Re: Phaethon causing the Dark Ages ?
From: Martyn Harrison (nospam_at_spammers.of.the.world.unite)
Date: 06/23/04
- Next message: Hagen: "The mute majority"
- Previous message: Philip Deitiker: "Re: Cnoyen and Nicholas of Lynn and KRS"
- In reply to: DHObraasch: "Re: Phaethon causing the Dark Ages ?"
- Next in thread: DHObraasch: "Re: Phaethon causing the Dark Ages ?"
- Reply: DHObraasch: "Re: Phaethon causing the Dark Ages ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:54:35 +0100
Apparently on date 23 Jun 2004 02:24:23 -0700, dhobraasch@t-online.de
(DHObraasch) said:
>Martyn Harrison <nospam@spammers.of.the.world.unite> wrote in message news:<1esbd0ltftdf2veudrahq65r9na9i8cchn@4ax.com>...
>> Apparently on date 20 Jun 2004 08:20:48 -0700, dhobraasch@t-online.de
>> (DHObraasch) said:
>>
>> >Phaethon causing the Dark Ages ?
>> >
>> >Problem II. How to force an asteroid to circle round the earth ?
>> >Hyothesis:
>> >The Asteroid impacted the earth not straight lined but toughed the
>> >atmosphere more tangentially
>>
>> This is possible but I would say highly unlikely, and there will be certain
>> limits imposed on the upper and lower limits of the mass of the object,
>
>I tried to calculate the kinetic energy of a ´rock´two km in
>diameter, 10 km/s
0.5 * mass times velocity squared.
10 km/s is a low speed if we are talking about impactors, they'll add 11 km/s
over the fall into the earth's gravitational well.
In any case, bearing in mind that Earth is traveling at 30 km/s in a circular
orbit around the sun, an object that encounters earth will be traveling towards
and away from the sun and this must be at a higher speed for it to convert KE
to PE to rise higher above the sun than the earth manages.
Pluto is a fair example of outer system debris at about 800 kg / m3, rocky
asteroids are more like 3000 - 4000 kg / m3 so let's use a density figure of
about 2000 and double or halve it for a particular object.
2km diameter is potentially irregular, but taking a sphere the volume will be
4/3 pi r3 making about 4 cubic kilometers, giving us 4,000,000,000 cubic meters
of material, times 2000 is 8,000,000,000,000 kilos or 8e+12kg
10 km/s is velocity, so 10,000^2 = 100,000,000 or e+8 giving a net energy of
4e+20 joules, which is equivalent to 100,000 megatonnes of TNT (a lot bigger
than any nuclear devices built so far.)
This is beside the point, though, I was observing that the object had to be
able to enter, and leave, the atmosphere. This sets a lower limit to the size
of the object as, if it is too small, it will simply burn completely up during
the passage through the air. It also sets an upper limit, too large and the
object cannot be slowed enough by the air resistance on the surface to be
brought into an atmosphere crossing orbit around the earth. This is because
surface area rises with radius squared while mass rises with radius cubed.
> also
>> the mechanics of the orbit will mean it won't be visible from the same place
>> with each subsequent pass.
>
>agree
>
>> A comet is visible for a period of time, but does not orbit the earth or enter
>> the atmosphere, on the whole. If it did, long before it was a fireball, it
>> would be a bright night sky with no visible nucleus. As the nucleus reached
>> significant atmosphere, a small region of earth would see a fireball and *mere
>> seconds* later, would be experiencing ground zero.
>
>The problem are the ´mere seconds´later. May be the crucial point.What
>about the ´plama pressure´ underneath the rotating ´rock´? A power
>counteracting the earthly pull of gravidity.(Second War. A rotating
>bomb running on the water surface of the Edersee pasing the protecting
>water-nets in front of the dam, so contacted the dam and distroyed
>it.)
>What EXPIRIMENTAL data are refering to a tangential meteorit with a
>diameter two kilometer ?
I tried to do this experiment, but the ethics board said I couldn't.
>> Nobody will see a spiraling object.
>
>Could be, but must be ? The hypothesis is beased on a ´rolling stone´,
>rolling along the atmosphere.
That's not how these things work, generally speaking. If the object is fast
enough, it will glance off the surface and merely return to space. If not, it
will enter the atmosphere which will slow it further, meaning it will simply
plunge further in.
If you are conceptually thinking of a "skipping stone" bouncing over the water,
the atmosphere is not altogether like that, it has no clearly defined boundary,
just an increasing density of air.
You can generate something artificially, e.g. an aircraft that breathes air for
burning in the engine and rises until the air is too thin to keep the engine
running, then it falls until the engines can restart. Maybe also some class of
shooting star that outgasses and this is enough to propel the body away again,
but these aren't big or common, and I can't think them reasonable.
If so then the glowing image of the
>Phaethon depends on the velocity of the rock, the rotation speed of
>its surface and the air drag. Probably not forming a definite spirale.
>May be more a ´spiral´ with short bent arms.
>One should not overestimate the term ´spiral´. The spiral metioned by
>Plinius allowed hypothetically the assumption of a roating meteorit. A
>working hypothesis. If so, what then ?
A spiral orbit makes sense from the outside, but viewed from earth you won't
see shooting stars except as curved or straight lines, they are also abrupt,
not slow.
>> As I say, it's possible to have an object make repeated orbits through the
>> atmosphere before the air drag brought it to an impact trajectory, but you
>> probably want to think about who could see what, before trying to connect an
>> event of that type, with the descriptions of what ancient people produced.
>>
>> >
>> >http://home.t-online.de/home/dhobraasch/1-defect-spirals.htm
>> >
>> >Regards
>> >Dieter Braasch
>>
>> Also, no comet / meteorite that has passed through the solar system would
>> disturb the motion of Earth enough to cause the sun to behave differently to
>> observers on earth.
>
>A misunderstanding. I never thought that Phaethon could disturb the
>motion of sun or earth.
Fine, I'm just saying why this is a model based on the behaviour of an object
relative to the rest frame of the earth, as the latter is not going to be
changed during the episode.
>> single day. This sort of thing doubtless went on, here and there, around the
>> solar system before there was life, but not while we had life on this orb.
>> Certainly not in a sense that could be reported by our ancestors.
>
>Agree.
>
>Remaining so far open questions.
>1.) We don´t know what the Dorian potter thought about while painting
>the disturbed double spirals on the Doric ceramics. Conceivable a
>consideration within the frame of an European sun religion with the
>wide spread spiral supposed to be the main symbol.
>From the point of view of someone who likes to watch shooting stars (meteors)
there is no sense in which spirals would be suggested by these. I would suggest
the spirals are meant to portray something else.
>2.)Where to get the energy to burn Libya and to to give rise to a
>heavy rain (FLOOD ?There are numerous contexts (compiled in german,
>sorry)
Objects from space can be extremely powerful, yes. If there was archaeological
evidence of Libya being burned, an asteroid would have this sort of power.
However, it would also leave considerable evidence behind as well, in the sense
of a layer of Iridium over the whole region, probably the whole world. Knock-on
consequences would be telling, species would go extinct. Human beings, higher
up in the food chain, would be very much at risk of extinction.
>FIRE. Ramses III ( nearly an eyewitness)(Medinet Habu. cit. Spanuth)
>" Libya became a desert, a terrible flare from the sky to look for
>their souls and to devastate their people--- those burns in its area,
>directly like as a fire in furnace" (Libya)
I dunno. Like I say, asteroid impact doing this would be reasonably obvious,
there'd still be a big crater, etc.
It would be big news if there had been an impactor of any significance in the
last 10,000 years, or quite a lot further back, I think.
- Next message: Hagen: "The mute majority"
- Previous message: Philip Deitiker: "Re: Cnoyen and Nicholas of Lynn and KRS"
- In reply to: DHObraasch: "Re: Phaethon causing the Dark Ages ?"
- Next in thread: DHObraasch: "Re: Phaethon causing the Dark Ages ?"
- Reply: DHObraasch: "Re: Phaethon causing the Dark Ages ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
