The lights over Norway, sorry if repost

[Farquezy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...-spiral-blue-light-display-hovers-Norway.html

I don't for one second believe this was a failed rocket, and anyone who does surely is a gullible fellow.

Firs the Russians denied it being a Rocket, and than two days later they said it is.

And what rocket makes spirals and what looks like a wormhole

So any scientifically valid theories on what it could have been?

 

[russ_watters]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...-spiral-blue-light-display-hovers-Norway.html

I don't for one second believe this was a failed rocket, and anyone who does surely is a gullible fellow.

Ok...

Firs the Russians denied it being a Rocket, and than two days later they said it is.

That sounds like the way they'd behave to me - what do you find odd about that?

And what rocket makes spirals and what looks like a wormhole...

So you think you know what a wormhole looks like? Really?

So any scientifically valid theories on what it could have been?

It was a failed Russian rocket. But that's not a theory: that's a fact.

Anyway, yes, we've had threads about it before: https://www.physicsforums.com/search.php?searchid=1909660

 

[DaveC426913]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...-spiral-blue-light-display-hovers-Norway.html

I don't for one second believe this was a failed rocket, and anyone who does surely is a gullible fellow.

How can you call anyone gullible for finding plausible the only theory put forth? If you think that's not a plausible cause, what is your suggestion that you find less gullible?

 

[DaveC426913]

It was a failed Russian rocket. But that's not a theory: that's a fact.

It is stretching it to call it "a fact".

 

[Farquezy]

Well, sorry for being skeptical, i was just trying to see if there are any valid explanation other than the one offered by the missile theory.

Now the wormhole comment was indeed extreme, but i hope you knew that what i was referring to the wormhole you find in science fictions movies.

Now, to me, a missile that makes spiral blue trail, and a spiral explosion, is not a valid theory. therefor I am in search of one that actually may explain this.
I've come across stuff like " it was government ships" or "its aliens" but they are not scientifically valid.

The reason i say you have to gullible to believe that its a rocket, is that anyone who has actually seen how a rocket behaves, can automatically assume that's not how it behaves, but than again I am not expert and maybe its ignorance on my part

First, why would Russia deny it for 2 days
Second, why over Norway and not other Serbia where there is virtually no one who lives there (Russia's Serbia, no the country)
Third, why haven't they reproduced this same effect to prove that it was indeed a rocket.

I think we can all agree that there is something wrong with it being a Russian missile explanation, or rather i may be wrong and are willingly to accept that.

 

[DaveC426913]

You've made lots of conclusions, and have backed up none of them. For someone who believes in valid theories, your own are surprisingly free of content.

Now, to me, a missile that makes spiral blue trail, and a spiral explosion, is not a valid theory.

Explain what makes a theory "not valid".

The reason i say you have to gullible to believe that its a rocket, is that anyone who has actually seen how a rocket behaves, can automatically assume that's not how it behaves

Because all rockets always behave exactly the same way under all circumstances, including catastrophic, uncontrolled circumstances. :uhh:

Third, why haven't they reproduced this same effect to prove that it was indeed a rocket.

When? You mean sometime yesterday evening? They'll just work through the dinner hour to whip up a simulation with some spare rockets and detonators they have lying around?

 

[ideasrule]

First, why would Russia deny it for 2 days

Because the Bulava missile failed half its tests and Russia was embarrassed about it?

 

[Farquezy]

You've made lots of conclusions, and have backed up none of them. For someone who believes in valid theories, your own are surprisingly free of content.Explain why.

Why?
When? You mean sometime yesterday evening? They'll just work through the dinner hour to whip up a simulation with some spare rockets and detonators they have lying around?

I haven't made any conclusions what so ever, this is why i came here, so that individuals such as yourself could help me form conclusions.

Why would you believe that it is a rocket that failed?
Just because that's what the government told you?

If we are going to play the why game, than why do you believe the Russians? Because they gave the only valid explanation i guess you could say.

The thing is that it has a blue spiral, and apparently makes a 90 degree turn and starts a yellowish spiral.
Maybe i am being a little arrogant, its just that i find it extremely hard to believe that the Russians would choose to launch their missile which is from the research i have done, the only missile to have a blue trail, and than changes the color of its trail to yellow, over the biggest city in Norway, when they have hundreds of miles of uninhabited land over Serbia. Than deny it for 2 days.

I just believe its better to be skeptical of a thing, search for the answer, rather than just say " Well if the government said it is true, than it must be"

Could you explain the science behind the missile though? Because i have absolutely no knowledge of how missiles work, and in particular, how this missile worked.
Could you give an explanation that would indeed explain why the missile reacted in the fashion it did? This is a serious question, because I am actually interested in learning.

EDIT: wow, now that i look over it, i did assume a lot of things, just because it out of my field of understanding, i did indeed come to conclusions

 

[Farquezy]

Because the Bulava missile failed half its tests and Russia was embarrassed about it?

oh well that's a very valid answer, ill take that.

But wouldn't you guys say its better to be skeptical of this?
What is the general thought here, do you guys believe for 99% that it was a missile, or are you just going along with that until a more valid answer comes along?

 

[DaveC426913]

But wouldn't you guys say its better to be skeptical of this?

Skeptical, yes. Tossing it whole - well you might want to have a competing theory first.

What is the general thought here, do you guys believe for 99% that it was a missile, or are you just going along with that until a more valid answer comes along?

OK, for one, I don't think you mean valid, I think you mean plausible.

In order for the theory to be valid, it needs to fit with known facts, and needs to be able to explain the observation. The theory does do that, though I grant that, to you, it may be highly implausible.

Missiles do sometimes get caught in a very tight circle, causing their trail to form a tight spiral:

Now, clearly this is an exceptional and rare result, but the question to ask yourself is:
what is more plausible? Some techno death ray?

 

[Borg]

Yes, this is a repost (https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=362116"). The conclusion and pictures were the same.

 

[Farquezy]

Skeptical

Now, clearly this is an exceptional and rare result, but the question to ask yourself is:
what is more plausible? Some techno death ray?

Lol of course not, that's why i wanted to see if there actually is some nice theory that is more plausible than the one given by the Russian government, but for now, its still a secret

 

[Blenton]

So then what causes the laser like beam coming down towards the surface?

 

[DaveC426913]

So then what causes the laser like beam coming down towards the surface?

That is the original trail of the rocket on its way up.

I don't know why you think it's laser-like or beam-like; it is quite clearly a corkscrew-shaped smoke trail.

It is apparernt that the rocket was in trouble almost immediately after launch, wobbling as it rose to altitude (the blue corkscrew trail). At altitude, the finally gave way (or self-destructed), turned completely perpendicular to its path of flight, and vented the rest of its fuel, forming the white pinwheel trail.