Note: According to NASA Space rocks are called meteoroids when they are still in space, meteors
when they are burning in the atmosphere,& meteorites when they land on Earth.)
Click HERE for part 2
This post is Audio enabled. Press play for narration of parts a and b together
The other recognized forces are secondary effects resulting from chemical ablation:
With smaller meteorite's and tiny space rocks however, its much simpler, there is some record hitting moons and spacecraft quite regularly only friction is important since they are small, burn quickly and don't have enough mass to carry any substantially enduring charge, which I'll explain later.
This is a very important assumption to unpack and it needs to be addressed from two angles. Firstly the assumption that all bodies only encounter friction, and secondly that the craters we see on the many moons and planets of our solar system are all made by impact events.
If these assumptions about friction being the the only challenge encountered by potential impactors turn out to be partly false, our chances of facing a ground strike go down dramatically. If they turn out to be largely false the chances obviously go down overwhelmingly but the important part would be to appreciate impact events as a side effect of a greater event that is overwhelmingly more interesting. This is not just interesting but important perhaps even to the point we need to consider other cosmic events when looking at past extinctions or preparing ourselves for future danger.
Charge seperation in the universe is something I touched on and covered in part 7 of my "assumptions in science" series, as well as in Geology, if you can tolerate my approach, they are quite an important aspect of this post.
When we look, I mean actually look at the evidence of impacting bodies on earth we don't actually have any direct evidence of any bodies striking the earth and causing direct impact craters. We need to put our emotional attachments aside and focus on what direct evidence we actually have. All of the evidence going back to the Tunguska event in 1908 in Russia what we actually encounter is evidence of celestial bodies exploding (not burning up) in our atmosphere.
These bodies don't typically burn up in the red to white spectrum as you would expect bodies of such composition to do, also indicating thermal heating, but rather in the blue/green ultraviolet spectrum which is powerful evidence of ELECTRODYNAMICS at play, possibly accelerated by friction. Electrodynamics have caused comets to break up in a vacuum and much more likely, with sudden discharge, to make a body explode rather than just heat or burn up.
There are possible exceptions to the spectrum issue around dusk /dawn but this is a known atmospheric phenomenon that even turns the sun red. When they explode they explode and light up the sky often brighter than the sun, impossible for a thermal thermodynamic reaction. The pieces after the break up usually fall to earth at free fall speed and are recovered from the earths surface with hardly any cratering.
Let's look at the best evidence captured on video thanks to the prevalence of modern cameras, their proliferation and of course the internet:
This is a very important assumption to unpack and it needs to be addressed from two angles. Firstly the assumption that all bodies only encounter friction, and secondly that the craters we see on the many moons and planets of our solar system are all made by impact events.
If these assumptions about friction being the the only challenge encountered by potential impactors turn out to be partly false, our chances of facing a ground strike go down dramatically. If they turn out to be largely false the chances obviously go down overwhelmingly but the important part would be to appreciate impact events as a side effect of a greater event that is overwhelmingly more interesting. This is not just interesting but important perhaps even to the point we need to consider other cosmic events when looking at past extinctions or preparing ourselves for future danger.
By this reckoning impacts COULD occur when a body shares the same orbit around a star as the body it collides with, or if it moves at enough speed through regions of different potential, or if it's orbit tracks closer tothe sun's poles rather than equator where the charged particles are emitted. The last scenario would likey only apply to bodies originating outside the solar system. This way a comet or asteroid (if there is a difference) could conceivably not discharge significantly as a meteor as well.
Which brings me to my premise:
I believe I can with confidence make the statement the statement that (unless its from outside the regular orbit of our star) only an asteroid origin meteor strike has the potential for a ground impact, and not a comet strike. Why is that important and what is real difference between a comet and a meteor/asteroid? Also, does it have to be a ground impact to cause devastation? First some background.
Charge seperation in the universe is something I touched on and covered in part 7 of my "assumptions in science" series, as well as in Geology, if you can tolerate my approach, they are quite an important aspect of this post.
1) The evidence of forces on meteorites.
When we look, I mean actually look at the evidence of impacting bodies on earth we don't actually have any direct evidence of any bodies striking the earth and causing direct impact craters. We need to put our emotional attachments aside and focus on what direct evidence we actually have. All of the evidence going back to the Tunguska event in 1908 in Russia what we actually encounter is evidence of celestial bodies exploding (not burning up) in our atmosphere.
These bodies don't typically burn up in the red to white spectrum as you would expect bodies of such composition to do, also indicating thermal heating, but rather in the blue/green ultraviolet spectrum which is powerful evidence of ELECTRODYNAMICS at play, possibly accelerated by friction. Electrodynamics have caused comets to break up in a vacuum and much more likely, with sudden discharge, to make a body explode rather than just heat or burn up.
There are possible exceptions to the spectrum issue around dusk /dawn but this is a known atmospheric phenomenon that even turns the sun red. When they explode they explode and light up the sky often brighter than the sun, impossible for a thermal thermodynamic reaction. The pieces after the break up usually fall to earth at free fall speed and are recovered from the earths surface with hardly any cratering.
Let's look at the best evidence captured on video thanks to the prevalence of modern cameras, their proliferation and of course the internet:
Evidence. What constitutes evidence?
Direct observation would not be witnessing a crater, but instead winessing an impact.
Below, although the reasoning is poor, this video gives an idea of something not allowing the objects to strike us, all of them breaking up in our atmosphere
Below: Even the smallest meteors cause blinding flashes.
Below: Russia - Not a sonic boom from speed but a sonic blast resulting from a violent electromagnetic discharge that gave off vastly more energy than anticipated for a body of its size.
Latest May 13 2020
It was very much the same thing when Schumacher-Levy 9 crashed into the Jovian atmosphere. The comet was millions of times smaller the giant planet and astronomers roundly warned there event would be a non-event, much like shooting a grain of salt into a swimming pool. However proponent of the Electric Comet model, physist Wallace Thornhill (Holoscience.com and chief science advisor to the Thunderbolts Project) boldly predicted we would see a bright electrical discharge phenomenon in the upper regions of Jupiter's atmoshphere and this is exactly what happened.
Thornhill also correctly predicted the blinding flash of light that was such a surprise for mission control when Deep Impact approached for landing on comet Temple 1.
The above refers specifically for when objects of vastly differing potential charge-exchange reletively suddenly. When a rocket re-enters the atmosphere there is no real charge exchange going on, and the the science of aereothemodynamics caters perfectly for re-entry calculations etc. The re-entry also looks totally different as the below clip explains.
Thats the evidence, here is some explaination. The electrodynamic aspect of bodies transversing different orbital distances of the sun's ionized plasma environment is best highlighted by the Electric Universe paradigm where its widely known that the the "solar wind" is a constant flow of positive ions accelerating in the suns magnetic field as incomming charge enters via birkeland currents at its poles just like the magnetic feilds and aurora on earth.
It is viewed that the different zones are also regions of different potential since the ions are both more densely packed and slower moving as you get closer to the sun. That is an uncontested fact so it stands to reason that any body crossing through these zones must discharge to equalize this potential. It is impossible to exist in a region of differing potential without charge equalization once various factors all reach a critical point.
Part of the suns atmosphere, the Corona, extends as far as Pluto. This is the essence of the electric comet model. This model, supported by all observation to date, states the only difference between comets and asteroids is their orbit, with the orbit of a comet being elliptical causing it to discharge when it comes into the area of its orbit nearer the sun. Furthermore a sudden confrontation with a body of different potential, particularly one with an ionosphere or thick charged atmosphere, must cause a sudden and violent discharge event.
Below: The predictive success of the electric comet model is so much higher than the "Dirty Snowball" model.
Below: Philae Probe lands on comet in a first for ESA.
*There appeares to be no understanding as to what caused the bright flash of light on 67P either.
Academic papers have even appeared trying to ascribe the flash to gas outflows.
Below: The "Dirty Snowball" model vs reality as predicted by the electric comet model decades before clear images were available. None of the evidence supports the standard model of sublimating dusty water ice. All the evidence supports the electric comet model with the comet nucleus being simelar to an asteroid.
There is no evidence for an "Oort Cloud" or a "Late heavy Bombardment " these are nothing more than fudge factors.
Click HERE for part 2
Click HERE for sources & citations
