Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

No-Owl9201 t1_jc6fsu7 wrote

"However, the paper posits that this is likely more a problem with the sensors recording this data than science’s current understanding of physics."

24

CrelbowMannschaft t1_jc7vioz wrote

Neither is at all likely. But one-- the alien hypothesis-- is positively outlandish. The other is a disturbing, frightening possibility. If we have widespread problems with these kinds of sensors on military aircraft, ships, and land-based systems, we need to undertake an overhaul of the technology and implementation.

0

InevitableGrand956 t1_jcc1yzd wrote

I’m curious how is it outlandish? There are far older solar systems then ours in our galaxy, and even older ones in other galaxies. I’m not saying you are wrong because the opposite hasn’t been proven either. All I’m saying is with how many stars and systems that are in our galaxy alone, the chances of a species of a highly intelligent and technologically advanced civilization is very likely.

0

Kaz_55 t1_jccod90 wrote

See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

while the chance should be very likely, the evidence we have so far doesn't support this. The question is why. We as a species are currently in the process of answering said question, i.e. rapid decline of our only known biosphere supporting higher forms of life, caused by your cited (rapid) advancement in technology without the ability of dealing with the pitfalls of said technologies.

What you are referring to is known as the Drake equation.

What we are currently experiencing is known as the Great Filter.

1

Kaz_55 t1_jccn72e wrote

> The other is a disturbing, frightening possibility. If we have widespread problems with these kinds of sensors[...]

But basically all of these reports are based on "edge of observability" cases. Which is also why the official report cites a lack of high quality data. These problems are inherent with any kind of sensor system and observations made using said system. Not to mention that as far as I am aware most cases aren't even down to sensor data but simply observers. "Overhauling" of these systems will at best shift the edge of observation, but not address the underlaying problem.

Case in point being the outlandish claims by pilots about "physics breaking" manouvers which are not supported by the actual videos being presented as evidence and observers being unable to correctly identify position lights on aircraft, let alone basic optics.

EDIT:

It seems like CrelbowMannschaft put me on their ignore list in order to prevent me from actually replying to this. I wonder why.

The official reports outright decry the lack of high quality data and that the nature of the employed sensor makes them ill-suited for the task they are put to here. They also list sensor malfunctions, observer misperception, airborne clutter as possible explanations. Given that the Pentagon had to admit that the only actual evidence that has been presented - the videos - show exactely that, and that the plethora of other "UFO" reports made by basically everyone aroudn the globe happen to be down to "edge of observability" issues (distance, speed, focus, etc.) and so far all reports ever made tunred out to be exllainable by mundane means when high quality data was available leads me to believe that this is, in fact, inherent to sensor or observer limitations and not in any way "disturbing" of "frightening" - apart from actual military observers (not combat pilots) being unable to identify collision lights.

Others have already explained out why military pilots make for poor UFO witnesses, and even Hynek pointed that out.

0

CrelbowMannschaft t1_jccwtjy wrote

> But basically all of these reports are based on "edge of observability" cases.

Do you have a source for that? I haven't seen that phrase or others like it widely used in the official reporting.

>Not to mention that as far as I am aware most cases aren't even down to sensor data but simply observers.

Then your information is severely lacking.

1

Fluid_Mulberry394 t1_jc6fyjk wrote

Nah, they never went to Law School here so they’re not aware of our laws of physics

7

Kaz_55 t1_jc6gtsy wrote

>Avi Loeb

>not peer reviewed

> the paper posits that this is likely more a problem with the sensors recording this data than science’s current understanding of physics

Why are you posting this misleading crap?

>in order to analyze these UFOs, Kirkpatrick and Loeb determined that the recent UAP observations do defy the laws of physics, stating that “the friction of UAP with the surrounding air or water is expected to generate a bright optical fireball, ionization shell and tail—implying radio signatures.” However, many of the UAPs studied show no signs of these signatures

Which "recent UFO observations"? The ones the Pentagon determined they have insufficient data to actually attribute? Or the ones that were identified as observer misconception, sensor malfuctions etc.? The videos that were debunked to hell and back (and which later turned out to be exactely that - observer msiconception, sensor malfunctions etc.)?

Going over the paper they don't actually cite any sources for the UFOs they want to attribute these "properties" to. Avi (or rather the article being linked to) simply claims that because extraterrestrial craft would have to move at such speeds and the fact that we don't observe any indication that they actually do means that they must defy the laws of physics.

Instead of, you know, them not being alien probes made of magic.

The paper itself is simply Avi being Avi and pushing his "but what if Oumuamua was an alien probe" and "what if if space was full of alien probes and civilization which are for some reason invisible" spiel. About half of the citiations in the "paper" is Avi quoting his own works.

5

TheCulture1707 t1_jc8jpp0 wrote

Just seeing one convincing video would be nice, all the current ones (the tictac, gimbal etc) are easily shown up as camera artefacts and oddities. I haven't seen a single video yet that has convinced me of a UFO. I'd hope that if aliens really have travelled 100's of lightyears to get here, they would be able to see all of our suffering and would actually help us. Hell even a clandestine hint about a cure for cancer would help

3

icrushallevil t1_jc9kn8c wrote

But if it actually were so, wouldn't it automatically mean it's fully in line with physics and we simply don't know enough about physics to understand it?

2

pauljs75 t1_jccedku wrote

Some of these "objects" may be projections. The "dot" at the end of a laser pointer defies physics too if you were only to think of it as a physical object of approximately the same size.

I think there are a few tricks military R&D came up with to have people chasing phantoms, but they don't always fill in the public if they see some use outside of a testing range.

For example you might have a beam emitter on the ground that's tuned to around half the frequency needed to excite atmospheric gases. Then you use two of them that are synchronized and phase shifted, and where the two beams overlap - it effectively starts to excite the gas in that zone into ionization. It starts emitting light, and will also reflect radar.

With something like that, you can have other people chasing that around just like you would your pet with a laser pointer.

Not saying all UFO's are that, but some of the current tech developments make this kind of electronic warfare stuff quite possible since it does have some uses. (Other than creating false returns to have somebody chase, it can be used to reflect narrow beam communications or for stuff like over-the-horizon RADAR.)

2

FuturologyBot t1_jc6i2xr wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305:

From the article

>A new paper from the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) and Harvard University confirms that these UAPs seem to defy physics as they lack certain tell-tale signs, such as an ionized tail or optical fireball produced by friction.

Also from the article

>The research around Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP), which are really just UFOs by another name, is often wrapped up in the feasibility of intelligent life visiting Earth. But in a new draft paper (that has yet to peer reviewed), Sean Kirkpatrick, director of the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), and Harvard University’s Avi Loeb, stripped away the more philosophical questions about life on other planets and instead focused on the physics of “highly maneuverable” UAPs specifically.
>
>While designing “physical constraints” in order to analyze these UFOs, Kirkpatrick and Loeb determined that the recent UAP observations do defy the laws of physics, stating that “the friction of UAP with the surrounding air or water is expected to generate a bright optical fireball, ionization shell and tail—implying radio signatures.” However, many of the UAPs studied show no signs of these signatures

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11r3xnf/highly_maneuverable_ufos_defy_all_physics_says/jc6f7km/

1

INTJstoner t1_jc6kfg1 wrote

Just some PR for their upcoming show of new flying gadgets.

1

leeswervino t1_jc6u9xf wrote

I mean, no shit Sherlock. Otherwise we’d IDENTIFY them.

1

Scope_Dog t1_jc825ro wrote

These things really make me consider that it could be us from the future or some other trans-dementional beings.

1

Gari_305 OP t1_jc6f7km wrote

From the article

>A new paper from the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) and Harvard University confirms that these UAPs seem to defy physics as they lack certain tell-tale signs, such as an ionized tail or optical fireball produced by friction.

Also from the article

>The research around Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP), which are really just UFOs by another name, is often wrapped up in the feasibility of intelligent life visiting Earth. But in a new draft paper (that has yet to peer reviewed), Sean Kirkpatrick, director of the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), and Harvard University’s Avi Loeb, stripped away the more philosophical questions about life on other planets and instead focused on the physics of “highly maneuverable” UAPs specifically.
>
>While designing “physical constraints” in order to analyze these UFOs, Kirkpatrick and Loeb determined that the recent UAP observations do defy the laws of physics, stating that “the friction of UAP with the surrounding air or water is expected to generate a bright optical fireball, ionization shell and tail—implying radio signatures.” However, many of the UAPs studied show no signs of these signatures

−4