[meteorite-list] 2003 EL61, IN PERSON

[E.P. Grondine]

Hi Doug, list

Planet pairs? Interesting to consider: how about
Mars/Artemis.  At least we have plenty of samples to
examine.

good hunting,
Ed

--- MexicoDoug <MexicoDoug at aim.com> wrote:


> Alternate title of this post for the interested:

> How 2 Molecules Initiated the Solar System, Simple

> Assumptions behind the

> Accretion Disk by a "Layman", The Folly of the

> "Orbit Clearing" Criterion,

> and IAU Disconnect from the Genesis Starting with

> the Pre-Solar Nebula

> (opinion), and why Jupiter is so Special by Random

> Occurrence

> 

> Hello Sterling,

> 

> Glad to see you back on the planet debate and not

> being Brown's deputy cyber

> sleuth!

> 

> This time I really enjoyed your comments, and agree

> heartily with you and

> your critical comment summing up the damaging

> attitude in some astronomy

> circles & quoting you:

> 

> '"NOW, we know it all." It's only been 14 years

> since we found the first

> "TNO." Again, largely due to a substantial

> improvement in the technology. We

> are just now having our eyes opened wider, again. I

> don't the process is

> over. I think it's just starting.'

> 

> No math from me this time since I think these are

> stochastic collision

> processes and not definite closed form solutions, so

> they need completely

> different statistic mechanics type approach.

> 

> Let me add my "spin" on your post, from a layman's

> point of view who is too

> lazy to study what's really beyond this.  You

> commented: "IAU dump Mercury

> from the Honor Roll of Planets and assign it to

> Brian Marsden's care, if

> that happens...The Nine, no, Eight, no, SEVEN

> planets of The Solar System!"

> 

> I'd naively say if we must take this route it might

> be worthwhile

> considering SIX planets after dumping Mercury and

> Mars.  It is pretty clear

> to me from a clean dynamical view that it be want to

> get prissy on the

> planets, that something in the dynamical formation

> favors pairs, i.e., twins

> of planets in a stable configuration.  So you get

> the Venus/Earth pair, then

> the Jupiter/Saturn pair, and finally the

> Uranus/Neptune pair.

> Venus is 81% Earth's mass

> Jupiter is 330% Saturn's mass

> Uranus is 82% Neptune's mass

> 

> I won't talk further about the "pairs" as I am not

> sure I can back it with

> standard science.  Continuing, the inner planet

> should be smaller since it

> has less of a ring to clear out.  That fails with

> Jupiter.

> 

> Jupiter is an anomaly, but in statistical problems

> this is not really at

> issue since it just happened in a continuum of

> possibilities.  Mars and all

> the asteroids in the main belt, and possibly

> including Terra's original Moon

> impactor probably would have been another planetary

> pair, between Earth and

> Jupiter, that principally all got eaten by Jupiter

> because of a few chance

> occurrences a few billion years ago that just as

> well could have left a

> planet in the asteroid belt - a classic science

> fiction type scenario that

> you go in a time machine and toss one small

> meteoroid out 4.4 billion years

> ago and the Solar System, like a universe of dominos

> falls out in a

> different way.  Really - this could lead up to one

> chance collision in that

> zone that sent more material to Jupiter.  I think

> logic works here a little:

> If everything formed out of the presolar nebula -

> why the Dickens is Jupiter

> so big?  It was all a relatively uniform nebula

> supposedly and then

> something happened to make Jupiter snowball.  No

> preconceptions allowed!

> Probably a simple accident and no fancy

> proto-photosphere radius crazy

> explanation.  That leaves Mars an asteroid as much

> as Ceres.  If this is

> hard to believe, just look at Sterling's logic of

> "clearing orbits" which is

> currently in vogue.  Mar's got a much bigger hunk

> than earth yet is a

> shrimpy size.  Totally out of wack!  All that

> material in that little space

> around the Sun that purportedly made Venus and

> Earth, and then you need to

> go all the way to Jupiter to find anything of

> significant mass?  As a layman

> on this issue, here's where I think the current

> folks in IAU voting for the

> "forever and ever solution" Jay Pasachoff so

> melancholically stated have

> fallen flat on their faces.  Grinding out big models

> and complex mathematics

> doesn't even serve up doo-doo if you don't start

> from first principles - and

> I think this is part of what is lacking in the

> current planet problem and at

> the heart of the annoyance of the whole thing.

> 

> So truly, Mars and Ceres are the best candidates to

> be dwarf planets based

> on a simple density argument.  Mars should be, for

> argument sake 82% the

> size of Ceres and they should both be quite a lot

> larger than Earth from a

> Aristotelian harmony in prediction.

> 

> The fact that Ceres was named a dwarf planet, but

> Mars not, can only mean to

> me that a bright Mars in Earth's sky makes it a

> planet.  If Ceres were twice

> the size (but smaller than Pluto), it would be a

> Planet no matter how much

> rubble circulated with it.  How could one possibly

> say no, with Jupiter in

> its shadow, a monster by random processes, calling

> the gravitational shots?

> 

> So we get to Pluto.  Too small, in orbital

> resonance, too inclined, not

> clearing it's zone (BS), too cold, too far, whatever

> chance variable you

> like.  Really we need to again go back to first

> principals for the layman.

> It's round, its accreted, its in a stable orbit, and

> it probably has some

> sort of differentiation - but no one really knows

> exactly what (We will

> check that with New Horizons, though, so what's the

> haste, oh, right Mike

> Brown et al need to name their objects so screw it

> Pluto's not a planet, now

> we don't have to deal with the nature of the Solar

> System before we

> recognize the new discoveries).

> 

> Let's go back to the formation of the Solar System

> from it's postulated

> pre-solar nebula.  First, review what happened

> according to popular belief

> backed up from direct observations of other stellar

> nurseries around the

> galaxy.  There was a dark cloud of matter. 

> Something disturbed it and drops

> coalesced like rain...in space...and gravitational

> attraction made sure a

> gravitational storm was to come.  Wherever this

> seeding first occurred in

> the nebula, that tiny imperfection, those two

> molecules that first stuck

> together - they determined the center of the Sun and

> everything we

> know...that's where gravitational condensation first

> took off.

> 

> A huge gaseous proto-Sun was formed that was less

> dense than the lightest

> super giant.  Slowly at first it formed a nicely

> gravitational spherical

> bubble, first enlarging  until it reached the

> threshold to recede faster

> than it grew.  That's natural, as mass would grow as

> a cube,

> but...attraction only as a square.  The compression

> began.  As more and more

> coalesced, the gravity became stronger and stronger,

> and matter from the

> center to Neptune or thereabout heated up greatly

> and started spinning as it

> contracted.  Then we are to believe with

> probability, the spinning got

> faster and faster as it shrunk more and more. 

> Suddenly the pressure was so

> great and the radiating energy not enough that

> nuclear fusion 'ignited' as

> things got so dizzying that this spin oddly created

> a plane and perhaps spit

> material out of the system through the spin axis. 

> The centrifugal force of

> spin so great that some mass stayed along the

> equatorial arc and that formed

> what we call the accretion disk.

> 

> Just a few questions I can think barely a drop in

> the bucket for a

> beginning...the less altered material in the outer

> reaches is spinning and

> revolving as a result, is condensed, of course not

> as heated, and not having

> as much orbital energy from this centrifugal event

> as distance increases.

> Was it spinning with the core of the Sun?  Yes most

> probably.  Being further

> out it was a little cooler.  But the fact that it is

> somewhat disk or

> doughnut shaped goes a long way in proving that it

> was part of the dizzying

> formation.  Some things out of plane?  Fine!  What's

> the big deal?  Why does

> a planet have to have been brought in line?  Why

> does the definition need to

> be re-written - planets can only be produced by the

> Sun's waistline?  Why do

> we want to insist on that?  How do we know they

> weren't in plane before,

> anyway?  With such weaker attractions to the Sun the

> interbody interactions

> are greater out there.  Collisions occurred,

> accretion occurred.  How else

> could such big "planets" be found out there.  It was

> real and it happened.

> 

> Remember Mars now.  Mars didn't clean out its orbit

> by itself.  Jupiter took

> most of it.  Just as it took most from "Ceres", and

> play havoc in that

> neighborhood.

> 

> In spite of all that, Mars formed and it's there. 

> Ceres formed and its

> there.  They are round and they go around the Sun

> within a tolerance, even.

> Pluto is no different.  The oddball in the Solar

> system isn't Pluto, it's

> not Mars, not Earth, it's Jupiter who chance

> snowballed to a 7 AU radial

> sucking ability.  An alien coming from afar would

> pick up on this right

> away.  The rest are a bunch of Christmas ornaments

> decorating Jupiter as it

> goes around the Sun.  Including Pluto, and Eris (we

> are told is nicely

> round).  What kind of argument could possibly

> discriminate against Pluto,

> Mercury, Mars...oh I see...someone has decided that

> round things going round

> the Sun are no big deal.  To be a "Planet" you need

> to have experienced

> reached X's arbitrary centrifugal force...the Solar

> System bodies that

> didn't are a different race of rocks.  A

> discriminated race by the IAU

> because the revolve far away and they are darker

> worlds.  Yeah - they

> associate with comets, is the common wisdom. 

> Haven't we found enough NEO's

> to realize how foolish this discrimination by

> association is?  Because in

> some Artist's conception they weren't illuminated as

> white hot as the dinner

> plate model of the accretion disk...How pathetic of

> an interpretation...at

> best a theoretical rewriting unnecessary,

> redefinition reprocessing

> revisionist idea on what a planet is.

> 

> Gravity-Rounded and revolving.  Asteroid?  No,

> that's a fragment of

> something bigger.  Planets have 100% crust, which

> can be an atmosphere to

> include the gas giants in the category, until

> someone goes and touches down

> on the solid parts..

> 

> Best wishes, Doug

> 

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

> From: "Sterling K. Webb"

> <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net>

> To: "Meteorite List"

> <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>

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

> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 2:41 AM

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

> 

> 

> Hi, Larry, EP, List,

> 

> 

>     What Larry is talking about is what's called the

> "rollover point."

> 

>     There are more big pieces than giant pieces,

> more

> little pieces than big pieces, more tiny pieces than

> little pieces, etc. It's the "Power Law."

> 

>     For those that love a little math (but not

> much), it's

> dN/dD ~ D^(-q). In pure theory, q is 3. If you make

> D (diameter) ten times bigger, then N (number) is

> 10^3

> or 1000 times bigger. A 100-meter ball has the

> volume

> of  1000 10-meter balls.

> 

>     If the mass is evenly distributed in every size

> range,

> then for every 100-meter ball, there ought to 1000

> 10-meter

> balls. But there's a hitch. When you get down to

> really

> tiny sizes, the "numbers" become gigantic,

> unrealistic.

> 

>     So the "law" fails for small sizes by predicting

> too

> damn many. It also fails for the really big sizes

> because,

> like Larry says, they are so good at gobbling up

> smaller

> stuff and smashing up the rest. In addition, the

> presence

> of large objects strongly affects the orbits of

> little stuff,

> pumping them up in eccentricity and inclination

> until

> they're ejected.  So, it fails at both ends: not so

> many

> small pieces, fewer medium pieces, and fewer but

> bigger

> pieces at the top end -- that's what occurs in

> reality.

> How do we correct for it?

> 

>     Well, the "turnover point" is the size where the

> numbers

> of little pieces go down dramatically because of the

> "demolition derby" and ejection. You just don't

> apply

> the "power law" down there. You chop the curve off.

> To correct on the big end, you change the

> coefficient "q"

> to steepen the curve, which makes fewer but bigger

> pieces.

> There's even a formula that relates the two factors.

> Way

> back when (for me, the 1960's), somebody whose name

> I can't remember now, elegantly proved that in an

> accreted

> disc of objects, the correct coefficient was 3.5

> instead of

> 3.0 if you had selected the "rollover point" by his

> formula.

> And, it seems to work most places where accretion

> has

> run its course completely (the local neighborhood).

> It

> doesn't work for the Asteroid Belt; it never

> accreted.

> 

>     The folks that theorize that the Kuiper Belt is

> "mass-poor"

> say that for the Kuiper Belt, the correct

> coefficient is 4.0, or

> maybe 4.5 (because that produces a depleted Kuiper

> Belt

> with no tiny little pieces and a very limited number

> of big

> ones, just like their theory predicts -- what a

> coincidence!)

> They are saying that the Kuiper Belt is

> "over-accreted."

> 

>     The X-ray occultation result, however, can be

> matched

> to various "power law" curves and it fits best with

> much

> lower "q" coefficients with a lower "rollover

> point." This,

> if true (I'm being so diplomatic here, since I

> obviously

> think it is), suggests that the Kuiper Belt is

> instead actually

> incompletely accreted, which is just what logic of

> geometry

> suggests (as in my "ballroom" analogy).

> 

>     The problem is also compounded with another:

> should

> these "extended disc" objects be considered part of

> the

> Kuiper Belt accretion zone (completely accreted or

> not),

> or are they a first glimpse of something totally new

> and

> only partially discovered? As I said, the inner edge

> of

> an Outer Outer System? Does our Sun have a "warped"

> disc system?

> 

>     For thousands of years, up until 1781, the solar

> system

> ended at Saturn. The thought of looking for more of

> it

> never occured to anybody. When Herschel discovered

> Uranus, he wasn't looking for planets. It happened

> entirely

> because of a techological advance: the telescope. In

> 150

> more years, the solar system stretched all the way

> to Pluto.

> After that excitement, planet hunting became a joke

> again.

> Why do human beings always settle back and say,

> "NOW,

> we know it all." It's only been 14 years since we

> found the

> first "TNO." Again, largely due to a substantial

> improvement

> in the technology. We are just now having our eyes

> opened

> wider, again. I don't the process is over. I think

> it's just

> starting.

> 

>     One can be sure that if anybody finds something

> beyond

> Neptune that's bigger than Mercury, the whole planet

> debate

> will boil up like crazy. I have no doubt the

> dynamicists will

> demand that the IAU dump Mercury from the Honor Roll

> of

> Planets and assign it to Brian Marsden's care, if

> that happens...

> The Nine, no, Eight, no, SEVEN planets of The Solar

> System!

> 

> 

> Sterling K. Webb

> 

> ______________________________________________

> 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