Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 181 to 210 of 245

Thread: A Theory of Cometary Associations with Earthquakes

  1. #181
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    For when you get back: Are you referring to comet Holmes? It had an outburst that temporarily increased the size of the coma (gas, ice and dust that's so thin it would be considered a vacuum if you flew through it, but there's enough distributed material to reflect light at distance). The nucleus (the only part with any significant density, and that maybe as dense as snow) would be a few km in diameter. The mass, of course, would be trivial compared to the Moon, and it was, and is, much further from Earth than the Moon.
    No, I'm only referring to Comet C/1811 F1, The Great Comet of 1811, Napoleans' Comet, Tecumsehs' Comet, Flaugergues Comet. That may be all the names, but the one that occurred from March 1811 to around that same time in 1812.

    I'm not sure all comets are built the same. I would speculate a comet could have iron at its core as well as plenty rock throughout.
    Last edited by Kalopin; 2012-Apr-04 at 09:00 AM.

  2. #182
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    ...and what happened after you contacted USPS to complain???
    They said it was delivered.

  3. #183
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Wait so the impact was violent enough to melt the rocks and create a big splash zone but somehow not to burn away or flatten the trees? Leaving them still complete enough for molten rock to wrap itself around (without burning them away) and then solidify? And you know how sandstone is formed, right? Give you a clue - impacts are not conducive to its formation. The rocks at Pompeii you are presumably talking about are ash based, not sand or iron.
    In some way, yes, not so much "a splash zone" but a major "shock wave", but I like the term "splash zone" better because that would more sum up how much water volume exists throughout the river valley. When this meteor hit it all turned to soup. All the water and ice prevented a major catastrophe. Imagine if this would have hit somewhere like Yellowstone!

    I admit it is quite unbelievable. I hope you get to see all of the collection. I promise, you will be amazed.

    I use Pompeii only as an example of a solidified body part. It just seems the only thing comparable.

  4. #184
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,772
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    As for #55, I contend that if the moon can exert such forces, then it stands to reason that another large enough object will do the same.
    But:

    1. This comet was about 1/100th the diameter of the moon (therefore roughly 1 millionth the mass)
    2. This comet was 450 times further away than the moon at its closest
    3. There is no evidence that the moon has any significant effect on earthquakes

    Given that, why would you imagine that the comet, with 200 billion times less gravitational effect, could possibly affect the earth?

  5. #185
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,772
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    I use Pompeii only as an example of a solidified body part. It just seems the only thing comparable.
    There are no solidified body parts from Pompeii.

  6. #186
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    But:

    1. This comet was about 1/100th the diameter of the moon (therefore roughly 1 millionth the mass)
    2. This comet was 450 times further away than the moon at its closest
    3. There is no evidence that the moon has any significant effect on earthquakes

    Given that, why would you imagine that the comet, with 200 billion times less gravitational effect, could possibly affect the earth?
    You do know we have... oh, well, It is my opinion that because people said it appeared bigger than the sun that it must have been near. William Herschel agrees, seeing the taill become smaller as it travels towards him. There are all kinds of different reports on this comets path. There's one where the comet splits.

    As far as the theory on the moon and its reactions, this may be a good start to explain what I'm talking about http://lunarscience.nasa.gov/article...on-was-formed/ .This is what occurs when one object at one size, speed and trajectory comes into contact with another near object that comes in at another speed and trajectory.
    I would consider this my arguement towards what a NEO can possibly do.

  7. #187
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    There are no solidified body parts from Pompeii.
    Fine, give me another comparison for the encased body parts that I say I have, it is left to your interpretation at this point. This is only what the rocks appear to resemble. Although there are many and they really do look like that, to me, I am sure that I could just be imagining. We may never know.

  8. #188
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    5,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    I hope you get to see all of the collection. I promise, you will be amazed.

    I use Pompeii only as an example of a solidified body part. It just seems the only thing comparable.
    As I mentioned earlier, photos are hard to interpret. But most of your rocks look like concretions to me.

  9. #189
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,382
    As far as the theory on the moon and its reactions, this may be a good start to explain what I'm talking about http://lunarscience.nasa.gov/article...on-was-formed/ .This is what occurs when one object at one size, speed and trajectory comes into contact with another near object that comes in at another speed and trajectory.
    I would consider this my arguement towards what a NEO can possibly do.
    Well I am pretty sure than no one is arguing that a direct collision with a NEO could trigger seismic events if it were large enough. That is totally different to the claim that one passing nearby will trigger them. Rather like saying that because a bullet can kill you if it hits you then one being fired anywhere near you will kill you too. That is a very, very poor argument to use to support your contention.

  10. #190
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,772
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Fine, give me another comparison for the encased body parts that I say I have, it is left to your interpretation at this point. This is only what the rocks appear to resemble. Although there are many and they really do look like that, to me, I am sure that I could just be imagining. We may never know.
    Perhaps you should look up "pareidolia".

  11. #191
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Given that, why would you imagine that the comet, with 200 billion times less gravitational effect, could possibly affect the earth?
    Correction: more like 100 trillion times less gravitational effect. Tidal forces fall off as the cube of distance, remember.

  12. #192
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    In some way, yes, not so much "a splash zone" but a major "shock wave", but I like the term "splash zone" better because that would more sum up how much water volume exists throughout the river valley. When this meteor hit it all turned to soup. All the water and ice prevented a major catastrophe. Imagine if this would have hit somewhere like Yellowstone!
    I believe that water impacts are considered worse scenarios than land impacts, due to the affect of the debris thrown up. It certainly doesn't act as a shock absorber to lessen the effect.

  13. #193
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhaedas View Post
    I believe that water impacts are considered worse scenarios than land impacts, due to the affect of the debris thrown up. It certainly doesn't act as a shock absorber to lessen the effect.
    Not just that...how could the moon pass within the Roche limit (~10-18 thousand km, depending on how readily it deforms) and impact the surface without being reduced to debris? Multiple collisions are just not possible.

    As for size, here's a comparison of the first 10 asteroids discovered, including the 4 most massive ones, against the moon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mo...ds_1_to_10.svg

    Note that these weren't discovered because they were close to Earth, they orbit in the belt. They were discovered despite their distance, because they are large and bright. There are no near-Earth objects large enough to have significant tidal forces on Earth. There's larger bodies out in the Kuiper belt, but those don't even remotely qualify as NEOs. And even a large comet only has a nucleus a few tens of km across.

    Further, you seem to think speed somehow makes the effects of a flyby worse. Is this correct? What physical justification do you have for thinking this?

  14. #194
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,083
    let me guess, shockwaves?
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  15. #195
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by captain swoop View Post
    let me guess, shockwaves?
    Like the bow shock that satellites, space probes, and the moon regularly pass through without notice? For those without special instrumentation, anyway...the 4 Cluster II satellites are orbiting through the bow shock region specifically to study it.

  16. #196
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Although I have sent off several samples to different meteoritic labs, something always happens and the samples are lost. A couple of times I sent samples certified mail and when contacted one said they were never recieved, the other said they must have been misplaced!
    Since you have now stated that USPS confirms delivery, are you claiming that the "lab" is lying when they say they didn't receive your "samples"??....That there is some "conspiracy" to keep you from "getting the word" out?


    edit to add...by the way, what lab(s) would that be?...name names, please.

  17. #197
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    We may never know.
    This isn't an unsolvable mystery. It is you making a claim. Since that claim is unevidenced, it is not a "mystery".

  18. #198
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    I would speculate a comet could have iron at its core as well as plenty rock throughout.
    By that definition, you are talking about an asteroid.

  19. #199
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by geonuc View Post
    As I mentioned earlier, photos are hard to interpret. But most of your rocks look like concretions to me.
    All I can tell you, is that they are NOT concretions! That's all the photos that would fit on those pages, will make more eventually. I have many more amazing rocks.

    By the way, "mid-plate tectonics"? The fault lies in the middle of The North American plate, against the direction of the edge of the plate, and just ends on either side.This has been quite confusing to seismologists.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	NewMadrid1895EarthquakeMap.gif 
Views:	31 
Size:	38.1 KB 
ID:	16669Click image for larger version. 

Name:	newmadridbend.jpg 
Views:	21 
Size:	60.6 KB 
ID:	16670

    One photo shows the same pattern as the shockwave would have had, the other photo has a line that when extended points directly to the impact!

  20. #200
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    Not just that...how could the moon pass within the Roche limit (~10-18 thousand km, depending on how readily it deforms) and impact the surface without being reduced to debris? Multiple collisions are just not possible.

    As for size, here's a comparison of the first 10 asteroids discovered, including the 4 most massive ones, against the moon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mo...ds_1_to_10.svg

    Note that these weren't discovered because they were close to Earth, they orbit in the belt. They were discovered despite their distance, because they are large and bright. There are no near-Earth objects large enough to have significant tidal forces on Earth. There's larger bodies out in the Kuiper belt, but those don't even remotely qualify as NEOs. And even a large comet only has a nucleus a few tens of km across.

    Further, you seem to think speed somehow makes the effects of a flyby worse. Is this correct? What physical justification do you have for thinking this?
    I wouldn't consider ANY of the NEOs found, so far to be of any significance. For anyone to say that "There are NO Near-Earth Objects large enough", assumes that a much larger one cannot come in unexpectedly, which is NOT the case.

  21. #201
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    Correction: more like 100 trillion times less gravitational effect. Tidal forces fall off as the cube of distance, remember.
    Not gravity.
    Gravity begins to work in a much closer proximity than other forces. Although it is the stronger force of attraction, electromagnetism can repel or attract, depending on pole positions. Comets disrupt pressure waves and sound in space, causing a "space tsunami" if you will, pushing a wave of charged particles and cosmic rays towards other objects near its path.

  22. #202
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,772
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    I wouldn't consider ANY of the NEOs found, so far to be of any significance. For anyone to say that "There are NO Near-Earth Objects large enough", assumes that a much larger one cannot come in unexpectedly, which is NOT the case.
    No one is saying that there can not be large NEOs. Or that one couldn't hit the earth and do immense damage.

    But you are talking about a specific comet that was very small and a very long way away (according to the pages you linked).

  23. #203
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,772
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Not gravity.
    Gravity begins to work in a much closer proximity than other forces.
    Nonsense. Gravity keep us in orbit around the sun (93 million miles, if you are not sure). And keeps the entire galaxy together.

    Although it is the stronger force of attraction, electromagnetism can repel or attract, depending on pole positions.
    And how is that relevant?

    Comets disrupt pressure waves and sound in space, causing a "space tsunami" if you will, pushing a wave of charged particles and cosmic rays towards other objects near its path.
    Really? Where do you get this stuff from?

  24. #204
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    By that definition, you are talking about an asteroid.
    I hate to tell you, but a comet IS a fast moving asteroid! That's how most start and finish.

  25. #205
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Nonsense. Gravity keep us in orbit around the sun (93 million miles, if you are not sure). And keeps the entire galaxy together.



    And how is that relevant?





    Really? Where do you get this stuff from?
    No, gravity alone does NOT keep us in orbit. If there was only gravity everything would form one single mass objectand be "stuck" together.There must also be repelling forces!

    Science 101.

  26. #206
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    I wouldn't consider ANY of the NEOs found, so far to be of any significance. For anyone to say that "There are NO Near-Earth Objects large enough", assumes that a much larger one cannot come in unexpectedly, which is NOT the case.
    It is the case. Ceres was discovered in 1801 and over 120 thousand much smaller asteroids have been discovered since. NEOs by definition would be nearer than the bulk of these. There are no NEOs anywhere close to the size of the larger asteroids. The odds of one having been overlooked are absurdly low.

    Besides, to exert tidal forces strong enough to cause earthquake activity, which even the moon can't do, you're talking about a full blown planet, one that would probably be brighter than Venus and which would certainly show up by its effects on the orbits of the other planets.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Not gravity.
    Gravity begins to work in a much closer proximity than other forces. Although it is the stronger force of attraction, electromagnetism can repel or attract, depending on pole positions. Comets disrupt pressure waves and sound in space, causing a "space tsunami" if you will, pushing a wave of charged particles and cosmic rays towards other objects near its path.
    Electromagnetism is simply not a significant factor in orbital dynamics, apart from weak, very long term effects on dust and small asteroids due to photon pressure...which certainly doesn't cause earthquakes. And as others have asked, pressure waves in what? We're talking about very nearly a perfect vacuum, incapable of transmitting any significant pressure waves, with the solar wind being an even weaker effect than photon pressure. And gravity is certainly not a short ranged force...you've got that completely backwards, it's electromagnetism which is short ranged due to tending to cancel out on large scales, while gravity only adds to itself.

    And no, a comet is not a fast moving asteroid. A comet is an icy, volatile-rich body from the outer solar system in a highly elliptical orbit that takes it close enough to the sun to vaporize some of the volatiles, an asteroid is a rocky/metallic body from the inner system. Some asteroids are thought to be remnants of comets, that's the closest you get to your claim being true.

  27. #207
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Since you have now stated that USPS confirms delivery, are you claiming that the "lab" is lying when they say they didn't receive your "samples"??....That there is some "conspiracy" to keep you from "getting the word" out?


    edit to add...by the way, what lab(s) would that be?...name names, please.

    You got it! AND I WILL call them out. New England Meteoritic Lab. Why don't you call their sorry ----and ask 'em about me. I'll bet they remember me!

  28. #208
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,772
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    No, gravity alone does NOT keep us in orbit. If there was only gravity everything would form one single mass objectand be "stuck" together.There must also be repelling forces!

    Science 101.
    Science -101 more like.

    If this is your level of understanding then this discussion probably isn't going anywhere...

  29. #209
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    39,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Comets disrupt pressure waves and sound in space, causing a "space tsunami" if you will, pushing a wave of charged particles and cosmic rays towards other objects near its path.
    I've asked previously (post # 43, for one) how exactly one could possibly get pressure or sound waves in space. I don't recall an answer, other than a reference to "thermoacoustic refrigeration" and the post (part of which is quoted below), which made no sense, so I will ask again - Exactly how can one have a sound wave in space? And exactly what does the sentence below mean? In fact, by all reasonable definitions of empty, except around planets with atmospheres, space is empty.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    There is no "empty" space and extremely small amounts of neutral space. Space is full of vacuums and pressures, coming from all forms of various forces and objects...
    Also in post # 36
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Didn't say comets produced cosmic rays, did say that comets disrupt cosmic rays.
    Now you are saying comets push cosmic rays. Is that the same as disrupting? And exactly by what mechanism does a comet push or disrupt a cosmic ray? Is there any actual measurements of this? I asked before, does the rate of cosmic rays hitting the Earth change when a comet goes by - I don't recall an answer.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  30. #210
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,772
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    You got it! AND I WILL call them out. New England Meteoritic Lab. Why don't you call their sorry ----and ask 'em about me. I'll bet they remember me!
    I'll bet they do.

    At one place I worked, I used to be The Guy who took "those" phone calls (you know, "I have this idea/invention/theory ...") and have to explain patiently that (a) it was a very old idea and (b) it wouldn't work.

Similar Threads

  1. Cometary Panspermia? Maybe, maybe not
    By trinitree88 in forum Life in Space
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 2010-Sep-14, 05:20 PM
  2. Galaxy-Quasar associations as a test for alternative cosmologies
    By rtomes in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 158
    Last Post: 2008-Apr-10, 12:02 AM
  3. Cometary Globule CG4
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2006-Mar-10, 04:48 AM
  4. Cometary meteoroids
    By Jeff Root in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2005-Nov-08, 12:25 AM
  5. Cometary guess work?
    By upriver in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Aug-01, 03:10 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: