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: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
The hypothesis of the OP is that the spiral could not have been caused by the Bulava. By using the parameters specified by the OP it is shown that this is not the case.


huh?

what you are saying, then, is that he (the OP) got the math wrong?
or what?

sorry to be so dense but i just want to be clear


Waveforms do not radiate in spirals. "Spiral waveform" is a contradiction in terms. A circular waveform is possible, a spiral is not. A wave is a transfer of energy through a medium in which the medium itself shows no net movement. What is displayed in the spiral is the constant radial motion of material outward from a rotating central point, like a lawn sprinkler.


right
poor choice of words on my part

when i said waveform, i specifically mean VIBRATIONAL ENERGY

everything that exists naturally is either a sphere, circle, or spiral of some sort - such as like a slinky as well as more helical in form.

this is true and observable by anyone at any time
there is no reason whatsoever that energy cannot radiate concentrically, in a ring, or a spiral, or any other form that is circular in nature...in fact, it is not only reasonable but required.

even as far as what is considered to be a waveform (in the true sense of the word rather than my own misuse) is circular, essentially

it manifests as a line but it is not a line
it is a curve and it is definitely not finite
resonance is a never ending exchange in all of created reality

ripples in a pond are the perfect example.
they seem to be circles but really, they are a spiral
caused by vibrational energy that dissipates rather than ends with a finality - even beyond our ability to perceive, the only limit is that of the pond's border

so in space, it is the same way.
but on Earth, what man builds is, more often than not, based on angles not only sharp but usually awkward and ungainly, in comparison to that which comes not from our hands.

we're still fighting nature's natural structure
which is ROUND not SQUARE

from the atom to the galaxy...the form remains consistent




posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp
reply to post by queenannie38
 


No you have it correct now it was Phage the FARRTist


you're too much!


btw...farts are circular, as well!




posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 




Based on a presumed distance of 971km, the height and exhaust velocity are consistent with a missile. The distance makes it consistent with being the Bulava missile. A range in distance of 600 km still gives acceptable figures:
At 671 km the height is 290km, the diameter 19.6km, and the velocity is 1.2km/s
At 1,271 km the height is 709km, the diameter 40.1km, and the velocity is 2.5km/s


Let's use your figures ....

1. Diameter of 19.6 kms = surface area of 301.7 square kilometres
2. Diameter of 40 kms = surface area of 1,257 square kilometres

and those two massive surface areas were created by the contents of just a small cylinder approx 4 metres high and 2 metres diameter containing a volume of just 50,000 litres of propellant ... spinning on it's axis and discharging that liquid into it's surrounding space ?

And I've only used a 2-dimensional calculation completely ignoring any additional surface area created because the spiral had "thickness".

And this surface area was traversed by the "effluent" in how many seconds, did you say ? oh, yes ... 8 secs.

C'mon Phage ... even YOU must have trouble believing those area values !




The OP has not disproved the Bulava.

Phage has not proved the Bulava.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 

I have no trouble believing those values.



A relatively small amount of material can disperse over a large volume in space.

Remember the infamous "urine dump" from the shuttle in September? The one that was seen all over North America? Apparently it left a pretty impressive curved plume. But that's not the only occasion on which such things have been seen.

Here's a little something about another observation. It gives an idea about just how much a visible cloud of effluent can disperse and the distance from which it can be seen.

August 12, 1986, 10 p.m. Hundreds of thousands of people were outside in the eastern half of the United States, looking for Perseid meteors. Many of them had their astronomical instruments and cameras at the ready.
Suddenly a bright, fuzzy spiral, wider than the moon, appeared in the eastern sky, moving from right to left. Sightings occurred from Georgia (Florida was socked in with clouds) to Texas, from Oklahoma City to Quebec, Canada, and all points in between.


Wayne Madea, an amateur astronomer in northern Maine, saw a bright starlike object emit a luminous, rapidly expanding donut-shaped cloud; through a telescope he saw “a pinpoint of light, like a satellite, traveling with the cloud.” In Massachusetts, an amateur astronomer watched the plume perform two full turns in four minutes, painting the spinning spiral as he watched.

What was it?

In the United States and Canada, observers had witnessed a spray of surplus fuel from the used-up third stage of the Japanese rocket. Their altitude was almost a thousand miles (1,500 km), high enough for it to have been sunlit even though the ground below had been dark for more than an hour.

bb.nightskylive.net...

The straight line distance to the cloud from the Japanese rocket was greater than it was to the Bulava and this was just residual fuel.

I wonder why the OP hasn't been back. Hit and runs bug me.

[edit on 12/22/2009 by Phage]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

I wonder why the OP hasn't been back. Hit and runs bug me.


well...it isn't like he received the warmest of welcomes to ATS!

in fact, i would say the first page of this thread was bordering on insulting to our new member - not only discouraging a friendly return but even worse...making ATS seem like a farce at best and hypocritical at worst!!

he's probably thinking, "this ATS isn't all that...these people might be the epitome of ignorance rather than those who would deny same"

or something like that.

granted, it got better as the thread progressed, but REALLY folks, go back and read the first part and put yourself in HIS shoes!

what kind of first impression did we make?

----------

i've been a member for4 1/2 years, and for the first 3 1/2 or so, i was a daily regular here

i've taken two brief breaks from ATS since then - i've only been back a few weeks this time
but i must say...it is NOT like it used to be
:shk:

i'm not going to let that drive me away from my favorite forum on all the net...but neither am i going to hesitate to candidly give any CONSTRUCTIVE criticism as i see fit, according to what i KNOW to be the ideals of this forum and its founders.

those of you that don't need the criticism know who you are


and so you who are left can figure out that i'm talking to YOU


(yeah, i can be a you-know-what! but i will never lie!)




posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by zaiger
 


I'm sorry i didn't reply earlier, i thought i would get email updates whenever this post was replied to.

Here is my paper, loaded onto google docs:
docs.google.com...



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Originally posted by Phage
That's a nice piece of work but there could be a problem with your initial assumptions (and a few other things). Based on a single photograph, you have assumed that the size of the spiral in the distance is proportionate with the size of the objects nearer to the camera. Depending on the lens used, this is not necessarily the case. Perhaps you could expand your thesis to include an analysis of these images:







I would have loved to have include data from more pictures, to get a really good sample, but i was limited by the number of pictures with the sunrise in it. that was the only way i could figure out (well, actually, this guy named Kevin Martin figured it out) the relative height (and distance to) of anything in the photo thus creating a relative scale of lengths.

and you're absolutely right, i did not take the curvature of the Earth into account. Looking back on it, there are a million things i would have added, but one of my main goals was to the paper on the web ASAP before "The Spirals" were forgotten.
But, the higher it was, the more people should have reported the event. Just look at the stunning videos and photos from NORWAY, there then should be equally amazing pictures from all around the region...

[edit on 22-12-2009 by trigNspirals]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ProRipp
 


thank you for your time and effort, ProRipp. Between our evidence, i think we know what the spirals AREN'T....now, what the heck ARE they?

[edit on 22-12-2009 by trigNspirals]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 



Originally posted by davesidious


I can't believe I have to post this again. So far every single expert in the field has said it was a failed missile. Those on here who think it's something else are like people thousands of years ago pointing at the sun and saying it's a god because they simply don't understand. I've had enough with being polite on this matter - people spewing this 'it's not a missile' drivel are making ATS look ridiculous. The evidence for it being a missile is everywhere, from the shipping warnings, to the clearly-visible exhaust plume extending all the way down to the horizon, to the two spirals caused by the fuel leaking, and the fuel being burned.

It's preposterous to claim it's anything else. Poor trigonometry isn't going to change that.

yes, according to my "poor trigonometry," those little white dots are moving ABOVE the speed of sound...hm..

also: in the simulation, the blue particles spread out as they move away from the center box. yet, in the case of the Norway Spirals, the blue spiral becomes smaller as it leaves the center "source"
...hm...



[edit on 22-12-2009 by trigNspirals]

[edit on 22-12-2009 by trigNspirals]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by tauristercus
 



In your earlier attempt your trigonometry was in error so you really demonstrated nothing. But the OP of this thread had an interesting idea to use the radial velocity of the effluent to prove that the source of the spiral could not have been the Bulava. Let's revisit this idea but clear up some problems with the OP's attempt.
.
.
.
Based on a presumed distance of 971km, the height and exhaust velocity are consistent with a missile. The distance makes it consistent with being the Bulava missile. A range in distance of 600 km still gives acceptable figures:
At 671 km the height is 290km, the diameter 19.6km, and the velocity is 1.2km/s
At 1,271 km the height is 709km, the diameter 40.1km, and the velocity is 2.5km/s

[edit on 12/21/2009 by Phage]


First, i do not understand your definitions:
Please define your diagram, i have no idea what you're calculating...
you say "So height of C above the Earth's surface = 477km (4436-3959)" yet your diagram indicates that "C" is an angle, and "c" is a distance on the ground?
Furthermore, what do length 'c' and angle 'B' indicate?

Second, you arbitrarily take the angular radius of the spiral to be .75˚ (is that the FULL, white spiral, or the light source at the center, or the blue spiral? if is is the FULL, white spiral, how many wavelengths are you considering? b/c each picture shows a different number of "ripples")

Third, please explain "r=a tan(7.5º)" r should the angle opposite of the (.75˚



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
trigNspirals, could you tell me what your qualifications are?
is this your field of study?
or profession?



QueenAnnie,
I am a physics undergrad at UIC, taking some grad classes and awaiting admission to grad school for physics.

thank you for the kind words and the movie suggestion

[edit on 22-12-2009 by trigNspirals]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by trigNspirals
 

"C" is the point where the spiral appeared. "c" (opposite angle "C") is the Earth's radius. "B" is the viewing location. The height above the ground is length b (opposite angle "B") less the Earth's radius ("c"). "a" is the straight line distance from B to C.

.75º is not arbitrary. The diameter of the spiral has been described by eyewitnesses as being 2-3 times the diameter of a full Moon. The Moon has an apparent angular diameter of .5º. Thus the visible radius of the spiral (at 3x Moon) would be .75º. The spiral does not represent wave propagation so counting "waves" is meaningless. What we see is the effluent leaving the spinning vehicle. When the flow of effluent stops, the material which has already been ejected continues on its radial trajectory until it is dispersed beyond the point of visibility.

Yes, it is a typo. To find the radius of the spiral the tangent of the angular radius (.75º) is multiplied by the straight line distance (a) to the center of the spiral.

The great majority of Scandinavia was covered in cloud and fog at the time. The coastal areas of northern Norway, where most of the sightings were from, were clear.


Yes, we have been told that there was a failure in the third stage.

You are mistaken. The third stage of the Bulava is powered by a liquid propellant rocket.

[edit on 12/22/2009 by Phage]

[edit on 12/22/2009 by Phage]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
The diameter of the spiral has been described by eyewitnesses as being 2-3 times the diameter of a full Moon.


i meant to address this earlier, that you said also in another post.

when the moon first rises over the horizon, it can, depending upon the setting and surroundings of both the horizon as well as the observer, appear to be far larger, proportionately, than it should be.

and then, as it continues to rise, it appears to "shrink" to a more familiar apparent size.

i'm sure that most of us, if not all, are familiar with this "optical illusion."

i'm not saying this in a direct reference to your facts and figures, because my brain deals with numbers in ways that are not of a mathematical nature. by that i mean that i could not even wade into the numbers in regard to the principle i described above - but i do feel sure that is a factor that must be considered, regardless, when using it as a "ruler," so to speak, in these calculations.

and we surely all also know how easy it is to miscalculate estimations of size and distance when we are observing something set apart from any sort of reference at all.

how can the moon be a reliable reference for observation, when it, itself, offers no reliable reference of its own when it is hanging in the sky?



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by trigNspirals
QueenAnnie,
I am a physics undergrad at UIC, taking some grad classes and awaiting admission to grad school for physics.


thank you!

i was pretty sure that you were connected with the field of physics, somehow - from what i read on your blog

good luck towards your admission!
i certainly don't envy you, although i do admire your goal




posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by Phage
The diameter of the spiral has been described by eyewitnesses as being 2-3 times the diameter of a full Moon.


i meant to address this earlier, that you said also in another post.

when the moon first rises over the horizon, it can, depending upon the setting and surroundings of both the horizon as well as the observer, appear to be far larger, proportionately, than it should be.

and then, as it continues to rise, it appears to "shrink" to a more familiar apparent size.

i'm sure that most of us, if not all, are familiar with this "optical illusion."

i'm not saying this in a direct reference to your facts and figures, because my brain deals with numbers in ways that are not of a mathematical nature. by that i mean that i could not even wade into the numbers in regard to the principle i described above - but i do feel sure that is a factor that must be considered, regardless, when using it as a "ruler," so to speak, in these calculations.

and we surely all also know how easy it is to miscalculate estimations of size and distance when we are observing something set apart from any sort of reference at all.

how can the moon be a reliable reference for observation, when it, itself, offers no reliable reference of its own when it is hanging in the sky?


Do you think the optical illusion is an intrinsic property of the moon?



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 

The moon was visible in the SW at the time (at about the same elevation from the horizon as the spiral). Of course I can't say for certain that the witnesses made a direct comparison but the possibility is there. The so called "Moon Illusion" occurs most dramatically when the Moon (or any other heavenly body) is close to the horizon. While the Moon and the spiral were low in the sky, they were not really very close to the horizon but if anything the size as described by witnesses may have been exaggerated due to the illusion.

While an eyewitness report on the apparent size of the spiral is subjective, it can be relied on to a certain extent. Without knowing the characteristics of the camera used, a photograph cannot be relied upon at all. The proportions are just out of whack.

When using a lens with a narrower field of view, a telephoto lens, the image needs to be stretched to fit the space, as shown in figure 2(c). The perspective is again distorted, but in the opposite way. Scale and distance proportions between foreground and background diminish so that objects far away appear larger than they are and nearly as big as those close by, and it appears there is virtually no distance between them.

scien.stanford.edu...

The calculations I ran still allowed for reasonable values even when using a size of 6 times the size of the Moon.

[edit on 12/22/2009 by Phage]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by RestingInPieces
Do you think the optical illusion is an intrinsic property of the moon?


no.
more like just an inherent aspect of our perception which is not always exactly as it seems

many things are like that
it's just the way of the created world!



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


thank you, Phage
i think i understand what you are saying, so okay
you answered my question

and thanks for the link
i'll have to check it out in a bit after i run some errands.




posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


Careful Queenannie or the FARRTs will try and convince you the moon is made of green cheese !


[edit on 063131p://12America/Chicago22 by ProRipp]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp
reply to post by queenannie38
 


Careful Queenannie or the FARRTs will try and convince you the moon is made of green cheese !


[edit on 063131p://12America/Chicago22 by ProRipp]


I suppose some people are just born like that, born skeptics. I wouldn't worry about Queenannie, she is one real intelligent lady, got her act together and as she said will not lie. ATS is actually lucky to have her on here.

There are some people on here who would try to come with a logical explanation for everything that happens. If they got beamed up to a ufo and told the secrets of the universe etc, I still dont think they would believe any of it. They would try to come up with a logical conclusion for that.


Good luck with that in 2010.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join