Why are many UFOs an aerodynamic, saucer shape?

On long interstellar voyages in a starship, a living creature needs gravity to avoid muscle and bone loss. So you have to induce a spin on your starcraft to create a centrifugal gravity. The easiest way to create that spin, would be a 360 degree saucer shaped craft.

The saucer shape is the most aerodynamic and hydrodynamic shape in the universe. It probably has to be on the small side in order to escape from being hit by meteoriod fields. It probably floats on water, able to withstand high seas.

The saucer shape deflects weapon hits very well, and in my opinion: The flying saucer is probably the most strategic and structurally sound flying craft in our Universe.

Originally posted by completenuttergit
reply to post by merka

 

But if theyre advanced enough to tranverse the emense gulf of space and possibly time, wouldnt they have a shield of some kind thus rendering shape and aerodynamics redundant??

Regards

Git

Yes,and no: Because if that shield surrounding the starship was disabled or destroyed, it would be in the starships occupants favor; to have there ship designed as a disc shape.

Originally posted by completenuttergitBut if theyre advanced enough to tranverse the emense gulf of space and possibly time, wouldnt they have a shield of some kind thus rendering shape and aerodynamics redundant??

They probably would but then they would also be stupid to put all their trust in technology
The basic functions is always more important than extravagant features that may fail.

It really the same thing with our vehicles. Just because we can strap reactive plates on our tanks that literally jump out and take the blast of a shell (ie a "sheild"), doesnt mean we remove all basic armor on them.

Some really great ideas on this thread, thanks for all the replies. Some of which need deeper consideration. I was only thinking about one of the first replies, and answered it as below. Darn our slow human minds!

Originally posted by Observer99
Study physics before posting a question like this ...

Even if you turn off gravity, you still have to deal with air resistance.

Where in physics are the tested and known factors of anti-gravity devices? To my understanding, in deep space, any object regardless of configuration or mass will move as propelled given the amount of force applied. Doesn't matter if it's an astronaut or a bullet. Air resistance is not a factor. So like another poster said, a cube or pyramid should be just as good. Doesn't mean antigrav is the same as zero-G, but wouldn't that be the ideal?

How are you so certain antigrav doesn't create a similar effect? Are you definitely saying antigrav techonology is subject to air resistance? How would you know? What do you base that on? These technologies should be exponentially superior to anything we have by simple application of Drake's Equation and Singularity theory. To think they are designed to deal with simple air resistance when their propulsion system is perhaps a thousand years beyond ours seems like a really limited, unimaginative, unscientific point of view. Simple aesthetic choice is more convincing.

The descriptions in the literature routinely describe vehicles that stop instantly, turn on a dime, and otherwise behave in a dream-like and impossible manner given our current understanding of physics. They seem to ignore all the laws of physics and gravity, let alone something as mundane as air resistance.

And yet you are using air resistance as an argument. I think some of the other answers on the thread are more fruitful. That said, the Magonian point of view while totally valid, is hard to answer because it leaves our conventional understanding behind and enters into metaphysics or whatever you want to call it.

I still think there must be some clue here - why are these things aerodynamic if they don't need to be? Maybe they do need to be, like the scoffer said. Maybe they obey the laws of physics - then how did they defeat the FTL barrier? Does air resistance factor into THAT? Because any ET visiting us is not likely from this star system. And travelling for 100 years to tease Betty Hill with starmaps doesn't sound like a good reason for a sublight star journey.

Now if the aerodynamic shape has to do with deep undersea bases, and water resistance, maybe... just making ideas here. I don't know how exponentially more resistant water is than air, but it has to be a lot.

Originally posted by Nicorette

Originally posted by Observer99
Even if you turn off gravity, you still have to deal with air resistance.

Where in physics are the tested and known factors of anti-gravity devices?

Don't need them. F = Gm1m2/r^2. No air resistance in that formula. Turn off gravity and you haven't turned off air resistance. I don't have to know how the process of nullifying gravity may work to see what does or doesn't happen when the gravity is reduced or nullified.

Originally posted by Nicorette
To my understanding, in deep space, any object regardless of configuration or mass will move as propelled given the amount of force applied.

Space doesn't have air in it ...

Originally posted by Nicorette
Doesn't matter if it's an astronaut or a bullet. Air resistance is not a factor. So like another poster said, a cube or pyramid should be just as good. Doesn't mean antigrav is the same as zero-G, but wouldn't that be the ideal?

To entertain your premise while staying within the bounds of theoretical physics (or at least not directly contradicting proven physics), I would say that it is conceivable that if an object (alien saucer craft) pushed itself partially out of our visible spatial 3-dimensions, it may then avoid both the full effect of gravity and the full effect of air resistance. I'm not sure that would correctly be termed "anti-gravity" then, but rather dimensional displacement, with the secondary effect of anti-gravity.

Dimensional displacement could also be used as a "cloak" of sorts. However, if this speculation were true, it would contradict the theory that the reason gravity appears weak is that its effect is 'diluted' due to it extending beyond 3 spatial dimensions. It would also seem to contradict the reports of fully visible UFOs flying at impossible rates, rather than just "partially-phased" UFOs. In fact, if the cloak is a dimensional displacement, and tied to the anti-gravity effect, it's hard to imagine how the craft could keep any kind of stable position or bearing while transitioning through the process of being more or less affected by our dimension, and thus our gravity and atmosphere. Thus, I tend to discount this idea.

Originally posted by Nicorette
Are you definitely saying antigrav techonology is subject to air resistance? How would you know?

If we can see something which appears to be a solid object existing in our 3-dimensional space, the most logical assumption is that it is. And thus it is bound by all of the laws governing objects in that space.

I fail to see what your argument even is based on, other than the statement "but you don't KNOW for SURE." If that is to be your only argument, you may as well apply it to everything ever said about aliens or UFOs.

The reports of atmospheric UFOs, or certainly of the high-speed kind, are primarily of saucers. Saucers are aerodynamically neutral and would avoid the catastrophic and unwanted lift which would happen at extreme speed. It makes engineering sense. You want to take something that makes sense, and say the reality is the opposite of what makes sense -- for what purpose?

Originally posted by Nicorette
These technologies should be exponentially superior to anything we have by simple application of Drake's Equation and Singularity theory. To think they are designed to deal with simple air resistance when their propulsion system is perhaps a thousand years beyond ours seems like a really limited, unimaginative, unscientific point of view.

Humans are far more advanced than fleas, but we both require roughly similar living conditions. What is your basis for thinking sufficient advancement can somehow ignore basic laws of physics?

Originally posted by Nicorette
Simple aesthetic choice is more convincing.

No, it's not. We know nothing about the aesthetics of aliens. We do know why saucer shapes reduce atmospheric drag.

Originally posted by Nicorette
The descriptions in the literature routinely describe vehicles that stop instantly, turn on a dime, and otherwise behave in a dream-like and impossible manner given our current understanding of physics. They seem to ignore all the laws of physics and gravity, let alone something as mundane as air resistance.

I gave a very plausible explanation, based firmly in current physical knowledge, as to how these "impossible" maneuvers are completely possible if utilizing the effects of relativity.

Originally posted by Nicorette
I still think there must be some clue here - why are these things aerodynamic if they don't need to be?

"They look aerodynamic, but I believe they must defy all physical laws, therefore they shouldn't have to be! WHY? WHY???"

Nonsense.

there's always the possibility, they may appear to be disc shaped to us, because they're not only extraterrestrial in origin, but also extradimensional....they defy all known laws and characteristics of time and space to mankind

Originally posted by Observer99
Study physics before posting a question like this ...

great idea

Originally posted by Nicorette
This may sound like a trivial question, but actually it is serious. I have read numerous UFO books, listened to many accounts. There is a kind of 'general consensus' about the shape of craft, particularly in the literature from the 40s up until somewhere in the 80s.

Okay lets have some fun...

Take a metal sphere... ( a simple physics experiment from the days of high school) a copper one with a hole in it for starters. I can add pictures later but will do verbal for now...

Put an electrical charge on the sphere lets say + positive. Now take a small pith ball and put a negative charge on it and bring it close to the sphere... what happens? It attracts. If the pith ball had a positive charge it would repel

Now then take that pith ball an put it through the hole on the inside... what happens? Nothing... because the shape of the sphere neutralizes the charge on the inside...



Back then I asked my physics teacher if this worked on other shapes, other than spheres and he said yes as long as they are symmetrical.. I then drew a shape that was basically two convex lenses back to back,



But for that shape he said the external charge would be concentrated around the rim...

kinda would look like this at night when you see the glow of the EM field around that saucer Also explains why you cannot get a clear photo during the day

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ba42bd7cc9c7.png[/atsimg]

See where this is going?

So a lens shape would make an ideal form, as would a sphere, for a saucer that has an energy field around it as part of the drive system. You can add a cupola for viewing and a skirt for aerodynamics without really effecting the energy field of the main portion of your craft...

If that energy field is used as a sort of collector of EM radiation and then used as sort of a mirror to redirect that energy... you get this effect...







So yes shape is important

Then later after we messed around with a lot of reverse engineering and adding some genuine human intellect... we discovered a triangle works as well...

So we started messing around with plasma fields around our own stealth vehicles both in the air and even on the sea... This plasma fields has many abilities...

it can absorb/deflect EM radiation (that includes light and radar)... that is what makes them stealthy (and appear fuzzy, hence no clear photos )

it has the ability to reduce sonic boom by moving molecules out of the way. Effectively it creates a 'bubble' that moves through the air and the craft rides inside that bubble. Supercavitation used by the navy uses something similar ( creating an air bubble with gases) for high speed torpedoes

it even has the ability to steer the aircraft WITHOUT needing ailerons

Revolutionary Hypersonic Aerospace Vehicles
With Plasma Actuators That Require No Moving Parts




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...

JNL Labs has been doing private tests on such plasma technology for years

The Glow Discharge Plasma Skin
jlnlabs.online.fr...

Enough to give you the basics



Here is an experiment demonstrating the sonic boom reduction. The plasma charge on the leading edge of the wing reduces the drag

The Northrop shock wave reduction experiment
" Electroaerodynamics in supersonic flow "
Advanced Reduced Drag Aircraft


A DARPA sketch showing plasma edges... this one is older


jnaudin.free.fr...


Plasma is the lifeblood of the Universe... when we can tap that, bend it to our needs and redirect it, all our problems will be solved

And lets toss in the latest experiment at MIT

The Levitated Dipole Fusion Confinement System... basically a safe clean HE3 fusion power supply




www.thelivingmoon.com...

Plasma, Plasma, Everywhere
science.nasa.gov...

Starting off with a big IF, namely if any UFOs are alien craft, I think the answer is, as implied by others, they are aerodynamic because they operate in our atmosphere. I have a hard time believing any of the relatively small craft we see can contain enough power to travel between the stars. I can see them having enough power to travel to either larger ships or bases hidden elsewhere in the solar system. Of course they may have technology similar to the Zero Point Modules in Stargate and then any arguments about power become moot. More and more over the years, despite seeing some things I still can't explain, I suspect all UFOs have a prosaic explanation. I'm convinced there must be intelligent life beyond humans but I'm not convinced they're coming here.

I would think that a sphere, circle, disc type shape is the Universal shape, it is probably the most efficient.

Planets are Spheres, Stars are Spheres, Galaxys are spiral and Disc shaped..... It is the Universal shape.

Also it would be logical to expect, that ANY intelligent life form, would be from a planet with Some sort of Atmosphere, just like Earth. Even Mars has an atmosphere, so does Venus, in fact All the planets in our Solar System have atmospheres of varying densities, and varying degrees of gravity, of course.

The large Cigar shaped craft are certainly an anomaly. Our Subterranean Sauran friend "Lacerta" tells us that the Cigar shaped craft are her peoples.
They could also be time travelling Humans, as they are often reported with Portholes (Windows) and humanoids waving. They seem to observe more, than interact too.

(Wheres the Evidence...the debunkers will say!!!!.......why dont we just call them the DB's from now on)

The DB's dont believe in the... ET's.

reply to post by zorgon


As far as I know, there is not a lot of solid information available on the technology to reduce sonic booms beyond the theoretical and what you've already posted above..

There is an internet rumor that the B2 uses a plasma charge to reduce its drag coefficient but I believe its just that, a rumor.

I think where we are at is the technology is feasible but any developed technology demonstration is going to be classified so if it does work, it will be a few years before it is publically disclosed.

If there is potential in the idea, my understanding is that plasma fields have a myriad of possible aerodynamic applications, the reduction of a sonic boom is actually a secondary benefit.

I am personally of the belief that the available evidence does not support the case for extraterrestrial visitation however I don't think the possibility that such technology could exist within the realm of physics as currently understood requires a great stretch of the imagination.

Unfortunately, until somebody unveils a working system using a plasma field or somebody catches ET its still a "what if, wouldn't this be neat"?

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
As far as I know, there is not a lot of solid information available on the technology to reduce sonic booms beyond the theoretical and what you've already posted above..

No not a lot but enough already in public domain to give us the idea what they are messing with. I know Northrop just declassified stuff on their plasma wing... I had the link but forgot to save it. Will have to dig it up again

There is an internet rumor that the B2 uses a plasma charge to reduce its drag coefficient but I believe its just that, a rumor.

yes that rumor also says it can go past Mach 1....

Here is a transonic cloud... formed when moisture conditions are right as an aircraft breaks the sound barrier near water. I have a great collection of them...


Credit: An F-14B Tomcat Fighter Jet April 22, 2003, United States Navy Mediterranean Sea
Photographer's Mate Airman Justin S. Osborne, Navy NewsStand Eye on the Fleet Photo Gallery 030422-N-0382O-588), United States Navy (USN, www.navy.mil...), United States Department of Defense (DoD,

Here is the Shuttle as it passes through the sound barrier


Credit: STS-106, Space Shuttle Atlantis, September 8, 2000 John F. Kennedy Space Center, State of Florida, USA (mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov...) Photo Number: KSC-00PP-1416, John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC, www.nasa.gov...),

And here is the B2 Stealth bomber...


Credit: B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber United States Air Force, Pacific Ocean Bobbi Garcia, News Archive (www.edwards.af.mil... January 10, 2003, "Edwards photographer awarded first place in photo contest"), Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards Air Force Base (www.edwards.af.mil...), United States Air Force (USAF, www.af.mil...), United States Department of Defense (DoD

I think where we are at is the technology is feasible but any developed technology demonstration is going to be classified so if it does work, it will be a few years before it is publicly disclosed.

True but the OP asked why saucers were a certain shape besides I have 'other' sources

If there is potential in the idea, my understanding is that plasma fields have a myriad of possible aerodynamic applications, the reduction of a sonic boom is actually a secondary benefit.

Yes but a useful secondary benefit

I am personally of the belief that the available evidence does not support the case for extraterrestrial visitation however I don't think the possibility that such technology could exist within the realm of physics as currently understood requires a great stretch of the imagination.

Whether or not you believe in Aliens... your right it is within our realm of physics

Unfortunately, until somebody unveils a working system using a plasma field or somebody catches ET its still a "what if, wouldn't this be neat"?

Well the OP simply asked why shape was an issue... As to unveiling, a lot has already been made 'public' I merely pointed out some stuff from 10 years ago to make a point. The problem with 'publicly available' info is that it is not broadcast on the evening news... well sometimes maybe (see below)

You have to know WHAT to ask, WHERE to ask and WHO to ask... and a lot of times that means spending many hours at dot mil sites

As to main stream news Listen carefully to what the NASA guy says... a lot of read between the lines there

www.dailymotion.com...

reply to post by Nicorette
Hiya Nicorette, I think it’s a question that we can’t answer for sure, but a lot of decent guys have been trying to. There seems to be a force-field technology that’s been reported since the classic days of saucer sightings; whether that’s ‘anti-gravity’ or force-repulsion/attraction is anyone’s guess. The shape could be an outcome of the propulsion systems and therefore limited to within certain designs? Such designs tend towards ovoid, spherical and discs. In the UFO lore, I can’t think of any of the sphere sightings including ‘portholes’ ‘windows’ or humanoid beings.

Exposure to these objects used to involve physical effects, but there doesn’t appear to be much of those reports anymore. Reports and bad images have increased with the internet whilst ‘good cases’ have diminished to very few.

I’m thinking of several effects that were repeatedly reported and come with interesting studies or examples.

Light Effects - UFOs have been described in varying degrees of brightness that seem to correlate with their perceived speed…brighter = faster in some cases. Colours tend to be well within the visible spectrum: yellows, whites and oranges with red also being reported. By these, they refer to descriptions where the witness suggested unconventional craft (saucers) rather than mystery lights.

Jacques Vallee penned a study in ’98 that is interesting for the cases he chose as well as the analyses he applied to them…Estimates of Optical Power Output in Six Cases of Unexplained Aerial Objects with Defined Luminosity Characteristics. He touches on the physical effects on humans when exposed to certain wavelengths of light. Ever since the 50s, some people have been treated for red eyes and ‘sunburn’ following a sighting. The first that springs to my mind is the Sheriff Val Johnson case case from 1979

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c26cf209fda3.jpg[/atsimg]

Mike Cashman studied more of these in Cashman - Eye and Skin Irritation in UFO Reports. Several scientific analyses speculate that UV or IR light was the cause; perhaps it’s incidental to the supposed means of propulsion?

Field Effects – One of the commonest themes in ufological lore is that of the effects on mechanical technology. For example the Coyne helicopter Incident where a military helicopter and crew allegedly were pushed and pulled by the effects of a close-proximity UFO. There are all those ‘50s and ‘60s cases where cars stopped dead or stalled. It was interesting enough for the Ford Motor Company to try and replicate the effects by applying strong EM fields to cars in an effort to stall them. Failed.

Magnetic mapping of car bodies as a means of obtaining information about the magnetic history of an automobile was suggested by Mr. Frederick J. Hooven, formerly of the Ford Motor Company, and now Adjunct Professor of Engineering Science at the Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, N.H. Mr. Hooven and members of the General Parts Division of Ford Motor Company, notably Mr. David F. Moyer, manager of advanced manufacturing engineering, applied the magnetic mapping technique to an automobile that had allegedly been directly beneath an UFO for several minutes. During that time, the driver reportedly could not accelerate the automobile, which seemed to be moving under the control of the UFO. Residual radio and car instrument malfunctions also were claimed. The full study of this case, carried out at the expense of the Ford Motor Company, is reported as Case 12.

Condon Committee Chapter 4

These elements have been used by some few scientists and researchers in an effort to zero-in on the potential propulsion systems. NASA's Chief Scientist, at Langley, Paul Hill has been a fore-runner of the approach...

In an effort to examine the force-field propulsion hypothesis yet further, Hill analyzed a number of cases involving near-field interactions with an apparent craft in which some form of force was in evidence. These include examples in which a person or vehicle was affected, tree branches were parted or broken, roof tiles were dislodged, objects were deflected, and ground or water were disturbed. Under close analysis the subtleties of these interactions combine to point unequivocally to a repulsive force field surrounding the craft, while discriminating against propulsion mechanisms involving jet action, pure electric or magnetic effects, or the emission of energetic particles or radiation (although the latter may accompany the propulsive mechanism as a secondary effect).

'Unconventional Flying Objects'


If these things were technological, controlled craft, the aerodynamics might not be as urgent as they are to us? Aerodynamics are a design-priority for safety, fuel-efficiency and speed. What if this technology has few concerns for fuel-efficiency and safety is assured? Speed isn’t much of an issue either lol. If fuel isn’t an issue, they could conceivably manoeuvre cubes and brick-shaped objects around.

Quite clearly, that isn’t the case and they appear to, at least, bend towards aerodynamics for reasons that are possibly along the lines of those mentioned. Notably, this would also imply that the Laws of Physics have as much importance to *them* as to us...

If this deduction is anywhere close, it suggests that ‘saucers’ are designed for travelling in atmospheres with concessions to energy conservation. By extension, we could speculate that the intelligence responsible for them is not inconceivable, or unrecognisable, to us. It isn’t as ‘alien’ as some might think. If we can share the rationale behind the designs and recognise the advances/steps/stages that led towards the design and manufacture, does the ‘alien’ become more familiar?.

@ Zorgon - some great posts recently

Hyper.net has a page dedicated to the physics of UFOs...

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Exposure to these objects used to involve physical effects, but there doesn’t appear to be much of those reports anymore. Reports and bad images have increased with the internet whilst ‘good cases’ have diminished to very few.

I think that is because the 'visitors' are not currently here, so all we get is the 'critter' type sightings and hoaxes. I think that is why UFOlogy is floundering... nothing new to grab on to (not counting black ops projects)

One of those effects back in the day was a description of the flight movement... undulating, flight path like a wave. In fact the first UFO I saw was a bright light along the horizon moving west to east in a wave pattern, then is suddenly shot back and up at a 45% angle and was gone

Years ago I documented many such cases but that was before computers. One day I will get all that paper into PDF form

One thing I remember from those days was a comment made by Herman Oberth... about "electric spaceships not of ionic propulsion" This statement is profound coming from Dr Oberth, one of the founders of rocketry and mentor to Wernher von Braun. It also shows the Germans were working on electric propulsion back in 1930.

The book is called "Possibilities of Space Flight." Published in 1939 Here is a very interesting statement by von Braun

"Professor Oberth has been right with so many of his early proposals," von Braun told Stuhlinger in 1947, "I wouldn t be a bit surprised if we flew to Mars electrically."

Stuhlinger immersed himself in electric propulsion theory. He found a copy of Oberth's book, "Possibilities of Space Flight." Published in 1939, Oberth devoted a chapter to the various problems of electric propulsion systems, envisioning one design that might carry a 150-ton payload. In studying the origins of interest in electric propulsion, Stuhlinger learned that the American rocket pioneer, Dr. Robert Goddard, had examined the subject as early as 1906. Goddard had mentioned the possibility of accelerating electrically charged particles to very high velocities without the need for high temperatures.

Studies in electric propulsion became more frequent following WWII, and in 1955 Stuhlinger presented a paper at the International Astronautical Congress in Vienna entitled, "Possibilities of Electrical Space Ship Propulsion." During his presentation, Stuhlinger discussed a proposal made by von Braun two years earlier, to use chemical propulsion to send a spaceship to Mars.

Its funny how things work sometimes... I was looking for stuff on this and I didn't have this article until today

Ion Propulsion -- 50 Years in the Making
science.nasa.gov...

reply to post by zorgon
Here he is with some form of 'halo' around his head...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e2b4d19dad76.jpg[/atsimg]

I think that is because the 'visitors' are not currently here, so all we get is the 'critter' type sightings and hoaxes. I think that is why UFOlogy is floundering... nothing new to grab on to (not counting black ops projects)

I feel the same way sometimes. Whatever was happening until the 70s, has either changed or gone away. Also, the quality and credibility seemed more physical and tangible than nowadays where every sighting report is a mess. The 'purity' has gone and we're left with idiots, psy-ops, disinfo and a bunch of other explanations before accepting 'true UFO.'

Another great effect noticed by people near saucers is that of 'Missing time" I have always wondered that if a ship was generating a strong enough gravity field, as they would need to warp space, if that could account for lost time episodes.

People talk of anti gravity for these ships, but since as soon as you leave earth there is little gravity to repel against, you would be at a stand still. anti gravity would be like anti matter.. the two cancel each other out, usually violently. Would be of little use as a drive system

The earth however is a dipole rotating magnetic field and we all know what happens when you have an opposing rotating magnetic field, yes?

We have LIFT and that is what we need

here we have a toy... yes a TOY been out for some time... but think of the principal

reply to post by zorgon
The missing time thing has interested me recently. In some few 'trace evidence' cases, surrounding vegetation was found to be dessicated with similarities to older growth. Another tale I heard from John Hanson was an angler who encountered a UFO and apparently turned to find his bait-box of maggots had become flies. God only knows how true that is! The point is that it set me to wondering if the means of propulsion has the time-dilation effects that some have speculated on.

If this was the case, it would be more appealing than attributing every missing second to the industry (literally $$$) of abductions by aliens.

I think the principle is probably close to that in the video. The motion is similar to that described in dozens of cases too.

I BELIEVE I HAVE THE ANSWER:

All my opinion of course - but we are talking theoretical here anyway.

If these were in fact intergalactic beings visiting our Earth, I believe I know why their craft would appear to be a saucer shape...

Their crafts are designed for traveling through space, they do not use traditional propulsion based systems that push their craft through the atmosphere - insead they use advanced 'warp drive' type technologies which allow them to stay still while creating a bubble around themselves and contracting space infront of the craft and then expanding it behind them - as seen in this video at 8:00 mins in HERE

Reason 1:
Notice the shape that is made even in the demonstration as they demonstrate space/time bending around the craft. I believe this is why they appear as light also, because if you are taking a huge chunk of space and manipulating it in a small area, it would have all the light contained within that huge chunk concentrated in a small area - just like a convex/concave reflective surface. I believe you would want to bend time/space in an even manor between 2 points, so it could be restored just as easily on the other side - this could be achived most easily with a flat cylinder shape as it is even on all sides in every direction.

Reason 2:
As all planets have their own gravity I believe it is reasonable to assume most life in the universe is accustomed to experiencing some level of gravity force acting upon it, given this an intelligent life will likely mimic gravity for its own comfort/health reasons - using current technology we would find it easiest to achieve this through a centrifugal artifical gravity system - which would require a round cicular shape.

Reason 3:
If they have a traditional type propulstion system for local travel a sphere is an ideal shape for a jet type system sucking something down from above/or drawing it from inside and then spitting it out underneath in any direction you want while maintaining stability.

reply to post by zorgon


Awesome post, I didnt see this before I made mine but you covered what I was struggling to convey very well. Star!

reply to post by zorgon

To be truthful, my personal search for the truth down the rabbit hole some call UFOlogy has more often seen the
colorful personalities and wildly speculative theories become more interesting than the minutia of hard data and empirical fact available on the subject.

Its interesting to note how two separate people with a similar specialized interest can examine the same data and deduct completely opposite interpretations.

With that said and in keeping on the topic of exotic aerodynamic technology, like many others on these boards
I have a strong interest in the subject (hence the Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau AG as my avatar), however I also have a bit of practical experience in aviation and aerodynamic theory.

I generally find your authored posts and threads to be among the better ATS content, at times I disagree with your conclusions but I have honestly learned a few things from your various contributions which are usually both well written and researched. . In this instance, however, I believe a couple of points you have referenced are incorrect and founded on uneducated rumor, so I hope you'll take my correction in the spirit intended.

I'm not asking blind faith on the subject but I'm relatively confident that any specifics I cite or sources I link are readily available to cross reference, in other words, I am comfortable with the subject matter...

Originally posted by zorgon
yes that rumor also says it can go past Mach 1....

...

...Here is a transonic cloud... formed when moisture conditions are right as an aircraft breaks the sound barrier near water. I have a great collection of them...

If I understand correctly, you are attributing the phenomena of compressible air flow manifesting low pressure condensation as an indicator of high transonic/supersonic airflow as well as using the illustrated phenomena to suggest the B2 Spirit is a supersonic aircraft?

The admittedly fantastic photos posted above are of a specific condition often observed in relation and attributed to high performance aircraft exceeding the sound barrier which, in truth, is far from the case. High trans/supersonic airflow is not a necessary condition to generate the condensation effect as I'll explain.

The specific effect shown in the F14, STS and B2 photos is an example of an property of Compressible air flow, specifically a Prandtl–Glauert singularity. While the N-wave generated by transonic aircraft is one cause of the phenomena, there are other conditions where the same phenomena forms at lower mach numbers so that the effect cannot be used as an indicator of supersonic airflow or capability (as was alluded to by including the photo vapor trail forming on the wing of the B-2).

Remember, the effect is a product of relative moisture content and temperature combined with a sudden pressure differential so another familiar case where the same effect is generated at no where near transonic speed are the top of a wing chord during high G aerobatics and high lift operations.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/84fbb749bac0.jpg[/atsimg]

Gear/Flaps down/full wing sweep/high AOA = VMcrit (slow speed)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4cbb0d55cf6b.jpg[/atsimg]
Another high alpha, low speed and dirty F-18 showing condensation forming at the strake.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0c3cdcf07fe9.jpg[/atsimg]

High AoA, low speed/high G SU-35 showing early Prandtl–Glauert formation. Note no afterburner, high AoA, large control deflection suggests low speed demonstration.

or...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5348f99d069e.jpg[/atsimg]

Mmo in a B-52 is around .86, VMax at 35k is around 330 KIAS. Far from mach territory.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1a1d08cc9097.jpg[/atsimg]

747-400 gear down, 30+degree flaps, leading edge spoilers deployed. Low speed, Vs+10 knots.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/aa461fd66dfa.jpg[/atsimg]

We all know a C-5 in level flight isn't going to rattle any seismometers, note the whiteout along the entire upper chord.

The Beauty of Prandtl-Glauert Singularities

Alternate image source-SkyFlash.com/Military Fighters at High Speed

The phenomena is also familiar to many as when a cloud forms in a glass bottleneck after a cold carbonated drink is opened causing the CO2 to accelerate through the bottleneck lowering the relative air pressure and allowing condensation to form.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d85e4f93c330.jpg[/atsimg]

When opening a bottle of champagne, you might have noticed the cloud forming right above the bottle neck. This is due to a significant temperature drop, caused by gas expansion when we open the bottle. Assuming an adiabatic expansion (meaning no heat exchange with the surroundings), Hans-Uno Bengtsson has calculated a temperature drop of 112 °C! No wonder the vapor around the bottle neck immediately freezes forming a small cloud.

Uncorked – The Science of Champagne

Or, if you prefer beer...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1b2ec8dfb347.jpg[/atsimg]

a moisture laiden air parcel rises, cools at dry adiabatic lapse rate (~1oC/100m) until it reaches the dewpoint, at which point condensation occurs. After that, any further rise causes cooling at the moist adiabatic lapse rate (0.5 - 0.9oC/100m), because of the released latent heat. (Fig)
super saturation: relative humidity > 100%
experiment: when a beer bottle is opened, a cloud forms in the neck. If temp. of the bottle is 5oC, temperature drops to ~-36oC when bottle is opened

Atmospheric moisture, condensation, and precipitation

The F-14 Tomcat in photo has generated a condensation cloud as it does a transonic flyby. It is frequently stated that such condensation illustrates the region of supersonic flow or sometimes the shock waves generated in the transonic regime. While the general pattern is indeed similar to that seen in many transonic flows, there is nothing in the physics which would suggest that the region of condensation must be coincident with the region of supersonic flow.

A more sophisticated view is that this has nothing ( directly ) to do with the occurrence of supersonic flow or shock waves. Rather, it is an illustration of the Prandtl-Glauert singularity discussed in most classes on compressible flow.

Near Mach 1, the Prandtl-Glauert singularity has amplified all pressure perturbations. As a result, the regions of expansion ( low pressure ) above the wings and cockpit correspond to much lower pressures than we would expect in an incompressible flow. As in other condensation problems, the lowered bulk pressure results in a lowering of the temperature causing condensation of the ambient water vapor.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b89cd0a5e12e.jpg[/atsimg]

THE PRANDTL-GLAUERT SINGULARITY AND CONDENSATION
(See the link for a few more more aircraft/condensation cloud photos)


Meanwhile, revisiting the "plasma field" and the B-2..?

Originally posted by zorgon
yes that rumor also says it can go past Mach 1....

My final take on the mach 1+ B-2 with and without the plasma field aerodynamic technology boundary layer modifying parasitic drag coefficient reduction rumor...

As far as any other part of the validity of a Mach1+ B2 Spirit, the idea is absolutely not possible (that is, not possible outside of a Dale Brown novel or the next AceCombat offering on the Xbox).

Looking at the B-2, taking note of its design and configuration such as wing area and shape, the choice to use decelerons and the beaver tail as control surfaces, the shape, design and placement of the air intakes and exhaust make it impossible for the B-2 to operate or function in a supersonic environment. If you prefer I will take the suggestion apart and link the various supporting design problems and physics but its not a suggestion that anyone with any real experience in the field would entertain.

The argument could be made that if plasma field technology were far enough developed to apply towards full scale flight, a plasma field generated flight control surface could overcome the aircrafts physical aerodynamic impediments. The B2 would be the last plan form considered for a number of reasons which I'll touch on briefly.

The B2 fleet is capped at 20 aircraft with a final cost of nearly 2.5 billion dollars an aircraft and a cost to maintain nearly triple that of the B-52 or B-1. The various technologies are sensitive enough to require climate controlled hangers (a few drops of water in a tube turned one into a smoldering pile of RAM at Guam not long ago) as well as the B-2's brand of stealth having a finite shelf life, they do not have the utilitarian advantages of the B-52 or even the B-1and will not enjoy a longevity in the tradition of the remaining B-52 airframes.

Would it not make more fiscal and logistic sense to deploy something like aerodynamic nullifying plasma fields generators on the latest phantom works UAV proposal? If the lack of crew or payload size or some similar imaginative condition was enough to dictate the modification of an existing platform, the sexagenarian (destined to be Centenarian) B-52 fleet would likely provide the airframes.

The "black" portion of the U.S. defense budget is larger than it has ever been, however political realities shape the direction of military vision and currently those realities are focused on the type of threat that reconnaissance and surveillance pay the big dividends. The push in aviation is on more capable, more autonomous and longer duration UAV's. The 2040 bomber is a concept most likely to be shelved and there is no need to supplant the current strategic bomber force with billion dollar performance technologies that have no useful role.

The B-2 is currently hugely capable in its role as a global strategic penetrator,and it wont need to break a sweat for at least another decade, regardless of Russian or Red Chinese claims that the S-400 radars can defeat current U.S.A.F. stealth doctrine and technology.

Any part of the B-2 fleet is currently irreplaceable in either a strategic, fiscal or industrial sense. The production lines have been extinct for over a dozen years and there is no social or political will currently exists to fund the hundreds of billions of research and development, procurement deployment and maintenance in new weapons systems with the purpose of destroying a heavily defended infrastructure half the world away. It takes a decades long cold war and an enemy on the scale of the now non existent Soviet Union to build such insanely prohibitive military commitments.

In short, there would ultimately be little sense for the U.S. to risk marginalizing such a potent weapon with a radical technology program like what the plasma field rumors would imply. (not including gee-whiz bragging rights for the internet experten, like the gravity defying and equally make believe TR3B )

Looking towards technologies in the near future would be the Northrop Grumman X-47B (stealthy and very capable UAV), the Boeing X-37 (Autonomous, reusable low orbit spacecraft) and the recently concluded NASA X-43 scramjet test bed (7,546 mph or Mach 9.8 for 10 seconds). I believe it is telling for the existence (or nonexistence) of the plasma field concept that the X-43 demonstrator has showcased a scramjet with conventional aerodynamic control surfaces.

In closing, I would be interested in hearing anything more discussing the application of a plasma field in relation to possible improvements in aerodynamic efficiency but I believe it may be something similar to nuclear powered flight in the 60's, within the realm of theory but demonstrated to be outside the reach of practical technological application.

Or, perhaps I'm totally wrong, modern tech has been successfully reverse engineered by the evil industrial military complex from Zeta Reticulans that crashed outside of Roswell in 1947. Mankind's last great hope will be sometime in the near future when the NWO and TPTB will be forced to disclose the truth about extraterrestrial visitation, the Pleadian beam ships will decloak overhead and everybody will live happily ever after with our star brothers and sisters (after they save the dolphins and fix the radiation leaking from Fukashima).

Either way, I hope somebody comes away with something positive from this post.

Originally posted by zorgon
Another great effect noticed by people near saucers is that of 'Missing time" I have always wondered that if a ship was generating a strong enough gravity field, as they would need to warp space, if that could account for lost time episodes.

People talk of anti gravity for these ships, but since as soon as you leave earth there is little gravity to repel against, you would be at a stand still. anti gravity would be like anti matter.. the two cancel each other out, usually violently. Would be of little use as a drive system

The earth however is a dipole rotating magnetic field and we all know what happens when you have an opposing rotating magnetic field, yes?

We have LIFT and that is what we need

here we have a toy... yes a TOY been out for some time... but think of the principal

If I may play devils advocate, I would remind anyone really interested in the subject matter that it has taken science the whole of human history to begin to accurately describe and predict the mechanisms of the universe.

While it is tempting to flippantly toss Einstein out the window anytime relativity contradicts our flights of fancy regarding our individual expectations of the universe (there has to be life elsewhere because it is here, an advanced civilization would discover a way to beat relativity, in the whole of the cosmos that intelligence would discover mankind's brief existence using unimaginable technology to travel here before people go the way of the dodo?)

As some of the more learned theoretical physicists and speculative day dreamers are often quick to remind, the current model of relativity does not explain everything and is at best incomplete.

Where the alternative speculation fails miserably and the blog-o-sphere commentary often excluded by those who paraphrase science to suit their own agenda is that relativity not only perfectly describes the majority of the visible universe, the major tenants have been upheld by everything from proof of gravitational lensing to keeping correct time across the gps constellation to the thousands of nuclear tests successfully conducted by various world powers.

First off, modern physics provides no mechanism for electromagnetism to interact with space/time as well as the obligatory recognition of the laws of entropy within thermodynamics that prevents our magnet from perpetually repelling its own mass across the cosmos.

Secondly, I believe magnetic lift is subject to a half dozen physical laws from entropy within thermodynamics to a guy named Earnshaw whose theorem says it wont be stable to that embarrassing inverse square law that dictates any magnetic field strong enough to levitate a mass far enough to be interesting would rip the iron out of your blood while requiring gigajoules of energy.

So we disregard magnetism and are back to gravity...

At this juncture anti gravity of any kind is science fiction and nothing more.

Anyone wanting to argue differently, there is a substantial prize offered to anyone who can demonstrate a true anti gravitational effect that will in all likelihood remain unclaimed into the foreseeable future.

Since we are unlikely to be annihilated by a non existent anti gravity/gravity interaction I wonder how some might explain the safer predictions within relativity hinted at previously.

The greater the mass and/or velocity the greater the gravitational pull. Even Einstein predicts time dilation so UFO's+loss of time= a no brainer, they must be manipulating space-time through gravity!

The problem there is it takes an order of magnitude of gravitation greater than what anyone who believes this is a possibility understands.

Mass needs to approach the kind of crazy densities found in neutron star stuff to noticeably effect time, it is not a simple matter of scooping a bit up and taking it with you. Neutron star stuff requires the gravitational pressure of a neutron star to exist (think of it as a step before a black hole). Neutron star stuff would explode in a tremendous fashion away from the body of the star and the gravitational tides would destroy any regular matter long before you got close enough to notice a missing tick.

Lastly, time dilation occurs near light speed so easy after all many would say.

There is a practically insurmountable hurdle to this as well. To noticeably effect time you must travel very close to light speed. The problem is, within relativity, the faster you go the more you weigh requiring ever more energy to accelerate faster. The reason matter cannot travel faster than light is you reach a point before you get there where your mass becomes infinite requiring an infinite amount of energy to propel it any faster.

Anyone really still entertaining this avenue would be well suited researching how much energy is required to accelerate 1 kilogram to 99.9 light speed. I'll give a clue, its a really,really big number that has no real reference point in our frame of reference.

I wonder at times, is belief if extraterrestrial visitation through interstellar travel inversely proportionate to individual comprehension of relativity and lack of galactic scale?

Its a big,big cosmos. While I believe we are probobly not entirely unique and life probobly exists elsewhere, there is a very real possibility that the distances involved will not allow discovery or communication. Ever.

Thats my 2 cents..

I would be tempted to quote a previous poster's response of...

Originally posted by Observer99
Study physics before posting a question like this ...

Almost sig worthy, isnt it?