link to Home Page

Re: Planet X: TUNGUSKA as Example

In Article <> J. William Dell wrote:
> This theory is as valid as any other.
> The Tunguska event has been a one off and highly unusual.
> Theories ranging from meteor to anti matter have been
> proposed but all lack certainty.
> Methane gas is a possibility.

This issue was discussed during the 1997 sci.astro debates, when Jim
Scotti engaged the Zetas in debate.  Here's a page from the past ...


Article: <5gid56$>
From: Nancy Lieder
Subject: Re: TUNGUSKA
Date: 17 Mar 1997

In article <5ga2j0$> Jim Scotti writes:
> Space junk re-enters at a shallow angle at relatively low
> velocity and is generally low density, so it is easily slowed
> before being vaporized at lower altitudes. A meteor is
> relatively dense, entering at a higher angle and traveling
> at velocities more than twice as high as a man-made
> satellite.

    The slowing process is relative to density? Not so!
    The drag is relative to the SIZE of the object, the air
    friction that develops. Drop several objects of the
    same SIZE from an airplane, and unless one is shaped
    differently from the other, to put it into a glide rather
    than a plummet, they both will fall at an equivalent
    rate. Likewise, the angle of entry makes NO difference,
    unless you are talking about a shuttle or airplane.
    These require the angle to be such that air pressure
    under their wings will give the pilots CONTROL for
    landing, rather than a nose dive which puts the
    shuttle out of control. An object entering the
    atmosphere at a sharp angle soon begins a direct
    plummet, depending upon its speed at entry and the
    angle. Any large meteor is dropping straight down
    before impact, and any large piece of space junk is
    doing likewise.

    If you think meteors vaporize before impact, where
    all your evidence points to object burning on the
    outside but NOT vaporizing, then how did the
    Yucatan crater hole happen? Did the Earth not
    have an atmosphere in the past?


In article <5ga2j0$> Jim Scotti writes:
>> 2. You have the meteor dropping through the atmosphere
>> at a steady high speed, ignoring utterly the braking effect
>> that air, like water, has.
>>     ZetaTalk™
> The meteor is decelerated by the atmosphere .. The
> Tunguska meteor was still moving at high speed, however
> and the final deceleration is integral to the dissipation of the
> high kinetic energy and final explosion.

    Because your argument fail, you grasp something
    that cannot be proven! You've given this mythical
    meteor a fantastic speed, so that is deals with a
    situation never seen on Earth, and thus no one is
    supposed to be able to challenge the argument! You
    in fact don't KNOW that a meteor entered the
    atmosphere, much less its speed! The flash across
    the sky fits our scenario, the methane gas scenario,
    as well as yours.

    Compare your argument of deceleration to an
    experiment that can be performed on Earth. Water
    brakes objects coming into it. Depending upon the
    aquadynamic shape, for instance of a diver forming
    a spear shape, or the speed, for instance a bullet
    fired into the water, the braking action would differ.
    Nevertheless, at 100 meters, both objects would be
    at rest in the water, regardless of shape or speed.


In article <5ga2j0$> Jim Scotti writes:
>> 3. You have the meteor heating at the center to such an
>> extent that an explosion occurs, ignoring the evidence
>> your own shuttles have that air friction heats from the
>> outside in.
>>    ZetaTalk™
> The meteor does not heat from the center. The aerodynamic
> stresses shatter the object from the outside. ... The interior
> of the meteor does not have enough time to be heated by the
> friction of the atmosphere on its surface.

    Here you have this meteor, which presumably was
    FORMED due to distress such as an explosion, as
    it is irregularly shaped and not round as a molten
    object that subsequently hardened would be, unable
    to take the stress of encountering AIR. This is not an
    immovable object meeting an irresistable force. The
    air would move, and the meteor slowed by this
    relatively gentle braking action. To cap it all off, you
    have this mythical disintegration of a HUGE meteor
    such that it falls apart into such tiny pieces of dust
    that NONE can be located! This is dust, barely held
    together, that managed to streak across the sky and
    travel through space all those eons? Your argument
    is absurd!