UAP/UFO thread - Non-Human Intelligences

Yes, they have an extraterrestrial object, and here it is:

800px-Lunar_Olivine_Basalt_15555_from_Apollo_15_in_National_Museum_of_Natural_History.jpg


Collected from the Hadley Rille by the crew of Apollo 15. And that, my friends, is far more impressive to me as an achievement than all of the pointless speculation about little green men visiting in secret for purposes unknown.

Another thought for you - our planet is unique in many ways but one of them is the presence of such a large moon. The moon, of course, produces significant tides and this has arguably turbocharged evolution on this planet by allowing the move from water to land in a relatively short period of time. So, maybe we will not be the only intelligent life in the galaxy, but what if we are the first? The rock above being part of our first baby steps that leads to us being the ones visiting other worlds (and kidnapping it's inhabitants in the dead of night to subject them to probes...). If that is the case, then we have a duty to ensure we don't f*ck this planet up before we can fulfill our destiny amongst the stars.
Plenty of two planet systems out there (we're arguably a two planet system, as Luna is too big in comparison to this planet to be a simple satellite).
 
To be fair, i think i can explain how it all can work contingent on having 1 specific technology that is within the potential grasp of contemporary humans to get, and it all nicely fits if you think it trough further.

Theory: the key about these flying devices is that they have a propulsion powered by a nuclear fusion power unit.
So lets look at it deeper.

1) Is it possible that some rival to the US has managed a breakthrough in nuclear fusion, but choose to not tell the world about it? Yeah sure, nuclear fusion is often seen as something that is just around the corner for humans to invent, and if Russia would invent nuclear fusion it would have reason to keep it secret given how much their economy floats on the sales of hydrocarbons.

2) could a nuclear fusion power plant explain the form of propulsion and effects associated with this craft. Well yes actually:
-first of all a nuclear fusion power plant would allow the craft to achieve a far greater thrust to weight ratio than typically associated with flying vehicles that are based on burning hydrocarbons, therefore achieving far greater speeds and acceleration. With hydrocarbons you often have this issue that the fuel itself adds mass to the the whole so that there is no linear correlation between between added payload and size/mass of the vehicle, its not because you want to shoot double the payload into space with a rocket that it simply requires a rocket twice as big, no it will be rather something like 4 times as big. So given this potentially far better thrust to power ratio such a fusion power craft would be able to achieve far higher speeds, as it hardly needs to consider the mass of its fuel.
-Second point is that for lack of using hydrocarbons for propulsion the craft indeed would not have a fuel burning jet engine, but rather would make use of electromechanical powered propellers. As such, it could for example propel itself by thrusting out a dense jet of air behind it, but since you're working with the mass of air that is before you another alternative is to proppel the craft by creating a vacuum in front of it.

3) the characteristics of a electromechanical propeller based vacuum drive would be that it can do the things these things seem to do, even in relation to going underwater which a jet engine would not achieve. Propellors will work underwater too, and again a principle of proppeling by creation of vacuum before it would allow to go into the sea splash less as the matter is removed and likely compressed rather than pushed aside. it's somewhat similar to the principle of a jet ski, but reversed by using vacuum before it rather than a jet behind it. There would also be a method to avoid cavitation with this, providing you can just displace the mass before it right behind it once surrounded by water and while youre moving. Picture atleast cavitation as something like an air bubble collapsing on itself trough pressure, inward pressure at that, what you rather might get in this case is that the vehicle ejects pressurised mass behind it that exapnds but in a direction to push the vehicle into the vacuum rather than push directionally against the mass behind it, and thus thereby expanding into the space left behind by the vehicle. So rather than that cavitation would occur behind the vehicle, it might actually occur in front of the vehicle as the vacuum should act as a self imploding bubble in relation to the pressurized mass around it, providing atleast it has the time to do that while the vehicle pulls in mass at a high speed as to maintain the vacuum before it.

4) if you think about what the best shape would be to design such a craft that uses a nuclear fusion power source with electromechanical propellers that needs to be aerodynamic in both air and underwater, you would likely choose .. a tic-tac shape. What is the shape of a rocket that aerodynamically needs to move to space? if it wern't for the jet engines, it would look like a tic tac. What is the typical form of a submarine vessel? Yes, it's a tic tac. No wings needed when one has such a thrust to weight ratio it can perfectly fly around on either vectorial thrust or in fact vacuum creation.

5) You might not be even able to see that the craft is powered by propellors, simply by the rediculous magnitude of revolutions achieved by these with such a power source behind it. These propellors would be a little marvel of science on their own i would immagine, requiring a very high precision with very narrow tolerances. That the craft would apparently be very hot inside though is hardly surprising, fusion might achieve temperatures also produced by the sun, although just aswell friction could heat up such a body however when proppulsion is vacuum based that friction could be avoided, in fact a perfect vacuum has actually a typical temperature of 0°C, so that would explain the coldness on the outside, its as such even a rather clever method to cool the whole thing down albeit that for the temperature to be rather cold on the outside it should have a shell build out of a material that is very low in thermal conductivity like say plexiglass but that can then also explain some sort of "shapelessness". Another things is that a fusion power plant likely would need some water, albeit super compressed even when water is difficult to compress just because you have the power to do it. It would atleast also give potential reason as to why you'd like to take a dive with this thing from time to time, even if h2o could also be filtered out of air.

conclusion: it appears to me thus, that much of the characteristics of those objects could be explained by the simple consideration of it potentially having a nuclear fusion based power source, besides even that if you wanted to design a aerial craft that utilized a nuclear fusion power source that likely it would result in something that akes very much to these tic-tac objects.

disclaimer: i have a basic grasp of fysics, thermo and fluido mechanics aswell, but when coming to such things much is a matter of speculation, i'm just speculating based on what i know, perhaps someone even more knowledgable might correct me on a few things i wouldn't be surprised about it and i'm open to be corrected for function of understanding. ;)


I would generally be extremely skeptical of the idea of any current terrestrial power having developed fusion capability. This is a technology which is definitely not just around the corner, it's generations away from being a practical reality. I would personally be surprised if commercial fusion is a thing in my lifetime (I'm 32), though obviously humanity has a habit of surprising people with the speed of its ingenuity so who knows.

Is it possible that some other country has discovered some elaborate mechanism that everybody else is totally unaware of which cracks the ability to create fusion reactions? Sure, it can't be ruled out 100% but it would be like finding the philosopher's stone or something. Very unlikely. And there's all kinds of evidence that suggests this isn't the case. Firstly, you can't hide the kind of high-energy physics facilities you need to develop something like this. It's like trying to hide a nuclear programme. The world knew North Korea was developing nuclear weapons way before they told us.

All major governments are pumping billions into fusion technology and so far the best results we have are from programmes like the NIF where they have achieved Q > 1.5. Meaning that the reaction achieved 50% more heat than it used. Which sounds great but the hard part is sustaining that reaction and then extracting that energy gain. This requires building enormous magnets to generate and sustain superhot plasma and an entire power plant infrastructure which is very energy intensive. Some estimates suggest that the Q-value needs to be closer to 100 to be widely commercially viable (though it might be possible to operate at lower Q-values with new engineering breakthroughs). This is after 70+ years of development knowing fusion is a thing.

As a result, the best we've ever done in the many projects across the globe is to obtain about 1% of the energy out of a fusion reactor that we would need to generate power commercially. That's a slight oversimplification because the way these things scale is not strictly linear and there's all kinds of considerations on technical challenges with sustaining the kind of heat we're talking about.

The biggest indicator that nobody has done it already is the existence of ITER. This is the biggest human collaboration project since the ISS. This reactor will cost over 20Bn and is being funded by the EU, China, Russia, the US, Korea, Japan, India, UK and Switzerland. When built it will go online in 2025 but it won't start high-power interactions until 2035 - over 10 years away. It aims to achieve momentary Q = 10 and sustain Q = 4 for 8 minutes. This means at best by 2035, the most ambitious global fusion project will be somewhere between 10-25% of the way to sustainable fusion. And sustainable fusion is not the same as commercial viability. We are - to be frank without being overly negative - still absolutely miles away.

And we're talking here about taking the above concept and shrinking it down to the size of something that can fit in an aircraft. For a country like Russia to have done this it would be a bit like they'd invented the smartphone before even inventing telegrams. Just not really feasible.

Disclaimer: I speak as somebody with a physics degree who understands the basic concepts at play here, but I am absolutely not a fusion engineer and I'd advise digging deeper to gain your own understanding.
 
There's several threads on the Tic Tac/Gimal sightings on this site.
The level of input, research and thinking has to be applauded.

I don't think I've seen on 'UFO sighting' that they've managed to provide a more down to earth explanation for.

This is a long thread (I've only ever skimmed these topics).
I believe the outcome was the 'tic tac' was just a plane.

Explains that 'hyper speed' jump you've probably seen on the video.

Camera aberrations/out of focus lens are a common one for 'triangle UFOs''

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2004-uss-nimitz-tic-tac-ufo-flir-footage-flir1.9190/
 
There's several threads on the Tic Tac/Gimal sightings on this site.
The level of input, research and thinking has to be applauded.

I don't think I've seen on 'UFO sighting' that they've managed to provide a more down to earth explanation for.

This is a long thread (I've only ever skimmed these topics).
I believe the outcome was the 'tic tac' was just a plane.

Explains that 'hyper speed' jump you've probably seen on the video.

Camera aberrations/out of focus lens are a common one for 'triangle UFOs''

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2004-uss-nimitz-tic-tac-ufo-flir-footage-flir1.9190/

Thanks - will save this for later. If there's one thing I love more than anything it's people who really want to find evidence of the paranormal but are still honest in applying the kind of rigour seen in other scientific disciplines. This is a great example. You have to disprove all other explanations beyond any kind of reasonable doubt. That's how every other physical science subject works.

Another great example is the Ganzfeld Experiments. This is an experiment that tests if humans are able to communicate messages telepathically when all other senses are nullified - it's deemed to be parapsychology and pseudoscientific. A group of psychologists did a load of them in the 70s and 80s and thought they were observing a measurable effect that couldn't be explained. Then Ray Hyman, a noted psychologist and skeptic came along and told them their experiment was interesting but fell short of being rigorous. He put out a communique describing how they could perform the experiments rigorously. After that the community took on his advice and since then the results of Ganzfeld experiments have been decidedly less exciting.

To this day there are parapsychologists out there who will maintain that despite their life's work being in the field they have never found any rigorous proof of parapsychological phenomena. I think that's super cool. Being passionate enough to study something, having no evidence that it exists, yet continuing to search while employing honest scientific principles.

It's like the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge which ran from 1996-2015. Prove that you can do something paranormal in a scientific setting and win one million dollars. Sounds easy. But obviously nobody ever won it.
 
To be fair, i think i can explain how it all can work contingent on having 1 specific technology that is within the potential grasp of contemporary humans to get, and it all nicely fits if you think it trough further.

Theory: the key about these flying devices is that they have a propulsion powered by a nuclear fusion power unit.
So lets look at it deeper.

1) Is it possible that some rival to the US has managed a breakthrough in nuclear fusion, but choose to not tell the world about it? Yeah sure, nuclear fusion is often seen as something that is just around the corner for humans to invent, and if Russia would invent nuclear fusion it would have reason to keep it secret given how much their economy floats on the sales of hydrocarbons.

2) could a nuclear fusion power plant explain the form of propulsion and effects associated with this craft. Well yes actually:
-first of all a nuclear fusion power plant would allow the craft to achieve a far greater thrust to weight ratio than typically associated with flying vehicles that are based on burning hydrocarbons, therefore achieving far greater speeds and acceleration. With hydrocarbons you often have this issue that the fuel itself adds mass to the the whole so that there is no linear correlation between between added payload and size/mass of the vehicle, its not because you want to shoot double the payload into space with a rocket that it simply requires a rocket twice as big, no it will be rather something like 4 times as big. So given this potentially far better thrust to power ratio such a fusion power craft would be able to achieve far higher speeds, as it hardly needs to consider the mass of its fuel.
-Second point is that for lack of using hydrocarbons for propulsion the craft indeed would not have a fuel burning jet engine, but rather would make use of electromechanical powered propellers. As such, it could for example propel itself by thrusting out a dense jet of air behind it, but since you're working with the mass of air that is before you another alternative is to proppel the craft by creating a vacuum in front of it.

3) the characteristics of a electromechanical propeller based vacuum drive would be that it can do the things these things seem to do, even in relation to going underwater which a jet engine would not achieve. Propellors will work underwater too, and again a principle of proppeling by creation of vacuum before it would allow to go into the sea splash less as the matter is removed and likely compressed rather than pushed aside. it's somewhat similar to the principle of a jet ski, but reversed by using vacuum before it rather than a jet behind it. There would also be a method to avoid cavitation with this, providing you can just displace the mass before it right behind it once surrounded by water and while youre moving. Picture atleast cavitation as something like an air bubble collapsing on itself trough pressure, inward pressure at that, what you rather might get in this case is that the vehicle ejects pressurised mass behind it that exapnds but in a direction to push the vehicle into the vacuum rather than push directionally against the mass behind it, and thus thereby expanding into the space left behind by the vehicle. So rather than that cavitation would occur behind the vehicle, it might actually occur in front of the vehicle as the vacuum should act as a self imploding bubble in relation to the pressurized mass around it, providing atleast it has the time to do that while the vehicle pulls in mass at a high speed as to maintain the vacuum before it.

4) if you think about what the best shape would be to design such a craft that uses a nuclear fusion power source with electromechanical propellers that needs to be aerodynamic in both air and underwater, you would likely choose .. a tic-tac shape. What is the shape of a rocket that aerodynamically needs to move to space? if it wern't for the jet engines, it would look like a tic tac. What is the typical form of a submarine vessel? Yes, it's a tic tac. No wings needed when one has such a thrust to weight ratio it can perfectly fly around on either vectorial thrust or in fact vacuum creation.

5) You might not be even able to see that the craft is powered by propellors, simply by the rediculous magnitude of revolutions achieved by these with such a power source behind it. These propellors would be a little marvel of science on their own i would immagine, requiring a very high precision with very narrow tolerances. That the craft would apparently be very hot inside though is hardly surprising, fusion might achieve temperatures also produced by the sun, although just aswell friction could heat up such a body however when proppulsion is vacuum based that friction could be avoided, in fact a perfect vacuum has actually a typical temperature of 0°C, so that would explain the coldness on the outside, its as such even a rather clever method to cool the whole thing down albeit that for the temperature to be rather cold on the outside it should have a shell build out of a material that is very low in thermal conductivity like say plexiglass but that can then also explain some sort of "shapelessness". Another things is that a fusion power plant likely would need some water, albeit super compressed even when water is difficult to compress just because you have the power to do it. It would atleast also give potential reason as to why you'd like to take a dive with this thing from time to time, even if h2o could also be filtered out of air.

conclusion: it appears to me thus, that much of the characteristics of those objects could be explained by the simple consideration of it potentially having a nuclear fusion based power source, besides even that if you wanted to design a aerial craft that utilized a nuclear fusion power source that likely it would result in something that akes very much to these tic-tac objects.

disclaimer: i have a basic grasp of fysics, thermo and fluido mechanics aswell, but when coming to such things much is a matter of speculation, i'm just speculating based on what i know, perhaps someone even more knowledgable might correct me on a few things i wouldn't be surprised about it and i'm open to be corrected for function of understanding. ;)
Look, that's all well and good, but how big is the boot? Can it fit a weekly shop?
 
Thanks - will save this for later. If there's one thing I love more than anything it's people who really want to find evidence of the paranormal but are still honest in applying the kind of rigour seen in other scientific disciplines. This is a great example. You have to disprove all other explanations beyond any kind of reasonable doubt. That's how every other physical science subject works.

Another great example is the Ganzfeld Experiments. This is an experiment that tests if humans are able to communicate messages telepathically when all other senses are nullified - it's deemed to be parapsychology and pseudoscientific. A group of psychologists did a load of them in the 70s and 80s and thought they were observing a measurable effect that couldn't be explained. Then Ray Hyman, a noted psychologist and skeptic came along and told them their experiment was interesting but fell short of being rigorous. He put out a communique describing how they could perform the experiments rigorously. After that the community took on his advice and since then the results of Ganzfeld experiments have been decidedly less exciting.

To this day there are parapsychologists out there who will maintain that despite their life's work being in the field they have never found any rigorous proof of parapsychological phenomena. I think that's super cool. Being passionate enough to study something, having no evidence that it exists, yet continuing to search while employing honest scientific principles.

It's like the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge which ran from 1996-2015. Prove that you can do something paranormal in a scientific setting and win one million dollars. Sounds easy. But obviously nobody ever won it.
Absolutely.
I they (especially Mick West who runs that site) goes to great pains that they aren't their to mock the UFO community (many of the contributors come from that background).

Easy to fall into the tit for tat wrestle when it comes to arguing pafsionalty but it serves more to drive a wedge between people (and how easily can the be exploited!).

I'l dive into the Ganzfield Experiments - looks intriguing.
I feel our hope to find something 'paranormal, existential or alien' will lie in many more generations hammering away at science.

As has been said already, the human race has made incredible scientific strides in just a few hundred years.
 
When you think about it, if we did find an ‘off world‘ craft/vehicle here, it’s likely to have crashed unintentionally.

Secondly, it always makes me laugh that we think a biological creature would need to be driving it.

If they managed to get here, it’s highly unlikely it would be manned.
Surely common sense makes you think a robot or some AI based thing would be controlling it. All Sci Fi tends to have that planets inhabitants in a ship etc but in my view that would never happen.

So, in conclusion, my view is that our first contact would be a crashed vehicle unmanned. We would then have to reverse engineer it and I think that could well be happening now.
Yeah, good points

When you consider how much we are using drones today, one would have to assume that a species far more advanced than us might already have it sussed where they don't need beings operating crafts from inside it.
 
There's several threads on the Tic Tac/Gimal sightings on this site.
The level of input, research and thinking has to be applauded.

I don't think I've seen on 'UFO sighting' that they've managed to provide a more down to earth explanation for.

This is a long thread (I've only ever skimmed these topics).
I believe the outcome was the 'tic tac' was just a plane.

Explains that 'hyper speed' jump you've probably seen on the video.

Camera aberrations/out of focus lens are a common one for 'triangle UFOs''

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2004-uss-nimitz-tic-tac-ufo-flir-footage-flir1.9190/

Interesting thread

That said, the pilot of the plane that was tracking it seemed to have a reaction of a man witnessing something extraordinary

This was an extremely experienced pilot and his belief today regarding what he witnessed remains the same

I mean there's lots of theories people can speculate to debunk things, but at the same time, I find it a little bit difficult to think a pilot of vast experience that has flown planes thousands of times and tracked things on radar for years and years in training exercises wouldn't know it's a plane that he was tracking, if it was..
 
Interesting thread

That said, the pilot of the plane that was tracking it seemed to have a reaction of a man witnessing something extraordinary

This was an extremely experienced pilot and his belief today regarding what he witnessed remains the same

I mean there's lots of theories people can speculate to debunk things, but at the same time, I find it a little bit difficult to think a pilot of vast experience that has flown planes thousands of times and tracked things on radar for years and years in training exercises wouldn't know it's a plane that he was tracking, if it was..
There are myriad assumptions and hypothesis lubricating that (lengthy thread). It's very extensive and I've only skimmed bits - same with other threads on there.

Possible your query has been discussed on there, if not ask in. Seems like a friendly place.
 
I would generally be extremely skeptical of the idea of any current terrestrial power having developed fusion capability. This is a technology which is definitely not just around the corner, it's generations away from being a practical reality. I would personally be surprised if commercial fusion is a thing in my lifetime (I'm 32), though obviously humanity has a habit of surprising people with the speed of its ingenuity so who knows.

Is it possible that some other country has discovered some elaborate mechanism that everybody else is totally unaware of which cracks the ability to create fusion reactions? Sure, it can't be ruled out 100% but it would be like finding the philosopher's stone or something. Very unlikely. And there's all kinds of evidence that suggests this isn't the case. Firstly, you can't hide the kind of high-energy physics facilities you need to develop something like this. It's like trying to hide a nuclear programme. The world knew North Korea was developing nuclear weapons way before they told us.

All major governments are pumping billions into fusion technology and so far the best results we have are from programmes like the NIF where they have achieved Q > 1.5. Meaning that the reaction achieved 50% more heat than it used. Which sounds great but the hard part is sustaining that reaction and then extracting that energy gain. This requires building enormous magnets to generate and sustain superhot plasma and an entire power plant infrastructure which is very energy intensive. Some estimates suggest that the Q-value needs to be closer to 100 to be widely commercially viable (though it might be possible to operate at lower Q-values with new engineering breakthroughs). This is after 70+ years of development knowing fusion is a thing.

As a result, the best we've ever done in the many projects across the globe is to obtain about 1% of the energy out of a fusion reactor that we would need to generate power commercially. That's a slight oversimplification because the way these things scale is not strictly linear and there's all kinds of considerations on technical challenges with sustaining the kind of heat we're talking about.

The biggest indicator that nobody has done it already is the existence of ITER. This is the biggest human collaboration project since the ISS. This reactor will cost over 20Bn and is being funded by the EU, China, Russia, the US, Korea, Japan, India, UK and Switzerland. When built it will go online in 2025 but it won't start high-power interactions until 2035 - over 10 years away. It aims to achieve momentary Q = 10 and sustain Q = 4 for 8 minutes. This means at best by 2035, the most ambitious global fusion project will be somewhere between 10-25% of the way to sustainable fusion. And sustainable fusion is not the same as commercial viability. We are - to be frank without being overly negative - still absolutely miles away.

And we're talking here about taking the above concept and shrinking it down to the size of something that can fit in an aircraft. For a country like Russia to have done this it would be a bit like they'd invented the smartphone before even inventing telegrams. Just not really feasible.

Disclaimer: I speak as somebody with a physics degree who understands the basic concepts at play here, but I am absolutely not a fusion engineer and I'd advise digging deeper to gain your own understanding.

Well I think you’re much better qualified than I am to be right on this or any other specific scientific topic.

However, despite the widely held supposition that scientific knowledge and technical expertise develop in a roughly linear fashion, it’s no secret that the major changes actually come in leaps and bounds without following any regular or incremental pattern, and history proves this to all who care to look.

One amusing example of this was witnessed by millions of us watching the fraud Uri Gellar supposedly bending spoons on TV whilst surrounded by and closely observed by dumbfounded western scientists who were totally baffled by his seemingly unique and unworldly abilities.

The fact of the matter was that, unbeknown to them, he was simply employing cutlery made from metals with properties (that were well developed in the USSR but beyond imagination in the west) whereby combinations of metal alloys and revolutionary annealing techniques allowed the production of metals that changed shape in a predictable fashion when subject to small temperature changes.
Thus, the heat produced by the friction of rubbing a spoon handle with his thumb could induce that spoon to quite quickly revert to a predetermined twisted state.
What he was doing was employing science that was such a step change from what was known at the time that western scientists couldn’t even conceive of the possibility of what he was demonstrating right in front of them.

The world we live in is shaped by out of synch scientific development. In our world of greed, conquest & capitalism it allowed the use of modern weapons against longer existing and more culturally developed societies, as can be seen in the genocides committed against the North and South American native peoples the native peoples of Australia, Africa etc.
Many of the societies almost completely wiped out by the guns and bullets that we developed in only a handful of decades had histories going back so far that we were cave dwellers at a time when they already had rich histories.

And developing and proving a science doesn’t necessarily mean that a step change to use that knowledge in it’s most dramatic fashion happens.
The Chinese had ‘gunpowder‘ and had been using metal lamination to produce blades that were light and flexible without being brittle, while we were still fighting with sticks, but they didn’t take the next small step that could have led quickly to the production of the guns that we used to subjugate the rest of the planet.

I suppose that the point of what I’m saying is that step changes in scientific knowledge are more the norm than the exception.
What seems impossible today can be in common use in very little time and I say this as a bloke who grew up with black & white tv on 2 channels only, and a home telephone on a party line that worked down a string of copper wrapped in waxed cotton, and who’s now sitting in front of an iPad sending information via Wi-Fi and then down a fibre, through a server on the far side of the planet to appear in print on this here forum.

What I’m doing right now was totally impossible to the degree it was inconceivable to all except except some theoretical thinkers until not long ago at all. Indeed, the clunky iPad type devices used in early Star Trek were readily accepted by the viewers as being something that might happen (perhaps) in several hundred years time but it’s with us today.

I await developments with keen anticipation. Y’never know eh? ;-)
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.