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.

 

Australian Spiral event : Preliminary analysis

page: 7
99
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Project_Exo

lol, I was coming from a metaphysical point of view. It is my view that the world if full of things that defy rational explanation/current level of scientific understanding.

It is people that think our current understanding of the universe is all encompassing that consciously choose to live in ignorance.


Fair enough mate! I do agree with that. Humans are still in nappies from a cosmological stand point. Our knowledge is at best.. rudimentary. I'm sure we don't don't know 1% of what's really out there and how the universe actually works. There's still a long way for us to go before we can see the wiring under the board.

IRM




posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 06:50 AM
link   
The spiral the all hypnotic spiral is telling us to break out of a trance. Thats what im getting. To wake up and be super human ;P Peace!



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Project_Exo

Originally posted by JimOberg



Stuff sprayed out of a space vehicle goes in the direction it is sprayed, off to the left or right as easily as towards the front or back. And as the object turns the spray paints a spiral -- sometimes sharp if the spray is a narrow beam, sometimes diffuse of the spray is low-speed wide-aperture dumping -- whose tightness depends on the spin rate and ejection speed.

The cloud expands and dissipates, and the molecules eventually impact the very thin air at those altitudes and slowly drop into the upper atmosphere in a few hours. But in the meantime, short-lived weird-looking clouds are created which -- under special illumination and meteorological conditions -- can be visible to ground observers.

It's unearthly, literally. Eerie -- hair-on-back-of-neck raising eerie.




fine Oberg I will directly respond to your critique of my view. You are of course right in your view that things behave differently in space that in the atmosphere. But the simple observation I was making was that the main thrusters are in the back of the rocket, facing directly away. Thus any release of pressure through those apertures would more than likely go in that exact direction. Of course if I find out that the fuel is released through a port going perpendicular to the trajectory of the rocket, I would be more than happy to eat my words.



[edit on 11-6-2010 by Project_Exo]



Thanks for taking the time to be specific, which allows us to discover where your conceptual flaws are.

In this case, you have erroneously assumed with no justification that the rocket moves through space with a fixed orientation of the engines pointing backwards along its orbital track. This is the way airplanes fly, so you just imagined rockets in space must fly with that same orientation (after all, Hollywood movies also show the Millenium Falcon and the Enterprise always flying that way).

Once a rocket stage begins coasting, any orientation becomes possible. Falcon-9's roll rate may well have continued for the rest of the orbit and to this day, or it could have been altered by the gentle push of propellant (not just 'fuel') being dumped out though the engine nozzles.

I want to take this opportunity to mention the same kind of earthbound conceptual problem with arguments that the 'spin' of the object seen over east Oz was opposite the spin of the Falcon-9 stage, so it could NOT have been the same object.

Actually, if one assumes the spin rate continued, the 'opposite' sense of the spin proves it WAS the same object.

This is because a spin-stabilized object in space maintains its orientation in an inertial frame of reference, stable with respect to the celestial sphere. This is independent of any local horizontal frame relative to the center of the Earth.

See where this is going?

Such a spin stabilized object would keep pointing to its 'pole star' along its spin axis (as Earth does), even as it moved halfway around the Earth. But once it had moved that far, that line-of-sight would no longer be, say, back down the motion vector, it would have remained unchanged in an inertial frame but half an orbit later (180 deg in orbital motion) it would now have semed to rotate 180 degrees in an Earth-centered frame of reference (local horizontal). It would be pointing forward.

So the sense of the rotation, as viewed from a constant relative position of an observer, would indeed be reversed.

You can do this with a pencil (for the rocket) and a globe, at home. Shift the pencil from Florida to Australia while keeping its pointing direction unchanged relative to YOU ('inertial frame'). You will see the pointing angle swap end-over-end relative to an earth surface observer. Try it!

So the argument that a reversed sense of spin is proof the Oz object could NOT be the Falcon-9 is actually, due to the arguers' ignorance of basic physics, a powerful argument FOR the identity of the two objects.

This isn't that hard, if I've explained it clearly -- please help me get it in terms easier for public understanding.

If you DON'T understand this, none of your arguments about the identity of the Oz object have any basis in genuine reality.

Let's work on this.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by Project_Exo

lol, I was coming from a metaphysical point of view. It is my view that the world if full of things that defy rational explanation/current level of scientific understanding.

It is people that think our current understanding of the universe is all encompassing that consciously choose to live in ignorance.


Fair enough mate! I do agree with that. Humans are still in nappies from a cosmological stand point. Our knowledge is at best.. rudimentary. I'm sure we don't don't know 1% of what's really out there and how the universe actually works. There's still a long way for us to go before we can see the wiring under the board.

IRM


Baloney. Does this mean you still don't know who turns on the light when you open the refrigerator door?

Locally, we know a lot of useful patterns of cause and effect, that we haven't been given any reason to doubt the reliability of. We use them all of the time, mostly with reasonable success.

Using the same earthside patterns to judge space events, as many here have tried to do, can indeed betray our conclusions.

But the prescription is not mouth-gaping wide-eyed paralysis at the 'unknown', but examination of behavior of activity in new areas of human endeavor, to extract and exploit patterns.

It's called 'science', instead of the other approach, called 'superstition'.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by Project_Exo

lol, I was coming from a metaphysical point of view. It is my view that the world if full of things that defy rational explanation/current level of scientific understanding.

It is people that think our current understanding of the universe is all encompassing that consciously choose to live in ignorance.


Fair enough mate! I do agree with that. Humans are still in nappies from a cosmological stand point. Our knowledge is at best.. rudimentary. I'm sure we don't don't know 1% of what's really out there and how the universe actually works. There's still a long way for us to go before we can see the wiring under the board.

IRM


Baloney. Does this mean you still don't know who turns on the light when you open the refrigerator door?


That's just plain childish Jim. You are creating your own subtext and scraping the barrel at the same time! I'm not saying that at all. Nice multitasking though!

Sure, science accounts for a lot - but what I'm saying is the proportion of what we currently know, and think we know compared to what we don't yet know but will know in the future is comparatively small.

You cannot argue with that unless of course, your aware of certain things the rest of the scientific community is not. Baloney indeed!

I just lost a whole heap of respect I previously had for you on the forum.

IRM



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
I just lost a whole heap of respect I previously had for you on the forum.


So who turns on YOUR fridge light?

Come on -- we develop an agenda of things to be DONE to push back the 'unknown', we don't patrol the frontier and proclaim 'Go ye no further'. I'm a frontier back-pusher. What are you?



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg






Thanks for taking the time to be specific, which allows us to discover where your conceptual flaws are.

In this case, you have erroneously assumed with no justification that the rocket moves through space with a fixed orientation of the engines pointing backwards along its orbital track. This is the way airplanes fly, so you just imagined rockets in space must fly with that same orientation (after all, Hollywood movies also show the Millenium Falcon and the Enterprise always flying that way).

Once a rocket stage begins coasting, any orientation becomes possible. Falcon-9's roll rate may well have continued for the rest of the orbit and to this day, or it could have been altered by the gentle push of propellant (not just 'fuel') being dumped out though the engine nozzles.

I want to take this opportunity to mention the same kind of earthbound conceptual problem with arguments that the 'spin' of the object seen over east Oz was opposite the spin of the Falcon-9 stage, so it could NOT have been the same object.

Actually, if one assumes the spin rate continued, the 'opposite' sense of the spin proves it WAS the same object.

This is because a spin-stabilized object in space maintains its orientation in an inertial frame of reference, stable with respect to the celestial sphere. This is independent of any local horizontal frame relative to the center of the Earth.

See where this is going?

Such a spin stabilized object would keep pointing to its 'pole star' along its spin axis (as Earth does), even as it moved halfway around the Earth. But once it had moved that far, that line-of-sight would no longer be, say, back down the motion vector, it would have remained unchanged in an inertial frame but half an orbit later (180 deg in orbital motion) it would now have semed to rotate 180 degrees in an Earth-centered frame of reference (local horizontal). It would be pointing forward.

So the sense of the rotation, as viewed from a constant relative position of an observer, would indeed be reversed.

You can do this with a pencil (for the rocket) and a globe, at home. Shift the pencil from Florida to Australia while keeping its pointing direction unchanged relative to YOU ('inertial frame'). You will see the pointing angle swap end-over-end relative to an earth surface observer. Try it!

So the argument that a reversed sense of spin is proof the Oz object could NOT be the Falcon-9 is actually, due to the arguers' ignorance of basic physics, a powerful argument FOR the identity of the two objects.

This isn't that hard, if I've explained it clearly -- please help me get it in terms easier for public understanding.

If you DON'T understand this, none of your arguments about the identity of the Oz object have any basis in genuine reality.

Let's work on this.




I can help condense this statement for the lay man, You think the videos and the eye witness testimony are lying. You think they saw it looking west not east.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Project_Exo
I can help condense this statement for the lay man, You think the videos and the eye witness testimony are lying. You think they saw it looking west not east.


No, I don't.

Instead of making up stuff you think I should think, please use some brainpower to try to understand what I'm trying to explain about how I think.

Or at least help me present the thoughts in a more easily understood fashion. Make suggestions, critique the explanations.

I'm trying to communicate a new idea here so I'll need cooperation at your end of the link, too.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
I just lost a whole heap of respect I previously had for you on the forum.


So who turns on YOUR fridge light?


I wont dignify that with an answer. Completely ridiculous!


Come on -- we develop an agenda of things to be DONE to push back the 'unknown', we don't patrol the frontier and proclaim 'Go ye no further'. I'm a frontier back-pusher. What are you?


You wont get an argument from me Jim on pushing back the frontiers... but my post was never about that. Again, your struggling with your own internal dialog here and I fail to see the relevance of your post in relation to mine. You appear to have completely misinterpreted my post.


IRM


[edit on 11/6/10 by InfaRedMan]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Project_Exo
I can help condense this statement for the lay man, You think the videos and the eye witness testimony are lying. You think they saw it looking west not east.


No, I don't.

Instead of making up stuff you think I should think, please use some brainpower to try to understand what I'm trying to explain about how I think.

Or at least help me present the thoughts in a more easily understood fashion. Make suggestions, critique the explanations.

I'm trying to communicate a new idea here so I'll need cooperation at your end of the link, too.



The way I see it is ether A. the rocket reversed its spin with a maneuvering thruster(something that is pure speculation at this point), or B. It was not the falcon 9 rocket.

Am I wrong about this?



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   
BLINKING WHITE LIGHT

Has anybody noticed the the blinking white light that blinks at different radius'?
It shows the light going in a clockwise direction, and this can be seen in not just one but several videos.

Break down:
in the very first 24 seconds, It blinks 4 times consistently around the larger radius, then it blink 3 times on a smaller radius. you can see these from about 10 o'clock to 2 o'clock around the first clip.

This can also be seen in the clip that starts at 24 seconds.

From 34-44 seconds where the object is zoomed in, you can clearly see a blinking white light along the smaller radius (compared to the other path of the blinking white light from the first clip). from what i can tell, it is in consistent intervals.

I also believe there are a few blinking lights captured in the video which starts at 1:40 but the camera is not very good so it is hard to tell.




Video link edit

[edit on 12-6-2010 by shtfrifle]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Project_Exo

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Project_Exo
I can help condense this statement for the lay man, You think the videos and the eye witness testimony are lying. You think they saw it looking west not east.


No, I don't.

Instead of making up stuff you think I should think, please use some brainpower to try to understand what I'm trying to explain about how I think.

Or at least help me present the thoughts in a more easily understood fashion. Make suggestions, critique the explanations.

I'm trying to communicate a new idea here so I'll need cooperation at your end of the link, too.



The way I see it is ether A. the rocket reversed its spin with a maneuvering thruster(something that is pure speculation at this point), or B. It was not the falcon 9 rocket.

Am I wrong about this?


You can't possibly have read the explanation I posted. Please try it -- it describes how the sense of the rotation could reverse as the object made half an orbit around the Earth.

Look at it this way. As the rocket went halfway around Earth, IT didn't 'flip over'. The EARTH (the up-down vector) 'flipped over' in the inertial frame where the spin was stabilized.

[edit on 12-6-2010 by JimOberg]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by shtfrifle
BLINKING WHITE LIGHT

Has anybody noticed the the blinking white light that blinks at different radius'?
It shows the light going in a clockwise direction, and this can be seen in not just one but several videos.

Break down:
in the very first 24 seconds, It blinks 4 times consistently around the larger radius, then it blink 3 times on a smaller radius. you can see these from about 10 o'clock to 2 o'clock around the first clip.

This can also be seen in the clip that starts at 24 seconds.

From 34-44 seconds where the object is zoomed in, you can clearly see a blinking white light along the smaller radius (compared to the other path of the blinking white light from the first clip). from what i can tell, it is in consistent intervals.

I also believe there are a few blinking lights captured in the video which starts at 1:40 but the camera is not very good so it is hard to tell.




Video link edit

[edit on 12-6-2010 by shtfrifle]


ya I saw that, I just assumed it was a plane though. Good catch though, who really knows what it is for sure.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Project_Exo

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Project_Exo
I can help condense this statement for the lay man, You think the videos and the eye witness testimony are lying. You think they saw it looking west not east.


No, I don't.

Instead of making up stuff you think I should think, please use some brainpower to try to understand what I'm trying to explain about how I think.

Or at least help me present the thoughts in a more easily understood fashion. Make suggestions, critique the explanations.

I'm trying to communicate a new idea here so I'll need cooperation at your end of the link, too.



The way I see it is ether A. the rocket reversed its spin with a maneuvering thruster(something that is pure speculation at this point), or B. It was not the falcon 9 rocket.

Am I wrong about this?


You can't possibly have read the explanation I posted. Please try it -- it describes how the sense of the rotation could reverse as the object made half an orbit around the Earth.

Look at it this way. As the rocket went halfway around Earth, IT didn't 'flip over'. The EARTH (the up-down vector) 'flipped over' in the inertial frame where the spin was stabilized.

[edit on 12-6-2010 by JimOberg]


can someone else chime in here? I have spun my cigarette around my globe more times than I want to admit, and I keep coming to the same conclusion.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
This is a very interesting view of the object. Near the beginning when they zoom in, you can actually see three distinct centers of light. That would be more consistent with a object reentering the atmosphere, and breaking up; than a rocket in stable orbit.






posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
[edit on 12-6-2010 by Project_Exo]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Project_Exo

can someone else chime in here? I have spun my cigarette around my globe more times than I want to admit, and I keep coming to the same conclusion.


Hang in there Project_Exo ... the cavalry is on it's way soon (hopefully !)


I sent you a U2U.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Project_Exo
can someone else chime in here? I have spun my cigarette around my globe more times than I want to admit, and I keep coming to the same conclusion.


As long as the cigarette is spinning around its long axis, and not tumbling end over end, you should get the results I described. With 180 degrees of orbital travel, the spin sense relative to the local horizon will have reversed.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   
Jim,
Assuming you're still haunting this thread, belittling any speculators, can you explain something to me, keeping in mind I'm not a physicist, just a curious mind:

Looking at some of these pictures, this object forms a perfect spiral in the sky, and in some footage is even static;

wouldn't this mean the rocket would have to be traveling in a straight line either away or toward the observer? Which, if it was in orbit, is impossible?



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 06:32 AM
link   
I do admire your work very much !!







 
99
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join