New details on military UFO sightings
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Consider the mountain gorillas in central Africa - we'll send a person out there to sit in the trees and take pictures, and if they catch a glimpse of the human, who cares? Meanwhile, the way we travel to the gorillas home, our cities, our whole way of life are totally unknown and even incomprehensible to the gorillas. What does a gorilla know of internal combustion, or tranquilizer darts, or digital cameras?
If there are aliens visiting us, I imagine it's similar. Maybe they're just coming to take pictures and check out what the local tech-apes are up to for a research paper, and if one of the humans catches a glimpse of your spaceship, who cares? Even if they get a clear look at your ship, they have only a vague idea of how it works and what it's for.
Maybe there's no aliens, but the universe is a big place and we barely understand it. Our comprehension of what's even physically and technologically possible changes every century. We're just apes who saw a land rover in the distance.
Similarly, a gorilla may stand on a mountain and look up at a plane, and think "if they're so advanced, why bother bringing that thing to my mountain? It must be an optical illusion." The gorilla doesn't understand the plane's purpose, design, or usage, yet dismisses it anyway based on a limited mental model of the universe.
It's an imperfect analogy, but it's meant to show that while we all dismiss the concept of aliens because we can't fathom why an advanced race would use their technology just to visit a "lower" species, we actually do the same thing all the time - so maybe it's not as far outside the realm of possibility as we think.
[1] https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/area-51-and-other-strang...
He has a number of popular articles and stories about search and rescue. One that comes to mind is the search for missing Germans in Death Valley [0].
[0] https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/search-and-rescue/the-hu...
Applying this theory to the tic tac thingy was something I just thought of, not something the author of that website ever claimed (to my knowledge).
The problem I have with statements like "they're too big/expensive/non-portable for that" is that we already know that we're dealing with something that we can't explain. In other words: at least one of our beliefs about the state of some kind of technology is very wrong. One thing I keep hearing about these objects is that they move instantly, as if they have no mass. Well, then, they probably have no mass - that's the simplest explanation.
[1] https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/area-51-and-other-strang...
The 76' Tehran UFO incident seems like it potentially fits as well. I'm no physicist but a F-4 flying too close to a mass of protons/plasma sure seems like it could cause failures.
[1]https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33593/f-117s-flew-dire...
>The forthcoming report is to be issued by the defense department and intelligence agencies.
It's 2021. I'm forever done with stories showing low resolution UFOs wobbling about. Will the public actually get defense grade, ultra high-resolution satellite images of UFOs or is this just another "report" saying something was caught on the lens of their 20 year old weather satellite?
Obviously there will not be anything convincing, because if it was this would not be the way to release it.
What makes me think they're not aliens, is that there are so many different types of sightings - cigars, disks, shining light patterns - how many different types of alien craft are there?
I tend to dismiss all but the highest quality multiple sensor confirmation sightings for the reason you state, but that leaves a residue of really interesting cases that are probably something. The next thing to rule out is something ours, such as classified weapons technology.
It's not impossible for the observer to be mistaken. For example they see an optical phenomenon while on radar they are seeing a distant commercial aircraft going behind a mountain.
But I'm sure shooting stars and the aurora borealis where seen as messengers from the gods.
Our spacecraft from Semyorka to Apollo, Spaceshuttle and Falcon 9 all look like 'rockets' as they're constrained by the physics and propulsion systems.
The atmosphere is a big understudied and higly complex environment and to claim that we know all and any process that can or do happen in the skies is pretty foolish.
But arguments against alien craft that question why they move so quickly with abrupt unnecessary direction changes, and lack of interaction with humans, to me could be explained by imagining that they are “unmanned” craft. No need for “inertial dampers” or other tech to deal with the hyper fast direction changes if there’s no beings inside.
That would account for the vast distances a biological body couldn't travel, as well as the violent direction changes you're talking about.
Whatever is responsible for these government videos has to be interesting:
* Unknown natural phenomenon
* Conspiracy with real tech from a government and a coverup
* Conspiracy with fabricated videos from the US government, press releases, and a coverup
* Aliens
The U in UFO is for 'Unidentified'. It does not mean 'Alien'.
* birds
* (weather) balloons
* camera artifacts
* other privately owned airborne objects
Not everything is a conspiracy.
Birds, balloons, known airborne objects don’t travel at the speeds of military vehicles which were following.
I’d consider camera artifacts to be a phenomenon. It would still be interesting that a previously unknown artifact presents in certain conditions that mainly occur on military equipment.
Covering up state-secret tech, sure; there's obvious reasons for that.
It is interesting that the shape/manner/physical characteristics of UFOs seem to gel with whatever the current time's zeitgeist is for the time they've been reported. Aliens must have a human fashion sense.
The US used to be a much more religious country that it is today. The existence of aliens has a lot of implications for religion. It could be that when the cover up started, the people in power didn't want to deal with those implications and especially didn't want a lot of disaffected formerly religious people (don't forget that part of religion is control over the populace). So they covered it up. Once the cover up starts it has momentum and I can see it continuing past the time the original reason is relevant.
It is certainly true that a lot of bad has been done in the name of religion*, and that there are some number of close-minded religious nutter types that make the news but relative to the totals these are both minorities. And as for the idea about societal control, the notion that it is a 'primary' reason for their existence is unfounded.
* People who seek and wield power will use whatever tool they can get their hands on; if religion plays a large role in a society, then obviously that is a tool that certain people will attempt to use. Removing religion from the equation doesn't make the problem go away - those same people will just find different tools to use. Government suppression of religious freedom/diversity has played a large role in this too.
Edit: a few quick references out of many. Sociologists have long been aware of positive impacts of religion (e.g. https://www.pewforum.org/2016/04/12/religion-in-everyday-lif...) for individuals and "local" societies, but even at the macroeconomic level there is strong evidence that religion has aided economic development, globalism, etc.:
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/4/1/145/htm http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/11... https://www.hoover.org/research/religion-and-economic-develo...
That is not mutually exclusive with the idea of organized religion being a tool of societal control. Sometimes that societal control happens to have good (or at least less bad) results.
> And as for the idea about societal control, the notion that it is a 'primary' reason for their existence is unfounded.
There's a reason why I'm specifying "organized" in "organized religion". The primary reason to organize a religion - rather than, say, allowing practitioners to autonomously determine for themselves their connection with the universe around them and how to interpret and reason about said connection - is precisely to constrain how practitioners reason about that connection. The very concepts of "blasphemy", "infidelity", "apostasy", "hereticism", etc. all strongly imply a desire for control. And given that the notion of a separation of church and state is pretty recent from a historical standpoint, it's pretty patently obvious where this leads for societies on local, regional, and national stages alike.
That is:
> People who seek and wield power will use whatever tool they can get their hands on; if religion plays a large role in a society, then obviously that is a tool that certain people will attempt to use.
Religion - particularly the organized variety - has historically played a large role in the overwhelmingly vast majority of societes. In the majority of those societies, said role was by government fiat. Consequently:
> Removing religion from the equation doesn't make the problem go away - those same people will just find different tools to use.
Right, but that doesn't change the reality that organized religion is such a tool, by design per its very nature of being organized.
"My fellow Americans... I'm sure you've heard rumors of what I am about to say, but I am here as your President to set the record straight about what we do and do not know. What we do know is that there are structured technological craft operating in our airspace that we have reason to believe are not of human construction or operation. What we don't know is... everything else. Where are they from? Who is operating them? What is their intention? Are they friendly or hostile? How long have they been here? Are they simply observing or are they interacting with us? Are any of the stories of extraterrestrial abductions or influence of history valid? ... We also do not have control of our airspace, and the technology of the visitors is apparently so advanced that we have no hope of interfering with their activities regardless of what they are..."
Yeah, they're totally gonna give that speech. Better have cops in riot gear deployed ahead of time.
Neither seems even remotely possible.
I think it's possible the government practically can't reveal information about extraterrestrials, supernatural phenomenon, or really anything that's within the realm of incredible.
The reason being - there will be a potentially large amount of people that will not believe what the government reveals or that they're being honest about their revelations.
You only have to see something like QAnon or the Russiagate stuff to see that a large segment of people across the political spectrum creates vast narratives founded in distrust of whatever is relatively credible and apparent.
So if the government were to say "we're aware of phenomenon that we cannot explain and it seems to be characteristic of some form of intelligence," you'd have many who would start arguing that the government is colluding with aliens or something. It could be destabilizing to society.
Occam's razor.
Develop the technology to travel light years through space, and craft to fly through an alien planet's atmosphere (more dense/less dense/hotter/cooler), and then... flash a few lights, disappear, bend over a bit of corn, and bother a farmer in the middle of nowhere?
Or... mistaken natural phenomena, hoaxes, faulty video equipment, and so on.
Sorry, but alien UFOs do not exist.
Why would you go all the way to Earth with your god-like-technology only to get caught by our (to them) dumb-dumb radar systems and airplanes; and not at least say "hello".
I'd think that if you can travel intergalactic distances, you would either
- a) evade our detection
- b) say hello
Unless they have a sick sense of humor, I can't reconcile it and lean towards ETIs aren't currently visiting us.
(edit to change UFO to ETI)
It makes sense to me if the ETIs have a prime-directive-like reason not to engage but have reason to monitor or study humans. Then the behavior seems similar to teen-agers bashing mailboxes from cars or when the Air Force of one country gets a little too close to planes from another country. Your basic low-level alien tweaking the superiors/humans and seeing what it can get away with.
There's no logical reason to believe this is the case. It's a social assumption caused by the fame of Einstein and the way pop culture has constantly told us FTL travel is "impossible", putting anything that can do FTL immediately into the realm of "if you can do one impossible thing, why not N impossible things". But C being the universal speed limit is a theory only 115 years old. That's not very long in the grand scheme of things. And now we're seeing respectable and serious physics research that explores the concept of a warp drive. Whilst still in the realm of impossible, it appears there are gradients of impossible and FTL travel may slowly be moving between them.
What if FTL travel is easier than we think? Then a civilisation that mastered it would not be some unimaginably advanced god-like race about whom we can assume nothing. It would be a civilisation kinda like ours, just with FTL drives. And we could then start to apply everyday reasoning to their behaviour. For example, why would UFOs fly around and yet be detected by radar/cameras/sensors etc? Well, maybe:
• Complete invisibility is not a tech they have. Our stealth tech is not entirely stealthy, just stealthy enough to get close against currently existing radars.
• Their FTL drives are incompatible with the type of ship geometry required for radar invisibility.
• Their knowledge of our own sensor capabilities is old/not entirely accurate, so they can hide from sensors but don't always do so at the right times. E.g. it may have impose some energy or tactical costs to hide so they don't want to do it all the time.
• They don't actually care whether they are detected or not.
• They do in fact have invisibility technology and there are shit-tons of UFOs flying around that we don't detect, but because they're not an uber-race they make mistakes just like we do and occasionally this results in sightings that shouldn't have happened.
Why would they not make contact? Maybe:
• They don't wish to because we have nothing to offer them.
• They don't know / can't agree on which political bloc to make contact with, and are waiting for humanity to unite under one world government (hopefully not).
• They have some rules against making contact unless some galactic federation votes that it should happen and the votes hasn't yet been won, but information is being collected by survey craft to inform the decision making progress.
Why would they apparently rejoice in doing ludicrous or pointless changes in speed or direction?
• Why not? If your FTL drive lets you change direction without needing to worry about gravity, why would you ever turn in a curve?
• Maybe they are frequently retasked and need to go somewhere different to their original goal, especially when they believe they were detected?
And so on. The thing is, if you're willing to make just a slight leap and assume that FTL tech is not as hard as we think, then it's suddenly easy to come up with lots of explanations for UFO behaviours. It's only the social assumption of (FTL->any imaginable tech) that makes us ignore these possibilities.
Personally assuming the objects are actually some kind of non earth craft autonomous drones make the most sense to explain their behavior, particular their seeming interest in nuclear facilities.
This is, in my layman opinion, a very generous interpretation of in favor of the possibility of FTL. C as a fundamental limit is core to one of the most well tested and accurate models in the history of science. The Alcubierre drive variations are essentially just fun math puzzles for physicists to play with in their spare time. Until very recently they required exotic matter and/or ludicrous quantities of negative energy, and the best we've managed to do since then is replace those impossibilities with a ludicrous conventional energy requirement. Even if that was fixed there are still other problems to deal with, like the interior of the bubble being causally separated from the rest of the universe, meaning you couldn't actually control the bubble.
I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I understand how the universe works, so I can't say it is definitely impossible, but it is foolish to believe something is possible that the best evidence in the history of mankind says isn't, until we have evidence that it might be. UFOs can be explained by a lot of things significantly more likely to be real than alien visitation with FTL drives. I mean, if you're willing to believe that, then why not believe they're from Earth's future, or an alternate-timeline Earth, or any other sci-fi explanation that we have roughly equal expectation might be real as FTL.
If you time travel outside of your light cone with FTL then can you have any paradoxes?
I mostly don't think that future FTL capable humans would be disciplined, so we'd be talking to them if they existed (in a four dimensional sense).
Imagine the GP starts off with "So assume FTL travel is easier than we think..." Then the rest of their post follows.
Just like "Assume A Teleporter And a Warp Drive and A Post Money Society" -> All of Star Trek canon follows.
Star Trek has the virtue of being unabashed fiction, it doesn't need to have its science make sense, which is good because it doesn't make sense even if you do assume all those things.
Anyway, whether FTL is or isn't possible isn't the point of my post. The point is that if you assume aliens are basically like us except with warp drives then it's easy to come up with reasonable explanations for their behaviour. It's actually the "FTL = flawless beings so far ahead of us we can't reason about them at all" viewpoint that leads to people being baffled, not that the behaviour is itself inherently impossible to explain.
No, the assumption that FTL is impossible is based on it being impossible according to the very best evidence we have. It does not require a complete understanding of physical law to confidently state that the sun will rise in the east and a dropped ball will fall to the ground.
> We don't actually know what's possible and what's not, only what we believe is possible given our current understanding of the universe.
This will always be true. And we cannot say for certain that I am not a Boltzmann brain imagining a conversation with you. It means nothing. We have to work with what we are given because the alternative is to pretend that fantasy is reality.
> Anyway, whether FTL is or isn't possible isn't the point of my post. The point is that if you assume aliens are basically like us except with warp drives then it's easy to come up with reasonable explanations for their behaviour.
Fair, but what I'm saying is that that's an assumption on the order of "assume world leaders are actually disguised reptiles".
From the seagull's point of view that may as well be a UFO sighting but with big white men instead of little green men.
If there's a lot of life out there in the universe odds of any one planet (ours) being interesting or low. If aliens show up it's likely for some short lived menial purpose. Like stopping to grab some nitrogen or measure our moon for their survey or whatever.
I agree we probably aren't being visited by aliens. But if we I suspect they wouldn't be all that interested in us.
Perhaps we just happen to be on the route to somewhere more interesting? It's a pretty big assumption that we are the final destination for visiting alien craft.
None of this means is of extraterrestrial origin of course.
Also it's possible some of the videos are showing unknown military aircraft or systems that the pilots are not aware of.
On the flip side, if you want to interact with a baby animal you've never experienced before and has never experienced you, I don't image one would go in firing on all cinders banging pots and showing off.
This is the problem with the cargo-cult skeptics whether it's directed against UFO's or JFK assassination theories, where the complete lack of any genuine skepticism by the skeptics, tend to reinforce people's belief in non-canonical explanations for data that falls outside of the normal and cannot be easily identified.
The real story might not be aliens but it's likely also not an conspiracy between the us navy and the press to create hype around some low level pentagon positions, and the real story might include genuinely unstudied atmospheric phenomena.
- we are fascinating
- theyre likely just probes and not bio aliens
- the last time you looked at an ant hill did you say hi? Did you think they understood you?
Physics noob here so be gentle. I initially thought that the sonic boom is caused by the compression of the sound of the aircraft's own engines, but then realised that couldn't be correct as meteorites can also create sonic booms and they have no engines.
The boom is caused by the air being compressed in front of the object? Is the loudness of the engines irrelevent to the intensity of the boom, it's all due to speed?
So these sonic boom-less aircraft - if they're real - must be doing something to the air in front of it?
For people interested, here is a video presentation in English about applications of MHD technology for aircraft: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVN7qf3DlX0
And here is a conference paper about the same subject: https://januscosmologicalmodel.com/pdf/MHD/2009-Bremen-aeros...
You can play some games with which direction the energy of the boom goes and build planes that tend to send their boom more upwards than downwards, but you can't eliminate it going in all directions.
I have a loooot of issues with "UFOs are indeed alien crafts!", but certainly one of the bigger ones is the sheer stack of absurdities required to believe them, if you put them all in a pile at once and look at them seriously, and think about what they would mean if true. It isn't just that they have engines capable of absurd accelerations. It's that they also seem to use them in ways that under other circumstances we'd call "lacking purpose", i.e., they're just cruising along in one direction at twice the speed of sound, then all of a sudden go "oh, crap! I'm going the wrong way!" and slam themselves 120 degrees in another direction in a fraction of a second. It's that they also require "inertial dampers" in addition to the pile of other technologies of dubious physical possibility. We have to believe in ships that don't just move in absurd ways but also control the air around them to not be the noisiest damned things on planet Earth. It's that we also have to believe these apparently advanced aliens tend to crash surprisingly often, and that they don't want to be seen but just sort of accidentally get seen a little bit. We also have to believe in aliens that are staggeringly more advanced than humans but don't just, you know, do whatever it is they want to do because they are indeed that much more advanced, but are dicking around for decades at a time, apparently engaging in "negotiations" with our government despite their being so much more advanced that they should have no particular need to "negotiate" about anything.
It's not just the nature of the claims themselves... it's that if you take the claims seriously, they imply further absurdities that really don't make a lot of sense. Even if you take the technology claims on faith, the whole "UFOs are aliens!" tend to imply an alien species that has no intelligent motivations. Any two or three of them maybe I could harmonize into a plausible theory, but the whole pile is insane.
("Aliens" also have this really interesting characteristic where they just happen to have capabilities awfully close to what someone in 1950 might have considered to be the apex of possible physical technology, but rather bizarrely don't much resemble what the apex of physical technology looks like in 2021. For instance, the whole "aliens are genetically experimenting on humanity!" is rather silly if you consider an alien race who has computing power on their smallest scout ship exceeding everything humanity has ever possessed. Why the hell would you run around "experimenting" on humans when you can just compute the answer in a few seconds? Why would you "experiment" on humanity when odds are you can simply build any life form you like directly, without even needing to base it on some existing life form? And why would you be dicking around with life at all when you can build AIs thousands of times better for some purpose than any amount of human experimentation will yield? The whole memeset is very suspiciously stuck in a very particular period of time, and not reacting to 70 years of technological progress at all. See also our hand-held drones; increasingly real tech is running beyond what these "aliens" seem to posses, if we ignore all the inertial control and such. Or our existing surveillance tech; why would they need to watch us with crash-prone enormous spacecraft when they could just loft a couple dozen satellites into orbit and watch us at will, centuries before humans could even understand what that means?)
If UFOs are aliens, we have as much evidence that they are dumb as a bag of bricks as we do that they are hyperadvanced superintelligences, honestly.
Or that's what they want you to think. (/s)
The only claims I'm really interested in are the ones where you have multiple credible, on the record, eyewitnesses claiming multi-modal detection of phenomena exhibiting behavior that is clearly beyond current human capabilities, such as the 2004 Nimitz incidents.
Once you consider the possibility of non-human intelligences being involved it also becomes very hazardous to attempt to understand the motives behind their actions. For all we know our entire reality could be constructed in an alien laboratory designed to measure the development of our individual and collective intelligence by observing our reactions to strange events.
That said I do admit to having a lot of trouble trying to understand why craft that are apparently capable of hypersonic travel would spend hours moseying down the California coast from Catalina to Guadalupe islands. I mean if they were trying not to be noticed why not avoid the Nimitz CSG completely ? And if they wanted to be noticed wouldn't they have done something a little more dramatic than floating along at 100 knots (they didn't exhibit any spectacular behavior until an attempt was made to actually intercept them) ?
This is more my point than the true combination of every possible claim. It's more, go beyond arguing about whether something did or did not happen, and consider, what does it imply if it did? People are often too bedazzled by the immediate arguments around what may have happened to consider this argument, but it's a very powerful, simple logical tool that can be useful in resolving those questions.
You tend to get rather silly answers for a lot of this stuff if you take it seriously. Especially when you consider what tech looks like in 2021 and what feasible tech looks like in another 50-100 years, to say nothing of thousands. Aliens with interstellar travel tech but apparently no computers to speak of, no internet, no protein folding projects, no awareness of how useful satellites can be rather than literally flying down, apparent ignorance of how much of the universe isn't on planet earth (there is almost no conceivable resource-based argument for them to be here because everything is more abundant out there with no crazy animals running around bothering you) etc. the whole thing just comes off very silly.
One of the things you don't get crazy answers for is classified, but fully human craft. It just there are humans (military or whatever) with capabilities we don't know. That is not a terribly crazy theory; if you look at the past at how long things stayed classified and extrapolate into the present time, it isn't completely out of the question that the military may have some things that are fully 20-30 years ahead of civilian tech, in very particular branches of development. (I don't think it's plausible that they are uniformly ahead of civilian development by that amount, but it's very plausible to have spikes in very certain areas. We have very significant evidence of the NSA having similar spikes in crypto math.) Combine the possibility of real sightings, with a real experiment to see how people react (we have the entire term "trial balloon" for that, because it's a thing we know humans do), and just a bit of misinterpretation of what's happening by the people watching it, and it's not hard to see this as a very significant possibility.
(In fact, if you study what the military has done to its own people at times, it's not even slightly hard to believe this was a deliberate test of something. Even ignoring the unproveable rumors or what other militaries have done, and skipping the unethical stuff, we know militaries will test and trial things on their own people on a routine basis. Even things as simply as the drills not really labelled "drills" until later are examples.)
And I think people lean way too hard on "but aliens could be incomprehensible!". They are bounded by living in the same universe as us, needing to survive to accomplish any other goal, needing energy and mass resources which are exclusionary (if X is using them Y doesn't get to, and all the subsequent game theory that implies), etc. That doesn't mean that we'll understand them to the n'th degree but it does put some bounds on how "cloud cuckoo land" they can be before it's just absurd.
If the craft involved in the Nimitz incident were human then I would be even more puzzled by their behavior because I think I have a pretty good idea of human motivations and behavior. If they're "alien" (by which I don't necessarily mean extraterrestrial, just unknown non-human entities) then at least I can fall back on the argument that I may not be able to understand their motivations and behavior.
Also there are many obstacles to explaining them as secret US technology. For one thing a number of knowledgeable people have indicated that no the US military doesn't test secret technology on completely uninformed participants. That's just not the way it's done. Also if it was secret US technology why did they let it leak ? Surely they would have made sure that people like Fravor and Day signed NDA's. On the other hand if the leak was intentional (ie. to send some kind of message to adversaries) then why wait 13 years before making it public ? Basically it just doesn't add up.
> That doesn't mean that we'll understand them to the n'th degree but it does put some bounds on how "cloud cuckoo land" they can be before it's just absurd.
I think here you're vastly underestimating the potential weirdness of things we don't know about.
> > It's that we also have to believe these apparently advanced aliens tend to crash surprisingly often, and that they don't want to be seen but just sort of accidentally get seen a little bit.
> That said I do admit to having a lot of trouble trying to understand why craft that are apparently capable of hypersonic travel would spend hours moseying down the California coast from Catalina to Guadalupe islands. I mean if they were trying not to be noticed why not avoid the Nimitz CSG completely ? And if they wanted to be noticed wouldn't they have done something a little more dramatic than floating along at 100 knots (they didn't exhibit any spectacular behavior until an attempt was made to actually intercept them) ?
These at least are pretty easy to put together: Teenage aliens out for a joyride.
Here’s a theoretical example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busemann_biplane
These sound waves interfere with each other and if they're travelling at the same speed as (or slower than) the emitter, a lot of constructive interference occurs - i.e. the sound gets louder. Note this effect still occurs beyond Mach 1.0 - there's a nice animation here[0] that shows why.
As you say - a sonic boom-less aircraft has to somehow move the air out of the way quietly.
Yes, that’s it exactly. The part I would add is that after the air gets compressed, it rebounds, which is a wave. This wave emanates at the speed of sound. Ok fine, but what does that mean?
At subsonic speeds, each new pressure/sound wave emanating from the object is contained within the expanding sphere of the wave that came before it. Think of ripples in a pond, with each new ripple slightly to the left, but still completely “contained” by the one before it. The two ripples expand and never touch. (We’re pretending our pond has no edges here and that the waves don’t reflect.)
At supersonic speeds, the center of a new wave is outside the expanding previous wave. This has significant consequences for how the two waves interact. Subsonically, they didn’t interact at all. But supersonically, each new wave is expanding outside the previous wave, which means that pretty quickly they collide. And when they collide, they interfere. This interference is what goes boom.
If these are hyper-intelligent beings, I would imagine they made some sort of digital clone of themselves so they could explore space without carrying around a biological body through space which would die faster than a digital clone. With a robotic digital self you could live for millions of years exploring, and then when ready, bring lots of data back home from your travels and recon of other planets.
Skepticism is normal and understandable but I'm surprised at the amount of uninformed skepticism on this topic here. It seems like a lot of people still don't know what's going on.
So many credible, high-ranking people in military and government have come forward over the years. Edgar Mitchell had a PHD and walked on the moon and tried to tell us about UFOs.
Aliens are exciting so people want to believe. It’s boring to conclude that your brain spazzed out and you saw something that wasn’t real. Or that you saw some strange looking natural phenomena that you don’t understand. But this happens all the time. Not to mention hallucinations, altered mental stages, optical illusions, exotic atmospheric phenomena, and so on...
I would need the most compelling evidence humanly imaginable to seriously consider the idea.
Glad my Spotify+Sonos is not constant voltage with long cables from Sweden but works with fiber/Wifi.
Most of them are explained by simple physical phenomena. Some of them, however, actually do relate to unexplained phenomena or projects by state level actors.
[1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1374167754404630528?s=20
+ zhe objects are far away.
A year or two ago the President came to my city and leading up to and on the day of his visit there were V-22 Ospreys flying this path regularly. Seeing it in person was very cool, but the pictures I took look like I caught a picture of a neighborhoods kid toy helicopter from 100 yards away; tons of noise, artifacting, and lost detail.
A) there are real, ET or machine intelligence piloted UFOs actually visiting us - or -
B) this whole thing has been a long, slow burn disinformation campaign to reduce the risk of nuclear war by scaring nuclear weapon powers into believing there is something with greater power out there capable of quickly eradicating nations that move to aggressively use nuclear weapons
I'm leaning towards B, personally. Just makes more sense to me - make people afraid, unsure of what's out there - give leaders just enough doubt to second guess pressing the nuclear button.
My point is: if you do a good enough job pretending that an alien has already come and gave us a stern warning, you can potentially influence your adversary's thinking.
That's a weird thing to say.
When was the last time we used them, during a war?
Back before any other power had them. Literally the US was the only country with those bombs. That's obviously not mutually assured anything.
Now, almost everyone has at least one, and the US and Russia have many more.
Unfortunately, we’re 0 for X in scientifically proving any of these other worldly claims.
However, in every one of those instances we’ve been presented with a misinterpretation or a lack of information and filled in the blanks with quite fanciful stories that were relevant to the culture of the time period.