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.
(visit the link for the full news article)
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!
Originally posted by zaiger
Im not downloading a PDF off somewhere i do not trust.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.