Australian Spiral event : Preliminary analysis

Originally posted by tesla9
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?

Good point. What is the plane of the 'spiral' and shouldn't the observer's line of sight change as the spiral passes across the sky? Yes, it should.

The question is, how much did it change during the period of imaging?

In the Norway event, the observer lines of sight did not change much due to the distance to the spiral and its motion mostly away from them.

Over eastern Australia, there were reports of the object moving out of the western sky into the eastern sky. If it maintained its spiral appearance across an arc that large, it would be inconsistent with a spiral created by a tumbling or spinning object in orbit, venting effluent.

But did it maintain that shape, or just have it as it passed to the east? The eyewitness descriptions and follow-up interviews could help ascertain this.

Spacecraft observations usually are of point sources, too small to resolve structure. Venting clouds can be such rare exceptions, along with my own personal favorite, the STS-75 loose 'tethered satellite'. The 20-km tether was hanging straight down from the satellite as I spotted it in the west, heading for zenith, prior to sunrise. As I watched, the tether itself appeared to shrink, or recede into the satellite -- until I realized I was seeing foreshortening due to the perspective of my line of sight. Sure enough, after it passed nearly overhead, the tether lengthened again as it moved off eastwards to a shallower viewing angle. Bizarro!

I would be very curious to get detailed shape-shifting testimony from any careful observers of the East-Oz spiral. Can we gather and post them here?

Originally posted by JimOberg

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.

What direction should it be spinning if viewed to the west?

What direction should it be spinning if viewed to the east?

This clip seems to show the transition of the shape from clean spiral to the cloudy hourglass shape. Most videos show either shape, this has both as it moves across the sky the observer's perspective changes over four minutes.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by tesla9


Hi Guys, I came across this video of the Hayabusa re-entry, seems nothing like the supposed huge spiral re-entry of falcon 9. It will be great if some one can demystify the vast differences, visibility and form factor of these two events?
Hayabusa: www.youtube.com...

reply to post by JimOberg


"In the Norway event, the observer lines of sight did not change much due to the distance to the spiral and its motion mostly away from them. "



So what distance was the Norway spiral at then if this one was in low earth orbit?

Originally posted by Project_Exo

Originally posted by JimOberg

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.

What direction should it be spinning if viewed to the west?

What direction should it be spinning if viewed to the east?

I don't have all the required information to predict this.

My argument was that the claim, made here, that the DIFFERENT spin sense at orbital insertion and then over Australia was proof that the two objects could NOT be the same -- that such an argument was not valid, since the ground-observer-centered 'spin sense' would be expected to change as the object, spinning stably in inertial space, went through half of one complete orbit of the Earth.

Originally posted by ashkale
reply to post by tesla9

 

Hi Guys, I came across this video of the Hayabusa re-entry, seems nothing like the supposed huge spiral re-entry of falcon 9. It will be great if some one can demystify the vast differences, visibility and form factor of these two events?

Come on, this is the classic closed-minded-excuse #6 for rejecting any prosaic explanation for any UFO report:

Rule #6 -- If a proposed prosaic explanation for UFO Case 'A' can be shown to not explain UFO Case 'B', then it cannot possible also explain Case 'A' either.

You can do this at home. List the differences in trajectory, effluent, atmospheric environment, and illumination conditions for the two different objects. Think for yourself.

Originally posted by gambon
reply to post by JimOberg

 

"In the Norway event, the observer lines of sight did not change much due to the distance to the spiral and its motion mostly away from them. "



So what distance was the Norway spiral at then if this one was in low earth orbit?

You need to read the highly-informative threads on this subject created here in December. You don't rate a one-on-one remedial tutorial.

reply to post by JimOberg


Oh Jim.....

Fair dinkum you crack me up!!!

You're relentless!!!

You don't rate a one-on-one remedial tutorial.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Project_Exo

Originally posted by JimOberg

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.

What direction should it be spinning if viewed to the west?

What direction should it be spinning if viewed to the east?

I don't have all the required information to predict this.

My argument was that the claim, made here, that the DIFFERENT spin sense at orbital insertion and then over Australia was proof that the two objects could NOT be the same -- that such an argument was not valid, since the ground-observer-centered 'spin sense' would be expected to change as the object, spinning stably in inertial space, went through half of one complete orbit of the Earth.

I think what you are saying is that the point of view of the observer would change the direction of the spin, I am not arguing that.

Lets say that the falcon 9 rocket did not alter from its clockwise spin observed at shut down(it would take some unknown force to alter this). Lets also say that the body of the rocket stayed parallel with its trajectory around the earth(again it would take some unknown force to alter this).

with this information it is possible to predict the direction of the spin when we know where the observer is located, as well as where the rocket, and anomalous object is in the sky.

the burden of proof is on you Oberg.

reply to post by JimOberg


you really are impolite ! , o

[edit on 14-6-2010 by gambon]

Originally posted by gambon
reply to post by JimOberg

 

you really are impolite ! , o

[edit on 14-6-2010 by gambon]

this is a byproduct of anger, don't hold it against him. It must be hard to do what he does. Being a truth seeking skeptic is one thing, a debunker is another story.

Oberg the truth will set us free! Love your fellow man, and do what you know is right.

Originally posted by Project_Exo
Lets say that the falcon 9 rocket did not alter from its clockwise spin observed at shut down(it would take some unknown force to alter this). Lets also say that the body of the rocket stayed parallel with its trajectory around the earth(again it would take some unknown force to alter this).

Let's not, because it's imaginary. The body of the rocket does NOT stay parallel to its trajectory, it stays parallel to an inertial (not geocentric) reference frame.

Remember the old story about 1850's Lincoln challenging a debate opponent to show his common sense by asking, "If we call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" The opponent answered, "Why five, of course." Lincoln won the crowd with his earthly common sense: "No, four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

with this information it is possible to predict the direction of the spin when we know where the observer is located, as well as where the rocket, and anomalous object is in the sky.

This is not information, it's fantasy. With fantasy, you can magine ANYTHING being 'true'.

the burden of proof is on you Oberg.

Like the rocket over Oz, I think your logic here is upside down. To establish that the apparition had no prosaic explanation, the burden of proof is on the claimant that no prosaic explanation is possible.

If you don't realize that, you haven't even gotten off square one in the UFO argument.


The burden of proof lies, as in a criminal trial, with the claimant of non-ordinariness. The going-in presumption is innocence, and 'guilt' must be established. The going-in assumption with UFO reports is 'explainability', and non-explainability, like guilt, must be established.




[edit on 14-6-2010 by JimOberg]

Originally posted by Project_Exo

Originally posted by gambon
reply to post by JimOberg

 

you really are impolite ! , o

[edit on 14-6-2010 by gambon]

this is a byproduct of anger, don't hold it against him. It must be hard to do what he does. Being a truth seeking skeptic is one thing, a debunker is another story.

Oberg the truth will set us free! Love your fellow man, and do what you know is right.

I am no more impressed by your claimed telepathic abilities here, than with your interest in understanding physics.

IMHO, letting people waste brainpower and emotional energies wallowing in delusional dead-ends is not 'polite', it shows contempt for that person's intellectual potential.

The angry people around here are those who think they are faced with evil liars and deceivers who must be crushed. Just read their posts.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Project_Exo
Lets say that the falcon 9 rocket did not alter from its clockwise spin observed at shut down(it would take some unknown force to alter this). Lets also say that the body of the rocket stayed parallel with its trajectory around the earth(again it would take some unknown force to alter this).

Let's not, because it's imaginary. The body of the rocket does NOT stay parallel to its trajectory, it stays parallel to an inertial (not geocentric) reference frame.

Remember the old story about 1850's Lincoln challenging a debate opponent to show his common sense by asking, "If we call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" The opponent answered, "Why five, of course." Lincoln won the crowd with his earthly common sense: "No, four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

with this information it is possible to predict the direction of the spin when we know where the observer is located, as well as where the rocket, and anomalous object is in the sky.

This is not information, it's fantasy. With fantasy, you can magine ANYTHING being 'true'.

the burden of proof is on you Oberg.

Like the rocket over Oz, I think your logic here is upside down. To establish that the apparition had no prosaic explanation, the burden of proof is on the claimant that no prosaic explanation is possible.

If you don't realize that, you haven't even gotten off square one in the UFO argument.


The burden of proof lies, as in a criminal trial, with the claimant of non-ordinariness. The going-in presumption is innocence, and 'guilt' must be established. The going-in assumption with UFO reports is 'explainability', and non-explainability, like guilt, must be established.




[edit on 14-6-2010 by JimOberg]

Give me a break, I don't claim to know what it is,(although I have pet theories). Why not join the rest of us in thinking this is anomalous, and requires further data to ascertain it's true identity. Heaven forbid something is unexplained.

also could you help me understand this concept of rockets not staying parallel with their trajectory after stable shut down in orbit. Is there documentation of this happening in the past? Pretend you are trying to explain this to a 7 year old so you make things clear.

BTW thank you Oberg, I do love a good argument. Things would be lame if everyone just came to the logical conclusion right away (although sadly I have a feeling that is not the case with you).

Originally posted by Project_Exo
also could you help me understand this concept of rockets not staying parallel with their trajectory after stable shut down in orbit. Is there documentation of this happening in the past? Pretend you are trying to explain this to a 7 year old so you make things clear.

There are any number of introductory books to spaceflight operations that you could pick up. Please try it. The range of your 'earthbound' false assumptions about spaceflight is so overwhelming that I don't think a case-by-case patchwork approach has any hope of success.

You have to realize that you don't know much about spaceflight, but even worse, that most of what you think you DO know, is wrong. You have to UNlearn the Hollywood cartoon misimpressions, before you can even start over from square one.

But it's worth it, and I'll be happy to assist you on the way -- just not take on the entire burden.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Project_Exo
also could you help me understand this concept of rockets not staying parallel with their trajectory after stable shut down in orbit. Is there documentation of this happening in the past? Pretend you are trying to explain this to a 7 year old so you make things clear.

There are any number of introductory books to spaceflight operations that you could pick up. Please try it. The range of your 'earthbound' false assumptions about spaceflight is so overwhelming that I don't think a case-by-case patchwork approach has any hope of success.

You have to realize that you don't know much about spaceflight, but even worse, that most of what you think you DO know, is wrong. You have to UNlearn the Hollywood cartoon misimpressions, before you can even start over from square one.

But it's worth it, and I'll be happy to assist you on the way -- just not take on the entire burden.

What books? surely there is a good documentary on how objects in space change orientation without any external stimuli. I fire a bullet from a rifle in space, can it start to tumble?

This is too easy, fish in a bucket. Perhaps this will help you.


I love you Oberg(this is not a sarcastic statement)

[edit on 14-6-2010 by Project_Exo]