PLEASE NOTE:
*
CCNet 75/2003 - 16 September 2003
---------------------------------
Astronomers from Sydney University have come forth with a
solution to a
mysterious new object recently discovered in our Milky Way. In a
letter soon
to be published in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal
Astronomical
Society, Dr Alon Retter and Dr Ariel Marom from the Department of
Physics
suggest that this phenomenon is an expanding giant star
swallowing nearby
planets, an event which may one day befall our own planet....
--The University of Sydney, 16 September 2003
A Japanese researcher is causing a stir in Tokyo with a
prediction based on
his study of radio waves that a major destructive earthquake is
highly likely
to hit the city this week. Yoshio Kushida, a well-known
self-taught astronomer
who runs his own observatory just outside Tokyo, published on its
Internet site
his prediction that a quake with a magnitude of "7" or
greater was likely to
strike the metropolitan area on Tuesday or Wednesday. The
prediction was soon picked
up by a popular weekly magazine and a major daily...
--CNN, 15 September 2003
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't
mttaer in waht
oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht
frist and
lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses
and you can
sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed
ervey lteter by
it slef but the wrod as a wlohe. ceehiro.
--fnoud somewerhe on the innteret,
can't rembemer werhe....
(1) NEVER MIND ASTEROID SCARES AS ASTRONOMER PREDICTS MAJOR
EARTHQUAKE
(2) BIG BANG PROMPTS SEARCH FOR METEOR
(3) SURPRISING IMPACTS ON MARS AND EUROPA
(4) ARTICLE IN "THE PEOPLE"
(5) RE: NEW WEEK, NEW ASTEROID SCARE
(6) NUTTY ASTEROID CALCULATIONS OF THE BACK OF THE ENVELOPE KIND
(7) TORINO SCALE
(8) THE "MARSDEN RATIO" WORKS JUST FINE
(9) AND FINALLY: WATCH OUT FOR HUNGRY STARS AS ASTRONOMERS
IDENTIFY
A "PLANET-SWALLOWING" GIANT STAR
===================
(1) NEVER MIND ASTEROID SCARES AS ASTRONOMER PREDICTS MAJOR
EARTHQUAKE
CNN, 15 September 2003
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/09/15/japan.earthquake.ap/
TOKYO, Japan (AP) -- A Japanese researcher is causing a stir in
Tokyo with a prediction
based on his study of radio waves that a major destructive
earthquake is highly likely
to hit the city this week.
Yoshio Kushida, a well-known self-taught astronomer who runs his
own observatory just
outside Tokyo, published on its Internet site his prediction that
a quake with a
magnitude of "7" or greater was likely to strike the
metropolitan area on Tuesday or
Wednesday.
The prediction was soon picked up by a popular weekly magazine
and a major daily.
It has since been spread by word of mouth, prompting some of the
more nervous residents
of Japan's quake-prone capital to stock up on bottled water,
candles and other disaster
preparations.
"It's quite frightening," said Ichiro Makita, 48, a
company employee who said he had heard
about the prediction from a friend. "I'm trying to avoid old
buildings and have stocked
up on emergency supplies like an emergency radio and lamp."
The earthquake research establishment has largely ignored the
warning.
Forecasting quakes is generally considered to be impossible with
current technology,
and Kushida's method of using anomalies in the VHF range of radio
waves to predict
the timing and intensity of tremors has not gained many believers
in the scientific community.
Yukio Misumi, a spokesman for the Central Meteorological Agency,
said he was familiar
with Kushida's prediction but added that the agency was not doing
anything in particular
in response to it.
"Our stance is that we are prepared for a magnitude-8 quake
in Japan," he said. "But
presently, there is no scientific method or technology that would
allow us to predict
where or when a magnitude-7 might occur. We can't predict
earthquakes."
"We have nothing to specifically to say about Kushida's
research," he added. "He's
simply expressing his own scientific opinion."
Kushida, however, is convinced he is on to something and has a
duty to inform the
public of the threat.
Originally a self-taught astronomer, Kushida opened his private
Yatsugatake Observatory
in 1985, using radio waves to track passing meteors.
He got his name on a pair of newly discovered comets before
becoming interested in
seismology after the devastating earthquake that hit the western
city of Kobe in 1995.
Theory
His theory: as pressure builds in the Earth's crust before an
earthquake, tiny cracks
and magma movements can affect charged particles in the
atmosphere, and the resulting electromagnetic changes can be
picked up by radio receivers.
Extrapolating from past examples including the Kobe quake, which
left more than 6,000
people dead, Kushida believes the waves indicate a shallow and
powerful temblor is very
likely to hit the Kanto plain, where Tokyo is located.
"It would be terrible not to warn people of a possible
disaster in case a quake actually occurs," he said.
"If my prediction turns out to be a false alarm, I may face
a lot of complaints and
harassment and I may not be even able to continue my research.
Even so, I thought I
should warn every one of the possible danger."
Such warnings hit a sore nerve in Tokyo, which was ravaged by a
quake and fire in 1923
that killed more than 120,000 people and which experts agree is
overdue for another
"big one." Still, some people said they'd rather be
scared than unaware.
"The Japanese have a short-term memory when it comes to
earthquakes," said Yoshio Aoyama,
64, a company employee. "I think it's good to publish things
like this periodically."
Copyright 2003 The Associated Press.
MODERATOR'S NOTE: Can I remind readers that there is a genuine
difference between
disaster scares announced or published by scientists and
subsequently reported by the
media, and their critical analysis or dismissal on this network.
CCNet is certainly
not a messenger of doom-and-gloom: quite the opposite, it's well
know for scientific
optimism and technological confidence in the face of potential
hazards. To claim that
CCNet is fuelling the fire of asteroid, global warming or
earthquake scares by
*reporting* and *criticising* them, (as a couple of colleagues
seem to suggest) is
absurd. Such insinuation comes close to accusing the fire service
of sensationalism by
rushing to a house fire in order to extinguish the flames. BP
==============
(2) BIG BANG PROMPTS SEARCH FOR METEOR
Nanaimo News, 15 Sept. 2003
http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=community/nanaimo&articleID=1409513
Where were you when the big boom hit?
Bill Weller wants people to answer that question to help find
what he believes caused that loud bang last week - a meteor
striking the earth's atmosphere.
The boom hit Nanaimo last Wednesday just before 1 p.m. It rocked
the ground in some places and was heard as far north as Nanoose
Bay and as far south as Salt Spring Island.
Theories on its cause ranged from a sonic boom from a military
jet through a small earthquake to lightening, but the experts
ruled out all those possibilities.
But Weller, a professor of astronomy at Malaspina
University-College, says he's sure it was a meteor.
"Having meteors in the daytime isn't an uncommon thing, this
one was just a little bigger," he says,
He estimates it was somewhere between the size of a baseball and
a watermelon.
If it wasn't destroyed from the impact of striking the
atmosphere, there's a chance it struck the ground.
Now Weller wants to get as much information as possible, in case
it can be found.
"If anyone heard it, send a report to me at the college and
give me their nearest street intersection, and tell me if it was
loud or really loud - or if they didn't hear it," Weller
says.
Please email wellerwmala.bc.ca or phone 753-3245, extension 2333.
Copyright 2003 nanaimo
============
(3) SURPRISING IMPACTS ON MARS AND EUROPA
Astronomy.com, 12 Sept. 2003
http://www.astronomy.com/Content/Dynamic/Articles/000/000/001/483lymqh.asp
New studies show secondary cratering may be of primary
importance.
by Richard Talcott
In the high-tech world of modern science, where sophisticated
computers tear through complicated calculations, the value of
arithmetic might seem negligible. Yet simply being able to count
proves to be one of the most powerful weapons in a planetary
scientist's arsenal. Counting the number of craters on the
surface of a planet or moon is the best way to estimate the age
of the surface (assuming you can't bring a sample back to the
lab). Planetary scientists pore over detailed images to see how
many craters pock the surface. Lots of craters means the surface
has been exposed for a long time to bombardment by projectiles;
pristine surfaces imply a young age. A key to interpreting the
data, however, is to account for the number of secondary craters
- those formed when material blasted out by a primary impact
rains back down, creating additional craters. Two new studies
presented at last week's meeting of the American Astronomical
Society's Division for Planetary Sciences in Monterey,
California, highlight the significance of secondary craters. In
the first, Edward Bierhaus of Lockheed Martin reported on his
team's study of Jupiter's moon Europa.
Europa's surface ranks among the youngest in the solar system.
Tidal forces heat the interior, resulting in a global ocean
hidden beneath an icy crust. Over millions of years - short in
the history of the solar system - the craters melt away. Images
from the Voyager and Galileo spacecraft show only about 40 large
craters on Europa's surface. Yet Bierhaus and his team found that
the number of craters rises dramatically when smaller secondary
craters are counted. Using high-resolution Galileo images,
"we've identified more than 26,000 craters on less than one
percent of Europa's surface," says Bierhaus. Nearly all of
those are secondaries, created in the aftermath of the few dozen
large impacts. Planetary scientists estimating surface ages
prefer using smaller craters because they are more numerous and
thus yield statistically more significant results. But the team's
findings suggest that lots of small craters do not necessarily
mean great age. Comets create most of the impact craters in the
jovian system, so the lack of small primary craters also implies
a possible lack of small Jupiter-family comets. Because many of
these comets originate in the Kuiper Belt, Bierhaus thinks the
crater study may indicate a scarcity of small objects in the
Kuiper Belt.
Finally, Bierhaus thinks that the apparently easy formation of
secondary craters may create difficulties with the small-crater
record in the inner solar system. As if to emphasize that point,
Nadine Barlow of Northern Arizona University reported on her
study comparing secondary craters on Mars to those on Earth's
moon. Planetary scientists typically apply the well-established
link between crater numbers and surface ages derived from our
moon to other objects in the inner solar system. Barlow compared
the number of secondaries on Mars and the moon produced by
relatively recent impacts of asteroids with diameters of 1
kilometer, 5 km, and 10 km. Using detailed images of Mars from
the cameras onboard the Global Surveyor and Odyssey spacecraft
and of the moon from Clementine and Lunar Orbiter, Barlow found
that martian impacts produce fewer secondary craters than do
lunar impacts of similar energy. She suspects this happens
because larger impacts on Mars rapidly melt ice just below the
surface surrounding the site. Some researchers have used crater
counts to derive exceedingly young ages for some martian
terrains. But because impacts of similar age and energy produce
fewer secondaries on Mars than on the moon, Barlow argues that
"the quoted terrain ages on Mars are actually older than
currently proposed."
============ LETTERS ==========
(4) ARTICLE IN "THE PEOPLE"
Kevin Yates <keviny@spacecentre.co.uk>
Dear Benny,
I was disappointed to read the article in the People on 13
September that
stated 'WORLD SET TO END AT 10PM ON MAY 19, 2031', and I was
particularly
concerned to see a quote from me that, by its presence, suggested
my
endorsement of the article. Given recent events surrounding QQ47,
I am keen
to point out that when I was contacted by the People, it was in
the context
of a story about the House of Lords question to Lord Sainsbury.
Within the
conversation I was asked about QO104 being on course for Earth in
2031.
I could not have been clearer in my language in pointing out that
no
scientist or astronomer was saying that QO104 was a cause for
concern, and
that its being a Torino 1 was a fairly routine occurrence. I was
then asked
what damage it would cause, to which I again replied that there
was not much
point to this type of question, because no one was saying it was
going to
impact. The question was then rephrased to what sort of damage an
asteroid
'like' this would cause 'if' it did impact. I answered this
question, but
stressed the fact that QO104 does not pose a serious threat and
any story
that reported it as such would be inappropriate. I was assured
that the
story was about the question to Lord Sainsbury.
I hope this goes some way to reassuring the readers of CCNet that
the NEOIC
was not the source of this story, and that we did everything we
could to
dissuade the People from going down the route they chose.
Regards,
Kevin
Kevin Yates (FRAS)
Space Communication Manager
National Space Centre
Exploration Drive
Leicester LE4 5NS
+44 (0)116 258 2130
===============
(5) RE: NEW WEEK, NEW ASTEROID SCARE
Alan Fitzsimmons <a.fitzsimmons@qub.ac.uk>
Dear Benny
Re: your latest CCNET roundup (15 Sept. 2003).
It might help non-UK readers to put the latest newspaper articles
into context. Both The People and The Sunday Life are tabloid
newspapers,
published on a Sunday. These papers are generally used as a
news source for
the lives of soap opera stars and footballers, rather than
scientific
investigations. Hence they unfortunately (for this case) have
large
readerships, but are not generally highly regarded.
It is of course highly unfortunate that these stories have
appeared, but one
hopes that the UK media are now bored with this subject for some
time to
come.
Best Wishes,
Alan Fitzsimmons
P.S. The Sunday Life is a sister paper to a daily Northern
Ireland newspaper,
and is essentially a hyped-up version of a story that appeared in
there. I
had no prior warning of this story being printed.
P.P.S. I always thought a `boffin' was some type of flightless
seabird...
************************************************************************
Dr. Alan
Fitzsimmons
Tel: +44 (0) 2890-273124
APS
Division
Fax: +44 (0) 2890-438918
Dept. of Pure & Applied Physics e-mail: a.fitzsimmons@qub.ac.uk
Queen's University
Belfast
WWW: http://star.pst.qub.ac.uk/~af/
Belfast BT7 1NN
Northern Ireland
===========
(6) NUTTY ASTEROID CALCULATIONS OF THE BACK OF THE ENVELOPE KIND
Matt Genge <m.genge@imperial.ac.uk>
Dear Benny,
I entirely agree with your comments of the last CCNet, except for
the bit
about "only fools and horses believe this story". I am
under the impression
that horses can't read, although I suppose if someone read it to
them, and
they are a very intelligent horse, then you might have a point.
However, if
I had said, word for word, ""There is a very good
chance that in a mere 10
generations our world is almost wiped out [by 1950DA] and no one
seems to
care", I would have to hold my head in shame. I actually
just quoted the
probability of 1 in 300, said the asteroid is on the threshold of
the size
that could cause global devastation, and said "the public
don't seem to
care". It is not a literal quote.
My nutty back of the envelope calculation was, of course, an
analogy, and
not directed specifically at 1950DA but at 1 km-sized asteroids
in general.
Analogies are one of the best ways to illustrate complex
scientific
problems to the public and to encourage them to remember a single
important
point. In this case it addresses the common misconception that
"nothing
could be done" to divert an asteroid. A Robin Reliant is a
suitably amusing
vehicle, with a certain reputation, and showing that the 1000 N
it can
generate (in thrust not an impact) is sufficient to divert a 1 km
asteroid
given ten years, makes the public understand that something
can be done.
It demonstrates that a small impulse, applied for a long period
of time can
divert an asteroid.
The story was covered by all the UK papers and by using a
humorous analogy
there are now millions of people who will remember this one small
fact "we
can divert asteroids". The coverage was variable, The Sun
implied that
Robin Reliants were to be used to divert 2003 QQ47! Why I wonder
would we
want to divert it?
The calculation was based on Ahrens and Harris (1994) in
"Hazards due to
Comets and Asteroids" who gave an expression for the
velocity change
required to divert an asteroid as dv = 0.07(m/s) / t(yrs). Hence
the 0.7
cm/s velocity change required. Given a force of 1083 N
calculating the
acceleration and the time required to accelerate the asteroid by
0.7 cm/s
is trivial. Of course, this is an empirical calculation and thus
a first
order approximation, but it is valid within the assumptions made.
I too was
very surprised it was only one Robin Reliant.
All the best,
Matt Genge
MODERATOR'S NOTE: Matt, I very much appreciate your intention to
instill
some technological and practical realism and genuine hope into
the British
obsession with so-called "doomsday" asteroids. Yes, I
share your view that
"we can divert asteroids" - if need be! The problem
with using analogies, however,
is that they often tend to compare two things that are too
dissimilar. Then an
analogy becomes a false analogy. Discussing one vehicle (car) as
analogous to
another vehicle (space rocket) creates a lot of confusion and
very little
understanding of the complexities of NEO mitigation. Although
several similarities
do exist (both are 'driven' by some form of thrust, just like my
daughter's
push chair for that matter...), it is obvious that the
differences between these
vehicles are greater by far (their purpose, their mode of
'locomotion', their
target and location, their energy consumption, their thrust,
etc.). Since the
differences between a car that moves on a road and a space rocket
flying in space
are greater than their similarities, we should perhaps leave such
comparisons
to, ... plonkers ....:-) BP
==========
(7) TORINO SCALE
Andy Hollis <andrewhollis@supanet.com>
All the discussion about the Torino Scale recently is
understandable but
seems to dismissive to me.
It is a tool and I would think valid on that basis. The
descriptions are at
fault. Scale 1 to a scientist being described as meriting
careful attention
means just that - get more data.
To the lay public the first reaction is why does it need
attention? Oh dear
it is probably going to hit us.
If scale 1 were just described as "Needs more data" it
would not be
inflammatory and much of the scare mongering would (should?) not
occur.
So I wonder whether just a new description for each value would
suffice.
Don't ditch just amend/adjust with the light of experience.
It is a tool -
but no more nor less than that.
Regards Andy Hollis
==============================================
Dr Andrew J Hollis
Tel UK 01270 883304
==============================================
(8) THE "MARSDEN RATIO" WORKS JUST FINE
Mark Kidger <mrk@ll.iac.es>
Benny:
This comment by Michael Paine appeared in yesterday's CCNet (15
Sept. 03)
"Also in that CCNet, Brian Marsden suggested that the ratio
of the days
to impact and the days of observations be included in a
revamped Torino
Scale. This would then be a rough measure of confidence in the
impact
prediction. One concern is that, for a short period of
observations this
would be highly sensitive to the number of days and could make
the
somewhat chaotic current situation (where prediction calculations
can
fluctuate dramatically) even more "unstable"."
Yes, there would be some initial instability in the Marsden scale
value, but
I think that this is irrelevant. If the cut-off value is set at,
say, 1:100,
who cares if a new NEO is fluctuating wildly initially with
values from
10^-5 to 10^-7 say? The whole point of this scale is that only
objects
with a good orbit and a impactor in the relatively near future
would be
flagged as these are the important ones. If the Marsden Scale
value is 10^-6
it means either that the arc is very short, or that the impactor
is in the
distant future, or both, in which case there is plenty of time to
improve the
orbit and get rid of possible impactor solutions before anyone
even starts to
think about worrying. However, a Marsden Scale value of 100
indicates a very
solid orbit and/or threat in the very near future and such events
are the ones
that we should worry about. In these cases the value would
fluctuate strongly
only if there is a short arc and a potential impact is imminent
in which case
we should most certainly take the object very seriously!
In other words, the case that Michael Paine posted does not in
any invalidate
the Marsden Scale as a tool to guide us on threats.
Mark Kidger
=============
(9) AND FINALLY: WATCH OUT FOR HUNGRY STARS AS ASTRONOMERS
IDENTIFY
A "PLANET-SWALLOWING" GIANT STAR
Jacqueline Mitton <aco01@dial.pipex.com>
The University of Sydney
16 September 2003
ASTRONOMERS IDENTIFY A "PLANET-SWALLOWING" GIANT STAR
Astronomers from Sydney University have come forth with a
solution to a
mysterious new object recently discovered in our Milky Way.
In a letter soon to be published in the journal Monthly Notices
of the Royal
Astronomical Society, Dr Alon Retter and Dr Ariel Marom from the
Department
of Physics suggest that this phenomenon is an expanding giant
star
swallowing nearby planets, an event which may one day befall our
own planet.
Their research provides data to support the theory that the
multi-stage
eruption of the OEred giant¹ known as V838 Monocerotis observed
last year was
fuelled as it engulfed three near orbiting planets. This could be
the first
evidence for an event that had been predicted but not known to
have been
observed so far. The work identifies a new group of objects
with stars that
swallow planets.
Astronomers had previously been unable to explain a spectacular
explosion
that transformed a dim innocuous star into the brightest cool
supergiant in
the Milky Way. The event was originally discovered by
Australian amateur
astronomer, Nicholas Brown in January 2002, when V838 Monocerotis
suddenly
became 600,000 times more luminous than our Sun. In an ordinary
nova
explosion, the outer layers of a compact star are ejected into
space,
exposing the super hot core where nuclear fusion was taking
place. By
contrast, V838 Monocerotis increased enormously in diameter and
its outer
layers cooled and were very disrupted but still conceal the
giant's core.
Beautiful images taken by the Hubble Space Telescope showed
evidence of a
previous eruption that ejected material from this object in the
past. This
too is very unusual.
The Sydney team suggests that the outburst of V838 Monocerotis
took place as
it swallowed three massive Jupiter-like planets in succession.
Evidence for
this is provided through study of the shape of the light curve
and
comparison between the observed properties of the star and
several
theoretical works. In their scenario, in addition to the
gravitational
energy generated by the process, there may also have been a rapid
release of
nuclear energy as OEfresh¹ hydrogen was driven into the hydrogen
burning
shell of the post-main sequence star.
Interestingly past studies have also suggested that the inner
planets in our
solar system, Mercury, Venus and maybe even Earth, should be
eventually
swallowed by the Sun. Previous research has proposed that
this is in fact a
common characteristic and that many giant stars have consumed
planets during
their evolution. The current work suggests that the
engulfment of a massive
planet can cause an eruption of the host star.
Explaining the methods used during their study, Dr Retter
said: OEThe
careful inspection of the light curve of V838 Monocerotis showed
that the
three peaks have a similar structure, namely each maximum is
followed by a
decline and a very weak secondary peak. The shape of the
light curve
prompts us to argue that V838 Mon had three events of similar
nature, but
probably of different strengths. The obvious candidate for such
behaviour is
the swallowing of massive planets in close orbits around a parent
star.¹
According to this work, there should be more examples of
expanding giants
that swallow less and lighter planets thus showing weaker and
less
spectacular eruptions.
For further information please contact
Jacob O'Shaughnessy, Media Officer, University of Sydney,
telephone: +61 2
9351 4312
or
Alon Retter, retter@physics.usyd.edu.au
telephone (work): +61 2 9351-4058 (home): +61 2
9665-3683
-----------
CCNet is a scholarly electronic network. To
subscribe/unsubscribe,
please contact the moderator Benny Peiser <b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk>.
Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and
educational
use only. The attached information may not be copied or
reproduced for
any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright
holders.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the
articles and texts and in other CCNet contributions do not
necessarily
reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the moderator of
this
network.