Discussion in 'The Guru's Pub' started by Makalu, Dec 9, 2009.
Yeh... we've been looking at this for ages.
Do you get it now? The sim is flawed, but it gives you a concept.
I don't know what it is, I am merely look at the evidence that it is not a missile, at least not a conventional missile. Would I come to this conclusion with simply just 1 video? Probably, but based on numerous photographs and the additional video from 2007 the only conclusion I can come to is that it is not a missile (like I said not a conventional one). This is simply based on the evidence at hand.
There is no falsifiable evidence that can exist to prove that it is an alien space craft, government craft, or even superman. So I do not entertain conjecture of what it is, only what it appears not to be.
Ah I just noticed you mentioned no dispersion from the jet stream. That only goes to further the argument that this is a high altitude missile. I don't quite understand why you would mention this arguing against the missile theory?
The jet stream is 6 miles up, known ICBM type missiles can fly 50x that high.
The reason I mentioned it was because if it was below the jetstream the radius of the dispersion and the lower altitude would make sense. The higher in altitude you get, to get above the jet stream, the larger that dispersion spiral has to be in radius to take up the same space in the sky.
Not even the Challenger or Discovery catastrophes had radius that large (the white one) and they would have had more gasses and fuel than a 12x4 meter ICBM.
The NASA catastrophes were entirely different. They were caused by the fuselage burning up in re-entry, well into the atmosphere. The ICBM, on the other hand, appears to have been aborted mid-flight, dumping it's fuel, in zero atmosphere.
As for the size of the phenomenon, in a zero atmosphere, zero resistance environment, an object in motion remains in motion. The visibility of the phenomenon was also far greater than the NASA catastrophes, which were during daylight hours, when you couldn't see beyond the blue atmosphere.
The challenger blew up at 46,000 feet not 520,000 feet.
I wasn't aware anything happened to shuttle discovery?
Stop splitting hairs, dust.
Concerning the visibility, that is a good point actually. Not relative to the nasa disasters but just in general. Since night is caused when the earth rotates, if you put an object high enough in the sky at the right time, it will reflect light from the sun while its night on the ground. The fact that this happened near dark makes the timing perfect for observation.
eta: can't say that this is what happened here, but it's a good idea.
CIA: I think they bought it! LOLz!
I think it's funny that people on the Internet are able to draw these conclusions from low-quality mobile phone videos and pictures, while they dismiss what researchers and scientists (like for example the people at Tromsø obeservatory) who saw it with their own eyes, and immediately afterwards were sure it was a missile of some sort. No, there isn't some gigantic governmental cover-up scheme going on here
I ditched FF for primary use a while back. Been using Opera and haven't looked back. I only keep it around for web design and comparisons with browsers. I was a big fan of FF before it got quite bloated.
At the time the word "theory" was being passed around alot. And theories are just that.
Also, at the time, I was looking for a comparison so I could get a concept.
I'm sorry. It was just a weather balloon. And scientists are always right, that's why nothing has changed in science in the past 500 years. If a scientist says something is a certain way, us laymen should accept it as absolute fact. We don't need to verify the data or test their conclusions, their good at their word. And anyone questioning any claims automatically believe there is a giant government cover-up conspiracy theories, and alien babies. It isn't possible to just be a skeptic of what is being claimed by those who have a vetted interest into a certain conclusion being accepted. Now that IS crazy huh.
Yeah I used to run FF on XP, I like the plugins available , but it seems to run a lot slower on W7 for some reason.
I run Opera now - actually it was John who suggested it.
TBH I find IE8 & Chrome are the fastest of all, but I don't like Chrome's GUI, and I don't like MS software - period.....
Yes, if all you have to base your theories on are a bunch of mobile phone videos, I honestly think you should.
I don't know what type of missile it was, and no one except the Russians knows. All we do know is that it was launched out of a Russian submarine (unless you think it was launched out of the sea floor...) since there was Russian acticity in the area it was launched from . They'll never tell us what it was so we'll never know, which no doubt will make these theories spin out of control (haha!)
Russian's have claimed it was this missile launched from a Submarine called Dmitriv or something or other.
Since we're verifying data would somebody calculate the volume that 1 m^3 of liquid hydrogen expands to under the pressure and temperatures occurring 100 miles in the air? Doesn't need to be exact, just a figure to play with that seems remotely plausible.
Any first year chem students here?
eta: ignore velocity please
The formula you need is pV=nRT, but I cant be bothered to rearange it and put the numbers in.