Peer-reviewed paper on UFOs. 80k feet to sea level in 0.79 sec (50,000+ mph!)

Nobody is assuming. We are allowing for the possibility.

Equipment glitches and eyewitness errors are a known fact; whereas unearthly piloted craft are not.

'uncommon but factual' times 'uncommon but factual' still works out to a higher probability than 'never once confirmed'. (For you math whizzes: .00000001 times .000000001 is still more than a million times more probable than zero).

There certainly is a reason to allow for errors as a possible explanation.

Errors in equipment, in data interpretation, and in eyewitness perception are factual. This is indisputable. That means errors in different modes are bound to overlap; this is also indisputable.

It is true that they may rarely overlap. That makes perfect sense, considering how many anomalous incidents are resolved; the number that are left over would be represented by these outlier incidents. Remember, we're only talking about a very small subset of incidents out of a huge pool of "routine" incidents.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As long as enthusiasts want to lean on that "we can't prove it but the evidence is convincing" button, then you have no choice but to allow another possibilities, such as:

• ghosts
• angels
• acts of God

Are you willing to go on-record, saying these are possibilities we shouldn't ignore? If not, by what criteria do you rule them out?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is the problem.

To me, it's not that any given possibility is absolutely impossible, but I always wonder why we might carry forward on the basis of observable misrepresentation. Exaggerations happen in the course of colloquy, but once observed there is no point in abiding them. The hardest part of writing the paper, for Knuth, Powell, and Reali, was probably the challenge of keeping their phrasing within respectable professionaal and scientific boundaries. The conclusions make it clear why this paper was published in Entropy, whose peer review standards↱ would, at least, accept such editorial content.

Reading the paper for what it says and what it is, the thing is that it doesn't do very much. The evidence analyzed only carries so far, and compared to that last paragraph, the whole thing is underwhelming. Like the whole Day testimonial (2.4.1); I need not doubt that Specialist Day is earnest and accurate in his recounting of the incident, but what I have is testimonial data of radar data. That's it.

(And, I don't know, there is something wrong with the description of the JAL encounter (2.3) compared to the way it is drawn up in Figure 2, but, no, that must be my mistake, because there is no way someone putting this paper together would screw up that badly.)​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A meteor would be very hot. Thermal imaging is pretty reliable, so it can't be that. Pilots can suffer anomalies themselves, like oxygen deprivation, which affects their judgement. The whole thing is very odd, and I wonder how a scientist would go about observing such a thing properly. Maybe fly around in a specially equipped jet looking for the things?

 

I'm a bit confused by this statement. How? The over 50,000 mph figure in the original post is only 22.2 miles/sec or 35.5 km/s. This is a bit more than Venus' orbital speed and less than Mercury's.
If they are referring to the ability to get up to high speeds in short time, this is not a requirement for interstellar travel.

 

Good point. Its left to the reader the connect the dots.

Maybe its about overall energy storage. Acceleration of that magnitude would require a power source of unearthly scale.

 

Just glancing through it (i.e., obviously I'm apathetic to begin with about space alien interpretations of UAPs), this "seems" to be the paragraph where the authors start addressing their "interstellar" claim in earnest:

While the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis can be neither verified nor ruled out at this time, it is useful to consider whether the characteristics of these UAVs tend to support or rule out the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis. Given the estimated accelerations of these UAVs, it is useful to consider the time it would take them to travel interstellar distances. Figure 7A illustrates how long it would take a craft accelerating at 1000g to reach various percentages of the speed of light. In just less than an hour, a craft accelerating at a constant 1000g would reach 10% of the speed of light, which is NASA’s goal for the planned 2069 mission to Proxima Centuri (Alpha Centuri system). In less than three hours, the same craft would reach 30% of the speed of light. Such a craft accelerating at a constant 1000g for half of the trip and decelerating at the same rate for the remaining half would reach Proxima Centuri within 5 days’ ship time due to the fact that it would have been traveling at relativistic speeds for most of the trip (Figure 7B). However, for those of us on Earth, or anyone on Proxima Centuri b, the trip would take over four years. As a comparison, a craft accelerating at 100g would reach 10% of the speed of light in 8.5hrs, 30% of the speed of light in just more than a day, and Proxima Centuri in a month and a half.​

_

 

That definitely suggests that if very high accelerations can be maintained for extended periods, interstellar travel starts to become a real possibility.

So if these things really are able to attain 100 - 1000 G accelerations and can maintain those accelerations, then it starts being plausible to imagine them travelling from star to star.

The idea that they can accelerate like this inside a planet's atmosphere without aerodynamic resistance, heating and shockwaves is impressive as well.

Assuming the observations are correct, they pretty clearly aren't powered by reaction engines. Airflow around them wouldn't seem to be conventional fluid dynamics either.

 

Does not require very high accelerations. If you can accelerate at 1G (normal gravitational acceleration) you can get to Alpha Centauri in under 4 years ship time. And interestingly, if you want to go twice the distance, it only takes about 25% more time - because you are relativistic at that point.

The trick is maintaining that acceleration, not having very high/very short accelerations.

 

You may have mentioned earlier that the objects (IF indeed extraordinary) need not even have occupants. I certainly don't believe anything akin to our brand of life could survive such abrupt accelerations and stunts. And even a technologically engineered crew might find it taxing.

I doubt they'd have originated from nearby stars (that the authors mention). Though von Neumann probes or self-replicating, autonomous explorers could have assembly outposts or "breeding grounds" based on "nearby", resource-providing exoplanets. The long game would be gradually migrating across the galaxy, as in 2001: A Space Odyssey fame, and possibly seeking and being guardians and guides to developing intelligent species they encountered.

I don't know if various "impossible" stuff could really be achieved by any advanced civilization, unless the world was something akin to a simulation, whose extraterrestrial residents had infiltrated its administrative level to locally bypass the physical constraints of nature (on demand or as needed).

If the above is what would be required, then the space alien hypothesis actually becomes rather superfluous. That is, one might as well save a step and speculate that it was the prior-in-rank, nomological stratum of rules and principles itself (responsible for the universe) that was intruding in this unfolding experiment that we'd be denizens of.
_

 

Do we know if acceleration was a factor, or did it disappear in one place and reappear in another? An artificial intelligence wouldn't be affected by g forces.

 

Ah, there's the rub.

 

NASA has announced a public meeting of their Independent Study Team on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena on May 31 at 10:30 AM EDT. It will be followed by a media teleconference. Both should be streamed on NASA-live.

They say:

"NASA defines UAP as observations of events in the sky that cannot be identified as aircraft or known natural phenomena from a scientific perspective. The focus of this public meeting is to hold final deliberations before the agency's independent study team publishes a report this summer.

Outlining how to evaluate and study UAP by using data, technology, and the tools of science is a NASA priority. It is not a review or assessment of previous unidentifiable observations. The report will inform NASA on what possible data could be collected in the future to shed light on the nature and origin of UAP."

So the emphasis here isn't examining and forming conclusions about individual UAP cases. The focus is on how to scientifically study UAP phenomena and how to gather scientifically useful data about them.

https://twitter.com/NASA/status/1657121976308191248

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...e-of-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena-meeting

 

Well, I'm gonna tune in...

 

Sounds like a useful direction, for a change. But how would it be implemented, given that candidate objects and events don't alert anyone in advance that they will be potentially unidentified by onlookers at _X_ location? Even tornado chasers have meteorologists tracking storms well in advance.

And like the predictable Marfa Lights, I expect most "UFO hot spots" are jokes or mundane challenges that Rufus the county debunker could take care of without equipment and expertise from NASA. Not exactly navy slash air force grade affairs.

But I guess they clarified partly how to tackle the challenge last year, using existing facilities. Just be sure the AI distinguishes UAP signatures from the sprites, blue jets, and ELVESs when scanning the satellite data (whatever the former are supposed to be).

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/with-new-study-nasa-seeks-the-science-behind-ufos/

EXCERPT: NASA’s study is aimed at categorizing data from Earth-observing satellites and other monitoring instruments that may have picked up some sliver of information relevant to such phenomena to see if there is anything whatsoever the agency can say about their nature. NASA already collects extensive information about the atmosphere using a suite of orbiting probes such as Terra, Suomi National Polar-Orbiting Partnership (NPP) and CloudSat, any of which may have picked up incidental data that could help identify UAPs.

“We have the tools and team who can help us improve our understanding of the unknown,” said Thomas Zurbuchen, associate administrator for science at NASA, in an official statement. “That’s the very definition of what science is. That’s what we do.”

In this, Zurbuchen sounds not unlike Loeb, the most high-profile researcher presently pursuing such inquiries. Loeb had in fact approached NASA about investigating UAPs and sent Zurbuchen a proposal last summer to use telescopes and other instruments to hunt for transient celestial events that might be relevant to the existence of unknown aircraft. He expressed annoyance upon learning that the agency had set up its own independent commission in which he wasn’t involved.​

_

 

It would require a great deal of power to accelerate at that rate, but power is a measure of the rate at which energy is used/provided. The total energy needed to reach a given velocity is the same whether it is done at low acceleration or high acceleration.

 

A ship accelerating at 1000g, at the halfway point to Alpha C would have needed massive energy reserves just to get to the speed it would achieve. We are talking about a significant fraction of the US total energy consumption for year per kilogram of ship mass. Again, acceleration is not the hurtle, it's the total energy required. And quite frankly, at the rate at which the energy consumption increases vs the saving in "ship time", it quickly becomes a game of diminishing returns.

 

Me too!

 

This is incredibly exciting and encouraging!!

 

Yeah. Science isn't at its best and isn't really set up to address events that don't repeat predictably on command in laboratory conditions.

Astronomy has some experience with that. Supernovae occur unpredictably. But they last long enough that if one observatory spots one, it can alert other observatories. That would be much more difficult with highly transient UAPs.

I suppose that #1, there might be standing orders to military facilities, ships and aircraft to bring all resources they have available to bear whenever one of these things appears. Radar, photography, multiple observers. The FAA, Coast Guard and conventional media might put out similar recommendations for civilians. It will still be highly imperfect though, if these things only linger around for seconds at a time.

And there might be attempts to outfit naval task groups, aircraft and bases with a wider assortment of recording instruments. Recommendations could be put out for civilian ships and aircraft as well.

Obviously there would have to be efforts to reduce the ridicule and reputational damage that too often accompany reporting these things.

Some of these UAP incidents do appear to have recurred on successive days - the Nimitz 'tic-tac' encounters and the encounters off Norfolk, that reportedly lasted for at least a week. That's probably enough time to bring specialists and their instruments to bear.

It seems to me that UAP investigation Go-Teams might spend most of their time chasing sightings that don't repeat, but occasionally they might hit the jackpot.