(meteorobs) Repost- Clear evidence for Meteoroidejecta/outgassing.

[Thomas Dorman]

Thomas
I agree with you that we simply have a poor understanding of the electromagnetic phenomena in meteor events.Also from all parties views in this discussion it has been made clear to me that we have little understanding and data for wind driven events above 30kms on a day to day bases.
I think the discussion should turn to processes we as observer can improve to gain better observation techniques and a better understanding of what is taking place in the upper atmosphere where most meteor events are taking place.I agree also that we are only viewing meteors,for the most part,in a very narrow window of the electromagnetic spectrum that being visible light. All I believe can agree that we may not be seeing all aspects of the meteor phenomena.One example is the soft x-rays that have been observed coming from meteor events.
I do have a problem  when the experts speak in absolutes on this phenomena .We are observing these events from a distance and until we can come up with a ways to get more up close with the meteor phenomena than I think we should hold back on speaking in absolutes.
I believe this discussion is health for the science and all should be open to new approaches to understanding this phenomena.
For what it's worth from the peanut gallery.
Thomas Dorman

--- On Mon, 9/14/09, Thomas Ashcraft <ashcraft at heliotown.com> wrote:

> From: Thomas Ashcraft <ashcraft at heliotown.com>
> Subject: Re: (meteorobs) Repost- Clear evidence for Meteoroidejecta/outgassing.
> To: "Global Meteor Observing Forum" <meteorobs at meteorobs.org>
> Date: Monday, September 14, 2009, 11:41 AM
> Chris Peterson wrote:
> > Hi Dave-
> >
> > I think that's bad advice. If an idea won't hold up to
> scrutiny during 
> > development, a researcher is likely to waste a lot of
> time with it. Most of 
> > the best new ideas in science are at least modified
> during development due 
> > to input from others. If Larry (or anybody else) gets
> a serious objection 
> > posed to his methodology (such as "you can't compare
> intensities where the 
> > data is saturated), he at least has an opportunity to
> create a better test. 
> > Without feedback, that chance is lost, and the work
> proceeds with faulty 
> > input from early on. To treat such objections as some
> kind of personal 
> > attack makes no sense.
> >
> > Certainly, there's nothing remotely scientific about
> "stick[ing] with your 
> > beliefs" in the face of evidence to the contrary.
> That's pretty much the 
> > definition of pseudoscience.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >   
> Well, I don't know about Larry's "clear evidence" in this
> particular 
> case but I would encourage him to carry on with his
> monitoring.
> 
> I do think there are physical properties and phenomena
> still to be 
> discovered in these realms. My own daily/nightly meteor
> monitoring 
> includes video and various radio frequencies including
> extremely low 
> frequency. At this point I think there is the ablation
> aspect but I also 
> think there are certain sorts of electrical discharges from
> some meteors 
> that are separate from ablation, perhaps something akin to
> a 
> piezoelectrical effect.  The electrical discharges may
> not be apparent 
> in the visual light spectrum of photos and video but may be
> apparent at 
> other parts of the radiation spectrum.
> 
> More long term monitoring needed.
> 
> Thomas Ashcraft
> New Mexico
> http://www.heliotown.com/FBduo200908220833_Ashcraft.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list meteorobs: meteorobs at meteorobs.org
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email: owner-meteorobs at meteorobs.org
> http://lists.meteorobs.org/mailman/listinfo/meteorobs
>