>>11943626>Just think about mochizuki's IUT. When mathematicians started reading this shit it was as if they were reading mathematics from the future.You seem assign IUT a science fiction status, when all it was a rather impenetrable and poor;y written math paper.
I don't agree with how you frame it, although I do acknowledge your statement
>of course IUT isn't from the future so imagine what it wouId be Iike if it actuaIIy wasIUT does not follow conventional methods of writing math papers. The problem mainly arises from how badly it was written. The paper in itself contains no futuristic, esoteric knowledge. In fact a report by most number theorists do say the same, "3.12 which was the crux for proving the abc conjecture, doesn't tick".
In your post, you're trying to conflate 2 different problems
1)An event with not enough data
2) A badly written math paper.
The problem with the first is that, alien craft does require futuristic tech. But the problem with such tech is that, too many assumptions need to be set in place. Sure, we probably don't have the knowledge of traveling inter galactic distances in short amounts of time, but the conventional problem of negative energy and it's various implications arises.
>>11943626>ReIeasing an aIien spacecraft onto the scientific community couId actuaIIy do more harm than goodIt's not about doing harm or good per se. It's rather about assuming Extraterrestrials have figured about ways to manipulate gravity and negative energy and other kinds of wildly speculative theories that causes the scientific community to become lethargic and dismissive.
