This Looks Like The Right Place

Most illogical. If there are no limits how is it that I can measure the area and volume of a sphere. How is it that there is a surface with which I can use to hold the sphere?

No the quote is to show that the universe is expanding at an even rate, that objects are going outwards at the same rate, as opposed to an explosion where the objects in the center expand at a faster rate.

PORCUPINE knows

I don't perscribe to anything.

But Universe itself mneans all that there is. It has no outside.

Your mind is still stuck in classical mode. Think..the Moebius strip. It has at any point an inside and an outside, but they turn out to be the same surface.

The modern equations would show a bounded univesre, with everything inisde, and no outsiode at all - except the mind making the calculations of course...

..which is where the Godelian paradox of knowledge pops up and ruins everything.

.

You have just described non locality.

Ed Cregger

The universe is a very illogical place.

| Doug McLaren wrote: | | > In article , | > Bob Cowell wrote: | > | > | I would expect ANY solid object entering the atmosphere at high | > | velocity to show a hot entry

Certainly common sense would lead one to believe this. But it's not that simple ... | > Actually, when a meteor lands, it's usually not even hot. | > | > The outer parts of it often ablate off, leaving the cooler candy | > center inside, and once it gets into the thicker part of the | > atmosphere, it slows to terminal velocity and has several minutes to | > cool off. | > | More or less bollocks.

Less rather than more, obviously.

Depends on the size and speed/angle of the meteor when it enters our atmosphere. If the meteor is huge, our atmosphere will do almost nothing to it and it'll smack into the ground at almost full speed. (And if it's big enough, it'll spawn the creation of a major motion picture or just kill everybody on the planet.) But if it's smaller, it certainly does slow to terminal velocity, which is probably less than 500 mph.

| > The reason that space craft re-entering get so hot is that they're | > going around 16,000 mph when they hit the atmosphere, and they need to | > bleed off all this speed. If a metor just happened to hit our | > atmosphere without much velocity (it could happen under the right | > conditions) | | It actually couldn't. Gravitational potential makes sure of that.

Apparantly there is a minimum speed that a meteor can enter our atmosphere from space. I was thinking that if it came in just right it could hit our atmosphere with very little kinetic energy relative to our planet, but apparantly not. I could work out the math of this and verify it myself if I wanted to, but for now I'll take their word for it, that anything natural that hits our atmosphere is going very fast.

Apparantly this minimum speed is 11 (kps) kilometers per second.

You can find a reference to this minimum speed at

Other pages you might find useful include :

`Are meteorites hot or cold when they hit Earth?'

(answer: could be either one.)

`Do meteors slow down to terminal velocity?'

(answer: yes, in most cases, unless it's a very large meteor. But most are small.)

And here's an article about a meteor that hit a car, complete with pictures --

considering that the final meteorite weighs 27 pounds, if it hit the car doing 11 kps (and the measured speed from the videos taken is even higher), the car would have been utterly disintegrated, not just smashed up. It probably hit the car at a few hundred mph.

(An object at 11 kps has almost _7000_ times the kinetic energy of one at 300 mph.)

Also consider that this particular meteorite was so spectacular that there were many eye-witnesses, and 16 people even were able to film it. It has been very well studied.

| Thatas about tantamounyt to saying thata frictionbaless ball will roll | to a stop at the bottom of a pudding bowl. No matter ehere you strat it | from it won't.

This analogy is extremely apt outside out our atmosphere (and I'm sutiably impressed. Seriously.), and I'll concede that a meteor must have a minimum speed to reach our outer atmosphere. (Well, I already have.)

However, once it hits our atmosphere, your frictionless analogy completely falls apart.

| The only metioors tha arrive 'slowy' are teh ones that start here.

Well, it depends on how you define slowly. 200 mph isn't slow in terrestrial circles, but it's certainly slow in celestial circles,and meteorites certainly do land at that speed.

| > If the Weekly World News said they'd found Martian meteorites, I'd | > probably skip over that and look for more pictures of the batboy. But | > if NASA does, well, it's probably worth reading, and I haven't done | > more than skim over the stuff so far. | | Just because a rock has te same composition as a bit of Mars doesn't | mean it comes from there.

I haven't read all the stuff yet. As mentioned before, I'm skeptical, but given the credentials of the people who have made the claims, I'm not going to dismiss them out of hand. (If you want to, feel free.) | > Ultimately, I consider myself to be reasonably smart. | | Try education as well.

You first. You've certainly made more factual errors in this thread (and presented them more authoritatively, I might add) than I have.

In any event, this thread has certainly taken on a life of it's own, a life totally unrelated to R/C. We really should let it die. (Yes, I know, I'm contributing to it too.)

Ob R/C related:

Anybody know what this plane is?

It's got a 6' wing span (and no dihedral), and an 0.40 OS MAX FP engine. (Sounds like it's a bit underpowered.) Got it off of a local freecycle list. Needs some work, but it's not in that bad of shape.

I suspect it's a Telemaster, but I'm not sure.

I think I see where the difference lies here Sport,

The term "void" to me implies an empty three dimensional space. What Martin is trying to say is that there isn't any space at all outside the universe (or time for that matter) so calling the area outside of the universe a "void" seems to be the sticking point here.

IMHO, the stars we can observe are likely not a representative sample of the universe as a whole. It could all very well be part of another structure, and we may find a point of light that turns out to be a similiar structure that is either expanding or contracting.

Doug, you could have saved face by simply utilizing a wormhole to deposit the meteorite at the top of the atmosphere. LOL!

----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug McLaren"

You tell us! You're infinitely more familiar with the subject that anyone else!

I was answering the proposition that there were certain places and speeds a meteor could arrive from that would make it encounter the earth at a slow speed. There are none. As you have described 11Kps is a minimum.

The fact that they may indeed get slowed down by friction is not part of what I was addressing. But they won't get slowed by friction AND arrive cool.

That 11KPS has to go into heat of some sort although its true to say that one the surface melts that is ging to get ripped off pretty fast. leaving the inner part cooler than it might have been (latent heat of evaporation and all that stuff).

Why?

Its interesting.

>

Sunworshipper (in original post) wrote,

I don't recollect seeing it mentioned in this voluminous and multitangental thread, but the Antarctic ice sheet is the best place to find meteorites. It's not that more fall on Antarctica, it's the natural absence of any terrestrial rocks. So anything lying on the ice sheet has to have fallen there. Bill(oc)

Bill, I have a few from observed falls onto the ice/glaciers. They are something if they are found quickly, they tend to oxidize quickly in the snow. That is one reason why the pieces from observed falls are better looking and worth a little more money. (My collection is all Iron Ferrite pieces). My 2 cents.

John

Isn't that where they found that 'mars' one?

I kinda like the sun belt not the frozen ends.

Now if you could fly there remotely ,land ,chip it off the ice ,stow it ,and fly it back... The wind and cold and no one to fuel and it would be too heavy to take off. Meteorites are cool , but I'm not into that cold. I know what 45 below F is, no reason to find out what lower is like.

Now, if you used a magnetometer or some high tech. map. And mine the biggest iron mass out like they did for that crushed P-38 !

From Sunworshipper:

AH, Glacier Girl ! Now there's a subject worth modeling. She's the early model with the curved windshield and sexy forward nacelles that preceded the drooping chin scoops. Bill(oc)

Yes, many of the mars ones were found in antarctica.

Bad example, a moebius strip is still two surfaces, just twisted to seem as one, that and a circle do not represent infinity. Infinity would be an infinate universe, or a space with a infinate number or universe's. Either could be infinite.

The modern equations do not indicate anything about what is outside of the universe, because that is unknown. It could well be a void, or no space at all, or an infinate universe. Heck it is all theory, I am not convinced that all of the therory of relitivity is true, especially the part of not being able to exceed the speed of light, in fact I think that part has recently been disproven. Or maybe gotten around somehow.

The speed of light is relative to the point of radiation. If a light source is travelling away from you at .99C, then how fast is the light going away from you?

Yes, recently there have been discussions about changing the speed of light, instead of trying to deliberately exceed it.

As humans, we do not perceive all of the dimensions that engulf us, so it is quite likely that our perception of the universe is quite flawed. Still, we do the best that we can.

It may take a sentient/highly intelligent computer to detect, perceive and quantify the other dimensional aspects which we can only infer through mathmatics.

I get a kick out of Richard C. Hoagland's (Face of Mars fame) Hyperdimensional Physics (resurrected from the days of Maxwell). He may not be as far off as many folks think, although he is an entertainer and not really a scientist, IIRC.

Ed Cregger

It's not that simple per the law of relitivity the light cannot go past

1C despite your speed. Just as the speed of sound will not go past it's speed. But you can go past the speed of sound.