either. We are about due for another Einstein IMO.
Perhaps. Einstein is still the current standard science. My own opinion is that scientists understand quantum mechanics even less than they understand the other mysteries they ponder. It is always risky to support theories based on nothing but mathematics. Quantum mechanics certain meets that definition. Einsteins theories arise from mathematics also but at least most have been certified by observation and experimentation.
Here is an explanation of UAP's ability to move at extreme speeds and ignore G forces (maybe).... "Our main insight is the following, as there is only one way the laws of physics will allow such motions. Since the accelerations are too large, they actually have to be zero. The way to make this happen is to move the craft along geodesics." If I get it (because it is over my head), it controls geodesics and the craft is just falling in any direction it wants.
Quantum mechanics is testable and observable. It has been seriously important in understanding particle physics. It's true that there isn't a clear understanding of why it works that way. But, there is constant testing showing that it does work that way. Also, physicists continue to address deeper questions using quantum field theory.
Many thanks for that link, Edna. Best explanation of UAP's I have ever encountered. Doubtless there are alternative theories and naysayers but the ability to address all aspects makes it plausible. If this is correct then I want to see a map of the Quantum Entanglements of the Universe overlayed on the physical one we are currently mapping. Still a way before that happens but fascinating to appreciate that we also exist in a quantum state within our SpaceTime understanding.
Referring to your link, can you name one Earthly object which would cause detectable gravitational lensing? Lensing in space is useful because of the extreme mass of objects such as large stars and galaxies actually bends the path of light by a small amount. Plus, we're a LONG way away from those massive objects, making it possible for the minor bending of light to reach us at a focal point. This is why our own sun is not a good gravitational lense.
