Human alien interactions

[XFool]

Prof. Michio Kaku is moving towards agreeing with my prejudice over uap:

https://youtu.be/YebZyAzLZuc

Very disappointing, IMO!

Someone who ought to know better arguing on the basis of things we don't know. We should argue on the basis of what we do know.

When Joe Rogan asks him if our inability to travel at speeds that aliens would need to travel to Earth from the stars could be solved with better technology, like we learned how to travel faster than with a horse, he says: "Exactly"

NO! It is exactly NOT "like that". Improvements in human speed of travel due to improvements in technology are one thing - we could still go faster in space with better rockets. But that has nothing to do with limitations on ultimate speed, which is something we have discovered and know about the nature of our universe. Better rockets are not the way around that.

[mc2fool]

When Joe Rogan asks him if our inability to travel at speeds that aliens would need to travel to Earth from the stars could be solved with better technology, like we learned how to travel faster than with a horse, he says: "Exactly"

NO! It is exactly NOT "like that". Improvements in human speed of travel due to improvements in technology are one thing - we could still go faster in space with better rockets. But that has nothing to do with limitations on ultimate speed, which is something we have discovered and know about the nature of our universe. Better rockets are not the way around that.

But maybe with a different technology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
Related: https://www.space.com/17628-warp-drive-possible-interstellar-spaceflight.html

[odysseus2000]

Prof. Michio Kaku is moving towards agreeing with my prejudice over uap:

https://youtu.be/YebZyAzLZuc

Very disappointing, IMO!

Someone who ought to know better arguing on the basis of things we don't know. We should argue on the basis of what we do know.

When Joe Rogan asks him if our inability to travel at speeds that aliens would need to travel to Earth from the stars could be solved with better technology, like we learned how to travel faster than a horse, he says: "Exactly"

NO! It is exactly NOT "like that". Improvements in human speed of travel due to improvements in technology are one thing - we could still go faster in space with better rockets. But that has nothing to do with limitations on ultimate speed, which is something we have discovered and know about the nature of our universe. Better rockets are not the way around that.

The current observations of UAP are inconsistent with a reaction drive which is the basis of all human powered transport and our understanding of space-time.

There are several ways being considered as propulsion systems that would be non-reaction. Some of these rely on being able to warp space time as in star trek, giving an ability to move in any direction by parting space time in that direction so that the ship moves into that region without space time. The anti-gravity mechanism that Bob Lazar says he worked on is essentially this kind of system, but whereas warp drives require vast amounts of energy Lazar says the anti-gravity does not. Of course all of these things are pure fiction as of now, no one has verified Lazar's story, and there is no conceivable way to generate the energy required for the warp field of theoretical physics.

However, if uap exist and are non-reaction drives then there is new physics being used that could get the horse from LA to Sydney in a very short time.

As of now we are constrained by our understandings of physics, it may be that our understanding is incomplete. When 20,000 leagues under the sea was written it was an impossible idea as we had not discovered how to 'burn' Uranium, but once that discovery was made it became a practical proposition to travel 20,000 leagues under the sea and it now happens as an every day experience for submariners in the navies of the world.

Regards,

[XFool]

The current observations of UAP are inconsistent with a reaction drive which is the basis of all human powered transport and our understanding of space-time.

Which, by itself, is a very good reason to suppose they are not what they re claimed to be.

There are several ways being considered as propulsion systems that would be non-reaction. Some of these rely on being able to warp space time as in star trek, giving an ability to move in any direction by parting space time in that direction so that the ship moves into that region without space time. The anti-gravity mechanism that Bob Lazar says he worked on is essentially this kind...

Bob Lazar? I daresay they are exactly of "this kind"!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Lazar

[odysseus2000]

The current observations of UAP are inconsistent with a reaction drive which is the basis of all human powered transport and our understanding of space-time.

Which, by itself, is a very good reason to suppose they are not what they re claimed to be.

There are several ways being considered as propulsion systems that would be non-reaction. Some of these rely on being able to warp space time as in star trek, giving an ability to move in any direction by parting space time in that direction so that the ship moves into that region without space time. The anti-gravity mechanism that Bob Lazar says he worked on is essentially this kind...

Bob Lazar? I daresay they are exactly of "this kind"!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Lazar

Facts trump everything.

If the uap are vessels with a reaction less drive then all of our current understanding is incomplete and we will have to expand our knowledge. What we know now works, so any new knowledge will have to encompass what we have now, extend it and still be able to reproduce what we have now in the limit. Exactly how relativistic kinematics is all one needs to explain Newtonian physics, but it is often convenient to use Newtonian physics when velocities are low compared to the speed of light.

In all of this is it is wise to have an open mind. It may be that uap have a simple understanding within current known physics, but if the facts show this is not the case we will have to encompass that new reality.

Regards,

[odysseus2000]

Interesting uap seen at the Queen’s jubilee air show. Presumably military would have closed the skies to all other aircraft & have monitored the air space so this object was presumably also recorded on radar etc:

https://youtu.be/tNlwvV7_6l4

Regards,

[swill453]

Interesting uap seen at the Queen’s jubilee air show. Presumably military would have closed the skies to all other aircraft & have monitored the air space so this object was presumably also recorded on radar etc:

https://youtu.be/tNlwvV7_6l4

I stopped watching at "glowing object flying at an incredible speed". It was neither.

An escaped white helium party balloon was my first thought.

Scott.

[odysseus2000]

Interesting uap seen at the Queen’s jubilee air show. Presumably military would have closed the skies to all other aircraft & have monitored the air space so this object was presumably also recorded on radar etc:

https://youtu.be/tNlwvV7_6l4

I stopped watching at "glowing object flying at an incredible speed". It was neither.

An escaped white helium party balloon was my first thought.

Scott.

If it was a party balloon it was going very quickly which would require a very stiff breeze to propel it, if it being propelled by escaping gas it would not have maintained a horizontal trajectory, and if there was a strong breeze, the dyes left in the sky by the aircraft would have been bent.

I do not see how the suggestion of a helium party balloon fits with the observation.

Regards,

[XFool]

Interesting uap seen at the Queen’s jubilee air show. Presumably military would have closed the skies to all other aircraft & have monitored the air space so this object was presumably also recorded on radar etc:

https://youtu.be/tNlwvV7_6l4

An escaped white helium party balloon was my first thought.

If it was a party balloon it was going very quickly which would require a very stiff breeze to propel it, if it being propelled by escaping gas it would not have maintained a horizontal trajectory

We have no idea what "speed" it was travelling at! This is a recurring issue with UAP observations.

...and if there was a strong breeze, the dyes left in the sky by the aircraft would have been bent.

We have no reason to assume they are at anything like the same altitude. Again, this sort of thing is a recurring issue with UAP observations.

I do not see how the suggestion of a helium party balloon fits with the observation.

I don't see why it does not. Whether true or not, it seems the simplest explanation.

[odysseus2000]

Interesting uap seen at the Queen’s jubilee air show. Presumably military would have closed the skies to all other aircraft & have monitored the air space so this object was presumably also recorded on radar etc:

https://youtu.be/tNlwvV7_6l4

An escaped white helium party balloon was my first thought.

If it was a party balloon it was going very quickly which would require a very stiff breeze to propel it, if it being propelled by escaping gas it would not have maintained a horizontal trajectory

We have no idea what "speed" it was travelling at! This is a recurring issue with UAP observations.

...and if there was a strong breeze, the dyes left in the sky by the aircraft would have been bent.

We have no reason to assume they are at anything like the same altitude. Again, this sort of thing is a recurring issue with UAP observations.

I do not see how the suggestion of a helium party balloon fits with the observation.

I don't see why it does not. Whether true or not, it seems the simplest explanation.

I am bemused by your comments.

We know the maximum altitude of the uap was below the camera position and not much above the jets as shown by the in cockpit film, we can calculate its size from the size of the jets and we know the frame rate of the camera so we can calculate its velocity using the known dimensions of the jets to calibrate distance. Various other observables are there too and I have no doubt that the RAF have analysed this and know all about this uap.

If the uap had only been seen by the top camera then one could argue it was a camera ghost artefact, but it is also seen by the cockpit camera so to be a ghost it would have to appear in both cameras at the same time and that is very unlikely.

Science is about facts, not wild speculation and arguments that the simplest explanation is best is not science.

Regards,

[Itsallaguess]

Be careful out there folks...

They're even hiding in plain sight now...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdnQYmyWISs

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[odysseus2000]

Be careful out there folks...

They're even hiding in plain sight now...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdnQYmyWISs

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Ha Ha!

The number of times I see unsecured gas canisters on YouTube is amazing & no amount of warning makes a difference.

Even a small hobby gas sized bottle that loses its containment will go off like a torpedo. The last bottle I had delivered the guy picked it up off the truck & using the momentum let go & it crashed hard on the floor. I decided there was no point telling the guy he was stupid.

As you saw in the video the flight is erratic which is another argument against a gas filled balloon propelled by losing gas.

Regards,

[doolally]

Science is about facts, not wild speculation and arguments that the simplest explanation is best is not science.
Regards,

You are talking about Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (so we don't know what they are) and the thread title is "Human Alien Interactions" which indicates a knee-jerk assumption.
I don't see any science or facts in this discussion, only speculation.
Saying that we don't don't know what UAPs are, so they must be aliens is as unscientific as it gets.

It's a fascinating topic but plagued by hysterical loonies
doolally

[odysseus2000]

Science is about facts, not wild speculation and arguments that the simplest explanation is best is not science.
Regards,

You are talking about Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (so we don't know what they are) and the thread title is "Human Alien Interactions" which indicates a knee-jerk assumption.
I don't see any science or facts in this discussion, only speculation.
Saying that we don't don't know what UAPs are, so they must be aliens is as unscientific as it gets.

It's a fascinating topic but plagued by hysterical loonies
doolally

The science facts are that uap exist as confirmed by all the world’s military.

I came to this subject thinking there would be explanations based on known science, but I could not find any & the only thing that I could find that fits is that uap are technology that was not created by humans or some unknown physics perhaps connected with ball lightening.

I could be wrong and I would be delighted for someone to show me scientific explanations that explain all the observations.

Unless that happens my working assumption is that uap are either natural physical phenomenon that we do know the physics for or alien.

Since I got interested in this field there have been a number of government organisations declaring they can not explain them and funding research a long with some private crowd funded programs. NASA recently joined that list.

Clearly until definitive evidence emerges either way a lot of the analysis has to be speculative & in many cases we may never know, but by observation & thought it should be possible to determine more about uap & to devise better measurement techniques.

Regards,

[mc2fool]

If the uap had only been seen by the top camera then one could argue it was a camera ghost artefact, but it is also seen by the cockpit camera so to be a ghost it would have to appear in both cameras at the same time and that is very unlikely.

But it isn't at the same time. The cockpit camera view is clearly on the approach to Buckingham Palace -- they're crossing the Thames around Charing Cross -- whereas the top camera view is very clearly at or just after the Buckingham Palace flypast -- you can see the Park Lane Hilton and the Serpentine in the background.

[CliffEdge]

Interesting uap seen at the Queen’s jubilee air show. Presumably military would have closed the skies to all other aircraft & have monitored the air space so this object was presumably also recorded on radar etc:

https://youtu.be/tNlwvV7_6l4

Regards,

It is clearly a dinosaur egg

[XFool]

Even a small hobby gas sized bottle that loses its containment will go off like a torpedo.

Yes...

viewtopic.php?p=464540#p464540

[XFool]

I came to this subject thinking there would be explanations based on known science, but I could not find any & the only thing that I could find that fits is that uap are technology that was not created by humans or some unknown physics perhaps connected with ball lightening.

Yes, quite possibly, in some cases (apart from the alien explanation). But I bet the majority of cases are simply that they are UAPs! i.e. Something that hasn't been identified or possibly even misidentified.

I could be wrong and I would be delighted for someone to show me scientific explanations that explain all the observations.

That sounds too demanding to me, I doubt if any single explanation covers all cases. To "explain" them effectively means to identify them - but, being unidentified is their main attribute.

Unless that happens my working assumption is that uap are either natural physical phenomenon that we do know the physics for or alien.

That is, IMO, a mistake. In effect you are claiming - in a negative way - to have identified them, in a general way: 'They are not normal'

Since I got interested in this field there have been a number of government organisations declaring they can not explain them and funding research a long with some private crowd funded programs. NASA recently joined that list.

I can see why the US defence department and the armed forces are eager to find out what 'they' are. They might be a danger to normal operations, they might be a threat, they might be equipment failures, they might be perceptual or psychological issues. They might be any or all of these.

Clearly until definitive evidence emerges either way a lot of the analysis has to be speculative & in many cases we may never know, but by observation & thought it should be possible to determine more about uap & to devise better measurement techniques.

Nothing wrong with that.

[CliffEdge]

Interesting uap seen at the Queen’s jubilee air show. Presumably military would have closed the skies to all other aircraft & have monitored the air space so this object was presumably also recorded on radar etc:

https://youtu.be/tNlwvV7_6l4

Regards,

It is clearly a dinosaur egg

So Ody you didn't pick up on this. You're slipping. What did they find on the dark side of the moon that is beyond Top-secret? You'll have to do better if you're really serious about investigating this.

[jfgw]

Interesting uap seen at the Queen’s jubilee air show. Presumably military would have closed the skies to all other aircraft & have monitored the air space so this object was presumably also recorded on radar etc:

https://youtu.be/tNlwvV7_6l4

Regards,

Probably a flypast by The Queen's lizard friends.


Julian F. G. W.