Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Mainstream Scientists Track "Mythology" For The First Time



Scientific American: Rock Science: First Meteorites Recovered on Earth from an Asteroid Tracked in Space.

Last October, asteroid monitors at the Catalina Sky Survey at the University of Arizona in Tucson picked up a small object on an immediate collision course with Earth. The asteroid was too small to present a real threat—just a few meters across, it stood little chance of penetrating the atmosphere intact. Indeed, it exploded in a stratospheric fireball over northern Sudan less than 24 hours later—an event witnessed by people on the ground as well as the pilots of a KLM airliner—conforming well to astronomer's predictions for its trajectory.

But the asteroid, dubbed 2008 TC3, was nonetheless a momentous discovery: Among the countless small objects that strike Earth's atmosphere every year, none had ever been detected and tracked before it impacted. Now the Sudan bolide has yielded yet another first: Researchers report in Nature today that they have recovered 47 meteorites from the object in the Nubian Desert. And lead author Peter Jenniskens, a meteor astronomer at the SETI Institute in Mountain View, Calif., says that another search completed earlier this month, after the paper was submitted, has upped the meteorite count to about 280.

32 comments:

Anaconda said...

Question: Did the meteorite explode because of mechanical friction and heat or did it explode because of an overload of electrical stress?

If the explosion was actually sighted, what characteristics were observed just prior to and at the moment of explosion?

Quantum_Flux said...

It went from the skies over Tuscon to the stratosphere over Sudan in less than 24 hours and exploded into 280 pieces which landed in and around the Nubian Desert.

Jeffery Keown said...

...conforming well to astronomer's predictions for its trajectory.

And what do you think they used to track this rock? Bullfinch?

No. They used gravitational math. Why? Because it works. Because it's real. There is no electrical force that makes my pencil fall to the floor when I knock it aside with my hand.

If there is, please explain it.

OilIsMastery said...

Jeffery,

"And what do you think they used to track this rock?"

Observational equipment and computers that were designed by electrical engineers.

"They used gravitational math."

They did? They used math to track it or they used eyes?

"Because it's real."

F = G x m^1m^2/r2 is only real in Meinong's Jungle.

"There is no electrical force that makes my pencil fall to the floor when I knock it aside with my hand."

An electron has a negative electric charge. Opposite electric charges attract and like electric charges repel.

See here.

Jeffery Keown said...

Velikovsky again?

The man was a psychologist, not a physicist.

Take this bit of drivel:

If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary).

Nonsense.

Jeffery Keown said...

EM certainly is important at smaller scales, but it's not everything.

Large scale interactions are dominated by gravity.

OilIsMastery said...

Jeffery,

"Nonsense."

Care to provide logic or citation? Or is this just an emotional religious response?

OilIsMastery said...

Jeffery,

"Large scale interactions are dominated by gravity."

"...Inertia is exclusively of electromagnetic origin...." -- Henri Poincaré, physicist, 1908

Anaconda said...

@ Jeffery keown:

"Bullfinch"??? Ha!

Look, OilIsMastery likes to pull your chain. Gravity exists...OIM questions the geometric explanation of gravity. I, myself, favor an intrinsic explanation, not some "space-curvature" where proponents use steel balls on a rubber sheet, as in, they use "gravity" to explain gravity. For what after all causes the steel ball to stretch the rubber sheet downward?

Jeffery, it's an example of circular reasoning -- that's as close to "space-curvature" as we really get, "circular reasoning".

My question, which you apparently failed to properly comprehend, had to do with the electrical charge potential of the meteorite in comparison to the Earth's charge potential (the charge differential between the two bodies), i.e., when two bodies come into contact (the meteorite in the Earth's atmosphere) there is a process of charge equilibrium (equalizing the electric charge of the two bodies) which results in an electrical discharge from the smaller body, i.e., the meteorite's tail and in this case its explosion.

Can you follow this discussion or can all you say is "bullfinch"?

Jeffery Keown said...

@Anaconda,
Sorry if I failed to detect the question being aimed at me. As before, I'm still focussing on the crazy one.

Friction is a known property of material falling into the atmosphere, such as a shuttle re-entry.

I think there's some wasted effort in looking for EM solutions where simple mechanical ones exist.

Unless... one is looking very deep into the problem of friction itself. Matter is held together by magnetic fields, so friction might be a very small-scale electrical issue, but does that get you anywhere?

Anaconda said...

ADDRESSING THE IMPLICATION OF THE ARTICLE

One meteorite doesn't make a catastrophe, but what if you had a consistent large stream of meteorites showering into the Earth's atmosphere?

What would happen?

Well, my, above, explanation would happen hundreds of times (thousands of times?), and each time the atmosphere would be slightly reduced in its electrical potential, repeat this process enough times and soon the overall electrical potential of the atmosphere would be reduced (through the process of neutralizing the electrical differential of all the meteorites).

And what would be the result of reducing the electrical potential of the Earth's atmosphere?

The ionosphere would be reduced in height from the surface of the Earth, in other words the distance between the Earth's surface and the ionosphere would be reduced.

See link for schematic Earth's ionosphere.

The ionosphere is part of the Earth's shield from the icy cold of space. Without the ionosphere the Earth's surface would be very cold, and even with a lowered ionosphere the temperature of the atmosphere would be colder and weather patterns more intense.

And in fact, there are recorded periods in history when meteorite activity was increased which also saw colder intensified weather patterns.

See the Korean Annals.

To end on a positive note, once the meteorite shower ceases the electrical potential of the atmosphere would build back up and normal weather patterns would resume.

Still the study of meteorites and their impact on the Earth's climate both in the historical record and in the future can lead to a better understanding, so, therefore should be pursued.

And there is an interdisciplinary academic group, Holocene Impact Working Group, studying the role of meteorite impacts in a geological/historical framework.

Anaconda said...

@ Jeffery Keown:

One of the regrettable outcomes of rivalry and dispute is that each side to a question tends to over-emphasize their theories and the elements that make up their theory.

In the Electric Universe versus gravity "only" model dispute each side thrusts forward their "take" to the exclusion of the other.

In my way of thinking, this is counter-productive when the pursuit and investigation of outstanding questions could be much more collaborative and cooperative and reach more thorough results.

Both gravity and electromagnetism have a role in the dynamics of the Universe, the standing question is what are the respective roles for these two fundamental forces?

And, here, again, with issues involving meteorites one must remember the same dynamic applies.

Of course, friction and thermal energy play a role, you are right to point that out. But since that isn't really in dispute, rather the role of electromagnetism is in dispute, the question seems to be about getting a handle on how significant the electrical charge differential hypothesis actually is.

Your position is reasonable in terms of conventional thinking, but is it not also reasonable to investigate the role that electromagnetism also could play in meteorite impacts?

It seems that too many are willing to preemptively rule out electromagnetism as a factor without even investigation.

Is that the scientific mind-set we want to encourage?

Tom Marking said...

@Anaconda "Question: Did the meteorite explode because of mechanical friction and heat or did it explode because of an overload of electrical stress?"

If you pump electrons into the interior of a 1-meter sized rock at what point does it explode? Or does it? Maybe the electrons move to the surface and then exit the rock into the atmosphere? I'm not sure.

Considering electrical potential difference between astronomical objects, when Neil Armstrong stepped on the moon did he recieve an electrical shock due to differing electrical potential between the earth and the moon?

When Viking 1, Viking 2, and all the other spaceprobes landed on other planets was any electrical arcing detected? Were any electrical instruments damaged due to this difference in electrical potential?

So perhaps there might be some asteroids and meteoroids that have an accumulation of charge which might be detectible, but over all, it seems like the moon, Mars, Venus, and Titan don't seem to have a drastically different electrical potential than the spacecraft we send there.

Quantum_Flux said...

They might have used the same math that they use for tracking the trajectory of the space shuttle upon atmospheric reentry "conforming well to astronomer's predictions for its trajectory."

How does the astronomer predict things without computing forces on objects?

Jeffery Keown said...

QF

As I suggested, Bullfinch.

Also, trepanning and reading the entrails of aquatic mammals, mostly otters, though a beaver is good for predicting sun-grazing comets, Type II Supernovas and GRBs of all sorts.

Actually, they use tried and true mathematical models constructed from Newton's laws, Kepler's refinements and a dozen other folks. There's no thaumaturgy, no occultism or magic 8-balls involved. I hear a number of them own Player's Handbooks, however.

Quantum_Flux said...

lol....Lord Kelvin wasn't a gravitational physicist either.

OilIsMastery said...

QF,

"lol....Lord Kelvin wasn't a gravitational physicist either."

1) Are you saying that Lord Kelvin didn't believe in gravitation?

2) Why didn't he believe in gravitation?

3) Why did he say heavier than air flying machines are impossible if he didn't believe in gravitation?

Quantum_Flux said...

(1) Lord Kelvin was an idiot. He believed in gravitation, but I don't think he understood anything about birds or how heavy (actually, how dense) they were. A good sized bird weighs about 9 ounces.

"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible." -- Lord Kelvin

(2) I never said he didn't believe in gravitation, I said he wasn't a gravitational physicist.

(3) Once again, heavier than air flying machines are possible. There certainly were birds in his time. There certainly are planes in our time. Lord Kelvin was still an idiot though, regardless of what he said about gravitation or flight.

Louis Hissink said...

Anaconda

The height at which it exploded would be the clue.

Louis Hissink said...

There is a general misinterpretation that EU theory rejects gravity - it doesn't and never has. Nor does EU theory propose to replace gravity with another force.

Electrical forces are IN ADDITION, and dominate when they operate.

Quantum_Flux said...

Anaconda: Question: Did the meteorite explode because of mechanical friction and heat or did it explode because of an overload of electrical stress?

QF: What mechanism would cause electrical charges to build up in a meteor? Static electricity due to friction? I have my doubts about that one, but now that I think about it....

It may be possible that due to gas dissosiation due to the extreme heats of the atmospheric reentry, I mean that does produce plasma but in no way can plasma be considered to be static....not enough information and I can't think of a scenario where charge would build up rapidly to blow the meteor like a capacitor becuase I keep thinking that there would be a rapid discharge unless it hits some sort of external electrical disturbance in the stratosphere. Was it hit by a lightning bolt? Even then, I'd think the meteor would act as a faraday cage as airplanes do.

Quantum_Flux said...

Well, I'll be damned!

Quantum_Flux said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quantum_Flux said...

Louis: There is a general misinterpretation that EU theory rejects gravity - it doesn't and never has. Nor does EU theory propose to replace gravity with another force.

Electrical forces are IN ADDITION, and dominate when they operate.


QF: Well, I'm glad you understand this, and I think Anaconda might too. It still is not efficient that OIM either doesn't understand it or just pretends to not understand. Perhaps he thinks it's funny to deny gravitation, but it really is more of an annoyance. OIM might as well be a String Theorist or something. People's word is their bond, and it seriously discredits the character of their integrity to keep asserting something doesn't exist when it clearly has objective proof that it does exist. And yes, calling gravitation a "myth" means the same thing as saying that it does not exist.

Quantum_Flux said...

Another annoyance is the incessant quoting of stupid people throughout history. Especially Ima.Kunt, hey, just because Kunt tells you that it's true only because you believe it to be, doesn't make it true. Truth is not dependent on beliefs, truth is dependent on what is objectively true and demonstrable.

Louis Hissink said...

QF:

The theoretical work being done suggests that gravity is actually EM in character, and remember Newton knew nothing of electricity in his day.

Gravity and all its derivations to explain astronomical observations is the means when you don't know anything about electricity or plasma. Astronomers are taught to think that way - and thinking patters are as habitual as anything else - so you could say that dogma is a fossilised mode of thinking. Often habits become subconsious and thinking is one such habit that often reaches this state.

Breakthroughs in science happen on a scientist in one area has to deal with the practicalities of another science and sees a connection linking the two disciplines.

In my case as a diamond geologist I always had a problem with the physical mechanism of kimberlite eruptions - their craters or "vents" are steep sided (80 degrees) circular vents with smooth walls, and no thermal effects. We intuitively knew these structures were created by a vortex mechanism tunnelling downwards into the earth but could not work out how to power kimberlite magma to do that.

My professional association with exploration geophysics and using EM techniques in exploration exposed me to electrical theories and EU theory is an extension of that science.

A Russian paper describing near earth electrical effects from a passing asteroid or meteorite caused the "aha" light bulb to gop on.

I now know that what powers the kimberlite diatreme mechanism is a Birkeland current that forms a vortex that electrically machines the diatreme into the earth, at the same time allowing the supercharged CO2 fluidised kimberlite magma to erupt.

And these global kimberlite eruptions are linked to mass species extinctions and climate catastrophes, (if you ignore the standard geological time scale).

But publishing such stuff at present is not on - maybe in 10 years time when minds are more open to electrical effects in the earth system.

Quantum_Flux said...

Okay, I'll bite perhaps. What's it take to make a flying car? .... I'll have to work on that :)

Anaconda said...

@ Quantum_Flux:

QF states: "I think Anaconda might [understand there is gravity] too."

What statement have I made here or anywhere which would make you think I wouldn't believe in gravity.

What? That I don't buy into the "big bang" or "black hole" hypothesis?

Quantum_Flux said...

Statements statements. I just don't care anymore.

Anaconda said...

@ Quantum_Flux:

QF: "Statements statements. I just don't care anymore."

I understand, you put your faith (blind?) in pure mathematical equations.

Which even though internally consistent, may have little to do with objective reality. Mathematical equations are no more accurate than the observations & measurements they are based on, or not based on as the case may be.

A "gravitaional singularity" of infinite density? We've been over that before, "infinite" can't be quantified by its very definition. Lots of luck.

Anaconda said...

WHAT IS THE KEY TO DIFFERENCES IN ELECTRICAL POTENTIAL OF "BODIES" IN THE SOLAR STSTEM?

Very simple, does the "body" have a highly elliptical orbit that takes it in a path that winds its way from close to the Sun to the outer reaches of the solar system?

If so, as the "body" returns from the deeper reaches of the solar system expect it to have a high electical potential compared to "bodies" in the inner reaches of the solar system.

Meteorites that enter the Earth's atmosphere are likely to have electric potential difference from the atmosphere, itself.

Tom Marking said...

@Anaconda "Very simple, does the "body" have a highly elliptical orbit that takes it in a path that winds its way from close to the Sun to the outer reaches of the solar system?"

Notice, always the lack of quantification with statements by Anaconda. How elliptical does the orbit have to be to show this electrical potential difference? Will Mercury's orbit (eccentricity = 20%) suffice or do you need eccentricities similar to cometary orbits (eccentricity > 75%)? If we send a spacecraft to land on Mercury will it be zapped by an electrical current when it lands? My prediction is no. What is yours?