| |
|
Article: <[email protected]>
From: [email protected](Nancy )
Subject: Re: TUNGUSKA
Date: 17 Mar 1997 03:17:58 GMT
In article <[email protected]> Jim Scotti writes:
> Space junk re-enters at a shallow angle at relatively low
> velocity and is generally low density, so it is easily slowed
> before being vaporized at lower altitudes. A meteor is
> relatively dense, entering at a higher angle and traveling
> at velocities more than twice as high as a man-made
> satellite.
> [email protected] (Jim Scotti)
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
The slowing process is relative to density? Not so! The drag is relative to the SIZE of the
object, the air friction that develops. Drop several objects of the same SIZE from an
airplane, and unless one is shaped differently from the other, to put it into a glide rather
than a plummet, they both will fall at an equivalent rate. Likewise, the angle of entry makes
NO difference, unless you are talking about a shuttle or airplane. These require the angle to
be such that air pressure under their wings will give the pilots CONTROL for landing,
rather than a nose dive which puts the shuttle out of control. An object entering the
atmosphere at a sharp angle soon begins a direct plummet, depending upon its speed at
entry and the angle. Any large meteor is dropping straight down before impact, and any
large piece of space junk is doing likewise.
If you think meteors vaporize before impact, where all your evidence points to object
burning on the outside but NOT vaporizing, then how did the Yucatan crater hole happen?
Did the Earth not have an atmosphere in the past?
(End ZetaTalk[TM])
In article <[email protected]> Jim Scotti writes:
>> 2. You have the meteor dropping through the atmosphere
>> at a steady high speed, ignoring utterly the braking effect
>> that air, like water, has.
>> ZetaTalk[TM]
>
> The meteor is decelerated by the atmosphere .. The
> Tunguska meteor was still moving at high speed, however
> and the final deceleration is integral to the dissipation of the
> high kinetic energy and final explosion.
> [email protected] (Jim Scotti)
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Because your argument fail, you grasp something that cannot be proven! You've given this
mythical meteor a fantastic speed, so that is deals with a situation never seen on Earth, and
thus no one is supposed to be able to challenge the argument! You in fact don't KNOW that
a meteor entered the atmosphere, much less its speed! The flash across the sky fits our
scenario, the methane gas scenario, as well as yours.
Compare your argument of deceleration to an experiment that can be performed on Earth.
Water brakes objects coming into it. Depending upon the aquadynamic shape, for instance
of a diver forming a spear shape, or the speed, for instance a bullet fired into the water, the
braking action would differ. Nevertheless, at 100 meters, both objects would be at rest in
the water, regardless of shape or speed.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])
In article <[email protected]> Jim Scotti writes:
>> 3. You have the meteor heating at the center to such an
>> extent that in explosion occurs, ignoring the evidence
>> your own shuttles have that air friction heats from the
>> outside in.
>
> The meteor does not heat from the center. The aerodynamic
> stresses shatter the object from the outside. ... The interior
> of the meteor does not have enough time to be heated by the
> friction of the atmosphere on its surface.
> [email protected] (Jim Scotti)
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Here you have this meteor, which presumably was FORMED due to distress such as an
explosion, as it is irregularly shaped and not round as a molten object that subsequently
hardened would be, unable to take the stress of encountering AIR. This is not an
immovable object meeting an irresistable force. The air would move, and the meteor
slowed by this relatively gentle braking action. To cap it all off, you have this mythical
disintegration of a HUGE meteor such that it falls apart into such tiny pieces of dust that
NONE can be located! This is dust, barely held together, that managed to streak across the
sky and travel through space all those eons? Your argument is absurd!
(End ZetaTalk[TM])