| |
|
Article: <5fa2l3$84j@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: TUNGUSKA
Date: 1 Mar 1997 20:13:23 GMT
In article <5f4c90$1dem@news.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim
Scotti writes:
> The Tunguska meteor exploded because the aerodynamic
> stress on the object caused by the compression of the air in
> front of the meteor exceeded the strength of the meteor
> itself - causing it to catastrophically disintegrate into
bits
> (i.e., VAPORIZE).
> jscotti@LPL.Arizona.EDU (Jim Scotti)
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Here you are making ASSUMPTIONS, and in fact your science
contradicts this assumption. We are hearing tails about
compressed air and air motion, that it can only be compressed to
X or move as fast as Y, and none of this is true! It's relative!
Air speed is relative to compression. A recent poster, Greg,
pointed out the degree of what he termed energy to cause air to
move at higher speeds than normal for your atmosphere, and used
this as a basis of supporting your silly assumption, Jim. In
fact, he was making our case! Is there a CAP on this? There is NO
Cap. This dropping meteor is out in the open, the air is not
contained. You do NOT have an immovable object meeting and
irresistible force. You have an irresistible force, the meteor,
meeting compressed air, which MOVES.
Rather than beat to death this vaporizing meteor theory, why
not try to put holes into our statement that Tunguska was caused
by a large cloud of methane gas, developed from the same grasses
found in the stomachs of flash frozen mastodons in Siberia,
trapped under frozen water-soaked volcanic ash that dropped on
the area following a recent pole shift. This was the same shift
that moved Greenland south of the North Pole region, and accounts
for the massive amount of ice that is still atop Greenland,
disproportionate to other lands in that latitude. Can you punch
THAT explanation as easily as we are punching YOUR explanation,
Jim?
(End ZetaTalk[TM])