[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: (meteorobs)

hi mike
i've been a ham and an electronics freak since long before transistors
i understand your point completely and you certainly raise a good question
but i fear you miss my main point:
the dismissal of something that can't be explained is exactly what science,
and the pursuit of truth, (granted these are not ALWAYS the same) are NOT
all about

something is happening with this business of (nearly) simultaneous 'aural'
perception of various atmospheric events far too far away to be explained by
direct transmission of sound waves

 - something is happening and has been for centuries or for all we know, all
time

so why not help look for an answer instead of dismissing the problem?
dale
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Linnolt" <mlinnolt@alum.mitdot edu>
To: <meteorobs@atmob.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 6:48 PM
Subject: (meteorobs)


> --- Dale <biscayne@snappydsldot net> wrote:
> > mike
> > there is a difference between not being able to find
> > in one's own vast
> > knowledge a solution to a problem, and the
> > declaration of the problem to be
> > "nonsense"
> > there is clearly some phenomenon lurking here
>
> You are missing the main point! Nobody has addressed my primary concern
with "electrophonics" from meteors. Its based on simple logic and elementary
Physics. (1) The RF signal generated by the meteor is below background, yet
is "detected". AND, (2) ubiquitous RF signals in our daily lives far more
powerful than "meteor electrophonics" are NOT detected. Without an adequate
explanation, the claimed "meteor electrophonics" must be ruled out!
>
> Copy of previous post on the power levels:
>
> > > Simply doing a back-of-envelope calculation will
> > make it clear this is
> > ridiculous. Assuming a big fireball produces maybe
> > 100kW of RF power briefly
> > (I doubt it would be that high anyway), at a
> > distance of 60km this would be
> > just 0.0002uW/cm^2. The ambient background RF
> > exposure is estimated to be
> > around 0.003uW/cm^2. (Mantiply, 1997) Thats the
> > stuff we all are exposed to
> > everyday from the radio waves from earth and space.
> > So how can these reports
> > claim to be detecting signals less than 1/10th of
> > the background levels? So,
> > I would like someone to explain how these weak
> > signals are being picked up
> > by "detectors" swamped by background?
> > > Not to mention the RF near cell towers is
> > 1-10uW/cm^2 and the 800-900Mhz
> > cell phone standard (ANSI/IEEE) is 579uW/cm^2. Why
> > are we not bombarded by
> > people reporting hearing buzzing and whistling from
> > their teeth or glasses
> > whenever they use their portable phones?
> The archive and Web site for our list is at http://www.meteorobs.org
> To stop getting all email from the 'meteorobs' lists, use our Webform:
> http://www.meteorobs.org/subscribe.html
>

The archive and Web site for our list is at http://www.meteorobs.org
To stop getting all email from the 'meteorobs' lists, use our Webform:
http://www.meteorobs.org/subscribe.html
References: