UFO's and why they blink out.

Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by river, Mar 12, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    But these calculations will in the end be .....eye opening.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    No. As you say, it's old news.

    It is (and was) elementary to posit high speeds to explain the disappearance of lights. It was immediately refuted by the absence of sonic booms.
    Those wishing to explain the phenom are ahead of you in their thinking. It requires more exotic explanations than mere high speed.
    Come to the meetings!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Oh my OP has been refuted but not reasonably nor logically.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    How is it not reasonable or logical?
     
  8. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Because I have done research you have not.
     
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Really?

    You: This thread is for those who KNOW not think but KNOW.
    You: we those that know better will understand what my point is.
    Neither of those were about "advanced propulsion" per se, but they WERE a claim to knowledge - a knowledge you've failed to provide any evidence for let alone demonstrate.
    And here:
    Depends on the form of motive.
    You DO claim - implicitly - knowledge of "(advanced) propulsion" as a a "reason" for dismissing exchemist's valid objections to your drivel.
    YOU are the one that raised the subject of propulsion - advanced or otherwise - and have yet to provide ANY rationale as to why a sonic boom wouldn't happen.
    In short, it comes down precisely to what you "know or don't know" - about the subject in general AND "advanced propulsion".
    Plus, and noted, if it's not about what you specifically know (or don't) about "advanced propulsion" then it is, at best, hypocritical of you to comment that others don't have that knowledge.
    Either you DO know (and you don't) but have yet to explain how it obviates sonic booms or you don't (which is the case) and you're just bulsh*tting and also claiming that your lack of knowledge somehow trumps someone else's same lack.
     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    You have done calculations that all of us can read.
    You drew a conclusion that does not resolve the problem you claim it does.

    You will need to move the goalposts to continue the discussion.

    Almost certainly, you will begin positing advanced forms of propulsion, which is a different discussion (because it will need to address the shock wave issue).

    Which is fine, but it is not about your assertions in the OP. You are in the same boat as those whom you think you've superseded - you are looking to explain winking light by advanced forms of propulsion.
     
  11. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    NOT MOVING THE GOAL POSTS.
     
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    OK. Then your OP has been refuted. High speed alone does not explain winking lights. QED.

    It doesn't mean your forthcoming ideas are wrong, it simply means that your OP is a red herring.
     
    zgmc likes this.
  13. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    My OP has not been refuted ; just twisted around
     
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    It doesn't. No matter how you cut it, some exotic technology will be required.
    Other dimensions, while implausible, are exotic, just like what you're about to propose.

    Why do you think this? It's pretty elementary. But it does not resolve the issue. So we're no further ahead.

    They may have changed yours. But you were unaware of the problems with it. Now you're aware like the rest of us.

    That should have turned up in all that "research" you did. Maybe you shouldn't be too quick to claim you know so much more than the rest of us.
     
  15. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Oh I'm going to propose other dimensions . NOT GOING TO HAPPEN .
     
  16. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    So where, exactly, did you explain why the objection I gave in post #22 is invalid? Note: simply ignoring an objection doesn't mean that it's neither reasonable nor logical).
    Plus there's the slight problem that speed alone doesn't go towards supporting your claim.
    Let's take a starting guess and say the the "UFO" is seen at a distance of 10 miles. At a speed of 2,000 mph it will, as you said, cover just over half a mile. But the distance covered is largely irrelevant, since the visual arc is only ~3 degrees.
    This same arc applies to a 200 mph object at 1 mile, anyone who's been to an airshow knows full well that this doesn't provide "blinking out", on occasion 600+ mph at less about half a mile is seen (over 6 times the arc covered in the same time) with no "blinking out".
    How about a 100+ mph car on a racetrack at a range of mere tens of yards? Do they "blink out"? Why are there no reports of that happening?
     
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Got it. That's where you draw the line.

    Aliens coming light years to visit us from a far off star, to hover over our farmlands and violate our cows, sure, but other dimensions is too exotic for you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. river

    Messages:
    17,307
     
  19. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    What?
    Is this an admission that you HAVEN'T shown how my objection is either unreasonable or illogical?
    Is it an admission that you CAN'T?
     
  20. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    The visual arc ....LOL ....I'm still LOL
     
  21. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Presumably because either
    A) you can't refute it or
    B) you don't have a clue as to what I'm taking about.
     
  22. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Well no your just plain...plain.
     
  23. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    In other words you haven't and you can't.
    But you can (attempt to) divert.
    You're an ignorant intellectually dishonest troll.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page