[meteorite-list] New, long, Carancas article II
From: mexicodoug at aim.com <mexicodoug_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 17:36:44 -0400 Message-ID: <8CA657C47397213-1400-665_at_FWM-D33.sysops.aol.com> Sterling W. wrote: "And by your next Post, you'd noticed the gigantic Fly in the Ointment when you asked: "Why don't other stony meteorites with TKW's over a ton do the same thing? In fact, there's a key word missing in that question: "Why don't ALL other stony meteorites with TKW's over a ton do the same thing?" Hi Sterling, Perhaps your basic assumption was right and we are seeing the start of the invasion of the Monolith Monsters. I'll check with Professor Flanders and see what he thinks... I could care less whether the Schultz idea is correct or not for Carancas - though all ideas need to be judged without bias to figure out the answer there. It is much more interesting IMO to think about what happens if a (semi)rubble-pile object entered the atmosphere. Rubble-pile is one asteroid model that is accepted, so this is a refreshingly new idea for me to yap about. And this brings to mind the really exciting possibility that some models of meteoric entry can be based on a liquidish and wave-like behavior of the bolide, rather than a solid behavior. That is a very bold assumption and will require Schultz and his supporters to get his act well choreographed. "In fact", there is no key word missing from my question. "Fact" is a different animal from debate, and I hope you can keep this straight. So to be more convincing kindly just give thanks when others are the inspiration for your arguments. On asking why we don't see this partial disintegration behavior on other large impactors, I requested (mulled) some info to further clarify this potential fatal flaw. However, the competing theories all have their problems at the moment. Schultz's theory seems to address the problem of fragmentation much better than an oriented stone that wasn't slowed down enough by the time it his 10-15km altitude to have a soft landing and not be shredded to bits as it smashed into the dense atmosphere at 3 km/s. I do disagree with the words you've put into Occam's mouth on two counts. First, you're decided that Occam's razor applies only positively to your scenario of carefully specifying dimensions of the incoming object, rather than just saying it fragments apart as current theory would usually expect. I wouldn't immediately conclude either is less complexity. The mass was found fragmented. How it got there is the challenge. If you pre-suppose it fragmented upon impact and you don't have evidence to back that up, you are on thin ice. Second, in breathing life into William Occam's postulate you are relying on an "authority" to keep the mind closed to the Schultz idea. There is no authority. You can quote a monk or even God, if you want to do faith-based science. Better, just stick to the evidence. Wild Bill actually told me he was on the fence regarding Carancas, too. I was very careful in my comments to say I am still on the fence regarding both the Schultz scenario as well as the basic oriented single car choo-choo train scenario. What I do appreciate from the Schultz contribution is the opportunity it gives for an open mind to contemplate what would happen with a dense particle stream entering or being created as a meteoroid. As for the set of curiosities I posted which this novel theory would make, I am glad you latched onto the first one to prove what you already knew already (for my benefit, thanks). I did not post that with any posterior revelation that there is a "Giant Fly in the Ointment". There is no key word missing in my post... I don't mean to come down harshly on the thought that a monolith could be the answer ... but respectfully I see you have manipulated Wild Bill Occam as well as my own statements in a way neither of us intended - I do need to reject your argument for rejecting the new theory on the block as more political than scientific. Best wishes and Great Health, Doug -----Original Message----- From: Sterling K. Webb <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net> To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com; mexicodoug at aim.com Sent: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 2:04 pm Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] New, long, Carancas article II Hi, Doug, > to Schultz's credit, he has put > a novel mechanism on the table... Not only a novel mechanism but an unnecessary one. This is just what Wild Bill Occam called "multiplying entities without necessity." And by your next Post, you'd noticed the gigantic Fly in the Ointment when you asked: > "Why don't other stony meteorites with > TKW's over a ton do the same thing?" In fact, there's a key word missing in that question: "Why don't ALL other stony meteorites with TKW's over a ton do the same thing?" [Scribble, scribble...] If they all did, we would have a Carancas-crater event roughly every three weeks. (That's 170 fresh 10-meter craters since 1998.) Sterling K. Webb -------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: <mexicodoug at aim.com> To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 11:26 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] New, long, Carancas article II Sterling W. wrote: "Both Schultz and I calculate that the object was still supersonic when it hit, still enclosed in a "detached" shock wave, so the sides never ablated at any point." Hi Sterling, Yes, but to Schultz's credit, he has put a novel mechanism on the table for scientific consideration of these "strange" dynamics and motivated the issue of the role of the shock wave IMO to begin with. The oriented case as presented by you and many others at that time was an extrapolation IMO. I personally like Schultz' refreshing contribution in the field. I would rather call your thoughts the natural control for Schultz' idea, and not anything particularly novel in meteoritical circles. While any idea will need to be earthshattering :-), which explanation (the basic made into a very special case or the spontaneous reorganization and its complexity - or csome combination of ideas) at this point best complies with Occam's Razor is not obvious to me. However, no matter how distorted in length vs. width, if we consider the object was over a ton, that is still a real lot of surface area to survive down to a relatively very thick atmosphere at 4 km above sea level at that speed. I don't think the shock wave could have powered any deflector shields at the front of the bus - but I'm not qualitfied at the moment to comment on that. The shear experienced by the material at the front had to be enormous in the last 5-10 kilometers. So this Schultz theory sounds good and a welcomed addition to consideration vs. the highly oriented case. Sterling - do you or does anyone know if the shock veins have been shown by the scientists to have been caused upon impact with Earth? Best wishes and Great Health, Doug ______________________________________________ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list Received on Sat 05 Apr 2008 05:36:44 PM PDT |
StumbleUpon del.icio.us Yahoo MyWeb |