Anthropocene [December 16, 1811]

[Kalopin]

 

I have no idea if any such book exists. It is irrelevant. There are statistics for the frequency of earthquakes. Compare the numbers in the period claimed with other periods. As you are unwilling to do this, we can just dismiss the claim.

 

 

So there is no mechanism and therefore no reason to think there is any such effect.

 

 

Apparent size tells you nothing about distance unless you also know the actual size. Also, was that the size of the comet or its tail?

 

And please show how you calculated 1.22AU.

where are there statistics for the frequency of earthquakes going back this far? ...and why would this be a reason to dismiss my claims?

 

i would think that just because there are currently no peer reviews on the physics involved with a serial impact from the close passing of a comet, would not mean that it could not occur?

 

The "apparent" size was what was described by the witnesses to the comet's passing and there has never been anything seen in space from Earth to appear that large, rather it was the nucleus or the tail. The comet had to have been close.

 

The believed closest approach of C/1811 f1 was determined to be 1.22AU, which is a later estimate and could not be accurate. see the link previously posted-

http://www.cometography.com/lcomets/1811f1.html on October 16, 1811. Though the comet had appeared to be fifty percent larger than the Sun and so, if it had actually been at this distance, it would have been so large that it would have disturbed the orbits of every planet in this solar system!

 

Look at what William Herschel's observations say-

Dec.9- "the branches were already so much scattered that observations of them could no longer be made with any accuracy..." indicating that the plasma tail appeared shorter and the comet had a large debris trail, as the comet became closer, the two tails appeared to rejoin, as that would be the effect from a close passing sungrazer...

Dec. 14- Herschel wrote that the tail "...still remained as before, but the end of it was much fainter..." this appears to describe that the comet was coming toward and going over where Herschel was located...

 

And yet the moon causes tides (but not earthquakes).

 

Comets do not cause tides or earthquakes.

and you know of a comet that was a sungrazer, was large enough and passed close enough?

 

...and the Moon surely does cause continental drift, tectonic activity and earthquakes.. Although there is still quite an argument- http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0523_050523_moonquake_2.html

 

Wegener was correct on his assumptions "...that centrifugal and tidal forces were responsible for moving the continents..." [that is, along with massive impacts such as a direct hit from a comet, large enough asteroid or the Moon!]-

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html

[just below "modern reconstruction of Pangaea"]

 

I recall seeing the images of several years ago.

 

 

Well, I Googled "Kalopin's Legacy, 1811: A comet and a Quake" and found ten pages of sites related to it going back to at least 2011.

 

Your original images look very similar to these on Dr. Jack Share's excellent blog;

http://written-in-stone-seen-through-my-lens.blogspot.com/ (This link is incorrect for following image. Please see post #25 for correction)

 

Written In Stone...seen through my lens January 2015.png

Just judging by appearance, the holes in the rocks you posted appear to be man-made?

 

I invite you to look more closely at the rocks at my site- http://koolkreations.wix.com/kalopins-legacythat all show signs of extreme heat. look at the boulders I am pointing to, one showing a "swirl" design, apparently from a wind eddie as the rock was still molten and another where a couple slabs had been "welded" together.

 

There are large boulders buried randomly on the northwest faces of the hills in the area, all showing signs of melt.

if you were to take a tour, you would see the canyons and creeks containing these same similar rocks and be able to understand how all the hills pan out from this central location. i assure that you would be overwhelmed with the evidence of a meteor impact...

Edited December 21, 2015 by Kalopin

[Sensei]

.There was an extremely large comet in the sky, in October 1811.

 

You're making equal "size of comet" with "length of its tail"...

Therefor you claim that it's size is such big in comparison to the Sun.

 

Tail just appears when comet is very close to star.

Because ice in it is melted and ejected making millions kilometer long tail.

But it's made of basically nothing at all. Just tones of ice, water and dust.

It reflects light from the Sun. That's why it is good visible.

 

According to wiki, size (diameter) of comet is estimated to be 30-40 km.

 

Calculate its volume. Then use 917 kg/m^3 for ice-only version, and 7800 kg/m^3 for iron-only version, and calculate its mass.

The real value will be probably somewhere between these two, and more closer to 917 kg/m^3.

Then use inverse-square law to calculate what would be force caused by such mass from distances mentioned in the articles that you provided..

Edited December 21, 2015 by Sensei

[swansont]

where are there statistics for the frequency of earthquakes going back this far? ...and why would this be a reason to dismiss my claims?

 

Claims need to be supported. They are not true simply by virtue of existing without contradiction.

 

Is there any reason to think that earthquake statistics vary widely. Certainly earthquakes happened before 1811 and after 1812.

 

The "apparent" size was what was described by the witnesses to the comet's passing and there has never been anything seen in space from Earth to appear that large, rather it was the nucleus or the tail. The comet had to have been close.

Hale-Bopp was bigger. Your comet has a coma a million miles across, which is 1.6 million km. Hale-Bopp was 2-3 million km, and it got to within 1.3 AU of earth.

https://www.eso.org/public/usa/news/eso9933/

 

Heck, it was still 2 million km in 2001

https://www.eso.org/public/usa/events/astro-evt/hale-bopp/

 

[Strange]

where are there statistics for the frequency of earthquakes going back this far?

 

It doesn't need to go back that far. I think we can assume the rate of earthquakes is, on average, consistent over time.

 

..and why would this be a reason to dismiss my claims?

 

Because there is no reason to consider unsupported claims.

 

And this is the perfect time to use the adage: the plural of anecdote is not not data.

 

i would think that just because there are currently no peer reviews on the physics involved with a serial impact from the close passing of a comet, would not mean that it could not occur?

 

The physics is pretty simple. Newtonian gravity shows your guesses are unsupportable.

 

 

The "apparent" size was what was described by the witnesses to the comet's passing and there has never been anything seen in space from Earth to appear that large, rather it was the nucleus or the tail.

 

Please provide a reference that confirms this was the largest comet seen.

 

The believed closest approach of C/1811 f1 was determined to be 1.22AU, which is a later estimate and could not be accurate.

 

So you agree that the figure you keep using is wrong. Please stop using it then.

 

...and the Moon surely does cause continental drift, tectonic activity and earthquakes.. Although there is still quite an argument- http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0523_050523_moonquake_2.html

 

The Moon does not cause continental drift. And if it does have a slight affect on earthquakes it is definitely not "sure", as your link confirms.

 

And the moon is millions of times more massive than a comet and (more significantly) much, much closer. That is why comets do not raise tides.

 

Why don't you do the simple arithmetic to calculate the force a comet would have on Earth?

 

Wegener was correct on his assumptions "...that centrifugal and tidal forces were responsible for moving the continents..."

 

No he wasn't. And the article you link to doesn't say that he was.

[Kalopin]

 

 

You're making equal "size of comet" with "length of its tail"...

Therefor you claim that it's size is such big in comparison to the Sun.

 

Tail just appears when comet is very close to star.

Because ice in it is melted and ejected making millions kilometer long tail.

But it's made of basically nothing at all. Just tones of ice, water and dust.

It reflects light from the Sun. That's why it is good visible.

 

According to wiki, size (diameter) of comet is estimated to be 30-40 km.

 

Calculate its volume. Then use 917 kg/m^3 for ice-only version, and 7800 kg/m^3 for iron-only version, and calculate its mass.

The real value will be probably somewhere between these two, and more closer to 917 kg/m^3.

Then use inverse-square law to calculate what would be force caused by such mass from distances mentioned in the articles that you provided..

The calculations are later estimates and are null and void.

The only real evidence are the observations at the time. There was no way to calculate any object in space with any accuracy in 1811. The comet was seen as fifty percent larger than the Sun in October. There were many reports of meteors in late November/early December. There was a massive earthquake on December 16, 1811. Never has any object in space been described to be that large.

 

Why would anyone believe that a fault lying beneath over 300 feet of soft sediments, and in the middle of a plate, could create an earthquake that could be felt as far away from New Madrid, Missouri all the way to Savannah, Georgia? ...and the sediments would damper the effect, not amplify it.

 

...and what of the appearance of the surface wave pattern? already determined to not have been from the retreat of an ice sheet- couldn't happen, inland seas over millions of years? where's the beach?, the sand? How would water create evenly spaced, rolling hills?

...and why do all the hills center at northeastern Marshall county, Mississippi? ...and why were so many rocks found with signs of extreme heat, right at the center?

Why do all the historical accounts agree?

Why does all the scientific data agree?

Why do all the observations agree?

Study all this for yourself, it's all there. I am only presenting the evidence that exists.

Go through it all, every detail. Let me know what you think.

[Strange]

Never has any object in space been described to be that large.

 

Citation needed.

 

 

Why does all the scientific data agree?

 

You haven't presented any scientific data.

 

 

Go through it all, every detail. Let me know what you think.

 

People are telling you what they think. You appear to be ignoring it. You seem to have been blinded by your quasi-religious belief in the importance of coincidence.

[Kalopin]

 

Claims need to be supported. They are not true simply by virtue of existing without contradiction.

 

Is there any reason to think that earthquake statistics vary widely. Certainly earthquakes happened before 1811 and after 1812.

 

Hale-Bopp was bigger. Your comet has a coma a million miles across, which is 1.6 million km. Hale-Bopp was 2-3 million km, and it got to within 1.3 AU of earth.

https://www.eso.org/public/usa/news/eso9933/

 

Heck, it was still 2 million km in 2001

https://www.eso.org/public/usa/events/astro-evt/hale-bopp/

 

There has not been such a concentration of earthquakes in so many places and so near the same time period, as there was from 1811-1813.

 

Hale-Bopp was never described as being one and a half times the size of the Sun. The measurement of its coma has nothing to do with how close it came. How large the comet appeared to witnesses is not a measurement of its size. The coma could be any size and still be distant or close- as was the case with C/1811 F1. It's appearance indicates it was close.

It could not have been fifty percent larger than the Sun and be at a distance of 1.22AU, as it would have been so large, it would have sent Earth off its orbit.

 

...and what of all the descriptions of the comet? being believed to have "went down in the Ohio river" or to have "touched the mountain of California" at this same moment as the meteoric lights and the earthquakes?

Follow the comet's trajectory.

Study the observations.

...the historical accounts...

Go over every detail and see how it all adds up.

There should be no question-

This was, in 1811, a global cometary catastrophe...

 

Citation needed.

 

 

You haven't presented any scientific data.

 

 

People are telling you what they think. You appear to be ignoring it. You seem to have been blinded by your quasi-religious belief in the importance of coincidence.

the "citation"s are the historical accounts, as that is all that is available from such a primitive time as 1811.

 

the "scientific data" are the satellite views, impactites, observations, eye-witness accounts,... that I am presenting [that you are either overlooking somehow or maybe purposely ignoring?]

 

What people "think" is their prerogative, what a scientist studies are facts.

 

I am presenting factual and tangible evidence.

Study the stratigraphy of the embayment. Look at its design. Every single line in the topography centers at northeastern Marshall county, Mississippi, exactly where all the melt rock was found. This surface wave pattern could not have been created by any other means, than a meteor impact.

[soon this will be understood, as there is no other choice.]

 

I wonder why so many try so hard to dismiss all this evidence as coincidental, when it is all factual?

Surely you do want to find out what had actually occurred in our past, right?

[i hope your not just angry that some independent researcher discovered the truth?]

 

you know, I do welcome any help with this.

[Strange]

There has not been such a concentration of earthquakes in so many places and so near the same time period, as there was from 1811-1813.

 

So you keep saying. So where is the data to support this?

[Kalopin]

 

So you keep saying. So where is the data to support this?

There would not be data, but a lack there-of, which is exactly what we have.

When and where has there been so many quakes and eruptions recorded so close together in time and space?

...and why would there be a comet to appear fifty percent larger than the Sun at this same moment?

...and why so many reports of meteors and meteoric activity at this same moment?

...and why does the entire Mississippi embayment show a shockwave pattern?

,,,and why were so many unusual rocks, showing fusion crust, found at the center of this pattern?

...and why did the Chickasaw, that were ready to fight for their land in 1809, believe all this land was cursed and easily cede after these events?

 

I believe that, if you further investigate, you will come to this same conclusion- the only explanation- it was a serial impact from the close passing of a sungrazer...,

[Strange]

There would not be data, but a lack there-of, which is exactly what we have.

 

Why would there be no data?

If there is no data, then you cannot claim that there was an excessive concentration earthquakes.

 

When and where has there been so many quakes and eruptions recorded so close together in time and space?

 

That is what I am asking you. I have no reason to think the number was in any way extraordinary.

 

I believe that, if you further investigate

 

There appears to be nothing to investigate. As there is no data ...

[Kalopin]

 

Why would there be no data?

If there is no data, then you cannot claim that there was an excessive concentration earthquakes.

 

 

That is what I am asking you. I have no reason to think the number was in any way extraordinary.

 

 

There appears to be nothing to investigate. As there is no data ...

...because the Richter scale and the seismograph were not invented until 1935- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale

The only recordings of past quakes are from historical accounts and any measurements of strengths are very rough estimates, assumptions and are not accurate.

Von Humboldt did an excellent job, - http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1811-1812.php

 

I am hoping that you all will look much further into this research and understand its importance. Not only does this concern building codes and public safety but, most importantly, planetary defense...

 

Seth Stein's research has found that the NMSZ has only moved within a few millimeters in over a years time-

http://www.nature.com/news/seth-stein-the-quake-killer-1.9311.

During this time, many earthquakes were recorded on the magnitudes of up to three and four on the Richter. What is occurring is that there are chasms within the embayment, left from when this meteor impact pushed the land to such a great degree northward. These chasms are steadily being filled in by the upper sediments. What is being recorded are internal landslides, producing the same effect as a fault slip but not tectonic activity. There is plenty proof for this. Not even just one hundred years ago it was possible for two riverboats to pass each other on the Loosahatchie river and now it is difficult, at best, to maneuver a bass boat up it... The land is steadily moving southward...

 

The surface wave pattern has had plenty investigation, as well.

Chuck Langston's research has found that it would not be possible for a fault lying beneath so much sediment, as more than three hundred feet, to create the "New Madrid lines"- the wave pattern so apparent and it has been suggested that it was a shock wave pattern from a large bolide, as the shock from a smaller one was was actually measured-

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253213039_Site_Reading_Blues_in_the_Mississippi_Embayment

quote-"...indeed the universal character of near-surface velocity structure has been inferred from detailed modeling of ground motions from an extraterrestrial source- the atmospheric acoustic shock wave from a large bolide..."

[...and he is correct, a bolide, except not just acoustic, it was an actual impact...]

 

The Mississippi embayment has been researched well and, I believe, it is now time to put it all together and uncover the truth-

That a meteor impact was the cause of the New Madrid earthquakes of 1811-1812...

Edited December 22, 2015 by Kalopin

[Strange]

...because the Richter scale and the seismograph were not invented until 1935- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale

The only recordings of past quakes are from historical accounts and any measurements of strengths are very rough estimates, assumptions and are not accurate.

Von Humboldt did an excellent job, - http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1811-1812.php

 

And I assume this "massive" comet would have caused similar earthquakes all around the world, do you have reports from other places that correspond to this event?

 

Or are you know claiming that it was all caused by a meteor impact and not the passing comet?

[swansont]

There has not been such a concentration of earthquakes in so many places and so near the same time period, as there was from 1811-1813.

 

And, of course, you have the data to back this up. So let's see it. How many earthquakes happened in this time frame?

 

Hale-Bopp was never described as being one and a half times the size of the Sun.

Probably not, as that would be inaccurate. It was more like twice the size of the sun.

 

It could not have been fifty percent larger than the Sun and be at a distance of 1.22AU, as it would have been so large, it would have sent Earth off its orbit.

Let's see your calculation of how much of a gravitational effect such a comet would have on the earth.

 

And I don't recall seeing your explanation of how the comet caused earthquakes but apparently did not affect the tides.

 

[Ophiolite]

I wonder why so many try so hard to dismiss all this evidence as coincidental, when it is all factual?

Surely you do want to find out what had actually occurred in our past, right?

I hope your not just angry that some independent researcher discovered the truth?

I confess. I confess. I confess.

 

I am angry and becoming increasingly so. (Actually, I'm just saying that for dramatic effect.) In truth, I should be delighted if your hypothesis turned out to be valid, Such delight! Many ideas turned on their heads, a new paradigm to inspire further research, a wealth of new findings and understanding arising therefrom. Truly wonderful!

 

Unfortunately, that would require hard evidence and we all I see from you so far are claims and assertions without substantiation. So, let's just zero in on one of those claims. You asked this rhetorical question:

 

and why so many reports of meteors and meteoric activity at this same moment?

Clearly you believe that the number of reports of meteors and meteoric activity at "this same moment" were greater than the background values of such activity, or the normal fluctuations from background. Please present the data that demonstrate this to be the case. This should not be difficult for you to do. In order to have reached your conclusion you must have had the data to examine, so you all you have to do is post it here.

 

I look forward to seeing it.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Ophiolite

[Strange]

I think Godot has that data too...

[Kalopin]

 

And I assume this "massive" comet would have caused similar earthquakes all around the world, do you have reports from other places that correspond to this event?

 

Or are you know claiming that it was all caused by a meteor impact and not the passing comet?

Did you read any of the accounts? Yes, there were eruptions and quakes all over the globe from 1811-1813 in a much higher concentration than "normal", or in any later years...

 

Read up on just one of the eruptions- Mount Tambora- http://minglombok.weebly.com/tambora-mount---sumbawa.html

quote- "...The decade from 1811-1820 was marked by serious socioeconomic impacts resulting from this poor agricultural production, with malnutrition and epidemics in Europe and Mediterranean countries. Low temperatures and freezing temperatures in spring and heavy precipitation between 1816 and 1817 affected the growth of many crops very badly..."

 

...and all this began in 1811 just as the comet was first seen, [actually before the comet was seen in Janurary 1811]

This comet caused extreme weather and is what took out much of Napoleon's army-

http://www.history.com/news/napoleons-disastrous-invasion-of-russia-200-years-ago

"...an unusually early winter set in, complete with high winds, sub-zero temperatures and lots of snow. On particularly bad nights, thousands of men AND HORSES succumbed to the exposure..."

...and read about the differences in temps of the extreme summer before and the instant drops in temps during the winter of 1812, [yes, perfect timing with the passing of the comet...] from 17 degrees below straight to over 28* below zero-

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/napoleonicwars/articles/soldiersoffortitude.aspx {about three- quarters down]

 

So, most of the quakes, eruptions, and severe weather was caused by the effect from the bow shock of the comet, but direct impacts caused many as well, so both...

 

And, of course, you have the data to back this up. So let's see it. How many earthquakes happened in this time frame?

 

Probably not, as that would be inaccurate. It was more like twice the size of the sun.

 

Let's see your calculation of how much of a gravitational effect such a comet would have on the earth.

 

And I don't recall seeing your explanation of how the comet caused earthquakes but apparently did not affect the tides.

 

...and again the "data" is in the historical accounts. There were hundreds/thousands of earthquakes, all recorded in history. There were many hundred quakes just in the central U.S. in 1812, add that to the many hundreds around the world...

Many were recorded by Von Humboldt, but besides Caracas, there were a couple/few recorded in California, [even at such an early date]-

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1812_12_21.php

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1812_12_08.php

...and some more info on the New Madrid quakes/meteor impact-

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1811-1812.php#december_16

 

Really? do you know of anyone, [an astrophysicist maybe,] that would have such calculations; of the gravitational effect from a comet of unknown size, [other than description,] of an unknown velocity and of an unknown distance, [other than guesstimates] to any planet? Did they get these calculations with Shoemaker/Levy to break it apart and impact on Jupiter?

 

Mainly the effects are produced from the bow-shock, as a large enough comet, with enough velocity and on the trajectory sends out pressure and particles on waves - pressure waves [sort of like a boat on a lake]. The gravitational and electromagnetic effects are mostly only produced within the limits of the magnetosphere within magnetopause... [-glad you asked, good question, can I see more like this one?]

I confess. I confess. I confess.

 

I am angry and becoming increasingly so. (Actually, I'm just saying that for dramatic effect.) In truth, I should be delighted if your hypothesis turned out to be valid, Such delight! Many ideas turned on their heads, a new paradigm to inspire further research, a wealth of new findings and understanding arising therefrom. Truly wonderful!

 

Unfortunately, that would require hard evidence and we all I see from you so far are claims and assertions without substantiation. So, let's just zero in on one of those claims. You asked this rhetorical question:

 

Clearly you believe that the number of reports of meteors and meteoric activity at "this same moment" were greater than the background values of such activity, or the normal fluctuations from background. Please present the data that demonstrate this to be the case. This should not be difficult for you to do. In order to have reached your conclusion you must have had the data to examine, so you all you have to do is post it here.

 

I look forward to seeing it.

Why? What would be the present science [belief], on what would occur from the close passing of a large sungrazer comet?

...and how does this go against any of my "claims"?

 

Please read the accounts, look closely at the rocks, study the satellite views-every line, understand the observations,... the "hard evidence" is all there, just needs to be studied.

 

...and, once again, it is all within the historical accounts and observations of the few scientists at the time, which is the only data that could possibly be available.

Yes, there was an extreme amount of meteoric activity in late November/early December of 1811

...and, believe it or not, in early December, every year since, there is quite a bit of meteoric activity still, from the close passing of this comet in 1811, left over from its debris trail. This meteor shower is known as the Geminids [and so, no], they are not from the break-up of some unknown asteroid, but from the close passing of Comet C/1811 F1.

I feel sure that, [once all this evidence has been better studied,] this will be the conclusion- the Geminids meteor showers are from an 1811 sungrazer... [contemplate that one;-]

I think Godot has that data too...

maybe stop waiting and start looking? ;-]]]]]]]

Edited December 23, 2015 by Kalopin

[Ophiolite]

Kalopin, you imply you are practicing science, yet you clearly do not understand the scientific method.

 

It is not acceptable to tell me that accounts exist, you need to cite them in detail, stipulating page number for information contained in longer works. If you have not provided such properly presented citations within 48 hours I shall conclude that you are either not serious about your claims, or lack the competence to be taken seriously. At present you arguments are laughable.

[swansont]

D

 

...and all this began in 1811 just as the comet was first seen, [actually before the comet was seen in Janurary 1811]

Who saw it in Jan 1811? This page has the discovery in March 1811.

 

http://cometography.com/lcomets/1811f1.html

 

 

This comet caused extreme weather and is what took out much of Napoleon's army-

http://www.history.com/news/napoleons-disastrous-invasion-of-russia-200-years-ago

Well, no, there is no mention of a comet on that page, so don't pretend that this supports your thesis. There was extreme weather. Any connection to the comet has yet to be established.

 

...and again the "data" is in the historical accounts. There were hundreds/thousands of earthquakes, all recorded in history. There were many hundred quakes just in the central U.S. in 1812, add that to the many hundreds around the world...

Then go and compile this into something that is useful for a statistical comparison. Do a science.

 

Really? do you know of anyone, [an astrophysicist maybe,] that would have such calculations; of the gravitational effect from a comet of unknown size, [other than description,] of an unknown velocity and of an unknown distance, [other than guesstimates] to any planet?

I could envision such a calculation being given as an exercise to first-year physics students in a university course. You can estimate the mass and distance to get a calculation good enough to say whether or not this could possibly have the gravitational effects you claim.

 

Mainly the effects are produced from the bow-shock, as a large enough comet, with enough velocity and on the trajectory sends out pressure and particles on waves - pressure waves [sort of like a boat on a lake]. The gravitational and electromagnetic effects are mostly only produced within the limits of the magnetosphere within magnetopause... [-glad you asked, good question, can I see more like this one?]

What is the effect of this in space? How big of an electromagnetic effect does a snowball have?

 

[Kalopin]

Kalopin, you imply you are practicing science, yet you clearly do not understand the scientific method.

 

It is not acceptable to tell me that accounts exist, you need to cite them in detail, stipulating page number for information contained in longer works. If you have not provided such properly presented citations within 48 hours I shall conclude that you are either not serious about your claims, or lack the competence to be taken seriously. At present you arguments are laughable.

Study the accounts, the satellite views, the impactites, scientific and observational data, dendrology,...-put all this together- the rocks were found at the center of all the strata within the embayment, the sights, sounds, descriptions,... all coincide. as I have cited a few, here is some more-

 

http://pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/office/hough/mitchill.html

-go down to the bottom and read the effects caused by a meteor impact-

"...hot water ejected with considerable force..."

"...Light in some cases was extricated..."

"...the gas and the hot water and the coal lead conclusively to subterranean fire and the light and sound induce the same belief..."

 

http://www.showme.net/~fkeller/quake/lib/roosevelt.htm

Really like this story. go to the bottom of this one, as well-

"...Burning mountain, up the Wichita river had been rent to its base..."

 

Not sure if you are aware-

There were two volcanoes in central Mississippi, left over from "the ring of fire" that existed from eastern Texas around through Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama and to northwestern Florida, more than likely from the north American plate drifting over the Bermuda hotspot, the mantle plume from the thin lithosphere off the eastern coast of the United States...

These two volcanoes had nicknames, one named "Midnight" was in Humphreys county, the other was nicknamed "Burning mountain" and is now referred to as "The Jackson Dome" which sat on an island named "Jackson Island"

- https://productforums.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!msg/gec-nature-science-moderated/8K5-wkyqfqI/l9h8Bqw2vykJ

as the Choctaw had named it that in honor of Andrew Jackson when they had fought against the Creeks-

http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/14/pushmataha-choctaw-warrior-diplomat-and-chief

-about three quarters down]

 

Jackson dome now sits 2900 feet directly below the Jackson colosseum-

http://www.howderfamily.com/blog/jackson-volcano/

[and is where we get much of our carbonated water from].

These two volcanoes have always been referred to as standing volcanoes, never as calderas, even though they are now flat. They have nicknmaes, stories, legends behind them, conflicting discovery dates- 1809 and 1860, no ground penetrating radar at the time [not until the 1960's when they were confirmed to have been there] and one of the last stories was when some natives, "from the country adjacent to the Washita" met some settlers in Natchez, Mississippi and told them that "Burning Mountain, up the Wichita river, had been rent to its base..."

Currently it is being taught that these volcanoes fell 65 million years ago in the Cretaceous period!

There are many places in central Mississippi that still have these native names.

The Wichita river [named after the tall trees] was renamed the Pearl river by the French explorer de'Iberville when he saw all the pearls at the mouth...

How would this be possible?

 

[so, it is my contention that these two volcanoes fell into their own empty magma chambers during this meteor impact event on December 16, 1811, as this would explain all the details.]

Who saw it in Jan 1811? This page has the discovery in March 1811.

 

http://cometography.com/lcomets/1811f1.html

 

 

Well, no, there is no mention of a comet on that page, so don't pretend that this supports your thesis. There was extreme weather. Any connection to the comet has yet to be established.

 

Then go and compile this into something that is useful for a statistical comparison. Do a science.

 

I could envision such a calculation being given as an exercise to first-year physics students in a university course. You can estimate the mass and distance to get a calculation good enough to say whether or not this could possibly have the gravitational effects you claim.

 

What is the effect of this in space? How big of an electromagnetic effect does a snowball have?

 

Jan. 1811 is when the first effects occurred in the form of Sabrina island, which suddenly appeared in the Azores on Jan, 30, 1811...- https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/h/humboldt/alexander/travels/chapter14.html

[3/4 down]

 

no, the comet was the cause of the weather, as it just passed in late 1811, causing the freezing temperatures in the winter of 1812 and destroying much of Napoleon's army...

 

If you estimate the size, speed and distance, then how would it find any accuracy?

 

...again it's not the gravity or the electromagnetic effect, but the force from pressure, [and along with all the charged particles] as the comet disrupts the solar winds...

Edited December 23, 2015 by Kalopin

[Strange]

Sigh.

[Strange]

If you estimate the size, speed and distance, then how would it find any accuracy?

 

Calculations based on an estimate would be better than no data at all.

 

(Actually, the way you just keep cherry picking from documentary sources instead of answering the questions asked suggests that you don't even know what the word "data" means.)

 

 

...again it's not the gravity or the electromagnetic effect, but the force from pressure, [and along with all the charged particles] as the comet disrupts the solar winds...

 

Then please do the calculations to show how a small rock can have that great an effect on the solar wind, and how that can affect the weather.

[swansont]

Jan. 1811 is when the first effects occurred in the form of Sabrina island, which suddenly appeared in the Azores on Jan, 30, 1811...- https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/h/humboldt/alexander/travels/chapter14.html

[3/4 down]

 

no, the comet was the cause of the weather, as it just passed in late 1811, causing the freezing temperatures in the winter of 1812 and destroying much of Napoleon's army...

So you keep asserting. The problem here is that the plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence"

 

If you estimate the size, speed and distance, then how would it find any accuracy?

If your estimate ends up only good to a factor of 10, but you show that it's still several orders of magnitude smaller than what would be required, then that's accurate enough. Scientists do this kind of estimation all the time.

 

 

...again it's not the gravity or the electromagnetic effect, but the force from pressure, [and along with all the charged particles] as the comet disrupts the solar winds...

 

Space is a pretty decent vacuum, so: what pressure?

[Kalopin]

 

Calculations based on an estimate would be better than no data at all.

 

(Actually, the way you just keep cherry picking from documentary sources instead of answering the questions asked suggests that you don't even know what the word "data" means.)

 

 

Then please do the calculations to show how a small rock can have that great an effect on the solar wind, and how that can affect the weather.

Comets are not small rocks!

McNaught was estimated at 25km!

Please read this in its entirety- http://www.space.com/8201-stunning-comet-size-shocks-scientists.html

quote-"...scientists found evidence of a decayed shock wave which was created when ionized gas emitted from the comet's nucleus joined the fast-flowing particles of the solar wind..."

further down-?...it was truly an immense obstacle to the solar wind..."

 

If this comet were to pass close enough within Earth's orbit it would send a shock wave through the outer crust, vibrations within tectonic plates causing earthquakes and eruptions...

This is what had occurred in early 1811 through 1813...

 

So you keep asserting. The problem here is that the plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence"

 

 

If your estimate ends up only good to a factor of 10, but you show that it's still several orders of magnitude smaller than what would be required, then that's accurate enough. Scientists do this kind of estimation all the time.

 

 

 

 

Space is a pretty decent vacuum, so: what pressure?

It may be true that much of what I am discussing is not yet fully understood...

 

Any rough estimate on such a scale is unworthy of calculations and doubtfully would be "good to a factor of 10"...

 

Any star puts out massive amounts of pressure, known as solar wind. This pressure contains massive amounts of particles, known as cosmic radiation or cosmic rays. Our Sun produces this same effect. High energy cosmic rays can come from the remnants of a supernova. hypernova or quasars and, if one would be close enough, could easily bake this planet...-

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/science/cosmic_rays.html

[swansont]

 

If this comet were to pass close enough within Earth's orbit it would send a shock wave through the outer crust, vibrations within tectonic plates causing earthquakes and eruptions...

This is what had occurred in early 1811 through 1813...

It may be true that much of what I am discussing is not yet fully understood...

 

Any rough estimate on such a scale is unworthy of calculations and doubtfully would be "good to a factor of 10"...

 

Any star puts out massive amounts of pressure, known as solar wind. This pressure contains massive amounts of particles, known as cosmic radiation or cosmic rays. Our Sun produces this same effect. High energy cosmic rays can come from the remnants of a supernova. hypernova or quasars and, if one would be close enough, could easily bake this planet...-

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/science/cosmic_rays.html

A few nanopascals is "massive"? Atmospheric pressurre is more than 100,000 pascals. Still having trouble seeing where this shock wave that could materially affect the earth is coming from.

[Kalopin]

A few nanopascals is "massive"? Atmospheric pressurre is more than 100,000 pascals. Still having trouble seeing where this shock wave that could materially affect the earth is coming from.

"Solar radiation pressure is a source of orbital perturbations...", "...Spacecraft are affected along with natural bodies [comets, asteroids, dust grains, gas molecules]..."-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure

...at 1AU Earth has solar pressure at the average level of .9.08 Pa

A large enough comet, coming in at enough velocity and on a trajectory crossing Earth's path will perturb its orbit and send out vibrations through its lithosphere and outer plates. This will produce tectonic activity on such habitable worlds...

 

Where did you come up with "a few nanopascals"?

[...and this motion in space has little to do with the amount of Earth's atmospheric pressure, other than when the shock wave comes in through it...]

The shock wave is coming from the comet as it passes through Earth's orbital path...

 

Read up on the effects on the atmosphere from Comet Siding Spring as it passed close by Mars and how NASA had to "hide" their probes from the comets path- http://mars.nasa.gov/comets/sidingspring/

 

"...added a temporary and very strong layer of ions to the ionosphere..."- observations from MAVEN, MRO and ESA probes, see- http://mars.nasa.gov/news/whatsnew/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=1749

[This, pretty much, proves my point, no?]

 

[of interest-] the effect of sonic booms from a [tiny] F-4 aircraft-

http://scrippsscholars.ucsd.edu/jahildebrand/content/field-measurements-sonic-boom-penetration-ocean-0

"...into the ambient noise field by 30-50 m, depending on the strength of the boom..."

[comets send out much lower frequencies with much higher intensities]

Edited December 24, 2015 by Kalopin