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 GaryN » Mon Nov 18, 2013 12:24 pm

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?


Absolutely, IMO. The characteristics of the discharges interacting with Earths surface, or below the surface, will be so diverse that many different effects could occur. The nature of the surface material will also result in different end results. We need to categorise the possible types of interaction, from gentle electric winds through to short pulse, extreme energy arc discharge, and link them to the appropriate surface features. There are so many surface features or objects lying around that can not be explained by conventional geological forces that we have to look at alternative processes for their formation, and what else other than electrical and magnetic forces could produce such oddities? That what are classified as igneous and metamorphic rock can be produced by EM forces is beyond a doubt, according to the engineers I have questioned, but the energy levels required, especialy for large scale structures, soon puts the nubers into the "unbelievable" range. And there's the rub. A conventional model relying on extreme time periods, heat and very high pressure, or electrical forces of mind numbing proportions.

Anyway, with the Chelyabinsk object, it would seem that it should have hit the water with around 250 ft/sec velocity, and based on what I have been able to determine, the composition of the object means that it should have turned to small fragments within the top 5 feet of the water surface. It's a rather complex event to visualise, but I am extremely puzzled as to why none of the scientists or engineers I have contacted seem to even want to take a stab at a model of such an event.

@ nick c
Or, that it is a fragment of a former sun grazer comet.


Just my opinion of course, but I think a sun grazer would have acquired a charge such that the potential difference between the inside of such an object, and the rapid change of exterior charge level on approaching the Earth would result (in a rocky, not metallic meteor) in an exploding capacitor type event, shattering the object. The rain of hot pebbles or gravel described in historical events is from just such a process I'd think. The discharge to ground is what will produce the larger objects, through an EM lithification, recrystalisation, melting, etc, processes.
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 kiwi » Mon Nov 18, 2013 4:22 pm

Cheers Gary ... well said :D

The characteristics of the discharges interacting with Earths surface, or below the surface, will be so diverse that many different effects could occur. The nature of the surface material will also result in different end results. We need to categorise the possible types of interaction, from gentle electric winds through to short pulse, extreme energy arc discharge, and link them to the appropriate surface features. There are so many surface features or objects lying around that can not be explained by conventional geological forces that we have to look at alternative processes for their formation, and what else other than electrical and magnetic forces could produce such oddities? That what are classified as igneous and metamorphic rock can be produced by EM forces is beyond a doubt, according to the engineers I have questioned, but the energy levels required, especialy for large scale structures, soon puts the nubers into the "unbelievable" range.


Have you seen the TB Channel vid from the last conf with that guy explaining his surface structure/formation theory?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7w1rGeqXBg


with the Chelyabinsk object, it would seem that it should have hit the water with around 250 ft/sec velocity, and based on what I have been able to determine, the composition of the object means that it should have turned to small fragments within the top 5 feet of the water surface. It's a rather complex event to visualise, but I am extremely puzzled as to why none of the scientists or engineers I have contacted seem to even want to take a stab at a model of such an event.


Can you stop already with the common sense and "reason "... obviously a communist agitator ... its the Salt mine's for you Komrade! :arrow: :twisted:
kiwi
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:58 pm
Location: New Zealand

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

Unread postby Rossim » Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:17 am

If the crater in the iced-over lake was due to an electrical discharge, we should see some evidence of such. First, it's extremely circular. Like most craters on celestial bodies, the impactor would have had to strike at almost exactly 90 degrees, which differs from the observed low-angle trajectory. The next most commonly observed discharge craters are "bulls-eye craters," which of course you couldn't see on ice; and craters on the rim of larger craters. So I looked a little closer and, behold, there is a smaller circular crater on the rim of the larger.

But more specifically, we typically see the smaller crater has formed after the first as its rim usually disrupts that of the first, large discharge. In the pictures, it appears that the smaller crater has less ice formed inside of it which may be due to a later or longer lasting arc.


Image
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... s-TNT.html

Image
http://en.ria.ru/russia/20130220/179590080.html
Rossim
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:46 am

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

Unread postby viscount aero » Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:24 am

Rossim wrote:If the crater in the iced-over lake was due to an electrical discharge, we should see some evidence of such. First, it's extremely circular. Like most craters on celestial bodies, the impactor would have had to strike at almost exactly 90 degrees, which differs from the observed low-angle trajectory. The next most commonly observed discharge craters are "bulls-eye craters," which of course you couldn't see on ice; and craters on the rim of larger craters. So I looked a little closer and, behold, there is a smaller circular crater on the rim of the larger.

But more specifically, we typically see the smaller crater has formed after the first as its rim usually disrupts that of the first, large discharge. In the pictures, it appears that the smaller crater has less ice formed inside of it which may be due to a later or longer lasting arc.


Image
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... s-TNT.html

Image
http://en.ria.ru/russia/20130220/179590080.html


If the craters are indeed created by an impactor, the angle need not be 90º to render the circular crater:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... craters-al

Your observation of the smaller "crater" on the rim, however, is a telltale electrical arcing structure. Good post.
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 » Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:44 pm

:? whaaa? :? ...,Where is the smaller crater? :?
"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 Rossim » Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:11 pm

Sparky wrote::? whaaa? :? ...,Where is the smaller crater? :?


The smaller circular formation is in between the two groups of people in the first pic and at about 11 o'clock on the second pic. The sizes of the "craters" also appear to be roughly the same ratio as what is observed in other examples.

And viscount aero thanks for posting that link, it's very interesting. They acknowledge the expected teardrop formation but explain that vaporization on contact would cause an explosion that always appears circular. While I'm not sure that this statement itself is empirical, I'm unconvinced the collision with ice would cause exactly the same result.
Rossim
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:46 am

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

Unread postby viscount aero » Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:31 pm

Rossim wrote:
Sparky wrote::? whaaa? :? ...,Where is the smaller crater? :?


The smaller circular formation is in between the two groups of people in the first pic and at about 11 o'clock on the second pic. The sizes of the "craters" also appear to be roughly the same ratio as what is observed in other examples.

And viscount aero thanks for posting that link, it's very interesting. They acknowledge the expected teardrop formation but explain that vaporization on contact would cause an explosion that always appears circular. While I'm not sure that this statement itself is empirical, I'm unconvinced the collision with ice would cause exactly the same result.


Yes. I posted an impactor scenario and supporting science. What we have here is not only due to an impact, per se, in my opinion. There is clearly an electrical component here as evidenced by your observation of the smaller rim crater (hole). The majority of the meteor never hit the Earth as one piece. It blew up before it touched the surface of the planet, as did the structure in Tunguska event, as did the impactor sent into Temple 1, as did the Chelyabinsk bolide event.

What happened, moreover, in my opinion, was a similar arcing that happens in terrestrial lightning whereby the ground "leader" reaches skyward to greet the lightning bolt heading for the ground. In this case it happened very near the ground as the bolide shed charge prior to hitting the Earth. The current density fragmented/melted the asteroid/meteor and it hit the Earth as only a small embodiment of what it was. The meteorite passed through a column of discharging plasma arc.
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 Dec 15, 2013 8:31 am

okay, I see something that looks like it may be a smaller crater.....Thanks...

That may be a small bolide strike. I don't think that crater edge on ice covered water would have the electrical effect as a crater edge on dryer ground.

And we don't know the time of these photos nor what was going on before the photos.

On a scale of 1 to 14, I'd give the chance of a small electric arc creating it a 6,,, :?
"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 GaryN » Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:15 pm

What happened, moreover, in my opinion, was a similar arcing that happens in terrestrial lightning whereby the ground "leader" reaches skyward to greet the lightning bolt heading for the ground. In this case it happened very near the ground as the bolide shed charge prior to hitting the Earth. The current density fragmented/melted the asteroid/meteor


With you up to there.

and it hit the Earth as only a small embodiment of what it was. The meteorite passed through a column of discharging plasma arc.


I'm not sure anything actually hit the lake, but I need information that has not yet become available. The first is an imapct velocity, nobody seems to have a figure, just guesses of 100 to 400 MPH so far. At even 100 MPH, that's 150 ft/sec. Secondly, the composition of the meteorite chunk. I have read that it was falling apart as they pulled it up, seems pretty fragile, which means it would not have survived impact intact. Next, the composition of the lake bed. They used a pressurised water stream to wash away the material, so a silt I presume.
Any impact on water results in a very rapid stopping of the object. A 50 Cal. machine gun bullet is stopped within 5 feet of the surface, a .303 only goes 2 ft, and they are high velocity and streamlined. That chunk must have stopped pretty quickly, and even if it did survive impact intact, then it would have had to drift down and somehow end up under 6 feet of sediment?
I'm going with the discharge having created the object right where it was found. I'd even consider that there was no incoming object to explode, and the discharge may have been from the main object, and the white, diffuse column seen in one image, attributed to some lens effect, was a UV glow mode region around the main discharge column, detected because the camera was sensitive into the UV, not unusual.
Interesting event though!
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 » Sun Dec 15, 2013 4:29 pm

GaryN wrote:
What happened, moreover, in my opinion, was a similar arcing that happens in terrestrial lightning whereby the ground "leader" reaches skyward to greet the lightning bolt heading for the ground. In this case it happened very near the ground as the bolide shed charge prior to hitting the Earth. The current density fragmented/melted the asteroid/meteor


With you up to there.

and it hit the Earth as only a small embodiment of what it was. The meteorite passed through a column of discharging plasma arc.


I'm not sure anything actually hit the lake, but I need information that has not yet become available. The first is an imapct velocity, nobody seems to have a figure, just guesses of 100 to 400 MPH so far. At even 100 MPH, that's 150 ft/sec. Secondly, the composition of the meteorite chunk. I have read that it was falling apart as they pulled it up, seems pretty fragile, which means it would not have survived impact intact. Next, the composition of the lake bed. They used a pressurised water stream to wash away the material, so a silt I presume.
Any impact on water results in a very rapid stopping of the object. A 50 Cal. machine gun bullet is stopped within 5 feet of the surface, a .303 only goes 2 ft, and they are high velocity and streamlined. That chunk must have stopped pretty quickly, and even if it did survive impact intact, then it would have had to drift down and somehow end up under 6 feet of sediment?
I'm going with the discharge having created the object right where it was found. I'd even consider that there was no incoming object to explode, and the discharge may have been from the main object, and the white, diffuse column seen in one image, attributed to some lens effect, was a UV glow mode region around the main discharge column, detected because the camera was sensitive into the UV, not unusual.
Interesting event though!


So you believe the "meteorite" was created in situ on-site by the lightning? That's interesting but I find that a bit hard to believe. That would mean that elements are synthesized or created on-site, too. In other words the bolide recovered was terrestrial in origin (if this is what you are saying).

Something clearly entered the atmosphere. You're saying that whatever it was never made it to Earth.
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 seasmith » Sun Dec 15, 2013 4:53 pm

GaryN wrote:

That chunk must have stopped pretty quickly, and even if it did survive impact intact, then it would have had to drift down and somehow end up under 6 feet of sediment?


HiGary, There is a plausible mechanism for 'self-burial':
Divers use an "airlift" to dig holes in a bottom- basically just a somewhat verticle pipe with air injected at the bottom which by Venturi effect, sucks up the silt with the rising air column and disperses it in the water column above.
Presumably, any 'bolide' would still be quite hot when it hit bottom and and, by boiling off the surrounding water, would likely bury the hot and heavy object.

Really don't have a post-impact opinion until more data is assembled, but from practical experience, would say that scenario is feasible.
s
seasmith
 
Posts: 2811
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

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

Unread postby GaryN » Mon Dec 16, 2013 2:05 pm

@v.a.
In other words the bolide recovered was terrestrial in origin (if this is what you are saying).


The material was the lake bed sediment, the energy to transform it was from an electrical discharge, yes. Fulgarites do that, and can penetrate quite a ways into the ground. That's why I'd like to see inside the thing. I'd also consider that mascons may be a similar thing, on a much larger scale, the energetic transformation of a subsurface volume of the original material.

Something clearly entered the atmosphere. You're saying that whatever it was never made it to Earth.


The big piece certainly entered the atmosphere, but I don't think anyone saw the smaller piece hitting the lake. The one video that seems to have shown a disturbance at the lakes surface was likely from the upwards discharge.
@ seasmith
Presumably, any 'bolide' would still be quite hot when it hit bottom and and, by boiling off the surrounding water, would likely bury the hot and heavy object.


The consensus opinion is that they will be quite cool. Being in space for so long, they are cold throughout. In the atmosphere, they develop a fusion crust, but rock is a good insulator so the heat does not penetrate, and also ablation of the surface layer is a very efficient remover of heat. If for some reason the lump was hot, say it was inductive heating and not friction, then on hitting cold water it should have exploded, or at the least, shattered, as heating rocks and then pouring water on them was used in times gone by, to remove things like chunks of copper from the surrounding rock.
Looking at the latest image of the chunk, it is a light colour, no fusion crust:
Image
I'd like to see what's inside, but doubt they will cut it in half. This is supposedly a smaller piece from the main object, showing a crust.
Image
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 seasmith » Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:00 pm

ooking at the latest image of the chunk, it is a light colour, no fusion crust:

@GN


Are you kidding? It looks like a thousand (weld) arc-strikes.


This is supposedly a smaller piece from the main object, showing a crust.


[url]http://www.meteorite-recon.com/img_inventar/Chelyabinsk_meteorites_106g_597
[/url]
[img]http://www.meteorite-recon.com/img_inventar/Chelyabinsk_meteorites_106g_597
[/img]
Gary''s unlinkable img above)


Shock phase graining (grains align):


Image

Image
seasmith
 
Posts: 2811
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm


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

Unread postby GaryN » Mon Dec 16, 2013 9:56 pm

Just looking for large, stony meteorites:

LARGEST ACHONDRITE IN THE WORLD

Image

The main mass of the Norton County meteorite has been housed in UNM's Meteorite Museum since the Museum opened in 1974. This stone is the largest single piece of an achondrite meteorite in the world. It weighs approximately 1000 kg. Although many iron meteorites are larger, it is rare for a large piece of a stony meteorite to survive its journey through the Earth's atmosphere. Norton County is a very crumbly rock, so it is amazing that such a large piece survived. Only one chondrite is larger than Norton County – the largest piece of the Jilin meteorite that fell in China in 1976 weighed 1770 kg.

http://epswww.unm.edu/meteoritemuseum/v ... norton.htm

The Jinlin #1. Looking more like the Chelyabinsk beast.

Image
Bigger:
http://www.chinapictorial.com.cn/en/des ... c8c905.JPG
Jilin No. 1, a massive rock weighing 1,770 kilograms, is believed to be the largest single fragment of meteorite ever found on Earth.

According to records, a crater measuring two meters in diameter and three meters deep was left by the meteorite’s impact, which broke the frozen soil layer as deep as 6.5 meters. Equivalent to a 1.7 magnitude earthquake, the impact was so powerful that a mushroom cloud appeared and sprayed dirt up to 150 meters away. Further scientific analysis revealed that the original meteorite was a 4.6 billion-year-old asteroid originating from the belt between Jupiter and Mars.

http://www.chinapictorial.com.cn/en/des ... 553501.htm

So large chunks of crumbly rock can hit the ground, even frozen ground, and remain intact? Or might these also be fulgurite-like objects. The reports of these incidents sound much like the Russian event.
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

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests