'UFO' term is redundant

[Gwin Ru]

Posted by Mashika (here)
[...]

You can rename the same thing whatever you like, in the end it is like natives calling Gods the white people who came from the sea LMFAO!

Careful with that you might end up being a staunch "Flat Earther"


See this post

2) they are actual objects per a 3D definition...

This is owing to Jacques Vallée who ended up concluding that these "UAPs" have more to do with psychic phenomena than actual 3D solid objects as exemplified with groups where a few individuals can "see" it whereas others in that same group didn't see no-nothing.


As for:

1) those things are flying per the common definition

Can bullets or Saturn V rockets truly fly without wings?

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by Mashika (here)
Who cares? It's still Unidentified, it's still Flying, and it's still an Object. Regardless of origin or technology that makes it work

Precisely, so UFO is still the perfect term. I understand what bogeyman means, but this is somewhat splitting hairs. If it's suspended in the air, and moving in the air, irrespective of its aerodynamic properties, it is nonetheless flying, by any quick or sensible definition. And if it is unknown what it is, it is also unidentified, and being an object, it is also an object. If someone prefers another name, that's fine. But Unidentified Flying Object, for what it describes, was perfectly coined all those decades ago.

[Mashika]

Posted by Gwin Ru (here)

Posted by Mashika (here)
[...]

You can rename the same thing whatever you like, in the end it is like natives calling Gods the white people who came from the sea LMFAO!

Careful with that you might end up being a staunch "Flat Earther"


See this post

2) they are actual objects per a 3D definition...

This is owing to Jacques Vallée who ended up concluding that these "UAPs" have more to do with psychic phenomena than actual 3D solid objects as exemplified with groups where a few individuals can "see" it whereas others in that same group didn't see no-nothing.

Can bullets or Saturn V rockets truly fly without wings?

Dah, you can test it yourself on your dining table

1. Get three coins
2. Place two of them together, no space between them, lay them plain on the table but touching each other
3. Place the third coin arount 5 cm away from one side of one of the other two coins
4. With your finger, push the third coin so it hits hard the middle coin

Watch as the first coin moves away from the second coin it was touching just a millisecond ago

And that's how rockets work in space, no wings but they move still

And that's why the lower part of the rockets move on its own and is loosely tied to the rocket itself, and it has that specific cone form that normal earth rockets don't need

The cone on the space rockets, is the "middle coin"

[Mashika]

Posted by Star Mariner (here)

Posted by Mashika (here)
Who cares? It's still Unidentified, it's still Flying, and it's still an Object. Regardless of origin or technology that makes it work

Precisely, so UFO is still the perfect term. I understand what bogeyman means, but this is somewhat splitting hairs. If it's suspended in the air, and moving in the air, irrespective of its aerodynamic properties, it is nonetheless flying, by any quick or sensible definition. And if it is unknown what it is, it is also unidentified, and being an object, it is also an object. If someone prefers another name, that's fine. But Unidentified Flying Object, for what it describes, was perfectly coined all those decades ago.

And also UAP has mostly already been associated with "alien aircraft out of this world" so it is meaningless by now, it was short lived, way way way more short lived than UFO was. Actually it is even more associated with "alien from other species and galaxy" than UFO ever was, because at least UFO had that thing about "may be us from the future, inner earth, the moon or mars" but this UAP thing pretty much turned people into "they are aliens because if the US government doesn't know what they are they can't be from this world, for real!"

With all the implications of what that means. LOL

[Gwin Ru]

Posted by Mashika (here)
[...]

Dah, you can test it yourself on your dining table

That's "Travel" following momentum and ballistic laws....

[Mashika]

Posted by Gwin Ru (here)

Posted by Mashika (here)
[...]

Dah, you can test it yourself on your dining table

That's "Travel" following momentum and ballistic laws....

In a rocket, the long tube that has the fuel sends it to the engine, which generates an explosion inside the cone, which causes two things, matter flowing in two directions, one outside the cone, one towards the cone, the explosion is in the middle. The rocket with the humans on one side, the "empty" space on the other side, the explosion causes the rocket to move away from it, leaving the explosion matter in its location along with the space that was behind. But the rocket got "pushed away from the explosion" just like the first coin got pushed away from the middle coin

How do you see a normal car engine working? Why does it need pistons? Have you seen how the small explosions work inside in a vacuum? To generate the power to move the car?

Like this?

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=jdW1t8r8qYc

Same basic idea, or thing

The fuel is pushed into the engine, there's a small spark, the fuel ignites, there's no air so whatever is around is pushed the other side (the piston) and it moves away from the explosion...

Basic but not quite the same as the rocket, but still the principles are there

[Mashika]

Posted by Gwin Ru (here)

Posted by Mashika (here)
[...]

Dah, you can test it yourself on your dining table

That's "Travel" following momentum and ballistic laws....

And do you know why space crafts like the ones that went to the moon, circled the earth a few times before actually going out to the moon?

[Gwin Ru]

Posted by Mashika (here)

Posted by Gwin Ru (here)

Posted by Mashika (here)
[...]

Dah, you can test it yourself on your dining table

That's "Travel" following momentum and ballistic laws....

In a rocket, the long tube that has the fuel sends it to the engine...

That's "Propulsion"... same as the fast burning powder in a shell to propel a bullet which trajectory is then governed by ballistic laws.

[ExomatrixTV]

Posted by GMB1961 (here)
Extraterrestrial Flying Craft? .....and just while we are on the subject I think it would be great if one of them landed and shared their knowledge with us. BUT having said that we would most likely blow them away as we have before to anyone else that was HUMAN who had anything of value to say to help this world we live in. Glenn in Australia.

ExtraDimensional Flying Craft assuming it must be "Extraterrestrial" is not 100% guaranteed.

[Mashika]

Posted by Gwin Ru (here)

Posted by Mashika (here)

Posted by Gwin Ru (here)

Posted by Mashika (here)
[...]

Dah, you can test it yourself on your dining table

That's "Travel" following momentum and ballistic laws....

In a rocket, the long tube that has the fuel sends it to the engine...

That's "Propulsion"... same as the fast burning powder in a shell to propel a bullet which trajectory is then governed by ballistic laws.

And? Can you "explain" what you think is wrong with that?

Do you think the space is "empty" or has "void" in it? I don't get your point, or you don't have one maybe


Wait let me ask one more thing, this will definitely answer my doubts

Do you think space has temperature? or doesn't have it at all

[Gwin Ru]

Posted by Mashika (here)
[...]
Do you think the space is "empty" or has "void" in it? I don't get your point, or you don't have one maybe
[...]

They are not "flying"!

[Mashika]

Posted by Gwin Ru (here)

Posted by Mashika (here)
[...]
Do you think the space is "empty" or has "void" in it? I don't get your point, or you don't have one maybe
[...]

They are not "flying"!

I asked about space temperature, do you know about it, or nah?

No one here on this thread, questioned if the "objects" were flying or not, or spacecraft, so you are complete out of topic already

It looks more like you are going to run away from this question because you don't know the answer

Spacecraft, when out of the atmosphere, don't "fly" anyway, at all. LOL

And you were the one who went off topic in the first place, then later ran away saying "go back on topic" once you could not keep up with the conversation you started

"If you can't bite a bullet, don't try shooting it at your own mouth". My grand father used to say

[Agape]

I think that the term UFOs was invented by some public relations agency anyway, sometime in the 50s so to confuse “joe public”.

Otherwise they would be only called “visitors” or Vs and Xs, on inside.

Anything that can “move through the air” is called an aerial object,
if it hovers or lingers around its called “reconnaissance craft” no matter what their intentions are.

For better terminology visit the Starship Enterprise


🙏

[Gwin Ru]

Posted by Mashika (here)

Posted by Gwin Ru (here)

Posted by Mashika (here)
[...]
Do you think the space is "empty" or has "void" in it? I don't get your point, or you don't have one maybe
[...]

They are not "flying"!

[...]
No one here on this thread, questioned if the "objects" were flying or not, or spacecraft, so you are complete out of topic already
[...]

Well, the ones who coined UAP seem to have considered it since these observed phenomena defy the laws of gravity and therefore the laws of ballistics:

Posted by Gwin Ru (here)
A more inclusive acronym nowadays is UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) probably because there is no certainty that:

1) those things are flying per the common definition and,

2) they are actual objects per a 3D definition...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It looks more like you are going to run away from this question because you don't know the answer

Spacecraft, when out of the atmosphere, don't "fly" anyway, at all. LOL

Regarding the above comment, if you could possibly meditate on Hervé's signature along with checking on the definition of a troll...

Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

[Mashika]

Posted by Gwin Ru (here)

Posted by Mashika (here)

Posted by Gwin Ru (here)

Posted by Mashika (here)
[...]
Do you think the space is "empty" or has "void" in it? I don't get your point, or you don't have one maybe
[...]

They are not "flying"!

[...]
No one here on this thread, questioned if the "objects" were flying or not, or spacecraft, so you are complete out of topic already
[...]

Well, the ones who coined UAP seem to have considered it since these observed phenomena defy the laws of gravity and therefore the laws of ballistics:

Posted by Gwin Ru (here)
A more inclusive acronym nowadays is UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) probably because there is no certainty that:

1) those things are flying per the common definition and,

2) they are actual objects per a 3D definition...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It looks more like you are going to run away from this question because you don't know the answer

Spacecraft, when out of the atmosphere, don't "fly" anyway, at all. LOL

Regarding the above comment, if you could possibly meditate on Hervé's signature along with checking on the definition of a troll...

Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

Yeah, i assumed as much, i asked for specific answers, so i'm a troll, clearly that's how science works.

So pointless LOL

Anyone that points things you can't figure out and understand, and asks for proof on your side after providing their own proof is a troll, right?

Do you know why you float on water but not on air? Must be a thing of the devil!

[Gwin Ru]

Posted by Mashika (here)
[...]

Yeah, i assumed as much, i asked for specific answers, so i'm a troll, clearly that's how science works.

So pointless LOL

Do you know why you float on water but not on air? Must be a thing of the devil!

Sure, keep exhibiting the behavior of a certified troll

[Mashika]

Posted by Gwin Ru (here)

Posted by Mashika (here)
[...]

Yeah, i assumed as much, i asked for specific answers, so i'm a troll, clearly that's how science works.

So pointless LOL

Do you know why you float on water but not on air? Must be a thing of the devil!

Sure, keep exhibiting the behavior of a certified troll

I think it has become very clear what your beliefs are, i'm not troll by the way. You know nothing about me but assumed things based on your ignorance and lack of resistance to criticism

IT speaks bad of you, a person who is uncapable of dealing with someone else's knowledge and runs aways screaming troll

But that's cool, i don't need to know anything more about you

All you said here is for everyone to see and learn about you. I know who i am, and if anything, it is you who is the troll, after all the evidence displayed here

You just may not realize it yet, or maybe you do?

You showed me all i wanted to see, because you know, if someone is honest, they say "i don't know, yet" when asked something they truly don't know

Trolls on the other hand, skip the question and lead into "another topic" just like you did back there LOL

But it's cool, you just got scared and lost out in the open, i understand that

Just go sleep good honest guy LOL, i'll keep around being "troll" for a bit longer

Have you heard "assumptions are the mother of all f*k ups?" Kind of came out of Prypiat, because... you should know why LMAO, if not, oh well look it up

But you just made some assumptions right there....

And now we are really off topic see? It just happens that YOU took the thread off topic with that dumb "flat earth" comment no one cared about in the first place

Facts are sometimes cold and cruel, and that's a fact

[Mike]

Posted by Gwin Ru (here)
A more inclusive acronym nowadays is UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) probably because there is no certainty that:

1) those things are flying per the common definition and,

2) they are actual objects per a 3D definition...

Yep, I would agree with that. I'm currently rereading the book "The Holographic Universe", and it posits the theory that some UFOs might be merely holograms, or some kind of ghostly apparitions from another dimension. This due to the fact that their maneuvers would tear apart any living being inside a craft moving in such a manner.

There are also orbs and light blobs in the sky that have been seen all throughout history. There's no way of knowing what the heck those things are. Are they physical objects? Who knows?

So for those reasons alone I think the UAP acronym would be technically more accurate than UFO. When you see a spotlight in the air, it's not flying; ditto a hologram. So things can be in the air and not necessarily flying. And like you said, it's also true that they may not be "objects" as we understand them. So, "unidentified flying objects" likely assumes a little too much.

Having said all that, I'm in agreement with the posters who think we should just leave it alone. Maybe it's selfish of me, but I like "UFO". Plus, it would be awkward to change it. It's like when someone changes their name one day, and demands to be called Dylan when you've been calling them Brandon their whole life. It's obnoxious. Or when you reach adulthood and all your friends' parents ask to be addressed by their first names now, minus the Mr and Mrs. I've always resented that! It too weird.

If the language slowly changes organically, so be it. But for now, I'm on team UFO.

[Orph]

People see things up in the sky that they have no idea what it is. Could be something from another planet. Could be a drone or a plane. Could be some alien dropping magic powder into our universe or they have ways of screwing with our atmosphere that is totally beyond our comprehension. The point is, we are seeing something and we don't know what it is. Seems kind of pointless to bicker over what to call it.

But, what-the-heck. I'll continue to gaze up at the skies, and, by chance should I see something that I don't understand, I'll just keep it to myself. I'll be totally happy that I personally witnessed a "boojinky".

[Mike]

I recall seeing Hilary Clinton on the Jimmy Kimmel show, encouraging Jimmy to replace the common "UFO" with the new "UAP"...

..and I have to admit, it made me suspicious.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=R95X8rwYD9o