[meteorite-list] Lunar capture theory
From: Pekka Savolainen <pekka.savolainen_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:21:03 2004 Message-ID: <3F0F78B7.4090000_at_dlc.fi> --------------050803050403070200070900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, if we think the bigger ones of the asteroids (maybe 40.000 - 50.000 alltogether), like Ceres, Pallas, Juno or Vesta etc, we can call them as "small planets", if we want, there is not an "exact" mean for this word. When Pluto was found, scientists argued, was it a planet or not, and then just aggreed, it is. The bigger asteroids have same kind of formation with planets like Earth, the dense nickel-iron core (iron meteorites), intermediate zone of cellular nickel-iron and silicates (MES, PAL) and outer layer of silicate minerals (stones). When the asteroids collides, the parts of the core will product the iron meteorites. We call all these meteorites as differentiated. In undifferentiated meteorites the forming process has not ever been "ready", so they are "mixtures" of the early Solar Nebula or in some cases formed in later impacts. So the age of the asteroid belt (or most of it) is aprox same with the earth. The most primitive material found are C-chondrites, in which you can clearly see, the formation process has not even started. take care, pekka CMcdon0923_at_aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 7/11/03 9:11:22 PM Central Daylight Time, > pekka.savolainen_at_dlc.fi writes: > >> at the moment it looks to me, the theory, that the asteroid belt was >> formed from the material left over, when our solar system was formed, >> is more recent. > > > > But if it's truly "left over", how do you account for iron meteorites, > which are (generally?) assumed to be the cores of these "missing" > planets....leftover random junk wouldn't have formed to the mass to > generate the thermal activity to differerniate into solid metal, would it? -- Pekka Savolainen Jokiharjuntie 4 FIN-71330 Rasala FINLAND + 358 400 818 912 Group Home Page: http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/eurocoin Group Email Address: eurocoin_at_smartgroups.com --------------050803050403070200070900 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <html> <head> </head> <body> <br> Well, if we think the bigger ones of the asteroids (maybe 40.000 - 50.000<br> alltogether), like Ceres, Pallas, Juno or Vesta etc, we can call them as "small<br> planets", if we want, there is not an "exact" mean for this word. When Pluto<br> was found, scientists argued, was it a planet or not, and then just aggreed,<br> it is.<br> <br> The bigger asteroids have same kind of formation with planets like Earth,<br> the dense nickel-iron core (iron meteorites), intermediate zone of cellular<br> nickel-iron and silicates (MES, PAL) and outer layer of silicate minerals<br> (stones). When the asteroids collides, the parts of the core will product <br> the iron meteorites. We call all these meteorites as differentiated.<br> <br> In undifferentiated meteorites the forming process has not ever been "ready",<br> so they are "mixtures" of the early Solar Nebula or in some cases formed in<br> later impacts. So the age of the asteroid belt (or most of it) is aprox same with<br> the earth. The most primitive material found are C-chondrites, in which you can<br> clearly see, the formation process has not even started.<br> <br> take care,<br> <br> pekka<br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CMcdon0923_at_aol.com">CMcdon0923@aol.com</a> wrote:<br> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:16f.215ac34a.2c40c9ff_at_aol.com"><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size="2" family="SANSSERIF" face="Arial" lang="0"> In a message dated 7/11/03 9:11:22 PM Central Daylight Time, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pekka.savolainen_at_dlc.fi">pekka.savolainen@dlc.fi</a> writes:<br> <br> <blockquote type="CITE" style="border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(0,0,255); margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px; "> at the moment it looks to me, the theory, that the asteroid belt was formed from the material left over, when our solar system was formed, is more recent. </blockquote> <br> <br> But if it's truly "left over", how do you account for iron meteorites, which are (generally?) assumed to be the cores of these "missing" planets....leftover random junk wouldn't have formed to the mass to generate the thermal activity to differerniate into solid metal, would it?</font></font></blockquote> <br> <pre class="moz-signature" cols="$mailwrapcol">-- Pekka Savolainen Jokiharjuntie 4 FIN-71330 Rasala FINLAND + 358 400 818 912 Group Home Page: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/eurocoin">http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/eurocoin</a> Group Email Address: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:eurocoin_at_smartgroups.com">eurocoin@smartgroups.com</a> </pre> <br> </body> </html> --------------050803050403070200070900--Received on Fri 11 Jul 2003 10:55:51 PM PDT |
 StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit Yahoo MyWeb
|