Doug, did I miss something? You are aware about what Sterling surmised about
Carancas history from its composition? A rather unique history deduced from
hands on observation. Considering such a violent past unique consequences
are not impossible?
Excuse me for jumping in here with both feet [perhaps to be deposited into
mouth] but that's what I get for Skimming thru this thread.
Jerry Flaherty
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] New, long, Carancas article II
Sterling W. wrote:
"And by your next Post, you'd noticed the gigantic Fly in the Ointment
when you asked: "Why don't other stony meteorites with TKW's over a ton
do the same thing? In fact, there's a key word missing in that question:
"Why don't ALL other stony meteorites with TKW's over a ton do the same
thing?"
Hi Sterling,
Perhaps your basic assumption was right and we are seeing the start of the
invasion of the Monolith Monsters. I'll check with Professor Flanders and
see what he thinks...
I could care less whether the Schultz idea is correct or not for
Carancas - though all ideas need to be judged without bias to figure out
the answer there. It is much more interesting IMO to think about what
happens if a (semi)rubble-pile object entered the atmosphere. Rubble-pile
is one asteroid model that is accepted, so this is a refreshingly new idea
for me to yap about.
And this brings to mind the really exciting possibility that some models
of meteoric entry can be based on a liquidish and wave-like behavior of
the bolide, rather than a solid behavior. That is a very bold assumption
and will require Schultz and his supporters to get his act well
choreographed.
"In fact", there is no key word missing from my question. "Fact" is a
different animal from debate, and I hope you can keep this straight. So
to be more convincing kindly just give thanks when others are the
inspiration for your arguments.
On asking why we don't see this partial disintegration behavior on other
large impactors, I requested (mulled) some info to further clarify this
potential fatal flaw. However, the competing theories all have their
problems at the moment. Schultz's theory seems to address the problem of
fragmentation much better than an oriented stone that wasn't slowed down
enough by the time it his 10-15km altitude to have a soft landing and not
be shredded to bits as it smashed into the dense atmosphere at 3 km/s.
I do disagree with the words you've put into Occam's mouth on two counts.
First, you're decided that Occam's razor applies only positively to your
scenario of carefully specifying dimensions of the incoming object, rather
than just saying it fragments apart as current theory would usually
expect. I wouldn't immediately conclude either is less complexity. The
mass was found fragmented. How it got there is the challenge. If you
pre-suppose it fragmented upon impact and you don't have evidence to back
that up, you are on thin ice.
Second, in breathing life into William Occam's postulate you are relying
on an "authority" to keep the mind closed to the Schultz idea. There is
no authority. You can quote a monk or even God, if you want to do
faith-based science. Better, just stick to the evidence. Wild Bill
actually told me he was on the fence regarding Carancas, too.
I was very careful in my comments to say I am still on the fence regarding
both the Schultz scenario as well as the basic oriented single car
choo-choo train scenario. What I do appreciate from the Schultz
contribution is the opportunity it gives for an open mind to contemplate
what would happen with a dense particle stream entering or being created
as a meteoroid.
As for the set of curiosities I posted which this novel theory would make,
I am glad you latched onto the first one to prove what you already knew
already (for my benefit, thanks). I did not post that with any posterior
revelation that there is a "Giant Fly in the Ointment". There is no key
word missing in my post...
I don't mean to come down harshly on the thought that a monolith could be
the answer ... but respectfully I see you have manipulated Wild Bill Occam
as well as my own statements in a way neither of us intended - I do need
to reject your argument for rejecting the new theory on the block as more
political than scientific.
Best wishes and Great Health,
Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: Sterling K. Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 2:04 pm
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] New, long, Carancas article II
Hi, Doug,
to Schultz's credit, he has put
a novel mechanism on the table...
Not only a novel mechanism but an unnecessary one.
This is just what Wild Bill Occam called "multiplying
entities without necessity."
And by your next Post, you'd noticed the gigantic Fly
in the Ointment when you asked:
"Why don't other stony meteorites with
TKW's over a ton do the same thing?"
In fact, there's a key word missing in that question:
"Why don't ALL other stony meteorites with TKW's
over a ton do the same thing?"
[Scribble, scribble...] If they all did, we would have
a Carancas-crater event roughly every three weeks.
(That's 170 fresh 10-meter craters since 1998.)
Sterling K. Webb
--------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] New, long, Carancas article II
Sterling W. wrote:
"Both Schultz and I calculate that the object was still supersonic when
it hit, still enclosed in a "detached" shock wave, so the sides never
ablated at any point."
Hi Sterling,
Yes, but to Schultz's credit, he has put a novel mechanism on the table
for scientific consideration of these "strange" dynamics and motivated
the issue of the role of the shock wave IMO to begin with. The oriented
case as presented by you and many others at that time was an
extrapolation IMO.
I personally like Schultz' refreshing contribution in the field. I
would rather call your thoughts the natural control for Schultz' idea,
and not anything particularly novel in meteoritical circles. While any
idea will need to be earthshattering :-), which explanation (the basic
made into a very special case or the spontaneous reorganization and its
complexity - or csome combination of ideas) at this point best complies
with Occam's Razor is not obvious to me.
However, no matter how distorted in length vs. width, if we consider
the object was over a ton, that is still a real lot of surface area to
survive down to a relatively very thick atmosphere at 4 km above sea
level at that speed. I don't think the shock wave could have powered
any deflector shields at the front of the bus - but I'm not qualitfied
at the moment to comment on that. The shear experienced by the material
at the front had to be enormous in the last 5-10 kilometers.
So this Schultz theory sounds good and a welcomed addition to
consideration vs. the highly oriented case.
Sterling - do you or does anyone know if the shock veins have been
shown by the scientists to have been caused upon impact with Earth?
Best wishes and Great Health,
Doug
______________________________________________
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
