[thestartup]

While not a conclusion, the reports of objects that defy the known laws of physics are extensive by this point.

If the incidents are not the result of "alien activity" perhaps the US Military does have supremely advanced technology under wraps and is demonstrating this technology to ambiguously create the idea that it could be "aliens".

[sago]

"Defy the known laws of physics" is thrown about a lot. But usually means "If what we are seeing is a self-contained vehicle, it exceeds reasonable assumptions about manoeuvring envelopes for known technologies."

The "laws of physics" are pretty wide. There are many kinetic phenomena, entirely consistent with them, whose dynamics can't be filmed even at thousands of frames per second. There are all kinds of potential optical and electromagnetic effects (whether natural or intentional) that could show essentially arbitrary scale and motion.

"Def[ies] the known laws of physics", is a good sign your imagination is too narrow, or your understanding of physics too small.

[hermitdev]

Not trying to be pedantic, but I think this fits well with your comment.

To the best of my knowledge, the only accepted laws of physics relate to the 3 laws of thermodynamics. Everything else is still considered a theory (to the best of my knowledge), even if the theory works really damn well (for instance relativity is still considered a theory).

I know there are accepted "laws" in other fields related to physics, such as Ohm's or Kerchov's laws in electrical engineering, but I don't think these are generally accepted scientific laws, more generally accepted as engineering laws where for nearly all cases for engineering, they apply to a sufficient accuracy to produce products that are sufficient.

[paulmooreparks]

You're confusing the colloquial meaning of "theory" with the scientific meaning. A scientific theory has been tested repeatedly and can be reasonably relied upon to make predictions (see relativity and GPS, for example). The colloquial meaning of theory is more accurately called a hypothesis.

[hermitdev]

I'm not, actually. If relativity were a law, we'd presumably have unification with quantum mechanics. But we don't. Relativity works really well (well enough) in an enourmous number of areas, but not all and completely breaks down at the quantum level.

And, it only takes a single counterpoint to disprove a theory. Hence theories are signifcantly harder to prove than disprove.

What you're referring to as laws are theories that work well enough in some circumstances that needing something better isn't needed. Such as relativity to implement GPS. Newton's theorems in Principia Mathematica are generally good enough for most day to day type stuff. E.g. we dont need to involve Relativity to understand the physics being acted upon a car (thats not a Tesla roadster launched into space).

Science isnt much about coining laws. It's more about obtaining an ever more correct model of reality, and as you say, make (reasonably accurate) predictions.

[mehrdadn]

> To the best of my knowledge, the only accepted laws of physics relate to the 3 laws of thermodynamics.

How about conservation of momentum?

[chopin]

Following Noether's theorem conservation of momentum relies on translational symmetry of space which we assume but have no proof for (other than measurements of conservation of momentum). In so far it is theory territory.

Thermodynamics on the other hand relies only on effects of large numbers (of hard balls) with no further assumptions. In so far I can understand the GP assertion although I am reluctant. You put in the hard ball assumption (particles can exchange energy) which may put it in theory territory. As well the laws hold only for equilibrium situations which can be reached in (sufficiently dense) baryonic matter but maybe not for non-baryonic matter.

[mehrdadn]

> "Def[ies] the known laws of physics", is a good sign your imagination is too narrow, or your understanding of physics too small.

I don't know but I would assume they are usually referring to conservation of momentum being violated, rather than something like the 2nd law of thermodynamics or the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Which is pretty easy to see unless you have reason to believe there is something rather crazy happening that you cannot see (like I imagine a neutron being emitted at >99% of the speed of light to cancel some change in momentum that you otherwise can't explain).

[hopler]

Please link to some reports from reputable sources.

[joshuaheard]

There was one on HN last year where Navy pilots saw an object hover above the water then shoot up 10,000 feet in a matter of seconds, hover there, then come back down to the surface. It bounced up and down like that several times then shot off into space. One pilot said the bouncing seemed like a preparation for its eventual takeoff. It was confirmed by Navy radar.

There was a great interview last night on Tucker Carlson where the expert said there are basically two possibilities that the military should explore: one of our terrestrial enemies has an aviation capability more advanced than ours, or an extraterrestrial civilization has capabilities more advanced than us. Of course, there could be some sort of natural phenomenon we don't know about. In any event, it is worth investigating in a rational way.

[lwansbrough]

Linked in another comment is the incident you’re recalling: https://youtu.be/G9D8dzl4zGk

[waiseristy]

And an interview with the pilot https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/035-ufos/

[internet_user]

hard to trust video these days, unless there is a chain of custody. How are we to know it's not someone testing their film director/CGI skills?

[lwansbrough]

Did you even bother to click the link? There's like 2 minutes of prelude which lays out the chain of custody exactly.

[dogma1138]

This was released by the pentagon and covered by very large media outlet, the pilots were interviewed.

This doesn’t mean it’s aliens but this is pretty fucked up.

[internet_user]

I wasn't aware it was released by the pentagon. I am under impression it was unauthorized release.

[mc32]

Not sure if the upper atmosphere has something similar to Fata Morgana, but at least in the lower atmosphere it can deceive the location of objects in the distance.

[scanny]

Don't suppose you have that HN link?

[vorpalhex]

I don't know about "defying the laws of physics" (since if it could truly defy the laws of the physics that would be whack) but plenty of stealth bombers were reported as "mysterious UFOs" before they were officially revealed in any capacity - and I'm sure there is no shortage of experimental craft that never made the cut.

Hell, even if someone saw a B-2 today they'd probably think it's alien.

[PhaedrusV]

When my mom watched "Independence Day" she started booing the B-2's because she thought they were aliens...

[dsfyu404ed]

>Hell, even if someone saw a B-2 today they'd probably think it's alien.

They'd probably think they're living in the matrix and several pixels of sky are glitching.

[Izkata]

> I don't know about "defying the laws of physics" (since if it could truly defy the laws of the physics that would be whack)

It refers to objects that start and stop moving instantaneously, or make turns at hard right angles, as if they have no inertia.

[gdy]

Very high acceleration and deceleration don't defy laws of physics.

[dx87]

They didn't say very high acceleration, they said instantaneous changes in speed, like the object has no mass.

[Dylan16807]

But the context is visual observation, where there's no way to tell the difference between the two.

[abakker]

ball lightning?

[MockObject]

https://web.archive.org/web/20110716064152/http://dewoody.ne...