Norway Spiral : Case reopened - the anatomy of an event

reply to post by Blender


There is no smoke, only tales of smoke. Do tales of smoke mean there's fire?

If someone claimed you can shoot laser beams out of your eyes, and regularly like to fry neighbourhood cats, should we believe them, or you?

reply to post by Gromle

And to those of you who'll no doubt disagree with my claims, did you see it with your own eyes, or just some low quality youtubemovie?

You mean the low quality youtube movie you also watched? Or are you telling me that YOU saw it with your own eyes?

Bit of a moot point, eh?

My question to you is, why did the entire spiral dissolve in seconds?

The outer rings had been there for minutes, but then the spiral dissolved from the inside out in seconds.

So why did the outer rings exhaust fumes last for minutes, and the center ring ehaust fumes just a few seconds, creating the "black hole" effect?

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Blender

 

There is no smoke, only tales of smoke. Do tales of smoke mean there's fire?

If someone claimed you can shoot laser beams out of your eyes, and regularly like to fry neighbourhood cats, should we believe them, or you?

Tales of smoke is exactly what I mean by "where there is smoke, there is fire". The saying means, most of the time, if there are a lot of "tales of smoke" that usually means there is a fire.........

reply to post by Point of No Return

Gromle lives in Norway.
He saw the spiral.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The effluent was moving away radially from the center. That is why the center cleared first.

[edit on 3/4/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Point of No Return

 

Gromle lives in Norway.
He saw the spiral.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The effluent was moving away radially from the center. That is why the center cleared first.

[edit on 3/4/2010 by Phage]

Sorry, but that would most certainly NOT be a valid explanation for the rapid central dissipation.

Lets start of with a definition of Newtons 1st law of Motion:

Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

We'll now refresh our memories by recalling (as I have previously shown) that the main phase of the spiral event originated at the 120 km altitude mark, then increased significantly in altitude towards the conclusion of the event at the dissipation stage.

Now, 120 kms puts the event origin firmly above the bulk of the atmosphere and into a space environment.
This immediately tells us that atmospheric drag/friction will be virtually negligible at this 120 km altitude.

Now, unless evidence to the contrary is supplied, we have to assume that the particulate matter being ejected, continues to be ejected at the same rate (velocity) throughout the spiral creation phase right up to the point at which dissipation commences.
Otherwise we'd have to make an unwarranted assumption that as the particulate matter being ejected begins to run out, that the ejection rate i.e. velocity/momentum, of this residual particulate matter increases significantly.

The physical interpretation based on the above is that the initial ejecta and the final ejecta are all traveling at the same radial velocity, which in turn implies (based on the 1st Law) that the ejected material maintains a constant relative radial momentum.
So even when the last of the material is ejected, the initial ejecta (i.e. the outer edge of the spiral) should continue expanding into space and maintaining a constant distance from the inner edge of the spiral. (See Figure A below - yellow arrows)

In other words, based on constant radial velocity of all the ejected material, we should be seeing essentially an expanding annulus (in geometry, the plane area between two concentric circles, making a flat ring) ... expanding until it becomes to diffuse to be seen.

However, what is actually observed is completely different.

We see the center of the spiral essentially collapse creating a 'void' effect and within a very short period of time, the outside edge of the 'void' has caught up to the outside edge of the main spiral. (See Figure B below)
This implies that the radial velocity of the 'void' is significantly greater than that of the outer edge of the main spiral. This further implies that the void was NOT an effect caused simply due to lack of additional material being ejected.


Here's a visual to help clarify my point:

The yellow arrows indicate the constant spacing (between earlier ejected material and later ejected material) that we would expect to see if the material ejected to create the spiral maintained a constant radial velocity, and hence, constant radial momentum.
The red arrows indicate the radial expansion of the outer edge of the main spiral.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6f9acfe6e834.jpg[/atsimg]

Figure A shows what we would expect to see based on conservation of momentum and Newtons 1st Law.
Figure B, however, is what we actually observed ... a significant increase in the velocity of the leading edge of the dissipation void.

One possible explanation being that for some reason, the final quantity of ejected material had a much greater velocity than the earlier ejected material and quickly caught up to it.

Another possible explanation is that the entire spiral effect was being created/maintained by an external power source ... and that upon termination of this external support, that the spiral immediately began to collapse from the center outwards.

reply to post by tauristercus

This video seems to fit your Figure A quite well, an expanding ring of fairly constant width (between inner and outer radius) and decreasing density.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by tauristercus

 

This video seems to fit your Figure A quite well, an expanding ring of fairly constant width (between inner and outer radius) and decreasing density.

Ok, to further illustrate my point ... shall we use some slightly better quality images than the Tromso video and which have greater image detail ?

I'm going to use the following 2 images taken at Lysnes that were taken consecutively within a sort space of time:

Lysnes1
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6f50aee5ce50.jpg[/atsimg]

Lysnes2
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1399b9bfe40c.jpg[/atsimg]


I then took both the above images and overlayed ... 1st ensuring that that the mountain background matched perfectly ... then ever so slightly offsetting them to separate the yellow and red circles otherwise they would overlap and you'd only see a single circle.

The reason for the slight seperation was to confirm that the 2 individual circles were of almost identical dimensions.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/71d3c3ddf044.jpg[/atsimg]

As can be seen above, the diameters of the 2 circles have NOT increased by any obvious amount and yet the diameter of the void HAS increased significantly.


And finally, I've taken an approximation of the void size increase (green arrow) and show in the next image what the dimensions of the yellow circle should have looked like if the the rate of void increase matched the rate of outer spiral increase.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3cd9106191af.jpg[/atsimg]


But as can be seen, the rate of void increase is definitely greater !!

So the logical conclusion is that the void appearance is NOT due to something as simple as the termination of leakage material.

reply to post by tauristercus

In 1979 Skylab was in an orbit of 430 kilometers when high levels of solar activity heated the ionosphere unexpectedly. This heating caused the ionosphere to expand and increase its density at higher levels. This increased drag on the spacecraft and ultimately forced it out of orbit.

The ISS orbits at about 350km and drag from the "atmosphere" slowly pulls it downward, requiring periodic boosts.

It is not a perfect vacuum up there. The effluent from the missile would not carry much momentum. It is expected that the velocity of the material would steadily decrease somewhat after leaving the missile.

[edit on 3/5/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage

To illustrate the point here is a video of a waste water dump from a shuttle. Of course the initial velocity of the effluent is much less than that from the missile but you can see that the particles are indeed affected by the very thin atmosphere at this altitude.


[edit on 3/5/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Phage

 

I've just watched that vid clip 10 times in a row to really familiarize myself with the motion of the individual water droplets and truthfully, I see no sign whatsoever of the droplets being influenced by atmospheric interaction.

What I do see is myriads of individual droplets of varying sizes moving in random directions and which can readily be explained by their varying initial ejection velocities and interaction between droplets. I do see some droplets moving very slightly left to right but this is most likely nothing more than movement relative to the shuttle after ejection.

I would however, be more than happy for you to explain where you got the idea that the droplets were being influenced by atmospheric factors. The reason I ask for this clarification is because nowhere in that water dump clip are atmospheric effects even mentioned ... you apparently associated that water dump vid with atmospheric interaction for no apparent reason which is a very strange thing to have done ... why ??


[edit on 5/3/10 by tauristercus]

Originally posted by tauristercus
Here's a visual to help clarify my point:

The yellow arrows indicate the constant spacing (between earlier ejected material and later ejected material) that we would expect to see if the material ejected to create the spiral maintained a constant radial velocity, and hence, constant radial momentum.
The red arrows indicate the radial expansion of the outer edge of the main spiral.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6f9acfe6e834.jpg[/atsimg]

Figure A shows what we would expect to see based on conservation of momentum and Newtons 1st Law.
Figure B, however, is what we actually observed ... a significant increase in the velocity of the leading edge of the dissipation void.

Hey T-

Question-

Does your above theory and diagram take into account the possibility that the spiral was not in fact 2 dimensional?

I would agree with what you're saying as it applies to a spiral that is essentially flat (or 2D), almost like cartwheeling end over end.... In the instance you've described above it wouldn't seem to make sense in the vacuum of space how the inner part of the spiral could move faster, radially, than the outer portions...

But what happens when you consider the notion that the spiral was not 2D, but actually 3D, like I've been contending, because the bus was moving through space... You would also have to consider that our view of the spiral has been from the rear end, looking into the "tunnel" so to speak, which would give it the appearance of being flat...

To illustrate:

Something like this, similar to what our perspective from Norway was (from behind, appears flat) :

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9c8936499fbb.jpg[/atsimg]
(Vandenberg Launches)

Might look like this when viewing from the profile:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c19049b36387.jpg[/atsimg]

Now if it's spinning and making a spiral:

To revert back to the cone shaped picture: (this is a very rough interpretation but you should be able to get the drift of what I'm trying to say)

It may look like this from profile view:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/58334d6dc719.jpg[/atsimg]

If the smaller (center) end of the "cone" is the front where the malfunctioning bus is - spewing out particulate as it moves though space - then the larger end, if looking at it from behind as I contend that we are, would represent the outer rings of the spiral...

So in the vacuum of space that outer ring, and each subsequent ring being formed, would remain on its course at the speed it was ejected until it dissipates... I would imagine that as the particulate spreads further and further away from the ejection point, it would appear to be moving slower (while losing its structure)...

Once the ejection stops, what we're seeing is the very last (inner) ring of particulate moving away from center, but since it's a 3D spiral it's not really catching up with the outer edges because there's no edge to catch up to really (it only appears that way from behind)- if you refer back to the picture above- at this stage the initial rings (the outer edges) have already begun to dissipate on their own, and almost turn into a white misty haze; there's no real structure to the rings any longer...

But because of our viewing perspective it seems to look like that last ring (the innermost one) is cutting through the haze and catching up to the edge of the very first ring, which leaves us all scratching our heads... but it's all an optical illusion I think

Perhaps this is a solution the problem you've brought up....Really all we're seeing is the natural dissipation of the particulate... only I believe we're seeing it through a 3D spiral


Edit to add the final point that:

No laws are being broken- the last ring is moving away at the speed it was ejected just like all the previous rings. ... but since there's nothing else being spewed behind it, naturally this empty void appears.. but we've interpreted this to be the void opening up as if something was blasting it open, but that's not necessarily what's happened- it's just the last ring of particulate moving away from the ejection spot at the speed it was ejected...

If you watch it from here again, even that last ring looks like it slows down a bit as it grows larger and moves farther away from center... and perhaps it does, if it's not in a complete vacuum at that altitude...

[edit on 5-3-2010 by PhotonEffect]

reply to post by tauristercus

Really? You don't see that toward the end, particles slow. Some even come to a stop.

But are you denying that there is a drag effect on objects in low Earth orbit?


Aerodynamic Drag Reduction for Satellites in Low Earth Orbit

This drag is greatest during launch and reentry, however, even a space vehicle in low Earth orbit experiences some drag as it moves through the Earth's thin upper atmosphere.

www.braeunig.us...

It's also the area of space where important structure like the International Space Station are. Another characteristic is that most objects in this region are still subject to atmospheric drag.

www.universetoday.com...

Why would exhaust gasses and particulates be any less subject to drag than the vehicles themselves?


[edit on 3/5/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage

The effluent was moving away radially from the center. That is why the center cleared first.

This was not my point, I wasn't asking why the center cleared first.

The outer rings were visible for minutes. The spiral dissipated as soon as the missile was out of effluent, according to you.

Can you explain why the last effluent in the center cleared first, and in seconds, while the outer ring effluent was visible for minutes, only to dissolve a second after the center.

Why did the outer ring effluent behave differently than the center effluent?

Your answer doesn't make sense at all. Why did the last effluent dissipate before the minutes old effluent?

I can't believe you don't see a problem with that, I also can't believe that you didn't understand my post.





[edit on 5-3-2010 by Point of No Return]

reply to post by Phage

Gromle lives in Norway. He saw the spiral.

I had no idea, that's pretty awesome.

He said this:

The Spiral is genuine, not a result from over exposure.

Remember we were having a discussion about that. You claimed that the famous pics were the result of over exposure.

Just one of the many cases where you were absolutely wrong.

reply to post by Point of No Return


The spiral most definitely was genuine, but some of the photos were clearly over-exposed, making the spiral well-less-defined. Some, though, were not.

reply to post by davesidious


Dave, we've been over this before, don't reply to my replies to other posters, with arguments that are irrelevant to said replies.

Phage claimed that the spiral was never as big in the sky as it was in the Skjervoy(spelling?) pic. (I think it was that pic)

He attributed the size to overexposure, and that it wasn't actually seen like that in reality.

So please don't interfere if you don't know what's up, it's extremely annoying.

I know you love him, but let him answer, he's a big boy.



[edit on 5-3-2010 by Point of No Return]

I think you would have to take into account that the older parts of the spiral were already dissapating from "go" they quite clearly did not just sit there and wait.

[edit on 5-3-2010 by smurfy]

reply to post by Point of No Return

I don't recall saying the apparent size of the spiral was a result of overexposure. I did say I thought the size is exaggerated in the photographs because of distorted perspective by use of a telephoto lens.

I based that on the smaller apparent size seen in videos and other photographs. Also on the the description (from Gromle and other witnesses) that the spiral was 2-3 times the size of a full Moon. That would give it an angular size of 1.5º, clearly it appears larger than that in the photographs in question.

[edit on 3/5/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


You don't recall. But I'm pretty sure.

I apologize beforehand if I'm wrong, but I'm gonna look it up.

In the meantime, can you reply to my other post?

reply to post by Point of No Return

As was pointed out by Tauristicus, the effluent further from the origin was moving slower.

As I pointed out, it's a result of atmospheric drag. Very slight, yes, but present.


[edit on 3/5/2010 by Phage]