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 Mathematically Proven to not be a Missile

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Norway Spiral Mathematically Proven to not be a Missile


bringthefunk.blogspot.com

I have used basic trigonometry to prove that the Norway Spirals could not have been caused by a missile.

I posted my paper to my blog:
bringthefunk.blogspot.com...

Please let me know what you think!
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.dailymail.co.uk




posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I do not attempt to explain what the Spirals are, rather, my sole purpose is to prove that the cause COULD NOT be a missile.

any and all comments/questions/concerns are welcome.

Here is my abstract:
Abstract:
Abstract:
On the morning of December 9th, reports of strange, spinning spirals
flooded the internet and media outlets. They have come to be known as the
“Norway Spirals”. Though popularly attributed to a failed test-launch of a
Russian “RSM-56 Bulava” Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM), it can be
shown with some basic trigonometry that this explanation is physically
impossible. From a single, time-lapsed photo and anyone of the many videos of
the spirals, the speed at which the “ripples” caused by the phenomena propagate
can be calculated at two limits:
1)In the lower limit, the spiral is taken to be directly over the
mountain in the photograph (9.63km away) and the velocity of the
“ripple” propagation is approximately 316.8m/s.
2)In the upper limit, the spiral is taken to be directly over the
White Sea (971km) and the velocity of the “ripple” propagation is
found to be approximately 32,873m/s
It is assumed that the missile, the alleged cause of the spirals, would
be somewhere between these two points at the moment of the malfunction, yet
these velocities suggest that the observed “ripples” cannot be smoke and
therefore the spiral could not be caused by a missile.



bringthefunk.blogspot.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
I do not think this is "news" as much as it is a blog... Im not downloading a PDF off somewhere i do not trust.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by zaiger
Im not downloading a PDF off somewhere i do not trust.


I must second that the nature of my work dictates it, how about a HTML or RTF file? That'd be safe.

Thanks, I agree there isn't sufficient proof it's a missile and really look forward to reading this


Abductee

edit: star and flag awarded nonetheless, I not at a person who asks questions, even if they are the wrong ones , in this case it's the right question. IF the answer is wrong you tried your best I will not insult you like others below will. That's as needless as what they claim is stupid, which means they are no more silly than us for asking my friend!!!

Thanks


[edit on 18-12-2009 by UFOabducteebe]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by trigNspirals


I do not attempt to explain what the Spirals are, rather, my sole purpose is to prove that the cause COULD NOT be a missile.

any and all comments/questions/concerns are welcome.


As a man of science I must say your bias will detract from your arguments.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by trigNspirals


I do not attempt to explain what the Spirals are, rather, my sole purpose is to prove that the cause COULD NOT be a missile.

any and all comments/questions/concerns are welcome.


As a man of science I must say your bias will detract from your arguments.


It's not unscientific to bash something with a hammer. Science always has been biased, sadly.. but this is not one of those cases.. if it is not challenging someone as being unscientific, it's claiming that they are biased.

such a statement made by people such as you are saying testing a theory is biased

Get real.

Let him ask questions, and use the 'big hammer' as scientists so boldly overstate on something scientists already scoff at , ignore and specificall set out to debunk - and that is not biased too? - hehe. Man is biased, to stupidity , at best. from what i've seen that encompasses us all.

It's still good to ask questions, even if they are rigid *cough, scientific*


Science you say? No rigid question, no rigid answer. No rigid experiment, stupid meaningless data with no goal. Perhaps it's not such madness to use that hammer as a skeptic or a 'truther'. Indeed, to say that it is not, would be a contradiction of its own scientific shortcoming.



Abductee

[edit on 18-12-2009 by UFOabducteebe]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


How do you know that wasn't just his hypothesis, oh ye man of science?




posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by UFOabducteebe
 


Who is going to pay the scientists to seriously do the research and investigation?
Nothing's free.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by UFOabducteebe

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by trigNspirals


I do not attempt to explain what the Spirals are, rather, my sole purpose is to prove that the cause COULD NOT be a missile.

any and all comments/questions/concerns are welcome.


As a man of science I must say your bias will detract from your arguments.


It's not unscientific to bash something with a hammer. Science always has been biased, sadly.. but this is not one of those cases.. if it is not challenging someone as being unscientific, it's claiming that they are biased.

such a statement made by people such as you are saying testing a theory is biased

Get real.

Let him ask questions, and use the 'big hammer' as scientists so boldly overstate on something scientists already scoff at , ignore and specificall set out to debunk - and that is not biased too? - hehe. Man is biased, to stupidity , at best. from what i've seen that encompasses us all.

It's still good to ask questions, even if they are rigid *cough, scientific*


Science you say? No rigid question, no rigid answer. No rigid experiment, stupid meaningless data with no goal. Perhaps it's not such madness to use that hammer as a skeptic or a 'truther'. Indeed, to say that it is not, would be a contradiction of its own scientific shortcoming.



Abductee

[edit on 18-12-2009 by UFOabducteebe]


Sorry, but if your sole purpose is to prove something you are inherently biased. Period. And stating such openly and immediately should naturally inspire skepticism in any thinking individual. Such a proclamation is the calling card of pseudoscience, not science. So please, let's not breach the decorum by becoming smarmy.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Sorry, but if your sole purpose is to prove something you are inherently biased. Period. And stating such openly and immediately should naturally inspire skepticism in any thinking individual. Such a proclamation is the calling card of pseudoscience, not science. So please, let's not breach the decorum by becoming smarmy.


No it's called a hypothesis, which is tested, as I believe someone else has stated.

Abductee



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
It WAS A MISSILE but it was tampered with by god...

Yes, I am serious.

Russian military never saw anything like that before happen with their missiles.


Watch:





posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by heyo
 


It really doesn't matter who funds the initial research, because whether or not it works and is accurate will be determined later during peer-review and replication. Those funds are typically blind, meaning the research team doesn't know where the money came from. Nor do they know the proposed outcome of the hypothesis. They're just given the parameters of the experiment to replicate and report what the outcome is.

If you're a corporate scientist doing R&D, it again doesn't matter where initial research funding comes from. If IBM has your team working on fundamental curiosity driven research which yeilds self-arranging 3-Dimensional processors using DNA folding - continued funding will depend on your progress. They'll cut you loose if you can't generate research which works and makes a product or boosts their reputation. If you fudge your data to keep your job, and your results cannot be replicated - you're in trouble. If they find out you purposely fudged the data... your career is effectively over.

So in regards to the OP - it doesn't matter who would have funded his research. Could have been Vladimir Putin himself. But he won't know who's ultimately going to be fact checking/editing his paper - nor who will be trying to replicate his results. The peer-review/editors for the publication are rotated occasionally - consisting primarily of well respected researchers in your field. The publication journal often foots the bill for the lab trying to replicate your results - but again, the lab doing the replication won't know where the money is coming from.

The money the peer-review publication uses to pay for the review/editing and replication comes from various supplementary grants - but is primarily funded by the publication fees garnered by selling print journals and published papers.

Breech of the blinding process to funds or researchers handling the replication can and often will invalidate an entire study out of hand. This is especially rigid in pharmaceuticals. If I worked for GlaxoSmithKline during the pre-clinical testing of a new drug treatment, and two years later I run into somebody at the airport who happened to do the replication of my team's research - it doesn't matter if the drug is currently in Phase III pending approval and the meeting/conversation entirely coincidental and innocent - that can invalidate my data sets and send the drug back for additional testing while completely borking it's release schedule and putting all further tests on hold.

Blind or Masked trials are a means of removing bias from the observation. Bias can either come in the form of revenue, observer bias (expecting a certain outcome makes you more likely to unconsciously cherry pick or slant data), as well mitigating placebo effects in the case of double blind.

That's a rough generalization at any rate. There's more to it, but I think you got enough to see why imagining big corporate fat cats just making up science as they along to fit their agenda is highly, highly unlikely. This isn't to say the process is air-tight and prevents all fraud or underhandedness, but it makes it very obtuse to try to influence the research from the outside - and ultimately, it's self-defeating since you can't pay off reality. If your data is wrong or fraudulent, reality won't conform to it. Anomalies will become outliers... outliers will become suspicious - and eventually you will either be exposed or the research marginalized to the point that it's disregarded in light of contradictory evidence.

Here's a good video on a typical day in the life of an academic researcher. The "science" stereotype is generally pretty far off the mark.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by UFOabducteebe
 




No it's called a hypothesis, which is tested, as I believe someone else has stated.


Researchers formulating and testing a hypothesis are suspect to Experimenter Bias, of which there's typically seven or eight distinct phases of research in which it may manifest. For example, at the beginning when doing preliminary research on the subject - or later a miscalculation of necessary sample sizes - or when analyzing results - or at the end when drafting the paper to be submitted.

Experimenter bias must be acknowledged, and measures taken to mitigate it's effect whenever possible.


That's the ironic twist, you know. Anti-Science Conspiracy Theorists often try to discredit finding by evoking bias. Yet when you compare the methodologies and mechanisms for recognizing and removing bias required by science vs. the near non-acknowledgment of bias in what the Pseudo-Science advocates want to pass off as viable alternatives. Heh... the criticism is completely flipped upside down.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
That was laughable, the only thing you proved is that you have absolutely no idea how real science or mathematical proofs work.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
All these posts and still not one person has addressed the math itself, only talking trash and refusals to download the pdf.

I have the feeling many people posting don't even know what trigonometry is...



Though popularly attributed to a failed test-launch of a
Russian “RSM-56 Bulava” Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM), it can be
shown with some basic trigonometry that this explanation is physically
impossible. From a single, time-lapsed photo and anyone of the many videos of
the spirals, the speed at which the “ripples” caused by the phenomena propagate
can be calculated at two limits:
1)In the lower limit, the spiral is taken to be directly over the
mountain in the photograph (9.63km away) and the velocity of the
“ripple” propagation is approximately 316.8m/s.
2)In the upper limit, the spiral is taken to be directly over the
White Sea (971km) and the velocity of the “ripple” propagation is
found to be approximately 32,873m/s
It is assumed that the missile, the alleged cause of the spirals, would
be somewhere between these two points at the moment of the malfunction, yet
these velocities suggest that the observed “ripples” cannot be smoke and
therefore the spiral could not be caused by a missile.



Without verifying any of the measurements I have to say at least good job on a new method to approaching this.


I still have no idea what the thing was, and still say the spiral itself does not look anything like a rocket malfunction. The way people automatically clung to the rocket theory as soon as they heard it, and defend the theory like it's their life, it's like people are mentally incapable of seeing something without having to BS a "rational" explanation immediately before they can feel safe again.


I am still very curious about all we can learn about that thing.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
If you still believe it was a missile or rocket your fools then.
No offence.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


So what is your bias?

(As if I couldn't already guess.)



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by DraconianKing
That was laughable, the only thing you proved is that you have absolutely no idea how real science or mathematical proofs work.


This maybe so... but no other missile launch in history had these results.
SURE they were similar, but not the same; as we've seen.

It was too perfect... You saw the darn thing yourself, eh?
Then there you go.

It was Gods work...

Hey.. Prove ME wrong??



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic
So in regards to the OP - it doesn't matter who would have funded his research. Could have been Vladimir Putin himself. But he won't know who's ultimately going to be fact checking/editing his paper - nor who will be trying to replicate his results.


Umm, I'm looking at the paper now and he literally only used trigonometry.


It's really sad what humanity has become if we are reduced to needing experts to review a paper that consists of nothing but a couple of trigonometry problems.

You know you were supposed to learn this in high school, right? Not all of us have forgotten it. I'm an engineering major. I use trig ALL the time.

Unless he's made a careless mathematical error, this is a perfectly acceptable means of triangulating two limits on the position of this spiral. Trigonometry is nothing but triangle math.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join