What are UFOs

3 possibilities - Extraterrestrial spacecraft, Black flights of
terrestrial origin or the explanations offered by Peter Klass the
official debunker.

3 possibilities - Extraterrestrial spacecraft...

EXTRATERRESTRIAL SPACECRAFT

TERRESTRIAL BLACK FLIGHT

PETER KLASS, THE OFFICIAL STORY

3 possibilities - Extraterrestrial spacecraft, Black flights of
terrestrial origin or the explanations offered by Peter Klass the
official debunker. This is a situation where one would like Google to
have a facility to vote. No doubt this will come in due course.

EXTRATERRESTRIAL SPACECRAFT
There are 2 possibilities here which should not be confused. There is
Faster than Light (FTL) travel and there are the subluminal Von Neumann
probes. Jack Sarfetti keeps posting on FTL, and on the Torsion Warp
Drive.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/83cb28043cc5b2e8/1caa29f1be4ba16c?lnk=st&q=causation&rnum=1&hl=en#1caa29f1be4ba16c

provides a pretty watertight refutation of any notion of FTL travel, at
least at times different from the moment of creation and the possible
end of the Universe.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9712344
is a very interesting paper on a "cyclical" self creating Universe. If
we were to plunge into a black hole at the end of the Universe where
our "bubble" collapses onto the black hole we would be traveling FTL
through the wormhole which had been created
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/915c20d475aa8da5/7e94e2d0faa89f5c?lnk=st&q=baby+universe&rnum=1&hl=en#7e94e2d0faa89f5c
This thread is also interesting. HOWEVER AT ALL OTHER TIMES FTL
VIOLATES CAUSALITY.

What about Von Neumann probes? These are certainly possible within the
laws of physics and indeed considerable progress has been made in terms
of us being able to build a Von Neumann machine and construct a VN
probe.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.aviation.military/browse_frm/thread/1d7c010855caf1dd/074a60610c4da1bb?lnk=raot&hl=en#074a60610c4da1bb
is a thread on VN machines. Some of the contributions are very good
wile others are quite frankly off the point. As far as papers which
report recent progress are concerned.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/robot-05q.html
is a report on a self replicating robot produced by Bath University. As
a self replicating machine its cost will come down to a few dollars. It
can make a number of household items. Vital when people tell you the
part is no longer made.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/May05/selfrep.ws.html
Here is a proof of concept from Cornell. We are still a long way away
but very definite advances are being made. There is no doubt whatsoever
that the concept is physically sound and that self replicating machines
will be made on the Moon or on asteroids at some point.

However the fact that a VN machine and a VN probe is possible does not
mean necessarily that ET has actually made one. I would say their
existence is unlikely for the following reasons.

1) To get to c/2 or thereabouts (this is the speed I have, perhaps
arbitrarily assumed for the VN probe) requires large amounts of laser
or microwave power. Most of this energy must of necessity go into the
cosmos. Already the Earth is emitting as much radio energy as a star, a
VN probe would involve millions of times more energy. It is certain
that this energy would be seen.
2) The whole idea of a VN probe is that it replicates - at its
destination. A probe therefore must not only have traveled to the solar
system but must have replicated there. If it had there would be a
laser/microwave system lying dormant somewhere in the solar system,
probably the inner solar system as there is more energy there. Where is
it?

The flying saucer buffs will probably still not be happy they will say
that they are using "stealth" technology beyond our comprehension.
Bollocks I say.

TERRESTRIAL BLACK FLIGHT
Some time ago I ran a thread.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.aviation.military/browse_frm/thread/8970ef5c5366def9/30686c56f0a89dd4?lnk=st&q=disc+aircraft+a+serious+aviation+concept&rnum=1&hl=en#30686c56f0a89dd4
There is quite a long history as Rob Arndt pointed out of disc shaped
prototypes. The physics behind the Coanda effect is perfectly sound. A
rotating airflow on the topside of the disc creates a partial vacuum
and therefore lift. There was a great deal of correspondence in the
thread, a great deal of critical comment. There was in fact nothing
which disproved the concept in physical terms.

With all aircraft there is conservation of momentum, this means that
the force required to keep a heavier than air machine in the air must
be countered by air being thrust downwards. A fixed wing does this by
moving forward and allowing the wings to send the air traversed
downwards. A partial vacuum above the wing lifts the aircraft and also
sends the requisite amount of air downwards. A helicopter does this by
a rotating screw. A Coanda aircraft is sucked up by the vortex on its
top surface. As soon as it accelerates it flies as a conventional fixed
wing.

We know as a fact that through the years a number of such aircraft were
built and tested. This is an undeniable fact. The puzzling question
though is whatever came of it. Why are there no vertical take off disc
aircraft in service, either civil or military. One would have thought
that a "helicopter" which was capable of 800km/h as a fixed wing would
be an instant success. Is the Physics unsound? If it is unsound where
is it unsound? In the thread there is a great deal of "It doesn't
work", there is no real refutation in terms of Physics. There are
refutations based on the laws of Physics for FTL, warp drives etc.
There is no valid refutation which I have seen for VTOL disc aircraft.
In fact the only refutation, if you could call it that, was given by
myself. A disc aircraft is unstable, particularly in the region between
hovering and fixed wing stall. This would have been an absolute no no
for early experiments, but powerful computers are now available which
can render the aircraft, and the airflow round it stable.

Jack has talked about UFOs being examples of metric engineering.
Everyone would look foolish if all they were was examples of Bernoillis
equation.

There are accounts of high performance UFOs where the UFO travels at
several times the speed of sound. This may be explicable in terms of
atmospheric phenomena, the official debunk, although high performance
for a limited period may not by itself indicate an advanced system
Rockets after all give high performance but only for a few minutes. To
really establish a high level of technology you need to fly a long
distance (say London to Tokyo) at 5 times the speed of sound. No UFO
has ever been reported as emerging 10,000km away.

PETER KLASS, THE OFFICIAL STORY
There is too much historical evidence of black flight for the
explanations of Peter Klass, the official debunker. Remember that he
was as interested in debunking terrestrial black flight as he was in
debunking extraterrestrial flight. Perhaps more so, after all the
secrets which had to be guarded were black and not extraterrestrial. I
will say one thing Peter Klass was extremely ingenious and perhaps
scientists should be looking at obscure meteorological phenomena. There
is one phenomenon which might well turn out to be important and that is
that close to an earthquake there is stress in the rock and this can
give rise to piezoelectricity. Luminous balls of light fly rapidly over
the ground.

We know as a fact that through the years a number of such aircraft were
built and tested. This is an undeniable fact. The puzzling question
though is whatever came of it. Why are there no vertical take off disc
aircraft in service, either civil or military. One would have thought
that a "helicopter" which was capable of 800km/h as a fixed wing would
be an instant success. Is the Physics unsound? If it is unsound where
is it unsound? In the thread there is a great deal of "It doesn't
work", there is no real refutation in terms of Physics. There are
refutations based on the laws of Physics for FTL, warp drives etc.
There is no valid refutation which I have seen for VTOL disc aircraft.
In fact the only refutation, if you could call it that, was given by
myself. A disc aircraft is unstable, particularly in the region between
hovering and fixed wing stall. This would have been an absolute no no
for early experiments, but powerful computers are now available which
can render the aircraft, and the airflow round it stable.