[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: An uncomplicated question
- To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
- Subject: Re: An uncomplicated question
- From: mra@printwareinc.com (Mark Abbott)
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 13:52:59 -0600
- Old-X-Envelope-To: <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com>
- Reply-To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
- Resent-Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 14:50:36 -0500 (EST)
- Resent-From: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <"-PPKKC.A.0e.yI6x0"@mu.pair.com>
- Resent-Sender: meteorite-list-request@meteoritecentral.com
At 02:25 PM 1/22/87 -0500, you wrote:
>Assuming that the different properties of the chondrites are from
>discreet bodies - a fair assumption - should we eliminate the
>possibility that the remnants of a small planet are co-mingled with
>foreign meteorites, indeed the very culprits of the planets demise,
>i.e. by collision, leaving us with the illusion that they are from
>separate origins and simply similarly trapped rocks in the belt that
>never coalesced into a planet?
>
It seems to me that if the asteroids came from one parent body (a planet
that was somehow destroyed), we would see a 'center' to the distribution of
the asteroids in the asteroid belt, i.e. diffusion out, over time, from a
point source. Would 4 billion years be enough time to smear this
distribution out to the uniform distribution we see around the sun (not the
distribution radially out from the sun where we see the Kirkwood gaps due
to resonance effects with Jupiter)?
Mark Abbott
Printware, Inc.
1270 Eagan Industrial Road
Eagan, MN 55121
Phone: (612) 456-1473
E-mail: mra@printwareinc.com
Follow-Ups: