Talk:Tunguska event
|
|
Wow, this is really fascinating. I would really like to see more information (or a link) on some of the theories with little to no support. I'm particularily curious about the black hole idea, and what (if any) scientific data would exist around that.
Great article!
I agree, great article and fascinating theme... Maybe it should also be noted under "fictional explanations" that Stanislaw Lem used the Tunguska event as the beginning of his novel "The Astronauts"; in his story, the origin of the explosion was a Venusian probe launched to explore Earth - it's a great book, albeit out-dated today.
btw, there is a great article in German presenting dozens of different theories about the Tunguska event, you can find it here: http://www.sax.de/~stalker/pad/200005/
Here's one (http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/installation2.html) probably too outlandish for WP. But it has some curious witness accounts. Kwantus 19:07, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
| Contents |
Tektites?
"microscopic glass spheres": I don't know whether to link to tektites or not. Anybody? Wetman 02:51, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- No, they are not tectites. They are small (much less than a millimeter in diameter) magnetite spherules - the remains of cosmic matter disintegrated in atmosphere, commonly found in Earth soil all over the world. However, relative density of distribution of these spherules is much higher at the place of impact. -- kmike 05:52, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Magnetite being the equivalent of glass in this case, apparently then! --Wetman 03:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Good good!
Another commendation. Great article! jengod 19:59, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
Wikinfo link
Reddi, I gave a complete explanation when I reverted the anon's addition of the wikinfo links. You should have done the same when you reverted me back. Yath 03:16, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The Wardenclyffe Tower
Curps, why did you remove the section about the Wardynclyffe Tower? I agree that it's silly nonsense, but no more so than the bits about UFOs or black holes. --Yath 22:54, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- There was no comment for several days, so I put it back. --Yath 07:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Fictional reference
See David Brin's "Earth".
¿Star Trek?
¿What Star Trek series / episode was it? I'm curious, and I can't seem to google up any reference to it.
- I don't remember for sure, but I think I heard it mentioned in TNG series (season 1, 2, or, less likely, 3). I also think they referred to it as "Tungushka", which, of course, is not right.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 14:06, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
I love Star Trek and I cannot remember any mention about Tunguska in any of the series or books. ¿What do I know? I checked Memory-Alpha.Org, StarTrek.Com, and Paramount.Com and found no hits for either "tunguska" or "tungushka". I shall delete the reference from the article.
-
Hint:
-
One can use Google.Com for searching in a site with the following syntax:
site:memory-alpha.org tunguska
Ŭalabio 04:06, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
- As far as I remember, that was just one obscure reference, it was very easy to overlook. It was not a significant part of a plot, just a reference to something that happened in the past. If I stumble on that episode again, I'll certainly add this information back into the article. Meanwhile... oh well.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 12:34, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
¡Ghostbusters!
I checked out the reference to Ghostbusters and confirmed the reference with an Audio/MP3. [1] (http://moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/mp3s.cgi?Ghostbusters=ok.mp3)
--
Ŭalabio 03:50, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
There is still another explanation for the Tunguska Event !
For an incredibly profound and interesting Tunguska Event explanation which makes all the others appear mundane read the entry in the following blog:
http://ablebodiedman.blogspot.com/
Regards
ffoeg
- I'm not sure that's really encyclopedic. Can we get more substantial data please? --Orborde 05:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
A Divine and Sentient Celestial Body
This is original research and should not be part of this article. If there is no reference to a published book/article I will remove that section. Awolf002 22:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
It references.
- 1/ The Bible, many inspired authors - 14 References
- 2/ Cosmos, Carl Sagan. - 2 References
- 3/ Sibir, a Siberian Newspaper - 1 Reference
- 4/ Eye Witness Testimonies gathered by Russian Scientists. - Multiple references
- 5/ Internet sites by people whose original research is included in Wikipedia and whose references are very similar except for the bible. - multiple references
There is at present no generally accepted theory on the Tunguska Event and therefore all theories should still be considered original research.
- You are mis-interpreting the category "original research". Having references to support ones pet theory is what any researcher would have. However, WP strives to include "notable" knowledge, in this case explanations of this event. The definition of "notable" IMHO is based on WP being a secondary source, never a primary. And so it is looking for peer reviewed theories or theories that are widely discussed in the media. Therefore, even if the UFO theory is not scientifically peer-reviewed, it surely is widely publicised and therefore notable.
- In this spirit, please provide published articles or similar "media documents" that show your explanation is widely known and discussed. Awolf002 22:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. I rewrote it to be less mystical and more encyclopedic, but 1) I did a bad job, and 2) I'm not sure whether this theory is widely believed enough to warrant inclusion. --Orborde 05:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- 1/ There is no widely believed research.
- 2/ Do you consider it mystical because it references the bible?
Tesla
Our article on the Wardenclyffe Tower leaves the impression that the tower was never functional, and in fact that most of the site had already been abandoned by 1908. Also, even when complete, would it have had an actual ability to "aim" it at the North Pole? Someone familiar with the details should inject an appropriate amount of skepticism into the "conspiracy theory" account given here. — B.Bryant 23:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- There are one or two highly energetic Tesla zealots active on the Wikipedia, and the cranky bias of the current article is the result of their past efforts. I agree that the article should show more skepticism, so please make the edit if you can (look in the article history for pointers.) -- CYD