Subiecte...Ireale/Science Fiction! > Idei plate.

Tunguska1908 - Pământul Plat - Fulgerul globular al lui Tesla-nici macar ipoteze

(1/36) > >>

Exceptionala cercetare efectuata de T.R. LeMaire ne aduce la cunostinta faptul ca fulgerul globular produs de Nikola Tesla (vezi mai jos) A FOST DIRECTIONAT sa explodeze exact acolo unde nu ar fi pus in pericol vieti omenesti:

T.R. LeMaire, a science writer, continues this thought, by suggesting "The Tunguska blast's timing seems too fortuitous for an accident" (LeMaire 1980). He claims that a five-hour delay would make the target of destruction St. Petersburg, adding that a tiny change of course in space would have devastated populated areas of China or India.

Can we assume that the 'pilot' chose a cloudless day with excellent visibility from aloft to assure a safe drop? American Military strategy called for identical weather conditions; for a perfect strike on Hiroshima's industrial heart, the Enola Gay's bombardier was forbidden to release through a cloud cover: he had to see the target below. To maximize blast destruction, minimize radiation perils: the bomb was set to explode at a high altitude rather than against the ground. Similarly, the Siberian missile detonated high in the air, reducing or even eliminating fallout hazard (LeMaire 1980).

LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).

The initial path approached Kezhma from the south - this constituted, most probably, the spherical earth measurement thought initially to be correct - but Tesla realized that something is definitely wrong in relation to the actual readings given by the true location of lake Baikal (telluric currents/ether influence on the trajectory of the ball lightning)

Therefore the path changed course to the east, to Preobrazhenka, and then west again to the actual site of the blast/shockwave.

The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.

Nu ar fi avut cum sa fie cauzata de vreo cometa:

In 1983, astronomer Zdenek Sekanina published a paper criticizing the comet hypothesis. He pointed out that a body composed of cometary material, travelling through the atmosphere along such a shallow trajectory, ought to have disintegrated, whereas the Tunguska body apparently remained intact into the lower atmosphere.

During the 1990s, Italian researchers extracted resin from the core of the trees in the area of impact, to examine trapped particles that were present during the 1908 event. They found high levels material commonly found in rocky asteroids and rarely found in comets.

Si cu atat mai putin vreun asteroid/meteorit:

The chief difficulty in the asteroid hypothesis is that a stony object should have produced a large crater where it struck the ground, but no such crater has been found.

Fesenkov (1962) claims, "According to all evidence, this meteorite moved around the Sun in a retrograde direction, which is impossible for typical meteorites...." Fesenkov notes that meteorites rarely hit the earth in the morning, because the morning side faces forward in the planet's orbit. Usually the meteorite overtakes the earth from behind, on the evening side.

Fulgerul globular vazut tocmai de la Londra:

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset. The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals. Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night. It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct. An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow. The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year. I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight. I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.
Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.”

Explozia a avut loc la 7:15 am - 7:20 am (ora locala), la Londra fiind 0:15 - 0:20 am, pe un cer fara nori, la altitudinea de 7 km.

Efectul exploziei a fost vazut imediat, instantaneu dupa toate relatarile, la Londra, Stockholm, Anvers:

In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.

Some people saw massive, silvery clouds and brilliant, colored sunsets on the horizon, whereas others witnessed luminescent skies at night—Londoners, for instance, could plainly read newsprint at midnight without artificial lights.

More newspaper accounts from London:

Marturiile oferite de localnici, distante 465-600 km de la epicentrul exploziei:

At around 7:15 a.m., Tungus natives and Russian settlers in the hills northwest of Lake Baikal observed a column of bluish light, nearly as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky. About 10 minutes later, there was a flash and a loud "knocking" sound similar to artillery fire that went in short bursts spaced increasingly wider apart.

That is when Tungus natives and others living in the hills northwest of Russia's Lake Baikal reported seeing a column of bluish light, that they described as being almost as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky.

A few minutes later they reported a flash and a sound that many said resembled artillery fire. The accompanying shock wave broke windows thousands of miles away from the impact zone, and knocked countless numbers of people to the ground.

Even if we take a 560 km distance to Tunguska, and a 1 km altitude (although Lake Baikal is located at some 435 meters in elevation), the visual obstacle will measure 15.5 km, no way for anybody located at Lake Baikal to have seen the explosion itself.

Let us ascend to 1,6 km in altitude at Lake Baikal; even then, the visual obstacle will measure 13.66 km.

Another eyewitness account:

Nizshne-Karelinskoye (465 km). Extremely bright (it was impossible to look at it) luminous body was seen rather high in the north-western sky soon after 8 a.m. It looked like a tube (cylinder) and for 10 minutes moved down to the ground. The sky was clear, but only in the side, where the body was seen, a small dark cloud was present low above the horizon. While coming to the ground, the body dispersed (flattened) and at this place a large puff of black smoke appeared. Then a flame emanated from this cloud.

500 meter altitude - 11.6 km visual obstacle
800 meter altitude - 10.4 km visual obstacle
1000 meters altitude - 9.7 km visual obstacle

Formula pentru curbura

C = R(1 - cos[s/2R])

R = 6378,164 km

s = distanta

Formula pentru obstacolul vizual

BD = (R + h)/{RAD[2Rh + h^2](sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R

BD = inaltimea obstacolului vizual

h = AE = altitudinea observatorului (masurata in km; de exemplu, 100 metri = 0,1 km)

s = distanta

RAD = radacina patrata a parantezei [ ]

Relatari din Londra, Lacul Baikal, Nizshne-Karelinskoye, Desertul Gobi, distante/obstacole vizuale calculate precis: absolut imposibil ca explozia sa fi fost vazuta din aceste locatii, data fiind curbura pe un pamant sferic (explozia a avut loc la 7:00 a.m., altitudine de 7 km, pe un cer senin, fara nori). Am inclus si calculul facut pentru traiectorie, imposibila pentru un asteroid/meteorit, sau pentru o cometa (am inclus si dovezile ca explozia nu putea fi cauzata de catre unul dintre aceste corpuri ceresti).

Daca ziarele puteau fi citite la miezul noptii (0:20 a.m., ora Londrei) fara lumina de strada la Londra in momentul precis al exploziei, si daca luam in calcul atat distanta cat si obstacolul vizual, nu exista decat o singura concluzie: nu exista curbura intre Londra si Tunguska. O explozie care a avut loc la 7 km in Asia, nu putea fi vazuta decat pe o raza de 400 km, pe un pamant sferic, nicidecum de pe cealalta parte a unui glob (Londra, Berlin), sau din Desertul Gobi.

Greselile colosale din teoria cristalelor de gheata:

To talk about dust particles/ice crystals, with an explosion at some 7 km in the atmosphere on one side of the globe, and a very clear view of the initial trajectory/flash of the explosion from the other side of the hypothetical globe, means that you have no explanation for the facts involved here.

According to your explanation, we should have a 24 hour a day constant sunlight...this is what the dust particle/ice crystal theory implies:

In the right circumstances refraction can continue to refract light indefinitely, parallel to the earth's surface.

Certainly the sun's rays of light (official theory) will be parallel to some portion of the surface at some time in the earth's rotation.

  De tanti Morgana ce parere ai? Putea oare sa fie implicata si atunci renuntam la ''topshirea'' Pamantului ?  :lol:

Eu ma asteptam aici pe rufon la ceva mult mai serios.

Exista terrestrial refraction (refractie atmosferica terestra), looming (inversarea straturilor atmosferice), si cea mai pronuntata forma de looming, numita ducting.

Looming, ducting, calcule precise aplicate unui caz celebru: luminile farului din Racine vazute tocmai de la 128 km departare, din Grand Haven (peste lacul Michigan):

Aici nu este vorba de nici un fel de gluma.

De exemplu.

Peste stramtoarea Gibraltar nu exista nici un fel de curbura, nici un centimetru.

Pentru distanta de 13 km, curbura ar fi de 3,5 metri (ar trebui sa observam o panta ascendenta pana la obstacolul vizual de 3,5 metri, si nimic sub 5 metri din reperele vizuale ale celuilalt mal - vezi formula din primul mesaj).

Derulati la 38:28 la 38:35: nici un fel de curbura pana pe celalalt mal.

O poza din acelasi loc:

Si exista fotografiile din Canalul Manecii, Lacul Ontario, si marturiile istoricilor romani (vezi Gheorghe Asachi).


--- Quote from: Dharanis on  24 June 2014, 17:51:26 ---Eu ma asteptam aici pe rufon la ceva mult mai serios.


--- End quote ---

   Fiecare are asteptari .

   Acum despre seriozitate. Matematica este o stiinta frumoasa si perfecta pana la un punct . Punctul ala depinde de capacitatea umana de abstractizare, etc. etc.
   Lucrul cel mai important este ca matematica lucreaza cu modele ale realitatii. In cazul de fatza, modelul ales pentru planeta Pamant este o sfera si de aici pornesc toate calculele. In realitate forma Pamantului zic unii mai in domeniu este de geoid

  N.B. Daca o teorie este contrazisa de cel putin un fapt/observatie experimental /a  atunci acea teorie se cade a fi revizuita si nu a se ignora fenomenul experimental . Analog in cazul teoriei ca traim pe suprafata interioara a Pamantului sau ca Luna este o mare holograma, etc.

 Doar parerea mea.

Ciudati mai suntem noi oamenii, daca in secolul 21 mai crerdem in teoria unui pamant plat. Si nu sunt putini care se imbata cu apa plata. Imi pare rau pentru ei, sunt virusati cu virusi informationali.
Cum poti sa crezi asa ceva, cum ramane cu rotatia pamantului in jurul axei sale, miscarea satelitilor in jurul pamantului, forma altor planete obsevate de noi, forma stelelor, etc. Se pare ca, acele corpuri cosmice care depasesc o anumita limita de dimensiune, au tendinta de a fi sferice. De ce pamantul sa fie singurul care este plat?
Nu, nu merita sa-mi pierd timpul cu asa ceva. Fiecare cu......forma lui geometrica.

--- Quote ---Eu ma asteptam aici pe rufon la ceva mult mai serios.
--- End quote ---
Consider ca, membri de pe RUFON au un standard mai ridicat ca prin alte locuri virtuale. Deci, nu incerca sa ne convingi sa facem pasi inapoi, nu vei reusi. Va trebui sa ai argumente foarte serioase.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version