Does this Explain Tunguska?

In 1908 a mysterious explosion took place in a remote region of Siberia flattening trees over a huge expanse of land while leaving no crater. Does this explain it?

The well-known Tunguska-1908 phenomenon (TP) problems (the fast transfer of the kinetic energy of the meteoroid W~10-50 Mt TNT to air, with its heating to T>10^4 K at an altitude of 5-10 km, the final turn of the smoothly sloping, ~0-20^o to horizon, trajectory of the body through ~10^o to the West, the pattern and area of the tree-fall and trees' scorching by heat radiation, etc.) allow a simple solution within the New Explosive Cosmogony (NEC) of minor bodies, as opposed to other approaches. The NEC considers the short-period (SP) comet nuclei, to which the Tunguska body belonged, to be fragments produced in explosions of massive icy envelopes of Ganymede-type bodies saturated by products of bulk electrolysis of ices to the form of a 2H2+O2 solid solution. The nearly tangent entry into the Earth's atmosphere with V~20 km/s of such a nucleus, ~200-500 m in size and ~(5-50)x10^12 g in mass, also saturated by 2H2+O2, initiated detonation of its part of ~10^12 g at an altitude of 5-10 km. This resulted in deflection of this fraction trajectory by 5^o-10^o, and fast expansion with ~2 km/s of its detonation products brought about their fast slowing down by the air, heating of the latter to T>10^4 K and a phenomenon of high-altitude explosion. On crossing the Earth's atmosphere, the main part of the unexploded nucleus escaped into space, and this body moving presently in an SP orbit should eventually be identified in time. Its impact with W~250-3000 Mt TNT on the Earth's surface (which could occur in 1908) would have produced a crater up to ~3.5-8 km in size, with an ejection of dust that would have brought about a climatic catastrophe. The processes involved in the TP are resembling those accompanying falling P/Shoemaker-Levy 9 onto Jupiter and, possibly, the impact-caused Younger Dryas cooling ~13 ka ago.

This entry was posted on Saturday, March 28th, 2009 at 8:36 pm and is filed under Just For Fun. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. The trackback link is: http://telicthoughts.com/does-this-explain-tunguska/trackback/

8 Responses to “Does this Explain Tunguska?”

Bradford Says:
March 29th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
The Tunguska incident is fertile ground for science fiction writers. Here's a story that could be classified as historic science fiction:

Tunguska: Nikola Tesla?
Finally, the Tunguska explosion might have been caused by Nikola Tesla. When I first heard of this idea, I laughed. While there are circumstantial facts that would lead some people to agree with this idea, most people would immediately discount it.

The only reason I include this topic is: the physics of the Ball-of-Light Particle Model actually predicts that he might really have been able to cause this massive explosion.

Who was Nikola Tesla? Perhaps the most eccentric scientist in history. Perhaps one of the most gifted true geniuses in history. Almost certainly, he was a man who difficulty confiding in others. He was in one respect reclusive, and in another respect a man who relished being in the lime light. The most important fact about Nikola Tesla was he created many revolutionary inventions that demonstrated that he had an original insight into the physics of electricity beyond any other person in history.

In the early 1900's Nikola Tesla created many interesting and important scientific inventions related to electricity. He invented such devices as: the electric motor, electric generators, the electric arc lamp, electric regulators, alternating current devices, devices for transmitting alternating current, a thermo magnetic motor, an apparatus for producing ozone, devices for converting alternating current to direct current, electric coils, apparatus for producing electrical currents of high frequency, and even a remote controlled boats.

Of key interest here is his inventions for creating massive electrical currents of high frequency and his two towers. These towers were very interesting. He created one at his laboratory in Colorado Springs and another at his Wardenclyffe facility on Long Island in New York. This tower was advertised to have "ten million horsepower" capability!

Comment by Bradford — March 29, 2009 @ 8:31 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
March 30th, 2009 at 11:50 am
This hypothesis of the cause of the explosion in Siberia back in the early 20th Century is completely impenetrable to me, but it has lots of numbers and squiggly lines and was written by a scientist, so I accept it unquestioningly and wholeheartedly and will rabidly attack anyone who says it cannot be true, once I have a vague idea of what it is.

Comment by angryoldfatman — March 30, 2009 @ 11:50 am

Bradford Says:
March 30th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
angryoldfatman:

This hypothesis of the cause of the explosion in Siberia back in the early 20th Century is completely impenetrable to me, but it has lots of numbers and squiggly lines and was written by a scientist, so I accept it unquestioningly and wholeheartedly and will rabidly attack anyone who says it cannot be true, once I have a vague idea of what it is.

Angryoldfatman, the defender of science.

Comment by Bradford — March 30, 2009 @ 12:14 pm

The Pixie Again Says:
March 31st, 2009 at 4:07 am
aofm

This hypothesis of the cause of the explosion in Siberia back in the early 20th Century is completely impenetrable to me, but it has lots of numbers and squiggly lines and was written by a scientist, so I accept it unquestioningly and wholeheartedly and will rabidly attack anyone who says it cannot be true, once I have a vague idea of what it is.

That is ironic, because whenever IDists defend Dembski's work (thinking about when I posted at ARN mostly), I have got the impression that generally they found that the maths is impenetrable, but they accept it "unquestioningly and wholeheartedly" even so, and again will attack anyone who duisagrees with it.

Comment by The Pixie Again — March 31, 2009 @ 4:07 am

angryoldfatman Says:
March 31st, 2009 at 10:05 am
The Pixie Again wrote:

That is ironic, because whenever IDists defend Dembski's work…

It isn't ironic because your analogy fails at the emphasized point.

Dembski is not a scientist because he supports ID and he does not have a beard.

Therefore, you cannot blindly believe anything he says no matter how impenetrable his math his or how many squiggly lines he uses. If he was a scientist, however, your analogy would be spot on.

Comment by angryoldfatman — March 31, 2009 @ 10:05 am

The Pixie Again Says:
March 31st, 2009 at 11:02 am
aofm

Dembski is not a scientist because he supports ID and he does not have a beard.

Good point.

Comment by The Pixie Again — March 31, 2009 @ 11:02 am

Hitch Says:
March 31st, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Good point.

Indeed. Having 2 Phds no longer qualifies anyone to be a scientist.

Only dancing around in circles and shaking a rubber chicken while chanting, "Oh Darwin gods, have mercy on me.", counts these days, so even "pixie again' qualifies

Comment by Hitch — March 31, 2009 @ 3:16 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
March 31st, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Hitch wrote:

Only dancing around in circles and shaking a rubber chicken while chanting, "Oh Darwin gods, have mercy on me.", counts these days…

Don't forget the beard.

Dennett is now considered a scientist today because of his bushy Darwin/Santa beard. When he was clean-shaven, he was a mere philosopher, and from what I've read, a very poor one.

Grow a decent length of facial hair and BAM! instant scientist.

And no, Dawkins is not a scientist.

Comment by angryoldfatman — March 31, 2009 @ 8:07 pm

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Does this Explain Tunguska?

8 Responses to “Does this Explain Tunguska?”

Leave a Reply

Featured Books