Talk:Tunguska event/archive3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Attempts to apply carbon-14 dating have shown that the soil was enriched in radioactive carbon-14.
??????? Jclerman 03:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment/Question: How about a really, really big fuel-air bomb, where the fuel was a "diamond" from a burned out White Dwarf? Atomize enough white hot carbon in the air and it would go boom. Would also explain the Carbon 14. Gye 10/01/2006 18:01, October 1,
Comment
I think the article should mention that an industry exists to sell agricultural products from the Tunguska zone. The industry claims the Tunguska soil has extra-rich nutrients therefore the produce (food additives ?) offers extraordinary benefits. To my knowledge, the industry hopes to grow by adding distributors who will then solicit for additional new distributors, a sort of Multi-Level-Marketing approach. In fact that industry does exist. The main product is called Tunguska Blast. Go to www.tblastdrink.com for more information.
- I disagree! This is the article about the event and its aftermath. Not about products related to it. If this product is notable it should have its own page, instead. I will remove the external link to avoid "link spam". Awolf002 14:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment
Wow, this is really fascinating. I would really like to see more information (or a link) on some of the theories with little to no support. I'm particularily curious about the black hole idea, and what (if any) scientific data would exist around that.
Great article!
Less Fiction More Fact Please
People's imagination seem to go wild. UFOs? Nuclear Bombs? Please... There is really not the slightest hint why the Tunguska event was NOT a meteorite. I like to see that Wikipedia remains a credible source of reference material, and I don't think UFOs or towers or any other conspiratorial claptrap is aiding in that goal. So please, stick with facts, not fiction.Albester 12:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree about the likely origins of this explosion but still think these other things should be mentioned. Why? First, it makes it easier for people to find this article and the evidence for the non-pseudoscientific explanations. Second, these alternative explanations, the credible as well as the incredible, are part of the world that an encyclopedia should document. Third, some of us actually want to read about the pseudoscience, not because we belive in it but because we're interesting in the ways pseudoscience has failed to adequately explain major natural phenomena. I don't think inclusion of these ideas endorese them. Interlingua 01:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- "There is really not the slightest hint why the Tunguska event was NOT a meteorite."
- Hint 1/ No Crater
- Hint 2/ No Debris
- Hint 3/ Tunguska Body seen years after it's supposed demise. (See Occam's Razor above.)
This Article has lots of nonsense it in
This nonsense about UFOs, Black Holes, The Wardenclyffe Tower, Electromagnetism and Antimatter ought to be removed from the article. Its worse that speculation because it doesn't even fit the facts of the case and would never be accepted into a peer reviewed scientific publication.
- I say leave them. They are theories as to what might have happened, and should remain in the article. CardinalFangZERO 05:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we just add Paul Bunyan, God bowling and witches brewing their brew incorrectly while we are at it? At least those aren't falsifiable. --(anon)
- A Reply: Granted the UFOs seems like creative fantasy, but the Antimatter hypothesis was an meaningful intellectual exercise in the 1960's as scientists speculated about what would happen if antimatter interacted with Earth's atmosphere. This is not so say anyone had any proof; but that was not the sole point of the theorizing. Furthermore, all these alternative possibilities have become part of history, mythology, and stories linked to the Event. To remove them would create an incomplete tale of its cultural relevance. --(another anon)
- Historic explanations are interesting and relevant. This article isn't just about the explosion. It's also about human reactions to it. Sometimes Wikipedia goes too far in reporting such things, but this article is doing a good job in that regard. --Yath 16:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Event predicted?
An intriguing point about the Tunguska event is that just the previous year (1907) a scientist predicted that a comet was about to hit the earth, causing a cataclysm. (The only reason I know this is from looking at an old book version of the humorous magazine "Punch", which used the prediction in a cartoon about the Suffragettes.) It might be worthwhile for someone to look this prediction up and see if it came anywhere near matching Tunguska.
Jon_Rob
UFO
"The hypotheses listed below are all rejected by modern science and by skeptics who generally see them as being gross violations of Occam's Razor." But doesn't the UFO have signifigantly more proof than all of the other theories? Occam's Razor applies only if there is equal proof. I know of no meteor that would make two sharp turns in opposite directions. And explain why there are no debris.
UFO has much more evidence than the others. Sprited Spheniscidae 03:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
There is a good deal of theoretical and physical evidence that meteors do indeed airburst. It is somewhere between very difficult and impossible to separate Earthly rocks (meteorwrongs) from extraterristrial meteorites after they've been on the ground for a while. One of the main reasons that meteorite hunters go to the polar regions is that they lack terrestrial rocks, so any fragments found on the ice sheets, are likely to be extraterrestrial in origin. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about with "sharp turns."
Although I've been shot down before, I will say this again. I know of no serious scientists who doubt that Tunguska was a meteor. It is widely cited in the astronomical community and has been a subject of much research. The word theorize has been so abused by conspiracy "theorists" in this situation that it is no longer funny. Even a speculative hypothesis must fit the facts of the situation and obey the laws of physics, it cannot already have been falsified.
The Tunguska body did not obey the laws of ballistic physics. It did however, demonstrate behavior normally associated with the movements of a sentient being. Many serious scientists doubt that Tunguska was a meteor for this very good reason. (20:24, October 16, 2006) 65.95.52.241
- Do you have any sources for such statements? Jclerman 03:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Here is a source. go to the "II. ON THE DIRECTION OF THE TCB FLIGHT" paragraph.
- Here is another source
or
- Try this Google Search to find a ton of stuff regarding the unresolved paradoxes of the Tunguska Trajectory.
Nickel tends to be one of the big red flags with meteorites, even stony ones. The fact that there are microscopic glass spheres with nickel content that have been found at the site moves a stony meteorite to the front of the line. As to why there aren't meteorite rock fragments at the site can be answered with a bit of a thought experiment. If you tried to punch your fist into a barrel full of beans, you end up with a rather sore fist that didn't get very far into the beans. If you slowly push your fist into the beans, you'll get your fist rather far into the barrel. A meteorite going fast enough would hit the lower atmosphere, and the atmosphere would yield to the meteorite much like a car windshield would yield to a fly. The meteorite would come to a sudden stop, and conservation of energy dictates that it's energy of motion would turn into heat, enough heat to vaporize itself, and you would get a rain of microscopic glass spheres as the silica and nickle cooled and condensed out of the cloud of gass that was the meteorite. That is why there isn't debris, other than the glass spheres, and why a meteorite is the best explaination. And where exactly is the proof about the "two sharp turns in opposite directions"? I haven't seen it. If it exists, let us know about it to be publicly scrutinized.Phil 22:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Wonder Woman
An issue of Wonder Woman in the late 1980's revealed that a ship crash involving alien "Gremlins" was the cause. The Lord of Time did not know this when he dectected a similar event in the Grand Canyon.
See the Tunguska at Marvel.
Crying out
"We started crying for out father, mother, brother, but no one answered." Shouldn't that read: crying for OUR father? If not it should be SICed.
Radiation
Very good article, it truly is fascinating. Interested parties may want to check out:
http://www.rotten.com/library/history/nature/natural-disasters/tunguska/
My only problem would have to be with this passage:
"Expeditions led by Gennady Plekhanov found no elevated levels of radiation, which might have been expected if the detonation were nuclear in nature."
Doesn't the Tunguska explosion predate the detonation of the first atomic device by some 30 years ??
Anyway, keep up the good work !!
-
- Yes, the Tunguska explosion predated nukes by decades, but you'll notice there are some individuals who prefer the illogical and nonsensical over the obvious. Albester 14:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Plekanov could still have measured local radiation levels, even without knowledge of nuclear weapons. What the quote says is that evidence collected at the time suggests [with our more advanced scientific hindsight] there was no nuclear event, not that those people collected that evidence specifically to determine if such an event had happened. [User: Asteroceras, cookies not working at the moment]
Incident Date vs. Siberian Life Article Date
Since the incident occurred on June 30, 1908, how is it that the Siberian Life newspaper article is dated June 27, 1908?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar Russia did not switch calenders til 1918, so they were 13 days behind.
What if there was more than one meteorite?
Beefart says: Please correct me if I am wrong but all discussion of the impact seems to centre on the proposition that it was caused by a single object. The Shoemaker-Levy 9 impactor was at first one body but by the time it plunged into Jupiter it did so as a string of fragments torn from the original mass. What if the Tunguska body suffered the same fate but on a lesser scale? The eye witness accounts seem to indicate several separate events. SL9 struck Jupiter at 60km/sec. A body approaching Earth at even half this speed would have glowed for only about 4 seconds as it passed through the atmosphere. Some accounts record that the show went on for 10 minutes. It is not possible for one discrete meteoroid to spend ten minutes in the Earth's atmosphere. Perhaps a string of cometary fragments came in in short succession. Captainbeefart 14:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Jeff Rense Archives
There may be more info. on Jeff Rense's Homepage about this matter. When you find the info., go to the "red" links on his site. Some data says that a alien ship had exploded in the area, left a lot of radioactivity all over the place. Martial Law 07:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC) :)
Phenomenon DVD
Great reference. Don't be surprised that I've deleted the anonymous edit that spammed it. The fact is that I got special powers, like the guy in the DVD:
George Malley (Travolta) is knocked to the ground by a mysterious, blinding light and suddenly develops amazing mental abilities! With his newfound knowledge, George astounds everyone in town. But when his incredible powers cause even his oldest friends to turn away, George comes to realize that his wondrous experience has changed him and the lives of everyone around him forever.
Jclerman 20:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Near miss?
I have heard of a hypothesis that thought the Tunguska event was caused by not an impact, but a near miss: a meteor that entered the atmosphere, but had enough velocity to pass through and not impact the planet. I don't have the time to research it and write it up, but the article deserves the addition.
As a side note: a modification of the Jackson-Ryan hypothesis postulates that there was no exit event because the nanoscopic black hole that caused the event is still in the planet, orbiting through the crust or mantle. This idea is applied in the book Singularity by Bill Desmedt.--Ryan! 05:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Jon Stewart
According to the book 'America: A Guide to Democracy Inaction", author Jon Stewart states that while many believe that a meteor caused the Tunguska event, it is in fact clear evidence that "God has cursed the shit out of Russia." Certainly not the sort of theory one would expect to see regarding the event, but an amusing one, nonetheless. Wandering Star 03:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Ultimates Universe
The ultimates is a work of fiction. Therefore I don't think that it is relevant that, "The Ultimates universe, several other key events differ considerably from actual history, so it is conceivable that the nature of the Tunguska event is simply another difference from our universe." It sounds like some Ultimates fan is trying to explain and justify why there are differences between the actual event and the Ultimates event. --Djfeldman 12:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Another Book reference + another Tesla reference
Author Robert Doherty has written a series of books called Area 51.
I don't have the specific book title from the series that includes this information, but the theory postulated in his completely fictional work is that Nikola Tesla built his death ray, particle beam weapon and that the Tunguska explosion was him destroying a hostile alien vessel.
-- Jason (I used to have a user account, but forget the password) 168.215.158.105 23:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The event
This article is very interesting indeed. I can almost imagine the sky glowing with a cylinder-shaped light crashing into the ground. (M&N)Cenarius 23:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Where is the logic?
Read this a few times: "Testimony of S. Semenov, as recorded by Leonid Kulik's expedition in 1930. At breakfast time I was sitting by the house at Vanavara trading post (65 kilometres or 40 miles north of the explosion), facing North. [...] I suddenly saw that directly to the North, over Onkoul's Tunguska road"
If he was north of the explosion, how could se observe the explosion north of himself? He would logically observe it to the south... Bobber0001 20:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
UFO Hypothesis
I have seen this matter on the Documentary Channels, on the 'net itself that stated that a UFO could have exploded over the affected area, and that even radioactive derbis, mutated plants have been found by a science detail. Martial Law 04:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this attribution will fall outside of the reliable sources policy, IMO. The new section has no good attribution and uses very weak language. You should remove it until you found a good source to cite. Awolf002 22:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Antimatter initiated h bomb option...
The hypothesis of antimatter had been abandoned, because if i got it well, it was proved that if the whole energy of the event was due to matter antimatter anihilation, there would have been a huge amount of radiation (including neutrons), that is not compatible with the observed facts.
However, it was recently proved that in principle an extremey small amount of anti matter (1 µg) could be enough to form a plasma where nuclear fission would occur.
see in french http://cui.unige.ch/isi/sscr/phys/LaRecherche.html and in english http://cui.unige.ch/isi/sscr/phys/Perkins-Ort-Tabak.pdf
( but I think one can find a lot of literature on the web on this subject. ) one might doubt that such a tiny quantity can beproduced and stock by actual technological capabilities, but this is not the matter here.
What if this phenomenon had happened naturally in tunguska ? a tiny antimatter object would have produced a nearly radiationless H bomb (not with deuterium) a phenomenon very similar to the one observed in tungunska...
any comment on this ?
sweet dreams to you all... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.206.209.101 (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC).
I have lost all credit in the History Channel
Tonight The History Channel ran a show called "Time Machine" and actually gave a lot of credit to some crazy Russian and his crazy theory. Here is goes, this is what he believes happened. A UFO traveling from Mars came to Earth looking for water because their planet is all dried up, you know. They saw this large lake in Russia so they decided to land next to it for water. Well, as the UFO tried to land it had a malfunction and blew up. This made the spaceship's nuclear reactors blow up creating a huge nuclear explosion that caused the Tunguska event. The History Channel actually listed that as a theory of what occurred. That is absolutely the most bullshit reason I've ever heard in my life. I was absolutely mind-boggled that The History Channel would air such nonsense. I can't be the only one who thinks this. A large meteorite blew up in mid air, no if ands or buts about it. That's what happened. Case solved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.96.200.103 (talk) 07:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC).
