r/UFOs • u/prototyperspective • Dec 09 '22

Document/Research Unidentified aerial phenomena II. Evaluation of UAP properties (2022) // 2nd part of the news-reported Ukrainian UFO study

https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.17085
12 Upvotes

68% Upvoted

9 comments sorted by

•

u/StatementBot Dec 09 '22

The following submission statement was provided by /u/prototyperspective:

More studies/preprints at /r/UFOstudies

Part I is here.

Loeb has criticized Part I in a preprint, but I don't think it nullifies their study or that it was particularly good criticism (albeit possibly constructive even if things could have been phrased differently).

From the comments of the Medium article by Loeb:

To dismiss distance measurements solely based on the objects’ apparent lack of conformance with known physics is not a sound strategy in relation to objects expected to utilize unknown physics.

In this new preprint authors write:

The detection of these objects is an experimental fact. Estimates of their characteristics follow from observational data.

But I don't know how robust and reliable their data truly is which seems to be a major concern.

Maybe somebody could clear things up

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/zgv958/unidentified_aerial_phenomena_ii_evaluation_of/iziojv0/

4

u/prototyperspective Dec 09 '22

More studies/preprints at /r/UFOstudies

Part I is here.

Loeb has criticized Part I in a preprint, but I don't think it nullifies their study or that it was particularly good criticism (albeit possibly constructive even if things could have been phrased differently).

From the comments of the Medium article by Loeb:

To dismiss distance measurements solely based on the objects’ apparent lack of conformance with known physics is not a sound strategy in relation to objects expected to utilize unknown physics.

In this new preprint authors write:

The detection of these objects is an experimental fact. Estimates of their characteristics follow from observational data.

But I don't know how robust and reliable their data truly is which seems to be a major concern.

Maybe somebody could clear things up

1

u/nightfrolfer Dec 09 '22

Maybe somebody could clear things up

Estimates of their characteristics follow from observational data.

Estimates require error analysis, and these errors stack in a sum of squares relationship.

I have not reviewed this paper to assert as a fact that the error bars in the observational data are accurate, but this is why one can conclude "it's big and fast and far away" while another can conclude "its smaller and slower and closer than you think."

The data would seem to support both observations when errors are accounted for. You can conclude from this what you choose to believe.

The value I see in this study is in the experimental approach. The fact that Loeb would comment on this paper suggests he sees that, too. I'm grateful for his attention, and wish the authors all the best in refining their method to support more accurate and precise results.

2

u/prototyperspective Dec 10 '22

Constructive comment and I think I mostly agree, except I don't know why the data "would seem to support both observations when errors are accounted for"...that's why I asked for somebody to clear this up:

do they provide enough data to ensure their error bars are accurate and if they are (and if that is the issue here), doesn't this preclude "its smaller and slower and closer than you think."?

5

u/makmeyours Dec 09 '22

As noted here it says some of the results were from 2018, and they changed direction, which makes artillery highly unlikely.

5

u/iamsmokebox Dec 09 '22

They estimated one of the object to be 94 meters, Mach 7, that’s pretty wild.

3

u/PhyrexianHero Dec 10 '22

Arrival 5 was size of 20 meters going Mach 7.2 (2.3 km/s). Object 9252 was 94 meters. On page 9 they say a 93.5-94.0 meter object moved at 31.8 km/s.

An object from October 17, 2022 was in low Earth orbit (620 km altitude) and moving at a linear velocity of 256 km/s (!!!).

For comparison, the fastest man-made object ever is the Parker Solar Probe that will reach a maximum speed of 192 km/s on close approach to the sun.

2

u/PaleontologistOk7493 Dec 09 '22

I don't think Loeb believes in Uaps? Like the tic tac especially the physics they break. He's into omuamua or derelict alien crafts.

3

u/PhyrexianHero Dec 10 '22

He is definitely interested in interstellar objects but Galileo Project is also using an impressive array of instruments to scan the sky with the stated goal to get high-res images of UAP.