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 don't UFO's produce a sonic boom?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 02:53 AM
link   


This one requires no AILERONS to 'steer' the plane..
It uses plasma actuators


Now where have I seen that before? Oh yeah I know...

Revolutionary Hypersonic Aerospace Vehicles
With Plasma Actuators That Require No Moving Parts
www.thelivingmoon.com...


AFRL is laying the groundwork to develop revolutionary hypersonic aerospace vehicles. Researchers are examining the feasibility of replacing traditional mechanical actuators, which move like wing flaps to control an air vehicle’s flight control surfaces, with plasma actuators that require no moving parts and are more reliable.

As part of the Boundary Layers and Hypersonics program, AFRL conducted a wind tunnel test to evaluate the feasibility of using plasma actuators for airframe flight control. In AFRL’s Mach 5 Plasma Channel wind tunnel, engineers used a strong electric field to ionize air around an air vehicle model to create plasma. The plasma-heated air successfully exerted force on the model and demonstrated that the plasma actuator concept is a viable area for further study and development. The program focuses on characterizing, predicting, and controlling high-speed fluid dynamic phenomena, including boundary layer transition; shock/boundary layer and shock/shock interactions; and other airframe propulsion integration phenomena such as real-gas effects, plasma aerodynamics, magneto-hydrodynamics, and high-speed flow heat transfer. (Mr. R. Kimmel, AFRL/VAAA, (937) 656-xxxx)


Here is how it works...

5/1/2006
AFRL Develops Plasma Actuator Computational Model
www.wpafb.af.mil...

6/6/2006
AFRL Proves Feasibility of Plasma Actuators
www.wpafb.af.mil...

This Information is public and may be distributed freely.

Oh and for those a little nervous about .mil sites..

Privacy and Security Disclaimer
www.afrl.af.mil...

So look around, but don't be stupid


JLN Labs is a private concern looking at drag reduction using plasma on the aircraft skin



jnaudin.free.fr...



The Northrop shock wave reduction experiment
" Electroaerodynamics in supersonic flow "

Here you see the bow shock wave of a wing that is uncharged compared to charged



jnaudin.free.fr...
edit on 12-10-2010 by zorgon because: Classified




posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
It is incredible how many convoluted explanations we have for why UFOs don't make sonic booms even when moving--not flying--at multiple mach velocities. I won't repeat what I stated in an earlier post on this thread, but I'll add a simplification to the whole deal.

The no sonic boom from the compressed air moving from the fore part of the shiip into the vacated area behind the craft is not due to some specialized equipment or skin designed for that purpose.

The no-boom is simple a very nice by-product of massless material--atmospheric particles in this instance--behaving quite appropriately to the physics involved in the drive unit itself. Understand that the surface of the vehicle is unimportant. The compression and rapid expansion of air first from one end of the craft and then at the other needs a reasonable explanation. Nothing fits that requirement as nicely as the elegent massless concept.

Attempting to explain this no-boom phenomena with work done with high-velocity but very conventional aircraft is simply confusing apples with oranges when applied to UFOs. And some may suspect, it as evidence of a determined effort being made to point fingers in the wrong direction. Disinformation and misdirection is, and always has been, the name of the game played the TPTB.



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aliensun
Nothing fits that requirement as nicely as the elegent massless concept.


You are quite welcome to show us how this massless drive works. A few links would be nice... just saying everyone else is wrong and you are right doesn't work for me



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Aliensun
Nothing fits that requirement as nicely as the elegent massless concept.


You are quite welcome to show us how this massless drive works. A few links would be nice... just saying everyone else is wrong and you are right doesn't work for me


My apologies. The aliens made me do it.

Why do you ask for links? We are talking about concepts here. Personally, I don't need to be told what is possible. If anti-gravity is possible as some of you push, then anti-mass is possible--and a far better explanation of the phenomena.

But you know, about 34 other theories went ahead of mine, all worse. Why pick on me because it makes more sense than some high-flautin' concepts that are either related to AIRcraft, or anti-gravity stuff that cannot explain for anti-mass movements that have been observerd time and time again?

Why this continued resistence I find to anti-mass devices on ATS and the constant use of the word anti-gravity? It makes no sense to me. But it certainly does make me suspicious.



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aliensun
Why this continued resistence I find to anti-mass devices on ATS and the constant use of the word anti-gravity? It makes no sense to me. But it certainly does make me suspicious.


Well 'anty-gravity is a generic term meaning to most people "something defying gravity" Most don't understand the concept and just say 'anti-gravity' when 'gravity shielding' would be more appropriate

Same with your anti-mass... when you really mean reducing the mass to as close to zero as possible. Ed Fouche claims the TR3B drives reduce mass by 89% but that isn't anti mass. When anti matter meets matter the result is usually instantaneous annihilation, and usually violently...


Kenneth W. Behrendt writes for this in its essay "Anti-mass generator for UFO drive" the following: "computations show that the UFO would have to go in ten seconds on a height of approximately 35 km (!), so that it would together-shrink to a so small point that it could not seize the human eye any longer. If the acceleration of the missile were constant, then its crew would have felt the crushing strength of 68,38 g´s, produced by acceleration and at the end of their ten seconds ascent would have reached it a speed of over 10.000 mph. If the UFO had a dead weight of ten tons, then its engines would have had to produce a thrust of approximately 620.000 kg. Its engines would have had to deliver an output of 27.36 million HP or 20.000 megawatts achievement. This achievement would be equivalent to 2.500 jet engines by Pratt & Whitney with 11.000 HP each, those for the drive of the B-52 of long-range bomber of the USA to be used or about twenty 1.000 megawatt nuclear power stations with maximum power work!"


aliens.monstrous.com...


"I developed the 'anti-mass field theory' to account for UFO propulsion and secondary effects over the course of a 20-year study involving thousands of cases in detail, and tens of thousands of cases in summary. "I discovered that a UFO, when airborne, is able to negate its normal gravitational and inertial mass because it contains a device I call an 'anti-mass field generator.' Its purpose is to emit a form of NON-electromagnetic radiation which I call 'anti-mass field radiation.' This new form of radiation has a 'polarity' opposite to that of normal 'mass field radiation' emitted by the subatomic particles that compose the atoms of ordinary matter.


greyfalcon.us...



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


I make no claims about originating the anti-mass concept. It has been around for ever since anybody with a smidgen of physics knowledge witnessed the instant stops, starts, right-angle turns of a decent UFO sighting
.
Your example from Kenneth W. Behrendt is ridiculous in its silly complexities and "supporting" argument. It reminds me of the old scientific papers stating that man would never fly.

The other one from Grayfalcon is just his elaboration on how the massless effect is created with a field. Well, yes, probably, but one should stop there unless one really knows the principles of physics involved. For myself, I simply say that is WHAT they do, not HOW they do it. For all we know, it is all done mentally by a group of slave drones (redundant?) meditating on a matra of "moving" in the UFO's cheap seats.

With you large inventory of material on your web site, I'm surprised that you could pulll up no better than that stuff. I believe I saw a lot of anti-gravity articles there yesterday. Did I miss any articles on canceling mass?



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   
I will, however, lay claim (for what it's worth) to having been the first to equate a massless device with the lack of sonic booms in high-velocity UFOs. I made that statement earlier on this thread and have said it various times earlier on ATS in other threads since I joined in (for the second time) in 07.

I first officially wrote that effect up in an unpublished MS completed in about 1985. However, the idea itself predates that by a good bit and may go all of the way back to about 1968.

Frankly, I was hoping that those on this list, would pick up on the concept and debate it merits and possible faults, for I really know nothing about physics. I'm here to learn...and find out who's naughty and nice.



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aliensun
With you large inventory of material on your web site, I'm surprised that you could pulll up no better than that stuff. I believe I saw a lot of anti-gravity articles there yesterday. Did I miss any articles on canceling mass?


Nope Took a year off and have about 20,000 plus documents to add


I asked you for links, you didn't provide any so I pulled the first two that came up on google search


But then in MY opinion all those glowing fuzzy balls, orbs, foo fighters (or whatever you wish to call them) that flit about aimlessly in our skies are nothing more than plasma based lifeforms. I figure 85%ish fall into that category, 15%ish are black ops craft and 5%ish are the true visitors ships

Those numbers make a lot more sense with reported sightings after you eliminate the obvious hoaxes, balloons etc

And a plasma critter no more feels inertia than a lightning bolt does

edit on 12-10-2010 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Hi Op,
From what I can gather is, UFO's of the ALien nature, don't travel through our Oxygen/Nitrogen atmosphere.
Their ships when traveling through our air, pass everything in the front of their vehicle, to the back. Sort of ionization effect.

Decoy



posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 01:49 AM
link   
they have a gravitational calibrator machine that make them go swim in the air
by splitting it in a smootly manner ..
like a small needle being shoot in butter .. the surrounding butter is not disturbed .. its intact .. no waves
just a little hole



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
i started thinking about this, this morning... when i was awoken my a massive sonic boom.... which happens occasionally given the proximity of a military base to where i live. made my heart skip a few beats.... very loud...

anyways...my thoughts were just something like....alien ships don't move through space (as such), they move space around them...

or something like that....

a few people said things similar, like wormholes or whatever, but i think it's more of just manipulating space (and time) to jump through not only our space, but into other dimensions, etc....



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
appologies if ive skipped a post thats mentioned: they dont make any noise to compress.

wouldnt that have a profound effect on hearing any sonic 'claps' as they speed off?

alternativly the way the UFO propels itself is massivly important and we dont know how that works, if theres no "exhaust" no emitions and no intakes then the craft is sealed and must manipulate feilds around it. Planes move molecules out of the way by ramming them and the particules are forced aorund the craft, if a field were to move them instead of solid matter, with no friction, no waves would be broadcast through the air in any direction from the craft, instead the craft 'slipping' through the ait as if (sorry for this reference i cant think of a better way) it had been 'lubed up' first....


sigh, and i was doing so well.

well 2 more cents for the pr0s to rip apart



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Yea I was thinking the same thing just last night. I'm sure if we met them there would be a very logical explanation haha.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by hotrice
 


I think they must be made of some material that either completely eliminates friction or reduces it so much they don't complress enough air to create a sonic boom. Just a guess Hell of a good point though friend



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aliensun

Why this continued resistence I find to anti-mass devices on ATS and the constant use of the word anti-gravity? It makes no sense to me.


Lack of physical evidence and reproducibility.

What we really care about is modification of intrinsic inertia. Is there anything known to science which can do this? No.

The other explanation for lack of sonic boom is that the UFO's, whatever they are, are not in fact traveling at supersonic speeds in the atmosphere. They may "appear" to be on radar.

edit on 28-4-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-4-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   
In my opinion, a UFO would not make a sonic boom do to the propulsion methods and possibly somthing to do with the gravitational field they create. If a UFO were to use a propulsion system with which the UFO creates its own gravitational field around itself, there in effect would be no sound waves when the craft produces sound. The field around the craft has no medium with which to transfer the sound waves. But that's just a theory. =)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
They are traversing both time and space, theoretically, they don't have to travel faster than mach 1, they could actually be stationary, and the universe itself is moving around them.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Could be anything if we're talking hypothetical, unverifiable alien technology, but if the UFOs in question are in fact exotic terrestrial craft perhaps something similar to supercavitating torpedo technology, only the atmospheric equivalent has been developed. Might also account for some USO reports as well.
edit on 29-4-2011 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
I will throw in my own experience for a example but i don´t know if it helps. My Drone or UFO was completely silent and when it took off in a blink of an eye the grass,trees and the water in our pond vibrated a little after that it was gone. I didn´t felt anything i might add. The up close sighting took place in the early 90s though i guess their propulsion systems are more advanced now.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Pleiadian


I suggest you visit wikipedia so you can understand just what a sonic boom is
...then research Northrop Gruman's work on plasma wings to reduce said sonic boom. I am sure I posted that somewhere in this thread

Oh wait... I did at the top of this page



edit on 29-4-2011 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join