[meteorite-list] 2003 EL61, IN PERSON

[E.P. Grondine]

Hi Sterling - 

With Chiemgau under "challenge", the only evidence of
heavy elements in comets that I can easily point to is
the increased iridium at the KT boundary.

I can't really comment on metals in carbonaceous
chondrite meteorites, and right now I would be most
interested in data from others on these.

good hunting,
Ed

--- "Sterling K. Webb" <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net>
wrote:


> Hi, E.P., List,

> 

> 

> > Yes, cometesimals  - about 75 meters or so, which

> > themselves can then accrete chaotically over time,

> 

>     Yes, but nobody thinks cometesimals contain

> enough iron-nickel to form a differentiated body.

> They may, but nobody believes it...

> 

>     When I expressed a doubt about accreting big

> bodies out in the Kuiper Belt to a professional, he

> said, "What else could it be?" Good question.

> 

> > ...over time...

> 

>     The problem is elbow room and simple geometry.

> How much elbow room do you have? Accretion

> occurs because things bump into each other, because

> the space is crowded, like a NY cocktail party.

> 

>     Clearly, the Earth accreted. If it sucked up

> every

> rock from 0.80 AU out to 1.30 AU, it was drawing

> on a "zone" with an area of about 0.80 "square

> AU's."

> (The area of a circle 1.3 AU in diameter minus the

> area of a circle 0.8 AU in diameter = "the Accretion

> Zone.") Yes, it was a volume, because it had

> thickness,

> but it was a flat disc.

> 

>     It was crowded. Rocks kept meeting rocks. It

> happened in a hurry -- blam, Blam, BLAM, all done.

> 10 million years? 30? 50? Opinions vary, but quick,

> all agree.

> 

>     Out in the Kuiper Belt, very narrowly defined as

> from 38 AU out to 48 AU, there's 1583 "square AU's"!

> That's almost 2000 times more room! Your odds of

> bumping into something are 2000 times smaller.

> 

>     Imagine you're in a ballroom with 3999 other

> people, all 4000 of you milling around in constant

> motion and blindfolded so you can't look where

> you're going: bump, Bump, BUMP.

> 

>     Now, imagine that you're in the SAME ballroom

> with one other person (just the two of you). What

> are the chances of you two (blindfolded and with

> ear plugs) colliding?

> 

>     Well, since your odds of meeting up are 2000

> times smaller, it's going to take 2000 times as long

> for it to happen. Hey, no problemo! If the Earth

> accretes in a snappy 10 million years, then objects

> in the Kuiper Belt will accrete in only... scribble,

> scribble... 20 Billion Years!

> 

>     No, wait! Does that sound wrong to you?

> You see the problem...

> 

>     Well, the theoretical dynamicists must have

> an answer, something we haven't thought of,

> right? They do indeed have solutions. What

> are they?

> 

>     Simple, just put 100 times more mass in the

> Kuiper Belt (or 200 times more or 500 times more)

> and it speeds things up to where bodies can accrete

> there in ONLY a billion years or less! Or more...

> 

>     Wow, the Kuiper Belt must be MASSIVE!

> Oh, no, they reply, the whole thing has less than

> 0.10 Earth masses for all objects big and small.

> All that mass is gone...

> 

>     I smell a problem. It took the inner solar

> system,

> where things accrete in a flash, 600 million years

> to

> clean up the leftovers (the Late Bombardment, you

> remember; it was a big hit). The same process in the

> Kuiper Belt? With 100 times the  mass, it will take

> 20 times as long (6 billion years). The leftovers

> should still be there. If not, where'd the mass go?

> 

>     There are lots of "mass-wasting" theories. I

> didn't

> invent that silly term; that's what they're called.

> 

>     Not to go on too long, the answer is: it got

> swept

> under the rug. There are numerous complicated and

> unlikely scenarios. Julio Fernandez and school push

> a theory in which Neptune, pumped up by a resonance

> with Saturn, spirals outward (while the other giants

> spiral inward), with Neptune pushing the KB in front

> of it, compressing it and making fast accretion

> happen,

> until Neptune finally stops with the KB on its

> doorstep,

> where Neptune can then spend billions of years

> perturbing the rest of the mass away, and leaving

> little total mass for the Kuiper Belt.

> 

>     Of course, they could just be WRONG about the

> mass-poor Kuiper Belt. Look a sharp, economical test

> of Kuiper Belt theory described in:

>

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7103/full/442640a.html

> The data had already been collected by NASA.

> (The full article is at:

>

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7103/full/nature04941.html)

>     They found perhaps 1000 times more mass than

> theory allows. So maybe the mass is still there?

> 

>     One prediction of theory is that the Kuiper Belt

> has

> a sharply cut-off outer edge, and that past that

> edge,

> there are no more TNO's all the way out to the Oort

> Cloud, a great deserted and empty zone, with a sign

> at 42 AU or 48 AU that says: "Now leaving the Solar

> System. No Gas Stations for 20,000 AU." In other

> words, there's nothing out there TO find.

> 

>     This, of course, is where all the bolts come

> loose

> and the wheels fall off! This is exactly where we

> are

> finding things. First called the "Scattered Disc"

> (on

> the assumption that Neptune tossed'em out there) and

> then the "Extended Scattered Disk," or the "Distant

> Detached Disc," we now have a slew of large

> interesting

> objects that Neptune could never have had anything

> to

> do with.

> 

>     Finding Sedna was kind of a last straw. Brown,

> who

> discovered it says, "Sedna shouldn't be there.

> There's

> no way to put Sedna where it is. It never comes

> close

> enough to be affected by the sun, but it never goes

> far

> enough away from the sun to be affected by other

> stars...

> Sedna is stuck, frozen in place; there's no way to

> move it,

> basically there's no way to put it there - unless it

> formed

> there. But it's in a very elliptical orbit like

> that. It simply

> can't be there. There's no possible way - except it

> is.

> So how, then?"

> 

>     Sedna has been "explained" as an Oort Cloud

> object,

> which tacitly moves the inner Oort Cloud boundary in

> from 20,000 AU to under 1000 AU and creates an "Oort

> Disc" in the bargain! Those Oortians are sneaky...

> They

> creep right up on you.

> 

>     Then some theoreticians have claimed that Sedna

> is the captured planet of another star. Kenyon at

> Harvard

> CfA: "If we find planets with orbital inclinations

> of more

> than 40°, it is almost certain that these are

> extrasolar

> planets formed in another solar system." Then, along

> comes ERIS, the former 2003 UB313, which meets that

> qualification. Extra-solar planet?

> 

> > ...it would be real nice to get some

> > good spectra of 2003 EL61 right now...

> 

>     Oh, for one lousy gritty gram of sample return,

> as

> there are only about 80 isotope assays any one of

> which

> could decide between material formed with Our Star

> or

> formed with Some Other Star!

> 

>     All these high inclination objects have also

> provided

> a big boost to the "Sun's Companion Star" theories

> we all remember so well, like Nemesis. It still has

> its

> backers, and they're all elated. Of course, what

> they

> don't tell you is that you don't need a brown dwarf

> star to perturb disc objects in inclination; all you

> need is an Earth mass object at 1200 AU. The Outer

> Outer System is waiting to be discovered... I think.

> 

>     Then, there's 2005 XR190, code name "Buffy." If

> Sedna is impossible, then "Buffy" is impossibility

> cubed!

> The size of Ceres, it's in a nice normal almost

> CIRCULAR

> orbit inclined at 45 degrees to the solar system at

> 52 to

> 62 AU's out, dynamically independent of any

> influence

> from ANY solar system objects and is equally

> impossible

> as a star capture. "Buffy" is "The Theory Slayer"!

> Poof!

> Your life's work is dust...

> 

>     That we are finding ANY high-inclination objects

> is

> a miracle. Astronomers are STILL just looking at the

> Ecliptic and nowhere else. A high-inclination object

> is

> near or in the Ecliptic plane for just 2% of its

> orbital

> travel, so for every one you find there, there are

> 49

> others you're MISSING, by not looking where they

> are!

> 

>     Duh!

> 

>     One of the best times ever is when Reality just

> flat

> outruns Theory and leaves it panting in the dust,

> don't

> you think?  I certainly do.

> 

>     Of course, another effect of this situation is

> that

> the Theory Machines all get their throttles cranked

> up

> to "Hyper Overdrive" and a lot of Theory Juice gets

> splattered all over the place. What we actually need

> is to let the Theory Machines cool down and collect

> more Reality

> 

> 

> Sterling K. Webb

>

----------------------------------------------------------

> ----- Original Message ----- 

> From: "E.P. Grondine" <epgrondine at yahoo.com>

> To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>

> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 9:23 AM

> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] 2003 EL61, IN PERSON

> 

> 

> > Hi Sterling, list -

> >

> > "but core-forming planetesimals all the way out in

> > Kuiper Belt?!"

> >

> > Yes, cometissimals  - about 75 meters or so, which

> > themselves can then accrete chaotically over time,

> > with the heavy elements always gravitationally

> > precipitating towards the center - the lighter

> > volatiles always on the outside - and you have

> > delivery to the surfaces of larger bodies -

> >

> > Given the problems this presents us for dealing

> with

> > cometary impactors, it would be real nice to get

> some

> > good spectra of 2003 EL61 right now, but as

> always,

> > this kind of study recieves a low priority from

> the

> > failed nuclear physicists who control the

> telescopes

> > and observing budgets -

> >

> > by the way, the 64 fragments of SW3 should be in

> the

> > Earth's vicinity in 2022, though I don't have any

> dead

> > on forecasts yet - as a matter of fact, I wonder

> where

> > they are, and how this is being handled, so if

> anyone

> > hears anything, please pass it on -

> >

> > good hunting,

> > Ed

> >

> >

> >

> 

> 

> ______________________________________________

> Meteorite-list mailing list

> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com

>

http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

> 



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com