It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Norway spiral - Russia accepts blame even though Norway may have been responsible ! !

page: 21
286
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 





Brilliant. Your speculation is perfectly OK, but the speculation of other people, including scientists and experts, is somehow not.


It's ok to speculate, it's not ok to post a simulation wich is pure speculation, and say: "here this will explain everything". Talk about arrogance.

I'm just still seeing things that aren't explained, and I still have questions.

Like this one:




That still doesn't explain why the particles of the outer rings were visible the whole time, while the particles of the last outward travelling ring were only visible for 2 seconds.



Do you have a problem with that?




posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


..and thank you too.

It's is nice to know there is rational people on ATS.

I don't see how such simple things are made so complex and obscured in the minds of some members here. It's so bad that there is no words for it.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


That's been answered many, many times. Just look at the simulation I posted - it demonstrates that exactly. The spiral is made from the inside out - it's basic physics.

And that video is a simulation of what a rocket does when it's venting out of one side. They didn't say "oh let's make a spiral - what will it take", but "what happens when a rocket vents from one side", and ended up with a spiral.

Deny ignorance - accept the truth, even if it is as boring as just a missile test.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


From the simulation:

"So here is an emulation of how these spirals may have formed"

"Imagine a piece of orbiting spacejunk in a discarded stage, is chucking some sort of fuel, out the back, and out of the side..."

A bit vague at least. It explains nothing. It's obvious that a rocket would start spiraling when leaking fuel.

How very rational of you guys, to take this emulation as proof .

I just still find it strange that it would make a "controlled" spin, and create this perfect spiral.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 





No it wouldn't. The missile wasn't spinning fast enough to make a complete circle before the particles flew away. That is why it made a spiral. By the time the missile made one revolution the particles had already flown away, so the ends of the circle didn't connect together. Plus it isn't 2D it's 3D like a spring or corkscrew so the ends don't connect together on two dimensions.


But that was exactly my point.

At the end, the fading circle is connected, as opposed to the spiral.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 





That still doesn't explain why the particles of the outer rings were visible the whole time, while the particles of the last outward travelling ring were only visible for 2 seconds.


I have to admit that this was a miss-observation on my part. More like 5 seconds.

Still it looks like the outer rings of the spiral were still intact as the ring was going outwards.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


It's not proof, but it makes sense. It's a rational explanation that doesn't require any half-baked conspiracy or secret technology.

The spiral is formed from the inside. It's constantly moving outwards. The matter that makes up the inside of the spiral is slowly moving through the spiral, and out the end. It's basic physics! Clearly you are having some issues understanding this.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 





It's not proof, but it makes sense. It's a rational explanation that doesn't require any half-baked conspiracy or secret technology.


To me it makes sense that there was more going on than just a failed missile.

It is not irrational to think of of unknown technology etc, because we haven't seen this exact same thing.before.

The "rational" explanation is not sufficient.




The spiral is formed from the inside. It's constantly moving outwards. The matter that makes up the inside of the spiral is slowly moving through the spiral, and out the end. It's basic physics! Clearly you are having some issues understanding this.


"It's basic physics!" So is a dog dropping a turd on the pavement.

Lol, what a random statement.

I understand how it could be made, just find it strange that random failure conditions were able to produce this perfect display.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
But that was exactly my point.

At the end, the fading circle is connected, as opposed to the spiral.


Ugh... you don't have a point. You are wrong.

Watch this entire video:


...See... the circle is not connected. That is an illusion. It only looks connected because of the camera position and perspective.

This image below is milliseconds after it stopped, with outlined path:


If you look closer, when it ends, it is not connected. It just ended in such a spot that it looks connected because of the camera perspective. In reality the end of the spiral (inner most part) is further away from the outer rings.

You have been fooled by your own eyes.



[edit on 17-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


Really? You find it difficult to think that a rocket can develop a flaw in its pressurised container? Because that's all this requires to form such a perfect spiral. That's it. Clearly you don't understand these basic physics - poking fun at such an obvious statement that you obviously don't understand only serves to make you look foolish, not me.

The evidence that it was a failed missile is there. It makes perfect sense, and until someone who understands physics can make a case that it's not possible for that explanation to explain what we saw, it stands. You simply saying "I don't know much about physics, so I'm going to ignore critical thought and simply make up an explanation that involves HAARP and flying saucers and the Loch Ness monster" doesn't make it so.

Real science is difficult. Clearly you are not interested in knowing the truth, only perpetuating your strange view on the world.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Hi, this is my first time posting on ATS so I would like to say hello to everyone and my thoughts on the subject is that I don't believe it's a missle at all, but I don't have any Idea what else it could be. I was a UFO skeptic up until the O'Hare sghting a few years back, that changed my whole outlook on UFO's and to this day is probably in my opinion the most convincing evidence or event that has occured thus far and I know there must be pictures of it so there has to be a damn good reason why there not being shown, that being said, if I were to take a guess I think it was a portal of some kind, man made or not.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


I have to say that looks pretty convincing, I'm glad you took the time to present that, instead of just saying how irrational I was.



I hope you understand I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this.

I don't think it was a failure anyways.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 





Really? You find it difficult to think that a rocket can develop a flaw in its pressurised container? Because that's all this requires to form such a perfect spiral. That's it. Clearly you don't understand these basic physics


No, you are oversimplyfying. Yes I find it strange that it reaches 3rd stage, where it starts leaking fuel out of a random hole in the container, wich has an unexplained cause, with the thrusters still burning, and yet makes a perfect spiral.

Show me the documented evidence of this happening before.

There are more variables than a rocket with two holes with stuff coming out.

If we had to duplicate this manouvre with the space shuttle, all we have to do is drill holes in it, than it will fly away in a perfect spiral.

Right?




Real science is difficult. Clearly you are not interested in knowing the truth, only perpetuating your strange view on the world.


Whatever sport. Even Phage considers it possible that it was some kind of new tech causing the spiral.

I'm trying to find the truth by asking questions. I don't care if I'm wrong from time to time.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Point of No Return]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   
I've been following the arguments put forward in the last few posts to provide an explanation for the observed "collapse" of the spiral structure and even though "physics" has been invoked, you're all still of the mark.

Point Of No Return has a valid ...errr ... "point"
in that the collapse of the inner part of the spiral towards the outer edge does appear to be unusual to say the least.

AllisOne ... I understand what you're trying to convey but even using a "train" analogy and invoking physics unfortunately doesn't do the trick.

You guys made mention of the spiral having a diameter around the 5-10km range ... ok, lets assume that's a reasonable value.

Now lets take a look at the physical dimensions of the Bulava missile ... it's approx 12 metres long and has a diameter of 2 metres. This missile is composed of 3 sections (or stages) comprising 2 solid propellant stages (1st and 2nd) and a liquid based 3rd stage (for maneuverability).

Lets make a simple split and say that each stage is approx 4 metres long and 2 metres in diameter ... this gives an approx volume of liquid fuel for the 3rd stage of:
12.57 cubic metres or
12,566 litres or
3,320 gallons

Now lets pick the lower value of 5km for the diameter of the spiral and calculate the total surface area of:
19.6 square kilometres.

If we use the upper value of 10 kms, we get instead an area of:
78.5 square kilometres ...almost 4 times the extent.

So if you're trying to tell me that such a small volume of liquid could be expelled and manage to cover an area of sky between 19 and 78 square kilometres, then I'm afraid you're deluding yourselves but I'd sure enjoy watching you struggle and attempt to do it !


Ok, moving on ....

The reports gave a rough viewing time of just a few minutes (say 4 mins) before the spiral "evaporated" ... so how fast would the initial ejecta have to travel to go a distance of 2.5 kms minimum to 5 kms maximum (half the diameter) away from the "missile" in that short time period ?

Would you believe a velocity somewhere between 37.5 kms/hour and 75 kms/hour would be needed ? Thats a heck of a lot of energy and momentum that would have to come from somewhere. This would immediately imply that as liquid material was being ejected, the rate of rotation of the 3rd stage would change (conservation of angular momentum) and this would be visually reflected in the structure of the spiral which would no longer appear homogenous ... unfortunately for the missile theory, the spiral did indeed appear to be completely homogenous so that kind of puts the nackers on the ejection of liquid theory.


But we're not finished yet .... lets take a look at the the mysterious "collapse" of the spiral centre.

If we persist against logic and still believe that the spiral was caused by liquid being ejected from the 3rd stage, then we have ourselves a bit of a problem when trying to explain the sudden collapse of the spiral from the centre ... outwards.

You used the example that once the supply of liquid was exhausted, that no more spirals could be formed and that it was the last of the liquid moving outwards that gave the illusion of a collapse.
Your assumption here was that the outermost spiral (being ejected/formed first) had travelled the greater distance and was eventually caught up by the last (inner) spiral to form before the liquid ran out.

For an inner spiral to catch up with an outer spiral, implies that the inner spiral was either travelling faster than the outer spiral ... or that the outer spiral had slowed down considerably to allow the inner spiral to catch up.

Either option is flawed.

There is no available mechanism that could be invoked to explain why the velocity at which the liquid was ejected would increase over time. Recall that all the photos show a uniform spiral shape, otherwise with increasing eject velocity, the spirals would have started to bunch up around the centre.

And what about the other alternative that the outer spirals had slowed down somehow ? Conservation of momentum would imply this could not be so ... otherwise you'd have to postulate yet another mechanism to account for this slowing ... atmospheric drag ? then that would apply to every spiral so in the end they'd all still be moving at a comparable velocity relative to each other and therefore no overtaking ... so no joy there.

What about if the spiral formed in space ? Well, again conservation of momentum implies that the outermost and innermost spirals would all retain their initial velocities and again, no overtaking would occur.


So, yet again (ad nauseum) ... the missile explanation doesn't hold water (or liquid rocket fuel
)



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


It's not proof, but it makes sense. It's a rational explanation that doesn't require any half-baked conspiracy or secret technology.

The spiral is formed from the inside. It's constantly moving outwards. The matter that makes up the inside of the spiral is slowly moving through the spiral, and out the end. It's basic physics! Clearly you are having some issues understanding this.


What ?????

Whatever the "matter" is that the spiral was made from, it was the same stuff that created the outer as well as the inner spirals ... the inner spiral did not appear to be of a different material from the outer spiral and so was NOT "slowly moving through the spiral as if it was a different substance !



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
I Truly wish That a complete understanding of basic
Newtonian Physics And the laws of angular momentum (especially in the vacuum of space) was a prerequisite
for posting in this "Advanced science Forum"

Alas....It is not, so the All I can tell the folks that don't understand how the spiral continued it's outward expansion after the effluent flow ceased. Run (dont walk) to the nearest library, and check out a high school physics text book. Don't worry if it's an old text book. Good Old Newton figured this one out for you
several hundred years ago! Study carefully the section on Angular momentum.

There will be a test on Friday. Be prepared to do the math! But teacher wont throw you anything difficult,
like coefficient of friction due to air...or any of that
yuky stuff....Har de Har Har..

Is this the dumming down of ATS???

Pity.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Zeptepi
 





Is this the dumming down of ATS???


I think so, there was absolutely nothing of substance in your post.

Also, it's dumbing, so yes I suppose so.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


Any time you have a pressurised body with a hole not along the centre, it will start to rotate. Due to its rotation, the ejecta will form a spiral when viewed from beneath it, as the ejecta is moving away from the body. That is absolutely fundamental basic physics.

The rocket wasn't flying in a spiral, it was being rotated by force of the leaking propellant. Couple that with the fact that rockets have stabilisers that attempt to maintain a consistent flight-path (so if the rocket is blown by a gust of wind, its course isn't affected, which would render it useless). Some ICBMs spiral on purpose, as it like gyroscopes, it makes them more stable.

It is possible it was some new technology, but it's also possibly just a missile failing. Unless you can show how it most certainly isn't a missile failing (which is the most simple, obvious explanation), it is rationally bankrupt to leap to other, more fantastic, conclusions.

Here's a decent blog post explaining it in more depth.

You clearly don't know basic physics - I can't believe I'm having to explain this to an adult. That is more staggering than the phenomenon we're discussing.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


If you don't understand angular momentum, you will NEVER
understand the implications of my post on page 19.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
In answer to your many questions, how the heck should we know?
I'll just e mail the Russian military and ask huh? I'm sure they won't mind since you are an ATS poster after all.
WHY is it incumbent on those of us that have figured out it was nothing more than a missile to explain every minute technical detail? And who know if your questions have an validity anyway. Though many of you imagine yourselves to be experts all of a sudden in this field ( ), I freely admit I'm not!
But I don't need to be to see the obvious, I can add 2 and 2.
It WAS a Russian ICBM



new topics

top topics



 
286
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join