Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis

Unread postby viscount aero » Sun Nov 10, 2013 12:36 am

Sparky wrote:Yes, they could have been involved in an electrical event(s) before our atmosphere.

Look at a large image of this asteroid. The discharge craters are rather small. We can assume that the entire asteroid was covered like that before it hit our atmosphere. What environment would produce those? :? Fissioning from a larger asteroid? ;)


Too add, I can agree, too, with what you are saying here. The craters are probably formed, in large part, via the discharge area(s)--where the volatiles are.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis

Unread postby GaryN » Sun Nov 10, 2013 12:56 pm

I've been trying to get some idea of the mechanics of an object falling from the height that this chunk supposedly fell from, but none of the 'experts' can agree. Mr Korotev said terminal velocity was always 100-200 mph, but someone pointed out that on his site he also says 200-400 mph. In looking around the 'net, I see figures up to 600 mph. But do those take into account the forward velocity of thousands of miles per hour? Is that velocity reduced to zero in the atmosphere so that it falls straight down and makes a nice round hole in the ice? Can we run a computer simulation, based on the numbers now available?
So what would happen then if we use 100 mph, to a rock of that size hitting the ice/water, vs impacting at 600 mph? The meteorite is a common stony one, they say, so at 600 mph I say it should have shattered completely. At 100 mph, how does it go through 40 or so feet of water, and then 2 meters of lake bed silt?
That doesn't work at all. Water is incompressible and of sufficient density that pushing a rock chunk of that size through it would slow it too almost zero speed, so it should just have sat on the lake bed, unsless the silt was loose enough that it was more like a quicksand and the rock slowly sank into it, very unlikely IMO. At the upper end of the velocity estimates, that rock should have shattered totally, leaving fist sized pieces perhaps on the lake bed.
Now we can look at Mr Korotevs page about what are not meteorites, and see that very few of the objects sent to him, or the photos of such objects sent to him, are in fact meteorites, so what are they?
http://meteorites.wustl.edu/realities.htm

The Chelyabinsk meteorite does appear to have what are accepted as metorite features, the Regmaglypts,

Regmaglypts are thumbprint like impressions on the surface of larger meteorites that are formed by ablation of material from the surface as a meteor passes through the Earth's atmosphere. They are probably formed by vortices of hot gas.

Image

Vortices of hot gas, but it is also stated that only the very surface will get hot, leaving a thin fusion crust. The study of meteorites is beginning to look about as believable as the study of glacial processes. Not much science, lots of speculation. Many, if not most of the objects are likely from electrical and magnetic forces from the pulsed discharges to ground, or even underground. Not everything will have to look like a fulgurite to be of electrical origin, the forces having many configurations, magnitudes, durations, producing a great variety of objects.
This object then, to me, represents a smaller version of what are called mascons, which form underground, and are the result of much larger electromagnetic events. Studies of the lithification of lunar soil samples use a mechanical impact force that produces a piezoelectric process electric shock and the associated magnetic pulse to explain their findings, but it is much more likely that the originating force was electrical discharge, and suggests that the Lunar mascons will be formed in a similar way to the Chelyabinsk meteorite, by alteration of the surface or subsurface base material by EM forces.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2636
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis

Unread postby Maol » Mon Nov 11, 2013 3:33 pm

Sparky wrote:viscount!!!??? A meteorite is comparable to a space capsule??!! :!: :?: :roll:
An absurd argument!

***********************************
**********************

maol, you may be correct, I really don't know which end is which. It was a guess.
And ablation may very well leave a smoother surface...thanks

I don’t see why you think it is absurd to observe the meteorite shape is similar to a blunt-body entry vehicle which is designed to enter the atmosphere at 15 km/s or more. The EV started it journey with a design intended to avoid ablation and the meteorite was sculpted to its final shape by ablation the former was designed to avoid.

Perhaps the images and text in these NASA reports, particularly the second, will enhance your imag-ination.

The entry vehicles evolved to these contours because if they don’t start out that shape they end up that shape after atmospheric entry.

There is interesting reading in the second link about how the different atomic species in the wake plasma behave in catalysis, particularly carbon. Some substances normally non-catalytic become catalytic when they are in plasma state as disassociated atoms.


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 026755.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 026410.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 099785.pdf
Maol
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:40 pm

Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis

Unread postby GaryN » Mon Nov 11, 2013 7:10 pm

Phil Plait has posted a couple of pieces that explain the Chelyabinsk Asteroid event in great detail. No mention of electricity of course.

Video of the Large Chunk of Chelyabinsk Asteroid Hitting a Frozen Lake!
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronom ... _lake.html

He has better eyes than I do obviously, or a better monitor perhaps, but I don't see the rising plume of ice and snow that he believes he does. Now theres an occurence I'd like to see in a computer simulation.

Chelyabinsk-sized Asteroid Impacts May Happen More Often Than Previously Thought
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronom ... ought.html
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2636
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis

Unread postby viscount aero » Mon Nov 11, 2013 7:30 pm

GaryN wrote:Phil Plait has posted a couple of pieces that explain the Chelyabinsk Asteroid event in great detail. No mention of electricity of course.

Video of the Large Chunk of Chelyabinsk Asteroid Hitting a Frozen Lake!
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronom ... _lake.html

He has better eyes than I do obviously, or a better monitor perhaps, but I don't see the rising plume of ice and snow that he believes he does. Now theres an occurence I'd like to see in a computer simulation.

Chelyabinsk-sized Asteroid Impacts May Happen More Often Than Previously Thought
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronom ... ought.html


hmmm cool
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis

Unread postby Sparky » Tue Nov 12, 2013 9:34 am

Now theres an occurence I'd like to see in a computer simulation.

Why not have it hit in one of our stadiums? :? We could sell tickets!!! ;) ..... :lol:
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis

Unread postby viscount aero » Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:22 am

GaryN wrote:Chelyabinsk-sized Asteroid Impacts May Happen More Often Than Previously Thought
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronom ... ought.html


The article is insightful although never mentions once anything to do with plasma physics. I like how the scientists figured out that the two vapor columns were actually spinning like "Horizontal tornadoes." You can clearly see the corkscrew structure in them now that spin has been mentioned.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis

Unread postby kiwi » Sun Nov 17, 2013 3:21 am

some are not so destined for the limelight, and prefer the quieter life, under rock over-hangs for example :twisted:

http://geulogy.com/altay-meteorite-xinj ... ang-altay/
kiwi
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:58 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis

Unread postby kiwi » Sun Nov 17, 2013 3:22 am

kiwi
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:58 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis

Unread postby viscount aero » Sun Nov 17, 2013 9:42 am

kiwi wrote:some are not so destined for the limelight, and prefer the quieter life, under rock over-hangs for example :twisted:

http://geulogy.com/altay-meteorite-xinj ... ang-altay/


very interesting :!:
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis

Unread postby viscount aero » Sun Nov 17, 2013 9:43 am

:shock: wow :idea:
kiwi wrote:and of course ... http://geulogy.com/hoba-meteorite-iron/
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis

Unread postby Sparky » Sun Nov 17, 2013 11:32 am

In both hoba and sikhote-alin the Ni59, which is a neutron-produced isotope, is higher than would be expected from the Cl36 content. This indicates that solar flares contributed to the neutron-produced isotopes in these iron meteorites.


Would this suggest that meteorite was fissioned from sun? :? :shock:
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis

Unread postby viscount aero » Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:00 pm

Sparky wrote:
In both hoba and sikhote-alin the Ni59, which is a neutron-produced isotope, is higher than would be expected from the Cl36 content. This indicates that solar flares contributed to the neutron-produced isotopes in these iron meteorites.


Would this suggest that meteorite was fissioned from sun? :? :shock:


Good question :idea:
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis

Unread postby kiwi » Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:24 am

Sparky wrote:
In both hoba and sikhote-alin the Ni59, which is a neutron-produced isotope, is higher than would be expected from the Cl36 content. This indicates that solar flares contributed to the neutron-produced isotopes in these iron meteorites.


Would this suggest that meteorite was fissioned from sun? :? :shock:




he Ni59, which is a neutron-produced isotope, is higher than would be expected from the Cl36 content.



Be worth checking on that Sparky, ...as to other possible mechanism's that may be responsible, if the large Arc mode discharges are correct, you are basically replicating the same type of dynamic on the Sun?


Is there a possibility that some of these are not from "space"? and have been produced in the intense cauldron of a mega-strike to ground? .. possibly a transmutaion scenario?


How about Marklund Convection?

6.12 Marklund Convection

In the case of a cylindrical current, the E × B force is radially inwards and results in the self-constriction of a current filament, as we have seen. This results in an increase in the particle density near the axis of the current. Two things can then happen.

The first is that radiative cooling from the regions of increased density can result in a temperature decrease nearer the center, contrary to the increase one might intuitively expect from increasing the density.
The second is that recombination of ions and electrons starts to occur.
Every chemical element has a particular energy level, known as its ionization energy, at which it will either ionize or recombine. This is analogous to the boiling point of a liquid such as water: at a particular temperature, the phase or state of the matter will change from one state to another.

If the kinetic energy of motion is equated with the ionization energy, then a characteristic velocity, known as the Critical Ionization Velocity (CIV), can be derived for each element. Because temperature is a measure of thermal energy, CIV can be related to temperature. The CIV values of elements commonly found in space are not distributed randomly but are grouped into four distinct bands around certain velocity values. Within each band, all the elements in that band have similar CIVs to each other.

In the vicinity of a field-aligned current, the E × B force causes a radial drift of ions and electrons towards the cooler central axis. Because of their differing CIVs, different ions will recombine at different radii as they move towards the centre and enter progressively cooler regions.

The net result is that Marklund Convection sorts any elements present in the locality into different groups according to their ionization potentials. The groups of elements are arranged in cylindrical shells at different radii within a cylindrical field-aligned current.

As hydrogen has a high CIV compared to the other elements, it will recombine first, in a cylindrical shell of larger radius than the shells of the other elements.

This type of electrical sorting may be responsible for some of the non-random distribution of elements that we observe in the cosmos. In particular, it may explain the preponderance of neutral hydrogen in thread-like structures throughout the galaxy that have been detected by radio telescopes.

This process is known as Marklund Convection after the Swedish physicist who discovered it, Göran Marklund. http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/12 ... chapter-6/



Ignoring the time frame suggested here ........ Was this a physical disintergration of an actual object or maybe the "pellets" were created in a discharge scenario? ... Whenevr I see the confident claims regarding the dating of past epoch's ... I remember Mary HIgby Schweitzers discovery of soft tissue and blood cell's in her T-Rex bones, that conunrdum is yet to satisfactorily explained :?

Abstract
Firestone et al. sampled sedimentary sequences at many sites across North America, Europe, and Asia [Firestone RB, et al. (2007) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:16016–16021]. In sediments dated to the Younger Dryas onset or Boundary (YDB) approximately 12,900 calendar years ago, Firestone et al. reported discovery of markers, including nanodiamonds, aciniform soot, high-temperature melt-glass, and magnetic microspherules attributed to cosmic impacts/airbursts. The microspherules were explained as either cosmic material ablation or terrestrial ejecta from a hypothesized North American impact that initiated the abrupt Younger Dryas cooling, contributed to megafaunal extinctions, and triggered human cultural shifts and population declines. A number of independent groups have confirmed the presence of YDB spherules, but two have not. One of them [Surovell TA, et al. (2009) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:18155–18158] collected and analyzed samples from seven YDB sites, purportedly using the same protocol as Firestone et al., but did not find a single spherule in YDB sediments at two previously reported sites. To examine this discrepancy, we conducted an independent blind investigation of two sites common to both studies, and a third site investigated only by Surovell et al. We found abundant YDB microspherules at all three widely separated sites consistent with the results of Firestone et al. and conclude that the analytical protocol employed by Surovell et al. deviated significantly from that of Firestone et al. Morphological and geochemical analyses of YDB spherules suggest they are not cosmic, volcanic, authigenic, or anthropogenic in origin. Instead, they appear to have formed from abrupt melting and quenching of terrestrial materials.http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/12/1208603109


and a link supporting the above challenged hypothesis

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/12/n ... ger-dryas/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dr ... hypothesis

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/11 ... struction/



https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... ucLyQB1Abw

http://georgehoward.net/Woolly%20Mammoth%20Tusk.htm

I have an excellant PDF file I cant locate at the moment ... here the Firestone article with a reasonable imge of one of the embedded spherule

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7130014.stm

Cheers 8-)
kiwi
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:58 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis

Unread postby nick c » Mon Nov 18, 2013 9:18 am

Sparky wrote:Would this suggest that meteorite was fissioned from sun? :? :shock:

Or, that it is a fragment of a former sun grazer comet.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2412
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests