Why no Sonic Boom from UFO's?

Comrads, this man Stan Deyeo tells and demonstrates all about UFO's and why they don't cause a sonic boom.........

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
FastWalker used the term 'vacuum', which was unfortunate.

Thanks for the clarifacation weedwhacker.

I typed the response in a hurry so indeed it came out a little weird.

The craft that was photographed during the Belgium UFO wave also seemed to use advanced propulsion.

Photo

Ten years later, the SOBEPS asks the Orsay Optical Institute for counter-analysis. The purpose of this manoeuvre is to analyse the picture with more recent software and to compare the results with the old data. Result: the picture is not faked, and they have discovered something rather surprising, which was invisible until then: a vortex of moving particles surrounding the vehicle. To this day, no one really knows the nature of those particles. It could be an advanced propulsion technology.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This question was probably answered long before most of you here were born.

Leonard Cramp's Piece for a Jig-saw: UFOs and Anti-gravity Pt.1 1966 is probably the most remarkable book you could ever read on this subject.

Why do I say "could ever read"? Well, I would go as far to say, that one day soon, Cramp's books will be exposed as being "the truth hidden in plain sight" on the UFO phenomena.

You need to get the book (and his follow-up books) and you may find all your questions answered, including many you never thought about.

Some of the early UFO images inside are alone worth the price of tracking down this book. The G-Field images of craft in acceleration are astounding -and way before Photoshop days of course...

As for no sonic booms, well, the vectored G-Field extends WAY ahead of the leading edge of the craft, like a sharp knife at the edge, displacing air much more gently well in advance of the actual craft. Possibly miles ahead.


fwiw -UFO's are very real. But I don't think any UFO's are 'alien' at all, That has been a colossal ruse to distract attention away from the shy clique of separatist humans who have been refining them since the early part of the last century. The technology is THE definitive military advantage, hence the need for total cover-up until... well, the 'until' is the bit that worries me. Maybe I should ask Mr Cramp -he knows a lot you see.

reply to post by ls1cameric

It's most likely because our crafts use thrust which in theory makes noise, and the sound particles traveling at a certain speed somewhat collide with the particles which are in the air itself, creating the bang and the visual result.

Now UFO's assuming you mean ones of "advanced" species are most likely to be Anti-gravity, meaning it doesn't need thrust to lift it, hence why you see footage of UFO's defying the laws of gravity such as right angle turns whilst traveling well beyond 1000MPH.

Thats my bet anyway

9ja-hybrid, the reasons for sonic boom are very well known and documented. Just google it.

UFO's don't defy any laws of gravity at all. They make their own gravity and 'fly' by vectoring it.

See Cramps' books, you'll enjoy them I promise.

I'm willingfully giving a short answer here, and I mean to answer most questions raised even in this thread through it.

Phage even (who is probably one of the most respected "skeptics") will find here some answers.

The answer to that "mystery" lies in the depth of what is called MHD: MagnetoHydroDynamics".

I will just look like all those I crticize myself here: I can't tell you my sources... At least, I can't give them a name. The fact is that MHD was studied a long time ago (early 60's) in US, USSR (then), and France. Skipping many details, it is now a theory that has found many ways of applicability.

One of the first and best ways was about underwater objects. Torpedoes. Even the fastest submarines of today move at a mere few dozens of knots, at best. There are nowadays torpedoes doing over 1500Km/h. I'm not too sure how much exactly (40-45knots) were the torpedoes bacl 50 years ago, but that is an enormous difference.

How is that possible? A material thing moving twice the speed of sound or more underwater? ... Well, how is a bit too much for me to explain, although I can give a few clues.

Without details, electricity and magnetism are strongly related. If, in an electricity conducting medium, you manage to create an orthogonal magnetic field, that would basically ionize the medium. Water, not too surprisingly, is quite a good conductor, because water on earth is mainly unpure, i.e. salted.

Air, however, is another issue. But, keeping in mind that you create around your own vessel an electrical field, is "ionizable" too. As a matter of fact, ionized air is coloured, and it is a colour that matches many UFO's accounts: blue!

Ionize air around you, then apply a magnetic field. We still don't know today what gravity is exactly (field, force, etc.), but the combination of electric & magnetic field, when they're making a 90° angle, is resulting in an accelerating force, obeying the "3 fingers rule" (the "hand rule"?).

What happens precisely is largely unknown, but the results are measurable: the medium through which the object in the origin of the 2 fields is moving, is basically opening the space in the direction of movement, there is no friction anymore!

Without friction, it is clear that the sonic bang can't happen.

I know I've been very evasive about all of it, and I know that saying "I can't quote sources" is totally suspect. However, I can give many more details to anyone interested. I have started on ATS at least 2 threads about MHD in the past, and none have received a lot of interest. That is probably because it is not taken seriously. That's what happened in France 36 years ago: not taken seriously. I can nevertheless assure you that it is all serious, and some french scientists are now regretting...

If you don't believe me, search for a man named Young, in 1966, who made a 3.5 meters submarine move in the water with MHD technology. Yes, 1966!

Spooky, Cramp covered all that stuff back in the 50's.

ALL the current genius'es on this subject stand on his shoulders. He was there first by a clear mile and deserves some respect.

No sound, No boom...

To the best of our knowledge we have no yet produced an aircraft or any sort of vehicle that is able to break the sound barrier that doesn't produce sound itself. I'm not sure on the technicalites of the theory but if the craft produces no sound as some witnesses have described in pervious UFO cases then why would break the 'sound' barrier be an issue. Moral of the theory is that if there is no sound produced by the object breaking the speed of sound then there will be no boom.

In fact, the first person who addressed the topic was French Plantier in the 1950s. Then, as correctly pointed out by the previous poster, the ideas were expanded by British aeronautical engineer L.Cramp in the 1960s. However, the most extensive coverage of this topic is by Paul R. Hill, who was a famous aerodynamicist in his day (working at NACA/NASA until his retirement in the 1970s).

You can refer to their respective books for the detailed coverage of this topic, but if you're just interested in the general idea rather than detailed calculations, you can read it at:

UFO technical overview (goto #18 Sound)
UFO physics

Quote:
No shock waves or 'sonic boom' are produced even when the UFOs are traveling several times the speed of sound. One theory for this is manipulation of the acceleration-type force field, resulting in a constant-pressure, compression-free zone without shockwave in which the vehicle is surrounded by a subsonic flow-pattern of streamlines and subsonic velocity ratios. In his book Hill -who was a famous aerodynamicist in his day- provices detailed calculations and possible arrangement of force field generators within spherical and elliptical UFOs, which would produce the necessary effect.

PS: No offense intended, but judging from the flurry of bogus "answers" offered in this and similar threads in the past, I sometimes have to wonder whether some people are intentionally trying to obscure these topics.

reply to post by SpookyVince

I am aware of MHD and its theoretical use in underwater propulsion. By exposing the water surrounding the craft to a magnetic field and an electric current, the water is forced backward, causing the craft to move forward. For a reasonably sized craft a very intense magnetic field and a very strong electrical current are required. It doesn't seem to be very practical.

Since seawater is already a conductor it is not necessary it to be ionized for MHD but I think you may be confusing MHD with supercavitation. Supercavitation causes a bubble to form around the craft which reduces drag (but does not provide propulsion). Even with the reduction in drag a tremendous amount of thrust is required to reach high speeds. The fastest torpedo I've heard of (shkval) uses supercavitation and can go 360kph but I believe it is rocket powered.

Friction is not related to the generation of shockwaves (and sonic booms). They are caused by compression effects. I have run across some interesting experiments with the use of plasma and the reduction of shock waves (and possibly sonic booms) in air but I still have my doubts that it is possible to eliminate sonic booms entirely.

[edit on 1/27/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Shuzitzu


An object does not have to produce sound to produce a sonic boom. A sonic boom is a shockwave produced by an object moving through the air faster than the air can "get out of the way".

Maybe the sonic boom occur in their dimension, and they are so sick and tired of it, so they visit us from time to time to get a relief, LOL

I'm joking of course.

reply to post by Phage

Some theoretical papers by MHD expert Jean-Pierre Petit about this fascinating subject:
-Theoretical analysis of shock wave anihilation with MHD force field
-Shock wave cancellation in gas by Lorentz force action
www.mhdprospects.com...

Is it possible? Probably. We constantly even in a very tiny span of time (in the grand scheme of things), discover and create things and effects that 20 years before, was thought to be utterly impossible.

If a species of sentient beings can design crafts or technology that allow them to traverse the immense distances between suns, I sort of don't think that overcoming the effects of a sonic boom would be a huge hurdle for them.

Just because we've not figured out how to do it (and even we are making strides in this field), doesn't mean it can't be done.

reply to post by nablator


Really interesting material. I'm beginning to change my mind.

We think that supersonic flight could be achieved without shock waves. This new field should be explored and would make possible to cruise at high velocity in dense air, at low altitude and high mach number.

www.mhdprospects.com...

It seems the idea is to use MHD to actively shape the shock waves out of existence. High tech, definitely. Do you know of any experimental results?

[edit on 1/27/2009 by Phage]

I think the plasma theory may hold some some answers to this question. A triangle craft that I witnessed in 2005 had a bluish white glow and appeared as an orb from the side and back view. The speed the craft attained as it disappeared into the horizon should have broke the sound barrier, but it was silent.

Another sighting I had in 1980 was of a craft that was landed between 1/2 to 3/4 miles from me. It appeared as a pair of lights side by side, one light was blue the other red. As I watched the lights trying to figure out what it was, the lights began to increase in intensity. The object then effortlessly accelerated straight up into and above the clouds in a matter of seconds. I did some calculations on the objects speed based on triangulation and a formula for uniformly accelerated motion and my more conservative estimates had the object traveling at speeds approaching 2000 mph! Yet, there was no sound at all.

I don't think the folding of space theory would apply in these types of cases since the objects were visible at all times as the objects accelerated. I would think if an object traveled in this manner it would just blink out and disappear.

The vectored gravity theory to me seems questionable. If the gravity field is deflecting the air in front of the craft. The very act of displacing the air would break the sound barrier as well. I haven't looked at the MHD theory yet so I can't give an opinion on that. Just thought I would give some input based on real observations. Thanks

I don't know anything about aerodynamics, but could it be because of the shape of the saucer???
Well, that wouldn't apply to the triangle-shaped ones, but that's still a damn good question!!!
Maybe since their technology is so much more advanced, they just found a way around it.
I don't know.. Only they do

reply to post by impaired


Well the simple answer to the OP's question is: Obviously no one knows. If anyone actually knew how UFOs could do this, then they would be millionaires, having cashed in the idea to all the defense contractors.

If the question was in a way saying "UFOs don't exist because they don't create sonic booms," then I'd say that's a very weak attempt and angle to try and discredit the sightings. Considering the leaps and bounds at which we discover new and 'amazing' things, is there really any doubt that almost any current limitation couldn't be breached in the next 100.. 200.. 500 years?

Zorgon is right. There is also laminar flow and inertia dampening, a la Coanda and Poher respectively. And that is just three, without going into multidimensional physics and wormholes.

Personally, I prefer the plasma variety. The tech can be adapted to a wide range, including rockets and fusion.

Edit to add: I see there is some discussion on MHD above. That would fall into the laminar flow. There are several other laminar flows, EHD (ElectroHydroDynamic) and the classical Coanda effect, already known in aerodynamics. This last one is the principle by which the Tesla turbine works. I have seen car washes which use Tesla turbines for quick drying times.

[edit on 1/28/2009 by Matyas]

A couple more old reports with decent observations that may contain a few clues;

Coyne Incident 1973 the craft was observed by the crew of a Huey as having a steady bright red light at one end and a bright white light at the other. There was also a green beam though imo this was some lidar equivalent sensor thingy : )

(There are some pics at the link)

In this case the helicopter was swept up by a bouyant force when in proximity to the unidentified craft again this may be as a result of the propulsion of the craft.

TWA 842 / Capt Schultz encounter in 1981, the pilots in this one observed a disk intercept their L1011 from ahead, then in a high speed turn flew away from their airliner.

There was no mention of brightness changes coupled with maneuver in the text of the above link, but if you look at the sketch by Capt.Schultz he has drawn radiant lines from the disk at a point near to the aircraft, so perhaps there is something there.

When the craft departed Schultz noted it "leaving a darkish wavy trail behind in the sky", and also interestingly in what I presume is its wake;

"Capt. Schultz remembered seeing a fan-shaped region extending outward from behind the object which was "of a much darker blue than the rest of the sky."

Another UFO in motion was observed by the crews of Lufthansa 405 and Speedbird 206, the audio comms are on google video at the beginning. Both crews observed the UFO with a very radiant bright white light at the front and a green trail behind as it travelled in a straight line past them. The British crew also described a heavier than usual vapour trail.