Charles, thanks for clarifying. I mistakenly assumed that your write-up was in direct relation to the Russian meteor event since you posted it in this thread.
You asked: How do you get two smoke trails from one z-pinching bolide? Answer: I meant z-pinch "effect", which causes plasma to filament into pairs that twist around each-other. The right hand rule thingy....
Regarding the possibility of a sonic boom causing the damage in Chelyabinsk.... Unless I didn't understand anything about what I learned in the past week or two, I believe a sonic boom would have a sweeping effect rather than impacting only one specific area.
Whatever the answers to our questions, if they are complicated, they are probably the wrong answers.
CharlesChandler
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
justcurious wrote: Unless I didn't understand anything about what I learned in the past week or two, I believe a sonic boom would have a sweeping effect rather than impacting only one specific area.
I agree that the sonic boom would have propagated in all directions. Did it actually only affect one area, or was it just that only one area was populated, and we're only getting reports from there?
Eldie_Essay
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Assuming that the pinched column is not a lens flare artifact, the column may be twin filaments and not a single column. Because of the glow we can't perceive both filaments, everything blending together into one, glowing mass. But perhaps if the seven videos that captured the column footage were split into their individual frames, time synchronized and then placed for side-by-side comparison, perhaps the two filaments could be perceived.
In other words, the double vapor trail could be the meteor splitting in two, or it could be where the double filaments which attached the meteor to the ground connected.
Eldie_Essay
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
It seems to me that the shadows in many of these videos could be used to determine whether there was a column of light present. Many of the objects in the videos cast moving shadows from the source of the moving meteor. No one is claiming that the shadows are artifacts, so if it can be determined that a particular cast shadow could only be produced by a column of light, wouldn't that be proof/evidence of the column's existence?
Eldie_Essay
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Okay, I have looked over some footage and I think I can demonstrate conclusively that there were two light sources. One was from the moving meteor and one was from a moving column of light. I have uploaded 17 screen captures that show this to my blog. You can view them here:
Eldie_Essay wrote: Okay, I have looked over some footage and I think I can demonstrate conclusively that there were two light sources. One was from the moving meteor and one was from a moving column of light. I have uploaded 17 screen captures that show this to my blog. You can view them here:
I suppose I could be mistaken, but "columns of light" cannot "cast shadows." Only matter can block light. The smoke made a shadow, the meteor made a shadow, and if some speculation is valid, a rocket intercepting the meteor would have made a shadow. If you doubt me, take a powerful flashlight out in the sunshine and see if you can find a shadow being cast by the beam.
Eldie_Essay
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Goldminer wrote: I suppose I could be mistaken, but "columns of light" cannot "cast shadows." Only matter can block light. The smoke made a shadow, the meteor made a shadow, and if some speculation is valid, a rocket intercepting the meteor would have made a shadow. If you doubt me, take a powerful flashlight out in the sunshine and see if you can find a shadow being cast by the beam.
Did I write somewhere that the column of light cast a shadow? I don't recall that I did, but if so, that was an error.
At any rate, further inspection of that video shows that the angle on the man's shadow and its movement seem to match the angle of the building's left-most shadow and movement. In other words, two light sources are not demonstrable.
Goldminer
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Eldie_Essay wrote:
Goldminer wrote: I suppose I could be mistaken, but "columns of light" cannot "cast shadows." Only matter can block light. The smoke made a shadow, the meteor made a shadow, and if some speculation is valid, a rocket intercepting the meteor would have made a shadow. If you doubt me, take a powerful flashlight out in the sunshine and see if you can find a shadow being cast by the beam.
Did I write somewhere that the column of light cast a shadow? I don't recall that I did, but if so, that was an error.
At any rate, further inspection of that video shows that the angle on the man's shadow and its movement seem to match the angle of the building's left-most shadow and movement. In other words, two light sources are not demonstrable.
Sorry, some days I seem to be dyslexic. I read something about shadows from two light sources, then something that now says two light sources . . . Gaaah! Well, sometimes I contribute, and sometimes not so much.
Eldie_Essay
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Goldminer wrote: Sorry, some days I seem to be dyslexic. I read something about shadows from two light sources, then something that now says two light sources . . . Gaaah! Well, sometimes I contribute, and sometimes not so much.
No problem. At any rate, I've now taken down that link. I wish I knew how to delete replies 'cause now I feel bad that people will click that link and get to a non-existent page.
I've also searched other videos and I cannot find anything definitive showing two light sources, so I guess evidence for the column's existence will have to remain a matter of speculation.
justcurious
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Good audio of the Russian meteor event. Many explosions or shockwaves, however you want to call them...
It sounds like the thing exploded into smaller pieces that went on to explode again, just guessing.
Looking at the features of the cloud gives us a clue that might support the multiple fragmentation notion. The last section of the cloud offers us a rightangle view of a "bar-bell-cloud" with one of the bell shapped regions clealy visible... I count as many as 5 areas that have similar characteristics, a perpendicular column across the flight path. So in the video with sound are we not hearing at least three sources of sound: sonic concussion, explosive consussion and echo.
Approximately 15 reports can be heard,,, three types from five areas seems to add up. I will get an image to this link soon to point out the bar-bell cloud which might reveal internal-explosion fragmentation. d...z
Considering the differing modes of discharge, dark mode could be behind and in front of the travel path. THe very bright flashes were probably arc mode, with the arc hidden by the glow discharge. I hope the russians inspect the area beneath the suspected arc discharge for contact with the ground.
It would also be nice to know the temp. and humidity at the time, as the quick appearance and disappearance of what I would call "charged" fog needs to be examined.
I have been thinking that "sheet" discharge could be part of the event, both as dark mode and glow mode. The glowing, fog like manifestations remind me of the comet's coma and tail.
Has anyone seen an interview of someone directly beneath the meteor?
dahlenaz
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
Sparky wrote:
It would also be nice to know the temp. and humidity at the time, as the quick appearance and disappearance of what I would call "charged" fog needs to be examined.
We can almost guess that it was near zero base on their concerns about overnight temperatures and window repair in the days ahead. Wind was blowing strong and humidity would have been minimal.
Wouldn't that be a highly non-conductive atmospheric condition?
Which electric discharge favors such conditions? d...z
...
Sparky
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
From the smoke stack's output, I would not say that the wind was strong; maybe light.
Speculation that wind is in of itself, an electrical effect, would support moving charges theory. How that would affect a ionosphere to ground potential difference, I don't know.
persianfirelight
Re: Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
we think the reason that there is no crack around the hole is the speed imagine shooting a bullet at a glass it will leave a hole no cracks but throwing a piece of stone to the glass leaves a whole other result and the glass would be broken down when meteors burn in the atmosphere the color of the light radiated shows the material of the meteor the meteor ionizes the atmosphere that affects the space around for a while that can be important for the electric universe theory.
