10 ms·

UFO just means "unidentified flying object," which could include things like a balloon, a meteor, another airplane, etc. Not sure why everyone immediately jump

• thestartup 8y ago
  While not a conclusion, the reports of objects that defy the known laws of physics are extensive by this point. If the incidents are not the result of "alien activity" perhaps the US Military does have supremely advanced technology under wraps and is demonstrating this technology to ambiguously create the idea that it could be "aliens".
  • hopler 8y ago
    Please link to some reports from reputable sources.
    • vorpalhex 8y ago
      I don't know about "defying the laws of physics" (since if it could truly defy the laws of the physics that would be whack) but plenty of stealth bombers were reported as "mysterious UFOs" before they were officially revealed in any capacity - and I'm sure there is no shortage of experimental craft that never made the cut. Hell, even if someone saw a B-2 today they'd probably think it's alien.
      • Izkata 8y ago
        > I don't know about "defying the laws of physics" (since if it could truly defy the laws of the physics that would be whack) It refers to objects that start and stop moving instantaneously, or make turns at hard right angles, as if they have no inertia.
        • abakker 8y ago
          ball lightning?
        • gdy 8y ago
          Very high acceleration and deceleration don't defy laws of physics.
          • dx87 8y ago
            They didn't say very high acceleration, they said instantaneous changes in speed, like the object has no mass.
            • Dylan16807 8y ago
              But the context is visual observation, where there's no way to tell the difference between the two.
      • PhaedrusV 8y ago
        When my mom watched "Independence Day" she started booing the B-2's because she thought they were aliens...
        • ralusek 8y ago
          Your mom sounds like she likes sports.
          • sctb 8y ago
            Please don't comment like this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      • dsfyu404ed 8y ago
        >Hell, even if someone saw a B-2 today they'd probably think it's alien. They'd probably think they're living in the matrix and several pixels of sky are glitching.
    • joshuaheard 8y ago
      There was one on HN last year where Navy pilots saw an object hover above the water then shoot up 10,000 feet in a matter of seconds, hover there, then come back down to the surface. It bounced up and down like that several times then shot off into space. One pilot said the bouncing seemed like a preparation for its eventual takeoff. It was confirmed by Navy radar. There was a great interview last night on Tucker Carlson where the expert said there are basically two possibilities that the military should explore: one of our terrestrial enemies has an aviation capability more advanced than ours, or an extraterrestrial civilization has capabilities more advanced than us. Of course, there could be some sort of natural phenomenon we don't know about. In any event, it is worth investigating in a rational way.
      • mc32 8y ago
        Not sure if the upper atmosphere has something similar to Fata Morgana, but at least in the lower atmosphere it can deceive the location of objects in the distance.
      • lwansbrough 8y ago
        Linked in another comment is the incident you’re recalling: https://youtu.be/G9D8dzl4zGk https://youtu.be/G9D8dzl4zGk
        • waiseristy 8y ago
          And an interview with the pilot https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/035-ufos/ https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/035-ufos/
        • internet_user 8y ago
          hard to trust video these days, unless there is a chain of custody. How are we to know it's not someone testing their film director/CGI skills?
          • dogma1138 8y ago
            This was released by the pentagon and covered by very large media outlet, the pilots were interviewed. This doesn’t mean it’s aliens but this is pretty fucked up.
    • MockObject 8y ago
      https://web.archive.org/web/20110716064152/http://dewoody.net/ufo/Science_in_Default.html https://web.archive.org/web/20110716064152/http://dewoody.ne...
  • sago 8y ago
    "Defy the known laws of physics" is thrown about a lot. But usually means "If what we are seeing is a self-contained vehicle, it exceeds reasonable assumptions about manoeuvring envelopes for known technologies." The "laws of physics" are pretty wide. There are many kinetic phenomena, entirely consistent with them, whose dynamics can't be filmed even at thousands of frames per second. There are all kinds of potential optical and electromagnetic effects (whether natural or intentional) that could show essentially arbitrary scale and motion. "Def[ies] the known laws of physics", is a good sign your imagination is too narrow, or your understanding of physics too small.
    • hermitdev 8y ago
      Not trying to be pedantic, but I think this fits well with your comment. To the best of my knowledge, the only accepted laws of physics relate to the 3 laws of thermodynamics. Everything else is still considered a theory (to the best of my knowledge), even if the theory works really damn well (for instance relativity is still considered a theory). I know there are accepted "laws" in other fields related to physics, such as Ohm's or Kerchov's laws in electrical engineering, but I don't think these are generally accepted scientific laws, more generally accepted as engineering laws where for nearly all cases for engineering, they apply to a sufficient accuracy to produce products that are sufficient.
      • mehrdadn 8y ago
        > To the best of my knowledge, the only accepted laws of physics relate to the 3 laws of thermodynamics. How about conservation of momentum?
        • chopin 8y ago
          Following Noether's theorem conservation of momentum relies on translational symmetry of space which we assume but have no proof for (other than measurements of conservation of momentum). In so far it is theory territory. Thermodynamics on the other hand relies only on effects of large numbers (of hard balls) with no further assumptions. In so far I can understand the GP assertion although I am reluctant. You put in the hard ball assumption (particles can exchange energy) which may put it in theory territory. As well the laws hold only for equilibrium situations which can be reached in (sufficiently dense) baryonic matter but maybe not for non-baryonic matter.
  • JudgeWapner 8y ago
    > defy the known laws of physics my guess is some kind of ion thruster like they have for spacecraft, but somehow powerful enough to work on earth.
• cmroanirgo 8y ago
  From the article: > In some cases, pilots — many of whom are engineers and academy graduates — say they observed small spherical objects flying in formation. Others say they’ve seen white, Tic-Tac-shaped vehicles. Aside from drones, all engines rely on burning fuel to generate power, but these vehicles all had no air intake, no wind, and no exhaust. "It's very mysterious, and they still seem to exceed our aircraft in speed," he said, calling it a "truly radical technology." > "Imagine you see highly advanced vehicles, they appear on radar systems, they look bizarre, no one knows where they're from. This happens on a recurring basis, and no one does anything," > “Pilots are upset, and they’re trying to help wake up a slumbering system,” > In 2017, the Pentagon first confirmed the existence of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, a government operation launched in 2007 to collect and analyze “anomalous aerospace threats.” As the Post’s Joby Warrick reported, the investigation ranged from “advanced aircraft fielded by traditional U.S. adversaries to commercial drones to possible alien encounters.” etc, etc. So no there's little that explicitly states UFO is all about ET, but the inference is very high, considering the credibility of the witnessess and the frequency in which such things occur. That the sightings are typically over restricted airspace (military bases) is also rather indicative that these sightings are not balloons, other (known) aircraft, nor meteors.
  • ridgewell 8y ago
    >Others say they’ve seen white, Tic-Tac-shaped vehicles. Aside from drones, all engines rely on burning fuel to generate power, but these vehicles all had no air intake, no wind, and no exhaust. These sound like weather balloons to me. I don't think most engineers or academy graduates are trained in meteorology either. Not that I'm saying this is the definite answer or that I am somehow correctly inferring all of this. I'm just proposing that legitimate explanations exist.
    • Razengan 8y ago
      Amazing how you cut the very next sentence after that quote which rules out ““balloons.””
    • inamberclad 8y ago
• logjammin 8y ago
  The back and forth in the comments is kinda fun to read, but regardless of what we think these things are, shouldn't we at least be stoked that someone (aliens, Chinese military) may have some cool-ass tekmology, and that the US Navy seems to think so too?
• em-bee 8y ago
  even if they are all glitches or otherwise explainable phenomena, if there is no formal process to record them, there is no way to formally analyze and explain them. those things that seemingly defy the laws of physics could become explainable if we could get more data about them and study them. it's the only way to get to the bottom of this. also further study will help reduce future reports as we then can train people to better understand them. maybe that object flying mach 3 is an optical illusion caused by some combination of factors. like a mirage. by studying the effects and correlating the factors we'll come to understand them better and may even be able to predict and intentionally create them. in short, this is by no means a hunt for aliens, but on the contrary, it's a hunt for data to help us understand our world better.