Why are many UFOs an aerodynamic, saucer shape?

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


You have certainly posted very interesting and thought provoking comments, you are obviously a person of great intellect...you humble me sir....

OK, without risking being labeled as a Kook or a joke, let analyse this, and I dont mean to talk out of our a**.

At best, human Earthlings have harnessed powered flight for just over 100 years. We have gone from paper and balsa wood creations to sending probes to the outer Solar system...all in only 100 years.

We have patted ourselves on the back about the sophistication of Rocket technology, but which in reality, is no greater technological device than a gunpowder fireworks rocket, of the 1000 year old Ming dynasty.

Our knowledge of our Universe is Marginal at best, with more information being discovered almost weekly.
eg, the Space between the Space. That stars travelling in the outer spirals of a Spiral Galaxy actually move FASTER than those close to the centre......Presumably against our known physical laws.

As a fairly young "intellegent" species, we have very much to learn..... it may even be possible, that many of the "Carved in Stone" theorys of our eminent brainiacks (Einstien etal), May be proven to be completely wrong...not all but may be some.

Imagine what we will know In the Year 7575.....if man is still alive????

Which brings us to........Information relayed by "Contact" with the Koldasians race, tell us that their motive power (for their disc shaped craft)
Is electromagnetic, with mass conversion drive (ok antigravity). They told the Earth contactee that they use the elongated magnetic fields that exists between planets, stars, galaxys etc as a sort of highway to travel along. They say magnetic fields eminate from these universal objects and Solar rays of all stars elongates the magnetic fields from one planet to the next, and from one solar system to the next, one galaxy to the next adinfinitum.
They use these highways as their link thru space.

Now before everyone kills the messenger, this is what was recorded as being told to the contactee in the 1970s.
It was only recently, i believe, where astronomers, astro physicians etc agreed that the Earths magnetic field is distorted by the Sun and elongated...........Interesting eh??

We have much to learn, we are really only at the beginning of our journey........We lost over 1000 years (Europeans anyway) in the dark ages.....Archeologists now only now finding machines built by civilizations 2000+ years ago that have been a mystery to modern man. eg the Roman odometre machine, that measured distance while making roads, by using marbles dropped per certain distance.... very ingenious.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
While it is tempting to flippantly toss Einstein out the window anytime relativity contradicts our flights of fancy regarding our individual expectations of the universe (there has to be life elsewhere because it is here, an advanced civilization would discover a way to beat relativity, in the whole of the cosmos that intelligence would discover mankind's brief existence using unimaginable technology to travel here before people go the way of the dodo?)

As some of the more learned theoretical physicists and speculative day dreamers are often quick to remind, the current model of relativity does not explain everything and is at best incomplete.

I agree.... Einstein was wrong...

He was also a little out there...



"Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Albert Einstein

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein

Challenging Einstein
Time Lord…. Louis Essen D.Sc., F.R.S.
www.thelivingmoon.com...

But nice posts,

Because they can go in all directions, a disk shape is aerodynamic when it goes in all 360 degrees direction. It's not limited to just one direction.

Can a jet air liner fly sideways? No, it can't.

I threw my disk in the air and it started spinning. Seemed aerodynamic to me, just add a anti-gravity propulsion system and it's good to go.

reply to post by zorgon


As myself and others have said, relativity has been observed to behave exactly as Einstein predicted in nearly everything but the farthest extreme's dreamt up by theoretical physics (the quantum world of sub atomic "stuff" and the dreaded singularity and its impossible value of infinity being the common examples)

Louis Essen looks to be a man of both great intelligence and greatly accomplished in his work with quantifying time. In fairness, he challenged one facet of relativity (effects related to time dilation, go figure ) and was ultimately silenced by the establishment.

I believe this quote from wiki sums it up well enough...

Essen spent all his working life at the National Physical Laboratory.

In 1971 he published The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis in which he questioned Einstein's theory, which apparently was not appreciated by his employers. As Essen later stated (1978)

No one has attempted to refute my arguments, but I was warned that if I persisted I was likely to spoil my career prospects.

Louis Essen

Ouch.

Here is a link to his controversial paper...

The Special Theory of Relativity/ A critical analysis

It is worth noting this paper was published in 1971, the world has since had 40 years of huge advances within theoretical physics that still validate Einstein.

On cursory examination it seems Essen is using the doppler shift red shift as an inaccuracy contradicting Einstein's principle of invariant light speed as predicted by special relativity. We now know conclusively that the red shift is caused by metric expansion and Einstein's light speed constant still holds true.

Rather than challenging the basis for time dilation as is implied, Essen seems to have modified the formula to achieve a more consistent result. Neat stuff, awesome stuff but a long way from shaking up Einstein's world.

Essen seems to take Einstein's conclusions from his famous "thought experiments" as anything but serious science. Again, we now understand those early attempts to explain the perplexing observations and conclusions were correct and would go on to be validated through later observation.

Here is a quote from a poster on the Sciforums.com physics and math forum that seems to have a grasp of the relative issues. (get it, relative issues...Einstein...yuck,yuck:barf

Physics Monkey
Snow Monkey and Physicist (869 posts)
01-07-10, 09:41 AM

In the spirit of trying to address the physics, let me make a few comments on the physics beginning with some background material.

Background and Assumptions:

1. Let's assume Essen was honestly confused by Einstein's theory. Let's also assume his criticism is in keeping with the standards of scientific discourse, despite the evidence from his own words that it is not. For example, let's ignore the vague ad hominem attacks on "theoretical physicists" (most physicists I know are nothing like the people Essen describes, but maybe I'm just lucky). Let's ignore the ad hominem attacks on Einstein (he did actually participate in a very interesting experiment and he did know how to synchonize clocks, similar methods are used in the gps system routinely). Let's accept all this and more as part of the rhetorical approach employed by Essen.

2. In my opinion, Scaramouche's statement that the blue text is "clearly not a part of the thought experiment" is incorrect. For example, it's not clear to me. I believe Essen was speaking about the same basic though experiment throughout the entire "thought experiments" section. If he wasn't, then the precise specification of the thought experiment after the colon is incomplete and confusing.

3. In my opinion, Essen's description of the unit duplication issue is confusing and unclear. I don't understand what his point is.

Physics:

1. The standard twin paradox thought experiment has more or less been carried out as an actual experiment. The results agree with Einstein's theories (SR and GR are both involved).

2. Essen does not appear to understand that there is an asymmetry between the two clocks in the twin paradox or the clock paradox or whatever.

3. Further experimental evidence comes from the GPS system. It works and is based on precise synchronization of clocks completely in accord with Einstein's theories.

4. Still further sociological and experimental evidence comes from the many people at NIST, etc who routinely carry out experiments on and with atomic clocks, etc of the highest precision. These people, of whom a few I know personally, are all perfectly happy with relativity and the current status of units. They believe their experiments are consistent with both.

Conclusion:
Despite being a brilliant physicist, Essen was mistaken about relativity.

Hope this helps.

Louis Essen discusses Einstein's theories. (Another attempt.)

I don't see special relativity being overthrown. While not a complete theory of everything, it explains most with phenomenal accuracy. Just as Newton's Principia wasn't overturned by relativity, relativity explained a function that was missing. I believe this will be the case with relativity when a marriage with the quantum is finally realized by the next great mind to grace the field.

If you are really interested in looking for what comes next, ATS poster CL Prime seems to possess a rare combination of an honest understanding of theoretical physics along with a humble and patient demeanor making him one of the most effective teachers I have had the pleasure of meeting on the internet ( I should drop an him an IM in hopes of soliciting his input on Essen's take on Einstein's world)

CL Prime has expressed that he has a lot of faith in a theory called Scalar–tensor–vector gravity which he feels has the promise of explaining the universe we observe without having to resort to imaginative solutions like dark matter and dark energy.

Overview

Scalar-vector-tensor gravity theory, also known as MOdified Gravity (MOG), is based on an action principle and postulates the existence of a vector field, while elevating the three constants of the theory to scalar fields. In the weak-field approximation, STVG produces a Yukawa-like modification of the gravitational force due to a point source. Intuitively, this result can be described as follows: far from a source gravity is stronger than the Newtonian prediction, but at shorter distances, it is counteracted by a repulsive fifth force due to the vector field.

Observations

STVG/MOG has been applied successfully to a range of astronomical, astrophysical, and cosmological phenomena.

On the scale of the solar system, the theory predicts no deviation[7] from the results of Newton and Einstein. This is also true for star clusters containing no more than a maximum of a few million solar masses.

The theory accounts for the rotation curves of spiral galaxies,[3] correctly reproducing the Tully-Fisher law.[9]

STVG is in good agreement with the mass profiles of galaxy clusters.[4]

STVG can also account for key cosmological observations, including[6]:
The acoustic peaks in the cosmic microwave background radiation;
The accelerating expansion of the universe that is apparent from type Ia supernova observations;
The matter power spectrum of the universe that is observed in the form of galaxy-galaxy correlations.

Scalar–tensor–vector gravity (STVG)

Have a look if your feeling brave and take note that STVG compliments rather than contradicts Uncle Albert's sacred equation.

If the wall of math looks overwhelming your not alone, I'll be the first to admit the complete explanation leaves me nodding dumbly.

Originally posted by zorgon
But nice posts,

Thank you for the compliment.: up:

Could be that it happens to be the shape of the organ that they are most proud of and psychologically they mimic it with their technological creations

or

cylinders and disks are both sections of spheres and I believe spheres are the most efficient shape for enclosing a given area that we know of

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


I have certainly pushed STVG on numerous occasions, and was, for some time, exceptionally impressed with its abilities to accurately reproduce many anomalous observations. (And, yes, I do understand the wall of math on the Wikipedia page .) There comes a time, though, when even something that seems to work so well is found to be in error. Unfortunately, STVG is one of those cases.
There is a single experimental observation (which can be found here) that contradicts STVG...and, I might add, contradicts it fatally. What the "direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter" demonstrates is that, in systems formed by galactic collisions, there is a resultant offset in the calculated mass of the system as compared with the actual mass (the mass we can see). This offset, first of all, is of an 8-sigma significance, meaning it's well beyond the limits of statistic probability and, therefore, is a real phenomenon. Second of all, it's entirely inconsistent with any possible form of modified gravity... meaning STVG cannot account for it, and neither can any other potential theory relying on a modification of General Relativity.

This observation demands the existence of weakly-interacting matter that exerts a gravitational force but exhibits no observable properties - i.e., "dark" matter.


ETA: I'll be back shortly with a critique on Essen's opinions on Relativity. Granted, it'll probably be a short and sweet critique, since, from what I've read so far, his opinions can be discredited by looking a little bit beyond Relativity, itself. Essen doesn't seem to realize that some of Einstein's assumption aren't actually assumptions... which seems strange, given what he did for a living.

Obviously the saucer UFO isn't saucer-shaped just to be aero/hydro-dynamic, but to assist the technology needed to get to other places in the universe, which has to be somekind of teleport, and also for the anti-gravity. If they exist, that is.

Hi Nicorette

Why are many UFOs an aerodynamic, saucer shape?

I would agree with N3k9Ni's comment - "Maybe it's not so much aerodynamic, but a function of some other dynamic we're not aware of."

Bob Lazar speculates on why after having seen a short close- up demonstration test flight:

"The bottom of it glowed blue and began to hiss like any, like high voltage does on a round sphere.

It's my impression that the reason that they're round and have no sharp edges is to contain the high voltage like if you've seen a high voltage system's insulators -- things are round or else you get a corona discharge.

In either case, it began to hiss as in high voltage and it lifted off the ground quietly except for that little hiss in the background, and that stopped as soon as it reached about 20 or 30 feet."





And commenting further on the interior and exterior -

"It has no physical seams, no welds or bolts or rivets," Lazar said.

"Everything has a soft, round edge to it... as if it's made out of wax and heated for a time and then cooled off."




It's primary means of 'propulsion' probably explains it's outer shape -

reply to post by CLPrime


So, like I promised, short and sweet. And to the point. One of Essen's key issues with Relativity is the constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames. On the surface, such a constancy seems counter-intuitive, but this is typically based on a failure to understand the consequences of Faraday's Law and the Ampère-Maxwell Law.

Faraday's Law:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a9ba807c1f52.png[/atsimg]

After a whole lot of math, this leads to the following constraint:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ae5fe4e27efa.png[/atsimg]

The v term is the speed of propagation of electromagnetic radiation.


The Ampère-Maxwell Law:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ef333d0136d4.png[/atsimg]

This leads to a separate constraint:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f3f56249dbb2.png[/atsimg]


The only possible way both constraints can be true is if:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/77089e87ad4d.png[/atsimg]

Both terms inside the radical are constants. Therefore, the velocity of propagation of electromagnetic radiation must also be constant. This velocity has been defined as exactly 299,792,458 m/s. If light were to travel at any speed other than this, it would be unable to self-propagate and the EM wave would collapse.

The less-obvious consequence of this is that, even ignoring Relativity for a moment, as light is travelling through a vacuum, it has no frame of reference for measuring its velocity (a vacuum has no defined coordinate system). Therefore, no matter what reference frame its velocity is measured from, that measurement can be considered correct. However, since the velocity of light must always be a very specific constant value, every reference frame must measure the speed of light to be equal to that value.

Thus, the constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames. Relativity, then, follows naturally from this.

reply to post by CLPrime


Thank you very much for taking the time to address both Essen's work and your current take on STVG.

I am growing to love physics and greatly appreciate the time and effort you have given to the community.

I know it seems futile at times but some of us are listening and using the opportunity you've provided to broaden our knowledge. Access to someone that not only has a fluent command of theoretical physics but has the patience to explain basic stuff in laymen's terms so folks with a basic high school education can understand is an opportunity not to be squandered.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


Glad to be of service
I just wish I had something to say that actually had to do with the topic of the thread. Unfortunately, I'm not all that intrigued by UFO aerodynamics.

Why are many UFOs an aerodynamic, saucer shape?

Maybe because they are man made?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Nicorette

As a fluid dynamicist (and aerodynamicist), I find it an interesting statement that "Aliens" fly disk shaped craft. I do not believe that they fly disk shaped craft, and for many scientific reasons. First of all, I'm pretty skeptical about whether or not humans have had alien contact yet (or ever will). But putting that aside. The disk shape seems like a pretty useless design feature. I think the design was only stated by those who have insufficient scientific understanding of the relevant physics, mostly in the early 20th century. A normal airplane has much less drag than a flying disk, and I put great emphasis on this! A normal airplane is more aerodynamic, has more lift, has less drag, and is more stable. A normal airplane can land easily while having horizontal velocity, while a disk would be more likely to tumble. A disk has redundant space, which causes the craft to have unnecessary weight, mass and drag. Now, as concerns the importance of aerodynamics... It is the most important feature of every flying craft. I have a decent amount of experience making model flying and hovering craft, and the aerodynamics play a greater role than any other single factor. Notice also, that the space shuttle is aerodynamic, despite the fact that it is a space craft... Why? Because it is also an aircraft. It has been implied that the alien crafts are both air and space vehicles, so the aerodynamics are definitely to be taken into account. If a poorly aerodynamic space-craft enters the atmosphere, particularly at great speed, it is certain to suffer greatly from aerodynamic stress. I would expect most of the imagined disk craft to kill the occupants pretty soon after entering the atmosphere. This is because the wind would inevitably (the wind at entry speeds is intrinsically powerful) twist the disk into an orientation with the flat surface facing the wind. This could be expected to increase the drag enough to literally flatten the craft, probably crushing the occupants, and causing damage to the craft. The mathematics are pretty simple, to get a rough idea... A circular disk 30 feet in diameter, should experience not less than 423436 tons of aerodynamic resistance (that is 25.6 lbs/ft per 100 mph^2, times (pi)15^2, and times the Cd of 1.17), if it travels 20000 mph through standard air at atmospheric pressure and density (though the air would be somewhat thinner in the upper altitudes, the drag would still be immense). I do not think it is necessary to further explain the mathematics here, but if anyone is concerned, you can study fluid dynamics, and it calculate for yourself. The disk craft does not make sense, unless the aliens have very inferior technology to us. If disks were superior, we would use them instead of our own designs, because we are continually trying to find ways to improve our aircraft. Also, I personally invented three designs that improve the aerodynamics of flying disks (mainly for toy frisbees), and I know very first hand, that disks have poor aerodynamics.

a reply to: Legionlong

Wall of text dude...my eyes! Great post, just tough to read

You make some good points and the early investigators from the USAF and US Navy investigated the aerodynamics of both 'cigar-shaped' and 'disc-shaped' UFO reports. They also had aerospace contractors like Lockheed and Northrop testing designs or doing the concept designs. Furthermore physicists like Hermann Oberth worked on design specs to test the functionality and lift of these reported shapes. Oberth was one of the founding fathers of the rocket age and worked alongside Von Braun.

The studies identified radial symmetry for the discs and acknowledged that lift could be generated by their frames. None of which *proved* the existence of these 'saucers,' but they couldn't be disproven by their reported designs.

A good core of reports describe the disc-shaped objects as exercising acute-angle turns in all directions. This could dictate the designs as a standard delta would need to change its attitude before changing course. On the other hand, a disc-shaped object wouldn't, it would have greater manoeuvrability.

Another factor that's just crossed my mind is that of reported speeds. Back when these reports were coming in, it wasn't uncommon for radar operators, control towers and other witnesses estimating speeds of several thousand mph. If true, this would make considerations of drag and g-forces redundant.