4 ms·

If you're going to call his use of those terms incorrect, can you explain a craft travelling supersonic without jets or rockets, leaving no emissions, utilizing

by elif 7y ago

If you're going to call his use of those terms incorrect, can you explain a craft travelling supersonic without jets or rockets, leaving no emissions, utilizing no airfoils, consistent with our understanding of physics?

knodi123 7y ago
well, a meteor could fit your description. but more generally, what he's saying is that the sensors are not infallible, especially when dealing with advanced materials.
- godelski 7y ago
  I'm basically saying Occam's Razor here.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
A meteorite? A projectile? A sensor ghost?
jazzyjackson 7y ago
I don't know, the video didn't show me that the objects traveled at any speed -- that's from the pilots testimony, but maybe it appeared to move against the backdrop as they were banking around it. I would expect fighter pilots to be a good judge, but maybe you lose some sense of velocity when you're surprised by something you haven't seen before. Separately, radar operators saw something they didn't understand. It could have been noise as they are now looking out for tiny drones and very small radar signatures, they have sensitivity turned way up. Sometimes you see things that aren't really there. I'm honestly going weather balloons on this one.
- mcphage 7y ago
  > I don't know, the video didn't show me that the objects traveled at any speed That’s because you’re watching a YouTube video that was filmed on a potato, instead of actually, y’know, being there.
  - jazzyjackson 7y ago
    Well my point is all the conjecture of this unexplained supersonic movement is all hearsay based off eye witnesses. I don't trust eye witnesses, maybe they saw something maybe they didn't, but I haven't seen anything that seems to hold any water.
    - mcphage 7y ago
      I do get that. On the other hand, if you look at the believability hierarchy—while eye witnesses rank pretty low, drive-by internet commentators rank significantly lower still.
- chrisweekly 7y ago
  I'm reminded of Sesame Street's Grover rushing towards the camera saying "Near!", then running away and shouting "Far!". Unimaginable velocity and agility inferred by movements of an object perceived to be large and distant might be more easily explained by one much smaller and closer.
mannykannot 7y ago
Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that your description actually describes an artificial object that has actually been observed -- what aspect of quantum mechanics explains it? Invoking QM as an explanation of something you can't explain is not a correct use of the term, unless it actually does provide an explanation, and the same goes for all the other terms.
- 100100010001 7y ago
  An anti-gravity engine could be used to allow the use of quantum levitation to stabilize the craft in the earth’s magnetic field.
jayd16 7y ago
Even if it was literally a space craft from another world, nothing suggests the fields of nuclear or quantum science are necessary for a craft we know nothing about.
scarejunba 7y ago
Well, it's obviously God visiting us. Anyone can come up with these untestable hypotheses. That's not useful by itself.
godelski 7y ago
In my OP I did. I suggested that it is not the craft doing those maneuvers but in fact that the sensors malfunctioned. Adversarial attacks on tracking systems is a huge. There's an entire field around it, called "stealth". Stealth just means fooling things. Eyes, radar, tracking systems, whatever. I would call these things pretty stealthy. As to actually meeting your given qualifications and assuming the sensors were right and told EXACTLY what you specify, no I can't. But I can't explain that even when including QM and nuclear tech (or rather what I can even fathom by stretching well into the realms of almost possible). Even things like EM drives or anti-gravity should leave other types of signatures. (Note: I do have a physics degree. I also studied exotic propulsion devices.) I'm going with Occam's Razor here and guessing at advanced stealth tech or simply the system failing.

by elif 7y ago

knodi123 7y ago

well, a meteor could fit your description. but more generally, what he's saying is that the sensors are not infallible, especially when dealing with advanced materials.

godelski 7y ago
I'm basically saying Occam's Razor here.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

A meteorite? A projectile? A sensor ghost?

jazzyjackson 7y ago

I don't know, the video didn't show me that the objects traveled at any speed -- that's from the pilots testimony, but maybe it appeared to move against the backdrop as they were banking around it. I would expect fighter pilots to be a good judge, but maybe you lose some sense of velocity when you're surprised by something you haven't seen before. Separately, radar operators saw something they didn't understand. It could have been noise as they are now looking out for tiny drones and very small radar signatures, they have sensitivity turned way up. Sometimes you see things that aren't really there. I'm honestly going weather balloons on this one.

mcphage 7y ago
> I don't know, the video didn't show me that the objects traveled at any speed That’s because you’re watching a YouTube video that was filmed on a potato, instead of actually, y’know, being there.
- jazzyjackson 7y ago
  Well my point is all the conjecture of this unexplained supersonic movement is all hearsay based off eye witnesses. I don't trust eye witnesses, maybe they saw something maybe they didn't, but I haven't seen anything that seems to hold any water.
  - mcphage 7y ago
    I do get that. On the other hand, if you look at the believability hierarchy—while eye witnesses rank pretty low, drive-by internet commentators rank significantly lower still.
chrisweekly 7y ago
I'm reminded of Sesame Street's Grover rushing towards the camera saying "Near!", then running away and shouting "Far!". Unimaginable velocity and agility inferred by movements of an object perceived to be large and distant might be more easily explained by one much smaller and closer.

mannykannot 7y ago

Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that your description actually describes an artificial object that has actually been observed -- what aspect of quantum mechanics explains it? Invoking QM as an explanation of something you can't explain is not a correct use of the term, unless it actually does provide an explanation, and the same goes for all the other terms.

100100010001 7y ago
An anti-gravity engine could be used to allow the use of quantum levitation to stabilize the craft in the earth’s magnetic field.

jayd16 7y ago

Even if it was literally a space craft from another world, nothing suggests the fields of nuclear or quantum science are necessary for a craft we know nothing about.

scarejunba 7y ago

Well, it's obviously God visiting us. Anyone can come up with these untestable hypotheses. That's not useful by itself.

godelski 7y ago

In my OP I did. I suggested that it is not the craft doing those maneuvers but in fact that the sensors malfunctioned. Adversarial attacks on tracking systems is a huge. There's an entire field around it, called "stealth". Stealth just means fooling things. Eyes, radar, tracking systems, whatever. I would call these things pretty stealthy. As to actually meeting your given qualifications and assuming the sensors were right and told EXACTLY what you specify, no I can't. But I can't explain that even when including QM and nuclear tech (or rather what I can even fathom by stretching well into the realms of almost possible). Even things like EM drives or anti-gravity should leave other types of signatures. (Note: I do have a physics degree. I also studied exotic propulsion devices.) I'm going with Occam's Razor here and guessing at advanced stealth tech or simply the system failing.