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.

 

Can you explain why we see UFO's but very seldom hear them?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Can anyone explain why so many people claim to see UFOs, yet very seldom has anyone reported hearing them at the same time as the actual alleged sightings?

I find that very odd and just curious if others have a theory as to why this seems to be the case?

After watching a segment on UFOs that covered UFOs last night a question was raised in my mind and doing a kw search of ATS using UFO, "Sonic Boom", heard I came up with 160 or 170 hits and most of those attributed the sound heard to either a space shuttle or aircraft.

Then I did a whole web search googling the very same kw's and obtained a very low number of hits with something like 322,000 many of them duplicates.

Just to make myself clear I am looking for theories on high speed not those that are seen to loiter over areas. I think it would be a given that slow speed would not make a sonic boom, but it only seems logical that the laws of science/physics cannot be broken simpley because so many claim they craft are very large and when they move they have to displace the air around them thus creating a sonic boom.






posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Because they use silent gravity/anti gravity drives for propulsion systems.

This topic is discussed extensively here at ATS and elsewhere. Google anti-gravity and prepare to be inundated with material...



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Outrageo
Because they use silent gravity/anti gravity drives for propulsion systems.


I am aware of the types of drives they are alleged to use, but that will not explain how the craft can get around the laws of physics/science. UFOs are said to be huge in some cases thus they move air around them which has nothing to do with their drive systems.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   
I would assume, since the technology within the UFO's is so advanced as to not hear them, they would somehow devise a way to eliminate the outside noise. They are so many different unknowns. Who knows, maybe they somehow manipulate the sound.

As for the laws of physics...I'm sure they can find a way around that too.

Just a thought from a newbie.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   
oh - ok - you were just asking about the sonic boom absence, not ALL sound absence.

Try this ref:
"...Attempts have been made to reverse engineer the possible physics behind UFOs through analysis of both eyewitness reports and the physical evidence. Examples are former NASA and nuclear engineer James McCampbell in his book Ufology online, NACA/NASA engineer Paul R. Hill in his book Unconventional Flying Objects, and German rocketry pioneer Hermann Oberth. Among subjects tackled by McCampbell, Hill, and Oberth was the question of how UFOs can fly at supersonic speeds without creating a sonic boom. McCampbell's proposed solution of a microwave plasma parting the air in front of the craft is currently being researched by Dr. Leik Myrabo, Professor of Engineering Physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute as a possible advance in hypersonic flight.[20]1995 Aviation Week article..."

Good luck shots....



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   
We have methods of sound suppression for our stealths, so it stands to reason they could do likewise. In addition, we don't hear ever plane overhead, so same reasons could apply.

Then of course, you have the gravity warp generation idea, which could certainly account for it as well.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
We have methods of sound suppression for our stealths, so it stands to reason they could do likewise. In addition, we don't hear ever plane overhead, so same reasons could apply.


Granted we do not hear every plane but we always here those that break the sound barrier that is my point.

I seriously doubt anyone even aliens can change the laws of science and physics to eliminate the noise because it is the craft passing threw the air that causes the sound itself.

Just in case I have not explained myself since I am a novice at this scifi stuff here are some of the limitations that concern me.



Crudely stated, the limitations that concern us are:


No object travels faster than light (the Einstein speed limit).

No object can be made to move without forcing some other object to move in the opposite direction (Newton's 3rd law of motion).

No object can move through the atmosphere at bullet-like speeds without creating a sonic boom (a direct consequence of the Doppler effect).

Gravity pulls; it can't be made to push.

Complex living beings don't survive instantaneous accelerations from a standing start to thousands of miles per hour, nor do they survive instantaneous sharp turns at those speeds (direct consequences of inertia).
Source



Just for the record I am not a skeptic when it comes to other forms of life as we know them simply because we can exist so I truly believe other life forms can also exist, yet I am a skeptic when it comes to the laws of science and physics.

[edit on 1/12/2007 by shots]



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   
If a UFO indeed creates a 'bubble' of space around it, separate from the surrounding space, then ineartia And sound would be eliminated. If all the noise takes place inside the bubble then there's no way the noise can escape that bubble.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drexon
If all the noise takes place inside the bubble then there's no way the noise can escape that bubble.


Bubble or no bubble the air would still be displaced thus creating a sonic boom if you will. Even a bubble would have to push the air out of the way and that is as I understand it what causes the boom.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I know it's hard, but you have to keep a very open mind about certain things and not take so much stock into the laws of physics, space travel, etc. I don't know much in those fields, but like I said in a previous post, I think they have changed those laws by conquering them somehow.

Also, I'm assuming that the very intelligent individuals that created these laws, formulas, and properties of matter, either didn't know too much about the technologies that UFO's are proposed to employ, or ignored them.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   
There is obviously a lot we have to learn about the "laws of physics". The UFOs use anti-gravity propulsion which has no moving parts. Most likely a version of zero point energy using the zero mass principle. The higher a certain frequency is applied to a superconductor the less mass the object has. Until the mass of all the particles hits a point called "zero mass". Then the particles go into the invisible ultraviolet spectrum. At zero mass point the object has anti-gravity effects and takes little energy to move the speed of light or faster.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Maybe the UFOs are able to violate (our known)laws of physics by entering hyperspace or by accessing a higher dimension than ours and returning to this dimension in a different position? Or maybe they can produce a gravity field powerful enough to distort space-time. Just a few theories i've seen around, thought they might help.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Incognito C
The UFOs use anti-gravity propulsion which has no moving parts. Most likely a version of zero point energy using the zero mass principle.


That at this point is pure speulation unless of course you can prove there are in fact aliens.

Or better yet you can produce proof they use anti gravity drive systems? I know I can't :shk:



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Why do people see UFO's but seldom hear them? The same reason people see a Lexus but seldom hear it- excellent engineering!

Surely, if these crafts from other planets and galaxies are flying through space and visiting Earth, they aren't using internal combustion engines! If these ships can do the things that are required for interstellar travel then it shouldn't be that much of a leap of faith on our part to believe they can engineer silent spacecraft.

I think you also have to take into account the distance of most of these sightings. Most are just "dots" in the sky and too far away to be heard even if they did make a lot of noise. I see planes flying everyday, probably at 20-30,000 feet and I obviously can't hear them. We don't know factually how big every UFO that is witnessed really is. Their sometimes-enormous size could make one think that they are a lot closer than they really are.

Those theories aside, I have read and seen witness reports where some form of noise was reported. I don't recall it ever being anything super-loud or similar to that of human aircraft- but there was sound eminating from the ships none-the-less.

We should also take into consideration the fact that witnesses, who would quite frankly be "shocked", would be more focused on their visual sense of the encounter than any sound the ship would make. You'll even notice in the response to UFO sightings by ATS members. Of the many types of questions that follow up a post on here of a reported sighting, the sound the craft made is far from the top of the list of questions, if its even asked at all. Most want to know the shape, size, color, distance, speed, maneuvers, related anal and/or cattle probing, etc.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   
The main thing you need to remember is that these ufo's use anti gravity amplifiers/propulsion for their movement. Think back to the philidelphia experiment... with enough power being generated by the equipment onboard you in essence create your own magnetic field... and with that magnetic field you can actually create a warp or change per say in space and time itself. your almost in your own shell of non-existance ( but existing non the less) the air plays no part on your craft. Lets say a jet flying over faster than the speed of sound passes, a few seconds later you finally hear it although the jet is already past and gone... Now multiply that speed by (x) and it may be a few minutes before you hear that jet. But that example is different from the ufo's of course. but i hope you get the picture.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   
I would like to point out to the fact that the 'laws' of physics are based on theories and on things we (humans with our earthly capabilities) can observe/prove.

It wouldn't be the first time if one these 'laws' would be completely/slightly incorrect, or incomplete.

Anyway if you look at the 'Doppler effect' (as someone referred in their post):



The Doppler effect, named after Christian Doppler, is the apparent change in frequency and wavelength of a wave that is perceived by an observer moving relative to the source of the waves. For waves, such as sound waves, that propagate in a wave medium, the velocity of the observer and the source are reckoned relative to the medium in which the waves are transmitted.


We have no idea on what happens to these 'laws' when in presence of anti-gravity effects. We can theorize.. that's all.

And since most information regarding anti-gravity speaks about (gravity) waves and wavelenght behaviours that are not completely understood/researched by mainstream physics at the time, maybe the 'Doppler effect', as well as other effects and 'laws' do not apply the same way that it does to our 'brute force' propulsion systems.

Most likely that their anti-gravity systems don't offer resistance to gravity/sound waves, and in fact probably repel them, that's why there's no sonic boom.

Of course this is just my "poor man's" theory, as i dont have any knowledge of (advanced?) physics.

Just my theory.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 12:19 AM
link   
i do not mean to put words into " SHOTS " mouth , but i believe he is specifically refering to UFO sigtings where it is claimed that the UFO was moving @ supersonic speeds

the big clue in his OP was the google KWs he said he was using UFO and " sonic boom "

you can make wild claims of :

"zero mass " and stealth bubbles and anti gravity or zero point drives till you are blue in the face

but at the end of the day you have a boundry layer where your special pleading ends , and normal atmosphere begins

that is where a sonic boom must occur - if an object really is travelling @ greater than 330m/s

PS - if it is not " really there " how does it :

1 ) reflect light

2) reflect radar signals

you cannot have it both ways


also the shuttle can be heard by a sizeable section of the american population every time it lands

here [ the UK ] , the RAF has a supersonic flight range in the irish sea - and thier exercises regularly generate complaints from cumbria to anglesy

final point watch a demonstration of a preformer skilled with a bullwhip - if viewed from a reasonable distance [ 30m or so ] the warm up motions of the whip and the exertions of the preformer are inaudible - but the " whip crack " caused my a section of the tip accelerating to > 330m/s is loud and distinct

i believe that is " SHOTS " point



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 01:17 AM
link   
I doubt anyone here on this board can tell us how to eliminate a sonic boom (and still be able to fly at supersonic speeds). If they did then I think the Air Force would quickly want to talk to this individual.

I'm still not convinced it was alien, but it is interesting that the O'Hare UFO in Chicago left a supposed hole in the cloud cover that lasted for a couple minutes. There's no sonic boom if you can eliminate the air in front/behind of you. The shape of a flying saucer certainly does not lend itself to being a good sonic boom reducer, but that wouldn't matter if you had a vacuum to "fly" through.


Pretty amazing that some people can say these craft are not alien, yet have no explanation how to eliminate the sonic booms.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 02:29 AM
link   
But the original poster's excellent question points to the fact that most UFO's are probably not nuts-and-bolts space craft; they are manifestations of a paranormal entity. Extra-terrestrial explanations get more and more convoluted in order to explain "bending the laws of physics," and the fact that newer research points in the direction that statistically, we are in all probability alone among intelligent life in the Universe. (Drake and Sagan's computations in the 1960's were based on a poor understanding of the suns that produce safe levels of radiation, and the probabilities of a planet being stable for the billions of years needed for life to evolve.)

While "ET's" may in fact be the explanation for UFO's, consider the evidence we have:

1) contact only with isolated humans, never with heads of governments, etc.

2) Redundant technology: Why do aliens need to probe with a needle, and draw blood? They should be looking for stem cells, not blood cells. (unless they don't want the blood for scientific reasons, but for ritualistic ones . . .)

3) The descriptions of "grays" which overlaps so comletely with traditional descriptions of elves; including livestock mutilation, human abduction and covert breeding programs. This points the the hypothesis that "grays" are not physcial entities, in the sense that a wolf or bear is. They are paranormal entities, closer to angels or totem spirits from tribal cultures.

4) The fact that alien craft defy laws of matter in our world. Sudden decelerations from thousands of miles an hour to a dead stop would, aside from crushing the occupants of a UFO, cause a sonic boom from the downdraft of compressed air. Yet witness rarely report this.

5) Anti-gravity effects, the usual explanation for UFO propulsion, would be completely useless in intersteller space---with no gravity to push against, (nothing to "anti") antigrav drives are useless. Thus, if a UFO is antigrav, then by definition, it is designed to manuvuer in a planetary gravity field---NOT IN SPACE!

6) The usually shape, a flying disc, is highly innefficient, and was abandoned in the early 50's. Because of it's large flat top/bottom, it's difficult to change the pitch of a flying craft. The circular "wing" means excessive trailing edges in an atmosphere. Again, contrary to principles of avionics. . .


Now, I am not implying that UFO's are not "real." I believe that they are frequently life-altering encounters, that change people forever after. But this is not to say that they are from "space."

I believe that they are indeed intelligent, and have been appearing on earth since humans started noticing such things.

I also happen to believe that the creatures responsible for manifesting them feed off of our attention directed at them. But that's another thread.

.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Extra-terrestrial explanations get more and more convoluted in order to explain "bending the laws of physics," and the fact that newer research points in the direction that statistically, we are in all probability alone among intelligent life in the Universe.


I would like to know what research is that, because from recent events we are starting to realize the perception we had from the universe was completely wrong, in the sense that the things we thought that were impossible, are in fact, possible.

e.g, Until recently scientists believed there wasn't any water in Mars. We now know this is false.



(Drake and Sagan's computations in the 1960's were based on a poor understanding of the suns that produce safe levels of radiation, and the probabilities of a planet being stable for the billions of years needed for life to evolve.)


You are assuming every living organism has the same tolerance to the environment and the Universe and all its 'hazards'.

We also know that the universe is ALOT older along as we get closer to the center. Is it unstable?



While "ET's" may in fact be the explanation for UFO's, consider the evidence we have:

1) contact only with isolated humans, never with heads of governments, etc.


How do you know there is no contact with 'heads of governments'?
Oh, because the government told us this?



2) Redundant technology: Why do aliens need to probe with a needle, and draw blood? They should be looking for stem cells, not blood cells. (unless they don't want the blood for scientific reasons, but for ritualistic ones . . .)


Again, more assumptions.
You have no idea what information they can extract from our blood (or whatever its in our blood).
They should be looking for stem cells? Because..?

And if you haven't been reading the news, there have been new developments and advances in stem cell research, and we're pratically new to this technique.

How can we assume what they can do, or what to do?

Not even gonna bother to reply to number 3...



4) The fact that alien craft defy laws of matter in our world. Sudden decelerations from thousands of miles an hour to a dead stop would, aside from crushing the occupants of a UFO, cause a sonic boom from the downdraft of compressed air. Yet witness rarely report this.


Like I said before, the 'laws' of physics don't represent UNIVERSAL TRUTHS, since they are continuosly being worked on, some prove to be incorrect or incomplete, as time and science moves on.

And I disagree when you say that witnesses rarely report the sudden decelarations, etc. If you search UFO reports you will see there are MANY reports that what was so impressing and actually made the witness think it was not an earthly craft is exactly the amazing maneuverability it displays.



5) Anti-gravity effects, the usual explanation for UFO propulsion, would be completely useless in intersteller space---with no gravity to push against, (nothing to "anti") antigrav drives are useless. Thus, if a UFO is antigrav, then by definition, it is designed to manuvuer in a planetary gravity field---NOT IN SPACE!


Assumption..
And you believe that anti-gravity would be the only means of transportation/propulsion in an alien craft because..?
And even if it's the only method of propulsion how can you say for sure that anti-gravity is useless in space?

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, states that gravity creates a curvature (or bending) of space-time.
If anti-gravity manipulates gravity, how can we say for sure it is not possible to use this manipulation of gravity in space to travel long distances?



6) The usually shape, a flying disc, is highly innefficient...


Highly inefficient considering our earthly 'brute force' propulsion systems.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join