Asteroid and Meteoroid Not a Coincidence

[Stripe]

Approx 2% of asteroids have moons, according to the surveys.

Oh yeah? Betcha a thousand dollars your surveys will be shown wrong with further investigation.

If two asteroids are in almost the same orbit, then the relative speeds will be very low. There are plenty of contact binary asteroids that show that collision speeds can be very low indeed.

Yeah, stating observations as if they justify a non-disclosed theory of yours and discount a proposed theory doesn't cut it.

We have a reason and an explanation for these observations.

When I am talking about slow asteroid collisions, what else would I mean? ALL speeds are measured relative to something, and I thought this was obvious. (I didn't mention absolute speeds - did you think I meant that?)

:idunno:

You mention a lot of things and then when I ask what you mean you ignore me.

You assume that all asteroid moons are in circular orbits.

I do?

Where?

Most asteroid moons are in quite elliptical orbits, so 90 deg turns are not necessary.

I'm glad you understand the problem. Yes, it need not be a 90^o turn. But something has to happen other than a collision sending pieces flying.

And with several objects launched into very elliptical orbits, collisions and amalgamation of these will tend to circularise somewhat the orbits by averaging the motions.

The average of the motions is either up and down or forever away.

Yes. Only needs to be a few percent. And? The ones that are left may have tidally produced moons. This is a problem how?

There are so many problems at every stage it's hard to answer. :chuckle:

 

[Lordkalvan]

Oh yeah? Betcha a thousand dollars your surveys will be shown wrong with further investigation.

And what conclusion would the Professor draw from any such findings and why?

Yeah, stating observations as if they justify a non-disclosed theory of yours and discount a proposed theory doesn't cut it.

We have a reason and an explanation for these observations.

As the Professor provided no such evidenced reason and explanation, his point is moot.

:idunno:

You mention a lot of things and then when I ask what you mean you ignore me.

The Professor needs to reflect on the beam in his own eye.

I do?

Where?

What does the Professor assume, then, and what evidence underlies his assumptions?

I'm glad you understand the problem. Yes, it need not be a 90^o turn. But something has to happen other than a collision sending pieces flying.

Can the Professor elaborate what he means by 'something', preferably with some evidence and, if possible, calculations? If a collision takes place at a relative speed of a few kilometres per hour, for example, to what degree does he think 'sending pieces flying' would be a reasonable description of the resulting débris field?

The average of the motions is either up and down or forever away.

Can the Professor provide some evidence to support this assertion?

There are so many problems at every stage it's hard to answer. :chuckle:

Perhaps the Professor could take a crack at one or two of the problems he regards as most significant, then? Or maybe he would just prefer to continue handwaving?

 

[gcthomas]

The average of the motions is either up and down or forever away.

You would have to assume that the main part of the asteroid is not disrupted nor accelerated by the impact nor set rotating (which would produce a loose assembly of rubble all revolving, some parts of which could become moons themselves). The 'up-down' description of yours assumes a fixed up-down direction, whch is not the case for asteroid impacts. There is some complexity here, which you can ignore if you like, but simplistic descriptions will lead to incorrect deductions.

 

[Stripe]

You would have to assume that the main part of the asteroid is not disrupted nor accelerated by the impact nor set rotating (which would produce a loose assembly of rubble all revolving, some parts of which could become moons themselves). The 'up-down' description of yours assumes a fixed up-down direction, whch is not the case for asteroid impacts. There is some complexity here, which you can ignore if you like, but simplistic descriptions will lead to incorrect deductions.

You're the one that introduced the "average of motions" concept. And now you don't like the simplifying of the processes?

Every time there is a collision between asteroids the effect will be to make smaller the pieces and to spread them out. The average of their motions will be the same as before, if a little slower. Given that what we see today are very great relative velocities, If you want to then coalesce asteroids, you need some mechanism to overcome those velocities.

 

[Lordkalvan]

You're the one that introduced the "average of motions" concept. And now you don't like the simplifying of the processes?

Every time there is a collision between asteroids the effect will be to make smaller the pieces and to spread them out. The average of their motions will be the same as before, if a little slower. Given that what we see today are very great relative velocities, If you want to then coalesce asteroids, you need some mechanism to overcome those velocities.

Can the Professor show us some of these 'very great relative velocities' or is he just making stuff up to suit his arguments? After all, so far he has resolutely failed to provide us with anything other than assertion and handwaving.

The mechanism the Professor seems to fail to consider is gravity.

 

[gcthomas]

You're the one that introduced the "average of motions" concept. And now you don't like the simplifying of the processes?

Every time there is a collision between asteroids the effect will be to make smaller the pieces and to spread them out. The average of their motions will be the same as before, if a little slower. Given that what we see today are very great relative velocities, If you want to then coalesce asteroids, you need some mechanism to overcome those velocities.

There are plenty of satellites orbiting around Earth, with average speeds of 8 km/s. Some are orbiting at right angles to each other, so relative speeds are up to 11 km/s. Others are orbiting in the same direction, with relative speeds close to zero. Why are all relative speeds always so high in your reality? But even high speed impacts would produce large debris fields with many pieces travelling in the same direction, and these can coalesce.

Averaging the motions is a result of collisions that are following different vectors but with a similar bias in their motion. A whole load of rocks on different elliptical orbits produced by an off centre impact will generally be going the same way round the parent. Those on their going down part of the orbit will collide with the going up ones, with the net momentum vector pointing somewhere between the two - an averaging process. Complex, not simplifying.

Coalescence is simple, Stripe. Collisions will remove kinetic energy from the multiple parts, allowing them to settle eventually, with the resulting mass carrying on with the net momentum. Just a little hotter from the dissipated energy.

 

[Stripe]

There are plenty of satellites orbiting around Earth, with average speeds of 8 km/s. Some are orbiting at right angles to each other, so relative speeds are up to 11 km/s. Others are orbiting in the same direction, with relative speeds close to zero. Why are all relative speeds always so high in your reality? But even high speed impacts would produce large debris fields with many pieces travelling in the same direction, and these can coalesce.

Like all the stuff you just described hasn't coalesced? :chuckle:

The processes you might appeal to in order to create moons work equally well to spread out and break up asteroids. What you need is a process that will generate but not destroy.

Averaging the motions is a result of collisions that are following different vectors but with a similar bias in their motion. A whole load of rocks on different elliptical orbits produced by an off centre impact will generally be going the same way round the parent. Those on their going down part of the orbit will collide with the going up ones, with the net momentum vector pointing somewhere between the two - an averaging process. Complex, not simplifying.

I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. :idunno:

Coalescence is simple, Stripe. Collisions will remove kinetic energy from the multiple parts, allowing them to settle eventually, with the resulting mass carrying on with the net momentum. Just a little hotter from the dissipated energy.

And from whence the moons?

 

[Lordkalvan]

Like all the stuff you just described hasn't coalesced? :chuckle:

Can the Professor clarify what he means? Does he have any data on coalescence timescales, for example?

The processes you might appeal to in order to create moons work equally well to spread out and break up asteroids.

They do, Professor? Can you actually demonstrate this, or are you simply content to assert it?

What you need is a process that will generate but not destroy.

Does the Professor have an evidence-based account of such a process, or is he intent on simply being cryptic?

I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. :idunno:

Well, the Professor has so far failed to show the how and why of this allegation, just as he has failed to show us that he has any idea what he is talking about.

And from whence the moons?

It appears that the Professor has not been paying attention. Moons of asteroids may result from débris associated with collisions, or they may result from gravitational interactions amongst otherwise unrelated objects.

 

[gcthomas]

Like all the stuff you just described hasn't coalesced? :chuckle:

The processes you might appeal to in order to create moons work equally well to spread out and break up asteroids. What you need is a process that will generate but not destroy.


I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. :idunno:


And from whence the moons?

Did you read the moon formation paper I posted a link to? It had great graphics from a simulation, showing tidal disruption of an asteroid resulting in the remnants being a moon orbiting an asteroid.

The creation IS IN the destruction! Destructive processes can form moons! Think harder! It will become clear. (And read the paper - at least the abstract and scroll through for the pretty pictures if the full read is a bit hard.)