It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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 Boom from UFO's?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 07:28 PM
reply to post by songthrush

Earth's gravity is always irrelevant to inertia. Gravity is a a force. Inertia is a property of matter. Gravity has no influence on inertial effects. It may be possible to "balance" inertial effects with artificial gravity, but every molecule would essentially have to be individually accounted for.

[edit on 1/29/2009 by Phage]

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:53 PM
I would say it's because a sonic boom involves displacement of air. If these objects do not displace air, there will be no boom.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 01:22 AM
reply to post by Phage

I know you are trying to keep it simple, but, one for the road here, is Mach...

Who theorized inertia is the result of the gravitational pull of all universal bodies acting upon matter.

Otherwise, in this locale, I concur.

Also the sonic boom is more the result of shock waves colliding, not the shock wave itself.

Lenticular aeroframes should be tested in the wind tunnel to see how the shockwaves interact. Has this been done?

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:05 AM
reply to post by Matyas

Sure, every plausible profile was tested in wind tunnels many times. For example in project PYE WACKET.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 11:43 AM

onlt two possible things.

1. They can control the shockway in a way so no sound will emerge from it, but there will be some turbulence.

2. They can move and control particles (Atoms) as they like from the front and apply it direct behind the craft. Sounds totally impossible and therfore it's most likely that they do that, I mean if their civilization are like 1.000.000 years ahead they can twist and do whatever they like.


posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 11:43 AM

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 09:17 PM
reply to post by ls1cameric

I think i know why there is no sonic boom.
When the reactor is "online" the MASS of the spacecraft
is reduced from its natural value down to an artifical zero.
This is called "Spacial Deteriation of Mass".
Once Mass=zero, the spacecraft becomes very easy to move around.
This also allows the spacecraft to travel in nonlinear time which allows
it to make incredible 90 degree turns at very high speeds.

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 09:06 AM
I've 'heard' it's about frequency manipulation. All of it. IF this is true then how much would phasing play a part?

Just for anecdotal illustration: SOME witnesses to UFOs, (specifically exotic crafts, not little balls of light) have reported feeling weird, anxious, nauseous, etc while walking or driving along, then experiencing some kind of visual distortion of the surrounding light or the light in a specific area that is almost unexplainable, which shortly after a UFO/craft 'materializes' out of this distortion in close proximity to them as they move passed it. (Perhaps it was there the whole time. In other words, the witnesses passed through some kind of barrier of competing frequencies from the craft.)

The reason I bring this up is IF these crafts can phase out reflected light, I'm sure they could phase out sound. Perhaps it is all inclusive in the propulsion/repulsion/attraction system. Ehhh, it's just conjecture... brain candy.

Teseracts, Tardis, and wormholes... oh my!

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 09:41 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

FastWalker used the term 'vacuum' which was unfortunate. Thinking 'outside the box' here - from what I've (barely) been able to glean and 'understand' regarding this potential technology re: ET craft and their propulsion methods .... is best described as something that defies what we consider as 'common' knowledge.

Most intelligent people understand the concept of an object that moves through air, when it becomes 'supersonic', will leave what is known as a 'sonic boom' in its wake.

However, in order to understand the ET craft, one must break away from common perceptions. It isn't always necessary to travel from 'Point A to Point B' in a linear fashion.

Take a sheet of paper, and mark 'Point A' and then mark 'Point B' somewhere differently .... doesn't matter how far away it is. NOW, fold the paper so that both points touch each other. Get it? I don't understand it .... have grappled with it for years. Physicists are studying the possiblity of not just the three dimensions that we can conceive, but as many as eleven!

This concept came about because of the odd nature of gravity .... one of the 'four forces' but gravity is strangely 'weak', compared to the other three. The answer as to WHY gravity is comparitively weak is that it 'possibly' is only being experienced by us as it propagates through all of the other dimensions that we cannot perceive, but mathematics are trying to be used in order to understand.

Circling back to the point: An object that moves through the atmosphere WILL make noise, including, as expected, if it exceeds Mach .... a 'sonic boom'.

Back when UFOs were popular, I had TWO experiences that could have led me to think UFOs were real. One night I saw a light flash in the sky. Moving fast. It was there, then it was gone. 30-40 seconds later it repeated. Careful observations revealed it was an airport rotating beacon light which was striking a few floating clouds in an otherwise dark sky.

The second instance occurred in the late evening, just after the sun had set but while there was yet light. At dusk. I spotted a rotating alternating red-green light in the sky, moving slowly from one side of the sky towards the other in a straight line. The object remained was slow enough and remained in my sight long enough that I finally discerned it was sunlight reflecting off a weather balloon. If I had not been able to continue my observing, I might well have ascribed my first notice of it to a UFO.

As our radar systems get better, there are fewer ‘eyeball’ sightings of UFOs.

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 12:35 PM
reply to post by ls1cameric

Mass in its natural state oscillates at 7Hz-8Hz. Altering the natural state to higher frequencies causes matter to loose their mass. If an object has no mass then there would not be a sonic boom. Photons have no mass therefore there is no sonic boom.

The Hutchinson effect clearly shows such a phenomenon. Also it would take very little energy to propel a mass-less object to light speed or beyond.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 01:42 PM
reply to post by Anonymous ATS



You DO know that civilian land-based Airport rotating beacons are green-white, correct? A Military Beacon is a double-white-green. A Seaport is yellow-white.

Naturally, the Airport Beacon is aimed at a slight upwards angle, so pilots can see it. AND, indeed, it would reflect on a cloud at night, and be seen by your eyes.....but, clouds are in constant motion. AND, depending on the cloud, it would likely be a diffuse blur anyway.

It all depends on what you think you saw. A flash? Well, then, not likely a UFO. Just as you said, a visual effect.

However, IF you obseved a light moving in a non-linear fashion over an extended time frame, then you can rule out the cloud, or weather balloon, explanations.

AND, if you see any color besides White, Green or Yellow, you can rule out the Airport Beacon as the reason for the sighting.

This is about observed, seemingly physically impossible, maneuvers that are reported....AND why the 'craft' leave no disturbance in the atmosphere that will result in a 'sonic boom'.

A vehicle that can 'warp' the space around it, even in an atmosphere and deep in the gravity well of a planet, would likely appear to the casual observor as having moved with extreme speed from one place to another.

It didn't need to traverse THROUGH the air, hence no 'sonic boom'.

(OK....there likely would be SOME displacement of air, as the vehicle left one point and re-appeared in another, but from a distance that sound would be negligible).

Just my thoughts.....

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 08:48 PM
The air in front of the craft is locked in a pressure wave or
longitudinal wave.

This pulls the craft perhaps as a solid ether - air column .

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 09:01 PM
I think that there is no sonic boom for a UFO because the UFO probably manipulates the magnetic field around its craft or a gravitational field. I am not sure thought. But if an alien comes and teaches me that magnetic field theory I made up. I GET PROPS( A.K.A i get credit ^^)

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:32 AM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
This is about observed, seemingly physically impossible, maneuvers that are reported....AND why the 'craft' leave no disturbance in the atmosphere that will result in a 'sonic boom'.

Well, it doesn't always have to be complex. What about an air spike?

I figured I could get a land vehicle to move at Mach 7 with one of these puppies...on rails and unmanned of course

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:38 AM
The UFO isn't traveling through the air.

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 06:02 AM

Originally posted by Matyas
reply to post by karl 12

A star for you!

That's bringing it "down to Earth"!

See people? Present day aerospace engineering. That's all it takes.

Matyas, thanks for the reply -it doesn't realy explain the accounts of unknown objects making right angle turns though -especially in 1951.

UFO Observed By Pilots Making 90 Degree Turn ~ September 10, 1951

Document One

Document Two

Lt. Rogers followed the object in a diving turn to the left descending to an altitude of about 16,000 fet with the object about 8,000 feet below and to the right of the aircraft. Thereafter he tried to keep a course paralleling, but above, that of the object.

As soon as Major Ballard completed his radio report he was notified of the strange object. Both watched it make a 90 degree turn to the left and kept it under observation together while it covered approximately 20 miles before it disappeared out to sea.

On the same date a radar station at Ft. Monmouth reported two targets that were unidentified, traveling over 700 mph, and giving returns that could not be explained as being equipment malfunction, anomalous propagation, or anything but an actual target as described in the attached report.


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in