Asteroid and Meteoroid Not a Coincidence

[Jukia]

Here is a link to an article showing a preliminary plot of the respective orbits of DA14 (blue circular orbit) and the Chelyabinsk meteorite (blue elliptical orbit extending beyond the orbit of Mars).

http://beforeitsnews.com/internatio...nsk-meteor-its-pieces-go-on-sale-2452290.html

Unfortunately, there's no connection, Pastor Bob.

Goodness, does that suggest that relying on Dr. Brown's theory might not be the smartest thing to do to explain the real world???

 

[GuySmiley]

Goodness, does that suggest that relying on Dr. Brown's theory might not be the smartest thing to do to explain the real world???

Yes! If the asteroid and meteor are not related then his entire theory crumbles! errr, I mean no.

 

[gcthomas]

Yes! If the asteroid and meteor are not related then his entire theory crumbles! errr, I mean no.

No, but it does say something about Enyart's confident assertions in his radio show. Very confident, as always, but mostly made-up nonsense.

In any case, the hydroplate 'theory' fails all on its own without any help from me. It wasn't intended to persuade those with scientific knowledge and understanding, but seems to be a fiction solely to sway the gullible and ignorant or those desperate for an anti-science YEC angle to their faith. Most Christians will have nothing to do with it because they are too smart.

 

[Frayed Knot]

So can we summarise:

Despite being on distinctly different trajectories and arriving several hours apart, and despite the statements by astronomers that the two are entirely unconnected, the Chelyabinsk meteorite and Asteroid DA14 are, in fact, connected after all and incontrovertible evidence in support of Wally Brown's hydropants' theory? Is that about it?

No, that's not all. I think the larger lesson here is how once again, Enyart will grasp at whatever pseudoscience if he thinks it supports his preconceptions.

 

[GuySmiley]

No, but it does say something about Enyart's confident assertions in his radio show. Very confident, as always, but mostly made-up nonsense.

In any case, the hydroplate 'theory' fails all on its own without any help from me. It wasn't intended to persuade those with scientific knowledge and understanding, but seems to be a fiction solely to sway the gullible and ignorant or those desperate for an anti-science YEC angle to their faith. Most Christians will have nothing to do with it because they are too smart.

When confident people are wrong (Im not saying he IS wrong), does that always invalidate everything they say or does that only apply to creationists? You are so transparent. :blabla:

 

[gcthomas]

When confident people are wrong (Im not saying he IS wrong), does that always invalidate everything they say or does that only apply to creationists? You are so transparent. :blabla:

It's got to damage the trust in that person's authority.

 

[Lordkalvan]

Yes! If the asteroid and meteor are not related then his entire theory crumbles! errr, I mean no.

Well, if Asteroid DN12 and the Chelyabinsk meteorite both originated from Earth in the 'fountains of the deep' less than 5000 years ago, it makes their differing orbital dynamics something of a conundrum - whereas 'conventional' astronomy and cosmology seem to explain them coherently and parsimoniously.

 

[Lordkalvan]

When confident people are wrong (Im not saying he IS wrong), does that always invalidate everything they say or does that only apply to creationists? You are so transparent. :blabla:

As far as the hydroplate 'theory' is concerned, it seems to be wrong in so many aspects that degrees of (misplaced) confidence on the part of its author appear to be the least of its problems.

 

[Stripe]

If you look at the image, the orbit of the Earth is the green circle. That of 2012 DA14 is the blue ellipse that is almost entirely within the orbit of the Earth; notice that it is close to circular. The other blue ellipse, stretching way beyond the orbit of Mars, is the first determination of the orbit of the Russian meteor. Notice that the two are nothing alike; in fact, they aren't even close.

-source.​

If the moon was leading the asteroid upon approach to Earth, Earth's gravity would have affected it long before it affected the asteroid thus presenting a very different entry trajectory.

And given this thing has been wrapping around Earth for the last few thousand years at least, it's not unlikely that its orbit was a very circular on, nor uninclined to any extent.

I think the timing aspect is enough to suggest that the two are related.

 

[GuySmiley]

They are rebuilding the meteor's orbit based on cell phone videos and weather satellites photos. That is going to be wildly inaccurate. The only thing they can be kind of sure of is the inclination.

 

[Lordkalvan]

If you look at the image, the orbit of the Earth is the green circle. That of 2012 DA14 is the blue ellipse that is almost entirely within the orbit of the Earth; notice that it is close to circular. The other blue ellipse, stretching way beyond the orbit of Mars, is the first determination of the orbit of the Russian meteor. Notice that the two are nothing alike; in fact, they aren't even close.

-source.​

If the moon was leading the asteroid upon approach to Earth, Earth's gravity would have affected it long before it affected the asteroid thus presenting a very different entry trajectory.

Can the Professor explain the orbital physics behind this speculation? Can the Professor further explain what separation he understands existed between the asteroid and its supposed moon? Can he provide any evidence to support any of this?

And given this thing has been wrapping around Earth for the last few thousand years at least, it's not unlikely that its orbit was a very circular on, nor uninclined to any extent.

That's a bit of a red herring, Professor. No one is contesting or arguing about the asteroid's orbit, are they?

I think the timing aspect is enough to suggest that the two are related.

The Professor needs to find some evidence to support this thought. Coulda-woulda-shoulda doesn't come up to the high standards of scientific rigour we have come to expect from him.

 

[Lordkalvan]

They are rebuilding the meteor's orbit based on cell phone videos and weather satellites photos. That is going to be wildly inaccurate. The only thing they can be kind of sure of is the inclination.

Well, it's not 'wildly inaccurate' that its trajectory was north-south, while the asteroid's was south-north. So far we have seen nothing but handwaving speculation to relate the one to the other based on an approximate coincidence of timing. Several thousand meteors enter Earth's atmosphere every day, so statistics suggest that at least a quarter of these were as coincident with the passage of the asteroid as was the Chelyabinsk meteorite. Do you think that all of these meteors were also associated with the asteroid?.

 

[gcthomas]

If you look at the image, the orbit of the Earth is the green circle. That of 2012 DA14 is the blue ellipse that is almost entirely within the orbit of the Earth; notice that it is close to circular. The other blue ellipse, stretching way beyond the orbit of Mars, is the first determination of the orbit of the Russian meteor. Notice that the two are nothing alike; in fact, they aren't even close.

-source.​

If the moon was leading the asteroid upon approach to Earth, Earth's gravity would have affected it long before it affected the asteroid thus presenting a very different entry trajectory.

And given this thing has been wrapping around Earth for the last few thousand years at least, it's not unlikely that its orbit was a very circular on, nor uninclined to any extent.

I think the timing aspect is enough to suggest that the two are related.

Given the time differences between the two, they must have been about 500 000 km apart. For a 40000 ton asteroid, the meteoroid would have, as a moon, an orbital speed of two micrometers per second. On impact the bodies had speed difference of at least 40 000 km/h. Reaching the Earth a slightly different times couldn't have produced that path difference.

And I love your homage to the 'correlation is causation' meme!

 

[Stripe]

Given the time differences between the two, they must have been about 500 000 km apart.

What time difference?

For a 40000 ton asteroid, the meteoroid would have, as a moon, an orbital speed of two micrometers per second.

:AMR:

Really?

Why?

On impact the bodies had speed difference of at least 40 000 km/h.

There were no impacts. One went past Earth and the other burst in the atmosphere.

Reaching the Earth a slightly different times couldn't have produced that path difference.

Luckily I specified other factors that might have influenced the trajectory.

And I love your homage to the 'correlation is causation' meme!

:AMR:

 

[Lordkalvan]

What time difference?

The Professor hasn't been paying attention. The Chelyabinsk meteorite impact preceded the asteroid passage by some hours.

:AMR:

Really?

Why?

Well, as the Professor has quite failed to support his speculation that the Chelyabinsk meteorite was a moon of Asteroid DN14, his questioning of others on this subject seems a little premature.

There were no impacts. One went past Earth and the other burst in the atmosphere.

The Professor should note that impact is singular. If he is reduced to playing semantic games and being intentionally obtuse, perhaps this is because he has no reasoned argument to make?

Luckily I specified other factors that might have influenced the trajectory.

:AMR:

Really, Professor, speculative, unsupported handwaving does not amount to 'specif[ying] other factors'.

 

[GuySmiley]

Well, it's not 'wildly inaccurate' that its trajectory was north-south, while the asteroid's was south-north. So far we have seen nothing but handwaving speculation to relate the one to the other based on an approximate coincidence of timing. Several thousand meteors enter Earth's atmosphere every day, so statistics suggest that at least a quarter of these were as coincident with the passage of the asteroid as was the Chelyabinsk meteorite. Do you think that all of these meteors were also associated with the asteroid?.

Look at the weather satellite photos, it looks east west to me, and maybe that doesnt line up with the asteroid, I dont really know, and I dont really care enough to go research and form an opinion. I've never argued that they ARE related btw. The orbits NASA drew look to me like they are in the same orbital plane and have very roughly the same perigee. From what I know, the eccentricity and size of the meteor's orbit is going to be the hardest thing to determine. There is no tracking data on the meteor.

No I dont think all those meteors are associated, and I'm not arguing for the positive that the Russian one is either. I got into the thread to direct Jukia to the Hbomb statements in Walt Browns book and then got sucked in by you guys thread-crapping. Good grief it drives me nuts how critical you guys are while saying absolutely nothing. Anyway I know some things about orbits so its easy for me to get sucked in.

 

[Jukia]

I got into the thread to direct Jukia to the Hbomb statements in Walt Browns book and then got sucked in by you guys thread-crapping. Good grief it drives me nuts how critical you guys are while saying absolutely nothing. Anyway I know some things about orbits so its easy for me to get sucked in.

"thread crapping"? Hardly. The OP claims Pastor Bob stated that there was a connection all based on Walt Brown's work. It appears he is wrong. Think he will step up and admit it? Not likely. Brown is one of his favorites.

 

[Lordkalvan]

Look at the weather satellite photos, it looks east west to me, and maybe that doesnt line up with the asteroid, I dont really know, and I dont really care enough to go research and form an opinion. I've never argued that they ARE related btw.

I wasn't trying to suggest you had, but others clearly have (including the OP) and my comment seemed relevant in the context of your post.

The orbits NASA drew look to me like they are in the same orbital plane and have very roughly the same perigee. From what I know, the eccentricity and size of the meteor's orbit is going to be the hardest thing to determine. There is no tracking data on the meteor.

Which is why efforts to form a connection between the asteroid and the meteorite seem to be premature and self-serving.

No I dont think all those meteors are associated, and I'm not arguing for the positive that the Russian one is either. I got into the thread to direct Jukia to the Hbomb statements in Walt Browns book and then got sucked in by you guys thread-crapping.

Thread-crapping? So unsupported assertions that appear to be contraindicated by most of the available evidence should simply go unchallenged. So far, all the Wally Brown cheerleaders seem to have offered is speculation and handwaving, while pretty much ignoring any substantive posts to the contrary. I am not suggesting this includes yourself.

Good grief it drives me nuts how critical you guys are while saying absolutely nothing. Anyway I know some things about orbits so its easy for me to get sucked in.

So you would prefer blind acceptance of unsupported claims as facts?

 

[Frayed Knot]

For a 40000 ton asteroid, the meteoroid would have, as a moon, an orbital speed of two micrometers per second.

:AMR:

Really?

Why?

I haven't done the calculations myself, but the 2 um/s sounds plausible. The reason is that the little asteroid has hardly any gravity at all. A "moon" orbiting it just a mile away from its surface would have to be moving pretty darn slowly, else it would fly off into space. If a moon was orbiting it farther out, the gravity it felt would be extremely small, so the moon would have to have an extremely small speed to stay captured. Since the main asteroid was what, 17,000 miles away (?), it's just implausible that there could be a moon at all at that distance.

There were no impacts. One went past Earth and the other burst in the atmosphere.

There was one impact - the smaller rock impacted with the Earth, because the atmosphere is part of the Earth.

Look, Stripe (and all the other folks trying to defend Enyart here), there's just no way to make this idea work. If the rock and the asteroid were travelling together, they necessarily would have had to be coming from the same general direction, even considering that the Earth's gravity would have bent the smaller rock's path somewhat near the end.

If the rock had at one time been associated with the asteroid but its orbit got perturbed, then its timing would also have been different, and they would not have arrived anywhere near the same time.

It just doesn't work. Give it up.

 

[Stripe]

I haven't done the calculations myself, but the 2 um/s sounds plausible. The reason is that the little asteroid has hardly any gravity at all. A "moon" orbiting it just a mile away from its surface would have to be moving pretty darn slowly, else it would fly off into space. If a moon was orbiting it farther out, the gravity it felt would be extremely small, so the moon would have to have an extremely small speed to stay captured. Since the main asteroid was what, 17,000 miles away (?), it's just implausible that there could be a moon at all at that distance.

Ah .. OK.

It just doesn't work. Give it up.

OK.