UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Which really is mundane

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah..I caught that too. So much for the troll strategy of quoting statements out of context..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't know Michael. If there is terrestrial aircraft technology capable of performing like the tic-tacs performed, then I wouldn't call it "mundane". I'd call it "breakthrough technology" and anything but mundane. It would transform the world military balance.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If there is terrestrial aircraft technology capable of performing like the tic-tacs performed,

There isn't

It would transform the world military balance.

It won't because there isn't technology capable of performing like the tic-tacs

Even IF, note big if, the military balance will restore itself. Military balance is a bit of a misnomer never really been in balance

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Not only does it suggest technology beyond what we know, but also suggests science we have yet to discover, at least as contained in a university level physics textbook. UFOs appear to break laws as we know them. They're defying gravity and maybe even mass and inertia. Their very existence is a subversion of the natural order of things..

 

IT does not suggest anything since IT remains UNKNOWN

Glad the word appear is in the above sentence

If only the words appear to be accompanied the above (BIG sigh)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

At best you can say that if it is an alien craft then it suggests technology beyond what we know, etc. But since we don't know that it is an alien craft, you are left with unconfirmed speculation, and unwarranted assumptions.

They do??? How so? Is there anything in the laws of physics, for example, that says that what the UFOs appear to do are impossible?

They are??? How do you conclude this? What do you even mean when you say they "defy gravity"? Do you think aircraft "defy gravity"? Or helicopters? Or birds?
How do you conclude that they maybe "defy mass and inertia"? I.e. what behaviour have they exhibited that lead you to conclude that maybe they have done this?

Again: how so??? What do you even consider to be the "natural order of things"?

Even if MR says that they "appear to be..." it doesn't wash, as I'm not sure he's shown any behaviour of UFOs that breaks the laws of physics. They may seem (if the interpretation of the phenomena are correct) to do things not possible with our current level of tech, but our tech level is hardly what defines the laws of physics.

 

Part speculation, with a dash of informed inference added for good measure. It is all based on eyewitness accounts of ufos performing seemingly impossible feats in the air. Sudden stops in midair, sudden accelerations at high speeds, no visible means of propulsion, no sound, lack of wings or aerodynamic extentions, and abrupt changes in direction (described by pilot Commander Fravor like a ping pong ball hitting a surface). These are attributes which, taken together, defy the laws of physics as we know them.

"Retired Cmdr. David Fravor told CNN Tuesday night that the UFO was a "white object, oblong, pointing north, moving erratically" and that "as I got close to it ... it rapidly accelerated to the south, and disappeared in less than two seconds."

Fravor said he "looked at" the object "for somewhere around 5 minutes before it rapidly accelerated."

"When helicopters move side to side, they kinda slow, and then they pick up speed going the other way," he said. "This was extremely abrupt, like a ping-pong ball, bouncing off a wall. It would hit and go the other way."--- https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-like-a-ping-pong-ball-former-navy-pilot-says

 

Should ask mods to create a Speculation and Inference Forum, just for MR.

 

I would disagree

Physics is what it is, we don't in a sense define physics, but the numbers we use to figure out the parameters of what is feasible and what is impossible hold good

You would have MR alone posting to himself. Brilliant but tad cruel

,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think you're missing Sarkus' point.

The physics of high-g acceleration is pretty straightforward - that's how railguns work.
But our tech level isn't sufficient to have human-sized craft doing those kind of g's.

So, our tech level does not define our laws of physics. Our tech level lags by quite a bit.

 

Not quite following

Is it being presumed

• There ARE human-sized craft doing those kind of g's. out there? or
• we will be able to produce human-sized craft doing those kind of g's?
• because physics does (has been calculated can) allow

I dismiss the first in part due to the other attributes said craft are credited with

If physics does (has been calculated) allow OK we will get said craft. Will we get the other attributes said craft are credited with?

There's the rub

Physics allows Nuclear Fusion. We haven't got Nuclear Fusion because of all the other attributes which come with the process

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

None of the above is being presumed by Sarkus - except hypothetically - to-wit:

Yes. This.

To summarize: someone several posts ago claimed the things we are seeing are "beyond the laws physics as we know them" or some such. Sarkus is simply pointing out that that's an overreach.

Even presuming all the account are actually craft, they're still not 'beyond the laws of physics', they're simply 'beyond our technology to build'.

 

Maybe. All I know is that current aircraft technology doesn't enable aircraft to behave like some of the reports (which might not be accurate) have the 'tic-tacs' behaving. Assuming that the reports are accurate, that suggests new technology that's more advanced than anything publicly revealed. We know for a fact that they don't publicly reveal all of their R&D efforts. (That's what 'Area 51' is all about.) But that being said, I'm not convinced that they have made advances as large as suggested by these sightings. It's arguably too big a leap. That's why my favored 'terrestrial craft' hypothesis has a big asterisk and question mark next to it.

Maybe, but I doubt it. Their propulsion is unknown. They do seem to accelerate very abruptly, assuming the reports are accurate, which isn't certain at this point. But if they are robots, aircraft can pull lots of Gs with no flesh and blood occupants aboard. The pilot has long been the biggest limiting factor on how violently fighter aircraft can maneuver. That's one of several advantages of potential combat UAVs.

The tic-tacs were observed on radar descending and ascending to the edges of space similar to ballistic missiles without any visible rocket plumes or large booster fuel tanks that we need to accomplish the same thing. If the descriptions are accurate, it does suggest new propulsion perhaps so advanced beyond the current state of the art that it's exceeding unlikely that anyone has accomplished it.

But I don't see that physical laws are being violated.

I'm not prepared to go that far yet. (But I won't flame you for saying it.)

 

Is it possible that we haven't discovered alien life because we aren't willing to invest enough money in the proper equipment and time in analyzing data? It's not difficult to imagine that there could be other intelligent life out there, but relying on eye witness sightings isn't going to convince anyone. Or...maybe our government knows more than it's willing to share.

By ''we'' I mean...the US government, but not limited to it. Do other countries have an interest in pooling resources to examine this topic further?

 

Well, that's what the SETI project is for. It's been running for decades.

If you didn't live under a rock at the time, you probably signed up to SETI@home, a distributed computing initiative that tapped unused computer time on millions of supporters' computers around the turn of the millennium. I can confidently say that I (or at least, my personal computer) have participated in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

 

I'm talking about government involvement. Unfortunately, I'm thinking many tax payers find alien hunting exploration to be a waste of resources.

 

Well, waste of taxpayers' resources yes. Joe Schmo shouldn't have to pay for ET searches if he doesn't want to. But if he does want to, that's what private foundations are for.

 

Sure, it's possible. But I'm not sure what proper equipment we would need or how we would conduct the search. We don't know where alien life might be located, or what signs of it would be detectable here on Earth.

I'm not 100% certain that we would recognize alien life even if we tripped over it on another planet. It might be totally different than Earth life, biochemically. That's the fundamental weakness of astrobiology in my opinion. It's thinking almost exclusively about finding duplicates of Earth life. But given the incredible complexity of Earth life, and the likely fortuitous drunkard's-walk path that it took to get where it is now, I'd guess that there may be many different ways alien life might have evolved to a functionally equivalent state. We just have no idea how large a possibility-space life exists in, how many different paths it could have taken or how many different ways it could be.

I doubt it. My reason is that if they knew about intelligent extraterrestrial life, I would expect them to behave very differently, even if they didn't tell us why. There would be a lot more interest in things happening in the skies, and not just a focus on other countries' satellites.

Perhaps, but not a big interest. And none of them are willing to reveal military secrets like the capabilities of their radars to advance the project.