LOL!!!Sparky wrote:Where's the gravity effect. Pieces floating off! There should be a accretion to all asteroids...

LOL!!!Sparky wrote:Where's the gravity effect. Pieces floating off! There should be a accretion to all asteroids...
"Breakup may be due to a rotationally induced structural failure of the precursor body."--
Yes that's exactly what I'm saying; you've pointed out another way of saying it. The statement of theirs says virtually nothing in actuality. It offers no explanation or cause. It's like they said "With the man observed on fire he was clearly burning." And they stop with that. Nothing else is offered for discussion.Sparky wrote:"Breakup may be due to a rotationally induced structural failure of the precursor body."--![]()
If a little bit of rotation can tear it apart, what are they thinking to arrive at that?
The asteroid must be structurally weak, and some force caused the rotation to exceed that structural limit. If it is structurally weak,,, such as a pile of gravel, then how has it been held together til now? And if it is cohesive enough to hold together, what force would set it to spinning without breaking it. This explanation produces more questions than it answers.
They do provide a possible explanation: YORP torque, an effect of irregular thermal radiation. This could plausibly spin up an asteroid over the course of millions of years, however weak the forces holding it together.Sparky wrote:"Breakup may be due to a rotationally induced structural failure of the precursor body."--![]()
If a little bit of rotation can tear it apart, what are they thinking to arrive at that?
The asteroid must be structurally weak, and some force caused the rotation to exceed that structural limit. If it is structurally weak,,, such as a pile of gravel, then how has it been held together til now? And if it is cohesive enough to hold together, what force would set it to spinning without breaking it. This explanation produces more questions than it answers.
I hadn't seen the below article until today, but the YORP idea is highly specious of an explanation when reading the main points of the press release below. On the surface, the idea does sound plausible until you follow their train of logic as the report unfolds:Trouserman wrote: They do provide a possible explanation: YORP torque, an effect of irregular thermal radiation. This could plausibly spin up an asteroid over the course of millions of years, however weak the forces holding it together.
Have you checked on the asteroid/debris trajectory? Could the sun boost this back toward it's origin?Most will eventually plunge into the sun,
Greetings, Jatslo. Welcome to thunderbolts. Interesting first post.Jatslo wrote:...a collision with anti-matter would have certainly released enough energy to break apart and asteroid. The balance between certain matter and antimatter particles tipped toward normal matter by just 1 percent during the particle-smashing run at the 4-mile Tevatron collider at the Department of Energy's Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) in Batavia, Ill. It's highly unlikely that the 1 percent came about due to chance, according to statistical analysis, researchers said.
When matter and antimatter meet, they self-destruct - "annihilate"; KAPOW!!! So consider that the universe is made of primarily or mostly hydrogen. The H bomb uses uranium or plutonium to create a massive explosion (using fission) that creates enough heat to force hydrogen to fuse to other hydrogen, forming helium, which gives an even bigger explosion. (By hydrogen, I mean hyrdogen or one of its isoptopes, deuterium or tritium).
Annihilation, oh my!
I understand you doubt this explanation. I'm not married to it, myself. My objection is to characterizing the paper as offering no explanation for an increasing spin rate. 1. As this process is extremely slow, and will only cause breakup of structurally weak objects, it's not clear to me that it should be commonly seen nearly everywhere. 2. The paper does not propose that this is the explanation for all break-ups, but may be the explanation in this particular case. I would be interested in reading about examples of symmetrical objects breaking up in a similar fashion, if you have them. 3. I'm not familiar with laboratory results on YORP. Theoretically, it is a direct consequence of blackbody radiation, momentum carried by light, and conservation of momentum, applied to an irregular body with nonuniform heating. If you consider YORP quasi-factual, I wonder which of these you doubt. (Or perhaps you don't trust the mathematics or think there is some undiscovered counterbalancing effect.)viscount aero wrote: Although YORP torque is not entirely unbelievable, it feels too "reaching" of an idea as it does not take into account 1. the trillions of oblong asteroids that are not breaking apart, phenomena that should be commonly seen nearly everywhere were this truly the cause 2. symmetrical objects that break apart 3. laboratory YORP torque statistics specific to rocky bodies in zero g. It would have been more elegant of an explanation to just say "the rock simply fell apart as it weakened over time"--that would have been more believable than invoking a quasi-factual YORP torque theory for this body
viscount aero wrote: Although YORP torque is not entirely unbelievable, it feels too "reaching" of an idea as it does not take into account ...
I don't doubt the mathematics involved in YORP. For example, I don't doubt the mathematics specifically describing the expansion metric. I simply doubt in the belief that there is cosmological expansion as described by the metric. With YORP, I think the people who invented it are quite intelligent and the math is sound. But is it describing something that actually happens?Trouserman wrote:I understand you doubt this explanation. I'm not married to it, myself. My objection is to characterizing the paper as offering no explanation for an increasing spin rate. 1. As this process is extremely slow, and will only cause breakup of structurally weak objects, it's not clear to me that it should be commonly seen nearly everywhere. 2. The paper does not propose that this is the explanation for all break-ups, but may be the explanation in this particular case. I would be interested in reading about examples of symmetrical objects breaking up in a similar fashion, if you have them. 3. I'm not familiar with laboratory results on YORP. Theoretically, it is a direct consequence of blackbody radiation, momentum carried by light, and conservation of momentum, applied to an irregular body with nonuniform heating. If you consider YORP quasi-factual, I wonder which of these you doubt. (Or perhaps you don't trust the mathematics or think there is some undiscovered counterbalancing effect.)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests