Reasearching Plausibility of Asian Asteroid Impact

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 12:15 PM
off the street

I must say I agree with you - It seems rather impossible to me that an impactor with dimensions capable of altering Earths axial tilt would not be seen by anyone Even if it impacted at 90 degrees over the horizon you would think there would be some witnesses. I will say though it may still be a possibilty because say at 30km / sec ( I think that is roughly the speed of thes bodies ) if it entered the atmosphere in perpendicularly to the oceans surface - the time that it would have been visible would have been very short - in fact if my thinking is correct I will take 30 km / sec into the depth of the atmosphere ( for arguments sake lets say 100 km ) that would leave a window for visual eyewitnesses of no more than 3.5 seconds . not long at all - considering the time of day it seems possible to me at least that it was witnessed perhaps by very few. It is also possible that those that may have seen it ( those outside near the coast ) are now likely part of the vast casualty pool.

Although the epicenter is very near some subjuncting tectonic plates , the actual center is KM from it. If I am to accept the Earthquake theory - I will need to compare the exact epicenter coordinates to the 3 other 9.0 or greater quakes in reorded history and compare them in relation to the actual fault lines. I have not yet done this - I will post my results.

I dont know about the satelitte imagery as actually being of any useful consequnce. I doubt that there is a global conspiracy to keep the truth supressed from the public, but then again I just can't rule out the possibility entirely.

Probability and possibilty - I an sure we could debate the difference here for hours. The probablility in my mind is of no import. The fact is that it ios a certainty that Earth will indeed be struck by these celestial bodies, the only factor worth debate is when, not if. Why not now? There is statisically no certainty that we are immune from immediate impact. I started some other threads stating that we are indeed overdue for a major impact , taking into account known impact dates throughtout Earths history and charted against great extinctions in the Biota. There is no argumnet in the scientific world that such mass extinctions occured and indeed current thought i s that asteroidal / cometary impacts may indeed be a mjor sacue. This is really here nor there as I am sure you agree with me on these points.

Back to Sumatra

heres some math

Let's estimate dimensions of asteroid. It had mass ma, initial velocity va and kinetic energy

E=ma va2/2 (6)

When it fell on Earth, it partly lose its mass due to partial burning in atmosphere, however by gravitational field of Earth it gained additional speed:

Dv = (2gR)1/2 ~ 10 000 m/s

where g=9.8 m/s2, and R is radius of Earth, R=6366 km. Therefore when it fell on Earth, it had energy

Ea = (ma - Dm) (va + Dv)2 / 2

it was of order of magnitude about 1025 J (#2). Since speed of asteroid is ~30 kilometers per second, then

va + Dv ~ 40 000 m/s

Therefore, according to (5), its mass was of order

ma - Dm = 2 E / (va + Dv)2 ~ 1016 kg

Since density r2 of asteroids is of order 2-3 tons per m3, then its radius r at collision with Earth was about

r ~ ((ma - Dm)/r2)1/3 ~ 15 000 m

good luck with that - lol

Flavio Barbiero


The Sumatra event is a huge tragedy regardless of cause. My prayers and thoughts are with the dead and the suffering

posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 12:19 PM
One thing to mention here is the fact that there were many out to sea in this area when the tsunamis were generated. These people were oblivious to what was going on because this type of tsunami was generated from below by the earth heaving up. They probably felt a small swell and didn't pay any attention. I believe that an asteroid impact would have caused a little more surface disruption that those out to sea would have had to deal with. Good post though!!

posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 12:27 PM

Look, stop talking rubbish. Look at were the earthquake was, for god sakes man it is in one of the most tectonically active areas of the world.

In refrence to your last post regarding "not on a fault line" it is very rare for all fault lines to be know, especially in a region such as this.

If a magnitude nine had occured in the middle of the pacific away from any plate boundaries then, yes, I maybe would think you had something, but it didn't.

As for the earthquake waves its geophysics, in the same way that it is possible to work out if an earthquake is an earthquake or a nuclear explosion, when a fault line ruptures it gives out a characteristic set of p, s, and l-waves.

I'm a geologist so I know what I'm talking about, if you want me to drag my university notes out on geophysics then I will. Most of the posts on this forum are usually constructive and interesting to read and I like it when people find stuff out by talking amongst each other. However this one has got out of hand. Stop trying to look for something that isn't there, tens of thousands of people have died, and what I suppose your going to tell me next is how their is a big cover up by the scientist who know its an "asteroid".

[edit on 29-12-2004 by Rock Hunter]

posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 12:30 PM
As for 10km, yes this is fairly shallow, but is completely conceivable.

posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 12:30 PM
Alias Jones

I do not remember where exactly got the picture, someone post it in this web site and when I saw it, save it in to my hard drive, that was in June, sorry for not give you more info, it is in here in the web site but I do not remember exactly where.

posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 12:32 PM
I agree, a tsunami caused by an asteroid impact of this magnitude would be a mile high, not around 20-30ft.

posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 12:33 PM
And it is entierly consistent with what we know about Chandler's wobble that there is a very slight change in the orbital rotation as a result of this quake.

posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 12:34 PM
Its good to see this forum still has people who can think in a scientific and common sense way.

posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 12:39 PM
The Tsuanimi would have been toatly different had it been from an meteor. When the Meteorite hit the water first it would have created a large wave first. WHen it hit the bottom another waver from the gound shock would have been created. There would have been at least 2 major waves. The first being of a different type than the second.

Think about the way a earthquake tsuanimi is created. The earth shifts under water. This creates a large movement of water . THe movement of water produces the large wave which is a tsuinimi . Now think about the differentce in a meteor caused wave. THe meteor hits the water. Water is spewerd up. the same basic thing happens if you throw a pebble into a pool. Then when the meteor selltes on the bottom another wave is created via shock.

It's two different sequences of events. If it had been a meteor then it would be verry appareant.

posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 12:50 PM
Elementary my dear Watson.....

It was a real earthquake

OR- it was an asteroid in which case earthlings would be up in arms (rightfully so) with all the technology in this world and we humans dropped the ball by A. Not seeing it coming
B. Not knowing how to effing stop it

OR- "They" knew about it and let it happen- earth is a tad crowded anyway!

My 2 cents

posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 12:58 PM
Thanks you to all that have taken the time to read this thread. I know that i can get a bit long winded , especially when it comes to anything relating to impact phenomena - my apologies for such the long read.

I am leaning toward tectonic causes for the Tsunami. I cant imagine that no one would have witnessed an impact had that been the case. Also I agree the Tsunami characterstics would varied widely from Tectonic to - asteroidal impact as causal agents.

Nevertheless, I think an informative read , and one I enjoyed putting together .

I wont be back here untill after the holiday , so you all have a safe and happy New year.

Best Regards

Alias Jones

posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 01:39 PM

Alias Jones: At least no one is saying they did. YET. The local population that may have witnessed it are mostly dead.

Contrary to what some people may believe based on inadequate and inaccurate news coverage, for the most part entire cities were not destroyed. I know people in Chennai India and these people are still logging into my website and writing messages. They didn't even mention the tsunami until we asked them about it.

Most of the destruction is within a few blocks of the coastline. Please don't get the incorrect impression that entire cities have been destroyed. I'm sure there are small villages right up against the coast that may have been completely wiped out and/or there may be some low-lying cities that will have suffered more than most. But in most cases the destruction caused by the tsunami is from the beach area to a few blocks inland.

All this is to say that "the local population that may have witnessed it" are not mostly dead. Most of them are still alive.

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in