From the study: >Collectively, these observations strongly suggest that these UAVs should be carefully studied by scientists [9,10,11,12,13]. >Unfortunately, the attitude that the study of UAVs (UFOs) is “unscientific” pervades the scientific community, including SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) [34], which is surprising, especially since efforts are underway to search for extraterrestrial artifacts in…
Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)
41–50 of 118 posts
Re: Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Off topic comment: I'm pretty sure "explicited" is not a real word, but you've convinced me that it ought to be. Perfectly clear what you meant. Can somebody add this to the dictionary, please?
They probably meant: explicate — to give a detailed explanation of https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/explicate It seems like a relatively newer word in its usage: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?year_start=1800&year_e...
I read it more as "made explicit" rather than "explained"
Re: Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)
#43Right out of the gate, the paper is begging the question by stating that these are 'vehicles.'
"Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles"
"Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs) partially identified as being unknown anomalous aircraft, referred to as Unidentified Anomalous Vehicles (UAVs) or Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs)"
Are you referring to the use of a commonly accepted initialism, 'UAV', as them 'begging the question'? Otherwise, it took about 33% of the paper for them to use the word "vehicles".
Don't be that guy.
Re: Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But when they suddenly see smaller drone, their pilot-brain thinks it's a plane, but because it is much smaller than a plane, they think it must be far away. I think this neglects the training and capability of the pilot to the point of being insulting. You're basically saying that a (let's say) 15 year veteran of the U.S. Air Force can't tell the difference between a small drone and a plane, doesn't understand bas…
When stabilized against the ocean some of the things the pilots said were pulling impossible G levels of acceleration were actually flying in a straight line: https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/49d95870dca331... Some of the other high g-force examples turned out to be an FOV change of the camera footage when toggling IR.
what does traveling in a straight line have to do with acceleration?
Re: Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)
#45Reaching relativistic speeds in minutes to hours and covering interstellar distances in days to weeks as proposed in the abstract seem to not be compatible - wouldn't a relativistic speed mean we'd need 4ish years to reach another star?
The important part is the last two words, proper time, which is the time measured by a clock travelling along some given world line [1]. In this case, the world line of the hypothetical interstellar craft.
Re: Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)
#46Interview from same year with pilot who took the Tic Tac video:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/tic-tac-ufo-video-q-...
Re: Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need to listen to the interview with the pilots who filmed this. They were chasing it, and couldn't catch up.
Which is what you’d see of a bit of gum stuck to the sensor lens. I’m not saying that’s what this is, I’m pointing out that what the pilots perceive is not to be taken at face value.
Are you sure it wasn't swamp gas?
Re: Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)
#48Makes me wonder what the psychology and politics of anti-extraterrestrial beliefs and rules are. It's very plausible other beings exist, but what necessary axioms disintegrate if a society comes to believe in aliens, and why is it important to isolate and shame people who suspect it? I can see how our dominant moral systems are rooted in the idea of human primacy and a single One supreme being. Recognition that we ca…
I don't know that such a thing as "anti extraterrestrial" belief exists. Here's two beliefs/points of view that are compatible: 1. There's a very high chance there's life out there in the universe. There may even be intelligent life, too. 2. It's unlikely extraterrestrial intelligent life will be able to reach Earth. Most reports of UFOs are either made up bullshit or the human brain finding patterns where there are…
Regarding whether the anti- view exists, two points. The first is almost every sighting story comes with how their commanding officers and authorities silenced them. The second is I would suggest that if I were a scientist who implied something originated from an extraterrestrial advanced civilization, I would be actively isolated and discredited, which to me implies a very strong anti-ET bias. As an experiment, let's see if this comment comes back to bite me.
We know from other disciplines that extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence at all, so I'd speculate it's probably inappropriate to mock the lived experience of people who identify as alien abductees.
The OP paper describing the implied necessary physics of unrelated reports makes me think it might be time for a university to create an spacefaring humanities program as an extension of gifted programs, which includes physics and math, engineering, biology, anthropology, theology, philosophy and ethics, or even to include it in the core curriculum of public schools. It's not like they would learn to believe anything dumber than what has already been taught in schools over the last century, and at least a spacefaring humanities curriculum would equip generations with tools for what seems now like an inevitability.
Re: Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)
#49Makes me wonder what the psychology and politics of anti-extraterrestrial beliefs and rules are. It's very plausible other beings exist, but what necessary axioms disintegrate if a society comes to believe in aliens, and why is it important to isolate and shame people who suspect it? I can see how our dominant moral systems are rooted in the idea of human primacy and a single One supreme being. Recognition that we ca…
What's even scarier to me is the obvious issue of the human blindspot: We struggle with the unknown. We desperately want to paint it with what's in our past.
Everybody wants to predict what it is, everybody wants to guess. Which is the same as forcing a "known" property onto the events. But it also forces a "self" onto the events, i.e. a convergent subjective lens.
Very few can say, "I don't know" and then leave it at that to a sufficient degree, while also continuing to look into it.
Most want to project their subjective past onto the situation, which is even worse in situations that are truly novel.
We instantly think about things like other species, and stratify the situation in dimensions that are important to us for egoic human reasons.
This also applies to compartmentalization, which interestingly gets a pass when we self-criticize the human race, even though it has done quite a bit of damage to our intelligence capabilities.
We look at the way compartments have dealt with UAPs and humans, and still ask why humans should fear UAPs, rather than asking why specific compartments should insist on hiding things. Compartments represent humans but they are not humans.
As it turns out, a lot of relevant compartments will quash UAP interest by covert charter and in fact fear disintegration if they are associated with UAPs or the unknown in general. On top of that, compartments that seize new information have a new bargaining chip and a reason to lock out third parties which may force open the issue. We should expect such compartments to restrict and hoard information, or peddle disinformation.
The fear-based perspective was the case with Rendlesham for example. But even after the information got out, the officer behind the publishing of the information is on record concluding that we might as well not look into it further...because he believes we can't do anything about whatever we find out anyway.
And we are talking about someone who is also saying he doesn't even know exactly what it is he's talking about.
"It wasn't invented here" has taken on a new meaning under the circumstances.
Re: Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)
#50Makes me wonder what the psychology and politics of anti-extraterrestrial beliefs and rules are. It's very plausible other beings exist, but what necessary axioms disintegrate if a society comes to believe in aliens, and why is it important to isolate and shame people who suspect it? I can see how our dominant moral systems are rooted in the idea of human primacy and a single One supreme being. Recognition that we ca…
I don't know that such a thing as "anti extraterrestrial" belief exists. Here's two beliefs/points of view that are compatible: 1. There's a very high chance there's life out there in the universe. There may even be intelligent life, too. 2. It's unlikely extraterrestrial intelligent life will be able to reach Earth. Most reports of UFOs are either made up bullshit or the human brain finding patterns where there are…
I expect those doing the laughing couldn't possibly be fooling themselves about their motivations. Only other people do that.
It's obvious there's a huge amount of woo around all of this, but it's equally obvious there are real phenomena which are unexplained.
For example, the Hessdalen Lights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessdalen_lights
The scientific approach is to collect data and generate theories which try to explain it. Condescending nyucking is self-indulgence, not science.
Meanwhile we have no idea what alien intelligence would be like, or what it would be capable of. Assuming it would be recognisable, never mind interested in interaction, is naive in the extreme.