Binary asteroids By real "Scientists"

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
cbc
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:47 am

Binary asteroids By real "Scientists"

Unread post by cbc » Sun Jul 13, 2008 7:59 pm

They Call Plasma Cosmology Fringe Science

Take a moment and read this one.

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/24446504.html

Don't they understand that It is only an animation not an actual asteroid. Do they understand that or have they truly lost their scientific perspective.
Maybe I missed the part where they have imaged an asteroid spinning it self to pieces.
No the modeling is the reality to them.


What really irks me is their pontification when prensented with a testable idea or electrical phenomomen.



What really is outrageous is we are paying millions of dollars for this rubbish :x :x :x


Shame on them and US. :?:

Can't we do something !!!!!!!
:oops:

User avatar
Ion01
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:37 am

Re: Binary asteroids By real "Scientists"

Unread post by Ion01 » Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:35 pm

Sadly, they accept theory as fact......a far reaching idea is accepted as truth without any proof or verification.

What evidence do they have that it was spin that ripped them apart? or even the notion of reradiated sunlight? They assume the bodies to just be clumps of rock. I have yet to see an asteroid that are clumps of rock loosely held together. They expect us to accept anything they put before us with no evidence or verifaction whatsoever!

I am often so frustrated with articles where they make some fantastic claim of discover but will not give the supposed image which allowed the discover. Why is that?

Anyways, I am done with my rant. This article is so full of unfounded assumption ...... okay, I really am going to stop. :D

User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Binary asteroids By real "Scientists"

Unread post by MGmirkin » Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:31 am

Just to summarize some current & prior "science" on the topic:

(Sunlight Splits Asteroids into Pairs)
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... roids.html

(Sunlight makes asteroids binary system)
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=7156

(Observations of double asteroid stress Arecibo radar's vital role in identifying threats in Earth's vicinity)
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Nov ... ecibo.html

(Sunshine puts asteroids in a spin)
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11328

(Sunlight Increases Space Rock Spin)
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... _yorp.html

As a perhaps stupid aside, how do they know that any assume spin change was due to sunlight and not to, say, collisions with other objects that changed its rotational rate? Seems like unmitigated speculation. But what do I know. Anyone have access to specific papers detailing how they know it was sunlight that did it and not something else plus fanciful imagining?

(Fresh Spin on Solar Powered Asteroids)
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/a ... 30910.html
They began with the knowledge that sunlight causes uneven heating on a space rock -- just as Earth's day side is warmed while the night side is cooler. The day side, especially the afternoon portion, re-radiates significantly more solar energy back into space, creating a recoil force.
Seems scientists are very into "framing hypotheses" these days, IE going into a situation with an expectation and force-fitting the data to "support" the hypothesis in question. Or, in other words, coming in with preconceived notions and self-fulfilling their own prognostications.

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law

User avatar
StefanR
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Binary asteroids By real "Scientists"

Unread post by StefanR » Tue Jul 15, 2008 1:42 pm

MGmirkin wrote:As a perhaps stupid aside, how do they know that any assume spin change was due to sunlight and not to, say, collisions with other objects that changed its rotational rate? Seems like unmitigated speculation. But what do I know. Anyone have access to specific papers detailing how they know it was sunlight that did it and not something else plus fanciful imagining?
There is some info in the holmes thread from this post down:
Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:16 pm Post subject: rotation of comet nucleus Reply with quote
Quote:
It is shown that the sense of rotation determined in this fashion is consistent with the results established for three of the four comets from the transverse component of the nongravitational force affecting their orbital motions. It is found that in general the time lag is strongly time dependent and that lag angles approaching 90° are rather common near perihelion, suggesting a complex surface structure that involves an insulting crust of dust of variable thickness and strength. These results are compared with the observed lightcurves of the four comets and with the calculated distributions of integrated insolation at the nuclear surface as functions of the cometocentric latitude and time. Noticed is a tendency of the comets to turn their spin axes to the Sun near perihelion and to replace, on the outbound leg of orbit, the established fan-orientation pattern by a “late”-tail pattern indicative of old, slowly accelerated particles. It is suggested that the motion of P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 3, which is due for a favorable return in 1979, was affected by a secular deceleration in 1930.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979Icar...37..420S
Quote:
Fan-shaped coma, orientation of rotation axis, and surface structure of a cometary nucleus. I - Test of a model on four comets

So many factors... Shocked , but maybe an electric factor is also influencing the spin or spin-axis of comets?
Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:30 pm Post subject: non-gravitational forces/mainstream Reply with quote
Quote:
non-gravitational forces : Forces that are not of gravitational origin which act on asteroids and comets and that can sometimes significantly alter their orbits. Examples include reaction forces due to outgassing of volatile materials and the Yarkovsky and Poynting–Robertson forces.

Poynting–Robertson effect: A deacceleration and spiraling inward of small dust particles orbiting the Sun due to their interaction with solar radiation.

Yarkovsky effect : Acceleration due to recoil force caused by the thermal reradiation from an irregular object. This can cause substantial changes to asteroidal orbits and also affect their rotational states.

http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/c ... 645&ss=fro
Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:45 pm Post subject: rotation rate comets/asteroids Reply with quote
Quote:
Over the past 25 years the number of reliably determined rotation rates of asteroids has increased by an order of magnitude, from 157 in 1979 to 1686 in 2005. As the numbers have increased, various special classes and features have emerged. Asteroids larger than $\sim 50 \,\rm{km}$ diameter have a dispersion of spin rates that is well represented by a single Maxwellian distribution. Smaller asteroids have a more dispersed distribution, with both slow and fast spinning populations. We see a “spin rate barrier” in the size range of 1–10 km diameter that suggests that even rather small asteroids are “rubble piles”. Among the very slow rotators are some (but not all) that are “tumbling” in non-principal axis rotation states. Among the smallest asteroids (less than a few hundred m diameter) are some that spin dramatically faster than the “spin barrier”, indicating that they must have some tensile strength rather than consisting of loose regolith. In the last few years it has been recognized that the spins of asteroids smaller than a few tens of km diameter are affected by radiation pressure torques that tend to either speed up or slow down asteroid spin rates, thus providing an explanation for the dispersion of small asteroid spins, and also their non-random axis orientations. Lightcurves have also revealed the presence of binary asteroids among both Near-Earth and Main-Belt populations. Automated robotic observatories and next-generation survey instruments promise to increase the rate of production of asteroid lightcurves so that we may soon have tens of thousands of lightcurve results, extending down to even smaller sizes. In contrast, there are only about 20 rotation rates known for comets, and 15 for TNOs. Very little can be said from such meager statistics; the mean spin rate of TNOs appears to be comparable to that of asteroids, without extremes of fast or slow rotation; the mean spin rate of comets appears to be a bit slower than asteroids, perhaps due to lower mean density, and there may be an excess of slow rotators, probably due to gas jetting effects. The future is promising for studies of these objects as larger telescopes become available to do photometry to fainter magnitudes, so that comet nuclei can be studied at greater heliocentric distance with less coma interference, and more TNOs can be observed.
http://journals.cambridge.org/productio ... tid=414822
Quote:
Data on the rotational characteristics of more than 300 asteroids are currently available and it is now clear that the distribution of the rotation rates is non-random. A plot of rotation rate against asteroid diameter shows large dispersion but is distinctly V-shaped. The minimum of this curve at ca. 120 km may separate primordial asteroids from their collision products. There is also evidence that rotation rate depends on type classification, and weak evidence that it may also depend on family membership. Recent bias-free observations suggest that the marked rise of rotation rate with decreasing diameter D for those asteroids with D < 120 km cannot be completely accounted for by observational selection effects. A significantly large subset of the small asteroids have exceptionally long rotation periods suggestive of either a different nature and origin, or a peculiar history
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0080-4 ... 0.CO%3B2-9
Rotation of cometary nuclei
http://www.noao.edu/noao/library/prepri ... /pp906.pdf

photometry of cometary nuclei (with data of inactive 17p/holmes)
http://star.pst.qub.ac.uk/comast/papers ... ts2006.pdf

properties of short-period cometary nuclei
http://www.sc.eso.org/santiago/science/ ... s_talk.pdf
Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:06 pm Post subject: DE's/solar wind/comets Reply with quote
Quote:
This work compares cometary and solar wind data with the purpose of determining the solar wind conditions associated with comet plasma tail disconnection events (DEs). We conclude that our results corroborate the idea that DEs are associated with sector boundary crossings and that the magnetic reconnection plays an important role in the formation of DEs and can be considered as the triggering mechanism (Niedner & Brandt 1978; Brandt et al. 1999).
http://www.edpsciences.org/10.1051/aas:2000259
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:14 am Post subject: jupiter juggles perihelion holmes Reply with quote
Quote:
Close approaches to planets: During the 20th century, this comet made two close approaches to Jupiter. There are also two close approaches to Jupiter during the 21st century. (From the orbital work of Kazuo Kinoshita and G. W. Kronk)

0.54 AU from Jupiter on 1908 December 9
increased perihelion distance from 2.12 AU to 2.34 AU
increased orbital period from 6.86 to 7.33 years
1.03 AU from Jupiter during 1968 April
decreased perihelion distance from 2.35 AU to 2.16 AU
decreased orbital period from 7.35 to 7.05 years
1.50 AU from Jupiter during 2004 January
decreased perihelion distance from 2.17 AU to 2.05 AU
decreased orbital period from 7.07 to 6.88 years
0.85 AU from Jupiter on 2051 April 8
increased perihelion distance from 2.06 AU to 2.21 AU
increased orbital period from 6.89 to 7.21 years

http://cometography.com/pcomets/017p.html

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... p=323#p323
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

User avatar
StefanR
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Binary asteroids By real "Scientists"

Unread post by StefanR » Tue Jul 15, 2008 1:49 pm

But for satellites there is more interesting interaction
Space Weather Prediction Center Topic Paper:
Satellites and Space Weather
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/info/Satellites.html

Quote:
Types of Spacecraft Anomalies
Spacecraft anomalies are grouped into broad categories based upon the effect upon the spacecraft. A list of potential effects follows:

Surface charging*
Deep dielectric or bulk charging*
Single Event Upset (SEU) * a) Galactic cosmic rays and b) Solar proton events*
Spacecraft drag (<1000 km)*
Total dose effects*
Solar radio frequency interference and telemetry scintillation*
Debris
Spacecraft orientation*
Photonics noise*
Materials degradation
Meteorite impact
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... p=330#p330
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Binary asteroids By real "Scientists"

Unread post by MGmirkin » Tue Jul 15, 2008 5:02 pm

StefanR wrote:
Space Weather Prediction Center Topic Paper:
Satellites and Space Weather
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/info/Satellites.html

Quote:
Types of Spacecraft Anomalies
Spacecraft anomalies are grouped into broad categories based upon the effect upon the spacecraft. A list of potential effects follows:

Surface charging*
Deep dielectric or bulk charging*
Single Event Upset (SEU) * a) Galactic cosmic rays and b) Solar proton events*
Heh... There goes that pesky "no charge separation in space" notion and "charges will instantly neutralize," right out the window. Maybe they didn't NOTICE the implication(s). ;)

(Space Weather Prediction Center Topic Paper: Satellites and Space Weather)
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/info/Satellites.html
Surface Charging

Surface charging to a high voltage does not usually cause immediate problems for a spacecraft.


But, they apparently admit it HAPPENS, in general, without the charges "immediately neutralizing." IE, the craft apparently becomes a charged body in space capable of undergoing electrical interactions (with the environment, or within itself).
However, electrical discharges resulting from differential charging can damage surface material and create electromagnetic interference that can result in damage to electronic devices. Variations in low energy plasma parameters around the spacecraft, along with the photoelectric effect from sunlight, cause most surface charging. Due to the low energy of the plasma, this type of charging does not penetrate directly into interior components. Surface charging can be largely mitigated through proper materials selection and grounding techniques.

Surface charging occurs predominantly during geomagnetic storms. It is usually more severe in the spacecraft local times of midnight to dawn but can occur at any time. Night to day, and day to night transitions are especially problematic during storms since the photoelectric effect is abruptly present or absent, which can trip discharges. Additionally, thruster firings can change the local plasma environment and trigger discharges.

The common measure for geomagnetic storms, and hence the occurrence of surface charging, is the K index. This index is a 3 hourly measure ranging from 0-9 (0=quiet, 9=severely disturbed.). It is derived from ground-based magnetometer data and is used as a surrogate for actual plasma measurements at satellite altitudes. In general, surface charging effects begin at the K=4 to K=5 level. Charging is probable at K>=6. Geomagnetic substorms can be somewhat localized in space so the use of the planetary K index (Kp) may mask the severity of effect upon a specific spacecraft. Some claim better correlation is achieved using data from a ground-based magnetometer at the "footpoint" of the magnetic field line that passes through the affected spacecraft. The Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) also has sensors on several geosynchronous (GEO) spacecraft that directly measure the appropriate particle energy ranges to determine if surface charging is probable.
Deep Dielectric or Bulk Charging

This phenomenon is a problem primarily for high altitude spacecraft. At times, when Earth is immersed in a high-speed solar wind stream, the Van Allen belts become populated with high fluxes of relativistic (>~1 MeV) electrons. These electrons easily penetrate spacecraft shielding and can build up charge where they come to rest in dielectrics such as coax cable, circuit boards, electrically floating radiation shields, etc. If the electron flux is high for extended periods, abrupt discharges (tiny "lightening strokes") deep in the spacecraft can occur.

High fluxes of these electrons vary with the 11 year solar cycle and are most prevalent late in the cycle and at solar minimum. Occasionally, high-energy electron events recur with a 27-day periodicity - the rotation period of the Sun. Discharges appear to correlate well with long periods of high fluxes. At these times, charge buildup exceeds the natural charge leakage rate of the dielectric. The charge builds and discharge occurs after the breakdown voltage is reached.


Apparently not an "immediate neutralization" process. Only once the discharge threshold is reached. Gee, I wonder if the Earth works this way? :D *Cough*
In the past, some energetic electron enhancements at GEO have approached two weeks in duration. It was at the end of one of these long duration enhancements in 1994 that two Canadian satellites experienced debilitating upsets.

SWPC operates electron flux sensors on the GOES GEO spacecraft. These instruments measure electron fluxes of >0.6 and >2 MeV. (See GOES electron data ) Historically, deep dielectric discharges begin to occur when the

>2 MeV fluxes exceed 1000 particles/cm/sec/ster. In general, fluxes become elevated for all GEO spacecraft at the same time. However, there is a diurnal variation where fluxes peak by approximately an order of magnitude for spacecraft at local noon.
Again, it seems like things "charge up," take their sweet time, and eventually "discharge" (like little lightning bolts) inside satellites, etc.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law

User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Contact:

RE: Original post

Unread post by MGmirkin » Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:47 am

Image
Image Credit: Nature / K. J. Walsh, et al.
In this computer simulation, an asteroid with a rigid core (gray particles) and a rubbly exterior has spun so fast that it's formed a small moon nearby.
Have they ever empirically shown that asteroids (OR comets for that matter) are actually the mythical "rubble piles" of theory? IE, actually set down on an asteroid and found it to be anything other than a giant hunk of space rock, as solid as any bedrock on Earth?

It seems their assertions / animations are fanciful musings until then... More data is required!

~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law

User avatar
nick c
Site Admin
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Binary asteroids By real "Scientists"

Unread post by nick c » Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:15 am

Eventually chunks of matter fly off these whirling dervishes — sometimes reaccumulating onto the main bodies and sometimes creating moons close by.
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/24446504.html
What makes them think that the chunks would 'reaccumulate' and form another asteroid? Why would the process that caused the asteroid to come apart cause another one to form?

Nick C

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests