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

reply to post by mnmcandiez


I posted what a rocket failure looks like above.

It really speaks to the intelligence of this era that so many people will settle so quickly for such an unsatisfactory explanation, when you can just look at the thing and tell there is no visual similarity at all, except that failed rockets sometimes produce a spiral.

Like has been said, so do tornadoes, toilets, and water sprinklers. Big deal.



Edit: This post is on a new page now, so here is the photo I am talking about:




I defy anyone to find any photo of a known rocket failure that looks anything like the Norway spiral.

[edit on 25-12-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


You're comparing a trail of a supposed failed rocket launch (source please?) with images of the Norway spiral, which you've conveniently chosen to not show the exhaust trail behind it.

These images give a better context I believe:




www.itromso.no...

www.altaposten.no...

Now compare those with some shots of a rocket launch from Vandenberg:

members.cox.net...


So compared to other rocket launches, I see a whole lot of similarities similarities.

[edit on 25/12/09 by Chadwickus]

reply to post by Chadwickus


I didn't "conveniently" leave anything out. This could well be military technology, and something was launched, but I am telling you that that spiral itself was not creating by a rocket spinning around spewing gases.


Your photos didn't look anything like the Norway spiral. They weren't even spirals. I don't know how completely different you think something can look and still call it the same thing, but your standards are way too loose for me my friend, I can tell you that much. The images you posted looked exactly like chaotic missile launches, just like the trail in the background of the Norway spiral. But never the spiral itself. Not even close.



A Google image search for "rocket failure" yields the above photo and many more like it: images.google.com...

And none of them look like the Norway spiral. Not a single one. YOU are conveniently ignoring what the thing looks like, and that's pretty damned hard to miss if you ask me. Rocket failures are all chaotic events, not something that would create such a precise formation over so wide an area. And you can search the above link and others for hours and never find a rocket failure that creates such a precise and large formation in the sky. Not even close.




[edit on 26-12-2009 by bsbray11]

I don't get how a sub atomic photo of the concentric circles of an electron look similar to a huge early morning launch of a spiraling rocket, other than they are both circular.

is there a conection with electrons & wormholes, I.E would electrons be present in one? esspecially on the out edge of one? would you knee to mess about with them in the process of getting from A-B


im no scientist BUT is there anyone on here with some knowlage of wot would have to be present


Its intresting

Just weeks ago, or maybe it was months, but not a year, I read that scientists had photographed the first molecule. Now all the sudden they've pictured a sub-atomic particle. That's quite a jump.

Originally posted by pavil
I don't get how a sub atomic photo of the concentric circles of an electron look similar to a huge early morning launch of a spiraling rocket, other than they are both circular.

dont electrons jump in & out dimentions? IE thay can be in 2 places at the same time, strange little things

reply to post by BRITWARRIOR


Yes. quantum physics gets kinda "mystical" when you get down to the building blocks of matter, but what does that have to do with a massive image of a rocket malfunction?



[edit on 26-12-2009 by pavil]

reply to post by bsbray11


The pictures I provided shows the tell tale signs of a rocket contrail, this is what I'm trying to show to be proof of the Norway spiral being a rocket.

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.



Imagine the above failed rocket launch photographed with a long exposure.

Would it not be similar to the Norway rocket?

Originally posted by pavil
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR

 

Yes. quantum physics gets kinda "mystical" when you get done to the building blocks of matter, but what does that have to do with a massive image of a rocket malfunction?

its clearly not a rockit my freind

Originally posted by paradigm619
So I read the article but I am still a little confused. Is the video an image of one single electron? Or are the concentric rings a series of electrons rotating about the nucleus?

Originally posted by Shere Khaan
From my undersanding of the article you are not seeing the electron itself but the energy from it, hence the diffuse image.

This is - as far as we know - not an image of an electron paritcle - since we don't yet know whether an electron is a particle or a wave. There are valid theories for both options, none seems more credible than the other, or perhaps both are right. Here's a short outline, but I suggest further studies of quantum physics:

en.wikipedia.org...–particle_duality

In short, we don't know what we're looking at in this pic, exept for an energy signature of some sort.

Originally posted by BRITWARRIOR
dont electrons jump in & out dimentions? IE thay can be in 2 places at the same time, strange little things

That is one string-theory related theory that could perhaps explain why electrons seem to be able to be at several different locations at the same time... but it's a theory for now. Bring quantum entanglement into the picture and it becomes even more intriguing:

en.wikipedia.org...

Too bad that the majority of the participants in this thread chose to focus on the Norway spiral comparison instead of the physics. It might seem farfetched and crackpot, but many physicists actually compare different energy patterns and signatures in different phenomenon in order to make sense out of those physical laws that still escapes us, so it's far from an insane idea.

Did you know that Francis Crick, the Nobel Prize-winning father of modern genetics, was high on '___' when he first figured out what the double-helix structure of DNA actually looks like? I guess that if he would have gone online with his results here on ATS and come clean on how it happened, he would have been cut down and laughed out of the site on the same basis.

But if it amuses you, the please continue the witch-hunt routine...


[edit on 26-12-2009 by Heliocentric]

S&F

nice article about attosecond laser capabilities.

Sorry, but if you see norway spiral light inside the article.

Change your glasses.

If every circle make a thread about norway lights, you have not finish.

Please, scientist stop to put picture with circle or your work will be post here.

Admins: remove my S&F from this thread

reply to post by TrappedSoul


Apology accepted on his behalf.

If no one ever tried to infer, draw conclusions and speculate then nothing new would ever be discovered. Which is maybe why the images provided in the link are split in half, one side labeled THEORY and the other EXPERIMENT.

Obviously they were speculating too, you know as good scientist do, so don't blame the OP because he's not a physicist.

It is truly posts like yours which are the problem on this site, not the OP's opinion that one thing looks SIMILAR to another. If we want to get technical about things, they do look similar. There is no evidence to suggest that is the result of similar dynamics but the fact that they are both circles with concentric rings means they do in fact look SIMILAR.
I don't agree with what he was trying to convey in his second post but get off your high horse and give him a break will ya?

On topic:
I guess we're supposed to see a valence electron being excited and knocked off its orbit. Or that's what it should look like, but I can't really see that in the vid

Originally posted by die_another_day
I calculated that the frequency of the light used is beyond gamma rays.

Lots of energy used.


Pretty amazing I'd say,

teachers used to say that you can never see anything smaller than the nucleus.

I'm like, BS. You have photons which are smaller.

[edit on 12/25/2009 by die_another_day]

I'd love to see those calculations. However, it's sort of meaningless to talk about size when discussing photons. They are considered point particles with no mass or dimension. You may mean "interaction cross section."

by the way,

www.msnbc.msn.com...

this was from a while ago

Wow that is so puzzling.
Either the Norway rocket spiral was cgi based on the electron spiral.
OR
T'was not a rocket but an electrical craft that uses the electrons in the ether.
So cgi does exist.
The electrical Tesla UFO does not exist.
The ether does not exist according to Einstein.
So where do you go.
Its completely fake cgi.
Right or am I right.

reply to post by bookreader


No, those images are of concentric circles, not spirals. They're circular and blue, yes, but that's about the extent of the similarities.

reply to post by bsbray11


That is a missile failure in the atmosphere, of a small missile. Not a failure far above the atmosphere of a far more energetic and large missile. The two are nothing alike. 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.

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..

reply to post by bookreader


First you'd have to demonstrate that the particles were fired from some unknown device at CERN into the sky in a way unknown to science, then we can talk about the ramifications.

Until then, it doesn't make much sense to overlook the obvious, undebunked theory that it was a failed Russian missile test.

If it did, though, involve creating a gynormous particle in the sky... it could be a classic example of quantum teleportation, whereby two objects are brought together and then sepraated. One object, being the miniscule electron wave/spiral scanned to the receiving station in the sky. At the sending station, the second object is scanned together with the original object that you wish to teleport. Once the scanned electrons are sent to the receiving station, it is applied to the third object, making the third object an exact replica of the first. In quantum teleportation, physicists take a photon or in this case, maybe an electron, transfer its properties ie. vibration field, to another photon in the sky. This scheme supposedly doesn't allow the original electron to be teleport, -- only its properties, to another, remote electron.