Spain Superbolide Meteor 13JUL2012 (with link to footage)

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by FireballStorm
 


Interesting idea about "shaped charge" like effects. I'm not convinced that that would be possible/probable though. The main problem is that in both examples we are talking about, the objects appear to have exploded at high altitude, so what is the force of the shaped charge being directed at?

Oh, I think I meant an impactor on earth. But also if you think about something a half mile in diameter or larger, it may collapse upon itself as it explodes, compressing some air pocket or cave in its innards as the shock wave moved through the object. That becomes like the "gun tube" bomb? Pieces of burning stuff forced back onto itself in some pocket or plasma wave fronts meeting on a rock to "compress" it.

You see the remnants of meteor or comet strikes (even Tunguska) are all very small, some are glass or metal spheroids, just like after a nuke test. How come only minute bits remain? Thats one hella explosion to vaporize megatons of matter in the atmosphere.


As far as I'm aware, for a sustainable nuclear reaction to occur, the fissionable material has to be very pure, otherwise it's basically just a "dirty bomb". Perhaps that is just what Tunguska was - a big "dirty bomb".

Thats what I am getting at. Fission chain reaction (not fusion), that kicks the size and destructive force of the event beyond purely kinetic... to Atomic. Also a man made device is small and must be carefully designed to close tolerance to "detonate hi order". An asteroid pushing all that energy ahead of itself for prolonged seconds may heat to a level...then explode. Of course over eons, the residual radioactivity would decay and be gone by now. But there is Tunguska. Just a theory I have turning like a worm in my brain. Know any accredited physicists where you are?


That still perhaps does not explain the Shumacher Levy 9 "discrepancy", but have you checked for followups, and have you checked if Shumacher (and others?) didn't take some aspect into account/underestimated the plume visibility/size? There must be some papers on the subject?

The idea that an asteroid or comet impact would go nuclear is dismissed out of hand by everybody in the industry. Not possible. Not enough energy. Temperature not high enough. Purely kinetic. Case closed.

I pick brains. The study of impacts is a yet to be understood science because nobody has been near enough a big one and took readings (yet).

I dunno. Maybe the man made impactor at Temple One? Deep Impact. The one "connected" guy I asked to see the spectrograph charts on told me they were "none of my business".


So sad. Them snobs at the space agencies guard their little paradigm closely. Any way. I am out... thanks again for your time...




posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
You see the remnants of meteor or comet strikes (even Tunguska) are all very small, some are glass or metal spheroids, just like after a nuke test. How come only minute bits remain? Thats one hella explosion to vaporize megatons of matter in the atmosphere.


Remember, after the object breaks up, the pieces are still traveling at extreme velocity, and being ablated away. Large pieces are more likely to have flaws, so they break up further, and further - often till only plasma remains.

The high temperature plasma within the fireball will obviously help the process along, melting any large remaining bits.

In the case of an actual impact with the ground, all the energy is released instantaneously (since the object goes from cosmic velocity to zero), and yes that means massive amounts of energy. I'm sure you are aware that recent research has pointed to lake Cheko as the possible impact site of the Tunguska object. I think spheroids are implicated in actual ground impacts, rather than atmospheric explosions, and are mostly composed of terrestrial material thrown up from the blast.


Originally posted by intrptr
The idea that an asteroid or comet impact would go nuclear is dismissed out of hand by everybody in the industry. Not possible. Not enough energy. Temperature not high enough. Purely kinetic. Case closed.


Perhaps with good reason - it takes massive amounts of energy to split an atom.

As I'm sure you're aware, to produce a nuclear blast, a bomb must be very carefully engendered to focus energy in the right place - it seems unlikely to me that this could happen by pure chance in the case of an impact from a natural object.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and so are the experts, but without some evidence that the energy can end up concentrated enough, I think you'll find it very hard to to convince anyone who is knowledgeable about the subject, that it could be possible.

I wish I could be more help, but what we are discussing is a bit outside my sphere of experience. I certainly wouldn't discourage you from following it up, but I suspect it will be hard going to convince anyone that it might be possible if you don't have a degree in a related field.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by FireballStorm
 


As I'm sure you're aware, to produce a nuclear blast, a bomb must be very carefully engendered to focus energy in the right place - it seems unlikely to me that this could happen by pure chance in the case of an impact from a natural object.

Right. The devices man conjures to produce even fission are carefully configured to produce enough energy but only for a moment. That is a very carefully built device, like you said. I t raises temperature and pressure to the point of splitting a few atoms in an instant. What about over a duration of time and pressure? When we first conversed we both looked at this.


Only captured evidence of sustained heat and pressure on the planet. In this case we have no certainty (albeit guesses) what the size, composition, velocity and duration of the event was. I can tell you the pressure and heat were enormous... and building. Given enough time, the entire surface of the object is elevated to white hot plasma. Add a bounce (like I saw once) and....

Perhaps I'm wrong, and so are the experts, but without some evidence that the energy can end up concentrated enough, I think you'll find it very hard to to convince anyone who is knowledgeable about the subject, that it could be possible.

I could be wrong too. Purely un accredited and un connected banter from somebody way down in the basement (where all the good discoveries are made). Thanks for playing along and humoring me though. I will retain the notion that we as humans don't really understand the nuances yet. Primarily because we don't yet have any evidence either way. Just hints.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
I t raises temperature and pressure to the point of splitting a few atoms in an instant. What about over a duration of time and pressure?


That is exactly the opposite of what you want if you want to spit atoms. Spreading out the energy over time dilutes, rather than concentrates the energy, which is counter productive if you want to split atoms.

I think it's a shame that an expert won't take the time to explain the factors that make what you are suggesting an unlikely scenario.

Have you tried a google search for "ask a scientist" (or similar wording - you could try substituting the word "expert" for scientist)? I know there are forums out there that will forward on questions to the appropriate people.

I do agree with you though, that there are likely lots of nuances yet to be understood in our scientific knowledge in general.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by FireballStorm
 


That is exactly the opposite of what you want if you want to spit atoms. Spreading out the energy over time dilutes, rather than concentrates the energy, which is counter productive if you want to split atoms.

Sorry you misunderstood. The heating up of the matter in the fireball is the part that occurs over time. The pressures on the leading edge in that plasma that is facing the "wind" are enormous... then the BOUNCE occurs on the atmosphere. There are many similarities too what I am trying to convey.

For instance (very lo) energy impact. Drop something free fall speed onto water. "Like" hitting concrete, right?
Heres another. Have you heard that putting a sheet of ordinary paper over an explosive charge on the ground will make a deeper crater than if you just lay the charge on the ground uncovered? Its called "tamping", I think.

Anyway, at increased pressures and temperatures you get "force multipliers". Adding that up in the atmosphere with a sizable object (miles across?) you get this combined effect.

1 heat Plasma
2 pressure (velocity)
3 sudden bounce or skip in atmosphere
4 collapse of craters, pockets or caves inside the ateroid or comet, such that pressure goes up an up momentarily, leading to small amount of matter going critical.

The two things that raised my hackles about this was, Jupiter impact plumes were HUGE compared to reported size of splinters and, the residual radioactivity around Tunguska in tree rings facing fireball. Three things really... the one I saw skipping on the atmosphere in my childhood. I wish I could convey to you how violent those bounces were.

Until there is better results from a larger impact in the public sector, I am holding onto this. They could make public the spectrometer readings taken during initial phase of Deep Impact too.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


Why fission? this looks more likely to be a fusion kind of thing. we've got Silicon and Carbon based meteors.... they are below iron in the fusion chain, so will, given enough temperature/pressure/plasma confinement, fuse.

the recent russian event gave a blast 40x larger than tunguska, after glowing brighter than the sun. the blast (not bow shock-wave) occured after 2 minutes, not 5 which would have been expected from the entry parameters. so it occured closer to earth, probably after the meteor reached peak brightness (plasma formation due to ram pressures). i'm not good on math anymore, but that's going to be really really hot, with really really high pressure. on an ionised substrate. hallmarks of fusion experiments....



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by flowirin
the recent russian event gave a blast 40x larger than tunguska


Are you sure about that?

NASA has estimated the Chelyabinsk event to be equivalent to about 500 kilotons of TNT, whilst the 1908 Tunguska blast has been estimated at around 10–15 megatons of TNT.

That makes Tunguska at least 20x larger than Chelyabinsk.

You're certainly not lying when you say your maths is not good anymore!

My maths is terrible too by the way!



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by FireballStorm
 

Hey mentor...

what did you think of what else he said?


The blast (not bow shock-wave) occured after 2 minutes, not 5 which would have been expected from the entry parameters. so it occured closer to earth, probably after the meteor reached peak brightness (plasma formation due to ram pressures)

---

but that's going to be really really hot, with really really high pressure. on an ionised substrate. hallmarks of fusion experiments....

I now have a whole other follower in my camp. You saw the russian event.... still say only kinetic?

It would be interesting to hear about any conjecture in the information pipeline...has anyone else raised this yet? After any reply, I have some direct evidence of my own from the event.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by flowirin
 

Hey flowirin, welcome to ATS! I gave you your first star for that reply. I posted a reply to Fireballstorm (meteor Jedi is he) about what you said here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by FireballStorm
 

Hey mentor...

what did you think of what else he said?


The blast (not bow shock-wave) occured after 2 minutes, not 5 which would have been expected from the entry parameters. so it occured closer to earth, probably after the meteor reached peak brightness (plasma formation due to ram pressures)

---

but that's going to be really really hot, with really really high pressure. on an ionised substrate. hallmarks of fusion experiments....

I now have a whole other follower in my camp. You saw the russian event.... still say only kinetic?

It would be interesting to hear about any conjecture in the information pipeline...has anyone else raised this yet? After any reply, I have some direct evidence of my own from the event.


Well I really don't know enough about fusion to be able to comment on that side of things, apart from knowing that nuclei fuse together in the process to produce heavier elements than to begin with. So with that in mind, I suspect that if there was fusion occurring, those heavier elements would probably be detectable. If that is the case, I'm sure we would know about it, or will find out about it after the meteorites have been studied.

Regarding the shock-wave from the blast, how long it took to reach would depend on how far away the observer was. Without first knowing that, it's hard to comment on the matter. I also don't see what entry parameters have to do with anything here.

And yes, I still think kinetic energy is all that is needed. Massive amounts of power can potentially be stored in the form of kinetic energy, which is why "rods from the gods" is considered a viable concept.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by FireballStorm
 

Agreed on fusion... much higher temp required for that. You and I talked about "fission" before here. The radioactive elements present in the KT boundary? The Tunguska radioactivity in tree rings? The enormous "plumes" over Jupiter?

Does temperature reach "critical" levels in a fireball plasma front, if even for a moment? I told you I had some "evidence" from the Russian fireball video...

Watch this. Focus your attention on the sound of the radio playing in the background. At exactly :36 seconds there is a short "whoosh" noise (like an incoming artillery round). Listen again. Do you hear it?


The radio station sounds "live" but all stations work on a delay. The moment when the fireball is brightest is short but so is that sound. Could the radio broad cast have captured that EMP like noise from the fireball itself? What would cause that? Is plasma a form of lightning? Or is it something else? Hmmm...

---

"Rods from God" are expen$ive to orbit and difficult to guide from space. If the targets move or change direction (like a tank, ship or plane) in the "terminal homing phase". Also orbits decay, need too many "platforms" to counter delay times of orbiting satellites, etc. Nice "Star Wars" theory.

We already have means. Depleted Uranium is formed into "arrows" or "darts" and fired "line of sight" from tanks and aircraft to destroy any heavily armored ground targets. This is the reality of already deployed "Rods from God".

Pics...



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
Does temperature reach "critical" levels in a fireball plasma front, if even for a moment?


I'm not even sure what temperature would have to be to be described as being critical, let alone what kind of temperatures would be present during such an event.


Originally posted by intrptr
The radio station sounds "live" but all stations work on a delay. The moment when the fireball is brightest is short but so is that sound. Could the radio broad cast have captured that EMP like noise from the fireball itself? What would cause that?
[/url]

It sounds like ordinary radio interference (white noise) to me. It also occurs at around 53 seconds in. EMPs travel at the speed of light, so you would expect them to be picked up by the radio at the same time as the asteroid disintegrated.


Originally posted by intrptr
Is plasma a form of lightning?


No, but plasma is created when lightning occurs.



Originally posted by intrptr
"Rods from God" are expen$ive to orbit and difficult to guide from space. If the targets move or change direction (like a tank, ship or plane) in the "terminal homing phase". Also orbits decay, need too many "platforms" to counter delay times of orbiting satellites, etc. Nice "Star Wars" theory.

We already have means. Depleted Uranium is formed into "arrows" or "darts" and fired "line of sight" from tanks and aircraft to destroy any heavily armored ground targets. This is the reality of already deployed "Rods from God".


Yeah, this is true. I never said they were cost-efficient or practical, but they would still be devastatingly powerful if properly implemented - much more so than conventional DU projectiles.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by FireballStorm
 


It sounds like ordinary radio interference (white noise) to me. It also occurs at around 53 seconds in. EMPs travel at the speed of light, so you would expect them to be picked up by the radio at the same time as the asteroid disintegrated.

At :53? I think thats a car going in the opposite direction. Sounds just like the noise at :36 (something going by). I checked for that. I thought radio stations operate on a time delay of a few seconds? I was thinking if the signal was picked up and rebroadcast from another satellite or repeater and the delay incorporated.... aww, never mind.

You could shoot at enemies on the earth from the moon too... but the cost per GodRod to even lift things to earth orbit is currently 10,000 dollars per pound.

Expensive penetration.

We don't need them. Its a fantasy-- errr, distraction. A "close" one of these will do. They make the actual penetrator from 155mm Howitzer cannon barrels packed with HE.

Have a nice day!







top topics
 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join