The Physics of UAP Orbs
In a recent post I discussed the possible origin of UAP orbs; these are anomalous objects seen by observers (including myself) of unknown origin which also appear, in some reported observations, to not meet any of our current definitions for aeronautical or astronautical machines. Here I explore some of the unusual properties or orbs, from a physics and engineering perspective, that may give some indications of their nature. Before you read the material below, I want to be clear that I do not have any special insights into the nature of these objects and neither do I claim a strong preference. Instead, this article should be read as an exploration of some of the issues as a way of painting a picture for how we might begin to think differently about them and study them as a genuine field of scientific enquiry. It is hoped that this will prompt others to build on some of the discussions below and put forward perhaps more viable ways of examining the subject matter.
Observations of the Phenomenon
I wish to iterate that this analysis is performed under the assumption that they are not machines constructed by humans and operate under some degree of high intelligence. That said, given the capacity for government agencies to manipulate public opinion for the purposes of political convenience, we do also emphasise that such a possibility of human made constructions cannot be ruled out at this time. Yet, proceeding under the stated assumption. This will be based largely on my personal observations but including an extension to the observations of other observers where useful images were collected.
There are two types of objects that I have personally seen. There are the orange/yellow orbs at night which have always been on their own, and I have also seen them as white orbs clustered in groups of three. Then there are the white/grey metallic looking spheres during the day for which I always only saw one on its own. They may be the same object, but I do not know that. Yet, since they always seem to come from/to the direction of the Sea, this would not be unreasonable and for the purpose of the analysis shown here I do make this assumption, although I also acknowledge the possibility that such an assumption may be erroneous and there is the possibility of conflating two separate phenomenon. We will refer to this assumption as an orb equivalence principle.
Below is an artificial intelligence generated illustration of the sort of object I have personally seen in the daytime. Approximately 3 - 6 ft in diameter, grey/white in colour, possibly metallic but also there is the possibility of some composite material or other. Note that a black band was observed around the outside equator which possibly has some engineering function or reveals something about how two hemispherical shells were integrated. I saw this object on three separate occasions, twice within several hundred feet of me and on the third occasion at perhaps half a mile’s distance. On each occasion I failed to get a photograph of the object or to look at it through binoculars since when I attempted to do so, it disappeared and there was no trace of where it had gone. Whilst speculative, it felt to me that the object was aware I had noticed it and only then vanished, and this might indicate some observer dependence to the phenomenon. I also felt that it wanted me to see it, but only briefly, and not sufficiently long to over observe it; merely to get my attention. Whilst I did not observe these characteristics, it could be argued that this rapid vanishing may have been indicative of either an advanced cloaking capability or instantaneous acceleration so that the object went from my visibility. Whilst the former may still be within the capability of our existing technological capability, the latter would not be and may imply a none-terrestrial origin.
Artificial Intelligence generated illustration of the object seen during the daytime by the author of three separate occasions in an observing time lasting seconds in duration each.
In the nighttime, I observed three white orb’s going on and off in sequence and then re-appearing in a different position. I then observed them entering a large town from the direction of the Sea and floating among the streets and buildings in an ominous manner that appeared as though they were searching for something. Although I did take photographs, they are not of great quality, and it was a windy night. But the image below for example clearly shows one of the orbs in two photographs taken seconds apart in which you can clearly see it has moved position. Given the similarity, the light at the bottom right may also have been one of the objects but I do not recall. I also have other photos of the objects, but I will not show them currently since for personal reasons I do not want to reveal the location of the events.
Photographs taken by the author at 01:47 hours, where one of the three orbs is seen entering a town, clearly visible to the observer but hidden among the street lights.
The observation of three white orbs occurred on the 3rd October 2020. The observations of the white/grey spheres during the daytime occurred on 10th September 2023, 14th October 2023 and 26th March 2024. The image below shown an artificial intelligence generated image of what the white orbs might look like at night if viewed close.
Artificial Intelligence generated image of white orbs at night which were observed as a cluster of three for around two hours duration in the early hours of the morning by the author.
In addition to these, I have for many years been seeing an orange orb, typically golden/yellow/orange in colour that floats above me moving at moderate speeds. I had largely dismissed what I was seeing as optical diffraction effects since when I checked on some of those occasions the passing corresponded with a near flyover of the International Space Station. Yet as an optical effect it was very weird since the orbs appeared to be only hundreds of feet from the ground and had the appearance of a floating kind of buoyancy to them. Since they were coming off the Ocean, I do not think they would have been lanterns. Although I had dismissed them in the past, I now pay them more attention since the observations seen from 2020 but also from discussions with colleagues it is clear what I have been seeing is not the ISS as I had thought. Yet, I remain open minded to explanations here.
Artificial Intelligence generated image of yellow/golden orbs at night seen by the author on many occasions over years but potentially over several decades.
On top of this, I have lived in three separate locations since 1993 and although I had never given it any attention, I am quite sure I have been seeing this same orange orb for all those years in those three different locations. Although I had dismissed it previously, I am now questioning if what I had been seeing was of a more profound nature but largely neglected by me. I have seen them so many times that I did not take many photos but in recent years have tried to make an attempt. Below is one such sequence of the same orb object in flight.
Actual photographs of an orb observed on 1st January 2021 taken at approximately 1 minute apart by the author. The same object has been seen on many occasions over several years.
There is another aspect to the phenomenon that I would like to mention for which I feel may be important. When I have seen these objects I have not felt startled, or amazed, or jumping with excitement, the way that you may expect someone to do in encountering such a strange thing - especially for a curious scientist. Instead, I have found myself to be rather nonchalant, and on hindsight I find this a little puzzling. An analogy I might use is that of someone discovering they had a shadow for the first time, but then clearly recognising it as as the sort of shadow they have seen many times before and are not therefore surprised. It is almost as if these objects are ever present, at the periphery of our vision and a permanent part of the construction of reality, and for some reason, we do not react to them - the same way that Gorillas in the African jungle may not react to a zoologist sitting in the bush observing them, they just carry on as normal. Whilst a lot of the discussion over orbs focusses on the technological, I feel that this particular component of the experience may give some important insight into the phenomenon.
Given all the above, despite my training in scientific scepticism, it has forced me to reconsider the nature of what I have been seeing and whether all the apparent UAP sightings by me are also related to what other people have been reporting around the world and for which I have for so long been neglecting as the fantasies of the fringe. What has forced this re-evaluation was likely seeing the three white orbs at night and then the three observations of orbs during the daytime which was highly peculiar to me, and then after this came a reconsideration for the orange orbs I have seen for years.
I am currently reading the book The Invisible College by Jacques Vallee, and in this book he states: “Instead of asking, like the physicist, “Does the phenomenon interact with measurable quantities of its environment?…we will review what is experienced by the witnesses, we will observe what they do as a result of these experiences…”
He then proposes that the phenomenon is a kind of control system on the progress of humanity, analogous to a thermostat on the temperature of a house. Perhaps we might speculate, that if this is the case, then the moments in time in which humanity may be going off the rails, we might expect to see an enhancement of this phenomenon. The year 2024 has been important for two reasons (1) the apparent approach of nation states towards a global third world war that may also go thermonuclear (2) the significant increase in ‘drone’ sightings, particularly on the East Coast of the United States, but also in other places around the world, to include Japan and the United Kingdom.
The two images below show similar spherical objects to what I have seen, seen in San Diego and in Japan for example. Although these are different to what I have seen, which could be a reflection of either different classes of objects, cultural bias of the observers, or the uncertainties associated with subjective observations.
Objects seen in San Diego in 2014 (left) and Japan (right)
For an even more dramatic collection of still photographs, see the gallery below taken across the world spanning from 1999 to 2023. These stills were largely sourced from the collection kindly provided by Jenined and the full video can be seen <here>. Seeing this large collection of photographs of orb shaped objects, how can anyone deny that something strange is most definitely going on in our skies, and possibly also in our seas and space?
From this author’s perspective, putting aside what is measurable from a scientific standpoint, in terms of what I did because of these experiences; I started to take it seriously. As someone who has advocated for advancements in deep space exploration and advanced propulsion theory, since around 2007 or so, it is difficult not to reflect on whether this has been a part of a deliberate strategy, where getting my attention was seen as constructive to a large unseen strategy. This is not to say that I am any more important than any of the other thousands of people that have seen similar (or more exotic) phenomenon, but I can say at least that I am a person of credibility in terms of aeronautical, astronautical and astrophysical education, and perhaps my voice adds some weight to those of others who make similar claims.
A particular way that I responded to what I saw as an integration of issues (1) and (2) above was in the drafting of a letter to the leaders of the United Nations Security Council <Read Here>. How naïve I must have been to think I would get any meaningful response or have any influence. Yet, compelled to write it I felt and did. I also felt compelled to support other political activities, where a case was made towards peace, although I acknowledge this could be driven out of an anxiety for a pending global war. I have also felt compelled to come forward and make contact with people in the UAP community to share that I have also been experiencing the ‘phenomenon’. This has included these public posts online, which for a professional scientist is a considerable risk to my reputation. Yet I believe in the pursuit of truth as the highest quest of a scholar and so proceed I did. I would now like to turn my attention to the objects themselves and to provide for some first order analysis of what we are looking at from a physics and engineering perspective.
Analysis of the Phenomenon
Here is a basic breakdown of the observed characteristics of orbs, as taken from my own personal experiences but also considering the observations of others:
Size: 1 - 6 ft
Elevation: Sea Level to Orbit
Speed: Static to Hypersonic
Shape: Spherical to Elliptical
Brightness: Dull to Luminous
Colour: White, Orange, Yellow, Blue, Red, Grey…..
Although this author would like to state that he has never seen any hypersonic flight, instantaneous acceleration or flight to orbit as reported by others. This therefore does still allow for more prosaic explanations to the phenomenon. Although see the comments below where the possibility of instantaneous acceleration is allowed for.
First, let us consider some terrestrial considerations from our knowledge of flight. If the spheres were mere balloons, then they would be contained of a lighter than air gas such as helium with a density of 0.178 g/L or hydrogen with 0.089 g/L. It would remain stable in the air through buoyancy based on Archimedes principle, where the upward buoyant force on an object is equal to the weight of the fluid it displaces. The buoyant force F is given as a function of air density rho, volume of the spherical balloon V and gravitational acceleration g_o such that the force is given by
Yet this would mean that the combined weight of the object (to include any mechanisms, payload, power supply) would have to be less than the weight of the displaced air for the balloon to rise.
We can take the example of a 6 ft diameter (0.9156 m radius) spherical balloon filled with helium so that it has a volume of 3.205 cubic meters. The weight of the air displaced would be 1.225 * 3.205* 9.81 = 38.51 N. The weight of the helium would be 0.178 * 3.205 * 9.81 = 5.59 N. Subtracting them we find the net lift to be 32.91 N. Dividing this force by acceleration due to gravity we can estimate the lift capacity as 3.35 kg. It is difficult to see how an object of this low mass could also exhibit the flight characteristics reported by observers, since it would require an enormous power source to generate the required energy for motion. That is to say that an assertion of a balloon in the observed scenarios described above would not be consistent with the rapid vanishing, since it would imply more mass than this to generate the power required.
It is also unclear as to how these objects are deriving their power. To move at even moderate velocities against winds at altitude will require some level of navigational (pitch, roll, yaw) stabilisation control. Power usually derives from some form of battery, which has mass. If we assumed this object could move to Mach 5 instantaneously from around 10 m/s, this would require an acceleration of around 1700 m/s2 and would involve an energy change of around 4.85 million Joules or 1.16 kg TNT equivalent, so it represents a large explosive equivalent to around 5 sticks of dynamite (a single dynamite stick is around 200 grams and produces around 1 million Joules of energy). Yet we hear no noise associated with this sudden change of motion as should be expected with such an energy change.
To have a reasonable power source to make this change, if we assume the object is 10 times more massive at 33.5 kg, then this implies an energy change of 48.5 million Joules or 11.59 kg TNT equivalent. If we increase the mass again by another factor of 10, to around 335 kg, this is now the mass of the smallest feasible Ultralight aircraft such as an Aerolite 103 or TL-Ultralight stream, and the energy change would require 484 million Joules or 115.7 kg TNT equivalent.
Here we have made the moderate assumption to M = 5, but in many cases the reported motion is much higher. The speed of sound at sea level for air is defined by the ratio of specific heats gamma = 1.4, the Rankine constant R = 8.31 J/mol, the Molecular weight m = 0.0287 kg/mol and the temperature at sea level 298 K (~20 Degrees Celsius). This is then given by the speed of sound as follows
Since at altitude the air temperature changes this also changes the speed of sound, but for now let us assume a Mach number relative to this value, so that M = 5, implies 1,715 m/s (1.71 km/s or 3,836 miles/hour) and M = 10, implies 3,430 m/s (3.43 km/s or 7,673 miles/hour). For comparison the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird cruised at 2,200 miles/hour, which is 0.983 km/s or 983 m/s, at an altitude of around 80,000 ft. Since the air temperature is a bit cooler at 288 K (~15 Degrees Celsius) then this calculates to a speed of sound of c_o = 340 m/s, so that M =2.89. Also, for comparison, to reach orbit a rocket must achieve a velocity of
Where G = 6.674*10^-11 Nm^2/kg^2 (gravitational constant), M = 5.98*10^24 kg (mass of Earth) and r = 6.4*10^6 m (radius of Earth), so that v = 7.9 km/s (17,676 miles/hour or equivalent to M = 23 at sea level). Escape velocity is sqrt{2} times this value
To give v = 11.2 km/s (25,054 miles/hour or equivalent to M = 32.6 at sea level). The reasons these calculations are useful is because they allow is to see that if an object suddenly accelerates to velocities of order M = 5 or 10, then we are looking at a performance that exceeds the Blackbird and is approaching the requirements for rocket velocities that leave Earth. Yet we know rockets take enormous amounts of power and certainly make a lot of noise. This immediately implies a new type of technology that goes beyond rockets and explains why people will jump to the conclusion of other worldly as a point of possible origin.
In this article I have made an equivalence between the daytime spheres and the night-time luminous orbs, that they are assumed to be the same object but appearing different under different lighting conditions. As already mentioned, we refer to this as an orb equivalence principle and it would stand as a hypothesis to be validated or falsified, such as using sensitive detectors which can go beyond the human vision range. If one is to make this equivalence, that the daytime spherical orbs are also the night time luminous orbs, then this might tell us something about their physics operation. It may be that during the night-time it is not possible to shield their glow and hence why they appear luminous. But during the daytime, perhaps due to the way that light is scattering around the object, any tenuous glow is not visible. The light from the orbs may be overwhelmed by the luminosity of the sunlit sky during the daytime. During the night-time however, since there is a large contrast between the light of the objects and the background night sky, the light emission surrounding their surface becomes visible to the human eye.
Think of how an Aurora may be present but not visible during the daytime since the wavelengths of its tenuous light emission are not visible against the background of the dominant blue sky, particularly since the light from the Sun is approximately 10,000 times brighter than an Aurora. The sky is blue due to Rayleigh scattering of the light as it passes through the Earth’s atmosphere and blue light has a shorter wavelength and scatters more than other colours. So, an Aurora may be present but we do not see the scattering of its light. Similarly, an orb may have a glow around it during the day, but we do not see the scattering of its light and only highly sensitive light detectors could pick it up. Instead, all we would see is the material structure underneath, such as a metallic or composite shell.
This then brings us to the question of what could cause the luminous glow, and it likely has its origins in some form of electrostatic field, such that the air around the object is ionised into a plasma state. This means that the surface of the sphere would be electrically charged with respect to its external environment. This would be a reasonable interpretation.
One possible operating mechanism then might be along the lines of the Biefeld-Brown effect, where an ionic wind surrounds the sphere and transfers momentum to the surrounding neutral particles. For example, if a sphere was to be surrounded by an ionized gas so that it forms a plasma sheath where electrical charges accumulate on its surface so that it is conductive, it would acquire a net electrical charge. If an internal component of that sphere was then magnetized, this might allow for the generation of a Lorentz force. So a conjecture here would be that the objects can ionize the space around them, giving rise to the light orb effect, but then generate an internal force by the motion of a magnetic field within that ionized space. A similar suggestion has been made in the Biefeld-Brown effect as a theory of electrogravitics, although this involves a force generated between two asymmetric electrodes when a high voltage electric field is applied. To test these sorts of ideas, one would need to get near the orbs or spheres and measure the electrical field around them which would provide for valuable information.
This yet this would require an on-board high voltage system and capacitors sufficient to generate the effect. However, we acknowledge that the experiments on this effect have largely remained controversial. But it is likely that the means of propulsion derives from something relating to an electrogravitic effect, where the machine can interact with either the Earth’s gravity field or the Earth’s magnetic field, or both. Although such an effect ‘may’ give some explanation as to the means of propulsive motion, it would not explain any instantaneous acceleration or an ability to move ultra-fast, which would imply some other form of technology is in operation.
In terms of generating an internal energy source this would require some form of nuclear reactor, since chemical reactions are too low in terms of Joules/kg. A typical chemical reaction may only release around ~1-10 eV of energy for example, or up to around 44 - 142 MJ/kg (gasoline to hydrogen combustion). In contrast, for nuclear fission the energy release is around 200 MeV per nucleus or 82 million MJ/kg. For nuclear fusion it is even larger at around 340 million MJ/kg. So nuclear fission is 6 orders of magnitude larger than chemical reactions and fusion reactions is an order of magnitude larger than fission reactions, or 7 orders of magnitude greater than chemical reactions.
Again, we have the problem of mass. How could such a small and apparently lightweight object contain a nuclear reactor? We might turn to alternative radioactive sources, such as Plutonium-238 or Americium-241 as used or proposed for deep space robotic missions (e.g. Voyager 1 and 2); yet although these materials have very long decay half-life’s they also carry a weak power density for the requirements of our high manoeuvrable orb objects. Therefore, in all likelihood, if we are to accept possible characteristics, such as instantaneous acceleration, none of the above power sources would be suitable.
An exception may be matter-antimatter annihilation reactions, which would be a highly efficient energy conversion process at 100%. If we take 1 kg of matter annihilating with 1 kg of antimatter for example, all released as photons travelling at the speed of light at 300,000 km/s, then from Einstein’s equation we find
This amounts to 180 Billion MJ/kg of energy release. This is 10 orders of magnitude greater than chemical reactions, or 4 orders of magnitude greater than fission, or 3 orders of magnitude greater than fusion. This would certainly give the required energy, but it is difficult to see how one could orchestrate a controlled containment and release of matter-antimatter for this purpose. That said, this is from the perspective of our technological state of art. At the very least, if any human society had engineered such an ability they would hold technological supremacy in their hands. If no human society has achieved this (and there are reasons for thinking this is doubtful), then this would point towards an advanced technological society that is ahead of ours. Are there other options for energy generation we might consider?
There may be a way to derive energy from the neutral vacuum. For example, it is possible to use lasers to generate an electromagnetic field to produce particle pairs to include matter-antimatter in what is known as a ‘Dirac Sea’. Using an electric field strength of E_o = 2.4e^18 V/m would require an intensity of I = 1.5e^28 W/cm^2 and a diffraction limited spot power of
Where lambda is the laser wavelength. The physics of this has been examined by others [D. Crowe, “Laser Induced Pair Production as a Matter-Antimatter Source”, JBIS, 36, pp. 507-508, 1983]. But again all this would need power which implies mass so is beyond our current technological capability.
There are many alternative ideas out there which could be examined further as the basis for extracting energy from space or its contents thereof. An excellent review of such ideas was published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics [M. G. Millis and E. W. Davis, “Frontiers of Propulsion Science”, 227, 2009] which also included a discussion of the Biefeld-Brown effect, although they had concluded: “In spite of previous speculation about possible new physical principles being responsible for the thrust produce by Asymmetrical Capacitor Thrusters and lifters, we find no evidence to support such a conclusion”.
In a recent book, although based on research over a decade, it has also been proposed that a theory of quantum inertia may give rise to incredible propulsion effects [M. E. McCulloch, “Quantised Accelerations, From Anomalies to New Physics”, Polaris Books, 2024]. There are also exotic ideas for wormholes and warp drives [F. S. N. Lobo et al., “Wormholes, Warp Drives and Energy Conditions”, Springer, 2017] and although our understanding of the physics of metrics is currently at a preliminary stage despite over a century of theoretical and experimental research, provided we can source negative energy this subject is likely to elucidate insights that have value. There are also ideas for mining the quantum vacuum by using two parallel Casimir plates and this research has promise.
To achieve an appropriate understanding for the physics and propulsion of these anomalous orbs, a comprehensive program of research would be needed which encompasses a review of all these innovative ideas and how their expected effects and performance correlates to the observations. This may result in a self-fulfilling research program that leads to the maturation of orb technology within our own technological capability; unless that has occurred already (and there are reasons for thinking that it might). However, the reality is that research into these potentially game changing, low TRL, propulsion technologies, receive very little funding support or widespread interest from academics and this needs to change of revolutionary breakthroughs are to be made. To steal a quote from the astronomer Carl Sagan, and reword it a little, absence of evidence for a coherent physics explanation for the functionality of orbs, is not the evidence of absence for the existence of such a technology, considering the many observers who have reported seeing them (including this author).
Ultimately with the above, and in particular with the daytime sightings, one clearly needs more observing time to gather more data. I am disappointed that I have not been able to get the daytime objects on camera, yet I know what I have seen. Ironically, since I have been paying attention to the phenomenon, I have not been seeing them, much to my disappointment and despite becoming more active in searching them out - my eyes are always on the skies. I only seem to see them when I am not looking for them. Has the phenomenon done with me?
The Five Observables
In terms of the physics of these objects, we can also examine the five observables put together by the US Defence Department as a comparison:
Anti-gravity lift: It is certainly not clear how these objects are achieving lift. There appears to be no associated noise so that rules out a motor. Yet they appear to have some degree of intelligent control. This would certainly suggest a novel type of propulsion system that does not rely upon the reaction engine principle.
Low Observability, or Cloaking: At night, the orbs were hazy, and had the appearance of a plasma. The daytime objects appeared to vanish quickly, and this could have been due to the use of visibility cloaking technology, but this is conjecture, and I did not witness the transformation from visible to invisible. Yet the fact remains, they did vanish.
Hypersonic Velocities without Signature: No trails were ever visible. Neither did I observe these objects moving at high speed. Yet again, their sudden vanishing, might be consistent with a move towards a hypersonic velocity, but I did not observe that.
Trans-Medium Travel: I only observed both the orbs and the spheres traveling through the medium of air. That said that they all appeared to come from the direction of the Ocean, or returning that way, which might suggest a trans-medium capability. I just did not observe that and this would again be speculation.
Sudden and Instantaneous Acceleration: Unfortunately, I never observed any rapid acceleration or deceleration along these lines. However, given that I was not looking in the time that they disappeared, their vanishing might be consistent with an instantaneous acceleration, I just did not observe it. Clearly, I should have kept looking.
If it is not the case that the orbs involve some electrostatic field to give the Aurora like effect, but the orbs and the spheres are still the same object according to my orb equivalence principle, then we might be forced to consider another characteristic which we will define as a phase change:
6. Phase Change: On the basis of the some observations by others, we are also tempted to suggest a consideration of another characteristic which we define as a phase change from one material state to another, such as from a solid to a plasma but without going through the liquid or gas phase, that is solid-to-plasma transition or direct sublimation to plasma. Although this would normally involve an extremely high temperature to undergo heating beyond the sublimation point, and yet without leaving any loss of material such as through vaporisation. This idea is merely left for speculation.
In terms of the object vanishing rapidly, we might consider an example. If an observer is h = 100 ft above sea level, then the distance to the horizon is given by
But for an object to disappear to the horizon distance in ~5 seconds would imply a velocity of 8,877 miles/hour or a Mach number of M = 12. Instead, we could argue that the human eye will not see the object that far due to the diminishing size of the object as it moves away. So let us consider that the object is D = 6 ft in diameter, at what point will it become so small it will no longer be visible to the human eye? The human eye has a resolution of around 1 arcminutes (1/60th of a degree) so we need to know at what point does the object go below theta = 1 arcminute of resolution. This is given by the distance
This would still imply a velocity of over ~5 seconds of 2,833 miles/hour or M = 3.7, yet there was no sound.
It is also not clear that a sphere would be the ideal object to utilise in moving through the atmosphere due to its relatively high drag and low aerodynamic efficiency, although its performance does depend on its speed. With a drag coefficient of around 0.47, even a smooth sphere does poorer than an object like an airfoil or bullet. At low-speed laminar air flow the air will move over the sphere, detach quickly, and create a wake behind it, which is a source of drag. This means that at low speed the sphere will not generate meaningful lift and so that cannot be its mode of operation. At high speed the air flow becomes turbulent, but this does improve the performance since the wake size is reduced. So, it is possible that a sphere is optimised for high speed travel. This is why a golf ball is pitted to promote turbulence near the surface and delay flow separation which reduces the drag. Lift can be enhanced by spinning the sphere in a physics mechanism known as the Magnus effect, but I did not observe the objects spinning. An advantage of a sphere is that it is an isotropic shape and since it has no specific orientation it will remain stable in free flight. A sphere will also distribute heat uniformly around its surface and so this may be an explanation for its form.
One of the critical aspects of my observations on the daytime sightings is the rapidity by which they disappear. Having considered this there are three possibilities:
It is a technological machine of material construction that has some advanced capability for hiding itself as in the use of stealth technology, so that it may still be there, but it is no longer visible to the observer.
The rapid disappearance may be consistent with instantaneous acceleration. I just didn’t witness that aspect of it (although others have reported it). But if it moved from near zero velocity to say 1,000s km/s it would be gone from its position in less than 1 second and if we were not directly observing it then we would miss that aspect of it; as I did.
Since the objects vanished on each occasion after I tried to enhance my observation using an optical aid (binoculars or phone camera), it may indicate some level of awareness that I had now noticed the object. Although it sounds fantastic, I cannot rule out a conscious observer dependent phenomenon. I have developed a possible hypothesis relating to this but will leave that for another time.
In consideration of the different observations, we have to ask if they represent the same object or different classes of objects. For example, each observation could be representations on a continuum of orbs depending on the properties they emit and whether they are observed at night or during the day as shown in the images below.
Artificial Intelligence generated images of orbs.
Given all the above, we can create a category of orb according to six distinguishing features which are now described as a part of a morphology. This is a different way of characterising the objects from the US Department of Defence five observables. These are:
Shape: In general, the spheres appear to be spherical but have some ability to deform their shape into more oblate spheres. We might term this a degree of ellipticity as a deviation from spherical symmetry. We define this with the use of a compression factor b/a, for the two semi-axes a and b, and where the flattening is defined by f = (a-b)/a. Alternatively the eccentricity e of an ellipse is defined between e = 0 (circle) and e = 1 (parabolic ellipse) or when e > 1 (hyperbolic ellipse).
Colour: In this article we have explored orbs that go from white, to orange, yellow. Others have reported seeing blue and red orbs. it is interesting to note that all of these colours appear in the spectrum of white light when refracted in a prism to reveal the different components. This might indicate that any light falling upon the object at night (or coming from the object) is refracted into a particular frequency. That colour may also give some indication as to the spectral power distribution and temperature of the objects external surface and this would require an infrared thermometer to measure the surface temperature (although would not give information about the internal temperature). The other thing about the colour is we might consider two possibilities (a) that the colour represents operability, as in when the orb is performing particular functions this is reflected in its colour emission (b) another possibility is that the colour represents different stages of an orb such as in its life cycle, the same way that we look at the colour spectrum of a star, and as the orb moves through its life cycle it changes colour (c) another possibility is that each orb has a different colour simply because it is a different class of orb from the other ones and so the colour represents function.
Luminosity: As indicated, this may be related to the colour. The luminosity is best expressed as a characteristic power distribution and will have different wavelengths at different temperatures. Since when observed the objects appear to have one dominant colour, this might indicate some degree of Rayleigh scattering from a light source within the orb to produce a concentration of shorter wavelengths and hence say an orange colour. A yellow orb would emit around 550 - 565 nm. An orange orb around 565 - 600 nm. A red orb around 600 - 640 nm. Ultimately, it would be constructive to get illumination readings of an orb so as to discern its emission spectrum.
Size: In general, the objects have been seen as small as a standard football size, say around 12 inches, to as large as perhaps 6 ft, with a medium size of around 3 ft or approximately 1 m. This would appear to rule out an occupant controlling the orb and points more towards either remote control at distance or a high level of autonomy within the orb to direct itself. This would be expected if for example we were looking at a highly sophisticated reconnaissance probe.
Motion: The objects appear to float along but also have the appearance like a form of buoyancy, suggesting they are subject to some external forces which prevents them from remaining in a stable position all the time, but rather oscillate about a stable equilibrium point and then to adjust for that. We can rule out wind forces based on the notes written above, but perhaps we might consider that they are moving along magnetic field lines. A magnetic field line would not be in a fixed position but would be dynamic and always changing. The objects also appear to be able to move very slowly, or to hover in a static position, or to even travel at superfast speeds at indicated above.
Fragmentation: On occasions it has been observed by some witnesses that a single orb will fragment into two orbs, or will eject several orbs from within it. This is a rather peculiar phenomenon, but it has also been caught on film several times. This reminds me of being analogous to fire or water, where parts of it might split off into a separate part, yet it remains the same substance as the original source material. This might give some indication as to the nature of the intelligent structure that makes up the orb, that it does not have a central processing brain, but instead the intelligence is contained within the substance itself, so that if any part splits off, it will contain the same information; but this is wild speculation. Alternatively, we might refer to the existence of multiple orbs as ‘clustering’ although they would appear to us as a swarm of separate objects.
Based on the above we might consider constructing a morphology chart of types of orbs based on a combination of the different characteristics, such as the ellipticity and the wavelength associated with any luminous emission. This would be like the way in which astrophysicists construct charts of the evolution of stars or types of galaxies for example.
Morphology of orbs in terms of ellipticity and wavelength of dominant light emission
Instead, we might consider how to organise the different types of orb like objects under different characteristics. For example, if we take the five characteristics defined by the US Department of Defence, then we can plot them as follows, where example (i) pertains to zero characteristics being observed and so is consistent with known objects and (ii) pertains to all characteristics being observed and so is fully consistent with an unknown object or a UAP. This is generated in what we refer to as pentagonal spider web diagrams. The different positioning of the footprint may give us insight into the extremes of observations.
Descriptions of limits: (1) Anti-gravity lift, 1 = none observed, 2 = fully observed (2) Cloaking, 0 = no cloaking, 0.5 = partial cloaking, 1 = fully cloaked, which corresponds to an inverse opacity scale from 0-100% (3) Hypersonic velocity, Mach numbers 1 - 10 shown (4) Trans-medium travel, 1 = none-observed and in a single medium only, 1.5 = air and sea travel, 2.0 = air and space travel (5) Instantaneous acceleration, 0 = static object or slow object with no change in speed, >>1 = complete vanishing of object within a second or less indicative of rapid acceleration.
In the construction of these spider web diagrams the dashed line is drawn from the approximate data point at right angles to the line of origin and extended until it meets another dashed line. The footprint is then constructed by joining the different dashed line intersection points to create an approximation for the characteristic footprint space. We can take this further by illustrating with several examples to see what the footprint of characteristics looks like for different imagined case studies and these are shown below.
Descriptions of limits: (1) Anti-gravity lift, 1 = none observed, 2 = fully observed (2) Cloaking, 0 = no cloaking, 0.5 = partial cloaking, 1 = fully cloaked, which corresponds to an inverse opacity scale from 0-100% (3) Hypersonic velocity, Mach numbers 1 - 10 shown (4) Trans-medium travel, 1 = none-observed and in a single medium only, 1.5 = air and sea travel, 2.0 = air and space travel (5) Instantaneous acceleration, 0 = static object or slow object with no change in speed, > > 1= complete vanishing of object within a second or less indicative of rapid acceleration.
Using the Pentagonal 5 characteristic observable methods the author has plotted the footprint of his own three observations which are shown on the pentagonal spider web diagrams below. It is the similarities in the characteristic footprint that had led the author to propose an orb equivalence principle. Although we note that for all the three diagrams the objects were moving in the direction of from/to the Ocean, which might indicate a trans-medium capability, it was just not observed. Also, for diagram (c1) the rapid vanishing of the object on three occasions may indicate an instantaneous acceleration capability, it was just not observed.
Descriptions of limits: (1) Anti-gravity lift, 1 = none observed, 2 = fully observed (2) Cloaking, 0 = no cloaking, 0.5 = partial cloaking, 1 = fully cloaked, which corresponds to an inverse opacity scale from 0-100% (3) Hypersonic velocity, Mach numbers 1 - 10 shown (4) Trans-medium travel, 1 = none-observed and in a single medium only, 1.5 = air and sea travel, 2.0 = air and space travel (5) Instantaneous acceleration, 0 = static object or slow object with no change in speed, > > 1 = complete vanishing of object within a second or less indicative of rapid acceleration.
We can also quantify this using a form of metric which we might refer to as an Observability Rating (OR) which is equal to the sum of a combination of multiplicative factors and where we use the Greek letter Omicron:
Each term is then quantified as follows:
f_1 = {1 —> 2}. This would likely be based on a subjective observation on whether any lifting surfaces or propulsion devices were visible. An object that displayed an obvious lifting surface or propulsion machine would tend towards —> 1, but an object with no visible means of lift would tend towards —>2.
f_2 = T = I/Io, which derives from A = -log10(Io/I), from Beer-Lambert Law, where A is the absorbance (0 clear to 1 opaque), I is the intensity of the transmitted light, Io is the intensity of the incident light. An opaque material will have T = 0 and transparent T = 1.
f_3 = {v/c} = M, where M is equal to the Mach number, defined as the ratio of the vehicle velocity to the local speed of sound at the approximate altitude.
f_4 = {1 —>2}. This would be based on an observation of the vehicle in air only (1), also going into the water (1.5) or going into space (2.0).
f_5 = {[(v - u)/t]/go}, where u is the initial velocity, v is the final velocity, t is the time duration of the observation, go is acceleration due to gravity.
These terms are then bought together into an equation expressed below:
Using this metric, a sighting which had an OR << 1 likely has a terrestrial explanation since it displays few of the observed characteristics, whereas a sighting which had OR >> 1 definitely meets the definition of a UAP and could not be explained within our existing technological state of art, therefore implying a consideration of ‘other’. None of the terms in each characteristic can actually be zero or the entire metric will become zero, so instead it would be better to define terms that tend towards zero under a low observability rating (i.e. 0.1). The situation where OR = 1, might correspond to f1 = 1.0 (lift mechanism obvious), f2 = 0.1 (fully visible no cloaking), f3 = 1.0 (Mach = 1.0), f4 = 1.0 (air only), f5 = 1,000 m/s / (10 s * 10 m/s2) = 1.0, and might represent some kind of military aircraft.
Alternatively, we might base such a footprint pattern on the six observables listed by this author which creates a hexagonal spider web diagram arrangement.
Description of limits: (1) Shape, 1 = perfect sphere, 2 = elliptical (2) Colour, defined along the electromagnetic spectrum, 1 = black, 10 = white, other colours in between in the order black, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, grey, white. The actual value of the colour would be defined as a wavelength normalised to another wavelength as emitted blackbody radiation (3) luminosity or brightness, normalised to some standard candle yet to be defined, 1 = none luminous, 2 = very luminous (4) Size, normalised to a standard size yet to be defined, 1 = very small, 10 = very large, perhaps in the range 1 ft up to 12 ft (5) Motion, normalised to a standard size such as Mach number at Sea level, 1 = sound speed, 10 = ultra-fast motion (6) Fragmentation or clustering, 1 = 1 object observed, 10 = 10 objects observed. These parameters and their ranges are somewhat arbitrary and are more illustrative than anything with the intention of promoting discussion on how we can characterise orb type, behaviour and performance.
For the footprints shown here these are for the three classes of objects observed by the author. Example (a2) is the white lights seen at night in a cluster of three. Example (b2) is the orange like orbs seen at night usually as single objects. Example (c2) is the spherical objects seen in broad day light and always on their own. Each gives a very different footprint when illustrated like this. by studying the different permutations of footprints possible we may be able to elucidate insights into their nature and operability.
In this version the shape or geometry is defined by an equation for the deviation from spherical symmetry. The colour is defined as a blackbody radiation temperature where the wavelength of the emitted light is given as a function of the temperature. The luminosity is defined from the Stefan-Boltzmann law of blackbody radiation as a function of temperature and area. The Size is defined as a diameter relative to another diameter. The speed is defined relative to the sound speed. The number is defined relative to some large number to normalise the total observability rating around a value of unity. This gives a new equation form for the metric as follows:
In defining the equations shown above (and the spider web diagrams), these are not proposed as actual final forms to be adopted but are merely examples to illustrate how we might begin to quantify a sighting in terms of two extremes and everything in between. This way for those with a low observability rating they would get less attention in terms of research since we would have a high confidence that they likely have a normal explanation. Those two extremes being from the known and prosaic with all phenomena understood and explained, to the unknown and fantastic, with all phenomenon not understood or explained and so represents a genuine mystery. Further work would be required to refine these ideas to usable tools and ideally the mathematical terms should be defined such that OR ~1 represents a transition point between non-UAP to UAP, but this requires some careful deliberation.
In considering all of the above, we might then also hypothesise on the possible nature of the orbs as mechanical systems or living systems. It is worth describing these.
Mechanical System: In such a system the different characteristics of each orb would correspond to its engineering type, function and operability. If it was designed with a particular type of mission in mind, then its design characteristics would emerge from form follows function. There may be different classes of probes for example. To illustrate, in the scientific reconnaissance of any planet, one may need orbital observers, atmospheric penetrators, ground landers, ocean divers, or those associated with the observation of indigenous lifeforms. For some of these an ultra-fast capability may be needed, but for others it may not be an appropriate capability. Although, given the claim for a trans-medium capability this may illustrate a broad utility for each object.
Living System: In such a system, the orbs would not be seen as engineering machines, but perhaps living systems. This may be a form of organic life we are yet to encounter, or just a different type of life that is not constrained by our current definitions. A high organisation of charged particles based around quantum states for example, where any information exchange is centred around a deviation from a thermodynamic equilibrium. In which case, the different types of orb characteristics may be manifest of categories of ‘living forms’ or even representative of ages of those forms. This would be analogous to how we look at the lifetime of stars as they move through the main sequence of stellar structure and evolution, or the morphology of galaxies.
Finally, in this section, although we have not discussed it we cannot entirely ignore the issue of reported flying discs by many observers. In particular, the reported observations that orbs have been seen exiting from such constructions. Yet, there is also another possibility we might consider, which is that orbs and discs represent the same object, but under different perspectives of observation. This may be due to an observer effect or may be reflect the objects ability to change its shape. Indeed, in consideration of terrestrial origins, might we be looking at some form of advanced aquatic jelly fish that has evolved to take flight so that it has a trans-medium capability? Perhaps an advanced type of Scyphozoa? This is an equally fantastic idea and we merely leave this possibility here for further pondering.
Summary of the Phenomenon
With all these observations there are really four possible interpretations:
The first is we are mistaking these observations for something prosaic we have not considered, given that in general ~95% of observations are explainable. Yet, we have managed to rule out most things and we are convinced the observations do not match any terrestrial activity for which we are aware.
The second is that this is indeed some government psychological warfare operation, using me (and others) as a ‘useful idiot’. In particular, for me as someone with a research interest in interstellar studies and the exploration of deep space, to make me think I am seeing things because it supports a narrative agenda. Perhaps hoping that I will report these, as I am now doing, although I certainly took my time. If this was occurring, then I have to state for the record that as a scientist that I object to it and do not appreciate government agencies conducting themselves in this way. Indeed, I would give an opinion that such conduct is unethical and represents an abuse of power.
The third is that these are in fact drones from a foreign government, such as launched from underwater submersibles by China (as claimed by some), in which case this is a national security issue. Arguably, something similar has occurred at US bases in the UK and also in New Jersey in recent weeks. Given the West seems to be in a pre-war preparation mode with Russia, this is plausible. I would particularly note that since I am a person who previously held high security clearance and worked on sensitive projects, this possibility is one of concern to me and I do not see any efforts by my NATO affiliated governments to take actions in protection of their scientific personnel. In addition, if a foreign state is behind this and our governments have permitted it to continue, then this really illustrates the lack of leadership in Western nations and the lack of courage in protecting our air-sea-space domains. Indeed, a failure to act, should demand the resignation of such leaders from their position in office.
The fourth option I am left with is what I will call ‘other’ and that this is an attempt to get my attention and pay attention to the phenomena for which I was previously neglecting. This is despite the fact I had turned the design of starships into a chosen career over many years and my principal interest was getting spacecraft out there around other stars. For sure, it got my attention, and the phenomenon came to me. For the record, I will state that I am inclined towards ‘other’, but I also must admit this could be my heart overruling my intellect and so for this reason my mind remains open.
Under ‘other’ we might consider several main possibilities:
The first is a terrestrial one, that we are looking at some kind of life form that has evolved on Earth independent of us or our awareness. It has recently been discovered for example that there is a massive ocean hidden under the Earth’s crust approximately 400 miles underground in a region known a ‘ringwoodite’, where water is stored within a sponge like rock that attracts hydrogen and traps water. According to the authors of a recent study “if the rock contained just 1% water, it would mean that there is three times more water under the surface of the Earth than there is in the oceans on the surface” [B. Schmandt et al., “Dehydration melting at the top of the lower mantle”, Science, 344, 6189, pp.1265-268, 13 Jun 2014]. Hidden ecosystems have also been found in other locations such as within volcanic crust.
Another is that this is manifest of an extraterrestrial origin but from one of the planets or other celestial bodies of our own solar system. Although we have sent space probes to all of the planets and conducted flybys of many of the other objects, we have still barely scratched the surface in terms of a full survey of the planetary and moon surface and sub-surface conditions and content. Could life-forms exist in the atmosphere of Jupiter, the methane lakes of Titan, the deep waters of Europa, or in under surface canyons of Mars?
The other possibility would be extraterrestrial in the traditional meaning of the word, as in from another star system and its associated planets. Given that traversing the distance between stars appears to be entirely feasible in principle (this author has written many papers on this subject showing it is), we cannot rule this out and indeed there are statistical arguments in support of why we should expect this.
Another more exotic possibility relates to extra-dimensions of reality, such as crossing from one universe into ours through some hyperdimensional transport network that allows for the manipulation of space and time as permitted through Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.
In terms of my personal opinion, there is a certain amount upon which I can state based on my own experience, and then there is that which is known and that which is conjectured. Much of the above remains speculation by me and I am fully open to the possibility that I, like many others, are being manipulated as a part of some great government game and this is the reason for keeping a sense of scepticism about the phenomenon. Yet, my instincts tell me otherwise, that at the heart of this UAP phenomenon, is a highly intelligent nature that seeks to communicate with humankind under a benign intent, and it does so in the context of grave concerns over our current conflicts and wars.
To make progress in this field, it is important that academics and the science community begin to remove the layers of indignation and scorn that so surrounds the phenomenon. For decades there have been thousands of people that have reported strange observations (and encounters) for which has been largely dismissed and made mockery off. It is entirely possible that a large fraction of those individuals have experienced a genuine phenomenon yet have made their experience even more difficult by the isolation from main stream society as they were made to feel strange, weird or a fantasist. I think it is now time for academics to reconsider what has been going on here, whether it is a technological, biological or phycological issue. It has been having impacts on people’s lives and it is continuing to do so today.
If we can facilitate this, we may find that others come forward with more compelling testimony that aids in our understanding for what is and has always been a compelling situation for which we would be best advised to take notice. I hope that in me personally coming forward at the end of 2024, with much reputational risk, that I have given some courage to others to also do so.
I have neglected this phenomenon for years despite all the stories I have been told by colleagues, particularly in the US, some of which is now coming to light in the US Congressional hearings. The phenomenon did get my attention once it came to my door. I find this whole subject matter exciting with a sense of scientific curiosity, but also concern given the current global events. I mean, if this is an intelligence, how seriously concerned must they be about the political matters of mankind to reveal themselves in this way? This is a question we should be asking ourselves and the current trajectory of our nations on this shared Earth. Whatever this is, it demands our attention!
