Re: anomalies on Iapidus
At 2:16 PM 2/19/5, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:39:35 -0900: Hi, [snip] That is true. A three body interaction close to Iapidus could produce a lower energy collision. The third body might carry away much of the momentum, as viewed from Iapidus' inertial frame, or the momentum and energy of objects moving in opposed directions could be spent in a head-on collision close to Iapidus, spraying it with debris. [snip] Another possibility is that part of two approaching bodies is composed of water ice, which as they collide converts to steam that expands, providing a cushioning buffer between them, slowing their approach, and carrying away some of the kinetic energy of the collision, such that when the rocky bodies collide, the impact is insufficient to melt, or shatter them. Yes, that works too. In the case of a close to Iapetus collision of two other bodies, the two initially colliding bodies would have the full gravitational potential of the 3 body interaction converted to heat. Suppose, ignoring for a minute the mass of the evaporated ice, the two approaching bodies might have mass about 1/4 of Iapetus, or about 4.7x10^20 kg. The initial iapetus would have a mass of 9.4x10^20 kg, instead of the final mass of 1.88x10^21 kg. Assume the collision happens at an altitude roughly equal to Iapetus' final radius of 730 km. The collision velocity of the two initial impactors will be conservatively: V = (2 G M/(R))^0.5 V = (2 G (4.7x10^20 kg)/(730 km))^0.5 V = 293 m/s So the energy E converted to heat is: E = 2 * .5 m*V^2 = (4.7x10^20 kg)(293 m/s)^2 = 4x10^25 J Thus the heat per gram H is: H = E/m = (4x10^25 J)/(4.7x10^20 kg) = 8.6 J/g which is not a lot of heat to dissipate, so this could simply result in increased temperature, or as you noted, be dissipated by ice. Even 4 times that number will not produce much incremental temperature. Iapetus is so small one has to wonder how eneough energy is developed to smush two bodies together to make it one spherical body. Looks like the three body theory is not even necessary, unless I have a computation error. Iapetus is not very dense, or very big. See: http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~idh/solar/eng/iapetus Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: anomalies on Iapidus
Fairly nconsequential correction follows: The collision velocity of the two initial impactors will be conservatively: V = (2 G M/(R))^0.5 V = (2 G (4.7x10^20 kg)/(730 km))^0.5 V = 293 m/s So the energy E converted to heat is: E = 2 * .5 m*V^2 = (4.7x10^20 kg)(293 m/s)^2 = 4x10^25 J Thus the heat per gram H is: H = E/(2*m) = (4x10^25 J)/(4.7x10^20 kg) = 43 J/g note correction H = 10 cal/g which is not a lot of heat to dissipate, so this could simply result in increased temperature, or as you noted, be dissipated by ice. Even 4 times that number will not produce much incremental temperature. If it has the heat capacity of water that is only about 40 deg. C., not enough to boil water starting from 0 deg. C ice. Iapetus is so small one has to wonder how enough energy is developed to smush two bodies together to make it one spherical body. Looks like the three body theory is not even necessary, unless I have a computation error. Iapetus is not very dense, or very big. See: http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~idh/solar/eng/iapetus At 11:23 AM 2/19/5, revtec wrote: 293 m/s is 649 mph! The heat of collision would be intense and localized for planetary sized bodies. The 8.6 J/g, if correct, is not evenly distributed. In the area of contact, billions of tons of material would be heated to incandesence. Jeff Well, you shoot a bullet at that speed and it will not warm up itself or the target much due to the collision. It has lots of momentum and destructive power well focused, but not much heat. What you say about the heat being concetrated at the surface is certainly true, and that can account for the ridge, but the bulk of the masses should remain solid. Very strange. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: anomalies on Iapidus
In reply to revtec's message of Sat, 19 Feb 2005 11:23:31 -0500: Hi, [snip] 293 m/s is 649 mph! The heat of collision would be intense and localized for planetary sized bodies. The 8.6 J/g, if correct, is not evenly distributed. In the area of contact, billions of tons of material would be heated to incandesence. Jeff [snip] Any percentage of ice, from 0-100% is possible, along with a wide variety of other matter, which can vary from a loose agglomeration to a solid mass, which makes for a very large parameter space. Given Horace's figures, combined with your observation here above, it would seem that there is likely to be some combination which could result in the current configuration. BTW in the close up, the wall appears to split into 3 lines (or mountain ranges) deep in the shadow portion. This may be an indication that the bodies were rotating relative to one another (highly likely anyway) at the time of impact. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: anomalies on Iapidus
At 12:32 PM 2/18/5, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 16 Feb 2005 01:13:26 -0900: Hi, [snip] The velocity of collision of two bodies of mass and radius M, R, m and r respectivley, is gravitationally bounded (on the low side) by V = (2 G M/(R+r))^0.5 + (2 G m/(R+r))^0.5. In the case of a body docking with the space station both M and m are very small. In the case of planet or moon sized collisions, M and m are large, so the total kinetic energy is large and thus V is large. [snip] Here you assume the low side initial velocity is zero, however it could also be negative (through interaction of one or both with a third body). From a different point of view, the formula above assume a starting point infinitely far away, however the starting point may be close by, resulting in no opportunity to pick up speed. That is true. A three body interaction close to Iapidus could produce a lower energy collision. The third body might carry away much of the momentum, as viewed from Iapidus' inertial frame, or the momentum and energy of objects moving in opposed directions could be spent in a head-on collision close to Iapidus, spraying it with debris. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: anomalies on Iapidus
At 5:51 PM 2/16/5, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to thomas malloy's message of Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:56:48 -0600: Hi, [snip] If a smaller and a larger sphere collided at just the right speed, you might get a ridge line where they joined, and the resultant object would not be spherical because the two spheres were different sizes. However it would have to be a fairly slow collision, otherwise the energy of collision would melt both bodies, and they would solidify as a perfect sphere. Isn't a slow collision between two astronomical bodies oxymoronic? Not necessarily, if they are moving together in the same direction, then the differential speed can be very small (otherwise it would be impossible to dock with the ISS). The velocity of collision of two bodies of mass and radius M, R, m and r respectivley, is gravitationally bounded (on the low side) by V = (2 G M/(R+r))^0.5 + (2 G m/(R+r))^0.5. In the case of a body docking with the space station both M and m are very small. In the case of planet or moon sized collisions, M and m are large, so the total kinetic energy is large and thus V is large. Regards, Horace Heffner
anomalies on Iapidus
Richard C Hoagland was interview on C to C AM a few days ago. He suggested that I read his paper on what Cassini found on Saturn's moon Iapetus. One of the tenants of natural philosophy is that straight lines, square corners, and bisymmetries don't occur naturally. The straight line in question is a twelve mile high wall which seems to extend all the way around the moon. Hoagland makes the case that this in not a natural feature, and I agree with him. While the photograph shows a cratered surface, meteoric bombardment over the millennia would account for that. I hope that I have aroused the curiosity of some of you, the URL is www.enterprisemission.com . Page down to A Moon With a View The Scientology thread reminded me to post some comments on the Cassini mission to Saturn. What, you might ask does Hubbard and Parsons have to do with NASA? Well Richard C Hoagland has been saying for years that there is a connection between NASA and the Occult. He has shown correlations between the their actions and the Occult. Even though alien artifacts would facilitate their funding, they seem hell bent on squelching the story The Mission Earth thread was not intended to devolve into a discussion on Scientology. Indeed, I believe the anecdote that LRH started Scientology as a result of a bet with Robert Heinlein; that, LRH could not invent a religion that would be recognized as such by the IRS. It would seem that he succeeded. Have any of you heard that JPL stands for Jack Parson's Lab?
Re: anomalies on Iapidus
In reply to thomas malloy's message of Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:23:30 -0600: Hi, If a smaller and a larger sphere collided at just the right speed, you might get a ridge line where they joined, and the resultant object would not be spherical because the two spheres were different sizes. However it would have to be a fairly slow collision, otherwise the energy of collision would melt both bodies, and they would solidify as a perfect sphere. Richard C Hoagland was interview on C to C AM a few days ago. He suggested that I read his paper on what Cassini found on Saturn's moon Iapetus. One of the tenants of natural philosophy is that straight lines, square corners, and bisymmetries don't occur naturally. The straight line in question is a twelve mile high wall which seems to extend all the way around the moon. Hoagland makes the case that this in not a natural feature, and I agree with him. While the photograph shows a cratered surface, meteoric bombardment over the millennia would account for that. I hope that I have aroused the curiosity of some of you, the URL is www.enterprisemission.com . Page down to A Moon With a View [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: anomalies on Iapidus
Robin Von Spaandonk replied In reply to thomas malloy's message of Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:23:30 -0600: Hi, If a smaller and a larger sphere collided at just the right speed, you might get a ridge line where they joined, and the resultant object would not be spherical because the two spheres were different sizes. However it would have to be a fairly slow collision, otherwise the energy of collision would melt both bodies, and they would solidify as a perfect sphere. Isn't a slow collision between two astronomical bodies oxymoronic? Interesting observation Robin. Can it explain a 60,000 high foot wall too? Then there is the matter of what appear to large holes with a 90 degree corner. Hoagland's hyperdimentional paradigm of physics talks about a nested tetrahedron in a spherical body. Where the vortices of the tetrahedron intersect the sphere's surface, there will be anomalies, the details are linked from the main webpage. BTW, Hoagland has promised two additional papers on the subject. BTW, thank you for correcting my word error, they go right through the spell checker.
Re: anomalies on Iapidus
In reply to thomas malloy's message of Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:56:48 -0600: Hi, [snip] If a smaller and a larger sphere collided at just the right speed, you might get a ridge line where they joined, and the resultant object would not be spherical because the two spheres were different sizes. However it would have to be a fairly slow collision, otherwise the energy of collision would melt both bodies, and they would solidify as a perfect sphere. Isn't a slow collision between two astronomical bodies oxymoronic? Not necessarily, if they are moving together in the same direction, then the differential speed can be very small (otherwise it would be impossible to dock with the ISS). Interesting observation Robin. Can it explain a 60,000 high foot wall too? Yes, that's the ridge around the equator where they bulge during the collision. Two sphere will intersect in a circular plain. Material on the plain gets pushed out to the edges as the bodies move together. Then there is the matter of what appear to large holes with a 90 degree corner. One 90º corner is not uncommon in nature. Several can be, especially when the object is very large. (Small objects may by crystals which frequently have 90º angles). Hoagland's hyperdimentional paradigm of physics talks about a nested tetrahedron in a spherical body. Where the vortices of the tetrahedron intersect the sphere's surface, there will be anomalies, the details are linked from the main webpage. BTW, Hoagland has promised two additional papers on the subject. BTW, thank you for correcting my word error, they go right through the spell checker. You're welcome. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
