The fireball of Canada

eanassir

Time Out
Jul 26, 2007
3,099
9
38
The fireball of Canada


¨ A fireball streaked across Canadian sky and was caught on video.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=e_2aX-784sw


Hundreds of people witnessed a fireball lighting up the evening sky over Edmonton, Alberta, on Thursday Nov 21, 2008 at night.

http://cl.exct.net/?qs=84ba41a813f60a74141b12637737ae57d6720bf37dc214249c7c92dfd8f4d5e4



¨ Then next month and about 10 days later, many of its pieces and debris have been collected.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h3sZQRXJE_Nb4nKhJUa99E2f1GngD94O56M00

Therefore, what do you think this fireball was?
Was it a meteor, a meteorite, a comet or a man-made object?


 
Last edited:

eanassir

Time Out
Jul 26, 2007
3,099
9
38
So they have taken some stand about me, unanimously.
Some of them is watching: once I say it is a comet, he will move it at once.;-)
But this time, I will not say it is a comet; almost it is a meteorite.

Meteor: are the flashing stars; they are small objects that burn on their contact with the atmosphere, and almost will not reach the surface of the Earth.
Meteorite: are the celestial rocks reaching the Earth surface.
Comet: are the tailed stars.

Many people at the start though it some man-made object; particularly the space station was near in time.
But later, scientists excluded the man-made probability.

They then picked many of its pieces; therefore, it is most probably a meteorite that burn on its progressing in the earth atmosphere.
 
Last edited:

hermanntrude

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jun 23, 2006
7,267
118
63
45
Newfoundland!
well done, eanissir, you have reached a reasonable conclusion.

One thing I should tell you, though, is that comets are not a "tailed star", nor do they even look like a star. But i kind of get what you mean... perhaps you were being descriptive and resorted to the word "star" because your knowledge of english is poor.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
So they have taken some stand about me, unanimously.
Some of them is watching: once I say it is a comet, he will move it at once.;-)
But this time, I will not say it is a comet; almost it is a meteorite.

Meteor: are the flashing stars; they are small objects that burn on their contact with the atmosphere, and almost will not reach the surface of the Earth.
Meteorite: are the celestial rocks reaching the Earth surface.
Comet: are the tailed stars.

Many people at the start though it some man-made object; particularly the space station was near in time.
But later, scientists excluded the man-made probability.

They then picked many of its pieces; therefore, it is most probably a meteorite that burn on its progressing in the earth atmosphere.


When it cleared the cloud there was an electrical discharge before impact.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
Most idiot academics still believe they are dirty snowballs.
Well, that *is* what the data indicate. Spectroscopic analysis gives results consistent with them being bodies of dust and gravel embedded in a matrix of frozen gases, primarily water, but may also include other stuff like ammonia and carbon dioxide. The Giotto probe to Comet Halley at its most recent approach showed that around 80% of the material the comet emitted was water.
When it cleared the cloud there was an electrical discharge before impact.
Is that based on your observation of that low quality video? I've seen no reports that suggest any such thing. Got a credible source for that claim?
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Comets have been described for thousands of years as stars having tails or long flowing hair. Most idiot academics still believe they are dirty snowballs.

I personally, would prefer a nice, neat, tail. Can you imagine the mess 50,000 miles of long flowing hair would make if a comet crashed into the earth. :roll::smile:
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Well, that *is* what the data indicate. Spectroscopic analysis gives results consistent with them being bodies of dust and gravel embedded in a matrix of frozen gases, primarily water, but may also include other stuff like ammonia and carbon dioxide. The Giotto probe to Comet Halley at its most recent approach showed that around 80% of the material the comet emitted was water.
Is that based on your observation of that low quality video? I've seen no reports that suggest any such thing. Got a credible source for that claim?





Credit: NASA

Above, the “Great Comet” of 1996, Hyakutake.
The stunning discovery of X-ray emissions from the visitor was a milestone
in comet science, as was the discovery that the comet's coherent
and filamentary ion tail spanned more than 350 million miles.


Feb 27, 2006
The Comet and the Future of Science
Though NASA officials have said nothing on the subject, astronomy today is on the edge of a critical shift in perception—a revolution that could redefine our view of the heavens.
Proponents of the “Electric Universe” say that a revolution in the sciences is inescapable, and they believe the failure of modern comet theory could be the tipping point. The high-energy events exhibited by comets require a new understanding of what makes a comet work, and the answer to the mystery of comets will invariably affect all of the space sciences. For starters, a list of the enigmas would have to include these surprises: comet x-rays, a coma several times the size of the Sun glowing in ultraviolet light, strong electrical and turbulent magnetic fields, million degree coma “temperatures”, supersonic jets, collimation of these jets over great distances, coherent and filamentary comet tails spanning up to a hundred million miles and more, explosive outbursts of dust hundreds of millions of miles from the Sun, the “inexplicable” break up and complete disintegration of comet nuclei far from the Sun, sharply etched surface relief, bright surface patches (camera saturation, most obvious in the case of Tempel 1), and “impossibly” fine comet dust. Intense energetic activity has, one discovery at a time, shocked astronomers. But in fact every surprise points in the same direction.
For several years the electrical theorists have predicted that the fatal blow to modern comet mythology will come from the absence of sufficient water ice or other ices on a comet nucleus to produce the jets and coma. This prediction has already been fulfilled, but the message has yet to register. After repeated failures to find any water on comet surfaces, NASA spokesmen celebrated the “success” of the Deep Impact mission when they thought they had found, on the surface of Comet Tempel 1, a minuscule .005 of the water required by theory to explain the signals associated with water in the coma.
When findings repeatedly discredit an accepted model in the sciences, it’s time to consider the findings from a different vantage point –to look for a pattern that has been missed. For the electrical theorists, the pattern is too obvious to be missed. The unexplained features are predictable effects of an electric discharge, and nothing that an electrical expert would look for is missing from NASA’s discoveries.
It is also inconceivable that the collapse of comet theory could stand as an isolated event in astronomy. The physical universe is not a bundle of contradictions, even if modern “explanations” are. A comet discharging electrically as it approaches the Sun means simply that the Sun is the focus of electrical activity strong enough to produce the observed cometary phenomena. That includes the visible flare-up of comets while in “deep freeze” beyond the orbit of Saturn. The implication, according to Electric Universe advocates, is that sufficient electrical energy is available from the galaxy to power the Sun. A tiny charged comet occasionally taps into that solar circuit to produce a visible display.


The Comet and the Future of Science


The Jets of Comet Wild 2
The Jets of Hale-Bopp
Saturn's Comet
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia


Credit: Stardust Team, JPL, NASA
home
Dec 08, 2004
The Jets of Comet Wild 2
NASA's Stardust spacecraft snapped these photos of Comet Wild 2 on January 2, 2004. On the left is the comet nucleus and on the right a composite of the nucleus and a longer exposure highlighting the comet's jets. According to a recent press release, project scientists expected "a dirty, black, fluffy snowball" with a couple of jets that would be "dispersed into a halo". Instead they found more than two dozen jets that "remained intact"-they did not disperse in the fashion of a gas in a vacuum. Some of the jets emanated from the dark unheated side of the comet-an anomaly no one had expected. Chunks of the comet, some as big as bullets, blasted the spacecraft as it crossed three jets. Wild 2's surface was covered with "spires, pits and craters" that could only be supported by rock, not by sublimating ice or snow. The discovery was more than surprising, "it was mind-boggling"
When a theory's predictions are constantly discredited by new discoveries, it is "falsified". The unexpected blast of particles hitting Stardust is one small ding for the spacecraft's shield, but the Wild 2 anomalies are one giant fender-bender for the dirty snowball theory.
For many years now, the theory itself has obstructed the view of evidence, including close-up photographs of comets and asteroids. The NASA press release claims the comet "is unlike any other type of solar system body". Unlike Comet Borrelly, which sported unexpected "mountains, faults and grooves"? Unlike comet Halley, with its hot jets and diverse landscape? Unlike the steep-edged and flat-bottomed craters on asteroids Eros and Mathilda and Ida? Unlike the scarred surface of the Martian moon Phobos, virtually all the Jovian moons (especially the little ones), and now Saturn's little moon Phoebe? Every small solid body we've approached has surprised scientists with such sharply-defined surface relief.
The cascade


Apr 20, 2005
The Jets of Hale-Bopp
When the comet Hale-Bopp began discharging beyond the orbit of Jupiter, it marked the beginning of the end for standard comet theory.
One of the observations leading to the dirty snowball theory of comets was that most of the periodic comets begin to grow tails at about the same distance from the Sun: between Jupiter and Mars. The determining factor was thought to be the distance at which the comet became hot enough for water and other volatile substances to evaporate into space, creating the coma, or "head," and tail of the comet.
But not every comet obeys even this tenuous "dirty snowball" criterion. Hale-Bopp in particular broke many of the rules. In the photo seen here, it is still too far from the sun for a "snowball" to melt, but it already displays seven jets.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
Answer the questions that are asked, not the ones that aren't asked. I asked for a credible reference for your claim that there was an electric discharge from the meteorite before impact, not for a heap of pseudoscience about the nature of comets. And thunderbolts.info, BTW, is not a credible source for anything. I've been there, and I think it's a crackpot fringe site of no particular merit.
 

eanassir

Time Out
Jul 26, 2007
3,099
9
38
Comets have been described for thousands of years as stars having tails or long flowing hair. Most idiot academics still believe they are dirty snowballs.

This reply of darkbeaver is like an electrical shock to the deniers of the ice-less comet
 

eanassir

Time Out
Jul 26, 2007
3,099
9
38
well done, eanissir, you have reached a reasonable conclusion.

One thing I should tell you, though, is that comets are not a "tailed star", nor do they even look like a star. But i kind of get what you mean... perhaps you were being descriptive and resorted to the word "star" because your knowledge of english is poor.

The comet is publicly known as "the star with a tail", as is the meteor known as "the star that has dropped down". The "star" to people is any luminous point in the sky; but of course in astronomy, the definition of each is different from the other.

The points for the distinction between these objects: whether this was a comet or a meteorite.

Either it was a meteorite that inflamed on contacting the atmosphere of the Earth, then it fell down and before reaching the ground it broke up into many fragments, some of which they collected.

Or it was a comet or a fragment of a comet: because comet will lead to more effects like some loud sounds like the thundre roaring (as was it described in the comet of Tunguska at Siberia at 1908.
And usually it will cause some "big burns".It may be accompanied by some ? atomic activity.
The most important is to find a "crater" in case of the comet, and no pieces or a small number of little pieces.
What darkbeaver said is that they found some "electrical activity" before the falling of this fireball; this is puzzling because it will raise the doubt of a comet.

The other thing that makes the suspicion of a comet, is that comets have the "predilection to fall on the cold regions or near the cold regions of the Earth" like Canada particularly the northern parts of Canada, Alaska, Siberia, the Antarctica ...etc.

Why frequently in the north of Canada, were such fireballs observed many times? [although this time it is different in being caught on video]



eanassir
ÕÝÍÉ ÌÏíÏÉ 1
 
Last edited:

eanassir

Time Out
Jul 26, 2007
3,099
9
38
Spectroscopic analysis gives results consistent with them being bodies of dust and gravel embedded in a matrix of frozen gases, primarily water, but may also include other stuff like ammonia and carbon dioxide. The Giotto probe to Comet Halley at its most recent approach showed that around 80% of the material the comet emitted was water.


The thing that led them to postulate their postulation about the ice included in the comet is the spectroscopic analysis of the gases in the tail of the comet: they found H2, and OH and so they thought of water; also they noticed sodium so they thought there is dirt together with water in the form of ice, or dirty ice embedded in the body of the comet, and that such ice will evaporate by the sun heat and there is the jet or the emission of water vapor.

And of course hydrogen is prevalent in the comet, and this goes along with the idea that it is part of the sun.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Answer the questions that are asked, not the ones that aren't asked. I asked for a credible reference for your claim that there was an electric discharge from the meteorite before impact, not for a heap of pseudoscience about the nature of comets. And thunderbolts.info, BTW, is not a credible source for anything. I've been there, and I think it's a crackpot fringe site of no particular merit.

I only quote credible sources Dexter. Everyone of those acredited people are subject to the peer review you claim to adhere to. I already provided you with discharge proof with respect to Jupiters recent asteroid history. There is no bigger heap of pseudoscience than the big bang unless it's blackholes or dark matter and or it's dark phantom buddy dark energy. You believe in every one of those scientific myths all without one scrap of proof credible or otherwise.
 

eanassir

Time Out
Jul 26, 2007
3,099
9
38
I personally, would prefer a nice, neat, tail. Can you imagine the mess 50,000 miles of long flowing hair would make if a comet crashed into the earth. :roll::smile:


If a comet the size of Tunguska object crashed into some crowded cities of the earth, it would be disastrous: millions of people may perish at once. It is some of the mercy of God Most Gracious that such comets mostly fall on the uninhabited regions of the earth like Siberia, the regions near the north pole and the south pole.

In addition to the possible role of the moon as a hunter of such comets leading to the appearance of the large number of craters on the Moon without the causative object (if it is a comet, it will disappear and bury under the ground, leaving the crater on the surface with a flat bottom: because of its extreme heat, like the welding effect on metals.)

In one of your posts, you presented - as I remember - a nice image of some fireball falling on the Moon. Here in case of the Moon, it is most probably such fireball is a flaming comet, and certainly it was not a meteorite: because there is no atmosphere on Moon to make the friction that makes the meteorite inflame.
part3



 
Last edited:

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Says the man who thinks Velikovsky was right. I don't believe you have any idea what you're talking about.

You still can't prove what you have great faith in. That makes you a religious fanatic of the Church of The Big Bang. You probably got a little black hole shrine in the back yard next to the barbacue where you no doubt sacrifice little furry animals to the God of Dark Energy.:smile:
 

eanassir

Time Out
Jul 26, 2007
3,099
9
38
This fireball of Canada was very interesting:


  • Its weight was estimated by approximately 10 tonnes.
  • Its energy is approximately one third of a kiloton of TNT.
  • Its light was likened to a billion-watt lightbulb shining in the sky; it illuminated the ground for several hundred kilometers in all directions including as far south as Vauxhall, Alberta, turning night into day with a bluish white light.
  • Tens of thousands of people witnessed it streaking through the sky; and many of them saw some red fragments continuing downwards in the sky after the fireball exploded. These fragments traveled so low to the ground before becoming invisible in the darkness.
  • Its speed is calculated to be only roughly 14 km/sec when it entered the atmosphere versus the average of around 20 km/sec [speed for usual falling meteorites.]
  • Many of the witnesses heard sounds that could actually be from the meteorites falling through the sky.




University[B said:
of[/b]Calgarypressreleases;]
University[B said:
[/b]



"Meteorite search update - 10-ton rock responsible for fireball in Western Canada


"Investigation of the fireball that lit up the skies of Alberta and Saskatchewan on November 20 has determined that an asteroid fragment weighing approximately 10 tonnes entered the Earth's atmosphere over the prairie provinces.

And University of Calgary researcher Alan Hildebrand has outlined a region in western Saskatchewan where chunks of the desk-sized space rock are expected to be found.

The fireball first appeared approximately 80 kilometres above and just east of the border city of Lloydminster, Alberta/Saskatchewan, and traveled SSE towards the Battle River valley fragmenting spectacularly in a series of explosions.

The fireball penetrated the atmosphere at a steep angle of approximately 60 degrees from the horizontal and lasted about five seconds from 17:26:40 to 17:26:45 MST with the largest explosion at 17:26:44.

The fireball was recorded on all-sky and security cameras scattered across Saskatchewan and Alberta in addition to being witnessed by tens of thousands of people who saw it streak across the sky, saw its arc- welding blue flash, or heard the subsequent explosions.

Hildebrand said the fireball was like a billion-watt lightbulb shining in the sky, turning night into day with a bluish white light. It illuminated the ground for several hundred kilometers in all directions including as far south as Vauxhall, Alberta.

The asteroid fragment is now known to have weighed approximately 10 tonnes when it entered the Earth's atmosphere from an energy estimate derived from infrasound records by Dr. Peter Brown, Canada Research Chair in Meteor Physics at the University of Western Ontario. Infrasound is very low frequency sound produced by explosions that can travel thousands of kilometers.

The indicated energy is approximately one third of a kiloton of TNT," Brown said.

Dr. Brown also says that a fireball this size only occurs over Canada once every five years on average. About ten fireballs of this size occur somewhere over the Earth each year.

Hildebrand estimates that hundreds of meteorites larger than 50 grams could have landed since the rock was large and its entry velocity was lower than average. The object's speed is calculated to be only roughly 14 km/sec when it entered the atmosphere versus the average of around 20 km/sec.

Many witnesses reported seeing a cluster of red fragments continuing downwards in the sky after the fireball exploded. These represent the rocks slowing down that will eventually fall to the ground as meteorites," Hildebrand said. "An outstanding thing about this fireball is that so many red fragments were seen and that they traveled so low to the ground before becoming invisible in the darkness."

The projected area of fall lies within Saskatchewan's Manitou Lake Rural Municipality north of Marsden and Neilburg, and just south of the Battle River in an area that is mostly cleared for cultivation.

"Several of the nearby eye witnesses describe sounds that could actually be from the

meteorites falling through the sky, but we don't know that for sure yet. The eye witness descriptions are remarkably consistent with each other as to the location," Hildebrand said.

The remarkable consistency of the eyewitness accounts is probably partly explained by the dramatic dust clouds that marked the fireball's path. These clouds remained in the sky without much distortion for several minutes.

From the fireball's characteristics Hildebrand thinks that it was a relatively strong rock and many rocks the size of a football or bigger are expected in addition to the more numerous small ones. Larger meteorites will have plunged into the ground if at all soft, making small pits with the meteorites at the bottom.

Meteorites of common asteroids will have a dark gray or black coating covering their dimpled surface, be denser than the average rock, and will weakly attract a magnet, but other types of meteorites are possible.

The meteorites are expected to be scattered across a strewnfield approximately eight km long
and three km wide with the larger stones to the southeast.

Hildebrand and Brown are both members of the Small Bodies Discipline Working Group that is funded by the Canadian Space Agency. Dr. Martin Beech at the University of Regina chairs this working group."


http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_page_3.htm#Comets


eanassir
http://universeandquran.t35.com
 
Last edited: