[Although correct terminology would say- "Meteor Hits Russian Urals:"]
Could have probably went and pick this one up?!
Maybe impacts will find more attention?
Hello Kalopin,
To read the reports of what transpired in Russia and think it was an impact event implies You have zero interest or knowledge of Electric Universe concepts. I and others have tried to educate You, apparently to no avail. The descriptions from Russia scream electrical, IMHO.
michael steinbacher
I agree .......a "rubble-shower" is hardly an "Impact-event" per mainstream theory
Kalopin
Re: Comet C/1811 F1 and The New Madrid Earthquakes of 1811-1
[Although correct terminology would say- "Meteor Hits Russian Urals:"]
Could have probably went and pick this one up?!
Maybe impacts will find more attention?
Hello Kalopin,
To read the reports of what transpired in Russia and think it was an impact event implies You have zero interest or knowledge of Electric Universe concepts. I and others have tried to educate You, apparently to no avail. The descriptions from Russia scream electrical, IMHO.
michael steinbacher
I agree .......a "rubble-shower" is hardly an "Impact-event" per mainstream theory
"Rubble shower"!? It took out a building! Do you understand the meaning of 'impact'?
It WAS an impact event! Something was impacted!
JPL forgot to calculate for the electrical attraction. ... No, it is I that has been trying to educate you on the effects of comets. But this little asteroid impact gives me an opportunity to show many that they can not leave out the aspect of electrical attraction, and a chance to also show the many different forces that apply.
Why the attitude? It degrades the thread, <moderator edit>, and has no bearing on the simple question asked. Got something positive? Why not just try and answer the question. Then you would have seen that my answer would have included EU? -no, not sad, just disappointed...
So, you read the report? What kind of event was it? [but do I get an honest answer, or more dribble?]
kiwi
Re: Comet C/1811 F1 and The New Madrid Earthquakes of 1811-1
"Rubble shower"!? It took out a building! Do you understand the meaning of 'impact'?
a "rubble shower" with attitude ,.. big deal... it was "split"apart as per thye EU mechanism, get over it
Kalopin
Re: Comet C/1811 F1 and The New Madrid Earthquakes of 1811-1
Vicomt wrote: interestingly enough, there are reports of an earthquake possibly associated with the Russian meteor....
Now, that's what I'm talking about [Willis ]! This is proof positive that a meteor impact can cause seismic waves [duh]!
Registered on the seismograph pretty well for such a 'small' impact...
Kalopin
Re: Comet C/1811 F1 and The New Madrid Earthquakes of 1811-1
kiwi wrote:
"Rubble shower"!? It took out a building! Do you understand the meaning of 'impact'?
a "rubble shower" with attitude ,.. big deal... it was "split"apart as per thye EU mechanism, get over it
You can call it a 'rubble shower', you can call it 'confetti', but the scientific community will call it an impact!
No, IT split the building apart!
kiwi
Re: Comet C/1811 F1 and The New Madrid Earthquakes of 1811-1
You can call it a 'rubble shower', you can call it 'confetti', but the scientific community will call it an impact!
No, IT split the building apart!
yes Ive seen the way they "build" over there ..... The big bad wolf could of taken that one down
and technically? sure, ... but an IMPACT could also "describe" a Plasma Discharge exchange between two bodies where a the physical-mass's never touched
Now, that's what I'm talking about [Willis ]! This is proof positive that a meteor impact can cause seismic waves [duh]!
Registered on the seismograph pretty well for such a 'small' impact...
"When you have an explosion in the air, it shakes the ground, and we see it on the seismographs," explained Paul Caruso, a geophysicist at the USGS National Earthquake Information Center in Denver, Colo., which reported the meteor-related tremors. "It's not an earthquake, and it looks very different from the usual earthquake seismogram," he told OurAmazingPlanet.Few meteor explosions have actually been recorded on seismographs, though, Caruso said. "We've been looking at it all morning," he added.
The meteor reportedly injured hundreds of people and damaged hundreds of buildings when it exploded in a massive blast Friday morning (Feb. 15).
Most of the injured were reportedly hurt by falling glass caused by the blast, and many have been hospitalized. In addition, an estimated 297 buildings suffered damage, including six hospitals and 12 schools, according to translations of updates by the Russian Emergency Ministry.
Scientists think a meteoroid entered the atmosphere above Russia's southern Chelyabinsk region, where it exploded and broke up into fragments scattered across three regions of Russia and Kazakhstan, according to news reports. http://www.livescience.com/27185-russia ... ignal.html
But I see by your comment quoted below you have definately "hedged" your bets
True that comets are asteroids, but must note that comets contain asteroids, meteoroids, gravel, sand, ice, dust, charged particles, plasma
Kalopin
Re: Comet C/1811 F1 and The New Madrid Earthquakes of 1811-1
kiwi wrote:
You can call it a 'rubble shower', you can call it 'confetti', but the scientific community will call it an impact!
No, IT split the building apart!
yes Ive seen the way they "build" over there ..... The big bad wolf could of taken that one down
and technically? sure, ... but an IMPACT could also "describe" a Plasma Discharge exchange between two bodies where a the physical-mass's never touched
Now, that's what I'm talking about [Willis ]! This is proof positive that a meteor impact can cause seismic waves [duh]!
Registered on the seismograph pretty well for such a 'small' impact...
"When you have an explosion in the air, it shakes the ground, and we see it on the seismographs," explained Paul Caruso, a geophysicist at the USGS National Earthquake Information Center in Denver, Colo., which reported the meteor-related tremors. "It's not an earthquake, and it looks very different from the usual earthquake seismogram," he told OurAmazingPlanet.Few meteor explosions have actually been recorded on seismographs, though, Caruso said. "We've been looking at it all morning," he added.
The meteor reportedly injured hundreds of people and damaged hundreds of buildings when it exploded in a massive blast Friday morning (Feb. 15).
Most of the injured were reportedly hurt by falling glass caused by the blast, and many have been hospitalized. In addition, an estimated 297 buildings suffered damage, including six hospitals and 12 schools, according to translations of updates by the Russian Emergency Ministry.
Scientists think a meteoroid entered the atmosphere above Russia's southern Chelyabinsk region, where it exploded and broke up into fragments scattered across three regions of Russia and Kazakhstan, according to news reports. http://www.livescience.com/27185-russia ... ignal.html
But I see by your comment quoted below you have definately "hedged" your bets
True that comets are asteroids, but must note that comets contain asteroids, meteoroids, gravel, sand, ice, dust, charged particles, plasma
Ha!, and the propaganda machine commences! Please, do not believe their lies. It registered on the seismograph just the same as any vibration on the tectonic plates! and, it registered good!
It is hilarious to hear them have to admit that it registered on the seismograph, after hearing seismologists say for years that a meteor impact can not cause an earthquake, and this impact was tiny. That was one of my biggest problems convincing everyone that the December 16, 1811 event was an impact and not just an earthquake. So this is great news for my hypothesis. [thanks for the congratulations!]
What other meteor impacts does he refer to? I wonder, did he see the picture of the impacted building. sure, it broke apart, but there was definitely a big enough piece to cause the destruction seen...
Can you find an explanation for how 'different' this impact looks on a seismogram compared to an earthquake?
P.S. What are you implying concerning my comment? Yes, I bet you that the earthquake was an impact! Wanna bet?
kiwi
Re: Comet C/1811 F1 and The New Madrid Earthquakes of 1811-1
Can you find an explanation for how 'different' this impact looks on a seismogram compared to an earthquake?
Gawdknows! ... but I'll break a leg tyring!
kiwi
Re: Comet C/1811 F1 and The New Madrid Earthquakes of 1811-1
What other meteor impacts does he refer to? I wonder
Possibly this below? ....
Meteor Explosion Recorded On Seismograph
Thursday, 8 July 1999, 11:52 am Press Release: NEWS RELEASE 8 JULY 1999
The sonic boom from the meteor that exploded over the North Island yesterday was recorded on a seismograph at Ruapehu, the Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences Limited (GNS) said today.
Interpreting the recording today, seismologist Terry Webb said the meteor was probably a fragment or remnant of a comet outward bound from the Sun and heading for the outer solar system.
It entered the earth's atmosphere at a relatively low trajectory at about about 20km/sec, or 72,000km/h before exploding into multiple fragments, Dr Webb said.
He estimated the meteor broke up at between 60km and 80km altitude. Dr Webb doubted if any particles hit the ground.
" A meteor such as this would probably have burned up completely in the atmosphere.''http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC9907/S00003/meteor-explosion-recorded-on-seismograph.htm
SEISMIC WAVES AND SEISMIC SOURCES IN THE ATMOSPHERE-----P. Lognonné, R.Garcia, G.Occhinpinti, E.Alam Kherani, F.Crespon, D.Mimoun Sumatra observations We can follow in the ionosphere Rayleigh waves and as well as tsunami. These results show that the dream of remote sensing seismology could be a reality in a relatively near future. Such techniques could be applied not only on the Earth, but also on Venus. ESA Venus Express will test in 2006 this idea after its orbit insertion, and a more powerful experiment, able to record surface waves, can be foreseen for future Venus missions. Modeling Topex and Jason Black: data Red: modeling In 1995, I was initiated by H.Kanamori during a stay in the seismo lab to the exciting problem of coupling between the solid earth and its atmosphere. This led to a complete description of the theory necessary to compute normal modes in an Earth with atmosphere (Lognonné et al., 1998). Such theory is successfully able to explain seismic waves in the solid earth excited by energetic atmospheric sources, especially volcano explosions. The IPGP Ionospheric Seismology team present here recent results obtained on the detection of seismic waves in the ionosphere, We illustrate these results for a few quakes in Japan as well as for the ionospheric data recorded after the Sumatra majors quakes of 2004. Theses ionospheric data from various sources (altimetry and Demeter satellites, GPS) and from ground systems (Doppler sounders) show both the gravity waves, the Rayleigh waves and the tsunami, recorded at high altitude in the ionosphere
Re: Comet C/1811 F1 and The New Madrid Earthquakes of 1811-1
Thanks Kiwi. I hadn't seen that article before. There seems to be more evidence that impacts can cuase tectonic shifting. I believe USGS was trying to say that very few impacts register on a seismograph, but this was a rather 'small' impact compared to the Dec. 16, 1811 event and what is possible.
I can not believe that USGS still tries to argue their impossible point of view. So, did you find anything concerning the differences in appearance on a seismogram? Maybe the depth?
kiwi
Re: Comet C/1811 F1 and The New Madrid Earthquakes of 1811-1
Kalopin wrote: Thanks Kiwi. I hadn't seen that article before. There seems to be more evidence that impacts can cuase tectonic shifting. I believe USGS was trying to say that very few impacts register on a seismograph, but this was a rather 'small' impact compared to the Dec. 16, 1811 event and what is possible.
I can not believe that USGS still tries to argue their impossible point of view. So, did you find anything concerning the differences in appearance on a seismogram? Maybe the depth?
No not yet ... probably worth banging an e-mail through to the Scientist quoted,
I'll do one
Here's a quick para from Wiki on the Tunguska event ....
At around 7:17 a.m. local time, Evenks natives and Russian settlers in the hills northwest of Lake Baikal observed a column of bluish light, nearly as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky. About 10 minutes later, there was a flash and a sound similar to artillery fire. Eyewitnesses closer to the explosion reported the sound source moving east to north. The sounds were accompanied by a shock wave that knocked people off their feet and broke windows hundreds of kilometres away. The majority of witnesses reported only the sounds and the tremors, not the sighting of the explosion. Eyewitness accounts differ as to the sequence of events and their overall duration.---The explosion registered on seismic stations across Eurasia. In some places the shock wave would have been equivalent to an earthquake of 5.0 on the Richter scale.[11] It also produced fluctuations in atmospheric pressure strong enough to be detected in Great Britain. Over the next few days, night skies in Asia and Europe were aglow;[12] it has been theorized that this was due to light passing through high-altitude ice particles formed at extremely low temperatures, a phenomenon that occurred again when the Space Shuttle re-entered the Earth's atmosphere.[13] [14] In the United States, the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and the Mount Wilson Observatory observed a decrease in atmospheric transparency that lasted for several months, from suspended dust.
and a piece on the Lake Cheko affair from same source... the suggested size of the "impactor" at 1 meter sounds a bit light for the ensuing after-effects?
Lake Cheko See also: Lake Cheko In June 2007, scientists from the University of Bologna led by professor Giuseppe Longo[39] identified a lake in the Tunguska region as a possible impact crater from the event. They do not dispute that the Tunguska body exploded in midair but believe that a one-meter fragment survived the explosion and struck the ground. Lake Cheko is a small, bowl-shaped lake approximately 8 kilometres north-northwest of the epicentre.[40] The hypothesis has been disputed by other impact crater specialists.[41] A 1961 investigation had dismissed a modern origin of Lake Cheko, saying that the presence of metres-thick silt deposits at the lake's bed suggests an age of at least 5,000 years,[24] but more recent research suggests that only a meter or so of the sediment layer on the lake bed is "normal lacustrine sedimentation", a depth indicating a much younger lake of about 100 years.[42] Acoustic-echo soundings of the lake floor provide support for the hypothesis that the lake was formed by the Tunguska event. The soundings revealed a conical shape for the lake bed, which is consistent with an impact crater.[43] Magnetic readings indicate a possible meter-sized chunk of rock below the lake's deepest point that may be a fragment of the colliding body.[43] Finally, the lake's long axis points to the epicentre of the Tunguska explosion, about 7.0 kilometres (4.3 mi) away.[43] Work is still being done at Lake Cheko to determine its origins.[44] The conclusions of the Italian scientist were published on the website of the University of Bologna.[45] The main points are that "Cheko, a small lake located in Siberia close to the epicentre of the 1908 Tunguska explosion, might fill a crater left by the impact of a fragment of a Cosmic Body. Sediment cores from the lake's bottom were studied to support or reject this hypothesis. A 175-centimetre (69 in)-long core, collected near the center of the lake, consists of an upper c. one-metre (39 in)-thick sequence of lacustrine deposits overlaying coarser chaotic material. 210Pb and 137Cs indicate that the transition from lower to upper sequence occurred close to the time of the Tunguska Event. Pollen analysis reveals that remains of aquatic plants are abundant in the top post-1908 sequence but are absent in the lower pre-1908 portion of the core. These results, including organic C, N and δ13C data, suggest that Lake Cheko formed at the time of the Tunguska Event."[46]
Re: Comet C/1811 F1 and The New Madrid Earthquakes of 1811-1
kiwi wrote:
Kalopin wrote: Thanks Kiwi. I hadn't seen that article before. There seems to be more evidence that impacts can cuase tectonic shifting. I believe USGS was trying to say that very few impacts register on a seismograph, but this was a rather 'small' impact compared to the Dec. 16, 1811 event and what is possible.
I can not believe that USGS still tries to argue their impossible point of view. So, did you find anything concerning the differences in appearance on a seismogram? Maybe the depth?
No not yet ... probably worth banging an e-mail through to the Scientist quoted,
I'll do one
Here's a quick para from Wiki on the Tunguska event ....
At around 7:17 a.m. local time, Evenks natives and Russian settlers in the hills northwest of Lake Baikal observed a column of bluish light, nearly as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky. About 10 minutes later, there was a flash and a sound similar to artillery fire. Eyewitnesses closer to the explosion reported the sound source moving east to north. The sounds were accompanied by a shock wave that knocked people off their feet and broke windows hundreds of kilometres away. The majority of witnesses reported only the sounds and the tremors, not the sighting of the explosion. Eyewitness accounts differ as to the sequence of events and their overall duration.---The explosion registered on seismic stations across Eurasia. In some places the shock wave would have been equivalent to an earthquake of 5.0 on the Richter scale.[11] It also produced fluctuations in atmospheric pressure strong enough to be detected in Great Britain. Over the next few days, night skies in Asia and Europe were aglow;[12] it has been theorized that this was due to light passing through high-altitude ice particles formed at extremely low temperatures, a phenomenon that occurred again when the Space Shuttle re-entered the Earth's atmosphere.[13] [14] In the United States, the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and the Mount Wilson Observatory observed a decrease in atmospheric transparency that lasted for several months, from suspended dust.
and a piece on the Lake Cheko affair from same source... the suggested size of the "impactor" at 1 meter sounds a bit light for the ensuing after-effects?
Lake Cheko See also: Lake Cheko In June 2007, scientists from the University of Bologna led by professor Giuseppe Longo[39] identified a lake in the Tunguska region as a possible impact crater from the event. They do not dispute that the Tunguska body exploded in midair but believe that a one-meter fragment survived the explosion and struck the ground. Lake Cheko is a small, bowl-shaped lake approximately 8 kilometres north-northwest of the epicentre.[40] The hypothesis has been disputed by other impact crater specialists.[41] A 1961 investigation had dismissed a modern origin of Lake Cheko, saying that the presence of metres-thick silt deposits at the lake's bed suggests an age of at least 5,000 years,[24] but more recent research suggests that only a meter or so of the sediment layer on the lake bed is "normal lacustrine sedimentation", a depth indicating a much younger lake of about 100 years.[42] Acoustic-echo soundings of the lake floor provide support for the hypothesis that the lake was formed by the Tunguska event. The soundings revealed a conical shape for the lake bed, which is consistent with an impact crater.[43] Magnetic readings indicate a possible meter-sized chunk of rock below the lake's deepest point that may be a fragment of the colliding body.[43] Finally, the lake's long axis points to the epicentre of the Tunguska explosion, about 7.0 kilometres (4.3 mi) away.[43] Work is still being done at Lake Cheko to determine its origins.[44] The conclusions of the Italian scientist were published on the website of the University of Bologna.[45] The main points are that "Cheko, a small lake located in Siberia close to the epicentre of the 1908 Tunguska explosion, might fill a crater left by the impact of a fragment of a Cosmic Body. Sediment cores from the lake's bottom were studied to support or reject this hypothesis. A 175-centimetre (69 in)-long core, collected near the center of the lake, consists of an upper c. one-metre (39 in)-thick sequence of lacustrine deposits overlaying coarser chaotic material. 210Pb and 137Cs indicate that the transition from lower to upper sequence occurred close to the time of the Tunguska Event. Pollen analysis reveals that remains of aquatic plants are abundant in the top post-1908 sequence but are absent in the lower pre-1908 portion of the core. These results, including organic C, N and δ13C data, suggest that Lake Cheko formed at the time of the Tunguska Event."[46]
Right, that does seem to be maybe an underestimate, but must consider the blast force trajectory may have had same angle of decent with this suggested fragment adding to the force.[?] I find it strange that there are so many estimations of seismoc force due to impacts, when most seismologists, that I have encountered, continue to postulate the lack of evidence for impacts producing earthquakes.
It is my strong belief that it was meteor impacts that broke the tectonic plates up in the first place, or at least one of the mechanisms...
Sparky
Re: Comet C/1811 F1 and The New Madrid Earthquakes of 1811-1
The Russian meteor,@41sec. appears to be discharging perpendicular to Earth and to it's flight path. A huge flash and at 44 sec. there seems to be a residual downward trail. The remaining meteor either burned up or was to small to discharge after that.
From all the angles that this was seen from, they should beable to locate the initial discharge site and any other craters along that path.
This appears to be both a kinetic and electrical event.
Kalopin
Re: Comet C/1811 F1 and The New Madrid Earthquakes of 1811-1
The Russian meteor,@41sec. appears to be discharging perpendicular to Earth and to it's flight path. A huge flash and at 44 sec. there seems to be a residual downward trail. The remaining meteor either burned up or was to small to discharge after that.
From all the angles that this was seen from, they should beable to locate the initial discharge site and any other craters along that path.
This appears to be both a kinetic and electrical event.
Agreed. DA14 had a south to north trajectory, and they are saying the meteor that hit Russia came in at east to west and was a smaller undetected companion?
Firstly, Earth's spin force [gravitational pull] would have easily changed the direction of trajectory from longitude to latitude. That is after the electromagnetic force has pulled it in close enough. Apparently 'they' believe the impact too small for a 45 meter in diameter asteroid. 'They' fail to take into consideration many intracacies and variables. The majority of any asteroid, not having the amount of ice compared to a cometary fragment, will melt away through our atmosphere, except the hardest metals such as iron. This meteor could have easily been more than 45 meters. It took out several buildings, new estimates say it injured more than 1,200. It left 3 craters, two on a frozen lake and another was 80km away and measured 6 meters in diameter. 'They' did not have the 'companion' asteroid on view and, after the impact, I have yet to see DA14 on any view?!?
These misunderstandings have been one of the biggest 'hurdles' convincing that The Mississippi Embayment displays a massive shockwave pattern...
Sparky
Re: Comet C/1811 F1 and The New Madrid Earthquakes of 1811-1
80km away and measured 6 meters in diameter.
That i would like to see...assuming it preceded the others! It would be a prime candidate for a discharge crater.
edit: Would someone please comment on the "apparent" downward discharges.
-no, not sad, just disappointed...
..... The big bad wolf could of taken that one down
