Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 97 posts

Re: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#41

Post by godelski »

lettergram wrote: post #16

> The Main Astronomical Observatory of NAS of Ukraine conducts an independent study of unidentified phenomena in the atmosphere. To me this sends up a couple of thoughts: (1) this sounds like a way to spy on Russia and (2) quite possibly could be technology from Russia (such as hypersonic missiles). Then I read the speed: > An object contrast makes it possible to estimate the distance using colourimetric methods. Pha…

> 15 km/s

That's over mach 40 and would allow you to circumnavigate the globe in 45 minutes.

There are flight vehicles that travel mach 20+, but 40 sounds insane. Mach also isn't the best numbers to use. The HTV-2 goes Mach 20+ but that's 5.7 km/s. Granted it is 2010 technology (first flight) but it would be insane to think we've doubled the speed and are testing these vehicles. It isn't like you can fly vehicles that fly that fast secretly. They make A LOT of noise.

Measurement errors sounds like a better explanation. Especially when we have such strong evidence of other things (like tic-tac) being measurement errors.

Re: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#42

Post by torotonnato »

jiggawatts wrote: post #39
torotonnato wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they are using Photoshop, but that would be hilarious :D It's just the camera sensor's color space (Adobe RGB). Anyway, gamma correction should be problem, unless they shoot raw images and in this case the color space gets out of the equation. I was curious, so I found another paper by the original authors and the color correction is more carefully considered, since they seem to take into account the se…

This paper also doesn't mention "gamma" and uses the word "linear" only in other contexts. Even if they're using RAW photos, the response curve is still non-linear because the individual pixels "saturate" as they get closer to the maximum exposure. This shifts colours , because a bright colourful source will saturate the pixels of the matching colour first, and then the other colours a bit later. A bright yellow mete…

>These guys are so unscientific...

Naaaaa, this is not my field, so I assume I'm missing some crucial pieces of information (which the paper apparently lack too, I agree on that).

>A bright yellow meteor trail will saturate red and green, and then blue.

Here I assume that they can do their job, but maybe you are right. Since they are doing their observations at two "meteor stations", maybe they know what they are talking about though.

>Their entire method and conclusion all hinges on analisying the relative intensities of RGB colours of photos of very bright meteor trails.

They use a simple mathematical model, with even other obvious limitations, like considering the atmosphere homogenous, so?

Here I'm citing the calibration part (which is a bit disappointing, true :) at the end of page 4:

...The color chart in Fig. 10 allows us to evaluate the color characteristics of the Moon and check the calibration of our cameras. The Moon has a color relative to the sky background: B - G = -2.5 log (1.7 / 2.7) = 0.5. We take into account the color correction in the Jhonson B - V system according to [x] due to Rayleigh scattering equal to 0.14 magnitude. Let’s get the estimate B - V of the Moon: B - V = 0.50 + 0.60 - 0.14 = 0.96. The actual color of the Moon is B - V = 0.91 according to [1] and differs from our estimate by 0.05 magnitudes within the photometric error. In Figure 9 we can see a local feature (water tower). The color diagram of the tower in Fig. 12 gives a distance estimate of 0 ± 1 km. The actual distance is about 300 meters. Thus, colorimetric measurements confirm our estimates...

EDIT: page 4 of the UAP paper

Re: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#43

Post by prox »

motohagiography wrote: post #7

Fun topic because the question of under what conditions would we as humans would contact another less advanced civilization in space opens up some pretty interesting but simple criteria. We would need for that civilization to not be a danger to us, not only from a technology angle, but from an ontological perspective. When you look at how insane other creatures in nature are and the biological economics of their surv…

Honestly? Not to be such savages. With which I mean is that we are hilariously incompetent when it comes to basic rights, freedoms and most of all structuring society.

If we worked together in true unison, we have enough riches/resources to feed, clothe and give a home to anyone who needs it. Just for a moment imagine if the military budgets didn’t need to be spend.

Note I am not advocating any ideology or political structure here, but just the basic observation that we are indeed underdeveloped savages.

Re: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#44

Post by inglor_cz »

krono wrote: post #6
api wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well hey, one possible answer to the Fermi paradox is that there isn't one.

This would be covered by the zoo hypotheses[1] I think. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_hypothesis

The ZOO hypothesis is uncannily attractive, because it a) sort-of humbles our egos and b) would actually be plausible even within humanity itself.

If we discovered another human civilization with a living and technological standard of Europe of 1022 AD, we would be able to keep an eye on them without revealing ourselves much. An occassional slip-up would be possible (a crashed drone), but most of the time, we would be able to let them live as they wish without interfering with them much. Probably to the point that the targeted civilization might consider any hypothesis of our surveillance a hoax or heresy.

And that is mere 1000 years of technological development on Earth. If the gap between us and hypothetical aliens is, say, 100 million years, I can't even begin to imagine the difference.

Re: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#45

Post by galaxyLogic »

Reason to be skeptical:

For the last 10 years (?) or so most everybody has a mobile phone with high-quality camera in it and most people carry their phone with them all the time.

Shouldn't that mean that the quality and quantity of UFO evidence should have exploded since about 10-15 years ago? But I haven't seen any articles about how much more and how much better quality UFO evidence we have now that anybody whose sees a UFO can take a snapshot or video of it. Further when a group of people see a UFO, they could each take their own video of it taken with their different cameras.

If I saw a UFO I would certainly try to take a video of it.

Re: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#46

Post by barbazoo »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #45

Reason to be skeptical: For the last 10 years (?) or so most everybody has a mobile phone with high-quality camera in it and most people carry their phone with them all the time. Shouldn't that mean that the quality and quantity of UFO evidence should have exploded since about 10-15 years ago? But I haven't seen any articles about how much more and how much better quality UFO evidence we have now that anybody whose s…

Could it be that phone cameras just aren't even remotely optimized for videos being taken in the dark. I'd imagine that's when most sightings happen.

Re: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#47

Post by galaxyLogic »

barbazoo wrote: post #46
galaxyLogic wrote: post #45

Reason to be skeptical: For the last 10 years (?) or so most everybody has a mobile phone with high-quality camera in it and most people carry their phone with them all the time. Shouldn't that mean that the quality and quantity of UFO evidence should have exploded since about 10-15 years ago? But I haven't seen any articles about how much more and how much better quality UFO evidence we have now that anybody whose s…

Could it be that phone cameras just aren't even remotely optimized for videos being taken in the dark. I'd imagine that's when most sightings happen.

Could be but I don't understand why UFOs would only show up at night? Is that what the existing evidence shows?

Or is it just that in the dark it is much harder to identify an object and therefore there are more un-identified objects at night?

Re: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

#48

Post by nprateem »

There are a few interesting documentaries online. Check out unacknowledged, disclosure and close encounters of the fifth kind.

What's interesting to me is that the ce5 protocol meditation is almost identical to some Taoist meditation I learnt 20 years ago.

Of course there's also loads of bullshit too, but for me the UFO question was answered years ago. They're here.

The AATIP/UAP angle is a good one to rebrand the subject and make it more palatable to the mainstream after decades of mockery, allowing governments a way to research it seriously too.

Post reply on HN