[meteorite-list] 2003 EL61, IN PERSON

From: E.P. Grondine <epgrondine_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Sep 21 18:48:06 2006
Message-ID: <20060921224803.11151.qmail_at_web36909.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi Sterling -

With Chiemgau under "challenge", the only evidence of
heavy elements in comets that I can easily point to is
the increased iridium at the KT boundary.

I can't really comment on metals in carbonaceous
chondrite meteorites, and right now I would be most
interested in data from others on these.

good hunting,
Ed

--- "Sterling K. Webb" <sterling_k_webb_at_sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

> Hi, E.P., List,
>
>
> > Yes, cometesimals - about 75 meters or so, which
> > themselves can then accrete chaotically over time,
>
> Yes, but nobody thinks cometesimals contain
> enough iron-nickel to form a differentiated body.
> They may, but nobody believes it...
>
> When I expressed a doubt about accreting big
> bodies out in the Kuiper Belt to a professional, he
> said, "What else could it be?" Good question.
>
> > ...over time...
>
> The problem is elbow room and simple geometry.
> How much elbow room do you have? Accretion
> occurs because things bump into each other, because
> the space is crowded, like a NY cocktail party.
>
> Clearly, the Earth accreted. If it sucked up
> every
> rock from 0.80 AU out to 1.30 AU, it was drawing
> on a "zone" with an area of about 0.80 "square
> AU's."
> (The area of a circle 1.3 AU in diameter minus the
> area of a circle 0.8 AU in diameter = "the Accretion
> Zone.") Yes, it was a volume, because it had
> thickness,
> but it was a flat disc.
>
> It was crowded. Rocks kept meeting rocks. It
> happened in a hurry -- blam, Blam, BLAM, all done.
> 10 million years? 30? 50? Opinions vary, but quick,
> all agree.
>
> Out in the Kuiper Belt, very narrowly defined as
> from 38 AU out to 48 AU, there's 1583 "square AU's"!
> That's almost 2000 times more room! Your odds of
> bumping into something are 2000 times smaller.
>
> Imagine you're in a ballroom with 3999 other
> people, all 4000 of you milling around in constant
> motion and blindfolded so you can't look where
> you're going: bump, Bump, BUMP.
>
> Now, imagine that you're in the SAME ballroom
> with one other person (just the two of you). What
> are the chances of you two (blindfolded and with
> ear plugs) colliding?
>
> Well, since your odds of meeting up are 2000
> times smaller, it's going to take 2000 times as long
> for it to happen. Hey, no problemo! If the Earth
> accretes in a snappy 10 million years, then objects
> in the Kuiper Belt will accrete in only... scribble,
> scribble... 20 Billion Years!
>
> No, wait! Does that sound wrong to you?
> You see the problem...
>
> Well, the theoretical dynamicists must have
> an answer, something we haven't thought of,
> right? They do indeed have solutions. What
> are they?
>
> Simple, just put 100 times more mass in the
> Kuiper Belt (or 200 times more or 500 times more)
> and it speeds things up to where bodies can accrete
> there in ONLY a billion years or less! Or more...
>
> Wow, the Kuiper Belt must be MASSIVE!
> Oh, no, they reply, the whole thing has less than
> 0.10 Earth masses for all objects big and small.
> All that mass is gone...
>
> I smell a problem. It took the inner solar
> system,
> where things accrete in a flash, 600 million years
> to
> clean up the leftovers (the Late Bombardment, you
> remember; it was a big hit). The same process in the
> Kuiper Belt? With 100 times the mass, it will take
> 20 times as long (6 billion years). The leftovers
> should still be there. If not, where'd the mass go?
>
> There are lots of "mass-wasting" theories. I
> didn't
> invent that silly term; that's what they're called.
>
> Not to go on too long, the answer is: it got
> swept
> under the rug. There are numerous complicated and
> unlikely scenarios. Julio Fernandez and school push
> a theory in which Neptune, pumped up by a resonance
> with Saturn, spirals outward (while the other giants
> spiral inward), with Neptune pushing the KB in front
> of it, compressing it and making fast accretion
> happen,
> until Neptune finally stops with the KB on its
> doorstep,
> where Neptune can then spend billions of years
> perturbing the rest of the mass away, and leaving
> little total mass for the Kuiper Belt.
>
> Of course, they could just be WRONG about the
> mass-poor Kuiper Belt. Look a sharp, economical test
> of Kuiper Belt theory described in:
>
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7103/full/442640a.html
> The data had already been collected by NASA.
> (The full article is at:
>
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7103/full/nature04941.html)
> They found perhaps 1000 times more mass than
> theory allows. So maybe the mass is still there?
>
> One prediction of theory is that the Kuiper Belt
> has
> a sharply cut-off outer edge, and that past that
> edge,
> there are no more TNO's all the way out to the Oort
> Cloud, a great deserted and empty zone, with a sign
> at 42 AU or 48 AU that says: "Now leaving the Solar
> System. No Gas Stations for 20,000 AU." In other
> words, there's nothing out there TO find.
>
> This, of course, is where all the bolts come
> loose
> and the wheels fall off! This is exactly where we
> are
> finding things. First called the "Scattered Disc"
> (on
> the assumption that Neptune tossed'em out there) and
> then the "Extended Scattered Disk," or the "Distant
> Detached Disc," we now have a slew of large
> interesting
> objects that Neptune could never have had anything
> to
> do with.
>
> Finding Sedna was kind of a last straw. Brown,
> who
> discovered it says, "Sedna shouldn't be there.
> There's
> no way to put Sedna where it is. It never comes
> close
> enough to be affected by the sun, but it never goes
> far
> enough away from the sun to be affected by other
> stars...
> Sedna is stuck, frozen in place; there's no way to
> move it,
> basically there's no way to put it there - unless it
> formed
> there. But it's in a very elliptical orbit like
> that. It simply
> can't be there. There's no possible way - except it
> is.
> So how, then?"
>
> Sedna has been "explained" as an Oort Cloud
> object,
> which tacitly moves the inner Oort Cloud boundary in
> from 20,000 AU to under 1000 AU and creates an "Oort
> Disc" in the bargain! Those Oortians are sneaky...
> They
> creep right up on you.
>
> Then some theoreticians have claimed that Sedna
> is the captured planet of another star. Kenyon at
> Harvard
> CfA: "If we find planets with orbital inclinations
> of more
> than 40?, it is almost certain that these are
> extrasolar
> planets formed in another solar system." Then, along
> comes ERIS, the former 2003 UB313, which meets that
> qualification. Extra-solar planet?
>
> > ...it would be real nice to get some
> > good spectra of 2003 EL61 right now...
>
> Oh, for one lousy gritty gram of sample return,
> as
> there are only about 80 isotope assays any one of
> which
> could decide between material formed with Our Star
> or
> formed with Some Other Star!
>
> All these high inclination objects have also
> provided
> a big boost to the "Sun's Companion Star" theories
> we all remember so well, like Nemesis. It still has
> its
> backers, and they're all elated. Of course, what
> they
> don't tell you is that you don't need a brown dwarf
> star to perturb disc objects in inclination; all you
> need is an Earth mass object at 1200 AU. The Outer
> Outer System is waiting to be discovered... I think.
>
> Then, there's 2005 XR190, code name "Buffy." If
> Sedna is impossible, then "Buffy" is impossibility
> cubed!
> The size of Ceres, it's in a nice normal almost
> CIRCULAR
> orbit inclined at 45 degrees to the solar system at
> 52 to
> 62 AU's out, dynamically independent of any
> influence
> from ANY solar system objects and is equally
> impossible
> as a star capture. "Buffy" is "The Theory Slayer"!
> Poof!
> Your life's work is dust...
>
> That we are finding ANY high-inclination objects
> is
> a miracle. Astronomers are STILL just looking at the
> Ecliptic and nowhere else. A high-inclination object
> is
> near or in the Ecliptic plane for just 2% of its
> orbital
> travel, so for every one you find there, there are
> 49
> others you're MISSING, by not looking where they
> are!
>
> Duh!
>
> One of the best times ever is when Reality just
> flat
> outruns Theory and leaves it panting in the dust,
> don't
> you think? I certainly do.
>
> Of course, another effect of this situation is
> that
> the Theory Machines all get their throttles cranked
> up
> to "Hyper Overdrive" and a lot of Theory Juice gets
> splattered all over the place. What we actually need
> is to let the Theory Machines cool down and collect
> more Reality
>
>
> Sterling K. Webb
>
----------------------------------------------------------
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "E.P. Grondine" <epgrondine_at_yahoo.com>
> To: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 9:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] 2003 EL61, IN PERSON
>
>
> > Hi Sterling, list -
> >
> > "but core-forming planetesimals all the way out in
> > Kuiper Belt?!"
> >
> > Yes, cometissimals - about 75 meters or so, which
> > themselves can then accrete chaotically over time,
> > with the heavy elements always gravitationally
> > precipitating towards the center - the lighter
> > volatiles always on the outside - and you have
> > delivery to the surfaces of larger bodies -
> >
> > Given the problems this presents us for dealing
> with
> > cometary impactors, it would be real nice to get
> some
> > good spectra of 2003 EL61 right now, but as
> always,
> > this kind of study recieves a low priority from
> the
> > failed nuclear physicists who control the
> telescopes
> > and observing budgets -
> >
> > by the way, the 64 fragments of SW3 should be in
> the
> > Earth's vicinity in 2022, though I don't have any
> dead
> > on forecasts yet - as a matter of fact, I wonder
> where
> > they are, and how this is being handled, so if
> anyone
> > hears anything, please pass it on -
> >
> > good hunting,
> > Ed
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
>
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Thu 21 Sep 2006 06:48:03 PM PDT