Curious...

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: Curious...

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Mon May 19, 2008 3:23 pm

lost_shaman wrote:
You Can Call Me Ray wrote:I am not "into" UFOs (IMO I consider them a waste of my time).


So why do you even bother?

I can at least claim to have a reason to care after a 2002 UAP observation.


Will get to your others later, but this deserves an answer: Because I am a deeply studied student of the atmosphere, and things that fly in it. As such, I am also wary of people making connections or claims about things that fly in our atmosphere that are either tenuous, at best, or not supported by the facts of aerothermodynamics as we know them. Just because I think UFOs are a waste of time does not mean I am not interested in flying things and their interaction with our atmosphere.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA


Re: Curious...

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Tue May 20, 2008 12:13 am

lost_shaman wrote:Also if you admit to not reading the Condign report because you are "not "into" UFOs", then why should I have to waste my own FREE TIME defending myself for referencing the Condign report and manually 'transcribing' the report for you simply because you are too lazy yourself to read the damn thing?

I'm sorry but this really does upset me because I am spending my FREE TIME defending myself for referencing the Condign report that I have to manually transcribe, when most of this is spelled out in the Condign report if one only reads the report!


And here is where the rub comes in, LS, and I would hope you can see this goes both ways. You already know how big the Condign Report is, right (JUST the full exec summary is 5.3 Mbyte! Vols 1, 2, and 3 are even more gigantic!)? And you want me to wade thru the whole thing? If you do, then clearly you somehow place YOUR FREE TIME as more valuable than MY FREE TIME....? So you want me to read through this WHOLE thing, without ANY citations by you as to what specific sections I should go to first... and you think this is not an insult to the value of my time???? (BTW, when I work on aircraft accident investigations my time goes for $120/hour).

You guy's demand I asnswer your questions and post retractions for minor details and I'm saying I'm sorry for confusion over and over again on this thread, when you don't even bother to read the report I'm referencing?! That bothers me.


Can you meet me halfway? That is really all I am asking. I have the site linked where all the material is. I even began to read some parts of the Full Executive Summary PDF. That is putting in some of MY FREE TIME. Now is it really too much to ask for you to give me at LEAST paragraph/page citations numbers??? Heck, I don't care if you don't transcribe the words here (others may, but I won't)...as long as you can get me in the right area of the doc so I can read what you are using as evidence for your ideas/claims.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Curious...

Postby Access Denied » Tue May 20, 2008 5:10 am

lost_shaman wrote:
You Can Call Me Ray wrote:So I take it we can leave the issue of a "disc" behind, as it has no relevance to what you are talking about viz-a-viz "buoyant plasmas"...correct? We no longer have to try and keep the disc involved with this discussion, as we are talking about plasmas, and what may cause them. Correct?

I just don't see how we could do that Ray as the Condign report specifically states UAP occur in the disc shape.

LS the Condign report doesn't associate the less commonly reported disc shaped sightings with atmospheric plasmas. This is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning and until you concede this point I don’t see much point in Ray or I wasting much more of our time on this.

We've already discussed disc shaped sightings, if you want to talk seriously about the plasma theory for the more commonly reported "ball(s) of light(s) in the sky" sightings as frequently reported by pilots then leave "flying saucers" out of it.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Curious...

Postby lost_shaman » Tue May 20, 2008 9:04 pm

Access Denied wrote:LS the Condign report doesn't associate the less commonly reported disc shaped sightings with atmospheric plasmas. This is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning and until you concede this point I don’t see much point in Ray or I wasting much more of our time on this.

We've already discussed disc shaped sightings, if you want to talk seriously about the plasma theory for the more commonly reported "ball(s) of light(s) in the sky" sightings as frequently reported by pilots then leave "flying saucers" out of it.


AD,

The report certainly does associate disc shaped sightings with atmospheric plasmas. The report states that UAP described as shapes are "typically spherical, disc, toroidal or cigar shaped."

A Key supporting finding...

"- A Russian aerodynamics report shows that an otherwise 'indistinct, blurred or raggedly-shaped' charged aerosol formation (often a feature of UAP reports) can be naturally reshaped by the airflow in which it travels to look remarkably like a typically-reported 'classic UFO' shape. (Volume 2, Paper 19)" - Executive Summary, Key supporting findings, pp 9

AD, if that is considered a key supporting finding, then what shape(s) from the four listed in the introduction would be considered a typically-reported 'classic UFO'?

Here's a hint... Paper 19 (Specifically referenced) clearly references the cigar, disc, and triangle shapes in the context of "UAP"; the shaping of atmospheric plasmas!

(Paper 19 found online in pdf. Vol. 2, Part b, pp 61 to 75)

Therefore you are absolutely incorrect by stating that the report does not associate the disc shape with atmospheric plasmas. Nor is stating that the report associates the disc shape with atmospheric plasmas a "fundamental flaw in (my) reasoning"! Thank you very much!

L_S
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: Curious...

Postby Access Denied » Wed May 21, 2008 5:58 am

lost_shaman wrote:Therefore you are absolutely incorrect in that the report does not associate the disc shape with atmospheric plasmas. Nor is stating such a "fundamental flaw in (my) reasoning"! Thank you very much!

You’re welcome. :)

For the sake of argument I will concede your first point but not the second. Unfortunately it’s not that simple…

Note that this “key supporting finding” you quoted (the last one given by the way) states the Russian report “shows” this. Does it? Let’s look at what at “Working Paper 19” actually says about the association of atmospheric plasmas (in this case “dusty plasmas” aka “charged aerosols”) with disc shapes, specifically the conditions this might occur…

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Freed ... olume2.htm

[download “UAP Volume 2 Part P” at the above link]

Volume 2, Paper 19-1, 19-2

4. Streamlined Shaping

For a high cloud velocity, it is suggested that those particles which are retained are so held by the amount that the EM field exceeds the surface aerodynamic forces. Therefore, once motion commences the 'object' assumes a shape due to aerodynamic drag and naturally becomes 'streamlined' - for example aircraft fuselage shaped, (e.g. cigar), flattening sphere (i.e. disc or fat cigar), or even triangular, with curved edges. As air drag will operate in all planes, then all extremities of the original charged aerosol charged body (whatever its original format) will tend to be 'smoothed'. Eventually the EM field within the charged envelope will dampen and dissipate and the more sharpened contours will disperse and either be no longer recognized as a shape (i.e. as a UAP), or will vanish completely.

This suggestion, a hypothesis if you will, has not been “shown” to be the case contrary to what’s stated in the Executive Summary. As I’m sure Ray can attest, there are a large number of variables involved, all of which would have to be just right to result in the above described behavior… not exactly a forgone conclusion. In fact the following section of this same working paper indicates this may not be the case with pilot sightings in particular (the context I made the statement in)…

Volume 2, Paper 19-5, 19-6

27. Interaction with Aircraft

Because it is usually unclear what the entity comprises, coupled with the surprise factor, most encounters with what are clearly charged masses have been assumed to have been with ball lightning (Working Paper No 2). Whether this is the case - and whether charged aerosols are a variation of the same physical realisation - is not currently clear. The laws of motion of a plasma ball and the effects when in close proximity to an aircraft in flight are of special interest to MOD. It is assumed that the charge on the ball diminishes with time, due to the leakage, where the air layer is adjacent to the ball's surface. In effect it is likely to behave as a non-deformable solid sphere, in aerodynamic terms, in a flow of non-compressible fluid. The charge mass is likely to be 'captured' by the aircraft, maintaining both it's shape and keeping a constant distance from the tail assembly. It is further assumed that the force required (which, if it were a solid ball would be required to overcome drag and stay behind the aircraft, this force would be several tons!) is much less. It seems probable that the air stream would lose some of it's viscous properties over the surface of the sphere (i.e. the presence of the plasma, it is suggested, would reduce drag). This has been shown to be the case in experimental observations.

As you can see, there are a number of possibilities here and unfortunately there’s not enough data to go on which is why you’re not going to find many scientists willing to look into it. Working Paper 2 which discusses ball lighting in more detail is pretty interesting though.

[download Parts B and C at the above link]

Also, it should be noted disc/saucer shaped sightings are extremely rare as shown in the statistical analysis of the cases studied…

Image

To say the MOD report definitively associates disc/saucer shapes with atmospheric plasmas is not telling the whole story and seems a bit disingenuous in my opinion.

Oh, and that'll be $150 US thank you very much... :D
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Curious...

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed May 21, 2008 2:44 pm

lost_shaman wrote:Now if we switch gears and talk about objects reported (UAP), some of which are disc shaped, we are having a completely separate discussion. Where UAP are thought to be plasmas rather than 'solid objects' 'driven' by fields rather than aerodynamics.


This is where I, again, say "no". The fields still involve aerodynamics and thermodynamics, which are based upon temp, pressure, density, and viscosity. The fact that they MAY also involve electromagnetics does not make these phenomenon devoid of aerodynamics. The state of the atmospherics in the area where such a "buoyant plasma" may form is still aerodynamics.

Again Ray I'm sorry for the confusion. When talking about UAP as described in the Condign report as being 'buoyant plasmas' electrical and magnetic fields are at play rather than the basic aerodynamics of heavier-than-air flight. Does that make sense?


Not to me. And perhaps it is this insistence on your part about the "heavier than air flight" aspect. Aerodynamics does not stop being relevant just because a "heavier than air" body may not be present. In fact, if you had a charged surface around some sort of "buoyant plasma" that causes it to hold its shape while moving, there ARE going to be aerodynamic forces that act at the boundary. The "buoyant plasma" simply becomes a contained control volume with a distinct boundary.

I really do want to help you understand what I'm talking about. I completely agree that plasma can be created "when something is traveling fast enough in an airmass". That is true. But it is also true that there are other types of plasma occurring in the atmosphere that are not created in that way. Take Sprites as an example. Recently discovered to be house sized balls of plasma traveling vertically in the atmosphere at 0.1c.


Note the part I have bolded. Anything traveling through an airmass has aerodynamic effects involved, especially if there is any kind of boundary that encompasses this effect.

O.k. so if you are still following me here, using the Sprite example of a naturally occurring plasma, basic aerodynamics of lift and drag etc., do not seem to be responsible for the motion of the Sprite through the atmosphere. That makes sense does it not?


I have already pointed out to you that lift and drag are merely 2 effects of aerodynamic interactions with a boundary (in most cases a solid boundary, but it need not be). Whatever "field" or action/reaction that keeps the sprite as separate and distinguishable from the airmass around it will serve as a boundary. As that boundary passes through the airmass, non-equilibrium aerodynamic pressure distributions will form around it. And I cannot even conclude that aerodynamic forces cannot be at least partially responsible for its motion! Atmospheric stability deals with how a boundary of the airmass reacts when displaced vertically. We characterize an unstable atmosphere as one where, when such a volume is displaced vertically upward, it keeps moving upward. Temperature inversions cause the opposite effects, where a volume of air is pushed/held downward and cannot escape upwards. It is quite possible that an electro-magnetic phenomenon could be responsible for forming the sprite, and even giving it a kick. But that does not take aerodynamics out of the equation, and in fact, part of the sprite's velocity (and its continued progression up into the atmosphere) could very well be aided and have a LOT to do with the local temperature profile along the path it follows. The atmosphere is non-homogeneous, as I am sure you know, and so it is not unexpected that such "columns" of air could form that are conducive to such events. The point being, aerodynamics is still involved, one way or another. It is NOT simply "not a factor".

Now if we start to talk about objects reported in the atmosphere that are seemingly unexplained, then I feel like I'm perfectly entitled to discuss UAP as described by the Condign report and observed in the Hessdalen Valley. These are long lived plasmas, and like Sprites basic aerodynamics of lift and drag etc., do not seem to be responsible for their motion.


Stop with the lift and drag stuff. That is NOT the only aspect of aerodynamics, and as I have said it is only the result of aerodynamic field effects. And aerodynamics play a part in their motion. How big a part? Well, we need to quantify it and that means model it. It could very well be that if the aerodynamic states of the atmosphere (temp, press, density, viscosity) are not "just right" that these phenomenon may not even form, or may have a very short life if they do. So you are certainly entitled to discuss UAP, as I am entitled to challenge you on what you are saying. And I am saying no matter what argument you come up with, aerodynamics is still involved for the simple reason that these things are moving through an airmass!

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Curious...

Postby lost_shaman » Fri May 23, 2008 3:00 am

Access Denied wrote:
Note that this “key supporting finding” you quoted (the last one given by the way) states the Russian report “shows” this. Does it? Let’s look at what at “Working Paper 19” actually says about the association of atmospheric plasmas (in this case “dusty plasmas” aka “charged aerosols”) with disc shapes, specifically the conditions this might occur…

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Freed ... olume2.htm

[download “UAP Volume 2 Part P” at the above link]

Volume 2, Paper 19-1, 19-2

4. Streamlined Shaping

For a high cloud velocity, it is suggested that those particles which are retained are so held by the amount that the EM field exceeds the surface aerodynamic forces. Therefore, once motion commences the 'object' assumes a shape due to aerodynamic drag and naturally becomes 'streamlined' - for example aircraft fuselage shaped, (e.g. cigar), flattening sphere (i.e. disc or fat cigar), or even triangular, with curved edges. As air drag will operate in all planes, then all extremities of the original charged aerosol charged body (whatever its original format) will tend to be 'smoothed'. Eventually the EM field within the charged envelope will dampen and dissipate and the more sharpened contours will disperse and either be no longer recognized as a shape (i.e. as a UAP), or will vanish completely.

This suggestion, a hypothesis if you will, has not been “shown” to be the case contrary to what’s stated in the Executive Summary.


The suggestion here is a suggested mechanism to explain the shaping of the UAP. So it's not the shapes of the UAP that is in question, it is the specific mechanism that explains the shapes that is at question here.




Access Denied wrote: As I’m sure Ray can attest, there are a large number of variables involved, all of which would have to be just right to result in the above described behavior… not exactly a forgone conclusion.


Of course there are many variables involved or there wouldn't be such large variations in the plasmas themselves.

Also if conditions for UAP and the variables involved where all 'willy-nilly' rather than needing to be 'just right' then there would be UAP everywhere all the time rather than being a rarely observed phenomena, right? But, really what does that even matter, clearly the Condign report is discussing "cigar, disc, spherical, toroidal and triangle" shapes in terms of atmospheric plasmas!



Access Denied wrote:Also, it should be noted disc/saucer shaped sightings are extremely rare as shown in the statistical analysis of the cases studied…

Image

To say the MOD report definitively associates disc/saucer shapes with atmospheric plasmas is not telling the whole story and seems a bit disingenuous in my opinion.


Combining, Disc, Saucer, and Oval shapes gives ~8% of the UAP shapes according to the graph posted. 8% is 8%, AD. Of course this is only one years data ('96-'97) from an admittedly small region of airspace where the report considers the 'phenomena' to be global in nature and occurring on a daily basis.

Also the Condign report takes note that...

"24. There are several aspects of reporting where witness data, even from 'credible witnesses' may not be accurate. This must be considered when making judgements. For example:

- A sphere may be described in error as a disc or vise versa.

- A disc viewed other than in plan may often be described as a cigar, especially if it is viewed in silhouette and seen partly shadowed.

- A disc may be described as a cigar or a sphere or oval, depending on the aspect. Coloured lights, in a row from one aspect, may be described as a triangle, rectangle, diamond, or even a pentagon, when viewed in plan. For example, as all orientations are possible, the same diamond-shaped pattern of light centres, seen in plan by one observer can be described as a 'stack of coloured balls' by another; when it is vertically buoyant; while yet another, after it has rotated, sees it as a 'row of lights'.

- An aircraft may be described as a triangle (since some deltas are still flying) or as an aircraft because 3 lights are seen in a triangle (i.e. wing tips and tail).

- A helicopter may be described as a disc if an illuminated rotor path is seen, (usually this type of report can be separated by the distinctive noise, if reported).

- Vol.1, Chapter 2, pp 9



There is NOTHING "disingenuous" on my part for pointing out that the Condign report is in fact discussing these 'shapes' in terms of atmospheric plasmas, despite your objections to the contrary. There is no doubt that 'spheres' are the most common shape of UAP (I've seen one), but the Condign report is NOT simply and solely discussing 'spheres' but other shapes as well including the 'Disc/Saucer/flattened sphere' shapes.

BTW, you've claimed I'm being "disingenuous" so many times now for no real reason over the last couple of years that it has almost become a form of 'compliment' from you. Just as you did in this post it almost always seems that you claim I'm being "disingenuous" when you find yourself unable to disagree with some simple point I happen to be making about this subject that you feel threatens your pet 'Psycho-social' hypothesis. :roll:
Last edited by lost_shaman on Fri May 23, 2008 5:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: Curious...

Postby lost_shaman » Fri May 23, 2008 3:41 am

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:Now if we switch gears and talk about objects reported (UAP), some of which are disc shaped, we are having a completely separate discussion. Where UAP are thought to be plasmas rather than 'solid objects' 'driven' by fields rather than aerodynamics.


This is where I, again, say "no". The fields still involve aerodynamics and thermodynamics, which are based upon temp, pressure, density, and viscosity. The fact that they MAY also involve electromagnetics does not make these phenomenon devoid of aerodynamics. The state of the atmospherics in the area where such a "buoyant plasma" may form is still aerodynamics.


I never said "devoid of aerodynamics"!

Ray can you agree that there is a "GENERAL" (in laymans terms if that makes you feel better) fundamental difference between the 'forces' acting on a plasma causing it's traversal of the atmosphere and those 'forces' that allow an airframe to traverse the atmosphere?

I'm not trying to tell you a plasma CAN NOT have ANY interaction with the atmosphere in which it travels, For gods sakes!

I've already apologized for the confusion on this thread for discussing both "airframes" as disc shapes and "UAP" as disc shapes. Can I at least catch a freakin break after apologizing for that?

The only small point I attempt to make and still make after the apology, is this...

In other words just because 'shape' X makes a crappy 'aerodynamic' design for an airframe doesn't mean that 'shape' X as a plasma has those same limitations and flaws!
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: Curious...

Postby Access Denied » Fri May 23, 2008 5:43 am

lost_shaman wrote:Also the Condign report takes note that...

Excellent point, thank you for posting that.

lost_shaman wrote:BTW, you've claimed I'm being "disingenuous" so many times now for no real reason over the last couple of years that it has almost become a form of 'compliment' from you.

Sorry, wasn’t sure where you were going with the “saucer” bit… for a while there I thought maybe you were going to tell us a plasma crashed in Roswell. :shock:

lost_shaman wrote:Just as you did in this post it almost always seems that you claim I'm being "disingenuous" when you find yourself unable to disagree with some simple point I happen to be making that you feel threatens your pet 'Psycho-social' hypothesis. :roll:

Please, that’s “my precious” PSH…

[drools]
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Curious...

Postby lost_shaman » Fri May 23, 2008 7:11 am

Access Denied wrote:Sorry, wasn’t sure where you were going with the “saucer” bit… for a while there I thought maybe you were going to tell us a plasma crashed in Roswell. :shock:


I'm truly sorry that you have to live everyday of your life with that kind of 'fear' AD.

Let me guess, it's the avitar right?
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: Curious...

Postby lost_shaman » Tue May 27, 2008 7:33 am

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:Can you meet me halfway? That is really all I am asking.


If you are still interested, and I hope you still are, I'm certainly willing to help you track down specific references in the Condign report Ray.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Previous

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

cron