Talk:2009 Norwegian spiral anomaly

I like the page where it is

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)

Duplicate page (history merge will be needed)

For discussion on what the article should be named, see the discussion here. MuZemike 23:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Copied from duplicated talk page

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)

From someone highly experienced with astronomical phenomenon, I think it's something of that nature. It could just be the shadow of an asteroid or something that had an eccentric orbit and passed closer to earth. ceranthor 22:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate page (history merge will be needed)

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)

Unexplained Lights of Norway? Norway Spiral Lights? Unexplained Spiral Lights? 2009 Unexplained Spiral Lights? I think it'd be best to somehow communicate that this happened in the sky and less important that Norway be mentioned. What, where, when, and why can be explained in the article, it doesn't need to be in the title.--v/r - TP 01:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Editing flood

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.

Failed rocket launch

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)

To the space systems engineer: fantastic! In order to satisfy Wikipedia guidelines, you should present your argument on an external website and then someone (other than you) can incorporate it into the article, referencing your article.

In all likelihood, this was a failed Bulava launch. Nothing anomalous about that. _{Óðinn ☭☆ talk} 08:02, 10 December 2009 (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)

Until you summon up the courage to write under your real name and attempt to get your ideas published in a sensible venue, your theories will remain irrelevant. Real scientists with real credentials believe it to be a rocket failure, as the article makes clear.Cop 663 (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I am no expert on the subject, but having casually spoken with a few experts who work in the aerospace and weapons industry, it seems that the 'failed missile' explanation stands on spurious grounds. Firstly, by their nature rockets are highly volatile and thus immediately explosive. Those who can remember the unfortunate event of NASA's Challenger disaster had a clear glimpse into what a failed rocket looks like. In contrast, the very slow moving, sustained, not-so volatile nature of the 2009 spiral event looks NOTHING like any failed rocket ever publicly documented before, thus explaining the interest in the phenomenon in the first place! With no solid evidence existing to prove that the phenomenon was indeed a failed Russian test rocket, it makes no rational sense to out-right dismiss the discussion about this phenomenon. Discourse, solid evidence and truth are fundamental aspects of scientific inquiry that must be respected if credibility is worth anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.63.59.136 (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2012 (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)

China event date

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)

Merge

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)

Agreed. Should be merged. Fences&Windows 15:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

keep separate, this achieved plenty of coverage as an independent topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

During the first 24 hrs, perhaps. Now, it is clearly not an independent topic, which doesn't warrant more than a few sentences or a paragraph at most. _{Óðinn ☭☆ talk} 23:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Graeme, you should read WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. Merge is much the best option here. Fences&Windows 02:14, 11 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 needed]. Fences&Windows 15:22, 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)

It's in the article already. An astrophysicist's and a rocket scientist's explanations ought to be authoritative enough. _{Óðinn ☭☆ talk} 18:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I see authoritative statements casting serious doubt as to whether this could have been a Bulava going off. For instance the Norwegian Space Centre chief Scientist Erik Tandberg while holding to the misfired missle explanation still saying "we could be looking at an entirely new natural phenomenon."[5] I am not saying no to a merge if developments turn the incident more unequivocal, but for now I say a merge is premature. __meco (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, you might as well quote the whole thing "But I know that the military have denied this explanation. So we could be looking at an entirely new natural phenomenon." Seems he was suggesting that only because the military initially denied that any testing had ocurred. _{Óðinn ☭☆ talk} 19:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That was a quote given to The Sun on the day after the spiral was seen, before the missile launch had been confirmed. As it has now been confirmed that there was a failed Bulava launch it's confirmed what the spiral was, and all the speculation about aliens, weather or light shows is redundant. Fences&Windows 21:35, 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 modified the tag. Since an actual discussion, as opposed to voting, is taking place here. _{Óðinn ☭☆ talk} 22:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - I believe that the event (phenomenom) has received a large international coverage and that it has acquired sufficient notability to keep a dedicated article on it in Wikipedia encyclopedia. ^_^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.126.220 (talk) 05:35, 28 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)

People, an absolutely identical effect is produced by

File:Ccli2.jpg

300

...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)

In my town they've used much bigger skytrackers for years so I'm surpriced people still get exited over this. Though I admit I was scared too when I first saw similar lights, late at night, when I was walking through a forest alone :)

Anyways I can't believe this article junks Wikipedia. How is this possible it hasn't been deleted so far?

I guess the phenomenon of "2009 Norwegian spiral anomaly" will be a case study for academics on how the gossip spreads78.131.137.50 (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW if it was a "Global Warming" related talkpage Your post would have already been deleted and You would be banned as a "sockpuppet".78.131.137.50 (talk) 03:50, 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)

"Open source" video

Is the linked video open source? Do we have anyu indication of this? __meco (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the video since there is nothing other than the poster's assertion that the video is open source. __meco (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Pictures?

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)

I don't know if any of us Norwegian editors are doing anything in particular to procure a free image for this article. If anyone, Norwegian or otherwise, comes across one which is free I'm sure it will be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I think however that this phenomenon is so spectacular that a claim could be made for the use of un-free media under the fair use proviso, as the The Falling Man article (and others) gives a precedent for. __meco (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps an artist can give an impression. Though not as real as the photo. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm unsure whether that would be feasible. Do we have any projects that could assist us in making such an illustration? __meco (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Photos of the event ought to be fair use. I added one: File:NorwaySpiral.jpg. Cop 663 (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is the picture then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.107.220 (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Strange looking, hope it stays in Cop 663. We must have a photo! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid the current photograph fails to depict the topic accurately and I recommend replacing it. If we're going to use a non-free image here, we might as well use the best one we can find. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Early speculation removed

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)

Map?

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)

I have resinstated text that was removed that also included the map image. __meco (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama

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)

Undiscussed move

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've reverted the move. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:31, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

The phenomenon did not occur over Norway, it occured over Russia and was visible from Norway, Sweden and Finland. The current title is factually incorrect. Do we want to reproduce factually incorrect media reports, or do we aim to be factually correct? I think we need to come to a compromise here, this spiral anomaly is not a Norwegian phenomenon. In many cases, Wikipedia is more factually correct than many other sources. Let this be a similar case. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 21:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we want to reproduce media reports, even if our editors have deemed them factually incorrect through their own research. I just had this same basic argument over at e-cigarette. The name that's caught on in the media is more important than its factual accuracy. I'd be glad to begin an RFC on the matter though, as I did there, if you'd like to get some broader input. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:36, 18 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Missile

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).

Another phenomenon, observed over Southeast Brazil on 9 April 1999

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

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1999-04-11/news/9904110212_1_titan-iv-cape-canaveral-satellite-into-orbit

Aldo L (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Phenomenon

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)

It's not implausible that a missile and a space shuttle could produce similar visual effects, since both would be producing exhaust at high altitudes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.78.71 (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

EISCAT

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)

Many of the people who have been following this story and doing a little bit of investigation for thenmselves are aware of this alleged connection. I have personally looked at the test schedule for the Ramsfjordmoen EISCAT facility and what I could ascertain was that this particular installation was not active during the time of the spiral phenomenon.

However that may be, Wikipedia relies on sourcing all articles according to guidelines that preclude using forum posts or "fringe" websites for reference. If such information is presented in a reliable source we would be able to mention it in the article. __meco (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Me again. Unfortunately the way things go, reputable or reliable sources are wholly subjective with issues such as this spiral thing (or other scenarios which may inadvertantly expose a covert (military) operation). There is speculation and there is easily falsifiable "official" versions. Until such time as some astronautical company comes clean, personal research from those authors is probably the best or closest "truths" we can get. I have no problem with whatever people choose to do with that threadlink, or how they incorporate it into the main article (if ever) and if allowed by the oringinal author. 115.70.80.179 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC).

If any physicist out there could explain how, even hypothetically, such a visual display could be produced by a HF radio transmitter, then it might have some bearing. As far as I know, it's not even on the radar (haha). Seems like lots of people have completely misunderstood the purpose of ionospheric heating facilities and what they are able to achieve. The faint airglow produced by EISCAT, Sura, HAARP among others is not even near natural aurorae in terms of visual brilliance (it's picked up by highly sensitive equipment only), nor is it in any way controllable (e.g. complex patterns) as the conspiracy theorists suggest. Apart from being physically implausible in general, the phased array layout of said facilities do not permit broadcasting at the awkward angles that would be needed for similar "projections", nor does there seem to be any point in doing so. Besides, do you know how "loud" those transmitters are? Even basic knowledge in electromagnetic physics should be enough to realize that you can't do anything like that without half the world picking it up. Hell, it would probably cause induced currents in tons of equipment that lay in the beams path, just like the Russian Woodpecker radar did (which happened to be both top secret and use ionospheric bouncing techniques).

And why would Russia admit a failure that didn't happen, anyway ? They're not even involved in EISCAT. Screwing up a ballistic missile launch is not exactly something you're proud of, especially when you're Russia ! Aesma (talk) 10:11, 22 November 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 have no idea what you are trying to express. __meco (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Need pics

I think it would be good if the article had photos of the event. --TiagoTiago (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

We did have one, used under the Fair Use clause, but it was decided the rationale was insufficient. I believe that this could be tried again, as we now have the argument that no free image has surfaced in the years that have passed. __meco (talk) 08:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

TVTropes has one, here. Perhaps we could copy it. Meneth (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the best image to use under fair use rationale. However, we should try and find it in a location which states the photographer and/or copyright holder. Norwegian newspapers from the day of the event would be a smart place to look. __meco (talk) 10:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

broken link

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)

Never before seen 'expected' visual features.

>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)

Right. I think the anomaly is not fully explained. What is the "black hole" that appears at the end?. It must be rewritten. 88.26.29.82 (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The rocket was spinning around in circles, presumably due to a failure of its nozzle resulting in exhaust gases being released to one side. The spiral is the exhaust plume. It's rotating because the rocket itself is spinning in circles. By definition, rocket exhaust is moving (generally very quickly) away from the nozzle, thus the spiral expanding outwards, as every part of it is moving away from the point where it was expelled from the rocket. The 'black hole' at the end is the visible result of when the errant rocket stage finally burned out. The expelled exhaust gases continue to move away from the point at which they were expelled from the rocket, but no new exhaust gases are now following them to continue the spiral. Thus, the eerie-looking 'black hole' expanding out from the center is just a matter of seeing the sky again in the middle as the exhaust gases continue to move away from their source and no longer being replaced in the middle by new exhaust gases after the burn-out. Vbscript2 (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2019 (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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091213042733/http://forum.flot.su:80/showthread.php?p=102072 to http://forum.flot.su/showthread.php?p=102072

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)