It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why no sonic booms from UFOs?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 07:01 AM
link   
If a UFO accelerates and vanishes almost instantly out of sight wouldnt there be a sonic boom from such acceleration?




posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Why are you asking a question about the mechanisms of UFO's when UFO's haven't even been proven to exist 100% and even if they are seen by people, nobody would know the answer to that question?



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Ignore the above poster Lecter.The reason is anti gravity and they work in a different plane.Ufo's use a variety of devices,they can travel interdimensianally eg.Think you are a plant and i pass by you,would you even feel it or notice?same with ufos.We humans operate in the 3rd density and thy operate on higher density,they are not bound by the laws of physics.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
Why are you asking a question about the mechanisms of UFO's when UFO's haven't even been proven to exist 100% and even if they are seen by people, nobody would know the answer to that question?

Isn't it a valid and logic question? I think it is. One of the more intelligent questions I've seen in the Aliens/UFOs forum.

It can very well be used to prove that UFOs don't exist because basic science tells us that for every action there's a reaction. So if there's an action (vehicle speeding away at speeds greater than the speed of sound) there should be a reaction - which in many UFO sightings and videos - is missing. Which makes one wonder if they are in fact travelling by movement but rather through inter-dimensional methods as some claim.

Unless their spacecrafts are so aerodynamic that it has no effect on airwaves, i.e. no shockwave is created... But is that possible?

Very good question Lecter. I'm curious to see some of the answers...


Edit:
I'm going to give you a WATS vote just to be spiteful.




You have voted Lecter for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.



[edit on 19-7-2006 by Gemwolf]



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   
I also think it's one of the better questions I have seen here and it really is a head scratcher. I don't think I have ever actually thought about it and it's one of those things that should have been obvious to think about.

Sorry I can't give an answer as I have no idea.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Quote from above :

It can very well be used to prove that UFOs don't exist because basic science tells us that for every action there's a reaction. So if there's an action (vehicle speeding away at speeds greater than the speed of sound) there should be a reaction - which in many UFO sightings and videos - is missing.

End Quote

Science tells us ? Yes the science that we have learnt on Earth...so umm yeah human science is the do all and end all. Whatever we have learnt in science on Earth must be true ! There can be no more theories or explanations because leading scientists tell us so.

LoL it's people like you that define the phrase 'narrow minded'. Science here on Earth looks so far advanced but we are only just scratching the surface. Saying that if an object moves away so fast makes a sonic boom. Yes correct it does...USING HUMAN TECHNOLOGY THAT WE KNOW OF.

There are bound to be at least another intelligent life force out there in a never ending universe of planets and galaxies that have technology that pisses over our so called modern day science and theories.

The phrase I love to use is :

" dogs can smell things that we cant smell because their scent of smell is soooo much stronger than humans. But just because we can't smell 'it' doesn't mean it doesnt exist. So just because a 'ufo' doesnt make a sound when travelling at high speeds, doesnt make it false and impossible."

Some humans have their heads up their own ass thinking they are so macho and that humans know 100% everything in the entire universe. I mean simple things as being able to smell the smells dog's smell, and see the things birds can see with their superior vision make our sense look pathetic, let alone our science.

So please....don't start thinking things can't happen just because humans can't achive it yet. It sounds pathetic.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Btw lecture that a very wierd avatar you have. Big brother in extreme sense


[edit on 19-7-2006 by warthog911]



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   
In the book "Unconventional Flying Objects" by Paul Hill he describes a method of going past Mach without the boom. He describes the way a craft could have a field around it that keeps the occupants inside the field safe from outside forces. page 205 talks about it if you have the book.

Mr. Hill was a scientist at NASA and his anylasis is pretty scientific, and at times way over my head. What I like about him is this. He starts with the hypothesis that UFOs are real so how can they do what eye witness's claim without breaking laws of physics, etc. Then he tries to show with current science how it may be possible.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arawn
Science tells us ? Yes the science that we have learnt on Earth...so umm yeah human science is the do all and end all. Whatever we have learnt in science on Earth must be true ! There can be no more theories or explanations because leading scientists tell us so.

LoL it's people like you that define the phrase 'narrow minded'.

It sounds pathetic.

Oh that's hilarious. Someone calling me narrow-minded.


1. You completely missed the point. I wasn't defending or reasoning about the actual question asked. I was actually backing Lecter about the question he asked - after RetinoidReceptor shot it down. I was just saying it is a valid question.
2. I don't know much about alien spacecraft so nothing I say about it is credible. Neither do you.
3. If you think about it, they are visiting earth, so shouldn't the simple laws of physics apply to them as well, no matter what planet they come from!?
4. "Action and reaction" is really not quantum physics - it's really basic rules. Maybe some rules are made to be broken, but I think in some cases Mother Nature's got the upper hand. I'm also quite aware of the unanswered questions in physics. And I know you can NEVER say NEVER, even in science. As we know the earth was once flat.
5. Please don't tell me I sound pathetic. It creates this kind of stir inside me.

Edit: Sp

[edit on 19-7-2006 by Gemwolf]



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Excellent question! One of those..."slap your forehead and go.....duh!" type questions.

Using descriptions of their movements, I would guess that they don't interact with an atmosphere the way our aircraft do. If they can somehow alter gravity, dimensions, time, or whatever, I imagine they are traveling in some kind of self-generated 'bubble'.

You know, something like the lack of effect on the U.S.S. Enterprise crew when they engaged warp drive....Newton says they should have been pinned up against the walls due to the tremendous, sudden acceleration. However, the explanation given is that the warp drive created a 'field' around the craft and it actually took some of its 'space' with it.

I hope I made some sense with this.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I'm mostly stepping on the toes of what others have said. The 'amps' distort time and gravity so it may appear to you that the craft is going as quick as the speed of light, But it could infact be doing a reasonable speed in theory.

That is along the lines of the most popular and realistic theory I always seem to come across.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by rswitzer
In the book "Unconventional Flying Objects" by Paul Hill he describes a method of going past Mach without the boom. He describes the way a craft could have a field around it that keeps the occupants inside the field safe from outside forces. page 205 talks about it if you have the book.


That's exactly how Bob Lazar said they operate. They operate within their own gravitational field, not bound by our laws of physics, including time. It actually made pefect sense to me after he explained it. I guess you could theoretically travel the speed of light in one of those things and never even feel it. Freaky stuff!

Peace



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Didn't he say that you are actually pulling your destination to you via the bending of space? That would explain the "warp" in warp drive.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
Why are you asking a question about the mechanisms of UFO's when UFO's haven't even been proven to exist 100% and even if they are seen by people, nobody would know the answer to that question?


Sure... all witnesses must be retarded or something. Damn it... next time they should take a gun or rocket launcher to down a UFO and bring it to your home, saying something like: "hey dude, I got it!"



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by warthog911
Ignore the above poster Lecter.The reason is anti gravity and they work in a different plane.Ufo's use a variety of devices,they can travel interdimensianally eg.Think you are a plant and i pass by you,would you even feel it or notice?same with ufos.We humans operate in the 3rd density and thy operate on higher density,they are not bound by the laws of physics.


Your implying they are not a solid physical mass? or that they are able to accelerate their molecular makeup to such degree during accelleration that they are intangible, hence dont cause air currents etc required by a sonic boom?
pretty wild claim to make no matter how much you beleive they exist.
how do you know this? or do you simply assume so because it 'fits', and you lack any other explanation?



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Do we know for sure there are no sonic booms?

I would assume some UFO (not all) sightings are plain old aircraft and would assume in some of those cases there would be sonic booms. Maybe those sorts of details were left out in the sighting report.

And perhaps if a UFO created a sonic boom, they have sufficient sound technology that enables them to emit noise cancelling waves.

Just a thought.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   
quote]Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
Why are you asking a question about the mechanisms of UFO's when UFO's haven't even been proven to exist 100% and
even if they are seen by people, nobody would know the answer to that question?

Just because there is no proof of Alien Flying saucers does not make discussion of the theory and or facts behind the engines of such vehicles. Thanks to the poster of the question, saves me starting one
But for your information, the theory about how they work was created and published by several rocket scientists, particularily one named Herman Oberth, who is considered the father of electro gravitcs. He wrote this in 1929 And there have been MANY since that. [I refer you to the bottom for a working model]



Originally posted by rswitzer
In the book "Unconventional Flying Objects" by Paul Hill he describes a method of going past Mach without the boom. He describes the way a craft could have a field around it that keeps the occupants inside the field safe from outside forces. page
205 talks about it if you have the book.



Not having read that book[ I will though] there is a very simple experiment done in most high school physics classes. The charged copper sphere with a hole, and a pith ball on a string. You place a negative charge on the sphere, a positive or negative charge on the ball. Bring it near the sphere and see it either repelled or attracted depending on the charge on the ball. However hold the ball inside the hole... no effect, as the forces inside the charged sphere cancel each other.

Very basic high school science

Now extrapolate this to UFO's


Step one you would need a symetrical object for this to work, a sphere yes, a cube might work but that presents other obvious problems in the atmosphere, a lens shape would work very well, only difference is that your field/charge would be concentrated around the ring...

Step two... look up UFO sightings with this in mind... [yes you have to do the homework so you don't have only my word for it] you will find a correlation of sightings seen by many and/or reliable witnesses that match this symetrical shape concept.

Note: bear in mind that shapes are reported differently depending on a person. A sport nut sees a football, a scientist sees a lens, look at it from an angle its oval, or a "cigar" shape; from underneath its round... just add a cupola as an observation port, and a skirt for aero dynamics in the atmosphere... [your classic "Flying Saucer"]

Step three... there is another observable effect that is caused if the ship indeed has a field around it, as no field is "leak proof" Objects in flight observed in the day time would not be able to be seen clearly, hence no clear photo. They would have a
shimmering effect similar to heat shimmer on a road or "mirage" At night they would glow. If the vessel is hovering or flying slow... a low energy state... reddish, orange glow... faster and higher the color goes thru yellow then white... high speed ... blue
white bright light...

Look at credible sighting reports and compare them to this observation...

Three other probable considerations or hypothesis can be made with this data.

1] The occupants inside the vessel feel no effect as they are not moving in relation to the craft, similar to a person walking on a fast moving train. The field would have to have the abilty to shield or block inertia [I don't think we have one of those yet, but have witnessed some impressive magnetic arrestor and accelerator tests... thats magnetic levitation[ maglev]and propulsion for the un-initiated]

2] It is possible for the field to be strong enough to bend light around the object, therefore making it virtually invisible. [scientists have done this recently, though in their expeirement light passes tthrough the matter... do a google here, but a link is our thread at the bottom]

3] Similarily it MAY be possible to warp the air molecules around the craft in a way that you avoid the sonic boom. [have not yet seen any papers on this one though]


Working Model

Now I have posted this link in similar threads, but I though it would be good to add this to a thread discussing possible physical and engineering capabilities of "Flying Saucers.. This is not a model of the drive, but of a ship design that demonstartes the feasability of design.

Let me know what you think... I would like to hear opinions. The implications are far reaching.. [Darn French... WE shoulda had this!]

Turbine Powered Flying Saucer

Now for those who wish to add to serious research about drives etc, join us at this thread, though I warn you we will ignore debunkers
. But if you have obscure documents to share please drop by, no matter how "out there" the research may be.
Its located in the basement, in skunkworks... rather appropriately I might add

The Winged Horses And The Spaceship

The data collected will be stored at our website currently under construction. And we have a really good source of Titanium for the hull


Pegasus Research Consortium

[edit on 19-7-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   
I was truly scratching my head on this question as well Lecter.
After about an hour of reading and searching, it seem's that the power's that may be have contiplated this before. There has been extensive research done on this very effect of ur current aviation's and technologies for future application's, i n this article that I am posting, which is quite old and could be in operation's as of today, but couldn't find nothing recent on the subject, but is a very feasible and practical application for the future of our own craft based on the current ohysics we live by even today. It is mostly a NASA interest(Of course) and it turn's out that private companies have been trying to beat them to the "Cookie Jar" for the recognition for the application and the discoveries of new innovation's for aerospace and aero-plane (Subsonic and such) fort he right's of the claim.
Granted , this ois a long read, but once you start reading it , you will see that this is thought of in a much grandier scale for the Gov's than anticipated, even from me.
It is a E-mail recorded conversation on the topic of "Elimination of the Sonic Boom Effect" and it sound's as if they were pretty close back then, only makes you wonder how far "They" are now....



Solved the problem in a theoretical feasibility sense. There are
still many questions about geometries, mixing velocities, etc., to
optimize it to full effect. This can only be determined by extensive
CFD research. There are also many practical issues (obviously).



yarchive.net...



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Good find


I wonder if there are any studies that show a difference in volume of the Boom between different types of airplanes. That might lead to the possibily of no or at least low volume booms... as a boat on a lake barge a large wake, but a sleak streamlined boat makes a much smaller one, and a hydrofoil almost none.

And Nasa isn't all bad... they may have hidden agendas, but they do get the research funded. And you can bet they have advanced from the date of those notes. It works only two ways usually.. the research is a dead end and no more money is wasted on it or its valid and it gets hushed up and worked on in secret.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   
zorgon

Looks as if they have been attempting to defeat this problem for some time, I would have to imagine that the aircraft's of the latter and thier design's were the key contributor of the "Sonic Boom" incompassment's. Surface controls and angle of attack's would be a major conception of the implication's of drag and resistance for the comprssion to take place , which enhance cause's the sonic boom to occur.

BTW, "Kudos" on you and Matyas's thread, I have read every bit of it and it is a very practical theory, hope that it is all well and good!!-)


We've solved the problem by creating an artificial reaction to the
circulation with an underwing air jet (using a small amount of bleed
air from the first stage of the compressor) that recaptures the
compression waves before they can coalesce into shock waves. We're
fooling mother nature by introducing additional energy into the air
flow, and adding in the energy term in Crocco's equation that normally
gets zeroed out because of the assumption of constant speed and
altitude at cruise. When you do this, you can eliminate the entropy
term...



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join