Imagine a 1000 ton floating rock, with a one ton boulder orbiting it.
Perhaps at 100 miles... What's the orbital speed? I don't have the
formula, but I'll guess, oh, 1 ft/s. (1 ft/day? (Remember, if it's more
than escape velocity, it's not really in orbit)).
Now, set our little system speeding through the inner planets at 10,000 mph.
Do the vector triangle for the boulder: one side is 10,000 mph, one is 1
ft/s, and voila! the third side is 10,000 +/- 1/19,000,000 mph. And so
the direction is insensibly different from that of the rock. The two
cannot possible seem to come from different angles, they are flying
parallel.
But wait, they approach earth /hours/ apart. Boulder's orbit radius
must be a least 10,000 miles. Now the orbital speed is 100x100 slower?
(I'm assuming inversely pptnl to square of radius).
Don't even think about the Earth's movement during those hours.
The numbers and guesses are all wrong, but the result is so blatant that
the right ones would make the demonstration no better. And it saved me
a lot of research.
If the objects are associated, they /must/ appear to have been moving
parallel before getting very near the Earth. Otherwise they would all be
exceeding their various escape velocities - and thus not related after all.
Ol' Bab
On 2/28/2013 1:19 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
On Feb 28, 2013, at 11:07 AM, Alexander Hollins wrote:
if it were in orbit around it, there would have been an additional
vector to its motion. Tracking information verified a straight line
trajectory from what I've read. Good thought though.
If the orbit was as large as would be required to account for the 16
hour difference between the meteor and the asteroid reaching the
earth, it would look like a straight line based on the small amount of
contrail that was visible. No other data is available as far as I know.
As for what the media says, are we to believe that at least three very
rare events happened at nearly the same time? Is that conclusion less
plausible than the one I propose? In any case, an orbit exists that
would cause the effect, so I do not see how this idea can be rejected.
Ed
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com
<mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com>> wrote:
I suggested an explanation that apparently was lost in the
discussion. Suppose each asteroid has a swarm of smaller rocks in
orbit around it. Suppose one of these rocks was in an orbit that
caused it to approach the earth from the opposite direction at
the time of the meteor strike in Russia. Overlooked in this
discussion was at least one other large meteor reported near
Cuba, which could have been part of the same swarm. This is
important because any close encounter with an asteroid might
result in the earth being bombarded by large rocks coming from
directions different from the path of the asteroid as the
asteroid gets close. This makes protection that much more difficult.
Ed
On Feb 28, 2013, at 9:06 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I would point out:
1. The event did occur.
2. A causal connection between the two objects seems
exceedingly unlikely, since they came from different
directions at different times. No one has suggested how there
could be a connection, as far as I know.
3. Therefore it is coincidence, no matter how unlikely that
may seem.
- Jed
