Tunguska Explosion... Sandokhan Go... Destroys Refraction Excuse

Sandokhan, a little while ago, presented the Tunguska explosion.  This explosion received absolutely no visual blockage across hundreds of miles (there should have been over 7000 km of visual interference).  Refraction of such a high magnitude never occurs enough to explain this phenomena. 

The earth is flat. 

The topic titled Day And Night In Flat Earth forced me to construct this new topic.  I will take the argument that refraction does not occur on orders of great magnitude and reveal the splendid light of FE proposals.

Are you calling your dad? Is your dad the same one who misled his readers with his Tunguska BS? The thread was dead as soon as I found the source of his BS and saw how he twisted the information to spread false information.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1536478.html

Are you calling your dad? Is your dad the same one who misled his readers with his Tunguska BS? The thread was dead as soon as I found the source of his BS and saw how he twisted the information to spread false information.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1536478.html

I think you need to reread your information.  Sandokhan's proofs of the absence of attractive gravitation in gas particles received defeat by no one.

 And plus, all of Europe still witnessed the Tunguska explosion in 1908.  How did all of Europe see through the curvature?  No way at all.

This simple fact puts to rest any and all assumptions of the Earth's sphericity.

I cannot believe that you are one of those who bought his BS.

What they observed from London was NOT the explosion itself. The explosion happened instantaneously (on June 30) but the observed phenomena lasted for few nights after the explosion. It is called Skyglow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyglow). We had the same phenomena after the eruption of Krakatoa.

You can read the source of his BS directly from a book called "The Fire Came By". You'll be surprised by how much he did copy paste from there. There is an online version at http://www.andras-nagy.com/ufo03/00.htm. If you click on the first chapter (The Explosion), you can see that the phenomena was observed at nights for several nights, and nobody was even aware of the explosion itself which happened on June 30:

According to the London Times of July 4, 1908, "The remarkable ruddy glows which have been seen on many nights lately have attracted much attention, and have been seen over an area extending as far as Berlin." The cause is assigned to "some condition of the atmosphere," such as occurred after Krakatoa, although "no volcanic outburst of abnormal violence has been reported lately." The Times notes that the recent "abnormal" glows appear in the sky only after the fading of twilight: the sky grows partially dark and then brightens again with "deep, lurid color."

Your dad then just twisted the information to make his own words to make you a happy flat earther.

Here is an example of how Sandokhan misinforms the readers. He submits this image to visually demonstrate how far the event and London are from each other with the following description of the image:



Here is a diagram of what this would look like.  The large circle represents a  cutaway of a spherical Earth.  I divided the Earth into 24 evenly spaced time zones.  Point A represents an event happening.  Point B represents an observer 7 time zones away.  The line extending along the horizon at point B represents the line of view of the person at that point.  He would never see the event happen.

A spherical earth is said to have a circumference of 24,901 miles. That number divided by 24 gives us time zones of 1037.5 miles each. Multiply that by the 7 times he uses and we get roughly 7262 miles between the Tunguska event and London.

There are two major considerations in his model that are completely flawed and one is minor (but still important) while the other is major.

- The minor issue is time zones - The way he represents the distance between the event and london is by just taking the entire earth and dividing into equal time zones. At the same time he places london at the start of the 1st time zone and places Tunguska at the end of the 7th time zone. Time zones are not always equidistant from each other in reality, especially over land, but even ignoring that and using imaginary perfect time zones we can see that London is actually about in the center of the first time zone and the Tunguska event is near the western border of the 7th time zone.

- The major issue is that the shortest distance between any 2 points on a sphere is an arc called the great circle - The graphic Sandokhan made would be applicable if we were talking about 2 locations that were along the equator but we are not. The only place on earth where the entire circumference is spanned while simultaneously giving time zones their maximum distance is the equator. London is about 50° N of the equator and the Tunguska event is about 60° N of the equator. At this latitude the distance between times zones is significantly smaller. The proper way to understand the distance between these locations is not through the use of time zones. It is by using a great circle.

I have calculated myself by using Google Earth that the actual distance between these two locations using a great circle is 3,570 miles. This is a far cry from the 7,262 miles Sandokhan was attempting to lead his readers to believe.

On the circular representation of the sphere that is earth that Sandokhan used he placed Tungaska event (point B) at about the 104° mark on a circle. Using the correct distance of 3,570 miles this spot on the circle should actually be at 51°. This is less than half the distance that he implied.

I will have more to say about this in future as I do more research.

Now is the time to get visual. 

You cannot state in any way that time zones or arcs actually matter.  Look at this globe... Notice how the UK is plainly visible.  Know that Tunguska in Russia lies not visible from the front.  This globe represents a simulation of earth.  Visual phenomena like this fail to occur in RE scenarios.  No line of sight can be established

Some people possess non sequitor excuses and statements.  False words and dogma, which just serve to change the subject, appear to damage character, but only damage their own arguments.

Truthfully, even sky glow proves the flatness of the earth.  Light does not bounce around in the upper atmosphere.  The sky is transparent..  If you see any glow whatsoever, any light, the earth possesses planar characteristics.

Refraction does not even explain the appearance of the explosion.

Once again, time zones and arcs just place aside.  Here lies a visual depiction of earth with realistic exposition.  Seeing anything would be impossible.

First of all I did not say time zones matter. I was pointing out Sandokhan's error when he used to time zones to represent distance. Secondly, arcs do matter. The shortest distance between any two points on a sphere is a great circle and it is the straight line above that arc that would be taken into account when looking at the Tunguska event in the sky.

Using the globe in the way you are expecting us to is also misleading. We cannot get a sense for what the great circle route is unless we project the camera onto the globe such as the the center of the line between the locations in question is perfectly centered. We need to be looking down, dead on to this specific midpoint. We are intuitively acclimated to understanding a map projected from the equator.

The true midpoint point between London and the Tunguska event is actually Morzhovet Island which is shown in the image below. You cannot just arbitrarily choose a direction and determine the distance that way. The event was seen from london in only one direction and it is completely relevant to determine just which direction that is.



Sandokhan attempts to say that the distance between these locations is more than 1/4 of the entire circumference of the earth and this is a hugely erroneous exaggeration. Not only is the distance smaller. It is less than TWICE as small.

This is only further complicated when you consider that when you look at a horizon, the sky directly above that observable horizon is not the limit of how much atmosphere you can see. Reports about the Tunguska event suggest that it was seen as much 5-10 km skyward.

In any case I have not provided any arguments related to refraction, or the history of the event. My additions have been nothing more than to point out that the distance is less than half of what sandokhan suggests.

I find the utilization of "exactness" in overwhelming amounts to pose an uncreative and boring environment. 

Keeping it simple.

Tunguska lies in the middle of Russia.  I just point out the fact that one cannot see Tunguska when one sees the UK.  Middle Russia disappears over the curve of the globe.

Seeing this simple fact reveals the impossibility of seeing any phenomena.  Phenomena appeared, so the earth sits like a carpet, completely flat.

Try to focus on my example and this visual demonstration.  FE'ers see things quite realistically.

I find the utilization of "exactness" in overwhelming amounts to pose an uncreative and boring environment. 

Keeping it simple.

Tunguska lies in the middle of Russia.  I just point out the fact that one cannot see Tunguska when one sees the UK.  Middle Russia disappears over the curve of the globe.

Seeing this simple fact reveals the impossibility of seeing any phenomena.  Phenomena appeared, so the earth sits like a carpet, completely flat.

Try to focus on my example and this visual demonstration.  FE'ers see things quite realistically.

Exactness? Sandokhan was off by 3500 miles! That's the only point I'm trying to make. The point is he misleads the reader. Sorta makes you wonder what else could be wrong with this story. This just so happens to be the one thing that immediately jumped out at me as I'm not much of a history buff. Other RE'rs that care to look into that stuff are welcome to contend to it but I'd rather stick to facts.

Now that I have established what I have to offer which is simply the distance I think you'd be better off addressing Cartesian as what I've mentioned about the distance between these locations is an indisputable fact.

Truthfully, even sky glow proves the flatness of the earth.  Light does not bounce around in the upper atmosphere.  The sky is transparent..  If you see any glow whatsoever, any light, the earth possesses planar characteristics.

Can you see the sun light at night without sky glow? Tell me why you need sky glow to see the sun light at night on a flat earth. On a flat earth you should be able to see the sun even at night time. If you find the answer to my question, then tell me why the same answer doesn't work on a round earth.

No misleadings at all.. Just straight forward statements.  Whether 2000 miles or 1000 miles, I stress the need to not alter the course of the subject with details which do not alter the final result.  It might as well be 10,000 miles distance between Tunguska and England with as much visual obstruction as apparent from the globe (made to RE scale).

The wiki on sky glow states that the radiance appears for several miles. This distance poses a much smaller figure than the one we require for explanation.

 Sky glow just possesseses residual light.  Light emitting a short shining range and a dull appearance.

However, according to eye-witness reports of the event, the light shined brighter than the sun for a distance of thousands of miles.  In other words, the light did not just stem from residual glow.  Instead, witness descriptions confirm direct eye contact with the event.

Eye contact of this magnitude, even of strange afterglow, comes only from an alternative arrangement of the earth's surface, a FE.  If you saw anything from that event = the earth is flat.

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on September 29, 2013, 11:21:53 AM

I find the utilization of "exactness" in overwhelming amounts to pose an uncreative and boring environment. 

Keeping it simple.

Tunguska lies in the middle of Russia.  I just point out the fact that one cannot see Tunguska when one sees the UK.  Middle Russia disappears over the curve of the globe.

Seeing this simple fact reveals the impossibility of seeing any phenomena.  Phenomena appeared, so the earth sits like a carpet, completely flat.

Try to focus on my example and this visual demonstration.  FE'ers see things quite realistically.

Exactness? Sandokhan was off by 3500 miles! That's the only point I'm trying to make. The point is he misleads the reader. Sorta makes you wonder what else could be wrong with this story. This just so happens to be the one thing that immediately jumped out at me as I'm not much of a history buff. Other RE'rs that care to look into that stuff are welcome to contend to it but I'd rather stick to facts.

Now that I have established what I have to offer which is simply the distance I think you'd be better off addressing Cartesian as what I've mentioned about the distance between these locations is an indisputable fact.

Sandokhan has claimed multiple times that the event could not have taken place at 5-10km in altitude that is accepted everywhere else. I think he has claimed it wasn't caused by an asteroid or comet.

No misleadings at all.. Just straight forward statements.  Whether 2000 miles or 1000 miles, I stress the need to not alter the course of the subject with details which do not alter the final result.  It might as well be 10,000 miles distance between Tunguska and England with as much visual obstruction as apparent from the globe (made to RE scale).

The wiki on sky glow states that the radiance appears for several miles. This distance poses a much smaller figure than the one we require for explanation.

 Sky glow just possesseses residual light.  Light emitting a short shining range and a dull appearance.

However, according to eye-witness reports of the event, the light shined brighter than the sun for a distance of thousands of miles.  In other words, the light did not just stem from residual glow.  Instead, witness descriptions confirm direct eye contact with the event.

Eye contact of this magnitude, even of strange afterglow, comes only from an alternative arrangement of the earth's surface, a FE.  If you saw anything from that event = the earth is flat.

1. Are you trying to say that 7000 miles and 3500 miles doesn't matter? We are talking about how people in London saw a phenomenon in a distant location. That is the basis of the entire argument.

2. From the wiki on skyglow you speak of:

The most common cause of skyglow is artificial light that emits light pollution, which accumulates into a vast glow that can be seen from miles away and from high in the sky.

Skyglow can also be caused by natural occurrences, such as the 1908 Tunguska event, in which a meteoroid spanning a few meters in mean radius exploded 5–10 kilometers above the Podkamennaya Tunguska River in the Krasnoyarsk Krai region of Russia. The explosion is estimated to have had released more or less 15 megatons of energy, which is around 1,000 times as powerful as the atomic bomb that exploded over Hiroshima, Japan in 1945 and about one third as powerful as the thermonuclear bomb Tsar Bomba, the most powerful nuclear bomb ever detonated. The light emitted from the Tunguska explosion was so great that it created skyglow as far away as England, where the population experienced a number of weeks of intermittent "bright nights".

Comparing the skyglow that comes from light pollution to that which is caused by 15 megatons of energy is pretty silly. We cannot simply say that whatever results in the sky from that much energy must work in a certain way, when we know nothing of what to expect from its effects.

After a while, the light emitted from the explosion would possess the same residual power as city skyline.  Yes, indeed...  However, instead of trying to not see my point, lets be reasonable.

No matter how much energy, no matter how bright, the extensive curvature of the globe should have shielded all of western Europe from the light.  The fact this instance failed to occur only leaves one feasible conclusion, a planar earth.

Once again, look at the UK and notice how the globe makes a complete turn in its curvature.  Central Russia remains invisible to the eye.  In order to see the light on a round earth, one would need X-ray vision to peer to the other side.

No one possesses this super-sight ability, hence, the inevitable conclusion must be stroked...

The simple fact is, that light does bounce around in the upper atmosphere. Therefore skyglow proves the earth is a sphere.

I'm just kidding.

Skyglow. Proof that the earth is flat. Awesome.

Light bounces around all the time. Why, I can illuminate a lamp in one corner, and several corners later, I can read the London Times. In fact light bounces so much I don't even have to keep the lamp lit. I can just light it for a moment, and read all night.

The simple fact is, that light does bounce around in the upper atmosphere. Therefore skyglow proves the earth is a sphere.

I'm just kidding.

Skyglow. Proof that the earth is flat. Awesome.

Light bounces around all the time. Why, I can illuminate a lamp in one corner, and several corners later, I can read the London Times. In fact light bounces so much I don't even have to keep the lamp lit. I can just light it for a moment, and read all night.

sure...

After a while, the light emitted from the explosion would possess the same residual power as city skyline.  Yes, indeed...  However, instead of trying to not see my point, lets be reasonable.

No matter how much energy, no matter how bright, the extensive curvature of the globe should have shielded all of western Europe from the light.  The fact this instance failed to occur only leaves one feasible conclusion, a planar earth.

Once again, look at the UK and notice how the globe makes a complete turn in its curvature.  Central Russia remains invisible to the eye.  In order to see the light on a round earth, one would need X-ray vision to peer to the other side.

No one possesses this super-sight ability, hence, the inevitable conclusion must be stroked...

Yes, after a while that is obvious. After all, the sky glow isn't still happening today. But just how long does it take for the skyglow resulting from 15 megatons of energy to dissipate? I don't expect an answer but you can see what I'm getting at.

We are left with nothing but conjecture about how wide an area had the skyglow directly above it. Was it 5 miles? 10? 1000? 2500? I don't have the answer to these questions and I have no idea what 15 megatons of energy does to a sky. Do you?

As far as your idea that the distance from London to the Tunguska event is a complete turn of curvature, I don't know where you get this from. I already gave you a lengthy explanation showing you that distance entails 51° of the entire 360° circumference of the earth. This is less than 14% of the entire circumference.

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on September 29, 2013, 01:09:42 PM

After a while, the light emitted from the explosion would possess the same residual power as city skyline.  Yes, indeed...  However, instead of trying to not see my point, lets be reasonable.

No matter how much energy, no matter how bright, the extensive curvature of the globe should have shielded all of western Europe from the light.  The fact this instance failed to occur only leaves one feasible conclusion, a planar earth.

Once again, look at the UK and notice how the globe makes a complete turn in its curvature.  Central Russia remains invisible to the eye.  In order to see the light on a round earth, one would need X-ray vision to peer to the other side.

No one possesses this super-sight ability, hence, the inevitable conclusion must be stroked...

Yes, after a while that is obvious. After all, the sky glow isn't still happening today. But just how long does it take for the skyglow resulting from 15 megatons of energy to dissipate? I don't expect an answer but you can see what I'm getting at.

We are left with nothing but conjecture about how wide an area had the skyglow directly above it. Was it 5 miles? 10? 1000? 2500? I don't have the answer to these questions and I have no idea what 15 megatons of energy does to a sky. Do you?

As far as your idea that the distance from London to the Tunguska event is a complete turn of curvature, I don't know where you get this from. I already gave you a lengthy explanation showing you that distance entails 51° of the entire 360° circumference of the earth. This is less than 14% of the entire circumference.

let us transpose that 51 degrees into a more concrete figure.  I will input the distance between Tunguska and London, 3220 miles, into a formula to determine the exact curvature blockage.  [(distance) ^ 2] x 7.962 = curvature blockage in feet.

82,553,200 ft  gives us the answer.

Since the explosion occurred at 7km (22,966 ft.), the amount of curvature blockage grants sufficient coverage for all light.

No matter how long the light shined, no matter what the radius (which would not be that far), the light fails to possess the power on a spherical earth to penetrate that much mass obstruction.

Please remember the explosion occurred at one point.  Many people witnessed the full brightness of the explosion, not just the residual afterglow.  This one point would have been completely and totally obscured on a round earth. 

You can even give a shine radius of 250 miles around the event, and the obstruction would still be there.

There is clearly a problem with your math since your figure for the blockage of curvature is double the circumference of the Earth.

Quote from: rottingroom on September 29, 2013, 01:48:13 PM

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on September 29, 2013, 01:09:42 PM

After a while, the light emitted from the explosion would possess the same residual power as city skyline.  Yes, indeed...  However, instead of trying to not see my point, lets be reasonable.

No matter how much energy, no matter how bright, the extensive curvature of the globe should have shielded all of western Europe from the light.  The fact this instance failed to occur only leaves one feasible conclusion, a planar earth.

Once again, look at the UK and notice how the globe makes a complete turn in its curvature.  Central Russia remains invisible to the eye.  In order to see the light on a round earth, one would need X-ray vision to peer to the other side.

No one possesses this super-sight ability, hence, the inevitable conclusion must be stroked...

Yes, after a while that is obvious. After all, the sky glow isn't still happening today. But just how long does it take for the skyglow resulting from 15 megatons of energy to dissipate? I don't expect an answer but you can see what I'm getting at.

We are left with nothing but conjecture about how wide an area had the skyglow directly above it. Was it 5 miles? 10? 1000? 2500? I don't have the answer to these questions and I have no idea what 15 megatons of energy does to a sky. Do you?

As far as your idea that the distance from London to the Tunguska event is a complete turn of curvature, I don't know where you get this from. I already gave you a lengthy explanation showing you that distance entails 51° of the entire 360° circumference of the earth. This is less than 14% of the entire circumference.

let us transpose that 51 degrees into a more concrete figure.  I will input the distance between Tunguska and London, 3220 miles, into a formula to determine the exact curvature blockage.  [(distance) ^ 2] x 7.962 = curvature blockage in feet.

82,553,200 ft  gives us the answer.

Since the explosion occurred at 7km (22,966 ft.), the amount of curvature blockage grants sufficient coverage for all light.

No matter how long the light shined, no matter what the radius (which would not be that far), the light fails to possess the power on a spherical earth to penetrate that much mass obstruction.

Please remember the explosion occurred at one point.  Many people witnessed the full brightness of the explosion, not just the residual afterglow.  This one point would have been completely and totally obscured on a round earth. 

You can even give a shine radius of 250 miles around the event, and the obstruction would still be there.

Why did you even bother to quote me if you aren't even going to address what I said. I didn't say that we should see it at the point of the event 7 km skyward from london. What I did say is that we don't know the diameter of the area that had skyglow directly over it and I said that we don't know what kind of magnificent shit happens when 15 megatons of energy is released in the atmosphere. I already spent time before you posted this doing similar math to get similar
numbers. Of course I did.

BTW.. the formula is this:



where R is the radius of the Earth (R and h must be in the same units)

Here are some examples of 15 megatons:

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Castle Bravo Thermonuclear Device 15 megatons

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Nuclear Weapon Test Atomic Nuke Bomb Explosion 15 Megaton Castle Bravo

And an image depicting how large a 15 megaton surface detonation is.



I think it's safe to say that nobody has any clue what's going on with 15 megatons.

i got the formula from a book.  It is strange how the calculation turned out incorrectly.  It said square the distance and then multiply times 7.962, or something like that.

So, here is the other calculation

7463 km  This should be accurate, enough to cover up the 7 km event altitude.

^
That much curvature blockage.

I got 2410kms as the total drop. I used the chord of the arc between Tunguska and London as the hypotenuse of a right angle triangle. The other two sides should be the tangent of the location of London on the globe and the distance I the drop from this tangent to Tunguska. Does that make sense?  I would draw it if I could.

Well my formula wasn't for curvature blockage, it was for determining the distance to the horizon from a given height.

I figured that instead of trying to determine the distance to horizon for an observer in london, we would instead see if some part of the skyglow could see London (if it had eyes).

Unfortunately I can't find a good way to determine: how high a sky glow gets when made by a 15 megaton blast that detonate at 7km high and how large the diameter is of the skyglow area. Presumably you would divide the diameter in half and subtract that from the distance between the event and London. That distance would be the number that we would want to meet or exceed.

Give me some numbers and I can plug them in later.

Give me some numbers and I can plug them in later.

That's just it. We don't know what number to use for the height of the sky glow. We also don't know the diameter of the sky glow and therefore we don't know where the scenario takes place. We know where the center of the blast is but we aren't looking for that, we are looking for the edge of that sky glow perimeter.

We could randomly plug numbers in and determine what heights and diameters would work on a round earth but without actually knowing these numbers it would take a lot of random process of elimination to determine. Even then, we still simply don't know.

This is all disregarding refraction of course which is no doubt expected for a blast taking place IN the atmosphere.

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on September 29, 2013, 11:21:53 AM

I find the utilization of "exactness" in overwhelming amounts to pose an uncreative and boring environment. 

Keeping it simple.

Tunguska lies in the middle of Russia.  I just point out the fact that one cannot see Tunguska when one sees the UK.  Middle Russia disappears over the curve of the globe.

Seeing this simple fact reveals the impossibility of seeing any phenomena.  Phenomena appeared, so the earth sits like a carpet, completely flat.

Try to focus on my example and this visual demonstration.  FE'ers see things quite realistically.

Exactness? Sandokhan was off by 3500 miles! That's the only point I'm trying to make. The point is he misleads the reader. Sorta makes you wonder what else could be wrong with this story. This just so happens to be the one thing that immediately jumped out at me as I'm not much of a history buff. Other RE'rs that care to look into that stuff are welcome to contend to it but I'd rather stick to facts.

Now that I have established what I have to offer which is simply the distance I think you'd be better off addressing Cartesian as what I've mentioned about the distance between these locations is an indisputable fact.

rottingroom, as much as I hate to do this, I have used Google Earth as a reference.  Can we agree that Google Earth is a fairly accurate representation of what the Round Earth is supposed to be like?

First of all, Google Earth gives a great arc distance of over 5,000km between Krasnoyarsk Krai, Russia and London, UK.

Also, here is a screen shot that shows the two to be more than 90 degrees apart with respect to the geographic north pole.

What? Using Google earth just use the ruler tool to draw a line between the two targets. It tells you the distance in the units you desire. I did it myself

That's what I did, and it came up to be almost 5,200km.

Yeah and I said miles. What is your point?