Guys, I posted this before but here it is again and it talks about the "circular craters" and absence of fragments in great depth:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1190/of2005-1190.pdf "They blast out circular craters almost regardless of their impact angle; and they are themselves almost completely dispersed or vaporized in the target rock and crater ejecta. Barringer was right in his belief that a meteorite had made the crater; but wrong in his hope that it had survived partly intact” (Wilhelms, 1993, p.12)." On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 5:53 PM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> wrote: > Me too > > > On Thursday, February 28, 2013, Harry Veeder wrote: > >> Unless the russian meteor was tracked for a period of time before it >> entered earth's atmosphere, extropolating the orbit of the Russian >> meteor into the past seems like guess work to me. >> >> >> harry >> >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Alexander Hollins >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > if it were in orbit around it, there would have been an additional >> vector to >> > its motion. Tracking information verified a straight line trajectory >> from >> > what I've read. Good thought though. >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> I suggested an explanation that apparently was lost in the discussion. >> >> Suppose each asteroid has a swarm of smaller rocks in orbit around it. >> >> Suppose one of these rocks was in an orbit that caused it to approach >> the >> >> earth from the opposite direction at the time of the meteor strike in >> >> Russia. Overlooked in this discussion was at least one other large >> meteor >> >> reported near Cuba, which could have been part of the same swarm. This >> is >> >> important because any close encounter with an asteroid might result in >> the >> >> earth being bombarded by large rocks coming from directions different >> from >> >> the path of the asteroid as the asteroid gets close. This makes >> protection >> >> that much more difficult. >> >> >> >> Ed >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 28, 2013, at 9:06 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: >> >> >> >>> I would point out: >> >>> >> >>> 1. The event did occur. >> >>> >> >>> 2. A causal connection between the two objects seems exceedingly >> >>> unlikely, since they came from different directions at different >> times. No >> >>> one has suggested how there could be a connection, as far as I know. >> >>> >> >>> 3. Therefore it is coincidence, no matter how unlikely that may seem. >> >>> >> >>> - Jed >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >>
