Welcome Guest!
 Previous Message All Messages Next Message 
Also: searches, to date, as i understand it, have conRe: [Elfrad-Group]
Just a
 Jan 01, 2002 16:36 PST 
David Thomson wrote:

        Are we counting comets as bolides?

 We do need better and more concise terminology in these matters.
In short, when I talk about bolides, I'm talking about any body
entering the atmosphere and producing an electroacoustic sound.
(This is just my understanding and not necessarily a scientific

If it is a local definition, we can hardly expect NASA
explanations to match its properties.

Further, i gently suggest that to lump all 'objects
entering the atmosphere' together seems rather like
lumping apples and oranges, since they are both 'fruits'.
Or expecting a common set of behaviours from cats, elephants
and horses, which all have 4 legs and tails...

(The above link has interesting information relevant to ELF waves.)

        And because THIS 'thing' does not act in such a way does not
         mean the next (larger, different composition, faster, different
         angle of entry) may not have a differnt affect.

 There has been research into meteor strikes, bolides, and disintegrating
spacecraft. Some research suggests that a low flying meteorite could
produce strong electrostatic charges in the atmosphere, just as Tesla did.

I suggest that the rapid (one might say explosive)
disintegration of an reentering 'thing' seems capable
of producing the effects without electroacoustics.


 I will concede that it could be possible for such a bolide to exist that
would explain the Tunguska event. But from the data I have read, the
meteorite would have to be huge.

They appear to come in a variety of sizes. And compositions.

 There is no trace of any kind of a physical exploded object at the
Tunguska site.

The simulations indicate an airburst. An event some number of
miles high in the atmosphere. Any debris might well be
so small as to be not readily identifiable. If, for instance,
a cometary like object, the mass would 'boil' (an inexact term)
to gas.

 And even if the object were small and completely vaporized,

Large objects can completely vaporize. All that is needed is
enough energy. As from a fast, large, object.

 but caused a freak electrostatic voltage peak, which in turn used the
energy from the Schumann cavity to generate the explosion, then that
would mean there were two viable candidates for the explosion at that
time. Nikola Tesla and a freak bolide.

I fail to see the neccessity for an electroacoustic affect.
(Tho i cannot disprove them...)
One can calculate the energy in a range of sizes of
incoming objects. One can calculate the resultant 'explosion'
if such an object more or less completely disrupts due
to atmospheric drag. For certain, plausible, sizes and
speeds, the numbers match the estimated output, based on the
size of the flattened area. (I haven't doen the maths,
others have.)

 It's interesting to note that there are several thousands bolides
hitting the earth every year.

I'd say more like several thosand a day. Mostly ice.
Mostly unrecognized until 10 years ago, wehn someone picked
out there images in certain photos. NASA (et al) now
accept them. A strong case can be made that most of the
water on earth arrived this way. (Isotopic analysis...)

 In July of 2001 there was something that scorched a corn field in
Pennsylvania. It made the news. Later, NASA published an article
say that meteorites don't pop corn.

I've no idea if its relavent to the Tunguska Event.

 In the above NASA explanation of a bolide,

I thought bolide was alocally defined term?
(cf above)
Is NASA using it?

 scientists state that there would be some kind of fragments.

That's THAT event. Many differnt kinds of objects, with
different compositions arrive all the time. Comments from
NASA (or elsewhere) concerning any one event may not apply to

 They also make several contradicting claims. They claim in spite of
reports of an explosion, that bolides are relatively cold and don't
produce scorching heat.

Did NASA use the term bolide?

 They claim this object was likely 30 or more metric tons in mass and
1 to 2 meters across, yet there were no sizable impact craters.

Is their any indication that the cornfield in PA involved
a re-entering object?

 Now if the object were 1 to 2 meters across with several tons mass,
I know for a fact that either there would be clear signs
of debris or a very visible crater.

Others differ. Such like disintegrate, constantly, daily, high
in the atmosphere. (cf above. I've not got a nice web
refernce, but they are out there...). How much pf an
object arrives at gorund depends on what the mass,
composition and speed and angle of the arriving object are.

 And if the object were completely vaporized, then there had to be a
tremendous amount of heat. It has to be one way or the other,

I fail to see why.
The real world is a fairly complex place, with a range of

 either a solid piece survived or there was a tremendous amount of heat
(if the bolide truly had mass.) Now I'm not a blind sheep. I'm not
going to sit quietly while science feeds me this kind of junk science.

I fail to see junk science here. Different events have
different causes. Differnt causes produce differnt

 And I would like to know what really happened to that corn field.

It would be interesting.
Therea re many things we may never know.

 You can't just trust the established scientific explanation,

Indeed. Nor need i reflexively distrust one. Especially
when it is plausible and simpler than alternatives.

 and we never could. Back when the Catholic Church ruled science, the
earth was flat and the center of the universe and that was the
official position. Galileo was ridiculed for speaking the truth,
which went against the established opinion.

Last i looked NASA does not excommunicate people.

 I'm using words of modern day science to show that modern day science
is not telling us the truth. Every expert in the field should
immediately see inconsistencies and unanswered questions of the
"science" presented to us as truth.

If they are there. We may differ on that.

 They can't say out of one breath that Tunguska was caused by a
meteor or huge size and left no debris and then say in another
breath that a meteor of small size would produce a crater and
leave debris.

Sure they could:
May have been different sorts of objects, at differnt
speeds, of differnt compositions and of differnt masses.

 It has to be one way or the other.

IF there is only one kind, size, speed of object.
I suggest this is unlikely.

 I would be among the first to conclude that a meteor caused the
Tunguska event if any residual meteor material had been found.

cf above on airburst. All may have arrived as fine dust.
[also cf below....]
cf previous [postings:
there ARE 'genetic anomalies' in the local plant life,
tho at a low enough rate that nuclear does not seem to be
involved and looking for specifically radiological
traces ('fallout') has yielded essentially nothing.
The low level anomalies are consistent with arrival of
low levels of random metals, etc, eg, the 'dirt' in
a dirty snowball (comet) or the residual bits of
either sort of metorite.
Also, it occurs to me, as i write this, that searches to
date have concentrated in the 'center'. Assume there
WAS an airburst. Assume there were some number of large
fragments. The aerodynamics of such, notably the
inertia, of such (if present) might well carry them
away from the center, indeed, out of the zone of
felled trees entirely. SOMEplace in Siberia MIGHT BE
large chunks.

 But nearly 100 years later, Tunguska still has no smoking gun.

I suggest, as above, there are several:
Arrival of opbject during known 'meteor' shower'.
Visual track of object across Russia
Good correlation of damage footprint with
arrival track angle and plausible range of
'white night's, world wide, following, indicating
A large amount of 'dust' deposited (as from air burst)
in the atmosphere.
chemical and genetic anomalies in the local plant life
and soils.

 The evidence shows that the explosion occurred above ground (the
butterfly pattern,) not on impact.
There was no radiation at the Tunguska site, discounting any kind of
nuclear explosion.


 Since NASA is stating that a bolide does not produce enough heat
for a thermal explosion, then the exploding bolide theory is in doubt.

Did NASA make such a statement ABOUT A HYPOTHETICAL Tunguska
object, or a probably smaller object associated with a
cornfield in PA?

Did NASA use the term biolide?

 The only reasonable explanation for the Tunguska explosion is that
something created a freak electrostatic charge between the ionosphere
and the earth that resulted in a huge lightning bolt (just like the
ocean experiences huge waves called tsunamis, or the land experiences
huge waves called earthquakes.)

I suggest that the reentry of any of several classes of
natural objects account nidely. cf above.

 A huge lightning bolt could cause the above-ground explosion, leave no
debris, make a sound heard for hundreds of miles, and provide a
streak of light in the sky.

Stretching for, literally, 100s, perhaps, thousands, of
miles (as the pre Tunguska sightings did?

 I grant that the large electrostatic charge may have been initiated
by a bolide hitting the atmosphere under unusual conditions. Perhaps
the unusual conditions were in part created by Nikola Tesla.

I suggest, as above, that the entirely natural explanation
dependent on entering object also accounts, in a simpler manner,
for all effects.

Others propose other explanations.

 Previous Message All Messages Next Message 
  Check It Out!

  Topica Channels
 Best of Topica
 Art & Design
 Books, Movies & TV
 Food & Drink
 Health & Fitness
 News & Information
 Personal Finance
 Personal Technology
 Small Business
 Travel & Leisure
 Women & Family

  Start Your Own List!
Email lists are great for debating issues or publishing your views.
Start a List Today!

© 2001 Topica Inc. TFMB
Concerned about privacy? Topica is TrustE certified.
See our Privacy Policy.