Do extra terrestrials exist? If so...

Castiel said:
What exactly is it that you are all arguing about?
Click to expand...

If such sightings have broken laws of physics.
If a radar cross section must mean it's mechanical.
And as it makes manoeuvres it must gave pilots and as the Gs would be so high, it couldn't possibly be humans and for some reason it couldn't be remote controlled.
 
look let me just say that these ufo's in the examples given do not show any evidence of using a type of engine that shoots fire out the backside and, employing the Newtonian law of action with an equal and opposite reaction. This is how it breaks our understanding of current flight mechanics.
No, it seems either you or somebody else said that I was mistakenly assuming there to be occupants in these "machines" when they were reported to be capable of completing manouvers which could kill a human being. Regarding the examples of the two sightings I gave, I merely claimed there to be visual sightings of the ufo's along with an accompanying radar signature and that on these two occasions the objects appeared to be physical. Concerning the Tehran incident it was not F15s but F4 Phantoms and the Belgium ufo incident it was two f16s. That's it now. I've had enough of ufo's ;)

What exactly is it that you are all arguing about?
Click to expand...
Whatever it is I am not talking about aliens. I'm not even arguing: only describing and dribling and going in to meltdown and losing the will to live.
 
Last edited:
Oh wow firing a flame out the back is not the only way of propulsion and certainly does not brake laws of physics.

I never new prop-planes, helicopters, mag lev trains or a number of other methods broke laws of physics.
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
Oh wow firing a flame out the back is not the only way of propulsion and certainly does not brake laws of physics.

I never new prop-planes, helicopters, mag lev trains or a number of other methods broke laws of physics.
Click to expand...

All of the examples you mention above are still governed by the Newtonian law of action with an equal and opposite reaction and as such do not break the "laws" of physics.I repeat, i did not say they broke the "laws" of physics. The ufos described in the two examples along with many others that are reported do. At least that is the current understanding/depiction of them.

Regarding helicopters:

In accordance with Newton's law of action and reaction, the helicopter fuselage tends to rotate in the direction opposite to the rotor blades. This effect is called torque. Torque must be counteracted and or controlled before flight is possible. In tandem rotor and coaxial helicopter designs, the rotors turn in opposite directions to neutralize or eliminate torque effects. In tip-jet helicopters, power originates at the blade tip and equal and opposite reaction is against the air; there is no torque between the rotor and the fuselage. However, the torque problem is especially important in single main rotor helicopters with a fuselage mounted power source. The torque effect on the fuselage is a direct result of the work/resistance of the main rotor. Therefore torque is at the geometric center of the main rotor. Torque results from the rotor being driven by the engine power output. Any change in engine power output brings about a corresponding change in torque effect. Furthermore, power varies with the flight maneuver and results in a variable torque effect that must be continually corrected
Click to expand...

The example of the Mag lev is an interesting and relevant one. A force is still active upon the maglev albeit from a distance there is still an effect on its mass (the train). So that does not break the law of physics either. Simplified I will admit.
 
Sarcasm detector broken.

That quote doesn't help you. I know they apply with physics and they don't spit fire out.
you dont get it do you, how the Hell can you state it breaks the laws of physics, ie. equal and opposite reactions. You have no evidence for this, there is zero reason to even think this. Why are they not exerting opposite reaction? Because they aren't spitting out a flame? That was what you said, you dont need to spit out a flame to exert an opposite reaction. Hence examples.

And no the current hypothis is not that they break the laws of physics, unless you watch YouTube.
 
Last edited:
Because they aren't spitting out a flame? That was what you said, you dont need to spit out a flame to exert an opposite reaction. Hence examples.
Click to expand...
No but it is the only thing we can use to achieve those speeds despite the lame examples you gave about the helicopters etc.

You nearly proposed a good example concerning the mag lev but I suspect you lack the technical expertise to explain it.

Why are they not exerting opposite reaction? Because they aren't spitting out a flame? That was what you said, you dont need to spit out a flame to exert an opposite reaction. Hence examples.
Click to expand...
Because they exhibit the characteristics you only attribute to youtube (sarcasm)
 
book sets the record straight. "UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record" (Harmony Books / The Crown Publishing Group) by journalist Leslie Kean pulls back the curtain on the incredible occurrences of unexplained behavior by unknown objects over many decades.

"UFOs" includes a foreword by John Podesta and riveting, first-person accounts written by over a dozen military and aviation witnesses and official investigators from around the world. Contributors include a former governor of Arizona, the former head of the FAA's Accidents and Investigations Division, military generals from five countries, a retired senior research scientist from NASA, Air Force and commercial pilots, and government officials from agencies investigating UFOs in their respective countries.
Click to expand...
sounds legit
 
Whether an object appears to 'break the laws of known physics' or not is immaterial though.....if an object cannot be indentified, it simply cannot be indentified..anything else is pure speculation and it makes no difference ultimately what the relevant qualification of the observer is.....if they don't know, then they don't know...they are in the same position of knowledge as the kid stood in his backyard looking at the same thing and saying I don't know either Dad......They can ultimately only say what it is not, not what it is.
 
Last edited:
ethan said:
No but it is the only thing we can use to achieve those speeds despite the lame examples you gave about the helicopters etc.

)
Click to expand...

No it isn't. In no way does it break physics. In no way does it show signs of no equal reactions.
Anti matter reaction for a start would produce more than enough thrust and that way beyond the speeds we see here.

It simply doesn't break our understanding of physics and it certainly doesn't need to.
 
Another reported thing about some of these "machines" is that they are silent. Apart from referring to the law of inertia again, since solid objects generate pressure waves as they move through a substance such as air, silent "saucers" or craft are implausible and yet there they are (for want of a better description) making no noise and doing the kinds of fantastic manouvers some people believe can only be attributed to youtube.

Whether an object appears to 'break the laws of known physics' or not is immaterial though.....if an object cannot be indentified, it simply cannot be indentified..anything else is pure speculation and it makes no difference ultimately what the relevant qualification of the observer is.....if they don't know, then they don't know...they are in the same position of knowledge as the kid stood in his backyard looking at the same thing and saying I don't know either Dad......
Click to expand...
But somebody with the resources and science must know something somewhere.

Anti matter reaction for a start would produce more than enough thrust and that way beyond the speeds we see here
Click to expand...
Lol at that: An F35 running on antimatter.:D
 
Last edited:
Davepen said:
[..]
There are many planets out there that we know of in the same situation as earth [..]
Click to expand...

Utterly wrong. We don't know of any such planet, let alone many.

The closest we know of is a handful of planets that very likely exist, are probably rocky and probably only a few times larger than Earth and which get very roughly about the same sort of amount of energy from their star as Earth does.

We don't know if any of them is anywhere near being in the same situation as Earth. We don't know if they have a stable axis of rotation (Earth's relatively massive moon stabilises it - we've no idea if those other planets have anything similar). We don't know if they have any atmosphere, let alone one like Earth's. We don't know if they're battered by asteroids or not. We don't know many things about them.
 
ethan said:
[..] What do we have today, given our current understanding of flight physics that can do an instant u-turn at speed witout killing the occupants? [..]
Click to expand...

Unmanned aircraft.

Lights (sightings are of lights, not of craft - it's assumed that the lights are on an aircraft).

Just two off the top of my head.
 
ethan said:
It was noted that in spite of these speeds and acceleration times there was a marked absence of any sonic boom.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That implies to me that there wasn't a physical object, particularly since it was also stated that visual contact was never made.

So they never saw something that went supersonic without a sonic boom...and the most likely explanation is aliens and technology that breaks current understanding of physics? May as well just call it divine manifestation. Maybe Thor had been at the mead and was driving his chariot erratically.
 
Angilion said:
Utterly wrong. We don't know of any such planet, let alone many.

The closest we know of is a handful of planets that very likely exist, are probably rocky and probably only a few times larger than Earth and which get very roughly about the same sort of amount of energy from their star as Earth does.

We don't know if any of them is anywhere near being in the same situation as Earth. We don't know if they have a stable axis of rotation (Earth's relatively massive moon stabilises it - we've no idea if those other planets have anything similar). We don't know if they have any atmosphere, let alone one like Earth's. We don't know if they're battered by asteroids or not. We don't know many things about them.
Click to expand...

"While only about a dozen planets have been confirmed in the habitable zone, the Kepler spacecraft has identified a further 54 candidates and current estimates indicate "at least 500 million" such planets in the Milky Way.[6]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone

As to battered with asteroids yes they will have been or still are, but so was earth
 
Angilion said:
That implies to me that there wasn't a physical object, particularly since it was also stated that visual contact was never made.

So they never saw something that went supersonic without a sonic boom...and the most likely explanation is aliens and technology that breaks current understanding of physics? May as well just call it divine manifestation. Maybe Thor had been at the mead and was driving his chariot erratically.
Click to expand...

If that is the Terhan incident you are referring to then you would b correct to point that out. But I think I remember reading there were up to four different coloured lights flashing at the same time in what appeared to b a square formation. Maybe that's why the confusion arose as to there actually being something mechanical. Regarding the absence of a sonic boom, well that appears to be a feature of numerous UFO sightings where there is eyewitness testimony confirms an object of some sort to be physical or showing evidence to have been designed. As regards intelligent behaving lights, I would be left non plused.
 
Glaucus said:
Silent from what distance? Over a roar of an f16 on full power?
Click to expand...

That made me laugh.


The trouble I have with sightings is that there are 1000s with completely different crafts.
Every one that people have linked to in this thread have been totally unique and that means we must also have 1000s of different Aliens who are visiting us.
If only Joe Bloggs and Joe Bloggs the Pilot can get it down to one or two craft just like they did with the Greys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom