Preprint Article Version 1 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles

Version 1 : Received: 21 August 2019 / Approved: 22 August 2019 / Online: 22 August 2019 (11:50:30 CEST)

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

Knuth, K.H.; Powell, R.M.; Reali, P.A. Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles. Entropy 2019, 21, 939. Knuth, K.H.; Powell, R.M.; Reali, P.A. Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles. Entropy 2019, 21, 939.

Abstract

A number of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) encountered by military, commercial, and civilian aircraft have been reported to be structured craft that exhibit 'impossible' flight characteristics. We consider a handful of well-documented encounters, including the 2004 encounters with the Nimitz Carrier Group off the coast of California, and estimate lower bounds on the accelerations exhibited by the craft during the observed maneuvers. Estimated accelerations range from almost 100g to 1000s of g's with no observed air disturbance, no sonic booms, and no evidence of excessive heat commensurate with even the minimal estimated energies. In accordance with observations, the estimated parameters describing the behavior of these craft are both anomalous and surprising. The extreme estimated flight characteristics reveal that these observations are either fabricated or seriously in error, or that these craft exhibit technology far more advanced than any known craft on Earth. In many cases, the number and quality of witnesses, the variety of roles they played in the encounters, and the equipment used to track and record the craft favor the latter hypothesis that these are indeed technologically advanced craft. The observed flight characteristics of these craft are consistent with the flight characteristics required for interstellar travel. That is, if these observed accelerations were sustainable in space, then these craft could easily reach relativistic speeds within a matter of minutes to hours and cover interstellar distances in a matter of days to weeks, proper time.

Keywords

UAP; UAV; UFO; Nimitz; TicTac; JAL1628

Subject

Physical Sciences, Applied Physics

Comments (11)

Comment 1
Received: 27 August 2019
Commenter: George Franklin Dodge III
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: Thank You for helping to add some actual science t a topic that frankly isn't studied nearly enough.
+ Respond to this comment
Comment 2
Received: 17 September 2019
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: The analysis of the Nimitz ATFLIR video in 1.4.3 is built on the wrong assumption that the ATFLIR’s ‘gaze’ does not move relative to the object.

You can see the angle of the ATFLIR ‘gaze’ in the ATFLIR display: the ATFLIR ‘gaze’ moves steadily from right to left while it is locked on the object. This means that the object is slowly moving right to left with respect to the jet, even if the ATFLIR keeps it locked in the center of the display which means we see no movement in the display at all.

When the ATFLIR lock is broken, it suddenly stops gazing at the object while the object continues its right-to-left movement. This causes an illusion of sudden acceleration on the ATFLIR display, which looks even more dramatic due to a zoom change halfway the object’s drift out of the ATFLIR field-of-view.

The angular velocity of the right-to-left movement of the object can be computed from the data on the ATFLIR display, so it is possible to predict the time it takes for the object to drift out of the display when the ATFLIR suddenly stops looking straight at it. This time [i]exactly[/i] matches the time in the video. A detailed analysis with a graph can be found here: https://www.metabunk.org/posts/222154/ .

Conclusion: The slow right-to-left movement of the object throughout the whole ATFLIR video is the only real movement there is. There is no indication of any acceleration.
+ Respond to this comment
Response 1 to Comment 2
Received: 18 September 2019
Commenter: Peter Reali
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: I am one of the cited author's of the paper.
Comment: The analysis of the acceleration of the object is based on when the camera loses lock and is based on an analysis of the size of the object which has been testified by several witnesses that say the object was the Tic-TAc and about the size of an F18. By knowing the field of view of the flir camera it is possible to then calculate the acceleration of the object after it loses lock with respect to the plane. This is detailed in the report. metabunk is incorrect in its analysis and has not studied the video in detail nor the actual specification of the camera.
Response 2 to Comment 2
Received: 18 September 2019
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: A response to Peter Reali:

The Metabunk analysis is straightforward and only requires the FOV of the ATFLIR. For the FOV, Metabunk used exactly the same values as you (0,7 in NAR at 1x magnification, 0,35 in NAR at 2x magnification). The rest is simply a matter of plotting the object’s angle over time (the object’s angle is shown in the ATFLIR display) and extrapolating this graph using the ATFLIR FOV for the last 32 frames when the ATFLIR stops following it.

The graphs of the last 32 frames in the article under review basically show a linear movement, no acceleration. The small flat part of the graph for the first few frames are due to the ATFLIR shortly trying to regain lock when the lock is broken. The curves in the article under review lend themselves for a linear kinematic fit, yet in your kinematic formulas for the first 16 frames you did not include a velocity, only acceleration. This will automatically lead to a huge acceleration value as a mathematical artifact. The graphs, however, clearly show no such acceleration.
Response 3 to Comment 2
Received: 18 September 2019
Commenter: Peter Reali
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: I am one of the secondary cited authors
Comment: The link you provided goes to a response from a Kaen who is a member of the group, that has a graph with no units on the horizontal or vertical axis and no details at how he arrived at the graph so I can't verify the analysis. If he wishes to debunk he needs to show some details of his analysis so it can be verified. Further I looked at this site several months ago before there were 13 pages of comments. Mike West site owner make the claim that the object is 50 to 100 miles away but it can be determined by the known size of an F18 or E2 Hawkeye and the field of view of the camera that if it were one of these planes it would be 20 to 30 miles away. Now the field of view is equivalent to a telescope of probably greater than 30x resolving power so it would easily be able to resolve the aerodynamics structures of the aircraft as that is what these devices are designed for. Further the video examines the last second of the video and many of the other comments talk about other parts of the video that are not relevant to this analysis. If the last few seconds of the video are examined the angle indicators of the Flir are not changing indicating that the flir camera is not slewing to follow the object. Further the idea that flir camera was turned off, if it occurred would show a change in operational status of the device on the flir screen and this does not occur. If the object were a plane as it turned to move left its aspect ration would change and be visible due to the long fuselage and tail becoming visible, the same for a missile.
To lose lock under these conditions would require a hefty acceleration as the flir servo has the capability of locking on very fast accelerating object. The SCU has talked to technicians who have used this system to track missiles taking off and they do not lose lock with relatively high accelerations but not up to 80 to 90 g s as the analysis here and a separate report by the SCU shows in the link below. The object does not significantly change shape in any way during this portion of the video. If the plane were turning right it would have to bank and the angles of the axis on the screen would change to reflect this. The fact that during the the last second that the magnification goes from 1X to 2X is taken into account by halving the distance estimates during this portion of the video.
The SCU: [ https://www.explorescu.org/post/nimitz_strike_group_2004 ] began studying this incident a year before the incident became public by the NY times release and has interviewed the major witnesses and checked the Deck logs of Nimitz to verify all the statements about time and location. The interviews are pretty consistent on the major facts. During the encounter the military clears all civilian aircraft and it was known form the logs and interviews that the only objects up there were F18's and E2 Hawkeys. The idea that the WSO turned off the Flir camera [ who's testimony contradicts this is not factual and shows a lack of research on Kaen's part.] The metabunk site itself is not a scientifically based organization. If you are seriously interested in this incident they I would recommend you reading the extensive analysis of the incident on the SCU site given above where if focuses on three main extraordinary trajectory reported about the object. This report is a survey of 3 historical incidents with physical evidence and covers on a small section of the SCU report using a different analysis. The SCU analysis while similar uses a slightly different approach but arrives at virtually the same reported accelerations. 40 to 100g's all of them would kill a pilot and disintegrate any know aircraft. Respectfully, if you are going to review the paper above for errors you need to go through the paper and point out specific arguments about where the analysis is wrong and not refer to someone else's analysis that has no details about how they arrived at their conclusions.
Response 4 to Comment 2
Received: 18 September 2019
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: Models (20) - (23) use the following kinematics for either the full 32 frames or the first 16 of the 32 frames:

x = 1/2.a.t^2 + x0

This is wrong. The model should be:

x = 1/2.a.t^2 + v0.t + x0
where v0 is the velocity of the object in the first frame.

Velocity v0 can be computed from the angular displacement of the object over time in the part of the video where the ATFLIR is still locked on the object. It is 0,27 degrees per second.

Figure 6 in your article shows the object traverses half the FOV in NAR mode at 2x magnification in 1 second.
That is an angular velocity of 0,175 degrees per second, very close to the initial velocity v0.

If you make the plot, it becomes even clearer that the object simply continues its contant speed with respect to the jet:


Comment 3
Received: 17 September 2019
Commenter: T L Trevaskis
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: This article gives good backing to the argument I have been making for several years now--ie, that recent observations, unlike the grainy black-and-white amateur stills of 50 years ago, are based on calculable aeronautics made by professionals using very sophisticated equipment.

I don't know, anymore than anyone else does, what these objects are. But I'm glad to be finding more and more reports and analyses that indicate something is taking place, and is not just leaps of fantastic imagination.

Thanks!
+ Respond to this comment
Comment 4
Received: 28 October 2019
Commenter: J. Walter Sofía
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: I analyzed the video made public by the US Navy and I must ask you: do you have access to the original video?.
The calculations and details in your report imply a first level documentary access, and taking into account that all references are made based on the video test, testimonies and contributions of witnesses, but reaffirmed by the public presentation of the armed US, some additional element may be needed for the analysis.
The expression of an "oblong" or "tic-tac" form belongs more to a subjective perception from the observers, direct in the flight booths or through ATFLIR; especially in the latter the image quality is minimal.
The video made public by the US Navy was edited without a doubt. Question: Is this video the product of a video capture of the recording screen? I say this because the data composition matrix does not match the visual representation.
While one of the main postulates is acceleration and its consequences, therefore its potential capabilities, structural analysis is very important in relation to the true form of what we are seeing.
To understand this relationship: if we observe a propeller rotating with the eyes or through a low quality video device, we will surely see the cone of the shaft and possibly the circumference established by the tip of the propeller blades, but not We will see the blades.
In the same way if a "UAP" had a complex multiple structure, in which one or some parts were dynamic, and another or other parts were static, surely we would only see the latter.
In an atmospheric movement of the characteristics of this particular "UAP", referenced with other similar observations made, and comparing the screen data that can be seen in the video, here we are not talking about "propellers".
The calculation of acceleration in this regard plays an important role in relation to the shape profile of the "UAP"; having a sustained movement and extreme changes of direction, generating g-forces without disturbances of the atmospheric fluid, without sonic shots and without changing thermal marks, and if we look at it from our technological perspective, we are more likely to face gravitational technology.
Even if that were the case, it would not explain issues such as the apparent conservation of mass in the video record, nor the fact of the "technological limitation" because if you have an artifact that can support 5000 g, it would be logical for you to have technology Remote target detection to avoid being seen and followed by any ATFLIR.
Unless, of course, you really want to be seen and followed ... For what?
The form also has to do with something more important: the source of energy.
In addition, the physical structure of the "UAP" seems important to allow us to propose, within the interstellar flight theory, an appropriate architecture for this, since in that case it is not only about the conservation of acceleration but also of many other factors inherent in displacement in the apparent void of space.
The topic here is how to focus the analysis, these months we have repeatedly heard the trends of the TTSA with the same video, but since 2004 there was no higher quality video, or written report, or data download, or for example a coursegram Satellite monitoring of the "UAP" knowing that they are always watching.
Another factor to consider is how "UAPs" alter their physical environment, and whether they do so intentionally or not; ATFLIR records have a special feature in relation to image capture technology, which conventional image and video capture equipment does not have, and that is perhaps the reason for the 2004 registration that would have been impossible in other circumstances.
Unfortunately, this 2004 video was the "party" of world ufology, a matter of technology and defense turned into a media proposal that gradually gained notoriety.
The point is that these "UAPs" move across the planet and are elusive even for the most sophisticated cameras and the most insistent observers; That is why I allowed you to make a humble recommendation: Before investing a small fortune in technology and resources, clean your desk and start asking yourself some questions that no one has asked before, before moving forward.
I say it from my own experience, it is likely that in the usual way you can have a "UAP" on you and not see it with your eyes, with the IR, or with the UV, or with the spectrometer; It is not just about "going out to see" but rather of becoming the bait of the "UAP" to be able to register them.
A minor issue is that the technology needed to make the records is not the same in air, land, or marine environments.
Respectfully.
J.W. Sofía
+ Respond to this comment
Comment 5
Received: 29 October 2019
Commenter: J. Hoffman
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: Artificial-gravity drive (up to almost the speed of light) is nice, but it is grossly insufficient for interstellar travel. Travelling at near light speed, years to decades to centuries of food, oxygen and fuel would need to be taken along. You might as well just propel the Earth to near light speed. If we ever gain access to one of these UFO's, plus an alien willing and able to explain their technologies to us, we will first need to be taught a large number of new laws and principles of physics. What energy source provides them with seemingly limitless amounts of energy, apparently without ever needing to be refueled, without producing waste heat or radiation, without producing any sound or vibration, and is extraordinarily compact and light weight? What propulsion system or method allows them to effectively travel at thousands to possibly trillions of times faster than light? What communication technology or method allows them to communicate at thousands to possibly trillions of times faster than light? What technology are they using to negate momentum? What technology allows the UFO to not interface with the air or water around it, and vice versa? Since the UFOs can move in any direction with extreme precision, far faster than a human can even see, what technology is navigating and controlling the UFOs? Do the aliens naturally think a thousand times faster than any human can, or are the UFOs controlled by tiny supercomputers? Do the aliens receive input from their ship's sensors telepathically? Do they control everything on their ship telepathically? What technology allows the manufacture of large metal hulls in a single solid piece, without welds, rivets or anything else? It is possible that the technologies mentioned above constitute only a small percentage of the (magical) technologies that have been mastered by aliens.
+ Respond to this comment
Response 1 to Comment 5
Received: 1 November 2019
Commenter: Julien Geffray
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: "What propulsion system or method allows them to effectively travel at thousands to possibly trillions of times faster than light?"
Besides the fact that describing the dynamics of UAPs and interstellar ship propulsion are two completely different questions (like a bass boat with paddles vs a large steamship):
Staying in the frameworks of general relativity and quantum field theory, FTL interstellar travel is possible: see the Alcubierre-Natário warp drive.
Extending the GRT framework gives solutions to the negative energy issue, e.g. Mach effect "mass fluctuation" propulsion applied to wormholes, or the Janus bimetric theory of gravity which includes negative energy states from the geometric perspective of a two-sided spacetime, and enables apparent FTL travel using the energy discrepancy between the two sectors. According to these two different theories, the enormous potential energy of the universe is used "at no expense" then at least it does not need to be carried within a tank aboard.
Newer quantum theories like post-quantum Bohmian mechanics + Fröhlich coherent condensates enable local metric engineering using very low power aboard the craft (draft) effectively modifying the intrinsic spacetime stiffness inside and in the immediate vicinity superconducting metamaterials with giant refractive index, pumped far from equilibrium in a resonant coherent state. Another candidate for FTL travel is quantized inertia (QI) where the light barrier can be broken. Most of these theories have been peer-reviewed by the way.

"What technology are they using to negate momentum?"
A warp drive effectively moves the craft without any acceleration felt by its passengers, even if it is seen accelerating at a hundred g-force by distant observers. Subluminal warp drive v ≪ c follows its own "free fall" zero g-force timelike geodesic trajectory.

"What technology allows the UFO to not interface with the air or water around it, and vice versa?"

Magnetohydrodynamic airflow control has been shown in the peer reviewed literature thirty years ago to enable supersonic and hypersonic flight regimes without shockwave. See this reference and the following specifically.

"what technology is navigating and controlling the UFOs? Do the aliens naturally think a thousand times faster than any human can, or are the UFOs controlled by tiny supercomputers?"
Post-quantum computers with emergent consciousness triggered by Fröhlich coherence, or any other kind of real AI, are required to pilot these things.

"What technology allows the manufacture of large metal hulls in a single solid piece, without welds, rivets or anything else?"
Large 3D printed nanoscale metamaterials perhaps?
Response 2 to Comment 5
Received: 20 November 2022
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: Assuming the craft is able to modify gravitational fields, they would most likely experience the passage of time differently. A trip to Alpha Centauri would be days for them while years for us on Earth. This would apply to any craft with traditional propulsion approaching the speed of light assuming Einstein is correct. For more info, see:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2184
Also, watch the segment on UAPs in the movie SARS-29.
Comment 6
Received: 18 April 2020
Commenter: Alan Swift
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: I applause this article for its in-depth analysis of likely scenarios.
The talk of computer ‘glitches’ is total rubbish. Radar operators on board the. swore that the new systems recently installed had been checked and reset, and in their opinion were not faulty.

The 40ft long tic tac was closely observed in real time, by naked eye, seen to make all the alleged manoeuvres. Also, rubbish was suggested by others that we have that sort of experimental technology with anti gravity ‘sheaths’ to counteract acute g forces. Speeds calculated from radar suggest 100,000 mph was attained.
Tell that to the military and they will laugh their heads off to suggest that was our craft. Many excuses offered by sceptics show a total disregard of the facts and disrespect for evidence from very credible witnesses, like fighter pilots and police.

Some will go to any lengths to discredit decent people’s evidence.

There is a lot of disinformation displayed by authorities to detract from the truth.
+ Respond to this comment

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our Diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
* All users must log in before leaving a comment
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 11
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here.