From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 18:27:54 -0700
Archived: Wed, 06 May 2009 09:35:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers & ETH


>From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul>
>Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 10:40:55 -0600
>Subject: Re: Debunkers & ETH

>>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul>
>>Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 18:29:30 +0100
>>Subject: Re: Debunkers & ETH

>>>From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul>
>>>Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 22:09:14 -0600
>>>Subject: Re: Debunkers & ETH

>>>Nevertheless, I do not give serious consideration to the idea
>>>that UFOs are meta-physical in the literal sense, primarily
>>>because, as you point out, there are plausible physical
>>>explanations available (e.g., the ETH).

><snip>

>>Apparent nuts'n'bolts craft that can also fade out or 'instantly'
>>disappear, to reappear 'almost instantly' elsewhere?

>>These could be understood as 'rational', but only if we admit
>>there are laws of nature we don't yet know.
>I wouldn't hesitate to go on record stating that there are laws
>of nature we don't know yet. And, that at least some currently
>accepted 'laws' of nature are nothing of the kind.

>Of course, this can be used to "rationalize" apparently non-
>physical behavior, but it is usually erroneous, as well as lazy,
>to do so.

>For example, the "disappearance" of a nuts-and-bolts craft does
>not necessary imply a violation of conservation of mass or
>energy, but only that a formerly visible object is now invisible
>(which is already within grasp of human technology for limited
>EM bandwidths).

>Likewise, should this object "almost instantly" reappear
>elsewhere (in such time, say, as to imply superluminal
>velocity), one might consider the possibility that there is more
>than one object involved, before summarily abandoning the
>principles of special relativity.

Another simple and conventional explanation for sudden
disappearance, compatible with other observations, is that UFOs
can exhibit very high accelerations on the order of 100g or 100
times earth gravity.  (See, e.g., Paul Hill's book, where he
thinks this may explain sudden UFO disappearance.)  This means
if the object is relatively close by, it moves too fast for the
eye to follow, just like a magician seemingly making something
"vanish" by suddenly yanking it up his sleeve.

E.g., the distance something moves in a given time 't' if it has
acceleration 'a' is 1/2 x a x t^2 and a velocity of a x t (just
simple Newtonian mechanics, no relativity required).  Since g =
9.8 m/sec^2 (call it 10 to keep it round), if a = 100g or 1000
m/sec^2, the UFO moves the following distances in a given time
period, achieves the following velocity, and also the following
angles (assuming it is 500 m away initially and moves sideways
or maybe straight up):

1 sec:     500 m  (~.3 mile)     1000 m/s   (680 mph) 45 deg
2 sec:    2000 m (1.25 miles)    2000 m/s  (1360 mph) 76 deg
3 sec:    4500 m (2.8 miles)     3000 m/s  (2040 mph) 84 deg
4 sec:    8000 m (5.0 miles)     4000 m/s  (2700 mph) 86 deg
5 sec:   12500 m (7.8 miles)     5000 m/s  (3400 mph) 88 deg
10 sec:  50000 m (31 miles)     10000 m/s  (6800 mph) 89.4 deg
20 sec: 200000 m (125 miles)    20000 m/s (13600 mph) 89.9 deg

Also consider that the maximum extent of your lateral visual
field is about 85 degrees (also visual acuity is extremely crude
out there) and vertical visual field is ~60 degrees (acuity also
very crude).

So if the UFO suddenly dashes away at high acceleration and you
have no idea which way it has gone so you can quickly redirect
your eyes over there, it is out of your field of vision in 2 to
4 seconds, and you may not even notice it after 1 second because
your acuity drops off so sharply in the periphery.

By 5 to 10 seconds, it would probably be fading from sight
because of distance, and by 20 seconds it could already be in
low orbit (though not quite at orbital speed, which would take
about 26 seconds).

If a radar had a rotation rate of 5 seconds, the object would
seemingly have "jumped" 8 miles in the first sweep and another
23 miles in the second.  If the radar were not long range, it
would be off the radar by the third or fourth sweep.  This will
give the illusion that the object was making big sudden jumps
instead of smoothly moving at a very fast rate between radar
blips.

As Michael notes, sudden disappearance is even more dramatic
optically if the object blends in with the background so that it
is low contrast.  This can be as simple as turning off the
lights at night or having a brightness similar to the background
sky (isoluminance).

The latter principle of isoluminance was used by Allied sub
hunters during WWII to render themselves nearly invisible to the
eye until they had closed in on Nazi subs, leaving them no time
to dive.  It wasn't very high tech, just lights strung around
the plane and photocells to adjust the brightness of the lights
to try to match the sky background.

More sophisticated forms of visual concealment or cloaking would
involve projecting the background onto the skin of the craft
with cameras and a visual display craft skin (such things have
already been developed), to new types of optical materials under
development that will literally pass light around an object from
any direction, rendering it invisible (a true, nearly perfect
"cloaking device").

Thus an object could also seem to "wink out" suddenly without
going anywhere and using fairly conventonal techniques.  No high
acceleration or slipping into some other dimension would be
necessary.

>Etc. The point being, appeal to unknown physical principles, or
>abandonment of known ones, should be a tool of last resort. It
>is depressing to listen to things like "UFO propulsion is
>readily explained by warp drives drawing on vacuum energy", or
>similar tripe manufactured from whole cloth.

Right, it's usually a good idea to go from what we know now
before venturing into the more speculative, maybe already on the
frontiers of physics, but still not fully developed. (Another
way of invoking Occam's razor)

It could be the more conventional explanations will prove
inadequate or wrong, but I also think they may be easier for
more open-minded skeptics to swallow for now if new, unproven
principles are not needed.  Study of UFOs can be approached
using conventional science despite what the hard-core debunkers
may say.  That was more or less the approach of the likes of
Hermann Oberth, James McCampbell, and Paul Hill, though Oberth
and Hill thought UFOs utilized a form of antigravity to explain
their observed flight characteristics.  McCampbell thought more
conventional microwaves and EM propulsion might be adequate.


David Rudiak



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

At:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/subscribers/

Your access info works there too...

These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.