[meteorite-list] New KT asteroid injection theory PART ONE

From: Jerry <grf2_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:39:12 -0400
Message-ID: <E3462E85C9D54D4887A617C1E7D2A4AA_at_Notebook>

Would Tagish Lake be excluded as a suspect in this scenario because.....?
Jerry Flaherty
----- Original Message -----
From: "E.P. Grondine" <epgrondine at yahoo.com>
To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] New KT asteroid injection theory PART ONE



> E.P. Grondine
> Man and Impact in the Americas
> as alway, contact me off list for the list members
> special
>
>
> --- Greg Redfern <gredfern at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Sterling,
>>
>> As always, nice write up. Looking forward to part
>> 2.
>>
>> I would like our colleagues to consider the
>> Murchison fall as a
>> meteorite that could very well be the missing link
>> between an "active"
>> and "dead" comet. With its' high % of water (13%) by
>> volume and the
>> scores of amino acids it contains - I'm sure Bernd
>> could give us the
>> exact water % and AA count to date and which I
>> believe is 98 - Murchison
>> is quite extraordinary.
>>
>> Each of the NASA and ESA missions to comets and
>> asteroids are helping
>> us to fill in the gaps of our knowledge. But one has
>> to wonder what is
>> left when a comet has sublimated all of its'
>> volatiles into space?
>> Nothing but a meteoroid stream? Or is there a
>> central solid body or
>> rubble pile that acted as a gravitational anchor to
>> collect and hold all
>> of the comet's original volatile material?
>>
>> Maybe the analysis of the STARDUST comet material
>> will help us gain
>> some knowledge. I for one INTUITIVELY believe that
>> an asteroid can be a
>> dead comet as it is a logical end state following
>> countless orbits
>> around the Sun.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Greg Redfern
>> NASA JPL Solar System Ambassador
>> http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/ambassador/index.html
>> WHAT'S UP?: THE SPACE PLACE
>> http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=600113&nid=421
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
>> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com]
>> On Behalf Of
>> Sterling K. Webb
>> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 5:21 PM
>> To: E.P. Grondine;
>> meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] New KT asteroid
>> injection theory PART ONE
>>
>> Hi, EP, Paul, List,
>>
>> A problem here is that Bottke draws on this SAME
>> evidence to prove it's an asteroid, just as EP
>> points to
>> that evidence to prove it's a comet!
>>
>> The Chicxulub found fragment is carbonaceous, so
>> a carbonaceous asteroid is an obvious choice! But
>> since
>> the difference between a "comet" and an "asteroid"
>> seems
>> to be chiefly a matter of its degree of hydration
>> along a
>> continuum of formation, it could mean a comet, too.
>> (The
>> lack of comet samples to match the asteroid samples
>> that
>> we do have makes this an argument without evidence.)
>>
>> The "Nemesis" hypothesis is not Morrison's but
>> Richard
>> Muller's: http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/lbl-nem.htm ,
>> published
>> in Nature (Davis, Hut, & Muller (v. 308, pp 715-717,
>> 1984)).
>>
>> The so-called "Nemesis" hypothesis is usually
>> badly
>> misunderstood. Everybody looked at the proposed 26my
>> eccentric orbit and blew it off as "unstable" on the
>> "short"
>> timescale of less than a billion years, which it is.
>> Because,
>> sooner or later a passing star would (will? has?)
>> perturbed
>> its orbit badly, altering in a major way, or setting
>> it free of
>> the Sun to wander on its own. It IS unstable over
>> the NEXT
>> billion years, but that's because, at solar
>> formation, its life
>> expectancy was about 5.0 to 5.5 billion years. 4.5
>> down,
>> and a only little while to go...
>>
>> What they missed is that THAT has become the
>> chief
>> strong (rather than weak) point in Muller's theory:
>>
> http://muller.lbl.gov/papers/Lunar_impacts_Nemesis.pdf
>> ,
>> where (2002) he revises his original 1984
>> hypothesis,
>> to reflect new data. And, the conclusions of his
>> 2002
>> paper on impacts have since been verified by other
>> (non-aligned) studies. Impacts are UP lately
>> ("lately"
>> meaning the last half billion years).
>>
>> Here's how "Nemesis" goes now.
>>
>> Imagine that the Sun has a nice little red dwarf
>> star
>> companion that you'd hardly notice in a stable and
>> not-too-eccentric orbit for billions of years,
>> causing no
>> harm, doing no damage, tossing no comets, because
>> it never comes close to its big brother star and its
>> private
>> herd of comets.
>>
>> THEN, about 0.5 to 0.8 billion years ago, a
>> passing
>> star perturbs that stable not-too-eccentric orbit
>> into the 26my
>> long elipse that clips through the Oort Cloud and
>> sets loose
>> the comets to fall into the inner system. (There are
>> nice
>> diagrams in that paper cited above, on Lunar
>> Impacts.
>> I love a good diagram...)
>>
>> And as long as we're arguing about the
>> attribution of
>> strong but unproven hypotheses, the "rain of comets"
>> to
>> the inner solar system by a big perturbation of the
>> Oort
>> Cloud was first suggested by Hills in 1981, NOT by
>> Napier
>> and Clube. They refined it slightly and pushed it,
>> but it's
>> not their baby, well, OK, adopted...
>>
>> Its chief disadvantage of "Nemesis" is that it
>> is a totally
>> ad hoc hypotheses and virtually impossible to prove
>> or
>> disprove, UNLESS you find the star. IF there is a
>> "Nemesis,"
>> it will be found by the current "super-surveys"
>> (like Pan Starrs
>> or LSST) or future even more powerful All Sky
>> Surveys,
>> one of many thousand dim little stars that are
>> loitering in the
>> neighborhood and trying to look harmless. Just you
>> wait
>> thirty years or so...
>>
>> Muller is assuming that Nemmy is a little red
>> dwarf, but
>> it could also be an even smaller star, one of the
>> newly
>> discovered but numerous L-Class dwarves. Their
>> distribution
>> is such that, given that our star is typical, there
>> should be
>> a 50-50 chance of an L dwarf within 0.75 light year,
>> closer
>> than the original "Nemesis" star proposed distance.
>> (A light
>> year is 63,239.7 AU, more or less. The Oort Cloud
>> goes
>> out to 50,000 AU? 80,000 AU? Nobody knows...) So, an
>> L dwarf could be right on the edge of or even IN the
>> Oort
>> Cloud! Periodically, at least.
>>
>> There are at least TWO astronomers claiming
>> evidence
>> for a massive object perturbing the Ort Cloud, based
>> on
>> the anomalous distribution of Ort Cloud comet
>> aphelia:
>> http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~jjm9638/matese.html
>> http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news071.html
>> The only problem is that they are each pointing to a
>> different
>> patch of sky... Two perturbers are harder to swallow
>> than
>> one. I'll wait for a picture of Sol b.
>>
>> There is a big and delicate problem with all the
>> "nearby
>> star" proposals --- it has to be big enough to make
>> the comets
>> twitchy but NOT big enough to leave gravitational
>> fingerprints
>> on the solar system.
>>
>> This is getting long. Let's call it PART ONE.
>>
>>
>> Sterling K. Webb
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "E.P. Grondine" <epgrondine at yahoo.com>
>> To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 10:56 AM
>> Subject: [meteorite-list] New KT asteroid injection
>> theory
>>
>>
>> Hi Paul, list,
>>
>> The problem with this new theory is that what hit
>> appears to have been a comet:
>>
>> http://www.scn.org/~bh162/meteorite.html
>>
>> Furthermore, the injection mechanism has been
>> identified as gravity perturbations due to our solar
>> system passing through the plane of our galaxy,
>> which
>> theory agrees with 26 million year chaotically
>> cyclical pattern in mass extinctions:
>>
>>
> http://www.csmate.colostate.edu/cltw/cohortpages/viney_old1/massextincti
>> onchart.html
>>
>> http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/crater.html
>>
>> The physical evidence would seem to validate Clube
>> and
>> Napier's and the Italian dynamicists' work.
>>
>> Morrison's "Nemisis" hypothesis and Firstone's new
>> hypothesis both appear to be mistaken, and it is
>> most
>> likely that these gentlemen's are as well.
>>
>> E.P. Grondine
>> Man and Impact in the Americas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>> ____________
>> Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers
>> from someone who
>> knows.
>> Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
>>
> http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
>> ______________________________________________
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!
> http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Fri 07 Sep 2007 10:39:12 AM PDT