PDA

View Full Version : Tunguska, bizarre theory posed.



xfahctor
2009-Jun-29, 05:35 PM
Let me state first and formost I am NOT advocating this theory, I believe it to be not only impossibly bizzare, but also with out any scientific basis whatsoever. What I am doing is posting it for knowlegable people to disect, pick apart, chuckle over or even to simply solidify one's belief that no matter how stupid you believe yourself to be, there is always someone out there to make you feel a whole lot better about yourself.
I did a search of the forum before posting this one and did find a single thread on the story, but it was mostly a thread chuckling about it. What I am looking for is a more scientific decimation of the idea. I already have a few bits that completely obliterate the notion, such as, the article states that the object that exploded over siberia weighed "over 1 billion tones". Yet we know the object itself was no more than 40-60 meters in size. Would this combined size and wieght make for an object of near impossible density and mass? And would not any object coliding with a 40-60 meter sized object screaming in to the atmosphere at the incredible velocity it traveled at, be a bit like a bug hitting a car on a highway?
Anyway, here's the article, have fun. I am off for a few days with not much to do as the weather is kindy soggy, so yes, this is the best I could find for personal amusement today. Have fun.
http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/6868/56/1/1/

thoth II
2009-Jun-29, 06:08 PM
mass = 1 X 10(9) tons X 10(3) kg/ton (metric ton?)

mass = 1 X 10(12) kg

density = (1X10(12))/(4pi(50)cubed) = 800000 kg/m(3).

I would say no solar system object is nearly that dense. Ice would be about
1000 less dense

xfahctor
2009-Jun-29, 06:29 PM
mass = 1 X 10(9) tons X 10(3) kg/ton (metric ton?)

mass = 1 X 10(12) kg

density = (1X10(12))/(4pi(50)cubed) = 800000 kg/m(3).

I would say no solar system object is nearly that dense. Ice would be about
1000 less dense
I'm a complete idiot when it comes to mathamatics and even with out the calculations you posted, my iddy-biddy pathetic internal math processing brain knew it was an impossible claim the article made, lol. Would this not make the density of this thing near that of a neutron star?

EnigmaPower
2009-Jun-29, 06:32 PM
mass = 1 X 10(9) tons X 10(3) kg/ton (metric ton?)

mass = 1 X 10(12) kg

density = (1X10(12))/(4pi(50)cubed) = 800000 kg/m(3).

I would say no solar system object is nearly that dense. Ice would be about
1000 less dense

I would say you are wrong and so would science. The density of an atomic nucleus is approximately 3 x 10^17 kg/m^3 and I am pretty sure atomic nuclei are objects in the solar system.

xfahctor
2009-Jun-29, 06:44 PM
I would say you are wrong and so would science. The density of an atomic nucleus is approximately 3 x 10^17 kg/m^3 and I am pretty sure atomic nuclei are objects in the solar system.
It would still render the claim made in the article incredibly unlikely though would it not though? Or am I wrong there?

EnigmaPower
2009-Jun-29, 06:50 PM
It would still render the claim made in the article incredibly unlikely though would it not though? Or am I wrong there?

I know nothing of the article nor care nothing about it. however I was only pointing out thoth II's error.

EnigmaPower
2009-Jun-29, 06:53 PM
I'm a complete idiot when it comes to mathamatics and even with out the calculations you posted, my iddy-biddy pathetic internal math processing brain knew it was an impossible claim the article made, lol. Would this not make the density of this thing near that of a neutron star?

Not even close. Then again, that would depend on your definition of close.

classic
2009-Jun-29, 07:01 PM
The Encke's Comet 100,000 tons of ice and dust was proposed many years ago.

I'm still holding out for Tesla and his test firing of transmitter in 1908. Overshooting the North Pole during Peary's attempt to reach the North Pole.

xfahctor
2009-Jun-29, 07:01 PM
Not even close. Then again, that would depend on your definition of close.

ok, thank you for clarifying. if you had to hazzard a guess, what would you say would be a good material to cite as having a similar density to 800000 kg/m(3) ?

EnigmaPower
2009-Jun-29, 07:19 PM
ok, thank you for clarifying. if you had to hazzard a guess, what would you say would be a good material to cite as having a similar density to 800000 kg/m(3) ?

What would be my reason for guessing?

EnigmaPower
2009-Jun-29, 07:32 PM
Read the article. Laughed when I read the proof is paradolia.

Kelfazin
2009-Jun-29, 08:22 PM
I'm a complete idiot when it comes to mathamatics and even with out the calculations you posted, my iddy-biddy pathetic internal math processing brain knew it was an impossible claim the article made, lol. Would this not make the density of this thing near that of a neutron star?


From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star)


Neutron stars have overall densities predicted by the APR EOS of 3.7 to 5.9 × 1017 kg/m³ (2.6 to 4.1 × 1014 times Solar density), which compares with the approximate density of an atomic nucleus of 3 × 1017 kg/m³. The neutron star's density varies from below 1 × 109 kg/m³ in the crust increasing with depth to above 6 or 8 × 1017 kg/m³ deeper inside.

NorthernBoy
2009-Jun-29, 11:07 PM
I would say you are wrong and so would science. The density of an atomic nucleus is approximately 3 x 10^17 kg/m^3 and I am pretty sure atomic nuclei are objects in the solar system.

What a ridiculous contention. When talking about astronomical objects in the solar system, everybody understands that we are referring only to macroscopic objects. To assume that we would include objects twenty plus orders of magnitude smaller is assinine.

novaderrik
2009-Jun-29, 11:08 PM
I would say you are wrong and so would science. The density of an atomic nucleus is approximately 3 x 10^17 kg/m^3 and I am pretty sure atomic nuclei are objects in the solar system.
but do any of them weigh a billion tons?

and this (http://www.metallica.com/videoplayer/mediaplayer.asp?Media_Type=FLV&url=rtmp://cp57092.edgefcs.net/ondemand/flvstreams/metallica_com/2008/de/nightmare2.flv&title=All+Nightmare+Long&desc=Director%3A+Roboshobo+-+Video+Premiere+Date%3A+December+7%2C+2008) is a much better theory about Tunguska..
(warning: there may bee too much TRUTH for some people to take)
it's Commie zombie spores, man..

thoth II
2009-Jun-29, 11:17 PM
ok, thank you for clarifying. if you had to hazzard a guess, what would you say would be a good material to cite as having a similar density to 800000 kg/m(3) ?

that is about 100 times less dense than a white dwarf, so it would have to be something like a white dwarf. For this ridiculous theory to be correct, a white dwarf would have had to explode in earth's atm.

But I don't think any object this size in solar system has anywhere near this density, I'm pretty sure.

EnigmaPower
2009-Jun-29, 11:29 PM
What a ridiculous contention. When talking about astronomical objects in the solar system, everybody understands that we are referring only to macroscopic objects. To assume that we would include objects twenty plus orders of magnitude smaller is assinine.

Asinine? For saying atomic nuclei are denser? OK, if they are not, show the proof or stop being an idiot toward me. Now would you please show me where he said there are no ASTRONOMICAL objects in the solar system that dense. Here is his post. Point out the part that says astronomical object.


mass = 1 X 10(9) tons X 10(3) kg/ton (metric ton?)

mass = 1 X 10(12) kg

density = (1X10(12))/(4pi(50)cubed) = 800000 kg/m(3).

I would say no solar system object is nearly that dense. Ice would be about
1000 less dense

EnigmaPower
2009-Jun-29, 11:31 PM
but do any of them weigh a billion tons?

Never said any did. I just mentioned the density but I am sorry for saying someone here was wrong since it is obvious that I am not one of the "good old boys".

PetersCreek
2009-Jun-29, 11:51 PM
OK, if they are not, show the proof or stop being an idiot toward me.

That'll be enough of that, thank you...quite enough. While I've quoted only one comment by one member, I'm seeing a lack of civility in several posts. Let's put this discussion back on polite terms before more serious measures have to be taken.

antoniseb
2009-Jun-29, 11:59 PM
... since it is obvious that I am not one of the "good old boys".

Well, you had almost 800 posts on the forum under s previous name, so you're getting close to a thousand total. I think that makes you one of the most established members. Is that what you meant by 'good old boys'?

EnigmaPower
2009-Jun-30, 12:04 AM
Well, you had almost 800 posts on the forum under s previous name, so you're getting close to a thousand total. I think that makes you one of the most established members. Is that what you meant by 'good old boys'?

Ok, you are the second mod here to accuse me of being someone else. As I told tusenfem my name and another forum I am registered on I really don't understand the accusations coming from the mods here. Tell you what, I deserve a public apology from you, am I going to get one?

Tucson_Tim
2009-Jun-30, 12:17 AM
Now would you please show me where he said there are no ASTRONOMICAL objects in the solar system that dense. Here is his post. Point out the part that says astronomical object.

I think everyone knew what he meant, including you.

EnigmaPower
2009-Jun-30, 12:20 AM
I think everyone knew what he meant, including you.

Yes I did. He said what he meant and that was



I would say no solar system object is nearly that dense.

and that is why he changed later to say


But I don't think any object this size in solar system has anywhere near this density

So if he can understand his error, why is it that some posters here think it is necessary to claim I was wrong?

Tucson_Tim
2009-Jun-30, 12:25 AM
So if he can understand his error, why is it that some posters here think it is necessary to claim I was wrong?
I don't think his sentence was in error. Yes, the language wasn't laid out with utmost lawyer-like precision. but we all knew what he meant.

CJSF
2009-Jun-30, 12:27 AM
It was clear from the context of his statements that he meant astronomical objects. And is there proof he changed his posts? Everything seems clear to me.

CJSF

EnigmaPower
2009-Jun-30, 12:32 AM
Post #1


mass = 1 X 10(9) tons X 10(3) kg/ton (metric ton?)

mass = 1 X 10(12) kg

density = (1X10(12))/(4pi(50)cubed) = 800000 kg/m(3).

I would say no solar system object is nearly that dense. Ice would be about
1000 less dense

His post #2


that is about 100 times less dense than a white dwarf, so it would have to be something like a white dwarf. For this ridiculous theory to be correct, a white dwarf would have had to explode in earth's atm.

But I don't think any object this size in solar system has anywhere near this density, I'm pretty sure.

Didn't mean he changed it as in edited it. Meant he corrected his statement in his later post so why are you guys defending him?

Tucson_Tim
2009-Jun-30, 12:34 AM
I would probably change the way I worded things too if I knew that posters were analyzing each and every word of my sentences with a microscope.

R.A.F.
2009-Jun-30, 12:40 AM
...he corrected his statement in his later post...

He didn't correct it as much as he clarified it for the "benefit" of certain posters who might have gotten the wrong idea.

EnigmaPower
2009-Jun-30, 12:45 AM
He didn't correct it as much as he clarified it for the "benefit" of certain posters who might have gotten the wrong idea.

Whatever...he saw there was a need to clarify so what is the problem you guys appear to have that I mentioned it? Is it jealousy or again is it that one can't correct one of the good old boys? This forum does discuss scientific things and scientific things require precise language.

R.A.F.
2009-Jun-30, 12:45 AM
...why are you guys defending him?

Because you have not shown us that he made an "error".

EnigmaPower
2009-Jun-30, 12:46 AM
Because you have not shown us that he made an "error".

Are atomic nuclei not objects in the solar system?

pzkpfw
2009-Jun-30, 12:51 AM
I would say no solar system object is nearly that dense. Ice would be about
1000 less dense


Are atomic nuclei not objects in the solar system?

That is an incredibally nit-picky reading of the post.

"Object" clearly (to everyone else) meant macroscopic objects such as Comets.

That one or more of those nuclei would be of great density is hardly the issue. Gosh, for that matter, ordinary Comets are made of atoms and they in turn have a nucleus...

Unless the report linked in the OP claims something like a chunk of a neutron star caused the event - it's been an unrequired 20-something post sidetrack of the thread.

EnigmaPower
2009-Jun-30, 12:55 AM
That is an incredibally nit-picky reading of the post.

"Object" clearly (to everyone else) meant macroscopic objects such as Comets.

That those Comets are in turn made of atoms and they in turn have a nucleus and that one or more of those nuclei alone would be of greater density is hardly the issue.

Unless the report linked in the OP claims something like a chunk of a neutron star caused the event - it's been an unrequired 20-something post sidetrack of the thread.
Yes it has. Regardless of how much of a nit pick it was, thoth II acknowledged it and reworded his post. There was no need for some other posters to act as if I were the one promoting this theory. Nor was there a need for antoniseb to make an accusation about me being another member of which I am anxiously awaiting his public apology.

PraedSt
2009-Jun-30, 12:56 AM
Whatever...he saw there was a need to clarify so what is the problem you guys appear to have that I mentioned it? Is it jealousy or again is it that one can't correct one of the good old boys? This forum does discuss scientific things and scientific things require precise language.
The problem is excessive nit-picking. And maybe your correction would have been better received had you said it jokingly.
Thoth II has less than 200 posts. I don't think that qualifies as "one of the good old boys".
Jealousy? What are the above posters supposed to be jealous of, exactly?

Ronald Brak
2009-Jun-30, 12:56 AM
Typed into google - define: object - First result: A tangible and visible entity; an entity that can cast a shadow; "it was full of rackets, balls and other objects"

Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary definition: A thing presented to sense.

R.A.F.
2009-Jun-30, 12:57 AM
...he saw there was a need to clarify...

...because you were being unreasonably "nitpicky".


Are atomic nuclei not objects in the solar system?

"Objects in the Solar System" (notice the proper use of capitals) are by definition only viewable with the unaided eye, or through a telescope...thereby this excludes atomic nuclei.

See....I can be "nitpicky", too. :lol:

EnigmaPower
2009-Jun-30, 12:58 AM
The problem is excessive nit-picking. And maybe your correction would have been better received had you said it jokingly.
Thoth II has less than 200 posts. I don't think that qualifies as "one of the good old boys".
Jealousy? What are the above posters supposed to be jealous of, exactly?

Don't know and really don't care. Maybe they wish they noticed it before I said something. Maybe they just don't want to see on of their own corrected by an "outsider".

EnigmaPower
2009-Jun-30, 01:00 AM
...because you were being unreasonably "nitpicky".



"Objects in the Solar System" (notice the proper use of capitals) are by definition only viewable with the unaided eye, or through a telescope...thereby this excludes atomic nuclei.

See....I can be "nitpicky", too. :lol:
No actually that is incredibly wrong and a continuation of what a mod already called a derail.

EnigmaPower
2009-Jun-30, 01:01 AM
You came off snarky in your first post to Thoth, which was uncalled for, and makes the rest of us call you out on it.

Thoth made the clarification for your benefit, since the others of us here knew what he meant.

Snarky...boy you guys are overly sensitive.

Kelfazin
2009-Jun-30, 01:04 AM
To be clear, he is quoting a post I deleted with the following reason "didn't notice there was a page 2, my comment adds nothing to the conversation"

R.A.F.
2009-Jun-30, 01:04 AM
No actually that is incredibly wrong...

You're going to have to be more specific...what is "incredibly wrong"?

EnigmaPower
2009-Jun-30, 01:06 AM
You're going to have to be more specific...what is "incredibly wrong"?

Your saying that atomic nuclei are not objects in the solar system. No they are not ASTRONOMICAL objects yet they most certainly are objects. Now can we get back to the topic of this thread or are you going to continue this derail?

Kelfazin
2009-Jun-30, 01:08 AM
Snarky...boy you guys are overly sensitive.

Not overly, no. You were rude to a poster, and now you're trying to justify that by making him part of some clique while you're the "outsider". He's only been a member of this board two months longer than you and has less than 200 posts. We're defending somebody that you were rude to for no apparent reason. We do that kind of stuff around here.

Tucson_Tim
2009-Jun-30, 01:13 AM
Snarky...boy you guys are overly sensitive.

I'll bet that most of those that have posted in this thread have been reprimanded by the mods and other members for being snarky at one time or another - I know I have been guilty a few times.

R.A.F.
2009-Jun-30, 01:13 AM
Your saying that atomic nuclei are not objects in the solar system. No they are not ASTRONOMICAL objects yet they most certainly are objects.

...and the other posters took it for granted that he was speaking about ASTRONOMICAL objects...after all this is an ASTRONOMY FORUM...duh...


Now can we get back to the topic of this thread or are you going to continue this derail?

How would the topic of this thread interest you?


I know nothing of the article nor care nothing about it. however I was only pointing out thoth II's error.

...and just who was "derailing" this thread?

EnigmaPower
2009-Jun-30, 01:13 AM
Not overly, no. You were rude to a poster, and now you're trying to justify that by making him part of some clique while you're the "outsider". He's only been a member of this board two months longer than you and has less than 200 posts. We're defending somebody that you were rude to for no apparent reason. We do that kind of stuff around here.

Yeah...I get called asinine in this thread yet that isn't snarky enough to attack so I get attacked for pointing out an error/imprecise language/unclear term or whatever you want to call it? And you guys really aren't overly sensitive? Can we get back to the topic of the thread now or do you guys just want to throw more tantrums?

EnigmaPower
2009-Jun-30, 01:16 AM
...and just who was "derailing" this thread?

So pointing out an error is derailing...ok. Now get back to the topic which isn't me or forget about getting a response from me on anything anymore.

PraedSt
2009-Jun-30, 01:16 AM
Don't know and really don't care. Maybe they wish they noticed it before I said something. Maybe they just don't want to see on of their own corrected by an "outsider".
If you don't care, then don't mention it. And again, what's this about "one of their own"? I already told you Thoth II was almost as much of a newbie as you. Scientifically this falsifies your claim.

Tucson_Tim
2009-Jun-30, 01:17 AM
So pointing out an error is derailing...ok.
It's not so much that you pointed out what you thought was an error, it's the way you did it.

Kelfazin
2009-Jun-30, 01:20 AM
The headline of the article in the OP reads "Russian Scientist: UFO collided with Tunguska Meteorite to save Earth"

So first he has to prove that aliens exist, then he has to prove that they have spacecraft that can make the interstellar flight to our solar system, then he has to prove that they care enough our planet to intercede on our behalf, then he has to prove it was a meteorite, not a comet.

I'm going to go ahead and side with Occam on this one and say "It was a comet that exploded in the air"

R.A.F.
2009-Jun-30, 01:20 AM
Can we get back to the topic of the thread now...

Since you have no interest in the topic of this thread, this statement makes no sense.


...or do you guys just want to throw more tantrums?

Actually, everyone else but you have comported themselves rather admirabily in my opinion...you are the only one who has continually displayed an "attitude".

Why is that?

EnigmaPower
2009-Jun-30, 01:21 AM
It's not so much that you pointed out what you thought was an error, it's the way you did it.

How did I cause the derail by pointing it out? Derail was caused by those responding and like spoiled children. Now once again I will ask if we can get back to the threads topic?

Tucson_Tim
2009-Jun-30, 01:23 AM
Another example . . .

Here's a question/request by a different poster:



ok, thank you for clarifying. if you had to hazzard a guess, what would you say would be a good material to cite as having a similar density to 800000 kg/m(3) ?


And here is your response:


What would be my reason for guessing?

EnigmaPower
2009-Jun-30, 01:25 AM
Another example . . .

Here's a question/request by a different poster:



And here is your response:

Yes? What is your point? Why would I guess?

Tucson_Tim
2009-Jun-30, 01:26 AM
Yes? What is your point? Why would I guess?

You could have answered his question.

Kelfazin
2009-Jun-30, 01:26 AM
Why bother posting if you don't want to engage in conversation?

R.A.F.
2009-Jun-30, 01:30 AM
Now get back to the topic which isn't me...

You have already stated that you have no interest in the topic of this thread.

You made yourself "the topic" of this thread by your own behavior.

EnigmaPower
2009-Jun-30, 01:30 AM
You could have answered his question.

I could have but it would have been a wrong guess so again I ask why should I guess? Let's see, the density at the center of the sun is approximately 160000 kg/m^3 and 800000 kg/m^3 is 5 times more. So was I supposed to say something like this? Why? Remember I am not the one who posted this theory. So can we please get back to the thread's topic which is not me.

EnigmaPower
2009-Jun-30, 01:31 AM
Why bother posting if you don't want to engage in conversation?

My post was directed to thoth II. He read it and acted on it. Why are you posting?

pzkpfw
2009-Jun-30, 01:33 AM
In "moderator color":

Please, let's all drop this issue now. All stances are clear; nothing more can be gained, but some stuff (like our "cool") can be lost.

Kelfazin
2009-Jun-30, 01:38 AM
Also to the OP, I just realized Fraser wrote an article (http://www.universetoday.com/2009/05/26/scientist-claims-ufo-collided-with-tunguska-meteorite-to-save-earth/) on this exact story.

The OP article says "We also found ferrum silicate that can not be produced anywhere, except in space”

to which Fraser says "While I'm not a chemist, I couldn't find any information on "ferrum silicate." Seemingly, it doesn't exist."

Is Swift reading this thread? Maybe he knows if ferrum silicate exists?

EnigmaPower
2009-Jun-30, 01:46 AM
Also to the OP, I just realized Fraser wrote an article (http://www.universetoday.com/2009/05/26/scientist-claims-ufo-collided-with-tunguska-meteorite-to-save-earth/) on this exact story.

The OP article says "We also found ferrum silicate that can not be produced anywhere, except in space”

to which Fraser says "While I'm not a chemist, I couldn't find any information on "ferrum silicate." Seemingly, it doesn't exist."

Is Swift reading this thread? Maybe he knows if ferrum silicate exists?
Ferrum Silicate appears to be a hoax.

Kelfazin
2009-Jun-30, 01:52 AM
Ferrum Silicate appears to be a hoax.

There are comments on the UniverseToday article that say

I would 'assume' that "ferrum silicate" refers to "iron (II) silicate", or "fayalite".

From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fayalite) fayalite is Fe2SiO4. So is Ferrum Silicate a hoax, or an archaic name for a real mineral?

EnigmaPower
2009-Jun-30, 01:58 AM
There are comments on the UniverseToday article that say


From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fayalite) fayalite is Fe2SiO4. So is Ferrum Silicate a hoax, or an archaic name for a real mineral?

No literature on Ferrum Silicate is to be found anywhere online or in the copy of the CRC Handbook of Chemistry And Physics I checked. But why assume? I am sure this russian scientist would have no problem allowing his samples to be independently analyzed so his hoax can be clarified. Besides, is he really claiming a natural mineral found in rock on Earth can't be made anywhere except in space?

R.A.F.
2009-Jun-30, 02:00 AM
So is Ferrum Silicate a hoax, or an archaic name for a real mineral?

Considering the source was a Russian scientist, he could be using a different name for a familiar element.

It makes little sense for him to "invent" an element.

Gillianren
2009-Jun-30, 02:05 AM
. . . Less than 200 posts.

Fewer.

Sorry--I couldn't resist.

hhEb09'1
2009-Jun-30, 02:11 AM
I already have a few bits that completely obliterate the notion, such as, the article states that the object that exploded over siberia weighed "over 1 billion tones". Yet we know the object itself was no more than 40-60 meters in size. Now that we've got past the first sentence there, I'm curious about the next one. How do we know that the object was no more than 60 meters in size?

Kelfazin
2009-Jun-30, 02:12 AM
Fewer.

Sorry--I couldn't resist.

That's one of those rules I never got. What's the difference between "less than 200" and "fewer than 200". Don't they mean the same thing?

Kelfazin
2009-Jun-30, 02:25 AM
Another favorite quote from the article is

He showed 10 quartz crystals that he found at the place of the meteorite’s crash. Several of the crystals have holes in between, so they can be united in a chain.- "What could this chain serve for? Besides, some crystals have strange drawings on them. We don’t have any technologies that can print such kind of drawings on crystals"

Here's a (rehosted) picture of said crystals
http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn265/kelfazin/crystals.jpg?t=1246328537

That doesn't look like some kind of strange "printing", I'm pretty sure I have the technology in my garage..hammer and chisel should work.

Kelfazin
2009-Jun-30, 02:32 AM
That part is followed by this doozy:

Scientists suppose that the stones used to be a part of the navigational system of a spaceship. All stones united form a map, which they could have used to cruise through the Universe.

Quite the leap there, isn't it? Here are some rocks, which seem to have chisel marks...I mean "printing" that we can duplicate using a laser "that usually cuts metal into pieces"..it must be an alien GPS!

They can fly all the way through interstellar space and prevent the destruction of planets, but they use rocks for maps? Talk about making the "evidence" fit the event.

EnigmaPower
2009-Jun-30, 02:36 AM
They can fly all the way through interstellar space and prevent the destruction of planets, but they use rocks for maps?

Maybe the pilot was Fred Flinstone and the navigator was Barney Rubble :D

Gillianren
2009-Jun-30, 04:04 AM
That's one of those rules I never got. What's the difference between "less than 200" and "fewer than 200". Don't they mean the same thing?

Nope. "Less" measures the uncountable. "Fewer" measures the countable.

novaderrik
2009-Jun-30, 05:54 AM
Nope. "Less" measures the uncountable. "Fewer" measures the countable.
and to think that some of us actually thought this thread was underailed..

NorthernBoy
2009-Jun-30, 01:03 PM
Asinine? For saying atomic nuclei are denser? OK, if they are not, show the proof or stop being an idiot toward me. Now would you please show me where he said there are no ASTRONOMICAL objects in the solar system that dense. Here is his post. Point out the part that says astronomical object.

"Being an idiot toward you"? That does not work as a sentence in English. To be an idiot is not an action that takes a direction.

You seem to be confused by the fact that in written and spoken English context can be implicit, as of course it was in the post to which you responded. Trying now to save face by insisting on a clear mis-reading is not advancing things at all here.

NorthernBoy
2009-Jun-30, 01:05 PM
I would probably change the way I worded things too if I knew that posters were analyzing each and every word of my sentences with a microscope.

Everyone understood that you meant astronomical objects. To pretend that you can remove context from someone's posts and then to poke holes in this perverse reading is pointless, and you certainly don't need to modify your language to take account of such foolishness.

hhEb09'1
2009-Jun-30, 01:25 PM
NorthernBoy, there's no reason to pursue that line anymore.
In "moderator color":

Please, let's all drop this issue now. All stances are clear; nothing more can be gained, but some stuff (like our "cool") can be lost.


Everyone understood that you meant astronomical objects. Tucson_Tim was not the OP, but I'll go on record here as saying, I myself knew upon reading the OP that they were not referring to astronomical objects, because of the way it was phrased--deliberately to exclude astronomical objects, using just a little simple math. That said, the discussion could have proceded on a more civil level, on both sides.

Any more responses in that vein should be considered a deliberate attempt at self-banning. :)

Tucson_Tim
2009-Jun-30, 02:21 PM
Tucson_Tim was not the OP, but I'll go on record here as saying, I myself knew upon reading the OP that they were not referring to astronomical objects, because of the way it was phrased--deliberately to exclude astronomical objects, using just a little simple math. That said, the discussion could have proceded on a more civil level, on both sides.

Any more responses in that vein should be considered a deliberate attempt at self-banning. :)

So, I'm being reprimanded. I see. Thanks. That's fair.

captain swoop
2009-Jun-30, 02:47 PM
Everyone in the thread is being reminded that they need to play nice together.

Tucson_Tim
2009-Jun-30, 02:47 PM
Everyone in the thread is being reminded that they need to play nice together.

Then why mention only my name?

hhEb09'1
2009-Jun-30, 02:48 PM
So, I'm being reprimanded. I see. Thanks. That's fair.No, I was just pointing out that NorthernBoy's "you" referred to you, but you were not the OP. No reprimand.

antoniseb
2009-Jun-30, 05:18 PM
Earlier in this thread I indicated that EnigmaPower had operated previously under a different name. While there are some technical clues indicating this, EnigmaPower seems sincere that he is not the same person.

Let me be clear that even if he was, there is no overlap, and the previous member is still in good standing, though dormant, so this is not a sock-puppet situation in any case... The important thing is that EnigmaPower does not want to be mistaken socially, or in terms of previous statements and positions, with any previous member.

He/she has asked for an apology from me for my mis-statement, and that seems like a fair request, so: I apologize.

That being said, my original statement along these lines was in defense of the rest of the forum against some accusations that I regard as false that EnigmaPower was making. I'd like a public apology from EnigmaPower for his rudeness and many accusations of unfair treatment which lead us to this place.

Post Edit: After some investigation, we've discovered that a clerical error disguised the fact that the previous user had been banned, so if EnigmaPower HAD been identified as this person, he/she would be banned completely.

EnigmaPower
2009-Jun-30, 05:22 PM
Earlier in this thread I indicated that EnigmaPower had operated previously under a different name. While there are some technical clues indicating this, EnigmaPower seems sincere that he is not the same person.

Let me be clear that even if he was, there is no overlap, and the previous member is still in good standing, though dormant, so this is not a sock-puppet situation in any case... The important thing is that EnigmaPower does not want to be mistaken socially, or in terms of previous statements and positions, with any previous member.

He/she has asked for an apology from me for my mis-statement, and that seems like a fair request, so: I apologize.

That being said, my original statement along these lines was in defense of the rest of the forum against some accusations that I regard as false that EnigmaPower was making. I'd like a public apology from EnigmaPower for his rudeness and many accusations of unfair treatment which lead us to this place.

Thanks for clearing that up. I also apologize for making my accusations against the entire forum.

R.A.F.
2009-Jun-30, 05:59 PM
I'd like a public apology from EnigmaPower for his rudeness and many accusations of unfair treatment...


I also apologize for making my accusations against the entire forum.

I guess a 50% "apology" is better than nothing. :)

xfahctor
2009-Jul-01, 01:06 AM
EGAHD!

My apologies to the forum, if I had known this was going to stir up such a firestorm I would not have even started the thread. I was under the impression that I was bringing a discussion before learned men and women, scientists, people of reason and sound principals of debate. I expect threads in a place like prisonplanet or the daily kos to devolve in to something like this....but here? I am not going to name drop, point blame or even conteplate who "started it" or who went wrong where, it's unimportant to the original topic and would only lend credibility to what amounts to an intellectual bar room brawl over someone elses date. Please, ladies and gentleman, not in my thread....please. Now lets forget everything that has happened so far that is irelevent to the original topic and continue this as if nothing happened.

Now with that out of the way, I first want to take a moment and thank those who have responded and apologize for not getting back to the thread sooner.
I also want to take a moment to state agine that this is not a theory I subscribe to or advocate. In my opinion and the opinion of sound science and reason, it is absolute nonsense and not even good enough for a bad sci-fi movie.
SOmeone had asked how I came to the size of the object. SInce i do not remember the article I linked in the original post, I got my information from a number of stories about the incident over the years, and confirmed it with a few articles before I posted this. One was a recent revising of the original size of 60 meters down to 40 meters. the premise of the article was that the blast may not quite have been of the magnitude originaly believed and that the size of the object may have been smaller. With reguards to the general topic of object size, I was under the impression it was common knowlege and accepted theory among the various astronomical circles, if I am incorrect, than by all means say so. Also, if it is important enough in this case that I get a source for the size, that I will by all means do so and I apologize for not doing so in the original post.
What I was trying to get at with my issue of density, is that it seemed to me that the article claiming the UFO theory was fundamentaly flawed because it made what seemed to be a claim of an object of extremely unlikely desntiy for an object entering the earths atmosphere, even with out understanding the details or the math involved, it seemed to me blatent enough to be obvious to even a layman as myself it was a major flaw in the Russian scientists claim, or atl least the articles account of the scientist's claim.
As to the issue of the mysterious element mentioned. It wasn't anything I rememebr seeing in highschool chemistry, but I guess that may not account for much since that was *mumble mumble* years ago. But the concesnus I am seeing here among you folks is also that it is bunk, so I will at least for now consider it another hole in the theory.
Someone mentioned that aliens must be proven to exist before the claim can be even considered any further. You are correct. But lets remember we are dealing in woo woo land in the very premise of this whole thing to begin with.
Again, I want to thank all those who responded.

hhEb09'1
2009-Jul-01, 04:20 AM
SOmeone had asked how I came to the size of the object. SInce i do not remember the article I linked in the original post, I got my information from a number of stories about the incident over the years, and confirmed it with a few articles before I posted this. One was a recent revising of the original size of 60 meters down to 40 meters. the premise of the article was that the blast may not quite have been of the magnitude originaly believed and that the size of the object may have been smaller. With reguards to the general topic of object size, I was under the impression it was common knowlege and accepted theory among the various astronomical circles, if I am incorrect, than by all means say so. Also, if it is important enough in this case that I get a source for the size, that I will by all means do so and I apologize for not doing so in the original post.The SOmeone was moi, and thanks for following up. I suspect that the size estimates that you are using are based upon the size of the explosion of meteors--which means that if the object were bigger or more massive but the explosion was not created in the same fashion, the relationship between size and mass would not be so straightforward.

Not that I think it gives much credence to the original article, I just thought it had bearing on your question in the OP.

A cubic meter of rock weighs a couple ton, so a(n astronomical) object weighing a billion tons would be less than a kilometer in diameter, right? I haven't read the article you linked in the OP but is that the sort of size that he's talking about?

Swift
2009-Jul-03, 03:09 AM
Also to the OP, I just realized Fraser wrote an article (http://www.universetoday.com/2009/05/26/scientist-claims-ufo-collided-with-tunguska-meteorite-to-save-earth/) on this exact story.

The OP article says "We also found ferrum silicate that can not be produced anywhere, except in space”

to which Fraser says "While I'm not a chemist, I couldn't find any information on "ferrum silicate." Seemingly, it doesn't exist."

Is Swift reading this thread? Maybe he knows if ferrum silicate exists?
Sorry I'm late to the party, I was away for vacation.

I've never heard of ferrum. If I had to guess, it is a bad translation of a Russian article by a Macedonian News Agency of either ferrous (iron in a +2 oxidation state) or ferric (iron +3). I suppose it also could be a real word in one of those languages. Or it could be complete nonsense.

I feel comfortable saying that there are multiple ferric and ferrous silicate minerals on Earth, but I'd have to do some work to get a count.

As far as the picture of quartz crystals with holes in them... without knowing more details (how the picture was taken, how the sample was prepared), it is hard to say much of anything about it. But it is quite possible for quartz to have holes in it, I've done it many times and it can happen in natural crystals. And the picture to me doesn't even look like holes, but either thinner, or uncolored sections of crystal.

Certainly, both iron silicate and quartz are very common, both on Earth, and in other bodies, including interplanetary dust particles or in comets.

xfahctor
2009-Jul-03, 04:31 PM
The SOmeone was moi, and thanks for following up. I suspect that the size estimates that you are using are based upon the size of the explosion of meteors--which means that if the object were bigger or more massive but the explosion was not created in the same fashion, the relationship between size and mass would not be so straightforward.

Not that I think it gives much credence to the original article, I just thought it had bearing on your question in the OP.

A cubic meter of rock weighs a couple ton, so a(n astronomical) object weighing a billion tons would be less than a kilometer in diameter, right? I haven't read the article you linked in the OP but is that the sort of size that he's talking about?

I didn't see size in the article I linked, I don't think the CT article mentioned the size they believed it was. I got the size from various articles published on the event, articles from more main stream sources and scientific publications.

xfahctor
2009-Jul-03, 04:33 PM
Sorry I'm late to the party, I was away for vacation.

I've never heard of ferrum. If I had to guess, it is a bad translation of a Russian article by a Macedonian News Agency of either ferrous (iron in a +2 oxidation state) or ferric (iron +3). I suppose it also could be a real word in one of those languages. Or it could be complete nonsense.

I feel comfortable saying that there are multiple ferric and ferrous silicate minerals on Earth, but I'd have to do some work to get a count.

As far as the picture of quartz crystals with holes in them... without knowing more details (how the picture was taken, how the sample was prepared), it is hard to say much of anything about it. But it is quite possible for quartz to have holes in it, I've done it many times and it can happen in natural crystals. And the picture to me doesn't even look like holes, but either thinner, or uncolored sections of crystal.

Certainly, both iron silicate and quartz are very common, both on Earth, and in other bodies, including interplanetary dust particles or in comets.
there does seem to be alot of confusion reguarding the mentioned compound/element/whatevertyewannacallit....to me it isnother hole in the russian scientists theory. Thanks for the response.

Mr Gorsky
2009-Jul-07, 11:08 AM
I've never heard of ferrum.

I thought Ferrum was the latin name for Iron ... certainly that was the reason given for Iron's atomic symbol being Fe back in High School.

Swift
2009-Jul-07, 01:54 PM
I thought Ferrum was the latin name for Iron ... certainly that was the reason given for Iron's atomic symbol being Fe back in High School.
Well, so it is (never took latin). Still, in English, iron compounds are not referred to that way, so that reinforces my thought of a bad translation.

Piano Paul
2009-Jul-07, 08:37 PM
To quote hhEb09'1:

A cubic meter of rock weighs a couple ton, so a(n astronomical) object weighing a billion tons would be less than a kilometer in diameter, right? I haven't read the article you linked in the OP but is that the sort of size that he's talking about?

So if my arithmetic is correct, a rock that is 40 x 40 meters (if the "size" reference is accurate) would be 64,000 tons? At even 7 miles a second that could make quite a serious noise; what if it was traveling 40 miles a second (144,000 mph. I think better in miles than kilometers, and I know everyone here can convert if they want to)? I don't know how to calculate the release of energy from such an impact, but I'm sure it would be intense! And, if Fred and Barney WEREN'T flying the craft, the damage it could have done might have knocked us back to the Stone Age, maybe? Maybe not...

Grashtel
2009-Jul-08, 02:58 AM
To quote hhEb09'1:

A cubic meter of rock weighs a couple ton, so a(n astronomical) object weighing a billion tons would be less than a kilometer in diameter, right? I haven't read the article you linked in the OP but is that the sort of size that he's talking about?

So if my arithmetic is correct, a rock that is 40 x 40 meters (if the "size" reference is accurate) would be 64,000 tons? At even 7 miles a second that could make quite a serious noise; what if it was traveling 40 miles a second (144,000 mph. I think better in miles than kilometers, and I know everyone here can convert if they want to)? I don't know how to calculate the release of energy from such an impact, but I'm sure it would be intense! And, if Fred and Barney WEREN'T flying the craft, the damage it could have done might have knocked us back to the Stone Age, maybe? Maybe not...
Definitely not, the impact would only be equivalent to a 6-7 megaton detonation, not something you want to be close to but nowhere near having major global effects.

You may well find it enlightening (and amusing) to play around with the Earth Impact Effects Program (http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/), it calculates the effects of bodies of different sizes and speeds hitting Earth and produces some quite interesting results.

Piano Paul
2009-Jul-08, 05:38 PM
You may well find it enlightening (and amusing) to play around with the Earth Impact Effects Program (http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/), it calculates the effects of bodies of different sizes and speeds hitting Earth and produces some quite interesting results.

Thanks for the reference. You're right, that's fun, and it's also enlightening. I think most people (especially me) far overestimate the potential damage done from an impact, even if we (I) don't overestimate the likelihood of its happening in my lifetime. There are many days, however, when I look at the world around us and think to myself "What this planet needs is a good old asteroid impact! There's nothing wrong with this planet that losing 2/3 of the population wouldn't solve!" Problem is, I can't envision a scenario in which I would be worthy of being grouped in the 1/3 that survived!

Gillianren
2009-Jul-08, 05:40 PM
Problem is, I can't envision a scenario in which I would be worthy of being grouped in the 1/3 that survived!

Or, regardless of whether you were or not, certain to be. That's the part I think a lot of people forget--any cataclysm is as likely to take them as anyone else. Oddly, Stephen King got it right when he removed most of the world's population--not everyone who survived necessarily ought to have for the benefit of a community of survivors.

Piano Paul
2009-Jul-08, 07:01 PM
--not everyone who survived necessarily ought to have for the benefit of a community of survivors.


I thought King wrote exceptionally well on that detail (We're talking about The Stand, yes?) when he incorporated the randomness of victims in such a worldwide cataclysm. I tend to picture a world where everyone who survives is someone who has something of worth to contribute (I play piano, maybe I could work in a saloon?) but it's easy to forget that a world calamity, extinction level event, what have you, would not be nearly so particular as to who lives and who dies. One of the best scenarios in The Stand was the confrontation between Stu's group and the men who had captured and held women as slaves, sexual and otherwise. An ugly thought, but probably accurate, and King is known for writing horror. In this case I'd say success was achieved...

Gillianren
2009-Jul-08, 07:39 PM
Oh, it's a very creepy book in several places. Mostly, I was thinking about the string of "no big loss" endings. There doubtless would be additional deaths after the major cataclysm of people who just wouldn't be able to cope in one way or another. Several of us have mentioned ourselves in such a list, as several of us have certain pharmaceutical needs that probably wouldn't be met. Diabetics, for example, would have serious problems if they're insulin dependent.

Kelfazin
2009-Jul-08, 09:34 PM
Oh, it's a very creepy book in several places. Mostly, I was thinking about the string of "no big loss" endings. There doubtless would be additional deaths after the major cataclysm of people who just wouldn't be able to cope in one way or another. Several of us have mentioned ourselves in such a list, as several of us have certain pharmaceutical needs that probably wouldn't be met. Diabetics, for example, would have serious problems if they're insulin dependent.


It would be an interesting event to observe scientifically (preferrably from orbit). Obviously, unless mass production and distribution of pharmaceuticals could be reestablished, Darwin would take over. I wonder where natural selection would (will?) take Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Piano Paul
2009-Jul-09, 03:28 PM
It would be an interesting event to observe scientifically (preferrably from orbit). Obviously, unless mass production and distribution of pharmaceuticals could be reestablished, Darwin would take over. I wonder where natural selection would (will?) take Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

That is a very interesting question, since we in the West particularly owe so much of our health and longevity to pharmaceuticals (I take a statin for cholesterol). Gillianren mentioned diabetes, which is becoming more common. An ELE would have the secondary effect of weeding out those survivors of the event who have health conditions which rely on continued sustained use of drugs to stay healthy. One scenario I've always envisioned in case of world catastrophe is that the drugstores and liquor stores would be some of the first places that get pillaged and looted, because liquor will be useful for trade (and for forgetting what the world has become) and the drugs in many cases will be essential for survival for a significant fraction of the humans that make it through the initial event.

Spoons
2009-Jul-10, 07:25 AM
Very interesting direction this thread is taking. Before it gets yanked back on course...

Re this scenario - I wouldn't want to endure it, but I suppose there could be some benefits to natural selection getting a second crack of the whip. It's unfortunate that humans have become so dependent on pharmaceuticals.

I know it's just a wacky comedy film, but I remember seeing Idiocracy and wondering if it's really that unlikely a scenario. After all, I know where I live, and it seems a common phenomenon, the less intelligent citizens do seem to find love and multiply much more prolifically than the more scholarly types.

I must read this "The Stand" that's been referred to. It sounds like a gripping read.

xfahctor
2009-Jul-10, 03:40 PM
Well, what interesting directions and turns this thread has taken. I again want to take a moment and thank everyone who has responded, I do sincerely apreciate it. My initial purpose was to pose a theory I stumbled on, one I found rediculous at best. Always intersting to see where such discussions end up though.
Thanks again guys. I love this forum, who says scientists are boring? lol.

Gillianren
2009-Jul-10, 05:03 PM
I know it's just a wacky comedy film, but I remember seeing Idiocracy and wondering if it's really that unlikely a scenario. After all, I know where I live, and it seems a common phenomenon, the less intelligent citizens do seem to find love and multiply much more prolifically than the more scholarly types.

If you can believe XKCD, it isn't true. (http://xkcd.com/603/) I'd like to see his cites, though, I'll admit.


I must read this "The Stand" that's been referred to. It sounds like a gripping read.

Gripping, yes. And long. I read fast, and I read a lot, and it usually takes me a couple of days. I also have the ability to read all day, as I don't have anything better to do with my time. My advice is don't read it if you're already not feeling well. Under no circumstances read it when you're home from work with a cold.

Spoons
2009-Jul-11, 01:32 AM
Ah, so that's where that little concept popped from. I saw that a week or so when it came out, forgot about it and it seems stowed it away under sub-conscious. (Got to love XKCD - today's one is nice, always love those "this page left intentionally blank" gags)

I'm at home right now, and have been for the last two days, with a cold. Luckily I've been told off for going shopping in my bathrobe, or I may have picked it up before I got your warning. Thanks. The purchase is on my "to do" list though.

Gillianren
2009-Jul-11, 06:35 AM
Ah, so that's where that little concept popped from. I saw that a week or so when it came out, forgot about it and it seems stowed it away under sub-conscious. (Got to love XKCD - today's one is nice, always love those "this page left intentionally blank" gags)

It's one of very few things I read online on a regular basis.


I'm at home right now, and have been for the last two days, with a cold. Luckily I've been told off for going shopping in my bathrobe, or I may have picked it up before I got your warning. Thanks. The purchase is on my "to do" list though.

Well. It turns out I'm psychic, then. Well done, me! No, I do really recommend the book, and I do think King is an excellent writer--some of his other stuff is just fine when you're sick, though I'd steer clear of The Tommyknockers no matter how you're feeling. It's just that, in my family, we seem to end up sick at some point during any reading/viewing of The Stand. My sister ended up watching the miniseries while she had a kidney infection!

Spoons
2009-Jul-11, 06:47 AM
Could it be? Superstition on a science based forum? ;)

Gillianren
2009-Jul-11, 08:21 AM
Pattern observation. I actually keep notes, believe it or not. What I suspect happens is a combination of the psychosomatic and the fact that, believe it or not, I read Stephen King for comfort. So I'm kind of not feeling well, and I think, hey, Stephen King! Only it's The Stand, and I'm going to die of Captain Trips. I should just read Bag of Bones. (In case you're curious, the first time I read The Stand, I ended up with a nasty case of heatstroke unrelated to the book but related to my ex-step-aunt Billie, who did not understand the concept of "getting out of the sun.")

estellawatch
2009-Jul-11, 01:07 PM
The Encke's Comet 100,000 tons of ice and dust was proposed many years ago.

I'm still holding out for Tesla and his test firing of transmitter in 1908. Overshooting the North Pole during Peary's attempt to reach the North Pole.

I am so surprised that no one has taken this Post more seriously ...you may be Sorry you didn"t perhaps ? Tesla was A Genius .way Ahead of His Brief History {but notable }in Time ...Nicola was a very Naughty Boy and even he could not have predicted what would happen let alone what did ?.
Needless to say He may have gone a little in sane in the interim . He would Not Want the World to Know especially in his life time ..but if they give him the credit for this ,,they may also have to give Him the credit he should have received for Many Other Projects ..!!! I just went to the bother to sign in and join ..Just to Add this reply I felt compelled to do So ..
Thanks for the Interest for an event of so long forgotten Ago...Or is It ?

Gillianren
2009-Jul-11, 06:19 PM
The thing about Tesla, other than the absolutely crazy that sadly marked his later life, is that not everything he thought of worked. Not everything he said he made work worked. Brilliant? Oh, yes. Indisputably. Everything some people would have you believe? No. Not really.

Spoons
2009-Jul-12, 07:19 AM
He was an absolutely fascinating character. I found somewhere, a few years back, a copy of his mini-biography, maybe only 50 to 100 pages long. It was a great read.

He went through quite a bit as a youth and was extremely ill. I suspect that sort of experience could have a profound impact on the way one absorbs the world about them and as a result, the way one thinks. He was an innovator, which is a path fraught with danger, so he was bound to have failures.

There's always controversy somewhere nearby when Tesla gets raised in forums.

Kelfazin
2009-Jul-12, 01:53 PM
I am so surprised that no one has taken this Post more seriously ...you may be Sorry you didn"t perhaps ? Tesla was A Genius .way Ahead of His Brief History {but notable }in Time ...Nicola was a very Naughty Boy and even he could not have predicted what would happen let alone what did ?.
Needless to say He may have gone a little in sane in the interim . He would Not Want the World to Know especially in his life time ..but if they give him the credit for this ,,they may also have to give Him the credit he should have received for Many Other Projects ..!!! I just went to the bother to sign in and join ..Just to Add this reply I felt compelled to do So ..
Thanks for the Interest for an event of so long forgotten Ago...Or is It ?

I'm trying to understand this, are you saying you support the theory that Tesla created the Tunguska event?

R.A.F.
2009-Jul-12, 02:07 PM
...they may also have to give Him the credit he should have received for Many Other Projects ..!!!

Please be specific...what "other projects" did Tesla not receive credit for?

Spoons
2009-Jul-12, 02:29 PM
It not uncommon to read on the internet claims that Edison took credit for a lot of Tesla's work.

Not sure if it's kosher to drop the link to this site, but I just googled "tesla light bulb" and the first link I found reeled off quite a list of his inventions.

I don't know that it's the case (some supporters of his appear rather fanatical) maybe they're attributing credit to him for some conceptual work he'd done?