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

From: Jerry <grf2_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 21:07:48 -0400
Message-ID: <0068468C270A41609AE524607490D6F8_at_Notebook>

Doug, did I miss something? You are aware about what Sterling surmised about
Carancas history from its composition? A rather unique history deduced from
hands on observation. Considering such a violent past unique consequences
are not impossible?
Excuse me for jumping in here with both feet [perhaps to be deposited into
mouth] but that's what I get for Skimming thru this thread.
Jerry Flaherty
----- Original Message -----
From: <mexicodoug at aim.com>
To: <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net>; <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 5:36 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
>
> ______________________________________________
> 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 09:07:48 PM PDT