Let me state first and formost I am NOT advocating this theory, I believe it to be not only impossibly bizzare, but also with out any scientific basis whatsoever. What I am doing is posting it for knowlegable people to disect, pick apart, chuckle over or even to simply solidify one's belief that no matter how stupid you believe yourself to be, there is always someone out there to make you feel a whole lot better about yourself.
I did a search of the forum before posting this one and did find a single thread on the story, but it was mostly a thread chuckling about it. What I am looking for is a more scientific decimation of the idea. I already have a few bits that completely obliterate the notion, such as, the article states that the object that exploded over siberia weighed "over 1 billion tones". Yet we know the object itself was no more than 40-60 meters in size. Would this combined size and wieght make for an object of near impossible density and mass? And would not any object coliding with a 40-60 meter sized object screaming in to the atmosphere at the incredible velocity it traveled at, be a bit like a bug hitting a car on a highway?
Anyway, here's the article, have fun. I am off for a few days with not much to do as the weather is kindy soggy, so yes, this is the best I could find for personal amusement today. Have fun.
http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/6868/56/1/1/

mass = 1 X 10(9) tons X 10(3) kg/ton (metric ton?)

mass = 1 X 10(12) kg

density = (1X10(12))/(4pi(50)cubed) = 800000 kg/m(3).

I would say no solar system object is nearly that dense. Ice would be about
1000 less dense

I'm a complete idiot when it comes to mathamatics and even with out the calculations you posted, my iddy-biddy pathetic internal math processing brain knew it was an impossible claim the article made, lol. Would this not make the density of this thing near that of a neutron star?

I would say you are wrong and so would science. The density of an atomic nucleus is approximately 3 x 10^17 kg/m^3 and I am pretty sure atomic nuclei are objects in the solar system.

It would still render the claim made in the article incredibly unlikely though would it not though? Or am I wrong there?

I know nothing of the article nor care nothing about it. however I was only pointing out thoth II's error.

Not even close. Then again, that would depend on your definition of close.

The Encke's Comet 100,000 tons of ice and dust was proposed many years ago.

I'm still holding out for Tesla and his test firing of transmitter in 1908. Overshooting the North Pole during Peary's attempt to reach the North Pole.

ok, thank you for clarifying. if you had to hazzard a guess, what would you say would be a good material to cite as having a similar density to 800000 kg/m(3) ?

What would be my reason for guessing?

Read the article. Laughed when I read the proof is paradolia.

From Wiki

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

What a ridiculous contention. When talking about astronomical objects in the solar system, everybody understands that we are referring only to macroscopic objects. To assume that we would include objects twenty plus orders of magnitude smaller is assinine.

but do any of them weigh a billion tons?

and this is a much better theory about Tunguska..
(warning: there may bee too much TRUTH for some people to take)
it's Commie zombie spores, man..

__________________
"blacker than the blackest black... times infinity."- Nathan Explosion
The.. Best.. Thread..Ever...

that is about 100 times less dense than a white dwarf, so it would have to be something like a white dwarf. For this ridiculous theory to be correct, a white dwarf would have had to explode in earth's atm.

But I don't think any object this size in solar system has anywhere near this density, I'm pretty sure.

Asinine? For saying atomic nuclei are denser? OK, if they are not, show the proof or stop being an idiot toward me. Now would you please show me where he said there are no ASTRONOMICAL objects in the solar system that dense. Here is his post. Point out the part that says astronomical object.

Never said any did. I just mentioned the density but I am sorry for saying someone here was wrong since it is obvious that I am not one of the "good old boys".

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Well, you had almost 800 posts on the forum under s previous name, so you're getting close to a thousand total. I think that makes you one of the most established members. Is that what you meant by 'good old boys'?

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Ok, you are the second mod here to accuse me of being someone else. As I told tusenfem my name and another forum I am registered on I really don't understand the accusations coming from the mods here. Tell you what, I deserve a public apology from you, am I going to get one?

I think everyone knew what he meant, including you.

Yes I did. He said what he meant and that was

and that is why he changed later to say

So if he can understand his error, why is it that some posters here think it is necessary to claim I was wrong?

I don't think his sentence was in error. Yes, the language wasn't laid out with utmost lawyer-like precision. but we all knew what he meant.

It was clear from the context of his statements that he meant astronomical objects. And is there proof he changed his posts? Everything seems clear to me.

CJSF

__________________
Two years ago moved from my town
I was looking up past the city lights
But the city lights got in my way

See the constellation ride across the sky
No cigar, no lady on his arm
Just a guy made of dots and lines

-from "See The Constellation"
by They Might Be Giants

Post #1

His post #2

Didn't mean he changed it as in edited it. Meant he corrected his statement in his later post so why are you guys defending him?

I would probably change the way I worded things too if I knew that posters were analyzing each and every word of my sentences with a microscope.

He didn't correct it as much as he clarified it for the "benefit" of certain posters who might have gotten the wrong idea.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Whatever...he saw there was a need to clarify so what is the problem you guys appear to have that I mentioned it? Is it jealousy or again is it that one can't correct one of the good old boys? This forum does discuss scientific things and scientific things require precise language.

Because you have not shown us that he made an "error".

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Are atomic nuclei not objects in the solar system?