/
How do you explore events in the past?
What does this have to do with what we were talking about? I'm not against answering this question, but could you either make plain its relevance, or, better still, make the point that lies behind the question? Because I don't get where we're going with this.
There are black swans. They do exist.
I know. That doesn't change my point.
Many physicists accept his conclusion. I dont know if it qualifies as generally. But well known and respected physicists do, like Wolpert and Stanley Jaki, and Douglas Hofstadler.
That's great, too. There can be some physicists who hold theories that haven't been proven, or at least accepted by cosmology in general. Investigate and explore away! Let me know when it cosmology accepts this theory. That's how science works.
It is unlikely that it will if they are not open to it and the mainstream academia does not appear to be.
Now you have another claim that you need to support, the claim that they are not open to it. Also, any evidence for this claim has to be distinguished from evidence that would merely show that cosmology has undertaken a fair evaluation of the theory and has rejected it.
That article does not support your original claim about UFOs:
Sara Seager, an astrophysicist at M.I.T., cautioned that not knowing the origin of an object does not mean that it is from another planet or galaxy. “When people claim to observe truly unusual phenomena, sometimes it’s worth investigating seriously,” she said. But, she added, “what people sometimes don’t get about science is that we often have phenomena that remain unexplained.”
James E. Oberg, a former NASA space shuttle engineer and the author of 10 books on spaceflight who often debunks
U.F.O. sightings, was also doubtful. “There are plenty of prosaic events and human perceptual traits that can account for these stories,”
I'm all for studying and investigating weird phenomenon. But this NYT article you linked to certainly didn't show "empirical observations by scientists of some UFOs plainly violating the laws of physics." A report of an observation by Navy pilots, for instance, is not scientists saying that the laws of physics have been violated. And, even if a scientist could be produced who said that, even that doesn't matter, because **science** has to acknowledge the violation of the laws of physics, not an individual scientist or a group of scientists. That's how science works, and there are good reasons why it has to work that way.
Actually we do. For many years scientists were seeing things that appear to point toward the existence of black holes, and then they said these sightings were evidence for black holes and then we discovered that black holes actually exist. So this is the standard way science works. So there is evidence for supernatural because we are seeing things that appear to behave as a supernatural event would behave, therefore this is evidence for the supernatural.
Something "appearing" to be evidence for a claim might well be evidence for the claim, or it might not be. We can conclude nothing from something "appearing" to , for instance, support the existence of black holes. Once further evidence is gathered, it's the totality of the evidence that shows that black holes exist. Before that, all you have is something that **might** indicate some phenomenon.
UFOs travel faster than it is possible for physical objects to travel in an atmosphere and at the point that time > 0 the BB goes against all known laws of physics.
AFAIK, we have **reports** that this has happened, but those reports have not been confirmed to actually be what they purport to be. Until we get actual confirmation, all we have is an area of research, not a conclusion.
In addition, there is strong historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ which also of course violates the laws of physics.
We've got enough on our plate with cosmology and UFOs, forgive me if I decline to get into the resurrection.
