Does EU rule out the air burst idea for the Tunguska event?
-
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:38 am
Does EU rule out the air burst idea for the Tunguska event?
If so, why? If not, does that mean that both ideas can create the same blast pattern?
Since 1 % 1, 1 * 1 and 1 - 1 do not add up, we must conclude that 1 + 1 is 3.
- nick c
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
- Location: connecticut
Re: Does EU rule out the air burst idea for the Tunguska event?
Hello _sluimers_:
I don't think that anyone is denying that there was an explosion above the ground in Siberia in 1908, leveling 2000 square km of forest. The difference of opinion is in the nature of the object (comet, asteroid, etc) and the cause of its' destruction. Mainstream explanations are limited to mechanical forces which lead to incorrect conclusions arising from the disregard of the electrical energy involved, due to the charge differential between the Earth and the object, probably a piece of Comet Enke.
See TPOD's:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ ... nguska.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ ... guska2.htm
It is interesting that there were numerous unusual electrical activities
and events, observed and noted, days before the explosion.
Nick C
I don't think that anyone is denying that there was an explosion above the ground in Siberia in 1908, leveling 2000 square km of forest. The difference of opinion is in the nature of the object (comet, asteroid, etc) and the cause of its' destruction. Mainstream explanations are limited to mechanical forces which lead to incorrect conclusions arising from the disregard of the electrical energy involved, due to the charge differential between the Earth and the object, probably a piece of Comet Enke.
See TPOD's:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ ... nguska.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ ... guska2.htm
It is interesting that there were numerous unusual electrical activities
and events, observed and noted, days before the explosion.
Nick C
-
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:38 am
Re: Does EU rule out the air burst idea for the Tunguska event?
Ah.. it looks as though I have made a mistake. With 'air burst idea' I meant the idea of the cause of the destruction, the one with the high velocity causing the meteor to explode in mid-air. What is the name for it?
Since 1 % 1, 1 * 1 and 1 - 1 do not add up, we must conclude that 1 + 1 is 3.
-
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:38 am
Re: Does EU rule out the air burst idea for the Tunguska event?
That may be interesting, but certainly not interesting enough for the people I'm trying to convince for testing the discharge idea.nick c wrote:Hello _sluimers_:
I don't think that anyone is denying that there was an explosion above the ground in Siberia in 1908, leveling 2000 square km of forest. The difference of opinion is in the nature of the object (comet, asteroid, etc) and the cause of its' destruction. Mainstream explanations are limited to mechanical forces which lead to incorrect conclusions arising from the disregard of the electrical energy involved, due to the charge differential between the Earth and the object, probably a piece of Comet Enke.
See TPOD's:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ ... nguska.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ ... guska2.htm
It is interesting that there were numerous unusual electrical activities
and events, observed and noted, days before the explosion.
Nick C
Is there any way to make a test that will prove one cause of it's destruction or exclude the other? High speed mid-air.. what is it, atmospheric pressure? versus a discharge causing the air burst.
I'm hoping to convince the mythbusters to get them to test both possible causes, using a terella.
Whoever reads this, before you start rushing off to their forum posting your own myths or trying to help me with Tunguska, please keep away from that forum, I don't want anyone from here to spoil my idea. I have already been accused of being a crackpot theory supporter, who will never listen reality, while trying to be very cautious, saying it might be fun to try out. If they get any more EU theories, they'll probably try to shoot them all down as fast as they can including mine.
Since 1 % 1, 1 * 1 and 1 - 1 do not add up, we must conclude that 1 + 1 is 3.
- nick c
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
- Location: connecticut
Re: Does EU rule out the air burst idea for the Tunguska event?
What people are you trying to convince?_sluimers_ wrote:That may be interesting, but certainly not interesting enough for the people I'm trying to convince for testing the discharge idea.
In answer to your question...I don't know! but would assume that it would be very difficult to "prove" one and "disprove" the other with only one experiment.Is there any way to make a test that will prove one cause of it's destruction or exclude the other? High speed mid-air.. what is it, atmospheric pressure? versus a discharge causing the air burst.
I am not an electrical engineer or plasma physicist. But from a reading of the literature of the EU, it has been stated on numerous occaisions that charged objects in plasma form a cushioning plasmasphere which when encountering the plasmasphere of another charged object, electrical forces take over, being many orders of magnitude greater than gravity. These can be shown with lab experiments, and electrical forces are scalable to astronomical levels.
Perhaps some other more technically qualified members of the forum can cite some of these experiments, or textbook chapters of relevance? But again, this does not disprove the conventional "airburst" scenario, especially when mainstream disregards the observations of witnesses concerning the list of electrical effects preceeding the explosion, that were cited in the TPOD's.
Don't worry about me. I don't waste my time debating on those forums (don't know which one you are talking about, but most have already made policy decisions concerning EU and there is no evidence that you can present that will convince them to change their minds, IMHOP!) If they are interested in giving the issues an objective hearing, they came come here. I have read too many 'below the belt' attacks and innuendos on the integrity of legitimate scientists and researchers.Whoever reads this, before you start rushing off to their forum posting your own myths or trying to help me with Tunguska, please keep away from that forum, I don't want anyone from here to spoil my idea.
They've already made up their minds, and evidence doesn't matter.I have already been accused of being a crackpot theory supporter, who will never listen reality, while trying to be very cautious, saying it might be fun to try out. If they get any more EU theories, they'll probably try to shoot them all down as fast as they can including mine.
From one crackpot to another, welcome to the loony bin!
But anyway, good luck with your debate.
Nick C
- redeye
- Posts: 394
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:56 am
- Location: Dunfermline
Re: Does EU rule out the air burst idea for the Tunguska event?
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind."
Bob Marley
Bob Marley
-
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:38 am
Re: Does EU rule out the air burst idea for the Tunguska event?
thanks
The mythbusters. Not to convince them it's true, but worthy of a shot trying to bust this theory. So far, they think it's been well tested.nick c wrote:What people are you trying to convince?
Well there was some interest. I think their enthusiasm to test this depends on how much work they have to do.nick c wrote:Don't worry about me. I don't waste my time debating on those forums (don't know which one you are talking about, but most have already made policy decisions concerning EU and there is no evidence that you can present that will convince them to change their minds, IMHOP!) If they are interested in giving the issues an objective hearing, they came come here. I have read too many 'below the belt' attacks and innuendos on the integrity of legitimate scientists and researchers.
They most likely don't want to work many hours thinking of how the experiment should be done, if they already have to work long hours just setting it up.
If they can get their hands on a fully-worked out test.
Can't the expiriment simply be done with an Ames Vertical Gun Range, a terella, something that should recreate the atmosphere around the terella and two little meteors, one highly negatively charged with respect to the terella and another neutrally charged with respect to the terella? Fire them both and you should get different results, right?nick c wrote:In answer to your question...I don't know! but would assume that it would be very difficult to "prove" one and "disprove" the other with only one experiment.
Since 1 % 1, 1 * 1 and 1 - 1 do not add up, we must conclude that 1 + 1 is 3.
-
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:38 am
Re: Does EU rule out the air burst idea for the Tunguska event?
I'm trying to find more information about the composition and speed of the Tunguska meteor.
It is likely a fragment from comet 2P\Encke according to both mainstream and EU science.
Does that mean the Tunguska meteor would have roughly the same speed as comet Encke has now?
And did the NASA space probe who was supposed to study comet Encke blow up when it came too close?
It is likely a fragment from comet 2P\Encke according to both mainstream and EU science.
Does that mean the Tunguska meteor would have roughly the same speed as comet Encke has now?
And did the NASA space probe who was supposed to study comet Encke blow up when it came too close?
Following a series of phasing orbits, the Star 30 solid rocket motor was used to perform an injection maneuver on August 15, 2002 to put CONTOUR in the proper trajectory for an Earth flyby in August 2003 followed by an encounter with comet Encke on 12 November 2003 at a distance of 100 to 160 km and a flyby speed of 28.2 km/s, 1.07 AU from the Sun and 0.27 AU from Earth. During the maneuver the probe was lost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CONTOUR
Since 1 % 1, 1 * 1 and 1 - 1 do not add up, we must conclude that 1 + 1 is 3.
- nick c
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
- Location: connecticut
Re: Does EU rule out the air burst idea for the Tunguska event?
Hello again, _sluimers_:
Your efforts are to be commended. Objective observation and experimentation faithful to the principles of the scientific method will, in my opinion, ultimately lead researchers to the Electric Universe. The problem is that it doesn't seem to be going that way, despite numerous experimental successes, confirmations from space probe data, and the contrast of numerous anomalies in conventional theory which are consistently explained with the EU and Plasma Cosmology. We have to just accept that paradigm change is a function of human behaviour (sociology, economics, and politics) and does not necessarily follow the rapid rate of technological and informational discovery. I think that it is a slow process until some intellectual crisis develops that forces the abandonment of the obsolete paradigm and adoption of the new. Perhaps we are close to that point when cosmological concepts have reached a state where imaginary forces have to be conjured up in order to reinforce a crumbling theoretical edifice. How can we trust these people with an objective analysis of the EU when they cannot see that the real "crackpots" and fringe elements are within their own ranks?
And the real pseudoscience is being taught within the ivy covered buildings of our most prestigious universities! They should heed the advice of (unknown source) someone who once said:
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
From reading your above posts, I am not clear on a few things.
Are these 'mythbusters,' the Mythbusters of the Discovery Channel?
Also, which is the 'myth' that is being busted? ...
1) the Tunguska 'airburst' concept by conventional mechanical forces
or
2) the EU concept of a combination of mechanical and electrical forces, with an emphasis on the latter?
Well, whoever they are, I would have serious reservations of their abilities to duplicate (scale down forces proportionally) the relationships between electrical (relative charges of the Earth and incoming piece of Comet Enke) and mechanical (size, composition, mass, velocity, trajectory, impact with the atmosphere) forces. If the assumed ratios or proportions of these forces were not realisticly recreated (this goes to the complexity of the original event) the experiment would yield questionable results and be of dubious value. In addition, I cannot help but wonder if this is really going to be an objective experiment or is it being viewed by the 'mythbusters' as a forgone conclusion that the EU is not meritous of serious study and the experiment is simply a means of disposing of an already proven "CP" theory?
Personally, I would like to dispense with Tunguska for now, and see some experimentation of a more general nature. For instance, how about an experiment involving the interactions of two charged spheres (a la Birkelands' Terella) in a tenuous plasma, changing relative positions and approaches, at differing velocities, angles, and distances from each other. What are the general effects? do sparks fly between the spheres? what if the spheres are of widely differing combinations of relative sizes, rotational velocities, velocities with respect to each other, and electrical charges? What is the effect on magnetic fields, such as the possibility of reversals of polarity? Did Birkeland, or anybody elaborate on the Terella experiment in a similar manner? Is there any published work on this or similar lines? Study of these many and varied scenarios could lend much to our understanding of the behaviour of charged celestial bodies in relation to each other in collision or near collision events.
I think that would be interesting, indeed! and would in turn shed much light on the Tunguska event.
Nick C
Your efforts are to be commended. Objective observation and experimentation faithful to the principles of the scientific method will, in my opinion, ultimately lead researchers to the Electric Universe. The problem is that it doesn't seem to be going that way, despite numerous experimental successes, confirmations from space probe data, and the contrast of numerous anomalies in conventional theory which are consistently explained with the EU and Plasma Cosmology. We have to just accept that paradigm change is a function of human behaviour (sociology, economics, and politics) and does not necessarily follow the rapid rate of technological and informational discovery. I think that it is a slow process until some intellectual crisis develops that forces the abandonment of the obsolete paradigm and adoption of the new. Perhaps we are close to that point when cosmological concepts have reached a state where imaginary forces have to be conjured up in order to reinforce a crumbling theoretical edifice. How can we trust these people with an objective analysis of the EU when they cannot see that the real "crackpots" and fringe elements are within their own ranks?
And the real pseudoscience is being taught within the ivy covered buildings of our most prestigious universities! They should heed the advice of (unknown source) someone who once said:
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
From reading your above posts, I am not clear on a few things.
Are these 'mythbusters,' the Mythbusters of the Discovery Channel?
Also, which is the 'myth' that is being busted? ...
1) the Tunguska 'airburst' concept by conventional mechanical forces
or
2) the EU concept of a combination of mechanical and electrical forces, with an emphasis on the latter?
Well, whoever they are, I would have serious reservations of their abilities to duplicate (scale down forces proportionally) the relationships between electrical (relative charges of the Earth and incoming piece of Comet Enke) and mechanical (size, composition, mass, velocity, trajectory, impact with the atmosphere) forces. If the assumed ratios or proportions of these forces were not realisticly recreated (this goes to the complexity of the original event) the experiment would yield questionable results and be of dubious value. In addition, I cannot help but wonder if this is really going to be an objective experiment or is it being viewed by the 'mythbusters' as a forgone conclusion that the EU is not meritous of serious study and the experiment is simply a means of disposing of an already proven "CP" theory?
Personally, I would like to dispense with Tunguska for now, and see some experimentation of a more general nature. For instance, how about an experiment involving the interactions of two charged spheres (a la Birkelands' Terella) in a tenuous plasma, changing relative positions and approaches, at differing velocities, angles, and distances from each other. What are the general effects? do sparks fly between the spheres? what if the spheres are of widely differing combinations of relative sizes, rotational velocities, velocities with respect to each other, and electrical charges? What is the effect on magnetic fields, such as the possibility of reversals of polarity? Did Birkeland, or anybody elaborate on the Terella experiment in a similar manner? Is there any published work on this or similar lines? Study of these many and varied scenarios could lend much to our understanding of the behaviour of charged celestial bodies in relation to each other in collision or near collision events.
I think that would be interesting, indeed! and would in turn shed much light on the Tunguska event.
It is not so simple as that, because the Earth is moving with a [url2=http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... data2.html]mean orbital velocity[/url2] of some 29.8 km/sec! Did the chunk of rock hit head on, from the side, or "rear end" the Earth? for instance a head on collision could be in effect the velocity of the chunk added to the Earth's velocity, or if rear ended, the effect felt would be the speed of the chunk minus the Earth's velocity... or somewhere in between these two extreme cases. Furthermore, we don't know what conditions or encounters the chunk has experienced over its' history, it could have had its' speed slowed or sped up by encounters with other bodies. Then there is the problem of angular momentum, wouldn't Enke and the chunk have widely different orbital velocities depending on their positions in their elliptical orbits? Assumptions based on the velocity of Enke could be very far from the reality of the Tunguska event.sluimers wrote: I'm trying to find more information about the composition and speed of the Tunguska meteor.
It is likely a fragment from comet 2P\Encke according to both mainstream and EU science.
Does that mean the Tunguska meteor would have roughly the same speed as comet Encke has now?
It is a coinicidence that the probe was lost during the maneuver (approaching Enke) however, 100 to 160 km seems to be a "safe" distance, but I don't know? Then there is the "Deep Impact" mission to Comet Tempel 1.sluimers wrote:And did the NASA space probe who was supposed to study comet Encke blow up when it came too close?
Again, good luck with your efforts!Don Scott wrote: http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?art ... mpact#dest
Do you remember the “Deep Impact” experiment a year or so ago – NASA threw a block of copper into a comet. They said this head-on collision was going to produce a crater on the comet and the photographs they would take of the shape of this new crater were going to tell us what the comet was made of. A colleague of mine, Wal Thornhill, made a real prediction: Because of the properties of the plasma surrounding the Sun (sometimes called the “solar wind”) Wal suggested that the onrushing comet would be at a different voltage from the block of copper. Therefore, just before the physical collision, there would be a spark discharge, a flash that would precede the main collision. This is exactly what happened. NASA said “What you see is something really surprising”. They could not explain it. The reaction of mainstream astrophysics – even after Thornhill’s prediction had been so singularly correct, so on the mark – was an abrupt, off-hand rejection: “It’s complete cobblers,” said Dr. David Hughes, comet expert and professor of astrophysics at Britain’s University of Sheffield. “Absolute balderdash. Electricity on the surface of a comet? Forget about it. It’s not a contender.” Those who refuse to learn are doomed to continuing ignorance.
Nick C
-
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:38 am
Re: Does EU rule out the air burst idea for the Tunguska event?
Where do you think Jamie and Adam get their crazy ideas?Are these 'mythbusters,' the Mythbusters of the Discovery Channel?
Don't you ever see them talking about "This is something we got from internet..." or "We're going to redo the myth because viewers have pointers out on the internet.."
This is one of their boards on the fan forum:
So I highly suspect the forum moderators are the ones who check out if the myth is worthy or not.SHOW IDEAS CONTEST SUBMISSION BOARD
Post your submission for the Show Ideas Contest here. If it does not follow the rules posted in the sticky, it will be deleted. All material and ideas you submit on the Show Ideas Board becomes the property of Beyond Productions Pty Limited ("Beyond") and may be reproduced, modified and distributed as Beyond sees fit in any medium and for any purpose. You hereby assign to Beyond all rights in any material that you submit and you warrant that you waive all moral rights in such material.
the EU concept of course! To them it belongs in the Oogie Boogie board for sure.Also, which is the 'myth' that is being busted? ...
I think it's possible they can get convinced to get it on the show once the idea and experiment is worked out well enough.
Explosions are always give good ratings on that show, so a story about a 5 megaton exploding meteor destroying a small part of Siberia recreated at small scale should be interesting enough.
The latter I think, but I cannot help but wonder what will come of this.I cannot help but wonder if this is really going to be an objective experiment or is it being viewed by the 'mythbusters' as a forgone conclusion that the EU is not meritous of serious study and the experiment is simply a means of disposing of an already proven "CP" theory?
I'd like to see that too, but I think explosions will fare better on the mythbusters show.Personally, I would like to dispense with Tunguska for now, and see some experimentation of a more general nature. For instance, how about an experiment involving the interactions of two charged spheres (a la Birkelands' Terella) in a tenuous plasma, changing relative positions and approaches, at differing velocities, angles, and distances from each other. What are the general effects? do sparks fly between the spheres? what if the spheres are of widely differing combinations of relative sizes, rotational velocities, velocities with respect to each other, and electrical charges? What is the effect on magnetic fields, such as the possibility of reversals of polarity? Did Birkeland, or anybody elaborate on the Terella experiment in a similar manner? Is there any published work on this or similar lines? Study of these many and varied scenarios could lend much to our understanding of the behaviour of charged celestial bodies in relation to each other in collision or near collision events.
I think that would be interesting, indeed! and would in turn shed much light on the Tunguska event.
Yeah, I was afraid of that... luckily I have found an estimated speed though.It is not so simple as that, because the Earth is moving with a mean orbital velocity of some 29.8 km/sec! Did the chunk of rock hit head on, from the side, or "rear end" the Earth? for instance a head on collision could be in effect the velocity of the chunk added to the Earth's velocity, or if rear ended, the effect felt would be the speed of the chunk minus the Earth's velocity... or somewhere in between these two extreme cases. Furthermore, we don't know what conditions or encounters the chunk has experienced over its' history, it could have had its' speed slowed or sped up by encounters with other bodies. Then there is the problem of angular momentum, wouldn't Enke and the chunk have widely different orbital velocities depending on their positions in their elliptical orbits? Assumptions based on the velocity of Enke could be very far from the reality of the Tunguska event.
Since 1 % 1, 1 * 1 and 1 - 1 do not add up, we must conclude that 1 + 1 is 3.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests