Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It would be hilarious if they were actually aliens using electronic warfare to exaggerate their ships’ performance.

Yes it would

Cronch wrote:

120-something reports over 20 years. That's around 6 reports a year, that's such a statistically insignificant amount that it makes them being aliens even less probable.

It's not like the US blankets the planet. I dunno about aliens, but there's something there. The problem is that many of the explanations that I've seen in this forum have already reportedly been examined and discarded by the Pentagon, or have nearly equaled 'aliens' in degree of improbability.

And, generally speaking, if fighters are scrambling, once is far too frequent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It would be hilarious if they were actually aliens using electronic warfare to exaggerate their ships’ performance.

Have an Exalt.

We come back to the problem of "if they're aliens, why do we see them". We have tech to mask gak from radar, turning airplanes into bird-sized blips. Aliens somehow haven't figured it out? If they don't care about being hidden, where are the mass sightings? Why are they never observed in broad daylight over city centers? Are they observing the dominant lifeform of this planet, the crabs instead of humans? Why haven't the NASA, ESA, Russians or Chinese space agencies reported anything? The aliens specifically avoid the ISS but then don't give a feth about being spotted by air force?

(and if I were being cynical, why was it again brought to public attention just as USA's ally was stirring a fethstorm in the middle east?)

I don't buy into the aliens-visiting-earth thing but I can still see them understanding that as long as they don't get seen too obviously the native society will brush it off. There are a lot of steps between wanting to be completely unseen and being completely apathetic to witnesses.

Cronch wrote:
We come back to the problem of "if they're aliens, why do we see them". We have tech to mask gak from radar, turning airplanes into bird-sized blips. Aliens somehow haven't figured it out? If they don't care about being hidden, where are the mass sightings? Why are they never observed in broad daylight over city centers? Are they observing the dominant lifeform of this planet, the crabs instead of humans? Why haven't the NASA, ESA, Russians or Chinese space agencies reported anything? The aliens specifically avoid the ISS but then don't give a feth about being spotted by air force?

(and if I were being cynical, why was it again brought to public attention just as USA's ally was stirring a fethstorm in the middle east?)

Well, that last one is the easiest (A report on it was demanded by law last year, and the deadline is this month)

On the tech angle, assuming there are aliens, the designs we've seen aren't conducive to stealth. The fact that aircraft have extremely small radar signatures is an effect of their physical shape as well as advanced coatings and material composition. Also, they're not stealthy at all depending on how you're looking, and it's been beaten even by fairly low tech means by countries like Serbia.

There have been mass sightings. Amusingly, some in major cities, though mostly not during the day. As far as space agencies go, SETI tends to be their focus, but James McDivitt, commanding Gemini 4, did report an incident, as well as Leroy Chiao, aboard the ISS, though he's since recanted and tried to explain what he saw in ways that don't involve UFOs. The fact is that, for a long time, if you said you saw something, no matter how much evidence you had, you were dismissed as a nutjob. A common statement with the pilots the Pentagon was interviewing was 'If I was flying solo, I wouldn't have reported it'.

and it's been beaten even by fairly low tech means by countries like Serbia.

Which observed the fact that US pilots got lazy and flew the same corridor. Stealth isn't invisibility, especially when you know where to look and when (they had a spotter near the airfield to tell them when it takes off). Spotting a target you don't know exists and using modern stealth instead of 70s tech like the F117 is another matter.
And why aren't the alien designs conductive to stealth? if they break laws of physics in flight, they sure as hell shouldn't have trouble making the ships in any shape they need, or even (if they're as some suggest some sort of scientific missions) stealthed probes.


As for individual sightings, why aren't there clear videos? Why are the "aliens" zigging, zagging and not just holding low and stationary for good obeservation? And if their tech is so good that they don't have to, why not plop some satellites round Venus to observe us? Or even around earth, if their stealth is so good.

My point is, those aliens are at the same time so advanced it's impossible to get them on the camera in clear view, and so low-tech or incompetent that they can be spotted at all.

And somehow they're spotted more easily in the atmosphere than in the orbit where there's almost nothing around beyond satellites going on stable orbits.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

If one of these pilots could say "I saw this thing dart off faster than a speeding bullet from a complete standstill with my own eyes" it would be one thing, yet even the most ardent UFO believers among them say "I was not able to visually confirm any of what I was seeing on my radar or FLIR".

The Nimitz CAG said exactly that. It was approaching him, and then vanished faster than the eye could follow. An object shaped like a tic tac and the size of an F18. It was reacquired by USS Princeton's radar 60 miles away a few seconds later. Parts of the incident were caught on camera. There are, supposedly, 120 incidents like that in the report that supposed to be released soon.

I've read and watched most relevant material and I've yet to see anything that involved the Nimitz CAG. I'm assuming you're referring to Commander David Fravor's encounter with the TicTac, as he was a squadron commander aboard the Nimitz and the only pilot I know of to have a clean eyeball visual on the object. The recent media narrative around his encounter kind of matches what you're describing - BUT doesn't match earlier reports of the same event. Note this article was written in 2015, prior to the recent media circus. In it he claims that the object passed behind him and then blitzed away at "multi-mach" speed. In more recent articles and interviews he claims instead that it disappeared or accelerated away in front of him as he came up behind the object instead. Likewise, recent interviews claim that the Princeton re-identified the object 60 miles away, but this story doesn't indicate the distance but based on the narrative I would guess the CAP point that it reappeared at was a lot closer than 60 miles away. Fravor and his wingman (Alex Dietrich), nor neither of their backseaters could locate the object that the Princeton was reporting at the CAP point. None of these events were caught on camera. There are a lot of conflicting accounts which make me question to what extent these reports are being sensationalized or exaggerated. If the object is capable of hovering more or less stationary as the article states, it seems more likely to me that what Fravor witnessed was not a mach speed acceleration away, but rather a rapid deceleration to a stop.

A second sortie later in the day, which was recorded (by Lieutenant Commander Chad Underwood) and released as the TICTAC video, did identify the object at the previously reported CAP location, starting 30nm out via FLIR. As per the article I linked:

The WSO first picked up a contact on the radar around 30nm away while it was operating in the RWS scan mode. He checked the coordinates and it was indeed hovering at their precise CAP point. He attempted several STT locks, to no avail. Later, in the debrief, he explained that he had multiple telltale cues of EA.

The target aspect on the track file was turning through 360 degrees along with some other distinct jamming indications. In the less precise scan mode, the return indicated that the object was, in the WSO’s words, “A few thousand feet below us. Around 15-20K– but hovering stationary.” The only movement was generated by the closure of the fighter to the CAP location.

EA is, in case you're unfamiliar, Electronic Attack, i.e. electronic warfare. I actually haven't read this article before today, but its nice to have confirmation to my suspicions that there was electronic warfare capabilities involved in the contact. The article goes on to say that the object later rapidly accelerated off screen, but in recent interviews Underwood has claimed that he is uncertain if it actually did accelerate away and that he believes its possible that it was buffeted away by the air displaced by his fighter as he flew past it, or that it was the result of parallax through the FLIR as he flew past the object. The only thing he is uncertain of is that he lost visual on the TicTac after that and could not reacquire it. He has also said that neither he, nor his (unidentified) wingman ever had an unaided visual on the object, it was only viewed through FLIR in this encounter.

Theres also one more interesting thing that makes me question some of the recent reporting:

They even queried the crew of the USS Louisville, a Los Angeles-class Fast-Attack submarine that was in the area as part of the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group who reported there were no unidentified sonar contacts or strange underwater noises on that day.

Recent reporting claims there was a sonar contact doing 70 knots underwater. Given the significantly greater levels of detail and clearer narrative of events in the article I linked, I'm inclined to believe that over the more recent reporting, and dismiss/discount the existence of the underwater contact.

FWIW, Alex Dietrich (Fravors wingman) has said she doesn't believe the objects in question were alien or extraterrestrial in origin and thinks discussions of them in that context is counterproductive and unhelpful. She has said that she could not verify some of Fravors claims as she lost sight of the object before Fravor did.

Its also worth mentioning that some of the reporting indicates that the Princeton was tracking *multiple* such objects simultaneously going into this encounter, which indicates the possibility that if there was an object on radar 60 miles away from Fravor and Dietrichs location, that it was in fact a separate object altogether rather than the same object popping up somewhere where it probably couldn't be.

It seems unlikely to be as insteresting as Aliens would be.....

Unless its drunk rich kid aliens buzzing primitives for a laugh....which woud explain alot.

chaos0xomega wrote:

EA is, in case you're unfamiliar, Electronic Attack, i.e. electronic warfare.

I could be wrong, but I swear I remember from previous discussions that Baron is a literal USAF pilot.

 Ketara wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

EA is, in case you're unfamiliar, Electronic Attack, i.e. electronic warfare.

I could be wrong, but I swear I remember from previous discussions that Baron is a literal USAF pilot.

Did a quick search through his posts and didn't see anything to indicate that, but I did find this post of his from 2018 about this exact encounter: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/746987.page#9807102

Well, Pop Sci has put out what appears to be a report excerpt, so the 61knts thing is apparently bogus. My bad for repeating what turned out to be a rumor.

CVW-11 EVENT SUMMARY
14 NOVEMBER 04
EVENT SUMMARY

110/100, 303/305, 401
FAST EAGLES 110/100 UPON TAKE OFF WERE VECTORED BY PRINCETON AND BANGER (1410L) TO INTERCEPT UNID CONTACT AT 160@40NM (N3050.8 W11746.9) (NIMITZ N3129.3 W11752.8). PRINCETON INFORMED FAST EAGLES THAT THE CONTACT WAS MOVING AT 100 KTS @ 25KFT ASL.

FAST EAGLES (110/100) COULD NOT FIND UNID AIRBORNE CONTACT AT LOCATION GIVEN BY PRINCETON. WHILE SEARCHING FOR UNID AIR CONTACT, FAST EAGLES SPOTTED LARGE UNID OBJECT IN WATER AT 1430L. PILOTS SAW STEAM/ SMOKE/CHURNING AROUND OBJECT. PILOT DESCRIBES OBJECT INITIALLY AS RESEMBLING A DOWNED AIRLINER, ALSO STATED THAT IT WAS MUCH LARGER THAN A SUBMARINE.

WHILE DESCENDING FROM 24K FT TO GAIN A BETTER VIEW OF THE UNID CONTACT IN THE WATER, FAST EAGLE 110 SIGHTED AN AIRBORNE CONTACT WHICH APPEARED TO BE CAPSULE SHAPED (WINGLESS, MOBILE, WHITE, OBLONG PILL SHAPED, 25-30 FEET IN LENGTH, NO VISIBLE MARKINGS AND NO GLASS) 5NM WEST FROM POSITION OF UNID OBJECT IN WATER.

CAPSULE (ALT 4K FT AT COURSE 300) PASSED UNDER FAST EAGLE 110 (ALT 16KFT). FAST EAGLE 110 BEGAN TURN TO ACQUIRE CAPSULE. WHILE 110 WAS DESCENDING AND TURNING, CAPSULE BEGAN CLIMBING AND TURNED INSIDE OF FAST EAGLE’S TURN RADIUS. PILOT ESTIMATED THAT CAPSULE ACHIEVED 600-700 KTS. FAST EAGLE 110 COULD NOT KEEP UP WITH THE RATE OF TURN AND THE GAIN OF ALTITUDE BY THE CAPSULE. 110 LOST VISUAL ID OF CAPSULE IN HAZE. LAST VISUAL CONTACT HAD CAPSULE AT 14KFT HEADING DUE EAST.

NEITHER FAST EAGLES 110 OR 100 COULD ACHIEVE RADAR LOCK OR ANY OTHER MEANS OF POSITIVE ID. FAST EAGLE 100 WAS FLYING HIGH COVER AND SAW THE ENGAGEMENT BY FAST EAGLE 110. FAST EAGLE 100 CONFIRMS 110 VISUAL ID; 100 LOST CONTACT IN HAZE AS WELL.

CPA OF ACFT 110 FROM CONTACT 4000-5000 FT.

 Ketara wrote:

I could be wrong, but I swear I remember from previous discussions that Baron is a literal USAF pilot.

I am most certainly not. Though Dakka posters have made a starling variety of claims about me over the years, or shoved words in my mouth that I did not say.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Also, I'm a bit confused by the "resembled a downed airliner but much larger than a submarine" bit. A 747 is like half the length of an American Ohio class submarine or a Russian Typhoon, Oscar, or Delta IV class boat, but otherwise comparable to American Sea Wolf or Los Angeles class boats. I'm really curious what he was trying to say here - did it have the shape of an airliner but was a lot larger? or does he actually think that submarines are smaller than 747s??

(I had completely forgotten about this)

They're talking about two separate contacts, one in the water, one in the air. I had interpreted the statement about the one in the water to be that it was large and white,like a downed airliner, but bigger than the sub.

Yeah, I understood that they were separate contacts, its just unclear what they mean by this description given the relative sizes of the two objects involved. Would have been nice if the point had been clarified or articulated more clearly in terms of what he was trying to describe.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

I could be wrong, but I swear I remember from previous discussions that Baron is a literal USAF pilot.

I am most certainly not. Though Dakka posters have made a starling variety of claims about me over the years, or shoved words in my mouth that I did not say.

I must be thinking of someone else then. I know we had a USAF pilot around here somewhere....

 Ketara wrote:

I must be thinking of someone else then. I know we had a USAF pilot around here somewhere....

We did. I vaguely recall him talking about the superbug at one point, but I don't remember the subject of the discussion.

I know we had a Navy pilot back in the day. I think his handle was Seaward.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I know we had a Navy pilot back in the day. I think his handle was Seaward.

Yeah, he hasn't posted for about a decade at this point.

But anyway, so we have unknown aircraft that out perform the Hornet in a turn while climbing, use an unknown means of generating lift and propulsion, and, if the Princeton's radar is to be believed, came down from 80,000 feet before aircraft were vectored to it's location.. None of these things are, by themselves, impossible, but all in the same airframe boggles the mind.


You know, it occurs to me, what if the contact in the water was cooling? The Blackbird dropping for that altitude could get damn hot fast and these dropped faster, supposedly.

UFOs aren't new. In ww2 pilots on all sides reported seeing unknown red luminous orbs that allies dubvbed 'foo fighters' and were assumed to be axis weapons or aircraft.

After the war it was revealed axis pilots assumed they were allied in origin.

Cronch wrote:
(and if I were being cynical, why was it again brought to public attention just as USA's ally was stirring a fethstorm in the middle east?)

If you're talking about who I THINK you're talking about, I'd say "stirring up a fethstorm" is a bizarre way of saying "existing".




One thing to consider in all of this is that fighter pilots are more than aware of the capabilities of their aircraft, almost every other aircraft used by their military, a general idea of the capabilities of foreign military aircraft, and don't tend to be prone to hyperbole. If they're spooked, there's a reason. If they're saying it's NOT military jet X, Y, or Z, they're probably the subject matter expert in that convo.

and don't tend to be prone to hyperbole

Pilots (in fact all military!) over-reports things. US tankers killed more tigers and panthers in ww2 than germany ever produced, and indentified every german tank as a "cat" notoriously, and Allied airmen claimed to kill a swathe of tanks in France that, when examined later on the ground, limited their killcount to...like 10% of what they claimed I recall? TheChieftain has a good vid on that topic.
Which makes sense- in high stress situation humans arent' at their most rational and observant, and doubly so when talking about things in the air where we have little to no frame of reference.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I know we had a Navy pilot back in the day. I think his handle was Seaward.

Yeah, he hasn't posted for about a decade at this point.
But anyway, so we have unknown aircraft that out perform the Hornet in a turn while climbing, use an unknown means of generating lift and propulsion, and, if the Princeton's radar is to be believed, came down from 80,000 feet before aircraft were vectored to it's location.. None of these things are, by themselves, impossible, but all in the same airframe boggles the mind.

You know, it occurs to me, what if the contact in the water was cooling? The Blackbird dropping for that altitude could get damn hot fast and these dropped faster, supposedly.

I'm somewhat dubious about the existence of anything in the water. Recent reporting says something was moving around at 70 knots below the surface but I can't find a source for that. Older reporting indicates there were no unknown sonar contacts in the area whatsoever. Even if the giant jetliner submarine thing was somehow silent, the reported area of roiling whitewater bubbling at the surface would not have been, I have to imagine they would have heard that much at least on hydrophones/sonar. Additionally, Fravor has been inconsistent in his mention of the object - in some accounts of the story he mentions it explicitly, in others he only mentions the whitewater wile omitting the presence of another object, etc. If there was something in the water I think it more likely that it was a submarine that launched the tictac rather than a transmedium air vehicle which went for a dip in the ocean.

One thing to consider in all of this is that fighter pilots are more than aware of the capabilities of their aircraft, almost every other aircraft used by their military, a general idea of the capabilities of foreign military aircraft, and don't tend to be prone to hyperbole. If they're spooked, there's a reason. If they're saying it's NOT military jet X, Y, or Z, they're probably the subject matter expert in that convo.

Thats a bad take. They are human and thus not infallible, and pilots are amongst the most hyperbolic people you will ever meet. Even veteran pilots often misidentify what they are seeing, sometimes with tragic consequences. See the 1994 Blackhawk Shootdown for an example - pair of veteran USAF pilots mistook US Army Black Hawks for a pair of Iraqi Hinds and swatted them down. This sort of thing happens way more often than you probably realize (though more often than not its dropping bombs or strafing the wrong side on the ground). Beyond that, they can only know the capabilities of known aircraft - as is the case with the US the Russians and Chinese also have their own top secret aircraft that we know little to nothing about.

In any case, most (if not all) of the pilots in question have been pretty straight in saying they don't believe these aircraft to be alien or extraterrestrial in origin.

Chimed in on this thread previously. Very interesting conversation, this should probably be thread of the year for Dakka for the quality of the debate.

Still convinced the mainstream attention to UFOs is a ploy meant to gain Federal funding related to production of next-gen drones / warfighters. Wanted to add I've spent time listening to a range of interviews with Luis Elizondo and Chris Mellon. Seems to me some of their claims are overstated, a few things those two in particular ought to be aware of seem curiously absent from their discussions.

While it's (likely) true TicTocs etc are real objects that possess capabilities beyond those used in the US arsenal, skeptical of the claims the science to do this light years ahead of the state of the art. Specifically, the following claims stand out as things that could be done today:

- Frictionless surface that could avoid creating a sonic boom when travelling at high speeds

- Levitation / moving with no obvious signs of propulsion

To be clear, I'm not trying to explain how to build a TicToc. I am saying I'm skeptical of the claim building one is far beyond what we already know, material science and photonics could offer excellent starting points for a group that was sufficiently motivated.

For the first claim, 2D materials, like Graphene, are a thing. 1 molecule thin, almost no measurable weight, and stronger than steel. If someone wanted to produce an object that doesn't produce a sonic boom when travelling at high speeds, they would start there. It's terrifically hard to produce and industrial applications are mostly limited to strengthening other materials, like grinding it up to mix in with fabrics and paint. But fashioning sheets that act as surfaces for a craft is certainly possible.

Sonic booms are the product of displacement of air when an object with mass passes through them. Dramatically reducing the mass would be a way of reducing this affect within the atmosphere. If someone wanted to use a 2D material to produce something rugged, capable of travelling at high speeds, and operating with almost zero drag, it's probably just a math problem.

More I could say about graphene as a replacement for solid-state components, this is specifically to address the question of sonic booms.

For the second claim, Spintronics is a fun area of physics related to creating and destroying magnetic fields. It happens quickly, measured in milliseconds, but you can take non-ferrous materials and create a magnetic field that can persist over time. The creation / removal of a field can displace an object in space, moving it in tune with other physical laws. The industrial applications for spintronics are mostly limited to fabricating HDDs and semi-conductors. Applied at scale, they could be used to create objects that are capable of levitating / moving precisely from point to point with no obvious signs of propulsion.

To put this in perspective, I spend time at SPIE conferences and have sat through a lot of presentations on spintronics. When there is a video, it typically involves a spinning disk moving up and down a Z-axis. The spin is created by the rapid induction / reduction of magnetic fields, which are themselves created with electricity.

More I could say about necessary resources for doing this with something as large as a warfighter, which are significant but achievable with current technology. Upcoming sessions dealing with the topic:

https://spie.org/OPN/conferencedetails/spintronics?SSO=1

So the question I'm asking, do all these claims rely on the public's lack of awareness of the state of the art in physics? Yes, TicTocs as described do things that are beyond what we know about in the US military arsenal. But are we actually seeing objects that do something beyond what happens everyday with hard drives and bike coatings?

My current hypothesis is we are seeing semi-conductor technology applied at scale to large objects. We're used to thinking about aircraft in terms of big, heavy objects moving according to the laws of aerodynamics and propulsion. That model does not explain what we've been seeing, but maybe that's the point of the videos. Someone realizes we can do more operating with a different model, so there's an effort to make everyone aware.

 techsoldaten wrote:

For the first claim, 2D materials, like Graphene, are a thing. 1 molecule thin, almost no measurable weight, and stronger than steel.

But only only about three times as tough as silicon. Remember that being as strong (resistant to deformation) is not the same as being tough (resistant to fracture). https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10546

When building a structure, it's better to strike a balance between tough and strong materials. A component made of graphine will break before it bends, making it slightly more than 'just a math problem' . Particularly since graphine has the alarming tendency to shatter like glass.

Cronch wrote:

and don't tend to be prone to hyperbole

Pilots (in fact all military!) over-reports things. US tankers killed more tigers and panthers in ww2 than germany ever produced, and indentified every german tank as a "cat" notoriously

And how many of those tankers would have faced possible punishment/censure for reporting those kills? Or just the mockery of their fellows? There's no motive for pilots to report UFOs unless they're looking to get grounded.

 techsoldaten wrote:

But are we actually seeing objects that do something beyond what happens everyday with hard drives and bike coatings?

Yes. Individually, the phenomena associated with aren't outside our technology, mostly. But combining them all in the same package and having it work is something else all together. And it would still require a powerplant that could actually power the thing.

There's no motive for pilots to report UFOs unless they're looking to get grounded.

As someone pointed out, WW2 pilots reported foo fighters a lot.
Which brings another question, those UFOs always seem to be operating outside of scope of human tech, but not too much- they could've been visually spotted by prop plane pilots long enough to confirm they're not another prop or (later in the war) german jet, and now they linger just slow enough that human radars and bare eye can spot them. What is their nefarious plan, teasing our brave flyboys like that?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

For the first claim, 2D materials, like Graphene, are a thing. 1 molecule thin, almost no measurable weight, and stronger than steel.

When building a structure, it's better to strike a balance between tough and strong materials.

That really depends on what you're building and what kind of forces you expect it to be under. In general terms, you're right, but in the aerospace world theres lots of niche applications for improbable materials to be used, especially in regards to experimental aerostructures.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

For the first claim, 2D materials, like Graphene, are a thing. 1 molecule thin, almost no measurable weight, and stronger than steel.

When building a structure, it's better to strike a balance between tough and strong materials.

That really depends on what you're building and what kind of forces you expect it to be under. In general terms, you're right, but in the aerospace world theres lots of niche applications for improbable materials to be used, especially in regards to experimental aerostructures.

Furthermore, the quality of the graphene sheet itself.

Most graphene is fabricated on a substrate and possesses imperfections at the lattice level. A refined fab process that accounts for imperfections leads to much more reliable materials.

 techsoldaten wrote:

Sonic booms are the product of displacement of air when an object with mass passes through them. Dramatically reducing the mass would be a way of reducing this affect within the atmosphere. If someone wanted to use a 2D material to produce something rugged, capable of travelling at high speeds, and operating with almost zero drag, it's probably just a math problem.

It isn't about mass of the aeroplane, it is about volume and shape. The aeroplane is having to displace the air as it moves through. This creates pressure waves which, when the plane breaks the sound barrier, creates the sonic boom.

Reducing the mass of the plane without a corresponding change in its volume and aerodynamic profile wouldn't change anything about the sonic boom it creates as it has to displace the same amount of air.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

Sonic booms are the product of displacement of air when an object with mass passes through them. Dramatically reducing the mass would be a way of reducing this affect within the atmosphere. If someone wanted to use a 2D material to produce something rugged, capable of travelling at high speeds, and operating with almost zero drag, it's probably just a math problem.

It isn't about mass of the aeroplane, it is about volume and shape. The aeroplane is having to displace the air as it moves through. This creates pressure waves which, when the plane breaks the sound barrier, creates the sonic boom.

Reducing the mass of the plane without a corresponding change in its volume and aerodynamic profile wouldn't change anything about the sonic boom it creates as it has to displace the same amount of air.

True, assuming the volume is a solid, the shape is coherent and the surface displaces air uniformly.

You offered a perfect description of how a sonic boom occurs with known materials. Now explain what's different about the TicTocs.

Tictocs don't exist as flight capable craft.
They start as a barely perceived object at the edge of perception that the brain fills in with detail - which generally means the brain assumes the most dangerous outcome.

Like when you see a leaf blowing across the floor out of the corner of your eye, and your brain screams "spider!".

When you reach those speeds materials and shape don't matter that much, you're creating the sonic boom whether you like it or not.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

Sonic booms are the product of displacement of air when an object with mass passes through them. Dramatically reducing the mass would be a way of reducing this affect within the atmosphere. If someone wanted to use a 2D material to produce something rugged, capable of travelling at high speeds, and operating with almost zero drag, it's probably just a math problem.

It isn't about mass of the aeroplane, it is about volume and shape. The aeroplane is having to displace the air as it moves through. This creates pressure waves which, when the plane breaks the sound barrier, creates the sonic boom.

Reducing the mass of the plane without a corresponding change in its volume and aerodynamic profile wouldn't change anything about the sonic boom it creates as it has to displace the same amount of air.

True, assuming the volume is a solid, the shape is coherent and the surface displaces air uniformly.

You offered a perfect description of how a sonic boom occurs with known materials. Now explain what's different about the TicTocs.

Nothing can travel faster than the speed of sound through the atmosphere without creating a sonic boom. Even small objects like bullets and the tips of a whip obey these laws. It doesn't matter what the material is, if it takes up physical space then air must be displaced and a sonic boom will occur.

If people are claiming to see an object move faster than sound without a corresponding sonic boom then they are just wrong. If your observations do not agree with fundamental physical laws then your observations are wrong.

The best you can do is use very carefully designed angles to reduce the boom.