724 replies to this topic

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

badeskov, on 28 July 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

Earl,

By all means of respect, but posters here are actually trying to give away knowledge here for free. And I suggest you take it. LS has explained, very well I daresay, the meaning of point sources and what that means to seen by the naked eye. Jim has explained, from the best of his knowledge (and I have no doubts that it is vast), the technology of ICBMs and Russian geography. You have yet to poke any holes in any of that. Instead you hang on to some ridiculous idea that it could not be a missile for reasons I cannot even begin to fathom.

Frankly, you seem to avoiding facts.



Dude, you have to be kidding.

Cheers,
Badeskov

can you see a fly from 100 miles?

who's kidding???

[lost_shaman]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 29 July 2012 - 12:20 AM, said:

I do , of course get the sense that you are trying to help me understand.

I also have to try to accept the fact that as an air vehicle moves away from an observer, basically, it does not get smaller and smaller. and that no matter how far away it is, it will always be a point source to the human eye.

yah.

I have a very hard time with that.

what if the object was a fly at 100 miles?

well, just saying?!?!?! everything has limits.

Ok Polaris, the North Star, has the same Angular diameter as a 1/4 inch Fly at 248.12 miles! It's the amount of light not the Angular size that allows you to see it.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Problems with a Rising Missile Creating a Spiral in the Sky


Judging by vids of the Topol M spiral apparition, the spiral of exhaust the missile creates appears to have several "spiral arms", if you will, meaning, the Topol M missile must have several "exhaust ports" placed equidistant around the circumference of the missile, likely at the center of mass of the remainder of the missile (stage 1, 2, or 3). With that said, I wish to raise the following problems that I see with the missile spiral creation.

Problem 1. As the missile is seen making the spiral with thrust or effuse of some kind coming out of the exhaust ports and being lit up by the sun, there seems to be something terribly missing in the image, the main exhaust plume of the booster/thruster. Is that not also supposed to be lit up by the sun, and are we not supposed to see that plume, too? I assume it must be much bigger than the spiral created by smaller ports. Since the missile is at the center of the spiral and the entire spiral is lit by the sun, the main plume should be lit by the sun. In fact, the main missile plume should be visible practically the whole journey of the missile, even when it is not spinning spirals. But it's not in evidence at all. Where is it?

Problem 2. A rising missile spinning on its longitudinal axis and releasing some thrust or effuse from several special exhaust ports and making what appears to be a disk of some kind, but the disk would be in a plane that would only be exposing a front or face view of that disk to the people directly underneath the missile. People as far away as 1,400 miles would see the disk in the plane from an edge view only, somewhat akin to looking at a coin's edge, a sideways I , if you will, and from 1,400 miles away with no other dimensions of the object discernible, it would simply look like a straight plume. Yet we clearly see the "disk" from a front or face PoV, and it clearly has spiral arms. How can that be?

Problem 3. The Topol M missile travels at over 10,000 mph (4.77 km/s). In the few seconds that missile makes a revolution or spin, the originally released effuse would be many kilometers behind the last of the effuse to exit the missile at the end of the spiral creation. This would create a stretched image and perhaps not make a recognizable disk from any PoV. It would perhaps make some kind of long, multi-helix type figure of a plume, corkscrewing in the sky. But the "missile" spiral does not look like such a long corkscrew at all. It looks like the face view of a very pretty spiral.

interesting.

At this time, I would like to ask our missile experts here at UM, Messieurs Badsekov and JimOmberg, if they can run this special missile scenario on their missile simulator software and see what kind of results they get. I'm quite confused about all of  this.

thank you, and I await your results

Earl

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

lost_shaman, on 29 July 2012 - 12:45 AM, said:

Ok Polaris, the North Star, has the same Angular diameter as a 1/4 inch Fly at 248.12 miles! It's the amount of light not the Angular size that allows you to see it.

and the $million question is,, do you see it?

do you see a fly from a 100 miles away?

[booNyzarC]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 29 July 2012 - 12:35 AM, said:

I thought you were taking a hike?

Just because I've decided to take a break from attempting to help you understand doesn't mean that I'm going to avoid the thread altogether.  Nor does it mean that I'll not comment if I feel my commentary is warranted or if I just feel like commenting.

At this point you are one of three things as far as I can tell.

• A troll, intentionally trolling the thread and the forum with nonsense that you know is false.
  
• An imbecile, unable to recognize what is so blatantly obvious to everyone else on the planet.
  
• Too proud to admit that you are wrong.

And yes, I know that none of these options paint you in a positive light.  If you want positive light, act in a more sensible manner.

I'll keep watching the thread in the hopes that you'll publicly confirm and retract your errors.  And make no mistake, you've made some very gross errors.  Your literal interpretation of "Over Israel" being the largest, but your ignorance and denial of the footage closer to the launch site being a very close second.  I sincerely hope that you can somehow bring yourself out of this void and into the light of reality.

But I'm not holding my breath.

As I said before, this debate was over long long ago.  I can't imagine anything outside of the above 3 things which would contribute to your continued rallying against what is so obvious.  Though I'm open to other possibilities if they can be substantiated.  And no, "you're right" isn't one of them.  The incident did not occur directly over Israel even though it was observed from Israel.

Cheers.

[Slave2Fate]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 29 July 2012 - 12:37 AM, said:

can you see a fly from 100 miles?

who's kidding???

If the said fly was emitting/reflecting enough light (although that is extremely improbable) then yes. But really, what does this example have to do with anything discussed in this thread? Is there some sort of mathematical correlation between a fly at 100 miles and the exhaust plume that is being discussed or are you attempting to build a straw man?

[booNyzarC]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 29 July 2012 - 12:48 AM, said:

and the $million question is,, do you see it?

do you see a fly from a 100 miles away?

That isn't a million dollar question.  That is a retarded question.  And there is no relevant correlation between this stupid question and any point in the thread.

I'm tallying one into the Troll column.

Keep digging.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

boonY,,

the true mark of a troll is one who does not contribute to a forum discussion and only occasionally creeps in to paw at someone and hurl names at them

I have been civil, despite the fact we disagree.

knock it off.

and btw,the same question goes to you too, can you see a fly in the sky from 100 miles away?

we'll see who is obtuse and a troll

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Slave2Fate, on 29 July 2012 - 12:50 AM, said:

If the said fly was emitting/reflecting enough light (although that is extremely improbable) then yes. But really, what does this example have to do with anything discussed in this thread? Is there some sort of mathematical correlation between a fly at 100 miles and the exhaust plume that is being discussed or are you attempting to build a straw man?

you missed a lot of it, my friend.

we were arguing over seeing a B767 from 1500 miles, I believe.

not a big deal. I see you have chimed in with, "yes you can see a fly in the sky from 100 miles away"

I am sure to see a lot of that as a response, I bet. it has a lot to do with being in denial.

the truth is you cannot see a "fly in the sky" from ONE mile. and I think ppl really know that.

it's called playing games or remaining in denial.

BTW, if they ALL insist you can see a fly in the sky from 100 miles, I will ask if you can see a fly in the sky from 1000 miles.

they'll cave in some day. so will you. EVERYTHING has a vanishing point

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps, 29 July 2012 - 01:12 AM.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

booNyzarC, on 29 July 2012 - 12:52 AM, said:

That isn't a million dollar question.  That is a retarded question.  And there is no relevant correlation between this stupid question and any point in the thread.

I'm tallying one into the Troll column.

Keep digging.

I'll pretend oyu are on filter that I wish UM had

[booNyzarC]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 29 July 2012 - 01:06 AM, said:

I'll pretend oyu are on filter that I wish UM had

UM has an ignore feature.  You are free to ignore anyone's posts, including mine.  As they say, ignorance is bliss.

[booNyzarC]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 29 July 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

boonY,,

the true mark of a troll is one who does not contribute to a forum discussion and only occasionally creeps in to paw at someone and hurl names at them

No, a troll intentionally spouts nonsense that they already know to be false.  I'm hoping that you aren't in that category.  Honestly, I'm hoping for option 3, that you are just too proud to admit that you are wrong.  I find option 2 unlikely as you are clearly not an imbecile.

But maybe there is an option 4?  You are merely mistaken and don't yet realize it?  That is dangerously close to option 2...

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 29 July 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

I have been civil, despite the fact we disagree.

Sort of.  You've been civil at times and not so civil at others.  I'll let you figure out which and when, but considering that you've ignored much of what has transpired in this thread (including some of your own contributions...)  I will await future actions on your part before making a final determination.

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 29 July 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

knock it off.

No.

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 29 July 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

and btw,the same question goes to you too, can you see a fly in the sky from 100 miles away?

Of course you can't.  That is why I mentioned that this is a retarded and unrelated question.

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 29 July 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

we'll see who is obtuse and a troll

I think most already see it.

Of course those bent on anti-skepticism will rally behind you just because of your efforts to "stick it to the man."  But even they should recognize that your efforts are futile.  Some have already admitted as much in fact.  The only question now is whether or not you'll come to your senses and drop this ridiculous "Over Israel" argument.  The damn thing wasn't literally over Isreal.  Get that through your thick skull so that progress can be made.

[JimOberg]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 29 July 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:

the truth is you cannot see a "fly in the sky" from ONE mile. and I think ppl really know that.

If the fly is reflecting enough light, you could see it.

Another proof that luminosity and not angular size is the crucial characteristic.

On STS-75 the 20-km tether snapped and flew into a higher orbit, where it remained for several weeks, slowly decaying.

The tether was the thickness of a telephone cord -- in other words, as thick as the body of a fly.

Hundreds of amateur satellite observers, including me, saw the tether as it passed overhead while illuminated by the sun.

Naked eye SAW the object, 500 km away or  more, no thicker than a fly. And 20 km long.

Maybe your concept of what CAN and CANNOT be seen is based on a fundamental misunderstanding

How do you explain so many of us seeing that sunlit tether?

[Slave2Fate]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 29 July 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:

you missed a lot of it, my friend.

we were arguing over seeing a B767 from 1500 miles, I believe.

not a big deal. I see you have chimed in with, "yes you can see a fly in the sky from 100 miles away"

I am sure to see a lot of that as a response, I bet. it has a lot to do with being in denial.

the truth is you cannot see a "fly in the sky" from ONE mile. and I think ppl really know that.

it's called playing games or remaining in denial.

BTW, if they ALL insist you can see a fly in the sky from 100 miles, I will ask if you can see a fly in the sky from 1000 miles.

they'll cave in some day. so will you

Actually I did not say that a fly could be seen at 100 miles. I specifically stated that if enough light were coming from it by way of reflection or emission then the light could be seen (although in hindsight I could have worded it a bit better). That is the point here. We are talking about the light coming from a distant object (missile exhaust plume being lit by the sun, to be specific) that can be seen for a considerable distance.

You do know that without reflected light our eyes are useless right? In fact everything we see is from reflected or emitted light. In essence it is the light from an object that we see, not the object itself. More light increases visibility regardless of object size.

Have a read of this if you want to learn about the eyes and their light sensing capabilities.  http://www.ecse.rpi....ple-Chapter.pdf

[booNyzarC]

JimOberg, on 29 July 2012 - 01:19 AM, said:

If the fly is reflecting enough light, you could see it.

Just to be clear, you aren't seeing the fly in such an instance.  You are merely seeing light reflected from some point on its surface.

Yes, one could argue that anything that you see is nothing more than reflected light, but the point I'm trying to make is that you wouldn't be able to differentiate this from anything else.  And this is an important distinction.  From such a distance you wouldn't notice the momentary glinting reflection and surmise "oh, look at that fly!"  No, you'd barely even consider it.  It could be a mote of dust or a water droplet 100 feet away for all you'd know.