posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 02:04 PM
Plain and simple, there is too much science and discussion involved in this topic to intelligently discuss this in a place like this. I can boil it
down to laymen's terms, where it will be misconstrued by people that already have thier minds made up (based on their ignorance of computational
fluid dynamics (CPD) to bother.)
I would love to refer you to a few other places online where this can be discussed without the science fiction faction inserting their uneducated and
outlandish views. One you understand some basic (if there is such a thing) computation fluid dynamics, then you can return here and see if anyone
wants to bother to try to keep up with you.
This forum is for looking at blurry gray pictures, pointing out the bucket excavators on the moon, estimating Venus' total population, and blaming
the all knowing (but at the same time incompetent) government for hiding it all from us, lol.
The fact that no one has bothered to discuss this here should tell you something....their all to busy pointing out domes on the moon, skulls on Mars,
spaceships in Saturn's rings, blue whales on Neptune, Mar's flowing water and herds of cattle, etc, to be bothered to understand science..not to
mention ignoring common sense, reason and logic.
But, I admire your insight and desire to find the answers to questions you don't understand. That is the first step, the next step is to pursue those
answers in a responsible manner before coming to a conclusion. I will admit, that to Joe Everybody, what you are concluding through your basic
understand of physics makes sense. But, as with most things, it is more complicated than what you think. Without going into it, yes the discharge from
the impact can be accounted for mathematically. Just remember, gas acts like a solid (or a semi-solid) at high speeds and when under high pressure.
You can jump into a pool from 10 feet up and have smooth landing with little potential for catastrophic results. But jump from a bridge and it's like
hitting a brick wall.