A fact from 2009 Norwegian spiral anomaly appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 14 December 2009 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
I could find it easily when I searched for, I just typed the name Spiral Light Norway, then Wikipedia, and it was there. Do not move it. It is fine here! 200.140.172.143 ( talk) 17:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
For discussion on what the article should be named, see the discussion here. MuZemike 23:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
How is it that the spiral just so happened to appear exactly perpendicular to the viewpoint of the people photographing it? Is it something to do with optics (like how rainbows always appear end-on as well)? Or are there more photos of the spiral, taken by other people who weren't perfectly lined up, and those photos just aren't getting as much attention? -- Soap Talk/ Contributions 21:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
A duplicate page was created at Northern Norway spiral light. A history merge will be needed (which I can happily do), but what should the title of the article be? Suggestions? MuZemike 23:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Several people are constantly adding their own personal viewpoints and/or original research without providing credible sources or any sources at all. Please refrain from this unless you have something substantial to present, if you do it might also be a better idea to call for a discussion in the discussion section before making edits to the article.
As it is now it's pretty much vandalism (someone keeps writing "Project Bluebeam" in every piece of the article, for example). I take it it's some kind of tin foil hat that can't accept that nature and its physics exhibit the characteristics it does.
There are several inaccuracies with this article. First the blue haze is called a "beam of light". It was very obviously not a beam of light, rather a spiral of gas that lasted well beyond the white spiral event. Secondly there is no mention of the columnar cloud identified from other angles, which are very typical of terrestrial based rocket launches.
As an engineer in the space systems industry, I can correctly identify this as a failed terrestrial rocket or missile launch.
Based on the evidence and images, my professional assessment of the event is as follows: 1. sea based launch. Successful first stage MECO (main engine cut-off). 2. most likely nozzle impact or other catastrophic event during first stage seperation or second stage ignition. 3. second stage burn seems to suggest a gradual control loss, similar to the Space X Falcon 1 event during their second test failure 4. catastrophic control loss resulted in a tumble of the remaining rocket segments, spraying propellent into the surrounding space, creating a cartwheel display. 5. the variation in color would suggest solid and liquid propellant, most likely hydrazine (blue) and Aluminum propellant (white) 6. burn out or detonation outside the earths effective atmosphere, dispursing the white propellent. the remaining blue gas was material trailed out during failure which remained suspended in the earth's atmosphere.
A professional summary would help build credibility to this article, and end UFO speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.31.106.34 ( talk) 06:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The UFO specualtion was only put out as disinformation by US/NATO psychological operations teams, why these things always gain so much traction in the fringe press is a subject for investigation. My own personal specualtion is that the Russian SLBM was taken out in boost phase by a rail gun/high energy kenetic weapon launched from the locale of Tromso or was delivered by weapons already in orbit that are in conflict with many treaties that have been signed in regards to the weaponization of space. The phenomena observed are far more suggestive of man-made anti-missile projectile weaponary than spurious and obviously distracting possiblities such as aliens. 188.221.174.94 ( talk) 22:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Having been a weapons research scientist and member of the British Interplanetary Society, and having observed many rocket launches including a few failures, I am totally astonished that anyone takes the rocket explanation seriously. It is not a rocket out of control. That is obvious after a few seconds of watching the video because of the amazing regularity and constant speed of the spiral. The other effect that rules out the rocket theory is the end of the effect when the spiral dissipates and turns black. That is a very strange event that needs to be explained properly. I studied Astrophysics and electrohydrodynamics and it looks very much like a spiral plasma leaking from a blue green magnetic field tube coming from the ground. That is consistent with the eye witness reports that stated that the blue green tube appeared first. Another explanation to be considered seriously is the disco light effect, it could be some sort of projection. Either the plasma or the projection would require a large amount of funding and so this is probably an effect of secret military equipment.
The rocket explanation is as credible as saying it is Martians! It's neither of those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.209.81.116 ( talk) 23:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The most plausable explanation is that it was a SLBM launched from the White Sea by a Russian Nuclear powered Submarine, seeing as they were testing a new one in the same place that day (missile not nuclear warhead). Obviously you don't start shooting intercontinental ballistic missiles around in that part of Europe without telling NATO. Unless you want to start WWIII.
Imagine a can of soft drink, scaled up by a substantial factor but instead of a tasty beverage it contains a combination of solid and liquid fuels with enough potential energy to take the ring pull of said can into a low orbit and then smash it into a designated target anywhere on the planet.
What would a cylindrical object filled with solid and liquid propellant moving between 6 and 20,000 miles per hour through a vacuum/outer atmosphere look like after it had just been shot with a high powered bullet? 188.221.174.94 ( talk) 22:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
The appearance of the Challenger_disaster is irrelevant. In that case the explosion was caused by one of the SRBs impacting and penetrating the fuel tank, which still had an enormous quantity of liquid hydrogen on board. The Bulova missile failure was a failure of the engine nozzle, not comparable. El Ingles ( talk) 20:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The video of the event in China was posted on YouTube in April 2009, but does the source state that the event took place also that same month? __ meco ( talk) 09:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Multiple reliable source now link this display to a failed Bulava launch. [1] [2]. It was also confirmed by the Russian defence ministry [3] A separate article, therefore, is hardly warranted. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 10:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it should be merged. Russia is admitting to the launch, but not to a connection between the spiral effect and the failed launch. There are valid disputes (ie: non-conspiracy or UFO-boosters) as to whether the spiral effect was due to a failed rocket launch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.129.235 ( talk) 02:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Citation here CNN.com - [4] : "The Russian Defense Ministry has confirmed the Russian Navy launched a Bulava ballistic missile on the same day, but has declined to make any connection with the lights seen over Norway." I don't think there is nearly enough information available to merge this article. So speaking about citations, do proponents of the merge have any citation of reliable source saying that the phenomenon is linked in any way to the failed missile test? Vordhosbnbg ( talk) 17:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The editor who posted the Merge tag began this discussion on the wrong talk page (i.e. not the one linked to by the actual tag). Another discussion has thus been going on elsewhere - see Talk:RSM-56_Bulava#2009_Norwegian_spiral_anomaly_merger. Editors there have already decided not to merge, but editors here may wish to reopen the debate. Cop 663 ( talk) 22:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I removed the tag, since there is no consensus after a month, and discussion seems to have stopped.
Cop 663 (
talk) 02:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
...the Mania SCX-series of scanning programmable spiral effects theatrical projectors, including an expanding black circle in the center of an identical blue and white spiral. Demo videos are available on the Manufacturer's site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 ( talk) 03:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
the "theatrical projector theory" is plausible but you need a very powerful lamp (12-20kW or more) not a standard 150-300 Watts halogen lamp... Tremaster ( talk) 03:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Just a minor FYI -- look up "Trident PEM-1 launch failure" on UToob. 70.59.1.108 ( talk) 22:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The visual analysis the the spiral phenomenon gives an idea of two separate events: the big, white spiral, which seems to deal with ions magnetically activated, and the blue spiral that seems bound by gravity rules. So the two spirals are different in nature: one is high in the sky, another has the characters of a falling object. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.25.29.152 ( talk) 02:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Is the linked video open source? Do we have anyu indication of this? __ meco ( talk) 17:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Stating the obvious, I assume our Norge Wikians are working on getting W'pedia a photo of the 'phenomenon'? Very incomplete article without one. Sorry I missed this articles 'birth', 'ructions' in Australian Olympic Swimming coaching diverted my attention. Thought the Russkis had denied their missile was responsible? But, it's quite obvious, "the sky is falling!"
--
220.101.28.25 (
talk) 15:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
sure, you can see the photo on freemantv.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.104.55 ( talk) 21:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Where is the picture then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.107.220 ( talk) 05:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the early speculation material, because I think Wikipedia should a place for facts, and not for early, later invalidated speculative theories. As per WP:NOTNEWS, there is no need to cover everything the media covers (the early speculation), especially now that we have better information. Offliner ( talk) 00:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The lead section of the article says "(the two red counties on the map to the right)". I don't see a map. Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 02:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Was he there to see it? He accepted his prize the next day. I wonder if he got to see it from his window seat on Air Force One. Heyzeuss ( talk) 08:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
For a prominent article like this I think there should've been some discussion first regarding a possible move.
Anyway, on the rationale for it, I don't think it having been seen from other areas in the Scandanavian region warrant the incident being named that way. The sources generally agree that the anomaly occurred over Norway, and that's how their articles are generally titled. Since the media generally refers to this as a Norway incident, that's how we should be referring to it, too, rather than making up our own names that we think are better.
If there's some support for the new name (aside from the person who implemented it) then I'll obviously wait for discussion. If there is none, I'll be reverting the move and the associated content changes in a day or two. Equazcion (talk) 12:20, 6 Feb 2010 (UTC)
I believe someone said spinning was a feature of an advanced missile or something, to help it avoid being intercepted. 99.236.221.124 ( talk) 21:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The explanation by Jonathan McDowell somewhat makes sense, I do see his point. And spinning deals with Aerodynamics, and for the most part actually helps an abject move in air ( See Magnus effect ). But the spinning that occurred with that missile is unusual, it should spin on its longitudinal axis. External ballistics explains why it would be an ineffective feature.....
1. Projectiles like arrows or sabots achieve stability by forcing their center of pressure (CP) behind their center of gravity (CG) with tail surfaces. The CP behind the CG condition yields stable projectile flight, meaning the projectile will not overturn during flight through the atmosphere due to aerodynamic forces.
2. Projectiles like small arms bullets and artillery shells must deal with their CP being in front of their CG, which destabilizes these projectiles during flight. To stabilize such projectiles the projectile is spun around its longitudinal (leading to trailing) axis. The spinning mass makes the bullets length axis resistant to the destabilizing overturning torque of the CP being in front of the CG. Peppermint Chills —Preceding undated comment added 09:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC).
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Sep-1999/0117.html
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Sep-1999/0123.html
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Sep-1999/0129.html
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Sep-1999/0127.html
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Apr-1999/0113.html
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Apr-1999/0114.html
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Apr-1999/0134.html
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Apr-1999/0135.html
Aldo L ( talk) 14:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Similar spirals ending with an engulfing black hole have recently been documented in Australia and China, also in China in 1988. Each one is attributed to a different failed machina, be it missile or fuel from a space shuttle capsule. Can we get a plausible explanation for the phenomenon, and not just individual anomalies creating the same spiral effect through the decades? CenobiteCreepe ( talk) 05:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Media propaganda would like you to believe what they tell you.
EISCAT atmospheric research facility in northern Europe schelduled a test called "Tequila Sunrise".
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=526637 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.80.179 ( talk) 10:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
It's two years ago and there are no enugh articles for this spiral. 192.116.88.188 ( talk) 15:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be good if the article had photos of the event. -- TiagoTiago ( talk) 02:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
One of the links on the bottom of article is off: I checked it by http://isup.me/http://forum.flot.su/showthread.php?p=102072 -- 93.151.65.11 ( talk) 20:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
>Both events had the expected visual features of failed flights of Russian SLBM RSM-56 Bulava missiles
It's worth noting that every example, simulated of course, provided of these 'expected' visual features post-date the actual anomaly. This is one of the key elements that has conspiracy theorists foaming at the mouth, but from a skeptical point of view it's naive of us to pretend anyone had ever expected, or seen, this anomaly before. Whilst I am loath to add something that may spur on paranoid schizophrenics and YouTube conspiretards we surely cannot mention these things as though we're all knowing and had totally expected it. One key notable element of the confusion this anomaly caused to observers was the mere fact that nothing presented pre-dated the event. "Oh, it's an expected blah." was in almost every editorial article on the subject, most linking to video simulations on YouTube as though they were linking to pre-existing material that had been around for years, all of which were placed there several days AFTER the anomaly. So for quite some time even the scientific community were in limbo as far as information goes. We aren't morons, and weren't just suffering a temporary bout of mild retardation, there was literally no data indicating this was a failed launch of an ICBM prior to after the anomaly. BaSH PR0MPT ( talk) 07:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
That's not true at all, the reported phenomena in China happened in 1988. Predating the events in Norway by some time. 2601:87:4400:AF2:84D7:679C:1DA0:C7F6 ( talk) 14:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2009 Norwegian spiral anomaly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
A fact from 2009 Norwegian spiral anomaly appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 14 December 2009 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
I could find it easily when I searched for, I just typed the name Spiral Light Norway, then Wikipedia, and it was there. Do not move it. It is fine here! 200.140.172.143 ( talk) 17:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
For discussion on what the article should be named, see the discussion here. MuZemike 23:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
How is it that the spiral just so happened to appear exactly perpendicular to the viewpoint of the people photographing it? Is it something to do with optics (like how rainbows always appear end-on as well)? Or are there more photos of the spiral, taken by other people who weren't perfectly lined up, and those photos just aren't getting as much attention? -- Soap Talk/ Contributions 21:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
A duplicate page was created at Northern Norway spiral light. A history merge will be needed (which I can happily do), but what should the title of the article be? Suggestions? MuZemike 23:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Several people are constantly adding their own personal viewpoints and/or original research without providing credible sources or any sources at all. Please refrain from this unless you have something substantial to present, if you do it might also be a better idea to call for a discussion in the discussion section before making edits to the article.
As it is now it's pretty much vandalism (someone keeps writing "Project Bluebeam" in every piece of the article, for example). I take it it's some kind of tin foil hat that can't accept that nature and its physics exhibit the characteristics it does.
There are several inaccuracies with this article. First the blue haze is called a "beam of light". It was very obviously not a beam of light, rather a spiral of gas that lasted well beyond the white spiral event. Secondly there is no mention of the columnar cloud identified from other angles, which are very typical of terrestrial based rocket launches.
As an engineer in the space systems industry, I can correctly identify this as a failed terrestrial rocket or missile launch.
Based on the evidence and images, my professional assessment of the event is as follows: 1. sea based launch. Successful first stage MECO (main engine cut-off). 2. most likely nozzle impact or other catastrophic event during first stage seperation or second stage ignition. 3. second stage burn seems to suggest a gradual control loss, similar to the Space X Falcon 1 event during their second test failure 4. catastrophic control loss resulted in a tumble of the remaining rocket segments, spraying propellent into the surrounding space, creating a cartwheel display. 5. the variation in color would suggest solid and liquid propellant, most likely hydrazine (blue) and Aluminum propellant (white) 6. burn out or detonation outside the earths effective atmosphere, dispursing the white propellent. the remaining blue gas was material trailed out during failure which remained suspended in the earth's atmosphere.
A professional summary would help build credibility to this article, and end UFO speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.31.106.34 ( talk) 06:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The UFO specualtion was only put out as disinformation by US/NATO psychological operations teams, why these things always gain so much traction in the fringe press is a subject for investigation. My own personal specualtion is that the Russian SLBM was taken out in boost phase by a rail gun/high energy kenetic weapon launched from the locale of Tromso or was delivered by weapons already in orbit that are in conflict with many treaties that have been signed in regards to the weaponization of space. The phenomena observed are far more suggestive of man-made anti-missile projectile weaponary than spurious and obviously distracting possiblities such as aliens. 188.221.174.94 ( talk) 22:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Having been a weapons research scientist and member of the British Interplanetary Society, and having observed many rocket launches including a few failures, I am totally astonished that anyone takes the rocket explanation seriously. It is not a rocket out of control. That is obvious after a few seconds of watching the video because of the amazing regularity and constant speed of the spiral. The other effect that rules out the rocket theory is the end of the effect when the spiral dissipates and turns black. That is a very strange event that needs to be explained properly. I studied Astrophysics and electrohydrodynamics and it looks very much like a spiral plasma leaking from a blue green magnetic field tube coming from the ground. That is consistent with the eye witness reports that stated that the blue green tube appeared first. Another explanation to be considered seriously is the disco light effect, it could be some sort of projection. Either the plasma or the projection would require a large amount of funding and so this is probably an effect of secret military equipment.
The rocket explanation is as credible as saying it is Martians! It's neither of those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.209.81.116 ( talk) 23:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The most plausable explanation is that it was a SLBM launched from the White Sea by a Russian Nuclear powered Submarine, seeing as they were testing a new one in the same place that day (missile not nuclear warhead). Obviously you don't start shooting intercontinental ballistic missiles around in that part of Europe without telling NATO. Unless you want to start WWIII.
Imagine a can of soft drink, scaled up by a substantial factor but instead of a tasty beverage it contains a combination of solid and liquid fuels with enough potential energy to take the ring pull of said can into a low orbit and then smash it into a designated target anywhere on the planet.
What would a cylindrical object filled with solid and liquid propellant moving between 6 and 20,000 miles per hour through a vacuum/outer atmosphere look like after it had just been shot with a high powered bullet? 188.221.174.94 ( talk) 22:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
The appearance of the Challenger_disaster is irrelevant. In that case the explosion was caused by one of the SRBs impacting and penetrating the fuel tank, which still had an enormous quantity of liquid hydrogen on board. The Bulova missile failure was a failure of the engine nozzle, not comparable. El Ingles ( talk) 20:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The video of the event in China was posted on YouTube in April 2009, but does the source state that the event took place also that same month? __ meco ( talk) 09:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Multiple reliable source now link this display to a failed Bulava launch. [1] [2]. It was also confirmed by the Russian defence ministry [3] A separate article, therefore, is hardly warranted. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 10:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it should be merged. Russia is admitting to the launch, but not to a connection between the spiral effect and the failed launch. There are valid disputes (ie: non-conspiracy or UFO-boosters) as to whether the spiral effect was due to a failed rocket launch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.129.235 ( talk) 02:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Citation here CNN.com - [4] : "The Russian Defense Ministry has confirmed the Russian Navy launched a Bulava ballistic missile on the same day, but has declined to make any connection with the lights seen over Norway." I don't think there is nearly enough information available to merge this article. So speaking about citations, do proponents of the merge have any citation of reliable source saying that the phenomenon is linked in any way to the failed missile test? Vordhosbnbg ( talk) 17:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The editor who posted the Merge tag began this discussion on the wrong talk page (i.e. not the one linked to by the actual tag). Another discussion has thus been going on elsewhere - see Talk:RSM-56_Bulava#2009_Norwegian_spiral_anomaly_merger. Editors there have already decided not to merge, but editors here may wish to reopen the debate. Cop 663 ( talk) 22:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I removed the tag, since there is no consensus after a month, and discussion seems to have stopped.
Cop 663 (
talk) 02:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
...the Mania SCX-series of scanning programmable spiral effects theatrical projectors, including an expanding black circle in the center of an identical blue and white spiral. Demo videos are available on the Manufacturer's site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 ( talk) 03:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
the "theatrical projector theory" is plausible but you need a very powerful lamp (12-20kW or more) not a standard 150-300 Watts halogen lamp... Tremaster ( talk) 03:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Just a minor FYI -- look up "Trident PEM-1 launch failure" on UToob. 70.59.1.108 ( talk) 22:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The visual analysis the the spiral phenomenon gives an idea of two separate events: the big, white spiral, which seems to deal with ions magnetically activated, and the blue spiral that seems bound by gravity rules. So the two spirals are different in nature: one is high in the sky, another has the characters of a falling object. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.25.29.152 ( talk) 02:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Is the linked video open source? Do we have anyu indication of this? __ meco ( talk) 17:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Stating the obvious, I assume our Norge Wikians are working on getting W'pedia a photo of the 'phenomenon'? Very incomplete article without one. Sorry I missed this articles 'birth', 'ructions' in Australian Olympic Swimming coaching diverted my attention. Thought the Russkis had denied their missile was responsible? But, it's quite obvious, "the sky is falling!"
--
220.101.28.25 (
talk) 15:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
sure, you can see the photo on freemantv.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.104.55 ( talk) 21:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Where is the picture then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.107.220 ( talk) 05:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the early speculation material, because I think Wikipedia should a place for facts, and not for early, later invalidated speculative theories. As per WP:NOTNEWS, there is no need to cover everything the media covers (the early speculation), especially now that we have better information. Offliner ( talk) 00:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The lead section of the article says "(the two red counties on the map to the right)". I don't see a map. Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 02:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Was he there to see it? He accepted his prize the next day. I wonder if he got to see it from his window seat on Air Force One. Heyzeuss ( talk) 08:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
For a prominent article like this I think there should've been some discussion first regarding a possible move.
Anyway, on the rationale for it, I don't think it having been seen from other areas in the Scandanavian region warrant the incident being named that way. The sources generally agree that the anomaly occurred over Norway, and that's how their articles are generally titled. Since the media generally refers to this as a Norway incident, that's how we should be referring to it, too, rather than making up our own names that we think are better.
If there's some support for the new name (aside from the person who implemented it) then I'll obviously wait for discussion. If there is none, I'll be reverting the move and the associated content changes in a day or two. Equazcion (talk) 12:20, 6 Feb 2010 (UTC)
I believe someone said spinning was a feature of an advanced missile or something, to help it avoid being intercepted. 99.236.221.124 ( talk) 21:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The explanation by Jonathan McDowell somewhat makes sense, I do see his point. And spinning deals with Aerodynamics, and for the most part actually helps an abject move in air ( See Magnus effect ). But the spinning that occurred with that missile is unusual, it should spin on its longitudinal axis. External ballistics explains why it would be an ineffective feature.....
1. Projectiles like arrows or sabots achieve stability by forcing their center of pressure (CP) behind their center of gravity (CG) with tail surfaces. The CP behind the CG condition yields stable projectile flight, meaning the projectile will not overturn during flight through the atmosphere due to aerodynamic forces.
2. Projectiles like small arms bullets and artillery shells must deal with their CP being in front of their CG, which destabilizes these projectiles during flight. To stabilize such projectiles the projectile is spun around its longitudinal (leading to trailing) axis. The spinning mass makes the bullets length axis resistant to the destabilizing overturning torque of the CP being in front of the CG. Peppermint Chills —Preceding undated comment added 09:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC).
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Sep-1999/0117.html
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Sep-1999/0123.html
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Sep-1999/0129.html
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Sep-1999/0127.html
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Apr-1999/0113.html
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Apr-1999/0114.html
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Apr-1999/0134.html
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Apr-1999/0135.html
Aldo L ( talk) 14:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Similar spirals ending with an engulfing black hole have recently been documented in Australia and China, also in China in 1988. Each one is attributed to a different failed machina, be it missile or fuel from a space shuttle capsule. Can we get a plausible explanation for the phenomenon, and not just individual anomalies creating the same spiral effect through the decades? CenobiteCreepe ( talk) 05:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Media propaganda would like you to believe what they tell you.
EISCAT atmospheric research facility in northern Europe schelduled a test called "Tequila Sunrise".
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=526637 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.80.179 ( talk) 10:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
It's two years ago and there are no enugh articles for this spiral. 192.116.88.188 ( talk) 15:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be good if the article had photos of the event. -- TiagoTiago ( talk) 02:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
One of the links on the bottom of article is off: I checked it by http://isup.me/http://forum.flot.su/showthread.php?p=102072 -- 93.151.65.11 ( talk) 20:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
>Both events had the expected visual features of failed flights of Russian SLBM RSM-56 Bulava missiles
It's worth noting that every example, simulated of course, provided of these 'expected' visual features post-date the actual anomaly. This is one of the key elements that has conspiracy theorists foaming at the mouth, but from a skeptical point of view it's naive of us to pretend anyone had ever expected, or seen, this anomaly before. Whilst I am loath to add something that may spur on paranoid schizophrenics and YouTube conspiretards we surely cannot mention these things as though we're all knowing and had totally expected it. One key notable element of the confusion this anomaly caused to observers was the mere fact that nothing presented pre-dated the event. "Oh, it's an expected blah." was in almost every editorial article on the subject, most linking to video simulations on YouTube as though they were linking to pre-existing material that had been around for years, all of which were placed there several days AFTER the anomaly. So for quite some time even the scientific community were in limbo as far as information goes. We aren't morons, and weren't just suffering a temporary bout of mild retardation, there was literally no data indicating this was a failed launch of an ICBM prior to after the anomaly. BaSH PR0MPT ( talk) 07:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
That's not true at all, the reported phenomena in China happened in 1988. Predating the events in Norway by some time. 2601:87:4400:AF2:84D7:679C:1DA0:C7F6 ( talk) 14:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2009 Norwegian spiral anomaly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)