New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#26 2003-07-28 05:52:45
- Shaun Barrett
- Member
- From: Cairns, Queensland, Australia
- Registered: 2001-12-28
- Posts: 2,843
Re: The Tunguska Explosion - What was it?
Again, all very good points.
I freely admit I'm pushing the envelope more than a little by invoking nuclear processes. And, without any figures for the pressure and temperature, I'm in no position to argue the point.
Are the reports of radioactivity (TVactivity? :laugh: ) even credible in the first place? Maybe I'm breaking all the rules of physics in a pointless attempt to explain something that never happened!
If the reports are believable, where is the radiation coming from? I don't remember reading anywhere that stony meteorites are well-known for their high content of radioactive isotopes.
Hmmm. That 'stricken, extraterrestrial, nuclear-powered, interstellar spaceship' story is looking better and better!!
The word 'aerobics' came about when the gym instructors got together and said: If we're going to charge $10 an hour, we can't call it Jumping Up and Down. - Rita Rudner
Offline
Like button can go here
#27 2003-07-28 18:47:58
- dickbill
- Member
- Registered: 2002-09-28
- Posts: 749
Re: The Tunguska Explosion - What was it?
from the same site I cited above:
M. Tchernobrov a indiqu? qu'une hausse de la radioactivit? avait ?t? enregistr?e dans la zone apr?s la chute de la m?t?orite. Selon lui, il ne s'agit d'ailleurs "probablement pas ? proprement parler d'une m?t?orite, mais d'un corps c?leste de nature pour l'instant inconnue"
M. Tchernobrov mentioned an increased in radioactivity (after the impact) , but he said he doesn't believe it's a meteorite. If its not a meteorite and its not a comet, what it is ?
whatever, I havn't seen this info anywhere else than Yahoo.fr. Unless somebody confirm from a different source than AFP. This is dubious IMO.
Offline
Like button can go here