michel123456

The internet is international. You must be indulgent for people from around the planet that are not from the U.S. or the Commonwealth. found this http://viking.twolaneroads.com/you-want-to-be-what/ about the origin. PS i didn't found this funny but that's probably me. I found it awkward. ---------------- And i cannot find any Jefferson Grade School especially not in Beaufort. An urban myth.

on the videos there is clearly a 'flash" event suggesting an explosion, not only a schockwave from the meteorite breaking the sound barrier. At 0:19 in the OP video An air burst as mentioned in the wiki article. Why? What is that causes an air burst in an asteroid?

troubling Anon for anonymous?

the metorite explodes due to overheating? Why not smelting? Or is it something with the compressed gases in the atmosphere?

Why did an explosion (the blast) occur before the asteroid hit the ground? ------------------ i remember in the army in the 80's we were given instructions for protection against blasts after (nuclear) flash. Similar to "duck and cover". Immediately after a flash you had to lie down to the floor in the direction the flash was coming, head first, legs stretched, arms over your head (IIRC), in a position that opposed less possible resistance to the blast. Also because you have a few seconds between the flash and the blast.

He answered about one source (the sun for example) but there are overlapping photons coming from everywhere.

If that is correct, then back to the OP question: in each minuscule point of outer space there are photons coming from billions and billions of stars & galaxies all around, that overlap each other. All those photons coming from all directions carry a little bit of energy, very little but multiplied by billions of sources. How much of this concentrates into a cm3 of outer space?

In an experiment with 2 laser beams from 2 different sources intersecting. A detector perpendicular to beam A will measure the energy of beam A only and a detector perpendicular to beam B will measure the energy of beam B only. At the intersection point there is the energy of the 2 beams, i suppose, since there are overlapping photons coming from both sources. No?

"Photons can overlap." so can energy overlap too?

Yes I see that. The graph is only for one photon. where does that come from? No, in this kind of diagrams units are different on each axis. if you have meters on the one (wavelength) then you have some other unit on the other and the result gives something elselika a "grandmother clock" So for each photon corresponds a constant value equal to hc. what is hc?

Yes. curiosity killed the cat. it is noticeable on the videos that the blast smashed the windows, not especially debris from the asteroid.

This is a graph of inverse proportionality here energy is either A axis or B, and wavelength the opposite. The "pie" is not energy but the product of energy with wavelength and gives a constant. So the 'pie' is hc.

the wave part begins when stating that more energy corresponds to smaller wavelength. I try to cut the pie to obtain such a result but it doesn't come out. There must be another graphical way to show _many pieces of the pie corresponding to a large wavelength. _few pieces corresponding to small wavelength.

The meteorite choosed to sink into the "most polluted lake in the world" (following some blogs). Food for conspiration theories.

Historically (just to get closer to the OP) one could mention Zenobe Gramme, inventor of the dynamo and electrical motor, who knew almost nothing about mathematics. There is a myth: he was attending a presentation in his honor about his inventions at the university , a presentation where the professors explained everything on the black board with mathematical equations. At some point Zenobe asked what are all those "S" in front of the equations, ignoring what an integral was.

The following is surely wrong. Please explain.

Wiki page already! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Russian_meteor_event

Your video has become private. As it seems some will make money from this event while others will spent some time at the hospital.

That i can understand: "The energy of the photons is inversely proportional to the wavelength as E=hd" So I see an extremely long wavelength, like a flat ocean, and the result is no wave= no energy. That's O.K. That i can understand too: "[math]E = \frac{hc}{\lambda}[/math] As the wavelength decreases, the energy increases." It's the same as Klaynos reversed: when the wavelength decreases I observe an ocean with a lot of waves at short distance from each other and I see energy. O.K. that cannot fit into my mind.

It's all over the news http://www.smh.com.au/world/meteor-shower-over-russia-sees-meteorites-hit-earth-20130215-2ei2j.html

Sorry there is wood in my head, I understand nothing. You are all talking as if the photon was alone at distance=wavelength from the following one. As there was a gap between photons equal to the wavelength. Am I correct here? Making the following analogy: Say you are at sea looking at the waves. The sea is the sea (molecules of water etc.). The wave is a wave (a physical state of the sea). You seem to all talk as if the photon was a physical element called the crest Sure when you look at the sea shore, the crest is noticeable when the waves "die" on the rocks. You even hear the characteristic sound of the waves, so everyone could agree that the crest is "something" of different nature from all the rest of the sea. But at the end, the crest is nothing more than molecules of water, and there are plenty molecules of water in the sea, and along the wave. So IOW I don't understand 1.why one can equalize the number of photons/ cm3 to the number of crests of a wave. 2. why there is more energy when there are less crests (when the wavelength is longer). At the end a flat surface of the sea (zero crest) equals to zero energy of the waves. No?

that doesn't answer the question. No photon=full energy makes no sense to me.

You have to go in 3 steps only. and I think the Kalaam argument is opposed to your statement 2. Although i like your conclusion.

that makes no sense to me. the less the photons the more energy? That leads to zero photon=full energy. I don't get it.

Correct. That's 10^2 on each edge. It's a cube with 10^3 "points" on each edge = a cube with 10^3 by 10^3 by 10^3 =10^9