[meteorite-list] New, long, Carancas article II

From: Sterling K. Webb <sterling_k_webb_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 18:19:58 -0500
Message-ID: <06d601c89773$90daa2e0$8250e146_at_ATARIENGINE>

Hi, Doug,

    1. It is a fact that all one-ton-plus stones do not
behave this way. It is a fact that very few one-ton-plus
stones do.

> just give thanks when others are the
> inspiration for your arguments

    2. I owe no inspiration to Schultz. I proposed my
present analysis on the List in October 2007, about
four months before first intimation of the Schultz
paper-to-be-published. He has one story that arrives
at an elongated object. I had another story that goes
to the same place.

    3. There is no "train" of debris in the Schultz Model.
Such a thing is impossible. The stuff at the front is retarted
more than the stuff behind it. The stuff in the back is
crammed up against the tardy front. It's self-compactiug.
If you read Schultz's LPI paper, he says "the pancake
model fails," meaning why doesn't this effect spread
the debris out over an ever-broadening front, a catastrophic
sequence that leads to airburst? He offers no answer
other than to say that if he twiddles with the aerodynamic
model he thinks maybe he can make it happen in the
computer. (If he had a conclusive demonstration, he
would have presented it. Also means he's been trying
and can't do it yet.)

    4. I will leave Wild Bill Occam out of all future
discussions. Fact is, he's over to the saloon, drunk on
his Franciscan keister, having discovered the advances
in distillation that have happened since the 14th century...
He's no longer available.


Sterling K. Webb
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: <mexicodoug at aim.com>
To: <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net>; <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] New, long, Carancas article II


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 07:19:58 PM PDT