ASTEROID IMPACT: A QUESTION OF SIZE AND MASS
gaedh...@yahoo.com
Question: What would be the approximate mass and velocity of a "rock"
entering the atmosphere:
a) in order for it to strike the earth at a terminal velocity of
approximately 55 m/s,
b) weighing about 45 kilograms?
I am assuming,
1, that the 'rock' (asteroid) would hit the atmosphere, become a
meteor and burn,
2, that the remnant of the meteor would slow,
3, that the remaining 'stone' (meteorite) would fall at terminal
velocity,
4, and hit the earth at about 45 kg.
Is there some kind of "average range" for mass and velocity that might
produce the specified result?
thanks....
owd
Phineas T Puddleduck
gaedh...@yahoo.com wrote:
So science is all wrong yada yada, yet you can't work out some simple
kinematics and need to ask those pesky scientists with their Babylon science
BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA
Hit the earth at 45kg
BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA
--
Painius admits he cannot answer a single question to NB:
(How many days till he replies - best guess is five!)
"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish."
Art Deco
Heh, now this is entertainment!
I'm declared as of now that oldwetdog is officially on-topic for
alt.fan.art-bell.
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert
gaedh...@yahoo.com
<phineaspuddled...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> In article <1172357508.382005.116...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> gaedhea...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > ASTEROID IMPACT: A QUESTION OF SIZE AND MASS
>
> > Question: What would be the approximate mass and velocity of a "rock"
> > entering the atmosphere:
> > a) in order for it to strike the earth at a terminal velocity of
> > approximately 55 m/s,
> > b) weighing about 45 kilograms?
>
> > I am assuming,
>
> > 1, that the 'rock' (asteroid) would hit the atmosphere, become a
> > meteor and burn,
> > 2, that the remnant of the meteor would slow,
> > 3, that the remaining 'stone' (meteorite) would fall at terminal
> > velocity,
> > 4, and hit the earth at about 45 kg.
>
> > Is there some kind of "average range" for mass and velocity that might
> > produce the specified result?
>
> > thanks....
> > owd
>
> So science is all wrong yada yada, yet you can't work out some simple
> kinematics and need to ask those pesky scientists with their Babylon science
>
> BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA
>
> Hit the earth at 45kg
>
> BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA
>
Boy (assumption) playing with you is just SO much fun...
Clue one for the clueless:
There is a difference between the "technique" (or the craft,) and the
Philosophy behind the "craft."
Clue two
Technique makes great toys and gizmos, but THAT does not prove the
Philosophy called "science"
Clue three for the lost
There is no problem with the practical application of intellect and
knowledge, any "Problem" is in the illogic and sophistry behind the
methodology.
Having confessed that you cannot comprehend the separation of the
"Philosophy of science" from the "methodology in practice" you may now
go back to sleep.
Yes, the Philosophy of science is delusion and sophistry.
However, the methods and technology work fine to make nice toys.
Having cleared that lack of understanding, what would be the mass and
velocity range you would estimate?
Thanks
owd
Phineas T Puddleduck
gaedh...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Boy (assumption) playing with you is just SO much fun...
Well, you seem easily pleased - I love the arrogance that comes with you
biblical apocalyptical types. Sole track to knowledge and all that.
>
> Clue one for the clueless:
> There is a difference between the "technique" (or the craft,) and the
> Philosophy behind the "craft."
>
> Clue two
> Technique makes great toys and gizmos, but THAT does not prove the
> Philosophy called "science"
>
You truly don't understand science do you.? Perhaps you should go live in the
woods some more.
> Clue three for the lost
> There is no problem with the practical application of intellect and
> knowledge, any "Problem" is in the illogic and sophistry behind the
> methodology.
Yep - more bollocks from the loon. You are just another loon who thinks that
because relativity and QM yield results you don't understand - that that means
they are wrong. Ignorant AND arrogant.
>
> Having confessed that you cannot comprehend the separation of the
> "Philosophy of science" from the "methodology in practice" you may now
> go back to sleep.
>
> Yes, the Philosophy of science is delusion and sophistry.
Nonsense. Particularly poignant that someone so ignorant of modern science
should try and seek the higher ground by claiming sophistry. How much real
science have you done, loon?
>
> However, the methods and technology work fine to make nice toys.
>
> Having cleared that lack of understanding, what would be the mass and
> velocity range you would estimate?
Learn some simple maths and classical mechanics and work it out yourself. Teach
yourself to fish before begging ...
I have no intention to help you troll any more. I'm just waiting for you to get
into full flow as I can sense several kook awards in your near future.
Art Deco
gaedh...@yahoo.com
<phineaspuddled...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> In article <1172359753.863418.246...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
Oh, there is more than math to this question:
For example, what is the density of the usual space "Rock"?
What is the composition? Basalt, Granite? Other?
Compostition, density, mass, temperature, velocity -- hummmmm.....
How much material will melt away while the "stone" is slowed to
terminal velicity by atmospheric drag?
However,
Since you have been so helpful,
The next part of the problem for your erudite consideration:
There is not one object (asteroid) or "stone" -- there are thousands,
hundreds of thousands, millions.
This mass of asteroids is moving toward the Sun in a long cloud, so
that the earth will pass through the cloud, and meteorites (stones)
will fall on the earth for about 24 hours.
What may be the possible configuration of such a cloud of asteroids?
It may be 25 to 50 thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of miles long,
It may be 25 to 50 thousands of miles in diameter.
What would be the density of the cloud, so that thousands or hundreds
of thousands of meteorites (stones) fall on all of the earth?
Since such a cloud is approaching the earth, when will astronomers
detect it? How long, before it begins to strike the earth, will
Astronomers be able to see it?
If such a cloud were moving directly toward the Sun, such that its
length were aligned toward and away from the sun, so that the earth
would pass through its diameter in 24 hours, how wide would that cloud
be?
Once we get some range of possible answers to these questions, we will
continue to effects.
oh, and thanks for your kind assistence... ;-)
owd
Phineas T Puddleduck
gaedh...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Oh, there is more than math to this question:
> For example, what is the density of the usual space "Rock"?
> What is the composition? Basalt, Granite? Other?
>
Use a first approximation - model as an earth rock
Why not just enrol in a basic Astronomy course. That way, you don't troll here
with your nonsense.
gaedh...@yahoo.com
<phineaspuddled...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> In article <1172363951.121098.157...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>,
It is not nonsense -- even if you don't like the idea...
Think about it. There is a lot of agitation about the posibility of a
large asteroid striking the earth.
(see the recent post, in this group)-(see the news) (shit, do google,
I do.)
But that is just sensationalism. (What is that? how to get a grant?)
(Or maybe that's "publish or perish?) There is no discussion - that I
can find - of small bodies impacting earth.
What? you don't think it's possible? Or you just don't want to thnk
about it?
Why can't you comprehend the possiblilty of Sol System passing through
the remnant of some intergalatic gravel bed? What, there are no bodies
able to throw a large number of small bodies out of Sol's Ort Cloud?
I took a basic astonomy class. "Basic" astronomy does not cover the
questions I have.
I've done some reading; but I'm an artist and writer, math does not
compute.
So I can find out the wiight (mass) of a substance. Basalt. Fine.
What is the weight to volume?
How large is a 45 - 46 kg lump of Basalt.
What is the melting temperature of Basalt?
If an asteroid of basalt impacts the earth's atmosphere at 9 Km/s -
what size must that body be to impact the earth at terminal velocity
(say, 55 m/s) with 45kg mass remaining?
You get "atmospheric breaking" in a "basic astronomy" Class?
Well, Puddles, it has been entertaining and instructive discussing
asteroid impact dynamics with you... ;-)
enjoy.....
Phineas T Puddleduck
gaedh...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> It is not nonsense -- even if you don't like the idea...
>
> Think about it. There is a lot of agitation about the posibility of a
> large asteroid striking the earth.
> (see the recent post, in this group)-(see the news) (shit, do google,
> I do.)
>
> But that is just sensationalism. (What is that? how to get a grant?)
> (Or maybe that's "publish or perish?) There is no discussion - that I
> can find - of small bodies impacting earth.
Basic astronomy course would help.
>
> What? you don't think it's possible? Or you just don't want to thnk
> about it?
>
> Why can't you comprehend the possiblilty of Sol System passing through
> the remnant of some intergalatic gravel bed? What, there are no bodies
> able to throw a large number of small bodies out of Sol's Ort Cloud?
Intergalactic? Oh man, you've been smoking some good shit. I guess you meant
Interstellar. But even then, the odds are...... fill in the blanks.
>
> I took a basic astonomy class. "Basic" astronomy does not cover the
> questions I have.
Then take more.
>
> I've done some reading; but I'm an artist and writer, math does not
> compute.
Then learn.
>
> So I can find out the wiight (mass) of a substance. Basalt. Fine.
> What is the weight to volume?
> How large is a 45 - 46 kg lump of Basalt.
> What is the melting temperature of Basalt?
>
> If an asteroid of basalt impacts the earth's atmosphere at 9 Km/s -
> what size must that body be to impact the earth at terminal velocity
> (say, 55 m/s) with 45kg mass remaining?
>
> You get "atmospheric breaking" in a "basic astronomy" Class?
>
Some astronomy classes include orbital mechanics.
>
> Well, Puddles, it has been entertaining and instructive discussing
> asteroid impact dynamics with you... ;-)
You're still a loon.
gaedh...@yahoo.com
<phineaspuddled...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> In article <1172373244.602009.164...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> gaedhea...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > It is not nonsense -- even if you don't like the idea...
>
> > Think about it. There is a lot of agitation about the posibility of a
> > large asteroid striking the earth.
> > (see the recent post, in this group)-(see the news) (shit, do google,
> > I do.)
>
> > But that is just sensationalism. (What is that? how to get a grant?)
> > (Or maybe that's "publish or perish?) There is no discussion - that I
> > can find - of small bodies impacting earth.
>
> Basic astronomy course would help.
It has helped, I can read "Astronomy" and "Sky & telescope" without
getting dizzy.
>
> > What? you don't think it's possible? Or you just don't want to thnk
> > about it?
>
> > Why can't you comprehend the possiblilty of Sol System passing through
> > the remnant of some intergalatic gravel bed? What, there are no bodies
> > able to throw a large number of small bodies out of Sol's Ort Cloud?
>
> Intergalactic? Oh man, you've been smoking some good shit. I guess you meant
> Interstellar.
I didn't say "intrAgalatic" I said intERgalatic.... "Between the
stars" Puddles, MEANS "inside the galaxy."
Boy, buy yr books, send ya ta school, and ys STILL can't think!
Besides, are you going to tell me that "dark bodies" or a cloud of
Extra-Galatic Astroids do NOT exist? LOL! Sure.... and your next card
trick is....
> But even then, the odds are...... fill in the blanks.
Oh? let me see... You LIKE the odds on Big Bang at umpteem zillions to
Zero, and you LIKE the odds on spontaenous generation of life in pond
scum at multiples of zillions to none, but you don't like the odds on
asteroid impacts?
LOL! WELL, Scuzzzz me!
>
> > I took a basic astonomy class. "Basic" astronomy does not cover the
> > questions I have.
>
> Then take more.
I'm too old and set in my ways.
>
> > I've done some reading; but I'm an artist and writer, math does not
> > compute.
>
> Then learn.
Do you take your own advice? Then lean to think, rather than close
your mind to ideas you don't like.
>
> > So I can find out the wiight (mass) of a substance. Basalt. Fine.
> > What is the weight to volume?
> > How large is a 45 - 46 kg lump of Basalt.
> > What is the melting temperature of Basalt?
>
> Google
I google every day, sometimes twice.
>
> > If an asteroid of basalt impacts the earth's atmosphere at 9 Km/s -
> > what size must that body be to impact the earth at terminal velocity
> > (say, 55 m/s) with 45kg mass remaining?
>
> > You get "atmospheric breaking" in a "basic astronomy" Class?
>
> Some astronomy classes include orbital mechanics.
And some don't. One tool is worthless with out the nuts and bolts.
>
> > Well, Puddles, it has been entertaining and instructive discussing
> > asteroid impact dynamics with you... ;-)
>
> You're still a loon.
You're still a closed minded bufoon,
but at least you don't use dirty words, chew tobaccy and spit.
Now that we've got THAT detail out of the way....on to effects....
We were discussing the approach of a large cloud (or 'swarm') of small
asteroid bodies, and the expected effects.
There are, of course a nearly infinite number of directions. However,
an approach near the plane of the ecliptic (or galactic plane) seems
most reasonable. Four general directions seem likely: from behind, or
following, the direction of the sun's galactic orbit, or from ahead.
The approach may be from inside the central area of the galaxy, or
from outside moving inward.
If this cloud of asteroids approaches earth from the direction of the
sun, falling bodies would strike the dayside of earth. An approach
from the side away from sol would mean the falling bodies would strike
the night side of earth.
In either case, it seems likely that the approach of the asteroids
should be visible as they strike the planets between the cloud and the
sun, or between the cloud and the earth.
That is, if the cloud enters the solar system on the same side of the
sun as the earth, and crosses the orbits of the outer planets, the
impacts of those bodies should be visible to astronomers.
On the other hand, if the cloud enters the solar system on the side of
the sun away from the earth, then impacts on the outer planets should
still be visible to astronomers, and those that fall into the sun
would be visible during the day as comets.
In either case, depending on the velocity of the swarm of asteroids,
the approach should be visible for some time, giving World Governments
and People some time for preparation.
Now listen, Puddles, I'm not asking anyone (you) to LIKE this idea,
and I'm not asking anyone to AGREE to the idea, I'm asking you to
CONSIDER the idea and THINK about it.
So far your input has been scanty and of marginal value --
I hope you will take a little time to consider your response so you
may add something of value rather than negative skepticism (positive
skepticism would be an improvement).
Any contribution would be greatly appreciated ;-)
owd
Phineas T Puddleduck
gaedh...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 25, 5:01 am, Phineas T Puddleduck
> <phineaspuddled...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > In article <1172373244.602009.164...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > gaedhea...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > It is not nonsense -- even if you don't like the idea...
> >
> > > Think about it. There is a lot of agitation about the posibility of a
> > > large asteroid striking the earth.
> > > (see the recent post, in this group)-(see the news) (shit, do google,
> > > I do.)
> >
> > > But that is just sensationalism. (What is that? how to get a grant?)
> > > (Or maybe that's "publish or perish?) There is no discussion - that I
> > > can find - of small bodies impacting earth.
> >
> > Basic astronomy course would help.
>
> It has helped, I can read "Astronomy" and "Sky & telescope" without
> getting dizzy.
>
That doesn't mean you know basic astronomy. Celestial mechanics and some basic
stellar physics would be a start
> >
> > > What? you don't think it's possible? Or you just don't want to thnk
> > > about it?
> >
> > > Why can't you comprehend the possiblilty of Sol System passing through
> > > the remnant of some intergalatic gravel bed? What, there are no bodies
> > > able to throw a large number of small bodies out of Sol's Ort Cloud?
> >
> > Intergalactic? Oh man, you've been smoking some good shit. I guess you meant
> > Interstellar.
>
> I didn't say "intrAgalatic" I said intERgalatic.... "Between the
> stars" Puddles, MEANS "inside the galaxy."
Then say interstellar which means between the stars (Dictionary.com)
in?ter?stel?lar [in-ter-stel-er] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
adjective
Astronomy. situated or occurring between the stars: interstellar dust.
in?ter?ga?lac?tic [in-ter-guh-lak-tik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
Pronunciation
adjective
of, existing, or occurring in the space between galaxies: The science-fiction
movie was about an intergalactic war.
The fact you don't know which word to use doesn't fill me with awe about your
promise as a write
>
> Boy, buy yr books, send ya ta school, and ys STILL can't think!
>
> Besides, are you going to tell me that "dark bodies" or a cloud of
> Extra-Galatic Astroids do NOT exist? LOL! Sure.... and your next card
> trick is....
>
Asteroids are believed to be a byproduct of planetary system formation, so the
likelihood of extra-galactic ones are small.
> > But even then, the odds are...... fill in the blanks.
>
> Oh? let me see... You LIKE the odds on Big Bang at umpteem zillions to
> Zero, and you LIKE the odds on spontaenous generation of life in pond
> scum at multiples of zillions to none, but you don't like the odds on
> asteroid impacts?
Did I say that?
>
> LOL! WELL, Scuzzzz me!
>
> >
> > > I took a basic astonomy class. "Basic" astronomy does not cover the
> > > questions I have.
> >
> > Then take more.
>
> I'm too old and set in my ways.
I can tell.
>
> >
> > > I've done some reading; but I'm an artist and writer, math does not
> > > compute.
> >
> > Then learn.
>
> Do you take your own advice? Then lean to think, rather than close
> your mind to ideas you don't like.
>
Projection.
> >
> > > So I can find out the wiight (mass) of a substance. Basalt. Fine.
> > > What is the weight to volume?
> > > How large is a 45 - 46 kg lump of Basalt.
> > > What is the melting temperature of Basalt?
> >
> > Google
>
> I google every day, sometimes twice.
>
> >
> > > If an asteroid of basalt impacts the earth's atmosphere at 9 Km/s -
> > > what size must that body be to impact the earth at terminal velocity
> > > (say, 55 m/s) with 45kg mass remaining?
> >
> > > You get "atmospheric breaking" in a "basic astronomy" Class?
> >
> > Some astronomy classes include orbital mechanics.
>
> And some don't. One tool is worthless with out the nuts and bolts.
Then take a better class. If you think you're going to make deep insights with
no math skills you're sadly mistaken....
>
> >
> > > Well, Puddles, it has been entertaining and instructive discussing
> > > asteroid impact dynamics with you... ;-)
> >
> > You're still a loon.
>
> You're still a closed minded bufoon,
> but at least you don't use dirty words, chew tobaccy and spit.
Ah - because I don't buy into your pseudo-religous mumbo jumbo I'm closed
mindede BWAHAHA.
>
>
> Now that we've got THAT detail out of the way....on to effects....
>
>
> We were discussing the approach of a large cloud (or 'swarm') of small
> asteroid bodies, and the expected effects.
>
> There are, of course a nearly infinite number of directions. However,
> an approach near the plane of the ecliptic (or galactic plane) seems
> most reasonable. Four general directions seem likely: from behind, or
> following, the direction of the sun's galactic orbit, or from ahead.
> The approach may be from inside the central area of the galaxy, or
> from outside moving inward.
You are very confused. Asteroids are planetary system bodies, so why should
there be huge clouds of them in the galaxy not associated with stellar systems.
Also if they are orbiting in the plane of the galaxy, at the same distance as
the sun they would orbit at the same velocity = no threat.
>
> If this cloud of asteroids approaches earth from the direction of the
> sun, falling bodies would strike the dayside of earth. An approach
> from the side away from sol would mean the falling bodies would strike
> the night side of earth.
You should stop watching Armageddon
>
> In either case, it seems likely that the approach of the asteroids
> should be visible as they strike the planets between the cloud and the
> sun, or between the cloud and the earth.
These mythical interstellar asteroids?
>
> That is, if the cloud enters the solar system on the same side of the
> sun as the earth, and crosses the orbits of the outer planets, the
> impacts of those bodies should be visible to astronomers.
>
> On the other hand, if the cloud enters the solar system on the side of
> the sun away from the earth, then impacts on the outer planets should
> still be visible to astronomers, and those that fall into the sun
> would be visible during the day as comets.
So astronomers are "good" right now?
>
> In either case, depending on the velocity of the swarm of asteroids,
> the approach should be visible for some time, giving World Governments
> and People some time for preparation.
>
> Now listen, Puddles, I'm not asking anyone (you) to LIKE this idea,
> and I'm not asking anyone to AGREE to the idea, I'm asking you to
> CONSIDER the idea and THINK about it.
Its likelihood is around 10^{1001}.
>
> So far your input has been scanty and of marginal value --
> I hope you will take a little time to consider your response so you
> may add something of value rather than negative skepticism (positive
> skepticism would be an improvement).
I'm skecptical as you don't understand even basic stellar and planetary
astronomy.
>
> Any contribution would be greatly appreciated ;-)
>
> owd
My suggestion is stop posting
--
"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish." Painius
gaedh...@yahoo.com
I stand corrected: I was laboring under the wrong impression that
"intersteller" and "inside the galaxy (intergalatic) was the same, and
"IntrA-galatic" meant "between galaxies."
I see I had it backwards.... thanks for your correction.
Well, if that were the first glaring mistake I've ever made, I'd
blush.
>
>
>
> >
> > Boy, buy yr books, send ya ta school, and ys STILL can't think!
> >
> > Besides, are you going to tell me that "dark bodies" or a cloud of
> > Extra-Galatic Astroids do NOT exist? LOL! Sure.... and your next card
> > trick is....
> >
>
> Asteroids are believed to be a byproduct of planetary system formation, so the
> likelihood of extra-galactic ones are small.
Believed?
"Likelihood"? is that likelyhood as in "the odds are..."
IF, IF the theory "BELIEVED" is correct....
Pudddles, Puddles, if it is "believed" then it is NOT VERIFIABLE
SCIENTIFIC FACT!
IT IS A BELIEF!!!
"BELIEF," PUDDLES, IS RELIGION! !!!! !!!!! !!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!
>
> > > But even then, the odds are...... fill in the blanks.
> >
> > Oh? let me see... You LIKE the odds on Big Bang at umpteem zillions to
> > Zero, and you LIKE the odds on spontaenous generation of life in pond
> > scum at multiples of zillions to none, but you don't like the odds on
> > asteroid impacts?
>
> Did I say that?
>
> >
> > LOL! WELL, Scuzzzz me!
> >
> > >
> > > > I took a basic astonomy class. "Basic" astronomy does not cover the
> > > > questions I have.
> > >
> > > Then take more.
> >
> > I'm too old and set in my ways.
>
> I can tell.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > I've done some reading; but I'm an artist and writer, math does not
> > > > compute.
> > >
> > > Then learn.
> >
> > Do you take your own advice? Then lean to think, rather than close
> > your mind to ideas you don't like.
> >
>
> Projection.
An art you don't practice, right? :-)
>
> > >
> > > > So I can find out the wiight (mass) of a substance. Basalt. Fine.
> > > > What is the weight to volume?
> > > > How large is a 45 - 46 kg lump of Basalt.
> > > > What is the melting temperature of Basalt?
> > >
> > > Google
> >
> > I google every day, sometimes twice.
> >
> > >
> > > > If an asteroid of basalt impacts the earth's atmosphere at 9 Km/s -
> > > > what size must that body be to impact the earth at terminal velocity
> > > > (say, 55 m/s) with 45kg mass remaining?
> > >
> > > > You get "atmospheric breaking" in a "basic astronomy" Class?
> > >
> > > Some astronomy classes include orbital mechanics.
> >
> > And some don't. One tool is worthless with out the nuts and bolts.
>
> Then take a better class. If you think you're going to make deep insights with
> no math skills you're sadly mistaken....
What makes you think I want to "make deep insights"?
Man (Boy) THAT is not on my schedule....
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Well, Puddles, it has been entertaining and instructive discussing
> > > > asteroid impact dynamics with you... ;-)
> > >
> > > You're still a loon.
> >
> > You're still a closed minded bufoon,
> > but at least you don't use dirty words, chew tobaccy and spit.
>
> Ah - because I don't buy into your pseudo-religous mumbo jumbo I'm closed
> mindede BWAHAHA.
>
Without the "pseudo-religious mumbo-jumpo" THINK ABOUT THE MECHANICS
AND THE POSSIBILITY!!
You are "closed minded" because you will not consider an idea that was
not handed down to you from the heights of Mt Palomar! (or the chair
of the astronomy Dept.)
Tell me, Puddles, did any scientist EVER discover anything by refusing
to consider a new thought?
So you don't like the Idea! O.K., you have me convinced on that.
BUT YOU HAVE OFFERED NO CRITICAL OBJECTION!
All you have is -- "go take a class!"
Do you have any FACTS, or SCIENTIFICALLY VERIFIABLE DATA to prove the
possibility is impossible?
If you do, you certainly have not offered any.
SO IF YOU CAN NOT DEMONSTRATE HOW IT MIGHT WORK, THEN DEMONSTRATE THAT
IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE! (You can not.)
> >
> >
> > Now that we've got THAT detail out of the way....on to effects....
> >
> >
> > We were discussing the approach of a large cloud (or 'swarm') of small
> > asteroid bodies, and the expected effects.
> >
> > There are, of course a nearly infinite number of directions. However,
> > an approach near the plane of the ecliptic (or galactic plane) seems
> > most reasonable. Four general directions seem likely: from behind, or
> > following, the direction of the sun's galactic orbit, or from ahead.
> > The approach may be from inside the central area of the galaxy, or
> > from outside moving inward.
>
> You are very confused. Asteroids are planetary system bodies,
You are sufering from a closed mind. Someone TOLD you that "they
believe" asteroids are the result of planetary formation -- AND YOU
BELIEVED THAT and then closed your mind!
> so why should
> there be huge clouds of them in the galaxy not associated with stellar systems.
> Also if they are orbiting in the plane of the galaxy, at the same distance as
> the sun they would orbit at the same velocity = no threat.
Ah! that is the crux of the matter, now isn't it? They are not
"orbiting," they are "Falling" (relative to the earth's surface). They
are IN MOTION "other than" orbit!
>
> >
> > If this cloud of asteroids approaches earth from the direction of the
> > sun, falling bodies would strike the dayside of earth. An approach
> > from the side away from sol would mean the falling bodies would strike
> > the night side of earth.
>
>
> You should stop watching Armageddon
You should try entertaining an independent thought, rather than
parroting what you've been told to believe.
>
> >
> > In either case, it seems likely that the approach of the asteroids
> > should be visible as they strike the planets between the cloud and the
> > sun, or between the cloud and the earth.
>
> These mythical interstellar asteroids?
If they are "mythical" then when one falls on you, it won't hurt a
bit.
>
> >
> > That is, if the cloud enters the solar system on the same side of the
> > sun as the earth, and crosses the orbits of the outer planets, the
> > impacts of those bodies should be visible to astronomers.
> >
> > On the other hand, if the cloud enters the solar system on the side of
> > the sun away from the earth, then impacts on the outer planets should
> > still be visible to astronomers, and those that fall into the sun
> > would be visible during the day as comets.
>
> So astronomers are "good" right now?
I've never suggested otherwise... Astronomers are people, some wear
pants and some wear skirts, and THAT does not make them either good or
not-good.
What has being able to see asteroids impact planets or fall into the
sun have to do with being "good"?
>
> >
> > In either case, depending on the velocity of the swarm of asteroids,
> > the approach should be visible for some time, giving World Governments
> > and People some time for preparation.
> >
> > Now listen, Puddles, I'm not asking anyone (you) to LIKE this idea,
> > and I'm not asking anyone to AGREE to the idea, I'm asking you to
> > CONSIDER the idea and THINK about it.
>
> Its likelihood is around 10^{1001}.
Is that about equal to life forming in pond scum?
Fine: You don't like the idea, and you are NOT going to BELIEVE the
Idea....
Now that we've settled THAT, how about you spend some little time
explaining the math and orbital mechanics of small body impact on the
earth?
>
> >
> > So far your input has been scanty and of marginal value --
> > I hope you will take a little time to consider your response so you
> > may add something of value rather than negative skepticism (positive
> > skepticism would be an improvement).
>
>
> I'm skecptical as you don't understand even basic stellar and planetary
> astronomy.
That's fine: skepticalism is not objectionable. What is counter-
productive is being skeptical and refusing to consider the details and
possibilities of an idea. Being skeptical AND considering an idea -
that is wise.
Agreed: I have, at best, an amateur or beginners concept of stellar
and planetary astronomy -- just enough to read "Sky and Telescope" and
say, "Wow, I wish I had a 10 incher like THAT!"
However, Puddles, THAT does not mean that I can NOT think, or imagine,
or CONCEIVE!
>
> >
> > Any contribution would be greatly appreciated ;-)
> >
> > owd
>
> My suggestion is stop posting
Why, are you done thinking?
Hey, Look, Puddles; I didn't come on here attempting to tell you how
to run your science or career OR what to believe.
I posted my opinion, fine, if you don't lke that.... Oh, well....
You know what I believe, I know what you refuse to believe... fine.
Now I've posted an idea and asked for input....
If you don't like it -- fine... if you don't want to believe it...
fine.
Still, if you can offer some constructive skepticism, or consider the
idea as a 112 million to 1 impossibility, THEN explain the math and
mechanics... you would be making a constructive contribution....
---- 's been nice exchanging insults with ya... :-)
enjoy
owd
Phineas T Puddleduck
gaedh...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
> > >
> > > I didn't say "intrAgalatic" I said intERgalatic.... "Between the
> > > stars" Puddles, MEANS "inside the galaxy."
> >
> >
> > Then say interstellar which means between the stars (Dictionary.com)
> >
> > in?ter?stel?lar [in-ter-stel-er] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
> > Pronunciation
> > adjective
> > Astronomy. situated or occurring between the stars: interstellar dust.
> >
> > in?ter?ga?lac?tic [in-ter-guh-lak-tik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
> > Pronunciation
> > adjective
> > of, existing, or occurring in the space between galaxies: The
> > science-fiction
> > movie was about an intergalactic war.
> >
> >
> > The fact you don't know which word to use doesn't fill me with awe about
> > your
> > promise as a writer
>
> I stand corrected: I was laboring under the wrong impression that
> "intersteller" and "inside the galaxy (intergalatic) was the same, and
> "IntrA-galatic" meant "between galaxies."
> I see I had it backwards.... thanks for your correction.
>
> Well, if that were the first glaring mistake I've ever made, I'd
> blush.
The rest are far worse.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Boy, buy yr books, send ya ta school, and ys STILL can't think!
> > >
> > > Besides, are you going to tell me that "dark bodies" or a cloud of
> > > Extra-Galatic Astroids do NOT exist? LOL! Sure.... and your next card
> > > trick is....
> > >
> >
> > Asteroids are believed to be a byproduct of planetary system formation, so
> > the
> > likelihood of extra-galactic ones are small.
>
> Believed?
> "Likelihood"? is that likelyhood as in "the odds are..."
>
> IF, IF the theory "BELIEVED" is correct....
>
> Pudddles, Puddles, if it is "believed" then it is NOT VERIFIABLE
> SCIENTIFIC FACT!
> IT IS A BELIEF!!!
>
You truly have no idea about physics or science do you? When was the last time
you did any studying? When scientists make theories, they consider them the
best fit to available experimental data.
Any scientist worth his salt will refuse to talk in absolutes.
> "BELIEF," PUDDLES, IS RELIGION! !!!! !!!!! !!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!
Sigh. You're an idiot. An idiot with delusions of knowledge.
>
> >
> > > > But even then, the odds are...... fill in the blanks.
> > >
> > > Oh? let me see... You LIKE the odds on Big Bang at umpteem zillions to
> > > Zero, and you LIKE the odds on spontaenous generation of life in pond
> > > scum at multiples of zillions to none, but you don't like the odds on
> > > asteroid impacts?
> >
> > Did I say that?
> >
> > >
> > > LOL! WELL, Scuzzzz me!
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > I took a basic astonomy class. "Basic" astronomy does not cover the
> > > > > questions I have.
> > > >
> > > > Then take more.
> > >
> > > I'm too old and set in my ways.
> >
> > I can tell.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > I've done some reading; but I'm an artist and writer, math does not
> > > > > compute.
> > > >
> > > > Then learn.
> > >
> > > Do you take your own advice? Then lean to think, rather than close
> > > your mind to ideas you don't like.
> > >
> >
> > Projection.
>
> An art you don't practice, right? :-)
I'm not the idiot making pretty banal biblical style apocalyptic proclamations
on how bad scientists are, then asking scientists for help/
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > So I can find out the wiight (mass) of a substance. Basalt. Fine.
> > > > > What is the weight to volume?
> > > > > How large is a 45 - 46 kg lump of Basalt.
> > > > > What is the melting temperature of Basalt?
> > > >
> > > > Google
> > >
> > > I google every day, sometimes twice.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > If an asteroid of basalt impacts the earth's atmosphere at 9 Km/s -
> > > > > what size must that body be to impact the earth at terminal velocity
> > > > > (say, 55 m/s) with 45kg mass remaining?
> > > >
> > > > > You get "atmospheric breaking" in a "basic astronomy" Class?
> > > >
> > > > Some astronomy classes include orbital mechanics.
> > >
> > > And some don't. One tool is worthless with out the nuts and bolts.
> >
> > Then take a better class. If you think you're going to make deep insights
> > with
> > no math skills you're sadly mistaken....
>
> What makes you think I want to "make deep insights"?
The fact you're trying to make predictions.
>
> Man (Boy) THAT is not on my schedule....
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Well, Puddles, it has been entertaining and instructive discussing
> > > > > asteroid impact dynamics with you... ;-)
> > > >
> > > > You're still a loon.
> > >
> > > You're still a closed minded bufoon,
> > > but at least you don't use dirty words, chew tobaccy and spit.
> >
> > Ah - because I don't buy into your pseudo-religous mumbo jumbo I'm closed
> > mindede BWAHAHA.
> >
>
> Without the "pseudo-religious mumbo-jumpo" THINK ABOUT THE MECHANICS
> AND THE POSSIBILITY!!
Your website proves you're not interested in mechanics.
>
> You are "closed minded" because you will not consider an idea that was
> not handed down to you from the heights of Mt Palomar! (or the chair
> of the astronomy Dept.)
Really!
>
> Tell me, Puddles, did any scientist EVER discover anything by refusing
> to consider a new thought?
None of your thoughts are original or scientific.
>
> So you don't like the Idea! O.K., you have me convinced on that.
>
> BUT YOU HAVE OFFERED NO CRITICAL OBJECTION!
> All you have is -- "go take a class!"
>
> Do you have any FACTS, or SCIENTIFICALLY VERIFIABLE DATA to prove the
> possibility is impossible?
Nothing is impossible in an infinite universe. The odds against interstellar
packs of marauding killer asteroids though are somewhere along the same odds
that Superman lives in New York.
>
> If you do, you certainly have not offered any.
>
> SO IF YOU CAN NOT DEMONSTRATE HOW IT MIGHT WORK, THEN DEMONSTRATE THAT
> IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE! (You can not.)
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Now that we've got THAT detail out of the way....on to effects....
> > >
> > >
> > > We were discussing the approach of a large cloud (or 'swarm') of small
> > > asteroid bodies, and the expected effects.
> > >
> > > There are, of course a nearly infinite number of directions. However,
> > > an approach near the plane of the ecliptic (or galactic plane) seems
> > > most reasonable. Four general directions seem likely: from behind, or
> > > following, the direction of the sun's galactic orbit, or from ahead.
> > > The approach may be from inside the central area of the galaxy, or
> > > from outside moving inward.
> >
> > You are very confused. Asteroids are planetary system bodies,
>
> You are sufering from a closed mind. Someone TOLD you that "they
> believe" asteroids are the result of planetary formation -- AND YOU
> BELIEVED THAT and then closed your mind!
The postulate a formation process for non-planetary asteroids that don't
involve the standard theory
>
> > so why should
> > there be huge clouds of them in the galaxy not associated with stellar
> > systems.
> > Also if they are orbiting in the plane of the galaxy, at the same distance
> > as
> > the sun they would orbit at the same velocity = no threat.
>
> Ah! that is the crux of the matter, now isn't it? They are not
> "orbiting," they are "Falling" (relative to the earth's surface). They
> are IN MOTION "other than" orbit!
This is truly confused thinking and symptomatic of your lack of knowledge in
physics.
Why are they "falling"?
Think carefully, as you're just making yourself look even stupider with each
post.
>
> >
> > >
> > > If this cloud of asteroids approaches earth from the direction of the
> > > sun, falling bodies would strike the dayside of earth. An approach
> > > from the side away from sol would mean the falling bodies would strike
> > > the night side of earth.
> >
> >
> > You should stop watching Armageddon
>
> You should try entertaining an independent thought, rather than
> parroting what you've been told to believe.
Yet the delicious irony is you're not attacking me for showing dependent
thought, only for not agreeing with you. Is it only independent thought if it
coinceides with your looney ideas, from someone who admitted on free.christians
they were looking for science groups to troll.
>
> >
> > >
> > > In either case, it seems likely that the approach of the asteroids
> > > should be visible as they strike the planets between the cloud and the
> > > sun, or between the cloud and the earth.
> >
> > These mythical interstellar asteroids?
>
> If they are "mythical" then when one falls on you, it won't hurt a
> bit.
>
You have not yet produced any viable methods to show how they could be
produced. This is someone who confuses interstellar with intergalactic.
> >
> > >
> > > That is, if the cloud enters the solar system on the same side of the
> > > sun as the earth, and crosses the orbits of the outer planets, the
> > > impacts of those bodies should be visible to astronomers.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, if the cloud enters the solar system on the side of
> > > the sun away from the earth, then impacts on the outer planets should
> > > still be visible to astronomers, and those that fall into the sun
> > > would be visible during the day as comets.
> >
> > So astronomers are "good" right now?
>
> I've never suggested otherwise... Astronomers are people, some wear
> pants and some wear skirts, and THAT does not make them either good or
> not-good.
>
> What has being able to see asteroids impact planets or fall into the
> sun have to do with being "good"?
>
The fact you seem to think scientists are bad - Babylon science ring a bell,
loon?
> >
> > >
> > > In either case, depending on the velocity of the swarm of asteroids,
> > > the approach should be visible for some time, giving World Governments
> > > and People some time for preparation.
> > >
> > > Now listen, Puddles, I'm not asking anyone (you) to LIKE this idea,
> > > and I'm not asking anyone to AGREE to the idea, I'm asking you to
> > > CONSIDER the idea and THINK about it.
> >
> > Its likelihood is around 10^{1001}.
>
> Is that about equal to life forming in pond scum?
>
Far higher. Life is after all only organic chemistry writ large.
> Fine: You don't like the idea, and you are NOT going to BELIEVE the
> Idea....
>
> Now that we've settled THAT, how about you spend some little time
> explaining the math and orbital mechanics of small body impact on the
> earth?
>
> >
> > >
> > > So far your input has been scanty and of marginal value --
> > > I hope you will take a little time to consider your response so you
> > > may add something of value rather than negative skepticism (positive
> > > skepticism would be an improvement).
> >
> >
> > I'm skecptical as you don't understand even basic stellar and planetary
> > astronomy.
>
> That's fine: skepticalism is not objectionable. What is counter-
> productive is being skeptical and refusing to consider the details and
> possibilities of an idea. Being skeptical AND considering an idea -
> that is wise.
I've considered your ideas, and I consider them the product of a diseased mind.
>
> Agreed: I have, at best, an amateur or beginners concept of stellar
> and planetary astronomy -- just enough to read "Sky and Telescope" and
> say, "Wow, I wish I had a 10 incher like THAT!"
>
> However, Puddles, THAT does not mean that I can NOT think, or imagine,
> or CONCEIVE!
>
> >
Only that you are unable to critically review your own ideas for their validity.
> > >
> > > Any contribution would be greatly appreciated ;-)
> > >
> > > owd
> >
> > My suggestion is stop posting
>
> Why, are you done thinking?
>
Oh no.
> Hey, Look, Puddles; I didn't come on here attempting to tell you how
> to run your science or career OR what to believe.
>
> I posted my opinion, fine, if you don't lke that.... Oh, well....
> You know what I believe, I know what you refuse to believe... fine.
>
> Now I've posted an idea and asked for input....
> If you don't like it -- fine... if you don't want to believe it...
> fine.
>
> Still, if you can offer some constructive skepticism, or consider the
> idea as a 112 million to 1 impossibility, THEN explain the math and
> mechanics... you would be making a constructive contribution....
You're a loon. A loon who has admitted trolling, and writes pisspoor pseudo
religous nonsense about the end of the world.
You have nothing worth contributing too.
>
>
> ---- 's been nice exchanging insults with ya... :-)
>
>
> enjoy
> owd
Wally Anglesea™
<phineasp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>In article <1172437441....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> gaedh...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
<SNIP>
>
>
>You're a loon. A loon who has admitted trolling, and writes pisspoor pseudo
>religous nonsense about the end of the world.
And here's the results of a thread in aus.religion.christian:
On 25 Feb 2007 10:39:49 -0800, gaedh...@yahoo.com wrote:
>On Feb 24, 5:00 pm, Wally Anglesea™
><wangl...@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> wrote:
>> On 24 Feb 2007 10:05:44 -0800, gaedhea...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Discovery Channel :: September 02, 2003 EDT
>>
>> >"Asteroid May Hit Earth March 21, 2014"
>>
>> >[Image: Artist's Rendition Of An Asteroid Impact]
>>
>> Sell me all of your belongings for $10.00
>>
>> You don't need them, and you can use the $10.00 to buy water to put by
>> for the emergency. Make sure you spend all your money before the
>> impact. Money will be useless thereafter.
>>
>
>First, my "belongings" are worthless, so your $10 will be wasted, but
>send it, I'll take it.
>
>As for money being worthless after the impact, you are wrong; money
>will be worthless before that.
>
>Second, (a meaningless detail) I have no money, I live in poverty.
>
>Third, and more important, I won't be here by the time of the sixth
>Seal when the hail of asteroids hits.
>
>owd
>
>
He is an apocalypse junkie. Like all apocalypse junkies, he enjoys
living in a state of constant alarm.
A definite kook.
--
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
"Maths proves you know how to plug in some figures into a formula, that's
all"
"Even physics is based on wrong theories, so what's the use of maths"
Carole - demonstrating her mathematical abilities.
Phineas T Puddleduck
Wally Anglesea™ <wang...@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> wrote:
> >First, my "belongings" are worthless, so your $10 will be wasted, but
> >send it, I'll take it.
> >
> >As for money being worthless after the impact, you are wrong; money
> >will be worthless before that.
> >
> >Second, (a meaningless detail) I have no money, I live in poverty.
> >
> >Third, and more important, I won't be here by the time of the sixth
> >Seal when the hail of asteroids hits.
> >
> >owd
> >
> >
>
>
> He is an apocalypse junkie. Like all apocalypse junkies, he enjoys
> living in a state of constant alarm.
> A definite kook.
Wow. The guy is so far out there he's looking at the Oort cloud from the other
side. He lives in poverty but keeps an internet connection and computer? Wow
thats ascetic.
Wally Anglesea™
Wally Anglesea™
<SNIP>
>
>I've done some reading; but I'm an artist and writer, math does not
>compute.
>
So are you broke because you are a lousy artist and writer, or because
you can't balance a chequebook?
Phineas T Puddleduck
Wally Anglesea? <wang...@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2007 19:14:04 -0800, gaedh...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >
> >I've done some reading; but I'm an artist and writer, math does not
> >compute.
> >
> So are you broke because you are a lousy artist and writer, or because
> you can't balance a chequebook?
I get the feeling its not "or" - its "and" ;-)
--
"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish." Painius
Art Deco
>In article <va14u253hj53i34ld...@4ax.com>,
> Wally Anglesea™ <wang...@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> wrote:
>
>> >First, my "belongings" are worthless, so your $10 will be wasted, but
>> >send it, I'll take it.
>> >
>> >As for money being worthless after the impact, you are wrong; money
>> >will be worthless before that.
>> >
>> >Second, (a meaningless detail) I have no money, I live in poverty.
>> >
>> >Third, and more important, I won't be here by the time of the sixth
>> >Seal when the hail of asteroids hits.
>> >
>> >owd
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> He is an apocalypse junkie. Like all apocalypse junkies, he enjoys
>> living in a state of constant alarm.
>> A definite kook.
>
>
>Wow. The guy is so far out there he's looking at the Oort cloud from the other
>side. He lives in poverty but keeps an internet connection and computer? Wow
>thats ascetic.
I believe that I saw Andy Chung promote one of this guy's posts
recently as some kind of confirmation of Chung's twisted ideas. Now I
wish I could find it.
Art Deco
>> > > > Well, Puddles, it has been entertaining and instructive discussing
>> > > > asteroid impact dynamics with you... ;-)
>> > >
>> > > You're still a loon.
>> >
>> > You're still a closed minded bufoon,
>> > but at least you don't use dirty words, chew tobaccy and spit.
>>
>> Ah - because I don't buy into your pseudo-religous mumbo jumbo I'm closed
>> mindede BWAHAHA.
>>
>
>Without the "pseudo-religious mumbo-jumpo" THINK ABOUT THE MECHANICS
>AND THE POSSIBILITY!!
>
>You are "closed minded" because you will not consider an idea that was
>not handed down to you from the heights of Mt Palomar! (or the chair
>of the astronomy Dept.)
>
>Tell me, Puddles, did any scientist EVER discover anything by refusing
>to consider a new thought?
>
>So you don't like the Idea! O.K., you have me convinced on that.
>
>BUT YOU HAVE OFFERED NO CRITICAL OBJECTION!
>All you have is -- "go take a class!"
>
>Do you have any FACTS, or SCIENTIFICALLY VERIFIABLE DATA to prove the
>possibility is impossible?
>
>If you do, you certainly have not offered any.
>
>SO IF YOU CAN NOT DEMONSTRATE HOW IT MIGHT WORK, THEN DEMONSTRATE THAT
>IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE! (You can not.)
Scientists also used to spend a great deal of time trying transmute
lead into gold. Think about it.