"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:api330h1pg20ieo3ahsnl6eadogucs707o@4ax.com...

The recording of comets is something that, for example, the Chinese did a
lot of. Even European literature has allowed us to trace Halleys comet
back
to the Hastings era.

But what about:

... and the infinite great sea
moaned terribly

actually we have perfectly mundane records in the astronomical literature of
the day. Poets are fine, but their maths is appalling )

I don't seem to have made myself clear. The parent body can be

http://www2.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/srs/Lit126.html

Comets were studied and recorded without any secrecy or
use of codes to keep the lower orders ignorant. This is why I remain
suspicious of cometary effects with no associated comet in the record.

Read Baillie, the section 'Conspiracy? What Conspiracy?'

To postulate a conspiracy which included all those peoples capable of seeing
a comet (and at the time we have several groups of literate and effectively
scientific observers would be in the northern hemisphere) does stretch
matters. Why should the Sassanian or Chinese bother about other peoples
conspiracies, even if they heard about them?

Obviously for before 2000BC it is fair enough not to see any records, and
I
suppose that our copies of the Babylonian astronomical records are
fragmentary enough to allow others to slip through the gaps. But I have
difficulty in believing in major comets un-noticed in the 4th-6th
centuries.

Just think of the ruins attributed to war, insurrection etc - when
these causes have been chosen from the short list of possible causes
which are known.


if the latter then obviously that question is nugatory as we could be
talking one every 20 million years


We have those too, but you wouldn't want to meet it.

Agreed


Oh, by the way, the quote is from Hesiod's 'Theogony' ca. 8th Century
B.C.. There are all kinds of explanations of what he was trying to
describe but until recently none have contemplated a massive heavenly
bombardment.

Consider also the book of Revelations:

http://www.awitness.org/biblehtm/re/re8.htm

"8:5 The angel took the censer, and he filled it with the fire of
the altar, and threw it on the earth. There followed thunders,
sounds, lightnings, and an earthquake.

8:6 The seven angels who had the seven trumpets prepared
themselves to sound.

8:7 The first sounded, and there followed hail and fire, mixed
with blood, and they were thrown to the earth. One third of the
earth was burnt up, and one third of the trees were burnt up, and
all green grass was burnt up. [Theogony, anyone?]

8:8 The second angel sounded, and something like a great burning
mountain was thrown into the sea. One third of the sea became
blood,

8:9 and one third of the living creatures which were in the sea
died. One third of the ships were destroyed.

8:10 The third angel sounded, and a great star fell from the
sky, burning like a torch, and it fell on one third of the
rivers, and on the springs of the waters."


What were the ancients really trying to tell us? Meteors? Comets?
Naah - they lacked the concepts, let alone the words.


but they didn't lack the words or concepts, they had been describing and
prediciting solar and lunar eclipses and recording comets for over a
thousand years before hesiod

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:00:33 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:api330h1pg20ieo3ahsnl6eadogucs707o@4ax.com...

The recording of comets is something that, for example, the Chinese
did a
lot of. Even European literature has allowed us to trace Halleys comet
back
to the Hastings era.

But what about:

... and the infinite great sea
moaned terribly

actually we have perfectly mundane records in the astronomical literature
of
the day. Poets are fine, but their maths is appalling )

I don't seem to have made myself clear. The parent body can be
completely invisible on the far end of its orbit while we on on earth
a passing through it's equally invisible debris-filled trail. This
means that we get the 'lights in the sky' and 'falling stones' etc
without one accompanying celestial portent from a comet being visible
at the time. It doesn't always work that way and see one now slightly
dated possible explanation for some of the myths of the past.

Comets were studied and recorded without any secrecy or
use of codes to keep the lower orders ignorant. This is why I remain
suspicious of cometary effects with no associated comet in the record.

Read Baillie, the section 'Conspiracy? What Conspiracy?'

To postulate a conspiracy which included all those peoples capable of
seeing
a comet (and at the time we have several groups of literate and
effectively
scientific observers would be in the northern hemisphere) does stretch
matters. Why should the Sassanian or Chinese bother about other peoples
conspiracies, even if they heard about them?

But they didn't. That is one of Baillie's points. However the main
stream of scholars in christian Europe do seem to have been singularly
silent about the decade commencing circa 535AD.

Obviously for before 2000BC it is fair enough not to see any records,
and
I
suppose that our copies of the Babylonian astronomical records are
fragmentary enough to allow others to slip through the gaps. But I
have
difficulty in believing in major comets un-noticed in the 4th-6th
centuries.

Just think of the ruins attributed to war, insurrection etc - when
these causes have been chosen from the short list of possible causes
which are known.


if the latter then obviously that question is nugatory as we could
be
talking one every 20 million years


We have those too, but you wouldn't want to meet it.

Agreed


Oh, by the way, the quote is from Hesiod's 'Theogony' ca. 8th Century
B.C.. There are all kinds of explanations of what he was trying to
describe but until recently none have contemplated a massive heavenly
bombardment.

Consider also the book of Revelations:

http://www.awitness.org/biblehtm/re/re8.htm

"8:5 The angel took the censer, and he filled it with the fire of
the altar, and threw it on the earth. There followed thunders,
sounds, lightnings, and an earthquake.

8:6 The seven angels who had the seven trumpets prepared
themselves to sound.

8:7 The first sounded, and there followed hail and fire, mixed
with blood, and they were thrown to the earth. One third of the
earth was burnt up, and one third of the trees were burnt up, and
all green grass was burnt up. [Theogony, anyone?]

8:8 The second angel sounded, and something like a great burning
mountain was thrown into the sea. One third of the sea became
blood,

8:9 and one third of the living creatures which were in the sea
died. One third of the ships were destroyed.

8:10 The third angel sounded, and a great star fell from the
sky, burning like a torch, and it fell on one third of the
rivers, and on the springs of the waters."


What were the ancients really trying to tell us? Meteors? Comets?
Naah - they lacked the concepts, let alone the words.


but they didn't lack the words or concepts, they had been describing and
prediciting solar and lunar eclipses and recording comets for over a
thousand years before hesiod

You still seem to be missing the point.

Seeing and describing relatively harmless comets in the sky is one
thing but it is NOT the same as being on the receiving end of
Tunguska-like impacts. It is latter which Hesiod might have been
trying to describe, but what prior knowledge or experience would he
have upon which he could base a logical explanation?

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:gqq430lup5giu6k6qrnu9g9d19rqtj2t6u@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:00:33 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:api330h1pg20ieo3ahsnl6eadogucs707o@4ax.com...

The recording of comets is something that, for example, the Chinese
did a
lot of. Even European literature has allowed us to trace Halleys comet
back
to the Hastings era.

But what about:

... and the infinite great sea
moaned terribly

actually we have perfectly mundane records in the astronomical literature
of
the day. Poets are fine, but their maths is appalling )

I don't seem to have made myself clear. The parent body can be
completely invisible on the far end of its orbit while we on on earth
a passing through it's equally invisible debris-filled trail. This
means that we get the 'lights in the sky' and 'falling stones' etc
without one accompanying celestial portent from a comet being visible
at the time. It doesn't always work that way and see one now slightly
dated possible explanation for some of the myths of the past.

yet we get that a couple of times a year with the leonid and persid meteor
showers. These are well recorded back for a considerable period, so are
hardly novel

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:gqq430lup5giu6k6qrnu9g9d19rqtj2t6u@4ax.com...

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:00:33 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:api330h1pg20ieo3ahsnl6eadogucs707o@4ax.com...


The recording of comets is something that, for example, the Chinese

did a

lot of. Even European literature has allowed us to trace Halleys comet

back

to the Hastings era.

But what about:

... and the infinite great sea
moaned terribly

actually we have perfectly mundane records in the astronomical literature

of

the day. Poets are fine, but their maths is appalling )


I don't seem to have made myself clear. The parent body can be
completely invisible on the far end of its orbit while we on on earth
a passing through it's equally invisible debris-filled trail. This
means that we get the 'lights in the sky' and 'falling stones' etc
without one accompanying celestial portent from a comet being visible
at the time. It doesn't always work that way and see one now slightly
dated possible explanation for some of the myths of the past.


yet we get that a couple of times a year with the leonid and persid meteor
showers. These are well recorded back for a considerable period, so are
hardly novel

Jim Webster

Jim Webster wrote:

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:gqq430lup5giu6k6qrnu9g9d19rqtj2t6u@4ax.com...

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:00:33 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:api330h1pg20ieo3ahsnl6eadogucs707o@4ax.com...


The recording of comets is something that, for example, the Chinese

did a

lot of. Even European literature has allowed us to trace Halleys comet

back

to the Hastings era.

But what about:

... and the infinite great sea
moaned terribly

actually we have perfectly mundane records in the astronomical literature

of

the day. Poets are fine, but their maths is appalling )


I don't seem to have made myself clear. The parent body can be
completely invisible on the far end of its orbit while we on on earth
a passing through it's equally invisible debris-filled trail. This
means that we get the 'lights in the sky' and 'falling stones' etc
without one accompanying celestial portent from a comet being visible
at the time. It doesn't always work that way and see one now slightly
dated possible explanation for some of the myths of the past.


yet we get that a couple of times a year with the leonid and persid meteor
showers. These are well recorded back for a considerable period, so are
hardly novel

Jim Webster



Jim,

According to my trusty Old Farmer's Almanac, there are at least
12 meteor showers a year (now, anyway). As far as is known, all
are due to Earth passing through debris orbiting in the wake of
comets. At least nine annual meteor showers have been associated
with specific comets, including Halley and Encke.

Now there are factors which cause the Earth's orbit to vary over
time. One cycle sees the shape of Earth's orbit change from
nearly circular to somewhat more ellipsoid. IIRC, the
periodicity of this cycle is on the order of a thousand years,
though I'm open to being corrected on this. When the orbit
changes in this way, ISTM possible that the meteor showers might
also change, as we are moving through orbits of somewhat varying
eccentricity.

Then again, over time it seems reasonable that the debris fields
of some of the comets might attenuate via capture by larger
bodies (including Earth). It also seems likely to me that the
orbits of the debris would be altered by the gravitation of
larger bodies in the outer solar system so as to no longer
intersect Earth's orbit.

That said, I think it highly unlikely that such cometary debris
would be so clustered as to strike Earth only once, or only a few
times. If we were hit by the orbiting debris from a comet, it
would likely repeat for several years at least.

Jumping into this thread because of it's astronomical interest.
I'm hoping that some kind souls will correct me as to the
discussion on this thread; I haven't followed it closely until
just now.

You should know this is one of my hobby-horses. There MUST be

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:d6r4301dms090oo3lshha4dv7jldf6d3r0@4ax.com...

Comets were studied and recorded without any secrecy or
use of codes to keep the lower orders ignorant. This is why I remain
suspicious of cometary effects with no associated comet in the record.

Read Baillie, the section 'Conspiracy? What Conspiracy?'

To postulate a conspiracy which included all those peoples capable of
seeing
a comet (and at the time we have several groups of literate and
effectively
scientific observers would be in the northern hemisphere) does stretch
matters. Why should the Sassanian or Chinese bother about other peoples
conspiracies, even if they heard about them?

But they didn't. That is one of Baillie's points. However the main
stream of scholars in christian Europe do seem to have been singularly
silent about the decade commencing circa 535AD.

This is the period of Justinians wars, Procopius wrote is first seven books
prior to 547 (from memory and had there been any cover-ups one would have
thought his anecdota would have revelled in telling all about them)

Obviously for before 2000BC it is fair enough not to see any records,
and
I
suppose that our copies of the Babylonian astronomical records are
fragmentary enough to allow others to slip through the gaps. But I
have
difficulty in believing in major comets un-noticed in the 4th-6th
centuries.

Just think of the ruins attributed to war, insurrection etc - when
these causes have been chosen from the short list of possible causes
which are known.


if the latter then obviously that question is nugatory as we could
be
talking one every 20 million years


We have those too, but you wouldn't want to meet it.

Agreed


Oh, by the way, the quote is from Hesiod's 'Theogony' ca. 8th Century
B.C.. There are all kinds of explanations of what he was trying to
describe but until recently none have contemplated a massive heavenly
bombardment.

Consider also the book of Revelations:

http://www.awitness.org/biblehtm/re/re8.htm

"8:5 The angel took the censer, and he filled it with the fire of
the altar, and threw it on the earth. There followed thunders,
sounds, lightnings, and an earthquake.

8:6 The seven angels who had the seven trumpets prepared
themselves to sound.

8:7 The first sounded, and there followed hail and fire, mixed
with blood, and they were thrown to the earth. One third of the
earth was burnt up, and one third of the trees were burnt up, and
all green grass was burnt up. [Theogony, anyone?]

8:8 The second angel sounded, and something like a great burning
mountain was thrown into the sea. One third of the sea became
blood,

8:9 and one third of the living creatures which were in the sea
died. One third of the ships were destroyed.

8:10 The third angel sounded, and a great star fell from the
sky, burning like a torch, and it fell on one third of the
rivers, and on the springs of the waters."


What were the ancients really trying to tell us? Meteors? Comets?
Naah - they lacked the concepts, let alone the words.


but they didn't lack the words or concepts, they had been describing and
prediciting solar and lunar eclipses and recording comets for over a
thousand years before hesiod

You still seem to be missing the point.

Seeing and describing relatively harmless comets in the sky is one
thing but it is NOT the same as being on the receiving end of
Tunguska-like impacts. It is latter which Hesiod might have been
trying to describe, but what prior knowledge or experience would he
have upon which he could base a logical explanation?

Having seen the same passages used as evidence for everything from aliens
fighting a space battle I don't particularly take it as evidence of
anything.

You seem to be torn between three concepts.
1) A Tunguska like impact. Fine, but where in the crater?

2) Cometary dust belt left by a comet. Yes, but this happens twice a year,
every year. Now if you look at old descriptions they can occasionally be
quite spectacular, but the amount of dust that has to be left to have any
sort of major climatic effect effectively demands the comet break up in
front of us for us to run into. Certainly I am aware of no evidence of
climate change because of the trails we know of.

3) A comet seen in the sky. Our ancestors were pretty good at recording
them.

It behoves anyone who is putting forward the cometary explanation to provide
pretty solid evidence of these effects. The maths to show the sort of dust
necessary would be good. It would be comparatively easy, the figures are out
there for what they estimate Krakatoa put up into the atmosphere. So you are
looking for that sort of weight. Assuming that we cut across a comets trail,
that sort of weight of dust (actually far more, because the muck from
Krakatoa didn't have partially burn up entering the atmosphere) will have to
have been shed over a distance not much more than the diameter of earths
atmosphere.
From there you can calculate how much muck the comet was shedding per mile
travelled, and working out its orbit you can calculate just how big the
comet was in the first place.

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 22:03:34 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:gqq430lup5giu6k6qrnu9g9d19rqtj2t6u@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:00:33 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:api330h1pg20ieo3ahsnl6eadogucs707o@4ax.com...

The recording of comets is something that, for example, the Chinese
did a
lot of. Even European literature has allowed us to trace Halleys
comet
back
to the Hastings era.

But what about:

... and the infinite great sea
moaned terribly

actually we have perfectly mundane records in the astronomical
literature
of
the day. Poets are fine, but their maths is appalling )

I don't seem to have made myself clear. The parent body can be
completely invisible on the far end of its orbit while we on on earth
a passing through it's equally invisible debris-filled trail. This
means that we get the 'lights in the sky' and 'falling stones' etc
without one accompanying celestial portent from a comet being visible
at the time. It doesn't always work that way and see one now slightly
dated possible explanation for some of the myths of the past.

yet we get that a couple of times a year with the leonid and persid
meteor
showers. These are well recorded back for a considerable period, so are
hardly novel

But they are an order of magnitude less than some events of the
reorded past. They are probably two orders below Tunguska level
events. A civilization on the end of a Tunguska level of attack would
surely remember it, even if they could not possibly understand the
reality of what was happening,

See http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/bronze.html for some possibilities.

Jim Webster wrote:


Jim,

According to my trusty Old Farmer's Almanac, there are at least
12 meteor showers a year (now, anyway). As far as is known, all
are due to Earth passing through debris orbiting in the wake of
comets. At least nine annual meteor showers have been associated
with specific comets, including Halley and Encke.

Now there are factors which cause the Earth's orbit to vary over
time. One cycle sees the shape of Earth's orbit change from
nearly circular to somewhat more ellipsoid. IIRC, the
periodicity of this cycle is on the order of a thousand years,
though I'm open to being corrected on this. When the orbit
changes in this way, ISTM possible that the meteor showers might
also change, as we are moving through orbits of somewhat varying
eccentricity.

Then again, over time it seems reasonable that the debris fields
of some of the comets might attenuate via capture by larger
bodies (including Earth). It also seems likely to me that the
orbits of the debris would be altered by the gravitation of
larger bodies in the outer solar system so as to no longer
intersect Earth's orbit.

That said, I think it highly unlikely that such cometary debris
would be so clustered as to strike Earth only once, or only a few
times. If we were hit by the orbiting debris from a comet, it
would likely repeat for several years at least.

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ho553015s00pdei2ccjlmlreljp9dsmgl0@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 22:03:34 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:gqq430lup5giu6k6qrnu9g9d19rqtj2t6u@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:00:33 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:api330h1pg20ieo3ahsnl6eadogucs707o@4ax.com...

The recording of comets is something that, for example, the Chinese
did a
lot of. Even European literature has allowed us to trace Halleys
comet
back
to the Hastings era.

But what about:

... and the infinite great sea
moaned terribly

actually we have perfectly mundane records in the astronomical
literature
of
the day. Poets are fine, but their maths is appalling )

I don't seem to have made myself clear. The parent body can be
completely invisible on the far end of its orbit while we on on earth
a passing through it's equally invisible debris-filled trail. This
means that we get the 'lights in the sky' and 'falling stones' etc
without one accompanying celestial portent from a comet being visible
at the time. It doesn't always work that way and see one now slightly
dated possible explanation for some of the myths of the past.

yet we get that a couple of times a year with the leonid and persid
meteor
showers. These are well recorded back for a considerable period, so are
hardly novel

But they are an order of magnitude less than some events of the
reorded past. They are probably two orders below Tunguska level
events. A civilization on the end of a Tunguska level of attack would
surely remember it, even if they could not possibly understand the
reality of what was happening,

See http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/bronze.html for some possibilities.


To have a Tunguska you need a crater, where is the crater?

The other option is the cometary trail. So let us do the maths, let us
assume that the trail deposits on earth the same volume of material as the
Karkatoa eruptuion. (21 cubic km). But some of this burns up as it enters
the atmosphere so let us assume that there was 42 cubic km.
Now the Atmosphere is 480 km thick. So for ease assume the earth sweeps up
the muck spread over 1000km of cometary trail. So the comet sheds 0.042
cubic km per kilometre. Now Earth is 93 million miles from the sun. The
comet starts shedding material as it moves toward the sun and continues as
it goes round the sun and comes out the other side. The amount shed isn't
uniform, so as an approximation we will just assume it starts shedding as it
enters earths orbit. Sublimation starts when the comets are closer than
about three astronomical units from the Sun (one astronomical unit [AU]
equals about 150,000,000 km, or 93,000,000 miles). So assume that this comet
only sheds material for 2 astronomical units, this is 7,812,000 cubic km.
As a comparison, the nucleus of Halley's comet, is about 15 by 4 km (about
9 by 2.5 miles).

The size of comet needed is several orders of magnitude larger than any
comet recorded. So I would suggest that unless you can come up with examples
of the appropriate size the explanation isn't particularly useful

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 22:23:26 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:



I suggest you read what Baillie has written. It's too long for me to
quote.

You seem to be torn between three concepts.
1) A Tunguska like impact. Fine, but where in the crater?

There is no crater with Tunguska events. Its a monstrous air-blast.
This is the chacteristic of virtually all high-speed bolides. They do
not reach the ground.

2) Cometary dust belt left by a comet. Yes, but this happens twice a
year,
every year. Now if you look at old descriptions they can occasionally be
quite spectacular, but the amount of dust that has to be left to have any
sort of major climatic effect effectively demands the comet break up in
front of us for us to run into. Certainly I am aware of no evidence of
climate change because of the trails we know of.

There is evidence of climate change associated with dust layers in ice
cores. Some are probably due to volcanoes but others lack the acid
trace characteristic of volcanoes. I again refer to you to 'Exodus to
Arthur'.

3) A comet seen in the sky. Our ancestors were pretty good at recording
them.

There is absolutely no ned for the parent comet to be visible at the
same time as the earth runs into its debris trail. Having said that,
there may have been one well described situation when the earth
appears to have had a very near miss with a comet. This has come down
to us in all kinds of stories from the Epic of Gilgamesh, to the story
of Phaethon to the chinese dragons. See
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/phaeth.html

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 07:29:05 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ho553015s00pdei2ccjlmlreljp9dsmgl0@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 22:03:34 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:gqq430lup5giu6k6qrnu9g9d19rqtj2t6u@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:00:33 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:api330h1pg20ieo3ahsnl6eadogucs707o@4ax.com...

The recording of comets is something that, for example, the
Chinese
did a
lot of. Even European literature has allowed us to trace Halleys
comet
back
to the Hastings era.

But what about:

... and the infinite great sea
moaned terribly

actually we have perfectly mundane records in the astronomical
literature
of
the day. Poets are fine, but their maths is appalling )

I don't seem to have made myself clear. The parent body can be
completely invisible on the far end of its orbit while we on on
earth
a passing through it's equally invisible debris-filled trail. This
means that we get the 'lights in the sky' and 'falling stones' etc
without one accompanying celestial portent from a comet being
visible
at the time. It doesn't always work that way and see one now
slightly
dated possible explanation for some of the myths of the past.

yet we get that a couple of times a year with the leonid and persid
meteor
showers. These are well recorded back for a considerable period, so
are
hardly novel

But they are an order of magnitude less than some events of the
reorded past. They are probably two orders below Tunguska level
events. A civilization on the end of a Tunguska level of attack would
surely remember it, even if they could not possibly understand the
reality of what was happening,

See http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/bronze.html for some possibilities.


To have a Tunguska you need a crater, where is the crater?

There is NO Tunguska crater. At the most, and this is debatable, there
is a depression in the ground.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event

" The reports were basically consistent with each other, and Kulik
was able to persuade the Soviet government to fund an expedition
to the Tunguska region. His group reached the "ground zero" of the
"event" in 1927. Much to their surprise, there was no crater, just
a great region of scorched trees about 50 kilometers across. The
trees pointed away from the center of the event, with a few still
bizarrely standing upright at ground zero, their branches and
bark stripped off."

You will find much more of the same. NO CRATER!



The other option is the cometary trail. So let us do the maths, let us
assume that the trail deposits on earth the same volume of material as
the
Karkatoa eruptuion. (21 cubic km). But some of this burns up as it enters
the atmosphere so let us assume that there was 42 cubic km.
Now the Atmosphere is 480 km thick. So for ease assume the earth sweeps
up
the muck spread over 1000km of cometary trail. So the comet sheds 0.042
cubic km per kilometre. Now Earth is 93 million miles from the sun. The
comet starts shedding material as it moves toward the sun and continues
as
it goes round the sun and comes out the other side. The amount shed isn't
uniform, so as an approximation we will just assume it starts shedding as
it
enters earths orbit. Sublimation starts when the comets are closer than
about three astronomical units from the Sun (one astronomical unit [AU]
equals about 150,000,000 km, or 93,000,000 miles). So assume that this
comet
only sheds material for 2 astronomical units, this is 7,812,000 cubic km.
As a comparison, the nucleus of Halley's comet, is about 15 by 4 km
(about
9 by 2.5 miles).

The size of comet needed is several orders of magnitude larger than any
comet recorded. So I would suggest that unless you can come up with
examples
of the appropriate size the explanation isn't particularly useful

There is something wrong with your thesis. For a start, I suggest that
you try to catch up with the last 20 years on the subject.

"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@nohormelcharter.net> wrote in message
news:10357g04q7srs7a@corp.supernews.com...

That said, I think it highly unlikely that such cometary debris
would be so clustered as to strike Earth only once, or only a few
times. If we were hit by the orbiting debris from a comet, it
would likely repeat for several years at least.


Yes. If you see the crude numbers I have put together in the other post you
will see that I suspect that any comet capable of shedding the amount of
dust needed is perhaps best thought of as a rogue planetoid rather than a
mere comet

Jim Webster

To have a Tunguska you need a crater, where is the crater?

There is NO Tunguska crater. At the most, and this is debatable, there
is a depression in the ground.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event

" The reports were basically consistent with each other, and Kulik
was able to persuade the Soviet government to fund an expedition
to the Tunguska region. His group reached the "ground zero" of the
"event" in 1927. Much to their surprise, there was no crater, just
a great region of scorched trees about 50 kilometers across. The
trees pointed away from the center of the event, with a few still
bizarrely standing upright at ground zero, their branches and
bark stripped off."

You will find much more of the same. NO CRATER!



The other option is the cometary trail. So let us do the maths, let us
assume that the trail deposits on earth the same volume of material as
the
Karkatoa eruptuion. (21 cubic km). But some of this burns up as it enters
the atmosphere so let us assume that there was 42 cubic km.
Now the Atmosphere is 480 km thick. So for ease assume the earth sweeps
up
the muck spread over 1000km of cometary trail. So the comet sheds 0.042
cubic km per kilometre. Now Earth is 93 million miles from the sun. The
comet starts shedding material as it moves toward the sun and continues
as
it goes round the sun and comes out the other side. The amount shed isn't
uniform, so as an approximation we will just assume it starts shedding as
it
enters earths orbit. Sublimation starts when the comets are closer than
about three astronomical units from the Sun (one astronomical unit [AU]
equals about 150,000,000 km, or 93,000,000 miles). So assume that this
comet
only sheds material for 2 astronomical units, this is 7,812,000 cubic km.
As a comparison, the nucleus of Halley's comet, is about 15 by 4 km
(about
9 by 2.5 miles).

The size of comet needed is several orders of magnitude larger than any
comet recorded. So I would suggest that unless you can come up with
examples
of the appropriate size the explanation isn't particularly useful

There is something wrong with your thesis. For a start, I suggest that
you try to catch up with the last 20 years on the subject.

The maths is there, show what is wrong. Just because the maths doesn't fit
your model doesn't mean the maths is wrong, it may mean your model is wrong

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ho553015s00pdei2ccjlmlreljp9dsmgl0@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 22:03:34 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:gqq430lup5giu6k6qrnu9g9d19rqtj2t6u@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:00:33 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:api330h1pg20ieo3ahsnl6eadogucs707o@4ax.com...

The recording of comets is something that, for example, the Chinese
did a
lot of. Even European literature has allowed us to trace Halleys
comet
back
to the Hastings era.

But what about:

... and the infinite great sea
moaned terribly

actually we have perfectly mundane records in the astronomical
literature
of
the day. Poets are fine, but their maths is appalling )

I don't seem to have made myself clear. The parent body can be
completely invisible on the far end of its orbit while we on on earth
a passing through it's equally invisible debris-filled trail. This
means that we get the 'lights in the sky' and 'falling stones' etc
without one accompanying celestial portent from a comet being visible
at the time. It doesn't always work that way and see one now slightly
dated possible explanation for some of the myths of the past.

yet we get that a couple of times a year with the leonid and persid
meteor
showers. These are well recorded back for a considerable period, so are
hardly novel

But they are an order of magnitude less than some events of the
reorded past. They are probably two orders below Tunguska level
events. A civilization on the end of a Tunguska level of attack would
surely remember it, even if they could not possibly understand the
reality of what was happening,

See http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/bronze.html for some possibilities.


To have a Tunguska you need a crater, where is the crater?

The other option is the cometary trail. So let us do the maths, let us
assume that the trail deposits on earth the same volume of material as the
Karkatoa eruptuion. (21 cubic km). But some of this burns up as it enters
the atmosphere so let us assume that there was 42 cubic km.
Now the Atmosphere is 480 km thick. So for ease assume the earth sweeps up
the muck spread over 1000km of cometary trail. So the comet sheds 0.042
cubic km per kilometre. Now Earth is 93 million miles from the sun. The
comet starts shedding material as it moves toward the sun and continues as
it goes round the sun and comes out the other side. The amount shed isn't
uniform, so as an approximation we will just assume it starts shedding as it
enters earths orbit. Sublimation starts when the comets are closer than
about three astronomical units from the Sun (one astronomical unit [AU]
equals about 150,000,000 km, or 93,000,000 miles). So assume that this comet
only sheds material for 2 astronomical units, this is 7,812,000 cubic km.
As a comparison, the nucleus of Halley's comet, is about 15 by 4 km (about
9 by 2.5 miles).

The size of comet needed is several orders of magnitude larger than any
comet recorded. So I would suggest that unless you can come up with examples
of the appropriate size the explanation isn't particularly useful

Jim Webster