![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"I was just sitting there carving nesting dolls and drinking Vodka when i saw this flash in the sky and it was like BOOM. Then I died." ... what on earth is this doing in the article? Is ghost writing permitted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.99.153.189 ( talk) 16:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Why is there all this half-baked conspiracy theory crap in the article? You state in the article that it is not accepted, and the evidence does not support it. So why is it in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.75.50.251 ( talk) 01:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Any scientific article has space for un-proven theories, as long as it is emphasised that those particular theories are un-proven. Including such content is not such a bad thing, because sometimes one or two of these theories might be onto something good ! No smoke without fire type of thing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.6.145.131 ( talk) 15:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The wikipedia editors so far seem to disagree with you which is why that content is still included in the article - eg. the end of the world, etc - not that I agree with with that particular one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.6.145.131 ( talk) 16:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Nowhere in this article was there anything about this event possibly causing global warming, or part thereof, so I added what I found from my research. I added it in the format as close to wikipedia's recommendations as possible with the correct reference which included an external link. I even changed the original wording slightly from my source to avoid possible copyright infringement although I dont think I need to under fair use and the small amount I used. I do not have an account and was not logged in, which is ok and is not a requirement. My content was immediately removed. It went something like the following, however the following will be a direct quote from the external source with some additional intro information : "A new theory to explain global warming was revealed at a meeting at the University of Leicester (UK) and is being considered for publication in the journal "Science First Hand". The controversial theory has nothing to do with burning fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. According to Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the apparent rise in average global temperature recorded by scientists over the last hundred years or so could be due to atmospheric changes that are not connected to human emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of natural gas and oil. Shaidurov explained how changes in the amount of ice crystals at high altitude could damage the layer of thin, high altitude clouds found in the mesosphere that reduce the amount of warming solar radiation reaching the earth's surface." - http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html
Wikipedia editors definitely SEEM to be biased toward any other cause of global warming that excludes human produced CO2. Could it be because of a world wide socio-political agenda involving enriching the 3rd world with things line "carbon credits" to the detriment of the West - much like illegal immigration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.6.145.131 ( talk) 15:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Otherwise why has the 'end of the world' section not been removed ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.6.145.131 ( talk) 16:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
From the article: "Also this event happened on June 30, 1908 and Peary didn't leave New York for the North Pole until July 6, 1908."
Above: "In other words, Peary set sail from New York City six days after the Tunguska event,"
The event happened June 30, 1908 in the Julian calender; July 12, 1908 in the Gregorian calendar. Assuming Pearys departure is given in the Gregorian calendar, he thus left New York prior to the explosion.
-- 85.166.26.133 14:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Basically in 1908 someone got hold of the Black Materia and used it to summon Meteor, possibly with some purpose, possibly without really knowing what they were doing. Fortunately for us, someone else had the White Materia and was able to call Holy. Holy eliminated Meteor in what is now known as the Tunguska Event. M0ffx 20:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
2006 69.207.164.24
??????? Jclerman 03:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Reference to increased Carbon-14 can be found in KUNDT, W. Current Science. 81. 399-407 (2001), its taken as evidence by Kundt as being the result of a massive volcanic gass emission at depth possibly analagous to the intrusion of Kimberlite into the Craton. ClimberDave 16:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I've just re-read the article it doesn't mention it directly however does talk about enrichment of the soil but instead results from Tree resin analysis. I've forward a copy of the article to your email address with a copy of the Verneshot hypothesis which talks about the event also, which probably provides a more straight forward model of volcanic gas extrusion, particularly in the micro-vernshot model. It seems to me that the hypothesis of kimberlite intrusion is worthy of note on the article page however it has since been removed in favour of apparent direct evidence of bolide impact. However i'm studying impact geology and Tunguska doesn't fit the model, and i'm unsure what the direct evidence is. ClimberDave 13:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll try forarding the email again ClimberDave 08:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
From the Article: According to the Guinness Book of World Records (1966 edition), if the collision had occurred 4 hours 47 minutes later, it would have wiped out St. Petersburg.
Why? I don't understand why time make any difference - please offer some small explanation in the article.
The mention of St Petersburg is entirely meaningless and should be removed. If the impacting body was moved 4 hours 47 minutes forward in time on its orbital path, it would have passed "in front" of the Earth in the Earth's orbit, that is, it would have passed through the volume of space that the Earth had yet to reach. In order to have hit St Petersburg, the orbit itself would have had to be different, not the temporal point within its orbit, though a time difference of a few minutes could still have resulted in a populated area being hit, as the Earth is a three-dimensional target. Unless the Earth's gravity significantly affected the orbit due to the 5-hour near miss, the body could still have collided with the Earth on a future orbit.[User: Asteroceras, cookies not working at the moment]
Asteroceras is correct, the asteroid arriving nearly 5 hours later would find the Earth in a different point in space entirely. As the error is that of the GBoR, it would seem to me that the best solution is to leave in the quote, but add a mention that Guinness were incorrect in this statement for the reasons above. Parkingtigers ( talk) 08:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the question/statement should be rephrased as "under various hypothetical possibilities of encounter by the two bodies, St Peterburg would have been hit 4 hours 47 minutes after the actual event, the Pacific Ocean x hours before (with a comment on the probable size of the tsunami arising) etc."
Has there been any alternative universe fiction in which "the body" #did# hit St Peterburg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.100 ( talk) 14:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is an interesting site outlining the connection between Nikola Tesla and the Tunguska event:
http://prometheus.al.ru/english/phisik/onichelson/tunguska.htm
This article was written by a Harvard professor in 1995.
The idea that in the 19th century Nikola Telsa was able to generate and wireless transfer the energy of 1000 nuclear bombs (and accidentally did without him or anyone else knowing) seems, well, to put it kindly, not very elaborate. And no sources other than some websites. Christoph Scholz 10:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
imo Tesla and the Wardenclyffe Tower shold be linked here. Give it at least as much space as for the UFO- and the End-of-the-World-Theory. There's no substantial proof for those neither. Luky ( talk) 11:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, the Wardenclyffe Tower hypothesis should be included in this article. Michael H 34 ( talk) 16:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
One of the main tenets of Wikipedia is that is encyclopedic about information, not subjective about information. The Tesla theory, while maybe not the correct explanation, is one of the more popular theories about the event. A simple Google search for "Tesla and Tunguska" reveals that this is not some small group of nut jobs positing the idea - it is a significantly large number of nut jobs! ;) For an encyclopedic article to completely ignore the theory reeks of some people pushing their view rather than simply reporting what is out there. UFO's are a much wackier and far less well known theory than Tesla. It is a disservice to this article and to Wikipedia not to mention him here. James 04:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
A witness by the name of Stepan Ivanovich, said: Suddenly, above the mountain, where the forest had already fallen, something started to shine intensely, and, I tell you, it was as if a second sun had appeared; the Russians would have said “something suddenly flashed unexpectedly”; it hurt my eyes, and I even closed them. It resembled that which the Russians call lightning. And immediately there were, loud thunder. That was the second thunderclap. ( see http://www.vurdalak.com/tunguska/witness/chuchana_si.htm )
How did Stepan Ivanovich see an area of flattened forest before he saw the flash of an explosion? It seems he was describing a second explosion. He states that there were many flashes and thunderings in differant locations. And other statements would tend to agree. Many statements mention the sounds of multiple exlosions. ((User Nosut)) 2:00, 19/1/2008. (UTC)
Thanks Someguy1221. The answers i received from the reference desk were that small fragments could have fallen as fireballs over a period of time. The above is not my opinion. If we take Stepan Ivanovich's claim at face value, after the trees were already fallen another explosion took place and then a third, which was the strongest (this is mentioned by other witnesses). Stepan Ivanovich should be mentioned on the main page as a witness who could have been describing explosions. If he's a poor witness (as was also questioned at the reference desk), then he shouldn't be mentioned on the main page. ((User Nosut)) 12:47, 24/1/08. (UTC)
I think that this should be added to the main page as a similar event http://www.iris.edu/news/IRISnewsletter/fallnews/senate.html. ((User Nosut)) 11:47, 12/2/08. (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Mountain_UFO_incident ((User: Nosut))11:56, 22/2/08. (UTC)
((User: Nosut))1:20, 26/2/08. (UTC)
As the centenary is coming up could this article be developed for the main page? (And can "someone" resolve the relevant entry on the "On this day" page - it is mentioned in the pics but not in the list?) Jackiespeel ( talk) 18:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I've read a version that it was a natural gas exhaust explosion.-- Certh ( talk) 11:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Once the data from the new comet explorations are gathered I am sure that the findings will link this event to a comet. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Rdailey1 ( talk) 14:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
June 2008 issue of Scientific American has a feature story on it, p. 80 JAF1970 ( talk) 19:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Some also suspect that the Tunguska incident was a result of an electrical "beam," if you will, experiment that was set off by Nikola Tesla on the same day, June 30, 1908. Tesla apparently underestimated his machine and, the power output being much greater then he expected, he missed his target and may have cause the event known as Tunguska. He is said to have been aiming for the tundra where an arctic traveler was supposed to observe this and who Tesla planned to use as a reference point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.29.24 ( talk) 17:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
As I said in the above Tesla section, "the Tesla theory, while maybe not the correct explanation, is one of the more popular theories about the event. A simple Google search for "Tesla and Tunguska" reveals that this is not some small group of nut jobs positing the idea - it is a significantly large number of nut jobs! ;) For an encyclopedic article to completely ignore the theory reeks of some people pushing their view rather than simply reporting what is out there. UFO's are a much wackier and far less well known theory than Tesla. It is a disservice to this article and to Wikipedia not to mention him here". With that in mind, and taking into consideration comments about how to present Tesla (especially those thoughts of Someguy1221), I have written up a new Tesla Connection section under the speculative theory section. I think it nicely -- and briefly -- presents the theory without giving it undue weight. I've also given three sources for the theory (including the only TV show I could find exact details about - even though I know it has been mentioned on many other programs). I've even dug up the links to the NY Times archives that have the actual reprints of Tesla's letters that some people believe give credence to the theory. I don't believe the Tesla Connection is the correct theory on what happened here. But given its popularity and the fact that some less known and even wilder speculative theories are presented I can't see any logical reason to keep this one out either. I hope you guys agree that the text is at the very least a good starting place and that this endless removing of Tesla from the article can finally come to an end! James ( talk) 05:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, note: the other "speculative hypotheses" seem to be (generally) sourced to actual scientists. (In a few cases, they're sourced to popular sci-fi writers.) They're speculating, of course, but at least they have some basis. By comparison, no scientist any time soon will be speculating that Tesla could produce enough energy for a 15 megaton blast from any of his inventions cos, well, he just plain couldn't. So unless it's generally accepted that this article should go beyond rational speculation and start including every internet crank's irrational conspiracy theory, then I think there's not enough sourcing to support including any such section on Tesla. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 01:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Oliver Nichelson was a graduate student at Harvard and studied the history of science. His hypothesis is notable and verifiable. I question why someone would delete this information just because he doesn't like it. Michael H 34 ( talk) 17:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
You may think that the Oliver Nichelson's hypothesis is a fringe theory, and you may believe that his hypothesis is neither notable or reliable, but in my view, those are your opinions. "The publisher for that book will actually print just about anything." If you have consensus on that opinion, then you may delete this content (and leave the UFO theory in place, for which there are no citations.) Michael H 34 ( talk) 15:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
Before deleting the Oliver Nichelson hypothesis, you should first establish by consensus that Adventures Unlimited Press is not a notable source. Michael H 34 ( talk) 18:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
In my view, this source is also notable and reliable: [9] Michael H 34 ( talk) 20:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
I think these claims are too vague. This section should go under the "Speculative hypotheses" title. Aldo L ( talk) 15:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I presume that Gregorian Calendar is the default usage for all such events. Jackiespeel ( talk) 13:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-tunguska-mystery-100-years-later
fyi. 65.189.146.128 ( talk) 19:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
1. What's the meaning of "inconsistent with natural radioactive decay"
2. From which source comes this statement?:
The isotopic signatures of carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen at the layer of the bogs corresponding to 1908 were found to be inconsistent with natural radioactive decay
Please post or email me the article or any other reliable source
Jclerman ( talk) 08:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Please clarify this statement:
Later expeditions did identify such spheres in the trees, however.
Does it mean inside the trees? Which part(s)?
Jclerman (
talk)
08:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Misterul Tunguska, elucidat de un roman
Geofizicianul roman Stefan SGANDAR, cu ale carui studii cititorii „Magazinului” au mai avut prilejul sa se intalneasca, ne propune de aceasta data o explicatie extrem de interesanta si de realista a asa-numitului fenomen Tunguska, petrecut acum 100 de ani - mai exact in ziua de 30 iunie 1908, ora 07:17 - pe Platoul Siberian Central. Imensul glob de foc care a explodat atunci in atmosfera terestra a generat efecte mai mult sau mai putin bizare, sesizabile rapid pe o distanta de circa 800 de kilometri. Totusi, nici o interpretare ulterioara nu a elucidat cazul.
Comete, gauri negre, extraterestri...
Practic, intreaga planeta a receptat, intr-un fel sau altul, insolitul impact. De la mari distante, s-a putut vedea intrand in atmosfera uriasa flacara alb-albastruie si s-a auzit un sunet asurzitor. Traiectoria a avut o forma de curba larga, iar la cadere s-a format un nor negru si a izbucnit o limba de foc ce s-a bifurcat, stralucind orbitor. Ulterior, s-a format o tromba de ciclon care a facut sa cada o ploaie neagra. Undele seismice s-au propagat la multe sute de kilometri in sol, iar in aer au inconjurat Pamantul de doua ori. La altitudini mari, in Europa au aparut nori argintii masivi, care radiau o luminiscenta ciudata. Forta exploziei a fost echivalata cu aproximativ 30 milioane de tone TNT!
Explicatiile cautate de cercetatori, dar si de amatori, au mers pe cai dintre cele mai diferite. Prima presupunere - caderea unui meteorit - a insemnat si prima infirmare, caci la locul impactului nu existau nici urme de crater, nici fragmente ale presupusului corp ceresc. Au urmat alte versiuni: o explozie nucleara, o cometa gazoasa dezintegrata in atmosfera terestra, o gaura neagra si chiar dezintegrarea unei nave extraterestre sau impactul dintre planeta noastra si o farama de antimaterie. Argumentele si contraargumentele pentru fiecare ipoteza au facut ca, vreme de un veac, fenomenul Tunguska sa ramana invaluit in mister.
„Soarele” cazut pe Pamant
Cercetatorii Stefan Sgandar si Claudiu Sgandar incearca sa lamureasca toate problemele, pornind de la ideea ca explozia a fost provocata de un glob plasmatic expulzat in urma unei eruptii solare. Un prim argument: traiectoria ciudata a globului incandescent, caracteristica fulgerelor globulare. In plus, un amanunt extraordinar: „evolutia” fenomenului a fost calculata sa se fi desfasurat la cel putin 3-400 de kilometri altitudine. Asadar, dincolo de atmosfera, ceea ce inseamna ca acel „corp” nu a luat foc ca urmare a frecarii cu aerul. Ulterior, coliziunea cu atmosfera a determinat un „salt” pana la 2-300 km (cu descrierea ciudatei parabole observate de la sol), apoi reducerea vitezei si caderea „corpului” pe Pamant. Se explica astfel si despicarea arborilor de sus in jos, in doua parti egale: fenomenul s-a petrecut ca in cazul aruncarii unei pietre intr-un lac, stiut fiind faptul ca, atunci cand aceasta atinge apa, unda sare in mod absolut egal, la dreapta si la stanga traiectoriei urmate de piatra.
Sunetul foarte puternic auzit de martori a fost produs, potrivit d-lui Sgandar, de contactul dintre uriasul plasmoid (cu viteza supersonica) si atmosfera, totodata reducandu-se substantial viteza pana la mai putin de 1 km/s. De asemenea, plasmoidul nu avea cum sa dea nastere unui crater, in schimb se putea separa in doua in timpul impactului, determinand bifurcatia limbii de foc observate.
Limpezirea apelor
La cateva decenii dupa explozie, in probele de sol de la locul impactului s-au gasit niste bile microscopice, a caror existenta geofizicianul roman o atribuie caldurii mari degajate de plasmoid in momentul exploziei. Aceasta a topit minereurile de fier slabe, dupa care, prin racirea brusca, s-au format retele de cristalizare in jurul unor centre microscopice, ceea ce a dus la aparitia amintitelor bile metalice. Puterea extraordinara a exploziei a determinat si undele de aer inregistrate pe toata planeta si, pe de alta parte, condensarea brusca in clima rece a taigalei, urmata de un vartej ca o tromba de ciclon, care a ridicat in aer o cantitate apreciabila de sol mlastinos, ceea ce a generat ulterior o ploaie neagra. Cat despre luminiscenta vie a cerului, observata pana in Anglia, ce a durat mai multe nopti, ea ar fi fost rezultatul condensarii vaporilor de apa in mici cristale de gheata la altitudinea de 80 de kilometri, in conditiile speciale create de trecerea prin atmosfera terestra a imensului plasmoid.
"Concluzia ce se desprinde din toate cele expuse - isi incheie argumentatia d-l Stefan Sgandar - duce fara indoiala la ideea ca presupusul glob plasmatic de origine solara, ce a dat nastere exploziei din Siberia, poate explica in intregime toate fenomenele petrecute in urma coliziunii, fenomene explicate doar partial si contradictoriu de celelalte ipoteze." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngabi 1999 ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I think Tunguska was much northern a place, the red dot is at least 5 mm to the south. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutecuteguy ( talk • contribs) 17:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence called the event a "massive explosion". Normally I would consider it a petty pedantic quibble to object to using the word "massive" when not referring to mass, but since in this case whether the explosion was of a massive or non-massive object is at the heart of the debate, I felt it was wrong to call it a "massive explosion". I changed "massive" to "powerful". OK? Iglew ( talk) 01:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is a large enough consensus among scientists to claim that this was most likely caused by the means the article suggests. There are other reasonable competing theories that are still viable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiefinspectorClousea ( talk • contribs) 01:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not think the reasonableness of another explanation is a fringe notion. However I am unable to weigh the opinions of the individual scientists who differ in opinion, while not fringe, I can not articulate weight to opinions rendered by individuals I do not know. Perhaps the weight is undue and I will defer to your experience and withdraw my objection, although I do think it could be a reasonable debate. -- ChiefinspectorClousea ( talk) 12:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Might interest sombody.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522217,00.html?test=latestnews
-- Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 14:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, what sort of idea is this? Why would an advanced craft of neaded to leave it to the last minuite before it had to crash into the meteorite? Its a bit stupid. But! Let it be said. We can evaluate it for its worth! Heck! I have a theory that Tunguska was caused by an earth flare event! ((User: Nosut))20:45 16/6/09. (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosut ( talk • contribs)
I have removed all text under the heading of 'Valley of Death' because of two main reasons. The first reason is that the 'Valley of Death' text is almost copied verbatim from 3 almost identical unsubstantiated articles by the same author, Valerie Uvarov. By carefully avoiding Uvarov's more outlandish assertions, the text from 'Valley of Death' almost appeared to be objective and cited from multiple sources. If one reads Mr. Uvarov's articles, one can clearly see that the buried cauldrons he is referring to in the articles are crashed UFO's. Further, the Valley of Death is referring to UFO radiation and giant guardians of the buried UFO's who slay lost cattle and supposedly killed a guide from the 1st Soviet expedition to Tunguska. According to Uvarov, the Kremlin censored the reports to hide evidence of the UFO's. Mr. Uvarov claims that the Tunguska event is a repeated UFO phenomenon that takes place every few hundred years. Needless to say, the entire scientific community disagrees with Mr. Uvarov's claims and his sources aren't cited. The articles are more or less poorly written and illustrated religious pamphlets.
The following sources are cited for the 'Valley of Death' section: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_tunguska09a.htm http://www.blogcatalog.com/blog/strange-days/2aaddb5182720ece30d95fcd653b6222 http://www.astrologycom.com/yakutia1.html
The second reason that I deleted the 'Valley of Death' is that Mr. Valery Uvarov is self proclaimed Russian Ufologist with dubious (fictitious) credentials. In fact, Valerie Uvarov credentials have been exposed as a fraud in the UFO believing community: http://boris-shurinov.info/profan/uvarov/uf-uv.htm Besides writing UFO articles so ridiculous that many members in the ufo believing community believe Uvarov to be a 'debunker', Mr. Uvarov makes money selling 'snake oil' called "The Wands Of Horus". http://www.neilos.org/WandsOfHorus_Beware_of_Imitations.html There is more citation in his 'wands of horus' ads, than the 'Valley of Death' Tunguska event UFO articles. Veganthrope ( talk) 07:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)veganthrope
One question please: In the interview with Valery Uvarov from the June-July 2003 issue of Nexus magazine, on page 60, a supposed set of ancient records is referenced called the "Echutin Apposs Alanhor", also known as the "Alanhor". Are these texts fictional as well? I have searched diligently and have found no evidence of any other reference to them outside reprints of that singular interview. Thank you in advance for any information. -- Grimm0713 ( talk) 16:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
"Over the next few days, night skies in Asia and Europe were aglow such that those in London could read a newspaper in their light [10];"
I was interested in this idea, so I looked up the cited article by Nigel Watson in History Today. It's a quick one page article and it says nothing about the sky in Asia and Europe being aglow. No mention is made of reading newspapers by the light given off, especially in London. Why post a fake citation? This is just aggravating, nothing more.
128.135.107.46 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
I question the usefulness of a link from here to the "Air_burst" page. That page is devoted to the detonation of explosives. I'm guessing the average reader understands that "air burst" refers to a detonation in air, but might click on such a link out of curiosity as to how such an airburst would take place for something that's made out of rocks instead of explosives--information that the page in question does not provide.
In point of fact, how does a rock explode simply because it heats up? That's like the only reason I even came to this page. Obviously people who've studied this think it sounds reasonable, but why? Is there a good place to find out somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.19.84.33 ( talk) 18:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
According to an episode of the Discovery Channel program "Investigation X", a featured theory is that mirror matter kinetically interacted with normal matter resulting in the explosion... should that be added to the list of fringe theories? 65.94.252.195 ( talk) 08:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
Could you let me know why my small additions to this Wikipedia article (Vladimir Rubtsov’s “The Tunguska Mystery” book and his Tunguska website’s URL) are persistently removed? The list of References to the “Tunguska Event” article does contain other Tunguska books (including those not mentioned in its text) and also the list of External links contains other Tunguska websites; therefore this information cannot be considered as SPAM. (By the way, there are in this article several crude factual errors… definitely needing correction. But now I doubt if this is worth trying.)
Best, Tungus1908 ( talk) 16:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Good. I have found in this article some ten errors of varying significance. Now three of them are corrected. Tungus1908 ( talk) 16:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, Rubtsov's monograph should certainly be consulted as it provides by far the most detailed account available in English of USSR/Russian Tunguska reaearch. Rubtsov makes it clear that important USSR scientist were open to the nuclear explosion hypothesis. And by the way: the fact that this hypothesis was first suggested in a piece of fiction has no bearing on its validity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.33.37 ( talk) 13:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The notion that the Tunguska event was produced by a meteorite is supported by the fact that there was a singular event. Wikipedia promotes this point of view by expressing there was a single “explosion”. Many witnesses and articles claim there were multiple explosions, however. I was told back in January 2008 that this can’t be said, as it would be original research. I no longer accept this. These articles have been accepted by Wikipedia (they are on the main page). These articles clearly state that there were “explosions”, one even states that they took place over the course of many minutes. I do not agree that we need more research and peer review in order to contradict these simple statements. ((User: Nosut))21.11, 20.12.2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosut ( talk • contribs)
((User Nosut)) 19.51, 23.12.2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosut ( talk • contribs)
The object coming in would create a sonic boom. Fragments would also initially create sonic booms. Add in reflected sounds of those booms from the mountains and you have multiple booms. Ever been in the mountains during a thunderstorm? Wzrd1 ( talk) 03:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
It says early in the article that the blast most likely was the equivalent of 10–15 megatons of TNT. However, later, it says that this impact would be a 5.0 on the Richter scale. When looking on the richter scale article, it rates an explosion with a yield of 16.2 Megatons of TNT at a 6.7 on the richter scale. If i had to guess, i would say that it's because the explosion was not directly on the ground, but i'm not sure. 24.10.220.113 ( talk) 21:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer on explosion or explosions, Someguy. However, I would like to return to clear what was said in 2008. I said two events were similar: http://www.iris.edu/news/IRISnewsletter/fallnews/senate.html. I was told: “The website that content is hosted on is maintained by the same organization that performed the research and wrote the material. As such, it's not a reliable source, unfortunately.”
However, I have now found other places documenting the event: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=102814 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banjawarn_station http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AGUSM.U22A..01H
((User Nosut, 18.58 2.1.2010)) (UTC)
I’ve not seen anything more about the first similar event I mentioned, so I will continue on with the second. I said this was a similar event: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Mountain_UFO_incident but Someguy, you wrote: "The overarching feature of the similar events section is that all were meteor-related explosions. The incident above was not alleged to be such an event by the skeptical sources."
This is not correct. A team lead by Dr Madison and including two Canberra aircraft searched the mountains for a meteorite but never found anything. Please reply...
((User Nosut, 22:45 28.1.2010)) (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosut ( talk • contribs)
I can’t see its boneheaded obvious that the Tunguska object was a meteorite, though, but then, regarding one witness statement you previously wrote... “It's possible they dismissed or ignored that witness statement for a reason, but we'll never know.”
Someguy, you may feel rest assured these statements are ignored for good reason, but I feel it’s because they don’t fit with the current meteorite solution. The account given by K.A Korin for example: K.A Korin said he was in the bath house when he heard the noise, and he went out into the yard where he saw the object in the South west. The object must have been travelling towards him as he said it then disappeared to the opposite horizon in the North east. The point being: If the object was flying towards him, and he first heard it in the bath house, then it was travelling less than the speed of sound. Now, I do understand you said Wiki can’t highlight such passages that we find strange, but when you said it was boneheaded obvious Tunguska was a meteorite, I had a duty to point this out. When the Tunguska solution fits these witnesses’ statements, then it will become obvious.
((User Nosut, 13.15, 31.01.2010)) (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosut ( talk • contribs)
German ZDF documentay with english subtitles. P. S. Burton ( talk) 17:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The article contains this sentence: Impacts of similar size over remote ocean areas would have gone unnoticed[11] before the advent of global satellite monitoring in the 1960s and 1970s.
The citation is to an article that suggests the wave created by a 200 meter meteor impact in the ocean might be fairly small to the point it might go unnoticed, however there are problems with the use of this citation to support the statement in the article:
As an aside, overall a very nice article and the discussion section was interesting, thank you -- Davefoc ( talk) 22:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the impact site that Wzrd1 might be referring to is the Wabar craters. According to the Wikipedia article the event may have been noticed (as Wzrd1 mentions) in 1863 or 1891 so this would seem to support the idea that satellite monitoring wasn't necessary to detect large meteors. My point with regard to this issue was that the claim in the article wasn't supported by the citation and I thought that it might have just been wrong. The information about the Wabar Craters doesn't seem to conflict with that point but I did appreciate that Wzrd1 referenced it since I thought the story was interesting.
As a practical matter the sentence quoted above has been removed from the article so this discussion seems to be moot and unless somebody reinserted the text or disagrees I think this issue is closed.-- Davefoc ( talk) 19:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Caption restored since the photo of the Southern Swamp is copyrighted and therefore must be referenced, at least. Removal of this reference may be considered as infringement of copyright.
May 11, 2010. Once again, the caption for this photo must be as follows: "The Southern Swamp – the epicenter of the Tunguska explosion. View from a helicopter. Photo by Vladimir Rubtsov, taken at June 30, 2008. Source: Rubtsov (2009), p. 2." Other versions may be considered as infringement of copyright.
The article includes this statement:
The use of the word, meteorite, in this context might be inappropriate. The first definition of, meteorite, on dictionary.com is "a mass of stone or metal that has reached the earth from outer space; a fallen meteoroid.". If the object is bursting in air than it hasn't hit the ground and would seem not to be a meteorite. The sentence should probably just use the word, meteor. The first definition of meteor on dictionary.com is "a meteoroid that has entered the earth's atmosphere".
In general, the uses of the words, meteor, meteoroid, and meteorite, are somewhat inconsistent in the article. -- Davefoc ( talk) 17:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
ETA: I just realized that there is some ambiguity in the definition of meteorite that uses the phrase "has reached the earth from outer space". Reasonably, earth's atmosphere, might count as part of the earth, so perhaps a meteorite, might be considered to be a meteoroid that has reached the earth's atmosphere. However, the science dictionary definition on dictionary.com is: "A meteor that reaches the Earth's surface because it has not been burned up by friction with the atmosphere". Overall, I think standard usage and some formalized definitions support the idea that an object from space has to have hit the ground before it is a meteorite. -- Davefoc ( talk) 18:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
How can it be as powerful as the Castle Bravo bomb but only one-third the power of the largest nuke ever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iain.dalton ( talk • contribs) 19:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Pretty Simple of course. Castle Bravo was not the largest nuke ever. Baska436 ( talk) 11:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I've kept an interesting article which was published in the Peruvian newspaper "El Comercio"'s sunday supplement on november 20th, 1983, titled "Las bolas luminosas de Santa Bárbara" (which could translate more or less as "the lightballs of Santa Barbara"). The author, Luis Manuel Canepa G., retells a story told to him by his father, who worked on a sugar plantation 140 Km south of Lima. According to it, around 8pm on June 29th, 1908, he and his brother were entering the house when suddenly the plantation was brightly lit, and he saw emerging from the Pacific Ocean three or four lightballs which quickly gained height one beyond the other and vanished from view, leaving for a while a strange glow over the sea. The author then comments about how later he heard about the Tunguska event on June 30th and thought it was an extraordinary coincidence, and thought that there might be a connection. Then, some weeks prior to the article's date, he found out about Jackson and Ryan's theory about the black hole passing through the Earth and emerging on the other side on the Atlantic Ocean. He postulates they may have erroneously calculated the exit point on the Atlantic because they thought it was a single object, instead of three or four impacting the Earth surface on Tunguska at an angle of about 65 degress and a velocity of some 30 Km/s, crossing some 11000 Km in about 6 minutes and emerging over the Pacific. I thought it might be worth mentioning this in relation to the black hole hypothesis... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.222.51.174 ( talk) 04:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
One of the worlds greatest mysteries (and one of my favourites) is the Tunguska Event. Many Theories have been passed around and I have heard a few popular ones...
The Air Burst Theory. -This is when an asteroid or meteor explodes upon contact with the atmosphere of a planet. The space rock must be travelling at an angle to the planets surface so it has quite a bit more time until it hits the ground. With complete devastation and no crater to be seen this is quite a popular theory!
Tectonic Plates Theory. -It is believed that the Earths plates were moving at that time and when they moved they would increase the pressure of the lava and gas underneath. The pressure built until that fateful day the plates pulled and released all this pressure causing a huge explosion aka the Tunguska Event. This is still just a theory though.
Alien Spaceship Impact or Alien Attack. -This theory seems well too far fetched but still people believe. The theory of the spaceship crash is...well...a theory that aliens accidently crashed into the Earth. And the alien attack is were a warning shot (or something) was fired at us! These are the weirdest theories i've heard but are very popular for some reason.
Mirror Matter Theory. -This isn't a popular one at all but I think it should be shared. Supposedly there is a new type of matter that is still trying to be proved called Mirror Matter. Its the complete opposite of ordinary matter (and it isn't anti-matter either!). Its hard to understand completely and I don't see something could come from nothing (I also have a different opinion about the Big Bang too). But I have my opinion and you can have yours.
These theories are popular ones and but we still haven't concluded on the cause. My guess is the Air Burst Theory. I have been fascinated by this event and hope that one day this mystery will be solved. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Chaox666 (
talk •
contribs)
21:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Professor Willy Ley pointed out many years ago that at the time of the collision between the Earth and the Tunguska object the Earth and the object were heading straight towards each other.
It was a head on crash and no starship captain would have allowed such a highly dangerous landing or survey. AT Kunene ( talk) 09:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Seriously though, I THINK that it was an attempt at levity on a topic that displays the profound effects of gravity. And momentum... Wzrd1 ( talk) 04:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
"The composition of the Tunguska body may no longer be a matter of dispute" says the beginning sentence to a section which describes considerable dispute.
I think the sentence is premature--substantial evidence is detailed for at least 2 composition theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.108.185 ( talk) 21:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Professor Willy Ley pointed out in one of his science articles that the Earth and the Tunguska object were heading towards each other at high speed, a head on crash and no starship commander would risk a landing on a planet heading directly towards his ship at high speed. A simple observation that seems to effectively eliminate any suggestion of extra terrestial intelligence. AT Kunene ( talk) 08:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
In the March 31, 2012 New Scientist an apparently unrelated article is run, where trees are shown to have the role of creating turbulence in flame propagation sufficient to enable an actual detonation! This was done for testing purposes in the UK, after a huge explosion at a chemical plant that defied understanding needed to be better understood. As I read the article, the first thing I thought about was this event, and how the two may have been connected, given the likelyhood of releasing gasses in summer months in areas like this, if the weather was sufficiently hot enough.
So, now that the flame propagation issue has been decidedly solved and experimentally replicated - and that the method of propagation turns out to be trees, perhaps it is time to revisit this theory?? Can the previously reached consensus be changed? Zaphraud ( talk) 21:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Just curious - it seems that there is still considered to be something missing here. Like big chunks. Regardless of if the comet was the trigger for a huge swamp-gas burst, or contained its own methane and broke up in the upper atmosphere, the March 31,2012 New Scientist article on flame propagation goes a long way to explaining what happened. Using the existing comet/meteor hypothesis, the core of the comet, which burst, would have been the detonating flame, and the turbulence necessary to reach the flame propagation velocity required in all directions for true detonation would have been provided by the methane and chunks that had broken off previously, and were falling all around the core. Right? Isn't a big part of explaining this in any way at all, is how a natural Fuel Air Explosive came to be possible in the first place? A comet composed of methane ice wrapped around stiff chunks with the right size and shape characteristics may also be able to create the pattern that leads to flame acceleration. So the idea isn't dead, you've just shifted the location of the combustible gas to the sky! If the thing came down as just methane ice, the force yield on the explosion would be much lower than if it came down in a manner that formed an FAE with flame acceleration compatible debris already in position. Zaphraud ( talk) 00:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The tunguska meteorite landed in the Russian Empire, ruled by Nikolai II later known as St. Nikolai II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.142.79 ( talk) 14:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
This is supposed to be a serious article. I helped it be that. Antimatter33 ( talk) 05:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Thermonuclear Effects
Here is how I imagine the Tunguska Event could have occurred with the available knowledge we have.
The meteor hitting the atmosphere blew up with thermonuclear effects, thus you must assume that natural causes must have resulted in the exact thing that science has only arrived at since the 1950's.
You have a rock in space, a meteor, which has been travelling around the solar system for possibly billions of years. It's a sizeable rock, much like you would find in any sort of rock with one great exception. It would have had a significant percentage of naturally occurring uranium in the rock, accompanied by lithium. After a significant period of time, this rock would have gathered or absorbed the direct energy input of high energy gamma rays. The implication is that the uranium would have become highly enriched and very uniformly dispersed in the rock. But the lithium would also have become an isotope as well.
You have two ingredients therefore, of the basic fuels required in a thermonuclear device. A NATURAL thermonuclear device. The rock was also covered in ice, which probably became heavy water ice in the same instance of time, which spanned a great length.
This rock with so much potential would have passed at regular intervals through a high energy gamma ray stream millions of times during the expansion of the universe, whereas man only existed for hundreds of thousands of years in his evolved state. One day, the orbit of this rock decayed due to its increased mass through what is an entirely natural process.
A rock of this size would have left an indelible mark on the face of the earth had it struck the surface, but instead it exploded spectacularly in the atmosphere. The heat and pressure of re-entry were the exact circumstance required to force the highly enriched uranium into criticality, which then exploded. The rock gave off a bright blue light prior to explosion, which should signify gamma rays emanating brightly from the surface as it re-entered. This explosion is the exact circumstance required to then spray the enriched lithium within the rock and heavy water ice that remained on its surface(probably the trailing edge) with a shower of neutrons in a split-second, transmuting the elements into a fusion reaction between tritium and deuterium.
There is a high energy gamma ray source which points directly at the solar system, the earth in particular, emanating from Cygnus X-3, a binary star composed of a star made entirely of quarks and a companion that supplies endless quantities of hydrogen. It's 37,000 light years from earth, but the streams of gamma rays are the brightest in the galaxy that provide earth with regular illumination. This energy would have been absorbed by the meteor as it passed on its orbit through the solar system, showered with high energy gamma rays.
I suppose you can see how utterly improbable this kind of event might occur, and how remote the possibility that such a thing could happen. But you have thermonuclear effects, thus you must assume that the interaction that caused the effects were exactly those of known thermonuclear devices. As for the gamma ray radiation that might transmute otherwise non-radioactive substances into critical elements required for such a thing to occur, you might want to take in the article describing Cygnus X3, and how the particle stream is quite unique:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00326896.pdf
Many Thanks for reading and entertaining my thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.243.211 ( talk) 17:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Any information on dead larger animals within the area? Eg Deer or Bears? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.71.160 ( talk) 11:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
This evidence only supports the exotic matter comet hypothesis of being a round a metre in diameter, which is a useful measurement to have incidentally. There should be thousands of micro meteorites from the airburst event, but there *AREN'T ANY!!* PLEASE! Can anyone see this simple anomaly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.118.104 ( talk) 09:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
> You should cite some sources to support your complaint. 69.122.70.156 ( talk) 05:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
When I saw the "undue weight" warning I expected to see some kind of "serious" theory about aliens, but what is there now is a factual account of the interaction of fiction with this event and how the event was popularly perceived. Many people (wrongly) think this was a flying saucer crash site or some such thing. The "aliens" section helps explain *why* that belief is so popular. I came to the article hoping to understand why so many people have so many wild theories about this event.
Clearly, it is because it was ignored at first the researched post-mortem. This made it seem mysterious and created a vacuum in to which wild notions rushed. It was for a time a true UFO (in the sense that it was unidentified) the mystery was solved but the legend lives on, the legend is a part of the history and the article would be incomplete and unhelpful without it.
And legends and folk tales are beautiful things. As long as we understand them for what they are and enjoy them as such.
69.122.70.156 ( talk) 05:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
This paragraph has gotten added a couple times and I'd like other editors input on it. Looking at it myself, and pardon my French, it's fringe crap. Looking at the links, it's a self-published theory, and the group of "enthusiasts" of this theory include only a single actual scientist (two if you count the electrical engineer). The theory itself has appeared in a respected journal precisely once, in Skeptic, which refers to the theory as "untenable", "a non-starter" and "disproved by practically everything known..." It simply has no place in an article about a serious topic. Someguy1221 ( talk) 05:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"I was just sitting there carving nesting dolls and drinking Vodka when i saw this flash in the sky and it was like BOOM. Then I died." ... what on earth is this doing in the article? Is ghost writing permitted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.99.153.189 ( talk) 16:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Why is there all this half-baked conspiracy theory crap in the article? You state in the article that it is not accepted, and the evidence does not support it. So why is it in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.75.50.251 ( talk) 01:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Any scientific article has space for un-proven theories, as long as it is emphasised that those particular theories are un-proven. Including such content is not such a bad thing, because sometimes one or two of these theories might be onto something good ! No smoke without fire type of thing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.6.145.131 ( talk) 15:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The wikipedia editors so far seem to disagree with you which is why that content is still included in the article - eg. the end of the world, etc - not that I agree with with that particular one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.6.145.131 ( talk) 16:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Nowhere in this article was there anything about this event possibly causing global warming, or part thereof, so I added what I found from my research. I added it in the format as close to wikipedia's recommendations as possible with the correct reference which included an external link. I even changed the original wording slightly from my source to avoid possible copyright infringement although I dont think I need to under fair use and the small amount I used. I do not have an account and was not logged in, which is ok and is not a requirement. My content was immediately removed. It went something like the following, however the following will be a direct quote from the external source with some additional intro information : "A new theory to explain global warming was revealed at a meeting at the University of Leicester (UK) and is being considered for publication in the journal "Science First Hand". The controversial theory has nothing to do with burning fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. According to Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the apparent rise in average global temperature recorded by scientists over the last hundred years or so could be due to atmospheric changes that are not connected to human emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of natural gas and oil. Shaidurov explained how changes in the amount of ice crystals at high altitude could damage the layer of thin, high altitude clouds found in the mesosphere that reduce the amount of warming solar radiation reaching the earth's surface." - http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html
Wikipedia editors definitely SEEM to be biased toward any other cause of global warming that excludes human produced CO2. Could it be because of a world wide socio-political agenda involving enriching the 3rd world with things line "carbon credits" to the detriment of the West - much like illegal immigration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.6.145.131 ( talk) 15:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Otherwise why has the 'end of the world' section not been removed ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.6.145.131 ( talk) 16:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
From the article: "Also this event happened on June 30, 1908 and Peary didn't leave New York for the North Pole until July 6, 1908."
Above: "In other words, Peary set sail from New York City six days after the Tunguska event,"
The event happened June 30, 1908 in the Julian calender; July 12, 1908 in the Gregorian calendar. Assuming Pearys departure is given in the Gregorian calendar, he thus left New York prior to the explosion.
-- 85.166.26.133 14:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Basically in 1908 someone got hold of the Black Materia and used it to summon Meteor, possibly with some purpose, possibly without really knowing what they were doing. Fortunately for us, someone else had the White Materia and was able to call Holy. Holy eliminated Meteor in what is now known as the Tunguska Event. M0ffx 20:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
2006 69.207.164.24
??????? Jclerman 03:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Reference to increased Carbon-14 can be found in KUNDT, W. Current Science. 81. 399-407 (2001), its taken as evidence by Kundt as being the result of a massive volcanic gass emission at depth possibly analagous to the intrusion of Kimberlite into the Craton. ClimberDave 16:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I've just re-read the article it doesn't mention it directly however does talk about enrichment of the soil but instead results from Tree resin analysis. I've forward a copy of the article to your email address with a copy of the Verneshot hypothesis which talks about the event also, which probably provides a more straight forward model of volcanic gas extrusion, particularly in the micro-vernshot model. It seems to me that the hypothesis of kimberlite intrusion is worthy of note on the article page however it has since been removed in favour of apparent direct evidence of bolide impact. However i'm studying impact geology and Tunguska doesn't fit the model, and i'm unsure what the direct evidence is. ClimberDave 13:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll try forarding the email again ClimberDave 08:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
From the Article: According to the Guinness Book of World Records (1966 edition), if the collision had occurred 4 hours 47 minutes later, it would have wiped out St. Petersburg.
Why? I don't understand why time make any difference - please offer some small explanation in the article.
The mention of St Petersburg is entirely meaningless and should be removed. If the impacting body was moved 4 hours 47 minutes forward in time on its orbital path, it would have passed "in front" of the Earth in the Earth's orbit, that is, it would have passed through the volume of space that the Earth had yet to reach. In order to have hit St Petersburg, the orbit itself would have had to be different, not the temporal point within its orbit, though a time difference of a few minutes could still have resulted in a populated area being hit, as the Earth is a three-dimensional target. Unless the Earth's gravity significantly affected the orbit due to the 5-hour near miss, the body could still have collided with the Earth on a future orbit.[User: Asteroceras, cookies not working at the moment]
Asteroceras is correct, the asteroid arriving nearly 5 hours later would find the Earth in a different point in space entirely. As the error is that of the GBoR, it would seem to me that the best solution is to leave in the quote, but add a mention that Guinness were incorrect in this statement for the reasons above. Parkingtigers ( talk) 08:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the question/statement should be rephrased as "under various hypothetical possibilities of encounter by the two bodies, St Peterburg would have been hit 4 hours 47 minutes after the actual event, the Pacific Ocean x hours before (with a comment on the probable size of the tsunami arising) etc."
Has there been any alternative universe fiction in which "the body" #did# hit St Peterburg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.100 ( talk) 14:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is an interesting site outlining the connection between Nikola Tesla and the Tunguska event:
http://prometheus.al.ru/english/phisik/onichelson/tunguska.htm
This article was written by a Harvard professor in 1995.
The idea that in the 19th century Nikola Telsa was able to generate and wireless transfer the energy of 1000 nuclear bombs (and accidentally did without him or anyone else knowing) seems, well, to put it kindly, not very elaborate. And no sources other than some websites. Christoph Scholz 10:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
imo Tesla and the Wardenclyffe Tower shold be linked here. Give it at least as much space as for the UFO- and the End-of-the-World-Theory. There's no substantial proof for those neither. Luky ( talk) 11:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, the Wardenclyffe Tower hypothesis should be included in this article. Michael H 34 ( talk) 16:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
One of the main tenets of Wikipedia is that is encyclopedic about information, not subjective about information. The Tesla theory, while maybe not the correct explanation, is one of the more popular theories about the event. A simple Google search for "Tesla and Tunguska" reveals that this is not some small group of nut jobs positing the idea - it is a significantly large number of nut jobs! ;) For an encyclopedic article to completely ignore the theory reeks of some people pushing their view rather than simply reporting what is out there. UFO's are a much wackier and far less well known theory than Tesla. It is a disservice to this article and to Wikipedia not to mention him here. James 04:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
A witness by the name of Stepan Ivanovich, said: Suddenly, above the mountain, where the forest had already fallen, something started to shine intensely, and, I tell you, it was as if a second sun had appeared; the Russians would have said “something suddenly flashed unexpectedly”; it hurt my eyes, and I even closed them. It resembled that which the Russians call lightning. And immediately there were, loud thunder. That was the second thunderclap. ( see http://www.vurdalak.com/tunguska/witness/chuchana_si.htm )
How did Stepan Ivanovich see an area of flattened forest before he saw the flash of an explosion? It seems he was describing a second explosion. He states that there were many flashes and thunderings in differant locations. And other statements would tend to agree. Many statements mention the sounds of multiple exlosions. ((User Nosut)) 2:00, 19/1/2008. (UTC)
Thanks Someguy1221. The answers i received from the reference desk were that small fragments could have fallen as fireballs over a period of time. The above is not my opinion. If we take Stepan Ivanovich's claim at face value, after the trees were already fallen another explosion took place and then a third, which was the strongest (this is mentioned by other witnesses). Stepan Ivanovich should be mentioned on the main page as a witness who could have been describing explosions. If he's a poor witness (as was also questioned at the reference desk), then he shouldn't be mentioned on the main page. ((User Nosut)) 12:47, 24/1/08. (UTC)
I think that this should be added to the main page as a similar event http://www.iris.edu/news/IRISnewsletter/fallnews/senate.html. ((User Nosut)) 11:47, 12/2/08. (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Mountain_UFO_incident ((User: Nosut))11:56, 22/2/08. (UTC)
((User: Nosut))1:20, 26/2/08. (UTC)
As the centenary is coming up could this article be developed for the main page? (And can "someone" resolve the relevant entry on the "On this day" page - it is mentioned in the pics but not in the list?) Jackiespeel ( talk) 18:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I've read a version that it was a natural gas exhaust explosion.-- Certh ( talk) 11:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Once the data from the new comet explorations are gathered I am sure that the findings will link this event to a comet. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Rdailey1 ( talk) 14:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
June 2008 issue of Scientific American has a feature story on it, p. 80 JAF1970 ( talk) 19:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Some also suspect that the Tunguska incident was a result of an electrical "beam," if you will, experiment that was set off by Nikola Tesla on the same day, June 30, 1908. Tesla apparently underestimated his machine and, the power output being much greater then he expected, he missed his target and may have cause the event known as Tunguska. He is said to have been aiming for the tundra where an arctic traveler was supposed to observe this and who Tesla planned to use as a reference point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.29.24 ( talk) 17:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
As I said in the above Tesla section, "the Tesla theory, while maybe not the correct explanation, is one of the more popular theories about the event. A simple Google search for "Tesla and Tunguska" reveals that this is not some small group of nut jobs positing the idea - it is a significantly large number of nut jobs! ;) For an encyclopedic article to completely ignore the theory reeks of some people pushing their view rather than simply reporting what is out there. UFO's are a much wackier and far less well known theory than Tesla. It is a disservice to this article and to Wikipedia not to mention him here". With that in mind, and taking into consideration comments about how to present Tesla (especially those thoughts of Someguy1221), I have written up a new Tesla Connection section under the speculative theory section. I think it nicely -- and briefly -- presents the theory without giving it undue weight. I've also given three sources for the theory (including the only TV show I could find exact details about - even though I know it has been mentioned on many other programs). I've even dug up the links to the NY Times archives that have the actual reprints of Tesla's letters that some people believe give credence to the theory. I don't believe the Tesla Connection is the correct theory on what happened here. But given its popularity and the fact that some less known and even wilder speculative theories are presented I can't see any logical reason to keep this one out either. I hope you guys agree that the text is at the very least a good starting place and that this endless removing of Tesla from the article can finally come to an end! James ( talk) 05:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, note: the other "speculative hypotheses" seem to be (generally) sourced to actual scientists. (In a few cases, they're sourced to popular sci-fi writers.) They're speculating, of course, but at least they have some basis. By comparison, no scientist any time soon will be speculating that Tesla could produce enough energy for a 15 megaton blast from any of his inventions cos, well, he just plain couldn't. So unless it's generally accepted that this article should go beyond rational speculation and start including every internet crank's irrational conspiracy theory, then I think there's not enough sourcing to support including any such section on Tesla. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 01:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Oliver Nichelson was a graduate student at Harvard and studied the history of science. His hypothesis is notable and verifiable. I question why someone would delete this information just because he doesn't like it. Michael H 34 ( talk) 17:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
You may think that the Oliver Nichelson's hypothesis is a fringe theory, and you may believe that his hypothesis is neither notable or reliable, but in my view, those are your opinions. "The publisher for that book will actually print just about anything." If you have consensus on that opinion, then you may delete this content (and leave the UFO theory in place, for which there are no citations.) Michael H 34 ( talk) 15:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
Before deleting the Oliver Nichelson hypothesis, you should first establish by consensus that Adventures Unlimited Press is not a notable source. Michael H 34 ( talk) 18:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
In my view, this source is also notable and reliable: [9] Michael H 34 ( talk) 20:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
I think these claims are too vague. This section should go under the "Speculative hypotheses" title. Aldo L ( talk) 15:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I presume that Gregorian Calendar is the default usage for all such events. Jackiespeel ( talk) 13:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-tunguska-mystery-100-years-later
fyi. 65.189.146.128 ( talk) 19:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
1. What's the meaning of "inconsistent with natural radioactive decay"
2. From which source comes this statement?:
The isotopic signatures of carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen at the layer of the bogs corresponding to 1908 were found to be inconsistent with natural radioactive decay
Please post or email me the article or any other reliable source
Jclerman ( talk) 08:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Please clarify this statement:
Later expeditions did identify such spheres in the trees, however.
Does it mean inside the trees? Which part(s)?
Jclerman (
talk)
08:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Misterul Tunguska, elucidat de un roman
Geofizicianul roman Stefan SGANDAR, cu ale carui studii cititorii „Magazinului” au mai avut prilejul sa se intalneasca, ne propune de aceasta data o explicatie extrem de interesanta si de realista a asa-numitului fenomen Tunguska, petrecut acum 100 de ani - mai exact in ziua de 30 iunie 1908, ora 07:17 - pe Platoul Siberian Central. Imensul glob de foc care a explodat atunci in atmosfera terestra a generat efecte mai mult sau mai putin bizare, sesizabile rapid pe o distanta de circa 800 de kilometri. Totusi, nici o interpretare ulterioara nu a elucidat cazul.
Comete, gauri negre, extraterestri...
Practic, intreaga planeta a receptat, intr-un fel sau altul, insolitul impact. De la mari distante, s-a putut vedea intrand in atmosfera uriasa flacara alb-albastruie si s-a auzit un sunet asurzitor. Traiectoria a avut o forma de curba larga, iar la cadere s-a format un nor negru si a izbucnit o limba de foc ce s-a bifurcat, stralucind orbitor. Ulterior, s-a format o tromba de ciclon care a facut sa cada o ploaie neagra. Undele seismice s-au propagat la multe sute de kilometri in sol, iar in aer au inconjurat Pamantul de doua ori. La altitudini mari, in Europa au aparut nori argintii masivi, care radiau o luminiscenta ciudata. Forta exploziei a fost echivalata cu aproximativ 30 milioane de tone TNT!
Explicatiile cautate de cercetatori, dar si de amatori, au mers pe cai dintre cele mai diferite. Prima presupunere - caderea unui meteorit - a insemnat si prima infirmare, caci la locul impactului nu existau nici urme de crater, nici fragmente ale presupusului corp ceresc. Au urmat alte versiuni: o explozie nucleara, o cometa gazoasa dezintegrata in atmosfera terestra, o gaura neagra si chiar dezintegrarea unei nave extraterestre sau impactul dintre planeta noastra si o farama de antimaterie. Argumentele si contraargumentele pentru fiecare ipoteza au facut ca, vreme de un veac, fenomenul Tunguska sa ramana invaluit in mister.
„Soarele” cazut pe Pamant
Cercetatorii Stefan Sgandar si Claudiu Sgandar incearca sa lamureasca toate problemele, pornind de la ideea ca explozia a fost provocata de un glob plasmatic expulzat in urma unei eruptii solare. Un prim argument: traiectoria ciudata a globului incandescent, caracteristica fulgerelor globulare. In plus, un amanunt extraordinar: „evolutia” fenomenului a fost calculata sa se fi desfasurat la cel putin 3-400 de kilometri altitudine. Asadar, dincolo de atmosfera, ceea ce inseamna ca acel „corp” nu a luat foc ca urmare a frecarii cu aerul. Ulterior, coliziunea cu atmosfera a determinat un „salt” pana la 2-300 km (cu descrierea ciudatei parabole observate de la sol), apoi reducerea vitezei si caderea „corpului” pe Pamant. Se explica astfel si despicarea arborilor de sus in jos, in doua parti egale: fenomenul s-a petrecut ca in cazul aruncarii unei pietre intr-un lac, stiut fiind faptul ca, atunci cand aceasta atinge apa, unda sare in mod absolut egal, la dreapta si la stanga traiectoriei urmate de piatra.
Sunetul foarte puternic auzit de martori a fost produs, potrivit d-lui Sgandar, de contactul dintre uriasul plasmoid (cu viteza supersonica) si atmosfera, totodata reducandu-se substantial viteza pana la mai putin de 1 km/s. De asemenea, plasmoidul nu avea cum sa dea nastere unui crater, in schimb se putea separa in doua in timpul impactului, determinand bifurcatia limbii de foc observate.
Limpezirea apelor
La cateva decenii dupa explozie, in probele de sol de la locul impactului s-au gasit niste bile microscopice, a caror existenta geofizicianul roman o atribuie caldurii mari degajate de plasmoid in momentul exploziei. Aceasta a topit minereurile de fier slabe, dupa care, prin racirea brusca, s-au format retele de cristalizare in jurul unor centre microscopice, ceea ce a dus la aparitia amintitelor bile metalice. Puterea extraordinara a exploziei a determinat si undele de aer inregistrate pe toata planeta si, pe de alta parte, condensarea brusca in clima rece a taigalei, urmata de un vartej ca o tromba de ciclon, care a ridicat in aer o cantitate apreciabila de sol mlastinos, ceea ce a generat ulterior o ploaie neagra. Cat despre luminiscenta vie a cerului, observata pana in Anglia, ce a durat mai multe nopti, ea ar fi fost rezultatul condensarii vaporilor de apa in mici cristale de gheata la altitudinea de 80 de kilometri, in conditiile speciale create de trecerea prin atmosfera terestra a imensului plasmoid.
"Concluzia ce se desprinde din toate cele expuse - isi incheie argumentatia d-l Stefan Sgandar - duce fara indoiala la ideea ca presupusul glob plasmatic de origine solara, ce a dat nastere exploziei din Siberia, poate explica in intregime toate fenomenele petrecute in urma coliziunii, fenomene explicate doar partial si contradictoriu de celelalte ipoteze." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngabi 1999 ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I think Tunguska was much northern a place, the red dot is at least 5 mm to the south. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutecuteguy ( talk • contribs) 17:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence called the event a "massive explosion". Normally I would consider it a petty pedantic quibble to object to using the word "massive" when not referring to mass, but since in this case whether the explosion was of a massive or non-massive object is at the heart of the debate, I felt it was wrong to call it a "massive explosion". I changed "massive" to "powerful". OK? Iglew ( talk) 01:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is a large enough consensus among scientists to claim that this was most likely caused by the means the article suggests. There are other reasonable competing theories that are still viable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiefinspectorClousea ( talk • contribs) 01:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not think the reasonableness of another explanation is a fringe notion. However I am unable to weigh the opinions of the individual scientists who differ in opinion, while not fringe, I can not articulate weight to opinions rendered by individuals I do not know. Perhaps the weight is undue and I will defer to your experience and withdraw my objection, although I do think it could be a reasonable debate. -- ChiefinspectorClousea ( talk) 12:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Might interest sombody.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522217,00.html?test=latestnews
-- Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 14:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, what sort of idea is this? Why would an advanced craft of neaded to leave it to the last minuite before it had to crash into the meteorite? Its a bit stupid. But! Let it be said. We can evaluate it for its worth! Heck! I have a theory that Tunguska was caused by an earth flare event! ((User: Nosut))20:45 16/6/09. (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosut ( talk • contribs)
I have removed all text under the heading of 'Valley of Death' because of two main reasons. The first reason is that the 'Valley of Death' text is almost copied verbatim from 3 almost identical unsubstantiated articles by the same author, Valerie Uvarov. By carefully avoiding Uvarov's more outlandish assertions, the text from 'Valley of Death' almost appeared to be objective and cited from multiple sources. If one reads Mr. Uvarov's articles, one can clearly see that the buried cauldrons he is referring to in the articles are crashed UFO's. Further, the Valley of Death is referring to UFO radiation and giant guardians of the buried UFO's who slay lost cattle and supposedly killed a guide from the 1st Soviet expedition to Tunguska. According to Uvarov, the Kremlin censored the reports to hide evidence of the UFO's. Mr. Uvarov claims that the Tunguska event is a repeated UFO phenomenon that takes place every few hundred years. Needless to say, the entire scientific community disagrees with Mr. Uvarov's claims and his sources aren't cited. The articles are more or less poorly written and illustrated religious pamphlets.
The following sources are cited for the 'Valley of Death' section: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_tunguska09a.htm http://www.blogcatalog.com/blog/strange-days/2aaddb5182720ece30d95fcd653b6222 http://www.astrologycom.com/yakutia1.html
The second reason that I deleted the 'Valley of Death' is that Mr. Valery Uvarov is self proclaimed Russian Ufologist with dubious (fictitious) credentials. In fact, Valerie Uvarov credentials have been exposed as a fraud in the UFO believing community: http://boris-shurinov.info/profan/uvarov/uf-uv.htm Besides writing UFO articles so ridiculous that many members in the ufo believing community believe Uvarov to be a 'debunker', Mr. Uvarov makes money selling 'snake oil' called "The Wands Of Horus". http://www.neilos.org/WandsOfHorus_Beware_of_Imitations.html There is more citation in his 'wands of horus' ads, than the 'Valley of Death' Tunguska event UFO articles. Veganthrope ( talk) 07:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)veganthrope
One question please: In the interview with Valery Uvarov from the June-July 2003 issue of Nexus magazine, on page 60, a supposed set of ancient records is referenced called the "Echutin Apposs Alanhor", also known as the "Alanhor". Are these texts fictional as well? I have searched diligently and have found no evidence of any other reference to them outside reprints of that singular interview. Thank you in advance for any information. -- Grimm0713 ( talk) 16:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
"Over the next few days, night skies in Asia and Europe were aglow such that those in London could read a newspaper in their light [10];"
I was interested in this idea, so I looked up the cited article by Nigel Watson in History Today. It's a quick one page article and it says nothing about the sky in Asia and Europe being aglow. No mention is made of reading newspapers by the light given off, especially in London. Why post a fake citation? This is just aggravating, nothing more.
128.135.107.46 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
I question the usefulness of a link from here to the "Air_burst" page. That page is devoted to the detonation of explosives. I'm guessing the average reader understands that "air burst" refers to a detonation in air, but might click on such a link out of curiosity as to how such an airburst would take place for something that's made out of rocks instead of explosives--information that the page in question does not provide.
In point of fact, how does a rock explode simply because it heats up? That's like the only reason I even came to this page. Obviously people who've studied this think it sounds reasonable, but why? Is there a good place to find out somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.19.84.33 ( talk) 18:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
According to an episode of the Discovery Channel program "Investigation X", a featured theory is that mirror matter kinetically interacted with normal matter resulting in the explosion... should that be added to the list of fringe theories? 65.94.252.195 ( talk) 08:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
Could you let me know why my small additions to this Wikipedia article (Vladimir Rubtsov’s “The Tunguska Mystery” book and his Tunguska website’s URL) are persistently removed? The list of References to the “Tunguska Event” article does contain other Tunguska books (including those not mentioned in its text) and also the list of External links contains other Tunguska websites; therefore this information cannot be considered as SPAM. (By the way, there are in this article several crude factual errors… definitely needing correction. But now I doubt if this is worth trying.)
Best, Tungus1908 ( talk) 16:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Good. I have found in this article some ten errors of varying significance. Now three of them are corrected. Tungus1908 ( talk) 16:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, Rubtsov's monograph should certainly be consulted as it provides by far the most detailed account available in English of USSR/Russian Tunguska reaearch. Rubtsov makes it clear that important USSR scientist were open to the nuclear explosion hypothesis. And by the way: the fact that this hypothesis was first suggested in a piece of fiction has no bearing on its validity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.33.37 ( talk) 13:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The notion that the Tunguska event was produced by a meteorite is supported by the fact that there was a singular event. Wikipedia promotes this point of view by expressing there was a single “explosion”. Many witnesses and articles claim there were multiple explosions, however. I was told back in January 2008 that this can’t be said, as it would be original research. I no longer accept this. These articles have been accepted by Wikipedia (they are on the main page). These articles clearly state that there were “explosions”, one even states that they took place over the course of many minutes. I do not agree that we need more research and peer review in order to contradict these simple statements. ((User: Nosut))21.11, 20.12.2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosut ( talk • contribs)
((User Nosut)) 19.51, 23.12.2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosut ( talk • contribs)
The object coming in would create a sonic boom. Fragments would also initially create sonic booms. Add in reflected sounds of those booms from the mountains and you have multiple booms. Ever been in the mountains during a thunderstorm? Wzrd1 ( talk) 03:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
It says early in the article that the blast most likely was the equivalent of 10–15 megatons of TNT. However, later, it says that this impact would be a 5.0 on the Richter scale. When looking on the richter scale article, it rates an explosion with a yield of 16.2 Megatons of TNT at a 6.7 on the richter scale. If i had to guess, i would say that it's because the explosion was not directly on the ground, but i'm not sure. 24.10.220.113 ( talk) 21:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer on explosion or explosions, Someguy. However, I would like to return to clear what was said in 2008. I said two events were similar: http://www.iris.edu/news/IRISnewsletter/fallnews/senate.html. I was told: “The website that content is hosted on is maintained by the same organization that performed the research and wrote the material. As such, it's not a reliable source, unfortunately.”
However, I have now found other places documenting the event: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=102814 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banjawarn_station http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AGUSM.U22A..01H
((User Nosut, 18.58 2.1.2010)) (UTC)
I’ve not seen anything more about the first similar event I mentioned, so I will continue on with the second. I said this was a similar event: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Mountain_UFO_incident but Someguy, you wrote: "The overarching feature of the similar events section is that all were meteor-related explosions. The incident above was not alleged to be such an event by the skeptical sources."
This is not correct. A team lead by Dr Madison and including two Canberra aircraft searched the mountains for a meteorite but never found anything. Please reply...
((User Nosut, 22:45 28.1.2010)) (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosut ( talk • contribs)
I can’t see its boneheaded obvious that the Tunguska object was a meteorite, though, but then, regarding one witness statement you previously wrote... “It's possible they dismissed or ignored that witness statement for a reason, but we'll never know.”
Someguy, you may feel rest assured these statements are ignored for good reason, but I feel it’s because they don’t fit with the current meteorite solution. The account given by K.A Korin for example: K.A Korin said he was in the bath house when he heard the noise, and he went out into the yard where he saw the object in the South west. The object must have been travelling towards him as he said it then disappeared to the opposite horizon in the North east. The point being: If the object was flying towards him, and he first heard it in the bath house, then it was travelling less than the speed of sound. Now, I do understand you said Wiki can’t highlight such passages that we find strange, but when you said it was boneheaded obvious Tunguska was a meteorite, I had a duty to point this out. When the Tunguska solution fits these witnesses’ statements, then it will become obvious.
((User Nosut, 13.15, 31.01.2010)) (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosut ( talk • contribs)
German ZDF documentay with english subtitles. P. S. Burton ( talk) 17:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The article contains this sentence: Impacts of similar size over remote ocean areas would have gone unnoticed[11] before the advent of global satellite monitoring in the 1960s and 1970s.
The citation is to an article that suggests the wave created by a 200 meter meteor impact in the ocean might be fairly small to the point it might go unnoticed, however there are problems with the use of this citation to support the statement in the article:
As an aside, overall a very nice article and the discussion section was interesting, thank you -- Davefoc ( talk) 22:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the impact site that Wzrd1 might be referring to is the Wabar craters. According to the Wikipedia article the event may have been noticed (as Wzrd1 mentions) in 1863 or 1891 so this would seem to support the idea that satellite monitoring wasn't necessary to detect large meteors. My point with regard to this issue was that the claim in the article wasn't supported by the citation and I thought that it might have just been wrong. The information about the Wabar Craters doesn't seem to conflict with that point but I did appreciate that Wzrd1 referenced it since I thought the story was interesting.
As a practical matter the sentence quoted above has been removed from the article so this discussion seems to be moot and unless somebody reinserted the text or disagrees I think this issue is closed.-- Davefoc ( talk) 19:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Caption restored since the photo of the Southern Swamp is copyrighted and therefore must be referenced, at least. Removal of this reference may be considered as infringement of copyright.
May 11, 2010. Once again, the caption for this photo must be as follows: "The Southern Swamp – the epicenter of the Tunguska explosion. View from a helicopter. Photo by Vladimir Rubtsov, taken at June 30, 2008. Source: Rubtsov (2009), p. 2." Other versions may be considered as infringement of copyright.
The article includes this statement:
The use of the word, meteorite, in this context might be inappropriate. The first definition of, meteorite, on dictionary.com is "a mass of stone or metal that has reached the earth from outer space; a fallen meteoroid.". If the object is bursting in air than it hasn't hit the ground and would seem not to be a meteorite. The sentence should probably just use the word, meteor. The first definition of meteor on dictionary.com is "a meteoroid that has entered the earth's atmosphere".
In general, the uses of the words, meteor, meteoroid, and meteorite, are somewhat inconsistent in the article. -- Davefoc ( talk) 17:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
ETA: I just realized that there is some ambiguity in the definition of meteorite that uses the phrase "has reached the earth from outer space". Reasonably, earth's atmosphere, might count as part of the earth, so perhaps a meteorite, might be considered to be a meteoroid that has reached the earth's atmosphere. However, the science dictionary definition on dictionary.com is: "A meteor that reaches the Earth's surface because it has not been burned up by friction with the atmosphere". Overall, I think standard usage and some formalized definitions support the idea that an object from space has to have hit the ground before it is a meteorite. -- Davefoc ( talk) 18:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
How can it be as powerful as the Castle Bravo bomb but only one-third the power of the largest nuke ever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iain.dalton ( talk • contribs) 19:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Pretty Simple of course. Castle Bravo was not the largest nuke ever. Baska436 ( talk) 11:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I've kept an interesting article which was published in the Peruvian newspaper "El Comercio"'s sunday supplement on november 20th, 1983, titled "Las bolas luminosas de Santa Bárbara" (which could translate more or less as "the lightballs of Santa Barbara"). The author, Luis Manuel Canepa G., retells a story told to him by his father, who worked on a sugar plantation 140 Km south of Lima. According to it, around 8pm on June 29th, 1908, he and his brother were entering the house when suddenly the plantation was brightly lit, and he saw emerging from the Pacific Ocean three or four lightballs which quickly gained height one beyond the other and vanished from view, leaving for a while a strange glow over the sea. The author then comments about how later he heard about the Tunguska event on June 30th and thought it was an extraordinary coincidence, and thought that there might be a connection. Then, some weeks prior to the article's date, he found out about Jackson and Ryan's theory about the black hole passing through the Earth and emerging on the other side on the Atlantic Ocean. He postulates they may have erroneously calculated the exit point on the Atlantic because they thought it was a single object, instead of three or four impacting the Earth surface on Tunguska at an angle of about 65 degress and a velocity of some 30 Km/s, crossing some 11000 Km in about 6 minutes and emerging over the Pacific. I thought it might be worth mentioning this in relation to the black hole hypothesis... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.222.51.174 ( talk) 04:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
One of the worlds greatest mysteries (and one of my favourites) is the Tunguska Event. Many Theories have been passed around and I have heard a few popular ones...
The Air Burst Theory. -This is when an asteroid or meteor explodes upon contact with the atmosphere of a planet. The space rock must be travelling at an angle to the planets surface so it has quite a bit more time until it hits the ground. With complete devastation and no crater to be seen this is quite a popular theory!
Tectonic Plates Theory. -It is believed that the Earths plates were moving at that time and when they moved they would increase the pressure of the lava and gas underneath. The pressure built until that fateful day the plates pulled and released all this pressure causing a huge explosion aka the Tunguska Event. This is still just a theory though.
Alien Spaceship Impact or Alien Attack. -This theory seems well too far fetched but still people believe. The theory of the spaceship crash is...well...a theory that aliens accidently crashed into the Earth. And the alien attack is were a warning shot (or something) was fired at us! These are the weirdest theories i've heard but are very popular for some reason.
Mirror Matter Theory. -This isn't a popular one at all but I think it should be shared. Supposedly there is a new type of matter that is still trying to be proved called Mirror Matter. Its the complete opposite of ordinary matter (and it isn't anti-matter either!). Its hard to understand completely and I don't see something could come from nothing (I also have a different opinion about the Big Bang too). But I have my opinion and you can have yours.
These theories are popular ones and but we still haven't concluded on the cause. My guess is the Air Burst Theory. I have been fascinated by this event and hope that one day this mystery will be solved. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Chaox666 (
talk •
contribs)
21:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Professor Willy Ley pointed out many years ago that at the time of the collision between the Earth and the Tunguska object the Earth and the object were heading straight towards each other.
It was a head on crash and no starship captain would have allowed such a highly dangerous landing or survey. AT Kunene ( talk) 09:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Seriously though, I THINK that it was an attempt at levity on a topic that displays the profound effects of gravity. And momentum... Wzrd1 ( talk) 04:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
"The composition of the Tunguska body may no longer be a matter of dispute" says the beginning sentence to a section which describes considerable dispute.
I think the sentence is premature--substantial evidence is detailed for at least 2 composition theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.108.185 ( talk) 21:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Professor Willy Ley pointed out in one of his science articles that the Earth and the Tunguska object were heading towards each other at high speed, a head on crash and no starship commander would risk a landing on a planet heading directly towards his ship at high speed. A simple observation that seems to effectively eliminate any suggestion of extra terrestial intelligence. AT Kunene ( talk) 08:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
In the March 31, 2012 New Scientist an apparently unrelated article is run, where trees are shown to have the role of creating turbulence in flame propagation sufficient to enable an actual detonation! This was done for testing purposes in the UK, after a huge explosion at a chemical plant that defied understanding needed to be better understood. As I read the article, the first thing I thought about was this event, and how the two may have been connected, given the likelyhood of releasing gasses in summer months in areas like this, if the weather was sufficiently hot enough.
So, now that the flame propagation issue has been decidedly solved and experimentally replicated - and that the method of propagation turns out to be trees, perhaps it is time to revisit this theory?? Can the previously reached consensus be changed? Zaphraud ( talk) 21:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Just curious - it seems that there is still considered to be something missing here. Like big chunks. Regardless of if the comet was the trigger for a huge swamp-gas burst, or contained its own methane and broke up in the upper atmosphere, the March 31,2012 New Scientist article on flame propagation goes a long way to explaining what happened. Using the existing comet/meteor hypothesis, the core of the comet, which burst, would have been the detonating flame, and the turbulence necessary to reach the flame propagation velocity required in all directions for true detonation would have been provided by the methane and chunks that had broken off previously, and were falling all around the core. Right? Isn't a big part of explaining this in any way at all, is how a natural Fuel Air Explosive came to be possible in the first place? A comet composed of methane ice wrapped around stiff chunks with the right size and shape characteristics may also be able to create the pattern that leads to flame acceleration. So the idea isn't dead, you've just shifted the location of the combustible gas to the sky! If the thing came down as just methane ice, the force yield on the explosion would be much lower than if it came down in a manner that formed an FAE with flame acceleration compatible debris already in position. Zaphraud ( talk) 00:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The tunguska meteorite landed in the Russian Empire, ruled by Nikolai II later known as St. Nikolai II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.142.79 ( talk) 14:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
This is supposed to be a serious article. I helped it be that. Antimatter33 ( talk) 05:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Thermonuclear Effects
Here is how I imagine the Tunguska Event could have occurred with the available knowledge we have.
The meteor hitting the atmosphere blew up with thermonuclear effects, thus you must assume that natural causes must have resulted in the exact thing that science has only arrived at since the 1950's.
You have a rock in space, a meteor, which has been travelling around the solar system for possibly billions of years. It's a sizeable rock, much like you would find in any sort of rock with one great exception. It would have had a significant percentage of naturally occurring uranium in the rock, accompanied by lithium. After a significant period of time, this rock would have gathered or absorbed the direct energy input of high energy gamma rays. The implication is that the uranium would have become highly enriched and very uniformly dispersed in the rock. But the lithium would also have become an isotope as well.
You have two ingredients therefore, of the basic fuels required in a thermonuclear device. A NATURAL thermonuclear device. The rock was also covered in ice, which probably became heavy water ice in the same instance of time, which spanned a great length.
This rock with so much potential would have passed at regular intervals through a high energy gamma ray stream millions of times during the expansion of the universe, whereas man only existed for hundreds of thousands of years in his evolved state. One day, the orbit of this rock decayed due to its increased mass through what is an entirely natural process.
A rock of this size would have left an indelible mark on the face of the earth had it struck the surface, but instead it exploded spectacularly in the atmosphere. The heat and pressure of re-entry were the exact circumstance required to force the highly enriched uranium into criticality, which then exploded. The rock gave off a bright blue light prior to explosion, which should signify gamma rays emanating brightly from the surface as it re-entered. This explosion is the exact circumstance required to then spray the enriched lithium within the rock and heavy water ice that remained on its surface(probably the trailing edge) with a shower of neutrons in a split-second, transmuting the elements into a fusion reaction between tritium and deuterium.
There is a high energy gamma ray source which points directly at the solar system, the earth in particular, emanating from Cygnus X-3, a binary star composed of a star made entirely of quarks and a companion that supplies endless quantities of hydrogen. It's 37,000 light years from earth, but the streams of gamma rays are the brightest in the galaxy that provide earth with regular illumination. This energy would have been absorbed by the meteor as it passed on its orbit through the solar system, showered with high energy gamma rays.
I suppose you can see how utterly improbable this kind of event might occur, and how remote the possibility that such a thing could happen. But you have thermonuclear effects, thus you must assume that the interaction that caused the effects were exactly those of known thermonuclear devices. As for the gamma ray radiation that might transmute otherwise non-radioactive substances into critical elements required for such a thing to occur, you might want to take in the article describing Cygnus X3, and how the particle stream is quite unique:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00326896.pdf
Many Thanks for reading and entertaining my thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.243.211 ( talk) 17:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Any information on dead larger animals within the area? Eg Deer or Bears? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.71.160 ( talk) 11:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
This evidence only supports the exotic matter comet hypothesis of being a round a metre in diameter, which is a useful measurement to have incidentally. There should be thousands of micro meteorites from the airburst event, but there *AREN'T ANY!!* PLEASE! Can anyone see this simple anomaly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.118.104 ( talk) 09:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
> You should cite some sources to support your complaint. 69.122.70.156 ( talk) 05:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
When I saw the "undue weight" warning I expected to see some kind of "serious" theory about aliens, but what is there now is a factual account of the interaction of fiction with this event and how the event was popularly perceived. Many people (wrongly) think this was a flying saucer crash site or some such thing. The "aliens" section helps explain *why* that belief is so popular. I came to the article hoping to understand why so many people have so many wild theories about this event.
Clearly, it is because it was ignored at first the researched post-mortem. This made it seem mysterious and created a vacuum in to which wild notions rushed. It was for a time a true UFO (in the sense that it was unidentified) the mystery was solved but the legend lives on, the legend is a part of the history and the article would be incomplete and unhelpful without it.
And legends and folk tales are beautiful things. As long as we understand them for what they are and enjoy them as such.
69.122.70.156 ( talk) 05:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
This paragraph has gotten added a couple times and I'd like other editors input on it. Looking at it myself, and pardon my French, it's fringe crap. Looking at the links, it's a self-published theory, and the group of "enthusiasts" of this theory include only a single actual scientist (two if you count the electrical engineer). The theory itself has appeared in a respected journal precisely once, in Skeptic, which refers to the theory as "untenable", "a non-starter" and "disproved by practically everything known..." It simply has no place in an article about a serious topic. Someguy1221 ( talk) 05:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)