If this is the case and it is a real flying machine, it can't be anything terrestrial. The occupants would be squished to jelly if an aircraft "stopped on a dime". I can't believe we have invented inertia-less drives yet.

Therefore these sort of UFOs have to be from a much more advanced alien race. But why would they bother spying on us? They should be better at it, so we wouldn't see them. If they've got inertialess drive, why not cloaking devices too? Why don't they just land somewhere public, like in the middle of the pitch during the Superbowl, and then we could start talking to them properly.

Personally, I think a simpler explanation is that strange lights that move in apparently unexplainable ways are more likely due to natural or mon-made phenomena. There are meteors, searchlights reflected from clouds, iridium flares and man-made satellites. I believe Venus is often reported as a UFO.

__________________
Spike
:)

Hi
I dont remember hearing the daytime ones Im referring to having lights. When I saw one, it had lights at night, one light. Like a helicopter.

What if they are reflective like a mirror or something? That would make them harder to see in daytime, they would blend in more. It would also make city lights reflect off them. ?? If you saw one, you'd be figuring like me, thats the difference. To not see one, you dont go that far in your thinking, its still at a speculative point to you, but firsthand is quite different. The question for me is gone now, I know they exist and I am certain there has to be a logical explanation. Its been a few years since I talked to my cousin, and Im not about to call him just to ask that, but dont fighter jets stop and hover to land on planes? You see how fast the fastmovers go, right? (We have them take off nearby and boy do they go fast).....

The distance that Im talking about when I say a trail of light, measured with my hand infront of face (not literally), would have been maybe 6" back and forth left to right....and then a hand's height straight up. Im not talking one mile left and right, so that changes physics a bit compared to a fast mover that goes 2 miles in a few seconds. Perhaps the speed looks faster in that kind of optical illusion. When it took off, if it were reflective, that might explain why I had no clue which way it went, it seemed to just vanish.

There has to be a rational explanation to how speed and stopping on a dime can happen. If we cant make this craft, that doesnt mean another country didnt. What if you changed the interior to some kind of cushioning semi solid, like surrounding (Im gonna use food here)...a piece of broccoli in bags of cushioning jelly of some sort...wouldnt that solid surrounding you (like a package thats been styrofoamed) change the properties of being squished like a jelly? Im sure there is some physics way for this to be a manmade craft. I realize youre meaning internally our flesh would keep going and organs would break, so there has to be a middle ground because I kid you not, I saw one and so did 3 people I know now. And I may have been alone, but they were not.

Hey
Theres only one way to see if a gel would do the trick....why dont we find out?

If we had a catapult type device, that you could safely strap a chicken or duck (EGG) in, (wow that was a funny typo, strap a duck in, oops!), and say we used a fertilized egg to determine cellular yolk damage....and affixed this egg so that there was no "give" and it was firmly strapped in with its solid protective shell, just to shake it similarly at high speed...if we catapulted but didnt release the egg, and stopped on a dime fast, would the yolk "squish like jelly" from the inertia, or would that egg still hatch when it incubated it and be ok? Because of the surrounding equal-mas gel of the white of that egg cushioning it?


Talk is cheap when you can test the answer. And rather than say what's not, which is easy, its harder to say 'what is'. 'What's not' always looks good when there's no "what is". And human basic nature wants to believe the best for itself...like blinders...that's natural. World was flat, sun hasnt supernova'd already, we're all hunky dory best case scenario?...etc. This requires tossing what you know like calculus, to see it. Too many incorrect basic trees blocking the forest view that are arbitrary and man-made, and physics is always an observation science, not consistent.

PS

ANNNND, we have to eliminate the "bounce" factor, when that catapult stops on a dime - hitting a counter or table is NOT how it is to stop without a solid blocking you in the air = slow motion photography to make sure that catapult doesnt bounce back as if it were striking anything. One smooth motion.

The reason I'm dubious about the motion you describe being from a human-developed object is that the pilots of modern jet planes are already close to the limits of what is possible in terms of G-forces. I've seen them flying aerobatics and there's no way they could be described as stopping on a dime if you watch them from any distance away.

It's possible to calculate the G-forces on a body given the starting speed, finishing speed and distance for the deceleration. Without doing the maths, my feeling is that any survivable deceleration would be visible i.e. you'd see the object slow down, rather than stopping instantly. It would be interesting to see how far you'd have to allow to slow down from Mach 1 in order to keep the G-forces reasonable.

I think one explanation is that these are un-manned objects. But then another thought - why do they have lights on? If they are secret weapons or experimental craft, wouldn't they be better hidden if they didn't have lights? And I think a reflective surface would increase visibility, not reduce it.

I can't really argue about what you saw or what the cause could be. But I think if someone has developed a plane that has the manoeuverability that you describe, it would be in great demand from all the major powers in the world. There must be easier ways of spying, such as hi-res imaging from low earth orbit. That's already possible and virtually undetectable, compared with trying to spy from fast-moving, visible aircraft.

__________________
Spike
:)

HI
It appears to me in retrospect that perhaps they were testing how to fly. Or training how to fly it and maneuver it.

G force and mach I refer to a speed you have to travel pretty far to achieve. Flight pilots are getting up to Mach I, and dealing with the strain of remaining in that G force as they achieve the speed. Why couldnt these "UFO"s doing maneuvers that I saw, not normally be in any rush to do Mach I, i.e. if it was just the distance I showed you, more of a stop and go back and forth for a short distance, survive that brief G force as opposed to assuming they travel at Mach I regularly?

Reflectivity during a daytime sky would reflect the sky on the aircraft. It would be like having a mirrored sphere, sans sun reflection of course, blending right in like a chameleon in the sky, mirroring clouds, blue, etc -- harder to see. Reflectivity at night would be by chance , when passing over lit cities, etc. Or, on full moon nights etc.

Youre a very good writer in the english skills dept. Spike.

Thanks for the compliment.

A couple of thoughts:

Fighter pilots regularly travel at Mach 2 or faster these days. This doesn't create any G forces because they aren't accelerating. The tricky bit is manoeuvering. Acceleration and deceleration increase the G forces and the quicker you do it, the bigger the effect. So stopping and reversing direction will have much more effect than a banked turn.

It's strange that UFO reports often talk about this stop/start, rapid movement which is completely different to how normal planes move. It's not a useful way to move unless you're in combat, racing, trying to escape (or training for one of these). I'd certainly not like to be a passenger in a craft that was leaping about the sky (It's more comfortable being driven by a chauffeur than a rally driver )

Reflections only work if everything's the same colour all round. If you imagine you're standing on the ground looking at a mirror in the sky, you'll see a reflection of the ground and that will stand out from the sky around the mirror. And the other way round, if you're in the sky and looking at a mirror on the ground, it will show the sky and again stand out from the ground around it. That's why fish are usually silvered on the bottom so they blend with the sky and dark on the top so they blend with the ocean depths.

What you really want for invisibility is something that bends light around the aircraft. Like if you had fibre optic cables all round the body so that from any direction, all you would see is an image of whatever's on the other side of the craft.

__________________
Spike
:)