Asteroids

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: asteroid seismology question

Unread postby jjohnson » Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:56 am

I wonder what this scientist means by "...appears to experience vibrations strong enough to create fresh surface material."

Vibrations usually are not of high enough amplitude to be visually seen optically except under special circumstances, unless driven by rather large forces, or resonances which amplify initially small force inputs. I have not heard of anyone's having planted seismometers on near-Earth asteroids. Gravity is a force without large oscillations, itself, so "seismic shaking due to gravity" seems a very dubious explanation. Does Dr. Benzel have photos or spectral data changes showing the appearance of new material on asteroids?

One effect of gravity is tidal action due to differences in the force of gravity from an external body on radially opposite sides of a body. Taking an asteroid which is, say, 300 meters across (example only) at 16 Earth radii out at closest approach, what is the difference in the force of gravity on the nearest and farthest surfaces of the (spherical) asteroid?

A quick calculation at 16R ± 150m shows that the force of gravity differs by only 0.000000225 m/s² between these two distances, the two sides of the asteroid. (This is not very much, in case you are asking yourself if it is significant.) in terms of Earth's gravity at its nominal surface, where we are in a 1 gee acceleration, this represents a difference of 1 over 43,541,163 gee. A constant force differential of one forty three millionth of a gee is not going to cause seismic shaking and new material to come spouting out or tumbling down from a stony asteroid. At least I'd bet. And what did Dr. Binzel put into his model, assuming that is what he was working with, a mathematical construct like mine on Excel, which would reveal radial "shaking". Springs? The asteroid isn't coming off its tracks from this steady, tiny force difference. Earth's gravity is not taking the tiny asteroid by the scruff of its swollen little neck and shaking it back and forth.

I think Dr. B. is blowing smoke, or else he says "shaking" but doesn't actually, precisely mean "shaking".

Jim
jjohnson
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Re: asteroid seismology question

Unread postby MrAmsterdam » Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:42 pm

Mister JJohnson,

Mmm, somebody has beat us at the prediction game and won;

06 January 2004, Comet Wild 2

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=ayxpdjcb

This is an ideal opportunity to examine the picture of Wild 2 from the perspective of the electric universe model of comets. Briefly, in that model a comet is a highly negatively charged body with respect to the Sun. Like all charged bodies in plasma, a comet will be enveloped in a plasma sheath (the coma) that limits the reach of the comet's electric field. A forbidden oxygen line was discovered in Comet Austin's coma. "Forbidden lines" are spectral signatures that are not expected in space because here on Earth they are found only within strong electric fields. To astronomers' surprise, forbidden lines are common in space, not only in comets, but in nebulae and galaxies. A cometary display is produced when the nucleus discharges at a rate sufficient to generate a visible tail. The dust and gases that form the comet''s tail are not evaporated by the heat of the sun, but instead are electrically 'machined' from the nucleus by cathode arcs. Laboratory examination of cathode arcs shows that they jump around on the cathode surface, removing surface material in jets to form small circular craters. The industrial process of Electric Discharge Machining (EDM) uses this feature to erode a surface to accurate depth.


So basically, a foreign body comes into our planetary atmosphere and interacts with plasma....so we would be looking for plasma clues...not gravitational seismology.By the way,think of it. How the h*ll are you going to proof that shaking on a object that far away. How would you see this?

If you put your plasma glasses on and look differently at the universe you would reason that sensors (using the emf spectrum) directed at your astroid would reveal magnetic, electric and emf phenomena, right? The astroid is interacting with plasma
Anyone knows if NASA has some data on incoming astroids? Just maybe we could get a step closer validating this theory.

Oh yeah, the guy that beat us was Wal Thornhill; he is a smart and educated man.
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. -Nikola Tesla -1934
User avatar
MrAmsterdam
 
Posts: 596
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:59 am

Re: asteroid seismology question

Unread postby solrey » Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:43 pm

Hey there mramsterdam. Good catch on the geocorona, I think that's significant.

Oh yeah, the guy that beat us was Wal Thornhill; he is a smart and educated man.


Yep. I enjoy the way he thinks outside the box.

They're trying to explain this:
The finding helps answer an elusive, decades-long question about where most meteorites come from before they fall to Earth


I think looking at what happens on the moon in the magnetotail might explain how asteroids could be gently "scoured" when they're within the magnetosphere. It's basically electrostatic cleaning.

During the crossing, the moon comes in contact with a gigantic “plasma sheet” of hot charged particles trapped in the tail. The lightest and most mobile of these particles, electrons, pepper the moon’s surface and give the moon a negative charge.

On the moon’s dayside this effect is counteracted to a degree by sunlight: UV photons knock electrons back off the surface, keeping the build-up of charge at relatively low levels. But on the nightside, in the cold lunar dark, electrons accumulate and surface voltages can climb to hundreds or thousands of volts.


The ground, meanwhile, might leap into the sky. There’s growing evidence that fine particles of moondust might actually float, ejected from the lunar surface by electrostatic repulsion. This could create a temporary nighttime atmosphere of dust ready to blacken spacesuits, clog machinery, scratch faceplates (moondust is very abrasive) and generally make life difficult for astronauts.

Stranger still, moondust might gather itself into a sort of diaphanous wind. Drawn by differences in global charge accumulation, floating dust would naturally fly from the strongly-negative nightside to the weakly-negative dayside. This “dust storm” effect would be strongest at the moon’s terminator, the dividing line between day and night.


Three days on either side of full is when the moon is in the magnetosphere, specifically the magnetotail. Maybe an asteroid that travels into the magnetosphere it experiences something similar, but not as dramatic. There are vortices of charged particles, stacked double layers (the geocorona would be one), and induction currents (generated when the IMF fluctuates). I can see how all that electric current activity could lead to a gentle, or at times vigorous, electrostatic repulsion of grains off an asteroid, maybe even some minor etching, especially for the ones that wander through the magnetotail. The grains electrostatically repelled would likely become neutralized in a short time and then eventually fall onto Earth due to gravity.

Shaken by gravity quakes... :lol:
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"
Nikola Tesla
User avatar
solrey
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: asteroid seismology question

Unread postby mharratsc » Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:59 pm

Sol beat me to the punch on thinking that these yahoos are looking for where all the meteorites come from!

Friggin' guy... :P

Anywho- what I'll point out is not so much what the good Dr. Binzel is suggesting as a means to solving his question, but rather the answers that EU theory already has to his question! ;)

Regarding the age old question "Mommy... where do meteors come from?" - Thornhill has suggested that meteors are mostly fragments of Mars just like the asteroids. There's probably whole clouds of the stuff in orbit with the asteroids not easily discernable due to the small size. All that stuff got transported up there by the interaction of Mars and Jupiter (I think?) most likely during the electrical event that created Vallis Marinaris. Not sure about that part, tho.

Regarding the interaction of Earth and the asteroid field- if the planetary plasma-tails equalize charge between the planets, then likewise the tail should work to balance out charge between planets and asteroid fields, I would think. I'm sure there is a dynamic mess of stuff that goes on with smaller bodies of 'X' composition at 'Y' orbital radii out, etc, but I wouldn't have a clue about that part... but I know who probably would!

Hey Sol! Got a minute for a dynamic mess here?! :lol:
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington
mharratsc
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am

A Whiter Shade of Pale...

Unread postby FS3 » Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:09 pm

Thank you for pointing this out.

A few, interesting observations from the paper, "Earth encounters as the origin of fresh surfaces on near-Earth asteroids".

(emphasis added)

...one-quarter of NEAs are fresh, as well as two known facts — that the space weathering process that ages regolith can happen in less than one million years, and that about one-quarter of NEAs come within 16 Earth radii in one million years.

Before now, people thought an asteroid had to come within one to two Earth radii to undergo significant physical change...


Asteroids coming from more far out are said to show a significant more "reddish" color, due to spectral analysis, while near Earth they become pale.

And regolith is well known from the surface of our Moon.

So what might be the acronym for that usual "space weathering"?

And why some "million years"? Why not days or even a few hours?

Those nasty, gravitationally "raining down" of electrons making those asteroids go pale because of jealousy?

You bet.

Asteroids on electrified "steroids"...

:mrgreen:
FS3
User avatar
FS3
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:44 pm
Location: Europe

Hubble Sees Suspected Asteroid Collision

Unread postby larryduane100 » Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:30 pm

The x shape could be a partial view of a Birkeland current...
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010 ... list879768

February 2, 2010: NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has observed a mysterious X-shaped debris pattern and trailing streamers of dust that suggest a head-on collision between two asteroids. Astronomers have long thought that the asteroid belt is being ground down through collisions, but such a smashup has never been seen before.

The object, called P/2010 A2, was discovered by the Lincoln Near-Earth Asteroid Research (LINEAR) sky survey on Jan. 6. At first, astronomers thought it might be a so-called "main belt comet"--a rare case of a comet orbiting in the asteroid belt. Follow-up images taken by Hubble on Jan. 25 and 29, however, revealed a complex X-pattern of filamentary structures near the nucleus:
Attachments
fullcontext_med.jpg
fullcontext_med.jpg (11.47 KiB) Viewed 6564 times
larryduane100
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 11:22 am

Re: Hubble Sees Suspected Asteroid Collision

Unread postby solrey » Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:37 pm

I was wondering when there'd be a follow up to, P/2010 A2; another main belt comet.

Wow, that looks a lot different from when it was first noticed about three weeks prior to the Hubble images:
Image

They said, when it was first discovered, there was another asteroid pacing the cometary one and I wondered if it might be a binary pair. Could we be seeing the results of the other one going cometary too, and now it's a binary comet with some charge exchange happening between the two of them? It just happens that Mars and Earth were in alignment, opposition, on the 29th (the same day as the image from Hubble) and Mars was at Perihelion on the 27th. The orbit of this main belt comet is pretty much in the lineup too, and it's discovery coincided with an alignment of Mercury and Earth around that time. :shock:

Coincidence? Or collission? hmmmm
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"
Nikola Tesla
User avatar
solrey
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Hubble Sees Suspected Asteroid Collision

Unread postby Frost » Tue Feb 02, 2010 9:38 pm

They say there is no evidence of gas from this, but there is from comets. What is this evidence that is lacking?
Frost
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:18 am

Re: Hubble Sees Suspected Asteroid Collision

Unread postby RayTomes » Tue Feb 02, 2010 9:45 pm

Wow!

The tail is of course the result of the solar wind. The brighter arc to the right looks like material from this asteroid. There is also a fainter arc down to the left which might be the material from the other asteroid. More easily seen in this full image: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010/images/asteroidcollision/fullcontext.jpg
Ray Tomes
Web site : YouTube : Blog
User avatar
RayTomes
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:22 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Hubble Sees Suspected Asteroid Collision

Unread postby solrey » Tue Feb 02, 2010 10:49 pm

Frost, it seems that there are reasons why "gas" doesn't usually show up in MBC spectrographs:

Main Belt Comets
While MBCs are clearly out-gassing, they are faint targets and unlikely to yield compositional information even to spectrographs on the world’s largest telescopes (e.g. Keck 10-m on Mauna Kea). Key insight relevant to gaining an understanding of the role these objects may have played in the origin of volatiles on the terrestrial planets will be best made with in-situ exploration.


Physical Properties of Main-Belt Comet P/Garradd
[..]
Deep spectra show no evidence for gas emission lines and set a limit to the gas production near 1.5 kg per sec.
[..]


Whether P/2010 A2 is from a collision or not, based on previous observations of MBC's, a lack of spectrographic evidence for outgassing is to be expected. In that regard, I'm not sure why the NASA article would state the following:
An impact origin also would be consistent with the absence of gas in spectra recorded using ground-based telescopes.

I think NASA's right hand has no idea what the left hand is up to most of the time.

P/2010 A2 looks a lot like a drawing of comet C/1881 K1.
Image
click on image for expanded view
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"
Nikola Tesla
User avatar
solrey
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Hubble Sees Suspected Asteroid Collision

Unread postby Osmosis » Wed Feb 03, 2010 12:58 am

Another "Jellyfish" manifesting itself?
Osmosis
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: San Jose, California


Re: Mysterious filamentary X-shape trailing asteroid

Unread postby Ion01 » Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:23 am

One thing I find interesting is that the article claims
Astronomers have long thought that the asteroid belt is being ground down through collisions
but they also claim that planets form when a bunch of rocks (asteroids) collide and clump together through gravity until so many colide and clump together that you get a planet. So do asteroid collisions collide to form planets or do they collide grind down into belts.......it can't be both.
User avatar
Ion01
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:37 am

Re: Hubble Sees Suspected Asteroid Collision

Unread postby StevenJay » Wed Feb 03, 2010 8:23 am

Ion01 wrote:So do asteroid collisions collide to form planets or do they collide grind down into belts.......it can't be both.

Sure it can. Just keep eyes tightly closed, clutch handsomely-framed academic degree firmly in both hands, click heels together three times, and repeat over and over: "It CAN be both! It CAN be both! It CAN be both!" :)
It's all about perception.
User avatar
StevenJay
 
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 11:02 am
Location: Northern Arizona

Re: Hubble Sees Suspected Asteroid Collision

Unread postby trevbus » Wed Feb 03, 2010 12:34 pm

Funny, I actually searched the forum for the URLs http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010 ... ?list80669 and http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010 ... lision.htm before I posted so I wouldn't be duplicating any other posts but nothing showed up.....???
trevbus
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:50 am

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron