[meteorite-list] 2003 EL61, IN PERSON

From: E.P. Grondine <epgrondine_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Sep 21 19:29:45 2006
Message-ID: <20060921232943.63215.qmail_at_web36901.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi Doug, list

Planet pairs? Interesting to consider: how about
Mars/Artemis. At least we have plenty of samples to
examine.

good hunting,
Ed

--- MexicoDoug <MexicoDoug_at_aim.com> wrote:

> Alternate title of this post for the interested:
> How 2 Molecules Initiated the Solar System, Simple
> Assumptions behind the
> Accretion Disk by a "Layman", The Folly of the
> "Orbit Clearing" Criterion,
> and IAU Disconnect from the Genesis Starting with
> the Pre-Solar Nebula
> (opinion), and why Jupiter is so Special by Random
> Occurrence
>
> Hello Sterling,
>
> Glad to see you back on the planet debate and not
> being Brown's deputy cyber
> sleuth!
>
> This time I really enjoyed your comments, and agree
> heartily with you and
> your critical comment summing up the damaging
> attitude in some astronomy
> circles & quoting you:
>
> '"NOW, we know it all." It's only been 14 years
> since we found the first
> "TNO." Again, largely due to a substantial
> improvement in the technology. We
> are just now having our eyes opened wider, again. I
> don't the process is
> over. I think it's just starting.'
>
> No math from me this time since I think these are
> stochastic collision
> processes and not definite closed form solutions, so
> they need completely
> different statistic mechanics type approach.
>
> Let me add my "spin" on your post, from a layman's
> point of view who is too
> lazy to study what's really beyond this. You
> commented: "IAU dump Mercury
> from the Honor Roll of Planets and assign it to
> Brian Marsden's care, if
> that happens...The Nine, no, Eight, no, SEVEN
> planets of The Solar System!"
>
> I'd naively say if we must take this route it might
> be worthwhile
> considering SIX planets after dumping Mercury and
> Mars. It is pretty clear
> to me from a clean dynamical view that it be want to
> get prissy on the
> planets, that something in the dynamical formation
> favors pairs, i.e., twins
> of planets in a stable configuration. So you get
> the Venus/Earth pair, then
> the Jupiter/Saturn pair, and finally the
> Uranus/Neptune pair.
> Venus is 81% Earth's mass
> Jupiter is 330% Saturn's mass
> Uranus is 82% Neptune's mass
>
> I won't talk further about the "pairs" as I am not
> sure I can back it with
> standard science. Continuing, the inner planet
> should be smaller since it
> has less of a ring to clear out. That fails with
> Jupiter.
>
> Jupiter is an anomaly, but in statistical problems
> this is not really at
> issue since it just happened in a continuum of
> possibilities. Mars and all
> the asteroids in the main belt, and possibly
> including Terra's original Moon
> impactor probably would have been another planetary
> pair, between Earth and
> Jupiter, that principally all got eaten by Jupiter
> because of a few chance
> occurrences a few billion years ago that just as
> well could have left a
> planet in the asteroid belt - a classic science
> fiction type scenario that
> you go in a time machine and toss one small
> meteoroid out 4.4 billion years
> ago and the Solar System, like a universe of dominos
> falls out in a
> different way. Really - this could lead up to one
> chance collision in that
> zone that sent more material to Jupiter. I think
> logic works here a little:
> If everything formed out of the presolar nebula -
> why the Dickens is Jupiter
> so big? It was all a relatively uniform nebula
> supposedly and then
> something happened to make Jupiter snowball. No
> preconceptions allowed!
> Probably a simple accident and no fancy
> proto-photosphere radius crazy
> explanation. That leaves Mars an asteroid as much
> as Ceres. If this is
> hard to believe, just look at Sterling's logic of
> "clearing orbits" which is
> currently in vogue. Mar's got a much bigger hunk
> than earth yet is a
> shrimpy size. Totally out of wack! All that
> material in that little space
> around the Sun that purportedly made Venus and
> Earth, and then you need to
> go all the way to Jupiter to find anything of
> significant mass? As a layman
> on this issue, here's where I think the current
> folks in IAU voting for the
> "forever and ever solution" Jay Pasachoff so
> melancholically stated have
> fallen flat on their faces. Grinding out big models
> and complex mathematics
> doesn't even serve up doo-doo if you don't start
> from first principles - and
> I think this is part of what is lacking in the
> current planet problem and at
> the heart of the annoyance of the whole thing.
>
> So truly, Mars and Ceres are the best candidates to
> be dwarf planets based
> on a simple density argument. Mars should be, for
> argument sake 82% the
> size of Ceres and they should both be quite a lot
> larger than Earth from a
> Aristotelian harmony in prediction.
>
> The fact that Ceres was named a dwarf planet, but
> Mars not, can only mean to
> me that a bright Mars in Earth's sky makes it a
> planet. If Ceres were twice
> the size (but smaller than Pluto), it would be a
> Planet no matter how much
> rubble circulated with it. How could one possibly
> say no, with Jupiter in
> its shadow, a monster by random processes, calling
> the gravitational shots?
>
> So we get to Pluto. Too small, in orbital
> resonance, too inclined, not
> clearing it's zone (BS), too cold, too far, whatever
> chance variable you
> like. Really we need to again go back to first
> principals for the layman.
> It's round, its accreted, its in a stable orbit, and
> it probably has some
> sort of differentiation - but no one really knows
> exactly what (We will
> check that with New Horizons, though, so what's the
> haste, oh, right Mike
> Brown et al need to name their objects so screw it
> Pluto's not a planet, now
> we don't have to deal with the nature of the Solar
> System before we
> recognize the new discoveries).
>
> Let's go back to the formation of the Solar System
> from it's postulated
> pre-solar nebula. First, review what happened
> according to popular belief
> backed up from direct observations of other stellar
> nurseries around the
> galaxy. There was a dark cloud of matter.
> Something disturbed it and drops
> coalesced like rain...in space...and gravitational
> attraction made sure a
> gravitational storm was to come. Wherever this
> seeding first occurred in
> the nebula, that tiny imperfection, those two
> molecules that first stuck
> together - they determined the center of the Sun and
> everything we
> know...that's where gravitational condensation first
> took off.
>
> A huge gaseous proto-Sun was formed that was less
> dense than the lightest
> super giant. Slowly at first it formed a nicely
> gravitational spherical
> bubble, first enlarging until it reached the
> threshold to recede faster
> than it grew. That's natural, as mass would grow as
> a cube,
> but...attraction only as a square. The compression
> began. As more and more
> coalesced, the gravity became stronger and stronger,
> and matter from the
> center to Neptune or thereabout heated up greatly
> and started spinning as it
> contracted. Then we are to believe with
> probability, the spinning got
> faster and faster as it shrunk more and more.
> Suddenly the pressure was so
> great and the radiating energy not enough that
> nuclear fusion 'ignited' as
> things got so dizzying that this spin oddly created
> a plane and perhaps spit
> material out of the system through the spin axis.
> The centrifugal force of
> spin so great that some mass stayed along the
> equatorial arc and that formed
> what we call the accretion disk.
>
> Just a few questions I can think barely a drop in
> the bucket for a
> beginning...the less altered material in the outer
> reaches is spinning and
> revolving as a result, is condensed, of course not
> as heated, and not having
> as much orbital energy from this centrifugal event
> as distance increases.
> Was it spinning with the core of the Sun? Yes most
> probably. Being further
> out it was a little cooler. But the fact that it is
> somewhat disk or
> doughnut shaped goes a long way in proving that it
> was part of the dizzying
> formation. Some things out of plane? Fine! What's
> the big deal? Why does
> a planet have to have been brought in line? Why
> does the definition need to
> be re-written - planets can only be produced by the
> Sun's waistline? Why do
> we want to insist on that? How do we know they
> weren't in plane before,
> anyway? With such weaker attractions to the Sun the
> interbody interactions
> are greater out there. Collisions occurred,
> accretion occurred. How else
> could such big "planets" be found out there. It was
> real and it happened.
>
> Remember Mars now. Mars didn't clean out its orbit
> by itself. Jupiter took
> most of it. Just as it took most from "Ceres", and
> play havoc in that
> neighborhood.
>
> In spite of all that, Mars formed and it's there.
> Ceres formed and its
> there. They are round and they go around the Sun
> within a tolerance, even.
> Pluto is no different. The oddball in the Solar
> system isn't Pluto, it's
> not Mars, not Earth, it's Jupiter who chance
> snowballed to a 7 AU radial
> sucking ability. An alien coming from afar would
> pick up on this right
> away. The rest are a bunch of Christmas ornaments
> decorating Jupiter as it
> goes around the Sun. Including Pluto, and Eris (we
> are told is nicely
> round). What kind of argument could possibly
> discriminate against Pluto,
> Mercury, Mars...oh I see...someone has decided that
> round things going round
> the Sun are no big deal. To be a "Planet" you need
> to have experienced
> reached X's arbitrary centrifugal force...the Solar
> System bodies that
> didn't are a different race of rocks. A
> discriminated race by the IAU
> because the revolve far away and they are darker
> worlds. Yeah - they
> associate with comets, is the common wisdom.
> Haven't we found enough NEO's
> to realize how foolish this discrimination by
> association is? Because in
> some Artist's conception they weren't illuminated as
> white hot as the dinner
> plate model of the accretion disk...How pathetic of
> an interpretation...at
> best a theoretical rewriting unnecessary,
> redefinition reprocessing
> revisionist idea on what a planet is.
>
> Gravity-Rounded and revolving. Asteroid? No,
> that's a fragment of
> something bigger. Planets have 100% crust, which
> can be an atmosphere to
> include the gas giants in the category, until
> someone goes and touches down
> on the solid parts..
>
> Best wishes, Doug
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sterling K. Webb"
> <sterling_k_webb_at_sbcglobal.net>
> To: "Meteorite List"
> <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
> Cc: "E.P. Grondine" <epgrondine_at_yahoo.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 2:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] 2003 EL61, IN PERSON
>
>
> Hi, Larry, EP, List,
>
>
> What Larry is talking about is what's called the
> "rollover point."
>
> There are more big pieces than giant pieces,
> more
> little pieces than big pieces, more tiny pieces than
> little pieces, etc. It's the "Power Law."
>
> For those that love a little math (but not
> much), it's
> dN/dD ~ D^(-q). In pure theory, q is 3. If you make
> D (diameter) ten times bigger, then N (number) is
> 10^3
> or 1000 times bigger. A 100-meter ball has the
> volume
> of 1000 10-meter balls.
>
> If the mass is evenly distributed in every size
> range,
> then for every 100-meter ball, there ought to 1000
> 10-meter
> balls. But there's a hitch. When you get down to
> really
> tiny sizes, the "numbers" become gigantic,
> unrealistic.
>
> So the "law" fails for small sizes by predicting
> too
> damn many. It also fails for the really big sizes
> because,
> like Larry says, they are so good at gobbling up
> smaller
> stuff and smashing up the rest. In addition, the
> presence
> of large objects strongly affects the orbits of
> little stuff,
> pumping them up in eccentricity and inclination
> until
> they're ejected. So, it fails at both ends: not so
> many
> small pieces, fewer medium pieces, and fewer but
> bigger
> pieces at the top end -- that's what occurs in
> reality.
> How do we correct for it?
>
> Well, the "turnover point" is the size where the
> numbers
> of little pieces go down dramatically because of the
> "demolition derby" and ejection. You just don't
> apply
> the "power law" down there. You chop the curve off.
> To correct on the big end, you change the
> coefficient "q"
> to steepen the curve, which makes fewer but bigger
> pieces.
> There's even a formula that relates the two factors.
> Way
> back when (for me, the 1960's), somebody whose name
> I can't remember now, elegantly proved that in an
> accreted
> disc of objects, the correct coefficient was 3.5
> instead of
> 3.0 if you had selected the "rollover point" by his
> formula.
> And, it seems to work most places where accretion
> has
> run its course completely (the local neighborhood).
> It
> doesn't work for the Asteroid Belt; it never
> accreted.
>
> The folks that theorize that the Kuiper Belt is
> "mass-poor"
> say that for the Kuiper Belt, the correct
> coefficient is 4.0, or
> maybe 4.5 (because that produces a depleted Kuiper
> Belt
> with no tiny little pieces and a very limited number
> of big
> ones, just like their theory predicts -- what a
> coincidence!)
> They are saying that the Kuiper Belt is
> "over-accreted."
>
> The X-ray occultation result, however, can be
> matched
> to various "power law" curves and it fits best with
> much
> lower "q" coefficients with a lower "rollover
> point." This,
> if true (I'm being so diplomatic here, since I
> obviously
> think it is), suggests that the Kuiper Belt is
> instead actually
> incompletely accreted, which is just what logic of
> geometry
> suggests (as in my "ballroom" analogy).
>
> The problem is also compounded with another:
> should
> these "extended disc" objects be considered part of
> the
> Kuiper Belt accretion zone (completely accreted or
> not),
> or are they a first glimpse of something totally new
> and
> only partially discovered? As I said, the inner edge
> of
> an Outer Outer System? Does our Sun have a "warped"
> disc system?
>
> For thousands of years, up until 1781, the solar
> system
> ended at Saturn. The thought of looking for more of
> it
> never occured to anybody. When Herschel discovered
> Uranus, he wasn't looking for planets. It happened
> entirely
> because of a techological advance: the telescope. In
> 150
> more years, the solar system stretched all the way
> to Pluto.
> After that excitement, planet hunting became a joke
> again.
> Why do human beings always settle back and say,
> "NOW,
> we know it all." It's only been 14 years since we
> found the
> first "TNO." Again, largely due to a substantial
> improvement
> in the technology. We are just now having our eyes
> opened
> wider, again. I don't the process is over. I think
> it's just
> starting.
>
> One can be sure that if anybody finds something
> beyond
> Neptune that's bigger than Mercury, the whole planet
> debate
> will boil up like crazy. I have no doubt the
> dynamicists will
> demand that the IAU dump Mercury from the Honor Roll
> of
> Planets and assign it to Brian Marsden's care, if
> that happens...
> The Nine, no, Eight, no, SEVEN planets of The Solar
> System!
>
>
> Sterling K. Webb
>
> ______________________________________________
> 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 07:29:43 PM PDT