UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 15

Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak.nul>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 21:42:12 -0800
Archived: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:16:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002


>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:21:32 EST
>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002 - Young

>>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 00:59:55 EST
>>Subject: Re: Filer's Files #45 - 2002


<snip>

>>If the explanation is an absolute embarrasement,

>Yeah, like the probability that these were flying saucers which
>reversed their direction instantly

Sloppy, inprecise language is a debunkers playground.  What
exactly do you mean by "instantly?"  Does "instantly" mean 0
seconds?  0.1 seconds?  1.0 seconds?

"Instantaneous" by itself means absolutely nothing without
defining what you mean.  Strictly speaking, in physics or math
"instantaneous" would be 0 or no time at all.  But to a human
being, "instantaneous" is vague and basically means too quick to
be seen clearly with the naked eye, like a magician's sleight of
hand.

(This reminds of similar sloppy debunking language of physicist
Lawrence Krauss, who has claimed  that interstellar travel
requires the "energy of a star." This is also completely
meaningless without specifying the mass of the interstellar
spacecraft being accelerated, it's final speed, the energy
output of whatever star Krauss is referring to, what length of
time the star outputs this energy, etc.  Turns out. e.g., that
the energy to accelerate something with a mass like the World
Trade Center twin towers to 10% of light speed is about 0.001
seconds of the sun's power output, or about one month of solar
energy here on Planet Earth.  That's much more precise than
Krauss' "energy of a star" and gives a much better idea of the
magnitude of the problem.)

>at hundreds or thousands of miles per hour without violating
>the laws of physics

More sloppy language?  What do you mean by "violating the laws
of physics?"  Which laws of physics do you mean?  Please tell us
precisely.

Have you ever had a physics class?  Judging from the normal
nonsense that you spout here on Updates, I seriously doubt if
you would know a "law of physics" if it came up and bit you on
the ass.

Reality check:  Very rapid reversal of direction does not
"violate" any "laws of physics."  What it does mean is that high
accelerations are involved.  But high accelerations by
themselves do not "violate" any "laws of physics."  A bullet
shot out of a rifle barrel probably has an initial acceleration
in excess of 100,000 G's when the gunpowder first explodes.  No
"laws of physics" are "violated" in the process.

NASA/NACA aeronautical engineer Paul Hill, in his book
"Unconventional Flying Objects," pointed out that the WWII
antitank Bazooka missile missile had a linear acceleration of
several hundred G's.  Cannon-launched missiles have
accelerations measured in thousands of G's.  Hill gave one
example of a guided cannon-launched missile cited by Aviation
Week & Space Technology in 1975 with an acceleration of over
7000 G and designed to withstand 9000 G, including its optics,
electronics, and guidance gyroscope.

Again, despite these huge accelerations, no "laws of physics"
were being "violated."

Many air-to-air missiles are designed to practically turn on a
dime.  60G turn design specs are not uncommon.  This is in the
vicinity of some reported UFO sightings, such as Hill's own 1952
sighting where he calculated two "saucers" circling one another
at about 100G's.

(Must have been one of Bob Young's meteorites.  Or maybe it was
"Venus" dipping behind some clouds.)

At 100 G's, or a change in velocity of 980 meters/second in one
second, or 3200 feet/second/second, or about 2200 mph/second, an
object traveling 2200 mph or about Mach 3 can come to a dead
stop in one second or accelerate from 0 to 2200 mph in one
second.  Or it can be traveling 1100 mph, slow to zero, reverse
direction and go streaking off in the opposite direction at 1100
mph, all in one second.

These changes are so rapid and dramatic they appear to be
practically "instantaneous" to the relatively sluggish human eye
and visual system.  But they are not truly "instantaneous" in
the sense that they happen in no time at all.  They are simply
too fast to be seen clearly. And I guarantee you, no "laws of
physics" are being "violated."

>_is not an embarrassment?

The only "embarrassment" here is your typical inability to think
clearly.

>Clear skies,

>Bob Young

Clear thinking,

David Rudiak


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com