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.

 

Electron caught on film for the first time, looks similar to Norway Spiral

page: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
As for the spiral itself, it appears you're basing your assumptions on long exposure images, the videos of the event paint a slightly different picture, there is still a spiral there but it is not as large or as defined as the above image.


Yet it looks infinitely more like the long-exposures than it does any of the other failed rockets I have been shown so far. I can't watch YouTube videos here and probably won't be able to for another week for so, but I have already been shown numerous videos of other failures and there is always a bigger difference between the failed rockets I am shown and the spiral, than the difference between the video and the long-exposures, by a long shot.

Gas that comes out of rockets immediately begins to expand in many directions which gives it a very rough appearance, and it does not move with centrifugal motion, only the rocket itself can, and the gases simply expand from forces derived from temperature differences with the gases in the atmosphere.




posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
The Norway spiral can be entirely explained by a failed ICBM launch, just as Russia admitted to, and as every rocket scientists asked about the phenomena has agreed.


I don't know why you think repeating your mantra without any further reasons is suddenly going to make me say, "Oh, you're right! I only had to be told the same BS 100 times before it sank in!"


Someone posted on another thread that they personally believed the spiral was created by HAARP-like technology being directed like a beam through the gases that were left behind or created by a rocket. Thus the gases were ionized and arranged according to magnetic field patterns. That is a much more plausible theory to me but I still say no one here knows for certain what in the hell it was. All I can tell you is that hot gases escaped from a rocket don't fly around in spirals, they expand in all directions until they reach equilibrium with the surrounding atmosphere as per thermodynamics. What the Russian military says be damned, and I've had enough of people claiming all experts are in agreement on any given subject. You say that without knowing what in the hell most rocket scientists actually think.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


And you're saying all of that without a shred of evidence. The photographs clearly show the blue tinge following the exhaust trail perfectly down towards the horizon. If it was being created by an "energy beam", it could have only affected either one or two points along the arc, as the arc and the beam are just that - one is curved and one is straight.

Hot gasses ejected from a rocket in space travel in straight lines from the rocket. If the rocket is spinning, that creates a spiral. The simulation video I posted shows how individual particles of ejecta, travelling in straight lines, gives the appearance of a spiral. I've shown you this.

Please stop your basic lack of fundamental physics jam up your mind. It's leading you away from rational thought. It's sad.

Every single expert on the planet thinks it's a missile. Clearly you have such fantastic arrogance to assume that you must be right, while all these experts are wrong. That's disgusting.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bookreader
Well, I mean, I know my vignette is kind of far fetched, but.... well, one day I was riding my bike with a friend on one of those long five mile forest preserve trails and it appeared to me that I saw the same old couple at least twice on two different parts of the trail. To my mind, which thinks only in simple conpiracy ways, thought that it would be impossible to see them twice, but my friend explained that we were on bikes, going faster than the old couple- furthermore, we were travelling opposite ways on the same trail. It made sense then. Again, I know my conspiracy theory to this spiral is probably de-bunkable, but my question to anyone who can sprinkle some twelfth grade knowledge about these particles in a larger scale, I mean, If you were to accept my conspiracy to be true for a moment even if you don't, can you please explain... If the norway spiral was actaually electrons magnified to the sky by one of those large flashlights at CERN or the one in France, If that were true, would we ever see it again? Does the earth pass by that area ever again, I mean assuming that it made it out of the atmosphere? Thanks for any help with this..


If there were such thing as negative stars on this site, I would give you one. And here I thought we could have an intelligent discussion without being interrupted by conspiracy theorists trying to relate pure scientific discussion to some alien wormhole or secret government project (which by the way, is a failed rocket launch until someone can give me something besides the one of the vague aforementioned explanations).

The video was quite interesting, though, since it came out a year ago I guess it hasn't helped us decide if an electron is a particle or a wave yet (or both). I guess I'll just have to wait until the results from the LHC for the next big discovery in the quantum world...



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
I don't need proof to doubt a theory that itself has no proof.


Originally posted by davesidious
If it was being created by an "energy beam", it could have only affected either one or two points along the arc, as the arc and the beam are just that - one is curved and one is straight.


I never said the trails were created by an energy beam. Don't start putting words in my mouth when you're ignorant of what I actually think, I'm not your CT straw man.


Hot gasses ejected from a rocket in space travel in straight lines from the rocket. If the rocket is spinning, that creates a spiral.


A spinning rocket can create a spiral, but not a single REAL example looks anything like either this thing or the simplistic animation someone made.

There is a reason what's in the animation never actually happens in real life and it's called "entropy." The trajectory of the theoretical rocket in the animation is programmed by a human being to be in a straight line with no aberrations in its spiraling. And though I can see obvious difference between the different "layers" of the spiral, I can't see any depth to it at all, just a flat-looking spiral, as if the rocket itself was either traveling much slower than the gases it was ejecting or else just hovering in place while this is going on, neither of which makes any damned sense. I would sooner believe a rocket did exactly what it was supposed to, but it is still obvious to me that no rocket created the spiral itself. EISCAT was only a few miles away (MUCH closer than the White Sea itself, by a factor of about 10x) and ionizing the gases themselves from such a launch would provide a MUCH more plausible scenario than saying the rocket itself did it. And it would STILL be a military operation and the Russians would have every reason to lie to you about advanced weapons research.


Please stop your basic lack of fundamental physics jam up your mind. It's leading you away from rational thought. It's sad.


It's sad that you talk about physics fundamentals when you don't seem to understand them very well yourself. What field is your major?


Every single expert on the planet thinks it's a missile.


Stop lying. You haven't talked to every single expert on the planet, nor do you have any source that can credibly state as much.


Clearly you have such fantastic arrogance to assume that you must be right, while all these experts are wrong. That's disgusting.


You really are grasping if you have to resort to sensational language to try to "debunk" my doubting of your pet theory, especially as you make up things you obviously have no way of knowing.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics
 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join