JohnB

Ophiolite, the problem here is that Tunguska was not an impact. For your figures to work, the bolide would have to have run into the equivalent of the ground at 10 miles up. (Air pressure perhaps?) Also, in the case of impacts, there is usually a crater and the remains of the meteorite somewhere under the ground even after the liberation of energy. Tunguska has neither of these things. There is no crater and virtually no debris. Hence my question about other occurrences. As the majority of meteors do not make it to the surface, one would expect that air burst explosions would be relatively more common, yet they don't seem to be. ( This could be because the Tunguska bolide was of unusual composition and therefore exploded with unusual violence.) I've read many theories about the cause of the blast, from the "Black Hole" one to the latest fringe "Ancient Planetary Defense" one. None of them seem to be able to fit all the known facts and witness observations without ignoring some of the factors. This to me makes Tunguska a real anomaly and therefore extremely interesting. Cochina, thanks for the links, I'm having a great read.

Gilded, that is both offensive and untrue. Australian criminals are just as capable as their overseas counterparts when it comes to being complete bloody idiots. To prove my point; Some years 7 or 8 years ago, my local Doctor's Clinic was robbed, the criminal demanding cash. As it was around 7 pm the Dr. told him that the cash had been banked, but the Dr. would write him a cash cheque. The crim was told that to cash the cheque he would have to present it at the local Westpac bank at 9 the next morning. The crim was surprised the next morning to find he was arrested by some highly amused coppers. So, when it comes to the "Stupid Stakes", I submit that we Aussies can indeed hold our own with the dumbest the world has to offer.

Excellent and informative posts Mokele. Depends where you are, I've called them "tucker" on occasion. Not too bad, but I prefer beef. The monitors are all right, but for pure "cute" factor I prefer the Eastern Water Dragon, Physignathus lesueurii. Very aware of their surroundings, they seem quite intelligent (but look so bloody prehistoric). I had to go the Main Roads dept. (your DMV?) to pay a fine last week and there is a colony living in the courtyard fountain. They sun themselves on the footpath, so you may have to step over one to get inside. Where I last worked, they lived in the creek next door. They got so used to us at lunchtime that they'd run up for food when they saw us sit down to eat. Good turn of speed too. While I haven't studied the anatomy, I find them interesting. Great swimmers (using only the tail), walk like a monitor lizard but if they need to move, it's up on the back legs and run.

Isn't that how PITA, sorry, PETA works? It can have an effect. They're trying it with Aussie wool producers now. Sorry if I gave that impression. I think that consumer pressure is an increasingly powerful adjunct to a regulatory system, but not a replacement for it.

Thanks Ophiolite. Clearer now. In every other explanation I've seen, no-one seems to really mention which planet got what from where. I would have thought that that would be a vital part of planetary formation dynamics.

Ophiolite, hmmmm. Maybe I just have trouble getting my head around it. Do you happen to know of any other similar occurrences? Devastation on that scale would surely leave a record somewhere. Of course, 70% of the Earth is covered by water, so there would be no evidence in 70% of cases.

Those who think they know everything are annoying those of us who do. And African swallows are non-migratory.

Ophiolite's comment in the "pointless fun" thread got me thinking. How often do we rate the reliability of a witness by what we believe? Without worrying about the existance or not of things, an experiment. You are now a Police Officer interviewing a witness about a robbery. The witness tells you that the offender was 190 cm tall, dark hair, pale complexion, etc., in fact the whole box and dice. You'd be thinking something like "A good observer, accurate and concise." You would have no doubt (or very little) that the person saw what they said they saw. And you would go looking for the man who fits the description. This would be a major prosecution point the witness said he saw the offender. Two days later the witness comes to you and tells you of the UFO he saw last night. He gives just as concise a description of the object. Size, speed, actions and headings. Your first thought would be "If this gets out, the case goes down the drain. My witness is delusional." Why? Thoughts? Again, this is not about the reality or otherwise of objects, but about why we think what we do. I just think it's curious.

If I may ask a question that seems to follow from the first. As I understand the process, the steps are like this; 1. Cloud of gases and particles. 2. Forms an accretion disc. 3. Planets form out of the disc. I assume the original disc is something like the Rings of Saturn. (God what a sight, a "Ringed Star", it boggles the mind.) Now as it forms the planets. How? It's a bit hard to describe my question. As Earth formed, where did it collect the matter from? Did the gradually increasing Earth mass speed up the mess in the Earth/Venus area and slow down the mass in the Earth/Mars area? Or did we get most of the mass from between the orbits of Earth and Mars? Venus would therefore get most of it's mass from the area between the Earth/Venus orbits.

But as the rock broke up, the small particles would decelerate faster than the main body and therefore be moved away from it. They wouldn't be in the one place to go "Bang". I'm sure that I've read that meteors do indeed explode in much the way you describe, but a Megaton range explosion? That's where I have problems.

"So, as the first man to visit Alpha Centauri, tell us, is the any life there?" "Well Saturday's all right, but the pubs close early the rest of the week."

Did it? We seem to have been conditioned to believe that changes in climate occur very slowly, they may have been faster. Take the ending of the last Ice Age. I, and probably others were taught that between 12,000 and 8,000 years ago the "ice gradually receded". The impression has always been that it was a slow process. Why is it that modern thought, with the exception of asteroid impact, always excludes catastrophic events?

I've also seen Snoopy's Doghouse flying. (With him on top) It's amazing what you can do with perspex wings. I also once had a flying Toilet Seat. ( Yes, a real one, bought new just for the experiment) Ah, the things we do to pass the, um, time.

Tetra, could it also be that there is a change in the wind? Look at the James Hardie fiasco. Legally they may get away with it, but with the growing push against their products unless they cough up the readies, they could be looking at a severely reduced bottom line in the future. With the advent of the Net, worldwide boycotts of products is now a very real threat to companies. I hope they get the message "Screw our Environment and you will go broke." This is of course no bloody use whatsoever if we can't stop those obscene payouts to execs that "Resign". The JH exec dropped the company into the biggest mess in it's history (some $1.3 billion of debt) and walks away with a $9 million golden handshake. What? How the hell does that work?

Mokele, I"m not going to argue with you, as I can barely keep my nose above water following your explanations. A question. How do the carnivorous marsupials fit into the picture? Did they come much later, or simply not a major player? The two that come to mind are the Marsupial Lion (which I've been told was more than a match for the African Lion) and the Carnivorous Kangaroo. The second is a doozy, 10 foot tall, 00's of lbs and ran (hopped) at nearly the speed of a Cheetah. Monitor lizards died out some 10,000 years ago we believe. (We could be wrong, there are still areas white man hasn't been to and Aboriginals won't go there. They generally say a Bunyip lives there.) These were bloody huge. 10 metres long or more. (There's one in the Queensland Museum, it's head is over a metre long. As to Dinos of some description surviving in the ocean. Why not? There are plenty of accounts of "Sea Monsters" over the last 1,000 years. The reports of sightings dropped off in the modern era though. Could it simply be that they don't like the sound of propellors. Sailing ships were quiet, modern ships let every creature for 50 miles know they are coming. I'm reminded of comments made as the Graf Zeppelin circumnavigated the world and crossed the Pacific; "We saw giant Sunfish and Whales and creatures the like we had never seen before". Considering the people on that flight, it was an unusual thing to say. Before anybody accuses those sailors of being credulous fools or some such, remember that sailors have been telling of gigantic "Rogue Waves" for centuries too and the scientific community didn't believe them. Oops. This is not to say that conventional scientific thought is always wrong, merely a reminder that it is not always right.

Tycho, I've always had trouble with that explanation. While I agree it would cause a bang, in the case of Tunguska we are talking 10-15 Megatons in power. Getting a 10 megaton blast from superheated steam just doesn't sound credible. We are talking about a bang 500 times bigger than Hiroshima. I don't know what it was, but a rock exploding from internal steam pressure? It just doesn't ring true. An interesting side note to Tunguska is that there was no increase in backgroung radiation, but the plants in the area are showing genetic deformities. Unusual.

Tycho, I've always had trouble with that explanation. While I agree it would cause a bang, in the case of Tunguska we are talking 10-15 Megatons in power. Getting a 10 megaton blast from superheated steam just doesn't sound credible. We are talking about a bang 500 times bigger than Hiroshima. I don't know what it was, but a rock exploding from internal steam pressure? It just doesn't ring true. An interesting side note to Tunguska is that there was no increase in backgroung radiation, but the plants in the area are showing genetic deformities. Unusual.

Try looking at some pics from Hubble. The telescope is outside the atmosphere, but the colours in those Galaxies would move Da Vinci to tears. "The Fingers of God" are not only amazing but beautiful as well. (Although they do look better with a "White Star" parked in front of them.)

Try looking at some pics from Hubble. The telescope is outside the atmosphere, but the colours in those Galaxies would move Da Vinci to tears. "The Fingers of God" are not only amazing but beautiful as well. (Although they do look better with a "White Star" parked in front of them.)

For me, the jury is still out, but a couple of thoughts. 1. References to a "monster" date from far earlier than 1900. The first reference I know of is from St. Adaman's "Life of Saint Columba" where the Holy man drives a monster from the River Ness in 565AD. The water monster or Kelpie has been around for a long time. 2. There can't be a Loch Ness Monster. Should such a creature exist, unless it has an rediculously long life span, there must be more than 1 of them. A family at least. ( Which could account for the differing appearences and sizes reported. )

For me, the jury is still out, but a couple of thoughts. 1. References to a "monster" date from far earlier than 1900. The first reference I know of is from St. Adaman's "Life of Saint Columba" where the Holy man drives a monster from the River Ness in 565AD. The water monster or Kelpie has been around for a long time. 2. There can't be a Loch Ness Monster. Should such a creature exist, unless it has an rediculously long life span, there must be more than 1 of them. A family at least. ( Which could account for the differing appearences and sizes reported. )

I have been reviewing my recent posts, and most in this forum seem to reply to yours. I just want to assure you that this is entirely without intent. I don't know, maybe it's because we are both Aussies, but at seemingly opposite ends of the political spectrum that your posts strike a chord with me, (After all, who cares what the yanks and poms think? ) and so I reply. (What do the people in the Psych Forum think of that theory? ) I just wanted you to know that my responses have not in any way been the result of a personal vendetta, and if I have given the impression that I've been hounding you, then I honestly apologise. That was never my intent. Should you be in Brissy, or I get to Sydney, the first rounds on me. I'm sure that after the first few scotches, a, um, "spirited" conversation would ensue. Cheers.

See my comment re relative and absolute morals. Tetra, where there really seems to be a disagreement between left and right regarding social policies is that the right generally believes that people should learn to look after themselves, the left believes that government should do so. This leads to the interesting state of affairs (in Oz at least), that the party that causes the most poverty (people unable to find a job and provide for their families) is also the one that pushes for more government spending on those "in need". An interesting situation, cause the problem and then claim to have the cure. Also I'm not fully in agreement with the Howard government in some areas. We had a $6 Billion surplus last year. Okay, tax cuts were fun, but a few dollars here and there for most of us wasn't a big deal. All I could think of at the time "Damn, how many Nurses and Teachers could we employ for that? Build a couple of Hospitals out of the change too." On the environment, I'm no friend of "The Greens", the sooner they disappear and are replaced by a decent Green Group with reasonable policies the better for all of us. You see, I believe we should have clean air and water, not because some evil "Big Business" is making a profit but because we need clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. (Or in the case of Melbournians, any water at all would be a plus. ) If I may ask, where do you get your figures that the current government is abolishing funding for health education etc.? Funding for education this year is $17 B, up 5.4% from last year. Family and Community Services are getting $65.86B, up about $1.6B. Ageing is some $6.7B increasing by $500M per year for the next three years. In most areas, things seem to be looking up.

Will curing diabetes do? See this article. http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s104966.htm

Um, because the left side views them as whackos? There is also the thing about "morals". Generally (Very wide brush alert) the left views morals as "relative" dependent on time and place, whereas by their very beliefs, any religionist must believe that morals are "absolute", if for no other reason than "God said so". The two views are diametrically opposed, religionists side with the right simply because the left doesn't agree with their basic value. John, a simple question. Are there any "left" organisations that do as much good or are respected as say, The Salvos? The left are great at saving trees, but don't actually do anything to help their fellow man. International Socialist Soup Kitchens? Nope. Part of the problem is that there any number of "left" groups that will protest and chant about what is wrong, but it's those "right-sided" religious groups that get in there and get their hands dirty. People see that, and remember.