(Viewed 2,692 times)

[eanassir]

Tunguska blast was due to a comet impact
The asteroid "2007 WD5" will not hit Mars.

Tunguska blast was most probably due to a comet impact.
And see, in this contest, the following subject in the SkyandTelescope.com:
"Next summer marks the centennial anniversary of one of Earth's most famous "close encounters" with an extraterrestrial object. On June 30, 1908, something big exploded in the sky over a remote section of Siberia near the Podkamennaya Tunguska River. The blast leveled about 800 square miles of forested taiga."
www.skyandtelescope.com/news/home/12662606.html

The asteroid "2007 WD5" will not hit Mars.
That is because this (asteroid 2007 WD5) rotates around Mars, not around the sun.
The old planet of the "Asteroids" broke up in the past, and its parts: the Asteroids were then captured by the gravity of the neighboring planets: Mars and Jupiter. These Asteroids started, then, to rotate around these two planets.
universeandquran.741.com/#MistakeaboutAsteroids
universeandquran.741.com/new_page_2.htm#Asteroids

I say these words because some have correlated the recently discovered asteroid 2007 WD5 to the past event of the Tunguska blast.
Here, the following points may be important:
• The comet is a fireball, not as do they say a mass of dirt and snow.
• It has an affinity to fall on the frozen and ice regions like Siberia, the north and south polar regions.
• The comet, contrary to the meteorite, will dig through the ground to disappear inside the earth, while the meteorite will stay upon the surface of the earth.
• It will cause much heat, burns and destruction because it is flaming, more than the friction of the meteorite with the air that will cause the meteorite to be hot, but not to the extent of the flaming comet.
Refer to our site: universeandquran.741.com
And see there the subject of:
universeandquran.741.com/new_page_3.htm#Comets
Where the following is mentioned:

“ The Day when the Comet struck the Earth Surface

"… In the morning of June 30, 1908, at 7 am, while the farmer Semenov was sitting in the balcony of his house, in the northern parts of middle Siberia; he suddenly saw in the north a flaming object with somewhat bluish coloration, larger than the sun disc, traversing the space, to fall in the planes of Siberia, between two rivers there, where a pillar of light came down.
In spite of that this light was about fifty miles away from his house, the heat was so extensive to let the farmer Semenov feel his clothes about to burn…. In the site of that strange light, a shepherd called Lukhtikan was driving to the pasture a herd of 1500 deers, and Lukhtikan’s herd was stricken just before Semenov was stricken too by the same hot air; so that all the herd perished and nothing of it was found except few burnt bodies….
Four hundred miles away, the men working in the Siberia Railways saw suddenly a glowing in the northern-east, then the train started to shake vigorously; therefore, they stopped it to avoid its deviation from the line….
Years passed by, and the event was nearly forgotten; but at 1927, Professor L. Kulik [a famous Russian Astronomer), leading an expedition, went to that remote district where the light pillar had risen in the air, where he found a depression, not very deep, extending over an area of two miles. …
[It may be this depression is now the same lake (:Lake Cheko :
maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=N+60+57'+49%22+E+101+51'+36%22&ie=UTF8&ll=60.962527,101.860943&spn=0.038494,0.119991&t=k&z=13&om=1 ) that an Italian expedition led by marine geologist Luca Gasperini have explored.]
Mankind were very lucky on that day of the year 1908; for if the comet had fallen on New York or Paris instead of falling on an uninhabited area, then that could have been one of the great disasters in the history.
Undoubtedly, that event was caused by a comet; for on the 30th. of June 1908, the Earth globe was near to the orbit of another comet. It seems that the big comet that had fallen on Siberia was part of it."

See also
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event
www.skyandtelescope.com/news/home/8134097.html
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/403991.stm

eanassir
universeandquran.741.com

[Maddad]

Well, yes, it probably was a comet stike in 1908. Couple of thoughts. It moves pretty fast, something like thirty miles a second. Entering the atmosphere, the air cannot slide to the side fast enough to get out of the way, so a pressure diffiential builds up between the front and the back. That's what breaks it apart. Also, the pressure in front heats that air, making the fireball. It doesn't matter if the comet was made of snow or lighter fluid. If it's moving that fast, it's going to make a lot of heat. In Tunguska's case, we think it was about three megatons of hydrogen bombs worth. That pressure differiential broke up the comet, so it never reached the ground. It could have broken up even a small asteroid if it moved fast enough.

A comet cannot have an afinity for anywhere. It just runs into whatever is in its way.

As for asteroid 2007-WD5 orbiting Mars, uh, no.

[eanassir]

maddad said:

Well, yes, it probably was a comet stike in 1908.

As for asteroid 2007-WD5 orbiting Mars, uh, no.

This may confirm the idea of its rotating around Mars:

"Word from the orbit gurus at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory is that the impact watch for Mars is officially "off." On January 9th they announced (neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news156.html ) that the odds of tiny 2007 WD5 crashing into Mars on January 30th have dropped precipitously, to about 1 in 10,000 (0.01%). Instead, the two should come no closer than about 16,000 miles. "

www.skyandtelescope.com/community/skyblog/newsblog/13705922.html
And see at our website the following:
universeandquran.741.com/#MistakeaboutAsteroids

eanassir
universeandquran.741.com

[Bryant]

The fact that an asteroid is not going to hit a planet is in no way proof that it orbits that planet. Guess what, there's billions of asteroids in this solar system. Every day billions do not hit the Earth. Do they orbit around the Earth? I think not...

[eanassir]

bryant said:

The fact that an asteroid is not going to hit a planet is in no way proof that it orbits that planet. Guess what, there's billions of asteroids in this solar system. Every day billions do not hit the Earth. Do they orbit around the Earth? I think not...

There was the planet of the "Asteroids" in an orbit between Mars and Jupiter, but this planet broke up into many Asteroids, which were captured by the gravity of the neighboring planets: Jupiter and Mars. There are many of these Asteroids that circle around Mars, not around the sun, as do they say.
universeandquran.741.com/#MistakeaboutAsteroids

eanassir
universeandquran.741.com

[Centaur]

eanassir said:

There was the planet of the "Asteroids" in an orbit between Mars and Jupiter, but this planet broke up into many Asteroids, which were captured by the gravity of the neighboring planets: Jupiter and Mars. There are many of these Asteroids that circle around Mars, not around the sun, as do they say.

The old discarded notion that a planet shattered into asteroids has been shown not to be dynamically feasible. The theory that fits the evidence and the principles of physics indicates that planets formed by accretion from smaller planetesimals. Planetesimals between Mars and Jupiter tend to have rather eccentric orbits due to the gravitational influence of Jupiter. As a result, collisions between them are at relatively high velocities. Whenever two of them collide they are more likely to shatter rather than coalesce. Therefore, in that region a planet has never formed. Instead we refer to those particular planetesimals as asteroids. Yes, a few dozen of them may have become satellites of Jupiter, and two of them possibly became satellites of Mars. But that is all.

[eanassir]

centaur said:

The old discarded notion that a planet shattered into asteroids has been shown not to be dynamically feasible.

The theory that fits the evidence and the principles of physics indicates that planets formed by accretion from smaller planetesimals.

Planetesimals between Mars and Jupiter tend to have rather eccentric orbits due to the gravitational influence of Jupiter. As a result, collisions between them are at relatively high velocities. Whenever two of them collide they are more likely to shatter rather than coalesce.

Therefore, in that region a planet has never formed.
Instead we refer to those particular planetesimals as asteroids.

Yes, a few dozen of them may have become satellites of Jupiter, and two of them possibly became satellites of Mars. But that is all.

All these are theories and postulations; is it like the mode of dresses and haircutting?

There is a vacant orbit already present without any planet, and the remnants of this planet are present; why then will such idea not be feasible?
And who said the planets are formed in this alien way? From where is then all this heat in the core of the planets?

There are some asteroids circling around Jupiter and others around Mars; and it is logical that such big planets like Mars and Jupiter which are nearer to the Asteroids will draw these pieces of the broken up planet with their gravity, because they are the nearest planets.

[Centaur]

eanassir said:

centaur said:

The old discarded notion that a planet shattered into asteroids has been shown not to be dynamically feasible.

The theory that fits the evidence and the principles of physics indicates that planets formed by accretion from smaller planetesimals.

Planetesimals between Mars and Jupiter tend to have rather eccentric orbits due to the gravitational influence of Jupiter. As a result, collisions between them are at relatively high velocities. Whenever two of them collide they are more likely to shatter rather than coalesce.

Therefore, in that region a planet has never formed.
Instead we refer to those particular planetesimals as asteroids.

Yes, a few dozen of them may have become satellites of Jupiter, and two of them possibly became satellites of Mars. But that is all.

All these are theories and postulations; is it like the mode of dresses and haircutting?

There is a vacant orbit already present without any planet, and the remnants of this planet are present; why then will such idea not be feasible?
And who said the planets are formed in this alien way? From where is then all this heat in the core of the planets?

There are some asteroids circling around Jupiter and others around Mars; and it is logical that such big planets like Mars and Jupiter which are nearer to the Asteroids will draw these pieces of the broken up planet with their gravity, because they are the nearest planets.

I previously addressed your objections except for the matter of heat. You may want to reread. If the physics baffles you, then I suggest taking a course in the subject rather than relying on the pronouncements of some supposed authority figure.

Heat is a disordered form of kinetic (motion) energy. When planetesimals collided and coalesced into planets during the early solar system, the kinetic energy of their motion was transferred to molecules that bounced or vibrated against each other. The result is what we call heat. Eventually this planetary heat dissipates, but radioactivity has kept it going much longer than would otherwise have been the case.