New (old?) explanation of Tunguska

[TheCrazedLog]

http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources.../asteroid.html

Interesting.

I still vote for a two headed alien causing this. One head good, one head bad. (There is a reference there, cookie to whomsoever works it out )

Anthony

[Ric]

A very plausible theory Anthony.

Somehow I think this one is always going to remain a bit of a mystery for a long time to come, be it a comet head, asteroid or indeed the two headed alien.

Cheers

[xelasnave]

Look at the surface of the Moon ..where did all those holes come from?
alex

[Nightshift]

Oh goody, another computer geek with more processing power that he knows what to do with. Computer modelling has long been the demon of bored intelligent people, does anyone here actually know how easy it is to influence a model to provide a totally incorrect outcome? Or better still, exclude data so an outcome fits a scenario? Next they'll have us believe that CFC's are responsible for depletion of the ozone layer. Oh yes, that was another ill concieved computer model too.
Still, I suppose we need to provide these government funded geeks with something to do. Maybe they could simulate a formula for peace on earth instead.

[programmer]

Originally Posted by Nightshift

Oh goody, another computer geek with more processing power that he knows what to do with. Computer modelling has long been the demon of bored intelligent people, does anyone here actually know how easy it is to influence a model to provide a totally incorrect outcome? Or better still, exclude data so an outcome fits a scenario? Next they'll have us believe that CFC's are responsible for depletion of the ozone layer. Oh yes, that was another ill concieved computer model too.
Still, I suppose we need to provide these government funded geeks with something to do. Maybe they could simulate a formula for peace on earth instead.

I doubt we would have space programmes without computer modelling, not to mention numerous other benefits (car crash-worthiness, etc.). They attempt to understand nature, and no boffin with any cred would say they are 100% correct; in fact this is impossible.

A quick Google shows that CFC's (amongst other things) are widely accepted as being 'a' cause of ozone depletion, and computer models are still being widely used to 'predict' future behaviour. Do you have a link showing that CFC's are not related to ozone depletion?

Just standing up for the geeks

[programmer]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Look at the surface of the Moon ..where did all those holes come from?
alex

Hi Alex,
correct me if I'm wrong but I think there was no impact at Tunguska, so no hole/crater. Thus its somewhat 'mysterious' nature?

[Nightshift]

Originally Posted by programmer

I doubt we would have space programmes without computer modelling, not to mention numerous other benefits (car crash-worthiness, etc.). They attempt to understand nature, and no boffin with any cred would say they are 100% correct; in fact this is impossible.

A quick Google shows that CFC's (amongst other things) are widely accepted as being 'a' cause of ozone depletion, and computer models are still being widely used to 'predict' future behaviour. Do you have a link showing that CFC's are not related to ozone depletion?

Just standing up for the geeks

Hi Programmer, I too am indeed a computer geek, have been since 1983, starting off as a programmer in C, fortran and cobol, then becoming an industry trained workbench and field service technician, my resume is longer than my arm, I am currently the ICT Manager at a college here on the Sunshine Coast. I too am a computer tragic but even armed with this knowledge I am no sheep, I question everything, and NEVER on a source like Google or Wikipedia. I'm not going to hand you the truth about CFC's on a platter, you go out and find it, but put google down, it just wont help you, it will cloud your research. I will offer you a few little facts though, CFC's are gases and liquids in many forms, the lightest of them being 8 times heavier than air, the majority being many times heavier, especially the liquid ones, but they magically manage to float hundreds of thousands of meters above our atmosphere dilligently nibbling away at our ozone layer, it is a fact that most CFC's will remove one oxygen molecule from ozone, convenient truth, but you would have to get the CFC up there and keep it there. Try looking up ownership of CFC copyright, check out a little company called DuPont, see if you can find out why they may have been interested in scaring the world away from using CFC's, by the way, CFC's were indeed a fabulous invention, they saved lives by the millions in medicine, they were once the basis of the best fire extinguishers ever produced, they were used in industry everywhere before the sheep started believing they were no good. CFC's have never been proven to be the harbinger of doom for our ozone layer, just presumed so and endorsed by geeks and there easy to disprove computer models. I for one ask questions, you however are free to keep handing big industry your hard earned dollars in the belief they are looking after you. I'll get off my soapbox now, easy to see that the teachers and students have all left college for the year leaving me with too much time on my hands. LOL.

[programmer]

Originally Posted by Nightshift

I question everything, and NEVER on a source like Google or Wikipedia.

Well as you know Google is not a source but a tool, but yes I'm aware of how search results are biased. And I also never take computer models at face value.

I'll get off my soapbox now, easy to see that the teachers and students have all left college for the year leaving me with too much time on my hands. LOL.

I just don't have enough time to research this matter unfortunately, what with only 24 hours in a day, but thanks for an interesting read. I might have more to say from home tonight.. who knows.

I do believe in healthy skepticism I just find myself being the Devil's advocate quite a lot.

Edit: We date back to around the same era in computers, around '81 for me.

[TheCrazedLog]

Thread has gone that way ----------->

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by programmer

Hi Alex,
correct me if I'm wrong but I think there was no impact at Tunguska, so no hole/crater. Thus its somewhat 'mysterious' nature?

It may be the different in atmospheres between the Moon and Earth that sees more evidence of impact crators on the Moon whereas..presumably our atmosphere is the first point of contact and therefore the explosion starts there and does not wait for actual impact with the hard surface iof the planet.
An inward bound object meeting our atmosphere may as well be hitting a brick wall I expect... still never been there when something like that has happened and can only mind model an outcome.
alex

[programmer]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

It may be the different in atmospheres between the Moon and Earth that sees more evidence of impact crators on the Moon whereas..presumably our atmosphere is the first point of contact and therefore the explosion starts there and does not wait for actual impact with the hard surface iof the planet.
An inward bound object meeting our atmosphere may as well be hitting a brick wall I expect... still never been there when something like that has happened and can only mind model an outcome.
alex

It's amazing it doesn't happen more often, but then a hundred years is not even even a blink on the geological scale, let alone the cosmological one!

Thread wending it's way back on track

[MikeyB (Michael)]

Lake Cheko, 8km northwest of the epicentre of the destruction:

Crater Could Solve 1908 Tunguska Meteor Mystery

[fringe_dweller]

this is indeed big news with massive implications - for earth dwellers check out the movies - whoa!

[Ric]

Sometimes I think it good for Humans to have a few mysterys left to keep us on our toes. The world might get too clinical if we go around and solve everything

Cheers